Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan Roads and Structures

Transcription

1 Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan Roads and Structures 7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7

2 7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7 Township of Uxbridge Attention: Subject: Mr. Ben Kester, CET, Director of Public Works and Roads Township of Uxbridge, Asset Management Plan Dear Mr. Kester, 4 Roads Management Services Inc. (4 Roads) is pleased to provide this Draft Asset Management Plan for review and comment. Road related information is drawn from the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Report provided by 4 Roads through separate assignment. The 2013 project updated the condition ratings, dimensional information as required, estimated traffic and estimated improvement and replacement costs using more current unit costs provided by the Township. Calculations for Time of Need, Improvement and Replacement Costs and Performance modeling were developed utilizing WorkTech Asset Manager Foundation Software. Similarly, Structures information is drawn from the 2013 Structures Inventory and Inspection provided by AECOM and the Environmental Study Report for Downtown Uxbridge Flood Reduction. We trust that the information provided in this report will be beneficial to the Township of Uxbridge in the continuing evolution of their Asset Management Plans. Please do not hesitate to call or if you require any further information or discussion on any aspect of the report. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this report. If 4 Roads Management Services Inc. may be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, David Anderson, CET President, 4 Roads Management Services Inc. [email protected]

3 Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan for Roads and Structures 7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7

4 Executive Summary In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects, from the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, an AMP has to be developed and approved by a municipal council by December 31, On April 26, 2013 the province announced that it had created a $100 million Infrastructure Fund for small, rural and northern municipalities. The province requires AMP s for Roads Structures, Water and Waste treatment collection and distribution and Social housing. The Township of Uxbridge (ToU) has responsibility for the local roads and structures within the ToU. Accordingly, the scope of this plan only includes the road and structure assets. Project Approach The ToU has been diligent in the continuing condition rating of their road and structures asset groups. The 2011 Road Needs Study, is essentially the current State of the Infrastructure (SotI); the 2012 Structures Inventory and Inspection report provides the SotI for the Structures Inventory. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for Downtown Uxbridge Flood Reduction (SRM Associates 2012) identifies a preferred alternative for the replacement of several culverts in downtown Uxbridge with upgraded facilities that will reduce/limit the probability of flooding that causes property damage. The outcome of the ESR is significant in terms of the asset management plan. The scope of this report is to develop an AMP following the provincial guidelines producing an AMP with the following content 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. State of Local Infrastructure (SotI) 4. Desired Levels of Service 5. Asset Management Strategy 6. Financing Strategy In order to develop the AMP, the following approach was adopted 1. State of the Infrastructure (SotI) development for roads and structures based on existing documentation. 2. Development of Draft Asset Management and Financing Strategies 3. Uxbridge staff review and comment on Draft 4. Presentation of Draft AMP to Council 5. Revision / Finalization of Asset Management and Financing Strategies 6. Final Report preparation 7. AMP presentation to, and adoption by, Council i

5 State of the Infrastructure The 2013 AMP provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system and structures inventory, in their entirety. The existing inventory data and condition ratings were used to develop programming and budgets. However, once an asset reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of each project. The ESR is an example of the detailed review and analysis that is required to reach the project stage. For road assets, data and road condition ratings were completed generally in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads from 1991 (Inventory Manual or IM) during a survey in the summer of 2013 (4 Roads Township of Uxbridge 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads). For structure assets, data and structure condition ratings were completed in accordance with the most current version of the Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual and Ontario Structure Inspection Manual in 2013 (AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection). The bi annual appraisals relate to the materials and performance of the structure. When the Inventory Manual was originally developed, the Province provided funding for municipal road systems; the road systems were measured by their system adequacy. The system adequacy is the percentage of the road system that is not a NOW need. Based on the current unit costs being experienced, the estimated total cost of recommended improvements is $47,851,838. The improvement costs include $24,220,670 for those roads identified as NOW needs and $23,631,168 is for road work required in the '1 to 10' year time period or for maintenance. Included in those amounts is $2,530,166 is for work on road sections with a traffic count of less than 50 vehicles per day. Based on the composition of the road system, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows: $4,819,100 for the roads capital/depreciation, excluding resurfacing, based upon a 50 year life cycle. (this would be similar to the PSAB 3150 amortization value, using current costs) $1,468,700 for average annual hot mix resurfacing, based upon an 19(19.47) year cycle.( This would approximate an average of 10.6 km per year) $100,900 annually, for single surface treatment of existing surface treated roads, based on a seven year cycle (this does not include additional padding or geometric correction). $505,814 annually, for resurfacing gravel roads on a three year cycle (this does not include any additional gravel road conversion costs; nor ditching, re grading, dust control, etc.). $83,312 annually for crack sealing For modeling purposes, 4 Roads has created a funding level described as the Preservation Budget. The Preservation Budget is the total of the recommended funding levels for hot mix resurfacing, single surface treatment and crack sealing: $2,159,000. The premise being that if the preservation and resurfacing programs are adequately funded then the system should be sustained. The performance modeling is discussed in Section 9 of this report. To clarify, the required funding level to sustain or improve the road system; it is not the total of all of the above recommendations. Sustainable funding ii

6 has to be between the Preservation Budget and the Capital Depreciation. The preservation budget and performance model thereof are computer derived. Intangible values and decisions and the effects of other external forces cannot be incorporated into the model. As such the preservation model is the minimum required to maintain the system in theory. From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of managing and maintaining a road system, it should be greater The 2013 Structures Inventory and Inspection (AECOM) identifies needs based on benchmarking costing methods and current unit costs being experienced for structures,, at $3,042,000. The improvement costs include $1,744,000 for those structures identified as NOW needs and $1,298,000 is for structure work required in the '1 to 10' year time period. Culvert 315 is split into 9 sections. A number of the sections have significant materials and performance issues and are recommended for replacement. The area served by the culvert has been identified as a significant flooding hazard since As the culverts need replaced due to the materials and performance, it is appropriate to address the flooding issue at the time of replacement. The ESR document has also been reviewed as the project costing for the replacement of several culverts in downtown Uxbridge significantly impacts the entire Asset Management Plan (AMP). The ESR identifies a further $10,000,000 in structure needs. The total needs for structures are $13,042,000. The average age of the bridges is approximately 44.1 years and the culverts 44.8 years. Both asset groups had a 50 year design life. However, with appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation a service life of 75 years would not be unreasonable. Notwithstanding the life expectancy of structures, other measures may drive the need to replace a structure. The driver in the development of the ESR was the significant flooding that is caused by insufficient capacity in a series of culvert structures in downtown Uxbridge. Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows; $358,600 for the structures capital/depreciation, based upon an average 50 year design life of the existing inventory ($239,100 assuming 75 year service life) $195,200 for the structures maintenance and minor rehabilitations program. $602,000 for Culvert 315 Debt retirement (20 year amortization on interest.) Financial Plan The financial plan/strategy is integral to the asset management plan. The 2013 SotI (4 Roads) identified that current funding level was at approximately the same level as the recommendation for the preservation budget for the road system. The overall condition of the system was above the minimum target set by the province when prior to the removal of conditional grants in the mid 1990 s. It would seem reasonable then, that budget level is adequate to sustain the road system. 4 Roads is advised that there will be a dedicated increase for road assets at the rate of 1% of the tax levy per year (compounded and adjusted for inflation) for the foreseeable future. The 2013 Structures Report (AECOM) and the 2012 ESR (SRM) identified an annualized cost for the structures inventory The ToU s current average annual budget for structures exceeds the annualized iii

7 cost identified in the 2013 Structures report which appears to be based on a 75 year service life, however is falls short of the amount required based on a 50 year design life. Currently, the TOU has budgeted an average of $513,600 annually for structures over the next 10 years. This funding essentially addresses the needs of the structures inventory with the exception of the replacements of culverts 315 Sections one through 9. The total funding for the two asset groups included in this report appears to be at a sustainable level, with the exception of Culvert 315. Culvert 315 poses a significant impact to the ToU from both functional and financial perspectives. As such, the thrust of the AMP has to be to develop funding for the replacement of Culvert 315. The funding gap is significant, which leaves few alternatives other than debt financing and provincial assistance. 4 Roads understands that currently, the Town of Uxbridge is debt free therefore there should be sufficient borrowing capacity to debenture the replacement cost. From the ESR, the gross cost of Culvert 315 replacement is $10,000,000. It is anticipated that the Region s share would be $2,500,000, leaving Uxbridge with $7,500,000. The recommendation is to finance Uxbridge s share through a debenture. Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20 year payback period, the annual debt repayment is $602,000. An additional $602,000 annually is a significant increase to the Township s budget. The projected is likely to be under construction five or more years from now. It is recommended that the annual contribution to reserve for Culvert 315 be increased over the next five years until it reaches the debt repayment level. Once the project enters the construction phase the debt would be incurred and the annual charge would become debt repayment instead of a contribution to reserve. Asset management strategies are critical to managing the performance of an asset group, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. For roads, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to keep the good roads good. Similarly for structures, the best return on investment is in timely replacement of the bridge deck wearing surface, waterproofing, expansion joints and minor rehabilitations. In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the road and structures inventories; 1. The Township should develop an Asset Management Policy that may be adapted to all assets as plans for the other assets are developed. 2. The cycle for review of the road system should be continued, reviewing the entire system on a maximum four year cycle. 3. The cycle for review of the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire inventory on a two year cycle. 4. Culvert 315 replacement should be financed through debenture. 5. The annual contribution level for the debt repayment should be increased annually from 2015 to 2019 by $100,000 annually, reaching $602,000 per year in iv

8 6. The average annual contribution for the structures should be increased to $553,800 based on a 50 year design life. 7. Additional debenture financing may be required for the remainder of the structures inventory. 8. Capital reserves should be established for the road and structure assets. 9. The asset management plan should be reviewed and revised annually from both condition and financial perspectives. 10. Programming for roads should be reviewed to ensure that resurfacing and preservation programs are optimized. 11. Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation and other service life extension treatments are optimized. 12. Traffic counts should be updated and repeated on a regular basis. The counting should include the percentage of truck traffic. 13. The gravel road conversion program should be continued. v

9 Summary Information Table ES 1: Roadside Environment and Surface Type High Class Bit. asphalt % 64.80% Low Class Bit. surface treated % 11.50% Total % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% Road Classification Table ES 2: Roadside Environment and Functional Class Rural Roadside Environment Semi Urban Urban Total % of Total Lanekm km km km Lane Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km Cl km Cl km Cl km Surface Type Gravel, Stone, Other Loosetop % 23.69% Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Cl km Lane Lanekm Lane Cl km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km % 3.00% % 34.47% % 15.37% % 20.61% % 2.77% C/R % 1.92% CCI % 0.10% L/R % 19.74% LCI % 2.02% Total % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% vi

10 Lanes Cl km Table ES 3: Roadside Environment and Lanes Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km % 0.11% % 99.61% % 0.27% Total % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% Table ES 4: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation and Deck Area Bridge Type / Superstructure Foundation Deck Area PC Piles or caisons SF Spread footings UN Unknown C Cast In Place BC Box, Closed Footing RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs SS Solid Slab P Precast Concrete BT Box/Trapizoidal RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs T Timber/Wood IB I Beams or Girders SS Solid Slab Grand Total Table ES 5: Culvert Structure Summary by Subtype and Footprint Culvert Type Foundation Type Grand Total BD Bedding UN Unknown CPR Cast in Place CPS Corr Plate Stl CST Corr. Steel MAS Masonry Grand Total vii

11 Table ES 7: MMS Class by Lanes and Roadside Environment MMS Class TOTAL % OF TOTAL Lanes Roadside Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km 1 R % 0.09% 1 S % 0.02% 2 R % 75.46% 2 S % 11.41% 2 U % 12.74% 3 U % 0.27% TOTAL % OF TOTAL 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% Time of Need Table ES 8: Time of Need by Length and MMS Class (Adjusted for boundary roads) Cl km Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Total Lanekm Cl km Lane km NOW ADEQ Total % of Total 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% System Adequacy % Good to Very Good % viii

12 Table ES 9: Road System Needs Summary Time of Need 1 to 5 6 to 10 ADEQ NOW TOTAL % OF TOTAL Imp. Class Imp ID CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost Const NONE % Const BS 3.8 1,119, ,043, , ,066, ,473, % 9.35% Const REC 4.1 2,304, , ,291, ,210, ,680, % 32.77% Const RNS , , , % 1.36% Const RSS ,104, ,074, , ,163, ,553, % 28.32% Maint CRK , , % 0.14% Maint SD % Maint SR % Rehab DST , , % 0.06% Rehab R , ,816, , ,375, % 7.05% Rehab R , , , % 1.35% Rehab R ,207, ,207, % 2.52% Rehab RM , , % 1.06% Rehab SST , , % 0.05% Rehab SSTplus , , , % 0.33% Rehab PR , , ,183, ,942, % 6.15% Rehab PR , , ,591, ,538, % 9.48% TOTAL ,869, ,231, ,530, ,220, ,851,838 % OF TOTAL 9.20% 16.45% 34.65% 27.65% 35.57% 5.29% 20.58% 50.62% ix

