| |
|
Improving Speed Limit Compliance on
Major Arterial Roads--Status Report.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to Council for information.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:
(a) to review the British model of traffic enforcement and submit a preliminary report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a similar system in Toronto;
(b) 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;
(c) to review:
(i) the system of roads in each of the former Metro area municipalities in order to identify which roads should be examined in greater depth on a system-wide basis; and
(ii) all collector roads in order to determine whether common policies and priorities may be established with respect thereto;
and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and
(d) to canvass all Members of Council with a view to identifying any traffic control devices which may be dangerous or inappropriate, and submit a report thereon to Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:
Purpose:
To report on the status of the stakeholder consultation regarding improving speed limit compliance on major arterial roads formerly under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto.
Funding Source:
The funds associated with the ongoing tests are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget estimates.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this interim status report be received for information.
Background:
At its meeting on June 4, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Metropolitan Roads". That report contained recommendations that the paper be used as the basis for stakeholder consultation on this issue, and that a report be submitted by December, 1997, on the results of various field tests, and the consultation effort.
Because numerous field tests are underway and will be concluded in the spring of 1998, this is an interim report intended to update Council on the stakeholder consultation and the status of the field tests.
Discussion:
(A) General Comments:
As described in our earlier report, there is a wide variety of factors which influence driver behaviour and it is very difficult to control the speed of vehicles. Most drivers travel at a speed which they consider to be comfortable regardless of the posted speed limits. In the absence of sustained police enforcement, there are seldom significant changes in average vehicle speeds when speed limits are changed on arterial roads.
It is most desirable to operate street systems with traffic flowing at uniform speeds. Drivers are generally more patient, pass less often, and are less likely to tailgate, which reduces the potential for head-on, side-swipe, and rear-end collisions. Appropriate speed limits on major arterial roads are determined by traffic engineering surveys, which include an analysis of roadway conditions, collision records and existing traffic operations and operating speeds.
The establishment of the appropriate speed limit simplifies the work of enforcement officers, because most of the traffic is moving at approximately the same speed. Blatant speeders are easier to identify, safe drivers are not penalized, and police officers are not asked to enforce and defend unrealistic and arbitrary speed limits.
In our earlier report we described a range of tests to measure the effectiveness of certain devices on speed compliance. A table listing the locations of specific field measurements and tests is provided in Appendix 1. We will report on the results of these in a follow-up report later this year.
(B) Functional Road Classifications:
Roads considered in this study were formerly under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto and fall under the classification of major arterial roads. As a result of amalgamation, roads considered in this project will be referred to by their functional classification, rather than as Metropolitan Roads. The following discussion explains the function of major arterial roads in comparison to other roads throughout the City.
A road network is subdivided into a number of road types based upon the scale and function of the individual road sections. This classification system is a hierarchy of road types based upon commonly accepted traffic engineering practices. The six basic classifications for roads, as described in traffic engineering manuals, are:
(i) public lanes--residential/commercial;
(ii) local roads--residential/commercial;
(iii) collector roads--residential/commercial;
(iv) arterial roads--minor/major;
(v) expressways--some at-grade connections; and
(vi) freeways--no at-grade connections.
The classification of a particular road is based on the following criteria:
(i) adjacent land use;
(ii) service function;
(iii) volume;
(iv) flow characteristics;
(v) speed;
(vi) vehicle types; and
(vii) connection to other roads.
Generally, the degree of access to adjacent land uses is indirectly proportional to the degree of mobility provided by the road. For example, local roads usually have unrestricted access to adjacent lands with little or no provision for through traffic, while a freeway has no direct access to adjacent land uses and, consequently, little or no local traffic.
Expected operating speeds also increase within the classification of roads, with public lanes operating in the 10-30 kilometres per hour range up to freeways operating in the 80-120 kilometres per hour range. These speeds are the generally accepted speeds for the different types of roads. However, public opinion of an appropriate speed can vary from location to location depending on the nature of the road and the surrounding land uses. Each stakeholder or user, such as drivers, transit patrons, cyclists, pedestrians and adjacent land owners, may have a different point-of-view and the challenge is to try to accommodate all of the expectations of the different groups.
