Q: What is spring cleanup?

A: Spring cleanup for public works usually comprises of 2 parts Road Sweeping and Boulevard Sweeping. Spring clean-up activities involve removing the build-up of street debris that collects during the winter months.

Q: How long does spring cleanup take?

A: Spring cleanup can take four to five weeks depending on weather conditions.

Street sweeping - starts when the roads are clear of snow and the overnight temperatures remain above freezing.

All streets should be cleaned in the 4-5 week period. Sweeping on regional (P1) streets usually takes place at night, while daytime sweeping focuses on collector (P2) and residential (P3) streets.

Boulevards – Sweeping boulevards begins when there are no frozen or wet boulevard surfaces or approximately a week or two after street sweeping begins.

Clean-up of boulevards in residential areas is limited to areas with excessive sand (2 full wheel barrows or more). This is frequently seen on corners where snow from the street has been deposited.

If your boulevard has an unusually large amount of debris call 311 to request an inspection.

Q: Does the city sweep back lanes?

A: Paved back lanes are swept once a year. The program begins after streets are swept in spring.

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

Through traffic

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.

Noise

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.

Active Transportation

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.

Dog Park

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.

Safety

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.

Potential Expropriation

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.

For more information on the project go to:

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/inside-transit/futuredevelopment/

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.

Many requests received for additional stop signs are related to concerns of speeding.

Studies show that stop signs only influence motorists to slow down within approximately 30 metres before and after the stop sign and that speeds actually increase at mid-block locations to the original speeds and often higher as drivers attempt to make up for lost time.

All-way stop control does not reduce traffic volumes. Before and after studies show that stop signs have little or no impact on vehicular volume.

Unwarranted stop signs result in unacceptable levels of stop sign non-compliance and breeds disrespect for all traffic signs.

Stop sign compliance studies show that when all-way stop control was installed but not warranted, an average of 68% to 95% of the motorists approaching the intersection do not come to a complete stop. In general, if people see no reason for the stop sign, they disrespect the sign.

Excessive unwarranted stop sign usage breeds disrespect for all traffic signs. Inappropriate signs become part of the landscape and their effectiveness is reduced.

All-way stop control does not always increase safety or reduce collisions at an intersection. Disregard and disrespect of stop signs by the motorist may decrease safety.

Pedestrians may be lured into a false sense of security by the presence of a stop sign by assuming that motorists will stop.

Young children who are raised to believe that people obey laws are the most vulnerable victims.

Other motorists may also assume a motorist will stop because of the presence of the sign and enter the intersection when it is not safe to do so, thus resulting in the potential for a collision.

All-way stop control may reduce the number of right-angle and left with opposing through collisions. However, there is a potential increase in the number of rear-end and fixed object collisions, especially if there is a high volume of traffic being required to stop unnecessarily.

Unwarranted stop signs result in an increase of noise and air pollution and fuel consumption. Residents living nearest the intersection experience an increase in traffic noise resulting from vehicles stopping and accelerating (tire noise and engine noise). Stopping and accelerating also increases environmental emissions and fuel consumption.

The purpose of all-way stop control (3-way or 4-way) is to assign right-of-way to traffic approaching an intersection. Stop signs should only be used where an engineering analysis indicates the usage of stop signs is warranted. The following aspects are considered:

• Traffic Volume – All-way stop control may be recommended where there are large traffic volumes (vehicles and pedestrians) approaching the intersection from all directions and the volume of traffic approaching from each street is close to being equal.

• Collision History – All-way stop control may be recommended where there is a high incidence of right angle and/or left with opposing through collisions.

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

· Mall promotions

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.

1. Slow your speed as you approach the intersection.
2. Stop in advance of the sidewalk if pedestrians are crossing.
3. Yield to vehicles that arrive first at the intersection. Yield to vehicles on the right if arriving at the same time.
4. Keep to the right and travel around the traffic circle in a counterclockwise direction.

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: We will soon have some diagrams up under the Major Projects page of the City website: http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/majorprojects/

Increasingly, citizens are requesting measures to address their concerns regarding speeding vehicles traveling through their residential neighbourhoods. Often these concerns are related to issues of pedestrian and child safety.

There are two methods to address this problem in the community,

The MPI SpeedWatch program, Follow this link for more information -

http://www.orlikow.ca/faq/view/?fid=87

and the installation of Speedhumps. Follow this link for more information - http://www.orlikow.ca/faq/view/?fid=86

Q: What is Speedwatch?

A: Speedwatch is an MPI Program aimed at educating drivers about the actual speeds they are traveling on our roads and city streets.

Local volunteers borrow radar operated speed reader boards that display the posted speed limit as well as the driver’s speed. This educates the driver about the speed they are traveling and sends the message that speeding in our community is not acceptable. The aim is to prompt speeding drivers to slow down while giving positive reinforcement to those who choose to stay within the speed limit.

Q: How does it work?

A: Local volunteers borrow radar operated speed reader boards that display the posted speed limit and the driver’s speed. They set up this equipment in a safe location off the road where drivers can see it, during the days and times when the volunteers feel speeding is the worst. Information about how fast drivers are traveling is forwarded to Manitoba Public Insurance for analysis.

The reward for volunteers is the knowledge that they are sending the message that speeding in their community is not acceptable. The volunteers can get an analysis of the results from MPI

Q: How does the program affect traffic?

A: The program is designed to:

a) Make drivers more aware of the speeds at which they are traveling by giving them a visual signal of their speed;

b) Prompt speeding drivers to slow down by comparing how fast they are traveling to the actual posted speed limit on the road.

Q: Who do I contact?

A: To participate in any SpeedWatch program, please contact:

SpeedWatch Coordinator Road Safety Department Manitoba Public Insurance 985–8737; toll-free 1–888–767–7640

Q: What do I have to do for the program?

A: MPI will supply everything you need to make your SpeedWatch program a success including

- Speed Reader Boards

- tracking sheets

- speeding information

- instructions on how to set up and take down the speed reader boards

All that is required of you and your team is:

a) Volunteers to stay with the board while it is in operation for the purposes of safety, vandalism and theft prevention, and to record vehicle numbers and speeds for analysis purposes

b) A commitment to return to MPI any stats collected during your SpeedWatch program so we can use the information to further enhance the MPI Road Safety Education Programming

SpeedWatch brochure images/userfiles/Wpg SpeedWatch brochure.pdf

Examples of tally sheet images/userfiles/2009 Operational Report for 70K+.doc

Q: What are speed humps?

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

Warrant Criteria #2: Submission of a petition representing a minimum of 70% of the residents in the block (one signature per residence) on both sides of the street in support of the installation/removal of speed humps. Petitions can be found at http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/InformationAndResources/TrafficControl/TrafficCalming/speed_humps.asp

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.

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/InformationAndResources/TrafficControl/TrafficCalming/speed_humps.asp

Speed hump Brochure

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/PDF/Transportation/2010SpeedHumpsStreets.pdf

Warrant Criteria Speed humps on Streets

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Transportation/pdf/Warrant_Criteria_Installation_Guidelines_-_Street_Humps.pdf

Warrant Criteria Speed humps on lanes

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Transportation/pdf/Warrant_Criteria_-_Speed_Humps_in_Lanes.pdf