13 Improvement Class Table ES 10: Bridge Structures Time of Need Time of Need NOW Total Const Const Extra Inspection Rehab 833, ,000 28,000 1,090,000 Rehab Extra 76,000 21,000 67, ,000 Total 909, ,000 95,000 1,215,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table ES 11: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need Improvement Class Time of Need NOW Total Const 442,000 4,854,200 5,769,800 11,066,000 Const Extra 388,000 92, ,000 Inspection 5, ,000 Rehab ,000 40, ,000 Rehab Extra ,000 7,000 14,000 Total 835,000 5,175,200 5,816,800 11,827,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and SRM ESR Report x

14 Table ES 8: Boundary Roads Roadside Environment Adjacent Agency R S U TOTAL City of Pickering Township of Brock Township of Brock Town of East Gwillimbury TOTAL Graph ES1: Road Structural Adequacy Rating vs. Length Note: Data is from the 2013 Study xi

15 Graph ES2: Road System Performance at Various Budget Levels Note: Data is from the 2013 Study xii

16 Table ES 9: 10 Year Asset Management Plan and Financial Plan 10 Year Roads, Bridges and Culverts Management Plan Roads Imp.Type Year Grand Total BS 33, , ,262 1,287, , ,430 2,536,751 CRK 57,622 40, ,574 45,263 58,371 56,556 8,198 17,325 15, ,697 DST 27,528 27,528 GRR 741, ,280 GRR2 1,186,614 1,144, ,100 18, ,459 1,750, , ,557 5,827,016 MICRO 6,375 28,776 64,260 30, ,667 9, ,894 PR2 1,709, , , , , ,115 2,878,228 PR2+ 213, ,428 R1 19, , ,471 1,093, , , ,000 87,437 1,013, ,680 5,068,440 R1+ 121, ,892 18, , ,105 R2 663, , ,746 1,207,672 RM 386, , ,488 RNS 243, , ,849 SST 21,450 21,450 SSTplus 157, ,130 37, ,787 Dedicated Increase 90, , , , , , , , ,000 4,050,000 Sub Total Roads 2,158,084 2,193,722 2,284,940 2,374,000 2,464,821 2,555,665 2,644,387 2,733,346 2,825,356 2,915,292 25,149,613 Bridges and Culverts C 00000A Brookdale Road 50, , ,000 C00218 Conc 6 Culvert 120, ,000 South Townline 40,000 40,000 Meyers Road 500, ,000 Conc 3 (N of RR8) 50, , ,000 Weirs Road 40, , ,000 Conc 5 (S of Ravenshoe) 500, ,000 Davis Drive 50, , ,000 Proposed Additional Funding 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45, ,400 C315 Brock St. Culvert (to reserve or debt repayment) 100, , , , , , , , , ,000 4,510,000 Sub Total Bridges and Culverts 310, , , ,600 1,045,600 1,197,600 1,147, , , ,600 7,920,400 Grand Total 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Funding Sources / Financial Plan Capital Budget / Reserve Operating Budget 2,423,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Reserves 45,000 Debentures Grants Other Total Funding 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 xiii

17 Contents INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND... 1 PROJECT APPROACH OVERVIEW... 2 ASSET CONDITION RATING METHODOLOGY ROADS Asset Condition Rating Methodology Inventory Manual History Inventory Manual Overview... 3 ASSET CONDITION METHODOLOGY STRUCTURES Asset Condition Rating Methodology Structures... 5 STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS Scope / Asset Type(s) Road System Inventory and Classification Surface Types and Roadside Environment MMS Classification Functional / Existing / Design Classifications Drainage Boundary Roads... 9 STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE STRUCTURES Scope / Asset Type(s) Structure Inventory and Classification Load Restrictions Structure Types ROAD SYSTEM CONDITION Road System Condition by Time of Need Road System Adequacy Physical Condition Roads Good to Very Good Roads Remaining Service Life Roads Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Roads STRUCTURE INVENTORY CONDITION Structures Inventory by Time of Need Structure Inventory Overall Condition Remaining Design and Service Life Structures Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Structures... 21

18 REPLACEMENT COST VALUATION ROADS REPLACEMENT COST VALUATION STRUCTURES ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND PLAN UPDATES Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Roads Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Structures Asset Management Plan Updates LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ROADS Current Level of Service Measurement System Adequacy Physical Condition MPMP Good to Very Good LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STRUCTURES Current Level of Service Measurement Structures Adequacy Index NOW Needs Structures Requiring Replacement PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ROADS Overview Capital Depreciation Hot Mix Resurfacing Surface Treatment Resurfacing Gravel Road Resurfacing Crack Sealing Performance Modeling Budget Effect on System Performance Asset Management Plan and Strategy Analysis Performance Model Overview System Performance at Various Budget Levels Roads Record of Assumptions Performance Modeling Pavement Classification for Modeling Year Program Roads PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS STRUCTURES Overview Capital Depreciation Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance Year Program Structures ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Asset Management Overview Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating Roads... 37

19 16.3 Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization Asset Management Strategy FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND PLAN Financial Plan Overview Asset Management Plan / Financial Plan Decision Matrix Non Infrastructure Solutions Maintenance Activities and Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities Replacement Activities Disposal Activities Expansion Activities Funding Sources Asset/ Financial Plan RECOMMENDATIONS List of Tables Table 5.1: Surface Type and Roadside Environment Distribution... 6 Table 5.2: Regulation 23/10 Minimum Maintenance Standard Road Classification... 7 Table 5.3: Minimum Maintenance Standards Class Distribution... 8 Table 5.4: Functional Road Class Distribution... 8 Table 5.5: Drainage by Time of Need... 9 Table 5.6: Boundary Roads Table 6.1: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation Type Sub Type and Deck Area Table 6.2: Culvert Structure Summary by Culvert Type, Foundation Type and Footprint Table 7.1: Roads System by Time of Need and MMS Class Table 7.2: Unit Costs Table 8.1: Bridge Structures Inventory by Time of Need Table 8.2: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need Table 14.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Roads by Asset Class and Life Cycle Table 14.2: Road Asset Classes Table 17.1: Proposed AMP and Funding... 43

20 List of Figures Figure 6.1: Triple Load Posting Sign Figure 7.1: Remaining Service Life Roads Figure 8.1: Remaining Design Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.2: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.3: Remaining Design Life Culvert Structures Figure 8.4: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Culvert Structures Figure 14.1: Performance Modeling at Various Budget Levels Figure 14.2: Treatment Selection vs. Condition Figure 15.1: Bridge Deterioration Curve (TAC) Figure 16.1: Treatment Cost vs. Deterioration List of Appendices Appendix A: 10 Year Plan For Roads...

21 Introduction and Background In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects, from the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, municipalities are required to develop an AMP that is approved by council by December 31, On April 26, the province announced that it had created a $100 million Infrastructure Fund for small, rural and northern municipalities. Accessing these funds requires an asset management plan. The province requires AMP s for Roads, Structures, Water and Waste treatment collection and distribution and Social housing. The Township of Uxbridge (ToU) has responsibility for the local roads and structures within the ToU. Accordingly, the scope of this plan only includes the road and structure assets. The provincial requirements for content of an AMP include; 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. State of the Local infrastructure 4. Expected Levels of Services 5. Asset Management Strategy and, 6. Financing Strategy The 2013 AMP provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system and structures inventory in their entirety. The existing inventory data and condition ratings were used to develop programming and budgets. However, once an asset reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of each project. Further, integral to the AMP is the financial strategy. The current funding for the two asset groups included in this report is generally at a sustainable level, with the exception of a significant series of structures; Culverts 315, Sections 1 through 9. The funding gap is significant. The plan provides for a recommended implementation timeline and a financing option. Key to the development of an AMP is a State of the Infrastructure (SotI) review of the asset or asset group. Understanding the composition and replacement and maintenance costs of an asset group is essential to development of an AMP. This report incorporates the condition information from the 4 Roads 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads and the AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and the SRM 2012 ESR for Culvert

22 Project Approach Overview The ToU has been diligent in the continuing condition rating of their road and structures asset groups. The condition assessments for both asset groups is current through the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads and the 2013 Municipal Structures Inventory and Inspection report. The provincial requirements for content of an AMP include are identified in Section 1 of this report. In order to develop the AMP, the following approach was adopted 1. State of the Infrastructure (SotI) development for roads and structures 2. Development of Draft Asset Management and Financing Strategies 3. Uxbridge staff review and comment on Draft 4. Presentation of Draft AMP to Council 5. Revision / Finalization of Asset Management and Financing Strategies 6. Final Report preparation 7. AMP presentation to and adoption by Council 2

23 Asset Condition Rating Methodology Roads 3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. The road section reviews follow the methodology of the Ministry of Transportation Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads, The condition of the road system is mandated by provincial Legislation by the following: Municipal Act 2001, Section 44 (1).The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge. 2001, c. 25, s. 44 (1). Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways is a result of Section Inventory Manual History From the 1960 s until the mid 1990 s, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required municipalities to regularly update the condition ratings of their road systems in a number of key areas. The process was originally created by the MTO, as a means to distribute conditional funding, on an equitable basis, between municipalities. The reports were referred to as a Road Needs Study (RNS) and were required in order to receive a conditional grant to subsidize the municipal road programs. After the introduction in the 1960 s by the MTO, the methodology evolved into the current format by the late 1970 s. The most current version of the Inventory Manual is dated 1991, and is the methodology used for this report. The practice was discontinued by a number of municipalities, when conditional funding for roads was eliminated in the mid 1990 s. To put this in a more current context, a Road Needs Study is essentially the State of the Infrastructure Inventory Manual Overview The Inventory Manual Methodology is a sound, consistent, asset management practice that still works well today, and in view of the increasing demands on efficiency and asset management, represents a sound asset management practice that should be repeated on a cyclical basis. The road section review identifies the condition of each road asset by its time of need and recommended rehabilitation strategy. The Township of Uxbridge SotI Roads section of this report summarizes the condition of the road system survey conducted during the spring The SotI Roads section provides an overview of the overall condition of the road system by road section, including such factors as structural adequacy, drainage, and surface condition. The study also provides an indication of apparent deficiencies in horizontal and vertical alignment elements, as per the Ministry of Transportation s manual, Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. 3

24 The SotI provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system, which may be used for programming and budgeting. However, once a road section reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of the project. Asset Management by its very nature is holistic. Managing a road network based solely on pavement condition would be critically deficient in scope in terms of the information required to make an informed decision as to the improvements required on a road section. The Inventory Manual offers a holistic review of each road section, developing a Time of Need (TON) or an Adequate rating in six areas that are critical to municipal decision making: 1. Geometrics 2. Surface Type 3. Surface Width 4. Capacity 5. Structural Adequacy 6. Drainage The 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads report provides further detail on the rating system. 4

25 Asset Condition Methodology Structures 4.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology Structures The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 metres or greater be inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) or equivalent. 4 Roads understands that the Municipal Bridge Appraisal Data Entry System (MBADES) has been identified as an equivalent. The ToU reporting conforms to the MBADES format. Structural inspections shall be in accordance with the following regulations: 104/97, 472/10 Standards for Bridges Regulation 103/97 Standard to determine Allowable Gross Weight for bridges and 160/02, 278/06 and 472/10 (Amending 104/97) The condition of the structures inventory is further mandated by Provincial Legislation by the following: Municipal Act 2001, Section 44 (1).The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge. 2001, c. 25, s. 44 (1). Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways is a result of Section 44 Bridge and Culvert structures are rated as deficient in the NOW, 1 to 5 or 6 to 10 timelines due to: Insufficient width of structure (six metre minimum) Vertical clearance Level of Service (cannot accommodate peak hour traffic) Structural Capacity. Safety Treatments The Condition Ratings, developed through the scoring in MBADES, classify structures as NOW, 1 to 5, or 6 to 10 year needs for reconstruction or rehabilitation. Similar to roads, structures with rehabilitation treatments should be dealt with as a priority, to further defer the need to reconstruct and maximize the value and life cycle of the asset. Field data is obtained through a visual examination of each structure. Overall ratings and Time of Need are calculated based upon the condition ratings and a combination of other calculations and data. Further detail on the MBADES methodology may be found in the AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection. 5

