Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Special Date: January 25, 2022 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2022/Special Committee of the Whole (Joint with Central Frontenac) - 25 Jan 2022 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
This will be a joint meeting with the Township of Central Frontenac to review the presentation from ORH on a Joint Station Location and Fleet Study. South Frontenac Council will be joining a Central Frontenac Council meeting already in progress. TIME: DATE: PLACE:
5:00 PM, Tuesday, January 25, 2022 Council Chambers.
Join Central Frontenac’s Council meeting (already in progress)
(a)
South Frontenac will not be streaming this meeting to their Facebook Live page as Central Frontenac is the designated host for this meeting. Members of the public who wish to join this meeting virtually can register themselves.
Reports Requiring Direction
(a)
Joint Station Location and Fleet Study - Final Report from ORH
Adjournment
(a)
South Frontenac will adjourn this meeting when the presentation has been completed. A regular Council meeting is scheduled for 7:00 pm. Natural, Vibrant and Growing - A Progressive Rural Leader
2 - 115
Joint Station Location and Fleet Study South and Central Frontenac
January 21, 2022
Page 2 of 115
Final Report
2
Disclaimer and Accreditations This document has been produced by ORH for South Frontenac Township (SFT) and Central Frontenac Township (CFT) on January 21, 2022. This document can be reproduced by SFT/CFT, subject to it being used accurately and not in a misleading context. When the document is reproduced in whole or in part within another publication or service, the full title, date and accreditation to ORH must be included. ORH is the trading name of Operational Research in Health Limited, a company registered in England with company number 2676859. ORH’s quality management system is ISO 9001:2015 certified: recognition of ORH’s dedication to maintaining high quality services for its clients. ORH’s information security management system is ISO 27001:2017 certified: evidence of ORH’s commitment to implementing international best practice with regard to data security. Disclaimer The information in this report is presented in good faith using the information available to ORH at the time of preparation. It is provided on the basis that the authors of the report are not liable to any person or organization for any damage or loss which may occur in relation to taking, or not taking, action in respect of any information or advice within the document. Accreditations
© 2021 HERE All rights reserved. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, © Queen’s Printer for Ontario
Page 3 of 115
Other than data provided by SFT/CFT, this report also contains data from the following sources:
3
Executive Summary • ORH is pleased to provide this final report for a joint station location study to South and Central Frontenac townships.
• We have taken an iterative, data-driven approach to assessing
station locations, combining analysis of historical data, sophisticated optimization modelling and consultancy with both townships.
• The modelling has shown that the distribution of stations is
generally well-aligned to covering residential properties and roads, however some opportunities for improvement could be achieved when station rebuilds are required.
• Although no immediate efficiencies were identified in terms of
Page 4 of 115
shared locations, these should be considered as the population grows in future years.
4
Contents Introduction • •
Background Scope
About ORH • •
Data Collection and Analysis • •
Incident Data Geographic Data
• •
Experience Generic Approach
• •
Model Setup
Current Coverage
Coverage Optimization
• •
Specified Options
• • •
• •
Combining Stations Site-search Maps
Click on the heading name to go that section within the documents
Methodology Timetable
Road Network Housing
Summary • •
Project Overview Recommendations Page 5 of 115
Optimizing Cover Area-wide Central South Combined
Approach
5
Return to Contents
Background and Scope
Page 6 of 115
6
Introduction • Operational Research in Health Limited (ORH) is pleased
to provide this final report for a Join Fire Station Location and Fleet Study to South and Central Frontenac.
• The purpose of this study was to review the current fire station locations and resources in both townships.
• ORH has a tried and tested approach to this type of
review, combining analysis, modelling and consultancy.
• We applied this methodology, tailored to the specific requirements of the two townships, to complete an iterative assessment of station locations.
