[0:54] 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?

[1:23] And that carries unanimously.

[1:25] Unfinished business, there is none.

[1:28] 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.

[1:39] I see that Mr. Moan is not here yet.

[1:42] So what I'm going to do is we'll move through these items in order.

[1:45] Once the speaker does arrive, we'll go back to that particular item which may take us a bit of time.

[1:50] But in the meantime, we'll go through them as originally ordered in our packages here today.

[1:56] So we'll start off with 6.1.1, which is the Saskatoon Accessibility Advisory Committee,

[2:02] request for policy and program options to promote permanent accessibility improvement to buildings.

[2:08] Ms. Gardner, if you have any background on this particular item that we've received,

[2:13] and the recommendation is that the direction of committee issue.

[2:19] I don't have anything further to add to this item.

[2:21] Okay. Thank you very much. Then we will start off with Councillor Dubois.

[2:30] Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. This came through the, as noted, the Accessibility Advisory Committee.

[2:37] 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

[2:51] that wasn't able to be accomplished with our rules.

[2:56] So the committee discussed this and recommended that we forward this to this committee and

[3:04] consider policy and program options available to promote permanent accessibility.

[3:10] Improvements moving forward in major quarters.

[3:14] So I'm not really sure I'll go through you to Ms. Gardner.

[3:19] Or what you would think the appropriate process would be to do this, a motion, or a misguernor?

[3:30] Yes, probably the best, the most appropriate process would be to direct this to the administration for a report.

[3:38] 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

[3:47] and what we can do to improve accessibility.

[3:50] 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.

[4:01] So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the City look at policy and program options available to look at permanent accessibility improvements

[4:14] to buildings along major corridors in in the city. Now, if I do I need to say major

[4:22] corridors miss Gardner or should I just say generally? Councillor Dubois, I just would

[4:28] say perhaps we could just simply refer the communication to the administration for a

[4:32] report back and it would have that all captured there. We can do that except I want it to say

[4:37] city wide because right now we're referring to a specific area and so I do want the city

[4:45] is that Madam City Clerk? Is that accomplished through all of that?

[4:52] 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.

[4:59] Okay. Good. Thank you very much.

[5:02] Okay. Thank you, Councillor Dubois. Councillor Goth.

[5:05] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I don't have much to add since my colleague, who is also on SAC,

[5:11] see provided some background here, but I did just want to make note that the reason that

[5:16] there's reference to heritage buildings is actually a bit of a reflection of the fact

[5:21] that this is a concentrated problem in established areas when from when building standards

[5:27] were less accessible.

[5:29] And so it's a matter of, you know, making sure that we're looking at, we're taking a specific

[5:35] look at retrofit opportunities and that it really is something that falls kind of between

[5:40] planning and transportation. So there was a bit of a debate of, you know, after we

[5:45] bumbled it through finance which is where this committee has to report to, you know,

[5:50] where to kick it to because this is a matter of, you know, transportation and planning.

[5:54] And we had members of all departments relevant at the SAC meeting and everybody said,

[5:59] this does fall somewhere between all of our mandates and we are looking for some direction if you

[6:04] want us to look at this further. So that's what this recommendation is is suggesting and that's

[6:09] 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.

[6:19] 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.

[6:33] 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.

[6:41] So with that in mind, all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

[6:47] Okay, I see that our speaker for a particular item has arrived.

[6:52] So what we're going to do, I think, I miss your own, I think the best bet in this particular case, Ms. Gardner,

[6:59] And do we have a presentation from administration on the item?

[7:04] 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.

[7:14] 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.

[7:25] 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.

[7:36] 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.

[7:54] So, at this time, Ms. Gardner, I'll let you introduce the item and introduce our speaker.

[8:01] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[8:02] This report looks at the outcome of Phase 1 of the Rail Relocation versus the Great Separation

[8:08] Feasibility Study that began last year to develop a long-term plan to reduce delays resulting

[8:13] from railways operating through the city.

[8:15] This report provides information on the outcomes of the Phase 1 work and makes recommendations

[8:20] for a modification to Phase 2.

[8:22] I will ask that Mr. Jay Magus, the Acting Director of Transportation Division, as well

[8:27] as our consultant, Mr. Fred Kramer from HDR, to provide a presentation and an overview

[8:32] of this report.

[8:34] Okay.

[8:34] And if our speakers of the podium could please introduce themselves name and title, and

[8:38] then we'll go into the presentation.

[8:40] Thank you.

[8:41] Good afternoon.

[8:42] My name is Jay Magus, Acting Director of Transportation with the City of Saskatoon.

[8:47] and to deliver this report we retained the services of HDR Corporation. HDR is an international

[8:54] engineering and architecture company with its Canadian head office in Richmond, Hill, Ontario. HDR

[8:59] has an economics consultancy consisting of 40 economists, statisticians and financial analysts

[9:05] that focus on economic analysis of large infrastructure projects such as the one we were studying. HDR's

[9:12] project manager was Fred Kramer, an economist out of their Calgary office, and I will turn

[9:17] it over to him for the first half.

[9:27] Okay, and you can go ahead when you're ready, Mr. Kramer.

[9:32] Good afternoon.

[9:32] My name is Fred Kramer.

[9:33] I'm with the HDR Corporation.

[9:35] I'm a principal economist out of our Calgary office, and I am also associate vice president,

[9:43] and I had the economics rail consultancy practice for HDR.

[9:49] So I have a few slides that I'll run through regarding the outcomes, I guess, of the Great

[9:56] Separation versus Rail Relocation Project.

[10:00] So as Angela mentioned, there were two phases to this study.

[10:03] The first phase was kind of a feasibility assessment as part of our RFP response to this proposal.

[10:11] So we suggested that we do enough work as necessary as to provide a recommendation as to

[10:18] move into phase two, and phase two would be a detailed analysis of the preferred option.

[10:23] So we took a look at both a program of grade separations for both CP and CN.

[10:31] There were nine select locations to look at grade separations and the benefits and costs

[10:35] associated with each, or a relocation of the CP main line, and southern

[10:42] loan of the arts somewhere outside of the city, and I'll show you the various

[10:47] lines that we considered. And of course the third option is to do nothing. And phase

[10:53] two, again, was a detailed analysis of the preferred option.

[10:58] So the great separation

[10:59] portion of this evaluation framework was first of all to do some field

[11:06] investigations. So take a look at all nine of the proposed great separations or at great

[11:12] crossings currently in the city and decide between four various options. Would do is it feasible

[11:19] to go road over rail, so a road overpass, would the preferred solution be a road under rail

[11:27] or a road underpass? Would the preferred option be a rail over road, so a rail overpass and

[11:35] And there's one of those options here as well, or an elevated rail.

[11:42] So elevate the CP mainline over and above the existing road network through the downtown

[11:48] core.

[11:50] Or would the preferred option be a rail under road or a trench option?

[11:56] So to depress the CP mainline underneath the existing road network and have a number of

[12:02] grade or bridges across that trench.

[12:06] So we did that and we decided between each one of those four options or we evaluate each

[12:13] one of those four options and for each option we conducted preliminary engineering simply

[12:18] to estimate the construction costs.

[12:20] So we designed a conceptual overpass or grade separation concept and we cost it out in terms

[12:27] terms of what it would cost in construction, what it also would cost in terms of delay

[12:32] for motorists during the time of construction, so that is included in the benefit cost analysis as well.

[12:40] Then for each option on the benefit side of things we would estimate or monetize what the economic

[12:47] environmental and social outcomes would be to the extent that we could.

[12:52] and then compare the benefits to the costs, calculate a benefit cost ratio, calculate the net present value,

[13:01] and from those metrics determine whether it's feasible or whether the benefits outweigh the cost for each one of the great separation locations.

[13:09] Benefit cost ratio is simply the sum of the benefits divided by the sum of the costs.

[13:15] So if you have benefits higher than cost, your benefit cost ratio will be greater than 1.

[13:19] If your benefits are lower than the cost, your benefit cost ratio will be less than one.

[13:25] Net present value, again, is the present value of benefits, less the present value of costs.

[13:31] So if you have a net present value that is negative, benefits are less than cost,

[13:36] and net present value that is positive, the benefits away the cost.

[13:43] For the CP rail relocation option, the evaluation framework is again very similar

[13:49] to the great separation evaluation framework. First step is to conduct some field investigation

[13:57] in desktop research and determine potential alignments outside the city limits to relocate

[14:03] the CP rail. We then went to CP and engaged CP and showed them the various alignment options

[14:11] and engaged their feedback and CP provided feedback. Based on that feedback, we chose one alignment

[14:17] in order to estimate what the construction costs for that specific alignment would be.

[14:22] And again, we would estimate what the benefits associated with the rail relocation,

[14:27] so move the entire CP rail.

[14:29] Mainline plus southern and large southernland yards outside of the city limits.

[14:35] And what are the benefits associated with that relative to the cost?

[14:40] Again, we estimate what the benefit cost ratio would be, and the net present value.

[14:46] So the cost-benefit evaluation overall takes into a number of benefit categories such as vehicle

[14:56] wait time reductions, so this is a value of time metric.

[15:00] 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,

[15:29] and the average wage rate of truck drivers

[15:31] within the city of Saskatoon.

[15:34] We estimate what the economic savings

[15:37] to vehicle operating costs would be

[15:39] in terms of fuel burn, oil burn,

[15:44] you have to get an oil change more frequently,

[15:47] as well as depreciation to automobiles.

[15:50] And most importantly here, enhanced safety.

[15:54] So what we do there is we actually have a tool

[15:57] section by the Federal Railroad Administration in the U.S. that estimates what the safety

[16:04] impact in terms of the reductions in collisions for property damage, for injury, and for

[16:13] death, and monetize those reductions in collisions and we add that to the benefit stream as well.

[16:20] We have a benefit category here called improved emergency response times.

[16:26] Unfortunately, that is a qualitative assessment.

[16:30] We could not strictly monetize what the improvement to that would be for lack of detailed data.

[16:37] The whole study assumes that there is no net benefit to CP rail in terms of capacity or operating costs for any option here.

[16:47] So, we did not calculate what the operating cost improvement would to CP where L would

[16:54] be in terms of rail relocation or potential grade separation projects throughout the city.

[17:01] And everything here is discounted.

[17:04] So, we have, well, you'll see a little bit later on, undiscounted values and discounted values.

[17:09] Discounting takes into the time, takes into account the time value of money.

[17:13] In essence, if you have a dollar today, you prefer a dollar today in your hands versus

[17:18] a dollar tomorrow simply because you could invest that dollar and gain some return on

[17:24] that investment.

[17:25] So discounting is essentially taking that into account.

[17:30] It goes without saying, I think, that great separation and rail relocation benefits are largely

[17:38] dependent upon the level of train and vehicle traffic.

[17:42] The more training traffic that you have through the city of Saskatoon, the higher probability

[17:47] vehicles will be delayed and the longer they will be delayed and the more time is spent

[17:55] queuing for those traits to pass on average.

[17:58] And the more automobile traffic that you have throughout the city, again the larger the impact

[18:04] in terms of vehicle delay times would be.

[18:06] 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.

[18:24] 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.

[18:37] So,

[18:41] I've got a few slides here that show various great separation concepts.

[18:46] I'm going to spend a little bit of time, I guess, on the 22nd Street, just to explain

[18:52] what the process there was and explain some of the benefits.

[18:56] And then I'll probably jump through the other eight great separation locations fairly quickly.

[19:04] No surprises.

[19:05] I'll say right off the bat, I'm moving through them fairly quickly because simply the benefits

[19:11] for each one of these locations, the estimated benefits do not outweigh the cost.

[19:18] 22nd Street is very, very close to a break-even scenario in terms of benefits to costs when you have undiscounted values.

[19:30] So the rail, CP rail runs here and then 22nd Street, of course, along here.

[19:40] We took a look at this and the concept was to go rail

[19:47] over road or an underpass.

[19:50] So essentially the road network would be under the rail network.

[19:54] the rail would remain at its current elevation, and the roadway would go underneath the rail network here.

[20:03] 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.

[20:12] 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,

[20:21] Because the roadway is depressed, you no longer maintain access to those avenues.

[20:29] So we did not estimate what the business impact would be here.

[20:33] But I mean, there's a number of businesses here, giant tiger I believe.

[20:38] There's Tim Horton's and others.

[20:40] That would be affected by these road closures.

[20:41] They would have to have an alternate access to their businesses.

[20:46] So a number of these side streets here are the avenues would essentially be closed and have a call to SAP there.

[20:57] You can see by the magnitude of the benefits always here for each one of these locations.

[21:03] The travel time savings is the highest benefit.

[21:06] So that's the reduction in weight times associated with vehicle traffic multiplied by the average wage rate.

[21:14] We monetize and improve safety, etc.

[21:19] People operating costs. You also see a pavement maintenance cost category here that is a negative.

[21:26] So what that essentially is is that assumes that there's going to be some detour effect here

[21:31] and there will be some costs associated with that detour as well.

[21:36] So that was included.

[21:37] For each one of these locations, we assume the construction cost is two years

[21:42] and the benefits occur over the next 30 years.

[21:46] As I mentioned on discounting, you have close to a break even scenario on the benefit cost ratio here,

[21:54] undiscounted, but when you discount things because you're incurring costs in the next couple of years,

[22:01] but you're incurring receiving benefits over the following 30 years when you discount that the benefit cost ratio drops significantly.

[22:09] I should mention that this assumes a 10% discount factor, which is, comes from Transport Canada

[22:17] guidelines with respect to the National Trade Corridor Fund.

[22:21] Their guidelines suggested to do a 10% discount rate for applications to that fund.

[22:26] That's why we chose this.

[22:28] It's quite steep relative to other projects that I've done.

[22:33] Social discount rates I've seen are 3% rate, but regardless of what that discount rate

[22:38] is when you have an undiscounted benefit cost ratio that is simply break even, or less

[22:44] than one, it doesn't really matter what your discount rate is going to be. It's going

[22:47] to go lower on the benefits if you have costs up front.

