·The planned upgrades to the west end, south end, and north end sewage treatment plants are designed to reduce nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) contributions and meet environment act licence requirements from the Province of Manitoba.
Status – West End Sewage Treatment Plant
·Biological nutrient removal (BNR) upgrade to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen contributions completed in 2008 at a cost of $33M.
Status – South End Sewage Treatment Plant
·The approved 2013 capital budget (including the 5 year forecast – 2014-2018) for the upgrade is $272.75M.
·In September 2011, the City of Winnipeg submitted a plan for upgrading the plant.
·The Province approved the plan on April 18, 2012.
·In April 2013, the City of Winnipeg assigned Professional Consulting Services for Upgrading/Expansion project at a contract cost of $25,350,419.00.
·The City has been consistently working to execute our plan for the upgrades.
·The project is proceeding in accordance with our submitted and approved plan and is estimated to be completed in October 2016.
·The City has been (and will continue to be) in contact with the Province of Manitoba on the progress of the project.
Status – North End Sewage Treatment Plant
·The approved 2013 capital budget (including the 5 year forecast – 2014-2018) for the upgrade is $501.45M.
·Interim upgrades already implemented between 2006 – 2008 including effluent UV disinfection and centrate nutrient treatment for a total cost of $53M.
·In June 2011, The Save the Lake Winnipeg Act modified sections of the Water Protection Act requiring the City of Winnipeg to submit a plan within one year to the Province of Manitoba for the plant upgrades.
·In June 2012 the City of Winnipeg submitted the required plan.
·The Province of Manitoba approved the plan on October 2, 2012, and required a detailed Master Plan be submitted in October 2013. The City is on track and will submit the plan by the required date.
·The project is proceeding in accordance with our submitted and approved plan and is estimated to be completed in the Spring of 2020.
·The City has been (and will continue to be) in contact with the Province of Manitoba on the progress of the project.
·The approved 2013 capital budget (including the 5 year forecast) for the Biosolids Management System is $165.64M.
-The Province of Manitoba requires the City of Winnipeg to submit a Biosolids Master Plan in October 2014 detailing how biosolids will be handled. The City is on track and will submit the plan by the required date.
·The City has been (and will continue to be) in contact with the Province of Manitoba on the progress of the project
Other Levels of Government Funding
·The total current estimated costs for the upgrades (completed and in progress) is $860.2M:
·The Federal government has committed $42M for these upgrades.
·The Provincial government has committed $25M for these upgrades.
·The Provincial government has also indicated, in a 2007 throne speech, a future $206M contribution.
·These current other levels of government contribution commitments represent 32% of the capital costs of the sewage treatment plant works (not including biosolids).
The remaining 68% of the capital costs are currently proposed to be funded by City of Winnipeg water and sewer rate payers.
The questions below were asked by residents and the responses are from the Department.
These non-answers cloud the ability to ensure the best route is chosen and are needed to answered before a route is chosen.
Parker Rapid Transit Questions and Replies
Q: How will traffic going to and from the Rapid Transit line access the line from Pembina and Waverley?
Although Functional Design and service planning for Stage 2 of the Southwest Transitway has not yet been completed, access to the Corridor could potentially occur at Pembina and Jubilee, at Hurst/Beaumont, at McGillivray, at Bishop Grandin, at Markham, and/or at Bison.
Protecting Green Space
Q: Will the line go through forest or the line of trees that run along Parker?
A: The impact of Stage 2 of the Transitway on the tree areas along Parker will be better understood with the completion of the Functional Design Study in approximately 12 months’ time.
Q: What type of noise can the neighbourhood expect and what measures are been recommended to minimize any noise?
A: One can get a very good sense of the noise associated with the Transitway by standing on the AT path alongside of Stage 1 of the Southwest Transitway. Many people find that the operation of buses along the Corridor is surprising quiet, and in fact, very few noise complaints have been received since operation of Stage 1 began in April.
Q: Will there be an active transportation path built with the Rapid Transit Line?
A: Although details around the development of AT facilities will be better defined during Functional Design, the intent is to support Stage 2 of the Transitway with AT improvements.
Q: Will the Rapid Transit line impact the Brenda Leipsic Dog Park?
A: As with the Green Space questions, the impact of Stage 2 of the Transitway on the area will be better understood with the completion of the Functional Design Study in approximately 12 months’ time.
