1 Car Sharing

2 Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts (Don River and Midtown - Wards 23 and 25)

3 Speed Limit Compliance on Major Arterial Roads - Update

4 Jane and Finch Streetscape Project (Black Creek - Ward 7)

5 Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

6 Humber River Project - F.G. Gardiner Expressway Ramp Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 over Humber River and Approaches Contract No. T-01-99, Tender No. 19-1999

7 Road Improvements Associated with the Proposed TTC Bus Garage Facility on Comstock Road (Scarborough Bluffs - Ward 13)

8 Report of the Task Force on Transportation Funding

9 Court of Appeal Decision in Michael Wassilyn, Jr. V. City of Toronto

10 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(a) undertake discussions with the Toronto Transit Commission with respect to the Auto Share proposal; and

(b) examine other creative parking alternatives and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee accordingly.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide an overview of the car sharing concept and its applicability to the Toronto situation.

Financial Implications:

This report has no immediate funding implications.

Recommendation:

That, building on its support for such initiatives as Auto Share and FAAN, the City of Toronto should continue to encourage and promote the implementation of car sharing programs through the consideration of such measures as:

(a) providing start-up loans through the Toronto Atmospheric Fund;

(b) supporting the publicity and promotional efforts of car sharing programs;

(c) facilitating the provision of parking facilities for car sharing, and

(d) incorporating car sharing as an element of the City's wider "Moving The Economy" initiative to develop Personal Mobility Systems as part of the strategy to move towards a sustainable transportation system.

Comments:

This report provides a brief description of the car sharing concept as it has developed in Europe and, more recently, North America. Following the description, there is an assessment of the benefits of car sharing and the role that government might play in fostering or promoting this approach to urban mobility.

(1) Description

Car sharing is a membership-based system of shared access to a group of vehicles located in the neighbourhood where members live. By sharing fixed costs, the expense of running a car is reduced for car share members. Car share subscribers usually pay a one-time membership fee (of around $500.00 in Canada), a yearly administration fee and a charge for each trip based on the length and duration of travel. Car sharers pay principally on the basis of use: the less you drive the less it costs.

Car sharing programs can operate either on a non-profit, cooperative basis or as private, for profit ventures. Car sharing originated in Switzerland in the 1980's where Car Share Switzerland has developed into a national organization with over 18,000 members and a fleet of more than 1,000 vehicles. Other countries where car sharing programs are now established include Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. However, it needs to be understood that car share programs are inherently community-based though each may be part of a larger city, regional or national network of such organizations. This results from the basic need to organize car share programs around parking facilities that are centrally located to the membership for the convenient pick-up and drop-off of car share vehicles. Ideally, members should be no more than a five-minute walk from a car share parking facility that is located close to transit services and includes bicycle parking. To be economically viable, experience suggests that a car share program needs 10 to 15 members per car.

Although car sharing can be a viable business enterprise, most are run on a cooperative non-profit basis. Significant start-up costs are involved, including the purchase of vehicles, the establishment of an administrative system and the need to publicize the program. The cost structure of car sharing can be surprisingly complex and, early on, fundamental decisions have to be made regarding such matters as parking, buying or leasing vehicles, and insurance. In terms of the day-to-day running of car share programs, there are a variety of ways to arrange for vehicles to be reserved, accessed and trip costs assigned and there is no need to go into all the details here. It should be noted, that most car share programs offer members a choice of fee schedule so that they can choose the one which best meets their pattern of use. Of course, as car sharing has expanded, there are an increasing number of successful examples for others to follow or imitate. In Canada, car share programs already existed in Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa, Quebec City and Montreal, before Toronto's first program "Auto Share-Care Sharing Network Inc." came into being in August, 1998.

As might be expected, car share programs typically attract members who drive considerably less than average. For this class of driver the relatively high cost per trip of car sharing is more than off-set by avoiding the high fixed-costs of private car ownership. As long as vehicle use remains low (which pricing by trip further encourages), there is an economic advantage to members of car share programs. Analysis suggests that the break-even point between car sharing (plus public transport) and driving one's own car is relatively low at around 10,000 km. per year. This further suggests that car sharing has the most potential in the urban core of medium to large metropolitan areas where extensive transit services are available and trip distances relatively short. These factors suggest there are limits to the market for car sharing. For example, it has been estimated that, in Germany, car sharing might, at most, reduce the total number of private vehicles by 3 percent (or 1.2 million vehicles), with most of this reduction occurring in the big cities with the worst parking problems.

In Toronto, the "Auto Share" program has shown that car sharing appeals to people living in high density neighbourhoods with easy access to transit. It has been found that primary market groups which constitute the "early adopters" of car sharing are:

- the urban professional who does not wish to own a car...or a second car;

- the ecologically minded who generally avoid driving, but occasionally need a car;

- the lower-income earner who could only afford an older car; and

- small or home-based businesses which cannot afford, or do not wish to own a company car.

"Auto Share" is also planning to target high density, suburban neighbourhoods and is looking to establish a car sharing program in Scarborough in addition to the three downtown programs (in Riverdale, St. Lawrence and the Annex). A car sharing program in Vancouver found that of the 145 members, 37 sold cars to join and 79 chose to join instead of buying a vehicle and this is typical of the reductions in car ownership that car sharing can achieve.

It should be noted that there are beginning to emerge a number of non-traditional car sharing organizations that are not so tied to community-based enterprises. These car sharing schemes are envisaged as operating on a larger spatial scale, ideally city-wide. When organized at the city scale, the link between the ownership and the use of the car becomes further weakened and there is the greater potential for car sharing to substantially reduce the number of cars in the city. The bigger the scale of operation the more reliance there will be on technology to support the car share organization and to monitor, control and bill for the individual use of cars drawn from a large pool of vehicles shared by thousands of car share subscribers. Smart card technology and on-board computers in vehicles will typically be required to operate car sharing at a city-wide scale. At this level of organization, subscribers would not identify with any particular set of community or home-based vehicles but would simply pick up, use and drop off cars all over the city that are drawn from a large fleet of commonly shared vehicles.

City-wide car sharing might be thought of as the next evolutionary step in the development of programs to reduce car ownership and, although this scale of approach requires an even greater change in societal attitudes, it offers the potentially much larger benefits that such a systemic reduction in urban car ownership and use would bring. Currently, there are few working examples of city-wide car sharing schemes though there is one under development in Paris and the "FAAN Company" in Toronto has proposals for such a scheme in our city. FAAN (Flexlink Advanced Auto Network) envisages a large fleet of smart CiTiCars that are parked on the street, or in special parking lots, and available to qualified users with the swipe of a smart card. CiTiCars would be environmentally friendly and diagnostic and smart driving technology would be integrated to ensure that these vehicles are monitored and maintained properly. The City of Toronto recently endorsed the FAAN proposal and it was one of the selected initiatives highlighted by the Design Exchange in its exhibition on concepts to improve the future urban environment. The FAAN initiative can be seen as a complementary extension of the more traditional, community-based car sharing programs as exemplified by Auto Share.

(2) Benefits of Car Sharing

(a) The principal benefit of car sharing is the economic saving to members. For people who do not need to drive much there is a cost savings associated with eliminating a private vehicle and using a shared one. The fewer miles that are driven the greater the comparative savings. However, car sharing becomes costlier than ownership if the driver travels long distances frequently or is a heavy user.

(b) As noted above, car sharing reduces car ownership and, by converting the fixed costs of car ownership to variable costs, provides the economic incentive to reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and make greater use of cheaper, alternative modes of travel such as transit, cycle and walking. Typically, people in car shares reduce their overall driving by 30 to 50 percent and this results in obvious environmental benefits in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and less energy consumption. These environmental benefits are reenforced by the fact that car share vehicles are usually newer models which replace travel by older, less fuel efficient and more polluting vehicles. Also, fewer cars travelling less miles can bring added benefits in the form of reduced congestion levels, less noise pollution and reduced accidents. However, with respect to congestion effects, it should be borne in mind that car pool vehicles, which are essentially used and priced on an hourly basis, are not normally employed for regular, peak-period commuting purposes.

(c) Given that car sharing results in fewer personal motor vehicles, parking needs are also reduced. Reducing parking requirements can be a critical benefit in certain, densely developed parts of the City. Ultimately, more land can be freed up from parking and put to more socially productive urban uses or housing construction costs reduced as a result of lower parking requirements.

(d) By covering costs through charges based principally on use, car sharers are faced with a higher marginal cost for driving that encourages them to choose their mode of travel more thoughtfully and to opt for the car only when it is the most appropriate and efficient mode of transportation. In this way, car sharing becomes a useful element of the City's wider "Moving The Economy"initiative to develop Personal Mobility Systems as part of a sustainable transportation strategy. Personal Mobility Systems link a whole range of sustainable transportation options through the use of one smart card, making the sustainable choice a more attractive and enjoyable decision. Car sharing has become a key part of integrated transportation systems in Europe, where car sharing fleets link with rail, transit and taxi systems. For example, the Swiss Mobility Car Sharing initiative launched a collaborative effort with the Swiss National Railway System in 1998 to provide car sharing lots at 350 train stations throughout the country.

(e) Additionally, car sharing, by separating vehicle use from direct ownership, may help to reshape society's attitude towards viewing the car in more utilitarian terms and less as a personal statement of fashion and prestige. Also, car share programs may increase the opportunities for testing and demonstrating new vehicle technology such as electric and other alternative fuel vehicles. These types of benefits may be difficult to quantify but could play a productive role in helping us to redefine our long-term relationship to the car and the way we use it in the future as our major cities become increasingly developed and congested.

(3) Government's Role

Since car pooling programs operate on at least a break-even basis, there is little need for direct government funding to support on-going operations. However car sharing provides a number of external (or social) benefits, as described above, and there are economic grounds for government providing some support to these activities.

As already noted, the start-up costs of car sharing programs can be high and, in order to attract members, there needs to be some degree of assurance that the program will be around for a while and not quickly fold-up. Government can help overcome these early problems of getting a car sharing program off the ground by providing financial backing and institutional support. For example, the City of Toronto, through the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, provided the "Auto Share" initiative with a $7,000.00 grant for marketing research and a $20,000.00 loan to help get the project started and to indicate a level of public support for car sharing initiatives. Similar loans should continue to be made to others developing car sharing programs if experience shows the benefits to outweigh the potential risks.

Another way that the City can contribute is to facilitate the provision of parking facilities for car sharing. One of the biggest problems for a car sharing organization in the inner city is finding reserved parking spaces for vehicles. The City's Parking Authority has supported the "Auto Share" initiative by allocating parking spaces in target areas near subway and bus stops.

Another important area is publicity and the promotion of the car sharing concept. Publicity, promotion and education are necessary to attract members to car sharing programs and garner broader public support. One way that the City can help in this regard is to integrate the promotion of car sharing with the promotion of other sustainable transportation initiatives. As already mentioned, for example, the City helped sponsor the "Moving The Economy Conference" last July and is now pursuing the Sector Development Strategy that emerged from the conference. This strategy is a high profile activity that will help promote car sharing as part of a wider, integrated Personal Mobility Systems initiative. It is by means such as this, that the City can help publicize and show support for car sharing.

Conclusions:

Traditional car sharing has essentially evolved as a voluntary, community-based approach to reducing the level of car ownership and the rate of car use in cities. As such, car sharing programs offer cost savings to members, which enables these programs to operate on a self-sufficient basis, as well as providing benefits to society as a whole, principally as a result of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and lower parking demands. Overall, car sharing provides a win-win situation: members have low cost access to a car when they really need one and society has cleaner air, improved community design and less traffic. As mentioned, larger city-wide car sharing schemes, such as FAAN, are also now being looked at and these hold the potential for even greater benefits from reduced car use in cities.

However, the beneficial impacts of community-based car sharing should not be over-estimated in absolute terms. The appeal of this type of car sharing is quite limited. First, it is only a practical alternative to car ownership in densely developed urban areas where there is a good transit alternative, trip distances are relatively short and parking private cars is difficult. Second, car sharing attracts people who drive considerably less than average and encourages them to drive even fewer miles. So, although those who join a traditional car share program may reduce their individual use of cars by 30 to 50 percent on average, at the national level the reduction in the total number of cars in use is not likely to exceed 3 percent (according to a study in Germany).

Yet, car pooling has a beneficial impact in those urban communities where it is organized and this report recommends that the City of Toronto should continue to support both the established community-based and the more futuristic city-wide car sharing initiatives as one element of an integrated strategy to achieve a more sustainable urban transportation system. Among the ways the City can provide this type of support are providing loans to help during the costly start-up period; facilitating the provision of parking facilities; encouraging the integration of car sharing with transit through smart card technology and other means; supporting the publicity and promotional efforts of car sharing by including car sharing as a part of the City's sustainable transportation strategy.

Contact Name:

Greg Stewart

Metro Hall, Telephone: (416) 392-2691, Fax: (416) 392-3821

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the following matter the following communications/submission:

- (October 2, 1998) from Liz Reynolds, Executive Director, Auto Share - Car Sharing Network Inc., addressed to the Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee;

- (undated) from Liz Reynolds, AutoShare - Car Sharing Network Inc., stating that the growth of this private sector initiative can be supported through a partnership including all or any of the following City support:

- recognition of car sharing's role in a sustainable transportation system for the City in the new Official Plan;

- promotion of AutoShare throughout City communication channels (internal and external);

- Preferential Parking for AutoShare cars (matching initiatives in Vancouver, for example, that issues "all-neighbourhood" parking permits to car sharing cars; access and reduced monthly rates at Parking Authority lots, etc.);

- facilitating a partnership/co-marketing with the TTC;

- reduced parking requirements in residential developments using AutoShare; and

- co-operation between the City's Green Fleet's program and AutoShare; and

- paper titled "Sustainable Transportation Monitor", No. 2, February 1999.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Richard Gilbert, Consultant in Urban Issues;

- Liz Reynolds, Auto Share; and

- Kevin McLaughlin, Auto Share.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the report dated May 10, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) authorization to increase funding by $1.0 million for the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures Project be approved at this time; and

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, monitor capital project spending and report back in the fall on the source of funding to be utilized to offset the impact of increasing this project's funding at this time (i.e., underspending in existing Capital or increase in debt financing).'; and

(b) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a confidential status report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on other locations similar to the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to proceed with the design prepared by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures;

(2) the overrun in costs for proceeding with this design be allocated from contingency account;

(3) an amount of $800,000.00 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the TTC's 2000 capital budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's capital funding needs and that these costs be recovered over 10 years by a yearly rental; and

(4) the Project Steering Committee be revived and consulted on an ongoing basis.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to City Council for its meeting on May 11, 1999 on this matter.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide further information and a recommendation concerning this project as requested by the UEDC at its meeting held on March 3l, 1999.

Financial Implications:

Should Council decide to go ahead with the current design, $1,000,000.00 would have to be allocated in addition to the $1,500,000.00 already included in the 1999 Capital Budget of the Works and Emergency Services Department. The source of the additional funding would have to be determined.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Basic Design Alternative be adopted which does not require additional funding.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The UEDC at its meeting held on March 3l, 1999, deferred consideration of the recommendations contained in a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated March 18, 1999, with the exception of Recommendations No. 3 and No. 4 and requested further information concerning:

- the most up-to-date cost estimates;

- the views of the Selection Committee members; and

- the appropriateness of considering design alternatives at this time.

Discussion on the design competition and/or the views of the Selection Committee members:

As requested by your Committee, City staff met with members of the Selection Committee who had reviewed all submissions in the design competition and recommended the appointment of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. in the late summer of 1998.

Members of the Committee are unanimous in their views that:

- although the selection of the winning design occurred through the process of elimination, there was only one selected alternative;

- the submission of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. was endorsed by the members in August, 1998, and is still strongly supported by the group; and

- the project should proceed, without further delay, to a speedy conclusion.

Discussion on the provisions of the Stage II Design Brief outlining conditions of the competition:

The Design Brief formed the basis of the design competition. The following are some of the relevant points:

- "The budget for the project is $1.5 Million and is not to exceed this amount. The budget must cover all costs to construct preventative measures, including design development, tender and contract documents, construction costs, design fees and applicable taxes" (Section 2.0);

- "The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is responsible for conducting this selection process and for making a recommendation to the UEDC. He has the right to support, modify or not support the recommendations of the Selection Committee" (Section 6.0); and

- "The candidate selected by City Council will be awarded a prize of $20,000.00. The prize constitutes a deposit on a contract which will be recommended to City Council for authorization. The City of Toronto reserves the right to award the prize, but not to proceed with the project or the contract" (Section 8.0).

Discussion on available alternatives and cost implications:

(1) Proceed with the Current Design

Project cost estimated by Dereck Revington

Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. $2,482,000

New Bridgemaster 800,000

Total $3,282,000

These estimates, not including the Bridgemaster, reflect an increase of $1,000,000.00 (65 percent) over the amount specified by Council in the design competition. The source of the additional funding would have to be determined.

It was recommended earlier that $800,000.00 for the purchase of a new Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the TTC's 2000 Capital Budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's Capital funding needs.

(2) Terminate the Current Design Process

(a) Call a new competition.

The project could not be completed in 1999, and it is doubtful if a new competition would lead to substantially different results.

(b) Consider a basic design alternative

(4m high from top of parapet, aluminium bars in demountable sections)

It is unlikely that this would achieve the aesthetical objectives of the Selection Committee, however, it is not a "fence" but a visually acceptable alternative. It would be constructed in 1999.

Preliminary Estimated Project Cost $1,324,600

No new Bridgemaster needed --

Total $1,324,600

Resolution would have to be reached as to the City's responsibility for expenses already incurred by Dereck Revington Studios.

Conclusions:

The Selection Committee strongly recommends entering into a contractual agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. for the completion of the project. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Works has been empowered to "support, modify or not support the recommendations of the Selection Committee".

The recommended alternative would not require additional funding either for a new Bridgemaster or for additional costs identified in the recent cost estimates for the Revington/Yolles proposal.

Staff have reviewed the history of the matter with the City Solicitor and he will be available at the meeting to provide the appropriate comments.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide a status report on the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts project and to outline, through a series of recommendations, a proposed course of action that will allow the project to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) subject to approval by the Toronto Transit Commission, Council authorize the additional expenditure of $800,000.00 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle to be included within the TTC's 2000 capital budget estimates, and that the vehicle be maintained, thereafter, in the TTC's ownership;

(2) in view of the confirmation of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. that it cannot complete the project within $1.5 million, the amount prescribed in the terms of reference for the design competition, Council authorize not proceeding with finalization of an agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. and, instead, authorize the engagement of E.R.A. Architect Inc. to prepare detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures based on its design proposal with the prescribed funding amount, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor;

(3) temporary measures be put in place without further delay, including six telephones and appropriate signage, and that the additional annual costs estimated to be $2,500.00 incurred by the Distress Centre, be accommodated through a slightly increased yearly grant to the Centre; and

(4) the Schizophrenia Society working with community groups establish patrols on the bridge, the details of which would be reported to Council at a later date.