Since this report deals with speed compliance on major arterial roads, the following general characteristics are presented to describe major arterial roads:
(i) traffic movement is of prime consideration--serves more through movements than local movements;
(ii) usually some degree of access control;
(iii) traffic volumes in the range of 10,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day;
(iv) traffic flow is not expected to be interrupted except at traffic control devices;
(v) operating speeds are in the 50-70 kilometres per hour range;
(vi) can include up to 20 percent heavy trucks and buses;
(vii) cyclists and pedestrians should be accommodated (sidewalks/wider lanes/separate lanes);
(viii) parking restrictions are usually in effect during peak periods;
(ix) intersection spacing is in the 200 metre range;
(x) rights-of-way vary from 20 to 45 metres; and
(xi) generally at least four lanes of travel, with exclusive turn lanes.
Further to point (i), 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 services. 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.
Most of the roads previously under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto can be classified as major arterial roads. As such, operating speeds in the range of 50-70 kilometres per hour can be expected on these roads. However, even within the broad category of arterials, individual roads have different characteristics that change user=s expectations of what operating speed would be appropriate.
(C) Stakeholder Comments on Options to Reduce Speeding:
In mid-1997 the "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance" was initially distributed directly to 27 interest groups plus Metropolitan Toronto Councillors. Many of the Councillors and stakeholders then distributed the report to other interested groups, and staff distributed additional copies in response to requests. In total, 23 responses were received, including written replies, meetings and telephone conversations. The responses included statements of support or opposition for speed limit compliance improvement measures described in our report, suggestions for additional measures and references to relevant research materials. These responses are summarized in Appendix 2 (Table) and Appendix 3 (Summary of Detailed Comments).
Discussion of the Responses:
(i) Reduce Speed Limit (System-Wide):
The reduction of speed limits on a system-wide basis was supported by one stakeholder group. However, five other stakeholder groups were opposed to this measure, and a sixth had concerns about applying this measure without also making physical changes to the roads.
Studies in Toronto and other jurisdictions have identified speed limit reduction to be ineffective in improving speed limit compliance, especially in the absence of continued, dedicated enforcement. In addition, a greater variation in speeds usually results, which increases the risk of head-on, rear-end and side-swipe collisions.
Field tests of the impacts of sustained police enforcement along with lower speed limits are currently underway, and results of these will be reported on in the follow-up report.
(ii) Install Speed Limit Signs (Where Default 50 kilometres per hour Speed Limit Applies):
None of the responding stakeholders commented on this measure which involves the installation of signs where the standard 50 kilometres per hour speed limit applies. Field tests of the effectiveness of advisory speed limit signs on driver behaviour are underway, and the results will be reported in the follow-up report.
(iii) Enforcement:
Increasing the use of manned radar enforcement was supported by nine stakeholder groups, and opposed by none. The Toronto Police Service has purchased six laser speed-measuring devices, and it is expected that the effectiveness of speed limit enforcement will be improved as a result. However, the Toronto Police Service views speeding as one of numerous, equally unsafe traffic infractions occurring throughout the City which need to be enforced by police. The allocation of additional staff hours to speed limit enforcement would be a challenge considering budget reductions. Discussions between Toronto Police Service and Transportation Department staff, regarding special duty enforcement efforts, are focused at the Police divisional level (22 Division in Etobicoke and 31 Division in North York in particular) at this time.
Photo enforcement of speed limits was supported by six stakeholder groups. Two additional groups supported the use of photo radar under specific circumstances, and one group expressed concerns about its impacts on individuals' right to privacy. Five stakeholder groups indicated support for photo enforcement of red light running, and an additional two were supportive under specific conditions.
