HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 28, 2002PICKERING
Finance & Operations Committee
Meeting Agenda
Monday, April 28, 2002 at 1:30 P.M.
Chair: Councillor Holland
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of March 24, 2003
iff)
1.
DELEGATIONS
The Chair shall ask if there are any persons who wish to address an item
on the agenda.
{Iff) , MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PAGE
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 10-03
INVESTIGATION FOR THE WARRANT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNALS - PICKERING PARKWAY AND VALLEY FARM ROAD
1-11
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 11-03
ROSEBANK ROAD AT SHEPPARD AVENUE INTERSECTION
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF INSTALLING
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS
12-20
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 13-03
INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
OPERATIONS ON ROSEBANK ROAD AND WOODSMERE
CRESCENT FRONTING ALTONA FOREST PUBLIC SCHOOL
21-29
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 17-03
PICKERING SPORTS MEDICINE & WELLNESS CENTRE
AMENDING LEASE AGREEMENT
30-34
Finance & Operations Committee
Meeting Agenda
Monday, April 28, 2002 at 1:30 P.M.
Chair: Councillor Holland
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 12-03
REAR YEARD FENCING
GREYABBEY COURT - 18T-98009
35-38
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 16-03
TENDER AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
To be circulated under separate cover
(IV)
1.
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
For Committee to consider a land matter.
39-42
{V) STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
{VI) OTHER BUSINESS
{VII) ADJOURNMENT
001
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 10-03 regarding traffic control at the intersection of Pickering
Parkway and Valley Farm Road, be received; and
That a by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' to By-law 2632/88 to regulate the
traffic at the above intersection of Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road.
002
PICKERING
REPORT TO
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 10-03
Date: April 14, 2003
From:
Richard W. Holborn, P. Eng
Division Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Investigation for the Warrant of Traffic Control Signals
Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road
Recommendation:
1. That report OES 10-03 regarding traffic control at the intersection of Pickering
Parkway and Valley Farm Road be received;
2. That a by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' to By-law 2632/88 to regulate
the traffic at the above intersection of Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road.
Executive Summary: Not applicable
Financial Implications: The 1999 Development Charges Background Study
forecasts the need for the installation of traffic control signals in 2008, and funding was
also forecast at that time.
The manufacture and installation of traffic control signals including applicable signage
and pavement markings would cost approximately $90,000 in today's dollars but was
not recommended or approved in the 2003 Capital Budget for External subdivision
Works.
If an all way stop is.approved as an interim measure, the manufacture and installation
of regulatory stop signs, accessory tabs, applicable warning signs and pavement
markings, costing approximately $1,000 can be accommodated within the Road's
current budget account 2320-2409.
Background: Pickering Parkway intersects with the south limit of Valley Farm
Road presenting a condition commonly known as a T-intersection. Both roads are
classified as type 'C' arterial roadways, with a daily vehicular volume on Pickering
Parkway of approximately 9,000 vehicles and a daily vehicular volume on Valley Farm
Road of approximately 2600 vehicles.
Report OES 10-03 Date: April 14, 2003
Subject: Investigation for the Warrant of Traffic Control Signals, Pickering Parkway and
Valley Farm Road Page 2
003
In response to a number of requests for the installation of traffic control at this
intersection, staff have recently completed the necessary warrant analysis for either the
installation of traffic control signals or an all way stop as per Ministry of Transportation
guidelines. Given the an increase in traffic that has occurred on these two road
facilities over the past number of years, the need for an investigation for traffic control
signals or an all way stop at this intersection was justified.
In the past three (3) years, there have been no right angle or turning movement collision
occurrences reported that are correctable through the installation of traffic control
signals or all way stop control at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm
Road. However, there have been six (6) collisions occurring in proximity of the
intersection. These collisions may be related to speed or driver error, which are not
correctable by the installation of a traffic control device.
In compliance with the Ministry of Transportation guidelines for the installation of traffic
control signals, turning moverment count data studies, completed on March 20, 2003,
confirm that the minimum vehicular volume, the volume split on the minor street,
pedestrian volumes, and collision history warrants are not met for an all way stop
control at Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road, but warrants are met for a traffic
control signal.
Recently, Council adopted the Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy (SSTMS) as
a guide and as a "toolkit" to help determine the best course of action to be taken in
consideration for improving neighborhood traffic movement safely.
According to the SSTMS reduced All-Way Stop Sign Policy warrant for the City of
Pickering, the evaluation is based on 4 main warrant sections:
1. Traffic control signals are warranted but cannot be implemented immediately;
2. Minimum Vehicular Volume;'
3. Collision history;
4. Sightline requirements.
If any individual warrant is fully satisfied, an all way stop is technically justified, however,
if warrant guidelines oversee specific conditions, then traffic control devices may not be
recommended.
However, given that this intersection does meet the requirements for traffic control
signals, recommending an all way stop, as an interim measure, would provide right of
way between conflicting traffic movements and increase the level of safety at the
intersection until such time as funds are approved for signals.