Background:

Subsequent to a design competition, Council at its meeting held on October lst and 2nd, 1998, approved Clause 1 of Report No. 11 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee authorizing the engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures. The Terms of Reference for the design competition was very specific in establishing an upper limit for the costs at $1.5 million and those expenditures were authorized by Council for the completion of the project.

During the preliminary design stage, the TTC expressed concern that following the installation of the barrier, they would no longer be able to carry out periodic inspections of the subway support substructure of the viaduct using their current methodology, consisting of a vehicle with a long flexible arm and a bucket called the Bridgemaster, that reaches over the handrail and under the bridge.

It also became clear that the selected design (or any of the other designs submitted) would not easily lend itself to periodic dismantling in order to facilitate access by the Bridgemaster.

In order to resolve the impasse, City staff have been working closely with TTC staff and have examined various alternatives including:

- modified inspection vehicle capable of reaching over the barrier (Bridgemaster with a longer arm);

- track mounted inspection vehicle (Bridgemaster on a TTC work train);

- construction of permanent inspection platforms under the subway tracks; and

- Remote Access Technology involving the use of ropes, harnesses and video equipment.

Discussion on the TTC's Inspection Needs:

TTC staff have estimated the costs of the alternative inspection methods, both in terms of capital expenditures and yearly operating costs and have presented the following summary:

Capital Yearly Operating

Costs Costs

Options ($x1,000) ($x1,000)

(1) Using the current method with $0 $ 56.5

no barrier in place

(2) Permanent platforms under the $2,000.00 $ 42.2

subway tracks (5 arches)

(3) Modified Bridgemaster with $ 800.00 $ 67.9

longer arm

Capital Yearly Operating

Costs Costs

Options ($x1,000) ($x1,000)

(4) Remote Access Technology $0 $150.0

using video equipment

(5) Track Mounted Bridgemaster $ 800.00 $129.9

(6) Temporary Swing Stages $0 $637.2

(7) Permanent Platforms for 2 arches $1,600.00 $ 57.2

and bucket truck from Bayview and

the DVP

Option 1 is the current method used by the TTC in performing inspections since 1996 using the MTO Bridgemaster.

Option 2 assumes construction in 1999 and 2000 concurrently with the approved support beam replacement contract.

Option 3 will require a delivery time of two years, however, the TTC is currently awaiting quotations from other manufacturers.

Option 4 in the TTC's opinion, poses a safety risk on one hand, and insufficient control over inspections on the other and, therefore, has been rejected by them. City staff disagree. Remote access technology is a well accepted method of bridge inspections and was last used in Ontario by the Ministry of Transportation - Ontario for substructure inspections of the Garden City Skyway in the Niagara Region in 1998.

Option 5 allows for limited inspection windows of less than two hours a day.

Option 6 was the TTC's practice prior to 1996.

Option 7 is a combination of Option 2 above and the use of a "cherry picker" truck from the ground for part of the structure. This option would result in frequent road closures on both the Don Valley Parkway and the Bayview Extension.

TTC staff, having considered the implications of the alternatives, are prepared to recommend Option 3 in their report to the Commission.

Discussion on the City's Inspection Needs:

During a meeting held on March 9, 1999, involving the Chair of the UEDC and some of the area Councillors, City staff were requested to provide information, including costs involved in the inspection of the rest of the structure.

The deck of the Prince Edward Viaduct was last repaired in 1989. The recoating of the structural steel substructure followed shortly after. In April 1999, we expect City Council to award the last recoating contract for Span No. 3.

Since the rehabilitation contract, former Metro Transportation and now the City staff have performed regular routine inspections of this bridge. In general, inspection has been performed in accordance with the Structure Inspection Manual issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Staff have used different methods for inspection on different components. For example, staff would request special permission to enter into the TTC subway right-of-ways with the aid of flaggers to visually inspect the underside of the bridge deck. For the substructure, more detailed inspection has been performed in utilizing the falsework installed for the recoating contracts. Furthermore, visual inspection was also performed from the ground with the aid of binoculars.

When preparing the recoating contracts for Span No. 2 (the Don Valley Parkway span) and Span No. 5 (the Bayview Extension span) "man lifts" or a "cherry picker" bucket truck was used to inspect the steel work. For Spans Nos. 3 and 4 (the Don River span) an inspection engineer with safety harnesses climbed up the structural steel from ground. Steel cable lifelines were also installed to assist the inspection from a safety standpoint. This bridge is currently in good condition, therefore, inspection costs for the City only include staff time and the accessory cost is minimal.

Discussion on Cost Estimates provided by Dereck Revington Studios:

The Terms of Reference for the design competition specified the amount of $1.5 million as the maximum amount within which the project had to be completed. Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. won the competition based on those Terms of Reference and Council authorized the engagement of these companies at its meeting held on October lst and 2nd, 1998. In early March 1999, following some quantity estimates by City staff, Mr. Revington was requested to provide assurance, in writing, that the cost of the project would not exceed $1.5 million. In his response dated March 14, 1999, he indicates that he can no longer stand by his original estimate and, in fact, the project will cost substantially more than specified in the Terms of Reference. His current estimate is $2.14 million.

City staff have approached E.R.A. Architect Inc., the runner-up in the design competition, and they have indicated in a letter dated March 17, 1999, that they stand behind their original estimates.

Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for Council to withdraw its previous approval relating to the engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. and to instruct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to enter into an agreement with E.R.A. Architect Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents. The City Solicitor is in agreement with this recommendation.

Heritage Toronto, who played a key role in the selection of the successful design alternatives, are also in agreement with the recommendation.

Discussion on Temporary Measures:

If Council authorized commencement of the project at its upcoming meeting, it would be completed by the late fall of 1999 at the earliest. In the meantime, immediate short term measures should be considered. These measures include the installation of telephones and community patrols on the bridge. Both of these proposals were discussed by the Steering Committee during the preliminary design phase.

Telephones:

Dedicated telephone lines may prove useful for individuals in need of professional advice. Such telephone lines have been employed in other jurisdictions with a great degree of success. A total of six telephones would be connected directly to the Distress Centre where qualified personnel would deal with individual situations.

The following is the estimate of costs:

- Initial cost of installation $16,000

- Operating cost for telephone lines $ 2,700 per annum

- Additional costs incurred by the

Distress Centre: Initial $ 5,000

Operating $ 2,500 per annum

Patrols:

The patrols can either be from the police or from community groups such as the Schizophrenia Society. In view of the restraint on the police budget, it may be difficult to have their commitment. As for the community groups, this service would be provided on a voluntary basis. It is uncertain, at this time, what level of patrolling is necessary, thus an estimated cost cannot be made until the unknowns are realized.

Conclusion:

The project has suffered significant delays due to the need to accommodate the TTC's ongoing bridge inspection needs. It would now appear that the TTC requirements can be satisfied at an additional cost of $800,000.00. If Council agrees to the continued engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. at a cost which is $0.85 million higher than the original submission including contingencies, the project will proceed immediately upon approval and, barring further delays, it stands a good chance of being completed by the end of 1999. In the meantime, temporary measures in the form of telephones, signs and community patrols should be instituted without further delay.

Contact Name & Telephone No.:

Mike Chung, P.Eng.

Manager, Structures & Expressways, Design Construction and Inspection Technical Services Division, Tel. 392-8341

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

- report (March 24, 1999) from Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding their Report No. 22 to City of Toronto Council and requesting City funding for the required larger inspection vehicle;

- communications which were filed at the March 31, 1999 meeting:

(1) (March 16, 1999) from Alan L. Berman, Executive Director, American Association of Suicidology, supporting the effort to create anti-suicide barriers at the Bloor Viaduct;

(2) (February 12, 1999) from David Lester, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology; Past President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, supporting the fencing in of the Bloor Street West Viaduct to prevent people from jumping from it in an effort to commit suicide;

(3) (March 25, 1999) from Councillor Ila Bossons, requesting the Provincial Government to provide financial assistance for the Bloor Viaduct suicide barrier;

(4) (March 29, 1999) from Dr. Chris Cantor, Senior Research Psychiatrist, Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, urging all interested parties to negotiate a solution which permits a very worthwhile suicide prevention project to proceed;

(5) (March 26, 1999) from Robin R. Richards, Head, Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, informing the Committee of the number of patients who have fallen from the Bloor Viaduct and survived with usually massive disabling and permanent injuries;

(6) (March 26, 1999) from Geoffrey Thun, Dereck Revington Studio, forwarding three letters of recommendation regarding measures to deter suicide on the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(7) (March 26, 1999) from E.H. Zeidler, Zeidler Roberts Partnerships/Architects, commenting on the intent of the Committee to employ the services of another architect;

(8) (March 29, 1999) from Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studio, forwarding documents relating to the Bloor Viaduct - Preventive Measures; and

(9) (March 29, 1999) from Claude Prevost, Regie Regionale De La Sante Et Des Services Sociaux, confirming that the installation of a safety fence would be the most appropriate measure;

- (March 30, 1999) from Paul S. Links, M.D., FRCP(C), Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, Professor of Psychiatry, St. Michael's Hospital, expressing his concerns about possible delays in completing the barrier for the Bloor Viaduct which may lead to further suicides, particularly after all the media attention that has been given to this initiative and stating that if further delays are unavoidable, then he would encourage the planners to revisit the installation of crisis phone lines and foot patrols on the bridge until the barriers are erected;

- (April 14, 1999) from Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios, forwarding a confirmation letter to Tom Denes, Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services (April 9, 1999) providing further requested information, Work Plan and Schedule and Vermeulens Cost Consultants - Budget Analysis dated April 14, 1999;

- (April 14, 1999) from Dr. D.J. Gunnell, Senior Lecturer in Epidermology and Public Health Medicine, University of Bristol, providing comments regarding the creation of barriers and stating that he would not argue that the creation of barriers would prevent all would-be suicides from committing suicide but simply that an important proportion would be prevented;

- (April 16, 1999) from Isaac Sakinofsky, MB, ChB, MD, DPM(Lond), FRCP(C), FRCPsych(UK), Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, recommending that Councillors strongly stick with their initial decision and go forward with this important life-saving project without further delay, delay which has already caused the costs to rise from what they were originally;

- (April 18, 1999) from Ben Au-Yeung urging the Committee to reaffirm their commitment to build the barrier now and not to delay the project by asking for more analysis or going through another tendering process; and

- (April 19, 1999) from Michael Wilson supporting the planned suicide project at the Bloor Street Viaduct.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios;

- Richard Vermeulen, Vermeulen Cost Consultants;

- Eric Gordon, Yolles Engineering Inc.;

- Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Clarke Institute;

- Teresa and Gary Kruze;

- J.A. (Al) Birney, Past President of East York Chapter and Bridge Committee Chairman, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

- Mary Doucette, representing the Doucette family;

- Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and Member of Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and

- Ellis Galea Kirkland, Juror, Bloor Viaduct Barrier Design Selection Committee, Urban Planning and Development Services, City of Toronto.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on April 30, 1999, recommended to City Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the report (April 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, respecting the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts, subject to:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer being requested to report directly to City Council, at its meeting of May 11, 1999, on a source of funding for the aforementioned project; and

(2) provisions being made for Mr. Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios, Mr. J. A. (Al) Birney, Past President of the East York Chapter, and Bridge Committee Chairman, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee, to attend the City Council meeting of May 11, 1999, as a resource to staff to answer questions respecting the subject project;

and directed that the aforementioned recommendations be forwarded to City Council for its meeting of May 11, 1999, to be considered with Clause No. 2, Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of City Council:

(1) having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a thorough review of the subject project and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the said review to address the following issues:

(i) why this project ended up the way it did;

(ii) why was the estimate based on a double chainlink fence;

(iii) why this project did not go out to full tender; and

(iv) why the Toronto Transit Commission was not involved in this project from the very beginning; and

(2) having received the communications (a) to (d).

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (April 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 19, 1999, recommended to City Council, for its meeting on May 11, 1999, that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to proceed to finalize the agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures;

(2) the overrun in costs for proceeding with this design be allocated from contingency account;

(3) that an amount of $800,000.00 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the TTC's 2000 Capital Budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's capital funding needs and that these costs be recovered over 10 years by a yearly rental; and

(4) the Project Steering Committee be revived and consulted on an ongoing basis;

and requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council for its meeting on May 11, 1999 on this matter.

The Budget Committee also had before it the following communications:

(a) (April 18, 1999) from Mr. Ben Au-Yeung, Toronto, expressing his concerns regarding the delay in the construction of the suicide barrier;

(b) (April 30, 1999) from Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studio;

(c) (February 27, 1999) from Dr. Sheila Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, addressed to Councillor Case Ootes, Deputy Mayor of Toronto; and

(d) (April 27, 1999) from Mr. David Gunn, Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, concerning the installation of a suicide barrier on the Prince Edward Viaduct and the purchase of a Bridgemaster inspection vehicle.

The following persons appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River;

- Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Past President of the East York Chapter, and Bridge Committee Chairman, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

- Mr. Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios; and

- Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To identify a source of funding for the additional costs of $1.0 million associated with the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations in this report are intended to permit the additional financing required for this project, while sustaining the City's financial debt limits as approved by Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authorization to increase funding by $1.0 million for the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures Project be approved at this time; and

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, monitor capital project spending and report back in the fall on the source of funding to be utilized to off-set the impact of increasing this project's funding at this time (i.e., underspending in existing capital or increase in debt financing).

Background:

At its meeting of April 30, 1999, the Budget Committee considered the report from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated April 21, 1999, and titled "Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct -- Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts".

At its meeting of April 30, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to proceed to finalize the agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. for the design and construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures. The Committee also recommended that the additional funding required for this project of $1.0 million be allocated from within the City's Contingency Account.

During consideration of this matter, the Budget Committee supported the Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to proceeding with the project, however the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was requested to report directly to Council on an alternative source of funding.

Discussion:

It should be noted that the Corporate Contingency Account is intended for operating budget pressures only. Any increases required for capital projects should be funded either through a transfer of funding between approved projects or an increase in the debt levels of the Corporation.

The Transportation Division's approved 1999 capital program includes funding in the amount of $1.5 million for this initiative. The continued engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. will result in the need for additional funding in the amount of $1.0 million. Currently, it is premature for staff to project where underspending will occur in the 1999 Capital Works Program which would permit a transfer of funding between projects to be identified at this time. It is therefore necessary to recommend approval to increase funding by $1.0 million for the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures Project at this time.

However, as the Corporation has historically underspent its capital allocation, it is reasonable to assume that sufficient underspending may occur in 1999 either within the program or within the other departmental programs which will off-set the increase recommended in this report and therefore sustain the City's debt limits. As such, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer monitor capital spending with the view to identifying from where funding may be re-allocated for this project. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services are requested to report back in the fall of 1999, when the status of the capital projects for the Works and Emergency Services Department are better known, on an appropriate re-allocation of project funding, if possible, or funding will have to be financed from increased debt and funding.

Conclusions:

This project is expected to proceed as scheduled in order to complete the work required in 1999. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will monitor capital spending and identify the possibility of under-expenditures that could permit a transfer of funding between projects. Otherwise the funding will have to be financed from increased debt funding. It should be noted that a tender will be awarded by July 15, 1999, and construction is scheduled to start in early September, 1999 and will be completed by early December, 1999.

Contact Name:

Judy Broughton 392-8393

Carmela Romano 392-5053

Shekhar Prasad 392-8095)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (April 29, 1999) from Mr. David H. Rosen, M.D., Texas A & M University, strongly recommending the completion of the proposed suicide prevention barrier at the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct;

(ii) (March 29, 1999) from Mr. J.A. Birney, Chair and Mr. Michael McCamus, Spokesman, of The Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, respecting the proposed suicide prevention barrier on the Prince Edward Viaduct, requesting that the design process adopted by the Toronto City Council at its meetings on July 8 and October 1, 1998, be completed; and further recommending that the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee be revived to monitor the progress of this project; and

(iii) (May 5, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Spokesperson for the Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, submitting copies of deputations made by Mary Doucette and Gary and Teresa Kruze in support of the construction of deterrent measures on the Prince Edward Viaduct.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) striking out and referring the following Recommendations No. (3) and (4) of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, as embodied in Recommendation No. (2) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, to the General Manager, Transportation Services, for a report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee, through the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, on the experience of other jurisdictions with respect to the application of such policies and programs:

"(3) Council ask the Provincial Government to strengthen the ability of Section 128 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (Rate of Speed) to effectively address the discrepancy between posted and enforced speeds, especially on urban streets (e.g. amending the regulations to give demerit points to motorists who exceed the 'legal' maximum speed by any amount would send a strong message that this sort of driving behaviour is unacceptable on Ontario highways, especially urban streets); and

(4) Council take leadership in engaging the provincial government and other municipalities in discussion regarding instituting driver testing at five-year intervals;"; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

'WHEREAS the City of Toronto is committed to improving traffic safety within its boundaries; and

WHEREAS staff, as part of the City amalgamation and reorganization of Transportation Services, have recommended that the role of the Traffic Data Centre be expanded to include a Traffic Safety Bureau; and

WHEREAS the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau will function as a Centre of information for traffic safety for the City with its primary objectives to:

(a) enhance the extent of traffic analysis presently conducted;

(b) introduce, support and co-ordinate (where applicable) successful internal and external traffic safety programs;

(c) formalize the monitoring and evaluation of traffic safety programs;

(d) increase the safety awareness in the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating practices within the department; and

(e) provide city-wide traffic performance and safety measures; and

WHEREAS due to budget constraints, no funding has been identified in the 1999 Operating Budget for this expanded role;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, prior to the 2000 budget cycle, outlining the business plan and the associated costs and benefits for a Traffic Safety Bureau, such report to also address what measures can be taken to reduce speeding on local roads that are used as by-passes.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (March 9, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services be adopted;

(2) the following Recommendations (1) to (5) and (7) of the report (April 15, 1999) from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be adopted:

"(1) that the measures outlined in the report (March 9, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services be acknowledged as inadequate, on their own, to address the problem effectively, and that the City engage all of the relevant parties (e.g. Province, transportation industry, environmental groups) in discussion about comprehensive solutions, including legislative changes;

(2) Council ask the appropriate authority to develop guidelines that define the limits of discretionary powers of police officers in regard to enforcing the Ontario Highway Traffic Act;

(3) Council ask the Provincial Government to strengthen the ability of Section 128 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (Rate of Speed) to effectively address the discrepancy between posted and enforced speeds, especially on urban streets (e.g. amending the regulations to give demerit points to motorists who exceed the "legal" maximum speed by any amount would send a strong message that this sort of driving behaviour is unacceptable on Ontario highways, especially urban streets);

(4) Council take leadership in engaging the Provincial Government and other municipalities in discussion regarding instituting driver testing at five-year intervals;

(5) Council address, through the appropriate authority, the issue of automobile advertising that glamorizes and promotes irresponsible and anti-social driver behaviour, especially speeding. (Past experience with beer, cigarette and alcohol ads might be a good reference point at which to start); and

(7) Council promote and support community-based initiatives to monitor speeding (e.g. Speed Watch programs in order to make drivers aware of the speed at which they are travelling). Individuals, groups and organizations need encouragement to take responsibility for, and contribute to, road safety and enhancing the quality of life in the City."; and

(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the Fall of 1999 with a status report on the implementation of the foregoing recommendations, and include a list of all outstanding items regarding this issue.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the following Recommendation (6) from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee to the General Manager, Transportation Services for report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

"(6) set targets for reducing speeds on the City's major arterial roads; and".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 9, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with a comprehensive report on various issues which have an effect on the speed of vehicles on major arterial roads (primarily those which previously fell under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto). Staff have attempted to provide the most current information available on the broad subject of speed compliance as well as to report on the results of field tests.

