Draft Environmental Study Report … Hall/environmental-assessment...City of Barrie...

Draft Environmental Study Report

Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets EA Study

Schedule ‘C’ Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

March 2017

Prepared By:

BT Engineering Inc.

586 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 212

Toronto Ontario, M4P 1P2

Phone: 416-488-5353

Toll free: (855) 228-4813

March 2017

City of Barrie Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Draft Environmental Study Report, March 2017

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan ......................................................... 1

1.2 Former Watercourt/Downtown Transportation Improvements Class EA (2004) ........ 6

1.3 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Class EA .................................................................................. 6

1.3.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Study Design ......................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Phases 3 & 4 of the Class EA Study .......................................................................... 8

2.0 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................ 10

2.1 Phases 1 & 2 ........................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Phase 3 .................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Contact List .............................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Property Owners .................................................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Interest Groups and Agencies ............................................................................. 10 2.3.3 First Nations ........................................................................................................ 11

3.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 12

3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................... 12

3.3 Future Traffic Conditions .......................................................................................... 13

3.4 Ross/Collier Realignment ........................................................................................ 13

3.5 Ross/Toronto/Sophia Intersection Cluster ............................................................... 14

3.6 Intersection Safety ................................................................................................... 15

4.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Ross Street Cross Section Alternatives ................................................................... 17

4.2 Collier Street Cross Section Alternatives ................................................................. 19

4.3 Bayfield Street Cross Section Alternatives ............................................................... 20

4.3.1 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternatives ........................................ 20 4.3.2 Coarse Screening of Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternatives ...... 26

4.4 Other Considerations ............................................................................................... 28

5.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTS ............................................................................................. 29

5.1 Physical Environment .............................................................................................. 29

5.1.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 29 5.1.2 Sanitary Sewers .................................................................................................. 29 5.1.3 Storm Sewers ..................................................................................................... 29

5.2 Natural Environment ................................................................................................ 29

5.2.1 Tree Survey ........................................................................................................ 29 5.3 Social Environment .................................................................................................. 29

5.3.1 Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................. 29 5.3.2 Built Environment ................................................................................................ 29 5.3.3 Noise .................................................................................................................. 29

5.4 Cultural/ Heritage Environment ................................................................................ 29

5.4.1 Archaeology ........................................................................................................ 29 5.4.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage ................................................................... 29 5.4.3 Natural Heritage Impact Assessment ................................................................. 29

5.5 Economic Environment ............................................................................................ 29

6.0 EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 30

6.1 Ross Street Evaluation ............................................................................................. 30

6.2 Collier Street Evaluation ........................................................................................... 30

6.3 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Evaluation .............................................. 30

7.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN ..................................................................................................... 41

7.1 Technically Preferred Plan ....................................................................................... 41

7.2 Refinements ............................................................................................................. 41

7.3 Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................ 41

7.3.1 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Roundabout ...................................................................... 41 7.3.2 Ross/Sophia Intersection Reconfiguration for Future Consideration .................. 42

7.4 Property Requirements ............................................................................................ 42

7.5 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................... 43

7.5.1 Roundabout Fastest Path ................................................................................... 43 7.5.2 Bus Circulation .................................................................................................... 43 7.5.3 Truck Circulation ................................................................................................. 44 7.5.4 Pedestrians ......................................................................................................... 45 7.5.5 Cyclists ............................................................................................................... 45


ii

7.5.6 Parking ................................................................................................................ 46 7.6 Impact Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 47

7.7 Future Activities ....................................................................................................... 47

8.0 PLATES .............................................................................................................................. 51

Glossary of Terms List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process .................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Preferred Road Network 2031 (from MMATMP) ...................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Preferred Cycling, Pathways and Trails Network 2031 (from MMATMP)................................. 4 Figure 5: Preferred Sidewalk Network 2031 (from MMATMP) ................................................................ 5 Figure 6: Preferred Road Network 2051 (from MMATMP) ...................................................................... 5 Figure 7: City of Barrie Waterfront/Downtown Transportation Improvements Class EA (2004) .............. 6 Figure 8: 2031 ROW Widths for Ross Street, Bayfield Street and Collier Street (Source: City of Barrie Official Plan 2014) ................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 9: 2031 ROW Widths for Ross Street, Bayfield Street and Collier Street (Course: City of Barrie MMATMP 2014) ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 10: Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 11: Existing Configuration and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Synchro) ................................ 12 Figure 12: Existing Configuration and Future (2031) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Synchro) .......... 13 Figure 13: Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, an Informational Guide, TRB) .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 14: Pedestrian Conflict Point Comparison (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, an Informational Guide, TRB) .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 15: Cross Section Alternatives (Ross Street) ............................................................................. 18 Figure 16: Ross Street Strip Plans ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 17: Cross Section Alternatives (Collier Street) ........................................................................... 19 Figure 18: Cross Section Alternative (Bayfield Street) .......................................................................... 20 Figure 19: Long List Alternative A ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 20: Long List Alternative 0 ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 21: Long List Alternative 1A ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 22: Long List Alternative 1B ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 23: Long List Alternative 1C ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 24: Long List Alternative 1D ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 25: Long List Alternative 1E ....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 26: Long List Alternative 1F ....................................................................................................... 23

Figure 27: Long List Alternative 1G ....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 28: Long List Alternative 2A ....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 29: Long List Alternative 2B ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 30: Long List Alternative 2C ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 31: Long List Alternative 2D ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 32: Long List Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 33: Long List Alternative 4 .......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 34: Carried Forward Alternative A .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 35: Carried Forward Alternative B .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 36: Carried Forward Alternative C .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 37: Carried Forward Alternative D .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 38: Carried Forward Alternative F .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 39: Carried Forward Alternative H .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 40: Carried Forward Alternative I ............................................................................................... 28 Figure 41: Carried Forward Alternative J .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 42: TPP Roundabout with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths ............................................................ 41 Figure 43: Roundabout Interim Design ................................................................................................ 42 Figure 44: Roundabout Ultimate Design ............................................................................................... 42 Figure 45: Interim and Ultimate Property Requirements ....................................................................... 42 Figure 46: Bus Routes .......................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 47: Roundabout Interim Design with Articulated Bus Travel Paths ........................................... 43 Figure 48: Roundabout Ultimate Design with Articulated Bus Travel Paths ......................................... 44 Figure 49: Roundabout Interim Design with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths ........................................... 44 Figure 50: Roundabout Ultimate Design with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths ......................................... 45 Figure 51: Conventional Bicycle Lane (source: OTM Book 18) ............................................................ 45 Figure 52: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type D – Single-Lane Roundabout (source: OTM Book 15)46 Figure 53: Bicycle Lane at a Single-Lane Roundabout (source: OTM Book 18) ................................... 46 Figure 54: Bicycle Ramp Design (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, An Informational Guide).......... 46

List of Tables

Table 1: Active Transportation Measures ................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: MMATMP Recommended Improvements – 2031 Horizon ........................................................ 7 Table 3: Traffic Analysis Results – Existing, PM Peak Hour, Signalized ............................................... 12 Table 4: Traffic Analysis Results – Existing, PM Peak Hour, Unsignalized ........................................... 12 Table 5: Traffic Analysis Results – 2031 Base Case, PM Peak Hour, Signalized ................................. 13 Table 6: Traffic Analysis Results – 2031 Base Case, PM Peak Hour, Unsignalized ............................. 13 Table 7: Design Criteria (Ross Street) .................................................................................................. 17 Table 8: Preliminary Design Alternative Comparison (Ross Street) ...................................................... 17 Table 9: Design Criteria (Collier Street) ................................................................................................ 19 Table 10: Preliminary Design Alternative Comparison (Collier Street) .................................................. 19


iii

Table 11: Design Criteria (Bayfield Street) ............................................................................................ 20 Table 12: Coarse Screening of Intersection Alternatives ...................................................................... 26 Table 13: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Ross Street Cross Section) ......................................... 31 Table 14: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Collier Street) ............................................................... 34 Table 15: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection) ................... 36 Table 16: Summary of Potential Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigations ............................... 48

List of Plates

Plate 1: Recommended Plan – Ross Street ......................................................................................... 52 Plate 2: Recommended Plan Ross Street, Bayfield Street, Collier Street ............................................ 53 Plate 3: Typical Sections ...................................................................................................................... 54 Plate 4: Recommended Plan Ultimate Roundabout Configuration....................................................... 55

List of Appendices

Appendix A Study Design

Appendix B Record of Consultation

Appendix C Traffic Operations Assessment Report

Appendix D Municipal Infrastructure Review Report

Appendix E Arborist Report

Appendix F Land Use Planning Report

Appendix G Traffic Noise Impact Report

Appendix H Stage 1 Archaeology Report

Appendix I Built Cultural Heritage Report

Appendix J Natural Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix K Design Alternative – Cost Estimates


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Municipal Class EA (amended 2015) for a roadway project in the City of Barrie within the urban area along Bayfield Street, Ross Street and Collier Street, as shown in Figure 1. These improvements were identified as a need in the City’s Multi-Modal Active Transportation Plan and have been carried forward for completion of the remaining phases of the Class EA process. The planning process has been open and transparent including providing a draft study design report (see Appendix A) as an initial step in the consultation process, providing agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the work program before technical activities were initiated. This work program also included a discretionary initial public information meeting to allow the public to review alternatives before the technical evaluation, and the EA Team to listen to members of the public and property owners early in the decision-making process.

The purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA) is to document the planning process, evaluation of alternatives, and technical recommendations and to define mitigation measures for residual effects. Mitigation includes staged implementation to carry out improvements as adjacent properties are developed. This report describes the technical recommendations and commitments by the City for mitigation.

1.1 Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan

This section summarizes the recommendations from the City of Barrie’s Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan (MMATMP) completed in January 2014. For a full assessment, please refer to the original report available online at: http://www.barrie.ca/City%20Hall/growth/Pages/DocumentsResources.aspx .

The MMATMP was conducted in accordance with the Master Plan process as prescribed in the “Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects, October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011” (the Class EA) document. The MMATMP addressed Phases 1 and 2 of the five-phase Municipal Class EA Process, as shown in Figure 2, for City-wide transportation improvements, and identified the need for roadway and intersection improvements to accommodate growth to 2031 and beyond.

Alternative Planning Solutions represent alternative ways or methods of addressing the problem to be solved by the project. These reflect different strategies and include the “Do Nothing” alternative (maintaining the status quo). Following the assessment of Alternative Planning Solutions, those alternatives judged to address the problem statement will be carried forward and will form the Recommended Planning Solution. The recommended planning solution will address the problem statement to ensure the safety of the travelling public, while providing the best overall balance between transportation engineering objectives, life cycle costs, and other environmental, cultural, socio-economic, and land use planning objectives.

In determining the preferred planning alternative for the City, Transportation Network Alternatives (Alternative Planning Solutions) were analyzed in the MMATMP. These included:

1) Alternative 1: Do nothing. 2) Alternative 2: Low/existing modal share – Auto-oriented “status quo” approach. 3) Alternative 3: Medium modal share – Increased emphasis on non-auto modes. 4) Alternative 4: High modal share - Strong emphasis on non-auto modes.

A detailed evaluation of the Transportation Network Alternatives (Alternative Planning Solutions) is contained in the MMATMP in Section 5.0.

Upon evaluation of the four alternatives, Alternative 3 was identified as the preferred option. An overall vision for active transportation was developed based on parameters developed by the City in order to achieve the medium modal share alternative goals. The parameters used as the basis for developing the active transportation network are summarized in Table 1 below.

