Presentation for public information centres
- 1. 1 Lawrence Park Neighbourhood Investigation of Basement Flooding & Road Improvement Study Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre 3 Presentation 13 May 2015
- 2. Review existing conditions Present alternative solutions and evaluation process Present recommended alternative solutions Answer questions and receive feedback Discuss next steps 2 OBJECTIVES OF TONIGHT’S MEETING
- 3. 3 STUDY PURPOSE To address issues relating to: deteriorating road conditions traffic pedestrian safety road drainage problems basement flooding Measures that improve stormwater quality and reduce storm runoff will also be incorporated Study Area
- 4. 4 Identify Problem or Opportunity Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluate Alternative Solutions Consult on Recommended Solution(s) Select Preferred Solution(s) Complete Final Report (30 Day Review Period) We Are Here STUDY PROCESS Study is being carried out according to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process
- 5. Feedback received at PIC#2 identified three priorities: 1. Reduce Basement Flooding 2. Improve Pedestrian Safety 3. Limit Impact to Urban Greenspace/ Recreational Uses 5 COMMUNITY INPUT
- 6. 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS: BASEMENT FLOODING
- 7. 7 A separate set of alternatives was developed and evaluated for the partially separated and separated areas SEWER SYSTEM STUDY AREA STIVES
- 8. 8 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: BASEMENT & SURFACE FLOODING Partially Separated Area • 2 alternatives were considered: I. Alternative 1 – Increase Conveyance II. Alternative 2 – Provide Offline Storage Fully Separated Area • 3 alternatives were considered: I. Alternative 1 – Increase Conveyance II. Alternative 2 – Provided Inline Storage III. Alternative 3 – Increase Conveyance and Provide Inline Storage Surface flooding addressed through alternatives on road cross-sections – urban/rural cross-section
- 9. 9 Downspout disconnection Adding storm sewers to provide adequate capacity on St. Leonards Avenue, Glengowan Avenue and Dundurn Road (total length = 830 m) RECOMMENDED ALT. SOLUTIONS: PARTIALLY SEPARATED AREA
- 10. 10 Downspout disconnection Sealing of sanitary manholes in low lying areas Replacement of 1,020 m of sanitary sewers with larger sewers on Bayview Wood, Rochester Avenue, Wood Avenue, Bayview Avenue and Valleyanna Drive Construction of a 1,100 m3 underground storage facility on Valleyanna Drive RECOMMENDED ALT. SOLUTIONS: FULLY SEPARATED AREA
- 11. Locations with a potential lack of sight distance were identified and examined Recommendations include: Remove or relocate stone wall for Blythwood Road / Strathgowan Crescent Undertake minor works (trimming of tree branches) at Mount Pleasant Road / Lawrence Crescent and Mount Pleasant Road / St. Leonards Avenue 11 TRAFFIC SIGHT LINES Blythwood Road at Strathgowan Crescent, facing East
- 12. 12 Recommendations: • Consideration of turning restrictions at the Blythwood Road and Daneswood Road intersection to reduce traffic volumes through the area • Clearly defined pedestrian spaces such as sidewalks and pavement markings • Consistent approach for traffic sign designs and application of parking regulations, speed limits and warning signs • Appropriate use of traffic control measures such as stop signs and traffic control signals TRAFFIC INFILTRATION & SAFETY • A traffic study was undertaken to understand the study area travel patterns and to highlight infiltration across the study area. • The findings showed that traffic volumes on internal roads are relatively small, with the exception of Mildenhall Road, which is a collector road. Recommendations:
- 13. 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS: STATE OF GOOD REPAIR ON ROADS
- 15. Priority is on creating pedestrian linkages to key destinations in the neighbourhood and connecting existing sidewalks 15 PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES
- 16. 16 FACTORS IMPACTING SIDEWALK INSTALLATION • Presence of pedestrian generators (school, parks) • Right-of-Way road width • Impact on trees and vegetation • Technical feasibility, cost, impact on utilities (e.g. hydro poles)
