Transportation Master Plan Update · 2016-12-15 · AECOM Transportation Master Plan Update TMP...

Prepared by:

AECOM

300 Water Street 905 668 9363 tel

Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2 905 668 0221 fax

www.aecom.com

Project Number:

60218057 Date:

March, 2014

County of Peterborough

Transportation Master Plan Update

http://www.aecom.com/

AECOM


TMP County Of Peterborough - FINAL.Docx

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Study Background and Purpose .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ............................................. 1 1.3 Project Direction ...................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 3

1.4.1 Public Information Centre #1 ......................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Public Information Centre #2 ......................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Public Information Centre #3 ......................................................................... 6

1.5 Review of 2004 Transportation Plan ........................................................................ 7 1.6 Changes Since 2004 ............................................................................................. 12

1.6.1 General Trends Influencing Growth and Transportation ............................. 12 1.6.2 County Specific Changes ............................................................................ 14

1.6.2.1 Updated Growth Forecasts .......................................................... 14 1.6.2.2 Updated City of Peterborough Transportation Plan and Public

Transit Operations Review ........................................................... 15 1.6.2.3 Regional Rail Service to Peterborough ........................................ 16 1.6.2.4 Airport Redevelopment ................................................................ 17 1.6.2.5 Highway 407 East ........................................................................ 18

2. Existing Transportation System ............................................................................................... 19

2.1 County Road Network ............................................................................................ 19 2.1.1 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) .......................................................... 20

2.2 Transit Services ..................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Active Transportation Facilities .............................................................................. 22

3. Future Transportation Needs .................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Updated Growth Forecasts .................................................................................... 24 3.2 Forecasting Future Deficiencies ............................................................................ 27

3.2.1 Model Overview .......................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Model Results ............................................................................................. 28

3.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 32

4. Transportation Master Plan Recommendations ...................................................................... 36

4.1 Short Term Road Network Improvements ............................................................. 36 4.2 Long Term Road Network Improvement Alternatives ............................................ 41

4.2.1 Bridgenorth ................................................................................................. 42 4.2.1.1 Alternatives .................................................................................. 42 4.2.1.2 Model Results .............................................................................. 46 4.2.1.3 Extent of Future Congestion ........................................................ 49 4.2.1.4 Evaluation Summary .................................................................... 52

4.2.2 Donwood ..................................................................................................... 56 4.2.2.1 Alternatives .................................................................................. 56 4.2.2.2 Model Results .............................................................................. 57 4.2.2.3 Evaluation Summary .................................................................... 60

4.2.3 Lakefield ...................................................................................................... 62 4.2.3.1 Alternatives .................................................................................. 62

AECOM



4.2.3.2 Model Results .............................................................................. 62 4.2.3.3 Evaluation Summary .................................................................... 65

4.2.4 Summary of Updated Long Term Improvement Recommendations ........... 67 4.3 Active Transportation ............................................................................................. 69

4.3.1 Background ................................................................................................. 69 4.3.2 Active Transportation in Other Communities ............................................... 71 4.3.3 Active Transportation Policy Alternatives and Recommendations .............. 72

4.4 Transit .................................................................................................................... 76 4.4.1 Background ................................................................................................. 76 4.4.2 Rural Public Transit in Other Communities ................................................. 76 4.4.3 Public Transit Policy Alternatives and Recommendations .......................... 80

4.5 Transportation Policies .......................................................................................... 84 4.5.1 County Road Classification System ............................................................ 84 4.5.2 Design / Operational Standards .................................................................. 87 4.5.3 Intersection Traffic Controls / Safety Policies .............................................. 90 4.5.4 Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing Polices ............................................ 91 4.5.5 Truck Route Polices .................................................................................... 93

5. Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................. 94

5.1 Walking and Cycling .............................................................................................. 95 5.2 Transit .................................................................................................................... 96 5.3 Road Network Infrastructure Priorities and Costing ............................................... 97 5.4 Official Plan Amendment ..................................................................................... 103 5.5 Transportation Master Plan Monitoring and Updates ........................................... 104

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Transportation Plan Process.................................................................................... 1

Figure 1-2: Recommended County Roadway Infrastructure Improvements (2004 Transportation Plan) ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1-3: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe .................................................... 14

Figure 1-4: City of Peterborough Transportation Plan Update – Recommended Road Network ....................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 1-5: Proposed GO Rail Line to Peterborough ............................................................... 16

Figure 1-6: Airport Redevelopment Plan and Associated Realignment of Airport Road .......... 18

Figure 1-7: Highway 407 East Extension ................................................................................. 18

Figure 2-1: Peterborough County Road Network ..................................................................... 19

Figure 2-2: Peterborough County Existing AADT ..................................................................... 21

Figure 3-1: Projected Population Growth Peterborough County, 2006 - 2036 Reference Scenario ...................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 3-2: 2031 Forecast Roadway Network Deficiencies (County-Wide) .............................. 29

Figure 3-3: 2031 Forecast Roadway Network Deficiencies (Peterborough Area) .................... 30

Figure 3-4: Roadway Improvement Needs: Bridgenorth .......................................................... 33

Figure 3-5: PM Peak Hour Volumes on County Road 18 – Bridgenorth .................................. 33

Figure 3-6: Roadway Improvement Needs: Lakefield .............................................................. 34

AECOM



Figure 3-7: Roadway Improvement Needs: Donwood ............................................................. 35

Figure 4-1: Locations of Assessed Intersections ...................................................................... 36

Figure 4-2: Bridgenorth Network Alternatives .......................................................................... 43

Figure 4-3: Feasibility Study - Ward Street Widening to 3 Lanes ............................................. 45

Figure 4-4: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Ward Street Widening to 3 Lanes ........................................ 46

Figure 4-5: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Ward Street Widening to 4 Lanes ........................................ 47

Figure 4-6: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Bridgenorth By-pass ........................................................... 48

Figure 4-7: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Hilliard Street Extension ...................................................... 49

Figure 4-8: 2006 Daily Travel Demands by Time and Trip Purpose ........................................ 50

Figure 4-9: 2012-2013 Hourly Volume Profile – Ward Street Northbound ............................... 51

Figure 4-10: 2012-2013 Hourly Volume Profile – Ward Street Southbound .................... 52

Figure 4-11: Donwood Network Alternatives ................................................................... 56

Figure 4-12: PM Peak V/C Ratio – County Rd 4 / TV Road Widening to 4 Lanes ....... 57

Figure 4-13: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Television Road Realignment Plus CR 4 Widening to 4 Lanes ................................................................................................... 58

Figure 4-14: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Television Road Realignment to University Road 59

Figure 4-15: Lakefield Network Alternatives .................................................................... 62

Figure 4-16: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Widening Bridge Street to 5 Lanes ........................... 63

Figure 4-17: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Implement Mid-Block Roads Within Development Area ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 4-18: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects ......................................... 68

Figure 4-19: Types of Cycling Facilities ........................................................................... 70

Figure 4-20: Conceptual Active Transportation/Cycling Network for Peterborough County 73

Figure 4-21: Strategic Road Improvements Required to Implement Cycling Network 74

Figure 4-22: Active Transportation Policy Recommendations ......................................... 76

Figure 4-23: County Transit Policy Alternatives and Recommendations ......................... 83

Figure 4-24: Roadway Classification Policy Alternatives and Recommendations ........... 85

Figure 4-25: Proposed Roadway Classifications (North Peterborough County) .............. 86

Figure 4-26: Proposed Roadway Classifications (South Peterborough County) ............. 87

Figure 4-27: Design Standard Policy Alternatives and Recommendations .................... 88

Figure 4-28: Intersection Traffic Control / Safety Policy Alternatives and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 91

Figure 4-29: Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing Policy Alternatives and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 92

Figure 4-30: Truck Route Policy Alternatives and Recommendations............................. 93

Figure 5-1: Class EA Process for Recommended Projects ...................................................... 94

AECOM



List of Tables

Table 1-1: Status of County Road Upgrades Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................................... 9

Table 1-2: Status of County Road Safety & System Optimization Initiatives Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan ............................................................... 10

Table 1-3: Status of County Road Enhancements Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan ..................................................................................................... 11

Table 1-4: Status of County Policies Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan ................. 12

Table 2-1: Traffic Volumes / Volume Growth Trends .............................................................. 20

Table 3-1: Forecast County Growth Compared to Census Actual (2006 - 2011) .................... 25

Table 3-2: Updated Growth Forecasts (2011-2031) ............................................................... 26

Table 3-3: County Road Capacity Enhancements – Needs Assessment ............................... 31

Table 4-1: Recommended Safety and Operational Improvements for County Intersections ................................................................................................................ 37

Table 4-2: Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 41

Table 4-3: Evaluation Summary - Bridgenorth Alternatives .................................................... 55

Table 4-4: Evaluation Summary - Donwood Alternatives ........................................................ 61

Table 4-5: Evaluation Summary - Lakefield Alternatives ........................................................ 66

Table 4-6: Summary of Updates to 2004 Recommendations ................................................. 67

Table 4-7: Cycling Policies in Other Counties ......................................................................... 71

Table 4-8: Rural Transit Services in Other Counties ............................................................... 77

Table 4-9: Potential Daily Transit Trips Into the City of Peterborough .................................... 81

Table 4-10: Potential Cost of County Transit Service Routes (Hourly Service – 8 hours per day) ....................................................................................................................... 82

Table 4-11: Recommended Design Standards for County Roads ............................................ 89

Table 5-1: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (0-10 Years) ................................... 98

Table 5-2: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (10-20 Years) ............................... 100

Table 5-3: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (20+ Years) .................................. 102

Appendices

Appendix A Study Mailing List. Appendix B PIC 1 Summary Report and Comments Received Appendix C PIC 2 Summary Report and Comments Received Appendix D PIC 3 Summary Report and Comments Received Appendix E Other Stakeholder Consultation Appendix F Description of City of Peterborough Transportation Model Appendix G Intersection Review Report Appendix H Detailed Evaluation Tables

AECOM


TMP County Of Peterborough - FINAL.Docx 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Study Background and Purpose

The County of Peterborough’s first Transportation Plan (approved in 2004) provided a comprehensive assessment of the County’s current and future transportation system improvement needs. It included recommendations for new / improved infrastructure (e.g. roads, transit, cycling, walking), operational design standards, and transportation policies. While many of the short term recommendations from the current transportation plan have been implemented, a number of the longer term improvement recommendations have yet to be initiated and will be subject to review as part of this plan update. This is the first update of the existing County of Peterborough Transportation Plan. Much has changed since completion of the 2004 plan. The purpose of this study is to review and update the 2004 Transportation Plan to take into account emerging trends, needs, and opportunities that have occurred since the plan was first approved. In particular, this study focuses on reviewing and updating the following aspects of the previous plan:

Infrastructure Needs: Identifying short and long term transportation infrastructure needs / deficiencies.

Network Analysis: Identifying the transportation network improvements that best address needs.

Policy and Standards: Identifying improvements to the policies and standards that help to manage the County’s transportation infrastructure.

Implementation Plan: Identifying the costs to implement the plan recommendations and assessing priorities and funding opportunities for proposed improvements.

1.2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process

This new updated Transportation Plan is being developed in accordance with the planning and design processes of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) and incorporates the key principles of environmental planning under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. As illustrated in Figure 1-1 below, this study addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process.

Figure 1-1: Transportation Plan Process

AECOM



The end result of this process will be an updated Transportation Plan document that identifies a recommended set of proposed works / improvements and the rationale for their implementation. Subsequent Class EA projects may be required for Schedule B and C projects recommended in this study as the County moves forward with implementation. Phase 3 of the Class EA process examines design alternatives for the recommended project and includes additional public consultation to allow for input on the design alternatives and development of the preferred design and measures to address or mitigate impacts associated with specific projects. Notices of these subsequent Class EA projects will be issued by the County upon commencement of the project specific Class EA assignments. Some of the recommendations in this study can be categorized as Schedule A, A+ or Schedule B projects. These types of projects are either pre-approved under the Environmental Assessment Act (i.e. routine maintenance or minor operational improvements), or require a less rigorous environmental screening and documentation process. These projects, such as minor intersection improvements, have only minor potential for environmental effects and routine measures are typically utilized to mitigate any effects.

1.3 Project Direction

The Transportation Plan Update was guided by the Transportation Plan Steering Committee, made up of members of County Council, staff from the County Planning and Public Works Departments, and two (non-voting) representatives from the City of Peterborough. The Steering Committee members include: County Council Members

Warden J. Murray Jones, Douro-Dummer Councillor Joe Taylor, Otonabee-South Monaghan Councillor Andy Mitchell, Selwyn (formerly Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield) Councillor Scott McFadden, Cavan-Monaghan

County Staff

Chris Bradley, Director of Public Works Peter Nielsen, Manager of Technical Services Bryan Weir, Director of Planning Doug Saccoccia, Engineering and Construction Coordinator Yvonne Lynch, Executive Assistant, Public Works – Recording Secretary

City of Peterborough Representatives

Councillor Len Vass Jim Kimble, Manager of Transportation

AECOM



The Transportation Plan Steering Committee is a standing committee of County Council, initiated specifically for the Transportation Plan Update, which met on an as required basis to discuss various transportation issues in the County and make recommendations for consideration by County Council. During the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update, there were 6 meetings with the Steering Committee to discuss various elements of the plan and endorse the recommendations presented to County Council on February 20, 2013. The study also featured a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), including County Staff, City of Peterborough Technical staff, and Ministry of Transportation Technical representatives. The TAC Committee met twice during the study to share information on the status of this and other projects / initiatives and to share the study findings and recommendations.

1.4 Consultation

An extensive public consultation program was adopted as part of the TMP Update, including 3 rounds of formal public information centres (PICs) and participation in the Peterborough & the Kawarthas Cycling Summit (Spring 2012), where the project team presented an update on the Transportation Plan and solicited input on the Active Transportation components of the plan. Meetings were also held on an as requested basis with interested stakeholder groups such as the Bridgenorth Business Association. The Study Team was also requested to present the preliminary recommendations of the TMP to Selwyn Township Council on January 15, 2013. A Notice of Study Commencement was issued in the local newspapers on July 14, 2011, was posted on the County website, and was mailed out to a variety of agencies, municipalities, First Nations, and other stakeholder groups. A copy of the project mailing list is included in Appendix A. A summary of the formal PICs is provided in the following sections, while detailed PIC summary reports are provided in Appendices B-D.

1.4.1 Public Information Centre #1

The first PIC was intended to reintroduce members of the community to the existing Transportation Plan (approved in 2004), and explain the need, purpose and processes for undertaking an update to the existing plan. PIC #1 was held on two different days, at two different locations in order to provide central locations for each area of the County, as noted below:

Wednesday September 21, 2011, 6 PM to 8:30 PM at the Bridgenorth Public Library (Charles Street, Bridgenorth)

Saturday September 24, 2011, 1 PM to 4.30 PM at Buckhorn Public School (Lakehurst Road, Buckhorn).

In total, PIC #1 was attended by 32 stakeholders from the study area and 10 comment sheets were submitted. Comments submitted at PIC #1 focused on specific projects in the 2004 Transportation Plan and the need for additional infrastructure at select locations (e.g. traffic lights, trails). The comment sheet prepared for PIC #1 included 3 questions intended to get stakeholder input on the 2004 recommendations and the areas for review through the Transportation Plan Update. The questions posed on the comment sheet were:

AECOM



1. Are there other road network improvement needs that should be considered in the Transportation Plan Update? Why?

2. Are there road network improvements in the Plan that should be dropped or reconsidered? Why?

3. Do you have any comments or ideas to suggest for the review of Transportation Policy? Detailed stakeholder responses to the comment sheet are provided in Appendix B and summarized below.

By-pass Options / Need, including MTO By-pass #3 and the Bridgenorth By-pass

Trail Connections

Consideration for Elderly road users

Traffic lights including timing and location issues (e.g. Ward and Wilcox)

Earlier implementation of previous recommendations (e.g. airport and university connections)

Changes to turn lanes in Buckhorn In addition to the PIC comment sheets, the Study Team received a request for a meeting with the Bridgenorth Business Association regarding the Bridgenorth By-pass. A meeting was arranged with AECOM staff preparing the Transportation Plan Update on October 25th, 2011. A copy of the meeting minutes is included in Appendix E. Subsequent to PIC #1, a number of comments were submitted by email and are included in Appendix B. A summary of the comments is provided below. Comments from a local interest group were submitted regarding the provision of transit within the County (and City) of Peterborough. Comments from Trent University were also submitted regarding projects in the area surrounding the University and the future plans for access to and within the area. Comments were also submitted by the Curve Lake First Nation with regard to the County Road 22 and County Road 23 intersection, which is the only access to and from the Curve Lake First Nation community. The Peterborough Partnership Council on Immigration Integration (PPCII) also provided comments regarding the Transportation Plan Update highlighting the need for transportation infrastructure and servicing as essential to immigrant integration and retention in the County and neighboring areas. The Peterborough Social Planning Council (PSPC) emailed the Study Team providing information regarding a transportation survey they had completed in June 2011 and presentation slides detailing their work on defining ‘great streets’ for the Peterborough area. Comments were received from regulatory agencies including:

Otonobee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA)

Township of Douro-Dummer

Township of Selwyn

City of Peterborough, Social Services

AECOM




The purpose of PIC #2 was to present a summary of the feedback from PIC #1, and a review of the technical work that had been completed since PIC #1. In addition, PIC #2 focused on presenting transportation infrastructure and policy alternatives to address future needs and to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and/or provide comments to members of the Study Team prior to evaluating the alternatives and developing final recommendations for the study. To accommodate residents throughout the County, PIC #2 was held at three venues throughout the County (i.e., Millbrook, Bridgenorth and Norwood). A description of each location is provided below.

Tuesday August 28, 2012, 6 PM to 8:30 PM at the Royal Canadian Legion (King Street, Millbrook)

Wednesday August 29, 2012, 6 PM to 8:30 PM at the Bridgenorth Public Library (Charles Street, Bridgenorth)

Thursday September 6, 2012, 6 PM to 8.30 PM at Asphodel-Norwood Community Centre (Alma Street, Norwood).

In total, PIC #2 was attended by 96 stakeholders from the study area and 32 comment sheets and 5 emails were received from the public. A comment sheet was prepared by the Study Team and made available to attendees of each of the PIC events, as well as online through the County’s website. The purpose of the comment sheet was to solicit feedback from respondents, and offered specific questions intended to collect input related to road network improvement needs and the proposed long term road network improvement alternatives and transportation policies. The questions posed on the comment sheet consisted of the following:

1. Are there other road network improvement needs that should be considered in the Transportation Plan Update? Why?

2. From the long term road network improvement alternatives presented, which improvements do you think should be constructed? Why?

