Media Release: Friday, March 3, 2017 4:30 p.m. Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Planning and Works Committee
Agenda
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
9:00 a.m.
Regional Council Chamber
150 Frederick Street, Kitchener
1. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest under the Municipal Conflict Of Interest Act
2. Delegations
2.1 Brenda Jamieson, AECOM on behalf of Ministry of Transportation Ontario re: Highway 7/8 corridor between Stratford and New Hamburg
Consent Agenda Items
Items on the Consent Agenda can be approved in one motion of Committee to save time. Prior to the motion being voted on, any member of Committee may request that one or more of the items be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted on separately.
3. Request to Remove Items from Consent Agenda
4. Motion to Approve Items or Receive for Information
4.1 PDL-CPL-17-06, Amendment to Regional Municipality of Waterloo 7 Controlled Access By-Law #58-87 for Access to Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard), City of Kitchener P&W Agenda - 2 - March 7, 2017
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87, subject to site plan approval by the City of Kitchener, as described in Report No. PDL- CPL-17-06, dated March 07, 2017:
a) approve a right-in, right-out only emergency access on the west side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 235 metres north of Block Line Road, in the City of Kitchener.
4.2 PDL-CPL-17-02, Monthly Report of Development Activity 12 for December 2016
Recommendation:
That the Region of Waterloo accept PDL-CPL-17-02, Monthly Report of Development Activity for December 2016.
4.3 PDL-LEG-17-16, Authorization To Expropriate Lands (2nd Report) 14 for Improvements to Fountain Street (Regional Road 17) City of Cambridge from Kossuth Road / Fairway Road to Cherry Blossom Road (Phase 1)
Recommendation: See pages 14-16 4.4 Waterloo Landfill Leachate Forcemain, City of Kitchener - Information 22 Package in advance of Public Information Centre (For Information)
4.5 Highland Road Improvements, Fischer-Hallman Road to Ira 31 Needles Boulevard, City of Kitchener – Information Package in Advance of Public Consultation Centre #2 (For Information)
4.6 Biosolids Strategy – Public Consultation Event – Boards in 50 Advance of Event (For Information)
4.7 TES-WAS-17-09, Waterloo, Kitchener and Galt Cogeneration 64 Project Update (For Information)
4.8 TES-WAS-17-11, Wastewater Operations Service Delivery Review - 70 Beyond 2020 (For Information)
Regular Agenda Resumes
5. Reports – Transportation and Environmental Services
Docs #2330058 P&W Agenda - 3 - March 7, 2017
Transit Services
5.1 TES-TRS-17-01, TravelWise Transportation Management Association 74 – Service Update Recommendation: That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize having organizations currently participating or interested in joining the TravelWise Transportation Management Association execute an Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions Form for a 1 year term, in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor; That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a new Collaborative Agreement with Sustainable Waterloo Region to deliver the services of the TravelWise Transportation Management Association for a 1 year term, in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor; And that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo support, in principle, a collective drive-alone reduction goal of five per cent below 2015 levels by 2020 for the entire TravelWise Transportation Management Association, as described in Report TES-TRS-17-01 dated March 7, 2017. 5.2 TES-TRS-17-03, University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University 83 Student ID Card Replacement to Allow Electronic Validation of U- Passes Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into agreements with the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University to implement card replacement programs that would ensure U-Passes can be validated electronically using the Region’s upcoming Electronic Fare Management (EFMS) system in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, as described in Report No. TES-TRS-17-03, dated March 7, 2017.
5.3 COR-FFM-17-04, GRT Northfield Facility Environmental Assessment 86 Report, Project Update and Steering Committee Formation Recommendation:
That the Region of Waterloo take the following actions regarding the Grand River Transit Northfield Facility construction project;
a) Approve the Environmental Project Report dated February 1, 2017
Docs #2330058 P&W Agenda - 4 - March 7, 2017
as prepared by IBI Group and direct staff to file for Notice of Completion of the transit Environmental Assessment process; and
b) Appoint a member of Regional Council to participate on the Project Steering Committee.
Transportation
5.4 TES-TRP-17-02, The Region of Waterloo 2016 Collision Report 95 (For Information) (Presentation) 5.5 TES-TRP-17-03, Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road 121 Roundabout Operational Review (For Information) Water Services
5.6 TES-WAS-17-08, Water Services SCADA Hardware Standardization 129 Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley, as the new standard supplier for the Water Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) for replacement of PLCs as required;
And that the Manager of Procurement - Chief Purchasing Officer be authorized to enter into a supply agreement with Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley that is agreeable to the Commissioner of the Transportation and Environmental Services and to implement the above recommendation.
5.7 TES-WAS-17-10, Waterloo North Water Supply Class Environmental 145 Assessment Addendum: Notice of Completion Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the “Waterloo North Water Supply Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Addendum to the Environmental Study Report” summarized in this Report TES-WAS-17-10 dated March 7, 2017;
And that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo publish the Notice of Completion for the EA Addendum and provide the Addendum Report along with the original Environmental Study Report for public review and comment for a 30-day period, in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association’s Class Environmental Assessment process.
Docs #2330058 P&W Agenda - 5 - March 7, 2017
5.8 TES-WAS-17-13, 2016 Summary Report for the Regional Municipality 149 of Waterloo Integrated Urban and Rural Water Systems, Drinking Water Quality Management System Program Update, and Infrastructure Maintenance Plan Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive the 2016 Summary Report, the minutes from the annual Management Review of the Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS) and maintenance plan update as outlined in report TES-WAS-17-13 dated March 7, 2017. 6. Information/Correspondence
6.1 Council Enquiries and Requests for Information 167
7. Other Business
8. Next Meeting – April 4, 2017
9. Adjourn
Docs #2330058 P&W Agenda - 6 - March 7, 2017
Next Meetings
Date Time Description Location
Planning and Works Committee
April 4, 2017 9:00 a.m. Planning and Works Council Chamber Committee 2nd Floor, Regional Administration Building 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario April 25, 2017 9:00 a.m. Planning and Works Council Chamber Committee 2nd Floor, Regional Administration Building 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario
Transportation and Environmental Services
Wednesday, 4:30 P.M. – Highland Road Westheights Community March 8, 2017 Improvements, Fischer- Church 8:00 P.M. Hallman Road to Ira 82 Westheights Drive Needles Boulevard City of Kitchener, Ontario Kitchener – Public Consultation Centre #2
Thursday, 6:00 P.M. – Biosolids Strategy – Public Cambridge City Hall March 23, 2017 Consultation Event 50 Dickson Street 9:00 P.M. Cambridge, Ontario Tuesday, 6:00 P.M. – Biosolids Strategy – Public Region of Waterloo March 28, 2017 Consultation Event Museum 9:00 P.M. 10 Huron Road Kitchener, Ontari0 Tuesday, 6:00 P.M. – Waterloo Landfill Leachate Resurrection Catholic April 4, 2017 Forcemain, City of Kitchener Secondary School 8:00 P.M. Public Information Centre 455 University Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario Wednesday, 6:00 P.M. – Biosolids Strategy – Public Waterloo Memorial April 12, 2017 Consultation Event Recreation Complex 9:00 P.M. 101 Father David Bauer Drive, Waterloo, Ontario
Docs #2330058 7 7
Report: PDL-CPL-17-06 Region of Waterloo Planning, Development and Legislative Services Community Planning
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 07, 2017 File Code: T15-40/28, C13-20/CA
Subject: Amendment to Regional Municipality of Waterloo Controlled Access By- Law #58-87 for Access to Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard), City of Kitchener
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87, subject to site plan approval by the City of Kitchener, as described in Report No. PDL-CPL-17-06, dated March 07, 2017:
a) approve a right-in, right-out only emergency access on the west side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 235 metres north of Block Line Road, in the City of Kitchener.
Summary:
Nil
Report:
By-law #58-87, “A By-law to Designate and Regulate Controlled – Access Roads” was enacted to control the construction or alteration to the geometric design of any private means of access to a Regional Road. All Regional Roads are included in either Schedule “A” or Schedule “B” of the By-law. Regional Roads included in Schedule “A” (Controlled Access – Prohibited) include arterial roads and freeways where access to these roads must be restricted due to high speeds and volume of traffic. The main function of a Controlled Access – Prohibited Road is to move through traffic. All requests for changes to existing accesses or for a new access on these roads require an amendment to the By-law. All remaining Regional Roads are included in Schedule “B” (Controlled Access – Regulated). The function of a Controlled Access – Regulated
2342722 Page 1 of 5 8 8 March 07, 2017 Report: PDL-CPL-17-06
Road is to move through traffic and provide access to adjacent lands. Typically, these roads are front-lotted with access available only to the Regional Road or are comparatively lower volume rural roads.
The subject property is located at 262-282 Kingswood Drive on the west side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) north of Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener (please see Attachment 1). The existing residential apartment buildings on the property have one full movement access to Kingswood Drive.
City of Kitchener has circulated Site Plan application SP 16/021/K/CD to the Region of Waterloo for the proposed addition of an apartment building which will be municipally identified as 286 Kingswood Drive on the property. The proposed plans include construction of a new right-in, right-out only emergency access on west side of Homer Watson Boulevard approximately 235 metres north of Block Line Road (please see Attachment 2).
Regional staff support the construction of the proposed access to Homer Watson Boulevard for the following reasons:
a) The proposed access would be required meet the City of Kitchener emergency service policy requirements to allow the proposed apartment building addition and is supported by City of Kitchener staff. b) The proposed access would meet Regional standards and would operate with right-in, right-out only traffic movements since there is an existing centre median on Homer Watson Boulevard at this location.
As Homer Watson Boulevard is designated as a Controlled Access – Prohibited Road from Regional Road #4 (Ottawa Street) to Highway 401 under the Region’s Controlled Access By-law #58-87, an amendment to this By-law would be required to permit the construction of the new emergency access on Homer Watson Boulevard, prior to the issuance of an Access permit by staff. A gate will be installed on private property at the access to restrict its use to emergency vehicles only.
Region of Waterloo staff recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87 subject to approval of the site plan application by the City of Kitchener.
Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination:
The proposed right-in, right-out only emergency access on Homer Watson Boulevard has been reviewed and is supported by City of Kitchener staff.
#2342722 Page 2 of 5
9 9 March 07, 2017 Report: PDL-CPL-17-06
Corporate Strategic Plan:
Managing access to the Regional Road system is integral to the development approval process and is represented in Focus Area 2: Sustainable Transportation: Optimize road capacity to safely manage traffic and congestion.
Financial Implications:
The developer would be responsible for all costs related to the construction of the proposed right-in, right-out only emergency access to Region of Waterloo standards.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Upon issuance of a Regional Road Access Permit, Transportation and Environmental Services would issue a Regional Work Permit to allow works within the Regional right- of-way on Homer Watson Boulevard.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Key Map showing location of the property
Attachment 2 – Location of the proposed right-in, right-out only emergency access to Homer Watson Boulevard; and proposed amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87
20TPrepared By:20T Joginder Bhatia, Transportation Planner
20T Approved By:20T Rod Regier, Commissioner, Planning, Development and Legislative Services
#2342722 Page 3 of 5
10 10 March 07, 2017 Report: PDL-CPL-17-06
Attachment 1
#2342722 Page 4 of 5
11 11 March 07, 2017 Report: PDL-CPL-17-06
Attachment 2
#2342722 Page 5 of 5
12 12
Report: PDL-CPL-17-02 Region of Waterloo Planning, Development and Legislative Services Community Planning
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: D18-01
Subject: Monthly Report of Development Activity for December 2016
Recommendation:
That the Region of Waterloo accept PDL-CPL-17-02, Monthly Report of Development Activity for December 2016.
Summary:
In accordance with the Regional By-laws 01-028 and 16-031, as amended, the Director of Community Planning has:
• Accepted the following plan of condominium application; and • Draft approved the following draft plan of condominium.
Report:
City of Kitchener
Plan of Condominium Application 30T-16205
Date Accepted: December 13, 2016
Applicant: 2326199 Ontario Limited
Location: 659 Stirling Avenue South
Proposal: To permit the development of a six storey mixed use building with thirty residential units and one commercial unit.
2355433 Page 1 of 2 13 13 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-CPL-17-02
Township of Wilmot
Draft Approval of Plan of Condominium 30CDM-15603
Applicant: Riverbend Brownstones Inc.
Location: 362 and 368 Fairview Street, New Hamburg
Proposal: To permit the development of 14 townhouse condominium units.
Commissioner’s Approval: December 20, 2016
Came into effect: January 10, 2017
Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination
These planning approvals and releases, including consultations with Area Municipalities, have been completed in accordance with the Planning Act. All approvals included in this report were supported by the Area Municipal Councils and/or staff.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
This report reflects actions taken by the Director of Community Planning in accordance with the Delegation By-law adopted by Council. Strategic objective: Improve environmental sustainability and livability in intensifying urban and rural settlement areas.
Financial Implications:
Nil.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Nil.
20TPrepared By:20T Brenna MacKinnon, Manager, Greenfield Planning
20T Approved By: Rod Regier, Commissioner, Planning, Development and Legislative Services
2355433 Page 2 of 2
14 14
Report: PDL-LEG-17-16 Region of Waterloo Planning Development and Legislative Services Legal Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: L07-90
nd Subject: Authorization To Expropriate Lands (2P P Report) for Improvements to Fountain Street (Regional Road 17) City of Cambridge from Kossuth Road / Fairway Road to Cherry Blossom Road (Phase 1)
Recommendation:
That Council of The Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the expropriation of lands for the purpose of the reconstruction of Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo as detailed in report PDL-LEG-17-16 dated March 7, 2017 described as follows:
Fee Simple Partial Taking:
a) Part Block 5, Plan 58M-302, being Part 4 on 58R-18928, part of PIN 22628-0148 (LT)(1090 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); b) Part Lots 19 and 20, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 5, 58R-18928 and Part Lot 22, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 1, on 58R-18942, part of PIN 03755-0013 (LT)(1055-1065 Fountain Street North City of Cambridge); c) Part Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 4, 58R-18938, part of PIN 22740-0034 (LT)(2150 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); d) Part Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Parts 2 and 3 on 58R-18938, part of PIN 22740-0051 (LT)(south west corner of Fountain Street and Allendale Road, City of Cambridge); e) Part Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 1, 58R-18938 part of PIN 03755-0043 (LT)(1105 Fountain Street North City of Cambridge);
2348262 Page 1 of 8 15 15 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
Temporary Easements Partial Taking:
a) Part Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 5, on 58R-18938, part of PIN 22740-0034 (LT)(2150 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); b) Part of Lot 18, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, on 58R-19087 being Part of PIN 03755-0043 (LT)(Part of 1105 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); c) Part of Lots 18 and 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession being Part 1 on 58R-19088 being Part of PIN 03755-0043 (LT)(Part of 1105 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); d) Part of Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession being Part 2 on 58R- 19089 being Part of PIN 03755-0043 (LT)(Part of 1105 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge); e) Part of Lot 19, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 1, on 58R- 19089 being Part of PIN 03755-0043 (LT)(Part of 1105 Fountain Street North, City of Cambridge).
And That staff be instructed to register a Plan of Expropriation for the properties within three months of granting of the approval to expropriate the properties, as required by the Expropriations Act;
And That the registered owners be served with a Notice of Expropriation and a Notice of Possession of the property after the registration of the Plan of Expropriation and the Regional Solicitor is authorized to take any and all actions required to enforce such Notices including but not limited to any application pursuant to Section 40 of the Expropriations Act;
And That the Regional Solicitor is authorized to enter into an agreement with registered owners, or to make an application under section 39 of the Expropriations Act, to adjust the date for possession specified in the Notice of Possession as may be required;
And That all above-referenced fee simple partial takings situated adjacent to an existing Regional public highway be acquired for road widening purposes and therefore be deemed to form part of the adjacent public highway in accordance with subsection 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001;
And That if no agreement as to compensation is made with an owner, the statutory Offer of Compensation and payment be served upon the registered owners of the properties in the amount of the market value of interests in the lands as estimated by the Region’s appraiser in accordance with the Expropriations Act;
And Further That the Regional Solicitor be authorized to discontinue expropriation proceedings or any part thereof, in respect to the above described lands, or any part thereof, upon the registration of title of the required documentation to complete the
2348262 Page 2 of 8
16 16 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
transaction or if determined by the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services that such lands, or any part of interest thereof, are not required for the subject Project.
Summary:
NIL
Report:
Regional Council approved roadway improvements to Fountain Street from Kossuth Road / Fairway Road to Cherry Blossom Road on April 1, 2015 as detailed in Report TES-DCS-15-04. The project improvements include widening Fountain Street from Kossuth Road / Fairway Road to Maple Grove Road from two lanes to four lanes with centre median, re-paving the existing four lanes on Fountain Street from Maple Grove Road to Cherry Blossom Road, constructing a new roundabout at the intersection of Fountain Street and Maple Grove Road, and adding new boulevard multi-use trails on both sides of Fountain Street through the entire project limits.
Construction of Phase 1, which includes construction of the roundabout at Fountain Street and Maple Grove Road, the resurfacing of Fountain Street from Maple Grove Road to Cherry Blossom Road and construction of new boulevard multi-use trails, is currently scheduled for 2018. Reconstruction of Fountain Street from Cherry Blossom Road to Highway 401, including construction of new boulevard multi-use trails, previously approved separately by Council on November 4, 2014 in Report E-14-120, will also be undertaken under the same contract in 2018.
