HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-22-81 i
IV
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Director's Report to Public Works Committee of February 17, 1981.
ITEM: WD-22-81.
DATE: February 5, 1981.
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Underpass.
Regional Road 57 (Martin Road) Bowmanville.
i
BACKGROUND:
At the January 20, 1981, Meeting of the Public Works Committee,
Resolution # W-22-81 was passed as follows:
"THAT Repmt WD-9-81 tcetati.ve to the pedmtju.an
unde&pasz, Regionat Road 57 (Ma&ti.n Road) be
tabled to the next meeting 4wt a 4u Ashen &epo&t,
taking into considenat on a Zettetc 4&om the
Dukham Region Ponce &e eative to this matte A".
Attached is all supportive data presented on January 20, 1981,
together with various Officer's Reports received from Regional
Police Headquarters.
Concerns expressed in regard to the Underpass date from 1976
and, during the interim, have covered various topics which
fall into four main categories, namely, vandalism, vehicles
driving through the 'tunnel' , harassment of pedestrians using
the tunnel and inadequate illumination of the tunnel. The
latter two complaints are somewhat connected as it has been
said that improved lighting would alleviate the problems ass-
ociated with harassment.
In the following report, the concerns will be discussed in
detail:
1. Vandalism:
In 1977, supposedly "Vandal-proof" lighting fixtures
were installed in the tunnel but subsequently they
were destroyed, by one means or another. Constant
attention to replacements did nothing to solve the
matter and, ultimately, it was decided that efforts
to maintain a substantial form of illumination in
the tunnel were fruitless, as had been demonstrated. 1J
Ito
(s�
IV
JI-
WD-22-81 (2)
Report, continued. . .
1. . . . Ultimately new and improved lights were installed
at each end of the tunnel which, it was hoped, would
meet the requirements of pedestrian users.
2. Vehicles (illegally) using the Tunnel:
Again, this has been an ongoing concern and various
suggestions and actions have been undertaken to
prevent vehicles from entering the tunnel.
In an Officer's Report (attached) it is suggested that
a barricade be installed at each end of the tunnel in
order to decrease the width and thus make it inaccess-
ible to any vehicle.
A barricade structure could be erected, and would
produce the desired effect; however, it should be
noted that any such obstruction would have to be
removed during the winter months to enable equipment
to undertake maintenance operations in the vicinity
of the tunnel.
3. Harassment of Pedestrians:
The Officer's Reports do not indicate any incidents
of harassment, despite checking the situation (out
of sight of users of the tunnel) on several occasions.
I
The consensus of opinion received from the Police seems
to be that complaints of harassment are either invalid,
of have basis on other concerns, e.g. , fear of the
darkness of the tunnel.
4. Illumination of the Pedestrian Underpass:
This topic seems to be the main area of concern, and
constructive comments from the Police should be taken
into account.
It is noted that the light at the west end of the tunnel
casts a beam approximately 12.5 metres into same; the
light at the east end is situated approximately 16.5metres
from the tunnel, shines into the structure for a distance
of some 5.0 metres and the beam is partially obstructed
by a fence which was erected by the property owner of
No. 15 Rosalynne Avenue in the adjoining subdivision.
(s�
WD-22-81 (3)
4. . . It is recommended, by the Police, that relocation of
the lights presently situated at each end of the tunnel
would vastly improve the situation.
- An approximation of costs involved to implement the
suggestion to relocate the lights would be in the area
of $1,000. 00 for the two. It should be noted that, as
yet, there is no such allowance for this contingency
in the 1981 Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT consideration be given to erecting a barricade at
each end of the Pedestrian Underpass, Regional Road 57,
from May to late-November of each year, to prevent
vehicular traffic from using the tunnel, and,
2. THAT consideration, during Budget discussions, be given
to relocating the lights presently situated at either
end of the Pedestrian Underpass.