This report is primarily intended to be informational, and therefore only one recommendation is proposed at this time. However, staff will report on some of the items referenced in this discussion, in more detail in the future, and more recommendations will be made when those specific issues are addressed.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Toronto Police Services be asked to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the potential effectiveness and practicality of applying photo radar enforcement on major arterial roads within the City of Toronto.

Background:

At its meeting on June 4, 1997, Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 2, Report No. 14 of the Planning and Transportation Committee entitled "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Metropolitan Roads." The report recommended that the paper be used as the basis for stakeholder consultation on this issue.

At its meeting on March 4,5 and 6, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto adopted, as amended, Clause No. 14, Report No. 2 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee entitled "Improving Speed Limit Compliance On Major Arterial Roads - Status Report," which reported the results of the public consultation and described the range of field tests being conducted. Staff were asked to review the British model of traffic enforcement and submit a report on the feasibility of establishing a similar system in Toronto; to examine the feasibility of establishing a "Made in Toronto" system of traffic control signal warrants, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and to determine whether common policies and priorities may be established with respect to collector roads.

Discussion:

(a) Introduction

In response to a number of complaints respecting the speed of traffic on major arterial roads, staff prepared the "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance On Metropolitan Roads" in 1997. Within the report staff acknowledge that there is growing public concern regarding aggressive driving behaviour, and that there are a multitude of influences on driver behaviour. Some of the major influences are listed below:

(i) driver's age and gender;

(ii) driver's attitude to the speed limit (social acceptance);

(iii) driver's pleasure of driving;

(iv) driver's knowledge of speeding risks;

(v) driver's mental state and mood;

(vi) driver's physical state;

(vii) driver's weekly mileage;

(viii) driver's prior collision involvement/speeding violations;

(ix) number of vehicle occupants;

(x) trip purpose and schedule;

(xi) vehicle age;

(xii) vehicle performance and design (power, braking, safety features);

(xiii) type of vehicle;

(xiv) road design and characteristics;

(xv) traffic conditions;

(xvi) traffic control;

(xvii) enforcement; and

(xviii) weather conditions.

Staff cited lifestyle pressures and motor vehicle advertising as powerful influences upon driver behaviour. "We generally conduct ourselves quickly, search for more and more efficiency, and seek immediate response to work and recreational needs. We are being pressured to be more competitive, and advertisers are still influencing us with visions of fast and powerful cars."

Relatively speaking, motor vehicles and roads/highways have a short history, yet significant progress has been made towards improving the safety of motor vehicle occupants which may have contributed to the general public opinion that motor vehicle speeding, in moderation, is relatively innocuous. However, when coupled with aggressive driving behaviour, speeding is becoming a major concern. This is especially true for the more vulnerable road users in our city; primarily pedestrians and cyclists.

When looking at motor vehicle collision trends from the mid - 1980's to the mid - 1990's, it is apparent that the number of personal injury and fatality collisions in the province of Ontario and the amalgamated City of Toronto peaked in the late - 1980's and generally decreased from the start of this decade to the mid - 1990's. (See Appendix 1)

Within the amalgamated City of Toronto boundaries there were 114 fatalities in 1989 and 69 in 1995, compared to 1,106 in all Ontario in 1989 and 860 in 1995. Personal injury collisions were at a high in 1987 (19,143 in Metro Toronto; 80,432 in Ontario) compared to the 14,000 range in Toronto and 59,000 range in Ontario in the 1990's. Since 1987 the amalgamated City of Toronto has consistently experienced between 22 per cent and 23 per cent of all reportable collisions in the Province of Ontario.

During this time period the population of the amalgamated City of Toronto remained relatively stable (2,130,938 in 1986; and 2,241,001 in 1995) as has the volume of motor vehicles entering and leaving the downtown Toronto area during a typical week day (635,200 in 1987; and 618,300 in 1995). However there was steady growth of motor vehicle flow across the amalgamated City perimeter boundary during the same period: 1,232,600/day in 1987; and 1,508,700/day in 1995. Of significance, from 1986 to 1995 there was an increase in the population of senior citizens in Metro Toronto, from 247,756 to 319,325, and the proportion of seniors in the overall population increased from 11.6 per cent to 14.2 per cent during that ten year period.

Even though the overall downward trend in collision statistics may be encouraging in a historical context, the occurrence of fatalities amongst the most vulnerable road users is of primary concern, and staff continue to direct efforts towards reducing the risks to these people. In the past 10 years there has been an average of 43 pedestrians and 3.6 cyclists killed per year in the amalgamated City of Toronto. By comparison the average number of drivers fatally injured is 25 per year, and 16 per year for passengers. Furthermore, in the past decade, the overall trend has been a decrease in the number of motor vehicle occupant fatalities as well as pedestrian fatalities.

However, the motor vehicle occupant fatality rate has decreased at a faster rate than pedestrian fatalities, so in 1996 and 1997 more pedestrians were killed in collisions per year than occupants of motor vehicles.

In 1998, 28 fatalities (33 per cent) occurred at traffic signals. However 46 (54 per cent) took place where there are no traffic controls such as mid-block locations, and half of these fatalities were pedestrians. In total 37 pedestrians were fatally injured in 1998, and 26 (70 per cent) of these pedestrians were 55 years of age or older.

Consideration of statistics can be useful, but the objectivity tends to mask the tragedy and human suffering which result from each and every fatal and personal injury collision. Furthermore we can appreciate how pedestrians and cyclists can be intimidated by motor vehicle traffic, and how senior pedestrians in particular have great difficulty crossing major arterial roads at mid-block locations, having to judge the approach speeds of traffic on two-way multilane roads in order to find a gap in traffic.

There are a number of traffic engineering measures which can and have been used in the City of Toronto to improve the crossing environment for pedestrians at mid-block locations on major arterial roads, namely traffic control signals, pedestrian crossovers (PXOs) or refuge islands. Each situation is studied and the appropriate device recommended for installation. For instance, the number of pedestrians crossing the road to warrant a new PXO is lower than the number to warrant new traffic control signals. However, if a PXO is warranted, and there is evidence that a PXO will not provide a satisfactory level of safety for pedestrians, traffic control signals are recommended. Based on these safety criteria, numerous PXOs have been replaced by traffic control signals this decade.

Pedestrian refuge islands are routinely constructed on major arterial roads, in locations where the volume of pedestrians crossing the street is low and does not warrant a protected crossing device. This allows pedestrians to concentrate on judging traffic flow in one direction at a time.

As requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a separate report is being prepared by staff which examines the feasibility of establishing a "Made in Toronto" system of traffic control signal warrants. In addition to other comments and recommendations within the separate report, staff are of the opinion that pedestrian crossing volumes should be factored so that children and senior pedestrian volumes are given a weighted value, so there is increased importance given to pedestrians.

In the past, staff have responded quickly to requests to investigate uncontrolled locations on major arterial roads where pedestrian crossing desire lines have been identified, and we will continue to do so. There will be ongoing emphasis given to pedestrian issues in the years ahead.

Furthermore considerable interest has been expressed in the past five years to expand the network of bike lanes on arterial roads. Staff have expressed concerns that a significant width reduction of motor vehicle lanes in order to accommodate bike lanes on major arterial roads carrying significant volumes of truck traffic would compromise the safety of all road users, including the cyclists themselves. However, there may be some arterial roads where the introduction of bicycle lanes would be appropriate. A report will be presented in the future to address this issue in detail.

In some cases where there has been insufficient road width to accommodate safe traffic lane widths in addition to a designated bike lane, wider curb lane widths have been provided as a compromise. However, there is a concern that wider curb lane widths on major arterial roads may contribute to higher motor vehicle operating speeds in these lanes, which would be counter-productive, and intimidate pedestrians at the curb. One mitigating measure which has recently been tested (with some positive results) is the use of a white line adjacent to the curb in the wide curb lane. This measure will be discussed in more detail in Section C of this report.

Some of the former local municipalities within the amalgamated City of Toronto boundaries have installed traffic calming devices on local and collector roads. The former City of Toronto, for instance, has installed calming devices on numerous local roads and also on collector roads with two-way, 24 hour traffic volumes below 8,000 and pre-operating speeds in the 40 km/h to 60 km/h range. A number of minor arterial roads with traffic volumes up to 20,000 and 40 km/h speed limits have also been modified with traffic calming measures. The former municipalities of York, East York and North York also have various traffic calming measures in place on local and collector roads.

There is general agreement in the traffic engineering profession that traffic calming features applied to local and collector roads are not usually transferable to major arterial roads that experience relatively high operating speeds, and higher volumes of car and truck traffic.

The whole issue and debate about the design and use of traffic calming devices is detailed and complicated. Transportation Services staff will be reviewing this issue in the context of the newly amalgamated City of Toronto in 1999, and will report to Council on questions of effectiveness/uniformity/standardization at a later date.

The second report - "Improving Speed Limit Compliance On Major Arterial Roads - Status Report" attempted to define the role of major arterial roads within the amalgamated City of Toronto. Major arterial roads are expected to carry more through traffic than local traffic. "Within a major urban environment an effective network of efficient arterial roads is crucial to the economic and commercial viability of the city, and provides essential access for emergency vehicles. Arterial roadways provide access for commuters in public transit as well as private vehicles, and provide access for a wide range of commercial interests. In addition, the maintenance of a high level of service on the major arterial network allows traffic calming or traffic restrictions to be implemented in neighbourhoods by providing adequate capacity for diverted traffic." A review of road classifications in the City of Toronto will be presented in a future report.

This third report is intended to clarify the relationship between speed limits, operating speeds and design speeds on major arterial roads, and document current practices in the traffic engineering field for establishing speed limits. Also we hope to clarify the connection between speed limits and collisions. These issues are discussed in Section B.

During the past year a number of traffic engineering measures have been tested, some with and without sustained police enforcement, and the results of these studies in Toronto will be discussed in detail in Section C.

The enforcement of traffic regulations in general has received considerable attention lately, and enforcement represents a major component of this report as it relates to speed limit compliance, in Section D.

As a result of recent research and the field studies, staff have confirmed that effective traffic management and optimal safety is accomplished by a balanced strategy of proper engineering, adequate enforcement and targeted education, the latter including public awareness and safety promotion campaigns. Safety promotion is discussed in Section E.

(b) Speed limits on major arterial roads

Road Design/Design Speeds

As mentioned previously, the primary function of major arterial roads is to carry high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently and to accommodate a variety of road users. In order to facilitate the movement of large trucks and buses, adequate road dimensions must be provided. The anticipated efficient speed of major arterials ranges from 50 km/h to 70 km/h, depending upon design, land use and access characteristics.

Historically, road designs have provided a "safety buffer" to account for a variety of driving skills, and behaviour, and road and weather conditions. The posted speed limit traditionally has been 10 km/h to 20 km/h lower than the design speed. Some of the design elements which are considered in relation to design speed are vertical and horizontal curves, intersection sight lines, sight lines provided by other roadside features, and lane widths. Proper sight lines are critical, because they directly influence the safe sight stopping distance, thus providing adequate opportunity for motorists to observe other traffic and road users, and to react in an appropriate way to avoid collisions.

One popular belief is that speed limits are established assuming motorists will drive in excess of the speed limit. Reinforcing this opinion is the idea that the general public adjust their speeds to 10 km/h or 15 km/h over the speed limit because they think the police target their enforcement to motorists exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/h to 20 km/h over the speed limit. However, there is evidence that the majority of drivers choose an upper speed which is safe and comfortable for themselves, given the prevailing road and weather conditions. Unwarranted alteration of speed limits has negligible impact on drivers on major arterial roads. Police enforcement can influence a reduction in driver speeds providing it is sustained. If enforcement is temporary, speed reduction is temporary as well. (Enforcement is discussed in more detail in Section D of this report.)

Most studies of speed limits and related issues have focussed on freeways (limited access) and local roads. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the United States conducted an extensive seven-year study of 100 sites on non-limited access roads, where speed limits were either increased or decreased by varying degrees, ranging from 24 km/h (15 mph) increases to 32 km/h (20 mph) decreases. The alteration of speed limits had negligible impacts on operating speeds, regardless of the degree of change: the differences in recorded speeds were less than 2.4 km/h.

The extensive network of major arterial roads in Toronto is well established. It is prudent to design the reconstruction of portions of the network using design elements which have been updated to reflect modern standards, but which are also compatible with the existing road network. The introduction of drastically different design elements on small portions of a major arterial road could result in an immediate increase in collision frequency on that newly designed section of road. This is because driving behaviour is established by the prevailing conditions on the arterial road network. Drastic design changes to a small portion of an arterial road could also result in an increase in collision frequency on other roads in the immediate vicinity, such as local roads connecting two arterials, if motorists migrate from a redesigned and more congested arterial road.

It is not economically feasible to introduce significant network-wide changes to the design elements of major arterial roads because the capital costs would be significant.

The challenge for the newly amalgamated City of Toronto is to provide the most up-to-date road design standards when opportunities arise; to provide the combination of proper land use planning and traffic management techniques to safely accommodate the vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists); and to maintain the integrity of the network of major arterial roads. (Traffic management is discussed in more detail in Section C of this report.)

The range of speed limits for the various classifications of roads throughout the City of Toronto are based on design. The actual establishment of speed limits on major arterial roads and freeways historically has been based upon traffic engineering studies: design elements and the 85th percentile for new roads; and these elements plus collision experience for well-established roads.

Selecting Speed Limits

The use of the 85th percentile is still a primary factor in the traffic engineering profession when speed limits are being reviewed or established. In the Province of Quebec, for instance, where the Province approves all the speed limits on all municipal roads, the provincial government has recently completed a thorough review of speed limit determination practices, and has just issued guidelines to municipalities for the choice of speed limits. The guidelines are based upon the assertion that the majority of drivers (85 per cent) choose safe and reasonable driving speeds.

Transport Canada commissioned a report on current Canadian practices. The first "promising approach" listed in the March 1997 report (entitled "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review") suggests that reasonable speed limits should be established which are acceptable to the majority of drivers. (The full list of "promising approaches" is provided in Appendix 2.)

In 1993 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) issued Speed Zone Guidelines. In these guidelines the ITE reports that if speed zones are to be an effective safety device, the profession needs consistent guidelines, based upon engineering analysis, to determine where and when to establish these zones. Most traffic engineering practitioners support the use of the 85th percentile as a basis for determining the appropriate speed limit. Drivers who travel faster than the 85th percentile speed of the traffic stream have a higher collision involvement rate than those whose speed is close to the 85th percentile. Therefore posting the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed informs motorists of the maximum speed consistent with a low risk of collision.

The general recommended practice is as follows:

(i) speed zones should only be established on the basis of an engineering study;

(ii) the engineering study should include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles; and

(iii) the engineering study should include other factors such as:

(a) geometric features, including vertical and horizontal alignment; sight distance;

(b) roadside development;

(c) road and shoulder surface characteristics;

(d) pedestrian and bicycle activity;

(e) speed limits on adjoining highway segments; and

(f) collision experience or potential.

The guideline suggests that the speed limit be set at the nearest 10 km/h to the 85th percentile speed, or to the upper limit of the 15 km/h pace range. This reinforces the current staff practice to base speed limit recommendations upon traffic engineering analysis and a review of existing conditions.

(c) Traffic Management (Results of field tests)

Speed Limit Signs

As mentioned in the previous section, current research on this issue has concluded that the 85th percentile speed is generally not impacted to a significant degree by speed limit changes alone. Furthermore, the placement of speed limit signs on major arterial roads to reinforce the statutory 50 km/h speed limit has negligible effect as well. Appendix 3A identifies test locations in Toronto where the use of 50 km/h signs has not been effective in reducing operating speeds to a noticeable degree.

School Speed Zones

Of special concern are the operating speeds on the major arterial roads along school frontages. There is provision within the Highway Traffic Act for Ontario municipalities to designate changes to speed limits in school zones (e.g. from 50 km/h to 40 km/h), at any preset times between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on days when school is regularly held. Amber flashing beacons are usually used during these preset times to advise motorists of when the adjusted speed limit is in effect. This designation is restricted to the school frontage and 150 metres beyond the school frontage.

Three 40 km/h school speed zones have been established on four-lane major arterial roads and several of these have provided us with an opportunity to monitor their effect on driver behaviour: Keele Street near Glenlake Road; Dundas Street East between Munro Street and Logan Avenue; and Avenue Road between Elwood Boulevard and St. Clements Avenue (installed in the fall of 1998). The results of the field tests are illustrated in Appendix 3B.

There were significant speed reductions of 6 and 7 km/h on Keele Street where the 85th percentile operating speeds prior to the school speed zone were 17 and 18 km/h in excess of the 50 km/h speed limit. By comparison, there was negligible impact on Dundas Street East where the 85th percentile speeds were 7 and 8 km/h over the 50 km/h speed limit prior to school speed zone introduction.

Anticipating that police enforcement could further impact driver behaviour, speed studies were conducted in these zones when police presence was anticipated by the motoring public. As illustrated in Appendix 3B, there were additional significant reductions in 85th percentile speeds of 6 and 7 km/h on Keele Street, and 6 and 3 km/h on Dundas Street East attributable to police enforcement.

These results suggest that the selection of school speed zones on major arterial roads should be based upon traffic engineering analysis, and a careful review of existing conditions. Furthermore, available police enforcement resources should be considered before school speed zones are selected. (Enforcement is discussed in detail in section D.)

Throughout the amalgamated City of Toronto, there are over 100 elementary and secondary schools which have property fronting onto a major arterial road and which do not have school speed zones. This number does not include those schools which may abut a major arterial road and have a street address on the minor road. The costs to introduce school speed zones at 100 school properties on major arterial roads would be in excess of $2 million, and the annual maintenance costs would be approximately $100,000.00. The selection of school speed zones should be based upon rational criteria, as suggested in the previous paragraph, to provide the best use of limited funding.

Speed Limit Reductions

As part of the overall study of speed traffic management techniques, residential sections of two parallel arterials in the Etobicoke community area were studied before and after speed limit reductions from 60 km/h to 50 km/h: Islington Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and Dundas Street West (essentially 4 lanes wide) and Kipling Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and Dundas Street West (essentially 5 lanes wide). The 85th percentile speed profile on both roads was similar prior to the speed limit reduction: 9 to 11 km/h over the speed limit. After the speed limits were reduced, and absent of police enforcement, the 85th percentile speeds reduced by 2 to 4 km/h, except for one section of northbound Kipling Avenue which experienced a 7 km/h decrease.