A separate Expropriation Report for Phase 2 of the Fountain Street project from north of Maple Grove Road to Fairway Road/Kossuth Road is currently scheduled for mid 2017. Construction of Phase 2 of Fountain Street, from north of Maple Grove Road to Kossuth Road / Fairway Road will be completed after 2018, based on ongoing coordination with planned commercial development on Fountain Street.
On June 22, 2016, Council approved the Application to Expropriate land acquisitions for Phase 1 as outlined in Report PDL-LEG-16-45. The acquisitions included fee simple partial takings from seven (7) properties and temporary easements from two (2) of these seven properties, for construction of the new roundabout and new boulevard multi-use trails.
On November 9, 2016 Council approved a further Application to Expropriate land acquisitions for Phase 1 as outlined in Report PDL-LEG-16-74. The additional acquisitions included four (4) temporary easements from the lands known as 1105 Fountain Street North, Cambridge for grading and landscaping to tie-in the roadwork with the abutting property and to complete alterations to the existing Storm Water Management Facility on the property required as a result of the Region’s fee simple 2348262 Page 3 of 8
17 17 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
partial taking.
The Region has obtained a signed agreement for the property located at 1065 Fountain Street North (Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.). The Region has also reached an agreement with the City of Cambridge for a partial taking located at 1094 Fountain Street North, that was not indicated in the first report. The Region is still in the process of continuing negotiations with the owners of all properties currently in this report to obtain agreements that will hopefully be reached in a timely manner.
The appropriate forms under the Expropriations Act were served in order to initiate formal proceedings under the Act for these properties. All of the affected property owners were previously contacted by Legal Services staff and informed of the project as well as the Region’s intention to commence the expropriation process and the Region’s Expropriation Information Sheet was provided to each of them. The affected property owners have also been provided with offers to purchase. Legal Services staff contacted all property owners and informed them of the Region’s intention to continue with the expropriation process in order to ensure that the construction timeline is maintained, including this report being presented to Council, as detailed in the Region’s Expropriation Information Sheet.
Council approval of the expropriations is being sought at this time to permit registration of the Plans of Expropriation this Spring and possession of the required lands and interests in the Fall of 2017 so that the majority of advance utility relocation work, geotechnical surveys and grading can be completed before the end of 2017, which will facilitate the overall construction time line. Legal Services staff has been negotiating property acquisitions over the past several months and intends to continue negotiations with property owners in an effort to achieve settlements of their claims under the Expropriations Act.
Upon Council approval of the expropriation of the property, such approval will be endorsed upon a certificate of approval on the Plan of Expropriation for those properties not acquired under agreement. The Plan will then be registered within three months of the approval. Ownership of the property vests with the Region upon the registration of the Plan. Notices of Expropriation and Notices of Possession are then served upon all registered owners, including tenants as shown on the assessment roll. The Region will take possession of the required lands at least 3 months after service of the Notice of Possession.
After the registration of the Plans of Expropriation and prior to the taking of possession of the property the expropriating authority is required to serve the registered owners with an offer in full compensation for their interests in the land. The offer must be accompanied by the immediate payment of one hundred (100%) of the appraised market value of the land to the registered owners as estimated by the Region’s appraiser. The registered owners are also to be served with a report appraising the 2348262 Page 4 of 8
18 18 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
market value of the property, which report formed the basis for the offer of compensation.
The expropriation process is proceeding to ensure that the Region has possession of the land for advance utility relocations in 2017 and the commencement of the construction of the roadway improvements and multi-use trail for 2018.
The expropriation of the lands is on an “as is” basis and upon closing the Region assumes all responsibility for the lands.
The subject lands are shown attached as Appendix “A”. A list of the individual and corporate owners of the fee simple interest in the subject lands is attached as Appendix “B”. Regional staff have conducted corporate profile searches of affected corporate property owners and the directors and officers are listed for each. This list does not include tenants, easement holders or holders of security interests in the subject lands.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
This Project supports the following two strategic objectives of the Corporate Strategic Plan: to optimize existing and new road capacity to safely manage traffic throughout Waterloo Region, and to develop, promote and integrate active forms of transportation (cycling and walking).
Financial Implications:
The Region’s approved 2017 Transportation Capital Budget includes $1,070,000 in 2017 and $3,550,000 in 2018-2020 for Fountain Street North from Highway 401 to Maple Grove Road (Project 05927) to be funded from the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund (85%, $3,710,000) and Development Charge Reserve Fund (14.5%, $850,000). The Region’s approved 2017 Transportation Capital Budget also includes $1,410,000 in 2017 and $12,050,000 in 2018-2020 for Fountain Street North from Maple Grove Road to Kossuth Road (Project 07303) to be funded from the Development Charge Reserve Fund. Sufficient funding for the acquisitions outlined within this report is available in the 2017 project budget.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Transportation and Environmental Services staff has been consulted in the preparation of this report
2348262 Page 5 of 8
19 19 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
Attachments
Appendix “A” – Sketch of Subject Lands
Appendix “B” – Corporate Profiles
20TPrepared By:20T Quinn Martin, Property Agent
20T Approved By:20T Debra Arnold, Regional Solicitor, Director of Legal Services
2348262 Page 6 of 8
20 20 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
Appendix “A”
2348262 Page 7 of 8
21 21 March 7, 2017 Report: PDL-LEG-17-16
Appendix “B”
1. 1090 Fountain Street North, Cambridge Owner: Custom Properties Inc. Change Notice: July 8, 2016 Directors/Officers: Andrew Moffat, William Andrew Moffat, Robert Scott Walker Fee Simple Partial Taking
2. South-West corner of Fountain Street and Allendale Road, Cambridge Owners: a) D5D Enterprises Limited Annual Return: October 17, 2015 Directors/Officers: Brian R. Calder b) Ratford Enterprises Inc. Annual Return: September 20, 2016 Directors/Officers: Fred Ratford Fee Simple Partial Taking
3. 1055-1065 Fountain Street North, Cambridge Owner: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Annual Return: N/A Directors/Officers: Osamu Ushio, Friedrick Volf Fee Simple Partial Taking
4. 1105 Fountain Street North, Cambridge Owner: CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited Annual Return: July 3, 2016 Directors/Officers: John Morrison, Bart Munn, Adam Walsh Fee Simple Partial Taking
2348262 Page 8 of 8
22 22
Waterloo Landfill Leachate Forcemain City of Kitchener
What: Construction of a leachate (sewage) forcemain from the Waterloo Landfill to the existing sanitary trunk sewer located southwest of Resurrection Drive. Where: Glasgow Street and Henry Sturm Greenway
Why: This forcemain needs to be constructed to convey leachate from the Waterloo Landfill to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant.
When: Construction June to October 2017
Who: Region of Waterloo Project Manager Mr. Jerry Borovicka C.E.T. Phone: (519) 575-4092 Fax: (519) 575-4430
Email: [email protected]
Public Information Centre Tuesday, April 4, 2016, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Resurrection Catholic Secondary School
0T455 University Avenue West, Kitchener, ON N2N 3B9
Page 1 of 8
23 23
Key Plan of Project Limits
Page 2 of 8
24 24
1. Why is the Region Undertaking this Project?
As a result of on-going development of the Waterloo Landfill, the existing leachate forcemain located on Erb Street is close to its capacity and therefore a second leachate forcemain is required. The Region completed a preliminary design in 2014 for a second leachate forcemain that will be required to discharge some of the leachate flow from the landfill to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via the City of Kitchener sanitary trunk sewer system. (Please see Key Plan for the forcemain alignment, page 2 of 9)
The proposed scope of work includes construction of approximately 1.6 km of leachate forcemain from the landfill along Glasgow Street and across Ira Needles Boulevard to the existing City of Kitchener trunk sanitary sewer located at the Henry Sturm Greenway, southwest of Resurrection Drive. The forcemain will have a diameter of 150mm. Also, some upgrades of the existing leachate Pumping Station #4 (PS4) that is located in the Waterloo Landfill are included in this project.
2. Who is Directing this Project?
The management of the construction is being undertaken by a “Project Team” consisting of staff from the Region of Waterloo and MTE Consultants Inc. (the Region’s retained engineering consultant). Steve Allen, Manager, Engineering Design and Approvals of the City of Kitchener was a project team member during the leachate forcemain pre-design phase. The Project Team is also consulting with Steve Allen during the detailed design phase.
3. How is the Project Being Planned?
The Waterloo Landfill Forcemain project is pre-approved under Schedule A+ of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment planning process because the forcemain will be located entirely within existing municipal road allowances and right- of-ways.
The proposed schedule includes the following milestones;
Public Information Centre April 4, 2017
Council Approval of Construction Contract Spring 2017
Construction June to October 2017
Page 3 of 8
25 25
4. What is the Purpose of this Public Information Centre?
The public is invited to this Public Information Centre (PIC) to:
• Be informed about this construction project;
• Review the project design and construction plans;
• Ask questions of staff from the Region of Waterloo; and
• Let us know if you have any concerns about the planned construction.
A Question Sheet is attached to the back of this Information Package. If you have any questions or concerns about the planned construction phase, please fill out this Question Sheet and put it in the box at the Information Centre, or send it to the address indicated on the Question Sheet.
5. Will Property Acquisition be Required for this Project?
4TThere will not be any private land acquisition. The Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener will execute an easement agreement over the Henry Sturm Greenway that is located east of Ira Needles Boulevard.
6. How will Trees, Driveways and Lawns be Affected?
4TIt is expected that some existing trees at the Henry Sturm Greenway would have to be removed during construction to accommodate the proposed forcemain and a new pedestrian pathway. It is the Region’s practice to plant two replacement trees for each tree removed as a result of any construction projects. Any grassed areas disturbed during construction will be repaired to equal or better condition with topsoil and sod. There will not be any impact on driveways or private lawns.
7. How is the Natural Environment Being Considered?
As part of the design and approvals process, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) will review the Waterloo Landfill Leachate Forcemain design with respect to the existing wetland features along the alignment of this forcemain. Any activity within their Regulatory Boundary will require an Alteration to Wetland Permit. GRCA comments will be incorporated in the design drawings. Sediment and erosion control features will be designed, implemented and maintained throughout construction. Key measures of this sediment and erosion control plan will include silt fencing, flow checks and other Best Practice measures.
8. When will Construction Occur and will there be Detours?
4TConstruction is scheduled to start in June 2017 and be completed in October 2017.
Page 4 of 8
26 26
The forcemain along Glasgow Street is planned to be constructed mainly by the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) method and no road closure is planned. However, it is anticipated that some lane restriction with flagging operations will occur on Glasgow Street. There are no sidewalks on Glasgow Street within the construction limits and therefore no pedestrian restrictions are anticipated.
During the open cut trenching for the proposed forcemain, a pedestrian pathway that is located east of Ira Needles Boulevard will be closed for approximately four weeks. At that time, pedestrians will be directed to an alternate route via University Avenue and Countrystone Drive.
Fire Departments, Waterloo Regional Police and Ambulance Services will all be advised of the traffic restrictions during the construction period.
4TAs is customary during Regional road reconstruction projects, motorists will be advised of the construction timing and traffic restrictions through advance signage and through information on the Region’s web site.
9. How will Access be Maintained to Properties During Construction?
There will not be any access restrictions to residential driveways. There may be short term access restrictions to The Boardwalk commercial plaza from Glasgow Street during the forcemain construction. There are two driveways from Glasgow Street to the Boardwalk. The contractor will ensure that there is at least one driveway available for the motorists from Glasgow Street. The Boardwalk is also accessible from several other entrances along Ira Needles Boulevard. Those other accesses will not be affected by this construction project.
10. How will Garbage / Recycling be Collected During Construction?
Garbage and recycling collection will not be affected by this construction project.
11. How will dust be managed during Construction?
The Region will be monitoring the amount of dust generated by construction activities on a daily basis. When necessary, the Region will ensure that the contractor uses proper dust suppression measures (i.e. the application of water and/or calcium chloride) in accordance with the Region’s standard practice.
12. What are the Expected Working Hours During Construction?
In general, construction working hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, although the Contractor may also work on Saturdays from time to time. There may also be occasions where the Contractor is required to complete a critical work item outside of these normal working hours. Work outside normal
Page 5 of 8
27 27
working hours must be approved by the Region.
13. What is the Estimated Cost of this Project and How is it Funded?
The estimated project cost for the Waterloo Landfill Leachate Forcemain is approximately $1,700,000. It is funded by the Region of Waterloo.
14. How will I receive further notification regarding this project?
Approximately three weeks before the start of the construction, the property owners and occupants within the project limits and members of the public registering at this Public Information Centre will receive a letter informing them about the start of this project.
15. How Can I Voice any Questions or Concerns at this Stage?
In order to assist the Project Team in addressing any questions or concerns you might have regarding this project, we ask that you fill out the attached Question Sheet and leave it in the comment box provided at the registration table. Alternatively you can mail, fax or e-mail your comments to the Project Team member listed below, no later than April 14, 2017. We thank you for your involvement and should you have any questions or concerns please contact one of the following:
Mr. Jason Rosewear, P. Eng. Mr. Jerry Borovicka, C.E.T. Project Manager Project Manager MTE Consultants Inc. Region of Waterloo 520 Bingemans Centre Drive 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3
4TPhone: (519) 743-6500 Phone: (519) 575-4092
4TFax: (519) 743-6513 Fax: (519) 575-4430
4TEmail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
16. How Can I View Project Information Following the PIC?
4TAll of the PIC display materials and other relevant project information, notifications of upcoming meetings and contact information are available for viewing at the Region of Waterloo municipal office as identified above. Alternatively, you may visit the Region’s website at
33TU www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/gettingAround/FutureConstructionProjects.aspU33T
Page 6 of 8
28 28
Question Sheet
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Waterloo Landfill Leachate Forcemain
City of Kitchener
Public Information Centre
Please complete and hand in this sheet if you have any questions or concerns regarding this project. If you cannot complete this sheet today, please take this home and mail, fax or e-mail your questions by April 25th, 2017 to:
Mr. Jerry Borovicka Project Manager Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Phone: (519) 575-4092 Fax: (519) 575-4430
Email: [email protected]
Questions or concerns regarding this project:
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
Page 7 of 8
29 29
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
Name: ______
Address: ______
Postal Code ______
Phone: ______Email: ______
Collection Notice:
All comments and information received from individuals, stakeholder groups and agencies regarding this project are being collected to assist the Region of Waterloo in making a decision. Under the “Municipal Act”, personal information such as name, address, telephone number, and property location that may be included in a submission becomes part of the public record.
Page 8 of 8
30 30
Highland Road Improvements
Fischer-Hallman Road to Ira Needles Boulevard City of Kitchener Public Consultation Centre #2 Information Package
What: The Region of Waterloo is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study for Road Widening and Active Transportation Improvements on Highland Road
Where: Fischer-Hallman Road to Ira Needles Boulevard in the City of Kitchener Why: To provide needed pavement reconstruction and road improvements for traffic growth and transportation system improvements for transit, pedestrians and cyclists along the Highland Road corridor in the City of Kitchener When: Completion of Environmental Assessment in 2017 Construction in 2018 Who: Region of Waterloo Senior Project Manager William Gilbert, P. Eng. Region of Waterloo Phone: (519) 575-4603 Email: [email protected]
Public Consultation Centre #2 Wednesday March 8, 2017, 4:30PM to 8:00PM Westheights Community Church 82 Westheights Drive Kitchener, Ontario
There is a comment sheet at the back of this package. Please fill it out and share your comments with us. 31 31
1.0 What is the Purpose of this 2nd Public Consultation Centre (PCC)?
The Region of Waterloo is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study for improvements on Highland Road from Fisher-Hallman Road to Ira Needles Boulevard in the City of Kitchener (study area illustrated below).
Docs 2338731 Page 1 of 19
32 32
nd The public is invited to this 2P P Consultation Centre which is a forum for you to provide input on the following:
• Identified study issues and problem statement;
• Alternatives being evaluated for road and transportation system improvements;
• Criteria used in the evaluation of the alternatives; and
• “Preferred” alternative identified by the Project Team.
2.0 What is a Class Environmental Assessment?
The Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process is a formal planning process approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act that must be undertaken to ensure that all reasonable alternatives and their potential environmental impacts are considered before a project is approved. This project is being planned as a “Schedule C” Class EA project which applies to major expansions to existing facilities where there is potential for environmental impacts (natural, social, cultural and economic).
The Class EA provides the framework for municipalities to plan, design and construct municipal infrastructure projects and requires consultation with the public and affected agencies so that all interests and concerns can considered in developing project recommendations. For additional details regarding the Municipal Class EA process, please refer to Appendix “A”.
3.0 Who is Directing This Project?
This project is being directed by a “Project Team” consisting of staff from the Region of Waterloo, City of Kitchener, and IBI Group consultants, as well as Region of Waterloo Councilor Geoff Lorentz and City of Kitchener Councilor Bil Ioannidis.
4.0 How does this Project Relate to the Objectives of the Regional Transportation Master Plan, Active Transportation Master Plan and the Regional Transportation Corridor Design Guidelines?
