Peterborough County Transportation Master Plan Presentation to County Council Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Process for Developing the Transportation Plan This Transportation Plan is being developed following the Municipal Class EA The master planning process identifies a recommended set of proposed works and the rationale for their implementation. For some infrastructure projects identified in the Transportation Plan additional phases of the Municipal Class EA process will be required. Sept 21, 2011 Bridgenorth Sept 24, 2011 - Buckhorn PIC #1 Aug 28, 2012 Millbrook Aug 29, 2012 - Bridgenorth Sept 6, 2012 - Norwood PIC #2 PIC #3 Nov 28, 2012 Keene Nov 29, 2012 - Lakefield Data Collection & Review Identify Problems and Opportunities Examine Alternatives Develop Implementation Strategy Transportation Plan Phase 1 Problem / Opportunity Phase 2 Alternative Solutions WE ARE HERE
Scope of TMP Update Short term intersection review / improvement recommendations at 10 Hot Spot locations selected by County staff / Steering Committee Review long term growth forecasts and update TMP accordingly Review / revise long term roadway expansion needs Review transportation policies in TMP and recommend updates Active transportation County transit Roadway classifications / design standards Intersection traffic control / safety policy Traffic calming/pedestrian crossing policy Truck route policy
Recommended Intersection Improvements 1 CR 4 @ CR 6 Review removing trees in the northeast quadrant and improving the west approach grade for visibility Review fencing and intersection illumination options for animal crossing prevention 2 CR 6 @ CR 40 Potentially revise crest curve and remove brush in the southwest quadrant to improve visibility Possible four-way-stop control 3 CR 8 @ CR 38 Modify curvature during next rehabilitation to increase visibility Relocate curvature warning sign and add speed warming signage Review posted/advisory speed signage 5 CR 16 @ CR17 Potential roundabout control Improve positive guidance and warning signs Use chevrons to highlight curvature 4 CR 16 @ CR 14 Consider replacing stop controlled intersection with signals or roundabout Restrict shoulder parking and replace the no parking sign on the north side of CR14
Recommended Intersection Improvements 6 CR 18 @ 5 th Line Monitor traffic for signal requirements Remove brush in northeast quadrant to increase visibility 7 CR 18 @ CR 24 Add pavement markings to indicate right-turn lane Remove brush in northwest quadrant to increase visibility 8 CR 18 @ CR 29 Monitor traffic volumes to the point where signals are warranted or consider roundabout Review sight triangle from residential lane 10 CR 48 @ 6 th Line Potential to reduce posted speed Modify position of stop line on south approach and add a stop line on north approach 9 CR 22 @ CR 23 Provide partial illumination Provide northbound left turn lane Consider all way stop/signals in conjunction with geometric improvements See Update
CR 23 (Buckhorn Road) at CR 22 (Curve Lake Road) Original Recommendations: Provide partial illumination. Provide northbound left-turn lane, Implement alignment revisions to improve intersection geometry and visibility. Only consider signals or all-way stop control in conjunction with geometry improvements. Revise vertical crest curve south of the intersection and horizontal curve to the north and south of the intersection to improve sight lines. Consider implementation of an acceleration lane and/or right-turn channelization on CR23. County Road 22 at County Road 23 All-Way Stop was not recommended without geometric improvements, however feedback from the community strongly supports this in the short term Implementation Recommendation: 1. Implement All-Way Stop in the short term To mitigate collision potential implement the following safety measures: Install illumination at the intersection East approach on CR 22 Looking SB along CR 23 Introduce reduced speed zone (CR 23) approaching / through intersection Introduce advanced warning signs and overhead flasher (similar to Selwyn Road) 2. Undertake recommended geometric improvements (medium term) West approach on CR 22 Looking SB along CR 23
Growth Drives Long Term Road Network Expansion Needs The growth forecasts for the County TMP update have been adjusted to reflect current growth forecasts of the Province, City of Peterborough, and the recent 2011 Census The 2004 TMP was based on a County population of 70,000 residents by 2021. This update is based on a 2031 population of just over 60,000 by 2031 (8% higher than 2011) A lower growth forecast combined with some changes to where growth is expected has resulted in the opportunity to defer a number of the County Roadway expansion projects beyond 2031 The majority of the County Road System is expected to operate a good levels of service
