Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun

and Council/et au Conseil

17 June 2002 / 17 juin 2002

Submitted by/Soumis par: Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager/Directeur général

Transportation, Utilities and Public Works/

Transport, services et travaux publics

Contact/Personne ressource: John Buck, Manager/Gestionnaire, Safety and Traffic Services Division/Division de la sécurité et de la circulation

580-2424, Extension 21693, John.Buck@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2002-TUP-TRF-0027

SUBJECT: THE ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM AND SCHOOL ZONE TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM

OBJET: PROGRAMME DES BRIGADIERS SCOLAIRES ADULTES ET PROGRAMME DE SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE DANS LES ZONES D’ÉCOLE

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Committee the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Receive the Executive Summary of the Adult School Crossing Guard Program And School Zone Traffic Safety Program Policy Development Project, Final Report, April 24, 2002 (Annex C) as produced by Morrison Hershfield;

2. Adopt the Adult School Crossing Guard warrant as presented in Annex E;

3. Approve the Adult School Crossing Guard Program And School Zone Traffic Safety Program Outline as identified in Annex F;

4. Adopt the proposed strategy for initiating a well coordinated and substantial Adult School Crossing Guard Program and School Zone Traffic Safety Program policy as proposed by the Department in Annex D;

5. Retain the existing 17 crossing guard locations (Annex A) subject to their compliance with the student volume criteria identified in the screening component of the proposed Adult School Crossing Guard warrant and an operational review;

6. Approve a two-year consultation, observation, and adjustment period to finalize the Adult School Crossing Guard Program and the School Zone Traffic Safety Program, and report back to Committee;

7. Approve the retention of the Ottawa Safety Council to fill the guard administration contract for the program’s recommended two-year observation and adjustment period;

8. Direct staff to review all marked school crossings to assess their compliance with the Ontario Traffic Manual guidelines for implementation, and replace the current blue and white school zone and student crossing signs with, or for new crossing guard locations install, the new fluorescent yellow-green school zone and student crossing signs; and,

9. Recognize the need for a coordinated multi-disciplinary, multi-party effort to provide an efficient and effective operation for such safety programs and direct the Department to meet with other City departments and outside agencies to pursue the development of appropriate policies and procedures in keeping with the specified roles identified in Annex G.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil :

1. de prendre connaissance du sommaire exécutif sur le projet d’élaboration d’une politique relative au Programme des brigadiers scolaires adultes et au Programme de sécurité routière dans les zones d’école, rapport final, le 24 avril 2002 (Annexe C), tel qu’il a été présenté par Morrison Hershfield;

2. d’adopter le mandat de brigadier scolaire adulte, tel qu’il est présenté dans l’Annexe E;

3. d’approuver les grandes lignes du Programme des brigadiers scolaires adultes et du Programme de sécurité routière dans les zones d’école, tel qu’il est indiqué dans l’Annexe F;

4. d’adopter la stratégie proposée en vue de lancer une politique bien coordonnée et substantielle pour le Programme des brigadiers scolaires adultes et le Programme de sécurité routière dans les zones d’école telle qu’elle est proposée par le Service dans l’Annexe D;

5. de maintenir les 17 passages pour écoliers avec brigadiers scolaires (Annexe A), sous réserve de leur conformité aux critères portant sur le nombre d’élèves déterminés dans la partie présélective du mandat proposé de brigadier scolaire adulte et d’un examen opérationnel;

6. d’approuver une période de consultation, d’observation et d’adaptation de deux ans pour finaliser le Programme des brigadiers scolaires adultes et le Programme de sécurité routière dans les zones d’école et de faire rapport au Comité;

7. d’approuver que le Conseil de sécurité d’Ottawa soit retenu afin de remplir le contrat d’administration des brigadiers scolaires durant la période d’observation et d’adaptation de deux ans recommandée pour le programme;

8. d’enjoindre le personnel d’examiner tous les passages pour écoliers marqués afin d’évaluer leur conformité aux directives du Ontario Traffic Manual aux fins de mise en œuvre, et de remplacer les panneaux de signalisation actuels bleus et blancs des zones scolaires et les passages pour écoliers par des panneaux de signalisation fluorescents jaune-vert, ou, pour les nouveaux emplacements de passages pour écoliers, d’installer de tels panneaux; et,

9. de reconnaître le besoin d’efforts pluridisciplinaires et multipartites coordonnés afin de permettre l’exploitation efficace et efficiente de tels programmes de sécurité, et d’enjoindre le Service à rencontrer les autres services de la Ville ainsi que des organismes extérieurs afin de poursuivre l’élaboration des politiques et procédures appropriées conformément aux rôles précis déterminés dans l’Annexe G.

BACKGROUND

On 1 August 2001, the Transportation and Transit Committee approved a report recommending that staff continue with the development and implementation of a comprehensive traffic safety program for school zones with an immediate focus on its Adult School Crossing Guard Program component.

The report noted that school crossing guards as defined in Section 176 of the Highway Traffic Act, are a municipal responsibility and that in compliance with that Act, all crossing guard sites formerly administered by the Ottawa Police Services had been transferred in the summer of 2001 to the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works (TUPW) Department. It went on to note that immediately prior to amalgamation, the former City of Kanata approved funds for the provision of crossing guards at three unspecified locations, so that the merits of adult intervention at such sites could be evaluated. In summary, TUPW in August 2001, assumed responsibility for administering 17 crossing guard sites in five former municipalities, under four different financial arrangements.

With no guiding policy to refer to, virtually no approved funding in the City’s 2001 budget, an ongoing demand for new guard sites, and the time constraints posed by the imminent commencement of the 2001 – 2002 school year, staff proposed that the program move forward in four areas. Specifically, by continuing the operation of the 14 existing crossing guard sites on a status quo basis until the end of 2001-2002 school year, by funding that service through the Safety Improvement Program until the establishment of a dedicated 2002 budget, by establishing a Steering Committee to develop a policy to address school zone traffic safety and adult school crossing guards and, by implementing the new sites in former Kanata and monitoring them through a consultant assignment.

Since then, significant progress has been made. The 17-site Crossing Guard Program (Annex A) was successfully carried out with only two notable problems, both of which stemmed from the events of September 11^th. In the first case, Ensign Security, the firm initially contracted to provide crossing guard services on the same basis as they had while the program was administered by Police Services, encountered staffing difficulties as a result of the increased demands placed on that industry following those events. Ultimately, their contract was cancelled and taken over by the Ottawa Safety Council. In the second case, the Ottawa Safety Council lost their insurance coverage for the Crossing Guard Program and the program was shut down for one day on Thursday 16 May 2002. That loss of insurance coverage and the resultant need to purchase replacement coverage at an extremely high premium, were direct results of the financial burden faced by the insurance industry in honoring claims from those events.

In the area of policy and program development, the consulting services of Morrison Hershfield were retained in December 2001 to provide a background/resource document in which policy and programs could be developed. The consultant’s work was carried out under the direction and review of a multi-agency steering committee (Annex B) that included representation from Council and the public and a final report was delivered in late April 2002.

With the insight gained by staff and the Steering Committee through the research material contained in the consultant study report and observation of the existing crossing guard program over the past ten months, this report proposes a School Zone Traffic Safety and Adult School Crossing Guard Program complete with warrants for adult crossing guards. In addition, it identifies funding requirements to operate the program in its current state and in a growth mode through the remainder of this year and provides anticipated 2003 funding for budget purposes.

DISCUSSION

Overview:

The mandate of the assignment as presented in this report focuses on child safety when traveling to and from school. In accomplishing this task, two programs have been developed. The first looks at the larger picture in addressing student safety concerns which utilizes existing tools and introduces new but proven tools from the 3 E’s (education, enforcement, engineering) toolbox of measures. The second addresses the details and installation warrant of a safety control device, widely used throughout the province and across North America; specifically, the adult school crossing guard.

Direction for both programs was provided by a program framework and guiding principles established by the Steering Committee at the onset of this project. In addition to addressing safety issues, it was recognized that benefits associated with traffic flow and parking operations around schools, travel demand management, achieving Official Plan modal split goals, improving healthy lifestyles and preventing child injuries, could be achieved as a result of these programs. The level of achievement however relates to the commitment and level of service provided by the programs. The focus of the programs identified in this report was on achieving safety; benefits achieved in other areas are a by-product.

Consultant Review and Recommended Direction:

The report produced by Morrison Hershfield was the result of a four-month review and research assignment commissioned by the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department. The consultant report, which has been used as the primary reference source in developing the recommended programs identified herein, has been consolidated into an executive summary and is presented in Annex C.

Recommended direction provided by the consultant as a result of the assignment, has been included in a table format in Annex D. The position of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department on this direction is also included in that table and in summary, concurs with the recommendations of the consultant, either in whole or in principle. Those agreed to in principle only, reflect areas that need further detailed review, require participation from others, or recognize the lack of staff and/or budget funding to carry them forward at this time.

The Adult School Crossing Guard Warrant:

In developing the two programs identified in this report, it was recognized that across the province and throughout Canada and the United States, the implementation of crossing guards in practice seems to deal with perceived safety as much as it deals with real safety. This was most evident when it was found that the majority of current crossing guards are situated at locations where traffic control devices exist; namely, at either multi-way stop controlled or traffic signal controlled intersections. Whereas mid-block and uncontrolled intersections have no control mechanism in place to create gaps in traffic or to provide a pedestrian right of way, multi-way stop and signalized intersections do.

