Final Report. March 2013

Transcription

1 Final Report March 213

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction The Town of Aurora has initiated an update to the Master Transportation Operations Study (MTOS) to better understand the transportation needs of the Town for the next decade. This study has considered broader uses of the road right-of-way than in the previous MTOS updates by including considerations for active transportation, trail and sidewalk connections and safety within the study scope as well as assessing and evaluating road network and intersection improvements needed to meet future traffic demands. This report is an amalgamation of discussion papers, each developed to document the results of eight inter-related studies comprising the Master Transportation Operations Study. They are: 1. Future Conditions Review 2. Transportation Network Options 3. Operations and Safety Review 4. Traffic Signal Progression on Yonge Street 5. Analysis of Traffic Signals Along Yonge Street 6. Walking and Cycling Needs Assessment 7. Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings 8. Sidewalk Priority Plan. The study included consultation and incorporates feedback from the public, various Town committees and departments, and Region of York. The following summarizes the dates of the public consultation and presentations. Presentation to Aurora Trails Sub-Committee March 2, 212 Public Open House May 1, 212 Presentation to Environmental Advisory Committee June 7, 212 Of the eight study modules, the following sections summarize the findings and recommendations basedonthreemajorthemesofthemtos: 1. Assessment of Future Conditions and Alternative Solutions 2. Operations, Safety, and Intersection Review 3. Active Transportation Network Assessment B. Assessment of Future Conditions and Alternative Solutions Growth will continue to strain the existing transportation network within the Town of Aurora. Aurora is projected to grow from 55, people today to 7, by 231 and the Town must establish plans and priorities to firstly maintain the safe and efficient movement of people and goods and also to meet increasing transportation demands including trips that pass through Aurora. i

3 York Region s Transportation Master Plan has identified both a Transit and Road Network vision for the Region both of which will have an impact on travel choices for Aurora residents. York Region s transit vision includes the following improvements impacting Aurora: New GO Station on the Barrie GO line at Bathurst Street and 15 th Sideroad / Bloomington Road Extension of the Richmond Hill GO line to Aurora Road and a new GO Station at Highway 44 and Bloomington Road Expressway bus service on Highway 44 Rural transit link along Aurora Road east of Highway 44 Road network improvements impacting Aurora include: Bloomington Road widening to 4 lanes from Bathurst Street to Highway 44 Bayview Avenue widening to 4 lanes from Bloomington Road to Wellington Street East St. John s Sideroad widening to 4 lanes from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street and from Bayview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue HOV lanes on Highway 44 Potential new interchange at St. John s Sideroad and Highway 44 Despite these improvements by 221, moderate to high levels of congestion will still be experienced but primarily on Regional Roads: Wellington Street East will be congested approaching Highway 44 Bloomington Road will be moderately congested between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street Leslie Street will experience southbound delay north of Wellington Street East Highway 44 will be highly congested north of Wellington Street east but only moderately congested south of Wellington Street East As Regional roads become more congested, some Town roads may be impacted as drivers seek alternative routes and cut through neighbourhoods to avoid the congestion. To address these anticipated deficiencies, three broad planning alternatives and network options were identified to improve the forecast transportation performance on the major roadways in the Town of Aurora: 1. Do-nothing 2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transit Improvements a. Implement strong TDM policies and programs b. Transit / feeder service on Wellington Street East and / or Bloomington Road ii

4 3. Road Improvements a. Widen Leslie Street from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (North of St. John s Sideroad to Wellington Street East) b. Widen Wellington Street East from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (Bayview Avenue to Highway 44) c. Widen Bloomington Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (Bayview Avenue to Highway 44) d. Widen Industrial Parkway South from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (Yonge Street to Vandorf Sideroad) e. Highway 44 and St. John s Sideroad Interchange The planning alternatives and the network options were evaluated with respect to provincial and municipal policies, transportation network impacts, natural environment impacts and cost of implementation and feasibility, and the table below summarizes the evaluation including recommendations for further study. Evaluation Summary of Planning Alternatives and Network Options Planning Alternative Policy Environment Transportation Network Impacts Environmental Impacts (Natural) Cost Recommendation 1 DoNothing Not Recommended 2a TDMPolicies Carry forward 2b Transit Improvements Carry forward 3a Widen Leslie Not Recommended 3b Widen Wellington Street East Carry forward east of Leslie only 3c Widen Bloomington Road Carry forward for further study beyond 221 3d Widen Industrial Parkway South Not Recommended 3e St. John's Sideroad I/C Carry forward for further study beyond 221 LEGEND Neutral impact with respect to Do-Nothing Minor Positive Impact Major Positive Impact Minor Negative Impact Major Negative Impact The analysis and evaluation of planning alternatives and network options led to the following recommendations. Recommendation 1: Carry forward the widening of Wellington Street East from 4 to 6 lanes for HOV and Transit (from Leslie Street to Highway 44) to York Region for implementation by 221. iii

5 Recommendation 2: Carry forward the new interchange at Highway 44 / St. John s Sideroad to MTO and York Region for potential earlier implementation by 221, if feasible. The need depends on the build-out of Area 2C lands and background traffic growth. If growth does not proceed as fast, the interchange will not be needed until after 221. Recommendation 3: Carry forward to York Region to further study the need for improvements beyond 221 on Bloomington Road (from Bayview Avenue to Highway 44). Recommendation 4: Explore both corridor-specific TDM and transit priority opportunities to reduce vehicle demand along the Wellington Street and Bloomington Road corridors. There are no Town roads recommended for capacity improvements by 221. C. Operations, Safety and Intersection Review A review of past and current collisions at intersections within Town of Aurora was conducted to develop a short-list of 1 intersections that were selected to determine if there were geometric, capacity, and safety concerns and what improvements could be made: 1. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street 2. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 3. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 4. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 5. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard 6. Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive 7. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive 8. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue 9. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive 1. Henderson Drive and McClellan Way / Baldwin Road The intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street was also reviewed from an operations and signal timing coordination perspective. The Town and Region have previously reviewed the operations and deficiencies at this intersection and will continue to collaborate on assessing opportunities and alternative improvements including the consideration of a southbound right turn lane on Yonge Street. Future geometric improvements at this intersection were beyond the scope of this study but any improvements on Yonge Street would have to be coordinated with YRT as it will impact bus operations. A variety of improvements were recommended to the Town for consideration and implementation: Explore opportunities to reduce number of driveways on Yonge Street near intersections through consolidation to minimize conflicts Remove obstructions at corners of intersections to improve/increase sightlines Explore increased enforcement options such as potential red-light camera at Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street due to high occurrence of angle collisions Install oversized stop signs and increase sign text where visibility and advance notification can be improved iv

6 Relocate signs where they obstruct sight lines At Edward Street and Engelhard Drive, consider realigning, moving and/or installing additional signal heads so that the signal heads are aimed at/aligned with the lanes they are responsible for controlling traffic Installation of pedestrian countdown signals at all signalized intersections Improving traffic progression on Yonge Street through signal timing modifications As a result of the last two recommendations, new countdown signals and new signal timing recommendations to improve traffic progression were installed in December 211. Prior to December 211, the signal timings and offsets on Yonge Street were observed to be uncoordinated resulting in unnecessary vehicle stops and queues. In May 212, York Region staff, Town staff, and HDR reassessed the signal coordination and observed the resulting progression in the field to develop the most recent changes to the signal timings and offsets. D. Active Transportation Network Assessment Given the growth within the Town and the growing demand for trails and related facilities for people of all ages, abilities and levels of mobility, the MTOS Update assessed how the Town can better support sustainable transportation and improve conditions for walking and cycling in addition to road infrastructure improvements. The study reviewed all relevant plans, priorities, and policies from the Town and Region of York to determine gaps and opportunities for improvements to the trails and cycling network within the Town. Additional recommendations for Town trails and cycling routes are shown to the right in red. Approximately 12.6 km of trails/cycling routes have been proposed. v

7 To address sidewalk gaps within the Town, a proposed sidewalk prioritization plan shown below was developed, based on the Region s Pedestrian Cycling Master Plan, the Town s Trails Master Plan, the proximity of sidewalk gaps to pedestrian-oriented attractions, road reconstruction program, and the Town s sidewalk installation policy. The Town should monitor its construction schedule for sidewalk installation triggers, as cost savings can be realized when a sidewalk installation is included as a part of an existing construction project or where developers will install sidewalks as a part of their development approval. The total cost for completing the sidewalk gaps will be approximately $11.5M and excludes any costs for sidewalk gaps that are installed when the road is reconstructed.) Proposed Sidewalk Gap Priority Plan Sidewalk Gap Implementation Estimated Cost 1 Industrial Parkway North -5 years $ 831,367 Industrial Parkway South -5 years $ 1,71,641 Mary Street from Wellington Street East to Industrial Parkway South -5 years $ 37,8 Adair Drive -1 years Part of road reconstruction Algonquin Crescent -1years Partof road reconstruction Corbett Crescent -1years Partof road reconstruction Davidson Road -1years Partofroad reconstruction Holman Crescent -1years Partof road reconstruction Industry Street -1 years Part of road reconstruction Johnson Road -1 years Part of road reconstruction Murray Drive from Kennedy Street West to Anderson Place -1 years Part of road reconstruction Tyler Street from George Street to Mill Street -1years Partof road reconstruction Baldwin Road -15years Partof road reconstruction Collins Crescent -15 years $ 18, Cousins Drive -15years $36,25 Hillview Road -15years $72, Kitmat Crescent -15 years $ 64,8 Knowles Crescent -15 years $ 114,75 Stoddart Drive part of Cossar Drive reconstruction -15 years Part of road reconstruction Bailey Crescent -1years Partofroad reconstruction Morning Crescent 6-15 years $ 49,5 Edward Street -1years $389,272 Haida Drive -1years Partof road reconstruction Patrick Drive 6-15 years $ 83,25 Hutchinson Road 6-15 years $ 2,7 Webster Drive 6-15years $87,75 Harriman Road from Wellington Street to Tyler Street 6-15 years Part of road reconstruction Duncton Wood Crescent 16+ years $ 123,75 Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive 16+ years $ 25,5 Limeridge Street 16+ years $ 9, vi

8 Sidewalk Gap Implementation Estimated Cost 1 Woodland Hills Boulevard 16+ years $ 135, Bathurst Street 2 between north of St. John s Sideroad to Bloomington Road -5 years $ 5,563, St. John s Sideroad 2 from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street -5 years Part of road reconstruction Bayview Avenue 2 from St. John s Sideroad to Hartwell Way and from Stone Road North Leg to Vandorf Sideroad Yonge Street 2 (Various Sections) from north of St. John s Sideroad to Industrial Parkway South Yonge Street 2 from Industrial Parkway South to Bloomington Road 6-15 years $ 841, years $ 1,44, 6-15 years Part of road reconstruction Wellington Street 2 from Bathurst Street to MacLeod Drive 6-15 years $ 267,9 Total $ 11,57,633 Note: 1. Based on the Town s new sidewalk infrastructure cost estimates 2. York Region Road; however, Town of Aurora is responsible for sidewalk implementation vii

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i 1. Introduction Future Conditions Review Planning Context York Region Official Plan York Region Transportation Master Plan York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Land Use Forecasts Area 2C Lands York Region Traffic Forecasts Model Assumptions and Methodology Land Use Inputs Road Network Capacity Evaluation Measures Base Future Conditions Problem and Opportunity Statement Transportation Network Options Assessment of Alternatives Planning Alternative 1 - Do Nothing Planning Alternative 2 - TDM and Transit Improvements Planning Alternative 3 - Road Improvements Evaluation Methodology Policy Environment Transportation Network Impacts Environmental Impacts Cost and Implementation Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives Summary of Recommendations Operations and Safety Review Purpose Site Visits Initial Site Visit: Preliminary Findings Yonge Street Corridor Other Town Locations Detailed Site Visit: Operations Review Yonge Street and Kennedy Street Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue

10 4.4.9 Edward Street and Engelhard Drive Henderson Drive and McClellan Way / Baldwin Road Detailed Site Visit: Safety Review Edward Street and Engelhard Drive Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive Henderson Drive and McClellan Way Collision Analysis Condition Check of Traffic Signal Equipment on Yonge Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Yonge Street and Mosley Street Yonge Street and Kennedy Street Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Brookland Avenue Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard Traffic Signal Progression for Yonge Street Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Signal Timing Plans Existing Operating Conditions Optimized Operating Conditions Horizon Operating Conditions Summary of Improvements Field Review after Implementation of Modified Signal Timing Plans AM Peak Hour Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Walking and Cycling Needs Assessment Introduction Background Existing Trails Need for Trails Challenges in Existing Trails Systems Local and Regional Pedestrian and Cycling Priorities Town of Aurora Key Priorities York Region Pedestrian, Trail and Cycling Network Improving the Existing Walking and Cycling Experience Trail Continuity Road or Rail Crossings Trail Width and Surface Type Variation Pedestrian / Cyclist Interrelationship Inadequate Trail Signage Lack of Garbage / Recycling Facilities Preliminary Recommendations Aurora s Cycling Network

11 7.6.2 Priorities and Considerations Implementation Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings Standard Cross Sections Applications in the Town of Aurora Sidewalks Priority Plan Introduction Methodology Sidewalk Assessment Existing Conditions Aurora s Trail System Aurora s Pedestrian Attractions Aurora s Sidewalk Installation Policy Sidewalk Prioritization Next Steps Appendices A. HOV Lane Capacity Assumption B. 212 Existing Intersection Operations C. 212 Existing Arterial Operations D. 212 Optimized Intersection Operations E. 212 Optimized Arterial Operations F. 221 Horizon Intersection Operations G. 221 Horizon Arterial Operations H. Existing Traffic Counts I. Existing Signal Timing Plans J. Cycling Network Implementation, Funding, and Support Programs K. Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings Tables Table 2-1: Aurora Official Plan Population and Employment Forecasts Table 2-2: York Region Population and Employment Forecasts September Table 2-3: York Region Population and Employment Forecast for Area 2C Table 2-4: Estimated Area 2C Population and Employment Forecast, York Region Model Table 2-5: Link Volume to Capacity Ratio Definitions Table 2-6: 221 Travel Conditions and V/C Ratio on Peak Direction Screenlines in Aurora, AM Peak Hour Table 3-1: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3a Widen Leslie Street Table 3-2: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3b Widen Wellington Street Table 3-3: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3c Widen Bloomington Road Table 3-4: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3d Widen Industrial Parkway South Table 3-5: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 4a St. John s Sideroad Interchange Table 3-6: 221 AM V/C Ratios, All Road Improvements Table 3-7: 221 AM V/C Ratios, All Road Improvements except Leslie Widening... 3 Table 3-8: Road Improvement Impacts Summary Table

12 Table 3-9: Planning Alternative Evaluation Summary Table 4-1: Yonge Street Safety Concerns and Potential Countermeasures Table 4-2: Number of Collisions by Impact Type Table 4-3: Number of Collisions by Driver Action Table 6-1: Traffic Counts Date by Location Table 6-2: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 212 Existing Conditions... 7 Table 6-3: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 212 Optimized Conditions Table 6-4: Annual Growth Rates Table 6-5: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 221 Horizon Conditions Table 6-6: Summary of AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Table 6-7: Summary of PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Table 6-8: Summary of Arterial Travel Times Table 6-9: Summary of Directional Green Bandwidths Table 7-1: Active Transportation Design Alternatives at Provincial Interchanges Table 7-2: Guidelines for Multi-Use Trail Types Table 7-3: Unit Cost of Trail Surfaces Table 7-4: Proposed Cycling Connections for Future Study Table 9-1: Sidewalk Gaps in Aurora Table 9-2: Sidewalk Gaps and Aurora s Trail Network Phasing Table 9-3: Existing Sidewalk Gaps Assessment Table 9-4: Existing Sidewalk Gaps Assessment for Regional Roads in Aurora Table 9-5: Proposed Sidewalk Gap Priority Plan with Road Reconstruction Exhibits Exhibit 2-1: York TMP Recommended 231 Transit Network... 8 Exhibit 2-2: York Region TMP Recommended 231 Road Network... 9 Exhibit 2-3: York Region Long Term Cycling Network Exhibit 2-4: York Region Long Term Pedestrian Network Exhibit 2-5: Aurora Promenade Character Areas Exhibit 2-6: Official Plan Schedule A Area 2C Lands Exhibit 2-7: York Region Traffic Zones associated with Area 2C Exhibit 2-8: Study Area Modelled Number of Lanes, AM Peak Hour, Exhibit 2-9: Study Area Modelled Per Lane Capacity, AM Peak Hour, Exhibit 2-1: Town of Aurora Future Network Capacity Constraints, AM Peak Hour, Exhibit 3-1: Summary of Recommendations Exhibit 4-1: Retaining Wall, Garbage Bin, Poles Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Exhibit 4-2: Tree Obstructs the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Exhibit 4-3: Poles Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Exhibit 4-4: Poles and a Mailbox Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Exhibit 4-5: Poles and Landscaping Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue

13 Exhibit 4-6: Poles, Newspaper Box, Signal Control Box, and Landscaping Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Exhibit 4-7: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive... 5 Exhibit 4-8: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive Exhibit 4-9: Southbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive Exhibit 4-1: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive Exhibit 5-1: Aerial View of Yonge Street Intersections Exhibit 6-1: 212 Existing AM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-2: 212 Existing PM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-3: 212 Existing Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-4: 212 Optimized AM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-5: 212 Optimized PM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-6: 212 Optimized Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-7: 212 Optimized AM Peak Hour Operation Summary Exhibit 6-8: 212 Optimized PM Peak Hour Operation Summary... 8 Exhibit 6-9: 212 Optimized Mid-day Peak Hour Operation Summary Exhibit 6-1: 221 Horizon AM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-11: 221 Horizon PM Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-12: 221 Horizon Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets Exhibit 6-13: 221 Horizon AM Peak Hour Operation Summary Exhibit 6-14: 221 Horizon PM Peak Hour Operation Summary Exhibit 6-15: 221 Horizon Mid-day Peak Hour Operation Summary... 9 Exhibit 7-1: Draft Route Network, Aurora Trails Master Plan Exhibit 7-2: Public Realm Framework, Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Exhibit 7-3: Regional Pedestrian Network, Candidate Routes, PCMP Exhibit 7-4: Candidate Cycling Route Alternatives, PCMP Exhibit 7-5: Preferred Candidate Lake to Lake Trail Alignment through Aurora Exhibit 7-6: Aurora Trail Network Exhibit 7-7: Aurora Trails and York Region Cycling Route Networks Exhibit 7-8: Examples of Rules of the Trail Signage Exhibit 7-9: City of Brampton s Pathways Signage Exhibit 7-1: Proposed Aurora Cycling Network Exhibit 7-11: Grade-Separate Trail Crossings Exhibit 7-12: Vandorf Sideroad, facing east Exhibit 7-13: St. John s Sideroad, facing east Exhibit 7-14: Wellington Street, facing east Exhibit 9-1: Designated Boulevard Bike Facility Exhibit 9-2: Segregated Bike Facility (or a Conventional Bike Lane) Exhibit 9-3: Shared Bike Facility (a Shared Lane) Exhibit 9-4: Industrial Parkway Exhibit 9-5: Stone Road Exhibit 9-6: Kennedy Street Exhibit 9-1: Existing Sidewalks and Sidewalk Gaps Exhibit 9-2: Sidewalk Gaps and Proposed Trail Network in the Town of Aurora Exhibit 9-3: Existing Sidewalk Gaps and Pedestrian Attractions Exhibit 9-4: Town of Aurora 1-Year Reconstruction Plan ( )

14 1. INTRODUCTION The Town of Aurora has initiated this update to the Master Transportation Operations Study (MTOS) to better understand the transportation needs of the Town for the next decade. This study has considered broader uses of the road right-of-way than in previous MTOS updates by including considerations for active transportation, trail and sidewalk connections and safety within the study scope as well as the more traditional analysis of identifying road improvements needed to meet future traffic demands. This report is an amalgamation of discussion papers, each developed to document the results of eight inter-related studies. They are: 1. Future Conditions Review 2. Transportation Network Options 3. Operations and Safety Review 4. Traffic Signal Progression on Yonge Street 5. Analysis of Traffic Signals Along Yonge Street 6. Walking and Cycling Needs Assessment 7. Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings 8. Sidewalk Priority Plan. Each of these inter-related studies are documented in the Chapters that follow in this report. 6

15 2. FUTURE CONDITIONS REVIEW The review of future conditions within the Town of Aurora included a review of relevant planning documents, the review of available land use and traffic forecasts and planned transportation network improvements, an assessment of future traffic conditions, and the identification of deficiencies and potential opportunities for mitigation. These factors are each discussed in this Chapter. 2.1 Planning Context York Region Official Plan The York Region Official Plan 21 was last consolidated in November 212. The York Region Sustainability Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Region provides the Region with a long term framework for making smarter decisions about municipal responsibilities that fully evaluates economic, environmental and community considerations. Specific York Region Official Plan policies that may influence the Aurora Master Transportation Operations Study, especially with respect to proposed improvements and road widening, are noted herein. Policy 3.2 in particular regarding sensitive land uses should guide the decision making process for Aurora. Policy 3.2 and the relevant sub-policies are summarized as follows: Policy 3.2 To improve air quality, and mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. It is the policy of council to: 3) Reduce vehicle emissions by ensuring that communities are designed to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, reduce single occupancy vehicle automobile use, and support public transit and Transportation Demand Management initiatives 5) To require health, environmental and cumulative air quality impact studies that assess the impact on human health for development with significant known or potential air emission levels near sensitive uses such as schools, daycares and seniors facilities 6) That sensitive uses such as schools, daycares and seniors facilities not be located near significant known air emissions sources such as controlled access provincial 4- series highways 9) To work with other levels of government, agencies, and stakeholders to identify the links between climate change, community planning and public health Any recommendations on road improvements, widening, etc., shall be guided by the policies set forth in both the York Region Official Plan and the Aurora Official Plan York Region Transportation Master Plan York Region s November 29 Transportation Master Plan addresses the Region s future transportation needs building from new Provincial initiatives including the Places to Grow Act, Growth Plan, and Metrolinx s The Big Move. The key theme of the 29 update is Moving on 7

16 Sustainability, guiding local municipalities such as Aurora to serve existing and future residents with the ability to travel safely and efficiently, and to offer a choice of travel mode other than the single-occupant vehicle. One of the key recommendations of the study is a Rapid Transit Corridor on Yonge Street running between the southern boundary of York Region to the Town of Newmarket, through Aurora. The recommended 231 Transit Network from the York Region TMP within and surrounding the Town of Aurora is illustrated in Exhibit 2-1. Other transit recommendations affecting Aurora from the Regional TMP include: A new GO station on the Barrie GO line at Bathurst Street and 15 th Sideroad / Bloomington Road. The extension of the Richmond Hill GO line to Aurora Road with a new GO Station in Aurora at Highway 44 and Bloomington Road. Expressway Bus Service on Highway 44. Rural Transit link along Aurora Road between Highway 44 and Highway 48, connecting to a new GO Station just outside of Aurora between Woodbine Avenue and Warden Avenue. Exhibit 2-1: York TMP Recommended 231 Transit Network 8

17 The York TMP also recommends road capacity improvements along St. John s Sideroad, Bayview Avenue and Bloomington Road. This Master Transportation Operation Study will assess these improvements from the Town of Aurora s perspective to ensure that they will not adversely affect Town roads intersecting with these arterials from a capacity, connectivity and community safety perspective, as well as from an air quality and health perspective related to increased vehicle emissions due to congestion. Improvements to these roads may also be an opportunity for improvements in support of pedestrian and cycling uses within the right-of-way (as proposed in the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan). The recommended improvements are as follows: Bloomington Road from Bathurst Street to Highway 44 Widening to 4 lanes. Bayview Avenue from Bloomington Road to Wellington Street Widening to four lanes. St. John s Sideroad from Bathurst to Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue to Woodbine Widening to four lanes, plus interchange at Highway 44. The recommended 231 road network from the York Region TMP is illustrated in Exhibit 2-2. Exhibit 2-2: York Region TMP Recommended 231 Road Network The Ministry of Transportation has plans to continue implementing HOV lanes on Highway 44 north through the Town of Aurora which will encourage longer distance carpooling from the Town. Also, the York Region Transportation Master Plan has identified the need by 231 for a new interchange with Highway 44 at St. John s Sideroad. This may have a significant impact on future travel patterns on the major arterials through the Town. The Leslie Street EA (Mulock Drive to Wellington Street) analyzed 221 traffic forecasts with and without the St. John s 9

18 Sideroad interchange with Highway 44, and noted an improvement to intersection level of service between St. John s Sideroad and Wellington Street. A feasibility and preliminary engineering study for the East-west Mid-York Transportation Corridor Study identified in the TMP is currently on-going. This study will investigate Highway 4 interchange alternatives and associated east-west road improvements in the corridor between Teston Road and Highway 9. Depending on the selected corridor, this study could have significant implications on east-west traffic on the major arterials through the Town of Aurora. As of December 211, the study recommendations include the following: 15 th Sideroad, King-Vaughan Road, and Kirby Road recommended to be carried forward (15 th Sideroad is the same concession as Bloomington Road) The Recommendation for 18 th Sideroad is pending MTO s redesign of the Lloydtown-Aurora Road interchange (same concession as St. John s Sideroad) 16 th and 17 th Sideroads are not carried forward (same concession as Henderson Drive and Wellington Street) Proceeding with an EA for the carry forward alternatives is contingent on having a recommended configuration for the GTA West and Highway 4 interchange York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan The York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (PCMP) was completed in 28 and summarizes the Region s vision for a convenient and continuous system of sidewalks on Regional and local roads and a designated Region-wide Cycling network. The PCMP is part of the Sustainable Transportation vision of the TMP and an integral part of the transportation network providing an alternative travel mode in addition to vital access to the improved transit network. The long term cycling network is illustrated in Exhibit 2-3, which includes exclusive bike lanes, signed routes, paved shoulders and multi-use trails. The long term pedestrian network is illustrated in Exhibit 2-4. Since preparation of the Regional pedestrian network, some sidewalks have been implemented on Regional roads within the Town of Aurora. 1

