October 15, 1998
To:Urban Environment and Development Committee
From:David C. Kaufman, General Manager, Transportation Services Division
Subject:Examination of Service Levels for Road Maintenance and Related Budget
Implications
Purpose:
To report on existing service levels for winter maintenance, sweeping and flushing of
pavements, sidewalk litter removal and fall leaf collection, and to assess options for service
levelling and the consequent budget implications.
Financial Implications:
The review of this report by the Committee and subsequently City Council and the resultant
decisions on service levels will affect the 1999 Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that road maintenance service levels be harmonized in a phased manner
(Option D) as follows:
1(a).Road and Sidewalk Winter Maintenance, Phase I (1999/2000 Winter Season)
(i)Salting/sanding and ploughing pavement operations follow the general service guideline
shown on Table 1 attached;
(ii)The City continue to clear the windrows of snow from single family residential driveways
in the North York, Scarborough, and Forest Hill communities..
(iii)The City continue to clear snow and ice from sidewalks as per Table 4, attached.
(iv)Staff be directed to prepare a consolidated snow clearing by-law to require property
owners to remove snow and ice from sidewalks adjacent to their property to replace the 5
existing snow clearing by-laws.
(v)The City provide a sidewalk and windrow clearing service to all senior citizens over the
age of 65 years, and disabled residents residing in single family residences. This service is
subject to no other occupant who is under the age of 65 years residing in the same house and
who is capable of removing snow. This service to be provided at no charge to eligible
recipients.
(vi)The above recommendations not be implemented until the 1999/2000 winter season;
(vii)The above recommendations be subject to 1999 Current Budget approval.
1(b).Road and Sidewalk Winter Maintenance, Phase II:
Staff be directed to continue to analyze the sidewalk clearing programme, and removing
windrows from residential driveways and report to Committee in the Fall of 1999 on a
harmonization proposal for these activities.
2.Sweeping and Flushing of Pavements
(i)Sweeping and flushing operations follow the general service guideline shown in Table 10.
(ii)A further review be carried out based on the experience in 1999 in order to determine
whether any changes are required to the general service guideline presented in Table 10, and
to prepare for the Year 2000 budget.
(iii)The costs of providing sweeping and flushing services for special events be identified and
considered as part of the 1999 current budget process.
(iv)An annual City wide anti-litter campaign be developed and that a further report be
brought forward to outline the requirements, content and costs of such a campaign.
3.Sidewalk Litter Removal
(i)Sidewalk litter removal operations follow the general service guideline shown in Table 12.
(ii)A methodology be developed for the measurement of litter removal requirements and
services in order to establish performance measures and to assess value for expenditure for
this activity.
(iii)The service guideline presented in Table 12 be reviewed once the methodology noted in
(ii) above has been developed.
(4)Leaf Collection From Roadways
(i)starting in the Fall of 1999 residents in all areas be required to bag leaves from their
property to be collected by the Solid Waste Management Services Division.
(ii)a communication program be developed in conjunction with the Solid Waste Management
Services Division and implemented for all residents encouraging them not to rake leaves to
the ditch or curb, to compost leaves as much as possible, and to bag the remainder for pick-up.
(iii)appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.
Executive Summary:
There are four particular services in road operations that have varied service levels among the
former seven municipal jurisdictions, and which are financially significant and very visible.
These are:
ServiceAnnual Current Budget
Winter Maintenance
-salting/sanding and ploughing pavements
-removal of windrows of snow from driveways
-clearing of sidewalks
-Senior and disabled person programme
$32,288,000
Sweeping and Flushing Pavements$ 9,612,000
Sidewalk Litter Removal$ 8,602,500
Leaf Collection$ 2,300,000_______________
Total:$52,802,500
The levels of service provided by the former municipalities in some cases were relatively
similar, i.e., salting/sanding and ploughing pavements. Other service levels differed
significantly, i.e., clearing of snow from sidewalks and driveway windrows.
The derivation and assessment of level of service options involves a number of basic
questions including the following:
- Defining minimum service levels with acceptable risk to the Corporation and/or that are
commensurate with basic responsibilities of the Corporation;
- Assessing public and political acceptability particularly for services that are elective and
not safety related;
- Defining what is affordable;
- Deriving an acceptable balance between the apparent desire for uniform service levels
versus the need for varied service levels depending on differing requirements;
- Ensuring that the respective implementation schedule for changes is realistic relative to
constraints but is also sufficiently aggressive relative to Corporate expenditure reduction
objectives.
The assessment of the service level options for each activity considered the following:
- Basic level of service which must be provided;
- Lowest existing level of service;
- Highest existing level of service;
- Proposed level of service.
Level Of Service Options
Five overall level of service options which could be considered are:
A.Basic Operational Requirements
This option would provide for a level of service which should be provided by the City to
ensure safe winter driving conditions, plus cleaning of the public right-of-way. The following
services would be provided:
-salting/sanding and ploughing pavements
-sweeping and flushing streets
-sidewalk litter removal
This level of service would eliminate all sidewalk snow clearing, windrow clearing, the senior
or disabled snow clearing programme, and the vacuuming of leaves raked from private
property., The cost savings would amount to $8,847,000. These services are not considered
essential to operating the City, but in many cases meet the particular needs of many of the
City's residents.
B.Retain Existing Service Levels
The present varying levels of service would be retained. The method of delivery would
change in some cases because of the amalgamation of the former local municipalities and
Metro operations. Funding requirements would remain the same except for productivity
increases which could occur in the future through combining operations.
C.Make Service Level Adjustments to selected Activities
This option would consist of harmonizing the level of service for the following activities as
follows:
-The salting/sanding and ploughing of pavements to follow the general service guidelines
shown in Table 1.
-Clearing of snow from sidewalks for Seniors or Disabled Citizens free of charge.
-Sweeping and flushing operations to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table
10.
-Sidewalk Litter Programme to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table 12.
-Residents in all areas would be required to bag leaves from their property to be collected by
the Solid Waste Management Services Division.
The levels of service provided by the City for these activities would be consistent throughout
the City. The service level changes could be implemented in the Spring of 1999 for sweeping
and flushing, and sidewalk litter removal programmes. The changes in the leaf collection
programme could be implemented for the Fall of 1999. The winter maintenance changes
could be coordinated for the 1999/2000 winter season. The combined annual savings would
be $265,000.
The current practice of clearing driveway windrows in North York, Scarborough, and Forest
Hill would continue. The varying levels of service for clearing snow and ice from sidewalks
would be delivered as noted in Table 4.
D.Phased In Service Level Changes
This option would consist of implementing the service level changes as stated in Option C as
Phase I. Phase II would consist of adjusting service levels for the following activities over a 3
to 5 year period.
-Clearing snow and ice from sidewalks
-Removing windrows from residential driveways
The level of service provided for sidewalk snow clearing and driveway windrow removal
would be determined after further analysis of these activities, included an assessment of the
amount of surplus funding available for these activities and possible budget savings from
productivity improvements from harmonization of winter maintenance and street cleaning
activities.
E.Winter Sidewalk Clearing and Driveway Windrow Adjustments
This option would consist of the following activities:
-The salting/sanding and ploughing of pavements to follow the general service guidelines
shown in Table 1.
-Clearing of snow from sidewalks for Seniors or Disabled citizens free of charge.
-Sweeping and flushing operations to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table
10.
-Sidewalk Litter Programme to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table 12.
-Residents in all areas would be required to bag leaves from their property to be collected by
the Solid Waste Management Service Division.
-Expand the windrow opening program to include all suburban areas (former Etobicoke,
North York and Scarborough communities)
-The sidewalk snow clearing programme be limited to all main roads (plus municipal
properties and reverse frontages).
This option is similar to Option D except a decision is made now to modify the extent of
windrow opening and sidewalk clearing elements without the benefit of further analysis. The
estimated additional cost is approximately $762,000.00.
Background:
One of the more challenging issues associated with the amalgamation from both a
management and political perspective is the question of service levelling. Not only are the
financial implications significant in terms of either cost increases or decreases but the public
concern and reaction to changes can be severe.
There are four particular services in road operations that have had varied service levels among
the former seven municipal jurisdictions and which are financially significant and very
visible. These are:
ServiceAnnual Current Budget
Winter Maintenance$32,288,000
Sweeping and Flushing of Pavements$ 9,612,000
Sidewalk Litter Removal$ 8,602,500
Leaf Collection$ 2,300,000 1
__________
Total$52,802,500
1 Excludes Solid Waste Costs
The total above represents 31% of the total annual budget of the new Transportation Services
Division.
It was recognized during the 1998 Budget preparation that the service levelling question or,
conversely, the question of whether or to what extent the different service levels are to
continue, will be a central issue in the preparation of the 1999 Budget. The intent of this
report is therefore to provide a framework for discussion and decision making regarding the
preparation of the 1999 Budget and hence any service level changes. In this regard, the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee has approved the report from the Chief
Administrative Officer entitled "Service Level Harmonization" dated September 18, 1998
wherein it was recommended that:
"(1)the appropriate Standing Committee review service level variations including an option
of harmonization with no budgetary impact; and
(2)the input from the Standing Committees be used by departments for preparation of the
1999 budget estimates."
