Fire Station Location Study - Port Hope

MUNICIPALITY OF PORT HOPE 

Fire Station Location Study 

Prepared by: 

January, 2013

January 11, 2013 

16-12047-001 

Rob Collins 

Director of Fire & Emergency Services 

Municipality of Port Hope 

56 Queen Street 

Port Hope, Ontario 

L1A 3Z9 

Dear Mr. Collins: 

Subject: 

Final Report 

Municipality of Port Hope Fire Station Location Study 

MMM Group Limited, in association with NivoNuvo Consulting, are pleased to present our Fire Station 

Location Study report. This study has analyzed the existing fire station locations and resources, and 

determined the future requirements (station locations, equipment and training facilities) as they relate to 

the predicted growth within the Municipality over the next 10 years. 

Please contact us if you have any questions or comments with respect to our report. 

Yours very truly, 

MMM GROUP LIMITED 

Jim Gough, P.Eng. 

Senior Project Manager 

Partner



January 2013 

Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Project Understanding ............................................................................. 1 

1.2 Project Approach ..................................................................................... 2 

2.0 Socio-economic Profile ......................................................................... 3 

2.1 Official Plan .............................................................................................. 3 

2.2 Existing and Future Demographics .......................................................... 5 

2.2.1 Existing Statistics ..................................................................................... 5 

2.2.2 Future Statistics ....................................................................................... 6 

2.3 Community Risks ................................................................................... 11 

3.0 Existing Facilities, Resources and Response Guidelines ............... 12 

3.1 Existing Facilities Review ....................................................................... 12 

3.2 Resource and Response Guidelines ..................................................... 14 

3.2.1 Volunteer Service – NFPA Guideline 1720 ............................................ 14 

3.2.2 Ontario Fire Marshal (PFSG 04-08-10) ................................................. 15 

3.2.3 Ontario Fire Service Section 21 – Note # 3-1 ........................................ 16 

4.0 Existing System Performance ............................................................ 17 

4.1 Analysis of Existing Fire Station Response Times and Gap Areas ........ 17 

4.1.1 Calibration Methodology for Simulation ................................................. 17 

4.1.2 Response Time ..................................................................................... 19 

4.1.3 Geographic Coverage ........................................................................... 19 

4.2 Statistical Analysis of Fire Calls Dataset ................................................ 22 

4.2.1 Call Type ............................................................................................... 22 

4.2.2 Call Volumes By Station and Hour of the Day ....................................... 25 

4.2.3 Response Times .................................................................................... 26 

4.2.4 Equipment Utilization ............................................................................. 27 

5.0 Future Station Location Plan .............................................................. 28 

5.1 Preliminary Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 .................................................. 28 

5.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 29 

5.3 Long-term Plan ...................................................................................... 32 

5.4 Apparatus Consolidation ........................................................................ 32 

5.5 Cost ....................................................................................................... 32 

6.0 Training Facility and Equipment ........................................................ 33 

6.1 Training Facility Location ....................................................................... 33 

6.2 Analysis of Training Simulator Needs .................................................... 34 

7.0 Implementation Plan ........................................................................... 40



January 2013 

Page ii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Schedule C – Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan ......................... 4 

Figure 2: Future Developments ....................................................................... 10 

Figure 3: Calibration of Time Contours for GIS Analysis ................................. 18 

Figure 4: Existing Locations – Ten Minute Response Time ............................ 21 

Figure 5: 2009-2011 Responses by Type ....................................................... 22 

Figure 6: Response Trend by Type – 2009, 2010, 2011 ................................. 24 

Figure 7: Number of Responses by Station 2009-2011 ................................... 25 

Figure 8: Number of Responses by Hour of the Day 2009-2011 ..................... 25 

Figure 9: Response Times 2009-2011 ............................................................ 26 

Figure 10: Preferred Scenario – Ten Minute Response Time ......................... 31 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Historic Population in Port Hope and Northumberland County ............ 5 

Table 2: Private Dwellings in Port Hope and Northumberland County .............. 6 

Table 3: Population and Employment Projection for Northumberland County ... 7 

Table 4: Development Application Summary .................................................... 8 

Table 5: NFPA Guideline 1720 - Staffing and Response Time ....................... 14 

Table 6: Risk Levels and Priorities .................................................................. 15 

Table 7: Average Turnout and Travel Time – 2010 and 2011 ......................... 19 

Table 8: Call Volume By Type – 2009-2011 .................................................... 23 

Table 9: Station Utilization – 2009, 2010, 2011 ............................................... 27 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Preliminary Scenario 1 and 2 Response Contours

Fire Station Location Study Page 1 


January 2013 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Project Understanding 

The key goal for this project has been to define potentially more efficient and 

economical ways of completing the a number of the major recommended 

actions in the Municipality’s Fire Master Plan, while still meeting the Plan’s 

objective of optimizing emergency coverage. That Plan was adopted by Council 

in 2007. 

Since that time, there has also been growth in the Municipality, most 

prominently on the western edge of the urban area. Responding to that growth 

is also an element of this study. 

The two service components defined as focus areas for improving the efficiency 

and economy of service delivery were fire station locations and training facility 

needs. The study has analyzed these elements over a 10 year horizon. 

This study has considered issues related to these components within the 

context of the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) and the Ontario 

Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) guidelines, focusing on operational 

deployment of resources and risk factors throughout the municipality. 

We are aware of the location options and capital investments proposed in the 

2007 plan and they have been considered. It is our understanding that Station 2 

is of particular interest as it has been determined that the current site is not 

suitable for the addition of the training facilities recommended in the Master 

Plan. 

The recommendations developed through this study are intended to conform to 

best practices, and are focused towards improving service delivery and cost 

effectiveness of the Port Hope Fire and Emergency Service (PHFES). The 

resulting plan is meant to be practical and cost-effective, and have an 

implementable set of actions for the Municipality.



January 2013 

1.2 Project Approach 

The study assessed the status quo as well as three alternatives for future 

station locations. Our assessment was completed on the basis of a thorough 

review of the existing service and use of a GIS-based computer simulation for 

each alternative, which was calibrated to existing conditions. The National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 1720 guidelines for response time objectives 

were used in the assessment, together with the Ontario Fire Marshal’s 

guidelines for service, as indicators of best practices.



January 2013 

2.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE 

This section defines the context for the Station Location Study, in terms of key 

demographic factors which shape the need for fire services. The vision adopted 

in the Municipality’s Official Plan along with population and growth projections 

are among the key contextual elements. The projections help determine if there 

is a need for improved fire service coverage, as they contribute to establishing 

how many future fire stations are needed; where such stations should be 

located; and the deployment of staff and apparatus. In addition, the housing 

stock and the associated risks need to be assessed. 

2.1 Official Plan 

Developed in 2009, the Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan provides, “a 

framework for the physical development of the Municipality over a 20-year 

period, while taking into consideration important social, economic and 

environmental matters.” The plan sets out specific goals which ensure 

development in the municipality is conducted in such a way to ensure quality of 

life for the residents of Port Hope. 

Schedule C of the Official Plan (Figure 1) highlights the proposed Land Use 

plan for the Municipality. There are two areas of significance which should be 

noted in the preparation of this study. The first area relates to the hamlets, and 

policy D.2.2.3 states; 

“Garden Hill, Canton, Osaca and Campbellcroft are hamlets capable of sustaining 

limited growth in terms of in-depth development contiguous to and as a natural 

expansion of areas of existing development, rather than as a linear extension along 

major roads. Development of the hamlets of Garden Hill, Canton, Osaca and 

Campbellcroft shall be encouraged by registered plan of subdivision wherever 

possible.” 