OO4
Report OES 10-03 Date: April 14, 2003
Subject: Investigation for the Warrant of Traffic Control Signals, Pickering Parkway and
Valley Farm Road Page 3
Attachments:
1. Draft By-Law
2. Location Map
3. Turning Movement Count Data/Warrant Summary
Prepared By:
Bill Starr /'
Coordinator
Traffic Engineering
AP~Evgx.~tt B u n't~ma Y:
Director
Operations & Emergency Services
Submitted By:
~_Ri~ard W. ~l'~lb-0rn
.,Givision He,id
(Municipal Property & Engineering
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City C~)u~cil
// .:"7 \ ' ,, ,
,~'/ /.
Thorn's J~. Q~'~n, Cl~ef Admin' ative Officer
ATTACHPIENT#_ I TOREPORT# ~)P'~ ~o-o_~
005.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to amend By-law 2632/88.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8, the Council of
The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 2632/88 provide the erection of
stop signs at the intersections on highways under its jurisdiction.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS
FOLLOWS:
Stop signs shall be erected at the intersection of highways set out in Column I of
Schedule A attached hereto, facing the traffic bound in the direction set out in
Column II of the Schedule.
2. Schedule A to By-law 2632/88, as amended, is hereby further amended by
adding hereto the following item:
Column I Column II
Intersection
Facinq Traffic
Pickering ParkwaY and
Valley Farm Road
Eastbound and Westbound on
Pickering Parkway
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5th day of
May, 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
, ......... S-TOP--SIGN. ................
LOCATION ~ ~
OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~,c,~ ~o~ TRAFFIC REPORT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
" ~o~ .,~, LOCATION OF PROPOSED "ALL WAY STOP" INTERSECTION
1:4000 ~ MAR 27/2003
L,, \ MP¢nd£\ Thematic Mrzpping \ Maps \ MP~E - Traffic\Attachment for Reporf \ 2003 T-tTep¢rf -12. d~g
All-Way Stop Warrant
(.~-terial and Major Coltec:or Streets) '
ATTACHMENT# , 3 TOREPORT#,O~ $ 10-0
/
of,, -5
~?r Road: ~)~C..F~ ~',":(~, t.'~.:~: Number of Lanes:
Operating Speed of Major Road: (~:, ~ [~ Intersection Type: 'T-~ r~.~¢F~:,¢.;::~
Houm ~ Mino~ Total Exceeding, Pedestrmq, Peds+, Exceedin~ Maior ~inor ~Solit Ratio
Ending Volum~ Volume Volume 3~0 Volume Minor '~40
t;~> .....
WARRANT EVALAUTION
Warrant 1: Traffic Control
Traffic control signals are warranted but cannot be implemented immecliately.
:'::" - VCarram. 2--Ncm~um&:ehic,4eVolurae
;(}::i',. !. ' T~tal vetficle volume on all intersection approaches exceeding 70% o£ 500.(350) vehicles per
Yes ~-] No
hour for each of any 8 hours of the day; mud
a combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the side-street exceeding 70% of 200 (140) per Yes ~--] No
· hour for each of the same 8 hours of the day and a delay of ~eater than 30 seconds; and
' a volume split that does not exceed 70/30. Volumes on the major street are vehicles only. Yes ~-] No
Volumes on the minor street include pedestrians and vekicles.
Warrant 3: Collision History
Occurrence of three or more reportable right-angle collisions of a B~pe correctible through the
installation.of an alt-way stop in a 12 month per/od averaged over 3 years.
Yes B No
007'
warrant 4: Si~htlJne Reouirements
The minimum stopping sight distance at this intersection is less than the applicable critesa for
wet pavement as specified in the Stopping Sight Distance table below,
Yes
F-~No
Design Speed (kin/h)
40
50
60
70
Stopping Si2-Jm Distance Required (m)
5O
85
1t0
]~7ote: For the muM-x,C¢~ szop ro be techni, caih.,juxtified,. . an)., indn,iduaJ warrant mus~ be.,?x/h,', satisfied,...
· ATTACHMENT#
008 Z.
Traffic Control Signal Warrant
Total Count Diagram
Municipality: cityof Picketing Weather conditions:
Site #: 4000000007 Cloudy and Rain
Intersection: Pickering Parkway & Valley Farm R( Person(s) who counted:
TFR File #: ~ Renata Rozinger
Count date: 20-Mar-03
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Picketing Parkway runs W/E
North Leg Total: 2220 Heavys 9 t 8 ' 27 ~ , Heavys 7 East Leg Total: 4678
North Entering: 1074 Trucks 3 6 9.,!i~:i~ Trucks 7 East Entering: 2270
North Peds: 30 Cars 632 406 1038 ~ Cars 1132 East Peds: 0
Peds Cross: ~ Totals 644 430 Totals 1146 Peds Cross:
~ ~ Valley Farm Road
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals ~ Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
34 11 2302 2347'~ 558 5 4 567
~ 1670 8 25
1
7O3
Picketing Parkway 2225 13 29
W~ ~'- E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals ~ Picker[ng_Pa[kw~Y
16 13 1949 1978
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
19 15 2523 2355 19 34 2408
Peds Cross:
West Peds: 2
West Entering: 2557
West Leg Total: 4904
Comments
South T-intersection
ATTACHMENT#.