Future Deficiencies - Peterborough Area Incorporates Recommended Improvements from City TMP (approved Nov 2011) Some hot spots similar to previous TMP (Bridgenorth / East Side of City) Deficiencies on CR 29 and within Lakefield are reduced Shift of growth to Millbrook has reduced travel demands on CR 28 23 25 Peterborough Area 33 20 16 24 32 18 29 8 1 19 4 26 12 27 34 3 9 5 15 39 35 10 11 21 2 28
Evaluation of Roadway Network Alternatives Lakefield Alternatives Alternatives to address long term needs include: Do Nothing Widening Bridge Street to 5 lanes Implement mid-block Arterial roads in Lakefield South growth area Donwood Alternatives Alternatives to address long term needs include: Do Nothing Widening Television Road and County Road with Parkhill Rd / Television Road intersection improvements Television Road realignment to County Road 4 (from City TMP) Television Road realignment directly to University Road Bridgenorth Alternatives Alternatives to address long term needs include: Do Nothing Widening Ward St to 3 lanes Widening Ward St to 4 lanes Implementing the Bridgenorth By-Pass Hilliard Street Extension
Overall Evaluation Summary Lakefield Alternatives Alternative Solutions Criteria Do Nothing Widening Bridge Street to 5 Lanes Implement Mid-Block Arterial Roads Technical Least Moderately Most Social/Cultural Least Moderately Most Natural Environment Most Least Moderately Recommended Plan Economic Least Moderately Most Rationale for Project Team Technical Recommendation: Accommodates existing and future demands Reduces traffic on Bridge Street by 14%, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists Reduces collision risk at intersections and entrances Potential longer term connectivity to future new river crossing Many adverse affects incurred as part of planned development Improves accessibility of Ontario Speed Skating Oval facility and Lakefield South Planning Area Significant contribution for road infrastructure from development of area Beyond 2031 (Timing based on development) Estimated Cost in 2012$ $3.2 $3.8M (development of adjacent lands will cover large part of these costs)
Overall Evaluation Summary Donwood Alternatives Factor Do Nothing Widening Television Road and County Road 4 Alternative Solutions Television Road realignment to County Road 4 (from City TMP) Television Road realignment to University Road Technical Least Least- Moderately Moderately Most Social/Cultural Most Moderately Least- Moderately Least Natural Environment Most Least Moderately Least- Moderately Recommended Plan Economic Least Moderately Most Least- Moderately Rationale for Project Team Technical Recommendation: Accommodates existing and future demands Modest impacts to residential properties can be avoided or mitigated during design Low potential for impacts to community facilities / heritage resources Minimizes potential impacts to habitat / wildlife movements Minimizes impacts to businesses while providing effective delay reduction (coordinate with City) By 2031 Estimated Cost in 2012$ $5.7M $6.4M + Property (Opportunity to cost share with City)
Criteria Do Nothing Evaluation Summary - Bridgenorth 2-Lane Extension of Hilliard Street Alternative Solutions Bridgenorth Bypass and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18 4-Lane Widening of Ward Street / CR 18 3-Lane Widening of Ward Street and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18 Technical Least Least-Moderately Most Moderately Least-Moderately Social/ Cultural Most Least-Moderately Moderately Least Moderately Natural Environment Most Least-Moderately Least-Moderately Least Moderately Economic Least Least-Moderately Most Least Most In 2012 the County completed a feasibility study for widening Ward Street to 3 lanes (Gore Street to Champlain Street): Study confirmed that widening is feasible ($1.8 $2.4 Million) Sidewalks can be provided on both sides of Ward Street No property is required Impacts to private features within right-of-way, loss of tress, relocation of utilities, and loss of boulevard parking can be mitigated Analysis with updated growth forecasts suggests that 3 lane cross section would continue to operate satisfactorily until +/- 2020. The 3 lane cross section would reach capacity by +/- 2025 and further opportunities to enhance capacity will be limited Period of congestion Ward Street increases from about ¾ hour today to +/- 2 hours in 2031 in both AM and PM periods Ward Street forecasted to operate at/over 90% of capacity for up to 4 hours in AM (8:00 am 12:00 noon) by 2031 Defers high capital cost investment until end of planning horizon while allowing a period of business certainty to enable local growth and investment and to plan for the transition to a more destination based business area Opportunity to consider alternative by-pass route to avoid potential impacts to natural environmental features in the area
