Public Information Centre #2 Summary

Transcription

1 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 Public Information Centre #2 Summary Introduction The following provides an overview of Public Information Centre (PIC) #2, held as part of the Transportation Master Plan Update that is being completed in accordance with the planning and design process of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document dated 2000, as amended in 2007 and Purpose The purpose of PIC #2 was to present: the Municipal Class EA process for developing a Transportation Plan; a review of the existing technical information set out in the current Transportation Plan; and, a review of the technical information that had been completed since PIC #1. In addition, PIC #2 was held to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and/or provide comments to members of the Study Team. To accommodate residents throughout the County, three (3) PIC #2 events were held at key locations throughout the County (i.e., Millbrook, Bridgenorth and Norwood). A description of each location is provided below. Public and Agency Notification The notice for PIC #2 was posted on the City s website on July 30, In addition, the notice was posted in local newspapers, as per the following schedule: The Millbrook Times Thursday, August 9, 2012 The Peterborough Examiner Wednesday, August 22 and Saturday, August 25, 2012 The Lakefield Herald Friday, August 24, 2012 The EMS/Shield Thursday, August 30, 2012 Notice of PIC #2 was also mailed via standard delivery on August 14, 2012 to residents who had previously expressed an interest in the study, agencies and Aboriginal communities/ organizations. In total, approximately 43 members of the public were included as part of the mailing list. Display Material In summary, the following information was presented at PIC #2: Process for Developing the Transportation Plan Work Completed to Date Consultation to Date and Public Information Centre #1 What we have heard from others Growth in the County Growth Forecasts Used in Updated Transportation Plan 2031 Forecasting/Future Deficiencies Review of 2004 Recommendations Roadway Improvement Needs/Alternatives - Bridgenorth

2 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 Feasibility Review - Ward Street Widening to 3 Lanes, Bridgenorth Roadway Improvement Needs/Alternatives - Lakefield Roadway Improvement Needs/Alternatives - Donwood Alternative Road Network Evaluation Criteria Recommended Intersection Improvements Policy and Standards Review Planning for Active Transportation Active Transportation in Other Communities Active Transportation - Alternatives County Transit Service - Potential Demand County Transit Service - Potential Costs County Transit Service - Alternatives Roadway Classification - Alternatives Design Standards - Alternatives Intersection Traffic Control/Safety Policy - Alternatives Traffic Calming/Crosswalk Policy - Alternatives Truck Route Policy - Alternatives Next Steps and Comments and Questions A copy of the information presented at PIC #2 is included in Appendix A of this report. It should be noted that the same information was presented at each PIC event. PIC #2 Attendance As noted, three (3) PIC #2 events were held at key locations throughout the County, as described herein. Millbrook This PIC event was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, from 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 402, on King Street, Millbrook. Ten attendees signed the register and no comment forms were received at the time of the PIC. Bridgenorth This PIC event was held on Wednesday, August 29, 2012, from 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Bridgenorth Community Hall, on Charles Street, Bridgenorth. In total, seventy-nine (79) attendees signed the register and twenty-five (25) comment forms were received at the time of the PIC. Norwood This PIC event was held on Thursday, September 6, 2012 at the Asphodel-Norwodd Community Centre, on Alma Street, Norwood. In total, seven (7) attendees signed the register and no comment forms were received at the time of the PIC.

3 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 In total, 32 comment forms were received by the requested submission date of September 21, In addition, approximately 5 s were received from the public. Summary of Comments Received A comment form 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 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 to questions 1 and 2 is provided in Appendix B of this report. Based on the tallied responses received with respect to question 3, the majority of respondents generally preferred the passive and moderate approaches to transportation policies. Specifically, the moderate approach to each of the transportation policies was preferred, with the exception of the truck route policy, where a passive policy approach was generally preferred by respondents. In addition to the above, respondents were provided the opportunity to provide additional comments as part of the comment form 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 B). Comments received via correspondence following the PIC events have also been reviewed and/or considered. 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 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 area Economic impacts associated with a potential bypass of the community Costs associated with transportation studies and/or a construction of a bypass Timing of signals through downtown Bridgenorth

4 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 The need to improve the causeway Commercial vehicle travel through the downtown area

5 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 APPENDIX A PIC #2 PRESENTATION MATERIAL

6 Welcome Peterborough County Transportation Plan Update PIC # 2 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Royal Canadian Legion 9 King Street East Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Bridgenorth Community Hall 836 Charles Street Thursday, September 6, 2012 Asphodel-Norwood Community Centre 88 Alma Street 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. Millbrook Bridgenorth Norwood

7 Process for Developing the Transportation Plan This Transportation Plan is being developed in accordance with the planning and design processes of the Municipal Class EA and incorporates the key principles of environmental planning under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The master plan study will follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. Phase 1 Problem / Opportunity Phase 2 Alternative Solutions PIC #1 PIC #2 PIC #3 Data Collection & Review Identify Problems and Opportunities Examine Alternatives Develop Implementation Strategy Transportation Plan WE ARE HERE The master planning process identifies a recommended set of proposed works and the rationale for their implementation. For some infrastructure projects identified in the Transportation Plan additional phases of the Municipal Class EA process will be required. The level of complexity of an individual project and the potential impacts of that project on the environment determines which phases need to be addressed, the level of detailed required to be examined, and the extent of mitigation that may be required in future work.

