APPENDIX F
1 Socio-Economic 1.1 Property nd Access Impcts to properties Potentil impcts to ccess to existing residences/usinesses Totl numer of properties impcted Impcts to residences (e.g., displcement) Impcts to commercil/industril res or usinesses (i.e., displcement) Qulittive ssessment of temporry nd permnent impcts to ccess relted to out-ofwy trvel or difficulty in ccessing services Existing rod right-of-wy widths rnge from 36 m to 54.6 m long Wonderlnd Rod etween Southdle Rod nd Dingmn Drive. All rod cross-section lterntives will require dditionl property in order to ccommodte corridor expnsion nd improvements. It is likely tht ll lterntives will impct the sme numer of properties long the corridor, however, the exct numer nd the mgnitude of this impct cnnot e ssessed t this stge. These spects will e ssessed with the rod widening lterntives. Generlly, Alt A would result in greter impcts to property given the greter right-of-wy requirements. To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives following this evlution for the preferred cross-section. The two residences locted on the est side of Wonderlnd Rod, etween Dingmn Drive nd Highwy 402 re potentilly t the gretest risk of sustntil indirect impct or possile displcement, given their close proximity to the rodwy. The reminder of the corridor, north of Dingmn Drive is lrgely commercil. To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives. Much of the corridor etween Southdle Rod nd Dingmn Drive is commercil. While commercil entrnces my hve to e modified to ccommodte the new right-of-wy ssocited with ll of the lterntives other potentil impcts to specific usinesses will e confirmed in the nlysis of widening lterntives. All lterntives will likely result in some impct on All lterntives will likely result in some impct on All lterntives will likely result in some impct on All lterntives will likely result in some impct on usiness All lterntives will likely result in some impct on usiness nd residentil ccesses due to the rised usiness nd residentil ccesses due to the rised usiness nd residentil ccesses due to the rised nd residentil ccesses due to the rised medin design. usiness nd residentil ccesses due to the rised medin design. medin design. medin design. Provides opportunity for ccess to djcent developments medin design. will only provide ccess from the Frontge Provides opportunity for ccess to djcent Provides opportunity for ccess to djcent s the loctions signlized intersections re not Provides opportunity for ccess to djcent Street; ccess to mjor development res would only developments s the loctions signlized intersections developments s the loctions signlized intersections constrined/determined y the Frontge Street developments s the loctions signlized intersections e provided t widely spced signlized intersections. re not constrined/determined y the Frontge Street re not constrined/determined y the Frontge Street opertions. re not constrined/determined y the Frontge Street opertions. Does not provide good pedestrin ccess for frontge usinesses, s there is no on-street prking. opertions. Provides good pedestrin ccess to street fronting uildings y including on-street prking, nd sufficient vehiculr ccess t intersections. Would provide good vehiculr ccess, similr to C nd E, however pedestrin ccess to/from the on-street prking would e hindered y the ike lne nd multi-use tril. It lso hs slightly wider ROW thn B, C nd E. opertions. Provides good pedestrin ccess to street fronting uildings y including on-street prking, nd sufficient vehiculr ccess t intersections. hs the widest ROW, which would correspondingly impct the most property lthough t this stge it is not possile to quntittively ssess property impcts. For - Access to mjor development res is provided only t widely spced signlized intersections, limiting ccess opportunities to development djcent to the corridor. However, there is excellent ccess to usiness tht front onto the Frontge Street. At the sme time, the wide ROW would result in greter distnce for pedestrins to cross the street, lthough the oulevrds nd medins would provide n opportunity to estlish pedestrin refuges t intersections. Alterntives B-E ll provide greter opportunity for ccess to djcent developments s the loctions signlized intersections re not constrined/determined y the Frontge Street opertions. does not provide good pedestrin ccess for frontge usinesses, s there is no on-street prking. Alterntives C nd E provide good pedestrin ccess to street fronting uildings ecuse they include on-street prking, nd sufficient vehiculr ccess t intersections. would provide good vehiculr ccess, similr to C nd E, however pedestrin ccess to/from the on-street prking would e hindered y the ike lne nd multi-use tril. It lso hs slightly wider ROW thn B, C nd E. The other spect of ccess is the considertion of new / future ccesses to commercil development from Wonderlnd Rod. The possiility of new future ccesses will depend ccess mngement policies nd relted to trffic opertions on the future 6-lne Wonderlnd Rod nd will likely e suject to site-specific review, supported y the pproprite trffic studies. Access Mngement ws the highest rnked criteri y memers of the pulic t PIC 1. Therefore, Alterntives B, C, nd E considered similr nd slightly preferred over. 1
