CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 9 of the North York Community Council, to be considered by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting to be held on October 26, 27 and 28, 1999.

17

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(f) Proposed Road Classification System.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following reports to its next meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) requested the Works Committee to defer consideration of this matter which is expected to be considered by the Works Committee at its meeting scheduled for November 3, 1999, in order to allow the North York Community Council an opportunity to forward its comments and/or recommendations regarding this issue;

(2) having noted the following motion which would be tabled at the next meeting for consideration:

By Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina:

"that the staff recommendations be adopted;

that Section 6 of the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding sidewalks be further elaborated upon and a sidewalk classification system be developed;

that traffic calming measures on any street, that carries a public transit route, regardless of the classification, shall be referred to the Toronto Transit Commission for comment and referred to the Works Committee;

that generally North York Community Council supports the position that transit routes shall be free of traffic calming measures that inhibit transit vehicles;"

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a comprehensive report to the North York Community Council for its next meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999, commenting on the requests put forward in the following motions:

(a) By Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights:

"that local, collector and minor arterial roads in Ward 12 be designated at the lowest speed limit as allowed per their category;

that major arterials in Ward 12 be designated at the lowest speed limit as allowed per their category;

that the following roads be classified as Local:

Blithfield Road;

Citation Drive ;

Bayview Mews;

Hawksbury Drive from Elkhorn to Sheppard Avenue;

Burbank Drive;

Ruddington Drive;

Tollerton Avenue;

Heathview Avenue;

that the following road be classified as a Collector:

McNicoll Avenue for Gordon Baker Road to Bayview Avenue"

(b) By Councillor Flint, North York Centre South:

"the following roads be reclassified as outlined:

from Collector to Local:

Broadway Avenue;

Lord Seaton Road, from The Links Road to Masters Road;

Masters Road;

Montressor Road, between Masters Road and Toba Drive;

Fifeshire Road, between Knollwood Street and Toba Drive;

Vyner Road;

Forest Heights Boulevard;

Harrison Road, north of Berkindale Drive;

Park Lane Circle;

Lawrence Avenue East, west of Park Lane Circle;

from Arterial to Local:

Lawrence Avenue East, from Banbury Road west to new Lawrence Avenue East (two houses);

from Arterial to Collector:

Lawrence Avenue East, from Blaine Drive to The Bridle Path;

from Local to Collector:

Mill Street;

Wm. Carson Crescent;

Mildenhall Road, between Lawrence Avenue East and Blythwood Road;

Upper Canada Drive;

Montressor Drive, between Upper Canada Drive and Toba Drive;

Fifeshire Road, between Toba Drive and Bayview Avenue;

Fifeshire Road, between Knollwood Street to Bayview Avenue;

Banff Road, between Broadway Avenue and Eglinton Avenue;

Gerald Road, between Berkindale Drive and Truman Road;

Old Leslie Street, from Leslie Street to Sheppard Avenue East;

Bannatyne Drive, from Vyner Road to Silvergrove Road;

Woodsworth Road;

The Links, from Lord Seaton; and

Tournament Drive"

(c) By Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway:

"the following roads be reclassified as outlined:

from Collector to Local:

Cassandra Boulevard;

Fenside Drive;

Lyndock Crescent;

Roywood Drive;

Three Valleys Drive;

from Minor to Collector:

Sloane Avenue"

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, who also filed a copy of her written submission with the Clerk; and

- Ms. Helen Hansen, Feet on the Street, who also filed a copy of her written submission with the Clerk.

(October 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, providing further information as requested by the North York Community Council and recommending that the report be received as information; and

(July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works Committee at its meeting held on July 14, 1999, referred the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a Proposed Road Classification System to all Community Councils for consideration and requested that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

October 8, 1999

To: North York Community Council

From: Director, Transportation Programming and Policy

Subject: Proposed Road Classification System - Follow-up Report

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to requests from the North York Community Council for further information on this matter.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendation in this report has no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The North York Community Council, at its September 14, 1999 meeting, in considering a report dated June 29, 1999 on this matter, which was referred to all Community Councils by the Works Committee at its July 14, 1999 meeting, deferred consideration of the matter until its October 12, 1999 meeting and requested a further report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding:

(I) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that the proposed northerly extension of Transit Road to Chesswood Drive and the southerly extension of Transit Road to Dufferin Street being classified as a minor arterial road;

(ii) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that Glencairn Avenue, west of Dufferin Street to Ennerdale Street, being re-classified as a collector road;

(iii) the feasibility of extending Tangiers Road northerly to Murray Ross Parkway in order to improve public transit to York University; and the feasibility of Tangiers Road being classified as a collector road; that this report be written in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission;

(iv) the feasibility of amending the proposed road classification of Shoreham Drive and Gosford Boulevard from a collector road to a minor arterial road;

(v) the feasibility of reclassifying Empress Avenue as a local road.

(vi) a process for allocating funds for traffic signals and pedestrian crosswalks to each Community Council on a per capita basis, in addition to the existing budget used for such purposes;

(vii) a policy to reduce speed limits on minor and major arterial roads near schools, through the Community Councils;

(viii) the various services in connection with the proposed road classifications; and

(ix) the rationale used to classify roads such as Arrow Road, Trethewey Drive and Ingram Drive as minor arterial roads.

North York Community Council also requested staff to:

(1) meet with the Ward Councillors to review the proposed classification of the roads and the recommended speed limits for those roads; and

(2) determine the road classifications in each Ward in consultation with the Ward Councillors.

In addition, the Works Committee at its July 14, 1999 meeting requested that Community Councils submit their comments on this matter to the Works Committee for consideration at its meeting on November 3, 1999.

Discussion:

The details of each of the streets requested to be reviewed by Community Council are contained in the attached Table A: "Review of Proposed Road Classifications - North York". Changes to proposed classifications recommended by staff, as noted in Table A, will be included in recommendations within an upcoming staff report to the November 3, 1999 Works Committee meeting. The classification of a number of other streets is being reviewed at the request of various Ward Councillors and others and any recommended changes arising from these reviews will be brought forward to the Works Committee at this time.

The setting of road classifications for as-yet unbuilt roads (including the extension of Tangiers Road) should be done as part of the development review process and is not practicable within the current road classification process. A further report developed in conjunction with the TTC will be forwarded to Community Council on the feasibility of extending Tangiers Road. Extensions to Transit Road have already been approved by City Council and this road in its entirety should be classified as a minor arterial road based on its characteristics.

The following sections deal with the policy issues raised by the Community Council:

General Comments

A common theme that has been expressed by some in the review of the road classification system is the relationship between road classification and the long term transportation policy of the City. The City does not currently have a long term transportation policy. This policy will be developed as part of the City=s Strategic Plan and Official Plan development exercises. However, the development of the road classification system was done in recognition of existing transportation policies contained in the former municipalities and the likely direction that the new Strategic and Official Plans will take with respect to transportation in the new City.

The development of a made- in-Toronto road classification system was undertaken to assist staff and to inform the public regarding the operation of the existing roads in the City and to respond to City Council=s direction that a new road classification system and accompanying policies be developed to clarify decision-making regarding road operation matters. In this context, the road classification system is a tool in the management of the road system and while it articulates a number of traffic operations policies, it is not a stategic policy instrument of Council. The road classification system was not developed to meet all of the strategic needs of the City that are more properly undertaken as part of the development of long term transportation policy.

