Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Meeting

CITY OF WINDSOR AGENDA 02/20/2019

Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Time: 4:30 o’clock p.m. Location: Council Chambers, 1st Floor, Windsor City Hall

MEMBERS:

Ward 1 - Councillor Fred Francis

Ward 2 - Councillor Fabio Costante

Ward 4 - Councillor Chris Holt

Ward 8 - Councillor Gary Kaschak

Ward 9 - Councillor Kieran McKenzie

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 132 ORDER OF BUSINESS

Item # Item Description 1. CALL TO ORDER -Election of Chairperson

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ETPS STANDING COMMITTEE

3.1. Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting (excluding Transit matter items) held November 21, 2018 (SCM 428/2018)

Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting (Transit matter items only) held November 21, 2018 (SCM 428/2018)

4. REQUEST FOR DEFERRALS, REFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS

5. COMMUNICATIONS

6. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS

7. COMMITTEE MATTERS

7.1. Minutes of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee of its meeting held November 29, 2018 (SCM 456/2018)

7.2. Report No. 101 of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee - Planting of trees on airport lands (SCM 454/2018)

7.3. Windsor Bicycling Committee 2018 Annual Report (SCM 442/2018)

7.4. Town & Gown Committee 2018 Annual Report (SCM 438/2018)

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 132 8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

8.1. CQ -35-2017 Enhancing Response to Vulnerable Populations during Emergencies (C 200/2018)

8.2. CQ22-2018 E.C. Row Expressway Collisions - Lauzon Parkway to Banwell Road - WARDS 7, 8 & 9 (S 16/2019)

8.3. Pedestrian Crossovers - CITY-WIDE (S 90/2018)

8.4. CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East / Roseland Public School Pedestrians - WARD 9 (S 156/2018)

AND

8.5. Additional Information - CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East Roseland Public School Pedestrians - WARD 9 (S 29/2019)

8.6. CQ21-2018 Pedestrian Signage - Riverside Drive - Ward 6 (S 189/2018)

8.7. Multi Modal Cargo Development - Completion Report - Ward 9 (S 206/2018)

8.8. CQ 5-2018 - Riverside Vista Project and ERCA (S 210/2018)

8.9. CQ15-2018 Benches and Ashtray Installations on Public Right-of-Way at Windsor Regional Hospital (S 203/2018)

8.10. CQ39-2016 - Cost Neutral Options to Reinstate Promotional Program - First Hour Free Parking - Ward 3 (C 219/2018)

8.11. Right-of-Way Restoration Update (S 24/2019)

8.12. Commute Ontario Partnership (S 31/2019)

9. TRANSIT BOARD ITEMS

9.1. Transit Windsor - West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project Update - City Wide (S 181/2018)

9.2. Transit Windsor - West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project - Pre-Commitment of Funds - City Wide (S 30/2019)

9.3. Transit Windsor - Ridership Statistics as at December 31, 2018 - City Wide (S 38/2019)

10. ADOPTION OF TRANSIT BOARD MINUTES

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 132 11. QUESTION PERIOD

12. ADJOURNMENT

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 132 Item 3.1

Committee Matters: SCM 428/2018

Subject: Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting held November 21, 2018

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 132 CITY OF WINDSOR MINUTES 11/21/2018

Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Meeting

Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Time: 4:30 o’clock p.m.

Members Present:

Councillors Ward 10 - Councillor Borrelli Ward 8 - Councillor Marra (Chairperson) Ward 9 - Councillor Payne

Councillors – Regrets Ward 1 - Councillor Francis Ward 4 - Councillor Holt

Also present are the following from Administration:

Mark Winterton, City Engineer Pat Delmore, Executive Director of Transit Windsor Dwayne Dawson, Executive Director Operations James Chacko, Manager of Parks Operations Josette Eugeni, Manager, Transportation Planning Anne Marie Albidone, Manager Environmental Services Anna Ciacelli, Supervisor of Council Services

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 2 of 8

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson calls the meeting of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee to order at 4:33 o‘clock p.m.

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

Councillor Marra discloses an interest and abstains from voting on Item 9.3 being the report of the Executive Director Transit Windsor dated October 30, 2018 entitled Transit Windsor-West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project Update-West End as the proposed subject property location at the Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare Hospital (Tayfour Campus) is owned by his employer.

3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ETPS STANDING COMMITTEE

3.1. Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting held October 17, 2018

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

THAT the Minutes of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee meeting held October 17, 2018 BE ADOPTED as presented. Carried.

Report Number: SCM 393/2018

4. REQUEST FOR DEFERRALS, REFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS

9.3. Transit Windsor - West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project Update - City Wide

Clerk’s Note: Administrative Direction:

THAT the report of the Executive Director of Transit Windsor dated October 30, 2018 entitled Transit Windsor – West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project Update BE DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee to allow for quorum of the committee members. Carried.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 3 of 8

Report Number: S 181/2018 Clerk’s File: MT/13046

5. COMMUNICATIONS

None presented.

6. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS

See Item 8.1 and 9.1.

7. COMMITTEE MATTERS

7.1. Minutes of the Transit Windsor Advisory Committee of its meeting held September 25, 2018

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

Decision Number: ETPS 641 THAT the minutes of the Transit Windsor Advisory Committee of its meeting held September 25, 2018 BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: SCM 404/2018 Clerk’s File: MB2018

7.2. Minutes of the Windsor Bicycling Committee of its meeting held October 3, 2018

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

Decision Number: ETPS 642 THAT the minutes of the Windsor Bicycling Committee of its meeting held October 3, 2018 BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: SCM 396/2018 Clerk’s File: MB2018

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 4 of 8

7.3. Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held September 26, 2018

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

Decision Number: ETPS 643 THAT the minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held September 26, 2018 BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: SCM 373/2018 Clerk’s File: MB2018

7.4. Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held October 24, 2018

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

Decision Number: ETPS 644 THAT the minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held October 24, 2018 BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: SCM 397/2018 Clerk’s File: MB2018

8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

8.1. Sandison Street Proposed Parking Changes - WARD 9

Fred and Ruth Harris, Residents of Ward 2

Fred and Ruth Harris, Residents of Ward 2 appear before the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee in support of the administrative recommendation in the report Sandison Street Proposed Parking Changes citing safety concerns with the increased traffic should parking be allowed on one or both sides of the street.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 5 of 8

Administration indicates that the report put forward is for removal of parking on both sides of Sandison Street.

Councillor Payne is concerned with the administrative recommendation and indicates that he would support parking on one side of the street as is the norm throughout the City.

Moved by: Councillor Payne Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli

Decision Number: ETPS 645 THAT Parking By law 9023 BE AMENDED to indicate no parking on the north side of Sandison Street only, from Howard Avenue to the easterly limit including the cul-de-sac; and,

THAT the City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to prepare the necessary documents to amend the By law; and,

THAT the On-Street Parking Control Changes Policy WE WAIVED to allow for this parking change. Carried.

Report Number: S 180/2018 Clerk’s File: ST2018

8.2. CQ16-2017 – Windmill at Mill and Russell Street (Sandwich) Ward 2

Moved by: Councillor Payne Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli

Decision Number: ETPS 646 THAT the report of the Manager, Parks Operations in response to CQ16-2017 regarding the current maintenance of the windmill at Mill and Russell Street and its long term maintenance and upkeep, BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: S 182/2018 Clerk’s File: SR2018

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 10 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 6 of 8

8.3. Response to CQ12-2018 Regarding the Maintenance of CP Rail Property East of Cameron Ave

Moved by: Councillor Payne Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli

Decision Number: ETPS 647 THAT the report of the City Engineer dated September 25th, 2018 regarding the maintenance of the CP Property east of the 300 block of Cameron (between University and Wyandotte) BE RECEIVED for information. Carried.

Report Number: C 182/2018 Clerk’s File: SW2018

9. TRANSIT BOARD ITEMS

9.1. Transit Windsor 2019 OPERATING BUDGET - Citywide

Raymond Hoang, Resident of Ward 8

Raymond Hoang, Resident of Ward 8 appears before the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee meeting regarding the administrative report Transit Windsor 2019 Operating Budget and indicates that it is a good start although some buses on certain routes are overcrowded and the City should dedicate more funds towards transit to increase the number of buses and routes and if necessary consider raising fares.

Moved by: Councillor Payne Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli

Decision Number: ETPS 648 THAT the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee, sitting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors RECOMMEND Transit Windsor's 2019 Operating Budget reflective of a Property Tax Levy Contribution of $14,558,244.00 which is $1,286,725.00 (or 9.7%) greater than the 2018 Property Tax Levy contribution; and,

THAT Transit Windsor’s 2019 Operating Budget be REFERRED to City Council for consideration as part of the City’s 2019 Operating Budget deliberations. Carried.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 11 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 7 of 8

Report Number: S 184/2018 Clerk’s File: AFB/13207 MT2018

9.2. Transit Windsor Service Delivery Review Update - City Wide

Pat Delmore, Executive Director Transit Windsor appears before the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee regarding the administrative report Transit Windsor Service Delivery Review Update and provides a brief update of the Service Delivery Review project indicating that there will be a media release as well as a consultant reviewing data from other sources throughout the area to determine best practices. The community will have many opportunities to provide comment regarding methods of how they would like Transit Services delivered moving forward. Mr. Delmore indicates that this Service Delivery Review involves more than buses, it will also be a part of the active transportation master plan as well as the Transit Master plan. He adds there will be online surveys as well as community events to obtain the public’s needs/wants towards the transit system. Mr. Delmore indicates that there is a possibility of federal funding over next 10 years as well.

Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne

Decision Number: ETPS 649 THAT the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee, sitting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION the update report for the Transit Windsor Service Delivery Review. Carried.

Report Number: S 185/2018 Clerk’s File: MT/11906

10. ADOPTION OF TRANSIT BOARD MINUTES

None presented.

11. QUESTION PERIOD

None presented.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 12 of 132 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Page 8 of 8

12. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee is adjourned at 4:55 o’clock p.m. The next meeting of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee will be held December 19, 2018.

______Ward 8 – Councillor Marra Supervisor of Council Services (Chairperson)

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 13 of 132 Item 7.1

Committee Matters: SCM 456/2018

Subject: Minutes of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee of its meeting held November 29, 2018

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 14 of 132 Windsor Essex County Environment Committee Meeting held November 29, 2018

A meeting of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee is held this day commencing at 5:30 o’clock p.m. at the Ojibway Nature Centre, there being present the following members:

Councillor Paul Borrelli, Chair Councillor Fred Francis Mayor Nelson Santos, Town of Kingsville Derek Coronado Debby Grant Mike Nelson

Regrets received from:

Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, Town of Amherstburg Joe Passa Edwin Tam

Guests in attendance:

Frank Butler Jennifer Escott Amandeep Hans Tom Henderson, Detroit River Canadian Clean Up, regarding Item 2.1 Ian Naisbitt Steve Tuffin

Also present are the following resource personnel:

Averil Parent, Environmental & Sustainability Coordinator Karina Richters, Supervisor, Environmental Sustainability & Climate Change

1. Call to Order

The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6:33 o’clock p.m. and the Committee considers the Agenda being Schedule “A” attached hereto, matters which are dealt with as follows:

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That APPROVAL BE GIVEN to an expenditure in the upset amount of $406.80 payable to eliquidMEDIA for the hosting fees for the WECEC website. Carried.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 15 of 132 2. Declaration of Conflict

None disclosed.

3. Minutes

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That the minutes of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee of its meeting held April 5, 2018 BE ADOPTED as presented. Carried.

Presentations

2.1 Tom Henderson, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup – Tree Planting on Airport Lands

Tom Henderson, Chair, Public Advisory Committee, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup provides the following comments relating to tree planting on airport lands and his resultant motion:

 Students from the David Suzuki School along with Councillors and others participated in the tree planting on airport lands in 2013.  Prior to the tree planting, machine work was undertaken on 7.5 acres of land for the purpose of merging two of the three woodlots.  The far eastern woodlot runs along Lauzon Road to the centre woodlot for a total of 15 acres.  The intention was for planting trees on 7.5 acres in 2013 and to plant on the remaining 7.5 acres in the following season.

T. Henderson proposes the following wording for a motion from the Public Advisory Committee, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup to WECEC:

“Whereas the Essex Region Conservation Authority and the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup received permission by Windsor City Council decision M250-2013 dated June 17, 2013 to plant trees and shrubs on a 7.5 acre parcel of land between the middle and easternmost woodlots at a cost of $30,000 utilizing ERCA and DRCC professional staff, elementary school students and adult volunteers; and

Whereas 83.9% of the trees and shrubs were reported as surviving as of Fall 2014 as per survival monitoring surveys completed by ERCA's Restoration Biologist and Acting Forester; and

Whereas in 2015 Airport management refused ERCA permission to enter the area to maintain the planting resulting in 90% loss, as determined by Windsor Airport

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 16 of 132 staff, due to wild grassland weeds taking over within the tree rows which were no longer being maintained

Therefore, be it resolved that Windsor Airport be required to underwrite the $30,000 cost to replace the lost trees and to agree that ERCA be permitted to enter the property in the future as required to maintain the planted trees, shrubs and native herbaceous groundcover.”

Councillor Francis states he reviewed the 2013 agreement between the Airport, the Little River Enhancement Group and ERCA. He expresses concern that the motion cannot proceed unless indemnification is provided in the agreement.

T. Henderson responds that the rationale for the indemnification request is that Trees Ontario contributed the funding for this project. Trees Ontario requested an update on the progress of the trees and they approached ERCA for this information. ERCA indicated the Airport would not allow access to the property. His proposal is to restore the funding that was lost as the project died.

M. Nelson indicates he cannot speak to the indemnification clause, however, he adds ERCA has not been able to access the property to assess the survival of the trees and to report back to some of the granting agencies. He suggests an amendment to the motion would be to “work with administration to find alternative locations for future tree plantings.

Councillor Francis provides the following comments relating to this matter:

 This issue relates to the Airport, ERCA and the City of Windsor.  Suggestion for all three parties to meet and to discuss the matter.  Proposes that this matter go before the Airport Board for comment and a resolution of the Board to come back to either ERCA or City Council.  Suggestion for the Legal Department to vet this matter as there is no indemnification and, to look at the unintended consequences of other organizations who in the future may be hesitant to plant trees

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That Administration from YQG Windsor International Airport BE REQUESTED to provide a formal submission and/or for a representative to attend a future meeting of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee to address the matter of tree planting on the airport lands Carried. M. Nelson and D. Coronado voting nay.

Clerk’s Note: Kate Tracey, Legal Counsel has advised “the term of the consent to enter agreement expired on October 31, 2013. Accordingly, all terms and conditions contained therein are no longer in force, including the indemnity provisions”.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 17 of 132

2.2 Mike Nelson, ERCA - Wetlands

The PowerPoint Presentation entitled “Wetlands – November 29, 2018, Michael Nelson” is attached as Appendix “A”. M. Nelson provides an overview of the presentation that includes information relating to the following topics:

 What is a wetland?  What kind of wetlands do we have in Ontario?  Where are the wetlands in Windsor and Essex County?  What are some of the things that wetlands do?  What threats are facing wetlands today?  What actions are underway?

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That the PowerPoint Presentation entitled “Wetlands” provided by Mike Nelson BE RECEIVED. Carried.

5. Business Items

5.1 WECEC 2018 Annual Report

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That the WECEC 2018 Annual Report provided by the Environment and Sustainability Coordinator BE RECEIVED. Carried.

A. Parent advises the balance of the WECEC 2018 Operating Budget is $5,258.38 and she suggests a carry forward of the funds to 2019 to be directed to the Green Speaker Series.

Moved by Councillor Francis, seconded by D. Grant, That Administration BE REQUESTED to consider a carry forward of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee’s residual operating budget in the amount of $5,258.38 to 2019 for the purpose of retaining speakers for the Green Speaker Series. Carried.

Clerk’s Note: Items 7.1.1. to 8.21 were not discussed due to an impending loss of quorum. These items will be discussed at the next meeting of WECEC.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 18 of 132

7. Subcommittee Reports

7.1 Air

7.1.1 Municipal Climate Action Needs Provincial Support

7.1.2 City Climate Plan Report Card 2018

7.2 Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Issues

8. New Business

8.1 Update on City of Windsor environmental initiatives

8.1.1 Degrees of Change Climate Change Adaptation Plan

8.2 Update on Essex County environmental initiatives

8.2.1 Town of Tecumseh initiatives

9. Communications

None.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 19 of 132

10. Date of Next Meeting

To be determined.

11. Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 6:15 o’clock p.m.

______CHAIR

______COMMITTEE COORDINATOR

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 20 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 21 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 22 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 23 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 24 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 25 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 26 of 132 Item 7.2

Committee Matters: SCM 454/2018

Subject: Report No. 101 of the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee - Planting of trees on airport lands

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 27 of 132 KK/ Windsor, Ontario January 23, 2018

REPORT NO. 101 of the WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (WECEC) of its meeting held November 29, 2018 at 5:30 o’clock p.m. Ojibway Nature Centre

Members present at the November 29, 2018 meeting:

Councillor Paul Borrelli, Chair Councillor Fred Francis Nelson Santos, Mayor, Town of Kingsville Derek Coronado Debby Grant Mike Nelson

Your Committee submits the following recommendation:

Clerk’s Note: The motion provided by the Public Advisory Council, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup is attached.

______

CHAIR

______COMMITTEE COORDINATOR

NOTIFICATION WECEC – On file Tom Henderson, Detroit River Canadian [email protected] Clean-up Hilary Payne On file

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 28 of 132

Public Advisory Council, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Motion to the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee regarding Airport Woodlands

Whereas 83.9% of the trees and shrubs were reported as surviving as of Fall 2014 as per survival monitoring surveys completed by ERCA's Restoration Biologist and Acting Forester; and

Whereas in 2015 Airport management refused ERCA permission to enter the area to maintain the planting resulting in 90% loss, as determined by Windsor Airport staff, due to wild grassland weeds taking over within the tree rows which were no longer being maintained

Submitted by: Tom Henderson, Chair Public Advisory Council, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 29 of 132 Item 7.3

Committee Matters: SCM 442/2018

Subject: Windsor Bicycling Committee 2018 Annual Report

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 30 of 132 WINDSOR BICYCLING COMMITTEE 2018 Annual Report

STANDING COMMITTEE & COUNCIL In 2018, the Windsor Bicycling Committee (WBC) made recommendations to Council and the Environment, Transportation, and Public Safety Standing Committee (ETPS) on various items including the following:  Bicycle Road Safety Audits – Top Cycling Collision Locations - – In April 2018, WBC provided recommendations in support of measures for improving intersections at top cycling collision locations  City Wide Bike Share Program – In April 2018, WBC provided recommendations and support for a city wide bike share program.

EVENTS & OUTREACH In 2018, the Windsor Bicycling Committee (WBC) participated in a number of events and outreach initiatives including the following:

 Bike to Work Day - On May 28th, 2018 WBC also planned, promoted and co-hosted with the CBC and Bike Windsor Essex a “Bike to Work Day” and group ride in support of Bike Month. This included the presentation of a Bicycle Commuter of the Year Award.  Bike to Fireworks - On June 25th, 2018, WBC provided free, secure bike parking at “Bike to the Fireworks”. Volunteers installed front and rear lights on bicycles that were unequipped with safety devices.  Bike Safety Enforcement Week - WBC partnered with Windsor Police Traffic Enforcement Unit for a Bike Safety Enforcement Week which was held August 6th to 10th, 2018. The purpose of this initiative is to raise awareness regarding offences related to bicycle safety. Special attention was directed toward the One Metre Rule, “See and Be Seen”, and the Road Watch Program.  Walk Wheel Windsor – Members from WBC participated in Stakeholder workshops for the Walk Wheel Windsor Active Transportation Master Pan  Brain Injury Association of Windsor Essex County – WBC provided funds to the Brain Injury Association for the purchase of child/youth helmets  WBC Chair acted as a liaison on the Bike Windsor Essex Board of Directors and has participated in a number of Bike Windsor Essex events including the SW Ontario Bike Summit held in Windsor.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 31 of 132 Item 7.4

Committee Matters: SCM 438/2018

Subject: Town & Gown Committee 2018 Annual Report

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 32 of 132

Town and Gown Committee, Annual Report - 2018

As an Advisory Committee to Windsor City Council, the Town and Gown Committee will develop and enhance relationships between the residents of the City of Windsor and the Academic Communities of the University of Windsor and St. Clair College.

The Town and Gown Committee provides an open forum for communication between landlords, students and residents residing in close proximity to post secondary academic institutions, and their concerns as they relate to municipal or institution affairs or matters. The Town and Gown Committee focuses on addressing neighbourhood concerns through bylaw education, information sharing between shareholders, compliance and enforcement measures and through suggestions and recommendations to City Council or City Administration.

Town and Gown Committee Members:

Councillor John Elliott, Chair Councillor Fred Francis Councillor Irek Kusmierczyk Lena Angelidis Jane Boyd John Fairley Sarah Morris Jeffery Williams

Overview of Accomplishments  Membership Renewal to the Town and Gown Association of Ontario in 2018.  Discussion ongoing to host a Downtown Student Open House with students from St. Clair College and the University of Windsor at the MediaPlex.  Further updates provided by Jeffery Williams, member regarding the RiverWest Windsor Branding Community Initiative.  Ongoing problem solving relating to issues in the St. Clair College and University of Windsor neighbourhoods.  The Chair along with members of the Committee attended the Town & Gown 2018 Symposium held from May 7-9, 2018 in Hamilton.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 33 of 132 Item 8.1

Council Report: C 200/2018

Subject: CQ -35-2017 Enhancing Response to Vulnerable Populations during Emergencies

Reference: Date to Council: 2/20/2019 Author: Emily Bertram Emergency Planning Officer 519-253-6573 Ext. 254 [email protected] Fire and Rescue Services Report Date: 11/9/2018 Clerk’s File #: GP2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT the report entitled CQ-35-2017 Enhancing Response to Vulnerable Populations during Emergencies BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: In recent years, the City of Windsor has experienced multiple natural disasters resulting in an inquiry from council asking that “administration request a Disaster Response Report from Fire/Police regarding an enhanced plan to best assist in any future events i.e. rescue teams to check vulnerable residents”. The number of disasters in Canada has been on the rise for decades, a trend that is expected to continue, with floods being the most frequent natural disaster in Canada. They can occur at any time of the year and are most often caused by heavy rainfall, rapid melting of a thick snow pack, ice jams, or more rarely, the failure of natural or man-made dams. The City of Windsor experienced substantial flooding in both 2016 and 2017, with the worst known flooding in the cities history occurring in 2017; 2,853 incidences of flooding occurred in 2016 and 6,231 incidences in 2017. These flooding events are what led council to inquire about Fire/Police response to aiding vulnerable populations in future emergencies.

At-risk groups, also referred to as socially vulnerable populations, require special attention during a disaster as they are more likely to be adversely affected. The most common categories of socially vulnerable populations are socioeconomic status, age, gender, race and ethnicity, English language proficiency, and medical issues and disability. In order to reach these populations in an emergency, WFRS and community

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 34 of 132 partners need to be able to identify which groups are at risk, where these people reside, and the most efficient ways in which they can be contacted and receive information and/or assistance. Public education initiatives can enhance the public’s knowledge on how to best prepare themselves for emergencies which aids in reducing the level of response.

Of particular concern during an emergency are those persons with medical issues and/or persons with a disability, which affect their mobility or cognitive function. These persons usually receive homecare and are captured in the Erie St. Clair Local Health Integration Network (ESC LHIN) database. Persons that are classified as vulnerable that do not receive homecare often fail to be identified because a central repository of these people’s contact information is not easy to collect or maintain. These are often people that live on their own with a medical or mental health issue that doesn’t require home and community care services, but may still need extra assistance in an emergency. The most difficult obstacle in providing an effective response to socially vulnerable populations is the ability for a municipality to maintain an up to date registry of the location and status of individuals. Utilizing and engaging the ESC LHIN as a partner during an emergency enhances the ability of the City to provide an effective emergency response for the vulnerable population.

Discussion: Emergency response scenarios are exercised on an annual basis to ensure the City of Windsor, as well as stakeholders are prepared for natural, technological, and human- induced emergencies/disasters. In the event of an activation of the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), WFRS calls upon internal City of Windsor departments and external stakeholders to respond to and recover from large-scale emergencies such as flooding or tornadoes. The plan detailed in this report has been developed to aid socially vulnerable persons and begins with engaging the ESC LHIN as a partner in the EOC.

During an emergency, the wellbeing of persons receiving home care presents a challenge to first responders. Each case is different; some people are reliant on home support around the clock while others receive assistance less frequently. In addition to frequency, the level of care provided and support required varies from person to person, as a result the number and location of persons requiring support changes daily. In response to this problem, WFRS has reached out to the ESC LHIN for assistance. The ESC LHIN maintains an up to date listing of persons receiving home care and acts as a liaison between EMS, the Windsor-Essex Health Unit, long-term care facilities, and local hospitals, and plays a major role during emergencies affecting vulnerable populations.

The ESC LHIN annually services approximately 30,000 people through home and community care in the Erie St. Clair region and uses an Emergency Management Communication Tool database, which tracks their patients and provides information regarding who they are, what vulnerabilities they have, what risk level they are triaged at, where they are located, and how they can be contacted. This information can be extracted from the database and GIS mapping tools could be utilized to aid WFRS, EMS, and the ESC LHIN in tracking which vulnerable populations reside in the affected area(s). In addition to determining location, the database provides valuable information that can be used to triage those affected by the emergency based on their individual circumstances.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 35 of 132 Discussions between WFRS, Essex-Windsor EMS, and the ESC LHIN have taken place regarding how best to respond to emergencies that affect the vulnerable population. In order to respond effectively during an emergency, a considerable level of coordination and communication must occur between response agencies and the ESC LHIN. Essex- Windsor EMS and the ESC LHIN are aware that should they require assistance, the City is ready and capable to aid in emergencies involving vulnerable populations. Through discussion it has been determined that an ESC LHIN representative will be called to respond to the EOC in the event of an emergency that has the potential to affect the well-being of vulnerable populations. WFRS will also invite the ESC LHIN to future exercises to practice this process during mock scenarios. WFRS has prepared an appendix outlining the processes and agency responsibilities relative to the vulnerable population. This appendix will be added to the City of Windsor’s Emergency Response Plan.

Once in the EOC and operating within the Incident Management System (IMS), the ESC LHIN will be able to utilize current data to locate, contact, and triage those that may be affected. Initial contact will be attempted via a phone call directly to the resident or through identified emergency contacts. Where no contact is made, or it is known or suspected the vulnerable person requires immediate help, emergency response personnel can be dispatched to respond to their residence. This can be accomplished by utilizing existing resources or through the deployment of additional resources brought in to aid with the response. In addition to the regular response fleet consisting of fire engines, rescues, aerial devices, and command vehicles, WFRS also operates small fleet vehicles with 4X4 capabilities that can be deployed by first responders to augment emergency operations in times of increased demand such as severe weather events.

The discussion between response agencies has identified a number of tools that are accessible that can aid in identifying and helping at risk persons during an emergency. The first priority of emergency response is to protect life and ensure the well-being of all residents. The plan detailed in this report and within the attached appendix allows response agencies to identify the location of at risk persons and ensure that proper care is provided and when necessary transport persons to an area of safety.

It is impossible to outline a systematic, resource specific response plan for each emergency type as the nature of the event, threat to the public, and affected areas vary in every instance. The City prepares for emergencies by utilizing an all hazards approach and employing the IMS when responding to an event. It would be impractical to pre-allocate resources within a specific plan; however, resources can be dispatched accordingly and effectively by using the IMS once information is received. For example, by utilizing the IMS, an Incident Action Plan can be developed assigning a strike team to be tasked with going door to door in affected areas where there are high known volumes of vulnerable populations to complete wellness checks when warranted.

This plan does not provide for the remediation or repair of personal property. For example, in the event of large scale flooding, WFRS and the City of Windsor do not engage in or have the capacity to pump out basements or deal with private properties; emergency response efforts focus on ensuring residents are safe and free from danger. Any attempt to provide property remediation would divert valuable resources from the emergency response and others who may require assistance. Numerous disaster recovery and property restoration companies, as well as non-profit organizations exist

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 36 of 132 throughout the city and region. These entities are utilized during the recovery phase of an emergency to restore private property. These companies and agencies have a tremendous amount of experience and are well equipped to respond to various requests including fire, smoke, wind, hail, water, flood, and mould damage. This report and plan contained within represent the current operational model of the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). Recent news reports have indicated that the Ontario government is considering restructuring Ontario’s health care system, which may affect all LHINs in Ontario. These speculations have indicated that merging or dissolving the Local Health Integration Networks as part of a health care reform is possible. Once the government publishes details and timelines, WFRS will review the plan detailed in this report and make the appropriate changes if required to align with any reform that takes place.

Additional Resources

While the plan above addresses those that receive homecare, additional tools are available to help identify persons which may be vulnerable but are not captured in the data available to the ESC LHIN. Essex-Windsor EMS is a vital response partner and utilizes a Vulnerable Patient Navigator program that identifies people that call 911 more than three times in a six-month period. Use of this program can supplement the information provided by the ESC LHIN and can provide additional situational awareness during an emergency. In the event of an activation of the EOC, an EMS representative will have access to the Vulnerable Patient Navigator program list, which identifies at risk individuals and can be used to contact such people to ensure their wellbeing by performing wellness checks via phone call. Windsor Police Service (WPS) has a Vulnerable Persons Registry in partnership with the Alzheimer Society of Windsor-Essex County. This program is geared towards persons with dementia. It promotes communication and gives police quick access to critical information about a registered vulnerable person who has wandered from his/her place of safety in an emergency situation. In the event of a large-scale emergency/disaster, a representative from WPS would be called to respond to the EOC. They would have access to this program and could identify persons at risk based on their geographic location to the affected areas.

Public education efforts are an effective way to enhance the public’s knowledge on how to best prepare themselves for emergencies, which will aid in reducing their risk of impact by the emergency/disaster. The continuation of emergency information messaging when a threat is imminent, during an emergency, and during the recovery phase, reduces the public’s risk to being adversely impacted. This can provide direction on what actions are recommended to mitigate risk. The use of 911 is for emergencies only, such as Police, Fire, and medical emergencies, whereas the use of 211/311 can provide information regarding city and provincial supports and services.

Risk Analysis: There are no risks identified regarding inviting an ESC LHIN representative into the EOC; this will only enhance communication and response. There is no additional risk to

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 37 of 132 emergency response personnel as the duties associated with this plan are consistent with what is already performed and expected. Public education efforts come at no risk and the use of emergency information messaging does not present an additional risk to the city; it is a common practice. As noted in the discussion, potential ministry reform by the Ontario government may affect this plan. Although this poses a moderate risk, once details are published WFRS will re-evaluate the plan to lessen any impact.

Financial Matters:

N/A

Consultations:

Marthe Dumont – French Language Services Lead, ESC LHIN Tammy Fryer – Inspector, Windsor Police Service Stephen Laforet – Fire Chief/CEMC, WFRS Justin Lammers – Deputy Chief of Professional Standards, Essex-Windsor EMS Ryan Lemay – Deputy Chief of Operations, Essex-Windsor EMS Brent Paisley – Director of Emergency Apparatus and Equipment, WFRS Averil Parent – Environment and Sustainability Coordinator, City of Windsor Shannon Sasseville – Director of Communications, Public Affairs, and Community Engagement, ESC LHIN Kirk Tamm – Manager of Geomatics, City of Windsor

Conclusion: Ensuring the safety and effective emergency response to socially vulnerable populations is extremely challenging. WFRS in conjunction with the ESC LHIN, Essex- Windsor EMS, and WPS have worked together to develop a plan that when implemented within the IMS and based on the tenets of emergency management, will provide the best opportunity for successful emergency operations. These agencies will continue to work together and build further strategies in order to ensure that vulnerable populations are cared for in the event of a community emergency.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Emily Bertram Emergency Planning Officer

Stephen Laforet Fire Chief/CEMC

Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 38 of 132 Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices: 1 Appendix A - Aiding Socially Vulnerable Populations in Emergencies

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 39 of 132

Aiding Socially Vulnerable Populations in Emergencies

JANUARY 2018

Emergency Management Windsor WINDSOR FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES | CITY OF WINDSOR

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 40 of 132 Contents Acronyms ...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Defining Socially Vulnerable Populations ...... 2 1.2 Overview of Windsor-Essex County (WEC) ...... 3 Population Demographics ...... 3 2.0 Objectives ...... 3 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 3 3.1 Windsor Fire & Rescue Services (WFRS)...... 3 3.2 Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services (EMS) ...... 4 3.3 Erie St. Clair - Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) ...... 4 3.4 Windsor Police Service (WPS) ...... 4 4.0 Conclusion ...... 4

Acronyms

EOC – Emergency Operations Centre EWEMS – Essex Windsor Emergency Medical Services ESC LHIN – Erie St. Clair Local Health Integration Network GIS – Geographic Information Systems IMS – Incident Management System WEC – Windsor Essex County WFRS – Windsor Fire & Rescue Services WPS – Windsor Police Service

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 41 of 132 1.0 Introduction

The number of disasters in Canada has been on the rise for decades, a trend that is expected to continue. Many of these disasters increase morbidity and mortality. At-risk groups, also referred to as socially vulnerable populations, require special attention in a disaster. During disasters, populations with higher levels of social vulnerability are more likely to be adversely affected. In order to reach these people in an emergency, Windsor Fire & Rescue Services (WFRS) and community partners need to be able to identify which groups are at risk, where the people in these groups live, and the best ways they can be contacted and receive information.

