HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-15-035 - Sidewalk Infill Policy
REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: May 25, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Justin Readman, Director of Transportation Services,
519-741-2200 ext. 7038
PREPARED BY: Barry Cronkite, Transportation Planning Project Manager,
519-741-2200 ext. 7738
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: April 20, 2015
REPORT NO.: INS-15-035
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Infill Policy
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Sidewalk Infill Policy as attached to staff report INS-15-035 be approved;
and further,
That the Chief Administrative Officer be delegated authority to approve tenders
for road reconstruction projects with Council-approved sidewalk infill, provided
that the total costs are within the approved budgets contained in the relevant
departmental budgets and that a report regarding these tenders is brought to
Council at its next regular meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In order to address concerns related to sidewalk infill, staff have developed a sidewalk
infill policy that identifies processes and establishes a priority ranking system. The
primary goal in the development of this policy is to improve the sidewalk infill process as
a whole, while creating a sustainable and accessible transportation network within the
City of Kitchener.
Staff engaged a variety of stakeholders to better understand the context of sidewalk infill
and its challenges and revised the former sidewalk infill process through the
development of this policy. Part of the development of the policy included updating the
priority ranking criteria based on the following:
Transit
Major Destinations
Schools
Roadway Volume
Other Factors
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
4 - 1
The resultant priority ranking for all streets requiring sidewalk infill was further separated
into 3 levels of priority, thereby ranking sidewalk infill projects from the most critical to
complete through to the lowest priority.
The proposed policy supports a number of existing policies/procedures/guidelines that
form the foundation of sustainability, walkability and the safety of pedestrians within the
City of Kitchener.
BACKGROUND:
Sustainability, walkability and the safety of pedestrians has been an identified concern
within the City of Kitchener following a number of decisions over the past decade to move
away from an automobile-oriented transportation network and towards a more holistic
“complete streets” design. This approach is being adopted globally and allows the City to
move toward a more sustainable design that better accommodates all road users.
A “complete street” is designed for all ages, abilities, and modes of travel. Complete
Streets offer safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and
persons who require mobility devices. In order to provide a safe and complete network
for all pedestrians, including the most vulnerable, the inclusion of sidewalks on both
sides of roadways is required wherever feasible.
For the past 15 years, streets constructed as part of new subdivisions within the City of
Kitchener have been built with sidewalks on both sides. However many streets
constructed prior to 1999 lack sidewalk infrastructure on one, or in some circumstances,
both sides. It is these roadways that are subject to the City’s sidewalk infill procedures.
The most significant challenge with respect to any sidewalk infill infrastructure project is
obtaining endorsement by directly affected citizens and ultimately addressing their
concerns related to sidewalk installation.Many directly affected citizens are strongly
opposed to sidewalk infill projects and are typically vocal in their concerns. These
concerns often do not take into account the needs of other relevant stakeholders.
Additionally, research suggests that this is a common thread throughout most
municipalities conducting sidewalk infill programs and is not unique to Kitchener.
Staff have developed a sidewalk infill policy in order to address concerns related to the
infilling of sidewalks in established neighbourhoods. The policy identifies processes and
establishes a priority ranking system. The primary goal in the development of this policy
and process is to improve the sidewalk infill process as a whole.
It should be noted that the adoption of this policy supports the acceleration of the
development of walking and cycling connections, which has been identified by Council
as a Business Plan Priority. It should be noted that the City of Kitchener was recently
awarded the silver designation by Walk Friendly Ontario in recognition of the City’s efforts
for creating a more pedestrian friendly community. The City of Kitchener will need to
continue to make improvements to its pedestrian network in order to achieve higher
4 - 2
designations in the future.
It should also be noted that this policy is a tool that can be used to assist with the
development of safe routes to school and support active transportation. Without the
development of a safe and complete pedestrian network it will be an ongoing challenge
for the City to manage school traffic related issues around school sites.
REPORT:
Sidewalk infrastructure is a key component of urban design that supports walking and
sustainable communities. Sidewalks are a critical component to safe and walkable
communities, as they separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and contribute
significantly to creating a pedestrian friendly environment.