26 State of the Infrastructure Roads 5.1 Scope / Asset Type(s) This section of the report addresses road assets only. The content will provide review and analysis of the road system from a number of perspectives including condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment, replacement cost and regulation 239/02 classification. 5.2 Road System Inventory and Classification Road sections within road systems may be classified in a number of ways, to illustrate their roadside environment, surface type, functional classification, and so forth. The classifications provide assistance in developing further information, with respect to the road system, such as replacement costs and performance expectations. 5.3 Surface Types and Roadside Environment Roadside environment and surface type criteria of a road section are useful in characterization of the road section, and in determining costs for replacement, reconstruction and rehabilitation treatments. The Inventory Manual classifies the roadside environment as Rural, Semi Urban or Urban. The classification is determined by length, servicing, and adjacent land use. Rural Roads within areas of sparse development, or where development is less than 50% of the frontage, including developed areas extending less than 300 m on one side or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters. Semi Urban Roads within areas where development exceeds 50% of the frontage for a minimum of 300 m on one side, or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters, with or without storm/combination sewers, or for subdivisions where the lot frontages are 30 m or greater. Urban Roads within areas where there are curbs and gutters on both sides, served with storm or combination sewers, or curb and gutter on one side, served with storm or combination sewers, or reversed paved shoulders with, or served by, storm or combination sewers, or for subdivisions with frontages less than 30 m. Table 5.1: Surface Type and Roadside Environment Distribution Rural Roadside Environment Semi Urban Urban Total % of Total Lanekm km km km Lane Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km Cl km Cl km Cl km Surface Type Gravel, Stone, Other Loosetop % 23.69% High Class Bit. asphalt % 64.80% Low Class Bit. surface treated % 11.50% Total % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% 6

27 5.4 MMS Classification In November 2002, Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMS) came into effect. Essentially, if a municipality met the standard and documented it, they would not be negligent per Section 44(3)c of the Municipal Act noted above. The SotI Roads report provides further detail and background on the Minimum Maintenance Standards. Table 5.2 shows the Regulation s traffic/speed/ classification matrix. Table 5.2: Regulation 23/10 Minimum Maintenance Standard Road Classification Annual Average Daily Traffic (number of motor vehicles per day) Posted or Statutory Speed Limit (kilometres per hour) , 000 or more , , , , , 000 9, , 000 7, , 000 5, , 000 4, , 000 3, , 000 2, , 000 1, The distribution of the MMS Classes across the road system is detailed in Table

28 Table 5.3: Minimum Maintenance Standards Class Distribution MMS Class Roadside Environment TOTAL % OF TOTAL R % S % U % TOTAL % OF TOTAL 2.79% 73.28% 20.70% 3.23% Functional / Existing / Design Classifications Roads are further classified within the database by classes such as Local, Collector, or Arterial and Residential or Industrial. Items 33 and 105 in the Inventory Manual provide further direction on determination of the Existing or Design Classes of road. Generally, the classifications are predicated on the existing use, roadside environment, and anticipated growth over either the ten or twenty year planning horizon. The road sections are classified by the rater, at the time of the field review. Table 5.4 identifies the Functional Road Class Distribution. Road Classification Table 5.4: Functional Road Class Distribution Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Cl km Lane Lanekm Lane Cl km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km % 3.00% % 34.47% % 15.37% % 20.61% % 2.77% C/R % 1.92% CCI % 0.10% L/R % 19.74% LCI % 2.02% Total % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% 8

29 5.5 Drainage Adequate drainage is critical to the performance of a road to maximize its life expectancy. Roads are designed, constructed, and maintained in order to minimize the amount of water that may enter, or flow over, the road structure. In the case of water flowing over the road, assessment must be made of the circumstances on a sitespecific basis. Factors that should be considered include the traffic volumes of the road section, economic impacts to the loss of the use of the road, upgrade costs, and risks. There is further detailed discussion on drainage in the SotI Roads Report. Table 5.5 provides an overview of the drainage needs of the road system by Time of Need. Table 5.5: Drainage by Time of Need Time of Need Roadside Environment 1 to 5 6 to 10 ADEQ NOW TOTAL R S U TOTAL Maintenance of the drainage system(s) is also critical to the long term performance of a road system. 5.6 Boundary Roads Boundary roads, are roads that a Township would have in common with the abutting municipalities. In order to manage the joint responsibilities, a Boundary Road Agreement that identifies the responsibilities of both agencies is created. The agreements are usually in writing; however, some are informal. The Boundary Road Agreement should identify costs sharing and responsibility arrangements for maintenance or capital works on the road section. From a risk management perspective the agreement reduces the risk for one of the parties in the event of a claim, depending upon the content of the agreement. Boundary road reporting can be dealt with in one of two ways: the length can be split to provide a more accurate depiction of the road system that is actually maintained by the agency, or they may not be adjusted. When MTO was providing subsidy, the roads were adjusted for reporting and accounting purposes. For the purposes of this report adjustment has been made to the road system sizes to account for the 50% sharing of the length of the boundary roads. When a boundary is reconstructed on a day labour basis by the adjacent municipalities, the project should be treated no differently than if the work were being tendered. The exposure to risk for the Township is no different. The assignment of the various aspects of the work should be clear and the 9

30 timing for completion of the tasks clearly identified and adhered to. Table 5.6 identifies the Township of Uxbridge boundary roads. Table 5.6: Boundary Roads Roadside Environment Adjacent Agency R S U TOTAL City of Pickering Township of Brock Township of Brock Town of East Gwillimbury TOTAL

31 State of the Infrastructure Structures 6.1 Scope / Asset Type(s) This section of the report addresses structure assets with a span of 3 metres or greater only. This includes structures defined as bridges and culverts. The content will provide review and analysis of the structures inventory from a number of perspectives including condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment, replacement cost. Information for this section of the report is drawn from the 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection prepared by AECOM 6.2 Structure Inventory and Classification Bridges and culverts are defined as follows: Bridge In general, transfers all live loads through a superstructure to a substructure and foundations. AECOM s 2013 Structures Inspection report indicates that for bridges that were originally designed as a bridge and have some depth of fill placed over the deck have been appraised as a bridge. Similarly, Box or open type structures that have less than 600 mm of cover were appraised as a bridge and those with more than 600 mm of cover were appraised as a culvert. Culvert In general, transfers all live loads through fill Load Restrictions It should be noted that a deficient bridge may have a load posting/restriction. The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) provides for municipalities to pass by laws to restrict loads on a structure. Generally load restricted structures are identified by the following signage, where a triple posting exists. Figure 6.1: Triple Load Posting Sign L3 L2 L1 L3 postings govern single unit vehicles; L2 postings govern two unit vehicles; and L1 postings govern vehicle trains. Section 13 of Bill 92 amends Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act dealing with the load limit by laws. Municipalities retain the authority to pass load limit by laws, but approval of the Minister of 11

32 Transportation is no longer required. Two engineer's stamps for all load limit by law recommendations, including load posting and duration, generally 2 years, are now required. Load posting assessments are currently being carried out during the annual bridge appraisal updates. The ToU currently does not have any structures with a Load limit restriction. Load limited structures can impose significant constraints on service delivery both public and private. A fully loaded tandem truck with plough blade attached could easily reach 25 tonnes. A Fire Department tanker truck could weigh more than that. 6.3 Structure Types Bridge structures are classified through a number of data fields; Sub Type, Articulation, Material Types, Substructure, Superstructure, Wearing Surface etc. Table 7.2 summarizes the composition of the ToU Bridge Structures Inventory by Sub Type and Deck Area. Culvert Structures may also be classified by similar parameters as the bridge structures. Table 6.1: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation Type Sub Type and Deck Area Bridge Type / Superstructure Foundation Deck Area PC Piles or caisons SF Spread footings UN Unknown C Cast In Place BC Box, Closed Footing RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs SS Solid Slab P Precast Concrete BT Box/Trapizoidal RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs T Timber/Wood IB I Beams or Girders SS Solid Slab Grand Total *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table 6.2: Culvert Structure Summary by Culvert Type, Foundation Type and Footprint Culvert Type Foundation Type Grand Total BD Bedding UN Unknown CPR Cast in Place CPS Corr Plate Stl CST Corr. Steel MAS masonry Grand Total , *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection 12

33 Road System Condition The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. The road section reviews follow the methodology of the Ministry of Transportation Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads, Road System Condition by Time of Need The Inventory Manual methodology results in overall rating of road sections by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 7.1 below provides a breakdown of the road system by time of Need and MMS Class. 7.2 Road System Adequacy The system adequacy is a measure of the ratio of the NOW needs to the total system, and includes needs from the six critical areas described earlier in the report. The overall TON is the most severe or earliest identified need. For example a road section may appear to be in good condition, but is identified as a NOW need for capacity, indicating that it requires additional lanes. Equation 7.2: System Adequacy Calculation System Adequacy = Total System (km) NOW Deficiencies (km) X 100 Total System (km) Currently the road system adequacy measures 79.3%. The road system currently measures centreline kilometres (adjusted for boundary roads), with kilometres rated as deficient in the NOW time period. Time of Need Cl km Table 7.1: Roads System by Time of Need and MMS Class Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Total Lanekm Cl km Lane km NOW ADEQ Total % of Total 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% System Adequacy % Good to Very Good % The estimates provided in this report are in accordance with the formulae in the Inventory Manual, and utilize the unit costs as identified in Table 7.2. These costs include adjustment factors as per the Inventory Manual, such as Basic Construction, Terrain, Contingency Roadside Environment, and Engineering. 13

34 Item Table 7.2: Unit Costs Unit 2013 Costs $ Excavation m Hot Mix Asphalt t Single Surface Treatment m Granular A t Granular B t Conc Curb and Gutter place linear m Conc Curb and Gutter removal linear m Subdrains linear m Storm Sewer 525mm linear m Manholes ea manhole removed ea manholes Adjust ea Catch Basins ea Catch Basins removed ea Catch Basin Leads Linear m Catch Basins adjust ea Asphalt Planing m Asphalt Pulverizing m Crack Sealing m 2.00 The traditional target adequacy for upper tier road systems (Regions and Counties) was 75%, while a lower tier s target adequacy was 60%. Based on these former MTO targets, which were in effect when the municipal grant system was in place, the target adequacy for the ToU should be 60%, as a minimum. The minimum target adequacies were established by MTO, to reflect the nature and purpose of the road system. Based on the current review of the road system, the current system adequacy measure is 79.4% meaning that 20.6 % of the road system is deficient in the NOW time period. The current system adequacy is in an acceptable range Physical Condition Roads The Physical Condition is an alternate method of describing the condition of a road section or the average condition of the road system. The value is the structural adequacy converted to be expressed as a value out of 100, instead of 20. This methodology lends itself to modeling and comparators that may be more easily understood. There isn t a 1:1 relationship between the weighted average physical condition and the system adequacy. The average Physical Condition of the road system is currently

35 7.2.2 Good to Very Good Roads The annual FIR report requires a measure of the good to very good roads be reported. In a calculation similar to that for System Adequacy, 4 Roads has calculated the Good to Very Goods at 70.2% using the following calculation; Equation 7.1: Good to Very Good Roads Good to Very Good = Total System (km) (NOW + 1 to 5 (km) X 100 Total System (km) Remaining Service Life Roads As indicated previously, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction. The TON then also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road system/section. The following figure summarizes the structural adequacy ratings of the road system and illustrates the estimated remaining service life of the road system. Figure 7.1: Remaining Service Life Roads 15

36 7.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Roads The methodology of this report is such that a number of the Inventory Manual itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions in terms of; Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs Structural requirements based on road classification Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations 16

37 Structure Inventory Condition The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 metres or greater be inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) or equivalent. The Municipal Bridge Appraisal Data Entry System (MBADES) has been identified as an equivalent. The ToU reporting conforms to the MBADES format. 8.1 Structures Inventory by Time of Need The MBADES Manual methodology results in overall rating of Bridge and Culvert Structures by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 8.1 provides a breakdown of the Bridge Inventory and Table 8.2Culvert Structure Inventories system by Time of Need. 8.2 Structure Inventory Overall Condition Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge structure evaluations will produce a NOW need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the overall bridge structures inventory, the current estimated replacement cost has been compared to the estimated cost of the current needs that have been identified. The following equation describes the ratio of the replacement cost to the needs costs. Equation 8.1: Bridge Structure Replacement to Improvement Ratio Adequacy Index = Total Replacement Cost Total Needs Cost Total Replacement Cost Using Equation 1, the Adequacy Index for the ToU Bridge structures Inventory is 88 % using a replacement cost of $6,500 per square metre and the standardized improvement costs from the MBADES Manual. Applying the same calculation to the culvert structures inventory produces and Adequacy Index of 75% using a replacement cost of $6,000 per square metre and the standardized improvement costs from the MCADES Manual. However, if the now known replacements cost of Culvert 315 in the same formula, the Adequacy Index for the culverts is 0%. 17

