Transportation Master Plan Update

Transcription

1 Final Report Transportation Master Plan Update by IBI Group March 2016

2 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Document Control Page CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: REPORT TITLE: County of Brant County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update Transportation Master Plan Update IBI REFERENCE: VERSION: 8 P:\36350_Brant_TMP_U\10.0 Reports\FIRST DRAFT REPORT\TTR TMP FirstDraft1_ docx\ DIGITAL MASTER: 21\BAW ORIGINATOR: REVIEWER: AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: Don Drackley Don Drackley, Betty White Don Drackley HISTORY: V8 MARCH 2016

3 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION Background County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Overview Purpose of the Transportation Master Plan Update Scope of the Transportation Master Plan Purpose of the Aggregate Resource Guide Conformance to Environmental Assessment Process Planning Timeframe to Consultation External Agencies Stakeholders General Public Public Information Centres Key Transportation Issues in the County Existing Transportation Network Existing Travel Modes County Roads Provincial Highways Active Transportation (Cycling & Walking) Transit Passenger and Freight Rail Aviation Service Existing Regional Travel Patterns Existing County-Wide Traffic Conditions Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Roadway Network Performance COUNTY GROWTH AND TRAFFIC FORCASTS Planned County Growth Areas and Forecasts Forecasted 2031 County Traffic Condition Intersection Capacity Analysis MARCH 2016 i

4 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents (continued) Road Network Performance TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS Paris Settlement Area Paris Settlement Area Existing Conditions Paris Settlement Area Future Conditions Paris Settlement Area Traffic Mitigation Measures Signal Optimization Paris Long Term Bypass Oak Avenue Arterial Capacity Enhancement - Grand River Street North Recommended Policy Direction Paris Area St. George Settlement Area Road Classification Update Recommended Policy Direction Road Classification Truck Route Management Update TMP Truck Management Needs Existing Paris Area Heavy Haul Restriction By-Law Traffic Impact Studies Best Practices Review Recommended Policy Direction Strategic Truck Route Management Age-Friendly Transportation Recommended Policy Direction Age Friendly Transportation Sidewalk Planning and Infill County Development & Engineering Standards Sidewalk Infill Program Recommended Policy Direction Sidewalk Planning Active Transportation (Cycling & Trails) Draft Trails Master Plan March 2016 ii

5 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents (continued) Paved Shoulders On Rural Roads Recommended Policy Direction Active Transportation Other Key Strategic Road Network Recommendations Highway Highway 24/Rest Acres Road and Bishopsgate Road Highway 401 / Trussler Road / Brant-Oxford Road Highway 401 to Highway 403 Corridor Public Transit Service Update Recommended Policy Direction Public Transit Service AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Purpose Aggregate Resources in the County of Brant Recommended Aggregate Study Requirements TRANSPORTATION POLICY GUIDELINES Updated Guideline Road Classification Goods Movement / Truck Routes Transit Service Trail Planning Traffic Calming Transportation Impact Studies Cash-In-Lieu of Parking Maintained Guidelines Access Management Transportation Oriented Subdivision Design Traffic Control Warrants Modern Roundabouts Noise Attenuation Transportation Demand Management March 2016 iii

6 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents (continued) 7 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN / IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN UPDATE Capital Cost Estimate Short Term to Long Term Official Plan Integration Requirements Official Plan Review & Update Upcoming Planning Act Changes TMP Monitoring & Updating Transportation Policy Updating Funding Opportunities List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-1: Existing Overall Roadway Network (Official Plan Schedule B)... 9 Exhibit 2-2: Road Classification System Features Exhibit 2-3: 2010 DRAFT Trails Master Plan Potential Trail Network Exhibit 2-4: 2010 DRAFT Trails Master Plan Potential Community Trail Network Exhibit 2-5: Comparison of Regional County of Brant Commuter Patterns, Exhibit 2-6: 2011 Home - Works Trips (24 Hours) Exhibit 2-7: 2011 Work-Home Trips (24 Hours) Exhibit 2-8: Travel Mode Share in the County (% of Daily Trips) Exhibit 2-9: LOS Performance Summary Exhibit 2-10: Road Level-Of-Service Ratings Exhibit 2-11: 2014 a.m. Peak Hour Exhibit 2-12: 2014 p.m. Peak Hour Exhibit 2-13: County of Brant Model Road Network Exhibit 2-14: 2011 a.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Assignment Level-of-Service Flows March 2016 iv

7 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents (continued) Exhibit 3-1: County of Brant Growth Summary Exhibit 3-2: Designated Employment Areas in the County of Brant Exhibit 3-3: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Exhibit 3-4: 2031 p.m. Peak Hour Exhibit 3-5: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Assignment Level-Of-Service Flows Exhibit 4-1: Existing (2011) LOS Conditions - Traffic Flow and Volume to Capacity Exhibit 4-2: Traffic Growth, 2011 to 2031 Background Conditions Exhibit 4-3: Employment and Population Projections Exhibit 4-4: Traffic Growth, 2031 Background Conditions to 2031 Total Conditions Exhibit 4-5: 2031 Downtown Paris LOS with Added Developments Exhibit 4-6: 2031 Existing Road Network Versus Potential East By-Pass Exhibit 4-7: Paris East Side Bypass Concept Exhibit 4-8: Paris Links Road Realignment Concepts Exhibit 4-9: St. George Land Owners Group Exhibit 4-10: Road Classification Update (Based on Official Plan Schedule B - Sept. 2012) Exhibit 4-11: Recommended County Road Network Classification Update Exhibit 4-12: Community of Paris Heavy Vehicle Restriction (By-Law ) Exhibit 4-13: Proposed County Heavy Truck Routes Exhibit 4-14: 2011 County Age Distribution Exhibit 4-15: Aging Plan Targets Groups Exhibit 4-16: Principles From Pedestrian Charters in Other Ontario Municipalities Exhibit 4-17: Existing Sidewalk Requirements Exhibit 4-18: Priority Guide for Sidewalk Infill Program Exhibit 4-19: Brant 403 Business Park Long-Term Traffic Impact Study Area Exhibit 4-20: Kitchener SW Corridor Protection Exhibit 6-1: Rest Acres Road Planned Modern Roundabouts Exhibit 7-1: Short Term Project Capital Costs to Exhibit 7-2: Long Term Project Capital Costs to Exhibit 7-3: Priority Policy Updates March 2016 v

8 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table of Contents (continued) List of Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Consultation Material Travel Demand Forecasting Model Development Report Paris Area Future Travel Demand Assessment Aggregate Resource Guide Example of a Pedestrian Charter Traffic Calming Policy March 2016 vi

9 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Overview On December 16, 2008, County Council approved in principle the County of Brant Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The County had initiated preparation of the TMP in conjunction with the mandatory five-year review of the Official Plan to guide development of the County s transportation system over the next 25 years. It was also resolved that the TMP be subject to review upon the County s next Official Plan Update process expected in The 2008 TMP was prepared to: Identify existing and future levels of travel demand throughout the County; Outline the transportation infrastructure needed to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services for the economic growth and prosperity of the County; Develop policies and guidelines for all modes of transportation in the County, including roads, trucking, transit, cycling and walking; and Conduct the TMP preparation in conjunction with the County s Official Plan Update process and implement recommendations of the TMP in the new Official Plan. Public and stakeholder consultation was provided during the TMP preparation in the form of four (4) Public Information Centres held in 2007, plus a special Council/Public meeting in June 2008 and project information posted on the County s we site. Accompanying the TMP was an Appendix document containing policies and guidelines to assist County staff in the planning of the following eleven (11) important elements of the transportation system: 1. Traffic Noise Attenuation; 2. Transportation Demand Management; 3. Roadway Access Management; 4. Location and Design of Modern Roundabouts; 5. Subdivision Design; 6. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines; 7. Trail Planning; 8. Traffic Control Warrants; March 2016

10 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 9. Goods Movement / truck Route Planning; 10. Transit Service; and 11. Road Classification. In the 2008 TMP, the estimated costs in 2008 dollars of recommended short-term transportation infrastructure projects to 2011 was $475,000 as listed below. Justification for these and other recommended projects is provided in the 2008 TMP: Project Description 1. Paris Area Truck Route Study to establish truck routes for an updated County Truck Route Bylaw 2. King Edward Street/Rest Acres Road Widening/Improvement and Corridor Protection Class EA from Church Street to Rest Acres Road with Intersection Control Study of improvements to the King Edward Street/Rest Acres Road intersection 3. Bishopsgate Road/Puttown Road Realignment Class EA between Highway 403 and Brant-Oxford Road 4. Contribute funding to the marketing and promotion of a private operator Transit Service in association with matching funding from the City of Brantford 5. Staged implementation of the Toronto, Hamilton and Brantford (TH&B) multi-use trail from Brantford south to the County of Norfolk (assuming the trail Master Plan has been completed) Estimated Cost in 2008 $100,000 $150,000 $150,000 $10,000 annually x 3 = $30,000 $15,000 annually x 3 = $45,000 TOTAL COST TO 2011 $475,000 In the medium term between 2011 and 2021, the previous TMP recommended $10.6 M in transportation system improvements, the largest being the Rest Acres Road widening between King Edward Street and Highway 403 ramps ($6.2 M), and the Bishopsgate Road/Puttown Road realignment between Highway 403 and Brant-Oxford Road ($4.2 M). In the long-term between 2021 and 2031, three projects totalling $23 M were recommended in the 2008 TMP; new Bishopsgate Road/Highway 403 interchange ($17 M), Highway 24 widening between Highway 403 and Bethel Road ($1.7 M expected as a provincial cost and realignment of Bishopsgate Road between Highway 403 and King Edward Street/Highway 2 ($4.3 M). In total, the 2008 TMP included $34 M in recommended capital improvements to the County s transportation system involving County roads, trail development and support for transit service in the Paris area. March 2016 Page 2

11 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Purpose of the Transportation Master Plan Update In February 2014, the County issued a Request for Proposal to update the TMP and also prepare a related Aggregate Resource Guide for processing applications under the Planning Act. Once again the TMP Update would be conducted in conjunction with the County Official Plan Review to provide policies and guidelines for all modes of travel including road, rail, air, commercial vehicles (trucks), automobiles, transit, cycling and walking. The Update is required for six (6) main reasons: The province s Places To Grow legislation, enacted subsequent to the 2008 TMP approval, provides new growth allocations to the County. The TMP Update would assess the impacts of these allocations on traffic growth; The County saw a number of dormant aggregate pit permits reactivated and new pit applications made after 2008, leading to the need by County staff to manage the heavy truck movement associated with these and other future pits; When the 2008 TMP was being prepared for the County, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) had initiated the Brantford to Cambridge Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) study to address long-term transportation problems and opportunities between the two areas. It was believed by many that the findings of that study could significantly impact the County s transportation system. Then in 2009, MTO received approval of an EA Terms of Reference to conduct the study as an Individual EA. However, since then the study process was stopped, and MTO is assessing its planning priorities and schedule for actually conducting the Individual EA. The project is listed in the Southern Highways Program only under Planning for the Future ; Growth and develop has continued in the County since 2008, especially in the Paris area. This includes continued development in SW Paris and in the Brant 403 Business Park to the south, all with an impact on travel patterns and volumes; Some important transportation-related projects have been implemented as recommended in the 2008, most notably the Alternate 24 Paris Bypass and the Rest Acres Road Municipal Class EA for widening and urbanization to four lanes from King Edward Street to Highway 403; and New TMPs have been prepared in neighbouring municipalities that have an influence on the County s transportation system, from Brantford, Hamilton and the Region of Waterloo. The TMP Update was also to be completed in accordance with Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA Process to provide the need and justification for future transportation infrastructure improvements Scope of the Transportation Master Plan According to the province s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process, master plans are: long range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. To do this, the scope of the TMP is: March 2016 Page 3

12 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Strategic system-wide planning, and not focused on individual, specific problems or projects that will undergo further analysis through the Municipal Class EA process; To provide the need and justification for specific transportation infrastructure projects by satisfying the first two phases of the Municipal Class EA process by addressing 1) Problems and Opportunities, and 2) Alternative Planning Solutions (see TMP Section 1.2); Future - oriented over a 16 year planning timeframe with the County of Brant Official Plan to 2031; Multi-modal to address all modes of transportation under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the County, and this includes sidewalks, trails, bikeways and County roads. It also addresses other modes either not currently provided in the County or provide by other jurisdictions, namely public transit, intermunicipal transit (GO Transit, private coach), rail and aviation; Referenced to transportation planning in other municipalities, but ultimately custom-made for the County of Brant; Integrates transportation and land use planning by recommending how to comply with provincial and city growth management strategies; Provides a set of actions on how the County can meet its transportation needs and vision over the next 20 years. It is not based on any one specific transportation project; Achievable within the context of the County of Brant socially, practically, financially and politically; Consultative by providing opportunities for agencies, stakeholder groups and the general public to contribute to the plan development; and Flexible to change over its 16 year planning horizon through regular reviews and updates to respond to changing conditions and needs Purpose of the Aggregate Resource Guide According to the TMP Update Request For Proposal, the purpose of this new Aggregate Resource Guide is to establish clear guidelines for processing applications under the Planning Act for aggregate resource applications. The Guide is to consider relevant provincial policies, Official Plan policies and ministry and agency regulations. It is to establish requirements for application submissions, including required reports and studies. It is also to address potential impacts from aggregate pit operations and associated public consultation expectations. The resulting Guide is included in Appendix 4 of this TMP Update. 1.2 Conformance to Environmental Assessment Process The Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (2007, updated 2011) (Class EA) recognizes that it is sometimes advisable to plan municipal infrastructure as part of an overall system, rather than as specific March 2016 Page 4

13 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE projects such as a roadway improvement project. The planning provisions of the Class EA describe the scope of a master plan as being broad and comprehensive, usually including analysis of an entire system such as a municipal transportation system, in order to develop a framework for future works and developments. The master plan is not typically prepared to address site-specific problems such as traffic operations at individual intersections or in specific neighbourhoods. The County of Brant TMP Update was prepared in conformance to the master planning process of the Class EA. To help expedite these types of transportation projects, the Class EA provides alternative approaches for the preparation of master plans, each designed to address at least Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. The County of Brant TMP Update conforms to the Class EA description of a master plan using Approach #1 from the Class EA document. Following this approach, Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process are concluded by broadly establishing the problems and opportunities associated with the County s transportation system over the next 16 years to 2031, and selecting a preferred transportation planning solution to address these needs and opportunities. An approved TMP also provides the context for the implementation of specific minor Schedule B road and traffic management projects such as intersection improvements, and satisfies Phases 1 and 2 of the Schedule C EA process for major transportation infrastructure projects such as any changes to the capacity and operation of roads, and introduction of new roads. More detailed investigations will be required for specific Schedule C projects recommended in this TMP. Schedule B projects will require the filing of the project file for public review, while Schedule C projects will have to complete Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA process prior to filing an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review. In both cases, the public review period includes a Part II Order appeal mechanism, where an individual can make a written request to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to extend the project to a higher level of EA investigation. Note: A Part II Order request can only be made on a project-specific Schedule B or C EA, and not on a Transportation Master Plan on which such a project is based. 1.3 Planning Timeframe to 2031 The planning horizon set for this TMP Update is set at 2031 because this in the horizon of the County s Official Plan. Therefore, population and employment data in 2011 representing the current condition, and 2031 representing the forecasted planning horizon were available from the County and were allocated to traffic analysis zones for traffic volume forecasting purposes. The forecasts were not further disaggregated into intermediate planning horizons between 2011 and 2031 because this data was not available from the County, and because County growth is largely depended on the pace of land development which is difficult to estimate. 1.4 Consultation Preparation of the TMP Update involved consultation with involved agencies, stakeholders and the general public. This started with the mailing of the Notice of Study Commencement to external agencies and stakeholders in May, 2014, followed by the advertising of the Notice of Study Commencement on June 5, Consultation feedback gained after that notice is summarized as follows: March 2016 Page 5

14 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE External Agencies The following external agencies responded to the Notice of Study Commencement confirming their interest in being kept informed: CN Rail Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Transportation Grand River Conservation Authority Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Infrastructure Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport A summary tabulation of this input is provided in Appendix 1 of this TMP Update. Specific contact was also made and discussions held with CN Rail on the feasibility on moving aggregate by rail in the County. The results of this contact are also summarized in Appendix 1. Contacts were also made with the two First Nations communities with interests in the study, namely the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. A meeting was also held with the Six Nations on October 15, 2014 to discuss their interests in the study. Presentations on the study progress were made to the County through; 1) Public Works Committee May 13, 2015, 2) Corporate Development Committee on July 14, 2014 and 3) City Managers Meeting on September 10, Stakeholders The main contact with involved stakeholders during this study was with aggregate operators. A survey of aggregate activities was circulated in May 2014, as well as the Draft Aggregate Resource Guide in February 2015 for feedback on the guide including proposed truck routes. Information on these contacts is provided in Appendix General Public Public Information Centres The general public had three engagement options to provide study input and feedback: 1. Access the project page on the County s web site; 2. Contact the County and/or consultant by or phone; and 3. Attend one of the three following Public Information Centres to speak with project team members and provide a comment sheet: PIC #1 March 25, 2015, Paris PIC #2 April 1, 2015 St. George PIC #3 April 8, Cainsville PIC input from participants is included in Appendix Key Transportation Issues in the County Based on consultation input provided during the preparation of this TMP Update, the six (6) key transportation issues that the County needs to continue addressing are: March 2016 Page 6

15 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Manage transportation needs within and through the County that will be generated by planned population and employment growth to 2031 while minimizing impacts on existing and future communities; Provide multi-modal and age-friendly mobility choices for County residents (roads, transit, cycling, walking); Mitigate both localized and general impacts of traffic volume and changes in traffic character (speed, vehicle type) in the County; Effectively manage the movement of heavy commercial vehicles in the County, including aggregate truck movements; Provide infrastructure and services that support Active Transportation in the County (walking and cycling); Manage land development and building proposals to ensure they support multimodal, age-friendly transportation services. March 2016 Page 7

16 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2 Existing Transportation Network 2.1 Existing Travel Modes The 2008 TMP presented the basic features of all travel modes operating in the County of Brant. This information is updated to 2015 conditions as follows County Roads The existing road network in the County of Brant originally contained four (4) types of roads Arterial Roads, Collector Roads, Local Roads and Private Lanes. The 2008 TMP expanded this classification to the following nine (9) classifications mainly so the features of urban vs. rural, and residential vs. employment area roads could be differentiated. They are now included as Schedule B to the County Official Plan as follows and shown on Exhibit 2-1: Arterial Road Collector Road Local Road Public Lane Urban Rural Urban Residential Urban Employment Rural Urban Residential Urban Employment Rural This enhanced classification system has been useful in establishing and explaining the role and function of different types of County roads in terms of: Service Function (i.e. degree of mobility and land access); Traffic Volume and Associated Level-of-Service (LOS); Traffic Flow / Composition of Traffic (i.e. percentage of heavy trucks) Running Speed; and Vehicle Types. The TMP Update recommends that the County continue to use this classification system with specific classification features shown in Exhibit 2-2. March 2016 Page 8

17 IBI Group FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-1: Existing Overall Roadway Network (Official Plan Schedule B) March 2016 Page 9

18 IBI Group FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-2: Road Classification System Features Characteristic Land /Traffic Service Traffic volume (veh/day) Urban Public Lane Land access only function Urban Local Collector Residential Industrial Residential Industrial Land access primary function. Traffic movement secondary consideration < 250 < 1,000 < 3,000 Traffic movement/land access of equal importance 1,000 20,000 1,000 12,000 Rural Arterial Arterial Collector Local Traffic movement primary Traffic movement primary Traffic movement/land access of equal importance Individual property access primary 5,000 30,000 1,000 20, , ,000 Design Speed (km/h) Average off-peak running speeds (km/h) Vehicle Type Desirable Connections Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities Passenger and service vehicles Public lanes, Locals No sidewalks or bike lanes/paths Passenger and service vehicles All types Public lanes, Locals, Collectors Sidewalks on one or both sides. Shared bike route. No on-road bike lanes. Passenger and service vehicles All types Locals, Collectors, Arterials Sidewalks on both sides. Onroad bike lanes or wide curb lanes. Sidewalk on one side. No on-road bike lane All types Collectors, Arterials, Freeways Sidewalks on both sides. Dedicated onroad bike lanes where required. All types up to 20% trucks Collectors, Arterials, Freeways All types up to 10% trucks mostly single unit type Collectors, Arterials Collectors, Locals Sidewalks not required, but shoulder bike lanes may be considered if speed limit is less than 80 km/h 1 Transit Service Not Permitted Generally Avoided Permitted Permitted Generally Avoided Road Right-of-Way Width (m) (typical) Travel Surface Width (m) (typically) (20 m) Parking Provisions No Parking Parking on One Side Parking on One Sides No parking No Parking Traffic Calming Not Provided Where Required Not Provided Where Required Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided 1 Sidewalks and bike lanes should be provided if the rural roadway is a connecting link between settlement areas or a major recreation attraction, or is a rural roadway falls along a bicycle route. March 2016 Page 10

19 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Provincial Highways There are two provincial highways located within the County of Brant, Highway 24 and Highway 403, which are under the control and jurisdiction on the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Highway 24 consists of two distinct sections of highway generally described as follows: The southerly section of Highway 24 is located between the north limit of the Simcoe in Norfolk County to a point approximately 585m north of Highway 403, where it changes to Rest Acres Road under the control and jurisdiction of the County of Brant; and The northerly section of Highway 24 is located between the north limit of the City of Brantford and the south limit of the City of Cambridge. Highway 403 is an east-west controlled access highway extending east-west across the entire width of the County providing linkages to other areas of the province. General ministry requirements apply for the provision of any access changes, improvements or additions in the vicinity of Highway 403. There are also two important MTO planning studies that may impact the County s transportation system: Brantford to Cambridge Environmental Assessment In 2009, MTO received approval of an EA Terms of Reference to conduct the Brantford to Cambridge Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) study as an Individual EA. The purpose of the EA was to address long-term transportation problems and opportunities between the two areas. However, since then the study process was stopped, and MTO is assessing its planning priorities and schedule for actually conducting the Individual EA. The project is listed in the Southern Highways Program only under Planning for the Future. Niagara to GTA (NGTA) Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Began in 2007, Phase 1 of this study is completed. It examined the need for a new highway connection between Niagara and the GTA, assessed planning alternatives and recommended future Phase 2 work to determine a preferred new highway route..while too early to determine potential impacts on the County of Brant, the study area may be expanded to include the County, and the planning horizon may be extended to Active Transportation (Cycling & Walking) In addition to the planning and implementation of County road projects and Provincial highway projects in the County since 2008, the other type of transportation that has involved further planning is Active Transportation. This stems in part from the 2008 TMP (Section 4.2.1) preferred strategic direction called Towards Sustainability. This strategic direction alternative was not only intended to enhance basic mobility through roadway network capacity expansion, but would also move to further expansion of active transportation infrastructure (trails, on-road bikeways) and introduction of selective transit service in the County. This would also include use of demand management programs appropriate for the County of Brant to encourage use of these alternatives to the private automobile. More information and support for Active Transportation as also provided in the 2008 TMP with the Trails Planning guidelines that were developed. March 2016 Page 11

20 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Building on the Towards Sustainability strategy and trails guidelines, in 2010 the County completed a County of Brant Trails Master Plan 2. It is important to note that in that Master Plan, trail activities include both walkers and cyclists. Cycling - The 2010 Trails Master Plan recognizes that cycling offers potential to both resident and tourist markets. However, cycling itself, and therefore the cycling infrastructure and supporting services must be a quality experience that attracts a wide variety of user types, skills and comfort levels. This means designating and maintaining cycling routes where appropriate as on-road urban bike lanes and paths, off-road multi-use trails and rural road paved shoulders. The Plan includes eight (8) recommended cycling trails, mainly as paved road shoulders. It does not provide guidelines or plans for provision of other cycling routes in urban communities such as marked exclusive bike lanes, segregated lanes or sharrow lanes. Walking The 2010 Trails Master Plan includes nine (9) recognized existing off-road trails in the County. The study scope did not include the larger issue of pedestrianization in urban areas with sidewalks and rail crossings. The recommended trail and cycling routes from the 2010 Trails Master Plan are shown on Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4. The 2010 Trails Master Plan has not been endorsed or approved by County Council. However, it will be included as part of the County s new Community Services Master Plan to be completed in Transit Conventional Scheduled Transit - Interest in the provision of transit service within the County continues to be an interest of some members of the public in In 2008 a private firm, Paris Transportation Service (also known as Paris Taxi), provided a car or minivan shuttle service between the Brantford terminal and Paris two times a day Monday to Friday. The cost was $6.00 per trip and usage was very light. As a result, the service has since been cancelled and there is currently no scheduled conventional transit service within the County. Subsidized Transportation Service - A Subsidized Transportation Program (STP) is currently provided in the County as a pre-booked, shared ride, accessible door to accessible door transportation service for persons that have permanent or temporary physical disability, intellectually challenged and such others as may be determined on application. The County contracts with the two licensed taxi companies in the County to provide the service. The County, in consultation with the Accessibility Advisory Committee has final approval on all matters relating to the provision of the STP including service levels, budget expenditure/revenue, the terms and conditions upon which the service is to be operated and the eligibility criteria for the customers of the service. The STP will be administered by a third party via a Request for Proposal process every year as upon approved budget allocation. 2 EDA Collaborative, Draft Final Report, August 2010 March 2016 Page 12

21 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-3: 2010 DRAFT Trails Master Plan Potential Trail Network March 2016 Page 13

22 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-4: 2010 DRAFT Trails Master Plan Potential Community Trail Network March 2016 Page 14

23 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Inter-Municipal Transit In 2013, a GO Transit Business case study 3 was conducted for the City of Brantford to determine if extend GO Transit service to the City is warranted, and under what conditions and costs. Some of the results involve the County of Brant, for example that a license plate survey at the Aldershot and Burlington GO Transit park-and-ride lots showed that between about parked vehicles came from Brantford/Brant, and of that some vehicles came from the County of Brant. Since these were vehicles, not people possibly car-sharing, the count from County residents could be higher. Two important conclusions of that study affect the County s transportation system. In order to potentially serve Brantford/Brant, the GO Transit service area would need to be expanded to include the City of Brantford, or the City and surrounding County. Second, there is sufficient demand between Brantford and Hamilton to warrant expanded public transit service Passenger and Freight Rail Train service in the County of Brant is essentially the same as provided in There are still three (3) rail services currently operating in and through the County. The CN Dundas Subdivision mainline traverses the County east-west from Aldershot through Brantford and Paris to London and Windsor and on to USA transborder rail service through Detroit Michigan. CN s Dundas Subdivision moves large volumes of industrial, resources (coal, lumber) and agricultural freight through the County of Brant. Classified as a principle mainline, the Dundas Subdivision traffic volume generally exceeds 5 trains per day at high speeds frequently exceeding 80 km/h. Southern Ontario Railway (RLHH) is a RailAmerica company, and includes two unconnected sections. One section runs through the County of Brant from Brantford to Nanticoke. It has an interchange with CN at Brantford. The second unconnected branch is the Hamilton terminal portion running for four miles accessing the Port of Hamilton and connects with both CN and CP at Hamilton. It services the industrial basin in Hamilton. These two branches comprising Southern Ontario Railway (RLHH) provide a short line freight operation handling a broad range of commodities including petroleum products, metals, steel and plastics, chemicals, grain and forest products. This railway line runs through the County of Brant connecting externally with Brantford, Caledonia, Hagersville, Onongada and Nanticoke. As a branch or short line operation, RLHH carries generally less than 5 trains per day at slower speeds generally limited to 50 km/h. The third rail service through the County of Brant is the VIA passenger service operating on the CN Dundas Subdivision. VIA operates four (4) trains eastbound and five (5) trains westbound (up from 4 in 2008) through Brantford daily connecting on the Quebec City-Windsor corridor to Toronto Union Station and points east, and Woodstock, London and Windsor westbound. The closest station for County of Brant residents is the Brantford Station in the City of Brantford. 3 IBI Group, Draft Report, January 2014 March 2016 Page 15

24 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Aviation Service The primary source of aviation service in the County of Brant is the Brantford Municipal Airport, located 7.4 km west southwest of the City of Brantford. The airport is owned by the City of Brantford, with the Brantford Flight Centre being the fixed base operator (FBO) of the airport, which is run by the Brantford Flying Club. It presently has three asphalt runways; a 1,524m x 30.5m runway and two 792.5m x 30.5m runways in a traditional Commonwealth Training Base layout. The airport is equipped with runway lighting, a NDB/GPS (Global Positioning System) approach for Runway 05 and a RNAV for Runway 23 to accommodate night flying. It is also a certified CANPASS airport of entry that accommodates domestic and international passenger and cargo aircraft including corporate, recreation and charter fights, plus flight training and aircraft maintenance services. For transborder and international flights, the existing Canada Border Service Agency staff at the airport can currently handle general aviation aircraft only, with no more than 15 passengers. 4 Other than this staffing limitation, the airport offers a range of aviationrelated services and opportunities for the business community and recreation flyers. This includes leasing and development opportunities on site for both aviation and nonaviation related industries. Commercial and warehouse space is also available for long and short-term lease through the City of Brantford Property Management Department. The role of the Brantford Municipal Airport in the County of Brant transportation system is limited to the service to corporate and recreational aircraft. While it has a very minor role in the movement of people and goods across the County, and essentially no role in reducing auto demands, it is still an important transportation service for the continued economic development and vitality of both the County of Brant and City of Brantford. As a result, planning policies and decisions for land use in the vicinity of the airport must continue to protect the safe operational capability of the airport in terms of off airport land zoning (i.e. building height, material), land uses which are compatible with the airport s noise exposure forecasts (NEFs) and links to the County and City roadway networks. Federal airport protection standards must continue to be followed to ensure that the airport can operate without any off-airport restriction Existing Regional Travel Patterns The 2008 TMP used Place of Work data from the 2001 Statistics Canada census to identify regional travel patterns from, to and within the County of Brant at that time. The resulting generalized data represent regional commuting patterns within the County in relationship to the surrounding region. A comparison of the general commuter travel volumes in 2001 and 2011 are shown on Exhibit 2-5. Graphic illustrations of the 2011 commuting patterns are also shown on Exhibit 2-6 and Canada Flight Supplement 5 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, Air Navigation System Requirements Branch, Transport Canada, revised 03/2005 March 2016 Page 16

25 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-5: Comparison of Regional County of Brant Commuter Patterns, Difference County Population 31,670 35,718 4,048 County Employment 11,806 Home to Works Trips 24 hours: Work to Home Trips 24 hours: Region of Waterloo 1,650 2, Guelph GTA Hamilton 900 1, Brantford 4,400 4,300 (100) Stay within Brant 4,000 3,500 (500) Region of Waterloo Guelph GTA Brantford 3,625 3,300 (325) Stay with Brant 4,000 3,500 (500) The general observations from these commuting patterns are basically similar to what they were in The commuter patterns are still generally dispersed from the County, with Brantford as the largest destination on multiple roadway routes in and out of the City. Other major destinations are Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo in Waterloo Region to the north and Hamilton to the east. For traffic commuting to the County, it also arrives from all directions including Brantford, with Haldimand, Norfolk and Oxford Counties being large sources of commuters. The main conclusion reached from these commuting patterns is that commuting patterns from and to the County have slightly increased to some destinations (Guelph, GTA) and decreased slightly to Brantford and trips staying within the County. Continued reliance on provincial highways and County Arterial roads has these as the key linkages for travel from the County to other employment centres. Conversely, commuting to the County originates largely in surrounding urban and rural municipalities (Waterloo Region, Oxford, Haldimand, Norfolk) using a variety of County roads and available highways. There is also still a significant reliance on the use of private automobiles in making these weekly commutes, although ride-sharing appears to increasing as suggested by Exhibit 2-6. This continuing trend should be recognized when considering where and how to address growth in travel within the County, especially on roads by automobiles. This continued dependence on the automobile as the primary mode of transportation in the County is shown by the mode share of travel shown in Exhibit 2-8. It also shows that use of walking and cycling dropped noticeable since March 2016 Page 17

26 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-6: 2011 Home - Works Trips (24 Hours) Exhibit 2-7: 2011 Work-Home Trips (24 Hours) March 2016 Page 18

27 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-8: Travel Mode Share in the County (% of Daily Trips) Travel Mode 2011 TTS TTS Vehicle Driver 77% 87% Vehicle Passenger 15% 6% Transit 0% 1% Cycling / Walking 2% 5% Other 5% 1% 2.3 Existing County-Wide Traffic Conditions Existing traffic conditions on the County road network were measured in two ways for the TMP Update: 1. Measure the Level-of-Service (LOS) at specific key intersections based on the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C Ration of each intersection ( the volume of traffic through the intersection compared to the intersection capacity such as number of lanes and availability of exclusive turn lanes); and 2. Measure the Level-of-Service using the travel demand forecasting model prepared specifically for the County of Brant as part of the TMP Update. More information on the model setup and operation is provided in Appendix 2 of this report Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis In Method #1, the selected intersections were analyzed for existing conditions (2014) and future 2031 conditions based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 using Synchro 7 software. The level of service (LOS) is a measure of performance based on the control delay as summarized in Exhibit 2-9, Exhibit 2-9: LOS Performance Summary LOS Characteristic General Traffic Condition A B C Free Flow Reasonable Free Flow Stable Flow GOOD D Approaching Unstable Flow FAIR E Unstable Flow FAIR/POOR F Forced or Breakdown Flow POOR A graphic way of illustrating LOS on roads is shown on Exhibit LOS is measured by six levels or grades of generalized traffic conditions, generally characterized as 6 Transportation Tomorrow Survey March 2016 Page 19

28 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE follows, by which transportation planners determine the quality of service on roads and at intersections. 7 Exhibit 2-10: Road Level-Of-Service Ratings A signalized intersection or roadway section is considered to have critical movements for planning purposes by having any one or more of the following criteria: LOS E or worse; Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.85 or greater. For Measurement Method #1, a total of 33 County Road intersections were analyzed as shown in Exhibit 2-11 in the a.m. peak hour, and in Exhibit 2-12 in the p.m. peak hour based on current traffic volume counts. 7 Highway Capacity Manual March 2016 Page 20

29 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-11: 2014 a.m. Peak Hour Signalized Intersection King Edward St at Rest Acres Rd Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd Bethel Rd at Rest Acres Rd Colborne St West at Rest Acres Rd Intersection LOS A B B B Critical Movement LOS V/C Colborne St West at Bishopsgate Rd B NBT D 0.64 Bethel Rd at Brant 403 Business Park Access Dundas Street West at Burwell St B SBT D 0.78 William St at Grand River St N Silver St at Grand River St N Powerline Rd at Paris Rd Powerline Rd at King George Rd / Hwy 24 Powerline Rd at Park Rd / CR 32 Powerline Rd at Wayne Gretzky Pkwy Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Garden Ave Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Garden Ave Colborne St East at Garden Ave / CR 18 Dundas St E at Green Ln Henry St at Garden Ave Garden Ave at Cockshutt Rd B WBT D 0.67 Unsignalized Intersection Side Street Approach LOS V/C Powerline Rd at Rest Acres Rd EB WB B C Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd EB C 0.14 NB A 0.03 King Edward St at Puttown Rd SB B 0.23 King Edward St at Bishopsgate Rd NB B 0.23 Powerline Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB A 0.02 Bethel Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB A 0.05 Keg Ln at Brant Oxford Rd 36 WB B 0.13 Church St at King Edward St WB F 0.91 Dumfries St at Grand River St S EB NB C B Silver St at Oak Ave NB SB B B Powerline Rd at Oak Park Rd EB WB B B Paris Rd at Oak Park Rd NB C 0.24 Hwy 54 at Garden Ave / CR 18 WB B 0.25 Phelps Rd at Mount Pleasant Rd WB B 0.09 A B B B B B B A A C B A March 2016 Page 21

30 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-12: 2014 p.m. Peak Hour Signalized Intersection King Edward St at Rest Acres Rd Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd Bethel Rd at Rest Acres Rd Colborne St West at Rest Acres Rd Intersection LOS A B B B Critical Movement LOS V/C Colborne St West at Bishopsgate Rd C NBT D 0.72 Bethel Rd at Brant 403 Business Park Access Dundas Street West at Burwell St C SBT E 1.01 William St at Grand River St N Silver St at Grand River St N B SBT C 0.90 Powerline Rd at Paris Rd Powerline Rd at King George Rd / Hwy 24 Powerline Rd at Park Rd / CR 32 Powerline Rd at Wayne Gretzky Pkwy Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Garden Ave Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Garden Ave Colborne Street East at Garden Ave / CR 18 C NBT SBL SBT D D E Dundas St E at Green Lane D NBL F 1.19 Henry St at Garden Ave Garden Ave at Cockshutt Rd C WBT D 0.92 Unsignalized Intersection Side Street Approach LOS V/C Powerline Rd at Rest Acres Rd EB WB B C Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd EB C 0.20 NB B 0.02 King Edward St at Puttown Rd SB B 0.38 King Edward St at Bishopsgate Rd NB B 0.30 Powerline Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB A 0.07 Bethel Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB A 0.12 Keg Ln at Brant Oxford Rd 36 WB B 0.20 Church St at King Edward St WB F 3.14 Dumfries St at Grand River St S EB NB C B Silver St at Oak Ave NB SB C C Powerline Rd at Oak Park Rd EB WB B B Paris Rd at Oak Park Rd NB E 0.54 Hwy 54 at Garden Ave / CR 18 WB B 0.22 Phelps Rd at Mount Pleasant Rd WB B 0.14 A B B B B B A A A March 2016 Page 22

31 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE The result of the intersection capacity analysis shows that with the exception of the following five (5) intersections, no other critical intersection operating are noted in the County in 2014: Church Street / King Edward Street, Westbound, a.m. and p.m. peak hour; Dundas Street West / Burwell Street, Southbound Through, p.m. peak hour; Colborne Street East / Garden Avenue/CR 18, Southbound Through, p.m. peak hour; Dundas Street East / Green Lane, Southbound Through, p.m. peak hour; and Paris Road / Oak Park Road, Northbound, p.m. peak hour Existing Roadway Network Performance Prior to the TMP Update, the County did not have a travel demand model and road planning was undertaken on a case-by-case basis using intersection capacity analysis, trend analysis and operational studies. Based on the anticipated growth under the Provincial Growth Plan, the County determined that improved network planning, analysis, and forecasting capabilities were required. Accordingly, the County requested the development and application of a Travel Demand Forecasting Model for the TMP update. The model is intended to assist in the analysis and evaluation of sub-areas and alternative road networks. A full report on the model development and findings is included as Appendix 2 to this TMP Update. The model network is based on a direct adoption of the County of Brant road network with updates to include model attributes (speed, capacity). All major highways, connections, major arterials, and collectors are represented in the road network. Local roads are represented only in Paris, the City of Brantford, and other smaller urban communities but not across some of the rural areas. See Exhibit 2-13: County of Brant Model Road Network for the full road network used in the model. The traffic zone system used in the County model involves 129 zones consists of 69 County of Brant zones, 45 City of Brantford Zones, and 15 external zones. This achieves the desired level of detail of a sketch planning model, where the strategic growth in the County can be modelled on a zone-by-zone basis. March 2016 Page 23

32 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-13: County of Brant Model Road Network The current (2011) a.m. peak hour vehicle assignment flows on Exhibit 2-14 show that the vast majority of the County s road network is operating at a good Level-of-Service during this peak hour. The exceptions of note are: King Edward Street westbound leaving Paris between Dundas Street and Rest Acres Road; Dundas Street W eastbound leaving Paris between Grand River Street S and Paris Road; Rest Acres Road southbound leaving Paris between Powerline Road and Highway 403; and The Highway 403 on - ramps at Rest Acres Road/ Highway 24. March 2016 Page 24

33 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 2-14: 2011 a.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Assignment Level-of-Service Flows March 2016 Page 25