1.1 Defining Socially Vulnerable Populations

Socially vulnerable is defined in terms of the characteristics of a person or group that affect their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a disaster. The following categories are among the most common:

1. Socioeconomic status – This includes employment, income, housing (ex. Homelessness), and education level. People with lower socioeconomic status more likely lack resources needed to follow emergency preparedness instructions.

2. Age – The old and the young are particularly vulnerable during emergencies. Older adults are more likely to have chronic health problems and limited mobility. Communications with this group can be difficult due to limited mass media use. Young children are more susceptible to injury and disease due to their increased inability to cope with disasters.

3. Gender – Gender does not necessarily indicate vulnerability or disadvantage. However, gender intersects with social patterns and inequalities can arise from gender differences. During a disaster, females might be more vulnerable because of differences in employment, lower income, and family responsibilities, as most single-parent households are single- mother families. However, females are a strong influence in mobilizing response to a warning. Although many families evacuate together, it is common for males to stay behind to guard the property or to continue working as the family provider. Males are also more likely to be risk takers and might not heed warnings.

4. Race and ethnicity – Social and economic marginalization contributes to the vulnerability of these groups.

5. English language proficiency – Persons with limited or no English proficiency might have trouble understanding public health directives if language barriers are not addressed when developing emergency preparedness messages.

6. Medical issues and disability – Persons with a disability include those with a cognitive, physical, or sensory impairment that limits a major life activity. People with physical impairments might include those with limited sight, hearing, or mobility or those who are dependent on electric power to operate medical equipment. For many people with medical conditions and disabilities, their ability to hear, understand, or respond to a warning is impaired. This category also includes individuals with access and functional needs, irrespective of diagnosis or status, and persons with medical conditions (e.g., cancer).1

1 Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Planning for an Emergency: Strategies for Identifying and Engaging At-Risk Groups. A guidance document for Emergency Managers: First edition. Atlanta (GA): CDC; 2015

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 42 of 132 1.2 Overview of Windsor-Essex County (WEC)

Population Demographics

 There were 403,625 individuals residing in WEC in 2015.  Compared to Ontario, WEC has an older population (65+ years old) that is projected to increase substantially over the next 25 years.  Educational attainment is lower in WEC compared to Ontario.  Poverty is a significant issue in WEC as the local population is disproportionately affected by poverty compared to Ontario.2

2.0 Objectives

This plan aims at defining, locating, and reaching socially vulnerable at-risk populations in emergencies. Response includes immediate actions to:

 Save lives  Meet basic human needs  Protect property

3.0 Roles and Responsibilities

The following organizations would be active participants in aiding vulnerable populations in emergencies in WEC.

3.1 Windsor Fire & Rescue Services (WFRS)

 Monitor weather forecast for impending severe weather events  Upon activation of the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), contact an Erie St. Clair Local Health Integration Network (ESC LHIN) representative if determined they should be present at the earliest convenience  Under the Incident Management System structure, the Operations Section Chief should consider organizing a task force aimed at transporting ESC LHIN staff into homes of vulnerable patients if deemed necessary  Coordinate actions with Windsor Police Service (WPS), Essex-Windsor EMS (Emergency Medical Services), and the ESC LHIN  Assist the ESC LHIN with the dissemination of information to vulnerable populations  Invite the ESC LHIN to training and exercise scenarios  Continue public education geared towards vulnerable populations

2 Citation: Windsor-Essex County Health Unit. (2016). Community Needs Assessment Summary Report 2016. 5. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from https://www.wechu.org/system/files_force/pdf/2016-cna-summary-report.pdf.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 43 of 132

3.2 Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

 Respond to the EOC if determined necessary and coordinate actions taken with the Operations Section Chief while in the EOC and with the ESC LHIN, WFRS, and WPS  While in the EOC, assist the ESC-LHIN representative in identifying vulnerable populations that may require assistance  Utilize information from the Vulnerable Patient Navigator patient database to ensure known vulnerable patients are checked on

3.3 Erie St. Clair - Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)

 Respond to the EOC if determined necessary; perform wellness checks through phone calls made by home and community care staff  Liaise with various agencies in Windsor-Essex County that offer support to vulnerable populations  Coordinate actions taken with the Operations Section Chief while in the EOC and with WPS, WFRS, and EWEMS to ensure vulnerable populations are being check on  Triage patients that require assistance in affected zone(s)

3.4 Windsor Police Service (WPS)

 In partnership with the Alzheimer Society of Windsor-Essex County, Windsor Police Service (WPS) has a Vulnerable Persons Registry o This program is geared towards persons with dementia  Respond to the EOC if determined necessary and coordinate actions taken with the Operations Section Chief while in the EOC and with WFRS, EWEMS, and the ESC LHIN to ensure vulnerable populations are being checked on  Using the Vulnerable Persons Registry, triage persons that require assistance in affected zone(s)

4.0 Conclusion

With the number of disasters projected to continuously rise, by using a multi-agency approach using the IMS system, we can ensure vulnerable populations are safe during emergencies.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 44 of 132 Item 8.2

Council Report: S 16/2019

Subject: CQ22-2018 E.C. Row Expressway Collisions - Lauzon Parkway to Banwell Road - WARDS 7, 8 & 9

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Jeff Hagan Policy Analyst 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected]

Report Date: 1/16/2019 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT report S 16/2019 CQ22-2018 E.C. Row Expressway Collisions - Lauzon Parkway to Banwell Road BE RECEIVED for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

At the September 17, 2018 meeting of Council, Councillor Kusmierczyk asked the following Council Question:

CQ 22-2018

Asks that Administration report back on accident statistics on E.C. Row from Lauzon to Banwell (inclusive of intersection) and options to address safety concerns.

This report provides the requested response.

The area indicated in the Council Question is shown in Figure 1 below.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 45 of 132

Figure 1: E.C. Row Expressway (Lauzon Parkway to Banwell Road)

Completed and Planned Reviews

In 2015, in response to a separate Council Question, Administration provided report 17475, CQ17-2014 – High Tension Cable Barriers on the E.C. Row Expressway, to Council. This report examined the rate of median cross-over collisions on the E.C. Row Expressway, particularly the section between Lauzon Parkway and Banwell Road, and examined the potential for a high-tension cable barrier in the median to prevent or reduce median crossover collisions.

This review found that this section of E.C. Row Expressway experiences lower than average rates of median crossover collisions compared to the E.C. Row Expressway as a whole, and that the median would require re-grading to provide a wide flat area for a median cable barrier to function as intended.

The Banwell Road Environmental Assessment was completed in 2016. The approved design from the environmental assessment includes a full interchange on the E.C. Row Expressway at Banwell Road. This work is identified for 2024+ in the 2018 Capital Budget.

In 2018, when receiving the 2017 Road Safety Report (report S 70/2018), Council directed Administration to identify short-term measures to address collisions at the top 20 high collision locations (CR318/2018). The E.C. Row Expressway / Banwell Road intersection was number six in this list of 20 locations. Administration is currently working to prepare a list of short-term recommendations as per Council’s direction.

The E.C. Row Expressway Environmental Assessment is planned pending the 2019 Capital Budget. This project will result in a recommended design for the entire length of the E.C. Row Expressway that is under City jurisdiction; this design will be intended to address short-, medium-, and long-term safety, operational, and capacity needs for the expressway up to a 20-year study horizon.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 46 of 132 Discussion:

Collision Statistics

A summary of the 5-year (2013 through 2017) collision history is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of 5-year Collision History

Collisions – 2013 through 2017 E.C. Row Expressway Item Midblock – Midblock – Intersection – Lauzon Parkway Lauzon Parkway E.C. Row to Banwell Road to Banwell Road Expressway at Eastbound Westbound Banwell Road Total Collisions 30 13 131 Fatal Injury 0 0 0 Non-Fatal Injury 9 5 44 Property 21 8 87 Damage Only Collision Rate 0.63 collisions 0.24 collisions 1.28 collisions per million per million per million vehicle- vehicle- vehicles entering kilometers kilometers Rank #524 (midblocks) #739 (midblocks) #6 (signalized intersections)

For comparison purposes, City-wide average collision rates as of the 2017 Road Safety Report are as follows:

 Expressway midblocks: 0.46 collisions per million vehicle-kilometers

 Signalized intersections: 0.56 collisions per million vehicles entering

Analysis and Recommendations

Administration carried out a detailed review of the E.C. Row Expressway / Banwell Road intersection and the E.C. Row Expressway mainline between Lauzon Parkway and Banwell Road. Conclusions are as follows:

Midblock – E.C. Row Expressway (Banwell Road to Lauzon Parkway)

 For eastbound, rear end collisions are predominant. Most of these collisions involved vehicles stopped or slowing for traffic ahead.

 7 of 43 collisions involved either mechanical failures (e.g. burst tires) or debris that had fallen off vehicles (e.g. unsecured cargo).

 4.0% of drivers (3 of 75) involved in collisions were noted as impaired by alcohol or drugs. This percentage is higher than the 2017 City-wide average (0.5%).

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 47 of 132 Intersection – E.C. Row Expressway and Banwell Road

 Rear end collisions are predominant, especially eastbound.

 Several movements at the intersection operate at or over capacity during peak hours.

 The intersection is the first signalized intersection after a long section of eastbound free-flow expressway.

The collision pattern at the intersection and on the eastbound approach is consistent with a higher-speed intersection operating at or above capacity:

 Requiring traffic travelling at expressway speeds to stop creates the potential for conflicts between vehicles.

 The high volume-to-capacity ratios of the E.C. Row Expressway through movements can create long queues on the Expressway mainline. This can create conditions where vehicles have to stop well before the intersection, violating driver expectations.

As an overall recommendation to address the observed collision pattern, Administration recommends that the interchange be constructed as per the approved design from the Banwell Environmental Assessment as funding allows.

Any interim measures to address the observed collision pattern would likely fall into one of two categories:

 Measures that reduce the proportion of eastbound vehicles that are required to stop (e.g. increasing capacity of the intersection).

 Active measures to alert eastbound drivers to the need to stop (e.g. back-of- queue warning systems).

In either case, development of an interim solution would require significant analysis, design, and capital funding. Neither category of interim improvements is reflected in the Banwell Road Environmental Assessment approved design.

Administration recommends that the upcoming E.C. Row Expressway Environmental Assessment include interim recommendations to address safety concerns at the Banwell Road / E.C. Row Expressway intersection.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 48 of 132 Risk Analysis:

Collisions represent a significant safety risk to road users. Administration mitigates this risk through network screening of the City road network and identification of countermeasures at high collision locations.

Identifying interim recommendations for the E.C. Row Expressway/Banwell Road intersection through the E.C. Row Expressway Environmental Assessment will reduce resource risk by considering the ultimate design of the intersection/interchange in order to minimize throwaway costs for interim improvements.

Financial Matters:

No expenditures are recommended by this report.

In the 2018 approved capital budget, the E.C. Row Expressway Environmental Assessment is planned to begin in 2019. Before initiating the environmental assessment, Administration will carry out a request for proposal and bring forward a separate report for Council authorization of the project award based on the successful bidder’s price.

Consultations:

Shawna Boakes, Traffic Operations

Conclusion:

The E.C. Row Expressway / Banwell Road intersection has the sixth-highest collision rate in the City-wide ranking of signalized intersections. On the mainline section between Lauzon Parkway and Banwell Road, the E.C. Row Expressway collision rate is above average eastbound and below average westbound.

Construction of the E.C. Row Expressway / Banwell Road interchange (as per the Banwell Road Environmental Assessment approved design) will address the observed collision pattern at the intersection and on the eastbound approach. Administration recommends that the upcoming E.C. Row Expressway Environmental Assessment identify recommendations for interim improvements to address capacity and safety issues at the intersection.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 49 of 132

Approvals: Name Title

Josette Eugeni Manager of Transportation Planning

Shelby Askin-Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader, Economic Development and Public Safety

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Councillor Kusmierczyk

Appendices:

N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 50 of 132 Item 8.3

Council Report: S 90/2018

Subject: Pedestrian Crossovers - CITY-WIDE

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Jeff Hagan Policy Analyst 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected] Public Works - Operations Report Date: 5/30/2018 Clerk’s File #: ST2018 AFB/13207

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: 1. That a prioritized list of pedestrian crossover locations, along with a campaign to educate Windsor road users on pedestrian crossovers, BE REFERRED to 2019 capital budget deliberations.

2. That Traffic By law 9148 BE AMENDED as listed and attached in Appendix 3 of this report, and

3. That the City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to prepare the necessary documents to amend the by law.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

Pedestrian Crossovers

The Highway Traffic Act was amended in January 2016 to allow a range of new “Level 2” pedestrian crossover types along with the traditional “Level 1” pedestrian crossover. Appendix 1 provides typical drawings to show the features of the various levels and types of pedestrian crossovers as well as the differences between them.

In July 2016, an update to Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatments was published, providing guidance to road authorities on the use of these new pedestrian crossover types as well as other pedestrian crossing treatments. This update added design details for Level 2 pedestrian crossovers types, along with new

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 51 of 132 warrant criteria to determine whether a location should be considered a candidate for a pedestrian crossover as well as the minimum level and type of crossover, if one is provided.

With the introduction of Level 2 pedestrian crossovers as an available option and with changes in the pedestrian crossover warrant criteria, it is typically easier for a location to satisfy the warrant criteria for a pedestrian crossover than was typically the case previously.

Since this update was published, municipalities and other road authorities in Ontario have adopted Level 2 pedestrian crossovers to varying degrees.

Pedestrian crossovers are a form of controlled crossing; at a pedestrian crossover, vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians. Pedestrian crossovers relate to other types of crossings as described in Table 1.

Table 1: Levels of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments (source: Ontario Traffic Manual)

Level of Crossing Crossing Type

Highest Traffic Signals

Pedestrian Crossover

Stop- or Yield-Controlled Intersection

School Crossing Guard

Lowest Uncontrolled Crossing

Meeting the warrant for a pedestrian crossover does not imply that the Corporation is required to install a pedestrian crossover; meeting the warrant merely implies that a pedestrian crossover can be considered as an option. The Ontario Traffic Manual provides flexibility for the Corporation not to provide a pedestrian crossover even at a warranted location, or to provide a different type of crossing treatment.

The Ontario Traffic Manual does not give guidance on how to prioritize between locations that warrant pedestrian crossovers. Previous Council Direction

At its May 7, 2018 meeting, Council adopted the following recommendation of the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee (ETPS Decision 600 / CR261/2018):

That the report of the Policy Analyst dated March 16, 2018 entitled "Wyandotte Street East & Chilver Road Pedestrian Crossing" BE RECEIVED for information; and,

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 52 of 132 That Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to a future Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee outlining other intersections throughout the City where crossings may be warranted. At its June 4, 2018 meeting, Council adopted the following recommendation of the Planning, Heritage and Economic Development Standing Committee (PHED Decision 578 / CR306/2018):

That Administration BE REQUESTED to provide a report outlining the feasibility of installing pedestrian activated crosswalks in all of the Business Improvement Areas, BE APPROVED.

This report addresses these Council Resolutions.

A related Council Resolution (CR674/2017, which directed Administration to conduct a review of Calderwood Avenue and develop recommendations for pedestrian crossings and intersection control) is addressed in a separate report (S 91/2018). Resident Petition – Cabana Road East at Karen Street / Clara Avenue

On May 6, 2018, a petition was received requesting a pedestrian crossover on Cabana Road East at Karen Street / Clara Avenue. The petition is attached as Appendix 2. This report addresses the petition. Administration has also received inquiries from the office of Brian Masse, Minister of Parliament, regarding a pedestrian crossover at this location.