8 Work Completed to Date Data collection & review (traffic counts) Review of 2004 Transportation Plan Review of other background materials Consultation PIC 1 Sept 21/24, 2011 (Bridgenorth / Buckhorn) Numerous comments received from various stakeholder groups Discussions with City / MTO to obtain information on future plans Updated City Transportation Model for County Use Recommendations for short term improvements at 10 hot-spot intersections Initiate review of transit feasibility Review of growth forecasts Preliminary forecasting future demands / deficiencies Identification of improvement alternatives Identification of policy alternatives Consultation Meeting with Bridgenorth business representatives Data Collection & Review Identify Problems and Opportunities

9 Consultation to Date Public Information Centre #1 Summary of Comments Received Bridgenorth Bypass Bridgenorth Public Library Photo Credit: Levitt Goodman Architects Public Information Centre # 1 September 21 and 24, stakeholders attended (most attended in Bridgenorth) 10 comment sheets submitted at the PIC and 16 comments submitted after the event Many stakeholder questioned the need and felt the business and environmental impacts were too great compared to the benefits, Some stakeholders supported the by-pass and wanted construction to begin in short term County installation of Traffic lights at Ward St / Wilcox St - timing of work Need to assess feasibility of extending centre turning lane on Ward Street further south through Bridgenorth MTO Bypass (east side of Peterborough) Need for improved Trail Connections Consideration for Elderly road users Earlier implementation of previous recommendations (e.g. airport and university connections) Need to improve CR 23 / 22 intersection (Buckhorn Road at Curve Lake Road)

10 What we have heard from others Transit There is a strong desire for the introduction of transit services to County municipalities Residents need mobility options for travel into Peterborough and between County municipalities Promotes employment accessibility and provides mobility for those who cannot drive (seniors, physically challenged, etc) City/County already spending money on specialized transportation services for Ontario Works clients (van service, other transportation subsidy) Support from: Trent University Peterborough Partnership Council on Immigration Integration Peterborough Sustainability Council Peterborough Social Services Various Townships / Council Resolutions Active Transportation The County should do more to support active transportation Sustainability benefits with shifts from auto travel Health benefits for young and old alike Need infrastructure and policy support for walking and cycling Support from: Peterborough County-City Health Unit Peterborough Sustainability Council Peterborough Social Planning Council Various Townships / Council Resolutions Roads Many of the 2004 recommended projects are still needed and should be implemented Timing related to recent growth trends should be considered Revisit Bridgenorth By-Pass Support from: Various members of the public

11 Growth in the County Projected Population Growth Peterborough County, Reference Scenario* Source: Statistics Canada & Lapointe Consulting *Reference Scenario is based on current trends Municipality 2006 Census Forecasts vs Actual 2011 Reference Forecast Projected Growth Census Actual Growth Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield 17,413 18, % 16, % Otonabee-South Monaghan 6,934 7, % 6, % North Kawartha 2,342 2, % 2, % Havelock-Belmont-Methuen 4,637 4, % 4, % Galway-Cavendish & Harvey 5,284 5, % 5, % Douro-Dummer 6,954 7, % 6, % Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan 8,828 9, % 8, % Asphodel-Norwood 4,247 4, % 4, % County Total 56,639 60, % 54, % Places to Grow forecast slower growth in the County 2011 Forecast City = 79,000 County = 58,000 Total = 137,000 City Total 74,898 78, % 78, % Total City-County 131, ,877 6% 133, % Projected Growth in County was estimated at 7.5% (1.5% / year) 2011 Census reveals that County has seen 3% reduction in population since 2006 (-0.6% / year) City growth on track with forecasts A 1.5% annual population growth rate would be required to meet original 2031 Reference (trend) forecast A 0.9% annual population growth rate would be required to achieve original 2031 Low Forecast Both of these growth rates are high compared to past growth An adjusted growth forecast has been utilized to assess transportation needs

