1976 Suburban Road Committee
ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
?
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES 1976
CONSTRUCTION
(a) Road 30 ... (Radio Road) from the St. Thomas City Limits
northerly in the Township of Yarmouth,
Grading, Granular Base, Culverts, etc.
(b) Land Purchase... Road 22 and 30 (less rentals).
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE
1. Bridges & Culverts
2. Winter Control
3. ,Surface Treatment
4. Repairs To Pavement
5. Grading, Shoulders, etc.
6. Grass Cutting
7. Tree Cutting
8. Pavement Marking
9. Signs
10. Drainage
11. Sweepi.ng
12. RailrQad ProtectIon
13. Traffic Count
14. Overhead and Superintendence
'1"0'1\'\[,.
No,'l'E: ... 'l?aYlH>1, t J3urdon ,pro .,r'tlt;ed tot about, chnI1g() tl f ot'
Construe t ~onancl Maint:enlilncf~ items, an Overhead
ansl Superintendence charge transferred from County
ROad Overhe.ad and Superintendence.
ifjy~-~ J ~
~~
$ 107,240.24
..-----.-.........-...,-...-
___...!!9~.::3....._
$ l08,_.f8S.4p
$ ______~~~.:9~___
22.,149.16
-----.....--...~.._~-
-___!.!Z93.:~2__...
____11.392.:92___
_.._...1!1~3w:~2___
___...!!::~.:~t..._...
____:1.~t2.:tZ_......
____:!9~~.:Zl___
358.72
----.........--..----
367.14
----.-,--..-.--..---
76.75
-.....----........."'..--
1,426.98
...........---....---......
352.35
8,800.47
-~---------~-~-
$~~_J_~QJ!st!..1!I___,~~~
- ,_.,-~-c- ...=-c:r'"'.,..~,...7i't.l.1-fil...,...,~"'""..."..,.T~--~'~:-.,~.,.....~.
ITEMS NOT SUBSIDIZED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
Committee Member Fee and Expenses
Membership Insurance and Miscellaneous
TOTAL
I
. 1
L
Ii
.'.'COTAL EXPENDITURE BY ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
$ 610.00
lI!'II.._M.........__~..._.._
103.98
... - - -.. - .'........ - - - -'
$
713.98
$ 1 l) g. 042 ~ 9 1
~!'j,
ST. THOMAS' SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION
STATEMENT OJ;t"' EXPENDITURES 1976
PAGE 2.
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE BY crry OF ST. THOMAS
Construction
$ 108,288.46
Maintenance
50,040.47
TOTAL
$ 158,328.93
Subsidy Contribution on operations by Ministry of Transportation and
Communications is 73.794% and is $ 116,837.25. The Rate of Subsidy was
originally estimated at 73.59%.
Balance is shared equally by County of Elgin and City of St. Thomas ( $ 41,491.68).
Amount Payable by City of St. Thomas
$ 20,745.84
Add 50% of Items Not Subsidized by Ministry
of Transportation and Communications 356.99
$ 21,102.83
Add Deficit from 1975 2,022.94
$ 23,125.77
1/2 Mill Levy from the City of St. Thomas in
1976 provided 21,450.00
Deficit to 1977
$
1,675.77
FIRE CHIEF
Corporation of the City of St. 'fhornas
FIRE DEPARTMENT
305-11 WELLINGTON STREET
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5~1 2T2
GEOr~GE N. COLLEDGE
nE.e 30 1975
~:1t:i.";",,,..,.;o_"""'.':" .\..... .'... ~. .... 'l...b.".,uctJ_1:tt-U"
errY m.tSm~
'JI'i~~"''Il$!,*1l.iJto>~~~'
December 24th, 1976.
Mr. R. A. Barrett, A.M.C. T.., C.M.C.,
City Clerk-Administrator,
City of St. Thomas,
ST. THOMAS, Ontario.
Dear Bob:
Re: St.. . Thomas. Suburban Roads Comnission
I would be pleased to accept the appointment to the
Commission on behalf of the City.
I will get in touch with Mr. Moore at the beginning of
the year.
1I~~
f rv
Colledge.
\.
<?eorge N.
Decen~er 23rd, 1976
~~Q G. . Ne Colledge,
Consul,tant,
St.. Thomas Fire Departmen't,
STfilTHO:MAs, Ontario
Re: St~ Thomas Suburban Roads €ommission
"""'"- ..
Dear George:
The Cit.y Council on December 13th, adopted. the following
resolution:
n THAT: Pursuant to Section 63 of The Public Trans-
portationand Highway Improvement Act, ~~. George
Colledge/be appolnted to represent the City of
St. Thornas on the St", Thomas Suburban Road Commission
to compl,etethe term of the late Mr.' W. E.Rowe
which expires .July 1st, 1978 such appointment: t.o
be effective January 1st, 1977. it
At'cached is a photocopy of the provisions of Section 63 of
the Ac.t . which may be of some help to you in beingmore fully
a't-lare of the terms of appointment. I would suggest you contact
Mr", R$G. Moore, County. Engineer, who is Secretary of the
Commission and who can advise you more fully on the .duties
and responsibilities of theoff~ce to which you have been
appointed", \
I would appreciate receiving confirmation of your acceptance
of this appointment at your. earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
R.. A.. Barrett, A.M.C..T.,C.M.C.
City Cl:.erk-Administrator
copy to R.G. Moore, P.Eng.,County Engineer
.SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
1977 EXECUTIVE
President:
Mr. .Clarence Wilsons
R. R. #3s
Chatham, Ontario.
Past President:
Vice President:
Mr. Roy Gordons
69 Lyon Avenues
Guelphs Ontario.
Mrs. Lin Good,
221 Johnson Street,
Kingston, Ontario.
Secretary-Treasurer:
Mr. A. R. Holmes, P. Eng.,
County CourtHouses
Guelph, Ontario.
WESTERN
DIRECTORS
EASTERN
Mr. J. S t e ph ens ,
R. R. #1,
St~ Marys, Ontario.
Mr. Clarence Wilson,
R. R. #3,
Chatham, Ontario.
Mrs. Lin Good,
221 Johnson Street,
Kingston, Ontario.
Mr.G.D. Dougall,P. Eng.,
County Court House,
Brockville, Ontario.
Mr. Morley Howe,
R. R. #2,
Strathroy, Ontario.
Mr. D. M. Code,
3 Maitland Street~
Smiths Falls, Ontario.