Discussion:

In response to Council direction and resident service requests via 311 and ward Councillors, Administration has carried out pedestrian crossover warrant reviews at a number of locations. In accordance with Ontario Traffic Manual criteria, warrant reviews were carried out for either a 4-hour or an 8-hour period.

The results of these reviews are summarized in Table 2. Notations have been included where applicable. Locations within a Business Improvement Area (BIA) are noted. Further discussion on BIAs is provided under Business Improvement Areas, below.

Table 2: Pedestrian Crossover Warrant Review Summary

Location Warrant Minimum Pedestrian Notes Met? Crossover Level & Type Warranted Calderwood Ave. east of Caribou Cres. Yes Level 2 Type D Addressed in separate (Walkerville Homesite Trail) report (S 91/2018) College Ave. W west of California Ave. Yes Level 2 Type B Drouillard Rd. at Richmond St. Yes Level 2 Type B Ford City BIA Goyeau St. south of Elliot St. Yes Level 2 Type B Downtown Windsor BIA (Food Basics) Grand Marais Rd W at Longfellow Ave. Yes Level 2 Type C (Christ the King C.E.S.) Huron Church Rd. at Peter St. Yes Level 2 Type B

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 53 of 132 Location Warrant Minimum Pedestrian Notes Met? Crossover Level & Type Warranted Lauzon Rd. at Clairview Ave. Yes Level 2 Type B (Ganatchio Trail) McNorton St. at Radcliff Ave. Yes Level 2 Type B Prince Rd. at Barrymore La. Yes Level 2 Type B Installation previously approved – scheduled for 2018 Riverside Dr. at Peace Fountain Yes Level 2 Type B (Coventry Gardens) University Ave. W at Patricia Rd. Yes Level 2 Type B Wyandotte St. E at Chilver Rd Yes Level 2 Type B Installation previously approved and completed Walkerville BIA Banwell Rd. at Arvilla St. No (Elizabeth Kishkon Park) Cabana Rd. E at Karen St. / Clara Ave. No Existing school crossing (Roseland P.S.) See discussion below Calderwood Ave. west of Kamloops St. No Addressed in separate (Devonshire Heights Park) report (S 91/2018) Ducharme St. at Cancun St. (Talbot Trail No P.S.) Giles St. W. at Church St. No Riverside Dr. at Ford Blvd. No (Reaume Park) Riverside Dr. at Hall Ave. No Sandwich Street at Watkins St. No Wyandotte St. E east of Watson Ave. No (Plaza)

At Karen Street/Clara Avenue, Cabana Road East has 4 general purpose lanes with 2 buffered bicycle lanes. This width is greater than the maximum width for a pedestrian crossover. A school crossing with crossing guard is currently provided at this location. Administration recommends that this school crossing remain in place. During detailed design for this phase of the Cabana Road East project, a traffic signal warrant review was carried out and determined that traffic signals are not currently warranted. However, as part of the work on Cabana Road East, underground conduit for signals was installed; Administration will continue to periodically monitor the intersection to determine if the traffic signal warrant is met in future.

Administration has also received requests for pedestrian crossovers that could not be evaluated (e.g. at locations currently under construction); these locations, as well as future requests, will be reviewed when conditions allow. Any additional locations that are reviewed and determined to meet warrant will be considered for inclusion in the upcoming budget submission, if so directed. One outstanding request received to date (Ottawa Street at Benjamin Avenue) is within a BIA (Ottawa Street BIA).

In the case of pedestrian crossovers that are identified as warranted and required as the result of land development, Administration will typically recover costs from the property owner. In any cases where the full cost of the pedestrian crossover cannot be recovered from the property owner, Administration will seek approval from Council for the expenditure.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 54 of 132 Business Improvement Areas

As noted under Background above, Council Resolution CR306/2018 directed Administration to report on the feasibility of providing pedestrian crossovers in Business Improvement Areas (BIAs).

In general, the main corridors in all Windsor BIAs typically meet several basic requirements for pedestrian crossovers, including:

 Speed limits 60 km/h or lower, and

 Minimum vehicle volume

Since BIAs typically experience higher levels of pedestrian activity, it is likely that some locations in BIAs would meet the pedestrian crossover warrant. Key factors in the warrant that will affect where pedestrian crossovers could be warranted within a BIA include:

 Spacing to other controlled crossings (e.g. traffic signals)

 Pedestrian crossing volumes

 Pedestrian desire lines

However, the main corridors in certain BIAs are not currently compatible with pedestrian crossovers, since the following road characteristics are incompatible with providing a pedestrian crossover:

 Total cross-section width greater than 4 lanes for a two-way street (or 3 lanes for a one-way street), or

 Certain combinations of high vehicle volumes and wide crossing widths.

The main corridors in the following BIAs have a total cross-section width greater than 4 lanes (or 3 lanes for one-way streets). Because of this, these corridors would not be appropriate locations for pedestrian crossovers – regardless of pedestrian crossing volume – with the current roadway width:

 Pillette Village BIA (Wyandotte Street East)

 Olde Riverside BIA (Wyandotte Street East)

 Certain streets in the Downtown Windsor BIA, including sections of:

o Ouellette Avenue

o Pelissier Street

o Pitt Street

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 55 of 132 o Chatham Street

Illumination

The Ontario Traffic Manual provides requirements for minimum illumination (street lighting) levels for pedestrian crossovers. These levels vary depending on the crossover location (mid-block versus intersection) and pedestrian crossing volume.

Streetlights are currently provided at all locations listed in Table 1; however, it is likely that for at least some of these locations, the existing illumination level is less than the minimum level for a pedestrian crossover. In some of these cases, it may be possible to achieve the minimum illumination level by adjusting the brightness setting of the existing luminaire; in other cases, it may be necessary to replace the luminaire or add new lighting fixtures to achieve the minimum illumination level.

Parking Impacts

All pedestrian crossovers have required no stopping zones both approaching and following the crossover. The required and desirable dimensions of the no stopping zone vary by the pedestrian crossover type, as summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: No Stopping Zones at Pedestrian Crossovers

Pedestrian Crossover No Stopping Zone Length Level and Type Required Desirable Level 1 Type A Approaching: 30 m Following: 30 m Level 2 Type B, C or D Approaching: 15 m Approaching: 30 m Following: 10 m Following: 15 m

For streets with parking on both sides, installation of a mid-block pedestrian crossover could require the removal of up to 22 on-street parking spaces for a Level 1 pedestrian crossover or up to 10 spaces (required no stopping zone length) or 16 spaces (desirable no stopping zone length) for a Level 2 pedestrian crossover.

At intersections, the presence of corner clearances (no parking zones at intersections) and the cross street will typically reduce the impact on on-street parking of providing a pedestrian crossover. However, the required no stopping zones for both Level 1 and Level 2 crossings will extend beyond a standard 15 m corner clearance on the side of the intersection where the pedestrian crossover is provided. Figure 1 shows a comparison between standard (15 m) corner clearances and the no stopping zones for a pedestrian crossover at an example Level 2 crossing at an intersection. The extent of on-street parking impacts will vary significantly depending on factors such as the geometry of the intersection, crossover width, and crossover level.

Prioritization

The increase in demand for pedestrian crossovers will result in additional warrant review and workload demand on existing resources. This work will be prioritized with

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 56 of 132 other studies currently being undertaken by Transportation Planning and may result in some increased delays. Timelines will be monitored.

Locations meeting warrant will be prioritized for available funding based on criteria such as:

 Pedestrian crossing volume

 History of pedestrian collisions

 Distance to other nearby controlled crossings

Figure 1: Parking Impact Example – Level 2 Pedestrian Crossover at Intersection (not to scale)

Education

Administration has recently begun a public education campaign through social media to educate drivers and pedestrians on the proper use of pedestrian crossovers. Administration will develop further recommendations for public education and include them in its submissions for the 2019 budget.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 57 of 132 Possible components of the education campaign include media releases, advertisements, and postcards. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has produced materials that may be adaptable to this purpose; an example is provided as Figure 2.

Figure 2: Sample Educational Postcard (Ontario Ministry of Transportation) Traffic By-Law 9148

As per Traffic Bylaw 9148, the Executive Director of Operations has delegated authority to install traffic control devices as outlined in the by-law. However, Traffic By-law 9148 requires pedestrian crossovers to be listed individually in Schedule “D”. In anticipation of an increased number of pedestrian crossover installations, Administration recommends amending Traffic By-law 9148 in accordance with Appendix 3.

The effect of this amendment is to designate any pedestrian crossing that is marked and signed as a pedestrian crossover in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act as a pedestrian crossover for the purposes of the By-law. This change will help to reduce the delay from when a pedestrian crossover has been identified as needed until it is installed, since a separate by-law amendment will not be required for each pedestrian crossover.

This approach is similar to the approach that was recently adopted for bicycle lanes: since a 2015 amendment to Traffic By-law 9148, bicycle lanes are no longer identified by schedule; instead, driving in a bicycle lane is generally prohibited “when properly worded or marked signs have been erected and are on display.”

Risk Analysis:

There are no significant or critical risks identified associated with the purchase or installation of pedestrian crossovers. Administration mitigates purchasing risks to a low level by following the processes prescribed by the Purchasing By-law.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 58 of 132 Safety risks and risks to traffic operations will be mitigated by following the warrant process prescribed in the Ontario Traffic Manual.

Some locations may have utility conflicts with the required infrastructure or require street lighting upgrades for pedestrian crossovers. These risks have the potential to impact the cost and effort to install pedestrian crossovers; the likelihood and magnitude of these risks is not currently known, but will be assessed in the detailed design stage for each pedestrian crossover.

The Corporation has limited experience with Level 2 pedestrian crossovers. Because of this, ongoing maintenance costs for the equipment are uncertain. If a pedestrian crossover program is undertaken that results in a significant number of crossovers being installed, it is likely that the maintenance cost for these devices will not be able to be accommodated in the current operating budget and will result in budget increases; the extent of this increase is yet to be determined.

Financial Matters:

No expenditures are recommended at this time. Administration recommends that the candidate locations be referred to the 2019 capital budget process in order to prioritize a pedestrian crossover program against other budget priorities. Because of the wide variation in site conditions for pedestrian crossovers, Administration will develop a further cost analysis for installations of each type to accompany the budget report.

Installation of pedestrian crossovers will result in ongoing maintenance costs. Since the Corporation has limited experience with this type of equipment to date, the ongoing maintenance costs are uncertain and a specific annual cost cannot be given at this time. Ongoing maintenance will be performed by the Traffic Operations Division of Public Works; If the cost experience is material and cannot be absorbed by the current operating budget, the department will bring forward in future budgets a request for additional operating funds to address the shortfall.

Consultations: Tiffany Pocock, Engineering Roberto Peticca, Traffic Operations Joe Lorkovich, Traffic Operations Marvio Vinhaes, EnWin

Conclusion:

A prioritized list of locations meeting warrant for pedestrian crossovers will be provided to Council for consideration during the 2019 budget deliberations, including recommendations for resourcing and funding all on-going aspects of this service.

Administration recommends an amendment to Traffic By-law 9148 to streamline the installation of warranted pedestrian crossovers once they have been identified as needed.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 59 of 132 Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title Josette Eugeni Manager of Transportation Planning Cindy Becker Financial Planning Administrator Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations Mark Winterton City Engineer Janice Guthrie On behalf of City Treasurer Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email Windsor Bicycling Committee Ian Bawden [email protected] Constituency Assistant Brian Masse, M.P. Windsor West Shauna Boghean 200-4900 Wyandotte St E Orientation and Mobility Windsor ON N8Y 1H7 CNIB Signatories to As per Appendix 2 Cabana/Karen/Clara (list provided to Clerks) petition (Appendix 2) Pedestrian crossover requestors (list provided to Clerks)

Appendices: 1 Pedestrian Crossover Types 2 Petition and Letter - Pedestrian Crossing on Cabana Road East at Karen/Clara 3 Amendments to Traffic By-Law 9148

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 60 of 132 Book 15 • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 6 m

(Ra-10) 2.5 m

(Ra-4) Mounted back to back (Ra-4t) 30 m

(Ra-11)

(Ra-10)

General notes: - Required illumination of pedestrian crosswalk and waiting area to be provided - Accessible as per AODA

N.T.S.

Figure 20: Pedestrian Crossover Level 1 Type A – Mid-block (4-lane, 2-way)

Ontario Trafﬁ c Manual • June, 2016 66 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 61 of 132 Book 15 • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon with Tell Tale Wc-27R

Ra-5R Ra-5R Ra-10 Mounted back to back with Ra-5L

Ra-5R Rectangular Rapid Flashing for opposite 2.5 m

Beacon with Tell Tale direction only (minimum) 6 m

Ra-5L Mounted back to back with Ra-5R 30 m

Ra-10

Wc-27R 20 m (recommended) 100 m (maximum)

General notes: - Required illumination of pedestrian crosswalk and waiting area to be provided - Accessible as per AODA Pushbutton

Figure 23: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type B – Mid-block (4-lane, 2-way)

Ontario Trafﬁ c Manual • June, 2016 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 71 Page 62 of 132 Book 15 • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Wc-27R

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon with Tell Tale

Ra-10 20 m (recommended) 100 m (maximum) Ra-5R Mounted back to back with Ra-5L 30 m 6 m Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon with Tell Tale 2.5 m 2.5 m (minimum) (minimum) Ra-5L Mounted

back to back 6 m with Ra-5R 30 m

Ra-10

20 m (recommended) 100 m (maximum) Wc-27R

General notes: - Required illumination of pedestrian crosswalk and waiting area to be provided - Accessible as per AODA Pushbutton

N.T.S.

P d t i C

Figure 30: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type C – Mid-block (2-lane, 2-way)

Ontario Trafﬁ c Manual • June, 2016 80 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 63 of 132 General notes: - Accessible asperAODA - Required illuminationofpedestriancrosswalk and waitingarea to bepr Figure 39: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type D–Mid-block (2-lane, 2-way) Ra-5L with Ra-5R back to back Mounted ovided Wc-27R Ra-1 0 ok1 • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments • Book 15 ETPS

(recommended) Ontario Ontario Traf 20 m 2.5 m (minimum) 30 m 100 m (maximum) Standing 6 m ﬁ Page Committee cMna • June, 2016 • cManual 64 of - 132 February 20, 2019 6 m 30 m 2.5 m 20 m (recommended) (minimum) 100 m (maximum) W Ra-10 c-27R

with Ra-5L back to back Mounted Ra-5R N.T.S. 91 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 65 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 66 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 67 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 68 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 69 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 70 of 132 ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 71 of 132 AMENDMENTS TO TRAFFIC BY-LAW 9148

ITEM REGULATION SECTION DESCRIPTION REASON "Pedestrian Crossover" means any portion of a roadway, as designated by this by-law at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly To streamline Text indicated for pedestrian crossing implementation 1 DELETE 1(ma) by signs on the highway and lines of pedestrian or other markings on the surface of crossovers the roadway as prescribed by regulations passed pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. "Pedestrian Crossover" means any portion of a roadway, which has a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour or less, distinctly indicated as To streamline Text a pedestrian crossover by signs on implementation 2 1(ma) ADD the highway and lines or other of pedestrian markings on the surface of the crossovers roadway as prescribed by regulations passed pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. The portions of highways set out in To streamline Text Column 1 of Schedule "D" hereof, at implementation 3 DELETE 29 the locations named in Column 2 of Schedule "D" hereof, are designated of pedestrian as PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVERS. crossovers That parts of the highway set out in column 1 of Schedule "D" at the intersection or location set out in To streamline Text column 2 of the said Schedule are implementation 4 DELETE 32A. hereby designated as Pedestrian of pedestrian Crossovers. (added B/L l0l03, Jan. crossovers 29/90; amended B/L 11658, Dec.6/93)

Schedule “D” – No longer Pedestrian Entire referenced by by- 5 Crossovers schedule law text DELETE

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 72 of 132 Item 8.4

Council Report: S 156/2018

Subject: CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East / Roseland Public School Pedestrians - WARD 9

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Jeff Hagan Policy Analyst 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected]

Report Date: 9/12/2018 Clerk’s File #: ST2018

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That report of the Policy Analyst dated September 12, 2018 entitled CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East / Roseland Public School Pedestrians BE RECEIVED for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

At the August 27, 2018 meeting of Council, Councillor Payne asked the following Council Question:

CQ 14-2018

Asks for a report soon on the feasibility of installing a school crosswalk on Cabana Road East in the vicinity of Roseland Public School for the safety of children crossing in light of the recent widening of the street to four lanes.

This report provides the requested response.