The need and justification for crossing guards at mid-block and uncontrolled intersection locations is quite clear. If there is a requirement for children to cross at those points and there are inadequate gaps to permit the crossing within a reasonable delay, intervention to create gaps is justified.

At multi-way stop and signalized intersections, gaps in the traffic flow are introduced as a result of the control device itself and therefore, the need and justification for a guard is not as clear. In taking a closer look at the operation of these types of control, there appears to be a genuine concern that while pedestrian right of way is legally created by the device, that right of way is often challenged and taken away by aggressive drivers. Observation studies confirm that questionable driver behaviour exists at these sites, as supported by non-compliance data at multi-way stop intersections and by conflict-assessment data at signalized intersections. Despite the fact that aggressive driving tends to exist as evidenced by stop compliance and pedestrian–vehicle right of way conflicts, there is virtually no data that correlates this behaviour to a true safety issue. Of the annual average 24 reportable collisions in Ottawa (during the last four years) involving young pedestrians during school arrival and dismissal times, approximately 15% (4 collisions per year) occurred at intersections when the pedestrian had the right of way. Although that number is not especially high, some would argue that it is still 4 too many. In summary, while there is no strong relationship between aggressive driving and young pedestrian collisions, there is nonetheless recognition that undesired risks may exist when children cross at controlled intersections. Documentation on the cognitive limitations of children under the age of 12 in comprehending traffic conditions, lends support to this sense of risk.

The recommended warrant (Annex E) addresses crossing difficulties at both uncontrolled and controlled crossings and hence deals with both true safety and perceived safety. In dealing with the uncontrolled and mid-block warrant, the recommended approach is based on the process identified in the Ministry of Transportation Ontario/Ontario Traffic Conference (MTO/OTC), School Crossing Review Report, 1992 (on file with the City Clerk). In dealing with the controlled crossing, the warrant is derived from a host of practices currently used throughout the province. This warrant is subjective and attempts to identify an acceptable level of risk that can be borne by students in their travel to and from school. The threshold values set in the warrant are empirical, based on best-practices experience and site observations.

In addition to the specific crossing warrants, a screening process precedes them and an unwarranted ranking process follows them. The unwarranted ranking has been included in the warrant process to provide a mechanism to implement additional guards if budget is available. It is recommended that all warranted locations be funded for implementation with the level of funding provided annually to be determined as part of the annual Budget process. Where insufficient funding is available in a given year, the locations will be added to a priority list, similar to that used for other traffic programs. It will be at the discretion of Committee and Council whether funds will be made available to implement additional guards beyond those that are warranted.

It should be recognized that the warrant, as proposed, is only one measure in addressing student crossing concerns. Prior to undertaking a crossing guard assessment, less costly alternatives must be considered.

The Adult School Crossing Guard Program and School Zone Traffic Safety Program Outline:

The warrant as identified above provides a measure (a crossing guard) to assist elementary school children in crossing busy streets. It is a costly but highly effective measure that has community support, it addresses the travel concern only when it needs to be addressed, and it has a number of side benefits. There is also a host of issues associated with it and therefore, has become a program on its own. The Adult School Crossing Guard program recommended to support crossing guards, as identified in Annex F, is based on the program proposed by MTO/OTC in their School Crossing Review Report. That program is generally accepted across the province. As the warrant proposed within this report deviates to some degree from the MTO/OTC warrant in the area of traffic-controlled intersections, the supporting program also varies to some degree. Areas of the program that are not addressed by the MTO/OTC program have been developed based on the research completed by the consultant and reflect the City of Ottawa’s current practices and procedures in respect to traffic operations.

The School Zone Traffic Safety program will examine school travel patterns on a larger scale when addressing student travel issues. Problem areas will be addressed by a host of traffic operations, enforcement, and education tools. Emphasis in this program is placed on safe routes to school plans and these in turn increase school, school council, and parental involvement in the solution process. For the most part, the solution tools used are taken from existing programs within the City. Adult school crossing guards will play a larger role than they have in the past. School oriented travel support programs (walking school bus, walk to school days, big buddy programs, etc) will also play a larger role than in the past. What this program alternatively provides is a forum for coordinating the use of the many tools that currently exist to address student travel issues. The proposed School Zone Traffic Safety program and procedure is presented in Annex G.

These recommended programs act as City policy in addressing travel issues of elementary school aged children.

Assessment Period:

In developing both the School Zone Traffic Safety Program and the Adult School Crossing Program, it is recognized that Ontario municipalities operating such programs, have all taken a unique and varied approach. Although most are based on the MTO/OTC approach for dealing with non-controlled crossings, differences emerge when it comes to dealing with crossings at traffic-controlled intersections. Further, additional differences exist in program areas not addressed in the MOT/OTC report. One such area is the administration of the guards and the individual components associated with this area.

Aware of the variability in programs across the province, staff recommends that a two-year observation and adjustment period be adopted, to allow for an appropriate fit with the City’s general policies, practices, and desired transportation objectives. In addition to assessing the program’s operation, this period will permit staff to undertake a more thorough consultative process and to produce the appropriate program documentation.

The programs presented in this report, supported by the Morrison Hershfield report and the MTO/OTC report, are at a state where they can stand on their own and operate immediately in an effective and efficient manner. The two-year period will facilitate further consultation, documentation, and the ability to fine-tune the programs.

Existing Crossing Guard Locations:

It is recommended that the 17 locations currently equipped with guards be tested against the volume criteria of the proposed warrant’s screening component and that an operational review be conducted at each. With the presence of guards at the existing locations, it is not practical to apply the full warrant as the guard influences crossing conditions. The operational review will be undertaken to ensure that no significant change has taken place that would influence the need for a guard (school boundary change, significant road network modification, etc).

For those locations that meet the volume criteria with operating conditions remaining as they have in the past, it is recommended that they continue to operate with the assistance of an adult crossing guard.

Validity of Existing School Crossings:

MTO’s Ontario Traffic Manual (formerly the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) stipulates that signed school crossings shall only be implemented at locations where guards (adult crossing guards or school crossing patrols) are present to assist with the crossing. It goes on to state that existing locations should be reviewed annually and removed if guard presence cannot be secured. In keeping with the intended purpose of this device, it is therefore recommended that all existing school crossing sites be reviewed for compliance with requirements set out in the Traffic Manual. Those found to be non-compliant should be reviewed with the associated school to determine the status of the previous school patrol, if one existed, or the initiation or re-introduction of a school crossing patrol program. Consideration should also be given to the use of an adult school crossing guard, if the school patrol program is not appropriate. Crossings that will not be supported with a guard would be removed.

School Area Crossing Signs:

With introduction of the new fluorescent yellow-green sign colour, a number of communities across the province have replaced their white-on-blue school zone and school crossing signs to heighten awareness of areas where children are present. In reviewing the visual impact of the new sign colour, staff identified a desire to move in that direction for school related signage. The recommended move is justified, because of the high visibility of the proposed signage and the ability to easily differentiate school signs from the growing number of directional signs that are also using the white-on-blue colour scheme. Florescent yellow-green School Area signs would be installed first at new school crossings and then at existing guard crossing guard sites, in a phased in replacement program.

Guard Administration Contract:

The guard administration contract last resided with the Ottawa Safety Council, as they had taken over the contract from Ensign Security in December 2001. As specified in the 1 August 2001 Transportation and Transit Report on this subject, a status-quo contract arrangement was to have remained in place for the 2001-2002 school year. With the development of new policy, it was staff’s original intent to tender the guard administration duties for the upcoming school year.

However, with the proposal that the program now operate in a two-year observation and adjustment period, it is staff’s desire and recommendation that it be sole-sourced to the Ottawa Safety Council for that period. The Department seeks this course of action, as there will be logistical benefits in working with this non-profit organization. Transportation, Utilities and Public Works currently contract the Ottawa Safety Council to deliver other safety programs and a strong working relationship exists with them. As the Adult School Crossing Guard Program is still in its development phase, and with cost margins that are unavoidably high because of the limited size of the program, there is an advantage in working with a group that has a clear understanding of our program needs and mandates.

With Council’s approval, staff would proceed to enter into a contract with the Ottawa Safety Council, defined by terms of reference to be developed in conjunction with Purchasing Services Division and within the program’s budget limits.

CONSULTATION

Up to this point, consultation has included the retention and use of a Steering Committee and the receipt of comments and concerns from the public regarding the current crossing guard program and the desire for new crossing sites. The project’s Steering Committee has been structured such that it has representation from traffic operations, health, education, enforcement, Council, and the public (refer to Committee Profile in Annex B).

In addition, an overview of the project’s direction and intention was presented to the Public English Board’s Council of School Councils and the Mobility Issues Advisory Committee on
27 January 2002 and again on 27 June 2002.

Focused public consultation, if required, will take place during the two-year observation and adjustment period recommended for the finalization of these programs.

Official Plan Compliance:

The policies resulting from the School Zone Traffic Safety Program and the Adult School Crossing Guard Program will comply with the objectives of two components of the Official Plan namely the Healthy Community and the Transportation system.

The Community Vision as stated in the Regional Official Plan, Section 3, Community and the Built Environment, calls for “a region of communities that is environmentally healthy, safe, caring, prosperous and diverse”. More specifically and relevant to this report, the Official Plan goes on to state that: “A community is a social space where residents can develop a sense of belonging and responsibility and where children have the opportunity to walk to a neighbourhood school”. In achieving such a “community”, the following objective, which both programs proposed in this report align themselves with, is sought (Section 3.1 Objectives for Healthy Communities):

Objective 6. To support the development of safe communities, including safer pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicle facilities.

