Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering PW Memo 36-76MEMORANDUM- -110. 36 TO: Bruce Tink, Chairman of Public Works. Committee FROM: Jack Dunham, Director of Public Works J. Ferguson C.E.T., Engineering Department DATE: April 6, 196 SUBJECT: Proposed Parking By-law within the Town of Newcastle Further to the Public Works Committee meeting of March 12, 1976, in which a resolution was pass- ed asking for a report from police etc. as to the comparison between the former by-law and the pro- posed by-law. The report is as follows: Firstly, the proposed by-law deals only with the road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Newcastle. All other roads such as Mill Street, Newcastle; Main Street, Orono; Liberty Street, Bowmanville have become Regional Roads and are therefore not included in this by-law. The Town may be enforcing the park- ing regulations on these streLts but these are not included in the proposed by-law. Therefore, in a comparison between the old by-laws and the proposed by-law, the by-laws of the three major Towns within the present Town of Newcastle varied somewhat. With the proposed by-law and in the former Townships of Clarke and Darlington there were no such by-laws. Since the major changes in the by-law between the former by-law and the proposed by-law was in Bowmanville we will deal with it first. Also in the Bowmanville and Newcastle by-laws it deals with their by-law as a Corporate Traffic By-law, the by-laws included items such as Through highways, Stop Signs, Traffic Signals, etc. In all their by-laws the definitions varied some- what in regards to certain descriptions, and defini- tions. Under the proposed by-law all of the definitions have been included and in many cases expanded the means to include certain items and the proposed by-law also includes certain definitions which may have been left out in the former by-laws. J�— • r � 2 BOI, NTM aNVILLE Bowmanville's by-law included many amendments to it and in so doing did make discrepencies through its entirety. Examples are the Pedest- rian Crossover which was not by-lawed until 1973 or Church Street which stated that there would be no parking on either side of the road from Scugog to Division Street yet Parking Meters were installed. The changes in the Schedules relating to Bowman- ville are as follows: NO PARKING; 1. Baseline Road - under the former by-law it stated from Hunt to Duke, north side. Under the proposed by-law it states from Martin Road to Cemetery Road, both sides. 2. Beech Avenue - under the former by -.law there was no parking from Lowe to Concession, both sides, This was also by-lawed as a one-way street. Under the proposed by-law it is from Lowe to Concession, both sides. The ty-law has been corrected to permit two-way traffic. 3. Brown Street - under the former by-law it was from King to Church, east side. Under the proposed by- law it is from King to ydellington, both sides. 4. Carlisle Avenue - same as former by-law, 5. Centre Street - same as former by-law. 6. Church Street Under the former by-law it was from Division - Scugog, south side; Division to Scugog, north side; Division - Liberty, south side. Under the proposed by-law.it is Scugog - 150 feet easterly, both sides; Temperance - Division, both sides, Division - Regional Road #14, south side. 7. Concession street - same as former by-law. 8. Devitt's Lare - same as former by-law. 9. Division Street - same as former by-law. 10. Duke Street same as former by-law. --3 11. Elgin Street - under the former by-law it was Wellington. to Horsey, east side. Under the proposed by-law it is Wellington to Fourth, east side. 12. George Street - under the former by-law it was King to Church, east side. Under the proposed by-law it is King to Wellington, both sides. Also under the former by-law George had a one hour parking restriction, this has been removed. 13. High Street new addition. 14. Hobbs Drive - new addition. 15. Horsey Street - under the former by-law it was Elgin to Concession, north side. Lowe to Elgin south side. Also this street was by -laved as a one way street. This has been changed under the proposed by-law. Under the proposed by-law it is Concession to Lowe, both sides. 16. Jackman Road - new addition. 17- King Street - under the former by-law it was Ontario -Liberty, north side; Legion -45 feet west, south side; Bridge-Scugog south side. Under the proposed by-law it is Durham Regional Road #57 to Scugog, both sides; Division to George, north side; Durham Regional Road #14 to Cemetery Road, both sides. 18. Lambert Street - new addition. 19. Lambs Lane - new addition. 20. Lawrence Crescent - new addition. 21. Lovers Lane - same as former by-law. 22. Martin Road - new addition. 23. Mearns Avenue - new addition. 24. Ontario Street - under the former by-law it was Queen to King, both sides; Albert to Nelson, - both sides. Under the proposed by-law it is Durham Regional Road #14 to Queen, west side; Queen to King, both sides; King to G'ellington, west side. 25. Prince Street - same as former by-law. 26. Prospect Street - new addition. 27. Queen Street and Scugog Street - Under the former by-law it was Temperance to Division both sides; Division to Ontariot north side; Scugog to Ontario, north side; Scugog ;to Queen, south side; Ontario to Brown, south side. There was also a three hour parking limit be- tween Queen's Avenue and Ontario, this has been changed to one hour parking from Devitt's Lane to Queen's Avenue under the proposed by-law. Under the proposed by-law it is Kin; Street to Durham Regional Road #141 north side; King to Queen, south side; Devitts Lane to Ontario, south side. 28. Rhonda Boulevard - new addition. 