In a letter to the Commissioner of Transportation dated August 11, 1997, the Minister of Transportation of Ontario indicated opposition to photo enforcement by stating:
"... it is critical that the driver be apprehended and held responsible for his or her actions. Photo enforcement technologies target the licence plate of the vehicle, and thus are directed at the vehicle owner, rather than the driver. Evidence difficulties may arise where the vehicle owner is unable or unwilling to identify the driver. As a result, prosecution of the owner may provide an opportunity for the driver to avoid ministry education programs or sanctions, such as fines, demerit points or licence suspension."
Since the Highway Traffic Act is the responsibility of the Provincial Government, there must be a change in the Provincial Government's position on this issue and appropriate changes in legislation before photo radar can be used in the City of Toronto. The Metropolitan Toronto Council has requested the Ontario Government's permission to use photo enforcement by forwarding the Commissioner of Transportation's reports on speed limit compliance, and on "Running Red Lights" (August 18, 1997) to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. A response has not been received from the Province.
Reports on field tests of sustained enforcement will be included in the follow-up report. An update on the status of photo enforcement will also be included.
(iv) Installation/Timing of Traffic Control Signals:
Five stakeholder groups suggested specific traffic signal timing design practices to improve speed limit compliance. One suggestion was to design the start of green at adjacent signals based upon the speed limit, so that no travel time advantage would be gained by speeding. Another was to reduce the overall green time available to arterial traffic by providing longer walk durations for pedestrians to cross arterial roads, thereby decreasing the duration of green time on the arterial roads. However, another stakeholder group opposed any traffic signal co-ordination practices which would introduce unnecessary stops to vehicular traffic. In addition, some suggested posting signs to advise motorists of the design speed for the prevailing signal co-ordination pattern.
The objective of co-ordinating traffic signals along a route is to reduce stops and delays. This is desirable because it reduces exhaust emissions and fuel consumption. In Toronto, co-ordination is designed to favour the heavy in-bound traffic flow in the morning, and out-bound flow in the afternoon, and to provide the most efficient flow possible in two directions in balanced flow conditions. Co-ordination is based upon the speed limit during times of day when traffic volumes are not at their peak, and is based upon slightly lower speeds during congested periods, because vehicles will be slowed by traffic Afriction@. A number of other factors can affect the start and duration of green times at traffic signals along a route, including minimum pedestrian crossing requirements, priority treatments for turns, and transit priority.
In other jurisdictions, in the few cases where signs are used to advise motorists of the design speed for signal co-ordination, they are generally used on one-way streets where there is no demand to balance co-ordination for both directions of traffic. Therefore adjacent signals usually remain red until each group of vehicles arrives.
None of the stakeholder groups supported the installation of traffic control signals as a measure to improve speed limit compliance, and one group was concerned that the installation of unnecessary signals would result in undue traffic congestion. The installation of traffic control signals is based upon well-established warrants defined by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and criteria developed by the Transportation Department, and there is agreement among the stakeholders and transportation professionals that the installation of unjustified signals would not be an effective means of promoting speed limit compliance.
Staff are currently reviewing co-ordination design practices, and although there appear to be few opportunities, we will investigate whether changes can be made which reduce the likelihood that motorists will speed up between signals, but which do not significantly increase stops and delays.
(v) Traffic-Calming:
The discussion paper made specific reference to reducing corner radii to a minimum in order to increase speed limit compliance. Three stakeholder groups support this practice. However, two stakeholder groups, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Ontario Trucking Association, oppose this practice out of concern that it would decrease the mobility of buses and tractor-trailers, and introduce a risk of these vehicles mounting curbs while making right turns. Clearly, road design practices in Toronto must balance the needs of all sidewalk and road users.
Implementation of other physical traffic-calming measures was supported by two stakeholder groups which promote pedestrian safety. These groups support traffic-calming measures such as raised road surfaces at intersections (speed tables), textured and coloured surfaces in pedestrian crossings, and additional pavement markings in advance of crosswalks at intersections.