The second section relates to the employment area of Wesleyville (policy 

B.8.2): 

“To encourage and coordinate the development of employment-based activities on the 

land assemblages in the Wesleyville area with a view to maximizing the benefits to be 

derived from the unique potential of the sites and the infrastructure investments in this 

area.” 

Fire services should be aware of these two potential growth areas and ensure 

that the future station locations are able to provide an adequate level of fire 

services.



January 2013 

2.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE 

This section defines the context for the Station Location Study, in terms of key 

demographic factors which shape the need for fire services. The vision adopted 

in the Municipality’s Official Plan along with population and growth projections 

are among the key contextual elements. The projections help determine if there 

is a need for improved fire service coverage, as they contribute to establishing 

how many future fire stations are needed; where such stations should be 

located; and the deployment of staff and apparatus. In addition, the housing 

stock and the associated risks need to be assessed. 

2.1 Official Plan 

Developed in 2009, the Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan provides, “a 

framework for the physical development of the Municipality over a 20-year 

period, while taking into consideration important social, economic and 

environmental matters.” The plan sets out specific goals which ensure 

development in the municipality is conducted in such a way to ensure quality of 

life for the residents of Port Hope. 

Schedule C of the Official Plan (Figure 1) highlights the proposed Land Use 

plan for the Municipality. There are two areas of significance which should be 

noted in the preparation of this study. The first area relates to the hamlets, and 

policy D.2.2.3 states; 

“Garden Hill, Canton, Osaca and Campbellcroft are hamlets capable of sustaining 

limited growth in terms of in-depth development contiguous to and as a natural 

expansion of areas of existing development, rather than as a linear extension along 

major roads. Development of the hamlets of Garden Hill, Canton, Osaca and 

Campbellcroft shall be encouraged by registered plan of subdivision wherever 

possible.” 

The second section relates to the employment area of Wesleyville (policy 

B.8.2): 

“To encourage and coordinate the development of employment-based activities on the 

land assemblages in the Wesleyville area with a view to maximizing the benefits to be 

derived from the unique potential of the sites and the infrastructure investments in this 

area.” 

Fire services should be aware of these two potential growth areas and ensure 

that the future station locations are able to provide an adequate level of fire 

services.



January 2013 

2.2 Existing and Future Demographics 

The following sections examine three key demographic statistics of population, 

housing and employment. Both existing figures and future projections are 

provided. 

2.2.1 Existing Statistics 

Population 

The most recent 2011 Census data shows the Municipality of Port Hope has a 

population of 16,214. This represents a 1% loss in population from the 2006 

Census data. This is the first time since 1996 that the Municipality has seen a 

loss in population. Since 1996, the Municipality has grown from a population of 

15,446. The historic population trends in the Municipality as well as 

Northumberland County are summarized below in Table 1. The statistics 

indicate that Port Hope remains a centre of population within the County. 

Table 1: Historic Population in Port Hope and Northumberland County 

Year 

Northumberland 

County 

Actual Population 



Percentage of 

County Total 

1996 74,437 15,446 21% 

2001 77,497 15,605 20% 

2006 80,963 16,390 20% 

2011 82,126 16,214 20% 

Source: Statistics Canada 

Housing 

The Municipality of Port Hope’s number of private dwellings grew by 310 units 

between 2006 and 2011, representing an average increase of 62 units per year. 

The number of private dwellings in the Municipality of Port Hope, and 

Northumberland County are summarized in Table 2. The growth rate from 

2006 to 2011 is approximately 1 percent.



January 2013 

Table 2: Private Dwellings in Port Hope and Northumberland County 

Year 

Northumberland 

County 



Actual Percentage of Annual 

Population County Total Growth (%) 

2001 31,769 6,125 19% 

2006 35,069 6,650 19% 2% 

2011 37,226 6,870 18% 1% 

Source: Statistics Canada 

Employment 

Employment data from the 2006 Census showed employment in the 

Municipality of Port Hope was 7,555, which represented approximately 20% of 

the 35,585 jobs in Northumberland County. 

2.2.2 Future Statistics 

Population and Employment 

The County of Northumberland and its member municipalities completed a 

Growth Management Strategy (GMS) in 2009. This strategy built upon work 

completed as part of the Places to Growth Act (2005) and developed population 

projections that reflect the policy and direction of the Act while taking into 

account the specific growth characteristics found in the County and its 

component municipalities. 

The final recommended population and employment allocations for 

Northumberland County for the horizon of 2031 are shown below in Table 3. 

This projection is based on Schedule 3 from the Places to Grow Act.



January 2013 

Table 3: Population and Employment Projection for Northumberland County 

Population 

Allocation 

(2031) 

Employment 

Allocation 

(2031) 

Share of 

Growth 

Brighton 

Urban 1,158 294 

Rural 87 22 

Total 1,245 316 10.52% 

Trent Hills 

Campbellford 865 220 

Hastings 268 68 

Rural 120 30 

Total 1,253 318 10.58% 

Cobourg 3,975 1,008 33.54% 

Cramahe 

Colborne 611 155 

Rural 184 47 

Total 795 202 6.72% 

Port Hope 

Urban 2,596 659 

Rural 550 140 

Total 3,146 799 26.59% 

Hamilton 844 214 7.12% 

Alnwick/Haldimand 582 148 4.93 

Total 11,837 3,005 

Source: County of Northumberland and its member Municipalities – Growth Management Strategy (2009) 

As can be seen above, Port Hope has been allocated a significant amount 

(26.59%) of the growth in both population and employment which has been 

projected for Northumberland County in the Places to Grow Act. This supports 

continued investment in PHFES. 

In addition to the above projections, a number of recommendations were made 

in the GMS. Recommendation “I” is of specific interest to the project as it lays 

out five principles for the basis of the overall Growth Management Strategy in 

support of the overall principles of the Growth Plan. These principles include:



January 2013 

i. The majority of new growth is to be accommodated on lands that can 

be service by municipal water and sewer services; 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Only population growth that can be serviced by existing wastewater 

treatment and sewage treatment infrastructure (i.e. where reserve 

capacity exists) should occur in urban areas; 

Population growth through intensification shall be a priority within the 

built boundaries of the six fully serviced communities in the County; 

There has to be a wiliness to review the extent and location of Hamlet 

and Settlement Area designations in rural areas are not serviced by 

full municipal services; and 

v. There has to be a willingness to further restrict rural lot creation in the 

form on consents in the local Official Plans on a go-forward basis 

Development 

Currently there are 24 applications which we have identified through our work. 

There is one application for an industrial use, thirteen for residential use, eight 

for commercial use, and two are identified as mixed-use. We have mapped the 

locations of these proposed developments in Figure 2 and a summary of 

available information on these developments can be found in Table 4. 

Table 4: Development Application Summary 

Land Use Application Statistics 

Industrial 1 467 m 2 (GFA) 

Residential 13 849 units 

Commercial 8 5,367 m 2 (GFA) 

Mixed Use 2 24 units 

Note: Information on all applications was not available 

As can be seen on the map, most of these developments are located in close 

proximity to the existing built-up area of Port Hope where the existing fire 

service coverage is good. These developments should be well covered by any 

centrally located station.



January 2013 

Developments considered important because of their location and magnitude 

are those labeled 17, 18, and 22. The details of these are as follows: 

 

 

 

Development 17 is a subdivision application submitted by Hope Springs 

Development Inc. The application proposes 120 single family homes and 

191 townhouse units. 

Development 18 is a site plan application submitted by a private 

landowner. The application proposes 96 single detached units. 

Development 22 is a subdivision application submitted by Aon 

Incorporated. The application proposes 62 single detached and 40 semidetached 

units. 