29. Scugog Road - Under the former by-law it was King to O'Dell, west side.- Under the proposed by -.law it is King to Durham Regional Road #57, both sides. 30- Silver Street - same as former by-law except one hour narking has been added on the east side of Silver Street from Church Street to Wellington. 31- Simpson Avenue - new addition. 32. Street 'A' - new addition. 33- Spry Avenue - new addition. 34. Temperance Street - Under the former by-law it was Church to Wellington, west side; Horsey to 25 feet south, west side. Under the proposed by-law it is Church to Wellington, west side; Wellington to Lowe, both sides.. 35- Waverly Road - new addition. 36. Weilington Street - same as former by-law. 37. West Beach Road - new addition. .4. 25. Prince Street - same as former by-law. 26. Prospect Street - new addition. 27. Queen Street and Scugog Street - Under the former by-law it was Temperance to Division both sides; Division to Ontariot north side; Scugog to Ontario, north side; Scugog ;to Queen, south side; Ontario to Brown, south side. There was also a three hour parking limit be- tween Queen's Avenue and Ontario, this has been changed to one hour parking from Devitt's Lane to Queen's Avenue under the proposed by-law. Under the proposed by-law it is Kin; Street to Durham Regional Road #141 north side; King to Queen, south side; Devitts Lane to Ontario, south side. 28. Rhonda Boulevard - new addition. 29. Scugog Road - Under the former by-law it was King to O'Dell, west side.- Under the proposed by -.law it is King to Durham Regional Road #57, both sides. 30- Silver Street - same as former by-law except one hour narking has been added on the east side of Silver Street from Church Street to Wellington. 31- Simpson Avenue - new addition. 32. Street 'A' - new addition. 33- Spry Avenue - new addition. 34. Temperance Street - Under the former by-law it was Church to Wellington, west side; Horsey to 25 feet south, west side. Under the proposed by-law it is Church to Wellington, west side; Wellington to Lowe, both sides.. 35- Waverly Road - new addition. 36. Weilington Street - same as former by-law. 37. West Beach Road - new addition. ...5 NO STOPPING - In the Town of Bowmanville a 'No Stopping' rest- riction has been placed from George Street to 150 feet westerly. This was not included in the former by-law. PARKING FOR RESTRICTED PERIODS: Queen Street - a one hour parking restriction has been placed from Devitts Lane to Ontario. As accord- ing to the former by-law this was a three hour period from Queens Avenue to Ontario Street. Silver Street - a one hour parking restriction has been placed from Church Street to Wellington Street on the east side of the road. This was not covered under the former by-law. Temperance Street - same as former by-law. PARKING METERS: All parking meters have been left as are with only maybe small changes at correspond with the proposed by-law. VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE NO PARKING• Arthur Street - new addition. Baldwin Street - new addition. they presently intersections to Beaver Street - Under the former by-law it was George to King, east side. Under the proposed by-law it is James to Andrew, east side. Caroline Street - new addition. Church Street - Under the former by-law it was King to 100 feet south. Under the proposed by-law it is Robert to King .Street, west side. Mill Street - same as former- by-law. :forth Street - new addition. King Street - new addition. PARKING FOR RESTRICT PEHIODS: King Street - this is the same as the former by- law on the north side in front of the Post Office. King Street - we are recommending a 2 hour parking limit for parallel parking on the north and south side of King Street. Whereas the former by-law allowed parallel parking on the north side and angle parking on the south side. POLICE VILLAGE OF ORONO NO PARKING: Centre Street - same as former by-law. Church Street - new addition. Church Street - same as former by-law. Cobbledick Street - same as former by-law but north side has been added to the parking restriction. Dickson Street - same as former by-law. Mill Street - new addition. Park Street - in the former by-law this was no stop- ping and was changed to no parking under the proposed by-law. Station Street - new addition. PARKING", FOR RESTRICTED PERIOD: All of the parking for restricted periods have remained the same as the former by -.law. t0T 1970" Ontario Ministry of the Telephone: 9 Provincial Solicitor Police General Box 2$0 640 Newcastle, Ontario 26 March 1976 Corporation of the Town of Newcastle Engineering Department Hamptons Ontario LOB 1JO ATTENTION: Mr. J. FERGUSON Dear Sir: RE: Proposed Traffic By -Law for the Town of Newcastle The Ontario Provincial Police at Newcastle concur with the recommendations made by the Town of Newcastle concerning parallel parking instead of angle parking, on King Street in the Village of Newcastle. This office is of the opinion that the pro— posed traffic by—law would not only facilitate the movement of traffic, but at the same time re— duce the possibilities of traffic accidents. We are also in agreement with the remaining proposed Traffic By—law for the Town of Newcastle as stated in your correspendence. Yours