[22:53] So that's 22nd Street.

[22:58] And then idle wild, drive, and 25th. Again, benefits are very similar

[23:07] to 22nd Street in that the ADT, the average daily traffic counts are very similar as well.

[23:12] I think they're a little bit higher here, but the capital costs associated with this

[23:18] grade separation are quite more extensive at a $61 million mark, and so that leads to a benefit

[23:26] cost ratio on discounted 0.8.

[23:32] Warm and road. Again, this is actually, I'm sorry, I should have

[23:37] Let's get back here.

[23:38] The first two are both road underpasses.

[23:43] The remainder here except for, say, one, are road overpasses.

[23:48] Typically road overpasses are easier to construct, cost a little bit less money than a road underpass,

[23:55] simply because you're avoiding an utility relocation, any pump stations that may be necessary and

[24:00] things like this.

[24:01] So you can see here, this one includes a little bit of an interchange and a couple of bridges,

[24:10] a $68 million capital cost and some $28 million of benefits.

[24:18] Preston Avenue North and CP,

[24:20] again this is an over-packs capital cost at $26 million, benefits at $23 million,

[24:27] un-discounted,

[24:31] central avenue, and the CP overpass again. Benefits here are some $50 million

[24:40] versus the cost of $29 million.

[24:46] Thirty-thirds street and CN. This is a little bit of a different

[24:51] configuration in that the preferred solution was actually to raise the rail over the roadway

[24:59] network. There wasn't enough room to actually do a roll over pass or under pass here. So

[25:06] we had to raise the rail. You can imagine that's a little bit of a costee proposition

[25:10] with embankments and things. And again, the capital cost is $45 million and benefits in

[25:20] the neighborhood of $14 to $15 million on discounted.

[25:25] And then Marquee Drive, I think I got

[25:29] That's right, Marquis, thank you.

[25:32] Again, a road over rail, and the benefits of $13 to $14 million on a capital cost of

[25:41] 23.

[25:43] And then the 11th Street, CN, road over rail, I'm sure you know there are some movements

[25:52] on CN here that we're aware of, and it's a tight configuration, but I think we came up

[25:59] with a little bit of an elegant solution here, but regardless, the daily traffic counts

[26:05] and the train volumes, I mean, when you take both of those into account, you get some

[26:09] $20 million in benefits versus the capital cost of some $44 million on discount.

[26:17] And then, 51st and CN, again, rolled over rail, capital cost of some $30 million in benefits

[26:26] of some 16.

[26:26] As

[26:31] I mentioned earlier, we also did on the great separation a couple of concepts, a

[26:36] trench concept here.

[26:38] So trench would be low-ring the CP mainline underneath the existing world wet network

[26:45] and having a number of bridges across that trench.

[26:47] This has been done before, most notably in Toronto, for their gold transit service.

[26:54] and they have a number of trains that are obviously running through the heart of Toronto.

[27:00] I think it's like four or five tracks there, but we would be lowering one main line track here

[27:04] below the existing road network and we made some assumptions on looked at the ADT profiles

[27:10] for a number of different roads and made some assumptions with respect to what roads would be closed

[27:18] versus what would remain open and have some bridge structures across the trench.

[27:23] you can understand with, you know, the utilities that are crossing and the number of different

[27:30] engineering issues, this is a costly proposition. I think this is the most costly proposition

[27:34] of all the options that we looked at. It has an estimated capital cost of some $519 billion

[27:41] and benefits of some 200 million on discounted.

[27:49] And a very similar concept, the CP rail elevated

[27:53] So, here you would build an embankment and run CP rail over the existing road network

[28:00] and basically punch through some holes in the embankment and have a rail bridge over

[28:07] those and allow traffic to flow underneath the CP rail.

[28:12] Less costly proposition relative to a transaction and again capital cost of about 200.

[28:23] benefits of about $100 million, so benefit cost ratio in the point five range. And of

[28:29] course, well, you would have a large embankment through the heart of the city as well.

[28:38] And then

[28:39] finally we took a look at some CP rail relocation options. Like I mentioned earlier, we did some field

[28:48] investigations and well spoke to the city and spoke to CP about this and the four lines

[28:56] on the map that you see here are the various options that we consider for rail relocation.

[29:02] The I guess is the paint line follows follows the right away for the perimeter highway.

[29:08] The red line follows the right of way the CN existing CN main line right of way.

[29:15] The blue line is, well, a couple of kilometers south of the city and then to try to avoid

[29:25] some of the property impacts we considered that green line as well further to the south

[29:32] of the city.

[29:34] We took these options to CP rail and CP rail informed us that the option that had the best

[29:44] potential of proceeding would be that, so based on that feedback, we took a look at the

[30:00] 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.

[30:30] And when you take the capital costs for that blue line option, it approaches $590 billion

[30:37] with benefits on discount purely monetized benefits here.

[30:47] So in summary, and I mentioned this earlier, from a pure monetary point of view,

[30:56] No options prove viable in terms of benefits outweighing the costs, both from a undiscounted

[31:05] and discounted perspective here.

[31:07] So this slide just shows you the CP rail separation of the aggregate of the five locations

[31:15] for CP rail, the aggregate of the four locations for CN, the CP rail relocation option two, which

[31:24] is the blue line there, as well as the CP elevate and CP

[31:29] tranche options in terms of construction costs,

[31:32] the benefit stream, the benefit cost ratio

[31:35] and that benefits.

[31:37] And I think we'll turn it to you now.

[31:39] It's all within to my colleagues from transportation,

[31:42] Chief Hackel from the fire department,

[31:45] Dan Paulson, the retired fire chief,

[31:47] and Leslie Anderson, director of planning.

[31:50] So together ourselves with our consultant

[31:53] that kind of came up with some outcomes and the next steps.

[31:57] So the great, so the great stuff, we determined that proposed that great separation should not

[32:02] be pursued further due to property and business impacts.

[32:05] From a pure monetary point of view, no option makes sense.

[32:09] However, there are intangible benefits that are hard to put a dollar value on such as improved

[32:15] emergency response times, access to community services,

[32:19] is neighborhood attractiveness, cohesiveness,

[32:23] connectivity, some term like that,

[32:27] that having the rail outside of the city

[32:30] or removing it from between neighborhoods

[32:32] is a benefit that's hard to put a dollar value on.

[32:36] And there will be less dangerous goods for the city.

[32:39] So we thought if a shared corridor can be achieved

[32:42] between the two rail companies

[32:43] that a rail location option may have some merit.

[32:45] 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.

[32:59] 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.

[33:12] This is the CP single track main line in the blue here, so it starts behind the new

[33:18] casco, behind Briarwood, cello lignards, or somewhere around here, cross-pressed the

[33:25] nitrogen.

[33:26] Over the river, alongside 33rd of the nidips down by the police station, Ottawa, 22nd, and

[33:31] over.

[33:33] This north-south green line is the CN warm and sub, so it has much less train traffic, but

[33:40] it's a sub-line that goes to parts north of the city.

[33:46] So the idea is, and again, there's a huge pot beside us with all the questions that

[33:51] we have.

[33:52] Right?

[33:52] So there's lots of questions that come along with that pop to mind, but it's the beginning

[33:58] of a scheme.

[33:59] Is that we build a third track, the project, somebody build a third track, south, immediately

[34:05] south of the two C-N main lines.

[34:07] So here's the C-N main lines.

[34:08] So a third track is billed just immediately south of it.

[34:14] One of those three tracks goes to CP.

[34:22] Today there's a single track bridge here.

[34:26] So CN has two tracks on this side, two tracks on this side, they have a single track here.

[34:31] So it's a bottleneck for CN.

[34:33] So we would upgrade, build maybe a three track bridge here.

[34:41] Build a new CPR, we've heard, I think it's public, there's developers and landowners,

[34:47] so a piece of city that have thrown out ideas that, hey, you could build a CPR here.

[34:54] We could remove, then remove the existing CP mainline track, so this CP mainline track

[34:59] could come out.

[35:00] There are a couple issues with that that go in the big bucket of questions.

[35:03] 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.

[35:16] 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.

[35:29] But again, maybe they have one, two trains a week, much less than the daily traffic of the CP mainline.

[35:38] And everything east of that can all come out.

[35:42] And then the southern yard has the potential to be redeveloped.

[35:51] So we propose moving forward, as opposed to having longer heads with the rail companies that we moved towards a business arrangement.

[36:00] That would result in, and here's the carrot for its CN.

[36:03] Again, there would be three lines, so one of the lines would be new, so CN or CP would

[36:09] get a new line, new infrastructure, there would be a new upgraded bridge, and for CN there

[36:14] would be no bottleneck at the bridge, so it would be more capacity for that company.

[36:22] CP, if CN doesn't get the new line, CP would get the new line, so one of them will get a new

[36:25] line, there would be a new yard, a new upgraded bridge, they would have increased running

[36:31] 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.

[36:43] So again, there's some increased capacity and operations benefits for CP.

[36:50] And then of course the city has many benefits, increased community and traffic safety, lower greenhouse gas, lower travel delays, improved emergency response.

[36:58] I haven't listed on here, but the neighborhood, the cohesiveness, connectivity part, and

[37:05] up with potential redevelopment area, or development area, and so on.

[37:10] So some next steps that we propose that some more engineering work to be done, to confirm

[37:17] that third track constraints.

[37:22] The two CN lines go underneath clearance, so do we need to widen that structure?

[37:27] At Valley Road, they go under, do we need to widen that structure?

[37:31] look at the other property impacts with a finer lens.

[37:37] You can refine the costs.

[37:39] As Fred mentioned, the $508 million dollar value came was an estimate of the blue line,

[37:46] which was a couple of kilometers south of the city.

[37:50] If we pursue the idea of a shared corridor, we think the costs will come down because there's

[37:54] less structures required.

[37:57] meet with CP, for sure, propose the plan to get their feedback.

[38:05] If CP is interested, then meet with CN and get their feedback.

[38:10] Both are interested, and if they're not interested,

[38:12] I think we need to step back and determine our next steps at that time, for sure.

[38:16] So it's a pretty wide open field on where we can go.

[38:22] In the short term, this is not really part of the study,

[38:25] but to help address the impacts of trade in the city,

[38:30] we want to continue with some technology ideas that we have.

[38:35] So we've received some feedback that we think that some folks are the perception that

[38:43] the rail, if it stays, will have a negative impact on the BRT system, and we don't think

[38:50] it will.

[38:51] The BRT project is moving down the lines of having real-time info for their users.

[38:57] So, here's some real examples.

[38:59] This is in Toronto, TTC.

[39:01] They're BRT system.

[39:03] So, it's a dynamic message board.

[39:06] Whatever 39E finish line is,

[39:08] and then there's the red bus here.

[39:10] So, it's a delayed.

[39:11] It's going to be at that location in 14 minutes

[39:13] and due to a traffic incident.

[39:16] So, we see this has been official.

[39:17] We think that the BRT system, when it's designed,

[39:23] we're going to have more delays from track

[39:24] from weather incidents, from traffic accidents

[39:27] then we will train, so we want to have the system anyways,

[39:31] this awareness system in place anyways,

[39:34] and then the BRT's, part of the design will have traffic signal priorities

[39:38] and geometric improvement to key locations where buses can make up the schedule.

[39:44] If they're on schedule, then we just don't need to play with the signal, for example.

[39:48] But if they're behind, then we can give them a huge jump to make them,

[39:51] give them an advantage over regular traffic so they can catch up.

[39:55] and that's been part of the plan from inception with the BRT.

[40:01] The one on the right is this is one of pig's real time info to BRT users.

[40:07] And also we think that if I'm a BRT user and there's a sense of comfort and knowing,

[40:14] okay, my bus is coming in five minutes, oh, it just jumped to ten minutes, oh, it's because there's a train.

[40:19] But it's still going to be here to pick me up.

[40:23] Railway crossing information system, so this is an example of Langley BC.

[40:29] They have six of these boards in place, so the top picture is actually how it's installed

[40:33] over the top of traffic.

[40:35] Against the dynamic boards, there's a blow-up of the board, and these change from open to

[40:41] train.

[40:42] It gives the information to a road user or driver as I approach that street, I approach that

[40:49] sign, I have a decision point to make, so they're put in strategic locations, okay?

[40:53] So here's telling me, don't go to Langley bypass, don't go to 200th Street, use the Fraser Highway.

[40:59] And it also has sensors that can, it knows when the train is coming, so it can,

[41:04] like, there might not be a train there this moment at 200th Street, but it's estimating knowing where

[41:10] you are looking at the sign, but time you get there, there will be a train. And then they have a nice

[41:13] little photograph of the bottom here, the train.

[41:18] So we are moving towards that. So here's kind of a

[41:22] a light system that we have received funding through the Rail Safety Improvement Program last year.

[41:30] And we're in the middle of procuring it to be installed this summer.

[41:35] So for example, we'll have a sign southbound traffic on circle drive just north of Clancy.

[41:43] And so when there's a train activity here,

[41:47] these signs will be flashing so it'll tell folks to get off onto Clancy.

[41:52] Likewise, approaching the area eastbound on 11th and westbound on 11th.

[41:58] I'm not exactly sure what we're doing northbound yet, I apologize, I'll ask the team.

[42:03] But again, but this is not, it doesn't have the forecasting ability, it's just simply

[42:10] if there's a train there, then these lights are going to go on.

[42:13] If you're driving in between this point and this point and a train arrives, you're unfortunately

[42:20] would it be stuck. But it's the beginning of a system. One issue we have, we have been talking

[42:26] to vendors about a system that tells us when a train is coming from outside the city, how long it

[42:31] is, what time it's going to get to these intersections so we can anticipate and tell that to drivers,

[42:37] and we could probably do it on the CP mainline and from the north on the CN warm and sub,

[42:44] 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.

[42:53] So there are some limitations to that but we're trying to sort those things out.

[42:58] So we are moving with some ideas in the short term.

[43:02] Finally, I don't want to slide but the rail working group is active.