38 Improvement Class Table 8.1: Bridge Structures Inventory by Time of Need Time of Need NOW Total Const Const Extra Inspection Rehab 833, ,000 28,000 1,090,000 Rehab Extra 76,000 21,000 67, ,000 Total 909, ,000 95,000 1,215,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table 8.2: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need Improvement Class Time of Need NOW Total Const 442,000 4,854,200 5,769,800 11,066,000 Const Extra 388,000 92, ,000 Inspection 5, ,000 Rehab ,000 40, ,000 Rehab Extra ,000 7,000 14,000 Total 835,000 5,175,200 5,816,800 11,827,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and SRM ESR Report The number and condition of the bridge and culvert inventory has remained relatively static since the last report Remaining Design and Service Life Structures As indicated previously, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction. The TON then also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road system/section. The following figures summarize two different perspectives on bridge life expectancy design life and service life. This difference has a significant impact on development of the financial plan. Whereas structure constructed prior to 2000 had a 50 year design life, they typically had a service life in the 75 year range. Since 2000 the design life has been 75 years. To simplify the presentation the service life of 75 years has been used for both. 18

39 Figure 8.1: Remaining Design Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.2: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.3: Remaining Design Life Culvert Structures 19

40 Figure 8.4: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Culvert Structures The condition reviews are just that; the physical condition of the structures. When other issues are considered such is the case of Culvert 315, the time of need could change dramatically. Typically when the roads are assed a Time of Need for Drainage is developed based on visual observation, other reports, or anecdotal information. From a road perspective, water over the road to the point where a car cannot pass or there is basement flooding it would be NOW need. The sizing of Culvert 315 results 20

41 in significant flooding that meets the aforementioned criteria, therefore the road section should have a NOW need or drainage. 8.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Structures The methodology of this report is such that the MBADES Manual itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions in terms of; Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs Structural requirements based on field ratings of elements Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations 21

42 Replacement Cost Valuation Roads Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, and functional class of the individual assets. Recommended funding for the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth. The Township should consider those items as additional to the recommendations in this report. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, at $240,953,800. This estimate is based on the Township s unit costs. 22

43 Replacement Cost Valuation Structures Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, and functional class of the individual assets. Recommended funding for the structure assets should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth. The Township should consider those items as additional to the recommendations in this report. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the bridge and culvert inventory, at $17,928,775. This estimate is based on the replacement costs of $6,500 and $6,000 per square metre respectively for bridges and culverts. These benchmark costs can vary considerably once specific project requirements are realized. Using Culvert 315 once again as an example, there are significant property acquisition costs associated with this project. 23

44 Asset Condition Assessment and Plan Updates 11.1 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Roads 4 Roads would recommend a four year cycle maximum for review and update of road system condition ratings Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Structures The Township of Uxbridge s practice has been to update the condition of the structures inventory in accordance with the legislated requirements. The bridge and culvert structures with a span greater than 3 metres should continue to be reviewed on a two year cycle, as required by regulation Asset Management Plan Updates The Asset Management Plan should be reviewed annually to update the condition and financial requirements to maintain the plan. This will ensure that fluctuations in market conditions and other circumstances may be incorporated into the plan. 24

45 Level of Service (LOS) Roads Level of Service has a different meaning for different interests. For instance, the cost per unit may not have an impact to a ratepayer whose chief concern may be service delivery. Similarly, cost or expenditure per unit may not illustrate the condition of the asset to the end user. Further, municipalities are required to report on various Municipal Performance Measures (MPMP) 4 Roads believes that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the road system 12.1 Current Level of Service Measurement System Adequacy As described earlier in the report, the system adequacy is the ration of the NOW need roads to the total system. This is a holistic measure as, using the Inventory Manual Methodology, needs are identified in six critical areas, not just the distress on the road surface. The current system adequacy is 79.3% (adjusted for boundary roads) Physical Condition Physical condition is the Structural Adequacy rating multiplied by five to produce a rating of between 5 and 100. This is a measure of the amount of distress on the road however the scale is not linear. The current average Physical Condition of the road system is MPMP Good to Very Good The province requires annual reporting on the percentage of roads that are rated as good to very good. It has been assumed that the 6 10 and adequate roads are good to very good and this has been expressed as a percentage of the system. Good to very good roads represent 70.2% of the road system. 25

46 Level of Service (LOS) Structures 4 Roads believes that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the structures inventory Current Level of Service Measurement Structures Adequacy Index 4 Roads examined the database provided and believed that one means of expressing the condition of the bridge and culvert structures inventory would be a measure of the ratio of the current improvement needs to the current replacement cost. The bridge structures Adequacy Index is 88 meaning that the remaining value of the inventory is 88% of its replacement cost. The culvert structures Adequacy Index is either 76% or 0% depending on how the replacement value of Culvert 315 is considered NOW Needs Structures Requiring Replacement The current bridge structures database indicates that there are no bridge structures that require replacement at this time. The current culvert structures database indicates that there are 4 culverts that require replacement. This represents 18% of the culvert inventory 26

47 Program Funding Recommendations Roads 14.1 Overview Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, functional class of the individual assets and current unit costing. Recommended funding for the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, at $240,953,700. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the road system. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation Capital Depreciation The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the Township road system to the current standard is $240,953,700. This equates to an annual capital depreciation of $4,819,100. The annual capital depreciation is strictly a function of the replacement cost and the design life, and would best be described as an Accountaneering number. This estimate does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 m, sidewalks, or street lighting. The typical design life for a road structure is 50 years before reconstruction/replacement. If the life span is 50 years, then 2% of the replacement cost should be the annual contribution to the capital reserve, to ensure that it can be reconstructed in that time frame. The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the road system over a 50 year life cycle. However, the 50 year life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as crack sealing and hot mix asphalt overlays are delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs. Analogies to houses and cars sometimes make road maintenance easier to understand. If a house does not have the roof renewed within the correct time frame, there will be damage to the structure, below the roof, and if this is not dealt with, it will result in a rapid deterioration of the house. Similarly, roads require crack sealing and resurfacing at the appropriate time, during the life cycle, in order to maximize the life expectancy of the asset. Preservation and maintenance extend the useful life of the pavement, reducing life cycle costs Hot Mix Resurfacing Roads require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Roads require resurfacing at the appropriate interval, for the respective class of road. Different agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, resurfacing is essentially a maintenance activity. 27

48 Resurfacing schedules are dependent upon traffic loading and the percentage of commercial traffic. Higher traffic volumes and percentages of commercial traffic shorten the interval between resurfacings. Optimal resurfacing intervals will vary from ten to twenty years (or more), depending upon the road function, classification, and quality of design and construction. The Hot Mix Asphalt Resurfacing recommendation in this report is based upon the distribution of the Township s hot mix asphalt inventory. As such, the optimal budget calculation will focus on the 19 year interval (19.5), for hot mix roads. Given the aforementioned, and the information with respect to surface type contained in Table 14.1, the funding for the annual resurfacing program should be $1,468,700 per year on average, in order to maintain the system at its current adequacy level. This estimate is for the major resurfacing work only, and does not include any estimated costs for other pavement preservation activities or programs. Table 14.1 identifies the distribution of hot asphalt roads by asset class and the basis for the recommendation for the annual program budget recommendation. Table 14.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Roads by Asset Class and Life Cycle Asset Class Life Cycle Yrs Average Annual Cost Asset Qty. Unit Cost Weighted Average A/C R A/C S 20 A/C U 20 HCB1 R 10 HCB1 S 10 HCB1 U 10 HCB2 R 12 HCB2 S 12 HCB2 U 12 HCB3 R HCB3 S HCB3 U HCB4 R HCB4 S HCB4 U Totals Surface Treatment Resurfacing Most agencies report that the average life of surface treated road is seven years. Similar to the concept applied to the development of the hot mix resurfacing recommendations, the surface treated road network should be completely resurfaced every seven years, or approximately 14% of the surface treated inventory in each calendar year. 28

49 At a unit cost of $2.75 per square metre, the annual program size should be $100,900, on average, exclusive of hot mix asphalt padding and other preparatory work Gravel Road Resurfacing When MTO was providing maintenance subsidy, the standard practice for gravel road maintenance was to place approximately 75 mm of gravel on each gravel road section, every three years. Since the conditional grant system was discontinued, a large number of municipalities have reduced the amount of gravel that has been placed on gravel roads, to the point where the gravel roads in the system are a major maintenance problem, particularly in the latter part of the winter and early spring. If the granular base is not replenished, the road structure will disappear through normal usage, and the remaining gravel typically becomes contaminated by other materials, such as the native soil and winter sand. Township of Uxbridge has km of gravel surfaced roads. Using the Township s benchmark costing, the annual gravel resurfacing program size should be $505,800 per year, based on adding 75 mm of gravel every three years. This estimate does not include costs for re grading, dust control, or gravel road conversion Crack Sealing Crack sealing is a preservation activity that extends the life of a hot mix asphalt surface. A program estimate is provided based on crack sealing one metre per two lane metre of pavement every 5 years at the unit cost provided by the Township. Based on that premise, the recommended budget for crack sealing is $83, Performance Modeling Budget Effect on System Performance Asset Management Plan and Strategy Analysis The asset management plan is a function of the strategy and available financing. The development process for all elements is iterative, concurrent and holistic on a number of levels. It is complex. The provincial guidelines for the preparation of an AMP indicate that the following must be considered; Options must be compared on Lifecycle cost the total cost of constructing, maintaining, renewing and operating an infrastructure asset throughout its service life. Future costs must be discounted and inflation must be incorporated. Assessment of all other relevant direct and indirect costs and benefits associated with each option. o Direct benefits and Costs Efficiencies and network effects Investment scheduling to appropriately time expansion in asset lifecycles Safety Environmental Vulnerability to climate change o Indirect Benefits and Costs Municipal wellbeing and costs 29

50 Amenity values Value of culturally or historically significant sites Municipal image Assessment of Risks associated with all potential options. Each option must be evaluated based on its potential risk, using an approach that allows for comparative analysis. Risks associated with each option can be scored based on quantitative measures when reasonable estimates can be made of the probability of the risk event happening and the cost associated with the risk event. Qualitative measures can be used when reasonable estimates of probability and cost associated with the risk event cannot be made. Significant effort (and expense) will be required to meet all of these requirements Performance Model Overview A properly developed performance model will satisfy the majority of the requirements identified in the foregoing. Key elements of a Performance Model will include; Deterioration Curves identifying anticipated deterioration of an appropriately constructed asset over the life cycle of the asset Trigger points throughout the deterioration curve identifying appropriate treatments at condition ranges Current costing for all treatments identified To capture the essence of the provincial requirements, development and use of a Performance Model is recommended. Through modeling and the resultant outputs the following may be addressed; Review of options and lifecycle effects based on a Return on Investment Analysis Efficiencies and network effects Budget requirements to achieve LOS goals It is respectfully suggested that a 10 year AMP can be developed through a Performance model, however, 4 Roads is of the opinion a number of other requirements that the province has identified should not be addressed until they reach the project stage. Further, a number of those requirements would be addressed through a Class Environmental Assessment process. Through performance modeling appropriate budget levels, programming and associated costs can be determined, delivering key elements of any plan that can be refined or revisited as circumstances change. Once a model is developed, then the effect of any alternatives may also be measured System Performance at Various Budget Levels Roads This report includes budget recommendations for various aspects of the programming that are typical to road departments. System performance can be predicted based on the level of funding. 4 Roads has prepared four different 50 year performance models for the road system. The models have been prepared with the following parameters: 30

51 Zero budget demonstrates the effect of no work being performed on the road system and how quickly it will deteriorate Existing budget and Preservation budget $2.16m The budgets are approximately the same. This includes the total dollar value of the budget recommendations for Hot Mix Asphalt resurfacing, surface treatment, crack sealing, and gravel road resurfacing Capital Depreciation / Amortization budget $4,819,000m full replacement cost of the road system annualized The Average Physical Condition of the road system is currently The performance model calculations all begin with the current Average Physical Condition and for purposes of the graphing, the year end Physical Condition is displayed based on the effects that the improvements have had on the overall condition of the road system. Figure 14.1: Performance Modeling at Various Budget Levels In reviewing the results of the performance models, it should be understood that, with the methodology being used, the trigger for a resurfacing activity is a Physical condition of 70. The existing system has an Average Physical Condition of Deterioration curves developed by 4 Roads have been utilized for development of funding and prediction models, and based on our experience with a large cross section of municipalities and resultant feedback, we believe that those deterioration profiles are representative, if the roads are constructed to the assumed standard. 31