Traffic Control Signal Warrant
Count Date: 20-Mar-03
Intersection: Picketing Parkway & Valley Farm Road Municipality: Cityof Picketing
Major Road: Pickering Parkway Major Road Runs: EAN one lane each way
Operating Speed of Major Road: 60 km/hr Operating under free flow conditions
Warrant #t: Minimum Vehicular Volumes.
A, All Approaches, 80% Satisfied
Minimum Requirements
No. of
Lanes 1 Lane Each Way 2 Lanes Each Way 3 Lanes Hours Ending
Flow 1 Lane 1 Lane 2Lane 2 Lane or More Percentaoe
F, Flow R. Flow F. Flow R. Flow R. FIow 7:00 8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 18;00 Warrant
Condition (Code 1) (Code 2) (Code 3) (Code 4) (Code 5)
100% 480 720 600 ' 900 1125 100%
274 '447 607 651 827 904 1015 1135 Yes:
80% 385 575 480 720 900 No: X
100% Fulfilled 100 100 100 100 100 100 600
All
A~Droa- 80% Fulfilled 80 80
ches
Actual % if Below 80% 57 57
Total: 737
Actual Average (Total/8): 92%
B. Minor Street Both Approaches.
100% 120 170 120 170 170 100%
97 17'5 186 92 124 121 134 136 Yes:
80% 95 135 95 135 135 No: X
100% Fulfilled 100 100 100 100 100 100 600
Minor
Street
Both 80% Fulfilled 80 80
~ Aooroa-
ches
Actual % if Below 80% 77 77
Total: 757
Actual Average (Total/8): 95%
ATTACH PIENT#._~,, .....70 REPOR'I' ;~ OI~..S
0 t 0 4
Traffic Control Signal Warrant
Count Date: 20-Mar-03
Intersection: Picketing Parkway & Valley Farm Road Municipality: City of Picketing
Major Road: Picketing Parkway Major Road Runs: E/W one lane each way
Operating Speed of Major Road: 60 km/hr Operating under free flow conditions
Warrant #2: Delay to Cross Traffic.
A, Major Street Both Approaches. 80% Satisfied
Minimum Requirements
No. of
Lanes 1 Lane Each'Way 2 Lanes Each Way 3 Lanes Hours Ending
Percentage !
Flow 1 Lane 1 Lane 2Lane 2Lane or More
F, Flow R. Flow F.'FIow R. Flow R. Flow 7:00 8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Warrant l
3ondition (Code 1) (Code 2) (Code 3) (Code 4) (Code 5)
100% 480 720 600 900 1125 100%
177 272 421 559 703 783 881 999 Yes:
80% 385 ,575 480 720 900 No: X
100% Fulfilled 100 100 100 100 100 500
All 80
ApDroa- 80% Fulfilled 80
ches
Actual % if BeloW 80% 37 57 94
Total: 674
Actual Average (Total/8): 84%
B. Traffic Crossing Major Street.
100% 50 75 50 75 75 100%
30 57 61 36 51 64 69 60 Yes:
80% 40 60 40 60 60 No: X
100% Fulfilled 100 100 100 100 100 100 600
All
ADProa- 0
ches 80% Fulfilled
Actual % if Be[ow 80% 60 72 132
Total: 732
Actual Average (Total/8): 92%
ATTACHMENT#. . . TORI:PORT# OE.S
Traffic Control Signal Warrant
Count Date: 20-Mar-03
Intersection: Picketing Parkway &Valley Farm Road Municipality: City of Picketing
Major Road: Pickering ParkwaY Major Road Runs: E/VV one lane each way
Operating Speed of Major Road: 60 kin/hr Operating under free flow conditions
Warrant #3: Accident Experience.
Not Satisfied
A. Renortable accidents within a twelve month period averaged over 36 consequtive months susceptible to correction
by a traffic signal.
Minimum Requirements Actual Number of Accidents Average Number of Accidents Fulfilled
5 0 in 3 years 0 per year 0%
B. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident frequency. No
c. Either Warrant t (Minimum Vehicular Volume) or Warrant 2 (Delay to Cross Traffic) satisfied 80% or more, Yes
Warrant #4: Combination Warrant.
(Used if no warrant satisfied 100%)
Satisfied
Minimum Requirements Warrant Satisfied 80% or More Fulfilled
....... -Two \A.~rr~Pc}~ ........ W~rr~r~t '1 .-(Mir3imL- .r~ V~.h e. ~r \/nh ~m~_/{ _. Yes ~ .
Satisfied 80% Warrant 2 (Delay to Cross Traffic) Yes
Warrant 3 (Accident Experience) No
Conclusion: Traffic signal warranted,
012
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1. That Report OES 11-03 regarding the investigation into the feasibility of installing
traffic control signals at Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, be received.