[43:06] Who's the rail companies and some business folks and the city.

[43:10] and we just try to deal, meet regularly, try to be a deal with the operational issues as they come up.

[43:20] And finally, here's the recommendation in front of you,

[43:24] verbatim from the report.

[43:25] Just want to emphasize that we're not seeking approval to do real relocation today.

[43:32] It's simply to move forward with phase two and to evaluate C and C, P,

[43:39] be operating in a shared corridor, to keep going down that line of thinking.

[43:44] But this is by no means a, we're asking for a concrete decision on rail relocation is the way to go.

[43:58] Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Megas and Mr. Kramer.

[44:02] And thank you to committee members for restraining yourselves.

[44:05] I know you have lots of questions in the urge to hit your button, it's probably significant.

[44:11] So at this time, I'll invite our speaker, Mr. Keith Moan, to the podium.

[45:00] 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.

[45:30] and support the recommendation made forth by Mr. Magus and administration.

[45:35] So just to elaborate a little bit, we support relocation over the other options,

[45:39] such as overpasses, tunnels, trenches, et cetera.

[45:42] And in fact, the relocation's options presented.

[45:45] Again, we support the one calling for a twin of the CN line south of the city.

[45:50] Relocating rail can unlock the potential of the city and fits within the city's growth plans.

[45:55] Space currently occupied by rail lines and yards can be used for things such

[45:59] is in fill development, they could also become active transportation corridors that link

[46:03] disparate parts of the city. Removal of them will also make the BRT project more successful

[46:09] since its success is dependent upon bringing in more ridership and rail delays will severely

[46:14] impact that. Removal has less construction pain on the main areas of the city than the

[46:20] other solutions which could take up to 10 years to fully implement and construct and we clearly

[46:26] understand that this potential project will cost a lot of money, but in our opinion it

[46:31] is one of the key pieces of the future of Saskatoon. In fact, we have precedent here is the

[46:35] relocation of the CN yards in downtown Saskatoon, transformed the downtown core and set the

[46:41] stage for a revitalized downtown area that is now the envy of many cities across the can, across Canada,

[46:47] coast to coast to coast. Also, if there's some hesitation, I just want to point out the obvious

[46:53] that if you go down the path of grade separations and you do one or two, that ship is sailed.

[46:58] This is your prime opportunity to make a defining definitive decision regarding the future

[47:03] of south to planning and transportation.

[47:05] Therefore, high recommendation is that the rail relocation should be a priority for funding

[47:10] and planning, even if it comes at the expense of other less costly projects currently in

[47:15] the works or in consideration.

[47:17] I encourage you to think big, to think as big as you possibly can because this is a prime

[47:23] opportunity for us because, and I'll defer to my business background, the business

[47:29] case is here. Time is money. And there are many many options that will allow you to make

[47:38] it so it's more beneficial to Saskatoon residents and businesses overall. And I can't emphasize

[47:45] the case enough for both the CNCP opportunity. If you can make their transportation of goods

[47:52] 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.

[48:04] Thank you.

[48:08] Thank you very much, Mr. Moan.

[48:10] Do you have a question, Councillor Dunham?

[48:13] Okay, perfect, please go ahead.

[48:15] 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.

[48:21] So for us to spend over half a billion dollars, we're looking at significant tax increases.

[48:26] Are you willing to love me, your membership, that's what you support?

[48:31] 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.

[48:39] Nor are we expecting it to be a tomorrow.

[48:41] No, thank you.

[48:42] All right.

[48:43] We're recognizing that this will be long, long term and significant investment on that.

[48:48] Okay.

[48:48] So if somebody wants us to spend that kind of money, they need to be part of the parade outlingly

[48:53] in favor of what that's all I'm saying.

[48:55] Absolutely.

[48:55] And we will.

[48:56] And I'll hear from my members that are in opposition to that.

[48:59] Sure.

[48:59] I will.

[49:00] Yeah.

[49:00] Thank you.

[49:02] Okay.

[49:03] Thank you, Councillor Dunerror.

[49:05] Your worship.

[49:07] Thank you.

[49:08] And thanks for coming.

[49:09] Mr. Moan, and I know you've been working on this and interested in this for some time.

[49:12] 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.

[49:23] This is actually no impact on Marcus Drive 51st.

[49:28] 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.

[49:38] here.

[49:40] And you said the business case is there. When I saw the report, the business case

[49:48] is pretty negative when it comes to factoring in and even incorporating things like safety,

[49:58] vehicle emissions, vehicle operating costs, savings, travel time, savings, some soft and

[50:04] cost, then that present value doesn't come close to one, and it's negative in the hundreds of millions under any scenario.

[50:13] So, if I was a business and I was looking at this, I think I'd be in a pretty tough spot.

[50:20] So, how, can you explain your comment at the business cases there?

[50:23] I misspoke in that one sense of it being a true business case where I was referencing was with respect to the possible

[50:29] twinning of the portion with specifically the bridge.

[50:33] If CN can get a second line on crossing the south Saskatchewan again, time being money is the reference I was trying to

[50:40] allude to, but they would encourage that type of development and therefore possibly invest in.

[50:47] I suggest that they would, if you could provide a scenario whereby there

[50:55] there would be some public dollars going into a piece of infrastructure that they would then benefit from.

[50:59] So the business case in that respect would be there.

[51:01] 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.

[51:11] It only does option two, you're not suggesting, then you're not pursuing those other options.

[51:18] But if there would be some scenario where the shared line option could work,

[51:23] that that's the scenario that you're suggesting.

[51:28] Would you also, if that didn't work, would you come back and say, try option two or?

[51:33] Possibly, I think we're in the area of Mr. Maggs as a big pot of questions right now.

[51:37] We sure are.

[51:38] Yeah, we are.

[51:40] And although that's our preferred route, I can't speak on behalf clearly of CN or CP,

[51:46] because in order for the route or the option that we're suggesting and

[51:50] promoting to be successful, they have to be obviously an agreement to it.

[51:55] So that would be the caveat, the one big, the big one to overcome.

[51:59] So let's cross that bridge and get to it.

[52:03] Okay, just for clarification, because I think the business case is very rough on all the other scenarios.

[52:09] And I didn't want to misunderstand what you were saying there.

[52:13] Okay, no, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

[52:15] Okay, thank you.

[52:17] That's my question.

[52:18] Okay, thank you very much, and I don't see any other questions for you, Mr. Moan.

[52:22] Thank you very much for coming today.

[52:25] Okay, so we've had our presentation from administration.

[52:27] We've had our speakers.

[52:28] So if I could get a motion to open discussion, please, are you moving the recommendation as

[52:35] put forward by administration, Councillor Block?

[52:37] Okay.

[52:38] Thank you very much.

[52:39] Now we will go to questions of our administration or the consultant, and then after that

[52:46] That will go into comments and any debate here.

[52:49] So, to start it off, we have Councillor Dunnauer.

[52:52] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[52:54] I have a question for Mr. Kramer, if I'm prepared to ask, so Mr. Kramer, this is what

[53:01] you do for a living.

[53:03] Have you been successful in moving a rail out of any other major city in Canada so far?

[53:10] I'm sorry, not successful, that's maybe the inappropriate term.

[53:13] Have you been a part of that in your company?

[53:16] not in Canada. I have done feasibility assessments for areas in the US, and I

[53:23] got to say I cannot recall. A couple of them are in the works, I believe, but I

[53:30] cannot recall the one that has actually been implemented at this point in time

[53:34] that I personally have been involved with. You do understand there have been

[53:39] successful implementation. I believe in Regina, Leth, Rich, and other areas for

[53:44] or rail relocation outside of city limits.

[53:46] Thank you very much.

[53:47] My next question is for Mr. Magus.

[53:50] And it's regarding BRT.

[53:52] You stated that rail delays won't be a problem for BRT,

[53:59] and I think you said that there'd be more delays

[54:01] from weather and car accidents than from trains.

[54:05] I need you to expand on that a little bit,

[54:07] because I don't drive 22nd Street regularly every day,

[54:11] but I hear from people that there's like 15-20 minute delays there. If BRT's

[54:17] flipping every five or six minutes, that tells me there's going to be four or five

[54:21] buses lined up, haven't gone anywhere during the duration of a long

[54:25] train. Am I wrong on that? And how does that work? How will BRT work when there's a

[54:32] 20-minute delay a couple times a day? I don't have the math or you know the hard

[54:40] information to show you, I just know when we were talking on the BRT team, you know, on

[54:49] the onset of the project, and we talked about why do we need traffic signal priority or

[54:55] why do we need geometric improvements at key locations to enable buses to catch up.

[55:03] And the reason was, was that sometimes they will get behind because of whether incidents

[55:08] or traffic or construction on a long 20 second speed.

[55:14] And then the last few months, the rail study has become more crystallized

[55:20] in how we're going to present it.

[55:23] And we had a brief discussion on the rail,

[55:28] okay, will the BRT system be harmed by the rail?

[55:33] And the discussion in the room, and we concluded that,

[55:36] that it's part of the things that we want to mitigate, part of, you know, it goes into

[55:43] the pile of traffic issues, whether issues, other types of delays that will, the technology

[55:51] and the geometrics will help the buses catch up. So, I don't have the detailed assessment

[55:57] of the number of times and the likes.

[55:59] All right, Farina, thank you, Mr. Mages, and thank you for the report and all the work you

[56:02] do.

[56:04] Okay, next up is your worship.

[56:10] I think.

[56:12] Okay.

[56:16] Yeah, I have a lot of different questions.

[56:18] I'm going to try and a lot of them came up through the presentation.

[56:22] I guess to Mr. Kramer, if you could comment through the study on CN, the CN line,

[56:28] because when you looked at relocation options, really looked at CP and not CN,

[56:35] and which is one of the lines that's having an impact on traffic and safety issues through the city.

[56:42] Can you discuss why that wasn't contemplated as part of the?

[56:48] Because then actually in the scope of work, it wasn't in the scope, yeah, better than responded to.

[56:53] Yes, Ms. Gardner.

[56:54] Sure, if I can just add, when we looked at the nine priority or locations for

[57:03] grade separation. Five were CP and four were CN. The evaluating and looking at the

[57:12] average daily traffic at each of those, the CP was primarily the more, the ones that

[57:18] had the higher, would have the most benefit by a grade separation. So, when we developed

[57:23] the scope of the study for phase one, we said if CP doesn't make sense to relocate, then

[57:29] And there's no sense expanding it to CN at that point, so it was looking at CN was going

[57:35] to be an afterthought if CP made sense at that time.

[57:40] Thank you, and I realize now that makes sense for that to go back to our administration,

[57:47] not Mr. Kramer to answer.

[57:49] I guess Mr. Kramer, you don't make a recommendation in your report per se.

[57:55] I know Edmin has sort of taken the report and made their recommendations.

[58:00] What would your recommendation be based on everything that you see in front of you and

[58:07] the work you've done in other cities?

[58:09] I would explore the, I would concur with the city's recommendation to explore a shared corridor,

[58:18] or not shared track or shared infrastructure because that, in my opinion, the Class 1 Rail

[58:27] Road would not seriously look at any shared infrastructure, but I would look at a shared

[58:33] corridor simply because, as you rightly mentioned, none of the options actually from a pure

[58:40] monetary point of view proved out, but the red line option has certain advantages with

[58:46] respect to coughs, reductions relative to the blue line option. The blue line option had a number

[58:53] of grade separations, a highway over rail that would have to be constructed, that kind of the

[59:03] option one or the red line options. If there's sufficient room to enter existing infrastructure,

[59:09] those grade separations would become a lot less costly. The red option also does not require

[59:16] 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.

[59:32] So that's quite a costly proposition as well.

[59:36] I personally feel that a commercial arrangement could be worked out.

[59:43] I'm not, you know, there are benefits to all parties, as Jay rightly pointed out.

[59:48] The CN would benefit from reductions in their, the bottleneck at the Salsa Saskatchewan

[59:55] Bridge, in terms of fluidity of the rail network.

[1:00:00] 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

[1:00:29] associated with the city are all those benefits that we talked about.

[1:00:33] So if we can get, if there's some sort of, and the way I would approach it, is that,

[1:00:38] you know, CP and CN would have to do their own math on this.

[1:00:42] And if they saw there were some financial benefits associated with this proposed solution,

[1:00:51] why wouldn't you come to the table?

[1:00:52] They're a private company and when there are financial benefits to be had to that corporation,

[1:00:58] then you seriously look at that. So yes, that would be my recommendation.

[1:01:03] And I think it's probably important to clarify then because the media stories coming up

[1:01:09] to this have sort of indicated that the city is saying let's explore relocation and that

[1:01:15] the cost is tied to the relocation is the $590 million. But we have no cost whatsoever

[1:01:22] for what that shared route. When you looked at this, you initially looked at the shared

[1:01:27] groups and then identified that CP had said that the most likely was the blue

[1:01:33] group so we didn't cost out this idea of the shared quarter so we do not have

[1:01:38] any numbers for what that would look like at this point. That's correct. And it

[1:01:43] like you said, the companies may have a different way of valuing some of those

[1:01:50] things that we're not aware of at this point at all. Sure. As well. I just wanted to

[1:01:55] I also ask you about the BRT since its HDR that's also doing our bus rapid transit plan.

[1:02:02] And I think there's been questions when the city originally started to look at more

[1:02:07] rapid frequency down 8th street.

[1:02:11] We said we were going to wait to look at it down 22nd, one of the reasons that was identified

[1:02:16] was trains.

[1:02:17] And I think that's perhaps why there's been some question about the impact.

[1:02:20] When we have 6.6 trains per day right now average on the CP line, from the point of view

[1:02:29] of operating a successful bus rapid transit would you then concur that this is not a major

[1:02:35] barrier to bus rapid transit being successful, particularly if the technological advancements

[1:02:44] that we've seen at developing more recently, commentively.

[1:02:50] So I'm not a bus rapid transit expert.

[1:02:53] I'm more on the freight rail side thing, so I'm hesitant to answer this question.

