1966 Suburban Road Committee
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
June 29th, 1966.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Court House
at 10 A.M. on June 29th.
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Also present Reeve Auckland, and Reeve
McCallw of the County Roads Committe. Mr. Frank Clarke, District Municipal
Supervisor, of the Ontario Department of Highways, and Mr. A. M. Spriet, Consulting
Engineer.
TENDERS FOR ST. GEORGE STREET BRIDGE were opened and were as
attached~
"MOVED BY: li. E. ROn
SECONDED BY: JAMES HINDLEY
THAT WE ACCEPT THE TENDER OF ELGIl-l CONSTRUCTION LTD., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ST. GEORGE STREET BRIDGE AT THEIR TENDERED PRICE OF $122,951.25 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
OF THE D.H.O.
CARRIED"
MINUTES OF MEETING of May 9th were Read and Approved.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:
(1) J. P. Howard, Chief Municipal Engineer stating that the Minister of Highways
had approved the Resolutions of the Commission deleting Road 16 from Road 20 to
Burwells Corners from the Suburban Road System, and adding Road 33 to the System.
(2) The City of St. Thomas enclosing a copy of By-Law authorizing the
expen91ture of $7,500, in 1966 and 1967, toward the construction of the St. George
Street Bridge, and a copy of an order from the Ontario Municipal Board authorizing
the expenditlure.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that maintenance expenditure were normal on the
System.
(2) that Walmsley Bros. Ltd., of London, had patched several places on Road 25
near the Junction of Highway 3 & 4, with Hot Mix Asphalt.
PAGE 2
(3) that Surface Treatment work would be done from Fingal (Road 20) easterly to
Roy Inchts Corner to connect with the work done last year.
(4) that clearing far the contract had been completed at St. George Street Bridge.
MEETING ADJOURNED to the call of the Chairman.
f.. 1 /1 "
f ; 1./ /f ,c'
/' ~",' {.! D 1:Y~' 4.-'(( 7 i-z/()~
Chairman
Summ~ry nf Tenders
St. George Street Bridge
St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
County of Elgin
Job No. 6610
June 29, 1966
CONTRACTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
TENDERED AMOUNT
I .
Looby Enterprises
Dubl in, Ontario
$174503.01
2. McKay Cocker Construction
1665 Oxford Street, East
London, Ontario
3.
Elgin Construction
1105 Talbot Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
$ I 2295 I . 25
4. Nadeco Limited
P . 0 . Box I 26
Rexdale, Ontario
5.
A. Weller & Company Limited
P.O. Box 429, Don Mills
Toronto, Ontario
$180987.67
6.
Clarison Construction
175 Plunkett Road
Weston, Ontario
$148978~00
7. McLean-Foster Construction
St. Marys, Ontario
8. McCal I Contractors Limited
525 Lauzon Road
Windsor, Ontario
Elgin Construction Ltd.
Lowest Tenderer
$122951.25
Amount
Job No. 6610
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
I .
Stream Diversion and Grubbing
(Within 250' of Structure)
~.
Demol ition and Removal of Old Structure.
~. Standard Excavation and backfil I for
structure including construction of
roadway approaches within 100' of
structure.
~. Roadway work beyond 100' of Structure.
). Dewatering.
). Reinforced Concrete.
r. Supply of Prestressed Concrete girders.
~. Erection of prestressed Concrete girders.
~. Slope Protection (Sacked Concrete)
including sewer outfal I protection.
Summary of Tender Prices
St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
St. Georae Street Bridqe
June 29, 1966
UNIT
A. WELLER &
COMPANY LTD.
CLARISON CONST.
LOOBY ENTERPRISES
ELGIN CONST.
L.S.
$ 5065.00
$ 6630.00
$ 3717.00
$ 4660.00
$10860.00
$ 3000.00
$ 9 I I 2.50
$ 6750.00
L.S.
L.S. $22761.00 $12800.00 $ I 8048. I 5 $21742.00
L.S. e $ I 246 7 . 00 $ 5400.00 $ 5609.00 $ 6473.00
L.S. $ 4700.00 $ 4000.00 $ 8437.50 $ 788.00
$66.34 $42.50 $63.83 $60.00
Cu. Yd. 839 $55659.26 $ 35657.50 $ 53553.37 $ 50340.00
L.S. $19234.00 $16,000.00 $26620.65 $22374.00
L.S. $ 3600.00 $ 6900.00 $ 2700.00 $ 3380.00
L.. S. $21 150.00 $ 9500.00 $18238.50 $14219.00
. . . CONT'D
CONTtD
W. WELLER &
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT LOOBY ENTERPRISES ELGIN CONST. COMPANY LTD. CLARISON CONST.
"
J O. Supply and placing 6" Topsoil on
slopes and affected areas. L.S. $ /800.00 $ 1500.00 $ 8640.00 $ 2700.00
II. Protective Weatherproofing. L.S. $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 2/6.00 $ 214.00
$/0.00 $ I I . 00 $16.20 $14.00
12. Asphalt Paving (3~n depth). Ton 400 $ 4000.00 $4400.00 $ 6480.00 $ 5600.00
/3. Place C.I.P. Sewer Pipe 12ft fd to 24ft fd
750 I in. ft. approx. including backfill $8.00 $1.75 $5.09 $3.00
and compact ion. Lin. Ft. 750 $ 6000.00 $ 1312.50 $ 38 17.50 $ 2250.00
14. Concrete Catchbasins.
5-D.H.O., Owg. No. D.O. 702 $250.00 $200.00 $189.00
including excavation and granular $190.00
backf i / / . Each 5 $ 1250.00 $ 1000.00 $ 945.00 $ 950.00
J 5. Concrete Curb and Gutter~ approx. $2.90 $2. 75 $4.05 $4.60
535 Lin. Ft. L in. Ft. 535 $ 155 1 .50 $ 1471.25 $ 2 J 66. 75 $ 246 I .00
16. Concrete Setbacks - 3 D.H.O. Dwg. No. $125.00 $200.00 $67.50 $50.00
D.O. 623 Each 3 $ 375 . 00 $ 600.00 $ 202.50 $ 150.00
17. Supply and Erect Aluminum Rail jngs. L.S. $ 7760.25 $ 8200.00 $ 9450.00 $ 6960.00
Cont ract Amount: $174503.01 $ 1 2295 I .00 $180987.67 $148978.00
Lowest Tenderer: $ I 2295 / .00
ST. THOMAS , ONTARIO
May 9th, 1966.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMITTEE met at the Court House
at 9 A.M. on May 9th.