Discussion:
Definitions:
For the purpose of this report, an explanation of each of the aforementioned services is
necessary as well as an explanation of each road type. It is important to note that the following
activities under each service have not been necessarily carried out by all former
municipalities.
Winter Maintenance:
Carried out between November and April and can involve the following activities related to
snow removal:
- Salting/sanding and ploughing pavements
- Clearing windrows of snow from the end of driveways that result from ploughing
pavements
- Clearing sidewalks using small mechanized equipment or in some cases manual
shovelling
- Seniors' and disabled program for removing snow from sidewalks and in some cases
driveways/windrows
- Clearing of snow around bus stops and at crosswalks
- Occasional haulage of snow from specific locations or in general after a major storm
or alternatively using mobile snow melting equipment
Sweeping and Flushing of Pavements:
- Sweeping dust and debris from pavement is carried out using special mechanized
equipment mostly in the non-winter months. In the central area and other areas with
parked vehicles, accumulated dust and debris is removed by hand from the gutter
- Flushing of pavements is carried out using special tanker trucks with high pressure
water sprays
Sidewalk Litter Removal:
- Litter is removed by hand or mechanized equipment from sidewalks particularly in
heavy pedestrian areas
Leaf Collection:
- The collection of leaves in late fall from pavements, boulevards, and ditches of
heavily treed areas is carried out using either mobile vacuum equipment or front end
loaders
Road Classification:
Service levels can vary by different road types by virtue of the different function of each type.
Road types in the City of Toronto can be defined as follows:
Freeways -multi-lane high speed facilities with access restricted to other freeways or major
arterial roads. There is no direct property access and parking, pedestrians and cyclists are
prohibited. There are three freeways in the road system:
Don Valley Parkway, F. G. Gardiner Expressway, W. R. Allen Road
Arterials -mostly with four to seven lanes consisting of the former Metro roads plus some
major roads of the former local municipalities, the primary function of which is to facilitate
the movement of traffic (private and public vehicles)
(e.g. King St., Eglinton Ave., Evans Ave.)
-segregated into minor and major arterials whereby minor are typically four through lanes
plus turning lanes where vehicular access to property and on-street parking are more
predominant, whereas major arterials are typically five to seven lanes where parking controls
are more stringent and vehicular access to property is less frequent.
Collectors -typically two or three lane industrial or residential streets where traffic movement
and property access is of equal importance. (e.g. Yonge Blvd., Brimorton Dr., Duplex Ave.)
Local Roads -typically two lane roads servicing residential or industrial/commercial areas,
where property access is the primary consideration.
Lanes -usually services the rear of properties to gain access to garages or for deliveries.
Level of Service:
From an operational perspective, the maintenance of roads is driven by a fundamental
objective to attain the minimum acceptable service level at the highest possible quality for the
lowest overall cost. There is an obvious relationship among these three elements. The type
and level of service has a direct bearing on the methods or techniques that can be utilized to
discharge the service which, in turn, has an influence on the cost. For example, large
mechanized equipment can be utilized to clear snow from the end of driveways in suburban
locations (i.e. Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough) which have few if any on-street
parked vehicles, but in central areas it would be largely impossible to use such equipment. In
these areas the snow removal operation would have to be carried out using either small
mechanized equipment or hand shovelling, either of which is much more costly.
Different roads require different levels of service depending on a variety of factors. Therefore
the notion of achieving a uniform level of service is somewhat misleading. For example,
arterial roads require a higher level of service for snow removal than local roads to ensure
continued mobility on the major road system during and after a storm. Furthermore,
depending on the severity of a particular storm in different areas of the city, some arterial
roads may need more attention than others.
The following factors relate to the determination of the minimum acceptable level of service:
-different road types have different functions and therefore require different levels of service.
-weather and temperature variations in winter months throughout the City
-higher pedestrian and tourism activity in some areas demand higher service levels such as
sweeping and flushing
-industrial areas require less %housekeeping' services
-under recent amendments to the Municipal Act, municipalities are required to sustain a
minimum service standard in order to avoid liability in the event of an occurrence
-resource allocation/availability
-balance between minimizing expenditure vs. acceptable risk
-the demands of the community as a result of historic service levels, real or perceived
inequities or higher expectations.
An examination of the service levels among the former seven jurisdictions for the five
aforementioned services revealed a wide range of different service levels for the same type of
road in similar geographic and land use environments. It must be recognized that it has been
extremely difficult to compare work methodologies and unit costs for the same type of service
because of different accounting methods and definitions. Once Transportation Services adopts
a common Maintenance Management System and the four new Districts become fully
operational these accounting problems will be minimized.
Nevertheless, there has been a concerted effort to establish a process and propose changes that
will eventually result in more uniform service levels for similar types of roads in similar areas
across the City. In some cases, it is proposed that a particular service level decrease in certain
areas and increase in other areas, which results in a more equitable allocation of expenditures
relative to needs. It must also be recognized that it could require some time before changes are
fully implemented given the constraints imposed by existing contracts, organizational
restructuring and the current union structure. Furthermore, a process of incremental change is
desirable from a management perspective in order to adapt to the changes without major
problems, train staff, to test the results as the changes are implemented, as well as allow for
opportunity for residents to adjust to the new service protocols.
Winter Maintenance:
Winter maintenance requires the largest activity budget allocation of $32,288,000 in the
Transportation Services operating budget. By virtue of the public safety, public mobility and
economic requirements, winter maintenance generally necessitates the highest level of
response relative to other road maintenance activities. This is particularly important for the
freeways and arterials which are utilized predominantly for major traffic movement,
emergency vehicles, surface transit vehicles and goods movement. If these major routes are
not kept clear then the City virtually shuts down. The response capability to the freeways and
arterials is analogous to emergency services operations. As outlined below, longer response
times are possible for local roads and even longer for lanes.
As noted at the beginning of this report, winter maintenance operations can be categorized
into a number of basic activities. The four activities which involve a wide variation in current
service levels are: salting/sanding and ploughing pavements, removal of windrows of snow at
the end of driveways that result from the ploughing of pavements, ploughing and sometimes
salting and/or sanding of sidewalks and lastly, programmes for qualified seniors and disabled
persons who own or occupy a single family residential unit.
There has been a significant variation in the level of service among the former seven
jurisdictions relative to most of these activities. The following sections deal with each activity
separately. There are a number of possible options for service levelling particularly for the
latter three since they are either not absolutely essential from an operational perspective or
there are other reasonable methods available.
Salting/Sanding and Ploughing Pavements:
The removal of snow from pavements is generally carried out using a two stage operation.
First, salt/sand is applied at a rate and at a time that is set by Transportation staff depending
on the nature of the snowfall or storm. This could vary from one area to another and also
depends on the type of road and the day of the week and time of day. For major snowfalls,
ploughs are then activated when weather conditions are such that salting/sanding is no longer
going to be effective. Decisions as to when and where to plough are made by field personnel
based on guidelines and observations during the snowfall.
As a general rule, the level of service is highest for expressways and progressively lower for
arterials, collectors, local roads and lanes. The corresponding response times are generally
shorter for expressways and progressively longer for the other road types. Response times
have a direct relationship to standby requirements, which was the subject of a recent report to
the Budget Committee dated July 29, 1998, entitled "Winter Maintenance Standby" and
appended as Appendix "A".
The major difference in service levels among the former seven municipalities has been the
requirement for the highest level of response capability for the freeways and arterials. In
contrast, the service levels for local roads and lanes have been lower and in fact, were
reasonably consistent. It is essential to sustain the highest level of service for the freeways and
arterials whereas it is possible to have lower service levels for each of the other road types:
collectors, local roads and lanes. Table 1 lists service objectives for each road type, which
generally exist today for each former jurisdiction. Efforts are underway to achieve even
greater consistency particularly for the local roads. In this regard, during this past winter
season, information regarding the activation of salters and ploughs was collected at a central
location to assist with efforts to achieve greater consistency of equipment response throughout
the new City. Further fine tuning is underway in preparation for the forthcoming winter.
However, there have been major differences in operational methods among the former seven
jurisdictions. Some have employed contractors, in whole or in part, and some have delivered
the service entirely with in-house staff and equipment. Some have used only salt whereas
some have used a sand/salt mix. North York preferred to plough snow from local roads after 5
cm of snowfall while the other municipalities preferred to use sand/salt until snowfall reached
a greater depth. Former Metro and North York have used snow melting equipment, others
have used snow dumps, and so on. Staff are continuing to analyze these different methods and
operating styles to determine those which are most efficient and thereby to identify cost
savings. In addition, a comprehensive route optimization analysis is underway to determine
the most efficient routing system for the deployment of salters and ploughs. Given the timing
and complexity of the organizational restructuring process as well as the existing contractual
obligations, it appears at this stage that it will not be possible to make any major changes this
forthcoming winter season. In this regard, Table 2 includes information about the use of
contractors by each former jurisdiction and the corresponding renewal dates of each contract.