Q: Are there any safety concerns associated with having rapid transportation run alongside an existing neighbourhood?
A: Similar to Stage 1, construction of the corridor will be sited near to existing and proposed residential developments in an effort to maximize the value of the service. Although construction of the Transitway presents risks similar to any other roadway, it is important to note that transit vehicles utilizing the corridor will be operated by professional drivers.
Q: Are homes going to be expropriated?
A: The potential for some expropriation of properties does exist. The details of these expropriations will be better understood following Functional Design.
Residential Access to the Neighbourhood
Q: Are any of the present road access points into the neighbourhood going to be closed off?
A: The potential for the closure, or relocation, of some road access points does exist, particularly with Hurst Way. Again, the details surrounding this issue will be better understood following Functional Design.
As for the posting of the findings of the Stage 2 Southwest Transitway Alignment Study – we expect to have the report (and the maps in the report) posted to our website shortly.
The City has removed the majority of the stumps after the first big snowfall in 2012, but some were missed due to the extensive piling of snow along the sidewalk.
The Department has indicated that finishing the job is a priority once the snow disappears in 2013.
This is part of a longer process in designing an Academy Rd. streetscape that represents the neighbourhood, is full of people walking and enjoying the many offering along the street and is a show piece to proud of.
On August 16th, 2012, I met with a number of residents to discuss the purpose, side-effects, and any suggestions to the Harrow barricade at Academy Road.
I was asked a number of questions, which I have provided answers to below:
Why does Harrow have a barricade?
The barricade was placed as part of the City of Winnipeg Active Transportation network (insert link) and includes a traffic light, to make the Harrow/ Academy intersection safer for bicycle and pedestrian crossing, while not allowing for an increase in vehicle traffic to and from Wellington.
The traffic light was placed to allow safer crossing along Harrow at Academy Road. It connects the Harrow Active Transportation Corridor from Wellington Crescent to Pembina Hwy, and crosses the other Active Transportation Corridors at Grosvenor and Warsaw.
Providing a four-way light at Harrow would have provided access via Harrow St. to and from Wellington Crs.
The results would be making
-Increase vehicle traffic along Harrow and Wellington Crs as a through route for people going and coming from downtown.
-Harrow from Academy to Wellington Crs would be a lineup of cars waiting to cross Academy Rd in the morning, and a lineup of cars along Kelvin High School to cross over Academy to Wellington Crs going home.
-Increasing the amount of cars speeding along Wellington Crs
-Provide a less safe crossing point for cyclist and pedestrians to cross Academy Rd. to the Wellington Crs paths.
Before the barricade vehicle cut-through traffic originating at the Maryland Bridge would travel through Wellington and on to Harrow, as an alternative to Academy and Stafford which has more traffic lights.
Additional vehicle cut-through traffic originating from the east would travel through Wellington and on to Harrow, as an alternative to Academy to Stafford, which has more traffic lights.
Traffic counts along Harrow Street before the barricade were at 350 vehicles per day to the north of Academy, and 5500 vehicles per day to the south of Academy. The four-way light would have dramatically increased the traffic along Harrow, a non-regional street, to the north and south of Academy.
The barricade provides the safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians, while not increasing this vehicle traffic.
Did Council vote to have the barricade put up?
There was no council vote for the Harrow barricade. The barricade was a part of the 2009 Active Transportation Stimulus plan, which was a plan to design and construct a network of active transportation paths where they are most needed across the City of Winnipeg.
The City contributed one third of the cost, with the province and federal government paying the other two thirds.
The plan to fund an Active Transportation Stimulus Plan was adopted by Council on December 15th, 2009 as part of the 2010 Capital Budget. The infrastructure changes along the proposed routes were managed by the Public Works department with public input into the designs.
Were public consultations held before the Harrow barricade was constructed?
The coordinating consultant for the 2009 Active Transportation Stimulus Plan held public consultation events for input and feedback on the proposed changes for the Harrow, Grosvenor, Fleet, and Warsaw. The details are below:
January 30, 2010 - Earl Grey Community Centre
·Promoted through Free Press and community newspaper ads
·Colour posters along the routes and nearby commercial corridors
·Listed on the Winnipeg Active Transportation website
February 24, 2010 - Earl Grey Community Centre
·Promoted through the Free Press
·Colour posters along the routes and nearby commercial corridors
·Letters hand-delivered to all households and businesses directly adjacent to the proposed routes
·Letter and package hand delivered to all local schools
·Emails to residents from first consultations
April 12, 2010 – Kelvin High School
§ Local Residents received invitations from the City of Winnipeg to an information session regarding the Barricade.
