CITY OF WINDSOR AGENDA 08/29/2018
Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Meeting
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 Time: 4:30 o’clock p.m. Location: Council Chambers, 1st Floor, Windsor City Hall
MEMBERS:
Ward 1 - Councillor Francis
Ward 8 – Councillor Marra (Chairperson)
Ward 4 - Councillor Holt
Ward 9 - Councillor Payne
Ward 10 - Councillor Borrelli
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 1 of 110 ORDER OF BUSINESS
Item # Item Description 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ETPS STANDING COMMITTEE
3.1. Minutes of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting (excluding Transit matter items) held July 25, 2018 (SCM 307/2018)
Minutes of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting (Transit matter items only) held July 25, 2018 (SCM 307/2018)
4. REQUEST FOR DEFERRALS, REFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS
5. COMMUNICATIONS
6. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS
7. COMMITTEE MATTERS
7.1. Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held July 25, 2018 (SCM 306/2018)
7.2. Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held June 27, 2018 (SCM 291/2018)
8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
8.1. CQ 5-2018 - Funding for Riverside Drive Vista from Ford to Pillette (C 142/2018)
8.2. Review of Winter Maintenance - CQ53-2017(SW2017), CQ3-2018 (SW2018), CQ4-2018 (SWQ2018) and 120. WAAC Report - City Wide (C 92/2018)
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 110 8.3. Pedestrian Crossovers - CITY-WIDE (S 90/2018)
8.4. Calderwood Avenue Pedestrian Crossings and Intersection Control - WARD 9 (S 91/2018)
8.5. Request to Abandon Portions of the McGill and Rivard Drains on Airport Lands - Ward 9 (S 126/2018)
8.6. CQ27-2017 - First Responders Signage in Parks (S 122/2018)
9. TRANSIT BOARD ITEMS
9.1. Operating Agreement Between Transit Windsor and the Corporation of the City of Windsor (S 131/2018)
10. ADOPTION OF TRANSIT BOARD MINUTES
11. QUESTION PERIOD
12. ADJOURNMENT
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 3 of 110 Item 3.1
Committee Matters: SCM 307/2018
Subject: Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee minutes of its meeting held July 25, 2018
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 4 of 110 CITY OF WINDSOR MINUTES 07/25/2018
Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Meeting
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Time: 4:30 o’clock p.m.
Members Present:
Chairperson Chairperson Marra
Councillors Ward 1 - Councillor Francis Ward 4 - Councillor Holt Ward 8 – Councillor Marra (Chairperson) Ward 9 - Councillor Payne Ward 10 - Councillor Borrelli
Also present are the following from Administration:
Mark Winterton, Community Leader, City Engineer Dwayne Dawson, Executive Director Operations Ray Mensour, Executive Director Recreation & Culture Pat Delmore, Executive Director Transit Windsor John Wolf, Senior Manager Traffic Operations Cathy Masterson, Manager Cultural Affairs Barry Horrobin, Director of Planning & Physical Resources Sandra Gebauer, Council Secretariat
Delegations
Item 8.1 Steve Taylor, President, BT Engineering Item 8.3 Sheila Wisdom, Executive Director, Windsor Symphony Orchestra Item 8.3 Walter Cassidy, Walkerville Collegiate Institute, Arts Department Head Item 8.3 David Lenz, President, Windsor-Essex Pride Fest
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 5 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 2 of 9
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairperson calls the meeting of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee to order at 4:30 o‘clock p.m.
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
None disclosed.
3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ETPS STANDING COMMITTEE
3.1. Adoption of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee of its meeting held June 20, 2018
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli
THAT the Minutes of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee meeting held June 20, 2018 BE ADOPTED as presented. Carried.
Report Number: SCM 259/2018
4. REQUEST FOR DEFERRALS, REFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS
None requested.
5. COMMUNICATIONS
None presented.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 6 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 3 of 9
6. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS
See Item 8.1 and 8.3.
7. COMMITTEE MATTERS
None.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
8.1. Tecumseh Road West Environmental Assessment - Final Draft ESR - Ward 3 and Ward 10
Steve Taylor, P. Eng. M. Eng. CVS-Life, P.E, President, BT Engineering
Steve Taylor, President, BT Engineering, appears before the Environment Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee regarding the report Tecumseh Road West Environmental Assessment – Final Draft ESR, and provides an overview of the site recommendations and explains to the Committee members that he is asking for direction to file the final study documentation. Mr. Taylor explains that the study area is along Tecumseh Rd. West from Crawford Avenue to Janette Avenue and was built on the Tecumseh Road West Corridor Master Plan (1994) and the Master Plan Addendum (2001) and adds that reconstruction has taken place on either side of this area. He explains that the vision for this section is to identify transportation improvements most importantly improve mobility and safety within the corridor. Two public consultations have taken place.
S. Taylor indicates that the recommendation is to continue with the at-grade improvement plan that was tabled in 2001 with a number of variations, adding that Tecumseh Road West will be widened to 5 lanes with a centre turn lane, new sidewalks and multi-use paths and a flatter horizontal curve west of the ETR crossing. Once the endorsement from Council is received they will commence the 30 day review period, notifying anyone that has been involved in any part of the study to make them aware of the review.
In response to Councillor Borrelli’s request for clarification on the bike path/trails, S. Taylor explains that one side of the road will have a dedicated sidewalk and the other will have a mutli-use path for pedestrians and cyclists that will include a boulevard between the travelway and the path.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 7 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 4 of 9
Moved by: Councillor Borrelli Seconded by: Councillor Payne
Decision Number: ETPS 619 THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to issue the Notice of Study Completion of the Tecumseh Road West Environmental Assessment as per the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process to commence the 30-day review period immediately following finalizing the Environmental Assessment. Carried.
Report Number: S 104/2018 Clerk’s File: APM2018
8.2. Food and Organic Waste Study
Councillor Payne indicates that when he was a Board member of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority it was decided that they would not proceed with organic waste collection and that such a program is very expensive. He asks whether the expenditure requested to engage a consultant is justified.
D. Dawson, Executive Director, Operations confirms that organic waste collection is a program on its own, with its own collection vehicles and requirements but adds that there is a cost savings to regular refuse collections as it can go from weekly to every other week offsetting the cost of organic waste collection. He indicates that it is not known at this time if there will be a change to the legislation in the coming years as a result of the change in Government but adds that 2025 is an aggressive timeline to meet and therefore the City must proceed while keeping a close watch for any changes.
Councillor Francis asks whether a communication should be sent by Administration to the Provincial Government or the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority to ask whether there are any changes to the legislation due to the change in the Provincial Government, especially before any funds are committed to engage a consultant. D. Dawson indicates that a teleconference is already scheduled at which time the matter will be brought up.
Councillor Holt asks whether food and organic waste is a big enough ratio of our landfill that it would actually be possible to change to every other week refuse collection. D. Dawson indicates that kitchen waste is what causes the smell factor and the need to pick refuse up weekly therefore getting that collected weekly along with a stronger emphasis on recycling could allow for bi-weekly refuse collection.
Councillor Payne asks why the City of Windsor is the only Municipality in Windsor Essex that is required to do this. D. Dawson explains that its a Provincial requirement and that it is because of
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 8 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 5 of 9 the population and the density of Windsor that we are forced to do so. Other municipalities don’t meet the factors put out in the legislation.
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Holt
Decision Number: ETPS 620 THAT the report of the City Engineer dated June 21, 2018 regarding Food and Organic Waste Study BE ACCEPTED; and,
THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to engage a Consultant for the purpose of reviewing and analyzing the various methods of food and organic waste collection and treatment specific to the City of Windsor, at a maximum cost of $85,000, to be funded from unallocated/available PYG dollars in 2021 ($65,000) and 2022 ($20,000); and,
THAT Administration BE REQUESTED to communicate with the Essex Windsor Solid Waste Authority as well as the Provincial Government requesting more information regarding this matter and direction moving forward. Carried.
Report Number: S 105/2018 Clerk’s File: EI2018
8.3. Community Requests for Painted Crosswalks within Neighbourhoods - City Wide
Sheila Wisdom, Executive Director, Windsor Symphony Orchestra
Sheila Wisdom, Executive Director, Windsor Symphony Orchestra, appears before the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee regarding the report Community Requests for Painted Crosswalks within Neighbourhoods and begins by thanking the administration for all of the research that was done and for preparing the report in response to public requests and suggestions. S. Wisdom explains that she is here to specifically address the request by Music Director Robert Franz for a painted crosswalk near the Capital Theatre. She indicates that a painted crosswalk can address such things as transportation and safety and can be a vehicle for community engagement and community pride. Additionally painted crosswalks visually enhance an area, become a design feature, encourage people to explore different areas or zones and provide opportunity for branding of a specific district.
S. Wisdom indicates that the timing is perfect in downtown Windsor, especially in light of the considerable public investment by the University of Windsor and St. Clair College, as well as the investments made by hotels and private investors. She adds that with the development of the School of Creative Arts and the old Armouries there is a cultural hub emerging. S. Wisdom refers
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 9 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 6 of 9 to other community groups that are excited about this design element and look forward to being involved and seeing it implemented.
S. Wisdom speaks to the importance of a design motif and consistency adding that these painted crosswalks should link the cultural hub to other areas in the City, should be esthetically interesting and fun and should reflect who we are. She suggests that the Manager of Cultural Affairs be the entry point for these requests. S. Wisdom hopes that steps are taken soon to seek Council’s approval, ensuring that implementation of design and installation can occur in the summer of 2019.
Walter Cassidy, Walkerville Collegiate Institute, Arts Department Head and David Lenz, President Windsor-Essex Pride Fest
Walter Cassidy, Walkerville Collegiate Institute, Arts Department Head, and David Lenz, President, Windsor-Essex Pride Fest, appear before the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee regarding the report Community Requests for Painted Crosswalks within Neighbourhoods and speak to the benefits of a rainbow crosswalk as symbol for those in the community who don’t feel connected or are discouraged. D. Lenz indicates that it would send a positive message that the City of Windsor is a great place to live and a place where it is okay to be who you are. It is their hope that the Committee members and ultimately City Council will approve this initative that can serve as a reminder for those with power to look out for the vulnerable people, to respect the right of way and to let them pass unharmed.
Councillor Payne comments that the administrative report indicates that those making applications are to be responsible for completing the painting as per guidelines and standards to be set by the City and that funding would need to be provided by the applicant.
S. Wisdom responds that there are opportunities to engage other community groups and special interest groups. In terms of the city centre specifically, S. Wisdom indicates that the City has been talking about revitalization for many years but now there is momentum building. She adds that different areas and different interest groups can come together to make things happen. S. Wisdom suggests that Tourism funds could be considered for this project.
Councillor Francis explains that a policy is needed as well as a funding source. He refers to Tourism Funds and Ward Funds, which because of a recent change to the policy does allow for these types of community initiatives, he also suggests a cost recovery model. Councillor Francis indicates that a comprehensive report must come before City Council and should then be referred to the 2019 Budget deliberations. He is confident that a timeline of summer 2019 could be met.
Councillor Holt asks Administration whether they see an issue with putting a policy together outlining what interested groups can and cannot do and asks for some confirmation of what may be acceptable because groups are ready to begin fundraising.
C. Masterson, Manager, Cultural Affairs indicates that it is best to have a process in place but indicates that in terms of what has been presented this far nothing really stands out as being unacceptable. She adds that some modifications may be necessary.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 10 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 7 of 9
Councillor Payne asks about restrictions on the location of painted crosswalks, any safety implications, and the cost of materials. J. Wolf, Senior Manager, Transportation Planning indicates that arterial intersections may be discouraged and that districts and residential areas are best. He explains that the painted crosswalks are safe however materials used could have safety implications, for example, slip and falls. Finally J. Wolf explains that thermoplastic road marking paint is more costly while typical road paint is significantly less expensive.
J. Wolf adds that in many municipalities, private citizens or neighbourhood groups often work on painting these crosswalks turning it into a block party or community event.
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Holt
Decision Number: ETPS 621 THAT the report regarding Community Requests for Painted Crosswalks within Neighbourhoods BE RECEIVED by council for direction; and,
That Administration BE AUTHORIZED to begin working on a Painted Crosswalks Policy that takes into consideration all possible funding sources, design criteria and safety matters; and,
That the matter BE REFERRED to the 2019 Operating Budget process. Carried.
Report Number: S 109/2018 Clerk’s File: ST2018 AFB/13207
8.4. Management of Municipal Drains - Drainage Superintendent
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Holt
Decision Number: ETPS 622 I. That By-law 138/2008, appointing Anna Godo and Charles Armstrong as Drainage Superintendents BE RESCINDED; and further, II. That Fahd Mikhael BE APPOINTED, by By-law ------, as Drainage Superintendent, under the Drainage Act. Carried.
Report Number: S 93/2018 Clerk’s File: SW2018
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 11 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 8 of 9
9. TRANSIT BOARD ITEMS
9.1. The Contributory Pension Plan for Employees of Transit Windsor - Audited Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2017
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli
Decision Number: ETPS 623 THAT the Environmental, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee sitting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors:
APPROVE the Audited Financial Statements as at December 31, 2017 of the Contributory Pension Plan Fund for Employees of Transit Windsor; and,
DIRECT the Executive Director of Transit Windsor, as the Plan Administrator, to file the financial statements with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI). Carried.
Report Number: S 107/2018 Clerk’s File: AF/11247
9.2. The Contributory Pension Plan for Employees of Transit Windsor - Actuarial Valuation as at December 31, 2017
Moved by: Councillor Francis Seconded by: Councillor Borrelli
Decision Number: ETPS 624 That the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee sitting as the Transit Windsor Board of Directors:
I. APPROVE the Actuarial Valuation of the Contributory Pension Plan for Employees of Transit Windsor as at December 31, 2017; and,
II. DIRECT the Executive Director of Transit Windsor, as the Plan Administrator, to forward the Actuarial Valuation as at December 31, 2017 to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to the Canada Revenue Agency Carried.
Report Number: S 110/2018 Clerk’s File: AF/11247
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 12 of 110 Minutes Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Page 9 of 9
10. ADOPTION OF TRANSIT BOARD MINUTES
None presented.
11. QUESTION PERIOD
None presented.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee is adjourned at 5:38 o’clock p.m. The next meeting of the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee will be held August 29, 2018.
______Ward 8 – Councillor Marra Supervisor of Council Services (Chairperson)
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 13 of 110 Item 7.1
Committee Matters: SCM 306/2018
Subject: Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held July
25, 2018
Page 1 of 1
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 14 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission – Meeting held July 25, 2018
A meeting of the Windsor Licensing Commission is held this day commencing at 9:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 204, 350 City Hall Square East, there being present the following members:
Councillor Ed Sleiman, Chair Councillor Paul Borrelli Councillor John Elliott Gino Conte
Regrets received from:
Jack Fathers
Also present are the following resource personnel:
Gary Cian, Deputy Licence Commissioner and Senior Manager of Policy, Gaming, Licensing & By-law Enforcement Bill Tetler, Manager of By-law Enforcement Janna Tetler, Senior Licensing Issuer Jenna Smith, Order of Business Coordinator Karen Kadour, Committee Coordinator
1. Call to Order
The Chair calls the meeting to order at 9:30 o’clock a.m. and the Windsor Licensing Commission considers the Agenda being Schedule “A” attached hereto, matters which are dealt with as follows:
2. Minutes
Moved by Councillor Elliott, seconded by G. Conte, That the minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held June 27, 2018 BE ADOPTED as presented. Carried.
3. Disclosure of Interest
None disclosed.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 15 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
4. Request for Deferrals, Referrals or Withdrawals
None.
5. Communications
None.
6. Licence Transfers
Transfers of Plate #194
Ms. Sonnia Edwards-Forder, Executor for the late John Robert Forder, Transferor, Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti, Transferee and Mr. Walter Bezzina, General Manager Vets Cab Company are in attendance and available to answer questions.
Moved by Councillor Elliott, seconded by Councillor Borrelli, WLC10/2018 That the transfer of Taxicab Plate #194 from the Estate of the late John Robert Forder to Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti BE APPROVED with the following conditions:
Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti be given thirty (30) days from the date of this decision to submit a vehicle for inspection that complies with Schedule 5 to By-law 137-2007. Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti must submit a Plate Holder application and pay the applicable fee. Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti shall provide verification that full compensation has been made to the Estate of the late John Robert Forder in consideration of the transfer of taxicab plate #194. Mr. Enayatollah Sabeti shall not lease the plate for a one year period as stated in Schedule 5, Section 21.3 of Licensing By-law 137-2007.
Carried.
7. Applications/Hearings
None.
8. Reports & Administrative Matters
Page 2 of 3
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 16 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
(a) Expired Application(s) for Business Licence
Moved by Councillor Borrelli, seconded by Councillor Elliott, That the report of the Supervisor of Licensing dated July 9, 2018 entitled “Expired Application(s) for Business Licence” BE RECEIVED. Carried.
9. In Camera
No In Camera session is held.
10. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on August 22, 2018 at 9:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 204, 350 City Hall Square West.
11. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 9:35 o’clock a.m.
______CHAIR
______SECRETARY
Page 3 of 3
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 17 of 110 Item 7.2
Committee Matters: SCM 291/2018
Subject: Minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held June
27, 2018
Page 1 of 1
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 18 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission – Meeting held June 27, 2018
A meeting of the Windsor Licensing Commission is held this day commencing at 9:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 204, 350 City Hall Square West, there being present the following members:
Councillor Ed Sleiman, Chair Councillor Paul Borrelli Councillor John Elliott Gino Conte Jack Fathers
Guest in attendance:
Maulik Patel
Also present are the following resource personnel:
Gary Cian, Deputy Licence Commissioner and Senior Manager of Policy, Gaming, Licensing & By-law Enforcement Craig Robertson, Supervisor of Licensing Bill Tetler, Manager of By-law Enforcement Janna Tetler, Senior Licensing Issuer Beth Toldo, Committee Coordinator (A) Sonya Pacheco, Committee Coordinator (A)
1. Call to Order
The Chair calls the meeting to order at 9:30 o’clock a.m. and the Windsor Licensing Commission considers the Agenda being Schedule “A” attached hereto, matters which are dealt with as follows:
2. Minutes
Moved by G. Conte, seconded by Councillor Elliott, That the minutes of the Windsor Licensing Commission of its meeting held May 23, 2018 BE ADOPTED as presented. Carried.