12 Growth Forecasts Used in Updated Transportation Plan There are a number possible reasons for the population decline in the County: Demographic patterns are lowering average household sizes; Recent economic conditions are influencing choice of housing type (particularly for those on fixed incomes), and investment in employment/business properties; and Boundary changes since 2006 Census (Smith- Ennismore-Lakefield, Otonabee-South Monaghan) The municipalities with the highest original growth forecasts have only recently addressed servicing constraints: New Lakefield water tower is now built Otonabee-South Monaghan servicing agreement with the City Cavan decision to shift growth from Fraserville to Millbrook and service from existing system Municipality 2011 Reference Forecast Updated Forecasts 2031 Low Forecast Planned Growth Census Adjusted 2031 Forecast Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield 18,690 19,713 5% 16,846 17,905 Otonabee-South 7,488 8,262 10% 6,660 7,504 Monaghan North Kawartha 2,435 2,342-4% 2,289 2,164 Havelock-Belmont- 4,870 4,944 2% 4,523 4,581 Methuen Galway-Cavendish & 5,662 6,311 11% 5,105 5,812 Harvey Douro-Dummer 7,488 7,482 0% 6,805 6,755 Cavan-Millbrook-North 9,680 11,125 15% 8,601 10,170 Monaghan 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, , % 133, ,000 Therefore estimated growth from the 2011 to 2031 horizon from the original forecasts was applied to 2011 Census figures to estimate the future population by municipality for 2031

13 2031 Forecasting / Future Deficiencies Incorporates Recommended Improvements from City TMP (approved Nov 2011) Fewer deficiencies compared to previous TMP Due to lower growth forecasts Some hot spots similar to previous TMP (Bridgenorth) Deficiencies on CR 29 and within Lakefield are reduced Shift of growth to Millbrook has reduced travel demands on CR 28 Most capacity deficiencies in Peterborough Area Peterborough Area

14 Review of 2004 Recommendations Recommended Roadway Infrastructure Improvements (Transportation Plan, 2004) The lower 2031 population forecast will allow the County to defer many previously planned roadway capacity enhancement projects COUNTY ROAD CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 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) CR18 Bridgenorth By-pass Phase 1 Approved Route (CR18 / Ward Street to CR 14 Causeway) Widening still required - Pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives Widening still required - Pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives CR29 - Widen Lakefield Road to 4/5 lanes (City limit to new Mid Block Arterial N of 7 th Line) Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031 New Construct New E-W Mid Block Arterial South of Bridge St (CR29 to Katherine St) Pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives Partial implementation may be required to service development New Construct New 2 Lane Bridge Crossing of Otonabee River (Katherine St to Water St) New Bridge Crossing Not Required by 2031 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) Widen Nassau Mills Road to 4 lanes (University Road to Armour Rd) Consider for Rehabilitation / Operational Improvements In City TMP - Pending TMP Assessment of Alternatives In City TMP

15 Roadway Improvement Needs / Alternatives - Bridgenorth 2031 PM Peak Hour - Performance Original Forecast Existing Capacity Adjusted Growth Forecast Capacity (3 lane) With revised growth forecasts, planned widening to add a centre turning lane south through the village should defer the need for additional improvements until beyond 2025 By 2031 congestion through Bridgenorth represents an annual travel time cost of $2.2 M to County residents Alternatives to address long term needs include: Do Nothing Widening Ward St to 3 lanes Widening Ward St to 4 lanes Implementing the Bridgenorth By-Pass Hilliard Street Extension

16 Feasibility Review Ward St. Widening to 3 lanes - Bridgenorth In 2009 the County completed the Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study. This study recommended : Extend Two-Way-Left-Turn-Lane south from Gore Street to Champlain Street Install traffic signals at Ward Street / Wilcox Street - Completed 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 New traffic signals at Wilcox Street In 2012 the County completed a feasibility study for widening Ward Street to 3 lanes (Gore Street to Champlain Street): During peak periods queues can extend to Shell Gas Station (AM) and to Maitland St (PM) when traffic light changes. Queue dissipates relatively quickly Study confirmed that widening is feasible ($1.8 $2.1 Million) Sidewalks can be provided on both sides of Ward Street No property is required A number of private features within right-of-way that may need to be removed (retaining walls, gardens, porches, etc) A number of tress / utility poles will need to be removed Space for parking on boulevard will be removed Analysis with updated growth forecasts suggests that 3 lane cross section would continue to operate satisfactorily until +/ The 3 lane cross section would reach capacity by +/- 2025

17 Feasibility Review Ward St. Widening to 3 lanes - Bridgenorth Sidewalk tight to house Sidewalk will disturb trees Potential removal of front porch Removal of trees Removal of boulevard parking Removal of retaining wall / trees Potential removal of front porch Removal of retaining wall / trees Potential impact to gas pumps / concrete pad Concept drawings based on DM Wills, April 2012 Report