3. From the Transportation Policy Alternatives presented, which do you prefer? A summary of responses is provided in Appendix C of this report. In addition to the above, respondents were provided the opportunity to provide additional comments as part of the comment sheet documentation. Each comment was reviewed by members of the Study Team. The comments were categorized and generally summarized in table format (please refer to Appendix C). In general, the following concerns were reported by respondents with respect to the County’s Transportation network:

Vehicle safety at selected intersections

Commercial vehicle use of County Road system

Impacts to farm vehicles (i.e. ease of travel and/or safety)

Transit availability

AECOM



It should be noted that several comments were received in association with the potential roadway alternatives to address existing and future traffic conditions within the Bridgenorth community. In general, the following comments were reported by respondents in association with the Bridgenorth transportation alternatives:

Congestion through the downtown Bridgenorth area

Economic impacts associated with a potential by-pass of the community

Costs associated with transportation studies and/or a construction of a by-pass

Timing of signals through downtown Bridgenorth

The need to improve the James A. Gifford Causeway

Commercial vehicle travel through the downtown area


The purpose of PIC #3 was to present a summary of the feedback received/considered in association with PIC #2, the evaluation of the long term network improvements and transportation policies and standards, as well as the draft study recommendations. In addition, PIC #3 provided an opportunity for the public to ask questions and/or provide comments to members of the Study Team prior to finalizing the study recommendations. To accommodate residents throughout the County, PIC #3 was held at two venues throughout the County (i.e. Keene and Lakefield). A description of each location is provided below.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Otonabee-South Monaghan Fire Department, Station #1, in Keene

Thursday, November 29, 2012, 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Lakefield Arena / Community Centre, on Concession Street, Lakefield

In total, PIC #3 was attended by 23 stakeholders from the study area and 4 comment sheets were received from the public.

A comment sheet was prepared by the Study Team and made available to attendees of each of the PIC events, as well as online through the County’s website. The purpose of the comment form was to solicit feedback from respondents, and offered specific questions intended to collect input related to the recommended long term road network improvements. The questions posed on the comment sheet consisted of the following:

1. Do you agree with the Recommended Transportation Improvements identified? If not, why?

2. Are you in favour of the overall plan to include a greater focus on active transportation? A summary of responses is provided in Appendix D of this report. Based on the responses received, respondents were generally in favour of the Recommended Transportation Improvements, and supported the recommendations for active transportation. Comments were also received from the Peterborough Bicycle Advisory Committee, generally in support of the recommendations for active transportation in the County.

AECOM



PIC #3 – Lakefield Arena / Community Centre

1.5 Review of 2004 Transportation Plan

The 2004 Transportation Plan identified a range of recommended County Road Upgrades, Safety and System Optimizations, Capacity Enhancements, and Policy Changes. This section focuses on summarizing each of these recommendations and assessing their current status. Figure 1-2, below, presents an overview of the County roadway infrastructure improvements that were recommended in the 2004 Transportation Plan. The recommendations include new County roads (dashed lines coloured in orange), County road upgrades (solid lines coloured in blue), County road capacity improvements (solid lines coloured in orange), and intersection improvements (asterisks coloured in red).

AECOM



Figure 1-2: Recommended County Roadway Infrastructure Improvements (2004 Transportation Plan)

While many of the short-term recommendations from the previous 2004 Transportation Plan have already been implemented or are already underway, a number of the longer term improvement recommendations have yet to be initiated and will thus be subject to review as part of this plan update. Table 1-1 through Table 1-4 below summarize the current status of the County Road Upgrades, County Road Safety & System Optimizations, County Road Capacity Enhancements, and County Policy Changes that were recommended by the 2004 Transportation Plan. Lastly, the 2004 Transportation Plan recommended that the County and municipalities investigate opportunities to enhance and/or implement the following alternative / sustainable transportation infrastructure initiatives:

Multi-use trail systems.

On-road bicycle routes.

Paved shoulder bicycle lanes on County Roads.

Extending scheduled transit service and alternative transit service delivery strategies, tailored to the demand characteristics of each community.

Since these initiatives have not been undertaken since completion of the 2004 Transportation Plan, a review of these policy areas has been undertaken in the Transportation Plan Update (see Chapter 3).

AECOM



Table 1-1: Status of County Road Upgrades Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan

County Road Upgrade Recommended Status

CR20 – Selwyn Road Upgrade to Rural Arterial Standard (CR23 to CR25)

2004-2009

Completed

University Road Assumption & Upgrade (CR4 to Nassau Mills Road)

2004-2009

Completed1

Fairbairn St Assumption & Upgrade (3rd Line to CR12 – Lily Lake Rd)

2004-2009 Part of City Annexation

CR40 – Upgrade CR40 to Major Arterial – Urban Section (Hwy 7 to North Norwood Limits)

2004-2009 Completed

CR56 – Upgrade CR56 to Minor Arterial Standard (Hwy 28 to CR6)

2015-2019

Partially Completed

(Remaining 2015-2020)

CR20 – Selwyn Road Upgrade to Rural Arterial Standard (CR18 to CR23)

2010-2014 Planned for 2012-2016

3rd Line Assumption & Upgrade (CR18 to Fairbairn St)

2004-2009 Pending

CR19 – Upgrade to Rural Arterial Standards (CR18 to Hilliard St)

2004-2009 2015-2020

CR46 – Resurfacing & Pavement Width/Shoulder Upgrades (South of CR504 to South of Oak Lake)

2010-2014 Planned for 2015-2020

CR30 – Upgrade/Reconstruction of CR30 – Urban Section (Hwy 7 to South Havelock Limits)

2004-2009 Construction 2013

1 Reconstruction complete to City Limit. Transfer to County completed August 2013.

AECOM



Table 1-2: Status of County Road Safety & System Optimization Initiatives Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan

County Road Safety & System Optimization Recommended Status

CR18 – Short Term Widening of Chemong Road to 5 lanes (City Limits to CR1 - Lindsay Hwy)

CR18 – Chemong Road Widening 4 to 5 lanes (City Limits to Wild Water & Wheels)

2004-2014

2015-2019

Partially Completed

CR29 – Reconfiguration of CR29 / Water St intersection (downtown Lakefield)

2004-2014

Completed

CR14 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR16 – Robinson Road intersection)

2004-2014

All Way Stop Installed

CR1 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR12 – Fife’s Bay Road)

2004-2014

All Way Stop Installed

CR4 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR35 – Television Road / Parkhill Road)

2004-2015 Part of City Annexation

CR18 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR23 – Buckhorn Road intersection)

2004-2014 2015-2020

(All Way Stop Installed)

CR28 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR21 intersection)

2004-2014 2014 (Roundabout)

CR45 – Intersection Improvements (CR42)

2010-2014 Pending

CR29 – Install New Traffic Signals (Concession St – Lakefield)

2004-2014 Under Construction

Hwy 28 – Install New Traffic Signals (CR4 intersection)

MTO

Implementation subject to provincial

funding

E.A. Initiated July 2013

AECOM



Table 1-3: Status of County Road Enhancements Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan

County Road Capacity Enhancement Recommended Status

CR28 – CR28 Widening 2 to 4 or 5 lanes (Fraserville to Hwy 7/115 IC)

2015-2019

EA Study Complete

Construction when development occurs or traffic volumes increase

CR11 - Airport Road Widening 2 to 4 lanes (Highway 115 IC to City Limit)

2004-2009 Pending TMP Review2

Hwy 7 – Widening Hwy 7 to 4 lanes (Hwy 115 to Fowlers Corners)

MTO

MTO EA Study Complete

Implementation subject to provincial funding

CR18 – Chemong Road Widening 2 to 5 lanes (CR 1 – Lindsay Hwy to Bridgenorth By-pass)

2004-2009 2015-2000

Pending TMP Review

CR18 – Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 1 Approved Route (CR18 / Ward Street to CR 14 – Causeway)

2015-2019 Pending TMP Review3

CR29 - Widen Lakefield Road to 4/5 lanes

(City limit to new Mid Block Arterial N of 7th Line) 2010-2014

Pending TMP Review

(2015-2019)

New – Construct New E-W Mid Block Arterial South of Bridge St (CR29 to Katherine St)

2015-2019 Pending TMP Review

(2020-2024)

New – Construct New 2 Lane Bridge Crossing of Otonabee River (Katherine St to Water St)


CR33 – Upgrade CR33 and connect to new bridge (Water St to Hwy 28)


New – New Television Road (CR35) connection to University Rd (North of Old Norwood Rd)

2020-2024 In City TMP

Widen Nassau Mills Road to 4 lanes (University Road to Armour Rd)

2020-2024 In City TMP

New – New 4 Lane Peterborough East By-pass (Hwy 7/115 to Hwy 28/CR29 – Lakefield)

MTO Under Review by

MTO4

New – New 4 Lane Hwy 7 By-pass of Norwood (East of Norwood to West of Norwood)

MTO Under Review by

MTO4

2 Was originally recommended to align with planned City widening of Brealey Drive – not

currently in City 2012 TMP. 3 Ward St / Wilcox Signals implemented in 2011 and conducted Ward St. Widening Feasibility

Study 2011-12. 4 MTO is currently reviewing its needs in the Peterborough Area and is aware of these

recommendations from the previous Transportation Plan.

AECOM



Table 1-4: Status of County Policies Recommended in 2004 Transportation Plan

Key Policy Recommendation Status

Develop a Consistent County Road Classification System & Criteria

Pending

Develop County Road Design Standards

Pending

(Currently Use Industry Standards)

Access Management / Mutual Driveways / Setback Policies Interim Complete

(Fall 2011)

Stop Control Policy

Pending


Pedestrian Crosswalks / Marked Pedestrian Crossings / School Crossings Policies

Pending


School Zone Policy Complete

Community Safety Zones (CSZ) Policy Complete

Walking and Cycling Policies Pending

Implement a County-wide Development Charge Policy Complete

(Update in October 2011)

1.6 Changes Since 2004

As noted in the previous section, much has been accomplished by the County since adoption of the 2004 Transportation Plan. Most Transportation Master Plans, including the 2004 County Plan, recommend a review and update to the major recommendations every 5 years. This Transportation Plan update study is an opportunity to revisit and address the transportation challenges of the County and recognize changes that have taken place since the adoption of the 2004 Transportation Plan. This section examines the key transportation related socio-economic and policy changes that have occurred since 2004 at the broader level and more specifically within the County itself.

1.6.1 General Trends Influencing Growth and Transportation

The trip making patterns of the County‘s residents, workers, and visitors are impacted by larger socio-economic and demographic trends and changes that have occurred at the provincial and national level. In particular, the following broader considerations may influence the policy directions and update of the Transportation Plan:

AECOM



Population Growth o Changes in population and employment growth in the County and surrounding areas

will result in increases to commuter and visitor trips to and from the area. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was enacted by the province in 2006, which establishes growth forecasts and growth management policies for municipalities in the area (including Peterborough County) which are to be used for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning.

Aging Population o A significant increase in the adult population aged 65 or more will place new and

growing demands on transportation systems and the types of transportation modes that will be in demand in the future.

Climate Change and Sustainability o Municipalities are increasingly improving the sustainability of their transportation

networks in order to create more vibrant, livable, and sustainable communities and lessen adverse environmental impacts.

Communities Designed Around the Automobile o The automobile is by far the most dominant mode of transportation in most rural

areas due to trip distance, convenience of travel, and lack of available alternative options.

o Peterborough County is no exception with longer average trip lengths of 13.2Km (compared to 6.5Km for City of Peterborough residents)5 that decrease the attractiveness of alternatives to the car.

o If you exclude trips made by school bus, approximately 4% of AM peak period trips made by County residents use non-auto modes of travel (cycling, walking, transit) compared to the City of Peterborough with 12.4%5

Changing Economic Climate o Municipalities continue to face budget constraints and have difficulties keeping pace

with growing infrastructure needs. o The quality of transportation infrastructure and travel efficiency are also key factors

that influence an area’s future economic capabilities including growth, productivity and competitiveness. As a result, transportation improvements have to be prioritized in order to identify the projects that are the most efficient at benefitting their community.

Energy Costs o Rising fuel costs could cause people to drive their cars less frequently, carpool more

often, reconsider where they live and work, or choose other methods of travel (i.e. public transportation). However, it should be recognized that these effects will be tempered by the fact that much of the County’s rural areas have limited alternatives to the private automobile.

Community Health o There is a growing recognition of the health benefits of more active lifestyles and how

transportation infrastructure decisions can support healthy communities. However, for most of the population active modes of transportation (walking and cycling) are only feasible for shorter distance trips.

5 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey.

AECOM



1.6.2 County Specific Changes

This section examines the new policies, studies, and planned transportation infrastructure improvements that have emerged since the 2004 Transportation Plan was finalized. These changes will have a direct impact on the performance of Peterborough County’s transportation network and future needs.

1.6.2.1 Updated Growth Forecasts

Both the County and City of Peterborough have updated their Official Plan growth forecasts during the last 5 years to comply with the new Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (approved in 2006), which established the Province’s vision for managing population and employment growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region up to 2031. The resulting updated growth forecasts result in both the County and City of Peterborough growing at a slower rate than was previously estimated in the 2004 Transportation Plan. Figure 1-3, below, presents an overview of the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan area. Please refer to Section 1.6.1 for a more detailed discussion of the updated growth forecasts used in this study to assess transportation needs.

Figure 1-3: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe6

6 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006).

AECOM



1.6.2.2 Updated City of Peterborough Transportation Plan and Public Transit Operations Review

The City of Peterborough has recently updated its Transportation Master Plan (finalized August 2012) and its recommended changes have the potential to influence the need for and the timing of County Road improvements (particularly for roads that connect to recommended improvements). Figure 1-4 below presents the roadway improvement projects that were recommended in the City’s Transportation Plan Update.

Figure 1-4: City of Peterborough Transportation Plan Update – Recommended Road Network7

Key implications of the City’s Transportation Plan update on Peterborough County are summarized in the list below:

7 City of Peterborough Comprehensive Transportation Plan, August 2012.

AECOM



The recommended road network plan reconfirmed the need for an efficient east side by-pass route around the City using Television Road and University Road (shown in blue in the Figure above). These changes have the potential to hasten improvements on County Road 4, which directly connects to the planned widening and extension of Television Road. University Road was recently upgraded by the Township and was transferred to County jurisdiction in the fall of 2013.

The planned extension of the Parkway Corridor between Fairbairn Street and Cumberland Avenue (shown in orange in the Figure above) will assist County residents in accessing the Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

Other projects from the previous 2002 plan have been removed due to the previously mentioned lower growth forecasts (see Section 1.6.2.1 above).

The City of Peterborough has also released a Public Transit Operations Review report (November 2012). The Operations review recognizes that although expanding transit service to neighbouring communities is important to address inter-municipal travel patterns, it may not be cost effective in the short-term due to the rural nature of the surrounding area. As a result, the Operations Review focuses on expanding local service within the City of Peterborough in the short-term and developed a policy of 100% cost recovery for any extension of service outside of the City. Please refer to Section 2.2 more detailed information related to transit services.

1.6.2.3 Regional Rail Service to Peterborough

Passenger rail service to Peterborough was discontinued by Via Rail in 1990 and plans to re-introduce passenger rail service to Peterborough have been discussed ever since. A number of feasibility studies have been recently conducted and these plans have the potential to influence the transportation needs in the County and may drive the need for increased / enhanced network connectivity to the new rail line. Metrolinx, the provincial transportation authority, included possible rail service to Peterborough as part of the “The Big Move.” Moreover, the Shining Waters Railway is a locally owned group trying to implement a rail service plan to Peterborough. Figure 1-5 below, depicts potential stops on a new GO Rail line to Peterborough.

Figure 1-5: Proposed GO Rail Line to Peterborough8

8 Source: Globe and Mail, Feb 29 2008 (Elections Canada).

AECOM



It also should be noted that GO Transit recently introduced Bus Service from Peterborough to Toronto (Union Station) via connections to the Oshawa GO Trains. GO Bus stops are at Trent University, Peterborough Bus Terminal, the carpool lot at Crawford Drive and Harper Road, and the carpool lot at Cavan/Millbrook and Highway 115. In 2006 (prior to introducing GO Bus Service), Peterborough County residents made an average of 190 daily trips to the GTA using transit. GO Bus service initiated to Peterborough in 2009 has experienced reasonable success and has reached the forecast ridership based on available 2011 counts. At this ridership level the cost recovery is approximately 57%9.

1.6.2.4 Airport Redevelopment

Peterborough Airport is the largest commercial airport located between the Toronto and Ottawa areas. To encourage future growth and development at the airport, a redevelopment is being completed to extend and strengthen existing runways and taxiways and upgrade runway lighting. The expansion will enable the airport to continue to grow by offering increased capacity for freight and passenger flights. The airport redevelopment may be a catalyst for growth in the Greater Peterborough area and will require changes to the alignment of Airport Road (County Road 11), which runs in a north-south direction connecting rural areas to the City of Peterborough. Airport Road has been closed to allow for extension of the runway and the County of Peterborough recently completed a Class EA Study examining the need to reconfigure Airport Road to maintain access to the lands south of the Airport. County Council recently approved the Recommended Plan to realign Airport Road, and endorsed filing the Environmental Study Report for a 30 day review period. Given the approval of the Class EA, the County is in the position to construct the realignment of Airport Road. Figure 1-6 below presents a schematic of the Airport Redevelopment Plan, including the runway extension and the associated changes to the alignment of Airport Road. Environmental Assessment approval is subject to specific conditions. Construction of reconfigured Airport Road is anticipated to be tendered in the near future.

9 Source: City of Kawartha Lakes Go Transit Feasibility Study, April 2013

AECOM



Figure 1-6: Airport Redevelopment Plan and Associated Realignment of Airport Road

1.6.2.5 Highway 407 East

The Highway 407 East project will extend the Highway 407 from its existing eastern terminus in Pickering to Highway 35/115 in Clarington (see Figure 1-7 below). The current target is to open the first phase of the highway in late 2015 with the remainder opening in 2020. Although the extension does not go through Peterborough County itself, it will significantly increase the County’s connectivity with the northern areas of Durham Region, the future community of Seaton (in north Pickering), the potential Pickering Airport, and the communities within the southern areas of York Region. As a result, this major extension project has the potential to influence the commuting patterns of Peterborough County residents and may be a catalyst that increases pressures for growth in the County beyond that of the current growth plan.

Figure 1-7: Highway 407 East Extension

AECOM



2. Existing Transportation System

2.1 County Road Network

The County of Peterborough manages a road network that consists of 715 km of paved/surface treated roads and 153 bridges and major culverts, as illustrated in Figure 2-1. There are three Provincial Highways that serve Peterborough County, Highway 115, Highway 7, and Highway 28. Many of the current County Roads were former Provincial Highways (County Road 23, 29, 30, 507, 36, 28, 45, 121, 49, 503, 504, 620 and 620A), which were downloaded to the County in the late 1990’s. Based on 2012 condition ratings, the current road improvement needs over the next ten years were estimated at approximately $149 million and structure repair needs were estimated at $38 million.

Figure 2-1: Peterborough County Road Network

AECOM



2.1.1 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

The County Road system has roadways that carry a wide range of daily traffic volumes, from minor cottage roads that carry a few hundred vehicles per day to major roads that carry over 15,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes on some of the busiest road segments in the County Road network have continued to grow despite recent 2011 Census data showing a reduction in population in Peterborough County between 2006 and 2011. A list of the top 10 road segments by traffic volume and by growth in average daily traffic volumes is summarized in Table 2-1, below. County Road 18, from Peterborough to Bridgenorth continues to be the busiest section of roadway in the County, with average daily traffic volumes of 13,000-15,000 vehicles per day and strong growth in daily volumes between 2006 and 2010.