Recommended Hybrid Alternative - Bridgenorth Project Steering Committee Recommendation 1. Implement 3 lane widening in short term and adjust Wilcox signals to manage queues during peaks (queue detection to over-ride side road green time) 2. Continue to implement mitigation measures to address capacity and safety issues in the medium term (i.e. consider roundabout at Causeway intersection) Recommended Plan 3. Based on current traffic projections it is anticipated that the By-Pass will not be required in the 20 year planning horizon of this Transportation Plan. a) In light of potential capacity issues which may occur after 2031 we recommend protecting the current transportation corridor within the Official Plan, placing a note on the transportation network schedule indicating that the current transportation plan does not project a need for the By-Pass during the current planning horizon (2011-2031). b) Continue to protect for the By-Pass in the Official Plan for potential implementation beyond 2031. 4. Update assessment of implementation timing for By-Pass as part of next 5 year review of TMP considering observed growth patterns and updated growth forecasts 5. Consider whether to seek an addendum to the approved Environmental Study Report for the By-Pass as part of the 2016 Transportation Plan 0-5 years By 2025 2031 or beyond Estimated Cost in 2012$ - 3 lane Widening of Ward Street = $2.4M - CR 18 Widening (CR 1 to Bridgenorth) = $4.7M 5.5M + Property - Long Term Bypass - $7.1M - 8.3M + Property
Many expansion projects can be deferred Capacity Improvements 2004 TRANSPORTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS 2012 UPDATE NORTH CR28 Widening 2 to 4 or 5 lanes (Fraserville to Hwy 7/115 IC) - EA Study Complete CR11 - Airport Rd Widening 2 to 4 lanes - (Highway 115 to City Limit) CR29 - Widen Lakefield Rd to 4/5 lanes - (City limit to N of 7 th Line) New 2 Lane Bridge Crossing of Otonabee River (Katherine St to Water St) CR33 Upgrade CR33 and connect to new bridge (Water St to Hwy 28) New Television Rd connection to University Rd (North of Old Norwood Rd) Retain in Plan - Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031 Retain in Plan - Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031 Retain in Plan - Widening can be deferred to beyond 2031 Retain in Plan - New Bridge Crossing can be deferred beyond 2031 Consider for Rehabilitation / Operational Improvements New TV Road Alignment and Widening CR 4 to 4 lanes Widen Nassau Mills Rd to 4 lanes (University Rd to Armour Rd) Retain in Plan - In City TMP LEGEND County Long Term Corridor Protection (Beyond 2031) Intersection Improvements County Road Capacity Enhancement County Long Term Widening (Beyond 2031) Local/County Road Capacity Enhancement Provincial Highways County Roads Local Roads Peterborough County Base mapping from County of Peterborough & MNR UTM Zone 17 NAD 83
Active Transportation Recommended Approach Include information on County s website (marketing and promotion): Cycling/walking routes and trails High quality maps that can be downloaded Seek input on issues/concerns (i.e. obstacles, shoulder stability, pot holes) Provide seed funding to local municipalities for implementation of infrastructure to support active transportation (i.e. bike racks at community centres, etc) Partner with local municipalities to fund implementation of portions of active transportation network. Develop a County-wide active transportation/cycling network plan co-operatively with local municipalities and stakeholders in consideration of: Off-road trails Communities and other destinations within the community Input from the Cycling Advisory Committee and other members of the public The City of Peterborough s planned active transportation/cycling Network Identify/confirm vision and priorities for an active transportation/cycling network Identify which on-road routes are to be: Signed/shared roads only (promotes driver awareness to presence of cyclists) Wider paved shoulders (incorporate with upcoming improvement projects) Striped/marked bike lanes Link implementation of the plan to roadway maintenance and improvements program
Possible County-Wide Active Transportation/Cycling Network Refine as part of plan development in co-ordination with municipalities & stakeholders NORTH UTM Zone 17 NAD 83 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 km Legend Provincial Park/Conservation Area Major Community/Destination Other Community/Destination County Road Network Municipal Road Network Provincial Highways Off Road Trails Provincial Highways County Roads Local Roads Lakes and Rivers Peterborough County Base mapping from County of Peterborough & MNR