There is also an underlying philosophy associated with the transportation section of the Regional Official Plan that supports transportation demand managed through the increased use of walking, cycling and transit modes. Specifically, the Plan states “The Community Vision and Transportation Vision and supporting principles call for increasing the provision and use of environment-friendly transportation alternatives and decreasing dependence on the private automobile”. The programs associated with this report, in principle, adhere to corresponding Official Plan objectives or more specifically, the following transportation objectives (Section 9.1, Objectives for Transportation):

Objective 1. To ensure that the transportation system accommodates the movement of persons, goods and services in a safe and efficient manner;

Objective 2. To provide an integrated transportation system and programs that promote an increase in walking, cycling and use of public transit, and minimize reliance on the private automobile;

Objective 4. To achieve at least an increase in peak-hour region-wide walking and cycling modal shares by 2021, of 0.3% and 1.3% respectfully; and,

Objective 6. To pursue a transportation strategy to contribute to the achievement of a region-wide 20% reduction in 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2007.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Financial implications to operate the programs as recommended on a per-site, per-year basis is approximately $11,500. This is an operating budget cost covering the guard administration contract (which includes guard pay, training, supervision, equipment, administration, assignments and program insurance) and an internal staff allocation cost to carry out the program assessments and administer the guard contract.

Financing for these programs is covered completely by the City as all former cost-sharing arrangements, which totaled approximately $60,000 annually, expired on 30 June 2002. Recommendations made by either of these programs and that relate to an infrastructure program, will see the associated cost covered by the infrastructure program’s budget and timing will be in keeping with that program’s priority rating approach (i.e. the implementation of sidewalks would come from the sidewalk installation budget, or the implementation of a pedestrian control traffic signal would be covered by the new traffic control signal program).

The City’s 2002 Operating Budget to support the Adult School Crossing Guard Program is $98,000. In addition, one-time funding of $75,000 from the Safety Improvement Program capital account was approved by Council to provide funding to expand the program in 2003, as required. At the identified rate of $11,500 per site, remaining funds in 2002 will allow for the 17 existing crossing sites and the addition of approximately five new sites for a total of 22 sites by the end of 2002.

For 2003, a budget pressure of $135,000 has been identified. This funding would be added to the existing operating program funding of $98,000. to provide for an operating budget of $233,000 to fund the 22 adult school crossing guards.

DISPOSITION

Subject to Committee and Council approval of the individual recommendations and provided that associated funding is approved in the budget process, Traffic and Parking Operations staff will:

• Apply the School Zone Traffic Safety Program process to address traffic issues in school areas;

• Apply the Adult School Crossing Guard Warrant to locations where it is deemed appropriate and implement in September 2002, those sites that are determined to be warranted;

• Continue with the Adult School Crossing Guard Program as presented, and initiate the documentation, observation, consultation, and adjustment period for the program and report back to Committee at the conclusion of that period;

• Undertake a review of all existing school crossings;

• Implement the new fluorescent yellow-green school related signs at new crossing locations and phase-in these signs at existing crossings;

• Work with other City Departments and external agencies to develop partnerships and supporting policy related to the Adult School Crossing Guard and School Area Traffic Safety Programs; and,

• Enter into a two-year guard administration contract with the Ottawa Safety Council.

ATTACHMENTS

ANNEX A Current Crossing Guard Locations

ANNEX B Steering Committee

ANNEX C Morrison Hershfield’s ASCG Program and SZTS Program Report - Executive Summary

ANNEX D TUPW Position on Consultant’s Direction and Recommendations

ANNEX E Adult School Crossing Guard Warrant

ANNEX F ASCG Program and SZTS Program – Program Outline

ANNEX G Supporting Departments and Outside Agencies - Roles and Responsibilities

ANNEX A

CURRENT CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS

ANNEX B

ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM – STEERING COMMITTEE

Name	Association	Background
Greg Kent, Chair	City of Ottawa Safety and Traffic Services	Safety and Traffic Studies Engineer City representative responsible for the ASCG Program
Jim Miskelly	City of Ottawa Safety and Traffic Services	Formerly with City of Kanata and responsible for coordinating the trial crossing guard program in Kanata. Member of the Kanata Traffic Safety Committee. Will assist in the program’s policy development.
Ryan Lanyon	City of Ottawa Transportation Demand Management	Active with alternative modes planning and promotion. Oversees the City’s Travelwise program and coordinates the City’s promotion of International Walk to School Day
Alain Contant	City of Ottawa Health Promotion Officer	Actively involved with healthy lifestyle programs
Neil Thomson Coleen Trip (alternate)	Councillor Munter’s representative Kanata Traffic Safety Committee	Prepared the Kanata Council report for the trial Kanata crossing guard program. Active involvement in the implementation of the trial program. Active involvement with the School Councils’ Committee
Ken Winges	Councillor Cullen’s representative Parent associated with D. Roy Kennedy Public School	Active involvement with traffic issues associated with D Roy Kennedy PS and the community of Woodpark.
Michelle Morra	Councillor Hume’s representative	Councillor Assistant
Gabriel Miller	Councillor Stavinga’s representative	Councillor Assistant

Jennifer Farr-Jones	Ottawa Safety Council Manager of the OSC Children’s Safety Village	Responsible for the operation of the village and the village’s pedestrian and traffic education program.
Doug Mayhew	Canadian Automobile Association Manager, Public Relations	Responsible for promotion and liaison associated with the CAA’s school traffic safety programs and publications, such as the Adult School Crossing Guard Program and the School Safety Patrol Program
Sgt. Dan Longpré	Ottawa Police Services Youth and School Resource Officer (SRO) Program Coordinator	Was responsible for the ASCG Program while under the Ottawa Police Service, supervises the School Resource Officers
Cst. Kyle Steele Cst. Chris Parent Cst. Rob Stocki	Ottawa Police Services Traffic Enforcement, East/West/Central Division	Active involvement in various traffic safety programs
Dan Wiseman	Ottawa-Carleton District School Board	Public School Board liaison for the current ASCG Program
Denise André	Ottawa-Carleton Separate School Board	Safe Schools Committee
Stephen Taylor	French Public and Catholic School Boards	Transportation Services

ANNEX C

Morrison Hershfield

Adult School Crossing Guard Program

And School Zone Traffic Safety Program

Policy Development Project

FINAL REPORT

April 24, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Need for a Policy

The development of a policy for the successful implementation of an Adult School Crossing Guard Program and a School Zone Traffic Safety Program is an important step in meeting the City’s Official Plan goal of “providing for safe, healthy, and balanced communities”. The need to develop such a policy has been mounting and will continue to escalate in the future. There are many reasons behind this reality, the most important of which are as follows:

· New funding rules for school boards. This has resulted in an increase in school closures in the inner city and a delay in construction of new schools in the city suburbs. This, in turn, has led to an increase in the size of the initially envisioned school boundaries resulting in a greater number of students crossing heavily traveled roads.

· Reduction in funding levels available for school busing. This has resulted in an increase in the minimum distance required for students to be eligible for school busing. More recently, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has considered abandoning the provision of busing to all children in Grades 6 and 7 in a bid to address the board’s budget shortfalls. Furthermore, funding provisions for busing children in Kindergarten to Grade 5 may be in jeopardy and may very well be subject to further cuts next time around.

· Accelerating growth in the City of Ottawa’s population base implies a greater vehicular demand, as well as a greater student population and pedestrian crossing demand.

· The limited base of existing programs and commitments aimed at improving safety of children not only within the vicinity of the school zone, but also in getting to and from school.

· A growing recognition that while children as young as nine years of age may be able to learn the skills necessary to cross the street, it is unlikely, because of their cognitive, perceptual and behavioral limitations, that they can be relied upon to use those skills, especially when they are engrossed in play. Interacting with traffic is complex, and the necessary abilities are not fully developed in children until age 11 to 12 years.

· A growing recognition by decision makers and practitioners that improvements in both “real” and “perceived” safety have a role to play in increasing pedestrian activity.

· A growing interest in exploring all avenues to support the “Smart Growth” objectives and strategies related to travel demand management, modal split, and improved school-related traffic operations. This is especially relevant given the shear market size of school trips, which are typically in the range of 20 to 25% of person trips during the morning and afternoon peak period. This market is also receptive to non-motorized transportation modes as 45% of Canadian students are reported to be living within 2 km of their school. The receptiveness of the market is further reflected in the high participation rates in the International Walk to School Day. It should be noted in this regard that the W.O. Mitchell Elementary School in Kanata reported that as much as 88% of students walked or cycled to/from school on the International Walk to School Day, an increase of 33% from a typical day.

· An improved understanding of the relationship between vehicle use and health impacts. School-related traffic often leads to high concentrations of harmful pollutants around schools during arrival and dismissal hours. A reduction in vehicular traffic as more children walk or cycle to school means a reduction in vehicle emissions, which in turn has the potential to decrease the extent and intensity of respiratory diseases such as asthma. As more children choose active transportation modes, the number of children with diabetes and other health problems is reduced. Both asthma and diabetes are reported to be on the rise.

Key Policy Elements

The policy to be adopted by the City of Ottawa must incorporate the following elements:

· A systematic approach to the application of improvement measures.

· An appreciation of the difference between perceived and actual safety, and the need to improve both.

· A recognition of the intricate relationship between engineering, education and enforcement in improving overall safety.

· A recognition of the fact that it takes many actions by many parties and individuals to achieve significant and sustained safety improvements within school zones and in getting to and from school. There is no single major action that can be carried out by one party that would achieve the desired results.