19 Exhibit 2-3: York Region Long Term Cycling Network Exhibit 2-4: York Region Long Term Pedestrian Network 11

20 2.1.4 Aurora Promenade Concept Plan The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan sets forth a vision for the Yonge Street and Wellington Street Corridors Aurora s historic heart and based on this plan will continue to be the heart of the Town as the Aurora Promenade. It identifies a vision for revitalization of 3.2 km along Yonge Street and 1.6 km along Wellington Street. The Aurora Promenade is divided into four character areas the Old Town, North and South Yonge Street Promenades, and the Wellington Street Promenade. These areas are illustrated and described in Exhibit 2-5. Exhibit 2-5: Aurora Promenade Character Areas The area will support rapid transit identified in the Regional TMP via connections to transit stops via pedestrian and cycling routes. The Promenade Plan requires integration with the regional arterial recommendations of the York Region TMP and the Region s 28 Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan, and these three important studies will assist in guiding the analysis and evaluation of the 221 road, transit, pedestrian and cycling network improvement options of the Master Transportation Operations Study. 12

21 2.2 Land Use Forecasts The Town of Aurora Official Plan s September 29 consolidation identifies population and employment forecasts every five years to 226, listing York Region as the source. It is noted here since the publishing of Aurora s OP, the Region has updated its future population and employment estimates. The forecasts from the September 29 Consolidation are documented in Table 2-1, while York Region s updated forecasts to 231 are summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-1: Aurora Official Plan Population and Employment Forecasts Population 49,7 57,3 63,7 68,1 69,6 7,2 Employment 2,3 24,2 29, 32,4 33,5 34,2 Table2-2:YorkRegionPopulationandEmploymentForecasts September29 Forecast Year Population Employment 26 49,7 2, ,3 24, ,7 29, ,2 32, ,7 33, ,4 34,2 Source: York Region Planning Department, September 29 These land use forecasts in Table 2-2 were used in the Region s recent Transportation Master Plan update and the future conditions analysis for the Aurora Master Transportation Operations Study is based on these numbers Area 2C Lands As noted by the Town of Aurora policy planning in May 212, the Area 2C lands (Official Plan Amendment 73) are expected to support an ultimate population range between 8, and 9, people. The majority of these residents will be situated in the area west of Leslie Street while the residential area in the northeast part of the Town (north of St. John s Sideroad) will support approximately 3 residents. This area and the proposed areas designated for population (yellow and red), employment (purple), and green space (green) are illustrated in the Schedule A Structure Plan (January 212) of the Aurora Official Plan. An excerpt of this plan focusing on the Area 2C lands is provided in Exhibit

22 Exhibit 2-6: Official Plan Schedule A Area 2C Lands Because plans for these lands were detailed after the date of York Region population and employment forecasts used in their Transportation Master Plan, there is concern that the York Region forecasts do not incorporate the full scale of development in these Area 2C lands. A review of York Region s traffic zone system and associated population and employment projections revealed that development in these lands was accounted for but not to the exact level recently projected by the Town. Because York Region s traffic zone system is not consistent with the Area 2C boundary, some assumptions were made to assess the comparability between the two population and employment projections. York Region s traffic zone forecast is provided in Table 2-3, while the traffic zone boundaries associated with Area 2C are illustrated in Exhibit 2-7. Table2-3:YorkRegionPopulationandEmploymentForecastforArea2C Zone Population Employment ,4 9,7 9,9 1,2 1,7 1, ,8 6, , ,7 3,8 5,3 14

23 Exhibit 2-7: York Region Traffic Zones associated with Area 2C Generally, zones 1244 and 1245 cover the Area 2C lands with a small portion of Zone 1245 also includes existing development along Wellington Street between Leslie Street and Highway 44. For the purposes of this analysis, the following assumptions are made to compare the two forecasts: All new population growth in Zone 1243 is attributed to Area 2C All new employment growth in Zone 1245 is attributed to Area 2C. Based on these assumptions, the 211, 221 and 231 forecasts for Area 2C are summarized in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Estimated Area 2C Population and Employment Forecast, York Region Model Population Employment Zone Area 2C 6 4,1 7,8 1 2,8 5, 15

24 Based on the forecast, approximately 4,1 population and 2,8 employment are forecast for Area 2C with an ultimate projection of 7,8 and 5,. This does represent the highest possible scenario for the land use forecast as it means that no growth is assumed within the existing developed areas in Zone 1243 and Thus there is a small discrepancy between the York Region Land Use forecasts and the Town s latest development plans for the Area 2C lands. Because this is a small discrepancy, it is not expected that this land use would have a major impact on the network level recommendations. 2.3 York Region Traffic Forecasts York Region provided the base 221 traffic forecasts from their travel demand forecasting model. The York Region transportation model forecasts the AM peak hour, which is generally accepted as the higher peak hour between AM and PM in this Region. Use of the York Region model is an approach generally accepted for estimating transportation network capacity constraints and deficiencies at the corridor and town-wide level. 2.4 Model Assumptions and Methodology The Town of Aurora s future transportation needs were evaluated using York Region s EMME travel demand forecasting model; however, the model was refined for this study within the Town boundaries to validate against observed traffic counts on key roads. The model validation results were discussed with Region staff to ensure that the model outputs were reliable in projecting future traffic volumes for each road within the Town of Aurora. At a high level this tool allowed the Town to identify locations in the road network which will potentially require capacity improvements and/or investments in line with the vision set forth by the Town s Official Plan Land Use Inputs As noted in Section 2.3, the travel demand forecasts for the future conditions review and assessment of network alternatives are based on York Regions population and employment forecasts dated September 29 with Town of Aurora Totals from 26 to 231 documented in Table Road Network Capacity Road network capacity is another critical assumption which affects the results of the travel demand forecasts. The number of lanes on roads within the Town of Aurora assumed in the 221 York Region model is illustrated in Exhibit 2-8. Only the regional arterial roads, and select collector roads are modelled for the purposes of traffic forecasting. The assumed vehicle capacity per lane is illustrated in Exhibit 2-9. A forecast travel demand (traffic volumes) when compared to the total vehicle capacity (lanes multiplied by per lane capacity) results in a Volume to Capacity measure (V/C) and provides an indication of the overall level of congestion on the road network. Volume to capacity measures can also indicate influences on air quality as increased number of vehicles traveling on congested roadways will increase emissions because of the volume increase itself and through idling in queues. 16

25 Exhibit 2-8: Study Area Modelled Number of Lanes, AM Peak Hour, 221 Source: York Region EMME/3 model 221 horizon year. 17

26 Exhibit 2-9: Study Area Modelled Per Lane Capacity, AM Peak Hour, 221 Source: York Region EMME/3 model 221 horizon year Evaluation Measures For the purposes of the analysis, a V/C ratio of.8 to.9 is comparable to a Level of Service (LOS) D and coloured yellow in plots and in tables,.9 to 1. denotes LOS E and is marked in orange and V/C over 1. denotes LOS F and coloured red. Because of the variability in forecast traffic, these ranges were selected to provide an indication of potential capacity constraints in the future. With respect to Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service definitions, the V/C Ratios are defined according to Table

27 Table 2-5: Link Volume to Capacity Ratio Definitions V/CRatio Level of Service OperatingCondition Less than.8 LOS A-C Free-flow, very little, to moderate delay Between.8 and.9 LOS D Congested conditions, users experience delays and queuing Between.9 and.99 LOS E Approaching or at capacity, significant delays and queuing Greater than 1. LOS F Over capacity, severe delays and queuing For a particular road link or section, a V/C ratio of less than.8 represents flow conditions in which little delay is experienced. Between.81 and.9 (LOS D), a road link is operating with a high amount of delay and queuing. At V/C ratios between.91 and.99 (LOS E), the link is approaching capacity and significant delays and queuing are occurring consistently during the peak periods. At a V/C ratio of 1. or higher, there are stop-and-go conditions and traffic flow breaks down. The per lane capacities coded into the York Region EMME model provide a foundation for the assessment of existing and future road network operations and needs. Professional judgment and knowledge of the study area assisted in determining an accurate value for per-lane capacity to be used in link and screenline calculations. 2.5 Base Future Conditions Based on the input assumptions and analysis methodologies presented in the previous section 2.3 and 2.4, the baseline future (221) conditions are presented here. Amongst the broad planning alternatives considered in this study, an assessment of a Do-Nothing option was first carried out. This option also doubles as the scenario upon which baseline future 221 conditions are established. The results of the Do-nothing option will assist in establishing both the problem and opportunity statement and developing sub-options to the broad planning alternatives, and thus are presented in advance of those items. The 221 AM peak hour York Region transportation model identifies a few capacity constrained areas within the Town of Aurora: 1. Leslie Street southbound, approaching St. John s Sideroad and Wellington Street East 2. Wellington Street East eastbound approaching Leslie Street and to Highway Industrial Parkway South eastbound between Yonge Street and Vandorf Sideroad 4. Bloomington Road eastbound between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the 221 AM Peak Hour V/C ratios for auto travel and highlights the four road sections identified above. 19

28 Exhibit 2-1: Town of Aurora Future Network Capacity Constraints, AM Peak Hour, 221 The V/C ratios are also summarized in Table 2-6 for the peak eastbound and southbound directions in the AM peak hour for

29 Table 2-6: 221 Travel Conditions and V/C Ratio on Peak Direction Screenlines in Aurora, AM Peak Hour Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total The above table illustrates that travel demand in the southbound peak direction on Highway 44 during the AM peak hour will continue to increase resulting in significant delays and queues in 221. Leslie Street will also be approaching capacity north of Wellington Street East. In the peak eastbound direction, a significant amount of demand travels eastbound to access Highway 44. Wellington Street and Bloomington Road are above or approaching capacity while Industrial Parkway South east of Yonge Street is approaching capacity eastbound before it diverges into Industrial Parkway South and Vandorf Sideroad. The transportation network options discussed in the Section 3 were developed to address these issues. 2.6 Problem and Opportunity Statement BasedonthefindingsoftheDo-Nothing alternative, four specific locations are identified which may experience traffic operational issues within the next 1 years based on the analysis assumptions and methodologies presented in this Chapter. The preferred planning alternative will attempt to address each of these issues in the most efficient and cost-effective manner to meet the needs of the people and businesses of the Town of Aurora, keeping in mind the goals and vision set forth in the Town of Aurora Official Plan. 21

30 3. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK OPTIONS To assess and confirm the future 221 road network requirements within the Town of Aurora, HDR built upon the 221 road network from the York Region TMP model and made refinements to incorporate the latest Town construction program and proposed plans from the Aurora Promenade Plan. Three broad planning alternatives and network sub-options were then identified to address existing and future problems and opportunities and to improve the forecast transportation performance on the major roadways in the Town of Aurora: 1. Do-Nothing 2. Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Transit Improvements a. Implement stronger TDM policies and programs b. Transit feeder service on Wellington Street East and / or Bloomington Road 3. Road Improvements a. Widen Leslie Street from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (North of St. John s Sideroad to Wellington Street East) b. Widen Wellington Street East from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (Bayview Avenue to Highway 44) c. Widen Bloomington Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and transit (Bayview Avenue to Highway 44) d. Widen Industrial Parkway South from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (Yonge Street to Vandorf Sideroad) e. Highway 44 and St. John s Sideroad Interchange f. All Improvements g. All Improvements except Leslie Street widening. It should be noted that all alternatives assume that collector road systems will be developed at the secondary plan level which should include opportunities for accommodating transit service and active transportation corridors. Where capacity constraints exist, a continuous collector road system may help to alleviate traffic congestion issues, particularly on north-south arterials and east-west arterial roads west of Leslie Street. However, between Leslie Street and Highway 44, the planned east-west collector road system (See Exhibit 2-6) would not benefit Wellington Street or St. John s Sideroad unless a new collector road crossing of Highway 44 was provided. Existing collector roads such as First Commerce Drive and State Farm Way currently lead back to Wellington Street East immediately west of Highway 44 so any capacity deficiencies on Wellington Street East cannot be alleviated without additional collector road crossings of Highway 44. Similarly in the north-south direction, there is no continuous collector road between St. John s Sideroad and Wellington Street so capacity relief on Leslie Street will be limited. The intent of this network study is to identify potential needs at the arterial road level within the Town of Aurora for implementation by 221 and other potential longer term needs (beyond 221) to be carried forward for further study. 22

31 3.1 Assessment of Alternatives Planning Alternative 1 - Do Nothing The results of Planning Alternative 1 - Do Nothing were documented in Section 2.5 of the previous chapter. This alternative assumes no transportation improvements above and beyond what is identified and planned for by the Town, York Region, and Ministry of Transportation (based on the York Region model) Planning Alternative 2 - TDM and Transit Improvements Planning Alternative 2 TDM and Transit Improvements focuses on methods to improve transportation network performance without major infrastructure improvements. These options assume no improvements are made to increase automobile capacity Planning Alternative 2a Implement Stronger TDM Policies and Programs Alternative 2a proposes that the Town implement TDM policies and programs that encourage reduction of automobile use during peak hours. These policies and programs could include: Providing bicycle racks and shower at offices Providing bicycle parking and racks at transit stations and stops Encouraging employers to promote flex hours region-wide and to offer transit and carpool incentives Providing carpool parking at the Aurora GO Station Coordinating local York Region Transit schedules with GO Transit schedules Providing clear information to residents regarding their travel options through a single access point Attaching incentives and disincentives to various travel modes to encourage residents to make more sustainable choices. Contributing funding to Smart Commute Central York as a means to promote many of the TDM policies and programs outlined above. Partnership funding would allow Smart Commute experts to also promote these goals on behalf of the Town While the ultimate goal is to reduce single occupant vehicle use, TDM is also a strategy to ensure that all the various elements of the Aurora transportation network operate in a coordinated and effective manner, providing residents with a variety of clear transportation options. TDM programs should focus on promotion and removing barriers to active transportation modes and improving connections amongst the various modes and all aspects of the transportation network. The entire impacts or benefits resulting from TDM strategies are difficult to predict from a travel demand modelling and capacity improvement perspective; however, it would likely be small relative to the impacts from major infrastructure improvements. From a qualitative standpoint, this alternative alone would not be able to make a significant improvement on future transportation performance for specific corridors. However, TDM policies and programs should make up one piece of the puzzle to a balanced transportation plan for the Town, and as such 23

32 should be considered supplemental to any road improvement network options, particularly for those that propose new HOV lanes. TDM policies and programs will also promote increase walking and cycling, which in turn will support the pedestrian and cycling network recommendations that are discussed in Chapters 7 and 9, and will provide air quality improvements and overall net health benefits to the community. For example, increasing active transportation can be expected to decrease local emissions, while increasing single occupant vehicles will have an impact on local emissions of air pollutants from vehicular traffic Planning Alternative 2b Transit / Feeder Service on Wellington Street and/or Bloomington Road Alternative 2b proposes firstly improved transit service on Wellington Street to serve the Wellington Street promenade and to connect it to the proposed Aurora GO Station, 44 Express Bus Service, existing commuter parking lot, and a potential rural transit service proposed by the Region of York on Aurora Road connecting to Whitchurch-Stouffville (see Exhibit 2-1). An extension of the existing Route 33 service on Wellington Street would be required to facilitate connections to these proposed transit services, and as demand requires, service frequencies should be increased to continue to encourage transit use in this corridor. It is not anticipated that this service would have a significant impact on overall transportation demand and automobile volume to capacity ratios on Wellington Street, and as such this service should be considered supplemental to other transportation improvement options, such as in conjunction with Alternative 3b, which includes a potential widening of Wellington Street for HOV and Transit. Secondly, new service is proposed on Bloomington Road serving at least the two proposed GO stations on the Barrie line at Bathurst Street and on the Richmond Hill line extension at Highway 44, connecting to Viva Blue on Yonge Street and the proposed 44 Express Bus Service. This service would involve either re-routing of the existing services on Bloomington Road (Route 22 or 32) or perhaps an entirely new service. Similar to the Wellington Street route, this route would also have a small positive impact in reducing automobile use, and should be considered as a supplemental solution in conjunction with other transportation improvement alternatives, such as widening Bloomington Road for HOV and Transit (Alternative 3c) Planning Alternative 3 - Road Improvements Based on the Problem and Opportunity Statement as well as the issues noted in Section 2.5, seven sub-options to Planning Alternative 3 Road Improvements were proposed and analyzed to increase vehicular capacity (as opposed to transit or non-motorized vehicle capacity). No new transit service additional to what is included in the York Region 221 model is assumed in any of the road improvement network options Planning Alternative 3a - Widen Leslie Street By 221, the York Region model identifies Leslie Street as approaching capacity at St. John s Sideroad and at Wellington Street East with volume to capacity ratios of.81 and.87 24

33 respectively. Because the Region s model already assumes this section to be 4 lanes (2 per direction), an improvement here widens Leslie to 6 lanes (3 per direction). Following York Region s recent initiatives for widening to 6 lanes and for the benefit of a long-term, sustainable solution that can maximize the amount of persons able to utilize the street, the recommendation is to widen the road for HOV and Transit lanes which would firstly provide additional capacity for automobiles but also provides additional benefit to these more sustainable travel modes. It is noted that the additional capacity provided by the HOV and Transit lane is estimated to be about 3% of the capacity of a general purpose lane. The rationale for this assumption is provided in Appendix A. In the case of Leslie Street, the base capacity assumed by the model is 9 vehicles per hour per lane. The additional lane then provides additional capacity of 27 vehicles per hour. With this improvement in place, the result volume to capacity table is illustrated in Table 3-1. Widening of Leslie Street here improves the volume to capacity ratio slightly from.81 to.76 north of St. John s Sideroad and from.87 to.84 north of Wellington Street East. In addition, the V/C ratios on both Wellington Street and Bloomington Road are higher, increasing from 1.4 to 1.6 and.89 to.9 respectively. Thus it appears that the widening of Leslie Street in isolation of any other improvements is not recommended because its impact on Leslie itself is minimal making other capacity constrained areas worse. Table 3-1: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3a Widen Leslie Street Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total Planning Alternative 3b - Widen Wellington Street Similar to the philosophy for widening Leslie Street, Wellington Street would also be widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes for HOV and Transit from Bayview Avenue to Highway 44. The results of this model run are illustrated in Table

34 Table 3-2: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3b Widen Wellington Street Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total Again similar to the Leslie Street Widening, the V/C ratio does improve but only slightly. In this case however, the V/C ratio is reduced below the threshold of 1., from 1.4 to.97. Unlike the Leslie Street Widening, this improvement has a small positive effect on Leslie Street southbound, improving from.87 in Option 1 Do Nothing to.86. There is also a positive impact on Bloomington Road whereby the V/C ratio is reduced from.8 to Planning Alternative 3c - Widen Bloomington Road The widening of Bloomington Road would also be from 4 to 6 lanes for HOV and Transit from Bayview Avenue to Highway 44. The results of this model run are illustrated in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3c Widen Bloomington Road Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total

35 Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total While the V/C ratio for Bloomington Road east of Leslie improves from.8 to.77, east of Bayview Avenue does not improve at all, staying at.88. There is an improvement on Wellington Street whose V/C ratio reduces from 1.4 to 1.1. This suggests that because of the congestion on Wellington Street, there is demand to use Bloomington Road to access Highway 44 should the capacity be available. Because the V/C Ratio is only approaching capacity by 221 and given the level of development expected adjacent to Bloomington Road, potential capacity improvements to Bloomington Road should be considered beyond Planning Alternative 3d - Widen Industrial Parkway South Industrial Parkway South east of Yonge Street is a two lane road (one per direction). The recommended improvement here is a widening from two to four general purpose lanes and the resulting V/C ratios are illustrated in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 3d Widen Industrial Parkway South Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total

36 The V/C ratio for Industrial Parkway South east of Yonge can improve from.87 to.51 since a full lane of capacity has been added. This option also appears to draw a small number of trips away from Wellington Street but would also increase volumes slightly onto Bloomington Road Planning Alternative 3e - New Interchange at St. John s Sideroad A new interchange with Highway 44 at St. John s Sideroad was identified in the York Region Transportation Master Plan for 231, but for the purposes of this 221 analysis for the Town of Aurora we will quantify the impact on the 221 road network. This analysis is summarized in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: 221 AM V/C Ratios, Option 4a St. John s Sideroad Interchange Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total York Region s TMP identifies St. John s Sideroad for capacity improvement from 2 to 4 lanes by 221 between Bathurst Street and Highway 44. Without the Highway 44 interchange here however, this capacity is severely under utilized with only 3-6 AM peak hour trips using St. John s Sideroad east of Bayview Avenue in 221. To maximize utilization of the road network within the Town of Aurora, an interchange with Highway 44 as soon as development requires is recommended. Specifically, the need for this interchange is tied to the growth of Area 2C, as discussed in Section BasedontheV/CratiosillustratedinTable 3-5, it appears that improvements on Leslie, Wellington Street, Bloomington Road and Industrial Parkway South are still needed with the interchange at St. John s Sideroad. 28

37 Planning Alternative 3f - All Improvements Based on the results of the modelled individual road improvements, it is clear that a combination of these improvements would yield the best results for future road network performance within the Town of Aurora. Assuming all proposed road improvements, road network performance improves significantly for all issues identified in Section 2.5. Table 3-5 summarizes the V/C ratios. Table 3-6: 221 AM V/C Ratios, All Road Improvements Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total Wellington Street improves to.92 from 1.4, Industrial Parkway South is well below capacity, Bloomington Road is at.85 from.89 and finally Leslie southbound at Wellington Street is reduced to a V/C Ratio of.8 from.87. While the improvement to Leslie Street is significant, from a network perspective it may not be necessary once the Highway 44 interchange at St. John s Sideroad is constructed Planning Alternative 3g - All Improvements except Leslie Street Widening Based on the results of the previous model runs and given the need for network continuity, an alternative combined road improvement option is proposed to include all road improvements except the Leslie Street widening. The V/C ratio results of this model run are provided in Table

38 Table 3-7: 221 AM V/C Ratios, All Road Improvements except Leslie Widening Eastbound East of Bathurst East of Yonge East of Bayview East of Leslie St. John's Sideroad Wellington Street Henderson Drive/ Industrial Parkway South/Vandorf Sideroad Bloomington Road Screenline Total Southbound North of St. John's Sideroad North of Wellington Street North of Henderson Dr/ Industrial Pkwy / Vandorf Sdrd North of Bloomington Road Bathurst Street Yonge Street Bayview Avenue Leslie Street Highway Screenline Total In comparing the results from the two combined road improvement options, Leslie Street predictably has a higher V/C ratio north of St. John s Sideroad and Wellington Street however, the increase is very minimal, from.75 to.81 and from.8 to.83. Further to that, Wellington Street east of Leslie Street improves from.92 with the widening to.9 without. The volumeto-capacity ratio for Bloomington Road is not significantly impacted by no widening of Leslie, as it increases from.85 to.86. Finally, Industrial Parkway South east of Yonge Street is unaffected by any improvements at Leslie Street. Option 3g is thus preferred over Option 3f as the additional cost of widening Leslie Street does not result in significant benefits. The marginal benefits provided by improvements to BloomingtonRoadandIndustrialParkwaySouthshouldalsobedeferredtobeyond221for further study. 3.2 Evaluation Methodology Evaluation criteria and measures designed to evaluate the performance of planning alternatives are summarized in a detailed Evaluation Matrix to include for cumulative effects of investments into the following key planning elements: Policy environment meeting Town s, Region s, and provincial goals Transportation services Environment impacts (natural, air quality, health) Cost and implementation feasibility. 3

39 Given the number of road improvement options, an evaluation table specific to the Road Improvement sub-options will assist in summarizing the transportation network impacts specific to the constrained road network links identified in Section 2.5 including: Wellington Street Leslie Street Bloomington Road Industrial Parkway South. Further discussion on how the alternatives will be evaluated against these performance indicators is provided below Policy Environment The preferred option must also support municipal, regional and provincial policy goals of building sustainable, multi-modal transportation networks that can support further growth. Most importantly, the selected road network should support both the Town s and Region s growth objectives, promoting Aurora as a supportive, healthy and cohesive community. The preferred transportation network will ensure safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Regional commuter traffic should be directed to Regional Roads, rail, bus and transit systems and Highway 44. Arterial roads should be developed to keep through traffic out of neighbourhoods while improved municipal transit, walking and cycling networks provide sustainable alternatives to automobile travel Transportation Network Impacts The traditional measures of effectiveness for transportation networks will be used to evaluate the alternatives against this performance indicator including each option s ability to minimize congestion and travel delays. The quantitative impacts that will gauge the performance of each alternative will focus on network congestion (presented as screenline volumes exceeding a V/C ratio of.8). Additional qualitative impacts that have been reviewed are the network s connectivity and its support for transit and active modes of transportation Environmental Impacts The preferred solution must avoid any adverse impacts on natural and air quality environments. This includes minimizing the impact on aquatic resources and the Natural Heritage System including the Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core, Linkage and Countryside Areas. Adverse effects on local air quality and health should also be minimized Cost and Implementation Feasibility A qualitative assessment of capital costs and overall feasibility associated with each planning alternative will form the basis for this performance measure. 31

40 3.3 Evaluation of Alternatives An evaluation table specific to the road improvement sub-options was developed to understand the overall impact of each option, which was then fed into an evaluation summary table for all planning alternatives. The results of the transportation network modelling presented in the previous section were assessed qualitatively relative to the do-nothing scenario identified in Section 2.5. A positive, negative, or neutral impact relative to the Do-Nothing was assigned to each option on how the option minimized congestion on key roadways. For non-neutral relationships, a further identification of the impact was made to be either major or minor. The summary of road improvement impacts is provided in Table 3-8. Table 3-8: Road Improvement Impacts Summary Table Network Option Minimize congestion on Leslie Minimize congestion on Wellington Minimize congestion on Bloomington Minimize congestion on Industrial Overall Impact 3a Widen Leslie 3b Widen Wellington Street East 3c Widen Bloomington Road 3d Widen Industrial Parkway South 3e New Highway 44 IC at St. John's Sideroad 3f All Improvements (3a 3e) 3g All except Leslie (3b 3e) LEGEND Neutral relationship with respect to Do-Nothing Minor Positive Relationship Major Positive Relationship Minor Negative Relationship Major Negative Relationship BasedontheresultssummarizedinTable 3-8, the widening of Leslie Street will have an overall negative impact as it will attract traffic to Wellington Street and Bloomington Road. Bloomington Road and Industrial Parkway South improvements will have minimal impact on the road network and are thus assigned a neutral relationship. Finally, the widening of Wellington Street and the Highway 44 interchange at St. John s Sideroad will have minor positive impacts to Wellington Street. Network options 3f and 3g illustrate the cumulative impacts that these improvements will have, specifically to Leslie Street, Wellington Street and Bloomington Road. The overall impact of the network options were carried forward to the planning alternative evaluation summary detailed in Table 3-9. AsidentifiedinSection 3.2, the planning alternatives including the road improvement network options are evaluated with respect to provincial and municipal policies, transportation network impacts, natural environment impacts and cost of implementation and feasibility. Because alternatives 3f and 3g were only included to understand cumulative impacts of the network options, they will be dropped from the planning alternative evaluation summary. 32