Figure 1: Project Location


2

Table 1: Active Transportation Measures Area Sidewalk Cycling and Pathways Annexed Lands

New local streets (except for short cul-de-sacs) will have sidewalks on both sides

Integrated pathway network Maximum on-road network mesh width: 1000m–1500m

Citywide Arterials and collectors will have sidewalks on both sides (new sidewalks to be 2.0m wide where feasible) Local streets: sidewalks on local streets should be 1.5m wide.

Arterials and 4+ lane collectors: Buffered bicycle lanes to be constructed only if road is being widened or reconstructed; regular bicycle lanes or multi-use pathways to be put in place if no widening is required 2-3 lane Collectors: Bicycle lanes connecting links to schools

Pre-2010 Barrie

Local streets will have at least one sidewalk; two sidewalks if street segment is within approximately 250m of a school. Infill program to implement additional sidewalks where other road construction is not planned

Addition of pathways in major park corridors Ideal maximum on-road network mesh width: 1000m–1500m, adjusted according to physical constraints

The preferred multi-modal active transportation network for the 2031 time horizon, as presented in the MMATMP, is provided in Figure 3 to Figure 5. While the MMATMP was developed based on the 2031 time horizon, 2051 was also considered in identifying corridors which may potentially exceed capacity post-2031. The potential road network for 2051, as presented in the MMATMP, is provided in Figure 6.


3

Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process

Circulation of Study Design

PIC No. 1 MMATMP

PIC No. 2 November 23, 2016

PIC No. 3 May, 2017

Final ESR 30-day Review Notice: Summer 2017


4

Figure 3: Preferred Road Network 2031 (from MMATMP)

Figure 4: Preferred Cycling, Pathways and Trails Network 2031 (from MMATMP)

Study Area Study Area


5

Figure 5: Preferred Sidewalk Network 2031 (from MMATMP)

Figure 6: Preferred Road Network 2051 (from MMATMP)

Study Area Study Area


6

1.2 Former Watercourt/Downtown Transportation Improvements Class EA (2004)

The intersection of Ross Street, Collier Street and Bayfield Street was previously studied as part of the Downtown/Waterfront Transportation Improvements Class EA. The City of Barrie “Waterfront/Downtown Transportation Improvements Class Environmental Assessment” dated December 2004, examined the need for improvements in the area of Lakeshore Drive, Bradford Street, Simcoe Street and Toronto Street. The Phase 3 and Phase 4 Class EA reviewed a subset of the previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 Class EA “Waterfront/Downtown Transportation Improvements Needs Assessment” dated November 2002, which included the intersections of Ross Street and Collier Street at Bayfield Street within the study area.

A City of Barrie staff report, dated September 8, 2003, appended in the 2004 Class EA, indicated that the intersections of Ross Street and Collier Street at Bayfield Street operated inefficiently and that the 1999 Transportation Study by Read, Voorhees Ltd recommended realignment of the Ross/Bayfield/Collier intersection. Realignments considered, and presented to the public, as part of the 2002 Class EA, were: Collier Street to the north, Ross Street to the south and a combination of both. The recommended alignment, as shown in Figure 7, realigned Ross Street to the south (through 56/66 Bayfield Street) to align with Collier Street. This option was generally consistent with the 1999 Transportation Study and was generally supported by the public, while not impacting the historically significant building on the northeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Bayfield Streets (or the Barrie Community Health Centre or Youth Centre occupying part of the building).

The final EA report was not advertised for a 30 day review period. The City chose to adopt the preferred alternative for planning purposes only because implementation was anticipated to occur beyond the 10 year window allowed under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The City now wishes to re-evaluate alternatives for this intersection that improve traffic operations in the downtown and mitigate existing traffic congestion on Dunlop Street and Simcoe Street. This re-evaluation has included a traffic operation assessment of the downtown core as part of the EA study.

1.3 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Class EA

The Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated by the City of Barrie in September 2016 to undertake the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA Process for the proposed widening and realignment of Ross Street from Toronto Street to Bayfield Street to three lanes with buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides. The need for this improvement was identified in in the Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan (MMATMP) for the City. The recommended improvements for the sections of Ross Street, Collier Street and Bayfield Street as identified in the MMATMP are in Table 2.

Figure 7: City of Barrie Waterfront/Downtown Transportation Improvements Class EA (2004)


7

Table 2: MMATMP Recommended Improvements – 2031 Horizon Section Road Network Cycling, Pathway &

Trails Network Sidewalk Network

Ross Street (Toronto Street to Bayfield Street)

Continuous two-way left turn lane (CTWLTL) and road realignment

Buffered bicycle lanes No change from existing

Bayfield Street (Sophia Street to Collier Street)

No change Buffered bicycle lanes Add 1 or 2 sidewalk(s) as sidewalk project

Collier Street (Bayfield Street to Clapperton Street)

CTWLTL Buffered bicycle lanes No change from existing

The Official Plan and MMATMP right-of-way (ROW) widths recommended for protection are illustrated in

Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Figure 8: 2031 ROW Widths for Ross Street, Bayfield Street and Collier Street (Source: City of Barrie Official Plan 2014)

Figure 9: 2031 ROW Widths for Ross Street, Bayfield Street and Collier Street (Source: City of Barrie MMATMP 2014)

This EA has included an assessment of intersection alternatives at the intersection of Ross Street, Collier Street and Bayfield Street including signalization, roundabout or traffic operations improvements in the downtown traffic analysis study area. The transportation improvements included consideration of extensions to Collier Street and Clapperton Street. As part of the transportation improvements, municipal infrastructure renewal is required. Renewal will be dependent on the project limits established by the preferred alternative design solution.

As part of the road widening, intersection improvements will be determined for each intersection within the study area as per the traffic operations assessment. In addition, all proposed improvements will be developed in consideration of lane widenings identified for 2031 and 2051 where applicable.

This EA study documents the transportation need and the Recommended Plan to address current and future operational needs considering all modes of travel. Upgrading this intersection will improve traffic operations in the downtown and will provide all users (pedestrians, bikes and vehicular traffic) with a safe and convenient route to travel. The study has been initiated at this time to address existing traffic congestion on Dunlop Street and Simcoe Street.

The EA examined alternatives for the intersection of Ross Street, Collier Street and Bayfield Street, taking into account property impacts, transportation safety and traffic operations.


8

1.3.1 Study Area

The Study Area included: Ross Street from Toronto Street to Bayfield Street (including both intersections); Bayfield Street from Ross Street to Collier Street (including both intersections); and, Collier Street from Bayfield Street to Clapperton Street (including both intersections). Traffic analysis considered a wider study area. The Study Area is illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Study Area

1.3.2 Study Design

A draft Study Design was circulated to the public, agencies and stakeholders for comments at the outset of the project. The Study Design presented the work program, study area limits, intended approach to complete the study, consultation plan, detailed project schedule and identified the scope of the study’s technical requirements.

The Study Design document established the foundation for all of the remaining environmental planning and public consultation processes. The Study Design allows the early identification of the major issues and concerns, and in addition, recognizes areas of consensus or agreement. The preliminary identification and assessment of Planning Solutions/Alternatives to the Undertaking were presented in the Study Design for public/agency review and comment.

The final Study Design can be found in Appendix A.

1.4 Phases 3 & 4 of the Class EA Study

This project was undertaken to satisfy the provincial EA Act following the “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment” process for a Schedule ‘C’ project as amended in 2011. This document specifies the procedures required to plan specific road projects according to an approved planning process. This is a self-assessment process that includes mandatory public consultation.

The EA has examined alternatives for the alignment and cross section of Ross, Collier and Bayfield Streets within the Study Area.

The approach to the study includes the MOECC’s five guiding principles for EA studies, namely:

Consider all reasonable alternatives; Provide a comprehensive assessment of the environment; Utilize a systematic and traceable evaluation of net effects; Undertake a comprehensive public consultation program; and Provide clear and concise documentation of the decision-making process and public

consultation program.

The Class EA process includes an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and the selection of a preferred alternative(s) with acceptable effects (including avoidance and mitigation of any residual effects) on the natural and social/cultural environments.

The EA process entails five phases. Phases 1 and 2 were completed in 2012 (MMATMP) and this Study has subsequently completed Phases 3 and 4, finalizing the ESR in 2017.

The following is the specific breakdown of tasks by phase for a Schedule ‘C’ project1:

Phase 1: Identify the Problem Step 1: Identification and description of the problem or opportunity Step 2: Discretionary Public consultation (Draft Study Design available on the City of Barrie’s

website) Phase 2: Alternative Solutions

Step 1: Identification of alternative solutions to the problem Step 2: Identify the Study Area and a general inventory of the natural, social and cultural

environments. Step 3: Identification of the net positive and negative effects of each alternative solution Step 4: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions and preliminary recommendation of a preferred

solution. Step 5: Public consultation at Public Information Centre (PIC) No. 1

1 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Municipal Engineers Association, 2015.


9

Step 6: Selection of the preferred solution, following public and agency review. Phase 3: Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution

Step 1: Identification of alternative designs. Step 2: Preparation of a detailed inventory of the social and economic environments. Step 3: Identification of the potential impact of the alternative designs. Step 4: Evaluation of the alternative designs.

Phase 4: Environmental Study Report (ESR) Step 1: Completion of the ESR Step 2: File the ESR and Notice of Completion Step 3: Opportunity to request a Part II Order

Phase 5: Implementation Not included as part of this study.

The Municipal Class EA process is illustrated in Figure 2.

This study will only be completed to the end of the Municipal EA process (i.e. Phase 4).


10

2.0 CONSULTATION

The following sections provide a summary of the consultation activities held during the study.

2.1 Phases 1 & 2

PIC No. 1 for this project was previously held during the MMATMP.

2.2 Phase 3

Notices for the Study Commencement, Public Information Centres (PIC), and Notice of Filing Study Completion were publicized as follows: Study Commencement Notice – Barrie Examiner, September 22, 2016 and September 24, 2016 PIC No. 2 – Barrie Examiner on November 10, 2016 and November 12, 2016 PIC No. 3 - Filing of Study Completion – PIC No. 2 was held on Wednesday November 23, 2016 from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm in the Rotunda at City Hall.

All property owners within the Study Area were mailed individual letters and comment sheets inviting them to attend the PIC.

Display panels (text, photos and drawings) were set up around the perimeter of the room for leisurely viewing. The Municipal Class EA Process, Study Objectives and Purpose, Project Purpose, Study Area and Existing Conditions, MMATMP Recommendations, Preliminary Alternatives Concepts and Next Steps were presented and public/agency input/feedback was encouraged.

Twenty-three (23) people registered at the second PIC. Each person was encouraged to provide a written response to any issues or concerns. A total of fifteen (15) comment sheets, letters or e-mails were submitted at the PIC and during the subsequent 2 week comment period.

Refer to Appendix B for the Notice of Study Commencement, full PIC No. 2 and No. 3 Summary Reports and the Notice of Study Completion.

2.3 Contact List

A property owner/public mailing list was provided by the City at the outset of the study. Additions to the list were sought via the EA Commencement Notice and Notices of PIC’s in addition to comment sheets at the PIC’s. The lists were updated throughout the duration of the study. Over 400 letters were mailed to property owners adjacent to the road corridor in advance of PIC No. 2 to ensure all property owners were notified.

An agency contact list was developed and expanded throughout the study. See Section 2.3.2 Interest Groups and Agencies for the list of agencies contacted and contact persons.

2.3.1 Property Owners

One meeting was held with the property owner of the southwest quadrant of the Ross Street and Bayfield Street intersection to discuss the alternatives being developed for the project. No immediate plans for development are in place for the property.

The City of Barrie met with the property owner of the northeast quadrant (Georgian International property) in regards to their properties in the study area (65, 77-79, 85 Bayfield Street, 19/21 Worsley Street and 2, 16 Collier Street) to discuss the alternatives being developed for the project. There are existing plans for immediate redevelopment of their properties. Redevelopment plans include buildings, parking and modifications to property entrances.