,@
Ontario
To:
Attention:
Our File Ref.
Subject:
Mr. H. H. Greenly,
District Municipal Engineer,
London District. /
Mr. F.D. Clarke '
Ministry of
Transportation and
Communications
Memorandum
171 . ~/'" .' r-.7
. '_.' r" ~&-v---, r' V\. ^"~,,lj!, ri'iV'l/i
(,Y /-' ,--
From:
Municipal Roads Office,
7th Floor, West Tower, Downsview.
Date: November 30, 1976.
In Reply to
Re: St. Thomas Suburban RoadS Commission
Please find enclosed a copy of a resolution to revoke a portion
of County Road No. 30 from the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
system. The resolution has been duly approved by the Minister. After
noti ng the resol uti on for your records, please forward it to Mr. Moore,
County Engineer.
HW/nr
Enc 1 .
H. Wargel,
Municipal Projects
Co-Ordinator.
~."""~~~e.."""~~1
CONST. NOTE & fiLe
MAII-n. DisCOS$WlTH ~'-
-.......~ --- ~------_.-"'-#._.~~"""--'f_
UNfCfP. PLEAse ANSWeR
" ~ -------..-----~t__
RViCES NOTS & R~TURN TO ME
........ -~--..........-.. l'""
ACCOUNTS INVf!STlGATE& REPORT
eQUIP ~- TAKE AP"ROPld.UI; -j-
. ACflON
SIG~JS & - SHOWM-t~
PtRMtl'S I.lW.)RE MMI.ING
iNG. Of-P, - -- .~-: A D ~ ~ C:P'V
SUPV. ,..-\i;;l"j\I"~ "10 ..
'j1SAf'l;W - - ~viir;----,-
sUPV. COMMENTS
,--.~ ------
OlsT. NO'TI.! & RttuHN
ADMIN. O~F. TO LHHiARY
~.-"""'- --..............
fl~RSONNEl.
'~""""""""_l\.'\I!Il~,,,,-_____....,
(.;ECEIVE~
( IDE C 1 - 1976 ~
~ ~
Ilt~ 1'+-1. D 181 2, lO" \)011 it>~...\<tJ
~~~~R~~I.Q~~~~
RESOLUTION FOR REVOKING THE DESIGNATION OF A SUBURBAN ROAD
THE ST. THOlUS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
MOVED BY:
A. W. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY:
J.IS. HINDLEY
THAT THE DESIGNATION 11),. A SUBURBAN ROAD OF COUNTY
ROAD 41 30 FROM NORTH LIMIT OF COUNTY ROAD 4F 52 TO THE SOUTH
LIMIT OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION X AND CONCESSION
XI YARMOUTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY .85 MILES IS HEREBY
REVOKED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED:
SIGNED BY: A. W.AUCKLAND
CHAIRMAN
SIGNED BY: R. G. MOORE
SECRETARY
I, Robert G. Moore,Secretary to the St. Thomas Suburban
Roads Conunission, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of a Resolution passed by the St. Thomas Suburban
Roads Commission at a meeting on the 20th day of October 1976.
i?11f(~'
SE . TAR I ,(
~;;/
".~l~~~:............. ...... "'l'. t,r~'_;f~1::'..tt" ,.,
~! TRANSPORTATION AND CO~,iJNICATIONS
\
, I
i
I
I
CON I
~,,(\:\ I
!
I i
I
!
i
I
i
That the designation of Elgin County Road 30
marked in red on this design is revoked as
a St. Thomas Subutban Road by Resolution of
the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission
dated October 20, 1976.
CERTIFIED l?...Jf. tfn li'lr-<-.
Sec~rr; t
St. Thomas Suburban Roads
Commission.
LOie
tI)
o
;. C
-l
:I:
r'~'
I
I
I
-' ~ . '. .
.(i ", . ~j
x' \ ~ . '~"S;---t-;~
~"~~~~',::'~~;~~~"L~
r\ \.. " .~-~' "~,C:;"~k
_ .... ~~:: ".;' ~\~: ~". "~_"""~'" v ..~
8
;.. ::u
j (')
:I:
fTI
CfJ
-l
"", 52 f'o;t~ ~
- ::':-j:.~-r
,cJ ~'~~~~~~;
\~ "''c',,'" '. _.~
,. //~I ,',,7"o~C-5;,,;;"; " -;- , I
, 'Y;F' ,'~'~.. A' ':'~T~~ ,,;.5~.,.;...,~ ""...',
r@lr;AR'J~~ 0i U T~_
v I ! i I ><'=+-"'c ' ,,;.
s;\; ;~'?~\:~
Lor
LC~
KEY PLAN
.~-,.~j
SCALE
PLAN SHOWING
BY A SOLID LINE
THAT PORTION OF ROAD
IN THE TOWNSHIP OF
YARMOUTH
ADDED TO THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM
BY
BY-LAW NUMBER 2166
OF THE
COUNTY OF ELGI N
COUN~Y ROAD NUM'6ER 30
LENGTH OF ROAD ASSUMED ~APPROX."?5 ",LES
U,b.' ~",Ci.."t;.. .~
The Kin;'s l-tit;"twO-y
County Rood ~! 3C
Towns~iJl BOllndar'~"
Coun'1 S,undorie$
Ot"er County ROOM
Unopened Rood
AIIOtfCIncu
To"r.shlp Roads
8Y~LAW NbM8ER 2166
Approved 19 ; by
Order -in - Council Number
O.ated the
I her.""_ ~'tify thot this Pion formapor!
0'- ScIa-ch'Je 'A' ioBy-LowNumbtr 2166
of the CC"A.infy of Elgin
Director of MunieipalBraoch
~~~~~!!'-~~ '??'-,
Da.e
I
-21""~~~," L<'~
elen, _ nty -of _Elgin
_ llbc-Il d{ '"LL!.
~oen~-~
Coun., Road Plan N. 30-'
OCTOBER 20, 1976.
PAGE 1.
AT lis. MEETING OF THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ON
OCTOBER 20J 1976 WITH MESSERSAUCKLAND AND HINDLEY PlU;SENTJ THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WIS PASSED.