3. Disclosure of Interest
None disclosed.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 19 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission June 27, 2018 Meeting Minutes
4. Requests for Deferrals, Referrals or Withdrawals
None.
5. Communications
None.
6. Licence Transfers
None.
7. Applications/Hearings
None.
8. Reports & Administrative Matters
(a) Expired Application(s) for Business Licence
Moved by Councillor Borrelli, seconded by Councillor Elliott, That the report of the Supervisor of Licensing dated June 8, 2018 entitled “Expired Application(s) for Business Licence” BE RECEIVED. Carried.
9. In Camera
The applicants designate is present and available to answer questions.
Verbal Motion is presented by G. Conte, seconded by Councillor Borrelli, to move In Camera at 9:35 o’clock a.m. for discussion of the following item:
Item No. Subject Section Pursuant to Municipal Act 2001, as amended 9(a) Personal matter about an s. 239(b) identifiable individual
Motion Carried.
Page 2 of 3
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 20 of 110 Windsor Licensing Commission June 27, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Discussion on the item of business.
Verbal Motion is presented by Councillor Elliott, seconded by G. Conte, to move back into public session at 9:38 o’clock a.m.
Moved by Councillor Borrelli, seconded by J. Fathers, That the Clerk BE DIRECTED to transmit the recommendation(s) contained in the report(s) discussed at the In Camera Windsor Licensing Commission meeting held June 27, 2018 directly to the Windsor Licensing Commission for consideration at the next Regular Meeting. Carried.
Moved by Councillor Borrelli, seconded by J. Fathers, WLC9/2018 That the In Camera report relating to a personal matter about an identifiable individual BE RECEIVED and further, that Administration BE REQUESTED to proceed in accordance with the verbal direction of the Windsor Licensing Commission. Carried.
10. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 204, 350 City Hall Square West.
11. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 9:40 o’clock a.m.
______CHAIR
______SECRETARY
Page 3 of 3
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 21 of 110 Item 8.1
Council Report: C 142/2018
Subject: CQ 5-2018 - Funding for Riverside Drive Vista from Ford to Pillette
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Anna M Godo 519-255-6257 ext 6508 [email protected] Ward 6 Infrastructure & Geomatics Report Date: 8/2/2018 Clerk’s File #: SW/8513
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
Recommendation:
That the report on CQ5-2018, funding for Riverside Drive Vista Phase 3A, Ford to Pillette, 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.
City Council recently approved $8,821,000 of the identified funding for the Riverside Vista project as a portion of the City’s required funding for the recent submission to the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Funding, CR380/2018. The City submitted an Expression of Interest for an $89M project, which incorporates Phase 2A of the Riverside Vista project.
To date the following has been completed on the Riverside Vista Project:
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 22 of 110 Page 1 of 3 - Construction of Phase 1 Stage 1 works, from Solidarity Tower to Riverdale Avenue, was undertaken in 2012. - Advanced utility relocations for Phase 1 Stage 2 works, from Lauzon Road to Solidarity Tower, were completed in 2017, and; - Tender 7-18 for sewer, watermain, and road reconstruction is currently underway, Phase 1 Stage 2 construction.
At the meeting of City Council on February 26, 2018, Councillor Gignac raised Council Question CQ 5/2018:
“CQ 5/2018: Asks that Administration report back to Council when funding for the Riverside Drive Vista engineering for the Section from Ford to Pillette will be coming forward.”
Discussion: The Riverside Vista project is proceeding forward with Phase 1 and Phase 2A having identified funding and work underway. At this time funding approved and or identified in the 2018 6-year capital budget (2018 to 2024) for the Riverside Vista project address funding required to complete Phase 1 and complete most of Phase 2A, with $8,821,000 for Phase 2A being tied to the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) grant submission as well.
The ESR identified Phase 3 of the project as that section of Riverside Drive from Lincoln Road to Ford Boulevard. Upon review of the engineering characteristics of Phase 3, it may be divided into Phase 3A, from Strabane Avenue to Ford Boulevard, and Phase 3B, from Lincoln Road to Strabane Avenue. The section from Pillette Road to Ford Boulevard would fall within Phase 3A.
Phase 3A of the project, being the section of Riverside Drive from Lincoln Road to Ford Boulevard, is postponed until sufficient funding is secured to initiate the project.
Risk Analysis: There is a risk that the costs to complete Phase 2A exceed the original allocated funding. This risk is mitigated if the City is awarded the DMAF grant. Should the grant not be awarded Administration will need to include additional funding in the 2019 7-year capital budget to address Phase 2A, as well as funding required to start the remaining Phases, including but not limited to 3A which was specifically referenced in the CQ.
There are several significant road reconstruction projects for the City of Windsor. Currently, the capital budget has allocated some funding to several of these projects with one, Cabana, being fully funded to completion. Based on the extensive cost of construction for projects of this nature, i.e. Cabana, Riverside Vista, Central Box, Banwell and others, the capital budget has historically provided for the funding to completion for only one major project at any given time thereby limiting the impact on the significant number of other capital projects and priorities across the City. Given the limited capital funding available for significant road reconstruction projects and the
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 23 of 110 Page 2 of 3 number of competing capital priorities, there is a risk that funding for engineering for Phase 3A may be postponed.
Riverside Drive developed by following the configuration of the shoreline. In Phase 1, the geotechnical investigations discovered various fill materials and organic soils below the surface. Conditions observed at the west end of Phase 1 project area, which is near to where Lake St. Clair enters the Detroit River, indicate more significant beach deposits and subsurface features. There is potential for soil issues on future phases and the potential for significant impacts on the budget.
Financial Matters:
Administration will continue to bring forward funding requests to continue the Riverside Vista projects through Phase 5. The continued pursuit of grant funding as well as recommendations in the 2018 Asset Management Plan will further provide options on how to address the City’s road funding needs.
Consultations: N/A
Conclusion: The report regarding CQ5-2018 is provided to Council for information.
Planning Act Matters: N/A
Approvals: Name Title
Anna M Godo Engineer III
Mike Dennis Financial Planning Administrator
Wes Hicks Senior Manager, Infrastructure and Engineering / Deputy City Engineer
Mark Winterton City Engineer
Janice Guthrie On behalf of City Treasurer
Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer
Notifications: Name Address Email
Appendices:
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 24 of 110 Page 3 of 3 Item 8.2
Council Report: C 92/2018
Subject: Review of Winter Maintenance - CQ53-2017(SW2017), CQ3-2018 (SW2018), CQ4-2018 (SWQ2018) and 120. WAAC Report - City Wide
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Phong Nguy Manager Contracts, Fleet Services, Maintenance Operations 519-255-6560 ext 4253 [email protected] Public Works - Operations Report Date: 5/14/2018 Clerk’s File #: SW2018
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
Recommendation:
THAT the response to CQ53-2017, by Councillor Kusmierczyk, which asks Administration to review the residential snow clearing level of service policy and performance, and provide options to enhance the service along with estimating the associated enhanced costs, including comparisons with like size cities in Ontario, be forwarded to Council FOR INFORMATION; and
THAT the response to CQ3-2018, by Councillor Payne, which asks Administration that the forthcoming report on winter control operations include comments on the operational and financial impacts of commencing such operations simultaneously on primary routes and local streets to avoid the delay and inconvenience to property owners of the present practice of completing all primary routes before commencing local streets, be forwarded Council FOR INFORMATION; and
THAT the response to CQ4-2018, by Councillor Borrelli, which asks that the forthcoming report on winter control include the feasibility and cost of removing “windrows” at driveways. Although this has been a long time standing issue it is timely to revisit the matter considering our environmental uncertainties created by global warming. Further, our aging population, accommodation for our disabled, safety and liability factors and quality of life are inherent vital considerations, be forwarded Council FOR INFORMATION.
Executive Summary:
N/A
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 25 of 110 Page 1 of 11 Background: On December 18, 2017, Councillor Kusmierczyk, asked the following of Administration:
“..review the residential snow clearing level of service policy and performance, and provide options to enhance the service along with estimating the associated enhanced costs, and include comparisons with like size cities in Ontario.”
On February 26, 2018, Councillor Payne, asked the following of Administration:
“..that the forthcoming report on winter control operations include comments on the operational and financial impacts of commencing such operations simultaneously on Primary routes and local streets to avoid the delay and inconvenience to property owners of the present practice of completing all Primary routes before commencing local streets.” On February 26, 2018, Councillor Borrelli, asked the following of Administration:
“that the forthcoming report on winter control include the feasibility and cost of removing “windrows” at driveways. Although this has been a long time standing issue it is timely to revisit the matter considering our environmental uncertainties created by global warming. Further, our aging population, accommodation for our disabled, safety and liability factors and quality of life are inherent vital considerations.”
In addition to the above council questions, Report No. 120 The Windsor Accessibility Advisory Committee (WAAC) asked the following:
“That CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN to amending the Corporation of the City of Windsor Winter Control Service Level Policy, subsections 5.7.10 and 5.8.11 as follows “In consultation with Transit Windsor Priority 1 and 2 bus stop will be cleared for accumulations over 15cm (6 inches) of snow” to lower the amount of snow accumulation for removal to assist those of all physical abilities at bus stops and further, that the Windsor Accessibility Advisory Committee be formally consulted for their input in this matter BE FORWARDED to administration to provide comment.”
Discussion: The current level of service presented is attached as Appendix A – Winter Control Service Level Policy.
A meeting with the WAAC committee for consultation was conducted on April 27, 2018. Challenges from WAAC members were brought forward in the meeting regarding the accessibility of bus stops during winter months. A request to conduct snow clearance at 4 inches (10 cm) was proposed, a cost analysis for this request is presented as Option 2C below.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 26 of 110 Page 2 of 11 To answer CQ53-2017 an extensive survey was conducted with a sample of comparable participating MBNC cities and neighboring municipalities. The full details resulting from the survey are attached as Appendix B.
Comparison for winter control service is difficult due to the service structure of single, lower and upper-tier municipalities. For the purpose of this report, we have summarized the single-tier municipalities Level of Service, population, associated budget, and equipment shown in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
Road Plow ing Operations Windrow s Winter Control Municipality Type Population Length of Roads Serviced Budget for Service of Level of Service Roads Windrow s (C/L = Center Line)
Red Routes (Arterial & Transit Routes) = 5cm Total = 468.1 C/L km 1,066 Brantford, City Single- Blue Routes 97,496 $2,018,905 lane km Yes of Tier (Collectors) = 8cm
Green Routes (Residentials) = 10cm
Ont regulation 239/02 $4,700,000 Chatham- 3,500 C/L km, approx. 7,000 MINIMUM Single- (includes Kent, 101,647 lane km MAINTENANCE No Tier sidew alks & Municipality of (mostly tw o lane roads) STANDARDS FOR parking lots) MUNICIPAL HIGHWAYS
(Appendix C)
ONT Regulation 239/02 MINIMUM Total = 1,657.16 C/L, 3,703.1 London, City Single- MAINTENANCE 383,822 $14,184,000 lane km No of Tier STANDARDS FOR
MUNICIPAL HIGHWAYS
(Appendix C)
C1 = as accumulation begins C2 = as accumulation begins C3 = as Ottaw a, City Single- accumulation begins 934,243 $68,300,000 12,459 lane km No of Tier C4 = 5cm C5 = 7-10cm
(Appendix C Table – Classification of Highways)
Total = 2,200 lane km Arterial & Collector = Thunder Bay, Single- Arterial & Collector = 1,120 107,909 $5,060,200 5cm No City of Tier lane km Residential = 10cm Residential = 1,080 lane km
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 27 of 110 Page 3 of 11 Total = 1,081 C/L km, 2,404 lane km WINDSOR, Single- Main = 383 C/L km, 1,010 Main = <= 5cm 217,188 $4,900,000 No City of Tier lane km Residential = 10cm Residential = 698 C/L km, 1,394 lane km
Low er- Vaughan, City Tier 306,233 $10,280,000 Total = 2,084 lane km All Roads = 5cm Yes of (York)
Although the City of Vaughan is a lower tier municipality, we included it in this comparison table due to the exceptionally high level of winter control service they provide.
Based on the review, five options are proposed for this report. All estimates are preliminary at this time and would need to be considered for further analysis and completion of a business case if Council wishes to investigate service enhancements further.
Option 1 - Status Quo
Due to the unpredictably of the winter season in the City of Windsor, and our current Winter Control Service Level policy, our winter control budget remains relatively unchanged with the exception of annual contractual adjustments as required. Our current Winter Control service provides safety and mobility on our expressway, scenic parkway, arterial and collector roads with some service to the local residential roads. Our current operations consist of 23 primary routes of expressway, arterials and collector roads. Based on experience data related to past winter seasons, we experience 4 to 7 residential rollouts per season, at which time, additional heavy equipment like loaders, backhoes, and graders are employed for the local residential snow clearing process. Our current Winter Maintenance budget is $4.9 million. The 311 Service Request statistics for the 2017-2018 winter season are shown below as Table 2:
Table 2 Winter Maintenance Service Request for 2017-2018 Winter Season Bus Stops 40 Snow Sidewalks 19 Snow Plow Damage 117 Salting 225 Plowing 460 Salting & Plowing 504 Comments about S &P 435 Snow Removal from Catchbasin 30 Total 1,830
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 28 of 110 Page 4 of 11
Option 2a) Enhanced service CQ3-2018 – Simultaneous winter control of primary and residential routes
Our current operation utilizes 25 Winter Plow trucks to provide services to 23 primary routes in our expressway, arterial and local roads. All of the 25 plow trucks used in the primary routes are utilized in our residential (local) streets once the primary routes have been cleared. Additional Heavy pieces of equipment such as backhoes, loaders, and graders are brought in during residential clearing after the storm event has subsided. These two operations are performed consecutively in order to maximize our resources and budget.
In order to deliver the simultaneous operations, heavy pieces of equipment cannot be utilized as the heavy equipment cannot keep up with an active winter storm, therefore to provide enhanced service an estimated additional 50 plow trucks and operators in multiple shifts as well as supervisors, and support staff are required.
The simultaneous snow plowing operations for residential and primary routes is similarly employed by our neighboring municipalities as shown in Table 3 below:
Table 3
2015 -2017 Essex County Snow Plowing Comparison
Municipality Routes Trucks C/L Urban C/L Rural C/L Total Km / Time for Total (km) (km) (km) Truck Single Pass Crew (hr) Time
(hrs)
Amherstburg 8 8 103 111 214 26.8 3 24
LaSalle 5 5 171 19 190 38 6 30
Tecumseh 6 6 118 65 183 30.5 8 48
Leamington 11 270 24.55 6 66
Kingsville 7 7 100 120 220 31.4 4 28
Lakeshore 10 10 138 388 526 52.6 4 40
Essex County 13+5 18 0 734 734 40.8 2 36
Windsor 23 25 1394 1010 2404 43.9 6 138
(res. lane ( primary (total km) (primary km) lane km) only)
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 29 of 110 Page 5 of 11 Proposed 73 75 1394 1010 2404 32.9 6 438 Windsor
(res. lane ( primary (total km) (all km) lane km) roads)
Our initial estimate based on this option would require an upfront capital cost of $150,000 (per truck) x 50 trucks = $7,500,000 plus ongoing annual deposits to the fleet reserves for future replacements as well as additional, annual operating costs for 150 seasonal classified operators and 4 supervisors. Due to the high number of operators required, it is unrealistic to carry out this option with our existing City workforce; therefore, this option would require tendering for third party operators and supervisors.
Our estimated cost for the required third party contract to implement this option 2a) would be approximately $6,000,000 per year going forward.
2b) Enhanced Service CQ4-2018 - Windrow removal
In order to remove snow windrows efficiently a “windrow eliminator” is required. This special equipment can be mounted on heavy equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and graders. Our residential roads consist of 698 center lane kms and an estimated 1394 curb kms. Windrow eliminator equipment moves at a relatively slow speed, therefore we would require a minimum of 10 windrow eliminators and associated heavy equipment and 30 operators working in 14 hour shifts per winter storm event (4-7 events per season) in order to provide reasonable windrow removal service.
The City does not own the required heavy equipment to implement option 2b). The estimated cost to purchase this type of equipment is $3,300,000 up front assuming a purchase price of approximately $330,000 for a combination of a loader and windrow eliminator unit. Annual deposits to the fleet reserves would also be required for future replacements. Considering the considerable capital investment estimated at $3,300,000 to implement the windrow removal option with our existing workforce, Administration would suggest that a tender for third party operator would be a less expensive option at a high level estimate of approximately $1,500,000 per year going forward. Public Works would require 30 on call Local 82 classified operators to provide this service when required. Our current union agreement and availability of Local 82 classified operators would make staffing this program very challenging or impossible due to the lack of available on call Local 82 classified operators. Alternatively, 30 full time seasonal classified operators could be recruited annually to staff this program at a cost of approximately $850,000 subject to negotiations with the union and labour relations.
2c) Enhanced Service WAAC- Increased service for Priority 1 and 2 bus stops
Our current service level provides snow removal for bus stops at 15 cm (6 inches) of accumulation and only after all the primary routes are cleared. During our WAAC consultation meeting, the request was to lower this down to 10 cm (4 inches). It is requested that priority 1 bus stops would be serviced under this option as the majority of priority 2 locations are on a resident’s front lawn. Any service to priority 2 areas will
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 30 of 110 Page 6 of 11 cause damage to the areas serviced resulting in additional maintenance costs to repair in the spring.
If the service was lowered to implement a limit of 10 cm (4 inches) for priority 1 bus stops, approximately 12 additional snow removals per bus stop per winter season would be required. The cost to implement this service enhancement using internal staff from various departments with Local 82 staff as required would be an estimated $125,000 per year in overtime for 3 crews each with 4 workers each. An initial cost of approximately $3,000 per crew would be required to purchase the necessary hand tools and snow blowers required with expected replacements every 2 seasons. Staffing this program with existing staff would be very challenging due to the lack of available on call Local 82 workers and it is unlikely that we would be able to provide this service internally, in a consistent manner. The third party contract cost for this program is an estimated cost of $500,000 per year ongoing. A third party contractor would be required to hire seasonal full time staff to provide this service which results in a much higher cost.