34 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE COUNTY GROWTH AND TRAFFIC FORCASTS As with the existing (2011) traffic conditions reported in Section 2, the TMP Update also forecast future conditions in 2031 using both the intersection capacity and modeling methods. The growth inputs and findings are summarized as follows, and report in greater detail in Model Development Report in Appendix 2 and the Capacity Analysis Report in Appendix Planned County Growth Areas and Forecasts The County of Brant provided population and employment forecasts from the Official Plan aggregated to sub-areas of the County. Other sources of growth information included available development proposals and associated transportation impact studies. The total population and employment growth in the County of Brant in 2011 and 2031 used in the forecasting is summarized below in Exhibit 3-1: County of Brant Growth Summary: Exhibit 3-1: County of Brant Growth Summary Year Population Employment ,718 11, ,000 19, to 2031 Growth 11,282 7, to 2031 Growth % 32% 61% The Official Plan allocated the 20 year population growth to the following three areas: SW Paris 7,900 Primary & Secondary Settlement 1,920 Rural Settlements 1,470 From the Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Brant County Employment Lands, nine areas were designated as employment areas to take the forecasted 61% of employment growth by 2031, as listed in Exhibit 3-2. The Model Development Report in Appendix 2 includes detailed data on the County s population and employment forecasts that were used in forecasting traffic growth to March 2016 Page 26

35 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 3-2: Designated Employment Areas in the County of Brant Area Settlement Undeveloped Lands (acres)* Net Developable Land (acres)** 1 North Paris a East Paris, north of Dundas Street b East Paris, south of Dundas Street a Rest Acres Road, north of Hwy b Rest Acres Road, south of Hwy County Road 25/Highway a Burford (village area) b Burford (Bishopsgate) Airport Area Cainsville Garden Ave/Hwy St. George Total 2,347 1,763 n/a 15% Applied Reduction*** 1,995 1,499 n/a *Gross amount of undeveloped lands in designated employment areas. **Excludes existing ponds, wetlands, floodplains, hydro corridors, future roads, etc. ***Reduced to account for sites that are unlikely to develop over the planning period. 3.2 Forecasted 2031 County Traffic Condition Rank Intersection Capacity Analysis Future 2031 capacities were analyzed for the 33 selected intersections analysed in the TMP Update to determine their future operating conditions. Volumes were calculated by adding projected growth from the demand model to the traffic counts. Future 2031 Level-of-Service (LOS) for the a.m. peak hour is shown in Exhibit 3-3, and p.m. peak hour results are shown in Exhibit 3-3. Areas of high growth or traffic operation deficiencies are outlined below: Rest Acres Road near Highway 403 has experienced large growth as a result of the developments in Southwest Paris and in Paris overall. This leads to a poor LOS of D for the westbound offramp and F for the eastbound offramp. The increased volume is primary as a result of vehicles accessing Highway 403, but the increased through volumes on Rest Acres Road also cause decreased LOS at intersections with Powerline Road, Bethel Road and Colborne Street West. Some of these Rest Acres Road deficiencies are addressed by the road widening Class Environmental Assessment completed by the County in There are long delays for vehicles accessing King Edward Street / Dundas Street West from Church Street / Dumfries Street. In 2031, conditions have worsened from the existing conditions as development has increased volumes. The majority of these vehicles are from Grand River Street South accessing King Edward/Dundas Street West. Both the intersections of King Edward Street / Dundas Street West at Church Street and at Burwell Street required for this movement exhibit poor LOS in both a.m. and p.m. periods. The reverse direction is also problematic for vehicles accessing Grand River Street South from Dumfries Street as it requires a left turn March 2016 Page 27

36 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE movement from a stop controlled approach. Signalization will need to be considered for some of these intersections. The intersection of Colborne Street East and Garden Avenue shows a LOS C in the a.m. peak with two critical movements and a LOS E in the p.m. peak with four critical movements. In the existing conditions this intersection was just reaching capacity in the p.m. peak hour but in 2031 will be over capacity. The intersections of Powerline Road at King George Road, and Green Lane and Dundas Street East both have left turn movements that are over capacity. Added left turn storage, phasing or signal optimizations are likely enough to resolve these issues. The unsignalized intersections of Oak Park Road at Paris Road and Powerline Road are small minor stop controlled intersections that exhibit poor levels of service. However since Oak Park Road provides access to Highway 403, MTO and the City plan improvements to that interchange and Brantford plans a long-term extension of Oak Park Road to Colborne Street W., the volumes on it are expected to increase. The addition of turning lanes especially for left turn vehicles will likely be enough to resolve some of these issues. Signalization can also be considered as required Road Network Performance The methodology used to forecast travel demand on the County s road network in 2031 is document in the Model Development Report in Appendix 2 of this TMP Update. To do this, the only approved change to the network configuration and capacity was the widening of Rest Acres Road to four lanes from King Edward Street to the north side Highway 403 ramps because that project has EA approval. Exhibit 3-3 shows the 2031 a.m. peak hour auto assignment flows. Several links are approaching Fair/Poor LOS E (orange) or exceeding Poor LOS F (red) capacity. See previous Exhibit 2-10 for a description of the LOS. The orange and/or red bands near the fringes of the model network are the localized effects of external zone connection, where multiple external travel demand connections have been simplified into single connections. In other words, the model v/c ratio and resulting LOS forecasts may not be accurate in the fringe areas of the model. Based on the long-term travel demand forecast to 2031, capacity deficiencies and associated poor LOS are forecast on the following County road sections: Pinehurst Road southbound approaching Paris between Watt s Pond Road and Woodslee Avenue; Dundas Street East eastbound between Grand River Street South and Paris Road; King Edwards Street westbound from Grand River Street South to Rest Acres Road (note that Rest Acres Road is 4 lanes in the 2031 model); Highway 403/Rest Acres Road southbound on ramp; CR18 northbound from Highway 54 to Colborne Street East; and March 2016 Page 28

37 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Brant-Oxford Road southbound between County boundary and Drumbo Road. The model estimates a.m. peak hour auto trip growth to 40,400 trips in 2031 compared to 28,300 trips in This is a 42% increase compared to 2011, and higher than the forecasted population growth rate (32%) due to higher employment growth forecasts for the County focused on areas in Southwest Paris. The model results indicate a priority need for widening Rest Acres Road between King Edward Street and Highway 403 which already has Class EA approval. Model output also shows that additional capacity constraints will appear at other locations in the Paris area, including King Edward Street between Rest Acres Road and Grand River Street South, and Dundas Street East between Curtis Street and Paris Road. Special Note: The travel demand forecasting model uses population and employment forecasts provided by the County. For the area immediately east of Brantford in the Cainsville / Garden Avenue area, referred to as the Hopewell lands, the model includes 248 acres of what at the time of modeling was planned as future industrial land. Since then, the County has proposed to re-designate these lands in the Official Plan to Agriculture. A decision on this re-designation was pending at the time this report was prepared, and if approved, would not generate the same levels of future traffic expected from industrial land uses. In that case, the fair to poor traffic Level-of-Service shown in the next series of tables for Colborne St. East at Garden Ave. /CR 18 would not be expected. If the re-designation is approved, then the County should update the travel demand forecasting model as part of the recommended five-year review and update of the TMP to reflect planned land use. March 2016 Page 29

38 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 3-3: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Signalized Intersection King Edward St at Rest Acres Rd Intersection LOS A Critical Movement LOS V/C Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd D WBL SBT E D Bethel Rd at Rest Acres Rd B Colborne St West at Rest Acres Rd C SBL F 1.43 Colborne St West at Bishopsgate Rd C NBT SBT D D Bethel Rd at Brant 403 Business Park Access A Dundas Street West at Burwell St B SBT D 0.80 William St at Grand River St N B Silver St at Grand River St N B Powerline Rd at Paris Rd B Powerline Rd at King George Rd / Hwy 24 B Powerline Rd at Park Rd / CR 32 B Powerline Rd at Wayne Gretzky Pkwy B Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Garden Ave A Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Garden Ave A Colborne St East at Garden Ave / CR 18 (see Special Note above) C NBT SBL D E Dundas St E at Green Ln B Henry St at Garden Ave A Garden Ave at Cockshutt Rd B WBT D 0.79 Unsignalized Intersection Side Street Approach LOS V/C EB F 0.80 Powerline Rd at Rest Acres Rd WB F 1.75 Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd EB D 0.42 King Edward St at Puttown Rd NB SB B C King Edward St at Bishopsgate Rd NB C 0.44 Powerline Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB B 0.03 Bethel Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB B 0.08 Keg Ln at Brant Oxford Rd 36 WB B 0.35 Church St at King Edward St WB F 1.76 Dumfries St at Grand River St S EB NB F B Silver St at Oak Ave NB SB B B Powerline Rd at Oak Park Rd EB WB C E Paris Rd at Oak Park Rd NB C 0.24 Hwy 54 at Garden Ave / CR 18 WB C 0.51 Phelps Rd at Mount Pleasant Rd WB B 0.11 March 2016 Page 30

39 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 3-4: 2031 p.m. Peak Hour Signalized Intersection King Edward St at Rest Acres Rd Intersection LOS B Critical Movement LOS V/C WBL NBT F E Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd D Bethel Rd at Rest Acres Rd B SBL D 1.03 Colborne St West at Rest Acres Rd B SBT B 0.90 NBT E 0.92 Colborne St West at Bishopsgate Rd D SBT D 0.81 Bethel Rd at Brant 403 Business Park Access A Dundas St West at Burwell St C SBT F 1.06 WBT D 0.65 William St at Grand River St N C WBR D 0.67 Silver St at Grand River St N D SBT F 1.11 Powerline Rd at Paris Rd B Powerline Rd at King George Rd / Hwy 24 Powerline Rd at Park Rd / CR 32 Powerline Rd at Wayne Gretzky Pkwy Hwy 403 WB Offramp at Garden Ave Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Garden Ave Colborne St East at Garden Ave / CR 18 (see Special Note above) C C B A A E WBL SBL NBL NBT SBL SBT E D E D F F Dundas St E at Green Ln E NBL F 1.30 Henry St at Garden Ave A Garden Ave at Cockshutt Rd C WBT D 0.94 Unsignalized Intersection Side Street Approach LOS V/C EB C 0.46 Powerline Rd at Rest Acres Rd WB F 0.82 Hwy 403 EB Offramp at Rest Acres Rd EB F 1.57 King Edward St at Puttown Rd NB SB B D King Edward St at Bishopsgate Rd NB C 0.58 Powerline Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB B 0.08 Bethel Rd at Bishopsgate Rd WB B 0.17 Keg Ln at Brant Oxford Rd 36 WB C 0.32 Church St at King Edward St WB F 6.10 Dumfries St at Grand River St S EB NB D B NB C 0.06 Silver St at Oak Ave Powerline Rd at Oak Park Rd SB EB WB C C F Paris Rd at Oak Park Rd NB F 0.68 Hwy 54 at Garden Ave / CR 18 WB C 0.34 Phelps Rd at Mount Pleasant Rd WB B 0.18 March 2016 Page 31

40 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 3-5: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Assignment Level-Of-Service Flows Brant Oxford Rd Pinehurst Rd Hwy 24 Good Fair Fair/Poor Poor Paris Rd Park Rd N Rest Acres Rd. 4 Lane Widening CR 18 Hwy 24 Cockshutt Cockshutt Rd Rd AREAS OF CONCERN: Grand River St. through Paris King Edward St. / Dundas St. through Paris Paris Rd. Rest Acres Rd. (unless widened to 4 lanes) Highway 403/Rest Acres Rd. Interchange Highway 24, Highway 403 to Colborne St. Traffic Diversion to County Roads March 2016 Page 32

41 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 4 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS 4.1 Paris Settlement Area For this TMP Update, a supplementary analysis was conducted specifically of future traffic conditions in the Paris community where most County growth is planned. The analysis was needed in part to account for two residential development proposals made since the Official Plan was approved in 2012, namely the North West Paris development proposed by Brookfield Homes at the north end of the Paris community, and the Paris on the Grand residential redevelopment proposal. The analysis also tested the effects of a proposed east Paris bypass via an extension of Green Lane across the Grand River as one alternative in addressing long term traffic needs in the community. The full report is included as Appendix 3 to this TMP Update. The TMP Update focuses on the transportation needs and opportunities driven by the growth anticipated by the County s Official Plan However, since the Official Plan was completed in 2012, it does not reflect the two additional developments within Paris noted above. A roadway capacity analysis with these additional developments, and of future traffic conditions in central Paris was provided. Measures to accommodate increased traffic volumes including signal timing changes, including the potential extension of Green Lane (East Paris Bypass) are analyzed to determine their effectiveness at mitigating forecasted traffic concerns. This was done for Master Planning purposes only, and would require full Environmental Assessment analysis in order to fully describe the benefits and impacts of an east bypass Paris Settlement Area Existing Conditions Existing conditions analysis was undertaken using the County s travel demand model and a capacity analysis of three major, strategic intersections in central Paris; King Edward Street & Rest Acres Road, Grand River Street North and William Street, and Grand River Street North and Silver Street. Existing 2011 traffic conditions on central Paris roads are shown in Exhibit 4-1: Existing (2011) LOS Conditions - Traffic Flow and Volume to Capacity. Traffic volumes concentrate along Grand River Street North in the vicinity of William Street with flows of vph in either direction, which is nearing the capacity of the existing road (estimated at 1,000vph per direction). South of William Street much of the traffic on Grand River Street South turns to access King Edward Street which also indicates a high Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio. The model indicates that traffic destined to the east along Dundas Street East and Paris Road uses William Street and Willow Street, which operate well within available capacity. Note: as previously shown in some Section 3 exhibits, the Volume-over-Capacity (VOC) ratios shown in this section s exhibits reflect: Green Good Yellow Fair Orange fair/poor Red Poor March 2016 Page 33

42 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-1: Existing (2011) LOS Conditions - Traffic Flow and Volume to Capacity Intersection capacity analysis was completed in Synchro 7 using HCM 2000 methodology for the three major intersections within Paris to identify any capacity constraints in the existing and/or future conditions. The first analysis scenario is the existing 2014 conditions estimated using 2011 counts and a 2% growth rate to The 2014 conditions show an acceptable level of service and good operational conditions at these three key intersections. All intersections operate at a level-ofservice (LOS) of C or better. Overall the existing conditions analysis indicates that roads within Paris operate well today, however Grand River Street North is busy with some stretches particularly in the downtown, plus sections of Dundas Street East and King Edward Street indicating flows within 10% to 20% of road capacity Paris Settlement Area Future Conditions Traffic growth in the Paris area from 2011 to 2031 background conditions is shown in Exhibit 4-2: Traffic Growth, 2011 to 2031 Background Conditions, with green lines March 2016 Page 34

43 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE representing routes with traffic growth and the line width representing traffic volume. Red lines indicate routes with traffic volume reduction between 2014 and Exhibit 4-2: Traffic Growth, 2011 to 2031 Background Conditions It can be seen that there are increased traffic volumes along Grand River Street North and South through Paris, with an increase of approximately 100vph in the peak northbound direction. This increase will raise traffic volumes along Grand River Street North and South to 1,000vph which is roughly the capacity of the existing road. This will likely lead to moderate traffic congestion, reduced travel speeds and increased delays compared to current conditions. The main growth area of the Paris community, and County of Brant overall, is the Southwest Paris Urban Settlement Area. This area extends either side of Rest Acres Road from King Edward Street south to Highway 403 and Bethel Road. The Servicing Study Report for this area was prepared by URS Canada Inc. in October 2004, and includes a range of residential and employment land uses. This growth potential is reflected in the 2012 County Official Plan. Since finalizing the current Official Plan, two new developments within Paris have been proposed; in North West Paris and Paris on the Grand. The analysis of future total traffic conditions includes the background conditions described above, plus the additional development traffic from these proposed developments. March 2016 Page 35

44 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE The North West Paris mixed residential / employment neighbourhood was proposed by Brookfield Homes in 2012 with 412 new residential units. 8 The proposed Paris on the Grand neighbourhood planned on the Paris Links golf course is east of Grand River Street North, and north and south of Paris Links Road. The Transportation Impact Study prepared for this area is based on approximately 410 new residential units being created. 9 The increased travel demand due to these new developments within Paris was estimated based on population and employment growth from these developments, and then added to the 2031 projections from the County s Official Plan. A summary of the added employment and population growth as well as the base year values are shown in Exhibit 4-3: Employment and Population Projections. Exhibit 4-3: Employment and Population Projections Demand Scenario Employment Population 2011 TTS 11,806 35, Projected 19,000 47, Projected with Added Paris Developments 19,245 48,918 The travel demand model was run with the additional developments. A comparison against the 2031 background case is provided in (green represents traffic volume increases, red traffic volume decreases). Exhibit 4-5 show the resulting LOS forecasts in the community by 2031, with major changes as follows: Grand River Street North: Total volumes increase by 115vph with the added developments, approximately 70 in the peak northbound direction. In total the future volumes under this scenario are approximately 1,100vph, which exceeds the road s base capacity of 1,000vph. Paris Road: Developments generate an additional 35vph, with this link appearing to be near capacity in the southbound direction heading to Highway 403 and the City of Brantford. King Edward Street / Rest Acres Road / Keg Lane: Owing to poor LOS on Grand River Street North and South, the model is diverting traffic from the north side of Paris to the existing Alternate 24A bypass west of the community via these streets. 8 Planning Report, GSP Group for Brookfield Homes, August Transportation Impact Study, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Inc. for Golfnorth Properties, January 2013 March 2016 Page 36

45 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-4: Traffic Growth, 2031 Background Conditions to 2031 Total Conditions Exhibit 4-5: 2031 Downtown Paris LOS with Added Developments A capacity analysis was undertaken to determine the effects of the traffic growth at an operational level. A summary of the analysis is reported below, with more analysis details provided in Appendix 3: March 2016 Page 37

46 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE King Edward Street at Rest Acres Road: The LOS of the westbound left-turn is an unacceptable LOS F with 130m queues that exceed available capacity. This is as a result of vehicles accessing Highway 403 from Paris. However this intersection is proposed for expansion by 2031 under the Rest Acres Road EA which would resolve capacity concerns. William St at Grand River Street North: Several of the movements show increased V/C ratios, however delays have not increased and all the LOS has remained the same. Grand River Street North at Silver Street: Again, several movements show large increases in the V/C ratios but overall levels of service remained the same. Overall the future total conditions indicate that there will be capacity constraints along Grand River Street North and South. Traffic operations will be characterised by increased delay and slow-moving platoons of traffic. However, problems will be localised rather than systemic, and will occur mainly along Grand River Street North and South between William Street and King Edward Street in the downtown area, and congestion will be manageable Paris Settlement Area Traffic Mitigation Measures Signal Optimization It is expected that intersection signal re-optimization in Paris will provide some minor improvements to intersection level of service over time. Installation of traffic signals may also be required in the road section between Grand River Street South and King Edward Street to manage increase traffic movement through this challenging area, depending on topography, line-of-sight and intersection redesign potential. The intersection of King Edward Street and Rest Acres Road has an unacceptable LOS F in 2031 in the west bound left turn, however an expansion of this intersection is planned in the Rest Acres Road Environmental Assessment (2012). Overall it is expected that signal optimization will improve traffic operations, but there will still be light to moderate congestion along Grand River Street South during peak times that may not be acceptable to local residents and businesses, and that would not be compatible with the small-town character of Paris Paris Long Term Bypass Corridor Protection Paris East Side Bypass / Green Lane Extension - As stated above, long term traffic growth in the Paris area to 2031 will cause increased congestion along Grand River Street North and South, Dundas Street East and King Edward Street through the community. A portion of the traffic volumes using Grand River Street North and South is pass-through traffic rather than residents or employees in Paris. To test the effect of an east side bypass option, a Green Lane extension was coded into the road network of the travel demand model. A new traffic assignment was then completed to test the impact of such a bypass, and volumes were then compared with the existing network on key roads. With a potential bypass route on the east side of Paris, as conceptually shown in Exhibit 4-6, there would be approximately 30% traffic diversion away from the Pinehurst Road/Grand River Street North/South corridor. Conversely, traffic volumes increase on Silver Street and especially Paris Links Road as traffic conditions improve on Grand River Street North, which these two roads are connected to. As conceptually shown in March 2016 Page 38

47 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-6, both an east side bypass (Green Lane extension) and Paris Links Road would receive significant traffic volumes as motorists utilize the bypass to access Brantford and Highway 403. Exhibit 4-6 shows the traffic volume differences in the road network (green is increased traffic, red decreased traffic) with a Green Lane extension east bypass. The analysis indicates that the diversion of 30% of the traffic away from Grand River Street North would provide operational benefits along this street to Further to the operational benefits, an east side bypass could provide an alternative truck route around the east side of Paris. This would likely be more attractive than the current Paris Bypass route as most trucks are travelling to Highway 403 to travel east towards the GTA, and a Green Lane extension would provide a more direct route in that direction. Exhibit 4-6: 2031 Existing Road Network Versus Potential East By-Pass According to the 2010 Paris Bypass Class EA Study Phase 1-2, an east side bypass to Green Lane would roughly cost in the area of $15 - $20 million. Since that report was prepared, a proposal has also been made to develop the Paris on the Grand subdivision on the existing golf course lands along Paris Links Road east of Grand River Street North as shown on Exhibit 4.7. It appears based on the current subdivision plan that sufficient space may be available along the east edge of that plan to protect a future road extension corridor connecting to Green Lane south of the Grand River. Another issue that has developed over the last five years that could impact an east side bypass feasibility is the new Dufferin pit operation south of Watt s Pond Road, east of Pinehurst Road. Exhibit 4.7 shows very conceptually that a road extension from Pinehurst Road to Green Lane could cross the Dufferin site boundary. In this case, arrangements and plans would be needed to protect such a road extension alignment. March 2016 Page 39

48 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-7: Paris East Side Bypass Concept These and other impacts and mitigation requirements for a Paris east side bypass, for example involving wellhead protection areas or areas of archaeological potential, would need to be studied and confirmed through a Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. If the County endorses such a plan, the corridor alignment would also have to be protected in the Official Plan. Paris West Side Bypass This route was recommended as a final alternative in the County s 2004 Truck Route Study, extending along Trussler Road (RR# 70) and Townline Road in the Region of Waterloo, and Brant Oxford Road and Puttown Road in the County of Brant. The 2004 concept would require a new 750 metre road connection constructed between Puttown Road and Bishopsgate Road over a sensitive natural heritage area that includes a designated Provincially Significant Wetland (Levy Lake-Mud Creek Wetland PSW) with an oxbow tributary of the Nith River. From there the route would continue along Bishopsgate Road, Powerline Road and Rest Acres Road to connect with the existing Highway 403 interchange. In 2010, the Paris Bypass Class EA Phase 1-2 conducted by IBI Group recommended that the roadway improvements and extension required to create a west side bypass be eliminated from further consideration. Instead, the 2010 study recommended the much simpler and less expensive Alternate 24A Truck Route now operating around the west side of Paris. A major west side bypass of Paris is still not recommended for three main, important reasons: March 2016 Page 40

49 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1. A Paris Bypass using Trussler Road is not expected to provide access to Highway 401 or Waterloo Region to the north. Neither the Region or Ministry of Transportation have any plans to construct a new Highway 401 interchange at Trussler Road within the next 20 years; 2. Road improvements and Puttown Road to Bishopsgate Road extension required to create a Paris west side bypass would require the crossing of a major sensitive natural heritage area and designated PSWs associated with the Nith River area; and 3. If a new Highway 403 interchange at Bishopsgate Road is not constructed as part of a west side bypass, then additional improvements to Powerline Road would be required to connect with Rest Acres Road and its existing highway interchange Oak Avenue As an alternative to constructing an expensive Paris bypass, another option is to determine if an alternative north-south route through the community would be available to relieve traffic pressure on Grand River Street North. Fortunately, land uses compatible with high traffic volumes have grown or are planned along most of the current primary travel arterials in the community, namely Grand River Street North, Dundas Street East and West, King Edward Street and Rest Acres Road. However, the meandering alignment of the Grand River, Nith River and associated environmentally sensitive lands severely limits the possibility of any new north-south road alignments through the community. One potential alignment suggested as part of the TMP Update process involves Oak Avenue being extended from Silver Street north to Watt s Pond Road as part of the new North West Paris subdivision proposed by Brookfield Homes in north Paris. Extending Oak Avenue north through this planned subdivision north to Watt s Pond Road would create an alternative to Grand River Street North, but only for a short section between the north community limit at Watt s Pond Road and Silver Street. From there any further road extension south would involve crossing the Nith River and CNR mainline. Oak Avenue also bisects established residential areas that would be negatively impacted by increased through traffic volumes. As such, using Oak Avenue as an alternative travel route to Grand River Street North is not recommended in this TMP Arterial Capacity Enhancement - Grand River Street North Grand River Street North is currently a 2-3 through lane arterial road with exclusive turn lanes operating within an often constrained right-of-way through Paris north of the downtown. Most property along the street is generally compatible commercial, institutional and heritage land uses. Even the large residential properties have deep front yard setbacks. Although the street operates as the main north-south arterial in Paris, traffic volumes still impact adjacent property and access through the community. Traffic flow is also impacted by intersecting street traffic and turning movements. One of the most effective ways of enhancing arterial capacity is to manage and minimize where possible the number of intersections. An important example of this in Paris is the staggered alignment of Paris Links Road and Silver Street at Grand River Street North. The January 2013 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by PTSL for the Paris on the Grand subdivision proposal reports that the combination of background traffic growth in Paris, along with traffic generated by a Paris on the Grand subdivision would result in March 2016 Page 41

50 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE some turning movement deficiencies at Grand River Street North intersections with Silver Street and Paris Links Road by To address this, the TIS first recommends widening Grand River Street North to five lanes with a two-way centre turn lane from Bradbury Crescent to south of St. Patrick Street. In the longer term, the TIS also recommends that the County study the feasibility of realigning Paris Links Road northerly to connect with Silver Street at Grand River Street North, thereby eliminating one problematic intersection in this future congested area. The January 2013 TIS for the Paris on the Grand proposal considers two potential realignment options as shown on Exhibit 4.8; A) west to Silver Street; or B) west to Capron Street. Exhibit 4-8: Paris Links Road Realignment Concepts Source: PTSL, Paris on the Grand Traffic Impact Study, January 2013 The TIS concludes that based on impacts to existing residential and school land uses, realigning Paris Links Road is not feasible in the near term. However, the TIS findings do provide the need and justification for improvements to the Grand River Street North intersections at Silver Street and Paris Links Road. The TIS findings were reviewed by PTSL in 2014 in response to County concerns about the operation of the Paris Links Road / Grand River Street North intersection with the proposed development. It was again concluded that the intersection would continue to March 2016 Page 42

51 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE operate at poor levels of service under the existing configuration. 10 With full subdivision development, the following was noted: A 25 metre long southbound left turn lane is warranted; Signals significantly improve the intersection level of service but problematic queuing issues exist; Realigning Paris Links Road north to meet with Silver Street produces good level of service; and Realigning Paris Links Road south to meet with Capron Street also produces good level of service and also better serves the nearby hospital. The 2014 review again recommends installation of an exclusive right turn lane on Paris Links Road at Grand River Street North, and a plan to realign the road north or south to meet Silver Street or Capron Street. Since any such road realignment would be beyond the limits of the proposed Paris on the Grand subdivision plan, it would require completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to confirm road alignment, property acquisition and impact mitigation. Phase 1 of the Class EA process would be provided by the Paris on the Grand TIS. Phase 2 of the Class EA process is also addressed by the alternative alignment and intersection concepts provided in the TIS, including the option of a modern roundabout at the Grand River Street North intersection with Silver Street and Paris Links Road. The TIS concludes that a one lane roundabout would have insufficient capacity to serve expected Grand River Street North traffic volumes. A two lane roundabout was deemed infeasible owing to property impacts and acquisition requirements. In conclusion, this TMP Update generally supports any measures that would reduce intersection turning movements and enhance intersection capacity along any Paris arterial road. For Grand River Street North, traffic forecasts indicate that travel demand on the Paris area road network will grow significantly by year By then, Grand River Street North and South will have light to moderate congestion, in particular between Williams Street and King Edward Street / Dundas Street East where traffic will experience delays and slow operations. The first potential mitigation measure to address these expected conditions is traffic signal optimization along Grand River Street North and South which could address some of the congestion issues, but improvements and benefits would likely be limited. Diverting approximately 30% of Grand River Street North/South traffic to an east bypass would provide a significantly longer term benefit to traffic operations in Paris, with intersections operations improved in terms of average delays and queues. It would also provide an alternative truck route around Paris that is likely more convenient for trucks from the north travelling to Highway 403 than the existing Alternate 24A bypass. The travel demand forecasting model developed for this TMP Update shows with an east side bypass, Paris Links Road between the bypass and Grand River Street North would be expected to see an increase in PM Peak Hour traffic of 200 vehicles westbound, and 330 vehicles eastbound as shown previously in Exhibit 4.6. This traffic growth needs to be considered as part of the proposed Paris on the Grand subdivision, and associated improvements to Grand River Street North. 10 PTSL letter to GSP Group, September 2, 2014 March 2016 Page 43

52 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Policy Direction Paris Area For the purposes of this TMP Update, two important recommendations are made to address forecasted roadway capacity deficiencies along the Grand River Street N/S corridor in the Paris settlement. First, maintaining the concept of a Paris east side bypass is recommended for longterm network planning. Such a project could cost in the order of $20 - $25 M in 2015 dollars, with social and natural environment impacts requiring mitigation. However, the Grand River Street North and South, Dundas Street East and King Edward Street route through Paris is an inter-regional facility of great importance to the County, connecting north to Waterloo Region and Highway 401, and Highway 403, the City of Brantford and Highway 24 to the south and east. As a result, the travel demand forecasting conducted for the TMP Update shows definite roadway capacity deficiencies as these roads experience increased traffic demands over the next 20 years. The County can employ various types of capacity and demand management measures over time to manage this traffic growth. Forecasts conducted for the TMP Update clearly shows that one effective measures involves an east side Paris bypass, with the ability to divert some 30% of future traffic off the Grand River Street North and South / Dundas Street East / King Edward Street route. Therefore, a new recommended policy direction is to include this concept in the TMP Update and Official Plan as a Potential Future Road Realignment Study Area conceptually shown on Exhibit Impacts, costs and mitigation measures associated with an east side Paris bypass would be confirmed through completion of a Schedule C Municipal Class EA. The second Paris roadway network recommendation is to conduct a Municipal Class EA to optimize and improve Grand River Street North between Bradbury Street and St. Patrick Street. This involves the Parks Links Road and Silver Street intersections expected to be impacted by Paris area growth generally, and the planned Paris on the Grand subdivision specifically. The scope of this EA, for example if it includes road realignment options, will dictate what EA schedule should be followed. 4.2 St. George Settlement Area In addition to the Paris Settlement Area, the other main urban growth area planned in the County of Brant is in the St. George Settlement Area. Significant growth in this community was not envisioned or planned in the 2008 TMP, but since then several residential subdivisions have been planned by developers in the Land Owners Group (LOG) that includes Empire Communities, Activa Group and Riverview Highlands. Combined, they propose to develop 100 hectares of land in an area generally bounded by the existing urban development area plus Brant Road / Highway 24 to the west and German School Road to the south as shown on Exhibit In the combined Traffic Impact Study prepared for the LOG, a number of roadway and intersection improvements in the area are recommended involving selected street additions, widenings, stop control additions, turn lane additions, addition of traffic control signals. The 2013 Traffic Impact Study concludes that with the improvements it recommends through to the 2035 planning horizon, the traffic related to the proposed developments in St. George can be accommodated in a safe and efficient manner St. George Traffic Impact Study, October 2013, PTSL for Armstrong Planning & Project Management 12 Ibid March 2016 Page 44

53 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-9: St. George Land Owners Group Source: County of Brant In addition to development of internal street networks for the St. George development area conceptually shown on Exhibit 4-9, the St. George Background Area Study recommends other external roadway improvements in the study area that are based on the 2013 Traffic Impact Study, for example: Horizon: Add eastbound turn lane at Beverly Street West and Scott Street/Riverview Street 1 intersection; and Install traffic signals at the Brant Road (Highway 24) and German School Road intersection, or a modern roundabout Horizon: Install traffic signals at the Beverly Street West and Empire Street 2 intersection with separate southbound left turn lane which would improve traffic operations at the intersection. A modern roundabout would be another option for the County to consider. 13 Walker, Nott, Dragicevic, Associates Ltd., April 2014 March 2016 Page 45

54 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Reference should be made to the October 2013 TIS for a full list and description of St. George roadway network works that have been identified to provide an appropriate level of traffic service for the community as part of the planned growth. 4.3 Road Classification Update Schedule B of the 2012 County Official Plan provides the County Road classification. The classifications are based on the system recommended in the 2008 TMP as previously described in Section of this Update, and shown on Exhibit 2.1. This TMP Update provided an opportunity to evaluated and update this road classification system to reflect more recent actual and expected road use changes. The result is a listing of road classification updates recommended in this TMP Update listed in Exhibit 4.10, and shown as the new recommended road classification system on Exhibit 4-11 that can be incorporated into the County s next mandatory Official Plan update Recommended Policy Direction Road Classification This TMP Update has maintained the basic road classifications found on Schedule B of the County s Official Plan. However, the updates listed in Exhibit 4-10 and shown on Exhibit 4-11 are recommended to be made to Schedule B of the Official Plan as part of the next mandatory five year review. It is important to note that the recommended classification are based on the role and function of a road, and not its current configuration. This role and function can change over time as land use changes exert different transportation pressures and needs on County roads. A good example of this change to role and function is on the short section of Bethel Road between Highway 24 and Folsetter Road. Prior to development of the Brant 403 Business Park, this section of Bethel Road operated as a Rural Local Road. Since development of the Business Park, its role and function has changed to that of a Rural Collector Road in response mainly to increased heavy truck volumes. March 2016 Page 46

55 DATE d Classification Update (Based on Official Plan Schedule B - Sept. 2012) Existing OP Classification Proposed Classification Comment Urban Residential Local Road Urban Residential Collector Road Due to increase due to development of the NW Paris. Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Collector Road Due to increase due to development of the NW Paris. Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Collector Road Due to increase due to development of the NW Paris. Rural Local Road Rural Arterial Road Pits and NW Paris Growth Dr. to Increased Use Due to Brant 403 Business Rural Local Road Rural Collector Road Park & possible Bishopsgate Interchange ast to CNR Rural Local Road *Rural Employment Local Road Reflect Actual Use Rural Local Road Rural / Urban Arterial Road Match City of Brantford - Minor Arterial Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Rural Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road Urban Employment Local Road o Lockie Rural Local Road Rural Arterial Road Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use - Future Improvements (i.e. Sanitary/storm sewers, curbs, etc.) Reflect Actual Use (St. George Road has double the AADT than Branchton Road as a Rural Arterial Road)

56 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-11: Recommended County Road Network Classification Update March 2016 Page 48

57 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 4.4 Truck Route Management Update The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the County of Brant Transportation Master Plan requires, in part, that a review be conducted of key transportation issues, and that strategic options be developed to facilitate and enhance mobility in the County. This includes a review of the role and function of roads throughout the County, and an action plan for implementing transportation infrastructure improvements. One of the most important types of transportation infrastructure improvements required by the County involves those serving the movement of goods, and more specifically the movement of heavy trucks that include aggregate resources within and to/from the County. In response, an Aggregate Resource Guide (see Appendix 4) has been developed that sets out a step-by-step process for the County to use in the application, evaluation and decision on aggregate applications. For aggregate trucking, one of the most important elements of the aggregate application process involves the planning and approval of haul routes. This also ties into the larger subject of strategic goods movement planning and management in the County. The Aggregate Resource Guide in Appendix 4 is intended to address these subjects for the County TMP Truck Management Needs The County of Brant defines a Heavy Truck as a vehicle with more than two axles and six tires. It includes a bus but not a school bus as defined by the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario. It is a vehicle with an unloaded vehicle weight exceeding 5,000 kilograms (5 tonnes). Key recommendations of the earlier May 2007 policy paper on good movement and truck routes in the County prepared for the 2008 TMP have been incorporated as policies into Section of the September 2012 County Official Plan as follows: a) The County may establish an as-required Trucking Advisory Group to review all transportation and land use policy and plan directives; b) The County and Trucking Advisory Committee may develop a Strategic Goods Movement Network; c) The County may exercise its legislative authority to ensure trucks are restricted to those origins and/or County road destinations, and/or specific communities such as Paris and Scotland. Truck haul routes are restricted to Arterial Roads and non-residential Collector Roads as indicated on Schedule B (the Transportation Plan map included in the 2012 Official Plan), thereby avoiding local roads in residential neighbourhoods to protect residents from noise and corridor emission pollutants; d) The County may, through the passing of by-laws, investigate the potential designation of a new truck by-pass of the Paris community provided that it would not require any new road or waterway crossing works that would necessitate the preparation of a Class Environmental Assessment (completed with Community of Paris Heavy Truck Restriction By-Law ); and e) The County may consider a similar truck route designation and By-law enforcement process around any other Settlement Area where the through movement of truck traffic is proven to be a community issue. March

58 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Existing Paris Area Heavy Haul Restriction By-Law While the existing County Official Plan (2012) does include the above-noted truck route policies, it does not designate actual truck routes. To date this has been done in only one specific area, namely the Paris area through By-law However, Official Plan policies c) and e) allow the County to enact similar heavy truck restriction by-laws in other communities as required. By-Law is used to specifically restrict heavy truck traffic traveling through Paris, south of Silver Street and north of King Edward Street/Dundas Street East. It excludes heavy trucks with an origin or destination within Paris as defined by the community s Urban Settlement Boundary noted on Exhibit This exhibit shows the restricted truck area involving streets approaching and within the downtown core, as well as selected residential streets outside of the core. Feedback from County staff has been that active enforcement of this By-Law by the OPP, and education and cooperation on the part of the local trucking industry have been effective to date in reducing the volume of heavy truck traffic through the Paris core. However, public input gained through the TMP Update process suggests that truck intrusion problems are still occurring in other parts of Paris, as further discussed in Section of this paper. Furthermore, concerns raised by both the public and County regarding the impacts of aggregate trucking from existing and planned extraction operations has also been considered in how to improve the County s management and control of this type of heavy truck traffic. The main conclusion reached in the TMP Update regarding the existing Paris Area Heavy Haul Restriction By-Law is that it should continue to be actively enforced as an effective way of managing heavy truck traffic in the Paris area. The only recommended amendment to the By-Law described further in Section of this TMP Update is that Silver Street and Keg Lane between Grand River Street North and Ayr Road be removed as a Designated Heavy Haul Route. However, it is also recommended that removing these routes from By-Law should not take place once Watt s Pond Road has been upgraded to accommodate heavy trucks between the Dufferin pit east of Pinehurst Road, and Ayr Road to the west. At that time, the Watt s Pond Road connection would replace the Silver Street/Keg Lane section in the Alternate 24A section of By-Law Traffic Impact Studies The County of Brant also currently manages aggregate-related heavy truck movements by establishing haul routes as part of the aggregate operation approval process. Applicants are required to submit traffic impact studies in support of pit license applications to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. These studies must address how to manage expected truck generation on recommended haul routes, and also any concerns raised by the County about this heavy truck generation and routing. These County concerns can include traffic impacts of a particular applicant within the context of other existing and planned pit sites. A number of these previous pit-related traffic impact studies have referred to a policy in the earlier 2000 County Official Plan that stated Truck haul routes are restricted to the Provincial Highways and Arterial Roads as indicated on Schedule C. More recent aggregate traffic studies have referred to the updated policy in the 2012 Official Plan that Truck haul routes are restricted to Arterial Roads and non-residential collector roads as indicted on Schedule B The County expects that truck haul routes established for all pit operations, and for truck movement in general within the County, March