RESOLUTION FOR REVOKING THE DESIGNATION OF fA SUBURBAN ROAD
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION
MOVED BY:
A. W.AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: JAS. HINDLEY
THAT THE DESIG~ION IS A SUBURBAN ROAD OF COUNTY
ROAD 4F 30 FROM NORTH LIMIT OF COUNTY ROAD 1; 52 TO THE SOUTH
LIMIT OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION X AND CONCESSION
XI YARMOUTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY .85 MILES IS HEREBY
REVOKED SUBJECT TO THE APPRCN At OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED:
SIGNED BY: A. W. AUCKLAND,
CHAIRMAN.
SIGNED BY: R. G. MOORE,
SECRETARY.
~?J ~ 1:0 CJf1~ ~-'
a_}V~.~
CA~
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
OFFICE OF THE Secretary-Treasurer
CourtHous~)
Guelph, ~nt. NIH 3T9,
September 30. 1976.
Mr .R. G. Moo r e, P .Eng .,
County Engineer,
County of Elgin,
Court House,
St. Thomas, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Moore:
At a recent Executive meeting of the Association,
it was recommended that I circulate a questionnaire to all
member Commissions. The purpose of such a letter was to
solicit support in obtaining subjects for the Annual Meeting
on February 22nd.
It was further suggested that Mr. Gerry Browning,
Head of the Municipal Roads Branch,be present to discuss
any issues of interest to the Commission. I have contacted
Mr. Browning regarding such arrangements and I have suggested
that possibly he may wish as well to make a brief presenta-
t ion. C e r t a i n 1 y t h er e suI t so f the Up per Tie r Fix e dCos t ./
Committee may be of particular interest to us at that time.
I would assume that it is only coincidence that the theme of
the O.G.R.A. Convention for 1977 is "Productive Public
Dollars".
In the interest of the Association, I would appre-
ciate it if you wou1d.take a couple of minutes at your next
Commission meeting to solicit any subjects that they would
wish to hear discussed at the Annual Me~ting. We should keep
in mind that the program is intended to only be in the
vicinity of one hour.
PLEASE' DETACH THE ENCLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IT AT
YOUR CONVENIENCE.
In addition, I would appreciate receiving the names
of the members of your Commission(s).
Yours very truly,
;:;. ~ ,/,~.r
ARH:blh
Encl.
A~ R. Rolmes,P.Eng.
SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION
1976
COMMISSION
COUNTY
1975 POPULATION
OF CITY
OR SEP. TOWN
37,803
243,928
18 ~ 730
24,945
26~853
55,031
4,659
198,569
33,399
65 , 124'
68,192
23,911
35,089
19,946
45,743
5,176
61,003
14,877
59,337
4,928
9,232
1. Chatham
2. London
3. Owen Sound
4.. Stratford
5. St. . Thomas
6. Sarnia
7. St..Marys
8.. Windsor
9. Barri e
10. Brantford
11 . Gue1 ph
12. Oril1ia
13. Belleville
14. Brockvi1le
15. Cornwall
16.. Gananoque
17. Kingston
18.. Pembroke
19.. Peterborough
20. Prescott
21.. Smiths Falls
22.. SmithsFa11s
23.. Trenton
Kent
Middlesex
Grey
Perth
Elgi n
Lambton
Perth
Essex
Simcoe
Brant
Wellington
Simcoe
Hastings
Leeds & Grenville
Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry
Leeds & Grenville
Frontenac
Renfrew
Peterborough
Leeds & Grenville
Lanark
Leeds
Northumberland
14.,877
CLASS
B
E
B
B
B
C
A
D
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
C
A
A
A
B
SUMMARY
POPULATION OF CITY NUMBER OF ANNUAL
.CLASS OR SEPARATED TOWN COMMISSIONS DUES
A o ..; 10,000 5 10..00
B 10,000- 50,000 11 15.00
C 50,000 - 100,000 5 20..00
D 100,000 -200,000 1 30..00
E Over 200,000 1 55.00
WESTERN GROUP MEETING
(,' ,'~ r .,
SUBURBAl'J ROADS COl1!-1ISSrON ASSOCIATIOn
,. ~'
Brant County Council Chambers
BRANTFORD
Wednesday, June 23, 1976
Proceedings began at 10:15 A.M. with Mr. John Stephens of st. Marys,
Chairman of the Western Group, presiding. A total of 44 were in
attendance including 5 M.T.C. representatives. The commissions
in attendance were, Brantford - 6; Chatham - 3; Guelph - 5;
London - 7; Owe.n Sound - 4; Sarnia - 2; St. Marys - 3;; St. Thomas -
1; Stratford - 3; Windsor - 5.
Roy Gordon (Guelph), president of the Provincial Association, said
a few words, and the group was welcomed by Mr. J. Howell, Chairman
of the Brant County Commission.
It was moved by Frank Hutnik (Windsor) and seconded by Doug Hubbell
(Owen Sound) that the minutes of last year's meeting in St. Thomas
be adopted as~read.
Allan Holmes, Secretary of the provincial association, suggested
that any commission who has a problem they would like discussed,
to forward it to the executive as soon as p08sible.
It was moved by Frank Hutnik (Windsor) and seconded by Charles
Cousin (London) that the following be re-appointed as officers for
another y:ear:
Secr.etary -
John Stephens (St. Marys)
Mike Wilson (Chatham)
Morley Howe (London)
Tom.Collings (Stratford)
President -
Directors -
The above motion was passed unanimously.
The summary of a questionnaire re: winter maintenance costs, nite
shifts, 2-way radios, etc., was circulated. It was obvious that
costs varied significantly due to amount 'of snow fall, traffic
volumes, level of service required. Also some commissions included
overhead and some didn't. Other c'Ommissions used ren-ted equipment,
while others used their own. In summary there were too many
variables to come to any conclusion.
-2-
~~ ," ,of
, I
Mr. George Spencer, circulated a Motor" Vehicle accident review
report for Brant County in 1975. The results were quite interest-
ing and in some ca~es contrary to what you would expect, such as
39 of 41 county roads had an averag~ of 1 accident per winter
between the hours of 9 P.M. and 6 A.M., indicating that a nite
shift was not warranted in that county.
Mr. Bob Howarth of the Grand River Conservation Authority, showed
2 very interesting and informative films of the 1974 flooding of
Bridgeport, Cambridge and the entire watershed.
Following the meeting we were entertained by the Brant Commission
to a reception and excellent roast beef, etc. buffet.
The commissions present decided to ask Barrie to be the host city
in 1977, as the Windsor, Chatham, Sarnia delegates were all in
favour of travelling that .distance.
If Barrie were unable to accept, Stratford agreed to be the alternate.
