Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-025-08 Cl!Jlmgton REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE May 12, 2008 Resolution #:GPIt-3tF-oB Date: Report #: EGD-025-08 File#: By-law #: Subject: SIGNALIZATION OF MILL STREET AND EDWARD STREET Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-025-08 be received; 2. THAT all interested parties be informed of this report. Respectfully by, df/~ Submitted by: A.S. Cannella Director of Engineering Services O~~ Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer ASC/jb/dv May 6, 2008 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-9282 Report #EGD-025-08 Page 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The reconstruction of Mill Street from approximately Robert Street northerly to King Avenue in Newcastle is proposed in 2008 and with construction imminent we have been asked to consider several requests calling for traffic signals to be installed at the intersection of Mill Street and Edward Street in Newcastle, to occur in conjunction with the reconstruction works. When reviewing a request for traffic signals, in consideration of warrant criteria, the advantages and disadvantages of the traffic signals and the associated costs must be carefully considered. Traffic signals offer the most concise control for establishing right-of-way at an intersection. They relay a clear message of what a driver, bicyclist, or pedestrian can and cannot do as they approach the intersection. The primary function of a traffic signal is to assign right-of-way to conflicting traffic at an intersection. When effectively timed, a traffic signal increases the traffic handling capacity of an intersection and improves the safety and efficiency of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic. Signals also reduce certain types of accidents, especially right- angle collisions. When traffic signals are installed that do not satisfy warrant criteria, they may actually reduce the overall safety at an intersection. While many realize that traffic signals reduce more severe right-angle collisions by effectively assigning right-of-way, many do not realize that less severe rear-end accidents typically tend to increase. Unwarranted traffic signals may also cause excessive delays, disregard of the signal, and diversion of traffic to other streets without signals. Since this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham, the requests were originally directed to the Region of Durham for review against their warrant criteria. The Region reviewed the intersection data and responded by confirming that the warrants for traffic signals at this location have not yet been met. If warrants had been met the Region would have assumed the Report #EGD-025-08 Page 3 cost of installation of these signals, under current conditions the Region has denied the request. A meeting was subsequently held between the Regional representative, the Municipality and interested residents to discuss any potential options that might be available to allow for the installation of signals at Mill Street and Edward Street. The Region suggested that their Regional Policy for the installation of non-warranted traffic control devices could be considered. This policy provides for cost sharing at the rate of 50% between the Region and the Municipality for the installation of "unwarranted" traffic signals. In addition the policy requires that the Municipality assume the annual maintenance and operation costs of until such time that the minimum warrant criteria for traffic control signals are satisfied. 2.0 APPROACH 2.1 Several residents have requested that signals be installed as part of the 2008 reconstruction of Mill Street and while the Region has denied the request the Municipality may see value in having these signals installed in conjunction with the major Regional road reconstruction project taking place this year. If Council chooses to address resident concerns by having traffic signals installed at this intersection before the required Regional warrants are met then a resolution must be passed by Council in accordance with the Region's "Consolidated Policy on the Installation and Funding of Traffic Control Signals- 2007, to allow us to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the Region". In accordance with this policy the Municipality of Clarington would be required to pay 50% of the installation costs, with our share being $72,027. In addition we will be required to assume the annual maintenance and operation costs of approximately $5,000 per year until such time that the minimum warrant criteria for traffic control signals are satisfied. Report #EGD-025-08 Page 4 This cost estimate includes the Fire Department's request for Opticom equipment. The Opticom System allows authorized emergency vehicles when approaching traffic signals to preempt the traffic signal for momentary right-of- way. One of the major benefits of this system is the ability to safely control traffic for emergency vehicles responding to life-threatening situations where every second counts. 3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 If the decision is made to address resident concerns in conjunction with the Regional works that are scheduled to occur in 2008 then the Municipality will need to take steps to have these works included in the tender that is about to go out. If Council agrees a resolution may be passed to allow the Municipality to enter into an agreement with the Region to cost share on the installation of the signals in the amount of $72,027.00 and a purchase order may be issued. In addition the Municipality would need to agree to cover the annual maintenance costs of approximately $5,000.00 per year until such time as the applicable warrants are met. A review of the warrants will be requested on a regular basis and once they are met we will formally request that the annual maintenance costs be transferred to the Region. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Project Location Attachment 2 - Consolidated Policy on the Installation and Funding of Traffic Control Signals - 2007 List of Interested Parties with the Engineering Department Caroline St - en - en .c CJ ~ ::s .c (.) - - '- :E Signal Lopation , , Edward St \... I , ;:;=~ I~LL, 'I ~ i rj=L~~~~ ~L~illim_F _(\ ~i i !;:'=I' ""Il- King IAveffi:_81:'111 1IIIIIml ',r -'( - ., rT' , ' 1 -- 'I'-Pi' ,- r" -~r' ---en 'ntr\j;;I :!::~~-,:"':~ t:::F'- ! ,I'"' ~illiLLll~T~JI't~li:i ~"r""'''l'l' ILtll "~i!_i 1~:()j3 F" ':~'TJ3~~f'1~~rl-_ '_ ~~ n~~U ~H~~~jtc~,.,-r ::(li,II~~' E..~~~~~l ,~!:;~ l _B~i~1 ir'::)IrJ:r~~~ ~ :lillr::L~[:;;l:;:'I~~'::~Ci5r-} - IM~ ~r 'liI'r_\"',,,-1 'III '0/.1 ~Tf1 ~ ; ~- 'l rJUJ~r J t~, im~]1 t 1--II.:==_1j Hwy 401 .. - -,- -~-- NEWCASTLE ir~~ ~~ (i - -I KEY MAP I Iv W~E S - en ~ Q) > ClS Q) m " DRAWN BY: I DATE: MAY 06,2008 REPORT EGD-025-08 ATTACHMENT NO.1 ATTACHMENT NO.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD-02S-08 CONSOLIDATED POLICY ON THE INSTALLATION AND FUNDING OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS - 2007 This policy in the form hereto is to consolidate and supercede the existing policy on the Installation of Non-Warranted Traffic Control Signals and Funding Agreements between the Region, local municipalities and private developers. 1.0 Policy for Funding of Warranted Traffic Control Signals . Funds allocated within the Traffic Signal Installation Program are determined by the relative need for the signal and associated improvements in accordance to the Uniform Policy on Traffic Control Devices. · New and rebuilt traffic control signals and related improvements are funded .. from a combination of general tax levy revenue and Regional Roads Development Charges, where the Development Charges are applied towards the residential growth related costs. . The associated costs of maintenance and modemization are funded from general tax levy revenue. ,....,; ,.' ',' 2.0Poliey for Installation and Funding of Non-Warranted Traffic Control ~ignals · Requests and funding from area municipalities and private non-residential . deVelopers for the installation of traffic control 819nals on ('lllblic roadS or priVate entranceS intersecting the Regional Road atlowance, Which do not meet the Provincial warrant guidelines, are dealt With and negotiated on a site specific basis in accordance with the Uniform Policy on Traffic Control , Devices, and the guidelines outlined in Section 2.1 and 2.2 of this policy. . 2.1 Installation Criteria · The Works Department will recover caDitel and annual oDeratina costs when funding or contributions towards funding for the installation of a traffic control signal on a Dublic road intersectina the Reaional Road allowance is provided by others, and when one or more oHhe following criteria are met: 1. The location has been identified as one where the Provincial warrant for traffic control signals will ultimately be satisfied; 2.' . Where engineering studies indicate that tile location is compatible orwould be beneficial with respect t08afety, existing and"future signal operation, progressive traffic flow and roadway capacity; 3. The location is safety deficient and no reasonable alternative solution exists; or 4. The location warrants alternative traffic control devices but they are not deemed practical or safe due to operating speeds and/or roadway geometry. 2.2 Cost Recovery · The Region will install and maintain a traffic control signal at a commercial entrance or public road intersecting a regional road on behalf of a private enterprise subject to a signed agreement with the property owner. The owner shall accept responsibility for the capital cost of installation, annual maintenance and operation costs of the traffic control device in accordance with Section 2.3, including the necessary lighting system and road improvements. An upfront payment of $10,000 is required to cover the cost of engineering services and where time constraints warrant that detail signal design occur in advance of the signed agreement. Intersection geometric drawings must accompany the upfront payment before signal design can proceed. · Subject to 50% capital funding contribution from an area municipality, the Region will install and maintain a traffic control signal so requested by the municipality on a public road intersecting a regional road in accordance with the installation criteria outlined in Section 2.1. The municipality shall accept responsibility for the maintenance and operation costs of the traffic control device until such time that the minimum-warrant criteria for the traffic control signal is satisfied. 2.3 Typical Costs · The calculation of the amount of securities for a new traffic control signal is based on present value analysis using a real rate of interest return of 5% and an inflation value of 0%. Securities totaling $255,000 (2007 values) are placed in the Signal Installation Program to offset capital cost ($145,000) and annual maintenance, operation and modernization cost ($110,OOO) for a period of twenty-five years for a typical traffic control signal. · The capital cost consists of a design component ($10,000), underground ($35,OOO) and above ground ($100,000) works. The costs to install underground and above ground works vary on a site specific basis. · For municipalities, only the capital costs are required at the time of installation. The annual maintenance/operating/modernization costs will be invoiced annually. The above capital and annual maintenance vaiues refiect 2007 costs and will be reviewed on an annual basis. , ' 2.4 Timing of Installation · The scheduling for the installation of the traffic control signal in which the security was placed will be subject to the discretion of the Region and based on anyone of the following: 1. Fulfillment of the Provincial traffic signal warrant criterion; or 2. Necessitation of remedial improvements based on traffic conditions. · The estimated time to design and construct new traffic signals is a minimum of six months from the date of receipt of usable geometric design drawings of the intersection.