59 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE comply with this policy. However, there is a statement in the 2008 TMP that In rural areas, the rural local roads provide land access to adjacent farmsteads and agricultural and aggregate operations. This provision has been used by some pit applicants to support heavy haul routes on local rural roads. As a result, the TMP Update recommends removing any use of any Local Roads as part of a heavy truck route unless required for short connecting truck route links. Exhibit 4-12: Community of Paris Heavy Vehicle Restriction (By-Law ) Best Practices Review Permissive Truck Route Bylaws Permissive truck route by-laws enacted and enforced by municipalities are used to designate existing roadways as being suitable for heavy truck traffic. Signs are posted that indicate these routes are acceptable for truck traffic. Trucks are prohibited from using non-designated routes, usually with special provisions to allow local deliveries on non-designated March

60 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE routes, and use of such routes where they form part of the shortest path to a truck s destination (a connecting link). This permissive truck route approach is usually more cost effective than using a proliferation of restricted truck route signs on all roads which are not truck routes. Conversely, permissive truck route by-laws can be difficult to enforce, especially on larger roadway networks that require effective surveillance and enforcement to restrict trucks on non-designated routes. Most municipalities use the permissive heavy truck by-law approach with green circle signage as shown here, with or without time / day limits. One advantage is that this approach simplifies the signage routine. Truckers can follow the green circles until close to their destination, rather than search for exceptions as happens in a restrictive approach. This in turn makes enforcement easier since police officers can easily see if a truck is on a permitted route, and if not the truck can be stopped and proof of the destination requested from shipping documents as is now being done in downtown Paris. Less signs are also typically required, rather than signing all routes where trucks are not permitted. Restrictive Truck Route By-Laws A restrictive approach to truck routes is similar to permitted in that trucks are supposed to stay on designated routes until they need to use final approach roads such as a local street. However, the choice of roads for heavy truck routes are more restrictive, and signage is used to show which roads cannot be used by heavy trucks, for example in residential neighbourhoods. One advantage is that this restrictive approach does allow for more fine-tuning of restricted heavy truck access, sometimes in response to citizen concerns about a particular street. However, one major disadvantage of the restrictive approach is that the large number of signs requires more costs to provide and maintain. Also, because the restriction signage is used on a specific street basis, they can lead to more and more requests from the public to install them anywhere in the community. Another major disadvantage of restrictive signage is that it is usually installed on the far side, or receiving leg of intersections. This can result in truck drivers passing through or turning at an intersection, only to find from the signage that they are restricted on the street being travelled. This can result in large trucks trying to exit a restricted street, which can involve unsafe manoeuvres. Hybrid Truck Route By-Laws One final truck route approach is a hybrid of the permissive and restrictive approach. The best practices review suggests this is not advisable as truck route management should follow one consistent system. Permitted Truck Routes for Aggregate Operations Specifically for aggregate operations, the permitting and licencing process includes municipal approval of designated heavy truck routes relating to a pit operating licence. Secondary Plan Truck Route Management A different approach to managing heavy truck movements in a municipality is through use of the Planning Act provisions for Secondary Plans. A Secondary Plan can be enacted to manage aggregate resource protection, operations, shipment and pit March

61 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE rehabilitation, all implemented through a municipal Official Plan. These objectives are all supported by the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement that includes as a goal: As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Enacting a Secondary Plan to manage aggregate resources is possible through the interface between the Planning Act and Aggregate Resources Act. The Planning Act, and associated Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws address the appropriateness of the extractive land use at a particular location. The Aggregate Resources Act focuses on the licence application process, and operation and rehabilitation of a pit or quarry. It requires that appropriate zoning, provided through the Planning Act, be in place before a pit or quarry licence can be issued. A municipal aggregate Secondary Plan can establish the goals, objectives and policies for the following elements of aggregate resource planning: Land use; Required studies; Control of emissions, noise and air quality pollutants; Location of new extraction operations; Application submission requirements; and Operations including Transportation and Haul Routing. This approach could either apply to one particular aggregate operation in the County of Brant, or more likely to all operations. Upon reviewing a limited number of Aggregate Resource Secondary Plan examples in Ontario (i.e. City of Kawartha Lakes), this TMP Update concludes that it would add another level of planning approval and appeal opportunities to the aggregate operation approval process in the County. Official Plan and perhaps Zoning By-Law amendments would be required for any significant adjustment to a permitted pit or quarry permit, such as changes to heavy haul routes, yet such changes would already require amendments through the Aggregate Resources Act. Therefore, using the Secondary Plan process to approve and regulate aggregate-related heavy haul routes is not recommended for the County of Brant Recommended Policy Direction Strategic Truck Route Management County-Wide Truck Route By-Law According to the 2008 County of Brant TMP, the County did not at that time have an explicit policy pertaining to the movement of goods by heavy trucks. While in the past this had not been a serious issue, it began taking on increasing importance as industry, aggregate extraction and other users of heavy trucks continued to grow in and around the County. This eventually led to expansion of the Paris Heavy Truck Restriction Bylaw to manage heavy truck movements generally in the Paris area, and more specifically through downtown Paris. However, there currently is no similar heavy truck management legislation covering the entire County to manage heavy truck movements. More recent expansion of aggregate operations in the County shows that reliance on aggregate permits alone to plan for and control heavy truck movement may not be sufficient to minimize impacts of such heavy truck movements in sensitive areas of the March

62 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE County. For this reason, the TMP Update recommends that the County enact a wider heavy truck restriction by-law covering the entire County. Support for this is provided according to the Ontario Trucking Association s (OTA) paper entitled Local Truck Routes: A Guide for Municipal Officials, where a municipality can calibrate a truck route by-law to meet their unique circumstances. For the County of Brant, this means enacting a County-wide by-law to manage and resolve heavy truck traffic operational compatibility, safety and quality of life impact issues throughout the County for all types of heavy truck movements, including those associated with existing, proposed and future aggregate operations. The resulting heavy truck by-law can be enacted by the County to empower and enforce regulations associated with the heavy truck definition, type of truck trips, permitted truck route streets and fines for non-compliance with the by-law. For the County of Brant, it is recommended that the delineation and management of heavy truck routes across the County be based on the roadway classification system identified on Schedule B: Transportation Plan in the 2012 Official Plan. According to Section c) of the Official Plan, heavy truck routes are restricted to the following two classes of roads: 1. Arterial Roads for the purposes of a County-wide heavy truck by-law to include Urban Arterial and Rural Arterial Roads as identified in Official Plan Schedule B; 2. Non-residential Collector Roads to include Urban Employment Collector Roads and Rural Collector Roads as identified in Official Plan Schedule B. The location of these road sections as heavy truck routes is shown on Exhibit It is also proposed that designated heavy truck routes in the County be restricted to the following additional road classes shown on Exhibit 4-13: 3. Provincial Highway 403 and Highway 24; and 4. Short sections of connecting link streets, mainly within urban settlement areas, between designated arterial road and non-residential collector roads (see Exhibit 4-13). Any heavy truck movement on any County road other than these four road classification should only be permitted without penalty if: It is proven that a vehicle is making a delivery to or a collection from a bona fide destination which cannot be reached via the above-noted four heavy truck route road classes and has taken the most direct route to the destination; and / or The trip origin or destination is allowed to receive heavy truck traffic based on a special permit provided by the County. It is important to note that where heavy truck movements are considered for short road sections noted in condition #4 above, consultation with affected property owners is essential to inform them of this truck route permission, and to determine if alternative connecting links may need to be considered. When the next mandatory five-year review of the County s Official Plan is conducted, consideration should be given to including Designated Heavy Haul Routes as a schedule in the Official Plan, or as a policy overlay on the Transportation schedule. March

63 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Modifications to Community of Paris Heavy Truck Restriction By-Law The Community of Paris Heavy Vehicle Restriction Bylaw should be revised to remove Silver Street and Keg Lane between Grand River Street North and Ayr Road as a Designated Heavy Haul Route. This east-west link should be replaced by amending Bylaw to add Watt s Pond Road from West River Road to Brant-Oxford Road as a Designated Heavy Haul Route. When modifications were first recommended for the Paris Heavy Truck Restriction By- Law in 2008, the intent was to include Silver Street/Keg Lane between Grand River Street N and Ayr Road as a final detour route for southbound heavy trucks on Grand River Road N. This traffic would avoid the downtown by using the new Alternate 24A route to the west. Heavy trucks coming down from Waterloo Region, and from the Scott Avenue/Woodslee Avenue industrial area in Paris would therefore avoid the downtown. While this detour has been effective in helping to divert heavy truck traffic from the downtown, it has also directed this traffic to Silver Street which is being classified as Residential Collector Road in the proposed County road classification system for the TMP Update. In addition to fronting single family homes, the Silver Street route also includes an elementary school. As a result, the County has received complaints from area residents about the volume of heavy trucks on Silver Street, and safety and related impacts on the abutting land use. Associated with these concerns is development of the new Dufferin pit on Watt s Pond Road east of Pinehurst Road (Highway 24A). Watt s Pond Road has been approved as part of the haul route between this new aggregate operation and Highway 403 around west side of Paris using the Alternate 24A bypass route. March

64 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 4-13: Proposed County Heavy Truck Routes March

65 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE However, Watt s Pond Road has a seasonal road restriction, and will need to be structurally upgraded to accommodate up to 60 truck movements/hour in and out of the Dufferin pit. Therefore, Watt s Pond Road between the pit and Ayr Road will need to be improved to accommodate this traffic on the Alternate 24A bypass route in order to avoid using Pinehurst Road and Grand River Street North. Since it is being recommended that the Dufferin pit traffic not use Grand River Street North and Silver Street, this provides an opportunity to remove this section of the Paris west side truck bypass from the Paris Heavy Truck Restriction By-Law , and divert all heavy truck traffic at the north end of Paris to the Alternate 24A bypass via Watt s Pond Road. Amending By-Law will require a decision of County Council including public notification and input. It is expected that the existing farmstead properties along Watt s Road and Ayr Road may object to designation of this road as a heavy truck route, but including this road in the Paris Alternate 24A west bypass would provide the opportunity to divert aggregate and other heavy truck traffic away from Grand River Street North and Silver Street/Keg Lane. Other Options to Heavy Truck Movements Through Modal Integration Given that there is an existing County-owned gravel pit as well as former gravel pit lands close to existing CNR Dundas Subdivision rail lines in Paris, and that there are active pits and the potential for additional pits in close proximity to those lands, the TMP Update has considered if there is potential for movement of aggregate by rail from the County. As a result, discussions were held with officials from CNR to have a better understanding of the logistics of having aggregates shipped by rail. This considered the minimum land area required at both ends, (loading and unloading), any limitations for access to the rail markets, minimum thresholds of use, local or other examples where aggregate movement by rail has been successful, any required infrastructure to support rail shipping, and generally the viability of pursuing such a shipping opportunity in the County of Brant. Discussions with CNR concluded that based on the relatively short distance to County of Brant aggregate markets in southern Ontario, including to the GTA, Waterloo Region and southwestern Ontario, shipping aggregates by rail is not financial feasible. Furthermore, shipment by rail would not deliver aggregates to specific receiver locations as would delivery by heavy trucks. 4.5 Age-Friendly Transportation According to the 2011 Census age distribution data, the current age demographic in the County is: Exhibit 4-14: 2011 County Age Distribution Age Group % % % % age of County Population Also, according to Ontario Ministry of Finance, the number of seniors aged 65 and over in central Ontario is projected to more than double from 1.8 million or 14% in 2009, to March

66 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 4.2 million or 23% by 2036 as baby boomers turn age 65 and over. In response, a Master Aging Plan was prepared in 2008 by a Steering Committee representing County of Brant and City of Brantford age-related social service agencies. County staff continue to take this Plan into consideration for future recreation programs, infrastructure and marketing and development initiatives. The Plan concludes that transportation is one of the key needs of seniors across the following three target groups. Exhibit 4-15: Aging Plan Targets Groups Transportation Driver Supports Pedestrian-friendly environment Inter-county transportation Planning for life transitions WELL / FIT REQUIRE SOME ASSISTANCE REQUIRE 24-HOUR ASSISTANCE Home delivery Special transit Accessibility at destinations Inter-county transportation Source: A Master Aging Plan for Brantford and the County of Brant, 2008 Special transit Attendant care As a result, this TMP Update includes recommended age-friendly transportation directions that the County can employ as part of its transportation planning process to ensure that the needs of a growing seniors population will be understood and addressed over the next 25 years. This begins with the TMP Update itself, since one of the goals of the Master Aging Plan is: 1.2 Develop an integrated county-wide transportation system. According to the Aging Plan, older County residents are concerned about the lack of public transit if and when they can no longer drive. They are also concerned about the lack of sidewalks for safe walking, rural driving speeds and readability of street signs. In short, transportation is a major priority for seniors. According to the Aging Plan, seniors also need the following, with some notes on applicability in the County of Brant added in brackets (): simple bus schedules (not currently provided in the County); improved parking; graduated licences and driver training (provincial jurisdiction); more pedestrian friendly urban environments; expanded and more flexible transportation services for the mobility impaired; subsidized taxi fares for seniors with financial March

67 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE needs (provided in the County); expanded home delivery services; and transition planning for seniors as their transportation needs and options change. Another more recent source of information on age-friendly transportation comes from a background paper prepared by the Grand River Council on Aging in It uses a framework for an age-friendly community developed by the World Health Organization that has become a checklist for each domain of an age-friendly community. For the transportation domain, the checklist includes a number of transportation - friendly elements that relate mainly to the provision of public transit noted as follows: Affordability, Reliability and Frequency, Travel Destinations, Age-Friendly Vehicles, Priority Seating, Safety and Comfort and Stops and Stations all relate to the provision of conventional scheduled transit service not currently provided in the County. Checklist elements relating to subsidized special transit service (see previous Section 2.1.4) and other age-friendly aspects of the transportation system include: Specialized Services sufficient specialized transport service are available for people with disabilities; Transport Drivers are courteous, obey traffic rules, and accommodate older passengers stepping on and off vehicles; Community Transportation including volunteer drivers and shuttle services for older people to specific events and places; Taxis are affordable with discounts or subsides provided for older people with low incomes (as currently provided in the County); Roads are well maintained, adequately wide and lite, have traffic calming features and traffic signals where warranted and the traffic flow is well regulated; and Parking - affordable parking is available, with priority parking for the disabled and older people close to buildings and transport stops Recommended Policy Direction Age Friendly Transportation In the planning and provision of future transportation services in the County involving roads, public transit, Active Transportation (walking and cycling) and public parking, it is recommended that the elements of age-friendly transportation be incorporated into these services. It is further recommended that the principles of Age - Friendly Transportation within Age - Friendly Communities be incorporated as County policy in the next update of the County Official Plan. 4.6 Sidewalk Planning and Infill The provision of sidewalks in appropriate locations is a key ingredient of a Walkable Community. The benefits of a Walkable Community are numerous, and focus on: March

68 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Enhanced access to business and associated economic development; Reduced reliance on the private automobile for short trips (i.e. <1 km) with resulting reduction in traffic and associated greenhouse gas emission; and Fostering more sustainable, complete and walkable communities. The 2008 TMP addressed walking as part of healthy communities, along with cycling and other kinds of non-motorized active transportation (e.g. roller blades, scooters, skateboards, etc.). Sidewalks are important elements of an integrated transportation system, and are provided in most urban areas of the County of Brant. In others, sidewalks are not provided, and the question addressed by this TMP update is whether this represents a need or challenge in the County. Exhibit 4-16 shows that many municipalities in Ontario have passed a Pedestrian Charter to reflect their goals and objectives about making their communities more pedestrian-friendly. None are counties, but some include large expanses of rural land. This does not preclude the County of Brant to have its own Pedestrian Charters as the foundation for its pedestrian planning. Exhibit 4-16: Principles From Pedestrian Charters in Other Ontario Municipalities Principles of a Pedestrian Charter Accessibility, Increased inclusive mobility, Reduction of auto-dependence Well designed and managed spaces and places for people Improved integration of networks, Better and more connected walking routes Land Use Planning that Supports Walking Safe Roads, Reduced road danger Prevention of crime and fear, Personal and Community Safety More supportive leaders, A culture of walking Ontario municipalities with a pedestrian charter Kingston Niagara Falls Kirkland Lake Oakville Kitchener Oshawa London Ottawa Milton Peel Region Ajax Brantford Burlington Caledon Hamilton St. Catharines Stratford Toronto Waterloo Region Welland Sidewalks are also not provided in some of the County s urban areas for two main reasons. First, development of urban employment areas (i.e. industrial areas) originally precluded the need for pedestrian movement along sidewalks as the main mode of access in most employment areas is by the private automobile. Second, in some low density residential areas, it was felt that walking along the edge of local streets would be an acceptable form of pedestrian movement. These practices have been considered in this TMP Update in two ways: 1) how sidewalks are provided through development using the County s Development and Engineering Standards, and 2) how the need for sidewalks can be evaluated using an infill approach County Development & Engineering Standards The County s current Development and Engineering Standards (May 2014), Section requires sidewalks to be provided on County roads as follows: Exhibit 4-17: Existing Sidewalk Requirements March

69 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Road Classification One Side Both Sides Urban Local Residential Urban Local Industrial Urban Collector Residential Urban Collector Industrial Urban Arterial X X X X X Streets without safe places to walk can put people at risk. Studies show that residential sidewalks have 23% of the pedestrian crashes, but only 3% of the pedestrian traffic. Streets with no sidewalks have 2.6 times more pedestrian crashes, sidewalks on one side only have 1.2 times more pedestrian crashes than streets with sidewalks on both sides 14. Thus, sidewalks on at least one side of a street provide for better, more comfortable and safer access for pedestrians. This TMP Update proposes that the County address the need for an improved walking environment and confront other barriers to walking in three ways: 1. Step 1 involves a change in the approach to pedestrian planning and design. This would start with the County endorsing its own Pedestrian Charter to recognize the benefits or walking and reaffirm the County s commitment to improving the walking environment. See Appendix 5 for an example of a Pedestrian Charter. 2. Step 2 is to update the County s sidewalk requirements in the Development and Engineering Standards to start building sidewalks on both sides of the street in all new development areas. 3. Step 3 is to develop, and implement over time, a Sidewalk Infill Program described next in this section to replace high priority missing sections of sidewalks in urban residential areas Sidewalk Infill Program The most direct way to address developed areas of the County without sidewalks is to infill sidewalks where warranted by existing or planned land use, walking patterns and affected property owner support. A Sidewalk Infill Program would support that. Major streets are the first priority due to their proximity to more walking destinations, and exposure to traffic (both higher speeds and volume). Other candidate projects (e.g., sidewalks along local roads) may be added through a property owner request process where residents can submit a letter to County staff and propose a candidate project for sidewalk infill or crossing improvement. In general, the priority for a Sidewalk Infill Program should focus on urban arterial and collector roads that: 14 Knoblauch, R.L. Tustin, B.H, Smith, S. A., and Pietrucha, M. T., Investigation of Exposure Based on Pedestrian Areas; Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets AND Major Arterials, Report No. FHWA/RD-88/038, Federal Highway Administration, September 1998 March

70 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1. Have no existing sidewalks on either side; and 2. Are located within a major activity area (i.e. employment nodes, commercial areas, school or other institutions, seniors centres), and if transit is provided, is within walking distance (i.e. 800m) of a transit stop or along a transit route. However, it is also recognized that other factors may be considered when developing priorities within a Sidewalk Infill Program, especially the support of the majority of affected property owners.. A potential priority guide for the County is shown in Exhibit Exhibit 4-18: Priority Guide for Sidewalk Infill Program Priority Factor No sidewalk on either side of the street Pedestrian fatalities within the late 3 year Pedestrian injuries within the last 3 years Lack of nearby alternative walkways Existing or future pedestrian activity Existing and future vehicle traffic volume Operating Speed Within major activity centre (i.e. employment nodes, commercial areas, institutions) Concentration of destination areas Access to elementary schools Access to secondary school Proximity to transit stops (where provided) Location along transit route (where provided) Request from the public Point Recommendations More points given where no walkways on both sides of the street Set point score per fatality Set point score per non-fatal injury Set point score if alternate walkway not in proximity (e.g. beyond 800m) Descending point score for high, medium and low pedestrian activity Descending point score for high and medium range AADT (e.g. <5,000, 5K-10K, 10K-15K, 15K-20K, >20,000 vpd) Descending point score for high to medium range of operating speeds (e.g. <50kph, 50-60kph, 60-70kph, 70-80kph, >90kph) Set point score for if within boundary of activity area or within proximity to major destination (e.g. 800m) Descending point score for high, medium and low concentration of destination areas Set point score for within elementary school proximity (e.g. within 400m) Set point score for within secondary school proximity (e.g. within 800m) Set point score for being within transit stop proximity (e.g. within 800m) Descending point score for full, partial, no transit route along infill walkway Set point score for record of public support Another important element of a successful Sidewalk Infill Program is to have an exemption provision. This is because infilling sidewalks along an existing street can be opposed by abutting property owners for a variety of reasons. When combined with needed roadway rehabilitation, it is important that a proposed sidewalk infill component does not delay the roadway improvement. Having an exemption provision helps March

71 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE ensure that new sidewalk infilling is constructed where needed most AND supported by the directly affected citizens. Exemptions can be given in one of two ways. First, the County can employ a priority ranking system using the priority guide in Exhibit 4-17 to rate a street on its priority for infilled sidewalks. Second, a municipality can employ a majority support method, similar to that used to decide on traffic calming or local improvement requests. Used especially in residential areas, at least 50% of residents in a candidate sidewalk infill area must respond to a potential sidewalk infill project, and 60% of these responders must support the proposed project Recommended Policy Direction Sidewalk Planning Strong policy and design principles can support the development of better walking environments. To demonstrate a walk-friendly approach to policy and design, the County should first consider developing and endorsing a pedestrian charter. In addition to the charter, it is recommended that the County update the sidewalk requirements in the Development and Engineering Standards to start building sidewalks on both sides of the street in all new Urban development areas, both residential and industrial. Also note that for all new and redeveloped sidewalks and multi-use trails, the County must meet the accessibility standard for the design of public spaces as required by the AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005). Public sector organizations will be obligated to meet the requirements starting January 1, For more detailed information, see exterior paths of trail in part 1V.I of the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulations 191/11. The third recommended policy direction for the County is to initiate a Sidewalk Infill Program to identify urban locations where the majority of affected residents and/or businesses support the addition of sidewalks where not currently provided. This Program should also include an exemption provision. 4.7 Active Transportation (Cycling & Trails) Draft Trails Master Plan 2010 Sections 6.8 and 6.9 of the 2008 TMP provides policy direction on the provision of active transportation features for cycling and trails in the County as part of a move towards health communities. At that time, examples of programs in the County supporting active transportation included the Hamilton-Brantford-Cambridge Trail with the support of a wide cross-section of area stakeholders, the Best of Brant Outdoors promotion by the County of Brant Tourism and the Grand River Exceptional Waters material developed by the Grand River Conservation Authority. However, in 2010, the County prepared a County of Brant Trails Master Plan, Final Report Draft. 15 New active transportation information provided by this Master Plan includes: Site inventory and analysis; Conceptual trail system county-wide previously shown on Exhibit 2-3; 15 EDA Collaborative March

72 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE New cycling and multi-use trail networks previously shown on Exhibit 2-4; and Trail guidelines for design, non-motorized use, motorized use, signage, maintenance and management, and plan implementation. To date the Trails Master Plan has not been reviewed or endorsed by County Council, but the County plans to finalize the plan as part of the Community Services Master Plan scheduled to be completed in It is recommended that the Section 6.9 Off-Road Cycling Strategy and Trail Planning Guidelines prepared for the 2008 TMP be review and incorporated where appropriate into this Community Services Master Plan Paved Shoulders On Rural Roads As part of the consultation conducted in preparing this TMP Update, the local cycling community (Brantford and Brant Ride Forum) requested that consideration be given in the TMP Update to paved shoulders on County Roads where possible. In response, the Project Team requested further information from cycling community representatives on their priorities for paved shoulders, resulting in the following list of five (5) priority routes: Governors Road from Paris towards Copetown; Powerline Road from King George Road to Bethel Church Road; East River Road between Green Lane and Brant Road Highway 24; Paris Road between Brantford and Paris up to Highway 5; and Old Highway 24 south from Mount Pleasant Road towards Waterford. Where paved shoulders for cycling are provided on County Roads, they should be designed to Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) standards to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope, which is 1.0 metres (3.3 feet) to 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) wide and the motorized vehicle. This 1.0 m -1.5 m envelope is recommended because the posted speed on most County Roads where paved shoulders may be considered is 80 km/hr. This results in a pavement width of metres ( feet) on each side of the road for a paved shoulder. The cost to retrofit a two lane County Road with 2.5 metre wide paved shoulder bike lanes is estimated at approximately $25,000/kilometre based on the TAC Geometric Design Guide Recommended Policy Direction Active Transportation The main recommendation regarding active transportation planning in the County of Brant is that it be addressed by the Community Services Master Plan planned for development in This should include consideration of active transportation strategies developed for the previous 2008 TMP, as well as subsequent planning conducted as part of the Trails Master Plan in March

73 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 4.8 Other Key Strategic Road Network Recommendations Highway Highway 24/Rest Acres Road and Bishopsgate Road In 2014, the County commissioned IBI Group to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIS) to assess the long-term road network needs in the vicinity of the Highway 403 and Rest Acres Road / Highway 24 corridors south of the Paris community near the Brant 403 Business Park as shown in Exhibit Exhibit 4-19: Brant 403 Business Park Long-Term Traffic Impact Study Area. The study found that traffic and commercial vehicle volumes are increasing along Highway 24 and Rest Acres Road in the vicinity of this Highway 403 interchange, and significant additional growth will arise from developments planned along the corridor. Furthermore, new aggregate operations under development in the County are expected to generate significant growth in heavy truck volumes of up to 200 additional trucks during peak hours, the majority of which are travelling to and from Highway 403. The aggregate industry largely serves areas outside of the County while placing a burden on the County s road maintenance needs. Two alternatives were developed to assess future transportation needs: Alternative 1 - Bishopsgate Interchange plus improvements at Highway 24 and Highway 403 interchange. Alternative 2 - Widen Highway 24 and Rest Acres Road without an interchange at Bishopsgate Road. 16 Brant 403 Business Park Long-term Traffic Impact Study, IBI Group, May 2015 March

74 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE The study found that both alternatives were high-cost, however Alternative 1 with an interchange at Bishopsgate Road provided additional network benefits to the County by providing a new access path for trucks and traffic to Highway 403. The study recommended the new interchange be assessed through a subsequent Class Environmental Assessment (EA). Aside from the new interchange, the TIS also identified a need for surface improvements at the existing interchange at Highway 403 and Rest Acres Road. The primary requirement is for a second southbound through lane and a second westbound left turn (E-N/S). These improvements will be subject to another Class EA. Following the recommendations of the TIS, the County has made a new Highway 403 interchange at Bishopsgate Road a priority, and has initiated a combined Class Environmental Assessment of this undertaking in association with capacity and operation improvements to the existing interchange at Rest Acres Road / Highway 24. The new interchange, and improvements at the existing interchange, will provide a substantial improvement to the road network for County of Brant, serving background and development traffic growth as well as providing new accessibility to Highway 403 for the County Highway 401 / Trussler Road / Brant-Oxford Road Neither the Region of Waterloo TMP (Moving Forward 2013) approved in 2011, nor the City of Kitchener s Integrated TMP approved in 2013 identify the need for a new interchange at Highway 401 and Trussler Road within the next 20 year planning horizon. This is based on the amount and allocation of population and employment growth in south Kitchener by It is included only as a mature state improvement expected beyond the 20 year timeframe as shown in Exhibit 4-20 from the Kitchener Integrated TMP. This is important for the County of Brant since there have been suggestions in the past to link the Brant-Oxford Road along the west edge of the County to Trussler Road in Waterloo Region, linking with a new Highway 401 interchange in the vicinity of Trussler Road. However, the rationale for such a connection to serve future goods movement in Kitchener and the overall Waterloo Region may be made based on further goods movement considerations and truck demand forecasting. The Region of Waterloo TMP therefore recommends that this possibility be confirmed as part of a subsequent Municipal Class EA study for Highway 401 access improvements. The Kitchener TMP also recommends that further route planning of a new Highway 401 connection in south Kitchener should be conducted mainly for long-term corridor protection purposes as the southwest area develops. Exhibit 4-20: Kitchener SW Corridor Protection Source: City of Kitchener Integrated Transportation Master Plan, 2013 March

75 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Highway 401 to Highway 403 Corridor When the County s 2008 TMP was being prepared, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) was also involved in the Brantford to Cambridge Environmental Assessment. In 2009, MTO received approval of an EA Terms of Reference to conduct the Assessment as an Individual EA. The purpose of the EA was to address long-term transportation problems and opportunities between Highway 401 at Cambridge, and Highway 403 at Brantford. However, since then the study process was stopped, and MTO is assessing its planning priorities and schedule for actually conducting the Individual EA. The project is listed in the Southern Highways Program only under Planning for the Future. 4.9 Public Transit Service Update The County s 2008 TMP includes an assessment of three different ways to provide public transit service in the County: A transit or commuter service provided through the pooling of travel resources by people located in specific areas of the County and who commute to the same destination in the same time. This type of van or car-pooling could be operated either by the County or by an independent operator such as a major employer or taxi company; A demand response service such as Dial-A-Bus or Shared Ride Taxi similar to services provided to the disabled but open to all the public; or A fixed route transit service with regular routes where transit vehicles operate on a regular schedule. Then in 2011, three types of service delivery alternatives were also evaluated to provide public transit service in the County: The County contract with a private operator such as a school bus operator, taxi operator or other type of private transportation firm. In 2008 Paris taxi operated a Brantford Terminal to Paris shuttle service, but it ceased operation owning to low ridership and poor financial performance; The County contract with an existing transit service provided, most likely Brantford Transit, to extend service into areas of the County (i.e. Paris) with adequate ridership potential; or The County itself operate a public transit service. To link such a service to Brantford Transit, the County have to obtain the necessary Public Vehicles licence or contract with a licenced operator. In 2008, the annual cost of providing a basic service was estimated at between $100,000 to $225,000/year ($115,000 - $260,000 today) depending on the service area, plus about $1 Million in initial capital costs minus potential gas tax rebates. Expected ridership at $2.00/ride would have the County subsidizing about 50% of the annual operating cost. March

76 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE These options were evaluated in a 2011 study the County commissioned that looked at the demand and alternative approaches for a conventional transit service. The study, entitled Improved Paris Area Transit Service Pilot Program 17 concluded to work with a local service provider operating at that time (Paris Taxi) to improve the services being offered. At the same time, the County continued to provide a specialized transit service for people with disabilities through a contract with a local operator. It was recommended that if the County wished to purse a conventional transit service, then they should consider undertaking a transit feasibility study, recommended in the 2011 study, to assess the need, service and cost options. The most important criteria of this 2011 recommendation is that any net cost to provide the service would be the responsibility of the County Also, since 2008, the City of Brantford has conducted a number of studies on how to improve service and increase ridership over the short to long term (2031). These plans were combined into the City s TMP Update in 2014 which states in part 18 : Work with GO Transit, as per GO Business Case study conducted with the TMP, to have the City and County included in the GO Transit service area and to have GO Transit bus service introduced between Brantford and Hamilton initially, followed by routes to Cambridge and Aldershot/Burlington; and In conjunction with the County of Brant, explore the re-introduction of transit service to Paris. The 2008 County TMP concluded that the recent history of providing transit service beyond the boundary of Brantford had shown low demand and a break-even financial performance at best. As a result, the County TMP recommended that a private operator offer a Brantford terminal-to-paris shuttle service, but that the County of Brant and City of Branford actively support and help promote such a service Recommended Policy Direction Public Transit Service The County s TMP Update concludes that the best and most practical approach to the provision of public transit service in the County continues to be a combination of expanded Brantford Transit service into the Paris area, along with provision of a private operator service with the support of the County for other proven ridership areas of the County. 17 IBI Group, June 27, City of Brantford Transportation Master Plan Update, IBI Group, November 2014 March

77 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 5 AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 5.1 Purpose As previously reported in Section of this report, the purpose of a new Aggregate Resource Guide for the County of Brant is to both establish clear guidelines for processing applications under the Planning Act for aggregate resource (pit) applications, and to provide general information on the overall aggregate-related planning processes. Although pit applicants must mitigate specific pit impacts such as noise and dust from abutting land uses, off-site impacts of increased truck traffic often extends well beyond the property. One of the important elements of an aggregate application relates to truck routes and associated impacts. These subjects typically generate public interest from a much larger community that has the potential to be impacted. Section 4.4 of this TMP describes the truck route management policies recommended for the County, as shown on Exhibit However, one limitation of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA), which is enforced by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MNRF), is that it does not have the jurisdiction to enforce matters outside the pit lands, including issues related to external roads and truck routes. Therefore, provincial approval of a pit application cannot dictate truck routes or road improvements. The only way that the County can make conditions to designate truck routes and related road improvements for an aggregate operation beyond its application limits is either through a rezoning process, or through negotiations with the applicant. In order to do this effectively, the County requires a plan on which to base its truck route requirements, such as the truck route system recommended in the TMP, which then forms part of an overall aggregate pit application. With the County-wide truck routes defined within the TMP, the Aggregate Resource Guide can be used to initiate negotiations with pit operators based on relevant provincial policies, Official Plan policies and ministry and agency regulations. It establishes requirements for application submissions, including required reports and studies. It also addresses potential impacts from aggregate pit operations and associated public consultation expectations. The Aggregate Resource Guide prepared as part of the TMP Update is included as Appendix 4 of this report, and is intended for: The Public: To provide an overview of the importance of aggregates to the provincial and local economy, to identify its location within the County, to highlight the planning process for new applications and specifically highlighting key opportunities for public engagement. Prospective Pit Applicants: To provide a detailed outline of the planning process under the Planning Act with an emphasis on land use approvals (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment) including the technical studies required to support the application. Also provided is a brief outline of the Aggregate Resources Act which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). March

78 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE The full Aggregate Resource Guide prepared by IBI Group and dated March 2015 included in Appendix 4 of this report is summarized as follows. 5.2 Aggregate Resources in the County of Brant Section 2-6 of the Aggregate Resource Guide reports on the past, present and future state of aggregate resources and extraction areas in the County of Brant. Section 7-8 of the Guide discusses the enabling legislation from the Planning Act, and the various approvals required to operate a pit or quarry. Section 8 includes presubmission requirements, duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples, Official Plan amendment process, zoning bylaw amendment process and requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act. 5.3 Recommended Aggregate Study Requirements Sections 9-11 of the Aggregate Resource Guide presents the County of Brant s required studies to support any application for a pit or quarry. Section 9 includes requirements for: 1. Planning Rationale Report; 2. Cultural Heritage Impact Study; 3. Hydrogeology Study / Groundwater Impact Study; 4. Environmental Impact Statement, Tree Survey and Protection Report including a Tree Retention Plan; 5. Noise Impact Study; 6. Transportation Impact Study; 7. Dust and Air Quality Impact Study; 8. Vibration Study; and 9. Rehabilitation Plan. Section 10 of the Guide includes recommendations on application fees, peer review costs and Conservation Authority fees. March

79 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 6 TRANSPORTATION POLICY GUIDELINES 6.1 Updated Guideline Part of the 2008 TMP for the County of Brant includes a series of policy guidelines for use by County staff in addressing related transportation issues. As part of this TMP Update, each of these guidelines have been reviewed, and the following conclusions made about the need to update or otherwise change this 2008 information Road Classification The TMP Update undertook a major re-evaluation of County road classifications as presented in the 2008 TMP. A number of changes to road classifications are described in Section 4.3 of this Update, listed on Exhibit 4-8 and shown on Exhibit 4-9. This includes the addition of a new classification category, namely the Potential Future Road Realignment Study Area that identifies areas of the County where future road realignments and extensions may be studied Goods Movement / Truck Routes In the 2008 TMP, Section 4.5 Truck Routes in the County s Official Plan at that time was found to be inadequate in providing a strong policy foundation for the development and management of designated truck routes in the County. This was because the previous Official Plan had relied on preparation of a Truck Route Study that had not been adopted by County Council. This policy gap has subsequently been addressed in the 2012 Official Plan with clearer directions in Section for development of a Strategic Goods Movement Network Plan. This Network Plan has in effect been prepared as part of the TMP Update in the form of the Proposed County Heavy Truck Routes plan included as Exhibit It includes proposed designation of truck routes in the County for consideration to include in the next mandatory Official Plan review, and recommended adjustments to the County s Bylaw Heavy Vehicle Restrictions in the Paris Community. Furthermore, goods movement guidelines specifically for the aggregate operations in the County are now provided in the Aggregate Resource Guide included as Appendix 4 of the TMP Update Transit Service In 2011, a study was conducted of the demand for and alternative approaches to a conventional transit service in the County. Entitled Improved Paris Area Transit Service Pilot Program 19 it concluded that it would be best to work with a local service provider operating at that time (Paris Taxi) to improve the services being offered. Those transit services have since been canceled. At the same time, the County continued to provide a specialized transit service for people with disabilities through a contract with a local operator. It was recommended that if the County wished to purse a conventional transit service, then they should 19 IBI Group, June 27, 2011 March

80 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE consider undertaking a transit feasibility study to assess the need, service and cost options. The most important criteria of this 2011 recommendation is that any net cost to provide the service would be the responsibility of the County Also, since 2008, the City of Brantford has conducted a number of studies on how to improve service and increase ridership over the short to long term (2031). For transit, they include a recommendation to re-introduce a transit service to Paris with an extended Brantford Transit service. The TMP Update concludes that the best and most practical approach to the provision of public transit service in the County continues to be a combination of expanded Brantford Transit service into the Paris area, along with provision of a private operator service with the support of the County for other proven ridership areas of the County Trail Planning Many of the trail planning recommendations included the 2008 TMP Appendix remain valid today. However, the main change is that those guidelines can now be refined and finalized within the context of a comprehensive active transportation plan that is proposed to be developed in 2016 as part of the planned Community Services Master Plan. When that active transportation plan is finalized and approved, it should replace previous guidelines and recommendations for trail and bikeway planning included in the 2008 TMP Traffic Calming The Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (CITE), and the Transportation Association of Canada s (TAC) Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming define traffic calming as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Traffic calming uses mainly physical traffic management techniques to reduce traffic speed and volume on neighbourhoods and public facilities such as schools, parks and community centres. It is used to: Reduce motorized vehicle speed; Improve neighbourhood liveability; Increase safety for all road users; and Reduce the negative impacts of traffic at the neighbourhood level. The County of Brant has previously not had a traffic calming policy or guidelines. However, traffic calming has become increasingly important in most urban municipalities. Urban growth and associated automobile dependency often causes motorists to seek the shortest travel distances and alternative travel routes to their destinations. In some cases, these routes pass sensitive land uses such as houses, parks, schools and community centres. The added traffic volumes can also put considerable strain on an area s roadway network to safely accommodate all users within the public right-of-way. For example, where there is deficient arterial roadway capacity around a neighbourhood, motorists may choose to take alternative routes using collector and local streets that are not intended for such traffic volumes. This inappropriate use of neighbourhood streets can have the following effects: March

81 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Local or collector streets begin to operate as arterial road bypasses through a neighbourhood; Motorists operate vehicles at speeds which are not appropriate for the surrounding setting and/or roadside environment because road design accommodates higher speeds (i.e. drivers drive at a speed they are comfortable with); The safety of all road users is decreased due to the speed, volume and other motorist compliance issues such as running stops at Stop signs; and Police resources to address these types of neighbourhood traffic issues are extremely limited, and only effective at the time of application. In response to these conditions that can occur in the County s urban areas, a Traffic Calming Policy has been developed as part of the TMP Update, and is included in Appendix 6. It covers two main conditions for traffic calming, namely in new subdivisions and site plans, and for existing developments. The Policy also includes a recommended Traffic Calming Study Process to be used by the County in determining if traffic calming is warranted, and deciding on calming measures where it is including public consultation. The Policy also describes the traffic calming measures typically available to either prevent potential problems or address existing problems. Horizontal deflections include: Modern Roundabouts; Traffic Circles and Mini-Roundabouts; Curb Extensions; Median Islands; Corner Curb Radius Reduction; Chicanes; and On-street Parking. Vertical deflection measures available for use in the County are: Speed Humps and Tables; Speed Cushions; Raised Crosswalks and Intersections; and Other measures The Policy also describes the types of street obstructions and closures that may be considered for use in the County, as well as traffic calming signage. The intent of the Traffic Calming Policy is that it is used by County staff to identify conditions where calming measures are warranted, either in the design of new subdivisions and site plans or to address traffic intrusion and speed issues on existing streets, and to select the most appropriate form of calming to apply. This information is all found in the Traffic Calming Policy in Appendix 6. March