If any cost saving changes are possible this winter season without risking the effective
delivery of the service, then they will be implemented. The liability associated with this
activity is such that extreme care must be taken to ensure that public safety is not
compromised. However, staff are confident that through efficiencies in work methods and
practices eventually there will be savings, subject to any fluctuation in tender prices.
One further note. Impressions have been created that a former Metro salter or plough and a
former area municipal salter or plough are driving along the same road and therefore there has
been (and is) a duplication of service. Such equipment does utilize the same road, but there
has never been a duplication of service. As noted above, it is essential to clear the freeways
and arterials as quickly as possible, otherwise, late deployment of resources could result in
snow removal equipment being caught in traffic congestion created by the storm. A later
response time is possible for local roads and therefore similar equipment travels along the
main arterials at a later time to gain access to the respective residential or industrial areas.
This situation will continue . In addition, sometimes it is necessary for salters and ploughs on
the arterials to turn around at the end of their route on local roads and vice versa, perhaps
creating the impression of duplication of service. Again, this will prevail at different times
during a storm clean up operation as a result of different service levels, but there is no
duplication of service.
It is therefore proposed that a further report be brought forward in 1999 regarding potential
cost savings through efficiencies in the organization of services and work methods as well as
the timing and consolidation of contracts.
Windrow Opening:
When snow is ploughed during a heavy snowfall, windrows of snow are created along the
curb and edge of boulevards. These windrows also fill in the end of driveways. Main roads,
such as the former Metro roads, are wider and therefore the windrows are typically larger than
those on local two-lane roads. During a major storm, it is possible that the roads are ploughed
two or even three times and many residential property owners complain that as fast as they dig
out one windrow, another is created.
Three of the former seven jurisdictions have provided a windrow opening programme for
residential properties. North York has had a program since 1985, and the cost to open about
97,000 driveways six times a season is about $1.2 million. This program does not include
driveways on former Metro roads. The method employed by North York is to use a second
plough equipped with a special blade which follows behind the first plough. Scarborough
started its program this past winter season and the annual cost to clear about 93,000 driveways
about four times was $1.6 million. This program includes driveways on former Metro roads.
Equipment similar to that used by North York was not available and therefore a variety of
equipment is used including small tractors and front end loaders, which are more labour
intensive. Both North York and Scarborough employ contractors for the work. The former
City of Toronto has cleared the end of driveways in Forest Hill for the past six years. This was
accommodated as part of an annual ploughing contract. A separate contract has been called
for the forthcoming winter season.
In addition, North York has had a program to subsidize seniors or disabled persons to clear
windrows on former Metro roads since residential properties on local roads are cleared
anyway. The cost for the North York program is about $5,000. The cost for the Etobicoke
programme is included in the seniors and disabled special sidewalk programme. This is
detailed further in a later section of the report.
The cost to extend the windrow program city wide would be very significant for three basic
reasons. First, of course, is the fact that only two of the former seven jurisdictions have had a
full program. Second, the number of ploughs required to employ the same method as North
York is not available within the local contracting companies. Therefore, a more labour
intensive operation similar to Scarborough would have to be utilized at a unit cost that is more
than double the unit cost in North York. Third, and even more costly, is that only small
equipment and even manual snow shovelling would have to be employed in most of the
former City of Toronto, York and East York jurisdictions due to constraints resulting from on
street parking and virtually no boulevard space. As a result of the latter, snow would have to
be either hauled away or relocated on-site which adds significantly to the cost.
Nine options have been developed for consideration. These include:
(a)Cancel existing programmes;
(b)Status Quo - retain Scarborough, North York, and Forest Hill programs;
(c)Reduced Status Quo- as in (b) but reduce the number of clearances per season in North
York from 6 to 4, in order to match Scarborough and eliminate Forest Hill;
(d)(i)Add Etobicoke to option (c) so that the former outer three municipal jurisdictions have
the same service at 4 clearances per season including the main arterials;
(ii)Similar to option d (i) but with 6 clearances per season;
(e)(i)City wide program (including former Toronto, East York and York) at 4 clearances per
season;
(ii)Similar to e (i) but with 6 clearances per season;
(f)(i)Main roads only in the outer three municipalities with a few sections of main roads in
former East York, York and Toronto, at four clearances per season. Main roads are defined as
the former Metro arterial roads, former arterials under area municipal jurisdiction, plus any
surface transit routes not included with the arterials. (This is similar to the approach taken by
Scarborough for sidewalk snow removal)
(f)(ii)Similar to option f (i) but with six clearances per season.
Table 3 outlines these options. It should be noted that the service only applies to single family
residential properties, and under option (b) and (c) driveways are not cleared on former Metro
roads in North York. Because of the significant cost of providing the service on a city wide
basis, options d (i) and d (ii) are included which encompass the three former outer
municipalities, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. Four clearances per season is the
current Scarborough level of service versus six clearances for the North York service level.
Four clearances basically includes the bigger winter storms, and therefore if there are fewer
than four large storms then there could be a saving. The three former inner municipalities,
East York, Toronto and York have better access to transit operations and tend not to rely as
much on private vehicles for transportation.
It must be emphasized that no substantial changes could be made to the existing contracts in
North York and Scarborough for the forthcoming winter season. Both contracts expire in
March 2000, however it could be possible to eliminate the 1999/2000 winter season from the
Scarborough contract provided there is sufficient notice to the contractors. Furthermore, it
would be impossible to organize any additional programs for the forthcoming winter by the
time the budget is approved. If a decision is made to expand the current services for the 1999 -
2000 winter season, then the amounts to be included in the 1999 Budget would be a portion of
what is shown in Table 3, since those figures are annualized costs. As a matter of interest, it
should also be noted that Etobicoke had a windrow clearing programme for a number of
years. The service was cancelled in 1993 for an annual saving of $500,000.
The clearing of windrows from the end of driveways is considered to be a discretionary
service. The retention or expansion of this service requires a Committee decision. It is
proposed that the selection from the options presented in Table 3 should be made in
conjunction with the discretionary options presented for sidewalk clearing. A combination of
options is presented in the summary of this report.
Sidewalk Clearing:
The annual cost of clearing snow from sidewalks amounts to $4,285,000 for the former six
area municipalities. This is exclusive of programmes for seniors and disabled persons which
will be outlined in the next section of this report. Area municipalities maintained sidewalks on
the former Metro roads, which was a statutory requirement under the former Metropolitan
Toronto Act.
Each former area municipality has had a sidewalk clearing service but the extent and level of
service varied significantly. Also, each former municipality except North York has had a
by-law requiring property owners to keep sidewalks adjacent to their property clear of snow
and ice. Table 4 outlines the existing types of services by municipality and the corresponding
service levels. Etobicoke and Toronto have had the lowest service levels which involve
clearing some municipal properties, sidewalks on reverse frontages, bus stops, PXO
crosswalks, and wheel trans locations. This is considered to be the lowest possible service
level in order to fulfill an obligation to maintain municipal property and to set an example for
others to follow. The highest service level is North York which started its service in 1964
whereby today all sidewalks are cleared an average 14 times per season. North York utilizes
contractors for this work and the current contract expires in March, 1999. In the mid-range are
Scarborough and York which cleared sidewalks on main roads and transit routes up to 8 times
per season. Scarborough also utilizes contractors and the current contract expires in March,
2000.
Three options were developed in addition to the status quo.
These are:
a.City Facilities and Reverse Frontages
As noted above this is considered to be essential as a basic municipal service. The reverse
frontages would only apply in Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and Toronto. This would
be comparable to the existing Toronto and Etobicoke services.
b.Main Roads
This would be comparable to the Scarborough and York existing services. Sidewalks on
arterials, transit routes and reverse frontages would be cleared 8 times per season to a width of
1 to 1.5 metres.
c.All Roads
This would be comparable to the North York and East York services. Two sub-options are
presented, one (c1) for 8 clearances per year which compares to the existing Scarborough
service level and the second (c2) at 14 clearances per year which compares to the existing
North York service level.
Table 5 presents the results of the analysis for these options. The last three columns of the
table show the net cost of options c1 and c2 after taking into account the savings associated
with not having to continue with the seniors and disabled program. It should be noted that a
portion of the seniors and disabled costs would not apply if Option b were selected since some
of the applicable sidewalk sections are on the main roads. Therefore the net cost of option b
would be slightly less. Table 5 also shows the savings or additional costs relative to the status
quo.
It will not be possible to implement any major changes for the forthcoming winter season by
the time Council makes a decision concerning this report and the budget. Changes could be
possible for the 1999/2000 winter season depending on which option is selected, except for
Scarborough whose contract expires in March 2000. Therefore, the 1999 Operating Budget
could be affected as a result of changes that would commence in late 1999. Regardless of
whether the City provides a sidewalk snow removal service or not, it is essential to
consolidate the existing by-laws that require property owners to remove snow and ice from
sidewalks in front of their property.
As noted above, option %a' is considered to be required as an essential municipal service.