Page 7 of 115
7
Background • There are currently 13 stations in South and Central Frontenac Fire and Rescue services: – SFFR = eight fire stations – CFFR = four fire stations and one sub-station
• With two exceptions, the current estate for SFFR needs
significant upgrades or total rebuilds, so it is necessary to evaluate potential options for relocating and/or rationalizing stations in the area. This should be assessed for two future scenarios:
– There is one joint fire service across the two townships.
Page 8 of 115
– SFFR and CFFR continue to operate as independent fire services.
8
Scope • The key objective was to support SFFR and CFFR in
making data-driven decisions around the future locations of fire stations and fleet across the townships.
• This had to determine the ability to provide suitable
coverage from facilities, considering the potential for joint working between the two fire and rescue services.
• In the time available, ORH sought to : – Analyze historical incident demand
– Build appropriate optimization and coverage models – Appraise current and optimal locations for all fire stations – Map travel times, road distance and coverage statistics
Page 9 of 115
– Evaluate options for potential station combinations
9
Return to Contents
About ORH
Page 10 of 115
ORH helps emergency services around the world to optimise resource use and respond in the most effective and efficient way.
Page 11 of 115
11
About ORH We have set the benchmark for emergency service planning, with a proven approach that combines rigorous scientific analysis with experienced, insightful consultancy. Our expert team uses sophisticated spatial interaction modelling techniques to identify opportunities for improvement and uncover hidden capacity. The outputs of our work enable clients to make robust, data-driven decisions and explain them clearly to stakeholders.
Page 12 of 115
Above all, we are committed to getting it right, for the good of our clients and the people who rely on their services.
12
Examples of ORH Global Experience
Page 13 of 115
13
ORH Sectors
Emergency Medical Services
Police
Fire
Control Rooms
Non-Emergency Transport
Other Sectors Page 14 of 115
14
ORH Support to FRSs
Risk
Resources
Response
• Quantifying Risks
• Matching to Risk
• Efficient and Effective
• Identifying Relationships
• Optimal Locations
• Day-to-day Management
• Targeting Activities
• Resource Types
• Contingency Planning
Page 15 of 115
15
Fire Service Planning Questions How does the level of risk vary across the service area?
Where would facilities be located on a blank canvas basis?
What are the optimal hours for deploying units?
Which vehicle types should the service deploy and where?
Which are the most appropriate crewing models?
Where are the optimal locations for new stations?
How will population growth affect service delivery?
Can the service provide a response to new types of incidents?
What targets should the service set for response?
Page 16 of 115
What is the current level of demand and performance?
16
ORH Data-Driven Process Data
Analysis
Identify sources Test reliability
Service understanding Inform modelling
Optimised solutions
Modelling Test options for change
Better Decision Making
Page 17 of 115
Consultation with the client throughout
17
Return to Contents
Approach and Timetable
Page 18 of 115
18
Approach (1) • SFFR/CFFR formed a steering group comprised of the Fire Chief and the Chief Administrative Officer for each township.
• At the project initiation ORH discussed the requirements for data collection, finalized the project timetable and presented the proposed approach in more detail.
• SFFR/CFFR provided ORH with incident and response data from the past six years. ORH analyzed the data to build an understanding of demand trends. land use and addresses across the two townships.
Page 19 of 115
• In addition, the County of Frontenac provided data on
19
Approach (2) • Using commercially available travel time data, ORH built
an appropriate model of journeys across the townships and verified this against historic response times. We then mapped the coverage provided by current stations.
• ORH conducted initial optimization runs to minimize
average time to all roads in the townships. In agreement with the steering group, the objective was changed to maximizing coverage to residential properties and roads.
• In addition to township-wide and combined optimization
Page 20 of 115
runs, ORH modelled a series of changes to station locations as specified by SFFR/CFFR. For all options, ORH presented the coverage to properties and roads, compared to the current position.