The City of Kitchener has a number of existing policies/procedures/guidelines that form
the foundation of the rationale related to sidewalk infrastructure within the City of
Kitchener.
1.0 SUPPORTING POLICIES/PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES
1.1 Development Manual
The City of Kitchener Development Manual, which was approved by Council in 2010,
outlines that roadways in newly constructed neighbourhoods are to have sidewalks on
both sides of every street, thereby promoting safety and sustainability, transit usage and
a walkable community.
1.2 Pedestrian Charter
The City of Kitchener adopted a Pedestrian Charter in 2005, which encourages and
facilitates pedestrian travel, supports community health, vitality and safety. The
Pedestrian Charter recognizes that pedestrian friendly communities increase the use of
public transit; decrease car dependency; leads to cleaner air and supports green
tourism, thereby creating an environment that provides opportunities for informal social
interaction (one of the main attributes of a vibrant, liveable urban community).
While the Pedestrian Charter does not speak to the location of sidewalks specifically,
the values and goals of the charter are intended to make the City of Kitchener as
pedestrian friendly as possible.
1.3 Kitchener’s Transportation Master Plan
The City’s Transportation Master Plan, approved by Council in June 2013, is a key tool
in continuing to build a healthy, vibrant and sustainable city, helping to provide direction
for the development of better pedestrian, cycling, transit and roadway infrastructure.
Some of the key objectives of the plan include providing transportation planning
direction for enhanced alternative modes of transportation (pedestrians, cyclists, and
4 - 3
transit users) and developing a city that is less reliant on cars. The master plan
emphasizes the importance of complete streets. Eliminating gaps in the sidewalk
network and focusing on the creation of new sidewalks and walkways, which will create
a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
1.4 Kitchener’s Transportation Demand Management Plan
In an effort to minimize traffic congestion, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce parking demand, and improve public health in the long-term, the City
has developed a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategy. This plan was
adopted by Council in February 2011.
Transportation demand management is a system used by cities to control traffic
congestion and capacity while maintaining or increasing sustainable mobility. The
installation of new sidewalk is considered a TDM tool that can reduce the proportion of
single-occupant trips thereby enhancing overall mobility and ultimately improving air
quality.
It is important to note that TDM programs involve a long-term paradigm shift in attitudes
towards travel choices. Infrastructure should be designed with future generations in
mind.
1.5 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act was enacted by the provincial
government in 2005 and, in part, was created as recognition of the history of
discrimination against persons with disabilities in Ontario. The purpose and guiding
principles of the Act is to benefit all Ontarians by developing, implementing and
enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with
disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment,
buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025.
While the AODA does not specifically state that sidewalks are required on both sides of
municipal roadways, it does speak to physical barriers. “Barriers” are defined in the act
as anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects
of society because of his or her disability.
1.6 Kitchener’s Official Plan
The City’s Official Plan highlights that a “transportation system is one of the most
important elements in shaping the form and character of a City”. A well-established
transportation system moves pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and vehicles safely and
efficiently.
4 - 4
Section 8.1.2 of the Official Plan specifically outlines enhancing the pedestrian
environment in recognition that an active pedestrian environment is key to a vibrant and
sustainable community.
1.7 Kitchener’s Strategic Plan
The City’s Strategic Plan is considered a “blueprint to the City’s future”. Many of the
community priorities identified within the strategic plan focus on the environment, quality
of life and getting around in an environmentally sustainable and healthy way.
While sidewalks on both sides of the roadway are not identified specifically, the
community priorities outlined within the community plan support pedestrian travel and
sustainability.
Ultimately, all of the documents and legislation referenced within this report would
suggest that the primary recommendation of any new policy direction related to
sidewalks and sidewalk infill should recommend that sidewalks be required on both
sides of all roadways within the City of Kitchener wherever possible.