PICKERING
REPORT TO
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 11-03
Date: April 10, 2003
013
From:
Richard W. Holborn, P.Eng.
Division Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Intersection
Investigation into the feasibility of installing Traffic Control Signals
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 11-03 regarding the investigation into the feasibility of installing
traffic control signals at Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue be received;
Financial Implications: There are no direct cost implications related to the
investigation at this time. Future capital costs, however, related to the re-construction
of the intersection, and necessary land acquisition based upon the design option
selected, will be included in future capital budget forecasts.
Background: Report OES 54-02, recommending a Stop Sign By-law Amendment
for Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue (West Intersection), was considered by the
Finance & Operations Committee at their regular meeting of November 25, 2002. The
resolution resulting from the consideration of the report approved the installation of an
all-way stop at the west intersection on an interim basis but also directed staff to further
investigate the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection and to report back
on the matter.
Based on the direction received, correspondence was sent to the Region of Durham on
December 13, 2002 requesting technical assistance to determine the feasibility of
installing traffic control signals at the intersection. The response received from the
Region of Durham on February 7, 2003 (copy attached) confirmed the City staff
position, that, given the existing 35 metre offset configuration of the intersection, a
traffic control signal could not be installed and operated safely without a realignment of
Rosebank Road. Furthermore, it was also noted that the installation and operation of
two independent traffic control signals would not meet with acceptable design standards
due to the short distance that exists between the sidestreet approaches of Rosebank
Road.
014
Report OES 11-03
Subject: Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue
Date: April 10, 2003
Page 2
Based on the outcome of the investigation, the following capital improvement options
are available to better manage traffic volumes at the intersection in the longer-term:
1. Full Re-alignment and Signalization
As determined during the design and reconstruction phases of the south leg of
Rosebank Road in 1998, a number of property frontages along the west side of
Rosebank Road must be purchased in order to accommodate a full re-alignment.
Unfortunately purchase agreements could not be reached with the majority of
property owners during the period of reconstruction resulting in the delay of the
realignment plan that would have allowed for the future installation of traffic
control signals. Although it is uncertain whether or not land acquisition
agreements could be reached at this time, the full re-alignment of Rosebank
Road is the preferred option even though this particular design is likely the most
expensive. A copy of the full realignment design plan is attached as Option #1.
2. Signalization and Minor Re-alignment
It has been identified in the investigation that a traffic control signal could be
installed and operated safely if the offset distance between the north and south
legs of Rosebank Road did not exceed 15 metres. In order to accommodate this
re-alignment the acquisition of additional property would still be required. The
phasing of the signal would require a longer cycle time resulting in the potential
for longer vehicle queues. The preliminary design exercise that has been
completed so far suggests that a minor re-alignment could occur at this location.
A copy of the preliminary minor re-alignment design plan is attached as Option
#2.
3. Alternative Design Roundabout (Traffic Circle)
As an alternative to the provision of either of the aforementioned realignment
and signalization options, it is also possible that a roundabout (traffic circle)
design could be developed to accommodate future traffic volumes within the
existing municipal property boundaries. This non-traditional type of design would
be less expensive to construct and would require less additional property than a
realigned and signalized intersection, but it may also create an element of
confusion for some motorists, as traffic circle designs are not very common in
this area. Considerable effort, however, would be made to develop a design that
clearly guides the motorist through the circle yet is effective in its nature. A copy
of the preliminary traffic circle design plan is attached as Option #3.
Report OES 11-03
Subject: Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue
Date: April 10, 2003
Page 3
Although the new all-way stop condition that presently exists at the west intersection of
Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue has improved the operational efficiency and
safety of the intersection, it is still regarded as an interim measure only. Considerable
queuing is currently present during peak periods on Sheppard Avenue and some
confusion is also experienced as motorists enter Sheppard Avenue from the south
approach of Rosebank Road. As traffic volumes increase over time, the need for
intersection improvements such as those presented in this report will be required.
Staff will continue to evaluate each available option and initiate the necessary design
and capital budget estimating and forecasting to bring this project to an approval and
construction stage in the near future.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Region of Durham correspondence dated February 7, 2003
Preliminary design plan for full re-alignment and signalization, Option #1
Preliminary design plan for minor re-alignment and signalization, Option #2
Preliminary design plan for roundabout (traffic circle), Option #3
Prepared By:
Ri,f~ard W. I~lborn, P. Eng.
I~vision Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Director
Operations & Emergency Services
RWH:ds
I:\COUNCIL\OES 11-03.docApr-03
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
IRecommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
~uinn,~~' ~"h~o/mas J' uin ~h'~'^:'--~"-'/L/'"'Z/"'" 'J
616
ATTACHMENT#_
February 7, 2003
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Works
Department
PO BOX 623
:105 CONSUMERS DR.
WHITBY ON LIN'6A3
CANADA
(905) 668-7721
Fax: (905) 668-2051
E-Mail:
works@region.durham.on.ca
www.region,durham.on.ca
J.R. McCorkell, P. Eng.