20
Proposed Timetable Week Number w/c Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15-Nov
22-Nov
29-Nov
06-Dec
13-Dec
20-Dec
27-Dec
03-Jan
10-Jan
17-Jan
24-Jan
Data Review
Data Analysis
Christmas Break
Model Setup
Demand Projections
Location Optimization
Scenario Modelling
Sensitivity Modelling
Reporting Deliverables
1 Key: PU - Progress Update DR - Final Report FR - Final Report
DR
2
FR
3
SG Meeting 1 - Project Initiation, Data Collection and Stakeholder Engagement SG Meeting 2 - Emerging Outcomes of Analysis and Initial Modelling Runs SG Meeting 3 - Present Final Report and Outstanding Requirements
Page 21 of 115
Steering Group Meetings
PU
21
Return to Contents
Data Collection and Analysis
Page 22 of 115
22
Data Requirements • ORH specified the following data requirements… • Incident and workload data – Detailed information for the past five years – Summary of the number of incidents by month/year
• Current and planned station locations, plus relevant
additional information on station condition or size (number of bays for apparatus) – List of apparatus located at each station Page 23 of 115
• Volunteer availability or expected staff numbers by station • Access to data on expected population change by locality • Information on land use and/or addresses
23
Incident Data Requirements • For incident data, ORH provided an example of the key
data fields, specifying that this should include all calls to which SFFR/CFFR mobilized a unit, including the location and type of call, plus key time fields…
Data Type
Field
Notes/format
Incident ID
A unique identifier for the incident
Incident level Date & Time of Call data (one row per incident) Incident Location
YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss Latitude and Longitude
Incident Type
Specify whether this is at time of call or final category
Incident ID
To match to the incident data
Date & Time Left Scene
The responding unit’s callsign/identifier YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss
Page 24 of 115
Unit ID Response level data (one row Date & Time Vehicle Assigned per response, can be multiple Date & Time Vehicle Mobilised per incident) Date & Time Arrived at Scene
24
Incident Demand Analysis • ORH analyzed the incident and response data provided by SFFR/CFFR to evaluate:
– Trends for incident demand – Categories of incidents – Geographical distribution of incidents – Workload by station
• An incident is defined as any call in South or Central
Frontenac to which at least one unit from SFFR/CFFR responded. Page 25 of 115
25
Total Incidents – Central Frontenac Sample Period: January 1, 2016 - October 31, 2021 Alarm
Cancelled
Fire
Medical
MVC
Other
Rescue
160
140
Incident Demand
120
100
80
60
40
0 2016
2017
2018
2019
Year
2020
2021
Page 26 of 115
20
26
Total Incidents – South Frontenac Sample Period: January 1, 2016 - October 31, 2021 Alarm
Cancelled
Fire
Medical
MVC
Other
Rescue
550
500
450
Incident Demand
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
0 2016
2017
2018
2019
Year
2020
2021
Page 27 of 115
50
27
Average Weekly Demand Area
Central Frontenac
South Frontenac
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Overall
Alarm
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.17
0.14
0.07
Cancelled
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fire
0.44
0.15
0.21
0.29
0.35
0.76
0.35
Medical
1.63
1.42
0.94
1.38
1.17
2.00
1.41
MVC
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.40
0.41
0.17
Other
0.11
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.27
0.12
0.12
Rescue
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.03
Overall
2.37
1.67
1.36
1.86
2.42
3.50
2.16
Alarm
0.98
0.94
0.67
1.15
0.86
0.97
0.93
Cancelled
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.16
0.03
Fire
2.30
1.28
1.23
1.65
2.34
2.19
1.82
Medical
4.05
3.11
3.43
4.64
3.38
3.48
3.69
MVC
1.32
0.88
0.79
0.96
1.02
1.04
1.00
Other
0.54
0.73
0.73
0.27
0.29
0.16
0.46
Rescue
0.08
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.19
0.05
0.10
Total
9.28
7.06
6.90
8.80
8.09
8.04
8.03
Page 28 of 115
ORHCategory
28
Station Workload Area
Central Frontenac
South Frontenac
Station
Total Incidents
Average Weekly
Arden (1)
264
0.87
Mountain Grove (2)
51
0.17
Sharbot (3)
236
0.78
Parham (4)
106
0.35
Overall
657
2.16
Bradshaw (1)
67
0.22
Burridge (2)
93
0.31
Verona (3)
383
1.26
Hartington (4)
379
1.25
Sydenham (5)
424
1.39
Perth Road (6)
351
1.15
Latimer (7)
239
0.79
Sunbury/Battersea (8)
403
1.32
Overall
2,339
7.69
Page 29 of 115
This table shows the number of incidents, based on the home station of the first responding unit, during the six-year data sample
29
Incident Location Maps • Using the incident data for both fire services, ORH
produced maps showing the geographical distribution of incident locations in each township.