Similar to the school speed zones, 85th percentile operating speeds were monitored when police presence would be anticipated by motorists, and there was an additional decrease, which averaged 3 km/h over the study locations, which could be attributed to police enforcement.

Other traffic management techniques for major arterial roads have been studied in the amalgamated City of Toronto, and these are summarized in Appendix 3C.

As mentioned earlier, concerns have been expressed that operating speeds could increase in curb lanes that are widened to accommodate cyclists (in cases where the overall road width is insufficient to provide designated bike lanes). Several treatments were tested to try to compensate for the effect of widened curb lanes on driver behaviour.

White Edge Lines

On Lawrence Avenue East, between Tower Drive and Wexford Boulevard, white edge lines were painted approximately one metre from the curb to give the visual impression of a narrower lane. As shown in Appendix 3C, the 85th percentile prior to the treatment was 63 km/h in the eastbound curb lane and 72 km/h in the westbound curb lane. The 85th percentile speeds dropped by 3 km/h in both directions after the white edge lines were installed. Staff are of the opinion that this treatment merits additional testing in those situations where curb lanes can be widened, but not widened sufficiently to provide for a designated bike lane. For instance white edge lines will be installed on portions of Spadina Avenue in 1999.

Shared Lane

Another test treatment in curb lanes is known as "shared lane", whereby a bike logo and legend are painted close to the curb to remind motorists that cyclists share the curb lane. Appendix 3C identifies the results of four test locations, two with 50 km/h speed limits (Spadina Avenue and Scarlett Road) and two with 60 km/h speed limits (McCowan Road and Markham Road). In one case (Scarlett Road), "shared lane" signs were also installed adjacent to the road to complement the pavement markings.

One problem with this treatment is the higher than normal level of maintenance required to maintain the visual impact of these pavement markings. Pavement marking tape was badly damaged during the winter and paint was well worn by motor vehicles during the same period. Staff monitored vehicle speeds in the curb lanes of these test locations when the pavement markings were clearly visible.

The one downtown location tested (Spadina Avenue) experienced 85th percentile speeds of 52 km/h in the curb lane, very close to the 50 km/h speed limit, prior to the "shared lane" pavement markings. The "after" speeds increased by 2 km/h southbound and decreased by 2 km/h northbound, leading to the conclusion that the "shared lane" treatment had negligible impact.

The same conclusion can be applied to Scarlett Road, a four-lane suburban arterial with a 50 km/h speed limit, where "before" 85th percentile speeds were 12 to 14 km/h higher than the speed limit. Even with the use of frequently spaced signs and pavement markings, the "shared lane" treatment had a negligible effect on motor vehicle speeds.

There are conflicting results of the effects of this treatment on 60 km/h suburban arterials which experienced a range of 85th percentile speeds of 6 km/h to 24 km/h in excess of the speed limit (over the four test locations) prior to the application of the "shared lane" markings. Furthermore the wide range of recorded speeds continued after the "shared lane" treatment. 85th percentile changes ranged from a 14 km/h decrease to a 12 km/h increase on Markham Road. The fluctuations on McCowan Road were generally less dramatic with one "after" result - an 8 km/h increase - being anomalous.

Staff conclude that there are a variety of influences on driver speeds on sections of Markham Road and considerably larger sample sizes would have to be taken over a longer period of radar study in order to have confidence in the study results.

In one study location on McCowan Road, the "shared lane" treatment may have had a minimal impact on driver speeds, reducing the 85th percentile in curb lanes by 2 to 3 km/h. However, overall the "shared lane" markings (and signage on Scarlett Road) have not impacted drivers' speed, and, because of the relative effort and cost to maintain these markings, staff suggest that the test of this device as a measure to reduce motor vehicle speeds be discontinued.

Road/Lane Narrowing

During one large 1997 reconstruction project of a six-lane major arterial roadway, namely Avenue Road between Dupont Street and St. Clair Avenue West, the sidewalk width was increased by approximately one metre on each side of the road by narrowing the road width and width of the vehicle lanes. Before this treatment the 85th percentile speeds in this 50 km/h speed limit section of Avenue Road ranged from 56 to 66 km/h northbound and from 57 to 69 km/h southbound.

After the reconstruction the 85th percentile speeds ranged from 61 to 65 km/h northbound, and from 61 to 68 km/h southbound. Averaging the results from four study locations, the overall effect of the reconstruction was an approximately 3 km/h increase in the northbound 85th percentile, and 2 km/h increase southbound. The study results are tabulated in Appendix 3C.

Staff are of the opinion that, on Avenue Road, the impact of the new, smooth pavement surface outweighs the impact of the road width reduction.

Two-way Centre Left-turn Lanes

Two major four-lane arterial roadways were converted to five-lane roadways by realigning pavement markings to create a two-way centre left-turn lane: Kennedy Road, between Lawrence Avenue East and Eglinton Avenue East; and Bayview Avenue, between York Mills Road and Post Road.

In both cases the 85th percentile speeds prior to the lane marking changes were 12 to 14 km/h over the 60 km/h speed limit. However, the impacts of the operational changes have been opposite in these two cases. On Kennedy Road staff measured a significant reduction of the 85th percentile speeds, ranging from 5 to 10 km/h. However, on Bayview Avenue there was a 4 to 5 km/h increase recorded.

Because of these contradictory results, there are probably other factors unique to each location affecting driver behaviour. More testing and research of this type of treatment is required in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

Lane Narrowing and Median Island

Another lane narrowing of a major four-lane arterial road with a 60 km/h speed limit occurred on Lake Shore Boulevard East, between Woodbine Avenue and Coxwell Avenue. In this case the wide four-lane road was reconstructed with a continuous centre median island (except for a new intersection constructed at the mid-point of the road section, which was signalized after the speed study was completed). The 85th percentile speeds were 74 km/h eastbound and 79 km/h westbound prior to the median island construction, and 67 km/h in both directions afterwards; a significant reduction.

Staff attribute this dramatic decrease to two primary influences: the generous lane widths prior to island construction; and the visual impact that the median island has upon drivers. Staff propose to conduct follow-up speed studies next spring to measure the impact of the newly installed traffic control signals, and to measure if the reductions in the operating speeds have been sustained.

Median Bollards

As a result of high collision frequency on the streetcar tracks on Spadina Avenue, between Front Street and Spadina Circle, two "walls" of green bollards have been installed (at 1.5 metre intervals) to separate the streetcar right-of-way from the median lanes of general traffic. The visual impact of over 1000 bollards immediately adjacent to the travelled lanes is powerful. However, speed studies were conducted in the median lanes of general traffic, before and after the bollard installation, on this 50 km/h speed limit roadway and there was a minimal increase in 85th percentiles recorded: from 50 to 53 km/h northbound; and from 49 to 51 km/h southbound.

Streetcar Platforms and Bike Lanes

"Before and after" speed studies were conducted on Lake Shore Boulevard West in locations where streetcar platforms were being constructed, and bike lanes were being installed. The results are tabulated in Appendix 3C. At two study locations on this 60 km/h speed limit, four lane plus streetcar right-of-way roadway, there were no changes to the 85th percentile recorded (60 and 62 km/h). At the other study location the 85th percentile speed dropped from 65 to 62 km/h.

Staff anticipate that the impacts of these types of treatments would be more pronounced on major arterial roads if the 85th percentile speeds prior to installation were significantly faster than 60 to 65 km/h.

Summary

As a result of the various speed studies on major arterial roads, staff have confirmed that numerous traffic engineering measures have minimal impact on motor vehicle speeds, including the installation of 50 km/h (default) speed limit signs in the urban area, and arbitrary speed limit reductions which are not based upon traffic analysis and sound engineering judgement.

In cases where excessive speeds are recorded in front of schools, school speed zones can be effective in reducing speeds. However, without periodic enforcement, the effectiveness of this type of treatment on motorists may wane. The effectiveness of school speed zones would deteriorate if they were installed at numerous locations where speeding was not a significant problem in the first place. This indiscriminate use of school speed zones would also strain the limited financial resources of the City of Toronto

Two curb-side pavement marking treatments were tested (white edge line and "shared lane") and staff suggest that the white edge lines be tested further and the "shared lane" test be discontinued.

Two-way centre left-turn lanes are a useful traffic engineering device to mitigate left-turn collision frequency problems, and should continue to be considered for this purpose. When they are used, "before and after" speed studies should be conducted in an effort to identify the effects this measure has on operating speeds.

Furthermore, modern urban design standards will continue to be used when road reconstruction and resurfacing projects are undertaken, and the variety of design elements which will be considered and applied will probably have a small accumulative impact on operating speeds on major arterial roads in the years ahead.

Consistently the one single factor which has the greatest individual impact on the operating speeds of major arterial roads is police enforcement.

(d) Enforcement

From a safety perspective, enforcement of traffic speeds on major arterial roads should be targeted at those motorists who exceed speed limits significantly, and who generally represent the top 5th to 10th percentile of traffic speeds. As mentioned earlier, these motorists are more likely to be involved in collisions. Furthermore, the severity of injuries and collisions increases the higher the operating speed at the moment of the crash.

Reports of international experience indicate that public acceptance of police enforcement has been good in situations where the objective is to reduce collision frequency. For instance, photo radar is deployed in England at locations where collision frequency and safety have been public concerns. Similarly, in Toronto, public support for the use of photo technology to catch red-light runners is high because of the well-documented collision risk associated with this behaviour.

Photo Radar

Not only has the strong influence of police speed enforcement on vehicle speeds been identified in the limited traffic studies conducted in the City of Toronto, a Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) study undertaken before and during the early months of photo radar revealed the same connection.

The MTO installed vehicle speed and volume detection devices at three study sites prior to the August 15, 1994 commencement of photo radar enforcement on provincial highways. One site was on a two-lane road, one on a four-lane road, and the other on a six-lane road. Vehicle speeds and volumes were recorded for approximately one month prior to photo enforcement, and four months after. Approximately 18 million vehicles were recorded in total at the three study sites, which is a very large sample size.

In a document published in January 1997 the MTO reports that, by the end of the fourth month of photo radar use, average speeds had decreased on the two-lane highway from 88.6 to 86.1 km/h, on the four-lane highway from 111.7 to 105.9 km/h, a decrease of 5.8 km/h; and on the six-lane highway from 105.9 to 98.6 km/h, a 7.3 km/h decrease in the average speeds. The MTO also reports that there were even larger decreases in the proportion of high end speeders.

MTO staff attribute these substantial speed reductions not only to the photo radar initiative itself, but also to associated signage and advertising/media attention.

Traffic enforcement in Toronto has been under scrutiny recently, within the context that the Toronto Police Service has insufficient human resources to conduct adequate conventional traffic enforcement. Hence the interest in finding alternatives through either technological means or alternate manual enforcement programs.

Photo radar is of course a technology which is readily available, but municipalities in Ontario do not have the legislative authority available at this time to use this device for enforcement, for the same reasons as red-light cameras could not be used as an enforcement tool until Bill 102 received Royal Assent. A similar provincial legislative change would be required for photo radar use.

As mentioned earlier, public acceptance and support for enforcement is considerably greater if it is linked directly to safety concerns. Because of the way in which it was applied, photo radar used by the Province of Ontario was generally seen as more of a revenue generator than a bona fide safety initiative, and its public image in Ontario has been tarnished as a result. However photo radar is used in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, and cities in Alberta (Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge), as well as many other countries.

States in the USA where active photo radar enforcement can be found include Arizona, California, Colorado, Missouri and Oregon. Furthermore photo radar is used in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Australia.

In order to have an effective prosecution procedure using photo radar evidence, without identifying the driver, a basic premise has to be established in law- that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for the vehicle, including the requirement to identify who was operating their vehicle at a specific time if they were not the driver. Other jurisdictions have successfully addressed this issue.

A study commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Transport and provincial road authorities resulted in a report published in 1996: "Automatic Speed Management in the Netherlands." The report concluded that to change driver behaviour effectively and reduce driving speeds, speed enforcement would need to be a higher priority. In addition, enforcement must be automated to provide the efficiency and frequency of application that will make increased enforcement practical.

In Toronto there are a number of locations where the use of photo radar would likely receive public support, such as school zones and locations experiencing high collision frequency. However, if photo radar were available for use, and there was interest in trying to reduce the operating speeds on the network of major arterial roads, then some units would have to be mobile. Motorists would have to consider the risk of encountering photo radar enforcement to be system-wide, as opposed to at select, well-signed locations, before there would be a chance of a general behavioural shift to slower speeds. As mentioned earlier, the success of photo radar use would be enhanced if complemented by education and promotional campaigns, as well as high profile media attention.

Intelligent Transportation Systems

One technological innovation, which arguably is more of a future traffic management tool than an enforcement device, is referred to as Intelligent Speed Adaption (ISA) in Sweden, where the national government is planning large-scale trials in four cities. The $10 million demonstration project will be administered by a federal agency, with the co-operation of local authorities.

Each city will be the site of a different test, utilizing a variety of technologies from advisory messages to "active throttle control." In one city, up to one thousand vehicles will be equipped with a small computer, digital map and a satellite transmitter/receiver to monitor vehicle speeds, and a warning system. If a vehicle exceeds the speed limit by a preset degree, an on-board warning will sound. If the driver continues to speed, a violation notice will be recorded in the computer, which can be retrieved by the road authority.

At another city 10,000 vehicles will be equipped with dashboard speed-warning devices activated by roadside radio frequency beacons which transmit speed limits and warning messages to the on-board device. In another municipality approximately 1,500 vehicles will be fitted with "active accelerator pedals" which will prevent vehicles from being accelerated in speed control zones. In the fourth city speed cameras and speed bumps will be used in conjunction with a dashboard warning system.

These devices will be installed from 1999 to 2001 and the entire test is considered the first phase of a program to gain experience with a large test sample of "dynamic speed adaption" technologies, to build public support for these techniques, to encourage small and medium sized manufactures to enter the market, and to help promote alternate funding sources.

Unarmed Constabulary/Auxiliaries

With respect to alternate or additional deployment of manual traffic enforcement, the Chief of the Toronto Police Service reported his concerns about the use of unarmed constabulary for traffic enforcement in a report to the Toronto Police Services Board dated July 23, 1998. The Chief cites legal concerns: that the current legislation empowers only police officers to stop traffic. He also explains that stopping vehicles is a dangerous task, and expresses concerns for the safety of the enforcement personnel. In response to this report, and to the proposal by Board member Councillor Judy Sgro to establish a Community Road Safety enforcement unit, the Board decided to establish an inter-agency staff committee to deal with the issue of Community Road Safety enforcement.

When this item was before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on November 3, 1998, the committee requested a report on the British model of traffic enforcement. Attached to this report as Appendix 4 is a lengthy discussion written by staff entitled "General Information on the British Model of Traffic Enforcement." The use of Special Constables (volunteer police officers) in Britain seems far more prevalent and well established, and their duties more far reaching, than volunteers (auxiliaries) in Toronto. However, we are advised that Special Constables in Britain are not deployed on their own to enforce the rules of the road, such as speeding and other driving offences. They are not assigned to stop traffic for the purpose of traffic enforcement.

Similarly, the City of New York has a program of using unarmed civilian volunteers (auxiliaries) to assist police officers, but they too are not allowed to stop traffic for the purpose of enforcing moving traffic violations.

Within the Toronto Police Service there is limited use of auxiliaries in relation to moving traffic infractions. For instance 31 Division in the North York community area recently embarked on a program to train civilian auxiliaries to observe stop sign infractions, record licence numbers and vehicle descriptions. Under no circumstances are the auxiliary officers permitted to stop vehicles. Later a letter is sent to the owner of the vehicle advising them of the violation, and asking them to drive more carefully in the future.

Radar Message Board

A similar program involving police officers and civilians is in effect in a number of communities in Ontario to deter speeding. The key ingredient is the use of a radar message board, whereby the speed of vehicles is detected by a radar gun, and the speed is displayed on a board so the driver can see it. One such initiative, approved by Peterborough City Council on Oct. 5, 1998, is co-sponsored by the City of Peterborough, Peterborough Community Police, and the Insurance Brokers Association of Peterborough. The radar message board is operated by citizen groups, and the licence number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by a predetermined margin is recorded. Later a letter is sent to the registered owner advising of the speeding and including a safety message.

Because of the high traffic volume and higher speed characteristics of major arterials in the City of Toronto, the radar message board may not be effective on major arterial roads. However, there may be opportunities for similar civilian partnering initiatives if auxiliary police officers were available to assist. These activities on major arterial roads may then be primarily restricted to evenings and weekends.

By-law Enforcement

The City of Hamilton, in co-operation with and at the initiative of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police, is testing another method of increasing the number of personnel available for traffic enforcement. They are deploying a few of their Parking Control Officers, in conjunction with a Police Officer, to enforce moving violations which are regulated by municipal by-law, primarily turn prohibitions and truck prohibitions. According to a staff report, the police are quite satisfied with the assistance being provided, but City staff want to assess the program further before recommending whether the City should commit to the arrangement on a permanent basis.

Police Discretion

During public debate about the speed compliance issue in the City of Toronto, concerns have been raised that if police officers exercise discretion when dealing with speeding infractions, by either issuing a warning or issuing a Provincial Offences Notice for a lesser speed, the overall deterrent value is weakened. This in turn could even contribute to an increase in operating speeds throughout the network of major arterial roads.

Furthermore some members of the public have suggested that the police show too much tolerance when enforcing speeding offences.

Because of the number of drivers who are exceeding the speed limit on major arterial roads, even by a few kilometres per hour, it is obviously impractical for the police to be targeting such large volumes of traffic by conventional enforcement means. Furthermore, in the early history of speed enforcement, the courts may have assumed a degree of inaccuracy in the performance of speedometers of the day, and made an allowance for this. In the present, there is concern that if the courts are swamped by a multitude of offenders appealing minor speeding infractions, the prosecutions may be prematurely terminated.

With respect to the use of discretion, police officers are independent agents of the crown and they

have the latitude to exercise their judgement in a variety of situations. In the case of speeding infractions, police officers cannot be forced to issue speeding tickets in every instance.

The conduct of police officers is governed by the Police Services Act (PSA). There is a range of interpretations of the PSA concerning the level of discretion which can be exercised by individual officers. In practice, police officers would likely have to display a continued, extreme level of tolerance before their actions would be considered neglect of duty.

Furthermore, it may be erroneous to draw the conclusion that police officers exercising discretion in the issuance of speeding tickets are contributing to an overall speeding problem. Individual officers assess the circumstances surrounding each violation and exercise their judgement with respect to the most appropriate intervention in each case. Police officers are not necessarily just "giving drivers a break" when they exercise discretion. They are trying to assess what is best for the community as a whole. The use of discretion may have a valuable educational component, and may contribute to improved driver behaviour in many cases.

