Municipal Class EA To Address Traffic Congestion On The Ontario - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Municipal Class EA To Address Traffic Congestion On The Ontario Street Corridor (Grand Bend) Council Information Meeting March 27, 2018

Agenda  Background  Class EA Alternatives  Traffic Study Update  Preliminary Preferred Options  Consultation MTO, Public, Agencies   Next Steps  Questions

Project Timelines  Project Initiated (March 2015)  Preliminary Engineering/1 st Traffic Study(Winter 2015/16)  1 st Presentation to Council (June 28, 2016)  Class EA Initiated/PIC #1 (Summer 2016)  2 nd Traffic Study/Additional Engineering Review (2017)  Additional Consultation with MTO (2017/2018)  2 nd PIC Planned (June 4, 2018)  Finalize Class EA (Summer 2018)

Traffic Study Update Paradigm Transportation Solutions

Revised Project Study Limits Original Traffic Study Scope focused on the Main Street Intersection and bridge site bmoss

Traffic Study - Paradigm  Traffic Study expanded to look at entire corridor, cross-walks and to assess the two-way left turning lane.  Cross walks appear to be functioning well. Saw no evidence to suggest they should be relocated.  Study determined the first priority is to upgrade the capacity of the Main St. Intersection. It is backing up traffic through the Lake St. Intersection.  Lake St. Intersection would perform the same without the left turning lanes as with the left turning lanes.  Given there is only one northbound through lane at Main St. the two-way left turning lanes help to keep northbound traffic in a single lane for traffic safety

Traffic Study – Recommendations  Main Street Intersection Upgrades  Add another northbound through lane and keep the shared through/ right turn lane (5 lanes in total)  Immediately north of Intersection  Converting the two-way left turn lane to a north bound lane would result in the largest capacity improvements for Main St. Intersection  Lake Road Intersection – Proposed Improvements  Remove the north and south bound left turning lanes at Lake Road Intersection.  Conversion of the two-way left turn should not occur until after the bridge and Main St intersection is widened. BMROSS

Bridge Improvement Alternatives

Bridge Cross-Section - Existing

Alternate #1: New Bridge

Alternate #2: Widen Bridge with New Deck

Review of Bridge Options Bridge New Bridge Widen Bridge Do Nothing Options Economic Most Expensive $1.6 million less Ongoing Impacts to Community Social Difficult & costly to Will need to be Ongoing traffic maintain traffic during constructed over 2 impacts to construction construction seasons community Environment River would need to be Less disruptive to No impacts realigned environment Transportation New bridge would Wider bridge deck Continued traffic provide 5 traffic lanes would provide 5 lanes back-ups Property Some property Some property impacts north of impacts north of bridge bridge

Bridge Improvement Alternatives  Alternative 1 : Replace bridge with a new structure capable of conveying greater traffic volumes  Alternative 2 : Widen the bridge to accommodate Preferred greater volumes of traffic  Alternative 3 : Do Nothing

Anticipated Costs  Alternative 1 – New Bridge* $ 6.7 m  Alternative 2 – New Bridge Deck* $ 5.1 m * Construction from River Road to approximately 40 metres north of Main Street intersection, including 5 lanes north of intersection merging in at Municipal Drive. An additional $900,000 to reconstruct road to north limits of Town. ** Preliminary Costs include an allowance for engineering and approvals but not for property acquisition or utility company relocation costs.

Bridge Detailed Design Alternatives Barrier wall with single Existing Bridge Cross-Section hand rail shown Option 1 – Multi Use Path on Both Sides

Bridge Cross-Section - Options Option 2 – Bike Lanes on both sides of traffic lanes Option 3 – Multi Use path on One Side

Bridge Cross-Section

Bridge Improvement Alternatives Bridge Deck and Corridor Cross-Section Alternatives :  Alternative 1 : Provide multi-use lanes on both sides.  Provides consistency with corridor to the south and provides a wider pedestrian/cycling path along entire corridor  Alternative 2: Bicycle lanes along edge of driving lanes.  Not recommended for high summer time traffic volumes.  Alternative 3 : Provide a two way multi-use lane on one side and a normal sidewalk on the other side.  Forces bicycle traffic to only travel along one side of the road.

Preferred Bridge Cross-Section Option 1 – Multi Use Path on Both Sides

Class EA Study Alternatives Corridor Alternatives to Accommodate Vehicle Traffic :  Alternative 1 – Add Another Northbound Lane (5 lanes total)  Alternative 2 – Switch the Two Way Turning Lane to Preferred a Northbound Lane (4 lanes total)  Alternative 3 – Construct a By-Pass around Grand Bend to divert through Traffic around the Community.  Alternative 4 : Do Nothing, keep lane configuration the same *Note: All options above included consideration of bicycle and pedestrian traffic

Detailed Design Alternatives Corridor Alternatives  Alternative 1 – Add a multi-use path separate from the roadway on both sides  Alternative 2 – Add bicycle lanes at the edge of the travelled roadway, or  Alternative 3 – Add bicycle lanes behind the curb separate from sidewalks, or  Alternative 4 - Add a multi-use path separate from the roadway on one side  Alternative 5 : Do Nothing, keep lane configuration the same

Corridor Property Limits

Option #1 – Multi-use Lane on Both Sides Existing x-section width – 18.3 m Option #1 x-section width – 20.7 m

Option #2 – Bike Lanes at Edge of Road Existing x-section width – 18.3 m Option #2 x-section width – 22.3 m

Option #3 – Separate Bike and Pedestrian Lanes Option #3 x-section width – 22.5 m Existing x-section width – 18.3 m

Anticipated Costs  Alternative 1 – Multi-Use path both sides $ 4.4 m  Alternative 2 – Bike lines in road $ 4.8 m  Alternative 3 – Separate bike lanes $ 4.5 m  Alternative 4 – Multi-Use path on one side $4.8 m * Preliminary Costs include an allowance for engineering and approvals but not for property acquisition or utility company relocation costs.

Comparison of Options  Option #1 – Multi-use Lane both sides Preferred  Narrower Option, Will still require some land, Has continuity with trail to the south, splits up bike traffic  Option #2 – Bike Lanes at Edge of Road  Safety Issue, Most Expensive, No continuity north or south  Option #3 – Separate Bike and Pedestrian Lanes  Safest Option, Widest Option – May not be feasible based on current corridor limitations  Option #4 – Multi-use Lane on one side only  Provides some continuity with trail to the south, narrowest option, more expensive than 2 & 3, forces bikes to one side

Consultation – Agencies & Aboriginal  Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport  Must consider potential Impact to Cultural Heritage Features  Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change  Aboriginal Consultation/Source Water Protection  Ministry of Transportation (project partner)  In General Agreement with the Recommendations  Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority  Hydraulic Impacts at Bridge Opening  Consultation with Aboriginal Communities ongoing

Next Steps  Public Meetings Scheduled for June 4 th , 2018  Need input from Residents and Project Stakeholders on the Preferred Alternatives  Continue discussions with MTO on Funding Options for the proposed upgrades  Consult with Provincial/Federal Review Agencies, First Nation Communities and Adjacent Property Owners  Finalize the Environmental Study Report (ESR) documenting the Class EA Process

Questions?