One stakeholder expressed a specific concern that the installation of unnecessary four-way stop control in an area can reduce motorists' compliance with stop control in general, and even result in right-angle collisions at existing two-way stop intersections. Another expressed a concern that physical traffic-calming measures are inappropriate for arterial roads.
Three stakeholders opposed the use of traffic-calming on major arterial roads, two were of the opinion that implementation of traffic-calming will increase peak period congestion on alternate routes, and the third felt that many physical traffic-calming elements reduce travel times of public transit vehicles more than travel times of passenger cars. There are additional considerations related to physical measures intended to significantly reduce motorists' speeds on roads with a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour or more. Large variations in vehicle speeds are known to increase the risk of rear-end and side swipe collisions, and emergency vehicle response times may be lengthened as a result of increased congestion.
Although there is some stakeholder support for physical traffic-calming measures, it is generally accepted by transportation professionals that physical traffic-calming elements such as speed tables and speed bumps are suitable only for local roadways intended for low speed operations. Therefore, these types of treatments are not appropriate for major arterial roads in the City of Toronto.
(vi) School Speed Zones:
Concerns about the implementation of school speed zones are expressed by one respondent, Durham Region. The concerns are based upon 1996 studies conducted by Durham Region staff, which found a decrease in speed limit compliance, and an increase in the range of vehicle speeds, following implementation of three school speed zones. These results are consistent with those found in reports by the City of Hamilton (1994) and the City of Edmonton (1996).
The effect of the implementation of school speed zones supported by sustained police enforcement is currently being studied, and the results and conclusions from this work will be included in the follow-up report.
(vii) Pavement Marking Modifications:
Three stakeholder groups supported the installation of "shared lane" pavement markings as a speed compliance improvement measure. AShared lane@ is the name given to the placement of white bicycle logos in the road adjacent to the curb. None opposed this measure; however, the Toronto Transit Commission would be concerned about any pavement marking changes resulting in lane widths less that the 3.2 metre width of a bus, including its mirrors. Test sites for "Shared lane" and white edge line pavement marking treatments do include some lane width reductions; however, the pavement marking modifications will not result in lane widths less than 3.3 metres. The results of these field tests will be included in the follow-up report.
Two groups support the white edge line treatment; however, the Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee had a specific concern about this treatment: that debris and snow would accumulate to the right of the line, making it unattractive for cyclists. Tests of the white edge line pavement marking treatment are in progress, and special attention will be paid to the maintenance of the pavement to the right of the line during field observations. Results will be included in the follow-up report.
Narrowing the width of traffic lanes was supported by three stakeholder groups. The Toronto Transit Commission's concern about lane widths less than 3.2 metres also applies to this measure. In addition, staff of the former City of Toronto expressed concern that narrowing curb lanes might compromise cyclists' safety. Clearly, there is a need to balance the interests of all users in determining safe and appropriate lane widths. Field test results will help to quantify the benefits of lane width reductions in improving speed limit compliance, and conclusions will be included in the follow-up report.
(viii) Co-ordination of all Design Elements to Support Speed Limit:
Six stakeholders supported the concept of co-ordinating all design and operational elements, including road alignment, streetscaping, presence or absence of on-street parking, number and spacing of accesses and other elements to support a road's speed limit. This strategy is also supported by many transportation professionals. In a March, 1997, study by Transport Canada, entitled "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review", it was reported that a combination of measures has successfully resulted in speed reductions.
Data is being collected at a number of sites throughout the City to assess the degree of speed limit compliance as a function of certain road design elements and the surrounding environment. On the basis of this data, we expect to be able to establish that different road design elements and different types of adjacent land use affect the general operating speed of vehicles using our roads.
(ix) Public Traffic Safety Programs:
This strategy for improving speed limit compliance was supported by nine stakeholder groups, and opposed by none. Specific suggestions included: advertising campaigns encouraging drivers to value safety over speed and convenience, and to counteract the social acceptability of speeding; improved driver training programs for high school students; and advertisement of police speed enforcement campaigns.
