2. MAINTENANCE
QUALITY STANDARDS – ROADS AND SIDEWALKS/PATHWAYS
NORMES DE QUALITÉ EN MATIÈRE D’ENTRETIEN ROUTES ET TROTTOIRS OU SENTIERS
|
Committee recommendations as amended
That Council approve the
following:
1.
the maintenance quality standards for
roads and sidewalks/pathways as set out in Annex B.
2.
the enhanced service levels for
pedestrian and cycling facilities, as outlined in the report, for
implementation starting in 2004 subject to approval of an additional $180,000
in the 2004 budget.
3.
an additional 8 FTEs required to comply with the
new provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Since this requirement had not been
identified during the amalgamation process and that amalgamation related FTE
reductions still remain to be achieved, this need would be achieved by reducing
the remaining 2004 TUPW FTE reduction targets and associated savings of
$640,000.
4. Whereas
the City’s roads and transitways are essential to the long term sustainability
of the city;
Whereas
it is commonly known that the road resurfacing and repair budgets are grossly
under funded;
Whereas
private corporations principally carry out this work based on lowest price
tenders;
Whereas
under funding has been estimated to be $10M on an annual basis;
Whereas
some roads are visibly deteriorating beyond resurfacing to full reconstruction
at a significant future cost to this city;
Be
it therefore resolved that City staff prepare a report for the Transportation
and Transit Committee that reviews long term maintenance and repair costs and
in particular deals with increased future costs of the present under funding of
road resurfacing and repair.
5. Whereas
all three parties represented in the Ontario Legislature have announced their
election commitment to provide a portion of the provincial gas tax to
municipalities for transportation purposes;
Whereas
the Ontario Legislature remains in session;
Therefore
be it resolved that City Council request all three parties (through their
Legislative Leaders) to pass such legislation now, rather than waiting for a
provincial election.
Recommendations
modifiée du Comité
Que le Conseil
municipal approuve les éléments suivants :
1. d’approuver les normes
de qualité en matière d’entretien des routes et des trottoirs ou sentiers
telles qu’elles sont décrites dans l’annexe B.
2. d’approuver la mise en
place en 2004 des niveaux de services améliorés des voies pour piétons et des
pistes cyclables, tels que décrits dans le rapport, sous réserve de
l’approbation d’une somme supplémentaire de 180 000 $ dans le budget de 2004.
3. d’approuver
l’ajout de 8 ETP supplémentaires requis conformément à la nouvelle politique
provinciale sur les Normes d’entretien minimales des voies publiques
municipales. Étant donné que l’on n’avait pas décelé ce besoin au moment de la
fusion et que les réductions d’ETP liées à la fusion ne sont pas encore
terminées, il est possible de répondre à ce besoin en révisant à la baisse les
objectifs de réduction d’ETP restants des TSTP de 2004 ainsi que les économies
liées à cette réduction de 640 000$.
4. Attendu
que les chemins et les couloirs de transport en commun de la Ville sont
essentiels pour assurer la viabilité à long terme de la ville;
Attendu
que d’aucuns reconnaissent que les fonds prévus au budget pour le resurfaçage
et la réparation des chemins sont nettement insuffisants;
Attendu
que les entreprises du secteur privé effectuent principalement de tels travaux
en se fondant sur la soumission la plus basse;
Attendu
que l’insuffisance de fonds pour ces travaux a été évaluée à 10 millions
de dollars annuellement;
Attendu
que certains chemins se détériorent à un point tel qu’ils ne pourront plus
faire l’objet d’un resurfaçage, et qu’ils devront dès lors être refaits, à
grands frais pour la Ville, à l’avenir;
Il
est pour ces motifs résolu que le personnel de la Ville prépare, à l’intention
du Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun, un rapport
qui, faisant état des coûts d’entretien et de réparation à long terme des chemins,
mettra principalement l’accent sur les coûts supplémentaires qui devront être
assumés à l’avenir du seul fait de l’insuffisance des fonds actuellement
accordés au resurfaçage et à la réparation des chemins.
5. Attendu
que les trois partis représentés à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario ont
pris l’engagement électoral de remettre une part de la taxe provinciale sur
l’essence aux municipalités, qui pourront ainsi l’affecter au poste des
transports de leur budget;
Attendu
que la session de l’Assemblée législative se poursuit;
Il
est pour ces motifs résolu que le Conseil municipal demande aux trois partis,
en s’adressant à leurs leaders respectifs à l’assemblée législative, d’édicter
dès maintenant une loi à cet effet, plutôt que de le faire après la tenue de
l’élection provinciale.
Documentation
1. General Manager, Transportation, Utilities
and Public Works report dated 14 May 2003 (ACS2003-TUP-SOP-0004).
2. Draft Extract of Minute, Transportation
and Transit Committee Meeting of 21 May 2003.
Report to/Rapport au :
Transportation and
Transit Committee/
Comité des transports et des
services de transport en commun
and Council/et au Conseil
14 May 2003/ le 14 mai
2003
Submitted by/Soumis
par: R.T. Leclair, General
Manager/Directrice générale
Transportation, Utilities and
Public Works/Transport, Services et Travaux publics
Contact/Personne ressource: Dale
Philpotts, Director of Surface Operations/
Directeur, Opérations de surface
580-2424
ext./poste 25543, Dale.Philpotts@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2003-TUP-SOP 0004
|
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE
QUALITY STANDARDS – ROADS AND SIDEWALKS/PATHWAYS
OBJET : NORMES DE QUALITÉ EN MATIÈRE D’ENTRETIEN ROUTES ET TROTTOIRS
OU SENTIERS
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the maintenance
quality standards for roads and sidewalks/pathways as set out in Annex B.
2. Approve the enhanced
service levels for pedestrian and cycling facilities, as outlined in the
report, for implementation starting in 2004 subject to approval of an
additional $180,000 in the 2004 budget.
3. Approve
an additional 8 FTEs required to comply with the new provincial Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways.
Since this requirement had not been identified during the amalgamation
process and that amalgamation related FTE reductions still remain to be
achieved, this need would be achieved by reducing the remaining 2004 TUPW FTE
reduction targets and associated savings of $640,000.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil
municipal :
1. d’approuver les normes
de qualité en matière d’entretien des routes et des trottoirs ou sentiers
telles qu’elles sont décrites dans l’annexe B.
2. d’approuver la mise en
place en 2004 des niveaux de services améliorés des voies pour piétons et des
pistes cyclables, tels que décrits dans le rapport, sous réserve de
l’approbation d’une somme supplémentaire de 180 000 $ dans le budget de 2004.
3. d’approuver
l’ajout de 8 ETP supplémentaires requis conformément à la nouvelle politique
provinciale sur les Normes d’entretien minimales des voies publiques
municipales. Étant donné que l’on n’avait pas décelé ce besoin au moment de la
fusion et que les réductions d’ETP liées à la fusion ne sont pas encore
terminées, il est possible de répondre à ce besoin en révisant à la baisse les
objectifs de réduction d’ETP restants des TSTP de 2004 ainsi que les économies
liées à cette réduction de 640 000$.
BACKGROUND
On
08 August 2001, Council approved a Service Level Harmonization Strategy for the
maintenance of roads, sidewalks, parks and trees that included the following
components:
1. Community
and stakeholder consultation to ensure that the needs of residents and key
stakeholders were identified and addressed.
Further details on the consultation plan were provided to Council in a
memo dated 26 October 2001.
2. The
collection of background information including: an inventory of service levels
and their related costs to gain an understanding of systems in place prior to
amalgamation; a peer comparison with other comparable municipalities; and, a
review of legislated standards.
3. The
development of new maintenance classification systems for roads, sidewalks,
parks and trees that would group similar amenities into classes to ensure
consistent service delivery across the City.
4. The
development of service level options and related costs for key service
standards.
5. A report to appropriate Standing
Committees and Council.
In October 2002, the Department
provided a summary of activities completed to date on components 1 to 4 and
identified issues that Council would need to consider when the final
recommendations were brought forward to Committee and Council in early 2003.
The purpose of this report is to
provide an overview of the harmonization process, highlight service level and
financial implications and seek approval from Committee and Council on the
proposed maintenance quality standards for roads and sidewalks/pathways. Maintenance standards for parks, sports
fields and trees will be presented to the Health, Recreation and Social
Services Committee under a separate report.
DISCUSSION
Ottawa 20/20
In June 2002, Council adopted
seven principles to guide growth and long term decision making within the
City. These guiding principles are
based on extensive public consultation.
The seven principles and accompanying objectives have been recognized in
the development process for the City’s maintenance quality standards. The relationship between the principles and
the proposed maintenance quality standards is demonstrated as follows:
- A Responsible and Responsive City – by setting
maintenance levels that are safe, dependable and affordable for the
community.
- A Caring and Inclusive City – by inviting the
full community to be involved in the development of the maintenance
standards.
- A Creative City Rich in Heritage, Unique in
Identity – by recognizing the distinctiveness of being a capital city
and the urban-suburban-rural environment in the development of the
maintenance standards.
- A Green and Environmentally Sensitive City –
by developing maintenance standards that are responsive to walking,
cycling and public transit, that recognize the value of the City’s trees,
parks and natural areas, and that protect the natural environment by
maintaining turf without the use of chemical pesticides and roads by
reducing the use of road salts.
- A City of Distinct, Liveable Communities – by
developing maintenance standards that recognize rural-suburban-urban distinctions
and the value of Ottawa’s many communities and the need to keep them
clean, green and accessible.
- An Innovative City Where Prosperity is Shared
Among All – by recognizing the distinct maintenance requirements of
tourism and commercial areas, the importance of maintenance to the
movement of people and goods, and the positive image a clean and green
City projects as a livable city.
- A Healthy and Active City – by developing
maintenance standards that promote the use of the City’s parks and sports
fields, pathways and cycling facilities.
Description of the Proposed Maintenance Quality
Standards
The maintenance
quality standards (details in Annex B and summarized in Annex A) have been
developed with input from the community, through peer comparison of other
municipalities and through the review of provincial guidelines. Through this process the following
objectives for the standards were defined:
·
To provide safe, dependable and
affordable service levels;
·
To preserve the infrastructure assets;
·
To protect the natural environment;
·
To enhance the appearance and health
of the community;
·
To provide a reference framework to
measure performance;
·
To provide a basis of “Peer Review”
with other comparable cities; and
·
To provide Council and citizens with a
reference of expectations.
The maintenance quality standards have been
written with the perspective of the user in mind. As much as possible, they anticipate the end result of
maintenance services – the benefits to users.
The standards outline the time and extent of a particular
maintenance activity. They also link
directly to larger, measurable objectives – clean city, safe roads, passable
sidewalks, etc.
The standards do not prescribe how to deliver
services. How services are delivered
forms part of an operations manual (to be developed after standards have been
approved) as delivery may evolve over time with changes in equipment,
materials, innovation and technology.
This is a change from many of the standards of the former municipalities
which focused on how to deliver services rather than defining the timing and
extent of these services. Having
measurable outcomes is also consistent with the Ottawa 20/20 vision.
While the maintenance quality standards will be
implemented after being approved by Council, it will take a few years
for the service levels to be fully implemented, monitored and evaluated. Monitoring and tracking systems will need to
be developed to support the new standards.
Community Input
In order to understand the views and expectations of
residents, the City undertook extensive community consultation (refer to Annex
C for details).
The consultation process included a public opinion
survey. Based on the results of the
random telephone survey conducted in late 2001, almost 9 in 10 were generally,
if not very, satisfied with the overall level of service provided by the City’s
maintenance operations. Input also
indicated that residents placed the greatest priority on snowplowing of major
roads and sidewalks, snow removal in residential areas, road surface repairs
and streetlight maintenance. Also
considered important but less critical are services that involve the care and
management of green spaces and aesthetic clean up.
In addition, the following are some of the more significant issues that
were raised during the consultation process (refer to Annex C for other
consultation process details):
·
While the
majority of residents support the City’s initiative to discontinue the use of
chemical pesticides, many residents expressed concerns that the quality of
parks and boulevards has deteriorated.
·
Many residents
would like to see a reduction in the use of road salt.
·
Some residents
expressed concerns with the hours of operation for certain functions: snow
removal and street sweeping operations carried out at night in or near
residential areas.
·
The Mobility Issues Advisory Committee expressed
concerns with the accessibility of sidewalks/pathways in the winter, mainly in
the downtown core.
·
The Cycling
Advisory Committee tabled a report entitled “Response to City Review of Road
Maintenance Standards” whereby they raised a number of concerns, such as
potholes, pavement cracks, debris, catch basin grates, drainage, winter control
and so on.
·
The Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee expressed concerns with the timing of
grass cutting along rural ditches. They
are concerned that by the time much of the cutting occurs weeds have gone up in
seed and proliferate on abutting properties/agricultural lands.
·
Some rural
residents expressed concern with the level of maintenance of gravel roads and
that this could further deteriorate being part of a bigger City.
Community expectations and the
issues they identified during the consultation process have been reflected in
the development of the quality maintenance standards.
Practices of Former
Municipalities
The development of
the proposed maintenance quality standards included a review of the practices
of the former municipalities. All of
the former municipalities were responsible for similar maintenance
activities. However, as noted earlier,
the means by which they defined their standards and by which they delivered the
services did vary. In some instances
some of the former municipalities did not have defined standards and services
were delivered based on past practices that were consistent with community
expectations. Annex A provides an
overview of the proposed maintenance standards compared to the practices of the
former municipalities.
Peer Comparison with Other
Municipalities
The development of
the proposed maintenance quality standards also included a review of the
standards of other comparable municipalities.
A summary of findings is presented in Annex D.
Challenges with the
peer comparison included the number of standards involved and the difficulty in
finding municipalities that shared all of Ottawa’s distinctive
characteristics. For example, very few
municipalities have developed “outcome” based standards that could be compared
directly, some have no documented standards, few have a similar
urban-suburban-rural component, and few are subject to the same weather
conditions and profile as Ottawa. As a
result, the review focused on specific areas where Ottawa compared with the
other municipalities.
Contacts were made with a number of
municipalities. Information was
received from those listed below.
·
Capital Cities: Toronto, Quebec City, Washington
DC, Oslo, Helsinki
·
Canadian Cities: Haldiman/Norfolk, Hamilton,
Niagara, Peel, York, Calgary, Gatineau, Montreal
·
Other Agencies: National Capital Commission;
Ontario Ministry of Transportation; Norwegian Public Roads Administration;
Swedish National Road Administration
Overall, the level
of service proposed for the City of Ottawa is comparable to other similar
municipalities. Of the capital cities
consulted, it was observed that a higher level of service is provided in
tourism areas. This applies mainly to
litter pickup, sweeping and snow removal.
However, the level of service provided to other areas of the city is
generally not much different than with other typical cities. As with other capital cities, a higher level
of service is proposed for the core and tourism areas of the City of Ottawa.
New Provincial Minimum Road
Maintenance Standards
Since 01 November 2002, Ontario
municipalities are required to comply with the “Minimum Maintenance Standards
for Municipal Highways” as per Regulation 239 of the Municipal Act. These minimum standards only apply to road
maintenance services that have an impact on public safety (i.e. snow plowing,
potholes, cracks, regulatory signs, streetlights, etc.). They do not address issues pertaining to
infrastructure preservation and quality of life nor do they apply to sidewalks,
parks or trees. As a result, simply
adopting the provincial minimum standards would result in an incomplete set of
standards.
The proposed maintenance quality
standards for the City comply with the requirements of the provincial minimum
maintenance standards and address the larger issues identified above. Where provincial minimum standards apply,
the proposed maintenance standards for the City include a desirable or target
level of service that meets and often exceeds the provincial minimum. Where the proposed standards exceed the provincial
minimums, the standards recognize the level of service provided by the former
municipalities and the community feedback from the consultation process.
The provincial minimum standards
require municipalities to undertake and document year-round routine patrols on
all municipal roads. They define the
frequency of patrols based on the road class and the conditions/hazards that
need to be monitored and documented.
While most of the former municipalities carried out some form of road
patrol function, most carried these out in an informal basis, reporting was
more in relation to identified hazards and emphasis was typically on winter
operations.
The provincial minimum standards will result in a formal process where
every road in the City of Ottawa will be patrolled on a regular frequency based
on road class and each patrol will be documented. The City has an inventory of approximately 5,200 km of roads that
will be patrolled by driving all roads at an average speed ranging between 20
and 35 km/hr in order to visually observe and report potential hazards. For example, arterial roads will be
patrolled 2 times per week while residential roads will be patrolled once per
month. The patrolling activities will
be carried continuously 5 days per week.
Additional details on the road patrol standard are included in Section
102.01 of Annex B.
It is estimated that
approximately 14 FTEs are required to comply with the provincial minimum
standard. It is also estimated that the
City has already 6 FTEs based on patrols performed by the former municipalities. As such, 8 additional FTEs are required to
comply with the provincial minimum standard.
At the 05 February
2003 Transportation and Transit Committee meeting, a recommendation by the
Cycling Advisory Committee on the establishment of a citizen-based road hazards
reporting program was referred to staff.
The road hazards reporting program being proposed by the Cycling
Advisory Committee could supplement the City's routine road patrolling
efforts. After Council has approved the
proposed maintenance quality standards, staff would continue to work with the
Cycling Advisory Committee to clarify expectations, how this program would be
implemented and how the communications would occur between members of this
program and the City.
Maintenance Classification
Maintenance
classifications are used to categorize roads, sidewalks/pathways and trees of
similar characteristics and function into similar classes. These classes are used to prioritize the
delivery of maintenance activities. A
summary of the maintenance classes was presented in the October 2002 committee
report and details are included in Section 101.01 of Annex B.
Recommended Maintenance Quality Standards
The proposed
maintenance quality standards have been developed with the intention of
providing a consistent and appropriate level of service to all citizens of the
City of Ottawa. They have been crafted
based on an extensive community consultation process, the review of the
standards of the former municipalities and of other comparable external municipalities.
The proposed standards also meet or exceed the provincial requirements, where
minimum standards are defined. In
addition, they respond to the principles outlined in the Ottawa 20/20 growth
plans, especially as they concern safety and mobility.
Given the diversity
and extent of information covered under the proposed maintenance quality
standards (Annex B), the following highlights services that either had
significant service level variations between former municipalities or that were
subject of greatest public interest. A
more detailed overview of these proposed maintenance quality standards compared
to the practices of the former municipalities is provided in Annex A.
Recommendations on
enhancements to service levels and the cost associated with making these
enhancements are discussed later in the report. Areas where enhancements are recommended respond directly to
comments received from the public during the consultation process. The intent is that after being implemented
these enhancements would be monitored and a regular status provided to report
on their effectiveness.
Winter
Maintenance
Snow plowing and
de-icing
Based
on the public consultation process, residents place a high degree of importance
on snow and ice control for city roads, but have also expressed a desire to see
reductions in the application of road salts.
With
respect to salt usage, Council approved a revised maintenance standard as part
of the 2003 budget process. This new
standard was implemented this past winter and is reflected in the proposed
maintenance standards. Residents should
not notice any changes in service level for snow and ice control on
sidewalks/pathways and on arterial and collector roads. On residential roads, former municipalities
that had a centre bare pavement standards (Cumberland, Gloucester, Nepean,
Osgoode, Vanier) will see a change to snow packed roads. This is consistent with the community’s and
Environment Canada’s desire to see reductions in the amount of road salts being
applied, in a manner that does not compromise public safety.
With
respect to snow plowing, former municipalities applied a similar standard for
most arterial and collector roadways.
This was largely because most of these roadways were managed by the
former Region or were the highest priority roads of the former local
municipalities. With respect to
residential roads, the standard varied from centre bare pavement to snow packed
roads, although the application of the standard were largely intended to
achieve a similar result – to ensure that residential roads were cleared within
10 hours from the end of a significant snow accumulation.
The
proposed standard on residential roads maintains the objective of achieving an
initial cleanup within 10 hours from the end of a significant snow
accumulation, but the trigger for deploying resources has been modified. Residential roads will be plowed after an
accumulation of 7 cm. Residential roads
may get plowed for storms less than 7 cm if the cumulative effect of previous
accumulations exceeds 7 cm or as a result of other operational concerns with
the type of storm (i.e. freezing rain).
While not drastic, this change
will be most noticeable in former municipalities that plowed residential roads
when the accumulation was less than 7 cm – all with the exception of
Gloucester, Osgoode, Ottawa , Rideau and West Carleton.
Snow removal
Based
on the public consultation process, residents also place a high degree of
importance on snow removal in terms of maintaining safe roads. Residents should not see a reduction in snow
removal but they may see a change in how snow is being removed. The proposed standard reflects that hauling
of snow to a snow disposal facility will be undertaken only if casting onto
boulevards and adjacent properties or pulling of snow into the road cannot be
carried out. This service standard was
approved by Council as part of the 2003 budget process.