82 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Transportation Impact Studies Requirements for the preparation of Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) in the County of Brant should continue to use the direction for use provided in the July 2007 TIS Guidelines appended to the 2008 TMP. This includes: When is a TIS required? TIS scope; TIS study area; Analysis period; Background vs. site-generated traffic; Traffic demand estimation and assignment; Evaluation of impacts of site-generated travel demands; Site plan, parking and access requirements; and Documentation and reporting. In addition to these existing TIS requirements, it is recommended that new requirements for special traffic generators such as Tim Horton s and agricultural tourism operations such as wineries and breweries be added. Traffic analyses for special traffic generators should first be based on comparable operations, and not use standard ITE or default rates. Basically, this would involve a survey of similar operations as the one under consideration, with similar being the parking lot size, number of seats and other possible quantitative site comparisons. Three (3) proxy sites should also be reviewed to help eliminate any bias or erroneous data for similar land uses. For Tim Horton s, a queue spillback survey from the drive thru is specifically recommended. For other special events, for example fairs and other seasonal large rural attractions, the County should require, as part of its standard Special Events Request Application, the preparation of a Special Events Plan that addresses site access and egress, parking and traffic management Cash-In-Lieu of Parking The County s current Official Plan only allows the County to consider Cash-In-Lieu of parking in the designated Core Areas of its settlement areas. In cases where a proposed development or redevelopment cannot provide the amount of on-site parking required by the County s Zoning Bylaw, at its discretion the County can decide to collect cash in lieu of that parking. This typically occurs in older parts of core areas where historic building and lot configuration, and the possibility of heritage features limit space available to provide on-site parking. This policy is supported as a means of protecting Core Area features while still ensuring parking is required as per Zoning Bylaw provisions. Such cash should only be used to provide additional parking spaces in the Core Area in which the related development or redevelopment is located. Another option is for the County to pool all Cash-in-Lieu of parking in one County-wide reserve to be applied where most needed. This County- March

83 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE wide reserve approach may be more useful for the County in terms of generating sufficient funds to actually construct parking stalls, rather than relying on growth of reserves in each of the Core Areas. Another policy recommendation is that the value set for payment of Cash-In-Lieu of Parking should match the real value and cost of parking stalls. For example, if construction of a typical surface parking stall in the Core Areas is $5,000/stall (land, pavement, lighting, drainage), then that should be the Cash-In-Lieu of parking rate. 6.2 Maintained Guidelines Access Management Guidelines for access to property in the 2008 TMP are still appropriate in 2015 and should continue to be used by the County. This involves the County Road access management provisions involving property access layout and design, as well as access priorities presented in the 2008 guidelines Transportation Oriented Subdivision Design The Transportation-Oriented Subdivision Design Policy Guideline report dated July 2007 and appended to the 2008 TMP remain valid today. The County has Development and Engineering Standards (May 2014) that provide guidance and direction in the provision of infrastructure for subdivision and site development; roads, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water distribution systems, other utilities and lot grading. The Transportation-Oriented Subdivision Design guidelines are intended to augment the County s Standards as they relate specifically to mobility and transportation. Guidelines are provided for the following main elements of subdivision design: System-wide planning for all transportation modes, now referred to as Complete Streets where streets are designed to safely accommodate all users walking, disabled, cycling, transit and motorized vehicles; Compact and accessible development forms; Roadway network patterns and street layouts (i.e. grid layout, circuitous layout); Site layout and organization; and Transit-supportive strategies through subdivision design in the Paris area Traffic Control Warrants The Traffic Control Warrants Policy Guidelines dated May 2007 remain valid since the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 5 on Regulatory Signs dated March 2000, and Book 12 on Traffic Signals dated July 2001 remain unchanged. The new Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 on Cycling Facilities dated December 2013 came into effect after the 2008 TMP was finalized. It should now be referred to in any transportation planning and engineering in the County that includes space, controls and signage for cycling. March

84 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE It is recommended that the County maintain their existing traffic control device warrants. By maintaining and supporting the County s existing traffic control device warrants, the following benefits may be realized: Provide a relatively consistent application of traffic control; Establish priority funding of traffic control devices in a fair and logical approach; Reduce cases where traffic control is excessive, which causes additional person-delay and emissions; Reduce the potential for road user apathy and non-compliance, which may lead to an increase in collision potential; Facilitates the ability to effectively regulate and enforce traffic regulations and by-laws; and Provide the development community with a benchmark for establishing appropriate traffic control devices related to their development proposal impact. In terms of implementing this directive, it is recommended that County staff continue to provide advice and documentation to Council on the appropriateness of proposed traffic control devices and that the impacts of varying from approved warrants be clearly documented. This includes the use of traffic signals, all-way stops, stop signs and pedestrian crosswalks. In addition, the County should pursue opportunities to educate the public with regards to proper transportation control applications and the reasons behind the warrants that they have established. The County s existing web site can include valuable resource information relating to such transportation matters such as setting posted speed limits, use of all-way stops and stop signs, truck routes and Active Transportation routes (i.e. trials and bikeways). The County s web site and public correspondence (i.e., projectspecific public information centres, responses to resident inquiries) are good opportunities to provide the general information to inform residents of the rationale behind their warranting procedures Modern Roundabouts There have been advancements in the planning of modern roundabouts in the County of Brant since the 2008 TMP was approved. The Municipal Class EA approved in late 2012 for Rest Acres Road capacity improvements from King Edward Street to Highway 403 includes three planned roundabout at the intersections of Rest Acres Road with the planned Arlington Parkway, Street H and Street I. These planned locations are shown in Exhibit 6-1: March

85 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exhibit 6-1: Rest Acres Road Planned Modern Roundabouts Furthermore, the County should continue to use the 2008 guidelines when considering the use of modern roundabouts on County roadways as an alternative to signalized intersections where appropriate design guidelines can be met, and the operational, safety and financial benefits are superior to alternative forms of intersection control. A modern roundabout should be considered when planning/designing: The installation of traffic signal control at an existing intersection, where signals have met the applicable warrants; A new County Road intersection; and/or Improvements at a County Road intersection to address safety or capacity concerns. The feasibility and benefit of providing a modern roundabout should be determined through an Intersection Traffic Control Study. An intersection traffic control study includes a review of the reasonable forms of traffic control for a particular location or corridor and would include, but not be limited to, the following primary measures: Road user safety for all potential users including a detailed review of the societal costs of collision potential; Level of service and delay for all potential users; Environmental impacts such as fuel consumption, vehicle emissions and noise; Capital and operating costs; Compatibility with road/corridor traffic control strategies, and adjacent land use and access; Property impacts; and Effects on transit operations, emergency service provision, accommodation of persons with disabilities and farm vehicle operations. March

86 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Noise Attenuation The County should continue to use the guidelines for noise attenuation barriers under the four conditions reported in the May 2008 guidelines appended to the 2008 TMP, namely: Where there is no associated road works (i.e. retrofit noise barriers only on a block, not individual lot basis where the traffic volume on an adjacent arterial road exceeds 10,000 vehicles/day); Associated with arterial road widening (County arterials only); Associated with new development roads; and Associated with rail lines Transportation Demand Management One of the policy directions included in the 2008 TMP involved the role Transportation Demand Management (TDM) should realistically play in the County. TDM is defined as strategies and actions intended to reduce the demand for vehicular travel by changing travel demands, times and modes. The objective of TDM is to make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, and reduce or at least maintain the environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, of motorized vehicular travel. As shown on the chart below, TDM strategies are typically focused on the demand side of the transportation supply/demand relationship through three types of strategies: Structural Strategies (Supply-Side) Widen Roads Add Travel Lanes Build New Roads Add Bicycle Lanes Improve Roadway Geometrics & Conditions Divert Traffic Market-Based: User Pay Parking Supply/Pricing TDM Strategies (Demand-Side) Behaviour-Based: Transit Service Telecommuting Ride-Sharing Peak-Hour Shifts Land Use-Based: Increase Density Mixed Land Use Market-Based Strategies affect the individual or collective cost to travel; Behaviour-Based Strategies affect the personal decision on when and how to travel, and; Land Use-Based Strategies affect the functional relationship and proximity between major travel origins and destinations, most notably the home/work trip. The following is a summary list of the types of TDM measures most commonly being considered or applied in North American municipalities. As reported in 2008, many are not applicable in a rural context such as the County of Brant, although some selected measures may be applied in urban communities such as the Paris area: March

87 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TDM Strategy Applicability for County of Brant Market Based: User Pay includes measures to increase the cost of travel by the private automobile, especially during peak hours, to reduce or eliminate trips, encourage them to be made at different times or use an alternative travel mode. User pay is usually applied using road tolls Parking Supply/Pricing involves limiting the supply of long term employee parking and increasing the cost to encourage employees to use alternatives to the private auto. NO, toll roads would be difficult to operate on a rural grid network as found in the County and the urban areas. The only controlled access roadway where tolling is possible is Highway 403 and MTO has no policies or plans to toll this highway. NO, limiting long term employee parking in any area of the County, and especially in the urban communities, can discourage economic development and investment. Behaviour-Based: Transit Service expansion into appropriate areas of the County would provide an alternative to auto use in these areas. Telecommuting has more people working from their home, thereby eliminating their peak period home-work and work-home trips. Ride-Sharing involves a number of programs designed to facilitate increased vehicle occupancy. It usually requires some degree of collective organization, for example by a large employer, to be effective. Peak Hour Shifts encourage work trips during the off-peak periods of the day, such as before 7 a.m. and after 9 a.m. using flextime or variable work hours. YES, the Transit Policy concludes that the County of Brant and City of Brantford work to extend Brantford Transit service into the County, but ridership would need to grow significantly before this can have any TDM effect. YES, although the ability to telecommute is dependent on the type of employment and the support of the employer, and is expected to reduce trip-making by no more than 5% in the County. YES, ride-sharing can be practical in the County if offered and supported by large employers, along with incentives to ride-share such as preferential parking and guaranteed ride home programs. The County could provide such a service for the Burford office for example, but effectiveness would be dependent on how many employees participate. NO, many employees already have flextime or variable work hours so the benefit of peak hour shifts in the County is expected to be minimal. It also conflicts with effective ride-sharing. Land Use-Based: Increase Density in urban communities supports the use of transit and active transportation (cycling and walking) as alternatives to auto use through intensification of development. YES, the new Places To Grow legislation and County Official Plan include requirements for increased density and intensification. The issue in the County will be whether existing communities will accept higher density urban forms, compared to the low density suburban March

88 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE expansion that has exemplified most of the County s growth. Mixed Land Use that has residences, jobs, retailing and services built in closer proximity, or as one combined project. This can significantly reduce the need for auto travel and promotes active transportation (cycling and walking). YES, supported by Official Plan policies, cooperative developers, community support and political commitment in the County to see the development of enough mixed use projects to have any TDM benefit. March

89 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 7 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN / IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN UPDATE 7.1 Capital Cost Estimate The 2008 TMP includes capital cost estimates for major recommended transportation system improvements from 2008 to It identified improvement projects and estimated conceptual costs in the following three planning horizons: Short term to 2011 totalling $475,000; Medium term to 2021 totalling $10.6 Million; and Long term to 2031 totalling $23 Million. The total capital cost estimate for transportation improvements projects between 2008 and 2031 was $34 Million, or about $1.5 Million/year. These forecasts have now been updated based on projects conducted by the County since 2008, and new capital project recommendations included in this TMP Update. The TMP Update planning horizon has remained at 2031 because that is the horizon for the current Official Plan. All travel demand and service forecasting reported in this Update are to the 2031 horizon, and therefore associated capital cost estimates are to that horizon. Rather than using the three planning horizons from the previous TMP s 23 year planning timeframe, the updated 16 year timeframe is now presented as Shortterm projects from , and Long-term projects from 2022 to Short Term to 2021 Exhibit 7-1 summarizes the status of outstanding (not completed) short-term project recommendations from the 2008 TMP, plus new recommendations from this TMP Update. This includes Class D (-30% - +50%) conceptual level capital cost estimates: Exhibit 7-1: Short Term Project Capital Costs to 2021 Recommended Project 1. Complete the County Trails Master Plan as part of the County s Community Services Master Plan starting in Widen/improve Rest Acres Road from King Edward Street to Highway 403 north ramps as per approved 2012 Class EA. Class D Conceptual Capital Cost $8.1 Million as per Rest Acres Road Class EA, August 2012 Current Status Cost dependent on Community Services Master Plan recommendations. EA approved. Awaiting funding confirmation based on continued subdivision development in southwest Paris. 3. Complete a King Edward Street Widening/Improvement Class EA from Church Street to Rest Acres Road to $200,000 (estimate) Recommended in 2008 TMP. March

90 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE enhance the capacity of King Edward Street in southwest Paris. 4.a Conduct a Group C (bumped down from Group B) Provincial Transportation Facilities EA to improve capacity and operation of the Rest Acres Rd./Highway 24 interchange at Highway 403, and. 4.b. Conduct a Group C Provincial Transportation Facilities EA to build an interchange at Bishopsgate Road/Highway 403. $400,000 Estimated cost as per BT Engineering Ltd. cost proposal dated June 19, Construct improvements to Rest Acres Road/Highway 24 interchange at Highway 403 as recommended in the above-noted EA study. The approved design may include: Signalize or install a roundabout at the Highway 403 eastbound off-ramp at Rest Acres Road; add left turn lane and southbound through lane to the WB off-ramp; and widen Rest Acres Road/Highway 24 from Highway 403 interchange ramps to Bethel Road. 6. Reconstruct Watt s Pond Road from Pinehurst Road to Brant-Oxford Road via Ayr Road and Keg Lane. 7. Conduct a Schedule C Municipal Class EA of a Paris area eastern bypass from Pinehurst Road to Dundas Street East, Paris Road and Highway Conduct a Schedule B or C Municipal Class EA to optimize Grand River Street North between Bradbury Cres. and St. Patrick Street. Sub-Total Short-Term Cost Estimate $7.0 Million for interchange and related road improvements, excluding property acquisition. Cost estimate as per Brant 403 Business Park Longterm Traffic Impact Study, June 2015 Capital cost dependent on final EA recommendations and approved detailed design. $5.0 Million Based on full reconstruction of the road surface and ditching. $500,000 Final EA cost dependent on study area, scope of alternatives and extent of agency, stakeholder and public consultation. $200,000 Final EA schedule and cost will be determined by study scope and range of options considered (i.e. road realignment, roundabout, etc.) $21.4 Million March

91 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Note: The need to widen Highway 24 to four lanes from Bethel Road south to Colborne Street West, as identified in this TMP Update and the associated Brant 403 Business Park Long-term Traffic Impact Study (IBI Group, June 2015) is estimated to cost in the range of $20 million to $24 million. Since this project would involve a provincial highway, it is expected to be a provincial cost Long Term Exhibit 7-2 presents the only major long term transportation system improvement for the County from 2022 to 2031 recommended in this TMP Update, with Class D (-30% - +50%) conceptual level capital cost estimates from 2022 to Protection of an east-side Paris bypass corridor is also recommended in this plan, but with no capital cost until such time that the preliminary design alignment has been confirmed through a completed Schedule C Environmental Assessment endorsed by the County and filed with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and any alternative funding sources become available: Exhibit 7-2: Long Term Project Capital Costs to 2031 Recommended Project 1. Construct improvements to Bishopsgate Road at Highway 403 including interchange ramps and associated road improvements as per Project 4.b EA and detailed design. Sub-Total Long-Term Cost Estimate Class D Conceptual Capital Cost $14.7 Million as per Brant 403 Business Park Longterm Traffic Impact Study, June $14.7 Million Current Status Capital cost dependent on final EA recommendations and approved detailed design. 7.2 Official Plan Integration Requirements The County s current Official Plan approved in 2012 includes some revisions to the Transportation System section that were recommended in the 2008 TMP. This includes continued use of the County Road classification system developed in the 2008 TMP, transportation corridor protection where required, encouragement of appropriate public transit service and an update of goods and people movement principles Official Plan Review & Update It is recommended that when the next mandatory five-year Official Plan review and update is conducted in or about 2017, further edits to the Transportation System section and Transportation Schedule be made regarding: Bishopsgate Road / Highway 403 Interchange Construction; Corridor Protection for Potential Future Road Realignment Study Area for Bishopsgate Road Realignment to Highway 403; March

92 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Corridor Protection for Potential Future Road Realignment Study Area for a Paris East Side Bypass; Active Transportation recommendations resulting from the Trails Master Plan intended to be completed in 2016; Age-Friendly Transportation policies; Recommended edits to County Road Network Classification (TMP Update Exhibit 4.9); and In reviewing Section Land Use Policies and 6.13 Complete Applications in the 2012 Official Plan, the County should consider during the next mandatory review process to augment these section with specific study requirements relating to aggregate operations as recommended in Section 5.5 of the Aggregate Resource Guide (Appendix 4 of the TMP Update report). These recommended required studies include: o o o o o o o o o Planning Rationale Report; Cultural Heritage Impact Study; Hydrogeology / Groundwater Impact Study; Environmental Impact Statement, Tree Survey and Protection Report including Tree Retention Plan; Noise Impact Study; Traffic Impact Study; Dust and Air Quality Impact Study; Vibration Study; and Rehabilitation Plan Upcoming Planning Act Changes In integrating the TMP Update with the County s Official Plan, note that as of May 2015, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing significant changes to the Planning Act. This will be through Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. Two proposed changes that relate to the TMP Update are: The mandatory five year Official Plan review will be revised to 10 years with respect to new Official Plans, and then every five years after that; and Transit services are being added to the list of services for which no reduction of capital costs (i.e. the 10% reduction) is required. March

93 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 7.3 TMP Monitoring & Updating The County of Brant TMP is not intended to be a static document. It must be regularly reviewed to ensure it meets the transportation needs of the County. Changing community expectations or growth and development patterns can necessitate a review of the Plan s primary recommendations, for example involving roadway and intersection capacity enhancements or adjustments. This should be done as follows: Update the County s capital plan as required to include roadway network capacity and operational enhancements, as well as active transportation and potential transit service projects approved by County Council; As recommended in the 2008 TMP, prepare an annual staff report to County Council on the State of the Transportation System, reporting on local transportation conditions, behaviours, needs and trends with joint input from all involved city departments and advisory groups; and To address transportation issues on an annual and consistent basis, this State of the Transportation System report should document: 1. Results of specific traffic count updates; 2. New trends and technologies in traffic operations and management; 3. Public and private sector TDM initiatives (i.e. carpooling, preferential parking, transit service delivery, flexible work hours, cycling facilities); 4. Status of provincial initiatives, policies and funding programs; and 5. Any need to review, amend or update components of the TMP. To remain relevant and effective in dealing with the County s transportation needs, it is further recommended that the TMP undergo a full review at the next five year mandatory review of the Official Plan, and every five years thereafter in association with future statutory assessments of the Official Plan. 7.4 Transportation Policy Updating Section 6.1 of this TMP Update recommends that a number of County transportationrelated policy be updated to provide current guidance for important transportation issues facing the County. It is further recommended that these policies listed in Exhibit 7.3 be updated in 2016 and 2017 so that can be applied to current transportation issues: Exhibit 7-3: Priority Policy Updates POLICY UPDATE 2016 POLICY UPDATE Official Plan Amendment to update Schedule B Transportation Plan as per TMP Update Exhibit 4-11: Recommended County Road Network Classification Update 1. Conduct a transit service feasibility study as an update to the 2011 Improved Paris Area Transit Service Pilot Program to identity new transit service delivery methods for the Paris area. March

94 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2. Prepare a Strategic Goods Movement Network Plan based on TMP Update Exhibit 4.13: Proposed County Heavy Truck Routes and the Aggregate Resource Guide 3. Update and complete an Active Transportation Plan for trails, sidewalks and bikeways as part of the planned Community Services Master Plan. 7.5 Funding Opportunities The TMP Update included a review of potential federal and provincial funding opportunities to potentially assist in the master plan implementation. The following summarizes the basic alternative funding sources for transportation infrastructure as of 2015: Province of Ontario Programs; Federal Programs; and Municipal Development Charges. Other alternative infrastructure funding mechanisms for the County to consider where and when required include: User Pay User fees are now commonly used for municipal services such as libraries, arenas, etc. This is done to help manage the demand for infrastructure and provide more sustainable alternatives. Most user fees are calculated based on a utility model that uses the principle that the price of a product (i.e. library services) should reflect the actual costs of producing the product. The advantages of user pay programs is that it requires strong management of the infrastructure assets that are being charged, and can provide opportunities for accessing private sector capital markets (i.e. toll highways, transit systems). The main disadvantages of user pay programs is that there can be social equity issues (some can afford to pay for the service while others cannot), and it is often difficult for political decision-makers to justify and support the user charges compared to the social needs. User pay as previously used in the County of Brant for the Paris-Brantford transit service which has since closed., but can also be found in the form of parking charges and transit rates not currently charged in the County. To expect that there would be political and public support to introduce these or other transportation user fees such as road tolls, congestion pricing and even bicycle licensing, enough to generate sufficient funds to support infrastructure development, is not considered viable within the 20 year timeframe of the TMP. Transfer Payments Transfer payments from one order of government to another can include unconditional block transfers, grants and flexible transfer payments. They can March

95 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE also include permanent dedicated revenue flows such as the 2% of the gasoline tax in Ontario that is directed to public transit. One advantage of transfer payments is that it is a widely used form of financing infrastructure in Canada, for example the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. The disadvantages include potential social inequities for people who pay for the transfer but do not use the related service (i.e. gas tax when you do not use transit), and there may be no predictability in longer term funding. Bonds All three levels of government in Canada can issue and sell bonds for infrastructure. Municipal bonds in Canada are uncommon because bonds issued by a Municipal Finance Authority are usually fully guaranteed by the province, and so are considered provincial bonds rather than municipal bonds. The potential use of municipal bonds is also limited by the bond rating of smaller municipalities, and so are not considered a viable funding alternative for County infrastructure funding. Trust Funds This is termed earmarked taxation where a percentage of municipal tax revenue is dedicated to a specific investment area, for example County roads. The trust fund must be used for its intended purpose (i.e. to fund road construction). In the USA, trust funds provide for most of the federal funding for highways and transit projects. One of the main challenges with using trust funds for infrastructure funding is to ensure that funded projects are equally distributed across the municipality so that no one area or areas benefit while the entire municipality pays taxes. Tax Increment Financing Through tax increment financing, municipalities can reinvest property tax revenues to meet community economic development objectives involving housing development, job creation and core revitalization. As applied in Ontario, tax increment financing is based on municipal grants and loans that can be given under the Planning Act community improvement provisions. For example, Tax Increment Financing is used by some municipalities to provide funding for community improvements. By calculating a grant or loan on the higher property tax that is generated from development (the tax increment), municipalities can offer eligible developers financing incentives that will put lands and buildings that might not otherwise be developed back into productive use. Such redevelopment can often involve road improvements. Advantages of Tax Increment Financing include its focus on infrastructure investment as part of community revitalization, and the higher tax generation potential that comes from such revitalization. However, it has only a very limited application in Canada, is not suitable for large scale infrastructure projects and can create risks and liabilities for the municipality in the future if anticipated revenue increases do not materialize. Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) P3s are financing arrangements that increase involvement of the private sector in public service delivery, and transfer some risk and reward to the public sector. Ontario examples include the Highway 407 ETR and the York Region Transit VIVA service. Private sector involvement can range from minimal such as garbage collection services, to comprehensive through the designing, building, owning, operating and financing infrastructure. Within these two extremes are various levels of public and private sector involvement that are typically suited to specific projects. The advantages of P3s include the opportunities for more construction and/or operational efficiencies and risk is transferred to the private sector. One main March

96 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE disadvantage can include strong public and political opposition to P3s. In the context of the County of Brant, the only opportunities for P3s to implement major transportation system developments identified in this TMP would be the Bishopsgate Road/Highway 403 interchange and a Paris East Bypass. Focused Advertising Some municipalities allow the private sector to advertise on public infrastructure. Two common examples include advertising of public transit buses and at stops and stations, and on public golf courses. The same approach can be applied to bikeway and trail systems where private advertising opportunities are offered at strategic system locations. Cash-in-lieu of Parking On a site-specific basis, municipal councils can, at their discretion, enter into an agreement with a landowner to provide for an exemption from providing the required parking or a reduction in the parking requirement specified in the Zoning Bylaw. This agreement provides for the owner to make one or more payments of money to the municipality as consideration for the granting of the exemption or reduction, and sets the basis on which such payment is calculated. In Ontario, cash-inlieu of parking funds must be saved in a parking reserve fund and reinvested into the supply and management of public parking. Cash-in-lieu of parking can be available for implementation in the County of Brant through Official Plan and associated Zoning Bylaw provisions. March

97 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 1 Consultation Material MARCH

98 County of Brant NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide The County of Brant has initiated an update of its county-wide Transportation Master Plan, including a new guide on the development of aggregate resources in the County. These new plans will be instrumental in improving the way people and goods move through the County. The County of Brant is changing and growing, and the current transportation system needs to adapt to embrace a more sustainable travel future for everyone. The new Transportation Master Plan will be a key tool in continuing to build a healthy, vibrant and sustainable County by providing direction for enhanced pedestrian, cycling and roadway infrastructure. The master planning process being used follows the requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2011). It will identify infrastructure problems and opportunities in the County of Brant, with plans on how the County should respond. The new Transportation Master Plan will be available for public review and comment when a draft is completed in the late fall. IBI Group has been retained by the County to prepare this update. Some preliminary objectives for the new plan include: Identify existing and future levels of travel demand throughout the County. Outline the transportation infrastructure needed to ensure safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services for the economic growth and prosperity of the County. Develop policies and guidelines for all modes of transportation in the County, including walking, cycling, goods movement and auto travel, and that also supports rail, inter-city bus and aviation services. Public input is important to us! Engaging the public will be a major component in updating the Transportation Master Plan by identifying community needs and defining priorities. Agencies, interested stakeholder groups and members of the public are encouraged to participate actively in the preparation of this Transportation Master Plan update by contacting study team staff directly with information, comments or questions, or by participating in future consultation opportunities including planned Public Information Centres, surveys / questionnaires, stakeholder group meetings and by accessing the County s web site at A series of Public Information Centers will be held in the fall of 2014 to get public input on the transportation issues and plans being addressed in the Transportation Master Plan update. Notice of these public sessions will be posted in local newspapers and mailed to those asking to be placed on the project mailing list. In the meantime, if you, your agency or your group is interested in participating in the development of this update, or would like to be added to the study contact list for updates, please check out the Project Web Page or contact the following: Marvin Fehrman, C.E.T. Capital Project Manager County of Brant 26 Park Avenue Burford, ON N3T 2M3 Phone: ext Fax: marv.fehrman@brant.ca Don Drackley, MCP Consultant Project Manager IBI Group Albert Street Waterloo, ON N2L 3V3 Tel: Fax: ddrackley@ibigroup.com Notice first posted: DATE

99 IBI GROUP Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com July 14, 2014 Name Address Dear: COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Please be advised that the County of Brant has retained IBI Group to undertake Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide. This plan has a 20-year horizon that will guide transportation policy and planning, and provide strategic directions for all modes of local travel in the County including walking, cycling, and driving. To comply with the Environmental Assessment Act, this study is being conducted in accordance with the master planning provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process. As part of this study, agencies, stakeholders and members of the public with a potential interest in transportation are being contacted and given the opportunity to provide input to the study, participate in the study development and to attend scheduled Public Information Centres. A Notice of Study Commencement is attached, and will be advertised in the Brantford Expositor. Please complete and return the attached Notification Response Sheet if you would like to be kept informed about the study development. If you have additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. IBI Group Don Drackley, MCP Consultant Project Manager DD/mr Encl. Notification Response Sheet Notice of Commencement cc: Marvin Fehrman, C.E.T., County of Brant J:\36350_Brant_TMP_U\2.2 Corres-External\Agency\Initial Notification\TTL Agency Notification Letter docx\ \B IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects

100 IBI GROUP Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com July 14, 2014 Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 12th Floor, 2 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright: COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Please be advised that the County of Brant has retained IBI Group to undertake Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide. This plan has a 20-year horizon that will guide transportation policy and planning, and provide strategic directions for all modes of local travel in the County including walking, cycling, and driving. To comply with the Environmental Assessment Act, this study is being conducted in accordance with the master planning provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has advised that as part of consultation requirements identified in the Municipal Class EA process, we are to identify all Aboriginal communities that could potentially be affected in the project area. Through this letter, the following First Nations contacts have been notified of the project, and are invited to confirm interest in participating in the project: 1. Consultation and Accommodation Unit, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2. Mr. David Pickles, Team Lead, Consultation Unit, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 3. Ms. Melanie Paradis, Director of Lands, Resources and Consultation, Métis Nation of Ontario 4. Métis Nation of Ontario 5. Chief Bryan Laforme, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation 6. Chief G. Ava Hill, Six Nations of the Grand River 7. Mr. Paul General, Six Nations of the Grand River, Six Nations Eco-Centre 8. Mr. Charles W. Martin, Manager, Six Nations Economic Development 9. Mr. Tom Deer, Confederacy Council Secretary, Haudenosaunee Resource Centre 10. Mr. Leroy Hill, Confederacy Secretary, Haudenosaunee Resource Centre IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects

101 IBI GROUP 2 Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright July 14, 2014 If you have additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Sincerely IBI Group Don Drackley, MCP Consultant Project Manager DD/mr Encl. Notification Response Sheet Notice of Commencement cc: Marvin Fehrman, C.E.T., County of Brant

102 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS FEDERAL AGENCIES Transport Canada PROVINCIAL AGENCIES Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Natural Resources Environmental Coordinator Agatha Garcia-Wright Director, EA Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch George Karlos Manager, Environmental Assessment Services Barbara Slattery Environmental Resource Planner/EA, West-Central Region, Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning Thomas Lewis EA & Planning Coordinator Ministry of the Environment Mike Stone Regional Manager Southern Ontario Ian Hagman District Manager Mike Stone District Planner Diane Schwier Aggregate Technical 4900 Yonge Street North York, ON M2N 6A5 2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12 th Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12 th Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 12 th Floor, 119 King Street West Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y7 12 th Floor, 119 King Street West Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y7 300 Water Street 4 th Floor Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y Address correspondence to Environment and Engineering Group agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca barbara.slattery@ontario.ca mike.stone@ontario.ca diane.schwier@ontario.ca

103 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS Specialist Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Laura Hatcher Heritage Planner 401 Bay Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Infrastructure Ontario Keith Noronha Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Kevin Bentley Acting Regional Mgr. Southwestern Region Paul Santos Project Manager, Planning and Design Section David Secord Corridor Management Planner, Corridor Management Section Director, Provincial Planning Services Branch 659 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 1L3 659 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 1L3 659 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 1L3 14th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, ON M3G 2E5 28 Mechanic Street Paris, ON N3L 1K2 Ontario Provincial Police David Durant Inspector Ontario Provincial Police Detachment Commander 28 Mechanic Street Paris, ON N3L 1K2 COUNTY County of Brant County of Brant County of Brant Rick Knap Roads Technologist Public Works Department Marcus Davidson Community and Development Services Mark Pomponi Chief Planning Official 26 Park Avenue P.O. Box 160 Burford, ON N0E 1A0 66 Grand River St. N. Paris, ON N3L 2M2 66 Grand River Street North Paris, ON N3L 2M2 a Kevin.bentley@ontario.ca david.secord@ontario.ca opp.brant.county@ontario.ca rick.knap@brant.ca publicworks@brant.ca Marcus.Davidson@brant.ca Mark.pomponi@brant.ca

104 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS County of Brant Heather Boyd 26 Park Avenue, PO Box Clerk 160 County of Brant Fire Department FIRST NATIONS Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Paul Boissonneault Consultation and Accommodation Unit Team Lead, Consultation Unit Burford, ON N0E 1A0 61 Dundas Street East Paris, ON N3L 3H1 10 Wellington Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H4 160 Bloor Street 9 th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2E UCA-CAU@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca david.pickles@ontario.ca only. Put Aboriginal consultation information in the subject heading. Métis Nation of Ontario Métis Nation of Ontario Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Six Nations of the Grand River Six Nations of the Grand River, Six Nations Eco- Centre Six Nations Economic Development Haudenosaunee Resource Centre Melanie Paradis Director of Lands, Resources and Consultation Bryan Laforme, Chief 75 Sherbourne St., Suite 222 Toronto, ON M5A 2P9 500 Old St. Patrick St. Unit D Ottawa, ON KIN 9G First Line Road R. R. #6 Hagersville, ON N0A 1H0 G. Ava Hill, Chief P.O. Box Chiefswood Road Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0 Paul General Charles W. Martin Manager Tom Deer Confederacy Council Secretary 1695 Chiefswood Road P.O. Box 5000 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0 P.O. Box 5000 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M Sixth Line RR2 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M x 114 melaniep@metisnation.org consultations@metisnation.org bryanlaforme@newcreditfirstnatio n.com

105 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS Haudenosaunee Resource Centre Leroy Hill Confederacy Secretary th Line, R.R. #2 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0 STAKEHOLDERS Grand River Conservation Authority #2221 Grand River Conservation Authority Joe Farwell Chief Administrative Officer Ashley Graham Planner 400 Clyde Road P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 400 Clyde Road P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W #2238 Community Living Brant Debbie Cavers, Director 366 Dalhousie Street Brantford, ON N3S 3W2 Community Living Brant Susan Walters 366 Dalhousie Street Ext. 217 Brantford, ON N3S 3W2 Brantford-Brant Chamber 77 Charlotte Street of Commerce Brantford, ON N3T 2W8 Paris Downtown BIA Marty Verhey, Co-Chair Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board Tom Grice Associate Director 322 Fairview Drive P.O. Box 217 Brantford, ON N3T 5M , Ext. 223 Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board Grand Erie District School Board Chris Roehrig Director of Education Cathy Horgan Phil Kuckyt Manager of Transportation Services Phil Kuckyt Manager of Transportation Services 322 Fairview Drive P.O. Box 217 Brantford, ON N3T 5M8 322 Fairview Drive P.O. Box 217 Brantford, ON N3T 5M8 322 Fairview Drive, P.O. Box 217 Brantford, ON N3T 5M8 349 Erie Avenue Brantford, ON N3T 5V3 Grand Erie District School Planning Officer 349 Erie Avenue

106 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS Board Brantford, ON N3T 5V3 Grand Erie District School Board Michelle O Reillly 349 Erie Avenue Brantford, ON N3T 5V Ext Grand Erie District School Board Michael Tancredi Manager of Facilities 349 Erie Avenue Brantford, ON N3T 5V3 Services Brant County Health Unit Dr. JoAnn Tober 194 Terrace Hill St joann.tober@bchu.org Brant County Health Unit Brant County Health Unit Brant County Health Unit Executive Director Karen Boughner Director, Environmental Health and Infectious Diseases Jeff Kowal Manager, Environmental Health Patrick Moores Manager, Chronic Diseases and Injuries Prevention Brantford N3R 1G7 194 Terrace Hill St. Brantford N3R 1G7 194 Terrace Hill St. Brantford N3R 1G7 194 Terrace Hill St. Brantford N3R 1G Ext. 341 karen.boughner@bchu.org Ext. 258 jeff.kowal@bchu.org Ext. 279 patrick.moores@bchu.org Brant County Health Unit Nicole Britten nicole.britten@bchu.org Brant County Health Unit Tin Vo Tin.vo@bchu.org Brant County Health Unit Renee Charbonneau Smith Brant County Health Unit Lirije Hyseni Lirije.hyseni@bchu.org Brant Historical Society 57 Charlotte Street, Brantford, ON N3T 2W6 Brantford/Brant Chamber Charlene Nicholson 77 Charlotte Street charlene@brcc.ca of Commerce Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 1294 Brantford Airport Commission Brantford Airport Board Philip Race Jim Quinn Property Manager Brantford, ON N3T 5T6 100 Wellington Square Brantford ON N3T 2M3 100 Wellington Square, P.O. Box 818 Brantford, ON N3T 2M3 Renee.charbonneausmith@bchu.or g phil.wcp@hotmail.com

107 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS CN Rail John McTaggart 4 Weilding Way PO Box 1000 Concord ON L4K 1B9 CN Rail Derek Basso Engineering Technician 4 Weilding Way Concord ON L4K 1B Derek.Basso@cn.ca Bell Canada Ruth Ann Clark 86 Market Street P.O. Box 938 Brantford, ON N3T 5S5 Hydro One Networks Tony Ierullo 483 Bay Street North Tower, 15 th Floor Reception Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 Rogers Cable 85 Grand Cres Pl. Kitchener, ON N2C 2L6 Union Gas Paul Clark 603 Kumpf Drive P.O. Box 340 MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Agriculture Nick Bogaert Waterloo, ON N2J 4A4 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X ierullo@hydroone.com Ext. 719 nbogaert@mhbcplan.com TRANSPORTATION USERS Ontario Trucking Association Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association Mike Scott 55 Dixon Road Toronto, ON M9W 1H Timberlea Boulevard, Unit 103 Mississauga, ON L4W 4W2 mscott@ossga.com Dufferin Aggregates Ed Persico 2300 Steeles Avenue West, Suite 400 Concord, ON L4K 5X6 Gurney Sand and Gravel Margaret Berencsi 989 Rest Acres Road

108 County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Mailing List July 17, 2014 ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMMENTS Ltd. Paris, ON N3L 3E3 KPM Industries Ltd Harvester Road PO Box 699 Burlington, ON L7R 3Y5 Lafarge Canada Inc. Mike Leopold 100 Hume Street London, ON N5Z 2P2 Nichols Gravel Ltd. Gary Nichols 55 Regional Road Delhi, ON N4B 2W9 Telephone City George Hill 375 Hardy Road Aggregates Inc. Brantford, ON N3T 5T6 CBM Aggregates Melanie Horton 55 Industrial Street Toronto, ON M4G 3W9 PUBLIC David and Cindy Moore 45 Golf Links Road dave.moore@premierequipment.ca Burford, ON N0E 1A0 Larry Clarkson 670 Bishops Gate Road RR #3 Paris, ON N3L 3E3 Floyd Davis 5 Golf Links Road davisfuels@execulink.com Burford, ON N0E 1A0 Jeff Leader 18 Forbes Street jleader@craworld.com Glen Morris, ON N0B 1W0 MEDIA Brant News Laurie Russell 101 Charing Cross Street lrussell@brantnews.com Brantford, ON N3R 2H7 Turtle Island News Amy Catherwood 22-9 Chiefswood Rd amy@theturtleislandnews.com R. R. #2 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0 Brantford Expositor Jeff Dertinger 195 Henry Street, Building 4, unit 1 Brantford, ON, N3S 5C9 jeff.dertinger@sunmedia.ca Send information by .

