HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-61-82 t
fns 3'V
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 COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1982.
REPORT NO. WD-61-82.
SUBJECT: PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVER.
KING/DIVISION STREETS, BOWMANVILLE.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended:
1 . That Council consider the installation of a temporary
overhead sign to delineate the Pedestrian Crossover at
the King Street/Division Street intersection in
Bowmanville, and;
2. That funds in the amount of $3,000. 00 (Three Thousand
Dollars) to cover the estimated cost of the installation
be drawn from the account for Traffic Signs, being
Account Number 7211-0169-00321-5, and;
3. That Mr. George Walton, representative for the Petitioners
of the Veltri Complex, be advised.
REPORT:
As Members of Council are well aware, the installation and method
of delineating the Pedestrian Crossover at King and Division Streets
in Bowmanville has been an extremely contentious matter.
Notwithstanding the fact that the installation of the Pedestrian
Crossover at this location is technically undesirable, one was put
in place in accordance with the legal requirements of The Highway
Traffic Act. The intention was to leave the Crossover in this form
and approach the Ministry of Transportation & Communications for
WD-61-82 - 2 -
approval and Connecting Link subsidy in respect of a full traffic
signal installation in 1983. In the interim, however, drivers have
been ignoring the Pedestrian Crossover, with the result that people
using the facility are placed in extreme danger. Council must,
therefore, address the problem of safety at this location, before
a pedestrian is seriously injured or even killed: . Three alternatives
present themselves, as follows:
1 . Do nothing - leave the situation "as is". This is an un-
acceptable option as it does nothing to eliminate the
existing safety problem.
2. To remove the Pedestrian Crossover would cost the Town
nothing and would eliminate the false sense of security
which the persons using same now have. In short, as the
Pedestrian Crossover would no longer be physically signed
and marked, people wishing to cross King Street would have
to deal with traffic as they would at any other intersection,
i.e. in a more cautious manner.
As Council , by past actions, has already made a commitment
to a Pedestrian Crossover, this alternative would also not
be acceptable.
3. Through discussions with experts in the traffic field, it
has been found that, although not required by law, the
installation of an overhead 'Pedestrian Crossover' sign
increases the visibility of the facility and, therefore,
makes it safer. As it was originally felt that traffic
signals would be installed, at the subject location, in
the near future, the expenditure for a permanent overhead
sign could not be justified; accordingly such a sign was
not erected, and the result has been the existing safety
hazard. Due to the present situation, and the potentially
short-term demand for an overhead sign, the possibility
of a temporary installation was investigated, with the
I
WD-61-82 - 3 -
3. . . following results:
(i) The Region of Durham has an overhead 'Pedestrian
Crossover' sign in stock and is willing to lend
it to the Town at no cost, for a temporary install-
ation. If the Town is unsuccessful in it's attempts
with the Ministry of Transportation & Communications
(to have the traffic signals installed in 1983, with
benefit of subsidy dollars) , the Town will have the
option of purchasing the sign.
As there are no poles, or other standards, available
in the vicinity of the crossing, to mount the sign
it would be necessary to have temporary wooden poles
installed by the Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission,
at an estimated cost of $500. 00 (Five Hundred
Dollars) , for labour only. The understanding is that
the poles and hardware would be returned to the
H.E.C. when the sign is no longer necessary.
Once the poles are installed, the Region of Durham
would be willing to erect the sign, with associated
costs for labour, equipment and hardware estimated
in the area of $1 ,500. 00 (One Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars) .
(iv) The Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission would require
about one week's notice for pole installation, and
the Region would need 2-3 week's advance notification
for sign installation. This, then, would make the
completion possible prior to the end of this month.
(v) Due to incidental fees, and for flexibility with
respect to the accuracy of preliminary estimates,
it is recommended that a contingency amount of
$1 ,000. 00 (One Thousand Dollars) be provided.
Unexpended funds could, of course, remain in the
Traffic Sign Account.
It is also worth noting that funds expended in
WD-61-82 _ 4 _
3. . . (v) the above manner could be classified only as
' short term' in benefit if, in fact, traffic
signals are installed in 1983.
In view of the foregoing, Council may wish to proceed with the
installation of a temporary overhead sign for the Pedestrian Cross-
over at the King Street/Division Street intersection.
Respectfully submitted,
R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng. ,
Director of Public Works.
August 6, 1982.
RGD:vh