The City of Barrie communicated with the property owner of 4-8 Collier Street via email and provided an opportunity to have an in-person meeting to discuss the alternatives being developed for the project and property impacts.

2.3.2 Interest Groups and Agencies

All agencies or groups that may have had an interest in the project or any documentation to contribute to the study were contacted at the start of the EA for their input. All agencies were invited to attend the PIC meetings.

The following agencies were contacted for information and/or input into the project:

A Channel Barrie Albarrie Canada Limited Bell Canada Canadian Home Builders Association-Simcoe County Ducks Unlimited Enbridge Fisheries and Oceans Canada Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Hydro One Network Innisfil Hydro Distribution Systems Ltd., Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Economic Development, Employment & Infrastructure Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change


11

Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Ontario Clean Water Agency Ontario Provincial Police Ontario Realty Corporation PowerStream Rogers Cable Inc. Service Ontario Simcoe County Admin. Centre Simcoe County District School Board Simcoe County Heavy Construction Association Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board Appendix B includes select correspondence received from interested agencies and First Nations contacts.

2.3.3 First Nations

The following First Nations groups were contacted at various milestones throughout the project, including EA Commencement, the PIC and Study Completion.

Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office Barrie Friendship Centre Alderville First Nation Beausoleil First Nation (Christian Island) Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) Curve Lake First Nation Georgian Bay Métis Council

Hiawatha First Nation Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation Moose Deer Point First Nation Wahta Mohawk First Nation William Treaties First Nation


12

3.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT

3.1 Existing Conditions

Ross/Collier/Bayfield is an east-west 2-lane collector road with an urban cross section providing access to residential and commercial properties in downtown Barrie. Due to increased traffic volumes in the downtown core, the proximity of signalized intersections, the volume of pedestrians and recommendations from the MMATMP, there is a need to optimize the road network.

Existing infrastructure limits the opportunity for road widening through the downtown, therefore the offset tee intersections at Bayfield Street are recognized to be a critical location for improving traffic and transit operations through the downtown core. The current offset intersections restrict the movement of traffic between Collier and Ross Streets and the conflicting left turn movements on Bayfield Street can result in queues extending between and into the adjacent intersection. Intersection improvements will consider the realignment of Ross Street to Collier Street, the construction of a roundabout at Ross/Bayfield Streets, and the signalization of the intersection.

Without the realignment of Ross Street or Collier Street, the signalization of the existing offset tee intersections could create a challenge for signal coordination and issues related to traffic queuing through the adjacent signals. On the other hand, roadway widening is limited by the adjacent development. However, opportunities for auxiliary lanes and accommodation of all active modes of transportation are major considerations along with other municipal infrastructure improvements.

The traffic operational review is summarized in Appendix C. The key issues identified in this review include: removing the offset tee intersection (Ross-Bayfield-Collier Streets) and reducing safety issues at the existing Ross/Toronto/Sophie Streets signalized intersection.

3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions

The existing peak hour traffic volumes were provided by the City of Barrie. As part of the data compilation process, some of the turning movement volumes were adjusted to ensure traffic volumes were balanced between intersections.

The existing configuration and PM peak hour traffic volumes at each intersection of the Ross/Collier corridor as simulated in Synchro are presented in Figure 11 (the northbound right-turn channelization at Ross/Toronto/Sophia is not included for practical reasons but does not affect the analysis).

Figure 11: Existing Configuration and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Synchro)

The performance of each intersection is presented in Table 3 for signalized intersections and Table 4 for unsignalized intersections.

Table 3: Traffic Analysis Results – Existing, PM Peak Hour, Signalized Intersection Critical Movement

Intersections Average

Delay LOS V/C Mvt Average

Delay LOS 1 Ross Street / Toronto Street 20 B

0.75 NBT 43 D 2 Ross Street / Sophia Street 3 A 4 Ross Street / Maple Avenue 11 B 0.45 NBT 28 C

Table 4: Traffic Analysis Results – Existing, PM Peak Hour, Unsignalized

Intersection Movement V/C Average

Delay LOS

3 Ross Street / Mary Street NBL 0.15 12 B NBT/R 0.16 12 B SBL/R 0.01 12 B

5 Ross Street / Bayfield Street EBR 0.21 11 B

6 Collier Street / Bayfield Street WBL 0.50 33 D WBR 0.45 11 B

The results above indicate that all intersections currently operate within capacity during the afternoon peak hour.

It is noted that, according to observations, queuing issues are currently occurring at certain locations within downtown Barrie, notably at the Ross/Collier/Bayfield intersection cluster where queue spillbacks from Clapperton Street are occasionally experienced.


13

3.3 Future Traffic Conditions

An annual growth rate of 1% was applied to the adjusted turning movement volumes to obtain the 2031 traffic horizon. The traffic volumes used for the analysis of the future conditions are presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Existing Configuration and Future (2031) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Synchro)

The results of the traffic analysis are presented in Table 5 for signalized intersections and Table 6 for unsignalized intersections.

Table 5: Traffic Analysis Results – 2031 Base Case, PM Peak Hour, Signalized Intersection Critical Movement

Intersections Average

Delay LOS V/C Mvt Average

Delay LOS 1 Ross Street / Toronto Street 22 C

0.81 NBT 47 D 2 Ross Street / Sophia Street 4 A 4 Ross Street / Maple Avenue 11 B 0.50 NBT 29 C

Table 6: Traffic Analysis Results – 2031 Base Case, PM Peak Hour, Unsignalized

Intersection Movement V/C Average

Delay LOS

3 Ross Street / Mary Street NBL 0.20 13 B NBT/R 0.21 13 B SBL/R 0.02 14 B

5 Ross Street / Bayfield Street EBR 0.27 12 B

6 Collier Street / Bayfield Street WBL 0.78 70 F WBR 0.53 13 B

The results above indicate that all intersections would still operate within capacity during the afternoon peak hour, although the yield-controlled intersection at Collier Street / Bayfield Street would operate at 78% of capacity and experience long average delays (70 seconds, i.e. LOS F).

The delays caused by the left-turning drivers between Ross Street and Collier Street and the short distance between Bayfield Street and Clapperton Street are likely to compound the low leftover capacity issue and create queues even longer than the ones currently observed. Consequently, the proposed realignment of the Ross-Collier corridor is a potential solution. Such realignment would also improve pedestrian safety.

Furthermore, it is noted that critical movements along Dunlop Street are already operating at LOS D and the close proximity of adjacent signalized intersections through the downtown area restricts the flow of traffic and the use of that capacity. A realigned Ross/Collier corridor could provide an alternative route to Dunlop Street and relieve it of some of its traffic.

3.4 Ross/Collier Realignment

The realignment of the Ross-Collier corridor would create a safer environment for pedestrians crossing Bayfield Street since pedestrian crossings would be implemented along with the new intersection. It would also remove a major discontinuity in the City of Barrie’s arterial road network and improve traffic operations since the offset between Ross Street and Collier Street would be eliminated.

The realignment of the Ross-Collier corridor could also alleviate traffic on Dunlop Street since the Ross-Collier corridor would become a more attractive alternative route.

A signalized intersection or roundabout on Bayfield Street would facilitate the implementation of an eastbound left-turn movement, currently prohibited. In turn, this would facilitate another improvement: the redesign of the intersection cluster at Ross Street / Toronto Street / Sophia Street.


14

3.5 Ross/Toronto/Sophia Intersection Cluster

The following issues are currently observed at the Ross Street / Toronto Street / Sophia Street intersection cluster:

Short storage length for eastbound left turns onto Sophia Street;

Confusing traffic signals for the east/west through movements; drivers on Ross Street are facing both green and red signals at the same time;

Confusing traffic signals for the southbound left-turn movement from Toronto Street; drivers are facing a red signal immediately after completing their left turn onto Ross Street;

Confusing intersection configuration for the northbound right-turn movement from Toronto

Street, conducive to: a) drivers obeying the wrong traffic signals (e.g. stopping at the red signal meant for the eastbound through traffic); and b) drivers continuing onto Sophia Street thinking they are on Ross Street.


15

These issues could be solved by removing traffic signals at Ross Street / Sophia Street and by adding a 1.5 m raised median from Toronto Street to past Sophia Street, effectively preventing eastbound access onto Sophia Street.

The conversion of Sophia Street into an unsignalized (yield-controlled) right-out-only approach would eliminate the eastbound left-turn movement from Ross Street and the northeast-bound through movement from Toronto Street, making the intersection cluster easier and safer to navigate and more efficient in terms of traffic operations.

3.6 Intersection Safety

A roundabout is considered an appropriate option for reconfiguration of the Ross/Collier/Bayfield intersection cluster as it would have the following benefits:

Slows traffic down (decreases speed differentials with other road users); Increases safety for all road users; Improves traffic operation; Manage traffic flows in situations with unusual geometric conditions; Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly; Transition between two different settings (e.g. commercial arterial vs. downtown street); Landmark opportunity; and Lower maintenance and operating costs.

A roundabout has fewer conflict points compared to a 4-leg intersection. As shown on Figure 13, a 4-leg roundabout has only 8 vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points whereas a conventional cross intersection can have up to 32 conflict points. This typically translates into a lower risk of collisions and requires a less complex traffic control (i.e. no need to separate conflicting movements with traffic signals).

Figure 13: Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, an Informational Guide, TRB)

As stated in the NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, an Informational Guide:

“Separate turn lanes and traffic control (stop signs or signalization) can often reduce but not eliminate the number of crossing conflicts at a traditional intersection by separating conflicts in space and/or time. However, the most severe crashes at signalized intersections occur when there is a violation of such traffic control device designed to separate conflicts in time (e.g., a right-angle collision due to running a red light and vehicle-pedestrian collisions). Therefore, the ability of single-lane roundabouts to reduce conflicts through physical, geometric features has been demonstrated to be more effective than the reliance on driver obedience of traffic control devices.”

With regard to pedestrians, roundabouts have generally been proven to be safer than conventional intersections. As shown on Figure 14, a 4-leg roundabout has only 8 vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points whereas a conventional cross intersection has up to 16 conflict points. Traffic signals can potentially reduce the risk of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts by allowing only a few movements at any time, but conflicts still exist with red light running (illegal), right turn on red (usually legal) and left/right turn on green (legal).


16

Figure 14: Pedestrian Conflict Point Comparison (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, an Informational Guide, TRB)

Bicycle-related conflicts can be associated to vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-pedestrian conflicts depending on whether the cyclist merges with traffic in advance of the intersection or continues to ride on the right side.

In a roundabout, it has been determined that the risk of collision is increased when the cyclist circulates on the right side of the roadway because their visibility is reduced as they are exposed to conflict with entering and exiting drivers. To avoid this issue, cyclists are recommended to either position themselves to the middle of the roadway as they circulate through the roundabout, or to use pathways and crossings around the roundabout.

A roundabout operating within capacity will generally produce lower delays than a conventional intersection operating with the same traffic volumes. Also, according to AASHTO’s 2010 Highway Safety Manual, the conversion of an urban unsignalized intersection into a roundabout leads to an 81% reduction of collisions with death or injury, and a 29% reduction in all collisions. According to the same source, the conversion of a signalized intersection to a roundabout leads to 78% reduction of collisions with death or injury and a 48% reduction in all collisions. Injury and death collisions are reduced more dramatically than damage-only collisions because of the configuration of roundabouts which eliminates right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions.


17

4.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Based on traffic, transit operations on Ross-Collier Streets and objectives for active transportation from the MMATMP, the “Do Nothing” alternative and Limited Land Use Planning were not recommended to be carried forward.