Option 3 - Enhanced service CQ53-2017 – lower accumulation requirements for residential service to 10 cm (4 inches) on the ground
Our current level of service is present in section 5.5 of the City of Windsor Winter Control Service Level Policy, attached for information. “5.5.1 The local (residential) streets have been divided in 36 areas. Once the accumulated snowfall has exceeded 10 cm (4 inches) and the storm has ended, plowing will commence in the residential areas” Our residential snow clearing service commences when the accumulation from a single snowfall event exceeds 10 cm (4 inches). An average of 4 to 7 residential snow clearing events are completed in a winter season based on our current accumulation policy. For individual snow events that do not reach the 10 cm (4 inches) threshold, snow clearing will not commence even if accumulation on the ground from multiple events totals more than 10 cm (4 inches).
Regardless of total snow accumulation and only under special circumstances, where it is in the best interest of public safety, residential snow clearing can commence when the threshold has not been met. Administration determines these special circumstances based on future weather forecasts that may cause City-wide emergencies.
In order to lower the limit to 10 cm (4 inches) of total snow accumulation (not per event), an estimate of an additional 5 residential clearing would be required per season. Based on our current average operating cost for a typical 24 hour residential snow clearing of $375,000 per clearing, approximately $1,500,000 per year ongoing would be required to implement option 3 using increased contracted services. The majority of our current residential service is provided by outside contractors, and for this reason, Administration is not considering the option of enhancing this service with internal workforce and equipment.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 31 of 110 Page 7 of 11 Option 4 - Service Levels equivalent to the City of Vaughan
Our review included the City of Vaughan where the City provides residents with a high level of snow removal service. Snow clearing service starts at 5 cm (2 inches) of accumulation, and sidewalk and windrow removal for driveways is carried out for all residents in the city. The City of Vaughan is a lower tier municipality where all major roads are maintained by the Regional Municipality of York. The City of Vaughan has an annual winter maintenance budget of $10,280,000.
For more information for the city of Vaughan winter operations, please visit: https://www.vaughan.ca/services/Winter_Maintenance/Pages/default.aspx
Administration has not considered the required internal staffing or equipment related to this option considering the magnitude of the enhancement for the purposes of this report.
Due to the high level of coordination that would be required to deliver winter control services comparable to the City of Vaughan, a mass notification service would be required to keep operators, supervisors, residents, and other city officials informed. The annual operating budget required to have a third party provide this type of mass communication service is estimated at $70,000 per year ongoing.
Upon review of the municipal road network comparison with the City of Windsor (Table 1) and the above information specific to the City of Vaughan service levels, it is estimated that an annual operating budget increase of approximately $9,170,000 would be required to enhance our current service to include snow clearing at 5 cm (2 inches), sidewalk clearing, and windrow removal for driveways for all residents.
Risk Analysis: Increasing levels of service may result in fewer snow related injuries and increased resident satisfaction. Packed ice and snow on the roadway can contribute to snow related injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents and slip and falls. These incidents have more to do with the packed ice and snow, and less to do with the mere presence of snow. Given the time that it takes to clear residential roads, the snow can be packed down or turned to ice before the roads are plowed, depending on the freeze thaw cycles that have taken place since the snow fall. Likewise, a residential street may not be plowed at all and still have significant amounts of ice because of the accumulation and packing of snow and ice after a number of snowfalls, none of which individually exceeded 10cm. Icy roads can be hazardous to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, and lead to decreased resident satisfaction. Any measures taken to alleviate the buildup of ice and snow will help to reduce this risk.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 32 of 110 Page 8 of 11 Financial Matters:
Financial matters have been included in the above discussion section of this report.
A summary table of the costs related to the various service enhancement options identified in this report is provided below for reference. Section A provides information on the anticipated cost of providing each service enhancement with the use of contracted services while Section B of the table provides preliminary operating and capital impacts of an in-house service provision. It should be noted that given the current collective agreement and availability of Local 82 staff, and given the variability in when and how the service would be required to be provided, staffing any of the proposed in-house service enhancement options would be challenging or impossible due to the lack of existing, available on call Local 82 workers. Should the use of seasonal employees be considered, negotiations with the union and labour relations would be required.
Option 1 outlines the current status quo winter control service; it has not been included in the summary table below. The current operating budget related to the status quo winter control service is $4.9 million.
Option 2a) Option 2b) Option 3) Option 4) Summary of Budget Simultaneous Windrow Option 2c) Bus Lower City of Stops Impacts: Service Removal Accumulation Vaughn
Section A – Contracted Services
Estimated Additional Operating $6,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $9,100,000 Budget - Outside Contractor
Estimated Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a $70,000 Communication Operating Cost
Total Estimated Additional Operating Budget Requirement $6,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $9,170,000 - Contracted Services Only
Section B – In House Service
Operating Impacts
30 Operators 12 Workers Estimated Additional Internal Staff 150 Operators Required (seasonal) to Implement 4 Supervisors $850,000 $125,000 n/a n/a
Estimated Annual Equipment Operating Cost – In House Service $4,283,300 $451,250 $4,500 n/a n/a
Total Estimated Additional Operating Budget Requirement n/a $1,301,250 $129,500 n/a n/a – Internal Service Only
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 33 of 110 Page 9 of 11
Capital Impacts – One Time
Estimated Additional Equipment Required 50 units 10 units tools/equip n/a n/a
Estimated Up Front Equipment Investment – In House Service $7,500,000 $3,300,000 $9,000 n/a n/a
It should be noted, for all contracted service options, a minimum contract of five (5) years with an option for extension of three (3) additional years would be required to ensure contractor is compensated for the added capital investment of necessary equipment.
All estimates outlined in this report are preliminary and are provided to illustrate the potential increased expense that could be expected related to the various proposed service enhancement options. Should Council direct Administration to investigate any of the options further, compilation of a complete business case would be required.
Consultations: Participating MBNC-municipalities and neighbouring municipalities
Mark Begg, Town of LaSalle
Cindy Becker, Financial Planning Administrator – Public Works Operations
Andrea Dejong, Deputy Fire Chief
Dana Paladino, Manager of Risk & Insurance
Conclusion: This report presents five options for enhanced winter maintenance services for Council to review. The five options provided would require additional operational funding, estimated very high level for the purposes of this report. Should Council direct Administration to investigate any option further, compilation of a complete business case would be required.
Planning Act Matters: N/A
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 34 of 110 Page 10 of 11 Approvals: Name Title
Cindy Becker Financial Planning Administrator – Public Works Operations
Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations
Mark Winterton City Engineer
Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor
Janice Guthrie On behalf of City Treasurer
Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer
Notifications: Name Address Email
Appendices: 1 Appendix A - Winter Control Service Level Policy 2 Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results 3 Appendix C - Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 35 of 110 Page 11 of 11 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR POLICY
Service Area: Maintenance Policy No.: Department: Public Works Approval Date: Division: Office of the City Engineer Approved By: M112/2008 Effective Date: February 26, 2008 Winter Control Service Level Subject: Policy Procedure Ref.: Pages: Replaces: CR24/2006 Prepared By: Pete Matheson/Anna Ciacelli Date: January 16, 2006
1. POLICY
1.1 The Corporation of the City of Windsor is committed to ensuring that safe levels of winter control service are provided on a regular and on-going basis for residents and visitors to the City. The Corporation of the City of Windsor’s Winter Control Service Level Policy provides information about the specific level of winter control service provided by the Corporation during various types of weather events.
2. PURPOSE
2.1 The purpose of this policy is to ensure the Corporation is providing every effort: 2.1.1 To reduce the hazards of snowy/icy road conditions to motorists and pedestrians; 2.1.2 To reduce economic losses to the community and industry; 2.1.3 To maintain safe and passable public transit and school bus routes; 2.1.4 To facilitate the handling of emergencies by Windsor Fire & Rescue and Windsor Police Services and other emergency agencies.
3. SCOPE
3.1 This policy shall govern the actions of the Public Works-Operations-Maintenance Department as directed by City Council within pre-determined budgetary implications.
4. RESPONSIBILITY
4.1 The operational responsibility for the implementation of this policy rests with the Executive Director of Operations or his designate in consultation with the City Engineer as may be applicable given the prevailing circumstances. 4.2 In the event of a winter storm situation in which the Executive Director of Operations deems the situation may require the formation of the Emergency Operations Control Group pursuant to the Emergency Preparedness Plan, the Executive Director of Operations in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer, Police Chief, or Fire Chief may request the Emergency Alerting System be activated.
Winter Control Service Level Policy Page 1 of 4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 36 of 110 5. GOVERNING RULES AND REGULATIONS
5.1 Operational Strategy:
5.1.1 The salt/plough routes have been redesigned using the City of Windsor’s official road classification system. City streets for the purpose of winter control operations have been divided by classification namely: a) Controlled Access Highway (EC Row) b) Class I & Class II Arterial Roads c) Scenic Parkway (Riverside Drive) d) Class I & Class II Collector Roads e) Local Roads
5.2 The new route design encompasses uniformity by road classification which will provide a more strategic plan to ensure roads that are the highest priority are done prior to lower priority roads. 5.3 During major snow storms first priority will be EC Row Expressway and the arterial Roads. This will optimize the mobility under adverse weather conditions.
5.4 Main Routes:
5.4.1 The main routes are comprised of EC Row Expressway, Arterial roadways, Riverside Drive and Collector Roads. 5.4.2 Under the new routing systems there are 21 routes. 5.4.3 EC Row Expressway has 3 routes. 5.4.4 Arterial Roadways & Scenic Parkways have 11 routes. 5.4.5 Collector Roadways have 7 routes.
5.5 Local Routes:
5.5.1 The local (residential) streets have been divided in 36 areas. Once the accumulated snowfall has exceeded 10.0 cm (4 inches) and the storm has ended, ploughing will commence in the residential areas.
5.6 Tiered Operational Deployment Strategy
Class 1 Storm – Less than 10.0 cm (4 in.) Accumulation
5.6.1 Salting of main routes is the first priority. 5.6.2 The number of salting units deployed will be dependent upon location, severity, ambient temperatures, wind speed and direction, and weather patterns proceeding and following the storm. 5.6.3 Only when road conditions warrant and only after the main routes have been completed, salting of streets/intersections around schools will be undertaken. 5.6.4 Only when extreme glare ice conditions occur and forecasts are for below freezing, salting of local streets/intersections will be undertaken once the main routes are completed.
Winter Control Service Level Policy Page 2 of 4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 37 of 110
5.7 Class 2 Storm—10.0 cm (4 in.) to 25 cm (10 in.) Accumulation
5.7.1 When snowfall exceeds 10.0 cm (4 in.) salting is temporarily suspended and ploughing of routes will start. 5.7.2 All salt/plough trucks will be redeployed to EC Row and arterial roads as the first priority. 5.7.3 Once EC Row and the arterial roads have been cleared, trucks will once again be reassigned to the collector routes. 5.7.4 When the storm has ended, salting/ploughing will continue on all main routes until they are completed. Also available road graders, loaders, backhoes and plough trucks will be deployed to plough local streets. 5.7.5 Once main routes are completed all available City and Contractor salter/plough units will be reassigned to assist with local streets. 5.7.6 Salting of streets and intersections around schools will be given priority. 5.7.7 Only when extreme glare ice conditions occur and forecasts are for below freezing, salting of local streets/intersections will be undertaken once the main routes are completed. 5.7.8 Windrows at intersections on arterial roads will be removed as required. 5.7.9 If deemed appropriate based upon snow accumulations removals of snow along curbs in business improvement areas and other commercial areas across the City will commence. Handicap parking areas will be addressed as a first priority. 5.7.10 In consultation with Transit Windsor, priority 1 and 2 bus stops will be cleared for accumulations of over 15cm (6 in.) of snow.
5.8 Class 3 Storm—Greater than 25 cm (10 in.) Accumulation
5.8.1 When snowfall exceeds 10 cm (4 in.) salting is suspended and ploughing of routes will continue. 5.8.2 All salt/plough trucks will be redeployed to EC Row and arterial roads as a first priority. 5.8.3 All available road graders, loaders, backhoes, and hired plough trucks will be redeployed to plough the collector roads. 5.8.4 Once EC Row and arterial roads have been completed all available plough trucks will be reassigned to the collector roads. 5.8.5 All available road graders, loaders, backhoes, and hired plough trucks will be redeployed to the local roads. 5.8.6 Once the collector roads have been completed all available City and Contractor salter/plough units will be redeployed to the local roads. 5.8.7 Salting of streets and intersections around schools will be given a priority. 5.8.8 Only in extreme glare ice conditions and forecasts are for below freezing, salting of local streets/intersections will be undertaken once main routes are complete. 5.8.9 The City’s large snow blower, loaders, backhoes, bobcats, and trucks will be deployed to commence removal of major snow accumulations in business improvement areas and other commercial areas across the City. Handicap parking areas will be addressed as a first priority. 5.8.10 Windrows at intersections on arterial roads will be removed as required.
Winter Control Service Level Policy Page 3 of 4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 38 of 110 5.8.11 In consultation with Transit Windsor, Priority 1 and 2 bus stops will be cleared for accumulations of over 15 cm (6 in.) of snow.
**Note: The operational requirements for the three (3) classes of storms provide an outline of the methods used to deal with the various winter weather conditions. There are many factors that may affect the methods utilized and discretion is essential in determining the optimal course of action given the prevailing circumstances.
5.9 Sidewalks
5.9.1 Once the storm has ended a combination of City employees and hired equipment (sidewalk ploughs, bobcats) will clear snow from sidewalks, walkways and underpasses that are the responsibility of the City to maintain.
5.10 Parking
5.10.1 If a Snow Emergency is declared, subject to Parking By-Law 9023 Section 10 (1) j, on street parking is prohibited on main routes for 48 hours following the end of snowfalls above 10 cm (4 in.) 5.10.2 Free parking is authorized as may be deemed appropriate in municipal surface lots following the end of any snowfalls above 10 cm (4 in.). 5.10.3 This information will be disseminated through the local media.