1.2 Community Effects c d e Impcts to cemeteries, schools, plces of worship, unique community fetures Nuisnce Impcts Impcts on community ctivity/moility nd Impcts on community chrcter Impcts to Recretionl Fetures Numer of cemeteries, schools, plces of worship nd unique community fetures within the study re. Numer of properties displced or encrochment upon Qulittive ssessment of nuisnce impcts (e.g., visul/esthetic, noise etc.) considering the numer of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools etc.) within 600 m of the lignment (600 m chosen ecuse this is the distnce t which ny chnges to sound level ecome imperceptile) Qulittive ssessment of chnges in ccess/ ctivity Qulittive ssessment of chnges in the impcts on uilt form long the corridor tht could ffect the community Numer of prks/recretion sites/trils displced, disrupted or djcent to the right-of-wy. Numer of Conservtion Authority lnds impcted (displced or encroched upon) There re no cemeteries, schools or plces of worship locted long Wonderlnd Rod etween Southdle Rod nd Highwy 402. Businesses nd residences long Wonderlnd Rod South my experience increses in noise levels ssocited with proposed widening. This potentil for these impcts is similr for ll cross-section concept lterntives. The ssessment of nuisnce impcts reltive to sensitive receptors will e refined sed on the rod widening lterntives. Overll, moility within the roder community (i.e., City of London South West re) will e improved with the new rod widening improvements. Provides good opportunities for developing community chrcter nd for loclized moility; however, the wide ROW is seen s hindrnce to pedestrin movement/moility cross the roder corridor. Frontge Street prking will contriute to the community chrcter through incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form. Overll, moility within the roder community (i.e., City of London South West re) will e improved with the new rod widening improvements. No on-street prking will reduce opportunities for interction with uilt form. Ample oulevrd/medin spce will provide opportunities for street trees on oth sides. On-street commuter ike lnes re consistent with city cycling policies nd Cycling Mster Pln recommendtions nd in providing opportunities for commuter cyclists. Links to the recretionl cycling network re provided t two nodes: ner Dingmn Creek nd ner the Brdley Avenue extension. Overll, moility within the roder community (i.e., South West re) will e improved with the new rod widening improvements. Ample oulevrd/medin spce will provide opportunities for street trees. Potentil for conflict etween cyclists nd crs prked in the off-pek hours untrditionl loction of the ike lne reltive to the prking lne (ike lne on inside). Off-pek prking will contriute to the community chrcter through incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form. On-street commuter ike lnes re consistent with city cycling policies nd Cycling Mster Pln recommendtions nd in providing opportunities for commuter cyclists. Links to the recretionl cycling network re provided t two nodes: ner Dingmn Creek nd ner the Brdley Avenue extension. There re no existing municipl prks or recretionl trils tht will e impcted y the rod cross-section lterntives. All lterntives support ctive trnsporttion nd will improve ccess to nery prks nd trils. The Htch Tennis Centre locted on Wonderlnd Rod South is noted ny potentil property impcts determined during the ssessment of rod design lterntives will e reflected in criteri 1.1 Property Impcts. There re no UTRCA owned properties djcent to Wonderlnd Rod. Overll, moility within the roder community (i.e., City of London South West re) will e improved with the new rod widening improvements. No provision for oulevrd/medin spce for street trees on west side. Potentil for conflict etween cyclists nd crs prked in the off-pek hours untrditionl loction of the ike lne reltive to the prking lne (ike lne on inside). Additionl opportunities for recretionl cycling provided on the multi-use pth. However, my increse potentil conflicts etween recretionl users nd pedestrin ccessing usinesses. Off-pek prking will contriute to the community chrcter through incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form. On-street commuter ike lnes re consistent