[1:02:58] I'll offer one comment.

[1:03:00] Those 6.6 trains that you mentioned, that includes some interchange trains between

[1:03:06] CP and CN, between Sutherland Yard and Chapel Yard.

[1:03:12] So, approximately one train a day, both ways are those smaller type interchange trains that

[1:03:22] I believe, not 100% certain, are running outside of a BRT time zone.

[1:03:29] So it's more on the neighborhood of like five trains through trains per day on the main

[1:03:35] line track.

[1:03:37] I have to leave it to others to evaluate what impact I would have on the PRT.

[1:03:43] I wasn't sure if there was how much cost of pollination there was between the two contracts.

[1:03:48] And then I just thought, I think my last question for you is the estimate of the number of trains,

[1:03:55] there's the 6.6 and then you project out to the future.

[1:03:59] I think this is one of the real challenges when we're talking about a project of this magnitude

[1:04:04] is especially based on current state, I think the recommendation is that the cost benefit

[1:04:11] is very low, but if we see an increase in trains that could affect things, I think there's,

[1:04:17] and this is probably really hard to answer, but I just wanted to get your take on it.

[1:04:21] We don't know what the future of rail travel is going to be, and we also don't know how,

[1:04:26] for talking about 30 years old technology is going to change transportation, there's lots

[1:04:30] of talk about autonomous vehicles and some of these types of things, and we're trying

[1:04:36] to make a decision based on having a best impact 30 years down the road, could you talk

[1:04:42] a bit about those factors? Well, my specific question would be how certain are you about

[1:04:52] the projections, because it does show an increase in trains up to 12, I think, per day on the CP

[1:04:59] In fact, how solid is our ability to project out that far?

[1:05:06] I have no crystal ball.

[1:05:11] We basically forecasted, based, well, first of all, we have a number of people within

[1:05:16] HDR that are formally employed by the CP and the CM.

[1:05:22] These people know fair bit about how trains are rooted through the city and CP has a number

[1:05:30] of different options in order to move, for instance, pod ash or crude oil or other commodities

[1:05:36] that they have.

[1:05:38] So basically what we did on the forecast basis is a bottom up build.

[1:05:41] It wasn't just kind of a trend line over time because as you probably recall a few years

[1:05:48] ago.

[1:05:48] So there was a lot more CP rail traffic than it is currently, so we have to take that

[1:05:53] into account, more specifically with crude oil by rail.

[1:05:57] So there's a bunch of different factors that could affect that forecast.

[1:06:02] If I was to put up a range around that forecast in 30 years from now, it could be plus or

[1:06:09] minus 50%.

[1:06:11] Key factors driving that forecast are the availability of pipelines through well to tide

[1:06:20] water or to the U.S., Keystone XL, etc., the viability of new pod ash mines within Saskatchewan

[1:06:32] and the location of those pod ash mines.

[1:06:35] And general growth in grain traffic

[1:06:40] through increased crop yields, et cetera,

[1:06:42] that we're seeing.

[1:06:44] So those are the major factors that would affect the forecast.

[1:06:50] Yeah, I think I solved there.

[1:06:51] So plus or minus 50% is here, I see.

[1:06:57] And then any comments on transportation technology

[1:07:01] which has become more and more of an impact, more and more of a discussion, even as we've

[1:07:06] been building out our BRT in terms of vehicle traffic projections and some of those things

[1:07:13] that could change as a result of technology.

[1:07:19] Was that something that you considered in forecast of train counts, for instance, and the

[1:07:25] The key impact on the delay in terms of vehicle travel time and so on.

[1:07:32] That was something that we did not consider within the benefit cost analysis.

[1:07:40] I will say this, I guess, for autonomous vehicles, for instance, and for electric vehicles,

[1:07:45] for instance, the emissions factors will probably reduce over time.

[1:07:49] So your emissions impact would be less.

[1:07:52] Yes, but as you notice, the emission impact on the total impact are very small.

[1:07:56] Regardless of whether you have autonomous vehicles or not, you still have a passenger,

[1:08:02] you still have someone that is waiting for a train at a level crossing, regardless of which

[1:08:07] technology it is.

[1:08:09] So you would have that travel time impact, which is by large, probably 90% of the total

[1:08:16] impact that we calculated overall.

[1:08:20] You know, there's been things in the press about autonomous truck as well, potentially reducing

[1:08:31] the cost of freight by truck, again, and relative to train traffic.

[1:08:39] But again, and diverting some of that rail traffic to trucks, for instance, but that was

[1:08:44] not taken into account.

[1:08:45] That's just, those things are two uncertain to actually put a forecast on.

[1:08:51] So I guess my assumption at this point is that some of these costs could be affected.

[1:08:58] Some of these estimates could be affected if the patterns of traffic change as a result of technology.

[1:09:06] Sure.

[1:09:08] 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.

[1:09:30] We're working with both CN and CP on technological improvements at intersections and warning systems

[1:09:39] and some of those types of things, and you said you're not recommending relocation,

[1:09:45] but there may be a possibility with this shared corridor that hasn't been explored as much

[1:09:52] that you're suggesting to explore further in discussion with CN and CP.

[1:09:57] Correct, so the recommendation is that we move forward with further exploring the shared

[1:10:04] corridor option and just to touch on that the current at grade intersections transport

[1:10:12] candidate regulations have changed a few years ago, so we are in the middle of a significant

[1:10:17] program with the rail companies on improving those to meet the current regulations for safety.

[1:10:25] So there's physical things you can do at the intersection, you showed the way you can communicate through with BRT systems to people.

[1:10:34] 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.

[1:10:54] about training delays for all all users of all all modes of transportation is

[1:11:00] that an option that we have as well. So correct today you know Google traffic will

[1:11:05] show you where there's delays I hesitate to promote that because that if you're

[1:11:11] driving that's distracting you so if your passengers are looking at your at the

[1:11:15] phone and advising you that's good but you know there's there's real-time

[1:11:21] applications like that that do exist and they're probably getting easier to use that

[1:11:25] show current traffic conditions. A lot of people drive now with a GPS that gives them

[1:11:32] directions to places, right? It's built into their vehicle. I assume that's the kind of

[1:11:38] thing that eventually could be incorporating this information as well. Correct.

[1:11:44] And yeah, okay. Okay, I think those are all my questions. Thank you very much.

[1:11:48] Okay,

[1:11:52] thank you. Next up, we have Councillor

[1:11:59] Gersher and Councillor Gough, are you okay?

[1:12:02] Well, I don't mean to skip over you. We'll just stick with our committee members for a first round here.

[1:12:09] So, thank you.

[1:12:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cough, for your patience.

[1:12:16] I feel like my questions are going to seem silly in the context of the amount of dollars we're talking about.

[1:12:20] but I'll start with that, Mr. Megas, is there a way to gauge the interest of CNN, CP,

[1:12:29] with the shared corridor idea without spending $100,000?

[1:12:34] Is it possible to have those conversations initially, before going ahead to some more

[1:12:41] of the detailed drawing phasers, that not a possibility?

[1:12:46] 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.

[1:13:17] maybe some refined costs and the $100,000 it's spent as we need it.

[1:13:26] It's not a lump sum tomorrow. Here you go HDR. It's as we need it.

[1:13:33] And again, that's kind of be an upset limit on the project.

[1:13:36] So if we need to do less work to get there, then of course we'll just spend as much as we need to.

[1:13:42] And could you remind me those dollars came from PTIF funds, so they're partly not just

[1:13:48] a city of Saskatoon dollars, but supported?

[1:13:50] Correct, so it's $50,000 to the city.

[1:13:55] Thank you.

[1:13:56] And then my other question is for Mr. Kramer.

[1:13:59] And this one's also going to seem really simple, but I want to make sure I got it straight.

[1:14:03] The cost estimate that's been provided throughout the document could be as different as 50% to

[1:14:12] 100% and so when we're talking, for example, the relocation looking at the nearest 600

[1:14:18] million that means it could be half of that or double that, that's the, am I reading

[1:14:23] that right?

[1:14:24] This is a conceptual cost estimate so basically on the conceptual class I think is class

[1:14:29] D, it's used around the 50 minus 50 to plus 100. There is a, we carry a 30% contingency

[1:14:39] see in all our estimates currently.

[1:14:46] So that means it could be after doubled.

[1:14:50] Okay. You know what?

[1:14:50] Because we have a 30% contingency.

[1:14:53] I don't think I would say it would be doubled.

[1:14:55] It could be as high as 70% more.

[1:14:58] Okay.

[1:15:00] Okay. Thank you for the clarification. That's it.

[1:15:05] Okay, Councillor Goff. Thank you, Chair

[1:15:09] Jeffries. And no offense taken. I did the same thing to Councillor Donner this morning. So we

[1:15:15] have to follow the rules. I'm wondering if anybody has an estimate or even hard numbers for what

[1:15:22] the average traffic delay at 22nd Street with a train is, of course, all trains are not the same

[1:15:30] You know, I understand there's some variability in there.

[1:15:33] Do we actually know what the average delay is?

[1:15:36] I know there's 6.6 a day in 2017.

[1:15:40] So I don't have that figure.

[1:15:43] That figure, I can get that figure for you.

[1:15:46] Okay.

[1:15:46] I would ask to meet that's probably in the seven to 10 minute

[1:15:49] range or something like this.

[1:15:50] On average for, you know, a person that's delayed

[1:15:53] at the front of the queue versus the person

[1:15:55] that just comes up to the back of the queue.

[1:15:57] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:15:58] And that's consistent with my experience, but I never like to base any large decisions on the

[1:16:06] casual experiences of anyone person, including myself. I'm also continued to be concerned about the

[1:16:12] impact on best rapid transit. I'm sure you know who I was getting there. And for me, I guess the

[1:16:19] concern for me is does a seven to ten minute delay result in a couple few buses backed up and then

[1:16:26] And a limited benefit to actually that frequency, that something like a car accident might not

[1:16:34] produce when only traffic is reduced by one lane, for instance.

[1:16:38] So I'm interested in knowing when we anticipate hearing from the BRT team about this consideration,

[1:16:45] when will they be considering or have they in detail this operational reality.

[1:16:50] and whether the mechanisms we are anticipating will be included in the bus

[1:16:55] rubber transit recommendation detailed design in terms of these mitigation efforts,

[1:17:00] whether they will be sufficient to mitigate the impact of train delay.

[1:17:04] So I'm wondering that's probably not for you, but whether we have a bit of a

[1:17:09] timeline with respect to when the BRT team will have done a sufficiently detailed

[1:17:14] assessment to know whether this mitigation and these

[1:17:18] train delays will match up. And I'm not expecting that we

[1:17:22] will never have a late bus, you know, but I'm just wanting to know when they'll

[1:17:27] have that assessment for us. I'm through you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a specific

[1:17:32] timeframe. The BRT project is in line to bring forward a report in June. Now that

[1:17:40] 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.

[1:17:56] 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,

[1:18:07] whether it's transit-related or just, you know, for other motorists to minimize the impact of

[1:18:13] rail delays, it would be outlining a plan and some options and then going forward for implementation

[1:18:20] after that. And would it be doing a quantitative analysis of what the actual impact would be

[1:18:26] with those plans in place or those options in place? I think that's going to be one of the big

[1:18:31] 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.

[1:18:42] There's a number of other impacts and delays that might be experienced as part of the BRT project.

[1:18:47] So we can do some analysis to identify what part of or how BRT will be impacted from rail versus other impacts.

[1:18:59] So do a bit of a comparative analysis as well as part of that.

[1:19:02] Yeah, and I think that, you know, as I said, because rail blocks all lanes of traffic and

[1:19:09] also has kind of a set time, you know, we should be able to do some of those estimates.

[1:19:13] And I guess what I'm suggesting is before we get, or at least in time, for, you know,

[1:19:20] a next phase of reporting on this, especially if it's, you know, proposing that we need to make a

[1:19:25] decision about something that we would have hard numbers for that, so that we understand

[1:19:31] the operational consequences of the decisions we're making.

[1:19:35] Yes, and just to expand the, as has been mentioned, the BRT team is already looking at technology

[1:19:44] solutions or that, so this will be incorporated into that.

[1:19:47] But even in addition to that, our transportation division is developing an ITS strategy, so

[1:19:55] systems looking at technology to help traffic flows throughout the city.

[1:19:58] So there's a couple of different angles that will be coming at this from, so it's not

[1:20:02] just purely from a BRT perspective, but from an overall transportation flow and efficiency

[1:20:07] throughout the city.

[1:20:08] Great.

[1:20:09] Thank you.

[1:20:10] I'm also wondering, with respect to the benefits in this report, I know that there's lots

[1:20:15] of intangibles, and I'm wondering, I couldn't seem to find in here whether there was any monetized

[1:20:23] benefit for the reduction in emergency response operations. I know there's talk about safety in terms

[1:20:31] of collisions and, you know, safety regarding actual rail intersecting with road. But I know,

[1:20:37] for instance, there are some areas of the city where our emergency crews actually have to send out

[1:20:42] two crews because they're not sure how they're going to be able to get through. Was that quantified

[1:20:46] it all in this study? It was not just addressed qualitatively. So I understand that is an impact

[1:20:53] We just did not have enough hard data to actually quantify that impact.

[1:21:00] Okay.

[1:21:04] And finally, I'm wondering what, and this is probably, well, I don't know who will answer this.

[1:21:11] But why do consideration for all of the grade separations or none of the grade separations going forward?

[1:21:21] I mean, first of all, we're still talking about a potential relocation, or we're still

[1:21:26] being recommended to consider a potential relocation, so I'm not suggesting separations

[1:21:30] that CP should be considered at this point, if we proceed with that.

[1:21:35] But I'm wondering why all are none, and whether there is an identified opportunity to consider

[1:21:42] the, you know, prioritization of grade separation needs in the city that remain kind of after

[1:21:52] phase two based on both the quantifiable monetizable, you know, items as well as the intangible

[1:22:01] community impact considerations.

