The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-49-82 107 / l CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT R. DUPUIS, P. ENG., DIRECTOR HAMPTON,ONTARIO TEL.(416)263-2231 LOB 1J0 987-5039 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1982. REPORT NO. WD-49-82. SUBJECT: PETITION - SOUTHWAY DRIVE, BOWMANVILLE. RESOLUTION NO. GPA-760-82. RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended: 1 . That Report WD-49-82 be received, and; 2. That a copy of Report WD-49-82 be forwarded to Mr. Carl Brunt, spokesman for the Petitioners for the reconstruction of Southway Drive, between Simpson Avenue and Flett Street, Bowmanville. BACKGROUND AND REPORT: - Prior to the compilation of the 1982 Budget for roads, complaints had been received from Mr. Carl Brunt, 35 Southway Drive, Bowmanville, that water from the road (which is higher than adjacent properties) collects in a low area in front of his home and runs through into the rear yard causing much inconvenience. As a result of this, funds were allotted in the Budget to install a catchbasin near Mr. Brunt's property, with a connection to the storm sewer, to eliminate the runoff problem on Southway Drive. ,1 ;ti WD-49-82 _ 2 _ i (C) i The Petition from Residents of Southway Drive suggests that: 1 . The Town presently proposes to resurface the roadway, and; 2. The Town should consider constructing curbs and gutters, which would give an urban cross-section on Southway Drive. With respect to the matter of resurfacing, the Town has no intentions in this regard, and funds are not budgetd for same; in fact, there is no recognition of any such work in the Needs Study. With respect to the possibility of reconstructing Southway Drive to an urban cross-section, the above condition also applies; there are no recognized needs in the Town's Needs Study, thus any reconstruction would be non-subsidizable by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the full cost would have to be borne by the Town. Based upon the Needs Study benchmark costs for reconstruction of a two-lane, local , urban road ($350,000. 00/km) , it is estimated that the suggested reconstruction of Southway Drive, between Simpson Avenue and Flett Street (a distance of approximately 0.2 kilometres) would cost the Town $70,000. 00 (Seventy Thousand Dollars). Bearing the implications of non-subsidy in mind, together with the fact that Southway Drive is in very good condition compared to other streets in Bowmanville, e.g. Liberty Place/Alexander Boulevard, it is recommended that the Town not consider the reconstruction of same. If the residents of Southway Drive are adamant that their street must be reconstructed, they could petition the works under the Local Improvement Act, and bear the costs as part of their taxes. To be successful in having the work performed as a Local Improvement would require a Petition by two-thirds of the residents on the section of the street in