1
00:00:54,320 --> 00:01:22,720
The hour is 2 o'clock, so I will call the meeting to order. If I could get confirmation of the agenda as amended and that is moved by Councillor Dubois, all those in favour? That carries unanimously. Do we have any declarations of conflict of interest today? Seeing none, we will move on. Adoption of minutes of the meeting of February 13th. Someone moved that. Move by Councillor Gertcher, all those in favour?

2
00:01:23,260 --> 00:01:24,860
And that carries unanimously.

3
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:28,100
Unfinished business, there is none.

4
00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:39,520
Now, what we're going to do is, as per the agenda here, we did reorder it such that the one item that has a speaker from the public would be able to speak at the beginning.

5
00:01:39,860 --> 00:01:42,000
I see that Mr. Moan is not here yet.

6
00:01:42,140 --> 00:01:44,980
So what I'm going to do is we'll move through these items in order.

7
00:01:45,780 --> 00:01:50,800
Once the speaker does arrive, we'll go back to that particular item which may take us a bit of time.

8
00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:56,140
But in the meantime, we'll go through them as originally ordered in our packages here today.

9
00:01:56,880 --> 00:02:02,240
So we'll start off with 6.1.1, which is the Saskatoon Accessibility Advisory Committee,

10
00:02:02,380 --> 00:02:07,580
request for policy and program options to promote permanent accessibility improvement to buildings.

11
00:02:08,180 --> 00:02:13,720
Ms. Gardner, if you have any background on this particular item that we've received,

12
00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:16,820
and the recommendation is that the direction of committee issue.

13
00:02:19,730 --> 00:02:21,870
I don't have anything further to add to this item.

14
00:02:21,870 --> 00:02:29,070
Okay. Thank you very much. Then we will start off with Councillor Dubois.

15
00:02:30,150 --> 00:02:36,630
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. This came through the, as noted, the Accessibility Advisory Committee.

16
00:02:37,410 --> 00:02:51,110
And there was an application, as noted in the report, in regards to wheelchair access and ramp to the construction and as our policy states

17
00:02:51,110 --> 00:02:56,050
that wasn't able to be accomplished with our rules.

18
00:02:56,330 --> 00:03:04,450
So the committee discussed this and recommended that we forward this to this committee and

19
00:03:04,450 --> 00:03:09,450
consider policy and program options available to promote permanent accessibility.

20
00:03:10,810 --> 00:03:14,290
Improvements moving forward in major quarters.

21
00:03:14,610 --> 00:03:19,110
So I'm not really sure I'll go through you to Ms. Gardner.

22
00:03:19,110 --> 00:03:29,410
Or what you would think the appropriate process would be to do this, a motion, or a misguernor?

23
00:03:30,870 --> 00:03:37,930
Yes, probably the best, the most appropriate process would be to direct this to the administration for a report.

24
00:03:38,510 --> 00:03:47,750
We can then take a look not only specifically at this scenario, but also on a more city-wide perspective on how to address these types of requests

25
00:03:47,750 --> 00:03:50,030
and what we can do to improve accessibility.

26
00:03:50,650 --> 00:04:01,710
Okay, thank you, Ms. Gardner, and thank you for clarifying the Citywide, because this was indeed referencing one specific area, but we did talk about it Citywide.

27
00:04:01,870 --> 00:04:14,510
So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the City look at policy and program options available to look at permanent accessibility improvements

28
00:04:14,510 --> 00:04:22,690
to buildings along major corridors in in the city. Now, if I do I need to say major

29
00:04:22,690 --> 00:04:28,310
corridors miss Gardner or should I just say generally? Councillor Dubois, I just would

30
00:04:28,310 --> 00:04:32,290
say perhaps we could just simply refer the communication to the administration for a

31
00:04:32,290 --> 00:04:37,630
report back and it would have that all captured there. We can do that except I want it to say

32
00:04:37,630 --> 00:04:42,610
city wide because right now we're referring to a specific area and so I do want the city

33
00:04:45,590 --> 00:04:50,670
is that Madam City Clerk? Is that accomplished through all of that?

34
00:04:52,830 --> 00:04:59,570
Yeah, we could format the resolution as such that the administration would be clear that it wouldn't be just that location. It would be a citywide.

35
00:04:59,850 --> 00:05:01,950
Okay. Good. Thank you very much.

36
00:05:02,130 --> 00:05:05,150
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Dubois. Councillor Goth.

37
00:05:05,750 --> 00:05:11,750
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I don't have much to add since my colleague, who is also on SAC,

38
00:05:11,750 --> 00:05:16,610
see provided some background here, but I did just want to make note that the reason that

39
00:05:16,610 --> 00:05:21,310
there's reference to heritage buildings is actually a bit of a reflection of the fact

40
00:05:21,310 --> 00:05:27,710
that this is a concentrated problem in established areas when from when building standards

41
00:05:27,710 --> 00:05:29,130
were less accessible.

42
00:05:29,670 --> 00:05:35,450
And so it's a matter of, you know, making sure that we're looking at, we're taking a specific

43
00:05:35,450 --> 00:05:40,270
look at retrofit opportunities and that it really is something that falls kind of between

44
00:05:40,270 --> 00:05:44,230
planning and transportation. So there was a bit of a debate of, you know, after we

45
00:05:45,170 --> 00:05:49,890
bumbled it through finance which is where this committee has to report to, you know,

46
00:05:50,030 --> 00:05:54,170
where to kick it to because this is a matter of, you know, transportation and planning.

47
00:05:54,450 --> 00:05:59,810
And we had members of all departments relevant at the SAC meeting and everybody said,

48
00:05:59,970 --> 00:06:04,590
this does fall somewhere between all of our mandates and we are looking for some direction if you

49
00:06:04,590 --> 00:06:09,210
want us to look at this further. So that's what this recommendation is is suggesting and that's

50
00:06:09,210 --> 00:06:18,410
Why there's reference to heritage in there is because it's about older buildings and then the sensitivities of heritage buildings as well, so just not out of that. Thank you.

51
00:06:19,230 --> 00:06:30,870
Thank you, Councillor Gough. Any other questions or comments from committee? Seeing none, the recommendation is put forward by Councillor Dubois, and I don't know if we have that up for this screen as Bryant.

52
00:06:33,660 --> 00:06:41,380
It was basically that the item be referred to administration in a report back on a city wide basis could be brought back to committee.

53
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:46,560
So with that in mind, all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

54
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:51,940
Okay, I see that our speaker for a particular item has arrived.

55
00:06:52,200 --> 00:06:59,260
So what we're going to do, I think, I miss your own, I think the best bet in this particular case, Ms. Gardner,

56
00:06:59,260 --> 00:07:03,160
And do we have a presentation from administration on the item?

57
00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:13,420
I think what we'll do just because perhaps it will better inform any questions that we have for the speakers to have the presentation from administration first.

58
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:25,300
Then we'll hear from the speaker, and then after that we can have any questions for the speaker, and then after that we can have questions for administration, and then follow that by any comments that we have and any changes to recommendations or resolutions.

59
00:07:25,300 --> 00:07:35,640
And I would remind committee, of course, our obligation here is to get in the weeds, and that's exactly what we're supposed to do as ask lots of questions and be into this.

60
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:54,480
But I think we should also be mindful of the fact that when this goes to council, we'll probably have the other members not on this committee asking very similar questions, so perhaps if you don't happen to get your question or detailed answer in today, we'll have another opportunity to go at this council in a couple of weeks time.

61
00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:59,040
So, at this time, Ms. Gardner, I'll let you introduce the item and introduce our speaker.

62
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:02,100
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

63
00:08:02,460 --> 00:08:08,180
This report looks at the outcome of Phase 1 of the Rail Relocation versus the Great Separation

64
00:08:08,180 --> 00:08:13,380
Feasibility Study that began last year to develop a long-term plan to reduce delays resulting

65
00:08:13,380 --> 00:08:15,320
from railways operating through the city.

66
00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:20,540
This report provides information on the outcomes of the Phase 1 work and makes recommendations

67
00:08:20,540 --> 00:08:22,680
for a modification to Phase 2.

68
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:27,960
I will ask that Mr. Jay Magus, the Acting Director of Transportation Division, as well

69
00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:32,640
as our consultant, Mr. Fred Kramer from HDR, to provide a presentation and an overview

70
00:08:32,640 --> 00:08:33,280
of this report.

71
00:08:34,180 --> 00:08:34,660
Okay.

72
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:38,980
And if our speakers of the podium could please introduce themselves name and title, and

73
00:08:38,980 --> 00:08:40,200
then we'll go into the presentation.

74
00:08:40,660 --> 00:08:40,920
Thank you.

75
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:41,900
Good afternoon.

76
00:08:42,220 --> 00:08:45,960
My name is Jay Magus, Acting Director of Transportation with the City of Saskatoon.

77
00:08:47,300 --> 00:08:54,280
and to deliver this report we retained the services of HDR Corporation. HDR is an international

78
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:59,780
engineering and architecture company with its Canadian head office in Richmond, Hill, Ontario. HDR

79
00:08:59,780 --> 00:09:05,520
has an economics consultancy consisting of 40 economists, statisticians and financial analysts

80
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:12,680
that focus on economic analysis of large infrastructure projects such as the one we were studying. HDR's

81
00:09:12,680 --> 00:09:17,060
project manager was Fred Kramer, an economist out of their Calgary office, and I will turn

82
00:09:17,060 --> 00:09:18,680
it over to him for the first half.

83
00:09:27,110 --> 00:09:29,410
Okay, and you can go ahead when you're ready, Mr. Kramer.

84
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:32,460
Good afternoon.

85
00:09:32,700 --> 00:09:33,820
My name is Fred Kramer.

86
00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:35,240
I'm with the HDR Corporation.

87
00:09:35,900 --> 00:09:42,600
I'm a principal economist out of our Calgary office, and I am also associate vice president,

88
00:09:43,200 --> 00:09:47,540
and I had the economics rail consultancy practice for HDR.

89
00:09:49,460 --> 00:09:56,140
So I have a few slides that I'll run through regarding the outcomes, I guess, of the Great

90
00:09:56,140 --> 00:09:59,560
Separation versus Rail Relocation Project.

91
00:10:00,280 --> 00:10:03,060
So as Angela mentioned, there were two phases to this study.

92
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:11,380
The first phase was kind of a feasibility assessment as part of our RFP response to this proposal.

93
00:10:11,380 --> 00:10:18,360
So we suggested that we do enough work as necessary as to provide a recommendation as to

94
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:22,740
move into phase two, and phase two would be a detailed analysis of the preferred option.

95
00:10:23,700 --> 00:10:30,800
So we took a look at both a program of grade separations for both CP and CN.

96
00:10:31,180 --> 00:10:35,620
There were nine select locations to look at grade separations and the benefits and costs

97
00:10:35,620 --> 00:10:42,480
associated with each, or a relocation of the CP main line, and southern

98
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:47,100
loan of the arts somewhere outside of the city, and I'll show you the various

99
00:10:47,100 --> 00:10:53,140
lines that we considered. And of course the third option is to do nothing. And phase

100
00:10:53,140 --> 00:10:55,880
two, again, was a detailed analysis of the preferred option.

101
00:10:58,020 --> 00:10:59,320
So the great separation

102
00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:06,500
portion of this evaluation framework was first of all to do some field

103
00:11:06,500 --> 00:11:12,880
investigations. So take a look at all nine of the proposed great separations or at great

104
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:19,520
crossings currently in the city and decide between four various options. Would do is it feasible

105
00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:27,140
to go road over rail, so a road overpass, would the preferred solution be a road under rail

106
00:11:27,140 --> 00:11:35,600
or a road underpass? Would the preferred option be a rail over road, so a rail overpass and

107
00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:42,460
And there's one of those options here as well, or an elevated rail.

108
00:11:42,860 --> 00:11:48,420
So elevate the CP mainline over and above the existing road network through the downtown

109
00:11:48,420 --> 00:11:48,880
core.

110
00:11:50,020 --> 00:11:55,660
Or would the preferred option be a rail under road or a trench option?

111
00:11:56,040 --> 00:12:02,900
So to depress the CP mainline underneath the existing road network and have a number of

112
00:12:02,900 --> 00:12:05,040
grade or bridges across that trench.

113
00:12:06,640 --> 00:12:13,080
So we did that and we decided between each one of those four options or we evaluate each

114
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:18,460
one of those four options and for each option we conducted preliminary engineering simply

115
00:12:18,460 --> 00:12:19,980
to estimate the construction costs.

116
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:27,380
So we designed a conceptual overpass or grade separation concept and we cost it out in terms

117
00:12:27,380 --> 00:12:32,180
terms of what it would cost in construction, what it also would cost in terms of delay

118
00:12:32,180 --> 00:12:38,900
for motorists during the time of construction, so that is included in the benefit cost analysis as well.

119
00:12:40,780 --> 00:12:47,160
Then for each option on the benefit side of things we would estimate or monetize what the economic

120
00:12:47,740 --> 00:12:52,340
environmental and social outcomes would be to the extent that we could.

121
00:12:52,920 --> 00:13:00,420
and then compare the benefits to the costs, calculate a benefit cost ratio, calculate the net present value,

122
00:13:01,140 --> 00:13:08,180
and from those metrics determine whether it's feasible or whether the benefits outweigh the cost for each one of the great separation locations.

123
00:13:09,540 --> 00:13:14,380
Benefit cost ratio is simply the sum of the benefits divided by the sum of the costs.

124
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:19,400
So if you have benefits higher than cost, your benefit cost ratio will be greater than 1.

125
00:13:19,400 --> 00:13:24,420
If your benefits are lower than the cost, your benefit cost ratio will be less than one.

126
00:13:25,220 --> 00:13:30,700
Net present value, again, is the present value of benefits, less the present value of costs.

127
00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:35,980
So if you have a net present value that is negative, benefits are less than cost,

128
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:40,060
and net present value that is positive, the benefits away the cost.

129
00:13:43,830 --> 00:13:49,890
For the CP rail relocation option, the evaluation framework is again very similar

130
00:13:49,890 --> 00:13:57,210
to the great separation evaluation framework. First step is to conduct some field investigation

131
00:13:57,210 --> 00:14:03,450
in desktop research and determine potential alignments outside the city limits to relocate

132
00:14:03,450 --> 00:14:10,710
the CP rail. We then went to CP and engaged CP and showed them the various alignment options

133
00:14:11,050 --> 00:14:17,770
and engaged their feedback and CP provided feedback. Based on that feedback, we chose one alignment

134
00:14:17,770 --> 00:14:22,350
in order to estimate what the construction costs for that specific alignment would be.

135
00:14:22,850 --> 00:14:27,170
And again, we would estimate what the benefits associated with the rail relocation,

136
00:14:27,170 --> 00:14:28,870
so move the entire CP rail.

137
00:14:29,890 --> 00:14:34,810
Mainline plus southern and large southernland yards outside of the city limits.

138
00:14:35,310 --> 00:14:40,130
And what are the benefits associated with that relative to the cost?

139
00:14:40,310 --> 00:14:44,390
Again, we estimate what the benefit cost ratio would be, and the net present value.

140
00:14:46,690 --> 00:14:56,390
So the cost-benefit evaluation overall takes into a number of benefit categories such as vehicle

141
00:14:56,390 --> 00:14:59,890
wait time reductions, so this is a value of time metric.

142
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:29,420
So basically what we do here is we estimate what the total vehicle weight times are, as trains are occupying level crossings. And we monetize that based on a value of time metric, which is generally assumed to be half the average wage rate of people in the city of Saskatoon. We also monetize what the truck delay time would be, both auto and truck. And truck rates are, again,

143
00:15:29,420 --> 00:15:31,740
and the average wage rate of truck drivers

144
00:15:31,740 --> 00:15:33,100
within the city of Saskatoon.

145
00:15:34,780 --> 00:15:37,080
We estimate what the economic savings

146
00:15:37,080 --> 00:15:39,380
to vehicle operating costs would be

147
00:15:39,380 --> 00:15:44,100
in terms of fuel burn, oil burn,

148
00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:46,600
you have to get an oil change more frequently,

149
00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:49,260
as well as depreciation to automobiles.

150
00:15:50,860 --> 00:15:53,940
And most importantly here, enhanced safety.

151
00:15:54,280 --> 00:15:57,000
So what we do there is we actually have a tool

152
00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:04,460
section by the Federal Railroad Administration in the U.S. that estimates what the safety

153
00:16:04,460 --> 00:16:13,160
impact in terms of the reductions in collisions for property damage, for injury, and for

154
00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:20,540
death, and monetize those reductions in collisions and we add that to the benefit stream as well.

155
00:16:20,540 --> 00:16:26,200
We have a benefit category here called improved emergency response times.

156
00:16:26,720 --> 00:16:29,540
Unfortunately, that is a qualitative assessment.

157
00:16:30,380 --> 00:16:36,740
We could not strictly monetize what the improvement to that would be for lack of detailed data.

158
00:16:37,560 --> 00:16:46,880
The whole study assumes that there is no net benefit to CP rail in terms of capacity or operating costs for any option here.

159
00:16:47,920 --> 00:16:54,080
So, we did not calculate what the operating cost improvement would to CP where L would

160
00:16:54,080 --> 00:17:00,280
be in terms of rail relocation or potential grade separation projects throughout the city.

161
00:17:01,740 --> 00:17:03,840
And everything here is discounted.

162
00:17:04,020 --> 00:17:08,840
So, we have, well, you'll see a little bit later on, undiscounted values and discounted values.

163
00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:13,660
Discounting takes into the time, takes into account the time value of money.

164
00:17:13,660 --> 00:17:18,960
In essence, if you have a dollar today, you prefer a dollar today in your hands versus

165
00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:24,220
a dollar tomorrow simply because you could invest that dollar and gain some return on

166
00:17:24,220 --> 00:17:24,900
that investment.

167
00:17:25,480 --> 00:17:28,340
So discounting is essentially taking that into account.

168
00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:38,800
It goes without saying, I think, that great separation and rail relocation benefits are largely

169
00:17:38,800 --> 00:17:42,600
dependent upon the level of train and vehicle traffic.

170
00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:47,820
The more training traffic that you have through the city of Saskatoon, the higher probability

171
00:17:47,820 --> 00:17:54,500
vehicles will be delayed and the longer they will be delayed and the more time is spent

172
00:17:55,340 --> 00:17:58,420
queuing for those traits to pass on average.

173
00:17:58,760 --> 00:18:04,660
And the more automobile traffic that you have throughout the city, again the larger the impact

174
00:18:04,660 --> 00:18:06,440
in terms of vehicle delay times would be.

175
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:21,720
So we take into account not only the current train traffic in terms of trains per day, but also the future growth, potential future growth in that train traffic over the study period, which is essentially 30 years here.

176
00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:37,300
Finally, the rail relocation option may include a benefit to the city in terms of redevelopment opportunities for settlement yard, for instance, or even the CP mainline should that be relocated.

177
00:18:37,300 --> 00:18:38,340
So,

178
00:18:41,820 --> 00:18:46,480
I've got a few slides here that show various great separation concepts.

179
00:18:46,780 --> 00:18:52,040
I'm going to spend a little bit of time, I guess, on the 22nd Street, just to explain

180
00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:55,120
what the process there was and explain some of the benefits.

181
00:18:56,320 --> 00:19:02,560
And then I'll probably jump through the other eight great separation locations fairly quickly.

182
00:19:04,230 --> 00:19:05,080
No surprises.

183
00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:11,780
I'll say right off the bat, I'm moving through them fairly quickly because simply the benefits

184
00:19:11,780 --> 00:19:16,940
for each one of these locations, the estimated benefits do not outweigh the cost.

185
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:26,380
22nd Street is very, very close to a break-even scenario in terms of benefits to costs when you have undiscounted values.

186
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:37,900
So the rail, CP rail runs here and then 22nd Street, of course, along here.

187
00:19:40,100 --> 00:19:45,440
We took a look at this and the concept was to go rail

188
00:19:47,560 --> 00:19:49,400
over road or an underpass.

189
00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:54,280
So essentially the road network would be under the rail network.

190
00:19:54,280 --> 00:20:01,940
the rail would remain at its current elevation, and the roadway would go underneath the rail network here.

191
00:20:03,120 --> 00:20:11,480
At a 5% grade, I think that's the city of Saskatoon standard, for design, a 5% grade, there's a number of implications here.

192
00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:20,020
For each one of these intersections, I think it's, I can't see it quite that well, but having you e, I think, all the way through perhaps having you h here,

193
00:20:21,680 --> 00:20:28,000
Because the roadway is depressed, you no longer maintain access to those avenues.

194
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:33,060
So we did not estimate what the business impact would be here.

195
00:20:33,900 --> 00:20:38,080
But I mean, there's a number of businesses here, giant tiger I believe.

196
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:39,440
There's Tim Horton's and others.

197
00:20:40,060 --> 00:20:41,920
That would be affected by these road closures.

198
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:46,300
They would have to have an alternate access to their businesses.

199
00:20:46,300 --> 00:20:55,180
So a number of these side streets here are the avenues would essentially be closed and have a call to SAP there.

200
00:20:57,480 --> 00:21:02,580
You can see by the magnitude of the benefits always here for each one of these locations.

201
00:21:03,140 --> 00:21:05,260
The travel time savings is the highest benefit.

202
00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:13,840
So that's the reduction in weight times associated with vehicle traffic multiplied by the average wage rate.

203
00:21:14,620 --> 00:21:17,120
We monetize and improve safety, etc.

204
00:21:19,670 --> 00:21:26,270
People operating costs. You also see a pavement maintenance cost category here that is a negative.

205
00:21:26,890 --> 00:21:31,190
So what that essentially is is that assumes that there's going to be some detour effect here

206
00:21:31,190 --> 00:21:35,330
and there will be some costs associated with that detour as well.

207
00:21:36,070 --> 00:21:37,030
So that was included.

208
00:21:37,930 --> 00:21:42,330
For each one of these locations, we assume the construction cost is two years

209
00:21:42,330 --> 00:21:45,810
and the benefits occur over the next 30 years.

210
00:21:46,550 --> 00:21:53,130
As I mentioned on discounting, you have close to a break even scenario on the benefit cost ratio here,

211
00:21:54,230 --> 00:22:01,250
undiscounted, but when you discount things because you're incurring costs in the next couple of years,

212
00:22:01,530 --> 00:22:09,450
but you're incurring receiving benefits over the following 30 years when you discount that the benefit cost ratio drops significantly.

213
00:22:09,450 --> 00:22:17,190
I should mention that this assumes a 10% discount factor, which is, comes from Transport Canada

214
00:22:17,190 --> 00:22:20,770
guidelines with respect to the National Trade Corridor Fund.

215
00:22:21,210 --> 00:22:26,470
Their guidelines suggested to do a 10% discount rate for applications to that fund.

216
00:22:26,850 --> 00:22:27,790
That's why we chose this.

217
00:22:28,170 --> 00:22:33,110
It's quite steep relative to other projects that I've done.