41 Table 3-9: Planning Alternative Evaluation Summary Planning Alternative Policy Environment Transportation Network Impacts Environmental Impacts (Natural) Cost Recommendation 1 DoNothing Screen out 2a TDMPolicies Carry forward 2b Transit Improvements Carry forward 3a Widen Leslie Screen out 3b Widen Wellington Street Carry forward East 3c Widen Bloomington Road Carry forward for beyond 221 3d Widen Industrial Parkway Screen out South 3e St. John's Sideroad I/C Carry forward LEGEND Neutral relationship with respect to Do-Nothing Minor Positive Relationship Major Positive Relationship Minor Negative Relationship Major Negative Relationship As illustrated in Table 3-9, alternatives 2a, 2b, 3b and 3e are recommended to be carried forward for further study. The Do-nothing alternative is not in-line with current planning policy for the Town. While it would preserve the rural character of the Town in certain locations, the development of Wellington Street as a gateway to the Town and of urban areas of the Aurora Promenade cannot be supported without some improvements to provide additional capacity. Without improvements, increased traffic and thus levels of congestion would have a negative impact on the natural environment. Alternative 2a: TDM policies and Alternative 2b: transit improvements are both recommended to be carried forward. Support for TDM initiatives from the Town would be in-line with current policies and would have benefits to the transportation network and the natural environment (as well as to air quality and health). Town costs and funding for TDM programs should also be relatively minimal compared to infrastructure improvements; however, the private sector would also need to contribute by offering employee TDM programs and incentives. Support for transit improvements through YRT as a policy also builds on current planning policies and would also have benefits to the transportation network. Cost for additional transit service would have to be considered though. 33

42 Widening of Leslie Street is not recommended to be carried forward based on minimal benefit to level of service. The projected congestion on Leslie Street would likely be minimized by the addition of a St. John s Sideroad interchange with Highway 44, which is recommended to be carried forward. Bloomington Road is not recommended to be widening by 221. While the V/C ratio on Bloomington Road exceeds.8, the impact of widening this road on the natural environment is too significant as it passes through the Oak Ridges Moraine between Bayview and Highway 44. Depending on how fast the Town of Aurora (particularly Area 2C) and neighbouring Town of Richmond Hill, and background traffic on Highway 44 continue to develop and grow, further study is recommended to the Region explore potential improvements to this corridor beyond 221 and beyond 231. Widening of Wellington Street East beyond the existing 4 lanes for HOV and Transit plus the construction of a new interchange with St. John s Sideroad would have significant benefits to the Town of Aurora s transportation network by 221. While there are no current plans by the Region to widen Wellington Street beyond 4 lanes, an improvement such as this has the potential to alleviate projected future capacity issues by 221. Widening for HOV and transit could further solidify the vision of Wellington Street as a multi-modal gateway into the Town of Aurora, and support the Wellington Street promenade, the existing carpool lot at Highway 44, the existing Aurora GO Station, future development on the southwest quadrant of Wellington / Highway 44, the proposed express bus service on Highway 44, and finally the proposed rural bus service on Aurora Road, connecting to Whitchurch-Stouffville. 3.4 Summary of Recommendations The following recommendations based on the results of the above analyses are provided below in orderofpriority,andillustratedinexhibit 3-1. Recommendation 1: Carry forward the widening of Wellington Street from 4 to 6 lanes for HOV and Transit (from Leslie Street to Highway 44) to York Region for implementation by 221. Recommendation 2: Carry forward the new interchange at Highway 44 / St. John s Sideroad to MTO and York Region for potential earlier implementation by 221, if feasible. The recommendation depends on the build-out of Area 2C lands and background traffic growth. If growth does not proceed as fast, the interchange will not be needed until after 221. Recommendation 3: Carry forward to York Region to further study the need for improvements beyond 221 on Bloomington Road (from Bayview Avenue to Highway 44). Recommendation 4: Explore both corridor-specific TDM and transit priority opportunities to reduce vehicle demand along the Wellington Street and Bloomington Road corridors. It is not recommended to widen Leslie Street beyond the planned 4 lanes from Wellington Street East northerly by 221. It is also not recommended to widen Industrial Parkway South to 4 lanes east of Yonge Street by

43 Exhibit 3-1: Summary of Recommendations 35

44 4. OPERATIONS AND SAFETY REVIEW 4.1 Purpose An operations and safety review was conducted to summarize and discuss the key findings from a series of site visits completed in the Town of Aurora and provide insight on an analysis of the collision data. During the initial wave of site visits, the study team observed and gathered information pertaining to operations and safety of the Town s intersections and roads. The information gathered from the site visits will assist in moving forward with the required study analyses. After a preliminary review of the collision data provided by the Town of Aurora and a review of thetownroadclassificationmap,aninitiallistof23 intersections were identified for the initial site visit. Based on initial site visit observations, high proportion collision analysis, and consultation with the Town of Aurora, the following list of 1 intersections were identified for a detailed site visit with focus on geometric, capacity, and safety concerns: 1. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street 2. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 3. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 4. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 5. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard 6. Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive 7. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive 8. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue 9. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive 1. Henderson Drive and McClellan Way / Baldwin Road The Yonge Street / Wellington intersection was not part of the TMP scope for collision analysis as it s under the jurisdiction of the Region. However, HDR has carried out a field review of the operations at this intersection, and the findings are documented in Section 4.3. The subsequent sections discuss the key findings of the completed site visits. 4.2 Site Visits Two field visits were undertaken by the HDR itrans project team. The first field visit occurred on Thursday October 27, 211 during the morning peak period (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and afternoon peak period (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) and involved two project team members. The visit was carried out as a preliminary review of the town roads and intersections to obtain a general sense for the day-to-day conditions and identify locations around town which may require special attention. In advance of the site visit, 23 intersections were identified for inclusion in the preliminary review. 36

45 The second field visit was carried out on Tuesday November 8, 211 from 2 p.m. to 5:3 p.m. by two HDR project team members. During the second field visit, a more detailed review was undertaken of the roads and the 1 intersections listed in Section 4.1. The operational review carried out in the detailed site visit consisted of identifying: Areas with queuing issues Opportunities for geometric improvements Intersections with opportunities for traffic control improvements; Intersections with private accesses immediately adjacent, complicating the operations at the intersection Areas with non-standard and/or unclear driver expectations which may be contributing to operational deficiencies. The safety review carried out in the detailed site visit consisted of identifying: Possible contributing factors to intersections identified with high overall collision rates since 21 Possible contributing factors to intersections identified with an unusually high proportion of a certain collision type (e.g. angled collisions) Visual obstructions for drivers at or around intersections; Horizontal curves along roadways causing sight restrictions for drivers Insufficient signage Intersections with private accesses immediately adjacent, causing safety concerns for drivers using the intersection Areas with non-standard and/or unclear driver expectations which may be contributing to unsafe conditions. Observations and notes from the two field visits are described in Sections 4.3 to Initial Site Visit: Preliminary Findings During the initial site visit, one project member was responsible for focusing on the operations along Yonge Street, while the second member was responsible for observing the conditions at the other town intersections and roads Yonge Street Corridor The following list outlines some of the general observations of the conditions along the Yonge Street corridor from Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard to Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive: None of the intersections along Yonge Street were observed to have serious queuing or delay issues except the Yonge Street / Wellington Street intersection (a York Region intersection) Some rolling hills through downtown Aurora contribute to some sight restrictions for cars turning onto Yonge Street at unsignalized intersections (e.g. Yonge Street and Irwin Avenue; Yonge Street and Church Street) Not tremendously busy feeling overall in downtown Aurora Southbound queuing at the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection complicates operations at the Yonge Street intersections with Centre Street and Irwin Avenue. 37

46 Ongoing VIVA and YRT strike during the site visit meant that there were no buses on the roads; thus, perhaps not as busy as usual. From 2-hr peak period observations, southbound was clearly the AM peak direction, but northbound and southbound were almost equally busy during the PM peak period. Southbound queuing at Yonge Street and Wellington Street was heavy during both peak periods. In the AM peak period, the traffic signal timings throughout the corridor appeared to favour southbound movements; in the PM, they appeared to favour northbound movements. Notes and observations at each of the individual intersections along Yonge Street are described below. Each intersection was observed for a period of 1 to 15 minutes. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard AM Peak Period: SB approach and EB approach have inclines leading into intersection. Most traffic in the SBT movement; fair amount making EBL, EBT, and EBR movements. Some queuing on EB and SB approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. NB and EB LT arrows in signal head; NBL and EBL actuated phases observed to be operating. Far-side VIVA stops on both NB and SB Yonge Street. PM Peak Period: In the AM peak period, SB was the more prominent direction; in the PM, NB is the more prominent direction. Adjacent businesses creating some awkward manoeuvres. Highest volumes on NBL, NBT, SBT, and EBL movements. Queuing for NBL and EBL movements, but does not exceed storage. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. NBL phase observed; EBL phase observed. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street AM Peak Period: Downhill from S to N through intersection. Most traffic on SB approach; fairly high WBL demand. Some queuing on SB approach. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. NB and EB LT arrow on signal head; EBL phase observed. Progression not achieved in SB or NB direction with Yonge Street and Henderson Drive. Near-side YRT stops on all 4 approaches. PM Peak Period: NB is peak direction; some pedestrian activity observed. Highest volume on NB approach; significant volume on SB approach; notable EBL and EBT volumes. No queuing exceeding storage; some queuing on all 4 approaches (light to moderate). No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. EBL phase observed; NBL phase observed for 2+ vehicles. Good NB progression noted with Henderson Drive. 38

47 Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue AM Peak Period: Slight downhill from S to N through intersection. Most traffic on SBT movement; very little traffic on EB and WB approaches. No queuing greater than 4 or 5 vehicles observed. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. No LT arrowheads present. Progression provided for NB and SB Yonge Street traffic with both Murray Drive / Edward Street in the south, and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue in the north. No transit stops at intersection. PM Peak Period: NB is more prominent direction (slightly); moderate pedestrian activity observed. Highest volumes on NBT and SBT movements; light volume on EB and WB approaches. Some NBT and SBT queuing, but nothing exceeding storage. NBL red light sneakers observed; pedestrians observed jaywalking. No exclusive LT phases. Progression provided for NB and SB Yonge Street traffic with both Murray Drive / Edward Street in the south, and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue in the north. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue: AM Peak Period: Tim Horton s restaurant on NW corner of intersection attracting many SB trips from N along Yonge Street; some pedestrian activity noted. Most traffic noted on SBT movement. Queuing noted along SB approach. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. No LT arrows in signal heads; no exclusive phases observed. Progression along NB and SB Yonge Street with Brookland Avenue. Far-side VIVA transit stops along Yonge Street. PM Peak Period: NB is more prominent direction, slightly. Most traffic in NBT movement, followed by SBT movement. Mostly light NBL, SBL, and E-W movements. No major queuing NB queue is held up at Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue intersection. No queues observed longer than 6-7 vehicles on all approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. No exclusive turn phases observed. Progression along NB and SB Yonge Street with Brookland Avenue. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street: AM Peak Period: Some pedestrian activity observed; some small school buses observed using intersection. Most traffic observed on SBT movement; also lots on NBT movement. Very little E-W movements. Very little queuing observed on all 4 approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. 39

48 No LT arrows; no exclusive phases; clearly more green time given to N-S phases. Near-side YRT stops on N and S approaches on Yonge Street. PM Peak Period: NB is peak direction, slightly. Highest volumes on NB and SB approaches, but relatively light overall. Very light volumes on EB and WB approaches. No excessive queuing observed on all 4 approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. No exclusive turning phases noted; most green time given to NB and SB phases. Good progression with adjacent intersections due to high N-S green times. Yonge Street and Mosley Street: AM Peak Period: Stop-controlled T-intersection with signalized crosswalk on N approach. No pedestrian phase activation during 1-minute observation. Most traffic observed on SBT approach; also high on NB approach. Very little on WB approach. Lots of NB and SB pedestrian traffic. No queuing observed. Pedestrians observed crossing Yonge Street without activating signalized crosswalk phase. No transit stops at intersection. PM Peak Period: Highest volumes on NB and SB approach (hard to tell which was higher); very little WB flow. No queuing observed. No jaywalking observed. One case of pedestrian signal phase being activated during 1-minute observation. Yonge Street and Wellington Street (Regional intersection): AM Peak Period: Busiest intersection in town high traffic on all 4 approaches; some pedestrian activity observed. Heavy traffic making SBL, SBT, and SBR moves; fairly heavy on NB, EB, and WB approaches. Heavy queuing on SB approach; long queues on EB and WB approaches. LT sneakers observed on all 4 approaches. LT arrows in place on all 4 signal heads; SBL and EBL phases observed. Lane configurations do not permit simultaneous LT phases (shared left-through lanes on all 4 approaches). Far-side VIVA / GO / YRT stop on NB Yonge Street; Near-side VIVA / GO / YRT stop on SB Yonge Street; Near-side YRT stops on EB and WB approaches. PM Peak Period: NB perhaps peak direction, but SB and WB very busy too. Moderate pedestrian activity observed. NBL, NBT, SBL, and SBT have highest volumes. Also strong demand on EB and WB approaches. Clearly, the busiest intersection in Aurora along Yonge Street. 4

49 Long queuing on WB and WB approaches due to high demand and no exclusive left-turn phase. LT sneakers observed on all 4 approaches. NBL and EBL exclusive phases observed. Long WBT queuing is blocking cars from making WBR, adding significantly to queue length. Ideally, should extend WBR storage to help skip storage. The Town and Region have previously reviewed the operations and deficiencies at this intersection and will continue to look at opportunities and alternative improvements including the consideration of a southbound right turn lane on Yonge Street. Any improvements on Yonge Street would have to be coordinated with VIVA as it will impact bus bay and operations. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street AM Peak Period: Uphill approach on EB and NB approaches. Some pedestrian activity observed. Community centre west of intersection along Aurora Heights Drive. Highest volumes on SBT, followed by NBT. Fairly light volumes on EB and WB approaches. Light to moderate queuing on all 4 approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. LT arrow on NB approach signal head; no exclusive LT phases observed. Near-sideGOandYRTstoponNBYongeStreet;Far-sideGOandYRTstoponSB Yonge Street. PM Peak Period: SB seems to be prevalent peak direction (not NB). Moderate pedestrian, cycling, and runner activity (near community centre). Highest volumes appear to be on SBT movement; fairly high on NB approach as well. Some EBL queuing nearing the end of storage. Some SB queuing, but does not exceed storage. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. High amount of green time given to N-S phases. No exclusive LT phases observed. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive AM Peak Period: Some school bus activity on all 4 approaches. Highest volume on SBT movement; heavy EBL demand; fairly heavy NB and WB demand. Heavy queuing along SB approach; notable queuing for EBL movement. Drivers observed racing to beat red lights. NBL arrow on signal head; no exclusive LT phases observed. Near-side VIVA / GO / YRT stop on NB Yonge Street; Far-side VIVA / GO / YRT stop on SB Yonge Street; Near-side YRT stops on EB and WB approaches. 41

50 PM Peak Period: SB seems to be the peak direction (not NB), but strong in NB too. Some pedestrian and cycling activity on sidewalks. Heaviest volumes on NB and SB approaches; light volumes on EB and WB approaches. Moderate queuing (7-8 vehicles) on N and S approaches; light queuing (2-3 vehicles) on E and W approaches. No dangerous driving / illegal manoeuvres observed. No exclusive LT phases observed. Longer E-W green times than necessary due to required long pedestrian crossing clearances Other Town Locations There were no operational issues observed at the other intersections in Aurora. Notes and observations at each of the individual town intersections are described below. Each intersection was observed for a period of 5 to 1 minutes during peak weekday conditions. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive Signal simple two phase with pedestrian phase only on south approach) No signal head for access opposite Edward Street (i.e. Station No. 4-3 access). All queues were dissipated with a single cycle Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive Signal simple two phase with pedestrian phase on all approaches EBL queues in the AM were the highest. Resulted in residual queues after cycle. In some instances, queues were longer than storage lane. The queues were quickly dissipated because of very low opposing traffic (westbound through) Henderson Drive and Baldwin Road / McClellan Way Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Baldwin Road and McClellan Way) Pedestrian signal on west approach. Very low demand of pedestrian at the signal during the field investigation Murray Drive and Kennedy Street West All-Way Stop Controlled No operational issues Murray Drive and Seaton Drive All-Way Stop-Controlled No operational issues Henderson Drive and Seaton Drive / Tamarac Trail Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Seaton Drive and Tamarac Trail) No operational issues Henderson Drive and Lee Gate / Tamarac Trail Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Lee Gate and Tamarac Trail) No operational issues 42

51 Industrial Parkway South and Vandorf Sideroad All-Way Stop-Controlled Noticeable high heavy vehicle No operational issues Vandorf Sideroad and Engelhard Drive Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Engelhard Drive) No operational issues Edward Street and Allaura Boulevard Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Allaura Boulevard) No operational issues Industrial Parkway South and Mary Street Two-WayStop-Controlled(StoponMaryStreet) No operational issues Industrial Parkway South and Industry Street Two-Way Stop-Controlled (Stop on Industry Street) No operational issues John W. Way and Hollidge Boulevard Traffic Circle Pedestrian activity on the approaches of the circle because of school buses stopping for pickup/drop-offs No operational issues Gateway Drive and Pedersen Drive Traffic Circle (3 approaches) No operational issues 4.4 Detailed Site Visit: Operations Review For the detailed site visit, the operations review was directed towards the 1 most appropriate intersections as agreed upon by the Town of Aurora. As noted in Section 4.1, the1 intersections identified for detailed review were: 1. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street 2. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 3. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 4. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 5. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard 6. Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive 7. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive 8. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue 9. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive 1. Henderson Drive and McClellan Way. 43

52 Comments for each of the 1 intersections are provided below. Note that these comments are in addition to the preliminary site visit comments described in Section Yonge Street and Kennedy Street At the intersection of Yonge Street and Kennedy Street, there is a relatively high collision history. Unlike most other intersections along Yonge Street through Aurora, there are no exclusive left-turn lanes on Yonge Street or the minor street. There are also several private, small accesses within 5 m of the intersection all quadrants including a retirement residence on the northeast corner which complicate the operations. Operationally, there are no concerns with the intersection since queues were observed to be virtually non-existent on all approaches. However, in the essence of reducing collision frequency, the town could investigate the feasibility of adding exclusive left-turn lanes Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue During the afternoon peak period (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.), queues on all four approaches were observed to dissipate within once cycle. However, during the school rush (approximately 3 p.m.), there exists a high demand of vehicles exiting the school and heading towards Yonge Street, resulting in significant queuing on the east approach. Queues were observed to extend to 2+ cars in length and far exceeded the westbound-to-southbound left-turn lane storage length. In order to improve the intersection operations during the school rush period, the Town should consider extending the left-turn storage length to ensure that drivers wishing to continue through or turn right at Yonge Street can skip the left-turn queue Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street At the intersection of Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street, queues associated with the eastbound-to-northbound left-turn movement were observed to extend to 5+ cars and slightly exceed the storage length during the afternoon peak period. With traffic volumes anticipated to grow in the area over the coming years, there is a possible need to extend the leftturn storage length to accommodate existing and anticipated queues. Despite the inadequate storage length in the eastbound left turn lane, queues on all approaches were observed to dissipate within one cycle Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street There are no operational concerns at the Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street intersection. All queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. No geometric improvements are required in the immediate future for the purpose of improving operations. 44

53 4.4.6 Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard Other than the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection, there was greater minor street traffic demand observed at the intersection of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard than all the other town intersections. Generally speaking, there are no operational issues at this intersection since all queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. In terms of storage length, queues on the eastbound-to-northbound left-turn were observed to reach 8+ cars during the p.m. peak period. This queue length was not observed to exceed the storage; however, the storage would be insufficient if traffic volumes were to grow in the area. Thus, there is a possible need to extend the left-turn storage length to accommodate anticipated future queues Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive There are no operational concerns at the Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive intersection. All queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. The wide lanes and large intersection area help provide adequate turning space for the high volume of trucks travelling through the intersection. No geometric improvements are required in the immediate future for the purpose of improving operations Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive Despite the presence of some immediately adjacent private accesses, there are no operational concerns at the Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive intersection. All queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. No geometric improvements are required in the immediate future for the purpose of improving operations Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue There are no operational concerns at the Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue intersection. All queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. No geometric improvements are required in the immediate future for the purpose of improving operations Edward Street and Engelhard Drive The configuration and alignment of the Edward Street and Engelhard Drive intersection is one of the more non-standard intersections in Aurora. It is a 3-legged intersection with Engelhard Drive connecting to Edward Street at a point along a sweeping horizontal curve on the latter. The lane configurations include a northbound through and right-turn lane, a southbound left-turn and through lane, a westbound left-turn lane, and a channelized westbound right-turn lane which is subjected to a yield sign. There is excessive pavement width on many of the lanes due to the high truck volume in the area. This non-standard geometry does not present operational issues at this intersection since all queues were observed to dissipate within one cycle. However, for non-local drivers, the intersection is confusing to navigate. While this confusion does not lead to poor operational conditions, there are possible safety implications associated with the existing intersection configuration. 45

54 Henderson Drive and McClellan Way / Baldwin Road The traffic control at the intersection of Henderson Drive and McClellan Way / Baldwin Road does not provide capacity issues since there was negligible queuing observed during the afternoon peak hour. However, the intersection is unusual for non-local drivers to navigate. For drivers approaching the intersection along Henderson Drive, the signalized crosswalk provides the illusion that the intersection is signalized. For drivers approaching the intersection along McClellan Way, there is an illusion that the intersection is all-way stop-controlled due to the prominence of the cross-walk stop bars along the main street. While this driver confusion does not impact the operations at the intersection given the low traffic volumes, there are possible safety implications associated with the existing traffic control. 4.5 Detailed Site Visit: Safety Review For the intersections on Yonge Street the three key safety related issues identified and the corresponding suggest improvement are provided in Table 4-1. The safety concerns at the intersections not on Yonge Street are addressed in the following subsections. Table 4-1: Yonge Street Safety Concerns and Potential Countermeasures Safety Concern Failure to obey the signals. During many traffic signal cycles, vehicles were observed running the red or stale yellow. This aggressive behaviour corresponds with the high number of Disobeyed Traffic Control violation seen in the collision data. High number of access points. Access control is a concern with many small businesses throughout Aurora on Yonge Street. Many of the private accesses are very close to the signalized intersections, which is a potential safety concern. Obstructions at corners. Obstructions including traffic signal control boxes, mailboxes, newspaper boxes, poles, garbage bins, retaining walls, and landscaping are found at most corners. These objects limit the amount of driver sight distance available. These obstructions are of particular concern for seeing pedestrians and cyclists coming from the right and can potentially contribute to right-turn-on-red collisions. Examples of obstructions areshownin Exhibit 4-1 through Exhibit 4-6. Potential Countermeasure Increased enforcement; possibly an automated red light camera where high disobedience of traffic control persists. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street intersection is a possible candidate for automated enforcement with a high number of angle collisions but a low number of rear-end collisions. Automated enforcement cameras can be expected to reduce angle collisions (a severe collision type) but increase rear-end collisions (least severe collision type). Reduce the number of access points to reduce the number of conflict points. Managing safety means managing the number and type of conflicts. Remove obstructions at corners to increase sightlines. 46

55 Exhibit 4-1: Retaining Wall, Garbage Bin, Poles Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Exhibit 4-2: Tree Obstructs the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 47

56 Exhibit 4-3: Poles Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Exhibit 4-4: Poles and a Mailbox Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 48

57 Exhibit 4-5: Poles and Landscaping Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue Exhibit 4-6: Poles, Newspaper Box, Signal Control Box, and Landscaping Obstruct the View for Drivers at Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 49

58 4.5.1 Edward Street and Engelhard Drive This is a very unusually configured signalized intersection in that it follows a horizontal curve on Edward Street and includes a channelized right turn lane on Engelhard Drive. For these two reasons, this intersection may possibly be different than what drivers normally expect to see at an intersection. All of the collisions recorded at this intersection have occurred prior to signalization in 28. Signalization appears to have addressed the collision problem given that there have been no reported collisions at this location since. Historically, the highest number of collisions at this intersection had been coded as angle collisions. If in the future, a collision pattern develops related to the channelized right turn lane, then potential solutions include eliminating the channelized right turn lane, or installing a Smart Right-Turn Channel ( Ontario Good Roads Association Milestones Vol. 8 #3 September 28, pages 49 51) to reduce the backward viewing angle to check for appropriate gaps, improve visibility of pedestrians, and reduce turning speed. There is also the potential for the signal head positions to be improved at Edward Street and Engelhard Drive with the use of an auxiliary signal head. As shown in Exhibit 4-7, the position of the signal heads are not aligned with drivers who approaching the intersection northbound, rather they are aimed at drivers already at the intersection. Drivers approaching the intersection northbound do not have a signal head which is well aligned with their approach. In Exhibit 4-7, the left signal head is not visible while the right signal head is off to the left of the driver s line of sight. Exhibit 4-7: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive 5

59 Exhibit 4-8 shows the view closer to the intersection going northbound on Edward Street. While positioned according to signal design standards, both signal heads are off center and seemed to be aimed to the right of the driver. Exhibit 4-8: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive 51

60 At the same intersection but approaching southbound, the visibility of the rightmost signal head could be improved by removing/relocating the posted speed limit sign which obstructs the view as shown in Exhibit 4-9. Exhibit 4-9: Southbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive 52