An expert in the theory of motorists' risk assumption, Dr. Gerald Wilde from Queen's University, suggests that positive reinforcement of speed limit compliance would be more effective than occasionally penalizing speeders. For instance, Dr. Wilde suggests reductions in licensing fees and insurance rates for drivers with a number of years of violation-free driving. Implementation of this type of program would require the co-operation of the Province of Ontario, and private insurance companies.
The Toronto Police Services Board identified a number of current programs aimed at combatting aggressive driving in the report, entitled "Traffic Enforcement: Red Light Violations" (June 3, 1997). Field tests are currently underway to determine the impacts of a highly publicized, intensive speed limit enforcement campaign. The results of this work will be included in the follow-up report.
(D) Additional Measures Recommended by Stakeholders:
(i) Discourage Automobile Manufacturers from Advertising which Promotes Speeding:
This suggestion was made by three of the stakeholder groups. Notably, in their 1996-97 Statement of Policy, the Canadian Automobile Association recommends that "the motor vehicle industry should not advertise motor vehicles by demonstrating unsafe manoeuvres and/or high speed operation of the vehicles as drivers may be tempted to copy these dangerous acts." Staff are in agreement with this position and will suggest means of dealing with this issue further in the follow-up report.
(ii) Support "Zero Tolerance" Enforcement of Speed Limits:
This recommendation was also made by multiple stakeholders. Currently, Toronto Police officers use their discretion when determining whether to warn drivers or what severity to charge drivers for speeding offenses.
(iii) Use Variable Message Signs for Driver Feedback ("Roadside Speedometers"):
A number of stakeholders suggested this strategy. The concept includes an automatic speed measuring device, and a variable message sign which displays the vehicle's speed to the motorist. The Transport Canada report, entitled "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review" (March, 1997), indicates that this has been effective in reducing speeds of the fastest drivers and increasing speed limit compliance in some circumstances. The authors recommend that the strategy is effective in localized areas, for instance near schools, when supported by occasional police enforcement. However, if it is not supported by enforcement, or other legal methods of stopping the drivers in order to convey a message, some drivers would accelerate in order to trigger and register a higher speed on the device. The most appropriate location for these devices may be in front of schools where they are operated by the police in co-operation with children, parents and teachers. They are not recommended for system-wide application on arterial roads.
(iv) Investigate the City of Kingston's "Traffic Offender Program":
At the suggestion of a stakeholder group, the "Traffic Offender Program" run by Kingston Police was investigated by staff. Since April, 1996, the City of Kingston permits officers apprehending motorists for speeding (and other Highway Traffic Act violations) to give the motorist the option of completing the Traffic Offender Program. The program requires payment of a $55.00 fee, and successful completion of a written test. Certain conditions, such as a previous charge within a one-year period, disqualify motorists from being given this option. The program is currently a pilot project and does not have the support of the Provincial Government at this time. The Toronto Police Service is aware of the program, and is monitoring the progress of the pilot. However, a program like this may not be appropriate for a City as large as Toronto.
(v) Community Watch Programs:
Stakeholders also suggested that community-based watch programs could assist the Toronto Police Service in focusing limited enforcement resources. The recent decentralization of the Toronto Police Service's traffic units to its 17 divisions has enabled officers to concentrate on problems specific to their communities. Community Police Liaison Committees identify problem areas to the police divisions, and prioritize responses based upon the particular community's needs.
(vi) Ensure that Government-Owned Vehicles Comply with Speed Limits:
It was suggested that staff driving City of Toronto vehicles, including transit vehicles, set an example by never speeding. Further, one stakeholder suggested that a telephone number for public comment be displayed on these vehicles. This suggestion has merit, and opportunities to implement such a plan on City of Toronto fleet vehicles at low cost may arise if the logos and wordmarks on City vehicles are updated. A message similar to the "How's My Driving" caption currently displayed on transport trucks may also be appropriate. More study is required with respect to the design of this message, the opportunities to install it and the logistics of its use.
