HomeMy WebLinkAboutENG 23-21 Report to
Executive Committe
Report Number: ENG 23-21 Date: November 1, 2021
From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads
-Proposed Study of Current Policy/Practice-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference for a study of the Region of Durham’scurrent policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on Regional roads;
2.That, through the Office of the CAO, appropriate City staff be selected to represent the
City of Pickering on the study working group consisting of Regional and Local Area
Municipality staff;
3.That staff report back on the results of the procurement of consulting services and seekCouncil authorization for a financial contribution to the study; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions indicated in this reports.
Executive Summary: The Regional Municipality of Durham has a policy in place that outlines the responsibility for the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of
streetlights on Regional roads. The policy was first put into place in 1975, and was amended in 1991 and 1996, and last reviewed in 2017 with no changes recommended.
The current policy is for local area municipalities to be responsible for streetlights on Regional roads. The local area municipalities have been requesting a review of the current policy and practices for several years.
In response, Region of Durham staff have prepared a draft terms of reference to undertake a study and are requesting all local area municipalities within Durham Region to participate and cost share in the study. Report #2021-W-36 (Attachment #1) was endorsed at the Regional Works Committee meeting of October 6, 2021 and, as of the time of writing this report (ENG 23-21), is scheduled to be considered at the Regional Council meeting of October 26, 2021.
City staff are recommending that the City of Pickering participate in the study of the current policy/practice for streetlighting on Regional roads and propose the appropriate funding representing the City’s share be considered in the 2022 Current Budget.
ENG 23-21 November 1, 2021
Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads Page 2
Financial Implications: In Report #2021-W-36, Region staff have indicated that the
estimated cost of the study is in the range of $150,000.00 - $250,000.00. Actual costs incurred
will be shared between the Region and local area municipalities with a cost sharing formula still to be determined. It is estimated that the City of Pickering’s share could be in the order of $40,000.00.
Until the study is complete and recommendations are implemented, it is not known if there will
be any cost savings to the City of Pickering from either a transfer of responsibilities or through
efficiencies or economies of scale.
Discussion: Region of Durham and local area municipality staff have been in
discussion regarding the current policy and practices for streetlights on Regional roads.
Currently, in accordance with the Region’s policy, the local area municipalities are primarily responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation (including energy costs) and maintenance of streetlights on Regional roads.
The local area municipalities believe the Region needs to assume some level of responsibility
since the illumination of the roadway caters solely to the users of the Regional road. There is also a concern amongst local area municipalities that ownership, risk and liability is not adequately addressed in the current policy.
Report #2021-W-36 (Attachment #1) prepared by Regional staff provides significant background information and discussion on the matter, and the Draft Terms of Reference for a
study of the current policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on Regional roads. The report recommends that each local area municipal Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference by no later than December 10, 2021.
The Draft Terms of Reference that are included in Report #2021-W-36 have been reviewed by City of Pickering staff and are deemed acceptable. A timeline for the study has also been
provided in the Region’s report, and it is estimated that the study will be undertaken between June 2022 and December 2022, with changes to the current policy/practice to come into effect mid-2023 at the earliest.
Should Pickering Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference, City staff will recommend the required funds for Pickering’s share of the study in the 2022 Current Budget, or if required, pre-
budget approval will be requested through a further report to Council.
Once the Region has received endorsement from local area municipal Councils, Regional staff will report back on the status and will seek authorization for the Region’s financial contribution to the study.
Attachments:
1. The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2021-W-36
ENG 23-21 November 1, 2021
Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads Page 3
Prepared By/Approved/Endorsed By:
Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Director, Engineering Services
RH:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 23-21
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Works Committee From: Commissioner of Works
Report: #2021-W-36
Date: October 6, 2021
Subject:
Proposed Study of the Current Policy/Practice for Streetlighting on Regional Roads
Recommendation:
That the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council:
A)That the Draft Terms of Reference outlined in this report for a Consultant Study of
the Current Policy/Practice with respect to Streetlighting on Regional Roads, be
circulated to the Durham Local Area Municipal Councils for endorsement no later
than December 10, 2021; and
B)That the Current Policy/Practice with respect to Streetlighting on Regional Roads
(Attachment #1) continue to prevail until the proposed Consultant Study is
completed and any changes on a consensus basis are approved and
implemented.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide details of the Current Policy/Practice
governing Streetlighting on Regional Roads (SLRR) and outline a Draft Study
Terms of Reference for a review of the Policy/Practice. The report also seeks
approval for the circulation of the Draft Terms of Reference to all Local Area
Municipal (LAM) Councils for comments and endorsement no later than
December 10, 2021.
46
Report #2021-W-36 Page 2 of 8
2. Background
2.1 The purpose of streetlighting on a roadway is to increase the visibility of roadway
and sidewalk users during hours of darkness, including motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians, and thereby improve road safety. There is widespread industry
consensus and statistical evidence that streetlighting substantially decreases
night-time collision rates. Streetlighting is therefore a valuable countermeasure in
achieving the Regional Municipality of Durham’s (Region) and LAM’s Vision Zero
aspirations.
2.2 In Durham, as per Current Policy/Practice, LAMs are primarily responsible for
SLRR. This includes the planning, design, operation, construction and
maintenance of all related assets. The basis for the Current Policy/Practice is the
original 1975 Regional policy, subsequently amended in 1991 and 1996 to
introduce Regional cost-sharing and to clarify operating and maintenance
responsibilities for SLRR installations in rural locations. An outline of the Current
Policy/Practice is provided in Attachment #1.
2.3 In recent years, the LAMs have requested a review of the Current Policy/Practice
and specifically for the Region to assume increased levels of responsibility for
SLRR. The request is driven by the following perspectives:
• Streetlighting is a benefit to all users of the Regional road, including motorists,
cyclists, and pedestrians, leading to the notion that the Region should assume
increased responsibility for SLRR.
• Streetlighting assets on the Regional road allowance cater solely to users of
the Regional roadway.
• The growing public demand for streetlighting on all roads including Regional
roads is causing increasing financial burden on the LAMs’ financial resources.
2.4 In response to LAM requests, as part of the 2017 Durham Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) study, the Current Policy/Practice was reviewed albeit in a cursory
manner. Specifically, the TMP study reviewed and compared municipal practices
and jurisdiction for streetlighting on upper-tier roads throughout the Greater
Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The review found that a majority of the lower-tier
municipalities continued to maintain responsibility for streetlighting on their upper-
tier roads, however, acknowledged that the practices were evolving and
discussions under way to rationalize jurisdictional responsibilities. The TMP study
concluded that there was no rationale at that time for considering any changes to
the Region’s Current Policy/Practice.
47
Report #2021-W-36 Page 3 of 8
3. LAM Request for Review of the Current SLRR Policy/Practice
3.1 In early 2019, through the forum of Region/LAM Chief Administrative Officers
(CAOs), there were further requests of the Region to review the Current
Policy/Practice. In response, the Region advanced discussions with LAM staff to
gain an understanding of the LAM inventory of SLRR and their areas of concern
with the Current Policy/Practice.
3.2 Although not all LAMs were able to provide the same level of information with
respect to SLRR, it is estimated that together they operate and maintain
approximately 10,000 luminaires on Regional roads, in addition to the
approximately 50,000 luminaries on their local roads. Approximately 80% of these
luminaries are low-energy consuming LED fixtures.
3.3 To assess LAM requests, in 2019/20, a brief survey of the ten upper-tier
municipalities in the GGH (Counties of Dufferin, Northumberland, Peterborough,
Simcoe and Wellington, and the Regions of Halton, Peel, Niagara, Waterloo and
York) was conducted about their practices pertaining to streetlighting on the
upper-tier roads. The survey showed that all upper-tier municipalities in the GGH
share responsibility for some aspect of streetlighting with their lower-tier
jurisdictions.
3.4 Design is the responsibility most often shared by upper-tier municipalities, with
about 75% of them dividing up the task and/or cost. This typically depends on
which jurisdiction is leading the capital project. By contrast, only half of the upper-
tier municipalities share responsibility for assessing need with their lower-tier
jurisdictions. The construction of streetlighting is a shared responsibility in most
two-tiered municipalities, although the lead agency and/or cost apportionment
varies. The jurisdiction responsible for the capital project typically takes the lead,
with the other municipality reimbursing for all or a portion of the cost.