Summer
Maintenance
Street cleaning
The
level of service for street cleaning varied significantly across the former
municipalities. Under the proposed
standard, all streets in the City (i.e. paved with curbs) will be cleaned in
April and May as part of the spring cleanup.
Following the initial cleanup, under the proposed maintenance standard
arterial roads would be cleaned every 1-2 weeks and bus/cycling routes would be
cleaned on a 3-8 week basis. This would
result in an increase in the frequency of cleaning in the suburban
municipalities, while reducing the cleaning frequency of some streets in former
Ottawa and Vanier (refer to Annex A for additional details). However, residents of former Ottawa and
Vanier should not experience a noticeable impact as a result of this change in
frequency. It should also be noted that
the downtown core, BIAs and market area will continue to receive the same high
level of service currently provided.
Boulevard grass
cutting
Prior
to amalgamation, grass cutting along most boulevards was undertaken on a
monthly basis. With Council approval of
the Integrated Turf Management (ITM) program to eliminate the use of pesticides
on City owned properties, the maintenance standard for City boulevards was
revisited. The recommended standard
reflects the maintenance approach set out in the ITM program approved in 2003
budget. For boulevards, this will
provide for a 2-week grass cutting frequency during the spring growing season
and more cultural practices such as topdressing and overseeding. During the balance of the season, boulevards
will continue to be cut on a monthly basis.
Nighttime Operations
in Residential Areas
Street sweeping
as part of spring cleanup
Many
residents (urban and suburban) have expressed concerns with the noise generated
by street sweeping operations in residential areas at night, mainly during the
spring cleanup. The proposed
maintenance standards continue the practice of nighttime street cleaning
operations where this was a common practice in the past. Other than former Cumberland and Gloucester,
this was a common practice across the former urban-suburban municipalities. While the practice of nighttime street
cleaning allows the cleanup to be completed as quickly as possible in order to
reduce dust/debris and allow other maintenance activities to be undertaken
(i.e. pavement markings), given the extent of the public concerns, the intent
is to revisit this practice in more detail.
A report will be presented to committee at a later date that will
consider service level options and related financial implications to
discontinue nighttime street cleaning operations on class 4 (minor collector
roads) and/or class 5 (residential) roads.
Snow removal
Many
residents have expressed a similar concern with nighttime snow removal
operations in residential areas. As
with street cleaning, nighttime operations allow operations to be undertaken
efficiently with minimal traffic interference and disruption. The proposed maintenance standards continue
the practice of nighttime snow removal operations where this was a common
practice in the past. Other than former
Cumberland, Gloucester and Nepean, this was a common practice across the former
urban-suburban municipalities. As with
nighttime street cleaning, a report will be presented to committee at a later
date that will consider service level options and related financial implications
to discontinue nighttime snow removal operations on class 4 (minor collectors)
and/or class 5 (residential) roads.
Recommended Enhanced Service Levels
The following enhancements to the
existing service levels are being recommended based on input received through
the community consultation process.
Snow and ice control of
sidewalks and pathways
Concerns have
been expressed, notably by people with accessibility needs in the downtown
core, with delays in clearing snow at intersections, crosswalks and transit
links. This concern is anticipated to
increase with the changing demographics and the City’s vision of making walking
more accessible as a means of transportation.
The former
municipalities provided a relatively consistent level of service for the winter
maintenance of sidewalks and pathways.
Generally the time to clear windrows across sidewalks at intersections
in the central core was greater than in the suburbs - 24 hours in former Ottawa
compared to 16 hours in the suburban municipalities. In former Ottawa, windrows were cleared as part of a separate
pass after the sidewalks have been cleared, whereas in the former suburban
municipalities the windrows are cleared as part of the sidewalk clearing
operations.
In general, the
City provides a level of service comparable to Toronto, Montreal, Stockholm and
Helsinki, but provides a higher level of service than many other Ontario and
Canadian cities. For example, some
municipalities do not clear as many sidewalks and/or have a by-law requiring
the homeowners whose homes face the sidewalks to do the clearing.
In order to
provide additional support to improve windrow clearing in areas of
accessibility needs, notably in the downtown core, it is recommended to
increase resources by approximately 10% of current resources in former
Ottawa. These additional resources
would assist in improving plowing cycle times and snow clearing of windrows at
intersections, crosswalks, transit links and other areas with accessibility concerns. Specific locations would be determined with
the input of the Accessibility Advisory and the Transportation Advisory
Committees. Overall, this will allow
windrows across sidewalks in former Ottawa to be cleared within 16 hours as it
the case with the suburban municipalities.
In order to
address site specific locations, another enhancement is to expand the existing
“yellow sand box” program by 20 locations; from 20 to 40 locations. This would make the sand box program
accessible to more locations. The
locations would be determined with the input of the Accessibility Advisory and
the Transportation Advisory Committees.
Sidewalk and pathway repairs
Concerns were
expressed during consultation process that some sidewalks and pathways are in
need of repair to make them more accessible for users. While most of the former municipalities had
maintenance programs for the repairs of sidewalks and pathways, for the most
part the former standards did not define response times. Repairs were generally dependent on the
severity of the conditions, with safety hazards receiving priority attention,
subject to available funds.
In response to
the community input and the Cycling Advisory Committee concerns, it is
recommended that specific standards apply to recognize hazards that would
provide safer conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and other users. These standards are specified in Section
105.01 of Annex B. As a result, more
potholes and cracks will be filled and more trip hazards will be eliminated.
Surface defects of Paved Roads
(i.e. potholes, pavement cracks, etc)
General road
surface conditions was a primary concern expressed by residents in the public
opinion survey and by the Cycling Advisory Committee who indicated that
potholes, longitudinal cracks and other surface defects have greater impacts on
cyclists than on motorists (i.e. narrower tires) and should be given
appropriate attention. The new
provincial minimum maintenance standards define dimensions and response times
for specific road surface defects (i.e. potholes, cracks, etc), however, these
are primarily focused on addressing safety issues for vehicular traffic and do
not directly address cycling related issues.
Details of the provincial minimum maintenance standards are covered in
Section 104.01 of Annex B.
All former
municipalities had maintenance programs for repairs to paved roads. These programs generally focused on spring
conditions, an annual crack sealing program and responding to service requests. The annual crack sealing program focused on
newly paved roads or roads with moderate cracks (i.e. extend the life of the
infrastructure). Standards in the
former municipalities for the most part did not define dimensions and response
times, and this was generally dependent on the severity of the conditions with
immediate safety hazards receiving priority attention. The extent of the need for maintenance
repairs to paved roads is directly related to the frequency of resurfacing
carried out through the capital program.
The more roads are left to deteriorate the more remedial type
maintenance will be required.
In response to
the community input and the Cycling Advisory Committee concerns, it is
recommended that specific standards apply to cycling hazards that would provide
safer conditions for cyclists and other users.
Details of these standards are specified in Section 104.01 of Annex
B. As a result, more potholes and
cracks located along designated city cycling routes will be filled providing
safer riding conditions.
Next Steps
Having harmonized maintenance
quality standards is a key component of an integrated approach to achieving
desired efficiencies. With Council
approval of the maintenance standards for the City of Ottawa, the Department
will proceed with:
-
analyzing the implications of eliminating nighttime snow removal
and street cleaning operations for residential areas
-
optimizing winter snow and ice control routes
-
rationalizing maintenance vehicles, equipment and facilities
(i.e. vehicle depots and material storage facilities)
-
developing work procedures and monitoring processes
-
developing a salt management plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
In 2001 Environment Canada
identified road salts as having an impact on the natural environment. While there is no intention to ban the use
of road salt, municipalities are being requested to have management measures in
place to make most efficient use of road salts. The department is working on a salt management plan to be
presented later this year that will outline strategies to improve its
efficiency in the use of this resource.
The Department will also continue
to work on the development of alternative strategies to the use of chemical
pesticides and alternative ground covers.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
A unique characteristic of the
new City of Ottawa is its distinctive rural-suburban-urban setting. This was identified through the extensive
public consultation process and has been reflected in the proposed maintenance
quality standards. The objective of the
service level harmonization strategy was to bring consistency both to the most
densely populated urban areas and to the smallest rural villages.
CONSULTATION
As noted earlier, details of the
consultation process were provided in the October 2002 status report. Complete details are included in Annex
C. The proposed service level
enhancements are directly a result of the community feedback provided through
this consultation process.
Since the October 2002 status
report, the Cycling Advisory Committee tabled a report at the 05 February 2003
Transportation and Transit Committee meeting on their response to the City’s
review of road maintenance standards. A
supplementary report was also presented at their 14 April 2003 committee
meeting. These reports made a number of
recommendations and these are addressed in Annex E. It is important to note that the proposed maintenance quality
standards make significant provisions that directly pertain to cycling issues
that were not reflected in the standards of the former municipalities. If approved, the enhanced service levels for
surface repairs would be implemented over a 5-year period. In addition, the standards provide
measurable outcomes that will require monitoring and reporting processes to be
developed and implemented. A period of
at least 3-5 years will be required for these processes to be effective and for
the enhanced service levels to be implemented.
The Department is also initiating a review of the City’s cycling
plan. Additional maintenance related
recommendations could be addressed as part of this process.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The following are the financial
implications for the recommended enhanced service levels identified in this
report.
Recommendation No. 2
The cost implication of providing
additional resources to improve clearing of windrows along sidewalks in areas
of accessibility needs, notably in the downtown core, is estimated at $250,000
per year. It is recommended that this
amount be implemented over a 5-year period at a rate of $50,000 per year,
beginning in 2004.
The cost implication of expanding
the existing “yellow sand box” program by 20 locations - from 20 to 40
locations – is estimated at $20,000 to be identified as a budget requirement
for 2004.
The cost implication of providing
additional sidewalk/pathway surface repairs to provide safer conditions for
pedestrians, cyclists and other users is estimated at $200,000 per year. It is recommended that this amount be
implemented over a 5-year period at a rate of $40,000 per year, beginning in
2004.
The cost implication of providing a more specific
standard to address road surface hazards pertaining to cyclists and other users
is estimated at $350,000 per year. It
is recommended that this be implemented over a 5-year period at a rate of
$70,000 per year, beginning in 2004.
The following is a summary of the
financial implications of this recommendation:
|
Service
|
2004 Budget Requirements
|
2005 to 2008 Annual Base Budget Adjustments
|
Total Base Budget Adjustments over 5 years (2008)
|
|
Pedestrian
and Cycling Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
-
Snow and ice control - sidewalks and pathways
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$250,000
|
|
-
Expanded yellow sand box program
|
$20,000
|
|
$20,000
|
|
-
Surface defects on paved roads
|
$70,000
|
$70,000
|
$350,000
|
|
-
Sidewalk and pathway repairs
|
$40,000
|
$40,000
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total per Year
|
$180,000
|
$160,000
|
$820,000
|
Recommendation No. 3
The Department has identified an
amalgamation reduction of 21 FTEs in 2004 for the Surface Operations
Branch. Given that the additional 8
FTEs required to comply with the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal
Highways are the result of new provincial legislation and since this
requirement was not identified during the amalgamation process, it is
recommended that the 21 FTE reduction requirements identified for 2004 be
reduced by 8 FTEs. The financial
implication for the 8 FTEs is estimated at $640,000 (including salary, benefits
and access to a vehicle).
ATTACHMENTS
Annex A – Overview
of Proposed Maintenance Quality Standards Compared to Practices of Former
Municipalities
Annex B - Recommended
Maintenance Quality Standards for Roads and Sidewalks/Pathways
Annex C - Summary
of Public Consultation Process
Annex D – Summary
of Peer Comparison with External Municipalities
Annex E – Staff
Response to Comments from the Cycling Advisory Committee on the City’s Road
Maintenance Standards
DISPOSITION
Upon approval by Council, the Transportation, Utilities
and Public Works Department will begin to implement the new maintenance quality
standards.
ANNEX A
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE QUALITY STANDARDS
COMPARED TO PRACTICES
OF FORMER MUNICIPALITIES
INDEX
|
Service
|
Cumberland
Gloucester
Osgoode
|
Kanata
Nepean
Goulbourn
|
Ottawa
Vanier
Rockliffe Park
|
Rideau
West Carleton
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Routine road patrol
|
A-2
|
A-7
|
A-12
|
A-17
|
|
Snow and ice control for roads
|
A-2
|
A-7
|
A-12
|
A-17
|
|
Snow and ice control for sidewalks, pathways and
bus pads
|
A-3
|
A-8
|
A-13
|
A-18
|
|
Snow removal
|
A-3
|
A-8
|
A-13
|
A-18
|
|
Surface repairs for paved roads
|
A-4
|
A-9
|
A-14
|
A-19
|
|
Surface repairs for gravel roads
|
A-4
|
A-9
|
A-14
|
A-19
|
|
Surface repairs for sidewalks, pathways and bus
pads
|
A-5
|
A-10
|
A-15
|
A-20
|
|
Grass cutting (boulevards and rural ditches)
|
A-5
|
A-10
|
A-15
|
A-20
|
|
Street cleaning
|
A-6
|
A-11
|
A-16
|
A-21
|
|
Signs and pavement markings
|
A-6
|
A-11
|
A-16
|
A-21
|
|
Collection of litter containers
|
A-6
|
A-11
|
A-16
|
A-21
|
A-1
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Cumberland
|
Gloucester
|
Osgoode
|
|
Routine road patrol
(Maintenance Quality Standard 102.01)
|
-
Documented routine road patrols required to
comply with legislated requirement.
-
Frequency of patrols range from 4 times per
week to once per month based on road class.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process.
This standard will result
in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process.
This standard will result
in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process.
This standard will result
in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
|
Snow and ice control for roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.01)
|
Class 1 – Highway 174 and Transitway
Class 2 - Arterial roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
-
snow to be cleared within 2 hours for Class
1 and 3 hours for class 2 after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
|
Class 3 - Major collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 4 - Minor collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement on bus routes,
centre-bare on other paved road and snow packed on gravel roads
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 5 cm of
snow accumulation
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
|
Class 5 - Residential roads and lanes
-
maintained to a snow packed surface
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 7 cm (10
cm for lanes) of snow accumulation
- snow
to be cleared within 10 hours (16 hours for lanes) after the end of snow
accumulation
|
Paved roads were maintained to centre-bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to centre-bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Plows were deployed after 8 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface.
Plows were deployed after 8 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
A-2
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Cumberland
|
Gloucester
|
Osgoode
|
|
Snow and ice control for sidewalks, pathways
and bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.02)
|
Class 1 - Downtown core (business and
tourist areas)
-
maintained to a bare surface
- sidewalk plows deployed after 2.5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 4
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Class 2 – Major pedestrian links
-
maintained to a bare surface when along an
arterial road and to a snow packed surface for all other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 12
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Class 3 – Minor pedestrian links
-
maintained to a snow packed surface for all
other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 16
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Snow removal
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.03)
|
Methods
-
Casting onto adjacent boulevard or property
when on-site storage is available
-
Pulling into roadway when road and weather
conditions permit
-
Removal to a disposal site when no other
options are available
|
Snow currently casted or
hauled to snow disposal sites.
Proposed standard would see more pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
|
Triggers
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a
week. This only applies where this
practice was carried out prior to amalgamation.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night after 11 pm. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night after 11 pm. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
A-3
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Cumberland
|
Gloucester
|
Osgoode
|
|
Surface repairs for paved roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.01)
|
General road users
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes, missing or cracked ironworks, misaligned catch basin
grates) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4 hours and repaired
as soon as practicable
-
other surface distortions that do not pose
an immediate hazard (i.e. potholes, ponding, surface discontinuities) are to
be prioritized based on class of road and extent of defects (for example 2-4
days on arterials, 7-30 days on collectors and 7-60 days on residentials.
Recommended Enhancement
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer riding conditions
(i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks, adjusting
more catch basin covers, etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
|
Surface repairs for gravel roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.02)
|
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4
hours and repaired as soon as practicable
-
other surface conditions that do not pose an
immediate hazard are to be prioritized based on class of road and extent of
defects (for example 7-14 days on collectors and 14-30 days on residentials).
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Grading
All roads to be graded at least 3 times in
the spring up to the application of dust control. After the application of dust control, spot grading to be
carried out as required.
Dust control
All roads to received dust control each year
in the spring.
|
Grading is comparable to proposed standard.
Increase in service level for dust control
since not all roads received dust control over their entire length.
|
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
A-4
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Cumberland
|
Gloucester
|
Osgoode
|
|
Surface repairs for sidewalks, pathways and
bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.01)
|
-
conditions that present a safety hazard (i.e.
trip hazards of 3 cm and greater) are to be identified as a hazard within 8
hours and repaired within 7 days
-
conditions that impair the function but are
not hazards are to be scheduled into planned maintenance and addressed as
practicable
-
all sidewalks, pathways and bus pads are to
be inspected annually in the spring
Recommended Enhancements
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer walking and riding
conditions (i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks,
adjusting more catch basin covers, eliminating more trip hazards etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Grass Cutting (Boulevards and Ditches)
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.04)
|
Urban boulevards
-
grass cutting every 2 weeks in the spring
and every month for the balance of the year
- topdressing and overseeding
only carried out as spot applications where required
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
|
Rural ditches
Grass cut 1-2 times per year depending on
road class.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
A-5
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Cumberland
|
Gloucester
|
Osgoode
|
|
Street cleaning
(Maintenance Quality Standards 106.01 and
106.02)
|
Frequency
-
debris that pose an immediate hazard are to
be removed as soon as practicable but within 4 hours
-
spring cleaning of all streets is to be
completed by May 31st
-
frequency of street cleaning after the
completion of the spring cleanup (June-October) will vary depending on road
class and location: every 1-2 weeks on arterial roads with curbs and every
3-8 weeks on collector roads with curbs that serve as bus or designated cycling
routes
|
|
|
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a
week. This only applies where this
practice was carried out prior to amalgamation.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are carried out at night until 1:30 am during the spring cleanup. No change
in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
|
Signs and pavement markings
(Maintenance Quality Standards 107.01 and
107.02)
|
Signs
-
regulatory and warning signs that are
illegible, improperly oriented or missing are to be addressed within 3 hours
for safety related signs (i.e. stop, yield, do not enter, etc) to 30 days for
other signs depending on road class and sign type
- guidance, street name and 911 civic number signs that are illegible,
improperly oriented or missing are to be addressed within 30 days
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Pavement markings
Generally line markings will be applied to
most roads yearly. Higher priority
roads will be done twice per year.
Some lower priority roads or markings may only be done every second
year.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Collection of litter containers
(Maintenance
Quality Standard 106.03)
|
Litter containers to be emptied 1-7 times
per week depending on location.
Reduced frequency and number of locations during the winter season.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of litter containers maintained by
the City is relatively low. No change
in service level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A-6
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Kanata
|
Nepean
|
Goulbourn
|
|
Routine road patrol
(Maintenance Quality Standard 102.01)
|
-
Documented routine road patrols required to
comply with legislated requirement.
-
Frequency of patrols range from 4 times per
week to once per month based on road class.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
|
Snow and ice control for roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.01)
|
Class 1 – Highway 174 and Transitway
Class 2 - Arterial roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
-
snow to be cleared within 2 hours for Class
1 and 3 hours for class 2 after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
|
Class 3 - Major collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 4 - Minor collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement on bus routes,
centre-bare on other paved road and snow packed on gravel roads
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 5 cm of
snow accumulation
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
|
Class 5 - Residential roads and lanes
-
maintained to a snow packed surface
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 7 cm (10 cm for lanes) of snow accumulation
- snow
to be cleared within 10 hours (16 hours for lanes) after the end of snow
accumulation
|
Roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to centre-bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
A-7
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Kanata
|
Nepean
|
Goulbourn
|
|
Snow and ice control for sidewalks, pathways
and bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.02)
|
Class 1 - Downtown core (business and
tourist areas)
-
maintained to a bare surface
- sidewalk plows deployed after 2.5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 4
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Class 2 – Major pedestrian links
-
maintained to a bare surface when along an
arterial road and to a snow packed surface for all other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 12
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 3 – Minor pedestrian links
-
maintained to a snow packed surface for all
other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 16
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Snow removal
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.03)
|
Methods
-
Casting onto adjacent boulevard or property
when on-site storage is available
-
Pulling into roadway when road and weather
conditions permit
-
Removal to a disposal site when no other
options are available
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
|
Triggers
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out
24 hours a day 7 days a week. In
residential areas, this only applies where this practice was carried out
prior to amalgamation.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential not
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
A-8
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Kanata
|
Nepean
|
Goulbourn
|
|
Surface repairs for paved roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.01)
|
General road users
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes, missing or cracked ironworks, misaligned catch basin
grates) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4 hours and repaired
as soon as practicable
-
other surface distortions that do not pose
an immediate hazard (i.e. potholes, ponding, surface discontinuities) are to
be prioritized based on class of road and extent of defects (for example 2-4
days on arterials, 7-30 days on collectors and 7-60 days on residentials.