TDM is not carried forward as a standalone solution, but rather will be incorporated with the Provide Transportation/Municipal Infrastructure alternative as a Recommended Solution. This recommendation is consistent with the findings of the MMATMP and was presented to the public at PIC No. 2. No objections to this recommendation were received from the public at PIC No. 2.

Three groups of design alternatives were generated and evaluated for this EA study:

Ross Street Cross Section Alternatives; Collier Street Cross Section Alternatives; and, Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternatives.

Based on the existing environmental conditions and constraints identified from the inventories of existing conditions, several preliminary design alternatives were developed for each group of alternatives.

4.1 Ross Street Cross Section Alternatives

Three preliminary design alternatives were developed for Ross Street based on the design criteria presented in Table 7. Those alternatives included:

Alternative 1: Buffered Bike Lanes, 27 m ROW Alternative 2: Bike Lanes, 25 m ROW Alternative 3: Constrained ROW

The characteristics of each alternative can be found in Table 8. Cross sections for each alternative can be found in Figure 15. The Ross Street Strip Concept Plans are illustrated in Figure 16. All alternatives were carried forward for evaluation.

Table 7: Design Criteria (Ross Street) Road Class Major Collector Posted Speed 50 km/h Design Speed Posted + 20 km/h where feasible Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius 200 m

Minimum Vertical Crest Curve: Crest: Sag (headlight control):

K=24 K=20

Stopping Sight Distance 100 m Lane Width 3.5 m Bike Lane 1.5 – 2.0 m Shared Bicycle Lane 3.5 m minimum Sidewalks 1.5 m – 2.0 m Right-of-way as per MMATMP 27 m Side Street Day-Lighting Distance Triangles:

5 m (local to major collector) 10 m (major collector to arterial)

Storm Cover to Obvert (common) 1.5 m Sanitary Cover to Obvert (common) 2.5+ m or 2% from basement elevation Truck Route Yes Boulevard 1.0 m minimum Continuous Two-Way Left Turn Lane 4.0 – 4.2 m

Table 8: Preliminary Design Alternative Comparison (Ross Street) Alternative 1 -

Buffered Bike Lanes, 27 m ROW

Alternative 2 – Bike Lanes, 25 m ROW

Alternative 3 – Constrained ROW

ROW 27 m 25 m 20 m Sidewalks Sidewalks both

sides Sidewalks both sides

Sidewalks both sides

Cycling Facilities 2 Buffered Bike Lanes

2 Bike Lanes 2 Bike Lanes or Shared Bicycle Lanes (to be confirmed at detailed design)

Property Protection Plan

Requires 15 property buyouts and large ROW property requirements

Requires 15 property buyouts and minor ROW property requirements

Future protection and defers property acquisition to next capital project.


18

Figure 15: Cross Section Alternatives (Ross Street)

Figure 16: Ross Street Strip Plans


19

4.2 Collier Street Cross Section Alternatives

Two preliminary design alternatives were developed for Collier Street based on the design criteria presented in Table 9. Those alternatives included:

Alternative 1: Buffered Bike Lanes, 30 m ROW Alternative 2: Parking, 30 m ROW

The characteristics of each alternative can be found in Table 10. Cross sections for each alternative can be found in Figure 17. All alternatives were carried forward for evaluation.

Table 9: Design Criteria (Collier Street) Road Class Major Collector Posted Speed 50 km/h Design Speed Posted + 20 km/h where feasible Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius 200m

Minimum Vertical Crest Curve: Crest: Sag (headlight control):

K=24 K=20

Stopping Sight Distance 100 m Lane Width 3.5 m Bike Lane 1.5 – 2.0 m Shared Bicycle Lane 3.5 m minimum Sidewalks 2.0 m minimum Right-of-way 30 m Side Street Day-Lighting Distance Triangles:

5 m (local to major collector) 10 m (major collector to arterial)

Watermain Cover to Obvert (common) 1.7 m Storm Cover to Obvert (common) 1.5 m Sanitary Cover to Obvert (common) 2.5+ m or 2% from basement elevation Truck Route Yes Boulevard 1.0 minimum Continuous Two Way Left Turn Lane 4.0 – 4.2 m

Table 10: Preliminary Design Alternative Comparison (Collier Street) Alternative 1 – Buffered

Bike Lanes Alternative 2 - Parking

ROW 30 m 30 m Sidewalks Sidewalks both sides Sidewalks both sides Cycling Facilities 2 Buffered Bike Lanes 2 Bike Lanes Parking No parking Parking available (south

side only)

Figure 17: Cross Section Alternatives (Collier Street)


20

4.3 Bayfield Street Cross Section Alternatives

One preliminary design alternative was developed for Bayfield Street based on the design criteria presented in Table 11. The cross section drawing can be found in Figure 18. No evaluation was completed as there was only one alternative to carry forward.

Table 11: Design Criteria (Bayfield Street) Road Class Arterial Posted Speed 50 km/h Design Speed Posted + 20 km/h where feasible Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius 130 m Minimum Vertical Crest Curve:

Crest: Sag (headlight control):

K=24 K=20

Stopping Sight Distance 100 m Lane Width 3.5 m Bike Lane 1.5-2.0 m Shared Bicycle Lane 4.5 m Sidewalks 1.5 m to 2.0 m Right-of-way 20 m (Collier to Ross) Side Street Day-Lighting Distance Triangles:

5 m (arterial to minor collector/local) 10 m (arterial/major collector to arterial)

Watermain Cover to Obvert (common) 1.7 m Storm Cover to Obvert (common) 1.5 m Sanitary Cover to Obvert (common) 2.5+ m or 2% from basement elevation Truck Route Yes Boulevard 1.0 minimum Continuous Two Way Left Turn Lane 4.0 – 4.2 m

Figure 18: Cross Section Alternative (Bayfield Street)

4.3.1 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternatives

A long list of preliminary intersection design alternatives was generated prior to, and shown at, PIC No. 2. Design criterion for the roundabout alternatives is illustrated in Table 12:

Alternative A: Existing Geometrics and Traffic Control, see Table 12: Roundabout Design Criteria

No. of Lanes 1

Inscribed Circle Diameter 30-40 m

Operating Speeds 20-30 km/h

Desirable Design Vehicle WB20.5

Minimum Design Vehicle WB15

Figure 19; Alternative 0: Existing Geometrics with Improved Signalization, see Figure 20; Alternative 1A: Realignment of Ross to Collier with Signalization, see Figure 21; Alternative 1B: Four-leg Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 22; Alternative 1C: Four-leg Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 23; Alternative 1D: Four-leg Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 24; Alternative 1E: 40 m Three-leg Roundabout, see Figure 25; Alternative 1F: 40 m Three-leg Roundabout, see Figure 26; Alternative 1G: 35 m Three-leg Roundabout, see Figure 27; Alternative 2A: Realignment of Ross to Collier with Signalization, see Figure 28; Alternative 2B: Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 29; Alternative 2C: 45 m Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 30; Alternative 2D: 35 m Roundabout with Relocation of Intersecting Roadways, see Figure 31;


21

Alternative 3: Block Roundabout, see Figure 32; and Alternative 4: One-way East-West Roadway Realignment with Green Space, see Figure 33.

Table 12: Roundabout Design Criteria No. of Lanes 1

Inscribed Circle Diameter 30-40 m

Operating Speeds 20-30 km/h

Desirable Design Vehicle WB20.5

Minimum Design Vehicle WB15

Figure 19: Long List Alternative A

Figure 20: Long List Alternative 0


22

Figure 21: Long List Alternative 1A

Figure 22: Long List Alternative 1B

Figure 23: Long List Alternative 1C

Figure 24: Long List Alternative 1D


23

Figure 25: Long List Alternative 1E

Figure 26: Long List Alternative 1F

Figure 27: Long List Alternative 1G

Figure 28: Long List Alternative 2A


24

Figure 29: Long List Alternative 2B

Figure 30: Long List Alternative 2C

Figure 31: Long List Alternative 2D



25



26

4.3.2 Coarse Screening of Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternatives

The long list of intersection alternatives was coarse screened prior to PIC No. 2 and then subsequently reviewed and the coarse screening updated prior to the evaluation. The coarse screening of alternatives is illustrated in Table 13. Only 35 m diameter roundabout alternatives were carried forward for the evaluation, as any of the roundabout alternatives may be expanded to 40 m or 45 m in the future, if required when land is available. The alternatives carried forward for evaluation are illustrated in Figure 34 to Figure 41.

Table 13: Coarse Screening of Intersection Alternatives

Long List of Alternatives Preliminary Recommendation to Carry Forward

Short-Listed Alternatives for Evaluation

Reasons for Coarse Screening

Alternative A: Existing geometrics and Traffic Control (Do Nothing)

Alternative A Carried Forward as Alternative A

Creates a baseline to which all alternatives are compared

Alternative 0: Existing alignment with improved signalization

Alternative B Carried Forward as Alternative B

Minor cost but little improvement for traffic operations

Alternative 1A: Realignment of Ross to Collier with a signalized intersection

Alternative C Carried Forward as Alternative C

Minor cost but little improvement for traffic operations

Alternative 1B to 1D: Four-leg roundabout with relocation of intersecting roadways

Not Carried Forward Alternative 1B Carried Forward as Alternative I

Improved traffic operations and safety through the intersection

Alternative 1E: Three-leg roundabout

Not Carried Forward Not Carried Forward 40 m diameter not carried forward

Alternative 1F and 1G: Three-leg roundabout

Alternative E (40 m) and F (35 m)

Alternative F Carried Forward as Alternative F

Only carry forward 35 m roundabout alternative

Alternative 2A: Realignment of Ross to Collier with a signalized intersection

Alternative D Carried Forward as Alternative D

Conventional signalized intersection with realigned roadways to improve geometry

Alternative 2B: Roundabout with relocation of intersecting roadways

Not Carried Forward Not Carried Forward 45 m diameter not carried forward

Alternative 2C: Roundabout with relocation of intersecting roadways

Alternative G Not Carried Forward 45 m diameter not carried forward

Table 13: Coarse Screening of Intersection Alternatives

Long List of Alternatives Preliminary Recommendation to Carry Forward

Short-Listed Alternatives for Evaluation

Reasons for Coarse Screening

(45 m diameter) Alternative 2D: Roundabout with relocation of intersecting roadways (35 m diameter)

Alternative H Carried Forward as alternative H

No impact to 77-79 Bayfield

Alternative 3: Block roundabout

Not Carried Forward Not Carried Forward Unconventional

Alternative 4: Roadway realignment of Ross and Collier using one-way east/west roadways with provision for green space or parking.

Not Carried Forward Not Carried Forward Large property impacts in the downtown

N/A N/A Alternative J Provide interim alternative to reduce property impacts

Figure 34: Carried Forward Alternative A


27

Figure 35: Carried Forward Alternative B

Figure 36: Carried Forward Alternative C

Figure 37: Carried Forward Alternative D

Figure 38: Carried Forward Alternative F


28

Figure 39: Carried Forward Alternative H

Figure 40: Carried Forward Alternative I

Figure 41: Carried Forward Alternative J

4.4 Other Considerations

Other considerations such as staging the recommended plan, changes to provide driveway access and sidewalks/pedestrian crosswalks are described in Section 7.0 Recommended Plan.


29

5.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTS

5.1 Physical Environment

5.1.1 Water Supply

A review of municipal water distribution infrastructure was completed in 2016. The water background report is documented in Appendix D.

5.1.2 Sanitary Sewers

A review of municipal waste water (sanitary) infrastructure was completed in 2016. The sanitary background report is documented in Appendix D.

5.1.3 Storm Sewers

A review of municipal storm sewer infrastructure was completed in 2016. The storm sewer report is documented in Appendix D.