ALL MEMBERS EXCEPT James Hindley present. Also present
Mr. Frank Clarke.
MINUTES OF !{EETING of February 28th were Read and Approved.
CORRESPONDENCE WAS READ FROM:
(1) The City of st. Thomas re approval of Budget Estimates and St. George
Street Bridge Estimates.
(2) C.S. Reid re failure to send description of Survey and Property to
him as ordered by the Ontario Appeal Court. Committee instructed the Engineer
to reply to Mr. Reid's letter stating that all obligations by the Committee
had been discharged.
(3) Peter Mitches & Associates offering Engineering Services.
(4) County Engineer of Perth re Western Ontario Suburban Road Committee
Meeting.
(5) Ontario Suburban Road Committee Association re dues.
"MOVED BY: W.E.ROWE
SECONDED BY: GEORGE H. CROSS
THAT THE FEE OF $10.00 FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
ASSOCIATION BE PAID
CARRIED"
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that re the St. George Street Bridge:
(1) that Final Plans were ready to Submit to the D.R.O.
(2) that Union Gas Company had been requested to remove their line.
(3) that the Bell Telephone Company had been asked to relocate.
(4) that an easement had been obtained from Sam Parkins for relocation
and outlet of Keetle Creek for the Sum of $300.
(5) that John DeBoer had been approached re an easement on his property
and an agreement could be concluded shortly.
PAGE 2
"MOVED BY: GEO. H. CROSS
SECONDED BY: W. E. ROWE
THAT THE ENGINEER BE EMmWERED TO CALL TENDERS FOR THE ST. GEORGE STREET
BRIDGE.
CARRIED"
THE ENGINEER REPORTED THAT expenditure on Ice and Snow Control
had been less than budgeted and that it appeared that there would be money for
Surface Treatment if the Bridge estimate was not too high.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED THAT the form of Resolution for
Assumption and Reversion of Suburban Roads was not proper and requested that
new Resolution be passed.
"MOVED BY: GEO. H. CROSS
SECONDED BY: W.E.ROWE
THAT THE DESIGNATION AS A SUBURBAN ROAD OF COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 16 FROM THE
NORTH-EASTERN LIMIT OF COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 14 TO THE SOUTH-WESTERN LIMIT OF
COUNTY ROAD 20 A DISTANCE OF APPROX. 3.9 MILES IS HEREBY REVOKED SUBJECT
TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS.
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY: W.E.ROWE
SECONDED BY: GEO. H. CROSS
THAT COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 33 FROM THE SOUTH-WESTERN LIMIT OF THE CITY OF ST.
THOMAS SOUTH-WESTERLY TO THE SOUTHERN LIMIT OF THE LANDS OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
RAILWAY A DISTANCE OF APPROX. 0.8 MILES IS HEREBY DESIGNATED AS A SUBURBAN ROAD
FOR THE PURPOSES OF PART VIII OF THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
OF THE MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS.
CARRIED"
THE COMMISSION INSPECTED the Roads under jurisdiction of the
Commission as well as construction underway by the County on Road 27.
MEETING ADJOURNED to the Call of the Chairman.
.bHfA~
Chairman
PAGE 3
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 28th, 1966.
THE ST. THONIAS SUBUHBAN HOAD COr\f-lMISSION met at the Court House
at 10 A.M. on February 28th, 1966.
ALL MEMBERS WERE PHESENT.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING of January 18th, were read and adopted.
THE ENGINEER HEPORTED that preliminary plans and estimates
had been received from the Consultant A.M. Spreit & Assoc. for the St. George
Street Bridge. The Plans were examined by the Commission. The Engineer
stated that the Consultant felt that due to the present contracting
situation, $150,000 should be allowed for the construction of the Bridge.
Jurisdiction of the Commission over the Bridge 1/IlaS discussed, and the
following Resolution passed:
"MOVED BY:
W. E. HOv!}'E
SECONDED BY: JAS. HINDLEY
THAT WE ASSUME rrHE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE ST. GEOHGE STRIi::ET
PLUS 100 FEET OF APPHOACH ON THE SOUTH SIDE (CITY OF ST.. rrHOJVIAS) AS A
ST.. THOlVIAS SUBUHBAN C0lV11',1ISSION BHIDGE SUBJECT TO APPHOV AL OF THE D. H. 0..
CAHHIED n
IT WAS DECIDED to approach City Council for funds to replace
the Bridge this year.
ttMOVED BY:
JAS. HINDLEY
SECONDED BY: W' . E. ROV,J'E
THA TINE INCREASE OUR BUDGET BY ~~150, 000 FOIl TIlE CON~)THUCTION
OF ST.. GEOliGE srrHEET BRIDGE AND HEQUEST THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS AND THE COUNTY
OF' ELGIN TO FHOVIDE THEIR SHAHE OF THE PHOPOSED EXPENDITURE ($15,000 ea ch)
THIS YEAH IN ADDITION rro E STIJ,\1ATES OF JANTJARY 1966.