2.0 SESSIONS WITH COUNCIL AND AGENCY STAKEHOLDERS
Transportation Services held separate strategy sessions, initially with Council, followed
by affected agencies (Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee (GRAAC),
Kitchener Youth Action Council (KYAC), Mayors Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors
(MACKS), Waterloo Region Health Unit, Grand River Transit (GRT), Cycling Advisory
Committee, various City departments). The central focus of the strategy sessions
centred on the development of a policy and process to improve the sidewalk infill
process and potential mitigation measures to address typical concerns that are voiced
through the sidewalk infill process.
Some of the key highlights and suggestions from those sessions are as follows:
• Sidewalks should be included on both sides of every street unless technical
challenges prohibit installation
• Education is the key to success. More needs to be done with citizens and
stakeholders early and often.
• Protection of the urban canopy is critical. Removing trees comes at a high
societal cost.
• Sidewalk infill projects are community improvement projects rather than localized
issues.
• Engage the community within a defined distance.
• Identify a 10-year Capital Forecast so that sidewalk infill decision making can be
identified well in advance of individual projects.
• Citizen input should be reflected in the design stage.
• Be creative in public outreach, traditional open house style meetings are
ineffective when discussing the issue of sidewalk infill.
4 - 5
• Be creative in developing solutions to the typical concerns.
• Be fair and consistent with the approach taken to sidewalk infill.
All of the above information was taken into consideration when formalizing the proposed
policy and the process with which the policy is to be implemented. Attached in
appendix B is regional report P-14-021/PH-14-006 – NEWPATH Research Project that
was provided to the City of Kitchener by the Regional Public Health Unit as part of the
strategy session with agency stakeholders. The NEWPATH research project studied
pedestrian travel, physical activity, diet and lifestyle changes resulting from the
implementation of Regional Policies and Master Plans. The key findings of the
NEWPATH report essentially illustrate that there is a strong link between health, active
transportation and the built environment in which we live.
3.0 SURVEY OF PREVIOUSLY IMPACTED STREETS
Due to sensitivities around past sidewalk infill projects (primarily through
reconstruction), staff conducted surveys that contained a series of questions to
determine overall support, process improvements and relevant concerns on roadways
that had previously been involved in the sidewalk infill process. Staff circulated citizens
of the following streets:
:
3.1 Streets that underwent sidewalk infill through reconstruction
Melrose Ave. (Krug to Stirling)
Kent Ave. (Charles to Schneider Creek)
Mill St. (Spadina Rd. E. to just north of Lansdowne Blvd)
Spadina Rd. E. (Highland to Mill)
Liberty Ave. (Pandora to Stirling)
Bismarck (Waterloo St. to Duke)
There were a total of 166 surveys out to citizens and property owners that abut or are
adjacent to the above noted streets and 35 total responses were received. The results
of this survey as it relates to the infill of sidewalks are as follows:
Did you support the installation of sidewalk on your street initially?
Yes 24 69%
No 6 17%
Indifferent 5 14%
Total 35 100%
Now that the sidewalk is in place, do you feel it has been a benefit to your broader
community?
Yes 28 80%
No 4 12%
Indifferent 3 9%
Total 35 100%
4 - 6
Do you notice more walking in your neighbourhood after the installation of the
sidewalk?
Yes 19 59%
No 15 41%
Total 32 100%
Note: 3 survey respondents did not respond to this question
This information indicates that once sidewalks are installed there is an increase in
support from citizens living along the street and a perceived increase in walking within
the neighbouhood. These trends support the objectives of increased sustainability and
walkability throughout the City of Kitchener.
3.2 Streets considered for sidewalk infill that have not yet had a sidewalk
:
constructed
Glasgow Street
Clive Road
Kennedy Street/Palmer Avenue
There were a total of 172 surveys out to citizens and property owners that abut or are
adjacent to the above noted streets and 43 total responses were received. The results
of this survey as it relates to the infill of sidewalks are as follows:
Did you support the installation of sidewalk on your street initially?
Yes 14 33%
No 28 65%
Indifferent 1 2%
Total 43 100%
Why were you opposed to sidewalk installation?