Following the luncheon, the group .toured the site of the Cockshutt
Bridge, where pile driving was being carried out. This 3~ million
dollar 5 span project was most interesting to everyone. The Bell
homestead and the Mohawk Chapel were also visited.
The day's activities concluded at 4 P.M.
PREVIOUS HOSTS OF WESTERN GROUP
1969 - Chatham
1970 - London
1971 - Sarnia
1972 - Owen Sound
1973 - Hamilton
1974 - Windsor
1975 - St. Thomas
1976 - Brantford
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Collings,
Secretary
"'.".6.
SUBURBAN ROADS ~eMMISSnpN ASS~IATION - WESTERN GROUP
Wednesday, June 23rd, 1976, 10:15 A.M.
Chairman - John Stephens, St. Mary's Commission.
1) Welsome from Provincial Assn. President - Mr. Roy Gordon.
2) Wel~me from Brantford Commission - Mr. J. Howell, Chairman.
3) Minutes of 1~75 meeting in st. Thomas.
4) General Association business - Correspondence, Election of
Officers, etc.'
5) Discussion on Results of Winter Maintenance Costs Questionnaire.
6) Review of ~tor Vehicle Accident Report by C. George Spencer.
7) Showing of Gran<< River ~nservation Authority Fillns by
Mr. Bob Haworth.
8) Adjournment of General Business Meeting.
12:00 - 2:00 Reception and Lunch by Bus to Hooper's.
9) 2:00 - 3:30 Short Bus Tour of
Cockshutt Bridge Project
Bell Homestead, Historic Site
Mohawk Chapel, Historic Site
10) 3:30
Return to Court House - Dispersal.
"T'.
~'...'
,.I
...~, I
COUNTY OF BRANT ROADS DEPARTMENT
,)
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT REVIEW REPORT
A review has been carried out of all reported motor vehicle accidents
on County and Suburban Roads for the period January 1st, 1972 to October
31st, 1975. The purpose of the review was primarily to determine:
a) The number of accidents occurring during the winter period.
b) The number of accidents occur;r:ing in the winter period during the times
when County work crews are not normally on duty, ie. week-ends and
nights.
c) The number of accidents that occurred when it was snowing or when roads
were snow covered in relation to the number that occurred under shall we
say ideal conditions, ie. bare and clear.
d) Whether alcohol was a factor.
e) Whether the horizontal alignment of the road may have been a factor.
From the analysis of the accidents~ it was hoped that some concluslons
as to the' adequacy of winter maintenance standards employed at the present
t~me could be made, and whether there was in fact a need to increase the
level of service.
Some of the observations are as follows:
1) During the study period, 477 accidents took place in 'the months between
April 1st to October 31st, and 404 took place in the months between,'
November 1st to March 31st, for a total of 881 in 3 years and 10 months.
2) 45.8% of reported accidents occurred in the winter period.
54.2% of reported accidents occurred in the summer period.
3) Of the 404 accidents that took place in the winter period, 259 of them or
64.1% occurred in the Monday - Friday part of the week and 144 or 35.9%
occurred on the week-ends.
4) Of the 259 accidents that occurred in tne Monday - Friday part of the
week, 135 of them or 52.1% took place between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and
7:00 A.M.
A further analysis of these accidents showed that of the 135 accidents
reported Monday to Friday, between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.,
1
47 or 34.8% occurred between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. when a
night crew, if we had one would normally be on duty.
... continued
.
I
. ,
Page 2...
4 a) Of the 404 accidents reported in the November 1st to March 31st period
142 +135 = 277 or 68% of them occurred either on the week-end or between
the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., when work crews are not normally on
duty.
5) Of the 404 accidents that took place in the winter period, 27% or 110
occurred when snow was falling.
61% or 244 occurred when the weather was clear.
10% or 39 occurred in rainy weather.
2% or 11 occurred in foggy weather.
A further analysis showed that of the 404 accidents, 59% or 239 occurred
when the road condition wasrepprtedas snow covered.
26% or 104 occurred when the road condition was reported as bare and dry.
15% or 61 occurred when the road condition was reported as wet.
6) Of the 47 accidents that occurred Monday to Friday, 9:00.'P.M. to 6:00 A.M.
(a) 60%.or 28 occurred under clear weather conditions.
30% or 14 occurred under snowy weather conditions.
4% or 2 occurred under foggy weather conditions.
6% or 3 occurred under rainy weather conditions.
(b) 36% or 17 occurred under bare and dry pavement conditions.
15% or 7 occurred under bare and wet pavement conditions.
49% or 23 occurred under snow covered pavement conditions.
(c) 3 or 13% of the 23 accidents that occurred on snow covered roads
involved drinking drivers.
7) 262 or 65% of all winter period accidents were single vehicle accidents~
8) 85% or 40 of the 47 accidents that occurred between the hours of 9:00 P.M.
and 6:00 A.M. on snow covered roads were single vehicle.accidents.
8.a) 44% or 177 of the 404 winter period accidents were single vehicle accidents
on snow covered roads.
9) 18% or 48 of the 262 drivers involved in single vehicle accidents during
the winter period were charged.
10) Only 32% or 131 of the drivers involved in the 404 winter period accidents
were charged.
continued
t.,
Page 3 ...
11) 75.5% of all winter period accidents occurred on straight stretches of
road.
12) The percentage of accidents occurring on the various County Roads is
t~bulated on Page by the categories noted.
13) It will be noted that in the winter period Roads 4 and 24 accounted for
27% and 19.3% or a total of 46.3% of all accidents occurring in that
period.
CONCLUSION
From the foregoing there is no clear cut indication that Winter Road Main-
tenance service needs to be increased to provide coverage during the night.
For example; on County Road 4, theCockshuttRoad, the most heavily travelled
road on the system, only 11 accidents were investigated oyer the 4 years in
the 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. period, Monday to Friday, 43 on week-end.
Likewise, on Road 24, only 12 accidents were investigated over the 4
years in the 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. period.
In .fact 26 out of the 41 County Roads repor~ed, no' night accidents between
the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A..M. over the 4 years, and 39 out of the 41
County Roads reported, 4dor less, an average of less than 1 per winter.
RECOMMENDATION
That the present system of winter maintenance be maintained, with no
increase in the level of service.
March 11"1976.
Page 4
Rd. No .
