Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-08-036 - Construction of New Sidewalks in Existing Urbanized Areas1 K KR Development& Technical Services REPORT Report To: DTS Committee, Chair - Christina Weylie Date of Meeting: March 31, 2008 Submitted By: Grant Murphy - Director of Engineering, Development and Technical Services Prepared By: Greg McTaggart - Manager of Engineering Asset Planning Wards} Involved: All Date of Report: February 19, 2008 Report No.: DTS-08-036 Subject: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS IN EXISTING URBANISED AREAS RECOMMENDATION: A} That Council continue to endorse the annual new sidewalk installation program which supports the City's Pedestrian Charter (adopted by Council in April of 2005} and the Air Quality In Kitchener Report, recommendation 2.8 (presented to Council in May of 2006} that support the principles of accessibility, equity, health and well- being, environmental sustainability, personal and community safety, and are used to ensure walking is a safe, comfortable and convenient mode of urban travel; and further, B} That staff be directed to continue to work with the community to assist in developing awareness in regard to the importance of these principles when sidewalk construction is being proposed; and further, C) That the following list of proposed new sidewalk segments developed using the methodology described in this report be approved for use in the 2008 new sidewalk construction program, and that this methodology be approved for future new sidewalk infill prioritisation. BACKGROUND: In 2003, a Sidewalk Study Group was convened consisting of staff from Engineering Services, Community Services, Information Technology, and Economic Development finalized the development of a model that was intended to be used to identify areas of greatest need for sidewalk, and specifically assist in the prioritization and budgeting of the construction of new sidewalks in locations other than industrial areas, or new subdivisions that are being planned or currently under construction. These areas generally are already developed and urbanized, but for various reasons did not have sidewalks installed at the time of their initial construction. The process of filling in these "gaps" in the city's existing sidewalk network is often referred to as "sidewalk infilling". Although it would be desirable to have new sidewalk constructed in a significant portion of these locations in as short a time as is possible, the reality is that it will take at least 27 years at the current rates of funding allocated to this activity to address the top one-third (in terms of priority) of this backlog, due to the shear scope of the task. The intent of prioritising this work is to ensure that locations with the greatest need for sidewalks are addressed as soon as possible, with lower priorities coming later in the process. This is intended to ensure that the greatest public need is addressed first, and that funding allocated to this activity is spent in the most effective manner possible. Until now, this model has not been vetted through Council to affirm these objectives or the methodology intended to effectively administer and plan for the installation of sidewalks. Notwithstanding, Engineering staff have begun to use the model to prioritize the allocation of capital funding that is allocated annually to new sidewalk construction, and to address sidewalk needs in other projects and programs that comprise the accelerated infrastructure program - such as road reconstruction projects may be affected by this issue. The model is being used to assist with the development of the annual budget, prioritisation and timetables for work, and longer-term funding forecasts. Prior to using this model, the process of selection for new sidewalk involved information based on random observations, anecdotal information, and citizen concerns -both requesting and opposing new sidewalks in their neighbourhood. The decision support model that has been developed ensures that all possible locations in the city are being assessed in an objective and consistent manner. REPORT: In developing the sidewalk demand model, the Study Group conducted an extensive review of the factors that influence the priority of need for sidewalks. Features within the City that