Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Walking in Waterloo Region
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I guess I'm kind of shocked by that - I thought all this discussion we'd had for months was because there isn't any of this happening!

Glad to see there actually is.

While virtually all roads today were covered in a layer of packed, slippery snow, all the trails I was on today looked like this:

[attachment=3008]
(01-08-2017, 09:44 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, sidewalks downtown are cleared. I'm not sure how extensive the area is, but I believe Victoria is one of its edges.

BIA maybe?
(01-08-2017, 10:39 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2017, 09:44 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, sidewalks downtown are cleared. I'm not sure how extensive the area is, but I believe Victoria is one of its edges.

BIA maybe?

This is correct.

Also, there are lots of plows out there clearing sidewalks, it doesn't mean it's a city plow.  Many contractors use plows, but I don't know of any that use the trackless sidewalk plows that the city uses http://www.thevillagerny.com/wp-content/...actor2.jpg

I imagine they're quite effective, they're articulated in the middle, which I'm guessing makes the quite maneuverable to deal with tight turns on sidewalks.

It sure is depressing to see the cruising down the road struggling to do 40 km/h and bouncing all over the place because we'd rather plow just a handful of widely spaced sidewalks.

For the record, the city plows trails, and sidewalks which are "backlotted", and sidewalks which abut city properties (and possibly things like railway ROWs).

Back to the BIA, a friend of mine who lives downtown also indicates that the BIA's contractor also uses spinning brushes which explains how the sidewalks are so good downtown.
(01-08-2017, 11:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It sure is depressing to see the cruising down the road struggling to do 40 km/h and bouncing all over the place because we'd rather plow just a handful of widely spaced sidewalks.

For the record, the city plows trails, and sidewalks which are "backlotted", and sidewalks which abut city properties (and possibly things like railway ROWs).

It is depressing to see this. In my neighbourhood, there is a property that backs onto an adjacent street, with none of its neighbours doing the same. The municipality is this year very diligently clearing it with a plow that does a great job. It also seems to clear the sidewalk of the next door neighbour, but then turns on to the street and moseys on to whatever its next job is, leaving all the sidewalks in between uncleared. It's sad to witness.
After reading Robin Mazumder tweets about the impact of a broken hip it got me thinking how much caring for hip fractures from falls on snow and ice costs “locally.”
 
I did some rough calculations to hopefully show how narrowly the “costs” to our community are being considered in the sidewalk clearing decision making. It may not cost you on your local taxes, but it will cost you and society in other ways.
 
According to various sources there were nearly 12,000 hip fractures in Ontario in 2016. Using the Osteoporosis Canada’s value of 11,888, and Ontario population of 13,982,984, a Kitchener population of 244,030, and assuming the hip fractures are equally likely across Ontario (they are not) that would mean that Kitchener’s “share” of hip fractures was 207.5 (244,030 X 11,888 / 13,982,984 = 207.5).
 
Now, not every hip fracture resulted from a fall, but in seniors about 90 per cent are from a fall and seniors make up almost all hip fractures. If we assume that 90 per cent of all hip fractures are caused by falls we are left with 186.7 hip fractures in Kitchener caused by a fall (207.5 * 0.9 X = 186.7).
 
I’m not sure what proportion are caused snow and ice according to the clinically/administrative data. Survey data would suggest about 16%, but that seems low. So, if we assume that they evenly distributed across the seasons then 25% occur in the winter which leaves us with (186.7 X 0.25 = 46.7) or 47 Kitchener residents that fall on snow or ice causing a hip fracture.
 
The health care costs of a hip fracture are well documented and have been estimated to average $36,608 (in 2010 dollars) (or $40,066.29 in 2016 dollars) and that is just the direct medical costs for the first 90 days(!). There are other follow-up medical, home care, and physio costs well beyond that 90-day period, and societal costs, personal costs, economic opportunity costs, and liability costs that are not accounted for as well; especially if the individual needs to be placed in a long-term care setting (15-25%). This also does not get at the health care costs avoided from other causes through reduced chronic disease (heart disease, diabetes, etc.) because of increased physical activity resulting from clear sidewalks, or potential economic costs lost (because people are too fearful of falling to leave their homes to buy groceries or go to the movies etc.).
 