Higher service levels are considered to be discretionary and therefore a decision is required
whether to reduce, retain or expand this service. It is proposed that the selection from options
presented in Table 5 should be made in conjunction with the discretionary options presented
for windrow clearing in the previous section. A combination of options is presented for
consideration in the summary of this report.
Seniors & Disabled Sidewalk & Windrow Clearing Programmes:
Each former area municipality except North York has had a special sidewalk clearing
programme for seniors and disabled individuals. Since North York has had a regular sidewalk
clearing service for all sidewalks at about 14 clearances per winter season, there has been no
need for a special seniors and disabled programme for sidewalks. However, North York has
had a special programme for windrows on former Metro roads. In the case of Etobicoke, the
windrows are cleared along with the sidewalks for seniors and disabled individuals.
No other former area municipality includes windrows in its special programme. Eligibility for
all programmes includes the following:
-owner or occupant of single family residences (i.e. multiple unit buildings, industrial,
commercial properties not applicable)
-65 years of age or older and no other occupant capable of removing snow, or
-disabled and no other occupant capable of removing snow
The combined annual cost of the programmes for the former six area municipalities amounts
to $1,647,000. In the case of Scarborough and York, which have had regular sidewalk clearing
services on main roads at about 8 clearances per season, the special programme in each case
applies to sidewalks on other roads. In the case of East York, which has had a regular
sidewalk clearing service at about 5 clearances per season, the special programme has
basically supplemented its regular programme. For Toronto and Etobicoke which have had no
regular sidewalk clearing service, the special programme has applied to all sidewalks.
Table 6 summarizes the existing seniors and disabled sidewalk and windrow clearing
programmes. Although all programmes have had the same basic eligibility, there are
variations in fees, annual registration requirements, service delivery, number of clearances per
season, etc. It should also be emphasized that administrative costs of these programmes have
been high as a result of annual registration as well as numerous calls for service or complaints
during and after a storm. This is partially offset in Etobicoke and East York through the
collection of fees.
Given the predominance of these special programmes, there is an apparent need to continue
with this service. However, it is clear that there is a need to develop a uniform approach. In
this regard there are three key inter-related factors to determine:
-eligibility
-whether to charge a fee and, if so, at what level
-service delivery and level of service
With respect to eligibility, most of the existing programmes apply to persons 65 years of age
or older. While it is true that a number of seniors are on limited incomes, there are many
seniors who have pensions or alternative incomes. An alternative approach would be that only
those seniors who receive the Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement (GAINS) should be
eligible, which is similar to the approach taken in East York. Similarly, only disabled
individuals who receive benefits under the Family Benefits Act (FBA) or the General Welfare
Assistance Act (GWA) would be eligible, but regardless of age.
The following options are therefore presented for consideration and are outlined in Table 7.
A.1Limit eligibility to persons 65 years of age or older who are in receipt of GAINS and
disabled individuals under FBA or GWA, with no fee. Transportation Services provide the
service when snow accumulates to a prescribed level.
A.2Same as A.1 but charge a fee for the service.
A.3Same as A.1, but pay a subsidy to the individual at a predetermined amount per eligible
snow fall, with a maximum total per season. The individual is responsible to arrange his/her
snow removal service. Note that York now pays a maximum of $65 subsidy to eligible
individuals based on a submitted claim form that identifies the number of clearances and
respective amounts paid.
B.1All persons over 65 and all disabled persons are eligible, with no fee. Transportation
Services provide the service when snow accumulates to a prescribed level.
B.2Similar to B.1 but charge a fee for the service.
B.3Similar to B.1 but a subsidy is paid to the individual as per A.3. The individual is
responsible to arrange his/her service.
C.1All persons over 65 are eligible, but there is no fee for seniors who receive GAINS or
disabled individuals under FBA or GWA, whereas there is a fee for all others. Transportation
Services provide the service when snow accumulates to a prescribed level.
C.2Same as C.1 except that instead of charging a fee for others, a subsidy be paid to the
individual as per A.3, and the individual is responsible for arranging the service.
Transportation Services provide the service only for seniors on GAINS or disabled individuals
under FBA or GWA.
C.3All persons over 65 and all disabled persons are eligible, but with a two-tier fee structure
similar to East York. Those seniors who do not receive GAINS or disabled persons not in
receipt of FBA or GWA pay a regular fee whereas those who do receive GAINS or FBA or
GWA pay a lower fee. Transportation Services provides the service.
C.4Same as C.3, but a two-tiered subsidy is paid to the individuals, with those on GAINS or
FBA or GWA receiving a higher subsidy, and the individual is responsible for arranging the
service.
As noted in Table 6, only Etobicoke and East York have charged a fee. Whereas the fee has
assisted in offsetting administration costs for registration in Etobicoke, it has raised
expectations from the applicant's perspective about the immediacy and frequency of service.
Consequently, numerous calls and complaints are received during and after a snowfall which
further increases administration costs. Conversely, with the subsidy arrangement in York, the
applicant is responsible for arranging the snow removal service which virtually eliminates the
kind of complaints that Etobicoke has experienced. The fees are higher in East York
compared to Etobicoke but the service delivery is managed through a non-profit
Neighbourhood Information Centre, which has received a sum of $15,000 from East York to
cover administration costs. This arrangement has appeared to work well but it does rely on the
continuation of the community based agency. Also noted in Table 6 is that North York,
Scarborough and Toronto do not charge fees.
Given the fact that the predominant approach has been either not to charge a fee or a nominal
fee, it would probably be difficult to start charging fees where none has existed or, if it were
possible, the fee probably would be nominal. As per the Etobicoke experience, a nominal fee
would give rise to higher expectations about service delivery and therefore generate more
complaints which are costly to administer, thereby somewhat negating the benefit of the
revenue.
The alternative of the subsidy arrangement as per the former City of York approach raises a
number of administrative complications and is therefore not considered to be desirable
approach. Problems arise when the expense claims are finally submitted as to whether a
particular snow fall and therefore sidewalk clearing is eligible for a subsidy. In the final
analysis, this arrangement would probably result in providing a payout of the maximum
amount per year to each applicant which eventually could increase the number of applicants
by a substantial amount. Also, the administrative costs for this arrangement are expected to be
higher because of the processing of claims and payments to the applicants.
If this service is to continue, it is suggested that consideration be given to providing the
service at no cost to the applicant. Annual registration would still be required in order to
ensure that service is provided at an "eligible" location. Even though complaints from
applicants are not expected to be eliminated, the volume of such complaints should be
substantially less than if there were a fee, which thereby assists in minimizing administrative
costs. The financial effect of this approach would be to basically eliminate the combined
revenue of about $125,000 for Etobicoke and East York. However, as noted above, there
would be administrative savings which would partially offset this revenue loss.
The other remaining question is eligibility and this requires discussion with the Committee.
Option B.1 in Table 7 is basically the status quo with all persons over 65 and all disabled
persons being eligible. Option A.1 limits eligibility to seniors who are in receipt of GAINS
and disabled persons under FBA or GWA, and is therefore a more stringent approach which
could reduce the cost of this programme. However, this type of approach could be costly to
administer and initiate a two-tiered level of service. For these reasons it is not recommended.
As can be seen from Table 6, there have been various approaches to service delivery including
the utilization of in-house resources, contractors and a non-profit community based agency.
Staff will continue to review the service delivery aspects in order to achieve the most
cost-effective approach.
Sweeping and Flushing of Pavements:
The sweeping and flushing of roads provides a clean environment for residents and visitors
and assists with road drainage by preventing dirt and debris from blocking catch basins and
sewer lines. The total cost of sweeping is about $8,423,000 per year and for flushing is
$1,185,000 per year. The services are provided with in-house resources supplemented with
contractor's equipment and operators. As shown on the attached Tables 8 & 9, the former City
of Toronto and Borough of East York have provided year round sweeping operations while
the other former local municipalities have provided sweeping service between April and
November. Former Metro arterial roads outside the City of Toronto have been swept by Metro
Transportation using contractors once in the Spring and then the former local municipalities
took over this responsibility for the balance of the season. The City of Toronto undertook the
responsibility of sweeping Metro arterial roads in the City throughout the year. Freeways have
been swept exclusively by former Metro.
Flushing on both local and arterial roads has been carried out by the former local
municipalities with the exception of York and East York who did not provide this service.
Freeways have been flushed exclusively by former Metro. Also shown on the attached Tables
8 & 9 is the wide range of service levels provided by the former seven jurisdictions.
For sweeping, the number of passes on arterial roads has varied from a high of 7 per week in
the City of Toronto to a low of once every three weeks in East York. For roads in commercial
and industrial areas, the top of the range again has been the City of Toronto with 7 per week
to a low of once every two weeks in Scarborough. For local residential streets the high end
has been the City of Toronto with once per week to a low of once every six weeks in
Etobicoke and Scarborough.
For flushing on arterials, the top of the range was the City of Toronto and North York at 2 per
week to a low of zero in York and East York. For commercial and industrial roads, the high
end has been the City of Toronto at two per week to a low of zero again for York and East
York. For local residential streets, the high end has been once every two weeks for the City of
Toronto and North York and the low end has been zero again for York and East York.