3.5 Some of the GGH Regional Municipalities appear to have (Halton, Waterloo, and
Peel) or are working towards (Niagara) assuming sole responsibility for
streetlighting on their roads. Counties tend to share the responsibility more, likely
due to the more isolated instances of streetlighting consistent with the rural
character of their communities.
3.6 The Current Policy/Practice on streetlighting in place with the Region appears
more detailed than others, with more specific provisions for cost sharing.
48
Report #2021-W-36 Page 4 of 8
4. Discussion
4.1 The Municipal Act does not define jurisdictional responsibility for streetlighting.
Whereas, sidewalks, for example are defined as a lower-tier responsibility
regardless of whether they are on an upper-tier or lower-tier road allowance,
unless the municipalities agree otherwise.
4.2 There is no reliable estimate of the current SLRR asset inventory or its
replacement value. Capital costs would depend on new streetlighting
requirements, replacement needs and extent and locations of the Region’s road
capital programs. This cost is estimated to be in the $3-5M range annually.
Current annual operating and maintenance costs for SLRR appear to be in the
$2-3M range depending on the confirmed size of inventory, their energy
efficiencies and third-party (e.g. utility companies) cost obligations. Based on
community requests for additional streetlighting and lagging investment history,
there is conceivably a latent demand for additional SLRR which has the potential
to further increase planning, capital, operating and maintenance cost obligations.
4.3 Primary LAM sources of current financing for SLRR include development charges
(capital) and property taxes (capital, operations, maintenance). Transfer of all or
any increased level of responsibility for SLRR to the Region would therefore result
in financial, staffing and related logistics implications at the Regional level.
Therefore, a decision to alter the Current Policy/Practice to any significant level
requires careful due diligence.
5. Recommended Next Steps
5.1 Based on discussions between the Regional and the LAM CAOs, it is
recommended that a Study of the Current Policy/Practice be undertaken to:
• thoroughly examine the current jurisdictional responsibilities at the LAM
and Regional levels, as per the Current Policy/Practice;
• propose and document potential changes to the Current Policy/Practice
based on larger community interest and the financial impact at the LAM
and Regional levels; and
• if appropriate, develop an implementation plan that provides for a transition
from the Current Policy/Practice towards an updated “who does what”
framework.
49
Report #2021-W-36 Page 5 of 8
5.2 The proposed Study shall examine the following alternatives:
• Continuation of the Current Policy/Practice, which would result in further
documentation as necessary to clarify the Regional and LAM roles,
ownership, responsibilities, and obligations with respect to planning,
design, construction, operations, maintenance, asset management,
financing and risk management of liabilities associated with all aspects of
SLRR;
• Variations to the Regional and LAM roles as per the Current
Policy/Practice;
• Variations in delivery models and levels of service, taking into
consideration the broader interest to avoid duplication of services between
the Regional and LAM levels:
(a) LAM delivery (status quo)
(b) Regional delivery (in-house; outsourced to vendors; outsourced to
LAMs; hybrid)
(c) Other (e.g. outsource all);
• Distinction in Regional and LAM roles for inside and outside the urban
boundaries; or
• Combinations of the above models
5.3 The proposed Draft Terms of Reference for the Study include:
• Engagement of Regional and LAM staff to compile the necessary
background SLRR data for the evaluation of alternatives, including but not
limited to asset quantities and categories, replacement values, annual
operating and maintenance costs, development charges or other funding
set aside for SLRR, asset history, asset condition and estimates of current
(latent) and future demands;
• Based on a gap analysis, gathering and collection of missing data as
necessary to effectively complete the analysis of alternatives;
• Development and evaluation of potential alternatives through best
practices review, and analysis of legal implications (Municipal Act, case
law), financial implications, road user and safety impacts, risk management
considerations, taxpayer impacts, cost-effectiveness, and business
efficiencies;
50
Report #2021-W-36 Page 6 of 8
• Conducting interviews with Regional and LAM staff as required to evaluate
the alternatives, including the assessment of business implications of
related changes to the Current Policy/Practice;
• Recommending the preferred alternative; and
• Developing a plan for the implementation of the preferred alternative,
including transition provisions as required.
5.4 It is recommended that the proposed next steps acknowledge and be guided by
the following principles:
• Any recommended changes to the Current Policy/Practice that could
emerge from the Study should remain cost-neutral to the overall Regional
tax base.
• The estimated time for the completion of the proposed Study and
implementation of any changes to the Current Policy/Practice is 1-2 years.
It is anticipated that any substantive changes that may require significant
realignment of the current Regional and/or LAM roles would get the
timeframe closer to the upper end of this estimated duration.
• The Study shall be led jointly by the Region and the eight LAMs.
• The preferred alternative should emerge from this Study through an
objective review. It is therefore recommended that an independent external
consultant be engaged for the Study.
• The consultant engagement should include expertise in legal/risk analysis,
finance, management, and transportation/traffic engineering.
• The estimated cost for the consultant Study is in the range of $150-200K.
The actual cost will depend on the data gaps, and complexity (or simplicity)
involved in the implementation of the preferred alternative.
• The actual incurred cost of consulting services shall be shared between
the agencies (Region and the LAMs), with adequate resources and
Legal/Finance/Works staff representation committed to the Study from all
agencies.
• The Current Policy/Practice for SLRR will continue to be honoured until the
Study is completed and any changes are approved and implemented on a
consensus basis.
• The Study will consider road rationalization (i.e., transfer of candidate road
segments from/to the Region to/from LAMs, as per Attachment #2- Report
#2018-INFO-138) as appropriate in the transition and implementation of
the preferred alternative for SLRR. Notwithstanding the timing of the Study,
51
Report #2021-W-36 Page 7 of 8
discussions on road rationalization between the Region and LAMs would
continue actively with a view to advancing priority road transfers.
6. Preliminary Timeline
6.1 Following is an estimated preliminary timeline for the completion of the proposed
Study and the implementation of the preferred alternative:
• Regional Council approval for circulation of this report to LAM Councils for
comments and endorsement of the Terms of Reference (October 27, 2021)
• Comments and endorsement provided to Regional Council from all LAM
Councils (no later than December 10, 2021)
• Establishment of a Regional/LAM Study Working Group (December 2021)
• Procurement of consultant services (January 2022 – May 2022)
• Consultant Study completion (June 2022 – December 2022)
• Changes to Current Policy/Practice come into effect (mid-2023, earliest)
6.2 It should be noted that the estimated (targeted) mid-2023 timeframe for any
changes in the Current Policy/Practice to come into effect is subject to the Study
advancing and being able to inform and influence the 2023 Regional and LAM
budget deliberations in a timely manner, including any Regional/LAM Council
approvals as may be required, as well as addressing any Development Charges
implications.
7. Financial Implications
7.1 The completion of the proposed Study would require engaging external consultant
services at an estimated total Regional/LAM cost of $150-200K.
7.2 Once LAM Council comments/endorsement are received, staff will report back on
the status and as necessary at that time seek authorization for the Region’s
financial contribution to the Study.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The Current Policy/Practice assigns the responsibility for SLRR primarily to LAMs.
In response to the LAMs’ request for a review of this Policy/Practice, this report
outlines potential next steps and process towards the completion of an external
and independent Consultant Study that would recommend a preferred option for
future delivery of the SLRR function.
52
Report #2021-W-36 Page 8 of 8
8.2 This report outlines a Draft Terms of Reference and a process for the proposed
Study. It is recommended that a copy of this report be circulated to all Durham
LAMs for comments and endorsement back to the Region no later than December
10, 2021.
8.3 This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services – Corporate Services and
the Finance Department.
8.4 For additional information, please contact Ramesh Jagannathan, Director,
Transportation and Field Services, at 905-668-7711, ext. 2183.