18 Roadway Improvement Needs / Alternatives - Lakefield 2031 PM Peak Hour - Performance Due to the lower growth forecasts the need for a new bridge crossing the Otonabee River (as recommended in the 2004 TMP) is not required until beyond 2031 Alternatives to address long term needs include: Widening Bridge Street to 5 lanes Implement mid-block Arterial roads in Lakefield South growth area

19 Roadway Improvement Needs / Alternatives - Donwood 2031 PM Peak Hour - Performance By 2031 County Road 4 through Donwood will be at / over capacity during peak periods. With the planned realignment of Television Road (from the City TMP) County Road 4 will also require widening. Other alternatives should be assessed. Alternatives to address long term needs include: Widening Television Road and County Road with Parkhill Rd / Television Road intersection improvements Television Road realignment to County Road 4 (from City TMP) Television Road realignment directly to University Road

20 Alternative Road Network Evaluation EVALUATION CRITERIA Technical Social/Cultural Environment Natural Environment Economic Criteria INDICATORS Network performance Potential to improve safety Reduction in travel delay Potential impacts/ benefits to neighbourhoods Potential impacts to heritage areas Potential impacts to agricultural areas Potential impact / benefit to downtown areas Potential effects on environmentally sensitive areas Potential impacts to watercourses Potential impacts to habitat areas Potential impacts on air quality Cost Community Accessibility Support Future Growth Areas and Facilitate Related Investment Support Goods Movement Potential impacts/ benefits or deterrents to businesses Each of the road network alternatives will be assessed under a series of evaluation criteria to compare their respective benefits and impacts using both quantitative and qualitative measures for the various indicators Are there any additional criteria or indicators that you feel are important to consider in evaluating these alternatives?

21 Recommended Intersection Improvements 1 2 Transportation Plan Update CR CR 6 Review removing trees in the north- east quadrant and improving the west approach grade for visibility Review fencing and intersection illumination options for animal crossing prevention CR CR 40 Potentially revise crest curve and remove brush in the southwest quadrant to improve visibility Possible four-way-stop control CR CR 38 3 Modify curvature during next rehabilitation to increase visibility Relocate curvature warning sign and add speed warming signage 5 CR CR17 Potential roundabout control Improve positive guidance and warning signs Use chevrons to highlight curvature 4 Review posted/advisory speed signage CR CR 14 Consider replacing stop controlled intersection with signals or roundabout Restrict shoulder parking and replace the no parking sign on the north side of CR14

22 Recommended Intersection Improvements Transportation Plan Update 6 CR 5 th Line Monitor traffic for signal requirements Remove brush in northeast quadrant to increase visibility 7 CR CR 24 Add pavement markings to indicate right-turn lane Remove brush in northwest quadrant to increase visibility 8 CR CR 29 Monitor traffic volumes to the point where signals are warranted or consider roundabout Review sight triangle from residential lane 10 CR 6 th Line Potential to reduce posted speed Modify position of stop line on south approach and add a stop line on north approach *Intersection 11 (CR21@CR28) is under county review for roundabout feasibility. 9 CR CR 23 Provide partial illumination Provide northbound left turn lane Consider all way stop/signals in conjunction with geometric improvements

23 Policy and Standards Review An assessment of current transportation policies has been undertaken, including an assessment of practices used in other jurisdictions. Policy Alternatives have been identified for many transportation issues reflecting different levels of emphasis. Feedback on these alternatives will be used to shape the transportation policy recommendations of the Updated Transportation Master Plan. Walking & Cycling Policies Review and update County polices to support active forms of transportation Reviewed best practices of other rural jurisdictions Policies for implementation of infrastructure on County Roads and for inclusion in the County Official Plan. County Transit Service Assess potential market served and opportunities to generate ridership; Consider various service options / costs / revenues and ridership levels for each community County Road Policies Roadway classification / access management policies Roadway design standards (including new features such as roundabouts) Review of current warrant criteria (i.e Two- way stop control, All-way stop control; pedestrian crosswalks, reduced speed zones, Community Safety zones, etc.) and update as required

24 Recognition of cycling and walking in Transportation Master Plans gaining prominence. Role of active transportation: Utilitarian mode of transportation: Commuting & school trips Improve the travel mode share Reduce reliance on the car Recreation: Bike tourism Cycling clubs Touring Planning for Active Transportation Key Considerations Network Routes should connect and link communities and destinations Cost / Affordability Construction and ongoing maintenance Maintenance Shoulder stability/pavement, pot holes and road grates Safety Visibility, signage, striping alerting drivers to presence of cyclists Facilities Bike racks / secure storage at community buildings and promoting private sector partnerships/co-operation Marketing Public awareness and education, economic development Direction by Council Cross connectivity to trails across municipalities Types of Cycling Facilities Shared road lane / signed route Paved shoulder ( m) Designated / striped bike lane Separated / buffered bike lane Off-road multi-use trail (3-4m) Transportation Plan Update Lower traffic volumes and/or lower speeds Higher traffic volumes and/or higher speeds