When developing and ultimately selecting the preferred alternative, these 

developments and the potential for others in edge areas should be considered 

to ensure the highest coverage possible.

10 

Legend 

Proposed Development 

Land Use Type 

8 

1. Industrial 

2. Residential 

3. Commercial 

4. Commercial 

5. Commercial 

6. Mixed Use 



9. Commercial 




13. Commercial 


15. Mixed Use 










5 

21 

14 

17 

1 

18 

6 

23 

13 

19 

22 

24 

20 

16 

15 

7 

4 

11 

12 

3 

Ü 

0 1.5 3 6 

Km 

Figure 2: 

Proposed Developments - Port Hope



January 2013 

2.3 Community Risks 

Risk levels across the Municipality have been taken into account. The majority 

of development within the Municipality is of relatively low risk. Older buildings 

in the historic core represent a higher risk. Nursing homes / seniors residences 

are also of concern because of the vulnerability of the residents. Six nursing 

homes / retirement residences have been identified. Many of these are just east 

of Ontario Street, including the Community Nursing Home on Hope Street, 

Regency Manor on Dorset Street, Extendicare on Croft Street, the Tower of 

Port Hope on Peter Street East, and Roseglen Village on Wellington 

Street. Villa Idalia on Victoria Street appears to be the only such facility in the 

west end. 

Of equal concern is the geographic coverage from the existing stations in 

relation to existing and proposed development (much of which is on the western 

periphery of the urban area), which has been assessed in subsequent sections. 

The Port Hope Area Initiative should also be noted, in terms of additional truck 

volumes that will be present on the Municipality’s streets for a number of years, 

removing the low level radioactive waste and transporting it to the handling 

facility on Toronto Road.



January 2013 

3.0 EXISTING FACILITIES, RESOURCES AND RESPONSE 

GUIDELINES 

3.1 Existing Facilities Review 

Currently there are three fire stations in the Municipality of Port Hope. They are 

all operated by volunteer staff. The following summarizes our findings related to 

each station. It was found that all three stations had the following shortcomings 

in common: 

 

 

 

Minimal washroom facilities 

o Need male and female washrooms and showers 

Inadequate storage space 

No emergency vehicle exhaust capture (EVEC) system 

o Bunker gear and other equipment stored on apparatus floor is 

subject to diesel contamination 

Station 1: 245 Ontario Street, Port Hope – Volunteer Staffed 

An assessment of Station 1 found the 

following conditions: 

Inadequate washroom and 

shower facilities 

Insufficient parking spaces 

No EVEC System 

Crowded apparatus floor 

All assigned firefighters are 

located in urban area south of 

Highway 401 

Aerial side of apparatus floor is currently crowded by the presence of 

an ambulance unit. This will be remedied in the short term when the 

ambulance moves to new location 

Currently, firefighters are parking on the street, which has caused 

several minor accidents. 

Moving the Fire Chief’s office and administrative offices to another location 

would free up these spaces for other uses.



January 2013 

Station 2: 4366 County Road 2, 

Welcome – Volunteer Staffed 

An assessment of Station 2 found 

the following conditions: 

Inadequate washroom 

and shower facilities 


Insufficient storage 

space 

Insufficient clearance for expansion on property; environmental 

issues on surrounding lands 

A majority of the station’s assigned firefighters, 18 of 22, are located 

in the urban area south of Highway 401, with only 4 of 22 in the 

Welcome area 

Station officer requires secure work space and record keeping 

Inadequate storages space leading to unsafe storage on apparatus 

floor 

Meeting/training space is adequate for 22 firefighters 

Expansion would require relocation of retained water cistern 

Station 3: 3585 Ganaraska Road, Garden Hill – Volunteer Staffed 

An assessment of Station 3 found the 

following conditions: 

Inadequate washroom and 

shower facilities 


Insufficient storage space 

All assigned firefighters are 

located in Garden Hill area 

Station officer requires secure 

work space and record 

keeping 

 

 

Library branch location prevents use of additional space 

Lack of EVEC equipment potentially contaminating air in the adjoining 

public use area (library) 

Expansion of apparatus floor to west side or rear would allow for 

another full-size apparatus 

Trailer, towing vehicle and mini-pumper do not need full-height 

apparatus floor 

 

Insufficient meeting/training space



January 2013 

In summary, our analysis of the condition of the existing stations indicates that 

Stations 1 and 2 are problematic in terms of current adequacy for needed 

functions and opportunities for expansion (particularly the idea of training 

facilities). Station 3 in Garden Hill also has a number of deficiencies. This 

supports the concept of examining alternative station locations. It should be 

noted that closure of any of the existing stations could represent an opportunity 

for revenue to offset the development of new stations. 

3.2 Resource and Response Guidelines 

3.2.1 Volunteer Service – NFPA Guideline 1720 

NFPA’s response guideline for volunteer firefighting services is as follows. 

Fire suppression operations shall be organized to ensure the fire department’s 

fire suppression capability includes sufficient personnel, equipment, and other 

resources to efficiently, effectively, and safely deploy fire suppression 

resources. 

Personnel responding to fires and other emergencies shall be organized into 

companies and those companies shall be assigned equipment necessary to 

perform the expected fire-fighting conditions. 

Response time for volunteer operations is established based on the 

demographics of the response area. Table 5 summarizes these requirements. 

Demand 

Zone* 

Table 5: NFPA Guideline 1720 - Staffing and Response Time 

Demographics 

Minimum Staff 

to Respond** 

Response Time 

(minutes)*** 

Meets 

Objective 

(%) 

Urban 

> 1000 people/mi 2 15 9 90 

area 

Suburban 500 – 1000 

2 10 10 80 

area people/mi 

Rural area < 500 people/mi 2 6 14 80 

Remote Travel Distance >= 8 

Directly dependent 

4 

90 

area mi 

on travel distance 

Determined by 

Special 

Determined by 

Authority Holding 

Determined by AHJ 90 

risks 

AHJ based on risk 

Jurisdiction (AHJ) 

* A jurisdiction can have more than one demand zone 

** Minimum staffing includes members responding from the AHJs department and automatic aid 

*** Response time begins upon completion of the dispatch notification and ends at the time interval shown in the table (i.e. 

response time includes turnout time and travel time) 

Source: www.nfpa.org



January 2013 

3.2.2 Ontario Fire Marshal (PFSG 04-08-10) 

Of greater relevance within Ontario are the Public Fire Safety Guidelines 

published by the Office of the Fire Marshal. PFSG 04-08-10, Operational 

Planning: An Official Guide to Matching Resource Deployment and Risk, treats 

response time in the context of community expectations and whether it is an 

impediment to safe firefighting operations or otherwise constitutes an 

unreasonable risk. For example, in Form 300B of the PFSG 04-08-10 

Workbook, which is intended to identify gaps in fire suppression capabilities, 

question 4 asks “Has Council set benchmarks for response time”, and 

questions 5 asks “Are/Would there (be) any operational impacts due to 

response time” 

PFSG 04-08-10 outlines response expectations to community risks categorized 

as Low, Moderate, High or Extreme. These levels of risk and priority are defined 

in the Comprehensive Fire Safety Effectiveness Model Fire Risk Sub-Model 

published by the Office of the Fire Marshal in 2009, as shown in Table 6. 