3-E Concept

Pedestrian safety issues can be addressed in a number of different ways, from modifying the physical road environment to educating students and enforcing speed limits. Indeed, many safety programs are built around the 3-E concept, a holistic approach to solving transportation problems that includes Engineering, Education, and Enforcement elements.

a) In terms of the potential implementation issues associated with education programs aimed at children, the following can be noted:

· Education can play an important role in improving child safety when implemented in conjunction with other measures as part of a comprehensive plan. In designing an education program, it is important to involve parents in safety programs targeted at children so that parents are equipped to make informed decisions about their child’s abilities in traffic, and take an active role in reinforcing correct pedestrian behaviour taught during the safety program.

· There are many agencies that have responsibilities and interest in reaching out for children and providing on-going support in the area of child safety education. These include police agencies, health departments, school teachers, and non-profit organizations.

· There are many ways to incorporate pedestrian safety into classroom activities and encourage children to walk or cycle to school while still meeting provincial curriculum guidelines and providing a fun learning environment.

b) In terms of the potential implementation issues associated with education and enforcement programs aimed at drivers, the following can be noted:

· Compliance with traffic laws depends on both the motorist’s awareness of the law, as well as the motorist’s perception that the law will be enforced. Enforcement is likely to be more effective when undertaken on a frequent basis and combined with publicity. However, it should be noted that even when education and enforcement programs are implemented concurrently, there are many challenges and limitations, which include the following:

- Enforcement efforts require dedicated police resources that are costly and scarce;

- Enforcement efforts tend to suffer from temporal and spatial limitations; and,

- Enforcement efforts need to be supported by courts that uphold fines.

· Driver education and enforcement are complementary activities that should be undertaken simultaneously. Law enforcement should not be undertaken in isolation, but rather as part of a comprehensive program to address child pedestrian safety.

c) In terms of the range and potential of engineering measures, the following can be noted:

· The range of engineering measures available to resolve pedestrian safety issues is extensive, and includes traffic control devices, traffic regulation measures, traffic diversion measures, traffic reduction measures, traffic calming measures, and measures aimed at improving the travel environment.

· Many of these measures have been proven to be effective. Of these measures, traffic calming in particular deserves special attention. Unlike traffic regulations and control devices that may require police enforcement to ensure vehicle compliance, traffic calming involves a series of physical measures that can be essentially self-enforcing. Such measures have the potential to reduce vehicle speeds, increase pedestrian visibility, and reduce the crossing distance at intersections and mid-block locations. As vehicle speeds are reduced, drivers have more time to react to unforeseen situations, such as a child darting out in front of on-coming traffic. Lower vehicle speeds also reduce the severity of pedestrian crashes.

Adult Crossing Guard Program As a Safety Enhancer

An adult crossing guard program, when deployed under appropriate conditions, is perhaps one of the best measures for improving child pedestrian safety and can be regarded as the cornerstone around which other programs can be built. The reason for this stems from the many advantages that an adult crossing guard program offers, which include the following:

· Ease of implementation.

· Relatively low cost of implementation.

· Relatively short time required between decision to deploy and actual deployment.

· Inherent flexibility and ability to adapt to changes in school boundaries or student enrollment.

· High visibility to the community and general perception by the public to be effective in improving safety, thus encouraging parents to allow children to walk or cycle to school.

· Ability to instill proper crossing behaviour in children, which serves to improve children’s skills and increase their reliance on themselves earlier than would otherwise be the case.

· Visible sign of enforcement with the authority to stop vehicles at the crossing, where supported by the Highway Traffic Act, and the responsibility of reporting violations.

· Complement other safety programs such as the Safe Route to School Program and Walking School Bus Program, among others.

· Has the potential to improve traffic flow at unsignalized intersections depending on the prevailing conditions at the intersection.

Application of Adult Crossing Guards

From a legal and funding perspective, the following should be noted about the deployment of adult crossing guards:

· The City of Ottawa’s adult crossing guard deployment rate is significantly lower than that of other municipalities in Ontario. Based on the deployment rates of comparably sized cities, the City of Ottawa can be expected to have 270 crossing guards, which represents a 16-fold increase in the current program size. This level of deployment translates to a $2.4 million annual budget requirement, once the program has matured. The number of adult crossing guards required and the associated cost estimate may present an upper limit for the program. The actual number of crossing guards deployed and the corresponding cost may vary significantly from the suggested figures based on the administrative arrangements adopted, economies of scale, and complementary programs in place.

· The Highway Traffic Act suggests that the local municipality is the only party that can be independently responsible for an Adult Crossing Guard Program. This leaves the City of Ottawa with the choice to decide on the need for such a program. However, once the decision is made to develop and implement such a program, the responsibility rests fully with the City of Ottawa.

The decision to deploy adult crossing guards at selected locations is a serious one that requires much attention and care for the following reasons:

· Need to promote consistency of application in an effort to protect the integrity of the decision making process and the effectiveness of the adult crossing guards deployed.

· Need for an objective, systematic and transparent evaluation process to ensure that areas of greatest need are addressed, and decisions made are widely accepted and perceived to be equitable.

· Need for solid ground upon which funding for the adult crossing program can be established and justified.

Although warrants and guidelines are available for the deployment of adult crossing guards, they are not comprehensive and widely adopted. The most recognized and known guidelines are the ones developed by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and the Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC). While technically sound and based on well-researched principles and assumptions, the weakness or difficulty with the MTO/OTC guidelines lies in their limited sensitivity to implementation considerations and issues. Furthermore, the guidelines provide little to no support for dealing with stop-controlled and signalized intersections. These weaknesses are reflected in the guidelines’ failure to gain the widespread adoption that would have otherwise been expected.

Proposed Warrant System

This document provides a proposed warrant system to serve as a tool for making decisions on the deployment of adult crossing guards. In developing the structure of the proposed warrant system, consideration was given to the key objectives and benefits of an adult crossing guard program; key factors that contribute to the need for assisted crossing; the need to address the issue of “absolute” and “relative” safety; as well as public and political requirements at the “program” and “site” levels.

The proposed warrant system deals with mid-block crossings, crossings at uncontrolled intersections, multi-way stop controlled intersections and signalized intersections. The warrant system incorporates a screening mechanism, a gauge to assess “absolute” safety, a prioritization process to assess “relative” safety, and a feedback loop.

· The screening mechanism ensures that sites that do not satisfy certain requirements are not given further consideration. The proposed screening criteria address sight distance at the crossing, relevance to adopted school routes, intensity of use by children, and availability of alternatives.

· The safety gauge helps make a distinction between “absolute” and “relative” safety. Such a distinction, while subtle, is necessary. From a program management perspective, it improves response time and decision making by the City. It also provides a solid basis for establishing the lower budget envelope for the Adult Crossing Guard Program. The structure of the safety gauge varies in form depending on whether traffic is subject to some type of traffic control device.

· A prioritization process provides a basis for assessing and addressing “relative” safety. Two prioritization approaches were considered as preferred candidates for incorporation into the warrant system. A “cumulative index approach” is recommended for prioritizing candidate locations initially, given the public’s likely sensitivity to geographic equity and given the growth stage at which the program is in at this time. In a few years, as the program matures and the importance of geographic equity diminishes, consideration could be given to opting for the “scoring approach” to prioritize candidate locations.

· A feedback loop ensures that locations supported by adult crossing guards continue to be warranted. This involves a cursory check to verify whether a material change affecting the crossings has occurred. Unless there is a “material change”, no detailed re-assessment needs to be conducted for locations selected through the “safety gauge”. However, locations selected through the “prioritization process” are subject to a detailed re-assessment every third year independent of whether a material change has occurred.

The proposed warrant system will help set the foundation necessary to better manage public requests and expectations, improve transparency, and facilitate the prioritization of areas of need.

From an implementation perspective, there are many considerations that need to be addressed in applying the proposed warrant system. Some of the key considerations requiring much attention at the early stage of program development include the possible formulation of an initial list of candidate sites for evaluation, adoption of a hierarchy for the allocation of funding resources, and provision of opportunities for community partnerships.

As the program matures, there will be a need to refine the proposed warrant system based on the experience gained with its application. This is an important step in having a robust warrant system that is tailor made to the prevailing conditions and programs that are specific to the City of Ottawa.

Similarly, as the program matures, there will be a growing interest to assess the overall performance or effectiveness of the program in improving the safety of children within school zones and in getting to/from school. It should be noted in this regard that the use of collision records may not be the perfect means of doing so, unless such records are supplemented by other data on pedestrian activity. This is necessary since the extent to which we may see an increase in collision records over time depends on the extent to which exposure drops in relation to the drop in safety. In fact, it can be argued that the collection of data on pedestrian activity should be given a higher priority than the collection of data on collision records. The rationale here is that a truly successful program that tackles “actual” safety and incorporates measures aimed at enhancing education and awareness, will inevitably lead to improvement in “perceived” safety. This will in turn lead to increased pedestrian activity. So, in essence, a change in pedestrian activity can serve as a surrogate measure of the change in safety.

Setting the Wheels in Motion

While it has been stated above that there is no single major action that can be carried by one party that would achieve the desired safety improvements, it is strongly recommended that the City of Ottawa assume a leadership role and take the following steps to set the wheels in motion:

· Adopt a policy for the successful implementation of an Adult School Crossing Guard Program and School Zone Traffic Safety Program.

· Adopt the proposed warrant system for the deployment of adult crossing guards, and recognize the need to have the warrant system refined over time as experience with its application grows.