Table 2-1: Traffic Volumes / Volume Growth Trends

Highest Volume 2010

AADT

Annual

Growth* Highest Growth

2010

AADT

Annual

Growth*

1.County Rd 18 – CR 19 to CR 1

15,300 0.3% 1. County Rd 35 – CR 2 to

Base Line Rd 9,050 49.7%

2.County Rd 18 – CR 1 to Bridgenorth

14,700 2.0% 2. County Rd 507 – Beaver

Lake Rd to Baker Dr 2,300 33.5%

3.County Rd 18 – Bridgenorth limit to CR 14

12,900 5.3% 3. County Rd 2 – CR 28 to

Fishers Corners 1,950 17.3%

4.County Rd 29 - Peterborough Limit to CR 23

10,500 0.5% 4. County Rd 21 – Hwy 115 to

Millbrook 2,200 15.2%

5.County Rd 14 – Causeway – CR 18 to CR 16

10,050 -2.5% 5. County Rd 620A – Apsley –

CR 504 to CR 620 2,950 12.4%

6.County Rd 35 – CR 2 to Base Line Rd

9,050 49.7% 6. County Rd 4 – Warsaw –

West Limits to South St 2,300 12.0%

7.County Rd 28 – Zion Line

8,600 0.3% 7. County Rd 16 – Ennismore 4,100 8.1%

8.County Rd 28 – Hwy 115 to CR 21

8,400 0.1% 8. County Rd 2 – Third Line to

Bensfort Bridge 1,050 8.1%

9.County Rd 5 – Peterborough Limit to Hwy 7

8,300 0.6% 9. County Rd 20 – CR 25 to

Hwy 28 1,750 7.7%

10.County Rd 28 – Bailieboro

8,050 -0.4% 10.County Rd 504 – Jack

Lake Rd to Whitmore Rd 600 7.3%

* - Annual growth rate 2006-2010

Figure 2-2, below, illustrates the existing Average Annual Daily Traffic for Peterborough County roads. As expected, the highest levels of traffic volumes are experienced on the County roads that approach the City of Peterborough.

AECOM



Figure 2-2: Peterborough County Existing AADT

AECOM



2.2 Transit Services

Peterborough County does not have a regularly scheduled public transit service that operates outside of the City of Peterborough boundaries. The City has twelve (12) regular bus routes, three (3) express bus routes, the taxi-based Trans-Cab Service (provided in areas that are not serviced by bus routes), and the Handi-Van paratransit service. Although the City of Peterborough Public Transit Operations Review (2012) discusses the potential for expanding transit service to neighbouring County communities, the plan is focused on expanding local services within the City since expansion to County areas would need to be considered on a full cost recovery basis. Coach Canada is an existing private operator of a public transportation service for commuters that connects Lakefield – Peterborough (4 runs/day) and Havelock – Norwood – Peterborough (2 runs/day). Fares range between $2.50 (e.g. Lakefield – Peterborough) and $4.30 (e.g. Havelock – Peterborough) one-way and generally depends on the distance travelled. Greyhound Canada also operates a Peterborough - Havelock route (1 run/day – approximately $10-$15 one-way fare). Lastly, the non-profit charitable organization Community Care Peterborough provides “dial-a-ride” demand-response door-to-door local and long-distance transportation services for seniors and adults with physical challenges. A nominal fee is required for the service which is provided through volunteers and charitable contributions. Based on the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey Results and the 2006 Census, Transit serves just under 1% of all trip making within Peterborough County, and 3% of daily trip making within the City of Peterborough.

2.3 Active Transportation Facilities

Peterborough County currently does not own or manage any dedicated active transportation network infrastructure. Presently, cyclists are predominantly part of the roadway environment, sharing space with vehicles10. Although the County itself does not manage any cycling network components, the following bulleted list identifies existing off-road trails that are located within the County but are managed by others:

Trans-Canada Trail o Multi-use off-road route from Hastings to Peterborough where it continues through

Peterborough and continues west to Omemee, generally following the old CN Rail corridor.

Rotary Greenway / Lakefield Trail o Multi-use 25Km urban and rural trail that generally follows the shore of the

Otonabee River to connect central Peterborough with Trent University and Lakefield.

10 Under the Highway Traffic Act, bicycles are permitted road users, regardless of whether there

is any special provision for them.

AECOM



BEL Rotary / Bridgenorth Trail o Multi-use 2.3 Km off-road trail located on an unopened road allowance that was

established for a potential extension of Hilliard Street, between the 5th Line and Brumwell St. in Bridgenorth. This trail was opened in 2008 as the first step of a vision to develop a trail system that links Bridgenorth to Peterborough and ultimately connects to Ennismore, and Lakefield.

The City of Peterborough also has a number of existing walking / bicycle trails and bike lanes that are located throughout the downtown area with connections to Trent University, the Trans-Canada Trail, and the Rotary / Lakefield Trail. The City is planning on the continued growth of its cycling network and these enhancements will provide additional opportunities for connections to a County active transportation network.

AECOM



3. Future Transportation Needs

3.1 Updated Growth Forecasts

The County Official Plan (OP) has been amended to bring it into compliance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The County OP includes four main settlement areas - Lakefield, Norwood, Havelock and Millbrook. The Selwyn area is forecast to experience about 950 new residents, or 31.7% of the new population growth between 2006-2031, although the Places to Grow population forecasts identify a very modest growth rate for Peterborough County, with only 3,000 new residents expected in the next 20 years. The previous TMP assumed significant new population growth as part of the Lakefield South Secondary Plan, and build out of the Fraserville Secondary Plan. In 2009, an amendment to the County’s Official Plan11 revised the population and employment data previously used in the preparation of the 2004 Transportation Plan to comply with the planning policies of the new Provincial Growth Plan: Places to Grow (see Section 1.6.2.1 above). The new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe forecasts that both the County and City will grow at slower rate than previously estimated in the 2004 Transportation Plan. Figure 3-1 below, presents the projected population growth in the reference scenario used in the previous 2004 Transportation Plan. These reference population growth scenarios were updated as part of this study to be consistent with the latest amendment to the county’s Official Plan and the data collected by the 2011 Census.

Figure 3-1: Projected Population Growth Peterborough County, 2006 - 2036 Reference Scenario12

11 Peterborough County Official Plan Amendment #7 (OPA #7, 2009). 12 Growth projection used in 2004 Transportation Plan.

56,84260,881

65,17968,860

72,05674,435 76,239

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

AECOM



Table 3-1, below, compares the County Official Plan’s forecasted growth in population from 2006 to 2011 to the actual growth reported by the 2011 Census.

Table 3-1: Forecast County Growth Compared to Census Actual (2006 - 2011)

Municipality 2006 Census

2011 Reference Forecast

Projected Growth

2006-2011

2011 Census

Actual Growth

2006-11

Selwyn 17,413 18,690 7.3% 16,846 -3.3%

Otonabee-South Monaghan 6,934 7,488 8.0% 6,660 -4.0%

North Kawartha 2,342 2,435 4.0% 2,289 -2.3%

Havelock-Belmont-Methuen 4,637 4,870 5.0% 4,523 -2.5%

Trent Lakes 5,284 5,662 7.2% 5,105 -3.4%

Douro-Dummer 6,954 7,488 7.7% 6,805 -2.1%

Cavan-Monaghan 8,828 9,680 9.7% 8,601 -2.6%

Asphodel-Norwood 4,247 4,566 7.5% 4,041 -4.9%

County Total 56,639 60,879 7.5% 54,870 -3.1%

City Total 74,898 78,998 5.5% 78,698 5.1%

Total City + County 131,537 139,877 6% 133,568 1.5%

As indicated by the table above, the County’s Official Plan projected growth in the County from 2006 to 2011 to be at 7.5% or 1.5% per year. However, data from the 2011 Census reveals that the County has actually seen a 3.1% reduction in population since 2006 (-0.6% per year). The City of Peterborough, on the other hand, has experienced growth that is on track with the growth forecasts (approximately 5% or 1% per year). It should be recognized that as the City grows disproportionately more than the County, increased interactions between the City and County can be expected and the importance of connecting roadway links will increase. There are a number of possible reasons for the population decline in the County, including:

Demographic patterns are lowering average household sizes.

Recent economic conditions are influencing the choice of housing type (particularly for those on fixed incomes), and investment in employment/business properties.

Boundary changes since the 2006 Census: Selwyn and Otonabee-South Monaghan both had some lands annexed by the City.

Municipalities with the highest original growth projections have only recently addressed servicing constraints: o Lakefield – New development within the designated growth area in the Lakefield South

area was dependent on servicing. The new Lakefield water tower is now built and will allow the Lakefield Secondary Plan Area to develop.

o Otonabee-South Monaghan has developed a servicing agreement with the City to allow growth along the east side of Television Road, just south of Old Norwood Road.

o Cavan Monaghan – The township was previously looking to develop in the Fraserville Area but this growth could not occur without servicing. The township recently decided to shift their growth from Fraserville to Millbrook and obtain servicing from the existing municipal system in Millbrook.

AECOM



Based on the 2011 Census results, a 1.5% annual population growth rate would be required to meet original 2031 County Official Plan projected growth totals. This rate is high compared to past growth trends and as a result an adjusted growth forecast has been utilized to assess transportation needs in this study. As summarized by Table 3-2 below, the estimated growth for the 2011 to 2031 horizon from the original forecasts was applied to the 2011 Census figures to estimate future population by municipality for 2031.

Table 3-2: Updated Growth Forecasts (2011-2031)

Municipality 2011 Reference Forecast

2031 Low Forecast

Planned Growth

2011-2031

2011 Census

Adjusted 2031

Forecast

Selwyn 18,690 19,713 5% 16,846 17,905

Otonabee-South Monaghan

7,488 8,262 10% 6,660 7,504

North Kawartha 2,435 2,342 -4% 2,289 2,164

Havelock-Belmont-Methuen

4,870 4,944 2% 4,523 4,581

Trent Lakes 5,662 6,311 11% 5,105 5,812

Douro-Dummer 7,488 7,482 0% 6,805 6,755

Cavan-Monaghan 9,680 11,125 15% 8,601 10,170

Asphodel-Norwood 4,566 4,879 7% 4,041 4,365

County Total 60,879 65,058 7% 54,870 59,256**

City Total 78,998 83,942 12% 78,698 88,379

First Nations* 1,365

Total City + County 139,877 149,000 13.3% 133,568 149,000

* previously included in municipal totals but not included in Census or adjusted forecasts

** In June 2013 the Province released an update to the Provincial Growth Plan, with updated growth forecasts to 2031 and 2041. The updated provincial growth forecast for Peterborough County for 2031 is 70,000 residents and 20,000 jobs, growing to 76,000 residents and 24,000 jobs by 2041.

There are other factors beyond local population growth that influence the growth in traffic volumes using the County Road system. External growth in communities adjacent to Peterborough County continues to result in added traffic using the County Road network. For example, the City of Kawartha Lakes is forecast to grow to 100,000 people by 2031, as discussed in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The influence of this growth can be observed through the growth in traffic using County Road 14 (Yankee Line), which has seen an average 2% annual growth rate since 2004 and provides an alternate route to Highway 7 for traffic to/from the City of Kawartha Lakes.

AECOM



The influence of strong growth in the City of Peterborough will also influence travel demands using the County Road network, particularly on the boundary roads leading into the City. As services and shopping opportunities continue to concentrate in the larger urban centres, the demand for travel to the City of Peterborough will continue to grow and it is expected that County residents will increasingly travel to the City.

3.2 Forecasting Future Deficiencies

Forecasting future travel demands and road network capacity deficiencies in the majority of the rural areas of the County were based on a historical growth rate of 1% / year applied to current AADT volumes on the major County Road network. Within the area surrounding Peterborough, forecasts of future travel demands were undertaken in more detail using the City of Peterborough TransCAD transportation demand model, which was designed to provide PM peak hour forecasts of future volumes on the City and surrounding County Road network under various land use, growth and transportation network improvement scenarios. An overview of the City of Peterborough transportation model is provided below.

3.2.1 Model Overview

The City’s model is a four stage travel demand model that incorporates the following standard practise components:

Trip Generation: Forecasting the number of trips that originate from or are destined to a given area.

Trip Distribution: Forecasting the number of trips that travel between areas.

Mode Choice: Forecasting the transportation modes used to travel between areas.

Trip Assignment: Forecasting the paths used to travel between areas and the resulting traffic volumes on the transportation network.

The model forecasts travel by accounting for the impact of costs and travel times via available modes. The model includes a detailed transportation network with information on distance, travel speed, and lane capacities and traffic zones that provide existing and future population and employment data, land uses, socio-economic, and demographic information. Extensive updates to the model, which only included a small portion of the County surrounding the City in its coverage area, were required in order to accurately capture County Road volumes. The bulleted list below summarizes the key updates to the model:

The model network and zone system was expanded to provide more coverage within Cavan Monaghan Township to capture the effects of reallocating growth to Millbrook instead of Fraserville. The original City of Peterborough model ended at County Road 28 in Fraserville.

The travel demand matrices provided in the City model were adjusted to reflect the expanded zone system in Cavan Monaghan and trips were disaggregated to the new zone system based on population counts within each of the new zones (based on 2011 Census dissemination area data). Existing external trips with origins or destinations outside of Cavan Monaghan Township were estimated from 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data and these were split out from the original trips prior to disaggregation.

AECOM



The City model used a simplified zone system for the municipalities surrounding the City. For example, all of the traffic zones in Selwyn Township were grouped into two large zones – one covering Lakefield and one covering Bridgenorth. All of the trips to/from Selwyn were directed to these zones, where in reality there are trips to/from many areas outside of these built up areas. As a result, the original model over estimated traffic volumes on the main routes into Selwyn (County Road 18 and County Road 29) and underestimated traffic volumes on other roadways in the municipality. The same pattern was found in Otonabee-South Monaghan Township and Cavan Monaghan Township. The model zone system was disaggregated using population counts at the Dissemination Block level of detail (the smallest geographic area that Statistics Canada provides population and dwelling counts) which were then aggregated up the original traffic zone boundaries in the County.

Road network attributes were adjusted to calibrate the updated model to reflect observed traffic volumes using the provincial highways and County Roads in the outlying municipalities.

External through traffic origin-destination patterns were compared to the travel survey results from the “Peterborough Area and Highway 7 Corridor, Travel Pattern Survey” undertaken by MTO in July / August 2007 and the base travel demand matrices in the original Peterborough Model was updated to reflect the base flows from this survey based on stations on Highway 28 (north of Lakefield), Highway 7/115 at Television Road (Peterborough),Highway 7 (south of Fowlers Corners), and County Road 28 (south of Highway 115).

The original 2031 travel demand matrices from the City of Peterborough model were adjusted to reflect the changes to the zone system noted above and the revised growth forecasts for the County of Peterborough.

A full description of the City of Peterborough travel demand model development can be found in Appendix F (excerpt from the City of Peterborough Transportation Plan, 2012).

3.2.2 Model Results

Figure 3-2 illustrates the 2031 AADT and network capacity deficiency forecasts for the majority of the County Road network based on the growth factor method applied to existing AADT volumes. Figure 3-3, below, highlights the network deficiencies forecasted using the City of Peterborough transportation demand model for the 2031 horizon. In both maps, routes with major congestion, that are at capacity, approaching capacity, and operating well are colored in red, orange, yellow, and green respectively13. The model’s network includes all recommended improvements from the City’s Transportation Master Plan (see Section 1.6.2.2 above) and the updated growth forecasts for the County and City were used. The City’s mode share targets from the Transportation Master Plan were also adopted (no changes in County area mode shares were assumed).

13 Colouring is determined from volume/capacity ratio (“V/C”) calculated from the updated City of

Peterborough model.

AECOM



Figure 3-2: 2031 Forecast Roadway Network Deficiencies (County-Wide)

Condition Description Colour

Congested Traffic volume exceeds roadway capacity Red

At Capacity Traffic volume equals roadway capacity Orange

Approaching Capacity Traffic volume is slightly less than roadway capacity Yellow

Operates well / Free flow Traffic volume is below roadway capacity Green

AECOM



Figure 3-3: 2031 Forecast Roadway Network Deficiencies (Peterborough Area)

From the Figures above, it is evident that there are fewer deficiencies in comparison to the previous TMP due to the lower growth forecasts previously discussed in Section 3.1 above. As expected, the majority of the capacity deficiencies are found in the Peterborough Area and there are similar “hot spots” as indicated in the previous TMP (e.g. CR 18 through Bridgenorth). Deficiencies on CR 29 and within Lakefield are reduced and the shift of growth to Millbrook has reduced travel demands on CR 28. Overall, the lower 2031 population forecasts will allow the County to defer many previously planned roadway capacity enhancement projects. Table 3-3, below, provides an assessment of the roadway infrastructure improvements that were previously recommended in the 2004 Transportation Plan versus the updated forecasts of future deficiencies. Capacity enhancement needs that remain in the new updated Transportation Plan are bolded and highlighted in the table. The alternatives that are available to address these capacity assessment needs are assessed in more detail as part of later stages of this study.

AECOM



Table 3-3: County Road Capacity Enhancements – Needs Assessment

County Road Capacity Enhancement (from 2004 TMP) Updated Needs Assessment

CR28 – CR28 Widening 2 to 4 or 5 lanes (Fraserville to Hwy 7/115 IC) - EA Study Complete

Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031

CR11 - Airport Road Widening 2 to 4 lanes (Highway 115 IC to City Limit)

Upgrade to arterial standards - Widening can be deferred to

beyond 2031

CR18 – Chemong Road Widening 2 to 5 lanes (North of CR 1)

Widening still required - Pending TMP Assessment of

Alternatives (see Section 4.2.1)

CR18 – Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 1 Approved Route (CR18 / Ward Street to CR 14 – Causeway)

Widening still required - Pending TMP Assessment of

Alternatives (see Section 4.2.1)

CR29 - Widen Lakefield Road to 4/5 lanes (City limit to new Mid Block Arterial N of 7th Line)

Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031

New – Construct New E-W Mid Block Arterial South of Bridge St (CR29 to Katherine St)

Partial implementation still required to service

development -

Pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives (see Section 4.2.3)

New – Construct New 2 Lane Bridge Crossing of Otonabee River (Katherine St to Water St)

New Bridge Crossing Not Required by 2031


Consider for Rehabilitation / Operational Improvements

New – New Television Road (CR35) connection to University Rd (North of Old Norwood Rd)

In City TMP – Impact on County

roads pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives (see Section 4.2.2)


In City TMP

AECOM



3.3 Problem Statement

The majority of the County’s roadway network is forecasted to operate well in 2031. Of the congestion that is forecasted, most is focused on County Roads located in the vicinity of the City of Peterborough. In comparison to the previous 2004 Transportation Plan, this study has identified less network deficiencies due to the lower population growth rates prescribed by the Province’s “Place to Grow” Growth Plan and the slight contraction in County population (outside of the City of Peterborough) observed between 2006 and 2011. Consequently, many of the improvements previously recommended in the 2004 Transportation Plan can now be deferred to beyond 2031. The bulleted list below summarizes the key network deficiencies and transportation problems that Peterborough County is expected to face in 2031:

Lack of Existing Transit – There are significant mobility challenges in the County for individuals that do not have access to a car and this segment of the population can be expected to increase over time with the continued aging of the population. The City of Peterborough is currently the only area within the County serviced by public transit. However, the rural nature of most of the County outside of the Peterborough area is difficult to cost effectively serve with public transit.

Lack of Infrastructure to Support Active Transportion – There is currently a lack of County specific facilities that support active transportation between municipalities (e.g. bike routes and trails). There are some off-road trails in the municipalities but there is a lack of available linkages. The longer average travel distances required in the County, however, make it challenging for travellers to walk and cycle for non-recreational purposes.

Bridgenorth – County Road 18 between County Road 1 and County Road 14 (the James A. Gifford Causeway) is forecasted to operate at capacity in 2031. Figure 3-4, presents the forecasted performance of roadways in the Bridgenorth area in the 2031 PM peak hour. With the revised growth forecasts, the already planned widening to add a centre turning lane south through the village should defer the need for additional improvements until beyond 2025, as illustrated in Figure 3-5, below. The widening of Ward Street, implementing a new by-pass, and the Hilliard Street extension are alternatives that have the potential to address this need.