Recommended Enhancement
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer riding conditions
(i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks, adjusting
more catch basin covers, etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
|
Surface repairs for gravel roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.02)
|
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4
hours and repaired as soon as practicable
-
other surface conditions that do not pose an
immediate hazard are to be prioritized based on class of road and extent of
defects (for example 7-14 days on collectors and 14-30 days on residentials).
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Grading
All roads to be graded at least 3 times in
the spring up to the application of dust control. After the application of dust control, spot grading to be
carried out as required.
Dust control
All roads to received dust control each year
in the spring.
|
|
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
A-9
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Kanata
|
Nepean
|
Goulbourn
|
|
Surface repairs for sidewalks, pathways and
bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.01)
|
-
conditions that present a safety hazard
(i.e. trip hazards of 3 cm and greater) are to be identified as a hazard
within 8 hours and repaired within 7 days
-
conditions that impair the function but are
not hazards are to be scheduled into planned maintenance and addressed as
practicable
-
all sidewalks, pathways and bus pads are to
be inspected annually in the spring
Recommended Enhancements
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer walking and riding
conditions (i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks, adjusting
more catch basin covers, eliminating more trip hazards etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
|
Grass Cutting (Boulevards and Ditches)
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.04)
|
Urban boulevards
-
grass cutting every 2 weeks in the spring
and every month for the balance of the year
- topdressing and overseeding
only carried out as spot applications where required
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
|
Rural ditches
Grass cut 1-2 times per year depending on
road class.
|
|
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
A-10
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Kanata
|
Nepean
|
Goulbourn
|
|
Street cleaning
(Maintenance Quality Standards 106.01 and
106.02)
|
Frequency
-
debris that pose an immediate hazard are to
be removed as soon as practicable but within 4 hours
-
spring cleaning of all streets is to be
completed by May 31st
-
frequency of street cleaning after the
completion of the spring cleanup (June-October) will vary depending on road
class and location: every 1-2 weeks on arterial roads with curbs and every
3-8 weeks on collector roads with curbs that serve as bus or designated
cycling routes
|
|
|
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a
week. This only applies where this
practice was carried out prior to amalgamation.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
|
Signs and pavement
markings
(Maintenance
Quality Standards 107.01 and 107.02)
|
Signs
-
regulatory and
warning signs that are illegible, improperly oriented or missing are to be
addressed within 3 hours for safety related signs (i.e. stop, yield, do not
enter, etc) to 30 days for other signs depending on road class and sign type
-
guidance, street
name and 911 civic number signs that are illegible, improperly oriented or
missing are to be addressed within 30 days
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
|
Pavement markings
Generally line
markings will be applied to most roads yearly. Higher priority roads will be done twice per year. Some lower priority roads or markings may
only be done every second year.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to proposed
standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
|
Collection of
litter containers
(Maintenance
Quality Standard 106.03)
|
Litter containers
to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations
during the winter season.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
A-11
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Ottawa
|
Vanier
|
Rockliffe Park
|
|
Routine road patrol
(Maintenance Quality Standard 102.01)
|
-
Documented routine road patrols required to
comply with legislated requirement.
-
Frequency of patrols range from 4 times per
week to once per month based on road class.
|
Current road patrol limited to arterial roads. This
standard will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process
for all City roads.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard will
result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
|
Snow and ice control for roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.01)
|
Class 1 – Highway 174 and Transitway
Class 2 - Arterial roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
-
snow to be cleared within 2 hours for Class
1 and 3 hours for class 2 after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Class 1 delivered by the former Region.
Class 2 is comparable to proposed
standard. No change in service level.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Class 3 - Major collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 4 - Minor collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement on bus routes,
centre-bare on other paved road and snow packed on gravel roads
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 5 cm of
snow accumulation
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface and this will remain as is to limit salt use.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
|
Class 5 - Residential roads and lanes
-
maintained to a snow packed surface
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 7 cm (10
cm for lanes) of snow accumulation
- snow
to be cleared within 10 hours (16 hours for lanes) after the end of snow
accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Paved roads were maintained to centre-bare
pavement. Change is a result of reducing
the application of road salt.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface.
Plows were deployed after 5 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was well within proposed
standard due to the low inventory to maintain.
|
A-12
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Ottawa
|
Vanier
|
Rockliffe Park
|
|
Snow and ice control for sidewalks, pathways
and bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.02)
|
Class 1 - Downtown core (business and
tourist areas)
-
maintained to a bare surface
- sidewalk plows deployed after 2.5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 4
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Option identified as a budget pressure to
increase service level to improve accessibility.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Class 2 – Major pedestrian links
-
maintained to a bare surface when along an
arterial road and to a snow packed surface for all other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 12
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Option identified as a budget pressure to
increase service level to improve accessibility.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Class 3 – Minor pedestrian links
-
maintained to a snow packed surface for all
other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 16
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Snow removal
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.03)
|
Methods
-
Casting onto adjacent boulevard or property
when on-site storage is available
-
Pulling into roadway when road and weather
conditions permit
-
Removal to a disposal site when no other
options are available
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
|
Triggers
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out
24 hours a day 7 days a week. In
residential areas, this only applies where this practice was carried out
prior to amalgamation.
|
Snow removal operations in residential are
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential are
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential are
carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
A-13
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Ottawa
|
Vanier
|
Rockliffe Park
|
|
Surface repairs for paved roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.01)
|
General road users
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes, missing or cracked ironworks, misaligned catch basin
grates) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4 hours and repaired
as soon as practicable
-
other surface distortions that do not pose
an immediate hazard (i.e. potholes, ponding, surface discontinuities) are to
be prioritized based on class of road and extent of defects (for example 2-4
days on arterials, 7-30 days on collectors and 7-60 days on residentials.
Recommended Enhancement
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer riding conditions
(i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks, adjusting
more catch basin covers, etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
|
Surface repairs for gravel roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.02)
|
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4
hours and repaired as soon as practicable
-
other surface conditions that do not pose an
immediate hazard are to be prioritized based on class of road and extent of
defects (for example 7-14 days on collectors and 14-30 days on residentials).
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Grading
All roads to be graded at least 3 times in
the spring up to the application of dust control. After the application of dust control, spot grading to be
carried out as required.
Dust control
All roads to received dust control each year
in the spring.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
A-14
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Ottawa
|
Vanier
|
Rockliffe Park
|
|
Surface repairs for sidewalks, pathways and
bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.01)
|
-
conditions that present a safety hazard
(i.e. trip hazards of 3 cm and greater) are to be identified as a hazard
within 8 hours and repaired within 7 days
-
conditions that impair the function but are
not hazards are to be scheduled into planned maintenance and addressed as
practicable
-
all sidewalks, pathways and bus pads are to
be inspected annually in the spring
Recommended Enhancements
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer walking and riding
conditions (i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks,
adjusting more catch basin covers, eliminating more trip hazards etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
|
Grass Cutting (Boulevards and Ditches)
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.04)
|
Urban boulevards
-
grass cutting every 2 weeks in the spring
and every month for the balance of the year
- topdressing and overseeding
only carried out as spot applications where required
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
|
Rural ditches
Grass cut 1-2 times per year depending on
road class.
|
|
|
|
A-15
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Ottawa
|
Vanier
|
Rockliffe Park
|
|
Street cleaning
(Maintenance Quality Standards 106.01 and
106.02)
|
Frequency
-
debris that pose an immediate hazard are to
be removed as soon as practicable but within 4 hours
-
spring cleaning of all streets is to be
completed by May 31st
-
frequency of street cleaning after the
completion of the spring cleanup (June-October) will vary depending on road
class and location: every 1-2 weeks on arterial roads with curbs and every
3-8 weeks on collector roads with curbs that serve as bus or designated
cycling routes
|
|
|
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a
week. This only applies where this
practice was carried out prior to amalgamation.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
|
Signs and pavement markings
(Maintenance Quality Standards 107.01 and
107.02)
|
Signs
-
regulatory and warning signs that are
illegible, improperly oriented or missing are to be addressed within 3 hours
for safety related signs (i.e. stop, yield, do not enter, etc) to 30 days for
other signs depending on road class and sign type
-
guidance, street
name and 911 civic number signs that are illegible, improperly oriented or
missing are to be addressed within 30 days
|
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Pavement markings
Generally line
markings will be applied to most roads yearly. Higher priority roads will be done twice per year. Some lower priority roads or markings may
only be done every second year.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Inventory of roads
with line markings is relatively low.
No change in service level.
|
|
Collection of
litter containers
(Maintenance
Quality Standard 106.03)
|
Litter containers
to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations
during the winter season.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Inventory of litter
containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.
|
A-16
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Rideau
|
West Carleton
|
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Routine road patrol
(Maintenance Quality Standard 102.01)
|
-
Documented routine road patrols required to
comply with legislated requirement.
-
Frequency of patrols range from 4 times per
week to once per month based on road class.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
No formal or documented
road patrol process. This standard
will result in a formalized and documented road patrolling process.
|
|
Snow and ice control for roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.01)
|
Class 1 – Highway 174 and Transitway
Class 2 - Arterial roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
-
snow to be cleared within 2 hours for Class
1 and 3 hours for class 2 after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Service delivered by the former Region.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 3 - Major collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement
-
resources deployed as soon as snow
accumulation begins
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Class 4 - Minor collector roads
-
maintained to bare pavement on bus routes,
centre-bare on other paved road and snow packed on gravel roads
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 5 cm of
snow accumulation
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Paved roads were maintained to bare
pavement. Change is a result of
reducing the application of road salt.
Otherwise deployment depth and time to
complete were comparable to proposed standard.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
|
Class 5 - Residential roads and lanes
-
maintained to a snow packed surface
-
plows deployed after a minimum of 7 cm (10
cm for lanes) of snow accumulation
- snow
to be cleared within 10 hours (16 hours for lanes) after the end of snow
accumulation
|
Roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface.
Plows were deployed after 8 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Roads were maintained to a snow packed
surface.
Plows were deployed after 8 cm of snow
accumulation.
Time to complete was comparable to proposed
standard.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
A-17
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Rideau
|
West Carleton
|
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Snow and ice control for sidewalks, pathways
and bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.02)
|
Class 1 - Downtown core (business and
tourist areas)
-
maintained to a bare surface
- sidewalk plows deployed after 2.5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 4
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
|
Class 2 – Major pedestrian links
-
maintained to a bare surface when along an
arterial road and to a snow packed surface for all other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 12
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
|
Class 3 – Minor pedestrian links
-
maintained to a snow packed surface for all
other locations
- sidewalk plows deployed after 5 cm of snow accumulation
- snow to be cleared within 16
hours after the end of the snow accumulation
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
|
Snow removal
(Maintenance Quality Standard 103.03)
|
Methods
-
Casting onto adjacent boulevard or property
when on-site storage is available
-
Pulling into roadway when road and weather
conditions permit
-
Removal to a disposal site when no other
options are available
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Snow currently hauled to
snow disposal sites. Proposed
standard would see more casting and pulling of snow into the road where
conditions permit to reduce snow to be hauled to disposal sites.
|
|
Triggers
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal volumes
relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out
24 hours a day 7 days a week. In
residential areas, this only applies where this practice was carried out
prior to amalgamation.
|
Snow removal operations in residential areas
are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Snow removal operations in residential areas
are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
A-18
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Rideau
|
West Carleton
|
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Surface repairs for paved roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.01)
|
General road users
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes, missing or cracked ironworks, misaligned catch basin
grates) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4 hours and repaired
as soon as practicable
-
other surface distortions that do not pose
an immediate hazard (i.e. potholes, ponding, surface discontinuities) are to
be prioritized based on class of road and extent of defects (for example 2-4
days on arterials, 7-30 days on collectors and 7-60 days on residentials.
Recommended Enhancement
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer riding conditions
(i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks, adjusting
more catch basin covers, etc).
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
Comparable to proposed standard.
Enhancement would result in closer attention
to surface distortions along designated
city cycling routes.
|
|
Surface repairs for gravel roads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 104.02)
|
-
surface distortions that pose an immediate
hazard (i.e. sink holes) are to be clearly identified as a hazard within 4
hours and repaired as soon as practicable
-
other surface conditions that do not pose an
immediate hazard are to be prioritized based on class of road and extent of
defects (for example 7-14 days on collectors and 14-30 days on residentials).
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Grading
All roads to be graded at least 3 times in
the spring up to the application of dust control. After the application of dust control, spot grading to be
carried out as required.
Dust control
All roads to received dust control each year
in the spring.
|
|
|
Not applicable.
|
A-19
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Rideau
|
West Carleton
|
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Surface repairs for sidewalks, pathways and
bus pads
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.01)
|
-
conditions that present a safety hazard
(i.e. trip hazards of 3 cm and greater) are to be identified as a hazard
within 8 hours and repaired within 7 days
-
conditions that impair the function but are
not hazards are to be scheduled into planned maintenance and addressed as
practicable
-
all sidewalks, pathways and bus pads are to
be inspected annually in the spring
Recommended Enhancements
If approved as part of the 2004 budget, the
enhancements would result in a defined standard for cycling related hazards
and in additional surface repairs that would provide safer walking and riding
conditions (i.e. filling in more potholes, sealing more longitudinal cracks,
adjusting more catch basin covers, eliminating more trip hazards etc).
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Inventory of sidewalks and pathways is
relatively low. No change in service
level.
|
Not applicable. Service delivered by former
local municipalities.
|
|
Grass Cutting (Boulevards and Ditches)
(Maintenance Quality Standard 105.04)
|
Urban boulevards
-
grass cutting every 2 weeks in the spring
and every month for the balance of the year
- topdressing and overseeding
only carried out as spot applications where required
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
As a result of the
discontinued use of chemical pesticides, Council approved in the 2003
operating budget an increase in the grass cutting frequency during peak
spring growing season.
No change in service level
for the balance of the year.
|
|
Rural ditches
Grass cut 1-2 times per year depending on
road class.
|
|
|
|
A-20
|
Service
|
Proposed Maintenance Standards
|
Rideau
|
West Carleton
|
Region of Ottawa-Carleton
|
|
Street cleaning
(Maintenance Quality Standards 106.01 and
106.02)
|
Frequency
-
debris that pose an immediate hazard are to
be removed as soon as practicable but within 4 hours
-
spring cleaning of all streets is to be
completed by May 31st
-
frequency of street cleaning after the
completion of the spring cleanup (June-October) will vary depending on road
class and location: every 1-2 weeks on arterial roads with curbs and every
3-8 weeks on collector roads with curbs that serve as bus or designated
cycling routes
|
|
|
|
|
Hours of operation
Can be carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a
week. This only applies where this
practice was carried out prior to amalgamation.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
Street cleaning operations in residential
areas are not carried out at night. No change in service level.
|
|
|
Signs and pavement markings
(Maintenance Quality Standards 107.01 and
107.02)
|
Signs
-
regulatory and warning signs that are
illegible, improperly oriented or missing are to be addressed within 3 hours
for safety related signs (i.e. stop, yield, do not enter, etc) to 30 days for
other signs depending on road class and sign type
- guidance, street name and 911 civic number signs that are illegible,
improperly oriented or missing are to be addressed within 30 days
|
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
|
|
Pavement markings
Generally line
markings will be applied to most roads yearly. Higher priority roads will be done twice per year. Some lower priority roads or markings may
only be done every second year.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
Comparable to
proposed standard. No change in
service level.
|
|
Collection of
litter containers
(Maintenance
Quality Standard 106.03)
|
Litter containers
to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations
during the winter season.
|
Inventory of litter
containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Inventory of litter
containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.
|
Not applicable.
Service delivered by former local municipalities.
|
A-21
ANNEX B
RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE
QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR ROADS AND
SIDEWALKS/PATHWAYS
Executive Summary
Glossary
100.00 Roads,
Sidewalks/Pathways
101.0
Introduction
101.01 Roads and Sidewalks/Pathways
102.00 Routine
Road Patrols
102.01 General Visual
103.00 Winter
Maintenance
103.01
Snow and Ice Control- Roads
103.02
Snow and Ice Control- Sidewalks, Pathways and Bus Pads
103.03 Snow Removal
104.00 Road
and Bridge Surfaces
104.01 Hard and Treated Surfaces
104.02
Gravel Surfaces
105.00 Roadsides
105.01
Sidewalks, Pathways and Bus Pads
105.02
Drainage
105.03
Street Furniture
105.04
Grass Cutting
105.05
Brushing
105.06
Naturalization
106.00 Cleanup
(Right-of-Way)
106.01
Spring Cleanup
106.02
Street Cleaning
106.03
Collection of Litter Containers
106.04
Hazardous Items and Graffiti
106.05
Spills and Accident Cleanup
107.00 Safety
and Traffic Control Devices
107.01
Signs
107.02
Pavement Markings
107.03
Guide Rails and Barriers
107.04
Noise Barriers and Fences
200.00 Parks, Sports Fields and Trees (not included in
this document)
201.00 Introduction
201.01 Parks, Sports Fields and Trees
202.00 Inspections
202.01 General Visual
202.02 Play Structures
203.00 Turf
Management
203.01 Mowing and Trimming
203.02 Naturalization
203.03 Brushing
203.04 Aeration
203.05 Fertilization
203.06 Topdressing and Overseeding
204.00 Remedial Repairs
204.01 Site Furniture and Fencing
204.02 Play Structures
204.03 Re-lamping of Light Standards
204.04
Turf
204.05
Drainage
205.00 Trees, Shrubs and Flower Beds
205.01 Newly Planted Trees
205.02 Tree Maintenance
205.03 Shrub Beds
205.04 Flower Beds
206.00 Cleanup (Parks and Sports Fields)
206.01 Spring Clean Up
206.02 Fall Clean Up
206.03 Collection of Litter Containers
206.04 Sand
206.05 Hazardous Items and Graffiti
207.00 Sports
Fields
207.01 Infield Maintenance
207.02 Irrigation Systems
Intent
The intent of the Maintenance
Quality Standards is to define the desirable level of service that the City
will aim to achieve under normal conditions.
Equipment failures, unusual weather conditions and other factors may
result in the City not achieving the standards. However, where defined, the City will achieve the provincially
legislated standards.
Objectives
The Maintenance Quality Standards
have the following objectives:
- To provide safe, dependable and affordable service
levels;
- To preserve the infrastructure assets;
- To protect the natural environment;
- To enhance the appearance and health of the
community;
- To provide a reference framework to measure
performance;
- To provide a basis of “Peer Review” with other
comparable cities; and
- To provide Council and citizens with a reference of
expectations.
Philosophy
The Maintenance Quality Standards
have been written from a user’s perspective by defining the end result of
maintenance services as much as possible as this is what impacts the
users. The standards provide the outcome
of a service by defining the timing and extent of a particular maintenance
activity and are defined by the overall objective (i.e. clean city, safe roads,
passable sidewalks, etc.) giving the City a measurable outcome.
The standards are not
prescriptive in terms of how the services are delivered. How services are delivered form part of an
operations manual as delivery may evolve over time with changes in equipment,
materials, innovation and technology.
Format
The standards are written with
the following headings:
·
Outcome: defines
the main outcome of the maintenance activity and is written from a users
perspective.
·
Description: describes
the intent and scope of the standard.
·
Standards: defines
the outcome of the standard.
·
Service Level: defines
the frequency or response time to achieve the desired standard.
·
Related Standards: defines
other standards that provide related information.