218
00:22:33,350 --> 00:22:38,270
Social discount rates I've seen are 3% rate, but regardless of what that discount rate

219
00:22:38,270 --> 00:22:44,150
is when you have an undiscounted benefit cost ratio that is simply break even, or less

220
00:22:44,150 --> 00:22:47,530
than one, it doesn't really matter what your discount rate is going to be. It's going

221
00:22:47,530 --> 00:22:52,110
to go lower on the benefits if you have costs up front.

222
00:22:53,770 --> 00:22:55,370
So that's 22nd Street.

223
00:22:58,420 --> 00:23:07,420
And then idle wild, drive, and 25th. Again, benefits are very similar

224
00:23:07,420 --> 00:23:11,900
to 22nd Street in that the ADT, the average daily traffic counts are very similar as well.

225
00:23:12,020 --> 00:23:18,340
I think they're a little bit higher here, but the capital costs associated with this

226
00:23:18,340 --> 00:23:26,540
grade separation are quite more extensive at a $61 million mark, and so that leads to a benefit

227
00:23:26,540 --> 00:23:28,580
cost ratio on discounted 0.8.

228
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:37,020
Warm and road. Again, this is actually, I'm sorry, I should have

229
00:23:37,020 --> 00:23:37,740
Let's get back here.

230
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:42,920
The first two are both road underpasses.

231
00:23:43,020 --> 00:23:47,660
The remainder here except for, say, one, are road overpasses.

232
00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:54,780
Typically road overpasses are easier to construct, cost a little bit less money than a road underpass,

233
00:23:55,180 --> 00:24:00,660
simply because you're avoiding an utility relocation, any pump stations that may be necessary and

234
00:24:00,660 --> 00:24:01,320
things like this.

235
00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:09,660
So you can see here, this one includes a little bit of an interchange and a couple of bridges,

236
00:24:10,140 --> 00:24:15,400
a $68 million capital cost and some $28 million of benefits.

237
00:24:18,020 --> 00:24:20,180
Preston Avenue North and CP,

238
00:24:20,780 --> 00:24:26,340
again this is an over-packs capital cost at $26 million, benefits at $23 million,

239
00:24:27,660 --> 00:24:29,180
un-discounted,

240
00:24:31,840 --> 00:24:40,460
central avenue, and the CP overpass again. Benefits here are some $50 million

241
00:24:40,460 --> 00:24:43,400
versus the cost of $29 million.

242
00:24:46,790 --> 00:24:51,810
Thirty-thirds street and CN. This is a little bit of a different

243
00:24:51,810 --> 00:24:59,270
configuration in that the preferred solution was actually to raise the rail over the roadway

244
00:24:59,270 --> 00:25:06,670
network. There wasn't enough room to actually do a roll over pass or under pass here. So

245
00:25:06,670 --> 00:25:10,330
we had to raise the rail. You can imagine that's a little bit of a costee proposition

246
00:25:10,750 --> 00:25:20,030
with embankments and things. And again, the capital cost is $45 million and benefits in

247
00:25:20,030 --> 00:25:23,130
the neighborhood of $14 to $15 million on discounted.

248
00:25:25,740 --> 00:25:29,200
And then Marquee Drive, I think I got

249
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:30,900
That's right, Marquis, thank you.

250
00:25:32,860 --> 00:25:41,100
Again, a road over rail, and the benefits of $13 to $14 million on a capital cost of

251
00:25:41,100 --> 00:25:41,520
23.

252
00:25:43,120 --> 00:25:52,540
And then the 11th Street, CN, road over rail, I'm sure you know there are some movements

253
00:25:52,540 --> 00:25:59,840
on CN here that we're aware of, and it's a tight configuration, but I think we came up

254
00:25:59,840 --> 00:26:05,640
with a little bit of an elegant solution here, but regardless, the daily traffic counts

255
00:26:05,640 --> 00:26:09,580
and the train volumes, I mean, when you take both of those into account, you get some

256
00:26:09,580 --> 00:26:15,200
$20 million in benefits versus the capital cost of some $44 million on discount.

257
00:26:17,350 --> 00:26:26,090
And then, 51st and CN, again, rolled over rail, capital cost of some $30 million in benefits

258
00:26:26,090 --> 00:26:26,830
of some 16.

259
00:26:26,830 --> 00:26:27,730
As

260
00:26:31,150 --> 00:26:36,730
I mentioned earlier, we also did on the great separation a couple of concepts, a

261
00:26:36,730 --> 00:26:37,950
trench concept here.

262
00:26:38,870 --> 00:26:45,390
So trench would be low-ring the CP mainline underneath the existing world wet network

263
00:26:45,390 --> 00:26:47,770
and having a number of bridges across that trench.

264
00:26:47,970 --> 00:26:54,970
This has been done before, most notably in Toronto, for their gold transit service.

265
00:26:54,970 --> 00:26:59,390
and they have a number of trains that are obviously running through the heart of Toronto.

266
00:27:00,130 --> 00:27:04,750
I think it's like four or five tracks there, but we would be lowering one main line track here

267
00:27:04,750 --> 00:27:10,850
below the existing road network and we made some assumptions on looked at the ADT profiles

268
00:27:10,850 --> 00:27:18,050
for a number of different roads and made some assumptions with respect to what roads would be closed

269
00:27:18,050 --> 00:27:23,610
versus what would remain open and have some bridge structures across the trench.

270
00:27:23,610 --> 00:27:30,290
you can understand with, you know, the utilities that are crossing and the number of different

271
00:27:30,290 --> 00:27:34,730
engineering issues, this is a costly proposition. I think this is the most costly proposition

272
00:27:34,730 --> 00:27:41,890
of all the options that we looked at. It has an estimated capital cost of some $519 billion

273
00:27:41,890 --> 00:27:46,770
and benefits of some 200 million on discounted.

274
00:27:49,540 --> 00:27:53,120
And a very similar concept, the CP rail elevated

275
00:27:53,120 --> 00:28:00,900
So, here you would build an embankment and run CP rail over the existing road network

276
00:28:00,900 --> 00:28:07,900
and basically punch through some holes in the embankment and have a rail bridge over

277
00:28:07,900 --> 00:28:11,480
those and allow traffic to flow underneath the CP rail.

278
00:28:12,280 --> 00:28:21,060
Less costly proposition relative to a transaction and again capital cost of about 200.

279
00:28:23,450 --> 00:28:29,630
benefits of about $100 million, so benefit cost ratio in the point five range. And of

280
00:28:29,630 --> 00:28:35,770
course, well, you would have a large embankment through the heart of the city as well.

281
00:28:38,760 --> 00:28:39,100
And then

282
00:28:39,600 --> 00:28:48,560
finally we took a look at some CP rail relocation options. Like I mentioned earlier, we did some field

283
00:28:48,560 --> 00:28:56,380
investigations and well spoke to the city and spoke to CP about this and the four lines

284
00:28:56,380 --> 00:29:01,000
on the map that you see here are the various options that we consider for rail relocation.

285
00:29:02,200 --> 00:29:08,020
The I guess is the paint line follows follows the right away for the perimeter highway.

286
00:29:08,840 --> 00:29:15,560
The red line follows the right of way the CN existing CN main line right of way.

287
00:29:15,560 --> 00:29:25,940
The blue line is, well, a couple of kilometers south of the city and then to try to avoid

288
00:29:25,940 --> 00:29:32,200
some of the property impacts we considered that green line as well further to the south

289
00:29:32,200 --> 00:29:32,800
of the city.

290
00:29:34,600 --> 00:29:44,140
We took these options to CP rail and CP rail informed us that the option that had the best

291
00:29:44,140 --> 00:29:53,280
potential of proceeding would be that, so based on that feedback, we took a look at the

292
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:29,900
So, it's necessary when you relocate outside of the city. A new bridge, spending this else's sketch on the river, and great separations associated with the CP and CN mainline interaction. So, the CN actually has a couple of spur lines that go south that we would have to necessarily great separate with CP. So, it's a rail over rail, great separate.

293
00:30:30,740 --> 00:30:36,100
And when you take the capital costs for that blue line option, it approaches $590 billion

294
00:30:37,640 --> 00:30:44,300
with benefits on discount purely monetized benefits here.

295
00:30:47,470 --> 00:30:55,330
So in summary, and I mentioned this earlier, from a pure monetary point of view,

296
00:30:56,190 --> 00:31:05,090
No options prove viable in terms of benefits outweighing the costs, both from a undiscounted

297
00:31:05,090 --> 00:31:06,730
and discounted perspective here.

298
00:31:07,670 --> 00:31:15,090
So this slide just shows you the CP rail separation of the aggregate of the five locations

299
00:31:15,090 --> 00:31:24,930
for CP rail, the aggregate of the four locations for CN, the CP rail relocation option two, which

300
00:31:24,930 --> 00:31:29,110
is the blue line there, as well as the CP elevate and CP

301
00:31:29,110 --> 00:31:32,190
tranche options in terms of construction costs,

302
00:31:32,690 --> 00:31:35,450
the benefit stream, the benefit cost ratio

303
00:31:35,450 --> 00:31:36,030
and that benefits.

304
00:31:37,330 --> 00:31:39,190
And I think we'll turn it to you now.

305
00:31:39,710 --> 00:31:41,730
It's all within to my colleagues from transportation,

306
00:31:42,650 --> 00:31:44,490
Chief Hackel from the fire department,

307
00:31:45,050 --> 00:31:46,910
Dan Paulson, the retired fire chief,

308
00:31:47,850 --> 00:31:50,270
and Leslie Anderson, director of planning.

309
00:31:50,790 --> 00:31:53,070
So together ourselves with our consultant

310
00:31:53,070 --> 00:31:56,750
that kind of came up with some outcomes and the next steps.

311
00:31:57,630 --> 00:32:02,070
So the great, so the great stuff, we determined that proposed that great separation should not

312
00:32:02,070 --> 00:32:04,430
be pursued further due to property and business impacts.

313
00:32:05,250 --> 00:32:08,850
From a pure monetary point of view, no option makes sense.

314
00:32:09,410 --> 00:32:15,070
However, there are intangible benefits that are hard to put a dollar value on such as improved

315
00:32:15,070 --> 00:32:19,430
emergency response times, access to community services,

316
00:32:19,430 --> 00:32:23,090
is neighborhood attractiveness, cohesiveness,

317
00:32:23,450 --> 00:32:27,690
connectivity, some term like that,

318
00:32:27,950 --> 00:32:30,310
that having the rail outside of the city

319
00:32:30,310 --> 00:32:32,730
or removing it from between neighborhoods

320
00:32:32,730 --> 00:32:35,210
is a benefit that's hard to put a dollar value on.

321
00:32:36,110 --> 00:32:38,430
And there will be less dangerous goods for the city.

322
00:32:39,330 --> 00:32:42,010
So we thought if a shared corridor can be achieved

323
00:32:42,010 --> 00:32:43,370
between the two rail companies

324
00:32:43,370 --> 00:32:45,630
that a rail location option may have some merit.

325
00:32:45,630 --> 00:32:59,440
So we'll lay it out here what what the scheme is and I'll just I'll just highlight just so everybody's on the same page that this is the CP main line right here.

326
00:32:59,440 --> 00:33:11,120
The CN I did that earlier today. This is the CN main line south of the city, south of Stonebridge goes underneath Clarence goes over the river underneath the valley road here.

327
00:33:12,260 --> 00:33:18,740
This is the CP single track main line in the blue here, so it starts behind the new

328
00:33:18,740 --> 00:33:25,460
casco, behind Briarwood, cello lignards, or somewhere around here, cross-pressed the

329
00:33:25,460 --> 00:33:25,720
nitrogen.

330
00:33:26,060 --> 00:33:31,500
Over the river, alongside 33rd of the nidips down by the police station, Ottawa, 22nd, and

331
00:33:31,500 --> 00:33:32,020
over.

332
00:33:33,200 --> 00:33:40,640
This north-south green line is the CN warm and sub, so it has much less train traffic, but

333
00:33:40,640 --> 00:33:44,880
it's a sub-line that goes to parts north of the city.

334
00:33:46,320 --> 00:33:51,700
So the idea is, and again, there's a huge pot beside us with all the questions that

335
00:33:51,700 --> 00:33:51,980
we have.

336
00:33:52,580 --> 00:33:52,660
Right?

337
00:33:52,820 --> 00:33:58,620
So there's lots of questions that come along with that pop to mind, but it's the beginning

338
00:33:58,620 --> 00:33:59,180
of a scheme.

339
00:33:59,680 --> 00:34:05,040
Is that we build a third track, the project, somebody build a third track, south, immediately

340
00:34:05,040 --> 00:34:07,260
south of the two C-N main lines.

341
00:34:07,440 --> 00:34:08,560
So here's the C-N main lines.

342
00:34:08,560 --> 00:34:12,440
So a third track is billed just immediately south of it.

343
00:34:14,960 --> 00:34:17,480
One of those three tracks goes to CP.

344
00:34:22,810 --> 00:34:25,710
Today there's a single track bridge here.

345
00:34:26,210 --> 00:34:31,530
So CN has two tracks on this side, two tracks on this side, they have a single track here.

346
00:34:31,650 --> 00:34:32,850
So it's a bottleneck for CN.

347
00:34:33,830 --> 00:34:38,850
So we would upgrade, build maybe a three track bridge here.

348
00:34:41,120 --> 00:34:46,780
Build a new CPR, we've heard, I think it's public, there's developers and landowners,

349
00:34:47,480 --> 00:34:52,220
so a piece of city that have thrown out ideas that, hey, you could build a CPR here.

350
00:34:54,080 --> 00:34:59,200
We could remove, then remove the existing CP mainline track, so this CP mainline track

351
00:34:59,200 --> 00:34:59,820
could come out.

352
00:35:00,180 --> 00:35:03,740
There are a couple issues with that that go in the big bucket of questions.

353
00:35:03,740 --> 00:35:16,240
There is a P&H customer here, along 33rd, they don't currently use rail, but they have rail available, so we have to talk to them.

354
00:35:16,980 --> 00:35:29,700
There is a steel recycler in this area that is an active customer, so we might have to maintain a spur line into their business.

355
00:35:29,700 --> 00:35:37,400
But again, maybe they have one, two trains a week, much less than the daily traffic of the CP mainline.

356
00:35:38,040 --> 00:35:40,140
And everything east of that can all come out.

357
00:35:42,840 --> 00:35:46,920
And then the southern yard has the potential to be redeveloped.

358
00:35:51,730 --> 00:36:00,450
So we propose moving forward, as opposed to having longer heads with the rail companies that we moved towards a business arrangement.

359
00:36:00,870 --> 00:36:03,470
That would result in, and here's the carrot for its CN.

360
00:36:03,470 --> 00:36:09,110
Again, there would be three lines, so one of the lines would be new, so CN or CP would

361
00:36:09,110 --> 00:36:14,370
get a new line, new infrastructure, there would be a new upgraded bridge, and for CN there

362
00:36:14,370 --> 00:36:19,630
would be no bottleneck at the bridge, so it would be more capacity for that company.

363
00:36:22,290 --> 00:36:25,810
CP, if CN doesn't get the new line, CP would get the new line, so one of them will get a new

364
00:36:25,810 --> 00:36:31,810
line, there would be a new yard, a new upgraded bridge, they would have increased running

365
00:36:31,810 --> 00:36:43,590
So instead of creeping through town at 10 miles an hour they could go 30, 40, I don't even know what the rules are outside of the city or south of the city and they have reduced track kilometers their distance they travel is less.

366
00:36:43,890 --> 00:36:49,790
So again, there's some increased capacity and operations benefits for CP.

367
00:36:50,690 --> 00:36:58,410
And then of course the city has many benefits, increased community and traffic safety, lower greenhouse gas, lower travel delays, improved emergency response.

368
00:36:58,410 --> 00:37:05,030
I haven't listed on here, but the neighborhood, the cohesiveness, connectivity part, and

369
00:37:05,030 --> 00:37:08,090
up with potential redevelopment area, or development area, and so on.

370
00:37:10,460 --> 00:37:17,660
So some next steps that we propose that some more engineering work to be done, to confirm

371
00:37:17,660 --> 00:37:19,460
that third track constraints.

372
00:37:22,600 --> 00:37:26,980
The two CN lines go underneath clearance, so do we need to widen that structure?

373
00:37:27,300 --> 00:37:29,920
At Valley Road, they go under, do we need to widen that structure?

374
00:37:31,260 --> 00:37:35,640
look at the other property impacts with a finer lens.

375
00:37:37,120 --> 00:37:38,600
You can refine the costs.

376
00:37:39,900 --> 00:37:46,600
As Fred mentioned, the $508 million dollar value came was an estimate of the blue line,

377
00:37:46,620 --> 00:37:48,440
which was a couple of kilometers south of the city.

378
00:37:50,280 --> 00:37:54,360
If we pursue the idea of a shared corridor, we think the costs will come down because there's

379
00:37:54,360 --> 00:37:55,340
less structures required.

380
00:37:57,960 --> 00:38:04,340
meet with CP, for sure, propose the plan to get their feedback.

381
00:38:05,060 --> 00:38:09,060
If CP is interested, then meet with CN and get their feedback.

382
00:38:10,260 --> 00:38:12,740
Both are interested, and if they're not interested,

383
00:38:12,920 --> 00:38:16,500
I think we need to step back and determine our next steps at that time, for sure.

384
00:38:16,660 --> 00:38:19,780
So it's a pretty wide open field on where we can go.

385
00:38:22,220 --> 00:38:25,680
In the short term, this is not really part of the study,

386
00:38:25,860 --> 00:38:30,200
but to help address the impacts of trade in the city,

387
00:38:30,200 --> 00:38:33,840
we want to continue with some technology ideas that we have.

388
00:38:35,840 --> 00:38:43,500
So we've received some feedback that we think that some folks are the perception that

389
00:38:43,500 --> 00:38:50,560
the rail, if it stays, will have a negative impact on the BRT system, and we don't think

390
00:38:50,560 --> 00:38:50,880
it will.

391
00:38:51,720 --> 00:38:57,480
The BRT project is moving down the lines of having real-time info for their users.

392
00:38:57,480 --> 00:38:59,340
So, here's some real examples.

393
00:38:59,500 --> 00:39:00,760
This is in Toronto, TTC.

394
00:39:01,120 --> 00:39:02,420
They're BRT system.

395
00:39:03,100 --> 00:39:05,800
So, it's a dynamic message board.

396
00:39:06,220 --> 00:39:08,440
Whatever 39E finish line is,

397
00:39:08,540 --> 00:39:10,000
and then there's the red bus here.

398
00:39:10,180 --> 00:39:10,860
So, it's a delayed.

399
00:39:11,380 --> 00:39:13,420
It's going to be at that location in 14 minutes

400
00:39:13,420 --> 00:39:14,660
and due to a traffic incident.

401
00:39:16,570 --> 00:39:17,830
So, we see this has been official.

402
00:39:17,950 --> 00:39:22,870
We think that the BRT system, when it's designed,

403
00:39:23,310 --> 00:39:24,770
we're going to have more delays from track

404
00:39:24,770 --> 00:39:27,850
from weather incidents, from traffic accidents

405
00:39:27,850 --> 00:39:30,790
then we will train, so we want to have the system anyways,

406
00:39:31,210 --> 00:39:33,410
this awareness system in place anyways,

407
00:39:34,110 --> 00:39:38,610
and then the BRT's, part of the design will have traffic signal priorities

408
00:39:38,610 --> 00:39:43,530
and geometric improvement to key locations where buses can make up the schedule.

409
00:39:44,350 --> 00:39:48,290
If they're on schedule, then we just don't need to play with the signal, for example.

410
00:39:48,430 --> 00:39:51,950
But if they're behind, then we can give them a huge jump to make them,

411
00:39:51,950 --> 00:39:54,870
give them an advantage over regular traffic so they can catch up.

412
00:39:55,670 --> 00:40:00,070
and that's been part of the plan from inception with the BRT.

413
00:40:01,330 --> 00:40:07,370
The one on the right is this is one of pig's real time info to BRT users.

414
00:40:07,950 --> 00:40:14,770
And also we think that if I'm a BRT user and there's a sense of comfort and knowing,

415
00:40:14,770 --> 00:40:19,010
okay, my bus is coming in five minutes, oh, it just jumped to ten minutes, oh, it's because there's a train.

416
00:40:19,330 --> 00:40:21,870
But it's still going to be here to pick me up.

417
00:40:23,850 --> 00:40:28,910
Railway crossing information system, so this is an example of Langley BC.

418
00:40:29,150 --> 00:40:33,950
They have six of these boards in place, so the top picture is actually how it's installed

419
00:40:33,950 --> 00:40:34,910
over the top of traffic.

420
00:40:35,430 --> 00:40:41,670
Against the dynamic boards, there's a blow-up of the board, and these change from open to

421
00:40:41,670 --> 00:40:41,970
train.

422
00:40:42,350 --> 00:40:49,670
It gives the information to a road user or driver as I approach that street, I approach that

423
00:40:49,670 --> 00:40:53,530
sign, I have a decision point to make, so they're put in strategic locations, okay?

424
00:40:53,530 --> 00:40:58,830
So here's telling me, don't go to Langley bypass, don't go to 200th Street, use the Fraser Highway.

425
00:40:59,750 --> 00:41:03,830
And it also has sensors that can, it knows when the train is coming, so it can,

426
00:41:04,610 --> 00:41:10,290
like, there might not be a train there this moment at 200th Street, but it's estimating knowing where

427
00:41:10,290 --> 00:41:13,990
you are looking at the sign, but time you get there, there will be a train. And then they have a nice

428
00:41:13,990 --> 00:41:16,470
little photograph of the bottom here, the train.

429
00:41:18,630 --> 00:41:22,470
So we are moving towards that. So here's kind of a

430
00:41:22,470 --> 00:41:29,650
a light system that we have received funding through the Rail Safety Improvement Program last year.

431
00:41:30,850 --> 00:41:34,150
And we're in the middle of procuring it to be installed this summer.

432
00:41:35,190 --> 00:41:42,550
So for example, we'll have a sign southbound traffic on circle drive just north of Clancy.

433
00:41:43,310 --> 00:41:46,550
And so when there's a train activity here,

434
00:41:47,090 --> 00:41:50,930
these signs will be flashing so it'll tell folks to get off onto Clancy.

435
00:41:52,390 --> 00:41:58,670
Likewise, approaching the area eastbound on 11th and westbound on 11th.

436
00:41:58,670 --> 00:42:03,030
I'm not exactly sure what we're doing northbound yet, I apologize, I'll ask the team.

437
00:42:03,810 --> 00:42:10,270
But again, but this is not, it doesn't have the forecasting ability, it's just simply

438
00:42:10,270 --> 00:42:13,150
if there's a train there, then these lights are going to go on.