County Transit Service Recommendations County Transit services should be a joint county-municipal initiative recognizing benefits do not accrue to all county municipalities Start process to investigate feasibility of contracting transit service with private operator Solicit competitive bids for fixed price contract (e.g. one year pilot with renewal options) Define service standards and performance requirements Provide optional service levels to allow County to match service contract with affordability Schedule, days of week, hours of service, etc. Private operator to bear ridership risk (and benefits of fare revenue upside) County agrees to support service through advertising on County website, funding stops/shelters, offering online trip planning, etc. County selects operator, service level, and route package Level of subsidy is known and can be budgeted for Potential Range of Annual Subsidy (all day hourly service) Route Communities Served Net of Fares 1 Havelock/Norwood $143,000 - $169,000 2 Curve Lake FN/Lakefield $61,000 - $139,000 Community Care Peterborough already operates a dial-a-ride service for County seniors and adults with physical challenges Norfolk County has contracted out its transit service to the county school bus operator 3 Keene/Hiawatha FN $147,000 - $169,000 4 Bridgenorth/Millbrook $71,000 - $143,000 Annual Subsidy Cost $422,000 - $ 620,000
Roadway Classification Recommendations Passive Moderate Aggressive Passive: One classification = County Road The following fall under the domain of other road authorities: Provincial Highways (MTO), Local Municipal Roads (municipalities), and Private Roads (private owners) Moderate: Divide County Roads into two service categories: Major County Roads Minor County Roads Classifications based on various subcategories: Adjacent land use Roadway service function Traffic flow characteristics Introduce Special Character Roadway classification: Recognizes scenic and historical character; Does not allow for reduction in geometric design standards or maintenance standards *Note Recommended approach indicated in red Aggressive: Develop a County-wide classification system per 2004 TMP, including: Major County Arterial (Class A) Minor County Arterial (Class B) County Collector (Class C) Allows for different development on varying roads. Classifications would be based on various subcategories, including: Roadway role & function Traffic volume / flow characteristics Design Speed / Average Running Speed Connectivity Urban vs. Rural (adjacent land use) Introduce Special Character Roadway classification: Recognizes scenic and historical character Allows for reduction in geometric design standards or maintenance standards
Proposed County Road Classification North NORTH Legend Class A County Road Class B County Road Class C County Road Special Character Provincial Highways Local Roads Lakes and Rivers Peterborough County Major Community/Destination Other Community/Destination UTM Zone 17 NAD 83 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 km Base mapping from County of Peterborough & MNR
Proposed County Road Classification South NORTH 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 km Class A County Road Class B County Road Class C County Road Special Character Provincial Highways Legend Local Roads Lakes and Rivers Peterborough County Major Community/Destination Other Community/Destination UTM Zone 17 NAD 83 Base mapping from County of Peterborough & MNR
Design Standards Recommendations Passive Moderate Aggressive Passive: There are no formal policies with respect to application of Design Standards There are no formal policies with respect to application of Design Speed and Posted Speed County typically follows TAC Design guideline or MTO Geometric Design Standards *Note Recommended approach indicated in red. Moderate: Follow desirable design TAC standards for higher classification roadways Allow for use of minimum TAC design standards on lower classification roadways Develop Design / Posted Speed Limit policies based on County Road Classification System: Major County Road: Design speed = 100 km/h; Posted speed = 80km/h Minor County Road: Design speed varies from 80 to 90 km/h; Posted speed varies from 60 to 80km/h Aggressive: Introduce a policy to follow desirable design TAC standards for all roadway classifications Develop Design / Posted Speed Limit policies based on County Road Classification System: Major Arterial (RAU 100) Class A - >5000 AADT Design speed = 100 km/h; Posted speed = 80km/h Minor Arterial (RAU 90) Class B - 1000 5000 AADT Design speed = 90 km/h; Posted speed = varies from 70 to 80km/h County Collector (RCU 80) Class C - <1000 AADT Design speed = 80 km/h; Posted speed = varies from 60 to 70km/h Introduce Design Standards for County Roads located in Urban settings A classification-based design standard allows for improved ability to apply design standards to match local conditions and prevailing traffic characteristics while managing capital costs