question, whose assessment represents at least one-half of the total assessment of properties on that street. Only properties on the south side of Southway Drive have frontage on the street, while those on the north side have flankage. Accordingly, only the ten properties along the south side would be involved in the local improvement, and this would result in quite a high cost to each individual owner. CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK �() 40 TEMPERANCE STREET TELEPHONE 623-3379 BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 June 16, 1982 Mr. Carl Brunt 35 Southway Drive Bowmanville, Ontario Dear Mr. Brunt: RE: Petition Our File: 77.2.107 This will acknowledge your delegation to the General Purpose and Adminsitration Committee on June 14, 1982 on behalf of the petitioners on Southway Drive and advise that the Public Works Director was asked to report on the matter to the next General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held on June 28, 1982 in Court Room # 2 at 9:30 a.m. Yours very truly ,a JOE I1 19�lg Gertrude E. Gray, A.M.C.T. Deputy Clerk GEG:jco cc: Public Works Director & ` J/ 31 /40ajjb-,7 fit o� j 30 JINN. .6 1 S TOWN OF HVVCASTLE CLERK DEPARTMENT � � +`�b 3 '�:= �> - �. a2 kt t ac 5,• � 4 V.t �s .� S� ��W . v () i UPDATE CODE MUNICIPAL. ROAD SECTION - APPRAISAL SHEET CONTROL IDLNIIFICAIION MUNIC. lowy �� /t/Er✓ca��c �/ �� 57 DESCR IP./ST.NAME.-/L=-7- 57 4E :s f� ,ki✓I,c,5 3. FROMrrryw �Y �RiyG- 4O SECTION NO, 9 } O 3 9 TO jA A/-- S 17 EST 5O LENGTH O OQ j km 6. SPARE 7. _NO ROADSIDE ENVIRON: RURAL(1) SEMI-URBAN(2) URBAN(3) 2 9�8. ADJAC.MUNIC, 1 0 BOUNDARY ROAD YES ADJAC.MUNIC. ROAD SECTION NO. --i-�-�-� 11. PRES.JURIS. MTC (1) CO. (2) L OC. (3) 3 15 STRUCT.NO. 12. DESIRABLE JURIS. CO. (2) LOC. (3) 16 RWY.X-ING-NO. 13. PRES. DESIG. SUB. RD (1) MTC C.L. (2) CO. C-L. (3) 17, SPARE 14. SUB.COMM, NAME 18. SPARE EXISTING CONDITIONS& ADEQUACY RATINGS 19 EXISTING CLASS.. 20. SPEED ZONE_ 50 km/h 23. PLATFORM WIDTH 7-0 m 25 SURFACE TYPE /-/C 9S 5 21. AVGE.SAFE SPEED km/h 24. SHOULDER WIDTH 0. 3 m 26. SURFACE WIDTH O 6 s¢ m 22. TERRAIN: FLAT ✓ 27. TRAF.OPER.ONE WAY TWO WAY / 68-) NO.OF LANES 2 ROLLING 29. DIVIDED: YES NO ✓ MEDIAN WIDTH m ROCKY 30. TRAFFIC SIGNALS: YES NO ✓ 31. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH 2 O / m @2. BUS ROUTE: YES_NO ✓ 33. HORIZ. ALIGN. NO. OF SUBSTANDARD CURVES 35. SIDEWALK WIDTH: LEFT /•. / m RIGHT -2 m NO. OF SUBSTANDARD S.S.D. 36, BOULEVARD WIDTH: LEFT m RIGHT_m 34. VERT.ALIGN. NO.OF SUBSTANDARD GRADES 37. CURB TYPE: BARRIER MOUNTABLE OTHER NO.OF SUBSTANDARD S.S.D. 38. SPARE 39. PARKING: LEFT RESTRICTED YES NO_ RESTRICTIONS RIGHT RESTRICTED YES NO Irl/ _RESTRICTIONS 40 DRAINAGE: DITCHES ✓ STORM SEWERS COMBINED SEWERS 41. 19-75-TRAFFIC: CHV % VPH DIRECT.SPLIT TRUCKS-% AADT L Ip 2 ci O 42. CAPACITY (LEVEL 'E'VOLUME) INTERSECT. APPROACH VOL. MID BLOCK VOL. 43. 10 YEAR GROWTH FACTOR )--') 44. SPARE 45. 