• The following maps represent each incident in the six-
year sample period with a dot marking the coordinates that were recorded for the incident.
• There is a map of all incident locations in each township, followed by maps for incident categories: fires, alarms, motor vehicle collisions, medical and other incidents.
although the road network can be identified in the MVC maps.
Page 30 of 115
• In general, incidents are clustered in the built-up areas,
30
Central Frontenac: All Incidents
Page 31 of 115
31
Central Frontenac: Fire Incidents
Page 32 of 115
32
Central Frontenac: Alarm Incidents
Page 33 of 115
33
Central Frontenac: MVC Incidents
Page 34 of 115
34
Central Frontenac: Medical Incidents
Page 35 of 115
35
Central Frontenac: Other Incidents
Page 36 of 115
36
South Frontenac: All Incidents
Page 37 of 115
37
South Frontenac: Fire Incidents
Page 38 of 115
38
South Frontenac: Alarm Incidents
Page 39 of 115
39
South Frontenac: MVC Incidents
Page 40 of 115
40
South Frontenac: Medical Incidents
Page 41 of 115
41
South Frontenac: Other Incidents
Page 42 of 115
42
GIS Data Analysis • In addition to analyzing incident and response data
provided by SFFR/CFFR, ORH also evaluated GIS data from the County of Frontenac.
• This data related to street addresses, land use and
building footprints. The objective was to analyze the distribution of residential properties in the area and then include these in the optimization and coverage models.
• Finally, ORH used commercially available road network
Page 43 of 115
data to profile the roads within the two townships, again with the intention of using road coverage as part of the assessment of station locations.
43
Property Data: Raw Information
Page 44 of 115
44
Property Data: Land Use Analysis
Page 45 of 115
45
Road Network Data
Page 46 of 115
46
Return to Contents
Model Setup
Page 47 of 115
47
Model Setup • ORH used two models in evaluating station locations: – Optimization model: to identify ideal locations based on defined optimization criteria and constraints – Coverage model: to report key statistics on the distance/time coverage from potential sites to relevant geographical distributions
• Both models were populated with outcomes from the
analysis of incident and GIS data, plus a calibrated travel time matrix based on the current road network. ORH then tested the resulting coverage against key measures.
Page 48 of 115
• Having determined the optimal locations in any scenario,
48
Optimization Approach • At the start of the study, ORH discussed various options for optimization objectives, for example: – Travel time vs. travel distance – Minimizing average vs. maximizing within X minutes – Incidents / roads / population as the risk proxy
• ORH conducted a series of area-wide optimization runs to assess different options. In agreement with SFFR/CFFR the objective was to:
Page 49 of 115
– Optimize coverage of all residential properties and the road network to maximize the proportion reachable within 5, 8 and 13 kilometres of stations.
49
Measuring Coverage • To compare current and future scenarios for station
locations, ORH used a coverage model to summarize service provision against geographical measures.
• For all assessed options, ORH provided SFFR/CFFR with
the expected coverage by risk proxy (residential properties and roads), area (SFFR, CFFR and combined) and distance (5, 8 and 13km).
• Outputs were provided in terms of tables summarizing
Page 50 of 115
the proportion of residences/roads within 5/8/13 kms and maps depicting the geographical coverage for key options.