Conclusion:
The stakeholder consultation process has yielded valuable input into the study of improving speed limit compliance on major arterial roads. Once field tests are completed this spring, staff will submit a final report on the issues and conclusions, which will reflect input received during the consultation process.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Mr. Peter Hillier, Senior Manager, Traffic Regions, 392-5348.
Appendix 1
Summary of Speed Compliance Devices Being Measured
|
Traffic Control |
Specific Actions |
Location |
|
Reduce Speed Limit |
Reduce speed limit to 40 kilometres per hour
|
Spadina Crescent |
|
|
Reduce speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour |
Victoria Park Avenue:
Eglinton Avenue East to St. Clair Avenue East |
|
|
Reduce speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour |
Islington Avenue:
South of Eglinton Avenue West to Dundas Street West |
|
|
Reduce speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour |
Kipling Avenue:
South of Eglinton Avenue West to Dundas Street West |
|
Install Speed Limit Signs |
Install signs to reinforce
50 kilometres per hour speed limit |
O'Connor Drive:
Don Mills Road to Coxwell Avenue |
|
|
Install advisory speed limit signs (50 kilometres per hour) |
Weston Road:
Sheppard Avenue West to Walsh Avenue |
|
School Speed Zones |
Install school speed zone
(40 kilometres per hour) |
Keele Street:
Near Glenlake Avenue |
|
|
Install school speed zone
(40 kilometres per hour) |
Dundas Street:
Broadview Avenue to Logan Avenue |
|
Police Radar Enforcement |
Enforce in combination with advisory Speed Limit Signs |
Weston Road:
Sheppard Avenue West to Walsh Avenue |
|
|
Enforce in combination with School Speed Zone |
Keele Street:
Near Glenlake Avenue |
|
|
Enforce in combination with School Speed Zone |
Dundas Street:
Broadview Avenue to Logan Avenue |
|
|
Enforce in combination with Reduced Speed Limit |
Islington Avenue:
South of Eglinton Avenue West to Dundas Street West |
|
|
Enforce in combination with Reduced Speed Limit |
Kipling Avenue:
South of Eglinton Avenue West to Dundas Street West |
|
Pavement Marking/Lane Width Modifications
|
Install AShared Lane@ bicycle pavement marking treatment |
Spadina Avenue:
Bloor Street West to Richmond Street West |
|
|
Install AShared Lane@ bicycle pavement marking treatment and signs |
Scarlett Road:
Eglinton Avenue West to St. Clair Avenue West |
|
|
Install AShared Lane@ bicycle pavement marking treatment |
McCowan Road:
Sandhurst Circle to Steeles Avenue East |
|
|
Install AShared Lane@ bicycle pavement marking treatment |
Markham Road:
Finch Avenue East to Steeles Avenue East |
|
|
Install White Edge Line pavement marking treatment |
Finch Avenue West:
Weston Road to Islington Avenue West |
|
|
Install White Edge Line pavement marking treatment
|
Lawrence Avenue East:
Warden Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue |
|
|
Install two way centre left-turn lane and narrow through lanes |
Kennedy Road:
Lawrence Avenue East to Eglinton Avenue East |
|
|
Install exclusive bicycle lane and narrow through lanes |
Lake Shore Boulevard:
22nd Street to 31st Street (westbound only) |
|
|
Install exclusive bicycle lanes and narrow through lanes |
Lake Shore Boulevard:
Palace Pier Court to Louisa Street |
|
|
Narrow through lanes |
Avenue Road:
Dupont Street to St. Clair Avenue West |
|
|
Install centre median and narrow through lanes |
Lake Shore Boulevard:
Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue
|
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Metro Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Metropolitan Roads", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on June 4, 1997.
The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway--Humber; and
- Councillor John Adams, Midtown.
(A copy of Appendices 2 and 3 to the foregoing report dated January 20, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
|