Snow removal 12/43 28%
Parking loss 17/43 40%
Impacts to landscaping 15/43 35%
Impacts to trees 17/43 40%
Property value 11/43 26%
Other 15/43 35%
It is evident that citizens who did not support sidewalk infill have a number of concerns.
However, it should be noted that most of the typical concerns can be mitigated through
alternative designs and methods of construction. Additionally some concerns can be
addressed through other agencies. For example, Community Support Connections,
The Working Centre and the House of Friendship offer snow removal for seniors and
adults with disabilities. Snow clearing services are one of many services provided by
these organizations that enable seniors and adults with disabilities to live at home with
independence and dignity.
4 - 7
It should also be noted that while property value is a perceived concern, studies across
North America have indicated that there is a distinct positive correlation between
walkability and real estate values, both commercially and residentially.
4.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH
On April 1, 2015, staff held a public information centre from 4pm to 8pm to discuss the
proposed sidewalk infill policy. Appendix C contains the responses provided from that
meeting. Additionally, staff posted all available information from that meeting online.
Twenty six (26) citizens attended the open house. Those in attendance supported the
general principles regarding walkability, sustainability and sidewalk infill. However,
some individuals in attendance indicated that while the policy itself was appropriate they
would not support sidewalk infill on their roadway.
5.0 PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
The proposed priority ranking criteria replaces existing priority ranking criteria, which
was established in 2004. Due to changes in culture and sustainable mobility, staff
determined that the criteria used previously are no longer entirely relevant to today’s
transportation environment. Accordingly, staff has updated the priority ranking criteria
based on the following:
Transit
Major Destinations
Schools
Roadway Volume
Other Factors
A more detailed breakdown of the factors, including their relative weighting is included
as part of the overall policy, in Appendix A.
The resultant priority ranking results in a score ranging from zero to 125 for all streets
requiring sidewalk infill. These streets are further separated into levels of priority:
Priority 1 - Greater than 57 points. The roadway provides connection to transit,
schools and/or a number of significant destinations. Sidewalks should be
constructed as soon as practical as there is an immediate need to provide safety,
accessibility and sustainability benefits for the broader community.
Priority 2 – 36 to 57 points. The roadway may provide connection to transit,
schools and/or number of significant destinations. Sidewalks will enhance safety,
and accessibility to pedestrian related facilities.
Priority 3 – zero to 35 points. The roadway is typically a local roadway with
limited connections to transit, schools or significant destinations.
4 - 8
Fig. 1
SIDEWALK INFILL PRIORITY LEVEL
Note: The numbers above represent the following: Priority (point range), Length of missing sidewalks in
kilometers, Percentage of total missing sidewalk.
Figure 1 illustrates that there are approximately 402km of sidewalk missing along City
streets. However, most of missing sidewalk infrastructure is priority 3.
6.0 SIDEWALK INFILL POLICY
6.1 Sidewalk Policy Infill Requirements
In general terms, roadways within the City of Kitchener should require sidewalks on
both sides to support a sustainable community and a safe and well connected
pedestrian environment. That being said, staff recognize that there are instances where
sidewalks on one side of a roadway sufficiently support a safe, sustainable and
connected pedestrian environment. Accordingly, staff has developed minimum
benchmarks to quantify where exemptions may be authorized by staff and/or Council.
6.2 Sidewalk Infill Warrant Criteria
The following warrant criteria outline sidewalk infill requirements on roadways within the
City of Kitchener:
All roadways should attempt to have sidewalks on both sides; however, specific
requirements for each priority are outlined below. Regardless of the priority ranking,
any roadway that is a transit route and/or has a minimum traffic volume of 2000 vehicles
per day should have sidewalks on both sides.
4 - 9
6.2.1 Sidewalks on Both Sides – Priority 1 Roadways
Should a roadway be identified as a Priority 1, as defined by the priority ranking criteria,
sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roadway as they connect to a
significant number of pedestrian origins and destinations.