Were the Public Consultations Adequate?
I believe the public consultations fell short of what was required. As such, I took initiative in sending out post cards to all residents north of the CPR tracks in February 2010, notifying residents of the proposed changes, inviting them to attend the public consultations, and inviting any feedback or suggestions they may have. Additionally I sent out emails to as many residents and community leaders I could reach, provided neighbourhood updates on my website, and encouraged residents to sign up to my email updates on the issue.
Why was Harrow chosen as a bike path route?
The city conducted a bicycle route study in 2009, which showed that both Harrow and Stafford combined were one of the highest used bicycle routes in the city. The counts were consistent with the counts of the local bicycle lobbyist organization, Bike to the Future. Harrow was chosen as an Active Transportation Corridor because it’s a safer alternative to Stafford. Also, fewer bikes on Stafford would improve traffic flow along Stafford.
Have more bicyclists been using Harrow?
The city doesn’t have current bike counts for cyclists using Harrow to/from Wellington, although Bike to the Future counted bicyclists traveling along Harrow crossing Grosvenor. During the 2011-2012 counts, there was an increase of 136% in bicycles using Harrow at Grosvenor.
Were alternatives to the barricade considered?
The other choices reviewed by the department included crossing lights and pedestrians corridors but were considered as unsafe alternatives.
I met with a number of local residents in late 2010 to discuss suggestions regarding the Harrow barricade. Residents came up with an alternative design allowing westbound Academy traffic to access northbound Harrow, and allowing southbound traffic along Harrow to turn right onto westbound Academy. This option was designed to not allow for northbound Harrow traffic to cross the Academy intersection. The department reviewed the request and denied it in January 2011. The department stated these turns “would be contrary to the intent of having refuge areas for cyclists as they proceed across Academy Road. Allowing the turn movements would place the cyclists in conflict with turning vehicles.” In other words, the vehicles would need to drive over top of the bike lanes in order to make these turns.
I met again with local residents on September 16, 2012 and another alternative was presented by some community members which allowed traffic to go west bound onto Academy from Harrow. This alternative was denied by department for the same reasons as stated above.
What is the impact of the barricade on local residents?
Since the barricade has been put up, some local residents have expressed concerns about increased traffic in the lane between Guelph and Harrow, increased traffic along Guelph Street north of Harrow, exiting onto Academy from Guelph, accessing their properties and difficulty with parking along Harrow. :
What has been done about the increase in back lane traffic between Harrow and Guelph?
Once the barricade came in, a number of drivers began using the lane adjacent to Academy connecting Harrow and Guelph to go onto Harrow and then onto Wellington Crescent. Drivers also turned from Wellington onto Harrow, and down the lane to Guelph. While traffic counts were relatively high at first, a number of things were done to decrease the traffic volume.
·In June of 2011 and 2012 my office notified the local churches at the corner of Wellington and Academy of upcoming Sunday road closures and appropriate traffic routes for parishioners to use during Sunday closures.
·In June 2011, my office asked the city’s traffic control unit to ensure that clear passage is made along Wellington to allow vehicles to travel along northbound Guelph to eastbound Wellington Crescent. I ensured this passage has continuously been maintained.
·I requested that on Sundays ‘Local Access Only’ signs be installed along east and westbound Wellington for summer and fall 2011, and again 2012.
·I arranged for an additional “Local Access Only” signs to be placed at the intersection of Wellington Crs and Academy, facing incoming traffic, to remind them of the closure and divert them away from Wellington Crs. and towards Academy before they arrived at Harrow and Wellington Crs. and the Sunday road closure signs.
·I requested a traffic volume and speed study, which measured two full weeks of traffic between Sept 17 and Sept 30, 2011 along the back lane. The average daily counts were 113 vehicles per weekday, and 125 vehicles per weekend day. The city concluded this is below the expected normal volume of 9.8 vehicle trips per day per household (totaling 130 trips along Harrow per day). The majority of vehicles were below the 30 km per hour speed limit with the average speed being 21 km per hour and the 85th percentile being 29 km per hour.
·Speed humps were not installed along this lane because the speed study showed the percentage of speeders was too low to meet the city warrant criteria for speed humps.
Can anything be done about the increase in traffic on Guelph?