Commissioner
of Works
Please ouote our ref:
Tra-pick-Sig
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
PICKER!NG ON L1V 6K7
Attention:
Mr. C. Stephen Brake
Supervisor, Traffic Engineering and Waste Management
RE: Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road
Traffic Control' Si.q nal
On behalf of'the City of Pickering, we have completed a review on the
feasibility of installing a traffic control signal 'at the subject intersection
· and .operating the system within acceptable deSign standards.
The subject location is considered both a "long-offset" and a "far-right
offset" intersection, as Rosebank Road is offset by 35 metres from the
north approach and sOuth approach as it intersects Sheppard Avenue.
Long-offset intersections required two independent sets of traffic
control signals as the distance between the side roads exceeds 15
metres and a maximum viewing distance of 55 metres cannot be
obtained from the primary signal head on the main-Street and the'
painted stop bars.
A "far-right offset" intersection is defined as an intersection where the
intersecting road on the right of either main-street approach is farthest
from the motorist. The "far-right offset" creates conflicts for motorists
as to whether or not to.stop, when turning left from the side road when
Confronted with a red signal indication on the main street. This
configuration further complicates the operation because the distance
between each side road,is of insufficient length to accommodate
storage vehicles trapped by the red signal indicationS.
.,,2
"SERVICE EXCELLEN. CE
for our COMMUNITY"
Post Consumer
ATTACHMENT#
j TO REPORT# ,OE.$ [[-0~
-2-
017
Based on the physical constraints, we cannot recommend signalization of-this
intersection without realignment of Rosebank Road. Two independent traffic controi
signals cannot be operated safely within the short, spatial 'distance of the two
intersecting side roads.
/trust that the aforementioned will be of assistance to you and please call should
you require fUrther information.
Yours trUly,
'Manager, Traffic .Engineering & Operations
Transportation and Field Services Branch
/ps
CC:
C. Curtis, Director, Transportation and Field Services
J.' Walker, Coordinator, Traffic Signals
G. Borchul~, Project Manager, Traffic Engineering and Operati°ns
ATTACHHENT# '~ TOR~PORT# 0~'5 11-0.5
l~f I
618
, ,, c
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~,~,~[ ~.o~..~ ~ OPTI O N ~1
.,~N...~,~ D~WS~ON FULL RE-ALIGNMENT AND SIGNALIZATION
1:750 MAR 27/2003
L:\mpande\cod work\drawJnge\2OO3\sheppard avenue - traffic clrcle\Sheppard - Traffic Circle.dwg
ATTACHHENT# ~ TOP~PORT#O~/i~
lof l
61,9
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~,c,~[ ~o~[~ ~ 0 PTI ON ~2
ENGINEERING DIVISION MINOR RE-ALIGNMENT AND SIGNALI~TION
1:650 MAR 27/2003
L:\mpande\cad work\drowlnge\2OOS\eheppcrd avenue - traffic circle~Sheppard - Traffic Circle,dwg
ATTACHMENT#__.~ TOREPORT# OES !1~
/of /
~ ~ ?? S~
~ ~ ~510
OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~,~ ~ws~o. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (T~FFIC GIRGLE)
~ :750 MAR 27/2003
L.'\MP&E\THEMAD9 MAPPIIVG\MAPS\S?REET BASE\OE&S DIRECFOR\AT?ACHMENT FOR REPORT\
021
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 13-03 regarding traffic movement operations on Rosebank Road
and Woodsmere Crescent, be received; and
That a By-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' By-law 2359~87 regulating
stopping restrictions and prohibitions on certain highways; and
That a By-law be enacted to amend By-law 264/75 regulating the speed of vehicles
on certain highways.
022
PICKERING
REPORT TO
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 13-03
Date: April 15,2003
From:
Richard W. Holborn, P. Eng.
Division Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Investigation and Evaluation of traffic movement operations on Rosebank
Road and Woodsmere Crescent fronting Altona Forest Public School
Recommendation:
That Report OES 13-03 regarding traffic movement operations on Rosebank
Road and Woodsmere Crescent be received;
That a By-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' By-law 2359/87 regulating
stopping restrictions and prohibitions on certain highways; and
That a By-law be enacted to amend By-law 264/75 regulating the speed of
vehicles on certain highways.
Executive Summary: Not applicable
Financial Implications: The manufacture and installation of regulatory No-stopping
and speed limit signs costing approximately $1500.00 will be accommodated within the
Roads current budget account, 2320-2409.
Background: In Ontario, new initiatives are used to reduce the vehicular and
pedestrian congestion associated with schools. The "Kiss and Ride" or "Parent Safety
Patrol" program has been specifically designed to address the safety concern
associated with school and residential community traffic. The "Kiss and Ride" zone is an
area allocated to drop-off and pick-up students in the parking lot of the school. These
zones facilitate the safe coordinated arrival and departure of parent vehicle traffic on
school property without creating traffic congestion on municipal roadways.