6.2.2 Sidewalk Requirements – Priority 2 Roadways
Should a roadway be identified as a priority 2, as defined by the priority ranking criteria,
sidewalks are recommended on both sides. That being said, an exemption may be
authorized by staff and/or Council if any of the following conditions apply:
The infill of sidewalks on one or both sides of the roadway would negatively
impact the character of the neighbourhood as identified through a cultural
heritage landscape study
The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would result in significant site
specific impacts that cannot be mitigated
The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would result in a substantial
loss of mature, desirable trees or other environmentally sensitive impacts that
cannot be mitigated
The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would result in significant
impacts on seasonal maintenance that may result in a substantial increase to the
City’s annual Operating budget
6.2.3 Sidewalk Requirements – Priority 3 Roadways
Should a roadway be identified as a priority 3, as defined by the priority ranking criteria,
sidewalks will be investigated on both sides, however, should there be any technical
challenges in construction, or a lack of demonstrated citizen support, an exemption will
be authorized and sidewalks will be required on one side only.
6.2.4 Approved Sidewalk Infill Exemptions
Should a roadway be identified for an exemption and sidewalks are only installed on
one side of the roadway, staff will not revisit the inclusion of sidewalk on both sides for a
minimum period of 10 years unless otherwise directed by Council.
6.2.5 Citizen/Council Requests for Sidewalks
Requests for sidewalks are occasionally received from citizens or members of Council.
When this occurs staff will review the request on a case-by-case basis to determine
when the project can be scheduled in to the overall work program. This may bump up
projects that are listed as a lower priority.
4 - 10
6.3 Mitigation Measures to Typical Concerns
Where sidewalks are being constructed within an existing neighbourhood, mitigation
can help to alleviate some citizen concern. The following outlines typical concerns and
the mitigation measures that should be considered on a case by case basis:
Loss of trees - trees will be replaced at a ratio of two trees planted per every tree
removed in order to preserve the urban canopy
Impacted landscaping and appurtenances – Staff will work closely with citizens to
relocate privately owned landscaping and appurtenances that are currently within
the public right of way and impacted by sidewalk infill.
Alternate materials – Sidewalks can be installed in a material alternative to
concrete (ex. Rubberized or pre-cast concrete sidewalks) to limit impacts to trees
and landscaping.
Alternate designs – Alternate designs of the sidewalk and/or roadway can be
used to address a number of concerns, including tree preservation and loss of
parking.
Potential impacts to annual maintenance – curb faced sidewalk and/or similar
roadway designs that negatively impact municipal seasonal maintenance
procedures are not preferred. Curb faced sidewalk should only be considered in
exceptional circumstances where no other viable solution is presented and
operations staff are consulted on the design.
6.4 Sidewalk Infill Process
A report will be brought forward for council endorsement on an annual basis
recommending locations for sidewalk infill. This report will be taken to Council at least
one year prior to proposed installation to outline the reasoning for the requirements of
sidewalk installation.
Staff will mail a circulation to citizens within 400m of all potential sidewalk infill projects.
This will allow Council to make informed decisions based on staff’s justification as well
as the desire and needs of affected citizens, particularly for priority 3 locations.
Figure 2 outlines the proposed “typical” sidewalk infill process.
4 - 11
Fig. 2
SIDEWALK INFILL PROCESS MAP
7.0 SIDEWALK INFILL THROUGH RECONSTRUCTION
While the prioritization of sidewalks works well for a separate sidewalk infill capital
program, instances where sidewalks are being constructed as part of an overall
reconstruction project can be more challenging. This is mainly due to the fact that these
locations may not contain many of the features that would rank them higher in priority
for infill. This can lead to citizen skepticism with respect to the need for the sidewalk.
However, the lack of inclusion of sidewalks may result in a missed opportunity that will
not recur for another 80 to 100 years.