Probability 

1 

(Insignificant) 

Table 6: Risk Levels and Priorities 

2 

(Minor) 

Consequence 

3 

(Moderate) 

4 

(Major) 

5 

(Catastrophic) 

1 

(Rare) 

L (L1) L (L1) M (L2) H (L3) H (L3) 

2 

(Unlikely) 

L (L1) L (L1) M (L2) H (L3) E (L4) 

3 

(Possible) 

L (L1) M (L2) H (L3) E (L4) E (L4) 

4 

(Likely) 

M (L2) H (L3) H (L3) E (L4) E (L4) 

5 

(Almost Certain) 

H (L3) H (L3) E (L4) E (L4) E (L4) 

Notes: 

L = Low Risk, Priority Level 1 (L1)-manage by routine programs and procedures, maintain risk monitoring 

M = Moderate Risk, Priority Level 2 (L2)-requires specific allocation of management responsibility including 

monitoring and response procedures 

H = High Risk, Priority Level 3 (L3)-community threat, senior management attention needed 

E = Extreme Risk, Priority Level 4 (L4)-serious threat, detailed research and management planning required at senior levels



January 2013 

3.2.3 Ontario Fire Service Section 21 – Note # 3-1 

In the Ontario Fire Service Section 2, Firefighters guidance note #3-1 the 

advisory committee addresses the issue of reducing diesel fumes in fire 

stations. In this section, the committee strongly recommends the installation of 

direct capture type exhaust system extractors when stations are being 

renovated or newly constructed. Consideration should be given to having direct 

capture type exhaust extractors installed in all existing fire stations which are to 

remain (subject to the outcome of this study) in the Municipality of Port Hope.



January 2013 

4.0 EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 

4.1 Analysis of Existing Fire Station Response Times and Gap Areas 

The existing stations have been assessed using geographic and statistical 

analysis to define the adequacy of coverage provided throughout the 

Municipality. 

4.1.1 Calibration Methodology for Simulation 

A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based simulation model was created 

using ArcMap 9.3 and its Network Analyst extension to calibrate response time 

contours for the existing stations. The model used link-level travel times and 

turn penalties at the intersections to replicates a response contour for the fire 

trucks from each of the existing stations. Travel times are a function of the type 

of roadway, road geometry, and intersection control. 

The calibration of the time contours is a four-step process, with the last three 

steps part of an iterative framework, as shown in Figure 3. The four steps are: 

geocoding the call dataset; spend and travel time assignment based on realistic 

speeds for fire vehicle response; generation of ten minute response time 

(turnout time + travel time) travel contours for each station; comparison of the 

response contours to the geocoded call dataset, and revision to the speeds until 

acceptable levels of accuracy are obtained. Further details on each step are 

provided as follows; 

 

 

Geocoded Call Dataset 

o Addresses of historic fire calls were plotted on the Municipality of Port 

Hope Road network. 

Speed and Time Travel Assignment 

o An initial free flow speed was assigned to each link on the road 

network; 

o The initial speeds were based on street classifications, as follows; 

• Freeway (mainline and ramps) – 90km/h; 

• A/B Arterial – 60km/h; 

• C Arterial – 70km/h; 

• Collector – 50kn/h; and 

• Local Roads – 40km/h



January 2013 

o An initial travel time for each link of the network was calculated on the 

road classification and speed assignment; and 

o The speeds and travel times were adjusted to reflect lost time for 

turning movements and at intersections 

 

 

Generate Travel Time Contours 

o Using the average turnout time, we calculated the remaining available 

travel time based on the ten minute response contour (see section 

4.1.2 for calculations); 

o The travel time contour for each fire station were developed using the 

Network Analyst extension of ArcMap 9.3; 

o The calculated travel time for each link was used as the cost 

(impedance) to generate the contours 

Comparison of Time Contour to Actual Data 

o The 5 minute 40 second contours were compared to the distribution 

of the historic calls with first response travel times of 5 minute 40 

seconds or less; 

o If the contours contained 75 percent or more of the historic calls with 

travel times of 5 minute 40 seconds or less, then the process was 

stopped, otherwise a subsequent iteration was repeated with revised 

speeds and travel times 

o The 75 percent threshold was adopted to account for calls in the 

dataset that were recorded inaccurately and for outliers (e.g. calls 

that may have been responded to from out-of-station locations). 

Figure 3: Calibration of Time Contours for GIS Analysis



January 2013 

4.1.2 Response Time 

In discussion with Municipal staff we determined that the most appropriate 

measure of coverage for the existing stations was not a travel time contour, but 

instead was a response time contour. A response time contour is made up of 

two components, first the turnout time and second the travel time: 

Response time = Turnout Time + Travel Time 

To determine the amount of travel time each station would have in a ten minute 

response time one simply subtracts the average turnout time from the 

appropriate number of minutes: 

Travel Time = Response Time – Average Turnout Time 

Using the available emergency response data we were able to determine the 

average turnout time and thus the average travel time for each station (shown 

in Table 7). The table summarizes the travel time associated with a ten minute 

response time. 

Table 7: Average Turnout and Travel Time – 2010 and 2011 

Station 

Average Turnout Time 

Average Travel Time 

(10 Min Response Time) 

Port Hope 3:28 6:32 

Welcome 4:44 5:16 

Garden Hill 4:53 5:07 

Average 4:20 5:40 

4.1.3 Geographic Coverage 

Figure 4 shows the geographic coverage provided by the three existing 

stations, in terms of the ten minute response contours as described above. The 

contours are based on the GIS modeling. 

Approximately 76% (569 of 749) of the geocoded calls from 2009-2011 are 

covered within the ten minute response time. We were not able to analyze the 

coverage of all calls because they all did not have the x and y location needed 

to pinpoint their location in the GIS model. All calls in the urban area of Port 

Hope are covered in the ten minute response.



January 2013 

The contours display a significant amount of overlap between the Port Hope 

and Welcome stations. This supports the idea that one station could be 

expected to provide adequate coverage of the urbanized area. Location of that 

station is an important consideration, of course, in ensuring adequate 

geographic coverage. A single station could also be viewed as advantageous 

in terms of operational response as well – having all the volunteers report via a 

single station and respond to an emergency as a unified force could provide 

improved tactical response. 

The Welcome Station provides coverage into the western and central sections 

of the Municipality. Based on the geocoded results, this area includes a very 

small percentage of the PHFES emergency calls. Examining the 10 minute 

response time contours, there are 21 calls from 2009 to 2011 which were only 

covered by the Welcome Station 10 minute response area. The remaining calls 

were also covered by the Port Hope or Garden Hill response areas. 

The Garden Hill station provides good coverage of the northern portion of the 

Municipality. Together the Garden Hill and Welcome stations cover the majority 

of the rural area within an estimated 12 to 13 minute response time. The future 

development areas of Wesleyville and Osaca are at the outer limits of this 

response time.