Summer Total % of Accidents in % of
Accidents Total Winter Period Total
2
17 3.6 12 3.0
3 I 14
4~ 109
2.9
22.8
1.9
1.3
3.1
0.6
0.2
1.9
0.2
6.1
3.6
2.5
4.2
1.5'
4.6
0.4
2.9
0.0
0.4
4.0
18.0
2.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
2.3
0.4
1.0
2.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
16
109
1
9
10
o
o
12
o
18
11
12
18
1
24
1
2
o
1
16
78
4
3
9
2
11
1
8
13
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
4.0
27.0
0.2
2.2
2.5
o
o
3.0
o
4.5
2.7
3.0
4.5
0.2
5.9
0.2
0.5
o
0.2
4.0
19.3
1.0
0.7
2.2
0.5
2.7
0.2
2.0
3.2
0.2
o
o
o
o
o
0.2
o
o
o
o
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
9
6
15
3
1
9
1
29
17
12
20
7
22
2
14
o
2
19
24 ~~ ~'1 86
25
26
27 '
28
32
33
35
36
37
50
51
52
53
122
129
130
134
136
144
12
4
4
5
11
2
5
10
3
1.
o
o
o
o
3
1
o
1
1
477
100%
404
100
1975 'Winter
Daily Traffic
791
678
5,468
1,728
1,110
936
276
141
810
120
1,538
661
839
479
574
1,915
293
1,224
115
383
1,553
2,839
410
345
852
307
3,024
385
476
1,488
133
4,518
2,502
2,773
674
556
68
88
425
664
76
1975
9 P.M.-6 A.M.
Daily' Traffic
78
67
697
261
92
N/A
N/A
10
100
N/A'
229
81
65
49
68
310
32
153
9
32
N/A
314
32
59
25
41
388
35
52
122
10
429
327
517
39
48
N/A
N/A
N/A
41
3
Page 5
~PORTEn MOTQR VEHICLE ACCIDENT ANALYSIS - JANUARY 1972 - OCTOBER 1975
Winter Period Only
Winter
Period Only
'..
Day of Week Time of Collision " Driver Drinking Charged Road
Date of Collision' Type
-
Road No. Apr.-Oct. Nov.-Mar. Mon.-Fri. Sat.-Sun 5 P.M.-7 A.M. 9 P.M. -6 A.M. Weather Condition' Road Condition Yes No Yes No .S M S C
, .~
2 17 12 9 3 3 1 2 snow, 8 clear 8 snow, 3 dry 3 9 3 9 11 1 5 7
..
2 fog; 1 wet
3 ' A 16 10 6 5 1 2 snow, 13 clear 7 snow, 6 dry 1 15 5 11 11 5 16 0
I ..L "':l: I
1 fog 3 wet.
, 4 109 109 : 11 37 59 clear 69 28 dry 20 89 40 69 62 47 90 19
66 43 32 snow, snow,
13 rain or fog 12 wet "
.
.
5 9 1 1 0 " 1 clear 1 wet 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
-- --
6 6 9 6 3 2 0 1 snow, 7 clear 6 snow, 3 dry 2 7 2 7 4 5 9 0
1 fog
.
7 15 10 6 4 0 0 3 snow, ~ clear 7 snow, 3 wet 0 10 3 7 4 6 7 3
"
1 fog
"
8 3 0 0 0 0 0 --I -- - - - - - - - -
.
, . ~i
10 1 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- - - - - - - - -
:1
11 9 12 7 5 .5 2 7 snow, 5 clear 8 snow, 4 wet 0 12 2 10 6 6 11 1
i .
,
12 1 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- - - - - - - - -
13 29 18 13 5 8 2 5 snow, 10 clear 7 snow, 6 dry 2 16 7 11 10 8 15 3
.3 rain 5 wet
.
14 17 11 6 5 4 2 1 snow, 8 clear 5 snow, 4 dry O' 11 3 8 10 1 5 6
" 2 rain 2 wet
,
15 12 12 8 4 5 2 4 snow, 6 clear 10 snow, 2 dry 3 9 4 8 9 3 11 1
2 rain
..... .. , , -'-....- , ._m ".
\-.-
Page 6
Reported Motor Vehicle Accident Analysis - January 1972 -October 1975 cont'd
a e 0 0 J.sJ.on Day 0 Wee TJ.me 0 Co J.sJ.on rJ.ver rJ.n J.nq arqe T'roe Road
ROad No. April.-0ct. Nov. -Mar. Mon.-Fri. Sat.-Sun. 5 P.M.-7 A.M. 9 P.M.-6 A.M. Weather Co~ditions Road Condition Yes No Yes No S M S C
16 20 18, 13 5 4 0 7 snow, 8 clear 15 snow, 2 dry 0 18 2 16 13 5 17 1
3 rain 1 wet
17 7 1 1 0 1 0 ,1 clear 1 snow 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
18 22 24 14 10 5 4 3 sn<;>w, 17 clear 21 snow, 2 dry 3 21 6 18 21 3 12 12
3 raJ.n, . 1 fog 1 wet
19 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 clear 1 dry 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
. .
20 14 i 2 1 1 0 0 2 clear 2 dry 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0
f
21 O' 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 clear 1 dry 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
23 19 16 12 .4 8 2 4 snow, 11 clear 8 snow, 7 dry 3 13 5 11 11 5 16 0
1 fog ~.. ~ 1 wet
i
24 ~6 78 46 32 30 14' 21 snow, 48 clear 41 snow, 24 dry 11 67 32 46 49 29 43 35
6 rain, 3 fog 13 wet
25 12 4 3 1 3 1 1 clear, 3 rain 1 snow, 1 dry 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 1
2 wet.
, .
26 4 3 1 2 0 0 1 snow, 2 clear 3 ice 0 3 0 3 1 2 3 0
,
27 4 9 8 1 4 1 2 snow, 7 clear 2 snow, 4 dry 1 8 5 4 5 4 6 3
3 wet
.
28 5 2 2 0 2 2 1 snow, 1 clear 2 snow 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 0
32 11 11 10 1 4 0 3 snow, 7 clear 5 snow, 3 dry 0 11 2 9 6 5 11 0
1 rain 3 wet
D t
f C II' ,
f
k
f
II' ,.
D '
Winter Period Only
D 'k' Ch
Winter
Period Only
d
. .