5.2 Natural Environment

5.2.1 Tree Survey

A tree survey was completed in fall 2016 for the Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Study Area. During the field inventory component and site visits for this project, no endangered or species at risk were located or observed. A few trees are recommended for removal based on condition and all trees recommended for retention should be protected.

An Arborist report and detailed tree inventory are included in Appendix D.

5.3 Social Environment

5.3.1 Existing Land Uses

The land uses in the study area are commercial, residential, institutional and parkland.

Based on the City of Barrie’s Official Plan Schedule A land use plan:

Ross Street is designated Institutional to the northwest and Open Space to the southwest of the intersection of Toronto Street, Residential to the north of Ross Street between Toronto Street and Mary Street, and City Centre to the east to the intersection of Bayfield Street;

Bayfield Street is designated City Centre; and Collier Street is designated City Centre.

All areas within the Study area are located within the City’s Urban Growth Centre and have a target density of 150 persons/jobs per hectare.

Refer to the Official Plan for permitted uses and policies pertaining to City Centre, Residential, Institutional and Open Space lands.

Based on the Schedule D road plan, Ross Street and Collier Street are classified as a Major Collector roads and Bayfield Street is classified as an Arterial road. A complete overview of the Study Area can be found in Appendix F.

5.3.2 Built Environment

The study area includes a mix of residential properties (Ross Street) and commercial land uses (Bayfield and Collier Streets). It is an urban area with ongoing redevelopment, with buildings which have been recently removed and buildings that are planned for removal in the spring of 2017. These changes and the planned redevelopment of properties on Bayfield Street provide the opportunity to define a transportation plan which can be phased in conjunction with adjacent land use changes. A summary of existing land uses is provided in Appendix F.

5.3.3 Noise

A noise assessment for Ross Street was conducted in 2017 by BTE using acoustical modelling software, STAMSON Version 5.03. The expected increase in sound level is less than 5 dBA and therefore a noise barrier is not warranted for residential units on Ross Street.

The technical analysis concluded that the introduction of the roundabout intersection control will provide minor acoustical benefits by reducing stop and go traffic (reduction in sound levels by 1-2 dBA within 150 m).

The Noise Assessment Report is documented in Appendix G.

5.4 Cultural/ Heritage Environment

5.4.1 Archaeology

The Stage 1 Archaeology Report is documented in Appendix H.

5.4.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage

The Cultural Heritage Assessment is documented in Appendix I.

5.4.3 Natural Heritage Impact Assessment

The Natural Heritage Impact Assessment is documented in Appendix J.

5.5 Economic Environment

The Cost Estimates for the Design alternatives are documented in Appendix K.


30

6.0 EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The evaluation of the alternatives was completed using a qualitative assessment to compare the net effects and performance of the alternatives. This method considers the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives using evaluation criteria as descriptors to measure the relative differences of the options being considered. These effects have considered natural, social, cultural and physical elements in the study area as well as costs associated with alternatives.

The assessment of the alternatives for Ross Street, Collier Street and the intersection of Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets include: Physical Environment; Natural Environment; Social Environment; Cultural Environment; and Economic Environment. The evaluation of alternatives can be found in the sections below.

The concept drawings for the design alternatives are presented in Section 4.0.

6.1 Ross Street Evaluation

The Ross Street cross sections were evaluated qualitatively as shown in Table 14. The preliminary preferred alternative is Alternative 3 (Constrained ROW) as it reduces property impacts, utility relocations, and cost. Property protection for Alternative 1 (27 m ROW) is recommended for a long range future implementation as it increases dedicated space for cyclists, pedestrians and snow storage and is reflective of the recommendations in the MMATMP. This will be a property protection plan for implementation as individual sites are redeveloped. This approach is consistent with the Official Plan.

6.2 Collier Street Evaluation

The Collier Street cross sections were evaluated qualitatively as shown in Table 15. The preliminary preferred alternative is Alternative 2 (Parking) as it provides parking for businesses along Collier Street while maintaining bicycle lanes for cyclists travelling along the corridor. This recommendation is integral with the intersection control evaluation of the Ross-Collier-Bayfield intersection. This is further described in Section 6.3.

6.3 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Evaluation

The Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets intersection alternatives were evaluated qualitatively as shown in Table 16.

The evaluation has considered the safety benefits of the use of a roundabout intersection control. This form of intersection control provides for the most efficient movement of vehicles and does so with equal distribution of gaps for all movements. At the proposed traffic levels for the study area, a roundabout configuration will eliminate queues and provide continuous flow within the roundabout. Roundabouts are considered the safest design alternatives in that all movements are completed at low

speed. They allow pedestrians and cyclists to complete their crossings and turn movements, respectively, at lower speeds, reducing the potential for collisions. Of the roundabout alternatives carried forward, Alternative J has been recommended as it minimizes property acquisition and involves an equitable acquisition of lands in the northeast quadrant (Georgian International property) in the near term. In the longer term this alternative will protect for similar acquisition in the southwest quadrant (Ranch Property). This staged approach will allow lands to be acquired as sites are redeveloped. The advantage of this configuration is that it will create a linear connection of the arterial roads (Ross-Collier) and allow an eastbound left turn movement from Ross Street to Bayfield Street. It will also allow the future removal of the closely spaced signalized intersections to the west (removal of Sophia Street signals).

The roundabout design will increase exposure to local businesses, create a gateway feature in the downtown and is expected to support urban renewal in the downtown core. This can increase the tax base for the City and support the investment in the operational and safety improvements. The minor impacts of the Alternative J design will be the relocation and integration of driveway access to the new Georgian International site development.


31

Table 14: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Ross Street Cross Section)

Evaluation Criteria

How Criterion is being assessed

Alternative 1- 27 m ROW Alternative 2 – 25 m ROW Alternative 3 – 20 m ROW

Physical Environment Pedestrians Impact to pedestrian

facilities along study corridor Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Provision of cycling facilities along study corridor

Provides buffered cycling facilities on both sides of all roadways.

Provides buffered cycling facilities on both sides of Bayfield Street and standard cycling facilities on both sides of Ross Street and Collier Street.

Provides buffered cycling facilities on both sides of Bayfield Street and standard cycling facilities on both sides of Ross Street and Collier Street.

Transit Impact to transit services Bus stops accommodated.

Bus stops accommodated. Bus stops accommodated.

Traffic Operations

Impact to intersection operations and road capacity

Centre Turn lane removes turning vehicles from through lane, thus increasing capacity and ease of access to fronting properties.

Centre turn lane removes turning vehicles from through lane, thus increasing capacity and ease of access to fronting properties.

Left turn lane removes turning vehicles from through lane, thus increasing capacity and ease of access to fronting properties (no change from existing conditions).

Municipal Infrastructure (Water, Sanitary, Storm)

Improvements to existing municipal infrastructure

Identified improvements include watermain replacement and stormwater management improvements. These improvements are common between alternatives.

Identified improvements include watermain replacement and stormwater management improvements. These improvements are common between alternatives.

Identified improvements include watermain replacement and stormwater management. Improvements. These improvements are common between alternatives.

Utilities Impact to utilities (i.e. relocation)

Utility relocations required.

Utility relocations required.

Utility relocations not required.

Driveway Operations

Impact to driveway operations

Significant impact to 111 Toronto Street (would remove the driveway).

Significant impact to 111 Toronto Street (would remove the driveway).

No significant difference.

Natural Environment Fish Habitat Impact to fish habitat, if

applicable, and other aquatic features within the Study Area

No fish habitat

No fish habitat No fish habitat

Wildlife / Terrestrial

Impact to wildlife species within the Study Area

No measurable impact as existing trees would remain.



Species at Risk (SAR)

Impact on SAR’s and endangered species

No SAR within corridor. No SAR within corridor.

No SAR within corridor.

Vegetation Impacts

Impact to vegetation communities on adjacent properties

Minor impact to existing trees.

Minor impact to existing trees.


Land Use Impact of proposed works on surrounding land use (i.e. are improvements consistent with surrounding

No significant impact.

No significant impact. No significant impact.


32

Table 14: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Ross Street Cross Section)

Evaluation Criteria

How Criterion is being assessed

Alternative 1- 27 m ROW Alternative 2 – 25 m ROW Alternative 3 – 20 m ROW

land uses) Social Environment Property Impacts

Impacts to property based on widening of road platform and/or ROW.

Property buy-outs required with road widening.

Property buy-outs required with road widening.

No property requirements.

Aesthetics Visual impacts

Improvements to aesthetics and streetscape through implementation of urban design elements – same for all alternatives



Noise Impacts to residents/businesses during construction phase.

Construction: Temporary noise impacts during construction. Post-Construction: No significance difference between alternatives.



Construction Impact

Impacts to adjacent properties during construction phase

No significant difference between alternatives.



Cultural Environment Cultural Heritage

Impacts to the built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes as per the cultural heritage assessment.

Minor impact to cultural heritage landscapes due to widening of the ROW.

Minor impact to cultural heritage landscapes due to widening of the ROW.

No impact to cultural heritage landscapes.

Archaeology Impacts as per the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed for the study corridor




Economic Environment Property Acquisition

Costs to buy out property for construction

Highest land acquisition cost: $8.2 M 528m2 x $467/m2 = $246,576 (residential) 1600m2 x $1200/m2 = $1.92 M (commercial)

15 houses x $400,000/house=$6 M

Second highest land acquisition cost: $8.1 M 385m2 x $467/m2 = $179,795 (residential) 1600m2 x $1200/m2 = $1.92 M (commercial) 15 houses x $400,000/house=$6 M

Lowest land acquisition cost: $33,157 71m2 x $467/m2 = $33,157 (residential)

Construction Costs

Costs to construct the alternative excluding property.

Highest Cost to Construct. $10,000/m x 335m = $3.3 M

Moderate Cost to Construct. $9,800/m x 335m = $3.2 M

Least Cost to Construct. $7,500/m x 335m = $2.5 M

Maintenance Costs

Future maintenance requirements

No measureable differences No measureable differences

No measureable differences

Preliminary Preferred Alternative X X √ Preliminary Preferred Alternative with property protection for the 27m cross-section as per the

Official Plan Legend:


33

Greatest Least Least Greatest


34

Table 15: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Collier Street)

Evaluation Criteria

How Criterion is being assessed Alternative 1- MMATMP Recommendation 30m ROW + Buffered Bike Lanes + Wide Sidewalks (no parking)

Alternative 2 – MMATMP Recommendation with Parking 30m ROW + Buffered Bike Lanes + Parallel Parking (south

side) Physical Environment Pedestrians Impact to pedestrian facilities along study

corridor Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the road. Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Provision of cycling facilities along study corridor

Provides cycling facilities as per MMATMP recommendations. Provides cycling facilities as per MMATMP recommendations.

Provision of Parking

Impact to parking currently available on Collier Street

Eliminates 7 parking stalls on the south side and 2 parking stalls on the north side.

Eliminates 3 parking stalls on the south side and 2 parking stalls on the north side. Allows for the provision of parallel parking on the south side (3-4 stalls). Provision of parking dependent on intersection realignment alternatives and may result in the elimination of parking if required to facilitate traffic operations.

Transit Impact to transit services

Existing bus stop on westbound Collier will be accommodated. Existing bus stop on westbound Collier will be accommodated.

Traffic Operations Impact to intersection operations and road capacity

No significant difference over existing conditions. No significant difference over existing conditions.



Identified improvements include watermain replacement and minor improvements to stormwater management. These improvements are common between alternatives.

Identified improvements include watermain replacement and minor improvements to stormwater management. These improvements are common between alternatives.


Utility relocations required. Utility relocations required.

Driveway Operations

Impact to driveway operations

Existing active driveways would be maintained. Roundabout implementation would prohibit access.

Existing active driveways would be maintained. Roundabout implementation would prohibit access.