Winter Control Service Level Policy Page 4 of 4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 39 of 110 Average Data Sources Internal Staffing Land Area Average Annual Winter Control Municipality Type Population Winter Equipment Support (km²) Snow Fall (cm) Contact Contact Email Website Budget for Roads Managers Supervisors Patrollers Other Total Temp (°C) Operators Staff Lower-Tier Amherstburg, Town of 21,936 185.6 83.3 0.3 Eric Chamberlain, Manager of Roads and Fleet [email protected] www.amherstburg.ca $165,000 1 0 14 0 2 0 17 (Essex)
Brantford, City of Single-Tier 97,496 72.5 98.4 -1.7 Jason Worron, Senior Program Manager [email protected] www.brantford.ca $2,018,905 2 4 55 3 4 0 68
$4,700,000 Chatham-Kent, Municipality of Single-Tier 101,647 2,458.0 79.2 0 Miguel Pelletier, Director of Public Works [email protected] www.chatham-kent.ca (includes sidewalks & 2 9 120 0 1 0 132 parking lots)
Durham, Regional Municipality of Upper-Tier 645,862 2,523.8 294.9 -3.4 David Hagner, Roads Technician [email protected] www.durham.ca $10,015,000 7 23 171 8 16 0 225
Essex, County of Upper-Tier 181,765 1,704.5 129.3 0 www.countyofessex.on.ca $2,600,000
Greater Sudbury, City of Single-Tier 161,531 3,228.4 263.4 -7.7 Tony DeSilva, Roads Operations Engineer [email protected] www.greatersudbury.ca $17,500,000 3 22 100 0 4 0 129
Halifax, Regional Municipality of Out of Province 403,131 5,490.4 154.2 -0.8 Trevor Harvie, Superintendent of Winter Operations [email protected] www.halifax.ca $18,032,000 4 28 114 0 46 0 192
$380,000 Lower-Tier Kingsville, Town of 21,552 246.8 86.3 0 Shaun Martinho, Public Works Manager [email protected] www.kingsville.ca + fleet maintenance 11 1 13 0 0 0 25 (Essex) costs
Lower-Tier Kitchener, City of 233,222 136.8 159.7 -2.8 Mara Engel, Operations Technologist [email protected] www.kitchener.ca $6,611,963 2 9 123 0 1 0 135 (Waterloo)
Lower-Tier $200,000 LaSalle, Town of 30,180 65.3 129.3 0 Mark Beggs, Manager of Roads and Parks [email protected] www.lasalle.ca 1 3 19 0 3 0 26 (Essex) (salt only)
London, City of Single-Tier 383,822 420.4 194.3 -1.9 Don Purchase, Manager of Operations - Roadsides [email protected] www.london.ca $14,184,000 2 15 76 0 0 28 121
Montreal, City of Out of Province 1,704,694 365.7 209.5 -4.5 Benjamin Pugi, Junior Engineer [email protected] www.ville.montreal.qc.ca $170,000,000 3,000
Lower-Tier Wayne Wuilleme, Senior Supervisor of Works & Contracted Oakville, Town of 193,832 138.9 81 -1.2 [email protected] www.oakville.ca $3,800,000 1 5 52 4 8 0 70 (Halton) Services
Ottawa, City of Single-Tier 934,243 2,790.3 175.4 -4.8 Mark Packard, Sr. Operations Clerk (A), Core Roads [email protected] www.ottawa.ca $68,300,000 4 68 520 8 20 0 620
Regina, City of Out of Province 215,105 180.0 100.2 -9.8 Norman Kyle, Director of Roadways & Transportation [email protected] www.regina.ca $9,289,000 1 10 114 0 3 0 128
Lower-Tier St. Catharines, City of 133,113 96.1 137.1 -0.4 Sabrina Mills, Operations Technologist [email protected] www.stcatharines.ca $2,078,644 0 3 53 2 2 0 60 (Niagara)
Lower-Tier Tecumseh, Town of 23,229 94.6 129.3 0 Kirby McArdle, Manager of Roads & Fleet [email protected] www.tecumseh.ca $350,000 1 0 13 0 0 0 14 (Essex) ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 140 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Average Data Sources Internal Staffing Land Area Average Annual Winter Control Municipality Type Population Winter Equipment Support (km²) Snow Fall (cm) Contact Contact Email Website Budget for Roads Managers Supervisors Patrollers Other Total Temp (°C) Operators Staff
Thunder Bay, City of Single-Tier 107,909 328.4 188.5 -7.8 Brad Adams, Manager of Roads [email protected] www.thunderbay.ca $5,060,200 1 6 58 0 1 0 66
Toronto, City of Single-Tier 2,731,571 630.2 121.5 -0.1 www.toronto.ca $85,500,000 1,000
Lower-Tier Vaughan, City of 306,233 273.6 102.8 -2.3 Joerg Hettmann, Manager of Parks and Roads [email protected] www.vaughan.ca $10,280,000 4 4 82 6 14 0 110 (York)
Lower-Tier Waterloo, City of 104,986 64.0 159.7 -2.8 Tim Conyard, Transportation Operations Manager [email protected] www.waterloo.ca $2,000,000 1 2 45 0 3 0 51 (Waterloo)
WINDSOR, City of Single-Tier 217,188 146.4 129.3 0 Roberta Harrison, Maintenance Coordinator [email protected] www.citywindsor.ca $4,300,000 5 14 32 0 9 0 60
Cheryl Anderson, A/Manager - Streets Maintenance [email protected] Winnipeg, City of Out of Province 705,244 464.3 113.7 -10.7 www.winnipeg.ca $28,000,000 3 4 158 48 37 0 250 Kenny Ens, Work Management Technician [email protected]
Joseph Petrungaro, Director of Roads & Traffic Operations [email protected] York, Regional Municipality of Upper-Tier 1,109,909 1,762.1 150.6 -2.2 www.york.ca $20,700,000 4 11 50 24 12 0 101 Doug Ledlie, Operations Coordinator [email protected]
Notes: Source for Population & Land Area = 2016 Canada Census Source for Weather data = Environment Canada 1981-2010; Temperature Average - October through March
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 241 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Road Plowing Operations Anti-icing & De-icing Municipality Prioritization Length of Roads # of Trucks/ Start of Anti-icing Anti-icing De-icing Level of Service Time to Complete of Roads Serviced Equipment Used Residential Routes Agent Quantity Agent MMS, traffic Amherstburg, Town of 214 C/L km MMS MMS 8 As warranted None N/A Salt volume & speeds Total = 468.1 C/L km, 1,066 lane km Red Routes (Arterial & Transit Routes) = 5cm Red Routes (Arterial & Transit Routes) = 10 hrs Red Routes = 520 lane km Following Red and Blue Magnesium 40 L per lane km Salt with Magnesium Brantford, City of Road Classification Blue Routes (Collectors) = 8cm Blue Routes (Collectors) = 6 hrs 25 Blue Routes = 188 lane km routes Chloride (22%) (DLA) Chloride (pre-wet) Green Routes (Residentials) = 10cm Green Routes (Residentials) = 8 hrs Green Routes = 358 lane km
MMS, emergency & 3,500 C/L km, approx. 7,000 lane km Liquid Calcium 60-100 L Salt Chatham-Kent, Municipality of MMS MMS 102 As warranted transit routes (mostly two lane roads) Chloride per lane km (pre-wet with brine)
Salt Brine Durham, Regional Municipality of MMS 826 C/L km, 2,375 lane km MMS MMS 54 N/A 100 L per lane km Salt (23.3%) Salt Essex, County of MMS 720 C/L km, 1,503 lane km MMS MMS 21 N/A Salt Brine (pre-wet with brine) Total = 3,600 lane km C1 to C3 (Main Roads) = 5cm C1 to C3 (Main Roads) = 8 hrs Salt Greater Sudbury, City of MMS C1 to C3 = 850 lane km 64 As warranted Salt Brine C4 to C6 (Residential & Rural) = 8cm C4 to C6 (Residential & Rural) = 24 hrs (pre-wet with brine) C4 to C6 = 2,750 lane km
Total = 3,967 lane km Main Arterials & Transit Routes (P1) = 2cm Main Arterials & Transit Routes (P1) = 12 hrs Salt Halifax, Regional Municipality of Road Classification Priority 1 = 2,301 lane km Residentials with >10% Grade (P1) = 4cm Residentials with >10% Grade (P1) = 12 hrs 250 As warranted Salt Brine (pre-wet with brine) Priority 2 = 1,666 lane km Residential with <10% Grade (P2) = 10cm Residential with <10% Grade (P2) = 24 hrs
Main Routes = 2cm Kingsville, Town of Road Classification 230 C/L km, 440 lane km 8-16 hrs 8 Following Main Routes None N/A Salt Residential/Rural = 2cm MMS, Total = 876.7 C/L km, 2,004.5 lane km Priority 1 = 5cm Priority 1 = 6 hrs steep grades, Priority 1 = 137.6 C/L km, 445.3 lane km Salt Brine w/ Salt Kitchener, City of Priority 2 = 8cm Priority 2 = 12 hrs 47 As warranted Varies sharp curves, school Priority 2 = 372.1 C/L km, 825.2 lane km Beet Juice (pre-wet with brine) Priority 3 = 8cm Priority 3 = 16 hrs zones, transit routes Priority 3 = 388.4 C/L km, 734.0 lane km
LaSalle, Town of MMS, main roads 190 C/L km, 380 lane km MMS/as accumulation begins (all roads) 12-18 hrs 5 Following Main Routes None N/A Salt
Total = 1,657.16 C/L, 3,703.1 lane km C1 = 71.05 C/L, 164.32 lane km MMS C2 = 273.27 C/L km, 899.56 lane km For a 10-12 cm storm: Salt Brine Salt London, City of MMS MMS 65 As warranted C3 = 217.27 C/L km, 451.13 lane km Mains (C1-C3) = 4-5 hrs (Agrimelt) (pre-wet with Agrimelt) C4 = 256.30 C/L km, 530.42 lane km Locals (C4-C5) = 8-10 hrs C5 = 830.27 C/L km, 1,657.67 lane km
Various Road Classification, Total = 11,000 lane km P1 = 2.5cm transit routes/lanes, P1 = 2,750 lane km 24 hrs Montreal, City of P2 = 2.5 cm Unknown As warranted None N/A Salt hospital and school P2 = 2,750 lane km 72-120 hrs (including snow removal) P3 = 5cm areas, high traffic P3 = 5,500 lane km areas, etc.
Total = 855 C/L km, 1,900 lane km Primary = 2.5cm Salt & Treated Salt Road Classification, Primary = 220 C/L km Following Primary and Oakville, Town of Secondary = 5cm 24 hrs 61 Salt Brine (Magnesium Chloride, transit routes Secondary = 265 C/L km Secondary Routes Residential = 7.5cm Thawrox) Residential = 370 C/L km
C1 = as accumulation begins C1 = 2 hrs C2 = as accumulation begins C2 = 3 hrs Salt MMS, Following Higher Priority Pre-wet Salt Ottawa, City of 12,459 lane km C3 = as accumulation begins C3 = 4 hrs Not generally used (coated with Liquid Road Classification Routes or Salt Brine C4 = 5cm C4 = 6 hrs Calcium) C5 = 7-10cm C5 = 10-16 hrs C1 (Freeways, Major Arterials, Emergency Routes) = 5cm C1 (Freeways, Major Arterials, Emergency Routes) = 24 hrs C2 (Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, Downtown) = 5cm C2 (Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, Downtown) = 36 hrs Total = 34 Salt C3 (Major Collectors, Industrial/Commercial, Transit) = 10cm C3 (Major Collectors, Industrial/Commercial, Transit) = 48 hrs High Speed Following Arterial & Regina, City of Road Classification 1,099 C/L km None (pre-wet with Magnesium C4 (Minor Collectors, Residential School Bus Routes) = 10cm C4 (Minor Collectors, Residential School Bus Routes) = 60 hrs Roads = 10 Collector Roads Chloride) C5 (Residentials) = 25cm C5 (Residentials) = no time frame specified Other = 24 C6 (Gravel Roads) = 10cm C6 (Gravel Roads) = 60 hrs Main Roads = 2.5cm Usually following Primary Main Roads = 2 hrs Salt St. Catharines, City of Road Classification 630 C/L km, 1,297 lane km Designated Secondary Roads = 2.5cm 53 & Designated Secondary Salt Brine Unknown Secondary Roads = 48 hrs (pre-wet with brine) Secondary Roads = 8cm Routes
Routes contain both main Salt Tecumseh, Town of MMS 183 C/L km, 385 lane km All Roads = as snow begins to accumulate 6-18 hrs 6 None N/A and residential roads. (pre-wet with brine) ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 342 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Road Plowing Operations Anti-icing & De-icing Municipality Prioritization Length of Roads # of Trucks/ Start of Anti-icing Anti-icing De-icing Level of Service Time to Complete of Roads Serviced Equipment Used Residential Routes Agent Quantity Agent
Total = 2,200 lane km Salt Arterial & Collector = 5cm Arterial & Collector = 7 hrs Following Arterial & Thunder Bay, City of Road Classification Arterial & Collector = 1,120 lane km 34 None N/A (pre-wet with Calcium Residential = 10cm Residential = 72 hrs Collector Roads Residential = 1,080 lane km Chloride)
Expressways = 2-5cm Expressways = 2-3 hrs Arterial & Streetcar Routes = 5cm Arterial & Streetcar Routes = 6-14 hrs Salt Toronto, City of Road Classification 14,957 lane km 800 Salt Brine Collectors, Bus Routes & Streets w/ Hills = 5-8cm Collectors, Bus Routes & Streets w/ Hills = 8-16 hrs (pre-wet with brine) Residentials = 8cm Residentials = 14-36 hrs Total = 2,084 lane km C2 = 26 lane km Salt Brine Main Roads = 4 hrs C3 = 201 lane km (15% CaCl2, 157,000 L Thawrox Vaughan, City of Road Classification All Roads = 5cm Residential Roads = 16 hrs 142 Following Main Roads C4 = 867 lane km 10% NaCl, annually (2017) (Treated Salt) Rear Laneways = 16 hrs C5 = 974 lane km 5% MgCl2), C6 = 16 lane km Major Arterials = 5cm Major Arterials = 6 hrs MMS, Major Collectors = 8cm Major Collectors = 12 hrs Following Higher Priority 150,000 L Waterloo, City of 1,000 C/L km 24 ProMelt 22 Salt Road Classification Residentials = 8cm Residentials = 16 hrs Roads annually Cul-de-sacs & Minor Roads = 10cm Cul-de-sacs & Minor Roads = 24 hrs
Total = 1,081 C/L km, 2,404 lane km Total = 73 Main = <= 5cm Main = 4 hrs Salt WINDSOR, City of Road Classification Main = 383 C/L km, 1,010 lane km Main = 23 Following Main Routes Salt Brine 60 L per lane km Residential = 10cm Residential = 24-36 hrs (pre-wet with brine) Residential = 698 C/L km, 1,394 lane km Residential = 73
Total = 3,408 C/L km, 7,156 lane km Total = 210-220 Salt P1 (Regional & Main Thoroughfares) = 3cm P1 (Regional & Main Thoroughfares) = 36 hrs Road Classification, Priority 1 = 764 C/L km, 1,861 lane km P1 = 70-80 Following Higher Priority Salt Brine & 90,000 L (pre-wet with Calcium Winnipeg, City of P2 (Transit Routes & Collectors) = 5cm P2 (Transit Routes & Collectors) = 36 hrs traffic volumes Priority 2 = 734 C/L km, 1,475 lane km P2 = 70-80 Roads Beet Juice annually Chloride brine mixed with P3 (Residential) = 10cm P3 (Residential) = 120 hrs Priority 3 = 1,910 C/L km, 3,820 lane km P3 = 140 molasses) Total = 1,085.5 C/L km, 4,176.7 lane km C1 = 112.2 C/L km, 437.5 lane km Salt C2 = 554.2 C/L km, 2,663.4 lane km Salt Brine York, Regional Municipality of MMS All Roads = as begins to accumulate 2-3 hrs 107 N/A 110 L per lane km (pre-wet with brine) C3 = 358.5 C/L km, 939.8 lane km (23%) & Thawrox C4 = 60 CL km, 134.5 lane km C5 = 0.6 C/L km, 1.5 lane km
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 443 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Windrows Plowing of On-street Bike Lanes Clearing of Bus Stops & Shelters Contracted Out Municipality Equipment # of Driveways Length of Bike Lanes # of Bus Stops/ Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Services Used Serviced Serviced (km) Shelters Serviced Amherstburg, Town of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads 21 24 hrs Unknown None 0 N/A N/A None For seniors and those 32% of plowing. Tractors, swing with physical $7,800 per Some salting, crosswalk snow Brantford, City of plows, skid steer, 1,500 24 hrs Completed with roads Unknown Unknown Unknown 500 Unknown Unknown disabilities only storm removal, and windrow removal. trackless (10cm) Clearing of bus stops. Bus shelters are cleared by service Chatham-Kent, Municipality of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads Unknown Unknown Unknown provider. 33 Unknown Unknown Anti-icing, 5 plows Bus stops not cleared. 5cm accumulation 530 shelters $43,400 Durham, Regional Municipality of None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 hrs 41% of salting & plowing or as required for pedestrian safety 2,170 stops per storm Essex, County of Cleared only in ~70% of plowing & salting Truck or $14,000 Greater Sudbury, City of special N/A N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A 8cm accumulation 470 24-48 hrs 100% of bus stop clearing backhoe/loader per storm circumstances. 100% of snow removal
Cleared to bare pavement after every Halifax, Regional Municipality of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads 115 12-24 hrs Unknown 2,306 48 hrs Unknown 82% of salting & plowing weather event.
Kingsville, Town of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads Unknown 8-16 hrs Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A None
Responsibility of Grand River Transit Kitchener, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads Unknown 6-16 hrs Unknown N/A N/A N/A Clearing of cul-de-sacs (Region of Waterloo)
Completed with roads 0 shelters LaSalle, Town of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown 12-18 hrs Unknown 2cm accumulation 48 hrs Unknown None (not on first pass through) 85 stops
Clear Only 67% of salting & sanding London, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads 160 4-24 hrs Unknown 2,100 72 hrs Unknown (8cm accumulation) 50% of plowing
High priority and "4 Responsibility of the borroughs and transit Montreal, City of seasons" bike lanes only 460 Unknown Unknown 50% of snow plowing & removal authority. (2.5-5cm)
62% of plowing & salting (primary & secondary roads) For seniors and those 36 hrs 100% of plowing (residentials) with physical Pickup trucks with (12 hrs after $90,000 5cm accumulation 950 stops $153,000 Snow Removal, Windrow Clearing, Oakville, Town of 450 Completed with roads 145 Unknown 48 hrs disabilities only plow blade residentials are annually or as required for pedestrian safety 300 shelters annually and Sidewalk (7.5cm, $100 fee) plowed) Plowing/Salting/Sanding, Clearing of Bus Stops/Shelters
Ottawa, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 12-24 hrs Unknown 24 hrs
All driveways Clear snow ridge 12 metres proceeding 24-60 hrs Snow gate attached 24-60 hrs $714,000 Regina, City of (leave ridge less than Unknown Unknown Completed with roads 10 48 hrs Unknown Transit Stop. Unknown (cleared during 50% of plowing with graders to grader (as road is plowed) annually 30cm) Facilities responsible for shelters. plowing operations)
Contractors only used during large storm events to assist with clearing St. Catharines, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A Responsibility of Transit Commission of cul-de-sacs and some secondary roads. Clearing of cul-de-sacs during Tecumseh, Town of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads Unknown Unknown Unknown Cleared & salted after every snowfall. 6-8 1-2 hrs Unknown heavy snowfalls ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 544 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Windrows Plowing of On-street Bike Lanes Clearing of Bus Stops & Shelters Contracted Out Municipality Equipment # of Driveways Length of Bike Lanes # of Bus Stops/ Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Level of Service Time to Complete Cost Services Used Serviced Serviced (km) Shelters Serviced
30% of plowing Thunder Bay, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A Responsibility of City Transit 9 graders 2 sidewalk plows
71% Roadway De-icing Completed with roads. Residential driveways 100% Roadway Plowing Priority bike lanes in the Cleared & salted Toronto, City of only. 262,000 2 hrs after plow 6-72 hrs 48 hrs 100% Windrows downtown received (2cm) (5-8cm) 96% Sidewalk Clearing enhanced service. 100% Bus Stop Clearing
Residential driveways only. Tractors $13,550 Vaughan, City of > 80,000 4 hrs after plow N/A N/A N/A N/A Responsibility of York Region Transit 94% of salting & plowing (5cm, clear to 80% of (46 units) per event width of driveway)
Clearing of cul-de-sac. Waterloo, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads Unknown 6-24 hrs Responsibility of Grand River Transit. 5 blowers
74% of salting & plowing main Bus shelters are cleared 187 shelters routes after each snow fall. Shelters = 12 hrs WINDSOR, City of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads 105 4-36 hrs Unknown 697 stops Unknown 92% of plowing residentials Bus stops are cleared in order of Stops = 24-36 hrs (P1 = 371, P2 = 326) 100% of clearing bus priority at 15cm. shelters/stops Front street driveways Front end Winnipeg, City of only. Unknown 36-120 hrs Unknown 5cm accumulation 36 hrs 5cm accumulation Unknown 36 hrs Unknown 90% of plowing loaders (20 cm)
$2.4M 75% of anti-icing, plowing, salting & annually York, Regional Municipality of None N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed with roads 60 2-3 hrs Unknown Responsibility of York Region Transit 5,100 24-36 hrs sanding. (includes 100% of clearing bus stops. terminals)
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 645 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Clearing of Sidewalks Municipality Length of Sidewalks Additional Information Sidewalks Serviced Time to Complete Serviced (km) In the process of updating their winter maintenance policy as their Amherstburg, Town of All sidewalks 70 24 hrs current one is outdated (1997).