CARRIED n
THE MEIi~TING ADJOURNED to the call of the Chaj.rman.
t 7 ..
~
CHAIHMAN
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO.
JANUARY 18, 1966.
1
at $:30 P.M. on January 18, 1966.
THE sIr. THOMAS SUBURBAN EOAD COMMISSION met at the Court House
COJ.VIMISSIONERS PHESENT were Mr.W. E:. Rowe, ~JIr. G. H. Cross,
Mr. James I~. Hindley, Also present were Mr. R. G. Moore, Suburban Road
Commission Engineer and Mr. F. Clarke from the Ontario Department of
Highways.
MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS on November 23rd and December 1st,
1965 were read and approved.
MOVED BY : W.E.ROWE
SECONDED BY: JAMES HINDLEY
THArr MR. GEORGE H. CROSS BE CHAIRMAN OF THE CGtvlMISSION FOR 1966.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY : JAMES HINDLEY
SECONDED BY: W. E. ROWE
THAT THE HON@RARIUM FOIt THE CO:M1VIISSION MEMBERS BE $150.00.
CARHIED.
MOVED BY : iN.E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: JAMES HINDLEY
THAT THE MEMBEHSHIP FEE FOR ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION FOR
rrHE YEAR 1966 AMOUNTING TO ~j20. 00 BE PAID.
CARRIED.
THE ENGINEER PRESENTED the attached report of the Statement
of expenditures for 1965 and his estimates for Road and Bridge Construction
and Maintenance for 1966.
MOVED BY : Vi. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: JAMES HINDLEY
THAT THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN
HO,AD SYSTEM Fan 1965 BE FOR1JfAHDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELG IN AND THE CITY OF
sr:e. THOMAS.
CARHIED.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO,
JANUARY 18, 1966.
MOVED BY : JAMES HINDLEY
SECONDED BY: W. E. ROWE
THAT THE ESTIMATE OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COlVlMISSION
FOR 1966 AMOUNTING TO $31,000 AS PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER BE APPROVED AND
FOHW"AHDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF sir. THOMAS FOR APPROVAL
WITH THE UNDEHSTANDING THAT
CO~1111/1ISSION MAY APPROACH THE COUNTY AND
THE CITY LATER FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO BUILD THE ST. GEORGE ST. BRIDGE.
CARRIED.
"CORRESPONDENCE. WAS HEAD from the City of St. Thomas stating
4
that the City would pay $500 toward the preparation of flans and estimates
for a new bridge on St. George St. Appointment of a Consulting Engineer
for the building of the bridge was discussed.
MOVED BY : vv.E. ROvIlE
SECONDED BYt JAMESHINDLEY
THAT THE FIRM OF A.M. SPRIET AND ASSOCIATES OF LONDON BE
APPOINTED CONSULTANTS FOR THE ST. GEORGE STREET BRIDGE.
CARHIED.
THE ENGINEEH REPOHTED he would again meet with Mr. Wm. Dodd to
att.empt to arrange a. settlement for land used for the ~~"rellington Road
Extension in 1959. He also stated that he would meet with rJIr. 1p.,Tm. Glenn
reLand purchased to widen Wellington Rd. in 1962.
THE ENGINEER HECOMMENDED the follov~ing contributions by the
Suburban Commission towards costs incurred by the County:
Needs Study
8%
(or a.pproximately $1700)
County Overhead 5%
Engineers Salary 15%
(or $1,764)
Assistant to County Engineer, General Foreman and Clerical - S%
THE MEETING ADJOURNED to the call of the Chairman.
/;AJ 11-# ~/
CHAIRMAN.
ST. THO~S, ONTARIO,
JANUARY, 1960.
TO THE CHAIRfilAN AND 11El\ffiERS OF THE
ST. THO~~S SUBURBAN ROAD CQW1ISSION.
ATTACHED TO ~rr ANNUAL REPORT to the Commission is a stRte-
ment of expenditures on the Commission Roads in 1965 and an
estimate of expenditures for 19n6.
IN 1965 THE cmt~ISSION hRd jurisdiction over 24.0 miles
of paved roads. and 1.15 miles of gravel roads. This will be
reduced to 22.0 miles in 1966 with the reversion to. the County
of Elgin of Rd. 16 from Rd. ?O to Burwell's Corners, 3.9 miles;
and the assumption of Rd. 33, 0.7 miles. This assumption places
Kain's Bridge under control of the Commission.
EXPENDITURES were higher in 19n5 than estimAted. Main~enance
expenditures were considerably higher on Winter ~~aintenance,
Grading and Brushing. Repairs to Pavement costs were lower how-
ever. Approximately two miles of Road 16 West of ~~iddlemarch
was Surface treated.
SURVEYS OF Road 16 from Kettle Creek to Fingal were completed
in preparation for future Construction and some property aCQuired.
~10 parcels of land which were not aCQuired when 11ellington Road
was graded were also acquired during the year. No settlement
has yet been reached for the Dodd property although negotiations
are being continued.
OVERHEAD ITE1"1S represent 5% of the County's total overhead
costs.
INCLUDED in the estimates for 1966 is $5,000 for engineering
on the St. George St. Bridge. The City has already approved their
share $500) of this cost. ~fuen estimates are available the City
Council and County Road Comraittee should be approached for funds
to build a new bridge.
LAND PURCHASE ON Roads 16, 25 and 26 is estimated at $2300.
Although payment toward the County Needs Study was included in
the 1965 budget no payment was made as the Commission was over-
expended on M~intenance. It is suggested that 8% or $1700 of
the total cost of the Needs Study should be paid by the Commission.
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD CO~1:HISSION- Pa.g~___jf.g
.h'" v P' .. .,.. .............. 111 .... I ....17. .....~._;,.......~...................'~'....... ~-~................................~ ...........~~-_.......;.....