Meaning, the total medical costs to care and treat Kitchener residents in the first 90 days of fracturing their hip after falling on snow and ice is $1,870,311 (46.7 * $40,066 = $1,870,311) or 51% of the annual operating costs of the sidewalk clearing mentioned in the staff report ($3,644,619) or about $20 per household ($1,870,311 / 94,420 = $19.81).
 
Now, the above assumes that 100% of all those falls were completely preventable which not the case so this is an overestimation. Likely some would have still fallen and broken a hip for other reasons regardless of whether the snow and ice had been clearly, tripping on sidewalk crack, tripping on shoelaces, pre-existing condition (osteoporosis), gust of wind, loss of balance, trip over dog, etc., but this is just a simple accounting for the potential costs of hip fracture on snow and ice it doesn’t even consider other injury types.
 
However, if we were to account for all of all the other fall related injury types (broken wrists, ankles, arms, etc.) that occur more frequently (hip fracture is about 45% of all fall related injury, but usually relatively severe – 20-30% die within a year), but with lower costs per incident (hip surgery is much more expensive than other interventions), the injury and societal costs would quickly outstrip the annual operating costs AND the one time capital costs in EVERY year. Also note that the demographic group with the highest rate of falls (and hip fractures) is also the fastest growing one. Currently seniors make up 13 per cent of the local population, but generate 43 per cent of the EMS calls, but within ten years seniors will make up 17 per cent of the population, and fifteen years make up 19 per cent. The senior population is growing at 3.2 per cent a year.
 
I’m sure there must be someone locally with expertise in modelling health care costs that could do the job correctly. Or with enough Googling you could find some sort of model to estimate the economic burden or societal costs for snow and ice related falls in Canada or even Ontario and apply it locally, but hopefully this is in the ballpark.
 
There is a decent City of Toronto report that could probably be reproduced locally very easily:
“Sustaining an injury leads to costs from emergency department care, hospital admissions, or visits to doctors. These costs accrue mainly to the provincial government. According to the Ontario Case Costing database, in the 2014/2015 fiscal year, emergency department visits from falls on snow or ice in Toronto cost an average of about $330 per visit, including one emergency department physician consultation. Costs related to hospitalizations are more difficult to calculate. For the fiscal year 2014/2015, the Ontario Case Costing database indicates that acute inpatient costs from falls on snow or ice averaged about $10,000 per hospitalization. However, this amount does not include physician costs, which add at least $60 per day plus an additional cost of $150-$200 if the patient requires a specialist consultation during their stay - such as orthopaedics, neurology or geriatrics.”
 
The Toronto report also says that they pay out an average of 230 liability claims totalling $6.7 million annually (an average of $29,130 / claim)  against the City that occurred as a result of a sidewalk slip and fall on a snowy or icy sidewalk between the months of November 1 to April 30. Anyone know what the value is locally?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your calculation seems to assume that all hip fractures among seniors during the winter result from falls on ice/snow.  That would not be so.  On the other hand, there are significant costs to wrist and arm fractures, which I suspect are actually far more common among seniors who have slipped and fallen on ice/snow.  Among seniors, as I understand it, a hip fracture is as likely to cause a fall as a fall is to cause a hip fracture.
Nice analysis. I do think it would be difficult to figure out, however, what percentage of injuries come as a result of an uncleared sidewalk.

The problem is, I suspect most fractures such as this occur as a result of ice, which for better or worse, really occurs most on cleared sidewalks. It's the one caveat. Realistically, more salt/sand would help, but the city doesn't always put this down either, especially because the ice often forms later, weeks after snow has fallen, due to melting.

But you're absolutely right the costs of having uncleared sidewalks almost certainly vastly outstrip the cost of clearing them.
I'm a part of a running group that as part of our warm up, runs up Erb to Westmount. I've noticed all winter that the sidewalks are generally okay in this stretch with the occasional exception. The major problem, however, is that most people on corner lots don't seem to shovel to the street crossing so that there is now a series of hurdles you need to negotiate when running up Erb. I'm not sure how those with mobility issues are supposed to cope.
(01-09-2017, 10:40 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a part of a running group that as part of our warm up, runs up Erb to Westmount. I've noticed all winter that the sidewalks are generally okay in this stretch with the occasional exception. The major problem, however, is that most people on corner lots don't seem to shovel to the street crossing so that there is now a series of hurdles you need to negotiate when running up Erb. I'm not sure how those with mobility issues are supposed to cope.