Page 7
Reported Motor Vehicle Accident Analysis - January 1972 - Octoher 1975, cont'd
Winter Period Only
Winter
Period Only
Date of Collision Day of Week Time of Collision' Driver Drinking Charged Type Road
, -
Road No,. Apr.-Oct. Nov.-Mar. Mon.-Fri. Sat.-Sun. 5 P.M.-7 A.M. 9 P.M.-6 A.M. Weather Conditions Road Condition Yes NO Yes No S M S C
33 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 clear 1 dry 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
35 5 8 5 3 5 3 2 snow, 4 clear 4 snow, 1 dry 0 8 0 7 8 0 3 5
1 fog, 1 mist 3 wet 1
.
36 10 13 9 4 3 1 4 snow, 8 clear 9 snow, 2 dry 1 12 4 9 10 3 12 1
1 rain 2 wet
. ,
.
37 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 rain 1 wet 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
..
.'
50 1 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, ~ ,.
. ;
51 0 n 0 0 0 I' 0 0 0 0 0 0 :,0 0 0 0 0 0
. \I I
" ~ .-, n " .'
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 "':." - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
53 0 0 0 0 c- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- -
i 0 0 0 0
122 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0
. "
129 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 clear 1 dry 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
130 1 0 0 0 .' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- -
'.
134 0 0 0 0 .' 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- -
;
136 1 0 0 0 0 0 '- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. ,.
144 1 0 n 0 0 0 0 - - 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'-
.
TOTALS 477 404 " 259 145 135 47 110 snow, 244 clear 239 snow, 104 dry 54" 350 131 272 26~ 14~ 30: 99
39 rain, 11 fog 61 wet
..
. .
June 23, 1976
SUBURBAN R.ABS OOMMISSION ASS.~IATION (WESTERN)
WINTER MAINTENANCE SUMMARY
NIGHT OR (3)
MILES 1975 WINTER 1975 WINTER MTCE. RADIOS (2) WEEK-END SHIFT 1975 SNOWFALL
GOMMISSION MAINTAINED EXPENDITURES (1) COST PER MILE YES NO YES NO INCHES
(lHATHAM ,,/' 24 $ 5,732.88 $ 238.87 X X 39
WIN.StR vi' 141 36,914.49 261.80 X X 59.2
SARNIA v 37.8 17,196.00 453.00 X X Several
STltJ.TF.~ V' 27 16,400.00 608.00 X X 136
B1WITFtlRt ,;' 54.8 33,908.80 618.77 X X i'
./ 14'
'. ST. MARY'S 17 11,200.00 658.00 X X X
ST. THOMAS v 14.45 9,596.001 664.00 X X Too Much
OWEN SOUND v 29 27,870.00 961.03 X X 144
('('v ,
BARRIE 20 19,934.27 1,000.00 ? ? ? Blank
lli LONDON V 103 104,030.70 1,001.00 X X 95
ORILLIA yv- 21 26,242.56 1,300.00 ? ? ? Blank
GUELPH j 52 86,970.00 \ 1,672.00 X X 107.2
\
cr\, 69.5
NOTE: (1) C~ts may or'may not include overhead
,(2) All who had radios of course reported that they found them to be an advantage
(3) Those maintaining a night or week-end shift had varying systems.
h'
COST PER INCH
$ 146.99
623.55
High
120.58
565.15
8t._~
?
193.54
1,095.06
811.29
1,251.37
~
~
l'\ r.
l y tb~-lV; --fa ,~
K~\' ! ,,' 'J;..{-
\ L'LI'
~
'" J..-v
Q'"
f>@ f>>@L~ TI."
tt i Lf:t Si)~t)R.,.~~ (i.~
GiN I~ H IL.L
(~<e.c\o"\ ~ f.A )
f-lC7DA- L At1T L~VI~D
1915 6uC>GE-T
M A I tSff:f...J '-\~I.~
co~.sTaVc..rlii.
OU~e HG-AI)
MiSe
ThT~ l-
M'L'E-$ /1000 ?Of
( Aur:..-. b4 ')
'''~''-' ,.
W&Slc./~N, . t.) ratl.
~~....,~ . ~. - - <. _4. 4.- - - --: ~- -f-
__VJ,
SQ.6..t:a',8
1/ ;/
f3q._~~FO~b, 1__CUt\T~_A~ J .GUrU'H
"4.000
. -
54-..fo
" "8 000
.
f" b8 000
.,
13~ "00
,
110 100
.
.ss 400
,
" 000
I
.3 "8 600
I
.8S
~,~~---~-~~..........","......",.
.3~ 5"00
.
'24-, :3
JI .3 (" ~ 00
I
It 40 05 0
.
159 2100
.
6bl
~
,s 000
.
52.~
fl( Co 7, 000
11.((,7,000
J.s f? 00'0
~
311,ODO
71000
600000
.eo
L8Nt> 0 N
I 23l.., 800
I toe
I
t t41 tOO 0
I
I Z4f 000
I '
I
I
t
I I 9.9 0 0 0
I '
j 7J4.0<JO
J / J 2 B 000
I I
I 4- -000
I . .
i
f f 045 000
t' . ,
-43
"7
~ ~
_ l. 1
'R C ~D/CO NHI~St.ON ~
-* .,
)' _ - - ," r - " v,,- ., _ ~; ,',' .;}
.w6.J ,Sn i SL'\O..I r1 r . <'.M A~Ul. !C'ltl.^TFd~"!. S~ Tuo~^'
='~9,.<<=,=+~~:~::'-1_:>T__~=~~J'!.. ,~- ..t-t.. .,&Jil- --CIl'W>
j I j.! .
. ~. 1 --- .
I . :'.
\ t ;'1
1'1;-. {Y'u' J1 5it.. 000 i.. 4 &00 f .34500.1
· t '1 ~'I
i t 4
f.
37'f) I'.'" 7 ~1,.$ I . J .1.8
I.. . 'f
I 4- 100 2.4 Zoo!
,
d'? ~ ~
/~
;J-YV
i. ~4 000
J '
i
1- b4.000
I
f
#t b 000
I
;;2 ;) J ;;-vJ
171
I
40 00 0 I 9 .o~ 0
I
112 00 0
,
7v". 000 7, coo
9 000 ~o
.
24.1000 · zr;, "100
, I
.b~ 3.48
:2&2
., Z+ 800 ,
'.
l.b 7001
j .81,: 0001
I I Z, 0 00 I
I +f>O
r/22v,loo
, .
,. I ~
/)
/
I
, '6"
i
00
so. 0 0 d
IS ~. Q 0 0
II Of) 0
- ,
'ZI4. QOo j
1 ~ % ~.R
-45
L ~'1
d.,,:) L~".-
.----.
j;
1 _ t _.', .~l. __.~ _ -.-1-- _ ji
JtvNt;"'1. ; .'