Traffic Offender Programs

The debate about the use of discretion also applies to enforcement programs which emphasize elements of public education. These types of programs are not limited to traffic enforcement - john schools being a prime example. Recently there has been media coverage of traffic offender education programs administered by police services in Ontario. Staff are aware of three very similar programs; Kingston's Traffic Offender Program established in 1996; Niagara's Traffic Education Program initiated in 1997; and Peterborough's Safe Driver Program launched in 1998. Basically, drivers who have been apprehended in the commission of a variety (but not all) traffic offences, and who themselves are eligible, are offered a choice of either receiving a provincial offences notice, or registering for a short training course on traffic rules and paying a $55.00 registration fee. The purpose of these programs is to educate and modify driver attitudes and behaviour, and drivers are only eligible to enter the program once in a 12 month period.

However, there are concerns at the provincial level about these types of programs. For instance the MTO is concerned that motorists who register for these programs avoid licence sanctioning. Furthermore there are no provincial records of drivers registering for these courses which can be accessed by all other police services. This would be important if a police officer, in another jurisdiction offering this program, were considering this option for a driver they just apprehended. (One solution to this would be to limit eligibility to drivers who are apprehended in the police jurisdiction where they reside.) There is also conjecture that the Attorney General's office is investigating legal aspects of this practice.

The revenue generated by these programs is relatively small in these smaller jurisdictions. For instance, registration fees generated approximately $33,000.00 gross revenue for the Peterborough Community Police from April 1st to Sept. 30th, 1998. For the time being these programs would potentially reduce fine revenue for the province, because provincial offence notices would not be issued when the program option is exercised by the driver. However, over the next two years there will be transfers of Provincial Offences Act (POA) administration from the province to municipalities. Municipalities may benefit by receiving more fine revenue than the costs to administer the courts. It is anticipated that the POA Transfer in the City of Toronto will occur in the fall of 1999.

However staff involved in Traffic Offender Programs and the POA Transfer stress that the generation of revenue cannot be the primary motivator. In the case of the POA Transfer, fair and equitable delivery of justice is paramount, and in the case of community safety programs, educating and influencing the driving habits of road users is critical. Because the legal status of traffic offender programs is vague, the province could be asked to clarify the situation, and amend legislation if necessary to remove any ambiguity and allow these programs to continue.

(e) Traffic Safety Programs

As mentioned earlier, the success of techniques aimed at reducing the operating speeds of motorists on major arterial roads, especially enforcement, is heightened by complementary educational and promotional activities, and media coverage. However, to instill the message at the deepest level and to provide a greater potential for long lasting impacts, the public should not only feel an increased risk of prosecution, but also a greater sense of personal risk or loss associated with speeding.

In the 1997 Transport Canada report "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review", successful collision reduction programs from Australia are cited. Speed management programs, credited with impressive results in the states of New South Wales and Victoria, include engineering, enforcement and educational approaches.

"Education to change public attitudes about the appropriate choice of speeds is an important element in the Australian speed management programs. It includes traffic safety curriculum for pre-school and elementary school children, delivered by the classroom teachers with advice and support from the engineering community. Education also includes concentrated information campaigns directed at the public at large. Campaigns on television, radio and in print, generally focus on one traffic safety topic (such as speeding) at a time to increase the impact of the message. Public opinion polls have demonstrated that the safety implications of these messages are understood and accepted by the public.

Speed management in Australia is brought closer to the community through co-operative efforts with municipalities to develop and implement local safety programs. Community participation during the process and responsibility for the selection of measures and targets ensures local ownership of the program.

The comprehensive approach to speed management used in Australia has contributed to the impressive results achieved in the overall safety management programs. The use of education, engineering and enforcement techniques in an integrated fashion is largely credited. Engineering has centered around consistent, reasonable speed limits which match the road environment. Enforcement has emphasized photo-radar."

In England the national government has recently awarded its first Safer City grant to Gloucester, committing 5 million pounds to a five-year program of traffic safety initiatives, including road improvements, in order to reduce road casualties by 33 per cent. Essentially the program involves an accurate assessment of existing traffic routing and conditions, and detailed analysis of recent collision experience. Reduction in collision frequency will be achieved by:

(i) managing traffic onto the right roads so that a safer distribution of traffic is achieved;

(ii) managing the speed of traffic so that it circulates more safely; and

(iii) co-ordinating all work that influences road safety in pursuit of commonly supported objectives for the whole city.

"These aims can be achieved through traffic management, through physical engineering measures, through land use measures, through education, through enforcement, through encouragement and through training. The Safer City project brings together all those professionals whose urban policies affect road safety so that they can develop a co-ordinated approach to achieving the common aim."

Education in the Gloucester Safer City Project includes public surveys and consultation at various stages of the project, a routine series of articles in the local paper, and public safety advertisements and posters.

Public traffic safety campaigns in the City of Toronto, primarily aimed at the driving public, have been initiated by coalitions of interested agencies and companies, most notably the Toronto Police Service and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. There have been limited resources in the past to effect large-scale promotions and campaigns.

As part of the City amalgamation and re-organization of Transportation Services, staff have recommended that the role of the Traffic Data Centre be expanded to include a Traffic Safety Bureau. Currently, due to the budget constraints, no funding has been identified in the 1999 Operating Budget for this expanded role.

When funded, the purpose of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to function as a Centre of Information for traffic safety for the City. The Traffic Safety Bureau will add value to the data that currently exists with respect to traffic collisions, volumes and, in particular, speed information by:

(a) enhancing the extent of the analysis conducted presently, (learning lessons from the past);

(b) introducing, supporting, and coordinating (where applicable) successful internal and external traffic safety programs;

(c) formalizing the monitoring and evaluation of traffic safety programs; and

(d) increasing safety awareness in the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating practices within the department.

An integral requirement for the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to develop strong links to groups internal and external to the division. In terms of speed compliance and enforcement, a natural link will be to provide the Toronto Police Service with detailed speed, volume and incident location information, thus enabling the police to better deploy their limited resources. Specifically, detailed time-of-day volume and speed profiles would be supplied to the police to ensure that enforcement is focussed during the high frequency time periods and locations.

In addition, the Traffic Safety Bureau would play a key role in other transportation system initiatives such as red-light cameras and photo radar. Specific activities would include processing collision and volume information for site selection and before and after monitoring studies.

Toronto City Council could develop a comprehensive program of traffic management, targeted enforcement and a wide-scale promotional campaign, and challenge both the federal and provincial government to match the local funding of the program, especially the promotional component.

Conclusions:

This third report on speed compliance on major arterial roads summarizes the status of speed zoning practices and the results of traffic management tests to influence driver speeds. Staff recommend that speed limits be based upon traffic analysis because the use of inappropriate speed limits will potentially lead to general driver disrespect for speed limits and other traffic management measures, and an overall reduction in road safety.

In order to accommodate the vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) on our major arterial roads, work is on-going to identify appropriate crossing devices and to identify a network of bike facilities. However, changes to our design standards will be introduced if they can enhance safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, are cost-effective, and maintain the integrity of the network of major arterial roads.

There are a number of traffic management techniques which potentially will provide modest impacts on driver behaviour, and which should be used and tested further. However, enforcement has the greatest single impact upon speeds on major arterial roads and there is world-wide interest in the effectiveness and practicality of photo radar. Therefore this report recommends that the Toronto Police Services comment on this issue further before the province is asked to pass enabling legislation. The Toronto Police Services Board is currently reviewing Community Road Safety enforcement through a staff sub-committee.

Complementary to the police speed enforcement initiatives would be the valuable information the future Traffic Safety Bureau would be able to offer in terms of identifying high-risk locations and time periods for enforcement. In addition, the future Traffic Safety Bureau would be able to develop links with internal groups (District Traffic Operations, Health Department, Planning Department, etc.) and external groups (Toronto School Board, Safety Coalitions etc.) to provide valuable assistance in the development of city-wide coordinated traffic safety initiatives.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Hillier, Manager

Traffic Operations, District 4

(416) 396-7148

(i) Establishment of reasonable speed limits acceptable to the majority of drivers.

(ii) Use of a uniform, knowledge-based method of setting speed limits to ensure consistency between similar roadways throughout Canada.

(iii) Establishment of variable speed limits to reflect prevailing traffic and weather conditions.

(iv) Implementation of traffic calming measures on local roads where posted speed limits are 50 km/h or less.

(v) Increased emphasis on traffic safety education, especially for the "next generation of drivers", current drivers-in-training and drivers who have been identified as "high risk".

(vi) Encouragement of community effort (public and elected officials along with engineering, education and enforcement agencies) in identifying speed-related concerns and issues and developing management techniques.

(vii) Installation of speed control/warning devices in vehicles.

(viii) Selection of appropriate design speeds when planning new facilities and design of roads to facilitate rational speed choice consistent with the road function.

(ix) Focussing speed control initiatives in areas likely to yield benefits.

*Safety, Speed and Speed Management:

A Canadian Review. (IBI, March 1997)

The enforcement of nearly all traffic regulations is the responsibility of police (the key legislation is the Police Act 1964). The police constabularies are responsible to their local authorities through a police committee, which has local councillors, Home Secretary appointees and magistrates among their members. An exception to this is the Metropolitan Police Service in London, which is directly responsible to the Home Secretary and Parliament. In 1995 the non-statutory Metropolitan Police Committee was formed to act as a link between the MPS and the Home Secretary.

The police have three basic objectives with respect to traffic:

The prevention of collisions;

The maintenance of traffic flow and relief of congestion; and

The enforcement of the law, especially as it relates to motoring and the motorist.

The police use various means to enforce the traffic laws, the most obvious of which is the uniformed police officer patrolling the streets. Traffic patrol officers receive expert training and their work includes many aspects such as car and motor cycle patrol, preventing and investigating collisions, traffic management and high speed pursuit. (Only full-time Police Constables are permitted to pursue with lights and sirens.) The enforcement of traffic laws (for instance by breath testing or traffic speed recording devices) is carried out to deter drivers whose irresponsible driving may cause injury or death to other road users.

Human Resources

There are four types of officers used to conduct traffic enforcement (including parking).

(1) Police Constables (Full-time Police Officers)

Every full-time police officer holds the office of "Constable." All police officers in uniform have the power to take enforcement action against drivers or vehicles whenever an offence occurs. This gives them special powers including the right, when in uniform, to stop a vehicle and to demand a person's name and address. Furthermore, when they stop a vehicle they have the discretion to verbally warn the offending person or, if the matter appears to be serious, to report the alleged offender which may lead to trial at court. In the most serious cases, such as DWI (driving while intoxicated), they will arrest the offender.

(2) Special Constables (volunteer police officers)

Helping to police a community has been one of the country's oldest traditions and dates from Anglo-Saxon times. The principle of using citizens as voluntary peace officers was established by the Statute of Winchester in 1285. The first Special Constable Act was passed in 1820. Communities relied upon an assortment of volunteers and conscripted citizens until regular police forces had been developed. Since then, "Specials" have given their support to the "Regulars" for over 150 years.

"Specials" are in essence volunteer police under the control of full-time officers. "Specials" come from all walks of life and all sections of society. They are the vital link between the regular police and the community. Men and women, aged between 18 years and five months and 50, of good character and in good health can become Special Constables. They have to be prepared to make the commitment to give time regularly to serve their community and undertake training without financial reward (apart from out-of-pocket expenses that are reimbursed) in a variety of different ways.

Special Constables are trained by the Chief Constable for whom they work. They have a thorough training in many aspects of police work before they are expected to carry out duties. They learn about the police service and the duties of police officers, including powers of arrest, criminal law, court procedures and how to give evidence. They are also taught how to defend themselves. Specialist training is also available, depending on the variety of duties they want to do and the extent of their commitment.

Their uniform, very similar to the full-time police, is provided free. "Specials" don't have to work fixed hours or shifts. They contribute what time they can - whatever fits best with their job, career or family. If they are injured on duty, they receive compensation for loss of earnings. If they have to resign from their full-time occupation as a result of a permanent injury received while on duty, they are eligible for a gratuity and a pension. There are several ranks with the "Specials". As with "Regulars", promotion is achieved through good performance, dedication to duty and proof of leadership qualities. They can resign any time they wish to do so.

The main role of the Special Constables is to support regular police officers in their job which, in turn, frees them for work demanding their wider skills and experience. Often though, they work alongside them, facing the same situations and challenges. They are sworn as constables and are a 'hands on' force to assist during patrol duty. They are also called out when emergencies occur. The duties of "Specials" include assisting regular officers on patrol, crime prevention work, schools liaison and helping out at local fairs, county shows and sporting events. However, they also have to deal with other situations such as fires, fights, burglaries and road collisions.

Specials are trained and equipped to do almost the same job as a regular officer, although it is unusual for them to be trained to carry out specialist police tasks. They have the same powers of arrest and the same responsibility to prevent crime, uphold the law and protect the public. However, they are not deployed on their own to enforce rules of the road, such as speeding and other driving offences.

(3) Traffic Wardens

Traffic Wardens are uniformed civilians, employed by the police, to enforce some traffic regulations. They have been established to deal with stationary vehicle offences (parking and waiting). For instance, the Traffic Warden Scheme has been introduced in London in 1960, to enforce the parking regulations. Since their original formation the Traffic Warden service has seen its powers extended to allow wardens to regulate traffic (point duty), authorize the removal or clamping of illegally parked cars and, more recently, to issue Endorsable Fixed Penalty notices for offences such as parking on pedestrian crossings. In 1968 the Metropolitan Police introduced civil Vehicle Removal Officers who assist in removing vehicles causing an obstruction or parked contrary to regulations. Following the Road Traffic Act, 1991, the enforcement of the majority of parking within London was de-criminalized and became the responsibility of the local authorities. However, police are still responsible for enforcing the designated priority routes (Red Routes) in London, and Traffic Wardens are deployed to assist them.

Originally Traffic Wardens dealt purely with parking, but over time they have received powers to direct traffic, (i.e. when there is a collision or when traffic signals fail and there is a need to have someone take control of the situation and attempt to keep traffic flowing). Drivers are legally required to obey directions given by Traffic Wardens, which include instructions to motorists to stop. If a driver ignores their directions they are committing an offence. (NOTE: It is the only time they have such a power although there has been a great deal of debate as to whether their powers should be widened. They have no power of arrest other than that available to everyone under common law, in the UK.) Their main job is to issue parking tickets.

Traffic Wardens have virtually the same powers available to an ordinary person, other than the power to direct traffic. (NOTE: In the UK there are enforcement activities called multi agency checks during which vehicles are stopped and examined by a number of officials. For example: drivers hours, weight, vehicle tax, emissions, vehicle condition etc. At present there has to be a uniformed police constable to actually stop the vehicles. It has been suggested that this could be extended to Traffic Wardens in uniform.)

(4) Parking attendants

These are uniformed civilians employed by private companies to enforce parking in "special parking zones". A few years ago the law was changed to make parking in such zones a civil, not a criminal offence. Local authorities appoint a private company by competitive tender to run the enforcement, and the local authority keeps any excess revenue from fines. They are only allowed to use these funds for specified purposes, such as road safety or public transport. Today all of London except for "Red Routes" (major roads) is a special parking zone. The enforcement is very effective because the resources used can rapidly respond to the level of illegal parking. (For example, in the past, the offence of parking on the footway was hardly ever enforced, and had become a problem, but it's no longer a major problem now.)

There are three forms of penalty. A ticket for which there is a big discount for early payment. Wheel clamping, which is a "real pain" and inconvenience, and towing away which is extremely expensive and can take hours to sort out. There is a right of appeal to a parking adjudicator and ultimately one can argue the case in a civil court. The overwhelming majority of people pay up immediately. Because they no longer have responsibility for the majority of roads, police and Traffic Wardens can concentrate on "Red Routes". (For example, they have tow trucks constantly on patrol during the rush hours.).

(5) Other Civilian Support to the Police

All police forces employ civilians in a variety of capacities. (They can employ two clerks for the price of one police constable.) For example, in most forces cameras are operated almost entirely by civilians under the control of the police. However, a police constable has to supervise them and is entirely responsible for the quality of their work. Furthermore, with the use of cameras, the law requires a police constable to be satisfied that an offence has taken place before a letter is sent to the owner demanding payment. The civilians are in effect an extension of the police officer. The Road Traffic Act requires that a police constable is satisfied that an offence has taken place. Most police forces have interpreted this as meaning that the Police Constable has to be satisfied that the clerks know what they are doing. (This has never been tested in the courts but is supported by senior legal advice.) A civilian will load the film, set the trigger speed, remove the film, have it developed - all the time ensuring a complete chain of evidence. Clerks examine the pictures, retrieve the name and address of the registered owner, and send out the ticket. If necessary the civilians can give evidence in court. (This is not uncommon - many offences are enforced by civilians.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (April 15, 1999) from the City Clerk:

At its meeting held on September 17, 1998, The Toronto Pedestrian Committee had before it the following communications:

- (August 4, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Ms. Janice Etter, Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN); and

- (March 26, 1998) from the City Clerk to Ms. Joan Doiron, Chair, Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee.