439
00:42:13,710 --> 00:42:20,650
If you're driving in between this point and this point and a train arrives, you're unfortunately

440
00:42:20,650 --> 00:42:26,970
would it be stuck. But it's the beginning of a system. One issue we have, we have been talking

441
00:42:26,970 --> 00:42:31,890
to vendors about a system that tells us when a train is coming from outside the city, how long it

442
00:42:31,890 --> 00:42:37,030
is, what time it's going to get to these intersections so we can anticipate and tell that to drivers,

443
00:42:37,430 --> 00:42:44,390
and we could probably do it on the CP mainline and from the north on the CN warm and sub,

444
00:42:44,390 --> 00:42:52,370
But the shunting that goes back and forth to by terror, it's really hard to know it's impossible to know or estimate when they're going to be moving.

445
00:42:53,860 --> 00:42:58,540
So there are some limitations to that but we're trying to sort those things out.

446
00:42:58,660 --> 00:43:01,600
So we are moving with some ideas in the short term.

447
00:43:02,020 --> 00:43:05,560
Finally, I don't want to slide but the rail working group is active.

448
00:43:06,080 --> 00:43:09,720
Who's the rail companies and some business folks and the city.

449
00:43:10,500 --> 00:43:17,020
and we just try to deal, meet regularly, try to be a deal with the operational issues as they come up.

450
00:43:20,310 --> 00:43:23,770
And finally, here's the recommendation in front of you,

451
00:43:24,070 --> 00:43:24,890
verbatim from the report.

452
00:43:25,750 --> 00:43:32,810
Just want to emphasize that we're not seeking approval to do real relocation today.

453
00:43:32,990 --> 00:43:39,850
It's simply to move forward with phase two and to evaluate C and C, P,

454
00:43:39,850 --> 00:43:43,390
be operating in a shared corridor, to keep going down that line of thinking.

455
00:43:44,170 --> 00:43:50,070
But this is by no means a, we're asking for a concrete decision on rail relocation is the way to go.

456
00:43:58,900 --> 00:44:02,320
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Megas and Mr. Kramer.

457
00:44:02,580 --> 00:44:05,420
And thank you to committee members for restraining yourselves.

458
00:44:05,440 --> 00:44:10,520
I know you have lots of questions in the urge to hit your button, it's probably significant.

459
00:44:11,440 --> 00:44:17,880
So at this time, I'll invite our speaker, Mr. Keith Moan, to the podium.

460
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:29,320
We have our countdown clock here, when you've got a minute left, you'll have the yellow light on. And of course, the screech and red light when you are done. And certainly can start whenever you like. And then we'll let you know if you do have any questions from members of your committee. So please go ahead. All right. Thank you, Chair Jeffries. My name is Keith Bonham, the executive director of the NSBA, Saskatoon's business association. I'll be brief. We very much appreciate the work of HDR Mr. Kramer's group.

461
00:45:30,400 --> 00:45:35,000
and support the recommendation made forth by Mr. Magus and administration.

462
00:45:35,780 --> 00:45:39,560
So just to elaborate a little bit, we support relocation over the other options,

463
00:45:39,560 --> 00:45:41,720
such as overpasses, tunnels, trenches, et cetera.

464
00:45:42,300 --> 00:45:44,940
And in fact, the relocation's options presented.

465
00:45:45,120 --> 00:45:49,280
Again, we support the one calling for a twin of the CN line south of the city.

466
00:45:50,640 --> 00:45:54,520
Relocating rail can unlock the potential of the city and fits within the city's growth plans.

467
00:45:55,220 --> 00:45:59,180
Space currently occupied by rail lines and yards can be used for things such

468
00:45:59,180 --> 00:46:03,480
is in fill development, they could also become active transportation corridors that link

469
00:46:03,480 --> 00:46:09,180
disparate parts of the city. Removal of them will also make the BRT project more successful

470
00:46:09,180 --> 00:46:14,460
since its success is dependent upon bringing in more ridership and rail delays will severely

471
00:46:14,460 --> 00:46:20,360
impact that. Removal has less construction pain on the main areas of the city than the

472
00:46:20,360 --> 00:46:26,100
other solutions which could take up to 10 years to fully implement and construct and we clearly

473
00:46:26,100 --> 00:46:31,220
understand that this potential project will cost a lot of money, but in our opinion it

474
00:46:31,220 --> 00:46:35,720
is one of the key pieces of the future of Saskatoon. In fact, we have precedent here is the

475
00:46:35,720 --> 00:46:41,300
relocation of the CN yards in downtown Saskatoon, transformed the downtown core and set the

476
00:46:41,300 --> 00:46:46,600
stage for a revitalized downtown area that is now the envy of many cities across the can, across Canada,

477
00:46:47,040 --> 00:46:53,680
coast to coast to coast. Also, if there's some hesitation, I just want to point out the obvious

478
00:46:53,680 --> 00:46:58,100
that if you go down the path of grade separations and you do one or two, that ship is sailed.

479
00:46:58,260 --> 00:47:03,160
This is your prime opportunity to make a defining definitive decision regarding the future

480
00:47:03,160 --> 00:47:04,600
of south to planning and transportation.

481
00:47:05,740 --> 00:47:10,100
Therefore, high recommendation is that the rail relocation should be a priority for funding

482
00:47:10,100 --> 00:47:15,380
and planning, even if it comes at the expense of other less costly projects currently in

483
00:47:15,380 --> 00:47:16,540
the works or in consideration.

484
00:47:17,300 --> 00:47:23,400
I encourage you to think big, to think as big as you possibly can because this is a prime

485
00:47:23,400 --> 00:47:29,640
opportunity for us because, and I'll defer to my business background, the business

486
00:47:29,640 --> 00:47:38,120
case is here. Time is money. And there are many many options that will allow you to make

487
00:47:38,120 --> 00:47:45,280
it so it's more beneficial to Saskatoon residents and businesses overall. And I can't emphasize

488
00:47:45,280 --> 00:47:51,320
the case enough for both the CNCP opportunity. If you can make their transportation of goods

489
00:47:52,060 --> 00:48:03,240
more concise, they'll save money, they'll recognize that there's an investment to be made there, so there's opportunity for them to participate in the investment of a potential project, and again, this is the time.

490
00:48:04,140 --> 00:48:04,620
Thank you.

491
00:48:08,790 --> 00:48:10,430
Thank you very much, Mr. Moan.

492
00:48:10,710 --> 00:48:12,870
Do you have a question, Councillor Dunham?

493
00:48:13,390 --> 00:48:14,510
Okay, perfect, please go ahead.

494
00:48:15,510 --> 00:48:21,110
So I know you're going to say that we should be able to do this cost neutral, but I've been around too long to know that.

495
00:48:21,330 --> 00:48:26,150
So for us to spend over half a billion dollars, we're looking at significant tax increases.

496
00:48:26,170 --> 00:48:30,390
Are you willing to love me, your membership, that's what you support?

497
00:48:31,750 --> 00:48:39,430
Absolutely, and we recognize that as well that this is an investment and it's for the betterment of the city there for this non-expectation that it'll be a cost neutral endeavor.

498
00:48:39,850 --> 00:48:41,730
Nor are we expecting it to be a tomorrow.

499
00:48:41,730 --> 00:48:42,790
No, thank you.

500
00:48:42,850 --> 00:48:43,070
All right.

501
00:48:43,210 --> 00:48:48,230
We're recognizing that this will be long, long term and significant investment on that.

502
00:48:48,230 --> 00:48:48,510
Okay.

503
00:48:48,730 --> 00:48:53,110
So if somebody wants us to spend that kind of money, they need to be part of the parade outlingly

504
00:48:53,110 --> 00:48:54,770
in favor of what that's all I'm saying.

505
00:48:55,150 --> 00:48:55,510
Absolutely.

506
00:48:55,890 --> 00:48:56,330
And we will.

507
00:48:56,510 --> 00:48:59,030
And I'll hear from my members that are in opposition to that.

508
00:48:59,030 --> 00:48:59,330
Sure.

509
00:48:59,430 --> 00:48:59,650
I will.

510
00:49:00,090 --> 00:49:00,190
Yeah.

511
00:49:00,470 --> 00:49:00,750
Thank you.

512
00:49:02,730 --> 00:49:03,090
Okay.

513
00:49:03,410 --> 00:49:04,450
Thank you, Councillor Dunerror.

514
00:49:05,230 --> 00:49:05,810
Your worship.

515
00:49:07,530 --> 00:49:08,110
Thank you.

516
00:49:08,190 --> 00:49:08,910
And thanks for coming.

517
00:49:09,290 --> 00:49:12,630
Mr. Moan, and I know you've been working on this and interested in this for some time.

518
00:49:12,630 --> 00:49:23,390
My first question I think in Councillor Donor made reference to spending half a billion dollars, you're aware that's only CP, so that's not the CN line.

519
00:49:23,630 --> 00:49:28,750
This is actually no impact on Marcus Drive 51st.

520
00:49:28,950 --> 00:49:38,550
Some of the issues that we see over on the west side around Montgomery and 11th Street, that's not factored into that dollar figure.

521
00:49:38,550 --> 00:49:38,650
here.

522
00:49:40,770 --> 00:49:48,850
And you said the business case is there. When I saw the report, the business case

523
00:49:48,850 --> 00:49:58,010
is pretty negative when it comes to factoring in and even incorporating things like safety,

524
00:49:58,490 --> 00:50:04,630
vehicle emissions, vehicle operating costs, savings, travel time, savings, some soft and

525
00:50:04,630 --> 00:50:12,570
cost, then that present value doesn't come close to one, and it's negative in the hundreds of millions under any scenario.

526
00:50:13,110 --> 00:50:19,670
So, if I was a business and I was looking at this, I think I'd be in a pretty tough spot.

527
00:50:20,350 --> 00:50:23,830
So, how, can you explain your comment at the business cases there?

528
00:50:23,830 --> 00:50:29,970
I misspoke in that one sense of it being a true business case where I was referencing was with respect to the possible

529
00:50:29,970 --> 00:50:33,370
twinning of the portion with specifically the bridge.

530
00:50:33,670 --> 00:50:40,390
If CN can get a second line on crossing the south Saskatchewan again, time being money is the reference I was trying to

531
00:50:40,390 --> 00:50:47,610
allude to, but they would encourage that type of development and therefore possibly invest in.

532
00:50:47,690 --> 00:50:55,400
I suggest that they would, if you could provide a scenario whereby there

533
00:50:55,400 --> 00:50:59,480
there would be some public dollars going into a piece of infrastructure that they would then benefit from.

534
00:50:59,640 --> 00:51:01,200
So the business case in that respect would be there.

535
00:51:01,220 --> 00:51:11,100
Okay, so what you're saying is, you're not, you know, the report doesn't actually quantify the cost of the shared line option.

536
00:51:11,340 --> 00:51:18,360
It only does option two, you're not suggesting, then you're not pursuing those other options.

537
00:51:18,360 --> 00:51:23,780
But if there would be some scenario where the shared line option could work,

538
00:51:23,780 --> 00:51:27,880
that that's the scenario that you're suggesting.

539
00:51:28,160 --> 00:51:32,040
Would you also, if that didn't work, would you come back and say, try option two or?

540
00:51:33,120 --> 00:51:36,960
Possibly, I think we're in the area of Mr. Maggs as a big pot of questions right now.

541
00:51:37,340 --> 00:51:37,920
We sure are.

542
00:51:38,060 --> 00:51:39,840
Yeah, we are.

543
00:51:40,120 --> 00:51:46,400
And although that's our preferred route, I can't speak on behalf clearly of CN or CP,

544
00:51:46,940 --> 00:51:50,600
because in order for the route or the option that we're suggesting and

545
00:51:50,600 --> 00:51:54,380
promoting to be successful, they have to be obviously an agreement to it.

546
00:51:55,100 --> 00:51:59,160
So that would be the caveat, the one big, the big one to overcome.

547
00:51:59,500 --> 00:52:03,100
So let's cross that bridge and get to it.

548
00:52:03,400 --> 00:52:09,340
Okay, just for clarification, because I think the business case is very rough on all the other scenarios.

549
00:52:09,840 --> 00:52:13,020
And I didn't want to misunderstand what you were saying there.

550
00:52:13,020 --> 00:52:15,060
Okay, no, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

551
00:52:15,380 --> 00:52:16,100
Okay, thank you.

552
00:52:17,720 --> 00:52:18,540
That's my question.

553
00:52:18,540 --> 00:52:22,640
Okay, thank you very much, and I don't see any other questions for you, Mr. Moan.

554
00:52:22,760 --> 00:52:24,260
Thank you very much for coming today.

555
00:52:25,120 --> 00:52:27,540
Okay, so we've had our presentation from administration.

556
00:52:27,620 --> 00:52:28,680
We've had our speakers.

557
00:52:28,940 --> 00:52:35,540
So if I could get a motion to open discussion, please, are you moving the recommendation as

558
00:52:35,540 --> 00:52:37,460
put forward by administration, Councillor Block?

559
00:52:37,860 --> 00:52:38,100
Okay.

560
00:52:38,440 --> 00:52:39,420
Thank you very much.

561
00:52:39,900 --> 00:52:46,920
Now we will go to questions of our administration or the consultant, and then after that

562
00:52:46,920 --> 00:52:49,120
That will go into comments and any debate here.

563
00:52:49,420 --> 00:52:51,920
So, to start it off, we have Councillor Dunnauer.

564
00:52:52,320 --> 00:52:53,860
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

565
00:52:54,300 --> 00:53:01,360
I have a question for Mr. Kramer, if I'm prepared to ask, so Mr. Kramer, this is what

566
00:53:01,360 --> 00:53:02,240
you do for a living.

567
00:53:03,560 --> 00:53:08,880
Have you been successful in moving a rail out of any other major city in Canada so far?

568
00:53:10,020 --> 00:53:12,720
I'm sorry, not successful, that's maybe the inappropriate term.

569
00:53:13,200 --> 00:53:15,080
Have you been a part of that in your company?

570
00:53:16,260 --> 00:53:23,720
not in Canada. I have done feasibility assessments for areas in the US, and I

571
00:53:23,720 --> 00:53:30,420
got to say I cannot recall. A couple of them are in the works, I believe, but I

572
00:53:30,420 --> 00:53:34,800
cannot recall the one that has actually been implemented at this point in time

573
00:53:34,800 --> 00:53:39,200
that I personally have been involved with. You do understand there have been

574
00:53:39,200 --> 00:53:44,000
successful implementation. I believe in Regina, Leth, Rich, and other areas for

575
00:53:44,000 --> 00:53:45,920
or rail relocation outside of city limits.

576
00:53:46,220 --> 00:53:47,380
Thank you very much.

577
00:53:47,740 --> 00:53:49,800
My next question is for Mr. Magus.

578
00:53:50,460 --> 00:53:52,000
And it's regarding BRT.

579
00:53:52,960 --> 00:53:58,980
You stated that rail delays won't be a problem for BRT,

580
00:53:59,200 --> 00:54:01,100
and I think you said that there'd be more delays

581
00:54:01,100 --> 00:54:04,600
from weather and car accidents than from trains.

582
00:54:05,020 --> 00:54:07,000
I need you to expand on that a little bit,

583
00:54:07,520 --> 00:54:11,620
because I don't drive 22nd Street regularly every day,

584
00:54:11,620 --> 00:54:17,340
but I hear from people that there's like 15-20 minute delays there. If BRT's

585
00:54:17,340 --> 00:54:21,020
flipping every five or six minutes, that tells me there's going to be four or five

586
00:54:21,020 --> 00:54:25,240
buses lined up, haven't gone anywhere during the duration of a long

587
00:54:25,240 --> 00:54:32,540
train. Am I wrong on that? And how does that work? How will BRT work when there's a

588
00:54:32,540 --> 00:54:40,720
20-minute delay a couple times a day? I don't have the math or you know the hard

589
00:54:40,720 --> 00:54:49,240
information to show you, I just know when we were talking on the BRT team, you know, on

590
00:54:49,240 --> 00:54:55,060
the onset of the project, and we talked about why do we need traffic signal priority or

591
00:54:55,060 --> 00:55:03,160
why do we need geometric improvements at key locations to enable buses to catch up.

592
00:55:03,600 --> 00:55:08,540
And the reason was, was that sometimes they will get behind because of whether incidents

593
00:55:08,540 --> 00:55:13,140
or traffic or construction on a long 20 second speed.

594
00:55:14,320 --> 00:55:20,780
And then the last few months, the rail study has become more crystallized

595
00:55:20,780 --> 00:55:22,560
in how we're going to present it.

596
00:55:23,360 --> 00:55:28,600
And we had a brief discussion on the rail,

597
00:55:28,920 --> 00:55:33,020
okay, will the BRT system be harmed by the rail?

598
00:55:33,580 --> 00:55:36,900
And the discussion in the room, and we concluded that,

599
00:55:36,900 --> 00:55:43,080
that it's part of the things that we want to mitigate, part of, you know, it goes into

600
00:55:43,080 --> 00:55:51,020
the pile of traffic issues, whether issues, other types of delays that will, the technology

601
00:55:51,020 --> 00:55:57,120
and the geometrics will help the buses catch up. So, I don't have the detailed assessment

602
00:55:57,120 --> 00:55:58,780
of the number of times and the likes.

603
00:55:59,280 --> 00:56:02,420
All right, Farina, thank you, Mr. Mages, and thank you for the report and all the work you

604
00:56:02,420 --> 00:56:02,520
do.

605
00:56:04,830 --> 00:56:08,670
Okay, next up is your worship.

606
00:56:10,330 --> 00:56:11,070
I think.

607
00:56:12,510 --> 00:56:13,030
Okay.

608
00:56:16,670 --> 00:56:18,530
Yeah, I have a lot of different questions.

609
00:56:18,530 --> 00:56:22,330
I'm going to try and a lot of them came up through the presentation.

610
00:56:22,510 --> 00:56:28,670
I guess to Mr. Kramer, if you could comment through the study on CN, the CN line,

611
00:56:28,790 --> 00:56:35,490
because when you looked at relocation options, really looked at CP and not CN,

612
00:56:35,490 --> 00:56:42,590
and which is one of the lines that's having an impact on traffic and safety issues through the city.

613
00:56:42,710 --> 00:56:46,110
Can you discuss why that wasn't contemplated as part of the?

614
00:56:48,120 --> 00:56:52,380
Because then actually in the scope of work, it wasn't in the scope, yeah, better than responded to.

615
00:56:53,580 --> 00:56:54,660
Yes, Ms. Gardner.

616
00:56:54,800 --> 00:57:03,420
Sure, if I can just add, when we looked at the nine priority or locations for

617
00:57:03,420 --> 00:57:12,000
grade separation. Five were CP and four were CN. The evaluating and looking at the

618
00:57:12,000 --> 00:57:18,420
average daily traffic at each of those, the CP was primarily the more, the ones that

619
00:57:18,420 --> 00:57:23,320
had the higher, would have the most benefit by a grade separation. So, when we developed

620
00:57:23,320 --> 00:57:29,460
the scope of the study for phase one, we said if CP doesn't make sense to relocate, then

621
00:57:29,460 --> 00:57:35,840
And there's no sense expanding it to CN at that point, so it was looking at CN was going

622
00:57:35,840 --> 00:57:40,180
to be an afterthought if CP made sense at that time.

623
00:57:40,520 --> 00:57:47,620
Thank you, and I realize now that makes sense for that to go back to our administration,

624
00:57:47,820 --> 00:57:48,920
not Mr. Kramer to answer.

625
00:57:49,720 --> 00:57:55,120
I guess Mr. Kramer, you don't make a recommendation in your report per se.

626
00:57:55,120 --> 00:58:00,320
I know Edmin has sort of taken the report and made their recommendations.

627
00:58:00,400 --> 00:58:07,620
What would your recommendation be based on everything that you see in front of you and

628
00:58:07,620 --> 00:58:08,700
the work you've done in other cities?

629
00:58:09,640 --> 00:58:18,300
I would explore the, I would concur with the city's recommendation to explore a shared corridor,

630
00:58:18,300 --> 00:58:27,300
or not shared track or shared infrastructure because that, in my opinion, the Class 1 Rail

631
00:58:27,300 --> 00:58:33,340
Road would not seriously look at any shared infrastructure, but I would look at a shared

632
00:58:33,340 --> 00:58:40,200
corridor simply because, as you rightly mentioned, none of the options actually from a pure

633
00:58:40,200 --> 00:58:46,960
monetary point of view proved out, but the red line option has certain advantages with

634
00:58:46,960 --> 00:58:53,120
respect to coughs, reductions relative to the blue line option. The blue line option had a number

635
00:58:53,120 --> 00:59:03,120
of grade separations, a highway over rail that would have to be constructed, that kind of the

636
00:59:03,120 --> 00:59:09,340
option one or the red line options. If there's sufficient room to enter existing infrastructure,

637
00:59:09,820 --> 00:59:16,500
those grade separations would become a lot less costly. The red option also does not require

638
00:59:16,500 --> 00:59:32,500
Any or limited amount of interaction between the two class one railroads in that the blue line option option two again required and we cost it out a great separation of the CP over the CN main line.

639
00:59:32,960 --> 00:59:35,160
So that's quite a costly proposition as well.

640
00:59:36,000 --> 00:59:43,700
I personally feel that a commercial arrangement could be worked out.

641
00:59:43,700 --> 00:59:47,800
I'm not, you know, there are benefits to all parties, as Jay rightly pointed out.

642
00:59:48,340 --> 00:59:55,720
The CN would benefit from reductions in their, the bottleneck at the Salsa Saskatchewan

643
00:59:55,720 --> 00:59:58,440
Bridge, in terms of fluidity of the rail network.

644
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:29,940
The two class one or both the class one railroads would benefit from improved main line infrastructure trackage. CEP could run at track speed and reduce their operating cost throughout the city of Saskatoon. I think that's something that greatly benefits CEP rail as well. They don't have a lot of active customers within the city of Saskatoon. They have relocated outside of the city at some point in time. And again, the benefits

645
01:00:29,940 --> 01:00:33,080
associated with the city are all those benefits that we talked about.

646
01:00:33,620 --> 01:00:38,240
So if we can get, if there's some sort of, and the way I would approach it, is that,

647
01:00:38,640 --> 01:00:41,840
you know, CP and CN would have to do their own math on this.

648
01:00:42,880 --> 01:00:50,420
And if they saw there were some financial benefits associated with this proposed solution,

649
01:00:51,140 --> 01:00:52,440
why wouldn't you come to the table?

650
01:00:52,540 --> 01:00:58,200
They're a private company and when there are financial benefits to be had to that corporation,

651
01:00:58,200 --> 01:01:02,760
then you seriously look at that. So yes, that would be my recommendation.