THE COSTS OF THE STUDY have been pro rated on percentage
of mileage under jurisdiction of the Commission to totAl County
and Suburban Commission mileage which the Consultant exemined.
~mINTENANCE COSTS are estimated as in the,past. If a
saving can be made on Winter ~~intenance costs, Surface Treat-
ment v~ork should be done on Road 16 east of Finga1 for approx-
imately two miles. (Cost about $1700 per mile).
ALL OF vTHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUB1~ITTED:
f) Ii /)41
~ ~/4..bJ!l._R-
R. G. MOORE, P. ENG.,
ST. THO~~S SUBURBAN ROAD COr~1ISSION ENGINEER.
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COT<IHISSION
~''''''''''''''''~'''''''~_'''"",n';.. ,-1 .............~......,__..l.............,~....._".......~.~..........~,_.-........c.....
STATErlliNT OF 1965 EXPENDITURES
~..... ~ ... j.. r v<:l1'~~~'iM""'_">W'_____'_
CONSTRUCTION:-
-
Land Purchases
(including Rd. 16 & 25 after receipt of
$1,000 1'e sale to Kelso in 1960)
Surveys
TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION:
MAINTENANCE
..........~~~
Bridges
Culverts
St. George St.
TOTAL BRIDGES AND CULVERTS MAINTEnANCE
.......~........-__,...._....~____~~ ~...........-.~.,.........--<IIt
ROADS
---
'>Tinter Maintenance
Repairs t~ Pavements
Surface Treatment
vIeed Control
Brushing
Grading, Ditching, Gravel Resurfacing etc.
Drains
Signs
Centre Line Markings
Guide Rail
Railroad Protection
Drainage Assessments (Repairs)
Traffic Counts
Superintendence, Clerical & Car Mileage
Overhead
T9.:L~b_Ji.oAp..U1f\...l~.IJl.~~
JT~liU"@" T~_~I:-~~,,_.~UB~JD t~~ ..BY ,_p~~
Drainage Assessments Construction
ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY
.......-.......~. "'''lJl#_' J1
Cemmittee Members Fee5 & Expenses
G.G.R.A. Membership
Suburban Road Commission Association
Membership Fee
Weed Spraying and Road Liability Insurance
\JORK DOE UNDER V1INTEH VIORKS PROGRAJllIl.1E:
.--41'. ~__'-"__""""~""'".l 1>/1.... y- ,. T~......~4>>
Brushing
TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR 19n5 ON ST..THOMAS
T , --'-------strBURB)Jf.ROJ~DS---
$ 347.20
948.22
$1,295.42
~~ 219.20
521.89
633.70
$1,374.79
~p7,140.95
-857.09
3.487.40
1,431.92
-982.30
1,615.h7
758.46
323.51
978.99
49.01
466.46
87.95
5.20
3,007.08
..1--1.905 _,66
$2~.097.65
.
317.25
'7',00
20,00
10,00
57.lh
-.....,.......,..~
$ 460.16
100.4'
$26,645.70
g~ TEMENt, ,.qF. 19~}~~25J:ENP.J..TUIi~S
AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS -
-.-.u~__......-...........~....,............,~..,......--~-,...",~,~....w......-..'>~,__""",,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,~~
CO~S~RUCTIOrr (Roads)
25% of $1295.4-2
$ 323.86
~1AINTENANCE
Bridges & Culverts 10% of $137ly.79
Roads 25% of $23,097.65
-13'7.48
5,774.41
ITEMS PARTIALLY SUBSIDIZED BY D.H.O.
....~~~,
$317.25
ITEI<(S NOT SUBSIDIZED BY D. II. o.
~"'.>""""""""" Jlj'j" 1.0IIIil___~~''''''''''''''''''''
118.97
50~'o of $460.16
230.08
WIN TER\IIOHKS
-
TOTAL
12.55
..-
$6,597.)5
'% '
12'2 0 of $100.43
~.~-
~ .......
PAID BY THE CITY OF 8T. TH011AS
~....--.--,.._'_"""~~~""""""'"
~ Mill from the City of St. Thomas provided $18,,67.50
LESS Pavm.ent of 'i'.Te1lington Road Debenture $]'1.~ 71fLJ22.
$ 6,651.,50
LESS Deficit from 1964 $ 858.72
, 1 -..--
TOTAL $ 5,792.78
LESS EXPENDITURES for 1965 $ 6,597.35
DEFICIT TO 1966 $ 804.57
~....-,.. .............,-,._:...............
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD CONIHISSION
____"~......_~....__...._......".. 'V - '''-~
1966 ~ST Ir~IA TES
CONSTRUCTION CITY SHARE
ROAds
Land Purchase and Surveys
Needs Study
$2300
1700
~
$4000
$1000
Bridges
$5000
$9000
~ 500
$1500
St. -George St. Bridge
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
MAINTENANCE
Bridge & Culvert Maintenance
$1500
$ 150
n().A.DS r-/IAINTENANCE
.._:.u';~~;:~...,,", ~
ROADS TOTAL
$7000
1500
1800
1500
1000
500
300
'700
3200
2500
$20,000 $5,000
',\!inter ~~a intenance
Repairs to Pavements
Weed Control & Brushing
Signs and Centre Line Marking
Grading & Dust Control
Railroad Protection
Guide Rails
Drains & Drainage AsseSSMents
Superintendence & Clerical
&. Car Mileage
Overhead
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
$21,500 $5,150
ITEMS NOT FOR SUBSIDY
$ 500
$ 250
~AL ESTIMATE lOR 1966
SHAHE OF THE. crTl QF ST. THO~1AS
$31,000
$6,900
~ Mill from the City of St. Thomas
will provide approximately;
TOTAL
$18,800
$lh6A6
$7,134.00
$ 804.57
$6,329.43
500.00
LESS PAyttfENT of \!iTe,llington Rd. Debenture
LESS DEFICIT from 1965
ADDITIONAL GRANT from the City
re St. George St. Bridge
TOTAL
$h,829.43
1964
t' ~,-' I;~
-"t~ /V" ~-
l,"}:i.Jt"f"'V'"
THE PLACE OF THE SUBURBAN ROADS
IN
THE MUNICIPAL ROADS SYSTEM
BY~ A. J. RETTIE, B.A.SC., P. ENG.