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee supports the following proposed actions as contained in the aforementioned communications; and further, that they be brought forward for consideration when the report from the Senior Manager, Traffic Regions to the Urban Environment and Development Committee is available:

(1) acknowledge that the measures outlined in the report are inadequate, on their own, to address the problem effectively, and that the City must engage all of the relevant parties (e.g., Province, transportation industry, environmental groups) in discussion about comprehensive solutions, including legislative changes;

(2) Council ask the appropriate authority to develop guidelines that define the limits of discretionary powers of police officers in regard to enforcing the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.;

(3) Council ask the Provincial government to strengthen the ability of Section 128 of the Ontario Highway Act (Rate of Speed) to effectively address the discrepancy between posted and enforced speeds, especially on urban street (e.g., amending the regulations to give demerit point to motorists who exceed the "legal" maximum speed by any amount would send a strong message that this sort of driving behaviour is unacceptable on Ontario highways, especially urban streets);

(4) Council take leadership in engaging the Provincial Government and other municipalities in discussion regarding instituting driver testing at five-year intervals;

(5) Council address, through the appropriate authority, the issue of automobile advertising that glamorizes and promotes irresponsible and anti-social driver behaviour, especially speeding. (Past experience with beer, cigarette and alcohol ads might be a good reference point at which to start.);

(6) Set targets for reducing speeds on the City's major arterial roads; and

(7) Promote and support community-based initiatives to monitor speeding (e.g., Speed Watch programs in order to make drivers aware of the speed at which they are travelling). Individuals, groups, and organizations need encouragement to take responsibility for, and contribute to, road safety and enhancing the quality of life in the City.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

- (April 16, 1999) from Jack Becker requesting that Recommendation #14 of the Coroner's report, "That the City of Toronto develop a comprehensive network of on-street bicycle lanes and routes and off-street trails to enhance bicycle safety", be implemented quickly before the annual number of cycling deaths increase above 6, our recently most frequently occurring annual misfortune; and

- (April 18, 1999) from Helen Hansen and Lois James, Feet on the Street, supporting the suggestions of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee of April 15, 1999 from the City Clerk; the suggestions from Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN) dated August 4, 1998; the Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee dated March 26, 1998 and the seven recommendations in the memo and urging that all these suggestions be approved in the interest of public safety.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

- Dorothy Fletcher, Older Women's Network; and

- Lois James.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Moved by: Councillor Augimeri

Seconded by: Mayor Lastman

'WHEREAS the appropriation of $3.5 million originally recommended for the Jane-Finch Streetscape Project was scaled back by the Budget Committee to $850,000.00; and

WHEREAS the Budget Committee directed that of the $850,000.00, $418,000.00 was to be directed towards traffic safety improvements in 1999 and $432,000.00 towards lighting improvements for 2000; and

WHEREAS the former Metropolitan Toronto Council had identified Jane-Finch as the highest risk intersection having the highest number of reported accidents in 1994; and

WHEREAS the former Metropolitan Toronto began to invest substantial resources towards safety improvements at Jane-Finch-- $500,000.00 for road works; and over $200,000.00 for three additional traffic signals (at Finch/Yorkgate in 1989; at Finch/ east of Tobermory in 1996; and at Jane/north of Shoreham in 1996); and

WHEREAS the recently updated list of high risk intersections shows that the intersection is operating more safely and City of Toronto Transportation staff attribute the improvement to these investments; yet there remains much more to be done to ensure that the intersection is safe; and

WHEREAS the Metropolitan Toronto Police had identified the intersection's safety problem as being one of poor engineering and not, as had been previously thought, one of enforcement; and

WHEREAS the Police, under the auspices of the Staff Inspector of North Traffic Division, recommended the extension of existing medians at the intersection and the installation of medians where they do not currently exist as a solution to the safety problem at the Jane/Finch intersection; and

WHEREAS the joint report dated May 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services [Communication No. 18 for consideration with Clause No. 4 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee] states that in order to "avoid throw-away costs" that "proceeding with the installation of pedestrian scale lighting this year . . . would allow Transportation Services staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the physical and operational characteristics of the Jane/Finch intersection and vicinity and to report further during the 2000 Capital Budget cycle . . .";

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Section 46 of the Council Procedural By-law, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed '1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program', be re-opened for further consideration, insofar as it concerns the order of the work to be done on the Jane Finch Streetscape Project;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the schedule of improvements to the Jane/Finch intersection be so re-ordered to permit lighting improvements to proceed in 1999;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, during the 2000 Budget process, on the estimated cost of installing appropriate medians at all four legs of the Jane/Finch intersection;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff conduct community consultations with local community stakeholders with respect to the design and nature of these medians; and that these medians conform as much as possible with the description forwarded by the local Police.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the recommendation in the report (March 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to the addition of the following words:

"and the Committee advises Council that it supports the provision of $418,000.00 for traffic safety improvements in 1999 and $432,000.00 for lighting improvements for 2000 for Phase I of this project as recommended by Budget Committee and adopted by Council at its meeting on March 2, 1999 during consideration of the 1999 Capital Budget."

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on May 11, 1999 on the implementation of this component of Phase I of the Jane and Finch Streetscape Project.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council's request of March 2, 1999 to get approval on the phase one design from the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Source of Funds:

Funds are provided for this purpose in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Jane and Finch Streetscape Project, Phase One be adopted.

Background:

The Jane and Finch streetscape design concept developed by the North York Planning Department, with the participation of the North York Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Transportation Departments, as well as, Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Department was adopted by the former North York Council at its June 11, 1997 meeting.

On April 29, 1998, the City of Toronto Council approved $85,000.00 for consultants to produce the detailed design, working drawings, and tender ready documents for the first phase of the streetscape project. A team of consultants was selected in October 1998 to prepare a tender ready package.

On March 2, 1999, City of Toronto Council adopted the recommendation of the Budget Committee to approve a maximum of $850,000.00 for the project over two years. For 1999, $418,000.00 is provided for traffic safety improvements and $432,000.00 for lighting improvements in 2000, subject to the approval of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. At the same meeting, the Budget Committee recommended that the General Manager of Transportation Services report back on funding priorities and the possibility of absorbing the cost of the Jane and Finch project within the Transportation Capital Program.

Comments:

The first phase of the Jane and Finch streetscape project extends from Yewtree Boulevard to Stong Court along Jane Street and from Driftwood Avenue to Norfinch Drive along Finch Avenue West, and includes the boulevards on both sides of the streets and the main intersection (refer to Appendix 1).

The public boulevards along Jane Street and Finch Avenue West are approximately 6m to 10m wide, with trees and grass that are in poor condition. The streetscape design proposed for the boulevards includes elements that will green the area, and provide a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment. Deciduous trees, wider and decorative sidewalks, benches, and pedestrian lights are elements that will give colour and texture to the public space and enhance its usability (refer to Appendix 2).

Deciduous trees at approximately 6m on centre will provide a dense canopy along the streets. The existing sidewalks are 1.5m wide, undersized for an area that is heavily used by pedestrians. The consultant proposes widening the sidewalks to approximately 2.1m by providing 30cm decorative strips on both sides for easier pedestrian movement.

A lighting plan has been developed for the phase one construction with light standards spaced at 17m on centre. The plan calls for luminaries and poles to be supplied and installed in accordance with City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services specifications.

The public art component is attempting to reflect the essence of the rural Canadian landscape through the use of native trees and stone boulders selectively placed in the boulevards. A second public art component will be utilized to recognize members of the Jane/Finch community through a wall, or walk of fame in which names of community leaders would be engraved.

Conclusions:

City of Toronto Council approved $850,000.00 to be spent over two years, with $418,000.00 to be spent in the first year for traffic safety improvements, and $432,000.00 for lighting improvements in the year 2000. Staff of Transportation Services are reviewing the current and long range programmed work in the immediate vicinity and will report separately to your committee on the planned activities and a corresponding project phasing schedule. The lighting component discussed herein could be implemented independent of any contemplated road work and therefore it is recommended that the lighting component proceed this year.

Contact Name:

Mihaela Marcu

Civic Improvement, Urban Design

Tel: 416-392-1136

Email: mmarcu@toronto.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (April 16, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, noting that the recommendations in the staff report concerning the Jane and Finch Streetscape are contrary to Council's decision in March of this year and, therefore, cannot be considered by the Committee, and suggesting the Committee may want to ask the Clerk to review the matter and/or recommend that the Ward Councillors reopen the matter by way of an Order Paper Motion before expending any funds for any purposes other than the ones already approved.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Budget Committee's request for a report on the possibility of the Transportation Services Capital Budget absorbing the cost of the Jane Finch Phase I streetscape project within the Transportation capital program and to respond to the Urban Environment and Development Committee's request of April 19, 1999, to report directly to Council on the implementation of the traffic safety improvements component of Phase 1 of the Jane and Finch Streetscape project.

Source of Funds:

Funds are provided for the Jane and Finch Streetscape Project - Phase I in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, in considering the Urban Planning and Development Services 1999 Capital Works Program, adopted among other things, the Budget Committee's recommendation that the General Manager of Transportation Services report back on funding priorities and the possibility of absorbing the cost of the Jane Finch Phase I streetscape project within the Transportation capital program and that the recommended funding for the project be subject to the approval of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of April 19, 1999, in considering a report dated March 26, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services outlining the background, history and details of the Jane Finch streetscape initiative, amended the recommendation in the report (March 26,1999) to reflect the fact that the committee is advising Council that it supports the provision of $418,000 for traffic safety improvements in 1999 and $432,000 for lighting improvements for 2000 for Phase 1 of this project as recommended by Budget Committee and adopted by Council at its March 2, 1999 meeting during consideration of the 1999 Capital Budget.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on May 11, 1999, on the implementation of this component of Phase 1 of the Jane and Finch Streetscape Project.

Comments:

The funds approved by City Council for transportation infrastructure generally provide for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of surface facilities in conventional materials to correct structural deficiencies, improve serviceability and/or improve operational or functional characteristics. Traditionally, the cost of significant streetscaping initiatives including enhancements such as brick sidewalks and boulevards, pedestrian scale lighting, trees and other landscaping features have been accommodated within Urban Planning and Development Services budget.

Jane Street and Finch Avenue West are major arterial roads which were formerly under the jurisdiction of Metro Transportation. Both streets carry relatively large volumes of vehicular and bus traffic, and the intersection serves as a hub of pedestrian activity given adjacent land uses. Over the past number of years, Metro Transportation has implemented a number of measures to improve functionality and pedestrian safety in the immediate area as more specifically noted below:

- traffic control signals were installed at the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Yorkgate Boulevard in September, 1989;

- a number of turn and through movement prohibitions along Finch Avenue and Jane Street at the mall accesses were introduced in 1991;

- minor road improvements were undertaken in 1992 at the intersection to permit use of the westbound curb lane by through and right turning traffic;

- an eastbound right turn prohibition , 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday to Friday, was introduced at the Finch Avenue West/ Yorkgate Boulevard intersection in 1992;

- far side bus stops were implemented at the intersection in 1992;

- northbound and southbound right turn lanes were implemented in 1992;

- the westbound right turn lane was extended in 1992;

- the northbound bus bay at Jane Street and Yewtree Boulevard was relocated to the far side in 1992; and

- the traffic signal plant at the Jane/Finch intersection was modified and signal timing adjusted in 1998.

The work carried out to date at the intersection has lead to a decrease in the number of reported accidents in the area. Unfortunately, the intersection remains problematic from an operational safety point of view due largely to the heavy volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as the numerous vehicular entrances to and exits from adjacent commercial sites. In this regard, there are few physical measures that could be considered for implementation as a means of mitigating the operational problems with the exception of major geometric changes. Therefore, at this time, the only traffic safety related improvement that could be considered for 1999 would be the introduction of medians.

The current Jane Finch conceptual streetscape design includes the construction of medians, ranging in length from 33 metres to 60 metres on each leg of the intersection, paved in decorative materials and containing trees where sight lines allow. Requests have been received as far back as 1990 for the construction of substantial medians extending well beyond the driveways of the adjacent plazas to prevent vehicles from driving directly across the roadways from one plaza to another. Although the Police Service has identified this practice as a significant factor in the high accident rate in this vicinity, a detailed design has not been pursued on account of the sensitive nature of restricting access and egress as well as the lack of planned work in the area.

The construction of medians in an extended configuration would physically channelize vehicular traffic thereby eliminating conflicting road crossings and turning movements. These medians could also serve as pedestrian refuges. Based on a preliminary review, these medians could be as long as 250 metres, varying in width from 0.8 metres to less than 2 metres, and could be accommodated within the existing Jane Street and Finch Avenue cross sections without significant curb realignment work. Assuming conventional poured concrete finishes, the cost would be in the order of $200,000.00. This type of work could be undertaken in 1999, pending consultation with affected parties. In the event that the medians are to be landscaped and widened to provide for ground cover or tree planting, it would appear that some curb realignment and pavement widening and reconstruction work may be necessary to ensure traffic lanes and widths are maintained. This of course would result in a substantial increase in cost which is difficult to ascertain in the absence of a detailed design and could not be undertaken until the year 2000 at the earliest. While the construction of standard concrete medians appears to be physically feasible in 1999, staff recommend that consideration of enhanced median treatments be considered, in keeping with the objectives of the streetscape initiative, for possible construction in 2000.

In terms of the physical condition of the streets, sections of Finch Avenue West between Driftwood Avenue and Norfinch Drive were last resurfaced between 1982 and 1989, are in good serviceable condition and are not programmed for any major work at this time. Jane Street, north from Finch Avenue West, was resurfaced in 1984 and is in fair condition. The section of Jane Street, south of Finch Avenue West, is scheduled to be resurfaced in 2003. Consideration of advancing the resurfacing coincident with the implementation of the streetscape elements will be considered in order to reduce overall costs.

There are sidewalks and boulevards on both sides of these streets comprised of a variety of materials and widths. Although from a structural point of view the sidewalk facilities are adequate, the configuration and mixture of materials does not lend itself to an improved pedestrian environment and, on this basis, the Jane Finch streetscape initiative was undertaken. It should be noted that the various components of the streetscape initiative were conceived and are being advanced as a means of enhancing the pedestrian environment and are not intended to address any transportation operational and functional deficiencies which may exist. Under the circumstances, given the nature and scope of the Jane Finch streetscape project as currently designed, it is appropriate to fund the bulk of the initiative through the Urban Planning and Development Services budget as proposed. If however, there is a shift in focus from streetscaping to operational improvements, funds to cover the cost of the transportation related work should be provided as part of the Works and Emergency Services budget.

Conclusion:

Proceeding with the installation of pedestrian scale lighting this year, to improve the pedestrian environment as set out in the Urban Planning and Development Services report of March 26, 1999, would allow Transportation Services staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the physical and operational characteristics of the Jane/Finch intersection and vicinity and to report further during the 2000 Capital Budget cycle on any resurfacing work or operational improvements that could be advanced for implementation next year, coincident with the balance of the streetscape initiative if approved. Of course, any major geometric changes to the intersection such as the construction of medians described above and other related highway alterations would be subject to the usual consultative process and statutory reporting, hearing and by-law requirements. Proceeding on this basis would have the benefit of consolidating all planned works in the area to avoid throw-away costs and prolonged construction activities.

Contact Name:

Mihaela Marcu John Niedra

Civic Improvement, Urban Design Manager, Infrastructure Asset

Tel: 416-392-1136 Management and Programming

Fax: 416-392-1330 Tel: 416-392-5348

Email: mmarcu@toronto.ca Fax: 416-392-4426

Email: jniedra@toronto.ca)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

Council also directed that:

(1) a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to the Planning and Transportation on a policy and mechanism, in the context of planning applications, of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding therefor through the budget process;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district and community; and

(4) Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council's November 12, 1998 request for a joint report from the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

Financial Implications relate to the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in conjunction with development applications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 per cent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 per cent of the total) to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 per cent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 per cent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 per cent of the total) to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 per cent of the total) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified;

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, City Council struck out Clause No. 4 in Report No. 3 of The Economic Development Committee and referred this Clause to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that they submit a joint report thereon to Council, through the appropriate Committees.

Comments:

Both the September 8, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and an earlier report (March 30,1998), to the Budget Committee, entitled, "Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds" recommended criteria for allocating revenues obtained from cash payments in-lieu of parkland conveyances for approval of development applications. These criteria were as follows:

(1) that any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments relating to developments which had obtained planning approval but had not yet received building permits, be allocated for local expenditures, provided the payments were received by December 31, 1998; and

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be allocated through the budget process and restricted as follows:

(i) 50 per cent for the purpose of acquisition of lands for park purposes, on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities; and

(ii) 50 per cent for the development and upgrading of parkland and parks and recreation facilities on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities.

At its November 12, 1998 meeting, Council did not adopt this recommendation, but referred this matter to both the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services for a joint report.

Difficulties with Current Allocation of Cash-in-lieu Funds:

The criteria for the use of cash-in-lieu revenues obtained in 1998 was largely based on the historic allocation of these funds by the six former municipalities that comprise the City of Toronto. Accordingly, the 1999 Capital Works Program included projects in the former municipalities that were offset by cash-in-lieu funds generated in those municipalities.

This system was manageable for the 1999 Capital Budget due to the availability of cash-in-lieu reserve monies in some of the former municipalities to fund earlier identified projects, as well as, fund new projects. However, this system is unworkable over the longer term, particularly for the implementation of large scale projects that have a city-wide draw, such as city -wide parks. It will also hamper our ability to achieve the goal of service harmonization in stable areas that are identified as being deficient in park and recreational infrastructure but which cannot generate sufficient revenues from development projects.

There are differing views on how these funds could be allocated. Some Councillors, who are experiencing growth in their Wards, would like to retain some or all of this money in their Wards to finance park land acquisition and/or recreational facility development to meet the needs of their existing and future residents. Others, particularly those in relatively stable areas that are deficient of park land or recreational facilities, would like to achieve service harmonization through some redistribution of these funds to areas that have historically been under serviced.

There are several inherent problems with allocating all of these revenues within the Wards in which they are generated. Some slower growing Wards may never be able to generate enough funds from development or redevelopment to buy parkland or provide recreational amenities to meet the needs of their communities. Any projects in these areas would have to compete for other Capital Budget funds. Others may be able to generate enough funds to provide small park and facility improvements, such as new playground equipment or water spray pads, but not enough to fund larger projects, such as district parks, community centres or indoor pools, which may be deemed as high priority needs for the area.

Additionally, many of these larger projects serve communities outside the Wards in which they are located, so more pooling of these resources is needed to ensure better access and use of these facilities, in order to achieve the City's goal of service harmonization for all of its residents. A primary goal of amalgamation is to share resources and avoid duplication of services. This goal can only be achieved through some pooling of these monies both at the local and city-wide level.

It is recognized that areas that are experiencing rapid growth through intensification or green field development will require retention of some of these cash-in-lieu funds in order to provide adequate services to meet the needs of existing and future populations. Rather than retaining a portion of these funds in the Ward in which they are generated, which in many instances, would restrict their use to smaller scale projects or create duplication, it would be much more cost effective and beneficial to retain a portion of these funds for pooling within the district ( East, West, North, and South ) in which they are generated, for either the acquisition of new parkland (if it is determined that there is insufficient parkland in that district) or the development of park and recreational facilities that have been identified as priority items in the Capital Budget.

The East District would include all of the Wards within the Scarborough and East York Community Council jurisdictions. The West District would include all of the Wards within the boundaries of the Etobicoke and York Community Councils, while the North District would include all of the Wards within the North York Community Council jurisdiction and the South District would encompass all of the Wards within the Toronto Community Council boundaries.

This money could be spent annually or left to accumulate for future land acquisition, park upgrading or recreational facility projects, as determined by the needs of the district - East, West, North and South - which would be identified by both staff and the local Community Councils. For example, in the East District, both staff and the Scarborough and East York Community Councils would determine the local priority projects in that district, based on needs assessment studies. These projects would be identified and prioritized in the Capital Budget process.

We are recommending that the remainder of these funds be allocated on a city-wide basis in order to facilitate larger scale projects, which may be of city-wide significance, such as a waterfront park system or which may serve several communities and possibly more than one district, e.g. a large community centre. The city-wide pool of funds could also be used to achieve service equalization opportunities, such as, the acquisition of new park land or the development of recreation facilities in relatively stable areas where the needs are greatest.

In some cases, projects could receive funding allocations both from district and city-wide sources, if they have city-wide significance, serve more than one district or provide services in a high priority area that has been identified as under serviced. (City-wide projects would be identified by studies and would be reviewed through the Capital Budget process).

Some pooling of funds would be beneficial to all as opportunities and efficiencies may be maximized both at the local (district-wide) level and at the city-wide level. Community Councils in each district would also have a greater role in determining how these monies are spent locally.