A number of changes to the road classification criteria and decision-making mechanism (Commitee routing) are being proposed by staff based on feedback from Community Councils and Ward Councillors and in response to concerns raised by deputants. These changes will be discussed in our upcoming report to the Works Committee. Of particular significance is the treatment of legal speed limits for major arterial roads, which were previously described as ranging from 50 km/h to 80 km/h. This range had been used to include those major arterial roads with speed limits above 60 km/h. Recognizing concerns that this appeared to suggest that other major arterial roads would now have their speed limits raised, this range has been modified to "50 km/h to 60 km/h".

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Crossover Funding

Allocating funds for traffic signals and pedestrian crossovers to Community Councils on a per capita basis would be undesirable because traffic signals should be installed where warranted and needed based on defined criteria. In the 1999 Capital Budget for Transportation Services, $1.6 million was allocated for the installation of new traffic control signals across the City. This will permit the installation of 19 new signals this year. Currently, there are 6 signals approved for installation in 2000 and a further 15 locations are under review. The priority for installation of new signals is based on a systematic approach which allocates funding based on safety needs. A City-wide budget allows for these facilities to be provided on a rational basis, according to a system of technical warrants which recognizes traffic volumes, safety and delay. Per capita funding could result in some needed areas being underfunded and others overfunded relative to the specific safety needs.

Reduction of Speed Limits Near Schools

This issue is being dealt with in a separate initiative. Community Safety Zones have been installed in a number of trial locations and a follow-up report will be presented to a future Works Committee meeting. The setting of speed limits on major arterial roads is an issue which should be debated at the Works Committee, rather than Community Councils, because of the City-wide significance of major arterial roads.

Service Levels

The service levels associated with the proposed road classifications have been discussed in the June 29, 1999 report. References to service levels are found in the introduction and are discussed extensively in the section "Traffic Operations Policies, Road Classification and Committee Routing". Service levels for snow-clearing have been of concern to many councillors and residents. As noted in the report, "a higher level of service for snow clearing is appropriate on roads of higher classification ...". Work is underway on finalising the priorities for winter service and this process will be harmonized with the road classification exercise, prior to the Works Committee meeting on November 3, 1999. Priority for winter maintenance activities depends not only on the significance of particular streets in terms of their motor vehicle traffic carrying capacity, but also on the factors such as the presence of bus or streetcar service, bicycle lanes and pedestrians. The road classification also includes these factors. Other factors, however, are included in determining winter service priority which are not included in road classification. Examples are hills, bends and dead-end streets, all of which result in increased priority for snow clearance, but which are not factors in determining road classification.

Contact Name:

Andrew Macbeth

Manager, Operational Planning and Policy

Tel: 397-5778

Fax: 392-4426

T. W. Mulligan

Director, Transportation Programming and Policy

AGM/fc

Attach.

Table A: Review of Proposed Road Classifications - North York

1. Road classifications prior to amalgamation of North York within the new City of Toronto.

2. Transit Road exists from Wilson Road to William R. Allen Road and was formerly classified as a local road. When the extensions are built, the road will function as a minor arterial road and should be classified accordingly. Traffic and transit volumes in the table are estimates of current conditions.

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 8 of the North York Community Council, to be considered by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting to be held on September 28, 29, and 30, 1999.

24

(c) Proposed Road Classification System.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999.

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested a further report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding:

(i) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that the proposed northerly extension of Transit Road to Chesswood Drive and the southerly extension of Transit Road to Dufferin Street being classified as a minor arterial road;

(ii) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that Glencairn Avenue, west of Dufferin Street to Ennerdale Street, being re-classified as a collector road;

(iii) the feasibility of extending Tangiers Road northerly to Murray Ross Parkway in order to improve public transit to York University; and the feasibility of Tangiers Road being classified as a collector road; that this report be written in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission;

(iv) the feasibility of amending the proposed road classification of Shoreham Drive and Gosford Boulevard from a collector road to a minor arterial road;

(v) the feasibility of reclassifying Empress Avenue as a local road.

(vi) a process for allocating funds for traffic signals and pedestrian crosswalks to each Community Council on a per capita basis, in addition to the existing budget used for such purposes;

(vii) a policy to reduce speed limits on minor and major arterial roads near schools, through the Community Councils;

(viii) the various services in connection with the proposed road classifications; and

(ix) the rationale used to classify roads such as Arrow Road, Trethewey Drive and Ingram Drive as minor arterial roads.

The North York Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having requested the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, to:

(1) meet with the Ward Councillors to review the proposed classification of the roads and the recommended speed limits for those roads; and

(2) determine the road classifications in each Ward in consultation with the Ward Councillors .

A recorded vote on an amendment moved by Councillor Berger, to amend the recommendation moved by Councillor Shiner, to delete the words Afor the purposes of scheduling a public hearing@ after the words AOctober 12, 1999", so that the recommendation now reads AThe North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999", was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST: Councillors Flint, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Feldman

Carried

(July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works Committee at its meeting held on July 14, 1999, referred the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a Proposed Road Classification System to all Community Councils for consideration and requested that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

July 14, 1999

To: North York Community Council

From: City Clerk

Subject: Proposed Road Classification System

The Works Committee reports having concurred in the recommendation of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services embodied in the report dated June 29, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and in so doing, refers this report to all Community Councils for consideration, and requests that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

The Works Committee further reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit comments on the proposed road classification system to the Committee at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

Background:

The Works Committee on July 14, 1999, had before it a report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the consolidation of the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamated municipalities into a single, consistent system, and the clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees with respect to traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system; and recommending that this report be referred to all Community Councils for consideration, and that their comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted material respect thereto.

City Clerk

Trudy Perrin/es.25

Sent to: Community Councils

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

c: General Manager, Transportation Services

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick

(Report dated June 29, 1999 addressed to the

Works Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Consolidate the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamating municipalities into a single, consistent system;

2. Classify roads in Toronto according to the new road classification system;

3. Clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees with respect to traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system; and

4. Phase in the delegation of responsibilities of Community Councils and Standing Committees with respect to these matters.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendation in this report has no direct financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be referred to all Community Councils for consideration and that their comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

Background:

City Council at its meeting on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled AThe Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure@ which contained a report dated June 13, 1998 from the Chief Administrative Officer on this matter. At its meeting, City Council resolved, amongst other things, that:

"(1) to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

(a) Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and Community Councils and adoption by Council; and

(c) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities;

(2) the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways and public transit, and that input be required from the Toronto Transit Commission on any changes to roads on which regularly scheduled transit vehicles operate."

At its meeting on February 2, 3, and 4, 1999 City Council also adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure" which contained a November 26, 1998 report from the Chief Administrative Officer. This Clause outlines, amongst other things, a new committee structure for implementation which became effective June 1, 1999. In particular, the portfolio of the Works Committee (formerly the Works and Utilities Committee) has been expanded to include >road and traffic operations= and >road allowances and related issues=. Accordingly, this report and any subsequent ones on related matters will be considered by the Works Committee, rather than the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Discussion:

Introduction

A street network performs most efficiently and safely from a traffic operations perspective if roads are designated and operated to serve their intended purpose. Local roads serve primarily to provide access to properties and serve a relatively minor role in the wider City context for carrying traffic. Consequently, traffic volumes and speeds on these roads should be low. Conversely, expressways carry high volumes of traffic at relatively high speeds. Collector streets serve to collect and distribute traffic between local streets and higher order roads. Arterial roads (with the expressway system) provide the major corridors for traffic movement.

A classification system designates streets into different groups according to the type of service each group is intended to provide and is a fundamental tool for urban development and road management. Grouping roads with similar function can improve transportation planning, road infrastructure design and maintenance, and traffic and road operations.