652
01:01:03,200 --> 01:01:09,300
And I think it's probably important to clarify then because the media stories coming up

653
01:01:09,300 --> 01:01:15,140
to this have sort of indicated that the city is saying let's explore relocation and that

654
01:01:15,140 --> 01:01:22,020
the cost is tied to the relocation is the $590 million. But we have no cost whatsoever

655
01:01:22,020 --> 01:01:27,220
for what that shared route. When you looked at this, you initially looked at the shared

656
01:01:27,220 --> 01:01:33,820
groups and then identified that CP had said that the most likely was the blue

657
01:01:33,820 --> 01:01:38,660
group so we didn't cost out this idea of the shared quarter so we do not have

658
01:01:38,660 --> 01:01:43,060
any numbers for what that would look like at this point. That's correct. And it

659
01:01:43,060 --> 01:01:50,760
like you said, the companies may have a different way of valuing some of those

660
01:01:50,760 --> 01:01:55,900
things that we're not aware of at this point at all. Sure. As well. I just wanted to

661
01:01:55,900 --> 01:02:01,760
I also ask you about the BRT since its HDR that's also doing our bus rapid transit plan.

662
01:02:02,860 --> 01:02:07,880
And I think there's been questions when the city originally started to look at more

663
01:02:07,880 --> 01:02:11,240
rapid frequency down 8th street.

664
01:02:11,640 --> 01:02:16,480
We said we were going to wait to look at it down 22nd, one of the reasons that was identified

665
01:02:16,480 --> 01:02:17,040
was trains.

666
01:02:17,680 --> 01:02:20,880
And I think that's perhaps why there's been some question about the impact.

667
01:02:20,880 --> 01:02:29,680
When we have 6.6 trains per day right now average on the CP line, from the point of view

668
01:02:29,680 --> 01:02:35,000
of operating a successful bus rapid transit would you then concur that this is not a major

669
01:02:35,000 --> 01:02:44,880
barrier to bus rapid transit being successful, particularly if the technological advancements

670
01:02:44,880 --> 01:02:48,160
that we've seen at developing more recently, commentively.

671
01:02:50,280 --> 01:02:52,860
So I'm not a bus rapid transit expert.

672
01:02:53,900 --> 01:02:57,500
I'm more on the freight rail side thing, so I'm hesitant to answer this question.

673
01:02:58,040 --> 01:03:00,140
I'll offer one comment.

674
01:03:00,680 --> 01:03:06,780
Those 6.6 trains that you mentioned, that includes some interchange trains between

675
01:03:06,780 --> 01:03:12,140
CP and CN, between Sutherland Yard and Chapel Yard.

676
01:03:12,140 --> 01:03:22,440
So, approximately one train a day, both ways are those smaller type interchange trains that

677
01:03:22,440 --> 01:03:29,060
I believe, not 100% certain, are running outside of a BRT time zone.

678
01:03:29,640 --> 01:03:35,340
So it's more on the neighborhood of like five trains through trains per day on the main

679
01:03:35,340 --> 01:03:35,980
line track.

680
01:03:37,200 --> 01:03:42,760
I have to leave it to others to evaluate what impact I would have on the PRT.

681
01:03:43,160 --> 01:03:47,460
I wasn't sure if there was how much cost of pollination there was between the two contracts.

682
01:03:48,700 --> 01:03:54,860
And then I just thought, I think my last question for you is the estimate of the number of trains,

683
01:03:55,540 --> 01:03:59,320
there's the 6.6 and then you project out to the future.

684
01:03:59,600 --> 01:04:04,100
I think this is one of the real challenges when we're talking about a project of this magnitude

685
01:04:04,100 --> 01:04:11,980
is especially based on current state, I think the recommendation is that the cost benefit

686
01:04:11,980 --> 01:04:17,120
is very low, but if we see an increase in trains that could affect things, I think there's,

687
01:04:17,580 --> 01:04:20,860
and this is probably really hard to answer, but I just wanted to get your take on it.

688
01:04:21,560 --> 01:04:26,000
We don't know what the future of rail travel is going to be, and we also don't know how,

689
01:04:26,340 --> 01:04:30,880
for talking about 30 years old technology is going to change transportation, there's lots

690
01:04:30,880 --> 01:04:36,960
of talk about autonomous vehicles and some of these types of things, and we're trying

691
01:04:36,960 --> 01:04:42,940
to make a decision based on having a best impact 30 years down the road, could you talk

692
01:04:42,940 --> 01:04:52,680
a bit about those factors? Well, my specific question would be how certain are you about

693
01:04:52,680 --> 01:04:59,160
the projections, because it does show an increase in trains up to 12, I think, per day on the CP

694
01:04:59,160 --> 01:05:05,000
In fact, how solid is our ability to project out that far?

695
01:05:06,480 --> 01:05:08,020
I have no crystal ball.

696
01:05:11,320 --> 01:05:16,720
We basically forecasted, based, well, first of all, we have a number of people within

697
01:05:16,720 --> 01:05:21,280
HDR that are formally employed by the CP and the CM.

698
01:05:22,400 --> 01:05:30,600
These people know fair bit about how trains are rooted through the city and CP has a number

699
01:05:30,600 --> 01:05:36,560
of different options in order to move, for instance, pod ash or crude oil or other commodities

700
01:05:36,560 --> 01:05:37,320
that they have.

701
01:05:38,160 --> 01:05:41,460
So basically what we did on the forecast basis is a bottom up build.

702
01:05:41,780 --> 01:05:48,180
It wasn't just kind of a trend line over time because as you probably recall a few years

703
01:05:48,180 --> 01:05:48,520
ago.

704
01:05:48,520 --> 01:05:53,200
So there was a lot more CP rail traffic than it is currently, so we have to take that

705
01:05:53,200 --> 01:05:56,800
into account, more specifically with crude oil by rail.

706
01:05:57,480 --> 01:06:01,440
So there's a bunch of different factors that could affect that forecast.

707
01:06:02,220 --> 01:06:09,680
If I was to put up a range around that forecast in 30 years from now, it could be plus or

708
01:06:09,680 --> 01:06:11,120
minus 50%.

709
01:06:11,120 --> 01:06:20,220
Key factors driving that forecast are the availability of pipelines through well to tide

710
01:06:20,220 --> 01:06:32,700
water or to the U.S., Keystone XL, etc., the viability of new pod ash mines within Saskatchewan

711
01:06:32,700 --> 01:06:35,240
and the location of those pod ash mines.

712
01:06:35,980 --> 01:06:40,000
And general growth in grain traffic

713
01:06:40,000 --> 01:06:42,360
through increased crop yields, et cetera,

714
01:06:42,880 --> 01:06:44,320
that we're seeing.

715
01:06:44,520 --> 01:06:47,280
So those are the major factors that would affect the forecast.

716
01:06:50,200 --> 01:06:51,260
Yeah, I think I solved there.

717
01:06:51,660 --> 01:06:56,820
So plus or minus 50% is here, I see.

718
01:06:57,140 --> 01:07:01,580
And then any comments on transportation technology

719
01:07:01,580 --> 01:07:06,440
which has become more and more of an impact, more and more of a discussion, even as we've

720
01:07:06,440 --> 01:07:13,240
been building out our BRT in terms of vehicle traffic projections and some of those things

721
01:07:13,240 --> 01:07:16,380
that could change as a result of technology.

722
01:07:19,240 --> 01:07:25,440
Was that something that you considered in forecast of train counts, for instance, and the

723
01:07:25,440 --> 01:07:32,660
The key impact on the delay in terms of vehicle travel time and so on.

724
01:07:32,660 --> 01:07:40,080
That was something that we did not consider within the benefit cost analysis.

725
01:07:40,900 --> 01:07:45,860
I will say this, I guess, for autonomous vehicles, for instance, and for electric vehicles,

726
01:07:45,860 --> 01:07:48,900
for instance, the emissions factors will probably reduce over time.

727
01:07:49,460 --> 01:07:52,180
So your emissions impact would be less.

728
01:07:52,180 --> 01:07:56,480
Yes, but as you notice, the emission impact on the total impact are very small.

729
01:07:56,880 --> 01:08:02,040
Regardless of whether you have autonomous vehicles or not, you still have a passenger,

730
01:08:02,340 --> 01:08:07,380
you still have someone that is waiting for a train at a level crossing, regardless of which

731
01:08:07,380 --> 01:08:08,620
technology it is.

732
01:08:09,380 --> 01:08:16,460
So you would have that travel time impact, which is by large, probably 90% of the total

733
01:08:16,460 --> 01:08:18,860
impact that we calculated overall.

734
01:08:20,140 --> 01:08:31,060
You know, there's been things in the press about autonomous truck as well, potentially reducing

735
01:08:31,060 --> 01:08:38,280
the cost of freight by truck, again, and relative to train traffic.

736
01:08:39,280 --> 01:08:44,360
But again, and diverting some of that rail traffic to trucks, for instance, but that was

737
01:08:44,360 --> 01:08:45,240
not taken into account.

738
01:08:45,240 --> 01:08:50,620
That's just, those things are two uncertain to actually put a forecast on.

739
01:08:51,000 --> 01:08:58,500
So I guess my assumption at this point is that some of these costs could be affected.

740
01:08:58,820 --> 01:09:05,700
Some of these estimates could be affected if the patterns of traffic change as a result of technology.

741
01:09:06,560 --> 01:09:06,720
Sure.

742
01:09:08,400 --> 01:09:30,820
Okay, and I think my last question is just for Mr. Maggis, so am I right to say your primary recommendation is let's not wait to look into technological solutions that could improve some of these issues from safety to delay time and all of those things by better.

743
01:09:30,820 --> 01:09:39,740
We're working with both CN and CP on technological improvements at intersections and warning systems

744
01:09:39,740 --> 01:09:45,380
and some of those types of things, and you said you're not recommending relocation,

745
01:09:45,540 --> 01:09:52,040
but there may be a possibility with this shared corridor that hasn't been explored as much

746
01:09:52,040 --> 01:09:56,780
that you're suggesting to explore further in discussion with CN and CP.

747
01:09:57,760 --> 01:10:04,380
Correct, so the recommendation is that we move forward with further exploring the shared

748
01:10:04,380 --> 01:10:12,980
corridor option and just to touch on that the current at grade intersections transport

749
01:10:12,980 --> 01:10:17,660
candidate regulations have changed a few years ago, so we are in the middle of a significant

750
01:10:17,660 --> 01:10:23,460
program with the rail companies on improving those to meet the current regulations for safety.

751
01:10:25,240 --> 01:10:31,740
So there's physical things you can do at the intersection, you showed the way you can communicate through with BRT systems to people.

752
01:10:34,680 --> 01:10:53,260
There are technologies like ways and other things where that tie into people's GPS and so on as I understand it that could not only improve the transit passenger but also the driver or even the pedestrian who's got a phone with them to give warning.

753
01:10:54,700 --> 01:11:00,240
about training delays for all all users of all all modes of transportation is

754
01:11:00,240 --> 01:11:05,920
that an option that we have as well. So correct today you know Google traffic will

755
01:11:05,920 --> 01:11:11,620
show you where there's delays I hesitate to promote that because that if you're

756
01:11:11,620 --> 01:11:15,440
driving that's distracting you so if your passengers are looking at your at the

757
01:11:15,440 --> 01:11:21,640
phone and advising you that's good but you know there's there's real-time

758
01:11:21,640 --> 01:11:25,540
applications like that that do exist and they're probably getting easier to use that

759
01:11:25,540 --> 01:11:32,720
show current traffic conditions. A lot of people drive now with a GPS that gives them

760
01:11:32,720 --> 01:11:38,720
directions to places, right? It's built into their vehicle. I assume that's the kind of

761
01:11:38,720 --> 01:11:43,120
thing that eventually could be incorporating this information as well. Correct.

762
01:11:44,620 --> 01:11:48,580
And yeah, okay. Okay, I think those are all my questions. Thank you very much.

763
01:11:48,580 --> 01:11:49,480
Okay,

764
01:11:52,020 --> 01:11:55,300
thank you. Next up, we have Councillor

765
01:11:59,020 --> 01:12:02,540
Gersher and Councillor Gough, are you okay?

766
01:12:02,760 --> 01:12:08,680
Well, I don't mean to skip over you. We'll just stick with our committee members for a first round here.

767
01:12:09,100 --> 01:12:10,260
So, thank you.

768
01:12:10,980 --> 01:12:14,920
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cough, for your patience.

769
01:12:16,200 --> 01:12:20,580
I feel like my questions are going to seem silly in the context of the amount of dollars we're talking about.

770
01:12:20,580 --> 01:12:29,360
but I'll start with that, Mr. Megas, is there a way to gauge the interest of CNN, CP,

771
01:12:29,840 --> 01:12:33,460
with the shared corridor idea without spending $100,000?

772
01:12:34,320 --> 01:12:41,240
Is it possible to have those conversations initially, before going ahead to some more

773
01:12:41,240 --> 01:12:44,320
of the detailed drawing phasers, that not a possibility?

774
01:12:46,620 --> 01:13:16,380
So, since the report has gone public, we've received some indication to CP that they'd be opening open to meeting, but again, I think we were to the point where we need to show them a plan and how this could work, you know, HDR has had those initial flashing out meetings, feeling each other out, but I think we need to get closer to the point where we need to show some ideas.

775
01:13:17,020 --> 01:13:25,900
maybe some refined costs and the $100,000 it's spent as we need it.

776
01:13:26,260 --> 01:13:31,620
It's not a lump sum tomorrow. Here you go HDR. It's as we need it.

777
01:13:33,280 --> 01:13:36,540
And again, that's kind of be an upset limit on the project.

778
01:13:36,720 --> 01:13:41,280
So if we need to do less work to get there, then of course we'll just spend as much as we need to.

779
01:13:42,340 --> 01:13:48,320
And could you remind me those dollars came from PTIF funds, so they're partly not just

780
01:13:48,320 --> 01:13:50,140
a city of Saskatoon dollars, but supported?

781
01:13:50,560 --> 01:13:53,000
Correct, so it's $50,000 to the city.

782
01:13:55,260 --> 01:13:55,940
Thank you.

783
01:13:56,220 --> 01:13:58,820
And then my other question is for Mr. Kramer.

784
01:13:59,880 --> 01:14:03,460
And this one's also going to seem really simple, but I want to make sure I got it straight.

785
01:14:03,800 --> 01:14:12,000
The cost estimate that's been provided throughout the document could be as different as 50% to

786
01:14:12,000 --> 01:14:18,820
100% and so when we're talking, for example, the relocation looking at the nearest 600

787
01:14:18,820 --> 01:14:23,980
million that means it could be half of that or double that, that's the, am I reading

788
01:14:23,980 --> 01:14:24,380
that right?

789
01:14:24,820 --> 01:14:29,480
This is a conceptual cost estimate so basically on the conceptual class I think is class

790
01:14:29,480 --> 01:14:39,780
D, it's used around the 50 minus 50 to plus 100. There is a, we carry a 30% contingency

791
01:14:39,780 --> 01:14:41,420
see in all our estimates currently.

792
01:14:46,310 --> 01:14:47,990
So that means it could be after doubled.

793
01:14:50,100 --> 01:14:50,760
Okay. You know what?

794
01:14:50,900 --> 01:14:52,920
Because we have a 30% contingency.

795
01:14:53,500 --> 01:14:55,200
I don't think I would say it would be doubled.

796
01:14:55,940 --> 01:14:57,740
It could be as high as 70% more.

797
01:14:58,200 --> 01:14:58,460
Okay.

798
01:15:00,050 --> 01:15:02,950
Okay. Thank you for the clarification. That's it.

799
01:15:05,300 --> 01:15:09,160
Okay, Councillor Goff. Thank you, Chair

800
01:15:09,160 --> 01:15:15,160
Jeffries. And no offense taken. I did the same thing to Councillor Donner this morning. So we

801
01:15:15,160 --> 01:15:22,760
have to follow the rules. I'm wondering if anybody has an estimate or even hard numbers for what

802
01:15:22,760 --> 01:15:30,160
the average traffic delay at 22nd Street with a train is, of course, all trains are not the same

803
01:15:30,160 --> 01:15:33,420
You know, I understand there's some variability in there.

804
01:15:33,720 --> 01:15:35,640
Do we actually know what the average delay is?

805
01:15:36,140 --> 01:15:38,460
I know there's 6.6 a day in 2017.

806
01:15:40,020 --> 01:15:42,980
So I don't have that figure.

807
01:15:43,340 --> 01:15:45,740
That figure, I can get that figure for you.

808
01:15:46,020 --> 01:15:46,180
Okay.

809
01:15:46,300 --> 01:15:49,000
I would ask to meet that's probably in the seven to 10 minute

810
01:15:49,000 --> 01:15:50,240
range or something like this.

811
01:15:50,340 --> 01:15:53,820
On average for, you know, a person that's delayed

812
01:15:53,820 --> 01:15:55,700
at the front of the queue versus the person

813
01:15:55,700 --> 01:15:57,240
that just comes up to the back of the queue.

814
01:15:57,500 --> 01:15:58,240
Yeah, absolutely.

815
01:15:58,240 --> 01:16:05,560
And that's consistent with my experience, but I never like to base any large decisions on the

816
01:16:06,420 --> 01:16:12,860
casual experiences of anyone person, including myself. I'm also continued to be concerned about the

817
01:16:12,860 --> 01:16:19,700
impact on best rapid transit. I'm sure you know who I was getting there. And for me, I guess the

818
01:16:19,700 --> 01:16:26,400
concern for me is does a seven to ten minute delay result in a couple few buses backed up and then

819
01:16:26,400 --> 01:16:32,800
And a limited benefit to actually that frequency, that something like a car accident might not

820
01:16:34,180 --> 01:16:37,640
produce when only traffic is reduced by one lane, for instance.

821
01:16:38,060 --> 01:16:45,320
So I'm interested in knowing when we anticipate hearing from the BRT team about this consideration,

822
01:16:45,540 --> 01:16:50,140
when will they be considering or have they in detail this operational reality.

823
01:16:50,140 --> 01:16:55,000
and whether the mechanisms we are anticipating will be included in the bus

824
01:16:55,000 --> 01:17:00,200
rubber transit recommendation detailed design in terms of these mitigation efforts,

825
01:17:00,200 --> 01:17:04,100
whether they will be sufficient to mitigate the impact of train delay.

826
01:17:04,680 --> 01:17:09,740
So I'm wondering that's probably not for you, but whether we have a bit of a

827
01:17:09,740 --> 01:17:14,820
timeline with respect to when the BRT team will have done a sufficiently detailed

828
01:17:14,820 --> 01:17:18,080
assessment to know whether this mitigation and these

829
01:17:18,080 --> 01:17:22,700
train delays will match up. And I'm not expecting that we

830
01:17:22,700 --> 01:17:27,340
will never have a late bus, you know, but I'm just wanting to know when they'll

831
01:17:27,340 --> 01:17:32,360
have that assessment for us. I'm through you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a specific

832
01:17:32,360 --> 01:17:40,960
timeframe. The BRT project is in line to bring forward a report in June. Now that

833
01:17:40,960 --> 01:17:56,580
That report is going to be more on the refining the alignment and corridors, but developing the technology solutions and the detailed design of the system will be kind of the next step.

834
01:17:56,780 --> 01:18:07,660
So, I would anticipate within the next year we would definitely have be able to report back on what types of solutions could be incorporated into the BRT or other ITS solutions,

835
01:18:07,660 --> 01:18:13,880
whether it's transit-related or just, you know, for other motorists to minimize the impact of

836
01:18:13,880 --> 01:18:20,680
rail delays, it would be outlining a plan and some options and then going forward for implementation

837
01:18:20,680 --> 01:18:26,200
after that. And would it be doing a quantitative analysis of what the actual impact would be

838
01:18:26,200 --> 01:18:31,740
with those plans in place or those options in place? I think that's going to be one of the big

839
01:18:31,740 --> 01:18:42,720
pieces that our BRT team will need to do, as Mr. Megas mentioned, the impact to BRT as a result of rail is only one piece of the puzzle.

840
01:18:42,720 --> 01:18:47,580
There's a number of other impacts and delays that might be experienced as part of the BRT project.

841
01:18:47,840 --> 01:18:59,280
So we can do some analysis to identify what part of or how BRT will be impacted from rail versus other impacts.

842
01:18:59,280 --> 01:19:02,180
So do a bit of a comparative analysis as well as part of that.

843
01:19:02,740 --> 01:19:09,040
Yeah, and I think that, you know, as I said, because rail blocks all lanes of traffic and

844
01:19:09,040 --> 01:19:13,540
also has kind of a set time, you know, we should be able to do some of those estimates.

845
01:19:13,800 --> 01:19:19,900
And I guess what I'm suggesting is before we get, or at least in time, for, you know,

846
01:19:20,040 --> 01:19:25,180
a next phase of reporting on this, especially if it's, you know, proposing that we need to make a

847
01:19:25,180 --> 01:19:31,060
decision about something that we would have hard numbers for that, so that we understand

848
01:19:31,620 --> 01:19:35,300
the operational consequences of the decisions we're making.

849
01:19:35,640 --> 01:19:44,200
Yes, and just to expand the, as has been mentioned, the BRT team is already looking at technology

850
01:19:44,200 --> 01:19:47,540
solutions or that, so this will be incorporated into that.

851
01:19:47,660 --> 01:19:55,160
But even in addition to that, our transportation division is developing an ITS strategy, so

852
01:19:55,160 --> 01:19:58,640
systems looking at technology to help traffic flows throughout the city.

853
01:19:58,820 --> 01:20:02,480
So there's a couple of different angles that will be coming at this from, so it's not

854
01:20:02,480 --> 01:20:07,640
just purely from a BRT perspective, but from an overall transportation flow and efficiency

855
01:20:07,640 --> 01:20:08,360
throughout the city.

856
01:20:08,780 --> 01:20:08,880
Great.

857
01:20:09,200 --> 01:20:09,480
Thank you.

858
01:20:10,900 --> 01:20:15,820
I'm also wondering, with respect to the benefits in this report, I know that there's lots

859
01:20:15,820 --> 01:20:23,760
of intangibles, and I'm wondering, I couldn't seem to find in here whether there was any monetized

860
01:20:23,760 --> 01:20:31,220
benefit for the reduction in emergency response operations. I know there's talk about safety in terms

861
01:20:31,220 --> 01:20:37,820
of collisions and, you know, safety regarding actual rail intersecting with road. But I know,

862
01:20:37,820 --> 01:20:42,440
for instance, there are some areas of the city where our emergency crews actually have to send out

863
01:20:42,440 --> 01:20:46,920
two crews because they're not sure how they're going to be able to get through. Was that quantified

864
01:20:46,920 --> 01:20:53,600
it all in this study? It was not just addressed qualitatively. So I understand that is an impact

865
01:20:53,760 --> 01:20:59,560
We just did not have enough hard data to actually quantify that impact.

866
01:21:00,560 --> 01:21:00,680
Okay.

867
01:21:04,660 --> 01:21:11,240
And finally, I'm wondering what, and this is probably, well, I don't know who will answer this.

868
01:21:11,640 --> 01:21:19,840
But why do consideration for all of the grade separations or none of the grade separations going forward?