· Set up a permanent city-wide safety advisory committee with appropriate representation from key parties involved in school safety. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined.

· Encourage the Provincial Ministry of Education to require schools to have a more active involvement in the areas of safety education and promotion, to prompt the adoption of relevant policies by the various school boards.

· Develop and maintain a city-wide “Safe Route to School Map”. While there are many resources outlining how to develop such maps and what some of the key considerations are, the process and its application is quite involved and requires engineering judgement. The effort required and the skills necessary should not be underestimated.

· Develop an inventory of crossing locations that are presently signed and marked, but are no longer supported by any form of assisted crossing. Such crossings should either have signage removed, or be checked against the proposed warrants for eligibility for adult crossing guards or a student school crossing patrol.

· The proposed warrants should be applied against the 17 existing crossings supported by adult crossing guards to assess the need for refining the warrants or granting special consideration for such crossings.

· Develop a seed list of potential crossing locations worthy of evaluation for the potential deployment of adult crossing guards.

· Develop a multi-agency reader-friendly resource document. The document would serve as a “living document”. It may be up-loaded on the City’s web site and/or may take the form of a three-ringed binder. Independent of the selected presentation form, the end product should allow for periodic updating or replacement of content, in recognition of the fact that policies, procedures and standards will gradually evolve over time and be augmented in accordance with performance evaluation results and changes in local values and sentiments. Such an end product should use plain language and illustrations to ensure the clarity of written passages, and include a glossary to explain technical terms.

· Undertake a review of the policy and the warrant system within two to three years. Such review should include public communication and consultation component.

In moving forward, it is important to bear in mind that that the ancillary benefits of implementing programs aimed at encouraging and supporting elementary children as pedestrians and cyclists are numerous, as highlighted above. These benefits could be even greater and more far-reaching in nature, if one was to entertain the possibility of an expanded beneficiary market and future changes in people’s attitudes and behaviour. The first may come about as a result of making our streets safer for everyone, not just elementary children. The second may come about as a result of today’s active children becoming tomorrow’s active adults. It is clear, therefore, that the implementation of programs that support elementary children as pedestrians and cyclists has a large “Halo” effect.

The opportunity now exists for the present Adult Crossing Guard Program to move from being an isolated secondary measure to playing an integral part in the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive School Zone Traffic Safety Program. The new awareness, the wider objectives, the results of research, and the potential for increased funding all promise to move traffic safety within school zones to the forefront.

PREFACE

This Final Report is submitted respectfully in fulfillment of the requirements of our assignment, which involve the preparation of a guiding document to support the City of Ottawa in its effort to develop a comprehensive policy for an Adult Crossing Guard Program and a School Zone Traffic Safety Program.

It is hoped that this document will “make a difference” and improve safety of the most vulnerable members of our society.

The successful completion of this report within the initially envisioned tight schedule is a tribute to our modern communications systems and the sharing of knowledge. More importantly, it is a tribute to the dedication and commitment of the diverse group of knowledgeable individuals who comprise the Project Steering Committee.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Morrison Hershfield would like to extent its appreciation to members of the Project Steering Committee and their respective organizations for their significant contributions and assistance throughout the study. The Project Steering Committee members were:

CHAIR: Greg Kent, Safety and Traffic Services Division, City of Ottawa

MEMBERS: Denise André, Ottawa-Carleton Separate School Board

Alain Contant, Health Promotion Officer, City of Ottawa

Jennifer Farr-Jones, Ottawa Safety Council & Manager of the OSC Children’s Safety Village

Ryan Lanyon, Transportation Demand Management, City of Ottawa

Sgt Daniel Longpré, Youth and School Resource Officer (SRO) Program Coordinator, Ottawa Police Services

Doug Mayhew, Manager of Public Relations, Canadian Automobile Association

Gabriel Miller, Councillor Stavinga’s representative

Jim Miskelly, Safety and Traffic Services, City of Ottawa

Michelle Morra, Councillor Hume’s representative

Chris Parent, Ottawa Police Services

Cst. Kyle Steele, Traffic Enforcement - East Division, Ottawa Police Services

Rob Stocki, Ottawa Police Services

Stephen Taylor, French Public and Catholic School Boards

Neil Thomson, Kanata Traffic Safety Committee & Councillor Munter’s Representative

Ken Winges, Councillor Cullen’s Representative

Dan Wiseman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

DISCLAIMER

The purpose of this report is to provide information and guidance for the City of Ottawa. Such guidance should prove helpful in formulating key judgments, but should not be used as a substitute for engineering judgment. The guidance provided in this report should be used with judicious care and proper consideration of the prevailing circumstances.

The material presented in this report was carefully researched and presented. However, no warranty expressed or implied is made on the accuracy of the contents or their extraction from references to publications. Third party users of this document are responsible for omissions, errors, possible misrepresentations that may result from use, or interpretation of the material herein contained.

This Report is not intended for use as a basis for establishing civil liability.

The recommendations arising from this report do not reflect the opinions and/or position of the City of Ottawa or its staff. As such, the funding and participation of the City of Ottawa in this project should not be construed as an endorsement.

Morrison Hershfield Limited

Bassam Hamwi, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Project Manager

ANNEX D

TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT POSITION ON CONSULTANT’S DIRECTION FOR FUTURE ACTION

The Morrison Hershfield report was the result of work undertaken at the request of the City and directed by an advisory committee made up of members representing the various aspects of or interests in an Adult School Crossing Guard program. The report was prepared to exclude specific recommendations and in its place provided general direction to initiate a well-coordinated and substantial ASCG Program. This direction has been provided in Chapter 7 of the report, entitled Setting the Wheels in Motion. A summary of this chapter has been included in the Executive Summary and has been reproduce in the following table along with the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department position on the proposed direction.

Consultant’s Direction	City Position (staff level)
Adopt a policy for the successful implementation of an Adult School Crossing Guard and School Zone Traffic Safety programs.	Concur. Recognizing that the development of a final policy takes more time than staff has been able to commit to, a program outline has been presented (refer to Annex F) to direct both programs. A final policy position is to be presented after a two year assessment/adjustment period.
Adopt the proposed warrant system for the deployment of adult crossing guards, and recognize the need to have the warrant system refined over time as experience with its application grows.	Concur. The consultant’s proposed warrant is recommended for approval subject to some minor modifications to the warrant (refer to Annex E). A period of two years has been recommended by staff to monitor and refine the warrant.
Set up a permanent citywide safety committee with appropriate representation from key parties involved in school safety.	Concur in principle. Prior to the recommendation of such a new committee, the value of existing committees to address road safety issues should be investigated. Such committees would include Mobility Services Committee, Cycling Advisory Committee and the School Board Liaison Committee.
Encourage the Provincial Ministry of Education to require schools to have a more active involvement in the areas of safety education and promotion, to prompt the adoption of relevant policies by the various school boards.	Concur in principle. Need for staff to work with appropriate agencies to develop traffic safety curriculum material for the ministry’s approval and promote its use within the school boards (refer to Annex G, Support Roles and Responsibilities).

Develop and maintain a citywide “Safe Route to School Map”. While there are many resources outlining how to develop such maps and what some of the key considerations are, the process and its application is quite involved and requires engineering judgment. The effort required and the skills necessary should not be underestimated. .	Concur in principle. While it is implied that this task be undertaken by highly trained staff, limited resources support a community base development for individual schools where assistance would be provided by City staff. The TDM Section within TUPW is currently initiating a pilot project in this area with EnviroCentre (a not for profit organization). Both groups would be appropriate as a support resource. (refer to Annex G, Support Roles and Responsibilities).
Develop an inventory of crossing locations that are presently signed and marked, but are no longer supported by any form of assisted crossing. Such crossings should either have signage removed, or be checked against the proposed warrants for eligibility for adult crossing guards or a student school crossing patrol.	Concur. Use of school crossing should be in line with direction provided by MTO’s Ontario Traffic Manual. Current guidelines state that the implementation and use of school crossing is conditional on having either an adult crossing guard or a school crossing patrol program in place at the crossing. An inventory of existing conditions should be undertaken and followed up with corrective action.
The proposed warrants should be applied against the 17 existing crossings supported by adult crossing guards to assess the need for refining the warrants or granting special consideration for such crossings.	Concur in principle. Existing crossing locations will be subjected to only the screening component of the warrant, as it is difficult to apply the full warrant when a crossing guard is in place. Those existing locations that meet the basic screening criteria will remain in place and their need monitored on a regular basis. The warrant will be refined through the assessment of new locations and experience gained from the existing locations.
Develop a seed list of potential crossing locations worthy of evaluation for the potential deployment of adult crossing guards.	Concur in principle. Although it may be desirable to be proactive and develop a list of candidate sites, limited staff resources will not permit such an aggressive approach. It is felt however that public demand for adult crossing guards will be sufficient enough to develop an adequate candidate list.
Develop a multi-agency reader-friendly resource document. The document would serve as a “living document”. It may be up-loaded on the City’s web site and/or may take the form of a three-ringed binder. Independent of the selected presentation form, the end product should allow for periodic updating or replacement of content, in recognition of the fact that policies, procedures and standards will gradually evolve over time and be augmented in accordance with performance evaluation results and changes in local values and sentiments. Such an end product should use plain language and illustrations to ensure the clarity of written passages, and include a glossary to explain technical terms.	Concur. It is proposed that a resource document and information pamphlet be developed over the next two years.