52 The models indicate that the overall condition of the ToU road system will be generally maintained at the current funding level, provided that the optimum program is adhered to. Variance from the program may result in a reduced performance. In the Capital Depreciation and Preservation funding models, not all of the funding will be spent each year once the average rises above 80. The deterioration curves that have been used consider an average/typical performance for the various road classes. When used in the model at a reasonable funding level, the overall average system condition will remain at a similar level as the model will treat the pavements as perpetual. For the purposes of shorter term plans (up to 20 years), 4 Roads believes that this does not pose a problem. The ToU has agreed upon an annual funding increase for roads that is equal to 1% of the levy. The increase will be cumulative, compounded and adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. The proposed funding level and its effect on the condition of average condition of the road system is represented by the orange line in Figure The proposed funding level will cause an overall increase to the road system over the 50 year modeling period Record of Assumptions Performance Modeling Pavement Classification for Modeling In order to develop budget recommendations, 4 Roads adds an additional classification of roads differentiated by surface type, roadside environment and traffic volume. It is anticipated that each road classification will deteriorate at a different rate. Differentiation by roadside environment within a classification permits calculation of the different replacement costs to reflect the servicing and feature differences. Table 14.2: Road Asset Classes Asset Class Subtype Material Roadside Envt AADT Low AADT High A/C All A/C R 1 100,000 CM1 All C/M R 1 3,000 CON All CON R 1 100,000 GST1 All G/S R 1 10,000 HCB1 All HCB R 20, ,000 HCB2 All HCB R 10,000 20,000 HCB3 All HCB R 1,000 10,000 HCB4 All HCB R 1 1,000 ICB All ICB S 1 3,000 LCB1 All LCB R 1 5,000 Figure 14.2 illustrates treatment selection by time and asset classes for hot mix roads. Typical treatments and/or improvements have been superimposed over the deterioration curves, to illustrate 32

53 the general timelines for implementing the treatments. Other road asset classes have been treated similarly. An important concept to remember is that as a road deteriorates the cost of rehabilitation increases. The deterioration curves, improvement types, current unit costs and current condition ratings are essentially the assumptions used to develop budget and programming recommendations in this report. Appendix F of the SotI Roads report provides detail on the deterioration curves for all road asset classes. Figure 14.2: Treatment Selection vs. Condition Year Program Roads A Return on Investment (ROI) Performance Model scenario has been developed as the initial project selection process for the roads program. The details of the 10 year program are included in Appendix G of the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads Report. The overall Asset Management Plan and Financial Plan are discussed further in Section 17 of this report 33

54 Program Funding Recommendations Structures 15.1 Overview Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the bridge and structure inventory. Recommended funding for the structures inventory should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the structures inventory at $17,928,775. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the structures inventory. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation Capital Depreciation The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the ToU Bridge and Culvert structures Inventory the current standard is $17,928,775. The estimated capital depreciation is $358,575 based on a 50 year design life or $239,050 per year based on a 75 year service life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life or service life, and would best be described as an Accountaneering number. This estimate is strictly for structures over 3m span does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 m, sidewalks, or street lighting. The typical design life for a bridge or culvert structure is 50 years if constructed prior to The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the structures inventory over a 50 or 75 year life cycle. However, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as waterproofing and resurfacing and minor rehabilitations delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance After construction of a new bridge, some initial maintenance/rehabilitation efforts will have to be undertaken within 12 to 25 years to maintain the lifecycle of the structure. Generally, the pavement and bridge deck waterproofing should be replaced in the 12 to 20 year timeframe, with a deck rehabilitation being undertaken in the 25 to 35 year timeframe. Failure to follow a preventive and proactive maintenance schedule of timely repairs and rehabilitations will result in higher than expected repair costs, or worse, missing the optimum rehabilitation window completely. The following graph is from the Transportation Association of Canada s (TAC) Bridge Management Guide and illustrates what is referred to as a deterioration curve. 34

55 Figure 15.1: Bridge Deterioration Curve (TAC) Similar to roads, structures (mostly bridge structures require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Bridges require resurfacing, waterproofing and rehabilitation at the appropriate interval, dependent upon construction type and wearing surface. Different agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, bridge lifecycle minor and major rehabilitations are essentially a maintenance activity. Given the aforementioned, and the information with respect to structure type, the funding for the annual rehabilitation program should be approximately $195,200 per year on average, in order to maximize life expectancy from the bridge and culvert inventory this amount would be in addition to the annualized value for capital depreciation/service life Year Program Structures The Township has a 10 year program mapped out for structures. The program includes additional structures and repairs and replacements of the existing inventory. The average annual funding level is $513,000. Given that the proposed programs include additional structures, the average annual; funding will have to increase over time to address the increased funding that will be required. 35

56 Structures that require rehabilitation should be prioritized to the greatest extent possible in order to realize the maximum life from the structure. Asset Management Strategy 16.1 Asset Management Overview Asset management has as almost as many definitions as there are agencies that manage assets. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines asset management as... a strategic approach to managing transportation infrastructure. It focuses on business processes for resource allocation and utilization with the objective of better decision making based upon quality information and well defined objectives. The document entitled Managing Public Infrastructure Assets, 2001, prepared by AMSA, AMWA, WEF, and AWWA, defines asset management as; managing infrastructure assets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them, while continuously delivering the service levels customers desire, at an acceptable level of risk. The Province of Ontario s document Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans indicates The asset management strategy is the set of actions that, taken together, has the lowest total cost not the set of actions that each has the lowest cost individually Regardless of the source of the definition, the key themes that keep being repeated are; Managing Strategic Effective Efficient $$$$$!! Service Optimizing asset life cycle Risk Management As an absolute minimum, the objective of any asset management plan, or strategy, should be to ensure that the overall condition of an asset group does not does not diminish over time. The asset management strategy of an agency is heavily predicated, and inextricably linked to the available funding. Focus should be on a pavement management strategy that utilizes available funding on preservation and resurfacing programs as a priority. Reconstruction and replacement candidate will remain reconstruction and replacement candidates and cost increases will be incremental with inflation. Preservation and resurfacing opportunities that are missed will escalate in cost by several hundred percent depending on site specifics. 36

57 A similar approach should be considered for the structures inventory. However, a NOW need structure with a load restriction is a priority. Develop the financial plan in order that there is sufficient funding to maintain the condition of the asset groups. Adjust / confirm the plan and funding requirements annually Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating Roads Information in a database may be sorted and analyzed in numerous ways. Understanding what information a data field represents, is key to the analysis. The Inventory Manual has many rated and calculated data fields and thus provides for many ways to sort data. Some commonly used representations, or sorting of information, from the database include: Priority Rating Priority Guide Number Structural Adequacy (Condition) Priority Rating is a calculated field in the Inventory Manual, and is a function of the traffic count and the overall condition rating of the road section. This approach adds weight to the traffic count of the section. Although the word priority is included in the field name, a road section that has a higher calculated Priority Rating is not necessarily a higher priority in the broader sense of asset management. Similarly, a municipality may choose to sort the road sections based on condition and cost per vehicle. The Priority Guide Number data field would assist in providing that analysis, as sorting on that parameter would prioritize road sections that have higher traffic and thus a lower cost per vehicle. Developing a road capital program around the Priority Rating or Priority Guide Number fields will likely result in programming that would lead to more rapid and widespread deterioration of the overall road system, as road sections with high traffic and in poor condition would be selected first, as opposed to selecting the best rehabilitation candidates at the appropriate time in their life cycles. The exception to this statement would be cases where rehabilitation funding is at a high enough level to ensure that the preservation program requirements can be met. From a more current asset management perspective, project selection should be predicated by condition. (Structural Adequacy or PCI). Figure 16.1 clearly illustrates the financial advantages of managing the road system by performing the right treatment at the right time of the asset life cycle. If appropriate strategies are not undertaken at the correct time, there is a less effective usage of the available funding. Similar concepts may be applied to the structures inventory and other most assets 37

58 Figure 16.1: Treatment Cost vs. Deterioration If an agency s budget is fully funded, the programming will include reconstruction, resurfacing, and preservation programs. Prioritization within the different programs will vary as demands are different. However, within the resurfacing and preservation programs, the pavement condition should drive the decision making. Where funding is limited, resurfacing and preservation programs should be prioritized over the construction program. The effect of this approach will be that NOW need roads will remain NOW needs. However, by virtue of their NOW need condition, NOW need roads will require increased maintenance and likely generate increased complaints from the driving public. To deal with this eventuality, a municipality should create a maintenance paving budget, over and above the resurfacing budget. The purpose of this budget is to defer the reconstruction needs, and reduce maintenance efforts and complaints until the road can be reconstructed. For structures, resurfacing and bridge deck waterproofing and rehabilitations offer a very good return on investment. When bridge structures are rehabilitated the opportunity to convert the structure to an integral or semi integral structure will improve performance of over the longer term Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization Prioritizing projects from a purely asset management perspective is a relatively straightforward exercise, regardless of funding level. Complications arise when the specific needs, commitments of the agency, and priorities of other utilities factor into the decision making process. 38

59 The road system is, in reality, a utility corridor. Multiple utilities in both urban and rural roadside environments will present conflicting demands and priorities in advancing projects. The Road Needs Study provides ratings that deal strictly with the condition of various factors as they relate to the road section. Those factors have to be considered in conjunction with needs and priorities that may exist for other utilities or pending development. In fact, the condition of other infrastructure within the road allowance may be the key element in the prioritization. For example, a road rated as a reconstruction project may have a relatively low priority rating, but a trunk storm sewer servicing a greater area may require immediate installation. The priority of the road is then dictated by the other utility, and should be integrated into the capital plan, to best serve all interests. Less tangible priorities may also be project prioritization tools for some agencies. For example, an agency may want to advance projects that also include bus routes or bike lanes. As a municipal road program is developed, opportunities to complete work on smaller sections adjacent to the main project, at a lesser cost than if completed as a stand alone project, should be considered to realize economies of scale, and complete improvements that may otherwise be passed over Asset Management Strategy Notwithstanding the need for program development to include cross asset integration, for the foreseeable future the Township of Uxbridge program should; Focus on those assets that are in a condition range that will benefit from preservation, maintenance and resurfacing treatments and Explore alternatives for additional funding such as o Increase the levy contribution for road infrastructure o User fees o Grant funding o Local improvements 39

60 Financial Strategy and Plan 17.1 Financial Plan Overview The financial plan/strategy is integral to the asset management plan. The 2013 SotI (4 Roads) identified that current funding level was at approximately the same level as the recommendation for the preservation budget for the road system. The overall condition of the system was above the minimum target set by the province when prior to the removal of conditional grants in the mid 1990 s. It would seem reasonable then, that budget level is adequate to sustain the road system. 4 Roads is advised that there will be a dedicated increase for road assets at the rate of 1% of the tax levy per year (compounded and adjusted for inflation) for the foreseeable future. The 2013 Structures Report (AECOM) and the 2012 ESR (SRM) identified an annualized cost for the structures inventory The ToU s current average annual budget for structures exceeds the annualized cost identified in the 2013 Structures report which appears to be based on a 75 year service life, however is falls short of the amount required based on a 50 year design life. Currently, the TOU has budgeted an average of $513,600 annually for structures over the next 10 years. This funding essentially addresses the needs of the structures inventory with the exception of the replacements of culverts 315 Sections one through 9. The total funding for the two asset groups included in this report appears to be at a sustainable level, with the exception of Culvert 315. Culvert 315 poses a significant impact to the ToU from both functional and financial perspectives. As such, the thrust of the AMP has to be to develop funding for the replacement of Culvert 315. The funding gap is significant, which leaves few alternatives other than debt financing and provincial assistance. 4 Roads understands that currently, the Town of Uxbridge is debt free therefore there should be sufficient borrowing capacity to debenture the replacement cost. From the ESR, the gross cost of Culvert 315 replacement is $10,000,000. It is anticipated that the Region s share would be $2,500,000, leaving Uxbridge with $7,500,000. The recommendation is to finance Uxbridge s share through a debenture. Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20 year payback period, the annual debt repayment is $602,000. An additional $602,000 annually is a significant increase to the Township s budget. The projected is likely to be under construction five or more years from now. It is recommended that the annual contribution to reserve for Culvert 315 be increased over the next five years until it reaches the debt repayment level. Once the project enters the construction phase the debt would be incurred and the annual charge would become debt repayment instead of a contribution to reserve. Asset management strategies (AMS) are critical to managing the performance of an asset group, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. For roads, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to keep the good roads good. Similarly for structures, the best return on investment is in timely replacement of the bridge deck wearing surface, waterproofing, expansion joints and minor rehabilitations. 40