C 

μ 

POWER LINE ROAD 

10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

TREW ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

9TH LINE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 

BEAVERMEADOW ROAD 

HILLCREST ROAD 

7TH LINE 

DEANS HILL ROAD 

SPRUCE GROVE ROAD 

HAMMILL ROAD 

COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD 

AGAR ROAD 

BEECH HILL ROAD 

²μ 

FS 3 - Garden Hill 

GANARASKA ROAD 

MILL STREET 

GRIST MILL ROAD 

CAMPBELL ROAD 

RIDGEVIEW ROAD 

MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 

SOUTH SLOPE DRIVE 


6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 

COUNTY ROAD 10 

JAMIESON ROAD 

MASTWOODS ROAD 

KNOXVILLE ROAD 

DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 

ANDERSON ROAD 


RUNNALLS ROAD 

BARRIE ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

MASSEY ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

JONES ROAD 

4TH LINE 

4TH LINE 

ZION ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

ROSEBERRY HILL ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

HIGHWAY 401 

KELLOGG ROAD 

BRAND ROAD 

²μ 

DALE ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

HAWKINS ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 

CLARKE ROAD 

BESTS ROAD 

FS 2 - Welcome 

GUIDEBOARD ROAD 

STACEY ROAD 

MAIL ROAD 

LAKESHORE ROAD 

MARSH ROAD 

JOCELYN STREET 

TORONTO ROAD 

²μ 

ONTARIO STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 

CROFT STREET 

FS 1 - Port Hope 

DICKINSON ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

HASKILL ROAD 

LAKE STREET 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

Kms 

Approximately 76% (569 of 749) of the geocoded calls from 2009-2011 

are covered within a 10 min Response Time 

(4min 20sec Turnout Time + 5min 40sec Travel Time) 

Legend 

Roads 

Hospital 

Boundary 

Water Body 

Osaca Development 

Area 

Wesleyville 

Development Area 

²μ 

²μ 

²μ 

Location 1 



10 min 

10 min 

10 min 

Figure 4 

Existing Station Locations 

Ten Minute Response Contours



January 2013 

4.2 Statistical Analysis of Fire Calls Dataset 

The travel time contours must be considered together with the demand levels 

experienced by the Port Hope Fire and Emergency Services Department 

(PHFES), and the statistical records of how well the PHFES has performed in 

recent years, in relation to the NFPA guidelines. 

The following is a statistical analysis of fire call data from 2009 to 2011. The 

findings are classified by the following four areas. First, calls by types and their 

trends; second, call volumes and trends by station and hour of the day; third, 

average response times and their distribution; and fourth, the annual utilization 

of equipment from each station. 

4.2.1 Call Type 

The office of the Ontario Fire Marshal has a list of Standard Incident Report 

Codes. This list groups calls into ten categories including; Property 

Fire/Explosions, Overpressure rupture/explosion (no fire), Pre fire conditions/no 

fire, Burning (controlled), False fire calls, CO False calls, Public Hazard, 

Rescue, Medical/resuscitator call, and Other response. For our analysis we 

have grouped all Port Hope responses into these categories and the results are 

shown in Figure 5. 

2009‐2011 Responses by Type Property Fire/Explosions 

5% 

Pre Fire Conditions/no fire 

23% 

18% 

4% 

5% 

Burning (Controlled) 

False Fire Calls 

CO False Calls 

Public Hazard 

19% 

17% 

Rescue 

Medical/Resuscitator Call 

5% 

4% 

Other Response 

Figure 5: 2009-2011 Responses by Type



January 2013 

As can be seen above, there are four types of calls which make up the majority 

of responses in Port Hope. Medical/Resuscitator Calls (23%), Rescue (19%), 

Property Fire/Explosions (18%), and False Fire Calls (17%) represent over 75% 

of the total number of calls in the Municipality over the last three years. It should 

be noted that the category Overpressure rupture/explosion (no fire) was not 

reported above as there was only one response for this category over the last 

three years. 

Understanding the trend of call volumes is another important part of our 

analysis. Table 8 shows the call volume and trend of each category for 2008 

through 2011. Figure 6 shows the call volume trend information graphically. 

Table 8: Call Volume By Type – 2009-2011 

Category 2009 2010 2011 

Trend 

(09’-11’) 

Property Fires/Explosions 65 118 106 Increasing 

Overpressure rupture/explosion 

(no fire) 

0 0 1 Increasing 

Pre fire conditions/no fire 22 20 22 - 

Burning (controlled) 27 30 25 Decreasing 

False fire calls 82 101 96 Increasing 

CO False calls 17 24 21 Increasing 

Public Hazard 32 18 26 Decreasing 

Rescue 82 102 136 Increasing 

Medical/resuscitator call 112 134 130 Increasing 

Other response 28 30 30 Increasing 

TOTAL 467 577 593 INCREASING



January 2013 

Responses by Type ‐ 2009 to 2011 

Number of Responses 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2009 2010 2011 

Year 

Other Response 

Medical/Resuscitator 

Call 

Rescue 

Public Hazard 

CO False Calls 

False Fire Calls 

Burning (Controlled) 

Pre Fire Conditions/no 

fire 

Property 

Fire/Explosions 

Figure 6: Response Trend by Type – 2009, 2010, 2011 

As can be seen above, the total number of calls has increased between 2009 

and 2011. Seven of the ten categories experience an increase in the number of 

responses in 2011 compared to 2009, while only two decreased and one 

remained unchanged. 

It should be noted that a new agreement has recently been completed with the 

County regarding the response protocols of the fire service to medical calls. 

This new agreement is expected to reduce the number of calls responded to by 

the fire service.



January 2013 

4.2.2 Call Volumes By Station and Hour of the Day 

The distribution of call volumes is shown in Figure 7. As expected, the Port 

Hope station reponds to the highest number of calls. This is likely due to its 

location in the most built up area of the Municipality. 


700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Number of Responses by Station 2009 to 2011 

2009 2010 2011 

Year 

Port Hope 

Welcome 

Garden Hill 

TOTAL 

Figure 7: Number of Responses by Station 2009-2011 

After determining the call volumes by station, additional analysis was completer 

to determine the number of responses by time of day. Figure 8 shows the 

number of responses by the entire service for each hour of the day in 2009, 

2010, and 2011. 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Hour of Responses ‐ 2009 to 2011 

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

Hour 

2009 

2010 

2011 

TOTAL 

Figure 8: Number of Responses by Hour of the Day 2009-2011



January 2013 

As expected the number of calls is lowest in the overnight hours and is 

significantly higher through the daytime hours. An interesting observation from 

the above data is that there is a significant drop in the number of calls at the 

7pm hour compared to the 6pm and 8pm hours. The cause of this is unknown. 

4.2.3 Response Times 

Response times were placed into one of five bins; less than 4 minutes, 4 to 6 

minutes, 6 to 8 minutes, 8 to 10 minutes, and greater than 10 minutes. Figure 9 

shows the percentage of response that fall into each bin by year and overall for 

the three years. 

Response Times ‐ 2009 


39% 

19% 

20% 

10% 

12% 

0‐4 Min 

4‐6 Min 

6‐8min 

8‐10 Min 

10+ Min 

36% 

21% 

19% 

11% 

13% 

0‐4 Min 

4‐6 Min 

6‐8min 

8‐10 Min 

10+ Min 


Response Times ‐ 2009 to 2011 

42% 

19% 

11% 

10% 

18% 

0‐4 Min 

4‐6 Min 

6‐8min 

8‐10 Min 

10+ Min 

39% 

20% 

19% 

10% 

12% 

0‐4 Min 

4‐6 Min 

6‐8min 

8‐10 Min 

10+ Min 

Figure 9: Response Times 2009-2011 

The average response time in 2009 was 8 minutes 6 seconds, in 2010 it was 8 

minutes, and in 2011 it was 11 minutes 20 seconds. A quick response is one of 

the most important factors in a successful fire service. This along with other 

elements of the fire service will be explored in the station requirements analysis.



January 2013 

4.2.4 Equipment Utilization 

The final element of the call data from Port Hope we analyzed was equipment 

utilization. Our goal was to determine how long equipment from each station 

was being used. We wanted to understand if equipment from one station as 

used extensively more than the other, or if usage was relatively consistent 

compared to the number of calls for each station. To determine the usage by 

station we calculated the time between an alarm being received and the 

equipment being put back in service. 

Table 9 summarizes the number of hours the equipment was in use for each 

station in 2008, 2009, 2010. As can be seen, the equipment from the Port Hope 

station was in use the most, which is as expected, as it responds to the most 

calls. 