with city cycling policies nd Cycling Mster Pln recommendtions nd in providing opportunities for commuter cyclists. Links to the recretionl cycling network re provided t two nodes: ner Dingmn Creek nd ner the Brdley Avenue extension. Overll, moility within the roder community (i.e., South West re) will e improved with the new rod widening improvements. Reduced oulevrd/medin spce for street trees on west side. Loction of ike pth reduces potentil for conflict with crs prked in the off-pek hours. Links to the recretionl cycling network re provided t two nodes: ner Dingmn Creek nd ner the Brdley Avenue extension. Off-pek prking will contriute to the community chrcter through incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form. Off-street two-wy ike pth is not consistent with Cycling Mster Pln recommendtions with respect to loction nd two-wy trvel. provides good opportunities for developing community chrcter nd for loclized moility; however, the wide ROW is seen s hindrnce to pedestrin movement/moility cross the roder corridor. does not provide good community moility or chrcter, s there would e no interction etween the street nd street fronting uildings with no on-street prking. does not provide good community moility or chrcter, s there would e no interction etween the street nd street fronting uildings with no on-street prking. 2
Aside from, provides the est community ctivity nd chrcter y encourging uilt form t the edge of the ROW with on-street prking. proposes 18 m of uninterrupted hrd surfcing on the est side, which does not provide for medin spce for street trees or street furniture, significntly ffecting streetscpe chrcter. lso hs high potentil for conflict etween cyclists nd pedestrins s ike nd multi-use pth re provided on the est side. This my hve the undesirle effect of discourging pedestrin use. All lterntives introduce recretionl fetures for the corridor. Alterntives B nd C provide sidewlks nd on-street ike lnes. provides multi-use tril s n dditionl recretionl feture, however, this is ove nd eyond wht hs een identified for the corridor in terms of ctive trnsporttion requirements nd my result in dditionl potentil for conflicts etween cyclists nd pedestrins ccessing retil/commercil nd prked crs. 2-wy ike pth seprted from the rodwy, reducing potentil for conflict with prked crs in off-pek. Therefore, Alterntives C is preferred. 1.3 Agriculturl Resources Impcts to Agriculturl Resources Impcts to griculturl opertions (including field ccess, ility to ccommodte movement frm equipment, mintennce of operle/vile field res) Are of griculturl lnds impcted Impcts to prime griculturl soils (Ares of Clss 1-3 soils impcted) It is noted tht the Wonderlnd Rod South corridor from Southdle Rod to Highwy 402 is within the Urn Growth Boundry with remining griculturl res intended to trnsition to urn lnd use nd therefore griculturl opertions my not persist in the long term. Most lnds re developer-owned nd lesed for griculturl production. All lterntives my hve some impct on griculturl ccesses due to the rised medin design. Mitigtion mesures or lterntive ccess strtegies my e developed for specific sites when rod widening lterntives re contemplted. To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives following this evlution for the preferred cross-section. It is noted tht the Wonderlnd Rod South corridor from Southdle Rod to Highwy 402 is within the Urn Growth Boundry with remining griculturl res intended to trnsition to urn lnd use. All of the lterntives hve the potentil to impcts lnds currently under griculturl production nd griculturl opertions. It is noted tht the Wonderlnd Rod South corridor from Southdle Rod to Highwy 402 is within the Urn Growth Boundry with remining griculturl res intended to trnsition to urn lnd use. Therefore, ll Alterntives re preferred. 2 Lnd Use nd Urn Design 2.1 Context Support Lnd Use Designtion/Context Plnned Building Scle nd Orienttion Comptiility with the existing plnning policy s well s plnned lnd use context long the corridor Comptiility with the size, density nd height of future uildings long the corridor Fully conforms to the SWAP lnd-use nd context nd urn design policies. All lterntives re consistent with the City s Officil Pln, the urn design policies of the Southwest Are Pln (2012), nd the trnsporttion policies of the City of London 2030 Trnsporttion Mster Pln. Property required for widening will result in minor impcts to existing lnd use. This is common for ll lterntives, nd will e ssessed during the nlysis of widening lterntives, s noted ove in Section 1.1 Does not provide for on-street prking tht would encourge usiness frontge, which is key prt of the urn design policies. All lterntives re consistent with the City s Officil Pln, the urn design policies of the Southwest Are Pln (2012), nd the trnsporttion policies of the City of London 2030 Trnsporttion Mster Pln All lterntives re comptile with the size, density nd height of future uildings long the corridor. All lterntives re consistent with the City s Officil Pln, the urn design policies of the Southwest Are Pln (2012), nd the trnsporttion policies of the City of London 2030 Trnsporttion Mster Pln. All lterntives re consistent with the City s Officil Pln, the urn design policies of the Southwest Are Pln (2012), nd the trnsporttion policies of the City of London 2030 Trnsporttion Mster Pln. All lterntives re consistent with the City s Officil Pln, the urn design policies of the Southwest Are Pln (2012), nd the trnsporttion policies of the City of London 2030 Trnsporttion Mster Pln. 3
is preferred s it fully conforms to the SWAP lnd use nd context nd urn design policies. Alterntives C, D nd E lso support urn design policies nd would support plnned lnd use nd development. is the lest preferred, s it does not provide for on street prking tht would encourge usiness frontge, which is key prt of the urn design policies. Alterntives C, D, nd E re similr in conforming to the urn design policies, however C is slightly etter s it provides equl opportunity on oth sides of the rod to estlish high qulity streetscpe. Therefore, is preferred. 2.2 Street Virncy Street Animtion Prk/Open Spce c Boulevrd Tretment % of right-of-wy dedicted to pulic relm uses including sidewlks, lndscped medins, ike lnes, oulevrds, -nd multi-use trils. Opportunity for on-street prking. Amount of usle prk/ open spce long the corridor. Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment of physicl comfort, streetscpe definition, engging nd chrcter-defining elements such s street trees, streetlight fixtures, trffic control poles, enches nd trsh receptcles, ollrds nd ike rcks, signge, trnsit shelters, nd sidewlk/ crosswlk mterils 60.5% ROW dedicted to pulic relm uses. Frontge Street prking provides incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form, encourge pedestrins onto the sidewlk nd contriuting to street nimtion. 50% ROW dedicted to pulic relm uses. No on-street prking will reduce opportunities for street nimtion nd interction with uilt form. 49% ROW dedicted to pulic relm uses. Off-pek prking provides incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form, encourge pedestrins onto the sidewlk nd contriuting to street nimtion. hs the most mount of usle open spce long the corridor with dded medins etween the through lnes nd Frontge Street. Alterntives B-E hve similr mounts of usle open spce long the corridor. Additionl oulevrds provided on ech side of rodwy. Comprtively wide oulevrds on ech side of rodwy. Comprtively nrrow oulevrds on ech side of Mjority of existing street trees will require removl. Mjority of existing street trees will require removl. rodwy ut incresed opportunity for street nimtion Opportunity for street trees on oth sides of rodwy to Opportunity for street trees on oth sides of rodwy to with off-pek prking. increse pedestrin physicl comfort, nd define increse pedestrin physicl comfort, nd define Mjority of existing street trees will require removl. streetscpe edge. streetscpe edge. Opportunity for street trees on oth sides of rodwy to All lterntives hve 5 m centre lndscped medin. All lterntives hve 5 m centre lndscped medin. increse pedestrin physicl comfort, nd define streetscpe edge. All lterntives hve 5 m centre lndscped medin. 51% ROW dedicted to pulic relm uses. Off-pek prking provides incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form, encourge pedestrins onto the sidewlk nd contriuting to street nimtion. Potentil for conflicts mong ike lnes, multi-use pth nd pedestrins on est side my detrct from pulic relm uses. Boulevrd on one side of rodwy is replced y multi-use tril. Mjority of existing street trees will require removl. Opportunity for street trees only on west side of rodwy, providing no uffer etween pedestrin nd the rodwy, nd exposing pedestrins to the elements. No street furnishing zone on est side. All lterntives hve 5 m centre lndscped medin. 49% ROW dedicted to pulic relm uses. Off-pek prking provides incresed interction etween streetscpe nd uilt form, encourge pedestrins onto the sidewlk nd contriuting to street nimtion. Comprtively moderte oulevrds. Mjority of existing street trees will require removl. Opportunity for street trees on oth sides of rodwy to increse pedestrin physicl comfort, nd define streetscpe edge. All lterntives hve 5 m centre lndscped medin. All Alterntives provide 5 m centre medin for lndscping. dedictes the most mount of right-of-wy to the pulic relm; ll other Alterntives dedicte similr percent (49-51%) of the right-of-wy to pulic relm uses. does not provide for on-street prking opportunities, which is seen s reducing street nimtion nd reducing opportunities to crete n intimted street setting in off-pek hours. Off-pek prking is provided on oth sides of rodwy for however it hs comprtively nrrow oulevrds. Off-pek prking is provided on oth sides of rodwy for however, due to the multi-use tril, it does not provide opportunity for oulevrd tretments to enhnce streetscpe chrcter or improve the pedestrin experience. Therefore, is preferred ecuse it provides high percent of the right-of-wy to recretionl use nd oulevrd tretments with hrd surfcing dedicted to vehiculr trvel. 4