The 2010 Regional Transportation Master Plan identified the need to widen Highland Road to four lanes between Ira Needles Boulevard and Fischer-Hallman Road in the ten to twenty year horizon (approximately 2021 to 2031) to meet traffic demands associated with development in the area. In addition, the existing poor condition of the pavement and the need for active transportation facilities is accelerating the need to review improvements on Highland Road. Docs 2338731 Page 2 of 19
33 33
The Region of Waterloo’s Active Transportation Master Plan identified Highland Road between Fischer-Hallman Road and Ira Needles Boulevard as deficient in sidewalks and cycling facilities and recommended improvements in accommodating pedestrian and cyclist needs.
In accordance with the Regional Transportation Corridor Design Guidelines, Highland Road is identified as a “Neighbourhood Connector – Avenue”. Designing Highland Road to support active transportation modes including walking and cycling is a fundamental character of this road classification. Highland Road is also an IXpress transit route which supports the need for complete and continuous pedestrian facilities for accessing transit use.
The Project Team has developed the following problem statement for the project, identifying the traffic and transportation needs to be addressed.
Problem Statement
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study for improvements on the Highland Road corridor between Fischer-Hallman Road and Ira Needles Boulevard in the City if Kitchener. Improvements along Highland Road are being considered in order to address pavement condition and traffic capacity needs, as well as to provide active transportation facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor.
5.0 What work has been completed on this Project to date?
The project was initiated in early 2015 with the first Public Consultation Centre (PCC#1) th held on April 15P P, 2015, to provide information on the purpose of the Class EA study and need for improvements on Highland Road. Comments received at PCC#1 generally supported the need for traffic, pedestrian and cyclist improvements along the corridor, however, concerns were expressed regarding the increase in traffic and associated noise as well as the need for additional street lighting to improve safety along the corridor. Comments received from PCC#1 have been incorporated into the needs and opportunities of the project for the development of alternatives and evaluation of impacts.
In accordance with the Class EA, environmental studies were completed for the study area in order to identify areas of concern related to potential for impacts along the corridor. Environmental studies completed include: Traffic and Transportation; Natural Environment; Heritage and Cultural Environment; and Archeological. No significant environmental constraints or potential for impact was identified from these studies with the exception of areas requiring further archeological investigations prior to any Docs 2338731 Page 3 of 19
34 34
construction activities, and permits and approvals for any work required in the area of the Detweiler Creek and Sandrock Creek crossings west of the Highland Hills Mall.
Alternatives for improvements on Highland Road have been developed by the Project Team and are presented in section 6.0 below.
6.0 What alternatives have been developed for improvements on Highland Road?
The following alternatives for improvements are currently being considered by the Project Team;
1) Do Nothing – aside from general maintenance (asphalt repair/overlay, etc.), this alternative would retain the road in its current form (2-lane ditched sections) with no additional traffic lanes or active transportation facilities;
2) Urbanize the Existing Road and Add Active Transportation Facilities – This alternative would retain the existing number of traffic lanes (including 2- lane sections), and add the following facilities:
• Curb and gutter and a storm drainage system;
• Cycling facilities (either on-road, raised bike lanes or multi-use trails); and
• Pedestrian sidewalks (or multi-use trails).
3) Widen the Road to 4-lanes and Add Active Transportation Facilities – This alternative would include all improvements under Alternative 2, as well as widening the entire section of Highland Road to 4-lanes. An option under this alternative includes consideration of a raised centre median.
Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 is the consideration of intersection design alternatives, such as turn lanes, roundabouts and traffic signals, as well as turn lanes at driveway entrances and provision of transit stop pads and shelters.
7.0 How have the improvement Alternatives been Evaluated?
The improvement alternatives have been assessed against a set of evaluation criteria by the Project Team to determine which alternative is “preferred” and is considered to best address the needs and opportunities for improvement on Highland Road The evaluation criteria included the following:
Docs 2338731 Page 4 of 19
35 35
Evaluation Criteria for Highland Road Improvements Class EA Study
Study Element
1) Traffic Capacity, Operations and Safety
How well does the alternative manage traffic and network capacity, traffic speed, pedestrian needs, cyclist needs and transit access?
2) Natural Environment
What impact does the alternative have on the natural environment features such as trees and wetlands, wildlife, aquatic habitat, and surface drainage?
3) Socio-Cultural Environment
What impact does the alternative have on adjacent communities and properties (access, property), landscapes, archaeological or heritage resources and traffic noise?
4) Costs
How does the alternative compare with anticipated capital and property costs?
8.0 Has the Project Team Identified a Preferred Alternative?
The Project Team has identified Alternative 3C - Widen the Road to 4-lanes and Add Active Transportation Facilities as the Preferred Alternative, including a raised centre median, multi-use trails on both sides of the road and transit stop pads and shelters. Intersection design alternatives for roundabouts or traffic signals at Highland Road and Westheights Drive/Eastforest Trail and Highland Road at Westheights Drive/Westforest Trail are currently under review in accordance with Regional intersection implementation policies and recommendations will be brought forward as part of project approvals.
Docs 2338731 Page 5 of 19
36 36
Docs 2338731 Page 6 of 19
37 37
Subject to additional comments received as a result of this PCC No. 2 and additional Agency comments, Alternative 3 as identified above is considered “Preferred”, compared to all the other alternatives based on its overall impacts on the Traffic, Safety, Natural Environment, Socio-Cultural Environment and Costs.
A summary of the evaluation that resulted in the Project Team identifying Alternative 3 - Widen the Road to 4-lanes and Add Active Transportation Facilities as Preferred at this point in the project is as follows:
1) Traffic Capacity, Operations and Safety
Alternative 3 would provide for additional traffic capacity with the widening of the road to 4 lanes. Highland Road is the first Regional road north of the Highway 8 corridor and widening to 4 lanes would increase the capacity available for the Region’s east/west road network. The increased capacity of the road will also reduce the potential for delays to motorists and IXpress transit operations.
In addition to road widening with Alternative 3, providing a raised centre median allows for additional landscaping opportunities that would assist with traffic calming in reducing traffic speeds by minimizing pavement widths. A raised centre median also allows the ability to accommodate left turn lanes at existing and possible future development entrances along Highland Road without further reconstruction of the traveled lanes.
Along with the road widening, inclusion of multi-use trails will provide a separated facility for pedestrians and cyclists away from the road, encouraging greater use and providing greater safety for users. Separation from the road also keeps the road pavement widths to a minimum which would assist with traffic calming along the corridor.
2) Natural Environment
Natural Environment studies completed for this EA reviewed existing vegetation, trees, wetlands, wildlife, aquatic habitat and surface drainage in and adjacent to the study area. No significant environmental constraints or features were identified from these studies excepting the need for permits and approvals for any work required in the area of the Detweiler Creek and Sandrock Creek crossings west of the Highland Hills Mall. Alternatives 2 and 3 have some potential for requiring improvements at the creek culvert crossings, however, the potential for impacts is minimal. Improvements to the surface drainage are
Docs 2338731 Page 7 of 19
38 38
proposed with the construction of curb and gutter and storm sewers as included in Alternatives 2 and 3.
3) Socio-Cultural Environment
No significant constraints or features were identified from the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage studies completed for this EA. Some areas were identified as requiring further archeological investigations (test pits) prior to any construction activities to document any archeological findings. Although Alternatives 2 and 3 will require the additional investigations prior to construction, the majority of the Highland Road corridor has been disturbed in the past and potential impacts from the proposed improvements are expected to be minimal.
As a result of road widening, Alternative 3 will require the purchase of right-of- way widening from one existing residential property and one future development property. These property requirements for Alternative 3 are greater than that anticipated for Alternatives 1 and 2, however, they are minor in nature and not expected to significantly affect the existing use of the properties.
Along with road widening to 4 lanes, the option for a raised centre median with Alternative 3 allows for greater landscaping opportunities along the Highland Road corridor.
4) Costs
Alternative 1 represents the least amount of work on Highland Road and respectively the least cost. Alternative 2 with urbanization of the existing road (including the 2 lane sections) and addition of pedestrian and cycling facilities is estimated at $6.3 million. Alternative 3 for urbanization and widening to 4 lanes with a raised centre median and addition of multi-use trails represents the highest cost at an estimated $7.3 million. Although the cost for Alternative 3 is the highest it is only moderately higher than Alternative 2 due to the minimal increase in the overall pavement width and additional curbs required to provide a divided 4 lane roadway in comparison to a 2 lane roadway.
9.0 What Happens when Property is Required for the approved Alternative?
While it is the intent of the design process to minimize as much as possible the need to obtain property for the Highland Road improvements, the Preferred Alternative being considered requires widening the road allowance onto private property and potentially obtaining temporary easements during the construction period. In areas where property is required, the property owner will be contacted directly by the Region of Waterloo’s Docs 2338731 Page 8 of 19
39 39
Land Purchasing Officer during the future detail design process. Compensation will be provided at fair market rates based on recent similar area sales. Please refer to Appendix “B” for further information on the property acquisition process.
10.0 Are Noise Barriers being considered for this Project?
As part of this Class EA, a Noise Assessment study has been undertaken for the Project Team’s Preferred Alternative for improvements on Highland Road.
Noise Criteria
The Region of Waterloo has established noise level criteria for road reconstructions entitled “Implementation Guideline for Noise Policies Part B: Existing Development Impacted by Proposed Regional Road Undertakings”, published in July 1999. This guideline suggests that noise attenuation measures are required if either of the following conditions are met:
• The future noise level, after the proposed road work is completed, exceeds 65 dBA; or • The future noise level exceeds 60 dBA, and the difference between the current and future noise levels exceeds 5 dBA.
Note that a noise level difference of less than 3dBA is not discernable by the human ear.
The MOECC (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) and Region of Waterloo requires that:
• Daytime noise be assessed for the outdoor living area (OLA) and at the exterior living room wall. For a typical residential lot, an OLA is defined as an area of 56 square metres centred 3 metres off the rear of a house; and, • Nighttime noise be assessed for an exterior bedroom window.
Existing (2014) and forecasted (2031) traffic information was provided by the Region of Waterloo in their report entitled “Highland Road Class EA Transportation Report”, dated January 2017.
Results
The MOECC’s noise modelling software Stamson 5.04 was utilized to predict noise levels both for the existing and forecasted scenarios based on the functional design of Alternative 3C.
Docs 2338731 Page 9 of 19
40 40
For all road sections, the increase in noise level from existing to future conditions is less than 2 dBA, and all projected noise levels are below 65dBA and therefore no noise mitigation will be required as part of the road improvements.
The existing noise walls on the North side of Highland Road between East Forest Trail and 300m east of West Forest Trail were inspected in 2015 and wre deemed in good condition and will not require replacement at this time.
11.0 What are the Next Steps in the Project?
The Project Team will use the comments received from Public Consultation Centre #2, along with other input received from the public and approval agencies as well as technical data, to identify a Recommended alternative for improvements on Highland Road. Subject to comments received it is proposed to present the Recommended Alternative to the Region of Waterloo’s Planning and Works Committee for formal approval. Following this confirmation of a Recommended Alternative design, the study process and findings will be documented in an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for “filing” and public and agency comment. This filing of the ESR is a requirement of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act and consists of advertising and sending notices to interested and affected parties advising of the mandatory 30 day review period for submission of any questions or “objections” (Part II Orders). Any Part II Orders unresolved after the 30 day review period will be sent to the Ministry of Environment for further consideration and ruling.
12.0 How Will I Receive Further Notification Regarding This Project?
All property owners within the Study Area and members of the public registering at this Public Consultation Centre, or the first Public Consultation Centre, will receive any forthcoming additional information and be notified of any future meetings including Regional Council or Committee meetings. Advertisements will also be placed in local newspapers advising the public of the meetings and availability of the final Environmental Study Report for the Highland Road Improvements Class EA study.
13.0 How Can I Voice My Comments At This Stage?
In order to assist us in addressing any comments or concerns you might have regarding this project, we ask that you please fill out the attached Comment Sheet and leave it in the box provided at the registration table. Alternatively you can mail, fax or e-mail your comments to one of the Project Team members listed below, no later than March 24, 2017.
Docs 2338731 Page 10 of 19
41 41
We thank you for your involvement and should you have any questions or concerns please contact:
Mr. William Gilbert, P. Eng. Mr. John Perks, MBA, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Associate Director Region of Waterloo IBI Group 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor 410 Albert Street, Suite 101 Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Waterloo, ON N2L 3V3 Telephone: (519) 575-4603 Telephone: (519) 585-2255,ext.1201 Fax: (519) 575-4430 Fax: (519) 585-2269
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 14.0 How Can I View Project Information Following the PCC?
All of the PCC display materials in addition to other relevant project information, notifications of upcoming meetings and contact information will be available for viewing at the Region of Waterloo municipal offices as identified above, or on the Regional Municipality of Waterloo’s website regionofwaterloo.ca.
Docs 2338731 Page 11 of 19
42 42 Highland Road Improvements Class EA Information Package March 7, 2017 Appendix A
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act
The purpose of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) is to provide for “the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment in Ontario”. Environment is applied broadly and includes the natural, social, cultural, built and economic components.
The key principles of successful environmental assessment planning include:
• Consultation with stakeholders and affected members of the public;
• Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives;
• Assessment of the environmental impacts for each alternative;
• Systematic evaluation of alternatives; and
• Clear documentation of the process followed.
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA)
The Municipal Class EA is a planning process approved under the Environmental Assessment Act that is used by municipalities to plan infrastructure enhancement projects while satisfying the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Under the Class EA process, projects are planned in one of three ways depending on their scope, complexity, and potential for adverse environmental impacts.
Schedule “A” Includes routine maintenance, operation and emergency activities.
The Municipality can proceed with this work without further approval or public consultation.
Schedule “B” Includes projects with the potential for some adverse environmental effects.
These projects are subject to a screening process that includes consultation with directly affected public and agencies.
Schedule “C” Includes larger, more complex projects with the potential for significant environmental effects.
Docs 2338731 Page 12 of 19
43 43
These projects are subject to all phases of the Class EA and require a minimum of 3 points of public contact.
Public Involvement
Members of the public that have a stake in the project are encouraged to provide comment throughout the Class EA process. For Schedule “C” projects there are a minimum of three (3) opportunities for public contact. These typically include two Public Consultation Centres and the Notice of Study Completion.
Class EA Process for Schedule “C” Projects
Change in Project Status – Appeal Provision
It is recommended that all stakeholders (including the proponent, public and review agencies) work together to determine the preferred means of addressing a problem or opportunity. If you have any concerns, you should discuss them with the proponent and try to resolve them. In the event that there are major issues which cannot be resolved, you may request the Minister of the Environment by order to require a proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act before proceeding with a proposed undertaking which has been subject to Class EA requirements. This is called a “Part II Order”. The Minister will make one of the following decisions:
1. Deny the request (with or without conditions);
2. Refer the matter to mediation; or
3. Require the proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act, ordering a full Environmental Assessment.
All stakeholders are urged to try to resolve issues since it is preferable for them to be resolved by the municipality in which a project is located, rather than at the provincial level.
To request a Part II Order, a person must send a written request to :
The Ministry/Minister of Environment and Climate Change th 77 Wellesley St. West, 11P P Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2T5
The request must address the following with respect to the identified concerns:
• Environmental Impacts and specific concerns;
• Adequacy of the planning and public consultation process;
Docs 2338731 Page 13 of 19
44 44
• Involvement of the person in the planning process; and
• Details of discussions held between the person and the proponent.
Docs 2338731 Page 14 of 19
45 Highland Road Improvements 45 Class EA Information Package March 7, 2017
Appendix B
Property Acquisition Process Information Sheet
The following information is provided as a general overview of the property acquisition process and is not legal advice. Further, the steps, timing and processes can vary depending on the individual circumstances of each case.
Once the Recommended Design Concept has been approved, the property acquisition process and the efforts of Regional Real Estate staff will focus on acquiring the required lands to implement the approved design. Regional staff cannot make fundamental amendments or changes to the approved design concept.
Property Impact Plans
After the project has been approved and as it approaches final design, the project planners will generate drawings and sketches indicating what lands and interests need to be acquired from each affected property to undertake the project. These drawing are referred to as Property Impact Plans (PIP).
Initial Owner Contact by Regional Real Estate Staff
Once the PIPs are available, Regional Real Estate staff will contact the affected property owners by telephone and mail to introduce themselves and set-up initial meetings to discuss the project and proposed acquisitions.
Initial Meetings
The initial meeting is attended by the project engineer and the assigned real estate staff person to brief the owner on the project, what part of their lands are to be acquired or will be affected, what work will be undertaken, when, with what equipment, etc. and to answer any questions. The primary purpose of the meeting is to listen to the owner and identify issues, concerns, effects of the proposed acquisition on remaining lands and businesses that can be feasibly mitigated and/or compensated, and how the remaining property may be restored. These discussions may require additional meetings. The goal of staff is to work with the owner to reach mutually agreeable solutions.
Goal – Fair and Equitable Settlement for All Parties
The goal is always to reach a fair and equitable agreement for both the property owner and the Region. Such an agreement will provide compensation for the fair market value of the lands and address the project impacts (such as repairing or replacing landscaping, fencing, paving) so that the property owner will receive the value of the lands acquired and the restoration of their remaining property to the condition it was prior to the Project.