50
Site-search Mapping • For selected options, ORH produced site-search maps,
that used optimization modelling to determine the optimal location a particular station within its local area.
• This followed the same optimization approach with all other station deployments fixed.
• The resulting site search maps are based on the road and residential coverage for hundreds of alternative locations in the area around the existing stations, with interpolation used for areas between each point. moving the station to each point, relative to the current location.
Page 51 of 115
• The colours on the map represent the suitability of
51
Return to Contents
Current Coverage
Page 52 of 115
52
Current Road Coverage • Based on the modelling methodology, ORH calculated the proportion of the road network that is within 5, 8 and 13 kilometres driving distance of current stations, for CFFR, SFFR and the combined area.
• Maps for road coverage in the three geographies are provided on the subsequent pages. Central
South
Overall
5
24.7%
36.4%
31.6%
8
47.5%
61.5%
55.8%
13
84.2%
86.3%
85.4%
Page 53 of 115
Distance (Km)
53
Current Road Coverage: Central
Page 54 of 115
54
Current Road Coverage: South
Page 55 of 115
55
Current Road Coverage: Combined
Page 56 of 115
56
Residential Property Coverage • Based on the modelling methodology, ORH calculated the
proportion of residential properties that are within 5, 8 and 13 kilometres driving distance of current stations, for CFFR, SFFR and the combined area.
• Maps showing the residential properties and stations in the three geographies are provided in the subsequent pages. Central
South
Overall
5
36.0%
42.4%
40.6%
8
58.9%
68.6%
65.8%
13
87.9%
87.9%
87.9%
Page 57 of 115
Distance (Km)
57
Residential Coverage: Central
Page 58 of 115
58
Residential Coverage: South
Page 59 of 115
59
Residential Coverage: Combined
Page 60 of 115
60
Return to Contents
Optimizing Coverage Area-wide
Page 61 of 115
61
Optimizing Coverage Area-wide • The first optimization runs evaluated the optimal sites to locate stations within each township. To commence, the modelling considered maintaining the same number of stations as currently located.
• The only constraint was that Stations 6 and 8 in SFFR
(Perth Road and Sunbury/Battersea) were fixed at their respective locations. – All subsequent modelling runs also fixed these sites.
• ORH modelled three options: CFFR (4 stations), SFFR (8
stations) and both townships in combination (12 stations). coverage to the current position.
Page 62 of 115
• For each option, ORH compared optimal locations and
62
Optimizing Central: Locations
Page 63 of 115
63
Optimizing Central: Coverage Results Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
27.2%
56.9%
91.1%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
32.6%
59.6%
88.3%
Difference
2.5%
9.4%
6.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
3.8%
2.9%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
35.1%
61.8%
93.4%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.3%
66.6%
89.4%
Difference
-0.9%
2.9%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.3%
0.8%
1.5%
Page 64 of 115
5Km
64
Optimizing South: Locations
Page 65 of 115
65
Optimizing South: Coverage Results Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
24.3%
47.7%
84.0%
39.0%
67.8%
89.3%
33.0%
59.5%
87.1%
Difference
-0.4%
0.2%
-0.2%
2.6%
6.3%
3.0%
1.4%
3.7%
1.7%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
35.4%
59.0%
87.9%
43.2%
71.3%
90.2%
41.0%
67.8%
89.5%
Difference
-0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.8%
2.7%
2.3%
0.4%
2.0%
1.6%
Page 66 of 115
5Km
66
Optimizing CF+SF: Locations
Page 67 of 115
67
Optimizing CF+SF: Coverage Results Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
24.2%
47.6%
83.9%
42.0%
71.6%
88.1%
35.3%
64.9%
87.9%
Difference
-0.5%
0.1%
-0.3%
5.6%
10.1%
1.8%
3.7%
9.1%
2.5%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
32.8%
60.3%
93.2%
46.0%
76.3%
89.5%
42.2%
71.8%
90.5%
Difference
-3.2%
1.4%
5.3%
3.6%
7.7%
1.6%
1.6%
6.0%
2.6%
Page 68 of 115
5Km
68
Optimizing CF+SF: Road Coverage
Page 69 of 115
69
Optimizing Coverage: Fewer Stations • Following the same approach for the combined (Central + South) run, ORH optimized the configuration for 11 or 10 stations across the townships, with the objective of identifying whether current coverage could be maintained with fewer sites, if these were optimally located.