Intersection Traffic Control / Safety Policy Recommendations Passive: When signal warrants are met: Passive Moderate Aggressive First install AWSC (All Way Stop Control) Follow with signal installation where AWSC does not sufficiently address the operational issues Maintain signage and pavement markings as identified by County staff and the public. Review roadside barriers and signing in areas of capital projects Moderate: For an upgrade to existing traffic control measures, first consider AWSC where: LOS C can be achieved Adequate site distance is available Second, consider a roundabout or a traffic signal Review / upgrade signage and pavement markings as identified by County staff and the public. Conduct a safety based network screening of signage, pavement markings, and roadside barrier protection in areas slated for capital projects or with high collision experience; implement an improvement plan where appropriate. *Note Recommended approach indicated in red Aggressive: For an upgrade to existing traffic control measures, first consider a roundabout Second, consider AWSC where: LOS C can be achieved Adequate site distance is available Third, consider traffic signal Conduct a County-wide signage and pavement marking review and implement a systematic improvement plan across the county road network Complete systematic roadside barrier assessment and installation plan across the county road network with an emphasis on the removal of obstacles in the clear zone where feasible Reconstruct roads to improve sight distance on vertical and horizontal curves to be suitable for the posted speed limit Improve road alignment where the design speed of the curve is 20 km/h or more below the posted speed limit
Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Crossing Policy Recommendations Recommended that a joint county-municipal working group be established to review traffic calming requests Traffic Calming requests should include public consultation to review need / options / recommendations Refer to ITE best practices in assessing and evaluating solutions Assess Community Safety Zones (CSZ) / Pedestrian Crossings and other safety concerns based on County/OPP staff knowledge / historic complaints. Form a Traffic Safety working group with County Staff / OPP to assess concerns and available enforcement considering : High accident/collision rates Traffic violations Other factors (i.e. Adjacent land use) Implement a formal pedestrian crossing warrant policy and procedure to be used during road upgrades, new development applications, or where an existing need is identified use Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 requirements, which include. pedestrian volumes, ability to meet desired pedestrian pathways/connectivity, traffic volume (peak hour and AADT), traffic speed
Truck Route Policy Recommendations Passive Moderate Aggressive Passive: Permit trucks on all county roads Maintain spring half load restrictions Moderate: Introduce Permissive Truck Route policy using truck route signage to direct heavy trucks to preferred routes Link policy to County Road Classification System Undertake a cost-benefit review to upgrade pavement during rehabilitation projects to accommodate all-season truck traffic on routes leading to key generators Aggressive: Introduce Restrictive Truck Route policy that bans trucks on designated routes (may be difficult to enforce in rural areas) Link policy to County Road Classification System Design pavement during rehabilitation to accommodate all-season truck traffic on routes leading to key generators *Note Recommended approach indicated in red
Summary of Comments Received PIC 3 Two PIC 3 events were held: November 28 & 29 (Keene / Lakefield). 7 comment forms and 3 emails were received in association with PIC 3. In general, the following comments were reported by respondents in association with the County s transportation network: I believe the Bridgenorth traffic issues are well-addressed. For the short term, I believe the widening of Ward Street to 3 lanes is adequate but must be addressed again later. The bypass around the town is essential. The timing of the stop light at Wilcox must be addressed Support the development of roundabouts, where appropriate Good plan for the situation we are in now. Generally, supportive of active transportation, pedestrian crossing strategies, and rural transit services Television Road and the Bridgenorth plan are good at present time - will it get us through the next 10 years? Following PIC 3 correspondence was also received from: Peterborough City-County Health Unit support roadway infrastructure, traffic calming, active transportation and County transit recommendations Peterborough Bicycle Advisory Committee support active transportation, cycling, and transit recommendations; and City of Peterborough - support active transportation, cycling recommendations
Steering Committee Recommendation: That County Council accepts the recommendations of the County of Peterborough Steering Committee and that County Council: Endorses in principle the Transportation Plan and directs staff to present phased project implementation as a part of successive future Public Works annual budget presentations. Directs staff to develop policies recommended within the plan to present for County Council s consideration. Directs staff to review the items within the Transportation Plan that require implementation through the County Official Plan and coordinate this through the update of the County Official Plan. Directs staff to commence a review of the Transportation Plan in five (5) years Questions?