truly, BRUMWON, #297$ /Provincial Constable GWB/11 COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM WORKS DEPARTMENT R.F. RICHARDSON, P,Eng./Commissionerof Works 105 CONSUMERS DRIVE, P.O. BOX 623, WHITBY, ONTARIO LIN 1C4 TELEPHONE: (416) 668-7721 April 2, 1976 The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle Engineering Department HAMPTON, Ontario LOB 1JO Attention: Mr. J. Ferguson, C.E.T. Dear Sir: Re: Proposed Traffic By-laws for the Town of Newcastle In reply to your letter of March 15, 1976, I have reviewed the four proposed traffic by-laws and offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. Parking There are a number of suggested additions to and deletions from, the text of this By-law which will improve its effectiveness both from an administra- tive and enforcement point of view. These changes are noted in red on a copy of your Parking By-law which I have attached. As you are aware the Region has no direct involvement with regard to parking by-laws for local roads, however, it was rooted that the angle parking on King Street in the former Village of Newcastle has been deleted. The Region supports this action wholeheartedly. Angle parking is potentially hazardous to through traffic since during the act of unparking, a driver is blind to approaching vehicles. 2. Pedestrian Crossovers In September, 1974 By-law 74-55 of the Town of Newcastle was submitted for Regional approval. This By-law was to establish pedestrian crossovers at three locations in the Town; King Street East - at Frank Street (Bowmanville) Ontario Street - between Victoria and Albert Streets (Bowmanville) Mill Street - at Robert Street (Newcastle) ./2 'Mr. J. Ferguson, C.E.T. 2. (Continued): At this time studies were conducted by this department and the Police Forces. These studies revealed that the only location that warranted a P.X.O. was King Street East at Frank Street, therefore,. By-law 74-55 was not approved by the Region. Since then, conditions have not changed at the existing P.X.O. on Ontario Street :north of Victoria Street and it follows that the.. new by-law would not receive Council approval either. I have enclosed copies of the previous Commissioner's reports on By-law 74-55. 3. Turns It is my understanding that the "Turns" by-law is being proposed in conjunction .with the "One -Way Streets" by-law to restrict the flow!of traffic on Division Street to one -way -only for one block north and south of King Street. If a road is designated as a one-way street, it is not necessary to cover the restricted turns under a separate by-law. In this instance, if Division Street is by-lawed as one-way southbound from King Street to Queen Street and one-way northbound from King Street to Church Street then the turns which result in conflicting movements are automatically prohibited. The "Turns" by-law is therefore redundant and I suggest that it not be processed. ' 4. One -Way Streets Minor suggested changes to the text of this by-law are shown in red on the attached copy. The bulk of any comments are regarding the proposed one-way designation on Division Street. On Friday, March 26, 1976, a traffic study was conducted by Regional staff at the intersection of King and Division Streets. The peak hour was found to be between 3:45 and 4:45 p.m. I have enclosed a copy of the peak hour traffic flow diagram. The observers noted that minor backups of 4 or '5 vehicles occurred on both north and. south approaches during the peak period, however, these vehicles all cleared within a maximum of 50 seconds each time. The average waiting time for drivers and pedestrians was 10 to 15 seconds. in my opinion this does not constitute a serious problem.. If local motorists are continually delayed on Division Street at King. Street, they will eventually look for an alternate route. Designating one-way traffic on Division Street is not solving the problem of backups, it is eliminating a movement which may cause -a problem to some motorists l,some ofthe time. The accepted method of creating one-way streets is to select two adjacent streets and designate one for each direction. The opposing directions pro- posed for Division Street could create some confusion at King. Street. To avoid a hazardous situation at the northerly terminus of the proposed one-way section, (Church Street), some changes in control and layout will be required at that intersection. ./3 4. (Continued) observations indicate that left -turning vehicles from Division Street are often centered in their lane thereby prohibiting through and right turning vehicles from making complimentary movements. This contributes to the backups on Division Street. I suggest that pavement markings be added on Division Street to delineate turning lanes at King Street. This minor and inexpensive work is worth considering before committing Division Street to a one-way operation. If I can be of .any further assistance or if any of my comments require elabor- ation, please contact me. Yourg very, try, %�f% _ REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC DIVISION DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAM b LOCATIONALL DAY: 43 C 4 l5 j W 43 4� 4 l5 W 43 4� 4 l5 51q G PASSENGER - TRUCKSACTUAL A.A.D.T. ENTERING LEAVING ENTERING LEAVING Peak Hr.- O North North ' Directional South _e ' South —— — Peak Hr. - 0 0 East _zl�_ r 1�— East � ' Total Count - 0 0 �— ��? West ' ' IWest Total f � t� Total Vii— Time Period: — AQM. A.M. — A.! to _ PA P.M. 4.0 P.p