25 Active Transportation in Other Communities 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 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 Pave shoulders on some County roads Construct bicycle lanes in urban areas 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: Off-road multi-use trail on former CN railway line Connects Carrying Place to Picton Partially paved 15m wide, 49km long Routes mapped and promoted by cycling clubs

26 Active Transportation - Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Maintain existing off-road trail system. Support identification of additional off-road trails to create a broader network. Provide bike route signage for shared routes on County roads that are popular cycling routes. Support Peterborough Sustainability Plan and TransCanada Trail Completion Support municipalities in developing on-road bike facilities on local roads. Coordinate with stakeholders, such as local municipalities and cycling groups, to promote use of active transportation trails and facilities throughout the County. Passive Plus: Survey residents to gather input on approach. Develop County policies that support active transportation for commuting and school trips, as well as for recreational purposes. Encourage local municipalities to adopt similar policies. Develop an active transportation network plan that includes both on-road and offroad cycling facilities. Identify County roads that could be included as cycling routes and develop a plan to provide paved shoulders. When County roads are being rehabilitated, consider paved shoulders. Provide bike racks at County facilities. Promote identification of rest stops to support the active transportation network. Moderate Plus: Develop County vision and policies to support reduced reliance on cars and create complete streets within urban areas. Require municipalities to adopt similar policies. Adopt design standards for on-road bike facilities on County roads. Require paved shoulders on all County roads. Identify County roads where striped / marked bike lanes could be appropriate. Promote the County as a premier active transportation destination. Fully integrate active transportation into transportation and land use planning and decision making

27 County Transit Service Potential Demand Communities with highest potential demand include Millbrook, Lakefield, Curve Lake and Bridgenorth Based on other rural communities with transit service it is estimated that 2-4% of total daily trip making could be attracted to transit Potential Daily Transit Trips Into The City of Peterborough Community Estimated Population 2 % Mode Share 4% Mode Share Millbrook 1, Keene (village) Hiawatha First Nation Norwood 1, Havelock 1, Lakefield 2, Curve Lake First Nation Bridgenorth 1, Warsaw (village) Transit Market Trips were considered as Work, Home, or Facilitating a Passenger Based on Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) and Statistics Canada Community Flows data Deseronto Transit provides accessible public transportation services (Mon-Sat) between Deseronto, Napanee, Belleville, and Prince Edward County

28 County Transit Service Potential Costs 2% Mode Share 4% Mode Share Route Communities Daily Net Operating Cost (Cost Revenue) Daily Net Operating Cost (Cost Revenue) $3.50 Fare $5.00 Fare $3.50 Fare $5.00 Fare 1 Havelock/Norwood $670 $645 $614 $569 Niagara Region Transit Bus Service carried over 10,000 passengers in March Curve Lake FN/Lakefield $552 $480 $384 $240 3 Keene/Hiawatha FN $672 $652 $625 $584 4 Bridgenorth/Millbrook $566 $500 $412 $280 Four route concepts were assumed Based on an hourly service (8 hrs/day) An hourly operating Cost of $90* Total Daily Subsidy Cost $2,460 $2,277 $2,035 $1,673 Annual Subsidy Cost $620,000 $574,000 $513,000 $421,600 * Hourly operation from CUTA handbook,populations under 50,000, 2007 Preliminary Conclusions Significant subsidy required to fund basic transit service Four conceptual routes (running hourly service 8 hrs /day) would require $ ,000 annual subsidy under a County Service delivery model Lakefield / Curve Lake & Bridgenorth / Millbrook service options would appear to provide the best ridership potential and lowest subsidy requirements Lakefield / Curve Lake = Approx $ 61,000 $140,000 / year Bridgenorth / Millbrook = Approx $ 71,000 $143,000 / year Other service models may be feasible

29 County Transit Service Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Passive: Allow private sector to continue to provide ad hoc services where financially feasible Support Private Sector operators wishing to introduce service with inkind services / promotion, etc Moderate: Introduce joint transit service delivery model with existing / prospective transit operators Tender for private operator to offer services on one or more routes with preset service levels (schedules, days of week, hours of service, etc). County funds service up to a maximum annual value over life of contract. Final determination of routes and service levels would be based on bid prices and available County budget. Support Private Sector operators through advertising on County website, funding stop/shelters, offering online trip planning services, etc Aggressive: County establish a publicly owned and operated service running a fixed service (i.e. Monday Saturday) Up to 4 routes could be operated depending on available funding Integrate with City of Peterborough Transit to provide free transfers at current stops (included in fare) develop a revenue sharing agreement with Peterborough Transit Advertise service on County website, funding stop/shelters, offering online trip planning services, etc