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
“Alligatoring”
|
means a
pattern of cracks on pavement that are interconnected and form a series of
small blocks resembling an alligator’s skin.
|
|
“Anti-Icing Method”
|
means a
winter control method where ice control chemicals are applied to pavement
just prior to or just after the start of a snow storm in order to provide a
chemical layer that prevents bonding of snow to pavement.
|
|
“As Soon As Practicable”
|
means the
period of time from being made aware of a problem until the time when action
and repairs can be taken at the site of the problem.
|
|
“Bare Pavement Standard”
|
means a
standard whereby the end result of winter control operations result in a full
width bare pavement within a given time frame.
|
|
“Casting”
(of snow)
|
means the
blowing, blading or other means of relocation of snowbanks onto public or
private lands that are acceptable for the storage of snow for the duration of
the winter season.
|
|
“Centre-Bare Standard”
|
means a
standard whereby the end result of winter control operations result in a
partially cleared pavement, from the centre of the roadway outwards, within a
given time frame.
|
|
“Culvert”
|
means a
structure designed to allow the passage of surface water in ditches or
streams, or of livestock or pedestrians under a roadway or roadside entrance.
|
|
“De-Icing Method”
|
means a
winter control method where ice control chemicals and abrasives are applied
to pavement after plowing of snow has been carried out.
|
|
“Distortions”
|
means any
deviations of a surface from its original shape.
|
|
“Ditch”
|
means an
open facility constructed to carry water to an outlet.
|
|
“Hazard”
|
means any
object or condition that may represent a threat to the safety of cyclists,
pedestrians or motorists.
|
|
“Icy Road”
|
means a
portion or section of roadway surface that has been frozen through hoarfrost
(“black ice”) action, freezing rain action or compacted snow and has formed a
slippery surface that could be hazardous to the users.
|
|
“Icy Sidewalk or Pathway”
|
means a portion or section of
sidewalk, pathway or pedestrian access surface that has been frozen through
hoarfrost (“black ice”) action, freezing rain action or compacted snow and
formed a slippery surface that could be hazardous to the users.
|
|
“Ironworks”
|
means the
frames and covers or frames and grates of maintenance holes, catch basins,
ditch inlets and culvert grates
|
|
“Made Aware Time”
|
means the
clock time of day that a problem call is received by Surface Operations. This
is the logged clock time that information calls from patrols, active
operators or the public are received.
|
|
“Planned Maintenance”
|
means
maintenance carried out on a planned or regular basis to ensure that roadway
and structural components continue to function as far as practical to end of
life.
|
|
“Ravelling”
|
means a
progressive loss of pavement material from the surface downward, leaving a
course texture or “pock marks” on the pavement surface.
|
|
“Response Time”
|
means the
period of time from the point of being made aware until resources arrive at
the site to carry out an operation or commence repairs to fix a problem.
|
|
“Rippling and Shoving”
|
|
|
“Roadway Patrolling”
|
means the
process of driving each section of roadway at a determined frequency to
monitor and report potential road hazards.
|
|
“Snow Accumulation”
|
means the
natural accumulation of new fallen snow or wind-blown snow that covers more
than half a lane-width of a roadway, sidewalk or pathway.
|
|
“Snowboards”
|
means sheet
products installed along bridge parapet rails and pedestrian handrails for
the purposes of preventing plowed snow and ice from falling below and for
preventing the splashing of pedestrians respectively.
|
|
“Snow Clearing”
|
means the
clearing of snow from the travelled surface of a roadway, bridge or
sidewalk/pathway and does not include the complete removal of snow banks to
disposal sites.
|
|
“Snow Disposal”
|
means the
mechanical removal and dumping of snow at disposal sites that are acceptable
for the storage of snow for the duration of the winter season.
|
|
“Snow Packed Standard”
|
means a
standard whereby the end result of winter control operations result in a
pavement with packed snow for a running surface.
|
|
“Washboarding”
|
means
“rippling and shoring” where the texture of the road surface takes on that
similar to a washboard.
|
|
“Wheel Track Rutting”
|
means
dishing developed in the wheel tracks on a road surface.
|
Scope
This section (100 series) of the
Maintenance Quality Standards applies to maintenance operations on roads,
sidewalks and pathways.
The intent of the Maintenance Quality Standards is to define the
desirable level of service. For road
maintenance services that are subject to Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, the intent is to aim for the
desirable levels of service, but will not be less than the minimums as
specified in the regulation.
Maintenance Classifications
Maintenance classifications are used to categorize roads,
sidewalks/pathways of similar characteristics and function into similar
classes. These classes are used to
prioritize the delivery of maintenance activities.
Road Maintenance
Classification
The Road Maintenance Classification is defined in two
parts: primary class and a secondary class.
The primary class is derived using three (3) variables (functional
classification, speed, and traffic volume) using a weighted averaging approach:
|
Functional Classification
Weighted Average = 20%
|
|
Posted Speed (km/h)
Weighted Average = 40%
|
|
Volume (AADT)
Weighted Average = 40%
|
|
Freeway 10
|
|
> 90 10
|
|
> 10,000 10
|
|
Urban Arterial 7
|
|
90 8
|
|
7,501 – 10,000 9
|
|
Rural Arterial/Major Collector 5
|
|
80 6
|
|
5,001 – 7,500 8
|
|
Minor Collector/Residential 3
|
|
70 5
|
|
2,001 – 5000 6
|
|
Lane 1
|
|
60 4
|
|
1,001 – 2000 5
|
|
|
|
50 2
|
|
501 – 1,000 4
|
|
|
|
40 2
|
|
100 – 500 2
|
|
|
|
< 40 2
|
|
< 100 1
|
The Average Point Rating is calculated as follows:
Average Point Rating =
20% (Functional Classification)
+ 40% (Posted
Speed)
+ 40% (Volume)
The average point rating is used
to determine the primary class as follows:
|
Primary Maintenance Class
|
Average Point Rating
|
|
1
|
Refer to Table 101.01.01
|
|
2
|
>6 – 8
|
|
3
|
>4 – 6
|
|
4
|
>3 – 4
|
|
5
|
0 – 3
|
The road maintenance
classification also includes a secondary class of A, B and C. The A and B secondary classes are used to
further prioritize the delivery of maintenance, and C refers to gravel roads. In general, a secondary class “A” is given
to roads within Special Designated Areas (central
business district, By-ward Market, Rockliffe Park Heritage district, primary
employment centres, tourism areas), or with essential
services (hospitals, fire stations, police stations, ambulance stations), schools, transit, steep grades/curves, or designated part
of the City’s cycling route.
The road maintenance classification is defined in Table
101.01.01.
Sidewalk/Pathway Maintenance Classification
The sidewalk/pathway maintenance system is structured to
reflect prioritization based on relative level of importance, level of
utilization by pedestrians, cyclists and recreational users, access and
mobility requirements, and availability of alternate pedestrian
facilities. The sidewalk/pathway
maintenance classification system only includes a primary class and does not
include a secondary class, as is the case with the road maintenance
classification. The sidewalk/pathway
maintenance classification is defined in Table 101.01.02.
|
Table 101.01.01 – Road Maintenance Classification
|
|
Primary Class
|
Secondary Class
|
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
|
1
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
Freeways
(4-lane section of 174)
|
Transitway
|
N/A
|
|
2
|
Arterials
|
Roads within Special Designated Areas,
or with Essential Services, Schools, Transit, Steep Grades, or with
designated City cycling route, NCC Parkways
|
All other paved Class 2 roads
|
N/A
|
|
3
|
Major Collectors
|
Roads within Special Designated Areas,
or with Essential Services, Schools, Transit, Steep Grades, or with
designated City cycling route
|
All other paved Class 3 roads
|
N/A
|
|
4
|
Minor Collectors
|
Roads within Special Designated Areas,
or with Essential Services, Schools, Transit, Steep Grades, or with
designated City cycling route
|
All other paved Class 4 roads
|
Gravel roads
|
|
5
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
Residential and Subdivision Roads
|
Lanes
|
Gravel roads
|
Special Designated Areas
- Downtown business
district, By-ward Market, Rockliffe Park Heritage district, primary employment
centres, tourism areas
Essential Services
- Hospitals, Fire
Stations, Police Stations, Ambulance Stations
|
Table 101.01.02 – Sidewalk/Pathway
Maintenance Classification
|
|
Sidewalk/Pathway Maintenance
Classification
|
Sidewalk/Pathway Description
|
|
1
|
- downtown
business district
- Byward Market
- special
tourism areas
|
|
2
|
-
downtown/urban residential neighbourhoods where sidewalks are only safe place
to walk
- sidewalks in
Villages
- pathways that
serve as main community links or to access transit services
- sidewalks
along roads with transit service, emergency facilities, public facilities or
retail/commercial frontages
- pathways
designated as part of City cycling routes
|
|
3
|
- sidewalks
along rural and suburban residential roads
- paved
pathways in rural and suburban neighbourhoods (pathways that are winter
maintained)
|
|
4
|
- unpaved
pathways and trails
- paved
pathways that are not winter maintained
|
Outcome
The main outcome of routine
road patrols is safe and passable roads by monitoring and reporting
conditions that could pose a hazard to the users.
Description
Routine road patrols shall
include the visual monitoring and reporting of the conditions listed
below. These are to be addressed in
accordance with the provisions of each related standard:
|
Condition
|
Related Standard
|
Requirement of MMSMH*
|
|
snow
accumulation and icy roads
|
103.01 Winter Maintenance
– Snow and Ice Control- Roads
|
X
|
|
snow
accumulation and icy sidewalks
|
103.02 Winter Maintenance
– Snow and Ice Control- Sidewalks and Pathways
|
|
|
snow
bank sightline obstructions at intersections
|
103.03 Winter Maintenance
– Snow Removal
|
|
|
potholes,
cracks, shoulder drop offs, surface discontinuities
|
104.01 Road Surfaces –
Hard and Treated Surfaces
104.02 Road Surfaces –
Gravel Surfaces
104.03 Road Surfaces -
Bridge Surfaces
|
X
|
|
sidewalk
defects
|
105.01 Roadsides –
Sidewalks, Pathways and Bus Pads
|
|
|
washouts
and flooding
|
105.02 Roadsides –
Drainage
|
|
|
damaged
street furniture
|
105.03 Roadsides – Street
Furniture
|
|
|
Debris
|
106.01 Cleanup – Street
Cleaning
106.02 Cleanup – Spills
and Accident Cleanup
|
X
|
|
illegible,
missing or improperly oriented regulatory and warning signs
|
107.01 Safety and Traffic
Control Devices – Signs
|
X
|
|
faded
pavement markings
|
107.02 Safety and Traffic
Control Devices – Pavement markings
|
|
|
damaged
guide rails and barriers
|
107.03 Safety and Traffic
Control Devices – Guide Rails and Barriers
|
|
|
visual
problems with traffic control signals and damaged streetlights
|
Refer to Traffic and
Parking Operations Branch
|
X
|
*
MMSMH = minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways
The standard for routine road
patrols meets the provisions of Ontario Regulation 239/02, the “Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways”.
The patrols are for the purpose of identifying and reporting hazards and
are not intended to be infrastructure or asset condition assessments. These assessments are to be undertaken as a
separate activity.
Road patrols also incorporate
visual monitoring of cycling lanes and sidewalks located within the
right-of-way as can be reasonably observed from a moving vehicle.
Road patrols shall also include
minor cleanup activities such as the pick up of minor debris and small dead
animals. Temporary signage may need to
be erected during road patrols where hazardous conditions exist and where these
cannot be addressed during the patrol.
This is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
latest edition of the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Standard
Routine road patrols shall be documented.
Routine road patrols are to be carried out as follows in
accordance with the frequency defined in Table 102.01:
·
driving all undivided roads in one direction to
visually observe and report hazards based on the conditions specified above;
·
driving all divided roads in each direction to visually
observe and report hazards based on the conditions specified above.
Additional patrols may be carried out subject to weather
conditions.
Routine road patrols are to be
carried out between sunrise and sunset.
Routine road patrols may be supplemented with the use of
electronic devices such as Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) or Road Weather
Information Systems (RWIS) instrumentation.
Service Level
The intent is to meet the frequency as defined in Table 102.01.01,
but will not be less than the frequency prescribed by Ontario Regulation
239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (also referenced
in Table 102.02.01).
Related Standards
201.01 INSPECTIONS – General Visual
|
Table 102.01.01 - Road Patrol Frequency
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Frequency
(Minimum as per MMSMH)
|
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
4 times per week
(3 times per week)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
3 times per week
(2-3 times per week)
|
|
3
|
A, B, C
|
Most Major Collectors
|
Once per week
(Once per week)
|
|
4
|
A, B, C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
Once per 2 weeks
(Once per 2 weeks)
|
|
5
|
A, C
|
Residential
Roads and Lanes
|
Once per month
(Once per month)
|
|
B
|
(Not defined)
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
-
MMSMH refers to Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways.
Outcome
The main outcome of snow and
ice control of roads is safe and passable roads by reducing the hazards
caused by snow and ice accumulation on the road surface.
Description
This standard applies to winter
snow and ice control operations on all City roads, including adjacent shoulders
and bicycle lanes where designated as City cycling routes. The standard meets the provisions of Ontario
Regulation 239/02, the “Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Roads”.
This standard does not apply to
shoulders or parking lanes adjacent to roads unless these form part of the
designated City cycling routes. Snow
and ice control for the foregoing items shall be considered as winter cleanup
and carried out separately. Winter
cleanup is to be carried out as soon as resources permit and only after the
work detailed herein has been completed.
Snow and ice control
operations can be carried out 24/7 subject to weather conditions and in a
manner that will enable the City to achieve this standard with available
resources.
Under extreme winter storm conditions
(i.e. those that exceed normal conditions), snow and ice control operations
will be carried out based on the capacity of resources in as continuous a
manner as practicable, consistent with the classes of roads as detailed in
Table 103.01.01.
Standard
Bare Pavement, Centre-Bare and
Snow Packed treatment standards are used for various classes of roadway as
defined in Tables 103.01.01.
-
Bare Pavement: requires that snow and ice be controlled,
cleared and/or prevented for the full travelled road pavement width, including
flush medians of 2 m width or less, paved shoulders and/or adjacent cycling
lanes. It does not include parking lanes.
-
Centre-Bare: requires that snow and ice be controlled, cleared
and/or prevented in a strip down the middle of the road pavement width for a
minimum width of 2.5 m on each side of centreline.
-
Snow-Packed: requires that snow and ice be cleared and that
ruts and/or potholes that may cause poor vehicle control be levelled off. Abrasive or deicing materials are applied at
intersections, hills and sharp curves.
Service Level
For treating icy roads, resources
are to be deployed as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the icy
conditions. Icy roads are to be treated
within the times defined in Table 103.01.01 after becoming aware of the icy
conditions.
For snow clearing, resources are
to be deployed and snow clearing completed as defined in Table 103.01.01. If the depth of snow accumulation is less
than the minimum for deployment, then resources may be deployed subject to road
conditions resulting from previous snow accumulations or from forecasted
weather conditions.
Snow and ice control operations
will not exceed the conditions prescribed by Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
103.02 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow and Ice Control- Sidewalks
and Pathways
103.03 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow Removal
|
Table 103.01.01
– Snow and Ice Control on Roads
|
|
Road Maintenance
Class
|
Road
Type
|
Minimum Depth of Snow Accumulation for
Deployment of Resources
(Depth as per MMSMH)
|
Time to Clear Snow Accumulation From the End of Snow
Accumulation
or Time to Treat Icy Conditions
(Time as per MMSMH)
|
Treatment Standard
|
|
Bare Pavement
|
Centre Bare
|
Snow Packed
|
|
1
|
A
|
High Priority Roads
|
As accumulation begins
(2.5-8 cm depending on class)
|
2 h (3-4 h)
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
B
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
2
|
A
|
Most Arterials
|
3 h (3-6 h)
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
B
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
3
|
A
|
Most Major Collectors
|
4 h (8-12 h)
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
B
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
4
|
A
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
5 cm (8 cm)
|
6 h (12-16 h)
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
B
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
C
|
|
|
Ö
|
|
5
|
A, C
|
Residential
Roads and Lanes
|
7 cm (10 cm)
|
10 h (16-24 h)
|
|
|
Ö
|
|
B
|
10 cm (not defined)
|
16 h (not
defined)
|
|
|
Ö
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
-
MMSMH refers to Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways.
Outcome
The main outcome of snow and
ice control of sidewalks, pathways and bus pads is safe and passable
facilities for all users by reducing the hazards caused by snow and ice
accumulation.
Description
This standard applies to winter
snow and ice control operations for City-owned sidewalks, pathways, bus stops
and pedestrian malls designated for winter usage.
Snow and ice control
operations can be carried out 24/7 subject to weather conditions and in a
manner that will enable the City to achieve this standard with available
resources.
Under extreme winter storm
conditions (i.e. those that exceed normal conditions), snow and ice control
operations will be carried out based on the capacity of resources in as
continuous a manner as practicable, consistent with the classes of sidewalks
and pathways as detailed in Table 103.02.01.
Standard
Bare Surface and Snow Packed
treatment standards are used for various classes of sidewalks and pathways as
defined in Tables 103.02.01.
-
Bare Surface: requires that snow and ice be controlled,
cleared and/or prevented for the full travelled width.
-
Snow-Packed: requires that snow and ice be cleared and that
ruts be levelled off.
During weather periods subject to
freeze-thaw cycles, the City will monitor the conditions of sidewalks and
pathways and provide spot application of abrasives or deicing materials.
Service Level
For treating icy sidewalks and
pathways, resources are to be deployed as soon as practicable after becoming
aware of the icy conditions. Icy
sidewalks and pathways are to be treated within the times defined in Table
103.02.01 after becoming aware of the icy conditions.
For snow clearing, resources are
to be deployed and snow clearing completed as defined in Table 103.02.01. If the depth of snow accumulation is less
than the minimum for deployment, then resources may be deployed subject to
sidewalk and pathway conditions resulting from previous snow accumulations or
from forecasted weather conditions.
Bus stops located along City
roads are to be cleared within 24 hours after the snow accumulation has ended.
Windrows across sidewalks at intersections and at
pedestrian crossings that are left after road plowing operations are to be
removed within 16 hours after the end of the storm.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
103.02 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow and Ice Control- Sidewalks
and Pathways
103.03 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow Removal
106.02 CLEANUP –
Spring Cleanup
|
Table 103.02.01 – Snow and Ice Control on
Sidewalks and Pathways
|
|
Sidewalk/ Pathway Maintenance Classification
|
Minimum Depth of Snow Accumulation for
Deployment of Resources
|
Time to Clear
Snow Accumulation From the End of Snow Accumulation or Time to Treat
Icy Conditions
|
Treatment Standard
|
|
Bare Surface
|
Snow Packed
|
|
1
|
·
Downtown business district
·
Byward Market
·
large employment centres
·
special tourism areas
|
2.5 cm
|
4 h
|
Ö
|
|
|
2
|
·
downtown/urban residential neighbourhoods where sidewalks are only
safe place to walk
·
sidewalks in Villages
·
pathways that serve as main community links or to access transit
services
·
sidewalks along roads with transit service, emergency facilities,
public facilities or retail/commercial frontages
·
pathways designated as part of City cycling routes
|
5 cm
|
12 h
|
Sidewalks directly adjacent to arterial roads
|
All other locations
|
|
3
|
·
sidewalks along rural and suburban collector and residential roads
·
paved pathways in rural and suburban neighbourhoods (pathways that
are winter maintained)
|
5 cm
|
16 h
|
|
Ö
|
|
4
|
·
unpaved pathways and trails
·
paved pathways that are not winter maintained
|
Not winter maintained
|
Outcome
The main outcome of snow
removal is safe and passable roads and sidewalks for all users by reducing
the hazards caused by snow banks that restrict access or visibility.
Description
Removal or reduction of snow banks will be carried out at
the following locations when snow banks restrict sightlines, travel widths,
pedestrian and cycling traffic or to relieve trap water on the roadway or
sidewalks:
- along sidewalks directly adjacent to curbs
- along bridges, overpasses and underpasses
- along traffic islands and narrow medians on divided
roadways
- at pedestrian and school crossings
- at railway crossings
- at intersections
- at bus stops
Snow removal operations
can be carried out 24/7 subject to weather conditions and in a manner that will
enable the City to achieve this standard while maximizing available
resources. Until a further review is
completed, this only applies to municipalities where this was the practice
prior to amalgamation.
Standard
Casting or Winging Back,
Pulling and Removal treatment methods are to be considered in the
following order for various classes of roadway:
- Casting or winging back: is to be
undertaken when on-site snow storage is available on boulevard or adjacent
property.
- Pulling into roadway: is to be
undertaken during mild weather conditions on high volume roads with posted
speeds less than or equal to 60 km/hr and where it is foreseen that the
combination of traffic flow and ambient heat will be sufficient to melt
the snow by 4 p.m. on the same day.
- Removal: is to be undertaken only when
either casting or pulling is not achievable. Snow removed is to be disposed of at a snow disposal
facility.
In residential
areas, snow can be stockpiled in boulevard space where there are no houses
fronting and where it does not create a safety hazard, and in cul-de-sacs as
long as a minimum distance of 3.5 m is maintained between the bottom of the
snow bank and the snow stored in the centre of the cul-de-sac.
Service Level
Snow banks are to be pushed to
maximize the availability of on-site snow storage capacity. Snow removal is to begin as soon as
practicable after the end of the storm and after being made aware that snow
banks/windrows are greater than the conditions detailed in Table 103.03.01.