19 SSTRAFFIC: DHV % VPH DIRECT.SPLIT -TRUCKS-% AADT O O 314 l8 46. TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATION CODE NO.I ( I ( I 47. SPARE POINT RATINGS (� LEVEL OF SERVICE �Zlp � OUT OF 20 DEFICIENCIES EXIST MIN. NOT DEFICIENT 49. HORIZ.ALIGNMENT 01c)I OUT OF 10 COND. TO L. DEF. NOW 1-5 6-10 50. VERT.ALIGNMENT `p I O ` OUT OF 10 58 SURFACE TYPE I HCB C N-T I ✓ ( i 51. SURFACE WIDTH / I5I OUTOF 15 R&SU 59. SURFACE WIDTH 6,4 ( I I I I OUTOF 25URB 2 SURFACE CONDITION 1 / 1O OUTOF 10ff 60. AV.SAFE SPEED 3 SHOULDER WIDTH 1 / 101 OUT OF I0 FR&SY 61.LEVEL OF SERVICE ( A 04 STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY* O OUT OF 20 LL b2 STRUCT.ADEQ. x 19 �5 I ✓ 55. DRAINAGE I { I5 1 OUT OF 15 63 STORM SEWER ADEQ. 56. MAINTENANCE DEMAND I p 18I OUTOF 10 07 CONDITION RATING ::E OUT OF 100 64. ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE (MTC) TYPE, COST & TIME OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS IN S 65 TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT m SEMI-URBAN!URBAN COSTS THOUSANDS A. CARRY OVER L.BASE & SURF. (MINOR) 69 RIGHT OF WAY B. SPOT ROAD M. BASE & SURF (MAJOR) 0. CONSTRUCTION C. SPOT DRAINAGE N.RESURF.& WIDEN IMINOR) 1 STORM SEWERS D. RESURFACING _ O. RESURF.&WIDEN (MAJOR) 2 CU L`✓ERT RURAL P. RECONST. (SEMI-URBAN ST'D) 3. SIDEWALK I I E. BASE & SURF. (TOL.ST'D) Q,RECONST. (URBAN ST'D-NOMINAL S.S.) -_ 4. RWY.X-ING F. BASE & SURF. (DESIGN ST'D) R. RECONST. (URBAN ST'D-INCLUD.S.S.) 5. OTHER I 9 G. RESURF.& WIDEN (TO L.ST'D) S.STORM SEWER-ROAD REINSTATEMENT 6 TOTAL COST H II H. RESURF.&WIDEN (DESIGN ST'D) _ T. NEW CONSTRUCTION 7 NON-SUB COST { i� I ( I- RESURF.&WIDEN (4 LANES) 8. SUB. COST L I J RECONSTRUCTION 79 MUNIC. PERCENT OF SUBSIDIZABLE COST - K N'Ety CONSTRUCTION 80. DESIRABLE JURISDICTION % DESIGN CLASS 9 ( • 81. YEAR LAST IMPROVED (c 7., IMPROVEMENT LENGTH km TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT TIF.1E NOW (1) 1-5 YR. (2) 6-10 YR. (3) • 83. PRIORITY RATING RENi:,RKS 84. PRIORITY GUIDE NO. 85. COST'VEH. km --- DATE --7, 1'r_ --•- - i o7, BY a.uCn SiQ LtickI P nr 1trj UR L� SEMI-URBAN ✓I -� - - - - - URBAN � SECTIOP: PJO. 10 I� IC I� 1 i AWA UPDATE CODE MUNICIPAL ROAD SECTION - APPRAISAL SHEET CONTROL J- 0 1 IDENTIFICATION lO MUNIC. 7 H//J O c /✓EK/Ga $TLS 151 9 6 r5l ROAD DESCRIP./ST.NAME SouTNWAY R/✓.E Ro V,//- s- FROM 5114,1-sol! AVENUE 0. SECTION NO. -¢L O 3 7 TO /Z3 5:R7'v S%R--6T SO LENGTH 00 IS km 6. SPARE 7- ROADSIDE ENVIRON: RURAL(1) SEMI-URBAN(2) URBAN(3) 2 8. ADJAC-MUNIC. 0 BOUNDARY ROAD YES NO_y 9. ADJAC.MUNIC. ROAD SECTION NO. I_I_I_I_�-I 11. PRES.JURIS. MTC (1) CO. (2) LOC. (3) 3 15 STRUCT. NO. 12. DESIRABLE JURIS. CO. (2) LOC. (3) IS) RWY.X-ING NO. 13. PRES. DESIG. SUB. RD (1) MTC C.L. (2) CO. C.L. (3) 17. SPARE 14. SUB.COMM. NAME 18. SPARE EXISTING CONDITIONS& ADEQUACY RATINGS 19 EXISTING CLASS- L •k'. m 20. SPEED ZONE 50 km/h 23. PLATFORM WIDTH q m 25 SURFACE TYPE IC-6 .