Report OES 13-03 Date: April 15, 2003
Subject: Investigation and Evaluation of Traffic Movement Operations
Page 2
023
In response to several inquiries, staff of the Operations & Emergency Services
Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division recently investigated and
evaluated traffic movement operations on Rosebank Road and Woodsmere Crescent
adjacent to Altona Forest Public School. Site visits confirm there is a high level of
unsafe traffic and pedestrian crossing movements resulting from the high volumes of
parent vehicle traffic accessing the property during the morning and afternoon periods.
Altona Forest Public School presently is operating a "mock .... Kiss and Ride" program in
place. The "loop" driveway configuration, off of Woodsmere Crescent is properly
positioned to allow children to be dropped off and picked up in a safe manner. The
driveway area is large enough to store approximately 24 vehicles at one time and allow
for a safe egress from the school property. To "formalize" this program, regulatory
signage must be installed along with pavement markings to direct students to the
collection area. Volunteer parents must also be trained in the procedures of the
program. The school board, Regional Police and the City of Pickering must agree as to
the operation of this program. It is recommended that the attached by-law regulating
stopping in the streets be enacted to aid in the success of the "Kiss and Ride" program.
in order to evaluate if safe pedestrian traffic movement exists, a school crossing study
was performed to determine the number of pedestrians crossing Rosebank Road at
Woodsmere Crescent and Woodsmere Crescent at Wildflower Crescent. School
crossing studies were conducted during the morning, noon, and afternoon peak periods
for both intersections. Between May 2000 and January 2003, two studies were
conducted at the intersection of Woodsmere Crescent at Wildflower Crescent. Results
of the studies indicate that a Iow percentage of pedestrians that crossed Woodsmere
Crescent experienced delays due to insufficient gap opportunities and therefore, school
crossing protection is not warranted. However, to increase safety while crossing
Woodsmere Crescent, the proposed "no-stopping" by-law would increase sightline
visibility for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic crossing Woodsmere Crescent. This
should alleviate the traffic movement congestion fronting AItona Forest Public School
and increase safety and visibility.
School crossing studies were performed on December 6, 2000, October 2, 2002, and
March 18, 2003 at the intersection of Rosebank Road at Woodsmere Crescent. Results
of the studies indicate that a Iow percentage of pedestrians that crossed Rosebank
Road experienced delays due to insufficient gap opportunities and this intersection
does not warrant school crossing protection. The posted speed limit on Rosebank Road
is 60 km/h approaching the intersection of Rosebank Road and Woodsmere Crescent,
and the speed limit decreases to 40 km/h through the school zone. According to the
Ministry of Transportation guidelines, "on any arterial or other road supporting 2, 4, 6, or
more lanes of traffic with any volume of traffic where the speed limit is in excess of 60
km/h, crossing guards shall not be used to stop traffic, Ontario HTA, section 176 (2)."
Stopping traffic at high rates of speed is not recommended due to the higher risk of
collisions that could result in injury or fatality.
Report OES 13-03 Date: April 15, 2003
Subject: Investigation and Evaluation of Traffic Movement Operations
Page 3
Spot speed studies were conducted between February 4, 2003 and February 11, 2003
during peak and off peak periods. The spot speed study results confirm the average
operating speeds range between 54 km/h and 59 km/h and the total average is 56
km/h. The avera..ge 85"' percentile was.recorded to range between 58 km/h and 62 km/h
and the total 85m percentile average is 62 km/h. The 85th percentile speed is the speed
at or below which 85% of the vehicles travel. Given that the speeds are relatively close
to the posted speed limit, but high for approaching a school zone of 40 km/h, the
reduction of the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h is recommended so that Rosebank
Road can be included for consideration of a guarded school crossing protection in the
future. In the meantime, the reduction in the posted speed limit may create greater gap
opportunities, less delay for pedestrians and be a more appropriate speed limit for this
now built up area.
In conclusion, the existing number of pedestrians and delay does not warrant school
crossings, however, it does not preclude that Council may propose the need for school
crossing protection at this intersection in the future as conditions change. The reduction
of the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h is recommended since this area of
Rosebank Road has built up significantly in the last few years and to allow for school
crossing protection in the future.
Attachments:
1. Draft by-law Amendment - No stopping
2. Location Map
3. Draft By-law Amendment- Speed Limit
4. Location Map
Report OES 13-03 Date:
Subject: Investigation and Evaluation of Traffic Movement Operations
April 15, 2003
Page 4
Prepared By:
Renata ~/.Y. Roz'~gef'
Technician
Traffic Engineering
Approved / Endorsed B :
Director
Operations & Emergency Services
Ri,¢6ard W. I--~lborn
_ _~,ision Hea~l
~unicipal Property & Engineering
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
City Clerk
Superintendent, Municipal Operations
Manager, By-law Services
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
T~S~-~-~ ~"-~,~"n, Ch(le/~ Adm,n~
026
A'~'TACHMENT# / TO REPORT# OC:: ..%
I of I
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITYOF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to amend By-law 2359/87
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, sections
218.52, 210.73, 210.123 - 126, 210.131,310,314.7, and 314.8, the Council of the
Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 2359/87 regulating parking,
standing and stopping on highways and on private and on municipal property;
NOW THERFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORTION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Schedule 'A' to By-law 2359/87, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting
there from the following items:
Highway Side Between/And
Prohibited Times
And Days
Rosebank Road West
Stroud's Lane and
116.5 meters north
thereof.