Undertake a review of the policy and the warrant system within two to three years. Such review should include public communication and consultation component.

Adult School Crossing programs throughout the province vary in size and structure. Many, in particularly the larger city programs are substantial operations that have be developed over a number of year and in many cases are still evolving. It is proposed the development of the Ottawa program reflect on the pace set by other municipalities. In doing so it is recommended that Committee and Council adopt a warrant and associated policy guidelines based on experience gained from other municipalities and the research work undertaken to date as a starting point. A two-year review will allow staff to fine tune the program to fit the desires, expectations, demands, and the conditions of the Ottawa area. As part of this review a more substantial public consultation program will be undertaken.

ANNEX E

ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD WARRANT

The Adult School Crossing Guard warrant has been established primarily to provide guard assistance to elementary school children (age 5–11) when crossing roads on their way to and from school. Where there are insufficient gaps in traffic to facilitate their crossing at mid-block and uncontrolled intersections, or their safety is determined to be at risk when crossing at a multi-way stop controlled intersection or signalized intersection, use of an adult school crossing guard should be considered. As the cognitive ability of students in grades 7 and 8 is adequate to sufficiently comprehend and negotiate traffic flow, those schools that only house grades 7 and 8 students (i.e. senior elementary schools) are excluded from this evaluation.

The warrant has been constructed such that there are four main components to the overall warrant; specifically, a screening element and a warrant or site selection component that follows one of three paths to secure an adult crossing guard (refer to the Adult School Crossing Guard Warrant Structure flow diagram). The three paths address: i) mid-block and uncontrolled intersection crossings, ii) multi-way stop controlled and signalized intersections and iii) budget permitting, a selection process for sites ranking high on a number of relative crossing impact criteria but do not meet the warrant for paths i) and ii).

1. Screening Process

The screening element has been included to ensure basic criteria are met prior to undertaking an extensive data collection and assessment process. Four criteria make up the screening process, those being;

• Assessment of appropriate sight distance,
• Assessment or development of a safe routes to school plan,
• Assessment of critical student crossing volumes, and
• Assessment of available alternatives.

Safe sight distances are required prior to an evaluation of a crossing guard location. Sight distances identify whether or not a clear zones exists to allow drivers to see and react to a crossing guard stop sign or student crossing the road. This distance takes into account vehicle speed, driver perception and reaction time, pavement friction and grade of the road. Calculation of this distance should comply with the method provided in the MTO/OTC School Crossing Review Report, 1992. If sight distances are inadequate, a crossing will not be implemented.

A safe routes to school plan for the associated school or schools should be developed as part of the School Zone Traffic Safety review (refer to Annex G). Once developed, or if one already exists, the requested crossing site should be reviewed to determine if it falls on a route as identified by the plan. If it does not, students crossing at this point should be redirected to a safe route crossing and no further warrant analysis is required.

The critical student crossing mass established for this warrant has been set at ten (10) students. Students included in this volume would be those in Grade 8 and below, crossing within a period 30 minutes prior to school startup or 30 minutes after school dismissal. Students accompanied with parents or guardians, or on a bicycle are to be included in the volume. If the volume is less than ten, alternative routes should be utilized.

Regardless of the student crossing numbers, if reasonable alternatives are available to address the requested crossing site issue(s), then the alternatives would supercede the need for an adult crossing guard. Such alternatives should be identified by a School Zone Traffic Safety review (refer to Annex G). If no alternatives are available, the site assessment should move to the warrant/site selection stage.

2. Mid-Block and Uncontrolled Intersection Warrant Process

The assessment process for this warrant is based directly on the process identified by the MTO/OTC School Crossing Review Report, 1992. For specific details on the warrant, this report should be referred to (on file with City Clerk). The warrant reflects on the availability of acceptable gaps in the vehicle traffic flow to allow students to make a safe crossing. Elements considered in this assessment include the number of traffic gaps, the required crossing time, the students visibility distance at the crossing, the speed of vehicle traffic, and the road’s lane configuration. The assessment is undertaken in five-minute intervals within the 30 minutes prior to school start-up and 30 minutes after school dismissal. Only one of the five-minute intervals needs to meet the warrant criteria for a support service to be implemented. In summary, the warranting of adult crossing guards, student crossing patrols or limited authority adult crossing guards can be defined by the following table (extracted from Morrison Hershfield’s, Adult School Crossing Guard Program and a School Zone Traffic Safety Program Policy Development Project, Final Report, April 2002).

Adult Crossing Guard Requirements

Number	Roadway	Gaps / 5-minute Interval
of Lanes	Speed^1	3 or less	4	5 or more
2	£ 50 km/hr	Adult Guard Required	Safety Patroller	No Assistance Required
	50 to 60 km/hr	Adult Guard Required	Adult Guard Optional^3
	³ 60 km/hr	Adult Guard (Limited Authority^2)
³ 4	£ 50 km/hr	Adult Guard Required	Adult Guard Optional^3
	50 to 60 km/hr	Adult Guard Required
	³ 60 km/hr	Adult Guard (Limited Authority^2)

¹ Greater of speed limit or 85^th percentile speed when students are present

² Typical authority of Adult Crossing Guards includes selecting appropriate gaps and stopping traffic. When Adult Crossing Guards are not granted the authority to stop traffic, they are considered to be operating with limited authority.

³ Assisted crossing, in the form of school patroller or adult guard, would be required if the child visibility distance as measured in the field is less than the required child visibility distance (refer to the MTO/OTC School Crossing Review, 1992).

3. Controlled Intersection Warrant Process

Both multi-way stop controlled and signalized intersection crossings are dealt within this component. Their respective criteria are as follows.

For multi-way stops, if the stopping compliance rate is less than 80% for rolling stops (> 0 to <5km/h) or 95% for non-rolling stops and the traffic volume processed by the intersection is greater to or equal to muti-way stop control warrant volumes (prorated to a 30 minute period) then an adult school crossing guard is to be considered. For those assessed locations not meeting the warrant, school crossing patrols should be considered. Compliance data should be collected in five-minute intervals and when children are present. Data is to be collected within 30 minutes prior to school start-up and after school dismissal.

Multi-way stop warrant volumes (30 minute interval):

• All approaches 100 vehicles, and
• A minor street volume of 40 (vehicles plus pedestrians).

For signalized intersections, signal timing and phasing should be reviewed first and modified if possible to accommodate pedestrian and turning vehicle movements such that no delay exists during the time period when elementary school children are crossing at a safe routes to school crossing. If this cannot be accommodated, an assessment of pedestrian vehicle conflicts and need for pedestrians to yield their right-of-way to vehicle traffic is required. If there are 2 or more conflicts identified or more than 10% of the pedestrian traffic has to yield the right-of-way to turning traffic while crossing during a pedestrian walking phase, an adult crossing guard is to be considered. A conflict is defined by a situation where either the driver or pedestrian has to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

Prior to the warranting of an adult guard for either of these intersection types, a police enforcement campaign should be applied at the intersection in an attempt to modify driver behaviour. If this fails, then a guard should be implemented.

Data for these intersections should be collected for only the crossing in question and within the time period 30 minutes prior to school start-up and 30 minutes after school dismissal.

For both multi-way stop controlled and signalized intersections, guards are also deemed to be warranted if three or more pedestrian collisions that have occurred at the intersection over a three-year period, during time periods in which elementary school children would be going to or returning from school.

4. Site Selection Outside the True Safety and Higher Risk Warrants (components 2 and 3)

For assessed sites that have not met the warrants as defined for either non-controlled locations or controlled locations, and provided that there are funds available after the warranted locations are addressed, a third selection component has been established. This component addresses areas of concern through the evaluation of a host of relevant conditions that impact in some form and degree on crossing children. These conditions as defined in the table below and are assessed with a “Cumulative Index Approach”, that is, a cumulative score based on the characteristics of the location. Results of this approach produce a ranking where those locations with the highest score are deemed to have the greatest impact on children crossing.

The scoring table to undertake this site selection component has been extracted from Morrison Hershfield’s, Adult School Crossing Guard Program and a School Zone Traffic Safety Program Policy Development Project, Final Report, April 2002. The table has been modified slightly from its original format in the areas of items 3, 4 and the addition of item 11. Maximum score for a location is 110 points.

Priority Ranking Table

Criteria		Applicability				Condition
#	Description	Mid-block	Uncontrolled Intersection	Multi-way Stop Controlled Intersection	Signalized Intersection	Urban	Rural	Points Assigned
1	Traffic control device - Traffic signals with a pedestrian activated push buttons - Traffic signals without a pedestrian activated push button - Multi-way stop controlled intersection - Uncontrolled intersection or mid-block crossing	X	X	X	X X			2 4 6 10
2	Vehicle gap availability per 5 minute interval	X	X			4.0 – 5.0 5.0 – 7.5 7.5 – 10.0 > 10.0	4.0 – 5.0 5.0 – 7.5 7.5 – 10.0 > 10.0	25 15 10 0
3	No. of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts				X	1 ³2	1 ³2	10 25
4	Vehicular compliance rate			X		80% – 87% 88% – 95% > 95%	80% – 87% 88% – 95% > 95%	25 10 0
5	Collision history within the last 5 years, involving school children (Kindergarten to Grade 8) on their trip to/from school	X	X	X	X	1 2	1 2	5 15
6	Vehicular speed (greater of posted speed limit or 85^th percentile speed)	X	X	X	X	50 – 60 km/hr ³ 60 km/hr	< 50 km/hr ³ 50 km/hr	5 10
7	Number of traffic lanes in both directions	X	X	X	X	2 4 6	2 4 6	0 5 10
8	Driver familiarity (i.e. extent of foreign traffic)	X	X	X	X	High Low	High Low	0 5
9	Number of elementary school children crossing	X	X	X	X	10 – 30 30 – 100 100 – 150 150 – 200 > 200	10 – 20 20 – 75 75 – 110 110 – 150 > 150	3 6 9 12 15
10	Availability of supporting activities/programs at the beneficiary school	X	X	X	X	Yes No	Yes No	10 0
11	Percentage of heavy vehicles	X	X	X	X	5% heavy vehicles or high frequency transit route	5% heavy vehicles or high frequency transit route	10

Subject to available funds, those sites that rate and rank the highest should receive preferential treatment for adult guard implementation.