, ----i;----:wi/-1"L'.:......;
.. !
-: "~..-H
, , :
. t--i---1'
~.4<1*J)f I
. >
':' -+-'--T'-"T-
1'...4..11 !.. 1.1..'
.:~ .=r~r;
i 2._~~Q.g
.
~~~'. --"--"-->~"""---"" t
,1. .---~q -J..-J
_;2, 218 ~9_~",--,l
~~+titi
, ,-'.- +--)j",
i i '~';~~
-'---r -t
2l5-oo~. '
, ,
4 et~. 1"oq
t I,~, SOQ
18 000
.
89booo
.
· b4;
()
~
Ontario
Ministry of
Transportation and
Communications
p.o. Box 6008,
London, Ontario.
April 8, 1976.
Mr. R.G. Moore,
County Engineer,
County.of Elgin,
CourtHouse,
St. Thomas,Ontario.
RE: St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission
Approved resolution designatjLng portion
ofGoul1~X.. fLoaQjf}O
Dear Sir:
Attached please find copy of the above mentioned
for your information and file.
Yours truly
~&.~~---
F. D. Clarke,
Sr. Mun. Supervisor,
for
FDCjwjm
H.H. Greenly
Dist. Mun. Engineer.
@
Ontario
Ministry of
Transportation and
Communications
fIlii
~Ial:
Memt ~andum
To: Mr. H. H. Greenly,
District Municipal Engineer,
London District.
From: Munic ipal Transportation Branch.
7th Floor, West Tower, Downsview.
Attention: Mr. F. D. Clarke.
Date: April 1, 1976.
Our File Ref. In Reply to
Subject: Re: St. Thomas Suburban Road Commission
Please find enclosed a copy of a re solution to de signate a portion
of County Road No. 30 to the St. Thomas Suburban Roads
Commission syste.m. The resolution has been duly approved by
the Minister. After noting the resolution for your reco;rds,
please forward it to Mr. Moore, COti.nty Engineer.
HW fnr
E nc 1.
~{d~tp./
H. warge([ .
Municipal Projects
Co-Ordinator.
Ir
it'll
CON ST. NOTE r, FU.E
MAINT. DISClJISS WITH ME
I
-t::::-~--- .
, MUNICfP. ..Ii · PL~As'E ANSWER
-~._----
SERVICES NOTE & RE1URN TO ME
~--- - --~........_-- ---~_........_........_._-
ACCOUNTS INVESTlGAl'E& ~epORT
EQUIP. '(^K~ ,AP~ROP~IAH.
\ ACTlm:
SIGNS & ~. - ....-----....
SHOW ME RH'lY
"ERMITS &f:FORt Mt,llING
,","---.-- -, __P_._____--.<.-..,cII__
ENG. OF', PREPARE REPLY
sUPV,
-..--"- ....-.
SAHTV RETURN WITH
SUPV, COMMENTS
-..--.
DIST. Non & IlllURH
,~~:.-~fF. TO lISRARY I.
~RSONNEL j
~~~"",q '''".' ',' '~""";t~~'" _,.. f .......1.
'1
~
~
-~
N
;1
~
f
__t.
J:
j
:1
-j
r
1
~
~i
~
j
~.
t"'!~""tl<Of.'Jt"
f'~~;iCE~
L[ 0 -) I~ ..r.....6~ ~
1\~ Xr (\ U'" rJI ~.,
'\'{Il ~i
'<<4>J'rIY~~
,;"01..-,,, 0 1ST. 2 L 0 ~ 0011 _,.,,'I'W
~"~', "~ND''.~i?TA''ION r>,\'\tlC\):',;/
."""~;~L::;;l:;;;:,;;.~#~
~1
~', ,.1
II...A'.. .1...' i
,
RESOLUTION FOR DESIGNATING A SUBURBAN ROAD
THE ST. 'mOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS CO~ISSION
MOVED BY: W. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: A. W. AUCKLAND
THAT COUNTY ROAD 30 FROM 1000 FEET NORTH OF NORTH LIMIT
OF COUNTY ROAD 52 NORTHERLY TO THE SOUTH LIMIT OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE
BETWEEN CONCESSIONS X AND, XI YARMOUTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY
0.66 MILES IS HEREBY DESIGNATED A SUBURBAN ROAD FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PART VIII OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS .
CARRIED :
Signed by:
A. W. AUCKLAND
CHAIRMAN
Signed by:
R. G. MOORE
SECRETARY
1, Robert G. Moore, Soc~tary to the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a tl'U8 and correct copy of a Resolution
p8~sed by the St. Thomas Suburban Roads Commission at a meeting on Monday
the 8th day of March 1976.
~.
! Ail} :P''vED
'PATE;:AY~6N"O, ONTARIO
THIS",Z;,,,, VOF,,~~,
'~.' ~ "...L
M'IN'is T'ER'jjJ!rRA'NSPORTA'iioN"'AND' 'C'9i(MUNicATIONS'
R49/~.
SECRETAR~ /
/
V'
",.',". c'.<_..:._____
. ~
COIV. X/I
I
COIV XI
LOT 8
COIV,
XI
l.OT
COIV~ - - ~ ---- -~/'-....-......'.....'........
I '
I
I I!
)....,'.:~..,..l
it
9
I
f~
1
~i
~r"
r
That the designation of Elgin County Road
No. 30marked (in red) on this design
is assumed as a St. Thomas Suburban Road
by resolution of the St. Thomas Suburban
'Road Commission dated March 8/76.
4/
l.OT
Certi fied
tt\./--
1000 ft.
To north limit of Ro.ad 52
KEY PLAN
~ j MIL" \"
- - - - SCAr.E
~
PLAN SHOWING
BY A SOLID LINE
THAT PORTION OF ROAD
IN THE TOWNSHIP OF-
YARMOUTH
ADDEO TO THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM
BY
BY-LAW NUMBER 2166
OF THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN
COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 30
LENGTH OF ROAD ASSUMED -APPRDX. 4,7:5 MILES
.
MU_
LEGEN 0
Urbon. Municipalities p.~
The King's Hl;hway
Township Boundarl.. ------ County RGOd "2 30
Ceunty Boundaries Other Count)' Roodl
Township Roods
Unopened Rood
Allowoncu
BY-LAW NUMBER 2166
App,.ov.d 19 . b,
Order -In - Council Numb.r
Dated the
I hereby certify thot thil Plan forms part
of Schedule 'A'to By-l.CIw Numbet 2166
of the County of Elgin,
Director of Municipal Branch
_ ~!'!.'5..~~~_2!~ ~?'-
Oat.