30 Roadway Classification Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Transportation Plan Update 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) Moderate: Divide County Roads into two service categories: Major County Roads Minor County Roads Classifications based on various subcategories: 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 Minor County Arterial County Collector Allows for different development on varying roads. Classifications would be based on various subcategories, 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

31 Design Standards Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Transportation Plan Update Passive: There are no formal policies with respect to application of Design Standards There are no formal policies with respect to application of Design Speed and Posted Speed County typically follows TAC Design guideline or MTO Geometric Design Standards Moderate: Follow desirable design TAC standards for higher classification roadways Allow for use of minimum TAC design standards on lower classification roadways Develop Design / Posted Speed Limit policies based on County Road Classification System: Major County Road: Design speed = 100 km/h; Posted speed = 80km/h Minor County Road: Design speed varies from 80 to 90 km/h; Posted speed varies from 60 to 80km/h Aggressive: Introduce a policy to follow desirable design TAC standards for all roadway classifications Develop Design / Posted Speed Limit policies based on County Road Classification System: Major Arterial (RAU 100): Design speed = 100 km/h; Posted speed = 80km/h Minor Arterial (RAU 90): Design speed = 90 km/h; Posted speed = varies from 70 to 80km/h County Collector (RCU 80): Design speed = 80 km/h; Posted speed = varies from 60 to 70km/h Introduce Design Standards for County Roads located in Urban settings

32 Intersection Traffic Control / Safety Policy Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Passive: When signal warrants are met: First install AWSC (All Way Stop Control) Follow with signal installation where AWSC does not sufficiently address the operational issues Maintain signage and pavement markings as identified by County staff and the public. Review roadside barriers and signing in areas of capital projects Moderate: For an upgrade to existing traffic control measures, first consider AWSC where: LOS C can be achieved Adequate site distance is available Second, consider a roundabout or a traffic signal Review / upgrade signage and pavement markings as identified by County staff and the public. Conduct a safety based network screening of signage, pavement markings, and roadside barrier protection in areas slated for capital projects or with high collision experience; implement an improvement plan where appropriate. Aggressive: For an upgrade to existing traffic control measures, first consider a roundabout Second, consider AWSC where: LOS C can be achieved Adequate site distance is available Third, consider traffic signal Conduct a County-wide signage and pavement marking review and implement a systematic improvement plan across the county road network Complete systematic roadside barrier assessment and installation plan across the county road network with an emphasis on the removal of obstacles in the clear zone where feasible Reconstruct roads to improve sight distance on vertical and horizontal curves to be suitable for the posted speed limit Improve road alignment where the design speed of the curve is 20 km/h or more below the posted speed limit

33 Traffic Calming / Crosswalk Policy Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive 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 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 crosswalk 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 crosswalks 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

34 Truck Route Policy Alternatives Passive Moderate Aggressive Transportation Plan Update Passive: Permit trucks on all county roads Maintain spring half load restrictions Moderate: Introduce Permissive Truck Route policy using truck route signage to direct heavy trucks to preferred routes Link policy to County Road Classification System Undertake a cost-benefit review to upgrade pavement during rehabilitation projects to accommodate all-season truck traffic on routes leading to key generators Aggressive: Introduce Restrictive Truck Route policy that bans trucks on designated routes (may be difficult to enforce in rural areas) Link policy to County Road Classification System Design pavement during rehabilitation to accommodate all-season truck traffic on routes leading to key generators

35 Next Steps Review / incorporate public comments Develop Study Plan Evaluate long term network improvements Develop transportation policies and standards Hold PIC #3 to present Draft Transportation Plan Recommendations (Late Fall 2012) Identify Problems and Opportuni ties PIC #1 Sept 2011 Develop an implementation & funding plan to support the development of the ten and twenty year capital program Update Transportation Plan Report Assess Alternatives PIC #2 August 2012 Present Transportation Master Plan to County Council for approval Develop Implemen tation Strategy PIC #3 Oct / Nov 2012 Transportation Plan Dec 2012

36 Comments / Questions Your comments are welcome and very important to this study. Please fill in a comment sheet and deposit in the comment box. Alternatively, you can send you comments by mail, fax or to: Kevin Jones Project Manager AECOM Canada Ltd. 300 Water Street Whitby, ON L1N 9J2 Tel: , Ext Fax: Kevin.jones@aecom.com Chris Bradley Director of Public Works 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Tel: Ext. 337 Fax: cbradley@county.peterborough.on.ca Comments are requested by September 21, 2012.