AECOM



Figure 3-4: Roadway Improvement Needs: Bridgenorth

Figure 3-5: PM Peak Hour Volumes on County Road 18 – Bridgenorth

AECOM



Lakefield – Bridge Street (County Road 29) between County Road 25 and the Otonabee River is forecasted to operate at capacity in 2031. However, the need for a new bridge crossing the Otonabee River (as recommended in the 2004 TMP) is not required until beyond 2031 due to the lower growth forecasts and lower levels of congestion on County Road 29 on the east side of the river, through Lakefield. Figure 3-6, below, presents the forecasted performance of roadways in the Lakefield area in the 2031 PM peak hour. The widening of Bridge Street and the introduction of mid-block arterial roads in the Lakefield South growth area are alternatives that have the potential to address this need.

Figure 3-6: Roadway Improvement Needs: Lakefield

Donwood – County Road 4 through Donwood between Television Road and University Drive is forecasted to operate at capacity in 2031. With the planned realignment of Television Road (as per the City TMP), additional traffic is attracted to this corridor and as a result County Road 4 will also be operating over capacity by 2031 if no further improvements are implemented. Figure 3-7 below, presents the forecasted performance of roadways in the Donwood area in the 2031 PM peak hour. Multiple alignment alternatives should be considered to address this need, including the new Television Road alignments proposed in the City TMP and the previous 2004 County TMP.

AECOM



Figure 3-7: Roadway Improvement Needs: Donwood

The alternatives to address each of the network deficiencies and transportation problems identified above are assessed in Section 4.2.

AECOM



4. Transportation Master Plan Recommendations

Section 4 of the TMP report summarizes key recommendations of the TMP including road network, transit, active transportation and policy recommendations developed.

4.1 Short Term Road Network Improvements

As part of the Transportation Plan update, ten (10) intersections were selected by Peterborough County for review and the development of recommendations to improve the operation to address existing concerns. Figure 4-1 below identifies the location of intersections reviewed as part of the Transportation Plan Update.

Figure 4-1: Locations of Assessed Intersections

Assessed Intersections

1. CR 4 @ CR 6 2. CR 6 @ CR 40 3. CR 8 @ CR 38 4. CR 14 @ CR 16 5. CR 16 @ CR 17

6. CR 18 @ 5th Line 7. CR 18 @ CR 24 8. CR 18 @ CR 29 9. CR 22 @ CR 23 10. CR 48 @ 6th line

Existing information and conditions were reviewed for each intersection including traffic counts, collision data and trends. Field inspections were also conducted in order to check alignments,

AECOM



geometry, and sight lines. Warrant analysis and the identification of improvements was also completed (e.g. illumination, left turn lanes, and traffic control measures). Table 4-1 below, summarizes the key safety and operational intersection improvement recommendations resulting from the individual assessment of each intersection. The field inspections for all intersections were conducted on Tuesday, October, 25, 2011. Please refer to Appendix G for the complete documentation associated with the Intersection Review.

Table 4-1: Recommended Safety and Operational Improvements for County Intersections

Intersection Recommended Improvement(s)

CR 4 @ CR 6

Relocate mailbox to English Lane (north approach), and place at an adequate distance from the intersection to avoid collisions between turning and stopped vehicles. Investigate feasibility of a turn-around area for vehicles that would be turning into English Lane to pick up mail, and then returning to CR6.

Review removing trees in the north-east quadrant of intersection and improving the west approach grade for visibility.

Review fencing and intersection illumination options for animal crossing prevention or post signs warning of animal crossing, such as “Deer Crossing Sign” Wc-11.

Further review whether west approach grade can be modified to improve visibility

CR 6 @ CR 40

Potentially revise crest curve and remove brush in the southwest quadrant to improve visibility.

Possible four-way-stop control once crest curve is revised.

AECOM




CR 8 @ CR 38

Determine feasibility of modifying curvature during next rehabilitation to increase visibility.

Relocate curvature warning sign to provide more warning of the approach curve and consider adding speed warning signage.

Review appropriateness of posted/advisory speed signage

CR 14 @ CR 16

Consider replacing stop controlled intersection with signals or roundabout.

Restrict shoulder parking on the north and south side of CR14 and replace the no parking sign on the north side of CR14.

CR 16 @ CR 17

Review potential for roundabout control.

Introduce positive guidance and warning signs for CR16 through curve.

Use chevrons to highlight curvature.

Use dashed pavement markings where the curved section of CR16 diverges from northbound CR17.

CR 18 @ 5th Line

Monitor traffic for signal requirements (increases in Side road volumes are required).

Remove brush in northwest quadrant to increase visibility.

AECOM




CR 18 @ CR 24

Add pavement markings to indicate eastbound right-turn lane.

Remove brush in northwest quadrant to increase visibility.

CR 18 @ CR 29

Signals are warranted. Proceed to program installation of signals as funding permits or consider roundabout.

Review sight triangle from residential lane.

AECOM




CR 22 @ CR 23

Short Term Improvements

Implement All Way Stop at intersection

Install full illumination at the intersection

Introduce advanced warning signs / overhead flasher (similar to County Road 23 / CR 20 intersection (Selwyn Road)

Introduce reduced speed zone on County Road 23 approaching and through the intersection. Speed limit should be set to reflect available Stopping Sight Distance and Decision Sight Distance requirements based on the current vertical profile as measured in the field

Approach Speed (km/h)

Stopping Sight Distance

(m)

Decision Sight Distance for Case “A” Avoidance Manoeuvre

(m)

80 135 152

90 160 178

100 185 207

Medium Term Improvements

Provide northbound left turn lane and alignment revisions to improve intersection geometry and visibility.

Revise horizontal and vertical crest curve south of the intersection and horizontal curve to the north to improve sight lines.

Consider acceleration lane and/or right-turn channelization on CR23 for eastbound to southbound right-turning traffic

CR 48 @ 6th Line

Assess reduction of posted speed east of the intersection.

Modify position of stop line on south approach and add a stop line on north approach.

AECOM



4.2 Long Term Road Network Improvement Alternatives

This section presents the assessment and evaluation of the long term road network capacity improvement needs for the County, which were identified in Section 3.3 of this report, “Problem Statement”. Based on the forecast capacity deficiencies identified on County roads in the Bridgenorth, Lakefield, and Donwood areas by 2031, each of the road network alternatives presented in this report were assessed against a series of evaluation criteria to compare their respective advantages and disadvantages using both quantitative and qualitative measures. The evaluation criteria and indicators listed in Table 4-2, reflect the various categories of the environment as defined in the Municipal Class EA document (2000/2007), and were selected to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of each alternative and identify preferred alternatives in accordance with the approved Municipal Class EA process.

Table 4-2: Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Indicators

Technical

Network performance

Potential to improve safety

Reduction in travel delay

Social/Cultural Environment

Potential impacts/ benefits to neighbourhoods

Potential impacts to heritage areas

Potential impacts to agricultural areas

Potential impact / benefit to downtown areas

Natural Environment

Potential effects on environmentally sensitive areas

Potential impacts to watercourses

Potential impacts to habitat areas

Potential impacts on air quality

Economic

Cost

Community Accessibility

Support Future Growth Areas and Facilitate Related Investment

Support Goods Movement

Potential impacts/ benefits or deterrents to businesses

AECOM



4.2.1 Bridgenorth

4.2.1.1 Alternatives

As previously discussed in Section 3.3, the existing portion of County Road 18, from County Road 1, through the village of Bridgenorth, to County Road 14, is forecast to be operating at /over capacity by 2031. By widening to add a centre turning lane on County Road 18 south through the village of Bridgenorth, the need for additional improvements within the village area would be required around 2025. However, beyond 2025, the three-lane cross-section of Ward Street (CR 18) is forecasted to be at capacity. Prior to 2025, the existing two lane section of County Road 18, from County Road 1 to the south limit of Bridgenorth will begin to experience significant congestion and limited passing opportunities during peak periods, increasing the risk of passing related collisions. By 2031 congestion through Bridgenorth represents an annual travel time cost of $2.2 M to County residents. Network alternatives to address the long term needs of this area include:

Do Nothing

Widening County Road 18 to 4 lanes and Ward St to 3 lanes (coloured in green below)

Widening County Road 18 to 4 lanes and Ward St to 4 lanes (coloured in yellow below)

Widening County Road 18 to 4 lanes and implementing the Bridgenorth By-pass (coloured in blue below)

Hilliard Street Extension (coloured in red below)

The alignment of each of these proposed alternatives is shown in Figure 4-2 below.

AECOM



Figure 4-2: Bridgenorth Network Alternatives

The Bridgenorth By-pass Environmental Assessment was filed in 1996 and the County has undertaken a series of updates to the EA over the past few years to maintain its approval status. Most recently, the County undertook an initial widening of Ward Street (CR 18) to provide a centre two-way left turn lane from Gore Street north to the County Road 14 (James A. Gifford Causeway) intersection and completed an economic impact study for the By-pass. In 2009, the County completed the Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study, which had the following recommendations:

Extend Two-Way-Left-Turn-Lane south from Gore Street to Champlain Street

Install traffic signals at Ward Street / Wilcox Street – Completed in 2011

Construct sidewalks on Ward Street to improve pedestrian access

Create one-way inbound entrance to Hunter Street

Install signage to available parking in Hunter Street / Maitland Street area. As a result of the Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study traffic signals were installed at the Wilcox Street intersection in 2011. These measures represent an effective corridor management strategy that was designed to optimize the operation of the Ward Street corridor through the community and defer the need to implement the By-pass for as long as possible. As a follow up to the 2009 Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study, the County completed a feasibility study for widening Ward Street to 3 lanes (Gore Street to Champlain Street). This widening alternative is consistent with the green coloured alternative highlighted in Figure 4-2 above.

AECOM



The following bulleted list summarizes the key conclusions of the widening study:

Widening is feasible with a cost in the range of $1.8 – $2.1 Million.

Sidewalks can be provided on both sides of Ward Street.

No property acquisition is required.

A number of private features within the right-of-way may need to be removed (e.g. retaining walls, gardens, porches).

A number of tress / utility poles within the right-of-way will need to be removed.

Space for parking on the boulevard will be removed.

Figure 4-3, below, presents a conceptual drawing of the proposed widening of Ward Street to 3 lanes, along with the roadside features currently within the right-of-way.

AECOM



Figure 4-3: Feasibility Study - Ward Street Widening to 3 Lanes

AECOM



4.2.1.2 Model Results

Each of the alternatives were assessed using the transportation model to determine how well the improvement addressed the original capacity deficiency and improved the operation of the transportation network. Maps showing the PM peak hour volume to capacity ratios are used to indicate the level of projected congestion on the various road segments with the improvement in place. Where the demand volume is at 90% of capacity or greater (v/c ratio of 0.9), the segment of roadway is forecast to operate at capacity and periods of congestion can be expected to occur. These segments are illustrated in orange. Where the demand volume is greater than 120% of the capacity of the roadway the segment is categorized as congested and could be expected to be seriously congested during peak periods. These segments are shown in red colour.

Figure 4-4: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Ward Street Widening to 3 Lanes

The model results for the 3 lane widening scenario show that the widening of County Road 18 to 4 lanes will address the capacity deficiencies approaching Bridgenorth, however, the 3 lane widening will not provide sufficient capacity in the longer term, and Ward Street, through the village, will continue to operate at/over capacity.

AECOM



This represents a 3% reduction in peak hour travel delay compared to the base case (Do Nothing) scenario but it still results in an increase in delay of 1,520 vehicle-hours per day, or 65% higher compared to today.

Figure 4-5: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Ward Street Widening to 4 Lanes

The model results for the 4 lane widening scenario show that the widening of County Road 18 to 4 lanes will address the capacity deficiencies approaching Bridgenorth. The continuation of the 4 lane widening through the village will also provide sufficient capacity in the longer term to address the future traffic volumes at good levels of service, with little to no congestion. As a result, delays are anticipated to be 1,350 vehicle-hours per day, a reduction of 14% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM



Figure 4-6: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Bridgenorth By-pass

The model results for the Bridgenorth By-pass scenario show that the widening of County Road 18 to 4 lanes will address the capacity deficiencies approaching Bridgenorth. The 2 Lane Bridgenorth By-pass will divert about 60% of northbound traffic (during the PM peak) out of the village to use the By-pass. The By-pass itself would be approaching capacity during peak periods but would still operate with minimal delays. Congestion through the built up area of Bridgenorth would also be reduced, and this section of Ward Street would have sufficient capacity to accommodate future demands at good levels of service, with little to no congestion. As a result, delays are anticipated to be 1,345 vehicle-hours per day, a reduction of 14% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM



Figure 4-7: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Hilliard Street Extension

The model results for the Hilliard St. Extension scenario show that the extension would attract minimal traffic away from County Road 18 and Ward St. As a result future capacity deficiencies would continue to be experienced on the existing corridor. As a result, delays are only anticipated to be 1,540 vehicle-hours per day, a reduction of 2% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

4.2.1.3 Extent of Future Congestion

The transportation model used to assess future travel demands and operational performance of the road network is based on PM peak hour conditions. Concerns were raised by a number of stakeholders that the modelling should account for the aging demographic in Peterborough County, which may reduce demands during peak periods to levels lower than originally forecast. Concerns were also expressed that the extent and duration of potential congestion would only result in congestion for a short period during the peak hour and that the 3 lane widening scenario would provide sufficient capacity during the remaining periods of the day. In response to these concerns, an assessment of these two issues was undertaken to support the alternatives evaluation.

AECOM



The assessment started with the analysis of the implications of an aging population on peak period and daily travel demands. Using data from the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey a profile of trip making activity for residents of Selwyn Township (formerly Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield) was extracted by age category (0-19, 20-44, 45-64, 65+) and trip purpose and hour of the day. This profile is illustrated in Figure 4-8. This data was used to develop trip rates by age category, trip purpose (work, school, and two categories of discretionary trips - home based and non-home based).

Figure 4-8: 2006 Daily Travel Demands by Time and Trip Purpose

Using the estimated age profile from County growth forecasts, an estimated age profile for Selwyn residents was generated for 2031. By applying the trip rates estimated from the 2006 data to the future age profile, an estimate of the 2031 trip making activity by trip purpose and time period was developed. Existing traffic volumes on Ward Street were obtained from hourly traffic counts undertaken in Fall 2012, to provide an hourly distribution of traffic volumes by direction of travel. The estimated growth in hourly trip making was used to forecast the increase in hourly volume demand that would be experienced on Ward St for each direction of travel. Based on the daily traffic count data on Ward Street, the existing daily volume is 16,000 vehicles per day (fall 2012). By 2031, the estimated daily volume is forecast to grow to 21,000 vehicles per day, a 31% increase in daily volume. Figures 4-9 and 4-10 illustrate the existing hourly traffic volumes and the forecast hourly traffic volumes on Ward Street in the northbound and southbound direction of travel, respectively. In

work

discretionary

discretionary

school

AECOM



the northbound direction the current PM peak hour volumes are lower than the midblock capacity of the 3 lane section that currently exists, however, at the Wilcox Street intersection, the capacity at this intersection is exceeded during afternoon peak hour due to the lack of a left turn lane at the intersection, which impedes through traffic demands. This is consistent with observations in the field that confirm that northbound vehicles will queue at the Wilcox Street traffic signals during the afternoon peak period. With the 3 lane widening in place, the capacity of this intersection is improved slightly and should eliminate the congestion that currently exists. By 2031, the PM peak hour volume is expected to increase by almost 22%, with larger growth (38% increase) occurring during the mid-day period due to the influence of increased discretionary trip making by an older population. During the PM peak period, the capacity of the 3 lane widening would be exceeded both at the Wilcox Street intersection and for the midblock segment between intersections. At Wilcox Street, the period of congestion would increase from about ¾ of an hour today to about 2 hours during the afternoon by 2031. With the by-pass in place, the peak hour volume on Ward Street would be reduced to about 490 veh/hr, which is approximately equal to the midday volumes experienced today.

Figure 4-9: 2012-2013 Hourly Volume Profile – Ward Street Northbound

In the southbound direction, the AM peak period represents the peak hour of travel. Similar to the northbound direction, the existing 3 lane section has sufficient capacity to accommodate current volumes, however the lack of a dedicated left turn lane at Wilcox Street causes a queue of vehicles, particularly when school buses stop to turn left, that can extend to the Gore Street intersection. Extending the centre turning lane to the south would improve the capacity at this

532486

879

237

733688

1070

290

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e

Hour

Traffic Volumes in Northbound Direction – North of Charles St

2012 2031

Wilcox Intersection Capacity Today

Midblock Capacity – 3 lanes

Wilcox Intersection Capacity – 3 lanes

Peak Volume – with by-pass (2031)

AECOM



intersection and eliminate the queues that currently occur. By 2031, AM peak hour traffic is also forecast to grow by about 22%, with mid-day volume increasing by about 43%, again due to the increase in discretionary travel during the midday period. During the AM peak, the mid-block capacity of the 3 lane section will be exceeded during the peak hour, and the period of congestion at the Wilcox Street intersection will increase from about ¾ of an hour today to up to 1 ½ hours in 2031. It is also interesting to note, that as a result of the increase in midday volumes during the morning period, Ward Street at the Wilcox Street intersection is forecast to operate at over 90% of its capacity for up 4 hours in the AM, between 8:00 am – 12:00 noon. At this level of volume, congestion and long queues can occur when the traffic signal turns red, and this will block entrances upstream.

Figure 4-10: 2012-2013 Hourly Volume Profile – Ward Street Southbound

Based on the above analysis, it was concluded that the aging demographic profile of the County, and in particular Selwyn Township, will have an influence on the growth in travel demands, with higher growth in midday volumes than during peak periods. That being said, the growth in peak period volumes will result in travel demands that exceed the capacity of the existing urban section of Ward Street, and will exceed the capacity of the 3 lane widening by 2031.