But while road classification can help meet the needs of communities for transportation service, just as importantly, it can help protect against the adverse impacts of traffic in neighbourhoods. Some roads should carry higher volumes of traffic at higher speeds, while others (the majority) carry lower volumes at lower speeds. This allows neighbourhoods to flourish between main traffic corridors. The absence of a hierarchy of roads could result in increased traffic in neighbourhoods, less efficient routes for traffic (including transit) with associated increases in the time and cost of transporting people and goods and a reduced quality of life.

Each of Toronto=s seven former municipalities had a slightly different approach to, and purpose for, road classification, although the general concept of having a road hierarchy was common. They all had policies related to the development, design, operation and maintenance of roads, and to differing degrees these were referenced to a road classification system. In some cases these policies were consolidated in Official Plans. East York, Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto, North York and York had road classifications in their Official Plans while Scarborough and Toronto did not. Metropolitan Toronto and Scarborough had definitions of road rights-of-way in their Official Plans.

Various traffic operations policies had been established by Council decision or departmental practice in each of the municipalities. The main purpose of these policies was to provide a framework for the development and management of the road system, particularly for use by planning and transportation staff. This policy framework also provided a useful context for elected representatives when dealing with issues that required a Council decision.

Some of these policies were not explicitly referenced to a classification system, although there was an implicit connection. By virtue of the existence of national and provincial standards and guidelines as well as historical agreements among the former seven jurisdictions, most individual policies and practices were inherently part of a commonly accepted system of road classification.

Although many of the policies developed by the former seven jurisdictions were similar, there were also differences. With the new City now having responsibility for all roads, there is a need to develop a harmonized classification system, as was recognized by Council in referring this matter to staff for a report. This will provide a consistent policy and planning framework, not only for transportation and planning staff, but also for the various standing committees and Community Councils, the public and other stakeholders. This report summarises staff efforts to harmonize the road classification system. The proposed system, and the resulting hierarchical road network, will assist in developing a safe and effective transportation system, to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Purpose of a Road Classification System

According to the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Manual of Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads - 1986, road classification is Athe orderly grouping of roads into systems according to the type and degree of service they provide to the public.@

A road classification system groups streets in a hierarchical manner with different groups performing different functions. The hierarchy provides for a gradation in service with high traffic service levels and no access to abutting properties for the highest order roads (expressways) and conversely low traffic service levels but full property access for local roads. Between these two extremes, arterial roads provide relatively high traffic service levels with some property access, while on collector roads, traffic service and property access are equally important. Collectors, as their name implies, serve to collect traffic from local streets and provide access to arterial roads, which then may connect to expressways. Collectors also can be thought of as distributors of traffic from the main roads to the minor roads. As would be expected, traffic volumes are typically higher on higher level roads than on lower level roads.

Other characteristics of streets are dependent on road classification too. Speed limits and traffic operating speeds tend to be higher on higher level streets; higher level roads are generally wider with more traffic lanes; and bus and streetcar service is generally concentrated on arterial and collector roads.

Road classification can assist with the coordination and planning of land use and transportation. It can help with the establishment of designated road right-of-way widths and design standards for access control, road cross-sections, pavement structure, drainage systems, sidewalks and boulevards and street lighting. It can assist with the establishment of traffic operations standards and guidelines for traffic control devices, pavement markings, on-street parking and stopping restrictions, speed limits and pedestrian and cycling facilities.

Road classification can help with the organization of data and information for road design and traffic operations. It can assist with the establishment of standards and guidelines for snow removal, street cleaning and litter removal, and pavement, sidewalk and boulevard reconstruction and maintenance. It can also be used in the development of guidelines for right-of-way management for the accommodation of utilities, advertising, vendors and banners and pennants.

A road classification system not only provides a fundamental management tool for transportation and planning staff, but users of the road network as well as communities derive benefits from its existence and consistent application. Formalized road classifications help residents, residents= groups, business people and other stakeholders have a clear understanding of the function of particular roads.

Development of a New Road Classification System for the City of Toronto

Most road management authorities establish classification systems for their specific area of responsibility to assist in the development, design, operation and maintenance of the road network. Associations of these authorities typically produce guidelines on the elements of a classification system, and in Canada, the most widely used guideline is published by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). ATable U. A. 5 - Characteristics of urban streets@ was published in the 1995 Urban Supplement to the above-noted TAC manual, and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The TAC table is not sufficiently explicit to permit easy classification of Toronto=s streets. For example, a road carrying between 10,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day could be classified as an Aindustrial/commercial collector@, a Aminor arterial@, a Amajor arterial@ or even an Aexpressway@.

City staff therefore have adapted this table to reflect Toronto conditions. The new table, ARoad Classification Criteria@ dated June 1999 (attached as Table 1) has been developed to guide road classification and to assist in determining appropriate transportation policies and practices for different road types. Table 1 should not be used in isolation but should be considered in conjunction with this report. A road hierarchy consisting of five road types (expressways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and locals) has been defined. This closely matches the existing classification systems from the amalgamating municipalities.

There are a number of refinements in the new road classification table which reflect Toronto=s experience. In particular, the traffic volumes have been made more explicit (and non-overlapping), the characteristic Aparking restrictions@ has been deleted and replaced by Anumber of peak period traffic lanes@. The most significant characteristics in the new table (and the original TAC table) are the relative importance of traffic movement versus property access, the daily traffic volume and the flow characteristics (ranging from Ainterrupted flow@ for local roads to Afree-flow (grade-separated)@ for expressways). These characteristics are intended to be mostly descriptive, but they may also serve a prescriptive role. In other words, they should describe existing characteristics of streets in each class, and assist in the classification of individual streets, but they may also help in determining appropriate changes to land use, property access, traffic operations or road operations on particular streets, so that in future these streets will be able to operate more as intended in the network.

One of the problems associated with the designation of arterial roads in Toronto (or any existing city) is that different design and operating characteristics apply at different points along the length of many of these roads because of their varied historic land use. The City is comprised of numerous distinct areas, particularly in the former inner three municipalities (East York, Toronto and York) which results in arterial roads having different characteristics from those normally associated with arterial roads. For example, traffic movement tends to be less dominant as access remains an important function in the numerous commercial areas of the City (such as Weston, Downsview, Spadina Village or Bayview Village), many of which were thriving towns independent of the original Toronto. The arterial roads through these former towns not only provided access for customers and suppliers, but also acted as main corridors for local residents and other traffic. As land redevelopment and periodic road reconstruction occur, opportunities will arise to standardise the design standards on streets of each class, but there will always be some differences between roads of the same class, reflecting the different historic backgrounds and existing urban forms of neighbourhoods.

Toronto has numerous lanes. They have not been included in the road classification systems of the former municipalities and are not included in the system proposed here. There is little ambiguity between local streets and lanes, and there is little likelihood of lanes becoming streets or vice-versa.

Proposed Road Classification System

The former AMetro@ roads (including the Don Valley Parkway and the F.G. Gardiner Expressway), with the A400 series@ provincial highways formed the backbone of the previous road system. In addition, the six local governments also had various arterial, collector and local roads. The road classification systems of the seven former municipalities are paraphrased in Appendix 2: Road Classification Systems of the Former Municipalities.