Related Reports

Report S 90/2018 Pedestrian Crossovers was brought before the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee at its August 29, 2018 meeting. This report addressed a number of locations where pedestrian crossovers have been

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 73 of 132 requested, including Cabana Road in the vicinity of Roseland Public School. At the August 29, 2018 meeting, the Standing Committee deferred the report in order to allow consideration of it along with the response to CQ 14-2018 (addressed in this report) and CQ 17-2018 (addressed in a separate report), which also concerned pedestrian crossovers.

Discussion:

Existing Conditions

As shown in Figure 1, a school crossing is provided on Cabana Road East at Karen Street / Clara Avenue immediately east of Roseland Public School. In accordance with normal practice and the City of Windsor Crossing Guard Procedure, school crossing guards are provided for 30 minutes in the morning before the school’s arrival bell time and for 30 minutes in the afternoon following the school’s dismissal bell time. Beginning with the start of the 2018-2019 school year, two crossing guards are provided at this crossing.

This portion of Cabana Road East was recently reconstructed in accordance with the Cabana Road Environmental Assessment preferred design. As part of this reconstruction, the roadway was widened to provide 4 general purpose lanes and bicycle lanes.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 74 of 132 Figure 1: Area Map (2017 Aerial Photo)

Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation

Based on service requests received, Administration reviewed the existing school crossing to determine whether converting the crossing to a pedestrian crossover would be warranted according to Ontario Traffic Manual guidelines. As noted previously in report S 90/2018, this location does not meet the requirements for a pedestrian crossover. The results of the review are summarized as follows:

 The width of Cabana Road East at the crossing location exceeds the maximum crossing width for a pedestrian crossover recommended by the Ontario Traffic Manual (for two-way roads: 4 lanes).

 Most pedestrians crossing at this location are children who are crossing at times when crossing guards are present.

 The number of pedestrians crossing at this location is too low to warrant a pedestrian crossover except for a location on a “pedestrian desire line” (i.e. the path that pedestrians would naturally choose, taking into account the locations of pedestrian attractors and generators, distance to nearby controlled crossings, and connections to the wider pedestrian network). However, the crossing is a pedestrian desire line primarily because a school crossing has been provided.

Where the protection of schoolchildren walking to and from school is the primary concern for a pedestrian crossing, the Ontario Traffic Manual generally recommends a school crossing rather than other controlled crossing types. Since a school crossing is currently provided, Administration does not recommend any changes to the pedestrian crossing type.

Administration received a resident petition (provided as an appendix to report S 90/2018) that raised concerns about pedestrians other than students crossing Cabana Road East at the school crossing at times when a guard was not present. In response, Administration carried out an additional pedestrian count while school was not in session (Friday, August 31, 2018). This additional count found that 11 pedestrians crossed Cabana Road at or near the school crossing in an 8-hour period (8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.).

During the Cabana Road reconstruction, underground conduit was installed to facilitate pedestrian signals, should they become warranted. Currently, Cabana Road at Karen Street / Clara Avenue does not meet the warrant for traffic signals; Administration will continue to monitor the intersection periodically. If the warrant for traffic signals is met, Administration will bring forward a recommendation at that time.

Risk Analysis:

Risks were identified in report S 90/2018. No additional risks have been identified.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 75 of 132 Financial Matters:

No financial expenditures are associated with the report recommendations.

Consultations:

John Wolf, Traffic Operations

Conclusion:

Administration has reviewed Cabana Road East at Karen Street / Clara Avenue. This review found that the existing school crossing continues to be the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing for this location. A pedestrian crossover is not recommended.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Josette Eugeni Manager of Transportation Planning

Wira Vendrasco Deputy City Solicitor

Shelby Askin-Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader, Economic Development and Public Safety

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Councillor Payne

Appendices:

N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 76 of 132 Item 8.5

Council Report: S 29/2019

Subject: Additional Information - CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East Roseland Public School Pedestrians - WARD 9

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Jeff Hagan Policy Analyst 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected]

Report Date: 1/24/2019 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT report S 29/2019 “Additional Information - CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East Roseland Public School Pedestrians” BE RECEIVED for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

At the August 27, 2018 meeting of Council, former Councillor Payne asked the following Council Question:

CQ 14-2018

Report S 156/2018 CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East / Roseland Public School Pedestrians was brought before the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee at its October 17, 2018 meeting. That report, as well as related report S 90/2018 Pedestrian Crossovers, were deferred at that meeting to allow the opportunity for comment from the Windsor Police Service.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 77 of 132 Report S 156/2018 noted the following key conclusions:

 The existing school crossing is consistent with provincial guidance and normal practice.

 The crossing was reviewed for conversion to a pedestrian crossover. The review found that this location does not meet the normal requirements for a pedestrian crossover.

 The crossing was reviewed for potential installation of traffic signals (either a full signal or a pedestrian signal). The warrants for a signal are not met currently. Administration will continue to periodically evaluate the intersection to assess whether the signal is warranted in the future.

Discussion:

In the time since report S 156/2018 CQ14-2018 Cabana Road East / Roseland Public School Pedestrians was prepared, the following activities have occurred in the vicinity of the school crossing on Cabana Road East at Karen/Clara:

 Additional signs and pavement markings were installed

 Speeds on Cabana Road East have been measured

 Additional observations of traffic behaviour at the school crossing have been carried out

These activities do not alter Administration’s recommendations from what was recommended in reports S 90/2018 and S 156/2018. Additional details on each of these activities is given below.

Signs and Pavement Markings

The Ontario Traffic Manual identifies standard signs and pavement markings for school crossings. The remainder of these signs and markings were installed on November 19, 2018:

 Additional crosswalk warning signs: these signs make the crossing more conspicuous to approaching drivers and help to alert drivers to the potential need to stop.

 “No passing here to crossing” signs: these signs deter vehicles from pulling around vehicles that may be stopped to allow children to cross.

 Solid line lane markings: these lane markings reinforce the “no passing” signage and emphasize that changing lanes near the school crossing is not allowed.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 78 of 132 Cabana Road East Speeds

Speed data was collected on Cabana Road East:

 Before the widening to 4 lanes plus bicycle lanes

 After the widening

 After the additional signage and pavement marking upgrades noted above.

The results of the speed surveys are summarized in Table 1. The speed limit on Cabana Road East is 50 km/h.

During Crossing Guard Overall (24 hours) Times Date 85th 85th Average Average Percentile Percentile Speed Speed Speed Speed September 2016 55 km/h 65 km/h 54 km/h 65 km/h (before widening)

September 2018 58 km/h 66 km/h 62 km/h 66 km/h (after widening)

January 2019 61 km/h 69 km/h 60 km/h 67 km/h (after upgrades)

The results from these speed surveys have been shared with Windsor Police Services for their action as they deem appropriate.

Additional Observations

Administration conducted additional field reviews in October, November, and December to observe traffic behaviour and operations at the school crossing. During these field reviews, drivers’ compliance with the crossing guards’ direction was generally good. The following feedback was received from the crossing guards:

 When a single guard was placed at the school crossing, visibility of the guard could be an issue if a large vehicle was stopped for the crossing. However, the placement of a second guard at the crossing has addressed this issue.

 Driver behaviour has improved with the installation of the additional signs and pavement markings.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 79 of 132 Sightline reviews at the intersection of Karen Street and Cabana Road East were also conducted in consideration of the new private fence construction at 3809 Karen Street. This review did not find that this fence obstructed required sight triangles for vehicles turning onto Cabana Road East from Karen Street.

Risk Analysis:

Risks were identified in report S 90/2018. No additional risks have been identified.

Financial Matters:

This report does not recommend any financial expenditures.

Consultations:

Traffic Operations

Building By-law Enforcement

Risk Management

Windsor Police Service

Compliance and Enforcement

Conclusion:

Since the previous report (S 156/2018), Administration has installed additional signage and pavement markings at the school crossing on Cabana Road East at Karen Street / Clara Avenue. Field reviews and reports from the crossing guards indicate that these changes have caused driver behaviour to improve.

Recent speed data on Cabana Road East has been collected and shared with Windsor Police Services.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Josette Eugeni Manager of Transportation Planning

Wira Vendrasco Deputy City Solicitor

Shelby Askin-Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader, Economic Development and Public Safety

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 80 of 132 Notifications: Name Address Email Councillor McKenzie

Appendices:

N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 81 of 132 Item 8.6

Council Report: S 189/2018

Subject: CQ21-2018 Pedestrian Signage - Riverside Drive - Ward 6

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: John Wolf Senior Manager, Traffic Operations, Parking and Transportation Planning 519-255-6791 [email protected] Public Works - Operations Report Date: 11/14/2018 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation:

That the report on CQ21-2018, which asks that signage warning of pedestrians crossing on Riverside Drive between Ford & Pillette be installed, BE RECEIVED by Council FOR INFORMATION.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: At the meeting of Council on September 17, 2018 Councillor Gignac asked the following question:

CQ21-2018

“Asks that signage warning of pedestrians crossing on Riverside Drive between Ford & Pillette be installed.”

Discussion: Pedestrian warning signage was installed on Riverside Drive East in the area of Pillette and Ford in 2017. A site review was conducted by Sign Division staff who found a number of street light poles had been replaced sometime in 2018 resulting in the removal of pedestrian warning signs for the eastbound direction. Staff have re-installed the missing signs.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 82 of 132 It should be noted, the signs warn motorists of the presence of pedestrians in the area. They do not designate a specific crossing point.

Signage in place on Riverside Drive East between Pillette and Thompson is shown in Appendix A. These include pedestrian, hidden intersection, hidden driveway and curve/advisory speed signage.

Risk Analysis: There is a low to moderate likelihood that the absence of signage would result in motorists being unaware of potential pedestrians in the area, however signage provides positive reinforcement of their presence and to be aware.

Financial Matters: Replacement of missing, faded or damaged signage is undertaken under the sign maintenance budget which has sufficient budget for these types of issues.

Consultations: Roberto Peticca, Supervisor, Signs and Markings

Conclusion: Damaged, faded or missing signage is replaced or repaired under the maintenance program once the condition has been made known. Pedestrian signage has be reinstalled.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices: 1 Appendix A - Riverside Drive East signage between Pillette and Thompson

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 83 of 132 Appendix A – Riverside Drive East signage between Pillette and Thompson

Riverside Dr. south side at Thompson Pedestrian.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 84 of 132

North side of Riverside Dr. at Ford Blvd. park Entrance/Exit

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 85 of 132

Riverside Dr. between Buckingham and Ford Blvd. sorth side.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 86 of 132

Riverside Dr. south side at Buckingham pedestrian crossing sign.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 87 of 132

Riverside Dr. south side at Buckingham towers.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 88 of 132

Riverside Dr. south side just east of Pillette.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 89 of 132 Item 8.7

Council Report: S 206/2018

Subject: Multi Modal Cargo Development - Completion Report - Ward 9

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Stacey McGuire Project Administrator 519-255-6100 ext. 1734 [email protected] Development, Projects & Right-of-Way Report Date: 12/11/2018 Clerk’s File #: APM/9795

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the report on completion of the Multi Modal Cargo Development Project BE RECEIVED for information, and

That City Council APPROVE the transfer of the overall project surplus (approximately $169,957), from Project 7139003 to Project 7181035 to provide for engineering services relating to the extension of services to the airport cargo lands or offsite traffic improvements.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: On October 2, 2013, the Federal Minister of State Gary Goodyear (Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario), along with MP Jeff Watson and Mayor Eddie Francis, announced on investment of $19.9 million in a cargo facility and Border Logistic institute for the City of Windsor and the University of Windsor funded through the Federal Economic Development Agency (‘FedDev’).

A major partner in the announcement was Federal Express Canada Ltd. (“FedEx”) which would lease and operate within 35,000sf of space to be provided and with a future possible 45,000 square foot expansion in the future.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 90 of 132 On March 18, 2013 City Council In camera passed the following resolution:

M77-2013

“That the confidential verbal report from Mayor Francis respecting a property/legal matter – Economic Development update BE RECEIVED and further, the Mayor BE REQUESTED to proceed in accordance with the verbal direction of Council.”

The instructions to Proceed included the approval of the procurement and construction of three buildings and site services for the Multi-Modal Cargo Development in addition to lease and FedDev funding agreement approvals as necessary to start the project.

Stantec was retained for the design and construction services for the three buildings and Dillon Consulting was retained for the design and construction services for the site servicing, including parking lots, sewers, roadways and stormwater management. These consultants were acquired through a sole source appointment which was required to ensure that funding requirements could be met within limited timelines.

JASEL was hired as the City’s Commissioning Agent in accordance with the Purchasing By-Law through Request for Proposals No. 104-14.

A report titled “FedDev Contribution Agreement to Construct a Multi-Modal Cargo Development at the Windsor International Airport” was approved on November 18, 2013. Council approved the following resolution:

CR231/2013

I. That the Multi-Modal Cargo Development Project Charter attached as Appendix C, BE APPROVED, in accordance with the Project Management Protocol Policy and Procedure;

II. That the Management Agreement between Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. and The Corporation of the City of Windsor BE AMENDED to:

a. delineate the responsibilities and division of duties in relation to the agreement between them and Federal Express Canada Limited; b. address the operating responsibilities of the future Institute of Border Logistics and Security building (10,000sf);

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 91 of 132 c. address the operating responsibilities of third 27,000sf building (future cargo tenant) as required;

III. That the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer BE AUTHORIZED to sign any amendments to the agreements with Federal Express Canada Limited, the Federal Economic Development Agency or Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. noted above within the context of the budget allocated, satisfactory in form for technical content to the City Engineer, financial content to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Tender No. 24-14 was issued for the construction of the Multi Modal Cargo Development and De Angelis Construction Inc. was awarded the contract based on a negotiated design and cost in accordance with CR227/2014 below: CR227/2014 I. That, in compliance with the provisions of Tender No. 24-14, APPROVAL BE GIVEN to enter into an agreement with De Angelis Construction Inc. to construct a Multi-Modal Cargo Development at the Windsor International Airport for a negotiated price of $14,122,373.86 (excluding HST), and under the condition of first receiving written endorsement from Federal Express Canada Ltd. (FedEx) and the Institute for Border Logistics and Security (IBLS), and that the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign an agreement with De Angelis Construction Inc., satisfactory in technical content to the City Engineer, in financial content to the City Treasurer, and in form to the City Solicitor; and,

II. That APPROVAL BE GIVEN to amend the gross expenditures budget and undertake expenditures for a total project cost of $16,819,911 (excluding refundable HST) with a net cash outlay by the City of Windsor of $4,176,911 (excluding the $290,526 recovery from FedEx and $530,000 recovery from IBLS) for the Multi-Modal Cargo Development at the Windsor International Airport to be funded from Project ID# 7139003; and,

III. That Council APPROVE the use of the full allocation of $3.0 million, previously approved in principal, from the approved 2013 Enhanced Capital Budget for the Windsor International Airport; and, IV. That APPROVAL BE GIVEN to transfer $356,385 from the Aubin Road – Franklin/Seminole Project ID# 7111018 currently in surplus to the Multi-Modal Cargo Development Project ID# 7139003 to cover the project budget shortfall; and,

V. That the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer BE AUTHORIZED to sign any amendments to the agreement with Federal Express Canada Limited as a result of negotiations, satisfactory in form for technical content to the City Engineer, financial content to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and,

VI. That YQG CONFIRM the above agreement (in Recommendation V) is satisfactory to the YQG Board.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 92 of 132 Construction began in September 2014 and was substantially completed in two phases to allow FedEx to complete fixturing of and move into the building in advance of the funding deadline and in accordance with their lease agreement. The FedEx and related site works portion of the contract was substantially completed December 10, 2015. The remainder of the project was substantially completed February 11, 2016. The project had a two year warranty period.

The Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario has paid in full their contribution of $12,643,000.00 to the City of Windsor.

Project completion of the contracted works and warranty expiration has now been achieved.

At its meeting held November 20, 2017, Council passed an in camera resolution (CR735/2017) approving a lease for the cargo building constructed as part of the Multi Modal Cargo Development. Fit-up was completed in the fall of 2018.

Discussion: The Engineering Department - Corporate ProjectsDivision administered the project and worked closely with FedEx, YQG and the University of Windsor to achieve project objectives.

The overall project was substantially complete on February 11, 2015. The final maintenance/warranty period was two years from the date of substantial completion and has now expired. All project deficiencies have been completed.

Ongoing maintenance of the Multi Modal Cargo Development is administered by YQG.