Sidewalks fronting City owned properties, on Clearing of bus stops the responsibility of the Brantford Transit Brantford, City of 79.2 bridges, and in the downtown business district. Department.
Only sidewalks in downtown business areas are spread with All sidewalks abrasives (salt and/or sand) when required. Chatham-Kent, Municipality of 410 24-48 hrs (7.5cm) Sand can be used on packed local streets at intersections, curves, and hills. Residential streets, bike lanes, and sidewalks are the responsibility Durham, Regional Municipality of N/A N/A N/A of the local municipalities. Essex, County of
All sidewalks at least 1.5m wide. Greater Sudbury, City of 318.75 24 hrs Only bridge decks are anti-iced. (8cm) Contractor is responsible for everything (i.e. supervision, All sidewalks 1,000 organization, dispute resolution, and repair of damage). Halifax, Regional Municipality of (Downtown Halifax & Dartmouth = 5cm (includes walkways and 12-36 hrs Budget for sidewalks is $4,968,000. All Others = 15cm) trails) Sidewalks are 90% contracted out. Sand used in salt vulnerable areas.
Kingsville, Town of All sidewalks 44 Do not maintain CWATS trails.
Maintains the regional roads within the city for the Region of Kitchener, City of None N/A N/A Waterloo. Sand used when temperature are below -12oC.
LaSalle, Town of Do not track costs for snow removal.
All sidewalks Sand mixture (90% sand, 10% salt) used on local streets at London, City of 1,500 24 hrs (8cm) intersections, curves, and hills.
All sidewalks Montreal, City of (2.5cm)
All sidewalks Residential roads are not salted, but are sanded when conditions Oakville, Town of 900 48 hrs (5cm) warrant, and then only at hills, curves, and intersections.
All sidewalks Sand used in lower temperatures when salt is not effective. Downtown Area = 4 hrs (Downtown Area = 2.5cm Do-it-yourself grit boxes are provided in areas close to steep hills Ottawa, City of 2,235 Primary = 12 hrs Primary = 5cm and in areas where there are many pedestrians, seniors, and Residential = 16 hrs Residential = 5cm) persons using mobility devices.
Sidewalks located adjacent to City properties Typical cost of winter road maintenance (plowing, ice control, snow Regina, City of and other specific locations. 72 hrs removal, opening catch basins) is $8,480 per km per season. (5cm) Sand is provided for residents to use on sidewalks.
Maintains regional roads within the city for the Region of Niagara. St. Catharines, City of Sidewalks adjacent to city properties only. 24 hrs Sand is used on Secondary streets instead of salt.
Sidewalks along specified Supervisors & patrollers included in equipment operators. Tecumseh, Town of 24 hrs main streets only. May pre-salt bridges when heavy snowfalls are expected. ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 746 of 8of 110 8/10/2018 Clearing of Sidewalks Municipality Length of Sidewalks Additional Information Sidewalks Serviced Time to Complete Serviced (km) Plowing commences at 2am. Snow accumulation is left on road until then. All sidewalks Thunder Bay, City of 449 72 hrs Sand use on priority routes based on temperatures. Sand or 50/50 (5cm) salt/sand mix is used on residentials. Sand used instead of salt on sidewalks. All sidewalks where Windrows not cleared in the central core due to narrow road widths mechanically possible. Toronto, City of 15-48 hrs and presence of on-street parking. (High Pedestrian Volume = 2cm Salt/sand mixture used on sidewalks and bus stops. Low Pedestrian Volume = 8cm)
All sidewalks Main Sidewalks = 8 hrs Contractors assist in complaint response. Vaughan, City of 1,120 (5cm) Secondary = 16 hrs $850,000 budget for sidewalk winter maintenance.
Sidewalks not attached to Waterloo, City of 95 residences or businesses.
City-owned sidewalks and sidewalks where WINDSOR, City of there is no abutting property owner (e.g. 60 10 hrs over & under passes).
Sidewalks on P1 & P2 Streets = 5cm Treated salt (5% salt) is used in lower temperatures. Winnipeg, City of Sidewalks on P3 Streets = 8cm Salt not used on residentials. There are only spot sanded.
Residential streets and sidewalks are the responsibility of the local York, Regional Municipality of N/A N/A N/A municipalities.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018
Appendix B - 2018 Winter Maintenance Level of Service Survey Results Results Page 847 of 8of 110 8/10/2018
Municipal Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités
ONTARIO REGULATION 239/02 MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAYS
Consolidation Period: From May 3, 2018 to the e-Laws currency date. Last amendment: 366/18.
Legislative History: 288/03, 613/06, 23/10, 47/13, 366/18. This Regulation is made in English only. Definitions 1. (1) In this Regulation, “bicycle facility” means the on-road and in-boulevard cycling facilities listed in Book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual; “bicycle lane” means, (a) a portion of a roadway that has been designated by pavement markings or signage for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists, or (b) a portion of a roadway that has been designated for the exclusive use of cyclists by signage and a physical or marked buffer; “cm” means centimetres; “day” means a 24-hour period; “encroachment” means anything that is placed, installed, constructed or planted within the highway that was not placed, installed, constructed or planted by the municipality; “ice” means all kinds of ice, however formed; “motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act, except that it does not include a motor assisted bicycle; “non-paved surface” means a surface that is not a paved surface; “Ontario Traffic Manual” means the Ontario Traffic Manual published by the Ministry of Transportation, as amended from time to time; “paved surface” means a surface with a wearing layer or layers of asphalt, concrete or asphalt emulsion; “pothole” means a hole in the surface of a roadway caused by any means, including wear or subsidence of the road surface or subsurface; “roadway” has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act; “shoulder” means the portion of a highway that provides lateral support to the roadway and that may accommodate stopped motor vehicles and emergency use; “sidewalk” means the part of the highway specifically set aside or commonly understood to be for pedestrian use, typically consisting of a paved surface but does not include crosswalks, medians, boulevards, shoulders or any part of the sidewalk where cleared snow has been deposited; “significant weather event” means an approaching or occurring weather hazard with the potential to pose a significant danger to users of the highways within a municipality; “snow accumulation” means the natural accumulation of any of the following that, alone or together, covers more than half a lane width of a roadway: 1. Newly-fallen snow. 2. Wind-blown snow. 3. Slush; “substantial probability” means a significant likelihood considerably in excess of 51 per cent;
1 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 48 of 110 “surface” means the top of a sidewalk, roadway or shoulder; “utility” includes any air, gas, water, electricity, cable, fiber-optic, telecommunication or traffic control system or subsystem, fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, property bars and survey monuments; “utility appurtenance” includes maintenance holes and hole covers, water shut-off covers and boxes, valves, fittings, vaults, braces, pipes, pedestals, and any other structures or items that form part of or are an accessory part of any utility; “weather” means air temperature, wind and precipitation. “weather hazard” means the weather hazards determined by Environment Canada as meeting the criteria for the issuance of an alert under its Public Weather Alerting Program. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 1 (1); O. Reg. 23/10, s. 1 (1); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 1; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 1 (1, 2). (2) For the purposes of this Regulation, every highway or part of a highway under the jurisdiction of a municipality in Ontario is classified in the Table to this section as a Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, Class 5 or Class 6 highway, based on the speed limit applicable to it and the average daily traffic on it. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 1 (2); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 1 (3). (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) and the Table to this section, the average daily traffic on a highway or part of a highway under municipal jurisdiction shall be determined, (a) by counting and averaging the daily two-way traffic on the highway or part of the highway; or (b) by estimating the average daily two-way traffic on the highway or part of the highway. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 1 (3); O. Reg. 23/10, s. 1 (2); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 1 (3). (4) For the purposes of this Regulation, unless otherwise indicated in a provision of this Regulation, a municipality is deemed to be aware of a fact if, in the absence of actual knowledge of the fact, circumstances are such that the municipality ought reasonably to be aware of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 1 (4). TABLE CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Average Daily Traffic (number 91 - 100 km/h 81 - 90 km/h 71 - 80 km/h 61 - 70 km/h 51 - 60 41 - 50 km/h 1 - 40 km/h of motor vehicles) speed limit speed limit speed limit speed limit km/h speed speed limit speed limit limit 53,000 or more 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23,000 - 52,999 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 15,000 - 22,999 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 12,000 - 14,999 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 10,000 - 11,999 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 8,000 - 9,999 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 6,000 - 7,999 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5,000 - 5,999 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4,000 - 4,999 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 3,000 - 3,999 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 2,000 - 2,999 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 1,000 - 1,999 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 500 - 999 1 3 4 4 4 5 5 200 - 499 1 3 4 4 5 5 6 50 - 199 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 0 - 49 1 3 6 6 6 6 6 O. Reg. 366/18, s. 1 (5). Application 2. (1) This Regulation sets out the minimum standards of repair for highways under municipal jurisdiction for the purpose of clause 44 (3) (c) of the Act. O. Reg. 288/03, s. 1. (2) REVOKED: O. Reg. 23/10, s. 2. (3) This Regulation does not apply to Class 6 highways. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 2 (3). Purpose 2.1 The purpose of this Regulation is to clarify the scope of the statutory defence available to a municipality under clause 44 (3) (c) of the Act by establishing maintenance standards which are non-prescriptive as to the methods or materials to be used in complying with the standards but instead describe a desired outcome. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 2.
MAINTENANCE STANDARDS Patrolling
2 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 49 of 110 3. (1) The standard for the frequency of patrolling of highways to check for conditions described in this Regulation is set out in the Table to this section. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 3 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 3 (2). (2) If it is determined by the municipality that the weather monitoring referred to in section 3.1 indicates that there is a substantial probability of snow accumulation on roadways, ice formation on roadways or icy roadways, the standard for patrolling highways is, in addition to that set out in subsection (1), to patrol highways that the municipality selects as representative of its highways, at intervals deemed necessary by the municipality, to check for such conditions. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 2; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 3 (2). (3) Patrolling a highway consists of observing the highway, either by driving on or by electronically monitoring the highway, and may be performed by persons responsible for patrolling highways or by persons responsible for or performing highway maintenance activities. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 3 (1). (4) This section does not apply in respect of the conditions described in section 10, subsections 11 (0.1) and 12 (1) and section 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 or 16.4. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 3 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 3 (3). TABLE PATROLLING FREQUENCY
Class of Highway Patrolling Frequency 1 3 times every 7 days 2 2 times every 7 days 3 once every 7 days 4 once every 14 days 5 once every 30 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 3, Table; O. Reg. 23/10, s. 3 (2). Weather monitoring 3.1 (1) From October 1 to April 30, the standard is to monitor the weather, both current and forecast to occur in the next 24 hours, once every shift or three times per calendar day, whichever is more frequent, at intervals determined by the municipality. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 3; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 4. (2) From May 1 to September 30, the standard is to monitor the weather, both current and forecast to occur in the next 24 hours, once per calendar day. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 3; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 4. Snow accumulation, roadways 4. (1) Subject to section 4.1, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on roadways is, (a) after becoming aware of the fact that the snow accumulation on a roadway is greater than the depth set out in the Table to this section, to deploy resources as soon as practicable to address the snow accumulation; and (b) after the snow accumulation has ended, to address the snow accumulation so as to reduce the snow to a depth less than or equal to the depth set out in the Table within the time set out in the Table, (i) to provide a minimum lane width of the lesser of three metres for each lane or the actual lane width, or (ii) on a Class 4 or Class 5 highway with two lanes, to provide a total width of at least five metres. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 4; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (1). (2) If the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway is less than or equal to the depth set out in the Table to this section, the roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 4. (3) For the purposes of this section, the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway and, if applicable, lane width under clause (1) (b), may be determined in accordance with subsection (4) by a municipal employee, agent or contractor, whose duties or responsibilities include one or more of the following: 1. Patrolling highways. 2. Performing highway maintenance activities. 3. Supervising staff who perform activities described in paragraph 1 or 2. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 4; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (2). (4) The depth of snow accumulation on a roadway and lane width may be determined by, (a) performing an actual measurement; (b) monitoring the weather; or (c) performing a visual estimate. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 4; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (3). (5) For the purposes of this section, addressing snow accumulation on a roadway includes, (a) plowing the roadway;
3 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 50 of 110 (b) salting the roadway; (c) applying abrasive materials to the roadway; (d) applying other chemical or organic agents to the roadway; (e) any combination of the methods described in clauses (a) to (d). O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (4). (6) This section does not apply to that portion of the roadway, (a) designated for parking; (b) consisting of a bicycle lane or other bicycle facility; or (d) used by a municipality for snow storage. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (4). TABLE SNOW ACCUMULATION - ROADWAYS
Class of Highway Depth Time 1 2.5 cm 4 hours 2 5 cm 6 hours 3 8 cm 12 hours 4 8 cm 16 hours 5 10 cm 24 hours O. Reg. 47/13, s. 4; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 5 (5). Snow accumulation on roadways, significant weather event 4.1 (1) If a municipality declares a significant weather event relating to snow accumulation, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on roadways until the declaration of the end of the significant weather event is, (a) to monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1; and (b) if deemed practicable by the municipality, to deploy resources to address snow accumulation on roadways, starting from the time that the municipality deems appropriate to do so. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (2) If the municipality complies with subsection (1), all roadways within the municipality are deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation until the applicable time in the Table to section 4 expires following the declaration of the end of the significant weather event by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (3) Following the end of the weather hazard in respect of which a significant weather event was declared by a municipality under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) declare the end of the significant weather event when the municipality determines it is appropriate to do so; and (b) address snow accumulation on roadways in accordance with section 4. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. Snow accumulation, bicycle lanes 4.2 (1) Subject to section 4.3, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on bicycle lanes is, (a) after becoming aware of the fact that the snow accumulation on a bicycle lane is greater than the depth set out in the Table to this section, to deploy resources as soon as practicable to address the snow accumulation; and (b) after the snow accumulation has ended, to address the snow accumulation so as to reduce the snow to a depth less than or equal to the depth set out in the Table to this section to provide a minimum bicycle lane width of the lesser of 1 metre or the actual bicycle lane width. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (2) If the depth of snow accumulation on a bicycle lane is less than or equal to the depth set out in the Table to this section, the bicycle lane is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of snow accumulation. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (3) For the purposes of this section, the depth of snow accumulation on a bicycle lane and, if applicable, lane width under clause (1) (b), may be determined in the same manner as set out in subsection 4 (4) and by the persons mentioned in subsection 4 (3), with necessary modifications. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (4) For the purposes of this section, addressing snow accumulation on a bicycle lane includes, (a) plowing the bicycle lane; (b) salting the bicycle lane; (c) applying abrasive materials to the bicycle lane; (d) applying other chemical or organic agents to the bicycle lane; (e) sweeping the bicycle lane; or
4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 51 of 110 (f) any combination of the methods described in clauses (a) to (e). O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. TABLE SNOW ACCUMULATION – BICYCLE LANES Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Class of Highway or Depth Time Adjacent Highway 1 2.5 cm 8 hours 2 5 cm 12 hours 3 8 cm 24 hours 4 8 cm 24 hours 5 10 cm 24 hours O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. Snow accumulation on bicycle lanes, significant weather event 4.3 (1) If a municipality declares a significant weather event relating to snow accumulation, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on bicycle lanes until the declaration of the end of the significant weather event is, (a) to monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1; and (b) if deemed practicable by the municipality, to deploy resources to address snow accumulation on bicycle lanes, starting from the time that the municipality deems appropriate to do so. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (2) If the municipality complies with subsection (1), all bicycle lanes within the municipality are deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation until the applicable time in the Table to section 4.2 expires following the declaration of the end of the significant weather event by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. (3) Following the end of the weather hazard in respect of which a significant weather event was declared by a municipality under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) declare the end of the significant weather event when the municipality determines it is appropriate to do so; and (b) address snow accumulation on bicycle lanes in accordance with section 4.2. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 7. Ice formation on roadways and icy roadways 5. (1) The standard for the prevention of ice formation on roadways is doing the following in the 24-hour period preceding an alleged formation of ice on a roadway: 1. Monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1. 2. Patrol in accordance with section 3. 3. If the municipality determines, as a result of its activities under paragraph 1 or 2, that there is a substantial probability of ice forming on a roadway, treat the roadway, if practicable, to prevent ice formation within the time set out in Table 1 to this section, starting from the time that the municipality determines is the appropriate time to deploy resources for that purpose. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (2) If the municipality meets the standard set out in subsection (1) and, despite such compliance, ice forms on a roadway, the roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair until the applicable time set out in Table 2 to this section expires after the municipality becomes aware of the fact that the roadway is icy. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (3) Subject to section 5.1, the standard for treating icy roadways is to treat the icy roadway within the time set out in Table 2 to this section, and an icy roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair until the applicable time set out in Table 2 to this section expires after the municipality becomes aware of the fact that a roadway is icy. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (4) For the purposes of this section, treating a roadway means applying material to the roadway, including but not limited to, salt, sand or any combination of salt and sand. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (5) For greater certainty, this section applies in respect of ice formation on bicycle lanes on a roadway, but does not apply to other types of bicycle facilities. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. TABLE 1 ICE FORMATION PREVENTION Class of Highway Time 1 6 hours 2 8 hours 3 16 hours 4 24 hours 5 24 hours O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8.