4.2.1.4 Evaluation Summary

Table 4-3, below, summarizes the results of the evaluation process for each of the Bridgenorth network alternatives. Each alternative is evaluated on a scale of “Least Preferred” to “Moderately

904

480

584

1100

687719

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e

Hour

Traffic Volumes in Southbound Direction – North of Charles St

2012 2031

Wilcox Intersection Capacity Today

Midblock Capacity – 3 lanes

Wilcox Intersection Capacity – 3 lanes

Peak Volume – with by-pass (2031)

AECOM



Preferred” to “Most Preferred” across each of the four (4) major evaluation criteria. Please refer to Appendix H for a more detailed summary of the evaluation results that that were considered. Through the evaluation analysis, the “Bridgenorth By-pass and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18” and the “3-Lane Widening of Ward Street and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18” alternatives emerged as preferred alternatives (both are highlighted in green in Table 4-3). It is recommended that the County proceed with implementing the 3-Lane widening of Ward Street in the short term and adjust the signal operation at Wilcox Street to manage queues during peak periods. This could involve the use of mainline queue detectors along Ward Street that would detect the presence of congestion during peak periods and override the side street green phases to give priority to north-south traffic along Ward Street (i.e. make side street traffic wait longer). Additional remediation measures, such as access control or minor sideroad entrance closures, should be considered to address any capacity and safety issues on Ward Street which may occur towards the end of the current planning period during peak periods. Growth forecasts prepared as part of the TMP review indicate that the 3 lane section of Ward Street will reach its practical capacity around 2025 and congestion will occur during peak periods, and may extend into the off peak periods due to the expected increase in discretionary travel that is forecast for the future. Further opportunities to increase the capacity of Ward Street / County Road 18 will be limited to further optimization of the operation of the traffic signals at Wilcox Street and at the County Road 14 (Causeway) intersection to provide more green time for through movements during the peak periods at the expense of gaps in through traffic to serve side road demands or left turn movements to/from commercial entrances along Ward Street. The installation of a roundabout at the Ward Street / Causeway intersection, as recommended in the Causeway Rehabilitation Class EA study, may assist in managing congestion at this intersection and extend the life of the 3 lane widening until the end of the planning period (2031). In light of the potential transportation capacity issues anticipated by 2031, it is recommended that the County continue to protect for the current By-pass corridor within the County’s Official Plan. However, the consideration of the implementation of the By-pass can be deferred to the end of the current planning horizon. The timing of the need for the By-pass will be largely dependent on the pace of growth in Selwyn (in particular growth in Bridgenorth and Ennismore); however growth in the municipalities to the north of Selwyn, along with any continued growth in external traffic entering Peterborough County from the City of Kawartha Lakes along County Road 14 may also increase the traffic using the Ward Street / County Road 18 corridor. The County should continue to monitor both local growth patterns and external growth in traffic on County Road 14 and across the Causeway and use this information as part of the 2016 TMP Update to assess the timing for the Bridgenorth By-pass. It is also recommended that the 2016 TMP Update consider revisiting the By-pass route that was approved as part of the original Environmental Study Report through a subsequent EA Addendum in order to avoid sensitive environmental features and wetland areas. The rational for the project team’s recommendations are as follows:

AECOM



As discussed in Section 4.2.1.1, above, the County recently completed a study that confirmed that the widening of Ward Street to 3 Lanes is feasible with a cost of between $1.8 and $2.1 million.

Analysis with updated growth forecasts suggest that a 3 lane cross-section would continue to operate satisfactorily until about 2020. However, the 3 lane cross-section is anticipated to reach capacity in the vicinity of 2025 and the by-pass is therefore still anticipated to be required towards the end of the current planning period.

AECOM



Table 4-3: Evaluation Summary - Bridgenorth Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria

Alternative Solutions

Do Nothing 2-Lane Extension of Hilliard Street Bridgenorth Bypass and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18

4-Lane Widening of Ward Street and CR 18

3-Lane Widening of Ward Street and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18

Technical This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Does not accommodate future travel

demands ‐ Does not provide an alternative to

community ‐ Increased collision risks for vehicles,

pedestrians and/or cyclists ‐ Increases travel time op to 68% (from

2006 base year)

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Does not accommodate future travel

demands ‐ Limited potential to improve collision

risks for vehicles, pedestrians and/or cyclists

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Can accommodate future travel demands ‐ Provides alternative route to community ‐ Ability to provide limited access route ‐ Greatest reduction in traffic on Ward

Street (54%) ‐ Greatest potential to reduce collision risks

for vehicles, pedestrians and/or cyclists

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Significantly impacts traffic operations

during construction ‐ Increased collision risk for turning traffic ‐ Increased conflicts between entrances

and non-auto traffic ‐ Potential to impact existing utilities

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Does not accommodate future travel

demands ‐ Significantly impacts traffic operations

during construction ‐ Does not provide alternative route to

community ‐ Increased collision risk for turning traffic

‐ Increased conflicts between entrances and non-auto traffic

‐ Potential to impact existing utilities

Least Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Moderately Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred

Social/Cultural Environment

This alternative is most preferred because it does not impact: ‐ Residential property and/or buildings ‐ Community facilities and/or institutions ‐ Recreational areas ‐ Heritage and/or archaeological

resources ‐ Specialty crop areas and/or Class 1, 2

or 3 soils

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Traverses designated Residential area ‐ New roadway introduced adjacent to

some residences ‐ Crosses the B.E.L. Rotary Trail ‐ Potential to affect archaeological

resources

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Traverses designated Residential area ‐ New roadway introduced adjacent to

some residences ‐ Crosses some walking paths ‐ Potential to impact heritage and/or

archaeological resources

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Potential to displace 8 residences ‐ Impacts parking at community facilities ‐ Extensive impacts during construction

(Ward Street) ‐ Potential to impact heritage features

and/or archaeological resources

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ May impact 1 residence ‐ May impact parking at community

facilities ‐ Moderate impacts during construction

Most Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Moderately Preferred Least Preferred Moderately Preferred

Natural Environment

This alternative is most preferred because it does not impact: ‐ Designated areas ‐ Provincially Significant Wetlands

(PSWs) ‐ Forest and/or vegetation communities ‐ Species at Risk (SAR) ‐ Fish habitat and/or migration activities

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Crosses ORCA development control

area ‐ Crosses Deer Wintering Yard ‐ Crosses PSW ‐ Affects designated Vegetation areas ‐ May affect SAR ‐ May affect fish habitat

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Crosses ORCA development control area ‐ Crosses Deer Wintering Yard ‐ Crosses PSW ‐ Affects designated Vegetation areas ‐ May affect SAR ‐ May affect fish habitat

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Imposes edge effects to ORCA

development control areas ‐ Crosses Deer Wintering Yard area ‐ Highest potential to impact the greatest

number of private groundwater supply wells

‐ Imposes edge effects to designated Vegetation areas

‐ May affect SAR ‐ May affect fish habitat

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Imposes edge effects to ORCA

development control areas ‐ Crosses Deer Wintering Yard area ‐ Imposes edge effects to designated

Vegetation areas ‐ May affect SAR ‐ May affect fish habitat

Most Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Least Preferred Moderately Preferred

Economic This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ It does not support long term growth

and investment ‐ Impacts movement of residents and/or

seasonal visitors ‐ Does not accommodate commercial

vehicle movement ‐ Does not support goods movement ‐ Limits ease of accessibility to

commercial and farm properties

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Does not connect to major County

roadways ‐ Does not support commercial vehicles ‐ Crosses designated Aggregate

Resources Area ‐ Provides limited incentive for

investment for Ward Street businesses ‐ May impact 1 farm operation

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Improves accessibility to/from Ward Street

entrances ‐ Reduces conflicts for pedestrians and/or

cyclists ‐ Supports Community Improvement Plan

vision ‐ Creates new opportunities for destination-

based businesses ‐ Supports movement of commercial

vehicles ‐ Diverts commercial vehicles from the

downtown area ‐ supports growth through provision of

capacity

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Displaces approximately 10 commercial

properties ‐ Continues to encourage commercial

vehicles through the downtown area ‐ May impact viability of several

businesses (parking, infrastructure) ‐ Increases traffic using Ward Street,

impacting accessibility

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Should improve access to residential

and/or commercial properties on Ward Street

‐ Provides modest incentive for investment in existing businesses along Ward Street

‐ Supports movement of people and goods for the short term

‐ Does not displace existing businesses ‐ Does not affect aggregate/mineral

resource sites

Least Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred Most Preferred

OVERALL Not Preferred Not Preferred Preferred Not Preferred Preferred

AECOM



4.2.2 Donwood


As previously discussed in Section 3.3, County Road 4 through Donwood, between Television Road and University Road, is forecasted to be at/over capacity during peak periods by 2031. As a result of the planned widening and realignment of Television Road (from the City TMP), CR 4 or other surrounding roads will also require widening. Network alternatives to address the long term needs of this area include:

Widening Existing Television Road and CR 4 with Parkhill Rd / Television Road intersection improvements (coloured in green below) instead of the City realignment

Television Road realignment to CR 4 (per latest City TMP – coloured in yellow below)

Television Road realignment directly to University Road (per previous County TMP – coloured in red below)


Figure 4-11: Donwood Network Alternatives

AECOM




Each of the alternatives were assessed using the transportation model to determine how well the improvement addressed the original capacity deficiency and improved the operation of the transportation network. Maps showing the PM peak hour volume to capacity ratios are used to indicate the level of projected congestion on the various road segments with the improvement in place.

Figure 4-12: PM Peak V/C Ratio – County Rd 4 / TV Road Widening to 4 Lanes

The model results for the 4 lane widening scenario show that the widening of County Road 4 and Television Road would provide sufficient capacity to address the capacity deficiencies. As a result, peak hour travel delays are anticipated to increase by 25% compared to today, although this represents a 3% reduction compared to the base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM



Figure 4-13: PM Peak V/C Ratio - Television Road Realignment Plus CR 4 Widening to 4 Lanes

The model results show that the Television Road realignment and widening of County Road 4 will address the capacity deficiencies on County Road 4, however this segment of County Road 4 would be approaching capacity by 2031. As a result, delays are anticipated to reduce by 7% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM



Figure 4-14: PM Peak V/C Ratio – Television Road Realignment to University Road

The model results for the Television Road realignment scenario show that this alternative avoids the need to widen County Road 4 to 4 lanes, and provides good level of service on Television Road and County Road 4. As a result, delays are also anticipated to reduce by 5% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM




Table 4-4, below, summarizes the results of the evaluation process for each of the Donwood network alternatives. Each alternative is evaluated on a scale of “Least Preferred” to “Moderately Preferred” to “Most Preferred” across each of the four (4) major evaluation criteria. Please refer to the Appendix for a more detailed presentation and discussion of each of the evaluation criteria that were considered. As a result of the evaluation analysis, the recommended alternative for Donwood is “Television Road Realignment to County Road 4,” which is highlighted in green in Table 4-4. This alternative was selected as a result of the following considerations:

Accommodates existing and future demands

Modest impacts to residential properties can be avoided or mitigated during design

Low potential for impacts to community facilities / heritage resources

Minimizes potential impacts to habitat / wildlife movements

Minimizes impacts to businesses while providing effective reduction in traffic delays

AECOM



Table 4-4: Evaluation Summary - Donwood Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria


Do Nothing Widening Television Road and County Road 4 with Parkhill

Road/Television Road Intersection Improvements

Television Road Realignment to County Road 4

Television road Realignment Directly to University Road

Technical This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Does not accommodate existing and

future travel demands. ‐ Does not provide alternative route to

community in case of closures ‐ Increased collision risk for turning traffic,

pedestrians and/or cyclists ‐ Highest travel time increase for local

and/or long distance travellers

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Impacts traffic operations during

construction ‐ Does not provide alternative route to

community in case of closures ‐ May encroach onto significant power facility

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Impacts traffic operations along CR 4 during

construction ‐ Wider pavement in some areas will increase

crossing distances for pedestrians ‐ Crosses power transmission lines

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Can accommodate higher travel demands ‐ Lowest potential to impact existing

roadways during construction activities ‐ Significantly reduces traffic volumes,

reducing collision risks ‐ Provides alternate route in case of road

closures

Least preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Moderately Preferred Most Preferred

Social/ Cultural Environment

This alterative is most preferred because it does not affect: ‐ Residential properties ‐ Major community facilities and/or

institutions ‐ Recreational areas ‐ Residences and/or commercial operations

during construction activities ‐ Archaeological resources

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ Potential to displace approximately 12

residential buildings ‐ May impact up to 60 residential properties

through grading activities ‐ May encroach onto Institutional property ‐ Highest potential to affect access to a

number of properties during construction

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Potential to displace approximately 9

residential buildings ‐ Potential to affect approximately 25

residential properties through grading activities

‐ Potential to impact residences during construction activities

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Potential to displace approximately 3

residential buildings ‐ Potential to affect approximately 16

residential properties through grading activities

‐ Highest potential to impact archaeological resources

Most Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Moderately Preferred Least Preferred

Natural Environment

This alternative is most preferred because it does not affect: ‐ Stormwater quality/quantity and/or

Groundwater resources ‐ Designated Vegetation community ‐ Species at Risk (SAR) ‐ Fish habitat and/or migration activities

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Highest potential to directly impact private

groundwater supply wells ‐ Limited opportunities to introduce

stormwater management facilities

This alternative is least-moderately preferred because: ‐ May impact private groundwater supply

wells ‐ Creates barrier to wildlife movement/

migration

This alternative moderately preferred because: ‐ Create longest barrier to wildlife

movement/migration ‐ Crosses designated Vegetation areas ‐ Highest potential to impact fish habitat

and/or migration activities

Most Preferred Least Preferred Least-Moderately Preferred Moderately Preferred

Economic This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Reduces accessibility to adjacent land

uses ‐ Does not support future growth in

community ‐ Impacts movement of commercial vehicles

and local/long distance travel

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ May impact viability of 4 businesses ‐ May encroach onto a farming operation

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Greatest reduction in delays (7%) ‐ Does not impact businesses

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Highest capital costs incurred ‐ May cross approximately 1 active farm

operation ‐ May displace approximately 3 commercial

operations

Least Preferred Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Moderately Preferred

Overall Not Preferred Not Preferred Most Preferred Not Preferred

AECOM



4.2.3 Lakefield


As previously discussed in Section 3.3, Bridge Street (CR 29) through Lakefield between CR 25 and the Otonabee River is forecasted to be at capacity during peak periods by 2031. Due to the lower growth forecasts, however, the need for a new bridge crossing the Otonabee River (as recommended in the 2004 TMP) is not required until beyond 2031. Network alternatives to address the long term needs of this area include:

Widening Bridge Street to 5 lanes (coloured in blue below)

Implementing mid-block Arterial roads in Lakefield South growth area (coloured in red below)


Figure 4-15:Lakefield Network Alternatives


Each of the alternatives were assessed using the transportation model to determine how well the improvement addressed the original capacity deficiency and improved the operation of the transportation network. Maps showing the PM peak hour volume to capacity ratios are used to indicate the level of projected congestion on the various road segments with the improvement in place.

AECOM



Figure 4-16:PM Peak V/C Ratio – Widening Bridge Street to 5 Lanes

The model results show that the widening of County Road 29 to 5 lanes would provide sufficient capacity to address the capacity deficiencies, although the downstream section, east of Clemente Street would be approaching capacity during peak periods. As a result, peak hour travel delays are anticipated to reduce by 7% reduction compared to the base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM



Figure 4-17:PM Peak V/C Ratio - Implement Mid-Block Roads Within Development Area

The model results show that the implementation of mid-block roads through the Lakefield South development area would reduce the travel demand on County Road 29 by 14%, however this segment of County Road 29 would be approaching capacity by 2031. The shorter trip lengths for traffic access to the Lakefield South area results in reduced delays, which are anticipated to reduce by 22% compared to base case (Do Nothing) scenario.

AECOM




Table 4-5, below, summarizes the results of the evaluation process for each of the Lakefield network alternatives. Each alternative is evaluated on a scale of “Least Preferred” to “Moderately Preferred” to “Most Preferred” across each of the four (4) major evaluation criteria. Please refer to the Appendix for a more detailed presentation and discussion of each of the evaluation criteria that were considered. As a result of the evaluation analysis, the recommended alternative for Lakefield is “Implement Mid-Block Arterial Roads in Lakefield South Planning Area,” which is highlighted in green in Table 4-5. This alternative was selected as a result of the following considerations:

Accommodates existing and future demands

Reduces traffic on Bridge Street by 14%, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists

Reduces collision risk at intersections and entrances

Potential for longer term connectivity to future new river crossing

Many adverse effects incurred as part of planned development and can be mitigated as part of planning/design

Improves accessibility of Ontario Speed Skating Oval facility and Lakefield South Planning Area

Significant contribution for road infrastructure can be expected from the development of the area, lowering the capital cost

Finally, the County should continue to protect for a new bridge crossing of the Otonabee River, which can be retained in the plan but deferred to beyond 2031.

AECOM



Table 4-5: Evaluation Summary - Lakefield Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria


Do Nothing Widening Bridge Street to 5 Lanes Implement Mid-Block Arterial Roads

in Lakefield South Planning Area

Technical This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Does not accommodate higher travel demands ‐ Does not provide alternate route ‐ Increased collision risk for pedestrians, cyclists and turning

traffic ‐ Increases travel time for local and/or long distance travel by

74%

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Significant impacts to traffic along Bridge Street during

construction ‐ Does not provide alternate route ‐ Would require relocation of existing local utilities

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Accommodates existing and future demands ‐ Provides alternative route to community/Lakefield South

Planning Area from the south/west ‐ Reduces traffic on Bridge Street by 14%, improving safety

for pedestrians and cyclists ‐ Reduces collision risk at intersections and entrances

‐ Potential longer term connectivity to area river crossing ‐ Provides greatest reduction in travel time

Least Preferred Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Social/

Cultural Environment

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Provides limited opportunities to implement CIP initiatives ‐ Highest potential to impact noise sensitive areas

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Potential to displace the highest number of residences ‐ Affects access to a number of properties/operations during

construction

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Provides greatest opportunity to implement CIP initiatives

through reduced traffic ‐ Does not impact community facilities and/or institutions ‐ Improves accessibility of Ontario Speed Skating Oval

facility and Lakefield South Planning Area

Least Preferred Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Natural

Environment

This alternative is most preferred because it has the least potential to affect: ‐ Designated natural areas

‐ Stormwater and/or groundwater quality ‐ Forest and/or vegetation communities ‐ Fish habitat and/or migration activities

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Encroaches onto ORCA designated Environmental

Constraint area and flood plain ‐ Highest potential to affect fish habitat and/or migration

activities ‐ Limited potential to introduce water management facilities

This alternative is moderately preferred because: ‐ Introduces new barrier to wildlife movement/migration ‐ May encroach onto ORCA designated Environmental

Constraint area ‐ May affect fish habitat *Note - affects incurred as part of planned development and can be mitigated as part of planning/design

Most Preferred Least Preferred Moderately Preferred Economic This alternative is moderately preferred because:

‐ Does not support goods movement ‐ Does not support movement between communities ‐ Does not support future growth

This alternative is least preferred because: ‐ Potential to impact operation/viability of approximately 8

businesses ‐ Potential to displace approximately 1 business

This alternative is most preferred because: ‐ Highest potential to improve accessibility to/from Lakefield

South Planning Area, Speed Skating Oval, Queen Street/village area and entrances along Bridge street

‐ Supports future growth planning

Moderately Preferred Least Preferred Most Preferred Overall Not Preferred Not Preferred Preferred

AECOM



4.2.4 Summary of Updated Long Term Improvement Recommendations

Table 4-6, below, summarizes the proposed updates to the County road capacity enhancement recommendations of the previous 2004 plan. Capacity enhancements that can be deferred to beyond the current planning horizon (2031) are colored in grey, while the projects that are still anticipated to be required are highlighted in magenta. In summary, key transportation bottlenecks of the County remain and must still be addressed as part of this updated transportation plan. However, many previously recommended projects are no longer required during the planning period due to downward adjustment to the most recent County area growth estimates.

Table 4-6: Summary of Updates to 2004 Recommendations

County Road Capacity Enhancements – 2004 Plan

Recommendations – 2012 Update

CR28 –Widening 2 to 4 or 5 lanes (Fraserville to Hwy 7/115 IC)

- EA Study Complete

Retain in Plan - Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031

CR11 - Airport Road Widening 2 to 4 lanes (Highway 115 to City Limit)


CR18 – Chemong Road Widening 2 to 5 lanes (North of CR 1)

4-Lane Widening Recommended – by 2025

CR18 – Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 1 Approved Route (CR18 / Ward Street to CR 14 – Causeway)- EA Study Approved

Construct 3-Lane Widening in short-medium term

Continue to protect for Phase 1 By-pass - Implementation by 2031

Continue to protect for Phase 2 By-pass – Implementation beyond 2031

CR29 - Widen Lakefield Road to 4/5 lanes (City

limit to new Mid-Block Arterial N of 7th

Line)


New E-W Mid-Block Arterial South of Bridge St (CR29 to Katherine St)

Partial implementation is recommended to service development

New 2 Lane Bridge Crossing of Otonabee River (Katherine St to Water St)

Retain in Plan - New Bridge Crossing can be deferred to beyond 2031


Consider for Rehabilitation / Operational Improvements

New Television Road (CR35) connection to University Rd (North of Old Norwood Rd)

New TV Road Alignment and Widening CR 4 to 4 lanes (per City TMP)


In City TMP

Figure 4-18, below, illustrates the recommended long term capacity improvement projects recommended as part of this update to the Transportation Master Plan.

