March 11, 1998
To:Nancy Rickford, Interim Commitee Secretary
Urban Environment and Development Committee
Copy:City of Toronto Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs
City of Toronto Councillor Gerry Altobello, Scarborough Bluffs
City of Toronto Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto
City of Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto
From:Martin Maguire, Acting Manager
East Traffic Region
Re:Proposed Pedestrian Crossover - Victoria Park Avenue at Swanwick Avenue
This memo is to inform you that the Toronto Police Service has indicated to our Department that a crossing guard is not
warranted at this location and will not be provided (see attached letter).
At its meeting on June 4, 1997, Metropolitan Council approved Clause No. 4 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and
Transportation Committee which recommended that a pedestrian crossover (PXO) be installed at the intersection of
Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, subject to a crossing guard being provided at such intersection.
Given that a crossing guard will not be provided, the pedestrian crossover will not be installed and our Department now
considers this issue to be closed.
Please contact Richard Noehammer at 397-0506 if you have any questions or require additional information.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submit the following communication (February 16,
1998) from Staff Inspector, Community Policing Support Unit, Metropolitan Toronto Police:
At your request, a traffic study was conducted at the above mentioned location. The condition observed during the study
indicate that school crossing guard supervision is not warranted. The relevant observations are:
(1)children have minimal involvement with motor vehicle traffic;
(2)accident reports covering the past 24 months for the location indicate there were no accidents involving elementary
school children;
(3)the elementary school children that crossed did not appear to experience difficulty in crossing;
(4)traffic control provides adequate assistance for the children to cross safety; and
(5)the majority of elementary school children crossed in groups and, or were escorted by adults.
We have enclosed a copy of the School Guard Site Evaluation Program, Policy Criteria and Procedure.
Should you require a meeting or want to discuss this information further, please contact the School Survey Section,
Community Policing Support Unit at 808-7050.
Community Policing Support Unit
School Crossing Guard Site Evaluation Program
Policy, Criteria and Procedure
Mission Statement
To enhance the safety of elementary school children by providing school crossing supervision at suitable locations and to
make recommendations to the appropriate groups and agencies concerning pedestrian, traffic and road conditions at school
crossing sites.
Requests for a site evaluation:
Requests for the evaluation of a site shall be submitted in writing to the Chief of Police, attention to the Unit Commander,
Community Services. Site evaluations will be conducted in the order received, unless an over-riding safety concern has
been demonstrated.
Unless new and relevant circumstances can be shown to exist since the time an evaluation was conducted, a re-evaluation
would not ordinarily be conducted within two years of the date of an original evaluation.
Evaluation Methodology:
The criteria contained in this document will be used for establishing the necessity for placement of a School Crossing
Guard.
An evaluation of a site will include an analysis of accident data for the previous 24 months.
An evaluation will ordinarily include a single inspection of the site during each of the normal school crossing times.
Inspections will be conducted, so far as possible, on days with reasonable weather conditions and typical school activities.
Staff of the local school(s) will be contacted to obtain school start and finish times and input on the necessity for crossing
supervision.
Radar and photographs will be utilized, as necessary, in the evaluation of a site.
In addition to the data required to establish scores for the weighting factors listed in this document, the following general
information shall be gathered at a site survey:
-number of children crossing prior to normal school crossing times;
-times first and last child crossed;
-times guard/patroller arrived and departed (when appropriate)
-distances from school to crossing site;
-number of parents walking their children to school;
-number of parents driving their children to school (when known);
-type of intersection (when appropriate); and
-road measurements.
Criteria and Definitions:
The purpose of the criteria is to ensure the safety of school children by providing a consistent and appropriate process for
the evaluation of a need for a guard.
Safety, not convenience, must be a primary motivator.
The safe crossing of a street by young children is a matter of great concern to all members of the community. While it
could be argued that no effort would be too great, nor could resources be better spent, the Service is governed by the reality
of competing demands and the ability to pay for services. The intent of the program then, is to provide a reasonable level of
safety by placing adult school crossing supervision at crossing supervision at crossing that are unsafe for children and when
no reasonable alternative is apparent.