[1:22:07] I don't think it was all or none, so a couple of the slides that you saw there, it said,

[1:22:11] you know, all five CP grade separations, all five CN grade separations, we looked

[1:22:17] at a program of grade separations that could include zero through to nine separate

[1:22:23] locations to be grade separated. So a program could be one grade separation project on

[1:22:29] 22nd, for instance. It could be two grade separations. So if I was to do a program of grade

[1:22:36] separations, I would do exactly what you're saying. I would prioritize those grade

[1:22:40] separation as, you know, the highest benefit to cost ratio, for instance.

[1:22:46] And I understand that the report did consider the cost benefit ratios of each one,

[1:22:51] separately. I'm not denying that. I'm more looking at the recommendation in the report,

[1:22:55] so maybe the question is more for Mr. Megas. Why is the recommendation at this stage to consider

[1:23:02] relocation, a further relocation option and no discussion of the future considerations of

[1:23:07] of grade separation, depending on the outcome of that phase two.

[1:23:15] Good question. And I think that when we looked at each individual grade separation project,

[1:23:26] first of all, none of them proved out monetary. So today or 30 years from now after it's discounted.

[1:23:33] So to me that was the big one, if there was, let's say, one location that significantly

[1:23:39] proved out financially and didn't have a big impact on adjacent property and businesses

[1:23:46] then we might have probably would have come up with a different recommendation.

[1:23:52] But none of the nine kind of led us that way.

[1:23:57] Okay.

[1:23:58] That's fair.

[1:23:58] So I guess what I would say, and I won't be making any recommendations because I don't

[1:24:05] sit on this committee.

[1:24:06] But what I would say is that, you know, I think that each of us could pick a couple

[1:24:10] of intersections to us that are of greater priority for, you know, impact on community than

[1:24:15] others.

[1:24:16] And I would hate to be providing direction this month, and I understand this will go to council.

[1:24:22] You know, to consider the next step of relocation without then considering the potential

[1:24:28] So options of grade separation at whatever intersections remain at grade intersections

[1:24:37] remain depending on the outcome of phase two and decisions following that.

[1:24:41] So if there's nothing in addition to the recommendation move today, I will likely be considering

[1:24:48] moving a report back for a discussion around grade separation options following the results

[1:24:55] 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.

[1:25:07] Thank you Councillor Gough, and I have a few questions myself that I'll go through. I'll start off with Mr. Kramer.

[1:25:20] You had identified that the option that the administration has put forward as a recommended

[1:25:27] more work to be done in terms of relocation is likely to come in at a lower cost or perhaps

[1:25:33] that was Mr. Magus.

[1:25:35] You have no sense at this point of what that magnitude might be without actually having

[1:25:40] done the work.

[1:25:42] I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing where a person could do the back of a napkin calculation

[1:25:46] and say, well, based upon looking at this conceptually and very initially, you know, this might

[1:25:52] be $50 million less, or perhaps that's just not something that a person could do.

[1:26:00] I think we would have to do some engineering first of all, because there may be a number

[1:26:05] of locations that a third main could not fit under a current grade separation, for instance.

[1:26:11] So that's going to make a significant difference on the costs.

[1:26:15] 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.

[1:26:31] So there are some economies there, but without at least doing a preliminary site visit, some measurements to see what actually could be done.

[1:26:43] In terms of utilizing existing public infrastructure, I'd be hesitant to give a number at this point in time.

[1:26:53] Thank you. It was identified that CNN already has a bottleneck crossing the river.

[1:26:58] Is there any indication I know that that piece of infrastructure is really old.

[1:27:03] 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

[1:27:13] I see an asset.

[1:27:16] It is a CN asset and yeah, I couldn't comment on the remaining useful service life of that

[1:27:21] asset either.

[1:27:22] I mean, it really depends on their maintenance procedures and things like this.

[1:27:28] Okay.

[1:27:30] Finally,

[1:27:33] I know in previous times we've around this table when we've discussed rail relocation,

[1:27:39] significantly higher numbers that have been thrown around and so when we saw it's still

[1:27:44] a very large number in front of us in this report. It seemed a lot smaller than perhaps

[1:27:49] what we've talked about previously. Can you perhaps speak to why that might be? Is it

[1:27:55] just that we weren't really actually talking about anything specific? And it was just general

[1:28:01] numbers as we talked about maybe perhaps moving a track well outside the city and just some

[1:28:08] of the expenses associated with that? I know I'm asking you to answer something where you

[1:28:12] 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.

[1:28:26] Certainly, the number that's in front of us here is very large, but at least on a relative basis feels more achievable.

[1:28:35] Actually, Mr. Chair, I'll probably answer that because Mr. Kramer wasn't involved in

[1:28:39] some of those previous numbers that have been thrown around.

[1:28:43] As you suggest, the previous numbers did not include any kind of detailed feasibility

[1:28:48] or engineering design.

[1:28:50] It was simply numbers that either CP or CN had thrown at us or alluded to.

[1:28:58] So now this is the first time that we've actually done some detailed analysis to identify and

[1:29:03] come up with a number.

[1:29:04] So, this number here has a lot more substance to it than what has previously been stated.

[1:29:12] Thank you.

[1:29:13] And, Mr. Kramer, perhaps this one could be for you as well.

[1:29:17] I've seen the report.

[1:29:18] There's an identified amount of environmental restoration at about $10 million.

[1:29:23] And can you speak to what that might be tied to?

[1:29:26] That was for the relocation option and the cost estimate.

[1:29:30] If memory serves the relocation option to the blue line, involve some wetlands crossings,

[1:29:40] which I believe would have to be mitigated, in other words replace the wetlands.

[1:29:45] So I, not 100% sure on that cost estimate and I can give you more definitive answer later,

[1:29:53] but that's what I believe it was related to.

[1:29:56] Okay, but it wouldn't have involved Brownfield.

[1:30:00] 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?

[1:30:31] Obviously we've already heard that they're agreeable to talking, at least that's what

[1:30:35] CPS said and that's very good to hear, but just curious if you have a sense of how

[1:30:41] that might unfold.

[1:30:43] So just off the top of my head this morning I kind of jotted down in an email to somebody

[1:30:49] else about what some timelines might be and if so I'm thinking two to three months to do

[1:30:54] some more engineering work and then two to three months to set up some meetings and have

[1:30:58] some further discussions. So at the quickest, we can maybe report back in six, seven months

[1:31:05] and then after that is really, I mean, it's really, it's really hazy where things could

[1:31:12] go after that. Okay. Related specifically to the recommendation

[1:31:17] as to how we move forward, it was identified that we've got some additional PTIF funding

[1:31:23] that we wouldn't likely be spending if we take the recommended option. Is there an

[1:31:28] 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.

[1:31:38] So we further report.

[1:31:40] I don't know for the further report, we have, I believe, six or seven PTIF projects approved by the province already.

[1:31:48] 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.

[1:31:57] 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.

[1:32:05] 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.

[1:32:11] I think we're kind of stuck within that six or seven project list.

[1:32:15] Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:32:17] And finally for administration, this may be a tougher question to answer because this involves

[1:32:25] and the federal government, but in this whole conversation about great separations or relocation

[1:32:32] and everything else, I know we've really tied it in to this question of BRT.

[1:32:36] And I think, you know, the degree to which it has an important impact on that, I think,

[1:32:40] of course, is up for some discussion and debate and we'll get more information down the line

[1:32:46] here.

[1:32:48] But do we think that there is a good rationale and a good connection that we can make between

[1:32:53] being a potential relocation project and PTIF funding related to BRT.

[1:32:59] And the reason I ask that is because for me, there's, I don't think there's an identified

[1:33:06] funding source for a relocation where there's, you know, the federal government has a program

[1:33:12] for that type of thing right now, you know, and we certainly don't have dollars just sitting

[1:33:18] around to make that happen, and I think one of the key things, I know it's jumping down

[1:33:22] the way quite a bit, but is being able to say that relocation or grade separations have a significant impact on BRT,

[1:33:31] and we kind of need to make one happen to make the other successful such that we're basically saying,

[1:33:37] help us fund relocation, and that is a PTIF project.

[1:33:41] I'm just wondering if there's been some conversations with the federal government on that,

[1:33:45] Because that, to me, would be an important piece of potentially making something happen.

[1:33:53] Because it's nice for us to have a plan in place and say, hey, this is what we'd like to do.

[1:33:57] This is how much it would cost.

[1:33:59] But I can certainly see us having a real challenging time with the dollars and

[1:34:04] cents given that there's not an on its face business case, other than some of the intangible community benefits.

[1:34:16] So I can add one idea.

[1:34:19] So when we haven't gone that far down the path seriously, so I don't believe anybody's

[1:34:24] talked to the province about a rail relocation project or a great separation project qualifying

[1:34:29] for PTIF.

[1:34:30] But there have been, over the last few years, been several funds, different funding mechanisms

[1:34:35] put up by the federal government.

[1:34:36] And one that I think that aligns closely with this kind of project will be the National Trade

[1:34:40] corridor fund that we made some application to last year and then they've indicated it's

[1:34:46] a multi-year program. So that's one idea that this project would probably fall under.

[1:34:55] And I think when

[1:34:58] I don't think it's been used recently but there is a rail relocation

[1:35:04] and great separation act administered by the, I'm not sure if that's exactly the term

[1:35:11] that they're using, administered by the Canadian Transportation Agency that does provide

[1:35:16] federal funding for projects such as this.

[1:35:22] Okay. Thank you. And I would just simply say to the administration that if there's an

[1:35:26] opportunity just to keep it in the back of your mind as all this work is happening, how

[1:35:30] potentially we make these links, that I think then unlocks another opportunity here for

[1:35:35] Or at least us to have a better discussion and open some possibilities when we have a

[1:35:41] final report in front of us and then Council is really making some hard decisions as to

[1:35:46] whether to do something or not do something.

[1:35:48] So I would just ask that you kind of keep that in mind, any way that we can link this potential

[1:35:52] project to PTIF given that there is a significant number of dollars coming down the pipe for us

[1:36:00] here in Saskatoon in the next 10 years in PTIF, I think it's really important, and Ms. Gardner.

[1:36:07] Sure, and if I can just add specifically to PTIF, we've been, a lot of the discussion

[1:36:12] has been focused around BRT, but really, we look, there are a number of other rail crossings

[1:36:17] throughout the city that could impact transit, so it's not just BRT that would be impacted,

[1:36:22] it's, you know, the entire transit network, so any kind, we have been working on the premise

[1:36:29] that any minimizing delays to transit throughout the city would be benefit and would be of benefit,

[1:36:36] and therefore would be eligible for PUTF funding, and that's the approach we've taken thus far.

[1:36:43] Thank you, Mr. Gardner.

[1:36:44] And I have some other small questions, but I'll just follow up offline with those.

[1:36:48] And we do have his worship with a few more questions here, I believe.

[1:36:53] I think just one, and it's just with regards to the shared court or being asked to explore that further.

[1:37:03] I'm trying to look on this map, which is very small.

[1:37:07] And the way I read it, there will need to be some rail built between the CP and the CN line.

[1:37:17] Am I correct, or am I missing something?

[1:37:20] because the main lines come into the city parallel south and east of the city.

[1:37:38] And so, and the reason I'm asking this is how a Corman Park plays into this discussion

[1:37:48] because I believe they will be affected but I also wanted to know

[1:37:54] do we need to build track? When I look on my Google Maps, we're still having to go through some

[1:38:02] existing farmland and it bridges and things like that.

[1:38:06] For specifically the connection point back to the CP mainline?

[1:38:09] Yes, so there will be some new right away would need to be acquired and a track built

[1:38:14] in the southeast of the city in order to connect those.

[1:38:18] Now, again, I just remind, this is conceptual.

[1:38:22] So, I mean, you know, on a detailed design, you would probably modify some of these concepts.

[1:38:27] I mean, this is a generally aligned on a map.

[1:38:30] We believe that there's probably going to have to be a crossover between CP and CN at some

[1:38:35] point in time along this alignment as well.

[1:38:38] But those, that's in Jay's big part, questions that should be part of phase two.

[1:38:47] Well, I just, I think it's important that our partners are aware that this is what we're

[1:38:51] just, I mean, we're having a discussion about it today, Corman Park.

[1:38:54] It's true, I mean that potentially could happen further southeast beyond the jurisdiction

[1:39:00] of Corman Park, but either way, I would have they been engaged to this point because I looked

[1:39:07] at the phase two proposed scope and I didn't see them mentioned, so I was just wondering

[1:39:11] how we're going to involve them on a go forward basis.

[1:39:14] So good question, to date we kept the stakeholder engagement really light, obviously we wanted

[1:39:20] to do the assessment.

[1:39:23] As we were honing in on our recommendations, we did update the administration of what

[1:39:31] we were recommending, and I believe they had an in-camera session with their counsel to kind

[1:39:36] of brief them so they could answer questions from their rate pairs.

[1:39:41] I believe in the report under stakeholder, I make the note that moving forward will include the RM when we go and meet with

[1:39:50] CP and CN.

[1:39:53] We would invite the RM administration.

[1:39:55] 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.

[1:40:04] 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.

[1:40:12] But it sounds like you've had conversations already.

[1:40:17] And if it does mean a line building through a well having an impact.

[1:40:20] And so we want to make sure we're working correctly, closely with them.

[1:40:24] Correct.

[1:40:24] Yeah.

[1:40:24] Okay.

[1:40:26] So that doesn't require any additional direction.

[1:40:30] They're engaged.

[1:40:31] Yes, that's a little bit, thank you.

[1:40:35] Okay, thank you very much.

[1:40:37] No more questions at this point.

[1:40:41] 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.

[1:40:49] We still do have the recommendation on the floor, of course.

[1:40:51] Are there any further debate or comments before we vote on the motion that we have in front of us here?

[1:40:58] I'm

[1:41:04] just going to switch back to the agenda.

[1:41:07] Great.

[1:41:07] Okay.

[1:41:08] So we have the recommendation in front of us here, and that has been moved already.

