2. road patrol frequency – follow-up analysis

fréquence des patrouilles routières – analyse de suivi

committee recommendation

That Council approve the current practice of exclusively patrolling Class 1 and 2 roads be continued.

recommandation du rapport

Que le Conseil approuve que la pratique actuelle de ne patrouiller que les routes de catégories 1 et 2 soit maintenue.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager (City Operations) Committee report dated 28 October 2008 (ACS2008-COS-SOP-0013).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 5 November 2008.

Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation Committee /

Comité des transports

and Council / et au conseil

28 October 2008 / le 28 octobre 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par ; Steve Kanellakos,

Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

City Operations/Opérations municipales

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi,

Director / Directeur, Surface Operations/Opérations de surface

(613) 580-2424 x 21110, John.Manconi@ottawa.ca

City-wide \ À l’échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-COS-SOP-0013

SUBJECT:	Road Patrol Frequency – Follow-up Analysis

OBJET :	FRÉQUENCE DES PATROUILLES ROUTIÈRES – ANALYSE DE SUIVI

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve the current practice of exclusively patrolling Class 1 and 2 roads be continued.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil d’approuver que la pratique actuelle de ne patrouiller que les routes de catégories 1 et 2 soit maintenue.

BACKGROUND

The Road Patrol Program report was tabled at the September 3^rd,Transportation Committee meeting and on September 11^th, 2008 to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee.

The staff report made recommendations to expand the Road Patrol Program from its current state to be aligned with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation 239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads and to provide the necessary funding and staff resources to do so. Staff recommendations were not approved by Council; however, Council did approve the following motion:

3. WHEREAS there are currently roads that do not receive the attention of the current staff assigned to the road patrol function;

WHEREAS roads do not deteriorate in a manner that is precipitous leading to unsafe conditions as might perhaps be the case with bridges;

WHEREAS the local community can be counted on to report exceptional physical deterioration or missing manhole covers causing unsafe conditions and a need for a prompt response;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Road Patrol Frequency for the various road categories be adjusted so that:

§ All roads receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that,

§ The road patrol staffing level remain at the current level, and that,

§ Staff report, within 2 months, on the proposed examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised policy.

This report provides the results of the analysis requested at Transportation Committee, which requested that: “Staff report, within 2 months, on the proposed examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised policy” as noted in amended recommendation three.

DISCUSSION

Currently, staff resources are used for road patrols exclusively on Class 1 and 2 roads (Highway 174 and arterial roadways). These roads carry the highest traffic loads at the highest speeds and present the highest risk to the users of the Transportation Network. Despite focusing exclusively on Class 1 and 2 roads, the City of Ottawa still does not meet the patrol frequency recommended by Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards (see Table 1).

Staff analysed the alternative patrol frequencies proposed by Transportation Committee. Under the proposed alternative, existing resources would be allocated to patrolling Class 3, 4, and 5 roads twice a year, and the remaining resources dedicated to patrolling Class 1 and 2 roads. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1, and show that patrolling of Class 1 and 2 roads would be reduced from one to two times per week to once a week.

This alternative, proposed by Transportation Committee, is not recommended for the following reasons:

§ It diverts resources from the higher priority, higher risk roads and redistributes them to lower priority, lower risk roads; and

§ The twice per year frequency is insufficient to pick up the relatively short-term deficiencies intended to be identified by the patrols.

The following points help to support the approach of focusing exclusively on the highest-class roadways:

1. Speed and volume of traffic

The 8 km freeway section of Highway 174 has the highest speed limit of all municipally owned roads and the greatest volume of daily traffic. The westbound average annual daily traffic (AADT) is nearly 35,000 vehicles, while the eastbound AADT is slightly greater than 35,000 vehicles. Both factors contribute to Highway 174’s Class 1 designation and indicate the importance of ensuring adequate roadway conditions at all times. In staff’s opinion, the proposed alternative would not permit the City to ensure adequate conditions.

2. In-Service Safety Reviews

The City has retained an independent team of consultants to perform a number of in-service safety reviews (ISSRs) focused on Highway 174, including both its 4-lane (Class 1) and 2-lane (Class 2) sections. ISSRs are performed when a number of serious road safety concerns have been identified on road segments or intersections, and a number of traffic collisions have been reported on all parts of Highway 174. Preliminary findings of the ISSRs indicate that preventive/corrective road maintenance needs more attention in both the mainline of the freeway section and the two-lane road in areas such as pavement condition, debris in the roadway, median cable barrier and shoulder discontinuities.

Lower priority roads have lower speed limits, less traffic, and fewer identified serious road safety concerns. Using the limited funding for only sporadic patrol of lower priority roads could be used more effectively for regular patrol of higher risk roads. The high-risk nature of Class 1 and 2 roads necessitate regular patrols that staff believe should be carried out at least as frequently as the current practice permits.

By transferring the currently allocated resources for patrolling Class 1 and 2 roads to lower priority roads, the City is likely exposing itself to additional risk, while not achieving the intended benefits of the patrol on Class 3, 4, and 5 roads.

Staff maintains their recommendation of the previous report to reinstate road patrols to the levels identified in the Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards. However, given Council direction to maintain existing resource levels, staff recommend that the existing resources be used exclusively to patrol Class 1 and 2 roads, as has been the past practice.