Docs 2338731 Page 15 of 19
46 East Boundary Road Corridor Study 46 Class EA Information Package December 8, 2015
The initial meetings will form the basis of an initial offer of settlement or agreement of purchase and sale for the required lands or interests.
Steps Toward Offer of Settlement or Agreement of Purchase and Sale
The general steps towards such an offer are as follows;
1) the Region will obtain an independent appraisal of the fair market value of the lands and interests to be acquired, and an appraisal of any effect on the value of the rest of the property resulting from the acquisition of the required lands and interests;
2) compensation will be estimated and/or works to minimize other effects will be defined and agreed to by the property owner and the Region;
3) reasonable costs of the owner will be included in any compensation settlement;
4) an offer with a purchase price and any other compensation or works in lieu of compensation will be submitted to the property owner for consideration; and
5) an Agreement will be finalized with any additional discussion, valuations, etc. as may be required.
Depending on the amount of compensation, most agreements will require the approval of Council. The approval is undertaken in Closed Session which is not open to the public to ensure a level of confidentiality.
Expropriation
Due to the time constraints of these projects, it is the practice of the Region to commence the expropriation process in parallel with the negotiation process to insure that lands and interests are acquired in time for commencement of the Project. Typically, over 90% of all required lands and interests are acquired through the negotiation process. Even after lands and interests have been acquired through expropriation an agreement on compensation can be reached through negotiation, this is usually referred to as a ‘settlement agreement’.
Put simply, an expropriation is the transfer of lands or an easement to a governmental authority for reasonable compensation, including payment of fair market value for the transferred lands, without the consent of the property owner being required. In the case of expropriations by municipalities such as the Region of Waterloo, the process set out in the Ontario Expropriations Act must be followed to ensure that the rights of the property owners provided under that Act are protected.
Docs 2338731 Page 16 of 19
47 Highland Road Improvements 47 Class EA Information Package March 7, 2017
Comment Sheet
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Highland Road Improvements
City of Kitchener
Public Consultation Centre #2 – Wed. March 8, 2017
Please complete and hand in this sheet so that your views can be considered for this project. If you cannot complete your comments today, please take this home and mail, fax or e-mail your comments by March 24, 2017 to either:
Mr. William Gilbert, P. Eng. Mr. John Perks, MBA, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Associate Director Region of Waterloo IBI Group 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor 410 Albert Street, Suite 101 Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Waterloo, ON N2L 3V3 Telephone: (519) 575-4603 Telephone: (519) 585-2255,x 1201 Fax: (519) 575-4430 Fax: (519) 585-2269
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
1. Do you think there are any other problems or needs that should be considered and added to the project Problem Statement?
______
______
______
______
______
______
2. Do you have any additional suggestions for possible solutions or alternatives to address the problem/needs?
______
______
______
______
Docs 2338731 Page 17 of 19
48 48
______
3. Are you in agreement with the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3 – Widen the Road to 4 Lanes and Add Centre Median and Multi-use Trails)?
______
______
______
______
______
______
4. Are there any other general comments you have on this project?
______
______
______
______
______
______
Do you wish to be placed on the mailing list for this project? Yes No
Name: ______
Address: ______
Postal Code: ______
Phone & email: ______
Thank you for your interest and time.
Docs 2338731 Page 18 of 19
49 49
Collection Notice
All comments and information received from individuals, stakeholder groups and agencies regarding these projects and meetings are being collected to assist the Region of Waterloo in making a decision. Under the “Municipal Act”, personal information (such as name, address, telephone number, and property location) that may be included in a submission becomes part of the public record. Questions regarding the collection should be forwarded to the staff member noted above.
Docs 2338731 Page 19 of 19
50 50 Welcome!
PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENT
Spring 2017
March 23: Cambridge City Hall, 6PM - 9PM March 28: Region of Waterloo Museum, 6PM - 9PM April 12: Waterloo Memorial Recreational Complex, 6PM - 9PM
www.regionofwaterloo.ca/biosolids
1 51 51
What’s The Region of Waterloo is Happening developing a Tonight? Biosolids Strategy. At this event you will have an opportunity to: • Review what we are doing with biosolids today • Learn about alternatives for managing this material • Understand how we will be making a decision • Fill out a survey • Provide feedback
Tonight’s Agenda
Open House
• Have a look at the project information on display and chat with the Project Team. • Provide input on the strategy alternatives • Provide input on the criteria used at each of the two steps in the decision making process
Work will be completed to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act as outlined by the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Oct 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015) process. 2 52 52 Biosolids in Waterloo Region Today
:KHQ\RXȴQLVKGRLQJ\RXUEXVLQHVVWKDWȇVZKHQWKH5HJLRQRI:DWHUORR JHWVEXV\GRLQJLWVEXVLQHVV7KHGLDJUDPEHORZGHVFULEHVKRZELRVROLGVDUH PDQDJHGLQWKH5HJLRQWRGD\
:DVWHZDWHU 3 Over 180,000m 7UHDWPHQW3ODQWV of wastewater is processed every Clean water is discharged day... to the river
...equivalent to 2O\PSLFVL]HG VZLPPLQJSRROV 5HVLGHQWV DQGJURZLQJ Over 1,550 tonnes of liquid biosolids are generated daily. This means a lot of processing, transport, and management throughout the year (equivalent to the weight of approximately ORDGHGWUXFNVevery day!)
Thankfully a large volume of the biosolids produced is dewatered by spinning it through a centrifuge, so that IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\HYHU\WUXFNV we used to need, we QRZRQO\QHHG WUXFN!
62Ζ/$0(1'0(17 'Ζ6326$/
Soil amendment involves applying biosolids to land to The UHPDLQGHU of biosolids produced in the add nutrients and can be used on DJULFXOWXUDOODQGV Region’s treatment plantsLVGLVSRVHGRILQ or on QRQDJULFXOWXUDOODQGV. DSSURYHGODQGȴOOVRXWVLGHWKH5HJLRQRI :DWHUORR 3 53 53 How are Biosolids Trucked in the Region Today?
7UXFNLQJLVDQLPSRUWDQWSDUWRIELRVROLGVPDQDJHPHQWLQWKH5HJLRQWRGD\7KHUHDUHWZRW\SHV RIWULSVERWKLQIUHTXHQW WULSVEHWZHHQZDVWHZDWHUWUHDWPHQWSODQWVIRUIXUWKHUSURFHVVLQJRI ELRVROLGVDQGWULSVRXWRIWKH5HJLRQIRUHQGXVHRUGLVSRVDORISURFHVVHGELRVROLGV
Trucking between Treatment Plants Township of WOOLWICH Trucking outside the Region to End Use or Disposal
ELMIRA
Township of WELLESLEY CONESTOGO
HEIDELBERG ST. JACOBS
HWY 85 2 REGION OF WATERLOO City of INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WATERLOO WATERLOO WELLESLEY
City of KITCHENER HESPELER
FOXBORO GREEN Township of
WILMOT KITCHENER PRESTON City of CAMBRIDGE NEW HAMBURG 2 Township of GALT NORTH DUMFRIES
AYR
7\SHVRI:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW3ODQWV
$HURELF $QDHURELF 1R%LRVROLGV 'LJHVWLRQRI 'LJHVWLRQRI 'LJHVWLRQ %LRVROLGV %LRVROLGV Biosolids are processed at another plant Biosolids created in presence of air Biosolids created in absence of air
4 54 54 Why do we Need a Biosolids Strategy?
+HUHDUHDIHZRIWKHPDLQUHDVRQVZK\DVWUDWHJ\LVHVVHQWLDOIRURXUFRPPXQLW\
a Growth ment l Co n ns The region is ro tr Environmental and i a expected to grow by v i social constraints n n the equivalent of the E t must be considered, s
size of Kitchener in including land
the years ahead. This availability, possible
means additional uses, climate change,
demand for biosolids and transportation
management. routes.
tory Ch ecurity la a S The Region needs u ng g e ȵH[LELOLW\DQG e s R adaptability to plan Updates to for emergencies, regulations can manage risk, and restrict how we use tackle mid to long biosolids. term biosolids storage needs.
novation In easing Co cr st In s The Region should $ As the costs consider feasible $ associated with new technologies trucking, storage and DQGVFLHQWLȴF disposal of biosolids advances that present will continue to rise, opportunities for it is important to innovation. consider the best value to the Region.
$GGUHVVLQJWKHVHDOLJQVZLWKWKH5HJLRQȇV6WUDWHJLF3ODQ 5 55 55 Roadmap to a Strategy
Launch the Project and draft the Problem Statement, Vision and Defining Biosolids and Project Launch Project Charter.
2015
Collect data, review existing conditions, and consult with the community on issues that matter. Problem Statement and Issues that Matter
2016 IPpD Wy FW i & n Wy oI giVWiF Oi L V o V u ronP L D iI D Yi e u e P n O n Q
u E W
iF P I e P P
FWu DnG o u r
o e S
V r h D n p Use community feedback on the issues W W C V N O I o D D e D e F F e W r E W I e y that matter to develop the Project
H
G G G n
I
V
Objectives and a decision making framework, and develop a long list of Project Objectives and strategy alternatives. Long List of Strategy Alternatives
:($5(+(5( Identify alternatives that would work for the MINIMUM PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS Region using Minimum Performance Questions that are based on the project objectives. A short 2017 Short List of Strategy list of alternatives is created. Alternatives
SHORT LIST EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluate the short listed strategies in detail using the objectives-based Short List Evaluation Criteria. Preferred Alternative
5HȴQHWKHEHVWSHUIRUPLQJVWUDWHJ\UHVXOWLQJIURPWKH short list evaluation. Our Strategy
2018
Region of Waterloo Council for Approval
6 56 56 Developing a Biosolids Strategy Alternative
$6ROLGV3UHSDUDWLRQ0RGLȴFDWLRQ C. Biosolids Storage, End Uses, There are three Technologies to prepare organic material for processing to become biosolids, or modify biosolids and Disposal after processing to reduce volume. components Storing of biosolids to be transported for end use or that make up a disposal. End use and disposal options can include: biosolids strategy • Agricultural Soil Amendment • Incineration alternative. B. Biosolids Processing • Non-Agricultural Soil • /DQGȴOO Core technologies to create biosolids from the organic Amendment solids separated from our wastewater. • Energy Recovery
Wastewater collected from around the Region is collected at one of the Region’s 13 wastewater treatment plants.
Processed biosolids are transported for storage, end use or disposal.
7 57 57 What Can We Do With Biosolids?
Soil Amendment End Uses Energy End Uses
Agricultural Non-Agricultural Energy Recovery
Biosolids that meet Provincial and Federal quality Non-agricultural uses include application to Energy can be recovered by burning biogas generated from standards can be applied to crop lands as a forested areas to improve nutrient supply to the biosolids processing, or burning the biosolids itself. The nutrient source. soil, enhancing impacted lands such as mine tailings energy recovered depends on many factors including the SRQGVDQGXVHDVGDLO\FRYHUPDWHULDOIRUODQGȴOOV processing method and the biosolids dryness. Key considerations include the quality of the biosolids produced, available lands for application, Key considerations include the quality of biosolids Key considerations include the facility complexity, the cost potential presence of substances of concern, produced, the availability of suitable sites for of energy to burn the product, and potential for air quality trucking, and the ability to store biosolids in the application, trucking, and the ability to store biosolids impacts. fall and winter. awaiting transport.
8 58 58
Disposal What Does the
Incineration /DQGȴOO Region Currently Do With Its Biosolids?
in 2016, the Region of Waterloo’s biosolids were transported for use or disposal as follows:
Agricultural Soil Amendment Biosolids can be reduced to ash by incineration, which %LRVROLGVFDQEHGLVSRVHGRILQODQGȴOOVWKDWDUH generates the smallest amount of material for disposal. DOORZHGWRDFFHSWWKLVPDWHULDO/DQGȴOOLQJKDV Supplemental fuel (e.g. natural gas) is required where historically been used for managing biosolids when energy recovery from biosolids is not feasible. other end use and disposal options are not available. 45%
Key considerations include the approvals associated with Key considerations include future potential to an incineration facility, the cost of fuel, and potential for air ODQGȴOOELRVROLGVDWH[LVLWLQJIDFLOLWLHVFRVWVDVVRFLDWHG quality impacts. with trucking biosolids to distant sites, and tipping fees. Non-Agricultural Soil Amendment 40%
/DQGȴOO 15%
9 59 59 (LJKWELRVROLGVVWUDWHJ\DOWHUQDWLYHVKDYHEHHQLGHQWLȴHGHDFKFRPSULVHGRIWKHWKUHH What are our Strategy VWHSVVKRZQRQ3DQHOΖQWKHQH[WVWDJHRIWKHSURMHFWDVKRUWOLVWRIDOWHUQDWLYHV Alternatives? (1 of 2) ZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGXVLQJWKHFULWHULDGLVSOD\HGRQ3DQHO
'(:$7(5(' 92/80(%()25( %Ζ262/Ζ'6 352&(66Ζ1* &855(17 $3352$&+ S L M 90% 5('8&7Ζ21 62/Ζ'635(3$5$7Ζ21 1(:6725$*( %Ζ262/Ζ'6352&(66Ζ1* 28738792/80( &203$5(' 02'Ζ)Ζ&$7Ζ21 )$&Ζ/Ζ7<6Ζ=( 72&855(17$3352$&+ (1'86(6 'Ζ6326$/
$OWHUQDWLYH &XUUHQW$SSURDFKZLWK AGRICULTURAL SOIL AMENDMENT ([SDQGHG&DSDFLW\ CURRENT DEWATERING CURRENT DIGESTION (EXPANSION WITH (EXPANSION WITH The current approach provides stable POPULATION GROWTH) POPULATION GROWTH) L NON-AGRICULTURAL biosolids management. Biosolids SOIL AMENDMENT DUHVSUHDGRQȴHOGVRUXVHGIRUODQG NO CHANGE UHFODPDWLRQRUODQGȴOOHGZKHQWKHVH LANDFILL options are not available.
$OWHUQDWLYH &XUUHQW$SSURDFKZLWK AGRICULTURAL SOIL 6ROLGV3UHSDUDWLRQ AMENDMENT CURRENT DIGESTION THICKENING %HIRUH'LJHVWLRQ (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) (LESS EXPANSION WITH POPULATION GROWTH) NON-AGRICULTURAL This alternative can reduce the total SOIL AMENDMENT solids by generating more biogas, and L
UHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRIOLTXLGLQWKH NO LANDFILL GHZDWHUHGELRVROLGVZLWKDVLPLODUHQG CHANGE product.
$OWHUQDWLYH AGRICULTURAL SOIL 3URGXFH)HUWLOL]HUIURP STABILIZATION AMENDMENT CURRENT DEWATERING Biosolids (EXPANSION WITH OR HYDROLYSIS TECHNOLOGIES NON-AGRICULTURAL 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGPDNHDIHUWLOL]HU POPULATION GROWTH) (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) M SOIL AMENDMENT SURGXFWWKDWFRXOGEHVROG'LHUHQW WHFKQRORJLHVFDQSURGXFHIHUWLOL]HU SURGXFWVZLWKVOLJKWO\YDU\LQJYROXPHV 66% NO 33% LANDFILL MORE CHANGE LESS CAN VARY BASED ON TECHNOLOGY
$OWHUQDWLYH AGRICULTURAL SOIL COMPOSTING AMENDMENT 3URGXFH&RPSRVWIURP CURRENT DEWATERING TECHNOLOGY + (EXPANSION WITH ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS Biosolids POPULATION GROWTH) M NON-AGRICULTURAL (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) SOIL AMENDMENT 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDGGFRPSRVWLQJ 60% LESS to the current process. LANDFILL
10 60 60 What are our Strategy Alternatives? (2 of 2)
'(:$7(5(' 92/80(%()25( %Ζ262/Ζ'6 352&(66Ζ1* &855(17 $3352$&+ S L M 90% 5('8&7Ζ21 62/Ζ'635(3$5$7Ζ21 1(:6725$*( %Ζ262/Ζ'6352&(66Ζ1* 28738792/80( &203$5(' 02'Ζ)Ζ&$7Ζ21 )$&Ζ/Ζ7<6Ζ=( 72&855(17$3352$&+ (1'86(6 'Ζ6326$/
AGRICULTURAL SOIL $OWHUQDWLYH AMENDMENT 3URGXFH'U\)HUWLOL]HU NON-AGRICULTURAL DRYING TECHNOLOGY 3HOOHWVIURP%LRVROLGV CURRENT DEWATERING S SOIL AMENDMENT (EXPANSION WITH + POTENTIAL ASSOC. BUILDINGS LANDFILL 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDGGIXUWKHUGU\LQJWRWKH POPULATION GROWTH) (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) current process to substantially reduce the total 75% LESS ENERGY FROM DPRXQWRISURGXFW7KHSURGXFWLVDIHUWLOL]HU SOLIDS WKDWFRXOGEHVROGRUXVHGDVUHQHZDEOHIXHOLQ certain applications. INCINERATION
$OWHUQDWLYH 7KHUPDO5HGXFWLRQRI %LRVROLGVWR$VK 1R(QHUJ\ INCINERATION THICKENING INCINERATOR + NO NEW ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS STORAGE 5HFRYHU\ (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) NEEDED (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) LANDFILL This alternative could use the current digested 90% LESS DQGGHZDWHUHGELRVROLGVDVLQSXWDQGEXUQWKLV WRDVKIRUXVHDVDQLQGXVWULDOLQSXWRUGLVSRVDO LQODQGȴOO
$OWHUQDWLYH 7KHUPDO5HGXFWLRQ:LWK (QHUJ\5HFRYHU\ ENERGY FROM CURRENT DEWATERING THERMAL REDUCTION NO NEW 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGȆEXUQȇELRVROLGVWRDVK PROCESS + ASSOCIATED STORAGE SOLIDS and generate energy. Ash can be used as an (EXPANSION WITH POPULATION GROWTH) BUILDINGS NEEDED LQGXVWULDOLQSXWRUGLVSRVHGLQODQGȴOO7KLV (NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) 90% LESS LANDFILL RSWLRQUHTXLUHVHQKDQFHGGHZDWHULQJDQG FDQQRWEHXVHGLQVHULHVZLWKRWKHUHQHUJ\ recovery methods such as the existing biogas generation approach.