• These optimization runs were conducted area-wide, with the same objective as before, that is, to maximize coverage to residential addresses and roads, with SFFR Stations 6 & 8 ‘fixed’ at current sites.
Page 70 of 115
70
Optimizing CF+SF: 11 Locations
Page 71 of 115
71
Optimizing CF+SF: Coverage (11 Stns) Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 12
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 11
22.2%
46.6%
88.1%
39.4%
68.4%
87.6%
32.3%
59.4%
87.8%
Difference
-2.5%
-0.9%
3.9%
3.0%
6.9%
1.3%
0.7%
3.6%
2.4%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 12
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 11
34.8%
55.2%
91.5%
42.7%
72.0%
88.8%
40.5%
67.2%
89.5%
Difference
-1.2%
-3.7%
3.6%
0.3%
3.4%
0.9%
-0.1%
1.4%
1.6%
Page 72 of 115
5Km
72
Optimizing CF+SF: 10 Locations
Page 73 of 115
73
Optimizing CF+SF: Coverage (10 Stns) Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 12
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 10
22.2%
46.6%
88.1%
33.6%
62.1%
86.6%
28.9%
55.7%
87.2%
Difference
-2.5%
-0.9%
3.9%
-2.8%
0.6%
0.3%
-2.7%
-0.1%
1.8%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 12
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 10
34.8%
55.2%
91.5%
37.2%
67.4%
87.9%
36.5%
63.9%
88.9%
Difference
-1.2%
-3.7%
3.6%
-5.2%
-1.2%
0.0%
-4.1%
-1.9%
1.0%
Page 74 of 115
5Km
74
Return to Contents
Specified Options
Page 75 of 115
75
Specified Options • Following the area-wide optimization modelling, CFFR and SFFR specified options of interest for ORH to examine.
• In each case, where optimization was required, the same objectives were used, however more constraints were applied to develop feasible options.
• For all options, ORH has reported the coverage statistics in the same manner as the area-wide optimization, comparing the results to the current station locations.
• When considering the ideal replacement site for a single Page 76 of 115
station, ORH produced a site-search map to determine the optimal within its local area.
76
Central: Combining Stations 1 & 2
Page 77 of 115
77
Central: Combining Stations 1 & 2 • CFFR specified an option to potentially combine Stations 1 (Arden) and 2 (Mountain Grove) at one site.
• ORH identified the optimal location with CFFR Stations 3 and 4 fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Compare locations and coverage to current position.
Page 78 of 115
78
Central: Combining Stations 1 & 2
Page 79 of 115
79
Central: Combining Stations 1 & 2 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 4
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 3
20.2%
38.9%
81.6%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
29.7%
52.2%
84.4%
Difference
-4.5%
-8.6%
-2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.9%
-3.6%
-1.0%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 4
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 3
38.0%
54.3%
86.3%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
41.1%
64.6%
87.4%
Difference
2.0%
-4.6%
-1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
-1.2%
-0.5%
Page 80 of 115
5Km
80
Central: Optimizing Station 1
Page 81 of 115
81
Central: Optimizing Station 1 • CFFR specified an option to potentially relocate Station 1 (Arden) to a new site.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other CFFR and SFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Produced a site-search map for the optimal location. – Compared coverage to current position.