CONSULTATION

Internal consultation was conducted with the following groups, all of whom are supportive of the recommendations: Legal Services, Risk Management, and Traffic and Parking Operations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding supporting the current patrols of Class 1 and 2 roads is provided within the base budget contained within the Surface Operations Branch.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Table 1 - Summary of Road Patrol Frequencies using existing resources only

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of this report, the Surface Operations Branch will proceed with implementation of the recommendation.

Document 1

Table 1. Summary of Road Patrol Frequencies using existing resources only

Road Class	Road Type	Road Patrol Frequency
Road Class	Road Type	Provincial Standard	Current Practice	Proposed Alternative
1	Highest Priority Roads	3 per week	1-2 per week	1 per week
2	Arterials	2 per week	1-2 per week	1 per week
3	Major Collectors	1 per week	None	2 per year
4	Minor Collectors	1 per 2 weeks	None	2 per year
5	Residential Roads	1 per month	None	2 per year
FTEs		11	4	4

ROAD PATROL FREQUENCY - FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS

FRÉQUENCE DES PATROUILLES ROUTIÈRES – ANALYSE DE SUIVI

ACS2008-COS-SOP-0013 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Committee members received a confidential memo from the City Solicitor dated 3 November 2008, which addressed the legal and risk management issues arising from the staff report. A copy of the memo is held on file.

Councillor Leadman proposed the following:

Whereas City Council’s adoption and implementation of either the provincially-legislated Minimum Maintenance Standards or Ottawa’s own municipal service levels has a corresponding effect on the City’s ability to avail itself of various defences to claims for the non-repair of roads;

Therefore be it resolved that the Transportation Committee direct staff to provide to the Committee an update on any changes arising from the Province’s five year review of Ontario Regulation 239/02, being the Minimum Maintenance Standards and identify any opportunities to meet or improve the City’s maintenance standards through the use of technology.

Councillor Wilkinson acknowledged that Council had approved a recommendation for staff to report back on, but did not feel that changed what Council had approved. She referred to the road patrol frequency at Document 1 of the report and thought that from previous discussions at Committee, it was not just a ‘patrol’ but an investigation of the quality and standard of the road. John Manconi, Director of the Surface Operations Branch explained that patrolling in the context of the report means they would be out looking at what is specified in the minimum standards. Above and beyond that, they would also be looking at other things such as damaged signs that need to be acted upon. He explained that life-cycle management and evaluation (the physical testing done by Infrastructure Services), is a separate exercise because it is done on a totally different frequency. He indicated that using the proposed GPS technology would replace the current manual recording done during patrols. They would maintain four FTEs for the patrol service. The councillor recalled that what Council asked for was to do at least two patrols of every roadway a year and as many as staff can on the other routes. She was concerned that the current practice does not have staff looking at a major or minor collector. Mr. Manconi confirmed that other than the normal day-to-day function i.e., snowplow operator, patching crew, OC Transpo driver, et cetera, there is no formal patrolling of those roadways.

Responding to additional questions posed by Councillor Wilkinson, the Director explained that there is a requirement to look at the minimum maintenance standards roads patrol function. The Solicitor’s memo speaks to this matter in more detail. He added that the road patrol function is the rigid prescribed process that is in the minimum maintenance standards and he believed that what the councillor is looking for i.e., are there other ways to do that other than what has been proposed, can be answered to the affirmative, but it would come with a cost and a requirement for resources.

Councillor Wilkinson was concerned that there are provincial standards that need to be met. Chair McRae offered that further discussion on this matter may have to be dealt with in camera.

Councillor Wilkinson reiterated that what Council approved was that all roads receive the minimum twice a year examination. The Director explained that part of the recommendation was also to report back on the proposed examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised policy and this is what is before the Committee today. He believed that the frequency inspection on Class 1 and 2 roads should not be changed. The councillor believed that what Council approved and what staff have brought back is different and this caused her great concern. Mr. Manconi suggested the Committee receive advice from Legal staff prior to considering a Motion to deviate from the current practice.

Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel advised that there may not be a need to go in camera, adding that what is reflected in the Solicitor’s memo and what is in the staff report are essentially the same.

Councillor Wilkinson maintained that the staff recommendations were contrary to what was already approved by Council. The report states that all roads receive the minimum patrol of twice a year, which means patrols could go to more than twice, but not less. Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor explained that that is the examination frequency that Council recommendations require of staff. It was the councillor’s understanding that that was not how it was dealt with at Council when it was discussed and she proposed that the following:

That the report be revised to show a minimum of two patrols per year on all roads.

Councillor Legendre explained that what Council adopted was a recommendation for a minimum frequency of twice a year and the final direction was for staff to report back in two months on the proposed examination frequency for the different road categories, bearing in mind the minimum. He was not aware of what the effect would be on the other roads and now staff have provided that in their report before the Committee today and he agreed with Councillor Wilkinson that Council has decided on what the minimum ought to be and the Committee can now see what the impact is on the others. He suggested that if there is a proposal to change what staff have brought forward based on the legal opinion, there is a requirement for the Committee to move in camera.

The Chair indicated the Committee would lose quorum before they had an opportunity to move in camera and members agreed to forward the staff recommendations to Council on 26 November, with no amendments.