9. Attachments
Attachment #1: Streetlighting on Regional Roads – Current Policy/Practice
Attachment #2: Report # 2018-INFO-138 (September 28, 2018 CIP)
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by:
Susan Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original signed by:
Elaine Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
53
Attachment #1 to Report #2021-W-36
Streetlighting on Regional Roads – Outline of Current Policy/Practice
1. New Light Installations
1.1 All new light installations inside the Urban Boundary (as per the Regional Official
Plan), excluding those mounted on Regional traffic signal poles, are 100 percent
paid for by the Local Area Municipalities (LAM).
1.2 With respect to new light installations outside the Urban Boundary (i.e. Rural
Areas, as per the Regional Official Plan):
a. Installations on Regional approaches at intersections controlled by Regional
traffic signals are 100 per cent paid for by the Regional Municipality of
Durham (Region). Installations on LAM approaches at intersections controlled
by Regional traffic signals are 100 per cent paid for by the LAM. At
intersections controlled by LAM traffic signals, costs are 100 per cent paid for
by the LAM.
b. Installations along Regional roads are 100 per cent paid for by the Region at
locations where the Regional Warrant criteria are satisfied (limited to partial
lighting only).
c. Installations along Regional roads at locations requested by LAMs that do not
meet Regional Warrant criteria are 50 per cent cost-shared by the Region,
subject to a proven safety benefit.
2. Light Replacements/Relocations
2.1 Replacements/Relocations due to the impacts of a road construction project
initiated by the Region are cost shared at 50 per cent of labour and labour-saving
devices as per the PSWHA. In essence, streetlighting assets on a Regional road
allowance are treated like other third-party utilities on the Regional right-of-way.
a. Replacements/Relocations due to the impacts of hydro pole
replacements/relocations initiated by the utility company are 100 per cent
paid for by the LAM.
54
Attachment #1 to Report #2021-W-36
3. Operating and Maintenance Costs
3.1 LAMs cover all operating and maintenance costs (with the exception of a few sites
where the lights are mounted on Regional traffic signal poles that are powered
with a metered service, in which case the Region pays for the streetlighting hydro
consumption).
4. Other Implementation Elements
4.1 LED conversions are paid 100 per cent by the LAM.
4.2 On Regional Capital Projects, roadway lighting design is paid for by the Region as
part of the design assignment, and the Region recovers 10% of the LAM’s share
of capital construction cost to cover a portion of the design and contract
administration costs.
55
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: #2018-INFO-138
Date: September 28, 2018
Subject:
Road Rationalization Discussions with Local Area Municipalities – Status Update
Recommendation:
Receive for information
Report:
1. Background and Purpose
1.1 In March 2018, Information Report #2018-INFO-31 (Attachment #1) was issued to
update Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) Council on the findings to date
of the Region-wide Road Network Rationalization Study. On the basis of sound
transportation planning principles, the report identified candidate road segments
for jurisdictional transfer in the short -term (i.e. preliminary recommendation being
“transfer candidate”) and highlighted segments recommended for future
consideration (i.e. preliminary recommendation being “no transfer, reconsider in
the future”). Candidates were identified in all Local Area Municipalities (LAM’s),
with the exception of the Township of Uxbridge (Uxbridge). The report
acknowledged that transfer opportunities in each LAM have unique considerations
that will require further discussion.
1.2 Report #2018-INFO-31 had identified the transfer of Regional Road 7 (Island
Road) to the Township of Scugog (Scugog) as the only candidate for the short-
term. Discussing the Region’s report in May 2018, Scugog Council stated its
opposition to this transfer and asked this be re-assessed in future road
rationalization discussions. Considering potential changes in traffic volume levels
and patterns due to the proposed expansion of the Great Blue Heron Casino
which could influence the role of Island Road in the future, Regional staff deemed
56
Page 2 of 8
it reasonable to defer this to future road rationalization discussions. There were no
candidates identified for transfer to the Region in the short term.
1.3 Over the last few months, Regional staff met and exchanged correspondence with
staff representatives of the six impacted LAM’s to specifically discuss the
feasibility, mutual interest and possible timing for the transfer of road candidates
that Report #2018-INFO-31 identified for the short-term. At a high level, LAM staff
expressed consensus with the short-term candidates, therefore the meetings and
exchanges predominantly focused on implementation considerations. The
purpose of this report is to update Regional Council on these meetings/exchanges
and place on public record a summary of staff level views and consensus
elements on the proposed short-term transfers.
2. Town of Ajax
2.1 Table 1 details the short-term candidates that were identified in the Town of Ajax
(Ajax).
Table 1: Ajax – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
31 Westney Road Harwood Avenue Bayly Street 2.7 9.5 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Rossland
Road
Pickering/ Ajax
Boundary
Lake Ridge
Road 7.2 14.3 Urban
Transfer Candidate
2.2 To advance discussions, Ajax will be preparing a letter to the Region this fall
proposing a framework and key milestones for the two proposed transfers.
3. Township of Brock
3.1 Table 2 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Township of Brock
(Brock).
57
Page 3 of 8
Table 2: Brock – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road Roads From To
Length
(km)
Lane
(km)
Urban/Rural
Area
Preliminary
Recommendation
47 Shoreline Road Mara Road Simcoe/Durham Boundary 2.1 4.3 Rural Transfer Candidate
50 Portage Road Highway #12 Regional Highway #48 4.3 8.8 Rural Transfer Candidate
51 Talbot Road Reg. Rd. #50 Simcoe/Durham Boundary 0.1 0.2 Rural Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Simcoe
Street
Brock Concession
#14
Regional
Highway #48 15.5 31 Rural
Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional
Thorah
Concession Road 1 Highway #12/48 Simcoe St. 6.8 13.7 Rural Transfer Candidate
3.2 Brock staff advised/reminded Regional staff of their current boundary road
agreement for Simcoe Street with the City of Kawartha Lakes who would need to
be engaged in related transfer discussions.
3.3 Brock staff also expressed specific concerns about implications to their road
maintenance obligations in relation to Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS). In
order to advance the Township’s further consideration of the three Region-to-
Local transfer candidates, the Region has provided additional information
including Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes (AADT), MMS Service Class,
Pavement Condition Index (PCI), structure conditions, and snow plow routes.
4. Municipality of Clarington
4.1 Table 3 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Municipality of
Clarington (Clarington).
Table 3: Clarington – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road Road From To Length
(km) Lane
(km) Urban/Rural
Area Preliminary
Recommendation
17 Main Street Winter Road Taunton Road 3 6.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Holt Road Highway #401 Regional Highway #2 3.2 6.3 Rural Transfer Candidate
58
Page 4 of 8
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
Local to Regional Boundary Road Highway #35 Highway #115 1.8 3.6 Rural Transfer Candidate
4.2 Clarington staff advised/reminded Regional staff of their current boundary road
agreement for Boundary Road with the City of Kawartha Lakes who would need to
be engaged in related transfer discussions.
4.3 The Region has provided additional information to Clarington for further
consideration of the Main Street transfer, including AADT, MMS Service Class,
PCI and structure conditions. Clarington staff will be reporting to their Council on
their assessment of the proposed transfers.
5. City of Oshawa
5.1 Table 4 describes the short-term candidates identified in the City of Oshawa
(Oshawa).
59
Page 5 of 8
Table 4: Oshawa – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
2 Simcoe St. Harbour Road Wentworth Street 1.0 3.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
3
Winchester Road East/
Grandview Street
North
Harmony
Road Columbus
Road 2.6 5.7 Urban Transfer
Candidate
35 Wilson
Road. Bloor
Street Taunton
Road 6.2 17.7 Urban Transfer
Candidate
52 Boundary
Road Wentworth
Street W
Philip
Murray Avenue 0.9 2.5 Urban Transfer
Candidate
54 Park Road Bloor Street Rossland Road 4.3 15.8 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional
Harmony / Columbus
Road
Winchester Road Grandview Street 2.6 5.2 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
King Street
(West)
Oshawa/
Whitby Boundary
Centre
Street 2.7 11.3 Urban Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional
Bond Street
(West)
King Street Centre Street 1.8 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
King Street
(East)
Ritson
Road North
Townline
Road 3.4 14.3 Urban Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional Bond St.(East)
Ritson Road
North
King Street East 1.7 4.8 Urban Transfer Candidate
5.2 Oshawa staff advised they will be reporting to their Council acknowledging
support in principle for the candidates identified for short-term transfer. It should
be noted that as a correction the previously referenced candidate (Region-to-
Local) of Townline Road South from Gord Vinson Avenue to Bloor Street (0.25 km
in length) in Report #2018-INFO-31 was removed from further discussion as this
segment is already in the City’s jurisdiction.