In classifying Toronto=s streets, a daily motor vehicle volume of 2,500 (total traffic in both directions) has been used as the dividing line between local streets and collectors, and a daily traffic volume in excess of 8,000 indicates that a road is probably a minor arterial. A traffic volume over 20,000 vehicles per day suggests a major arterial. These numbers are not rigid, however, as all the characteristics are used to a lesser or greater degree to determine a street=s classification. For example, Dundas Street through much of its length in the former City of Toronto carries around 17,000 motor vehicles per day (suggesting a minor arterial status on first appearances) and a busy streetcar route carrying up to 10,000 passengers a day (depending on the location). It should, however, receive the higher level snow clearance accorded to major arterials, and is designated major arterial rather than minor, from Dufferin Street to Parliament Street. In this case, the high transit ridership on the street needs to be reflected in the classification so that transportation operations policies, such as parking management and snow removal, are supportive of a road which is important for the movement of many people.

Traffic signal installations are also indicative of collector or arterial roads. Consequently, local streets should not all be connected with arterial roads by traffic signals because this would undermine the capacity of the arterial road system. Instead, a few collector streets should have signalized intersections at the arterial roads so that residents can access the arterial road system safely at these points from neighbourhoods.

The resulting classification of all streets in the City is contained in Appendix 3: AClassification of City Streets@ (attached), which lists all City-owned streets explicitly except local streets. Some 63% of the 5400 km of public streets in Toronto are local, 13% are collector, 8% are minor arterial, 13% are major arterial (including ramps) and 2.5% are expressways. The breakdown by Community Council area is quantified in Table 2: AComparison of Streets by Class and Community Council Area@ (attached). Generally speaking, the proposed major arterial roads are roughly equivalent to the former AMetro@ roads. Minor arterial roads are mostly the former Cities= arterial roads. Most proposed collector and local roads have retained their former classification.

Traffic Operations Policies, Road Classification and Committee Routing

Most traffic operations policies and characteristics are influenced by classification, including speed limits, truck restrictions, road widths, number of lanes, traffic signal location, transit route selection, bicycle facility location and parking and stopping regulations. A number of these are directly identified in Table 1: ARoad Classification Criteria@. Other policies are not easily summarised for inclusion in the table but are nevertheless important, and are discussed below.

Numerous land use, traffic and road operations matters are considered by standing committees and Community Councils with recommendations forwarded to City Council for final decisions. It is Council=s intention that as many of these transportation matters as practicable should be delegated to Community Councils rather than standing committees. Matters of strategic significance where amalgamated City policies are not in place or where deviations from policies are being proposed will still need to be referred to standing committees. It is recommended that transportation matters relating to land development and transportation planning which are beyond the mandate of Community Councils be directed to the Planning and Transportation Committee. Other strategic transportation issues, including the establishment or amendment of traffic operations policies, should be considered by the Works Committee. Most matters concerning major arterial roads and all matters concerning expressways which require City Council decisions should be considered by the Works Committee. Table 3: ARoad and Traffic Operations Policy Decision Routing@ (attached) summarises the committee routing for these issues and should be used together with this report. More guidance on the interaction between road classification and traffic issues is provided below.

1. Traffic Service versus Property Access

Higher classification roads have less of a property access function than lower classification roads. For example, expressways have no direct property access. Conversely, local streets serve primarily to provide access to abutting properties. Local streets serve only a minor function for moving traffic. Collector streets serve both a property access and a traffic carrying function, in their roles as roads to connect between the local streets and the arterial road network. The main difference between minor and major arterials is more of degree than function. They are both intended to serve primarily a traffic movement function, but more restrictions on land use access can be expected on major arterials. Major arterial roads also are more important for longer trips, faster travel and transit service.

Where Council decisions are required on road access for properties, proposals should be considered by Community Councils. For major arterial roads, the AAccess Management Guidelines@ of the former Metropolitan Toronto should continue to be applied in controlling property access. These guidelines will need to be reviewed in the context of the amalgamation and the new road classification system.

2. Right-of-Way Width

Where road rights-of-way have yet to be secured (typically in newly developing areas), appropriate widths are established in Table 1: ARoad Classification Criteria@. The 20 metre minimum widths identified in the table for arterial roads apply to existing arterials in older, typically commercial areas. New arterials should be wider, depending on available widths and requirements for boulevards, bicycle facilities and other features.

It is noted that various road widening and new road right-of-way provisions are contained in the Official Plans of the former municipalities. These are unaffected by this report and the proposed road classification, and will be re-evaluated as part of the Official Plan review process.

3. Speed Limits

Legal speed limits should be set according to the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table. In general, lower classification streets should have lower speed limits (and operating speeds). Proposals for speed limit changes on roads other than major arterials or expressways, within the ranges established in the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table, should be considered by Community Councils. Proposals respecting speed limits on arterial roads or expressways should be considered by the Works Committee. On local or collector streets with substantive traffic calming measures, 30 km/h speed limits may be used, subject to the enactment of the necessary by-laws. These matters should be considered by Community Councils.

4. Road Alterations

Road alterations, such as the narrowing or widening of roads or the introduction of medians, can significantly influence traffic operations, including traffic volumes and speeds. Proposals to alter roads should be considered by Community Councils, except in the case of major arterials and expressways when the Works Committee would be responsible.

5. Surface Transit

Bus and streetcar routes should generally not be established on local roads or expressways. On local roads, transit vehicles may be considered to be intrusive in neighbourhoods, so transit routes should be on collector or arterial roads where more traffic is tolerated. Furthermore, collector roads are likely to be more accessible to more potential transit users than local roads. It may, however, be necessary to use a short portion of local streets to allow a bus to turn at the end of a route. The establishment a local bus route on an expressway would serve no purpose as pedestrians are prohibited from these roads and thus no-one would be able to walk to a bus stop. However, express bus routes may be located on expressways.

6. Sidewalks

As noted in the table, sidewalks are normally provided on one or both sides of local streets. While sidewalks are beneficial for pedestrians, people in wheelchairs and people with strollers, on quiet local streets it may often be safe for non-motorised road users to share the road with vehicles. On collectors, minor arterials and major arterials the option of walking in the road is generally not advisable and separate facilities (sidewalks) are recommended on both sides of the street. This becomes even more necessary when a street is a bus or streetcar route, as passengers need to be able to access transit vehicles from both sides of the road.

Some arterial and collector streets have evolved without sidewalks. When these streets are reconstructed the opportunity should be taken to build sidewalks on both sides of the road as a pedestrian safety measure. In addition, Works and Emergency Services is developing a program to install missing sidewalks where needed. Proposed deviations from this policy should be considered by the Works Committee.

When new streets are built, local streets should have sidewalks on at least one side. On new collector and arterial roads, sidewalks should be built on both sides. Proposed deviations from this policy should be considered by the Works Committee.

7. Bicycle Facilities

Special bicycle facilities are not generally required on local and lower-volume collector roads because traffic volumes and speeds are sufficiently low that sharing of the road by motor vehicles and cyclists is safe. Exceptions to this may be desirable on one way-streets where Acontra-flow@ bicycle lanes can provide links into and through neighbourhoods and in other special circumstances. On some collector and most arterial roads, cycling is more difficult and bicycle lanes should be considered when roads are being reconstructed or resurfaced, or as circumstances dictate. If sufficient space on a four (or six) lane road does not exist for bicycle lanes, it may be desirable to widen the curb lanes by narrowing the other travel lanes. This can give cyclists and drivers more space to share the curb lane.

Work is currently underway to develop a Cycling Master Plan, which will identify a network of desirable corridors for bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, bicycle routes and other facilities. Any roads identified for bicycle facilities through this process (and subsequently endorsed by City Council) may be modified independently of the road reconstruction or resurfacing timetable, depending on cycling network and safety priorities and the availability of funds.