$OWHUQDWLYH /DQGȴOO$OO%LRVROLGV CURRENT DIGESTION NO NEW 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGVHQGDOOELRVROLGV CURRENT DEWATERING (EXPANSION WITH (EXPANSION WITH STORAGE SURGXFHGLQWKH5HJLRQWRDODQGȴOO([LVWLQJ POPULATION GROWTH) POPULATION GROWTH) NEEDED LANDFILL LQIUDVWUXFWXUHVXFKDVGHZDWHULQJDQGGLJHVWLRQ ZRXOGQHHGWREHH[SDQGHGZLWKSRSXODWLRQ NO JURZWK CHANGE 11 61 61 Give Us Your Feedback! How do we Make a Decision?
Step 1: Minimum Performance Questions
7RSDVVWKLVVFUHHQLQJVWHSDELRVROLGVVWUDWHJ\DOWHUQDWLYHPXVWPHHWDOOWKHOLVWHG0LQLPXP3HUIRUPDQFH 4XHVWLRQV
+DYHZHPLVVHGDQ\LPSRUWDQWTXHVWLRQV"
OBJECTIVE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
:RUNFROODERUDWLYHO\WRȴQGVROXWLRQV Provide multiple opportunities for public engagement 1RVSHFLȴHG0LQLPXP3HUIRUPDQFH7KUHVKROG and input in the decision making process. This applied. This objective will be addressed through objective goes beyond regulatory requirements and is the development of the strategy. being met through the study design.
%XLOGRQH[LVWLQJLQIUDVWUXFWXUH • Is it compatible with the Region’s existing 7KH5HJLRQKDVVLJQLȴFDQWLQYHVWPHQWLQ wastewater treatment infrastructure? infrastructure and a strategy that maximizes this • Is it based on commercially proven technology investment is preferred. that provides a long term solution?
3URWHFWWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW
• Does it meet current environmental The preferred strategy should minimize impacts to regulations, and is it capable of meeting the environment and surroundings. permitting requirements?
• Does it meet current health and safety 3URWHFWKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\ regulations? The strategy should support healthy living for both workers and the public. • 'RHVLWDOLJQZLWKEHVWSUDFWLFHVLQWKHȴHOGRI biosolids management?
0LQLPL]HDQGPDQDJHRSHUDWLRQDOULVN • Can the Region control all the necessary The preferred strategy must allow the Region elements of implementation? to provide continual, uninterrupted biosolids • Can the storage requirements be permitted in management service to the public. the Region?
3URWHFWTXDOLW\RIOLIH • Does it protect quality of life for citizens The existing quality of life for citizens should regardless of where it is built? be maintained when planning for biosolids
infrastructure
%HFRVWHHFWLYHDQGSURYLGHYDOXH 1RVSHFLȴHG0LQLPXP3HUIRUPDQFH7KUHVKROG The cost of the preferred strategy must be reasonable applied. This objective will be addressed through to the Region, both now and in the future. VSHFLȴFFULWHULDIRUWKHVKRUWOLVWHGVWUDWHJLHV 12 62 62 Give Us Your Feedback! How do we Make a Decision?
Step 2: Short List Evaluation Criteria
ΖQIDOOZHZLOOEHFDUU\LQJRXWDQHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHVKRUWOLVWHGELRVROLGVVWUDWHJ\DOWHUQDWLYHV:HZRXOG OLNH\RXUHDUO\LQSXWRQWKHFULWHULDXVHGIRUHYDOXDWLRQ
'RDQ\RWKHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQVFRPHWRPLQG"
:RUNFROODERUDWLYHO\ZLWKWKH 0LQLPL]HDQGPDQDJH FRPPXQLW\WRȴQGVROXWLRQV RSHUDWLRQDOULVN • This objective is being addressed • Does the alternative provide multiple through the study design. opportunities for end uses to minimize risk? • Does the alternative require %XLOGRQH[LVWLQJLQIUDVWUXFWXUH intermediate trucking of product? • How compatible is the alternative with • Are there risks related to any new existing municipal infrastructure? storage that is required? • How much new supporting municipal • What’s the size and character of any infrastructure is required (e.g. roads, site(s) required? power and water services, etc.)? • How complex is the alternative? • Can the alternative solve other municipal needs? • How vulnerable is the alternative to 3URWHFWTXDOLW\RIOLIH changing government regulations, • If a facility is required, what are the policies and market demands? impacts to the surrounding community? • How scalable is the alternative and i.e. is there a smell, noise, or visual can it be expanded to meet future impacts? population needs?
%HFRVWHHFWLYHDQGSURYLGH
3URWHFWDQGHQKDQFHWKHQDWXUDO YDOXH HQYLURQPHQW • Would the alternative involve some • Does the alternative provide innovative approach that would provide HQYLURQPHQWDOEHQHȴWV" value to the Region? • Does the alternative use energy or • What are the initial costs? What are the generate energy? life-cycle costs? • Is the alternative adaptable to climate • Is there an opportunity to apply for change impacts? carbon credits? • How much greenhouse gas emission • :KDWȇVWKHORFDOHFRQRPLFEHQHȴW"+RZ does the alternative produce? many local jobs would it create? • Does the alternative minimize the • Is a biosolids product created that has amount of waste generated? value? If yes, how valuable is it?
3URWHFWKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\ • What are the health and safety risks associated with the alternative? 13 63 63 Next Steps
Upcoming Schedule
Spring 2017 6XPPHU)DOO • Release of Technical Memos on the Evaluation • Public Consultation on the Short List of Biosolids Criteria, Biosolids Technologies, End Use and Strategies Disposal Options, and Long List of Biosolids Strategy Alternatives
How You Can Help... Give us your feedback on the project objectives, evaluation criteria, and strategy alternatives, to help us as we develop the short list of alternatives.
? Ask questions today Join the conversation on ?? Facebook and Twitter….
Fill out the survey here or online www.facebook.com/ ROWWaterServices
Sign up for our contact list @RegionWaterloo
Visit www.regionofwaterloo.ca/biosolids
Attend upcoming events.
We can meet with your group or organization.
$QGLI\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQVRUFRPPHQWVSOHDVHGRQRWKHVLWDWHWRFRQWDFW
.$258<$-Ζ0$, P.Eng. Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Senior Project Engineer Tel: 519-575-4757 ext. 3349 Water Services – The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Fax: 519-575-4452 150 Frederick Street,7th Floor TTY: 519-575-4608 Email: N\DMLPD#UHJLRQRIZDWHUORRFD
14 64 64
Report: TES-WAS-17-09 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Water Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: E13-20/8322-10
Subject: Waterloo, Kitchener and Galt Cogeneration Project Update
Recommendation:
For Information
Summary:
Based on recommendations from the 2011 Biosolids Master Plan the Region is proposing to construct cogeneration at the Kitchener, Waterloo, and Galt Wastewater Treatment Plants. Cogeneration uses biogas, produced as part of the biosolids treatment process, to produce electricity and to recover heat that is used in other wastewater treatment processes.
A Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Process is currently under way for each of proposed cogeneration facilities. The REA process is a Provincial approval process administered by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
The REA process involves communication with the public and other stakeholders through two rounds of Public Consultation Centres (PCCs). A number of mandatory reports summarizing results from the REA studies are also made publically available on the Region’s website. The intent of the reports is to examine any potential impacts associated with the construction or operation of the proposed facility. These reports found that there were minimal impacts associated with the construction of the facilities. Components of the design of each facility will include engineering solutions to mitigate any potential noise, odour, and emission impacts. These will include noise attenuating enclosures and high efficiency exhaust silencers. The studies demonstrated that the
2341127 Page 1 of 6 65 65 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-09
proposed facilities will meet all of the provincial regulations associated with noise, odours and emissions.
Based on the proposed sizing of the cogeneration engines the operation of the facilities will have the following benefits:
• Reduction in electrical supply demand by 40-60 per cent at each WWTP • Reduction in direct green house gas emissions between 15–100 per cent at each WWTP • Contribution to the Region’s goal of sustainability and energy reduction • Estimated total net savings (accounting for capital and O&M expenses) over the life of the engines (20 years) of up to $16 million from all three facilities combined
The Council approved 2017 Ten Year Water Capital Forecast includes projected spending of $24.1 million between 2017 and 2026 for design and construction of the three cogeneration facilities. The estimated cost of detailed design and construction of the three cogeneration facilities, including engineering fees is approximately $18.8 million. Remaining funds will be used for the upgrade of the electrical systems at these plants to allow for the connection of the cogeneration systems and is not currently included in the cost above.
To secure Provincial funding, the three cogeneration facilities must be commissioned and operational by December 2020. In order to ensure that the project remains on schedule, a report will be submitted to Council on March 22, 2017 seeking approval to file the Renewable Energy Approval with the MOECC. A separate report will be submitted to the Planning and Works Committee on April 4, 2017 for approval to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with CH2M HILL for Phase 2 of the assignment (Detailed Design and Contract Administration). This report updates Council on the current status of the project prior to the above noted reports coming to Committee and Council for approval.
Report:
The 2011 Biosolids Master Plan recommended implementation of Cogeneration at the Kitchener, Waterloo, and Galt Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). The Province of Ontario is providing partial funding for the implementation of energy efficient upgrades at municipal facilities. However, these incentives require that the system be successfully commissioned by 2020. The Region is working with the local hydro utilities to receive these incentives and due to the tight schedule to meet the Provincial requirements has expedited the delivery process of the project by hiring a single consultant to complete the Renewable Energy Approval, Detailed Conceptual Design, Detailed Design and Contract Administration (Report TES-WAS-15-33).
2341127 Page 2 of 6 66 66 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-09
Based on the above approach, the Region hired CH2M HILL (the Consultant) in March 2016 (Report TES-WAS-16-07). The Consultant proposal was for the completion of all phases of the above project, however, the Region initially only awarded Phase 1 (REA and Detailed Conceptual Design). Phase 2 (Detailed Design and Contract Administration) would be awarded upon successful completion of Phase 1, and would be part of a separate Planning and Works Committee report.
The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process is a Provincial process administered by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The process applies to renewable energy generating facilities including solar, wind, anaerobic digestion, biogas or biofuel. The REA process is similar to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process under which a number of Regional infrastructure projects are completed. Similar to the Class EA process, the REA process involves engagement and communication with stakeholders.
While the Municipal Class EA process evaluates potential alternatives to develop a preferred solution, the REA assumes that a renewable energy project has already been identified and proposed and includes studies required to examine any potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed undertaking. As part of the process, mitigation measures are developed to address any potential impacts identified during the REA process.
Cogeneration uses biogas produced in the treatment of biosolids for production of electrical energy. It also recovers waste heat from the cogeneration process to provide heat required at some wastewater treatment processes and for heating buildings. The use of this renewable fuel significantly reduces Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by offsetting electrical energy and heating requirements at the WWTPs. As part of the design process, the following engine sizes were identified for each of the WWTPs:
• Kitchener WWTP: 800 kW • Waterloo WWTP: 600 kW • Galt WWTP: 600 kW
The operation of these three facilities will have the following benefits:
• Reduction in electrical supply demand by 40-60 per cent • Reduction in direct green house gas emissions by 15–100 per cent • Contribution to the Region’s goal of sustainability and energy reduction • Estimated total net savings (accounting for capital and O&M expenses) over the life of the engines (20 years) of up to $16,000,000 from all three facilities combined •
2341127 Page 3 of 6 67 67 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-09
Based on the current cost estimates developed during the detailed conceptual design, payback period associated with each facility is between 9 to 11 years. This payback period is considered attractive as the engines have an expected life of approximately 20 years. Cost estimates for each facility are attached in Table 1.
Consultation with the public was conducted through two rounds of Public Consultation Centres (PCCs) held for each WWTP. The first round of PCCs was held in November 2016. The second set of PCCs is planned for March 7, 8 and 9, 2017. The information package for these PCCs was presented at the February 14, 2017 Planning and Works Committee meeting.
As part of the REA process, a number of studies were completed to look at potential impacts associated with the proposed cogeneration facilities. Reports summarizing details from each study were made available on the project website to all stakeholders, including the public and aboriginal contacts, 60 days in advance of the second round of PCCs. These reports include:
1. Construction Plan Report 2. Design and Operations Report 3. Decommissioning Plan Report 4. Cultural Heritage Self-Assessment Report 5. Archeological Assessment Report 6. Natural Heritage Report 7. Water Assessment Report 8. Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report 9. Noise Study Report 10. Odour Study Report 11. Updated Project Description Report (PDR)- summarizing all the above draft REA reports These reports are required as part of the REA process and evaluate any potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The reports found that there are minimal impacts associated with the construction of the facilities. Any potential impacts during construction will be mitigated through typical construction planning such as erosion and sediment control as well as activities taking place during the designated work times.
Components of the design of each facility will include engineering solutions to mitigate any potential noise, odours and emissions impacts. These will include noise attenuating enclosures and high efficiency exhaust silencers. The studies demonstrated that the proposed facilities will meet all of the provincial regulations associated with noise, odours and emissions.
2341127 Page 4 of 6 68 68 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-09
Next Steps To secure provincial funding, the three cogeneration facilities must be commissioned and operational by December 2020. In order to ensure that the project remains on schedule, a report will be submitted to Council on March 22, 2017 seeking approval to file the Renewable Energy Approval with the MOECC. A separate report will be submitted to the Planning and Works Committee on April 4, 2017 for approval to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with CH2M HILL for Phase 2 of the assignment (Detailed Design and Contract Administration).
Corporate Strategic Plan:
The implementation of Cogeneration at the Galt, Kitchener and Waterloo WWTPs contributes to Focus Area 3: Environment and Sustainable Growth and Strategic Objective 3.3 Enhance efforts to improve air quality.
Financial Implications:
The Council approved 2017 Ten Year Water Capital Forecast includes projected spending of $24.1 million between 2017 and 2026 for design and construction of the three cogeneration facilities. The estimated cost of detailed design and construction of the three cogeneration facilities including engineering fees is approximately $18.8 million. Remaining funds will cover the cost for the upgrade of the electrical systems at these plants for the connection of the cogeneration systems. More detailed cost estimates will be developed during the detailed design phase of the project, and will be used for updating future Wastewater Capital Forecasts.
This project is being funded $4.9 million from the Water Development Charges Reserve Fund (26%) and the $13.9 million from the Water Capital Reserve Fund (74%).
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Community Planning (Sustainability Specialist) of Planning, Development and Legislative Services has been involved in the implementation of this project.
Attachments
Attachment A: Conceptual Cost Estimates for Cogeneration Facilities (Net Present Value)
20TPrepared By:20T Pam Law, Senior Project Engineer, Water Services
20T Approved By:20T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2341127 Page 5 of 6 69 69 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-09
Conceptual Cost Estimates for Cogeneration Facilities (Net Present Value)
Kitchener WWTP Dollar Amount Capital Cost $5,562,000 saveONenergy Incentive $973,000 Total Savings (20 years) $10,952,000 Net Savings $6,363,000
Waterloo WWTP Dollar Amount Capital Cost $5,452,000 saveONenergy Incentive $900,000 Total Savings (20 years) $10,515,000 Net Savings $5,963,000
Galt WWTP Dollar Amount Capital Cost $5,566,000 saveONenergy Incentive $900,000 Total Savings (20 years) $8,954,000 Net Savings $4,288,000 *Cost estimates are based on an annual escalation of utility costs of 5%
2341127 Page 6 of 6 70 70
Report: TES-WAS-17-11 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Water Services
To: Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: E13-20
Subject: Wastewater Operations Service Delivery Review – Beyond 2020
Recommendation:
For information
Summary:
The Region of Waterloo (Region) currently has a service agreement with the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) to operate and maintain the Region’s wastewater treatment facilities. The existing service agreement was awarded by Council in 2010 for a term of five years with a possible five year extension. After confirming OCWA’s performance in the first 5 year term and updating the 2009 service review, Council awarded OCWA the five year extension in 2015 that is set to expire on December 31, 2020. The Region is currently in year two of the five year extension.