Policy Framework

A brief overview of the parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu mechanisms available to the City are presented below, along with an update on the development of a new city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law . The policy context upon which longer term criteria will be developed for determining how cash-in-lieu of parkland revenues will be allocated is also outlined.

Parkland Dedication By-law:

Section 42 of the "Planning Act" gives the City the authority to require either a parkland dedication or a cash-in-lieu payment for the subdivision, severance, development or redevelopment of land. Implementation of Council's policy regarding parkland dedication is accomplished through the enactment of a Parkland Dedication By-law and through policies and procedures related to the implementation of the By-law.

At present, the existing Parkland Dedication By-laws of the six former municipalities are still in effect. Staff are currently working towards the harmonization of these by-laws into one city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law. At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council adopted the report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (July 9, 1998) which recommended principles for inclusion in a Parkland Dedication By-law.

The City Solicitor, in consultation with staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, is currently preparing a draft city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law that will harmonize all of the provisions of the existing parkland dedication by-laws and will include exemptions that are currently permitted in these by-laws. This draft by-law will be submitted to the appropriate Standing Committees in April or May of this year.

New City-wide Official Plan:

Staff in Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism are also working together to develop policies and criteria in the new Official Plan that will identify growth areas and any parkland deficiencies, based on current and future population projections. The Plan will include policies to protect and manage the City's green space system, including environmentally sensitive lands, ravines, valleys, waterfront corridors, utility and rail corridors, public rights-of-way, etc. and creating or restoring links between elements of the green space system, including other public and privately owned green spaces. Some of the studies that will be undertaken in the development of Official Plan policies pertaining to open space and recreation amenities include:

- development of new City of Toronto parkland objectives;

- review of Official Plan parkland standards (both quantitative and qualitative);

- identification of open space and parkland deficiencies:

- review of land use implementation tools and criteria for use;

- review of open space, parkland and recreational amenity policies.

Community Centre Needs Assessment Study:

Staff in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department are also conducting a Needs Assessment / Feasibility Study of new community centres in five areas of the City that have been identified as deficient in recreational facilities. A report on the results of this study, which will include recommendations on the feasibility of these facility requirements, will be submitted to the Economic Development Committee by late summer, 1999.

As a result of these assessments, more detailed funding allocations can be determined in the Capital Budget Program. Upon completion of this work, other areas of the City will be reviewed in terms of deficiencies in park and/or recreational facilities.

Land Acquisition Strategy:

In addition, staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services are working towards the development of a city-wide land acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and others, which will include criteria for the acquisition of land for park, conservation and natural heritage open space areas. This study will be completed in the last quarter of 1999.

All of these efforts will assist us in developing a five year Capital Works Program and refining our allocation of cash-in-lieu funds to maximize the provision of park and recreational services in priority areas where needs have been identified.

Next Steps

The process of developing the new Official Plan for the City will involve incorporating the results of the various needs assessment studies and the land acquisition strategy that will provide a clear policy framework for identifying servicing opportunities and priorities that could be included in the development of the five year Capital Budget. These Official Plan policies will be based on population growth projections, desired service levels and identification and prioritization of areas in need of parkland and/or recreation facilities. The Plan will include strategies for fulfilment of the goals of service harmonization and the expansion, protection and enhancement of the City's open space system.

Proposed Interim Criteria for Use of Cash-in-lieu Payments

Interim Solution:

As a guiding principle, all new funding either for parkland acquisition or for major park and recreational facility developments should require the approval of needs assessment studies, based on an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities. This work will take some time to complete, so in the short term, it is recommended that interim criteria be established for how this money should be allocated in 1999 for the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget Programs. These criteria would take into account the need to provide sufficient parkland and recreational facilities in areas where new growth is occurring, as well as, providing this infrastructure in areas of the City that have been identified as under serviced at the time of amalgamation. In this way, it is anticipated that over time, the goal of service equalization throughout the City can be achieved.

In order to provide a system that is fair and equitable to all areas of the City, including those areas where growth is occurring, as well as, stable areas which are identified as being under serviced in terms of parkland and recreational facilities, the following revised criteria are proposed for how cash-in-lieu funds should be allocated. These interim criteria will be embodied in the proposed Capital Budget program for the years 2000 and 2001, until all of the needs assessment studies are completed.

As of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 per cent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half ( 25 per cent of the total) of these funds to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 per cent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 per cent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half (50 per cent) of these funds to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (50 per cent) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified.

The above noted interim criteria are intended to balance the need to provide parkland and recreational services in areas of the City where new growth is occurring and which are not adequately serviced, with the need to equalize the service provision in those areas that have been historically under serviced and have been identified as priority areas. In an effort to ensure fairness and equity across the City, these interim criteria would be reviewed on an annual basis by staff and any deviations would be reflected in the Capital Budget reports submitted for the years 2000 and 2001, in order to ensure that any high priority needs or unique opportunities are addressed appropriately.

More permanent criteria will be developed for the five year Capital Budget Program, once all of the aforenoted studies and plans are completed. At that time, a report on these criteria will be submitted for consideration by the appropriate Standing Committees.

Other Revenue Sources

Development Charges:

An additional source of revenue for the development of park and recreational facilities may become available if a Development Charge By-law is enacted by City Council. This by-law would be subject to the provisions of the "Development Charge Act", 1997, which stipulates that only charges for net capital costs due to increased service needs resulting from growth can be applied. Eligible charges include capital costs to: improve land; acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings or structures; acquire, lease or improve facilities; costs to conduct studies associated with capital projects eligible for development charges; and pay interest charges on money borrowed to pay for the aforementioned costs.

However, there are restrictions on how this money can be spent. While this money can be pooled city-wide, it must be spent on specific growth related projects and cannot be used for the acquisition of new parkland, except as part of a project development site, e.g. for a recreational complex or community centre. There are also restrictions on the calculation of need and the level of service that the City wants to provide. The service level for each service cannot exceed the average level that was provided by the municipality over the last ten years. This average service level may be lower than the desired service level that Council would like to achieve in the future.

Therefore, although a Development Charge By-law would provide an additional source of revenue to offset some of our park and recreational servicing costs related to growth, there are certain restrictions in the calculation of the charges and the use of these funds. Because the needs of existing populations cannot be included in the calculation of a development charge, the goal of service equalization in older, relatively stable areas cannot be fulfilled by this funding mechanism.

A joint study on development charges is currently being conducted by the Chief Financial Officer, in conjunction with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Corporate Services and the City Solicitor. A report is expected to be submitted to the appropriate Committees later this spring.

Section 37 Agreements:

Section 37 agreements provide another source of revenue for certain types of development applications. Section 37 of the "Planning Act", RSO 1996, authorizes the City to include policies in the Official Plan that would enable it to pass by-laws to increase the height or density of development in return for certain facilities, services or benefits.

Section 37 agreements are only applied in securing parkland benefits that are in excess of what can be secured through the use of Section 42 provisions. Although these types of agreements have been very successful in obtaining benefits for the City, the number of these agreements may fluctuate from year to year, depending on market forces and are, therefore, quite variable as a revenue source.

Conclusions:

The proposed interim criteria for the allocation of cash-in-lieu payments for parkland are needed to determine the Capital Budget process for the year 2000 and 2001. This proposal is both fair and equitable and recognizes the need to provide parkland and recreational facilities in growth areas that require this infrastructure, along with the need to raise services levels in stable areas where deficiencies have been identified and prioritized.

The new Official Plan's reinvestment policies and priority goal setting will guide the five year Capital Budget process in sustaining, improving and enhancing the quality of life of the residents of the City, which will include a review of the interim funding criteria for land acquisition and facility development at both the district-wide and city-wide levels. Upon completion of the Official Plan process and the various needs assessment studies for parks and recreational facilities, these interim criteria will be reviewed and updated, as needed.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

395-6065 392-0402)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 27, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Background:

At its meeting on April 23, 1999, the Economic Development Committee gave consideration to the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications, and recommending that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50% for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes,

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25% of the total) to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified and,

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25% of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50% for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities,

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25% of the total) to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified, and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25% of the total) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified;

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item;

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also considered this matter at its meeting on April 19, 1999 and its recommendations in this respect are contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 which is before Council for its May 11, 1999 meeting. The Economic Development Committee's recommendations are as noted above.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 22, 1999) from H-JEH Becker, Toronto, in support of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated April 30, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee on April 16, 1999, recommended to City Council the adoption of the supplementary report dated April 14, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending the recommendation embodied therein by deleting the words 'ten percent of' and inserting in lieu thereof '$500,000.00 over', so that such recommendation now reads:

"The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to make additional expenditures under this contract, and to increase the value of the contract up to a maximum of $500,000.00 over the original contract value to cover additional costs, provided there are sufficient funds within the Capital Works Program." ' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (April 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Budget Committee for consideration.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (April 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender issued for the construction of three (3) F.G. Gardiner Expressway ramp bridges and associated approaches in accordance with specifications prepared by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder, and to reduce the speed limit on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway Westbound in this area during construction.

Source of Funds and Financial Implications:

Funding for this project for 1999 has been approved by Council and is available in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Account TR028 - Replacement of Gardiner Humber Bridges.

Originally, it was envisaged that the construction of the three ramp bridges on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway over the Humber River would take approximately 3 years to complete. The 1999-2003 Capital Works Programme was prepared taking into account the projected cash flow that would result from a three-year duration. With the award of a contract based on a two-year duration, the 1999-2003 Capital Works Programme will need to be changed to reflect the increase in cash flow requirements for the year 2000. The Department will take necessary action in modifying the 1999-2003 Capital Works Programme.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-01-99 for the construction of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Ramp Bridges No. 4, 5 and 6 over the Humber River and Approaches be awarded to Dufferin Construction Company, a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc., in the total amount of $19,705,560.21 including all taxes and charges, having submitted the lowest Total Adjusted Tender;

(2) commencing the first day of construction expected to be as early as May 14, 1999 and terminating on the last day of construction (anticipated to be on July 22, 2000 based on the recommended bidder's schedule), the speed limit on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway westbound from a point 900 metres east of Ellis Avenue to a point 800 metres west of Palace Pier Court be lowered to 60 kmph from its present posted speed (90 or 100 kmph);

(3) the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly;

(4) the introduction of any necessary Bill(s) be authorized; and

(5) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

The Bid Committee at its meeting held on April 1, 1999 opened the following tenders for Contract No. T-01-99 for the construction of F. G. Gardiner Expressway Ramp Bridges No. 4, 5 and 6 over the Humber River and Approaches:

Name

Dufferin Construction Company, a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc.

Armbro Materials & Construction Ltd.

Bot Construction Ltd.

BFC Construction Corporation

*Tender prices corrected for mathematical errors. Purchasing and Materials Management has verified that the mathematical errors are correct.

Part "A" is the total value of the tendered work items. Adjusted Part "A" allows a credit against Part "A" of 10 per cent of the tendered value of the Canadian steel incorporated into the tender. Part "B" is based on the number of consecutive calendar days required by the tendering contractor to complete all contract work multiplied by a daily contracting charge of $10,000.00. The Total Adjusted Tender Price is the sum of Adjusted Part "A" and Part "B", and is the total value of the tender for evaluation and award purposes. Payments under the contract will be in accordance with Part "A" tender prices. In addition, the Contract contains an incentive/disincentive provision to ensure timely completion. For each day the Contractor is late with the actual schedule, a deduction of $10,000.00/day will be made. Conversely, for each day the Contractor betters the schedule an extra payment of $10,000.00/day will be made.

The tender process was conducted in complete compliance with the guidelines set out in the tender documents and outlined to prequalified contractors at a pre-tender meeting held on March 10, 1999 at Metro Hall. This is the same tendering process done for Contract T-01-97 under which the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Eastbound and Westbound bridges were completed in one year.

BFC Construction Corporation submitted a tender which did not have page 37 of the Form of Tender completed. The completion of page 37 was necessary to evaluate the Total Adjusted Price, including the value of domestic steel to be used on the project as well as the number of calendar days to complete the project. As such, the Total Adjusted Tender Price is unknown and therefore the tender is informal. City Legal Department has been consulted and agrees with our interpretation.

Comments:

The tender document submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and was found to be in conformance with the tender requirements.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.

To construct the new bridges and ramp approaches, barricaded work zones have to be created for the safety of the construction workers and the road users. To create the space for the work zones, the existing lanes of traffic have to be reconfigured thus resulting in narrower lanes and shoulder widths and more abrupt alignments than would otherwise exist on an expressway. In addition, the prevailing conditions of a roadway typically diminish in a construction zone from the entering/exiting construction vehicles; uneven pavement; reduced surface drainage; reduced illumination; etc., which would characteristically result. As such, the speed limit should be reduced to 60 kmph on the expressways to maintain safe traffic conditions.

To construct Bridge 6 and Approaches lands have to be acquired from Canadian National Railways. Delegated authority from the C.A.O. has been obtained for the land acquisitions, and Canadian National Railway has already given the City permission to enter upon the lands for construction purposes through the issuance of a work permit. Furthermore, Real Estate advised that agreement has been reached with Canadian National Railway for the sale of the lands and closing is pending the completion of the legal survey plans needed for registration. Closing is anticipated by April 30, 1999.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the construction of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway Ramp Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in accordance with specifications to Dufferin Construction Company, a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc. who submitted the lowest Total Adjusted Tender Bid for the Contract.

In order to maintain safe traffic operations and a safe work zone throughout the construction period, the speed limit should be reduced to 60 kilometres per hour as set out in this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Chung, P. Eng. Lou Pagano

Manager, Structures & Expressways Director

Design Construction and Inspection Purchasing & Materials Management

Technical Services Division Telephone: 392-7312

Telephone: 392-8341

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request authority for the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to increase the expenditure by a maximum of 10 per cent. to Contract No. T-01-99 subject to the availability of funds in order to cover any unforeseen and necessary additional work that may arise during construction to avoid delays and claims.

Funding Sources:

Funding for this project has been approved by Council and is available in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Account TR028, Replacement of Gardiner Humber Bridges.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to make additional expenditures under this contract, and to increase the value of the contract up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of the original contract value to cover additional costs provided there are sufficient funds within the Capital Works Programme.

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on January 6, 1998, City of Toronto Council enacted By-law No. 7-98, Interim Financial Control By-law, which repealed former Metro By-law No. 146-90. In accordance with former Metro By-law No. 146-90, as amended, the Department Head had authority to approve additional expenditures on a duly executed commitment up to an amount equal to ten (10) per cent. of the commitment provided sufficient funds exist in the Capital Works Programme. For the recently closed Contract No. T-01-99, Tender No. 19,1999, which is being recommended for award to Dufferin Construction Company, a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc., in the amount of $19,705,560.21, an additional $1,970,556.02, would therefore have been available for possible extra work under the old Metro By-law.

As the financial interim by-law contains no provision to exceed the awarded contract value, as confirmed by the City's Legal Department, the Works and Emergency Services Department has effectively lost its ability to authorize unforeseen and necessary additional work that may arise during construction of capital works and to include them within the existing contract. Generally, the additional work must be incorporated into the existing contract for continuity, warranty, liability, and/or safety reasons.

In the previous Humber Bridges Project contract, Contract No. T-01-97, an extra payment of approximately $72,000.00 was made to the contractor because a soft seam of rock was discovered in the bedrock during the construction of the foundation caissons. As a result, the caissons had to be constructed deeper than originally anticipated, and at a greater cost. When this unforeseen condition was discovered, an immediate direction had to be given to the contractor on how to proceed.

Without authority to authorize extra work, we would have to report to Council and incur a delay of potentially up to three (3) months to get authority for the additional expenditure before giving the contractor authorization to do the additional work. This type of holdup would unnecessarily delay the construction and, more importantly, would also expose the City to delay and late payment costs.

In Contract No. T-01-99, an incentive of $10,000.00 per day for completion earlier is allowed for similar to the previous Humber Bridges contract No. T-01-97 to accelerate construction. As provided under that contract, an additional $250,000.00 payment was made because completion was 25 days early. Also, a lump sum bonus of $200,000.00 is being offered should the contractor complete Bridge No. 4 and open it to traffic by November 1, 1999.

Conclusions:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services should be authorized to make additional expenditures to Contract No. T-01-99 up to an amount not exceeding $1,970,556.02 provided sufficient funds exist.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Chung, P. Eng.

Manager of Structures, Metro Hall

Telephone: 392-8341

Fax: 392-6279

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on April 16, 1999, recommended to City Council the adoption of the supplementary report dated April 14, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "Supplementary Report for the Award of Contract No. T-01-99, Humber Bridges Project - F.G. Gardiner Expressway Ramp Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 Over Humber River and Approaches Tender No. 19-1999 - Provision for Extra Work", subject to amending the recommendation embodied therein by deleting the words "ten percent of" and inserting in lieu thereof "$500,000.00 over" so that such recommendation now reads:

"The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to make additional expenditures under this contract, and to increase the value of the contract up to a maximum of $500,000.00 over the original contract value to cover additional costs, provided there are sufficient funds within the Capital Works Program.";

and directed that it be forwarded to City Council for its meeting of May 11, 1999, to be considered with Clause No. 6 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide to the Budget Committee, when such Committee deals with the Capital Variance Report:

(a) what the City policy should be with regard to the authority for the Department Head to approve additional expenditures on a contract above the approved budget, provided that sufficient funds exist in the overall program Capital Budget and that authority be limited to 10 percent or $500,000.00, whichever is the smallest; and

(b) a report from the Department Head to the Budget Committee when there is an overage in a contract addressing why such overage occurred.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (April 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 19, 1999, referred the supplementary report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Budget Committee for consideration, wherein it is recommended that:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to make additional expenditures under this contract, and to increase the value of the contract up to a maximum of 10 percent of the original contract value to cover additional costs provided there are sufficient funds within the Capital Works Program.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief General Manager of Toronto Transit Commission.

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the road system improvements necessary to facilitate the operation of a planned new bus garage on Comstock Road in the Golden Mile Employment District.

This report also provides an update on the public consultation process regarding the new bus garage and the outcome of the first public meeting carried out by TTC and City staff, in accordance with the TTC's Communication Plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding sources for all but one of the road improvements needed to facilitate operation of the new bus garage facility have been identified, and these will be shared between the Toronto Transit Commission and the City of Toronto (through an existing local area development levy). Due to the accelerated need for required improvements to Comstock Road (i.e., widening and reconstruction) resulting from the bus garage, it is recommended that Comstock Road be improved prior to the bus garage's scheduled opening in 2001; however, the funding mechanism has not yet been determined.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be forwarded to City Council in response to items requested at the July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 Council meeting.

Council Reference:

At its July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 meeting, City of Toronto Council requested TTC and City staff to address several issues related to the construction of a proposed new bus garage facility intended to replace the existing Eglinton and Danforth bus garages.

Among other requests, Council asked that:

"The Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services, in consultation with appropriate staff of the City of Toronto and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on any necessary improvements to the road system to facilitate the operation of this facility."