869
01:21:21,260 --> 01:21:26,620
I mean, first of all, we're still talking about a potential relocation, or we're still

870
01:21:26,620 --> 01:21:30,720
being recommended to consider a potential relocation, so I'm not suggesting separations

871
01:21:30,720 --> 01:21:34,440
that CP should be considered at this point, if we proceed with that.

872
01:21:35,020 --> 01:21:42,920
But I'm wondering why all are none, and whether there is an identified opportunity to consider

873
01:21:42,920 --> 01:21:52,140
the, you know, prioritization of grade separation needs in the city that remain kind of after

874
01:21:52,140 --> 01:22:01,100
phase two based on both the quantifiable monetizable, you know, items as well as the intangible

875
01:22:01,100 --> 01:22:04,160
community impact considerations.

876
01:22:07,560 --> 01:22:11,340
I don't think it was all or none, so a couple of the slides that you saw there, it said,

877
01:22:11,340 --> 01:22:17,380
you know, all five CP grade separations, all five CN grade separations, we looked

878
01:22:17,380 --> 01:22:23,860
at a program of grade separations that could include zero through to nine separate

879
01:22:23,860 --> 01:22:29,460
locations to be grade separated. So a program could be one grade separation project on

880
01:22:29,460 --> 01:22:36,980
22nd, for instance. It could be two grade separations. So if I was to do a program of grade

881
01:22:36,980 --> 01:22:40,700
separations, I would do exactly what you're saying. I would prioritize those grade

882
01:22:40,700 --> 01:22:46,320
separation as, you know, the highest benefit to cost ratio, for instance.

883
01:22:46,780 --> 01:22:50,940
And I understand that the report did consider the cost benefit ratios of each one,

884
01:22:51,080 --> 01:22:55,020
separately. I'm not denying that. I'm more looking at the recommendation in the report,

885
01:22:55,200 --> 01:23:00,740
so maybe the question is more for Mr. Megas. Why is the recommendation at this stage to consider

886
01:23:02,160 --> 01:23:07,880
relocation, a further relocation option and no discussion of the future considerations of

887
01:23:07,880 --> 01:23:12,900
of grade separation, depending on the outcome of that phase two.

888
01:23:15,040 --> 01:23:26,220
Good question. And I think that when we looked at each individual grade separation project,

889
01:23:26,420 --> 01:23:33,220
first of all, none of them proved out monetary. So today or 30 years from now after it's discounted.

890
01:23:33,220 --> 01:23:39,800
So to me that was the big one, if there was, let's say, one location that significantly

891
01:23:39,800 --> 01:23:46,880
proved out financially and didn't have a big impact on adjacent property and businesses

892
01:23:46,880 --> 01:23:50,900
then we might have probably would have come up with a different recommendation.

893
01:23:52,540 --> 01:23:56,020
But none of the nine kind of led us that way.

894
01:23:57,400 --> 01:23:57,620
Okay.

895
01:23:58,180 --> 01:23:58,800
That's fair.

896
01:23:58,800 --> 01:24:05,600
So I guess what I would say, and I won't be making any recommendations because I don't

897
01:24:05,600 --> 01:24:06,240
sit on this committee.

898
01:24:06,420 --> 01:24:10,260
But what I would say is that, you know, I think that each of us could pick a couple

899
01:24:10,260 --> 01:24:15,380
of intersections to us that are of greater priority for, you know, impact on community than

900
01:24:15,380 --> 01:24:15,780
others.

901
01:24:16,020 --> 01:24:20,860
And I would hate to be providing direction this month, and I understand this will go to council.

902
01:24:22,340 --> 01:24:28,780
You know, to consider the next step of relocation without then considering the potential

903
01:24:28,780 --> 01:24:37,900
So options of grade separation at whatever intersections remain at grade intersections

904
01:24:37,900 --> 01:24:41,220
remain depending on the outcome of phase two and decisions following that.

905
01:24:41,540 --> 01:24:48,320
So if there's nothing in addition to the recommendation move today, I will likely be considering

906
01:24:48,320 --> 01:24:55,700
moving a report back for a discussion around grade separation options following the results

907
01:24:55,700 --> 01:25:05,760
of Phase 2 study as outlined in the recommendations from administration here, so I'll just throw that out to colleagues and I think that's all my questions. Thank you very much.

908
01:25:07,640 --> 01:25:17,200
Thank you Councillor Gough, and I have a few questions myself that I'll go through. I'll start off with Mr. Kramer.

909
01:25:20,080 --> 01:25:27,460
You had identified that the option that the administration has put forward as a recommended

910
01:25:27,460 --> 01:25:33,880
more work to be done in terms of relocation is likely to come in at a lower cost or perhaps

911
01:25:33,880 --> 01:25:34,880
that was Mr. Magus.

912
01:25:35,440 --> 01:25:40,480
You have no sense at this point of what that magnitude might be without actually having

913
01:25:40,480 --> 01:25:41,580
done the work.

914
01:25:42,020 --> 01:25:46,420
I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing where a person could do the back of a napkin calculation

915
01:25:46,420 --> 01:25:52,560
and say, well, based upon looking at this conceptually and very initially, you know, this might

916
01:25:52,560 --> 01:25:58,860
be $50 million less, or perhaps that's just not something that a person could do.

917
01:26:00,930 --> 01:26:05,490
I think we would have to do some engineering first of all, because there may be a number

918
01:26:05,490 --> 01:26:11,130
of locations that a third main could not fit under a current grade separation, for instance.

919
01:26:11,690 --> 01:26:15,030
So that's going to make a significant difference on the costs.

920
01:26:15,030 --> 01:26:31,470
You know what I can say is for a new bridge of the South Saskatchewan River, a double track bridge is not twice as expensive as a single track bridge, a triple track bridge is not three times as expensive as a single track bridge.

921
01:26:31,850 --> 01:26:43,690
So there are some economies there, but without at least doing a preliminary site visit, some measurements to see what actually could be done.

922
01:26:43,690 --> 01:26:53,150
In terms of utilizing existing public infrastructure, I'd be hesitant to give a number at this point in time.

923
01:26:53,830 --> 01:26:57,910
Thank you. It was identified that CNN already has a bottleneck crossing the river.

924
01:26:58,630 --> 01:27:03,250
Is there any indication I know that that piece of infrastructure is really old.

925
01:27:03,610 --> 01:27:13,010
It's been there for a long time that eventually it needs to be significantly repaired or replaced or is that not something that becomes public knowledge given that it, I guess, is a

926
01:27:13,010 --> 01:27:14,750
I see an asset.

927
01:27:16,130 --> 01:27:21,630
It is a CN asset and yeah, I couldn't comment on the remaining useful service life of that

928
01:27:21,630 --> 01:27:22,430
asset either.

929
01:27:22,630 --> 01:27:27,710
I mean, it really depends on their maintenance procedures and things like this.

930
01:27:28,090 --> 01:27:28,250
Okay.

931
01:27:30,660 --> 01:27:31,180
Finally,

932
01:27:33,440 --> 01:27:38,820
I know in previous times we've around this table when we've discussed rail relocation,

933
01:27:39,500 --> 01:27:44,020
significantly higher numbers that have been thrown around and so when we saw it's still

934
01:27:44,020 --> 01:27:49,640
a very large number in front of us in this report. It seemed a lot smaller than perhaps

935
01:27:49,640 --> 01:27:55,880
what we've talked about previously. Can you perhaps speak to why that might be? Is it

936
01:27:55,880 --> 01:28:01,180
just that we weren't really actually talking about anything specific? And it was just general

937
01:28:01,180 --> 01:28:08,540
numbers as we talked about maybe perhaps moving a track well outside the city and just some

938
01:28:08,540 --> 01:28:12,860
of the expenses associated with that? I know I'm asking you to answer something where you

939
01:28:12,860 --> 01:28:25,420
We don't have all the detail, but we've thrown around a $2 billion number around this building for quite a few years and I think that's why we've never really too seriously taken that conversation any further.

940
01:28:26,300 --> 01:28:34,280
Certainly, the number that's in front of us here is very large, but at least on a relative basis feels more achievable.

941
01:28:35,720 --> 01:28:39,660
Actually, Mr. Chair, I'll probably answer that because Mr. Kramer wasn't involved in

942
01:28:39,660 --> 01:28:42,240
some of those previous numbers that have been thrown around.

943
01:28:43,340 --> 01:28:48,340
As you suggest, the previous numbers did not include any kind of detailed feasibility

944
01:28:48,340 --> 01:28:50,060
or engineering design.

945
01:28:50,600 --> 01:28:57,800
It was simply numbers that either CP or CN had thrown at us or alluded to.

946
01:28:58,040 --> 01:29:03,180
So now this is the first time that we've actually done some detailed analysis to identify and

947
01:29:03,180 --> 01:29:04,000
come up with a number.

948
01:29:04,520 --> 01:29:11,860
So, this number here has a lot more substance to it than what has previously been stated.

949
01:29:12,380 --> 01:29:12,860
Thank you.

950
01:29:13,880 --> 01:29:17,020
And, Mr. Kramer, perhaps this one could be for you as well.

951
01:29:17,160 --> 01:29:17,800
I've seen the report.

952
01:29:18,060 --> 01:29:22,040
There's an identified amount of environmental restoration at about $10 million.

953
01:29:23,200 --> 01:29:26,320
And can you speak to what that might be tied to?

954
01:29:26,420 --> 01:29:30,280
That was for the relocation option and the cost estimate.

955
01:29:30,280 --> 01:29:39,860
If memory serves the relocation option to the blue line, involve some wetlands crossings,

956
01:29:40,060 --> 01:29:45,500
which I believe would have to be mitigated, in other words replace the wetlands.

957
01:29:45,800 --> 01:29:53,160
So I, not 100% sure on that cost estimate and I can give you more definitive answer later,

958
01:29:53,620 --> 01:29:56,580
but that's what I believe it was related to.

959
01:29:56,580 --> 01:29:59,280
Okay, but it wouldn't have involved Brownfield.

960
01:30:00,850 --> 01:30:29,230
Anything along those lines, because I'm sure that's something that would have to be contended with if we moved some yards. So, yeah, it was not related to other linked yards or anything like that. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. The other questions I have are fairly brief and for administration. Are there any general timelines at all that you're kind of working with for some of the conversations with the railways?

961
01:30:31,660 --> 01:30:35,740
Obviously we've already heard that they're agreeable to talking, at least that's what

962
01:30:35,740 --> 01:30:41,840
CPS said and that's very good to hear, but just curious if you have a sense of how

963
01:30:41,840 --> 01:30:42,520
that might unfold.

964
01:30:43,240 --> 01:30:49,660
So just off the top of my head this morning I kind of jotted down in an email to somebody

965
01:30:49,660 --> 01:30:54,940
else about what some timelines might be and if so I'm thinking two to three months to do

966
01:30:54,940 --> 01:30:58,860
some more engineering work and then two to three months to set up some meetings and have

967
01:30:58,860 --> 01:31:05,460
some further discussions. So at the quickest, we can maybe report back in six, seven months

968
01:31:05,460 --> 01:31:12,160
and then after that is really, I mean, it's really, it's really hazy where things could

969
01:31:12,160 --> 01:31:17,220
go after that. Okay. Related specifically to the recommendation

970
01:31:17,220 --> 01:31:23,300
as to how we move forward, it was identified that we've got some additional PTIF funding

971
01:31:23,300 --> 01:31:28,560
that we wouldn't likely be spending if we take the recommended option. Is there an

972
01:31:28,560 --> 01:31:36,680
an identified place that we would like to put that, obviously it's a federal dollars and we would want to invest that in our transit operations in the city.

973
01:31:38,060 --> 01:31:39,720
So we further report.

974
01:31:40,980 --> 01:31:47,820
I don't know for the further report, we have, I believe, six or seven PTIF projects approved by the province already.

975
01:31:48,420 --> 01:31:57,400
So I think it's fairly easy before we've shifted dollars around a little bit because some things have come in cheaper or some things become more expensive.

976
01:31:57,400 --> 01:32:04,980
So if we want to do things within those six or seven projects like invest in the bus system or build sidewalks, it's fairly easy.

977
01:32:05,100 --> 01:32:11,860
If we need to do something new and like a totally new project, I don't know how easy that would be at this point with that funding.

978
01:32:11,880 --> 01:32:15,320
I think we're kind of stuck within that six or seven project list.

979
01:32:15,760 --> 01:32:17,440
Okay. Thank you for that.

980
01:32:17,740 --> 01:32:24,900
And finally for administration, this may be a tougher question to answer because this involves

981
01:32:25,680 --> 01:32:32,240
and the federal government, but in this whole conversation about great separations or relocation

982
01:32:32,240 --> 01:32:35,380
and everything else, I know we've really tied it in to this question of BRT.

983
01:32:36,240 --> 01:32:40,920
And I think, you know, the degree to which it has an important impact on that, I think,

984
01:32:40,920 --> 01:32:46,580
of course, is up for some discussion and debate and we'll get more information down the line

985
01:32:46,580 --> 01:32:46,860
here.

986
01:32:48,100 --> 01:32:53,900
But do we think that there is a good rationale and a good connection that we can make between

987
01:32:53,900 --> 01:32:58,900
being a potential relocation project and PTIF funding related to BRT.

988
01:32:59,620 --> 01:33:06,200
And the reason I ask that is because for me, there's, I don't think there's an identified

989
01:33:06,200 --> 01:33:12,820
funding source for a relocation where there's, you know, the federal government has a program

990
01:33:12,820 --> 01:33:18,260
for that type of thing right now, you know, and we certainly don't have dollars just sitting

991
01:33:18,260 --> 01:33:22,180
around to make that happen, and I think one of the key things, I know it's jumping down

992
01:33:22,180 --> 01:33:31,260
the way quite a bit, but is being able to say that relocation or grade separations have a significant impact on BRT,

993
01:33:31,640 --> 01:33:37,240
and we kind of need to make one happen to make the other successful such that we're basically saying,

994
01:33:37,240 --> 01:33:40,720
help us fund relocation, and that is a PTIF project.

995
01:33:41,420 --> 01:33:45,840
I'm just wondering if there's been some conversations with the federal government on that,

996
01:33:45,840 --> 01:33:53,520
Because that, to me, would be an important piece of potentially making something happen.

997
01:33:53,640 --> 01:33:57,840
Because it's nice for us to have a plan in place and say, hey, this is what we'd like to do.

998
01:33:57,880 --> 01:33:58,860
This is how much it would cost.

999
01:33:59,460 --> 01:34:04,060
But I can certainly see us having a real challenging time with the dollars and

1000
01:34:04,060 --> 01:34:13,940
cents given that there's not an on its face business case, other than some of the intangible community benefits.

1001
01:34:16,330 --> 01:34:19,270
So I can add one idea.

1002
01:34:19,870 --> 01:34:24,570
So when we haven't gone that far down the path seriously, so I don't believe anybody's

1003
01:34:24,570 --> 01:34:29,570
talked to the province about a rail relocation project or a great separation project qualifying

1004
01:34:29,570 --> 01:34:30,270
for PTIF.

1005
01:34:30,930 --> 01:34:35,330
But there have been, over the last few years, been several funds, different funding mechanisms

1006
01:34:35,330 --> 01:34:36,650
put up by the federal government.

1007
01:34:36,790 --> 01:34:40,590
And one that I think that aligns closely with this kind of project will be the National Trade

1008
01:34:40,590 --> 01:34:46,690
corridor fund that we made some application to last year and then they've indicated it's

1009
01:34:46,690 --> 01:34:54,190
a multi-year program. So that's one idea that this project would probably fall under.

1010
01:34:55,190 --> 01:34:56,090
And I think when

1011
01:34:58,360 --> 01:35:04,300
I don't think it's been used recently but there is a rail relocation

1012
01:35:04,300 --> 01:35:11,020
and great separation act administered by the, I'm not sure if that's exactly the term

1013
01:35:11,020 --> 01:35:16,720
that they're using, administered by the Canadian Transportation Agency that does provide

1014
01:35:16,720 --> 01:35:20,860
federal funding for projects such as this.

1015
01:35:22,340 --> 01:35:26,340
Okay. Thank you. And I would just simply say to the administration that if there's an

1016
01:35:26,340 --> 01:35:30,160
opportunity just to keep it in the back of your mind as all this work is happening, how

1017
01:35:30,160 --> 01:35:35,940
potentially we make these links, that I think then unlocks another opportunity here for

1018
01:35:35,940 --> 01:35:41,820
Or at least us to have a better discussion and open some possibilities when we have a

1019
01:35:41,820 --> 01:35:46,140
final report in front of us and then Council is really making some hard decisions as to

1020
01:35:46,140 --> 01:35:48,040
whether to do something or not do something.

1021
01:35:48,340 --> 01:35:52,900
So I would just ask that you kind of keep that in mind, any way that we can link this potential

1022
01:35:52,900 --> 01:36:00,980
project to PTIF given that there is a significant number of dollars coming down the pipe for us

1023
01:36:00,980 --> 01:36:07,420
here in Saskatoon in the next 10 years in PTIF, I think it's really important, and Ms. Gardner.

1024
01:36:07,860 --> 01:36:12,280
Sure, and if I can just add specifically to PTIF, we've been, a lot of the discussion

1025
01:36:12,280 --> 01:36:17,800
has been focused around BRT, but really, we look, there are a number of other rail crossings

1026
01:36:17,800 --> 01:36:22,600
throughout the city that could impact transit, so it's not just BRT that would be impacted,

1027
01:36:22,900 --> 01:36:29,980
it's, you know, the entire transit network, so any kind, we have been working on the premise

1028
01:36:29,980 --> 01:36:36,380
that any minimizing delays to transit throughout the city would be benefit and would be of benefit,

1029
01:36:36,920 --> 01:36:42,420
and therefore would be eligible for PUTF funding, and that's the approach we've taken thus far.

1030
01:36:43,140 --> 01:36:44,120
Thank you, Mr. Gardner.

1031
01:36:44,280 --> 01:36:47,400
And I have some other small questions, but I'll just follow up offline with those.

1032
01:36:48,800 --> 01:36:53,120
And we do have his worship with a few more questions here, I believe.

1033
01:36:53,120 --> 01:37:02,980
I think just one, and it's just with regards to the shared court or being asked to explore that further.

1034
01:37:03,520 --> 01:37:05,940
I'm trying to look on this map, which is very small.

1035
01:37:07,400 --> 01:37:17,560
And the way I read it, there will need to be some rail built between the CP and the CN line.

1036
01:37:17,740 --> 01:37:19,500
Am I correct, or am I missing something?

1037
01:37:20,280 --> 01:37:28,340
because the main lines come into the city parallel south and east of the city.

1038
01:37:38,430 --> 01:37:48,590
And so, and the reason I'm asking this is how a Corman Park plays into this discussion

1039
01:37:48,590 --> 01:37:54,570
because I believe they will be affected but I also wanted to know

1040
01:37:54,570 --> 01:38:00,290
do we need to build track? When I look on my Google Maps, we're still having to go through some

1041
01:38:02,150 --> 01:38:04,910
existing farmland and it bridges and things like that.

1042
01:38:06,510 --> 01:38:09,670
For specifically the connection point back to the CP mainline?

1043
01:38:09,930 --> 01:38:14,490
Yes, so there will be some new right away would need to be acquired and a track built

1044
01:38:14,490 --> 01:38:18,370
in the southeast of the city in order to connect those.

1045
01:38:18,370 --> 01:38:21,550
Now, again, I just remind, this is conceptual.

1046
01:38:22,830 --> 01:38:27,750
So, I mean, you know, on a detailed design, you would probably modify some of these concepts.

1047
01:38:27,750 --> 01:38:30,110
I mean, this is a generally aligned on a map.

1048
01:38:30,730 --> 01:38:35,350
We believe that there's probably going to have to be a crossover between CP and CN at some

1049
01:38:35,350 --> 01:38:37,370
point in time along this alignment as well.

1050
01:38:38,950 --> 01:38:46,110
But those, that's in Jay's big part, questions that should be part of phase two.

1051
01:38:47,230 --> 01:38:51,630
Well, I just, I think it's important that our partners are aware that this is what we're

1052
01:38:51,630 --> 01:38:54,250
just, I mean, we're having a discussion about it today, Corman Park.

1053
01:38:54,990 --> 01:39:00,310
It's true, I mean that potentially could happen further southeast beyond the jurisdiction

1054
01:39:00,310 --> 01:39:07,430
of Corman Park, but either way, I would have they been engaged to this point because I looked

1055
01:39:07,430 --> 01:39:11,510
at the phase two proposed scope and I didn't see them mentioned, so I was just wondering

1056
01:39:11,510 --> 01:39:14,290
how we're going to involve them on a go forward basis.

1057
01:39:14,290 --> 01:39:20,810
So good question, to date we kept the stakeholder engagement really light, obviously we wanted

1058
01:39:20,810 --> 01:39:22,770
to do the assessment.

1059
01:39:23,690 --> 01:39:31,290
As we were honing in on our recommendations, we did update the administration of what

1060
01:39:31,290 --> 01:39:36,350
we were recommending, and I believe they had an in-camera session with their counsel to kind

1061
01:39:36,350 --> 01:39:41,270
of brief them so they could answer questions from their rate pairs.

1062
01:39:41,270 --> 01:39:50,210
I believe in the report under stakeholder, I make the note that moving forward will include the RM when we go and meet with

1063
01:39:50,830 --> 01:39:52,050
CP and CN.

1064
01:39:53,350 --> 01:39:55,370
We would invite the RM administration.

1065
01:39:55,810 --> 01:40:03,370
Okay, and I think now is a time that we need to reach out with them and bring them fully into the loop of what the planning is.

1066
01:40:04,730 --> 01:40:12,290
Part of the reason I brought it up is that on page 84 it talks about not having an impact in the courtroom park if in the shared one.

1067
01:40:12,650 --> 01:40:15,430
But it sounds like you've had conversations already.

1068
01:40:17,310 --> 01:40:20,610
And if it does mean a line building through a well having an impact.

1069
01:40:20,610 --> 01:40:23,830
And so we want to make sure we're working correctly, closely with them.

1070
01:40:24,090 --> 01:40:24,170
Correct.

1071
01:40:24,370 --> 01:40:24,490
Yeah.

1072
01:40:24,890 --> 01:40:25,110
Okay.

1073
01:40:26,650 --> 01:40:28,950
So that doesn't require any additional direction.

1074
01:40:30,150 --> 01:40:31,030
They're engaged.

1075
01:40:31,030 --> 01:40:33,070
Yes, that's a little bit, thank you.

1076
01:40:35,330 --> 01:40:36,990
Okay, thank you very much.

1077
01:40:37,610 --> 01:40:40,670
No more questions at this point.

1078
01:40:41,230 --> 01:40:49,050
So I did promise that we would basically do questions of administration and then we move on to any comments or debate at this point.

1079
01:40:49,110 --> 01:40:51,230
We still do have the recommendation on the floor, of course.