5 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 52 of 110 TABLE 2 TREATMENT OF ICY ROADWAYS Class of Highway Time 1 3 hours 2 4 hours 3 8 hours 4 12 hours 5 16 hours O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. Icy roadways, significant weather event 5.1 (1) If a municipality declares a significant weather event relating to ice, the standard for treating icy roadways until the declaration of the end of the significant weather event is, (a) to monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1; and (b) if deemed practicable by the municipality, to deploy resources to treat icy roadways, starting from the time that the municipality deems appropriate to do so. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (2) If the municipality complies with subsection (1), all roadways within the municipality are deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to any ice which forms or may be present until the applicable time in Table 2 to section 5 expires after the declaration of the end of the significant weather event by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. (3) Following the end of the weather hazard in respect of which a significant weather event was declared by a municipality under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) declare the end of the significant weather event when the municipality determines it is appropriate to do so; and (b) treat icy roadways in accordance with section 5. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8. Potholes 6. (1) If a pothole exceeds both the surface area and depth set out in Table 1, 2 or 3 to this section, as the case may be, the standard is to repair the pothole within the time set out in Table 1, 2 or 3, as appropriate, after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 6 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8 (1). (1.1) For the purposes of this section, the surface area and depth of a pothole may be determined in accordance with subsections (1.2) and (1.3), as applicable, by a municipal employee, agent or contractor whose duties or responsibilities include one or more of the following: 1. Patrolling highways. 2. Performing highway maintenance activities. 3. Supervising staff who perform activities described in paragraph 1 or 2. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8 (2). (1.2) The depth and surface area of a pothole may be determined by, (a) performing an actual measurement; or (b) performing a visual estimate. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8 (2). (1.3) For the purposes of this section, the surface area of a pothole does not include any area that is merely depressed and not yet broken fully through the surface of the roadway. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 8 (2). (2) A pothole is deemed to be in a state of repair if its surface area or depth is less than or equal to that set out in Table 1, 2 or 3, as appropriate. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 6 (2); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 6. TABLE 1 POTHOLES ON PAVED SURFACE OF ROADWAY
Class of Surface Area Depth Time Highway 1 600 cm² 8 cm 4 days 2 800 cm² 8 cm 4 days 3 1000 cm² 8 cm 7 days 4 1000 cm² 8 cm 14 days 5 1000 cm² 8 cm 30 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 6, Table 1.
6 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 53 of 110 TABLE 2 POTHOLES ON NON-PAVED SURFACE OF ROADWAY
Class of Surface Area Depth Time Highway 3 1500 cm² 8 cm 7 days 4 1500 cm² 10 cm 14 days 5 1500 cm² 12 cm 30 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 6, Table 2. TABLE 3 POTHOLES ON PAVED OR NON-PAVED SURFACE OF SHOULDER
Class of Surface Area Depth Time Highway 1 1500 cm² 8 cm 7 days 2 1500 cm² 8 cm 7 days 3 1500 cm² 8 cm 14 days 4 1500 cm² 10 cm 30 days 5 1500 cm² 12 cm 60 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 6, Table 3. Shoulder drop-offs 7. (1) If a shoulder drop-off is deeper than 8 cm, for a continuous distance of 20 metres or more, the standard is to repair the shoulder drop-off within the time set out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 9 (1). (2) A shoulder drop-off is deemed to be in a state of repair if its depth is less than 8 cm. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 9 (1). (3) In this section, “shoulder drop-off” means the vertical differential, where the paved surface of the roadway is higher than the surface of the shoulder, between the paved surface of the roadway and the paved or non-paved surface of the shoulder. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 7 (3). TABLE SHOULDER DROP-OFFS
Class of Highway Time 1 4 days 2 4 days 3 7 days 4 14 days 5 30 days
O. Reg. 366/18, s. 9 (2). Cracks 8. (1) If a crack on the paved surface of a roadway is greater than 5 cm wide and 5 cm deep for a continuous distance of three metres or more, the standard is to repair the crack within the time set out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 10 (1). (2) A crack is deemed to be in a state of repair if its width or depth is less than or equal to 5 cm. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 10 (1). TABLE CRACKS
Column 1 Column 2 Class of Highway Time 1 30 days 2 30 days 3 60 days 4 180 days 5 180 days O. Reg. 366/18, s. 10 (2).
7 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 54 of 110 Debris 9. (1) If there is debris on a roadway, the standard is to deploy resources, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact, to remove the debris. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 9 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 11. (2) In this section, “debris” means any material (except snow, slush or ice) or object on a roadway, (a) that is not an integral part of the roadway or has not been intentionally placed on the roadway by a municipality, and (b) that is reasonably likely to cause damage to a motor vehicle or to injure a person in a motor vehicle. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 9 (2); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 9. Luminaires 10. (0.1) REVOKED: O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (1) The standard for the frequency of inspecting all luminaires to check to see that they are functioning is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (2) For conventional illumination, if three or more consecutive luminaires on the same side of a highway are not functioning, the standard is to repair the luminaires within the time set out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (3) For conventional illumination and high mast illumination, if 30 per cent or more of the luminaires on any kilometre of highway are not functioning, the standard is to repair the luminaires within the time set out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (4) Despite subsection (2), for high mast illumination, if all of the luminaires on consecutive poles on the same side of a highway are not functioning, the standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact to repair the luminaires. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (5) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), for conventional illumination and high mast illumination, if more than 50 per cent of the luminaires on any kilometre of a Class 1 highway with a speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour or more are not functioning, the standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact to repair the luminaires. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (6) Luminaires are deemed to be in a state of repair, (a) for the purpose of subsection (2), if the number of non-functioning consecutive luminaires on the same side of a highway does not exceed two; (b) for the purpose of subsection (3), if more than 70 per cent of luminaires on any kilometre of highway are functioning; (c) for the purpose of subsection (4), if one or more of the luminaires on consecutive poles on the same side of a highway are functioning; (d) for the purpose of subsection (5), if more than 50 per cent of luminaires on any kilometre of highway are functioning. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 12. (7) In this section, “conventional illumination” means lighting, other than high mast illumination, where there are one or more luminaires per pole; “high mast illumination” means lighting where there are three or more luminaires per pole and the height of the pole exceeds 20 metres; “luminaire” means a complete lighting unit consisting of, (a) a lamp, and (b) parts designed to distribute the light, to position or protect the lamp and to connect the lamp to the power supply. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 10 (7). TABLE LUMINAIRES
Class of Highway Time 1 7 days 2 7 days 3 14 days 4 14 days 5 14 days
8 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 55 of 110 O. Reg. 239/02, s. 10, Table. Signs 11. (0.1) The standard for the frequency of inspecting signs of a type listed in subsection (2) to check to see that they meet the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 7 (1); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 11 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (0.2) A sign that has been inspected in accordance with subsection (0.1) is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual until the next inspection in accordance with that subsection, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge that the sign has ceased to meet these requirements. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 11 (2). (1) If any sign of a type listed in subsection (2) is illegible, improperly oriented, obscured or missing, the standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact to repair or replace the sign. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 11 (1); O. Reg. 23/10, s. 7 (2); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (2) This section applies to the following types of signs: 1. Checkerboard. 2. Curve sign with advisory speed tab. 3. Do not enter. 3.1 Load Restricted Bridge. 3.2 Low Bridge. 3.3 Low Bridge Ahead. 4. One Way. 5. School Zone Speed Limit. 6. Stop. 7. Stop Ahead. 8. Stop Ahead, New. 9. Traffic Signal Ahead, New. 10. Two-Way Traffic Ahead. 11. Wrong Way. 12. Yield. 13. Yield Ahead. 14. Yield Ahead, New. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 11 (2); O. Reg. 23/10, s. 7 (3). Regulatory or warning signs 12. (1) The standard for the frequency of inspecting regulatory signs or warning signs to check to see that they meet the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 8; O. Reg. 47/13, s. 12 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (1.1) A regulatory sign or warning sign that has been inspected in accordance with subsection (1) is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual until the next inspection in accordance with that subsection, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge that the sign has ceased to meet these requirements. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 12 (2). (2) If a regulatory sign or warning sign is illegible, improperly oriented, obscured or missing, the standard is to repair or replace the sign within the time set out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 8; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (3) In this section, “regulatory sign” and “warning sign” have the same meanings as in the Ontario Traffic Manual, except that they do not include a sign listed in subsection 11 (2) of this Regulation. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 8. TABLE REGULATORY AND WARNING SIGNS
Class of Highway Time 1 7 days 2 14 days
9 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 56 of 110 3 21 days 4 30 days 5 30 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 12, Table. Traffic control signal systems 13. (1) If a traffic control signal system is defective in any way described in subsection (2), the standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the defect to repair the defect or replace the defective component of the traffic control signal system. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 13 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (2) This section applies if a traffic control signal system is defective in any of the following ways: 1. One or more displays show conflicting signal indications. 2. The angle of a traffic control signal or pedestrian control indication has been changed in such a way that the traffic or pedestrian facing it does not have clear visibility of the information conveyed or that it conveys confusing information to traffic or pedestrians facing other directions. 3. A phase required to allow a pedestrian or vehicle to safely travel through an intersection fails to occur. 4. There are phase or cycle timing errors interfering with the ability of a pedestrian or vehicle to safely travel through an intersection. 5. There is a power failure in the traffic control signal system. 6. The traffic control signal system cabinet has been displaced from its proper position. 7. There is a failure of any of the traffic control signal support structures. 8. A signal lamp or a pedestrian control indication is not functioning. 9. Signals are flashing when flashing mode is not a part of the normal signal operation. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 13 (2). (3) Despite subsection (1) and paragraph 8 of subsection (2), if the posted speed of all approaches to the intersection or location of the non-functioning signal lamp or pedestrian control indication is less than 80 kilometres per hour and the signal that is not functioning is a green or a pedestrian “walk” signal, the standard is to repair or replace the defective component by the end of the next business day. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 13 (3); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (4) In this section and section 14, “cycle” means a complete sequence of traffic control indications at a location; “display” means the illuminated and non-illuminated signals facing the traffic; “indication” has the same meaning as in the Highway Traffic Act; “phase” means a part of a cycle from the time where one or more traffic directions receive a green indication to the time where one or more different traffic directions receive a green indication; “power failure” means a reduction in power or a loss in power preventing the traffic control signal system from operating as intended; “traffic control signal” has the same meaning as in the Highway Traffic Act; “traffic control signal system” has the same meaning as in the Highway Traffic Act. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 13 (4). Traffic control signal system sub-systems 14. (1) The standard is to inspect, test and maintain the following traffic control signal system sub-systems once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection: 1. The display sub-system, consisting of traffic signal and pedestrian crossing heads, physical support structures and support cables. 2. The traffic control sub-system, including the traffic control signal cabinet and internal devices such as timer, detection devices and associated hardware, but excluding conflict monitors. 3. The external detection sub-system, consisting of detection sensors for all vehicles, including emergency and railway vehicles and pedestrian push- buttons. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 14 (1); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 13 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (1.1) A traffic control signal system sub-system that has been inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with subsection (1) is deemed to be in a state of repair until the next inspection in accordance with that subsection, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge that the traffic control signal system sub-system has ceased to be in a state of repair. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 13 (2). (2) The standard is to inspect, test and maintain conflict monitors every five to seven months and at least twice per calendar year. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 14 (2); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 13 (3); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13.
10 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 57 of 110 (2.1) A conflict monitor that has been inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with subsection (2) is deemed to be in a state of repair until the next inspection in accordance with that subsection, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge that the conflict monitor has ceased to be in a state of repair. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 13 (4). (3) In this section, “conflict monitor” means a device that continually checks for conflicting signal indications and responds to a conflict by emitting a signal. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 14 (3). Bridge deck spalls 15. (1) If a bridge deck spall exceeds both the surface area and depth set out in the Table to this section, the standard is to repair the bridge deck spall within the time set out in the Table after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 15 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (2) A bridge deck spall is deemed to be in a state of repair if its surface area or depth is less than or equal to that set out in the Table. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 15 (2); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 14. (3) In this section, “bridge deck spall” means a cavity left by one or more fragments detaching from the paved surface of the roadway or shoulder of a bridge. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 15 (3). TABLE BRIDGE DECK SPALLS
Class of Surface Area Depth Time Highway 1 600 cm² 8 cm 4 days 2 800 cm² 8 cm 4 days 3 1,000 cm² 8 cm 7 days 4 1,000 cm² 8 cm 7 days 5 1,000 cm² 8 cm 7 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 15, Table. Roadway surface discontinuities 16. (1) If a surface discontinuity on a roadway, other than a surface discontinuity on a bridge deck, exceeds the height set out in the Table to this section, the standard is to repair the surface discontinuity within the time set out in the Table after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 9; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (1.1) A surface discontinuity on a roadway, other than a surface discontinuity on a bridge deck, is deemed to be in a state of repair if its height is less than or equal to the height set out in the Table to this section. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 15. (2) If a surface discontinuity on a bridge deck exceeds five centimetres, the standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact to repair the surface discontinuity on the bridge deck. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 9; O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13. (2.1) A surface discontinuity on a bridge deck is deemed to be in a state of repair if its height is less than or equal to five centimetres. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 15. (3) In this section, “surface discontinuity” means a vertical discontinuity creating a step formation at joints or cracks in the paved surface of the roadway, including bridge deck joints, expansion joints and approach slabs to a bridge. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 9. TABLE SURFACE DISCONTINUITIES
Class of Highway Height Time 1 5 cm 2 days 2 5 cm 2 days 3 5 cm 7 days 4 5 cm 21 days 5 5 cm 21 days O. Reg. 239/02, s. 16, Table. Sidewalk surface discontinuities 16.1 (1) The standard for the frequency of inspecting sidewalks to check for surface discontinuity is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 10; O. Reg. 47/13, s. 16 (1); O. Reg. 366/18, s. 13.
11 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 58 of 110 (1.1) A sidewalk that has been inspected in accordance with subsection (1) is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to any surface discontinuity until the next inspection in accordance with that subsection, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge of the presence of a surface discontinuity in excess of two centimetres. O. Reg. 47/13, s. 16 (2). (2) If a surface discontinuity on or within a sidewalk exceeds two centimetres, the standard is to treat the surface discontinuity within 14 days after acquiring actual knowledge of the fact. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 14. (2.1) REVOKED: O. Reg. 366/18, s. 14. (3) A surface discontinuity on or within a sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair if it is less than or equal to two centimetres. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 14. (4) For the purpose of subsection (2), treating a surface discontinuity on or within a sidewalk means taking reasonable measures to protect users of the sidewalk from the discontinuity, including making permanent or temporary repairs, alerting users’ attention to the discontinuity or preventing access to the area of discontinuity. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 14. (5) In this section, “surface discontinuity” means a vertical discontinuity creating a step formation at any joint or crack in the surface of the sidewalk or any vertical height difference between a utility appurtenance found on or within the sidewalk and the surface of the sidewalk. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 14. Encroachments, area adjacent to sidewalk 16.2 (1) The standard for the frequency of inspecting an area adjacent to a sidewalk to check for encroachments is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) The area adjacent to a sidewalk that has been inspected in accordance with subsection (1) is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of any encroachment present. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (3) For greater certainty, the area adjacent to a sidewalk begins at the outer edges of a sidewalk and ends at the lesser of the limit of the highway, the back edge of a curb if there is a curb and a maximum of 45 cm. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (4) The area adjacent to a sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of any encroachment present unless the encroachment is determined by a municipality to be highly unusual given its character and location or to constitute a significant hazard to pedestrians. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (5) If a municipality determines that an encroachment is highly unusual given its character and location or constitutes a significant hazard to pedestrians, the standard is to treat the encroachment within 28 days after making such a determination, and the encroachment is deemed in a state of repair for 28 days from the time of the determination by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (6) For the purpose of subsection (4), treating an encroachment means taking reasonable measures to protect users, including making permanent or temporary repairs, alerting users’ attention to the encroachment or preventing access to the area of the encroachment. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. Snow accumulation on sidewalks 16.3 (1) Subject to section 16.4, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on a sidewalk after the snow accumulation has ended is, a) to reduce the snow to a depth less than or equal to 8 centimetres within 48 hours; and b) to provide a minimum sidewalk width of 1 metre. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) If the depth of snow accumulation on a sidewalk is less than or equal to 8 centimetres, the sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of snow accumulation. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (3) If the depth of snow accumulation on a sidewalk exceeds 8 centimetres while the snow continues to accumulate, the sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation, until 48 hours after the snow accumulation ends. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (4) For the purposes of this section, the depth of snow accumulation on a sidewalk may be determined in the same manner as set out in subsection 4 (4) and by the persons mentioned in subsection 4 (3) with necessary modifications. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (5) For the purposes of this section, addressing snow accumulation on a sidewalk includes, (a) plowing the sidewalk; (b) salting the sidewalk; (c) applying abrasive materials to the sidewalk; (d) applying other chemical or organic agents to the sidewalk; or (e) any combination of the methods described in clauses (a) to (d). O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15.
12 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 59 of 110 Snow accumulation on sidewalks, significant weather event 16.4 (1) If a municipality declares a significant weather event relating to snow accumulation, the standard for addressing snow accumulation on sidewalks until the declaration of the end of the significant weather event is, (a) to monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1; and (b) if deemed practicable by the municipality, to deploy resources to address snow accumulation on sidewalks starting from the time that the municipality deems appropriate to do so. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) If the municipality complies with subsection (1), all sidewalks within the municipality are deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to any snow present until 48 hours following the declaration of the end of the significant weather event by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (3) Following the end of the weather hazard in respect of which a significant weather event was declared by a municipality under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) declare the end of the significant weather event when the municipality determines it is appropriate to do so; and (b) address snow accumulation on sidewalks in accordance with section 16.3. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. Ice formation on sidewalks and icy sidewalks 16.5 (1) Subject to section 16.6, the standard for the prevention of ice formation on sidewalks is to, (a) monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1 in the 24-hour period preceding an alleged formation of ice on a sidewalk; and (b) treat the sidewalk if practicable to prevent ice formation or improve traction within 48 hours if the municipality determines that there is a substantial probability of ice forming on a sidewalk, starting from the time that the municipality determines is the appropriate time to deploy resources for that purpose. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) If ice forms on a sidewalk even though the municipality meets the standard set out in subsection (1), the sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of ice until 48 hours after the municipality first becomes aware of the fact that the sidewalk is icy. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (3) The standard for treating icy sidewalks after the municipality becomes aware of the fact that a sidewalk is icy is to treat the icy sidewalk within 48 hours, and an icy sidewalk is deemed to be in a state of repair for 48 hours after it has been treated. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (4) For the purposes of this section, treating a sidewalk means applying materials including salt, sand or any combination of salt and sand to the sidewalk. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. Icy sidewalks, significant weather event 16.6 (1) If a municipality declares a significant weather event relating to ice, the standard for addressing ice formation or ice on sidewalks until the declaration of the end of the significant weather event is, (a) to monitor the weather in accordance with section 3.1; and (b) if deemed practicable by the municipality, to deploy resources to treat the sidewalks to prevent ice formation or improve traction, or treat the icy sidewalks, starting from the time that the municipality deems appropriate to do so. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) If the municipality complies with subsection (1), all sidewalks within the municipality are deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to any ice which forms or is present until 48 hours after the declaration of the end of the significant weather event by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (3) Following the end of the weather hazard in respect of which a significant weather event was declared by a municipality under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) declare the end of the significant weather event when the municipality determines it is appropriate to do so; and (b) address the prevention of ice formation on sidewalks or treat icy sidewalks in accordance with section 16.5. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. Winter sidewalk patrol 16.7 (1) If it is determined by the municipality that the weather monitoring referred to in section 3.1 indicates that there is a substantial probability of snow accumulation on sidewalks in excess of 8 cm, ice formation on sidewalks or icy sidewalks, the standard for patrolling sidewalks is to patrol sidewalks that the municipality selects as representative of its sidewalks at intervals deemed necessary by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) Patrolling a sidewalk consists of visually observing the sidewalk, either by driving by the sidewalk on the adjacent roadway or by driving or walking on the sidewalk or by electronically monitoring the sidewalk, and may be performed by persons responsible for patrolling roadways or sidewalks or by persons responsible for or performing roadway or sidewalk maintenance activities. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15.