The reconstruction of any roadway is an ideal opportunity to make physical changes to
the cross section to enhance sustainability and safety for all users. By adapting change
through reconstruction, disruptions to the neighbourhood can be minimized and financial
savings can be realized. It should be noted that roadways only require a full
4 - 12
reconstruction once every 80 to 100 years, and as a result, opportunities to invoke
change in this manner are limited. Figure 3 outlines the reconstruction process, and
indicates how the sidewalk infill process should be integrated.
Fig. 3
SIDEWALK INFILL THROUGH RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS MAP
Staff are recommending that delegated authority to award tenders be granted to the
CAO to limit the number of times a project must be approved by Committee and
Council. Staff would only seek additional approval from Council should the
reconstruction tender be over the allocated budget.
This type of delegation borrows wording from the CAO by-law and the purchasing by-
law and is intended as an efficiency, while also reducing the potential for the same
sidewalk issue to be debated through two separate processes. A report regarding these
tenders will be brought to Council at its next regular meeting following award by the
CAO
4 - 13
It should be noted that while the City of Kitchener typically does 10-12 reconstruction
projects annually, the inclusion of sidewalks in these varies considerably from year to
year, typically ranging from zero to 6 projects total.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Sidewalk Infill Policy has been recommended to establish a priority
ranking system for sidewalk infill projects and identify a procedure in which to follow.
The new policy should allow the City of Kitchener to move forward with a fair and
consistent approach to sidewalk infill that achieves the sustainability and pedestrian
oriented goals and objectives outlined in various Municipal policies and guiding
documents.
It should be noted that while the policy attempts to improve the sidewalk infill process
there will likely be continued citizen opposition related to individual sidewalk infill
projects. The process outlined above offers a mechanism for staff to attempt to allay
concerns; however, there will always be instances where all concerns cannot be
mitigated.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This initiative falls under the Community Priority of Quality of Life. “Work with partners,
including all orders of government, to create a culture of safety in our community.”
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is anticipated that the annual budget will continue to allocate resources for the infill of
sidewalks. In the past, the annual budget contained approximately $165,000 for
sidewalk infill. This budget allows for approximately 1.5 kilometers of sidewalk infill on
one side of the roadway per year. Based on the current budget allocation and excluding
the cost of inflation, it will take more than 40 years just to complete the sidewalk network
identified as priority 1.
The annual cost of the infill of sidewalk through reconstruction varies based on the
capital forecast; however that cost will be allocated for through individual capital
reconstruction programs.
It should be noted that the infill of sidewalk can result in municipal seasonal
maintenance costs as well. Maintenance costs will be defined on an individual project
basis and included within any relevant staff reports.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Staff engaged Council and affected stakeholders through strategic strategy sessions
and consulted affected citizens by way of surveys and a public meeting. The public
meeting was advertised in The Kitchener Post and The Record. Additionally those that
were previously involved in the process in any manner were circulated an invitation of
the public meeting.
4 - 14
Sidewalk infill, when executed, should involve extensive public involvement and ongoing
communication.
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in
advance of the council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Dev Tyagi, Deputy CAO
Attach.
Appendix A – Proposed Sidewalk Infill Policy
Appendix B – NEWPATH Research Project – Regional Report P-14-021/PH-14-006
Appendix C – PIC responses
4 - 15
Appendix A COUNCIL POLICY RESOLUTION
POLICY NUMBER:DATE: MAY 25, 2015
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
PURPOSE
Sidewalk infrastructure is a key component of the urban environment that
encourages and facilitates active transportation, supports community health,
neighbourhood connectivity, community vitality and safety. Sidewalks contribute
significantly to a sustainable community and a pedestrian friendly environment.
This policy outlines the basic premise of the sidewalk infill strategy and policy
within the City of Kitchener.
SCOPE:
All roadways should attempt to have sidewalks on both sides to support a
sustainable community and a pedestrian friendly environment.
POLICY CONTENT:
1. Infill of sidewalk on existing roads
Existing roadways that do not already have sidewalks on both sides will be
subject to the following:
a) Downtown:
Sidewalk is required on both sides of all roadways within the Downtown as
designated within the Official Plan, with the exception of public lanes.