[1:41:12] So by Council of Block, all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

[1:41:20] Okay.

[1:41:20] So we're kind of through that big item here.

[1:41:22] What I'm going to do, we're a few minutes earlier than we normally would, but we're going

[1:41:26] to take just a very quick five-minute break.

[1:41:28] 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.

[1:41:40] Thank you, be back at 346.

[1:42:08] Okay, thank you, everyone, we're back moving on with the agenda.

[1:42:14] We are going to be on 6.1.2, and that's traffic safety funding letter from the police commission.

[1:42:27] Do you have a presentation or any information on this to add Ms. Gardner?

[1:42:35] No, the memo from the statute police service speaks for itself.

[1:42:39] Okay.

[1:42:40] Thank you very much.

[1:42:41] That's been moved by Councillor Donnelly or a question from Councillor Dubois.

[1:42:46] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:42:49] I'm wondering, the $70,000 did that come from the revenue from red light cameras?

[1:42:54] It came from a revenue from the traffic safety reserve, which is funded from both our

[1:43:00] red light camera program and our automated speed enforcement program.

[1:43:04] Okay.

[1:43:04] That's good to hear, and you know, it would have been nice if they would have put that

[1:43:09] in the report, because you know, often we hear the red light cameras or cash grab, and people

[1:43:13] don't know what we do with that money, and you know, when you read this report, you really

[1:43:18] We see the extremely good use of that $70,000 that was put to use here, so thank you.

[1:43:27] And actually, if I could just add, so this was one time funding that was provided in 2017.

[1:43:32] We are in the process of reviewing if there was any additional revenues available from last year.

[1:43:40] 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.

[1:43:47] One of the options would be to continue funding additional enforcement as well as other traffic safety initiatives.

[1:43:53] Excellent. Thank you, this is Gardner.

[1:43:55] Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other questions or comments. It's been moved by Councillor Dunnour, all those in favor.

[1:44:01] And that carries unanimously. Moving on to 6.1.2, sorry, 6.2.1, traffic safety committee 2017 and you will report.

[1:44:13] Councillor Gershire, you see your light on there? Are you moving that for discussion?

[1:44:18] Yeah, I'd be happy to have the recommendation.

[1:44:20] Great. Thank you very much.

[1:44:21] And through you, Mr. Chair, just in light of seeing the 2017 annual report for the Traffic

[1:44:27] Safety Committee and knowing that 2018 will be the last year of the formation of the committee

[1:44:35] Yes, as it's made up now, and stemming off of the discussion we had at Council and

[1:44:41] NGBC over the last month, but I just wanted to confirm that the Traffic Safety Committee

[1:44:45] will be receiving kind of an update from Edmond about Vision Zero and where we're at.

[1:44:51] If that's something that they can be expected to have in the next couple of meetings.

[1:44:58] I'll be honest, I don't have a-

[1:45:00] 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.

[1:45:21] And that carries me out.

[1:45:24] Okay. 7.1.1. We have the bicycle by-law update. The response to sounds between cycles.

[1:45:31] recommendations, Ms. Gerner.

[1:45:34] Thank you.

[1:45:35] 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.

[1:45:43] This review is underway and the report before you outlines the project timeline.

[1:45:47] The report today provides a response to the nine recommendations from Saskatoon cycles requesting changes to the bicycle by-law.

[1:45:54] In general, the administration supports the majority of the recommendations and these will be incorporated into the review.

[1:45:59] This is an information report, and we are not recommending any specific change to the

[1:46:04] by-law this time.

[1:46:05] A further report recommending the changes to the by-law will be forthcoming by the end

[1:46:09] of the year.

[1:46:10] Okay.

[1:46:12] Thank you very much.

[1:46:13] That was moved by Councillor Dubois for open discussion here, and questions, comments?

[1:46:20] Councillor Gough.

[1:46:22] I'll try to be brief.

[1:46:23] I just wanted to say that I really appreciated that thorough response to these recommendations

[1:46:29] 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.

[1:46:37] 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.

[1:46:46] 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,

[1:46:57] we need to consider the ability to pay those penalties and whether we're penalizing folks who

[1:47:02] might struggle with ability to pay, and I'm not suggesting that that's all folks who ride bikes.

[1:47:07] But the reality is cycling is a mode of transportation by choice but also sometimes by lack of choice.

[1:47:14] And we need to be cognizant of that when we're thinking about penalties with respect to a

[1:47:18] by law of this nature.

[1:47:19] So I appreciate the thorough research on this.

[1:47:23] I'll have a few questions as I say

[1:47:27] to the folks in transportation,

[1:47:30] and I'm sure I'll have a few questions and comments

[1:47:32] when this comes forward in greater detail

[1:47:34] with the full review.

[1:47:36] Thank you very much.

[1:47:39] Okay, your worship.

[1:47:41] I just want to quickly say that I appreciate

[1:47:45] the work that's been done by this.

[1:47:47] And I'd say about eight years, this conversation was that the cycling advisory group and

[1:47:53] that rail desire to make change on this.

[1:47:56] So I think that the fascinating cycles put together a very thoughtful paper and it looks

[1:48:01] like we're adopting most of the recommendations and I have some further consideration on some

[1:48:07] of them.

[1:48:09] And so it's good to see this proceeding and we are now anticipating that changes would come

[1:48:16] to place in 2019 January. Is that the goal? Am I right?

[1:48:23] Yes,

[1:48:26] it's our intent to report to City Council or to this committee, City Council by the

[1:48:31] end of the year, with the intent of the by-law being implemented in January, as part, as

[1:48:38] well as a education campaign in the first part of 2019.

[1:48:42] Okay, very good, and the education campaign is something I hear about often the need

[1:48:46] to continue to educate and make sure everybody is sharing the road well, and respectfully,

[1:48:54] so thank you for that.

[1:48:57] Okay, so the item has been moved by Councillor Dubois, I don't see any other questions or comments,

[1:49:03] all those in favor of the recommendation, and that carries unanimously.

[1:49:08] Moving on to 7.1.2, we have road and sidewalk preservation carryover and project planning

[1:49:17] improvements in this gardener.

[1:49:20] This report provides information on some of the reasons why roadway and sidewalk preservation

[1:49:24] projects are carried over into future construction seasons.

[1:49:28] With our significant building-better roads rehabilitation programs in the past four years, there have been

[1:49:32] situations where planned projects are not able to be completed.

[1:49:35] On average, 89% of preservation projects are completed each construction season.

[1:49:40] 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.

[1:49:53] So it's in an information report for you today for consideration.

[1:49:58] Okay, Councillor Garner, are you moving the recommendation for this discussion?

[1:50:01] I will. Thank you. Go ahead.

[1:50:03] 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.

[1:50:12] It will get paid for and done this year so we don't lose that work, right?

[1:50:18] Does that work still belong to the same contractor, or do we put it up for tender since they didn't perform?

[1:50:25] 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.

[1:50:46] 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

[1:50:53] 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

[1:51:00] So I'll I'm not going to make a motion, but you might want to consider that that's about as

[1:51:07] easy to enforce and lethal of penalties you can get for

[1:51:12] If you don't get it done this summer, you lose the work and that might be a motivator

[1:51:16] too.

[1:51:16] So I understand it's a delicate balance.

[1:51:18] You've got a lot of things to weigh, but you might want to think of that.

[1:51:20] If you don't get it done within the contracted time, it goes back out to Tinder.

[1:51:24] So I'll leave that with you.

[1:51:26] Thank you.

[1:51:26] Councillor Dubois.

[1:51:28] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:51:29] Through you, too, Ms. Gardner.

[1:51:30] Ms. Gardner, I wanted to know the advancing micro-surface sidewalk locations, the part that

[1:51:38] is new for 2018, or you talk about the preservation work one year in advance. What have we been

[1:51:48] doing now? Like why is that new for 2018?

[1:51:54] So in previous years we have attempted to do both the

[1:51:57] sidewalks and the microsurfacing in in the same year. One of the issues we have is that the season

[1:52:04] because of temperature that we're able to do microsurfacing is a lot less than what we can do for

[1:52:10] sidewalk. So we have, in some cases, gotten ahead of our, or sorry, we haven't been able to

[1:52:19] coordinate as good as possible our sidewalks and microsurfing. So what we want to do is get

[1:52:26] ahead with our sidewalks so that when the seasons come for microsurfing, we can actually get in there

[1:52:32] and get it all done. So we're not doing sidewalks after the microsurfacing.

[1:52:37] And I'm just curious as to, did this come out of the 30-day challenge that we had back

[1:52:44] last year or did this just come with your team trying to be more efficient in your work?

[1:52:51] This is something that has come through our experience with the two different programs

[1:52:55] with the sidewall preservation and the microsurfacing.

[1:52:58] So because we have a really consolidated microsurfacing time frame, there were times in the past

[1:53:03] couple years where we'd go in and get the roadway work done but then the sidewalk has been lagging

[1:53:08] you know in later months of the construction season so this is just something we've identified to

[1:53:12] provide a better overall product in the end. So is this making am I correct in saying this is

[1:53:18] making a much efficient use of our staff's time as well? Yes that's correct. Good excellent. I'm

[1:53:24] always glad to hear that. Thank you Ms. Gardner. Okay and just a brief question myself Ms. Gardner

[1:53:31] kind of related to that same item. I know that we have a public list and math that goes

[1:53:37] out every year as to what work is going to be taking place on which street or which crescent.

[1:53:42] Will that list now identify and break out the areas that can expect sidewalk work

[1:53:49] work happening in 2018 and then the subsequent 2019 micro-surfacing? Because I know that

[1:53:56] especially us on Council, you know, provide that information to residents.

[1:54:00] We get calls, hey, is my street getting done this year?

[1:54:02] And of course, in this case, we'd have to say getting done next year in your sidewalks

[1:54:06] are being done this year.

[1:54:07] That's a really important piece of information that we give requested.

[1:54:12] Yes.

[1:54:12] Yes, Mr. Chair.

[1:54:14] Our intent would be to incorporate any of these changes in our communications plans with residents.

[1:54:20] Okay.

[1:54:20] Very glad to hear that.

[1:54:22] And I just did want to ask with the recommendation as it was put forward by

[1:54:26] administration, Ms. Gardner, that wouldn't send this information to City Council, is that correct?

[1:54:32] That's correct, it would remain here.

[1:54:33] Okay, I would perhaps, since I can't make a motion from the chair, if anyone would like to kindly

[1:54:41] change this, that we just add, this information also be sent to City Council.

[1:54:46] I think this is, oh wow, great, as long as we don't

[1:54:50] reference the meatloaf sun because that would be creepy.

[1:54:55] Well, over most people's heads.

[1:54:59] It's okay.

[1:55:02] So we'll make sure that a copy of that goes to the council.

[1:55:05] I don't see any other comments or questions.

[1:55:07] So that has modified all those in favor.

[1:55:11] And that carries unanimously.

[1:55:13] Moving on to 7.1.3.

[1:55:15] We have the Erin Dale Arbor Creek neighborhood traffic review Ms. Gardner.

[1:55:20] This is also an information report that outlines a number of recommendations to improve traffic

[1:55:25] safety in the Air and Dale and Arbor Creek neighborhoods.

[1:55:27] The traffic plan was developed in consultation with the community in response to concerns

[1:55:32] such as feeding, short cutting, and pedestrian safety.

[1:55:36] A number of recommendations are made within the report.

[1:55:39] Changes to signs, pavement markings, and temporary traffic calming will be made this summer.

[1:55:44] The remainder of the work will be considered alongside all other improvements from other

[1:55:48] neighbourhoods that haven't been identified through the neighbourhood traffic review program.

[1:55:52] And we'll be prioritized annually for implementation over time as funding is available.

[1:55:56] So as I mentioned, it's an information report for you today.

[1:55:59] Thank you very much, Ms. Gardner, and I see that's been moved already by Councillor Gertcher.

[1:56:02] Are there any questions of committee and I will have some myself as well, Councillor Dubois?

[1:56:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Ms. Gardner, Ms. Gardner, in regards to the temporary roundabout,

[1:56:16] 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.

[1:56:25] But I'm just wondering why, because both the North-Canada Parkway Bridge and the McCormann College Drive Interchange will be opened in 2018.

[1:56:34] I'm wondering why we would put that temporary roundabout in as a temporary one before those open and then evaluate.

[1:56:42] why wouldn't we wait till those are open and then put it in 2019 and save that time and money?

[1:56:54] Ashley, through you, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we are recommending.

[1:56:59] We aren't with the opening of the North commuter bridge.

[1:57:04] This year we are recommending that we wait and re-evaluate in 2019 before implementing the roundabout.

[1:57:11] There is potential that traffic patterns will change, so we aren't recommending to proceed with that until we've re-evaluated.

[1:57:20] Okay. Well, my sincere apologies, and the way I read this report was that that was going to be part of the 2018 temporary.

[1:57:30] So that's good. I apologize. I'm not sure how I misread that, but that's good, then. Thank you very much.

[1:57:37] Okay. Thank you, Councillor DuBois. And my question was very much around that same piece

[1:57:43] just to clarify that the roundabout piece here at the, I guess, the east intersection

[1:57:48] of kindredine incur is definitely not something that's happening this year. It's a recommendation

[1:57:55] that's there, but it's going to be based upon an updated sense of traffic after those major

[1:58:02] projects are finished, and it's entirely possible, I guess, Ms. Gardner, that this recommendation

[1:58:10] might, in fact, entirely change in that, essentially, what's there could actually be the most

[1:58:15] appropriate traffic control devices once we have the new traffic patterns in place. That's

[1:58:21] in theory possible.

[1:58:23] That is possible, and that's why, with the anticipated changes in traffic patterns, we are recommending

[1:58:29] that it be reevaluated in 2019 prior to implementing this recommendation.

[1:58:34] Okay. Great. Thanks very much. And Councillor Dubois.

[1:58:39] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so that the committee doesn't think I'm out of it here.