61 Most of the street name signs are large, well maintained, and readily visible. The signing for Engelhard Drive (as Industrial Parkway South) is an exception and is too small. Exhibit 4-1: Northbound on Edward Street Approaching Engelhard Drive Suggested Improvements: Consider conducting a detailed review of collisions and review of the right turn lane. Consider realigning, moving and/or installing additional signal heads so that the signal heads are aimed at/aligned with the lanes they are responsible for controlling traffic. Consider improving the street name signing for Industrial Parkway South Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive The size of this intersection is quite large with the corners rounded to increase the surface area of the intersection, most likely to make it easier for commercial vehicles. No suggested improvements were identified from the site visit Henderson Drive and McClellan Way The signal at this intersection control pedestrian crossings on the west side. We observed it in use by pedestrians during our site visit. This intersection is unusual for drivers because the signal only controls traffic on Henderson Drive. A driver stopped on McClellan Way or Baldwin Road may not know if they may proceed 53

62 when the signal stops traffic on Henderson Drive. Of the 5 collisions that occurred at this intersection, 4 out of the 5 either disobeyed the traffic control or failed to yield; therefore, improving the stop control for the two minor roads may be warranted. Suggested Improvements: Consider conducting a detailed field review over a longer period and determine if drivers from McClellan Way or Baldwin Road are properly maneuvering through this intersection. Additional signage or potential installation of oversized stop signs on McClellan Way and/or Baldwin Road may be required Collision Analysis The breakdown of the number of collisions by impact type and driver action at the 1 town intersections identified with the highest collision rates are provided in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. These tables only include collisions where the impact type or driver action is known (Blank and N/A records have been excluded). High proportion tests were conducted and the intersection of Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street was found to be overrepresented for turning collisions, and Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive was found to be overrepresented for angle collisions. Table 4-2: Number of Collisions by Impact Type Intersection Impact Type 1. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL 2. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 3. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street Overrepresented for turning collisions Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Number of Collisions Percent 4% 52% 25% 15% % 4% % % 1% 8% 28% 4% 15% % 6% 4% % 1% 9% 39% 43% 4% % 2% 2% % 1% 54

63 Intersection 4. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 5. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard 6. Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive Overrepresented for angle collisions 7. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard /BatsonDrive Impact Type Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL 8. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL 9. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive Approaching Turning Movement Angle Number of Collisions Percent 5% 24% 33% 14% % 1% 14% % 1% 3% 3% 43% 16% % 3% 5% % 1% 5% 29% 58% % % 8% % % 1% 14% 43% 14% 14% % 7% 7% % 1% 8% 44% 36% 8% % % 4% % 1% % 36% 45% 55

64 Intersection Impact Type Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL 1. Henderson Drive and McClellan Way Approaching Turning Movement Angle Rear End SMV Unattended Vehicle Sideswipe SMV Other Other / Unknown TOTAL Number of Collisions Percent 9% % 9% % % 1% % 13% 5% 25% % 13% % % 1% Table 4-3: Number of Collisions by Driver Action Intersection Driver Action Number of Collisions 1. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street Disobeyed Traffic Control 9 Driving Properly 3 Failed to Yield Right-of-Way 1 Following too Close 3 Improper Turn 15 Speed to Fast for Conditions 2 TOTAL Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 3. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 4. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL Percent 21% 7% 24% 7% 36% 5% 1% 35% 8% 27% 1% 12% 8% 1% 4% 11% 26% 2% 21% % 1% 3% 27% 27% % 13% 3% 1% 56

65 Intersection Driver Action Number of Collisions 5. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL 6. Industrial Parkway South and Engelhard Drive Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL 7. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL 8. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL 9. Edward Street and Engelhard Drive Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL 1. Henderson Drive and McClellan Way Disobeyed Traffic Control Driving Properly Failed to Yield Right-of-Way Following too Close Improper Turn Speed to Fast for Conditions TOTAL Percent 23% 13% 27% 1% 2% 7% 1% 3% 9% 48% % 12% % 1% 8% 17% 42% 8% 25% % 1% 21% % 46% 4% 29% % 1% 9% % 73% 9% 9% % 1% 2% 2% 6% % % % 1% 57

66 5. CONDITION CHECK OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT ON YONGE STREET On November 24, 211, a project team consisting of staff from the Town of Aurora, York Region, and HDR assembled on-site to review the eight intersections along Yonge Street that are candidates for the provision of coordination through downtown Aurora. The eight study intersections, from north to south, are as follows: 1. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive 2. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 3. Yonge Street and Mosley Street (intersection pedestrian signal) 4. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street 5. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 6. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue 7. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 8. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard. The Wellington Street intersection was not included in the site visit in terms of signal equipment review as it falls under the jurisdiction of York Region. However, the intersection operations were reviewed and was considered in the analysis of coordination along Yonge Street Exhibit 5-1: Aerial View of Yonge Street Intersections 58

67 Referring to Exhibit 5-1, the green icons are Town of Aurora signals that are under central control (via the Region) while the white icon is a mid-block signal that operates isolated and the red icon traffic signal belongs to York Region. Each intersection was visited, photographed and observations noted. General findings throughout the corridor included: Overall the traffic signal cabinets and intersection equipment are in good condition All traffic signal controllers (except Mosley) are Peek LMD 9s equipped with Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP). Both TSP and EVP are operated via 3M/GTT Opticom system Off-peak timings should be reviewed especially the main street minimums In contrast with typical York Region intersections: Walk timings are not calculated/set in the same manner as the Region which uses a seven (7) second Walk time Pedestrian Countdown timers are only used at a couple intersections whereas the Region uses them at all urban intersections. In December 211, the Town of Aurora and York Region collaborated to modify the signal timings and field equipment at each of the aforementioned Town intersections along Yonge Street. Upon modifications, all intersection approaches were granted seven-second walk times in the signal timing plan as per the Region. Additionally, pedestrian countdown timers were added to all crosswalks where previously absent. The following sections summarize the individual findings at each of the Town intersections along Yonge Street including a photographic inventory and comments pertaining to the signal timing equipment and operations. 59

68 5.1 Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive NOTES: Three phase operation Antenna indicates remote connection Observed that pedestrian buttons are in need of maintenance 6

69 5.2 Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street NOTES: Four phase operation Antenna indicates remote connection 61

70 5.3 Yonge Street and Mosley Street NOTES: IPS operation Not interconnected operates free of other signals Countdown timers are on the top of pedestrian signal heads normally they are on the bottom 62

71 5.4 Yonge Street and Kennedy Street NOTES: Two phase operation Interconnected Pedestrian push buttons should be relocated to align with crosswalk and signs need to be updated 63

72 5.5 Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Brookland Avenue NOTES: Two phase operation One controller operates both intersections Interconnected Pedestrian push buttons require maintenance constant calls 64

73 5.6 Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street NOTES: Two phase operation Interconnected 65

74 5.7 Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard NOTES: Interconnected 66

75 6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRESSION FOR YONGE STREET This chapter documents the process, assumptions, and results of the signal timing analysis along the Yonge Street corridor through the Town of Aurora. As part of the 212 Update to the Master Transportation Operations Study, HDR was commissioned to assess the existing (212) signal timing plans and existing operations, and to provide recommendations to improve traffic flow along Yonge Street. In addition, an analysis was completed for year 221 based on anticipated traffic growth. The analysis area includes all traffic signals along Yonge Street between Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive in the north and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard in the south. There are a total of 8 signalized intersections in this corridor, including (from north to south): 1. Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard / Batson Drive 2. Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Drive / Mark Street 3. Yonge Street and Wellington Street 4. Yonge Street and Kennedy Street 5. Yonge Street and Golf Links Drive / Dunning Avenue 6. Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue 7. Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street 8. Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard. As stated previously, the intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street is operated under the jurisdiction of York Region. However, the existing signal timing plan at this intersection was reviewed with the Region and included in all progression analyses, whereby the Town s signals north and south of Wellington Street were coordinated with the Yonge Street and Wellington Street signal timing plan. HDR, the Town, and the Region also worked collaboratively on fine turning the signal timings after the recommended timings for improved progression were implementedinthefield. In addition to the 8 intersections outlined above, there is a signalized pedestrian crossing at Yonge Street and Mosley Street, approximately 18 m south of the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection. This intersection was left to run free (i.e. uncoordinated) for faster response to pedestrian calls. The completion of this analysis involved the following steps: 1. Collect traffic volume data along the Yonge Street corridor to develop representative 212 existing traffic volumes. HDR commissioned turning movement counts at the analysis intersections during the morning, mid-day, and afternoon peak periods in October 211 and February Conduct field visits to observe locations in the analysis area with queuing, delay, pedestrian crossing, and other potential issues pertaining to signal operations. These site visits are documented in Section Conduct a field visit with staff from the Town of Aurora and York Region to collect an inventory of signal timing equipment. This site visit is documented in Section 5. 67

76 4. Collect existing signal timing data from each of the intersections in the analysis area. York Region provided a report of real-time data extracted from each of the intersections. 5. Analyze the 212 Existing scenario, consisting of the 212 Existing traffic volumes and the 212 Existing signal timing plans. 6. Produce optimal signal timing splits at each of the intersections (excluding Yonge Street and Wellington Street) with the 212 existing traffic volumes, using Synchro 8 software. 7. Produce optimal offsets between intersections to provide maximum green bandwidth through the corridor in both the northbound and southbound direction with the 212 existing traffic volumes, using Tru-Traffic software. 8. Estimate 221 traffic volumes in the corridor from a review of historical traffic data and background studies (e.g. York Region Transportation Master Plan). 9. Produce optimal signal timing splits at each of the intersections (excluding Yonge Street and Wellington Street) with the 221 existing traffic volumes, using Synchro 8 software. 1. Produce optimal offsets between intersections to provide maximum green bandwidth through the corridor in both the northbound and southbound direction with the 221 existing traffic volumes, using Tru-Traffic software. The following sections present the details of the analysis process in greater detail Existing Traffic Volumes Turning movement counts were completed during the morning (AM), mid-day, and afternoon (PM) peak periods at the analysis intersections in October 211 and in February 212. Due to unforeseen complications involving public transit in the study area, the final collection of traffic count data was delayed until February 212. The count dates for the analysis intersections are shown in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Traffic Counts Date by Location Location Date (AM Peak) Date (PM and MD Peak) Study Intersections Yonge Street and Henderson Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Drive/Edward Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Yonge Street and Golf Links Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Yonge Street and Wellington Street Thursday February 11, 21 Thursday February 11, 21 Yonge Street and Aurora Heights Tuesday October 25, 211 Wednesday February 15, 212 Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive Tuesday October 25, 211 WednesdayFebruary15,

77 During the data collection of 211 and 212, HDR did not commission a turning movement count at the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection. For this intersection, count data from 21 was provided from the York Region database for use as existing traffic volumes in this analysis. All traffic volumes were grown forward to 212 where applicable using growth rates discussed in Section Existing Signal Timing Plans The signal timing plans used in the 212 Existing analysis were based on field data extracted from the relevant traffic signal control boxes as of December 211. On December 16, 211 the Town of Aurora installed pedestrian countdown timers at all of the study intersections, where necessary. In conjunction with this installation, the Town updated the pedestrian clearance times at each of the intersections. The new pedestrian clearance times are now consistent with the York Region standards. Accordingly, the timing splits at some of the intersections were updated to account for the modified pedestrian clearance times. All signal timing changes from December 16, 211 have been included in the 212 Existing analysis Existing Operating Conditions Using the 212 Existing traffic volumes and signal timing plans described above, a Synchro analysis was completed to establish baseline conditions in the analysis area. In general, Synchro default parameters were maintained throughout the analyses (e.g. lost time, ideal sat flow, etc.). The one exception was at the intersection of Yonge Street and Wellington Street where the ideal saturation flow rate was reduced from 19 to 18 vehicles per hour in all lanes to reflect the reduced capacity from shared through-left and through-right lanes. Using the reduced rate ensured that existing operations and queues were appropriately simulated in Synchro. Synchro was used to produce outputs for intersection analysis, and arterial level of service (LOS) analysis. A brief summary of the results of the intersection analysis is provided in Table 6-2. Since the objective was to assess Yonge Street signal coordination and traffic progression, the findings are focussed on the northbound and southbound movements. 69

78 Table 6-2: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 212 Existing Conditions Study Intersections Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour MD Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB Yonge Street and Henderson A B B A A B Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray A B A B B A Drive/Edward Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue A A A A A A Yonge Street and Golf Links A A A A A A Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street A A A A A A Yonge Street and Wellington Street B C C C B B Yonge Street and Aurora Heights A A A A A A Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive A B A B A A A: Delay 1s; B: Delay = 1-2s; C: Delay = 2-35s As noted in Table 6-2, all northbound and southbound intersection approaches operate with LOS A or B, with the exception of Yonge Street and Wellington Street which is operating at LOS C. During the AM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the southbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (24.4 seconds). During the PM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the northbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (33.9 seconds). From the arterial LOS output, travel times through the corridor are observed as follows for the 212 Existing scenario: AM Peak Hour: 341 seconds (5 minutes, 41 seconds) northbound 334 seconds (5 minutes, 34 seconds) southbound PM Peak Hour: 362 seconds (6 minutes, 2 seconds) northbound 333 seconds (5 minutes, 33 seconds) southbound Mid-day Peak Hour: 284 seconds (4 minutes, 44 seconds) northbound 246 seconds (4 minutes, 6 seconds) southbound. Tru-Traffic software was also used to complement the Synchro results relying on this software to produce green bands from the signal timings, phasing, and offsets. The existing timings, offsets, and resulting green bands during the AM, PM, and Mid-day peak hours are shown in Exhibit 6-1 through Exhibit 6-3, respectively. 7

79 11 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:46 AM North 61 sec 7 sec 7 sec 12 sec 29s 55 sec 7 sec 43 sec 58 sec 46 sec 52s 58 sec 15 sec 8s 15 sec 44s 5 sec 64 sec 14 sec 7 sec 7 sec 12 sec 61 sec 49 sec 12 sec 7 sec 7 sec 4 kph 55 sec 7 sec 43 sec 58 sec 46 sec 5 kph 15 sec 5 kph 58 sec 15 sec 5 kph 5 sec 64 sec 14 sec 12 sec Allaura Blvd 12 sec Private Access Edward St 89 sec 61 sec Kennedy St E 91 sec Wellington St E 45 sec Mark St 53 sec Batson Dr 33 sec Exhibit 6-1: 212 Existing AM Peak Hour Offsets

80 12 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:59 AM North 24 sec 8 sec 7s 8 sec 75 sec 75 sec 7s 48 sec 35 sec 75 sec 21s 55 sec 8 sec 59s 65 sec 13 sec 68 sec 52 sec 62s 13s 27s 47 sec 7s 2 sec 15 sec 71 sec 16 sec 24 sec 8 sec 13s 8 sec 75 sec 75 sec 48 sec 35 sec 13s 13 sec 75 sec 21s 55 sec 5 kph 8 sec 65 sec 52 sec 5 kph 27s 47 sec 7s 13s 35 sec 2 sec 15 sec Allaura Blvd 12 sec Private Access Edward St 6 sec 7 sec Kennedy St E 64 sec Wellington St E 5 sec Mark St 59 sec Batson Dr 47 sec Exhibit 6-2: 212 Existing PM Peak Hour Offsets

81 11 sec Yonge St Tue. 4/24/212 5:4 PM North 15 sec 12 sec 6 sec 8s 45 sec 7 sec 22s 8s 15 sec 22s 7 sec 7 sec 7 sec 45 sec 13 sec 8s 58 sec 3s 7 sec 38s 55 sec 57 sec 42 sec 51s 8s 3s 15 sec 7 sec 52s 58 sec 15 sec 12 sec 6 sec 8s 45 sec 7 sec 22s 8s 15 sec 7 sec 22s 7 sec 7 sec 5 kph 45 sec 13 sec 58 sec 5 kph 4 kph 7 sec 55 sec 42 sec 5 kph 8s 4 kph 15 sec 5 kph 58 sec Allaura Blvd sec Private Access Edward St 53 sec 34 sec Kennedy St E 8 sec Wellington St E 55 sec Mark St 29 sec Batson Dr sec Exhibit 6-3: 212 Existing Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets

82 Optimized Operating Conditions Using the 212 Existing traffic volumes and the same basic inputs applicable to the 212 Existing signal timing plans (pedestrian clearance times; amber and all-red times, etc.), Synchro was used to establish optimized signal timing splits at each of the intersections within the analysis area. As before, Synchro default parameters were maintained throughout the analyses (e.g. lost time, ideal sat flow, etc.) with the exception of the reduced ideal sat flow at Yonge Street and Wellington Street. In order to enhance coordination through the corridor, the cycle lengths at all analysis intersections were set to 1 seconds in both peak periods to match the existing cycle length at Yonge Street and Wellington Street. A brief summary of the results of the intersection analysis under the 212 Optimized scenario is provided in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 212 Optimized Conditions Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour MD Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB Study Intersections Yonge Street and Henderson A B B B A A Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray B A B B A B Drive/Edward Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue A A A A A A Yonge Street and Golf Links A A A A A A Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street A A A A A A Yonge Street and Wellington Street C C D C A B Yonge Street and Aurora Heights A A A A A A Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive B B A B A A A: Delay 1s; B: Delay = 1-2s; C: Delay = 2-35s; D: Delay = 35-55s As noted in Table 6-3, all northbound and southbound intersection approaches operate with LOS ratings of A or B, with the exception of Yonge Street and Wellington Street which has ratings of C and D. During the AM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the southbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (25.4 seconds). During the PM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the northbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (42. seconds). From the arterial LOS output, travel times through the corridor are estimated as follows for the 212 Optimized scenario: AM Peak Hour: 36.9 seconds (6 minutes,.9 seconds) northbound seconds (5 minutes, 23.9 seconds) southbound PM Peak Hour: seconds (6 minutes, 15.5 seconds) northbound seconds (5 minutes, 37.7 seconds) southbound 74

83 Mid-day Peak Hour: 284 seconds (4 minutes, 44 seconds) northbound no change from existing 246 seconds (4 minutes, 6 seconds) southbound no change from existing. Using Tru-Traffic software, the optimal offsets were determined for the AM, PM and Mid-day peak hours using the 1-second cycle lengths and optimized timing splits developed in Synchro. In an effort to best serve the existing traffic pattern, preference was given to the southbound traffic during the AM peak hour; preference was given to northbound during the PM peak hour, and evenly split for the Mid-day peak. Operating speeds along Yonge Street through the corridor were assumed to be 5 km/h (matching the posted speed limit), except for the segments approaching Wellington Street which were reduced to 4 km/h during the AM peak period and 3 km/h during the PM peak period. The reduced operating speed was introduced to account for the anticipated intersection delays at Yonge Street and Wellington Street. The optimized offsets and resultant green bandwidths are shown in through Exhibit 6-4 through Exhibit 6-6. In the 212 Optimized AM scenario, minimum green bandwidths of 29 seconds and 12 seconds are maintained in the southbound and northbound directions, respectively. In the 212 Optimized PM scenario, minimum green bandwidths of 24 seconds and 8 seconds are maintained in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. There are no changes to the Mid-day findings. Graphical representation of the operating conditions for the 212 Optimized AM and PM peak hour scenarios are shown in Exhibit 6-7 through Exhibit 6-9, respectively Horizon Operating Conditions Year 221 traffic volumes were developed using growth rates derived in conjunction with Town of Aurora staff from a review of the historic traffic volumes in the corridor and the York Region Master Plan transportation model. The resultant growth rates are presented in Table 6-4. Table 6-4: Annual Growth Rates Location Peak Hour AM PM Direction and Location Yonge Street NB; north ofwellington Street 1.7% 1.7% Yonge Street SB; north of Wellington Street 1.2% 1.2% Yonge Street NB; south ofwellington Street.9%.9% Yonge Street SB; south of Wellington Street 2.1% 2.1% Minor Street EB/WB; north of WellingtonStreet.5%.5% Minor Street EB/WB; south of WellingtonStreet.3%.3% Using the same process and assumptions from the 212 Optimized scenario, Synchro was used to establish optimized signal timing splits at each of the intersections within the analysis area for the 221 Horizon scenario. 75

84 1 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:32 AM North 13s 1 sec 29s 14 sec 1 sec 48 sec 36 sec 42s 65 sec 37s 65 sec 13s 67 sec 4s 56 sec 12s 12 sec 44 sec 54 sec 62 sec 29s 13s 1 sec 29s 13s 62 sec 39 sec 14 sec 37s 53 sec 12s 11 sec 53 sec 63 sec 47s 1 sec 48 sec 36 sec 5 kph 65 sec 37s 65 sec 4 kph 4 kph 67 sec 56 sec 12s 12 sec 29s 13s 39 sec 5 kph 5 kph 11 sec 5 kph Allaura Blvd 41 sec Private Access Edward St 92 sec 76 sec Kennedy St E 27 sec Wellington St E sec Mark St 37 sec Batson Dr 9 sec Exhibit 6-4: 212 Optimized AM Peak Hour Offsets

85 1 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:39 AM North 52 sec 4 sec 24s 25s 14 sec 63 sec 52 sec 34 sec 46s 12 sec 25s 67 sec 67 sec 24s 66 sec 31s 5 sec 24s 1 sec 18 sec 52 sec 8s 64 sec 4 sec 24s 25s 24s 64 sec 53 sec 25s 39 sec 24s 14 sec 16 sec 63 sec 47s 53 sec 52 sec 34 sec 5 kph 12 sec 67 sec 25s 67 sec 3 kph 3 kph 66 sec 5 sec 24s 1 sec 18 sec 8s 24s 5 kph 39 sec 5 kph 16 sec 5 kph Allaura Blvd 4 sec Private Access Edward St 8 sec 69 sec Kennedy St E 15 sec Wellington St E sec Mark St 33 sec Batson Dr 77 sec Exhibit 6-5: 212 Optimized PM Peak Hour Offsets

86 1 sec Yonge St Tue. 4/24/212 5:6 PM North 51 sec 12 sec 1 sec 39 sec 51 sec 45s 41 sec 17s 64 sec 64 sec 21s 21s 34s 2s 66 sec 66 sec 12 sec 41 sec 11s 53 sec 63 sec 36s 11s 52 sec 11 sec 1 sec 53 sec 63 sec 47s 12 sec 17s 5 kph Allaura Blvd 95 sec 17s 1 sec 21s 17s 64 sec 64 sec 21s 4 kph 66 sec 66 sec 34s 12 sec 41 sec 34s 5 kph 5 kph 4 kph 63 sec 11s 52 sec 11 sec 5 kph 1 sec Private Access Edward St 94 sec 3 sec Kennedy St E 29 sec Wellington St E 1 sec Mark St 4 sec Batson Dr 89 sec Exhibit 6-6: 212 Optimized Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets

87 Orchard Heights Blvd B B B Batson Dr 47 s 12 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 4 s 12 s Wellington St W C C C Wellington St E Not to Scale 37 s Yonge St 12 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 37 s 13 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 37 s A A B A A A 13 s Dunning Ave Private Access 29 s 13 s Murray Dr A B B Edward St 29 s 42 s Henderson Dr B B A Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-7: 212 Optimized AM Peak Hour Operation Summary

88 Orchard Heights Blvd B B A Batson Dr 47 s 24 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 31 s 24 s Wellington St W C C D Wellington St E Not to Scale 25 s Yonge St 24 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 25 s 24 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 25 s A A A A A A 24 s Dunning Ave Private Access 25 s 24 s Murray Dr B C B Edward St 8 s 46 s Henderson Dr B C B Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-8: 212 Optimized PM Peak Hour Operation Summary

89 Orchard Heights Blvd A A A Batson Dr 47 s 11 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 36 s 11 s Wellington St W B B A Wellington St E Not to Scale 34 s Yonge St 2 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 34 s 21 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 34 s A A A A A A 21 s Dunning Ave Private Access 17 s 21 s Murray Dr B B A Edward St 17 s 45 s Henderson Dr A B A Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-9: 212 Optimized Mid-day Peak Hour Operation Summary

90 As before, cycle lengths at all analysis intersections were set to 1 seconds in both peak periods to match the existing cycle length at Yonge Street and Wellington Street. A brief summary of the results of the intersection analysis under the 212 Optimized scenario is provided in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Approach LOS at Study Intersections 221 Horizon Conditions Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour MD Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB Study Intersections Yonge Street and Henderson A B B C A A Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray Drive/Edward B A B B A C Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue A A A A B A Yonge Street and Golf Links A A A A A A Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street A A A A A A Yonge Street and Wellington Street C D F D B B Yonge Street and Aurora Heights A A A A A A Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive B B A B A A A: Delay 1s; B: Delay = 1-2s; C: Delay = 2-35s; D: Delay = 35-55s; E: Delay = 55-8s; F: Delay >8s As noted, all northbound and southbound intersection approaches operate with LOS ratings of C or better, with the exception of Yonge Street and Wellington Street which has ratings of D and F. During the AM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the southbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (42.9 seconds). During the PM peak period, the highest average delay for vehicles travelling through the analysis area occurs on the northbound approach to Yonge Street and Wellington Street (116.5 seconds). From the arterial LOS output, travel times through the corridor are estimated as follows for the 221 Horizon scenario: AM Peak Hour: 364. seconds (6 minutes, 4. seconds) northbound seconds (5 minutes, 46.1 seconds) southbound PM Peak Hour: seconds (7 minutes, 31.9 seconds) northbound seconds (6 minutes, 9.7 seconds) southbound Mid-day Peak Hour: 284 seconds (4 minutes, 44 seconds) northbound no change from existing 246 seconds (4 minutes, 6 seconds) southbound no change from existing. Using Tru-Traffic software, the optimal offsets were determined for the AM and PM peak hours using the 1-second cycle lengths and optimized timing splits developed in Synchro. In an effort to best serve the existing traffic pattern, preference was given to the southbound traffic 82