7:30 am to 4:30 pm
Monday to Friday
2. Schedule 'A' to By-law 2359/87, as amended, is hereby amended by adding
thereto the following items:
Highway Side Between/And
Prohibited Times
and Days
Rosebank Road West
Stroud's Lane and
Woodsmere Crescent
7:30 am to 4:30 pm
Monday to Friday
Woodsmere North and
Crescent South
Rosebank Road and
138.5 meters westerly
thereof.
7:30 am to 4:30 pm
Monday to Friday
September 1st to
June 30th
BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this 5th day of May 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
~ .627
SAUGE~N
MONTCLAIR
LAN E "~
. R ~ DEERHAVEN
SUMME~PAFRK C E~. LANE
' ' ' x
z, z
~ E m~ ~ SP~iNGVIEW D~IVE
u jui ~, , '
z ~ z
r:~o a~- ~:~ r~-~) ~ - ~ ~z/l
SEPT~-J~)O' /RESCS~T ~~ ....
~~, , ~ [,~lr ~ clCHARNWOOD~~{I
/ 4k ~ l[ Z
.. ,,
WO~ERE FOREST Il Il
~PARK PUBLIC SCHOOP~
11 II
II II
~~1 II
II II
~1 I,~
OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY ZO~
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~u"'~'~A~o~ T~FFIC REPORT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
~o: ~,~: LOCATION OF PROPOSED NO STOPPING ZONE
'po~-O2.dwg
028
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITYOF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to amend By-law 264/75 to establish a
50 kilometers per hour speed limit on Rosebank Road
WHEREAS, By-law Number 264/75 allows Council to authorize speed limits on
highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to establish the speed limit on Rosebank Road
at 50 kilometers per hour;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Schedules 'C' to By-law Number 264/75 is hereby amended by deleting there
from the following:
HIGHWAY FROM TO
Rosebank Road
Sheppard Avenue
Finch Avenue
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5th day of May 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
FINCH AV~NU~ FINCM
CHANGE 60km/h to --
STATUTORY 50km/h
EXISTI
WOODSMERE
r~
SPRINGVIEW
HIGHVIEW
Z
LANE STROUDS
CHANGE 60k
STATUTORY
FOXWOOD
WEYBURN
SHEPPARO
AVENUE
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY &
ENGINEERING DIVISION
SCALE; PLOT DATE:
1:10000 APRIL 16/2003
SHEPPARD AVENUE
TRAFFIC REPORT
LOCATION OF PROPOSED SPEED CHANGE
AVENUE
1"1( ;K liNlN(;
L:\MF'endK\~;~emotic Maop[nff\Mop.-\Mp~:E- TrrtRTc\Att~chment for Reporf\2OOJ T-Report--F4. dwg
030
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 17-03 regarding the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness
Centre Lease Agreement, be received; and
That a by-law to enacted to authorize the execution of an Amending Lease
Agreement to which the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre will be
permitted to continue to operate a Wellness Centre and Wellness Spa for a five
year term.
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 17-03
Date: April 11,2002
c 31
From:
Stephen Reynolds
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
Subject:
Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre
- Amending Lease Agreement
- File: CO3000
Recommendation:
That Report to Council OES 17-03 regarding the Pickering Sports Medicine &
Wellness Centre Lease Agreement be received and; that
A by-law be enacted to authorize the execution of an Amending Lease
Agreement to which the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre will be
permitted to continue to operate a Wellness Centre and Wellness Spa for a five
year term.
Executive Summary:
At the Finance & Operations Committee Meeting held on Monday, September 23, 2002,
Council approved a request to expand the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness
Centre and develop a Wellness Spa.
An Amending Lease Agreement is required to reflect the change in the Pickering Sports
Medicine & Wellness Centre operating a Wellness Centre and a Wellness Spa for a
five year term.
Financial Implications:
Revenues
2OO3
2004
2005
2006
2007
$1,049.00 minimum to $3,000.00 maximum per month
$1,049.00 minimum to $3,000.00 maximum per month
$1,049.00 minimum to $3,000.00 maximum per month
$1,049.00 minimum to $3,000.00 maximum per month
$1,535.00 minimum to $3,000.00 maximum per month
$68,772.00 minimum to $180,000.00 maximum over 5 years
032
Report OES 17-03
Subject: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Spa - Amending Lease Agreement
Date: April 11,2003
Page 2
Projected annual revenue is based on monthly lease plus an anticipated monthly
utilization fee.
Background:
On Monday, October 18, 2000, Council enacted By-law #5762/00 authorizing the
execution of a Licence Agreement with Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre
for the lease of space at the Pickering Recreation Complex for the operation of a
Wellness Clinic.