AECOM



Figure 4-18:Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects

AECOM



4.3 Active Transportation

4.3.1 Background

The promotion of cycling and walking is steadily gaining prominence in regional Transportation Plans as an important measure that increases the well-being and sustainability of a community. Active transportation can play a role as both a utilitarian mode of transportation that reduces the reliance on the car (e.g. for shorter to medium distance commuting and school trips) and as a recreational mode of transportation for local residents and visitors (e.g. bike tourism and cycling clubs). When planning for the promotion of increased active transportation usage, it is important to take into account the following key considerations:

Network Connectivity – The provided network of on-road and off-road routes should connect and link key communities and destinations that are likely to use active transportation (e.g. population areas to schools, parks and recreation areas). Opportunities to provide cross-connectivity to existing / planned trails and on-road routes across different municipalities should also be taken advantage of.

Cost / Affordability – Both the capital construction and ongoing maintenance costs of active transportation facilities should be considered. To reduce costs, on-road facilities should be maintained together with “normal” roadway maintenance activities.

Maintenance – The regular maintenance of shoulder stability/pavement, pot holes and road grates will be required to ensure a high quality riding surface.

Safety – The provision of a safe environment for motorists and active transportation users is of paramount importance. For shared usage facilities in particular, proper visibility, signage, and striping/markings will be required to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists.

Facilities – The provision of convenient bicycle storage facilities and amenities (e.g. rest areas and showers) at key destinations can play a role in further encouraging cycling. For example, implementing bike racks / secure storage at community buildings and promoting private sector participation / co-operation.

Marketing - Public awareness and education through marketing and promotion (e.g. bicycle route maps) is essential to driving increased usage of active transportation. The active marketing of bicycle tourism can also play an economic development role.

Figure 4-19, below, outlines the hierarchy of the types of cycling facilities that can be implemented (arranged by increasing traffic volumes and speeds). The County’s existing cycling network primarily consists of shared road lanes, with no signed cycling routes or special treatment for cyclists, although the County does partner in the operation of the Rotary Trail between Lakefield and Trent University.

AECOM



Figure 4-19:Types of Cycling Facilities

Shared Road Lane / Signed Route

• Designated on-road routes can be used to connect with existing off-road trails and to link communities and destinations.

• “Share the Road” signage alerts motorists that there may be cyclists using a particular route.

• Signing bike routes provides wayfinding to cyclists for route connections.

Paved Shoulder

• Paved shoulders of 1.2-1.5m or greater can help to improve safety.

• Can be implemented as part of already planned road construction / reconstruction or added to existing roads as a new project.

Designated Bike Lane

• Designated bike lanes further delineate the presence of cyclists and can further improve safety.

• Warranted in higher traffic volume/higher speed conditions and more developed areas.

Separated Bike Lane

• Separated bike lanes further separate cyclists from the road and can further improve riding safety and comfort.

Off-Road Multi-Use Trail

• Trails are typically shared by cyclists, walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, etc.

• Compeltely separates trail users from the road.

AECOM



4.3.2 Active Transportation in Other Communities

A number of other Counties have developed policies and plans to guide their decision making and investments in active transportation infrastructure. A few of the notable examples are summarized in Table 4-7, below.

Table 4-7: Cycling Policies in Other Counties

Community Description

Simcoe County

Roads with higher speed / higher volume – off-road path at the back of ditch instead of paved shoulder

Promote active transportation

Included bike racks at County buildings

Education and cooperation with municipalities and school boards

Haliburton County

Network of route options

1.2m paved shoulders on Rural County Roads (paved shoulders included in rehabilitation of County Road 21 in 2008/2009 as a result of public comments received during the EA).

Build awareness / education

Market the County as a cycling destination

Encourage / support commuter cycling

Identify opportunities for off-road routes

Northumberland County

Paved shoulders included in road rehabilitation projects

On-road routes (five looped routes) established by the County

Off-road / multi-use trails through Ganaraska Forest, Northumberland Forest and conservation areas and park lands

Portions of the waterfront trail and Trans Canada Trail

Lanark County

Paved shoulders on some County roads

Construct bicycle lanes in urban areas (County Road 1, Fore Street, Perth)

Incorporate off-road recreational paths and existing paved shoulders into cycling network

Develop Cycling to School and Active & Safe Routes to School programs

Work with local municipalities to provide network connectivity with bike routes on local roads.

Prince Edward County

Abundance of low traffic volume roads (shared use)

Highway 33 / Loyalist Parkway – paved shoulders

Millennium Trail: o Off-road multi-use trail on former CN railway line o Connects Carrying Place to Picton o Partially paved o 15m wide, 49km long

Routes mapped and promoted by cycling clubs

AECOM



4.3.3 Active Transportation Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

The existing trails and off-road routes located in Peterborough County and the City of Peterborough provide a framework / connecting points for a County-wide active transportation/cycling network. There is an opportunity for the County to provide connecting cycling network infrastructure that leverages these already existing facilities. Figure 4-20, below, presents a possible concept for a County-wide active transportation network that spans County roads, municipal roads, and existing off-road trails. This network concept was developed by taking advantage of the existing backbone of off-road trails, connections to the City of Peterborough network, the Peterborough Cycling Advisory Committee’s recommended cycling routes, and by trying to provide network connectivity between key communities and destinations (including active lifestyle destinations such as Provincial Parks and Conservation Areas). It should be noted that this network is only a conceptual framework and can be refined as part of more detailed active transportation plan development in co-ordination with municipalities and stakeholders. Most of the County roads that are a part of the proposed active transportation network are already suitable for cyclists and are Peterborough Cycling Advisory Committee recommended cycling routes with low traffic volumes and a low proportion of truck traffic. For these roadways, “Share the Road” signs can be installed as a quick win project that further enhances the attractiveness of these corridors to cyclists and enhances motorist awareness of the presence of cyclists. However, as highlighted in Figure 4-21, below, there are select segments of the proposed active transportation network that are not already suitable for cyclists; roadway upgrades, such as paved shoulders, will be required before these routes can be designed as cycling routes. It is recommended that cycling related improvements of these road segments be tied to the County’s overall capital program for roadway improvements (e.g. cycling related upgrades can be integrated with the already planned improvements to County Road 20).

AECOM



Figure 4-20:Conceptual Active Transportation/Cycling Network for Peterborough County

NO

RT

H

UTM Zone 17 NAD 83

Base mapping from County of Peterborough & MNR

0 3 6 9 12 151.5

km

Legend

! Provincial Park/Conservation Area

! Major Community/Destination

! Other Community/Destination

County Road Network

Municipal Road Network

Provincial Highways

Off Road Trails

Provincial Highways

County Roads

Local Roads

Lakes and Rivers

!

!!

!

!

Peterborough County

AECOM



Figure 4-21:Strategic Road Improvements Required to Implement Cycling Network

AECOM



From a policy perspective, the following key measures are recommended in order to promote and support active transportation in Peterborough County:

Marketing and Promotion

Include cycling information on the County’s website in order to market and promote the usage of the County’s active transportation facilities. Ease of access to the following types of information will help decrease the barriers to using active transportation:

o Cycling/walking route and trail maps and descriptions o Ability to download high quality maps and information o Provide facility to seek input on issues/concerns (e.g. obstacles, shoulder stability,

pot holes, etc.)

Support and Promote Municipal Initiatives

Provide seed funding to local municipalities for implementation of infrastructure to support active transportation (e.g. bike racks at community centres, etc.).

Partner with local municipalities to fund implementation of portions of active transportation network (see Figure 4-20 and Figure 4-21 above).

County Active Transportation Plan

Develop a County-wide active transportation/cycling network plan: o Conceptual network and recommendations of this study can be used as starting point

for the plan. o Develop plan co-operatively with local municipalities and stakeholders o Identify/Confirm vision and priorities for an active transportation/cycling network o Identify which on-road routes are to be:

Signed/shared roads only (promotes driver awareness to presence of cyclists) Wider paved shoulders (incorporate with upcoming improvement projects) Striped/marked bike lanes

o Link implementation of the plan to roadway maintenance and improvements program Figure 4-22, below, outlines the range of possible policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) that are available to support and encourage active transportation in Peterborough County and highlights the policies that are recommended by this study in red.

We can learn from the success of others……

The Simcoe County, Trails Connecting Communities Program (TCCP) will be entering its fifth year of operation in 2013, following recommendations in the County’s 2008 Transportation Master Plan. The Program was established in 2009 to leverage County funds in assisting with municipal trails and active transportation projects. The TCCP operates through a 50/50 matching structure where-by County funds are matched to local municipal investment, to a limit of $30,000 of County funding provided to the municipality at the completion of the project. Projects may also receive financial support through other grants, donations, etc. While Simcoe municipalities must be the applicant, local trail groups and organizations can provide assistance with project planning and implementation. The popularity of the TCCP, a grant program targeted towards building, enhancing or connecting the regional trail corridors across the County, continues to grow as interest in trails and active transportation continues to increase.

AECOM



Figure 4-22:Active Transportation Policy Recommendations

4.4 Transit

4.4.1 Background

Low population densities, large geographies, and long travel distances make it difficult to provide cost effective public transit services in rural areas. As a consequence, examples of rural-based traditional scheduled public transit services are rare in North America. Despite the difficulties in providing services, it should be recognized that residents of rural communities have many of the same mobility needs as individuals that live in cities. Public transportation options provide rural populations with access to jobs, shopping, and government services (e.g. health care) that may be located further afield in other rural communities or in larger regional centres. Basic public transportation is essential for residents that do not have access to or are unable to use a personal automobile, which includes low-income individuals, individuals with mobility issues, and the elderly. Public transportation can allow these residents to stay in their rural community instead of having to relocate to cities. The continued trends of the aging population and rising energy prices can also be expected to increase the demand / need for such public transportation services.

4.4.2 Rural Public Transit in Other Communities

A number of other Counties have developed customized transit services and programs in their communities to improve mobility options for their residents. A few of the notable examples are summarized in Table 4-8, below.

AECOM



Table 4-8: Rural Transit Services in Other Counties


City of Kawartha Lakes Rural

Transit

One-year pilot project started in July 2011 with four rural routes that provide service between Lindsay and surrounding communities, including Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, and Omemee.

The project was ultimately discontinued effective November 1, 2012 due to low ridership and high cost.

City of Kawartha Lakes operated each route on a different weekday and started pickups in rural areas at about 8:00AM and left Lindsay for the return trip at 4:00PM (one trip per day in each direction).

The buses used on the routes were accessible.

The fares were $2 for adults and $1.50 for students and seniors.

Rural transit riders were able to transfer to the Lindsay Transit municipal system at no additional charge.

Funded through $48,000 annual provincial gas tax grant.

After 13 months of operation, the service only attracted 895 riders, which meant that it operated at a subsidized cost of over $50 per rider14.

The rural transit program was reconfigured in 2013 with two fixed route rural services running clockwise and counter-clockwise along the same route, serving Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, and Bobcaygeon. The service runs every two hours, Monday to Saturday between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Fares are set at $5.00 per ride for all users, except children under 5 years of age, who ride for free. The City of Kawartha Lakes has also implemented a single route “dial-a-ride” program similar to Northumberland County for their specialized rural transit service.

14 “Rural transit routes defended despite $54 cost per rider.” The Lindsay Post. October 8, 2012.

AECOM




Niagara Region Transit

Pilot project that commenced September 12, 2011 with services provided to/from Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne and St. Catharines.

The system is operated by the existing municipal transit systems of St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Welland and is funded by Niagara Region.

Five bus routes operate within the Region from Monday to Saturday and service times / frequencies vary during the day and route (most operate with an hourly frequency from 7:00am-9pm on weekdays).

The service accommodates patrons of all ages and ability.

The fare is $6 for an adult and $5 for seniors and elementary/high school students for a one-way inter-city trip including transfers. Discounts are available for 10-ride packages and monthly passes.

Post-secondary students get a free ride through the use of a U-pass. In March and April 2012, post-secondary students made-up 40% of Niagara Region Transit’s ridership15. Niagara College and Brock University Student Unions contribute at total of $75,000 for two semesters of service.

Approximately 57,000 riders used the system between January and June 2012 and fare revenue is projected to be $460,000 for the full year16. The system has an overall annual budget of $2.7 million.

Desoronto Transit

System operated by the Town of Deseronto with five years of service in the Quinte and surrounding areas, including Deseronto, Tyendinaga, Napanee, Belleville, and Prince Edward County.

Each route operates scheduled service from Monday to Friday and generally offers two early morning departures, one mid-day departure, and two evening departures (5 trips per day in each direction).

One of the vehicles in Deseronto Transit’s fleet is accessible and must be reserved in advance.

Fares range by distance of travel and discounts are available for frequent riders, seniors, and students (cash fare ranges from $4.75 to $10.50 per ride).

The service has an operating budget of $235,000 per year and it receives the majority of its funding from donors such as Hastings County, The United Way, and Prince Edward Social Services. The service also gets $106,000 per year of provincial gas tax funds plus an additional $1,000 annually from Napanee and $51,000 annually from Deseronto.

The service carried 10,807 riders in 201117.

15 “Transit dollars for Region in new U-pass deal.” St. Catharines Standard. June 27, 2012. 16 “Regional transit shortfall shrinking.” St. Catharines Standard. September 5, 2012. 17 “Deseronto Transit celebrates anniversary.” The Belleville Intelligencer. August 28, 2012.

AECOM




The Rural Overland Utility Transit (TROUT)

Three year project launched in May 2010 that provides scheduled public transportation services in North Hastings and Highlands East.

The service, which is operated by Community Care North Hastings (CCNH), evolved from a handi-bus door-to-door service for seniors and people with physical challenges/disabilities (previously operating for over 15 years). The new scheduled service is accessible to all area residents.

Each day of the week, the bus travels to a different rural community and picks up passengers at designated bus stops. Seniors and people with disabilities are picked up directly from their homes. The bus returns to Bancroft where it provides local city-based transit from 10am to 2pm and then returns back to the rural towns and villages at 2:30pm.

Rural routes run Tuesday to Friday and the in-town route runs Monday to Saturday. A different route / rural community is served each day of the week.

Return fares range by distance of travel with discounts for seniors, students, and frequent riders (cash fares range from $9 to $20 round-trip).

Local government, community agencies, and CCNH leveraged Provincial gas tax funds to fund the service. Since the start of operations, CCNH has contributed $114,000 to the program and $84,000 has been accessed in gas tax funding due to the support of the surrounding municipalities18.

Ride Norfolk

The pilot project officially started in October 2011 and is operated by the same bus line that operates the school bus system in the county. An open RFP was used to select the operator on the basis of their pricing proposal, familiarity with the area, and its fleet of available buses (to ensure breakdown coverage).

The service operates within the Town of Simcoe every day and makes trips to Port Dover, Delhi, Port Rowan, and Waterford on different days of the week.

Service operates one bus that travels around Simcoe and links the town to Port Dover, Port Rowan, Delhi, and Waterford.

Service runs from Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. In town fare (within Simcoe) is $2.00 and out-of-town fare is $6.00.

In May 2012, Norfolk County agreed to make the bus service permanent, allowing the service to qualify for provincial gas tax funds. The service operates at an annual loss of $233,000 per year (including $90,000 in provincial gas tax) 19.

The system is primarily funded by the County with support from the provincial gas tax (plus 7-8% fare recovery from its approximately 20 riders per day).

18 “TROUT making trip to local councils.” Bancroft This Week. October 16, 2012. 19 “Ride Norfolk keeps rolling into 2013.” Port Dover Maple Leaf. May 23, 2012.

http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=The+Rural+Overland+Utility+Transit+(TROUT)&um=1&hl=en&biw=1367&bih=405&tbm=isch&tbnid=U9LmH2ieozd_ZM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ohcc-ccso.ca/en/catch-the-trout-in-north-hastings-and-highlands-east&docid=l3vHHC1UZKMYkM&imgurl=http://www.ohcc-ccso.ca/sites/ohcc-ccso.ca/files/images/community_stories/Trout Launch 005.jpg&w=640&h=359&ei=oy2QUPvNCunOyQH55YEI&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=52&vpy=119&dur=3469&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=244&ty=105&sig=100748295043974868184&page=1&tbnh=71&tbnw=127&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:68

AECOM




Northumberland Transportation Initiative

A pre-booked van service initiated in 2009 that provides services to/from the communities of Cramahe, Alnwick/Haldimand, and Trent Hills in Northumberland County.

The service is now offered Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday from 8:00am to 6:00pm across two routes. The Cramahe & Alnwick/Haldimand Route is served all four days while the Trent Hills route only has service on Tuesday and Friday.

The service is open to registered members of any age and ability that reside in Northumberland County (sign up form is available on their website). The van is accessible, a minimum 24 hour notice is required, and one-way rides start at $5.00.

The service is operated by Community Care Northumberland and is supported by funding from: the municipality of Trent Hills, Cramahe & Alnwick/Haldimand townships, County of Northumberland, Provincial Gas Tax Funds for Public Transportation, Northumberland United Way, Ontario Trillium Foundation, and Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation.

When launched in 2009 to serve the West Northumberland and Lakeshore areas, the service had a ridership of 566 for the year. In 2011, ridership increased to 2,40620.

In summary, scheduled transit service is not common in the rural areas of Ontario (and most of North America). Where public transportation services exist, Dial-a-Ride demand response services are the most common forms of rural transport and are typically provided by non-profit volunteer organizations (e.g. Community Care) that exclusively serve mobility challenged individuals and the elderly. Where scheduled transit service was found to be offered, a significant subsidy was required and it was common to leverage Provincial gas tax monies that are allocated for public transit. Furthermore, all rural transit service were found to have low frequencies (e.g. one trip per day) and most were found to have higher fares than comparable municipal systems due to the longer distances travelled. The following types of operations models were found for County funded rural transit in Ontario: 1) Municipally Operated Service; 2) County Operated Service; 3) Privately Operated Service.

4.4.3 Public Transit Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

The potential demand, ridership, and required subsidy for a new County Transit Service were assessed as part of this study. Based on other comparable rural communities with transit service and knowledge of the local context, it was estimated that between 2-4% of total daily trip making could potentially be attracted to the new transit service. Table 4-9, below, summarizes the estimated population for each community and the potential daily transit trips into the City of

20 “New van offers affordable and accessible transportation.” Northumberland Today.

August 14, 2012.

AECOM



Peterborough that are implied by a 2% and 4% mode share for transit (assuming that the transit market consists of Work, Home, and Facilitate Passenger trip purposes).