generate the highest demand for sidewalks were inventoried, and then a comparison of public demand relative to each other was applied to develop a demand weighting for each of the 10 features defined as generating above-typical demand for sidewalk. To use some examples, the three highest factors that were determined to drive the greatest demand for sidewalks were: (1) schools, due to schoolchildren walking to and from school everyday, (2) special needs facilities such as hospitals and social service agencies due to their being commonly used public "destinations", and (3) streets with high vehicular traffic volume, due to the increased risk that pedestrians face walking in such conditions. A point scoring system was then developed and applied to the identified demand features, with features deemed to generate a higher demand for sidewalk receiving a higher proportional point value on a possible scale of 100. Together, the values for all demand features total 100 points, therefore the location with the highest possible demand for a new sidewalk would be assessed 100 points. Presented in Table 4 & 5 are the identified demand features used in the system, and the relative score applied to each. In order to develop a prioritisation for new sidewalk infill construction, if any location currently without sidewalk fell within a predetermined buffer distance from any of the identified demand features, it was awarded the score assigned to that particular demand feature. The buffer distances were set at 50 metres, except for 120 metres for schools. Most locations in the city will receive more than a "0" score as they will likely fall within the buffer zone of at least one feature. From this assessment, a prioritised list of all locations in need of new sidewalk infill in the city was developed. For example, if a particular location currently without sidewalk was 80 meters from a school, 40 meters from a library, 35 meters from a community trail, fell within a high density population area, and had both a bus route and posted speed of 60 kmlh on the street adjacent to it, the location in question would be rated as follows: Proximity to school = 23 points Proximity to library = 8 points Proximity to community trail = 8 points Within a high population density zone= l 0 points Adjacent to a bus route = 10 points On a street with higher posted speed limits= 5 points TOTAL SCORE FOR THIS LOCATION= 64 points Once all locations without sidewalk were assessed and rated, a prioritisation class system was assigned to all candidate new sidewalk locations that garnered points in the assessment. Table 1: Prioritisation Class System PRIORITY CLASS WEIGHTING SCORE Priorit 1 68 - 100 oints Priorit 2 46 - 67 oints Priorit 3 29 - 45 oints Priorit 4 1 - 28 oints Using the example used previous, the location that was assessed a demand score of 64 points would be assigned the priority class "2". Table 2 following illustrates the classification of all identified locations under City stewardship currently without sidewalk into the 4 priority classes for new sidewalk installation, by amount of work required to complete each class (in kilometres), and the amount each class represents as a percentage of the all locations identified. Table 2: New Sidewalk Priorities By Class Breakdown Based on the above criteria, staff have developed a recommended installation plan for the new sidewalk construction program that addresses new sidewalk needs that fall within the "priority 1 " demand category firstly; ranks the order of construction of each of those priority 1 locations from highest to lowest based on their assessed weightings, and then positions them in an anticipated construction year based on capital budget allocation for this program in the 10-year capital forecast. The same processes are done for "priority 2" and "priority 3" locations. Identified locations assessed as priority classes 1 through 3 that lie within areas slated for other planned infrastructure work, such as a full road reconstruction, would receive sidewalks at the time of that project's execution. Locations that have been assessed a priority 4 designation would be assessed on acase-by-case basis, as the demand features driving a need for sidewalk in these locations are fewer in number and other factors unique to the location may override the few demand sidewalk features existing in that location. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The adoption of this system has no immediate effect from a funding perspective, as it is used to prioritise new sidewalk installation work based on the greatest public need, not determine the desired rate of progress. It will prioritise the locations in need of sidewalk based on objective criteria and specify the number of those locations that can be addressed in a given year, based on the budget available to perform that work and the estimated cost of installing new sidewalk at each location. In a larger context, will demonstrate the time that it will take to address each prioritisation class of sidewalk based on current budget projections in the 10-year capital forecast. Priority 1: 5 km Priority 2:27 km 2% of Total ~ 9% of Total The attached Appendix `A' provides the list of locations identified as Priority Class 1 and 2 for new sidewalk installation, and their recommended installation period based on the current capital budget allocation for such works as is specified in the 10-year capital forecast. This model is not intended to determine the matter of how quickly new sidewalk installation work should be completed. It can however project how much time is required to address each priority class based on any funding model for such work that is put forward. Funding model alternatives that Council might consider include: (1) keeping the status quo, (2) increasing the funding allocated to new sidewalks with the goal of expediting the new sidewalk installation process, or (3} reducing funding for this activity. Table 3 below describes the anticipated time in years required to complete construction for each class of new sidewalk installation based on priority classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the status quo budget trends, and example projections for a theoretical reduction in funding of 25%, and an increase in funding of 25%. Table 3. Priority Priority Priority Priority 1 2 3 4 Fundin Model 9 Total Years To Complete All Locations (approx) Status Quo 1 year 5 years 21 88 115 years years years 25% Greater 0.7 ear y 4 ears y 17 68 Fundin ears ears 90 ears 25% Lesser 1.2 6 ears y 28 113 Fundin ears ears ears 148 ears There currently is no recommendation to change the current funding projections for this activity from the status quo, and the increase/decrease scenarios are shown for illustrative purposes. CONCLUSION: It is our long term objective to have sidewalks on both sides of the street where possible to assist in addressing the goals stated in the City's "Clean Air Plan" and "Pedestrian Charter". In addition, it is a stated goal of the city to whenever possible to employ practices that will improve the air quality for citizens. To ensure walking is as safe, comfortable and convenient a mode of urban travel as possible in the city, this approach furthers the principles of accessibility, equity, health and well-being, environmental sustainability, personal and community safety, and community cohesion and vitality. With this in mind, we are advancing the recommendations stated above for future sidewalk installations within the City of Kitchener. Grant Murphy, P.Eng. Director, Engineering Services Greg McTaggart, C.Tech. Manager, Infrastructure Asset Planning Table 4: Demand features for new sidewalk used in the system, and the relative weighting score applied to each. Demand Feature Weighting Score Buffer Distance From oints Feature meters School Areas 23 120 Special Needs Facilities 15 50 includes: - Hospitals and clinics - Senior's facilities - Chronic care facilities - Child care facilities - Government services High Vehicular Traffic Areas: average annual 12 50 daily traffic greater than or equal to 6000 vehicles Public Transportation Facilities 10 50 includes: - Bus route - Railwa assen er terminal High Density Population: neighbourhood 10 50 density greater than or equal to 6013 persons er s uare km. Neighbourhood Pedestrian Links 8 50 includes: - Walkways - Communit trails Community Facilities and Resources 8 50 includes: - Public sports facilities (sports fields, sports centres, basket ball courts, arenas, pools) - Parks - Community resources (community centres, libraries) - Skatin rinks Places Of Worship 5 50 includes: - Churches - Mosques -Synagogues - Temples Streets With Higher Vehicle Speeds: posted 5 50 seed limit is reater than ore ual to 60km/hr Tourist Attractions 4 50 POSSIBLE TOTAL 100 Table 5: Proportional comparison of the weighting applied to new sidewalk demand features used in the system. New Sidewalk Criteria Weighting Tourist Attractions Posted Speed >= 60kn~lhr 4% 5 %r. School Areas Places of Worship 23% 5% ~ Public Recreation Facilities /~~ 8% ~, Neighbourhood Li~~lcs 8% Special Needs 15 %r `~ Population Density ~, 10% \,___ ,~---~ AADT >= 6000 12% Transit 10% Appendix `A': Locations identified as Priority Class 1 and 2 for new sidewalk installation, and their recommended installation period based on the current capital budget allocation for such works as specified in the 10-year capital forecast. 2008 Construction Year SCORE PRIORITY CLASS 73 P1(>67 ) 72 P1(>67 ) 70 P1(>67 ) STREET CONESTOGA COLLEGE BLVD HERITAGE DR GAGE AVE 68 P1(>67) DOON VALLEY DR 68 P1(>67) ORCHARD MILL ORES 68 P1(>67) DOON VALLEY DR 66 P2 (46-67) OLDFIELD DR 65 P2 (46-67) NORTH DR 65 P2 (46-67) PANDORA AVE S 2009 Construction Year 61 61 60 58 58 58 58 58 57 56 56 56 P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) UNION ST ARNOLD ST ROCKWAY DR SIMEON ST BLOCK LINE RD WOOLWICH ST WOOLWICH ST HOMER WATSON BLVD STIRLING AVE S MORGAN AVE DOON VILLAGE RD VANIER DR CONESTOGA COLLEGE BLVD FROM_STREET DOON VALLEY DR OTTAWA ST N WAVERLY RD CONESTOGA COLLEGE BLVD DOON VALLEY DR PINNACLE DR OTTAWA ST N QUEENS BLVD STIRLING LANE MARGARET AVE OXFORD ST FLORAL ORES STIRLING AVE N HANOVER ST SHIRK PL BRIDGE ST W STIRLING AVE S FORK IN ROAD FAIRWAY RD N DOON SOUTH DR B ONIFACE AVE TO_STREET HOMER WATSON BLVD EB YDALE DR BELMONT AVE W END DOON VALLEY DR DURHAM ST EB YDALE DR SPADINA RD W KING ST E SUNSET PL LANCASTER ST W DOON RD FORK IN ROAD HOMER WATSON BLVD BRIDGE ST W HILLCREST LANE HOFFMAN ST COURTLAND AVE E SOUTHILL DR END WALTON AVE HOMER WATSON BLVD 56 P2 (46-67) 2010 Construction Year SCORE 56 55 55 55 55 54 54 54 54 53 53 53 53 PRIORITY CLASS P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) P2 (46-67) STREET DOON VALLEY DR FLORAL ORES ROCKWAY DR DOON RD BLOCK LINE RD STIRLING AVE N NICHOLE ORES ZELLER DR SUSAN CRT CARWOOD AVE EULER AVE MONTGOMERY RD TYSON DR DOON VALLEY DR FROM_STREET PINNACLE DR ROCKWAY DR FLORAL ORES FLORAL ORES LAURENTIAN DR LYDIA ST THE COUNTRY WAY JANET CRT SUSAN ORES CAYLEY CRT WEBER ST E WEBER ST E BRIDGE ST E TO_STREET DURHAM ST DOON RD DOON RD ROCKWAY DR WESTMOUNT RD E EAST AVE THE COUNTRY WAY WILD MEADOW ST CUL DE SAC COURTLAND AVE E PROSPECT AVE BRENTWOOD AVE HORNING DR 53 P2 (46-67) NORTH DR MARLBOROUGH AVE HIGHLAND RD W 53 P2 (46-67) KNELL DR WESTWOOD DR GLASGOW ST 2011 Construction Year 53 P2 (46-67) KEHL ST HOFFMAN ST OTTAWA ST S 51 P2 (46-67) CHAPEL HILL DR CARYNDALE DR EVENSTONE AVE 50 P2 (46-67) MILL ST BORDEN PKY MILL ST 50 P2 (46-67) TURNER AVE VICTORIA STN FREDERICK ST 50 P2 (46-67) GLASGOW ST WESTMOUNT RD W GLASGOW LANE 50 P2 (46-67) WASHBURN DR BLEAMS RD TRILLIUM DR 50 P2 (46-67) ARDELT AVE ARDELT PL HANSON AVE 2012 Construction Year 50 P2 (46-67) WILSON AVE FAIRWAY RD S WEBSTER RD 50 P2 (46-67) WASHBURN DR BLEAMS RD TRILLIUM DR 49 P2 (46-67) SCENIC WOOD ORES THALER AVE THALER AVE 49 P2 (46-67) BELLEVIEW AVE SMITHSON ST SUFFOLK AVE 49 P2 (46-67) DOON SOUTH DR DOON VILLAGE RD WINDRUSH TRAIL 49 P2 (46-67) GOUNDRY ORES RITTENHOUSE RD ERINBROOK DR 49 P2 (46-67) IMPERIAL DR OTTAWA STS CUL DE SAC 49 P2 (46-67) ST GEORGE ST PETER ST CEDAR ST S 49 P2 (46-67) IMPERIAL DR OTTAWA STS CUL DE SAC 49 P2 (46-67) WINDERMERE CRT ROLLING MEADOWS DR CUL DE SAC 49 P2 (46-67) TRADEWINDS PL ROLLING MEADOWS DR CUL DE SAC 49 P2 (46-67) CUMBERLAND PL ROLLING MEADOWS DR CUL DE SAC 2013 Construction Year 48 P2 (46-67) HOMER WATSON BLVD STIRLING AVE S HOFFMAN ST 47 P2 (46-67) STRASBURG RD CHANDLER DR OTTAWA ST S 47 P2 (46-67) CHANDLER DR STRASBURG RD WOODFERN CRT 46 P2 (46-67) DOON VALLEY DR OLD MILL RD END 46 P2 (46-67) CARYNDALE DR ROBERTSON ORES CHAPEL HILL DR 46 P2 (46-67) ZELLER DR JANET CRT WILD MEADOW ST 46 P2 (46-67) HEARTHWOOD ORES HEARTHWOOD DR HEARTHWOOD DR 46 P2 (46-67) BEECHROYAL PL WESTFOREST TRAIL WESTFOREST TRAIL 46 P2 (46-67) VANIER DR CUL DE SAC BONIFACE AVE 46 P2 (46-67) LANG ORES SPRINGDALE DR BRIDGEPORT RD 46 P2 (46-67) BATTLER RD HURON RD OLD HURON RD