Natural Environment Fish Habitat Impact to fish habitat, if applicable, and

other aquatic features within the Study Area

No fish habitat.

No fish habitat



No terrestrial habitat. No terrestrial habitat.



No SAR within corridor. No SAR within corridor.

Land Use Impact of proposed works on surrounding land use (i.e. are improvements consistent with surrounding land uses)

Proposed works are congruent with the Downtown Commercial Master Plan recommendations for Collier Street (professional offices and service oriented businesses)

Proposed works are congruent with the Downtown Commercial Master Plan recommendations for Collier Street (professional offices and service oriented businesses).

Social Environment Property Impacts Impacts to property based on widening of

road platform and/or ROW No property required. No property required.

Aesthetics Visual impacts – potential to provide additional areas for green space.

Reconstructed streetscape would enhance visual appeal. Reconstructed streetscape would enhance visual appeal.


35

Table 15: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Collier Street)

Evaluation Criteria

How Criterion is being assessed Alternative 1- MMATMP Recommendation 30m ROW + Buffered Bike Lanes + Wide Sidewalks (no parking)

Alternative 2 – MMATMP Recommendation with Parking 30m ROW + Buffered Bike Lanes + Parallel Parking (south

side) Noise Impacts to residents/businesses during

construction phase and future impacts Construction: Temporary noise impacts during construction. Post-Construction: No significance difference between alternatives.


Construction Impact

Impacts to adjacent properties during construction phase

Temporary access restrictions during construction. No difference between alternatives.

Temporary access restrictions during construction. No difference between alternatives.

Cultural Environment Cultural Heritage


All works within existing ROW; no cultural heritage impacts.

All works within the ROW; no cultural heritage impacts.

Archaeology Impacts as per the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed for the study corridor

No widening therefore no impact to archaeology potential areas.

No widening therefore no impact to archaeology potential areas.

Economic Environment Property Acquisition

Costs to buy out property for construction

No property acquisition costs. No property acquisition costs.

Construction Costs

Costs to construct the alternative.

Equal – no difference between alternatives.

Equal – no difference between alternatives.

Maintenance Costs


Minor increase in maintenance costs for provision of enhanced streetscape elements (i.e. planters, decorative interlock banding).

Minor increase in maintenance costs for provision of enhanced streetscape elements (i.e. planters, decorative interlock banding).

Preliminary Preferred Alternative X √ Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Legend:

Positive Impact Neutral Impact Negative Impact Greatest Least Least Greatest


36

Table 16: Assessment of Design Alternatives (Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection)

Evaluation Criteria

How Criterion is being Assessed

Alternative A Do Nothing

Alternative B Existing with Signalization

Alternative C Collier Street

Realignment with Signalization

Alternative D Ross Street


Alternative F 3-leg 35 m Roundabout

Alternative H 4-leg 35 m Roundabout

Alternative I 4-leg 35 m Roundabout

Alternative J Interim 30 m

Roundabout Low Property Impacts

Land Use NE Quadrant Properties: 65, 77-79, 85 Bayfield Street & 2 Collier Street

Required property to implement alternative

No impact

No impact

Property required at 2, 4-8 Collier Street.

No impact

No impact

Property required at 2 Collier Street

Property required at 65, 77-79 and 85 Bayfield Street & 2, 4-10 Collier Street

Property required at 79 Bayfield Street & 2, 4-10 Collier Street

SW Quadrant Properties: 56-76 Bayfield Street

Required property to implement alternative

No impact

No impact No impact

Property required at 56-76 Bayfield Street

Property required at 56-76 Bayfield Street

Property required at f 56-76 Bayfield Street

No impact

No impact

Gateway Feature

Provision of a Gateway feature to downtown Barrie.

Compatible with Gateway feature






Location not optimal for gateway feature location


Urban Renewal

Potential to support redevelopment

Limited opportunity.

Limited opportunity.

Minor Opportunity

Minor Opportunity

Potential to induce/support renewal




Potential for contamination

Historical use of property provides potential for contamination with excavation for alternative.

No impacts

No impacts

Excavation required of 10-14 Collier Street.

No impacts

No impacts



No impacts

Physical Environment

Pedestrians - Safety

Safety of pedestrians through the intersection

Pedestrians have unprotected crossing.

Protected pedestrian crossings provided at intersection.



Pedestrian crossing provided at roundabout. Vehicles must yield to pedestrians.



Pedestrian crossing provided at roundabout. Vehicles must yield to pedestrians

Cyclists - Safety

Safety of cyclists through the intersection

Can be difficult to navigate due to speed differential

Cyclists have dedicated space adjacent to traffic

Cyclists have dedicated space adjacent to traffic

Cyclists have space demarcated via shared lane markings

Cyclists navigate roundabout with traffic at low speeds or dismount and use sidewalk




Transit Impact to transit services

Circuitous movement for buses

Accommodates through movement of



Accommodates continuous flow of transit





37


Evaluation Criteria













buses but increases delay



vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles

Traffic Operations Measure of Delay

Traffic queuing can restrict traffic operations

Queuing between closely spaced signalized intersections restricts operations

Realignment improves east-west movements, but signalization increases delays

Realignment improves east-west movements, but signalization increases delays

Improves traffic operations by removing staggered intersections and provides continuous flow of traffic.




Traffic Operations – Left Turns

Limitation of northbound movements from Ross Street to Bayfield Street

Prohibits left turn movements from Ross Street to Bayfield Street

Provides left turn movement from Ross Street to Bayfield Street



Provides left turn movements by travelling through roundabout




Accommodate Visually Impaired Pedestrians

Protection and positive direction for visually impaired

There is no pedestrian crossing at the current intersection.

Protected movements with tactile surfaces and audible signals provide positive guidance



Vehicles yield to pedestrians at dedicated crossings that include tactile surfaces and pedestrian refuges

Same as F, but an additional crossing required due to channelized right turn lane

Same as F, but an additional crossing required due to channelized right turn lane

Vehicles yield to pedestrians at dedicated crossings that include tactile surfaces and pedestrian refuges

Driveway Operations

Impact to driveway operations at 85 Bayfield, 79/65 Bayfield, 2 Collier and 10/14 Collier.

No changes.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to intersection proximity at 85 Bayfield and 2 Collier.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to intersection proximity at 85 Bayfield and 2 Collier.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to intersection proximity at 2 Collier.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to roundabout proximity at 85 Bayfield and 2 Collier and removed at 79 Bayfield.

Driveway access recommended to be removed at 79/65 Bayfield and 2 Collier due to roundabout proximity.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to roundabout proximity at 86 Bayfield and 10/14 Collier and removed at 79/65 Bayfield and 2 Collier.

Driveway access restrictions would be recommended due to roundabout proximity at 85 Bayfield and 2 Collier and removed at 79/65 Bayfield.

Visibility

Skew Angle – impacts visibility; less than 70 degrees is not desirable

46 degrees

46 degrees

46 degrees

45 degrees

90 degrees

90 degrees

90 degrees

90 degrees


38


Evaluation Criteria













Truck Traffic Limitation of truck turning movements through intersection

Accommodates WB-20.5




Accommodates WB-19

Accommodates WB-19

Accommodates WB-19

Restricts heavy trucks movement from west to north.

Conflicts

Number of potential conflicts within an intersection. See Figure 13 in Section 3.6.

48

24

24

24

7

7

7

7



Minor municipal improvements would be completed. These improvements are common between alternatives.


No relocations required.

No significant relocations required.

Moderate utility relocations required.



Significant utility relocations required.


No significant relocations required.

Natural Environment

Fish Habitat

Impact to fish habitat, if applicable, and other aquatic features within the Study Area

No fish habitat. Common between alternatives.



No natural habitat impacts. Common between alternatives.



No species at risk. Common between alternatives.

Vegetation Impacts

Impact to vegetation communities on adjacent properties

No vegetation Impact. Common between alternatives.

Social Environment

Aesthetics

Visual impacts – potential to provide additional areas for green space.

No impacts

No impacts

No impacts

No impacts

Roundabout would provide a visual improvement.




Noise – Construction Impacts

Impacts to residents/businesses during construction phase and future impacts

No change from existing conditions.

Temporary noise impacts during construction.








39


Evaluation Criteria













Noise – Final Design Impacts

Impacts to residents/businesses during construction phase and future impacts

No change from existing conditions.

Slight noise increase due to vehicles stopping and accelerating for signalized intersections.



Noise reduction as vehicles will not have to complete full stop/ accelerations unless yielding to pedestrians or traffic.




Construction Impact

Impacts to adjacent properties through construction phase

No construction required.

Temporary access restrictions during construction



Moderate access restrictions during construction to construct roundabout.

Significant access restrictions during construction to construct roundabout



Short-term Construction Traffic Impacts

Impacts to Traffic on Bayfield, Ross and Collier Streets to accommodate construction









Short-term Business Impacts

Impacts to ongoing businesses including day-to-day operation









Cultural Environment

Cultural Heritage


No cultural heritage impacts. Common between alternatives.

Archaeology

Impacts as per the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed for the study corridor

No impact to archaeological potential areas.


Impact to 2 archaeological potential areas



Impact to 1 archaeological potential area

Impact to 2 archaeological potential areas


Economic Environment


40


Evaluation Criteria













Property Acquisition

Costs to buy-out a property for construction

No property required

No property required

Significant property acquisition required.

Requires purchase of 56 Bayfield

Requires purchase of 56 Bayfield

No property buyout required.



Construction Cost

Costs to construct individual alternatives (including a planning level allowance for property)

$0

$1,087,500

$2,074,900

$6,409,000

$6,916,500

$7,999,000

$3,793,200

$1,235,000

Maintenance Cost


Low

Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

Low Low Low

Business Exposure

Visibility of Commercial Businesses for by-pass traffic

No Change.

Moderate Visibility

Moderate Visibility

Moderate Visibility

High Visibility

High Visibility

High Visibility

High Visibility

Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Legend:

Positive Impact Neutral Impact Negative Impact Greatest Least Least Greatest

Technical Recommendation: The evaluation has considered the safety benefits of the use of a roundabout intersection control. This form of intersection control provides for the most efficient movement of vehicles and does so with equal distribution of gaps for all movements. At the proposed traffic levels for the study area, a roundabout configuration will eliminate queues and provide continuous flow within the roundabout. Roundabouts are considered the safest design alternatives in that all movements are completed at low speed. They allow pedestrians and cyclists to complete their crossings and turn movements, respectively, at lower speeds, reducing the potential for collisions. Of the roundabout alternatives carried forward, Alternative J has been recommended as it minimizes property acquisition and involves an equitable acquisition of lands in the northeast quadrant (Georgian International property) in the near term. In the longer term this alternative will protect for similar acquisition in the southwest quadrant (Ranch Property). This staged approach will allow lands to be acquired as sites are redeveloped. The advantage of this configuration is that it will create a linear connection of the arterial roads (Ross-Collier) and allow an eastbound left turn movement from Ross Street to Bayfield Street. It will also allow the future removal of the closely spaced signalized intersections to the west (removal of Sophia Street signals).

The roundabout design will increase exposure to local businesses, create a gateway feature in the downtown and is expected to support urban renewal in the downtown core. This can increase the tax base for the City and support the investment in the operational and safety improvements. The minor impacts of the Alternative J design will be the relocation and integration of driveway access to the new Georgian International site development.


41

7.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN

7.1 Technically Preferred Plan

The Technically Preferred Plan (TPP) for this project includes the following key features:

Ross Street Cross Section Alternative 3 (long term property protection for Alternative 1); Collier Street Cross Section Alternative 2; Bayfield Street Cross Section Alternative 1; and Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Intersection Alternative J.

Intersection Alternative J of the TPP is illustrated in Figure 42.