91 during the AM peak hour; preference was given to northbound during the PM peak hour. Similar to the 212 Optimized scenario, operating speeds along Yonge Street through the corridor were assumed to be 5 km/h (matching the posted speed limit), except for the segments approaching Wellington Street which were reduced to 4 km/h during the AM peak period and 3 km/h during the PM peak period. In the 221 Horizon AM scenario, minimum green bandwidths of 31 seconds and 12 seconds are maintained in the southbound and northbound directions, respectively. In the 221 Horizon PM scenario, minimum green bandwidths of 24 seconds and 8 seconds are maintained in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. Again there will be no major changes to the Mid-day peak. The optimized offsets and resultant green bandwidths are shown in Exhibit 6-1 through Exhibit Graphical representation of the operating conditions for the 221 Horizon AM, PM and Mid-day peak hour scenarios are summarized in Exhibit 6-13 through Exhibit 6-15, respectively. 6.6 Summary of Improvements AsummaryoftheLOSimpactsacross the network and scenarios are presented in Table 6-6 through Table 6-9. Table 6-6: Summary of AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Location 212 Existing 212 Optimized 221 Horizon NB SB NB SB NB SB Study Intersections Yonge Street and Henderson A B A B A B Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray Drive/Edward A B B A B A Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue A A A A A A Yonge Street and Golf Links A A A A A A Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street A A A A A A Yonge Street and Wellington Street B C C C C D Yonge Street and Aurora Heights A A A A A A Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive A B B B B B A: Delay 1s; B: Delay = 1-2s; C: Delay = 2-35s; D: Delay = 35-55s; E: Delay = 55-8s; F: Delay >8s 83

92 Table 6-7: Summary of PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Study Intersections Location 212 Existing 212 Optimized 221 Horizon NB SB NB SB NB SB Yonge Street and Henderson B A B B B C Drive/Allaura Boulevard Yonge Street and Murray Drive/Edward A B B B B B Street Yonge Street and Brookland Avenue A A A A A A Yonge Street and Golf Links A A A A A A Drive/Dunning Avenue Yonge Street and Kennedy Street A A A A A A Yonge Street and Wellington Street C C D C F D Yonge Street and Aurora Heights A A A A A A Drive/Mark Street Yonge Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive A B A B A B A: Delay 1s; B: Delay = 1-2s; C: Delay = 2-35s; D: Delay = 35-55s; E: Delay = 55-8s; F: Delay >8s 84

93 1 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:4 AM North 13s 1 sec 31s 14 sec 1 sec 48 sec 36 sec 42s 67 sec 37s 67 sec 13s 59 sec 69 sec 12s 42s 12 sec 44 sec 54 sec 66 sec 31s 13s 1 sec 31s 13s 66 sec 39 sec 14 sec 37s 53 sec 12s 1 sec 54 sec 64 sec 48s 1 sec 48 sec 36 sec 5 kph 67 sec 37s 67 sec 4 kph 69 sec 4 kph 59 sec 12s 12 sec 31s 13s 39 sec 5 kph 5 kph 1 sec 5 kph Allaura Blvd 41 sec Private Access Edward St 92 sec 74 sec Kennedy St E 26 sec Wellington St E sec Mark St 35 sec Batson Dr 9 sec Exhibit 6-1: 221 Horizon AM Peak Hour Offsets

94 1 sec Yonge St Wed. 4/18/212 11:42 AM North 52 sec 4 sec 24s 25s 14 sec 63 sec 52 sec 34 sec 46s 12 sec 25s 69 sec 69 sec 24s 68 sec 31s 51 sec 24s 12 sec 18 sec 52 sec 8s 64 sec 4 sec 24s 25s 24s 64 sec 53 sec 25s 39 sec 24s 14 sec 17 sec 63 sec 45s 51 sec 52 sec 34 sec 5 kph 12 sec 69 sec 25s 69 sec 3 kph 3 kph 68 sec 51 sec 24s 12 sec 18 sec 8s 24s 5 kph 39 sec 5 kph 17 sec 5 kph Allaura Blvd 4 sec Private Access Edward St 8 sec 69 sec Kennedy St E 14 sec Wellington St E sec Mark St 33 sec Batson Dr 79 sec Exhibit 6-11: 221 Horizon PM Peak Hour Offsets

95 1 sec Yonge St Tue. 4/24/212 5:7 PM North 53 sec 12 sec 41 sec 52 sec 11 sec 41 sec 17s 64 sec 64 sec 22s 22s 34s 22s 67 sec 67 sec 12 sec 41 sec 12s 53 sec 12s 54 sec 65 sec 37s 11 sec 1 sec 53 sec 63 sec 47s 47s 17s 12 sec 11 sec 5 kph 22s 17s 64 sec 64 sec 22s 4 kph 67 sec 67 sec 34s 12 sec 34s 5 kph 12s 65 sec 54 sec 4 kph 5 kph 11 sec 5 kph 1 sec Allaura Blvd 94 sec 17s Private Access Edward St 94 sec 3 sec Kennedy St E 28 sec Wellington St E 1 sec Mark St 39 sec Batson Dr 89 sec Exhibit 6-12: 221 Horizon Mid-day Peak Hour Offsets

96 Orchard Heights Blvd B B B Batson Dr 48 s 12 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 42 s 12 s Wellington St W D C C Wellington St E Not to Scale 37 s Yonge St 13 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 37 s 13 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 37 s A A B A A A 13 s Dunning Ave Private Access 31 s 13 s Murray Dr A B B Edward St 31 s 42 s Henderson Dr B B A Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-13: 221 Horizon AM Peak Hour Operation Summary

97 Orchard Heights Blvd B B A Batson Dr 45 s 24 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 31 s 24 s Wellington St W D E F Wellington St E Not to Scale 25 s Yonge St 24 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 25 s 24 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 25 s A A A A A A 24 s Dunning Ave Private Access 25 s 24 s Murray Dr B C B Edward St 8 s 46 s Henderson Dr C C B Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-14: 221 Horizon PM Peak Hour Operation Summary

98 Orchard Heights Blvd A A A Batson Dr 47 s 12 s Aurora Heights Dr A A A Mark St 37 s 12 s Wellington St W B C B Wellington St E Not to Scale 34 s Yonge St 22 s Kennedy St W A A A Kennedy St E 34 s 22 s Golf Links Dr Brookland Ave 34 s A A A A A B 22 s Dunning Ave Private Access 17 s 22 s Murray Dr C B A Edward St 17 s 47 s Henderson Dr A B A Allaura Blvd Legend 16 s 16 s Northbound Greenband Southbound Greenband A B C D E F Intersection LOS A B C D E F NB/SB Approach LOS < >8 Associated LOS Delay [s] Exhibit 6-15: 221 Horizon Mid-day Peak Hour Operation Summary

99 Table 6-8: Summary of Arterial Travel Times Location 212 Existing 212 Optimized 221 Horizon Yonge Street Northbound AM Peak 341 seconds 361 seconds 364 seconds YongeStreet Southbound AMPeak 334 seconds 324seconds 346seconds YongeStreet Northbound PMPeak 362 seconds 376seconds 452seconds Yonge Street Southbound PM Peak 333 seconds 338 seconds 37 seconds Note: Cells highlighted in green indicate peak direction Table 6-9: Summary of Directional Green Bandwidths Location 212 Existing 212 Optimized 221 Horizon YongeStreet Northbound AMPeak NoneProvided 12seconds 12 seconds YongeStreet Southbound AM Peak None Provided 29seconds 31 seconds Yonge Street Northbound PMPeak None Provided 24seconds 24 seconds Yonge Street Southbound PM Peak None Provided 8 seconds 8 seconds Note: Cells highlighted in green indicate peak direction From observation of the final analysis results, it can be noted that the optimization of signal timing splits and offsets are expected to provide marginal improvements in the network. In general, the traffic flow through the corridor is limited by the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection which operates with notable queuing and delays at present. In order to truly improve traffic flow in this corridor, improvements would be required at the Wellington Street intersection. Generally, the other intersections in the network operate and continue to operate with appropriate timings and offsets. By 221, the Yonge Street and Wellington Street intersection will have the northbound approach operate at LOS F and overall travel times along Yonge Street will also worsen by 1-2% over existing travel times with traffic growth. Despite this constraint, the green bands attainable for the peak direction during each of the peak periods will be similar between 212 and 221. We have not prepared summary comparisons for the Mid-day peak as all scenarios will result in no change to the overall travel time on Yonge Street given that both existing and 221 volumes can be adequately accommodated with existing timings, phasing, and offsets. It should also be noted that the optimized timing offsets presented in these analysis findings are based directly from Synchro and Tru-Traffic software; follow-up tweaking of the signal timings and offsets after implementation was conducted to achieve optimal coordination in the field. 6.7 Field Review after Implementation of Modified Signal Timing Plans The modified signal timing splits and offsets recommended by HDR were implemented in the field by the Town of Aurora and York Region on Friday May 18, 212. Subsequently, field visits were conducted on Thursday May 31, 212 and Wednesday June 6, 212 by staff from the Town, the Region, and HDR to review and assess the post-implementation operating conditions. 91

100 The on-site review included roadside observations and a series of in-vehicle trips travelling north and south on Yonge Street to observe the quality of green progression in both directions. Reviews were undertaken during the AM, mid-day, and PM peak periods AM Peak Hour During the AM peak period, operations were deemed satisfactory in both the northbound and southbound travel directions throughout the entire corridor. No significant queuing was observed along Yonge Street or on any of the minor streets. In order to slightly improve progression at the south end of the corridor, the following modification was implemented real time: Offset at Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard changed from 41 seconds to 24 seconds. Improved progression was observed after the offset revision at the Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard intersection Mid-Day Peak Hour During the mid-day peak period, operations were deemed satisfactory in both the northbound and southbound travel directions throughout the entire corridor. No significant queuing was observed along Yonge Street or on any of the minor streets. In order to slightly improve progression at the south end of the corridor, the following modification was implemented real time: Offset at Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street changed from 94 seconds to 6 seconds. Improved progression was observed after the offset revision at the Yonge Street and Murray Drive / Edward Street intersection PM Peak Hour During the PM peak period, operations were deemed satisfactory in both the northbound and southbound travel directions throughout the entire corridor. No significant queuing was observed along Yonge Street or on any of the minor streets. In order to slightly improve progression at the south end of the corridor, the following modification was implemented real time: Offset at Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard changed from 4 seconds to 83 seconds Improved progression was observed after the offset revision at the Yonge Street and Henderson Drive / Allaura Boulevard intersection. 92

101 7. WALKING AND CYCLING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 7.1 Introduction Given the significant growth within the Town and the growing demand for trails and related facilities for people of all ages, abilities and levels of mobility, it was prudent for the Town to consider how it can better support sustainable transportation and improve conditions for walking and cycling in addition to road infrastructure improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure indirectly support public transit in the Town, as transit trips primarily begin and end with a walking or cycling component to the bus stop or transit station. This chapter provides the recommendations for addressing the Town s walking and cycling needs. It discusses the background to the study, summarizes regional and local pedestrian and non-cycling priorities, describes potential changes to the planned pedestrian and cycling networks, analyzes the recommended implementation plan, considers sources of funding and, finally, presents ideas for supportive programs related to walking and cycling. 7.2 Background An inventory of all existing trails and proposed trails was conducted to establish opportunities for connecting new pedestrian and cycling facilities with the existing and proposed (as per York Region and the Town Trails Master Plan) trail networks Existing Trails The Town s current trail system provides approximately 25 km of trails with connections to many of its neighbourhood parks, Town facilities and open space corridors. The more prominent trail systems in the Town include: the Holland River Valley (Nokiidaa) Trail; the Willow Farm, Lakeview and Wimpey Trail; the Sheppard s Bush Conservation Area and the Oak Ridges Trail. The Town s existing trails are primarily multi-use but frequented by mostly walkers and hikers. The trails also accommodate other user groups including cyclists and cross country skiers. Most of the Town s trails have a gravel surface, with some sections of asphalt through neighbourhood and community parks. The Town s woodlot and natural valley trails have a natural (earth) surface. There are six trail systems in the Town: 1. Fleury and Machell Park Trail 2. Holland River Value Trail (Nokiidaa Trail) 3. Klaus Wehrenberg Trail 4. Oak Ridges Trail 5. Sheppard s Bush Conservation Area 6. Will Farm, Lakeview and Wimpey Trail 93

102 7.2.2 Need for Trails The Town s recent Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the following key trends in Aurora that contribute to the increasing demand for trails development: Establishment of trails (both natural area trails and urban multi-use trails) as one of the most sought after recreational facilities because of the popularity of walking, cycling, inline skating, etc. as leisure and active transportation activities. Increased demand for spontaneous and drop-in activities for those who have limited amounts of free time. Increased popularity of the multi-use facility and park development model, because it consolidates a number of leisure activities at a single location and offers cross-programming opportunities for users of a wide range of ages, and reducing municipal operational costs. Orientation of municipalities programs to respond to the demand from adults and older adults to embrace the active living or wellness philosophies Challenges in Existing Trails Systems The Aurora Trails Master Plan identified the following as the most prominent challenges in the Aurora trails systems: Lack of trail continuity Challenging or non-existent road or rail crossings Inadequate trail signage Conflicts between the different users on shared trails Variation in trail width and surface type from one trail to the next Lack of garbage / recycling facilities along the trails. 7.3 Local and Regional Pedestrian and Cycling Priorities The pedestrian and cycling priorities in the Town planning documents were used to formalize the Aurora pedestrian and cycling network. The Region s planning documents were also reviewed given that there are a number of regional roads within the Town. A summary of the priorities in the Town and the Region s planning documents are detailed in the following sections Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan (211) The Aurora Trails Master Plan (MMM, 211) provides a detailed description of the types, alignments and implementation schedules for the trail network in Aurora. The Plan specifically notes the lack of trail continuity in many locations and the importance that the evolution of trails through the implementation schedule lead to a more continuous system. The principles guiding the location and prioritizing of new trails planned for development in the Aurora Trails Master Plan are described as follows: Preference for off-road trails 94

103 Enhancing the network in points where a greater number of users are expected Connecting important community destinations including schools, community centres and recreation complexes, major sports fields, stores, employment lands, key points of interest Completing key connections that form part of the Town and regional trail routes Connecting existing facilities where adding a small connecting link results in a substantially longer continuous trail Developing trail loops Taking advantage of land redevelopment, including downtown intensification Allowing for off-road trail access to transit stops Establishing spine trail routes in new subdivisions Coordinating implementation schedule with provincial, regional and local capital projects to save costs. Exhibit 7-1: Draft Route Network, Aurora Trails Master Plan Promenade Concept Plan (21) The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan (Planning Partnership, 212) is primarily concerned with the development of the Yonge Street and Wellington Street corridors and the identification of character areas for pursuing focused objectives. This applies to the trails network as follows: Connect existing and proposed off-road trails with schools, recreation, services, shopping and employment areas, and the historic core Build on the existing linear network of trails while strengthening links to key destinations including downtown and transit stations Use parallel streets to Yonge Street and Wellington Street to provide cyclist links to the trail network 95

104 Interconnect parks, streets and open spaces to enhance pedestrian connectivity between the Promenade and surrounding areas Provide pedestrian connections to open spaces including the East Holland River Valley and Lambert Wilson Park, Machell Park and Fleury Park Provide convenient, direct and safe pedestrian links to transit, recognizing that transit trips begin and end on foot Allow pedestrian and cycling movement to continue where through-vehicle traffic is restricted. Exhibit 7-2: Public Realm Framework, Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Key Priorities In summary, the main themes in the Region and the Town s planning documents are as follows: Improve pedestrian and cycling infrastructure connections to public transit stops and transit stations Encourage and support walking by creating a safe and pedestrian friendly environment through urban design and streetscaping Develop pedestrian and cycling facilities where the greatest number of users are anticipated Build on the existing linear network of trails by making connections to existing trails where possible. 96

105 7.3.3 York Region Pedestrian Facilities York Region s Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan Study (PCMP) lists the primary objectives of the pedestrian component of its plan to include the following: Improve sidewalks on Regional roads and pedestrian infrastructure connections to public transit stops and transit stations by completing missing sidewalk links Encourage and support pedestrian-friendly urban design and streetscaping by avoiding development patterns that cater strictly to the automobile Improve pedestrian connectivity and accessibility along major arterials where pedestrians access pedestrian attractions (e.g., shopping malls, plazas, town facilities, or transit stations). Notwithstanding the above priorities and objectives, the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of sidewalks are the responsibility of the local municipality. Exhibit 7-3: Regional Pedestrian Network, Candidate Routes, PCMP York Region s Strategic Plan, Vision 251, updates Vision 226 as the Region s primary long range plan with a continued goal of creating Strong, Caring, and Safe Communities. One of the eight primary goals of the Vision is to achieve a seamless network for mobility that provides diverse transportation options to people in all communities, promotes active healthy living, safely and efficiently moves people, goods and our economy. Action areas to achieve this goal include prioritizing people and reducing the need for travel, prioritizing alternative modes of travel for active transportation, providing a variety of transit choices, and providing a network of Complete Streets. 97

106 Cycling The primary objective of the PCMP is to identify a continuous and connected region-wide cycling network that will build upon, connect and support: The existing and planned cycling routes within its municipalities Improving cycling and encouraging more people to walk and cycle more often in York Region Cycling as a means of connecting to transit. Exhibit 7-4: Candidate Cycling Route Alternatives, PCMP Lake to Lake Cycling Route and Trail During the development of the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (28), there was interest in the creation of a pedestrian and cycling connection from Lake Simcoe at the northern edge of York Region through the City of Toronto to Lake Ontario in the south. In January 211, York Regional Council endorsed the proposed framework for implementing this active transportation route; this will include a design feasibility study, design and construction. Based on the Phase 1 review for the Lake to Lake Trail, the following alignment was identified in Exhibit 7-5. The proposed alignment will be along the existing Holland River Valley Trail & the proposed Holland Valley River Trail connection in the Town with additional active transportation facilities on St. John Sideroad and Bayview Avenue. The Lake to Lake Trail will not result in any new trail alignments under the jurisdiction of the Town. 98

107 Exhibit 7-5: Preferred Candidate Lake to Lake Trail Alignment through Aurora 7.4 Pedestrian, Trail and Cycling Network The key Region and Town priorities related to the pedestrian and cycling network in Aurora are assigned on the principle of promoting walking, cycling and using public transit. With this objective, the pedestrian and cycling network was formalized by confirming whether the draft candidate trail route network from the Aurora Trails Master Plan is consistent with the key priorities defined in the Region and Town s planning documents. The Region s Pedestrian and Cycling implementation schedules in the PCMP also inform the formalization process. Of the six Aurora trail systems, most are well-connected to each other with the exception of Fleury and Machell Park Trail and the Willow Farm, Lakeview, Wimpey Trail. Exhibit 7-6 shows all existing trail systems (in solid lines) and all the proposed candidate routes from the Aurora Trails Master Plan (in dashed lines). The proposed off-road municipal trail will provide better connectivity to the other pedestrian and cycling facilities within the Region (sidewalks and cycling paths on regional roads) and the Town (existing trails and proposed sidewalks on local roads). The Aurora Trails Master Plan also proposes extensions to the existing trail systems, such as the Oak Ridges and the Nokiidaa Trail Systems, to improve the connectivity of the trail network within Aurora. 99

108 At present, there are few connections linking the existing trails to key destinations. The proposed in-boulevard multi-use paths along the Regional roads will provide such connections to existing as well as proposed off-road trails. It is also noted that the Town has designated a preliminary trail for the 2C Secondary Plan Area that has yet to be finalized, as a part of the 2C lands review and approval process. 7.5 Improving the Existing Walking and Cycling Experience The following are some of the concerns that the Town s residents had related to the existing walking and cycling facilities in Aurora Trail Continuity A lack of continuity in existing trails, between existing trails and between existing trails and sidewalks was a concern documented in the Aurora Trails Master Plan. The implementation framework in Appendix J details mechanisms of how alternative or additional trails can also be implemented into the network. Exhibit 7-7 shows York Region s cycling network superimposed on the Town s trail map. There is minimal overlap and duplication of existing and proposed Town trails and Region trails. This is attributed to the difference in the strategy for improving connectivity and active transportation in the Town versus in the Region. The Town has a preference for off-road trail options, where feasible; the Region, on the other hand, has located much of its active transportation infrastructure along major arterials under their jurisdiction. The exception is a north-south regional cycling route proposed east of Yonge Street on Old Yonge Street, Spruce Street, Gurnett Street and Edward Street. Consequently, there are few gaps in the combined Town and Region cycling networks. There are some duplication in proposed routes along Yonge Street, Industrial Parkway and Vandorf Sideroad. 1

109 Exhibit 7-6: Aurora Trail Network 11

110 Exhibit 7-7: Aurora Trails and York Region Cycling Route Networks 12

111 7.5.2 Road or Rail Crossings Residents indicated that the existing walking and cycling experience in Aurora could be enhanced by improving challenging road or rail crossings and adding them where none currently exist. The operations / signal timings analysis along Yonge Street and the traffic operations / safety analysis from the overall Master Transportation Operations Study indicate that there should not be any crossing issues at the top ten collision-prone intersections in the Town. Additional opportunities for scheduling future crossings or crossing improvements would be considered when they can be implemented with planned roadway improvements or with development applications. For pedestrians and cyclists the crossing of provincial freeways such as Highway 44 is a major barrier to active transportation. In rural areas, there are a lack of sidewalks, bike lanes, paved shoulders and related facilities at highway interchanges across the province. Where facilities for pedestrians and cyclists do exist the entrance and exit ramps remain the key points of conflict with vehicles. Based upon a review of the collision data in Ontario, collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists are much more likely to be found occurring at off-ramps than at on-ramps. The higher number of collisions at off-ramps may potentially be due to three main factors. The first is higher vehicle speeds. Drivers exiting from the freeway are transitioning from a high speed environment and may have experienced speed adaptation where they do not realize how fast they are driving. Second, off-ramps are much more complex facilities than on-ramps. Drivers at off-ramps are focused on merging with the traffic on the arterial whereas drivers at on-ramps only need to pay attention the traffic ahead and the odds of a sideswipe collision are much reduced. Third, drivers at off-ramps are looking left as they merge onto the arterial thus greatly increasing their chances of not seeing a pedestrian or cyclist on the right. By comparison drivers at on-ramps do not need to look for merging vehicles and thus have more attention resources available to notice pedestrians and cyclists. The transportation design alternatives in Table 7-1 are recommended for consideration on Ontario highway interchange environments. 13

112 Table 7-1: Active Transportation Design Alternatives at Provincial Interchanges Cross-street Solutions On-ramp Solutions Off-ramp Solutions Bicycle lanes restriping only Bicycle jug handle Reconstruct off-ramp (free-flow Bicycle lanes widening with planned Enhanced to standard right turn) reconstruction pavement marking Reconstruct off-ramp (free-flow Bicycle lanes complete road widening within the conflict to channelized right-turn lane Wide curb lane (sharrow) zone smart channel ) Multi-use bike path (3. m wide one-side Minor construction Minor construction (e.g. radius boulevard) (e.g. radius modifications) Sidewalk modifications Relocate pedestrian crossing if Upgrade catchbasins so that they are bicycle consistent with sightlines constrained friendly Geometric Design Bicycle jug handle (for freeflow off-ramp) Shared use signed route Standards for Illumination (intersection or structure) Ontario Highways) Zebra (ladder) markings at Streetscaping for speed management Relocate signalized crossing Hand railing upgrade on bridge pedestrian crossing Curb or median cut for Barriers / delineators to separate vehicle and if sightlines pedestrian crossing active transportation traffic constrained Traffic control signal new Vegetation maintenance for improved sight Curb or median cut Pedestrian signal heads distance for pedestrian (standard or countdown) Bridge Structure widening crossing Signal timing modifications New grade separation crossing (Bridge) Warning or (e.g. pedestrian walk phase) New grade separation crossing (Tunnel) advisory signs Warning or advisory signs Trail Width and Surface Type Variation Variations in trail width and surface type were also listed as a prominent concern by residents surveyed in the Aurora Trails Master Plan. Recommended guidelines for trail width and surface treatments for spine or main trails and local neighbourhood or secondary trails according to location type throughout Aurora are shown in Table 7-2. These are to be applied where possible with the understanding that variations from standard width and surface type will be applied on a site by site basis when there are: local environmental constraints, volume considerations and/or access needs for people using mobility devices. These trail types are defined as follows: Spine or Main Trails Wider, typically have a granular surface (i.e., limestone screenings) May have an asphalt surface where warranted in places of high trail use or areas of high erosion Local Neighbourhood or Secondary Trails Generally narrow Follow the topography more closely than main trails For the upgrade of existing trails, other factors need to be considered including cost (i.e. should the trail be upgraded within a set planning horizon, in conjunction with an infrastructure project or at the end of its life cycle) and context specific considerations (e.g., local environmental constraints, and / or special access needs for people using mobility devices). Sample unit costs of each type of trail are included in Table

113 Table 7-2: Guidelines for Multi-Use Trail Types Trail Location Major Town Wide Destination (e.g., Major Town Park, Community Centre, Civic complex, trails in utility / linear green corridors) Minor Town Parks, stormwater management areas with trails Natural Area Buffers, Rural Areas Woodlots and Conservation Areas (urban and rural areas) Wetlands: includes Treed Swamps, Marshes, Shrub Thickets/ Meadow Marshes, Marshes (urban and rural areas) Spine or Main Trails m wide, to accommodate small wheeled users and urban rail trails where they pass through core areas and major town wide destinations. Generally granular surface. Hard surfaces will be used for inboulevard multi-use trails; trails where erosion is an ongoing problem or for locations where a wide range of uses (e.g., small wheeled uses) are intended. Consider width and turning radii of service access vehicles when designing trails in utility corridors m wide granular surfaced Hard surfaces will be used for in boulevard multi-use trails; trails where erosion is an ongoing problem or for locations where a wide range of uses (e.g., small wheeled uses) are intended. 2.4m wide granular surface Trail hardening for maintenance concerns only use soil bonding agents. 2.4m wide granular or woodchip surface Width and surface type to be considered in the context of site conditions Local Neighbourhood or Secondary Trails m wide granular surface Hard surfaces will be used for inboulevard multi-use trails; trails where erosion in an ongoing problem or for locations where a wide range of uses (e.g., small wheeled uses) are intended. 2.4m wide granular surface Hard surfaces will be used where erosion in an ongoing problem. 1.5m wide granular surface Trail hardening for maintenance concerns only use soil bonding agents m wide woodchip surface May be granular (compacted stonedust / limestone screenings) or smooth earth surface where disabled access is desired. Width and surface type to be considered in the context of site conditions 15