Page 82 of 115
82
Central: Optimizing Station 1
Page 83 of 115
83
Central: Optimizing Station 1 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
25.3%
47.6%
84.6%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.8%
55.8%
85.6%
Difference
0.6%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
37.8%
59.2%
88.2%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
41.4%
65.9%
87.9%
Difference
1.8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.1%
0.0%
Page 84 of 115
5Km
84
South: Stations 3, 4 and 5
Page 85 of 115
85
SF Stations 3, 4 & 5 • SFFR specified an option to potentially combine Stations 3 (Verona), 4 (Hartington) and 5 (Sydenham) at one or two optimal sites in South Frontenac.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other SFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Compare locations and coverage to current position.
Page 86 of 115
86
SF Stations 3, 4 & 5: Two Locations
Page 87 of 115
87
SF Stations 3, 4 & 5: Two Locations Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 7
24.8%
47.7%
84.3%
31.8%
57.7%
85.5%
28.9%
53.6%
85.0%
Difference
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
-4.6%
-3.8%
-0.8%
-2.7%
-2.2%
-0.4%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 7
36.1%
59.2%
87.9%
37.9%
66.2%
87.3%
37.3%
64.2%
87.4%
Difference
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
-4.5%
-2.4%
-0.6%
-3.3%
-1.6%
-0.5%
Page 88 of 115
5Km
88
SF Stations 3, 4 & 5: One Location
Page 89 of 115
89
SF Stations 3, 4 & 5: One Location Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 6
24.3%
44.6%
78.5%
26.2%
50.4%
80.8%
25.4%
48.1%
79.9%
Difference
-0.4%
-2.9%
-5.7%
-10.2% -11.1%
-5.5%
-6.2%
-7.7%
-5.5%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 6
35.5%
56.7%
84.2%
25.9%
54.0%
83.0%
28.5%
54.8%
83.3%
Difference
-0.5%
-2.2%
-3.7%
-16.5% -14.6%
-4.9%
-12.1%
-11.0%
-4.6%
Page 90 of 115
5Km
90
South: Stations 3, 4, 5 and 7
Page 91 of 115
91
SF Stations 3, 4, 5 & 7 • SFFR specified an option to potentially combine Stations 3 (Verona), 4 (Hartington), 5 (Sydenham) and 7 (Latimer) at three optimal sites in South Frontenac.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other SFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Compare locations and coverage to current position.
Page 92 of 115
92
SF Stations 3, 4, 5 & 7: Locations
Page 93 of 115
93
SF Stations 3, 4, 5 & 7: Coverage Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized 7
24.8%
47.7%
84.3%
32.4%
57.6%
85.5%
29.3%
53.5%
85.0%
Difference
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
-4.0%
-3.9%
-0.8%
-2.3%
-2.3%
-0.4%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current 8
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized 7
36.1%
59.2%
87.9%
39.1%
65.9%
87.3%
37.5%
64.0%
87.4%
Difference
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
-4.3%
-2.7%
-0.6%
-3.1%
-1.8%
-0.5%
Page 94 of 115
5Km
94
South: Closing Station 4
Page 95 of 115
95
South: Closing Station 4 • Based on the optimization modelling for combining
Stations 3, 4 and 5 (and 7) in South Frontenac, SFFR specified an option to potentially remove Hartington (Station 4), while leaving all other SFFR stations in their current locations.
• No optimization modelling was required here, so ORH
compared the coverage for with and without Hartington station.
Page 96 of 115
96
South: Closing Station 4 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
No Station 4
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
31.4%
57.1%
84.6%
28.6%
53.1%
84.5%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
-4.4%
-1.7%
-3.0%
-2.7%
-0.9%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
No Station 4
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
37.6%
65.7%
86.3%
37.1%
63.8%
86.7%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-4.8%
-2.9%
-1.6%
-3.5%
-2.0%
-1.2%
Page 97 of 115
5Km
97
South: Optimizing Station 3
Page 98 of 115
98
South: Optimizing Station 3 • SFFR specified an option to potentially relocate Station 3 (Verona) to a new site.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other SFFR and CFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Produced a site-search map for the optimal location. – Compared coverage to current position.