1080
01:40:51,730 --> 01:40:58,850
Are there any further debate or comments before we vote on the motion that we have in front of us here?

1081
01:40:58,850 --> 01:40:59,610
I'm

1082
01:41:04,090 --> 01:41:06,010
just going to switch back to the agenda.

1083
01:41:07,250 --> 01:41:07,590
Great.

1084
01:41:07,950 --> 01:41:08,190
Okay.

1085
01:41:08,430 --> 01:41:12,290
So we have the recommendation in front of us here, and that has been moved already.

1086
01:41:12,590 --> 01:41:18,590
So by Council of Block, all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

1087
01:41:20,030 --> 01:41:20,470
Okay.

1088
01:41:20,790 --> 01:41:22,830
So we're kind of through that big item here.

1089
01:41:22,850 --> 01:41:26,270
What I'm going to do, we're a few minutes earlier than we normally would, but we're going

1090
01:41:26,270 --> 01:41:28,950
to take just a very quick five-minute break.

1091
01:41:28,950 --> 01:41:36,070
We can refresh drinks, and then we'll be here just five minute break, and we'll get through the rest of our agenda items.

1092
01:41:40,010 --> 01:41:44,020
Thank you, be back at 346.

1093
01:42:08,900 --> 01:42:14,560
Okay, thank you, everyone, we're back moving on with the agenda.

1094
01:42:14,720 --> 01:42:27,500
We are going to be on 6.1.2, and that's traffic safety funding letter from the police commission.

1095
01:42:27,500 --> 01:42:34,440
Do you have a presentation or any information on this to add Ms. Gardner?

1096
01:42:35,360 --> 01:42:38,820
No, the memo from the statute police service speaks for itself.

1097
01:42:39,280 --> 01:42:39,360
Okay.

1098
01:42:40,060 --> 01:42:41,000
Thank you very much.

1099
01:42:41,120 --> 01:42:45,240
That's been moved by Councillor Donnelly or a question from Councillor Dubois.

1100
01:42:46,440 --> 01:42:48,400
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

1101
01:42:49,680 --> 01:42:54,560
I'm wondering, the $70,000 did that come from the revenue from red light cameras?

1102
01:42:54,560 --> 01:43:00,320
It came from a revenue from the traffic safety reserve, which is funded from both our

1103
01:43:00,320 --> 01:43:03,040
red light camera program and our automated speed enforcement program.

1104
01:43:04,020 --> 01:43:04,420
Okay.

1105
01:43:04,800 --> 01:43:09,060
That's good to hear, and you know, it would have been nice if they would have put that

1106
01:43:09,060 --> 01:43:13,520
in the report, because you know, often we hear the red light cameras or cash grab, and people

1107
01:43:13,520 --> 01:43:18,400
don't know what we do with that money, and you know, when you read this report, you really

1108
01:43:18,400 --> 01:43:27,000
We see the extremely good use of that $70,000 that was put to use here, so thank you.

1109
01:43:27,900 --> 01:43:31,900
And actually, if I could just add, so this was one time funding that was provided in 2017.

1110
01:43:32,660 --> 01:43:40,020
We are in the process of reviewing if there was any additional revenues available from last year.

1111
01:43:40,120 --> 01:43:47,560
So is there a balance in the traffic safety reserve and we will be bringing forward a report in the next few months to allocate those funds.

1112
01:43:47,560 --> 01:43:52,960
One of the options would be to continue funding additional enforcement as well as other traffic safety initiatives.

1113
01:43:53,280 --> 01:43:54,640
Excellent. Thank you, this is Gardner.

1114
01:43:55,060 --> 01:44:00,620
Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other questions or comments. It's been moved by Councillor Dunnour, all those in favor.

1115
01:44:01,140 --> 01:44:11,940
And that carries unanimously. Moving on to 6.1.2, sorry, 6.2.1, traffic safety committee 2017 and you will report.

1116
01:44:13,420 --> 01:44:17,840
Councillor Gershire, you see your light on there? Are you moving that for discussion?

1117
01:44:18,300 --> 01:44:19,760
Yeah, I'd be happy to have the recommendation.

1118
01:44:20,120 --> 01:44:21,240
Great. Thank you very much.

1119
01:44:21,840 --> 01:44:27,860
And through you, Mr. Chair, just in light of seeing the 2017 annual report for the Traffic

1120
01:44:27,860 --> 01:44:35,640
Safety Committee and knowing that 2018 will be the last year of the formation of the committee

1121
01:44:35,640 --> 01:44:41,260
Yes, as it's made up now, and stemming off of the discussion we had at Council and

1122
01:44:41,260 --> 01:44:45,900
NGBC over the last month, but I just wanted to confirm that the Traffic Safety Committee

1123
01:44:45,900 --> 01:44:51,320
will be receiving kind of an update from Edmond about Vision Zero and where we're at.

1124
01:44:51,660 --> 01:44:56,580
If that's something that they can be expected to have in the next couple of meetings.

1125
01:44:58,460 --> 01:44:59,320
I'll be honest, I don't have a-

1126
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:19,340
Finally, we can commit to providing an update at one of the upcoming meetings on where that's at and how they will be included in the vision zero going forward. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any other questions or comments that's been moved by Councillor Gershire. All those in favor.

1127
01:45:21,980 --> 01:45:22,700
And that carries me out.

1128
01:45:24,760 --> 01:45:31,540
Okay. 7.1.1. We have the bicycle by-law update. The response to sounds between cycles.

1129
01:45:31,540 --> 01:45:33,240
recommendations, Ms. Gerner.

1130
01:45:34,860 --> 01:45:35,640
Thank you.

1131
01:45:35,940 --> 01:45:42,460
One of the initiatives in the Act of Transportation Plan is to review and update the bicycle by-law to ensure that it reflects best practices.

1132
01:45:43,280 --> 01:45:47,200
This review is underway and the report before you outlines the project timeline.

1133
01:45:47,780 --> 01:45:53,860
The report today provides a response to the nine recommendations from Saskatoon cycles requesting changes to the bicycle by-law.

1134
01:45:54,260 --> 01:45:59,480
In general, the administration supports the majority of the recommendations and these will be incorporated into the review.

1135
01:45:59,480 --> 01:46:04,120
This is an information report, and we are not recommending any specific change to the

1136
01:46:04,120 --> 01:46:04,960
by-law this time.

1137
01:46:05,300 --> 01:46:09,020
A further report recommending the changes to the by-law will be forthcoming by the end

1138
01:46:09,020 --> 01:46:09,360
of the year.

1139
01:46:10,680 --> 01:46:11,200
Okay.

1140
01:46:12,000 --> 01:46:12,940
Thank you very much.

1141
01:46:13,060 --> 01:46:19,480
That was moved by Councillor Dubois for open discussion here, and questions, comments?

1142
01:46:20,700 --> 01:46:21,280
Councillor Gough.

1143
01:46:22,140 --> 01:46:22,880
I'll try to be brief.

1144
01:46:23,140 --> 01:46:29,080
I just wanted to say that I really appreciated that thorough response to these recommendations

1145
01:46:29,080 --> 01:46:36,900
and want to thank SAS Student Cycles again for putting them forward in such a well-thought-out way and having consulted with their membership as well.

1146
01:46:37,840 --> 01:46:45,440
I do have a couple of specific questions about some of these and I'll send them directly to our Active Transportation Coordinator and the writers of the report.

1147
01:46:46,020 --> 01:46:57,000
But I did just want to make a comment about increasing penalties with respect to this bylaw and wanted to just highlight that I think in consideration of this bylaws with, you know, others,

1148
01:46:57,000 --> 01:47:02,120
we need to consider the ability to pay those penalties and whether we're penalizing folks who

1149
01:47:02,800 --> 01:47:06,820
might struggle with ability to pay, and I'm not suggesting that that's all folks who ride bikes.

1150
01:47:07,440 --> 01:47:13,260
But the reality is cycling is a mode of transportation by choice but also sometimes by lack of choice.

1151
01:47:14,280 --> 01:47:18,340
And we need to be cognizant of that when we're thinking about penalties with respect to a

1152
01:47:18,340 --> 01:47:19,180
by law of this nature.

1153
01:47:19,940 --> 01:47:23,080
So I appreciate the thorough research on this.

1154
01:47:23,660 --> 01:47:27,040
I'll have a few questions as I say

1155
01:47:27,040 --> 01:47:30,240
to the folks in transportation,

1156
01:47:30,540 --> 01:47:32,440
and I'm sure I'll have a few questions and comments

1157
01:47:32,440 --> 01:47:34,940
when this comes forward in greater detail

1158
01:47:34,940 --> 01:47:36,400
with the full review.

1159
01:47:36,880 --> 01:47:37,340
Thank you very much.

1160
01:47:39,700 --> 01:47:40,900
Okay, your worship.

1161
01:47:41,940 --> 01:47:45,280
I just want to quickly say that I appreciate

1162
01:47:45,280 --> 01:47:47,060
the work that's been done by this.

1163
01:47:47,060 --> 01:47:53,460
And I'd say about eight years, this conversation was that the cycling advisory group and

1164
01:47:53,460 --> 01:47:55,960
that rail desire to make change on this.

1165
01:47:56,160 --> 01:48:01,600
So I think that the fascinating cycles put together a very thoughtful paper and it looks

1166
01:48:01,600 --> 01:48:07,440
like we're adopting most of the recommendations and I have some further consideration on some

1167
01:48:07,440 --> 01:48:07,780
of them.

1168
01:48:09,220 --> 01:48:16,500
And so it's good to see this proceeding and we are now anticipating that changes would come

1169
01:48:16,500 --> 01:48:22,240
to place in 2019 January. Is that the goal? Am I right?

1170
01:48:23,360 --> 01:48:23,840
Yes,

1171
01:48:26,320 --> 01:48:31,980
it's our intent to report to City Council or to this committee, City Council by the

1172
01:48:31,980 --> 01:48:38,020
end of the year, with the intent of the by-law being implemented in January, as part, as

1173
01:48:38,020 --> 01:48:41,600
well as a education campaign in the first part of 2019.

1174
01:48:42,280 --> 01:48:46,960
Okay, very good, and the education campaign is something I hear about often the need

1175
01:48:46,960 --> 01:48:53,820
to continue to educate and make sure everybody is sharing the road well, and respectfully,

1176
01:48:54,240 --> 01:48:55,120
so thank you for that.

1177
01:48:57,670 --> 01:49:03,090
Okay, so the item has been moved by Councillor Dubois, I don't see any other questions or comments,

1178
01:49:03,390 --> 01:49:07,090
all those in favor of the recommendation, and that carries unanimously.

1179
01:49:08,010 --> 01:49:17,070
Moving on to 7.1.2, we have road and sidewalk preservation carryover and project planning

1180
01:49:17,070 --> 01:49:18,670
improvements in this gardener.

1181
01:49:20,170 --> 01:49:24,450
This report provides information on some of the reasons why roadway and sidewalk preservation

1182
01:49:24,450 --> 01:49:27,570
projects are carried over into future construction seasons.

1183
01:49:28,030 --> 01:49:32,830
With our significant building-better roads rehabilitation programs in the past four years, there have been

1184
01:49:32,830 --> 01:49:35,770
situations where planned projects are not able to be completed.

1185
01:49:35,770 --> 01:49:40,670
On average, 89% of preservation projects are completed each construction season.

1186
01:49:40,970 --> 01:49:52,990
This report outlines some of the variables that typically cause projects to be carried over and what mitigation strategies are in place to help improve efficiencies in planning and carrying out projects to minimize the amount of carryover.

1187
01:49:53,490 --> 01:49:56,690
So it's in an information report for you today for consideration.

1188
01:49:58,110 --> 01:50:01,050
Okay, Councillor Garner, are you moving the recommendation for this discussion?

1189
01:50:01,050 --> 01:50:02,890
I will. Thank you. Go ahead.

1190
01:50:03,110 --> 01:50:12,930
And thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Gardiner, I just had one question for you. I understand that like the work that was contracted last year, if it didn't get done, it's from last year's budget.

1191
01:50:12,930 --> 01:50:16,290
It will get paid for and done this year so we don't lose that work, right?

1192
01:50:18,630 --> 01:50:25,030
Does that work still belong to the same contractor, or do we put it up for tender since they didn't perform?

1193
01:50:25,030 --> 01:50:46,030
So typically the contract remains in place so it will be the same contractor and now there might be penalties and what not for not having completed it in previous year or in the time schedule that was included in the contract but each contract is different so I have to look at specifics if there's a specific location.

1194
01:50:46,030 --> 01:50:53,290
Okay, just a suggestion you might want to look at if you don't get the work done by the end of the year it goes out to tender again

1195
01:50:53,290 --> 01:51:00,210
We still save the money we still get it done the subsequent spring, but now it's out for anybody who says they can get the work done

1196
01:51:00,210 --> 01:51:05,590
So I'll I'm not going to make a motion, but you might want to consider that that's about as

1197
01:51:07,070 --> 01:51:11,130
easy to enforce and lethal of penalties you can get for

1198
01:51:12,170 --> 01:51:16,150
If you don't get it done this summer, you lose the work and that might be a motivator

1199
01:51:16,150 --> 01:51:16,310
too.

1200
01:51:16,430 --> 01:51:18,170
So I understand it's a delicate balance.

1201
01:51:18,330 --> 01:51:20,390
You've got a lot of things to weigh, but you might want to think of that.

1202
01:51:20,430 --> 01:51:24,010
If you don't get it done within the contracted time, it goes back out to Tinder.

1203
01:51:24,410 --> 01:51:25,270
So I'll leave that with you.

1204
01:51:26,270 --> 01:51:26,810
Thank you.

1205
01:51:26,950 --> 01:51:27,550
Councillor Dubois.

1206
01:51:28,250 --> 01:51:29,110
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1207
01:51:29,250 --> 01:51:30,310
Through you, too, Ms. Gardner.

1208
01:51:30,790 --> 01:51:38,150
Ms. Gardner, I wanted to know the advancing micro-surface sidewalk locations, the part that

1209
01:51:38,150 --> 01:51:48,650
is new for 2018, or you talk about the preservation work one year in advance. What have we been

1210
01:51:48,650 --> 01:51:51,370
doing now? Like why is that new for 2018?

1211
01:51:54,520 --> 01:51:57,160
So in previous years we have attempted to do both the

1212
01:51:57,160 --> 01:52:04,920
sidewalks and the microsurfacing in in the same year. One of the issues we have is that the season

1213
01:52:04,920 --> 01:52:10,900
because of temperature that we're able to do microsurfacing is a lot less than what we can do for

1214
01:52:10,900 --> 01:52:18,560
sidewalk. So we have, in some cases, gotten ahead of our, or sorry, we haven't been able to

1215
01:52:19,520 --> 01:52:26,340
coordinate as good as possible our sidewalks and microsurfing. So what we want to do is get

1216
01:52:26,340 --> 01:52:32,160
ahead with our sidewalks so that when the seasons come for microsurfing, we can actually get in there

1217
01:52:32,160 --> 01:52:35,900
and get it all done. So we're not doing sidewalks after the microsurfacing.

1218
01:52:37,440 --> 01:52:44,300
And I'm just curious as to, did this come out of the 30-day challenge that we had back

1219
01:52:44,300 --> 01:52:50,740
last year or did this just come with your team trying to be more efficient in your work?

1220
01:52:51,620 --> 01:52:55,740
This is something that has come through our experience with the two different programs

1221
01:52:55,740 --> 01:52:57,940
with the sidewall preservation and the microsurfacing.

1222
01:52:58,160 --> 01:53:03,880
So because we have a really consolidated microsurfacing time frame, there were times in the past

1223
01:53:03,880 --> 01:53:08,440
couple years where we'd go in and get the roadway work done but then the sidewalk has been lagging

1224
01:53:08,440 --> 01:53:12,400
you know in later months of the construction season so this is just something we've identified to

1225
01:53:12,920 --> 01:53:18,000
provide a better overall product in the end. So is this making am I correct in saying this is

1226
01:53:18,000 --> 01:53:24,520
making a much efficient use of our staff's time as well? Yes that's correct. Good excellent. I'm

1227
01:53:24,520 --> 01:53:31,220
always glad to hear that. Thank you Ms. Gardner. Okay and just a brief question myself Ms. Gardner

1228
01:53:31,220 --> 01:53:37,180
kind of related to that same item. I know that we have a public list and math that goes

1229
01:53:37,180 --> 01:53:41,720
out every year as to what work is going to be taking place on which street or which crescent.

1230
01:53:42,320 --> 01:53:49,260
Will that list now identify and break out the areas that can expect sidewalk work

1231
01:53:49,260 --> 01:53:55,360
work happening in 2018 and then the subsequent 2019 micro-surfacing? Because I know that

1232
01:53:56,240 --> 01:54:00,020
especially us on Council, you know, provide that information to residents.

1233
01:54:00,320 --> 01:54:02,180
We get calls, hey, is my street getting done this year?

1234
01:54:02,280 --> 01:54:06,640
And of course, in this case, we'd have to say getting done next year in your sidewalks

1235
01:54:06,640 --> 01:54:07,700
are being done this year.

1236
01:54:07,920 --> 01:54:11,500
That's a really important piece of information that we give requested.

1237
01:54:12,360 --> 01:54:12,760
Yes.

1238
01:54:12,860 --> 01:54:14,420
Yes, Mr. Chair.

1239
01:54:14,660 --> 01:54:19,380
Our intent would be to incorporate any of these changes in our communications plans with residents.

1240
01:54:20,100 --> 01:54:20,280
Okay.

1241
01:54:20,700 --> 01:54:21,940
Very glad to hear that.

1242
01:54:22,400 --> 01:54:26,860
And I just did want to ask with the recommendation as it was put forward by

1243
01:54:26,860 --> 01:54:31,000
administration, Ms. Gardner, that wouldn't send this information to City Council, is that correct?

1244
01:54:32,180 --> 01:54:33,680
That's correct, it would remain here.

1245
01:54:33,840 --> 01:54:40,620
Okay, I would perhaps, since I can't make a motion from the chair, if anyone would like to kindly

1246
01:54:41,260 --> 01:54:45,960
change this, that we just add, this information also be sent to City Council.

1247
01:54:46,240 --> 01:54:50,900
I think this is, oh wow, great, as long as we don't

1248
01:54:50,900 --> 01:54:53,480
reference the meatloaf sun because that would be creepy.

1249
01:54:55,800 --> 01:54:57,160
Well, over most people's heads.

1250
01:54:59,930 --> 01:55:00,650
It's okay.

1251
01:55:02,570 --> 01:55:05,270
So we'll make sure that a copy of that goes to the council.

1252
01:55:05,370 --> 01:55:07,630
I don't see any other comments or questions.

1253
01:55:07,630 --> 01:55:10,310
So that has modified all those in favor.

1254
01:55:11,230 --> 01:55:12,690
And that carries unanimously.

1255
01:55:13,590 --> 01:55:15,210
Moving on to 7.1.3.

1256
01:55:15,330 --> 01:55:19,230
We have the Erin Dale Arbor Creek neighborhood traffic review Ms. Gardner.

1257
01:55:20,590 --> 01:55:25,230
This is also an information report that outlines a number of recommendations to improve traffic

1258
01:55:25,230 --> 01:55:27,270
safety in the Air and Dale and Arbor Creek neighborhoods.

1259
01:55:27,910 --> 01:55:32,970
The traffic plan was developed in consultation with the community in response to concerns

1260
01:55:32,970 --> 01:55:36,090
such as feeding, short cutting, and pedestrian safety.

1261
01:55:36,690 --> 01:55:38,790
A number of recommendations are made within the report.

1262
01:55:39,270 --> 01:55:43,710
Changes to signs, pavement markings, and temporary traffic calming will be made this summer.

1263
01:55:44,190 --> 01:55:48,250
The remainder of the work will be considered alongside all other improvements from other

1264
01:55:48,250 --> 01:55:51,750
neighbourhoods that haven't been identified through the neighbourhood traffic review program.

1265
01:55:52,190 --> 01:55:55,890
And we'll be prioritized annually for implementation over time as funding is available.

1266
01:55:56,610 --> 01:55:59,150
So as I mentioned, it's an information report for you today.

1267
01:55:59,470 --> 01:56:02,790
Thank you very much, Ms. Gardner, and I see that's been moved already by Councillor Gertcher.

1268
01:56:02,970 --> 01:56:07,810
Are there any questions of committee and I will have some myself as well, Councillor Dubois?

1269
01:56:08,510 --> 01:56:15,390
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Ms. Gardner, Ms. Gardner, in regards to the temporary roundabout,

1270
01:56:16,290 --> 01:56:25,290
I'm wondering, and I see it's $13,000, which is not a large amount when you're looking at, you know, roads and traffic calming and whatnot.

1271
01:56:25,790 --> 01:56:34,190
But I'm just wondering why, because both the North-Canada Parkway Bridge and the McCormann College Drive Interchange will be opened in 2018.

1272
01:56:34,770 --> 01:56:42,770
I'm wondering why we would put that temporary roundabout in as a temporary one before those open and then evaluate.

1273
01:56:42,770 --> 01:56:52,670
why wouldn't we wait till those are open and then put it in 2019 and save that time and money?

1274
01:56:54,370 --> 01:56:58,850
Ashley, through you, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we are recommending.

1275
01:56:59,810 --> 01:57:03,610
We aren't with the opening of the North commuter bridge.

1276
01:57:04,430 --> 01:57:11,770
This year we are recommending that we wait and re-evaluate in 2019 before implementing the roundabout.

1277
01:57:11,770 --> 01:57:19,830
There is potential that traffic patterns will change, so we aren't recommending to proceed with that until we've re-evaluated.

1278
01:57:20,090 --> 01:57:30,070
Okay. Well, my sincere apologies, and the way I read this report was that that was going to be part of the 2018 temporary.

1279
01:57:30,310 --> 01:57:37,490
So that's good. I apologize. I'm not sure how I misread that, but that's good, then. Thank you very much.

1280
01:57:37,490 --> 01:57:43,440
Okay. Thank you, Councillor DuBois. And my question was very much around that same piece

1281
01:57:43,440 --> 01:57:48,920
just to clarify that the roundabout piece here at the, I guess, the east intersection

1282
01:57:48,920 --> 01:57:55,180
of kindredine incur is definitely not something that's happening this year. It's a recommendation

1283
01:57:55,180 --> 01:58:02,880
that's there, but it's going to be based upon an updated sense of traffic after those major

1284
01:58:02,880 --> 01:58:10,340
projects are finished, and it's entirely possible, I guess, Ms. Gardner, that this recommendation

1285
01:58:10,340 --> 01:58:15,320
might, in fact, entirely change in that, essentially, what's there could actually be the most

1286
01:58:15,320 --> 01:58:21,400
appropriate traffic control devices once we have the new traffic patterns in place. That's

1287
01:58:21,400 --> 01:58:22,640
in theory possible.