CHIEF ENGINEER, TORONTO YORK ROADS
COr~ISSION
The following paper is being presented at the request of the
?'Suburban Roads Commissions 9 Association'if, which is a section of the
Ontario Good Roads Association, with the hope that the function
of Suburban Roads Commissions can be brought more clearly into focus
as a part of the municipal road systems. It has been my observation
that city r8presentatives, apart from realizing the obligation to
appoint representatives to the local suburban commission once every
five years and of providing an annual financial contribution to the
operation of the Commission, are not familiar with the type of roads
involved, or the financial structure of the commi~8ion. County people
frequently show a tendency to consider the suburban road function as
an adjunct to County Council and do not fully appreciate the fact that
there are other pa~tners involved in this type of corporation. These
partners are entitled to benefits other than the privilege of making
an annual financial contribution to the County on behalf of the sub-
urban road operation. Misunderstandings, as a result, occasionally
grow into conflicts of major proportions between the partners but they
could be easily avoided with a little better understanding of the
responsibilities, duties and activities of the suburban roads com-
missions.
The purpose of this paper then will be to attempt to allay
these difficulties by briefly outlining the constitution of a suburban
roads commission as required under the Highway Improvements Act and
by discussing the relationship of a commission to a county as estab-
lished under that Act. From there I shall comment on the city9s
position in this type of partnership and offer some suggestions as
to the benefits which the city or separated town enjoy from a suburban
roads system. This leads to an examination, or to a re-examination,
of the characteristics of a road which should qualify as a suburban
road and to the advantages or benefits which accrue jointly to the city
and county by such designation. No discussion of this type would be
complete without some reference to costs, or without arriving at some
conclusions, no matter h~~ unpopular they might be, and so these
aspects are also included.
Firetly let us examine the composition of a suburban roads
commission. The Highway Improvements Act R.S.O. 1960, Chapter 171
Section 68, provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon
application of a county may direct that a Commission be appointed in
(continued)
-2-
respect of each city or separated town in the County. It is further
provided that subject to the approval of the Minister of Highways
the Commission may designate roads in the County road system as
suburban roads and the city or separated town shall contribute towards
construction and maintGnance of such roads in accordance with Part VIII
of the Highway Improvement Act. The duty of such commission is spelled
out as follows~
nthe construction and maintenance of suburban roads
and the expenditure thereon shall be cirected by the
suburban roads commission.it
The members of a commission are appointed for a term of five years
and no longer and thereafter commissioners must be appointed at the
end of each term for a further five yea~ period with any memher being
eligible for reappointment. The Act also specifies the prooedure
required for removing a Co~missioner from office. Commissions are
composed of either three or five members depending upon the population
of the city. If the city has a population of more than 50,000 there
are five r~rsons, two appointed by the city, two by the county, and
the fifth to be agreed upon by the four members so appointed, and in
default of such agreement to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council. Where the population of the city is less than 50,000
three members only are similarly appointed. This procedure is clearly
stated in the Act and is repeated here only to emphasize the respon-
sibility of the members appointed, that is, to direct the construction
and maintenance and expenditure on suburban roads. There are qual~
ifications mentioned in the Act as to persons who are ineligible for
appointment but these will not be repeated here.
Having outlined the composition of a commission, let us
examine the relationship between the commission and the county. As
stated above, the commission may designate, subject to the Minister~s
approval) any road in the county road system as a suburban road. It
follows that such designation is solely the responsibility of the com-
mission. At the same time if the commission wishes to designate as
suburban} roads other than those on the county system it is first
necessary to have the county assume them as county roads. This points
out the need for mutual understanding between the two corporations.
As it is the responsibility for the commission to direct the
expenditures for suburban roads, it is therefore the responsibility
of the Commission to outline the road programme and the budget for
suburban purposes. The Act providesJ and I quote from section 71 (c)
tithe expenditures on suburban roads shall be borne
by the County, the city or separated town and the
Province in the proportion 25 per cent by the County,
25 per cent by the city or separated town and 50 per
cent by the Provinc e . i~
(continued)
-3-
It should be remembered also that the Act provides that the County
may make the appropriation before the commission designates the roads
upon which the appropriation is expended. This points out the authority
of the Commission to direct its operation and expenditures as it deems
best.
The contribution of the city is determined according to the
Act to be an amount equal to that appropriated by the county council
but shall not exoeed the proceeds of a rate of one-half mill of the
assessment of the city or separated town. There is also provision
that in any year by agreement with the county council this one-half
mill be increased to two mills. Again, after the appropriations have
been made the Commission has authority to re-allocate funds within
the budget provided, to any project on suburban roads without consent
of the city or county councils.
In practice it is the custom of county council to consider the
budget presented by the cownission and to decide whether or not to
appropriate the full amount requested. If this request is granted, it
becomes the responsibility of the commission to control and distribute
the expenditure.
The greatest area of confusion in this question of suburban
roads is neither in the constitution of a commission nor in the control
of expenditures as described above because the Highway Improvement Act
clearly outlines the appointment and the authority. Confusion does
exist unfortunately because there is no corresponding set of qual-
ifications or characteristics set out as a guide for deciding when the
service being performed by a county road has changed to such an extent
that it should be considered for suburban designation, or even if
some local road not on the county system is providing sufficient
service to warrant inclusion in the suburban road system. It is in the
field of designation that we find ourselves groping for justification.