109 County of Brant NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide The County of Brant is updating its county-wide Transportation Master Plan. The County is changing and growing, and its transportation system needs to adapt to embrace a more sustainable travel future for everyone. The updated Transportation Master Plan will be a key tool in continuing to build a healthy, vibrant and sustainable County by providing direction for enhanced pedestrian, cycling and roadway infrastructure. The Plan identifies existing and future County travel needs and associated transportation infrastructure needs. It also updates County policies and guidelines to plan for walking, cycling, goods movement and roads throughout the County. This includes a new guide to assist the County in evaluating and processing aggregate resource (i.e. gravel pits) applications, including management of heavy truck traffic. Some Important New County Transportation Information: Current County transportation issues; Overall, general traffic conditions today and by 2031; Specific Paris area traffic conditions and long term solution; Proposed County road network improvements; Proposed new road classification system; Proposed new County-wide truck route plan; Proposed new pedestrian movement improvements; and Proposed new trails and cycling route plan. This information will be presented at the following informal drop-in Public Information Centres. At each session, project staff will be available to explain the new transportation information and answer questions. The public will also be invited to comment on the new transportation information, and identify any other transportation issues that the County should be asked to investigate. DATE LOCATION ANYTIME BETWEEN Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Wednesday, April 8, 2015 Brant Sports Complex, Lafarge Banquet Hall 944 Powerline Road, Paris ON South Dumfries Community Centre 7 Gaukel Drive, St. George ON Cainsville Community Centre 14 Garnet Road, Brantford ON 4:30 pm 7:30 pm 4:30 pm 7:30 pm 4:30 pm 7:30 pm Interested members of the public, stakeholder groups and agencies are encouraged to attend any of these sessions, or view and comment on the information presented at these sessions by accessing the County s web site at In the meantime, if you have any questions about the Transportation Master Plan update, please contact either of the following project contacts: County of Brant 26 Park Avenue Burford, ON N3T 2M3 Phone: ext Fax: publicworks@brant.ca Don Drackley, MCP Consultant Project Manager IBI Group Albert Street Waterloo, ON N2L 3V3 Tel: Fax: ddrackley@ibigroup.com Notice first posted: March 14, 2015

110 Public Information Centres Summary Report Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide by IBI Group April 2015

111 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Document Control Page CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: REPORT TITLE: IBI REFERENCE: VERSION: 1 DIGITAL MASTER: ORIGINATOR: REVIEWER: AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide [File Location] Marianne Radue Don Drackley Don Drackley April 2015

112 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Table of Contents 1 Introduction Notice of Public Information Centre Public Information Centres Information Presented Comments from the Public Comments from External Agencies... 4 Exhibit 1 PIC Locations and Times... 1 Exhibit 2. Display Boards... 2 Exhibit 3. Summary of Comments/Concerns... 3 April 2015 i

113 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 1 Introduction The County of Brant has retained IBI Group to develop the Transportation Master Plan Update and Aggregate Resource Guide. The purpose of this plan is to build a healthy, vibrant and sustainable County by providing direction for enhanced pedestrian, cycling, and roadway infrastructure. The study will follow the master planning provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (June 2000 as amended 2011). Three rounds of the same Public Information Centre (PIC) were held in Paris, St. George and Cainsville to introduce the project and discuss the issues and future transportation vision to be addressed by the Master Plan. The public was encouraged to attend to learn more about the studies and engage in discussions with project representatives. 2 Notice of Public Information Centres The Notice of PIC (Appendix A) was first advertised in the Brantford Expositor on March 14, The newspaper advertisement provided residents and stakeholders with information on how to participate actively in the study through the planned PIC. The Notice of PIC was also posted on the County of Brant s website ( which was accessible to all external stakeholders and members of the public. The Notice of PIC was mailed or ed to contacts identified on the Project Contact List (Appendix B) which was developed at the outset of the study. The list is updated regularly as required and includes the following groups: First Nation / Aboriginal Communities; External Agencies; Members of the Public; Stakeholders; and Media 3 Public Information Centres The PICs were a drop-in format where members of the project team were available to answer questions and address concerns. The sessions were held as follows (Exhibit 1): Exhibit 1 PIC Locations and Times DATE LOCATION TIME Wednesday March 25, 2015 Wednesday April 1, 2015 Wednesday April 8, 2015 Brant Sports Complex, Lafarge Banquet Hall 944 Powerline Road, Paris ON South Dumfries Community Centre 7 Gaukel Drive, St. George ON Cainsville Community Centre 14 Garnet Road, Cainsville ON 4:30 7:30 pm 4:30 7:30 pm 4:30 7:30 pm April

114 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Approximately 41 individuals attended the Paris PIC (41 signed in), 14 individuals attended the St. George PIC (14 signed in) and 15 individuals attended the Cainsville PIC (15 signed in). The signin sheets are available under Appendix C. Members of the project team were available to facilitate the understanding of information presented including the Municipal Class EA process. The project team present at the PICs included the following individuals: Lee Robinson, Director of Engineering, County of Brant Clint Brown, Inspector, County of Brant Don Drackley, Project Manager, IBI Group David Sisco, Associate, IBI Group Marianne Radue, Environmental Planner, IBI Group The materials presented at the PICs, including comment forms, were made available on-line on the County of Brant website. The last day to receive public comment on the information presented was on April 22, Information Presented Display panels were organized in a manner which effectively presented information on the project. The display boards listed in Exhibit 2 were on display at the PICs and can be viewed in full in Appendix D. Exhibit 2. Display Boards i. Welcome ii. County Wide Transportation Issues iii. Localized Transportation Issues iv. Overall Traffic Conditions Today v. Overall Traffic Conditions 2031 vi. Paris Area Traffic Conditions vii. Draft Road Classification viii. County Wide Truck Management Plan ix. Permitted Truck Routes x. Other Planned Growth Areas xi. Pedestrianization xii. Proposed Trails and Cycling Routes (2 boards) xiii. Potential Traffic Improvements xiv. Other Transportation Concerns xv. Next Steps Spring Comments from the Public The public was requested to submit comments by April 22, Those who provided contact information were added to the project contact list and will receive future notifications relating to the study. In total 19 comment forms were completed and submitted to the project team during or after the PIC for the Paris PIC, there were 3 comment sheets from the St. George PIC and 2 comment sheets from the Cainsville PIC. Exhibit 3 summarizes written comments/concerns received as of April 22, All comment forms are available in Appendix E. No project team responses were required. April

115 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Exhibit 3. Summary of Comments/Concerns PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS CONCERNING WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN TODAY AND ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES YOU ARE AWARE OF. PARIS 1. Bethel Road from Folsetters to (west) Bishopsgate. 2. Speed Limit 3. There is speeding along Highway No traffic from Bishopsgate if the interchange goes forward. 5. Disappointed to see there is no recognition of the need for public transit (2 comments). 6. Concerned about the aging population and transportation. Need options for those who cannot drive. 7. Concerned about the large trucks coming off Folsetter Drive and going west along Bethel Road to access the proposed interchange at Highway 403 and Bishopsgate. 8. Supports to proposed trails and cycling routes along Rest Acres Road. 9. Should be a sidewalk/multi-use path between the Cobblestone community and the Sportsplex. 10. The Cobblestone community is separated from the downtown core in terms of walkability. 11. Need sidewalks. 12. Does not support sidewalks. 13. The sidewalk along Rest Acres Road does not extend all the way from Cobblestone to Rest Acres Road. 14. Discontinuous sidewalks on King Edward Street. 15. No sidewalks down the hill to Lions Park. 16. There are many sidewalks in Paris that stop in odd places. 17. The road edges should be paved so bikes are not on the actual road. 18. Have a paved shoulder on the county roads for cyclists (2 comments). Make the shoulder as wide as possible. 19. Traffic lights on Folsetter Drive should only change if there is traffic waiting on Folsetter Drive. 20. Silver Street from Grand River Street North to Ayr Road be changed from truck traffic to residential traffic. 21. No plan to repair current roads. 22. The bridge across the river is a good idea as there are few options to by-pass downtown. 23. Aggregate companies should pay for road repairs. 24. Tie future development charges to help pay for road costs. 25. Supports Paris bypass. 26. Have more roundabouts (2 comments). 27. Would like to see roundabouts at Paris Road and Oakville Drive, Rest Acres Road, in subdivisions and Rest Acres Road and Tim Hortons. 28. Road speed between Highway 403 and Colborne needs to be monitored by the OPP. April

116 IBI GROUP PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES SUMMARY REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 29. Reduce speed on feeder road to Bishopsgate if 403/Cloverleaf goes forward. 30. Supports Bishopsgate interchange (2 comments). 31. Bethel and 403 access would be a great asset. 32. New lights at Bishopsgate, is a long red. 33. Have another north-south route through Paris. 34. If the truck route remains as is, we need No Engine Brake signs and no gearing up or down. 35. Cut the grade down on King Edward from Dundas to below hill to Rest Acres Road. 36. Need street signs on Jennings Road. 37. [Two petitions were submitted for Brant County to consider the addition of a paved shoulder to any new road construction for the cycling community]. ST. GEORGE 38. Biking could be improved in the Blue Lake area if a trail connection down to the rail trail was put in place from the end of Blue Lake Road. 39. Glen Morris Road East is used for truck traffic and as a rural collector road. Divert thru traffic from Princess Street to a bypass from the top of the bridge to Glen Morris Road East. 40. East River Road is used by many cyclists, the road should be improved to accommodate cyclists; possibly reduce/limit truck traffic. 41. Display Board #14 Would prefer to see 403 accessibility from Watts Pond Road toward the west side of Paris and not over the Grand River via a new bridge. 42. Display Board #15 Put traffic calming measures in Glen Morris, improve signage and restrict use of engine brakes. 43. [An attendee submitted an Age Friendly Communities Transportation Checklist ]. CAINSVILLE 44. County roads are not ideal for cyclists. Would like to see country and regional bike routes incorporated into the Active Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan. 45. Can you remove the half load limit from Brant-Oxford Road? 46. Watts Pond straight to Brant-Oxford Road. 6 Comments from External Agencies No comments were received from external agencies regarding the PIC, materials used, and the information presented. April

117 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 2 Travel Demand Forecasting Model Development Report MARCH

118 Technical Appendix - Draft Model Development Report Transportation Master Plan Update by IBI Group October 30, 2014

119 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Document Control Page CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: REPORT TITLE: IBI REFERENCE: VERSION: 9 DIGITAL MASTER: ORIGINATOR: REVIEWER: AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: County of Brant Brant Transportation Master Plan Model Development Report J:\36350_Brant_TMP_U\10.0 Reports\Model Development Charles Hwang, Jeff Qiao, Catherine Curak Scott Johnston, Don Drackley [Name] October 30, 2014

120 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background Study Area Model Specification Data Collection Network Zone System Travel Demand Trip Generation Trip Distribution Mode Choice Trip Assignment Calibration and Validation Future Demand Model Inputs Population Employment Growth Trends Network Performance Summary Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C October 30, 2014 i

121 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT List of Exhibits Exhibit 1-1: County of Brant Model Study Area... 2 Exhibit 1-2: Model Specifications... 3 Exhibit 1-3: County of Brant Model Development Data Collection... 4 Exhibit 2-1: County of Brant Model Road Network... 5 Exhibit 2-2: Model Link Classification... 6 Exhibit 3-1: Transportation Tomorrow Survey 2011 Zones County of Brant... 7 Exhibit 3-2: County of Brant Model Zone System... 8 Exhibit 4-1: Transportation Tomorrow Survey Query Parameters... 9 Exhibit 4-2: 2011 Total Zone Productions and Attractions... 9 Exhibit 4-3: Adjustment Factors for each Trip Purpose Exhibit 4-4: County of Brant Base Year Internal Trip Summary by Trip Purpose Exhibit 4-5: County of Brant Base Year Model Trip Summary by Type Exhibit 4-6: ODME Results Exhibit 4-7: Screenline Validation Modelled versus Counts Exhibit 4-8: Level-of-Service Description Exhibit 4-9: ODME Count Locations Exhibit 4-10: 2011 a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Flows, Final Exhibit 5-1: County of Brant Growth Summary Exhibit 5-2: Total Population Added for 2031 Forecast Based on Official Plan Exhibit 5-3: Designated Employment Areas in the County of Brant Exhibit 5-4: Total Employment Added for 2031 Forecast Based on Official Plan Exhibit 5-5: Trip Growth Percentage from 2011 to Exhibit 5-6: 2031 and 2011 Final a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Comparison Exhibit 5-7: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Flows, Final October 30, 2014

122 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1 Introduction IBI Group has been retained by the County of Brant to update the County s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and prepare an Aggregate Resource Guide for processing new aggregate applications under the Planning Act. Prior to the current study, the County did not have a travel demand model and road planning was undertaken on a case-by-case basis using trend analysis and operational studies. Based on the anticipated growth under the Provincial Growth Plan, the County determined that improved network planning, analysis, and forecasting capabilities were required. Accordingly, the County included model development and application as part of the terms of reference for the TMP update. The model is intended to assist in the analysis and evaluation of sub-areas and alternative road networks. This report describes the development and calibration of the travel demand model. The model is in the TransCAD platform and is based on Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data. It is an a.m. peak hour model with 2011 and 2031 horizons. Travel demand forecasts are developed using the four-stage approach (trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, trip assignment) to provide sensitivity to population and employment growth projections as well as network scenarios and capacity constraints. 1.1 Background The primary modes of travel in the County of Brant are private auto and commercial vehicle. With a dispersed population and employment, walking and cycling in the County are primarily recreational. Intercity transit is limited to Greyhound service with a stop in Paris. The County of Brant Official Plan (2012) and the Provincial Growth Plan (consolidated 2013) indicate that total County population is forecasted to reach 47,000 by 2031, an increase of 32% over the population of 35,718 in The majority of County growth (83%) is expected to occur in the Paris area with a focus on Southwest Paris along the Rest Acres Road corridor. The travel demand model described in this report has been oriented to focus on growth areas. A number of prior studies and current plans provide other input to the TMP update and model development, such as the Paris Bypass Environmental Assessment (EA), Rest Acres Road EA, City of Brantford TMP Update and Brant 403 Business Park Long Term Traffic Study. Extensive background GIS data and traffic count data was provided by the County which provided a solid foundation for model development. 1.2 Study Area The study area for the County of Brant Model development spans the entire County, including the City of Brantford. Municipalities around the County of Brant are accounted for through the use of external zones. See Exhibit 1-1 below for the full study area map. October 30,

123 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 1-1: County of Brant Model Study Area 1.3 Model Specification Model specifications, summarized in Exhibit 1-2 below, were determined to fulfill the purpose of the model to provide a growth-sensitive, future auto peak hour demand analysis. Study Area: Model study area includes all of the County of Brant, City of Brantford and the First Nations land to the southeast. This allows for sufficient detail in modelling travel patterns within the County while eliminating unnecessary complexity in external areas. This also coincides with the available road network and zone boundary resources. Platform: TransCAD v6.0, a GIS-based transportation modelling tool, best suits the model purpose/needs and is able to efficiently make use of available data. Zone System and Count: Model zones are based on the 2011 TTS zone system (GGHM v3.0), which is further disaggregated based on the County zone system (discussed in Section 3). October 30,

124 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Network: The road network file received from County of Brant is directly adopted in the model (see Section 2). Analysis Horizons and Periods: The base year is 2011 and the future analysis horizon year is 2031, based on the 2011 TTS and growth projection target year, respectively. The analysis time period is the a.m. peak hour, based on the 2011 TTS 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Trip Purposes: Trip purposes in the model are adopted directly from TTS: home-based work (HBW), home-based school (HBS), home-based other (HBO), and non home-based (NHB). Trip Generation: TTS-based productions and attractions (zone trip totals) are used directly for the base year, while the future year is based on population and employment-derived adjustment factors. Trip Distribution: Seed matrices (survey-based with manual adjustments) are used in a doubly-constrained gravity method to match zone populations and attractions. Trip Assignment: Trips are assigned using the user-equilibrium single-class assignment based on the Bureau of Public Roads function with County-specific parameters. Calibration and Validation: Model is calibrated to screenline counts and validated to +/- 15% (see Section 4.5 for details). Model Output: For both base and future years, the a.m. peak hour auto link flows and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios are produced. As a sketch-planning model, the County of Brant Model is not aimed at developing multi-modal travel pattern analyses for multiple future horizons and analysis periods. Rather, it is focused on providing a growth-sensitive future peak hour demand and capacity analysis. The auto-mode focus of the model also stems from the lack of transit services in the County. Model output includes peak hour link flows (auto volume) and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios, which then can be used to identify future roadway network capacity deficiencies for planning road improvements and transportation policies. Due to the coarse nature of survey data, it is important to stress that the model is a sketch-planning tool, and model output must be interpreted with judgement and consider other data sources such as count data and economic forecasts. Exhibit 1-2: Model Specifications Category Specification Study Area County of Brant, City of Brantford Platform TransCAD v6.0 Zone System TTS 2011/GGHM v3.0 - County of Brant integrated Zone Count (# of zones) Count of Brant (69), City of Brantford (45), External (15) Network Type road network only (highways and roads) Analysis Horizons 2011 (base), 2031 (future forecast) Analysis Period a.m. peak hour Trip Purposes HBW, HBS, HBO, NHB Trip Generation survey-based, scaled by zone population and employment Trip Distribution seed-based adjustments to productions and attractions Mode Choice empirical / auto only (passenger vehicle) Calibration Method origin-destination matrix estimation, 30% constrained Validation Target +/- 15% for screenlines Base Year Output 2011 a.m. peak hour auto link flows and v/c ratios Future Year Output 2031 a.m. peak hour auto link flows and v/c ratios October 30,

125 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1.4 Data Collection The Brant Model makes use of a wide range of latest available data, from the County s road network file to comprehensive travel surveys, provincial growth plans, and approved employment development plans. Official Plans: The Provincial Growth Plan and the County of Brant Official Plan were retrieved from the public-accessible websites. Network and Zone System: Road network and zone boundary files were received from the County. Survey Data: 2011 TTS data was obtained through the Data Management Group (DMG) online query system. Development Impact Studies: Several traffic impact studies prepared by consultants) were received from the County of Brant for the purposes of this TMP update. Traffic Counts: Intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) from the 2008 TMP, Paris Bypass EA, Rest Acres EA, and Brant 403 Business Park Long Term TIS were internally retrieved. Additional counts were requested and received for specific analysis intersections with no recent counts. See Exhibit 1-3 below for the data collection summary. Exhibit 1-3: County of Brant Model Development Data Collection Resource Provincial Growth Plan (cons. 2013) County of Brant Official Plan, 2012 Transportation Tomorrow Survey, 2011 County of Brant Network and Zones Traffic Counts (2006 to 2014) Paris on the Grand TIS, 2013 Brookfield Homes Planning Report, 2012 St. George Area TIS, 2013 Description Population and employment projections Population and employment growth plans Trip survey GIS files At various locations Proposed development TIS Proposed development TIS Proposed development TIS October 30,

126 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2 Network The model network is based on a direct adoption of the County of Brant road network with updates to include model attributes (speed, capacity). All major highways, connections, major arterials, and collectors are represented in the road network. Local roads are represented in the City of Brantford, Paris, and other smaller communities but not across some of the rural areas. See Exhibit 2-1 below for the full road network used in the model. Note that centroid and external zone connectors used in the model are not shown in the map. Exhibit 2-1: County of Brant Model Road Network Links in the model are classified by physical and operational attributes such as type, length, speed, lanes, and capacity (vehicles per hour per lane). All link attributes were first directly adopted from the County of Brant road network and then revised/calibrated appropriately based on existing conditions (see Section 4.5 for calibration details). See Exhibit 2-2 below for the summary of link attributes in the model. October 30,

127 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 2-2: Model Link Classification Link Attributes Class Numeric Identifier Class Description Prov. Highway Rural Major Minor Major Minor (403, 24) Highway Arterial Arterial Collector Collector Local Maximum Speed (km/h) Capacity (vphpl) 1,800 1, Alpha (α)* Beta (β)* * Alpha and beta are volume-delay function constants, explained below. The volume-delay function used in this model is the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) function. It relates link travel times as a function of the volume/capacity ratio using the following formula: Where, on link i: T i is the modelled travel time; t i is the freeflow travel time; C i is the capacity; x i is the flow volume; and α i and β i are constants. T i = t i 1 + α i x β i i C i Alpha and beta are customized per the road classification indicated. 3 Zone System The County of Brant is represented by 11 zones in 2011 TTS as shown in Exhibit 3-1. Some of these zones cover a wide area across rural lands and urban areas with various land uses and densities. The model cannot assign traffic on the road network for internal trips. For example, the entire north portion of the County including Paris and St. George is represented by a single zone [8156] this does not allow the model to assign trips between Paris and St. George. Thus, with the TTS zone system, strategic growth in smaller development lands and subsequent travel demand impacts cannot be accurately modelled. In order to address the above issue, TTS zones were disaggregated based on the County of Brant zone system. After adding City of Brantford and external zones, the resulting 129-zone system consists of 69 County of Brant zones, 45 City of Brantford Zones, and 15 external zones. This achieves the desired level of detail of a sketch planning model, where the strategic growth in the County can be modelled on a zone-by-zone basis. See Exhibit 3-2 for the County of Brant Model zone system map. October 30,

128 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 3-1: Transportation Tomorrow Survey 2011 Zones County of Brant October 30,

129 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 3-2: County of Brant Model Zone System October 30,

130 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 4 Travel Demand 4.1 Trip Generation The 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) included the County of Brant plus surrounding municipalities as well as the municipalities in and around the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Trip generation was based on extracting TTS trip data and population and employment figures. County of Brant and City of Brantford internal trips were extracted from TTS 2011 through cross-tabulation queries, with the following filters: Trip origin and destination within County of Brant or City of Brantford; and Trip start time between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Although the assignment matrix is a.m. peak hour auto driver trips, a four-hour period of all modes, by trip purpose, was used for the survey demand query to capture a greater sample size. The resulting matrices were later factored to peak hour auto driver trips as described in the following section. TTS trips are categorized by four trip purposes: home-based work (HBW), home-based school (HBS), home-based other/discretionary (HBO), and non-home-based (NHB). Queries were conducted separately for each trip purpose so that adjustment factors and seed matrices could be developed by each trip purpose. This allowed for better details in forecasting, as population and employment factors differ between the trip purposes. See Exhibit 4-1 below for summary of TTS base year trip query parameters: Exhibit 4-1: Transportation Tomorrow Survey Query Parameters Category Description Data 2011 TTS V1.0 Query Type Cross-tabulation, trips Zones GGHM V (Brant County, Brantford) Trip Start Time 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Trip Purposes HBW, HBS, HBO, NHB Internal-external and external-external (through) trips were also extracted from TTS 2011, with external zones aggregated to entry and exit nodes representing major travel corridors such as provincial highways and County roads. Since the base year demand matrices were extracted from TTS survey, explicit trip generation rates were not required for each zone. Instead, zone adjustment factors were developed using future population and employment forecasts to develop future trip matrices (see Section 4.2 and 5). Exhibit 4-2 illustrates base year trip production and attraction totals by trip purpose. Exhibit 4-2: 2011 Total Zone Productions and Attractions HBW HBS HBO NHB 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 21,149 21,149 11,311 11,311 21,419 21,419 8,086 8,086 See Appendix A (Exhibit A - 1) for the full table of zone productions and attractions. Appendix C provides the population and employment figures for County of Brant zones. October 30,

131 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 4.2 Trip Distribution The trip distribution method used in the County model is a growth factor method referred to as the Fratar method. The Fratar method carries forward base-year travel patterns to the future year. This method is commonly applied in medium-sized municipalities. Seed matrices were developed so that future trips would have appropriate travel patterns to represent new developments. Initial seeds were based on origin-destination pairs in the 2011 TTS. Gaps in base TTS trip matrix data (i.e. cells in the seed matrix with 0 trips) were filled using nearest neighbour methods. The resulting seed matrices allow application of Fratar methodology gravity-based matrix doubly constrained to production and attraction to create the assignment matrix. See Appendix A (Exhibit A - 2 to 5) for the seed matrices used in the model. Following the development of peak period matrices, peak hour factors (PHFs) were calculated to refine the trip matrices from the four-hour surveyed peak periods (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) to the one-hour peak hour (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.). Peak hour factors were applied to the trip matrices together with mode choice factors (see Section 4.3). See Exhibit 4-3 for the summary list of trip adjustment factors. 4.3 Mode Choice As defined earlier in Section 1.3, the model assignment mode is auto and analysis time period is a.m. peak hour. By including all trips and an auto mode share factor, future policy-based mode choice adjustments can be tested if desired. To create the appropriate assignment matrix, TTS query results were refined with the following adjustments: Peak Hour Factor: percentage of trips in the peak hour (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) compared to trips in the peak period (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.); Auto Mode Share: percentage of trips made by auto (as a driver or passenger) compared to all trips; and Auto Occupancy: average number of persons per auto vehicle. See Exhibit 4-3 for a summary of calculated factors. For home-based work and discretionary trips, the auto mode share was found to be 0.93 and 0.97, respectively. For home-based school, the auto mode share was found to be very low (0.30). These are in line with expectations for existing conditions in the County where many school trips are by bus. The auto occupancy rate for home-based school trips extracted from TTS is This rate appears high suggesting a potential sample error; however reduction would not increase the number of trips in the model (see Section 4.5). Exhibit 4-4 provides a summary of total Countyinternal (County of Brant + City of Brantford) trips by trip purpose. In total about 20,000 auto trips are made in the County during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour. Exhibit 4-3: Adjustment Factors for each Trip Purpose Trip Purpose Peak Hour Factor Auto Occupancy Auto Mode Share Home-based work (HBW) Home-based school (HBS) Home-based other (HBO) Non home-based (NHB) October 30,

132 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 4-4: County of Brant Base Year Internal Trip Summary by Trip Purpose Category HBW HBS HBO NHB Total Peak Period (6:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.) Trip Total 21,153 11,313 21,422 8,087 61,975 Peak Hour (8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) Trip Total 7,932 9,371 10,729 4,274 32,306 Peak Hour Auto Total 6, ,956 3,061 19, Trip Assignment Base year (2011) a.m. peak hour auto demand matrix was assigned to the road network using the standard link capacity-based user equilibrium method for single mode (auto) in TransCAD. User equilibrium method minimizes the total travel time for each origin-destination pair using the BPR function (see Section 2 for the formula). The implied assumption is that drivers naturally seek the route with the shortest travel time and have perfect information on which route offers the shortest travel time. While more advanced assignment methods are available, calibration is difficult and data-intensive and may not result in better validation; user-equilibrium is the most common assignment method in demand models for Canadian municipalities. See Exhibit 4-5 below for the summary of total peak hour auto trips assigned to the road network. Exhibit 4-5: County of Brant Base Year Model Trip Summary by Type Type Total Peak Hour Auto Trips County of Brant + City of Brantford 18,993* Internal - External Crossing 7,225 External - External Through 5,330 Model Total (Base Year) 31,548 * note that this figure is slightly different from Exhibit 4-4 due to convergence allowance in the Fratar process 4.5 Calibration and Validation Calibration of the model involved comparing 2011 model flows with traffic counts and making adjustments to the road network to improve validation where possible. As explained in Section 3, the base year travel survey data was defined within the 11 TTS zones for the County of Brant (later disaggregated to 69 model zones). The small sample size and coarse zone system made it difficult to attain reasonable validation with most screenlines indicating 25% differences from counts. In order to better calibrate the model, origin-destination matrix estimation (ODME) was undertaken using TransCAD. ODME calibrates the model assignment to better match existing counts by adjusting individual origin-destination trip pairs in the demand matrix. Constraints are used to limit the changes to the underlying travel patterns, which is important as the underlying TTS survey data is known to be valid. ODME was conducted in three stages by varying the maximum allowable adjustment in the origin-destination pairs to +/- 10%, 20%, and 30% of their original values. After each stage, assignment flows on counted locations were collected and checked. Among the three stages modelled, the 30% ODME was the most improved in terms of model flows versus counts. Therefore, the base year 2011 matrix with 30% ODME was selected as the final assignment matrix. October 30,

133 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT See Exhibit 4-6 for ODME results at each stage. Constraints larger than 30% were not tested so that the total base year trips would not be artificially altered by more than 10%. Exhibit 4-9 shows the count locations used for ODME matrix estimation. Exhibit 4-6: ODME Results Analysis Scenario Total Trips Model vs. Counts Base Year 2011, unadjusted 31, % N/E, +7% S/W Base Year 2011 with 10% ODME 29,345 (-7%) +13% N/E, +7% S/W Base Year 2011 with 20% ODME 28,811 (-9%) +9% N/E, +4% S/W Base Year 2011 with 30% ODME 28,346 (-10%) +6% N/E, +2% S/W The result of the ODME exercise is an output matrix with improved validation within target performance levels. Rather than use the ODME matrix directly, the difference between the ODME matrix and the base synthetic matrix was calculated and will be applied to future horizons. Demand matrices for base (2011) and future (2031) years, as well as the ODME matrix and the adjustment matrix, are provided in Appendix B. The final base year (2011) a.m. peak hour assignment result is shown in Exhibit Model validation as indicated in Exhibit 4-9 were grouped based on direction of flow (north-south or east-west) into four screenlines: Colborne: north/south flow across Colborne Street; Bishopsgate: east/west flow across Bishopsgate Road; Rest Acres: east/west flow across Rest Acres Road; and Highway 403: north/south flow across Highway 403. With the exception of Colborne screenline, the 2011 assignment (after adjustment) validates within the target range (+/- 15%). The southbound flow on Colborne screenline appears to validate poorly at +26%; however, the sample size is low with counted southbound flow of 450 vehicles-per-hour (vph) compared to the total counted southbound flow of 5,342 vph on the Highway 403 screenline. The Highway 403 screenline indicates a reasonable validation with difference of 10% (northbound) and 1% (southbound). Exhibit 4-7 provides the validation summary. October 30,

134 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 4-7: Screenline Validation Modelled versus Counts Location Counts Model Flow Difference % Difference NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Screenline Colborne Rest Acres % 10% Bishopsgate % 84% Total % 26% Screenline Bishopsgate King Edward % -1% Bethel % -22% Colborne % -2% Total % -3% Screenline Rest Acres King Edward % 12% Powerline % -3% Bethel % -15% Colborne % -9% Total % -5% Screenline 403 Bishopsgate % 136% Rest Acres % -14% Paris Rd % -8% St Paul NB % St Paul SB 1, , % West St % 23% Wayne Gretzky NB 1,080 1, % Wayne Gretzky SB 1, , % Garden Ave % -9% Total 4,579 5,342 5,020 5, % 1% All Locations 6,253 6,583 6,613 6, % 2% The base year (2011) a.m. peak hour trip assignment in Exhibit 4-10 shows the existing traffic volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio on major County highways, arterials and collectors based on the a.m. peak hour traffic volume compared to the road capacity. The v/c ratio is colour-coded to represent the level-of-service (LOS), and the line width for each road reflects the traffic volume. Exhibit 4-8 summarizes the quantitative and qualitative descriptions of LOS in the model: Exhibit 4-8: Level-of-Service Description V/C Ratio Colour Code LOS General Traffic Condition Green A Very Good - Good Yellow B, C, D Good - Fair Orange E Poor 1.0 > Red F Exceeds Capacity - Unacceptable The current (2011) a.m. peak hour traffic assignment flows on Exhibit 4-10 show that the vast majority of the County s road network is operating at a good Level-of-Service during this peak hour. The exceptions of note are: King Edward Street westbound leaving Paris between Dundas Street and Rest Acres Road; October 30,

135 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Dundas Street W eastbound leaving Paris between Grand River Street S and Paris Road; Rest Acres Road southbound leaving Paris between Powerline Road and Highway 403; and The Highway 403 on - ramps at Rest Acres Road/ Highway 24. October 30,

136 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 4-9: ODME Count Locations October 30,

137 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 4-10: 2011 a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Flows, Final October 30,

138 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 5 Future Demand 5.1 Model Inputs The County of Brant provided population and employment forecasts compatible with base-year TTS data but aggregated to sub-municipalities. For model input, refined disaggregate forecasts matching the model zone system were required. The following studies were referenced to develop the zone-based population and employment forecasts: County of Brant Official Plan Review Growth Analysis Study by Watson & Associates (2008); County of Brant Municipal Comprehensive Review (2008); County of Brant Official Plan, 2012; Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Inc. Planning Report by GSP Group (2012); and Transportation Impact Study, Proposed Residential Development, Paris on the Grand, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (2013). The total population and employment growth in the County of Brant from 2011 (based on TTS) to 2031 (based on provincial projections) is summarized below in Exhibit 5-1: Exhibit 5-1: County of Brant Growth Summary Year Population Employment ,718 11, ,000 19, to 2031 Growth 11,282 7, to 2031 Growth % 32% 61% Population The County of Brant Official Plan states that the 2031 population forecast is 47,000 persons, a growth of 11,282 persons (32%) compared to the 2011 population of 35,718. The report prepared by Watson & Associates states that over the forecast period, approximately 70% of residential growth will occur in Southwest Paris and that 17% of growth will be rural. For the zone forecast, it was assumed that the 17% of rural growth will occur in the settlement area boundaries of Hamlets, Villages, and Rural Residential Areas. The remaining 13% of growth is assumed to occur in the settlement area boundaries of Primary and Secondary Urban Settlement Areas. The areas defined by these settlements are as follows: North Paris East Paris north of Dundas Street East Paris south of Dundas Street Rest Acres Road north of Highway 403 Rest Acres Road (Highway 24) south of Highway 403 County Road 25 / Highway 403 Burford (village area) October 30,

139 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Burford (Bishopsgate) Airport Area Cainsville Garden Avenue / Highway 403 St. George With the forecast split into settlement area boundaries and an average growth of 178 units per year for residential units, 4,450 units will be added by year Residential density rates used were 73% low density with an average of 3.04 persons per unit, 19% medium density with an average of 2.14 persons per unit, and 8% high density with an average of 1.60 persons per unit. Exhibit 5-2 below shows the total additional residential population split of the three areas of growth. These were allocated to specific zones based on percentage of settlement area within zone boundary and projected 2031 population. Exhibit 5-2: Total Population Added for 2031 Forecast Based on Official Plan Southwest Paris Primary and Secondary Settlements Rural Settlements Population 7,897 1,918 1,467 Employment The County of Brant Official Plan states that the 2031 employment forecast is 19,000 employees, a growth of 7,194 employees (61% growth) compared to the 2011 employment of 11,806 employees. The employment-to-population ratio in 2031 is 0.40, which is 0.07 higher than the 2011 employment-to-population ratio of In other words, planned growth in the County will result in an increase of employment opportunities on a per-resident basis in From the Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Brant County Employment Lands, nine areas were designated as employment areas that represent 1,494 acres of developable land. These areas were analyzed and ranked based on their serviceability to determine the most attractive area for employment development to meet the 2031 forecast. Exhibit 5-3 shows the nine designated employment areas and their rank. The 61% total employment growth, higher than population growth, is reflective of the County s plans to intensify employment in the areas south of Paris. The imbalance between population growth (32%) and employment growth (61%) creates opportunities for the County to increase the internal employment rate and/or to attract workers from external municipalities and regions. See Appendix C for the full table of population and employment for each zone in the County, for 2011 and October 30,

140 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 5-3: Designated Employment Areas in the County of Brant Area Settlement Undeveloped Lands (acres)* Net Developable Land (acres)** 1 North Paris a East Paris, north of Dundas Street b East Paris, south of Dundas Street a Rest Acres Road, north of Hwy b Rest Acres Road, south of Hwy County Road 25/Highway a Burford (village area) b Burford (Bishopsgate) Airport Area Cainsville Garden Ave/Hwy St. George Total 2,347 1,763 n/a 15% Applied Reduction*** 1,995 1,499 n/a *Gross amount of undeveloped lands in designated employment areas. **Excludes existing ponds, wetlands, floodplains, hydro corridors, future roads, etc. ***Reduced to account for sites that are unlikely to develop over the planning period. Rank As a result, 2031 employment growth were assigned to areas 3A/3B with 155 acres of development and areas 2B/9 with 292 acres of development. Exhibit 5-4 shows the areas of each employment land to be developed. It was specified that an additional 74 acres of employment land would be available for expansion in St. George. Exhibit 5-4: Total Employment Added for 2031 Forecast Based on Official Plan Employment Area Additional Employment by A 1,188 3B 1,317 2B 2, , Growth Trends As described in Section 5, growth in the County was allocated to specific zones based on the strategic growth plan. The 2031 a.m. peak hour auto assignment matrix was developed following the procedure described in Section 4. The final 2031 a.m. peak hour auto assignment matrix has a total of 40,389 trips, roughly 42% higher than See Exhibit 5-5 for the percentage growth by origin/destination and Exhibit 5-6 for the comparison of 2011 and 2031 final assignment matrices. Forecast growth through 2031 will occur both within the County and for external trips. Trips between the County and the City are expected to increase by 42% to 44% while trips to the east external (representing the Greater Toronto Area) are expected to increase 39%. Total vehiclekm of travel increase is 116,000 or 1% compound annual (including provincial and Brantford roads), which is less than the growth in trips due to growth in short distance travel within Brantford. October 30,

141 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 5-5: Trip Growth Percentage from 2011 to to 2031 Growth % Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West County of Brant 32% 42% 42% 28% 39% 33% City of Brantford 40% 44% 52% 40% 39% 25% Ext. North 46% 39% 45% 50% 51% 47% Ext. South 46% 34% 58% 42% 50% 49% Ext. East 32% 39% 49% 48% 46% 31% Ext. West 39% 23% 51% 46% 59% 44% Exhibit 5-6: 2031 and 2011 Final a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Comparison Scenario Total a.m. Peak Hour Auto Trips Vehicle-Km Travel 2011 Final 28, , Final 40, ,000 Total Growth, 20-Year 42% 116,000 Annual Growth (compound rate) 1.8% 1.0% Network Performance Network updates for the 2031 assignment was limited to the widening of Rest Acres Road to four lanes, which is planned as per the Rest Acres Road EA. Exhibit 5-7 shows the 2031 a.m. peak hour auto assignment flows. Several links are approaching (orange) or exceeding (red) capacity. See previous Exhibit 4-8 for a description of the levels-of-service. The orange and/or red bands near the fringes of the model network are the localized effects of external zone connection, where multiple external travel demand connections have been simplified into single connections. In other words, the model v/c ratio results may not be accurate in the fringe areas of the model. Based on the long-term travel demand forecast to 2031, capacity deficiencies and associated poor levels-of-service are forecast on the following County road sections. For these links, further capacity analysis in Synchro 7 will be completed as a part of the overall TMP Update: Pinehurst Road southbound approaching Paris between Watt s Pond Road and Woodslee Avenue; Dundas Street E. eastbound between Grand River Street and Paris Road; King Edwards Street westbound from Grand River Street S to Rest Acres Road (note that Rest Acres Road is 4 lanes in the 2031 model); Highway 403/Rest Acres Road southbound on ramp; CR18 northbound from Highway 54 to Colborne Street; and Brant-Oxford Road southbound between County boundary and Drumbo Road. October 30,

142 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit 5-7: 2031 a.m. Peak Hour Auto Assignment Flows, Final October 30,

143 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6 Summary This report documents the development of a new travel demand model for the County of Brant. The model provides the County with the capability of analyzing the roadway transportation implications of various growth, development, and network scenarios. The model is in the TransCAD platform, and was developed using the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey, the Provincial Growth Plan, the County of Brant Official Plan, and the County of Brant s GIS road network. The model assigns the a.m. peak hour for the 2011 base year and 2031 future year. The model applies a traditional four-stage modelling approach for development of future year peak hour auto assignments. Base year (2011) assignment, with 28,300 a.m. peak hour auto trips, validates within 15% on directional flow screenlines, with exceptions where the count sample size was small (less than 500 total vehicles across the screenline). The base year flow map indicates that, as expected, a few major travel corridors such as King Edward Street, Dundas Street East and Rest Acres Road operate with volume-to-capacity ratios beyond 0.85, indicating that they are busy and approaching capacity but do not warrant widening at this time. The model estimates a.m. peak hour auto trip growth to 40,400 trips in 2031, a 42% increase compared to The forecast increase is higher than population growth rate (32%) due to higher employment growth forecasts for the County focused on areas in Southwest Paris. The future model indicates a priority need for widening Rest Acres Road between King Edward Street and Highway 403 which already has EA approval. Model output also that additional capacity constraints will appear at other locations including King Edward Street between Rest Acres Road and Grand River Street, and Dundas Street between Curtis Street and Paris Road. October 30,