37 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 APPENDIX B PIC #2 COMMENTS

38 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 Table 1 Comment Sheet Responses - Bridgenorth 1. Are there other road network improvement needs that should be considered in the Transportation Plan Update? Why? There should be turning lanes at 5 th Line on Chemong Road and at Wilcox on Ward Street to avoid rear end collisions. The road for Ward Street could be expanded. The light added could be timed more appropriately. This meeting/presentation has been a useless, expensive waste of time. We have told the County what we need between now and The current implementation of stop lights has made a wonderful difference. Delete the Bridgenorth bypass from the plan and concentrate on the causeway - far more important. Why do we keep coming back to discuss some issues and keep paying consultants for this for years? I would really like to know the monetary value of this. Widen Ward Street. Improve the causeway. I don t feel that there other road network improvements that need to be considered, some are already adequate. Fix Ward Street. Most people in Bridgenorth are seniors that need to get around. If a senior s residence built on the lake were available to these people they would sell their homes and stay in the village. The residents could have a bus to take these people where they need to go. There are more baby boomers moving north. More need for senior care now and support growth in the future. Keep money and people in Bridgenorth. The Bridgenorth bypass should be constructed and come out at Selwyn. No other road network improvements are needed. No other road improvement should be considered as I do not feel that more studies are needed. Currently the plan suggests a turning lane at County Road 22 and County Road 23. We would like to suggest a four way stop or a traffic light as the intersection is a danger. How can this question be answered when the plan showing possible improvements was at such a scale that it was impossible to tell exactly what roads had been considered and which are already included. Also, intersection on the plans and aerial photos only show County Road numbers. It would have been of great assistance to see local names of these roads. The 4-way stop at Curve Lake Road and Buckhorn Road is dangerous and almost impossible to cross on a busy weekend.

39 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 2. From the long term road network improvement alternatives presented, which improvements do you think should be constructed? Why? Three lanes in downtown Bridgenorth because it imposes less disruption to the environment. A bypass or midpass of Bridgenorth should be constructed as the roadway brings most transient traffic to the causeway. It is too busy through the town which is not conducive to a healthy downtown environment. Three lanes from the causeway through Bridgenorth on Ward Street at the stop south of the medical centre. There is no growth in Bridgenorth and no development will take place until a water/sewer system is installed. I do not feel any improvements are needed. There is no need to spend money we do not have. All three improvement alternatives should be constructed. The bypass to the causeway should be constructed as the Bridgenorth streets are too narrow. The 3-lane option will keep the flow and improve the look, putting many into Bridgenorth. I believe the 3-lane option plan should be constructed. As of today, there is no need for a bypass around Bridgenorth as there is not nearly the traffic congestion they are suggesting. Three lanes would be more than enough to establish flowing traffic through town. Three lanes through Bridgenorth is what I wish to see take place. As a local business owner this seems to be most logical for myself and my family. The widening of Ward Street and the repair of the causeway should be developed to improve what we have. The bypass can be discussed again when the community grows the extent and it is needed and affordable. This is what the community can afford at this time and should suffice until 2025 when further road enhancement can be discussed. The Hilliard Street exit would cut traffic on Chemong Road at a lesser cost than the 4- lane option and/or the bypass, thus solving traffic problems on Chemong and within Bridgenorth. Widen Ward Street to 3 lanes in the village, install water and sewer. Get the Township to support the growth in Bridgenorth and not all in Lakefield. The bypass will decrease commerce in the village while the Township wants more tax dollars - how does that work? Fix Ward Street. The widening of Bridgenorth should be constructed. However, a turning lane or 4 lane

40 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 remains difficult. Construct the bypass only if feasible to move some Bridgenorth businesses along that stretch of road. Make stop lights to aid in the flow so that both are stopped and parking lot traffic can get out or add another light at the mall entrance to allow crossing traffic to move. If anything at all has to be done, consider the 3-lane option for Bridgenorth. Does anything need to happen? The many people that are visiting like small towns and Bridgenorth is very picuresque. I think the Bridgenorth bypass should be constructed. I live off of Communication Road and getting onto Ward Street from there is a problem due to the steady stream of traffic. Going to three or four lanes wouldn t help; it would only make it more difficult. The 3 lane option through Bridgenorth should be constructed. I feel this will adequately support the flow of traffic up to The 3 lane option through Bridgenorth. All three are needed. A 3 rd Lane on Ward Street should be constructed in Bridgenorth to ease congestion due to turning. The 3 lane option through Bridgenorth should be constructed to improve traffic flow and support economic development. The 3 lane option through Bridgenorth is the most economically sound during tough times. Only one alternative was shown at a large scale for Bridgenroth: the three lane section from Communication Road.