- 17. 8.5m wide rural cross section 17 City Policy for Local Residential Roadway requires: • 8.5 m paved surface, concrete curb and 1.7-2.0 m sidewalk on one or both sides A local residential roadway must account for the following: • Emergency and service vehicle access • Space for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles • Safe two way traffic flow • Width for winter road maintenance • Parking • Width for underground structures 8.5m wide urban cross section ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
- 19. Tree inventory completed for the study area Data for each tree included: location species diameter at breast height biological health condition preservation priority 19 INVENTORY OF STREET TREES
- 20. There are approximately 2600 healthy street trees within the municipal right of way across the whole study area; less than 100 street trees were found to be of a low priority. Number of street trees that would require removal was determined for each alternative for each street. Average percentage removal for all alternatives considered, ranged from 10-80%, depending on the width of construction impacts, the existing road width and the locations of the existing trees. An urban cross section, with a 7.2m road width, and with no sidewalk results in the least impact to street trees. 20 IMPACT ON STREET TREES
- 21. 21 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: ROAD CROSS SECTION At PIC #2, a preferred road width of 8.5 m with 1 or 2 sidewalks for local roads was presented As a result of public input, the study team reconsidered the above Alternative Solutions evaluated include: Collector Road • Urban cross sections • 8.5 or 9.5m roadway widths • 1 or 2 sidewalks Mildenhall Road, south of Lawrence Ave E Local Roads • Urban or rural cross sections • 7.2 or 8.5m roadway widths • 0 or 1 sidewalks • Identification of sidewalks that create priority linkages
- 22. 22 Roadway cross-sections developed and evaluated only for streets which have issues with respect to the existing road width, drainage or lack of sidewalks KEY MAP: ROADS EVALUATED
- 23. 23 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: ROAD CROSS SECTION Fixing roads with existing cross-sections will not address the existing problems/opportunities Roads under 7.2m are insufficient for emergency/operational vehicles Lack of pedestrian infrastructure Direct replacement would not provide for regrading and would not fully address issues of storm drainage Fixing streets with their existing cross-section would have an impact on trees similar to a 7.2m urban cross-section No alternatives provide for zero impact
- 24. 24 Socio-Cultural Pedestrian Safety Impact on Urban Greenspace / Recreational Use (Trees, Parks, Open Spaces) Technical • Technical Effectiveness Surface and Basement Flooding • Stormwater Quality Improvement • Pavement Structural Conditions • Pedestrian Connectivity • Accessibility for Maintenance & Emergency Vehicle Economic • Capital Costs EVALUATION PROCESS: CRITERIA Pedestrian Safety, Impact on Urban Greenspace and Surface/Basement Flooding assigned higher scoring factor based on community input
- 25. 25 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Legend 7.2 m width, 1 sidewalk, urban cross section 7.2 m width, no sidewalk, urban cross section 8.5 m width, 1 sidewalk, urban cross section
- 26. 26 7.2 metre road + 1 sidewalk + urban cross section RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: LOCAL ROAD 7.2 metre road + urban cross section 1.7 m 7.2 m 7.2 m • 7.2m road width would have parking limited to one side of road • Location of sidewalk determined during detailed design stage
- 27. 27 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION: MILDENHALL ROAD (S of Lawrence Ave E) 8.5 metre road + 1 sidewalk + urban cross section 1.7 m 8.5 m • Location of sidewalk determined during detailed design stage • Existing parking restrictions would remain
- 28. 28 EVALUATION PROCESS Recommended Alternative Solutions are selected based on the highest score In cases where two highest scoring alternatives are within 1 point of each other, a qualitative assessment of the two alternatives was conducted to select the preliminary recommended solution Legend 7.2 m width, 1 sidewalk, urban cross section 7.2 m width, no sidewalk, urban cross section 8.5 m width, 1 sidewalk, urban cross section
- 29. 29 EVALUATION PROCESS: SCORING Street Assessment Group ID: 1 – Mildenhall Road South (EXAMPLE 1) Evaluation Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Socio-Cultural Pedestrian Safety 0 8 6 8 6 Impact on Urban Greenspace / Recreational Use (Street Trees, Parks, Open Spaces) 16 8 8 8 12 Technical - Technical Effectiveness Surface Flooding 0 8 8 8 8 Stormwater Quality Improvement 0 4 4 4 4 Pavement Structural Conditions 0 4 4 4 4 Pedestrian Connectivity 0 4 4 4 4 Accessibility for Maintenance & Emergency Vehicle 2 4 4 3 3 Economic Capital Costs 4 1 2 2 3 Total 22 41 40 41 44