I
I
JON M.JENKINS 77 CENTRE ST. NORTH
CHIEF OF POLICE OSHAWA, ONTARIO
•�
THOMAS CHAMBERS L1G 4B7 Oshawa (416)579-1520
DEPUTY CHIEF
ADMINISTRATION BRANCH
Durham Regional Police f=orce Toronto (416)367-0478
J.K.YOUNG
DEPUTY CHIEF
OPERATIONS BRANCH
1981 01 14 Your File:-
Our Flle:-
Ms. Gertrude E. Gray
Deputy Clerk/Committee Secretary
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle'
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Madam:
Re: Tunnel under Martin Road
With reference to your correspondence received on
1980 12 23 regarding a petition received by your Council, 2 en-
close copies of reports as submitted by Officers of this Depart-
ment who work out of 16 Division, Bowmanville. I trust they may
be of some assistance to the Council of the Town of Newcastle.
Please advise if we can be of any further assistance.
Assuring you of our co-operation in matters of mutual
concern.
Yours truly,
K. 0ur�g'
Depu G�°iief of Police
GR/cat
encl.
r '
®F
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CHIEF OF POLIC ���
Durham Regional Police Force
TIME: 1.900. DATE: January 11 81
19. . . . .
OFFICER'S REPORT
IN THE MATTER of pedestrian Footpath and Tunnel Adjoining Alonna St. and
Rosalynne Ave.
Superintendent G. Robinson
Sir:
On Sunday, 1981 01 11 at 1820 hrs. I attended at the above
tunnel, which runs east and west beneath Durham Region Rd. 57. This path
is in constant use by pedestrians as it is the only reasonable route to fac-
ilities such as plazas and schools for people living west of Durham Region
Rd. 57. The tunnel is constructed of galvanized steel and measures 1.9m
high, 3.6m wide and 19.Om long. The footpath is asphalt. There are light
standards, each about 5.Om high, casting bright beams, to the east and the
west ends of the tunnel. The light to the west is 21. 5m from the west end
and is situated on the north side of the footpath. The beam of light cast
by this sturcture extends 12. 5m into the tunnel. The light to the east is
situated 16. 5m east of the tunnel, on the south side of the footpath. The
beam from this light is less effective in the tunnel .than that of the light
from the west. The light is not positioned so that it shines directly into
the tunnel. Also, a recently erected wooden backyard fence at 15 Rosalynne
Ave. substantially obstructs the limited amount of light which would other-
i
wise pass into the east end of the tunnel. The light which does enter the
tunnel from the east, extends into the tunnel for only 5.Om2 part of which
is obstructed by the previously mentioned fence. The fence at 15 Rosalynne
Ave. is situated on the south side of the footpath, immediately beside the
light.
R.C. NO:
SERGEANT" NO.
1)R11 17 Rev./80
Durham Regional Police Force
TIME: . . . . . . . . . . . DATE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. . .
•
OFFICER'S REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF
If the light to the east was to be moved from the south side
of the footpath to the north side,, both problems could be minimized, if not
y eliminated. The light would shine directly into the east end of the tunnel
and the fence at 15 Rosalynne Ave. would no longer be an obstruction.
The only other way of improving the positions of the present
lights would be to lower them by no more than 1.0m. This would increase
the amount of light entering from both ends, while F,till keeping the lights
from within the reach of vandals. Obviously, the be-t lighting would be
that mounted inside the tunnel. Previous experience, however, has proven
that vandals will stop at nothing to destroy any lighting within the tunnel.
The total lack of occurrences, relating to threats to per -onal
safety, connected with this tunnel after dark would indicate that only the
above improvements are justified at this time. The expense and aggravation
of trying to maintain a constantly liihted interior could not be expl"lined
by producing evidence of threats or violence.
I live in the area and use the tunnel very often. I have heard
concern expressed by neighbours, none of which has been based on anything
other than fear of darkness.