I have asked the department to do a traffic study and provide options to address this traffic.
Has anything been done about the parking on Harrow north of Academy?
Because the lack of motor vehicle traffic now makes this section of Harrow safer for cyclists, I requested that the parking be re-instated along Harrow, despite the bike lanes. The department re-instated parking along the west side of Harrow in December 2010. In July 2011, the department decided not to allow parking because it would encourage further traffic to use the lane between Harrow and Guelph. I also requested that this portion of Harrow be no longer designated as a no-parking snow route during the winter months. The criteria was reviewed and a decision will be made by the department shortly.
Is the barricade safe?
The barricade, with the traffic lights, allows pedestrians and cyclists to easily cross Academy with reduced conflict with motor vehicles. This intersection had dangerous crossing beforehand. While Sunday traffic has increased along the lane, I ensured a dead-end sign was installed in 2011, and have worked with the local churches to ensure visitors have received information about alternative routes. I will continue to work with residents to ensure side effects do not pose a safety hazard.
Can the crossing time at the Harrow light be increased?
The current light crossing time is approximately five seconds of green light time. The department chose this timing because they do not want to promote traffic on Harrow as an alternative to Stafford. The department noted this is sufficient time for several vehicles to get through and for most people to get across. Longer time would encourage more drivers to use Harrow as an alternative to Stafford.
I discussed the crossing time at this light with the department in July 2011, five months after the installation of the traffic counts. At that time 311 had not yet received a request for an increase in crossing time at this intersection. The department advises that this light provides more than sufficient crossing time at the average walking speed. Should you have any reason to request an increased in crossing time, I will be happy to ask the department to review it.
Can a park with trees be placed on Harrow instead of a barricade?
Possibly. This would likely further reduce the potential of vehicles making illegal turns, and replace the barricade with a beautified landscape. However, at this point, local residents continue to bring suggestions for changes or removal of the barricade. A park should only be considered if there is plenty of agreement amongst the community that this should be done.
Can the Harrow traffic light be put on Wellington Crs instead?
No. Wellington Crescent at Harrow is an intersection of two residential streets within a residential neighbourhood. The more logical location is the intersection of Harrow and Academy. Wellington Crescent is widely used as a leisure route, open to pedestrians and cyclists during Sunday closures. A traffic light would have a significant negative impact to the beauty of this street.
Could a photo radar camera enforce traffic movements, reducing the need for a barricade?
A photo radar camera can only monitor traffic – it cannot enforce it.
Q: How will the traffic flow be guided through Waverley West from Kenaston Blvd, and how will the westbound traffic on Bishop Grandin Bv. be directed into Waverley West?
A: The segment of Kenaston Blvd currently under construction will connect North Town Rd (in Waverley West) to Bishop Grandin Blvd and be open to traffic later this fall. This is the first stage of the larger project extending Kenaston Blvd to the perimeter highway. This larger project includes construction of a "flyover" bridge to provide free flow for southbound Kenaston to eastbound Bishop Grandin Bv traffic.
Q: How will this connection be made to direct westbound traffic from Bishop Grandin Bv into Waverley West, and to direct traffic from Waverley West onto Bishop Grandin Bv.?
A: Initially (prior to construction of the bridge), all traffic movements will flow through a signalized intersection at Bishop Grandin Bv and Kenaston. Upon the opening of the bridge, all traffic moving between the existing Kenaston Bv and Bishop Grandin Bv will be free flowing (southbound to eastbound via the bridge and westbound to northbound via two by-pass lanes), while traffic moving to and from the extended portion of Kenaston will travel through a signalized intersection.
Q: Will pictures become available so we can see what is proposed?
A: As described in the Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC) Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, “a speed hump is a raised area of a roadway, which deflects both the wheels and frame of a traversing vehicle. … [Speed humps are] intended to produce sufficient discomfort to limit travel speeds yet allow the driver to maintain vehicle control. Its design is intended to limit effects on emergency, maintenance and transit vehicles while allowing cyclists to comfortably cross the speed hump.”
Q: How do they work?
A: Speed humps have been proven to have substantial benefits in reduction of vehicle speeds (Source: TAC). However, speed humps are not intended to address issues of high traffic volumes - studies of speed hump installations have shown only minor reductions in traffic volumes.