61 17.2 Asset Management Plan / Financial Plan Decision Matrix The provincial guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans suggests that the detailed plan review Non Infrastructure Solutions Maintenance Activities Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities Replacement Activities Disposal Activities Expansion Activities The ToU considers that an AMP is a dynamic document and will remain in a continuing state of evolution. As condition ratings, technology, site specific circumstances and funding levels change, the asset management plan will also. With respect to the above noted, the ToU will integrate those considerations as identified in the following discussion Non Infrastructure Solutions The ToU adheres to the Class Environmental Assessment regulation when considering the advancement of projects as part of its standard service delivery practice. The Class EA provides for public notification and involvement and further requires the consideration and analysis of alternatives, as the final solution. Alternatives include analysis of whether an asset is still required and/or required for the same function and purpose Maintenance Activities and Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities Maintenance and renewal /rehabilitation activities have been combined for this discussions as definitions can vary between agencies and may be a reflection of a cost threshold rather than the nature of the activity. For development of appropriate funding levels, and system performance at varying funding levels, the ToU uses Worktech Asset Manager Foundation. The software s performance modeling capabilities have been used to develop the initial program recommendations and provide information on the longer term effect on the overall road system. Essentially, the model will provide a recommended treatment based on Return on Investment, current or projected condition of each asset, current recommendation, and current funding level. The analysis is based on the current unit costs for activities and the anticipated effect on the asset if the treatment is applied. Appendix F provides additional detail on the model. Maintenance and renewal/rehabilitation activities for road assets include crack sealing, slurry sealing/ Microsurfacing renewal of the surface wearing course. Rehabilitation activities include Removal and replacement of all asphalt, including minor drainage improvements 41

62 New technologies may be used in lieu of replacement of both layers of asphalt, such as cold in place recycling, or expanded asphalt Maintenance and renewal/ rehabilitation activities for structure assets include Crack sealing Pave and waterproofing the bridge deck Minor rehabilitations, expansion joint replacement Rehabilitation activities for structures would include Deck and soffit rehabilitation integrated with a renewal of the wearing course and waterproofing Superstructure rehabilitations Replacement Activities Replacement activities are distinctly different for the roads and structures asset groups; A bridge or culvert structure will have to be removed completely and replaced whereas there is usually some element of the road asset that may be salvageable Disposal Activities As noted in there is a distinct difference between road and structure assets in terms of disposal. The disposal of a road cannot be accomplished in the same manner as a piece of equipment; the road allowance is the road allowance and even as rehabilitation occurs, the road is never totally removed and rarely closed completely. Structure disposal is complete at the end of the service life Expansion Activities In concert with the non infrastructure solutions, expansion requirements will be a consideration in the final project detail. The ToU will consider the Official Plan as an element of any project going forward. The Official plan may indicate a growth potential in the twenty to twenty five year planning horizon and this will be incorporated into the final decision at the project level on a site specific basis. The ToU has very limited expansion potential due to its location in the Green Belt Funding Sources Going forward, the ToU will consider all funding options in order to maintain and enhance the overall condition of the asset groups. Funding sources will include debentures, capital reserves, operating budgets, gas tax and grants Asset/ Financial Plan The ToU AMP will based on building the annual funding level to the Preservation budget level for road assets over a 50 period. Table 17.1 provides an overview of the programming and the funding for the 10 year Asset Management Plan. 42

63 Table 17.1: Proposed AMP and Funding 10 Year Roads, Bridges and Culverts Management Plan Roads Imp.Type Year Grand Total BS 33, , ,262 1,287, , ,430 2,536,751 CRK 57,622 40, ,574 45,263 58,371 56,556 8,198 17,325 15, ,697 DST 27,528 27,528 GRR 741, ,280 GRR2 1,186,614 1,144, ,100 18, ,459 1,750, , ,557 5,827,016 MICRO 6,375 28,776 64,260 30, ,667 9, ,894 PR2 1,709, , , , , ,115 2,878,228 PR2+ 213, ,428 R1 19, , ,471 1,093, , , ,000 87,437 1,013, ,680 5,068,440 R1+ 121, ,892 18, , ,105 R2 663, , ,746 1,207,672 RM 386, , ,488 RNS 243, , ,849 SST 21,450 21,450 SSTplus 157, ,130 37, ,787 Dedicated Increase 90, , , , , , , , ,000 4,050,000 Sub Total Roads 2,158,084 2,193,722 2,284,940 2,374,000 2,464,821 2,555,665 2,644,387 2,733,346 2,825,356 2,915,292 25,149,613 Bridges and Culverts C 00000A Brookdale Road 50, , ,000 C00218 Conc 6 Culvert 120, ,000 South Townline 40,000 40,000 Meyers Road 500, ,000 Conc 3 (N of RR8) 50, , ,000 Weirs Road 40, , ,000 Conc 5 (S of Ravenshoe) 500, ,000 Davis Drive 50, , ,000 Proposed Additional Funding 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45, ,400 C315 Brock St. Culvert (to reserve or debt repayment) 100, , , , , , , , , ,000 4,510,000 Sub Total Bridges and Culverts 310, , , ,600 1,045,600 1,197,600 1,147, , , ,600 7,920,400 Grand Total 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Funding Sources / Financial Plan Capital Budget / Reserve Operating Budget 2,423,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Reserves 45,000 Debentures Grants Other Total Funding 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 43

64 Recommendations In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the road and structures inventories; 1. The Township should develop an Asset Management Policy that may be adapted to all assets as plans for the other assets are developed. 2. The cycle for review of the road system should be continued, reviewing the entire system on a maximum four year cycle. 3. The cycle for review of the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire inventory on a two year cycle. 4. Culvert 315 replacement should be financed through debenture. 5. The annual contribution level for the debt repayment should be increased annually from 2015 to 2019 by $100,000 annually, reaching $602,000 per year in The average annual contribution for the structures should be increased to $553,800 based on a 50 year design life. 7. Additional debenture financing may be required for the remainder of the structures inventory. 8. Capital reserves should be established for the road and structure assets. 9. The asset management plan should be reviewed and revised annually from both condition and financial perspectives. 10. Programming for roads should be reviewed to ensure that resurfacing and preservation programs are optimized. 11. Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation and other service life extension treatments are optimized. 12. Traffic counts should be updated and repeated on a regular basis. The counting should include the percentage of truck traffic. 13. Some consideration should be given to development of a GIS based mapping system, linked to the asset databases 14. The gravel road conversion program should be continued. 44

65 Appendix A: 10 Year Plan for Roads

66 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Bolton Drive Quaker Village Drive to Rachel Lee Court CRK $ Oakside Drive Center Road to Apple Tree Crescent CRK $ Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Apple Tree Crescent CRK $ Railway Street Brock Street to Albert Street CRK $ Davis Drive 6th Conc. Road to 1.2 km East PR2+ $ 27, Oxtoby Lane Avonlea Road to Harrison Drive PR2+ $ 9, Scott Court Harrison Drive to South End PR2+ $ 2, Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.7 km West PR2+ $ 15, Foster Drive Regional Road 1 to Mayfair Drive PR2+ $ 31, Maple Brook Drive Main Street North to Maple Brook Drive CRK $ Balsam Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent CRK $ 1, Fourth Avenue North Remion Crescent to Barton Lane CRK $ Fourth Avenue North Brock Street to Remion Crescent CRK $ Balsam Street S. Regional Road 8 to McGuire Crescent CRK $ 1, Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Ash Green Lane CRK $ Ashworth Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road PR2+ $ 45, Whitney Road Acton Road to Wagners Road PR2+ $ 11, Welwood Drive Toronto Street South to East End CRK $ rd Conc. Road 1.0 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Feasby Road PR2+ $ 22, Quaker Village Drive Regional Road 8 to Bolton Drive CRK $ 1, rd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road PR2+ $ 47, Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West CRK $ 1, Herrema Boulevard Barton Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ McQuire Crescent Balsam Street S. to Balsam Street S. CRK $ Deer Ridge Road Regional Road No. 21 to South End CRK $ 1, Foxfire Chase Deer Run to Oakview Place CRK $ 1, Dominion Street Main Street to Second Avenue CRK $ James Street 0.20 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court CRK $ Anderson Boulevard Sangster Road to Paisley Road CRK $ 1, Sangster Road Anderson Boulevard to North End CRK $ Harman Court Quaker Village Drive to West End CRK $ Wilson Street James Street to 0.1km West CRK $ Gould Street First Avenue to 0.1 km West CRK $

67 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Isaac Court Joseph Street to West End CRK $ Maple Street Centre Road to Byam Place CRK $ Hilda Avenue Mayfair Drive to 0.1 km West CRK $ Avonlea Road 0.4 km East to 0.4km East to Cul du Sac CRK $ Mill Run Gate Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 1, Joseph Street Mill Street to 0.11 km South of Wilson St. CRK $ Beech Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent CRK $ Colonel Sharpe Cres. Milne Court to Quaker Village Drive CRK $ Lapier Street 0.24m North of Hwy. 47 to 3rd Conc. CRK $ 1, Maple Street Ash Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ Paisley Lane Anderson Boulevard to North End CRK $ th Conc. Road Davis Drive to Regional Road 11 SSTplus $ 76, Birdie Smith Court Bagshaw Crescent to North Cul de sac CRK $ 1, Parkside Drive Marietta Street to Franklin Street CRK $ Byam Place Maple Street to West End CRK $ South Cedar Brock Street to 0.15m South of Brock Steet CRK $ Young Street Centre Road to Main Street CRK $ 2, Reid Road 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 SSTplus $ 81, Bolton Drive Rachel Lee Court to Concession 6 CRK $ 1, Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street CRK $ Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End CRK $ Third Street Jonathan Street to Young Street CRK $ Confederation Drive Button Crescent to Joseph Street CRK $ Geo Isatt Drive Norm Goodspeed Drive to Meadows End Crescent CRK $ Poplar Street Toronto Street South to Centennial Park Road CRK $ Second Avenue Barton Lane to Rosena Lane CRK $ Third Avenue North Dominion Street to Barton Lane CRK $ Russell Barton Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ Second Avenue Rosena Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ Church Street Brock St. to Toronto Street South CRK $ Bagshaw Crescent Durham Regional 1 to 140m West CRK $ Lundy Drive Taylor Drive to Regional Road 11 CRK $ 1, Herrema Boulevard Donland Lane to Barton Lane CRK $

68 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold th Conc. Road Wagg Road to Old Stouffville Road PR2 $ 283, Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 23 PR2 $ 422, Anderson Boulevard Regional Road 30 to Sangster Road CRK $ th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 1.5 km North PR2 $ 247, Zephyr Road West Limit of Zephyr to Regional Road 39 PR2 $ 150, Davis Drive 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road PR2 $ 355, Harrison Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 13 PR2 $ 120, rd Conc. Road Wagg Road to 0.6 km North PR2 $ 98, Cooks Drive Oxtoby Lane to Avonlea Road R1 $ 19, Wagners Road Whitney Road to 0.2 km South PR2 $ 31, Foxfire Chase Oakview Place to Brookdale Road CRK $ 1, Oakview Place Foxfire Chase to West End CRK $ Deer Run Foxfire Chase to West End CRK $ Foxfire Chase 8th Conc. Rd. to Deer Run CRK $ Brookdale Road Brookdale Road to Lake Ridge Road CRK $ Maple Street Cedar Street to Latcham Court CRK $ Albert Street Railway Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ a Widdlefield Drive ( to ) Wheler Court to West End CRK $ Rachel Lee Court Bolton Drive to South End CRK $ Galloway Crescent Bolton Drive to End of street CRK $ King Street West Cedar Street to Victoria Street CRK $ Latcham Court Maple Street to North End CRK $ Willis Place Maple Street to 0.15 km South CRK $ Turner Drive Balsam Street S. to West End CRK $ Barton Lane Herrema Boulevard to Second Avenue CRK $ Glenn Gould Crescent Barton Lane to Third Avenue North CRK $ Nation Court Herrema Boulevard to West End CRK $ Forsythe Drive South Balsam Street to South End CRK $ Alsop Place Bolton Drive to End of street CRK $ Fourth Avenue North Barton Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ Rosena Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ Bolster Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ Russell Barton Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $

69 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Cosmos Avenue Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ Second Avenue Bolster Lane to Russell Barton Lane CRK $ Meadows End Crescent Balsam Street S. to Meadows End Crescent CRK $ Apple Tree Crescent Oakside Drive to Oakside Drive CRK $ Ash Green Lane Oakside Drive to North Street CRK $ th Conc. Road OBeirn Road to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 3, Bolster Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ North Street Centre Road to Ash Green Road CRK $ 1, $ 2,158,084