Generally, the City of Toronto has had the highest level of service for sweeping and
Scarborough has had the lowest. For flushing, the City of Toronto has had the highest and
York and East York have had the lowest (no flushing).
It is important to recognize that some areas require more sweeping and flushing than others as
a result of heavy pedestrian traffic. The prime example is the Central Business District of the
former City of Toronto which experiences significant pedestrian movements as a result of the
concentration of commercial space, retail trade, tourism and residents who also work
downtown. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the central area, mechanical sweeping
along the curb is not feasible due to parked vehicles. The debris accumulated between the cars
and the curb is manually cleaned with a push broom and shovel by in-house staff. In some
cases, this method has been employed up to eight times per year. As a result, the annual cost
for hand sweeping is about 1/3 of the total cost of $5,254,000. for sweeping in the City of
Toronto.
To provide a frame of reference for the determination of an appropriate level of service
throughout the new City, the additional cost to level up and savings to level down were
calculated.
For sweeping, the additional annual cost to bring all areas up to the former City of Toronto
service level (i.e. the highest) would be about $10,400,000, or more than double the current
expenditure level. The savings associated to bring all areas down to the City of Scarborough
(i.e. the lowest) would be about $4,500,000 per year, which is about 53% of the current
expenditure level. In levelling up, the increased frequency would not be noticeable in most
areas outside the central business district due to the significantly lesser volume of litter and
debris. In levelling down, however, the change would be very noticeable especially in the
central business district.
For flushing, the additional cost to level up to the City of Toronto (i.e. the highest) would be
about $1,300,000, or about 110% more than the current expenditure. Although not practical,
the savings associated with levelling down to the lowest (i.e. zero service in East York and
York) would of course be the total current expenditure of about $1,185,000. Similar to the
sweeping situation, levelling up would not be cost-effective and levelling down to no service
would be impractical.
Clearly, to continue with the status quo would not be acceptable because of the obvious
inequities. Moreover, it would probably not be publicly acceptable to drastically change the
level of service at this time, particularly to a much lower level of service. Also, organizational
restructuring itself imposes limitations on the pace that internal operational changes can be
accommodated. Under the circumstances, the proposed approach is to adopt a new service
guideline for the whole road system whereby level of service varies according to road type
and level of pedestrian activity, and to phase in this new guideline in 1999. This approach
removes the obvious inequities in current service levels but in so doing, will increase service
levels in some areas and decrease levels in others. As the implementation of this new
guideline proceeds, experience will provide the opportunity for modifications to reduce costs
further.
Table 10 shows the proposed sweeping and flushing general levels of service guideline. The
guideline takes into consideration that there are high pedestrian activity areas such as the
central business district that generate a significant volume of debris. In other areas, the present
level of service is satisfactory and is not changed. A lowering of service levels is possible in
certain areas without drastically affecting the appearance of the road. This approach would
also provide for flushing in York and East York areas where currently flushing is not carried
out. It is important to note that Table 10 is a guideline and shows the highest levels of service
that will be applied. Levels of service may vary somewhat from that indicated depending on
the land use and pedestrian activity along a particular road. Staff will determine the
appropriate service level based on field conditions and the new guideline.
For sweeping activities, the new guideline would generally decrease present levels of service
in North York, York and some of the roads in the former City of Toronto while increasing
service levels in Etobicoke, Scarborough and East York. However, it is anticipated that for
areas with lower service levels, the degree of change is not significant enough to dramatically
affect the appearance of the streets. Annual savings have been estimated at this stage at
$285,000 which represents 3% of the total sweeping budget.
For flushing activities, levels of service would decrease for North York and some roads in
Etobicoke and the former City of Toronto, but would not drastically affect the appearance of
the streets. Increased service levels for Scarborough, East York and York should, however,
improve the appearance of streets in these areas. Freeway service levels remain the same.
There will be an initial shortfall of about $10,000 to accommodate these changes, which is
about 1% more than the annual current budget for flushing.
Taken together, the overall savings for a full year of operation for sweeping and flushing is
projected to be $275,000, based on savings from sweeping of $285,000 and additional cost of
flushing of $10,000. As noted above, staff are confident that costs can be reduced further as
the new guideline is applied. However, in addition to normal operations, there is an increasing
requirement to provide this service prior to and after special events such as Carabana and the
Indy Car Race. The number of events is putting a strain on available resources with the result
that additional funding may be required or the normal level of service may have to be
decreased.
In an attempt to reduce the amount of litter, the former City of Toronto conducted an annual
advertising anti-litter campaign a number of years ago. Although funding has not continued,
there appears to have been some positive results from this effort and therefore it is suggested
that consideration be given to introducing a new campaign city-wide.
It is therefore proposed that:
1.Sweeping and flushing operations follow the general service guideline shown in Table 10.
2.As the new guideline is implemented, results be monitored and that modifications be
instituted during this process to correct any deficiencies and to realize further cost savings.
3.A further review be carried out based on the experience in 1999 in order to determine
whether any changes are required to the general service guideline presented in Table 10 and to
prepare for the year 2000 budget.
4.The costs of providing sweeping and flushing services for special events be considered as
part of the 1999 current budget process.
5.An annual City wide anti-litter campaign be considered and that a further report be brought
forward to outline the requirements, content and costs of such a campaign.
Sidewalk Litter Removal:
The annual cost of removing litter from sidewalks is $8,602,500, of which 85% of this
expenditure is within the former City of Toronto. Similar to other services related to
sidewalks, the former area municipalities were responsible for removing litter on sidewalks on
former Metro roads.
Unlike most other street cleaning functions, sidewalk litter removal is carried out year-round,
weather permitting. This activity also includes the removal of litter and debris from transit
shelters (where this is not done by a transit shelter contractor), public telephone booths, tree
and flower planters, and the removal of illegal posters from utility poles and street furniture in
areas where sidewalk litter removal is carried out. The major areas that generate sidewalk
litter are business areas, tourist areas, transit stops, fast-food establishments and ethnic areas
such as Chinatown, Greek Town and India Bazaar areas, most of which are in main streets.
This service has been provided with the use of in-house resources by the Transportation
divisions in the former municipalities, with the exception of East York where the service has
been provided by the Solid Waste group.
The extent and frequency of services varied significantly among the former municipalities.
Table 11 includes information concerning the frequency of service, method of cleaning, the
estimated volume of work and the estimated annual cost for each former municipality.
There has been no objective method in use for measuring the extent and nature of sidewalk
litter, largely because of the difficulty associated with measuring litter itself. Furthermore, in
some of the former municipalities, the number of kilometers cleaned has not been recorded.
Therefore, at the present time it is not possible to undertake an accurate comparison of unit
costs in order to evaluate the most cost efficient and effective approach. In this respect, the
cost per kilometer cleaned is not a reliable performance measure since there is no standard
reference point such as the area cleaned relative to the volume or weight of litter collected.
Levels of service have been established largely on the basis of subjective judgments by staff
and elected representatives concerning the appearance of the sidewalk. Clearly a more
objective approach is desirable particularly in order to establish performance measures and to
assess value for expenditure for this activity. It is therefore proposed that a methodology for
measuring sidewalk litter removal requirements and services be developed.
At this point in time, there are three basic options with regard to the service levelling
question:
Option A -Retain Existing Service Levels
Some of the existing high litter generating areas are not serviced as well as other comparable
areas. The status quo would not remove these inequities in current service levels.
Option B -Decrease Service Levels to Reduce Costs
The impact of this option would of course depend on the extent to which expenditures are
decreased. It is felt that sizeable expenditure reductions would no doubt have the greatest
effect on the former City of Toronto. This would lead to a decline in appearance particularly
in areas of high pedestrian activity which would affect tourism as well as sending the wrong
signals to the community at large about discouraging litter.
Option C -Adjust Levels of Service Within the Existing Budget
This option would assist in removing the current inequities with the current situation. This is
similar to the approach suggested for the sweeping and flushing of pavements. Some
adjustments would be necessary to the current highly serviced areas but not to the extent that
there will be noticeable differences in appearance. Table 12 presents a guideline for the
frequency of litter removal depending on high, medium or low volumes of litter. The actual
level of service could vary along a particular main road depending on specific circumstances.
The guideline would be utilized by field staff who would make individual judgements about
each area.
Option C is the proposed preferred approach. It is proposed that the guideline be in place on
an interim basis until the methodology noted above has been developed, at which time a
revised guideline or standard would also be developed. The development of the methodology
for the measurement of requirements and services will facilitate an examination of service
delivery options and opportunities to reduce costs in the future.
In addition to developing the most efficient and effective methods to remove litter, it is
important to discourage litter as much as possible. The primary causes of litter are:
- poor public cooperation
- improper use of receptacles
- improper packaging of garbage set out for collection
- lack of public education
People's attitudes can be changed by publicity and by example. The anti-litter campaign
proposed under the sweeping and flushing section would be of assistance in this regard.
It is therefore proposed that:
1.Option C, which is to adjust service levels within the existing budget, be the preferred
approach at this time.