Re.;pectfully ,�uhtnitted,
I
P.c L. E. Wood rv0: 250
J. Bird 512
SERGEANT NO.
DRP 17 Rev./80
Durham Regional Police Force
TIME: A Onr s DATE: January 11 19 $1
0
OFFICER'S REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF Tunnel under Regional Rd. # 57 , Bowmanville.
Chief of Police:
Att; Supt. G. Robinson:
Sir:
At 1330 hrs, Sunday, January 11 1$1 the writer went to the tunnel
under Regional Rd. # 57 between Roser and Rosselynn Blvd. , Bowmantille.
There are two lights, one on each side of the tunnel and about
40 feet back from the tunnel. These are the street light type light
on a pole.
If the light on the north side: of the tunnel was moved to the west
side of the path then a spotlight could be mounted on each of the
poles to shine down towards the tunnel.
The foot path which is about 10 feet wide should have a vehicle
barricade erected on each side to stop any attempt by driver of small
vehicles attempting to drive through the tunnel.
I
For your information,
Respectfully,
John Bird Sgt 512
16 Division.
P.0 NO:
SERGEANT NO
DRP 17 Rev./80
Durham Regional Police Force
•� TIME: . . . . . . . . . . . . DATE. U ..1Y tl .1. 19.
1
OFFICER'S REPORT
IN THE MATTER of Tunnel under Regional Rd # 57 between Roser and Rosselyn Blvd
Bowmanville.
Chief of Police:
Attu Supt. Gerald Robinson:
Sir:
Attached are officers reports from Det. R. Parker # 513 and
P.C. Larry Wood # 250 with regards to the "Tunnel'? under Regional
Rd. No 57 between Roser and Rosselynn Blvd.
P G. J Bell # 329 is the only officer I have talked to who has
had a complaint regarding the 11 Tunnel ". P.C. Bell had a call
to the tunnel about two years ago regarding the lights being damaged
by a vehicle attempting to drive through the tunnel.
P.C. D. Anderson, Community Services, has not had a complaint
directed to him but has heard talk from some citizens that something
is liable to happed.
The writer does not recall a complaint regarding the tunnel.
Respectfully submitted,
L2� ��LL-4'
J hn Bird Sgt. 512
16 Division
P.0 0:
SERGEANT NO.
DRP 17 Rev./80
Durham Regional Police Force
m
•� TIME: Jan. 10/81 DATE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IY. . . .
p L�
OFFICER'S REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF Request from Sgt. J. Bird-re: info on Tunnel Under Durham Rd.
57 between Roser Cres. & Rosselynn Blvd. Bowipanville
The Youth Bureau has received one complaint during 10$0 regarding this tunnel
& this was more a request for assistance from the Princ. of Waverley Rd. Public
School Mr. Ray Si.mser, by word of mouth from P.C. Don Anderson]Sept. /80
S^When contacted Mr. Simser,said he had a small child report to him that she
through
had been bothered by older children while walking home from school XhthYi the
,,unnel,but he stated he wasn't sure the complaint was valid,but thought that
if we checked the tunel':. a few nights after school it would put an end to any
problem that might get started.
The writer spoke to Mr. Art Bronson Princ. of St.Stephen' s R.C. School &
asked that he inform his students to go right home after school and not to
play around the tunnel.
Mr. Bronson, said he would send out a form. letter Lo the parents to advise
Lhem of this.
The writer checked the tunnel for several nights after school, and didn't
see any problems,& while checking was out ofsight to students walking through
the tunnel. There wasn't any pushing or shoving or any other problems.
Mr. Simser,has not contacted this office regarding the above since this
time,nor has there been any other person complain.
i
At the time of the above Mrs. Barraball,of Block Parents (Co-Ordinator) was
contacted by the writer & Mr. Simser, she said. she would inform the parents
in the area to watch for trouble at the next Block Parnet meeting.
i
D.R.P ke Det. 513
SERGEANT NO.
La P 17 — Ro-Q80