Table 4-9: Potential Daily Transit Trips Into the City of Peterborough

Community Estimated Population21

2% Mode Share

4% Mode Share

Millbrook 1,636 29 57

Keene (village) 525 8 15

Hiawatha First Nation 405 6 12

Norwood 1,482 10 21

Havelock 1,346 4 10

Lakefield 2,572 35 71

Curve Lake First Nation

924 13 25

Bridgenorth 1,132 16 31

Warsaw (village) 330 3 5

As is to be expected, the communities with the highest potential demand for transit are those with larger populations, namely Millbrook, Lakefield, and Bridgenorth. In order to assess the operating cost and potential revenue of a County Transit Service, the following four route concepts were considered: Havelock/Norwood, Curve Lake First Nation/Lakefield, Keene/Hiawatha First Nation, and Bridgenorth/Millbrook. In each route concept, the listed community pair and the City of Peterborough would be serviced by the route. Table 4-10, below, calculates the daily net operating cost (operating cost minus fare revenue) for each route concept at a 2% and 4% mode share and at fares of $3.50 and $5.00. The calculated costs assume an hourly service (8 hours a day) with an hourly operating cost of $9022.

21 Based on Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) and Statistics Canada – Community Flows data. 22 Hourly operation cost from CUTA handbook for populations under 50,000 (2007).

AECOM



Table 4-10:Potential Cost of County Transit Service Routes (Hourly Service – 8 hours per day)

Daily Net Operating Cost

(2% Mode Share)

Daily Net Operating Cost

(4% Mode Share)

Annual Subsidy

Route Communities $3.50 Fare

$5.00 Fare

$3.50 Fare

$5.00 Fare

Net of Fares

1 Havelock/Norwood $670 $645 $614 $569 $143,000 - $169,000

2 Curve Lake FN/Lakefield

$552 $480 $384 $240 $61,000 - $139,000

3 Keene/Hiawatha FN $672 $652 $625 $584 $147,000 - $169,000

4 Bridgenorth/Millbrook $566 $500 $412 $280 $71,000 - $143,000

Total Daily Subsidy Cost $2,460 $2,277 $2,035 $1,673

Total Annual Subsidy Cost $620,000 $574,000 $513,000 $422,000 $422,000 - $620,000

From the Table above, it is evident that a significant subsidy is required to fund basic transit service and the level of this subsidy is highly dependent on the level of ridership that is attracted to the service. The four proposed conceptual routes running hourly service for 8 hours per day would require an annual subsidy in the range of $420,000 - $620,000 under a County Service delivery model. The Lakefield / Curve Lake and Bridgenorth / Millbrook service options provide the highest ridership and thus the lowest subsidy requirements of approximately $61,000-$139,000 per year and $71,000-$143,000 per year respectively. Lastly, it should be noted that there is an opportunity to adjust the service frequency and the number of routes to match funding availability; the proposed hourly service represents an upper bound for rural transit frequencies. As previously noted, the frequencies used by most rural transit services in other Ontario communities are quite low with many providing only a single round-trip per day. Overall, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the demand and potential fare revenue generated by a new transit service delivered by the County. As discussed in the previous section, the City of Kawartha Lakes suspended their one-year County-operated rural transit project due to low ridership and high costs, and then re-introduced a more limited rural service in the Summer of 2013. Although it is not possible for transit service to be profitable or self-sufficient on the basis of fare revenues alone, contracting the operations of a transit service to a private operator would limit the required subsidy / risk to a known contract amount. This approach is currently used by Norfolk County’s Ride Norfolk transit service and it is the recommended approach for Peterborough County moving forward. Potential bidders / operators for a Peterborough County transit service tender may include Coach Canada (existing private operator), Peterborough Transit, Community Care Peterborough, and other private operators (Métis Transit, School Bus Operators, etc.).

Figure 4-23, below, outlines the range of possible County Transit policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the policies recommended by this study in red.

AECOM



Figure 4-23:County Transit Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

The following recommendations are intended to guide the next steps in implementing public transportation in Peterborough County:

County Transit services should be a joint county-municipal initiative o A joint funding arrangement between the County and serviced townships should be

established in order to recognize that the benefits of County Transit cannot be expected to accrue to all County municipalities and should not be funded by all municipalities.

o Transit service is most likely to succeed on the routes with highest potential demand for transit; that is, between the City of Peterborough and larger County communities on the periphery of the city such as Lakefield, Bridgenorth, and Millbrook. Transit service may not be feasible in other smaller communities.

The County should start the process to investigate feasibility of contracting for County Transit service with a private operator o Define service standards and performance requirements and provide optional service

levels to allow County to match service standards in contract with affordability. The tender should describe the required and optional service levels and schedule, days of the week, hours of service, etc.

o Solicit competitive bids from private operators for fixed price contract (e.g. one year pilot project with renewal options). Private operator to bear the risk of demand / ridership uncertainty and the potential benefits of fare revenue upside.

o County agrees to support service through advertising on County website, funding stops/shelters, offering online trip planning, etc.

AECOM



County selects operator, service level, and route package o Private operator selected based on proposed pricing for desired service level, size of

available bus fleet / reliability, experience / years of operations, and familiarity with local area.

o Once operator is selected, the level of subsidy is known and fixed and can be budgeted for.

4.5 Transportation Policies

This section provides updated recommendations on County policies for roadway design and operational standards.

Roadway Classifications: The grouping of roadways into different classifications based on traffic characteristics and their role and function. Currently, County roads are not grouped into different classifications.

Design Standards: The geometric design standards that influence the efficient and safe operation of County roadways. Currently, there are no formal County policies for the application of design standards and industry standards outlined in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Design Guidelines and/or the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Geometric Design Standards are typically followed.

Intersection Traffic Control / Safety: The approach to intersection traffic control, including all way stop control, roundabouts, and the maintenance / management of signage, pavement markings, and safety barriers. Currently, traffic control and safety issues are identified and addressed on an as required basis in response to public inquiries or reviews undertaken by County staff.

Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossings: The approach to the implementation of traffic calming measures that manage speeds on County roads, community safety zones, and pedestrian crossings. Currently, traffic calming issues are identified and addressed on an as requested basis using industry standard approaches to mitigation treatments.

Truck Routes: The identification of routes where truck traffic should be restricted from / directed to. Currently, trucks are permitted to use all County roads.

The recommended approach for each of the above listed policy areas is discussed in the following sections.

4.5.1 County Road Classification System

The County of Peterborough currently does not have a formal roadway classification system. All roadways are County Roads and are treated similarly from a policy perspective, although it is acknowledged that many policy decisions (such as entrances, design standards, intersection controls, etc) are applied in a more restrictive manner for higher volume County roads. Figure 4-24, below, outlines the range of possible County roadway classification policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the policies recommended by this study in red. In summary, it is recommended that the County develop a County-wide road classification system that identifies Class A (Major), Class B (Minor), Class C (Collector), and Special Character County Roads. These new roadway classifications will be the underpinning to the systematic and consistent application of roadway design standards and safety policies that take into account the role and function of each roadway and provide flexibility in the context sensitive design standards and

AECOM



operational policies. Indeed, the updated County Design Standards and Truck Route policies recommended in the subsequent sections below are explicitly linked to the proposed roadway classification system. The classifications will also provide guidance and justification for cost-effective County roadway investment decisions in a traceable manner.

Figure 4-24:Roadway Classification Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

The Special Character Roadway classification is reserved for low volume roads that have unique geometry and tend to operate as tourist or scenic routes, where upgrading them to match modern design standards would significantly alter the historic character of the roadway. The only County Road that has been placed in this category is County Road 32 (River Road), which runs along the east bank of the Otonabee River between Lakefield and Peterborough. County Road 29 parallels this facility and provides a higher order County Road to accommodate higher speed, longer distance County traffic and trucks. Figure 4-25 and Figure 4-26, below, depict the proposed classification of each County road in northern and southern Peterborough County respectively.

Passive:

• One classification = “County

Road”

• The following fall under the

domain of other road

authorities:

• Provincial Highways (MTO),

• Local Municipal Roads

(municipalities), and

• Private Roads (private

owners)

Passive Moderate Aggressive

Moderate:

• Divide “County Roads” into two service categories:

• Major County Roads

• Minor County Roads

• Classifications based on various sub-categories:

• Adjacent land use

• Roadway service function

• Traffic flow characteristics

• Introduce Special Character Roadway classification:

• Recognizes scenic and historical character;

• Does not allow for reduction in geometric design standards or maintenance standards

Aggressive:

• Develop a County-wide classification system per 2004 TMP, including:

• Major County Arterial (Class A)

• Minor County Arterial (Class B)• County Collector (Class C)

• Allows for different development on varying roads.

• Classifications would be based on various sub-categories, including:

• Roadway role & function• Traffic volume / flow characteristics• Design Speed / Average Running Speed• Connectivity• Urban vs. Rural (adjacent land use)

• Introduce Special Character Roadway classification:

• Recognizes scenic and historical character

• Allows for reduction in geometric design standards or maintenance standards*Note – Recommended approach indicated in red

AECOM



Figure 4-25:Proposed Roadway Classifications (North Peterborough County)

AECOM



Figure 4-26:Proposed Roadway Classifications (South Peterborough County)

4.5.2 Design / Operational Standards

At this time the County does not have any formal policies that outline design standards or the application of design speeds and posted speed limits for County Roads. As a result, the County typically follows industry standards such as those published by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) or the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Figure 4-27, below, outlines the range of possible County roadway design standard policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the recommended policies in red. The application of design standards should be tied into the roadway classification system to reflect a balanced approach to managing the roadway infrastructure in a way that allows for local context and traffic characteristics to be considered in determining the most appropriate and cost effective approach to upgrading and managing the County Road system. Maintenance standards are treated separately under the minimum maintenance standards established by the province.

AECOM



While all County Roads need to planned and designed to provide a safe driving environment, it is recommended that the higher standard “desirable” guidelines of TAC be followed for higher classification roadways (i.e. Class A County Road per Figure 4-24 above), while the minimum TAC standards be allowed for lower classification roadways.

Figure 4-27:Design Standard Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

Table 4-11, below, summarizes the specific design standard recommendations by County Roadway Classification.

AECOM



Table 4-11:Recommended Design Standards for County Roads

Design Criteria Class A County Road Class B County Road Class C County Road

Classification Approximates TAC

RAU100 (Rural Arterial Undivided 100km/h)

Approximates TAC RCU80 or RCU90 (Rural Collector Undivided 80 or 90km/h)

Approximates TAC RLU70, RLU80, or RlU90 (Rural

Local Undivided 70, 80 or 90km/h)

Traffic volumes veh/day (typically)

<12,000 AADT <5,000 AADT <1,000 AADT

Design Speed* 100 km/h 80 to 90 km/h 70 to 90 km/h

Posted Speed* 80 km/h (typical) 60 to 80 km/h 50 to 80 km/h

Minimum

Radius* 440 m 250 to 340 m 190 to 340 m

Maximum Gradients

3%

For short grades less than 150m up to 5%

5% (Rolling Topography)

For short grades less than 150m or on low volume

roads up to 7%

6%, (5% for 90km/h)

For short grades less than 150m or low volume roads

up to 7-8%

Lane Width (two lane roadway)

Design Hour Volume <450:

3.5 to 3.7m Design Hour Volume >450:

3.7m


3.5 to 3.7m Design Hour Volume >450:

3.7m

Design Speed 70 to 80km/h:

3.0 to 3.7m Design Speed 80 to

90km/h:

3.3 to 3.7m

Lane Width (multi-lane roadway)

Design Speed < 100km/h:

3.5 to 3.7 m Design Speed > 100km/h:

3.7 m

n/a n/a

Shoulder Width (undivided rural roads)


2.5m Design Hour Volume >450:

3.0m

2.5m 1.0m

* - typical for free flowing areas. Lower design speeds, curve radii, and posted speed limits may be used within urban built up areas, and lower posted speed limits may be used within transition areas to built-up areas, or where the roadway geometry suggests that lower speeds are required.

AECOM



4.5.3 Intersection Traffic Controls / Safety Policies

For most County Roads, the side road approaches are stop controlled and the County Road is provided with right-of-way priority. There are exceptions to this general rule. At higher volume intersections with County Roads or local municipal roads various forms of traffic controls are typically used to provide right-of-way control at intersections, including traffic signals and All-Way Stop control. The County currently does not have any roundabout intersections in operation however, they are planning to implement their first roundabout at the County Road 21 / County Road 28 intersection in 2013/14. Current practice at the County is to use the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) to determine when traffic signals or all-way stop control would benefit an intersection operation. Where traffic signals are found to be warranted, the County typically elects to install an all-way stop at the intersection initially, and monitor the intersection to determine when full signals would provide additional operational benefits. This approach is consistent with industry standards. The County also does not have a formal policy in place for reviewing the need for safety improvements on the road system, although they do regularly undertake safety improvement studies where upgrades are being considered, or in response to observed collision experience, Council requests or public concerns. Figure 4-28, below, outlines the range of possible Traffic Control / Safety policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the recommended policies in red. For intersection traffic controls, the recommended approach is only slightly different from current operational practice. In summary, it is recommended that where the warrants for traffic signal control have been met (in accordance with OTM Book 12 requirements), that an All Way Stop Control (AWSC) is considered first, provided that a level of service C can be achieved along the County Road (to avoid extensive delays) and where adequate sight distance exists for drivers to see the stop sign and react to it. Where these conditions do not exist, additional warning devices, speed reductions, or geometric improvements should be considered. The second step should consider an upgrade to a roundabout, where property and/or costs permit, followed by the third option, which would consider a traffic signal. It is recommended that the County implement a policy that requires a safety based network screening in areas where capital projects are being planned or where high collision frequencies have been observed in the past. This approach would use a systematic methodology to review and possibly prioritize the need for upgrades to signage, pavement markings, roadside barrier treatments, and roadway geometry to address observed collision patterns, or upgrade current standards, or address potential safety improvement opportunities. The County should also implement a policy to identify and prioritize County Road upgrades to improve sight distance on vertical and horizontal curves to at least match the posted speed limit. In addition, the roadway geometry should generally be upgraded where the design speed of the curve (horizontal / vertical) is 20km/h or more below the posted speed limit (or consider reducing the posted speed to match the site conditions). Implementation of the identified improvements would typically be undertaken in conjunction with other planned works, or based on the priority level assigned to the improvement respecting funding availability as established by Council through the annual budget process.

AECOM



Figure 4-28:Intersection Traffic Control / Safety Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

4.5.4 Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing Polices

At the current time the County does not have a formal policy for dealing with requests for traffic calming, Community Safety Zones, or formal pedestrian crossing locations within built up areas. These sorts of requests are typically dealt with in response to requests from the public, members of council, or the various police agencies that patrol County Roads (OPP, Peterborough-Lakefield Police). Figure 4-29, below, outlines the range of possible Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the recommended policies in red.

AECOM



Figure 4-29:Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

Commonly, requests for traffic calming measures are more likely to occur in the built up areas of the County. The following recommendations are presented to provide a formal review process for these types of requests: • It is recommended that a joint county-municipal working group be established to review traffic

calming requests that are identified at the local or County level • Traffic Calming requests should include public consultation to review the need, identify

the range of options to consider, and to vet the recommendations • The County should refer to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) best practices

in assessing and evaluating potential solutions • It is also recommended that requests for Community Safety Zones (CSZ) / Pedestrian

Crossings be initially assessed to determine the need for a formal review based on the input of County/Municipal/OPP staff that are knowledgeable about the area, or where there is a history of complaints.

• The County should establish a Traffic Safety working group with County Staff / OPP /

Peterborough-Lakefield Police to assess concerns and make recommendations to County Council on most appropriate response to safety related concerns, considering: • Benefits of enhanced enforcement • Potential benefits of legislative remedies (by-laws, etc) • Collision rates / patterns • Frequency / severity of observed traffic violations • Other factors (i.e. Adjacent land use/ community use, roadway design / geometry, etc)

Passive:

• Traffic calming requests are

addressed on an as requested

basis – no formal policy

guiding review process

• Pedestrian crossings at

controlled intersections on

County Roads

• Two Community Safety Zones

(CSZ ) currently exist

• No formal policy exists for

creating the zones

Passive Moderate Aggressive

Moderate:

• Implement traffic calming measures to manage speeds on county roads where issues have been identified

• Assess Community Safety Zones (CSZ) requests based on County/OPP staff knowledge / historic complaints. Form a working group to assess traffic concerns and available enforcement considering :• High accident/collision rates• Traffic violations• Other factors (i.e. Adjacent land

use)

• Assess pedestrian crossing warrants (based on OTM Book 12) when a need is identified to the County

• Prioritize installations based on available capital funding

Aggressive:

• Undertake a comprehensive assessment of traffic calming needs on county roads through all urban areas and implement on a priority basis

• Create a Community Safety Zones (CSZ) warrant to assess the applicability of a proposed CSZ

• Implement a formal pedestrian crossing warrant policy and procedure to be used during road upgrades, new development applications, or where an existing need is identified.

• The warrant would assess applicability of introducing marked pedestrian crossings and/or pedestrian activated crossing signals; this includes warrants for crossings at schools. The warrant would be based OTM Book 12, and include:

• pedestrian volumes,• ability to meet desired pedestrian

pathways/connectivity,• traffic volume (peak hour and AADT),• traffic speed*Note – Recommended approach indicated in red

AECOM



• The County should implement a formal pedestrian crossing warrant policy and procedure to be used during road upgrades, new development applications, or where an existing need is identified, based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 requirements, which include.

• pedestrian volumes, • ability to meet desired pedestrian pathways/connectivity, • traffic volume (peak hour and AADT), • traffic speed

4.5.5 Truck Route Polices

The County currently has no truck restrictions in place on the County Road system, other than site specific restrictions that are often used to limit loads during the spring or implement weight restrictions on older structures. The County policy has been to permit truck traffic on all County Roads. Figure 4-30, below, outlines the range of possible Truck Route policy alternatives (from passive to aggressive) and highlights the recommended policies in red. In summary, it is recommended that a permissive truck route policy be implemented (using Truck Route signage) to direct heavy trucks to preferred routes (linked to the County Road Classification System). A restrictive Truck Route prohibition would only be used to ban heavy trucks from designated routes (again linked to County Road Classification System) where an appropriate alternate route is available. It should be recognized that the restrictive bans may be difficult to enforce in rural areas. The County should also implement a policy to formally review the benefits-costs of upgrading the pavement on County Roads during planned rehabilitation projects to accommodate all-season truck traffic on routes leading to key trucking generators that play a role in supporting the local economy of the County or local municipalities.

Figure 4-30:Truck Route Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

AECOM



5. Plan Implementation

The key recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan can be implemented through a series of strategic policies and specific infrastructure optimization / improvements. Many of the policy recommendations can be incorporated into policy documents within the Official Plan which in turn can be implemented through the processing of land use applications under the Planning Act. For the purpose of this report, we have not identified any detailed capital allocations or suggested timing for the implementation of these policies as they will require further scoping and political input. It is recommended that the County allocate funding for the further development and implementation of these policies, which should be reviewed on an annual basis, to support the recommended strategies.