Snow banks restricting sightlines
(i.e. safety hazard) at intersections and at pedestrian, school and railway
crossings are to be removed within 24 hours after being made aware of the
conditions. In the event the number of
locations exceed available resources, then locations will be addressed on a
priority basis subject to the extent of the hazard.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
103.01 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow and Ice Control- Roads
103.02 WINTER MAINTENANCE – Snow and Ice Control- Sidewalks and Pathways
106.02 CLEANUP – Spring Cleanup (Right-of-Way)
|
Table 103.03.01 – Snow Removal
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Minimum Cleared Width
|
Time
|
|
1
|
A
|
High Priority Roads
|
No
encroachment onto travel lanes
|
16 hours
|
|
B
|
2 days
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
Encroachment not to reduce width of any
travel lane less than 3.3 m.
·
Where a
parking lane is provided, a clear width of 2.2 m is to be maintained.
·
Streets with
high parking permit demand, or with meters or taxi stands on both sides are
to have two parking lanes with a clear width of 2.2 m each.
·
Roads with ditches and no curbs that have posted
speeds greater than 60 km/hr are to have two parking/shoulder lanes with a
clear with of 2.2 m each, where possible.
|
2 days
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
8 days
|
|
4
|
A,B, C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
Encroachment not to reduce clear width less than 6.0 m
(2 lanes of 3.0 m).
·
On streets with high parking permit demand,
or with meters or taxi stands on both sides, the clear width is to be 8.2 m.
|
14 days
|
|
5
|
A, C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
Encroachment not to reduce clear width less than 5.0 m
(2.8 m travel lane plus 2.2 m parking lane).
·
On streets with high parking permit demand,
or with meters or taxi stands on both sides, the clear width is not to be
less than 7.2 m (2.8 m travel lane plus 2 parking lanes of 2.2 m each).
|
14 days
|
|
B
|
Encroachment not to reduce clear width less than
2.5 m.
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining hard
and treated surfaces is safe roads for all users by removing surface
hazards and extending the life of the asset by preserving the infrastructure.
Description
This standard applies to
distortions on bridges, paved and treated road surfaces, including cycling
lanes, paved and gravel shoulders, that could pose a risk to cyclists and
motorists, and/or that could accelerate the deterioration of the road
structure. This standard also applies
to grates/ironworks located within the roadway.
The standards meet the provisions
of Ontario Regulation 239/02, the “Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal
Roads”, where minimum standards are defined.
Distortions include:
1.
bumps or depressions that result in
water ponding for periods greater than 24 hours;
2.
potholes;
3.
cracking;
4.
wheel track rutting;
5.
ravelling;
6.
vertical discontinuities;
7.
pavement edge cracks;
8.
pavement drop-off at shoulders;
9.
bridge deck spalls.
The type of treatment for these
surface distortions shall be selected by the City in accordance with the type
and extent of the distortion, prevalent weather conditions and scheduled
infrastructure rehabilitation programs.
It may not be possible to carry out some operations between November 15th
and April 15th because of temperature limitations. In such case, interim/temporary measures
will be required if conditions create a safety hazard to the users.
Standard
The following criteria are used as maximums for allowable surface
distortions:
10. Bumps or depressions causing ponding of water at least half of a
lane width and that could pose a hazard to the users.
11. Drop-offs at the edge of pavement equal to or greater than 5 cm in
height over a continuous length of 20 m (maximum of 8 cm as per Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways).
12. Cracks equal to or greater than 5 cm width x 5 cm depth x 3 m length
(as per Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways).
13. Potholes greater than 25 cm in diameter and greater than 5 cm in
depth (maximum of 8 cm as per Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal
Highways).
14. Vertical pavement discontinuities equal to or greater than 5 cm (not
applicable when on a bridge deck- as per Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways).
15. Bridge deck spalls (cavities) equal to or greater than 25 cm in
diameter and greater than 5 cm in depth (maximum of 8 cm as per Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways).
16. Potholes in paved or non-paved shoulders greater than 40 cm in
diameter and greater than 8 cm in depth (maximum of 8-12 cm as per Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways).
The following criteria are used as maximums for allowable surface
distortions along designated City cycling routes – within designated cycling
lanes or within 1.5 m from the edge of road (or parking lanes) along shared use
lanes (May – November) (subject to funding approval in 2004 to 2008
budgets).
17. Longitudinal cracks equal to or greater than 2.5 cm in width.
18. Potholes and bridge deck spalls greater than 10 cm in diameter.
19. Vertical pavement discontinuities equal to or greater than 2 cm.
Service Level
Distortions that pose an immediate safety hazard to the users,
including missing or severely cracked/damaged grates/ironworks and misaligned
catch basin grates are to be clearly marked as a hazard as soon as practicable
but not to exceed 4 hours from the time of becoming aware of the condition.
Surface distortions that exceed the maximum conditions are to be
repaired within the times set out in Table 104.01.01 after becoming aware of
the conditions. If a vertical
discontinuity on a bridge deck exceeds 5 cm, resources to repair the conditions
are to be deployed as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the condition. Surface distortions that are less than the
maximums may be repaired subject to severity and availability of funds.
Surface distortions along designated city cycling routes are to be
repaired within 7 days (May – November).
Priority attention is to be given to distortions located at
intersections and hills. Repairs may be
temporary to eliminate the hazard until more permanent repairs can be
undertaken.
Hard and treated surface repairs will not exceed the conditions
prescribed by Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
|
Table 104.01.01 – Hard and Treated Surface
Distortions
|
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Time
(Time as per MMSMH)
|
|
Potholes in Roadway, Bumps or Depressions Causing
Ponding and Shoulder Drop-offs
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
2 days (4 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
4 days (4 days)
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
7 days (7 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
14 days (14 days)
|
|
5
|
A
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
30 days (30 days)
|
|
B
|
60 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potholes in Paved or Non-Paved Shoulder
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
2 days (7 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
4 days (7 days)
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
7 days (14 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
30 days (30 days)
|
|
5
|
A
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
60 days (60 days)
|
|
B
|
90 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cracks
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
30 days (30 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
60 days (60 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
180 days (180 days)
|
|
5
|
A
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
180 days (180 days)
|
|
B
|
180 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridge Deck Spalls
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
2 days (4 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
4 days (4 days)
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
7 days (7 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
|
5
|
A
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
|
B
|
30 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vertical Pavement Discontinuities (not when on an
bridge deck)
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
2 days (2 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
2 days (2 days)
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
7 days (7 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
21 days (21 days)
|
|
5
|
A
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
21 days (21 days)
|
|
B
|
60 days (not defined)
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
-
MMSMH refers to Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining gravel
road surfaces is safe and passable roads for all users by removing surface
hazards and extending the life of the asset by preserving the infrastructure.
Description
This standard applies to
distortions on gravel road surfaces, including gravel shoulders, that could
pose a risk to the users, and/or that could accelerate the deterioration of the
road structure.
The standards meet the provisions
of Ontario Regulation 239/02, the “Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal
Roads”, where minimum standards are defined.
Distortions include:
20. bumps or depressions that result in water ponding for periods
greater than 24 hours;
21. potholes;
22. cracking;
23. wheel track rutting;
24. rippling and shoving (“wash boarding”);
The type of treatment for these
surface distortions shall be selected by the City in accordance with the type
and extent of the distortion, prevalent weather conditions and scheduled
infrastructure rehabilitation programs.
Some operations cannot be carried out between November 15th
and April 15th because of temperature limitations. In such case, interim/temporary measures may
be required if conditions create a safety hazard to the users.
Standard
The following criteria are used as maximums for allowable gravel
surface distortions:
25. Bumps or depressions causing ponding of water at least half of a
lane width and that could pose a hazard to the users.
26. Potholes along the travel surface greater than 40 cm in diameter and
greater than 8 cm in depth (maximum of 8-12 cm as per Minimum Maintenance
Standards for Municipal Highways).
27. Potholes in shoulders greater than 40 cm in diameter and greater
than 8 cm in depth (maximum of 8-12 cm as per Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways).
28. Wheel rutting greater than 8 cm in depth over a 50 m length.
29. Washboarding conditions with a crest to valley depth greater than 5 cm.
30. Excessively dusty conditions causing nuisance to property owners or
hazardous conditions to traffic.
Service
Level
Distortions that pose an immediate safety hazard to the users are to
be clearly marked as a hazard as soon as practicable but not to exceed 4 hours
or from the time of becoming aware of the condition. Repairs are to be completed as soon as practicable thereafter.
Surface distortions that exceed the maximum conditions are to be
repaired within the times set out in Table 104.02.01 after becoming aware of
the conditions.
Gavel surface repairs will not exceed the conditions prescribed by
Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal
Highways.
The minimum frequency for grading and dust control is defined in
Table 104.02.02.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
|
Table 104.02.01 – Gravel Surface
Distortions
|
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Time
(Time as per MMSMH)
|
|
Potholes in Roadway, Bumps or Depressions Causing
Ponding
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
7 days (14 days)
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
14 days (30 days)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potholes in Shoulder
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
14 days (30 days)
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
30 days (60 days)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheel Tracking, Wash boarding and Dust
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
7 days (not defined)
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
14 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dust
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
7 days (not defined)
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
14 days (not defined)
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
-
Maximum as per MMSMH refers to Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance
Standards for Municipal Highways.
|
Table 104.02.02 – Maintenance of Gravel
Surfaces
|
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Frequency
|
|
Grading
(Spring to Early Summer)
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
3 times (up to application of dust control)
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residentials, Lanes and Low Volume Roads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grading
(Summer and Fall)
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
Spot grading as required based on regular patrol
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residentials, Lanes and Low Volume Roads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dust Control
(Spring to Early Summer)
|
4
|
C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
Once per year or as required
|
|
5
|
C
|
Residentials, Lanes and Low Volume Roads
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining sidewalks,
pathways and bus pads is safe and passable/accessible facilities for
pedestrians, cyclists and other users by removing surface hazards, and
extending the life of the asset by preserving the infrastructure.
Description
This standard applies to
distortions on paved or loose top surfaces that could pose a risk to
pedestrians, cyclists and other users, and/or that could accelerate the
deterioration of the infrastructure.
These distortions can be caused by frost action, tree root growth,
differential settlement of the subsoil structure and/or deterioration of the
surface due to age or excessive wear.
Distortions include:
31. bumps or depressions that result in water ponding;
32. potholes;
33. cracking;
34. vertical discontinuities.
This standard defines the
priority to respond and repair deficiencies according to priority: Priority A
shall receive the quickest response and Priority C is attended to when
practicable as scheduled through planned maintenance activities. Differences in response time reflect the
nature of the work to be accomplished and the extent of public safety risk.
Standard
Priority A- condition
that presents a potential hazard (public liability): vertical discontinuities
or cracks of 3 cm, damaged bollards or other devices that restrict vehicle
access;
Priority B- condition
that impairs functions but is not a hazard:
vertical discontinuities or cracks between 1.5 cm and 3 cm;
Priority C- condition
that contributes to the long-term decline of the infrastructure: cracks less
than 1.5 cm and spalling of the surface.
Service Level
The response times are defined in
Table 105.01.01. Repairs may be
temporary to eliminate the hazard until more permanent repairs can be
undertaken.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS - General Visual
201.01 INSPECTIONS – General Visual
Table 105.01.01 – Repairs to
Sidewalk, Pathway and Bus Pads
|
Priority of Condition
|
Action
|
Time
|
|
A
|
Clearly identify location as a hazard
|
Within 8 hours
|
|
Make safe by repairing hazardous conditions
|
Within 7 days
|
|
B
|
Schedule into planned maintenance
|
As practicable prioritized based on severity.
|
|
C
|
Identify as part of infrastructure rehabilitation
programs
|
Prioritized based on condition assessment.
|
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining drainage
systems and appurtenances is to permit these to function as intended in
order to reduce potential flooding conditions that could present a safety
hazard or that could degrade the quality of the infrastructure.
Description
This standard applies to the following drainage
systems/appurtenances:
-
curbs and gutters
-
culverts
-
drainage ditches
-
catch basins
These drainage systems are intended to accommodate the
flow of surface water and sub-grade water from the right-of-way to an
outlet.
This standard defines the priority to respond and repair
deficiencies whereby Priority A shall receive the quickest response and
Priority C is attended to when practicable or as scheduled through planned
maintenance (i.e. road resurfacing or reconstruction, ditch cleaning, catch
basin cleaning, etc).
Standard
Priority A- obstructed
drainage systems causing flooding that pose a hazard; deterioration of
curbs/gutters that poses an immediate safety hazard
Priority B- partially
obstructed drainage systems causing intermittent water backups that do not pose
a safety hazard but that over extended periods of time could impact the quality
of the infrastructure; curbs/gutters directly adjacent to sidewalks with
vertical discontinuity of 3.0 cm in height or greater (“trip edges”)
Priority
C- deterioration of
curbs/gutters that do not pose a safety hazard
Trapping of beavers and removal
of dams shall comply with current Provincial regulations.
Maintenance activities are to be
carried out in accordance with applicable guidelines, procedures and policies,
including the provisions of the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Service Level
The response times are defined in Table 105.02.01 and are taken
after becoming aware of the conditions.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS - General Visual
Table 105.02.01 – Roadside
Drainage Systems
|
Priority
of Condition
|
Action
|
Response Time
|
|
A
|
Clearly mark as a hazard and undertake action to
remove the hazard
|
As soon as practicable but not to exceed 4 hours
|
|
B
|
Undertake action to repair/correct
the deficiency
|
Within 30 days
|
|
C
|
Schedule into planned maintenance or rehabilitation
programs
|
As practicable
|
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining street
furniture is an enhanced quality of life by making these assets accessible
to the public in a manner that is safe and that will maximize their usable
life.
Description
The City provides street
furniture, such as benches, planters, litter containers, bicycle stands etc.
for the convenience of the public.
Street furniture maintenance includes the placement, removal, on-site
maintenance and storage.
This standard defines the
priority to respond and repair deficiencies in street furniture such that they
are fixed and responded to according to priority (i.e. Priority A shall receive
the quickest response, while Priorities C and D are attended to when
practicable). Differences in response
time reflect the nature of the work to be accomplished and whether that work
implicates public liability or is simply a quality of life matter. The lowest priority, ‘D’ refers to unsightly
conditions such as “tagging” graffiti.
However, graffiti depicting messages of hate is to be removed or covered
as set out in 106.04 CLEANUP- Hazardous Items and Graffiti.
Standard
Priority A- damage/condition
that presents an immediate hazard (public liability)
Priority B- damage/condition
that impairs functions and/or operations of equipment (i.e. broken bench slats)
Priority C- damage/condition
that contributes to long-term decline of the asset (i.e. worn paint that allows
for rot or rust)
Priority D- damage/condition
that is unsightly (quality of life), such as “tagging” graffiti or excessively
dirty.
Street furniture shall be repaired as per the manufacturers’
recommendations.
Service Level
Response times are defined in Table 105.03.01 and are taken after
becoming aware of the conditions.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS - General Visual
106.04 CLEANUP – Hazardous Items and Graffiti
Table 105.03.01 - Maintenance of
Street Furniture
|
Priority
of Damage
|
Action
|
Response
Time
|
|
A
|
Make safe by repairing or removing hazardous
conditions
|
As soon as practicable but not to exceed 24 hours
|
|
B
|
Remove or repair broken item to prevent further damage
or from becoming a potential hazard
|
Within 30 days
|
|
C, D
|
Schedule into planned maintenance
|
As practicable
|
Outcome
The main outcome of grass cutting is aesthetic conditions
along the roadway.
Description
Regular mowing is intended to
maintain turf at a uniform height.
Regular mowing is not only beneficial to the plant but also reduces the
amount of thatch that builds up over time.
In addition, regular cutting promotes denser turf thereby discouraging
some weed species.
Standard
The standard is to cut and trim
urban medians and boulevards to a height of 75 mm with a maximum height of 125
mm.
This standard does not apply to
the following locations:
-
urban residential and rural subdivision boulevards, unless
properties are vacant
-
rural areas that cannot be accessed with regular mowing
equipment
-
locations that have been defined for naturalization
Service Level
The frequency of grass cutting is defined
in Table 105.04.01.
Mowing and trimming are normally
prescheduled activities between the months of May and October, subject to
weather conditions. The schedule may
not correspond with the actual rate of grass growth. Scheduling of mowing and trimming may have to be increased in the
cool damp spring and fall weather and decreased in mid summer drought
conditions.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE
ROAD PATROL – General Visual
105.05 ROADSIDE - Brushing
Table 105.04.01 Roadside Grass
Cutting
|
|
Road Classification
|
Urban
|
Rural
|
|
Whole
Boulevard
|
Adjacent
Shoulders and Medians
|
|
1
|
|
3 times per year
|
4-5 times per year
|
Not Applicable
|
|
B
|
Every 2 weeks
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
May-June: Every 2 weeks
July-September: Once per month
|
2 times per year
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
1-2 times per year
|
|
4
|
A, B, C
|
Not Applicable
|
Once per year
|
|
5
|
A, C
|
Once per year
|
|
B
|
Notes: -
Refer to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of brushing is safe roads by removing
plant materials that obstruct signs, sightlines along roadways, and ensure
ditches can drain freely.
Description
Brushing involves the cutting of
long grass and brush primarily at road intersections, along guide rails and in
ditches that are not readily accessible with conventional grass cutting
equipment. This activities is carried
out on a site specific basis. This
operation must be timed to minimize the spread of weeds to agricultural land.
Standard
Grass and brush are to be cut to
eliminate sightline obstructions or encroachments that could impact on
pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular traffic.
Priority shall be given to
sightline obstructions at roadway intersections, railway crossings, trail
crossings, and along pedestrian paths. Encroachments on signs are to be
considered an immediate hazard.
Service Level
Conditions that pose an immediate
hazard shall be addressed within 24 hours from the time the condition is
reported. Some conditions may require
more than 24 hours to complete. As such
these are to be completed as soon as practicable.
Conditions that do not pose an
immediate hazard shall be scheduled into planned maintenance activities.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS- General Visual
105.04 ROADSIDE – Grass Cutting
Outcome
The main outcome of naturalization
is a bio-diverse habitat resulting from the reduction in area of turf that
needs mowing on City owned properties.
Description
Naturalization reduces the amount
of mowed areas maintained by the City and promotes slowing and filtration of
surface water run-off. Naturalization
also has the added benefit of promoting a healthier, more bio-diverse city that
provides habitat to birds, butterflies, waterfowl and the like. By reducing the amount of areas that require
mowing we are better able to improve the quality of existing turf areas for
future generations.
Standard
In order to reduce the quantity
of mowed areas, a consistently un-mown edge condition and designated un-mown
areas shall be initiated and maintained.
Layout of the mowing limits will be site specific and should include
marked up site plans and possibly edge demarcation to guide operators,
particularly in the spring. Brushing
may be required to maintain lines of sight in boulevards as set out in 203.03
Turf Management - Brushing
Service Level
The service level for brushing is
defined in 105.05 Roadside – Brushing.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS- General Visual
105.04 ROADSIDE – Grass Cutting
Outcome
The main outcome of the spring
cleanup is clean and safe roads, sidewalks and City-owned pedestrian malls
by removing debris and deleterious materials that have accumulated through the
winter season and that could otherwise enter and eventually obstruct the
sewer/drainage system.
Description
This standard is intended to
define activities that are required to clean-up litter, debris and deleterious
materials that may have accumulated over the winter season and to remove
residual grit and chemicals from winter snow clearing and de-icing operations.
Maintenance activities include:
-
sweeping/cleaning all paved roads and hard surface
sidewalks/pathways where required;
-
removal of debris and litter along boulevards and roadsides;
-
removal of debris and litter along pathways, pedestrian malls
and other City-owned facilities;
-
cleaning of bridges, including decks, sidewalks, handrails,
curbs, gutters, barrier walls, expansion joints, drainage structures and all
other concrete or steel components that may be impacted by de-icing chemicals;
-
reinstatement of lawns resulting from plow and snow removal
damages.
Cleanup activities may be supplemented through volunteer and
community groups.
Street cleaning
operations can be carried out 24/7 in order to complete the spring cleanup as
soon as possible. Until a further review is completed, this only applies to
municipalities where this was the practice prior to amalgamation.
Standard
Cleanup procedures shall be
carried out in accordance with applicable policies and procedures.
Should hazardous items be
encountered, staff should notify the trained response personnel and stay on
site until that hazard is removed or made safe.
The lapse of time between
sweeping/cleaning of sidewalks and boulevards onto the roadway to be collected
as part of the road sweeping/flushing operation is not to exceed 48 hours.
Lawns damaged as a result of
plowing and snow clearing operations shall be reinstated by removing the
damaged turf, leveling the affected area with topsoil and applying a premium
grade seed mixture. The homeowners
shall be notified to water the affected area on a regular basis.
Service Level
Spring cleanup is to be completed by May 31st.