Sidewalks in the Downtown should be a minimum width of 2.1 meters.
b) Scenic Roads/Heritage Conservation Districts
For roadways designated as scenic heritage and roadways within a
Heritage Conservation District, sidewalks shall be provided in accordance
with the respective approved polices and in consultation with Heritage
Planning.
KITCHENERPage 1 of 5 MAY 2015
4 - 16
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
c) Funding will be allocated through the annual capital budget process to a
sidewalk infill capital program for sidewalk infill construction. Council is
responsible for the approval of the capital program.
d) Roadways with a minimum of 2000 vehicles per day shall have sidewalks
on both sides
e) Roadways that serve as a transit route shall have sidewalks on both sides.
f) Notwithstanding d) and e), sidewalk infill will be rated and prioritized by
staff based on the criteria outlined in Table 1. The rationale for priority
rating is as follows:
PRIORITY 1 – GREATER THAN 57 points.
i)Sidewalks shall be
required on both sides of the roadway as they connect to a
significant number of pedestrian origins and destinations.
PRIORITY 2 - 36-57 points.
ii)Sidewalks are recommended on
both sides of the roadway. An exemption may be authorized by
staff and/or Council if any of the following conditions apply:
i. The infill of sidewalks on one or both sides of the roadway
would negatively impact the character of the neighbourhood
as identified through a cultural heritage landscape study
ii. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in significant site specific impacts that cannot be
mitigated
iii. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in a substantial loss of mature, desirable trees or other
environmentally sensitive impacts that cannot be mitigated
iv. The infill of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would
result in significant impacts on seasonal maintenance that
may result in a substantial increase to the City’s annual
Operating budget.
PRIORITY 3 - 35 Points or Less.
iv) Sidewalks will be
investigated on both sides, however, should there be any technical
challenges in construction, or a lack of demonstrated citizen
support, an exemption will be authorized and sidewalks will be
required on one side only.
g) Should sidewalks only be installed on one side of the roadway, then
preference will be given to that side of the roadway that provides the
KITCHENERPage 2 of 5 May 2015
4 - 17
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
greatest pedestrian connectivity and/or limits the impacts on mature trees,
seasonal maintenance and landscaping.
h) Once sidewalk infill has been identified for construction, all affected
citizens within 400m of the proposed sidewalk infill project will be
circulated for comment. Circulation shall include the reasoning for the
requirements of sidewalk installation and any potential constraints and
concerns that have been identified.
i) A report will be brought forward for council endorsement on an annual
basis recommending locations for sidewalk infill. This report will be taken
to Council at least one year prior to proposed installation to outline the
reasoning for the requirements of sidewalk installation.
j) Once a report regarding sidewalk infill has been considered by Council
and a resolution passed, staff shall adhere to the resolution throughout the
project design, tendering and construction process.
k) Should sidewalks be requested by council or citizens, staff will review the
location individually, regardless of the overall priority ranking of the
roadway, and may be scheduled in to the overall capital program.
l) Capital road reconstruction projects that propose sidewalk infill are subject
to the above terms and conditions highlighted within the identified
sidewalk infill priority ranking system and terms of this policy.
m) The infill of sidewalks on regional roadways will occur through the Region
of Waterloo’s capital road reconstruction program and will not be affected
by this policy.
n) Sidewalk infill construction will adhere to all legislative requirements.
o) Should a roadway be identified for an exemption staff will not revisit the
infill of sidewalks along that roadway for a minimum period of 10 years
unless otherwise directed by Council.
2. Mitigation
Where sidewalks are being constructed within an existing neighbourhood, the
following mitigation measures will be considered where feasible:
a) Loss of trees - should tree removal be required due to the infill of
sidewalk, trees will be replaced at a ratio of two trees planted per every
tree removed.