~~~~ t._
Clerk. nty of Elgin
_ l!h -11 ::If'LL!..
~den~
County Rood Plan N. 30-1
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 8, 1976.
THE ST. THOMAS SUBURBAN ROADS COMMISSION met at 9:30 A.M.
on March 8 at the County Engineer's Office.
PRESENT Messrs. Rowe and Auckland.
UMOVED BY:
W. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: A. W. AUCKLAND
THAT A. AUCKLAND BE CHAIRMAN FOR 1976.
C ARRIEDu
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING of Me rch 1975 were read
and approved.
UMOVED BY:
w. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: A. W. AUCKLAND
THAT THE HONORARIUM FOR COMMISS ION MEMBERS BE $ 150
AS IN PAST YEARS.
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY:
A. W. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: W. E. ROWE
THAT THE SUBURBAN ROAD COMMISSION ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
FEE OF $ 15 AND ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
FEE OF $ 40 BOTH BE PAID.
CARRIED"
THE ENGINEER PRESENTED AND EXPLAINED THE ATTACHED REPORT
detailing 1975 Expenditures and the 1976 Budget.
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO,
MARCH 8, 1976.
Page 2
I'MOVED BY:
W. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: A. W.AUCKLAND
THAT THE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 1975 BE ACCEPTED
AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF
ST. THOMAS .
CARRIED"
"MOVED BY:
A. W. AUCKLAND
SECONDED BY: W. E. ROWE
THAT WE APPROVE THE ENGINEERtS BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
$ 145,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AND OF $ 800
IN NON SUBS In IZABLE ITEm, ALL EXPEND ITURES ON ST. THOMAS
SUBURBAN ROM>S IN 1976, AND THAT WE RECOMMEND THE BUDGET
TO THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS FOR
APPROVAL.
CARRIED"
THE ENGINEER RECOMMENDED THE RE ASSUMPTION by the Commission
of Road 30 (Radio Road) between Road 52 and the Patterson Bridge to
enable the Commission to continue with their programme of construction
on Road 30.
UMOVED BY:
W. E. ROWE
SECONDED BY: A. W.AUCKLlND
THAT COUNTY ROAD 30 FROM 1000 FEET NORTH OF NORTH LIMIT
OF COUNTY ROAD 52 NORTHERLY TO THE SOUTH LIMIT OF THE
ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS X AND XI YARMOUTH A
DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.66 MILES IS HEREBY DESIGNATED
A SUBURlU\N ROAD FOR THE PURPOSES OF PART VIII OF THE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVE1~NT ACT SUBJECT TO THE
;\~PROVAL OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
CARRIED"
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
MARCH 8, 1976.
Page 3
THE MEETING ADJOURNED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIRMAN.
c1 M ~~~
, ,
CHAIRMAN ""
ST. THO!-fAS SUBUR!3AN ROADS C9Ml.j~SSION REPORT
WJ
'rv
J
Febroary / 76
To The Chainnan And Hembers Of The St. Thomas Suburban ROa.ds Commission.
Attached .to this rep"ort. is a Statement of Expenditures in 1975
on Suburban Roads and a Proposed Budget for 1976.
In 1915 a portion of Road 30 north of Road 52. WE:lS reverted to
County Control to allow for constroctJon on that po'rtion of th~ road that
the Commission was unable to finance. It'willbe necessary to reassume
aportionoifthe reversion so that the available funds for 1976 maybe
, II
/i
l,1tY
.11'/;1
the section.
\.
utilized.
Maintenance and Overhead Expenditures in 1975w4~.re for the 'most
partnotmalin nature. with exception 0 f Shoulder Gravelling on Wellington
Road. (cha.rged to Roadside l>taintenance )>andSutfaceTreatmlentwork on Road
22. (Fairvi.ew Ave.).
Net .Construction on Road 30 in 1975 totaled $ IiI, 476. 91 Which
.with Maintenance and. Noh Subs idj zabl e i.tems. gave a total expend itureof .
$229,842.70. Evena,fter the MiI}istry 0 f T,ransportC;ltion,andComtnunications
Subsidy and>thesuI'p1us'from 1974 were deducted t:he net deficit for the
City 0 f St. Thomas sha re\-l8S slight~yi'hexce.ss 0 f<$'2,OOO. This deficit .
will of course 'reduce the amount of workoI} the Suhu.rbari System in 1976.
In L976 'Maintenance' on the System wiJl' b~ ofa,.nonnal nature.
WlnterCoritrol . estitnateshave heen increased' because of the severe winter
to date. . SU rfaceTrea.trnent will be requ ired>\on' St.Georg~. St reet . (Road
26 - approxima.telyO.9 miles). As the County Overhead Costs are considerably
more. in 1976 than in 1975 the Suburban Corranision share is increase<;l accordingly.
All funds not used in. maintenanceshottldbe uSE!dtoward the
fompletion 0 fRoad30. Appro:ximately $25,000 is'required to complete work
from the St. ThomasCityLimitstoCoup.t:,yRoad 52. Th:lswill leave. .
approxixnatety$69,()QO'tooe a.pplledl.l~inst.c()n~t:t"Uc.t:t()n'of the $eetion of
Road 30 from Road 52 to just nortbofPa,tter$onCulvert. ApproXimately
$ 120,O()Ooverandt:lb()vetl1e~()mml$si()ntsfundSli'tl1be. irequi red to comPlete
E..~~__~D:~Ql~...JiU B lL~B~l'L!3.Q.!illS C 0 l.'~gi> S 1.:.Q.~_~~:.?O RT
paGe 2
Fe b rtl a ry / 76
It wi.ll be necessary for the Commission to pasS a resolution
~tIJ .
assuming the road ~'the road allowance between C0ncessions X and Xl
and when the Commi.ssion Budget is spent pass a Resolution reverting the
road to the juri.sdiction of the County so tllat that section of road can
be completed this year.
All Of\1hich Is Respectfully Submitted,
') )'
,// if //j . .1
R; G.-'l-laoi!.p,~filf,;n-;'. -_._--~~-----
Er:CHiEER TO TllE'ST.THONAS SUBURBAN ROADS. GOHUlSSION