The process of looking forward to determine how wastewater treatment services are to be delivered by the Region beyond the expiry of the existing OCWA service agreement has started. To-date, Hurding Consulting has been retained to conduct a market review for third party operations and maintenance contracts with a focus on the Canadian market. This market review is being done in conjunction with the Region of Peel, who is also undertaking a similar service delivery review. This market review report is scheduled to be available in March.
The Region has three service delivery alternatives that will be evaluated as part of this service delivery review: • Internal Operation
2343946 Page 1 of 4 71 71 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-11
• External Contract Operation - Negotiate a new long-term contract with OCWA • External Contract Operation – Open Bid
It is proposed that an advisory team be formed to evaluate these options consisting of key staff representing the various Regional departments. It is anticipated to make a recommendation to council regarding the preferred approach by June 2017.
Report:
The Region of Waterloo (Region) currently has a service agreement with the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) to operate and maintain the Region’s wastewater treatment facilities. The existing service agreement was awarded by Council in 2010 for a term of five years with a possible five year extension. After confirming OCWA’s performance in the first 5 year term and updating the 2009 service review, Council awarded OCWA the five year extension in 2015 that is set to expire on December 31, 2020. The Region is currently in year two of the five year extension.
Work Completed To-Date The Region has partnered with the Region of Peel to conduct a scan of the current market conditions for delivering wastewater treatment services. The Region of Peel has engaged Hurding Consulting to complete this review on their behalf. For efficiencies and consistency, the Region has also retained this consultant and a joint report will be produced. The report will focus on third party operations and maintenance contracts in the Canadian market and will build on previous market reviews completed by the Region in 2008 and 2014 as well as the Region of Peel’s previous reviews.
This report is scheduled to be available in March 2017 and will form a portion of the background information presented to Region’s working group.
Service Delivery Alternatives To deliver wastewater treatment services here at the Region of Waterloo, there are three alternatives. These are the same alternatives that were evaluated prior to OCWA’s 2010 contract. Below is a brief description of each alternative: • Internal Operation - The Region would retain necessary staff and resources to take back operations and maintenance from OCWA upon current contract expiry. Costs associated with the management, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of wastewater assets would become the Region’s responsibility. This alternative typically provides the greatest control to the Region, but also subjects the Region to the full risk of cost and liabilities. • External Contract Operations; Negotiate New Contract with OCWA - The Region would negotiate a new long-term contract with OCWA. While many of the principles of the existing contract will remain in place, it is anticipated modifications will be required to suit existing and future Regional initiatives. A
2343946 Page 2 of 4
72 72 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-11
new contract allows the Region to continue to share risk and liabilities with OCWA while maintaining a level of cost control. • External Contract Operation; Open Bid - The Region would pursue a successor contract through a Request for Information (RFI) and/or Request for Proposals (RFP) process. This process could result in a lower cost to the Region. This alternative would be open to OCWA and other (private) external qualified contractors. However, the RFP process can be lengthy and costly; therefore, a risk/reward analysis needs to be considered. A change in the operating contractor would introduce risks to the Region.
Advisory Team An advisory team has been formed to evaluate the service delivery options noted above and develop a recommended plan of action to move forward. This team is comprised of representatives from various Regional departments. Participants of this advisory team are listed below: • Regional Councillors – Tom Galloway, Elizabeth Clarke • Water Services – Nancy Kodousek, Danielle Bruyere, Tammy Bellamy, Trevor Brown • Legal – Liam Legate • Finance – Cathy Deschamps • Procurement – Lisa Evans • Human Resources – Matthew Sutcliffe
With assistance from Hurding Consulting, the team will develop and implement evaluation criteria around the noted service delivery alternatives to form the basis of a recommended alternative. It is anticipated that a recommended service delivery option could be presented to Council by June 2017. Once accepted by Council, the steps required to implement the plan of action can commence.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
This initiative supports Corporate Strategic Plan Focus Area 3: Protect and Enhance the Environment.
Financial Implications:
Nil
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Nil
Attachments
Nil 2343946 Page 3 of 4
73 73 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-11
20TPrepared By:20T Trevor Brown, Manager, Engineering and Wastewater Programs
20T Approved By:20T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services
2343946 Page 4 of 4
74 74
Report: TES-TRS-17-01
Region of Waterloo
Transportation and Environmental Services
Transit Development
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: D10-70
Subject: TravelWise Transportation Management Association – Service Update
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize having organizations currently participating or interested in joining the TravelWise Transportation Management Association execute an Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions Form for a 1 year term, in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor;
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a new Collaborative Agreement with Sustainable Waterloo Region to deliver the services of the TravelWise Transportation Management Association for a 1 year term, in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor;
And that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo support, in principle, a collective drive- alone reduction goal of five per cent below 2015 levels by 2020 for the entire TravelWise Transportation Management Association, as described in Report TES-TRS- 17-01 dated March 7, 2017.
Summary:
The TravelWise Transportation Management Association (TravelWise) is a public- private initiative where participating workplaces pay a membership fee to the Region based on the size of their organization in exchange for access to transportation demand management (TDM) services, tools, and incentives. Employees of member organizations gain access to online carpool matching and trip logging software, discounted Grand River Transit Corporate Passes, and an Emergency Ride Home
2312135 Page 1 of 9 75 75 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
Reimbursement service. These TDM measures encourage and support employees at participating workplaces to adopt sustainable commuting behaviours instead of driving alone to and from work.
Since the launch of the pilot program in 2012, TravelWise has grown from its original 13 partner employers to 28 member organizations that represent over 20,000 employees in Waterloo Region.
The Region’s previous service agreements with TravelWise members expired December 31, 2016. In order to continue to provide transportation solutions for workplaces through TravelWise, support GRT’s ridership goals, and help the Region meet recommendations outlined in the Regional Transportation Master Plan and the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan, Regional staff recommend having organizations currently participating or interested in joining TravelWise execute Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions Forms to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor for a one year term.
The Region has contracted the not-for-profit organization Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR) to provide cost-effective coordination and delivery of many TravelWise services since the pilot. The previous Collaborative Agreement between the Region and SWR expired December 31, 2016. To help offset the Regional investments needed to operate TravelWise and deliver support services to participating workplaces, staff recommend the Region enter into a new Collaborative Agreement with the not-for-profit organization Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR) for a one year term.
To encourage the development of workplace commuter action plans and strengthen collaboration among TravelWise members, staff request that the Region support, in principle, TravelWise’s proposed drive-alone reduction goal of five per cent below 2015 levels by 2020 (from 72% driving alone to 67%) for the entire Transportation Management Association. This target is a non-binding, collective reduction goal that TravelWise members will work towards together. As a member of TravelWise, the Region and the commuter choices of its employees will also contribute to this goal. Regional TDM staff have the capacity to continue monitoring the Region’s drive-alone rate as part of their ongoing internal commuter programming activities. Regional acknowledgement of the drive-alone goal would demonstrate the Region’s support for a collective impact approach to increasing community use of sustainable modes of transportation.
Report:
Background
A Transportation Management Association (TMA) is typically a public-private initiative that provides tools and services to encourage employees of member companies to use sustainable modes of transportation to commute to and from work (e.g., transit, cycling, 2312135 Page 2 of 9
76 76 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
walking, carpooling, etc.). TMAs are instrumental in supporting and sustaining behavioural shifts among commuters away from driving alone to alleviate demand pressures facing the traditional transportation network (e.g., traffic, road expansion, maintenance, etc.) For businesses, participation in a TMA is an opportunity to develop a supportive workplace culture that can help reduce the costs associated with parking demand, lessen their environmental impact, and improve employee satisfaction.
In January 2012, the Region launched the TravelWise Transportation Management Association (TravelWise) as a two-year pilot program to provide transportation demand management (TDM) services to 13 participating employers and their employees. The Region established the core services of TravelWise during this pilot period. Participating organizations pay a membership fee based on the size of their workplace in exchange for TDM services that include:
• Access to the Grand River Transit Corporate Pass program that enables employees to purchase seasonal or annual passes at a discounted rate; • An online carpool matching and trip logging portal available at
32TU www.GoTravelWise.caU32T; • An Emergency Ride Home program for participants who commute to work sustainably but need to leave in emergency situations (e.g., illness); • On-site promotions and service training events for participating organizations’ employees (e.g., Bus “n” Bike demonstrations, carpool portal orientation, etc.) • Employee travel behaviour reports with commuter action plan recommendations; • Access to best practice documents and a knowledge exchange working group where TravelWise members and program administrators share information and resources on successful employer-led TDM programs.
Due to membership demand and growth in service uptake since the pilot program, Regional Council approved the continuation of TravelWise and its TDM services in 2013 and again in 2016 (Reports P-13-105 and TES-TRS-16-01, respectively). This enabled the Region to enter into new service agreements with organizations participating in TravelWise or interested in joining, expanding membership from 13 to 28 employers throughout Waterloo Region. Organizations could also customize their terms with the Region if they already offered certain TDM services through other workplace programs.
The Region has contracted the not-for-profit organization Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR) to provide cost-effective coordination and delivery of many TravelWise services since the pilot. SWR has been responsible for delivering frontline services like technical support, service orientation to members’ employees, on-site promotional events, and implementation and analysis of employee travel behaviour surveys.
The Region’s previous service agreements with TravelWise members, and its Collaborative Agreement with SWR, expired December 31, 2016. 2312135 Page 3 of 9
77 77 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
Regional staff recommend having organizations currently participating or interested in joining TravelWise execute Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions Forms with the Region. The new Acknowledgement will reduce the administrative requirements associated with the previous agreement format, enabling new and existing TravelWise members to gain access to TravelWise program services with greater ease. Organizations may also customize their terms with the Region if they already offer certain TDM services through workplace programs.
TravelWise Membership Growth
Since the launch of the pilot program, TravelWise has grown from its original 13 partner organizations to 28 in December 2016 (Table 1), representing nine different industries and over 20,000 employees in Waterloo Region. Annual membership fees range from $250 for small businesses (i.e., less than 50 employees) to $6,250 for larger companies (i.e., 3,001-6,250 employees).
Table 1. List of TravelWise Member Organizations, December 2016.
Organization Member Organization Member Since: Since:
100 Ahrens St. Ltd. 2016 MMM Group Ltd. 2013
Accelerated Systems Inc. 2016 Open Text Corporation 2012 Paradigm Transportation BlackBerry Ltd. 2012 2012 Solutions Ltd. City of Cambridge 2012 Region of Waterloo 2010 Rez-One Management City of Kitchener 2012 2016 Corporation Rogers Communications City of Waterloo 2010 2013 Canada Communitech Corporation 2013 Sun Life Assurance 2010
Community CarShare 2014 Sustainable Waterloo Region 2014
Crawford & Company 2014 THEMUSEUM 2016
D2L Corporation 2014 University of Waterloo 2012
Energy+ Inc. 2014 Vidyard 2014
Equitable Life Insurance 2010 WalterFedy 2012
2312135 Page 4 of 9
78 78 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
Organization Member Organization Member Since: Since:
House of Friendship Kitchener 2014 Wilfrid Laurier University 2012
Kitchener Public Library 2015 YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo 2013
TravelWise Services Uptake
Growth in the use of TravelWise’s core services demonstrates increased user engagement and has helped build trust in the program among participating employers.
Since the 2014 launch 32T Uwww.GoTravelWise.caU32T, 1,872 users have registered and have logged 39,903 sustainable trips and made 264 carpool connections. Beyond measuring online engagement and linking interested carpoolers, the website provides commuter travel behaviour reports for participating employers and the Region of Waterloo (e.g., frequent trip plans, average trip length by mode of transportation, emissions offset by sustainable travel choices, etc.).
A total of 11 Emergency Ride Home Claims were submitted by TravelWise members from 2014 to 2016. While the Emergency Ride Home Reimbursement service is rarely used, employees that drive alone consistently report that access to a guaranteed ride home in emergency situations will encourage them to cycle, walk, carpool, or take transit to work.
TravelWise has also supported Grand River Transit (GRT)’s ridership goals. Employees of TravelWise member organizations can purchase discounted Corporate Passes through GRT’s online eStore service (3, 6, 9, or 12-month passes at up to 15% off). In 2016, a total of 283 discounted GRT Corporate Passes had been purchased by employees of TravelWise members, representing approximately $174,445 in revenue (Table 2). Revenue values are approximate as some passes were purchased before the 2016 rate increase.
Table 2. Summary of Discounted Online GRT Corporate Pass Sales by TravelWise Members, 2013-2016.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Online GRT 83 122 199 229 283 Corporate Pass Sales Online GRT Corporate Pass Revenue $45,326 $75,595 $119,617 $151,950 $174,445 (Approximate)
2312135 Page 5 of 9
79 79 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
2017 TravelWise Program Focus
A 2016-2018 TravelWise Business Plan was developed in collaboration with SWR and TravelWise member organizations and identified actions to further the success of TravelWise. Staff are currently implementing these actions, which have been grouped into the following focus areas for 2017.
Focus Area 1: Set a TMA-Wide Drive-Alone Reduction Target to Support Commuter Action Planning
While growth in membership and uptake in TDM services demonstrates that TravelWise is providing a valuable service for businesses and commuters in Waterloo Region, members have reported difficulties in getting their organizations to commit to setting an internal drive-alone reduction target to encourage sustainable transportation use.
In response to this feedback, TravelWise members, SWR, and the Region recently held a working group meeting and set a non-binding TravelWise-wide drive-alone reduction goal of five per cent below 2015 levels by 2020 (72% to 67%). This collective impact approach to target setting offers members the ability to contribute towards a target while maintaining the flexibility to develop workplace-specific action plans based on their internal capacity. For example, a large workplace that joined TravelWise as part of their organization’s aggressive corporate emissions reduction strategy may set a more ambitious set of actions for their workplace than a small business addressing parking issues by encouraging its employees to cycle to work.
To strengthen collaboration among TravelWise members, staff request that the Region support, in principle, TravelWise’s proposed drive-alone reduction goal for the entire Transportation Management Association. Although this goal is a non-binding target for TravelWise and its members, Regional acknowledgement of this goal would demonstrate the Region’s support for utilizing a collective impact approach to increasing community use of sustainable modes of transportation.
As a member of TravelWise, the Region and the commuter choices of its employees will also contribute to this goal. Regional TDM staff currently plan and implement internal commuter programs for Regional employees. Monitoring the Region’s drive-alone rate and contribution to the TravelWise goal falls within the scope of the Region’s TDM program and can continue to be a component of its internal commuter programming initiative. Additionally, ongoing monitoring of this target can enable TravelWise to contribute towards the Region’s existing emission reduction commitments (e.g., Regional Sustainability (Carbon) Initiative). Furthermore, acknowledgement of the TMA- wide reduction target may enable TravelWise to pursue potential future funding opportunities for the implementation of TDM measures. For example, the Ontario Climate Change Action Plan identified future grant opportunities for municipalities and large private employers to implement transportation demand management plans. 2312135 Page 6 of 9
80 80 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
Focus Area 2: Targeted Transit-Supportive Member Growth
TravelWise enjoys a strong co-promotional relationship with GRT. Many current and interested member organizations report that the discounted GRT Corporate Pass program is a key selling feature of TravelWise membership, and pass sales through TravelWise secure revenue and help support GRT’s ridership goals. TravelWise also provides cross-promotional opportunities for GRT by offering real-time transit route
planning through the online trip planning tool at 32TUwww.GoTravelWise.caU32T and by providing on-site GRT service orientation to workplaces (e.g., Bus “n” Bike demonstrations). Moving forward, TravelWise will maintain its strong relationship with GRT by piloting upcoming initiatives, such as the launch of the EasyGO Fare Card System.
In anticipation of ION Rapid Transit, and in alignment with the Transit Supportive Strategy for the City of Cambridge, TravelWise will be instrumental in encouraging rapid transit use among commuters at TravelWise workplaces. For example, TravelWise has recently developed a prospective member outreach strategy for the ION and iXpress corridors in Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo that will continue throughout 2017. In addition to encouraging new transit riders, revenue from new member fees will help offset program overhead costs.
Focus Area 3: Continued Collaboration with Sustainable Waterloo Region
The TravelWise program focus for 2017 was developed in consideration of SWR’s role in delivering cost-effective employer support services to TravelWise members on behalf of the Region of Waterloo since the pilot. To help offset the Regional investments needed to operate TravelWise and deliver support services to participating workplaces, staff recommend the Region enter into a new Collaborative Agreement to retain the services of the not-for-profit organization SWR.
SWR continues to be recognized as the local expert for engaging the business community around environmental issues like sustainable transportation. Entering into a new Collaborative Agreement with SWR would ensure TravelWise has continued access to SWR’s employer support expertise (e.g., reduction target setting and action planning), ongoing business outreach initiatives (e.g., cross-promotion of services), and skilled volunteer pool. The Region would continue to act as the primary administrator of TravelWise and maintain exclusive decision-making authority for the program’s development (e.g., program development, budget allocation, performance evaluation, service planning, etc.).
Focus Area 4: Ongoing Opportunities for Collaboration with Area Municipalities
The regional scale of TravelWise’s service area provides cost savings by eliminating the need for each municipality to create independent workplace programs that offer similar
2312135 Page 7 of 9
81 81 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
commuter options to employers. Additionally, the collaborative approach of TravelWise provides participating workplaces, including the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, an opportunity to share information and resources on successful TDM program development. This helps the cities and the Region better align sustainable transportation policies, programs, and promotions with one another while working with private employers to find solutions to transportation challenges
Corporate Strategic Plan:
TravelWise contributes to the 2015-2018 Strategic Objective 2.1, Action 2.1.4: Develop and implement programs to educate and improve awareness of availability and benefits of transportation choices and options.