The purchase of lands at Comstock Road and Lebovic Avenue (south of Eglinton Avenue, located between Pharmacy and Warden Avenues) in the Golden Mile Employment District was subsequently approved by City Council at its July 22, 1998 meeting.

At its November 1998 meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee received a report from the Chief Administrative Office and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission regarding a Communication Plan for the new bus garage. According to the Communication Plan, a subsequent information report regarding the outcome of the first public meeting would be provided.

Discussion:

The Toronto Transit Commission retained an outside consultant to undertake a traffic impact study for the new bus garage on Comstock Road. The same consultant had been retained earlier by the City (formerly City of Scarborough) during 1995/96 to prepare the Golden Mile Employment District Transportation Study as part of a Land Use Review, ultimately leading to an Official Plan Amendment (i.e., OPA 965). Through this process, the City was able to identify maximum commercial development levels that could be supported by an improved area road system. Funding for these improvements was secured through a special area levy charged on new commercial developments requiring rezoning approval. With respect to Comstock Road, an additional 7 metres of property was acquired along the north side between Warden Avenue and a point 165 metres east of Pharmacy Avenue; however, funding for constructing the Comstock Road widening itself was not included in the area levy.

The scope of the bus garage traffic impact study consisted of assessing the transportation servicing needs of the bus garage, as well as identifying impacts stemming from the additional vehicular demands placed on the area road system. The report was submitted to City staff in the Urban Planning & Development Services Department and the Works & Emergency Services Department for review. Staff concur with the conclusions presented in the traffic impact study, and share the opinion that traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, in the context of other planned development in the Golden Mile Employment District, could be accommodated by the area road system with certain improvements.

Specifically, the road improvements relate to:

(1) widening and reconstructing Comstock Road between Pharmacy Avenue and Warden Avenue to accommodate four travel lanes plus turning lanes (estimated cost: $1,055,000.00);

(2) extension of the existing southbound right turn lane at Warden Avenue and Comstock Road to accommodate additional bus turning movements (estimated cost: $55,000.00);

(3) installation of traffic signals at the Comstock Road/Lebovic Avenue intersection when traffic signal warrants are satisfied (estimated cost: $80,000.00); and

(4) follow-up monitoring studies after full operation of the bus garage to fine-tune traffic operations (e.g., signal timing/phasing adjustments), remedy any unforeseen geometric difficulties (e.g., turning radius/ turning lane modifications) or address local traffic impacts (e.g., neighbourhood infiltration) (approximate budget: $10,000.00).

These results have been presented to the local community at a public meeting held on November 9, 1998. Costs for Item Nos. (2) and (4) listed above will be borne by the TTC, and funding for Item No. (3) will be provided by the City of Toronto when needed through an area development levy; however, funding for the cost of Item No. (1) has not yet been determined. It could, for example, be included as a proposed item in the Transportation Services Capital Works Programme for year 2000.

These improvements are consistent with planned upgrades to the area road system recommended in the earlier Golden Mile Employment District Transportation Study completed for the City in 1996; however, proposed construction of the bus garage has accelerated their need such that they are recommended to be implemented prior to its opening. Benefits of constructing these road improvements now (i.e., in conjunction with the bus garage) are:

(i) fewer disruptions and adverse impacts for businesses and residents of the area during construction;

(ii) relief to arterial roads (e.g., Eglinton Avenue) and congested intersections in the Golden Mile Employment District; and

(iii) promotion of economic vitality in the area by encouraging other/earlier commercial redevelopment.

With respect to the TTC Communication Plan, a public meeting was held on November 9, 1998 in order to obtain feedback from the local community regarding the bus garage conceptual layout. An invitation was sent out to local residents and businesses by Community Planning staff in the City's Urban Planning & Development Services Department.

Residents expressed concerns over air quality, noise, traffic impact and the type of fencing/barrier along the property. TTC and consultant staff presented results of the traffic impact study. Residents were also informed that air quality and acoustical studies were underway, and results from these studies would be presented at the next public meeting scheduled for May 1999. City staff indicated that the fencing issue would be addressed as part of the Site Plan Control Agreement, which should be finalized before the next public meeting.

Conclusions:

As a result of the new bus garage facility proposed by the TTC for lands between Pharmacy and Warden Avenues on Comstock Road within the Golden Mile Employment District, certain road improvements are required to accommodate the anticipated vehicular demands.

A traffic impact study has been prepared by a qualified consultant retained by the TTC. The study has been submitted to appropriate City staff, and a review of this study confirms that road system improvements are required to facilitate the operation of the proposed bus garage. These road system improvements include: widening and reconstruction of Comstock Road to 4 basic lanes plus turning lanes, extending the southbound right turn lane at Warden Avenue/Comstock Road, installing traffic signals at the Comstock Road/Lebovic Avenue intersection and conducting follow-up traffic monitoring studies.

Further studies are currently underway to address public concerns over air quality and noise. These results, as well as the finalization of fencing/barrier options as part of the Site Plan approval process, will be presented to the local community at the next public meeting.

Contact Names:

Peter J. Noehammer, P.Eng. Thomas G. Middlebrook, P.Eng.

Manager, Traffic Planning/Right-of-Way Mgmt. Chief Engineer

Transportation Services, District 4 Engineering Department

Works & Emergency Services Toronto Transit Commission

Tel: 396-5670 fax: 396-5681 Tel: 393-4152 fax: 397-8193

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(2) Council support the concept of a vigorous campaign to secure a share of the gasoline tax for transit in Ontario.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report communicates the findings of the Task Force on Transportation Funding presented to the GO Transit Board on April 9, 1999 and recommends actions to improve transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations of this report pursue a funding partnership with the Federal and Provincial governments to meet 66 per cent of the costs of providing transportation in the Greater Toronto Area, and Hamilton-Wentworth.

Recommendations:

(1) It is recommended that Council endorse the resolutions of the Board of GO Transit on April 9, 1999 regarding funding of transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth and in doing so:

(a) support and promote the establishment of a Transportation Funding Partnership consisting of the City of Toronto, Regions of York, Peel, Durham, Halton, and Hamilton-Wentworth, and the Provincial and Federal governments, the goals of which are to reduce congestion levels, ensure a competitive economy, assist in meeting air quality targets, reduce dependency on the private automobile and to provide a better quality of life for all Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth residents;

(b) support that the proposed Transportation Funding Partnership meet 66 per cent of the road and transit infrastructure needs in the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth through a sustainable revenue sharing agreement with the Provincial government encompassing existing gasoline taxes, driver licensing and vehicle registration fees, and Provincial Sales Tax (PST) generated through vehicle sales and leases and strategic investments by the Federal Government;

(c) request the Premier of Ontario to authorize the Minister of Finance to initiate a review and consider, negotiate and recommend by November 1999, a sustainable Transportation Funding Partnership for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth;

(d) request the Prime Minister of Canada to authorize the Minister of Finance, to initiate a review and consider, negotiate and recommend by November 1999, a sustainable Funding Partnership for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth;

(e) refer the report entitled "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report" to the Greater Toronto Services Board for a presentation;

(f) request the Chairman and Transportation Committee of the Greater Toronto Service Board to organize and host a presentation of the "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report" to key stakeholders at the earliest possible date; and

(g) request the Chairman and Transportation Committee of the Greater Toronto Services Board to arrange meetings with the Ontario Minister of Finance and the Federal Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area to present the "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report'; and

(2) it is also recommended that Council:

(a) request the Task Force on Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Transportation Funding to present their findings at the upcoming meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and

(b) request the Chairman and Transportation Committee of the Greater Toronto Services Board to meet with representatives of the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (GVTA) and the Montreal Agence Metropolitaine de Transport (AMT) regarding establishing a partnership to pursue federal revenue sharing for urban transit.

Background:

In November 1998 the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (the GO Transit Board) resolved that the GTA/H-W Regions and the City of Toronto participate in a study to investigate opportunities for alternative funding for transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton Wentworth (GTA/H-W). A Task Force was established consisting of transportation planning and finance staff from the Regions of Peel, York, Durham, Halton, and Hamilton-Wentworth and the City of Toronto. The Task Force retained the consulting team of IBI Group and Hemson Consulting in association with StrategyCorp and C.N. Watson and Associates to provide research and analysis for the Task Force. The consultants report "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report" and the resolution of the GO Transit Board are attached.

Comments:

(1) Findings and Recommendations from the "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report":

The Task Force was a collective effort by the Regions and the City of Toronto to determine the overall transportation needs and issues in the GTA/H-W and to identify solutions. The following are the major findings of "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth Study Report":

- The GTA/H-W economy and quality of life is supported by five Transportation Pillars:

TTC

GO Transit

Major Arterial Roads

Local Transit

Provincial Highways

All but Provincial Highways are now municipal funding responsibilities.

- Investment in roads and transit, even with Provincial subsidy before 1998, has not kept pace with the growth of transportation demand. The lack of expansion over the past 10-15 years has resulting in a decline in the quality and efficiency of transportation services. TTC has limited expansion funds beyond current commitments to the Sheppard Subway. GO Transit has been unable to provide sufficient services to meet existing demand because of the lack of capital to increase the capacity particularly at Union Station. Over 70 per cent of the GTA/H-W arterial road system is congested in peak periods.

- The GTA/H-W municipalities currently spend $570 million annually on capital investment for the 4 pillars of transportation - TTC, GO, regional roads and local transit. This is not adequate to prevent further decline of the system.

- Between 1996 and 2021 the GTA/H-W is expected to grow significantly.

- To improve transit services and reduce road congestion as well as accommodate growth $1.37 billion annual capital investment is required for expansion and maintenance.

- The restructuring of municipal finance has resulted in municipalities bearing the responsibility for all capital costs and operating subsidy of four of the five pillars of transportation with the only revenue sources for both capital costs and operating subsidy being property taxes and development charges. Neither the property tax system nor development charges is capable of generating the revenue necessary to meet the annual gap in transportation funding of $800 million.

- Almost $2 billion annually is taken out of the GTA/H-W in transportation related taxes and fees by the federal and provincial governments.

- The Province invests about $200 million annually in the GTA/H-W highway system. In addition to current municipal spending on transportation, additional transportation funding should come from a combination of sources involving the Provincial and Federal governments including sharing of provincial gas tax revenue, vehicle registration and licensing fees, sales tax on vehicle sales and leasing and strategic investments.

- In addition to the current municipal funding, a partnership of municipal, federal and provincial governments is necessary to secure the funding for the additional required investment in transportation.

(2) City of Toronto Perspective

The GTA/H-W has long been in an enviable position with respect to its transportation systems. Despite the different jurisdictions, transportation in the GTA/H-W acts as one integrated system. The road network accommodates commuters, extensive transit services in the City and the 80 per cent of goods moved by trucks. GO Transit and the TTC are noted for their cost-effective, high-quality services. However, the deferred maintenance and expansion has caused a decline in transportation services which is becoming a major issue in the GTA. The Toronto Board of Trade recently released their report Foundations for Strong City in which it stated:

"Despite an outstanding reputation, Toronto's transit and highway system are not keeping pace with demand. The growing congestion on highways and transit systems poses a genuine threat to the City's economic and social growth."

Transportation is a key determinant of Toronto's health and not meeting the growing demands can have a downward spiraling effect.

Even before the elimination of Provincial subsidies for roads and transit the City's capital investment in transportation was routinely deferred. Improvements to transit will require investments in roads to carry more buses at high levels of service. GO Transit is an essential component of the City's transportation system which provides an alternative to road travel. Without capital investment, particularly in Union Station, GO rail services cannot serve the demand that now exists.

The City's transportation system can be significantly improved to achieve several important objectives. These include improving transit services, reducing road congestion, increasing transit passengers and freeing up road space for goods movement, and accommodation of growth expected over the next 20 years. However, the City and other GTA/H-W municipalities cannot fund the full cost of improvements from the property tax base and development charges. No other jurisdiction in North America supports transit entirely from municipal sources.

As the most important economic region in the country, both the Provincial and Federal governments must recognize the responsibility they have in keeping the GTA/H-W strong. The Federal government's commitments to the Kyoto agreement to reduce green house gases should translate to a commitment to transit. Senior government investment in the TTC, the road system, and GO Transit is clearly necessary to support an area which accounts for 50 per cent of the economic activity of the Province. The TTC has initiated a campaign for gas tax revenue dedicated to public transit. Other jurisdictions in Canada, specifically Montreal and Vancouver, have successfully negotiated revenue sharing of provincial gas tax for public transit.

Conclusions:

A strong unified message from the City and GTA/H-W Regions is key to ensuring that the senior levels of government do not shut the door on their responsibility to fund transportation in the GTA/H-W. If there is conflict among the regions and the City about potential funding allocations, the Federal and Provincial governments will not be receptive to the messages calling for their involvement in funding. Securing alternative sources of revenue from the Provincial and Federal governments, in addition to the funding raised through municipal property tax and development charges, is necessary if the transportation system of the GTA/H-W is to be properly maintained and expanded to accommodate growth, reduce road congestion and increase transit levels of service. The time is now right to send the message that the City of Toronto and the GTA/H-W regions are in full agreement with the need to invest in transportation.

The City of Toronto should support the findings and recommendations of the Task Force on GTA/H-W Transportation Funding and endorse the resolution of the GO Transit Board for a Transportation Funding Partnership with the regions and the Federal and Provincial governments.

Contact:

Anna Pace

Transportation Planning Coordinator

Metro Hall Office

Telephone: (416) 392-8117

Fax: (416)-392-3821

(Report dated April 1999, titled "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area & Hamilton-Wentworth", prepared by IBI Group, Hemson Consulting Ltd., in association with C.N. Watson & Associates, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting on April 19, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received a presentation by Anna Pace and Rod McPhail, City Planning, Urban Planning and Development Services.

Joan Doiron appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the confidential report (April 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a confidential report (April 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Cycling Issues.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) received the two reports (March 15, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(2) endorsed the concept of a Sunday Bike Day as outlined in the communication (April 19, 1999) from Lela Gary, Coordinator, Air Pollution Coalition of Ontario (APCO);

(3) referred this proposal to the Toronto Cycling Committee, and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Toronto Cycling Committee, for consideration and subsequent submission to the Urban Environment and Development Committee as soon as possible, on the following:

(a) an outline of a pilot project for a Sunday Bike Day;

(b) the progress that the Police have made with respect to statistical data on cycling accidents;

(c) issues respecting licensing and enforcement of bicyclists; and

(d) ways of expanding the bicycle path network, both neighbourhood paths and major arterial roads, in all parts of the City and how it can be ensured that the bicycle path network is taken into consideration when capital monies are expended on building new roads or reconstructing existing ones; and

(4) received an overhead presentation on Cycling Issues from Dan Egan, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services.

- (March 3, 1999) from Lela Gary, Coordinator, Air Pollution Coalition of Ontario (APCO) respecting Sunday Bike Day, supporting the proposal for the implementation of a Sunday Bike Day and requesting to make a presentation at the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting;

- (March 15, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services respecting a Review of the Coroner's Report on Cycling Fatalities, reporting on the recommendations of the Coroner's report following two cycling fatalities, and recommending that this report be received for information;

- (March 15, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services respecting Toronto Ranked as 5^th Best Cycling City in North America, advising that the City of Toronto was ranked as the 5^th best cycling City in North America in Bicycling magazine's third survey on the state of cycling in major cities, and recommending that this report be received for information; and

- (March 30, 1999) from Dennis Taves, Founder of Human Powered Vehicles of Southern Ontario, endorsing the proposal of the Air Pollution Coalition to close sections of high-profile Toronto roadways to motorized traffic for the benefit of human-powered recreational pursuits;

- submission titled "Cycling in Toronto", from Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services; and

- (April 19, 1999) from Lela Gary, Coordinator, Air Pollution Coalition of Ontario, forwarding a proposal for the implementation of a "Sunday Bikeday" in Toronto from May 1st to Labour Day weekend every Sunday morning from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. by closing off a section of a parkway to motorized traffic and reserving the space for families, sports enthusiasts and tourists to discover and enjoy the city.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Lela Gary, Coordinator, Air Pollution Coalition of Ontario;

- Kevin Currie, Member, Board of Directors, Green Tourism Association;

- Martin Collier, Community Bicycle Network;

- Jacob Allderdice; and

- Ben Smith Lea.

(b) W.R. Allen Road Underpass at Lawrence Avenue West

Structure Rehabilitation, Contract No. T-20-99, Tender No. 20-1999

(North York Spadina - Ward 8).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the joint report (March 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Chief Financial Office and Treasurer in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended.

(March 29, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising of the results of the Tender issued for the rehabilitation of the W. R. Allen Road Underpass at Lawrence Avenue West in accordance with specifications as prepared by the Works and Emergency Services Department and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder, and recommending that:

(1) Contract No. T-20-99, for the rehabilitation of the W. R. Allen Road Underpass at Lawrence Avenue West be awarded to Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. in the total amount of $2,097,040.00 including all taxes, charges and $150,000.00 in contingencies, being the lowest tender received; and

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(c) Traffic Signal Co-ordination - Danforth Avenue

Between East Lynn Avenue and Woodbine Avenue

(East Toronto - Ward 26).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the report (April 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(April 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to a request of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to report on the implications of removing traffic signal co-ordination on Danforth Avenue between East Lynn Avenue and Woodbine Avenue as a result of complaints related to vehicle speeding on this section of street and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d) Roadway Maintenance on Various Toronto Arterial Roads District One - Contract No. T-6-99, Call No. 25-1999 (Davenport; Don River; Downtown; East Toronto; East York; High Park; Midtown; North Toronto; Trinity-Niagara; York Humber; York-Eglinton - Wards 1, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having awarded the contract as, recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended and subject to approval of the necessary funds by Council contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates.

(March 29, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising of the results of the Tender issued for the roadway maintenance on various Toronto Arterial Roads in District One in accordance with specifications as prepared by the Works and Emergency Services Department and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder and recommending that:

(1) Subject to approval of the necessary funds by Council contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates, Contract No. T-6-99, for roadway maintenance on various Toronto Arterial Roads in District One be awarded to Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. in the total amount of $1,001,765.50 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received; and

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(e) Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts on Toronto Arterial Roads in District One - Contract No. T-5-99, Call No. 42-1999 (Davenport; Don River; Downtown; East Toronto; East York; High Park; Midtown; North Toronto; Trinity-Niagara; York Humber; York-Eglinton - Wards 1, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) awarded the contract as, recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended and subject to approval of the necessary funds by Council contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates.

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to review his department's methods of calculating costs in light of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Policy Paper on cost recovery.

(March 29, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising of the results of the Tender issued for the permanent repairs to utility road cuts on Toronto Arterial Roads in District One in accordance with specifications as prepared by the Works and Emergency Services Department and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder recommending that:

(1) Subject to approval of the necessary funds by Council as contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates, Contract No. T-5-99 for the permanent repairs to utility road cuts on Toronto Arterial Roads in District One be awarded to Ferpac Paving Inc. in the total amount of $1,400,648.73 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received; and

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE

Chair

Toronto, April 19, 1999

(Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.)