Too often the designation of roads as subl~ban is influenced by the
funds which are being provided by one or other of the partners and not
enough attention can be given to the service performed. This is not
to say only that there are not enough roads designated suburban because
some of those existing could in all probability be reclassified to
county or local level. Can we not then consider some desirable
characteristics which can be applied realistically to this problem?
In my opinion the designation depends upon the service performed.
It should not be influenced by municipal political di~eotion but should
reflect an honest appraisal of the facility. The following are some
of the characteristics which should be present in a road designated
suburban.
The location of the road, although a consideration, is not the
most important factor. The main aspect of location is that it be an
integral part of the system and provide some of the undermentioned
functions. A suburban road could oe n road leading from a city or
town as an extension of an urban arterial road~ it could be a perimeter
(continued)
-4-
road serving both county and urban people as a by-pass of city con-
gestion~ it could be a boundary road between the city or separated
town and county~ or it could be a connection to the Provincial or
county road network either directly from the city or from some other
suburban road. The suburban road could be a recreational facility
providing direct access for city residents through the county territory
to parks, resorts and similar recreational areas.
The commercial useage should not be overlooked. Suburban roads
could provide a route to distribute to the rural dweller products
manufactur(~ in the urban area, goods being merchandised by the large
business concerns in the city, and for the delivery of staples such
as bread and milk. Many city concerns ship to central distribution
points for local delivery. These roads are also used to 'move produce
and raw materials from the rural areas to the urban areas. Farm
products and market gardening produce are transported to the city for
processing as are quarrie products and gravel from loeal rural deposits.
In other words the suburban road could qualify as a two-way commercial
artery.
Consideration should also be given to its useageas an industrial
facIlity. Large manufacturing concerns are usually located in the cities.
Frequently smaller components are manufactured in the suburban areas
and must be transported to the main factory for assembly. With a
concentration of such development there is a strong caBP for suburban
designation.
The advent of rail freight marshalling yards and trucking depots
in the suburban areas provide transportation problems which can be
handled on suburban roads.
Another type of route preyalent throughout this Province is the
commuter9s highway. People-dwell in the county and travel over county
roads to their places of business in the cities and towns. This
should be a warrant when deciding on suburban roads.
Civil Defence and Emergency Measures Organizations.provide
problems when considering the evacuation of urban dwellers. If this
problem is to be met, Gome weight must be attached to the responsibility
of the city people to look after their own interest..
The above are some of the functions which would be and are
presently performed by suburban roads. It would not be-necessary
to satisfy all these requirements.- These are general factors which
should be considered along with traffic volumes and the general traffic
pattern of an area and could be weighed according to their importance
and to the traffic load that each imposes on the county road.
City contributions. 'rhe question is frequently asked, vtwhy
should a city or separated town be required to contribute to the con-
struction and maintenance of roads within the adjoining county?if
(continued)
-5~
In discussing this further, let us go back to the previous
list of characteristics offered and assume that these have-been accepted
in principle as ~arrants which must be met before a road can be des-
ignated suburban.
By re-examining these functions in the light Of services being
performed J the same old arguments appear& In the case.- of boundary
and perimeter roads, residents of both municipalities are enjoying
the facility provided. irfuether there. are more county or more city
people using the roads depends to a large extent upon the location
and the relative populations of the two areas. To distribute the cost
of this type of roadway according to actual travel by one group or
the other would be impossible as the actual mileage could. never be
accurately determined. Nevertheless, without suburban'-designati"."D,
on this type of highway, the county road is supplying a service to a
large extent for the city resident.
On commercial arteries, the.traffic varies considerably but the
constant factor is that the city.has the assessment from.the manu-
facturingand commercial concerns and the county provides the markets
and raw materials. Similarly with commuter routes, the cities derive
the assessment from the business while the rural areas provide the
schools, sewage facilities and-residential water systems. A highway
for the transportation of goods and workers is essential to both groups.
Similarly with industrial arteries, both types of industries
are coordinated and can not exist without mutual lines of communication.
The civil defence problem'is either obvious or non-existent.
The "rural people by their own resoUrces would never be able to provide
adequate evacuation routes for those people who reside in major
population centres.
This has been a re-statement of arguments which have been
presented on other occasions. They do not prove that the amoUnt of
contribution required from a city or separated town under present
legislation is correct but they do illustrate the necessity of dev- "
eloping a road system beneficial to both municipalities with financial
contributions from botho Apart from the above it is an accepted
principle that ratepayeris respon~ibility for roads- is--not ~onfined
to maintaining of roads within a small centralined area; leaving
sparcely settled areas to provide the remainder and this principle
must apply to the suburban roads as wall as it does to the Provincial
Highways.
To review this paper in the light in which it was requested)
I have attempted to outline the constitution of a Com~issidn as 8et
forth in the Highway Improvement Act and to mention the responsibil-
ities which the commissioners are given when appointed. When a county
council gives a road to suburban designation, that Council in effect
gives to the Commission control of its future construction and mainten-
ance. In return for surrendering these rights, the County gains a
financial contribution equal to its own contribution for this same
(continued)
-6-
purpose 0
It is at this point that the city or separatea town enters the
picture. If the commissioners have'been carefully selective in the
road they have designated as suburban then the city will receive value
for its contribution.
The suburban system is actually an effort to apportion cost
on some equitable basis among the persons benefiting from such roads.
There is no other agency better organized, or with better represen-
tation from contributing parties, to carry this out.