Figure 5-1: Class EA Process for Recommended Projects

Transportation Master PlanReport

30 Day Public Review Period Schedule ‘C’ ProjectsSchedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ Projects

PHASE 3Identify Alternative Design Concepts, Potential Environmental Effects, and the Preferred Concept

Mandatory Review

Agency / Public Consultation

PHASE 4Prepare Environmental Study Report

Documentation

Discretionary Review

Agency / Public Consultation

Mandatory Review Agency / Public Consultation

Environmental Study Report

30 Day Public Review Period

Appeal Period to MOE

PHASE 5Prepare Drawings & Documents, Proceed to

Construct, Operate & Monitor Project

Environmental Screening

If Required

AECOM



The Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects provides for four types of projects or activities:

Schedule A - municipal maintenance, operational and emergency activities - pre-approved; therefore, municipality can proceed without further approval under the EA Act

Schedule A+ - pre-approved; however, the public is to be advised prior to project implementation

Schedule B - projects with the potential for some adverse environmental effects - these are approved subject to a screening process including consultation with directly affected public and agencies

Schedule C - projects with the potential for significant environmental effects which must proceed under the planning and documentation procedures outlined in the Municipal Class EA document

For the implementation of specific infrastructure optimization / improvement projects, the Transportation Master Planning process is intended to address the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 Municipal Class EA planning process, providing an assessment of the problem or opportunity and an assessment of alternative solutions. For the infrastructure projects recommended as part of the Master Plan that fall within the Schedule B category, approval of the Master Plan will constitute approval to proceed with the project. For more extensive Schedule C projects, with higher potential for environmental affects (both positive and negative), further project specific Environmental Assessment Studies may need to be completed by the County to examine alternative designs prior to implementation. Implementation recommendations for the key elements of the Transportation Master Plan are outlined below.

5.1 Walking and Cycling

A number of recommendations have been put forward to address walking and cycling which will require policy support and potentially some level of funding from the County. Facilitating linkages to other existing trails or other elements such as development of mapping for promotional and marketing material will require funding and it is recommended that the County allocate approximately $50,000 / year or a combination of in kind services and funding to provide marketing and promotional support for the development of cycling and trail mapping and promotional material. It is recommended that the County work with the City of Peterborough and organizations such as the Peterborough Bicycle Advisory Committee, Peterborough Green Up, and other private cycling groups to foster awareness of new and future cycling / trail infrastructure and provide amenities (benches, trail maps, etc.) along key routes. It is also recommended that the County establish a walking and cycling funding program to assist community groups and local municipalities with seed funding to implement walking and cycling facilities and infrastructure in local communities. While the types of initiative that would qualify for funding and the funding limits and conditions can be established and reviewed annually, some potential programs to receive funding could include:

• Printing and provision of local trail maps • Providing trail signage to link to the County trail network or future cycling routes

AECOM



• Providing bicycle racks at key municipal facilities (municipal offices, parks, community centres, etc.)

• Establishing new trails that connect to the County trail / cycling route system • Providing benches or other amenities along walking trails

The costs associated with the County’s contribution towards Walking and Cycling initiatives should be reviewed and adjusted annually. In other municipalities, funds dedicated to facilitate walking and cycling have been in the order of 1% to 7% of the annual transportation budget. The suggested $50,000 / year investment represents approximately 2.7 % of the budget suggested to fund capital road projects in the short term time period.

5.2 Transit

The assessment of opportunities to introduce County transit services identified a significant cost for a full day transit services under a County delivery model. In addition to the capital start-up costs to acquire buses, the level of annual funding required to operate the four proposed conceptual routes running hourly service for 8 hours per day would be in the range of $420,000 - $620,000 per year. The Lakefield / Curve Lake and Bridgenorth / Millbrook service options provide the highest ridership potential and thus the lowest subsidy requirements of approximately $61,000-$139,000 per year and $71,000-$143,000 per year respectively. It should be noted that there is an opportunity to adjust the service frequency and the number of routes to match funding availability; thus the proposed hourly service represents an upper bound for rural transit frequencies. As previously noted, the frequencies used by most rural transit services in other Ontario communities are quite low with many providing only a single round-trip per day. As discussed in the previous section, the City of Kawartha Lakes recently suspended their one-year Municipally-operated rural transit project due to low ridership and high costs, and then re-introduced a more limited rural service in the Summer of 2013. Although it is not possible for transit service to be profitable or self-sufficient on the basis of fare revenues alone, contracting the operations of a transit service to a private operator would limit the required subsidy / risk to a known contract amount. This approach is currently used by Norfolk County’s Ride Norfolk transit service and it is the recommended approach for Peterborough County, should it move forward. Potential bidders / operators for a Peterborough County transit service tender may include Coach Canada (existing private operator), Peterborough Transit, Community Care Peterborough, and other private operators (Métis Transit, School Bus Operators, etc.). It is recommended that the County initiate a transit working group to facilitate more detailed assessment and consideration of options for how to structure a tender for transit services in the County. While the terms of reference for the working group would be established by County Council, it is expected that this group would be directed to:

• Work with a procurement advisor to structure a Request for Information to solicit input for potential operators on the level if interest and commercial terms for a future Request for Proposals to operate and finance County Transit services;

• Undertake a detailed business plan for transit service delivery over various routes and various levels of service and fee structures to establish a benchmark cost for budgeting purposes and the negotiation of municipal funding contribution agreements;

AECOM



• Seek funding from the provincial and federal governments to cover feasibility planning and operating costs

• Explore opportunities to pool or share transportation funding with other programs and services areas (e.g. Ontario Works);

• Work with local municipalities to determine interest in providing transit services and municipal funding contributions, including a funding formula;

• Develop service levels and performance standards, along with optional service level packages for tendering;

• Recommend a County budget allocation for transit services; and • Prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for transit services, evaluate submissions, and

prepare a final recommendation for County Council consideration.

5.3 Road Network Infrastructure Priorities and Costing

To guide the County in managing the implementation of the infrastructure plans recommended in this Transportation Master Plan, a suggested timing for recommended projects has been developed based on:

• Committed projects currently budgeted in the County Road Capital program • Forecasts of transportation demands for interim horizon years and assessment of when the

improvements are required to address deficiencies. The horizon years assessed for road improvement costs include:

o Short Term (0 --- 10 years) o Medium Term (10 – 20 years) o Long Term (20+ years)

• The need to undertake future Class EA studies to determine the recommended design for

road improvements projects. For Schedule C projects this could include route planning (for new road corridors), preliminary engineering design (initial design, mitigation of local impacts, refine cost estimates, etc.), and property acquisition (where required). For Schedule A and B projects, this would include completion of detailed design and preparation of tender drawings.

• The desire to distribute capital budget requirements across the life of the plan.

The County may choose to implement the recommended projects in a different order or phasing than has been suggested in the Master Plan in order to accommodate other council priorities such as the need to coordinate with other infrastructure works (e.g. sewer work), planned developments in the area, or other considerations beyond the scope of this project. The capital funding requirements for the proposed road improvements identified for the Transportation Master Plan are summarized on the following Tables for short term (0-10 years) , medium term (10-20 years) and long term ( 20+ years) time horizons.

AECOM



Table 5-1: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (0-10 Years)

Short Term (0-10 Years) Road Improvements

Municipality Road Location Type of Improvement EA Schedule Cost ($2013)

Committed Projects

HBM County Road 30 Highway 7 – Old Norwood Rd

Upgrade Standards B $2,100,000 1

SEL County Road 20 County Rd 18 to County Rd 23

Upgrade Standards B $10,824,000 6

CM/OSM County Road 28 at County Rd 21 New roundabout B (EA complete) $600,000 1

SEL County Road 29 Concession St. (Lakefield) Traffic Signals A+ $320,000 1

SEL County Road 18 at County Rd 29 Traffic Signals A+ $250,000 1

SEL County Road 18 Peterborough Limit to County Rd 1

Interim Widening (turn lanes)

B $800,000 2

CM County Road 11 Montcrief Rd to Airport Rd Realignment C (EA Complete) $2,200,000 1

Subtotal Committed Projects (0-10 years) $17,100,000

New Projects

SEL County Road 23 at County Rd 22 All Way Stop A $110,000 1

SEL County Road 18 Gore St. To Champlain St Widening to 3 lanes (centre turn lane)

C $2,400,000 3

SEL County Rd 14 James A Gifford Causeway Reconstruction – Phase 1 C (EA Complete) $2,200,000 4

SEL County Road 18 at County Rd 14 (Causeway)

New roundabout B (EA complete) $1,800,000 4

SEL County Road 14 at County Rd 16 (Causeway)

Traffic Signals B (EA complete) $400,000 4

SEL County Road 18 at County Rd 29 Traffic Signals A $250,000

DD County Road 6 at County Rd 4 Operational Improvement A $25,000



SEL County Road 16 at County Rd 17 Operational Improvement A $15,000

SEL County Road 18 at County Rd 24 Operational Improvement A $15,000

HBM County Road 48 at 6th Line Operational Improvement A $75,000

Subtotal New Projects (0-10 years) $7,325,000

Total Cost $24,425,000

Cost per year $2,443,000

AECOM



Notes: 1) Cost estimates based on County of Peterborough Ten Year Capital Forecast (2013-2022) 2) Cost estimates based on County of Peterborough Ten Year Capital Forecast (2013-2022). Project originally recommended in 2004 TMP – 1.0km @ $800,000 / km. Timing influenced by local development. 3) Cost estimates based on County of Peterborough Ten Year Capital Forecast (2013-2022) and Ward Street Widening Feasibility Study (DM Wills, 2011). 4) Cost estimates based on County of Peterborough Ten Year Capital Forecast (2013-2022) and completed Schedule C Class EA Study (Bytown Engineering, 2013). 5) All cost estimates exclude property 6) Cost estimate based on 9.0 km @ $1.2M /km full reconstruction AN – Asphodel-Norwood CM – Cavan-Monaghan DD – Douro-Dummer HBM – Havelock-Belmont-Methuen NK – North Kawartha OSM – Otonabee-South Monaghan SEL – Selwyn TL – Trent Lakes

AECOM



Table 5-2: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (10-20 Years)

Medium-Long (10-20 Years) Road Improvements

Municipality Road Location Type of Improvement EA Schedule Cost ($2013)

Committed Projects

SEL County Road 19 County Rd 18 to Hilliard St

Upgrade Standards C $1,360,000 4

HBM/NK County Road 46 County Rd 504 to S. of Oak Lake

Upgrade Standards C $18,840,000 4

NK County Road 56 Hwy 28 to County Rd 6 Upgrade Standards C $15,120,000 4

SEL County Road 33 Hwy 28 to County Rd 32 Upgrade Standards B $1,600,000 4

SEL County Road 18 Peterborough Limit to Wild Water & Wheels

Widening to 5 lanes (center turn lane)

C $2,200,000 1

SEL County Road 18 Wild Water & Wheels to County Rd 1

Widening to 5 lanes (center turn lane)

C $2,500,000 1


New Projects

SEL County Road 18 County Rd 1 to Bridgenorth

Widen to 4/5 Lanes C $5,500,000

DD County Road 4 Television Road to University Road (County Rd 41)

New alignment Widen County Rd 4 to 4 lanes

C $6,400,000 2

SEL County Road 33 County Rd 29 – Peacock Road

New Arterial 2 lanes C $3,800,000 3

SEL County Road 23 at County Rd 22 Reconstruction, turning lanes, Traffic Signals

B $2,300,000

DD County Road 6 at County Rd 4 Intersection Reconstruction B $800,000

DD County Road 6 at County Rd 40 Reconstruction B $1,800,000

DD County Road 8 at County Rd 38 Reconstruction B $2,200,000

Subtotal New Projects (10-20 years) $22,800,000


Cost per year $6,442,000

AECOM



Notes: 1) Cost estimates based on $2.5M/km rural widening to 5 lanes 2) Opportunity to cost share this project with City of Peterborough – included in City TMP 2012. 3) A share of project costs will be borne by development in Lakefield South Area – project would be initiated by local development 4) Assume full reconstruction @ 1.2M /km 5) All cost estimates exclude property AN – Asphodel-Norwood CM – Cavan-Monaghan DD – Douro-Dummer HBM – Havelock-Belmont-Methuen NK – North Kawartha OSM – Otonabee-South Monaghan SEL – Selwyn TL – Trent Lakes

AECOM



Table 5-3: Road Network Improvement Plan & Priorities (20+ Years)

Long Term (20+ Years) Road Improvements

Municipality Road Location Type of Improvement EA Schedule

Cost ($2013)

Committed Projects

CM County Road 28 Fraserville to Hwy 115 Widen to 4/5 Lanes C (EA Complete)

$7,750,000 1

SEL County Road 29 Peterborough Limit – 7th Line Widen to 4/5 Lanes C $12,300,000 1

NK County Road 33 Peacock Road to County Road 32

New Arterial 2 lanes + Bridge across Otonabee River

C $12,300,000 2

SEL County Road 33 Hwy 28 to CR 32 Upgrade Standards B $1,600,000 3

SEL County Road 18 Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 1 S. of Bridgenorth to County Road 14

New 2 Lane Arterial C $8,300,000

SEL County Road 18 Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 2 County Road 14 to County Road 20

New 2 Lane Arterial C $8,600,000 4



Notes:

1) Cost estimates based on 2004 TMP estimated escalated to 2014 at 2%/yr. 2) Updated Cost Estimate based on 250m bridge x 15 m width @ $2750/m2 + approach roads. 3) Assume full reconstruction @ 1.2M /km 4) Recommended in 2004 TMP for Corridor Protection – Cost based on 2.2km @ $3.9M/km 5) All cost estimates exclude property AN – Asphodel-Norwood CM – Cavan-Monaghan DD – Douro-Dummer HBM – Havelock-Belmont-Methuen NK – North Kawartha OSM – Otonabee-South Monaghan SEL – Selwyn TL – Trent Lakes

AECOM



5.4 Official Plan Amendment

The Transportation Master Plan is not a statutory document and therefore has no legal status. For that reason, many of the recommendations contained in the updated Plan should be incorporated into the County Official Plan to provide a statutory basis for the application and enforcement of transportation policies contained in the Plan and for longer term corridor protection and road widening requirements. As part of the next update to the County Official Plan, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the policies in the Transportation section:

The County Road Classification System – this should be incorporated into the Official Plan and on the applicable transportation schedules. The policies should be updated to reflect the different role and function of each category of County Road and reference could be made to applicable design standards that would govern entrances and site access associated with new development. A road widening / right-of-way table should be included in the Official Plan to provide a legal basis for acquiring future right-of-way to accommodate long term needs as properties redevelop.

The Transportation section of the Official Plan should be updated to reflect the recommendations with respect to active transportation within this Transportation Master Plan. While the Active Transportation / Cycling Network map presented in this TMP is preliminary in nature, the final network map refined in consultation with municipalities should be incorporated as a Schedule in the Official Plan.

New transportation corridors identified in this Transportation Master Plan should be included in the Official Plan Roadway Schedule as “Future Proposed County Roads”. Polices should be incorporated into the Official Plan to protect these corridors from encroachment due to development. These long term corridors include:

o The Bridgenorth By-pass – in accordance with the findings and recommendations in this Transportation Master Plan, a note should be placed in the roadway schedule indicating that the current transportation plan does not project a need for the by-pass during the current planning horizon (2012-2031). This would be subject to a review in the next Transportation Master Plan Update in 2016. Since approval of the Class EA for the Bridgenorth By-pass, the County of Peterborough has begun implementation of the project, beginning with the interim improvements on County Road 18 / Ward Street that were approved as part of the conditions of EA approval.

o The Bridgenorth By-pass – Phase 2 – this corridor, from the approved By-pass route to County Road 20 should be identified in the Official Plan for long term corridor protection in accordance with the 2004 Transportation Master Plan. The current transportation plan does not project a need for the by-pass during the current planning horizon (2012-2031). This would be subject to a review in the next Transportation Master Plan Update in 2016.

o Television Road Extension to County Road 4 – this proposed new roadway link, as illustrated in the Transportation Master Plan should be identified in the Official Plan, subject to the refinement of the actual route during a Schedule C Class EA study.

o County Road 33 Extension - New E-W Arterial Road - the recommended extension of County Road 33 east to connect to County Road 29 should be identified in the

AECOM



Official Plan along with the longer term bridge crossing of the Otonabee River. The current transportation plan does not project a need for the new bridge crossing during the current planning horizon (2012-2031). This would be subject to a review in the next Transportation Master Plan Update in 2016.

o Norwood By-pass – the previously recommended Norwood By-pass, recommended in the previous Transportation Master Plan, should continue to be maintained in the Official Plan. The need for this corridor protection should be reviewed upon MTO completion of the Peterborough Area and Highway 7 Transportation Study which should provide a long term provincial vision for the Highway 7 corridor.

o East Side Highway By-pass – the previous MTO concept of a long term East Peterborough By-pass should be maintained in the Official Plan as a “long term corridor protection area”. The need for this corridor protection should be reviewed upon MTO completion of the Peterborough Area and Highway 7 Transportation Study which should provide a long term provincial vision for provincial highway improvement needs in the Peterborough Area.

5.5 Transportation Master Plan Monitoring and Updates

The success of long-range plans depends on the ongoing monitoring of relevant conditions, actions, and impacts. The County of Peterborough must remain aware of its progress toward key objectives, so that it can add, modify, or delete priorities as needed. Through the study, the County has adopted a transportation strategy and laid out a plan to attain the particular transportation goals associated with it. As identified in the plan, a number of transportation capital works projects would be required, along with an aggressive program of other initiatives. Many of these components of the plan are based on prevailing attitudes of County residents and forecasted future travel demands over the transportation network based on future land use development patterns. The Plan must be able to respond to changes in these factors that might affect demand or the emphasis placed on alternative modes of transportation. Ongoing monitoring would also be necessary in determining the effectiveness of the initiatives identified in the plan in meeting the adopted strategic direction. Ideally the performance measures can be tied to broader municipal management measures such as, the Municipal, Performance Measurement Program (MPMP). A Transportation Master Plan is not intended to be a static document and must retain some measure of flexibility and be adaptable to changes in the travel behaviour, and other conditions in the County. As growth and economic conditions change over the next few years the County should consider the need to update this Master Plan to take advantage of, or reflect changes beyond the scope of this study. This can be best accomplished through ongoing monitoring of relevant conditions and periodic updates to the Travel Demand Model and Master Plan. The following recommendations should be considered in the ongoing monitoring of transportation conditions in the County:

AECOM



Corridor Traffic Count Program (ATR) – The County currently conducts a traffic count program to undertake daily traffic counts on sections of the County Road network. These volumes are used to determine current Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes on each of the road segments. Throughout the Master Plan process, it was echoed by both residents and municipal representatives that recreation and tourist traffic, which typically occurs on weekends and during the summer, contribute to the transportation challenges in the County. It is suggested that, as a minimum, Class A and Class B County Roads be monitored on a seasonal basis, with counts during the fall or spring followed by counts during the summer peak season. Class C roads in high tourist areas should also be considered for enhanced monitoring, particularly when considering upgrades or reconstruction activities in the next 5 years. The time period of these daily traffic counts should cover a 7 day period to include weekend traffic. Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) - The County should also continue to participate in the TTS, undertaken every 5 years, to provide an update of transportation patterns in the County and surrounding area and to ensure that up to date information is available to assess changing transportation trends in the community. Transportation Plan Review & Updates As noted previously, a Transportation Master Plan is not intended to be a static document and must retain some measure of flexibility and be adaptable to changes in the travel behaviour, and other conditions in the County. It is recommended that the Transportation Master Plan be reviewed and/or updated every 5 years, in conjunction with statutory requirements to review the Official Plan. Given the close integration between land use planning, land use policy, and transportation; any updates to the Transportation Master Plan should be undertaken in conjunction with the Official Plan Update. As public consultation is a key input to the completion of a strategic Transportation Master Plan, all future TMP updates should include a proactive and comprehensive public outreach program featuring formal Public Consultation Centres, stakeholder workshops, and other innovative outreach strategies to solicit input from a wide cross section of the Community.

Transportation Master Plan Update · 2016-12-15 · AECOM Transportation Master Plan Update TMP...

Documents

Transcript of Transportation Master Plan Update · 2016-12-15 · AECOM Transportation Master Plan Update TMP...