Speed humps provide a gradual rise and fall and are designed to prevent vehicle damage when traversed at the recommended speeds (indicated with advisory speed signs). The dimensions of a speed hump are approximately 4.0 metres (13 feet) wide and 80 mm (3 inches) high.
Q: What are the steps/ conditions to getting speed humps in a street or alley?
A: The Warrant Criteria, or steps, to getting a speed hump are as follows:
Warrant Criteria #1: The street/ alley is a local residential street and is not a Transit route, snow route or a residential collector street. If this is criteria is met go to Warrant Criteria #2
If this is criteria is met the City Traffic Department will perform a traffic study of the street/ alley. These studies are scheduled in the spring and fall while school is still in and the traffic volumes are at their highest. This gives the most accurate reading of the peek volume and speed.
Warrant Criteria #3: At least one of the following criteria is met:
(i) Average speed exceeds the speed limit (50 km/hour) for streets, (30 Km/hours) for alleys; or
(ii) At least 15% of vehicles exceed the speed limit by 5 km/hour or more (55 km/hour); or
(iii) At least 10% of vehicles exceed the speed limit by 10 km/hour or more (60 km/hour).
More information and petition forms can be found at the City of Winnipeg web site.
A motion to accept Option 4 for the widening of Kenaston Blvd from Taylor to Ness was presented to Council and approved. Preliminary information about this plan is available on the City of Winnipeg website at the following address:
In 2007 the City conducted a preliminary design study for Route 90 between Ness and Taylor, which focused on improvements in areas such as safety, vehicular operations, Transit operations, Active Transportation opportunities, capital cost, and reducing neighbourhood and property impacts; such as reducing vehicular emissions, attenuating traffic noise and reducing neighbourhood shortcutting.
Q: Why is the Kenaston Expansion Project needed?
A: Route 90 is a vital north-south transportation corridor linking major residential, employment and commercial areas in the southwest and northwest quadrants of the City. It is a major truck route and is the Winnipeg link in the Mid-Continental Trade Corridor. Already one of Winnipeg’s busiest thoroughfares, Route 90’s role in the movement of people and goods will expand with developments.
City standards provide justification for widening to six lanes when the traffic volume reaches 35,000 vehicles per day. The current volume is over 50,000 vehicles per day. The volume is expected to increase to 70,000 per day by 2030 due to new development projects to the south. Insufficient capacity results in congestion and regional traffic spilling onto residential streets not designed for this traffic.
Q: What does the preferred alignment look like?
A: The preferred alignment expands Kenaston on either side of the current roadway. The portion that will have the most impact is that to the north of Tuxedo, where the proposed alignment expands slightly to the north. A detailed map is available here:
A: The preliminary design has been approved by the City of Winnipeg Council. The project cannot start, however, without Federal Government financial support. Until this support is secured, no construction will begin.
Q: Can the project begin before the Kapyong Barrack and Air Force Housing issues are negotiated?
A: Yes, the major work will involve adding an additional span to the St. James Bridge and re-alignment which can be done in a first stage. This would still require Federal Government funding and would add to the over-all cost of the project.
Q: Where are negotiations regarding the Kapyong Barracks lands and acquisition of a row of the PMQ (military base) housing?
A: Pending. Timelines are not available at this point however this motion will be used to help move matter forward at the Federal level.
Q: What steps were taken to consult with the public?
Community residents and businesses were consulted for this plan. These public consultations included first person interviews, small meetings, survey questionnaires and two public open houses between fall 2008 and fall 2009. A diagram of the consultation process is available here:
In addition, I have taken it upon myself to speak with and meet local residents, find answers to questions, and to provide periodic updates for this project on my website. I have brought forward the concerns addressed by local residents and the broader community to the project manager and to Council before voting on this decision.
Q: How will this affect the River Heights/Ft. Garry Ward?
A: The proposed expansion will reduce commercial and through-traffic along adjacent streets for a time.
In order to reduce traffic noise levels, sound attenuation walls are proposed. The walls would range in height from 2.4m in rear or side yards to 1.2m in front yards. Removal of the local street and lane connections to Kenaston Boulevard will allow for longer continuous sections and more effective sound attenuation.
The new intersection alignments at Grant and Kenaston and Corydon and Kenaston will address safety issues.
Directly adjacent to Kenaston, 64 homes in the River Heights / Fort Garry Ward will need to be partially and fully expropriated in order to expand the road. (find out how many full as Corydon is less and increases at you go to Academy.)