2.3 Locl Identity Gtewy Lndscpe Qulittive ssessment of gtewy tretments. Sense of Belonging Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment tht consider the vlue of integrted lndscpe, culturl nd heritge resources which visully retin/enhnce locl chrcteristics. Provides the most opportunity for gtewy tretment sed on the uniqueness of the Frontge Street crosssection. Provide mple opportunity to estlish n integrted lndscpe with nturl nd urn elements. Good opportunity for gtewy tretments with wide lndscped oulevrds nd pedestrin fcilities, ut not to the sme level s. All lterntives hve similr potentil for integrted lndscpe, culturl nd heritge resources to visully retin/enhnce the locl chrcteristics. Does not provide n opportunity to estlish lnced gtewy lndscpe, s there is no oulevrd, nd therefore no opportunity to plnt street trees or estlish street furnishings zone on one side of the cross-section. Good opportunity for gtewy tretments with wide lndscped oulevrds nd pedestrin fcilities, ut not to the sme level s. Good opportunity for gtewy tretments with wide lndscped oulevrds nd pedestrin fcilities, ut not to the sme level s. provides the most potentil for gtewy tretments. Alterntives B, C nd E ll provide good potentil for gtewy tretments, nd integrted lndscpes, ut not s much s. provides poor opportunity for lnced gtewy lndscpe s it does not hve oulevrd on one side. Therefore, is preferred. 3 Culturl Environment Impcts to uilt heritge fetures/ culturl heritge lndscpes Impct to rcheologicl resources Numer of heritge uildings nd/or culturl heritge lndscpes displced or disrupted or djcent to the lignment Numer of rcheologicl known sites within the right-of-wy Are of rcheologicl potentil within the rightof-wy No listed or designted uilt heritge fetures occur etween Southdle Rod nd Highwy 402. 1 residence of culturl heritge interest is locted on the est side of Wonderlnd Rod, south of Dingmn Drive. 5 culturl heritge lndscpes hve een identified long Wonderlnd Rod South etween Southdle Rod nd Highwy 402. Numer of displced or disrupted heritge uildings or lndscpes to e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives, following this evlution for the preferred cross-section. 31 registered sites within 1 km of the study corridor All undistured res within the corridor re considered to hve high potentil for locting rcheologicl mterils Previously distured res nd res requiring dditionl rcheologicl ssessment hve een delineted nd will e incorported into the nlysis of widening lterntives, following this evlution for the preferred cross-section. All Alterntives hve similr potentil impcts to culturl heritge lndscpes, residence of potentil heritge interest, nd potentil rcheologicl resources. Therefore, ll lterntives re considered similr. 5
4 Nturl Environment 4.1 Aqutic Ecosystem Potentil Impcts to Fish nd Fish Hitt Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment tht considers the mgnitude (numer) nd nture of potentil impcts, significnce nd sensitivity of fisheries nd qutic hitt using, s indictors: the numer of wtercourse crossing; the types of fish communities present, where known (i.e., wrmwter/coldwter); nd the presence of qutic Species t Risk (SAR) All Alterntives will require the sme numer of crossings of the sme wtercourses nd therefore re considered similr with respect to potentil fish nd fish hitt impcts. Existing culvert crossings of minor wtercourses nd dringe fetures will e replced with possile minor relignments t the inlet or outlet, depending on the crossing site. Dingmn Creek Bridge will require expnsion or replcement. Generlly, my result in slightly longer wtercourse crossings, depending on crossing site, given the incrementlly greter (1.5 m) right-of-wy requirements. Potentil impcts to fish nd fish hitt will e determined for the Preferred Cross-Section Concept Alterntive sed on the widening lterntives. All Alterntives hve similr potentil impcts to fish nd fish hitt which will e fully defined for the ssessment of rod widening lterntives. my e slightly less preferred only ecuse it my result in longer wtercourse crossings, however, this could e mitigted through design. Therefore, Alterntives B, C, D nd E re lterntives re considered