13 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 60 of 110 Closure of a highway 16.8 (1) When a municipality closes a highway or part of a highway pursuant to its powers under the Act, the highway is deemed to be in a state of repair in respect of all conditions described in this Regulation from the time of the closure until the highway is re-opened by the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a highway or part of a highway is closed on the earlier of, (a) when a municipality passes a by-law to close the highway or part of the highway; and (b) when a municipality has taken such steps as it determines necessary to temporarily close the highway or part of a highway. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15. Declaration of significant weather event 16.9. A municipality declaring the beginning of a significant weather event or declaring the end of a significant weather event under this Regulation shall do so in one or more of the following ways: 1. By posting a notice on the municipality’s website. 2. By making an announcement on a social media platform, such as Facebook or Twitter. 3. By sending a press release or similar communication to internet, newspaper, radio or television media. 4. By notification through the municipality’s police service. 5. By any other notification method required in a by-law of the municipality. O. Reg. 366/18, s. 15.
REVIEW OF REGULATION Review 17. (1) The Minister of Transportation shall conduct a review of this Regulation and Ontario Regulation 612/06 (Minimum Maintenance Standards for Highways in the City of Toronto) made under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 every five years. O. Reg. 613/06, s. 2. (2) Despite subsection (1), the first review after the completion of the review started before the end of 2007 shall be started five years after the day Ontario Regulation 23/10 is filed. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 11. 18. OMITTED (PROVIDES FOR COMING INTO FORCE OF PROVISIONS OF THIS REGULATION). O. Reg. 239/02, s. 18.
Back to top
14 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 61 of 110 Item 8.3
Council Report: S 90/2018
Subject: Pedestrian Crossovers - CITY-WIDE
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 62 of 110 Page 1 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 63 of 110 Page 2 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 64 of 110 Page 3 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 65 of 110 Page 4 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 66 of 110 Page 5 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 67 of 110 Page 6 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 68 of 110 Page 7 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 69 of 110 Page 8 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 70 of 110 Page 9 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 71 of 110 Page 10 of 10 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 72 of 110 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 - August 29, 2018 71 Page 73 of 110 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 74 of 110 General notes: - Accessible asperAODA - Required illuminationofpedestriancrosswalk and waitingarea to beprovided Figure 39: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type D–Mid-block (2-lane, 2-way) Ra-5L with Ra-5R back to back Mounted Wc-27R Ra-10 ok1 • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments • Book 15 ETPS (recommended) nai rf aul June, 2016 • Ontario Traffi c Manual 20 m 2.5 m (minimum) 30 m 100 m (maximum) Standing 6 m Page Committee 75 of 110 - August 29, 2018
6 m 30 m 2.5 m 20 m (recommended) (minimum) 100 m (maximum) Wc-27R Ra-10
with Ra-5L back to back Mounted Ra-5R N.T.S. 91 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 76 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 77 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 78 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 79 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 80 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 81 of 110 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 82 of 110 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 - August 29, 2018 Page 83 of 110 Item 8.4
Council Report: S 91/2018
Subject: Calderwood Avenue Pedestrian Crossings and Intersection Control - WARD 9
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Jeff Hagan Policy Analyst 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected] Public Works - Operations Report Date: 5/31/2018 Clerk’s File #: ST2018 AFB/13207
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
Recommendation:
1. That the following items BE REFERRED to 2019 capital budget deliberations: a. Installation of a pedestrian crossover on Calderwood Avenue at the Walker Homesite multi-use trail, be included in a prioritized list of pedestrian crossings, at an estimated cost of $6,700. b. Removal of stop signs on Calderwood Avenue at Woodward Boulevard and at Turner Road, at an estimated cost of $5,000. c. Installation of sidewalks on Calderwood Avenue between Bliss Avenue and Walker Road, at an estimated cost of $82,175.
Executive Summary:
N/A
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 84 of 110 Page 1 of 11 Background:
At the August 9, 2017 meeting of Council, Councillor Payne asked the following Council Question:
CQ29-2017
Asks for a report on the feasibility of removing the stop signs on Calderwood at Woodward which are apparently unnecessary.
In response, Administration prepared report S 153/2017, CQ29-2017 - Calderwood Avenue / Woodward Boulevard All-Way Stop. This report noted that the all-way stop at Calderwood Avenue and Woodward Boulevard does not meet the warrant for an all-way stop in the All-Way Stop Policy, but recommended that a wider review be undertaken of Calderwood Boulevard to identify appropriate locations for controlled pedestrian crossings.
Report S 153/2017 was brought forward to the October 18, 2017 meeting of the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee and subsequently to the November 6, 2017 meeting of Council. At this meeting, Council made the following resolution, which was in keeping with the report recommendations:
CR674/2017
1. That Administration BE DIRECTED to conduct a review of Calderwood Avenue between Kamloops Street and Walker Road; and,
2. That Administration REPORT BACK to the Environment, Transportation, and Public Safety Standing Committee with recommendations regarding pedestrian crossings and intersection control for Calderwood Avenue between Kamloops Street and Walker Road.
This report provides the requested information.
An area map is provided as Figure 1. General characteristics of Calderwood Avenue are summarized in Table 1.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 85 of 110 Page 2 of 11
Figure 1: Calderwood Avenue and Surrounding Neighbourhood
Table 1: Key Roadway Characteristics
Item Calderwood Avenue Road Classification Class 2 Collector Speed Limit 50 km/h (unsigned) Truck Route? No Transit Route? No Cycling Facilities Signed Route Pavement Width 10.4 m Existing On-Street Parking North / east side: no restrictions (generally) South / west side: no parking (generally) Sidewalks West of Bliss Avenue: both sides East of Bliss Avenue: no sidewalks
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 86 of 110 Page 3 of 11 Discussion:
The following aspects of the review are discussed below:
Vehicle speeds and volumes
Pedestrian crossings
Pedestrian connectivity
Intersection control
Cycling impacts
Parking impacts
Vehicle speeds and volumes
Speeds and volumes were measured on Calderwood Avenue by automatic traffic recorder (“tube counter”) in April 2018 between Devonshire Heights Park and Woodward Boulevard. The results of this survey are summarized below:
Daily traffic volume (both directions): 2,573 vehicles per day
Speeds:
o Speed limit: 50 km/h
o Average speed: 42.3 km/h
o 85th percentile speed: 55.6 km/h
o Percent of vehicles travelling below the speed limit: 66.3%
Based on these results, this section of Calderwood Avenue would not be eligible for traffic calming under the Traffic Calming Policy (if a request for traffic calming was received).
Pedestrian Crossings
Administration carried out pedestrian crossover warrant surveys for the following locations on Calderwood Avenue:
In the vicinity of Devonshire Heights Park (i.e. between the two intersections of Calderwood Avenue and Kamloops Street)
Between Caribou Crescent and Bliss Road
Since sidewalks are not provided on Calderwood Avenue between Bliss Road and Walker Road (or intersecting roads in this section) a meaningful warrant review for this
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 87 of 110 Page 4 of 11 section was not possible at this time; the review was limited to locations west of Bliss Road, as noted above.
The results of these reviews are as follows:
Devonshire Heights Park: a pedestrian crossover is not warranted.
Between Caribou Crescent and Bliss Road:
o A significant volume of pedestrian crossing activity was observed. Most pedestrians were observed to cross at the trail crossing.
o A pedestrian crossover is warranted (minimum Level 2, Type D).
Based on the results of the review, Administration recommends that a Level 2, Type D pedestrian crossover be installed on Calderwood Avenue at the trail.
Pedestrian Connectivity
As can be seen in Figure 2, Calderwood Avenue has sidewalks on both sides for the majority of its length. Calderwood Avenue connects to the surrounding pedestrian network to the west and north via Foster Avenue/Conservation Avenue, the Walker Homesite multi-use trail, and the westerly extension of Kamloops Street. However, Calderwood Avenue has no connection to the pedestrian network to the east or to nearby transit routes on Walker Road. The nearest connection from the neighbourhood pedestrian network to Walker Road is at Seymour Avenue (approximately 800 m north of Calderwood Avenue).
A preliminary review of Calderwood Avenue indicates that there are existing fence encroachments at some locations on the north side, that will need to be removed before a sidewalk can be installed.
On the south side of Calderwood Avenue, the off-street parking for one property is entirely in the boulevard; this parking would be eliminated by the installation of a sidewalk. A review of historical air photos indicates that this property originally had off- street parking and that this parking was removed.
Apart from the issues noted above, the available width in both boulevards is sufficient to provide a 1.5 m sidewalk meeting AODA requirements.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 88 of 110 Page 5 of 11
Figure 2: Sidewalk Network (orange) for Calderwood Avenue and Surrounding Area
Intersection Control
Administration reviewed intersections along Calderwood Avenue against the warrant in the All-Way Stop Policy. The recommended intersection control for each location is summarized in Table 2. For all two-way stops noted below, Calderwood Avenue is the free-flow street.
Table 2: Existing and Recommended Intersection Control
Intersection Control Notes Existing Recommended Calderwood Ave. & All-way stop All-way stop All-way stop Kamloops St. (north (no change) warranted based on intersection) projected volumes with Kamloops St. extension Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Kamloops St. (east (stop on Kamloops) (no change) warranted intersection) Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Caribou Cres. / (stop on Caribou / (no change) warranted Shinglecreek Ct. Shinglecreek) Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Klondike Ave. (stop on Klondike) (no change) warranted
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 89 of 110 Page 6 of 11 Intersection Control Notes Existing Recommended Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Caribou Cres. / (stop on Caribou / (no change) warranted Irongate Cir. Irongate) Calderwood Ave. & All-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Woodward Blvd. (stop on warranted Woodward) Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Stephanie Ct. (stop on Stephanie) (no change) warranted Calderwood Ave. & Two-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Bliss Rd. (stop on Bliss) (no change) warranted Calderwood Ave. & All-way stop Two-way stop All-way stop not Turner Rd. (stop on Turner) warranted
With all unwarranted stops removed as described above, there would be no controlled pedestrian crossings on Calderwood Avenue between Kamloops Street and Walker Road (approximately 1,130 m) unless the pedestrian crossover is provided as noted in Pedestrian Crossings, above.
Cycling Impacts
Two key aspects of Administration’s recommendations will impact cycling:
The intersection control recommendations will remove two unwarranted all-way stops from a cycling route (Calderwood Avenue: signed route).
Cyclists on the Walker Homesite Multi-use trail will be required to stop and dismount at the pedestrian crossover.
Administration evaluated the possibility of a crossride at this location; this option was determined not to be viable.
An unsignalized crossride functions as an uncontrolled crossing. Provincial guidelines recommend that uncontrolled crossings not be provided when the pedestrian and vehicle volumes exceed the warrant threshold for a controlled crossing; which is the condition confirmed at this location. Therefore, Administration recommends against providing an unsignalized crossride at this location.
A signalized crossride is not warranted at this location. The most appropriate means of providing a controlled crossing is a pedestrian crossover. The Highway Traffic Act prohibits riding a bicycle in a pedestrian crossover.
Administration acknowledges that the need to dismount will be an inconvenience to cyclists. At the same time, the change is likely to decrease delay for cyclists: a dismounted rider at the proposed pedestrian crossover will have right-of-way over vehicles on Calderwood Avenue, but at the existing uncontrolled crossing, cyclists and pedestrians are required to wait for a gap in traffic before proceeding.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 90 of 110 Page 7 of 11 Parking Impacts
Under existing conditions, parking restrictions on Calderwood Avenue in the vicinity of the trail crossing are as follows:
North side: no restrictions
South side: no parking
The Ontario Traffic Manual gives required minimum and desirable lengths of the no stopping zone upstream and downstream of a pedestrian crossover:
Upstream (approaching the crossing):
o Required: 15 m
o Desirable: 30 m
Downstream (past the crossing):
o Required: 10 m
o Desirable: 15 m
Administration recommends that the desirable no stopping dimensions be provided at the pedestrian crossover. No by-law amendments are required to implement this no stopping zone; Parking By-law 9023 prohibits parking within 30 m of a pedestrian crossover when signs are posted.
A Canada Post community mailbox is located on the north side of Calderwood Avenue 3 m west of the trail. This mailbox is within the required no stopping zone if a pedestrian crossover is provided at the trail crossing. Administration recommends working with Canada Post to relocate the community mailbox to a suitable location outside the no stopping zone.
Risk Analysis:
There are no significant or critical risks identified associated with the purchase or installation of the pedestrian crossover. Administration mitigates purchasing risks to a low level by following the processes prescribed by the Purchasing By-law.
Safety risks and risks to traffic operations have been mitigated by following the warrant processes prescribed in the Ontario Traffic Manual, the All-Way Stop Policy, and the Traffic Calming Policy.
The Corporation does not have the authority to require Canada Post to relocate community mailboxes. Because of this, there is a risk that the relocation of the mailbox on Calderwood Avenue may be delayed or refused. The likelihood of this risk is unknown; if the mailbox is not relocated, resident inconvenience and non-compliance with the no stopping zone is likely.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 91 of 110 Page 8 of 11 Financial Matters:
Costs to implement Administration’s recommendations directly related to the Council Question are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Cost Summary – Intersection Control and Pedestrian Crossing
Item Cost (including non-refundable HST): Pedestrian crossover – includes: $6,700 Signs and pavement marking No stopping zones upstream and downstream Remove all-way stop at Calderwood $2,500 Avenue & Woodward Boulevard – includes: All-way stop removal Temporary signs for transition period Remove all-way stop at Calderwood $2,500 Avenue & Turner Road – includes: All-way stop removal Temporary signs for transition period TOTAL COST $11,700
Table 4 summarizes the cost to implement Administration’s recommendations that are indirectly related to the Council Question, but are determined to be of community benefit.
Table 4: Cost Summary – Sidewalk Extension
Item Cost (including non-refundable HST): Install new sidewalks on Calderwood $87,125 Avenue between Bliss Road and Walker Road
No funding source has been identified for the crossover or the construction of sidewalks between Bliss Road and Walker Road. Administration recommends that these items be referred to 2019 capital budget deliberation.
Installation of the pedestrian crossover will result in ongoing maintenance costs. Since the Corporation has no installations of this type of equipment to date, the ongoing maintenance costs are uncertain and a specific annual cost cannot be given. Ongoing maintenance will be performed by the Traffic Operations Division of Public Works and will be absorbed by the current operating budget. 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.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 92 of 110 Page 9 of 11 Consultations: Roberto Peticca, Traffic Operations Jim Abbs, Planning Robert Perisinotti, Engineering
Conclusion:
As directed, Administration reviewed intersection control and pedestrian crossing requirements along Calderwood Avenue.
The warrant for a pedestrian crossover (minimum Level 2 Type D) is met at the Walker Homesite Multi-Use Trail crossing on Calderwood Avenue. Administration recommends that a pedestrian crossover be provided at this location and that no stopping zones be provided upstream and downstream of the crossing; this will result in the existing community mailbox being within the no stopping zone. If the pedestrian crossover is approved, Administration will work with Canada Post to have the mailbox relocated.
Two existing all-way stop intersections (Calderwood / Woodward and Calderwood / Turner) do not meet the warrant given for all-way stops in the All-way Stop Policy and are recommended to be converted to two-way stop control at the time of installing the pedestrian crossover.
To provide a pedestrian connection between this neighbourhood and the transit stops, shopping, and restaurants on Walker Road, Administration recommends that sidewalks be constructed Calderwood Avenue between Bliss Road and Walker Road.
No funds are currently available for these works; Administration recommends that they be referred to 2019 budget deliberations.
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
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 93 of 110 Page 10 of 11 Notifications: Name Address Email Councillor Payne Windsor Bicycling Committee Area residents (list provided to Clerks)
Appendices: N/A
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 94 of 110 Page 11 of 11 Item 8.5
Council Report: S 126/2018
Subject: Request to Abandon Portions of the McGill and Rivard Drains on Airport Lands - Ward 9
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Stacey McGuire Project Administrator 519-255-6100 ext 1734 [email protected] Development, Projects & Right-of-Way Report Date: 8/2/2018 Clerk’s File #: SW2018
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
Recommendation:
THAT Council ACCEPT the recommendation of the City Engineer to abandon the McGill Drain, as shown on attached Drawing C-3390 to be addressed under Section 84 of The Drainage Act; and further, THAT Council ACCEPT the recommendation of the City Engineer to abandon Rivard Drain, westerly from the eastern-most property line of the Windsor International Airport as shown on attached Drawing C-3390 to be addressed under Section 84 of The Drainage Act; and further,
THAT Council DIRECT the City Solicitor to prepare a By-law to abandon the McGill Drain and the upper part of the Rivard Drain under Section 84 of The Drainage Act.
Executive Summary:
N/A
Background:
Under The Drainage Act, the municipality acts as the facilitator in providing drainage works upon the request of landowners in the municipality.