¢ 21. AVGE.SAFE SPEED km/h 24. SHOULDER WIDTH O. 3 m 26. SURFACE WIDTH O 8 r5 m 22. TERRAIN: FLAT ✓ 27. TRAF.OPER.ONE WAY TWO WAY ✓ (D NO-OF LANES 2 ROLLING 29. DIVIDED: YES NO V' _ MEDIAN WIDTH m ROCKY 30, TRAFFIC SIGNALS: YES NO_y31. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH#,S-q 5" m @2. BUS ROUTE: YES NO_ 33. HORIZ.ALIGN.NO.OF SUBSTANDARD CURVES 35. SIDEWALK WIDTH: LEFT i a m RIGHT / 2 m NO. OF SUBSTANDARD S.S.D. 36. BOULEVARD WIDTH: LEFT-_m RIGHT-M 34. VERT.ALIGN. NO.OF SUBSTANDARD GRADES 37. CURB TYPE: BARRIER MOUNTABLE OTHER NO.OF SUBSTANDARD S.S.D. 38. SPARE o IV4 v 39. PARKING: LEFT RESTR!CTED YES NO_VRESTRICTIONS RIGHT RESTRICTED YES NO 'RESTRICTIONS DRAINAGE: DITCHES STORM SEWERS ✓ COMBINED SEWERS 41, 19Z�TRAFFIC: DHV % VPH DIRECT.SPLIT TRUCKS % AADT I CIO 4-719 42. CAPACITY (LEVEL 'E'VOLUME) INTERSECT.APPROACH VOL. MID BLOCK VOL. 43. 10 YEAR GROWTH FACTOR /._? 44. SPARE 45. 19S5 TRAFFIC: DHV VPH DIRECT.SPLIT TRUCKS % AADT p O 7 5 46, TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATION CODE NO.I I I I ` ( I 47. SPARE POINT RATINGS - EXIST MIN. NOT DEFICIENT O LEVEL OF SERViCE I Z IO I OUT OF 20 DEFICIENCIES COND. TOL. DER. NOW 1-5 6-10 49. HORIZ. ALIGNMENT �OIp I OUT OF 10 50, VERT.ALIGNMENT I p 10 I OUT OF 10 58 SURFACE TYPE I /CB i J, .T. I ✓ i 51 SURFACE WIDTH I5i OUTOF UTOF 25 5URB 59. SURFACE WIDTH 5?. ON 0 60. AV.SAFESPEED SHOULDER WIDTH 1 /// 101 OUT OF 1 RNSU 61.LEVEL OF SERVICE I I E O L A ✓ I I :'4 STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY* 5- OUT OF 20 @ STRUCT.ADEQ. )E 19 75 � 4� :56 DRAINAGE I / IS( OUT OF 15 63 STORM SEWER ADEQ.MAINTENANCE DEMAND Ip (7 I OUT OF 10 CONDITION RATING C c O OUT OF 100 64. ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE (MTC) TYPE, COST & TIME OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS IN S TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SEMI-URBAN/URBAN COSTS THOUSANDS A. CARRY OVER T L.BASE & SURF. (MINOR) 69 RIGHT OF WAY B. SPOT ROAD M. BASE& SURF (MAJOR) 0. CONSTRUCTION C- SPOT DRAINAGE N.RESURF.& WIDEN (MINOR) 1 STORM SEWERS D. RESURFACING 0. RESURF.&WIDEN (MAJOR) 2 CULVERT RURAL P. RECONST. (SEMI-URBAN ST'D) 3. SIDEWALK E. BASE & SURF. (TOL.ST'D) _ Q.RECONST. (URBAN ST'D-NOMINAL S.S.) _ a. RWY. X-ING I I I F. BASE& SURF. (DESIGN ST'D) R. RECONST. (URBAN ST'D-INCLUD.S.S.) 5. OTHER I ( I G. RESURF.&WIDEN (TOL.ST'D) S.STORM SEWER-ROAD REINSTATEMENT 6 TOTAL COST H RESURF,&WIDEN (DESIGN ST'D) _ T. NEW CONSTRUCTION 57� NON-SUB COST (�I� RESURF.&WIDEN (4 LANES) -8 SUB. COST l I p J RECONSTRUCTION MUNIC. PERCENT OF SUBSIDIZABLE COST K NEB'd CONSTRUCTION 80. DESIRABLE JURISDICTION % i E, DESIGN CLASS I I 1 81, YEAR LAST IMPROVED 1 7`. 1a?=OVEMENT LENGTH km TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT 71%'E %OI%' (1) 1-5 YR. (2) 6-10 YR. (3) 83. PRIORITY RATING REt,;ARKS 84. PRIORITY GUIDE NO. I I 35. COST%VEH. km .,6 DATE J c__j . k (07. BY fi��"�"� `'m, hubickl Assoc. ad. SEMI-URBAN �� URBAN �_� SECTION NO, i 9.1-5-10 13 17