- 30. 30 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 1 Street Assessment Group ID: 1 – Mildenhall Road South (EXAMPLE 1)
- 31. 31 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 1 Street Assessment Group ID: 1 – Mildenhall Road South (EXAMPLE 1)
- 32. 32 EVALUATION PROCESS: SCORING Street Assessment Group ID: 5 – St. Leonards Avenue (EXAMPLE 2) Evaluation Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Socio-Cultural Pedestrian Safety 0 8 6 8 6 0 0 0 0 Impact on Urban Greenspace / Recreational Use (Street Trees, Parks, Open Spaces) 16 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 12 Technical - Technical Effectiveness Surface Flooding 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Stormwater Quality Improvement 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pavement Structural Conditions 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pedestrian Connectivity 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 Accessibility for Maintenance & Emergency Vehicle 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 Economic Capital Costs 4 0 0 2 2 1 1 3 3 Total 22 32 30 32 34 21 29 21 33
- 33. 33 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 2 Street Assessment Group ID: 5 – St. Leonards Avenue (EXAMPLE 2)
- 34. 34 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 2 Street Assessment Group ID: 5 – St. Leonards Avenue (EXAMPLE 2)
- 35. 35 EVALUATION PROCESS: SCORING Evaluation Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Socio-Cultural Pedestrian Safety 0 8 6 8 6 0 0 0 0 Impact on Urban Greenspace / Recreational Use (Street Trees, Parks, Open Spaces) 16 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 12 Technical - Technical Effectiveness Surface Flooding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stormwater Quality Improvement 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pavement Structural Conditions 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pedestrian Connectivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accessibility for Maintenance & Emergency Vehicle 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 Economic Capital Costs 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 Total 22 21 19 20 22 13 21 13 25 Street Assessment Group ID: 17 - Fidelia Avenue (EXAMPLE 3)
- 36. 36 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 3 Street Assessment Group ID: 17 - Fidelia Avenue (EXAMPLE 3)
- 37. 37 EVALUATION PROCESS – Example 3 Street Assessment Group ID: 17 - Fidelia Avenue (EXAMPLE 3)
- 38. 38 MITIGATION MEASURES During detailed design we can more accurately identify the # of tree’s impacted Tree removal counts are based upon a preliminary assessment using the existing center point of the roadway Localized road narrowing and/or the use of non-standard construction techniques will be applied where feasible to reduce the impacts A new street tree will be planted for every tree removed
- 39. 39 QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IN THE OPEN HOUSE 1. Do you agree with the preliminary results of the evaluation? Why or why not? 2. What concerns, if any, do you have about potential impacts the preliminary preferred alternative could have on your street? On adjacent streets or the broader Lawrence Park Neighbourhood? 3. Do you have other feedback on any other aspect of the evaluation or study?
- 40. Opportunity tonight to view evaluation and recommendations Display boards showcase the alternatives and scoring for individual streets Comment sheets provided to gather feedback 40 PUBLIC REVIEW AND FEEDBACK
- 41. Opportunity to provide comments on preliminary recommended solutions All comments will be reviewed by project team and consultation summary report to be issued and posted on website Study to be completed with final report made available for 30-day public review period 41 NEXT STEPS
- 42. If no Part II Orders received the City will: prioritize projects in accordance with funding availability and cost benefits plan and coordinate the timing of project detailed design and construction include projects in the capital budget process 42 NEXT STEPS
- 43. 43 THANK YOU AND QUESTIONS