1288
01:58:23,380 --> 01:58:29,140
That is possible, and that's why, with the anticipated changes in traffic patterns, we are recommending

1289
01:58:29,140 --> 01:58:34,340
that it be reevaluated in 2019 prior to implementing this recommendation.

1290
01:58:34,780 --> 01:58:39,420
Okay. Great. Thanks very much. And Councillor Dubois.

1291
01:58:39,820 --> 01:58:44,820
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so that the committee doesn't think I'm out of it here.

1292
01:58:45,560 --> 01:58:48,660
Right after in the paragraph where it talked about the temporary roundabout,

1293
01:58:48,740 --> 01:58:52,520
it said the temporary traffic calming installations will begin as early as 2018,

1294
01:58:52,820 --> 01:58:57,840
and that was right after those lines about the roundabout.

1295
01:58:57,840 --> 01:59:04,400
So that's where I got confused, so thanks for that while allowing me to clarify that.

1296
01:59:05,100 --> 01:59:10,100
Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I don't see any of their comments or questions coming up.

1297
01:59:10,780 --> 01:59:15,580
So that has been moved by Councillor Gersher, all those in favor and that carries unanimously.

1298
01:59:17,080 --> 01:59:24,540
Moving along, we can skip 7.2.1. I think we had some fun times on that. I'm okay not redoing it.

1299
01:59:27,340 --> 01:59:27,820
We'll

1300
01:59:27,820 --> 01:59:33,420
1.2.2 is commercial billboards on public right-of-way, Ms. Gardner, if you'd like to introduce that.

1301
01:59:34,300 --> 01:59:41,400
Thank you. Last year, the city initiated a 30-day challenge for civic employees to identify ideas for generating new revenues for the city.

1302
01:59:41,940 --> 01:59:45,760
One of the ideas was to consider placement of commercial billboards on public right-of-way.

1303
01:59:46,240 --> 01:59:52,780
In August, the city council requested more information on this specific item and the support outlines the administration's position on this idea.

1304
01:59:52,780 --> 01:59:58,960
While installing commercial billboards has the potential to generate revenues, commercial billboards by their-

1305
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:29,640
Attended to attract the attention of motorists. This conflicts with best practices and transportation engineering to reduce distracted driving. The city's strategic traffic safety action plan outlines seven emphasis areas to reduce collisions throughout the city, one of which is distracted driving. As part of a review of best practices from other municipalities, we did not find any situations where commercial billboards are permitted on public right of way and some municipalities actually restrict billboards on private land immediately adjacent to high speed roadways.

1306
02:00:29,640 --> 02:00:37,940
The city's current zoning by-law outlines where commercial billboards are permitted, and the administration does not recommend extending that to public right away.

1307
02:00:41,950 --> 02:00:46,010
Okay. Councillor Gersher, you also move in the recommendation of open discussion.

1308
02:00:46,890 --> 02:00:49,010
Okay. Thank you and go ahead.

1309
02:00:49,350 --> 02:00:57,270
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually wanted to make an additional recommendation that this report be forwarded to the traffic safety advisory committee for information.

1310
02:00:57,270 --> 02:01:03,250
There is information about vision zero as well in here, and I just thought it'd be nice for the committee to have access to that.

1311
02:01:03,730 --> 02:01:07,110
I don't actually have any questions or comments about the report.

1312
02:01:11,260 --> 02:01:12,300
Okay. Thank you very much.

1313
02:01:12,480 --> 02:01:22,680
Councillor Gersher, any other comments or questions from members of committee seeing none, then all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

1314
02:01:24,120 --> 02:01:30,780
Moving along to 7.2.3, we have the decorative crosswalks policy, Ms. Gardner, if you'd like to introduce.

1315
02:01:30,780 --> 02:01:32,880
Thank you.

1316
02:01:33,320 --> 02:01:38,600
Over the last couple years, the administration has received requests to commit decorative crosswalks throughout the city.

1317
02:01:38,960 --> 02:01:42,420
To date, a few have been permitted primarily in business improvement districts.

1318
02:01:43,060 --> 02:01:49,800
While internal guidelines are in place, the administration has developed a policy for considering requests to provide better consistency and clarity.

1319
02:01:49,800 --> 02:01:54,520
Well, decorative crosswalks can enhance the character of a community and showcase unique

1320
02:01:54,520 --> 02:01:56,680
culture, history, or animate an area.

1321
02:01:57,040 --> 02:02:01,460
They must be done in a way that does not detract from traffic safety best practices.

1322
02:02:02,180 --> 02:02:07,360
Four key considerations are included in the policy, including safety, neighborhood, installation,

1323
02:02:08,080 --> 02:02:08,840
maintenance, and costs.

1324
02:02:09,660 --> 02:02:14,780
The recommended policy is attached to the report and the recommendation is that the Transportation

1325
02:02:14,780 --> 02:02:19,640
the presentation committee for this report to City Council for approval of the policy.

1326
02:02:20,620 --> 02:02:25,780
Thank you very much and are you also moving to open discussion as to our Councillor Gershire?

1327
02:02:26,040 --> 02:02:27,940
Be sure to the punch. Perfect. Okay.

1328
02:02:29,100 --> 02:02:31,760
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to move the recommendations.

1329
02:02:32,660 --> 02:02:40,120
I have a question through you to Ms. Gardner about the, I guess, geographical extent of this

1330
02:02:40,120 --> 02:02:46,540
policy and that it only refers to locations within bids and I'm wondering why there's not

1331
02:02:46,540 --> 02:02:51,840
a neighborhood or a citywide context to this and why maybe community associations couldn't

1332
02:02:51,840 --> 02:02:57,520
bring this to their neighborhood. Sure, I'm going to refer to Mr. J. Magas, the acting director,

1333
02:02:57,760 --> 02:02:59,880
transportation to address that question.

1334
02:03:02,080 --> 02:03:06,500
Okay, so Magas. Hello, good afternoon. So the decorative

1335
02:03:06,500 --> 02:03:14,020
of crosswalk policy, just a little background, I think, before I answer the question.

1336
02:03:14,280 --> 02:03:19,740
So the last couple of years, we've received several informal requests, hey, I want to

1337
02:03:19,740 --> 02:03:25,720
put in art crosswalks, painted crosswalks, only recently they've become a term decorative.

1338
02:03:26,640 --> 02:03:32,100
And so we, a couple of folks that I work with myself, we did some research to see who's

1339
02:03:32,100 --> 02:03:32,500
doing what.

1340
02:03:32,500 --> 02:03:36,180
But there's not a lot of policies out there.

1341
02:03:36,900 --> 02:03:42,860
But the ones we saw, a lot of them spoke to its index and it's in a business improvement

1342
02:03:42,860 --> 02:03:43,340
district.

1343
02:03:43,720 --> 02:03:44,720
They don't call it that.

1344
02:03:44,820 --> 02:03:45,600
They call it something else.

1345
02:03:45,820 --> 02:03:50,880
But in essence, it's where it's equivalent to our business improvement districts.

1346
02:03:52,120 --> 02:03:53,980
And so we thought this is a place to start.

1347
02:03:57,060 --> 02:04:02,580
You know, the few crosswalks, painted crosswalks that have been installed, we did work with

1348
02:04:02,580 --> 02:04:03,060
the bids.

1349
02:04:03,260 --> 02:04:07,960
Closely and there's lots of issues, it sounds easy to go paint the crosswalk, but there's

1350
02:04:07,960 --> 02:04:14,700
lots of issues when what type of paint, traffic safety, traffic control, who pays, all those

1351
02:04:14,700 --> 02:04:16,240
kind of things that we sort it out.

1352
02:04:16,900 --> 02:04:23,840
And I hesitate if we opened it up for lack of better term to the broader community that

1353
02:04:23,840 --> 02:04:26,900
that would be kind of worse.

1354
02:04:27,820 --> 02:04:33,500
So I think this is a good place to start, and we'll see how it evolves, and we can always

1355
02:04:33,500 --> 02:04:36,500
update the process, change the process.

1356
02:04:37,820 --> 02:04:45,280
For example, I've had a couple of requests from schools, and I don't know if we want

1357
02:04:45,280 --> 02:04:52,340
to have school children on a residential street on a Saturday when traffic's lower out on

1358
02:04:52,340 --> 02:04:53,180
a street all day.

1359
02:04:55,500 --> 02:04:59,820
Broadways busy, downtown's busy on weekend. So it's to me there's less

1360
02:04:59,820 --> 02:05:07,160
risk there. So it's kind of a starting point. Actually I think it shows some flexibility

1361
02:05:07,160 --> 02:05:12,200
and that we're being a little bit unique in developing this to give some to some guidelines

1362
02:05:12,200 --> 02:05:15,920
and some framework to folks. So the folks we've worked with have been very excited.

1363
02:05:19,050 --> 02:05:22,990
Thank you for the clarification and I think it's great that we're putting a policy together

1364
02:05:22,990 --> 02:05:27,890
and that there has been more requests to do this type of work and then to be able to

1365
02:05:27,890 --> 02:05:31,170
provide that information to people ahead of time to let them know some of the complexity

1366
02:05:31,170 --> 02:05:37,710
of installing a decorative crosswalk. I think I'm going to add an additional recommendation

1367
02:05:37,710 --> 02:05:45,130
to report back, I guess, within a year of implementation of the policy on the possibility

1368
02:05:45,130 --> 02:05:54,350
of expanding the geographical area, I can probably dress and think it's ended to the clerk

1369
02:05:54,350 --> 02:05:54,770
as well.

1370
02:05:54,910 --> 02:05:59,990
And I think the intention of that is to see if there could be opportunities to expand

1371
02:05:59,990 --> 02:06:06,550
it and not actually in 12 months expand the program, but to see if maybe we could spread

1372
02:06:06,550 --> 02:06:07,570
it out to the neighborhood level.

1373
02:06:07,830 --> 02:06:13,110
I know there's a community association in Ward 8 that's interested in pursuing this a little.

1374
02:06:13,110 --> 02:06:15,630
So I will leave that up there.

1375
02:06:17,940 --> 02:06:19,280
Okay, thank you very much.

1376
02:06:20,800 --> 02:06:23,720
You're going to send something to the clerk here as well.

1377
02:06:24,460 --> 02:06:25,580
We'll put that up there.

1378
02:06:26,240 --> 02:06:29,120
Okay, so we'll move on to Councillor Du Bois.

1379
02:06:30,500 --> 02:06:31,580
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1380
02:06:32,260 --> 02:06:35,620
And I had a similar question to what Councillor Gershaw had.

1381
02:06:36,160 --> 02:06:37,540
So that answers that.

1382
02:06:37,660 --> 02:06:41,020
But further to that, I'm wondering, Mr. Megas,

1383
02:06:41,020 --> 02:06:48,600
Does this, would this include the Sutherland and the 33rd Street Bids, or are these just the downtown Bids that you're looking at?

1384
02:06:49,600 --> 02:06:52,660
I believe I included all Bids.

1385
02:06:57,860 --> 02:06:59,400
Okay, so they're all Bids?

1386
02:06:59,640 --> 02:07:03,860
Correct, the applicant should be a bid or have the support of the bid.

1387
02:07:04,160 --> 02:07:05,680
Okay, thank you.

1388
02:07:05,820 --> 02:07:11,400
Thank you, and I'm glad to see the other recommendation that Councillor Gershaw put through.

1389
02:07:11,400 --> 02:07:31,400
So, I want to just clarify that this recommendation that you're putting through is of no cost to the city, because I know in the other three, in the three crosswalks, decorative crosswalks that we did, the city did share in the cost, but what your plan moving forward is, is that there would be no cost to the city?

1390
02:07:32,260 --> 02:07:33,040
Did I read that right?

1391
02:07:33,040 --> 02:07:42,880
Correct. So in the proposed council policy, it states the applicant must pay all costs associated with installation maintenance of the decorative crosswalk.

1392
02:07:43,280 --> 02:07:48,460
Okay. As I say, we didn't in the others, so I wanted just to make sure. Thank you. Thanks very much.

1393
02:07:49,520 --> 02:07:52,980
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Du Bois. Your worship.

1394
02:07:52,980 --> 02:08:00,180
Yeah, I just wanted to, first of all, and I appreciate I think it is good to get a clear

1395
02:08:00,180 --> 02:08:05,100
policy for this because it's been something that has emerged in the last couple of years.

1396
02:08:06,060 --> 02:08:11,200
And the first ones that happened were done by urban design as part of the city.

1397
02:08:12,300 --> 02:08:17,420
And so, what is urban design's role right now?

1398
02:08:17,420 --> 02:08:25,060
It sounds like, in this report, responsibilities are within transportation utilities.

1399
02:08:25,860 --> 02:08:32,000
And the reason I ask is that the city through urban design spends quite a bit of money on

1400
02:08:32,000 --> 02:08:36,020
street escape improvements, and we build street furniture, and we do all these different

1401
02:08:36,020 --> 02:08:39,260
things that help to animate the city.

1402
02:08:40,040 --> 02:08:46,200
And there has been a movement towards more simple, quicker, faster, cheaper things that bring

1403
02:08:46,200 --> 02:08:50,880
and vibrancy in the areas, but don't necessarily cost as much, and this is one of those things.

1404
02:08:52,540 --> 02:08:57,560
Has there been consideration for urban design to have some budget to do this and

1405
02:08:57,560 --> 02:09:06,420
then have them work with transportation and the bids and so on to do this as opposed to just leave it up to applicants to pay for this?

1406
02:09:08,260 --> 02:09:11,360
I don't recall having those discussions.

1407
02:09:12,060 --> 02:09:18,860
I know the 21st street was the urban design, the painted crosswalk.

1408
02:09:19,060 --> 02:09:24,220
The decorative crosswalks there were part of a bigger scheme, a bigger project.

1409
02:09:25,020 --> 02:09:27,100
And they had funding, they brought funding to the table.

1410
02:09:27,800 --> 02:09:33,920
But we had no other discussion about them being involved in the process or making a program.

1411
02:09:33,920 --> 02:09:41,080
I know we did talk to the Art Public Art Committee if they wanted to be part of the approving,

1412
02:09:41,860 --> 02:09:47,160
lack of their term approving process, and they didn't want to, because these, you know, for the most part,

1413
02:09:47,300 --> 02:09:56,000
these wash away. So that's, well, I think I might add a recommendation that we discuss with urban design,

1414
02:09:58,420 --> 02:10:03,740
the transportation, discuss with urban design and see if there is an interest in having this

1415
02:10:03,740 --> 02:10:12,420
as part of their program in cases where they see a benefit like they did, you know, have

1416
02:10:12,420 --> 02:10:20,780
already in some cases, to doing this in conjunction with these big areas to have the ability.

1417
02:10:20,980 --> 02:10:27,520
I just think animating areas is good, doing it with paint as opposed to $30,000 benches

1418
02:10:27,520 --> 02:10:33,520
or whatever it might be, there can be a benefit and it seems like this is mostly all in transportation

1419
02:10:33,520 --> 02:10:34,480
as opposed to,

1420
02:10:37,460 --> 02:10:40,960
so I'd like to hear what their take is on this.

1421
02:10:43,010 --> 02:10:48,530
Through you, Mr. Sheriff, I can just add the, and Mr. Grower's in the crowd if he wants to correct me.

1422
02:10:48,710 --> 02:10:56,710
But my understanding is that the, so urban design manages the overall streetscaping programs.

1423
02:10:57,410 --> 02:11:01,770
And this was them, the painting of the crosswalks on 21st Street was,

1424
02:11:02,190 --> 02:11:05,990
I believe it was two years ago, that they included that as their project.

1425
02:11:05,990 --> 02:11:11,490
I don't know if their intent is to continue that on an annual basis through their capital program or not,

1426
02:11:11,730 --> 02:11:14,510
but it is something that we could discuss with them.

1427
02:11:14,890 --> 02:11:20,770
And if that were the case, it would be continued to be allowed from a transportation perspective.

1428
02:11:21,310 --> 02:11:24,890
The transportation division is the regulator and would administer this policy.

1429
02:11:24,890 --> 02:11:32,770
But if there's other groups or programs or bids, we would definitely welcome their submissions.

1430
02:11:32,770 --> 02:11:36,170
but it wouldn't be from the city's operating funds.

1431
02:11:36,230 --> 02:11:40,270
It would be kind of a one-off from say an urban design capital program or something like that.

1432
02:11:41,230 --> 02:11:45,330
Yeah, and that's why I'm trying to understand because you're the regulator, transportation.

1433
02:11:45,670 --> 02:11:53,050
Urban design is the animator and maybe there's some way to kind of put these together.

1434
02:11:53,650 --> 02:11:58,690
And as they make decisions about how to animate streets and where to allocate money,

1435
02:11:58,690 --> 02:12:04,530
which they have through parking and other things because the way this is set up now, if

1436
02:12:04,530 --> 02:12:08,070
a bid comes, we say, well, you have to pay for it and we have no solution.

1437
02:12:08,290 --> 02:12:15,690
But if there's actually a synergy with urban design, which they already had one and have

1438
02:12:15,690 --> 02:12:22,990
stolen that in other cases, that actually gives us the ability to suggest that they can

1439
02:12:22,990 --> 02:12:23,990
work with the bids on this.

1440
02:12:23,990 --> 02:12:27,410
So that's all I'm trying to identify.

1441
02:12:27,610 --> 02:12:31,030
They see maps in from this report that they have a stake

1442
02:12:31,030 --> 02:12:32,950
in the overall animation of our streets.

1443
02:12:37,060 --> 02:12:38,020
Okay, thank you, Your Worship.

1444
02:12:39,580 --> 02:12:40,940
We are lighting up.

1445
02:12:42,440 --> 02:12:43,400
Councilor Donnelly.

1446
02:12:43,940 --> 02:12:45,840
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

1447
02:12:46,040 --> 02:12:48,400
So I have a question for the mayor about his motion

1448
02:12:48,400 --> 02:12:51,060
because I took this report as us getting out

1449
02:12:51,060 --> 02:12:55,020
of the business of painting crosswalks differently

1450
02:12:55,020 --> 02:13:02,360
than the city normally does and I like that because not that I'm opposed to what you want to do

1451
02:13:02,360 --> 02:13:07,800
but what was happening is we were picking winners and losers we were having some groups come

1452
02:13:07,800 --> 02:13:14,540
forward that we shared the cost with them and other groups were told no or we didn't share the

1453
02:13:14,540 --> 02:13:20,460
cost with them and I found that inequitable so are you asking urban design your worship to

1454
02:13:20,460 --> 02:13:34,600
to come up with a program that the city would just administer, and if we want to add color to the city, we will, or are you asking them to partner with certain groups, and if so, what would the criteria be for who gets a decorated crosswalk and who doesn't?

1455
02:13:38,350 --> 02:13:52,730
I would say the bids would be the ones, because they're the, I mean, right now business improvement districts, and I, when Broadway was trying to figure this out, they really did the lifting to try and

1456
02:13:52,730 --> 02:13:58,790
figure out, okay, how do we get these designed and painted, but what they're doing is they're

1457
02:13:58,790 --> 02:14:03,150
trying to create more animation and broadly, which benefits the whole city, not just

1458
02:14:03,830 --> 02:14:09,670
Broadway. And they, right now, work with Urban Design more broadly on their streetscaping

1459
02:14:09,670 --> 02:14:16,390
plans and so on. And so, and Urban Design was the first body to actually view these painted

1460
02:14:16,390 --> 02:14:23,650
crosswalks on 21st Street. So the way I read the policy is you say the city is getting

1461
02:14:23,650 --> 02:14:31,590
out of it, but I'm not convinced that that's the best plan. I understand that when it comes

1462
02:14:31,590 --> 02:14:38,270
to community groups and so on, what is the application basis, and I would ask administrations

1463
02:14:38,270 --> 02:14:43,070
perspective, but from the point of view of investing a little bit of money through urban

1464
02:14:43,070 --> 02:14:50,650
design, you know, animating crosswalks, that bang for your buck, it can take a long time

1465
02:14:50,650 --> 02:14:56,130
to get streetscaping in some areas, but you can animate it with painted crosswalk.

1466
02:14:56,210 --> 02:14:57,730
It's kind of like decorative lights, right?

1467
02:14:57,730 --> 02:14:58,970
Okay, certain things you can...

1468
02:15:00,000 --> 02:15:16,480
Any animation to an area that doesn't have to wait for an entire streetscaping plan. So I don't know exactly what the criteria would be. I would leave it up to urban design and the bids to work that out. I think transportation is the regulator.

1469
02:15:18,900 --> 02:15:29,980
I'm just not seeing her. I'd like to hear urban designs perspective on how maybe this could be managed as a. So that's helpful because what I'm hearing and before we vote, I want to make sure

1470
02:15:29,980 --> 02:15:38,260
I'm hearing accurately, is the groups who want a different crosswalk would go according

1471
02:15:38,260 --> 02:15:43,060
to the policy, but that as part of the streetscaping project, our administration can work

1472
02:15:43,060 --> 02:15:47,060
with the bids and they can color up their bid like any other streetscaping thing, though

1473
02:15:47,060 --> 02:15:53,320
this may be a different avenue so that it can be done quicker than waiting for third avenue

1474
02:15:53,320 --> 02:15:57,500
to get street, or that's been done, but yeah, you know, we don't have to wait 15 years

1475
02:15:57,500 --> 02:16:02,580
for that avenue if the bid wants to use a part of the streetscaping project and the admin

1476
02:16:03,160 --> 02:16:08,040
they can do some crosswalk stuff and that would but that would be more of a streetscafe sort of

1477
02:16:08,040 --> 02:16:11,920
thing. Is that what you're thinking? Yes. Okay, would you be willing to put the word streetscafe

1478
02:16:11,920 --> 02:16:17,280
in front of program there? Would that be a friendly amendment? Yeah. Yeah. Taking into account that

1479
02:16:17,280 --> 02:16:21,780
it doesn't have like you said you don't want it to necessarily follow the they could have a separate

1480
02:16:21,780 --> 02:16:28,980
track for this sort of thing, but I just want to be clear that I don't want to be paying

1481
02:16:29,760 --> 02:16:33,300
to do sidewalks for everybody who wants to sidewalk them, but if they want to do one

1482
02:16:33,300 --> 02:16:38,160
of this program allows it. So I'm on for that. If urban design wants to do some as part

1483
02:16:38,160 --> 02:16:41,740
of streetscaping, I'm willing to listen to that. Is that what we're talking about?

1484
02:16:41,900 --> 02:16:42,080
Yeah.

1485
02:16:42,380 --> 02:16:46,840
Okay. I just wasn't clear on what urban designs. Okay. I'm much more comfortable.

1486
02:16:46,840 --> 02:16:53,180
And I would I would I like them. I like to see yeah more of them. Yeah, I'd like to see us potentially

1487
02:16:53,180 --> 02:16:58,580
be involved in investing in them, but the program and the criteria through urban design because

1488
02:16:58,580 --> 02:17:04,660
they already have and they and there's a benefit. But we I need to understand a bit more from them

1489
02:17:04,660 --> 02:17:08,820
as to how they would manage that's good. That's fine. All I'm trying to do is get out

1490
02:17:08,820 --> 02:17:15,080
outside of the business of taking the approving and not approving who gets city money to do their

1491
02:17:15,080 --> 02:17:17,520
Yeah, so I'm happy with that. Thank you.