Risk Analysis: There are no risks associated in accepting this report.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 93 of 132

Financial Matters: The following summarizes the funding sources and expenditures for the project:

CONTRIBUTIONS

Prosperity Initiative Funding (Fed Dev) $ 12,643,000

Recoveries from Fed Ex (Equipment & Misc) $ 386,103

Recoveries from University of Windsor $ 548,057

City of Windsor $ 3,356,385

Other Miscellaneous Recoveries (CAO-4182, Bell, Cogeco, MNSi) $ 138,145

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $ 17,071,690

EXPENDITURES

Construction –Buildings $ 8,742,903 Fit-up – Cargo Building $ 349,959 Construction – Site Services $ 3,756,891 Construction – General/Shared Costs $ 1,006,874

Consulting and Project Management $ 2,136,329

Miscellaneous (Survey, testing, administration etc) $ 106,581

Contingency $ 780,484 Financing Costs $ 21,712

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 16,901,733

BALANCE (Surplus) $ 169,957

The overall project has been completed with a surplus of $169,957. Typically, surplus funds relating to capital projects are returned to the original source. However, this development was intended to be the economic driver for further development within this area. Further development will require extension of various infrastructure services. Administration therefore, recommends the use of these funds to offset costs for

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 94 of 132 engineering related to the extension of services or offsite traffic improvements within the Cargo area.

Administration recommends that Council approve the transfer of the surplus funds in Project 7139003 to Project 7181035. This project is for servicing related costs to the airport cargo lands.

Consultations: CEO YQG – Carolyn Brown

Financial Planning Administrator - Michael Dennis

Manager of Capital Budget and Reserves – Victor Ferranti

Conclusion: The project was completed on time and with a budget surplus of $169,957. Administration recommends these funds be used for engineering costs related to extending services or traffic improvements within the area and as such that Council approve the transfer of surplus funds from Project 7139003 to Project 7181035.

Planning Act Matters: N/A Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 95 of 132 Item 8.8

Council Report: S 210/2018

Subject: CQ 5-2018 - Riverside Vista Project and ERCA

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Anna Godo 519-255-6100 ext 6508 [email protected] Infrastructure & Geomatics Report Date: 12/17/2018 Clerk’s File #: SW/8513

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the report on CQ5-2018, Riverside Vista Project and ERCA, BE RECEIVED by Council for information.

Executive Summary: N/A

Background: City Council adopted the Riverside Drive Vista Improvement Project Class Environmental Assessment, Environmental Study Report (ESR), under the Council Resolution CR102/2007. The subject corridor spans from Rosedale Avenue to the west, to the municipal boundary with the Town of Tecumseh limits to the east. The ESR recommended that the section from Lauzon Road to Riverdale Avenue be Phase 1 in the total 5-phase construction process. Project funds in the Capital Works Budget started in 2008 and continue into 2024. To date $17.673 million in capital funding has been identified for this project, including the additional funding resulting from the Mayor’s eight-point sewer plan.

At the meeting of City Council on October 1, 2018, Councillor Gignac raised Council Question CQ 5/2018:

“Asks that Whereas the Vista Project was an environmental assessment completed over a long period of public consultation, provincial approvals and opportunity for appeals; and, Whereas over the last short period of time ERCA has determined that they want to undertake a project that was contained within the environmental assessment, which impacts a number of properties; and, Whereas ERCA has not held any public consultation in regards to this project, leaving the impacted residents very

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 96 of 132 concerned and without an opportunity for discussion; and, Whereas ERCA has decided to move forward with the project at the expense of the City of Windsor; and, Whereas the City of Windsor must now procure the funds for this project within the project’s budget, Therefore be it resolved that Administration provide clarification as to what ERCA’s public consultation process is, whether the City of Windsor has any input as when ERCA should participate, so that any projects they wish to proceed with are included in the environmental assessment, therefore ensuring that there is a consultation and an appeal process.”

Discussion: The objective of the Riverside Vista Improvement Project Class Environmental Assessment ESR was to provide an improved transportation corridor that will serve the needs of the transportation system. Through extensive public consultation, this objective was expanded to include for more-specific objectives:

1. Reduce traffic speed; 2. Reduce traffic volume; 3. Make Riverside Drive safer for all users; and 4. Make Riverside Drive look like a Scenic Drive.

The recommended design in the ESR was limited to road alignment, width, the provision of on road bike lanes, traffic calming, intersection controls, and location of sidewalks. The existing conditions of other infrastructure, their maintenance and future requirements for infrastructure such as illumination, drainage, utilities, storm and sanitary sewers, watermains, and flood protection were not reviewed as part of the ESR.

The City retained a consulting engineer for the detailed design of the project. Requests for Proposal were issued, closed, evaluated and awarded for engineering services for the design, preparation of contract drawings and specifications, contract administration and inspection for Phase 1 Stage 1 (RFP #04-11) and Phase 1 Stage 2 (RFP #89-14). RC Spencer Associates Inc. was retained as per CR244/2011 and CR251/2014.

The practice of professional engineering means any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act.

The project site falls within ERCA’s Limit of Regulated Area and as such, ERCA was consulted with respect to design considerations and flood-proofing elevations with respect to lake-event surface flooding.

During the design of Phase 1 Stage 2, Administration became aware that the barrier landform within the project area had been altered. In the 1980’s, a barrier landform was constructed from St. Rose Avenue to the easterly city limits. This barrier landform was part of the flood protection system for the area. Scope of design services was expanded to include the reinstatement of the barrier landform on the south side of Riverside Drive, from Watson Avenue to east of Dieppe Street, on the public right-of- way. The costs related to the design and reinstatement of the barrier landform along

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 97 of 132 the south side of Riverside Drive on the public right-of-way, from Watson Avenue to east of Dieppe Street, were approved as part of RFT 07-18 and as per CR156/2018.

The Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) is empowered through the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 158/06 to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. ERCA was created in 1973 as one of the last Conservation Authorities in Ontario to work toward managing natural hazards and conservation issues. ERCA has jurisdiction in nine municipalities. These include the City of Windsor, Town of Pelee and the seven municipalities in Essex County. The area of their jurisdiction measures 1,681 square kilometres. To provide effective services and programs, ERCA works in partnership with the member municipalities, federal and provincial ministries and other organizations.

Through the Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 158/06, and in partnership with the member municipalities, the Essex Region Conservation Authority plans for the reduction of risk associated with Natural Hazards (i.e. shoreline flooding, erosion, etc.). Such risks include the potential loss of life, property damage, social disruption, as well as environmental impacts. Through proper planning, design, and regulation, private and public undertakings can meet the following objectives:

 Prevention of loss of life;  Minimize property damage and social disruption; and  Reduction of public and private expenditures for emergency operations, evacuation and restoration. Environmental Study Reports can incorporate a wide range of impacts and design criteria, all at varying levels of detail. As previously noted, flood protection was not considered in the previously completed Riverside Drive Vista ESR. However, when considering the potential impact/severity of shoreline flooding in the East Riverside area, flood protection was required to be incorporated into the detailed design as part of the Engineer’s and the City’s Duty of Care. As such, ERCA was contacted to obtain floodproofing elevations for the area related to the Lake St. Clair 1:100 year flood event. The City of Windsor used this information to provide flood protection by means of reinstating the barrier landform on the south side of Riverside Drive as it was, and remains, the only practical means of flood protection within the project limits.

It should be noted that, while design parameters such as floodproofing elevations are provided by the Conservation Authority (CA), the means of implementing flood control is decided upon by the municipality. As such, reinstating the barrier landform is not an ERCA-undertaking, but rather a City-lead initiative as part of the detailed design of the Riverside Vista Project using appropriate design criteria provided by the CA. The reinstatement of the barrier landform as part of the Riverside Drive Vista Phase 1 Stage 2 project was limited to the south side of Riverside Drive, from Watson Avenue to east of Dieppe Street, on the public right-of-way.

Risk Analysis: Risk is mitigated by complying with ERCA’s requirements within the Limit of Regulated Area.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 98 of 132 Financial Matters: N/A

Consultations:

ERCA

Conclusion: The report regarding CQ5-2018 is provided to Council for information.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Anna Godo Engineer III

Wesley Hicks Senior Manager of Infrastructure & Engineering/Deputy City Engineer

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 99 of 132 Item 8.9

Council Report: S 203/2018

Subject: Benches and Ashtray Installations on Public Right-of-Way at Windsor Regional Hospital

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Andrew Dowie Executive Initiatives Coordinator (519) 255-6247 ext. 6005 [email protected] City Engineer Report Date: 12/10/2018 Clerk’s File #: MH2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That Report S203/2018 regarding the prospective cost for bench and ashtray installations in the public right-of-way at Windsor Regional Hospital BE RECEIVED for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

At its meeting of August 27, 2018, Council approved CQ 15-2018 which:

“Asks that Administration report back to Council on the cost and installation of benches and ashtrays around Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH), within the public right of way, as a method of encouraging smokers to stay off private property abutting the Hospital.”

Discussion:

The approximate cost to install the above-noted amenities will be as follows (per unit) inclusive of estimated labour costs:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 100 of 132 Capital Costs Concrete Pad $900 (3m x 4m) Bench Supplied by Creative Outdoor: Free of Charge Supplied by City of Windsor: $1,200 Ashtray Freestanding: $450 Trash Combination: $900

Operating Costs Ashtray Disposal $20 weekly

Should City Council wish to proceed with an installation, a combination ashtray and litter station is recommended for selection. The collection cost would not vary while there is long-term gain of a new amenity. The capital cost for this concept would be approximately $1,800 with an annual operating cost of $1,000.

Risk Analysis:

Should an installation be directed for construction by City Council, there is little additional risk as such amenities are already part of the public right-of-way.

On an ongoing basis, risk management and right-of-way protection will cover the Corporation for the potential damage and claims that might arise from use of such municipal assets.

There is a health and safety risk inherent in supplying ashtray disposal in that lit cigarettes are flammable. Risks associated with second hand smoke to passing pedestrians would also be increased should a smoking location be established on the public right-of-way.

Financial Matters:

There are no financial considerations associated with this information report. Should City Council wish to proceed with an installation, it is expected to cost $1,800 with maintenance costing an additional $1,000 annually.

Consultations:

Anne-Marie Albidone, Manager of Environmental Services, James Chacko, Manager of Parks Operations, and Adam Pillon, Manager of Right-of-Way were consulted with respect to the authoring of this report.

Conclusion:

Each installation of a bench and ashtray for use by smokers on the public right-of-way would cost $1,800 with a $1,000 annual operating cost.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 101 of 132 Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Windsor Regional Hospital, 1995 Lens Ave, Windsor, [email protected] Attn: David Musyj, ON N8W 1L9 President & CEO

Appendices: N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 102 of 132 Item 8.10

Council Report: C 219/2018

Subject: CQ39-2016 - Cost Neutral Options to Reinstate Promotional Program - First Hour Free Parking - Ward 3

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Shawna Boakes Senior Manager, Traffic Operations & Parking Services 519-255-6791 [email protected] Public Works - Operations Report Date: 12/6/2018 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT the report in response to CQ39-2016 – Cost Neutral Options to Reinstate Promotional Program – First Hour Free Parking BE RECEIVED by Council for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: At the meeting of City Council on August 22, 2016, Councillor Bortolin asked CQ39- 2016 as follows:

“asks that Administration prepare a report outlining the cost neutral options to reinstate the promotional program offering first hour free parking at garage 1 & 2 and that the report come back to Council as part of the 2017 budget deliberations later this year.”

Following this, the report of the City Engineer dated December 20, 2016 entitled “CQ39- 2016 – Cost Neutral Options to Reinstate Promotional Program – First Hour Free Parking” was deferred by Council to a future meeting to allow further opportunity for affected parties to review the information.

Discussion: The December 20, 2016 report outlined a total of six potential alternatives, which were as follows:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 103 of 132 1. 1 hour free parking for all parkers (former practice) in both garages. 2. 1 hour free parking for all parkers parking under 3 hours in both garages. 3. 1 hour free parking for those parking 1 hour or less in both garages – full fee if parking is greater than 1 hour. 4. Use of parking vouchers (paper tokens) for parkers. 5. First hour free parking for Parking Garage 2 (Pelissier) only. 6. First hour free parking for Parking Garage 2 (Pelissier) only for those parking two hours or less.

The Downtown Windsor BIA (DWBIA) reviewed the information in Council Report C240/2016 and indicated a preference for Option #6. This option provides the first hour free parking for those parking two (2) hours or less, in the Garage 2 (Pelissier Garage) only. The cost of implementing this option was projected to be approximately $52,000 for 2017 based on 2016 utilization rates.

The DWBIA further indicated a desire to increase hourly rates for lots in the BIA to recover the lost revenues from the garage in the hopes of making this promotional program cost neutral.

Parking fees are established to achieve several goals. These include maintaining a self- funding program as funding for parking is not funded from the property tax levy, maintaining a surplus balance in the Off Street Parking Reserve, maintaining the assets of the parking program, maintaining reasonable rates and creating turn over of cars utilizing the parking facilities.

On-street parking meters are the prime parking option, as such rates are highest due to meters being the most convenient location and to encourage turnover. Time limits are typically two (2) hours or less. Parking garages and lots have lower hourly rates than on-street meters as they are less convenient and have longer limits (three hours to no time limit) thereby encouraging parking when longer stays are required. Additionally, the facilities offer monthly parking, typically used by employees or residents in the area.

Raising the hourly rates for lots in the downtown district would have a negative impact on utilization of the lots as parkers would likely find the increase unacceptable for the inconvenience compared with the other options available (meters and garages). Currently lots are the least convenient location for parking and therefore increasing the fees would not likely increase revenues enough to cover the cost of the suggested free hour parking at the garage. In addition, revenue for the lots, meters and garages are tracked separately and by facility. It is possible but it would be difficult to attribute an increase in other facilities to the loss seen at the garage. Based on Administration’s review, it does not appear that increasing the hourly rates at lots will recover the lost revenue, and therefore this option is not recommended.

To properly account for the revenue losses and gains, it would be more appropriate to assess the recovery potential by considering options to increase the hourly rate at the Pelissier garage. The first hour would be free but the hourly rate would need to increase from $1.50 to $2.00. While the estimated numbers suggest this to be a somewhat cost neutral option, there is some risk in the numbers as hourly garage

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 104 of 132 usage has been decreasing in recent years. Details on the financial impact of raising rates at the Pelissier Street garage are outlined in the Financial Matters section of this report.

It should also be noted that in December 2017, subsequent to the request by Council to assess option 6 as stated above, the City implemented a new mobile parking application entitled Passport. The application allows for merchants to pay for their customers parking by printing vouchers to be handed out at their discretion. A merchant may print as many vouchers as they choose, however they are only charged the vouchers that are claimed by their customers. This option is similar to that described as Option #4 in C240/2016. This is the only option that would be truly cost neutral to the City. This option would not result in an increase in hourly rates at the garage or lots.

As previously noted, the Municipal Parking Program is a self-funded program. No funding from the tax base goes to parking. The Off Street Parking Reserve only returned to a surplus balance in 2017 after many years in a deficit position. For 2018, the anticipated balance in the Off Street Parking Reserve is expected to reach approximately $500,000. Implementing programs where revenues are foregone may ultimately have a negative impact on the reserve and ongoing sustainability may not be achievable.

Risk Analysis: The Pelissier Street garage has 346 spaces on levels 1 through 4 with approximately 297 monthly permits currently issued for these floors. The ground floor has 42 parking spaces for hourly parkers which has recently been extended to allow monthly parking also. This leaves approximately 49 parking spaces available for non-permit holders during regular day time hours.

There is a possibility that with an increase in hourly parkers, the Pelissier Street garage may overfill. In winter months, it is not uncommon to close the upper floor due to snow and ice build up, and for public safety. This would translate into a loss of approximately 80 spaces, forcing the City to arrange for temporary relocation of permit holders.

By providing the 1 hour free parking, it is anticipated that the number of hourly parkers would increase in the Pelissier Garage which would limit the number of available spaces at any given time; therefore, monthly permit holders would potentially have to be accommodated elsewhere at City lots or meters. Moving permit holders would result in additional lost revenue for the City as monthly rates for lots are substantially lower than garage rates.

There is also a risk that by increasing the rates of the Pelissier Garage and not the Goyeau Garage, patrons will choose to use the Goyeau Garage hence further lowering the revenue of the Pelissier Garage as estimated below. Financial Matters: For purposes of this analysis Administration has assumed that the number of customers parking for 2 hours or less when the first hour is free, will double as compared to current numbers. This is based on an analysis of the impact the first hour free had on the

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 105 of 132 garages when it was previously implemented. It is also realistic to assume the utilization of the garage would decrease if the hourly rates are higher. The assessment of the various options shown below assumes a 10% reduction of parkers above 2 hours if the garage rates were increased to $1.75 per hour and a 20% reduction of parkers above 2 hours if the garage rates were increased to $2.00 per hour.