Table 9: Station Utilization – 2009, 2010, 2011 

Year 

Stations 

Port Hope Welcome Garden Hill Total 

2009 200 169 92 461 

2010 236 209 183 628 

2011 267 234 214 715 

2009-2011 703 611 490 1804



January 2013 

5.0 FUTURE STATION LOCATION PLAN 

5.1 Preliminary Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 

To begin the development of a future station location plan we initially developed 

two potential scenarios. In the first, Station 2 was relocated from Welcome to a 

property south of Highway 401. Possible locations include 42 Jocelyn Street, 

192 or 196 Toronto Road. The second scenario aimed to create efficiency by 

re-locating Station 3 from Garden Hill to the Canton Municipal Offices. The 

Station could be co-located with the Municipal Offices or with a new training 

facility on the adjacent former gravel pit property. 

We prepared four and eight minute travel time contours for each station and 

presented them to members of the fire service. The response plots can be 

found in Appendix A. Through discussion on the two preliminary scenarios and 

the expected coverage from each a preferred scenario was developed. In the 

next section this scenario will be described. 

Based on a number of factors, it was concluded that it is logical for Port Hope to 

consider a two-station model. These factors include: 

 

 

 

The three-station array with two stations south of Highway 401 results in 

considerable overlap of coverage; 

The development trend is toward the west side of the urban area. The 

existing Station 1 cannot cover the western development areas effectively; 

and 

Most of the volunteer firefighters live in the west end of the urban area. 

The analysis presented in Appendix A shows that moving the Garden Hill 

Station does not improve coverage; in fact any move to the south or east would 

reduce coverage to the hamlet of Garden Hill. Thus the two station model 

should include the existing Garden Hill Station. Given the growth of the 

Municipality to the west and the other factors noted above, locations on the 

west side of the urban area were considered. Ideally these should be on an 

arterial road (or have immediate access to one), with good connections into the 

downtown core and also to the east side of the urban area, to ensure that 

adequate coverage can still be provided to those areas.



January 2013 

5.2 Preferred Alternative 

As described above, using the two preliminary scenarios along with other 

information including population projections and development statistics, a 

preferred alternative was developed. 

In the preferred alternative, a two station model is utilized. Stations 1 and 2 

(Port Hope and Welcome) are removed. Station 3 in Garden Hill is retained and 

a new Station 1 is constructed on Jocelyn Street east of Toronto Road. Other 

locations closer to the downtown could be considered but the availability of 

property would be in question. A site of an acre or more would be needed. 

Figure 10 shows the expected coverage with a ten minute response contour for 

this two station model. Approximately 74% (554 of 749) of the geocoded calls 

from 2009 to 2011 are covered within the ten minute response time contour. 

This figure also shows a contour one minute greater than the ten minute 

contour, to illustrate the time at which areas in the western and central section 

of the Municipality will receive coverage. 

As can be seen in Figure 10, the coverage of the existing urban area remains 

essentially the same as the existing coverage from the Port Hope and Welcome 

stations. Other relevant aspects of the coverage provided by this station array 

are as follows: 

With the retention of the Garden Hill station, coverage in the northern 

area remains unchanged; 

Most of the coverage area in the western/central section for which 

response time will increase when converting from the existing three 

station model to the proposed two station model is undeveloped land. 

The review of the existing demand in that area indicates that the 

marginal change in coverage is not expected to pose a significant risk to 

property or community safety; 

There is a small area in the southeast area of the Municipality which will 

be slightly outside the 6 minute response contour, but it is understood 

that there are few developments of any significant risk in that area; 

 

All of the nursing / retirement homes identified can still be covered within 

an acceptable time; 

Having a station slightly on the west side of the urban area will allow the 

volunteers to assemble and be deployed quickly. This is a distinct 

operational advantage over the existing situation for calls on the growing 

west side of the urban area, in which the volunteers currently assigned 

to Station 1 would have to travel east to Station 1 then back to the west 

to reach the incident location.



January 2013 

In terms of the two development areas in Osaca and Wesleyville, both the 

existing three station model and the proposed two station models provide little 

to no coverage for a ten minute response contour. 

Overall, with the two station model, the Municipality can provide the same level 

of coverage experienced today. The potential sale of the existing station 

properties should be noted as an offset to the expense of developing the 

proposed station.

CL 

μ 

POWER LINE ROAD 

10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

TREW ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

9TH LINE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 



7TH LINE 



HAMMILL ROAD 


AGAR ROAD 


²μ 


MILL STREET 


CAMPBELL ROAD 


MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 



6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 


JAMIESON ROAD 



DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 

ANDERSON ROAD 


RUNNALLS ROAD 

BARRIE ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

MASSEY ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

JONES ROAD 

4TH LINE 

4TH LINE 

KELLOGG ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

ZION ROAD 


HIGHWAY 401 

CLARKE ROAD 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

HIGHWAY 401 

DALE ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

HAWKINS ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 

BRAND ROAD 

BESTS ROAD 

STACEY ROAD 

MAIL ROAD 



MARSH ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

²μ 


TORONTO ROAD 

ONTARIO STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 

CROFT STREET 


HASKILL ROAD 

LAKE STREET 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

Kms 

Approximately 74% (554 of 749) of the geocoded calls from 2009-2011 

are covered within a 6 min Response Time 

(4 min 20 sec Turnout Time + 1 min 40 sec Travel Time) 

Roads 

Hospital 

Boundary 

Water Body 

Legend 

Osaca Development 

Area 

Wesleyville 

Development Area 

²μ Location 1 

²μ Location 2 

10 min 

10 min 

11 min 

11 min 

Figure 10 

Preferred Alternative 

Response Contours



January 2013 

5.3 Long-term Plan 

In the long term, the Municipality of Port Hope may need to consider adding a 

third station. This third station may be needed as development in Wesleyville 

and Osaca is completed. The station should be located in an area that would 

provide the best coverage to these two areas. Demands from these areas could 

exceed the ability of the proposed station or the Garden Hill Station to respond 

effectively. 

5.4 Apparatus Consolidation 

The construction of a new Station 1, combining the operations of the current 

stations 1 and 2, would allow for a consolidation of the fire apparatus fleet. 

Since first response would be initiated from 2 locations instead of the current 3, 

some of the current fleet redundancy could be eliminated, with a resulting 

decrease in capital and operating budget allocations. The following is a 

potential option for apparatus deployment: 

Port Hope Station 

Garden Hill Station 

Pumper/Rescue 

Pumper/Rescue 

100’ Platform Aerial Pumper/Tanker 

Tanker 

Air/Light support unit 

Command Unit 

Off-Road rescue unit 

Reserve Pumper 

5.5 Cost 

The cost for development of the new station is estimated as $787,500 to 

$900,000 for a three-bay station (with double deep bays). This is based on a 

3,500ft 2 - 4,000 ft 2 station with minimal office/meeting space and not training 

facilities. 

With the proposed apparatus consolidation, the purchase of the pumper which 

would have required in 2014 can be avoided. This represents a cost savings of 

approximately $500,000 to the Municipality. 

The cost for the station would also be offset by the sale of the existing Station 1 

and Station 2 properties.



January 2013 

6.0 TRAINING FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT 

The following chapter discusses potential locations for a centralized training 

facility as well as the training needs of the fire department. The Fire Master Plan 

had recommended development of a training facility at the Welcome Station 2. 

This is considered to be impractical in terms of the property limits and 

environmental considerations at that site. 