Where bicycle facilities are proposed on local, collector or minor arterial roads, these proposals should be considered by Community Councils. Bicycle facility proposals on major arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee.

8. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on a number of the City=s arterial streets. Typically, during peak periods, the curb lane may only be used by transit vehicles, cars with three or more occupants, and cyclists. HOV lanes are particularly beneficial to buses, reducing delays and helping to encourage transit use. Proposals to introduce, remove or modify HOV lanes should be considered by the Works Committee.

9. Stop Signs

AStop@ signs are a valuable technique for allocating right of way at intersections of local streets with local, collector or arterial streets but they should not be used on arterial roads or expressways. At an intersection of local and collector streets, only the local street should have AStop@ signs unless special circumstances exist. AStop@ signs are usually installed if a technical warrant is met. The warrant accounts for motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes, intersection safety record and sight lines. Proposals to install AStop@ signs should be considered by Community Councils. AStop@ signs located on arterial roads undermine the effectiveness of these roads as travel corridors which may lead to traffic infiltration into neighbourhoods. Consequently, any proposals to install AStop@ signs on arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee. Implementation of these procedures should assist in the harmonization of AStop@ sign installation policies across the City.

10. Traffic Control Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers

Traffic signals are very effective at alternating traffic right-of-way at the main intersections of arterial roads (such as with other arterial or collector streets) where certain technical warrants are satisfied. They should not be installed at intersections of local streets with local or collector streets. The technical warrants are unlikely to be met at the intersection of two collector streets, and therefore signals should not generally be used in these circumstances. In general, at signalised intersections of streets of different classification, a higher level of traffic service should be maintained on the street (or streets) with the higher classification.

Pedestrian crossovers can also be very beneficial in improving pedestrian safety in the right circumstances, as determined by technical warrants. They are most commonly found on minor arterial roads.

Proposals for the installation of Awarranted@ traffic signals, where the minimum signal spacings outlined in the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table are satisfied, should be considered by Community Councils. Other signal installation proposals should be considered by the Works Committee.

Proposals for the installation of Awarranted@ pedestrian crossovers on minor arterial roads (or streets of lower classification) should be considered by Community Councils. Other installation proposals should be considered by the Works Committee.

Because of the significant capital and on-going annual maintenance costs associated with these facilities, it will be necessary for the Works committee to consider the priority and timing of installation of traffic signals and pedestrian crossovers to ensure that all requests for these facilities are prioritized across the City and can be accommodated within existing budget envelopes.

11. On-street Parking

Generally, peak period parking or stopping regulations apply on most arterial roads. Until more explicit policies are developed, any relaxation of existing parking or stopping regulations on major arterial roads should be referred to the Works Committee. Other parking issues (except issues which have policy or strategic implications) should be considered by Community Councils.

12. Permit Parking

In those Community Council areas where the permit parking system operates, residential permit parking is not authorised on former AMetro@ roads, but requests have recently been received to allow this in certain communities. If the hours of existing parking or stopping prohibitions are not proposed to be altered, proposals to introduce permit parking on major arterial roads (roughly equivalent to the former AMetro@ roads) should be considered by the appropriate Community Council. Permit parking, however, should not be introduced on major arterial roads which have been designated as snow emergency routes. Proposals which include reducing the extent of the parking prohibitions on major arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee. Specific permit parking proposals for other streets should be considered by Community Councils.

13. Heavy Truck Restrictions

Heavy trucks are prohibited on most local and collector roads (except if actually delivering or receiving goods in the immediate vicinity). Proposals to introduce truck restrictions on local or collector roads should be considered by Community Councils. Similar proposals should generally not be supported on arterial roads, and any such proposals to introduce these restrictions should be considered by the Works Committee.

14. Traffic Calming

Traffic calming can be a very effective way of controlling motor vehicle speeds on residential (generally local) streets. Speed humps and other significant traffic calming measures such as chicanes, however, should not be used on arterial roads or expressways. Traffic calming proposals on local and collector roads should be considered by Community Councils.

15. Winter Service

A higher level of service for snow clearing is appropriate on roads of higher classification, such as expressways and major arterials, because more people depend on roads carrying higher volumes of traffic and higher levels of transit service. A comprehensive review of winter service levels has been undertaken earlier this year by Works and Emergency Services staff.

16. Road Closures

In cases where City Council authority is required to close a road, proposals to do so should be considered by Community Councils for local and collector roads and by the Works Committee for higher order roads.

17. Other Issues

In general, in cases not covered by the specific sections above, routine traffic operations matters (where policies and practices are well-established) should continue to be considered by Community Councils, except that matters relating to major arterials and expressways should be considered by the Works Committee. Issues of strategic transportation importance having City-wide significance, boundary issues, issues regarding the standardisation or harmonisation of transportation policies and other matters where no clear policy has been established should also be considered by the Works Committee.

Phasing of Delegation of Responsibility

The proposed date for implementing the changes outlined above is January 1, 2000, based on the following timetable:

Reviewed by Works Committee July 1999

Reviewed by Community Councils September 1999

Works Committee November 1999

City Council December 1999

Conclusions:

A new road classification system has been proposed for Toronto, based on the classification systems of the former municipalities and road classification guidelines developed by the Transportation Association of Canada. It divides streets into local, collector, minor arterial and major arterial roads and expressways. The new system has been used to classify all streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto into these five classes.

Transportation policies have been developed in conjunction with the road classification system, and suggestions have been made regarding the respective roles of Community Councils and standing committees in dealing with transportation, traffic operations and road operations policies in the context of road classification. The recommendations of this report are proposed to be forwarded to the Community Councils for their review prior to finalizing this work for implementation in January, 2000.

Contact Name:

Andrew G. Macbeth

Manager, Operational Planning and Policy

Phone: 397-5778

Fax: 392-4426

June 29, 1999

To: The Works Committee

From: Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

Subject: Proposed Road Classification System (All Wards)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Consolidate the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamating municipalities into a single, consistent system;

2. Classify roads in Toronto according to the new road classification system;

3. Clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees with respect to traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system; and

4. Phase in the delegation of responsibilities of Community Councils and Standing Committees with respect to these matters.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendation in this report has no direct financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be referred to all Community Councils for consideration and that their comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

Background:

City Council at its meeting on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled AThe Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure@ which contained a report dated June 13, 1998 from the Chief Administrative Officer on this matter. At its meeting, City Council resolved, amongst other things, that:

A(1) to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

(a) Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and Community Councils and adoption by Council; and

(c) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities;

(2) the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways and public transit, and that input be required from the Toronto Transit Commission on any changes to roads on which regularly scheduled transit vehicles operate.@

At its meeting on February 2, 3, and 4, 1999 City Council also adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled ARevisions to the Council-Committee Structure@ which contained a November 26, 1998 report from the Chief Administrative Officer. This Clause outlines, amongst other things, a new committee structure for implementation which became effective June 1, 1999. In particular, the portfolio of the Works Committee (formerly the Works and Utilities Committee) has been expanded to include >road and traffic operations= and >road allowances and related issues=. Accordingly, this report and any subsequent ones on related matters will be considered by the Works Committee, rather than the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Discussion:

Introduction

A street network performs most efficiently and safely from a traffic operations perspective if roads are designated and operated to serve their intended purpose. Local roads serve primarily to provide access to properties and serve a relatively minor role in the wider City context for carrying traffic. Consequently, traffic volumes and speeds on these roads should be low. Conversely, expressways carry high volumes of traffic at relatively high speeds. Collector streets serve to collect and distribute traffic between local streets and higher order roads. Arterial roads (with the expressway system) provide the major corridors for traffic movement.