2.Sidewalk litter removal operations follow the general service guideline shown in Table 12.
3.A methodology be developed for the measurement of litter removal requirements and
services in order to establish performance measures and to assess value for expenditure for
this activity.
4.The service guideline presented in Table 12 be reviewed once the methodology noted in 3
has been developed.
Leaf Collection:
The Fall leaf collection program has been designed to pick up leaves that accumulate on
residential properties, ditches and pavements. Leaves that accumulate in ditches and
pavements create ponding and flooding problems as a result of blocked culverts and
catch-basins and therefore it is important to remove the leaves in a timely fashion.
All former municipalities have had a bag pick-up service for residential property owners who
bag leaves from their property, although there is some variation in the extent of this service as
outlined below. This service is provided by Solid Waste Management Services and bagged
leaves are delivered to Keele Valley for composting.
Each former municipality also has had a program to collect leaves that accumulate in ditches
and pavements. The bagging programs attempt to minimize and eliminate where possible the
raking of leaves onto the roadway. Even if all property owners bag their leaves, it will be
necessary to continue with a program to clean the ditches and pavements in heavily treed
areas. This service is provided by Transportation Services and the collected leaves are also
taken to composting sites.
Currently, residential bagging account for approximately 50% of the total combined leaf
pick-up. Leaves that collect in ditches are removed with mobile vacuum machines which are
very labour intensive because of the raking, machine operation, dump truck operation and
vehicle flagging requirements. It is estimated that this costs at least twice as much as
collecting bags of leaves on a per tonne basis.
In general, leaves that collect on pavements are removed with front end loaders or road
sweepers. For the City of Toronto, this method is estimated to cost at least 50% more than
bagging leaves on a per tonne basis. Any accumulation of leaves on the former Metro roads
were removed by the former local municipalities.
Past practices of each of the former local municipalities are summarized as follows:
East York never had a residential leaf vac collection system and all residents must bag their
leaves. Front end loaders are used for bulk collection of loose leaves on roads in heavily treed
areas.
Toronto has used front end loaders to pick up loose leaves on roads. Residents have been
encouraged not to rake their leaves to the curb and are required to bag.
North York has used road sweepers and to a minor extent front end loaders for the removal of
leaves on the road in curbed areas. Residents are not allowed to rake their leaves to the street
and must bag to receive municipal collection.
Etobicoke operates 18 leaf vacuums. Heavily treed or ditched areas have been vacuumed once
and in some areas twice during the five-week program when residents can rake leaves to the
curb or ditch. Residents receiving this service have been expected to bag their leaves during
the balance of the leaf season, while all other residents have been required to bag leaves from
their property.
York has utilized a front end loader for bulk collection of loose leaves for two heavily treed
areas only, during a three-week period starting in early November. During this time only,
residents can rake their leaves to curbside. All residents in the remaining areas have been
required to bag their leaves at all times.
Scarborough residents have been encouraged not to rake their leaves to the curb and have
been required to bag. Over the last three years, Scarborough Council cancelled their leaf
vacuum programme since it was not consistent throughout the municipality and resources
were not sufficient to expand the vacuum service.
It should be noted that as a result of Councillor Moeser's request during the 1998 Budget
process, the new City Council approved the reinstatement of the fall leaf vacuum removal
program (i.e. bagging not required) in the West Rouge and Guildwood areas for the Fall of
1998 with no additional funding being provided subject to a service review of all programs.
The additional cost to provide this service is $40,000. The former Scarborough Council had
moved to a uniform bagging program in 1996 and 1997 with a total saving of about $200,000.
To summarize, the former jurisdictions of North York, Scarborough, Toronto and East York
have required all residents to bag leaves. York has allowed residents to rake leaves to the curb,
instead of the normal bagging requirement, only during a three week period for two heavily
treed areas. Etobicoke has vacuumed leaves once or twice over a five week period in heavily
treed or ditched areas.
The ranking of levels by residents onto the public right-of-way will in some situations create
safety concerns. High mounds of leaves will block sightlines for pedestrians and vehicle
operators. They also provide an attraction for children to play. Raked leaves will often block
catchbasins and reduce the width of the travelled portion of the road.
Given the predominant method of requiring residents to bag leaves from their property at a
demonstrated cost saving, it is the opinion of staff that the requirement to bag leaves should
be standardized across the City. This would result in reducing annual Transportation Services
costs in Etobicoke from $600,000 to $450,000 and in York from $250,000 to $175,000. About
one half of these savings would be offset by additional Solid Waste Management Services
collection costs, and so the net savings will be about $115,000.
While this does not appear to be a substantial saving at this time, the longer term (5 year)
objective is to increase the bagging component to 80% of all leaves removed whereby the
resultant net savings could be in the order of $300,000. This can only be achieved through an
aggressive public information/education programme for a service that would have to be seen
to be equitable and uniform in order to be successful.
Conversely, if exceptions to the bagging requirement are continued, the number of such
exceptions would no doubt increase and costs would increase accordingly. There is evidence
that this has occurred in Etobicoke. It is estimated that the total net increase in costs to the
Corporation to eliminate the bagging requirement would be in the order of $6,500,000.
Given the imminent Fall months, it will not be possible to effectively communicate to the
public and therefore the status quo will prevail this year.
It is therefore proposed that:
(1)starting next Fall (1999) residents in all areas be required to bag leaves from their property
to be collected by the Solid Waste Management Services Division
(2)a communication program be implemented for all residents encouraging them not to rake
leaves to the ditch or curb, to compost leaves as much as possible and to bag the remainder for
pick-up
(3)appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.
Conclusions and Summary
Toronto enjoys an international reputation as a clean, well-maintained City. This is
instrumental in the City's livability, desirability as a major tourist destination and no doubt
plays a key role in the attraction and retention of commerce and investment. This reputation is
due, in no small part, to the extensive care and willingness to direct significant resources to
keeping the streets and sidewalks in good repair, clean and free of litter and debris.
Municipal roads provide for the movement of people and goods, property access and the
accommodation of utilities. With the considerable and on-going pressures on the City's
financial resources, against the backdrop of vastly differing services levels for various
transportation-related maintenance activities, it is imperative to develop strategies to deliver
these services in a consistent, cost-efficient manner.
The challenge is to balance the increasingly complex technical and operational needs of the
system against the often competing community, planning and environmental interests. The
day-to-day maintenance of the system is a critical part of this equation and whereas there is a
tendency to take maintenance for granted, it is an increasingly complex area of activity.
Maintenance activities involve, among other things, the assessment of:
- the optimal mix of labour and equipment
- the state of "readiness" required for any particular activity
- the optimal amount of supplies and material to keep in stock
- the extent of in-house versus contracting of labour and/or equipment
- the most efficient method of organizing services that involve fees
- the level of service that is adequate from a risk management perspective
- the extent of contingency resources required to respond to unforeseen circumstances
- the cost-effectiveness of incorporating technological improvements
- the scheduling of maintenance activities to achieve an acceptable balance between
the mobility needs of the community at large and the need for minimal disruption to
local areas
- the optimal arrangement between investing in day-to-day maintenance and periodic
preventative rehabilitation
- measures that achieve cost effective results in meeting environmental protection
objectives.
These and other factors are taken into account in order to realize the overall objective of
attaining the minimum acceptable service level at the highest possible quality for the lowest
overall cost. In the final analysis, the appearance, cleanliness, operational effectiveness and
structural integrity of the road system says a lot about civic pride and the commitment of the
City to protect the investment in its infrastructure toward the attainment of its social,
economic, and environmental sustainability objectives. There have been impressions that
equipment from former municipal jurisdictions have been driving along the same road and
there has been (and is) a duplication of service. Such equipment does utilize the same road but
there never has been a duplication of service.
This report includes an examination of four key maintenance activities which are financially
significant and publicly visible. These are winter maintenance, sweeping and flushing of
pavements, sidewalk litter removal and leaf collection. For the purpose of this report, winter
maintenance is comprised of four sub-categories: salting/sanding and ploughing of
pavements; windrow clearing from the end of driveways; sidewalk snow removal; seniors and
disabled persons programme. The current level of annual expenditure for these activities
amounts to $52,802,500 which is about 31% of the total annual budget of the Transportation
Services budget.
The examination of the service levels among the former seven jurisdictions for these services
revealed in most cases a wide range of service levels for the same type of road in similar
geographic and land use environments. It must be emphasized that it has been extremely
difficult to compare work practices and unit costs for the same type of service because of
different accounting methods and definitions. Once the Division adopts a common
Maintenance Management System these problems will be minimized. The analysis has
therefore concentrated mostly on the examination of service levels and not service delivery
issues. Further work is underway to examine current work practices and service delivery
options in order to achieve the most efficient and effective service delivery approach for these
activities.
Notwithstanding the data limitations, there has been a concerted effort to propose short term
changes and to establish a process of ongoing review that will eventually result in more
uniform service levels for similar road types in similar areas across the City. It is also
important to focus on "outcome" as much as "activity" when considering the service levelling
proposals. Using the example of street or sidewalk cleanliness, it will require significantly
more resources in some areas of the City than others to maintain the same degree of
cleanliness, simply due to the intensity of activity and the nature and form of the various
areas. This is particularly prevalent between the central core and the suburban areas.