6.1 Training Facility Location 

There is one existing training facility in proximity to Port Hope that has been 

considered. The Ontario Power Generation training facility in Wesleyville could 

be seen as an option within reasonable travel distance for the Port Hope 

firefighters. However, there are a number of factors which indicate that this 

would not be a viable option for PHFES. These factors are: 

There is a cost to using the Wesleyville facility; 

The Wesleyville facility would have to be used after typical business 

hours for PHFES staff training. This would require payment of overtime 

rates for Wesleyville staff; and 

Use of the Wesleyville facility could potentially have an impact on 

response, if an incident occurs when the PHFES firefighters are at a 

training session in Wesleyville. 

Given that training would occur on a bi-weekly basis, it is concluded that a 

preferred course of action would be to develop a training facility in Port Hope. 

There are two options for training facility locations in the Municipality of Port 

Hope. 

Option 1 

Option 1 would be to incorporate the training facility with the proposed new 

station. Issues with this option include additional property costs as more land 

would be required for a station plus training facility. In addition, the proposed 

new station is located in the urbanized area of Port Hope. In this location there 

is potential for the training facility to have negative impacts on the surrounding 

neighbourhoods, related to the smoke and noise associated with various 

training exercises.



January 2013 

Option 2 

The second option would be to locate the training facility in Canton. The former 

gravel pit area adjacent to the Canton municipal offices is an ideal location for 

some of the larger, noisier and smokier training props and simulators. 

Accessibility is good and there is negligible potential for disrupting the activities 

of neighbours. The location is central to the municipality. The use of the 

current EOC room at the municipal offices as a training/meeting room would 

allow the opportunity to train or debrief before or after practical exercises 

conducted at the gravel pit area, with minimal disruption or delay. You could 

also co-locate the Fire Department headquarters at this facility, representing a 

cost-effective option. 

We recommend locating the training facility in Canton. As stated above, it is an 

ideal location for the required training equipment with little potential of 

disturbances to surrounding neighbours. It also provides the potential for costsaving 

opportunities by co-locating the department headquarters at the same 

facility, and thus minimizing the cost of the new station. 

The cost for this facility can be undertaken incrementally, starting with an 

estimated $300,000 for an initial component. 

This will also be a revenue generating opportunity for the Municipality. Other 

fire services throughout the County and potentially beyond may wish to rent the 

training facility. 

6.2 Analysis of Training Simulator Needs 

A review was conducted of the training facility and simulator needs of PHFES in 

order to determine the needs for new equipment acquisition and/or facility 

construction. The results of that review and recommendations for future actions 

are as follows: 

Live Fire Training 

Live fire training for structural firefighting is the most expensive and dangerous 

of fire/rescue training activities. The construction and maintenance of a 

purpose-built burn building is a serious commitment of resources. All options 

for alternative means of accomplishing the need for live fire training must be 

considered.



January 2013 

 

Construct a Purpose-Built Burn Structure 

To meet the training needs of PHFES, the ideal 

structure would be a 3-storey tower with live fire 

and smoke capability, burning class A materials. 

The structure could be designed to accommodate 

a number of other training functions, as noted 

below. 

 

Construct Life Fire Training in Acquired Structures 

Many small town and rural fire departments in North America make use of 

derelict or condemned structures for live fire training, as well as for other task 

training such as search and rescue, laddering, forcible entry, salvage and 

overhaul. The advantages of using acquired structures are reduced cost and 

enhanced realism. The disadvantages are the lack of availability of suitable 

structures in areas appropriate for noisy, disruptive training activities, and the 

inherent dangers of setting fire to an actual wood-frame structure. Repeated 

use of a structure for salvage and overhaul or firefighter self-rescue training can 

often result in dangerous conditions, such as holes in floors or compromised 

structural walls, which have proven fatal to firefighters when the structure is 

eventually used for interior live fire training. Strict international standards and 

provincial safety guidelines exist which outline safe practices for live fire training 

in acquired structures. These standards and guidelines must be adhered to if 

acquired structures are selected as a training option. 

 

Conduct Life Fire Training at an Existing Site 

Purpose-built live fire training structures are in place across Ontario, and are 

available for use by fire departments at a cost. Options for PHFES would be 

the Eastern Ontario Fire Academy in Norwood, at the Oshawa Fire Services 

training facility, or locally at the Ontario Power Generation fire training facility. 

The cost of construction and maintenance of a burn structure must be balanced 

against the cost of an annual program of live fire training at the OPG facility, 

recognizing that the availability of PHFES firefighters for training would be 

outside of the OPG’s normal hours of operation.



January 2013 

Car Fire Simulator 

Training for car fires can be 

conducted by acquiring scrapped 

vehicles and setting them on fire, 

or through the use of a car fire 

simulator. Burning actual vehicles 

has no clear advantage other than 

cost, but there are considerable 

disadvantages in terms of safety. 

Scrapped cars contain many parts 

and systems which can be 

hazardous under fire conditions. 

As an example, gas-filled 

cylinders in bumpers or hatchback 

struts can explode with the potential for serious injury. 

An alternative to burning actual cars is a gas-fueled car fire simulator, 

consisting of a heavy-gauge prop in the shape of an automobile and a large 

burn pan fueled by propane. The burn pan can be place under the engine or 

passenger compartments of the simulated vehicle to create different scenarios. 

Although not without cost, these simulators provide safe, realistic training with 

less environmental impact and greater efficiency of time. 

SCBA Maze 

The skills required to find your way through a 

dark, unfamiliar building can be exercised in an 

SCBA maze. A maze can be constructed using 

regular building materials, with modular 

sections to change the configuration between 

exercises.



January 2013 

Self-rescue and Rapid Intervention props 

Firefighters can exercise skills in self-rescue or Rapid Intervention (rescue of a 

trapped firefighter) through the use of inexpensive props constructed of regular 

building materials. The props shown here are for firefighters to practice 

escaping through narrow openings and to escape from entanglement. 

Sloped Roof-laddering 

The deployment of ladders for firefighting and rescue purposes is a regular 

training activity. If not included as part of a burn structure, a suitably sturdy 

location for laddering of windows, balconies and a sloped roof could be 

designed into any new fire station. 

Roof Ventilation 

Another regular training activity is the safe 

ventilation of roof structures. The props shown 

here, for flat and sloped roofs, are built of 

regular construction materials at minimal cost.



January 2013 

Incident Management System Training 

Fire officers require training and practice in the management and command of 

emergency incidents. A common means of accomplishing IMS training is 

through the use of scenario-based training using table-top models, video or 

photo-based scenarios or computer-based training systems. All are effective 

methods but, in general, a greater degree of realism in the scenario will result in 

superior results. Table-top or photo-based simulators can be constructed at 

minimal cost. More expensive systems using digital video and computer based 

technology can cost in excess of $20,000 or can be accessed at existing 

training centres such as the Ontario Fire College or the OPG fire training centre. 

Fire Protection Systems 

Typical building fire protection systems, such as annunciator panels, standpipe 

cabinets and sprinkler systems could be built into any new fire station or training 

facility building. These systems would not be providing functional protection for 

the building, rather they would be simulators built of elements of actual systems 

as found within Port Hope. Shown here are simulated annunciator panel and 

sprinkler valve systems.



January 2013 

Hazardous Materials – Patching and Spill Management 

Kits for Hazmat management are commercially available for specific tasks such 

as patching leaks on tanks of all sizes, over packing of barrels or drums, or 

managing large liquid spills. The training for most kits involves the actual 

deployment and manipulation of the kits themselves, guided by DVD-based or 

printed training materials from the kits’ manufacturers. A review could be 

conducted of the Hazmat response needs of PHFES in order to determine the 

specific types of kits and equipment required. 