TravelWise implements Regional Official Plan policies 3.C.1(b) and 3.C.1(c), respectively by providing TDM programs and services directly to employers, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation.
TravelWise meets Policy Recommendations 7.2.1.1(e) and 7.2.2.5 of the Regional Transportation Master Plan (2011), which recommends a region-wide guaranteed ride home program, and a dedicated program to implement TravelWise-related initiatives, respectively.
The TravelWise program is an example of the Corporate Values of Collaboration, Innovation, and Service at work in the community.
Financial Implications:
Frontline TravelWise program services are delivered by Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR). Since the pilot, the costs to provide the TravelWise program were partially funded from Transport Canada’s ecoMOBILITY program as described in Reports P-13- 105 and TES-TRS-16-01. This historical funding source was expected to be exhausted in 2016, leaving an annual funding shortfall of $77,000 in 2017, which was then requested in a Budget Issue Paper.
During the 2017 budget deliberations, 50 per cent of the requested funding ($38,500) was approved by Regional Council. Given some unexpected residual ecoMOBILITY funding from 2016, programming efficiencies and projected additional revenue from new TravelWise members, the unfunded difference required to deliver TravelWise in 2017 is estimated at $28,595 rather than $38,500. Regional staff identified some short-term cost savings (e.g., reduced program and events budgets for employee travel behaviour surveys, employer recognition, and community-wide promotions), and can continue to deliver the TravelWise program through SWR without negatively impacting services for members in 2017.
Short-term cost saving measures are unlikely to meet the TravelWise program funding 2312135 Page 8 of 9
82 82 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-01
needs beyond 2017, thus the term for program agreements has been restricted to one year. Additional funding required to deliver the TravelWise program in later years may again be identified for Regional Council consideration during the 2018 budget process.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Financial Services and Legal Services were consulted in the development of this report. Legal Services has assisted the development of draft TravelWise Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions Forms and the TravelWise Collaborative Agreement with SWR.
Attachments: Nil.
22TPrepared By:22T Kevan Marshall, Principal Planner, Transportation Demand Management
22T Approved By: 22TThomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2312135 Page 9 of 9
83 83
Report: TES-TRS-17-03 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Transit Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: D28-60(A)
Subject: University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University Student ID card replacement to allow electronic validation of U-Passes
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into agreements with the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University to implement card replacement programs that would ensure U-Passes can be validated electronically using the Region’s upcoming Electronic Fare Management (EFMS) system in a form satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, as described in Report No. TES-TRS-17-03, dated March 7, 2017.
Summary:
To implement electronic validation of Student ID cards as U-Passes using the Region’s upcoming Electronic Fare Management System (EFMS), current Student ID cards must be upgraded. Electronic validation of the U-Passes will reduce passenger boarding times, improve accuracy of U-Pass validation and allow the Region to add or remove ID cards from U-Pass eligibility as student enrolment status changes.
Staff has reached agreements in principle with Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) and the University of Waterloo (UW) to undertake card replacement programs that would be partially funded by the Region. Funding would be based on $5 per eligible student enrolled in the fall 2016 term, to an upset limit of $70,000 at WLU and $150,000 at UW, and would be one-time only. Card replacement would begin in fall 2017 and would be complete by the end of the 2017/ 2018 school year.
Report:
The Region currently has U-Pass agreements with student groups representing full-time
2328188 Page 1 of 3 84 84 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-03
graduate and undergraduate students at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) and the University of Waterloo (UW). These agreements will expire on August 31, 2020.
Currently to board a bus using a U-Pass, students show their valid Student ID card to the transit operator. The Region’s upcoming Electronic Fare Management System (EFMS) will implement the capability to electronically validate U-Passes on GRT buses, MobilityPLUS vehicles and on ION platforms. This will:
• decrease passenger boarding times;
• improve the accuracy of card validation; and,
• allow the Region to add or remove cards from U-Pass eligibility as enrolment status changes.
To implement this capability Student ID cards would need to be upgraded to include an EFMS compliant chip. The upgraded cards would then be able to be tapped for U-Pass validation on new fareboxes on GRT buses, handheld validators on MobilityPLUS vehicles, and on platform validators and ticket vending machines on ION platforms. Student ID cards would also be able to be electronically inspected as proof of payment by GRT fare inspectors.
Staff has met with representatives of WLU and UW, and reached agreement in principle to partially fund card replacement initiatives at both universities. Funding for these initiatives would be based on $5 per eligible student enrolled in the fall 2016 term to a maximum of $70,000 at WLU and $150,000 at UW and would be one-time only. The proposed amount per student represents an approximation of the incremental cost of adding EFMS compatibility to existing card systems including replacement cards and improvements to management systems.
The Universities would undertake to replace existing cards with new cards that would be EFMS compliant. Card replacement programs would begin in fall 2017 and be mostly complete by the end of the 2017/ 2018 school year. Until card replacement is complete current student ID cards would continue to be valid as a U-Pass.
Conestoga College already uses an EFMS compliant Student ID card. EFMS was developed to support future use of the Conestoga College Student ID card as a transit pass. Staff is working with the College to allow students that purchase the College Pass to be able to tap the Student ID to ride GRT, and the student card would be used for a future transition to a U-Pass program.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
Implementation of electronic validation of U-Pass supports the implementation of Council’s Strategic Focus area 2.1: Create a public transportation network that is
2328188 Page 2 of 3 85 85 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRS-17-03
integrated, accessible, affordable and sustainable.
Financial Implications:
The total upset limit of $220,000 for the implementation of the proposed agreements will be funded from the EFMS capital budget as part of the project implementation.
The 2017 GRT Capital Budget includes $2,506,000 (Project 66059) to complete the EFMS project for conventional transit, MobilityPLUS and busPlus services to be funded from development charges (9%; $226,000) and debentures (91%; $2,280,000).
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Finance, Legal and Transit Services were consulted and are in concurrence with this report and its recommendations
Attachments
Nil
20TPrepared By:20T Gethyn Beniston, Project Manager
20T Approved By:20T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2328188 Page 3 of 3 86 86
Report: COR-FFM-17-04 Region of Waterloo Corporate Services Facilities and Fleet Management
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: A20-20
Subject: GRT Northfield Facility Environmental Assessment Report, Project Update and Steering Committee Formation
Recommendation:
That the Region of Waterloo take the following actions regarding the Grand River Transit Northfield Facility construction project;
a) Approve the Environmental Project Report dated February 1, 2017 as prepared by IBI Group and direct staff to file for Notice of Completion of the transit Environmental Assessment process; and
b) Appoint a member of Regional Council to participate on the Project Steering Committee.
Summary:
In May 2015, Council approved the engagement of IBI Group to provide consulting services for the Grand River Transit (GRT) Northfield Drive Facility, Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design (report COR-TRY-15-51). Preliminary design work for the project is complete and the project plans have been presented for information and input at two Public Information Centres as part of the Environmental Assessment process.
An Environmental Project Report has been prepared based on the design that includes an assessment of environmental impacts of the planned facility expansion and must be approved by Council and posted for public review. A Project Steering Committee should also be formed prior to initiation of the detailed design.
2336577 Page 1 of 9
87 87 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
Report:
Background
An updated 2012 Transit Facilities Strategy Update Report was produced using the foundation of the 2008 Transit Facilities Strategy Update Report (Report E-08-032/CR- FM-08-007), and the 2011 Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP). To support the level of transit service expansion envisioned in the RTMP, the Region’s fleet of conventional and specialized transit vehicles will need to grow including the addition of articulating buses for high capacity service on popular corridors and to connect feeder service to ION. The report identified a need to expand bus storage and bus maintenance capacity into Waterloo by 2021.
Environmental Assessment Approval Process
As part of the project, an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be completed. As described in Report COR-FFM-16-03/TES-TRS-16-04 dated February 23, 2016, two Public Consultation Centres have been held to satisfy the public consultation requirement of the EA process.
The Region has also completed an Environmental Project Report (EPR) in accordance with Ontario Regulation 231/08, Section 9 under the Environmental Assessment Act. An Executive Summary of the EPR has been included as Appendix A and the full report is available upon request. Environmental impacts of this planned facility have been examined in accordance with the transit project EA process and have been presented in the report. An EPR must be approved by Council and made available for a 30 day public review period. If at the end of the 30 day review period there are no unresolved comments, the EA process will be deemed complete and construction of the facility may commence. Council Approval of the EPR does not commit the Region to proceeding with construction of the facility.
Steering Committee Formation
In keeping with the Region’s approach to large infrastructure projects, staff recommends the formation of a Project Steering Committee that includes one Regional Councillor, the City of Waterloo Ward Councillor and Region staff. City of Waterloo staff requested that the City Ward Councillor be included on the Project Steering Committee to allow the opportunity for design input. Committee members will establish overall building design principles, help select a consulting team and provide oversight to the project. Staff requests a member from Council to be appointed to the Steering Committee.
2336577 Page 2 of 9
88 88 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
Project Schedule
Detailed design of this facility is anticipated to commence in May 2017, subject to Council approval, and completion of design by March 2018. Demolition of the existing Hydro building located at 300 Northfield Drive is anticipated for summer 2017. Tender for the construction of the facility is anticipated to occur fall of 2018 with construction commencing in January 2019. Substantial completion of the building is expected to be achieved by end of 2020.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
The construction of the Grand River Transit Northfield Facility will support the Corporate Strategic Plan objective to create a public transportation network that is integrated, accessible, affordable and sustainable under Focus Area 2, Sustainable Transportation.
Financial Implications:
The approved 2017 GRT Capital Budget includes approximately $65 million from 2017 to 2021 for this project to be funded from development charges (35.4%), debentures (60.3%) and federal subsidy (4.3%). The detailed design budget is anticipated to be $5.6M which includes $2.8M of federal government funding from Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF) in 2017.
The 2012 Transit Facilities Strategy proposed two options; the construction of a new facility, possibly co-locating with an LRT site, to house 100 buses and the construction of a new facility for 200 buses. The project budget was developed for the 100 bus site, which was the most likely option at that time. However, due to the service expansion needs identified in the draft 2017-2021 GRT Five Year Business Plan, a 200 bus facility is now required.
Staff will work with the consultant during detailed design to minimize costs however is anticipated that the overall project cost will increase due to the larger building size. Staff will propose amendments to the project budget as part of the preliminary 2018- 2027 Capital Program based on a revised project estimate during the design phase of the project. At that point the total project costs can be estimated with greater accuracy and staff will seek approval for the construction of the facility in the 2018 budget process.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
This project is a joint initiative between Transit Services and Facilities and Fleet Management. Staff from Grand River Transit has reviewed and comments have been incorporated into this report.
2336577 Page 3 of 9
89 89 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
Attachments:
Appendix A - EA Environmental Project Report Executive Summary
21TPrepared By:21T Joanne Leeson, Sr. Project Manager
21T Approved By:21T Craig Dyer, Commissioner, Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer
2336577 Page 4 of 9
90 90 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
Appendix A
EA Environmental Project Report Executive Summary
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
The Region of Waterloo retained IBI Group to undertake the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study 'Schedule ‘C' and Preliminary Design for a new transit facility at 300 and 350 Northfield Drive in the City of Waterloo. The study was conducted in accordance with the planning and design process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association "Municipal Class Environmental Assessment," (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015). The Class EA considered options for the site layouts of a new facility that will be used to deploy, service, maintain and store Grand River Transit’s (GRT) conventional and specialized transit vehicles.
2 Objective
The Region adopted the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) “Moving Forward 2031” (2011) which established increased public transit ridership targets. Achieving these targets will require a significant expansion of the Region’s public transit services, GRT and MobilityPLUS, in the immediate and longer-term. A Transit Facilities Update Study (2012) identified that in order to achieve this level of transit service expansion as per the RTMP, the Region’s fleet of conventional and specialized transit vehicles will need to grow rapidly along with the addition of articulated buses and Light Rail Transit (LRT). Consequently, additional facility resources will be required to maintain and store the growing GRT fleet, as well as accommodate administrative and operations functions of the transit system.
3 Environmental Assessment Process
This Class EA was conducted as a Schedule “C‟ Municipal Class EA because the study involves:
“Construction of new maintenance facilities in or adjacent to residential land-use or an environmentally sensitive area including natural heritage features, cultural heritage and archaeological resources, recreational or other sensitive land-uses.”
2336577 Page 5 of 9
91 91 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
The Part II Order provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act provide an opportunity to have the EA reviewed by the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change if any issues or concerns remain unresolved through the EA process.
4 Public Consultation
The Notice of Study Commencement was published in The Record on November 17 and 24, 2015. Notice of Public Consultation Centre (PCC) #1 was published in the Record on February 9 and 16, 2016 and in the Waterloo Chronicle on February 18, 2016. Notice of PCC #2 was published in the Waterloo Chronicle on November 10 and 17, 2016, and pointer ads were published in The Record November 8 and 15, 2016.
The first PCC was held February 24, 2016 and introduced the project and outline the issues to be addressed by the Class EA. At the request of City of Waterloo Councillor Diane Freeman, a second informal PCC was held on March 20, 2016.
The second PCC was held on November 24, 2016 and received public input, comments and concerns on the preliminary preferred site layout concept.
5 Existing Conditions
The study area is situated at the northern boundary of the City of Waterloo. It is bounded to the south by light density industrial areas and residential suburbs beyond. To the north, the study area is surrounded by rural lands with agricultural land use. The study area consists of a former industrial facility (at 300 Northfield Drive, formally Waterloo North Hydro) and associated grounds (parking areas, storm water management areas, and utility yards) in the west, and a triangular area of green-space that is current fallow scrublands in the east (350 Northfield Drive). The study area immediately on the north and south is bounded by the ROWs of University Avenue and Northfield Drive, respectively. Adjacent to the site are the RIM Technology Park, industrial lands and residential quarters.
5.1 Natural Heritage
There are no aquatic features in the study area. The manicured and early successional character of the site vegetation, coupled with the close proximity of busy roads and other human activity, contributes to an assessment of very low likelihood of Species at Risk (SAR) plant or wildlife occurrence.
2336577 Page 6 of 9
92 92 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
The former Waterloo North Hydro building could support incidental summer roosting by endangered bats such as Little Brown (Myotis), but it is not considered to be a potential overwintering site.
5.2 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments were completed and concluded that although two pre-contact Aboriginal findspots were discovered, they did not meet the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archeologists for cultural heritage value or interest. It was concluded that the study area had been fully documented and no further archaeological assessments were required.
A Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment was undertaken and concluded there were no properties located in or adjacent to the study area. In addition, there were no resources of cultural heritage interest located within or adjacent to the study area.
5.3 Geotechnical and Hydrogeology
The underlying soils consist of granular deposits of sand, silty sand and sand and gravel layers and are in compact to dense compactness condition. This is followed by hard grey silty clay till.
The groundwater table is between 1.52 and 2.29 m below the ground surface. It follows the surficial topography, dropping to the north and west.
5.4 Contaminants
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the study area and identified areas of potential environmental concern. A Phase 2 ESA identified site impacts of sodium and chloride in overburden groundwater and five areas of impacted soil and/or groundwater. In 2011 and 2012, remedial actions were undertaken at some locations within the study area. Additional remedial action is required.
5.5 Municipal Infrastructure
The westerly portion of the study (the former Waterloo North Hydro building) had a sanitary connection to the Frobisher Pumping Station via a servicing easement over 295 Frobisher Drive and 2700 University Avenue. In addition this location was serviced by a water connection on the same municipal easement as the sanitary sewer at the rear of 295 Frobisher Drive. As well, there exists a 300 mm diameter watermain along Northfield
2336577 Page 7 of 9
93 93 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
Drive for the entire frontage of the subject site, and approximately 60 m of 300 mm diameter watermain westerly along University Avenue from Northfield Drive.
Storm water from the northwest part of the property drains north overland toward an existing storm sewer on University Avenue, and then enters an outlet channel to the north of University Avenue, which drains north to the Conestoga River. Flows from the east part of the property drain southeast overland toward Northfield Drive, and then enter an existing storm sewer system.
Within the adjacent municipal ROWs, both University Avenue and Northfield Drive, there exists Bell infrastructure, including conduits in the northerly and southerly boulevards of Northfield Drive along with buried cables in the northerly boulevard of Northfield Drive in the northerly boulevard of University Avenue.
There is overhead hydro along the southerly boulevard of the Northfield Drive ROW and along the northerly limit of the University Avenue ROW.