60
Page 6 of 8
6. City of Pickering
6.1 Table 5 describes the short-term candidates identified in the City of Pickering
(Pickering).
Table 5: Pickering – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road # Road From To Length
(km) Lane
(km) Urban/Rur
al Area Preliminary
Recommendation
Previously
Reg. Rd. 1 Mowbray
Street
North limit of Highway #407
Brock
Road 1.3 3.5 Urban Transfer Candidate
Previously
Reg. Rd. 5 9th
Concession
Regional Road 5 /
Concession Road #9
Lake Ridge
Road 0.1 0.2 Urban Transfer Candidate
24 Church Street Bayly Street
Pickering/
Ajax Boundary 0.9 2 Urban Transfer Candidate
38 Whites Road 0.6 km South of Oklahoma Drive
Bayly Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Third
Concession Road
Pickering/
Ajax Boundary
West of
Valley
Farm Road
1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Whitevale Road
200m West of Future Rossland
Road Extension
Brock Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Sideline 26 (South) Taunton Road Whitevale Road 2.1 4.1 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Sideline 26 (Middle) Whitevale Road Highway #7 - - Urban Transfer Candidate
6.2 The transfer of Sideline 26 (South) to the Region was approved by Pickering in
June 2018. It was also noted that Pickering has drafted a Report to their Council
regarding the transfer of Third Concession Road (as per above table) to the
Region. To advance discussions, Pickering will be presenting a position paper
early next year to the Region on the transfer candidates.
61
Page 7 of 8
7. Town of Whitby
7.1 Table 6 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Town of Whitby
(Whitby).
Table 6: Whitby – Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road # Road From To
Length
(km)
Lane
(km)
Urban/Rural
Area
Preliminary
Recommendation
22
Victoria Street (old
alignment)
0.7 km West of
Thickson
0.4 km West of
Thickson Road 0.3 0.6 Urban
Transfer
Candidate2
43
Cochrane
Street Dundas Street Rossland Road 2.1 6.1 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
45
Henry
Street Victoria Street Burns Street W 1.2 3.3 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
45
Henry
Street Burns Street W Dundas Street 0.9 2.6 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
46
Brock
Street Water Street Victoria Street 1.0 2.7 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
46
Brock
Street Victoria Street
South Limit of
Highway #401 0.3 1.5 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
Former
23
Lake
Ridge Road
(North) Almond Avenue
Cresser
Avenue 0.3 0.6 Urban
Transfer
Candidate3
Former
23
Lake
Ridge Road
(South)
0.65 km N of
Victoria Street
0.88 km N of
Victoria Street 0.2 0.6 Urban
Transfer
Candidate3
Local to
Regional
Rossland
Road
Lake Ridge
Road
Cochrane
Street 2.9 8.9 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
Local to
Regional
Dundas
Street Fothergill Court
Cochrane
Street 5.8 23.2 Urban
Transfer
Candidate1
Local to
Regional
Dundas
Street Garden Street
Whitby/ Oshawa
Boundary 2.9 14.4 Urban
Transfer
Candidate2
1 candidates for first phase of transfers 2 candidates for second phase of transfers 3 segments are under MTO’s ownership/jurisdiction since 2012; to be dealt with through discussions with MTO
62
Page 8 of 8
7.2 A 2017 staff report to Council by Whitby staff on road rationalization interests
provided good guidance for our meetings and discussions. Whitby staff have
suggested the candidates identified in that report combined with a few other
strategic candidates can be advanced as the first phase of transfers (see footnote
1 in above Table), leaving the other segments that are influenced by pending
events (e.g. completion of Victoria Street realignment and planning studies for
Bus Rapid Transit on Dundas Street) to a subsequent second phase.
7.3 It should be noted that Champlain Avenue from future Stellar Drive to the
Whitby/Oshawa Boundary has been revised for reconsideration in the future to
match the recommendation for Champlain Avenue in Oshawa.
8. Conclusion and Next Steps
8.1 At the staff level, Local Area Municipalities are generally in agreement with the
candidates identified for transfer in the short-term in Report #2018-INFO-31. As
anticipated, Local Area Municipal staff recognize and acknowledge that the timing
for these transfers should take into consideration implementation considerations.
8.2 Upon receipt of comments from the participating Local Area Municipalities,
specific to their candidates identified for transfer in the short-term, Regional staff
will report back on a recommended implementation plan and timeline for the
transfers.
9. Attachments
Attachment #1: Information Report #2018-INFO-31 dated March 2, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by R. Jagannathan for:
S. Siopis, P.Eng.
Commissioner of Works
63
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: #2018-INFO-31
Date: March 2, 2018
Subject:
Road Rationalization – Interim Report
Recommendation:
Receive for information.
Report:
1. Purpose
In January 2016, Regional Council authorized staff to retain a consultant to work 1.1 with Regional and local area municipal staff to undertake a region-wide Road
Network Rationalization Study (“Study”) and develop a comprehensive Road
Network Rationalization Plan. The consulting firm of HDR was retained to
complete the study with direction and oversight provided by means of a joint team
consisting of staff from both the Works and Finance Departments. The purpose of this report is to update Regional Council on the Study findings to date and to
promote further dialogue between the Region and the Local Area Municipalities
with respect to the current status and next steps.
2. Background
The Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) has been involved in road 2.1 rationalization reviews through inter-agency discussions since 1997 and the Who
Does What (WDW) initiative in 2002. The WDW was a cooperative effort between
the Region and Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) that identified roads and/or road
sections suitable for transfer.
Since the WDW initiative a limited number of transfers have been successfully 2.2 completed.
64
Page 2 of 23
The 2016 Transportation Servicing and Financing Study (S&F) identified a 2.3
preliminary list of Regional and local roads as potential transfer candidates and
recommended the Study.
This report details the objectives, methodology and findings of the Study to date. 2.4
3. Study Methodology
The scope of the Study is outlined below: 3.1
• Review and confirm proposed road rationalization criteria as well as
Regional and Local Area Municipal road transfer candidates.
• Identify current and future capital as well as the maintenance and operational needs of transfer candidates and related cost estimates.
• Establish a conditional schedule for transfers.
Guiding principles for the Study were established to define the limitations and 3.2 assumptions to support the decision-making process. The following principles
provided a framework for the study:
• Establish criteria to evaluate the function and character of candidate roads
for transfer.
• Conduct a systematic and objective analysis based on 2031 planning and
forecast conditions in anticipation of major regional growth.
• Consult with the LAMs throughout the process.
Collaboration between the Region and LAMs provided regular opportunities for 3.3
discussion on the Study process, evaluation criteria, potential candidate roads for
transfer and draft Study findings.
65
Page 3 of 23
Table 1 summarizes the meetings with LAMs. Meetings were supplemented with 3.4
ongoing email and telephone communications.
Table 1: Consultation Overview
Local Area Municipality Date Purpose
Town of Ajax 21-Apr-16 Initial discussions
Town of Ajax 09-May-16
Discussion of preliminary
results
Township of Brock 05-May-16 Initial discussions
Township of Brock 17-May-16
Discussion of preliminary
results
Municipality of Clarington 27-Apr-16 Initial discussions
Municipality of Clarington 20-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results
City of Oshawa 21-Apr-16 Initial discussions
City of Oshawa 10-May-16
Discussion of preliminary
results
City of Pickering 18-Apr-16 Initial discussions
City of Pickering 11-May-16
Discussion of preliminary
results
Township of Scugog 20-Apr-16 Initial discussions
Township of Scugog 17-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results
Township of Uxbridge 20-Apr-16
Initial discussions.