A classification system designates streets into different groups according to the type of service each group is intended to provide and is a fundamental tool for urban development and road management. Grouping roads with similar function can improve transportation planning, road infrastructure design and maintenance, and traffic and road operations.

But while road classification can help meet the needs of communities for transportation service, just as importantly, it can help protect against the adverse impacts of traffic in neighbourhoods. Some roads should carry higher volumes of traffic at higher speeds, while others (the majority) carry lower volumes at lower speeds. This allows neighbourhoods to flourish between main traffic corridors. The absence of a hierarchy of roads could result in increased traffic in neighbourhoods, less efficient routes for traffic (including transit) with associated increases in the time and cost of transporting people and goods and a reduced quality of life.

Each of Toronto=s seven former municipalities had a slightly different approach to, and purpose for, road classification, although the general concept of having a road hierarchy was common. They all had policies related to the development, design, operation and maintenance of roads, and to differing degrees these were referenced to a road classification system. In some cases these policies were consolidated in Official Plans. East York, Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto, North York and York had road classifications in their Official Plans while Scarborough and Toronto did not. Metropolitan Toronto and Scarborough had definitions of road rights-of-way in their Official Plans.

Various traffic operations policies had been established by Council decision or departmental practice in each of the municipalities. The main purpose of these policies was to provide a framework for the development and management of the road system, particularly for use by planning and transportation staff. This policy framework also provided a useful context for elected representatives when dealing with issues that required a Council decision.

Some of these policies were not explicitly referenced to a classification system, although there was an implicit connection. By virtue of the existence of national and provincial standards and guidelines as well as historical agreements among the former seven jurisdictions, most individual policies and practices were inherently part of a commonly accepted system of road classification.

Although many of the policies developed by the former seven jurisdictions were similar, there were also differences. With the new City now having responsibility for all roads, there is a need to develop a harmonized classification system, as was recognized by Council in referring this matter to staff for a report. This will provide a consistent policy and planning framework, not only for transportation and planning staff, but also for the various standing committees and Community Councils, the public and other stakeholders. This report summarises staff efforts to harmonize the road classification system. The proposed system, and the resulting hierarchical road network, will assist in developing a safe and effective transportation system, to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Purpose of a Road Classification System

According to the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Manual of Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads - 1986, road classification is Athe orderly grouping of roads into systems according to the type and degree of service they provide to the public.@

A road classification system groups streets in a hierarchical manner with different groups performing different functions. The hierarchy provides for a gradation in service with high traffic service levels and no access to abutting properties for the highest order roads (expressways) and conversely low traffic service levels but full property access for local roads. Between these two extremes, arterial roads provide relatively high traffic service levels with some property access, while on collector roads, traffic service and property access are equally important. Collectors, as their name implies, serve to collect traffic from local streets and provide access to arterial roads, which then may connect to expressways. Collectors also can be thought of as distributors of traffic from the main roads to the minor roads. As would be expected, traffic volumes are typically higher on higher level roads than on lower level roads.

Other characteristics of streets are dependent on road classification too. Speed limits and traffic operating speeds tend to be higher on higher level streets; higher level roads are generally wider with more traffic lanes; and bus and streetcar service is generally concentrated on arterial and collector roads.

Road classification can assist with the coordination and planning of land use and transportation. It can help with the establishment of designated road right-of-way widths and design standards for access control, road cross-sections, pavement structure, drainage systems, sidewalks and boulevards and street lighting. It can assist with the establishment of traffic operations standards and guidelines for traffic control devices, pavement markings, on-street parking and stopping restrictions, speed limits and pedestrian and cycling facilities.

Road classification can help with the organization of data and information for road design and traffic operations. It can assist with the establishment of standards and guidelines for snow removal, street cleaning and litter removal, and pavement, sidewalk and boulevard reconstruction and maintenance. It can also be used in the development of guidelines for right-of-way management for the accommodation of utilities, advertising, vendors and banners and pennants.

A road classification system not only provides a fundamental management tool for transportation and planning staff, but users of the road network as well as communities derive benefits from its existence and consistent application. Formalized road classifications help residents, residents= groups, business people and other stakeholders have a clear understanding of the function of particular roads.

Development of a New Road Classification System for the City of Toronto

Most road management authorities establish classification systems for their specific area of responsibility to assist in the development, design, operation and maintenance of the road network. Associations of these authorities typically produce guidelines on the elements of a classification system, and in Canada, the most widely used guideline is published by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). ATable U. A. 5 - Characteristics of urban streets@ was published in the 1995 Urban Supplement to the above-noted TAC manual, and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The TAC table is not sufficiently explicit to permit easy classification of Toronto=s streets. For example, a road carrying between 10,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day could be classified as an Aindustrial/commercial collector@, a Aminor arterial@, a Amajor arterial@ or even an Aexpressway@.

City staff therefore have adapted this table to reflect Toronto conditions. The new table, ARoad Classification Criteria@ dated June 1999 (attached as Table 1) has been developed to guide road classification and to assist in determining appropriate transportation policies and practices for different road types. Table 1 should not be used in isolation but should be considered in conjunction with this report. A road hierarchy consisting of five road types (expressways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and locals) has been defined. This closely matches the existing classification systems from the amalgamating municipalities.

There are a number of refinements in the new road classification table which reflect Toronto=s experience. In particular, the traffic volumes have been made more explicit (and non-overlapping), the characteristic Aparking restrictions@ has been deleted and replaced by Anumber of peak period traffic lanes@. The most significant characteristics in the new table (and the original TAC table) are the relative importance of traffic movement versus property access, the daily traffic volume and the flow characteristics (ranging from Ainterrupted flow@ for local roads to Afree-flow (grade-separated)@ for expressways). These characteristics are intended to be mostly descriptive, but they may also serve a prescriptive role. In other words, they should describe existing characteristics of streets in each class, and assist in the classification of individual streets, but they may also help in determining appropriate changes to land use, property access, traffic operations or road operations on particular streets, so that in future these streets will be able to operate more as intended in the network.

One of the problems associated with the designation of arterial roads in Toronto (or any existing city) is that different design and operating characteristics apply at different points along the length of many of these roads because of their varied historic land use. The City is comprised of numerous distinct areas, particularly in the former inner three municipalities (East York, Toronto and York) which results in arterial roads having different characteristics from those normally associated with arterial roads. For example, traffic movement tends to be less dominant as access remains an important function in the numerous commercial areas of the City (such as Weston, Downsview, Spadina Village or Bayview Village), many of which were thriving towns independent of the original Toronto. The arterial roads through these former towns not only provided access for customers and suppliers, but also acted as main corridors for local residents and other traffic. As land redevelopment and periodic road reconstruction occur, opportunities will arise to standardise the design standards on streets of each class, but there will always be some differences between roads of the same class, reflecting the different historic backgrounds and existing urban forms of neighbourhoods.

Toronto has numerous lanes. They have not been included in the road classification systems of the former municipalities and are not included in the system proposed here. There is little ambiguity between local streets and lanes, and there is little likelihood of lanes becoming streets or vice-versa.

Proposed Road Classification System

The former AMetro@ roads (including the Don Valley Parkway and the F.G. Gardiner Expressway), with the A400 series@ provincial highways formed the backbone of the previous road system. In addition, the six local governments also had various arterial, collector and local roads. The road classification systems of the seven former municipalities are paraphrased in Appendix 2: Road Classification Systems of the Former Municipalities.