I should probably conclude at this point, but I wonder about
that phrase i~equitable distributionn'and it bothers me. The existing
legislation-provides that the city match the appropriation by the
county for- suburban road purposes. This legislation dates back to
1921 and has not been amended in thiswcontext since that timet The
popular conception is that there is equal contribution by both groups,
but what rea.l1y constitutes equal contribution? If we were-to con-
sider the rate of contribution as being a function waf the assessed
value in each municipality we-would find no such equaXity. For
example I have exarnined four separate road commissions chosen at
random and have calculated on the basis of the DepartmentHof Highways
Annual Report for 1962 the actual charge against a home having an
assessment of ~i)5 ,000.00 for the purposes of the local suburban road
authority. This calculation refers only to suburban""roads and does
not include taxes for local streets, city arterials or county roads.
These are the results of the calculations. For the operation
of the Smiths Falls Suburban Roads Commission in Leeds and"Grenville,
with a mileage of six miles, the"town9s rate was 0.56 mills and the
tax on the t~5,000.OO"'assessment was ~:i)2.8Q. The county~s rate for
this purpose was 0.43 mills and the tax ,($2.15.
In the City of Guelph for the Guelph Suburban""Roads Cornmission
having a mileage of 36 miles,. the Citylls mill rate wa.s 0.48 and the
tax on the home ~1.~2. 40. The ..bwner of a simila:t home within" Wellington
County contributing to the same Comrnission was assessed 1.34 mills
and a tax of:il)6. 70.
In the City of Windsor" for the ~vindsor Suburban Roads Commission
the mill rate was 0.25 mills and the tax ~~1.25 while across the county
line to maintain 49 miles of suburban roads the Essex County homeowner
paid 0.67 mills or $3.35.
For the operation of the Toronto and-York Roads Commission,
the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto assumes the position of the
city or separated to'tlln. In 1962 to m~intain-the 175 milc8 on the
suburban system the Metro. resident was-assessod at 0.115 mills or
~!). 57 and the County of' York-.resident was charged-.-2. 6 mtIle or ~~I3;OO.
The foregoing figures were all based on provincially equalized asses-
sment.
(continued)
-7~
. Do these figures represent an apportior~ent of cost on an
equitable basis?-r suppose if figures h~d been calculated-for all
thirty-four commissions in the Province, similar variations would
occur.
-Resolutions have been pre~ented at the Ontario Good Roads
A$sociation~ the Ontario 11unicipal Association and other Ontario
Association conventions by urban centres asking sUpport for their
claims to be relieved from contributing to suburban road systems.
Still other resolutions have been presented by county groups re-
questing that 'the urban centre-s be required to contribute "on a mill
for mill basi"s. Nothing constructive has been"done with any of these
resolutions:1 'and the situation remains at the statutory 112 mill".
established almost half a century ago. ... Surely- this indicates that
the principle of dual responsibility is acceptable but that the amount
of financial responsibility ~ould.be considered for ~eyisi~n.
Any review of rinanci~l responsibility would also have to .
include a review of each operating" cormnission. A lengthy complicated
study would result but I think it would be well worth the effort.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO,
DECID1BER 1, 1965.
'!'HE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMvfISSION met at the Court
House at 2:00 P.M. in conjunction with the County of Elgin Road Committee.
~1essrs. Ro\tle, Cross and Hindley were present.
14ATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST were discussed, including
(a) Mileage and location of the St. Thomas Suburban Road System;
(b) Financial status of the Commission;
(c) Replacement of the St. George Street Bridge;
(d) The location of the Highbury AVen\le Extension and the St. Thomas
By-pass.
MR. FRANK CLARKE OF THE D.H.O. explained that Mr. T.S.
Caldwell, District Municipal Engineer, felt that Roads 29 & 31 should not
be added to the Suburban System at this time, as it was uncertain where the
By-pass would be located.
}.10VED BY:
SECONDED BY:
GEORGE H. CROSS
JAl-ffiS HINDLEY
'!'}IAT THF~ RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 23 BE RESCINDED AND THAT THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTION BE SUBS'!'ITUTED: "THAT 'lIRE 81'.. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD C ONMISS ION ,
AS OF JANUARY 1, 1966, REVmT TO THE COUNrY ROAD 8YSTlt.,1-1, ROAD 16 FROM
ROAD 20 TO ROAD 14 APPROXIViATELY 3. 9 ~ULES AND ASSUME CONTROL OF THE
FOLLOWING ROAD: ROAD 33 FROM 1'HE 81'.. THOMAS BOUNDARY TO 1'HE CHESAPEAKE AND
OHIO RAILWAY TRACKS APPROXIMATELY 0.8 HILES."
(SIGNED)
CARRIED
W. E. ROrlE
IT WAS DECIDED TO ~4EET with City Council shortly re the
replacement of the St. George Street Bridge.
THE HEEI'ING ADJOURNED TO THE CAlL OF THE CHAIRl4AN.
CHAIRMAN
ST.. THOl>t6<1.S, ONT1~RIO..
DECEMBER 14th, 1966.
THE ST. THOJ:.U';.S SUBURBAN ROPJ) CObftfiTTBE met at the Court House 81,t
11 A.M. on December 14th., 1966.
THE HINUTES OF THE l-1EETING of June 29th, 1966,1 'tv-ere read and
t:::r.pproved.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that the St. George StreE~t Bridge had been
cOmplEUJed ,;?"nd opened. Creek Diversion tvork had been completed and the only '\vork
remaining~ was seeding and sodding next spring, and the Erectj~on of Steel Guide
Rails by County forces this 't'linter. The total contract amount: for the Bridge
including extras, was $125,405.42. The Tota,l Cost of the Bridge to date was
f.lppro,dmately~ $157,000.00, and the Net Cost taking into account the div;ist6U"~!.
of Subsidy into 50% and 80% items \l1as approldmately, $17,500.00. Approximately
93.. 2% of the Total Cost of the Bridge Contract and the l1aterials used in it,
were subsidized at 80%.