70 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Railway Street Albert Street to Spruce Street CRK $ th Conc. Road Regional Road 21 to Wagg Road CRK $ 3, th Conc. Road Wagg Road to 1.4 km North of Wagg CRK $ 2, Wagg Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 4, th Conc. Road Webb Road to 3.3km North of Webb Road CRK $ 6, th Conc. Road Wagg Road to OBeirn Road CRK $ 3, Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle CRK $ 1, Gooseberry Lane Sandy Hook Road to South End CRK $ Third Avenue North Dominion Street to Brock Street East CRK $ Victoria Street Brock Street to King Street West CRK $ Confederation Drive Joseph Street to Elgin Park Road CRK $ th Conc. Road Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 CRK $ 1, Wagg Road 8th Concession Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ Ashworth Road 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road CRK $ 3, th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 2.4 km North CRK $ 4, OBeirn Road 5th Conc. Road to Hwy. 47 CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Brock Street East to Planks Lane CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Planks Lane to Furlan Court CRK $ Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18, Leaskdale Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80, nd Conc. Road Zephyr Road to Leitch Road GRR2 $ 77, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to 1.5km South of Regional Road 13 GRR2 $ 57, Hollingers Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 81, Meyers Road 3th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 74, Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34, Leitch Road 2nd Conc. Road to Regional Road 39 GRR2 $ 81, Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20, Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16, th Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Chalk Lake Road GRR2 $ 85, th Conc. Road Reid Road to Wagg Road GRR2 $ 56, th Conc. Road Brewester Road to York Road 32 GRR2 $ 78, Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3, Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96,

71 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold nd Conc. Road 0.4 km N. of Pickering T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 74, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76, th Conc. Road 1.5 km N. of Reg. Rd. 8 to Davis Drive PR2 $ 214, nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18, Mill Street Toronto Street to Bascom Street R1 $ 121, th Conc. Road 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 to Regional Road 13 PR2 $ 82, Brownscombe Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Nelkydd Lane CRK $ Planks Lane 0.2 km East of Third Street to Nelkydd Lane CRK $ Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76, Nicholson Drive York Road 32 to 0.7 km South R1 $ 60, O'neil Road Ganton Road to Regional Road 23 GRR2 $ 73, Ganton Road ONeal Road to Regional Road 23 PR2 $ 63, Mill Street Bascom Street to Main Street R1 $ 21, Kester Lane Regional Road No. 39 to Zephyr Road CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4, Fifth Street Jonathan Street to Young Street PR2 $ 22, Enzo Crescent Testa Road to Testa Road R1 $ 169, St. Johns Court Enzo Crescent to South End R1 $ 42, Hillborne Drive Silver Spring Crescent to North End PR2 $ 68, Meyers Road Regional Road 39 to 3th Conc. Road R1 $ 11, Ash Street King Street East to Maple Street CRK $ Crosby Street 7th Concession Road to 0.2 km West CRK $ $ 2,103,722

72 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold King Street East Spruce Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ Cooks Drive Oxtoby Lane to Avonlea Road CRK $ Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR2 $ 32, nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR2 $ 32, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR2 $ 85, Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR2 $ 56, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 75, Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR2 $ 41, Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR2 $ 10, th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR2 $ 63, Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR2 $ 30, th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR2 $ 7, Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 57, Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80, Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 92, Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR2 $ 48, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 94, Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 78, Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR2 $ 8, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 84, Zephyr Road ( to ) 2nd Conc. Road to Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L GRR2 $ 105, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 0.5 km South GRR2 $ 22, Anderson Boulevard Paisley Road to 0.76m East RM $ 386, rd Conc. Road Hollingers Road to Regional Road 39 R1 $ 201, Testa Road Ontario Street to Reach Street R1 $ 46, Acton Road Deerfoot Drive to Whitney Road R1+ $ 36, Acton Road Brock Conc. 2 to 0.5km South PR2 $ 73, Perry Street Victoria Drive to 0.2 km West PR2 $ 34, Testa Road Enzo Crescent to Enzo Crescent R1 $ 62, nd Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.7km North of Regional Road 8 R1+ $ 85, Pilkey Road Ruddy Drive to South End BS $ 33,

73 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold $ 2,104,940

74 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Bolton Drive Centre Road to Quaker Village Drive CRK $ Lormik Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.2 km West CRK $ Franklin Street Planks Lane to Reach Street CRK $ A Jonathan Street ( to ) Carmody Lane to West End CRK $ Wheler Court Widdlefield Drive to South End CRK $ Herrema Boulevard Bolster Lane to Cosmos Avenue CRK $ Carmody Lane Symes Street to Bolton Drive CRK $ Carmody Lane Centre Road to Symes Street CRK $ Symes Street Carmody Lane to Centre Road CRK $ Franklin Street Brock Street East to Planks Lane CRK $ Joseph Street Isaac Court to Confederation Drive CRK $ 1, Low Boulevard Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ Caseton Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Coral Creek Crescent CRK $ Pine Street King Street West to Maple Street CRK $ Pine Street Maple Street to North End CRK $ Enzo Crescent Testa Road to Testa Road CRK $ 1, St. Johns Court Enzo Crescent to South End CRK $ Smith Drive 250 m South of Regional Road 11 to South End CRK $ rd Conc. Road Train Tracks to Wagg Road CRK $ 2, th Conc. Road North Limit of Sandford to Ashworth Road CRK $ 3, Meyers Road Regional Road 39 to 3th Conc. Road CRK $ Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18, Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20, Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16, Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3, Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76, nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18, rd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 97, Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76, th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4, th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84, th Conc. Road 2.4 km North of Ashworth Road to Leaskdale Road R1+ $ 183,

75 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Campbell Drive 0.15 km W. of Toronto St. to Calming Circle R1 $ 202, Deerfoot Drive Acton Road to 0.4 km West PR2 $ 68, th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 3.25km North of Ashworth Road R1 $ 300, th Conc. Road Leaskdale Road to 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 R1 $ 175, Chalk Lake Road 1.5 km East of 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 R1 $ 57, Marietta Street Planks lane to Brock Street East R1 $ 54, rd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to Hollingers Road R1 $ 195, Hamilton Street Regional Road 8 to Munro Crescent R1 $ 51, Goodwood Street Lapier Street to 0.27m East PR2 $ 47, a Lapier Street ( to ) Goodwood Street to 3rd Conc. Road R1 $ 49, th Conc. Road 1.4 km North of Wagg to Brookdale Road R1+ $ 73, Smith Drive Regional Road 11 to 250 m South PR2 $ 43, Taylor Drive 4th Conc. Road to Lundy Drive CRK $ 1, Centre Road 0.85km South of Ball Road to 0.18km South of Ball Road DST $ 27, New Street Third Street to 0.1 km East PR2 $ 14, Fourth Street Young Street to North Street PR2 $ 22, Ruddy Drive Acton Road to Pilkey Road R1 $ 7, $ 2,104,000

76 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Mill Street Toronto Street to Bascom Street CRK $ Mill Street Bascom Street to Main Street CRK $ Testa Road Enzo Crescent to Enzo Crescent CRK $ Peel Street Toronto Street to Victoria Drive CRK $ Moore Street 4th Conc. Road to Smith Drive CRK $ Acton Road Deerfoot Drive to Whitney Road CRK $ nd Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.7km North of Regional Road 8 CRK $ 1, rd Conc. Road Hollingers Road to Regional Road 39 CRK $ 4, nd Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 5, nd Conc. Road Wagg Road to Wees Road CRK $ 4, Webb Road 1.0 km East of 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 1, nd Conc. Road Wees Road to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 4, Old Hwy. 47 Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 2, th Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to North Limit of Sandford CRK $ Ball Road 6th Conc. Road to 0,5 km West GRR2 $ 18, Davis Drive Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 2nd Conc. Road CRK $ 4, Davis Drive 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 3, Webb Road Whitchurch Stouffville T/L to 2nd Conc. Road CRK $ 4, rd Conc. Road Webb Road to Secord Road CRK $ 3, Pilkey Road Ruddy Drive to South End CRK $ Pickering/Uxbridge T/L Regional Road 1 to 6th Conc. Road SST $ 21, Munro Crescent Hamilton Drive to Ewin Drive (West) R1 $ 109, Munro Crescent Hamilton Street to Ewen Drive(East) R1 $ 189, Toronto Street North Albert Street to Durham Region # 1 R1 $ 115, Marion Drive 0.12 km S. of Bell St. to East St. R1 $ 53, East Street 0.2 km S. of Reach Street to Marion Drive R1 $ 19, Marietta Street Parkside Drive to Planks Lane R1 $ 62, Ewen Drive Munro Crescent to West End R1 $ 127, Ontario Street Munro Crescent to Testa Road R1 $ 45, Widdlefield Drive Quaker Village Drive to Wheler Court R1 $ 28, Milne Court Widdlefield Drive to North End R1 $ 45, Paisley Lane Hwy. No. 47 to Anderson Boulevard RM $ 121,

77 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Ashworth Road Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 3rd Conc. Road R2 $ 663, O'Neil Road Hwy. 47 to Ganton Road BS $ 120, Silver Spring Cresent 6th Conc. Road to Silver Spring Crescent PR2 $ 201, Lapier Street Highway 47 to 0.24m North PR2 $ 41, Kirton Court Cemetery Road to South End R1 $ 14, Campbell Drive Toronto St. to 0.15 km West R1 $ 53, Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street MICRO $ 4, Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End MICRO $ 2, $ 2,104,821

78 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Testa Road Ontario Street to Reach Street CRK $ a Lapier Street ( to ) Goodwood Street to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ Marietta Street Planks lane to Brock Street East CRK $ Chalk Lake Road 1.5 km East of 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road Leaskdale Road to 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 CRK $ 3, th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 3.25km North of Ashworth Road CRK $ 6, th Conc. Road 2.4 km North of Ashworth Road to Leaskdale Road CRK $ 2, rd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to Hollingers Road CRK $ 4, Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 4, Zephyr Road West Limit of Zephyr to Regional Road 39 CRK $ 1, Harrison Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 13 CRK $ 1, Oxtoby Lane Avonlea Road to Harrison Drive CRK $ Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.7 km West CRK $ 1, Scott Court Harrison Drive to South End CRK $ th Conc. Road Wagg Road to Old Stouffville Road CRK $ 3, Davis Drive 6th Conc. Road to 1.2 km East CRK $ 2, Davis Drive 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road CRK $ 4, Ashworth Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road CRK $ 3, rd Conc. Road Wagg Road to 0.6 km North CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 1.5 km North CRK $ 2, Foster Drive Regional Road 1 to Mayfair Drive CRK $ 2, rd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road CRK $ 4, Leaskdale Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80, rd Conc. Road 1.0 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Feasby Road CRK $ 1, nd Conc. Road Zephyr Road to Leitch Road GRR2 $ 77, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to 1.5km South of Regional Road 13 GRR2 $ 57, Hollingers Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 81, Meyers Road 3th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 74, Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34, Leitch Road 2nd Conc. Road to Regional Road 39 GRR2 $ 81, th Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Chalk Lake Road GRR2 $ 85, th Conc. Road Reid Road to Wagg Road GRR2 $ 56, Whitney Road Acton Road to Wagners Road CRK $

79 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold th Conc. Road Brewester Road to York Road 32 GRR2 $ 78, nd Conc. Road 0.4 km N. of Pickering T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 74, Ruddy Drive Acton Road to Pilkey Road CRK $ Wagners Road Whitney Road to 0.2 km South CRK $ O'neil Road Ganton Road to Regional Road 23 GRR2 $ 73, th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84, Church Street Brock St. to Toronto Street South MICRO $ 3, nd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 0.4 km North R1 $ 38, Second Street Young Street to North Street R1+ $ 18, Parratt Road Regional Rd. 47 to 0.21 km North R1 $ 68, James Place Smith Drive to 120 m East PR2 $ 20, Poplar Street Toronto Street South to Centennial Park Road MICRO $ 2, Wagg Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road R2 $ 409, th Conc. Road 1.85km North of Davis Drive to Region Road #11 BS $ 41, th Conc. Road Quaker Hill Cemetery to Davis Drive BS $ 256, Norton Drive Regional Road 21 to Regional Road 21 PR2 $ 103, Gamron Avenue Norton Drive to Norton Drive PR2 $ 44, Remion Crescent Fourth Avenue North to Barton Lane R1 $ 77, Avonlea Road 0.4 km East to 0.4km East to Cul du Sac MICRO $ 7, Beech Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 6, Joseph Street Mill Street to 0.11 km South of Wilson St. MICRO $ 5, South Cedar Brock Street to 0.15m South of Brock Steet MICRO $ 2, $ 2,105,665