Site Re-evaluation

As conditions surrounding a warranted site may change over time, all crossing guard locations should be reassessed on a tri-annual basis to ensure their need. For sites that have experienced a significant operational change, such as school boundary modification or road reconfiguration, the re-evaluation should not wait for the tri-annual review.

ANNEX F

SCHOOL ZONE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING

GUARD PROGRAM OUTLINE

School Zone Traffic Safety Program

Implementing an Adult School Crossing Guard Program in isolation from the larger school zone traffic safety picture would be far less effective than if it were an integral part of a larger more comprehensive traffic safety program for schools. In developing the adult school crossing guard program it is clear that a broader program is required to address the many issues surrounding child safety associated with trips to and from school. It is not only traffic operations issues that need to be addressed but also issues related to children’s education, knowledge and understanding of traffic and the rules of the road, issues related to parental mode choice when facilitating children’s school trips, and issues related to the students’ health and well being.

In addressing concerns associated with elementary school aged children’s travel to and from school, the following practice should be adhered to:

Upon receiving a complaint/concern and related details, staff will:

• Confirm that the associated school and school council is aware of the issue and determine their position regarding the concern;
• Undertake a cursory review of the specific issue as well as the general traffic operations including pedestrian and cycling travel for the entire school zone
• Acknowledge the reported concern and identify any other issues that may exist and if possible the source of the problem.
• Prepare and undertake a data collection effort to confirm issues if necessary and prepare an inventory plan of the existing conditions (field condition information and operational data is to be collected within the period 30 minutes prior to school start-up and 30 minutes after school dismissal)
• Meet with the party that expressed the concern and the school or school council to prepare or initiate the preparation of a safe route to school plan, if one doesn’t exist.
• Attempt to address the issues through the review of conditions, the routing of children utilizing the safety routes to school plan and the use of the zone’s existing traffic control devices
• If this attempt is not successful, consideration has to be given to measures from three sources, where the solution can result from any one or a combination of these sources.

Measures will be drawn from the 3E’s of traffic safety, those being the areas of education, enforcement, and engineering. Specific measures available from each are as follows:

Education - Programs should address students, parents, and drivers.

· Children education should include pedestrian travel and rules of the road training (Ottawa Safety Council’s, Safety Village pedestrian program and in class Learnstar program [new]), cycling training (Citizens for Safe Cycling, Can-Bike program), Healthy Living education (public health nurse)

· Parent education should include the noted children’s education as well as notification on school trip issues, safe routes to school plans, walking school bus programs, mode choice options, etc.

· Driver education should focus on the rules of the road and awareness of student pedestrians prior to and after school. This will be best delivered as public education announcements/campaigns and direct distribution of information from the schools to parents. Driver education campaigns should be undertaken in concert with police and by-law enforcement.

Enforcement

· Programs will focus on driver behaviour whether issues are related to Highway Traffic Act offences or local by-law infractions.

· Police enforcement will address speeding, stop compliance, failing to stop for a school bus, aggressive driving etc., within the school zone.

· By-law officers will address the issues of illegal parking and stopping, specifically where there is an impact on sight lines associated with student crossings.

Engineering

Physical Measures –

· Regulatory measures as provided by the Ontario Traffic Manual and the City’s Traffic and Parking By-Law (speed controls, stop controls, yield controls, traffic signals [pedestrian control and traffic control], roadside parking and stopping controls, etc.)

· Guard programs, either the Adult School Crossing Guard Program or the Student Crossing Patrol Program.

· Pavement markings and signage (piano bar markings, use of the florescent yellow-green sign colour for school related signs, etc.).

· Signal timing and phasing controls, including “Walk” indication response times

· Other traffic management tools as outlined in the former Region and Municipality practice and procedures manuals.

· Sidewalks and pathways.

Soft-side Programs -

· These are programs that are delivered and administered by the City or Schools with the assistance from the City or contracted out.

· Traffic demand programs at the school level would entail the implementation of active safe routes to school programs with components such as the Walking School Bus, Walk Safe Days, Big Buddies Program, Walking Buddies Program, Walking Pool Program, International Walk to School Day, etc.

· Once the appropriate measures have been identified, an implementation plan is to be drawn up and a meeting to inform all concerned will be held to explain and initiate the course of action.

Results of this program should ensure safe and desirable conditions for those children who walk or cycle to school.

Adult School Crossing Guard Program

In 1992, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario and the Ontario Traffic Conference (MTO/OTC) prepared a joint report entitled School Crossings Review. The report was commissioned to look at standardizing the use and implementation of school crossings and adult guards through the development of guidelines and warrants. Specifically, the report looked at crossing warrants, operation, signage, pavement markings, crossing guard equipment, human resource requirements, legislation, and public education. This is the most comprehensive guide in providing standard conditions for school crossing and adult school crossing guards in the province and hence provides the basis of the City’s Adult School Crossing Guard (ASCG) program.

The program has been developed to address the travel needs of children attending elementary schools only and for the travel time periods preceding school start-up and following school dismissal. As the program focuses on children between ages of 5 and 11, intermediate/middle school crossing requests are to be addressed only after all elementary school (JK to grade 6, or JK to grade 8) crossings are addressed.

The following sub-sections provide the detailed outline of the ASCG program. Where applicable the sub-sections refer directly to the MTO/OTC report (copy with City Clerk) to identify program specifics. Within the next two years, this outline will be refined and documented to produce a final policy document.

Adult Crossing Guard Warrants

Annex E of this report provides the ASCG warrant specifics. In addition to warrants generated in the MTO/OTC report for uncontrolled and mid-block locations, and briefly discussed for signalized intersections, the warrant as identified in Annex E provides a specific warrant for multi-way stop and signalized intersections.

In finalizing the warranting of a guard, two implementation conditions are to be met:

· The school associated with the crossing will agree to provide limited administration and communication duties associated with the guard. This will include the dissemination of City information related to the guard and guard program to the students and their parents, the attendance reporting of the guard, and the custodian of the crossing guard equipment (refer to school involvement element for further details); and

· Supporting public infrastructure (sidewalks and pathways) must be in place to facilitate the movement of students to and from the crossing.

Enforcement

To be effective and ensure compliance and safe crossing conditions, traffic and curb use enforcement support are required. Without these two elements, confidence in the programs usefulness as perceived by the students and parents, as well as the guards, can easily dwindle to a point where the crossing guard is ineffective.

A standard reporting form will be provided to the guards to provide information on those who are in violation of the rules of the road as they relate to the school crossing. Information should be recorded as soon as possible by the guard and forwarded to the guard administrator who will in turn forward it to the appropriate enforcement agency for corrective action.

Training

In working with the Ontario Highway Traffic Act legislation, a training and crossing guard equipment package for the guards is to be developed. Section 7.6 of the MTO/OTC report, Annex I provides the basic training requirements that are to be used at this time. More specific training guidelines will be developed and documented over the next two years

School Board and School Involvement

For the program to be successful, it is recognized from current experience that both the school boards and crossing guard-associated schools need to be actively involved; the school boards with overall acceptance and support for the program; the schools and school councils on a daily basis with the recording of the guard’s attendance and storage of the crossing guard equipment, as well as providing a communication link to the students and parents. Active involvement by the associated school is required as part of the warrant process.

Education and Awareness

The current Crossing Guard Program is quite small and the knowledge and understanding of crossing guards and their role is not commonly known by the majority of Ottawa drivers and pedestrians. As such, there is a requirement to educate and promote awareness of the guards and their function to both vehicle drivers and those students who will be making use of the crossings.

This education and awareness is broken down into two parts. Firstly, to specifically address those (all travelers, all modes) affected by a new crossing with information on location, student crossing times and operation of the crossing; and secondly, to provide a general overall campaign to remind drivers and pedestrians of the need and operation. The second would be coordinated with other return to school traffic safety messages produced in the fall months. This would include partnering up with the Province in their delivery of provincial education and awareness campaigns.

Guard Administration

The provision and administration of crossing guards for this program will be provided under an outside contract. The company retained by the City to perform this service will be selected through the tender process. The contract will be responsible for the recruitment, staffing, training, supervision, and payment of the guards.

To be awarded the contract, the service provider will be required to hold a 5 million dollar general liability insurance policy. The provider will also have to provide a performance bond should they default on their contractual obligations and alternative measures have to be utilized.

Guard Qualifications

In recruiting crossing guards, it will be necessary to secure persons that are physically and mentally able to undertake the tasks required of them. As the primary purpose of the guard is to provide safe assistance, retaining incompetent persons to fill the role will quickly undermine the program if not cause a serious injury or worse. In addition to ensuring adequate physical and mental characteristics, there will also be a requirement to have a clean criminal record.