similr nd preferle to. 4.2 Terrestril Ecosystems c Potentil Impcts to Designted Fetures Potentil Impcts to Vegettion Potentil Impcts to Wildlife Hitts nd Linkges Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment considering the mgnitude (numer of crossing) nd nture of potentil impcts (frgmenttion, encrochment, loss) s well s, potentil to void or mitigte impcts. Designted fetures include, for exmple, Ares of Nturl nd Scientific Interest (ANSI) nd Environmentlly Significnt/Sensitive Ares (ESAs) Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment considering the mgnitude (re in h) nd nture of potentil impcts (frgmenttion, encrochment, loss), significnce nd sensitivity of vegettion sed on: Significnt Woodlnds, known flor Species t Risk (SAR), known S-Rnk (1-3) flor, sensitive or rre vegettion communities (sed on provincil ELC rnks), Provincilly Significnt Wetlnds, other evluted wetlnds, unevluted wetlnds, s well s, potentil to void or mitigte impcts Qulittive nd quntittive ssessment considering the mgnitude (re in h) nd nture of potentil impcts (frgmenttion, encrochment, loss), significnce nd sensitivity of wildlife hitt nd lndscpe connectivity sed on the presence nd density of: interior forest hitt (>100m nd >200m), known funl Species t Risk (SAR) nd potentil hitt sed on known hitt preferences, known or Designted nturl fetures djcent to the Wonderlnd Rod South corridor etween Southdle Rod nd Highwy 402 re: o Est Lmeth Forest ESA o Significnt Corridor o Cndidte ESA Bsed on the expnded right-of-wy requirements ssocited with the ll Alterntives it is nticipted tht there my e some encrochment into djcent designted nturl fetures. However, the exct loction nd the mgnitude of this impct cnnot e ssessed t this stge. These spects will e ssessed with the rod widening lterntives. Furthermore, there my e design mitigtion mesures to void or minimize these potentil impcts tht cn only e determined in the next stge of the ssessment process. Nturl vegettion fetures re more predominnt south of Whrncliffe Rod nd consist of uplnd forest, wetlnds, thicket nd medow vegettion communities some of which re identified in the Officil Pln s eing unevluted or flgged for Environmentl Review. Bsed on the expnded right-of-wy requirements ssocited with the ll Alterntives it is nticipted tht there my e some encrochment into djcent designted nturl fetures. However, the exct loction nd the mgnitude of this impct cnnot e ssessed t this stge. These spects will e ssessed with the rod widening lterntives. Furthermore, there my e design mitigtion mesures to void or minimize these potentil impcts tht cn only e determined in the next stge of the ssessment process. Bsed on the expnded right-of-wy requirements ssocited with the ll Alterntives it is nticipted tht there my e some encrochment into djcent wildlife hitt. However, the exct loction nd the mgnitude of this impct cnnot e ssessed t this stge. These spects will e ssessed with the rod widening lterntives long with n ssessment of the significnce of the impct sed on hitt sensitivity nd the presence of (or potentil for) Species t Risk. Furthermore, there my e design mitigtion mesures to void or minimize these potentil impcts tht cn only e determined in the next stge of the ssessment process. The primry wildlife movement corridor is ssocited with Dingmn Creek nd the existing Bridge crossing. Bridge expnsion or replcement strtegies contemplted in the design process will need to consider wildlife movement within the Dingmn Creek vlley. At this stge, potentil impcts cnnot e determined sed on rod cross-section concepts except to sy tht generlly, my result in slightly greter impcts, given the incrementlly greter (1.5 m) right-of-wy requirements. 6
potentil wildlife use (e.g., deer overwintering res, wterfowl stging, etc.), wildlife movement opportunities, considering locl nd regionl scle (lndscpe-level) linkges nd corridors, s well s the potentil to void or mitigte impcts All Alterntives hve similr potentil impcts to terrestril resources which will e fully defined for the ssessment of rod widening lterntives. my e slightly less preferred only ecuse it my result incrementlly greter impcts, however, this could e mitigted through design. Therefore, Alterntives B, C, D nd E re lterntives re considered similr nd preferle to. Nturl Heritge ws the second highest rnked criteri y memers of the pulic t PIC 1. The ssessment nd evlution of widening lterntives will provide complete nlysis of the mgnitude nd significnce of potentil impcts s well s identified potentil design mitigtion, s pproprite. 