Page 99 of 115
99
South: Optimizing Station 3
Page 100 of 115
100
South: Optimizing Station 3 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
24.8%
47.7%
84.3%
36.4%
61.6%
86.4%
31.6%
55.9%
85.5%
Difference
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
36.1%
59.2%
87.9%
42.2%
68.8%
88.1%
40.5%
66.1%
88.0%
Difference
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
-0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
-0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
Page 101 of 115
5Km
101
South: Optimizing Station 7
Page 102 of 115
102
South: Optimizing Station 7 • SFFR specified an option to potentially relocate Station 7 (Latimer) to a new site.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other SFFR and CFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Produced a site-search map for the optimal location. – Compared coverage to current position.
Page 103 of 115
103
South: Optimizing Station 7
Page 104 of 115
104
South: Optimizing Station 7 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
37.0%
61.4%
86.3%
31.9%
55.7%
85.4%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
-0.1%
0.0%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.6%
68.3%
87.9%
40.7%
65.6%
87.9%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
-0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
-0.2%
0.0%
Page 105 of 115
5Km
105
South: Optimizing Station 5
Page 106 of 115
106
South: Optimizing Station 5 • SFFR specified an option to potentially relocate Station 5 (Sydenham) to a new site.
• ORH identified the optimal location with all other SFFR and CFFR stations fixed at their current sites.
– Same approach as township-wide optimization. – Produced a site-search map for the optimal location. – Compared coverage to current position.
Page 107 of 115
107
South: Optimizing Station 5
Page 108 of 115
108
South: Optimizing Station 5 Road Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.4%
61.5%
86.3%
31.6%
55.8%
85.4%
Optimized
24.7%
47.5%
84.2%
36.7%
61.6%
86.5%
31.8%
55.8%
85.5%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
Housing Coverage Central
South
Overall
Deployment 8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
5Km
8Km
13Km
Current
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.4%
68.6%
87.9%
40.6%
65.8%
87.9%
Optimized
36.0%
58.9%
87.9%
42.7%
68.9%
88.2%
40.8%
66.1%
88.0%
Difference
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
Page 109 of 115
5Km
109
Return to Contents
Summary
Page 110 of 115
110
Summary • ORH analyzed incident and GIS data to build an
understanding of the townships and develop inputs for the optimization and coverage models.
• Area-wide optimization runs were followed by a series of specific options for CFFR and SFFR. In all scenarios, the residential properties and road network coverage was compared to the current position.
• In general, the stations are closely aligned to optimal
Page 111 of 115
sites, so there are limited opportunities for providing large coverage gains without significant investment in new station locations across the townships.
111
Recommendations: Central • In CFFR, Station 1 (Arden) is recognized as requiring
investment and the modelling has indicated that it is important to maintain a site in this area. The optimal location is northeast of the current station with improved access to Highway 7, and this should be considered if an opportunity arises to rebuild in a new location.
Page 112 of 115
112
Recommendations: South • There are three stations in SFFR that might require renovating or rebuilding in the near future.
• ORH’s modelling has identified that: – Station 3 (Verona) is well-located and a rebuild should be in the near vicinity of the current site. An option to co-locate with OPP should be considered. – Station 7 (Latimer) could be relocated closer to Inverary, however this would only provide a small gain in coverage. Page 113 of 115
– Station 5 (Sydenham) is also well-located, so is not a priority to relocate. When renovation is required, an alternative site on Rutledge Rd would be optimal.
113
Recommendations: Combined • From the area-wide optimization runs, there were limited opportunities arising for combining sites in CFFR and SFFR to produce a more efficient service.
• One area to potentially explore would be between Parham (CFFR) and Bradshaw (SFFR), where an optimal site was identified, however this would need to meet the requirements for both services. This could be explored subject to future population growth in the area.
Page 114 of 115
Find Out More • You can find out more about our range of services at: www.orhltd.com
• If you would like to talk to one of our consultants, please call:
+44(0)118 959 6623
• Or click: orh@orhltd.com @ORH_Ltd Page 115 of 115
company/orh