This criteria shall be read and used in conjunction with the warrant established by the Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC) in
April of 1992. When Visibility and Safe Gaps are in issue, the mathematical calculations contained in the OTC warrant
shall be used.
A school crossing guard may only be placed at a site for the purpose of escorting elementary school children across a
street. Elementary school children include those students from Kindergarten up to and including Grade Six. School
Crossing Guards will not be provided on private roadways.
When it is found that children avoid a crossing and cross nearby or at another site, consideration shall be given to the
possibility that a safer or more convenient alternative site exits, or that the hazards on the roadway are not too great for
crossing without assistance.
The warrant checklist is intented for use as a "guideline" only in determining the need for placement of a school crossing
guard. Unique or over-riding factors (e.g., an excessively high number of accidents) may indicate a guard is warranted. In
such situations, the Unit Commander, Community Services, will determine the recommendation to be made. Otherwise, a
majority of positive responses to the criteria would suggest that a guard is warranted.
In some situation a school crossing guard may appear to be warranted, however, such a recommendation may be
unnecessary if improvements in road design or signage, re-location of crossing, traffic law enforcement, or parent/student
education is undertaken to correct the observed conditions.
The placement of a guard is not an action of first resort.
A guard may be warranted when one of the following situation apply:
-there are insufficient safe crossing gaps (in Metropolitan Toronto the presence of adequate traffic control devices would
normally provide for safe gaps);
-child or motorist visibility is impaired (determined by formula calculations); and
-there are four or more lanes of traffic and the speed limit is greater than 50 kilometres per hour.
Other factors listed below are assessed in order to answer whether the warranted criteria exists and to illustrate that
alternatives are not available.
| 1 |
Insufficient Safe Gaps |
A safe gap is break in traffic that permits
sufficient it time for a child to cross in safety.
Insufficient safe gaps occur frequently during
crossing time, specifically, there are three or less
gaps in a five minute period. Safe gaps are not
ordinarily calculated when traffic controls are
present. |
| |
Inadequate Traffic Control
Devices |
Signs, signals, makings or devices placed or
erected for the purpose of regulating, warning or
guiding traffic are, inadequate or non-existent.
Gaps will be calculated in these situations. |
| 2 |
Inadequate Visibility |
When it is apparent that pedestrian or motorist
visibility is restricted, calculations will be
performed to determine "Child's Visibility
Distance" and/or "Driver Stopping Distance". |
| |
Obstructions or Inadequate
Road Design |
Poor visibility for pedestrian or motorists due to
turns, hills, trees, shrubs, billboards, bus shelters
or buildings. |
| |
High Volume of Traffic
entering or leaving roadway |
Turns made onto a roadway from private drives
or other roads so that the ability to view
pedestrians crossing is severely restricted. |
| |
Traffic Interference |
Presence of road or building construction,
stopping, parking or unloading of vehicles creates
a hazard for safe crossing due to restricted
visibility. |
| |
No Boulevards or Sidewalks |
The ability of a motorists to be aware of a
pedestrian's intention to cross the road is limited,
or pedestrians are forced to walk on or
immediately beside a roadway, due to the lack of
a boulevard or sidewalk. |
| 3 |
Number of Lanes of Traffic
and High Speed Limit |
There are four or more lanes of traffic speed is
greater than 50 kilometres per hour (Posted or
85th percentile in excess of 50 kilometres per
hour). |
| |
Traffic Violations |
Impede the safe crossing of children (radar and
observation used to establish criteria). |
| |
Other Factors |
|
| |
High Volume of Turning
Traffic at Crossing |
There is a high volume of traffic turning at an
intersection so as to create a hazard. Ordinarily
determined by frequency in which turning traffic
is observed to interfere with crossing pedestrians. |
| |
High Accident Location |
During the previous 24 months there has been a
child pedestrian accident or more than four other
types of accidents at the crossing site during
crossing times. |
| |
High Volume of Children
Crossing |
Average number of children crossing, per
crossing time, is higher than 35. |
| |
Alternate Transportation not
Available |
School busing is not provided. The majority of
children are not driven to school. |
| |
No Alternative Crossing Site |
There is no safe alternate site at which children
might cross. |
School Patroller Program:
Administration of the School Patroller program is also the responsibility of the Community Services Unit of the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Service.