Based on the number of average parkers when the previous free 1 hour parking was offered, the lost revenue may be close to $52,500 per year. This is consistent with estimates based on the average of the 2016-2017 parking numbers.

In an effort to calculate how a cost neutral model allowing for 1-hour free parking in the Pelissier Street Garage could be achieved, a number of options were reviewed. A summary of the options considered and their resulting affect on revenue are shown below:

Options Projected (Loss)

of Revenue

Option 1: Provide 1st hour free parking in the Pelissier Street ($52,500) Garage with no increase in the current rate of $1.50 per hour

Option 2: Provide 1st hour free parking in the Pelissier Street Garage with no increase in the current garage rate of $1.50 per ($37,800) hour and increase hourly rates for downtown lots only by $0.25 per hour

Option 3: Provide 1st hour free parking in the Pelissier Street Garage with an Increase in the current garage rate of $1.50 per ($17,400) hour to $1.75 per hour

Option 4: Provide 1st hour free parking in the Pelissier Street Garage with an increase in the current garage rate of $1.50 per ($4,700) hour to $2.00 per hour

Option 5: Have BIA merchants provide free parking vouchers to No cost to City their customers at their expense

Note: All options above include consideration for only the Pelissier Street Garage and downtown lots. No consideration was given to the Goyeau Street Garage or other lots not in the immediate downtown core.

The financial estimates in the table above are based on an average number of parkers from 2016 and 2017 and may be subject to variability given the assumptions utilized for the analysis. The only potential scenario that somewhat approaches a cost neutral option would be Option 5 which increases the hourly rate of the Pelissier Street garage to $2.00. Alternatively, with the use of the Passport Parking application the BIA merchants could provide free parking vouchers to their customers (Option 6), at their expense with no cost impact to the City. This would result in the only truly, cost neutral

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 106 of 132 option. Increasing the hourly rates of the downtown lots would result in some cost recovery but not enough to cover the losses anticipated.

Consultations:

Cindy Becker – Financial Planning Administrator – Public Works Operations

Natasha Couvillon – Manager of Performance Measurement & Financial Administration

Conclusion: Administration does NOT recommend the re-instatement of free parking at the Pelissier garage. Merchants in the DWBIA are encouraged to utilize the Passport Merchant Validation application. Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Cindy Becker Financial Planning Administrator – Public Works Operations

Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Joe Mancina City Treasurer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 107 of 132 Item 8.11

Council Report: S 24/2019

Subject: Right-of-Way Restoration Update

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Andrew Dowie Executive Initiatives Coordinator (519) 255-6247 ext. 6005 [email protected] City Engineer Report Date: 1/24/2019 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the Report of the City Engineer regarding the use of alternative grass restoration products in the public Right-of-Way BE RECEIVED for information.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

CR452/2017 was adopted at the August 8, 2017, meeting of City Council, reading:

I. That the report entitled CQ 17-2017 “Standards for Public Right of Way and Private Property Restoration as a Result of Works Undertaken in the Public Right of Way”, BE RECEIVED for information; and,

II. That Administration REPORT BACK on the results of the alternative product to be used on a road rehabilitation project; and,

III. That Administration REPORT BACK regarding an alternative restoration service delivery model being contemplated for the 2018 construction season; and

IV. That Administration PROVIDE additional information regarding the need to strengthen the language used in the administrative report regarding the superiority of seed and fallibility of sod; and,

V. That administration REPORT BACK regarding options to turf grass which would satisfy current right of way standards.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 108 of 132 Discussion:

Continuing complaints are being reported from residents with respect to boulevard repair because of construction projects. These complaints are received by both members of City Council and by Administration.

The City typically replaces disturbed grass on the public right-of-way with either sod or seed.

Seed is typically the most preferred restoration method as it is more enduring and can withstand being placed in more difficult climate conditions. Particularly with the advent of the ban on herbicides, there is significant weed development in newly seeded areas once contractor maintenance times elapse and resident maintenance begins.

The difficulty inherent in sod is that while it provides a clean product at time of installation, it requires maintenance that is more intensive in order to survive. This is similar to the success of seeding products. Resident maintenance begins once contractor maintenance times elapse. It is usually at this time when the condition declines rapidly, especially if the property owner does not continue proper care and maintenance.

An investigation was made into alternative products that might prove to be more durable and able to withstand difficult growing conditions. Administration became aware of a product named Organic Express, which was comprised of an organic growing medium with grass seed dispersed throughout the product. The product was installed in the fall of 2017 and reviewed as part of the Milloy Avenue - Chandler to Meldrum - Mill and Pave project in 2018.

Previous discussions with local landscape companies have emphasized that the timing of the restoration work was the most important contributor affecting grass restoration and not the product itself.

Ultimately, this was proven correct. Despite the substitution of the product for properties alongside the regular seed product, there was no discernable difference in quality or performance from previous restoration efforts.

Accordingly, Administration does not recommend any further action regarding the specification of seed or sod products at this time.

Risk Analysis:

There is no change of risk inherent with the recommendation.

Financial Matters:

There is no financial impact inherent with the recommendation.

Consultations:

Wade Bondy, Contracts Coordinator

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 109 of 132 Wes Hicks, Senior Manager of Engineering and Geomatics

Conclusion:

While an alternative product for Right-of-Way restoration was piloted in accordance with CR452/2017, its performance did not exceed that of the approved products within the City’s current construction specifications.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 110 of 132 Item 8.12

Council Report: S 31/2019

Subject: Commute Ontario Partnership

Reference: Date to Council: 2/20/2019 Author: Averil Parent Environment & Sustainability Coordinator 519-253-7111 ext 3290 [email protected] Pollution Control Report Date: 1/29/2019 Clerk’s File #: ST/13409

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT City Council APPROVE participation in SustainMobility’s Transportation Demand Management Program “Commute Ontario”, and THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to take any such action required to effect the recommendation noted above and sign any required documentation for SustainMobility, satisfactory in legal form to the City Solicitor, in technical content to the City Engineer and in financial content to the City Treasurer.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a proven strategy for promoting active and healthy travel options, encouraging carpooling and public transit and therefore reducing single occupancy vehicle travel. As a result, successful TDM programs have proven to reduce vehicle km travel and their associated negative impacts such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG’s), air pollution, traffic congestion and sedentary lifestyles.

TDM programs typically include, but are not limited to the following:

 Carpooling programs supported by online ride-matching tools;  Walking and cycling programs that encourage active transportation;

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 111 of 132  Programs that encourage public transit;  Programs that encourage telework and flexible work schedules;  Marketing programs that promote behaviour change (including incentives and rewards).

There are several TDM programs in Ontario currently. The Smart Commute Program is the most extensive and services Hamilton, Halton Region, Region of Peel, Toronto, York Region and Durham Region. This program is delivered to more than 330 workplaces and post-secondary institutions through 13 local offices in the GTA. Together the program reaches more than 721,000 employees and students.

The City of London in partnership with municipalities in Southwestern Ontario manages the Regional Ride Share Program. This online carpooling program services 26 employers, plus members of the public in Southwestern Ontario. The Niagara Ride Share program is also limited to carpooling only. The Region of Waterloo manages the Travel Wise program which has many elements of a strong TDM program. This program is available to 24 workplaces in the region.

Discussion:

SustainMobility is an incorporated not-for-profit organization located in Mississauga that has been delivering workplace based transportation demand management (TDM) based programs for more than ten years.

The group has recently been awarded an Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant to expand their services across Ontario. They launched Commute Ontario (www.commuteontario.ca) in the fall of 2018. Grant funding will cover all program expenses to April 30 2021 during which time SustainMobility hopes to build a compelling business case for the program.

SustainMobility wishes to collaborate with the City of Windsor to assist with the development of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. The Project is intended to provide opportunities for residents of Windsor to engage in initiatives promoting the reduction of single occupancy vehicle travel through carpooling, walking, cycling and public transit usage. The Commute Ontario Project would be delivered at no additional cost to the City of Windsor and the term of the commitment is to April 30 2021.

In addition to providing programs for local businesses to encourage participation, the City of Windsor itself could participate as an employer and encourage staff to use alternate forms of transportation to commute to work.

The following Ontario municipalities have entered into agreements with SustainMobility for their Commute Ontario Project: Peterborough, London, Kingston, Thunder Bay and Barrie among others.

The following programs and tools will be available to the City of Windsor as part of the two year Commute Ontario initiative:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 112 of 132 1. Access to the Commute Ontario Information Portal – Organizations can download all relevant files and marketing materials required to support the Project. Employees can access the portal to find links and information for campaigns, resources, tools and other materials. 2. Regional Ride-Matching Tool – Organizations will have a network on the online ride-matching tool that allows commuters to plan routes, find and share rides with colleagues, and measure the impact of their travel choices. 3. Active Switch Program – Allows users to track their active travel behaviour and monitor the impact of active travel on their health and the environment. 4. Emergency Ride Home Program – Provides a reimbursement to employees to cover commuting expenses related to a personal emergency on a day when the employee used a sustainable travel mode to get to work. 5. Marketing Programs – A variety of electronic marketing and communications materials are available to assist in promoting the project to our employees. Examples include: carpooling campaign, cycling campaign, transit month campaign, walktober campaign, monthly rewards program.

Also included in the program will be tracking tools to measure return on investment. The agreement with SustainMobility for the Commute Ontario Project shall expire on April 30, 2021. Upon that time, discussions will ensue regarding continuing the initiative and its programs.

Transportation demand management programs further many City of Windsor Plan and Policy goals, including but not limited to:

1. Environmental Master Plan a. Objective A4: Reduce and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions b. Objective A8: Reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips of staff and residents 2. Community Energy Plan a. Strategy 9: Encourage a Modal Shift towards Public Transit b. Strategy 10: Encourage Active Transportation 3. Bicycle Use Master Plan a. Strategy 4.2: Promoting Cycling Awareness b. Cycling Goals: double the number of cycling trips and increase the modal split 4. Active Transportation Master Plan a. By 2041, the target is to have 25% of all commute trips be made by walking, cycling, and transit.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 113 of 132 Risk Analysis:

There are no significant or critical risks associated with the partnership with SustainMobility for the Commute Ontario Project.

Financial Matters:

There is no financial cost to participate in this initiative. All program costs are being covered by SustainMobility as a result of an Ontario Trillium Fund Grant for the term of the project (April 30 2021). Upon expiration of the agreement, administration will discuss the business case for continuing participation in the Commute Ontario Project.

A small amount of staff time will be required to promote Commute Ontario programs as well as track results. This will be the responsibility of Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change staff.

Consultations:

Transportation Planning

Workplace Wellness – Sarah Fox

Conclusion:

Upon completion of this two year initiative, the City of Windsor will have collaborated with SustainMobility as well as other municipalities to introduce and implement transportation demand management programs as part of the Commute Ontario Project. If successful these programs will help decrease emissions and help to improve quality of life for Windsor residents.

Approvals: Name Title

Karina Supervisor, Environmental Sustainability & Climate Change Richters

Sergio Acting Senior Manager, Pollution Control Mannina

Mark City Engineer and Corporate Leader for Environmental, Transportation Winterton and Transit

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Glenn Gumulka 4080 Confederation [email protected] Executive Director Parkway Suite 202

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 114 of 132 Name Address Email

Sustain Mobility Mississauga ON L5B 0G1

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 115 of 132 Item 9.1

Council Report: S 181/2018

Subject: Transit Windsor - West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project Update - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Pat Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor 519-944-4141 ext 2232 and

Colleen Middaugh Project Administrator 519-255-6100 ext 6603 [email protected]

Transit Windsor Report Date: 10/30/2018 Clerk’s File #: MT/13046

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee, acting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors and City Council RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION the West End Transit Terminal Project Update report; and further,

THAT CR 109/2018 be AMENDED to allow the flexibility of negotiating a licensing or lease agreement as follows:

I. THAT Administration BE AUTHORIZED to negotiate either a licensing or lease agreement with Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare Hospital (Tayfour Campus) for a West End Transit Terminal and to engage in any resulting contract negotiations; and further,

II. THAT the CAO and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the resulting licensing or lease agreement subject to approval as to form and legal content by the City Solicitor, technical content by the City Engineer and to financial content by the City Treasurer.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 116 of 132 Executive Summary:

N/A.

Background:

In 1998, Transit Windsor relocated its West End Terminal location from Mill Street to the corner of College Avenue and Brock Street. This location currently serves as a west end transfer point for transit routes (Transway 1C, Crosstown 2, South Windsor 7 and Central 3) and accommodates a four bus bay platform, bus shelters and parking. On any given weekday, approximately 192 trips utilize this terminal location.

Until recently, Transit Windsor was also leasing an approximately 400 square foot lunch room area inside the College Avenue Community Centre (CACC) which was located across the street from the West End Transit Terminal site. This lunch area was used solely by Transit operators for their breaks. In fall 2017, Transit was required to vacate the space within CACC for Windsor Essex Community Health Centre (WECHC). As an interim measure, Transit Windsor set up trailers at the terminal site for operators to use for their breaks.

In the transit industry, traditionally a terminal site is located close to fare generators such as a mall, hospital, or large residential areas. While there are some residential dwellings in the vicinity of CACC, it is not a large draw for transit ridership that a fare generating transit terminal is expected to have.

Below is an excerpt from the Transit Supportive Guidelines document issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in 2012:

“...transit stations should be designed to optimize their potential as transit- supportive places. Plans should be put in place to capitalize on new development and place-making opportunities that can help to integrate them into their surroundings and support connections between various modes of movement.”

A new site for the transit terminal, that better meets the MTO’s Transit Supportive Guidelines, has been identified on the Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare (HDGH) Tayfour Campus located at 1453 Prince Road. The mix of residential and service uses in the area will support transit ridership and promote a more vibrant pedestrian environment.

There are many benefits to this proposed location, which include better route connectivity, continued revitalization of the area and providing direct access to healthcare to patients, visitors and staff. The facility would also allow for passengers with longer layover times to use the hospital facility as an indoor waiting area, complete with cafe.

To begin operating at this location, it is anticipated that the following improvements are required: four to six paved bus bay platforms; two to three new bus shelters; site lighting; real time signage; landscaping and urban design; accommodations for Transit operators for their breaks and lunches, etc.

At their meeting of February 26, 2018, City Council approved CR 109/2018 as follows:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 117 of 132 III. That Administration BE AUTHORIZED to negotiate a licensing agreement with Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare Hospital (Tayfour Campus) for a West End Transit Terminal and to engage in any resulting contract negotiations; and further,

IV. That the CAO and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the resulting agreement subject to approval as to form and legal content by the City Solicitor, technical content by the City Engineer and to financial content by the City Treasurer.

Discussion:

In January 2018, City Council authorized Administration to negotiate a licensing agreement with HDGH for a west end transit terminal with CR 109/2018. In discussions with representatives from HDGH the possibility of entering into either a lease or a license agreement was tabled. It is Administration’s recommendation that a lease may offer benefits regarding tenure on the land that a license may not afford. Ultimately, it may come down to what HDGH will agree to. However, we would like the flexibility of negotiating an agreement that gives Transit Windsor the greatest security in the length of time it will use the land as a transit terminal.

On March 8, 2018, Transit Windsor hosted a public information meeting at the HDGH campus to discuss the proposed location and seek comments and suggestions for the new terminal site at HDGH. Approximately 25 people attended this session.

In March 2018, Dillon Consulting was retained by the City to undertake the design of the new terminal and to assist with the construction tendering process. As part of Dillon’s scope, the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), under Ontario Regulation 231/08, was initiated and the Notice of Study Commencement was filed. A TPAP acts as an expedited Environmental Assessment (EA) whereby the environmental effects of a transit project are analyzed. Based on its intended function in transferring passengers between routes, it was understood that the project qualified under the requirements of the TPAP.

A second public information meeting was held at MacKenzie hall on July 31, 2018, to further discuss the proposed location for the new terminal, and to present the alternative design options being considered, along with the preferred site alternative. Approximately 20 people were in attendance to share their ideas and comments. Response letters will be distributed to those who submitted formal comments.