In classifying Toronto=s streets, a daily motor vehicle volume of 2,500 (total traffic in both directions) has been used as the dividing line between local streets and collectors, and a daily traffic volume in excess of 8,000 indicates that a road is probably a minor arterial. A traffic volume over 20,000 vehicles per day suggests a major arterial. These numbers are not rigid, however, as all the characteristics are used to a lesser or greater degree to determine a street=s classification. For example, Dundas Street through much of its length in the former City of Toronto carries around 17,000 motor vehicles per day (suggesting a minor arterial status on first appearances) and a busy streetcar route carrying up to 10,000 passengers a day (depending on the location). It should, however, receive the higher level snow clearance accorded to major arterials, and is designated major arterial rather than minor, from Dufferin Street to Parliament Street. In this case, the high transit ridership on the street needs to be reflected in the classification so that transportation operations policies, such as parking management and snow removal, are supportive of a road which is important for the movement of many people.

Traffic signal installations are also indicative of collector or arterial roads. Consequently, local streets should not all be connected with arterial roads by traffic signals because this would undermine the capacity of the arterial road system. Instead, a few collector streets should have signalized intersections at the arterial roads so that residents can access the arterial road system safely at these points from neighbourhoods.

The resulting classification of all streets in the City is contained in Appendix 3: AClassification of City Streets@ (attached), which lists all City-owned streets explicitly except local streets. Some 63% of the 5400 km of public streets in Toronto are local, 13% are collector, 8% are minor arterial, 13% are major arterial (including ramps) and 2.5% are expressways. The breakdown by Community Council area is quantified in Table 2: AComparison of Streets by Class and Community Council Area@ (attached). Generally speaking, the proposed major arterial roads are roughly equivalent to the former AMetro@ roads. Minor arterial roads are mostly the former Cities= arterial roads. Most proposed collector and local roads have retained their former classification.

Traffic Operations Policies, Road Classification and Committee Routing

Most traffic operations policies and characteristics are influenced by classification, including speed limits, truck restrictions, road widths, number of lanes, traffic signal location, transit route selection, bicycle facility location and parking and stopping regulations. A number of these are directly identified in Table 1: ARoad Classification Criteria@. Other policies are not easily summarised for inclusion in the table but are nevertheless important, and are discussed below.

Numerous land use, traffic and road operations matters are considered by standing committees and Community Councils with recommendations forwarded to City Council for final decisions. It is Council=s intention that as many of these transportation matters as practicable should be delegated to Community Councils rather than standing committees. Matters of strategic significance where amalgamated City policies are not in place or where deviations from policies are being proposed will still need to be referred to standing committees. It is recommended that transportation matters relating to land development and transportation planning which are beyond the mandate of Community Councils be directed to the Planning and Transportation Committee. Other strategic transportation issues, including the establishment or amendment of traffic operations policies, should be considered by the Works Committee. Most matters concerning major arterial roads and all matters concerning expressways which require City Council decisions should be considered by the Works Committee. Table 3: ARoad and Traffic Operations Policy Decision Routing@ (attached) summarises the committee routing for these issues and should be used together with this report. More guidance on the interaction between road classification and traffic issues is provided below.

1. Traffic Service versus Property Access

Higher classification roads have less of a property access function than lower classification roads. For example, expressways have no direct property access. Conversely, local streets serve primarily to provide access to abutting properties. Local streets serve only a minor function for moving traffic. Collector streets serve both a property access and a traffic carrying function, in their roles as roads to connect between the local streets and the arterial road network. The main difference between minor and major arterials is more of degree than function. They are both intended to serve primarily a traffic movement function, but more restrictions on land use access can be expected on major arterials. Major arterial roads also are more important for longer trips, faster travel and transit service.

Where Council decisions are required on road access for properties, proposals should be considered by Community Councils. For major arterial roads, the AAccess Management Guidelines@ of the former Metropolitan Toronto should continue to be applied in controlling property access. These guidelines will need to be reviewed in the context of the amalgamation and the new road classification system.

2. Right-of-Way Width

Where road rights-of-way have yet to be secured (typically in newly developing areas), appropriate widths are established in Table 1: ARoad Classification Criteria@. The 20 metre minimum widths identified in the table for arterial roads apply to existing arterials in older, typically commercial areas. New arterials should be wider, depending on available widths and requirements for boulevards, bicycle facilities and other features.

It is noted that various road widening and new road right-of-way provisions are contained in the Official Plans of the former municipalities. These are unaffected by this report and the proposed road classification, and will be re-evaluated as part of the Official Plan review process.

3. Speed Limits

Legal speed limits should be set according to the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table. In general, lower classification streets should have lower speed limits (and operating speeds). Proposals for speed limit changes on roads other than major arterials or expressways, within the ranges established in the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table, should be considered by Community Councils. Proposals respecting speed limits on arterial roads or expressways should be considered by the Works Committee. On local or collector streets with substantive traffic calming measures, 30 km/h speed limits may be used, subject to the enactment of the necessary by-laws. These matters should be considered by Community Councils.

4. Road Alterations

Road alterations, such as the narrowing or widening of roads or the introduction of medians, can significantly influence traffic operations, including traffic volumes and speeds. Proposals to alter roads should be considered by Community Councils, except in the case of major arterials and expressways when the Works Committee would be responsible.

5. Surface Transit

Bus and streetcar routes should generally not be established on local roads or expressways. On local roads, transit vehicles may be considered to be intrusive in neighbourhoods, so transit routes should be on collector or arterial roads where more traffic is tolerated. Furthermore, collector roads are likely to be more accessible to more potential transit users than local roads. It may, however, be necessary to use a short portion of local streets to allow a bus to turn at the end of a route. The establishment a local bus route on an expressway would serve no purpose as pedestrians are prohibited from these roads and thus no-one would be able to walk to a bus stop. However, express bus routes may be located on expressways.

6. Sidewalks

As noted in the table, sidewalks are normally provided on one or both sides of local streets. While sidewalks are beneficial for pedestrians, people in wheelchairs and people with strollers, on quiet local streets it may often be safe for non-motorised road users to share the road with vehicles. On collectors, minor arterials and major arterials the option of walking in the road is generally not advisable and separate facilities (sidewalks) are recommended on both sides of the street. This becomes even more necessary when a street is a bus or streetcar route, as passengers need to be able to access transit vehicles from both sides of the road.

Some arterial and collector streets have evolved without sidewalks. When these streets are reconstructed the opportunity should be taken to build sidewalks on both sides of the road as a pedestrian safety measure. In addition, Works and Emergency Services is developing a program to install missing sidewalks where needed. Proposed deviations from this policy should be considered by the Works Committee.

When new streets are built, local streets should have sidewalks on at least one side. On new collector and arterial roads, sidewalks should be built on both sides. Proposed deviations from this policy should be considered by the Works Committee.

7. Bicycle Facilities

Special bicycle facilities are not generally required on local and lower-volume collector roads because traffic volumes and speeds are sufficiently low that sharing of the road by motor vehicles and cyclists is safe. Exceptions to this may be desirable on one way-streets where Acontra-flow@ bicycle lanes can provide links into and through neighbourhoods and in other special circumstances. On some collector and most arterial roads, cycling is more difficult and bicycle lanes should be considered when roads are being reconstructed or resurfaced, or as circumstances dictate. If sufficient space on a four (or six) lane road does not exist for bicycle lanes, it may be desirable to widen the curb lanes by narrowing the other travel lanes. This can give cyclists and drivers more space to share the curb lane.