[1:58:45] Right after in the paragraph where it talked about the temporary roundabout,

[1:58:48] it said the temporary traffic calming installations will begin as early as 2018,

[1:58:52] and that was right after those lines about the roundabout.

[1:58:57] So that's where I got confused, so thanks for that while allowing me to clarify that.

[1:59:05] Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I don't see any of their comments or questions coming up.

[1:59:10] So that has been moved by Councillor Gersher, all those in favor and that carries unanimously.

[1:59:17] Moving along, we can skip 7.2.1. I think we had some fun times on that. I'm okay not redoing it.

[1:59:27] We'll

[1:59:27] 1.2.2 is commercial billboards on public right-of-way, Ms. Gardner, if you'd like to introduce that.

[1:59:34] Thank you. Last year, the city initiated a 30-day challenge for civic employees to identify ideas for generating new revenues for the city.

[1:59:41] One of the ideas was to consider placement of commercial billboards on public right-of-way.

[1:59:46] In August, the city council requested more information on this specific item and the support outlines the administration's position on this idea.

[1:59:52] While installing commercial billboards has the potential to generate revenues, commercial billboards by their-

[2:00:00] 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.

[2:00:29] 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.

[2:00:41] Okay. Councillor Gersher, you also move in the recommendation of open discussion.

[2:00:46] Okay. Thank you and go ahead.

[2:00:49] 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.

[2:00:57] 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.

[2:01:03] I don't actually have any questions or comments about the report.

[2:01:11] Okay. Thank you very much.

[2:01:12] Councillor Gersher, any other comments or questions from members of committee seeing none, then all those in favor, and that carries unanimously.

[2:01:24] Moving along to 7.2.3, we have the decorative crosswalks policy, Ms. Gardner, if you'd like to introduce.

[2:01:30] Thank you.

[2:01:33] Over the last couple years, the administration has received requests to commit decorative crosswalks throughout the city.

[2:01:38] To date, a few have been permitted primarily in business improvement districts.

[2:01:43] While internal guidelines are in place, the administration has developed a policy for considering requests to provide better consistency and clarity.

[2:01:49] Well, decorative crosswalks can enhance the character of a community and showcase unique

[2:01:54] culture, history, or animate an area.

[2:01:57] They must be done in a way that does not detract from traffic safety best practices.

[2:02:02] Four key considerations are included in the policy, including safety, neighborhood, installation,

[2:02:08] maintenance, and costs.

[2:02:09] The recommended policy is attached to the report and the recommendation is that the Transportation

[2:02:14] the presentation committee for this report to City Council for approval of the policy.

[2:02:20] Thank you very much and are you also moving to open discussion as to our Councillor Gershire?

[2:02:26] Be sure to the punch. Perfect. Okay.

[2:02:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to move the recommendations.

[2:02:32] I have a question through you to Ms. Gardner about the, I guess, geographical extent of this

[2:02:40] policy and that it only refers to locations within bids and I'm wondering why there's not

[2:02:46] a neighborhood or a citywide context to this and why maybe community associations couldn't

[2:02:51] bring this to their neighborhood. Sure, I'm going to refer to Mr. J. Magas, the acting director,

[2:02:57] transportation to address that question.

[2:03:02] Okay, so Magas. Hello, good afternoon. So the decorative

[2:03:06] of crosswalk policy, just a little background, I think, before I answer the question.

[2:03:14] So the last couple of years, we've received several informal requests, hey, I want to

[2:03:19] put in art crosswalks, painted crosswalks, only recently they've become a term decorative.

[2:03:26] And so we, a couple of folks that I work with myself, we did some research to see who's

[2:03:32] doing what.

[2:03:32] But there's not a lot of policies out there.

[2:03:36] But the ones we saw, a lot of them spoke to its index and it's in a business improvement

[2:03:42] district.

[2:03:43] They don't call it that.

[2:03:44] They call it something else.

[2:03:45] But in essence, it's where it's equivalent to our business improvement districts.

[2:03:52] And so we thought this is a place to start.

[2:03:57] You know, the few crosswalks, painted crosswalks that have been installed, we did work with

[2:04:02] the bids.

[2:04:03] Closely and there's lots of issues, it sounds easy to go paint the crosswalk, but there's

[2:04:07] lots of issues when what type of paint, traffic safety, traffic control, who pays, all those

[2:04:14] kind of things that we sort it out.

[2:04:16] And I hesitate if we opened it up for lack of better term to the broader community that

[2:04:23] that would be kind of worse.

[2:04:27] So I think this is a good place to start, and we'll see how it evolves, and we can always

[2:04:33] update the process, change the process.

[2:04:37] For example, I've had a couple of requests from schools, and I don't know if we want

[2:04:45] to have school children on a residential street on a Saturday when traffic's lower out on

[2:04:52] a street all day.

[2:04:55] Broadways busy, downtown's busy on weekend. So it's to me there's less

[2:04:59] risk there. So it's kind of a starting point. Actually I think it shows some flexibility

[2:05:07] and that we're being a little bit unique in developing this to give some to some guidelines

[2:05:12] and some framework to folks. So the folks we've worked with have been very excited.

[2:05:19] Thank you for the clarification and I think it's great that we're putting a policy together

[2:05:22] and that there has been more requests to do this type of work and then to be able to

[2:05:27] provide that information to people ahead of time to let them know some of the complexity

[2:05:31] of installing a decorative crosswalk. I think I'm going to add an additional recommendation

[2:05:37] to report back, I guess, within a year of implementation of the policy on the possibility

[2:05:45] of expanding the geographical area, I can probably dress and think it's ended to the clerk

[2:05:54] as well.

[2:05:54] And I think the intention of that is to see if there could be opportunities to expand

[2:05:59] it and not actually in 12 months expand the program, but to see if maybe we could spread

[2:06:06] it out to the neighborhood level.

[2:06:07] I know there's a community association in Ward 8 that's interested in pursuing this a little.

[2:06:13] So I will leave that up there.

[2:06:17] Okay, thank you very much.

[2:06:20] You're going to send something to the clerk here as well.

[2:06:24] We'll put that up there.

[2:06:26] Okay, so we'll move on to Councillor Du Bois.

[2:06:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:06:32] And I had a similar question to what Councillor Gershaw had.

[2:06:36] So that answers that.

[2:06:37] But further to that, I'm wondering, Mr. Megas,

[2:06:41] Does this, would this include the Sutherland and the 33rd Street Bids, or are these just the downtown Bids that you're looking at?

[2:06:49] I believe I included all Bids.

[2:06:57] Okay, so they're all Bids?

[2:06:59] Correct, the applicant should be a bid or have the support of the bid.

[2:07:04] Okay, thank you.

[2:07:05] Thank you, and I'm glad to see the other recommendation that Councillor Gershaw put through.

[2:07:11] 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?

[2:07:32] Did I read that right?

[2:07:33] Correct. So in the proposed council policy, it states the applicant must pay all costs associated with installation maintenance of the decorative crosswalk.

[2:07:43] Okay. As I say, we didn't in the others, so I wanted just to make sure. Thank you. Thanks very much.

[2:07:49] Okay. Thank you, Councillor Du Bois. Your worship.

[2:07:52] Yeah, I just wanted to, first of all, and I appreciate I think it is good to get a clear

[2:08:00] policy for this because it's been something that has emerged in the last couple of years.

[2:08:06] And the first ones that happened were done by urban design as part of the city.

[2:08:12] And so, what is urban design's role right now?

[2:08:17] It sounds like, in this report, responsibilities are within transportation utilities.

[2:08:25] And the reason I ask is that the city through urban design spends quite a bit of money on

[2:08:32] street escape improvements, and we build street furniture, and we do all these different

[2:08:36] things that help to animate the city.

[2:08:40] And there has been a movement towards more simple, quicker, faster, cheaper things that bring

[2:08:46] and vibrancy in the areas, but don't necessarily cost as much, and this is one of those things.

[2:08:52] Has there been consideration for urban design to have some budget to do this and

[2:08:57] 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?

[2:09:08] I don't recall having those discussions.

[2:09:12] I know the 21st street was the urban design, the painted crosswalk.

[2:09:19] The decorative crosswalks there were part of a bigger scheme, a bigger project.

[2:09:25] And they had funding, they brought funding to the table.

[2:09:27] But we had no other discussion about them being involved in the process or making a program.

[2:09:33] I know we did talk to the Art Public Art Committee if they wanted to be part of the approving,

[2:09:41] lack of their term approving process, and they didn't want to, because these, you know, for the most part,

[2:09:47] these wash away. So that's, well, I think I might add a recommendation that we discuss with urban design,

[2:09:58] the transportation, discuss with urban design and see if there is an interest in having this

[2:10:03] as part of their program in cases where they see a benefit like they did, you know, have

[2:10:12] already in some cases, to doing this in conjunction with these big areas to have the ability.

[2:10:20] I just think animating areas is good, doing it with paint as opposed to $30,000 benches

[2:10:27] or whatever it might be, there can be a benefit and it seems like this is mostly all in transportation

[2:10:33] as opposed to,

[2:10:37] so I'd like to hear what their take is on this.

[2:10:43] Through you, Mr. Sheriff, I can just add the, and Mr. Grower's in the crowd if he wants to correct me.

[2:10:48] But my understanding is that the, so urban design manages the overall streetscaping programs.

[2:10:57] And this was them, the painting of the crosswalks on 21st Street was,

[2:11:02] I believe it was two years ago, that they included that as their project.

[2:11:05] I don't know if their intent is to continue that on an annual basis through their capital program or not,

[2:11:11] but it is something that we could discuss with them.

[2:11:14] And if that were the case, it would be continued to be allowed from a transportation perspective.

[2:11:21] The transportation division is the regulator and would administer this policy.

[2:11:24] But if there's other groups or programs or bids, we would definitely welcome their submissions.

[2:11:32] but it wouldn't be from the city's operating funds.

[2:11:36] It would be kind of a one-off from say an urban design capital program or something like that.

[2:11:41] Yeah, and that's why I'm trying to understand because you're the regulator, transportation.

[2:11:45] Urban design is the animator and maybe there's some way to kind of put these together.

[2:11:53] And as they make decisions about how to animate streets and where to allocate money,

[2:11:58] which they have through parking and other things because the way this is set up now, if

[2:12:04] a bid comes, we say, well, you have to pay for it and we have no solution.

[2:12:08] But if there's actually a synergy with urban design, which they already had one and have

[2:12:15] stolen that in other cases, that actually gives us the ability to suggest that they can

[2:12:22] work with the bids on this.

[2:12:23] So that's all I'm trying to identify.

[2:12:27] They see maps in from this report that they have a stake

[2:12:31] in the overall animation of our streets.

[2:12:37] Okay, thank you, Your Worship.

[2:12:39] We are lighting up.

[2:12:42] Councilor Donnelly.

[2:12:43] Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:12:46] So I have a question for the mayor about his motion

[2:12:48] because I took this report as us getting out

[2:12:51] of the business of painting crosswalks differently

[2:12:55] than the city normally does and I like that because not that I'm opposed to what you want to do

[2:13:02] but what was happening is we were picking winners and losers we were having some groups come

[2:13:07] forward that we shared the cost with them and other groups were told no or we didn't share the

[2:13:14] cost with them and I found that inequitable so are you asking urban design your worship to

[2:13:20] 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?

[2:13:38] 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

[2:13:52] figure out, okay, how do we get these designed and painted, but what they're doing is they're

[2:13:58] trying to create more animation and broadly, which benefits the whole city, not just

[2:14:03] Broadway. And they, right now, work with Urban Design more broadly on their streetscaping

[2:14:09] plans and so on. And so, and Urban Design was the first body to actually view these painted

[2:14:16] crosswalks on 21st Street. So the way I read the policy is you say the city is getting

[2:14:23] out of it, but I'm not convinced that that's the best plan. I understand that when it comes

[2:14:31] to community groups and so on, what is the application basis, and I would ask administrations

[2:14:38] perspective, but from the point of view of investing a little bit of money through urban

[2:14:43] design, you know, animating crosswalks, that bang for your buck, it can take a long time

[2:14:50] to get streetscaping in some areas, but you can animate it with painted crosswalk.

[2:14:56] It's kind of like decorative lights, right?

[2:14:57] Okay, certain things you can...

[2:15:00] 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.

[2:15:18] 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

[2:15:29] I'm hearing accurately, is the groups who want a different crosswalk would go according

[2:15:38] to the policy, but that as part of the streetscaping project, our administration can work

[2:15:43] with the bids and they can color up their bid like any other streetscaping thing, though

[2:15:47] this may be a different avenue so that it can be done quicker than waiting for third avenue

[2:15:53] to get street, or that's been done, but yeah, you know, we don't have to wait 15 years

[2:15:57] for that avenue if the bid wants to use a part of the streetscaping project and the admin

[2:16:03] they can do some crosswalk stuff and that would but that would be more of a streetscafe sort of

[2:16:08] thing. Is that what you're thinking? Yes. Okay, would you be willing to put the word streetscafe

[2:16:11] in front of program there? Would that be a friendly amendment? Yeah. Yeah. Taking into account that

[2:16:17] it doesn't have like you said you don't want it to necessarily follow the they could have a separate

[2:16:21] track for this sort of thing, but I just want to be clear that I don't want to be paying

[2:16:29] to do sidewalks for everybody who wants to sidewalk them, but if they want to do one

[2:16:33] of this program allows it. So I'm on for that. If urban design wants to do some as part

[2:16:38] of streetscaping, I'm willing to listen to that. Is that what we're talking about?

[2:16:41] Yeah.

[2:16:42] Okay. I just wasn't clear on what urban designs. Okay. I'm much more comfortable.

[2:16:46] And I would I would I like them. I like to see yeah more of them. Yeah, I'd like to see us potentially

[2:16:53] be involved in investing in them, but the program and the criteria through urban design because

[2:16:58] they already have and they and there's a benefit. But we I need to understand a bit more from them

[2:17:04] as to how they would manage that's good. That's fine. All I'm trying to do is get out

[2:17:08] outside of the business of taking the approving and not approving who gets city money to do their

[2:17:15] Yeah, so I'm happy with that. Thank you.