114 Table 7-3: Unit Cost of Trail Surfaces Material Dimension Unit Cost [$ / m]* Hard Surface concrete 1.5m wide 15 Hard Surface - asphalt 3.m wide 25 Soft Surface Multi-Use - granular 3.m wide 14 Upgrade to Soft Surface Multi-Use - granular 3.m wide 5 Softsurfacemulti-use - granular- 2.4m wide 1 Natural earth surface or woodchip surface 1.5m wide 25 Soft Surface Multi-Use - granular 2.4m wide 1 Soft Surface Multi-Use - granular 3.m wide 14 * To be confirmed and escalated for proposed implementation Pedestrian / Cyclist Interrelationship The Aurora Trails Master Plan does not provide direction about how to address the pedestrian / cyclist interrelationship on trails. The recommended widths for trail types detailed in Table 7-2 are appropriate for their respective function. For example, the width of the spine or main trails located by a major Town-wide destination is m wide so that small wheeled users can be accommodated. The width accounts for the function of the multi-use trail within its context, an urban and higher traffic area. Although a multi-use trail is intended to be a shared facility, in which users yield to one another, it is noted that there are mechanisms in place to relax the design guidelines following a site assessment. That is, a multi-use trail can be made wider or separated pedestrian and cycling facilities can be considered. There are no existing design standards that correlate trail width with pedestrian / cyclist volumes; consequently, the Town should consider the following to determine whether a wider trail is warranted: Are there deficiencies in the design (e.g., lack of sight distance, appropriate sight lines irregular alignments, etc.) What is the frequency of pedestrian / cyclist incidents on a trail What is the shared-use path level of service (FHWA-HRT-5-138, AASHTO, 26) A more cost effective option is to implement trail use education strategies that encourage the sharing of the trail right-of-way. This can be through the addition of Rules of the Trail signage (explained in Section 7.5.5) along the trail to encourage trail users to share the facility with other users. An example of such a sign is shown in Exhibit

115 Exhibit 7-8: Examples of Rules of the Trail Signage Inadequate Trail Signage Inadequate trail signage was another concern about the existing walking and cycling facilities in Aurora. Providing a comprehensive and intuitive way-finding system is a way of increasing trail use and improving the overall walking and cycling experience in the Town. The Aurora Trails Master Plan proposes to coordinate trails through the town by developing a continuous theme to connect to network routing signage, facilities and features. This would require a trail signage audit and the development of a trail signage strategy, as well as publication of updated trail maps. A branding strategy would implement a logo which identifies a Town trail throughout Aurora. Such a logo would increase brand awareness of the Town s trail system by including them in maps and guides that promote the trails in addition to trail signage. It is also a means of supporting the Town s objective of actively promoting the viability of cycling as a travel option in a highly visible manner. Exhibit 7-9 is a sample of the City of Brampton s pathways logo as a keybrandingelement. 17

116 Exhibit 7-9: City of Brampton s Pathways Signage The following types of signs should be included as a part of the trail signage implementation: Orientation and trailhead signs - typically located at key destination points and major network junctions. Rules of the Trail signs - posted at public access points to clearly articulate which permitted trail uses, applicable regulations and laws, trail etiquette, safety and emergency contact information. Regulatory signs - located throughout the system, e.g., stop, yield, curve-ahead, etc. as per the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario s (MTO) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Interpretive signs - located at key trail features having a story to be told. These features may be cultural, historical, or natural. Route marker and trail directional signs - located at regular intervals throughout the network and at intersections Lack of Garbage / Recycling Facilities Proper conditions and a suitable environment must be available to pedestrians and cyclists for them to feel comfortable using sidewalks and trails in Aurora. People will consider walking or cycling for recreational or commuter purposes if it is convenient, safe and comfortable. A part of making trails more convenient, safe and comfortable is to provide amenities along the trails. The Aurora Trails Master Plan identified that residents were concerned about the lack of garbage and recycling facilities in appropriate locations along trails which can lead to littering on the trails. This can be addressed through trail design guidelines, trail signage and trail user education strategies. The Master Plan also recommends that waste and recycling receptacles be located at mid-block crossing points, staging areas, trail and trail nodes, and in association with other site amenities, such as benches and interpretive signs. Benches, built and natural shade, and washroom facilities are very important for older adults. 18

117 7.6 Preliminary Recommendations Aurora s Cycling Network The existing Aurora Trails Master Plan and the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan have identified proposed trail and cycling routes based on the following principles: Develop or expand the trail and cycling network in locations where the majority of users are anticipated; Establish main corridors between important pedestrian attractions such as schools and town facilities (including community centres and recreation complexes, major sports fields, libraries, employment lands and key points of interest); Make or complete key connections that form part of regional trail and cycling network; Make connections between existing facilities in locations where the completion of a small missing link results in the creation of a significantly longer continuous trail; Develop trail loops throughout the community; and Establish trail routes and cycling lanes in new subdivisions as part of the subdivision planning and design approval process. Adhering to the same principles above, the Town can establish its existing and proposed trails and the Region s proposed cycling routes along major corridors as the basis of Aurora s cycling network. To build upon this proposed network, the combined Town trails and Region cycling networks were assessed in terms of gaps and continuity as well as proximity to pedestrian attractions and town facilities. Table 7-4 details a number of additional cycling connections that have been identified for further study. Exhibit 7-1 shows the proposed Town cycling network, including the Town s trails, the Region s cycling routes and the proposed cycling connections. The Town should also continually look for opportunities to expand its cycling network through development applications and planned municipal capital works projects. These proposed 12.6 km of new cycling routes could be on-road bike lanes or multi-use trails alongside the road. The specific type of cycling route will be determined when the opportunity arises to have the cycling route implemented during road reconstruction or during new development applications. The proposed cycling routes were also compared with the Town s sidewalk gaps to determine if there are any overlaps between the need for both sidewalks and cycling routes along the same corridor. A multi-use trail has the potential to accommodate both pedestrian and cycling needs. Sidewalk gaps and the comparison of the proposed cycling routes to these sidewalk gaps are discussed in Chapter 9. The comparison revealed that the proposed cycling routes do not overlap with any of the sidewalk gaps identified by the Town; therefore, all of these proposed cycling routes should be carried forward. 19

118 Table 7-4: Proposed Cycling Connections for Future Study Street Name From To Length (m) McClellan Way Bathurst Street Henderson Drive 1715 Glass Drive/Murray Drive/Edward Street Child Drive Allaura Boulevard 155 Dunning Avenue Yonge Street Edward Street 55 George Street Kennedy Street Wellington Street 61 Murray Drive North of Kennedy Street Wellington Street 5 Aurora Heights Drive/Mark Street East of Delayne Drive Walton Drive 23 Industrial Parkway North St. John s Sideroad Wellington Street 215 Pedersen Drive East of Kirkvalley Crescent Bayview Avenue 375 Hollandview Trail West of Bridgenorth Drive Bayview Avenue 725 Hollidge Boulevard Hollandview Trail Bayview Avenue 75 Lewis Honey Drive Conover Avenue Mavrinac Boulevard 325 Stone Road Bayview Avenue Bayview Avenue 17 Henderson Drive Poplar Crescent McClellan Way 975 Walton Drive Mark Street Wellington Street 5 TOTAL 12,575 11

119 Exhibit 7-1: Proposed Aurora Cycling Network 111

120 7.6.2 Priorities and Considerations The following are the priorities and considerations in the development and the design of the Town s trail network Off-Road Facilities Where feasible, the Town should consider off-road trail options instead of sidewalks. This consideration is borne of a preference for using sidewalks along local streets and in-boulevard multi-use trails (MUT) along collector and arterial road rights-of-way. In-boulevard MUTs are separate off-road facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to travel on at a greater offset from vehicular traffic, which is safer for non-vehicular users. There are a number of design constraints that exist that prevent the implementation of off-road trails in all locations where facilities for pedestrians and cyclists should be considered. In these instances, sidewalks should be designed as per the Town s sidewalk installation policy and proposed sidewalk priority plan Grade Separated Crossings Grade separated crossings eliminate the barrier of crossing a major vehicular right-of-way for cyclists and pedestrians. Grade separated crossings are preferable for trail users from a safety perspective; however, pedestrian bridges result in significant capital spending and maintenance costs and are not always well used by pedestrians or hikers. The Town should consider grade separated crossings where existing structures exist. For the proposed 12.6 km of new cycling routes, grade separated crossings will not be required. Exhibit 7-11 illustrate how trails can be accommodated beneath existing structures to grade separate and permit unimpeded pedestrian and/or cyclist traffic on trails. Underpasses and tunnels can raise concerns for personal security and ongoing maintenance. Consequently such trail underpasses should be well lit with special consideration made to personal security, maintenance and drainage. Nokiidaa Trail crosses Davis Drive, Newmarket Exhibit 7-11: Grade-Separate Trail Crossings Nokiidaa Trail crosses Queen Street, Newmarket 112

121 Highway 44 Crossings In the Town, existing and proposed trails on St. John s Sideroad, Wellington Street and Vandorf Sideroad cross Highway 44. St. John s Sideroad and Vandorf Sideroad have two-lane overpasses over Highway 44. As shown in Exhibit 7-12 and Exhibit 7-13, there is insufficient space to accommodate a separate trail on these overpass structures. There is potential for widening these structures during the rehabilitation or reconstruction of these structures. This is subject to the structural integrity of the overpass bridges. Due to the significant cost due to the spanoftheoverpass,aseparatetrailstructureisnotrecommended. Exhibit 7-12: Vandorf Sideroad, facing east Exhibit 7-13: St. John s Sideroad, facing east At Wellington Street, there is an interchange with Highway 44, as shown in Exhibit An active transportation crossing at the on and off ramps could be designed in accordance to HDR s Integration of Pedestrians and Bicyclists at Interchanges study for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and relevant TAC design guidelines (See Section 7.5.2). A transition from the existing off-road trails on Wellington Street west of Leslie Street to an onstreet facility east of Leslie towards Highway 44 may also be required. The process outlined in the aforementioned study involved assessing the existing and future traffic conditions, incident records, design alternatives, and land-use characteristics as well as conducting a workshop with multiple stakeholders to recommend appropriate active transportation crossings at interchanges. 113

122 Although recommended in York Regions cycling network plan, the Town, and MTO would have to be involved in a similar process with the Region to develop recommendations for crossing the Wellington Street / Highway 44 interchange. Exhibit 7-14: Wellington Street, facing east Rail Crossings To establish a pathway crossing of an active rail line, the Town would need to submit their request directly to the railroad company and identify the crossing location and its basic design. Any railway crossing design must comply with the Draft RTD 1, Road/Railway Grade Crossings: Technical Standards and Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Requirements (22) and the Pedestrian Safety at Grade Crossing Guide (27) available from Transport Canada. The Trails Master Plan identifies a number of proposed grade-separated rail crossings. Though preferred, these types of crossings pose technical challenges resulting in larger land requirements and increased capital and operating costs. The construction of a grade-separated crossing would be most efficiently done at the same time as repairs to the rail line or any other municipal capital works projects are being completed. However, priority should be made to minimizing rail crossing to existing road crossings or to create level crossings Links to Schools Safe and inviting links for walking and cycling to schools is important for everyday travelling to and from school, for providing accessible routes to key pedestrian attractions as well as for establishing a culture of walking and cycling in the Town. The Town s preference is for a balance of on-road and off-road trail options. The appropriate accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists on higher volume roads should be considered. This is due to the location of a number of pedestrian attractions along major arterials such as Yonge Street and Wellington Street as well as providing connections to existing and proposed cycling trails on regional roads. Additional discussion about how active transportation can be accommodated within the Town is in Section

123 7.7 Implementation Appendix J provides an overall framework for implementing the improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure within Aurora, which follows the recommendation of the Aurora Trails Master Plan and the sidewalk priority plan. This appendix also provides some discussion of alternative sources and supportive programs to encourage walking and cycling in the Town. 115

124 8. BICYCLE SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS The Town of Aurora requires a consistent approach to bicycle signage and pavement markings. Appendix K details the: 1. Identification of the different types of bike facilities, based on the degree of interaction each requires of cyclists with motorized vehicles and/or pedestrians; 2. Review of bicycle signage; 3. Review of bicycle pavement markings; 4. Description of best practice approaches to providing signs and markings to account for cyclists. 5. Recommendations for the Town. These are summarized in the rest of this section. 8.1 Standard Cross Sections For existing roads that will be retrofitted with active transportation facilities. Three general active transportation cross sections were developed and are listed as follows (in order of preference): Designated boulevard bike facility Segregated bike facility (or a conventional bike lane) Shared bike facility (a shared lane). 116

125 Exhibit 8-1: Designated Boulevard Bike Facility 117

126 Exhibit 8-2: Segregated Bike Facility (or a Conventional Bike Lane) 118

127 Exhibit 8-3: Shared Bike Facility (a Shared Lane) 119

128 8.2 Applications in the Town of Aurora The Town identified three locations to apply the proposed standard cross sections. These are: 1. Industrial Parkway 2. Stone Road 3. Kennedy Street West between George Street and Murray Drive. These are all two lane roads with limited ROW. Applying these cross sections to existing roads is a bit more difficult and requires some interpretation and trade-offs in the design stages. The following is a general discussion of how the proposed sections may align with the three example roadways and therefore with other similar locations throughout the town Industrial Parkway A designated boulevard bike facility would be preferred along Industrial Parkway given its traffic volumes and the road classification. If there are design constraints, a segregated bike facility and sidewalk should be considered. A shared bike facility is not recommended at this location given Industrial Parkway s traffic volumes and the road classification. Exhibit 8-4: Industrial Parkway Stone Road A designated boulevard bike facility would be preferred along a residential road such as Stone Road in new developments, given the Town s cycling and walking priorities. However, Since Stone Road is a recently constructed road in a low volume residential development that is unlikely to be retrofitted for a designated boulevard bike facility so a shared bike facility may be considered. 12

129 Exhibit 8-5: Stone Road Kennedy Street There are apparent design constraints along Kennedy Street that may render a full width designated boulevard bike facility infeasible. In this location a shared bike facility can be considered. There is also an opportunity to widen the sidewalk to a full trail width (3-4m), decrease the boulevard at the bridge location and provide positive guidance to users. This would be a deviation from the proposed standards and should be investigated further during the preliminary and detailed design stages if any road improvement projects were to occur in this location. Exhibit 8-6: Kennedy Street 121

130 9. SIDEWALKS PRIORITY PLAN 9.1 Introduction The Town of Aurora has sidewalks servicing its urban areas, suburban areas and rural areas. An existing sidewalk system is located on most regional, arterial, collector and local roads with sidewalks usually, but not invariably, on both sides of the road. Where sidewalks are not available, pedestrians are forced to walk on the roadway, thereby increasing pedestrian discomfort and the potential for pedestrian-vehicle related injuries. For the Town to reduce pedestrian risk and to provide a safe walking environment and convenient connections between neighbourhoods and amenities, the Town should consider implementing sidewalks wherever feasible, based on Town s installation policy for sidewalks. This Chapter provides the priority plan for the installation of missing sidewalk links on roads in the Town. 9.2 Methodology Apreliminarysidewalk priority plan was developed by prioritizing the installation of sidewalks where there are sidewalk gaps in coordination with: York Region s pedestrian system implementation plan The implementation plan of Town s trail master plan Proximity to pedestrian attractions including schools, community centres and parks Compliance with the Town s sidewalk installation policy. 9.3 Sidewalk Assessment Existing Conditions An inventory of existing sidewalks and sidewalk gaps was prepared by HDR using the data provided by the Town staff. The Town staff provided HDR with a digital Geographic Information System database (GIS); a current inventory of existing sidewalks and sidewalk gaps on the Town roads; Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume data; and an inventory of planned pedestrian and cycling facilities. All of the existing sidewalk and sidewalk gaps were compiled and digitally mapped, as listed in Table 9-1 and shown in Exhibit 9-1. The following observations were made based on the Town s existing sidewalks and sidewalk gaps: There are km of existing sidewalks (including unassumed and private walkways). There are 62.3 km of roads that are identified as having neither sidewalks nor sidewalk gaps (e.g., private roads). There are 37.8 km of identified sidewalk gaps; these sidewalk gaps were in the following locations (in no particular order of priority). 122

131 Table 9-1: Sidewalk Gaps in Aurora Town of AuroraRoads The entire length of Industrial Parkway North and South Mary Street from Wellington Street East to Industrial Parkway South Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive Woodland Hills Boulevard Duncton Wood Crescent Limeridge Street Algonquin Crescent Kitmat Crescent Collins Crescent Harriman Road from Wellington Street to Tyler Street Tyler Street from George Street to Mill Street Hillview Road Murray Drive from Kennedy Street West to Anderson Place Morning Crescent Knowles Crescent Holman Crescent Johnson Road Baldwin Road Stoddart Drive from Glenview Drive to Fairway Drive Stoddart Drive from Nisbet Drive Corbett Crescent Davidson Road Bailey Crescent Adair Drive Edward Street Patrick Drive Hutchinson Road Webster Drive Regional Arterial Roads The entire length of Bathurst Street along the western Town boundary between the Town s north and south boundaries (north of St. John s Sideroad to Bloomington Road) Yonge Street from the northern Town boundary lines (north of St. John s Sideroad) to north of Orchard Heights Boulevard Yonge Street from Allaura Boulevard to the southern Town boundary line (Bloomington Road) Bayview Avenue from St. John s Sideroad to Pedersen Drive Bayview Avenue from Stone Road North to Vandorf Sideroad St. John s Sideroad from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street Wellington Street from Bathurst Street to MacLeod Drive Bayview Avenue from Stone Road North Leg to Vandorf Sideroad Aurora s Trail System Exhibit 9-2 shows the Town s existing sidewalk gaps overlaid upon the Town s existing and planned trail network and the additional 12.6km of proposed cycling routes recommended in Chapter 7. This mapping was completed to identify sidewalk gaps that could overlap with proposed cycling routes and to identify which sidewalk gap should be given higher priority for sidewalk implementation because they improve connections to the Town s existing and proposed trail network. This is also summarized in Error! Reference source not found. 123

132 Exhibit 9-1: Existing Sidewalks and Sidewalk Gaps 124

133 Exhibit 9-2: Sidewalk Gaps and Proposed Trail Network in the Town of Aurora 125

134 Table 9-2: Sidewalk Gaps and Aurora s Trail Network Phasing Trail Name Off-Road Municipal Trail In-Boulevard Multi- Use Trail Proposed Implementation Connections to the Town s Existing Sidewalk Gaps Schedule 1 Within 15 years The entire length of Industrial Parkway North and South St. John s Sideroad 2 from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street Wellington Street 2 from Bathurst Street to MacLeod Drive Yonge Street 2 from Allaura Boulevard to the southern Town boundary line (Bloomington Road) Bayview Avenue 2 from Stone Road North to Vandorf Sideroad Within 16 to 25 years Within 26 to 5+ years Existing sidewalk or trail currently exist within the Town and / or there is not sufficient development to warrant sidewalks in certain locations Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive Murray Drive from Kennedy Street West to Anderson Place Harriman Road from Wellington Street to Tyler Street Morning Crescent Knowles Crescent Bathurst Street 2 Within 15 years Industrial Parkway South Bathurst Street 2 Yonge Street 2 from Allaura Boulevard to the southern Town boundary line (Bloomington Road) Bayview Avenue 2 from St. John s Sideroad to Pedersen Drive Nokiidaa Trail Within 15years No proposed routes proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Within 15 years Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive Bathurst Street 2 Within 16 to 25 years Within 26 to 5+ years No routes proposed Yonge Street 2 from Allaura Boulevard to the southern Town boundary line (Bloomington Road) Note: 1. According to Exhibits 6.1 and 6.2 in the Town of Aurora s Trails Master Plan (MMM, 211) 2. Regional Road Aurora s Pedestrian Attractions Exhibit 9-3 shows the Town s existing sidewalk gaps overlaid upon the Town s existing pedestrian attractions. This mapping was completed to identify sidewalk gaps that should be given higher priority for sidewalk implementation because they improve pedestrian access to pedestrian attractions or destinations that were identified using the Town s Recreation and Leisure Map. The key recreational, commuter and institutional types of destinations for pedestrians in the Town include: Town features including civic centres, libraries and recreational facilities Schools including private, public and separate schools Aurora GO Station 126

135 Exhibit 9-3: Existing Sidewalk Gaps and Pedestrian Attractions 127

136 9.3.4 Aurora s Sidewalk Installation Policy The Town s Public Works Department s Policy and Procedure Manual has a Policy (No. 67) on Sidewalk Installation (Town of Aurora, 29). The purpose of Policy No. 67 is to establish a policy for the installation of sidewalks on the Town s roads as well as to ensure connectivity, safety and convenient sidewalks for pedestrian traffic in new development and existing areas. Based on the relevant sections of Town Policy No. 67, the Town should monitor the following as triggers to install sidewalks: Development adjacent to or abutting an arterial roadway There is a scheduled reconstruction of a collector or local road with sufficient road allowance and there are pedestrian attractions in proximity to the proposed reconstruction. 9.4 Sidewalk Prioritization The different considerations for sidewalk implementation prioritization (e.g., improving access to connections to pedestrian attractions and trails as well as based on Town policy) are summarized in Table 9-3 for Town roads and Table 9-4 for Regional roads. Where timing has been specified in the Aurora Trails Master Plan or in the York Region Pedestrian System Implementation Plan, the time frame for sidewalk implementation has been noted. Table 9-3: Existing Sidewalk Gaps Assessment Sidewalk Gap The entire length of Industrial Parkway North and South Mary Street from Wellington Street East to Industrial Parkway South Knowles Crescent Algonquin Crescent KitmatCrescent Collins Crescent Hillview Road Holman Crescent Johnson Road Baldwin Road Stoddart Drive from Glenview Drive to Fairway Drive Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 6 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 3 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m Aurora Trails Town Road Master Plan Classifications - 15 years Major Collector Major Collector years Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local 128

137 Sidewalk Gap Stoddart Drive from Nisbet Drive to 11m west Corbett Crescent Davidson Road Adair Drive Harriman Road from Wellington Street to Tyler Street Murray Drive from Kennedy Street West to Anderson Place Morning Crescent Tyler Street from George Street to Mill Street Bailey Crescent Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive Woodland Hills Boulevard Duncton Wood Crescent Limeridge Street Edward Street Patrick Drive Hutchinson Road Webster Drive Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m No Pedestrian Attractions within 5m No Pedestrian Attractions within 5m No Pedestrian Attractions within 5m No Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5m Aurora Trails Master Plan Town Road Classifications Local Local Local Local years Local years Local years Local Local Local - 15 years Major Collector Local Local Local Local Local Local Local 129

138 Table 9-4: Existing Sidewalk Gaps Assessment for Regional Roads in Aurora Sidewalk Gap Bathurst Street between north of St. John s Sideroad to Bloomington Road St. John s Sideroad from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street Bayview Avenue from Stone Road North to Vandorf Sideroad Yonge Street from north of St. John s Sideroad to north of Orchard Heights Boulevard Yonge Street from Allaura Boulevard to Bloomington Road Wellington Street from Bathurst Street to MacLeod Drive Bayview Avenue from St. John s Sideroad to Pedersen Drive Pedestrian Attractions within 5m 2 Pedestrian Attractions within 5 m No pedestrian Attractions within 5 m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5 m 1 Pedestrian Attraction within 5 m No pedestrian Attractions within 5 m No pedestrian Attractions within 5 m No pedestrian Attractions within 5 m Aurora Trails Master Plan Town Road Classifications York Region Pedestrian System Implementation Plan - 15 years Arterial - 5 years - 15 years Arterial - 5 years -15years Arterial Wasnot identified Was not identified Arterial Was not identified -15years Arterial Wasnot identified -15years Arterial Wasnot identified Was not identified Arterial Was not identified In developing the priority plan, the road construction schedule should also be considered for sidewalk installation triggers, because there are cost savings to be realized when a sidewalk installation is included as a part of an existing construction project or where developers will install sidewalks as a part of their development approval. Sidewalk installation triggers include: Development adjacent to or abutting an arterial roadway A scheduled reconstruction of a collector or local road with sufficient road allowance and there are pedestrian attractions in proximity to the proposed reconstruction. In regard to road reconstruction opportunities, the Town has a 1-year reconstruction plan illustrated in Exhibit

139 Exhibit 9-4: Town of Aurora 1-Year Reconstruction Plan ( ) 131

140 There are a number of roads for which there are sidewalk gaps that are also scheduled for reconstruction, including the following roads: Adair Drive Algonquin Crescent Baldwin Road Corbett Crescent Davidson Road Holman Crescent Industry Street Bailey Crescent Johnson Road Edward Street Haida Drive Harriman Road Murray Drive Tyler Street Based on a combination of factors including the Region s PCMP Pedestrian Implementation Plan, the Town s Trails Master Plan, Town roadway reconstruction plan, and the proximity of sidewalk gaps to pedestrian-oriented attractions, a proposed sidewalk prioritization plan is shown in Table 9-5Error! Reference source not found.. The total cost of all sidewalk gaps (if implemented) will be approximately $11.5 M spread over 2 years. The cost of the sidewalk gaps for roads with reconstruction plans were removed from the overall sidewalk gap cost because sidewalk installation can be incorporated as a part of the reconstruction cost that is scheduled to take place within 1 years. Sidewalk gaps for all of the above roads were recommended for short to medium term (-15 years) already so there are no changes to their priority. Table 9-5: Proposed Sidewalk Gap Priority Plan with Road Reconstruction Sidewalk Gap Implementation Estimated Cost 1 Industrial Parkway North -5 years $ 831,367 Industrial Parkway South -5 years $ 1,71,641 Mary Street from Wellington Street East to Industrial Parkway South -5 years $ 37,8 Adair Drive -1 years Part of road reconstruction Algonquin Crescent -1 years Part of road reconstruction Corbett Crescent -1years Partofroadreconstruction Davidson Road -1 years Part of road reconstruction Holman Crescent -1years Partof road reconstruction Industry Street -1 years Part of road reconstruction Johnson Road -1 years Part of road reconstruction 132