Furthermore, in some cases, it is proposed that a particular service level decrease in certain
areas and increase in other areas, which results in a more equitable allocation of expenditures
relative to needs. In other cases, options are presented for the consideration of City Council,
particularly given recent political decisions for services that are considered discretionary. It
must also be recognized that it could require some time before changes are fully implemented
given the constraints imposed by existing contracts, organizational restructuring and the
current union structure. Furthermore, a process of incremental change to ensure a smooth
transition in order to adapt to the changes without major problems, train staff, and to test the
results as the changes are implemented.
There are also a number of specific conclusions and proposals related to each activity as
follows:
Winter Maintenance
Salting/Sanding and Ploughing
- this essential service requires the highest level of response relative to other activities;
-different road types require different service levels, but there are no significant differences
among the former seven jurisdictions in this regard;
- there have been significant differences in operational methods among the former seven
jurisdictions;
- potential savings can be realized through operational efficiencies which will be
implemented incrementally;
-it is not possible to estimate the scale of savings nor the precise timing of the savings at this
time;
-a further report will be brought forward in 1999.
Windrow Opening (for residential properties only)
-only the former municipalities of North York, and recently Scarborough, provided this
service community wide;
-this service is not essential from an operational perspective;
-greater interest in this service has been evident in the suburban areas by virtue of wider
pavements and propensity for drifting snow; the service is also less costly in the suburban
areas because of the snow storage capability on boulevards and the relative absence of street
parking.
-options range (see Table 3) from the cancellation of existing programmes for an annual
saving of $2,800,000 to a City-wide programme at the highest existing service level for an
annual cost of about $18,000,000 (or additional cost of about $15,200,000);
-almost half the cost of a City-wide programme is associated with the relatively higher costs
of introducing this service in the former City of Toronto;
-if this service is continued in any way, the public would expect windrows to be opened every
time the pavement is ploughed;
Sidewalk Clearing
-there have been significant differences in service levels among the former six area
municipalities (see Table 4);
-all former area municipalities, except North York, had a by-law requiring property owners to
keep the sidewalk in front of their property clear of ice and snow;
-this service is not essential from an operational perspective other than the requirement to
clear sidewalks in front of municipal property and reverse frontage lots;
-options range (see Table 5) from the cancellation of most of the existing services (except for
municipal property and reverse frontages) for an annual saving of about $4,000,000 to a
City-wide programme at the highest existing service level for an annual cost of about
$17,488,000 (or additional cost of about $13,203,000);
-almost 58% of the cost of the City-wide programme is associated with introducing this
service in the former City of Toronto;
-the existing seniors and disabled programmes would not be necessary with the City-wide
programme at the highest level, for an annual saving of about $1,600,000;
-the reduction, retention or expansion of this service requires a Committee decision (see
suggested combination of options later in this summary).
Seniors and Disabled Programme
-for owners and occupants of single family units only where no other person is capable of
removing the snow;
-although the eligibility for programmes has been reasonably consistent among the former six
area municipalities, there have been substantial differences in the existing programmes (see
Table 6);
-this programme is not essential from an operational perspective;
-the programme options are defined by different combinations of inter-related factors:
eligibility, fee/subsidy and service delivery (see Table 7);
-it has not been possible to estimate the costs of each option at this time due to the lack of
data, although it is probably reasonable to conclude that the cost of most options could
increase in the future as a result of the increase in seniors relative to other age groups;
-it is proposed that if this service is to continue, no fee be applied given that the predominant
current approach is not to charge a fee plus the administrative costs associated with other
options.
-it is also proposed that Council retain the existing eligibility (over 65 or disabled persons
regardless of age).
Sweeping and Flushing of Pavements
-there have been significant differences in service levels among the former seven jurisdictions
(Tables 8 and 9);
-this service is considered to be essential because it assists road drainage by preventing dirt
and debris from blocking catch basins and it provides a clean environment for residents and
visitors;
-some areas require a higher service level than others as a result of heavy pedestrian traffic
such as the Central Business District;
-for sweeping, the annual cost to bring all areas up to the highest existing service level would
be about $18,800,000 (an additional cost of about $10,400,000); the cost associated with
bringing all areas down to the lowest service level is about $3,900,000 (a saving of about
$4,500,000);
-for flushing, the annual cost to bring all areas up to the highest existing service level would
be about $2,500,000 (an additional cost of $1,300,000); the saving associated with reducing
all areas to the lowest service level (i.e, zero service) is about $1,200,000;
-increasing service levels to the highest in all areas is not cost-effective; nor is it practical to
reduce service levels to the lowest because of the significant negative effect in high pedestrian
areas;
-the proposed approach is to adopt a new service guideline (Table 10) for the entire road
system whereby service levels vary according to road type and level of pedestrian activity;
-the new guideline will be phased in during 1999; it is anticipated that experience with the
new approach will provide opportunities for further cost savings;
-the overall initial annual savings from the new guideline is estimated to be about $275,000
or 3% of the budget for this activity;
-an annual city wide anti-litter campaign be considered and it is proposed that a report be
brought forward to outline such a campaign.
Sidewalk Litter Removal:
-there have been significant differences in service levels among the former six local
municipalities (see Table 11);
-there has been no method in use for measuring sidewalk litter removal requirements and
services, and therefore it is proposed that a methodology be developed in order to establish
performance measures and to assess value for expenditure for this activity;
-the preferred approach at this time is to adjust service levels slightly within the existing
budget to provide a more equitable distribution of services, and in this regard an interim
service guideline is proposed (see Table 12).
Leaf Collection
-most of the former six area municipalities required that residents bag leaves for pick-up by
Solid Waste Services;
-given this predominant approach, it is proposed that the bagging of leaves become a uniform
requirement for the 1999 leaf pick-up service; this would result in an annual saving of
$115,000 at the present time;
-the longer term objective is to increase the proportion of leaves bagged from the current 50%
to 80% of all leaves removed by weight for further savings;
-regardless of the extent of bagging, it will still be necessary to collect leaves that fall on the
road right-of-way to avoid clogged drains and sewer lines.
The fundamental question is what service level changes should be made on the basis of the
options and proposals contained in this report. In this regard, it is clear that, based on system
needs and functional requirements, service levels for a particular activity will vary.
The most problematic activity to resolve is winter maintenance. Service levels for
salting/sanding and ploughing of pavements is dictated by public safety requirements and the
related liability associated with ensuring the operational integrity of the system. However,
apart from the obligation of the City to clear sidewalks in front of municipal property and
reverse frontages, the windrow opening, sidewalk snow removal and seniors and disabled
programmes are not essential from an operational perspective. In this respect, it should be
noted that regardless of whether the City provides a sidewalk snow removal service or not, it
is essential to consolidate the five existing by-laws that require property owners to remove
snow and ice from sidewalks in front of their property. North York did not have such a by-law
but should be included when a new by-law is approved if North York service levels are
changed.
Levelling up to the highest existing service level for both windrow opening and sidewalk
clearing would cost $35,428,000 (or an additional $28,343,000). Cancelling the existing
programmes would result in an annual saving of about $6,900,000. There are a number of
combinations of options between these extremes, and it is important to recognize the
relationship between the seniors and disabled programme and the other two activities in the
development of these combinations. For example, if the highest service level of sidewalk
clearing were selected, then a senior and disabled programme would not be necessary. This is
similar to the current situation in North York. On the other hand, if sidewalk clearing were
only to take place on main roads, then a seniors and disabled programme could be required for
sidewalks on all other roads.
Level Of Service Options
Five overall level of service options which could be considered are:
A.Basic Operational Requirements
This option would provide for a level of service which should be provided by the City to
ensure safe winter driving conditions, plus cleaning of the public right-of-way. The following
services would be provided:
-salting/sanding and ploughing pavements
-sweeping and flushing streets
-sidewalk litter removal
This level of service would eliminate all sidewalk snow clearing, windrow clearing, the senior
or disabled snow clearing programme, and the vacuuming of leaves raked from private
property., The cost savings would amount to $8,847,000. These services are not considered
essential to operating the City, but in many cases meet the particular needs of many of the
City's residents.
B.Retain Existing Service Levels
The present varying levels of service would be retained. The method of delivery would
change in some cases because of the amalgamation of the former local municipalities and
Metro operations. Funding requirements would remain the same except for productivity
increases which could occur in the future through combining operations.
C.Make Service Level Adjustments to selected Activities
This option would consist of harmonizing the level of service for the following activities as
follows:
-The salting/sanding and ploughing of pavements to follow the general service guidelines
shown in Table 1.
-Clearing of snow from sidewalks for Seniors or Disabled Citizens free of charge.
-Sweeping and flushing operations to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table
10.
-Sidewalk Litter Programme to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table 12.
-Residents in all areas would be required to bag leaves from their property to be collected by
the Solid Waste Management Services Division.