41 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

42 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 Bridgenorth Bypass Table 2 Additional Comments Do not forget the 1526 signatures on the petition to eliminate the bypass proposal and associated presentation to Council. The Bridgenorth Business Association supports the 3-laning of Ward Street, but not the bypass. This option should be eliminated. The negative economic impact of building this bypass would eliminate Bridgenorth commercial entities, proven by both economic impact studies (Peterborough County and Save Bridgenorth Committee, 2011). Most importantly, the negative economic stranglehold that the threat of the bypass has had on the local business community for the past 20 years must be eliminated. No one will invest money in capital improvements or build new businesses in Bridgenorth, nor will banks provide finances while this bypass is on the future plan. If the bypass comes into being, I hope no commercial or private development is allowed. With development on it, traffic will be slowed down, defeating the purpose of the bypass. Also, the present commercial people will be much more in favour of the bypass. I do not support the bypass. As a long term resident of Ennismore and now Bridgenorth, my husband and I have always intended to remain and invest in this community. This will not occur if the bypass is implemented. I believe that it would be extremely detrimental to this vital community. This must be removed from the Transportation Plan. We have been here for 90 years and I would like to stay and expand. A bypass to the causeway should be constructed. Bridgenorth streets are too narrow. I m against the bypass - it will kill the business in Bridgenorth. I think the 3 lane option should be considered for Bridgenorth. It will keep the flow and improve the look, putting many into Bridgenorth and not a bypass. This is important. I believe the 3 lane road construction plan should be implemented. As of today, there is no need for a bypass through Bridgenorth as there is not nearly the traffic congestion they are suggesting. Three lanes would be more than enough to establish flowing traffic through town. Why would there not be a bypass of Bridgenorth that solved the total excess traffic policy? Selwyn Road should continue across 8 th Line. The bypass of Bridgenorth would then solve the truck problem. The widening of Ward Street and the repair, etc., of the causeway should be implemented. Remove the bypass from the books and develop and improve what we have. The bypass can be discussion again when the community grows the extent of it is needed and is affordable. This is what the community can afford at this time and should suffice until 2025 when further road enhancement can be discussed. I am personally interested in developing a property I currently own. I have spoken to 2 different parties that expressed interest in my land but both are concerned with the possibility of a bypass which would affect their individual businesses. This is not conducive to doing business in this community and a decision to either build the bypass or remove it from the books should be made so as I and others and develop or move on.

43 , Transportation Master Plan Update Public Information Centre #2 If you are going to build the bypass it doesn t make much sense to continue on with the beautification of Bridgenorth proposal. This project has been going on for over 30 years. You could develop the Frankhill Road to lessen the traffic flow at less cost. Work at the west side of the City to decrease the traffic. The bypass will decrease commerce in the village. Businesses in the village sometimes struggle. In Bridgenorth, the bypass will not support your slogan, Come grow with us. No Bypass. With regards to the Community Improvement Plan, if the bypass is approved, there is no need to improve Bridgenorth. Widening the street will impact those homes and businesses. Most do not have any room now. The majority of the bottleneck is felt between May and October. This process has been discussed at length before. The matter needs to be taken off of the books. Who is requesting the continuation as I m sure there are not many local people that would be in favour. It would kill local businesses and traffic and new road would interfere with the creek near the swamp and our farm. ORCA would not agree with the proposed bypass. We would like to express our views that the bypass should go ahead. When possible, we shop locally in Bridgenorth. However, 80% of the time we need to proceed to Peterborough and are delayed by the congestion in Bridgenorth, especially now with the new traffic lights installed. This view is probably representative of most people that live north of Bridgenorth. I think the bypass or midpass of Bridgenorth as road brings most transient traffic to the causeway. It is too busy through a small town and not conducive to a healthy downtown. There is no proof businesses will be affected by it. How can we save a small town by running a major highway through the middle of it? It may enhance it by having a friendlier pedestrian avenue. People will still come along Ward Street for coffee, bread, gas, etc. A third lane is difficult for people who live on Ward Street. It is only a stop gap measure. Traffic will always increase. We need a plan. We farm on Chemong Road 1 km south of the Medical Centre. The proposed bypass would cause more traffic and increase speeds. We travel this road everyday with tractors and machinery between May and November. Paved shoulders would help us in travelling this road. We are against the bypass and want it removed from the books for good. The 3 rd lane through Bridgenorth would be great for the village. The finances for this project are not available and will not be in the future especially considering other high priority projects (i.e., Chemong Causeway). The widening of Ward Street to three lanes will solve the traffic problems in Bridgenorth. This project is fully supported by the BBA and will create a positive economic impact for all businesses in the community as well as move the traffic through the community. We have no need to spend money we do not have nor have any need to do so. Fixing the causeway is a priority. Please do not waste any more time or money on consultants. Hilliard Street exit would cut traffic on Chemong Road at a lesser cost than the four lane