141 Sidewalk Gap Implementation Estimated Cost 1 Murray Drive from Kennedy Street West to Anderson Place -1 years Part of road reconstruction Tyler Street from George Street to Mill Street -1years Partof road reconstruction Baldwin Road -15 years Part of road reconstruction Collins Crescent -15 years $ 18, Cousins Drive -15years $36,25 Hillview Road -15 years $ 72, Kitmat Crescent -15 years $ 64,8 Knowles Crescent -15 years $ 114,75 Stoddart Drive part of Cossar Drive reconstruction -15 years Part of road reconstruction Bailey Crescent -1years Partof road reconstruction Morning Crescent 6-15years $49,5 Edward Street -1years $389,272 Haida Drive -1years Partof road reconstruction Patrick Drive 6-15 years $ 83,25 Hutchinson Road 6-15 years $ 2,7 Webster Drive 6-15years $87,75 Harriman Road from Wellington Street to Tyler Street 6-15years Partof road reconstruction Duncton Wood Crescent 16+ years $ 123,75 Henderson Drive from Bathurst Street to Seaton Drive 16+ years $ 25,5 Limeridge Street 16+ years $9, Woodland Hills Boulevard 16+ years $ 135, Bathurst Street 2 between north of St. John s Sideroad to Bloomington Road -5 years $ 5,563, St. John s Sideroad 2 from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street -5 years Part of road reconstruction Bayview Avenue 2 from St. John s Sideroad to Hartwell Way and from Stone Road North Leg to Vandorf Sideroad Yonge Street 2 (Various Sections) from north of St. John s Sideroad to Industrial Parkway South 6-15 years $ 841, years $ 1,44, Yonge Street 2 from Industrial Parkway South to Bloomington Road 6-15 years Part of road reconstruction Wellington Street 2 from Bathurst Street to MacLeod Drive 6-15 years $ 267,9 Total $ 11,57,633 Note: 1. Based on Town s sidewalk infrastructure cost estimates 2. York Region Arterial Road; however, Town is responsible for sidewalk implementation 9.5 Next Steps The next steps for the finalization of the priority plan include reviewing any requests for sidewalks from the public and updates to the road reconstruction plan, as well as incorporating any feedback from the various Town departments. 133

142 Final Report - Appendices March 213

143 Appendix A HOV Lane Capacity Assumption

144 HDR Corporation 1 York Blvd. Suite 3 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (95) Fax: (95) File: 2. Project # 6661 Memorandum To: Carl Wong HDR Cc: From: Jonathan Chai - HDR Date: September 28, 212 Re: Aurora Master Transportation Operations Study HOV Lane Capacity Assumption The following memorandum documents the rationale for a reduced capacity assumption for a modeled HOV 2+ lane. In the absence of a multiclass traffic assignment which utilizes a separate HOV trip table, one methodology for estimating travel demand in areas and corridors with HOV lanes is to reduce the assumed roadway capacity based on observed HOV lane utilization. This ensures that the total throughput of vehicles through a particular corridor is modelled comparatively to observed conditions in similar areas. In the GTA, there are 7 arterial corridors from which existing observations can be drawn from (all within Toronto), and these include: 1. Yonge Street south of Newton Drive 2. Overlea Blvd at the Don River 3. Pape Avenue north of Mortimer Avenue 4. Kingston Road west of Saunders Road 5. Allen Road north of Transit Road 6. Eglinton Avenue west of Warden Avenue 7. Dufferin Street south of Supertest Road While utilisation is typically dependent upon congestion and varies depending on the peak direction of travel, for simplicity a global assumption is required in order to be applied effectively to the travel demand forecasting model. Utilizing cordon count data from 1995 (the last year which these locations were counted), the total number of peak hour HOV 2+ vehicles was identified along each of the 7 corridors and compared to a typical capacity for arterial roads of 9 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl). The average number of HOV 2+ vehicles is approximately 275 or 31% utilization of a regular 9 vphpl capacity arterial roadway. The data is summarized in the table below. 1 of 2

145 station dir records start time end time tot_veh auto1 auto2 auto3 auto4 TOTAL HOV % OF SINGLE LANE ARTERIAL CAPACITY (9vphpl) N % S % E % W % N % S % E % W % N % S % E % W % N % S % AVERAGE: % September 28, of 2 HDR Corporation Project # 6661

146 Appendix B 212 Existing Intersection Operations

147 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

148 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

149 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

150 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

151 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

152 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

153 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

154 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

155 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

156 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

157 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

158 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

159 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

160 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

161 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

162 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

163 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

164 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

165 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

166 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

167 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

168 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

169 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

170 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

171 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

172 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

173 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

174 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

175 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

176 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

177 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

178 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings

179 Appendix C 212 Existing Arterial Operations

180 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Existing Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

181 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Existing Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

182 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Existing Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

183 Appendix D 212 Optimized Intersection Operations

184 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

185 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

186 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

187 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

188 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

189 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

190 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

191 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

192 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

193 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

194 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

195 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

196 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

197 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

198 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

199 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

200 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

201 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

202 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

203 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

204 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

205 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

206 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

207 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

208 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

209 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

210 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

211 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

212 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

213 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

214 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

215 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

216 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

217 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

218 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

219 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

220 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

221 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

222 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

223 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

224 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

225 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

226 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

227 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

228 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

229 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

230 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

231 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 212 Optimized Lanes, Volumes, Timings

232 Appendix E 212 Optimized Arterial Operations

233 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Optimized Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

234 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Optimized Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

235 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 212 Optimized Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

236 Appendix F 221 Horizon Intersection Operations

237 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

238 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

239 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

240 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

241 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

242 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

243 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

244 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

245 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

246 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

247 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

248 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

249 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

250 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

251 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

252 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

253 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

254 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

255 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

256 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

257 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

258 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

259 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

260 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

261 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

262 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

263 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

264 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

265 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

266 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

267 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

268 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

269 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

270 1: Yonge St & Henderson Dr/Allaura Blvd 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

271 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

272 2: Yonge St & Murray Dr/Edward St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

273 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

274 3: Yonge St & Brookland Ave/Private Access 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

275 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

276 4: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr/Dunning Ave 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

277 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

278 5: Yonge St & Kennedy St W/Kennedy St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

279 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

280 6: Yonge St & Wellington St W/Wellington St E 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

281 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

282 7: Yonge St & Aurora Heights Dr/Mark St 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

283 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

284 8: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd/Batson Dr 221 Horizon Lanes, Volumes, Timings

285 Appendix G 221 Horizon Arterial Operations

286 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 221 Horizon Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

287 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 221 Horizon Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

288 Arterial Level of Service Arterial Level of Service: NB Yonge St 221 Horizon Arterial Level of Service: SB Yonge St

289 Appendix H Existing Traffic Counts

290 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 8:: To: 9:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1898 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 322 North Entering: 986 Trucks Trucks 34 East Entering: 184 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 878 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 912 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Orchard Heights Blvd Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Batson Dr Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 971 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 2 Trucks 21 Trucks South Peds: 5 West Entering: 315 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 755 West Leg Total: 513 Totals 992 Totals South Leg Total: 1747 Comments

291 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 3161 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 497 North Entering: 1719 Trucks Trucks 45 East Entering: 39 North Peds: 3 Cars Cars 1397 East Peds: 3 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1442 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Orchard Heights Blvd Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Batson Dr Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 1765 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 2 Trucks 38 Trucks South Peds: 8 West Entering: 53 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 128 West Leg Total: 89 Totals 183 Totals South Leg Total: 311 Comments

292 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 7: 8: 22 8: 22 9: 349 9: 349

293 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

294 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

295 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

296 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

297 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 11:3: To: 12:3: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1158 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 95 North Entering: 537 Trucks Trucks 22 East Entering: 49 North Peds: Cars Cars 599 East Peds: Peds Cross: Totals Totals 621 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Orchard Heights Blvd Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Batson Dr Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 535 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: Trucks 18 Trucks South Peds: 13 West Entering: 143 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 64 West Leg Total: 256 Totals 553 Totals South Leg Total: 1157 Comments

298 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 17:: To: 18:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1837 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 312 North Entering: 831 Trucks Trucks 14 East Entering: 149 North Peds: 3 Cars Cars 992 East Peds: 8 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 16 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Orchard Heights Blvd Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Batson Dr Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 769 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 6 Trucks 15 Trucks South Peds: 26 West Entering: 295 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 968 West Leg Total: 585 Totals 784 Totals South Leg Total: 1752 Comments

299 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 747 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 965 North Entering: 3362 Trucks Trucks 1 East Entering: 473 North Peds: 24 Cars Cars 48 East Peds: 42 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 418 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Orchard Heights Blvd Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Batson Dr Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 3151 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 33 Trucks 95 Trucks South Peds: 89 West Entering: 184 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 3955 West Leg Total: 2112 Totals 3246 Totals South Leg Total: 721 Comments

300 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Orchard Heights Blvd & Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: 68 13: : 19 16: 19 17: : : : 339

301 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :33:

302 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :33:

303 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :33:

304 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :33:

305 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 7:45: To: 8:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heigh 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1643 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 245 North Entering: 951 Trucks Trucks 27 East Entering: 125 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 665 East Peds: 9 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 692 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Aurora Heights Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Mark St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 963 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 6 Trucks 19 Trucks South Peds: 22 West Entering: 254 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 684 West Leg Total: 474 Totals 982 Totals South Leg Total: 1666 Comments

306 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heigh 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 2851 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 421 North Entering: 177 Trucks Trucks 59 East Entering: 219 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 185 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1144 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Aurora Heights Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Mark St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 1773 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 15 Trucks 43 Trucks South Peds: 3 West Entering: 418 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 1145 West Leg Total: 745 Totals 1816 Totals South Leg Total: 2961 Comments

307 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heig Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: 2 2 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 7: 8: 16 8: 16 9: 26 9: 26

308 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 3 3 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

309 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

310 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 2 2 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

311 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

312 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heigh 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 149 Cyclists Cyclists 2 East Leg Total: 185 North Entering: 682 Trucks Trucks 25 East Entering: 85 North Peds: 2 Cars Cars 781 East Peds: 12 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 88 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Aurora Heights Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Mark St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 645 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 2 Trucks 24 Trucks South Peds: 78 West Entering: 26 Cyclists Cyclists 2 2 South Entering: 76 West Leg Total: 362 Totals 669 Totals South Leg Total: 1429 Comments

313 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heigh 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1832 Cyclists Cyclists 1 East Leg Total: 253 North Entering: 742 Trucks Trucks 2 East Entering: 148 North Peds: 3 Cars Cars 169 East Peds: 15 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 19 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Aurora Heights Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Mark St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 687 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 9 Trucks 18 Trucks South Peds: 23 West Entering: 191 Cyclists Cyclists 1 1 South Entering: 1148 West Leg Total: 52 Totals 75 Totals South Leg Total: 1853 Comments

314 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heigh 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 7933 Cyclists Cyclists 3 East Leg Total: 1153 North Entering: 343 Trucks Trucks 118 East Entering: 646 North Peds: 15 Cars Cars 449 East Peds: 4 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 453 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Aurora Heights Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Mark St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 326 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 25 Trucks 126 Trucks South Peds: 218 West Entering: 146 Cyclists Cyclists 3 3 South Entering: 4495 West Leg Total: 2267 Totals 3332 Totals South Leg Total: 7827 Comments

315 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Mark St & Aurora Heig Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: : : : : : : : 233

316 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

317 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

318 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

319 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

320

321 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 8:: To: 9:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora 1164 Yonge St & Kennedy St 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1311 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 164 North Entering: 766 Trucks Trucks 29 East Entering: 65 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 516 East Peds: 6 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 545 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Kennedy St Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Kennedy St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 811 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 18 Trucks 24 Trucks South Peds: 4 West Entering: 143 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 594 West Leg Total: 232 Totals 835 Totals South Leg Total: 1429 Comments

322 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora 1164 Yonge St & Kennedy St 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 2337 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 225 North Entering: 144 Trucks Trucks 38 East Entering: 92 North Peds: 14 Cars Cars 859 East Peds: 9 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 897 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Kennedy St Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Kennedy St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 152 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 23 Trucks 41 Trucks South Peds: 1 West Entering: 222 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 97 West Leg Total: 355 Totals 1561 Totals South Leg Total: 2531 Comments

323 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Kennedy St Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Municipality: Aurora Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 7: 8: 51 8: 51 9: 124 9: 124

324 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: 1164 Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

325 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: 1164 Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

326 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: 1164 Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

327 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: 1164 Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

328 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Kennedy St Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1212 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 15 North Entering: 67 Trucks Trucks 21 East Entering: 61 North Peds: 3 Cars Cars 584 East Peds: 3 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 65 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Kennedy St Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Kennedy St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 643 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 14 Trucks 26 Trucks South Peds: 8 West Entering: 58 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 641 West Leg Total: 17 Totals 669 Totals South Leg Total: 131 Comments

329 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Kennedy St Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1338 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 143 North Entering: 63 Trucks Trucks 17 East Entering: 1 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 718 East Peds: 11 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 735 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Kennedy St Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Kennedy St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 665 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 15 Trucks South Peds: 3 West Entering: 61 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 794 West Leg Total: 161 Totals 68 Totals South Leg Total: 1474 Comments

330 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Kennedy St Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 6266 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 69 North Entering: 2961 Trucks Trucks 99 East Entering: 439 North Peds: 18 Cars Cars 326 East Peds: 59 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 335 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Kennedy St Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Kennedy St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 3189 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 71 Trucks 119 Trucks South Peds: 4 West Entering: 317 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 3516 West Leg Total: 686 Totals 338 Totals South Leg Total: 6824 Comments

331 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Kennedy St Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Municipality: Aurora Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: 42 13: 76 16: : : 97 17: 97 18: 11 18: 11

332 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

333 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

334 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

335 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

336 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 8:: To: 9:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunning 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1636 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 551 North Entering: 882 Trucks Trucks 29 East Entering: 233 North Peds: 19 Cars Cars 725 East Peds: 34 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 754 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Golf Links Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Dunning Ave Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 92 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 29 Trucks 15 Trucks South Peds: 59 West Entering: 19 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 858 West Leg Total: 364 Totals 917 Totals South Leg Total: 1775 Comments

337 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunning 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 2854 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 89 North Entering: 166 Trucks Trucks 38 East Entering: 33 North Peds: 37 Cars Cars 1156 East Peds: 46 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1194 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Golf Links Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Dunning Ave Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 1674 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 44 Trucks 31 Trucks South Peds: 74 West Entering: 325 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 1333 West Leg Total: 595 Totals 175 Totals South Leg Total: 338 Comments

338 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunnin Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 1 7: 1 8: 179 8: 179 9: 35 9: 35

339 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

340 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

341 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

342 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

343 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunning 6 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1463 Cyclists 1 1 Cyclists 1 East Leg Total: 37 North Entering: 749 Trucks Trucks 19 East Entering: 164 North Peds: 96 Cars Cars 694 East Peds: 119 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 714 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Golf Links Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Dunning Ave Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 746 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 88 Trucks 27 Trucks South Peds: 25 West Entering: 79 Cyclists Cyclists 1 1 South Entering: 779 West Leg Total: 22 Totals 773 Totals South Leg Total: 1552 Comments

344 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunning 6 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1661 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 367 North Entering: 751 Trucks Trucks 2 East Entering: 235 North Peds: 9 Cars Cars 89 East Peds: 23 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 91 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Golf Links Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Dunning Ave Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 77 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 24 Trucks 19 Trucks South Peds: 12 West Entering: 12 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 928 West Leg Total: 287 Totals 789 Totals South Leg Total: 1717 Comments

345 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunning 6 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 7551 Cyclists Cyclists 2 East Leg Total: 1555 North Entering: 367 Trucks Trucks 11 East Entering: 93 North Peds: 223 Cars Cars 3778 East Peds: 295 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 3881 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Golf Links Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Dunning Ave Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 3676 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 289 Trucks 115 Trucks South Peds: 459 West Entering: 425 Cyclists 2 Cyclists South Entering: 466 West Leg Total: 1163 Totals 3793 Totals South Leg Total: 7859 Comments

346 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Golf Links Dr & Dunnin Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: : : : : : : : 195

347 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :34:

348 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :34:

349 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :34:

350 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: 11:45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :34:

351 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 8:: To: 9:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Brookland Ave 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1793 Cyclists Cyclists North Entering: 93 Trucks Trucks 27 North Peds: 9 Cars Cars 836 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 863 Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N Brookland Ave W E Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals S Yonge St Peds Cross: Cars 962 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 29 Trucks 16 Trucks South Peds: 22 West Entering: 16 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 823 West Leg Total: 131 Totals 978 Totals 9 79 South Leg Total: 181 Comments

352 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Brookland Ave 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 327 Cyclists Cyclists North Entering: 171 Trucks Trucks 35 North Peds: 13 Cars Cars 1291 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1326 Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N Brookland Ave W E Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals S Yonge St Peds Cross: Cars 1752 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 4 Trucks 31 Trucks South Peds: 4 West Entering: 199 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 1259 West Leg Total: 246 Totals 1783 Totals South Leg Total: 342 Comments

353 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Brookland Ave Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Municipality: Aurora Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 7:: 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 7: 8: 83 8: 83 9: 133 9: 133

354 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

355 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: 1 1 7:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

356 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

357 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

358 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Brookland Ave 5 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1553 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 121 North Entering: 784 Trucks Trucks 22 East Entering: 54 North Peds: 3 Cars Cars 747 East Peds: 2 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 769 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Brookland Ave Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Plaza Entrance Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 792 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 89 Trucks 28 Trucks South Peds: 72 West Entering: 81 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 88 West Leg Total: 152 Totals 82 Totals South Leg Total: 1628 Comments

359 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Brookland Ave 5 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1722 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 179 North Entering: 8 Trucks Trucks 21 East Entering: 83 North Peds: 7 Cars Cars 91 East Peds: 9 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 922 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Brookland Ave Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Plaza Entrance Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 821 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 23 Trucks 19 Trucks South Peds: 12 West Entering: 118 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 993 West Leg Total: 254 Totals 84 Totals South Leg Total: 1833 Comments

360 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Brookland Ave 5 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 791 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 665 North Entering: 3833 Trucks Trucks 16 East Entering: 329 North Peds: 88 Cars Cars 3962 East Peds: 59 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 468 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Brookland Ave Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Plaza Entrance Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 396 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 279 Trucks 116 Trucks South Peds: 165 West Entering: 512 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 4298 West Leg Total: 158 Totals 422 Totals South Leg Total: 832 Comments

361 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Brookland Ave Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Municipality: Aurora Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: 84 13: : : : : : : 134

362 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

363 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

364 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

365 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

366 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 8:: To: 9:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1714 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 334 North Entering: 911 Trucks Trucks 34 East Entering: 165 North Peds: 1 Cars Cars 769 East Peds: 17 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 83 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Murray Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Edward St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 976 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 23 Trucks South Peds: 5 West Entering: 31 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 776 West Leg Total: 483 Totals 999 Totals South Leg Total: 1775 Comments

367 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 292 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 611 North Entering: 1679 Trucks Trucks 47 East Entering: 288 North Peds: 15 Cars Cars 1194 East Peds: 25 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1241 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Murray Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Edward St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 1847 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 6 Trucks 43 Trucks South Peds: 7 West Entering: 553 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 1213 West Leg Total: 832 Totals 189 Totals South Leg Total: 313 Comments

368 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: 3 3 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 2 7: 2 8: 193 8: 193 9: 287 9: 287

369 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 5 5 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

370 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 1 1 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

371 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 3 3 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

372 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

373 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 152 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 491 North Entering: 749 Trucks Trucks 19 East Entering: 283 North Peds: 8 Cars Cars 752 East Peds: 21 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 771 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Murray Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Edward St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 768 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 27 Trucks 31 Trucks South Peds: 4 West Entering: 348 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 692 West Leg Total: 642 Totals 799 Totals South Leg Total: 1491 Comments

374 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1751 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 595 North Entering: 786 Trucks Trucks 26 East Entering: 364 North Peds: 11 Cars Cars 939 East Peds: 12 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 965 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Murray Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Edward St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 891 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 27 Trucks 22 Trucks South Peds: West Entering: 451 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 939 West Leg Total: 882 Totals 913 Totals South Leg Total: 1852 Comments

375 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St 1 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 7823 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 2547 North Entering: 3687 Trucks Trucks 18 East Entering: 1487 North Peds: 46 Cars Cars 428 East Peds: 73 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 4136 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Murray Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Edward St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 4179 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 119 Trucks 13 Trucks South Peds: 6 West Entering: 254 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 424 West Leg Total: 381 Totals 439 Totals South Leg Total: 8333 Comments

376 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Murray Dr & Edward St Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: : : : : : : : 492

377 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

378 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

379 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

380 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

381 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 7:: To: 9:: One Hour Peak From: 7:45: To: 8:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaura 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1732 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 443 North Entering: 985 Trucks Trucks 29 East Entering: 179 North Peds: 9 Cars Cars 718 East Peds: 5 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 747 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Henderson Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Allaura Blvd Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 122 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 18 Trucks South Peds: 4 West Entering: 595 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 577 West Leg Total: 88 Totals 14 Totals South Leg Total: 1617 Comments

382 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaura 1 25-Oct-11 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 353 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 782 North Entering: 1841 Trucks Trucks 5 East Entering: 288 North Peds: 15 Cars Cars 1162 East Peds: 5 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 1212 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Henderson Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Allaura Blvd Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 1983 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 3 Trucks 41 Trucks South Peds: 6 West Entering: 15 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 959 West Leg Total: 1458 Totals 224 Totals South Leg Total: 2983 Comments

383 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaur Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: :: 2 2 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 7:: 4 7:: 4 4 8:: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: : : 7: 4 7: 4 8: 334 8: 334 9: 453 9: 453

384 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

385 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

386 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 2 2 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

387 Count Date: 25-Oct-11 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 7:: 4 4 7:15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: ::

388 Ontario Traffic Inc. Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 11:3: To: 13:3: One Hour Peak From: 12:: To: 13:: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaura 4 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1517 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 367 North Entering: 813 Trucks Trucks 18 East Entering: 177 North Peds: 29 Cars Cars 686 East Peds: 35 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 74 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Henderson Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Allaura Blvd Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 611 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 36 Trucks 34 Trucks South Peds: 34 West Entering: 325 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 641 West Leg Total: 742 Totals 645 Totals South Leg Total: 1286 Comments

389 Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period From: 15:3: To: 18:3: One Hour Peak From: 16:45: To: 17:45: Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaura 4 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 1861 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 427 North Entering: 92 Trucks Trucks 19 East Entering: 242 North Peds: 24 Cars Cars 94 East Peds: 3 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 959 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Henderson Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Allaura Blvd Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 685 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 13 Trucks 26 Trucks South Peds: 5 West Entering: 416 Cyclists Cyclists South Entering: 947 West Leg Total: 168 Totals 711 Totals South Leg Total: 1658 Comments

390 Total Count Diagram Ontario Traffic Inc. Municipality: Site #: Intersection: TFR File #: Count date: Aurora Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaura 4 15-Feb-12 Weather conditions: Person(s) who counted: ** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Yonge St runs N/S North Leg Total: 833 Cyclists Cyclists East Leg Total: 1786 North Entering: 4228 Trucks Trucks 11 East Entering: 923 North Peds: 122 Cars Cars 41 East Peds: 66 Peds Cross: Totals Totals 412 Peds Cross: Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Henderson Dr Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals Yonge St N W E S Yonge St Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Allaura Blvd Cars Trucks Cyclists Totals Peds Cross: Cars 3164 Cars Peds Cross: West Peds: 13 Trucks 134 Trucks South Peds: 65 West Entering: 182 Cyclists 1 Cyclists South Entering: 3999 West Leg Total: 449 Totals 3299 Totals South Leg Total: 7298 Comments

391 Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Yonge St & Henderson Dr & Allaur Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Hour Ending North Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds North/South Total Approaches Hour Ending Municipality: Aurora South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Hour Ending East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total Total Peds East/West Total Approaches Hour Ending Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Grand Left Thru Right Total 12:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Total Peds Totals: Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: Crossing Values: 12: : : : : 47 17: 47 18: : 442

392 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Cyclists - North Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

393 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Cyclists - East Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

394 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Cyclists - South Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

395 Count Date: 15-Feb-12 Site #: Interval Time Ontario Traffic Inc. Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Cyclists - West Approach Pedestrians Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 11:3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :31: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :45: :: :15: :3: :3:

396 Appendix I Existing Signal Timing Plans

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416 Appendix J Proposed Cycling Network Implementation, Funding and Support Programs

417 Appendix J: Implementation 1

418 1. IMPLEMENTATION Exhibit 1-1 provides an overall framework for implementing the improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure within Aurora, which follows the recommendation of the Aurora Trails Master Plan and the sidewalk priority plan. The steps are further detailed in the following sections. 1.1 Phase I: Preliminary Review Based on the current Town and Region planning documents, the proposed implementation of Town approved trails and Regional cycling facilities is detailed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Implementation Schedule of Approved Trails in the Town and Region Proposed Trail / Cycling Facility Timeframe Additional Comments Willow Farm, Lakeview and Wimpey Trail 1-15 years - Proposed Trail in the 2C Secondary Plan Area 1-15 years Dependent on the development of the 2C Secondary Plan Area Municipal Trail 1-15 years Machell Park Trail 1-15 years Yonge Street 1-15 years Proposed Town trail and York Region cycling facility Sections of Vandorf Sideroad 1-15 years Proposed Town trail and York Region cycling facility Bathurst Street 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Industrial Parkway 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Bayview Avenue 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Leslie Street 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility St. John s Sideroad 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Wellington Street 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Old Yonge Victoria Cousins - Edward 1-15 years Proposed York Region cycling facility Fleury Park Trail years Oak Ridges Trail years North of Vandorf Sideroad Oak Ridges Trail 25 years + South of Vandorf Sideroad Region of York has not yet identified the specific cycling facility type for the above corridors The first step in implementing segments of the network is to identify and communicate opportunities for construction trails in advance of the schedule in Table 1-1. This includes monitoring municipal planning and infrastructure projects in the capital works forecast for both the Town and the Region. This is to determine if a project being advanced to the planning stage includes any recommended pedestrian or cycling improvements from the Aurora Trails Master Plan or PCMP, or whether there is potential to establish a new route as a part of that project. A preliminary review of such projects should consider the following: Compare the timing of the project to the short, medium and long term implementation priorities identified in the Aurora Trails Master Plan 2