KITCHENERPage 3 of 5 May 2015
4 - 18
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
b) Loss of off-street parking – In areas where a significant loss of off-street
parking occurs as a result of sidewalk infill, alternative roadway and/or
sidewalk designs are to be considered.
c) Impacted landscaping and appurtenances – Privately owned landscaping
and appurtenances within the public right of way will be relocated with
sufficient set back from the sidewalk location. While the City will work
collaboratively with the owner of the landscaping and/ or appurtenances,
the City of Kitchener is ultimately not responsible for any damages that
occur to anything that has been installed within the public right of way
without prior authorization by the City of Kitchener.
d) Alternate materials – Sidewalks can be installed in an alternate material to
concrete where design constraints warrant such application. Alternate
materials must preserve the existing character of the established
neighbourhood.
e) Alternate designs – Alternate designs of the sidewalk and/or roadway will
be considered where design constraints warrant such application.
f) Operations and Maintenance – all alternative designs and materials shall
consider impact to municipal operations and maintenance of affected
roadways and sidewalks. Exemptions may be warranted should unique
design alternatives not adequately address municipal seasonal
maintenance concerns.
KITCHENERPage 4 of 5 May 2015
4 - 19
POLICY NUMBER:
POLICY TYPE:
SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INFILL
Table 1
SIDEWALK INFILL PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
ROADWAY VOLUME POINTS MAX
Under 2000 vehicles per day 0
2000-4999 vehicles per day 10
5000-7999 vehicles per day 20
8000 vehicles per day or greater 25
max total 25
PEDESTRIAN DESTINATIONS
TRANSIT
Within 800m of the proposed multi modal hub and rapid
transit station areas 25
On an existing or future bus route 15
within 200m of a bus stop 10
within 450m of a bus stop 5
within 600m of an iXress transit stop 15
max total 25
MAJOR DESTINATION
Within 800m of the downtown 25
Within 800m of a major employer (500 employees or
greater). 20
Within 400m of a mixed use corridor 20
max total 25
SCHOOLS
Within 800m of a high school 25
Within 1.6km of a high school 12
Within 3.2km of a high school 6
Within 800m of an elementary school 25
Within 800m of a post secondary school 15
max total 25
OTHER FACTORS
Within 400m of a commercial zone 5
Within 400m of a community programs facility or park 5
Completion of a link along the same roadway 5
Within 400m of a health care facility 5
Within 400m of a place of worship5
Within 400m of a Type 1/Type 2 trail 5
max total25
OVERALL125
KITCHENERPage 5 of 5 May 2015
4 - 20
Appendix B
4 - 21
Appendix B
4 - 22
Appendix B
4 - 23
Appendix B
4 - 24
Appendix B
4 - 25
Appendix B
4 - 26
Appendix B
4 - 27
Appendix C
4 - 28
Appendix C
4 - 29
Appendix C
4 - 30
Appendix C
4 - 31
Appendix C
4 - 32
Appendix C
4 - 33
Appendix C
4 - 34
Appendix C
4 - 35
Appendix C
Tri-Cities Transport Action Group (TriTAG)
Do you agree with the proposed Sidewalk policy?
1.
The Tri-Cities Transport Action Group is pleased to see the City developing a consistent policy for prioritizing sidewalk
infill. A systematic and objective approach would enable the City to fulfill its goals of improving neighbourhood
walkability in a way that is determined by demand and safety needs rather than political expediency.
General comments
2.
We would encourage the City to increase the ranges of rapid transit and iXpress stations for the sidewalk infill criteria
scoring.Current research suggests that rapid transit station areas of influence extend well beyond the presumed half- or
quarter-mile walking distance limits for transit. We would recommend station area radii of 1.6 km and 800 m, for rapid
transit and iXpress respectively.
We would further recommend that the policy include measures that would include enhanced pedestrian crossings, such as
refuge islands on roads with sidewalks on only one side, to ensure access to transit stops on the non-sidewalk sides of
streets with bus routes. (The newly paved section of Lexington in Waterloo, between Davenport and University, provides
a good example of this.)
Finally, we would recommend that the evaluation criteria include consideration of streets identified as on-road connections
for trails in the City of Kitchener Multi-Use Pathways and Trails Master Plan. This would help to ensure that these
connections are prioritized for sidewalk infill.
4 - 36