Lawn repairs are to be completed by June 15th.
Related Standards
106.02 CLEANUP – Street Cleaning
106.04 CLEANUP
– Hazardous Items and Graffiti
106.05 CLEANUP
– Spills and Accident Cleanup
Outcome
The main outcome of street
cleaning is clean and safe roads, sidewalks and City-owned pedestrian malls
by removing debris, posters and deleterious materials that accumulate
throughout year.
Description
This standards applies to:
- Street sweeping and/or flushing operations along
paved roads with curbs, where required depending on location and quantity
of debris generated.
- Removal of debris resulting from storm damage or
other sources that is likely to cause damage to a motor vehicle or to
injure a pedestrian or cyclist.
- Removal of posters from poster collars.
Standard
This standard applies to street
cleaning operations after the completion of the spring cleanup (106.01).
Street cleaning operations take
place during the months of June to October, inclusively. Annual variations may occur, subject to
weather conditions.
Street cleaning
operations can be carried out 24/7. Until
a further review is completed, this only applies to municipalities where this
was the practice prior to amalgamation.
Service Level
The frequency for street cleaning
is defined in Table 106.02.01.
Debris on the roadway that poses
an immediate hazard are to be removed as soon as practicable but within 4 hours
of being made aware of condition.
Posters on posters collars are to
be removed weekly.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
106.01 CLEANUP – Spring Cleanup
106.05 CLEANUP – Spills and Accident Cleanup
|
Table 106.02.01 – Street Cleaning Frequency
(June to October)
|
|
Road Type
|
Frequency
|
|
Confederation Boulevard, ByWard Market, Elgin and Bank Streets
(sections with restaurants and bars)
|
Daily
|
|
Central business area (i.e. Rideau, King Edward, Sussex, Queen,
Albert, Slater, Laurier, Somerst,…)
|
2-4 times per week
|
|
Class 2A and 2B roads
|
Every 1-2 weeks
|
|
Class 3A and 4A roads
|
Every 3-8 weeks
|
|
Rural villages (main access roads only)
|
Monthly
|
|
Intersections of paved roads with gravel roads
|
Every 2 months or as
required
|
|
Class 3B, 4B, 5A and 5B roads
|
Spot cleaning as required
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of emptying
litter containers is clean city streets and pedestrian malls, free of
deleterious materials.
Description
Garbage receptacles are placed at
bus stops, along City streets and pedestrian malls. The frequency of collection is related to location and level of
usage.
Standard
Collection of litter containers
is to be in accordance with applicable procedures. Should hazardous items be encountered, staff should notify the
trained response personnel and stay on site until that hazard is removed or
made safe (refer to 106.04).
Service Level
The frequency of collection is
defined in Table 106.03.01 for the period of May to November (subject to
weather conditions).
Additional collections may be
required for special events (parades, protests, etc).
During the winter the number of
litter containers will be reduced and the frequency may be adjusted as
required.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
106.04 CLEANUP
– Hazardous Items and Graffiti
206.03 CLEANUP – Collection of Litter Containers (Parks and Sports
Fields)
Table 106.03.01 - Collection of
Litter Containers (Right-of-Way)
|
|
Location
|
Summer
|
Winter
|
|
Confederation
Blvd, By-Ward Market
|
Daily
|
5-7 times per week
|
|
BIAs
and downtown core
|
3-7 times per week
|
3-7 times per week
|
|
Bus
stops
|
1-7 times per week
depending on location and litter generation
|
1-7 times per week
depending on location and litter generation
|
Outcome
The main outcome of removing hazardous
items and graffiti is a clean and safe City by remove items that present a
physical safety hazard and by eradicating promptly graffiti with messages of
hate or violence.
Description
Hazardous items are to be
disposed of by qualified response personnel.
Items might include discarded needles, broken glass, weapons or toxic
substances. Marking the site with
barricades or signs without direct supervision is unacceptable.
The intent of graffiti clean up
is to provide priority to eradicate graffiti depicting messages of hate or
violence.
Standard
If hazardous items are discovered
during an inspection they should not be left unattended. The person carrying out the inspection
(unless qualified and equipped) should remain on site until a hazards clean-up
crew arrives.
Cleanup procedures shall be
carried out in accordance with applicable policies and procedures.
Service Level
Response times are as follows:
- hazardous items: 1
hour during weekdays (during regular work hours)
2
hours during weekdays (after regular work hours)
2
hours during weekends and holidays
- graffiti (hate or violence): 24
hours
Other forms of graffiti, such as “tagging”, are to be
removed subject to availability of resources.
Graffiti located within a Council approved “zero-tolerance” zone shall
be eradicated in accordance with the Council directive.
Related Work
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
206.05 CLEANUP – Hazardous Items and Graffiti
Outcome
The main outcome of spills and
accident cleanup is to protect the natural environment from contamination
for spills resulting from accidents or incidents that occur within the roadway.
Description
The intent of this standard is to
identify the nature of the spill so that appropriate action can be undertaken
to ensure that accidental spills are contained, cleaned up and disposed of in a
manner that will limit migration of contaminants beyond the right-of-way that
could occur the sewer system or drainage ditches.
Staff are responsible for
identifying and reporting potential environmental concerns to the appropriate
persons responsible for ensuring that action is taken, including notifying the
Ministry of the Environment. Where
spills could impact the sewer system, then the Utility Services Branch shall be
notified as soon as possible.
Standard
Spills containment, cleanup and
disposal shall be carried out in accordance with applicable environmental
policies and regulations.
Cleanup activities are to be
carried out in accordance with applicable guidelines, procedures and policies.
Service Level
The response time shall be as soon as practicable but not exceed 4
hours after being made aware of the spill or accident. The spill or cleanup shall be addressed or
completed prior to leaving the site.
Related
Standards
106.01 CLEANUP
– Spring Cleanup (Right-of-Way)
106.02 CLEANUP
– Street Cleaning
Outcome
The main outcome of sign
maintenance is improved mobility and safety by controlling, expediting and
informing road users.
Description
This standard applies to
maintenance of the following signs:
-
regulatory signs as defined in the latest edition of the Ontario
Traffic Manual
-
warning signs as defined in the latest edition of the Ontario
Traffic Manual
-
street name signs
-
911 civic number signs
-
community signs
-
guidance signs
This standard meets the
provisions on Ontario Regulation 239/02, the “Minimum Maintenance Standards for
Municipal Highways”, where minimums are defined.
Standard
Regulatory and warning signs are
to be installed in accordance with the provisions of the latest editions of the
Ontario Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Street name, 911 civic number,
guidance and community signs are to be installed in accordance with applicable
practices and procedures.
Service Level
The response time is taken from the time of being made
aware that a sign is illegible, improperly oriented or missing as defined in
Table 107.01.01. Priority is given
where the sign condition poses an immediate safety hazard to the users.
The time will not
exceed the conditions prescribed by Ontario Regulation 239/02, Minimum
Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways.
During frozen ground conditions, some non regulatory and
warning signs may not be able to be replaced as defined in Table
107.01.01. In the meantime, any hazard
is to be addressed and the sign repaired/replaced as soon as practicable.
Related
Standards
a.
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General
Visual
|
Table 107.01.01 – Sign Maintenance
|
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Time
(Time as per MMSMH)
|
|
Regulatory Signs (Stop, Yield, Do Not
Enter, No Turns, One-Way, School Zone Speed Limit)
Warning Signs (Checkerboard, Curve Sign
with Advisory Speed Tab, Stop Ahead, Stop Ahead New, Traffic Signal Ahead
New, Two Way Traffic Ahead, Wrong Way, Yield Ahead, Yield Ahead New)
|
All
|
Within 3 hours
with stop and yield signs given the highest priority
(as soon as practicable)
|
|
|
|
All Other Regulatory and Warning Signs
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
7 days (7 days)
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
21 days (21 days)
|
|
4
|
A, B, C
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
30 days (30 days)
|
|
5
|
A, B, C
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
|
|
|
Guidance/Directional, Street Name
and Community Signs
|
All
|
30 days (not defined)
|
|
|
|
911 Civic Number Signs
|
All
|
30 days (not defined)
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
- MMSMH refers to Ontario Regulation 239/02,
Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining
pavement markings is safe roads and improved mobility by warning and
guiding pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle traffic in order to reduce the risk of
accidents and maintain uniform flow of traffic.
Description
This standard applies to all
pavement markings on City roads.
Standard
Pavement markings are to be
visible year round.
Pavement marking are to be
provided and applied in accordance with the latest edition of the Ontario
Traffic Manual.
Roadways
scheduled for resurfacing or reconstruction are not to be marked, except where
the existing markings are very worn or ineffective and the resurfacing or
reconstruction works are scheduled to begin in more than 20 calendar days from
the date the markings would be scheduled to occur.
Service Level
Pavement markings for newly paved roads shall be applied
as soon as practicable following notification of completion of road paving or
resurfacing. Pre-marking shall be
installed as soon as practicable to assist in guiding traffic until such time
as new markings can be applied.
The frequency for reapplication of pavement markings is defined in Table
107.02.01.
Related
Standards
b.
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
c.
106.01 CLEANUP – Spring Cleanup
|
Table 107.02.01 – Maintenance of Pavement
Markings
|
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Frequency
|
|
Centreline, Lane Line and Edge Line Stripping
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
Twice per year
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
Once per year
or as required
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
|
5
|
A, B
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
As required
|
|
|
|
Transverse Markings (signalized intersections,
school crosswalks, rural multi-way intersections)
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
Twice per year
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
Once per year
or as required
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
|
5
|
A, B
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
|
|
|
Transverse Markings (turning arrows, railway
crossings, stop bars, curb markings, meter stalls, specialty markings for
buses and cyclists)
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
Once per year
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
As required
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
|
5
|
A, B
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
|
|
|
Hatching
|
All
|
Every 2 years
or as required
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining
guide rails and barriers is safe roads by effectively serving to divide
traffic flow or defining sharp curves, high embankments or other hazardous
locations.
Description
Barriers are installed along the
outer edges of shoulders/roadways to protect vehicular traffic against the
possibility of collision with roadside hazards. This standard applies to the maintenance of energy absorbing,
semi-rigid or rigid barriers:
-
energy absorbing barriers such as cylinders filled with energy
absorbing materials or mechanical devices with or without energy absorbing
cartridges;
-
semi-rigid barriers such as steel beam guide rail, box beam
guide rail, cable guide rail and guide posts;
-
rigid barriers such as “Jersey” concrete barriers.
Energy absorbing and semi-rid
barriers are intended to deform and partially break during a collision and
absorb some energy of the collision in doing so. Rigid barriers are intended to re-direct errant vehicles back to
a safer line of travel.
Standard
Barriers are to be fabricated and
installed in accordance with the latest editions of the Ontario Provincial
Standards and Specifications and the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Service Level
The response time to clearly mark the affected area as a
hazard is to be as soon as practicable but not to exceed 4 hours from the time
being made aware that a guide rail or other traffic barrier has been damaged
and is posing a potential hazard to the road users.
The time to complete permanent repairs to damaged guide
rail or other traffic barrier is defined in Table 107.03.01.
Where damage to guide rail posts
occurs during winter season when ground is frozen, or where replacement
materials have to be ordered or fabricated, the affected area is to be clearly
marked as a hazard until permanent repairs are completed.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
|
Table 107.03.01 – Repairs to Guide Rails and
Barriers
|
|
Road Maintenance Class
|
Road Type
|
Time
|
|
1
|
A, B
|
Highest Priority Roads
|
4 months
|
|
2
|
A, B
|
Most Arterials
|
6 months
|
|
3
|
A, B
|
Most Major Collectors
|
|
4
|
A, B
|
Most Minor Collectors
|
8 months
|
|
5
|
A, B
|
Residential Roads and Lanes
|
Notes: - Refer
to Table 101.01.01 for description of road maintenance classes.
Outcome
The main outcome of maintaining noise
barriers and fences is preserved assets in order that they effectively act
to reduce noise or restrict access.
Description
This standard applies to
City-owned noise barriers and fences located along roadways.
Standard
Maintenance and repairs are to be
undertaken in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations.
Service Level
The response time to clearly mark the affected area is to
be within 24 hours from the time being made aware that a noise barrier or fence
has been damaged and is creating a potential safety hazard.
The time to complete permanent
repairs to damaged noise barrier is to be planned into scheduled maintenance
but should not exceed a period of 6 months.
Related Standards
102.01 ROUTINE
ROAD PATROLS – General Visual
204.01 REMEDIAL
REPAIRS – Site Furniture and Fences
ANNEX C
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS
Background
The City of Ottawa’s Department
of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works (TUPW) has proceeded with a major
study to examine consolidating, rationalizing and harmonizing road, sidewalk,
park an tree maintenance standards. The
objective is to develop service standards that will be applied in a consistent
manner across the new City. These will
need to reflect the City’s urban-suburban-rural distinctions, vibrant downtown
core, climactic conditions and tourism areas while still being affordable.
Standards needed to be developed
with the active participation of all stakeholders (i.e. residents, community
groups, NCC, other City departments, etc.) to establish the appropriate service
levels for the City of Ottawa. Once
service standards are established, they will set the framework for allowing the
department to consider service delivery options that will produce the most
efficient and cost effective operations.
As part of this process, the
department asked citizens to help establish maintenance priorities and to
indicate the degree of satisfaction with current levels of services. In order
to better understand the views and expectations of residents, the City has
undertaken an extensive public consultation program to solicit citizen input
into what these new municipal standards should be for roads, sidewalks, parks
and trees.
The public consultation process
that was approved by Council had a number of distinct components:
·
Two sets of open houses, each with seven meetings;
·
Three focus groups;
·
A telephone survey;
·
Two sets of information sessions with sports field
users; and,
·
Additional City staff meetings with key stakeholders
Consultation Activities
1.
Open Houses
Between November 19 and December 4, 2001 the first set of open houses
were held in or near client service centres across the City to provide
residents with the opportunity to comment on the City of Ottawa’s
harmonization of road, sidewalk, park and tree maintenance. In addition to the
first set of open houses, residents were also encouraged through advertisements
to send e-mails to the City concerning the harmonization of service standards.
Over the seven open houses, 159
residents attended. A total of 46 comment sheets were completed and two groups,
the Rockcliffe Residents Association and the Kanata Lakes Community Association
submitted briefs.
As well as comment sheets,
residents were asked to fill in two questionnaires, one on parks and trees, the
other on roads and sidewalks. 143
completed questionnaires were received. To complete the consultation process,
39 e-mails were received from across the City detailing questions and comments
about service harmonization. Of the 39 e-mails, 32 responses were from
individuals, 6 were from special interest groups and one was from a local
company.
In terms of issues raised in
comment sheets, e-mails and the questionnaires, a number of key considerations
emerged:
·
The use of pesticides and herbicides is an issue for
many residents who wish to see it banned. At the same time however, many users
of sports fields feel that it is a necessary part of field maintenance. As
such, there is not universal support for an outright ban.
·
When asked about key factors influencing road and
sidewalk maintenance, a majority felt that emergency and safety issues were the
most important factor in deciding maintenance levels.
·
When asked about parks and trees, public safety was
again a high factor in deciding maintenance levels.
·
In rural areas, there is considerable concern around
road maintenance and the need for improvement especially when it comes to
surfacing and potholes. Also apparent in the rural areas is the desire to
continue the volunteerism surrounding the maintenance of sports fields and
parks through community associations.
Between June 3 and June 13, 2002 the second set of open houses were held
in or near client service centres across the City. At each open house,
information panels outlined the feedback from the first phase of the
public consultation process and some of the best practices found in other cities
as they relate to the summer and winter road, sidewalk, park and tree
maintenance. At the Kinburn Open House and the Ottawa City Hall Open House,
staff outlined the consultation process and service level options.
During the second series of open
houses, 61 residents attended at the seven different locations. A total of 16
comment sheets were completed.
In terms of issues raised during
the second series of open houses, a number of common views did emerge. However,
given the low number of completed comment sheets, these views should not be
seen as indicative of the community at large but rather a small sampling of
those who attended the open houses.
·
Some residents support limited use of pesticides and
herbicides (spot treatment). The alternative such as turf replacement is seen
as too expensive.
·
Some residents feel that pesticides and herbicides
protect trees and help hay fever sufferers.
·
Some residents feel graffiti needs to be cleaned up
quicker using Louis Martin’s Clean Start.
·
Some residents feel the City should reduce the amount
of salt on roads, especially on residential streets.
·
Potholes are still a concern for many residents.
C-2
2.
Sports
Field Users Meetings
In addition to the open houses,
two separate meetings were organized with sports field users to obtain direct
feedback on service standards from these key stakeholders. These meetings were
not advertised to the public and groups were invited by direct mail from the
City. In many cases, e-mails were also sent to ensure that sports field users attended
at least one meeting of the series.
Between February
25 and March 4, 2002 a series of four meetings with sports field users were
organized to review draft findings and recommendations.
32 individuals attended the
meetings representing a variety of local sports associations. Given the small
number of attendees at each meeting, a more informal approach was used allowing
for a freer exchange of ideas and comments.
Although the sessions were
organized to discuss maintenance standards, many of the comments received
related to allocation of fields. In summary, the following issues and comments
were common to most meetings:
·
If we pay user fees, fields should be maintained even
after the end of the school year
·
Volunteers willing to fix, but unsure of City stand
·
If we need topsoil/gravel, City accommodates
·
Conscious of
“down time” required before special events - Tournaments
·
Excellent partnership with City Staff – ongoing
dialogue
·
Cutting grass once/week is not enough at times –
baseball grass must be a certain length
·
Trimming once/month – it is not enough
·
Trim cuttings must be cleared more often
·
Maintenance level is horrendous
·
Maintenance is School Board responsibility – some use
contractors - some hire the city to cut the grass, but not maintain as such
·
Some school fields in Nepean were redone for school use
only
·
Need to protect school fields and parks
·
Soccer: Big
user cost – little grass. When there’s
no grass, lines need to be repainted; looking for injuries to happen as cleats
don’t have anything to hold on to, therefore, slips and falls
·
Aerate 5 times/year would not help, especially during
heat. Late Spring & early Fall
sufficient
·
Turf is a crop – needs water and seeding
·
2.5 hours/night during the week is reasonable
·
6 times/week – 1 night no usage
The second set of meetings
with sports field users took place between February 1 and February 5, 2003 and
was organized at four different locations across the City. These meetings were organized and
the invitations sent out by People Services at the City of Ottawa. To avoid the
need for additional meetings, the People Services Department provided time at
the end of each open house for a presentation on park classifications.
C-3
Questions and answers followed a brief presentation
at each session. An “As it was Said” report was prepared after each meeting.
In general, sports field users expressed views as
follows:
·
Line
marking must be done every week
·
“Infield gilling” should be done once/day to keep the
field in shape
·
Schools should not be allowed to use City facilities
for practices in order to keep their own fields in good shape
·
Volunteerism should continue in maintaining sports
fields
·
Changes in user fees should be announced early enough
to allow associations to adjust fees to sports groups during their budget
planning exercise
·
Must enforce rest periods for fields
·
City should still consider work share proposals for
such things as bleachers
·
Irrigation is important but consultation is necessary
prior to deciding on what method to use across the City
·
User fees should be directly related to the
classification of fields
3.
Telephone Survey
The telephone survey consisted of
telephone interviews conducted in either English or French with a
representative sample of 1,011 City of Ottawa residents (18 years and older),
between December 11 and 30, 2001 (excluding holidays). The purpose of the
survey was to gauge citizens’ opinions about the level of service provided in
the areas of surface maintenance operations (e.g. snow clearing, park
maintenance), in terms of their current level of satisfaction and their
expectations for what should be provided under the new City.
Importance of Maintenance
Services
Surface operation maintenance
services, such as snow plowing, green space management and road maintenance are
not of particular interest to City residents, except when something goes wrong
or there is a problem affecting them directly.
Yet the survey results show that citizens place a considerable degree of
priority on these types of services, particularly when they have a potential
impact on mobility and/or safety. In
rating 16 distinct types of services, residents place the greatest priority on
snowplowing of major roads and streets, the removal of snow in residential
areas, the repair of potholes and maintaining street lighting.
Also considered important but
less critical in relative terms are services that involve the care and
management of green spaces (parks, trees, natural areas, roadway strips) and
aesthetic clean-up (litter collection, street sweeping and graffiti removal).
The results
show clearly that the City (and former municipalities) have been largely
successful in meeting the expectations of most residents in providing the types
of maintenance services covered in this survey. Overall, almost nine in ten are generally, if
C-4
not very, satisfied with the overall level of service provided, and similarly
strong ratings are given to most specific types of service as well. The City receives the strongest marks for
the job being done in snowplowing major roads, as well as for the care and
management of green spaces, street sweeping, litter collection and the
maintenance of sidewalks.