Subsequently indicated no
further interest in transfers
Town of Whitby 26-Apr-16 Initial discussions
Town of Whitby 06-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results
66
Page 4 of 23
An initial list of candidate roads for transfer from local to Regional jurisdiction and 3.5
from Regional to local jurisdiction was sourced from the 2016 Transportation S&F
Study report. Through consultations with the LAMs, new road transfer candidates
were identified and added to the list. The resulting road transfer candidates are
discussed later in this report.
3.6 Information sources from the Region and LAMs included:
• Official Plans and staff reports
• Road characteristics and condition reports
• Bridge and culvert inspection reports
• Storm sewer network maps
• Pavement management system bench mark costs
• 2016 Transportation S&F Study report
• Presentation from Regional Council education session on road rationalization (April, 2011)
• Capital project and maintenance budgets
• Life cycle cost estimates (where available)
• Development charge background studies
The Region’s Transportation Model was used to forecast future traffic volumes 3.7
and determine trip type attributed to the proposed road transfer candidates.
4. Criteria
The road rationalization process is supported by a set of criteria that describe the 4.1 role and function of the road within the context of the overall network, growth
management, and support for economic growth throughout the Region. These
criteria, described below, were subsequently confirmed through the recent
approval of the Transportation Master Plan (Section 6.4.3. – Regional Road Definition).
Draft evaluation criteria were shared with the LAMs to obtain comments and 4.2
suggestions. Based on input received, the evaluation criteria were revised.
Transfer candidates were evaluated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 representing
complete local function and character and 10 representing complete regional function and character. Each criterion is discussed in more detail below.
a) Road segment connects with provincial and/or inter-regional network
• One of the most important functions of a Regional road is to provide
regional and inter-regional connectivity. Therefore, the road transfer candidate’s connectivity to the provincial or inter-regional road network was considered to be an important criterion in assessing the road function.
67
Page 5 of 23
• The road transfer candidate’s level of connectivity to the current and future
provincial/inter-regional highway networks (2031 conditions, considering
the Highway 407 ETR extension project) formed the basis of scoring this
criterion.
b) Road segment carries high volume of inter-municipal and regional traffic
• Another criterion relating to a road transfer candidate’s significance in
providing regional connectivity is the extent and magnitude of inter-
municipal and inter-regional travel that it accommodates. This was determined by running select link assignments for each road transfer candidate using the Durham Regional Transportation Model.
c) Road segment attracts significantly higher volumes of traffic than adjacent
roads
• The relative volume of road transfer candidates to parallel roads (typically within 3 km) of similar character and/or function was also used as a criterion in
the scoring system (using the Durham Regional Transportation Model). The
logic behind this criterion relates to facilitating one route through an area to a
regional standard (speed, volume, access control) and have local parallel roads serving local or intra-municipal traffic.
d) Road segment’s level of access control
• Considering that Regional roads tend to carry higher volumes and allow higher
speed limits than local roads, they typically require higher levels of access control. A candidate road’s level of access control was considered to be
another criterion in the scoring system. The Region’s Official Plan (OP) which
outlines the network’s future road classifications was used to assess expected
levels of access control.
e) Road segment supports regional goods movement/aggregate hauling network
• Another important function of Regional roads is the movement of goods, as
goods movement travel tends to be of a regional and inter-regional nature.
Whether a road segment is well-positioned to accommodate goods movement travel was considered to be a criterion in the scoring system. The Regional OP’s Strategic Goods Movement Network and the Regional Structure which
indicates major employment areas was utilized for this assessment.
f) Road segment supports major transit route and/or planned rapid transit
route
68
Page 6 of 23
• In light of the Region’s Long Term Transit Strategy (LTTS) which aims to
achieve a transportation system that is focused on rapid transit to provide
excellent connections between the Region’s municipalities and neighboring
municipalities, corridors were scored based on the level of support for these significant transit routes.
g) Road segment supports region-wide economic and growth objectives
• Roads providing access to regional and urban growth centres are expected to
experience higher traffic volumes. The provision of access to such areas by road transfer candidates was also considered to be a criterion.
h) Road segment affects corridor planning or planning of downtowns or mature
urban areas
• This criterion was identified as a result of consulting with LAMs.
• During consultation sessions with LAMs, concerns were raised regarding the
ability to plan and achieve a downtown vision should a road segment currently
serving a downtown area be transferred to the Region. This applied in
particular to Highway 2 in downtown Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville, and Newcastle. As a result this criterion was added.
i) Road segment’s environmental and community impact due to change in
road function
• Similarly, this criterion was added to the list as a result of consultation with LAMs to reflect concerns of environmental and/or community impacts that could result from a local to Regional transfer. Such impacts might include
higher traffic volumes, increased truck traffic, and/or the need for road widening
(which can have negative impacts on existing homes and environmental
features).
5. Road Transfer Candidate Evaluation
The product of the criteria evaluations resulted in a final overall score between 0 5.1
and 10 for each road candidate. Overall scores in the low end of the range (for
example, 0 to 3) represent roads with strong local function and character, while
scores in the high end of the range represent roads with strong Regional function and character.
69
Page 7 of 23
The consultations with LAMs confirmed the need to distinguish road transfer 5.2
candidates between those in urban areas and those in rural areas of the Region.
• Urban area road candidates – For roads in urban areas, all nine criteria
apply, resulting in scores as high as 10 for those candidates with the highest potential as Regional roads. Strong local road candidates for transfer to the Region scored in the high end of the 0 to 10 range (for
example, from 7 to 10).
• Rural area road candidates – For roads in rural areas Criteria # 5, 6 and 7 generally do not apply resulting in scores for road transfer candidates being capped around 7. Scores for strong local rural road candidates for
transfer to the Region, therefore, are in the high end of the 0 to 7 range (for
example, 5 to 7).
The above criteria and thresholds capture the technical aspects of a road’s 5.3 function and character. The results of the analysis are summarized below by LAM (in alphabetical order). The criteria and thresholds provide a good indication of
candidates for jurisdictional transfer on the basis of sound transportation planning
principles. It is however recognized that non-technical considerations (e.g.
financial impacts, resource constraints, etc.) will influence the final recommendations and the timing of potential transfers.
6. Town of Ajax – Road Transfer Candidates
6.1 Table 2 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the Town of Ajax based on the evaluation.
Table 2: Ajax – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road # Road From To Length (km)
Lane (km)
Urban/Rural Area
Preliminary Recommendation
31
Westney Road
Harwood Avenue
Bayly Street 2.7 9.5 Urban
Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional
Rossland Road
Ajax/ Pickering Boundary
Ajax/ Whitby Boundary 7.2 14.3 Urban
Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Salem Road Taunton Rd
Ajax/ Pickering Boundary 2.1 4.2 Urban
No transfer, reconsider in the future
70
Page 8 of 23
Region to Local Transfer 6.2
• Westney Road (Harwood Avenue to Bayly Street) – Recommended for
transfer to Town of Ajax. This segment of Westney Road does not connect
Regional roads and does not provide a Regional function.
Local To Region Transfer 6.3
• Rossland Road (Ajax/Pickering boundary to Ajax/Whitby boundary)
Recommended for transfer from the Town of Ajax to Regional jurisdiction.
Rossland Road through Ajax is part of an important east-west arterial across southern Durham Region and, as such, functions as a key Regional east-west arterial road
• Rossland Road is part of the Town’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.
Accommodation of future cycling facilities needs consideration if Rossland Road is transferred to the Region.
• Salem Road (Taunton Road to Ajax/Pickering boundary) – Not
recommended for transfer at this time from the Town of Ajax to the Region.
The justification for transfer can be re-evaluated during a future road rationalization review and may be dependent on a future 407 interchange.
7. Brock Township – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 3 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 7.1
the Township of Brock based on the evaluation.