144 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Appendix A Zone Productions, Attractions, and Seed Matrices October 30,

145

146 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit A - 1: Zone Production and Attraction Totals by Trip Purpose Model Zone HBW HBS HBO NHB 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A October 30,

147 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Model Zone HBW HBS HBO NHB 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A October 30,

148 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Model Zone HBW HBS HBO NHB 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A 2011P 2011A Note that the following exhibits are in 2011 TTS zone system, with representing County of Brant Zones and 9999 representing the aggregation of City of Brantford zones. Green numbers indicate manual adjustment. Exhibit A - 2: Seed Matrix for Home-based Work Trips O\D , ,866 October 30,

149 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit A - 3: Seed Matrix for Home-based School Trips O\D ,791 Exhibit A - 4: Seed Matrix for Home-based Other/Discretionary Trips O\D ,525 Exhibit A - 5: Seed Matrix for Non Home-based Trips O\D ,930 October 30,

150 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Appendix B Base Year, ODME, and Future Forecast Origin-Destination Matrices October 30,

151

152 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit B - 1: Base Year 2011 Origin-Destination Assignment Matrix, Unadjusted (TTS-Based) 2011 Unadjusted Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total County of Brant 2,401 2, ,812 City of Brantford 1,388 13, , ,134 Ext. North ,621 Ext. South ,397 Ext. East 322 1, ,389 Ext. West ,196 Total 4,558 18,059 2,289 1,816 3,228 1,599 31,548 Exhibit B - 2: Base Year 2011 Origin-Destination Assignment Matrix, Final, with Constrained (30%) ODME Adjustment 2011 Final (with 30% ODME) Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total County of Brant 2,056 2, ,663 City of Brantford 1,791 11, , ,572 Ext. North ,992 Ext. South ,193 Ext. East 346 1, ,874 Ext. West ,051 Total 4,539 16,644 1,677 1,431 2,649 1,406 28,346 Exhibit B - 3: Constrained (30%) ODME Adjustment Matrix ODME (30%) Adjustment Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total County of Brant City of Brantford 403-1, ,562 Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total -20-1, ,202 Exhibit B - 4: Constrained (30%) ODME Adjustment Matrix as a Percentage of 2011 Unadjusted Matrix ODME Adjustment (%) Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total County of Brant -14% 17% -18% 26% -11% 6% -3% City of Brantford 29% -12% -33% -13% -10% 40% -9% Ext. North -24% -11% -22% -31% -32% -26% -24% Ext. South -25% 1% -41% -16% -30% -29% -15% Ext. East 8% -11% -30% -28% -24% 14% -15% Ext. West -12% 54% -31% -25% -41% -21% -12% Total 0% -8% -27% -21% -18% -12% -10% October 30,

153 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit B - 5: Forecast Year 2031 Origin-Destination Assignment Matrix, Final 2031 Total Origin \ Destination County of Brant City of Brantford Ext. North Ext. South Ext. East Ext. West Total County of Brant 2,721 3, ,793 City of Brantford 2,512 16, , ,263 Ext. North ,138 Ext. South ,678 Ext. East 457 1, ,050 Ext. West ,466 Total 6,191 23,699 2,446 2,262 3,769 2,022 40,389 October 30,

154 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Appendix C County of Brant Population and Employment Growth October 30,

155

156 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Exhibit C - 1: County of Brant Population and Employment Growth, Zone-by-Zone Zone Information Population Employment ID Name TTS Zone 2011 Growth Growth Six Nations Reserve Scotland, Oakland, etc , , Six Nations Reserve Six Nations Reserve Six Nations Reserve Falkland, Princeton Burford , , Burford, Fairfield Plan, etc Cathcart, Muir Gobles, Princeton Burford None New Durham, Harley, Kelvin Muir, Cathcart, etc Mt. Pleasant, Burtch Mt. Pleasant None Tutela Heights Tutela Heights Mt. Pleasant , , Oakhill/Airport None Burford Falkland SW Paris ,208 1, SW Paris None ,188 1, None SW Paris ,371 1, SW Paris SW Paris ,103 1, None Cainsville, Onondaga Middleport Cainsville Cainsville Brant East None Cainsville None None Cainsville SW Paris ,461 1,881 3, SW Paris & Paris , , October 30,

157 IBI GROUP TECHNICAL APPENDIX - DRAFT MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT Zone Information Population Employment ID Name TTS Zone 2011 Growth Growth None None None Paris None Paris ,204 2, None Paris None None None St. George , , Paris Paris Paris , ,329 1, , Glen Morris , , St. George , , St. George , , Paris Paris Paris Glen Morris, Paris St. George ,039 2, St. George, Harrisburg , , None Total 35,718 11,282 47,000 11,806 7,194 19,000 October 30,

158 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 3 County Road Capacity Analysis Report MARCH

159 CLIENT LOGO Report Brant TMP Update Paris Area Future Travel Demand Assessment by IBI Group November 24, 2014

160 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Document Control Page CLIENT: County of Brant PROJECT NAME: REPORT TITLE: IBI REFERENCE: VERSION: 5 Paris Assessment Brant TMP Update Paris Area Future Travel Demand Assessment DIGITAL MASTER: ORIGINATOR: REVIEWER: AUTHORIZATION: [File Location] Jeff Qiao Scott Johnston, Don Drackley Bruce Mori CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: November 24, 2014

161 IBI GROUPREPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background Study Area Demand Analysis... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 Existing Travel Demand... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 Future Travel Demand New Planned Developments... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Capacity Analysis... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3 Mitigation Measures Signal Optimization Green Lane Extension Option Conclusions Appendix Traffic Conditions November 24, 2014 i

162 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 1 Introduction This report provides a supplementary analysis to the County of Brant s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update (2014) specifically on future traffic conditions in the Paris community. The analysis was needed in part to account for two residential development opportunities proposed since the Official Plan was approved in 2012, namely the North West Paris development proposed by Brookfield Homes at the north end of the Paris community, and the Paris on the Grand residential redevelopment proposal. The analysis also tested the effects of a proposed east Paris bypass via an extension of Green Lane across the Grand River. The County of Brant s TMP Update focuses on the transportation needs and opportunities driven by the growth anticipated by the County s Official Plan However, since the Official Plan was completed in 2012, it does not reflect the two additional developments within Paris. A roadway capacity analysis with these additional developments, and of future traffic conditions in central Paris is provided. Measures to accommodate increased traffic volumes including signal timing changes and the potential extension of Green Lane (Paris Bypass) are analyzed to determine their effectiveness at mitigating forecasted traffic concerns. 1.1 Background The community of Paris is a high growth area within the County of Brant. Based on the 2012 County Official Plan, the travel demand forecasting model developed by IBI Group estimates population growth of approximately 8,500 people and employment growth of about 4,000 jobs in Paris over the next 20 years to Grand River Street is the main north-south arterial through Paris, and serves local and regional traffic but does not serve through truck traffic in the Paris downtown where truck movements are restricted. The Alternate 24A Paris Bypass, a designated truck route to the west of Paris, was enabled in 2012 through the County s truck route bylaw. Trucks are restricted on Grand River Street North in central Paris unless there is a truck origin or destination in this area. Otherwise, through trucks must travel a circular route to the west of Paris along Drumbo Road, Ayr Road, Keg Lane, Brant Oxford Road, Puttown Road and King Edward Street to access Rest Acres Road and Highway 403. With traffic growth from planned developments and limited routing options around Paris, there may be a need in the future for additional north-south capacity in the Paris road network.. Prior to the Paris Bypass study in 2010, the County had considered a Green Lane extension across the Grand River to the east of Paris shown in Exhibit 1-1. The extension would include a new crossing of the Grand River and connect in the south via Paris Road to Oak Park Road, which has an interchange with Highway 403. To the north the extension would connect to Pinehurst Road/ Highway 24A just north of Watt s Pond Road which extends into Waterloo Region. The TMP Update includes development of a travel demand model. Model output indicates future capacity constraints on King Edward Street, Dundas Street, and Grand River Street North by 2031, even without the additional developments proposed since Based on the above, this analysis is a preliminary review of the development impacts, and the potential traffic impacts and benefits of a potential eastern bypass of Paris shown in Exhibit Technical Appendix: Model Development Report, TMP Update, IBI Group, October 30, 2014 November 24,

163 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 1-1: Potential Bypass Alignment November 24,

164 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 1.2 Study Area In order to identify potential areas of traffic concern within Paris, key intersections and road links were selected for analysis within the community. A macro area was established to determine traffic flows on roads in and out of the community. Three representative intersections were selected within the community for analysis in greater detail. The study area is shown in Exhibit 1-2 and a description of key roads is provided below: Pinehurst Road /Grand River Street North: This is the main north-south Arterial Road in the Paris area, extending from the Waterloo Region in the north to King Edward Street / Dumfries Street in the south. Currently it has two lanes (one per direction), with six signalized intersections in the community. Paris Road: With Rest Acres Road being the primary connection to Highway 403, Paris Road to the east of Paris serves as a Rural Arterial alternate route. A bypass route east of the community could use this road as the connection to Highway 403, with traffic being diverted from the urban area starting north of Paris. East River Road: This Rural Collector Road serves as an alternate route from the Waterloo region. It follows the east side of the Grand River and connects to Highway 24 near Cambridge. Silver Street: This street is a two-lane east-west Urban Employment / Residential Collector road that primarily serves local developments. William Street: This is a short east-west link in the central core of Paris. As an Urban Residential Collector, the prominent feature of William Street is the bridge that spans across the Grand River, which connects Grand River Street North in the west to Willow Street in the east. November 24,

165 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 1-2: Study Area 2 Existing Conditions Existing conditions analysis was undertaken using the County s travel demand model and a capacity analysis of three major intersections in central Paris; King Edward Street & Rest Acres Road, Grand River Street North & William Street, and Grand River Street North and Silver Street. As described previously, for the 2014 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update a County-wide travel demand model ( Brant Model ) was developed in the TransCAD platform. It is an a.m. peak hour model with 2011 and 2031 horizons. Travel demand forecasts were developed using the four-stage approach to provide sensitivity to population and employment growth projections, as well as network scenarios and capacity constraints. All traffic demands for each model year and road network configuration analyzed are provided in the Appendix of this report. A full summary of model development is included as a separate Model Development Report dated October 30, Existing 2011 conditions in central Paris are shown in Exhibit 2-1. Traffic volumes concentrate along Grand River Street North in the vicinity of William Street with flows of vph in either direction, which is nearing the capacity of the existing road (estimated at 1,000vph per direction). South of William Street much of the traffic on Grand River Street South turns to access Dumfries Street which also indicates a high Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio. The model indicates that traffic destined to the east along Dundas Street East and Paris Road uses William Street and Willow Street, which are operating well within available capacity. November 24,

166 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Intersection capacity analysis was completed in Synchro 7 using HCM 2000 methodology for the three major intersections within Paris to identify any capacity constraints in the existing and/or future conditions. The first analysis scenario is the existing 2014 conditions estimated using 2011 counts and a 2% growth rate to The 2014 conditions show an acceptable level of service and good operational conditions at these three key intersections as summarized in Exhibit 2-2. All intersections operate at a levelof-service (LOS) of C or better. Overall the existing conditions analysis indicates that roads within Paris operate well today, however Grand River Street North and South are busy with some stretches particularly in the downtown and close to Dundas Street West / King Edward Street indicating flows within 10% to 20% of road capacity. Exhibit Existing (2011) Conditions Traffic Flow and Volume-to-Capacity November 24,

167 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 2-2: 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Analysis Scenario Location King Edward St & Rest Acres Rd Grand River St & William St Grand River St & Silver St MOE Left Eastbound Through Right Approach Left Through Direction / Movement / Approach Westbound Right Approach LOS A A A A A A B B B A Delay V/C Q95th% LOS C C C C C C B B B A A A B Delay V/C Q95th% LOS B B B A B A B B B B Delay V/C Q95th% Left Northbound Through Right Approach Left Southbound Through Right Approach Overall 3 Future Conditions Future conditions analysis was undertaken using the County s demand model and capacity analysis, with traffic growth estimates from the demand model. Two scenarios were considered for the demand model analysis, future 2031 background conditions based on the Official Plan, and future total conditions with the two additional proposed residential developments. 3.1 Future Background Traffic Conditions Traffic growth from 2011 to 2031 background conditions is shown in Exhibit 3-1, with green lines representing routes with traffic growth and the line width representing traffic volume. Red lines indicate routes with traffic volume reduction between 2014 and It can be seen that there are increased traffic volumes along Grand River Street North and South through Paris, with an increase of approximately 100vph in the peak northbound direction. As discussed in Section 2, this increase will raise traffic volumes along Grand River Street North to 1,000vph which is roughly the capacity of the existing road. This will likely lead to moderate traffic congestion, reduced travel speeds and increased delays compared to current conditions. The model is sensitive to congestion, and the few routes with reduced volumes shown in red such as Green Lane northbound and Silver Street may indicate alternate route choices that would result in negative traffic growth on these road sections. November 24,

168 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 3-1: Traffic Growth, 2011 to 2031 Background Conditions 3.2 Future Total Traffic Conditions The main growth area of the Paris community, and County of Brant overall, is the Southwest Paris Urban Settlement Area. This area extends either side of Rest Acres Road from King Edward Street south to Highway 403 and Bethel Road. The Servicing Study Report for this area was prepared by URS Canada Inc. in October 2004, and includes a range of residential and employment land uses. This growth potential is reflected in the 2012 County Official Plan. Since finalizing the current Official Plan, two new developments within Paris have been proposed. The analysis of future total traffic conditions includes the background conditions described in Section 3.1, plus the additional development traffic from these proposed developments. The first is the North West Paris mixed residential / employment neighbourhood proposed by Brookfield Homes in It proposes 412 new residential units. 2 The second is the Paris Grand subdivision planned on the Paris Links golf course east of Grand River Street North, on 2 Planning Report, GSP Group for Brookfield Homes, August 2012 November 24,

169 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT the north and south sides of Paris Links Road. The Transportation Impact Study prepared for this area is based on approximately 410 new residential units being created. 3 The increased travel demand due to the new developments within Paris was estimated based on population and employment growth from these developments, and then added to the 2031 projections from the County s Official Plan. A summary of the added employment and population growth as well as the base year values are shown in Exhibit 3-2. Exhibit 3-2: Employment and Population Projections Demand Scenario Employment Population 2011 TTS 11,806 35, Projected 19,000 47, Projected with Added Paris Developments 19,245 48,918 The travel demand model was run with the additional developments. A comparison against the 2031 background case is provided in Exhibit 3-3 (green represents traffic volume increases, red traffic volume decreases) with major changes as follows: Grand River Street North and South: Total volumes increase by 115vph with the added developments, approximately 70 in the peak northbound direction. In total the future volumes under this scenario are approximately 1,100vph, which exceeds the road s base capacity of 1,000vph. Paris Road: Developments generate an additional 35vph, with this link appearing to be near capacity in the southbound direction heading to Highway 403 and the City of Brantford. King Edward Street / Rest Acres Road / Keg Lane: Owing to poor LOS on Grand River Street, the model is diverting traffic from the north side of Paris to the existing Alternate 24A bypass west of the community via these streets. A capacity analysis was undertaken to determine the effects of the traffic growth at an operational level. A summary of the analysis results is provided in Exhibit 3-6 and major changes are listed below: King Edward Street at Rest Acres Road: The LOS of the westbound left-turn is an unacceptable LOS F with 130m queues that exceed available capacity. This is as a result of vehicles accessing Highway 403 from Paris. However this intersection is proposed for expansion by 2031 under the Rest Acres Road EA which would resolve capacity concerns. William St at Grand River Street North: Several of the movements show increased V/C ratios, however delays have not increased and all the LOS has remained the same. Grand River Street North at Silver Street: Again, several movements show large increases in the V/C ratios but overall levels of service remained the same. 3 Transportation Impact Study, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Inc. for Golfnorth Properties, January 2013 November 24,

170 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Overall the future total conditions indicate that there will be capacity constraints along Grand River Street North and South. Traffic operations will be characterised by increased delay and slow-moving platoons of traffic. However, problems will be localised rather than systemic, and will occur mainly along Grand River Street North and South between William Street and King Edward Street in the downtown area, and congestion will be manageable. Exhibit 3-3: Traffic Growth, 2031 Background Conditions to 2031 Total Conditions Exhibit 3-4: Road Section Demands (Existing Road Network) Existing Network Future Demand Future Demand with Added Developments Location NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Demand Demand Demand Growth Demand Growth Demand Growth Demand Growth Pinehurst Road north of Watts Pond Road Paris Road South of Governors Road East River Road West of Green Lane Road % % % 690 8% % % 430 2% 580 4% % % 500 4% % November 24,

171 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 3-5: 2031 Downtown Paris with Added Developments Exhibit 3-6: 2031 Capacity Summary (Existing Road Network) Analysis Scenario Location King Edward St & Rest Acres Rd Grand River St & William St Grand River St & Silver St MOE Left Eastbound Through Right Approach Left Through Direction / Movement / Approach Westbound Right Approach LOS B A B F B F B B B E Delay V/C Q95th% # #46 LOS C C C C C C B B B A A A B Delay V/C Q95th% LOS B B B A B B C B C B Delay V/C Q95th% Left Northbound Through Right Approach Left Southbound Through Right Approach Overall November 24,

172 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 4 Mitigation Measures 4.1 Signal Optimization It is expected that intersection signal re-optimization will provide some minor improvements to intersection level of service over time. Installation of traffic signals may also be required in the road section between Grand River Street S and King Edward Street to manage increase traffic movement through this challenging area, depending on topography, line-of-sight and intersection redesign potential. The intersection of King Edward Street and Rest Acres Road has an unacceptable LOS F in 2031 in the west bound left turn, however an expansion of this intersection is planned in the Rest Acres Road Environmental Assessment (2012). Overall it is expected that signal optimization will improve traffic operations, but there will still be light to moderate congestion along Grand River Street North and South during peak times that may not be acceptable to local residents and businesses, and that would not be compatible with the small-town character of Paris. 4.2 Green Lane Extension Option As stated above, traffic growth to 2031 will cause increased congestion along Grand River Street North and South. A portion of the traffic volumes using Grand River Street North and South are pass-through traffic rather than residents or employees in Paris. To test the effect of a Green Lane bypass option, the Green Lane extension previously shown in Exhibit 1-1 was coded into the road network of the travel demand model. A new traffic assignment was completed and volumes were then compared on key roads. With a potential bypass route on the east side of Paris (Exhibit 1-1), there would be approximately 30% traffic diversion away from the Pinehurst Road/Grand River Street corridor. Conversely, traffic volumes increase on Silver Street as traffic conditions improve on Grand River Street North which it is connected to. As shown in Exhibit 4-1, both the Green Lane Extension and Paris Links Road receive significant traffic volumes as motorists utilize the bypass to access Brantford and Highway 403. Exhibit 4-1 shows the traffic volume differences in the road network (green is increased traffic, red decreased traffic) with a Green Lane extension included, while Exhibit 4-2 shows the capacity analysis of the three key analysis intersections. The analysis indicates that the diversion of 30% of the traffic away from Grand River Street North and South would provide operational benefits along this street by Further to the operational benefits, the Green Lane extension could provide an alternative truck route around the east side of Paris. This would likely be more attractive than the current Paris Bypass route as most trucks are travelling to Highway 403 to travel east towards the GTA, and a Green Lane extension would provide a more direct route in that direction. Under this traffic diversion scenario, the proposed Bishopsgate Road interchange would experience reduced traffic volumes from the north, and the need for the proposed interchange may be reduced. November 24,

173 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Exhibit 4-1: 2031 Existing Road Network versus Potential East By-Pass Exhibit 4-2: 2031 Capacity Summary (Proposed Green Lane Extension) Analysis Scenario Location King Edward St & Rest Acres Rd Grand River St & William St Grand River St & Silver St MOE Left Direction / Movement / Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Through Right Approach Left Through Right Approach LOS B A A F B F B B B D Delay V/C Q95th% # LOS C C C C C C C B C A A A C Delay V/C Q95th% LOS C B B A B B B B B B Delay V/C Q95th% Left Through Right Approach Left Through Right Approach Overall November 24,

174 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 5 Conclusions This report provides an analysis of the transportation impacts of two recently-proposed developments in Paris that are not included in the County s Official Plan. The analysis includes assessment of the benefits that would be provided by the proposed extension of Green Lane across the Grand River to form a new east bypass around Paris. Traffic forecasts indicate that travel demand in Paris and on the nearby road network will grow significantly by year By 2031, Grand River Street North and South will have light to moderate congestion, in particular between Williams Street and Dumfries Street / Dundas Street where traffic will experience delays and slow operations. The first potential mitigation measure to address these potential conditions is signal optimization which could address some of the congestion issues but improvements and benefits would likely be limited. Analysis of the proposed Green Lane extension indicates that if constructed, it would divert approximately 30% of traffic on Grand River Street North and South to the bypass. This would provide a significant benefit to traffic operations in Paris, with intersections operations improved in terms of average delays and queues. The extension would also provide an alternative truck route around Paris that is likely more convenient for trucks from the north travelling to Highway 403 than the existing Alternate 24A bypass. Therefore the Green Lane extension should also be considered in the context of the proposed Bishopsgate Road interchange, which would experience reduced volumes compared to the base case without the extension. November 24,

175 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT Appendix Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions are measured as the ratio between traffic Volume over roadway Capacity (VOC). The v/c ratio is colour-coded on the following plots to represent the level-of-service (LOS), and the line width for each road reflects the traffic volume. The following table summarizes the quantitative and qualitative descriptions of LOS in the model: V/C Ratio Colour Code LOS General Traffic Condition Green A Very Good - Good Yellow B, C, D Good - Fair Orange E Poor 1.0 > Red F Exceeds Capacity - Unacceptable November 24,

176 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2011 Base Year Traffic Demand November 24,

177 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2011 Downtown Paris November 24,

178 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2031 Traffic Demand November 24,

179 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2031 Traffic Demand with Added Paris Developments November 24,

180 IBI GROUP REPORT BRANT TMP UPDATE PARIS AREA FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 2031 Traffic Demand with Added Paris Developments and Green Lane Extension November 24,

181 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 4 Aggregate Resource Guide MARCH

182 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE August 2015

183 Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE IMPORTANCE OF AGGREGATES NATURE OF THE AGGREGATE DEPOSIT AGGREGATE QUALITY PAST AND PRESENT EXTRACTION FUTURE EXTRACTION AREAS ENABLING LEGISLATION PLANNING ACT REQUIRED APPROVALS TO OPERATE A PIT / QUARRY PRE-SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS DUTY TO CONSULT WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN ONTARIO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT PROCESS AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT COUNTY OF BRANT REQUIRED STUDIES PLANNING RATIONALE REPORT CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT STUDY HYDROGEOLOGY STUDY / GROUNDWATER IMPACT STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS), TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION REPORT INCLUDING A TREE RETENTION PLAN NOISE IMPACT STUDY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY (TIS) DUST AND AIR QUALITY IMPACT STUDY VIBRATION STUDY REHABILITATION PLAN FEES AND OTHER APPLICABLE COSTS APPLICATION FEES PEER REVIEW COSTS CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FEES COUNTY ATTENDANCE AT OMB HEARING COUNTY OF BRANT DISCLAIMER... 34

184 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE ASSOCIATED ISSUES Figures Figure 1 County of Brant - General Aggregate Deposits... 4 Figure 2 County of Brant Official Plan, Schedule E - Aggregate and Petroleum Resources... 6 Figure 3 Location of Existing Pits... 8 Figure 4 Summary of the Planning Act and Aggregate Resources Act Appendices Appendix A Truck Route Management Plan Appendix B Recommended Text for Requirement of Dust/Air Quality Study Page 3

185 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 1.0 Purpose of the Aggregate Resource Guide This Aggregate Resource Guide is for: a) The Public: To provide an overview of the importance of aggregates to the provincial and local economy, to identify its location within the County, to highlight the planning process for new applications and specifically highlighting key opportunities for public engagement. b) Prospective Pit Applicants: To provide a detailed outline of the planning process under the Planning Act with an emphasis on land use approvals (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment) including the technical studies required to support the application. Also provided is a brief outline of the Aggregate Resources Act which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2.0 Importance of Aggregates Aggregate resources include sand, gravel, clay, earth and bedrock, all which underlie the natural landscape and play a significant role in the everyday life of all Ontario residents. Aggregates are an integral part of the provincial infrastructure network including roads, sidewalks, sewers, bridges, and airports, as well as homes, offices, hospitals, schools and shopping centers. Aggregates are a key ingredient to concrete, asphalt, glass, coated paper, paint and pharmaceuticals as well as processes for steel, aluminum and plastic. Most of the aggregate resources produced in Ontario are used for construction projects with provincial and municipal governments using about half the annual volume extracted. Over the past 20 years, Ontario has consumed over 3 billion tonnes of aggregate - or about 164 million tonnes per year on average. This equates to about 14 tonnes per person per year (a small dump truck load), and according to a study commissioned by MNRF in 2009 entitled; State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario Study (SAROS), Paper 1 Aggregate Consumption and Demand, Ontario s consumption of aggregates is projected to increase to 186 million tonnes per year over the next 20 years. Page 1

186 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Nature of the Aggregate Deposit Underlying the centre portion of the County of Brant, aligned generally in a north to south orientation is a significant deposit of sand and gravel (aggregate). The Ontario Geological Survey is part of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, which publishes technical documents related to the quality and quantity of aggregate deposits throughout Ontario in reports called Aggregate Resource Inventory Papers (ARIP). Four ARIP reports have been completed for the former Townships that now make up the County of Brant and include: ARIP 8 Brantford Township published 1980 ARIP 10 South Dumfries Township published 1980 ARIP 33 Oakland Township published 1980 ARIP 43 Burford Township published 1981 Based on these reports, the sand and gravel deposit underlying the County is the result of glacial activity which took place in the Late Wisconsinan Substage of the Pleistocene Epoch. This period of time lasted from 23,000 to 10,000 years ago and was marked by the repeated advance and melting of massive continental ice sheets. Approximately 18,000 years ago, glacial ice completely covered the region as far as southern Ohio. Glacial retreat followed and the area was covered by water for a brief time during which glacial lake silt was deposited, followed by a re-advancement of the ice. The ARIP reports provide extensive details regarding each of the identified selected sand and gravel deposit areas within the County, and for a more exhaustive review, they can be accessed at the Government of Ontario web site: For the purpose of this Guide, the sand and gravel deposits have been grouped as follows and shown on Figure 1, County of Brant; General Aggregate Deposits. North of Paris: In the northern portion of the County, a large volume of the sediment-laden melt water flowed southward along the ice margin forming an extensive network of outwash deposits. The main channel followed the present day Grand River valley to Paris where deposition occurred as a broad delta. These outwash deposits contain important resources of good-quality sand and gravel. South of Paris: During the eventual retreat, the ice margin halted several times and eventually built hummocky ridges along the Grand River now referred as the Paris and Galt Moraines. The moraines rise 22 to 30 metres above the surrounding landscape and comprise predominately of stone and sandy till. Page 2

187 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Burford to Scotland: Warming conditions led to the eventual melting and recession of the ice margin northeast of Paris which resulted in the deposition of a large north-south trending ridge locally known as the Tillsonburg Moraine which is located south of Burford. Large amounts of sand and gravel were eventually transported by melt water flowing away from the ice margin and deposited in an outwash plain on the west side of the Paris Moraine. This plain covers an extensive area and constitutes the largest aggregate reserve in the County stretching from Burford to Scotland. The complex consists predominately of medium to very fine sand and silt of variable thickness. Oakland: A similar outwash deposit occurred in parts of the Galt Moraine located north of Oakland. This outwash was deposited by sediment-laden melt waters that flowed away from the margin of ice while it remained stationary at the Galt Moraine. Fine sand and silt were deposited in the shallow parts near Oakland and those areas with coarse sand and gravel are considered suitable for commercial use. Page 3

188 REGIO U TWP. OF N O RT H OO D UM OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE E AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES OF H OAD T R CITY N BRA NORTH OF PARIS NA L M L ATER OF W Y IT AL S NICIP FR IE TON AMIL LEGEND PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE SOUTH OF PARIS SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE TERTIARY SIGNIFICANCE CIT C Y OF O UNT OF B L TWP. A ND R OXFO BL FO R D D IM E NH E FH INACTIVE LICENCED PITS AND QUARRIES AM COUNTY BOUNDARY ILT ON ROADS 403 WAY D ROA RES 24) T AC AY RES(HIGHW H IG H YO ACTIVE RAILWAYS FORMER RAILWAYS CITY OF BRANTFORD PETROLEUM POOLS PETROLEUM WELLS O LK C BURFORD TO SCOTLAND Y OUNT CO IMA ND LD HA W Y 24 HIGHWA N OR RD XF O OF O ICH OAKLAND NO RF UN TY NT Y. OF TW P CO U SIX NATIONS INDIAN RESERVE No. 40 FIGURE 1 GENERAL AGGREGATE DEPOSITS SOURCE: COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN NEW CREDIT INDIAN RESERVE No. 40A 0 ± km THIS SCHEDULE SHOULD BE READ AND INTERPRETED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING THE POLICIES AND OTHER SCHEDULES AND APPENDICES OF THE PLAN SEPTEMBER 2012

189 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Aggregate Quality The ARIP reports that cover the County of Brant were published in the early 1980 s but the general geological information remains sound, although site specific testing of any candidate site is an essential component prior to the planning and licensing process. The ARIP reports differentiate the sand and gravel into one of three classifications: primary, secondary and/or tertiary significant resources. Two methods are used to evaluate deposits being: 1) the main selection criteria is site specific and relates to the characteristics of the aggregate quality, and deposit location best suited for extractive development, and, 2) involves the assessment of local aggregate resources in view of its quality, quantity and distribution within the local region. The result is that in parts of the province with an abundance of high quality aggregates, a deposit might be characterized as a secondary deposit, whereas a deposit of similar quality located in an area with few resources would be defined as primary. Based on the above, the classifications used by the ARIP s reflect the following: Primary Significance: Secondary Significance: Tertiary Significance: These represent areas in which a major source of aggregate is known to exist. Such deposits are believed to contain significant amounts of sand and gravel, although deposits of secondary significance are not considered the best resource areas in a municipality. They may contain large quantities of sand and gravel and should be considered an integral component of the aggregate supply of the municipality. These resources are not considered to be important resources because they are of lower quality or because of possible difficulties in extraction. The County of Brant Official Plan, Schedule E (Aggregate and Petroleum Resources) has included all three classifications. The gross areas of each deposit type are as follows: Primary Significance Resource 10,195 ha (underlying 12.0% of the County) Secondary Significance Resource 1,120 ha (underlying 1.3 % of the County) Tertiary Significance Resource 26,914 ha (underlying 31.7 % of the County) Refer to Figure 2 County of Brant Official Plan, Schedule E - Aggregate and Petroleum Resources. Page 5

190 REGIO NA L M U L ATER OF W Y IT AL S NICIP FR IE TWP. OF N O RT H OO D UM SCHEDULE E AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES OF H OAD T R CITY N BRA OFFICIAL PLAN TON AMIL LEGEND PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE TERTIARY SIGNIFICANCE CIT C Y OF O UNT OF B L TWP. A ND R OXFO BL FO R D D IM E NH E FH INACTIVE LICENCED PITS AND QUARRIES AM COUNTY BOUNDARY ILT ON ROADS 403 WAY D ROA RES 24) T AC AY RES(HIGHW H IG H YO ACTIVE RAILWAYS FORMER RAILWAYS CITY OF BRANTFORD PETROLEUM POOLS PETROLEUM WELLS CO IMA ND LD HA W Y 24 HIGHWA N OR RD XF O OF O ICH UN TY NT Y. OF TW P CO U SIX NATIONS INDIAN RESERVE No. 40 FIGURE 2 NO RF O LK C Y OUNT NEW CREDIT INDIAN RESERVE No. 40A 0 ± km THIS SCHEDULE SHOULD BE READ AND INTERPRETED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING THE POLICIES AND OTHER SCHEDULES AND APPENDICES OF THE PLAN SEPTEMBER 2012

191 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Historically, extraction has predominately occurred within the Primary Significance and/or Secondary Significance Resource areas and generally, it has been evenly distributed throughout the County. The Official Plan also includes Tertiary Significance Resource areas but no existing pits are located solely within this area since higher quality materials are readily available elsewhere. It is possible the tertiary material is being used for some on-farm use. 5.0 Past and Present Extraction Commercial extraction in the County of Brant has been ongoing for most of the last century. Currently (2014), there are 24 licensed pits (no quarries) that are distributed throughout the County totalling 1074 hectares. Therefore, the licensed pits make up <1.3% of the overall land use of the County which itself totals 84,900 hectares (refer to Figure 3, Location of Existing Pits). With the existing licensed pits totalling 1074 hectares, they reflect about 10% of the identified Primary and Secondary Significant Resource areas. Seven of the pits are owned/operated by the County but these tend to be smaller operations averaging +/-13 hectares in size compared to the commercial operated pits that range from 10 to 250 hectares in size. Some of the past and current extraction occurs below the water table resulting in wetlands and/or ponds becoming being the final land use. Currently there are 5 licenses permitted to extract below the water table (Category 1 Licence) including two operated by the County. The majority of the pits are restricted to extraction above the water table (Category 3 Licence) which results in the lands typically being returned to an agricultural land use. Extraction equipment and methods used to extract sand and gravel in the County are typical and consist of: i) Earth scrappers/bulldozers to strip topsoil/subsoil. ii) Front-end loaders to extract the unconsolidated sand and gravel from the pit face. Where below water table extraction is permitted, a dragline or power shovel with an extended boom would be used. iii) The aggregate often requires processing to create materials that meet Provincial specifications for road building and other construction uses, and this may include crushing, screening, blending, and/or washing. iv) Once processed, aggregate stackers convey the material into stockpiles and front-end loaders are used to load trucks to transport the material to construction sites or to other locations for further uses, (i.e. asphalt or concrete batching plant). v) The size of haulage trucks varies from small single axle trucks (<15 tonnes/load) up to large tractor trailer combinations (> 35 tonnes/load). vi) Earth scrappers/bulldozers are also used for rehabilitation. Page 7