4.3 Surfce Wter nd Groundwter Qulittive ssessment of the ility to meet storm design (flood conveynce) requirements to void dverse impcts to djcent properties nd ensure tht mjor nd minor flows re conveyed Dringe nd Stormwter sfely Mngement Qulittive ssessment of the ility to meet SWM criteri set out in the suwtershed studies to ppropritely mnge surfce wter qulity nd quntity stormwter (includes considertion of vrious SWM infrstructure required) Potentil Impcts to Groundwter Numer/extent/loction of Intke Protection Ares, Wellhed Protection res nd Highly Vulnerle Aquifers (HVA) Numer of privte wells within the right-of-wy, sed on MOE well records To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives. To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives. Additionl property requirements for SWM tretment will e identified in tht ssessment. Most of the corridor is locted within known Groundwter Rechrge Are. All rod cross-section concepts re the sme in this regrd. To e determined during the nlysis of widening lterntives following this evlution for the preferred cross-section. At this stge, ll Alterntives B, C, D, nd E re considered similr nd preferle to. Potentil impcts to surfce wter nd groundwter will e determined during the ssessment of rod design lterntives. 7
5 Trnsporttion nd Technicl 5.1 Trnsporttion nd Trffic Opertions Future rod cpcity Impcts on trffic Provides poor vehicle cpcity during pek nd off-pek hours. Numer of Lnes ws the third highest rnked criteri y memers of the pulic t PIC 1. Provides high vehicle cpcity during pek nd off-pek periods. Provides high vehicle cpcity during pek hours. Cpcity reduced y 1/3 during off-pek hours, potentilly would provide poor level of service. Provides high vehicle cpcity during pek hours. Cpcity reduced y 1/3 during off-pek hours, potentilly would provide poor level of service. Provides high vehicle cpcity during pek hours. Cpcity reduced y 1/3 during off-pek hours, potentilly would provide poor level of service. Trffic Opertions Impcts on trnsit opertion Trnsit opertions would e impcted y the poor vehicle cpcity Impcts on cyclist Prked vehicles, loding or unloding, my ostruct cyclists in ike lne. Reltive speed etween the cyclists nd vehicles is reduced. Impcts of ccesses nd entrnces on trffic The rised centre medin effectively reduces ccesses opertions nd entrnces to right-in-right-outs. Minor ccesses only ville from Frontge Street. Fmilirity of drivers with the cross-section Some level of confusion for drivers with Frontge Street; configurtion drivers must use slip ccesses to enter nd exit Frontge Street. No impct on trnsit opertions. Trnsit would require dditionl lne chnges during off-pek prking periods, which could impct the trnsit opertions. No ostruction to cyclist in ike lne. Prked vehicles, loding or unloding, my ostruct cyclists in ike lne. The rised centre medin effectively reduces ccesses nd entrnces to right-in-right-outs. Stndrd cross-section configurtion with 6 trvel lnes nd ike lnes. Very fmilir for drivers. Geometrics nd Sfety Intersection configurtion nd spcing Widely spced intersections Left nd right-turn lnes will e provided t intersections Specil configurtion for Frontge Street ccess t s pproprite. intersections. Specil intersection design to ccommodte on-street cycling. Intersection spcing is similr for ll lterntives c Network Comptiility with existing nd plnned djcent All lterntives re comptile with the existing nd plnned municipl rod network. Comptiility/Connectivity municipl rod network. d Emergency Services Potentil chnges to emergency ccess/routing Minor chnges to emergency ccess to properties s result of the chnge in cross-section nd centre medin. e Supports Alterntive Modes of Trvel Aility to support trnsit, pedestrin nd cycling Supports pedestrins nd commuter cycling with sidewlks nd on-street ike lnes. All lterntives support trnsit opertions. Supports pedestrins nd commuter cycling with sidewlks nd on-street ike lnes. All lterntives support trnsit opertions. The rised centre medin effectively reduces ccesses nd entrnces to right-in-right-outs. Some level of confusion for drivers with off-pek prking lne nd on-rod ike lnes. Would require strict prking enforcement to ensure no prked crs during pek hours. Left nd right-turn lnes will e provided t intersections s pproprite. Specil intersection design to ccommodte on-street cycling. Intersection spcing is similr for ll lterntives. Supports pedestrins nd commuter cycling with sidewlks nd on-street ike lnes. All lterntives support trnsit opertions. Trnsit would require dditionl lne chnges during offpek prking periods, which could impct the trnsit opertions. Prked vehicles, loding or unloding, my ostruct cyclists in ike lne. The rised centre medin effectively reduces ccesses nd entrnces to right-in-right-outs. Some level of confusion for drivers with off-pek prking lne nd on-rod ike lnes. Would require strict prking enforcement to ensure no prked crs during pek hours. Left nd right-turn lnes will e provided t intersections s