Satisfaction levels are somewhat
lower in the areas of snowplowing and snow removal in residential areas, and
the removal of graffiti on City property.
These services (excepting the last) are of particular importance to most
residents, and therefore are among those likely to be sources of
dissatisfaction and complaint.
The area of service in which
there is the largest gap between expectations and performance is in the repair
of potholes in roads and streets. Little more than half of City residents are
satisfied with the quality of road surfaces in this respect, and it appears to
be a particular source of concern in the outlying western areas of the
City. Notably, the repair of potholes
is the area of service improvement most likely to be identified by residents
throughout the municipality (mentioned by one in four).
Decima Research Inc.
Amalgamation
and Future Service Delivery
While residents are hopeful about the benefits of
amalgamation in terms of improved efficiencies, lower taxes and possibly better
services, there is also a generalized concern about negative consequences as
well. About half of those surveyed expect
amalgamation will in some way affect maintenance service levels, and this group
is twice as likely to anticipate that the change will be for the worse than for
the better.
C-5
Change in service levels has not yet become a noticeable public concern,
but could well become one depending on the types of changes identified or
proposed by the City. While residents
are largely satisfied with what they are now receiving, they are looking for
improvements rather than reductions in service levels, and will likely resist
whatever might be seen as cutbacks in areas that really matter to them. At the same time, the public also shows a
willingness to take greater direct responsibility in helping to maintain their
neighbourhoods. Three in four support
the type of City-funded programs that get residents actively involved in
helping to look after such areas as litter clean-up, graffiti removal and
maintaining flowerbeds.
Pesticide-Free Management of Parks and Sports Fields
The survey reveals strong public support for the City’s policy of
managing sports fields and green spaces without the use of chemical pesticides
and herbicides. This endorsement is
evident across the population, and includes users as well as non-users of these
types of outdoor public spaces.
4. Focus
Groups
Three focus groups tests were
held in Ottawa on December 5th and 6th, 2001. The
December 5th meeting was conducted in French while the two other
focus groups on December 6th were carried out in English. In the
three focus groups, 21 residents took part. The overall objective of the focus
groups was to allow City staff and researchers to hear from citizens their
expectations about amalgamation and its impact, if any, on surface operations
and maintenance standards.
The focus groups indicated that
in the short term, participants hoped to realize greater efficiencies through
amalgamation resulting in better services or lower taxes, or both. In the long
term, participants hoped that the amalgamation would result in a more strategic
approach to governance resulting in the realization of more infrastructure
projects.
The focus group results indicated
that residents are cautiously optimistic about their City. The key concerns
raised during the focus groups included:
·
The loss of a certain small-town charm and flavour;
·
The loss of some historical connections;
·
A fear that services can become less responsive as
decision-making becomes more remote from the citizenry particularly rural
residents; and,
·
A fear of increased bureaucracy and government.
Overall, the focus groups also
identified key values concerning maintenance operations, these included:
·
Security and safety issues; and,
·
Mobility and access of people (on foot or in cars)
C-6
Additional City Meetings
On two separate occasions, the
City of Ottawa circulated offers to make presentations to the following
committees in order to seek input into the harmonization process:
·
Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee
·
Cycling Advisory Committee
·
Mobility Issues Advisory Committee
·
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
·
Accessibility Advisory Committee
·
Environmental Advisory Committee
·
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
The following is a summary of the committees where
presentations were made by City of Ottawa staff:
November 15, 2001—Mobility
Issues Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee and
provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first
round of Open Houses.
·
One resident made a presentation on
the need to improve sidewalk maintenance, especially for elderly people; the
resident provided strong support for the City's "yellow sand box program.”
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
January 15,
2002—Cycling Advisory Committee (Maintenance Sub-committee)
·
Made presentation to Committee and
provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first
round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
January 28, 2002—Ottawa
Forest Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee and
provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first
round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
C-7
February 26, 2002—Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee and
provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first
round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
August 19,
2002—Cycling Advisory Committee (Maintenance Sub-committee)
·
Made presentation to Committee based
on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
·
The Maintenance Sub-Committee provided
a copy of a working document on their input and indicated that they would be
providing comments formally through a report to be submitted to the
Transportation and Transit Committee.
September 16, 2002—Ottawa
Forest Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee based
on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
September 19,
2002—Mobility Issues Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee based
on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
September 24,
2002—Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee based
on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.
·
Committee was informed on ways of
providing input into the harmonization process.
March 17, 2003—Cycling Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee and
provided all members with copies of draft road maintenance standards and draft
response to the Cycling Advisory Committee report that was presented at the 05
February 2003 Transportation and Transit Committee meeting.
·
The response from the committee on the
information presented was positive.
April 22, 2003—Parks and
Recreation Advisory Committee
·
Made presentation to Committee with a
review of the consultation process, draft classification systems for parks and
sports fields and the proposed maintenance standards.
C-8
·
A draft copy of the consolidated maintenance standards was
provided to some members of the committee prior to the meeting
·
The response from the committee on the
information presented was positive.
·
The committee provided draft comments
on the maintenance standards at the meeting.
Conclusions
In reviewing
the feedback from the open houses, sports field sessions, the qualitative and
quantitative research carried out in the focus groups and telephone survey, a
number of key factors concerning service harmonization are apparent.
Firstly, all
four elements of the consultation program point to a largely satisfied
population when asked about road, sidewalk, park and tree maintenance. There
are some exceptions that were apparent in all four components of the process
and these included surface operations, specifically the repair of potholes.
Secondly, in
all four elements of the consultation process, safety and security concerns
rated as very high factors when reviewing road, sidewalk, park and tree
maintenance.
Thirdly,
while the telephone survey showed strong support for the banning of pesticides,
the feedback from open houses indicated that while a majority of residents
supported this ban, some sports field users did not and others supported it
only as long as it had no public health impacts.
Finally, in
terms of classification of sports fields, many users demanded that enforcement
be used to ensure that sports fields are not allowed to degrade as a result of
improper use. This is especially true of fields that are located close to
schools.
C-9
ANNEX D
Summary of
Peer Comparison with External Municipalities
Roads, Sidewalks and Pathways
Information was received from the
following municipalities: Gatineau, Toronto, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City,
Montreal, Region of Niagara, Region of Peel, Region of York, Hamilton,
Waterloo, Haldimand-Norfolk, Washington DC, Helsinki, Gothenburg, Oslo, Norway,
Denmark, San Diego and Portland. These
were selected based on similarities with Ottawa. Some represented cities which housed a seat of Government, other
because of their reputation for high standards of service delivery and other
because they share a northern climate like Ottawa.
Not all Road authorities have
Quality Standards. Many just operate on
loosely defined operating instructions.
It was found that it is typical for a road classification to be carried
out so that different types of roads can have different levels of service. It is most common for roads to be
classified only by speed and volume (Ottawa has used speed, volume and
function).
It was observed that the majority
of the standards were developed in a prescriptive style: they describe how to
do the work. However, the
municipalities consulted recognized that ‘outcome-based’ standards were a
better method of developing standards, especially from the viewpoint of the
users. This is also consistent with the
newly adopted provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways.
Cycling
Ottawa’s sensitivity to cycling
issues is somewhat unique for a northern city and is more reflective of those
in the American Sun Belt like San Diego or San Francisco. Few Canadian municipalities have established
standards with bicycle commuting in mind.
Hamilton is actively pursuing a network of bicycle paths/lanes but none
of the cyclist issues have made it into Hamilton’s maintenance standards.
Sidewalk Snow Clearing
Winter Maintenance on sidewalks
is uncommon as well. Western Canadian
cities provide some sidewalk/pathway maintenance but only in high pedestrian
areas such as the downtown core, bus stops and seniors areas. The European road authorities provide a
higher level of service. Ottawa’s
standards are more in line with Stockholm and Helsinki (both capital
cities). Gothenburg has higher standard
than Ottawa with no minimum accumulation before deploying resources. Oslo has a higher standard for most of the
city, but in the downtown core the homeowners clear the walks because of their
non-standard dimensions and restricted widths.
Ottawa’s proposed
standard is based on snow accumulation for each sidewalk class, and maximum
duration time allowed clearing the snow.
The Standard is reasonable consistent with Montreal and Toronto. Toronto has recently harmonized its service
delivery to include all sidewalks and pathways. Hamilton does only a fraction of the sidewalk inventory and have
D-1
a by-law requiring homeowners who
front the sidewalks to do the clearing within 48 hours of a snow fall. Although not surveyed, there are other
Ontario and Canadian cities that have adopted similar by-laws.
Snow Removal
Those municipalities with older
Downtown residential areas like Hamilton and Toronto had similar snow removal
standards because of the on street parking and narrow right-of-ways. Much of their work has to be carried out at
night to avoid traffic conflicts even though the operations are noisy and
generate complaints.
The standard proposed for Ottawa
is based on the hazard of snow accumulation on the traveled portion of the road
and is defined by road classification, lateral encroachment, height of windrow
and maximum duration. Most other North
American cities have standards based only on height of windrow and road
class. Montreal, Toronto, Niagara
Region, Calgary, Washington DC, and St John’s have a snow removal program.
Of the European Road authorities
only Norway has a removal standard.
Helsinki does it only where needed.
This is reflected in the fact that their average winter temperature is
much warmer than Ottawa’s and the snow banks are less of a problem because they
remain soft.
Snow Clearing Low Volume
Residential
The residential or low volume
roads in many other jurisdictions are given lower service levels. For example
Edmonton and Calgary only plow residential streets when sections become
impassable. Winnipeg does residential
streets 36 hours after the end of a storm.
Toronto is in the 24-36 hour range depending on the nature of the
storm. Helsinki will do them up to 3
days after the storm.
Potholes
The proposed standard for
potholes in the City is consistent with Haldiman/Norfolk, Region of Waterloo,
and Region of Hamilton-Wentworth.
Little information was provided for the European cities as many do not
have defined standards.
Street Sweeping
In the Region of Niagara the
central business district areas are done 3 times per week. All other roads are done once a month. Calgary has no stated standard other than to
operate at night. Montreal has no
stated standards. Washington DC does
the residential streets in the core area once per week. Tucson does the arterials and collectors
once a month or as needed and local residential streets are done 4 times per
year. The Europeans did not provide
any data for sweeping.
D-2
Parks, Sports Fields,
Boulevards and Trees
The cities consulted were
Halifax, London, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Winnipeg, Quebec City, National Capital
Commission and Washington D.C. They
were chosen because they best reflected certain aspects of Ottawa; either they
were similar in size, climate or national significance. The survey took place in the fall of 2001.
While the survey was designed to expose
maintenance practices and regimes, it revealed the fact that most of the cities
surveyed had not yet developed written guidelines or service levels. Halifax was the exception and has developed
a combination of performance standards and service levels for grass cutting and
landscape maintenance. Furthermore,
Halifax has developed service levels and maintenance activities for the upkeep
of its baseball diamonds and sports fields, where maintenance regimes are based
on levels of play. The City of Kitchener
was in the process of producing such a document, while in other instances
service levels existed, but were simply not formalized in a written document.
Landscape maintenance standards for rights-of-way have been developed for four
of the six Canadian cities surveyed.
Park and Sports Field Maintenance
All cities surveyed fertilized
and aerated turf grass, however, rates and programming varied. Winnipeg aerated
on a site-specific basis and Thunder Bay aerated once per season. Quebec City and London limited aeration to
sports fields only. Kitchener aerated
sports fields and high use parks twice per year and lower use parks once per
year. Some cities limited fertilization
to only sports fields (Quebec City and London) while others fertilized both. In
London, fertilizer application varied and was site-specific, depending on the
manager’s determination of need.
Regional parks received fertilization once per season in Kitchener, and
primary sports fields are fertilized fours times per season and secondary
fields twice per year. In Halifax,
sports fields and baseball diamonds were classified into categories. Each category then receives service levels
specific to that designation. For
sports fields, those in category A are fertilized three times per year based on
soil testing, and those in category D are fertilized once per year.
Mowing frequencies varied
considerably from city to city. London
and Winnipeg indicated that they mow every two weeks in parks, with London also
using an outcome base criteria of 6 cm.
Kitchener and Thunder Bay stated that they mow on either a weekly or
monthly basis depending on the location and Quebec specified that they mow
lawns in parks weekly. As mentioned,
Halifax has designed performance standards for its parks and open spaces. Turf areas are designated into categories
that receive either low, medium or high maintenance regimes. For example, formal parks are designated as
having a high maintenance regime, which among other things, implies that grass
is cut at a frequency that maintains it at a height between 6-7.5 cm. ‘Medium’ designates that grass is cut at a
frequency that maintains turf to a height between 6-10 cm. This includes informal parks, playgrounds,
cemeteries, boulevard islands and beach parks.
Finally, greenbelts and walkways are designated as having a ‘low’
maintenance standard. Grass in these
areas is trimmed once it reaches a maximum of 13 cm.
All cities surveyed have special
summer maintenance programs in which sports fields received more attention, or
have their own programs (London and Halifax).
Kitchener and Quebec City
D-3
irrigate sports fields, baseball diamonds and high profile parks. London
irrigates sports fields and baseball diamonds.
Winnipeg and Thunder Bay do not irrigate parks or sports fields. Halifax irrigates sports fields based on
their classification and as budgets permit.
Tree, Shrub and Flower Bed Maintenance
Maintenance of annuals occurred
on a weekly basis in Winnipeg and Kitchener and across all cities shrub beds
received treatment once per year.
Kitchener noted that high maintenance shrub beds and perennial beds
received attention monthly, while low-maintenance shrub beds and naturalized
areas were maintained on an annual basis.
All cities had programs in place to implement life-cycle replacements of
trees. Quebec, Winnipeg, Kitchener and
Thunder Bay replaced trees on a yearly basis, while London had a limit of
replacing 650 trees each year (currently back logged). As part of their
grass-cutting contracts, the City of Halifax has developed service levels and
maintenance activities for annual and shrub bed maintenance.
Pruning of plant material was
specific to each city. London, Thunder
Bay and Winnipeg indicated that they prune each year, while Kitchener and Quebec
offered more detailed information as to their pruning practices. Kitchener pruned high-maintenance shrub beds
annually to every three years and street trees, in their active growing stages,
every four years. Similarly Quebec City
pruned trees less than 13 cm in diameter once a year, and larger trees every
seven years.
Graffiti
The cities in the survey had
various ways of dealing with graffiti.
Winnipeg operates city-wide anti-graffiti patrol and Kitchener has a
graffiti reporting hotline and removals programs. Other cities simply power washed or painted over graffiti once it
had been reported.
Play Structures
Inspections of play structures
varied from city to city. London
operates 110 structures that were visited weekly in the summer and monthly in
the winter. Kitchener had monthly
inspections, Thunder Bay inspected every three to four weeks, and Winnipeg
estimated that it inspects play structures every two weeks. Halifax has
recently completed a comprehensive inventory of compliance conditions and
inspects play structures at least every two weeks.
D-4
ANNEX E
Staff Response to the CYCLING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE SUBMISSIONS
on the City’s Road Maintenance Standards
05 February 2003 Report of the
Cycling Advisory Committee
The report of the Cycling
Advisory Committee made six recommendations and these are being addressed as
follows:
1. That OCAC send the attached interim response, including
appendices, to City staff involved in the road/pathway maintenance standards
review.
Staff
Response
Staff
acknowledge receipt of the Cycling Advisory Committee report.
2. That OCAC endorse the attached list of road and path maintenance
hazards as its policy on the effects of these hazards on cyclists and
appropriate city response to them.
Staff
Response
Details below
are in response to the OCAC defined list of hazards. The numbers in brackets refer to the hazard number identified in
the Cycling Advisory Committee report.
The level of service indicated is an overview of the proposed standards
and reference should be made to Annex C for the detailed standards.
-
Potholes (1), cracks (2) and pavement edge cracks (3) that
pose an immediate hazard will be secured (i.e. area clearly marked as a hazard)
within 24 hours and repaired within 30 days.
-
Uneven pavement (4) will be scheduled into planned maintenance
and will be prioritized according to severity.
-
Grates/ironworks (5) that are misaligned in the direction of
travel will be addressed within 4 hours.
Grates that have heaved will be clearly marked within 24 hours if they
pose an immediate hazard, and the repairs scheduled into planned maintenance
and prioritized according to severity.
-
Road debris (6) and construction and agricultural debris (7)
that pose an immediate hazard will be cleared as soon as practicable but within
4 hours after becoming aware of the condition.
During Spring cleanup, the lapse of time between the cleaning of the
sidewalks/boulevards and the cleaning of the road will not exceed 48 hours.
Debris
related to construction sites will be referred to the appropriate individuals
for action.
-
Drainage (8) related repairs will be scheduled into planned
maintenance and will be prioritized according to severity.
-
Snow pulling (9) will be carried out if it can reasonably be
expected that the snow will be melted by 4 p.m. on the same day.
-
Failed pavement on roads (10) will be addressed as part of the
capital program for road resurfacing and reconstruction.
-
Pavement markings and stencils (11) will generally be done
once per year on most roads.
E-1
-
Signage (12) will be addressed according to the sign
type. Critical regulatory and warning
signs (i.e. stops, yields, do not enter, etc) will receive a higher priority (3
hours) than guidance and directional signs (30 days).
-
The quality of crack-filling strips (13) will be considered
through the preparation of the contract specifications.
-
Snow piled in bike lanes (14) will be pushed back as much as
practicable. The need for more frequent
snow removal would result in an increase in cost and more information is required
to quantify this cost.
-
Vegetation (15) where conditions create sightline problems
will be addressed within 24 hours or as soon as practicable depending on the
extent of work required.
-
Winter conditions (16) will be addressed as noted in 4 below.
3. That OCAC endorse the attached list of road construction hazards
as its policy on the effects of these hazards on cyclists and appropriate city
response to them.
Staff
Response
Since
these construction related hazards are beyond the scope of this undertaking,
the concerns have been forwarded to the appropriate individuals (Infrastructure
Services-Construction Services Division and Surface Operations-Contract
Management Division) for consideration.
4. That OCAC endorse the attached list of priority locations for
winter maintenance for cyclists.
Staff
Response
The Department
is in the process of reviewing its policy on the winter maintenance of
pathways. This policy should be
presented later this year. This request
will be addressed once this policy is completed.
5. That OCAC give a mandate to its Maintenance subcommittee to
prepare a response, based upon this report, to the final report of the City
road/path maintenance standards review, and send that response to staff and to
Transportation and Transit Committee with final prior consultation with OCAC
via e-mail or at a monthly meeting as time permits prior to transmittal.
Staff
Response
Staff provided
the Cycling Advisory Committee with a copy of this report prior to the
Transportation and Transit Committee meeting.
6. That OCAC recommend the City establish a citizen-based “Cycling
Crack Catchers” road hazard reporting program.
Staff
Response
This
recommendation was referred to staff at the 05 February 2003 Transportation and
Transit Committee meeting. As noted
previously, the provincial minimum
maintenance standards include a requirement for routine patrolling of municipal
roads. The objective of routine road
patrolling is to monitor and report conditions that could pose a
hazard to the users. The road hazards
reporting program being proposed by the Cycling Advisory Committee could
E-2
supplement the City's routine road patrolling efforts. After the proposed maintenance quality
standards have been approved by Council, staff would continue to work with the
Cycling Advisory Committee to clarify expectations, how this program would be
implemented and how the communications would occur between members of this
program and the City.
31 MARCH 2003 Report of the Cycling
Advisory Committee
This report was provided by the
Cycling Advisory Committee in response to a presentation made by staff on 16
April 2003 on the proposed maintenance quality standards. The Committee made 5 recommendations and
these are being addressed as follows:
1. That an interim report be prepared in two years to measure how
well these standards have worked and have been implemented.
Staff
Response
The proposed
maintenance standards include a fairly significant shift to define measurable
outcomes. As a result, it is anticipated
that it will take at least 3 years to put monitoring and reporting systems in
place to be able to fully analyze the standards. It is therefore suggested that a status report be provided after
a 3-year period in order to provide sufficient time to implement all the
elements required to support the standards.
In addition, if approved by Council, the recommended enhanced service
levels are to be implemented over a 5-year period. As such, the full impact of these enhancements will not be
apparent until the end of the 5-year period.
2. That a monitoring plan, including measurable objectives, be
included in the final report on these standards, in order to properly determine
how well these standards are working and where they might need improvement.
Staff Response
As identified
in 1. above, the proposed standards are based on defining measurable
outcomes. Based on input received by
the Cycling Advisory Committee, the standards have been revised to define
conditions that related more directly with cycling concerns. Given the significant shift from previous
standards, the cost implications of providing an enhanced level of service for
spot road surface repairs along designated cycling routes has been identified
in Recommendation No. 2 of the staff report.