Standards set for unacceptable criminal background will be consistent with the associated school board’s current policy. The MTO/OTC report guidelines for Human Resources, Section 7 (refer to Annex I) provides the guard qualifications requirements that are to be used at this time.

Program Schedule and Implementation

The program will operate on an annual cycle. The timing of the program elements are dictated for the most part by weather and the ability to collect data and a fixed time frame associated with the school calendar. To accommodate the data collection phase, assessment and review of requested sites will take place in the months of March, April, May, and June. Sites warranting crossing guards will have the guards and crossings implemented for the first day of school in September (subject to budgetary constraints). Sites warranting other measures will have them implemented with the associated measure’s program timing. Requests for crossing locations will be accepted throughout the year but will only be assessed in the spring. Warranted crossing guards will be identified and included in a staffing contract to be tendered in late June. Modifications or adjustments to the program when required are to be carried out in the fall and winter months.

Signs and Markings

The appropriate signs and pavement markings for school crossings are identified in the Ontario Traffic Manual (formerly the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). In addition, a standard approach to their use has been provided in the 1992 MTO/OTC School Crossings Review report, Section 4.7-4.19 (refer to Annex I) that provides the basic implementation standards that are to be used at this time.

The exception to the direction supplied the MTO/OTC report will be the use of the fluorescent yellow-green colour scheme for school area and crossing signs. Signs for new guard locations will be implemented with the new colour.

Internal Staffing Resources

Based on the discussed program schedule, new location assessment and guard implementation will be the program components that will require dedicated internal staff resources. Reflecting on the months required to undertake these work items (Spring and Fall), as well as other miscellaneous program tasks, it is expected that a 0.5 full time equivalent position at the Traffic Analyst level will be required. Policy and program adjustment work will be covered by the section head to which this position reports and will be covered under their current job duties. Crossing guard staffing and administration work will not be the responsibility of internal staff but will fall under an external contract.

Funding

From recent reviews of existing crossing guard programs for cities the size of Ottawa, and considering our weather conditions and approach to staffing the guards, it is estimated that the cost per site would be in the order of $11,500 per year. This includes the cost of internal resources to manage the external contract and undertake the assessment and implementation of new crossing guard locations and as well reflects the current costs to insure such a program.

Internal resources are estimated to be approximately $35,000 per year. The program is to be 100% City funded although consideration should be given to and sought for, other neutral revenue sources.

As the number of sites grows there will be economies of scale that will reduce the cost per location. Until the program reaches a level above 50 crossing locations, the unit costs per site will continue to be high.

ANNEX G

SUPPORTING DEPARTMENTS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES – ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

In dealing with issues associated with student pedestrian safety, one quickly realizes that there can be numerous players involved when producing solutions. This has certainly been evident from the research undertaken and reported on by Morrison Hershfield, and in reviewing the operation of the City’s existing guard locations. Reflecting on the support that is required by various sections, divisions and departments within the City as well as those agencies from outside the City, a table of needs and the associated body that would most likely fulfill those needs has been provided below in a Roles and Responsibilities table. Identifying such needs is one thing, but having the needs responded to is another. As administrators and operators of the School Zone Traffic Safety Program and the Adult School Crossing Guard Program, the City must take the lead role in ensuring that all the necessary elements come together to produce efficient and effective programs. To accomplish this, City staff need to actively pursue the required players and to encourage and assist them where possible to gain the necessary “buy-in” and establish policy support.

Of those referred to in the Roles and Responsibilities table, staff need to focus in particular on the development of a strong communication link and working relationship with the various departments and branches within the City, the school boards, the schools and their councils, and the Ottawa Police Service. There is also a strong demand to foster a strong partnership with non-profit groups like the Ottawa Safety Council, and Envirocentre to deliver support services in an efficient and cost effective manner.

With Committee and City Council’s support and upon the approval of the School Zone Traffic Safety Program and the Adult School Crossing Guard Program, staff will proceed with the coordination of actions related to the responsibilities identified in the table below. This table has been extracted with minor modifications from the Morrison Hershfield’s, Adult School Crossing Guard Program and a School Zone Traffic Safety Program Policy Development Project, Final Report, April 2002.

Student Safety Programs – Various Players -Their Roles and Responsibilities

Area of Responsibility	Responsible Party
- Design, installation and maintenance of supporting infrastructure such as traffic control devices, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, shoulders and pathways), cycling facilities, signage and line markings. - Administer zoning and building permits in a manner that ensures that good planning principles are applied, and adequate development fees are collected to implement the necessary support facilities (e.g., sidewalks, traffic calming devices, etc.) as the community matures. - Evaluate candidate sites for deployment of adult crossing guards. Also, approve and fund locations eligible for assisted crossing. - Monitor school trip safety throughout the City - Assist with the development and update of safe school route maps - Promote and encourage other travel modes through Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Healthy Lifestyles initiatives	City of Ottawa TUPW (Various Branches) Development Services TUPW (TPO, SATS) TUPW (TPO, SATS) People Services (Injury Prevention) TUPW (TPO, TDM) TUPW (TDM) People Services (Child Health Services)
- Choose school locations that balances vehicle access with pedestrian safety needs and are not adversely affected by roadway geometry. This should be done in consultation with City of Ottawa and Special Municipal Inter-organizational Groups. - Design school facilities that foster a good walking environment that minimizes conflict with drop-off/pick-up zones and provide limited crossing opportunities for children. This should be done in consultation with City of Ottawa and Special Municipal Inter-organizational Groups. - Design, install and maintain pedestrian and cycling facilities within the perimeter of the school site and work with the City of Ottawa to integrate those facilities with their municipal equivalent. - Provide secure bicycle parking. - Review school boundaries with a view to reducing long trips and trips involving the crossing of major roadways. - Review busing boundaries with due consideration to pedestrian safety. - Develop a policy on promoting school safety and supporting measures aimed at improving overall safety of children going to and from school - Incorporate learning about crossing safety, traffic control devices, and safe route to school into curriculum, story telling, field trips, etc. - Assist with the development and updating of safe school route maps	District School Boards
- Coordinate the receiving, reviewing, and resolution of suggestions and complaints about school trip safety. Also, settle appeals from parents concerning student transportation assignments (i.e., walking vs. busing) - Identify locations to be examined for the potential to install adult crossing guards. - Identify/review pedestrian safety concerns and work with the City of Ottawa to implement remedial actions to correct safety deficiencies - Support and promote education and awareness programs (e.g., Walking School Bus Program, International Walk to School Day, etc.) - Assist in establishing the safe school route map. Also, distribute safe school route maps to parents and students. - Verify attendance of adult crossing guards through a sign-in system. Also, serve as the custodian of the crossing guard uniforms and equipment. Note that this will be a condition that must be met before final approval of a warranted adult crossing guard is granted. - Provide communication services to link the program administrators and the school community (i.e. distribution of educational/awareness information, recruitment of crossing guards, etc.) - Facilitate, as it has in the past, the school crossing patrol program	The School / School Council
- Advise the school boards on recommended policies and best practices on school walk trip safety education - Identify locations to be examined for the potential to install adult crossing guards. - Develop a communication program aimed at educating parents of the importance of obeying traffic and parking regulations, refraining from idling their vehicles within school zones, and encouraging their children to walk/cycle, etc. - Work with Special Municipal Inter-organizational Groups to coordinate communications regarding school pedestrian safety and traffic safety programs.	Ottawa Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (although not currently in existence, it could be argued that there is a current need for this committee, however its place and focus, given the existing committees, needs to be reviewed) For the time being, TUPW (SATS) will assume these roles
- Administration of education and awareness programs (e.g., Children’s Safety Village, Bicycle Rodeos, Neighbourhood Speed Watch Program, Road Safety Challenge Week, etc.)	Non-profit Organizations, Special Interest Groups and Community Associations
- Recruit adult crossing guards and conduct criminal reference checks - Train the designated adult crossing guards and their substitutes - Administer the crossing guards including location assignment, pay and benefits processing, communications between City and guards, disciplinary action. - On-site observation to evaluate performance of adult crossing guards and their adherence and knowledge of traffic laws - Administrate a special recognition program to acknowledge outstanding performance and length of service in order to maintain high morale among adult guards.	Crossing Guard Administrator (contract assignment with City of Ottawa, currently fulfilled by the Ottawa Safety Council)
- Address students at school assemblies and/or in classrooms about traffic safety - Enforce regulations associated with speed limits and traffic control devices to improve compliance - Enforce roadside parking and stopping regulations to improve sight distances in and around schools - On-site observation to help evaluate the performance and procedure of adult crossing guards and their adherence and knowledge of traffic laws - Assist with the training of the adult crossing guards	Police Services / By-law Enforcement
- The parents of school children have the best opportunity to see and correct poor pedestrian behaviours of their children. The child’s attitude toward obeying school crossing, pedestrian and bicycle safety rules is greatly influenced by the parents’ attitude toward obedience of traffic laws, both as motorists and pedestrians. - Parents should also be certain their children are following the route to school that has been designated in a school route plan. - Parents should respect parking regulations and speed limits within school zones. They should also refrain from idling their vehicles. - Parents should encourage/permit their children to walk or cycle to school.	The Parent
- Perhaps the greatest responsibility for school pedestrian safety lies with the individual driver. Pedestrians (including children) have the right-of-way in a crosswalk. Even when the pedestrian does not have the right-of-way, the motorist must exercise due care to avoid a collision.	The Driver
- While it is generally accepted that student’s are not of age to take on certain responsibilities, students are expected to understand and follow the instructions given for walking to and from school.	The Student