Figure 42: TPP Roundabout with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths

7.2 Refinements

A number of refinements were made to the TPP - Intersection Alternative J:

Entry and exit width adjustments to accommodate trucks and buses; Bicycle lanes and ramps added at the roundabout approaches; Private access added on the east side to accommodate the 85 Bayfield Street parking lot; Redesigned 85 Bayfield Street parking lot to compensate for property acquisitions – parking

spaces moved to the southeast quadrant of the roundabout; laneway addition between the roundabout and Clapperton Street;

Splitter island extension to Clapperton Street;

Parking space provision along Bayfield Street in front of The Ranch (interim phase); Provision for a long-term (ultimate) phase as part of a phasing plan; Future consideration for conversion of Ross/Sophia intersection into right-out only with raised

median on Ross Street (ultimate phase).

7.3 Phasing Plan

The refined TPP includes a staged implementation plan with an interim 30 m roundabout and an ultimate 40 m roundabout. An interim phase has been recommended in consideration of property constraints, which will accommodate the immediate need to improve traffic operations in the downtown area and mitigate the existing traffic congestion on Dunlop Street and Simcoe Street, with property protection for the ultimate intersection. The ultimate recommended expansion plan will accommodate long term lane widenings and road realignments in the future at such time as property acquisition constraints in the southeast quadrant are no longer an issue. The ultimate roundabout design attempts to generally balance the property requirements from the two land owners in the NE and SW quadrants.

7.3.1 Ross/Collier/Bayfield Roundabout

The interim roundabout design is illustrated in Figure 43 and the ultimate design is illustrated in Figure 44. Both designs are consistent with the design criteria listed in Table 12.


42

Figure 43: Roundabout Interim Design

Figure 44: Roundabout Ultimate Design

7.3.2 Ross/Sophia Intersection Reconfiguration for Future Consideration

The ultimate phase could include a reconfiguration of the Ross/Sophia intersection into a right-out-only, to be achieved by adding a raised median on Ross Street between Toronto Street and Mary Street. Such conversion is made possible in the ultimate phase because the proposed 40 m roundabout design allows WB-20.5 truck movements from Ross Street onto Bayfield Street northbound, rendering the left-turn movement from Ross Street onto Sophia Street unnecessary.

The conversion of Sophia Street into an unsignalized (yield-controlled) right-out-only approach will eliminate the eastbound left-turn movement from Ross Street and the northeast-bound through movement from Toronto Street, making the intersection cluster easier and safer to navigate and more efficient in terms of traffic operations.

7.4 Property Requirements

Land acquisition is required for the interim roundabout with long term property protection for future widening for the ultimate roundabout. The staged implementation plan allows for equitable property acquisition from adjacent properties, with development properties contributing land as redevelopment

occurs. The interim roundabout requires property acquisition primarily from the northeast quadrant, where redevelopment is currently proposed, while the ultimate roundabout will utilize property to be acquired from the southwest quadrant in the future when a site plan redevelopment is proposed. The ultimate roundabout will shift the centre of the roundabout to the southeast quadrant, which will also require a shift in the legs of the roundabout. An overlay of the interim and ultimate designs indicating the additional property requirements for ultimate expansion is illustrated in Figure 45.

Figure 45: Interim and Ultimate Property Requirements

As a result of land acquisition for the interim roundabout and property protection for the ultimate roundabout, a minor impact will include relocation and integration of driveway access for the properties in the northeast quadrant. This will include relocation of driveway access to the Georgian International site development, as well as adjacent driveways to the north of Collier Street. The resultant private driveway will be aligned along the north property boundaries of 65-75 Bayfield Street, 14 Collier Street and 32 Clapperton Street to provide consolidated internal access to all adjacent lots upon improving the existing laneway access on vacant municipal property. Use of the new nearby municipal parking garage on Collier Street will mitigate displacement of unofficial use of the current laneway for overflow parking by nearby businesses.

The recommended roundabout design includes a raised median on Collier Street extending east to Clapperton Street to prevent left-turn movements that could delay through traffic. The resulting


43

limitation of access to properties on the north side of Collier Street can be mitigated by relocating the driveway onto Clapperton Street.

7.5 Traffic Operations

7.5.1 Roundabout Fastest Path

The interim roundabout design features a 30 m inscribed circle diameter as it minimizes property acquisition. An impact of the designed diameter is that the geometry may not impose sufficient curvature to ensure the resultant fastest path is within the safe design speed. Multiple mitigation measures are proposed as refinements to counter the potential for high speed traffic on the interim roundabout, including apron rumble strips, southbound entry cross section narrowing and raised crosswalks.

The apron rumble strips consist of physical strips placed along the truck apron of the central island. These are a speed reduction treatment which discourages smaller vehicles from mounting the apron and encourages travel along the designed travel path.

The cross section narrowing at the southbound entry consists of reducing the road width at the approach to the roundabout. This road design encourages reduced approach speeds, while allowing sufficient entry width and entry radius to safely accommodate larger vehicles such as trucks and buses.

The raised crosswalk consists of an extended, flat-top road hump (speed table) with pedestrian crosswalk markings. This encourages reduced vehicle speeds at the crosswalk location, as well as simplifying crossings for pedestrians with mobility impairments.

Snow removal on the apron is conducted by other jurisdictions and requires an extra pass around the roundabout by the plow.

Maintenance of a roundabout is similar to the maintenance of a median. Parking may occur on the apron during maintenance.

7.5.2 Bus and Fire Truck Circulation

The Ross-Bayfield-Collier intersection cluster is travelled by several city bus routes as illustrated in Figure 46, namely routes 1B, 3A, 3B, 5A, 7B, 8A and 8B. The design of the interim roundabout ensures that it will accommodate all sizes of buses along each leg. The travel path of an articulated bus travelling along the Ross-Collier vehicle path is illustrated in Figures 47 and 48 for the interim and ultimate designs respectively.

Fire trucks use a smaller radius than larger vehicles. As confirmed by the building code excerpt shown in Figure 49, all roundabouts (interim and ultimate designs) can accommodate fire trucks.

Figure 46: Bus Routes

Figure 47: Roundabout Interim Design with Articulated Bus Travel Paths


44

Figure 48: Roundabout Ultimate Design with Articulated Bus Travel Paths

Figure 49: Excerpt of the 2012 Building Code Compendium

7.5.3 Truck Circulation

An impact of the interim roundabout is that it will not accommodate all sizes of trucks along each leg. However, the roundabout legs on Bayfield Street and Collier Street, which are designated truck routes in the OP, are designed with sufficient turning radii to accommodate movements of trucks up to size WB-20.5. An example of the vehicle path of a WB-20.5 sized truck is illustrated in Figure 50 for the interim design and also in Figure 51 for the ultimate design. The ultimate roundabout is designed with a turning radius to accommodate WB-20.5 truck movements along each turning movement and leg (Ross, Bayfield and Collier Streets) with the exception of the southbound right-turn movement, which can satisfy trucks up to size WB-15.

Figure 50: Roundabout Interim Design with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths


45

Figure 51: Roundabout Ultimate Design with WB-20.5 Truck Travel Paths

7.5.4 Pedestrians

Sidewalks will be rebuilt on each side of Ross Street and Collier Street. The width will vary from 1.5 m (Ross Street) to 2.5 m (Collier Street) and will be 2.5 m around the roundabout where pedestrians and cyclists are expected to share the space. The steetscape on Collier Street is recommended to continue with the design theme that is utilized on Collier Street east of Clapperton Street; this section was reconstructed in 2006.

Both proposed interim and ultimate roundabout designs have the benefit of improving pedestrian safety at crossings, especially south of Ross Street (between existing Ross Street and Collier Street). Based on projected vehicular traffic, a Level 2 Type D crossover as described in the OTM Book 15 and shown in Figure 53 will adequately highlight the pedestrian crossings on the north, south and west legs.

On the east side of the roundabout, the sidewalk will run uninterrupted, consistent with a private driveway configuration.

7.5.5 Cyclists

Bicycle lanes are to be added on the entire Ross/Collier corridor from Toronto Street to Clapperton Street, excluding the roundabout, and on Bayfield Street north of the roundabout. The recommended width is 1.5 m as illustrated in Figure 52.

Figure 52: Conventional Bicycle Lane (source: OTM Book 18)

Bicycle lanes are not added in or near the roundabout. For safety reasons, it is not recommended for cyclists to ride on the right side of the roadway. Instead, cyclists are expected to either ride in the centre of the lane or use the sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. Figure 54 illustrates the transition between a bicycle lane and a roundabout. Buffered ramps, such as the one illustrated in Figure 55, will be added to allow cyclists to transition between bicycle lanes and sidewalks.


46

Figure 53: Pedestrian Crossover Level 2 Type D – Single-Lane Roundabout (source: OTM Book 15)

Figure 54: Bicycle Lane at a Single-Lane Roundabout (source: OTM Book 18)

Figure 55: Bicycle Ramp Design (source: NCHRP 672 Roundabouts, An Informational Guide)

7.5.6 Parking

The proposed interim and ultimate roundabout designs require property acquisitions and will significantly impact the parking area within the Georgian International site (85 Bayfield Street). The proposed parking layout includes part of the parking reconfiguration planned by Georgian International (along the building) as well as new parking spaces southeast of the roundabout.

A driveway will be provided directly from the roundabout to allow access to and from these parking spaces and another access is recommended to be provided on Clapperton Street. These two accesses will allow an east-west laneway.


47

7.6 Impact Mitigation

Effects on the environment were considered in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process.

The remaining areas of concern, related to the Recommended Plan, will be mitigated to minimize or remove any detrimental effects. Table 17 provides a description of areas of concern and responses to issues that were identified with the Recommended Plan. No other effects requiring mitigation were identified in this study.

7.7 Future Activities

Implementation of the Recommended Plan is based on the current 2017-2026 Capital Plan for the Ross/Collier/Bayfield streets intersection improvements. These are subject to the annual capital planning process and Council approval and include:

Detail design in 2023 to 2024; Property acquisition in 2025; Utility relocation in 2026; and Construction in 2027-2028.

Council can choose to adjust implementation timing based on municipal priorities and the availability of funding.

Improvements beyond the roundabout project limits are not in the capital plan and include: Ross Street (from Toronto Street to Maple Street); Collier Street (from Bayfield Street to Clapperton Street) and Bayfield Street (from Ross Street to Collier Street).

At the end of the 30-day review period, should there be no objections to the project, the City may proceed with design and construction of the recommended plan, subject to availability of funding and construction priorities.

Following EA clearance, this project, or any individual element of this project, may proceed to detail design and construction.


48

Table 17: Summary of Potential Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigations

I.D # Factors Agency/Authority Issue and Potential Effects Proposed Mitigation Measure

1.0 Natural Environments

1.1 Species at Risk MNRF Potential disruption to habitat (terrestrial, freshwater) and SAR. No SAR or significant habitat areas were identified that may undergo disruption or reduction of woodland as a result of construction.

Ensure contractor’s staff are trained to recognize potential SAR and are required to notify authorities if any are encountered on site.

1.2 Terrestrial Public No significant woodland areas were identified that may undergo disruption or reduction of woodland as a result of construction.

Not applicable

1.3 Erosion and Sediment MOECC Potential for erosion / sedimentation during construction.

Incorporate standard erosion and sediment control measures into the construction contract, including measures to prevent off-site transport of sediment and prompt restoration of disturbed areas.

1.4 Groundwater Source Protection

MOECC, LSRCA The City of Barrie Official Plan (OP) indicates the entire Study Area is located within a Source Water Protection Plan Area under the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

Review of the OP Schedule G indicates the Study Area is within Well Head Protection Area (WHPA) B -D, a 2 to 25 year capture zone of a municipal water supply well (primarily within the 5-10 year capture zone), as well as within an Issue Contributing Area for chloride and sodium.