Rescue Techniques 

The review of training needs identified the following requirements for rescue 

training equipment and simulators: 

 

Rope anchor Points 

Any training tower or new fire station should be equipped with specific 

attachment points for anchoring of ropes for high angle rescue training. The 

anchor points should be designed to withstand stresses beyond the rated 

capacity of the ropes and equipment being used. 

 

Confined Space 

A simulator for confined space entry or rescue can be constructed out of 

improvised materials such as marine cargo containers or large concrete water 

pipe sections. Alternatively, a burn tower could incorporate confined space 

rescue training needs into its design. 

 

Elevator Rescue 

A dedicated elevator rescue simulator is an expensive addition to any training 

centre. An alternative is to obtain decommissioned equipment from buildings 

under renovation or demolition. 

 

Machinery Rescue 

Machinery rescue is a site-specific skill set, dependent on the type and 

configuration of machinery in the fire department’s response area. Agricultural 

machinery rescue training is currently available at the Ontario Fire College or 

through the Municipal Health and Safety Association.



January 2013 

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

The following is our list of recommendations associated with the Fire Station Location 

Study. The recommendations have been listed in the order they should be 

implemented. It should be noted that the success or implementation of each 

recommendation is dependant of the Municipality’s ability to manage the paces of the 

projects and the costs associated with the changes. 

1. Construct the new Port Hope Station 

 

 

 

 

Land needs to be secured in the Toronto Road/Jocelyn Street area; 

A design of the building needs to be developed and tendered; 

Construct the station; 

Redeploy equipment and staff to the new station; 

2. Construct new training Facility in Canton 

 

 

 

Determine land needed based on the required/desired training facilities; 

Construct new training facility, on an incremental basis; 

Relocate fire headquarters to this location; 

3. Close current Station 1 (Port Hope) and Station 2 (Welcome) 

Once the new Port Hope Station is complete, these two stations should be 

closed; 

The Municipality should relocate/redistribute the resources from these stations 

to maximize volunteer turnout, vehicle utilization and both capital and operating 

costs; 

The Station 1 and Station 2 properties could be sold; 

4. Refurbish the Garden Hill Station 

The Municipality should refurbish the Garden Hill station to address the issues 

associated with inadequate facilities and station spaces as identified in this 

study (Section 3.1); 

5. Consideration for a 3 rd Station, in the long term 

The Municipality should actively monitor development in the Wesleyville and 

Osaca development areas; 

When appropriate, a similar process to the one carried out for the new Port 

Hope Station should be undertaken; 

The location of this station should focus on providing adequate coverage to the 

Wesleyville and Osaca development areas. Other developed areas of the 

Municipality can be adequately covered by the proposed two station model.

APPENDIX A 

Preliminary Scenario 1 and 2 

Response Contours

JONES ROAD 

HASKILL ROAD 



10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

TREW ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

BEATTY LANE 

9TH LINE 



7TH LINE 



HAMMILL ROAD 


AGAR ROAD 


²µ 



MILL STREET 


CAMPBELL ROAD 



FARINI ROAD 

MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 

CAMPBELL ROAD 



6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 

JAMIESON ROAD 



DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 


ANDERSON ROAD 

RUNNALLS ROAD 

BARRIE ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

MASSEY ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

4TH LINE 

4TH LINE 


SYLVAN GLEN ROAD 

KELLOGG ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

HAWKINS ROAD 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

DALE ROAD 

MARYDALE PARK ROAD 

STACEY ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 


CLARKE ROAD 

MAIL ROAD 

WESLEYVILLE ROAD 

WILLOW BEACH ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 


BRAND ROAD 

²µ 

MARSH ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 


TORONTO ROAD 


CAVAN STREET 

²µ 

WARD STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 


LAKE STREET 

µ 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

Figure XX: 4 Minute Travel Time Contours - 

Scenario 1 

Kms 

Legend 

Roads 

Scenario 1 

Municipal Boundary 

²µ 


Lake Ontario 


²µ 

²µ 

FS 3 - Garden Hill

JONES ROAD 

HASKILL ROAD 



10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

TREW ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

BEATTY LANE 

9TH LINE 



7TH LINE 



HAMMILL ROAD 


AGAR ROAD 


²µ 



MILL STREET 


CAMPBELL ROAD 



FARINI ROAD 

MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 

CAMPBELL ROAD 



6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 

JAMIESON ROAD 



DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 


ANDERSON ROAD 

RUNNALLS ROAD 

BARRIE ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

MASSEY ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

4TH LINE 

4TH LINE 


SYLVAN GLEN ROAD 

KELLOGG ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

HAWKINS ROAD 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

DALE ROAD 


STACEY ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 


CLARKE ROAD 

MAIL ROAD 



HIGHWAY 401 


BRAND ROAD 

²µ 

MARSH ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 


TORONTO ROAD 


CAVAN STREET 

²µ 

WARD STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 


LAKE STREET 

µ 

0 1 2 4 6 8 


Scenario 1 

Kms 

Legend 

Roads 

Scenario 1 


²µ 


Lake Ontario 


²µ 

²µ 

FS 3 - Garden Hill

JONES ROAD 

HASKILL ROAD 



10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

TREW ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

BEATTY LANE 

9TH LINE 



7TH LINE 



HAMMILL ROAD 


AGAR ROAD 



MILL STREET 


CAMPBELL ROAD 



FARINI ROAD 

MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 

CAMPBELL ROAD 



6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 

JAMIESON ROAD 



DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 


ANDERSON ROAD 

RUNNALLS ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

4TH LINE 

MASSEY ROAD 

²µ 


4TH LINE 


KELLOGG ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

²µ 



CLARKE ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 

HIGHWAY 401 

BRAND ROAD 


STACEY ROAD 


MAIL ROAD 




MARSH ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

TORONTO ROAD 


CAVAN STREET 

²µ 

WARD STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 


LAKE STREET 

µ 

0 1 2 4 6 8 


Scenario 2 

Kms 

Legend 

Roads 

Fire Stations 


²µ 


Lake Ontario 


²µ 

²µ 

FS 3 - Garden Hill

JONES ROAD 

HASKILL ROAD 



10TH LINE 

10TH LINE 

LUNNY LANE 

WRIGHT ROAD 

GILMOUR ROAD 

WALKER ROAD 

BLAKE ROAD 

TREW ROAD 

OAK HILL ROAD 

BEATTY LANE 

9TH LINE 



7TH LINE 



HAMMILL ROAD 


AGAR ROAD 



MILL STREET 


CAMPBELL ROAD 



FARINI ROAD 

MILL STREET 

7TH LINE 

7TH LINE 

CAMPBELL ROAD 



6TH LINE 

6TH LINE 

JAMIESON ROAD 



DUNN ROAD 

5TH LINE 

5TH LINE 


ANDERSON ROAD 

RUNNALLS ROAD 

THOMPSON ROAD 

PIT ROAD 

4TH LINE 

MASSEY ROAD 

²µ 


4TH LINE 


KELLOGG ROAD 

ZION ROAD 

COUNTY ROAD 2 

²µ 



CLARKE ROAD 

FOX ROAD 

CHOATE ROAD 

HIGHWAY 401 

HIGHWAY 401 

BRAND ROAD 


STACEY ROAD 


MAIL ROAD 




MARSH ROAD 

BAULCH ROAD 

TORONTO ROAD 


CAVAN STREET 

²µ 

WARD STREET 

HIGHWAY 401 


LAKE STREET 

µ 

0 1 2 4 6 8 


Scenario 2 

Kms 

Legend 

Roads 

Fire Stations 


²µ 


Lake Ontario 


²µ 

²µ 

FS 3 - Garden Hill

Fire Station Location Study - Port Hope

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?