Work is currently underway to develop a Cycling Master Plan, which will identify a network of desirable corridors for bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, bicycle routes and other facilities. Any roads identified for bicycle facilities through this process (and subsequently endorsed by City Council) may be modified independently of the road reconstruction or resurfacing timetable, depending on cycling network and safety priorities and the availability of funds.

Where bicycle facilities are proposed on local, collector or minor arterial roads, these proposals should be considered by Community Councils. Bicycle facility proposals on major arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee.

8. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on a number of the City=s arterial streets. Typically, during peak periods, the curb lane may only be used by transit vehicles, cars with three or more occupants, and cyclists. HOV lanes are particularly beneficial to buses, reducing delays and helping to encourage transit use. Proposals to introduce, remove or modify HOV lanes should be considered by the Works Committee.

9. Stop Signs

AStop@ signs are a valuable technique for allocating right of way at intersections of local streets with local, collector or arterial streets but they should not be used on arterial roads or expressways. At an intersection of local and collector streets, only the local street should have AStop@ signs unless special circumstances exist. AStop@ signs are usually installed if a technical warrant is met. The warrant accounts for motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes, intersection safety record and sight lines. Proposals to install AStop@ signs should be considered by Community Councils. AStop@ signs located on arterial roads undermine the effectiveness of these roads as travel corridors which may lead to traffic infiltration into neighbourhoods. Consequently, any proposals to install AStop@ signs on arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee. Implementation of these procedures should assist in the harmonization of AStop@ sign installation policies across the City.

10. Traffic Control Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers

Traffic signals are very effective at alternating traffic right-of-way at the main intersections of arterial roads (such as with other arterial or collector streets) where certain technical warrants are satisfied. They should not be installed at intersections of local streets with local or collector streets. The technical warrants are unlikely to be met at the intersection of two collector streets, and therefore signals should not generally be used in these circumstances. In general, at signalised intersections of streets of different classification, a higher level of traffic service should be maintained on the street (or streets) with the higher classification.

Pedestrian crossovers can also be very beneficial in improving pedestrian safety in the right circumstances, as determined by technical warrants. They are most commonly found on minor arterial roads.

Proposals for the installation of Awarranted@ traffic signals, where the minimum signal spacings outlined in the ARoad Classification Criteria@ table are satisfied, should be considered by Community Councils. Other signal installation proposals should be considered by the Works Committee.

Proposals for the installation of Awarranted@ pedestrian crossovers on minor arterial roads (or streets of lower classification) should be considered by Community Councils. Other installation proposals should be considered by the Works Committee.

Because of the significant capital and on-going annual maintenance costs associated with these facilities, it will be necessary for the Works committee to consider the priority and timing of installation of traffic signals and pedestrian crossovers to ensure that all requests for these facilities are prioritized across the City and can be accommodated within existing budget envelopes.

11. On-street Parking

Generally, peak period parking or stopping regulations apply on most arterial roads. Until more explicit policies are developed, any relaxation of existing parking or stopping regulations on major arterial roads should be referred to the Works Committee. Other parking issues (except issues which have policy or strategic implications) should be considered by Community Councils.

12. Permit Parking

In those Community Council areas where the permit parking system operates, residential permit parking is not authorised on former AMetro@ roads, but requests have recently been received to allow this in certain communities. If the hours of existing parking or stopping prohibitions are not proposed to be altered, proposals to introduce permit parking on major arterial roads (roughly equivalent to the former AMetro@ roads) should be considered by the appropriate Community Council. Permit parking, however, should not be introduced on major arterial roads which have been designated as snow emergency routes. Proposals which include reducing the extent of the parking prohibitions on major arterial roads should be considered by the Works Committee. Specific permit parking proposals for other streets should be considered by Community Councils.

13. Heavy Truck Restrictions

Heavy trucks are prohibited on most local and collector roads (except if actually delivering or receiving goods in the immediate vicinity). Proposals to introduce truck restrictions on local or collector roads should be considered by Community Councils. Similar proposals should generally not be supported on arterial roads, and any such proposals to introduce these restrictions should be considered by the Works Committee.

14. Traffic Calming

Traffic calming can be a very effective way of controlling motor vehicle speeds on residential (generally local) streets. Speed humps and other significant traffic calming measures such as chicanes, however, should not be used on arterial roads or expressways. Traffic calming proposals on local and collector roads should be considered by Community Councils.

15. Winter Service

A higher level of service for snow clearing is appropriate on roads of higher classification, such as expressways and major arterials, because more people depend on roads carrying higher volumes of traffic and higher levels of transit service. A comprehensive review of winter service levels has been undertaken earlier this year by Works and Emergency Services staff.

16. Road Closures

In cases where City Council authority is required to close a road, proposals to do so should be considered by Community Councils for local and collector roads and by the Works Committee for higher order roads.

17. Other Issues

In general, in cases not covered by the specific sections above, routine traffic operations matters (where policies and practices are well-established) should continue to be considered by Community Councils, except that matters relating to major arterials and expressways should be considered by the Works Committee. Issues of strategic transportation importance having City-wide significance, boundary issues, issues regarding the standardisation or harmonisation of transportation policies and other matters where no clear policy has been established should also be considered by the Works Committee.

Phasing of Delegation of Responsibility

The proposed date for implementing the changes outlined above is January 1, 2000, based on the following timetable:

Reviewed by Works Committee July 1999

Reviewed by Community Councils September 1999

Works Committee November 1999

City Council December 1999

Conclusions:

A new road classification system has been proposed for Toronto, based on the classification systems of the former municipalities and road classification guidelines developed by the Transportation Association of Canada. It divides streets into local, collector, minor arterial and major arterial roads and expressways. The new system has been used to classify all streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto into these five classes.

Transportation policies have been developed in conjunction with the road classification system, and suggestions have been made regarding the respective roles of Community Councils and standing committees in dealing with transportation, traffic operations and road operations policies in the context of road classification. The recommendations of this report are proposed to be forwarded to the Community Councils for their review prior to finalizing this work for implementation in January, 2000.

Contact Name:

Andrew G. Macbeth

Manager, Operational Planning and Policy

Phone: 397-5778

Fax: 392-4426

David C. Kaufman

General Manager, Transportation Services Division

Barry H. Gutteridge

Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services

AM/al

Appendix 3: Road Classifications for City Streets - Draft for Discussion Purposes

Revised August 25, 1999

The following table is a draft listing of all City-owned streets which are classified as expressway, major arterial, minor arterial or collector. Local streets, streets owned privately or by other levels of government, road ramps and lanes are not included.

The streets in this list are arranged alphabetically by community council area and street name as follows:

East York

Etobicoke

North York

Scarborough

Toronto

York

Abbreviations in the table are as follows:

Ave Avenue

Blvd Boulevard

CC Community Council

Crcl Circle

Crct Circuit

Cres Crescent

Crt Court

Dr Drive

Div Diversion

E East

Exp Expressway

Gdns Gardens

Grv Grove

Gt Gate

Hts Heights

Ln Lane

N North

Pkwy Parkway

Rd Road

S South

Sq Square

St Street

Ter Terrace

Trl Trail

W West

This appendix accompanies a report entitled AProposed Road Classification System@ dated June 29, 1999 which was considered by the Works Committee at its July 14, 1999 meeting. The report (and this appendix) is scheduled to be considered by the Community Councils at their September 1999 meetings.