192 TAN N RO ER AD D PRINCESS STREET STON KING ET STRE ROAD RO AD UTT RO AD W AR AD CO OAD ER MIL ALBERTON ROAD RO ER BUTT EST DW ROA AD OAD SA WM ILL R OAD NR UR CH RO NR #22 AD A TO LEP BRA OR NT C TR D OAD OA ER KR GR E RO ENS AD ONO N DAG MID D DR OO IEF SW CH EE OAD CR D OA CEN STR TRE SO EET UTH NT O ET FR RE ST CH OAD PAU L OAD INE J OH PT IST WN LIN NSO BA BIG MA C CO NEIL UR T KE CARLU EST W D ROAD OA OAD ON RT BA OAD R TY R AD TER R E HA AST R RO RIS AD W HA EST R RO RIS AD D PAIN JERSEYVILLE ROAD JOHNSON ROAD ON T LOS OA MP S HAGER STREET HIG HW AY # 54 HALDIMAND COUNTY INE ND LIN E NL INE S S II X X N NA A TT II O ON NS S II N ND D II A AN N R RE ES SE ER RV VE E MA BRAN HR TH O F IR S T N AT IO NS BA TE T CHUR COCK SH CH RO E S LAN BIGGAR HAMMOND ROAD MCMILLAN #18 ROAD UNTY T CO D OA SA N MO BERN UN IC TP STREE E LE T A HIG VAN ES ROA SA D AD RO VANSICKLE ROAD PLE AS RID ANT G ROA E D TR 4 HW AY 2 AD KING GEORGE ROAD BRAN HIG H RA WAY MP DE RO KEE AD R NTF ROA ORD D RO RC K BOO ST WE ROAD H HOLDITC SCHOOL ROAD AD ROAD FIR S TL FIGURE 3 LOCATIONS OF EXISTING PITS INE TO WN RO LINE AD (March 2015) H'S SMIT OAD R MILL OLD 24 WAY HIGH L AST ME DHA WIN UARTER D Q RO A LINE AL O UG MCD OAD R IN ELV D L K PEAR T ROA E STRE NES BAR D ROA BRA INE HU RO ER SHAV ROAD NL WA N ITY TRIN D ROA TH SOU SE DIA DL LINE URCH WH ITE S AD RO AD LL CAMPBE DRIVE IN DC USON FERG AD RO RO AD RL EY O HA R RO GE NA SO PAR ROAD GS TH IR RINGS CH AD ROAD INS R RIN FOURTH A VILL A NOV D ROA D JENK SP RO M CB MCLELLAN OAD NT BRA L MIL D A RO RO A KINGS LANE OLD TYS O WA NS Y D AL AN R OA AD D RO KLAN UR Y AD NE T OR AS LB T E CO EE R ST LA NG FO R ROAD CAMPBELL MP FA BELL RO RM AD MYERSCOU GH ROAD SALT SP D OA RO D T AN L BR HOO D SC OA R SO CA H AG TH NO R AD EET OAD RT CH N O OLD LD IE ENF GRE OAD R AD BU OA D C RO STR TT R ELLIO HAMILTON ROAD SR RR E RIV LL OA D OA RO R ER PL ILL AD OAD RE NR WESTIE ROAD P PA MC G S RO CKP KING ROAD OAD AD PHELP TR RR MA E IV DR WE TM O DE JU R WE AY L ROAD REGINALD D. GLASS T FAWCET ROAD E AD CO RN OLD ONONDAGA ROAD EAST NO. 6 SCHOO POR NEW NU CH R RO AD RO OW OXB E LAN LIN OA D TUTE HEIG LA HT ROA S D IL TRA IAN RAN S LA KE LA D ST AR WE LEV U BO RD RO MA D IE ER UE EN AV NE LA SH OLD EL EL SH LA LARD NE AV E ON LS MO OXBOW ROAD NK CO RR OAD AM D TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES G.M.C. SAND AND GRAVEL LTD. PE STR TER EE T RO CH R U Y H C TRO AL ET STRE DRIVON T S E W E EN R M IS R EN O E AD R AD DEN GAR NUE AVE T AD RO NE WAY KY TZ GRE WAY K PAR TH NO R RO A AR TH U IVE G.M.C. SAND AND GRAVEL LTD. GROVE SMITH ROAD INGS JENN D ROA FF U R D TT A O PO R CR KIRB ES Y CE NT COUNTY OF BRANT MAPLE F RO AIR AD LYND TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES WES IR WE HEL BET CH R CHU A D RO OAD EK KAR D ROA KR PAR AD IND O UN D EAST RIVER ROA D RO A PINEHURST ROAD ER SAG D ROA T BUR NS LYO D ROA E RO ERLIN POW D OL M FARAD RO HO E IVAN D ROA ORAL BALM E DRIV D RO A LE NOB T R COU F GOL RES Y A T AC RES (HIGHW D ROA 24) R AVE REET E ST LAFARGE CANADA INC. GODBY ROAD UTH ARN LINE I -DELHD O RD A BURF LINE RO N TOW TERTIARY SIGNIFICANCE MUL LIGA WE ST RO RIV N O A D ER RT H RO A SPRAGUES ROAD TON G CITY OF BRANTFORD LL DR OAKHI PEA VIN RO ERY AD NICHOLS GRAVEL LIMITED NICHOLS GRAVEL LIMITED ST D EA RO A RY HEN T EE STR AD CLE MARY STREET NCH IUM AR SU G RILL LE T LANE MAP D ROA AD OAK K PAR D ROA D E SO TH TWELF SION ES CONC AD RO ER ART T QU EAS WNLINE TO D ROA SLA RO NT AD BR A OAD O AD D RO A L RO RTIS CU NUE AVE UTH SO RO A IE D RO A ENTH THIRTE SSION E CONC AD RO NT R RKE CLA HO O EN GRE E LAN MILE HILL D ROA RES OAD LD R BASE ROAD O RN COLB RO A D U AVEN L WEL AD ROAD Offical Plan Aggregate Resources PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE LAIR SINC VARD BOULE TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES EL LIS NICHOLS GRAVEL LIMITED OAD ICH R NORW 1. ALL LINEWORK IS APPROXIMATE. 2. PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WHEN SHOWN REPRESENT ASSESSMENT PARCELS 3. INCLUDES MATERIAL 2013 OF THE QUEEN'S PRINTER FOR ONTARIO.CAALL LEY RIGHTS RESERVED N RO OAD ION CESS LE MAP ROS O MS R HLEY T AC ER GAT CON FAIRF IA WILL HATC INSO OPS TENTH T MEN CLE AD RO ELE RR RO ISB A D UR TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES AD D D GOV D OLD SAWMILL ROAD RO A ROA N RES ND E RO RSON AD ER HA M C VENTH SSIO O NCE ROAD SURRENDERED HA SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE OA TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES NICHOLS GRAVEL LIMITED N RO REVOKED AD R'S E RNO OAD ESSIO APPLICATION CITY OF H A M I LTO N AGGREGATE CO. BISH EPF ORTH DRIVE DUR CO NC ACTIVE #5 WAY NELSON AGGREGATE CO. NELSON TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES KPM INDUSTRIES LTD. W A CO LL UR ACE T ST. S RLE CHA EET STR KLO LD SFIE CO N BEA ROAD S RIE MF T DU REE ST RTH UTH COUNTY OF OXFORD NEW NC NINTH OAD S TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF N NO OR RW W II C CH H TH CO IS R D D SO R TION UBSTA EIGH OAD PAR GURNEY SAND AND GRAVEL TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES ROB HE KING STREET NR ESSIO Street Centerline Aggregate Holdings and Status NELSON AGGREGATE CO. COUNTY OF BRANT OAD RO A OA D EL R SH RO AR AD P TELEPHONE CITY AGGREGATES CBM ER ER AR T A D T QU O WES LINE R N TOW MUIR HILL R 03 AY 4 IGHW NLIN IE OAD ION R ESS CO NC D RO OOL DAS DUN ET STRE T EAS LAS UG DO REET ST OW LE T NT H SEVE S ROAD 'S GUNN HIGHWAY #53 OW ILL ET W RE ST CBM COUNTY OF BRANT COUNTY OF BRANT D MID OAD LAFARGE CANADA INC. GURNEY SAND AND GRAVEL RO A OAD ER STAG AD COUNTY OF BRANT RO A LAKE CH S MAN GER CBM AD N RO SIXTH ION ESS CONC AD RO BLUE SC HEN KITC IVER ND R GRA REET ST TH NOR E NO OAD HT WIG CE R CURR OAD LAFARGE CANADA INC. COUNTY OF BRANT SSIO O NCE N U R R RT EE U D CO DUFFERIN AGGREGATES BETH OA D C FIFTH AD ENU NR ESSIO P V LE A MAP D NC TH CO FOUR AD O AD D RO A R LINKS GOLF RE N LAW AGE R OLD ST INC. NIA NUE RTH O AVE RO O ND LAFARGE CANADA INC. D NO RO A LL PATTU AD City of Brantford Boundary HIGH PECT PROS ET STRE OP HILLT E LAN LAFARGE CANADA INC. H AD D OL LL MI AD RO MUIR AD O N RO H RO COUNTY OF BRANT ETO C THIRD SIO NCES AD BR A O ER R R AYR LANE ND LKLA N FA ROAD TOW PUT AD RO RO A OAD AD URC R'S R ERNO ST LAFARGE GOV NE S T D WE CANADA INC. OR'S SE E ROA E RN MI D W GOV OAD KING A R O D EDWAR T R LAFARGE STREE CANADA NING IM R OAD N RO L RO O ELL R HOW CLOVERLEA IC SCEN E CRESCENT DRIV D RO A D RO A NITH D FOR CAN NHE BLE ES R SSIO O NCE COUNTY OF BRANT DUFFERIN AGGREGATES 'S WATT KEG MAIN T EE STR TH SOU L GOB O RD OXF 22 D ROA ND C S CH 3 AD IP RO #2 WAY SECO LINE RO S FRIE LAIN SHIP TOWN 2 ROAD HIGH HOO Legend T-OX SHIP TOWN D 4 ROA NS H TOW N SC RY KO HIC LLOW HO DUM P PARIS N BRA NSHIP TOW D 5 ROA TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF B B LL A AN ND D FF O OR RD D -- B B LL E EN NH HE E II M M AST E OAD A MCLE SO N HE R MCP HOOL SC D ROA T WES D RO A T RIV WES AD 29 COUNTY OF OXFORD RIS R FIN GRIF E GAT OAD BO R RUM SHIP TOWN D 6 ROA M OR GE R EAGLE E RIDG RT COU AD D RO GLEN COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE AND HOLDING CONCESSION FIVE WEST EO R R RO D AD ST. G LOO EET SL E NS TOW 8 OAD HIP R R OXFO TOWER N SO W D DA OA R LE SVIL REID AD RO STR SWAN S TRU ± ER T-WAT BRAN ROAD IS O RR NM T GLE D WES ROA IE RO LOCK ESE CHE ORY T FAC AD RO TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF N NO OR R TT H H D DU UM M FF R R II E ES S Y AN TH T BE OUR C ICE ULD SHO IDE S D ROA RE GI ON A L MU N I C IPA LIT Y O F WAT ER L O O HALDIMAND COUNTY NORFOLK COUNTY 1:60000 HALDIMAND COUNTY ,800 2,700 3,600 Meters

193 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 The annual volume of sand and gravel produced from the County fluctuates with the provincial and local economies. The strongest recorded production period was between 2006 to 2008 peaking at 2.3 million tonnes compared to when it averaged 1.7 million tonnes. To place this into context, in 2012, Brant was the 21 st largest producer of a total of 233 reporting municipalities in the Province. This compares to Ottawa (No.1) at 10.6 MT and locally, the Township of North Dumfries (No. 5) produced 4.4 MT. The Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) has a provision that grants payments to upper and lower tier municipalities based on the volume of aggregate produced within each Municipality which is referred to as the aggregate levy. The levy funds are collected from active producers and distributed by the Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (TOARC) with the current payment rate being 1.5 /T for upper tier municipalities and 6.0 /tonne for lower tier municipalities. Since the County of Brant is a single tier municipality, it receives both levies totalling 7.5 /tonne. Annual payments to the County have fluctuated from about $170,000 in 2006 to about $125,000 in As a municipality which produces >1 million tonnes per year, the County is entitled to a member of the Top Aggregate Producing Municipalities of Ontario (TAPMO). In February 2014, TAPMO formally requested the Province to increase the levy to 10.0 /tonne (upper tier) and 30.0 /tonne (lower tier), which would equate to 40.0 /tonne for the County, or a 435% increase. To date, the Province has made no commitments to these recommendations. In summary, the sand and gravel deposits underlying the County of Brant are characterized as provincially significant for the following reasons: i) The sand and gravel is of high quality, ii) The areal extent of the deposits is large which will continue to provide a long-term supply, and iii) Proximity of local and provincial highways including Highway 403 which supports the direct movement of the aggregate to key markets. These features of the deposit provide an opportunity for local aggregate producers to cost effectively transport aggregate to markets locally within the County, as well as the City of Brantford, but also to markets beyond the County including Ancaster, Hamilton, Woodstock, Waterloo Region and portions of GTA-west. Page 9

194 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Future Extraction Areas Currently, about 10% of the Primary Significant and Secondary Significant Resource Areas are licensed, but it is not known how much of the balance of these deposits are suitable to support extraction since historical and current land use matters must be considered. These would include: Legacy pits (where the lands were extracted prior to the Pits and Quarries Control Act [PQCA] of Lands that were previously licensed under the PCQA or ARA and have been extracted and rehabilitated and the licence formally surrendered. Constraints identified on Schedule A of the Official Plan including the Natural Heritage System. Existing land uses overlying the resource such as urban uses which would encompass Paris, Burford and Scotland. Fragmented lot patterns making parcel sizes too small to be efficiently or economically extracted. Isolated pockets with reduced accessibility. Notwithstanding that the above factors will reduce these resource areas, given the overall size of these deposits, it can be expected that there remains a substantial volume to supply both the local and Provincial markets for the long-term. Page 10

195 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Enabling Legislation 7.1 Planning Act To open an aggregate extraction operation, an applicant must first obtain an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment from the County for a specific property, and thereafter obtain a licence to commercially extract sand and gravel which is used by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-Law Amendments are planning processes under the Planning Act. In order to complete either of these processes, it must be demonstrated how the changes are consistent with provincial and municipal policies that guide land use development. These processes also require input from the public, municipal staff and public agencies. In accordance with Section 6.13 of the County of Brant Official Plan, supporting studies, information and materials shall be required as part of a complete Planning Act application. This includes, but is not limited to, a planning rationale report to demonstrate how the proposed land use represents good planning, addresses compatibility with abutting land uses, and demonstrates an efficient use of land. The report and supporting studies must confirm how the development will comply with the applicable Provincial Policy Statements and Plans such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Greenbelt Plan does not apply to lands in Brant County at the time of writing of this guide, however the Greenbelt Plan is currently under review by the Province and may apply in future pending the outcome of that review. 7.2 Provincial Policy Statement The Province created the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to provide policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS allows for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. Mineral aggregate resources are considered provincial significant with the provincial interest to ensure the wise use and management these resources to be provided for over the long term. The PPS also ensures that such resources are managed in a sustainable way to conserve biodiversity, protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety, provide for the production of food and fibre, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs. For every aggregate application, the applicant must have regard for all the policies of the PPS. Some specific examples which pertain specifically to aggregates include: Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere. Page 11

196 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social, economic and environmental impacts Mineral aggregate resource conservation shall be undertaken, including through the use of accessory aggregate recycling facilities within operations, wherever feasible Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, to recognize the interim nature of extraction, and to mitigate negative impacts to the extent possible. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration Comprehensive rehabilitation planning is encouraged where there is a concentration of mineral aggregate operations. 7.3 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The focus of the Growth Plan is on population growth and the management of that growth within the area considered part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Through this Plan, the province recognizes that rapid growth needs to be managed properly to reduce traffic congestion, avoid deteriorating air and water quality, and limit the removal of agricultural lands and natural resources. While the Growth Plan in its entirety applies to development in the area, policies specifically regarding aggregate uses are limited to Section 4-Protecting What is Valuable. The general intent of the policies are to protect and manage for long term use the nonrenewable resources of the province such as aggregates, as seen in the following policies: Mineral Aggregate Resources - Through sub-area assessment, the Ministers of Infrastructure and Natural Resources will work with municipalities, producers of mineral aggregate resources, and other stakeholders to identify significant mineral aggregate resources for the GGH, and to develop a long-term strategy for ensuring the wise use, conservation, availability and management of mineral aggregate resources in the GGH, as well as identifying opportunities for resource recovery and for co-ordinated approaches to rehabilitation where feasible Municipalities will develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of the following conservation objectives:.4. Integrated waste management, including 1. enhanced waste reduction, composting, and recycling initiatives and the identification of new opportunities for source reduction, reuse, and diversion where appropriate 2. a comprehensive plan with integrated approaches to waste management, including reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, diversion, and the disposal of residual waste 3. promotion of reuse and recycling of construction materials 4. consideration of waste management initiatives within the context of long term regional planning, and in collaboration with neighbouring municipalities. Page 12

197 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE County of Brant Official Plan The County of Brant Official Plan was approved in 2012 and prepared under the policy direction of the above noted Provincial Plans. As noted in the preface of the Official Plan, the Plan will ensure that growth and development in the County are undertaken efficiently and will result in strong, balanced, sustainable, and complete communities. The policies will also ensure that the County s resources are used and managed wisely, and that public health and safety are protected. Specific policies related to Mineral Aggregate Resources are outlined in Section 8.3 of this Guide. 7.5 County of Brant Zoning By-Law The Zoning By-Law defines the permitted uses of land and specifically, Section 40 of the By-Law provides the limitations for Extractive Industrial (EX) Zone uses, and is further described under Section 8.4 of this Guide. 7.6 Aggregate Resources Act The Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) outlines the prescribed process that an applicant must follow in order for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to determine if a licence should be issued, and it is necessary to undertake any commercial extraction activities. The ARA is further described in Section 8.5 of this Guide. 7.7 Planning Act and Aggregate Resources Act Relationship The Planning Act directs how Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws address the siting of extractive land uses, the background studies required to address land use impact issues, and identifies the permitted uses. The decision to approve or not approve a Zoning By-Law Amendment for aggregate applications is the responsibility of the County of Brant Council. For an Official Plan Amendment, once Council makes a decision to adopt or not adopt the OPA, final approval is then required by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In contrast, the ARA identifies how the licensing process is to be completed and focuses on the operational and rehabilitation details of the pit. Once the process is completed and the lands are appropriately zoned, the decision to approve or not approve a licence request is the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Both processes may be referred or appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Although the two processes deal with different approvals, most often they require the same or similar investigations and background studies to justify the application and therefore in most cases, the Planning Act and the Aggregate Resources Act are concurrently processed. Figure 4 is a summary of both processes. Page 13

198 FIGURE 4 SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ACT AND AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT Planning Act Process (Official Plan Amendment Runs Concurrently with Zoning By-Law Amendments Aggregate Resources Act Licence Approval Process

199 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Required Approvals to Operate a Pit / Quarry In Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approves licenses to operate a pit or quarry, and once licensed, the Ministry enforces the compliance of the approved Site Plans under the mandate of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). Specifically, Section 7(1) of the ARA states: No person shall, in a part of Ontario designated under Section 5, operate a pit or quarry on land that is not land under water and the surface rights of which are not the property of the Crown except under the authority of and in accordance with a licence. Although the Minister issues the pit or quarry licence, the lands must first be appropriately zoned to permit such a use. Specifically Section 12.1 of the ARA states: No licence shall be issued for a pit or quarry if a zoning by-law prohibits the site from being used for the making, establishment or operation of pits and quarries. Furthermore, the County of Brant Official Plan Policy states: c) The establishment of a new licensed mineral aggregate operation shall be required to obtain Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments. Therefore where applicable, every proposed pit in the County is required to have the following sequential approvals: County of Brant Official Plan: Conformity with the OP requires an Amendment from the existing designation of the subject site, to Resource Development. This is a planning process under the Planning Act. County of Brant Zoning By-Law: The subject lands must be rezoned from the existing site specific zoning category(s) to Extractive Industrial (EX) zoning. This too is a planning process under the under the Planning Act. Aggregate Resources Act: Licence approval by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry under the ARA. For both the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment process, there are key opportunities for written and/or oral public participation to comment on the ARA Site Plan s and to advise the County s Development Services staff and County Councillors of any land use compatibility concerns. The opportunities for public participation are highlighted in bold text below. The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment processes, including the scheduling of Public Meetings, are administered by the County. In contrast, the ARA process is proponent-driven but overseen by MNRF to ensure compliance. Page 15

200 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 A prospective pit/quarry applicant is not required to submit the licence application to MNRF at the same time as the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment applications to the County. However, it is the preference of the County that the ARA application be submitted concurrently with the Planning Act applications because; i) similar studies are required under both Acts, ii) to assist in streamlining the process for the Public, and, iii) to avoid agency review duplication. 8.1 Pre-Submission Requirements The County of Brant Official Plan Policy 6.17 entitled, Public Consultation and Participation, Section iii) states: iii. The County shall require a pre-submission consultation on privately-initiated applications processed under the Planning Act. The purpose of the pre-submission meeting is for the applicant to meet with the review/approval agencies including applicable departments within the County. The applicant will provide an overview of the application including the location, size and potential impacts resulting from the proposed extractive operation. The meeting will also provide an opportunity for the review agencies to identify, and subject to site circumstances, scope the required studies so as to address issues of land use compatibility. The following agencies are invited but co-ordination with the County Development Services staff is required to determine if additional agencies should be involved: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Guelph Office Ministry of Agricultural and Food (below water extraction) - Guelph Office Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (below water extraction / water taking) Hamilton office Conservation Authority: o Long Point Region Conservation Authority Tillsonburg o and/or Grand River Conservation Authority Cambridge County of Brant: o Development Services o Public Works Subject to the site location, the following may also be requested to attend: o Cambridge-North Dumfries Hydro/ Hydro One o Canadian Pacific Railway / Canadian National Railway Six Nations of the Grand River Page 16

201 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Duty to Consult with Aboriginal Peoples in Ontario Upon a pit licence application being formally submitted to MNRF under the ARA, the Province, as the Crown, has a legal obligation to consult with Aboriginal peoples where it contemplates decisions or actions that may adversely impact asserted or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights. The Province of Ontario has committed to meeting its duty to consult with First Nations and Métis communities. The duty to consult is rooted in: The Honour of the Crown (a legal principle that commits government to act with integrity). The protection of Aboriginal and Treaty rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, Official Plan Amendment Process The County of Brant Official Plan was approved by the Province in September, 2012 and all references herein pertain to that document. As noted above in Section 4, Schedule E (Aggregate and Petroleum Resources) of the Official Plan, it illustrates the general location of the identified aggregate resources underlying the County. This identification is not a designation and Policy states: An Official Plan Amendment shall be required to redesignate the land from the existing designation to Resource Development prior to extraction of mineral resources. The process for an Official Plan Amendment is as follows: a) Electronic and hard-copy submission of the following to the County of Brant: Eight (8) copies of the completed OPA application form. Eight (8) copies of the ARA Site Plans. Five (5) copies of each required study. Application fee (see also Section 6.0). b) County initiated (and Chaired) Consultation Meeting with the applicant and review/approval agencies to: Identify key Departmental and Agency issues in processing. Identify any concurrent applications required. Identify matters of Provincial or Municipal Interest. Identify any additional plans, reports and/or studies required to be completed prior to acceptance of the application. c) Once the application is deemed complete and accepted, within 30 days a Public Meeting date is determined. d) Application circulated to the Public, review/approval by Agencies and County of Brant Departments. e) If applicable, a 60 day status letter is sent to the applicant. Page 17

202 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 f) County of Brant will initiate and Chair a Post Circulation Meeting with the applicant and review/approval agencies to: Discuss agency or public issues raised during circulation. Review conditions of approval. Review municipal requirements for inclusion in an agreement, key Departmental and Agency issues in processing. g) County of Brant will finalize their Planning Report. h) Public Meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee is held. This is an opportunity for the public to provide oral and/or written submissions expressing their views of the application and/or to raise questions of the applicant. It is important for the Public to be aware of Section 34 (19) of the Planning Act regarding their responsibilities if there is a potential for an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal which states; 34.(19) Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice as required by subsection (18) is completed, any of the following may appeal to the Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act: 2. A person or public body who, before the by-law was passed, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council. i) Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation forwarded to Council for Council to make a Decision. j) If there is no Decision by Council within 180 days of the complete application being accepted, the applicant may refer the matter to the OMB. k) Notice of Council s Decision sent to the Applicant, review Agencies, Public and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing within 15 days of Decision. l) Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as Approval Authority, makes Final Decision on the Planning Act applications and circulates Notice of Final Decision to those requesting notification. m) Appeal Period (20 days following the Date of Notice of Final Decision by Council). n) If appealed by the Public or the applicant, the matter is referred to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which is a quasi-judicial panel. The OMB hears applications and appeals in relation to a range of municipal planning, financial and land matters including official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision plans, consents and minor variances, land Page 18

203 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 compensation, development charges, electoral ward boundaries, municipal finance, aggregate resources and other issues assigned to the Board by numerous Ontario statutes. 8.4 Zoning By-Law Amendment Process The County of Brant Official Plan Policy regarding Land Use Policies states: a) Resource Development uses shall be included in a separate zoning classification in the County Zoning By-Law. The County process for a Zone By-Law Amendment is the same as an Official Plan Amendment with the exception regarding electronic and hard copy submission of material which is as follows: Five (5) copies of the Zoning By-Law Amendment application form. Five (5) copies of the ARA Site Plans. Three (3) copies of each required study. For most pit applications, the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-Law Amendment should be submitted together so that the planning processes can occur simultaneously to minimize the public and agency review time and to facilitate a streamlined process. 8.5 Aggregate Resources Act Once the lands are designated Resource Development and zoned Extractive Industrial, the final approval is a pit/quarry licence from the Minister of MNRF and is based on a process established by the Aggregate Resources Act. A potential pit/quarry applicant is not required to submit the Licence Application to MNRF concurrently with the applications for the land use changes under the Planning Act (i.e., Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change Application), but the County encourages this to streamline the review process. The following is a cursory summary of the licensing process under the ARA 11(1) and provided here as general information only. For further information, consult MNRF staff and the ARA - Provincial Standards Version 1.0. Notification a) Submission of all required documentation to MNRF. Within 20 days, MNRF shall determine if the application is complete. Once complete, the applicant may proceed with Notification and Consultation. b) The 45 day notification period begins with publication in the local newspaper; c) Public notice must be completed concurrently in the following manner: Written notice of the Public Notification delivered personally or registered mail to residents within 120 metres of the licensed boundary, Public Notification signage posted on the boundary of the site, Publication of the Public Notification in a local newspaper having general circulation where the site is located. Page 19

204 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 d) Circulate the Public Notification to the following agencies; Local MNRF office; County in which the site is located; Local Conservation Authority OMAFRA (only if prime agricultural land is not being restored to the same average soil quality); Utility corporations (if an easement exists on site/within 120 metres of boundary). Consultation Consultation by the applicant with the public is required by hosting a presentation to the public in the locality of the application, outlining all details of the proposal within the 45 day notification period. This might encompass an information session, open house, or community meeting. Any person or agency objecting to the application must serve upon the applicant and the MNRF, written notice of objection and reasons within the 45 day notification period. If no objections, the applicant submits documentation of notification and consultation to the MNRF. Resolution of Objections During the consultation process, the applicant shall attempt to resolve all the objections. If all objections have been resolved, the applicant shall: Amend the licence application, site plans or reports, if required, in consultation with the MNRF to reflect the resolution of the objections; Obtain written confirmation (withdrawal) from all objectors indicating that objections have been addressed and submit to MNRF; and Submit documentation to the MNRF of landowner and stakeholder contacts and agencies circulation. If all objections are not resolved: The applicant shall submit to MNRF the remaining objector(s) by written notice delivered personally or by registered mail: (a) List of unresolved objections; (b) Documentation of attempts to resolve objections; (c) Applicant s recommendations for resolving objections; and (d) A notice of the 20 day response period. The objector(s) shall submit to MNRF and the applicant within the 20 days, recommendations that may resolve the objections. The recommendations shall be delivered personally or by registered mail within the 20 days or, it will be deemed that there is no longer an objection; and Page 20

205 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 the applicant shall submit to MNRF, documentation of landowner and stakeholder contacts and agencies circulation. Once MNRF has received the following, the application shall be processed in accordance with the ARA: Agency comments, if any; Applicant s recommendation and documentation; Objector s withdrawal or recommendations if any; and Documentation of landowner and stakeholder contacts and agencies circulation. If the applicant does not submit the required information as noted in the Provincial Standards within two (2) years of public notification, the application is considered withdrawn and all documentation will be returned. Page 21

206 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE County of Brant Required Studies The County Official Plan Policy under Resource Development, Objectives states the following: a) To promote efficient and sustainable resource development in a manner that is in accordance with Provincial legislation, including the Ontario Mining Act, Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act and the Ontario Aggregate Resources Act. b) To enhance the financial sustainability of the County of Brant by promoting resource development opportunities, where appropriate and consistent with the County s land use designations. c) To protect mineral aggregate petroleum resources, and other resources within the County for long-term use. d) To protect resource development opportunities from development and incompatible uses that would prevent expansion or continued use. e) To provide adequate separation between resource development activities and other land uses that are not compatible. f) To recognize the interim nature of extraction activities and to ensure that progressive and final rehabilitation of former resource extraction sites is undertaken to accommodate subsequent land uses, including agriculture, after extraction activities have ceased. g) To ensure that resource extraction and rehabilitation is undertaken in a manner that minimizes social and environmental impacts. h) To promote the conservation of mineral aggregate resources by making provisions for the recovery of these resources, where feasible. In order to fulfill these objectives, the County of Brant requires potential pit applicants to undertake the following studies. As noted in Section 8.1 and 8.3, the scoping of the prescribed studies/assessments and their Terms of Reference will be determined at the Pre-Submission Meeting and the Pre-Consultation Meeting. Furthermore, Policy 6.13 states: Certain supporting studies, information and materials shall be required as part of a development application or as part of a detailed planning study as identified throughout this Plan. The need, extent, and timing of such supporting studies, information and materials shall be determined by the County on a site-specific basis in consideration of the site s land use context and regard to the policies of this Plan. b) The following information may be identified during pre-application consultation as part of a complete application at the time of submission for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision/Condominium, Consent or Minor Variance: i. Deed and/or Offer of Purchase; ii. Topographic Plan of Survey; x. Other information relevant to the development and land impacted by the proposed development approval application. Page 22

207 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 c) The following supporting studies may be identified as part of a complete application and completed in accordance with accepted professional standards and/or guidelines, as applicable: i. Owner s authorization, where agents are making applications; ii. Planning Rationale Report; v. Archaeological Study; vi. Hydrogeological Study; vii. Groundwater Impact Study; viii. Environmental Impact Study; xi. Noise and/or Vibration Study; xii. Transportation Impact Study; xiii. Geotechnical Study; xix. Agricultural Impact Study; xx. Heritage Impact Study; xxi. Tree Survey and Protection Report including a Tree Retention Plan; xxiv. Aggregate Impact Assessment, as described in Section j); and xxv. Other supporting studies relevant to the development and land impacted by the proposed development approval application. In addition to this list, Section Cultural Heritage Resources, states: 2. The following objectives have been identified with respect to built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites in the County; (d) To consider, integrate and coordinate built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites into development proposals at the appropriate stages of the planning process. Lastly, 6.13 (d) states: At the discretion of the County, supporting studies shall be peer reviewed at the cost of the development proponent. 9.1 Planning Rationale Report Brant Official Plan Policy: c) states: Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: 1. compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Page 23

208 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act Provincial Standards requires confirmation of: a) any planning and land use considerations b) any provisions under the PPS (2014) including c) The agricultural land use classification of the proposed site, using the Canada Land Inventory Classes. d) For lands being returned to agriculture, the proposed rehabilitation techniques must be identified. The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will review and comment on the Planning Rationale Report and may also circulate it to MNRF for review and comment. If below water table extraction is proposed, Development Services will require the Report be reviewed and comments received from OMAFRA and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. 9.2 Cultural Heritage Impact Study Brant Official Plan Policy (d) To consider, integrate and coordinate built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites into development proposals at the appropriate stages of the planning process. Policy c) Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: ix) archaeological significance. Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the ARA (Provincial Standards) requires the completion of: Cultural Heritage Resource Stage 1: Determine if there are any known significant archaeological resources on the subject property and the potential of the site to have heritage resources; Cultural Heritage Resource Stage 2: Property survey by a licensed archaeologist if stage 1 identifies known resources or a medium to high potential for heritage resources on the site and mitigation, if recommended; Page 24

209 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Cultural Heritage Resource Stages 3 and 4: Detailed site investigation by a licensed archaeologist (e.g., test pits, plowing fields and survey) when recommended by Stage 2 and mitigation, if recommended. The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the Cultural Heritage Resource Study to be reviewed and comments received from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. 9.3 Hydrogeology Study / Groundwater Impact Study Brant Official Plan Policy f) states: The establishment of any new aggregate extraction pit within a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) shall require a site specific assessment of the potential impact on the WHPA, including water quality and stream flow impacts Where extraction is proposed below the water table, the following criteria shall be satisfied: i. A Permit To Take Water, in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act shall be required from the MOE where more than 50,000 litres a day of groundwater/surface water will be drawn. A hydrogeological study shall be conducted for aggregate operations that intend to use groundwater to wash aggregate and will use greater than 50,000 litres per day during this washing process; ii. In prime agricultural land, a substantial quantity of mineral aggregate is located below the water table warranting extraction below the water table; iii. In prime agricultural land, other alternatives have been considered by the applicant and have been found unsuitable. Other alternatives include resources on land committed to future urban uses, areas of Canada Land Inventory Class 4 to 7 soils, and resources in the Agricultural Area where rehabilitation to agricultural uses is possible; and iv. In prime agricultural land, in those areas remaining above the water table following extraction, agricultural rehabilitation shall be maximized. Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act (Provincial Standards) requires the completion of: a) Pit above water: determine the elevation of the established groundwater table within the site or demonstrate that the final depth of extraction is at least 1.5 metres above the water table; b) Pit below water: Hydrogeological Level 1: Page 25

210 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Preliminary hydrogeologic evaluation to determine the final extraction elevation relative to the established groundwater table, and the potential for adverse effects to groundwater and surface water resources and their uses. Hydrogeological Level 2: Where the results of Level 1 have identified a potential for adverse effects of the operation on ground water and surface water resources and their uses, an impact assessment is required to determine the significance of the effect and feasibility of mitigation. The assessment should address the potential effects of the operation on the following features if located within the zone of influence for extraction below the groundwater table, where applicable. A technical report must be prepared by a person with appropriate training and/or experience in hydrogeology to include the following items: a) waterwells b) springs c) groundwater aquifers d) surface water courses and bodies e) discharge to surface water f) proposed water diversion, storage and drainage facilities on site g) methodology h) description of the physical setting including local geology, hydrogeology, and i) surface water systems j) water budget k) impact assessment l) mitigation measures including trigger mechanisms m) contingency plan n) monitoring plan o) technical support data in the form of tables, graphs and figures, appended to the report. The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the Water Resources Impact Study to be reviewed and comments received from MNRF, MOECC and the applicable Conservation Authority. 9.4 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Tree Survey and Protection Report including a Tree Retention Plan Brant Official Plan Policy o) states: Notwithstanding the policies of Sections and Page 26

211 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE , mineral aggregate operations may be permitted in natural heritage features and areas that are determined not to be provincially significant, subject to the policies of Sections and Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: b): The County shall generally not permit new mineral aggregate operations within the Natural Heritage System designation, as identified on Schedule A and in accordance with the policies for this designation in Section Prior to the development of new mineral aggregate operations within or adjacent to other natural heritage features and areas, an EIS shall be prepared to determine the significance of features and which demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on significant natural features or their ecological functions. c) Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: iii. potential impact on groundwater quality and quantity, and Provincially significant, natural heritage features; v. environmental impact and hydrogeological assessments of the area, as required, e) Development and site alteration, including aggregate extraction, shall not be permitted on land that is designated Natural Heritage System, except in accordance with the policies in Sections , [Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species] [Wetlands] and [Hazardous Sites]. Where existing trees exist on the subject land, a Tree Survey and Protection Report (including a Tree Retention Plan) is to be prepared. Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the ARA (Provincial Standards) requires the completion of the following: Natural Environment Level 1: Determine whether any of the following features exist on and within 120 metres of the site: significant wetland, significant portions of the habitat of endangered or threatened species, fish habitat, significant woodlands (south and east of the Canadian Shield), significant valley lands (south and east of the Canadian Shield), significant wildlife habitat and significant areas of natural and scientific interest; Natural Environment Level 2: Impact assessment where the level 1 identified any features on and within 120 metres of the site in order to determine any negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions for which the area is identified, and any proposed preventative, mitigative or remedial measures. The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the EIS to be reviewed and comments received from MNRF and the applicable Conservation Authority and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. Page 27

212 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Noise Impact Study Brant Official Plan Policy c) states: Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: vi. noise, dust and vibration assessments in accordance with the Provincial Standards of the Aggregate Resources Act, and ability to implement the attenuation and mitigation measures as recommended by the assessments; (d) All Resource Development uses shall satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to water supply, disposal of liquid waste, pumping operations, and the control of atmospheric emissions (i.e., air, noise, dust, vibration). Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the ARA (Provincial Standards) requires the following: a) Pit: If extraction and/or processing facilities are within 150 metres of a receptor, a noise assessment is required to determine whether or not provincial guidelines can be satisfied. b) Quarry: If extraction and/or processing facilities are within 500 metres of a receptor, a noise assessment is required to determine whether or not provincial guidelines can be satisfied The Development Services Department of the County of Brant may require the Noise Impact Study to be reviewed and comments received from MOECC and others, as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. 9.6 Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Brant Official Plan As a County Transportation Objective m) states: To coordinate suitable haulage/truck routes with the Province and adjacent municipalities in order to address the needs of both aggregate and industry, Page 28

213 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 and to minimize the negative impacts of truck routes on adjacent non-employment uses c) Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: ii. impact of the proposed truck haul routes; Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act (Provincial Standards) requires the completion of: confirmation of the main haulage routes and proposed truck traffic to and from the site, and necessary entrance permits. The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the TIS to be reviewed and comments received from the County s Department of Public Works and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. 9.7 Dust and Air Quality Impact Study Brant Official Plan Policy c) states: Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: vi. noise, dust and vibration assessments in accordance with the Provincial Standards of the Aggregate Resources Act, and ability to implement the attenuation and mitigation measures as recommended by the assessments; (d) All Resource Development uses shall satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to water supply, disposal of liquid waste, pumping operations, and the control of atmospheric emissions (i.e., air, noise, dust, vibration). Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act (Provincial Standards) Prescribed Conditions include: 3.1 Dust will be mitigated on site. 3.2 Water or another provincially approved dust suppressant will be applied to internal haul roads and processing areas as often as required to mitigate dust. 3.3 Processing equipment will be equipped with dust suppressing or collection devices where the equipment creates dust and is being operated within 300 metres of a sensitive receptor. Page 29

214 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the Dust Study to be reviewed and comments received from MOECC and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. 9.8 Vibration Study There are no existing quarries in the County and no bedrock deposits have been identified in the Official Plan as part of Schedule E and only such a deposit would prompt the need for blasting and therefore a blast/vibration study. However, for completeness, the following would apply. Brant Official Plan Policy c) Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: vi. noise, dust and vibration assessments in accordance with the Provincial Standards of the Aggregate Resources Act, and ability to implement the attenuation and mitigation measures as recommended by the assessments; (d) All Resource Development uses shall satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to water supply, disposal of liquid waste, pumping operations, and the control of atmospheric emissions (i.e., air, noise, dust, vibration). Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act (Provincial Standards) prescribed Conditions include: 3.10 The licensee will monitor all blasts for ground vibrations and blast overpressure and will operate to ensure compliance with current provincial guidelines Blasting will not occur on a holiday or between the hours of 6 p.m. on any day and 8 a.m. on the following day All blast monitoring reports must be retained by the licensee and made available upon request by the Ministry of Natural Resources for audit purposes. If a quarry application was submitted, the Development Services Department of the County of Brant would require the Blast/Vibration Study to be reviewed and comments received from MOECC and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. Page 30

215 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Rehabilitation Plan Brant Official Plan Policy m) states: Once the mineral aggregate resources of the site have been depleted, the site shall be developed with uses generally consistent with surrounding land uses in accordance with policies (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) below: i. rehabilitation of mineral aggregate extraction sites shall be required in accordance with the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act. Progressive rehabilitation shall be encouraged. Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and the land use designation of the lot and surrounding lots into consideration. ii. a rehabilitation program shall generally ensure that the pit or quarry can be utilized for agricultural purposes. Land shall be rehabilitated to ensure that substantially the same areas and average soil quality for agriculture are restored. On prime agricultural lands, complete agricultural rehabilitation is not required if: 1. extraction is permitted below the water table; 2. other alternatives have been considered and found unsuitable; and, 3. agricultural rehabilitation in remaining areas is maximized. Where complete agricultural rehabilitation is not required, other appropriate after uses, such as recreational uses may be considered in accordance with the policies of this Plan. Proposals to change the use of the land to any use not already permitted in the Agriculture designation will require an amendment to this Plan. Sites may also be rehabilitated or restored using native species as means of promoting comparable species composition to what existed on the site prior to extraction. iii. the County shall actively pursue programs, in cooperation with the Province and owners to rehabilitate abandoned pits and quarries. iv. rehabilitation of mineral and petroleum resource land after operations have ceased is required in accordance with the provision of the Mining Act and the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. v. where rehabilitation proposes uses that are urban in nature and a logical extension of existing development, the rehabilitation plan shall address servicing related issues, including post-extractive servicing. In preparing the licence, such after use shall be recognized to allow eventual development in a sustainable manner. vi. the proposed uses for rehabilitation shall not result in the expansion of settlement area boundaries. Page 31

216 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 Aggregate Resources Act: For cross-reference purposes, the Aggregate Resources Act Provincial Standards requires confirmation of: The progressive and final rehabilitation and the suitability of the proposed rehabilitation having regard to the adjacent lands 1.3 Progressive Rehabilitation Sequence and direction of progressive rehabilitation; Details on how the overburden and topsoil will be used to facilitate progressive rehabilitation; The location, design and type of vegetation (e.g. grasses, legumes, shrubs and trees, etc.) that will be established on the site during progressive rehabilitation; How the slopes will be established on the excavation faces and the quarry floor; Details on how progressive rehabilitation will be conducted in relation to the operational sequences; and If proposed, details on the importation of topsoil or inert material to facilitate rehabilitation of the site. 1.4 Final Rehabilitation If proposed, details on the importation of topsoil or inert material to facilitate rehabilitation of the site; How the final slopes will be established on all excavation faces and the quarry floor; Location, design and type of vegetation (e.g. grasses, legumes, shrubs, and trees, etc.) that will be established on the site during final rehabilitation; Any building(s) or structure(s) to remain on the site; Anticipated elevation of the groundwater table; Any internal haul roads that will remain on the site; Final surface water drainage and drainage facilities on the site; Final elevations of the rehabilitated areas of the site illustrated by a one or two metre contour interval, expressed as metres above mean sea level, and; Location of cross-section(s). The Development Services Department of the County of Brant will require the Rehabilitation Plan to be reviewed and comments received from MNRF and if below water table extraction is proposed to be reviewed and comments received from OMAFRA and others as determined by the County, prior to preparing their staff Planning Report. Page 32

217 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE Fees and Other Applicable Costs 10.1 Application Fees There are County of Brant application fees for: Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-Law Amendment 10.2 Peer Review Costs The County Official Plan also has provisions for the applicant to be responsible for the cost of peer reviews associated with the application as per Policy 6.13 which states: Certain supporting studies, information and materials shall be required as part of a development application or as part of a detailed planning study as identified throughout this Plan. The need extent, and timing of such supporting studies, information and materials shall be determined by the County on a site-specific basis in consideration of the site s land use context and regard to the policies of this Plan. e) At the discretion of the County, supporting studies shall be peer reviewed at the cost of the development proponent Conservation Authority Fees When an applicant submits a planning application to the County, staff will screen the application to determine whether the application is within the area of interest to the GRCA and/or the LPRCA. As part of the pre-consultation meeting with the applicant and municipality, the CA will outline the appropriate fee for the application. Below Water Table Applications o No features of interest within 120 metres o Features of interest within 120 metres Above Water Table Applications o No features of interest within 120 metres o Features of interest within 120 metres LPRCA Current fees are: o Complex Applications (OPA/ZBL) Page 33