[2:17:19] Okay, and Ms. Gardner, do you just have some clarification on that point?

[2:17:23] Sure. And just to address your worship's recommendation up there,

[2:17:27] prior to this coming to Council in two weeks, we can definitely get urban designs perspective

[2:17:32] and whether or not they have any decorative crosswalks planned in their upcoming programs

[2:17:37] if they're planning to continue with that as one of the features that they include,

[2:17:41] so we'll have that information when this goes to Council.

[2:17:43] Okay. Thank you, and Councillor Dubois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to his

[2:17:48] worship. So I understand what you're talking about. I guess I just have one question with

[2:17:53] what your motion is. Is that within the urban design budget, or is that over and above? So

[2:17:59] that's taking what's in the urban design budget. And if they want to do street or decorative

[2:18:05] crosswalk, then they would have to rework their budget, take something out of whatever,

[2:18:13] more

[2:18:13] budget? Is that correct? Am I understanding that?

[2:18:16] Yeah.

[2:18:17] So we're not adding, by your motion, we're not adding any money.

[2:18:24] It's not costing anymore.

[2:18:25] It's all within the prescribed budget.

[2:18:28] Yeah, and the bids also take streets gave us.

[2:18:34] So I don't, somewhere in there, I think there's potential for where they're deciding do we

[2:18:41] 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.

[2:18:58] And I'm within their budget.

[2:19:00] 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.

[2:19:07] Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other questions or comments.

[2:19:15] So we have all of those motions up there that have been moved by Councillor Gersher and

[2:19:21] his warship. Are we comfortable as a committee voting for all of these altogether? I'm seeing

[2:19:27] a bunch of nodding heads. Councillor Dubois? Sorry, I am okay. I'm just wondering do we need

[2:19:34] to put that in the mayor's motion as part of the street scape program within

[2:19:42] the existing budget?

[2:19:44] 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.

[2:19:52] As long as it's cleared it, everyone in the administration as well.

[2:19:56] I'm seeing lots of nodding heads, so okay, we're in agreement to vote on these altogether, all those in favor.

[2:20:01] And that is carried unanimously, the job committee, we are getting close.

[2:20:08] Moving on to 7.2.4, oh, you thought that was funny?

[2:20:14] Okay, trap P's OPS payroll, module configurations, if you wanted something exciting, that would be this year, Ms. Gardner.

[2:20:23] This report is to award a contract to trapeze, to install required configurations to the trapeze OPS payroll module.

[2:20:31] to upgrade test between transit's current payroll software.

[2:20:35] JAPE software is integral to Saskatoon transit operations and provides fully integrated

[2:20:39] projects to deliver scheduling, run cutting, bidding, dispatch payroll and ITS functions.

[2:20:45] New configurations within the payroll software is required to fall in line with the current

[2:20:49] practices at Saskatoon transit.

[2:20:51] Since Trapese holds proprietary rights to this software, the administration is recommending

[2:20:55] that this report be forwarded to City Council to enter into an agreement with JAPE's software

[2:21:00] where you will see for the installation of required configurations at a cost of $94,184

[2:21:07] and that personal services issue the appropriate order.

[2:21:11] Thank you, Ms. Gardner.

[2:21:13] And Councillor Dubois, are you moving the recommendation to open discussion?

[2:21:16] I am.

[2:21:16] Thank you.

[2:21:16] Please go ahead.

[2:21:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:21:19] Through you, Ms. Gardner.

[2:21:20] I just wanted to know, when the last time we updated the software,

[2:21:29] when was the last time

[2:21:29] Also, how often do we need to update the software?

[2:21:35] And then my third question,

[2:21:37] is it would it be the same cost every time?

[2:21:42] Okay, I'll have to ask Mr. Jim McDonald's

[2:21:45] the Director of Sesting Transit to come to the table.

[2:21:48] But just with regards to trippy software,

[2:21:51] there's a number of different modules

[2:21:54] as part of the overall trippy software.

[2:21:56] This specific recommendation in this report

[2:21:58] is to upgrade one component,

[2:22:00] which is just the payroll module, but Mr. McDonald can extend on that.

[2:22:05] Mr. McDonald.

[2:22:07] Good afternoon.

[2:22:08] My name is Jim McDonald.

[2:22:09] I'm the Director of Transit for the City of Saskatoon.

[2:22:11] Through you, Mr. Chair to Councillor Dubois, for this specific module of our software, this

[2:22:18] is the first time we have done any modifications to the payroll that I saw, module that I'm aware

[2:22:25] of.

[2:22:25] So it has taken us almost 10 years to get to this point, and quite frankly, when we did

[2:22:32] implement the software, we went from Excel spreadsheets and paper to trapeze Excel spreadsheets

[2:22:41] and paper.

[2:22:43] So unfortunately, this has been one of those things where we have finally gotten to the

[2:22:53] point where we need to do this so that I can have that staff stop doing manual processes

[2:23:00] so we can actually use the software as it's intended to be used and then we can start bootstrapping

[2:23:06] our way out of a lot of people dealing with manual transactions and we can actually start

[2:23:12] mining our data and making sure that everything is being done appropriately.

[2:23:16] So I hope that this is the one and only time we will have to do any modifications to the

[2:23:22] payroll module itself. There are a number of additional things that we are going to be

[2:23:28] doing to the Treppys software writ large, but most of those are covered under some arrangements

[2:23:35] through PETA funding with the federal government. Some of the other things that we will be doing

[2:23:40] will not be happening for 12 to 18 months at the least. And that will be to deal with some

[2:23:48] data clean-ups. Again, in our rush to put some of the software in play in 2006-2008, we did not

[2:23:59] we did not input our GPS coordinates correctly and some of the work practices that were put in

[2:24:06] place at that point were done so without understanding the full rollout of the software itself. So we now

[2:24:12] have to go back and correct some of these errors and it does take time to a drill down to

[2:24:19] where the errors are being made and find out what we have to do to rewind the tape, so to speak.

[2:24:24] But we now have a very good working relationship with TRIP software and our staff are learning how to

[2:24:31] use the tools appropriately. So all in all things are going very well from that perspective and any other

[2:24:40] funding that we end up having to spend on these pieces of software should not be lost

[2:24:45] leaders. They should be all to get us to the point where actually the data is clean.

[2:24:51] We are using it appropriately and we can actually really dig into it so that we can use

[2:24:55] the data to make sure the system is better.

[2:24:57] Well, thank you, Mr. McDonald. I really appreciate that. I remember when we implemented the

[2:25:02] truck piece software, as you say, 2006, 2008, and also know the payroll system is manual

[2:25:09] and I never could believe that myself actually and I'm glad to hear that.

[2:25:14] So with this system, will there be any positions that will be lost in the payroll department?

[2:25:21] Through the chair, my intention will always be to maintain the number of people we currently

[2:25:26] have in those roles. However, what they do may be absolutely different because as I've

[2:25:33] said to anybody that wants to listen, we are data rich, we just don't have access to

[2:25:40] the data in the right format and what I really am missing is people that can mine the data

[2:25:46] and provide me with data analytics. In Edmonton for the equivalent number, well sorry, in Edmonton

[2:25:54] Even in my section, I had two people doing payroll for 1600 operators, so that tells you what the changes could be.

[2:26:05] 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.

[2:26:14] So clean data and then take the data that we get from ridership, where our payroll is going, if we've got the proper

[2:26:22] 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.

[2:26:31] Well, thank you. I really like that. And I also really look forward to the reports coming forward once we've got this.

[2:26:37] It'll make it easier for council to make some decisions as well as yourself as well for transit and improve transit.

[2:26:43] So thank you very much. She was great, Donald. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Du Bois.

[2:26:48] Councillor Gershon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I need a bit of

[2:26:54] reminder through you to our administration about some of the integration of our different

[2:27:02] payroll systems across the organization. And I know that we operate quite a few different ones

[2:27:07] and we've been talking about potentially reducing that number. I'm just wondering how that fits in or

[2:27:12] how this change in the module fits into kind of that efficient integration of our payroll systems.

[2:27:24] Is this a gardener or Mr. Terraceoff?

[2:27:29] I know we've got smart people here that have the answer.

[2:27:32] It's just a question of which smart person has the answer.

[2:27:37] Mr. Terraceoff, you can introduce yourself.

[2:27:39] please. Yes, Kerry, Tarrisoff, General Manager of Asset and Financial Management. So, yes, we do

[2:27:46] have, I think there's about five different payroll systems in the corporation. With the ERP system,

[2:27:52] our hope is to start moving to one integrated system. I know we've talked about trapeze and transit

[2:28:00] being potentially a unique situation. However, I think there's still opportunities at some point

[2:28:06] to take a look at the payroll modules, but that is our goal, is to get rid of all these

[2:28:12] multiple systems and once we have our ERP is to use one payroll system.

[2:28:18] So with that being said, does it seem counterintuitive to implement a new system knowing in

[2:28:25] the fairly short term that that might not be the reality, or is this either way it needs

[2:28:31] to be digital, and this is kind of a transition to that, or maybe I'm missing an option as well.

[2:28:37] Yeah, and maybe Mr. McDonald might have some more details on that, but I think the initial

[2:28:43] plan is to have trapeze as almost like a standalone system with an integration to the RP.

[2:28:50] I think that was the initial review of the business requirements, so I think that's the way it stands

[2:28:57] right now and we have to take a look once when our European evaluation is done if there's any

[2:29:03] possibilities of using payroll through that to the European payroll system but I think for now

[2:29:09] I think the initial plan is to use it for a piece as a separate system. Okay, thank you for the

[2:29:13] clarification. Thank you. Thank you for asking about ERP because I get excited anytime we have

[2:29:21] conversation about that. I don't see any other questions or comments, although I will say to

[2:29:26] administration. Next time we talk about trapeze if someone comes in on a trapeze, that would

[2:29:30] be true. That's kind of cool. Give you 20 bucks. Okay, no more questions or comments that

[2:29:38] has been moved by Councillor Gersher or it was moved by Councillor Dubois. My apologies,

[2:29:44] all those in favor of the recommendations that carries unanimously. Moving along to I believe

[2:29:50] We have our final item or a second to last item, 7.2.5 street sweeper broom materials.

[2:30:02] 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.

[2:30:29] and longevity of the brushes to meet the city's specifications.

[2:30:33] The administration is recommending that we establish a blanket purchase order for the supply of street room,

[2:30:39] 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.

[2:30:48] 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.

[2:30:57] Councillor DuBois, you're excited to move that?

[2:30:59] Oh, very.

[2:31:00] Cool.

[2:31:00] Okay, let's go ahead.

[2:31:01] I'll move it.

[2:31:02] And I just, I have one question, Mr. Chair, through to Mr. Gardner.

[2:31:05] So I have no problem with this.

[2:31:07] So did you?

[2:31:08] What are the efficiencies that we received then by having this, basically, a three-year purchase

[2:31:16] order?

[2:31:18] Well, essentially by having a three-year purchase order, it allows us to go back to

[2:31:24] the contractor or the vendor with pre-set pricing and so it eliminates a lot of the administrative

[2:31:31] costs of going out year after year and acquiring the materials provided.

[2:31:38] In addition, by having the blanket ordered, if we have a need for additional materials

[2:31:43] in one year versus another, we can quickly go back and get the required materials.

[2:31:48] Right.

[2:31:49] Thank you.

[2:31:49] And I understand that.

[2:31:50] That was in the report.

[2:31:51] 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

[2:31:59] And I know you've shown them to be somewhat higher for 2019 and 2020, but

[2:32:06] 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?

[2:32:19] Through Mr. Chair, by establishing and essentially, to a certain extent, guaranteeing that the purchase in the future,

[2:32:30] we typically find that we get better pricing because it's more of a bulk purchase.

[2:32:34] So, we do find that by doing multi-year contracts such as this, that we do get better pricing from most vendors.

[2:32:40] Okay. Thank you.

[2:32:42] I'd like to see us save money.

[2:32:43] Thank you.

[2:32:44] Thank you, Councillor Dubois. I don't see any other comments or questions that has been moved, all those in favor?

[2:32:51] That carries unanimously. Moving on to urgent business, we have 8.1.

[2:32:56] Clarification amendments to by-law 7200, Ms. Gardner.

[2:33:03] This last report outlines modifications required to by-law 7200, the traffic by-law,

[2:33:08] to clarify the intense surrounding placement of signage for street maintenance and unrestricted permits

[2:33:13] to allow for better enforceability.

[2:33:15] The modifications include clarification

[2:33:17] on the placement of unrestricted permits.

[2:33:20] Clarification on which types of vehicles

[2:33:21] are permitted to use disability zones

[2:33:23] will also be included.

[2:33:25] Furthermore, the modifications for by-law 7200

[2:33:28] will include a revision to definitions of signage

[2:33:31] related to sandwich boards

[2:33:32] that are used during street maintenance parking bans.

[2:33:36] Typically, city council would approve modifications

[2:33:38] to the by-law and then city solicitors

[2:33:40] would draft the by-law amendments

[2:33:41] for consideration at a future to City Council meeting.

[2:33:44] In order to have the necessarily by-law amendments in place prior to streets sweeping this spring,

[2:33:49] with a committee's permission, solicitors will draft the revisions to the by-law and present them

[2:33:54] to the March City Council meeting in conjunction with this report.

[2:33:58] Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Gardiner.

[2:34:01] It's a little like to move the recommendations.

[2:34:03] I don't see any questions or comments.

[2:34:05] Thank you, Councillor Dubois.

[2:34:06] Still seeing no questions or comments.

[2:34:08] all those in favor of the recommendations that's moved and that carries unanimously.

[2:34:13] Number nine, notice motions noticed previously given we have none.

[2:34:17] Is anybody giving notice today?

[2:34:20] No, in-camera agenda items there are none, so we are adjourned at 440, not too bad.

[2:34:27] Thank you everyone.

SPC-TRANSPORTATION - PUBLIC

Agenda

Transcript