419 Determine whether the nature of the project can facilitate the implementation of the recommended pedestrian or cycling facility in a cost effective manner Inform the project lead and affected departments whether a feasibility assessment should be undertaken to confirm the feasibility and costs for implementing the proposed route as part of the subject project. Town staff from various departments should report on all upcoming projects that may involve or impact a trail route in the Aurora Trails Master Plan. Similarly, the staff implementing the pedestrian and cycling improvements should also report on alternative or additional routes planned for the pedestrian and cycling network that may be coordinated with staff from other departments. 1.2 Phase II: Feasibility Assessment If an opportunity to implement a network route is confirmed in Phase 1 (Preliminary Assessment), a brief feasibility assessment should: Consider the feasibility of the route based on a review of the Aurora Trails Master Plan and supporting route selection and planning and design criteria, and conduct a field check for offroad trails segments to identify any other issues that should be explored as a part of the functional design. Determine if further public consultation should be conducted and to what level it is required (e.g., Environmental Assessment in the case of watercourse crossings versus notification of neighbouring residents for a local connection or upgrade). Undertake a functional design for the segment and estimate implementation costs, including construction and signing. Identify any less costly alternatives and how they may fit within the intent of the overall network plan (e.g., consideration of alternative parallel routes that meet the intent of the Trails Master Plan). Provide a recommended course of action. 1.3 Phase III: Detailed Design, Tender and Implementation Once determination has been made to proceed with the trail implementation, the necessary detailed design should be completed. This phase includes tendering the project (if not designed in-house) and then construction / implementation. Another possible outcome is that the detailed design cannot be implemented because Council directs the Town staff not to proceed with the pedestrian or cycling facility; because of the cost or because of other constraints that are identified in the detailed design. If this occurs, the network plan should be updated and an alternative route should be proposed. 3

420 1.4 Phase IV: Monitoring Phase Once pedestrian or cycling facilities have been constructed, their design and use should be monitored to ensure they function as intended. Monitoring of the facilities should also be ongoing to ensure carrying out of the necessary maintenance and upgrades to the facility. An example of the timing of such maintenance and upgrade monitoring is detailed in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Monitoring and Maintenance Frequency Immediate (within 24 hours) Regularly (weekly / bi-weekly / monthly) Seasonal Monitoring for / Maintenance of Potential hazards to trail users including: Obstructions to the trail or path Obstructions that may cause flooding Damage to structural elements on bridges (e.g., railings) Trash that has been illegally dumped, so it can be removed Vandalism or theft of items on the trail, particularly regulatory signs Trail conditions to assess conditions, prioritize maintenance tasks and monitor identified problem areas Grass along sidewalks / trails Pruning and brushing in wetland and woodland areas Garbage removal Restocking of information / brochures at trailhead kiosks, as needed Repair of obstructed drainage systems Trail surfaces (patching, minor regrading, removal of loose rocks) Culverts (for clean out as required) Plantings, landscape rehabilitation, pruning / beautification Installation / removal of seasonal signage 1.5 Phase V: Municipal Official Plan The Town or Region s Official Plan may need to be updated to account for changes in policy and network routes stemming from the design of the pedestrian or cycling facility. 4

421 1. Preliminary Review Compare timing to other implementation priorities Communicate amongst various departments 2. Feasibility Assessment Determine if further public consultation is needed Prepare functional design Recommend a course of action 3. Detailed Design, Tender and Implementation Complete detailed design Tender contract Build and implement trail 4. Monitoring Assess whether the new trail functions as intended Monitor for ongoing maintenance and upgrades 5. Municipal Official Plan Update Aurora's Official Plan to account for any changes in policy or network routes Exhibit 1-1: Implementation Process 5

422 2. FUNDING The Aurora Trails Master Plan estimates that capital investment to implement the trail network is slightly more than $13M over the 5 year planning horizon and does not include the proposed grade-separated crossings or maintenance. The cost of all the sidewalk installations is estimated at $9 M. It is noted that this is a conservative estimate based on stand-alone unit prices, given that there are economies of scale to be realized in the construction costs by constructing the sidewalks or trails as a part of the same tender as for a road resurfacing, reconstruction or widening project. Furthermore, there may be opportunities for cost sharing with the Region if trails are constructed as a part of Regional Road improvement projects. Any active transportation projects located within the Regional rights-of-way should be consulted and approved by York Region. Annual operating and maintenance costs are an estimated $4, to $6, per linear kilometre (subject to the maintenance standards set by the Town). These are relatively minor compared to the capital investment required. An annual implementation budget for pedestrian and cycling improvements should be identified in an annual report and informed by implementation objectives and opportunities for the coming year. This report should also describe pedestrian and cycling improvement projects from the previous year. It is expected that the majority of capital costs related to proposed sidewalks and in-boulevard right-of-way facilities will be identified and included as component costs within a planned right-of-way widening, reconstruction, resurfacing, new development, or other Aurora and Region projects. To assist in reducing taxpayer costs, the Town should pursue outside funding opportunities. The Aurora Trails Master Plan lists outside funding opportunities such as: York Region Municipal Partnership Program Federal / Provincial Gas Tax Metrolinx (as per the Regional Transportation Plan and funding recommendation of $2 million per year for municipal active transportation infrastructure in the GTHA) Transport Canada s MOST (Moving on Sustainable Transportation) and ecomobility (TDM) grant programs Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund Federal / Provincial infrastructure stimulus funding Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care grant programs Ontario Ministry of Environment Community Go Green Fund (CGGF) Ontario Ministry of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Municipal Grant program Partnership funding with York Region for infrastructure and health promotion related initiatives The Communities in Action Fund available through the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care for programming and promotional initiatives related to health/active living/active transportation The Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program 6

423 Ontario Trillium Foundation that was recently expanded in response to the money collected throughout the Province by casinos Human Resources Development Canada program that enables personnel positions to be made available to various groups and organizations. For example, the Ontario Trails Council has been able to hire two people under this program Corporate Environmental Funds such as Shell and Mountain Equipment Co-op that tend to fund small, labour-intensive projects where materials or logistical support is required Corporate donations which may consist of money or services in-kind, and have been contributed by a number of large and small corporations over the years Potential future funding that might emerge from the Province in rolling out the Ontario Trails Strategy Service clubs such as the Lions, Rotary and Optimists have assisted with a number of high visibility projects at the community level Private citizen donations / bequests, that can also include a tax receipt for the donor where appropriate. 7

424 3. SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS FOR WALKING AND CYCLING 3.1 Education Education is an important component to helping pedestrian and cycling network users understand the network in a way that supports a safe and inviting environment for walking and cycling in the Town. This may include: Educating pedestrians and cyclists on safe operating procedures for the different types of pedestrian and cycling facilities in the Town (e.g., a multi-use pathway versus a boulevard bike path). Enhancing and supporting walking and cycling advocacy, advisory and information groups and programs (e.g., Ontario Trails Council, Nokiidaa Trail Association, Oak Ridges Trail Association). Providing funding to existing and proposed pedestrian programs developed by the town or in partnership with the Region and / or other private sector partners (e.g., the Active and Safe Routes to School program targeted at school children that promotes the use of active and efficient transportation to school while addressing traffic safety issues). Making a range of information related to cycling and walking (such as health, safety and community design information) available on the Town s website, as well as including references to other walking and cycling websites. Developing a way-finding and information signage system that establishes an identity of all Town pedestrian and cycling facilities. Participating in networks/coalitions/committees to increase stakeholder and community awareness. 3.2 Promotion People will consider walking or cycling for recreational or commuter purposes if it is convenient, safe and comfortable. The following are some ways of encouraging walking and cycling, including TDM-related improvements Engaging employers to encourage and support walking and cycling among their employees (e.g., participation in Smart Commute, reimbursing transit fare, incentive programs, etc.). Providing end-of-trip facilities such as bike storage, showers or lockers. Developing cycling maps as promotional tools for informing individuals about travel choices and opportunities to walk or cycle. Attaching incentives and disincentives to various travel modes to encourage residents to make more sustainable choices Upgrading transit facilities and stops to improve cycling / pedestrian connections to transit (e.g., secure bike parking and/or bike racks). Coordinated local York Region Transit schedules with GO Transit schedules Establishing a Bike User Group within the Town. 8

425 Contribute funding to Smart Commute Central York as a means to promote many of the goals outlined above. Partnership funding would allow Smart Commute experts to promote these goals on behalf of the Town. Collaborating with Public Health and other stakeholders to develop cohesive and sustainable strategies for promoting active and healthy lifestyles. 9

426 Appendix K Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings

427 Appendix K: Bicycle Signage and Pavement Markings 1

428 1. INTRODUCTION The Town of Aurora requires a consistent approach to bicycle signage and pavement markings. This Chapter provides guidelines regarding signs and markings on bicycle routes, based principally on a review of the standards established by TAC and published in Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada (December 1998), Guidelines for the Design and Application of Bikeway Pavement Markings (August 27), and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada (23) as well as the cycling needs in Aurora. The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan (July 21) identifies the need for both on-road and offroad cycling facilities. The plan states that the design of new links and reconstruction of existing road should accommodate dedicated bike lanes wherever possible; however, it also recognizes that dedicated bike lanes may not be appropriate on all Town or Regional roads. The plan also identifies major linear open spaces associated with valley lands that include recreational trails for pedestrians and cyclists. The various proposed cycling facilities on Regional roads within the Town of Aurora are also shown in the Region s Proposed Cycling Network (from the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan Study), as illustrated in Exhibit 1-1. The cycling facility types include bike lanes, multi-use trails, paved shoulders, and signed bike routes. To address the need for consistent signage and pavement markings for on and off-road and designated and shared cycling facilities within the Town of Aurora, this chapter details the following: 1. Identification of the different types of bike facilities, based on the degree of interaction each requires of cyclists with motorized vehicles and/or pedestrians; 2. Review of bicycle signage; 3. Review of bicycle pavement markings; 4. Description of best practice approaches to providing signs and markings to account for cyclists. 5. Recommendations 2

429 Exhibit 1-1: York Region Cycling Network 3

430 2. BIKE FACILITIES BY STREET TYPE 2.1 On-Road On-road bike facilities can take the form either of designated and marked lanes for bicycles only or shared lanes with provision made for cyclists and motorists to recognize and allow for each other s presence without conflicts Dedicated Bike Facilities Designated bike lanes are a minimum of 1.5 metres in width and are commonly separated from the automobile lanes by a solid painted line (occasionally they may also have a different pavement colour or a double painted line). They are reserved for the use of cyclists as indicated with signs and markings, though there may be locations where motorized traffic is permitted to cross the lane, especially at transit stops (for transit vehicles), interchange access ramps and on approaches to intersections in order to merge into dedicated right-turn lanes Shared Bike Facilities With shared on-road bike facilities, there is no delimited lane exclusively for bicycles, but signage and/or markings are used to make road users aware of the need to share the available space between bikes and motorized vehicles. Features of shared bike facilities may include: Wider curb lanes to allow motorized vehicles to pass bicycles without causing discomfort to the cyclist. Shoulders adjacent to the travel lanes paved for cycling (these could be considered as separated facilities but may also need to be used on occasion for refuge by incapacitated vehicles). Shared lanes, identified with road signs and/or sharrows (chevron markings on the road with a bicycle symbol) to remind drivers to leave room for cyclists and to provide cyclists with guidance as to which part of the lane to use (including channelling them through intersections). 2.2 Off-Road Dedicated Bike Facilities Off-road separated bicycle facilities are designated trails for cycling. These can be specific bike paths or bike and inline skate paths. They can be parallel to a road but separated by a curb, a stretch of grass or some other divider, or they can follow a different alignment from any road for motorized vehicles. 4

431 2.2.2 Shared Bike Facilities An off-road shared bicycle facility takes the form of a multi-use trail for cyclists, skaters and pedestrians. These pathways are shared between non-motorized users, and may be marked with lines, diagrams or different paving styles to show which side of the path each type of user should keep to and prevent pedestrians from obstructing cyclists. 5

432 3. SIGNAGE Bicycle signage falls into three categories: regulatory signs, indicating restrictions and permissions; warning signs, providing notification of potential hazards; and directional or informational signs, providing guidance to cyclists as to what route they should follow. These are each described in turn below. Signs should be consistent so that they can easily be recognized by motorists and cyclists and interpreted accurately in terms of the conditions they advise of or regulations they impose. Signs shown in this section are not to a specific scale, but minimum dimensions are specified. For on-road bike facilities, the same regulatory and warning signs apply to cyclists as to motorists, and separate signing is not generally required. Occasionally, however, signs are intended to apply specifically to bicycles, such as stop or yield signs on a multi-use trail at intersection with a road. These should be oriented so as to be concealed from motorists view. In cases where a regulatory sign (such as a turn restriction) applies only to motorists, it should have the following indicator appended below it. Exhibit 3-1: Indication of exception for cyclists (6 x 3 mm) Signs should be placed so as to be visible to all facility users to whom they apply, whether they are motorized or non-motorized. Usually, this is on the right side of the bikeway or in the direct line of sight (on curves) facing approaching traffic. Where experience shows that cyclists do not notice the primary sign, a second sign may be placed on the left side of the bike way. Regulatory signs should be placed as close to the regulation point as is practical, and warning signs in advance of the condition to which they refer. It is recommended that the signs be located 1 to 4.5 metres laterally from the edge of the bike lane, and 2 to 3 metres above the ground. Overhead signs should be placed at least 4.5 metres above the ground (3 metres for an off-road trail), and preferably centred over the lane to which they provide guidance. 3.1 Regulatory Signs As noted above, signs apply both to cyclists and to motorists and should be observed by all facility users. This section describes some signs that specifically deal with the potential presence of cyclists on a facility. 6

433 The following signs are placed in locations where cycling is prohibited, such as on high-speed facilities or other locations where cycling may be dangerous, or on sidewalks (with the indication that the prohibition applies specifically to the sidewalk attached). A sign mandating that cyclists dismount and walk their bikes may be shown at points such as midblock crosswalks where bicycle routes cross roads. Exhibit 3-2: Cycling restriction signs (6 x 6mm, 3 x 45mm, 45 x 45mm respectively) The following sign may be used where motorists need to cross a bicycle and/or pedestrian facility in order to make a turn, such as a right turn across a bike lane. Exhibit 3-3: Turning vehicles yield (6 x 75 mm) At locations where cyclists and pedestrians are required to share space, either a) on a shared pathway or b) where a cycle route crosses a pedestrian route (such as a pedestrian crossing of a bike trail), one of the following signs may be used to indicate the situation. On some trails, cyclists and pedestrians coexist on a shared path, while on others they are separated into specific streams, usually with a dividing line, and where users of the path are advised of which side to use by the Keep Left/Right sign. 7

434 Exhibit 3-4: Cyclist and pedestrian interaction (3 x 45 mm) On bicycle-specific facilities such as a bicycle trail, it may be necessary to install a sign indicating that automobiles are prohibited at places where they might otherwise encroach onto the bike path, such as at the beginning of a trail. While the sign shown refers to automobiles, equivalent signs can also be used to prohibit access to motorcycles, ATVs, pedestrians, or a combination of two of these. Exhibit 3-5: Automobile prohibition (6 x 6 mm) On stretches of a facility where overtaking is dangerous due to limited sight lines or restrictive geometry, the following signs are used to denote the start of a no-passing zone (the signs with an Ends appendage indicate the end of the zone). 8

435 Exhibit 3-6: No overtaking (6 x 6 mm and 6 x 3 mm) The following are examples of signs indicating the presence or end of a bike lane, with the arrows designed in accordance with the positioning of the sign (whether it is mounted above the lane or on the curb beside it). Additionally, bicycles may be permitted to use special-purpose peak period lanes otherwise reserved for buses and taxis. Signs indicating reserved lanes should be located within 15m downstream of each intersection (and at most 2m apart) with the Ends sign installed where the lane terminates. Exhibit 3-7: Reserved lane signs (6 x 75 mm) 9

436 3.2 Warning Signs Sometimes, specific signs directed at cyclists or signs to advise of their presence, may be required. A sign such as the one shown below can be placed as a warning that a bicycle lane begins ahead, when this requires driving manoeuvres or there is limited visibility, similarly to how warning signs are placed on low-visibility stretches of road to warn of signals or stops ahead. Exhibit 3-8: Warning of bicycle lane ahead (75 x 75 mm) Signs may also be placed to indicate hazards for cyclists that exist (permanently or intermittently). Intermittent signs must be removed if the condition no longer applies. The following sign should be used to warn cyclists when there is a downgrade of 1% or more that extends for 5m or more. Exhibit 3-9: Warning of downgrade (45 x 45 mm) The following sign should be used to warn cyclists of extraordinarily slippery conditions when the bikeway is wet. 1

437 Exhibit 3-1: Warning of wet conditions (45 x 45 mm) Other types of warning sign indicate the presence of adverse conditions ahead (which may also affect motorists) such as bumps, road narrowing or low clearance (if a bikeway has clearance lower than 2.5m). Flashing signs (activated on entry) may be used to warn of cyclists presence in confined structures such as underpasses or bridges. The following signs warn of a bicycle crossing ahead (the bike symbol can be combined with a pedestrian on the sign if pedestrians are crossing too). Exhibit 3-11: Bicycle or bicycle/pedestrian crossing (6 x 6 mm) The following share the road indication warns both motorists and cyclists to have concern for the others presence. This should not be used on-roads where single file motorized and nonmotorized operation is required as it would present an erroneous message in that case. 11

438 Exhibit 3-12: Warning to share the road (6 x 6 mm and 6 x 3 mm) 3.3 Directional / Informational Signs The following sign denotes a facility that forms a part of a bicycle route system, and should be placed with sufficient frequency that cyclists are able to follow the route and motorists are reminded of the likelihood of their presence. Additional trail guidance signs may be used, some examples of which are shown in the following section. Exhibit 3-13: Bicycle route (45 x 45 mm) The following sign indicates that an off-street parking area is available for bicycles. Exhibit 3-14: Bicycle parking (45 x 45 mm) In the event of a temporary detour, the following sign (with the directional arrow adjusted as required) may indicate the alternative route for cyclists to follow. 12

439 Exhibit 3-15: Temporary condition detour (45 x 45 mm) 13

440 4. PAVEMENT MARKINGS Pavement markings for cyclists, in general, are used to reserve dedicated space for cyclists on a facility, provide guidance as to which part of the road cyclists should use (particularly for channelling their flow on the approach to a multi-lane intersection) and draw drivers attention to cyclists presence. In summary, markings can: Indicate the availability of lanes for shared use by motorized and non-motorized vehicles, whether side-by-side or in single file Indicate permitted users of lanes Identify continuity through intersections this may not be a straight line parallel to curb depending on the lane and intersection geometrical configuration, and could include a left turn from one bike lane to another bike lane Highlight areas of conflict with traffic, such as at intersection merges for positioning of cyclists outside turn lanes Identify cyclist stop locations, which may not be the same as for motor vehicles and can include a need to actuate a traffic signal, or an advanced stop bar or bike box to allow cyclists to queue ahead of motorists Channel users of off-road trails to avoid conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. 4.1 On-Road Separated Bike Facilities Designated bike lanes should be a minimum of 1.5 metres in width. In addition to the white line separating them from the regular traffic lanes, they should contain a bicycle symbol and diamond special-purpose lane symbol as shown below, painted in the lane 1 metres downstream from an intersection or crosswalk. Different colour pavement, whether painted or dyed, has also occasionally been used for bike lanes. Exhibit 4-1: Bike lane markings and specified dimensions 14

441 The bike lane is usually adjacent to the curb, but exceptions may apply where there is an interchange ramp, a transit stop or a dedicated right-turn lane approaching an intersection. In this case, motorized vehicles may cross the bike lane at points indicated with dashed instead of solid lines. Directional arrows may be used to indicate the appropriate direction of cyclist movement in bicycle lanes, cyclist turn lanes, and where a trail becomes a roadway. These should be full size (equivalent to those for motorized vehicles) if they are intended to be seen and followed by drivers as well; if only cyclists are required to see them they may be smaller and should be accompanied by a bicycle symbol Shared Bike Facilities To denote shared use of a lane between motorized vehicles and bicycles, a combined pavement marking symbol consisting of a bicycle and two forward-pointing chevrons (shown below) is typically used and has been found to be the most effective symbol for conveying the shared use message. Shared use arrows, or sharrows, indicate: The likely presence of cyclists for side-by-side operation where the road is not wide enough a for dedicated bike lane (by their location at the side of the lane). Correct positioning for cyclists on-roads with full-time on-street parking. Cyclist channelization at intersections with dedicated right-turn lanes. The requirement for single-file use of a lane (by their location in the centre of the lane) if the lane is too narrow (less than 4m) for overtaking. Correct positioning for cyclists on-roads with part-time parking during non-parking times (adjacent to the curb). Sharrows should not be used if the total pavement width of a road is less than 1m and if onstreet parking is also provided on the same road. The shared use arrows should be spaced within 75m of an adjacent sharrow, after an intersection and 1m before the end of a block. Exhibit 4-2: Sharrows 15

442 Edge line markings may be used to distinguish the paved shoulder of a road from the travelled lanes. The paved shoulders are often used by cyclists and regarded as bicycle lanes by both cyclists and motorists so care is necessary to ensure that the paved shoulder is at least 1.2m wide to permit safe cycling. Edge lines should not be used if the width of the shoulder would be less than this unless they are painted right at the edge of a road in place of a curb, and shared use markings should be used instead. 4.2 Off-Road Off-road trails may be designated trails for cycling only, or designed to be shared with pedestrians or inline skaters. In either case, painted images and demarcation lines help indicate the right-of-way to all prospective users. The use of coloured painted lines and/or distinctive pavement colours may also be helpful to indicate trail continuity. 4.3 Crossings Abikelane-delineating solid line may be converted to a dashed line through areas where motor vehicles are permitted to cross, such as to merge into a dedicated right turn lane, travel through an intersection (with the dashed lines providing guidance and indicating the continuity of the bike lane through the intersection), or enter or exit a ramp. An example of such a case is shown below. Exhibit 4-3: Dashed markings indicating that motorized vehicles can cross the bike lane Normally, cyclists are required to dismount to use pedestrian crosswalks at intersections. However it is possible to indicate a separate crossing for bicycles using elephant feet markings adjacent to the pedestrian crosswalk to show where cyclists can ride across road, enabling trail users to proceed without dismounting. Examples of this configuration are shown below. 16

443 Exhibit 4-4: Use of elephant feet markings to delineate a bicycle crossing parallel to a pedestrian crosswalk Where cyclists are sharing the road with motorized vehicles, bike boxes or advanced stop bars can be used as a method to provide space for bicycles at intersections. The ultimate step in crossings is the removal of any conflict through the use of grade separation (a bridge or underpass where a cycle trail crosses a road instead of a mid-block crossing requiring the cyclist to dismount or a trail discontinuity). 17

444 5. BEST PRACTICES Examples of sign and marking practices successfully implemented in other locations to guide cyclists and others with whom they may share the roads include: (From the TAC Guidelines for the Design and Application of Bikeway Pavement Markings Report) Shared-use lane markings (bike and chevron or bike and arrow) Trail crossing markings at intersections so that cyclists do not have to dismount to cross (as would normally be the case for a crosswalk) Trail crossing markings mid-block Edge line markings to delineate the edge of the vehicle lane On-street marked bicycle parking (on far side of intersections or adjacent to on-street car parking) Loop detector markings to advise cyclists where to stop to activate a signal Bike lanes through intersections (with dashed lines to channel traffic) Advanced stop bars to allow space for bicycles to stop ahead of motorized vehicles Different coloured pavement for bike lanes (From City of Toronto Bike Plan) Bicycle-actuated signals Bike lanes on bridges/underpasses even when they are not present on the roads leading up to or away from the bridge/underpass to reduce sense of discomfort for cyclists because of a lack of lateral space Exemption of cyclists from turn restrictions that were designed to prevent motorists from taking routes through residential areas Review of street sweeping policies and catchbasin designs in bike lanes to avoid creating traps for unwary cyclists Designated on-road bike routes with consistent signing 18

445 Exhibit 5-1: Example of on-road bike route sign in Toronto Exhibit 5-2: Examples of trail guidance signs 19

446 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Overview and Standard Cross Sections For new developments in the planning stage, the preference is for a designated off-road boulevard bike facility and should be considered mandatory where there is a proposed trail route through development lands as listed in the Aurora Trails Master Plan. This preference was made clear during our meeting with the Trails Committee and subsequently adopted in our recommendations. A separate trail signage study is being undertaken by the Town to recommend a uniform, comprehensive and intuitive way-finding system for the overall walking and cycling experience in the Town. This may include a branding strategy would implement a logo which identifies a Town trail throughout Aurora. For existing roads that will be retrofitted with active transportation facilities. Three general active transportation cross sections were developed and are listed as follows (in order of preference): Designated boulevard bike facility Segregated bike facility (or a conventional bike lane) Shared bike facility (a shared lane). 2

447 Exhibit 6-1: Designated Boulevard Bike Facility 21

448 Exhibit 6-2: Segregated Bike Facility (or a Conventional Bike Lane) 22

449 Exhibit 6-3: Shared Bike Facility (a Shared Lane) 23

450 6.2 Applications in the Town of Aurora The Town identified three locations to apply the proposed standard cross sections. These are: 1. Industrial Parkway 2. Stone Road 3. Kennedy Street West between George Street and Murray Drive. These are all two lane roads with limited ROW. Applying these cross sections to existing roads is a bit more difficult and requires some interpretation and trade-offs in the design stages. The following is a general discussion of how the proposed sections may align with the three example roadways and therefore with other similar locations throughout the town Industrial Parkway A designated boulevard bike facility would be preferred along Industrial Parkway given its traffic volumes and the road classification, particularly in the locations where there is no existing curb and gutter. If there are design constraints, a segregated bike facility and sidewalk should be considered. A shared bike facility is not recommended at this location given Industrial Parkway s traffic volumes and the road classification. Exhibit 6-4: Industrial Parkway Stone Road A designated boulevard bike facility would be preferred along a residential road such as Stone Road in new developments, given the Town s cycling and walking priorities. However, Since Stone Road is a recently constructed road in a low volume residential development that is unlikely to be retrofitted for a designated boulevard bike facility so a shared bike facility may be considered. 24

451 Exhibit 6-5: Stone Road Kennedy Street There are apparent design constraints along Kennedy Street that may render a full width designated boulevard bike facility infeasible. In this location a shared bike facility can be considered. There is also an opportunity to widen the sidewalk to a full trail width (3-4m), decrease the boulevard at the bridge location and provide positive guidance to users. This would be a deviation from the proposed standards and should be investigated further during the preliminary and detailed design stages if any road improvement projects were to occur in this location. Exhibit 6-6: Kennedy Street 25

452 HDR Corporation 1 York Boulevard, Suite 3 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8