Details of the enhanced service levels are covered in 5 below.
3. That staff be able to analyze all maintenance-related complaints
from citizens in order to determine trends in complaints, response times (both
for marking and final repair) and budget needs for maintenance for subsequent
years.
Staff
Response
The direct
input by citizens is and will continue to be an indicator of the publics
satisfaction with the level of service.
Staff continue to work closely with the Call-Center on tracking of
requests for service and the input received through this process is used to
assessed the effectiveness of the standards.
E-3
4. That a prioritized list of roads with failed pavement be made
visible to the general public, with designated cycling routes being the priority.
Staff
Response
On an annual
basis, the department, through a needs assessment carried out by the
Infrastructure Services Branch, produces a priority list of roads to be
upgraded. This list is circulated for
comments prior to being considered as part of the budget process. This recommendation has been forwarded to
this Branch for further consideration.
5. Endorse the additional recommendations contained in this report,
in particular those in the Priority Recommendations section, and direct staff to
consider these changes in their final report to Council.
Staff
Response
Details below
are in response to the OCAC defined list of cycling related hazards. The level of service indicated is an
overview of the proposed standards and reference should be made to Annex B for
the detailed standards.
Subject to
approval of the service level enhancements for road surface repairs, the
following standards would be implemented and monitor throughout the 5-year
phase-in period when located along designated city cycling routes. These will be assessed as to their
effectiveness and further recommendation may be made as part of the development
of the City’s new Cycling Plan.
Priority
Recommendations
-
longitudinal cracks of 2.5 cm and greater will be repaired;
repairs may be temporary until more permanent repairs can be undertaken
-
vertical discontinuities of 2 cm will be repaired
-
potholes larger than 10 cm will be repaired
-
paved shoulders will be maintained to same standard only when
it is part of a designated City cycling route
-
immediate road hazards will be marked within 4 hours and
repairs completed within 7 days with priority given to intersections and hills
– as such these cycling related hazards are independent of road class; repairs
may be temporary until more permanent repairs can be undertaken
Other
Recommendations
-
snow removal encroachments refer to maximum conditions when
snow removal is to be undertaken; where on-site snow storage is available, the
intent is to minimize any encroachment onto the travel portion of the roadway
-
the maintenance of bollards has been added to the
sidewalk/pathway standard
-
in recognition of operational conditions, the lapse of time
between to spring cleanup of sidewalks and boulevards and the road cleaning was
maintained at a maximum of 48 hours; this will continue to be monitored
-
other recommendations, such as the winter maintenance of
contra-flow lanes, condition of bike racks, etc, are to be addressed as part of
the development of the new Cycling Plan as the implications need to be assessed
in more detail
E-4
MAINTENANCE QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ROAD AND SIDEWALK OPERATIONS – FINAL
REPORT / NORMES DE QUALITÉ EN MATIÈRE D’ENTRETIEN ROUTES ET TROTTOIRS OU
SENTIERS
Dale Philpotts, Director of Surface Operations
provided an overview of the report before committee. A copy of the presentation is held on file.
Of concern to the Committee Chair was
the snow left on the road after plows have cleared the road, but where they
have had to go around a parked car. She
indicated it causes problems for other people wishing to park because they are
unable to get their vehicles through the bank of snow. She noted that similar problems arise in the
spring with debris being left alongside the curb because cars have not been
moved and suggested that parking be restricted during street-sweeping as
well. With regard to the issue of snow
clearing, the Director advised that it is fairly onerous and quite contentious
to remove parked cars. He recognized
that people have to be made aware of the difficulty they cause on the road when
they park where the City intends to remove snow. In response to the suggestion about restricted parking during
spring cleaning periods, he indicated that there are areas in the downtown
where this is in place and suggested it could be expanded at minimum cost to
those areas where motorists insist on parking when the City wants to do it’s
street sweeping. The Chair agreed with
the difficulties of moving cars during the winter and suggested stricter
enforcement during the spring.
On a related matter, the Chair indicated that
since the implementation of the no-smoking by-law in restaurants and bars, the
sidewalk and curb areas outside some bars are constantly littered with
cigarette butts. Mr. Philpotts advised that
staff have increased their sidewalk clearing in certain areas and there is the
ability to work with the community in terms of providing ‘Butt-Out’ containers
in appropriate locations. He recognized
that more advertising and marketing to keep streets clean is another
option. The Chair indicated that the
ByWard Market BIA plan to do a marketing event with the business owners there
to improve the situation, but perhaps more could be done throughout the city. Of particular concern was the condition of the
sidewalk and curb (cigarette litter) outside a bar on Beechwood Avenue, noting
that a student is paid to clean that part of the street and the sidewalk on a
daily basis but she did not believe everyone should have to pay to keep it
clean. The General Manager, Rosemarie
Leclair suggested that the Department take that as an inquiry and look at what
the implications have been for the clean ups and what some of the options are
in terms of equipment on the street, working with the business community and what
other municipalities have done and report back to committee for further
discussion.
Councillor Bloess referred to debris created by
construction and the hazards such debris causes cyclists. The Director explained that development
agreements require the developer and/or their contractor to clean the streets
during construction and the adjacent areas as needed. The councillor questioned where the point of contact is to
initiate the clean-up of such debris and the General Manager indicated that if
it is private work being done by a developer then they are the contact, through
the TUPW Inspectors or through By-law Enforcement Officers. If it is a City road job, then the point of
contact would be the TUPW inspectors who would work directly with the contractor
to ensure debris is cleaned up.
Councillor Arnold recognized that the Yellow
Box program has been reasonably successful and given the proposal to expand it
at an additional cost of $20,000 she hoped there would be an ongoing
communications plan to ensure the public are aware they can spread the sand
from these boxes on an as-needed basis.
Mr. Philpotts advised that this program has potential city-wide and if
it is expanded to other areas, staff would provide the impetus to ensure it is
used to its fullest and that includes a proper advertising campaign. The councillor noted the Council on Aging
has been particularly interested in the program and she felt it would be a
useful partnership to work with them in terms of identifying the expansion
locations and perhaps changing some of the existing locations as well as doing
a publicity campaign once the boxes are in place. Mr. Philpotts noted that with the increase in involvement of the
advisory committees, it is an opportune time to open up that dialogue.
Councillor Arnold noted that staff are
considering the service level options on Class 4 and 5 roads for night-time
leaf blowing operations, but suggested that would not really address the issues
of the complaints received with respect to people living adjacent to those main
business streets being woken up each night by the noise. She believed there was a need to review the
routes with respect to where they are adjacent to residential areas, especially
in light of the City’s policy is to encourage downtown living. She inquired whether that could be added to
the review and the Director stated that the intent was to examine all nighttime
operations where complaints are constantly received and to report back on the
available options.
In response to a question posed by Councillor
Arnold with respect to the recommendations of the CAC (Item 1) and the impact
these recommendations have on the staff report, Alain Gonthier, Project Manager
advised that many of the Advisory Committee’s comments and recommendations have
been incorporated into the staff report, and others are to be reviewed for
follow-up. The councillor noted that a
number of the CAC’s recommendations are issues that require further work and
consultation and she wanted to ensure that staff do not lose the information
and the work they have done. For
example, one of their recommendations is for an interim report to come forward
in two years to measure how well the standards have worked, et cetera, and the
staff response in the report is that given the time for implementation of these
standards, it would be impossible to report back within that timeframe. She felt that before three years staff
should be able to respond to the CAC that would detail what has and has not
been implemented and which ones are still outstanding. The General Manager explained that the
intent is for staff to move on those issues that they can, but the intent of
the three-year timeframe was before making any changes to the major service standards
vs what is being recommended and perhaps refinement or a different level of
service is required, three years are necessary to fully implement the
program. As suggested by the
councillor, she agreed that an annual status report on where the Department is
with these things in conjunction with the CAC is probably the best way to go,
and then a full report on the actual effectiveness of the standards as they
would have been developed through that period would come back to
committee. Councillor Arnold proposed
that there be an annual status report on the implementation of the Cycling
Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
Councillor Legendre recognized that ‘freak’
snow storms sometimes occur late in the spring and wanted assurance that in
adopting the proposed standards, staff would not send out their plows, when it
is evident the snow would melt within a very short time. Mr. Philpotts agreed that common sense would
dictate how and when staff react, noting that the standards are appropriate for
80% of the time. And when such
situations arise, he suggested additional advertising/marketing be implemented
so the public is aware why the City is not clearing snow so late in the
season. The councillor emphasized that
work of some TUPW divisions could affect others and emphasized the importance
of working in collaboration with each other.
Since amalgamation, Councillor Legendre noted
that snowplows often leave windrows of snow across intersections of local
roads, when the driver turns from one street to the next. He believed this was a safety problem and
should not be permitted to occur. The
Director advised that the intent is to clear those sooner rather than
later. When asked why the snow is left
there at all, he explained that the problem is the time it would take to do the
routes; the way the operation has gone for some areas of the city is to try and
stay within the time limits of their routes.
Therefore, windrows remain until the second shift comes through and
cleans that up. He acknowledged that it
is a delay in terms of how that is cleaned up and the enhancement in the report
today is to try and improve that. The
councillor was not satisfied with what staff proposes as the standard. Mr. Philpotts explained that the normal
practice is that when plows are in their plowing routes, when they turn right,
those windrows are cleared up when that final plow route is taken. The councillor stated that leaving these
windrows is a serious change from what used to happen prior to amalgamation; it
is a change for the worse and it is a change that affects safety. The Director agreed to look at where those
specific problems appear to be happening.
Ms. Leclair added that with respect to the standards, windrows are not
normally left across the roadway and staff recognize this as a safety
issue. If there has been a particular
problem, staff would look at that in dealing with next year’s contract.
Councillor Legendre suggested that the idea of
creating ‘patrols’ to watch for potholes and cracks in the road has merit, but
preferred not to designate specific FTE’s (full time employees) to such a
task. He believed it was the
responsibility of all TUPW staff when they are driving in their vehicles to
watch for such hazards. The General
Manager agreed that all employees should feel a responsibility to report such
matters; however, as a part of the formal process, 14 FTE’s is the resource
time to meet the requirements of the provincial standard. The councillor asked that Legal staff review
those provincial requirements in an effort to determine if they do in fact
require a team of dedicated monitors to patrol the street and whether the same
function could be accommodated with existing staff. He asked that this be responded to before the item rises to
Council.
The Solicitor, Ernest McArthur, agreed to look
into that with TUPW staff, but reminded committee that the provincial minimum
road maintenance standards are not mandatory; they were put in place to protect
the City from liability. Councillor
Legendre was not proposing the City not meet the standards, but he questions
the way those standards are arrived at and maintained.
Councillor Cullen noted that the proposal is to
have crews monitor each local road on a monthly basis and suggested there may
be an opportunity to make better use of that individual’s time. Mr. Philpotts explained that they are going
to look at the overall operation in terms of how the documentation and
inspection can be carried out. The
councillor suggested that if a City vehicle is going to go down a street in my
ward once a month, he would prefer that they make better use of their time,
i.e., beyond road maintenance. The
General Manager advised that the recommendation in the report talks about the
implementation of this item for 2004 so perhaps the direction from committee
should be rather than approve that recommendation, direct staff to review all
of its on-street activities and inspections to see how this function can be
performed within the existing staff complement. She indicated the inspections would be added to the existing responsibilities
of the supervisor. She noted that in
the operational area, FTE’s are a translation of the number of hours of work
that is there, not the number of staff.
She indicated staff would have to consider what the other operations are
that the councillor would like to have those staff be responsible for and how
those could be blended in, while at the same time meeting the original intent
which was to protect the City from liability.
This formalized process will allow TUPW to do just that.
Councillor McNeely had some concerns with
regards to the Ratings detailed in Annex B.
He noted that there were dollars left over in the former City of
Cumberland for significant improvements in the rural areas, and it was not
based on volumes, criteria that is stated in the report and he believed this
meant there would be very little reconstruction in the rural areas. He believed these criteria would simply rate
such roadways quite low because of lower traffic volume. Mr. Philpotts responded by stating that the rating
is meant for the classification of the roadway system and is strictly a rating
for maintenance, not rehabilitation. He
indicated that staff have brought forward a report to the Agricultural and
Rural Affairs Committee that will assess all gravel roads and assess their
priorities based on a number of requirements.
He recognized that with the harmonization of gravel maintenance, there
are no areas staff are aware of where those services will be less than what they
received before. The councillor believed
there are situations where conditions are worse than they were prior to
amalgamation and the commitment has not been made to put sufficient granular in
place and he wanted staff to monitor that.
In addition, Councillor McNeely referred to the
overall funding of the City’s road system and while tax increases to address
these deficiencies are not popular, he believed there was a significant
difference in the level of asphalt resurfacing and road repair and what should
be done. He asked whether there was a
deficiency in the dollars going to road resurfacing and repair, a deficiency
that would be required to make the road system a sustainable city. The General Manager explained that the
Department has estimated that $25M/year should be going into road resurfacing
and in the past two years the City has only been able to afford $15-16M; if the
numbers remain static and the network continues to grow, that deficiency would
continue to grow. She indicated that as
part of the long range financial plan, the committee did direct staff to bring
forward a report this year on capital assets and infrastructure and what is
required to achieve sustainability.
Councillor McNeely proposed the following
Motion:
Whereas the City’s roads and
transitways are essential to the long term sustainability of the city;
Whereas it is commonly known that
the road resurfacing and repair budgets are grossly under funded;
Whereas private corporations
principally carry out this work based on lowest price tenders;
Whereas under funding has been
estimated to be $10M on an annual basis;
Whereas some roads are visibly
deteriorating beyond resurfacing to full reconstruction at a significant future
cost to this city;
Be it therefore resolved that City
staff prepare a report for the Transportation and Transit Committee that
reviews long term maintenance and repair costs and in particular deals with
increased future costs of the present under funding of road resurfacing and
repair;
Be it further resolved that this
segment of the City maintenance costs be examined for stable and long term
funding as is presently being provided for the City’s sewer and water systems
tied to a gasoline tax.
He maintained that road repairs and repairs are
most significantly under funded and it is important that the City demonstrates
the importance of this to the senior levels of government to ensure the
municipality receives financial support or develop the same funding as it has
done for sewer and water.
Adam J. O’Neill spoke briefly to committee about snow removal,
stating there must be quality standards implemented. He indicated that there are major deficiencies in sidewalk
clearing, and that some intersections are cleared, while others are not. These inconsistencies can cause problems,
especially those who are mobility challenged.
Mr. O’Neill made note of the fact that not all curbs are depressed
and this can be a barrier to people in wheelchairs to get on and off the
sidewalk. Mr. O’Neill also indicated
that the decorative brick interlock brick on Somerset Street between Elgin and
Bronson is a barrier for people in wheelchairs because the bricks sink at
different times and levels and the unevenness of the pavement makes it
particularly difficult for him to move about in a wheelchair.
In response to his comment about curbs, Ms.
Leclair stated that depressed curbing should be at most, if not all, pedestrian
crossings, as that is the new design standard; locations without depressed
curbs would have to be brought up to the standard as construction/reconstruction
or rehabilitation occurs.
With regards to his comment about decorative
pavement on sidewalks and crossings, Councillor Cullen thought such design
issues would be vetted through the Transportation Advisory Committee because
there ought to be a place for such decorative motifs, but not to the detriment
of the mobility impaired. Ms. Leclair
indicated that staff would consult with the advisory committees when design
standards are reviewed. She noted that
some of the specialty treatments that are in place in various commercial areas
were put there at the request of the BIA’s and throughout that process, the
maintenance comment has traditionally been that which has been raised by Mr.
O’Neill. However, over the years, the
ability to achieve decorative treatment using concrete for beautification
purposes has advanced and so staff are looking at those alternatives to replace
those when the opportunities present themselves.
Donna Upson, downtown resident believed there should be a 24-hour
turn-around time for cleaning and repairing sidewalks to ensure the work is
done as expediently as possible. In
some areas of the City there are areas that need to be cleaned and repaired,
but a short time after a traffic light, for example, is repaired, vandals will
ruin it, especially in the downtown Rideau area. She emphasized there should be 24-hour service, especially in the
downtown core.
Alayne McGregor noted that the staff recommendations to
improve designated cycling routes are a general improvement; however, there is
a concern, particularly in the denser areas of the City where there are many
alternative routes, i.e., she was concerned the City would only fix smaller
potholes or cracks on designated cycling routes because regardless of what
street it is, it is still quite dangerous to be having these potholes on any
street that is regularly used by cyclists.
She recommended therefore, that staff address cracks and potholes on all
streets, not just for designated cycling routes. In terms of street sweeping she believed the staff suggestion of
a 48-hour turn-around time, but she preferred there be only 24 hours before
something is done because it is difficult for cyclists to leave it there for
longer periods of time. With regards to
the paved shoulders issue raised in the CAC report, she noted that staff have
changed it so it is only an issue for minor collectors and residential streets
where the repairs would be done less frequently for the paved shoulders than
for the regular streets although she did not understand the point of having a
separate standard for paved shoulders, regardless of what street they are
on. Since cyclists will likely be
riding on the paved shoulders these facilities should be fixed to the same
level as adjoining streets, regardless of the class of road. In closing, she urged committee to provide
whatever it has in terms of classified list of roads with failed pavement in
time for the 2004 budget, even if it is not complete. This would allow a better understanding what issues are coming
down with that. She further recommended
that spring clean-up be extended to May 31 it will make it more difficult for
cyclists.
Brett Delmage expressed concerns about the wording of staff
Recommendation 2 to approve the enhanced service levels for pedestrian and
cycling facilities. He noted there are
a number of enhancements contained in the report and yet they are not brought
out as specific recommendations. And,
he did not understand why, within the context of the new Official Plan and the
pending Transportation Master Plan, that this is not incorporated into the base
program. He preferred it be
incorporated as part of the Department’s regular work program, starting in
2004. He was also concerned about the
implications of Recommendation 3 and the fact staff would be driving along and
having to check out maintenance issues on the road and sidewalk as they drive;
he suggested that the pothol patrol program which was suggested by the CAC
could be of assistance, as well as having staff patrol by bicycle so they could
see road conditions and sidewalks more safely and effectively than from a motor
vehicle.
Councillor Legendre asked that the delegation
provide him a copy of the monitoring documentation previously dealt with by the
CAC, prior to this item rising to Council.
Sally Thomas noted that if the City is taking better care
of the bike lanes than the sidewalks, then people in wheelchairs would be more
apt to use those facilities. On an
unrelated matter, she indicated that she was unable to reach the button to
activate the pedestrian crossing on Carling Avenue at the Ottawa Hospital. Staff made note of this concern for
follow-up.
Councillor Cullen suggested the Motion be
amended to rephrase or delete the second ‘be it resolved’ paragraph, because
all three provincial parties are discussing giving a portion of the gasoline
tax to municipalities for road purposes.
He was willing to put forward a Motion to address that which would be
removed from the councillor’s Motion.
Councillor McNeely accepted this proposal.
Moved by P. McNeely
Whereas the City’s roads and
transitways are essential to the long term sustainability of the city;
Whereas it is commonly known that
the road resurfacing and repair budgets are grossly under funded;
Whereas private corporations
principally carry out this work based on lowest price tenders;
Whereas under funding has been
estimated to be $10M on an annual basis;
Whereas some roads are visibly
deteriorating beyond resurfacing to full reconstruction at a significant future
cost to this city;
Be it therefore resolved that City
staff prepare a report for the Transportation and Transit Committee that
reviews long term maintenance and repair costs and in particular deals with
increased future costs of the present under funding of road resurfacing and
repair.
CARRIED
Moved by A. Cullen
Whereas all three parties
represented in the Ontario Legislature have announced their election commitment
to provide a portion of the provincial gas tax to municipalities for
transportation purposes;
Whereas the Ontario Legislature
remains in session;
Therefore be it resolved that City
Council request all three parties (through their Legislative Leaders) to pass
such legislation now, rather than waiting for a provincial election.
CARRIED
That the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:
4.
Approve the maintenance quality
standards for roads and sidewalks/pathways as set out in Annex B.
5.
Approve the enhanced service levels
for pedestrian and cycling facilities, as outlined in the report, for
implementation starting in 2004 subject to approval of an additional $180,000
in the 2004 budget.
CARRIED
6.
Approve an additional 8 FTEs required to comply
with the new provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Since this requirement had not been
identified during the amalgamation process and that amalgamation related FTE
reductions still remain to be achieved, this need would be achieved by reducing
the remaining 2004 TUPW FTE reduction targets and associated savings of
$640,000.
CARRIED
YEAS (6) R. Bloess, A.
Cullen, E. Arnold, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
NAYS (1) J. Legendre