At this meeting, Transit Windsor also presented the proposed routing changes related to the new terminal site. These routing changes are required in order to re-route buses to travel to the new terminal location and to better streamline transit service. A number of individuals raised concerns with the impacts to the existing transit routes. Based on the comments received, Transit Windsor is reviewing alternative options to the proposed routes to ensure riders in the area of College Avenue and Brock Street continue to have sufficient transit service in their neighbourhood. Since Transit Windsor is already undergoing a complete Service Delivery Review on existing service, the consultant for that study (also Dillon Consulting, under a separate contract), will assist in reviewing the

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 118 of 132 routing options to ensure they are linked with the work being done with regards to city wide transit service. A separate report will be brought forward in early 2019 to approve any proposed routing changes.

In August 2018, consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) advised that due to the nature of the works, the project does not meet the requirements to proceed through the TPAP. As such, Administration will proceed with the required steps to cancel the TPAP as required by the Regulation (i.e. Notice of Study Withdrawal). The work completed on this project to date is consistent with the City’s planning and design objectives, including public and stakeholder engagement.

Dillon Consulting is currently working towards finalizing the transit terminal design based on the preferred site alternative. The project is scheduled to be tendered in early 2019, with construction anticipated to commence in the spring/summer 2019.

Risk Analysis:

There are moderate risks associated with relocating CACC transit terminal from its existing location. The current accommodation using a trailer at CACC is short term in nature and is not sustainable for permanent use. Also, given the current construction market, there is potential risk for quotes to come in higher than budget. All efforts will be taken to minimize exposure to higher quotes.

Financial Matters:

As part of an announcement made in 2016, the Federal government established a Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF) to accelerate short-term investments to support the rehabilitation of transit systems. The City of Windsor provided matching funds for PTIF. To optimize the use of this funding, Transit Windsor identified and received approval for various transit projects, including the relocation of West End Transit Terminal.

There is an expectation that there will be some operating budget required to maintain the terminal site to include snow removal, salting, shelter maintenance, and facility cleaning. A small budget is currently in Transit Windsor’s Operating Budget for the current location at CACC. These dollars will be transferred to the new location. If additional dollars are required that exceed the current allocated budget a request will be brought forward.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 119 of 132 Consultations:

Tony Houad, Senior Manager of Fleet and Support Services

Sue Grimmett, Program Manager, Corporate Projects for Transit Windsor

Victor Ferranti, Manager of Capital Budget and Reserves

Natasha Couvillon, Manager of Performance Measurement & Financial Administration

Mark Nazarewich, Senior Legal Counsel

Frank Scarfone, Manager Real Estate Services

Conclusion:

A transit connection terminal is key to a vibrant community. It links transit riders to a valued service, connecting riders and linking to the greater community. A transit terminal in the west end of the City is crucial to providing current transit service as well as providing a location with future growth opportunities. With potential for expanding routes to adjoining municipalities, the opportunity to relocate this terminal is timely.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Pat Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor

France Isabelle-Tunks Senior Manager, Development, Projects & Right of Way

Mark Winterton City Engineer and Corporate Leader Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Services

Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader Economic Development and Public Safety

Janice Guthrie On behalf of Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Leader of Finance and Technology

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 120 of 132

Notifications: Name Address Email

Amilcar Nogweira 13-11, 308 Randolph [email protected] Ave, Windsor, ON N9B 2T4

John Elliot 3581 Wolfe Crt, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 1X2

Judith McCullough 1320 Victoria, Windsor, [email protected] ON N8X 1P1

Joan Mavrinac 168 Campbell Ave, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9B 2H2

Terry Kennedy 3248 Baby St, Windsor, n/a ON N9C 1K5

Mary Ann Cuderman 3118 Sandwich St, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 1A6

Rita Higgins 851 Curry Ave, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9B 2C1

Krysta Glovasky- 3215 Candlewood [email protected]; Ridsdale Cres, Windsor, ON [email protected] N8W 5M8

Pierre Pignal 1450 Redwood Ave, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 3P3

Philippa Von 6396 Riverside Dr. E., [email protected] Zielenweidt Windsor, ON N8S 1B9

Dana Taylor 3945 Matchette Rd, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 4C2

Leo Gil 635 McEwan Ave, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9B 2E9

Jenn Mandzuk 1440 Prince Rd, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 3A9

Frances De Lauw 3721 Montcalm St, n/a Windsor, ON N9C 2B1

Richard Thurston 737 Ouellette Ave, [email protected] #1612, Windsor, ON

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 121 of 132 Name Address Email

N9A 6T2

Ron Riberdy 3860 Glenfield St, [email protected] Windsor, ON N9C 2B2

Caroline Taylor 3556 Queen, Windsor, [email protected] ON N9C 1N7

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 122 of 132 Item 9.2

Council Report: S 30/2019

Subject: Transit Windsor - West End Transit Terminal Relocation Project - Pre-Commitment of Funds - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019

Author: Pat Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor 519-944-4141 ext 2232 [email protected] and

Colleen Middaugh Project Administrator 519-255-6100 ext 6603 [email protected]

Transit Windsor Report Date: 1/25/2019 Clerk’s File #: MT/13046

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT City Council APPROVE the overall project budget of $1,628,000 for the design and construction of a new West End Transit Terminal to BE FUNDED as follows:

a) Previously approved funding of $100,000 from the 2017 Capital Budget, Transit Windsor – West End Terminal (TRN-003-17, Project ID #7171037);

b) Previously approved PTIF grant funding of $100,000 per CR 164/2017;

c) Pre-commit $1,428,000 identified in the proposed 2019 7- year capital budget under the Transit Windsor – West End Terminal project (TRN-003-17); and THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the requisite agreement, subject to the tender results falling within the approved budget satisfactory in legal form to the City Solicitor, in technical content to the City Engineer and in financial content to the City Treasurer, with a communication report to Council to follow; and

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 123 of 132 THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign any agreement or applications necessary to achieve the above purposes, subject to the contract being within the approved budget, satisfactory in legal form to the City Solicitor, in financial content to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer, and in technical content to the City Engineer; and

THAT the City Planner BE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY to approve the Site Plan Control Application.

Executive Summary:

N/A.

Background:

A new site for the transit terminal has been identified on the Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare (HDGH) Tayfour Campus located at 1453 Prince Road. The mix of residential and service uses in the area will support transit ridership and promote a more vibrant pedestrian environment.

The project involves the design and construction of a new transit terminal, which will include, but is not limited to:

 Four paved bus bay platforms;  Two new bus shelters;  Site lighting;  Real time signage;  Landscaping and urban design.

At their meeting of February 26, 2018, City Council approved CR 109/2018 (ETPS 568):

I. THAT Administration BE AUTHORIZED to negotiate a licensing agreement with Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare Hospital (Tayfour Campus) for a West End Transit Terminal and to engage in any resulting contract negotiations; and further

II. THAT the CAO and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the resulting agreement subject to approval as to form and legal content by the City Solicitor, technical content by the City Engineer and to financial content by the City Treasurer.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 124 of 132

Discussion:

The planning and design work on the new West End Transit Terminal project is currently underway. Work to date includes: - Ongoing discussions with representatives from HDGH regarding the licensing agreement. - Award of contract for planning and design consulting services. - Two public information meetings (March 8 & July 31, 2018). - Ongoing review of the proposed routing changes related to the new terminal site. - Review of preliminary design and alternative design layout options. - Commencement with detailed design. - Initiation of Site Plan Approval process.

It is important to have the new terminal operational in advance of the next school year to ensure seamless transition of the new proposed routing. Should the construction start be delayed beyond early spring, it may be necessary to continue operations at the College Avenue site until late 2019, or 2020.

In order to continue to the next phase and expedite construction, administration is also requesting that the Site Plan Approval for the project be delegated to the City Planner.

Risk Analysis:

There are moderate risks associated with not relocating the terminal from its existing location. The current accommodation is short-term in nature and is not sustainable for permanent use.

In addition, given the current construction market, there is potential risk for quotes to come in higher than budget. All efforts will be taken to minimize exposure to higher quotes.

Financial Matters:

The estimated cost of the proposed design and construction work is as follows:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 125 of 132 Budget Estimate Budget Item (excluding tax)

Construction Cost $1,261,000

Professional Fees $205,000

Miscellaneous $45,000

Contingency $117,000

GROSS PROJECT COSTS $1,628,000

Transit Windsor has an established Capital project (ID#7171037) for the West End Transit Terminal with approved funding of $200,000 (of which $100,000 is PTIF). During the 2018 budget process, $548,000 was identified as a placeholder for 2019 as part of the six-year Capital plan; however, this funding was not formally approved. Following the 2018 Capital budget approval, the full scope of the construction works were developed. The additional cost is attributed to a better defined scope, cost inflation, and utility conflicts/relocations. The estimated additional funding required to complete this project is $880,000. The project was able to be funded through the reprioritization and reallocation of Transit Windsor and Public Works capital projects in the 7-year capital plan.

The table below outlines the recommended funding for this project:

Funding Source Amount

Funding from 2017 Capital Project Budget $100,000

PTIF Grant Funding (CR 164/2017) $100,000

Funding from Sewer Surcharge $50,000

Funding from 2019 Pay As You Go – Capital Reserve $1,378,000

GROSS FUNDING/REVENUE $1,628,000

To fully fund this project, required funding of $1,428,000 will need to be pre-committed from the 2019 Capital Budget. This funding is currently identified and earmarked for this project in the draft seven-year plan.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 126 of 132 Consultations:

Tony Houad, Senior Manager of Fleet and Support Services for Transit Windsor

Rachel Chesterfield, Financial Planning Administrator, Acting FPA for Transit Windsor

Sue Grimmett, Program Manager, Corporate Projects for Transit Windsor

Victor Ferranti, Manager of Capital Budget and Reserves for City of Windsor

Natasha Couvillon, Manager of Performance Measurement & Financial Administration for City of Windsor

Jason Campigotto, Planner II

Conclusion:

Administration is recommending that the new West End Transit Terminal project be funded as outlined in this report.

Administration is also recommending pre-approval of contracts within the approved budget, and that the City Planner be delegated the authority to approve the Site Plan Control Application. This will allow the project to proceed with construction award and for work to begin as soon as practical.

Planning Act Matters:

N/A.

Approvals: Name Title

Patrick Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor

France Isabelle-Tunks Senior Manager, Development, Projects & Right of Way / Deputy City Engineer

Thom Hunt City Planner

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 127 of 132 Name Title

Mark Winterton City Engineer and Corporate Leader Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Services

Joe Mancina Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Leader of Finance and Technology

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices: N/A

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 128 of 132 Item 9.3

Council Report: S 38/2019

Subject: Transit Windsor - Ridership Statistics as at December 31, 2018 - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: February 20, 2019 Author: Stephan Habrun Manager of Operations, Transit Windsor 519-944-4141 ext 2226 [email protected] Transit Windsor Report Date: 2/1/2019 Clerk’s File #: MT2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee, sitting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION the year to date ridership information as at December 31, 2018.

Executive Summary:

N/A.

Background: Transit Windsor collects ridership data on a monthly basis from the electronic fareboxes. Administration continually monitors ridership trends for various purposes such as service changes and budgetary implications, as well as reporting statistics to the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) and the Ministry of Ontario for Gas Tax funding.

Discussion: The year to date ridership, as at December 31, 2018, is 8,182,290 compared to 6,719,622 for the year ending December 31, 2017. This represents an increase of 1,462,668 one-way rides or 22%. This percentage increase is well above the industry trend, which is a record for Transit Windsor, as many transit properties are seeing less than 2% increases in ridership. The chart below indicates ridership categories and the increases or decreases in each ridership group.

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 129 of 132 RIDERSHIP STATISTICS

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2018

COMBINED CASH AND % 2018 2017 Inc/(Dec) PASS Inc/(Dec)

Adult 2,396,362 2,510,169 (113,807) (5%)

Student 4,797,317 3,119,971 1,677,346 54%

Senior 740,661 765,139 (24,478) (3%)

Child <5 65,647 128,121 (62,474) (49%)

Tunnel 182,303 196,222 (13,919) (7%)

Combined Total 8,182,290 6,719,622 1,462,668 22%

The positive ridership numbers indicate the highest increase in the student category, which includes high school and post secondary students. The main reason for this increase is due to the nearly 5,000 new international students attending St Clair College. At the beginning of January 2018, the international students arrived and Transit Windsor started experiencing a significant increase in student ridership for St. Clair College routes on the Dominion 5, Dougall 6, and South Windsor 7. Since then, there has been a ridership increase overall in almost all Transit Windsor regular routes, as the students are using the transit system not just to go to college, but around the city for shopping and recreational trips. Ridership has not only gone up during weekdays, but on weekends as well, where service is already limited. At the end of 2018, the Dominion 5 has had an increase of 108% in ridership, the Dougall 6 a 73% increase in ridership, and the South Windsor 7 a 106% increase in ridership.

The major increase in ridership presented operational challenges with the increased demand in service. The Dominion 5 and South Windsor 7 have had numerous issues of passengers being bypassed by overloaded buses in 2018. St. Clair College express trips were created initially and then changed to Dominion 5 express trips later in the year to help address this, but it was still an issue during peak hours. Beginning in 2019, the Transway 1C, Dominion 5, and South Windsor 7 had service frequencies increased to help address the service demands. The Dominion 5 is now 20 minutes all day on weekdays from its previous frequency of 25 minutes during the day and every hour at night. The South Windsor 7 is now 30 minutes all day on weekdays from its previous frequency of 50 minutes all day.

The Transway 1C had its service increased to 10-minute frequency during the day on weekdays from previous funding from U-Pass revenue with the University of Windsor, which continues to provide a boost in ridership. The U-Pass has had a direct impact on increasing ridership at the University of Windsor bus stops for the Transway 1C and Crosstown 2 routes and further across the entire Transit system. Another important note to make is that in 2017/2018 school year, the Organization of Part-Time University

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 130 of 132 Students (OPUS) at the University of Windsor became part of the U-Pass. This resulted in adults in this organization moving into the student category. The current 3-year U- Pass program ends in March 2019 at which time a referendum is scheduled to make the program permanent. The other categories have all had a minor decrease in ridership. This could be contributed to a few different factors. First, there were large amounts of significant detours in 2018 due to some major construction projects that affected some major routes. A couple of significant construction projects that had major impacts for passengers were the Ouellette streetscape project and the Riverside Vista project. This could be a factor for passengers finding other means of transportation due to delayed arrival of buses because of detours or having to walk long distances to take the bus.

The Tunnel Bus route experienced a significant drop of 7% in ridership from the year before, which could be due to the tunnel ceiling construction project and the Detroit sports teams not attracting high attendance at sporting events. Another factor that could be a cause for the decrease in non-student categories is in direct relation to the student category. As a result of the large amount of international students going to St. Clair College directly from the downtown transit terminal, adults and seniors have found other means of transportation due to getting bypassed or waiting long periods of time.

Risk Analysis: It is important to monitor ridership numbers in the various categories, whether pass, ticket or cash fare, in order to establish patterns and target groups of riders.

Further, monthly ridership reports allow Administration to forecast year-end variances for budget purposes.

Financial Matters: Any increase in ridership will ultimately provide increased gas tax revenues in future years as the gas tax funding is based partly on ridership numbers. Windsor received $3,778,471 in Provincial Gas Tax funding for the 2017/2018 year. The amount of gas tax funding to be received for the 2018/2019 year is $3,912,359. Transit Windsor expects a significant increase for the 2019/2020 Provincial Gas Tax Program based on our 2018 ridership increase of 22%.

Consultations: Jason Scott, Planning Supervisor for Transit Windsor

Rachel Chesterfield, Financial Planning Administrator, Acting FPA for Transit Windsor

Conclusion: Administration is pleased with the positive swing in ridership numbers that were produced from the annual reports. However, Transit Windsor was not operationally prepared for the significant increase, as there were challenges in meeting the demands based on the equipment and staff. Transit Windsor will continue to explore short-term solutions to address these issues until a long-term plan can be implemented based on

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 131 of 132 the Transit Windsor Service Delivery Review that is currently ongoing and expected to be presented in fall 2019. What is fully recognized is that with increased ridership comes increased operating and capital costs. Increased service requires new vehicles to expand the fleet to meet on street service. Operating costs also increase with the need for additional staff, including operators, supervision, and maintenance staff. Ridership numbers for U-Pass will continue to be monitored in order to determine service enhancement requirements in the coming years. A referendum is to be held in March of 2019, as the 3-year agreement will end, in order to make it a permanent ongoing program.

Planning Act Matters:

N/A.

Approvals: Name Title

Patrick Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor

Mark Winterton City Engineer – Corporate Leader, Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Services

Joseph Mancina Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer – Corporate Leader, Finance & Technology

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

ETPS Standing Committee - February 20, 2019 Page 132 of 132