Table 3: Brock Township – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road Roads From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
47 Shoreline
Road 23-Mara
Road
Simcoe/
Durham
Boundary 2.1 4.3 Rural Transfer
Candidate
50 Portage Road Highway #12
76-
Highway #48 4.3 8.8 Rural Transfer Candidate
51 Old
Highway 12 50-Portage
Road
Simcoe/
Durham
Boundary 0.1 0.2 Rural Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional Simcoe Street
Brock
Concession 14
Regional
Highway 48 15.5 31 Rural
Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional Thorah Concession Highway 12/48 Simcoe St. 6.8 13.7 Rural Transfer Candidate
71
Page 9 of 23
Regional Road Roads From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
1
Local to
Regional River Road
(extension) Highway 12 Highway 2 7.1 14.2 Rural No transfer
Region To Local Transfer 7.2
• Shoreline Road (Regional Road 57 between Mara Road and Simcoe/Durham boundary) – Recommended for transfer from the Region
to Brock Township, reflecting its local function.
• Portage Road (Regional Road 50 between Highway 12 and Highway 48) – Recommended for transfer to Brock Township, reflecting its local function.
• Old Highway 12 (Regional Road 51 between Portage Road and
Simcoe/Durham boundary) – Recommended for transfer to Brock Township, reflecting its local function.
The Township expressed concern with the maintenance and capital costs associated with
any additional lane kilometres and made specific comment on the ability to deal with the
capital needs of the structures within these road segments.
Local To Region Transfer 7.3
• Simcoe Street (between Brock Concession 14 and Highway 48) –
Recommended for transfer from Brock Township to the Region. Simcoe
Street south of Concession 14 is already under Regional jurisdiction. The
transfer of the segment of Simcoe Street between Concession 14 and
Highway 48 would provide a continuous north-south Regional route to Highway 48.
• Brock Township currently has a boundary agreement for Simcoe Street
with Kawartha Lakes, and that Kawartha Lakes would therefore have to be part of the discussion if the Simcoe Street segment is to be transferred to the Region.
• Thorah Concession 1 (between Highway 12/48 and Simcoe Street) –
Recommended for transfer from Brock Township to the Region, either now or after a future road rationalization review. It is a candidate for transfer to Regional jurisdiction, as it is a continuation of Highway 48 to Simcoe
Street, is classified as a Type B Arterial in the Regional Official Plan, and
would provide an alternative route for traffic to bypass. There are
significant costs associated with both Simcoe Street and Thorah Concession 1 to Regional standard.
• River Road extension from Highway 12 to Simcoe Street – Not
recommended for transfer from Brock Township to Regional jurisdiction, as
its low score reflects a local function.
72
Page 10 of 23
8. Municipality of Clarington – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 4 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 8.1
the Municipality of Clarington based on the evaluation.
Table 4: Clarington – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
17
Main Street/
Manvers Street Winter Road 04-Taunton Road 3 6.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional Pebblestone
Road Townline
Road Courtice
Road 2.9 5.7 Urban
No transfer, reconsider in the
future
Local to
Regional Holt Road Highway
401 Regional
Highway 2 3.2 6.3 Rural Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional King Street (Bowmanville) Regional Road 57 Haines St. 3.1 12.4 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to Regional King Street (Newcastle) Baldwin Street Arthur St. 0.8 3.2 Urban No transfer
Local to Regional
Darlington
Clarke Townline (#2) Taunton Road
Future Highway
407 Interchange 2.0 4.0 Rural
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to Regional Boundary Road Highway 35 Highway 115 1.8 3.6 Rural Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Trulls Road Taunton Road Bloor St 6.4 12.8 Urban No transfer
Region To Local Transfer 8.2
• Main Street / Manvers Street (Regional Road 17 from Winter Road to
Taunton Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Municipality of
Clarington. This road is serving a local function. Under local jurisdiction, there would be a greater ability to achieve a “downtown” vision.
73
Page 11 of 23
Local To Region Transfer 8.3
• Holt Road (from Highway 401 to Highway 2) – Recommended for
transfer from the Municipality of Clarington to Regional jurisdiction. With its
existing Highway 401 interchange, Holt Road serves a Regional function, connecting Highway 401 with Highway 2, as well as serving Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
• Boundary Road (between Highway 35 and Highway 115) –
Recommended for transfer from the Municipality of Clarington to Regional jurisdiction. It has a Regional function in connecting these two provincial highways. The Municipality of Clarington currently has a boundary
agreement for Boundary Road with Kawartha Lakes; Kawartha Lakes
would therefore have to be part of the discussion if this road segment is to
be transferred to the Region.
• King Street in Bowmanville (between Regional Road 57 and Haines
Street) – Not recommended for transfer at this time. The impetus for
transfer to Regional jurisdiction may be future enhanced transit service on
Highway 2 extending to downtown Bowmanville. Since enhanced transit is a long-term initiative, there is less need for transfer at this time.
• The Municipality expressed concerns about transferring downtown King
Street to the Region, considering the various streetscaping and visioning
plans for the downtown, as well as seasonal road closures that the Municipality implements for community events.
• In future road rationalization reviews, consideration should be given to
segmenting this part of King Street to distinguish the downtown core
(between Scugog Street and Liberty Street), so that future reviews can separately evaluate the portions of King Street west and east of downtown Bowmanville, as well as downtown Bowmanville.
• Darlington-Clarke Townline (from Taunton Road to future Highway 407 interchange) – Not recommended for transfer at this time. It should be reconsidered during a future road rationalization review.
The remaining candidates are not recommended for transfer from local to Regional
jurisdiction. Future road rationalization reviews may revisit these and other candidates as
needed.
74
Page 12 of 23
9.City of Oshawa – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 5 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 9.1
the City of Oshawa based on the evaluation.
Table 5: Oshawa – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
2 Simcoe St.Harbour
Road
60 Wentworth
Street 1.0 3.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
3
Winchester Road East/
Grandview Street
North
33-
Harmony Road
Columbus Road 2.6 5.7 Urban Transfer Candidate
16 Ritson Road
60-
Wentworth Street
22-BloorStreet 0.8 3.6 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
35 Wilson Road. 22-BloorStreet Taunton Road 6.2 17.7 Urban Transfer Candidate
54 Park Road 22-Bloor
Street
28-Rossland
Road 4.3 15.8 Urban Transfer
Candidate
25 Champlain Avenue
Oshawa/
Whitby Boundary
Stevenson Road 1.3 2.6 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
52 Boundary
Road
Wentworth
Street W
Philip Murray
Avenue 0.9 2.5 Urban Transfer
Candidate
55
Townline
Road South
Gord
Vinson Avenue Bloor Street 0.25 0.5 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Harmony / Columbus
Road
Winchester
Road
Grandview
Street 2.6 5.2 Urban Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional Adelaide Avenue
Oshawa/
Whitby Boundary
Thornton Road 0.01 0.1 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to Regional Rossland Road Harmony Road 300m East of Harmony 0.3 0.9 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the
75
Page 13 of 23
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
Road future
Local to
Regional
King Street
(West)
Oshawa/
Whitby Boundary
Centre
Street 2.7 11.3 Urban Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional
Bond Street
(West)
King Street Centre Street 1.8 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
King Street
(Middle)
Centre
Street
Ritson
Road North 1 4 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to Regional
Bond Street
(Middle)
Centre Street Ritson Road North 1.1 4.1 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the
future
Local to
Regional
King Street
(East)
Ritson
Road North
Townline
Road 3.4 14.3 Urban Transfer
Candidate
Local to Regional Bond St.(East)
Ritson Road
North
King Street East 1.7 4.8 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Thornton
Road (new alignment)
Taunton
Road
Winchester
Road 4.2 8.4 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Region To Local Transfers 9.2
• Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2 from Harbour Road to Wentworth
Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its
local function and character.
• Winchester Road (Regional Road 3) and Grandview (from Harmony
Road to Columbus Road) – Recommended for transfer to the City of
Oshawa, reflecting their local function and character. This transfer from the
Region to the City would mirror the transfer of Harmony Road and
Columbus Road from the City to the Region.
• Wilson Road (Regional Road 35 from Bloor Street to Taunton Road) –
Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its local
function and character.
• Park Road (Regional Road 54 from Bloor Street to Rossland Road) – Recommended for transfer from the Region to the City of Oshawa,
reflecting its local function since the deletion of the Highway 401
interchange.
76
Page 14 of 23
• Boundary Road (Regional Road 52 from Wentworth Street to Philip
Murray Avenue) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa. This
short stub does not serve a Regional function. If this road is transferred to
local jurisdiction, then it may be subject to a boundary agreement between the City of Oshawa and the Town of Whitby.