1492
02:17:19,860 --> 02:17:23,520
Okay, and Ms. Gardner, do you just have some clarification on that point?

1493
02:17:23,660 --> 02:17:27,380
Sure. And just to address your worship's recommendation up there,

1494
02:17:27,620 --> 02:17:32,380
prior to this coming to Council in two weeks, we can definitely get urban designs perspective

1495
02:17:32,380 --> 02:17:37,180
and whether or not they have any decorative crosswalks planned in their upcoming programs

1496
02:17:37,180 --> 02:17:41,500
if they're planning to continue with that as one of the features that they include,

1497
02:17:41,620 --> 02:17:43,340
so we'll have that information when this goes to Council.

1498
02:17:43,340 --> 02:17:48,920
Okay. Thank you, and Councillor Dubois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to his

1499
02:17:48,920 --> 02:17:53,760
worship. So I understand what you're talking about. I guess I just have one question with

1500
02:17:53,760 --> 02:17:59,500
what your motion is. Is that within the urban design budget, or is that over and above? So

1501
02:17:59,500 --> 02:18:04,520
that's taking what's in the urban design budget. And if they want to do street or decorative

1502
02:18:05,280 --> 02:18:10,260
crosswalk, then they would have to rework their budget, take something out of whatever,

1503
02:18:13,320 --> 02:18:13,320
more

1504
02:18:13,320 --> 02:18:15,940
budget? Is that correct? Am I understanding that?

1505
02:18:16,800 --> 02:18:17,080
Yeah.

1506
02:18:17,460 --> 02:18:24,340
So we're not adding, by your motion, we're not adding any money.

1507
02:18:24,560 --> 02:18:25,620
It's not costing anymore.

1508
02:18:25,840 --> 02:18:28,280
It's all within the prescribed budget.

1509
02:18:28,880 --> 02:18:34,560
Yeah, and the bids also take streets gave us.

1510
02:18:34,640 --> 02:18:41,680
So I don't, somewhere in there, I think there's potential for where they're deciding do we

1511
02:18:41,680 --> 02:18:58,440
We spend this money on this hard-surfaced infrastructure that's very expensive, or this money on this, relatively, I mean, 5,000 is until small amount of money, but it's, compared to a million dollars to do a whole block, it's, it's, it's something for your budget.

1512
02:18:58,800 --> 02:19:00,320
And I'm within their budget.

1513
02:19:00,640 --> 02:19:07,960
I'm in agreement with what you're saying, I'm just wanting to clarify whether it's in the existing budget, you're not talking about any additional dollars here.

1514
02:19:07,960 --> 02:19:14,700
Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other questions or comments.

1515
02:19:15,260 --> 02:19:20,780
So we have all of those motions up there that have been moved by Councillor Gersher and

1516
02:19:21,180 --> 02:19:27,460
his warship. Are we comfortable as a committee voting for all of these altogether? I'm seeing

1517
02:19:27,460 --> 02:19:34,280
a bunch of nodding heads. Councillor Dubois? Sorry, I am okay. I'm just wondering do we need

1518
02:19:34,280 --> 02:19:40,700
to put that in the mayor's motion as part of the street scape program within

1519
02:19:42,940 --> 02:19:43,880
the existing budget?

1520
02:19:44,840 --> 02:19:52,700
Yeah, I mean, I read it that way because it's an existing program and it's just, we're saying it's part of it, so I kind of, that's how I read it.

1521
02:19:52,720 --> 02:19:55,740
As long as it's cleared it, everyone in the administration as well.

1522
02:19:56,140 --> 02:20:01,720
I'm seeing lots of nodding heads, so okay, we're in agreement to vote on these altogether, all those in favor.

1523
02:20:01,720 --> 02:20:07,660
And that is carried unanimously, the job committee, we are getting close.

1524
02:20:08,260 --> 02:20:12,200
Moving on to 7.2.4, oh, you thought that was funny?

1525
02:20:14,660 --> 02:20:21,380
Okay, trap P's OPS payroll, module configurations, if you wanted something exciting, that would be this year, Ms. Gardner.

1526
02:20:23,000 --> 02:20:31,700
This report is to award a contract to trapeze, to install required configurations to the trapeze OPS payroll module.

1527
02:20:31,700 --> 02:20:34,440
to upgrade test between transit's current payroll software.

1528
02:20:35,040 --> 02:20:39,300
JAPE software is integral to Saskatoon transit operations and provides fully integrated

1529
02:20:39,300 --> 02:20:44,540
projects to deliver scheduling, run cutting, bidding, dispatch payroll and ITS functions.

1530
02:20:45,240 --> 02:20:49,020
New configurations within the payroll software is required to fall in line with the current

1531
02:20:49,020 --> 02:20:50,640
practices at Saskatoon transit.

1532
02:20:51,140 --> 02:20:55,220
Since Trapese holds proprietary rights to this software, the administration is recommending

1533
02:20:55,220 --> 02:21:00,000
that this report be forwarded to City Council to enter into an agreement with JAPE's software

1534
02:21:00,000 --> 02:21:07,580
where you will see for the installation of required configurations at a cost of $94,184

1535
02:21:07,580 --> 02:21:11,120
and that personal services issue the appropriate order.

1536
02:21:11,740 --> 02:21:12,880
Thank you, Ms. Gardner.

1537
02:21:13,180 --> 02:21:15,760
And Councillor Dubois, are you moving the recommendation to open discussion?

1538
02:21:16,060 --> 02:21:16,300
I am.

1539
02:21:16,540 --> 02:21:16,860
Thank you.

1540
02:21:16,980 --> 02:21:17,420
Please go ahead.

1541
02:21:17,760 --> 02:21:19,080
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1542
02:21:19,360 --> 02:21:20,600
Through you, Ms. Gardner.

1543
02:21:20,740 --> 02:21:26,240
I just wanted to know, when the last time we updated the software,

1544
02:21:29,840 --> 02:21:29,980
when was the last time

1545
02:21:29,980 --> 02:21:34,140
Also, how often do we need to update the software?

1546
02:21:35,180 --> 02:21:36,820
And then my third question,

1547
02:21:37,940 --> 02:21:40,440
is it would it be the same cost every time?

1548
02:21:42,780 --> 02:21:45,660
Okay, I'll have to ask Mr. Jim McDonald's

1549
02:21:45,660 --> 02:21:48,000
the Director of Sesting Transit to come to the table.

1550
02:21:48,920 --> 02:21:51,120
But just with regards to trippy software,

1551
02:21:51,260 --> 02:21:52,760
there's a number of different modules

1552
02:21:54,180 --> 02:21:56,840
as part of the overall trippy software.

1553
02:21:56,980 --> 02:21:58,740
This specific recommendation in this report

1554
02:21:58,740 --> 02:22:00,060
is to upgrade one component,

1555
02:22:00,060 --> 02:22:05,440
which is just the payroll module, but Mr. McDonald can extend on that.

1556
02:22:05,920 --> 02:22:06,780
Mr. McDonald.

1557
02:22:07,300 --> 02:22:08,120
Good afternoon.

1558
02:22:08,300 --> 02:22:09,060
My name is Jim McDonald.

1559
02:22:09,400 --> 02:22:11,360
I'm the Director of Transit for the City of Saskatoon.

1560
02:22:11,760 --> 02:22:18,480
Through you, Mr. Chair to Councillor Dubois, for this specific module of our software, this

1561
02:22:18,480 --> 02:22:25,520
is the first time we have done any modifications to the payroll that I saw, module that I'm aware

1562
02:22:25,520 --> 02:22:25,800
of.

1563
02:22:25,800 --> 02:22:32,400
So it has taken us almost 10 years to get to this point, and quite frankly, when we did

1564
02:22:32,400 --> 02:22:41,380
implement the software, we went from Excel spreadsheets and paper to trapeze Excel spreadsheets

1565
02:22:41,380 --> 02:22:42,040
and paper.

1566
02:22:43,100 --> 02:22:53,480
So unfortunately, this has been one of those things where we have finally gotten to the

1567
02:22:53,480 --> 02:22:59,540
point where we need to do this so that I can have that staff stop doing manual processes

1568
02:23:00,120 --> 02:23:06,080
so we can actually use the software as it's intended to be used and then we can start bootstrapping

1569
02:23:06,080 --> 02:23:12,360
our way out of a lot of people dealing with manual transactions and we can actually start

1570
02:23:12,360 --> 02:23:15,540
mining our data and making sure that everything is being done appropriately.

1571
02:23:16,440 --> 02:23:22,120
So I hope that this is the one and only time we will have to do any modifications to the

1572
02:23:22,120 --> 02:23:28,640
payroll module itself. There are a number of additional things that we are going to be

1573
02:23:28,640 --> 02:23:35,560
doing to the Treppys software writ large, but most of those are covered under some arrangements

1574
02:23:35,560 --> 02:23:40,880
through PETA funding with the federal government. Some of the other things that we will be doing

1575
02:23:40,880 --> 02:23:48,400
will not be happening for 12 to 18 months at the least. And that will be to deal with some

1576
02:23:48,400 --> 02:23:58,000
data clean-ups. Again, in our rush to put some of the software in play in 2006-2008, we did not

1577
02:23:59,340 --> 02:24:06,060
we did not input our GPS coordinates correctly and some of the work practices that were put in

1578
02:24:06,060 --> 02:24:12,860
place at that point were done so without understanding the full rollout of the software itself. So we now

1579
02:24:12,860 --> 02:24:19,880
have to go back and correct some of these errors and it does take time to a drill down to

1580
02:24:19,880 --> 02:24:24,020
where the errors are being made and find out what we have to do to rewind the tape, so to speak.

1581
02:24:24,760 --> 02:24:31,700
But we now have a very good working relationship with TRIP software and our staff are learning how to

1582
02:24:31,700 --> 02:24:40,900
use the tools appropriately. So all in all things are going very well from that perspective and any other

1583
02:24:40,900 --> 02:24:45,920
funding that we end up having to spend on these pieces of software should not be lost

1584
02:24:45,920 --> 02:24:50,860
leaders. They should be all to get us to the point where actually the data is clean.

1585
02:24:51,400 --> 02:24:55,520
We are using it appropriately and we can actually really dig into it so that we can use

1586
02:24:55,520 --> 02:24:57,240
the data to make sure the system is better.

1587
02:24:57,980 --> 02:25:02,540
Well, thank you, Mr. McDonald. I really appreciate that. I remember when we implemented the

1588
02:25:02,540 --> 02:25:09,960
truck piece software, as you say, 2006, 2008, and also know the payroll system is manual

1589
02:25:09,960 --> 02:25:13,520
and I never could believe that myself actually and I'm glad to hear that.

1590
02:25:14,060 --> 02:25:20,140
So with this system, will there be any positions that will be lost in the payroll department?

1591
02:25:21,520 --> 02:25:26,920
Through the chair, my intention will always be to maintain the number of people we currently

1592
02:25:26,920 --> 02:25:33,160
have in those roles. However, what they do may be absolutely different because as I've

1593
02:25:33,800 --> 02:25:40,340
said to anybody that wants to listen, we are data rich, we just don't have access to

1594
02:25:40,340 --> 02:25:46,320
the data in the right format and what I really am missing is people that can mine the data

1595
02:25:46,320 --> 02:25:54,100
and provide me with data analytics. In Edmonton for the equivalent number, well sorry, in Edmonton

1596
02:25:54,100 --> 02:26:04,820
Even in my section, I had two people doing payroll for 1600 operators, so that tells you what the changes could be.

1597
02:26:05,520 --> 02:26:14,680
But here we don't have anyone in my organization that can effectively mine the data, and that's exactly what we need to make huge strides out of this.

1598
02:26:14,680 --> 02:26:22,940
So clean data and then take the data that we get from ridership, where our payroll is going, if we've got the proper

1599
02:26:22,940 --> 02:26:30,840
plot to control ratio, it just will help us make sure we target things appropriately and get the best bank for your tax dollars out of our system.

1600
02:26:31,420 --> 02:26:37,080
Well, thank you. I really like that. And I also really look forward to the reports coming forward once we've got this.

1601
02:26:37,860 --> 02:26:43,820
It'll make it easier for council to make some decisions as well as yourself as well for transit and improve transit.

1602
02:26:43,820 --> 02:26:47,860
So thank you very much. She was great, Donald. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Du Bois.

1603
02:26:48,740 --> 02:26:54,800
Councillor Gershon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I need a bit of

1604
02:26:54,800 --> 02:27:02,040
reminder through you to our administration about some of the integration of our different

1605
02:27:02,040 --> 02:27:07,300
payroll systems across the organization. And I know that we operate quite a few different ones

1606
02:27:07,300 --> 02:27:12,800
and we've been talking about potentially reducing that number. I'm just wondering how that fits in or

1607
02:27:12,800 --> 02:27:21,260
how this change in the module fits into kind of that efficient integration of our payroll systems.

1608
02:27:24,370 --> 02:27:28,070
Is this a gardener or Mr. Terraceoff?

1609
02:27:29,290 --> 02:27:32,210
I know we've got smart people here that have the answer.

1610
02:27:32,370 --> 02:27:35,550
It's just a question of which smart person has the answer.

1611
02:27:37,050 --> 02:27:38,530
Mr. Terraceoff, you can introduce yourself.

1612
02:27:39,150 --> 02:27:46,230
please. Yes, Kerry, Tarrisoff, General Manager of Asset and Financial Management. So, yes, we do

1613
02:27:46,230 --> 02:27:52,270
have, I think there's about five different payroll systems in the corporation. With the ERP system,

1614
02:27:52,590 --> 02:28:00,210
our hope is to start moving to one integrated system. I know we've talked about trapeze and transit

1615
02:28:00,210 --> 02:28:06,210
being potentially a unique situation. However, I think there's still opportunities at some point

1616
02:28:06,210 --> 02:28:12,010
to take a look at the payroll modules, but that is our goal, is to get rid of all these

1617
02:28:12,010 --> 02:28:16,430
multiple systems and once we have our ERP is to use one payroll system.

1618
02:28:18,510 --> 02:28:25,750
So with that being said, does it seem counterintuitive to implement a new system knowing in

1619
02:28:25,750 --> 02:28:31,810
the fairly short term that that might not be the reality, or is this either way it needs

1620
02:28:31,810 --> 02:28:37,490
to be digital, and this is kind of a transition to that, or maybe I'm missing an option as well.

1621
02:28:37,910 --> 02:28:43,410
Yeah, and maybe Mr. McDonald might have some more details on that, but I think the initial

1622
02:28:43,410 --> 02:28:50,610
plan is to have trapeze as almost like a standalone system with an integration to the RP.

1623
02:28:50,830 --> 02:28:57,970
I think that was the initial review of the business requirements, so I think that's the way it stands

1624
02:28:57,970 --> 02:29:03,510
right now and we have to take a look once when our European evaluation is done if there's any

1625
02:29:03,510 --> 02:29:09,190
possibilities of using payroll through that to the European payroll system but I think for now

1626
02:29:09,190 --> 02:29:13,750
I think the initial plan is to use it for a piece as a separate system. Okay, thank you for the

1627
02:29:13,750 --> 02:29:21,130
clarification. Thank you. Thank you for asking about ERP because I get excited anytime we have

1628
02:29:21,130 --> 02:29:26,710
conversation about that. I don't see any other questions or comments, although I will say to

1629
02:29:26,710 --> 02:29:30,470
administration. Next time we talk about trapeze if someone comes in on a trapeze, that would

1630
02:29:30,470 --> 02:29:38,890
be true. That's kind of cool. Give you 20 bucks. Okay, no more questions or comments that

1631
02:29:38,890 --> 02:29:43,890
has been moved by Councillor Gersher or it was moved by Councillor Dubois. My apologies,

1632
02:29:44,330 --> 02:29:50,770
all those in favor of the recommendations that carries unanimously. Moving along to I believe

1633
02:29:50,770 --> 02:29:58,670
We have our final item or a second to last item, 7.2.5 street sweeper broom materials.

1634
02:30:02,320 --> 02:30:29,980
Okay, and this is another exciting item that is seeking approval to enter into a multi-year contract with Firmack equipment limited to supply street sweeper broom materials. The administration has tested a number of other materials to evaluate their effectiveness to meet the current street sweeping level of service. To date, the broom materials provided by Firmack are the only ones that have the required characteristics, including the thickness of the wires, hardness of materials.

1635
02:30:29,980 --> 02:30:33,140
and longevity of the brushes to meet the city's specifications.

1636
02:30:33,720 --> 02:30:38,480
The administration is recommending that we establish a blanket purchase order for the supply of street room,

1637
02:30:39,140 --> 02:30:47,840
sorry, street sweep or room materials for a one-year term with two additional one-year terms for a total estimated cost of $300,000 including taxes.

1638
02:30:48,480 --> 02:30:55,980
Following the three-year term, the administration will evaluate other products in the industry and report further if any other vendors can meet the city's specifications.

1639
02:30:57,420 --> 02:30:59,380
Councillor DuBois, you're excited to move that?

1640
02:30:59,560 --> 02:30:59,960
Oh, very.

1641
02:31:00,300 --> 02:31:00,500
Cool.

1642
02:31:00,780 --> 02:31:01,500
Okay, let's go ahead.

1643
02:31:01,700 --> 02:31:02,020
I'll move it.

1644
02:31:02,120 --> 02:31:05,300
And I just, I have one question, Mr. Chair, through to Mr. Gardner.

1645
02:31:05,860 --> 02:31:07,160
So I have no problem with this.

1646
02:31:07,380 --> 02:31:08,160
So did you?

1647
02:31:08,360 --> 02:31:15,240
What are the efficiencies that we received then by having this, basically, a three-year purchase

1648
02:31:16,980 --> 02:31:17,380
order?

1649
02:31:18,920 --> 02:31:24,400
Well, essentially by having a three-year purchase order, it allows us to go back to

1650
02:31:24,400 --> 02:31:31,620
the contractor or the vendor with pre-set pricing and so it eliminates a lot of the administrative

1651
02:31:31,620 --> 02:31:38,120
costs of going out year after year and acquiring the materials provided.

1652
02:31:38,640 --> 02:31:43,880
In addition, by having the blanket ordered, if we have a need for additional materials

1653
02:31:43,880 --> 02:31:48,240
in one year versus another, we can quickly go back and get the required materials.

1654
02:31:48,680 --> 02:31:48,780
Right.

1655
02:31:49,100 --> 02:31:49,400
Thank you.

1656
02:31:49,480 --> 02:31:50,680
And I understand that.

1657
02:31:50,780 --> 02:31:51,800
That was in the report.

1658
02:31:51,800 --> 02:31:59,320
But I guess what I'm meeting more is if we did it one year and then we did it the next year would their cost be a lot higher

1659
02:31:59,320 --> 02:32:04,660
And I know you've shown them to be somewhat higher for 2019 and 2020, but

1660
02:32:06,680 --> 02:32:16,360
Do you see what I'm saying if would those be higher like for 2019 would it be higher than 125,000 if we did not do a three-year purchase order?

1661
02:32:19,600 --> 02:32:29,840
Through Mr. Chair, by establishing and essentially, to a certain extent, guaranteeing that the purchase in the future,

1662
02:32:30,040 --> 02:32:34,320
we typically find that we get better pricing because it's more of a bulk purchase.

1663
02:32:34,760 --> 02:32:40,360
So, we do find that by doing multi-year contracts such as this, that we do get better pricing from most vendors.

1664
02:32:40,780 --> 02:32:42,020
Okay. Thank you.

1665
02:32:42,220 --> 02:32:43,280
I'd like to see us save money.

1666
02:32:43,440 --> 02:32:43,760
Thank you.

1667
02:32:44,960 --> 02:32:50,760
Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other comments or questions that has been moved, all those in favor?

1668
02:32:51,280 --> 02:32:56,400
That carries unanimously. Moving on to urgent business, we have 8.1.

1669
02:32:56,720 --> 02:33:01,140
Clarification amendments to by-law 7200, Ms. Gardner.

1670
02:33:03,590 --> 02:33:08,430
This last report outlines modifications required to by-law 7200, the traffic by-law,

1671
02:33:08,550 --> 02:33:13,090
to clarify the intense surrounding placement of signage for street maintenance and unrestricted permits

1672
02:33:13,090 --> 02:33:14,990
to allow for better enforceability.

1673
02:33:15,510 --> 02:33:17,430
The modifications include clarification

1674
02:33:17,430 --> 02:33:19,370
on the placement of unrestricted permits.

1675
02:33:20,030 --> 02:33:21,810
Clarification on which types of vehicles

1676
02:33:21,810 --> 02:33:23,730
are permitted to use disability zones

1677
02:33:23,730 --> 02:33:24,850
will also be included.

1678
02:33:25,370 --> 02:33:28,250
Furthermore, the modifications for by-law 7200

1679
02:33:28,250 --> 02:33:31,250
will include a revision to definitions of signage

1680
02:33:31,250 --> 02:33:32,630
related to sandwich boards

1681
02:33:32,930 --> 02:33:35,490
that are used during street maintenance parking bans.

1682
02:33:36,250 --> 02:33:38,330
Typically, city council would approve modifications

1683
02:33:38,330 --> 02:33:40,330
to the by-law and then city solicitors

1684
02:33:40,330 --> 02:33:41,670
would draft the by-law amendments

1685
02:33:41,670 --> 02:33:44,150
for consideration at a future to City Council meeting.

1686
02:33:44,650 --> 02:33:49,290
In order to have the necessarily by-law amendments in place prior to streets sweeping this spring,

1687
02:33:49,550 --> 02:33:54,890
with a committee's permission, solicitors will draft the revisions to the by-law and present them

1688
02:33:54,890 --> 02:33:57,710
to the March City Council meeting in conjunction with this report.

1689
02:33:58,670 --> 02:34:00,510
Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Gardiner.

1690
02:34:01,070 --> 02:34:03,030
It's a little like to move the recommendations.

1691
02:34:03,030 --> 02:34:04,790
I don't see any questions or comments.

1692
02:34:05,370 --> 02:34:06,230
Thank you, Councillor Dubois.

1693
02:34:06,730 --> 02:34:08,270
Still seeing no questions or comments.

1694
02:34:08,270 --> 02:34:12,370
all those in favor of the recommendations that's moved and that carries unanimously.

1695
02:34:13,450 --> 02:34:17,330
Number nine, notice motions noticed previously given we have none.

1696
02:34:17,610 --> 02:34:19,630
Is anybody giving notice today?

1697
02:34:20,250 --> 02:34:27,030
No, in-camera agenda items there are none, so we are adjourned at 440, not too bad.

1698
02:34:27,270 --> 02:34:27,710
Thank you everyone.