pproprite. Specil intersection design to ccommodte on-street cycling. Intersection spcing is similr for ll lterntives. Supports pedestrins nd commuter/recretionl cycling with sidewlks nd on-street ike lnes, nd multi-use pth. All lterntives support trnsit opertions. Trnsit would require dditionl lne chnges during off-pek prking periods, which could impct the trnsit opertions. Bike lnes re locted off-rod nd seprted from crs nd usses, therefore provides sfer opertions to cyclist; however, t intersections, cyclist would e required to dismount The rised centre medin effectively reduces ccesses nd entrnces to right-in-right-outs. Some level of confusion for drivers with off-pek prking lne. Would require strict prking enforcement to ensure no prked crs during pek hours. Left nd right-turn lnes will e provided t intersections s pproprite. Specil intersection design to ccommodte on-street cycling not required. Intersection spcing is similr for ll lterntives. Supports pedestrins nd cycling with sidewlks nd offstreet ike pth. Off-street pth would require cyclists to dismount t intersections. All lterntives support trnsit opertions. does not provide dequte vehicle cpcity for pek nd off-pek hours. provides the highest vehicle cpcity during pek nd off-pek periods, nd provides fmilir nd sfe opertions for ll rod users. Alterntives C nd D hve reduced vehicle cpcity during off-pek hours. Furthermore, during off-pek hours, when prking is llowed, there is n dded sfety concern etween the prked crs nd on-street cyclists. Alterntives C, D, nd E would require strict prking enforcement to ensure there re no prked crs during pek hours. All lterntives support lterntive modes of trvel for trnsit, pedestrin nd cycling. Therefore, is preferred s it provides the highest cpcity for ll periods, hs fmilir cross-section for drivers nd cyclists, nd supports lterntive modes of trnsporttion. 8
5.2 Technicl Considertions c d Impcts To or Conflicts With Utilities Constructility Issues Mintennce Opertions Construction Cost Impcts to or potentil conflicts with existing nd locl utilities Impcts to or potentil conflicts with existing nd plnned Hydro One fcilities Qulittive ssessment considering the complexity of construction opertions nd stging Impcts to sesonl mintennce opertions including snow removl etc. Estimted construction cost of rod improvements All lterntives result in similr impcts to utilities, except tht hs slightly higher potentil for conflicts with existing nd locl utilities due to wider ROW. There re no existing or plnned Hydro One fcilities in the Wonderlnd Rod South corridor etween Southdle Rod nd Highwy 402. All lterntives result in reltively similr constructility issues. provides for difficult mintennce opertions due to the seprtion etween the min street nd Frontge Street. All other Alterntives hve regulr mintennce opertions. Pvement width including ike lnes is 29.6 m. High construction cost compred with other lterntives. Pvement width including ike lnes is 25.6 m. Low construction cost compred with other lterntives. Pvement width including ike lnes is 27.0 m. Medium construction cost compred with other lterntives. Pvement width including ike lnes is 27.0 m. Additionl cost for 3.5 multi-use tril in plce of sidewlk. Medium construction cost compred with other lterntives, with the ddition of the multi-use tril. Pvement width is 21.4 m. Additionl cost for 3.0 m off-street ike pth. Low construction cost compred with other lterntives. All lterntives hve similr impcts/conflicts with utilities. hs slightly higher potentil for conflicts with existing nd locl utilities due to wider ROW. All lterntives hve similr constructility nd stging. Bsed on the pvement widths, nd E would hve the low construction costs; lthough hs smller rodwy pvement width, it hs dditionl cost for the off-rod pved ike pth. hs the widest pvement widths, nd construction costs. Therefore, Alterntives B, C, D nd E re preferred. OVERALL Bsed on ll of the discussions summrized ove, the Project Tem decided tht :, is the overll preferred cross-section concept ecuse: It hs the minimum ROW requirement nd therefore the lest mount of property required (nd lest footprint impct); It includes opportunities for on-street prking tht is criticl spect to street virncy, nimtion nd ccess to djcent usinesses; It will not limit mid-lock ccess to the extent tht would (lthough mid-lock ccess opportunities re still suject to ccess policies nd development-specific trffic impct ssessment); It hs oulevrds on oth sides of the rod, providing the est opportunities for lndscping, nd relted community chrcter, gtewy tretments; The plcement of commuter icycle lnes hs less potentil to disrupt pedestrins thn Alterntives D nd E; nd It ccommodtes pek trffic volumes. Lest Benefits/ Most Impcts Most Benefits/ Lest Impcts 9