THE ENGINEER REPORTED that a de.rieitnwould be ]~un because of the
e'cpense of repairing a portion of Road 4f30 damaged by trucking in mid summer..
The Engineer feels that the carrying for't;Jsrd of a deficit to 1968 fiscalyear
would be necessary~ at which time the Wellington Road Debentulces would be paid off.
The Engineer suggested that consideration should be given to ~~tarting Engineering
Work shortly on any project tht),t the Commission '1Ilould wish to undertake in 1968"
THE CO~1l-nSSION discussed the improvement of St,. George,. and the
building of a underpass under the C.N.R., and the replacement of l<ains Bridge.
The Committee felt that no decision could be made until such time as a By-Pass
Route around St. Thomas had been finalized by the Department l,f Highways.
MEETING ADJOURNED to the call of the Chai~~n.
~ lt~~_
Chairman.
j~.~~~
Summ~ry of Tenders
St. George Street Bridge
St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
County of Elgin
Job No. 6610
June 29, 1966
CONTRACTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
TENDEIiED AMOUNT
I .
Looby Enterprises
Dubl in, Ontario
~:?03.01
2. McKay Cocker Construction
1665 Oxford Street, East
London, Ontario
3.
Elgin Construction
1105 Talbot Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
~~951..25
4. Nadeco Limited
P . 0 . Box I 26
Rexdale, Ontario
5.
A. Weller & Company Limited
P.O. Box 429, Don Mills
Toronto, Ontario
$180987.67
6.
Clarison Construction
175 Plunkett Road
Weston, Ontario
~978.00
7. McLean-Foster Construction
St. Marys, Ontario
8. McCal I Contractors Limited
525 Lauzon Road
Windsor, Ontario
Elgin Construction Ltd.
Lowest Tenderer
~ I 2295 I .25
Amount
Job No. 6610
ITEM DESCRIPTION
1.
Summary of Tender Prices
St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
St. Georae Street Bridae
June 29, 1966
A. WELLER &
UNIT LOOBY ENTERPRISES ELGIN CONST. COMPANY LTD. CLARISON CONST.
L.S. $ 5065.00 $10860.00 $ 9 I 12.50 $ 3717.00
L.S. $ 6630.00 $ 3000.00 $ 6750.00 $ 4660.00
1. Stream Diversion and Grubbing
(Within 250' of Structure)
2. Demal ition and Removal of Old Structure.
3. Standard Excavation and backfill for
structure including construction of
roadway approaches within 100' of
structure.
4. Roadway work beyond 100' of Structure.
5. Dewatering.
6. Reinforced Concrete.
7. Supply of Prestressed Concrete girders.
8. Erection of prestressed Concrete girders.
9. Slope Protection (Sacked Concrete)
including sewer outfal I protection.
L.S. $22761.00 $12800.00 $ / 8048. I 5 $21742.00
L.S. $12467.00 $ 5400.00 $ 5609.00 $ 6473.00
L.S. $ 4700.00 $ 4000.00 $ 8437.50 $ 788.00
$66.34 $42.50 $63.83 $60.00
Cu. Yd. 839 $55659.26 $ 35657.50 ~ r::;~r::;r::;~ ~7 cb kf'\~Ar'\ ,...,...
't' -'-'-'-'-'...J& 'P .JV':>~V.uu
L.S. $19234.00 $16,000.00 $26620.65 $22374.00
L.S. $ 3600.00 $ 6900.00 $ 2700.00 $ 3380.00
L. S. $21150.00 $ 9500.00 $18238.50 $142/9.00
. . . CONT'D
CaNT 10
ITEM
10.
I I .
12.
13.
14.
J 5.
16.
17.
DESCR I PT ION
UNIT
Supply and placing 6" Topsoil on
slopes and affected areas.
L.S.
Protective Weatherproofing.
L.S.
Asphalt Paving (3~n depth). Ton
P I ace C. I . P. Sewer Pip e 12" ~ t 0 24 n ~
750 I in. ft. approx. including backfil I
and compact ion. L in.. Ft..
Concrete Catchbaslns.
5-D.H.O., Dwg. No. D.O. 702
including excavation and granular
backf I II. Each
Concrete Curb and Gutter, approx.
535 Lin. Ft. Lin. Ft.
Concrete Setbacks - 3 D.H.O. Dwg. No.
D.D. 623 Each
Supply and Erect Aluminum Rail ings.
L.S.
Contract Amount:
Lowest Tenderer:
$122951.00
400
750
535
5
3
LOOBY ENTERPRISES
ELGIN CONST.
$ 1800.00
$ 500.00
$10.00
$ 4000.00
$ 1500.00
$ 350.00
$ I I .00
$ 4400.00
$8..00
$ 6000.00
$1.75
$ 1312.50
$250.00
$ 1250..00
$2.90
$ 155 I .50
$125.00
$ 375.00
$ 7760.25
$200.00
$ 1000.00
$2.75
$ 1471.25
$200.00
$ 600.00
$ 8200.00
$174503.01
$ I 2295 I .00
W. WELLER &
COMPANY LTD.
CLAR 1 SON CON ST.
$ 8640.00
$ 216.00
$16.20
$ 6480.00
$ 2700.00
$ 214.00
$14.00
$ 5600.00
$5.09
$ 3817.50
$3.00
$ 2250.00
$189.00
$ 945.00
$4.. 05
$ 2166.. 75
$67.50
$ 202.50
$ 9450.00
$190.00
$ 950.00
$4.60
$ 2461.00
$50.00
$ 150.00
$ 6960.00
$180987.67
$148978.00
'}
\