"how those with mobility issues are supposed to cope."...well, they're not.

Sadly, I think that's in the City of Waterloo, who's bylaw officers have explained to me that they do not require property owners to clear snow in crosswalks (on the sidewalk yes, but if the plow pushes a snow bank into a crosswalk, on the actual road then no).  They know this is a problem, but have no answer to give.  Literally no human being on Earth is responsible for removing this snow.

Walkable community indeed.
How much more evidence do we need that the current sidewalk clearing policies are 100% broken.

Even when enforcement is aware, and has ratcheted up the response to maximum, the sidewalk is still impassable.

Clearly, enforcement will never ever work.

The only justification to keep pressing on enforcement is if someone cares more about enforcing one's vision of personal responsibility on people than they do about the walkability of the city.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7069...destrians/

Frankly, I see my tax bill as my civic responsibility for keeping the city in a good state for everyone.
"The city has only two properties on the chronic offender list — the one on Strasburg Road and another abandoned site, a former Electrohome plant at 152 Shanley St."

Yay Mount Hope! There's no such thing as bad publicity.

In the case of the Electrohome site, I have seen it cleared by what I assume are City contractors a couple of times this winter. But the bizarre result is that it has occasionally been cleared better than its neighbours, and the cost of that clearing is added to a tax bill the current owner will never pay, and will only add to the sale price the City needs to get from a buyer.
(01-16-2017, 08:30 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]"The city has only two properties on the chronic offender list — the one on Strasburg Road and another abandoned site, a former Electrohome plant at 152 Shanley St."

Yay Mount Hope! There's no such thing as bad publicity.

In the case of the Electrohome site, I have seen it cleared by what I assume are City contractors a couple of times this winter. But the bizarre result is that it has occasionally been cleared better than its neighbours, and the cost of that clearing is added to a tax bill the current owner will never pay, and will only add to the sale price the City needs to get from a buyer.

Oh gosh, what irony.

This whole situation is our shame.
Ugh, that Strasburg house. It's on the corner by Bleams and has now been completely squeezed out by industrial properties - I'm surprised it's still standing. Someone should put it out of its misery and redevelop the lot.
(01-05-2017, 10:58 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]With a remote button at Peppler. Lights at the trail would also stop almost all traffic coming to Peppler — the only exception would be people coming out of driveways since there are no intersections. Another creative idea that, if past experience is any guide, will totally blow the mind of planners such that they can’t even understand it, much less rationally evaluate its feasibility.

I should also comment that on one-way streets there is no reason based on traffic flow to restrict the number of pedestrian (or other) crossings — just synchronize them so if they’re all activated traffic on the street still gets a green wave. In fact traffic lights could also be used to enforce any speed desired.

This was such a fantastically simple and imaginative idea that I submitted to the Region via their general inbox (Transportation (at) regionofwaterloo.ca). They wrote back to say:

"The Region of Waterloo is currently reviewing this crossing in conjunction with the City of Waterloo. Transportation is reviewing the relocation of the pedestrian signals at Peppler Street to the Laurel trail crossing. A public consultation will be taking place (with letters mailed to surrounding residents) regarding this issue. This is a joint venture with the City of Waterloo and will be proposed based on available funds in the 2017 budget."
(01-18-2017, 09:30 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]This was such a fantastically simple and imaginative idea that I submitted to the Region via their general inbox (Transportation (at) regionofwaterloo.ca). They wrote back to say:

"The Region of Waterloo is currently reviewing this crossing in conjunction with the City of Waterloo. Transportation is reviewing the relocation of the pedestrian signals at Peppler Street to the Laurel trail crossing. A public consultation will be taking place (with letters mailed to surrounding residents) regarding this issue. This is a joint venture with the City of Waterloo and will be proposed based on available funds in the 2017 budget."

I suppose then, if one doesn't live in the area, but uses that crossing on a daily basis, one will have to search high and low for information on the public consultation?

NIMBYs always sound loud when they're the only ones you make an effort to inform about decisions.