80 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Campbell Drive 0.15 km W. of Toronto St. to Calming Circle CRK $ 1, Hamilton Street Regional Road 8 to Munro Crescent CRK $ Coral Creek Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Reach Street CRK $ Oakside Drive Ash Green Lane to Maple Brook Drive CRK $ Cemetery Road ( to ) km East of Campbell Drive to 0.2km West of Kirkton C CRK $ Toronto Street North Brock Street to Albert Street CRK $ Munro Crescent Hamilton Drive to Ewin Drive (West) CRK $ Marion Drive 0.12 km S. of Bell St. to East St. CRK $ Ewen Drive Munro Crescent to West End CRK $ Widdlefield Drive Quaker Village Drive to Wheler Court CRK $ Marietta Street Parkside Drive to Planks Lane CRK $ Ontario Street Munro Crescent to Testa Road CRK $ Milne Court Widdlefield Drive to North End CRK $ East Street 0.2 km S. of Reach Street to Marion Drive CRK $ Ridge Road Durham Regional 21 to 0.10m North CRK $ Horner Court Regional Road 39 to East Cul d sac CRK $ Norm Goodspeed Drive Brock Street West to Geo Isatt Drive CRK $ Campbell Drive Calming Circle to Cemetary Road CRK $ a Campbell Drive ( to ) Roundabout to Cemetery Road CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Caseton Crescent to Coral Creek Crescent CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Furlan Court to Caseton Crescent CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Coral Creek Crescent to Foxbury Road CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Millbury Road to Hayfield Avenue CRK $ Village Green Lane Millbury Road to Hayfield Avenue CRK $ Geo Isatt Drive Norm Goodspeed Drive to West Limit CRK $ Fourth Avenue Brock Street to 0.13 km South CRK $ Fourth Avenue North Bolster Lane to Cosmos Avenue CRK $ Village Green Lane Foxbury Road to Millbury Road CRK $ Second Avenue Russell Barton Lane to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ a Brookdale Road ( to ) Foxfire Chase to 0.1km North of Foxfire Chase CRK $ Bascom Street Mill Street to Brock Street CRK $ John Harvey Street Main Street to 0.1 km East CRK $ Dominion Street Second Avenue to 0.2 km East CRK $

81 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Village Green Lane Coral Creek Crescent to Foxbrury Road CRK $ Foxbury Road Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ Rosena Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ Norm Goodspeed Drive ( to ) Geo Isatt Drive to Brock Street West CRK $ Cyril Richardson Court Ash Green Lane to Cul de sac CRK $ Maunder Court Herrema Boulevard to West End CRK $ Joseph Street 0.11 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court CRK $ Nelkydd Lane Foxbury Road to Millbury Road CRK $ Furlan Court Nelkydd Lane to West End CRK $ Millbury Road Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ Hayfield Avenue Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ Elgin Park Drive Concession 7 to Toronto Street South CRK $ 2, Keller Lane Joseph Street to Button Crescent CRK $ Button Crescent Confederation Drive to Joseph Street CRK $ 1, Centre Road 0.9km North of Brock Street West to 0.85km South of Ball Road CRK $ th Conc. Road 1.4 km North of Wagg to Brookdale Road CRK $ 1, Centre Road 0.18km South of Ball Road to Ball Road CRK $ Ball Road 6th Conc Road to Centre Road CRK $ 2, Ball Road Centre Road to Regional Road 1 CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 to Regional Road 13 CRK $ Jonathan Street Centre Road to East End CRK $ 1, Hillborne Drive Silver Spring Crescent to North End CRK $ Kirton Court Cemetery Road to South End CRK $ Sugarbush Lane Rolling Meadows Road to North Cul d sac CRK $ O'Neil Road Hwy. 47 to Ganton Road CRK $ 1, Fifth Street Jonathan Street to Young Street CRK $ th Conc. Road 1.5 km N. of Reg. Rd. 8 to Davis Drive CRK $ 2, th Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 4, th Conc. Road 0.5 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Quaker Hill Cemetery CRK $ 2, th Conc. Road 3.25km North of Ashworth Road to Regional Road 13 CRK $ 5, Davis Drive 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road CRK $ 3, rd Conc. Road Secord Road to 1.7 km North CRK $ 3, Colborne Street Toronto Street South to Victoria Drive CRK $

82 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Owen Road Hwy. 47 to 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 CRK $ Rolling Meadows Road Silver Spring Crescent to East Cul d sac CRK $ 1, th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.5 km North CRK $ Ganton Road ONeal Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ Railway Street Brock Street to Albert Street MICRO $ 2, Bolton Drive Quaker Village Drive to Rachel Lee Court MICRO $ 3, Davis Drive 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road R1+ $ 251, Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West R1 $ 290, Wagg Road 4th Conc. Road to Old Hwy. 47 BS $ 366, th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 1.8 km North BS $ 362, Wagg Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road BS $ 451, Avonlea Road Harrison Drive to 0.4 km East R2 $ 71, Banff Road Hwy. 47 to East End R1 $ 19, Oakside Drive Center Road to Apple Tree Crescent MICRO $ 8, Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Apple Tree Crescent MICRO $ 9, Lyons Lane Mustard Street to North End BS $ 38, Sixth Street Young Street to North Street R2 $ 23, Mill Run Gate Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 8 MICRO $ 25, Goodwood Street 0.27m East to Lapier Street R2 $ 39, Colonel Sharpe Cres. Milne Court to Quaker Village Drive MICRO $ 10, Ashworth Road 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 to Regional Road 1 BS $ 68, Parkside Drive Marietta Street to Franklin Street MICRO $ 3, $ 2,104,387

83 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Munro Crescent Hamilton Street to Ewen Drive(East) CRK $ 1, Campbell Drive Toronto St. to 0.15 km West CRK $ Toronto Street North Albert Street to Durham Region # 1 CRK $ 1, Parratt Road Regional Rd. 47 to 0.21 km North CRK $ Anderson Boulevard Paisley Road to 0.76m East CRK $ 1, Remion Crescent Fourth Avenue North to Barton Lane CRK $ th Conc. Road Allbright Road to Regional Road 21 SSTplus $ 64, Allbright Road Regional Road 1 to 6th Conc. Road SSTplus $ 77, th Conc. Road York Regional Road 32 to 1.0 km South SSTplus $ 37, Feasby Road 4th Conc. Road to 1.4 km East SSTplus $ 47, Second Street Young Street to North Street CRK $ th Conc. Road 1.85km North of Davis Drive to Region Road #11 CRK $ Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18, Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20, Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16, Perry Street Victoria Drive to 0.2 km West CRK $ Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR2 $ 32, nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR2 $ 32, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR2 $ 85, Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR2 $ 56, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 75, Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR2 $ 41, nd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 0.4 km North CRK $ Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR2 $ 10, th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR2 $ 63, Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34, Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR2 $ 30, Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96, th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR2 $ 7, Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 57, Hollingers Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 77, Owen Road 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 GRR2 $ 88,

84 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80, Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 92, Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR2 $ 48, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 94, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76, Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 78, Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR2 $ 8, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 84, nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18, rd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 97, Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76, Higgin's Lane 7th Conc. Road to 0.3 km East GRR2 $ 11, Zephyr Road ( to ) 2nd Conc. Road to Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L GRR2 $ 105, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 0.5 km South GRR2 $ 22, th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4, Acton Road Brock Conc. 2 to 0.5km South CRK $ Quaker Village Drive Regional Road 8 to Bolton Drive MICRO $ 20, Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle R1 $ 74, Dominion Street Main Street to Second Avenue MICRO $ 6, Railway Street Albert Street to Spruce Street R1 $ 13, James Street 0.20 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court MICRO $ 1, Gould Street First Avenue to 0.1 km West MICRO $ 1, Harman Court Quaker Village Drive to West End MICRO $ 1, $ 2,103,346

85 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Wagg Road 4th Conc. Road to Old Hwy. 47 CRK $ 3, Wagg Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road CRK $ 3, th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 1.8 km North CRK $ 3, Davis Drive 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road CRK $ 3, Deerfoot Drive Acton Road to 0.4 km West CRK $ Lyons Lane Mustard Street to North End CRK $ nd Conc. Road Regional Road 39 to Zephyr Road GRR2 $ 82, th Conc. Road 3.1 km North of Pickering T/L to Allbright Road GRR2 $ 60, Goodwood Street Lapier Street to 0.27m East CRK $ Smith Drive Regional Road 11 to 250 m South CRK $ Fourth Street Young Street to North Street CRK $ New Street Third Street to 0.1 km East CRK $ th Conc. Road Webb Road to 3.3km North of Webb Road R1 $ 312, Wagg Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road R1 $ 213, Feasby Road 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road BS $ 419, Balsam Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 14, Fourth Avenue North Remion Crescent to Barton Lane MICRO $ 5, Byam Place Maple Street to West End R1 $ 42, Fourth Avenue North Brock Street to Remion Crescent MICRO $ 3, Balsam Street S. Regional Road 8 to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 14, Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Ash Green Lane MICRO $ 3, Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street R1 $ 49, Crosby Street 7th Concession Road to 0.2 km West R1 $ 16, Mustard Street Mayfair Drive to 0.2 Km East & West BS $ 82, Lapier Street 0.24m North of Hwy. 47 to 3rd Conc. R1 $ 58, Deer Ridge Road Regional Road No. 21 to South End MICRO $ 23, Foxfire Chase Deer Run to Oakview Place MICRO $ 15, Lormik Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.2 km West MICRO $ 5, McQuire Crescent Balsam Street S. to Balsam Street S. MICRO $ 8, Paisley Lane Anderson Boulevard to North End R1 $ 100, Birdie Smith Court Bagshaw Crescent to North Cul de sac R1 $ 77, Ash Street King Street East to Maple Street R1 $ 12, Maple Street Ash Street to Toronto Street North R1 $ 12,

86 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End R1 $ 22, Hilda Avenue Mayfair Drive to 0.1 km West R1 $ 23, Franklin Street Planks Lane to Reach Street MICRO $ 9, Wilson Street James Street to 0.1km West MICRO $ 2, Maple Street Centre Road to Byam Place MICRO $ 2, Isaac Court Joseph Street to West End MICRO $ 5, Ridge Road Ridge Road to Around Circle R1 $ 73, James Street Wilson Street to 0.20 km South of Wilson St. RNS $ 178, Wilson Street Joseph Street to James Street RNS $ 64, Tindall Lane Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 BS $ 63, Sangster Road Anderson Boulevard to North End MICRO $ 9, $ 2,105,356

87 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West CRK $ 1, Paisley Lane Hwy. No. 47 to Anderson Boulevard CRK $ Banff Road Hwy. 47 to East End CRK $ Ball Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East SSTplus $ 37, Ball Road 6th Conc. Road to 0,5 km West GRR2 $ 18, Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle CRK $ 1, Centre Road 0.85km South of Ball Road to 0.18km South of Ball Road GRR2 $ 28, Ashworth Road Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 8, Lapier Street Highway 47 to 0.24m North CRK $ Silver Spring Cresent 6th Conc. Road to Silver Spring Crescent CRK $ 2, th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84, th Conc. Road Wagg Road to OBeirn Road R1 $ 186, Third Street Jonathan Street to Young Street R1 $ 13, Bagshaw Crescent Durham Regional 1 to 140m West R1 $ 13, Taylor Drive 4th Conc. Road to Lundy Drive R1 $ 71, Lundy Drive Taylor Drive to Regional Road 11 R1 $ 51, Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR $ 9, Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR $ 10, A Jonathan Street ( to ) Carmody Lane to West End MICRO $ 2, King Street East Spruce Street to Toronto Street North R1 $ 19, Wheler Court Widdlefield Drive to South End MICRO $ 4, Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR $ 8, Anderson Boulevard Sangster Road to Paisley Road R1 $ 313, Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR $ 16, nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR $ 16, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR $ 42, Herrema Boulevard Barton Lane to Bolster Lane R1 $ 89, Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR $ 28, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR $ 37, Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR $ 20, Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR $ 5, th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR $ 31, Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR $ 17,

88 Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR $ 1, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR $ 15, Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR $ 48, th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR $ 3, Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR $ 28, Hollingers Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road GRR $ 38, Old Mill Lane Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 BS $ 57, Owen Road 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 GRR $ 44, Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR $ 40, Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR $ 46, Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR $ 24, OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR $ 47, th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR $ 38, Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR $ 39, Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR $ 4, th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR $ 42, First Avenue Brock Street East to Dominion Street RNS $ 178, Colby Road Regional Road 1 to 0.5 km East BS $ 93, nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR $ 9, Wagg Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.36 km East BS $ 80, Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR $ 17, Higgin's Lane 7th Conc. Road to 0.3 km East GRR $ 5, th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR $ 2, Moore Street 4th Conc. Road to Smith Drive MICRO $ 3, $ 2,105,292