In addition, an access road will connect Boulton Bay residents to Taylor, in order to better accommodate southbound traffic originating on Boulton Bay.
Q: How will Active Transportation be accommodated in the new design?
A: The proposed plan has a sidewalk on each side and a cycling path along the west side of Kenaston between Wellington Cres to the north and through the Kenaston underpass to the south. The plan recommends that the City connect the cycling path with other existing active transportation paths in the area. The plan also recommends a pedestrian and cyclist overpass across Kenaston at Lockston Avenue.
Q: Will there be an active transportation trail on the East side?
A: The plan has not been finalized however attempts will be made to get an active transportation trail on the East side however there may not be the room available.
Q: How will the new plans affect transit? Is there room for a future rapid Transit route alongthis corridor?
Route 90 has also been identified as a potential transit quality corridor in the City’s Transportation Master Plan. A Transit Quality Corridor is a major transit corridor that has a comprehensive set of coordinated transit priority measures.
Potential improvements for Transit operations along the proposed Kenaston expansion include queue-jump lanes, transit priority signals, upgraded centralized transit stops and real-time scheduling information displays. The location and specific types of improvements for each intersection will be determined at the detailed design stage.
Q: What other options were considered for the Kenaston Widening?
A: Five conceptual alternatives for widening Route 90 were developed by the project consultant team and an interdepartmental project steering committee and presented to the public at a two day open house event in January 2009. These options included the following:
Option 1 - Widen Kenaston on the west side
Option 2 - Widen Kenaston on the east side
Option 3 - Widen Kenaston on both sides
Option 4 -Widen Kenaston on alternating sides
Option 5 - One-Way Pair using the former Oak Point Rail line for northbound lanes
The three highest rated alternatives (Options 1, 4, and 5) underwent preliminary design and further assessment taking into account comments received during the initial Open House event. The resulting preliminary designs were then presented to the public at a second Open House event held in November 2009.
At both Open House events Option 4 (Widening on alternating sides) received the highest rating by the public and by the project steering committee and was therefore selected as the recommended widening option.
The most significant disadvantages of the other four options are the following:
Option 1 Widen West - This option was the second most preferred option; however, it requires land from the Manitoba Youth Centre and results in a poor alignment with the St. James Bridges.
Option 2 Widen East - This option was considered infeasible due to the substantial negative impact upon commercial and condominium properties. It requires the acquisition of developed properties on the east side for the full length of Kenaston Boulevard including all privately owned homes on the east side of Kenaston Boulevard.
Option 3 Widen on Both Sides - The property acquisitions necessary for this alternative are the highest of the 5 options. It requires removal of all homes on both sides of Kenaston Boulevard, yet offers no operational improvement compared to the preferred option 4.
Option 5 One Way Pair - While this option performs nearly as well as the other 4 options it creates an island effect, surrounding a pocket of homes and Carpathia School with high traffic volumes and introduces high traffic volumes into areas that currently carry only moderate residential traffic volumes. It also separates northbound and southbound transit movements making transferring more difficult. Due to recent building projects within the former Oak Point rail right-of-way the property acquisition costs for this alternative could be as much as $15M higher than the recommended alignment. By separating the northbound and southbound lanes, this option would also double the number of individual signalized intersections between Taylor Avenue and Academy Road.
Q: Has the City considered having a raised highway?
A: The enormous capital expense and ongoing maintenance costs, the added expropriation needed for onramps and off-ramps, and detrimental effects to the neighbourhood being under a freeway make this option an impractical solution for Kenaston.
A: Overlays are applied to roads that are graded Fair or better. They are used to prolong the life of a road. Several sections of Academy that are graded fair have received overlay in recent years, most recently Waterloo to Oak.
Q: Why wasn’t the Oak to Oxford section of Academy done earlier as it is in the worst shape?
A: Academy from Oak to Oxford is graded Poor. As such it did not qualify, as regular overlay deteriorates quickly when applied to poor foundations.
Q: What changed?
A: The city is testing a new thicker overlay on Academy from Oak to Oxford. This over-lay is unique as it is a new product developed as a treatment for issues associated with similarly poor graded streets.
This is a test to see if this new type of asphalt overlay will last over time and be suitable to assist sections of road graded poor. We need to know that the product will be cost effective.
This is a temporary measure until Academy can be programed into the Capital budget for rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Q: How much did it cost?
A: To overlay this section of road it cost $70,000.