Anyone stuck behind a slow moving vehicle on a county road might have asked himself why the speed limits on Wellington roads are set so low.
Many people have asked just that, considering county roads are designed to move large volumes of traffic efficiently.
Councillors learned some of the reasons why that is when they heard a presentation from county operations manager Paul Johnson on Sept. 29.
Municipalities must meet a set “level of service,” and keep roads and bridges in a state of repair that is reasonable. Any municipality that fails to do that is subject to the provincial Negligence Act and open to a large lawsuit.
Johnson explained in 2001, the law changed so a municipality is not liable if, at the time an incident that causes lawsuit arises, the municipality has established a set of minimum standard of repair and maintenance – and those standards have been met.
One reason for the standards came about because judges, looking to determine what standards are, often looked at neighbouring municipalities, and then had to determine if they are reasonable. But, Johnson said, the problem is not all municipalities have the same budgets or priorities.
So, municipalities relied on setting their own level of service as a defence against court actions. The province passed minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways in 2002, and demanded reviews every five years.
Johnson said municipalities can choose to adopt minimum standards, set higher standards, or ignore them at their own risk.
He said province-wide standards would be consistent but nearly impossible. Toronto, for example, cannot plow all its roads in a single day. The county can do all of its roads two or three times in that same period.
So, he said, roads of the same class are considered a standard.
Johnson noted in his presentation “If you can’t meet standard, you must be able to provide a defence that actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances.
That means once a defect in a road or bridge is identified, the municipality must act “as soon as is practicable,” or “after becoming aware.”
He said, “Once we know about it, the clock starts,” and he added that good record keeping and communication are vital in protecting the municipality.
There are 15 standards ranging from patrolling, icy roads, and snow accumulation to bridge deck spills, road surface discontinuity, and traffic control signal systems.
There are also ways set to determine the class for each road. All roads with a speed limit of 100km/h are class 1 roads. All roads at 90km/h with traffic up to 8,000 cars per day are also class one.
As the number of vehicles and the speed limits decline, so does the class of the road.
When a class one road that has 2.5cm of snow on it, a municipality has four hours to clear it. For a class 2 road with 5cm of snow, the municipality has 6 hours from the time it is aware of that depth to clear it off.
The table goes all the way to a class 5 road with 10cm of snow, where the municipality has 24 hours to clear it.
That is why side streets in many villages and towns do not get immediate snow clearing service. Other roads have higher priority.
For ice on a class 1 highway a municipality has three hours from the time it becomes aware of the problem to do something about it. For a class 2 road, it is four hours. The range gets to 16 hours for a class 5 road. There is no minimum for the thickness of ice in those ratings.
Johnson also pointed out that there is no winter maintenance standard for sidewalks, and a municipality cannot be sued for an uncleared sidewalk unless somehow gross negligence is involved.
Johnson concluded municipalities should try to manage their risk, especially for winter road maintenance. They should “at least meet regulation requirements and follow best practices. Otherwise, expect insurance companies to ask $1 million for $1 million of coverage.”
Johnson also noted there is currently a case before the courts trying to remove the minimum maintenance standards defence and if it is successful, municipalities can expect a blizzard of lawsuits, some of them going back several years.
He noted there is a defence fund that was set up to fight that action.
Councillor Lou Maieron asked Johnson about traffic volumes, and wondered “where is the break-out” for transferring a high traffic volume road to the county from a town or township. He said that could help a lower tier municipality to meet the required deadlines for winter maintenance.
Councillor Gord Tosh quipped the county would be pleased to rent equipment to those places.
Maieron’s issue sounded like a proposal now nearly a decade old that the county and municipalities sit down and find roads where they can swap jurisdiction and ownership, given that the county has more capital to look after busier roads. No one, however, wanted to bring up that old term of “roads rationalization.”
Johnson said there is no tipping point for that decision, and it is not his to make.
Councillor Bruce Whale asked how critical it is to have traffic data.
Johnson told him to visit the Ontario Good Roads website, which explains best practices for establishing traffic counts without using actual traffic counters.
He added, “We alternate; we don’t do it every year.”
Or, he said, staff can place hoses across a road three times a year to do a count. Johnson added that two parallel roads close to each other and equally built will likely have a similar traffic pattern.
Warden Chris White said many municipalities are concerned about the pending court decision. He predicted “It’s going to be a free-for-all in the courts” if the municipality involved loses the case.
“It’s a big, big issue,” he said.