Review of the Drinking Water Source Protection Plan for the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Area (watershed), effective July 1, 2015, indicates that the Study Area is within Well Head Protection Area WHPA-C, Intake Protection Zone IPZ-3, an Issue Contributing Area for sodium and chloride, a significant recharge area and a highly vulnerable aquifer.

Stormwater management plan, in accordance with best management practices, City and Conservation policies, regulations and guidelines, including measures to improve stormwater runoff quality and attenuate flows.

Assess impacts to groundwater if dewatering is necessary. Consultation with the LSRCA throughout the study.

1.5 Wetland Hydrology LSRCA No provincially significant wetlands were identified within the Study Area.

Not applicable

2.0 Cultural Environments


49



2.1 Archaeology MTCS The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment has identified areas of archaeological potential.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment should be carried out for identified areas of archaeological potential which are within the area of disturbance of the TPA.

If deeply buried archaeological remains are encountered during construction, the contractor must notify the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

2.2 Heritage MTCS The Heritage Screening Checklist determined that the study area contains a total of 64 protected and/or potential heritage resources.

A cultural heritage evaluation report (CHER) is not required for the interim or ultimate roundabout, nor implementation of Alternative 3 for Ross Street. However, should widening to a 27 m ROW occur (based on long term property protection for Alternative 1 for Ross Street), a CHER should be carried out for the study area to determine the cultural heritage significance of the known and potential heritage properties within, or adjacent to, the study area.

2.3 Stormwater Quality MOECC, LSRCA Potential changes to stormwater drainage as a result of construction of the proposed roadway improvements, such as increased peak flows, and impact on the Sophia Creek watershed.

Stormwater management plan, in accordance with best management practices, City and Conservation policies, regulations and guidelines, including measures to improve stormwater runoff quality where feasible and attenuate flows.

3.0 Socio-Economic Environments

3.1 Property Impacts – Permanent

Property Owner Property impacts (i.e. property loss, driveway realignment) as a result of partial property acquisition.

Early coordination / communication with owner(s) and tenants to minimize disruption associated with property acquisition where feasible.

Relocation of driveway access for properties in the northeast quadrant to provide consolidated internal access to all adjacent lots upon improving the existing laneway access on vacant municipal property.

Use of the new nearby municipal parking garage on Collier Street will mitigate displacement of unofficial use of the current laneway for overflow parking by nearby businesses.

3.2 Property Impacts – Temporary

Property Owner Property impacts (i.e. loss of access, loss of parking, encroachment, nuisance, etc) for properties as a result construction.

Early coordination / communication with owner(s) and tenants to minimize disruption associated with property acquisition.

3.3 Noise Quality MTO, MOECC, City of Barrie

Noise nuisance from construction equipment and vehicles during construction.

Sound level changes as a result of construction of the proposed roadway improvements.

Contractor will be required to abide by noise control bylaws for day-to-day operations.

Noise analysis determined no meaningful change in sound levels that would require mitigation.

4.0 Transportation Environment

4.1 Safety of Pedestrian / Cycling Public

MTO, City of Barrie

Potential for restricted movement during construction. Provide alternate detour routes and advance notifications of temporary closures.

Use of protective hoarding and temporary protected walkways to maintain pedestrian passage where possible.


50



4.2 Utilities City of Barrie, Utilities

Potential for impacts to existing utilities as a result of construction.

Ensure advance coordination with utility companies and approval for any utility relocations / protection.


51

8.0 PLATES


52

Plate 1: Recommended Plan – Ross Street


53

Plate 2: Recommended Plan Ross Street, Bayfield Street, Collier Street


54

Plate 3: Typical Sections


55

Plate 4: Recommended Plan Ultimate Roundabout Configuration


56

Glossary of Terms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic – the average 24-hour, two-way traffic for the period from January 1st to December 31st.

Alignment The vertical and horizontal position of a road.

Alternative Well-defined and distinct course of action that fulfils a given set of requirements. The EA Act distinguishes between alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

Alternative Planning Solutions Alternative ways of solving problems or meeting demand (Alternatives to the Undertaking).

Alternative Design Concepts Alternative ways of solving a documented transportation deficiency or taking advantage of an opportunity. (Alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking).

Alternative Project Alternative Planning Solution, see above.

ANSI Area of Natural or Scientific Interest

Berm Earth landform used to screen areas.

BMP Best management practice.

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

Bump-Up The act of requesting that an environmental assessment initiated as a class EA be required to follow the individual EA process. The change is a result of a decision by the proponent or by the Minister of Environment to require that an individual environmental assessment be conducted.

Bypass A form of realignment in which the route is intended to go around a particular feature or collection of features.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

The CEAA applies to projects for which the federal government holds decision-making authority. It is legislation that identifies the responsibilities and procedures for the environmental assessment.

Class Environmental Assessment Document

An individual environmental report documenting a planning process which is formally submitted under the EA Act. Once the Class EA document is approved, projects covered by the class can be implemented without having to seek further approvals under the EA Act provided the Class EA process is followed.

Class Environmental Assessment Process

A planning process established for a group of projects in order to ensure compliance with the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. The EA Act, in Section 13 makes provision for the establishment of Class Environmental Assessments.

Compensation The replacement of natural habitat lost through implementation of a project, where implementation techniques and other measures could not alleviate the effects.

Corridor A band of variable width between two locations. In transportation studies a corridor is defined area where a new or improved transportation facility might be located.

Criterion(a) Explicit feature or consideration used for comparison of alternatives.

Cultural Heritage Landscape A defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. The Provincial Policy Statements states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

Cumulative Effects Assessment Cumulative Effects Assessment assesses the interaction and combination of the residual environmental effects of the project during its construction and operational phases on measures to prevent or lessen the predicted impacts with the same environmental effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities.

Decibel (dB) A logarithmic unit of measure used for expressing level of sound.


57

dBA ‘A’ weighted sound level; the human ear cannot hear the very high and the very low sound frequencies as well as the mid-frequencies of sound, and hence the predicted sound levels, measured in dBA, are a reasonable accurate approximation of sound levels heard by the human ear.

Detail Design The final stage in the design process in which the engineering and environmental components of preliminary design are refined and details concerning, for example, property, drainage, utility relocations and quantity estimate requirements are prepared, and contract documents and drawings are produced.

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

EA Environmental Assessment

EA Act Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (as amended by S.O. 1996 C.27), RSO 1980.

Environment Air, land or water, Plant and animal life, including man, The social, economic and cultural conditions that

influence the life of man or a community, Any building structure, machine or other device or

thing made by man, Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or

radiation resulting directly or indirectly from the activities or man, or

Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario.

Environmental Effect A change in the existing conditions of the environment which may have either beneficial (positive) or detrimental (negative) effects.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s)

Those areas identified by any agency or level of government which contain natural features, ecological functions or cultural, historical or visual amenities which are susceptible to disturbance from human activities and which warrant protection.

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The level of a continuous sound having the same energy as a fluctuating sound in a given time period. In this report Leq refers to 24-hour, 16 or 18-hour averages.

ESR Environmental Study Report.

Evaluation The outcome of a process that appraises the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives.

Evaluation Process The process involving the identification of criteria, rating of predicted impacts, assignment of weights to criteria, and aggregation of weights, rates and criteria to produce an ordering of alternatives.

External Agencies Include Federal departments and agencies, Provincial ministries and agencies, conservation authorities, municipalities, Crown corporations or other agencies other than MTO.

Factor A category of sub-factors.

Flyover A grade separation with the side road over the freeway. Also described as an underpass.

Freeway Freeways are controlled access median divided highway facilities with grade separated crossings and interchanges (e.g. Highway 401).

Grade Separation The separation of a cross road with a vertical grade difference from the freeway. Also see overpass, underpass or flyover.

HADD Harmful Alternation, Disturbance or Destruction of fish habitat.

Harmonized EA Process Harmonized planning process for this project that will meet both the Provincial and Federal EA requirements.

Individual Environmental Assessment

An environmental Assessment for an undertaking to which Assessment the EA Act applies and which requires formal review and approval under the Act.

Interchange The intersection between two roadways at different levels with connecting ramps for traffic turning between them.

LRT Light rail transit.

Mitigating Measure A measure that is incorporated into a project to reduce, eliminate or ameliorate detrimental environmental effects.


58

Mitigation Taking actions that either remove or alleviate to some degree the negative impacts associated with the implementation of alternatives.

MMATMP Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan

MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

MOECC Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

MTO Ministry of Transportation Ontario

Noise Attenuation A mitigation measure used to lessen the intensity of the noise level (dBA) where the noise level is increased in a noise sensitive area greater than 5 dBA 10 years after completion.

NSA Noise Sensitive Area is a noise sensitive land use, which has an outdoor living area associated with the residential unit.

OP Official Plan

OLA Outdoor Living Area is the part of an outdoor amenity area provided for the quiet enjoyment of the outdoor environment.

Overpass Cross road goes under the highway.

Part II Order The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) has provisions that allow and interested person, Aboriginal community, or government agency to ask for a higher level of assessment for a class environmental assessment (Class EA) project if they feel that there are outstanding issues that have not been adequately addressed. This is known as a Part II Order

PLG Public Liaison Group. This is a group of members of the public who will provide input on local issues, alternatives and values of the community.

Planning Alternatives Planning alternatives are “alternative methods” under the EA Act. Identification of significant transportation engineering opportunities while protecting significant environmental features as much as possible.

Planning Solutions That part of the planning and design process where alternatives to the undertaking and alternative routes are identified and assessed. Also described as “Alternative Project” under the federal EA Act.

PIC Public Information Centre

Prime Agricultural Areas Prime agricultural areas as defined in municipal official plans and other government policy sources.

Project A specific undertaking planned and implemented in accordance with this Class EA including all those activities necessary to solve a specific transportation problem.

Project Team The Project Team will include the City of Barrie and Consultant Technical management team who will lead all technical elements of the study

Proponent A person or agency that carries or proposes to carry out an undertaking, or is the owner or person having change, management, or control of an undertaking.

Public Includes the general public, interest groups, associates, community groups, and individuals, including property owners.

RA Responsible Authority from the Federal government who will act as the lead agency in administering the processing of the federal CEAA screening for this project

Realignment Replacement or upgrading of an existing roadway on a new or revised alignment.

Recommended Plan That part of the planning and design process, during which various alternative solutions are examined and evaluated including consideration of environmental effects and mitigation; the recommended design solution is then developed in sufficient detail to ensure that the horizontal and vertical controls are physically compatible with the proposed site, that the requirements of lands and rights-of-way are satisfactorily identified, and that the basic design criteria or features to be contained in the design, have been fully recognized and documented in sufficient graphic detail to ensure their feasibility.

Route Alternatives Location alternatives within a corridor.

SADT

Summer Average Daily Traffic – the average 24-hour, two-way traffic for the period from July 1st to August 31st including weekends.

SAR Species at Risk


59

Screening Process of eliminating alternatives from further consideration, which do not meet minimum conditions or categorical requirements.

Sub-factor A single criterion used for the evaluation. Each sub-factor is grouped under one of the factors.

SWH Significant Wildlife Habitat

TPA Technically Preferred Alternative

Traceability Characteristics of an evaluation process which enables its development and implementation to be followed with ease.

Underpass Cross road goes over the highway.

Undertaking In keeping with the definition of the Environmental Assessment Act, a project or activity subject to an Environmental Assessment.

City of Barrie Ross/Collier/Bayfield Streets Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report, March 2017

60

Disclaimer

All personal information has been removed, including names and addresses, in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Draft Environmental Study Report … Hall/environmental-assessment...City of Barrie...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Environmental Study Report … Hall/environmental-assessment...City of Barrie...