The McGill, McGill Outlet and Rivard Drains are municipal drains. This municipal drain infrastructure was transferred to the City of Windsor when the Sandwich South Employment Lands were transferred from the Town of Tecumseh in 2003.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 95 of 110 Page 1 of 4 The McGill Drain was constructed by the Township of Sandwich East prior to 1931 and served a number of properties. By-law # 2022 under the Township of Sandwich East adopted a drainage report by C.G.R. Armstrong, dated October 30, 1952, which provided for repairs and improvements to the upper portion of the McGill Drain. The upper portion of the drain provided drainage for lands generally bounded by the line between lots 111 and 112 in the 3rd Concession to the west, the Lappan Drain at the line between lots 118 and 119 in the 3rd Concession to the east, approximately 500m north of County Road 42 to the south, and the Lappan Drain to the north. The lower portion of the drain, downstream of the confluence of the Lappan and McGill Drains is the McGill Outlet Drain.
The Rivard Drain was constructed by the Township of Sandwich East prior to 1927 and served a number of properties. By-law # 2441 under the Township of Sandwich East adopted a drainage report by C.G.R. Armstrong, dated May 6, 1957, which provided for repairs and improvements to the Rivard Drain. The drain provided drainage for lands generally bounded by the former Pillette Road right-of-way to the west, Lauzon Parkway to the east, County Road 42 to the south, and approximately 500m north of County Road 42 to the north. The portion of the Rivard Drain west of the former Jefferson Boulevard Extension right-of-way was abandoned under by-law 95-2015 as part of a lease option agreement between the Corporation of the City of Windsor and Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. (‘YQG’) for the Windsor Solar Project.
Since the initial construction of the drains, the benefitting properties of the subject sections have been consolidated into six parcels (Roll #’s 090-050-00100, 090-050- 00150, 090-050-00160, 090-050-00170, 090-050-00200 and 090-050-00300) under single ownership. The Corporation of the City of Windsor is owner of said lands.
YQG has sent a letter to the City Engineer requesting abandonment of the Municipal drains (appended to this report as Schedule B) and have worked jointly with the City of Windsor in evaluating the McGill and Rivard drains for abandonment.
Section 84 of the Drainage Act allows the abandonment of all or part of drainage works if the owners of land assessed for benefit in respect of a drainage works send a request for the abandonment. The abandonment may also be initiated by the municipality. A By-law to abandon the drainage works is required and is a good housekeeping measure for the City’s records.
Discussion:
YQG has advised that through property consolidation and agricultural operations, the Municipal drains in question no longer provide any appreciable drainage for the lands assessed other than the airport lands. Abandonment will not negatively impact the surrounding lands, all of which are owned by the Corporation of the City of Windsor.
In response to the request for abandonment of parts of the McGill and Rivard Drains, the October 30, 1952 and May 6, 1957 drainage reports were reviewed to identify the current property ownership of the lands assessed for benefit in respect to these drainage works. This identified a single property owner of lands assessed for benefit in respect of these drainage works. The property owner was sent a notice stating the
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 96 of 110 Page 2 of 4 City’s intention to abandon part of the drainage works as per Section 84 (1). The time period within which property owners have the opportunity to notify the City Clerk of concerns and request the report of an engineer be made on this proposed abandonment has expired. No requests for a report of an engineer were received. Since the benefitting lands have been consolidated, upon the abandonment of the municipal drains, provision of on-site drainage will be the property-owner’s responsibility. These lands remain within the drainage area of the McGill Outlet Drain and the lower part of the Rivard Drain and the drains may provide an outlet for any internal on-site drainage for these lands. The McGill Outlet Drain will remain as a municipal drain.
Risk Analysis:
Abandoning the upper part of the McGill and Rivard Drains relieves the City of the obligation to maintain this section as a municipal drain.
Since the benefitting lands have been consolidated, upon the abandonment of the upper part of the McGill and Rivard Drains, provision of on-site drainage will be the property-owner’s responsibility. Abandonment of the drains poses minimal risks to the Corporation.
Financial Matters: In accordance with the City of Windsor Act, 1968, the City of Windsor has used the general tax levy or the sewer surcharge levy, depending on location, for drain maintenance costs where they are blocked and no longer functioning correctly. Abandoning the upper part of the McGill and Rivard Drains relieves the City of the financial obligation to respond to maintenance of a municipal drain. Any financial savings is expected to be minimal.
Consultations:
Steve Tuffin, Manager of Operations at YQG
Carolyn Brown, CEO of YQG & Corporate Leader – Transportation Services
Anna Godo, Drainage Superintendant
Fahd Mikhael, Office of the City Engineer
Conclusion:
Section 84 of The Drainage Act allows for the abandonment of all or part of drainage works, if three-quarters of the owners of land assessed for benefit in respect of a drainage works send a request for the abandonment of such works. Since the benefitting lands have been consolidated and the owner of the lands advised it is in agreement, it is appropriate to abandon McGill Drain and the upper part of the Rivard Drain.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 97 of 110 Page 3 of 4
Administration recommends that the McGill Drain and the upper part of the Rivard Drain, westerly from the easternmost property line of the Windsor International airport, as shown on attached Drawing C-3390 be abandoned.
Planning Act Matters: N/A
Approvals: Name Title
France Isabelle-Tunks Senior Manager, Development, Projects & ROW/Deputy City Engineer
Mark Winterton City Engineer and Corporate Leader Environmental Protection and Transportation
Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader Economic Development & Public Safety
Janice Guthrie On behalf of Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer and Corporate Leader Finance & Technology
Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer
Notifications: Name Address Email
Ward 9 Councillor – Hilary [email protected] Payne
Appendices:
Schedule A – Drawing C-3390 Schedule B – Letter of Support from YQG
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 98 of 110 Page 4 of 4 ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 99 of 110 Windsor International Airport
,^on Q U 7c K 3200 County Rd. 42 ti&OOO ( GATEWAY Windsor.Ontario, 'loonnT YQG (~w"l N~D"S'0'R) Canada, N9A6J3 Phone:519-969-2430 fax:519-969-6053 web: www.YQG.ca
Office of the City Engineer 1266McDougalSt Windsor On. N8X 31W7
Re: Abandonment of parts of the IVlcGill and Rivard Drains
With respect to the abandonment of the Rivard Drain on Airport property and the McGil! Drain west of the Lappan Drain, on airport property, Airport Operations has no concerns or issues and supports this request.
The portions of the municipal drains(s) being proposed for abandonment service the airport lands and upon abandonment, drainage of the lands will be maintained by YQG to ensure compliance with Transport Canada Wildlife Control measures and ultimately a safer operation of the airport. The remaining portions of the McGill and Rivard Drains are adequately drained. Drainage is routinely monitored by airport operations staff on a regular basis as a function of the Wildlife Control Plan.
YQG will continually access drainage in these areas, post-abandonment. Although not anticipated, if any drainage issues arise due to this abandonment in the future, YQG and Airport Operations will work with the City of Windsor to rectify any drainage issues.
0
Steven Tuffin 0 Director of Operations Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. Windsor International Airport . ? 0
ec. Carolyn Brown CEO forYQG and Borderlink Jim McCormack Director of Finance YQG (^ France Isabelle Tunks, Senior Manager, Development Projects and Right of Way
0
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 100 of 110 Item 8.6
Council Report: S 122/2018
Subject: CQ27-2017 - First Responders Signage in Parks
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Mike Clement/Andrew Drouillard Manager Parks Development (519) 253-2300 ext. 2736 [email protected]
Parks Report Date: 7/20/2018 Clerk’s File #: SR2018
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
Recommendation:
THAT the report of the Manager Parks Development, dated July 20, 2018, responding to CQ27-2017 regarding first responders signage for parks, BE RECEIVED for information; and THAT City Council BE ADVISED that Administration will return to Council in January 2019 to request the approval to proceed with this project and release the 2023 funding allocated as part of the 2018 Enhanced Budget, and further THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a wayfinding standards policy based on the results of the Little River Corridor wayfinding signage and markers, as a pilot project, to be brought to City Council for approval.
Executive Summary:
N/A
Background:
The City of Windsor recently underwent a full review and analysis of its existing park system, comprised of approximately 2,500 acres of parks, open spaces and natural areas, as part of the development of a new Parks and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan, Rediscover Our Parks, approved in July 2016. Public consultation on the Master Plan identified multi-use trails as the most important amenity that Windsorites use and want expanded. Multi-use trails were therefore the focus of several recommendations, including recommendation 6.08 “to develop trail heads and staging areas with the appropriate amenities for users including: way finding and interpretation”. The Master Plan also placed emphasis on park safety through Strategic Direction #7, which states
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 101 of 110 Page 1 of 5 that parks facilities and recreational programming in the city shall provide safe, clean, and attractive environments for all users.
At the meeting of City Council on August 8, 2017, Councillor Kusmierczyk asked the following Council Question (CQ27-2017): Asks that Administration report back on signage and location options for first responders responding to emergencies in parks to help identify location of emergency, or location of person in distress.
At the following budget meeting of January 16, 2018, City Council conceptually approved the 2018 Capital Budget at its meeting of January 16, 2018, which included $22.8M in enhanced funds set aside for various projects. One of the projects was Wayfinding Signage and Markers – Ganatchio/Little River, which involves the installation of wayfinding signage and markers along the Little River Corridor extension of the Ganatchio Trail to improve orientation for users and emergency services.
Discussion:
The City of Windsor’s trail system currently encompasses over 100 kilometers of trails and is continually expanding, as multi-use trails have increased in popularity. The Parks and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan highlights the important role multi-use trails play in the parks system and recommends improvement to wayfinding and its importance to connectivity.
Wayfinding is a system of information that helps people understand and navigate their surroundings. Information in a wayfinding system can be delivered in many different ways, including signs, markings, maps, phone applications, etc. and can be integrated with naming conventions, landmarks, addresses and other ways navigation aides.
As the City of Toronto identified in the Wayfinding System Strategy for Toronto Parks & Trails, wayfinding for parks and trails has five main objectives:
1. to help users identify parks and trails and navigate through them;
2. to encourage visiting, exploring and appreciation by providing users with context around different park or trail elements, such as heritage and conservation;
3. to raise awareness of what parks and trails have to offer, including the benefits of physical activity, recreation and relaxation;
4. to remove the physical and psychological barriers that prevent users from using parks and trails, such as overestimating walking distances/times; and
5. to improve user safety by warning of hazards and providing emergency information.
The City’s present wayfinding measures include maps posted at certain trail entrances and kilometre markers along some multi-use trails. Administration has also recently undertaken an initiative to provide addressing for all 209 City-owned parks.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 102 of 110 Page 2 of 5 In order to improve and expand the City’s wayfinding system, Administration is proposing that the installation of wayfinding signage and markers along the Little River Corridor extension of the Ganatchio Trail be used as a pilot project for the development of a wayfinding standards policy. This policy would set standards for minimum wayfinding signage and markers for trails, which would need to be included in any new trail construction and would be installed along existing trails as available funding allows.
Figure 1 – Little River Corridor Map
Source: City of Windsor
Little River Corridor is a naturalized 200-acre park featuring an extension of the Ganatchio Trail that links it to Tecumseh Road and the WFCU Centre. The Little River Corridor is perfect for a pilot project because it includes three different trails (Little River Corridor Trail, Riverside Kawanis Trail and Aspen Lake Trail) which intersect at various locations, it has several major access points, and the trails’ routes through naturalized areas away from major roads make it difficult to pin point one’s location on the trails.
Wayfinding within the Little River Corridor and along the trails would include a combination of pedestal maps at trail access points, directional signs at trail intersections, and distance markers every 100 meters. Through consultation with Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Windsor Fire & Rescue Services and Windsor Police Service staff, it was determined that pavement marking should also be included to enhance first responders’ ability to locate users in an emergency situation.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 103 of 110 Page 3 of 5 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation Guidelines Part 4.1 Design of Public Spaces Standard outlines the requirements for recreational trails. Trail head signage is included in the regulation and provides information for trail length, surface, slope, width and amenities.
The regulations require consultation with the Windsor Accessibility Advisory Committee regarding the development of the trail and signage.
Risk Analysis:
There are no critical or significant risks associated with this informational report. Wayfinding is an enhancement of the City’s trail system and helps mitigate the risk of first responders being delayed in locating users in emergency situations.
Financial Matters:
As per B73/2018, this project was identified in the “Proposed 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget” presented to Council on January 15, 2018. Council should note that given the funding for the 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget is not available until 2023, which is outside of a 5 year window. As such this item will be brought forward in January 2019 to request use of the funds. As these funds are in 2023 temporary financing costs will apply.
Consultations:
Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services Windsor Fire & Rescue Services Windsor Police Service
Conclusion:
The installation of wayfinding signage and markers along the Little River Corridor extension of the Ganatchio Trail enhances the City’s multi-use trail system, one of Windsor’s most important amenities, by helping users better navigate the many trails and their intersections and by helping first responders locate individuals in an emergency event. Should this pilot project prove successful, Administration will look to standardize the use wayfinding signage and markers across other City trails.
Approvals: Name Title
Andrew Drouillard Executive Initiatives Coordinator
Mike Clement Manager Parks Development
Jan Wilson Corporate Leader, Parks, Recreation & Culture and Facilities
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 104 of 110 Page 4 of 5 Name Title
Janice Guthrie On behalf of Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer
Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer
Notifications: Name Address Email
Appendices:
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 105 of 110 Page 5 of 5 Item 9.1
Council Report: S 131/2018
Subject: Operating Agreement Between Transit Windsor and the Corporation of the City of Windsor
Reference: Date to Council: August 29, 2018 Author: Patrick Delmore Executive Director, Transit Windsor 519-944-4111 ext 2232 [email protected] Transit Windsor Report Date: 8/10/2018 Clerk’s File #: MT/11906
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 APPROVE the signing of the operating agreement between Transit Windsor and the Corporation of the City of Windsor. That the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the operating agreement on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Windsor satisfactory in form to the City Solicitor and in technical content to the City Engineer and;
That the Chair of the Transit Windsor Board of Directors BE AUTHORIZED to sign the operating agreement on behalf of Transit Windsor, satisfactory in form to the City Solicitor and in technical content to the City Engineer.
Executive Summary:
N/A.
Background:
At the June 9, 2014 meeting of City Council, the report titled Transportation/Transit Windsor Service Delivery Enhancement Governance Model was approved by resolution number CR136/2014. The report detailed the new operating model for Transit Windsor, effective January 1, 2015. The resolutions in the report included the following recommendations that relate to the operation of Transit Windsor:
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 106 of 110 Page 1 of 5 THAT City Council DIRECT that this report be presented to Transit Windsor Board of Directors for information, acknowledging the majority City Council presence on this Board; and,
THAT City Council AUTHORIZE Administration to proceed to further develop a consolidated reporting, governance and operational structure and service delivery model, as identified in Option 1, encompassing the services currently provided by Transit Windsor, and including the legal entities of Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. (Windsor Airport) and the Windsor Detroit Tunnel Corporation as documented in this report and any new emerging issues; and
THAT City Council AUTHORIZE Administration to work with the relevant departments and entities to implement, where possible and practical, the necessary re-organization of resources and staff to achieve savings from sharing services and resources as outlined in this report.
The report detailed the information required to recognize the continued operation of Transit Windsor as a separate legal entity due to its status as a federal employer while operating as a city department with synergies amongst other city departments. Since the implementation of the above report, one additional restructuring took place in 2017 seeing Transit Windsor reporting into the City through the City Engineer as part of the of Public Works Division.
Both the report and the CR contemplated that Transit Windsor would enter into an agreement with the City outlining the governance structure. This would be similar to the procedure followed by Windsor Public Library and the City. Details of this are provided below.
Discussion: The detailed agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities of both organizations with regards to operating as a city department while recognizing both legislative and corporation differences. Some of the key areas of the agreement are highlighted below.
Transit Windsor will:
. Review and recommend Transit Windsor’s annual operating and capital budgets to the City; . Review and recommend service changes and fare increases to the City ; . Approve the collective bargaining agreement with Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), Local 616 (“Collective Agreement”); . Ensure compliance with City policies and procedures except in so far as such policies do not conflict with Transit Windsor public transportation operating policies; . Recommend staffing levels and staff reorganizations to the City.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 107 of 110 Page 2 of 5 The City will: i. Give financial direction to Transit Windsor and communicate that direction; ii. Approve the annual operating and capital budget for Transit Windsor
iii. recruit staff; and
iv. Provide, at no cost to Transit Windsor, personnel to deliver such: . Legal services; . Financial services; . Internal audit services; . Building services and construction and project management; . Purchasing services; . Human Resources services; . Employee Relations services; . Communications services; . Information Technology services; and . Insurance and Risk Management services;
The above responsibilities allows Transit Windsor to operate as a City Department while recognizing and maintaining its legal status as a corporation which is required under the Sandwich Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Act.
Risk Analysis:
There is a requirement for an agreement to be documented between the Corporation of the City of Windsor and Transit Windsor in order to keep the two legal entities separate and at arms length with regards to operations. While Transit Windsor now operates as a city department, due to its federal status, there is a requirement to legally separate the two entities in order to maintain the required separation.
Financial Matters:
There are no financial implications for the agreement. At the June 9, 2014 meeting of City Council, the report titled Transportation/Transit Windsor Service Delivery Enhancement Governance Model was approved by resolution number CR136/2014. This report identified all costs associated with the governance model with the dollar savings identified to be re-invested in transit service and these changes have been implemented.
Consultations:
Wira Vendrasco, Deputy City Solicitor, City of Windsor.
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 108 of 110 Page 3 of 5 Conclusion:
This report provides the legal operating agreement details for the agreement between Transit Windsor and the Corporation of the City of Windsor and approval is recommended by Administration.
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
Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor – Corporate Leader, Public Safety and Economic Development
Valerie Critchley City Clerk/Licence Commissioner
Janice Guthrie On behalf of Chief Financial Officer – City Treasurer and Corporate Leader, Finance and Technology
Jelena Payne acting for Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer
Notifications: Name Address Email
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 109 of 110 Page 4 of 5 Appendices:
ETPS Standing Committee - August 29, 2018 Page 110 of 110 Page 5 of 5