The levels of service provided by the City for these activities would be consistent throughout
the City. The service level changes could be implemented in the Spring of 1999 for sweeping
and flushing, and sidewalk litter removal programmes. The changes in the leaf collection
programme could be implemented for the Fall of 1999. The winter maintenance changes
could be coordinated for the 1999/2000 winter season. The combined annual savings would
be $265,000.
The current practice of clearing driveway windrows in North York, Scarborough, and Forest
Hill would continue. The varying levels of service for clearing snow and ice from sidewalks
would be delivered as noted in Table 4.
D.Phased In Service Level Changes
This option would consist of implementing the service level changes as stated in Option C as
Phase I. Phase II would consist of adjusting service levels for the following activities over a 3
to 5 year period.
-Clearing snow and ice from sidewalks
-Removing windrows from residential driveways
The level of service provided for sidewalk snow clearing and driveway windrow removal
would be determined after further analysis of these activities, included an assessment of the
amount of surplus funding available for these activities and possible budget savings from
productivity improvements from harmonization of winter maintenance and street cleaning
activities.
E.Winter Sidewalk Clearing and Driveway Windrow Adjustments
This option would consist of the following activities:
-The salting/sanding and ploughing of pavements to follow the general service guidelines
shown in Table 1.
-Clearing of snow from sidewalks for Seniors or Disabled citizens free of charge.
-Sweeping and flushing operations to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table
10.
-Sidewalk Litter Programme to follow the general service guidelines shown in Table 12.
-Residents in all areas would be required to bag leaves from their property to be collected by
the Solid Waste Management Service Division.
-Expand the windrow opening program to include all suburban areas (former Etobicoke,
North York and Scarborough communities)
-The sidewalk snow clearing programme be limited to all main roads (plus municipal
properties and reverse frontages).
As noted in the report, there appears to be greater interest in windrow opening services in
suburban locations by virtue of the greater amount of snow ploughed from pavements that are
generally wider than older roads in the former inner three municipalities and the generally
lower level of transit service available as an alternate to automobile use. It is also clear that
the cost of a windrow clearing programme in the former inner three municipalities would be
prohibitive because of the need to use hand shovelling and there is no snow storage capability
since there are virtually no boulevards. Under this combination, the proposed service would
therefore apply to the suburban areas of North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke, at a level of
service that is equivalent to Scarborough's existing service. The Etobicoke area would
therefore gain a new service, the North York service level would decrease slightly and
Scarborough's service would remain the same. The Toronto, York and East York areas would
not have this service. The estimate annual cost of this new arrangement would be about
$3,900,000 (or an additional cost of $1,100,000).
Sidewalks on main roads are at least cleared by former North York, Scarborough, York and
East York jurisdictions. The proposed service level would be equivalent to Scarborough and
York at 8 clearances per year. Main roads under this approach would constitute about 32% of
the entire road system. Therefore, under this combination, the Etobicoke and Toronto areas
would receive a new service, the current North York service level would decrease and
sidewalks on local roads would no longer be cleared, the service level in East York would
increase except sidewalks on local roads would no longer be cleared, and the existing
Scarborough and York services would continue. The annual cost of this new arrangement
would be about $4,200,000 which is slightly less than the existing service. Overall this option
would cost an additional $762,000.
Contact Name:
Gary H. Welsh, Director,
Transportation Services, District 4
Telephone:396-7842
Fax:396-5681
David C. Kaufman
General Manager, Transportation Services
Barry H. Gutteridge
Commissioner, Works & Emergency Services
GHW/jr/fc/cb
attachments
TABLE 1
SALTING/SANDING AND PLOUGHING PAVEMENTS
SERVICE OBJECTIVES BY ROAD TYPE1
|
Salting/Sanding |
Ploughing |
| Freeways |
Bare pavement |
Ploughs are activated when it
is obvious that salting/sanding
is not going to continue to be
effective in dealing with a
storm. Decisions as to when
and where to plough are made
by staff based on guidelines
and observations during a
storm. |
| Arterials |
Bare pavement |
| Collectors |
Centre bare |
| Locals |
Safe and passable |
| Lanes |
De-Ice as necessary to maintain
passable conditions |
|
1.The degree to which the objectives are attained and the timing related thereto depends on
the nature and duration of snowfall or storm for any particular area of the City, the prevailing
temperature conditions, and the day of the week and the time of day that the snowfall occurs.
TABLE 2
EXISTING CONTRACT RESOURCES1 - SALTING/SANDING AND PLOUGHING
PAVEMENTS
| Former
Jurisdiction |
Salting/Sanding |
Ploughing |
Notes |
|
% Contract |
Contract
Expiry |
% Contract |
Contract
Expiry |
| Etobicoke |
78 |
March
1999 |
35 |
March
1999 |
One year
extension
possible with
plough contract |
| North York |
100 |
March
1999 |
100 |
March
2000 |
Plough contract
is negotiated
and includes
windrow
removal |
| Scarborough |
40 |
March
2000 |
100 |
March
2000 |
|
| Toronto |
0 |
n/a |
60 |
March
1999 |
Few minor
salting/sanding
contacts for
lanes |
| York |
0 |
n/a |
50 |
March
1999 |
|
| East York |
0 |
n/a |
0 |
March
1999 |
Equipment for
ploughing
rented on a
seasonal basis |
| Metro |
100 |
March
1999 |
100 |
March
1999 |
Combined
contracts -
seven districts |
1.Salting/sanding and ploughing contracts are separate unless otherwise noted.
TABLE 3
WINDROW OPENING - OPTIONS1
ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES
|
(b)
Status
Quo2 |
(c)
Status
Quo
Reduced3 |
(d)
(i)
Suburban4
@ 4 |
(ii)
Suburban5
@ 6 |
(e)
(i)
City Wide6
@ 4 |
(ii)
City
Wide7
@ 6 |
(f)
(i)
Suburban
Main
Roads8
@ 4 |
(ii)
Suburban
Main
Roads
@6 |
| Etobicoke |
- |
- |
$1,200,000. |
$1,800,000. |
$1,200,000. |
$1,800,000. |
$240,000. |
$360,000. |
| North
York |
$1,200,000. |
$1,000,000. |
$1,100,000. |
$1,340,000. |
$1,100,000. |
$1,340,000. |
$528,000. |
$792,000. |
| Scarborough |
$1,600,000. |
$1,600,000. |
$1,600,000. |
$2,400,000. |
$1,600,000. |
$2,400,000. |
$384,000. |
$576,000. |
| Toronto |
- |
- |
- |
- |
$6,200,000. |
$9,300,000. |
$624,000. |
$936,000. |
| York |
- |
- |
- |
- |
$1,200,000. |
$1,800,000. |
$96,000. |
$144,000. |
| East York |
- |
- |
- |
- |
$ 900,000. |
$1,300,000. |
$74,400. |
$111,600. |
| Total |
$2,800,000. |
$2,600,000. |
$3,900,000. |
$5,540,000. |
$12,200,000. |
$17,940,000. |
$1,946,400. |
$2,919,600. |
| Additional
Costs
(Savings)
Relative to
Existing |
0 |
($200,000.) |
$1,100,000. |
$2,740,000. |
$9,400,000. |
$15,140,000. |
($853,600.) |
$119,600. |
1.Although not shown, option (a) is to cancel existing programmes for a savings of
$2,800,000
(Scarborough in March 1999, North York in March 2000). This may require extending seniors
and disabled programme for additional cost
2.North York - 6 clearances per season (no former Metro Roads except seniors and disabled
program)
Scarborough - 4 clearances per season
3.North York reduced to 4 clearances (no former Metro Roads except seniors and disabled
program)
4.Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough at 4 clearances (includes former Metro Roads)
5.Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough at 6 clearances
6.City Wide at 4 clearances
7.City Wide at 6 clearances
8.Main roads in suburban areas with few arterial sections in Toronto, York & East York
TABLE 4
SIDEWALK CLEARING
EXISTING PROGRAMMES1 AND ANNUAL COSTS
1.Former area municipalities cleared sidewalks on former Metro roads, if applicable;
clearances are shown per winter season
1.See Table 42.Comparable to Etobicoke and Toronto existing service; city facilities basically include
works and parks in some cases
6.Subject to receipt of Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement, otherwise fee is $67.41
(GST included)
8.The Neighbourhood Information Centre manages the programme on behalf of East York
9.$10 per storm, maximum of 14 clearances. Claims approved only when former Metro
ploughed arterial roads
1. Service levels shown are averaged
2. Can include arterial and local roads
3. Mostly residential streets
4. Once every six weeks
5. Twice per week
1.This is a generalized guideline and shows the highest levels of service; actual level of
service could vary along a particular road or within the same road type depending on specific
circumstances
2.The Central Business District is enclosed within Bloor St., Jarvis St., Bathurst St. and
Lakefront
1.A range of number of times per week indicates that some sidewalks are cleaned more often
than others.
2.Man. - manual; Mech. - mechanical equipment
1.Area bounded by: Jarvis Street, Bathurst Street, Bloor Street and the lake.
2.Frequency along a particular road could vary depending on specific circumstances.
3.Generally arterial roads.