Upon completion of a site evaluation, the School Guard Survey Officers will advise the local school and the School
Patroller Officer of their findings.
A site may only be approved for the School Patroller Program with the consent of the Principal of the involved school, the
local community, and the Unit Commander of Community Services.
School Patroller Program Criteria:
-the location does not meet the criteria for a school crossing guard and specifically, the speed limit must be no greater than
50 kilometres per hour and the road width must be exceed three lanes of traffic;
-the location must be within visual sight or close proximity of the school;
-the location is not controlled by automated traffic signals (traffic lights);
-to maintain the interest of school patroller and to justify the existence of the program, the location should have a
minimum of 30-40 elementary school students crossing and 40-50 vehicles, per half hour, using the roadway;
-a teacher from the school must be assigned to co-ordinate the program and to supervise the school patrollers;
-written parental consent is required for each school patroller;
-patrollers must receive training from the Service at the beginning of each school year;
-patrollers must always wear the supplied equipment (florescent, orange belt or cape) while performing their duties;
-patrollers are not permitted to stop traffic;
-patrollers must perform their duties from the side of the roadway except when working in conjunction with a properly
signed pedestrian crossover or in order to view traffic around a parked vehicle and may proceed onto the roadway only to
the extent that their vision is not obstructed; and
-the patroller program is subject to cancellation should the criteria not be adhered.
Clause embodied in Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, as adopted by the Council of The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on June 4, 1997.
4
REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
- VICTORIA PARK AVENUE AND SWANWICK AVENUE.
(The Metropolitan Council on June 4, 1997, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that a pedestrian crossover be installed at the
intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, subject to a crossing guard being provided at such
intersection.
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following communication (April 10, 1997) from
Councillor Tom Jakobek, Ward 10, City of Toronto:
I have attached a copy of your Traffic Department's report of September 12, 1996, concerning a crosswalk.
Please ensure that the matter is scheduled for deputations and advise me as to when the community can attend.
(Communication dated September 12, 1996,
from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region,
Metropolitan Transportation Department.)
We have completed our investigation into the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Victoria
Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue. Based on our investigation, the installation of a pedestrian crossover is not justified at
this time.
We conducted an eight-hour pedestrian study to determine whether this intersection meets the minimum technical
requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover. Our survey, conducted on September 9, 1996, revealed that a
total of 215 pedestrians crossed Victoria Park Avenue in the vicinity of Swanwick Avenue, of which 56 were delayed
significantly (greater than ten seconds) before finding a suitable gap to cross. The 215 pedestrians consisted of 196
youths/adults, 13 assisted children and six unassisted children.
Based on the volume of traffic on Victoria Park Avenue, the minimum technical requirements for the installation of a
pedestrian crossover at this location is 275 pedestrian crossings during the busiest eight hours of the day. This requirement
is not met. However, if this requirement were met, a second requirement would be applied which takes into account how
many pedestrian were delayed more than ten seconds before being able to complete their crossing. This requirement also is
not met. Both of these requirements must be met for a pedestrian crossover to be considered technically warranted.
We also considered the installation of a pedestrian refuge island near the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and
Swanwick Avenue to assist pedestrians. However, this section of Victoria Park Avenue is not wide enough to
accommodate a pedestrian refuge island without widening.
We have reviewed the collision records of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending
December 31, 1995. This review revealed that there has been one pedestrian-related collision reported in the vicinity of this
intersection. This collision involved an eastbound-to-southbound right-turning vehicle which struck a pedestrian who was
crossing Swanwick Avenue from south to north. There were no reported incidents involving pedestrians crossing Victoria
Park Avenue at this location.
Therefore, given that the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue fails to satisfy the minimum
technical requirements for a pedestrian crossover and has a good safety record, we cannot justify the installation of a
pedestrian crossover, at this location, at this time.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 392-5243.
