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

Traffic Study Update

Paradigm Transportation Solutions

Revised Project Study Limits

bmoss

Original Traffic Study Scope focused on the Main Street Intersection and bridge site

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

• f 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

BMROSS

 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.

Bridge Improvement Alternatives

Bridge Cross-Section - Existing

Alternate #1: New Bridge

Alternate #2: Widen Bridge with New Deck

Review of Bridge Options

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

greater volumes of traffic

 Alternative 3: Do Nothing

Preferred

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

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

Barrier wall with single hand rail shown

Bridge Cross-Section - Options

Option 3 – Multi Use path on One Side Option 2 – Bike Lanes on both sides of traffic lanes

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

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 Preferred

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

Existing x-section width – 18.3 m Option #3 x-section width – 22.5 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

 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

• ption, more expensive than 2 & 3, forces bikes to one side

Preferred

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 4th, 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?