At the Finance & Operations Committee Meeting held on Monday, September 23, 2002,
Council approved a request for the Picketing Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre to
expand and construct a Wellness Spa at the Pickering Recreation Complex.
The Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Centre is currently operating as a sports
medicine out-patient clinic with the services of Physiotherapy, Massage Therapy and
visiting Orthopaedic Surgeon. This business is owned and operated by Angela Dye, a
Registered Physiotherapist and services are implemented by Health Care
Professionals.
The Wellness Spa is a new extension of the Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness
Centre. It will provide spa services to include skin care, facials, body wraps, manicures
and pedicures to our clients.
The construction of the Wellness Spa involves an investment of capital dollars to
significantly enhance the area previously known as the Snack Bar, located in the central
core area on the second floor. The base monthly rent will not be increased for the next
four years to compensate for the cost of capital improvements (approximately
$67,000.00). The base monthly rent will be increased in the fifth year for the additional
750 square foot Wellness Spa.
Enactment of the draft by-law attached will authorize the execution of an Amending
Lease Agreement, as discussed at the September 23, 2002 Committee Meeting, to be
prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City, in consultation with the
appropriate City Departments and existing City practice.
Attachments:
1. Draft By-Law
Report OES 17-03
Subject: Pickering Sports Medicine & Wellness Spa - Amending Lease Agreement
Date: April 11,2003
Page 3
Prepa~---~
Stepheq. Rey~blds
Division eFl~d, Culture & Recreation
SR:Ig
A~achments
Director, Operations & Emergency
Services
Copy:
Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
City Solicitor
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City~ Cou~.jJ--,
The"~'s"J. ~uin ,~hief ,z~ ~inistr'~a~~..._
17-0S
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to authorize the
execution of an Amending Lease
Agreement with Picketing Sports
Medicine & Wellness Centre for the
lease of space at the Picketing
Recreation Complex for the operation
of a Wellness Centre and Wellness
Spa.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 207.58 and 191 of the
Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, as amended, the Council of the
Corporation of the City of Pickering may pass by-laws for leasing premises
owned by the Corporation,
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an Amending
Lease Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City,
between the Corporation of the City of Pickering and the Pickering Sports
Medicine & Wellness Centre for the operation of a Wellness Centre and
Wellness Spa at the Pickering Recreation Complex.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5th day of
May, 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
035
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1. That Report OES 12-03 regarding rear yard fencing, be received; and
2. That staff be directed to initiate' appropriate action to ensure compliance with the
Subdivision Agreement for installation / replacement of rear yard fencing on
Greyabbey Court;
OR
3. That staff be directed to authorize exemptions from the fencing requirements of the
Subdivision Agreement at the request of residents on Greyabbey Court.
PICKERING
REPORT TO
Finance & Operations Committee
Report Number: OES 12-03
Date: April 2, 2003
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject:
Rear Yard Fencing
-' Greyabbey Court- 18T-98009
- File: MPE1000
Recommendation:
1. That report no. OES 12-03 be received; and
2. That staff be directed to initiate appropriate action to ensure compliance with the
Subdivision Agreement for installation / replacement of read yard fencing on
Greyabbey Court;
OR
3. That staff be directed to authorize exemptions from the fencing requirements of
the Subdivision Agreement at the request of residents on Greyabbey Court.
Executive Summary: Council has authorized the entering into of Subdivision
Agreements with various conditions.
The Subdivision Agreement for Brydale Development (Greyabbey Court) 18T-98009
requires that a rear yard fence be installed to protect the natural features along
Dunbarton Creek. This fence was installed but was subsequently removed by several
homeowners.
City staff has attempted to have the fence replaced. The residents have requested the
intervention of Council to not have the fence installed.
Financial Implications: Unknown
Report OES 12-03
Subject: Rear yard fencing - Greyabbey Court
Date: April 2, 2003
Page 2
Background: In July of 2002 the Director, Operations & Emergency Services was
advised that a rear yard fence installed by Brydale Developments had been removed
from a new residence on Greyabbey Court.
Correspondence was initiated to have the fence reinstated. After several items of
correspondence, it was found that an impasse was reached.
To confirm the desired direction of Council in this matter the recommendation has been
provided to allow Council to approve either Option 2 or Option 3 of the
recommendations.
Council should be aware that staff has been working diligently to have this fence
reinstated as per the requirements of the Council approved Subdivision Agreement.
The Solicitor for the City has advised that amendments/changes to the Subdivision
Agreement conditions requires Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
EB:mld
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Planning & Development
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City ,Council
Thef~' J. Quinnk/Chief A~f"mini~.~,,..Office'r
.ATTACHMENT #__~TO REPORT #~.~ ~ ~ 0 ~
OLENAF
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY &
ENGINEERING DIVISION
SCALE: DATE:
1:4 000 APRIL 4~2003
ATTACHMENT FOR OPERATIONS
& EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT
LOCATION OF FENCING - GREYABBEY COURT
PICKERING
L:\MP&E\THEMATIC MAPPIN¢\MAP$\STREET BASE\OE&$ D/RECTOR\ATTACHMENT FOR REPORT\