218 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE County Attendance at OMB Hearing Where the County appears at an OMB hearing in support of an OPA or site specific rezoning, the applicant will reimburse the County for all legal and technical cost associated with the hearing County of Brant Disclaimer The information contained within this Aggregate Resource Guide is provided as an outline of the general planning process for a proposed pit/quarry application within the County of Brant. Prior to any potential pit/quarry applicant proceeding with an application, the County of Brant Development Services staff should be consulted. All references to Provincial legislation and/or County policies and fees are subject to change and this information should be confirmed prior to proceeding with any application. All photos used in this Guide are intended to be generic Associated Issues A) Truck Route Management The County of Brant updated their Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in 2015 which required in part, a review of key transportation issues, and strategic options to be developed to facilitate and enhance mobility in the County. The TMP noted that for aggregate trucking, one of the most important elements of the aggregate application process involves the planning and approval of haul routes. To address this, a Truck Route Management recommends the establishment of a County by-law for Designated Heavy Haul Routes that would apply to haul trucks associated with sand and gravel pits traveling within the County. Attached hereto as Appendix A is the Truck Route Management Plan. B) Additional Studies for Planning Applications It is recommended that the County of Brant initiate an Official Plan Amendment to update Section Mineral Aggregate Resources. Specifically the recommendation is to include the requirement of an additional prescribed study as part of any new mineral aggregate resource application. The additional study is a Dust and Air Quality Impact Study. Attached hereto as Appendix B is the recommend text to be inserted into the County of Brant Official Plan to include the requirement for a dust/air quality study. Page 34

219 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 APPENDIX A TRUCK ROUTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 1

220 EAS ST ROAD E PO N D RO AD E RO SR RO A D OA D UN T GE R M L AN E T PAR S TR KI N G ED WA RD IS R OA Y AN S C HO P OW D ERLIN E RO ER N OL R OR'S Municipal Boundary #5 AD RO AD GOV EE KEG Railway O AD R OA D EA ST AD E LYND OXFORD COUNTY OA D 4 AY HW LB OR NE 03 R ST EE T EA ST OV E R TY R O UN PAIN HIGHWAY #54 NT C CO H IG B RA AD T O AD R OA TE R D #18 OA YR B N RA HWA Y #5 4 OA D A NT R P H E L P S RO BU RT CH RO AD SHUT TR P L EA S E GR M APL UN T R OA D Y 24 HWA V LE A EN U E SO SO UR SP R IN GS RO AD O AD OA DR KL AN O AD IND I AN SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER LIN E RO HALDIMAND COUNTY AD N COU UT H HO PS TE GA MA ICH R O AD COUNTY ROAD TY R OA D #5 MA NORW IN S ST. GEORGE URBAN SETTLEMENT AREA UT H TH MISSISSAUGAS OF THE NEW CREDIT SO OU HALDIMAND COUNTY ET ES NORFOLK COUNTY T RE NU AD AVE RO PL E BURFORD URBAN SETTLEMENT AREA HIG M AP AD BIS REET ES T AD OA D E RO ER GAT NLIN COUNTY OF BRANT Y RO AR L E ET W OP S TOW BISH DL E H WAY #53 S T RE CO CK NE MID H IG KING ST HIG CITY OF BRANTFORD 03 OR LB CO H D CO ID G E HIGHWAY 4 EL R O D B E TH NR #22 T'S WAT L AK CO RD RE X FO O AD U BL Road D PINEHUR R AYR RE NT-O D B RA AR W T AC NG KI ED EE ST PARIS URBAN SETTLEMENT AREA R ST Permitted Truck Route O AD D Y 24 HWA RO A HIG RTH M BO GE R NO DR U NE KEG LA Legend A D A E OR EET STR AD R RO R OA ST. G ER RO ET T R I VE TO N RIV NCH REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO D AN AYR RE SILVER ST COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN PERMITTED TRUCK ROUTES B RA GR PO WATTS AD ND RO #5

221 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 APPENDIX B RECOMMENDED TEXT FOR REQUIREMENT OF DUST/AIR QUALITY STUDY Page 1

222 COUNTY OF BRANT AGGREGATE RESOURCE GUIDE 2015 RECOMMENDED TEXT FOR REQUIREMENT OF DUST/AIR QUALITY STUDY It is being recommended that the County of Brant initiate an Official Plan Amendment to update Section Mineral Aggregate Resources. Specifically the recommendation is to include the requirement of an additional prescribed study as part of new mineral aggregate resource applications. The additional study is a Dust and Air Quality Impact Study The change would apply to Section under c) and be as follows: c) The establishment of a new licensed mineral aggregate operation shall be required to obtain Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments. Applications shall be reviewed based on the following, as required by the County: x. Dust and Air Quality Impact Study which shall provide the following information; a) An identification of the policy framework to address dust and air quality impacts including applicable MOECC Guidelines, and an analysis of how the policy framework is being satisfied; b) An assessment of the background levels of dust and modeling of the additional contributions of anticipated dust levels from the proposed operation; c) A description of mitigation techniques and how they will practically be incorporated into the ARA Site Plans. Page 2

223 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 5 Example of a Pedestrian Charter MARCH

224 PEDESTRIAN CHARTER For the City of Kitchener Walking is the most ancient and universal form of travel. It is also an important form of exercise and recreation. Every personal trip involves walking, alone or in combination with taking public transit, driving or cycling. A pedestrian is a person moving from place to place, either by foot or by using an assistive mobility device. Pedestrians include residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. In order to travel safely, conveniently, directly and comfortably, they require an urban environment and infrastructure designed to meet their travel needs. To ensure walking is a safe, comfortable and convenient mode of urban travel, the City of kitchener respects the following principles: Accessibility Walking is a free and direct means of accessing local goods, services, community amenities and public transit. Equity Walking is the only mode of travel that is universally affordable, and allows children and youth, and people with specific medical conditions to travel independently. Health and Well-Being Walking is a proven method of promoting personal health and well-being. Environmental Sustainability Walking relies on human power and has negligible environmental impact. Personal and Community Safety An environment in which people feel safe and comfortable walking, increases community safety for all. Community Cohesion and Vitality A pedestrian-friendly environment Encourages and facilitates social interaction and local economic vitality. To create an urban environment in all parts of the city that encourages and supports walking, the City of Kitchener will: uphold the right of pedestrians of all ages and abilities to safe, convenient, direct and comfortable walking conditions; provide a walking environment within the public right-of-way and in public parks that encourages people to walk for travel, exercise and recreation; support and encourage the planning, design and development of a walking environment in public and private spaces (both exterior and interior) that meets the travel needs of pedestrians; provide and maintain infrastructure that gives pedestrians safe and convenient passage while walking along and crossing streets; ensure that residents access to basic community amenities and services does not depend on car ownership or public transit use;

225 set policies that reduce conflict between pedestrians and other users of the public right-of-way; create walkable communities by giving high planning priority to compact, human-scale and mixed land use; encourage research and education on the social, economic, environmental and health benefits of walking as a form of travel, exercise and recreation; promote laws and regulations that respect pedestrians particular needs; advocate for improving the provincial and federal regulatory and funding frameworks that affect the City s ability to improve the pedestrian environment; and work with individual citizens, community groups and agencies, businesses and other levels of government to achieve these goals. An urban environment that encourages and facilitates walking supports community health, vitality and safety. It increases use of public transit; decreases car dependence; reduces conflict between vehicles and pedestrians; leads to cleaner air; green public space; and supports green tourism. Such an environment creates opportunities for the informal social interaction that is one of the main attributes of a vibrant, liveable urban community. ; and further, That all other local area municipalities be encouraged to adopt a Pedestrian Charter.

226 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX 6 Traffic Calming Policy MARCH

227 Prepared for the County of Brant by IBI Group County of Brant TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY County of Brant Transportation Master Plan Update JANUARY 2016

228 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1. INTRODUCTION What is Traffic Calming? Why is Traffic Calming Important? TRAFFIC CALMING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS Traffic Calming Features for New Subdivisions Traffic Calming Features for New Site Design Best Practices City of Kitchener Proactive Traffic Calming in New Subdivisions CITE Promoting Sustainable Transportation Through Site Design TRAFFIC CALMING FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS Policy Rationale & Principles Technical Warrants for Traffic Calming TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY PROCESS Initiating / Approving a Traffic Calming Request AVAILABLE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Measures / Applications The Toolbox Approach TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES (FOR NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS) Horizontal Deflection Modern Roundabout Traffic Circle / mini roundabout Curb Extension Median Island Corner Radius Reduction January 2016 Page i.

229 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT D) Chicanes On-Street Parking Vertical Deflection Speed Humps and Tables Speed Cushions Raised Crosswalks Raised Intersections Other Devices Obstruction/Closure Directional Closures / Right-in, Right-Out Islands Raised Median Channelization Full Closure Signage Stop, Yield and other Regulatory Signs Traffic Calmed Neighbourhood Signs Warning Signs Turn Restrictions Construction Costs Context Sensitive Applications and Trade-Offs January 2016 Page ii.

230 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1. INTRODUCTION In 1998, the Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming produced by the Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (CITE), and the Transportation Association of Canada s (TAC) Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming defined traffic calming as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Since these guides were first developed for use in Canada, the application of traffic calming has become a common practice throughout the country. It involves measures designed to change roadway geometry, along with signage, awareness and education programs to reduce vehicle speeds, minimize conflicts, and increase safety for all users. While implementation of traffic calming measures has been around for several decades, the 1998 guidelines validated the approach to manage traffic on neighbourhood streets and adoption of policies for implementation. Since the 1998 guide was published, traffic calming has become a common component of urban transportation planning and traffic engineering. Up until now, the County of Brant has not used traffic calming, although there are always cases where terrain, land use and road design all naturally combine to create traffic calming effects in both urban and rural settings. This Traffic Calming Policy provides guidelines for the application of traffic calming in two basic ways: 1) through the design of new subdivisions and site plans, and 2) application of traffic calming in existing conditions. 1.1 What is Traffic Calming? Traffic calming is the use of mainly physical traffic management techniques to reduce traffic speed and volume on neighbourhoods and public facilities such as schools, parks and community centres. It is used to: Reduce motorized vehicle speed; Improve neighbourhood liveability; Increase safety for all road users; and Reduce the negative impacts of traffic at the neighbourhood level. 1.2 Why is Traffic Calming Important? Urban growth and associated automobile dependency often causes motorists to seek the shortest travel distances and alternative travel routes to their destinations. In some cases, these route pass sensitive land uses such as houses, parks, schools and community centres. The added traffic volumes can also put considerable strain on an area s roadway network to safely accommodate all users within the public right-of-way. For example, where there is deficient arterial roadway capacity around a neighbourhood, motorists may choose to take alternative routes using collector and local streets that are not intended for such traffic volumes. This inappropriate use of neighbourhood streets can have the following effects: Local or collector streets begin to operate as arterial road bypasses through a neighbourhood; January 2016 Page 1.

231 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Motorists operate vehicles at speeds which are not appropriate for the surrounding setting and/or roadside environment because road design accommodates higher speeds (i.e. drivers drive at a speed they are comfortable with); The safety of all road users is decreased due to the speed, volume and other motorist compliance issues such as running stops at Stop signs; and Police resources to address these types of neighbourhood traffic issues are extremely limited, and only effective at the time of application. In cases where traffic calming measures are applied randomly, without an overall governing policy and plan, new problems can result: Where improperly designed measures need to be removed shortly after installation for traffic management reasons; Where temporary pilot applications are unsightly and therefore opposed by local residents; Where there is no public support for the measures by not encouraging public involvement; and Where traffic is diverted to other sensitive streets or neighbourhoods. One of the primary goals of effective traffic calming is: Do not solve a traffic problem on one street or area by creating a similar problem on another street or area. The planning and application of traffic calming can be applied both to new developments such as plans of subdivisions and site plans, and to existing developments referred to as retrofits. The former is provided and paid by the developer, while the latter requires investment by the County of Brant. 2. TRAFFIC CALMING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS Designing effective traffic calming into new developments is a more proactive approach than retrofitting existing developments. Some municipalities take this proactive approach as part of the development review and rezoning process. It can involve street design, and subdivision or site plan layout to create streets that are designed to discourage higher vehicular speeds. 2.1 Traffic Calming Features for New Subdivisions In order to design new streets with traffic calming capability, the following traffic calming design features are recommended: Create low speed design for local residential streets to encourage and maintain 85 th - percentile speeds in the km/h range; The preferred maximum length of a local roadway section between controlled intersections (i.e. Stop control) is 150 m; Use of street layouts to provide traffic calming, typically involving street design. For example, the straight traditional subdivision street shown in Exhibit 2.1/A can easily January 2016 Page 2.

232 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE generate operating speeds in excess of 50 km/h because there are no flow interruptions and side friction to dissuade speeding; The curvilinear street concept shown on Exhibit 2.1/B uses short tangent lengths, low speed curves and short intersection spacing to prove a traffic calming feature; and Traffic calming effects can also be provide in a combination of traditional grid pattern and curvilinear streets as shown in Exhibit 2.1/C through the use of strategically placed traffic calming devises such as mini-roundabouts (traffic circles). Exhibit 2.1 Example of Application of Traffic Calming Devises in a New Subdivision A B C January 2016 Page 3.

233 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE The use of effective traffic calming measures in the subdivision and site design process can give the developer and the County of Brant the opportunity to ensure that traffic calming is an integral part of the project design from the start. The advantages of requiring traffic calming to be designed into new development plans are: Information on the types of traffic calming measures that the County will consider for new subdivisions can be incorporated into the Development and Engineering Standards (Section 7 Roads and Section 20 Traffic Impact Studies); County resources can be reduced if the development proponent is required to undertake the applicable review and generate the recommended plan to include traffic calming; and The Transportation Impact Assessment required from the proponent would be required to identify proactive traffic calming features of the plan. This should include identification of where traffic calming measures are proposes and the types of measures to be included in detailed design. Including calming in the initial design of a subdivision or development may be seen by some as fixing a planned road system that is not planned properly. This is not the case with proactive traffic calming planning as this proactive approach recognizes that certain ways of designing streets will in fact encourage excessive vehicular speeds and volumes. The speed will come, for example, from excessively long local and minor collector road sections without any stop control breaks. It will also come from streets that provide no side friction to slow speed, coming in the form of unnecessarily wide travel lanes in excess of m, no on street parking or other horizontal deflections such as boulevards, medians and/or streetscaping. When any combination of these street design features are lacking, the street can encourage excessive motorist speeds and volumes. Passive ways of avoiding this as part of the street design include: Reduce roadway travel lane width standard (maximum 3.5m); Use textured pavement or pressed concrete at key conflict areas that do not result in noise impacts on sensitive receivers; Include curb extensions or median islands to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and exposure time at primary pedestrian crossing routes; Include modern roundabouts, mini roundabouts or traffic circles as an alternative to intersection Stop-controls and traffic signals; Include bicycle lanes on streets; and/or Allow on-street parking during appropriate time period. Examples of these and other traffic calming techniques that can be designed into new subdivisions and site plans are included next in Section 3 of this report. 2.2 Traffic Calming Features for New Site Design In addition to subdivision planning, traffic calming can be part of the site development process to promote more sustainable transportation. See Section below for a source of information on traffic calming as part of site design. January 2016 Page 4.

234 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE 2.3 Best Practices CITY OF KITCHENER PROACTIVE TRAFFIC CALMING IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS In late 2015, the City of Kitchener endorsed a new policy and operating procedure for proactive traffic calming in new subdivisions. This was done to help ensure that a comprehensive review of traffic calming and cycling facilities are conducted during the site plan and subdivision review. 1 Traffic calming had previously been factored into the City s review of subdivision applications, but due to the timing of these applications, there were few instances where traffic calming measures were constructed in new subdivisions. Also, while the City s Development Manual identifies some calming techniques such as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, median islands and roundabouts, other techniques or locational criteria are not included. The City researched ways that other North American cities are proactively planning for traffic calming within new subdivisions. Municipalities that were found to have proactive approaches to traffic calming in new developments were Edmonton, Calgary, Windsor, Kelowna, Vaughan, Hamilton and San Diego. Based on these practices, the following guidelines have been recommended for inclusion in the County s Development and Engineering Standards: Institutional Zoned Lands with frontage along a public road should require some form of traffic calming, including but not limited to curb extensions, chicanes, pedestrian refuge islands and intersection controls, narrowings, traffic circles, roundabouts and centre medians with landscape treatments to prevent mid-block crossings; Multi-Use Pathways and Trail Crossings of a municipal road must consider treatment within the road right-of-way to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The use of curb extensions, pedestrian refuge island and /or a combination of measures is required; Pedestrian Generators should involve traffic calming, for example at parks, churches, retail blocks, transit hubs and stops and sports fields. Types of measures to be considered include, but are not limited to medians, narrowings, curb extensions, refuge islands, raised intersections, roundabouts and traffic circles; and Road Classification and Right-of-Way Requirements where a roadway is forecast to experience traffic volumes higher than the road classification range, or where there is the potential for increased speeds and potential for cut through traffic. Where the length of a roadway or the area between intersections is greater than 250 m, horizontal deflections such as chicanes, chokers, narrowing and/or centre islands must be considered. Reduced travel lane width within the minimum 20 metre road allowance, plus on-street parking, centre medians, on-road cycling lanes and roundabouts and traffic circles CITE PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION THROUGH SITE DESIGN This report recommends site design practices that can be applied through the land development process to promote the use of more sustainable modes of passenger transportation, such as walking, cycling and transit. 2 Its primary purpose is to assist policy-makers and professionals involved in the preparation, review and approval of non-residential development proposals to identify and incorporate features that make sites more accessible to travel modes other than the single-occupant vehicle (SOV). The report also identifies a range of supporting policies and actions that agencies can implement to create an atmosphere conducive to promoting sustainable transportation through site design. By doing this, the site design policies can also encourage traffic calming within a non-residential development site. 1 City of Kitchener, Community and Infrastructure Services Committee Report INS , October 20, Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers and IBI Group, 2004 January 2016 Page 5.

235 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE The site design guidelines include: Site Organization to determine the relative proximity and interconnectiveness of buildings and key features such as parking areas. This influences the walkability of a site, and how much it relies on auto travel; Site Layout to determine how people will arrive, travel through and leave a site. This has a major impact on the traffic character within a site, determined by how different travel modes can safely and comfortably co-exist; Site Infrastructure involving road and sidewalk widths, materials and treatments and signage provisions; and Site Amenities including public areas, bicycle parking, change facilities and landscaping. Some examples of site design guidelines that can impact traffic speed and volume include: Street Layout in a grid or curvilinear patterns provides direct transit, cycling and walking connections. Avoid uninterrupted motor vehicle flows on internal roads to discourage speeding and improve access for pedestrians; Number and Location of Driveways should minimize the number of site driveways and new signalized intersections. Driveways should be located opposite existing driveways or intersections; Conflict Areas should be minimized by configuring internal roads to minimize the number of conflict points with walking and cycling routes; Road Design four lane roads should also be avoided as they encourage speeding. Internal roads should also include boulevards or planting strips minimum 0.6m wide but ideally 2.0m or more; Delineation of Crossings on roads for cyclists and pedestrians at safe locations and to notify motorists. Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 7: Traffic Control determines the warrants, standards and guidelines for installation of traffic controls, including signals, Intersection Pedestrian Signals (IPS), all-way stops and Stop and Yield signs. 3. TRAFFIC CALMING FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS The following provides information and supporting data on why traffic calming may be required on some existing streets in the County of Brant. The traffic calming policy is oriented to Local and Collector street either being planned as part of new Plans of Subdivision, or in response to traffic and related issues on existing streets. Traffic calming is also typically intended for streets in urban areas, and not in rural or agricultural areas. Speed reduction on rural roads presents specific challenges, such as unrestricted vehicle movement conditions (i.e. few stops) that may be better served through increased enforcement or possible changes to road design. The intent of the County is to encourage the development of better, more liveable communities within its urban areas, and this includes addressing existing or potential neighbourhood traffic issues. The following policy will be referenced in Section 4 of the Transportation Master Plan Update. January 2016 Page 6.

236 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE 3.1 Policy Rationale & Principles The overall rationale for a Traffic Calming policy for the County of Brant is to establish a methodology that provides, where possible, a balanced approach between the sometimes conflicting needs of the County and its residents in the planning and operation of neighbourhood streets. It recognizes that undesirable traffic speeds and volumes on County streets has a direct and negative impact on overall safety for everyone, whether a pedestrian, cyclists or driver, and on the quality of life of its residents who live in subdivisions. The Traffic Calming policy reflects the following principles: The Mission Statement of the County s Strategic Direction in its Official Plan is to have a healthy environment with safe residential communities; Reflect the shift away from an auto dominated society; Support and encourage healthy lifestyles and safe communities; Support the shift towards more intensified urban forms; Consider the cumulative impacts of traffic calming on emergency response times; and Provide a mechanism to review and select any traffic calming measures that best serves the issues identified. 3.2 Technical Warrants for Traffic Calming In order for a County street to qualify for the application of traffic calming, minimum warrants should first be met through a screening process. As shown on Exhibit 3-1, many municipalities use some sort of screening process where various indicators are considered in prioritizing where traffic calming can be applied. The three most commonly used indicators are operating speed (of motorized vehicles), traffic volumes (of both local and through traffic) and collisions. Exhibit 3-1 Cross-Section of Traffic Calming Screening Indicators Criteria Operating Speed Traffic Volumes Block Length Transit Route Collision History Land Use Facility Type Emergency Route Grade Pedestrian and/or Bicycle Concerns Municipality Ottawa X X X X X X X X Hamilton X X X X X X X X X X Windsor X X X X X Pickering X X X X X X X X X X Markham X X X X Sidewalks Cut-Through Traffic Planned Improvements Other Programs Schools Residential Units/Frontage # of Requests / Complaints January 2016 Page 7.

237 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Criteria Operating Speed Traffic Volumes Block Length Transit Route Collision History Land Use Facility Type Emergency Route Grade Pedestrian and/or Bicycle Concerns Municipality Vaughan X X Oakville X X X X X Guelph X X X Delta, BC X X X Kelowna, BC X X X X Saanich, BC X X X X X X X The above exhibit indicates the following: Sidewalks Cut-Through Traffic Planned Improvements Other Programs Schools Residential Units/Frontage # of Requests / Complaints Almost all jurisdictions take vehicle speeds and/or volumes into account; Collision history is the next highest-utilized factor; Pedestrian generators and facilities (sidewalks), and adjacent land uses, typically specified as residential or schools, are widespread in their application; Few jurisdictions explicitly consider whether a road is a truck route. This may be taken into consideration by the roadway type, e.g. limited traffic calming implementation on arterials and industrial collectors; and Increasing numbers of municipalities are now considering emergency and transit facilities as traffic calming screening indicators based on applied history and known impacts along traffic-calmed streets. In the County of Brant, whether a street or road is a designated truck route should be an indicator. The County should also consult with their EMS agencies during the screening process. Based on these examples and other experience with traffic calming applications, a two-phase screening process outlined in Exhibit 3-2 is recommended for the County of Brant to identify and confirm a street or streets with selected traffic indicators that technically warrant the application of traffic calming measures. These measures will be further established, as described in Section 4 of the paper, if supported by the basic warrants and associated consultation results. Exhibit 3-2 Technical Traffic Calming Warrants Phase 1 INDICATOR Operating Speed (85 th percentile) REQUIRED MEASUREMENT 85 th percentile speed recorded must be at least 10 km/hr over the posted limit January 2016 Page 8.

238 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Motorized Traffic Volumes Urban Residential Collector or Local Street Only: - On a Local Street - On a 2-lane Collector Street Road Grade Lower than 8% Phase 2 If Phase 1 Minimums Are Met Cycling / Pedestrian Traffic Volumes Collision History Emergency Response Use Proximity to Schools and School Crosswalks Truck Route Counted at greater than 900 vpd Counted greater than 2,000 vpd Counted or Observed Recorded Input Observed As per Official Plan or Truck Route Bylaw Traffic calming devices are often considered to be a hindrance for emergency vehicles and buses. The scoring system developed for the County of Brant recognizes this concern and scores potential sites accordingly. Under this scoring system, if a particular road is not an emergency route, or transit route in a future transit system, it would be noted as such in the Warrant Process. The Warrant Process extending through the Phase 1 and Phase 2 screening investigations is intended as a technical process only, and should not require any consultation or polling of property owners to determine any minimum level of support from the affected or general community. Resident input will be collected and considered if the Warrant Process is found to support traffic calming from the Phase 1 and 2 information listed above, but should not dictate whether a study is initiated. This should be left as a technical decision made objectively by County Staff. 4. TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY PROCESS Where the Warrant Process fits into the proposed overall Traffic Calming Study process is shown on Exhibit 4-1 and described as follows: County Staff will report the results of the Phase 1 and 2 screening investigation, and where the results warrant further consideration of a traffic calming program, Council should be asked to authorize County Staff to commence a Traffic Calming Study of the subject location or area. A Traffic Calming Study should be designed to include consultation with affected residents, the general community and involved stakeholders including all involved County departments. Installation of stop signs should not be considered as a viable traffic calming measure since they are intended only for traffic flow management and control, not traffic calming. There should be no limitations on the types of traffic calming measures to be considered in Traffic Calming Studies. Instead, the Studies should evaluate all appropriate measures as discussed in Section 4, with appropriateness determined by traffic conditions, context terrain, adjacent land use, stakeholder and public input and best practice information on the application and effectiveness of traffic calming measures elsewhere. January 2016 Page 9.

239 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Exhibit 4-1 Recommended Traffic Calming Study Process INITIATE REQUEST REVIEW WARRANTS TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY COUNCIL DECISION IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING Resident Councilor Staff Agency Phase 1 Phase 2 Yes No No Stop Stop Yes Stakeholder Consultation/ Walkabout Community Consultation Analysis Options Evaluation Preferred Plan Yes No Stop or 4.1 Initiating / Approving a Traffic Calming Request In the past, many municipalities with traffic calming policies would only initiate studies based on a survey of residents showing there is resident support for traffic calming. For example, this polling would typically require a minimum 40% response rate from affected residents, and minimum 60% support for traffic calming. If this feedback was not achieved, then the municipality would not study traffic calming any further. This process is problematic in that it leaves the decision on whether to apply traffic calming solely with affected residents, defined as a residents who lives on a street under study within the limits of the block or blocks being considered for traffic calming. It therefore does not consider the opinion of other area residents or the public as a whole, especially in cases where the root cause of traffic problems on a particular block or within a specific study area extends beyond the affected residents, which is often the case in most neighbourhood traffic problems. The best practices review conducted by IBI Group on traffic calming shows that many municipalities use additional procedures to initiate the consideration of traffic calming, rather than only using resident complaints or requests, namely; o o o o the Ward Councillor an established organization such as a Community Association, School Council or Business Association; from a municipal department; and/or from an affected property owner. It is also recommended that once a Traffic Calming Study is conducted in the County of Brant, County Council make the final decision on its approval and implementation based on technical information, and input from affected residents and the larger community. It is also important that in addition to the County s Development Services and Public Works departments, emergency service providers be consulted, namely the County Fire Department and Ambulance Services, along with the OPP where warranted by the location of the potential traffic calming. January 2016 Page 10.

240 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Finally, it is recommended that any approval of a Traffic Calming Study in the County of Brant include a monitoring program following implementation in order to measure the degree of traffic change provided by the program up to two (2) years following installation. 5. AVAILABLE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES 5.1 Measures / Applications The Toolbox Approach Traffic calming is usually considered for lower order streets, for example local and collector streets in residential neighbourhoods and around schools. In these locations, there are a number of different traffic calming measures that can be used to address neighbourhood traffic intrusion and traffic speed issues, and to achieve the goal of safer streets for all users. In the County of Brant, the application of traffic calming should consider a wide range of measures that can be implemented based on the specific context of each proposed application. This range of measures, or toolbox, is shown in Exhibit 5.1. Given that each road and surrounding neighbourhood is unique and presents individual characteristics, the toolbox approach of identifying traffic calming measures can be used as a guideline for the various types of traffic calming measures that may be applied to a particular case. Care must be taken in the application of any measured marked, particularly in the case of designated or primary emergency response routes. Also. vertical deflection should not be used on emergency response routes without the support of the response provider(s). It is also important to note that Stop and Yield signs are traffic management tools, not traffic calming measures. Their use is not included in this traffic calming policy as they are not intended as traffic calming devices. Exhibit 5-1 Traffic Calming Toolbox Measures / Applications Measures Local Road Low- Volume Collector Other Collector = Appropriate Measure = Use with Caution = Not Recommended Horizontal Deflection Modern Roundabout Traffic Circle/Mini Roundabout Curb Extension Raised Median Island Corner Radius Reduction Chicane, 1-lane On-Street Parking Vertical Deflection Speed Hump / Table Speed Cushion Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection Obstruction / Closure Directional Closure Right In/Right-Out Island January 2016 Page 11.

241 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Raised Median Intersection Channelization Full Closure Signage Traffic-Calmed Neighbourhood Primarily for Traffic Turn Prohibited Calming Through Traffic Prohibited One Way Warning Signs (school, park, etc.) Maximum Speed (only used with other physical measures) Yield Sign Stop Sign Trail Crossing Sign 6. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES (FOR NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS) Traffic calming measures that can be applied to either new or existing streets are described as follows along with advantages and disadvantages. 6.1 Horizontal Deflection Horizontal deflection measures are those devices which require a motorist to steer around them, altering the vehicle s path within the roadway cross section. Most horizontal deflection devices are appropriate for all roadways, although care needs to be taken when installing higher-deflection devices such as chicanes and traffic circles on higher volume roads. Advantages Effective in reducing average and/or higher operating speeds; Devices such as curb extensions reduce road user conflict potential; and Devices typically do not impact emergency vehicle response times on lower order roads. Disadvantages Maintenance activities such as street cleaning and snow removal may be complicated in the vicinity of the device; A number of the devices may impact transit and cyclist operations due to constrained travel portions of the roadway; and Typically do not impact through traffic volumes. January 2016 Page 12.

242 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE MODERN ROUNDABOUT Over the past 10 years, there has been considerable success in a growing number of municipalities with the strategic installation of modern roundabouts at appropriate intersections. In most cases these involve the intersection of collector streets, and in some cases collector/arterial intersections. In other locations, smaller mini-roundabouts (see below) have been installed in both residential and commercial areas. The 2008 County of Brant TMP includes a guideline document for the location and design of modern roundabouts. The feasibility of installing and operating various types of roundabouts in the County should continue to be evaluated as a form of traffic calming based on capacity analysis and physical property constraints. This analysis should be performed using the methods described in the FHWA 3 publication ROUNDABOUTS: An Informational Guide as a basis to ensure that a roundabout installation will provide sufficient capacity during all times of day. Appropriate public consultation and education efforts are also required with the potential installation of any roundabout in the County. It is also important that emergency response providers support the use of roundabouts as traffic control devices in the road network TRAFFIC CIRCLE / MINI ROUNDABOUT Traffic circles and mini roundabouts are not to be confused with modern roundabouts. Modern roundabouts are traffic control devices designed to replace or be used instead of traffic signals. Traffic circles consist of a smaller, less expensive raised island constructed in the centre of an intersection. The island is often landscaped. Depending on the location, stop signs at intersections retrofitted with traffic circles may be replaced with yield signs. Traffic circles are typically constructed with mountable curbs, to allow for larger vehicles such as buses to pass over them if necessary. While traffic circles are appropriate for Local Roads and most Collectors, care should be taken to ensure the traffic circle design will accommodate the turning path of all vehicles that are expected to use a designated roadway CURB EXTENSION Curb extensions (also known as bump-outs) reduce the width of the roadway by extending the boulevard and/or sidewalk into what is currently either a travel lane or a parking lane. They are IBI Group 3 Federal Highway Administration, U.S, Department of Transportation January 2016 Page 13.

243 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE appropriate for all roadways. For maximum effectiveness, the approach lane width is typically reduced to 3.0 metres on Local roads. For designated cycling routes, the lane width should be 4.3 metres to provide additional room for cyclists. On-street parking will typically be lost opposite a curb extension, but in most cases parking is not permitted in this space approaching an intersection. Curb extensions are often used at intersections to reduce crossing width, or they can be used in conjunction with median islands or traffic circles MEDIAN ISLAND IBI Group Median islands are constructed with either mountable or barrier curb and are appropriate for all roadways that have the width to support a minimum-1.5 metre island while still maintaining proper travel lane widths. They are often used in conjunction with curb extensions to create a chicane effect. Median islands can be constructed at any length; often driveway spacing is the limiting factor. Median islands can be landscaped, but if so should be at least 3.0m wide. They should also be signed at either end to alert motorists. Consideration should be given to on-street parking that is lost with the construction of a median island CORNER RADIUS REDUCTION Corner radii should be designed as small as possible, only large enough to accommodate the largest design vehicle expected to use a particular road. Small-radius corners reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and force motorists to slow when turning. January 2016 Page 14.

244 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE CHICANES A chicane can be used to reduce the width of a section of road to one lane, thereby forcing one direction of traffic to stop and allow the other to pass. One-lane chicanes shall only be used on Local roads, and should only be used on those experiencing high volumes and with approximately equal directional splits, or the associated reduction in traffic volumes will be minor. Two-lane chicanes offer little in the way of volume or speed reduction and should not be used as traffic calming measures. They often have the unintended consequence of allowing drivers to straddle the centre line, as one might do on a winding road, potentially increasing crash potential. A more suitable two-lane chicane effect can be accomplished through curb extensions and centre medians ON-STREET PARKING On-street parking is an inexpensive and practical traffic calming measure. It reduces the width of the road and causes motorists to reduce their speeds. It should be considered wherever possible, prior to, and in conjunction with, the implementation of physical traffic calming devices. 6.2 Vertical Deflection Vertical deflection devices change the motorist s path in the vertical plane. As such, they are primarily intended for use on Local streets and low volume Collector roads. Vertical deflection devices are not permitted for use on transit routes or designated or primary emergency routes. Advantages: Effective in reducing operating speeds Do not impact local access Disadvantages: Devices have the potential to impact emergency vehicle response times, as they are required to slow down for the devices to ensure they do not injure patients/passengers or damage their vehicles Devices may increase maintenance requirements Typically do not impact through traffic volumes significantly SPEED HUMPS AND TABLES Speed humps are appropriate for all Local streets and low-volume Collector roadways that do not serve as transit or emergency response routes. Speed tables, which have a longer profile, may be considered with caution on higher-volume Collectors. Speed tables should not be used on roads posted at 30 km/h, because vehicles will not have to slow down to pass over them. January 2016 Page 15.

245 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE SPEED CUSHIONS Speed cushions are similar to speed humps or tables, except that they have channels cut into them, approximately the width of a large vehicle such as a fire truck, to allow such vehicles to pass over them without slowing down considerably. Some jurisdictions allow speed cushions to be used on transit or emergency routes. They can be temporarily applied in pilot projects, or used on roads where truck traffic is permitted yet traffic calming is still warranted. The cushions will allow truck traffic to pass through relatively unencumbered. January 2016 Page 16.

246 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE RAISED CROSSWALKS Raised crosswalks, often constructed with decorative, textured pavement, serve three purposes: 1) they highlight the functional area of an intersection, 2) reduce vehicle speeds and depending on surface treatment, 3) they may improve the streetscape. Raised crosswalks should be installed only on Local roads and low-volume Collectors that do not serve as transit or emergency routes RAISED INTERSECTIONS Richard Drdul (flickr.com/drdul) Raised intersections are costly to retrofit and minimally reduce vehicle speeds and volumes. Therefore, they are not recommended for use on existing County streets, although the County may allow them at the intersection of two Local roads in new developments OTHER DEVICES Narrower Lane Width has become a well-used and effective traffic calming measure. Creating more side friction between passing vehicles, and between the vehicle and road edge, is proven to be effective in physically and physiologically slowing driver speed. Travel lanes down to 3.35m wide should be considered in local and minor collector street construction or reconstruction where there is a potential for or observed conditions of speeding. However, the minimum 20 metre road allowance width should be maintained. Rumble strips should not be used as traffic calming measures, especially in residential settings. Rumble strips are designed to alert motorists to changes in roadway conditions by creating both noise and vibration in the vehicle. In the past they have been used as traffic calming devices in some communities, but their associated noise makes them largely unacceptable for this purpose. They should only be used as warning devices when conditions dictate. Textured Crosswalks should not be used alone as a traffic calming measure, but should be considered in conjunction with other traffic calming implementations such as raised intersections. These crosswalks, often constructed with interlocking pavers, can serve to highlight the functional area of an intersection and improve the streetscape. However, they do nothing to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes, are often both expensive to maintain and limiting to some mobility-challenged pedestrians, and tend to break down over time. Consideration should be given to other methods of creating textured pavement, such as stamped asphalt and concrete, whenever including textured crosswalks as part of a larger traffic calming plan. January 2016 Page 17.

247 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE 6.3 Obstruction/Closure IBI Group Included in this category are partial and full roadway closures, intersection diverters, raised medians and right-in-right-out channelized islands. The main purpose of these devices is to reduce infiltrating traffic on neighbourhood streets by obstructing vehicle movement. Advantages: Reduces road user conflicts and volumes Requires little or no enforcement Disadvantages: Penalizes local traffic access Reduces access to transit, emergency services, delivery service, etc. Complicates road maintenance efforts in the vicinity of devices Potential to divert both local and through traffic to parallel or alternative routes DIRECTIONAL CLOSURES / RIGHT-IN, RIGHT-OUT ISLANDS Compliance with these devices relies on the presence of other motorists to deter would-be violators from circumventing the device. As such, they should only be used at the intersection of Local roads with lower-volume Collector roads. They should also only be used when local traffic has another alternative to access the higher-order road in the direction prevented by the closure RAISED MEDIAN These raised medians should not be confused with the raised medians discussed above in the horizontal deflection section. These raised medians effectively serve the same purpose as right-in, right-out islands, and should only be used to prevent left turns to and from Local streets and lowvolume Collector roads. As with directional closures, this type of raised median should only be used when local traffic has another alternative to access the higher-order road in the direction prohibited by the closure. January 2016 Page 18.

248 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE CHANNELIZATION Intersection channelization may be used on all roadways FULL CLOSURE Full closure should only be considered for Local roads and only as a last resort, as it has severe implications on local residents. If considered, care must be taken to ensure that the local traffic affected by the closure does not create unanticipated problems on adjacent local streets. 6.4 Signage These devices are sometimes used as traffic calming devices and include both regulatory and warning signs, including stop and yield controls, maximum speed, turn prohibitions, 'traffic calmed neighbourhood signs. Advantages: Has the potential to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes Reduces road user conflicts Relatively inexpensive Disadvantages: Frequent enforcement is required to be effective "Traffic calmed neighbourhood" and 'No through traffic signs are not regulatory signs that can be enforced May reduce local access in the case of one-way streets and turn restrictions STOP, YIELD AND OTHER REGULATORY SIGNS Regulatory signs, with the exception of speed limit signs, are not to be used as traffic calming devices within the County of Brant. Unwarranted all-way stop signs are not a valid method of calming traffic. They can cause additional traffic and safety problems (i.e. running stops, rear end collisions, mid-block speeding), and so should not be installed for traffic calming purposes. When intended as traffic calming, maximum speed signs are only to be used in conjunction with other physical devices TRAFFIC CALMED NEIGHBOURHOOD SIGNS These signs should be considered as part of all traffic calming implementations. January 2016 Page 19.

249 IBI GROUP COUNTY OF BRANT TMP UPDATE Richard Drdul (flickr.com/drdul) WARNING SIGNS Warning signs should be considered where appropriate as part of larger traffic calming plans. The Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming offers guidance as to which signs are suggested/required for various installations. Richard Drdul (flickr.com/drdul) Richard Drdul (flickr.com/drdul) IBI Group TURN RESTRICTIONS Turn restrictions may be considered as traffic calming, but two important points highlight the caution that must be exercised: They are not self-policing devices, and when used on low-volume roads, do not by themselves deter motorists from making the prohibited movement; and While it is possible under the Highway Traffic Act to enforce turn restrictions at particular times of the day, it is not possible to enforce a local traffic excepted plate on a turn restriction sign. If a turning movement is prohibited for some traffic, it must be prohibited for all traffic. 6.5 Construction Costs Traffic engineering plans, including calming plans, can be prepared either by County staff in the case of existing subdivisions, or developer consultants using provincial and TAC guidelines. Best practice research and references from other municipalities can also be used. Typical recent construction costs are shown in Exhibit 6.1. In viewing these costs, it is very important to note that January 2016 Page 20.