• Townline Road (Regional Road 55 from Gord Vinson Avenue to Bloor
Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its
local function, especially with the realignment of Bloor Street. If this road is transferred to local jurisdiction, then it may be subject to a boundary agreement between the City of Oshawa and the Municipality of Clarington.
• Ritson Road (Regional Road 16 from Wentworth Street to Bloor Street) – Not recommended for transfer. Although it has received a relatively low evaluation score, Ritson Road provides the only grade-
separated crossing of the CN mainline between Simcoe Street (Regional
Road 2) and Farewell Street (Regional Road 56). It is recognized that the
numerous driveways on this part of Ritson Road (similar to other parts of
Ritson Road) detract from its Regional function. It can be reconsidered in the future as a candidate for transfer.
• Champlain Avenue (Regional Road 25 from Whitby/Oshawa Boundary
to Stevenson Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be
reconsidered during a future road rationalization review.
Local To Region Transfers 9.3
• Harmony Road / Columbus Road (from Winchester Road to
Grandview Street) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Oshawa
to Regional jurisdiction. Despite its low score, this portion of Harmony Road is a continuation of Regional Road 33 and has an interchange with Highway 407, while Columbus Road is a continuation of Regional Road 3
connecting with Harmony Road. This transfer from the City to the Region
would mirror the transfer of Winchester Road and Grandview Street from
the Region to the City.
• King Street and Bond Street – The City of Oshawa outlined its planning
and urban design goals for King Street and Bond Street through downtown
Oshawa, and its desire to lead the planning efforts for these two streets.
From the Region’s perspective, King Street and Bond Street are an important part of the Long-Term Transit Strategy for Durham Region, as
they are planned to support high order transit service. Through the
consultation process with the City, King Street and Bond Street were
divided into three segments for evaluation purposes:
(a) King Street and Bond Street (from Whitby/Oshawa boundary to Centre Street) – Recommended for transfer from the City to Regional
jurisdiction, reflecting their importance as east-west arterials and
planned high order transit corridor.
(b) King Street and Bond Street (from Centre Street to Ritson Road) –
Not recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. Can be reconsidered in a future road rationalization review.
77
Page 15 of 23
(c) King Street and Bond Street (from Ritson Road to Townline Road)
– Recommended for transfer from the City to Regional jurisdiction,
reflecting their importance as important east-west arterials and planned
high order transit routes.
• Thornton Road (from Taunton Road to Winchester Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered during a future road
rationalization review after the deferred 407ETR interchange is
implemented.
• Adelaide Avenue (from Oshawa/Whitby Boundary to Thornton Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered in conjunction
with the construction of the Manning/Adelaide interconnection.
• Rossland Road (from Harmony Road to 300 m east of Harmony Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered in conjunction
with the construction of the Rossland Road extension to Townline Road.
10. City of Pickering – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 6 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 10.1
the City of Pickering based on the evaluation.
Table 6: Pickering – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road # Road From To Length
(km) Lane
(km) Urban/Rur
al Area Preliminary
Recommendation
Previously RR1 Mowbray Street North Limit of Highway 407 Brock Road 1.3 3.5 Urban Transfer Candidate
5 9th
Concession Concession
Road 9
Lake Ridge
Road 0.1 0.2 Urban Transfer Candidate
24 Church
Street 22-Bayly
Street
Ajax/
Pickering
Boundary 0.9 2 Urban Transfer Candidate
38 Whites Road
(South)
0.6 km South
of Oklahoma Drive
22-Bayly
Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
38 Whites Road
(North)
300 m North of Third
Concession Road
Taunton
Road 1.3 4.4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future
29 Liverpool Rd Highway 2 Finch Avenue 1.2 3.9 Urban No transfer
78
Page 16 of 23
Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
Local to
Regional
Third Concession
Road
Ajax/ Pickering
Boundary
West of Valley
Farm Road
1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Whitevale
Road
200m West of Future
Rossland Road
Extension
Brock
Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Sideline 26
(South)
Taunton
Road
Whitevale
Road 2.1 4.1 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Sideline 26
(Middle)
Whitevale
Road Highway 7 - - Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to
Regional
Sideline 26
(North) Highway 7 Concessio
n Road 7 2.2 4.4 Urban No transfer
Local to
Regional
Seventh
Concession Rd. (East)
Westney
Road
Lake
Ridge Road 4 8 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to Regional
Seventh Concession
Rd. (West)
Sideline 26 Brock Road 3.3 6.6 Urban No transfer
Local to
Regional Salem Road
Fifth
Concession Road
Seventh
Concession Road 5.2 10.4 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Region To Local Transfer 10.2
•Mowbray Street (from north limit of 407 to Brock Road) –
Recommended for transfer from the Region to the City of Pickering. No
longer part of Brock Road.
•9th Concession (from 9th Concession to Lake Ridge Road) –Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. This short section is no
longer part of Regional Road 5.
79
Page 17 of 23
•Church Street (Regional Road 24 from Bayly Street to Ajax/Pickering
boundary) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. It has a
local function and is only a short segment of Regional Road. Should the
Durham Live proposal require a partial interchange at Highway 401, thiscould be reconsidered.
•Whites Road (south) (Regional Road 38 from 600 m south of
Oklahoma Drive to Bayly Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City
of Pickering. It has a local function and terminates within a neighborhood.
•Whites Road (north) (Regional Road 38 from 300 north of Third
Concession to Taunton Road) – Not recommended for transfer to the
City. After the new Whites Road is constructed, it may continue to function
as a key route from south Pickering to Toronto and York Region. Thissegment may be a possible candidate for future road rationalization,
contingent on lower traffic volumes.
•Liverpool Road (Regional Road 29 from Highway 2 to Finch Avenue) –
Not recommended for transfer to the City. Its Regional function isenhanced by its interchange with Highway 401 and its access to the
Pickering Urban Growth Centre.
Local To Region Transfer 10.3
•Third Concession (from west of Valley Farm Road to Ajax/Pickeringboundary) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to theRegion. Third Concession is the extension of Rossland Road and will be
an important arterial to serve the Seaton Community.
•Whitevale Road (from 200 west of future Rossland Road Extension toBrock Road) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the
Region. It will be an important east-west arterial serving the Seaton
Community.
•Sideline 26 (south) (from Taunton Road to Whitevale Road) –Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. It will
be part of the future Whites Road extension (Regional Road 38) serving
the Seaton Community.
•Sideline 26 (middle) (from Whitevale Road to Highway 7) –Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. It willbe part of the future Whites Road extension (Regional Road 38) serving
the Seaton Community. This section is currently unopened road allowance.
•Sideline 26 (north) (from Highway 7 to Concession Road 7) – Not
recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. It is located in thefuture Pickering Airport lands.
•Seventh Concession (from Westney Road to Lake Ridge Road) – Not
recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. Shouldbe re-examined in a future road rationalization study, after the deferred
407ETR interchange is constructed.
80
REVISE THIS PAGE ONLY
Page 18 of 23
•Seventh Concession (from Sideline 26 to Brock Road) – Not
recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. It is located in the
future Pickering Airport lands.
•Salem Road (from Fifth Concession to Seventh Concession) – Notrecommended for transfer at this time from the City to the Region. Should
be re-examined in a future road rationalization study, after the deferred
407ETR interchange is constructed.
11.Township of Scugog – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 7 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 11.1 the Township of Scugog based on the evaluation.
Table 7: Scugog – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates 11.2
Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
7 Island Road Highway #7A
Carnegie
Beach Road 11.6 24.1 Rural Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Scugog
Line 12
23-LakeRidge
Road
Simcoe
Street 13.4 26.8 Rural No transfer
Local to
Regional Scugog Line 14
23-Lake
RidgeRoad Highway 7/12 6.7 13.4 Rural No transfer
Local to Regional Ashburn
Road Townline
Road Scugog
Line 4 5 10.1 Rural No transfer
Local to
Regional Marsh Hill Road Scugog Line 4
21-
Goodwood Road 1.1 2.3 Rural No transfer
Local to Regional Scugog
Line 6 Highway
7A
23-LakeRidge
Road 9.6 19.2 Rural No transfer
Local to
Regional Scugog Line 2 Highway 7/12 Simcoe Street 3.6 7.2 Rural
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Region To Local Transfers 11.3
•Island Road (Regional Road 7 from Highway 7A to Carnegie Beach
Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Township of Scugog. Island
Road does not serve a Regional function.
81
Page 19 of 23
Similar to comments from other municipalities, Scugog staff expressed concern with the
maintenance and capital costs associated with taking on additional lane kilometres.
Local To Region Transfers 11.4
• There are no candidates recommended for transfer from the Township of Scugog to the Region.
• Scugog Line 6 (from Highway 7A to Lake Ridge Road) has the potential to
function as a Regional Road, however, it is adjacent to major Regional
Roads on each side (Reach Street or Regional Road 8 and Goodwood Road or Regional Road 21), and it would therefore be redundant.
• Scugog Line 2 (from Highway 7/12 to Simcoe Street) has the potential to
be a continuation of Shirley Road (Regional Road 19) could be
reconsidered as a candidate for transfer from the Township to the Region in a future road rationalization review.
12. Town of Whitby – Road Transfer Candidates
Table 8 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 12.1
the Town of Whitby based on the evaluation.
Table 8: Whitby – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional Road # Road From To Length
(km) Lane
(km) Urban/Rural
Area Preliminary
Recommendation
22
Victoria Street (old alignment) 0.7 km West of 26-Thickson
0.4 km West of 26-Thickson Road 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
43 Cochrane Street Dundas Street 28-Rossland Road 2.1 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate
45
Henry
Street (South) 22-Victoria Street Burns Street W 1.2 3.3 Urban Transfer Candidate
45
Henry
Street (North) Burns Street W Dundas Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
46
Brock
Street (South) Water Street Victoria Street 1 2.7 Urban Transfer Candidate
46
Brock
Street (North) Victoria Street South Limit of Highway 401 0.3 1.5 Urban Transfer Candidate
Former 23
Lake Ridge Road (North) Almond Avenue Cresser Avenue 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
82
Page 20 of 23
Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation
Former 23
Lake Ridge Road (South) 0.65 km N of Victoria Street 0.880 km N of Victoria Street 0.2 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate
36
Anderson/ Hopkins Street Rossland Road Consumers Drive 3.7 13.7 Urban No transfer
26 Thickson Road Victoria Street Wentworth St 0.9 3.3 Urban No transfer
60 Wentworth Street Thickson Road
Whitby/
Oshawa Boundary 1.3 6 Urban No transfer
25 Champlain Avenue Future Champlain Ave. Whitby/Oshawa Boundary 1.3 3.1 Urban No transfer
58 Manning Road Brock Street Garrard Road 3.5 16 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to
Regional
Rossland
Road
Ajax/Whitby
Boundary
Cochrane
Street 2.9 8.9 Urban
Transfer
Candidate
Local to
Regional
Dundas Street
(West) Fothergill Court
Cochrane
Street 5.8 23.2 Urban
Transfer
Candidate
Local to
Regional
Dundas Street (Middle) Cochrane Street Garden Street 1.7 6.7 Urban
No transfer, reconsider in the future
Local to Regional
Dundas Street (East) Garden Street
Whitby/ Oshawa Boundary 2.9 14.4 Urban Transfer Candidate
Local to Regional Columbus Road Whitby/Pickering Boundary
Whitby/
Oshawa Boundary 7.4 14.7 Urban
No transfer,
reconsider in the future
Local to
Regional
Hopkins
Street (2031 road extension
scenario)
Consumers
Drive
North limit of
Highway 401 1.8 4 Urban
No transfer, reconsider in the
future
83
Page 21 of 23
Region To Local Transfers 12.2
• Victoria Street (old alignment west of Thickson Road) – Recommended
for transfer to the Town of Whitby, as it will be replaced by the new
alignment of Victoria Street.
• Cochrane Street (Regional Road 43 from Dundas Street to Rossland
Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, reflecting its
local function and character.
• Henry Street (Regional Road 45 from Victoria Street to Burns Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of
Regional road has a local function and character.
• Henry Street (Regional Road 45 from Burns Street to Dundas Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of Regional road has a local function and character.
• Brock Street (Regional Road 46 from Water Street to Victoria Street) –
Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of Brock Street has a local function in the Port of Whitby area.
• Brock Street (Regional Road 46 from Victoria Street to South Limit of
Highway 401) – This is an extremely short segment of road and thus
should be considered for transfer to the Town of Whitby for practical reasons if the transfer of the southern portion of Brock Street is
implemented.
• Former Lake Ridge Road (north and south segments; Almond Avenue to Cresser Avenue; north of Victoria Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, as they have local function and character.
• Manning Road (Regional Road 58 from Brock Street to Garrard Road)
– This segment is not recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, but
it should be re-examined in a future road rationalization study.
No other roads are recommended for transfer from the Region to the Town of Whitby.
Local To Region Transfers 12.3
• Rossland Road (from Ajax/Whitby boundary to Cochrane Street) –
Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region.
Rossland Road is an important east-west arterial serving southern Durham Region.
• Dundas Street – The Town of Whitby has advanced planning and urban
design goals for Dundas Street through downtown Whitby, and has expressed its desire to manage the planning and design efforts for Dundas Street. From the Region’s perspective, Dundas Street is an important part
of the Long-Term Transit Strategy, as it is planned to support high order
transit service. For the purpose of this analysis and based on consultation
with the Town, Dundas Street was divided into three segments:
84
Page 22 of 23
(a) Dundas Street (from Fothergill Court to Cochrane Street) –
Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region,
reflecting its importance as an east-west arterial and high order transit
corridor.
(b) Dundas Street (from Cochrane Street to Garden Street) – Not recommended for transfer at this time, as the segment traverses
Town’s downtown core. The transfer opportunity should be re-
examined in a future road rationalization review.
(c) Dundas Street (from Garden Street to Whitby/Oshawa boundary)
Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region, reflecting its importance as an east-west arterial and high order transit
corridor.
13. Current Status and Next Steps
As noted earlier in this report, there were two rounds of meetings and ongoing 13.1
communications with the LAMs to facilitate the sharing of information, including:
• refinement of the criteria;
• preliminary evaluation results;
• structure condition data;
• confirmation of road condition data; and
• annual maintenance costs and capital needs.
Technical evaluations of road segments identified through discussions with the 13.2 LAMs using the criteria described earlier in this report have resulted in the list of
roads for potential transfer.
Several LAMs have expressed an interest in pursuing transfer opportunities for 13.3
specific road segments consistent with the candidates list developed through this process. However, the possible transfer opportunities in each municipality have unique considerations and will require further discussion to determine all of the
specifics related to the possible transfer opportunities.
It is recognized that the timing of potential transfers could be influenced by 13.4
resourcing implications. The allocation of staff, equipment and funding are all considerations that may impact the timing of a transfer. A phased in approach that allows for funding and resources to be allocated may be appropriate in
specific situations. In other situations transfers in the near future may be
appropriate.
It is anticipated that each LAM will review and respond with comments, specific to 13.5 the preliminary recommendations for each of the road segments identified in the report to allow for focus on early transfer opportunities for transfers.
Upon receipt of comments regarding the road transfer candidates from the LAMs, 13.6
staff will report back on progress made for potential near term transfers and next
steps for a phased approach on future transfers.
85
Page 23 of 23
As a longer term principle, the list of potential road transfers will be reviewed on a 13.7
regular basis (i.e. every five years) recognizing that there will be changing
conditions and circumstances such as future planning applications.
14. Conclusion
To date, open dialogue with the LAMs has resulted in the sharing of detailed 14.1 information requesting potential road transfers, collaboration on evaluation criteria
that respects the various and unique characteristics of some road segments and a
mutual understanding of concerns in specific situations. The process to date has
provided the basis for continued dialogue on specific near term transfers as well
as the development of a plan for phasing in the longer term transfers.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
S. Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works
Original signed by
G.H. Cubitt, MSW
Chief Administrative Officer
86