6 Preferred Solution
In early 2012, a number of locations in the City of Waterloo were considered for the transit facility. The search included both properties being actively marketed and those not on the market but which fit select criteria. The site at 300-350 Northfield Drive was selected as the property has frontage along both streets with industrial use abutting its southwest property line. In addition, the site also offered:
Proximity to major thoroughfares; Operationally, efficiently located close to Conestoga Mall transit platforms; Proximity to LRT and Waterloo bus routes; Size of the property allows for future expansion; Existing connections to municipal services; and Available for purchase
7 Preferred Site Layout Concept
The preferred site layout concept includes:
• Perimeter landscaping with naturalized open space to buffer the development • along both frontages;
2336577 Page 8 of 9
94 94 March 7, 2017 Report: COR-FFM-17-04
• Employee parking area with a bridge to main facility entrance; • LEED Silver target applicable to design and construction; • Building mounted and pole mounted lighting to limit light trespass into neighbouring properties; • Outdoor patio; • Indoor storage, maintenance and servicing of 250 equivalent buses; • Single storey facility with a 2 storey administrative block; and • One main and one alternative driveway entrance.
2336577 Page 9 of 9
95 95
Report: TES-TRP-17-02 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Transportation
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: T11-20
Subject: The Region of Waterloo 2016 Collision Report
Recommendation: For information
Summary: The Region of Waterloo 2016 Collision Report summarizes factors associated with traffic collisions that occurred between 2012 and 2016. Each year staff assesses collisions to determine the highest ranked locations related to motor vehicle, cycling and pedestrian collisions. Through the assessment, staff rank the top 100 vehicle collision locations, top 20 pedestrian collision locations and the top 20 cycling collision locations.
Comparing collision statistics in 2014 with collision statistics in 2016, the following general observations have been made:
• The total number of reported collisions decreased by 10% (6462 in 2014 to 5791 in 2016);
• The total number of collisions in 2016 on a per capita basis represents a 20-year low;
• The number of collisions involving cyclists decreased by 19% (107 in 2014 to 87 in 2016);
• The total number of cyclist collisions in 2016 on a per capita basis also represents a 20-year low;
2332036 V8 Page 1 of 26 96 96 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
• The number of persons sustaining fatal injuries in collisions decreased by 33% (9 in 2014 to 6 in 2016);
• The total number of fatal collisions per capita represented a 19-year low;
• The number of injury collisions decreased by 5% (1441 in 2014 to 1371 in 2016);
• The number of persons sustaining injuries in collisions (include drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians) decreased by 6% from 1974 in 2014 to 1851 in 2016; and
• The number of collisions involving pedestrians increased by 6% (113 in 2014 to 120 in 2016).
Staff will review the top-ranked locations (worst for collisions) from the 2016 collision report, determine the causes of any over-represented collision types and assess the potential to reduce those collisions through the implementation of countermeasures.
Staff will follow up in the Fall of 2017 with an additional report(s) that includes recommended countermeasure to address the worst collision locations and an assessment of a potential “Vision Zero” type safety strategy.
Report: 1.0 Background The Regional roadway network is screened annually based on motor vehicle, pedestrian and cycling collisions. The network screening is based on vehicle collisions occurring on roads under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo or occurring at signalized intersections (including pedestrian and mid- block signals) under the jurisdiction of local municipalities and either investigated by Waterloo Region Police Services (WRPS) or reported to the Collision Reporting Centre.
In June 2015, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario legislated an electronic collision reporting system. With this change, WRPS discontinued the paper copy of Motor Vehicle Collision Reports and started sending collision reports electronically. In doing so the Region of Waterloo had to adapt to these significantly different reporting procedures. As a result staff were not in a position to issue the Annual Collision report until March 2017. This report takes into account collisions that occurred in 2015 and 2016.
Each year staff assesses collisions to determine the highest ranked locations related to motor vehicle collisions, pedestrian collisions and cycling collisions.
2332036 V8 Page 2 of 26 97 97 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
The Region ranks the top 100 vehicle collision locations, top 20 pedestrian collision locations and the top 20 cycling collision locations based on a calculated excess social collision cost. The 2016 collision report also includes comparison factors for the years 2012 to 2016.
Each year, staff review the top 10 locations for motor vehicle collisions, top 10 locations for pedestrian collisions and top 10 locations for cycling collisions in greater detail to determine if there are collision patterns that could be addressed by potential countermeasures to improve roadway safety for all road users.
Countermeasures that have been implemented based on collision data from previous years include but are not limited to protected left-turn phases, centre medians, “smart” channels, pedestrian countdown signals, ladder crosswalks, offset crosswalks and roundabouts.
Appendix A to this report is a copy of the Executive Summary of the 2016 Region of Waterloo Collision Report. The full 2016 Collision Report is available in the Transportation Division of the Transportation and Environmental Services Department, 7th Floor, Administration Headquarters Building. Copies of the full 2016 Collision Report will be circulated to the 7 local municipalities, Regional Council Library and the Waterloo Regional Police Services for their information and use. The full 2016 Collision Report will also be made available on the Region’s website under Getting Around/Traffic/Collision Reports.
2.0 Collision History on Regional Roads Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 show the vehicle collision history on Regional roads. In summary, collisions per 1,000 population is trending lower. The large fluctuations that can be seen between 1996 and 2003 were likely related to legislation that changed collision reporting procedures. Notwithstanding this, 2016 total collisions on a per capita basis is at a 20-year low.
Fatal collisions between 2014 and 2016 decreased by 33% (9 in 2014 to 6 in 2016) and injury collisions also decreased by 5% in 2016 when compared to 2014. On a per capita basis, fatal collisions also represent a 19-year low as shown in Figure 2.2.
Cycling collisions between 2014 and 2016 decreased by 19% (107 in 2014 to 87 in 2016). Despite a growing number of cyclists using Regional roads, 2016 represented a 19-year low for total collisions involving cyclists. When accounting for population growth, cycling collisions in 2016 on a per capita basis represented a 20-year low.
2332036 V8 Page 3 of 26 98 98 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Further comparison of the 2014 and 2016 collision data shows an increase of 6% in pedestrian related collisions. Staff believe that the increase in these collisions may be related to the possibility that the number of pedestrians using Regional roads is growing at a faster rate than overall population.
Table 2.1: Vehicle Collision History on Regional Roads
Total Collisions Total Collisions Year Number of Per 1,000 Year Number of Per 1,000 Collisions Population Collisions Population 1996 5656 13.4 2007 5980 11.7
1997 4687 11.0 2008 5823 10.9
1998 4844 11.1 2009 5547 10.4
1999 5138 11.6 2010 5809 10.7
2000 6374 14.1 2011 6031 10.9
2001 6330 13.8 2012 5795 10.4
2002 6976 14.8 2013 6275 11.1
2003 6657 13.9 2014 6462 11.3
2004 6061 12.4 2015 6319 11.0
2005 5748 11.5 2016 5791 10.0
2006 5688 11.2
2332036 V8 Page 4 of 26 99 99 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Figure 2.1: Total Collision History on Regional Roads
Motor Vehicle Collision History 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 Collisions Per Per Collisions 1,000 Population 8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year
Figure 2.2: Fatal Collisions History
Fatal Collisions per 100,000 Population 5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
per Collisions Population 100,000 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year
Figure 2.3 compares trends in motor vehicle collisions per 1,000 population between the Region of Waterloo and the Province of Ontario. In summary it appears that collisions on Regional roads occur less often on a per capita basis compared to other municipalities in Ontario.
2332036 V8 Page 5 of 26 100 100 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Figure 2.3: Regional Collisions vs. Ontario Collisions
Motor Vehicle Collision History 22 20 18 16
14 Ontario 12 Axis Title Region of 10 Waterloo 8 6 Collisions Per Per Collisions 1,000 Population 4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year
Note 1 – Ontario statistics gathered from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario Road Safety Annual Report and include all jurisdictions in the Province of Ontario. Note 2 – Data beyond 2013 was not available from the Ministry of Transportation at the time of preparing this report.
3.0 Collision Ranking 3.1 Vehicle Collision Ranking
The Region of Waterloo adopted the network screening methodology as outlined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in 2014. The HSM provides the best factual information and proven analysis tools for crash frequency prediction. The primary focus of the HSM is to provide the analytical tools for assessing the safety impacts of transportation project and program decisions.
The network screening process applies concepts of observed collisions, expected collisions and predicted collisions. None of these concepts are meant to imply that there is an “acceptable” number of collisions at a given location. Observed collisions, expected collisions and predicted collisions are all used to estimate excess social collision costs. The average cost of a collision that results in property damages (PD) only is estimated to be $5000 ($4500 at roundabouts due to lower speeds). The average cost of a collision that results in a fatal injury or non-fatal injury (FI) to a person is estimated to be $60,500. These estimated costs include property damages and loss of income due to injury etc.
2332036 V8 Page 6 of 26 101 101 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
The value of the excess social cost provides a weighting of the collisions based on severity. For example, a location with a high number of minor (non-injury) collisions may have a lower excess social cost than a location with fewer collisions but a higher severity (injuries and fatalities).
Collision ranking using excess social costs is used to identify those locations that are the highest priority for review and most likely to benefit from collision countermeasures. The collision ranking is not meant to imply that there is an “acceptable” number of collisions at any given location. A total of approximately 3300 locations that are ranked include:
• Intersections of Regional roads;
• Intersections of Regional roads with City/Township roads;
• All signalized intersections;
• Stop-controlled intersections on Regional roads;
• Roundabouts on Regional roads (locations with 5-years of data); and
• Mid-block locations along Regional roads. Mid-block locations are the roadway sections between any two intersections, signalized or unsignalized.
Appendix B lists the worst 100 vehicular collision locations. Staff will review 5 years of collision data for each location ranked from 1 to 10 to determine if there is a collision pattern that could be mitigated through countermeasures. Table 3.1 lists the first 10 ranked locations.
2332036 V8 Page 7 of 26 102 102 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Table 3.1: First 10 Ranked Vehicle Collision Locations for 2016
Total Estimated 2016 2014 5 year Average Location Municipality Rank Rank Collisions Annual Observed Excess Social (2012-2016) Cost Homer Watson Blvd at 1 * N/A Kit 494 $271,780 Block Line
Ottawa St at Homer 2 1 Kit 221 $220,114 Watson Blvd
Homer Watson Blvd at 3 3 Manitou Dr/Doon Kit 154 $155,419 Village Rd
Victoria St between 4 10 Kit 115 $148,083 Bruce St and Edna St
Franklin Blvd between 5 7 Clyde Rd (Samuelson Cam 87 $145,587 St) and Savage Dr
Fairway Rd at Wilson 6 11 Kit 161 $140,417 Ave
Franklin Blvd at 7 2 Cam 140 $135,118 Can-Amera Pkwy
Hespeler Rd at Bishop 8 8 Cam 131 $101,489 St
Franklin Blvd at Elgin 9 4 Cam 128 $97,947 St/Saginaw Pkwy
Eagle St N between 10 15 Hespeler Rd and Cam 86 $95,462 Industrial Rd
*This location was not included in 2014 ranking due to less than 5-year of collision data since opening of the roundabout
2332036 V8 Page 8 of 26 103 103 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
The top 10 vehicle collision locations list saw 3 new locations moved into the 2016 list. The Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line roundabout now ranks #1. It was not previously ranked due to having less than 5 year of collisions data. The intersection of Fairway Road at Wilson Avenue now ranks #6 in 2016 and the midblock section of Eagle Street North between Hespeler Road and Industrial Road now ranks #10 in 2016.
See Appendix B for more detail regarding fatal/injury (FI) and property damage (PD) collisions for all top 100 locations.
3.2 Pedestrian and Cyclist Collision Ranking
Pedestrian and cyclist collision ranking is based on the difference between observed collisions and predicted collisions and resulting annual excess social cost estimated at each Regional intersection and midblock location. Appendix C and D list the first 20 ranked pedestrian and cyclist collision locations while Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 list the first 10 ranked locations. Staff will review 5 years of collision data for each location ranked from 1 to 10 to determine if there is a collision pattern that could be mitigated through countermeasures.
2332036 V8 Page 9 of 26 104 104 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Table 3.2.1 - First 10 Ranked Pedestrian Collision Locations for 2016
Estimated Total Average 5 year Rank Rank Location of Pedestrian Annual Municipality Collisions 2016 2014 Collisions Excess Observed Social (2012-2016) Cost 1 1 King St at University Ave WAT 9 $91,840
2 6 King St at Bishop St CAM 8 $88,310
River Rd at Holborn Dr 3 4 /Access to Stanley Park KIT 7 $79,359 Mall
4 7 Westmount Rd at Victoria KIT 7 $71,358
Erb St at Erbsville Rd 5 16 KIT 8 $69,772 /IRA Needles Blvd
6 2 Ainslie St at Main St CAM 7 $65,429
King St between Andrew and North to Signal 7 3 KIT 5 $58,373 (Central /KCI) Bridgeport Rd at King St
Kingsway Dr (multi-res 8 24 driveway) at Wilson KIT 5 $56,160 Avenue
9 5 King St at Queen St KIT 5 $55,044
Block Line Rd at 10 12 KIT 5 $53,985 Strasburg Rd
The first 10 ranked pedestrian collision locations for 2016 shows that there were 3 locations moving into the top 10 list. The Erb Street at Erbsville Road/Ira Needles roundabout ranked #16 in 2014 and now ranks #5. The intersection of Kingsway Drive and Wilson Avenue ranked # 24 in 2014 and now ranks #8. The intersection of Block Line Road and Strasburg Road ranked #12 in 2014, now ranks #10 in 2016.
2332036 V8 Page 10 of 26 105 105 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Table 3.2.2 - First 10 Ranked Cyclist Collision Locations for 2016
Total Estimated 5-year Average Rank Rank Location of Cyclist Collisions Annual Municipality 2016 2014 Collisions Observed Excess (2012-2016) Social Cost 1 1 Cedar St at King St KIT 6 $79,739
Hespeler Rd at Munch 2 2 CAM 7 $70,565 Ave/Isherwood Ave
Courtland Ave at Siebert 3 3 Ave (commercial KIT 6 $67,012 driveway
Hespeler Rd at Avenue 4 32 CAM 4 $59,259 Rd/Jaffray St
Hespeler Rd at Bishop 5 16 CAM 5 $57,606 St
University Ave E 6 63 between Regina & WAT 4 $57,166 Weber
Highland Road at 7 12 KIT 5 $48,907 Fischer-Hallman Rd
Ottawa St at Homer 8 5 KIT 4 $46,706 Watson Blvd
9 18 Water St at Main St CAM 4 $43,072
10 75 King St at Stirling Ave KIT 4 $42,693
The first 10 ranked cycling collision locations for 2016 shows that there were 6 locations moving into the top 10 cyclist collision locations list in 2016. Staff will review 5 years of collision data for these locations along with the other locations in the top 10 list.
3.3 Roundabouts
The Region has a total of 29 roundabouts on Regional Roads. Only 17 roundabouts have at least 5-year of collision data and are included in the overall ranking. Transportation Engineering collaborated with Ryerson University to develop a safety performance function (SPF) for roundabouts. A safety performance function (SPF) is an equation used to predict the average number of collisions per year at a location as
2332036 V8 Page 11 of 26 106 106 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
a function of exposure and, in some cases, roadway or intersection characteristics (e.g., number of lanes, traffic control, or median type). Starting in 2014, roundabouts were screened using SPF prediction models to estimate expected annual collisions based on total estimated daily turning conflicts at roundabouts. This allowed 17 roundabouts to be ranked with all the other locations in the Region.
Roundabouts that have less than 5-years of data were not included in the overall ranking. Table 3.3.1 shows the list of 12 roundabout locations that have less than 5 years of data and shows the details of total number of collisions, pedestrian collisions and injury collisions. These locations will be added to the screening once 5-years of data is available.
The Region’s roundabouts generally continue to perform with low amounts of serious injuries, pedestrian and cyclist collisions.
Table 3.3.1: Collisions at Roundabout Locations
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Location Opened I P T I P T I P T I P T I P T Fairway & Zeller, Dec. 12 0* 0* 0* 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 0 8 Kitchener Hespeler & Beaverdale/Queen, Aug. 13 n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 23* 6 0 63 7 0 53 3 0 39 Cambridge Westmount & Laurelwood, Dec. 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 0* 1 0 2 0 0 1 Waterloo Franklin & Savage, Dec. 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 1* 2 0 8 Cambridge Franklin & Sheldon, Dec. 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 2* 3 0 39 Cambridge Franklin & Bishop, Dec. 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 1* 4 0 46 Cambridge Bleams & Manitou, Dec. 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 0* 4 0 15 Kitchener Franklin & Main, Sep. 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 19* Cambridge Franklin & Pinebush Sep. 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 0 49* Clyde & Franklin, Sep. 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 0 5* Cambridge Erb & Landfill Gate 1 /Waterloo West Nov. 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 0* Centre (Costco) Erb & Landfill Gate Nov. 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0* 0* 0* 2 /Platinum * Note: denotes partial year I = Injury Collision P = Pedestrian Collision T = Total Number of Collisions 2332036 V8 Page 12 of 26 107 107 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
3.4 Fatal Collisions
In addition to the collision ranking of locations on Regional roads, staff routinely review each location where a fatal collision has occurred. Staff’s investigation includes a review of the 5-year collision history of the location as well as a site investigation. As part of the collision review, staff identify the dominant and over- represented collisions that occurred at the location. During the site investigation, staff will check sightlines, pavement markings, traffic signs, illumination levels and pavement marking conditions. From the review of the collision history and the site investigation, staff will then consider the potential to mitigate the dominant and or over-represented collisions through proven countermeasures.
4.0 Safety Assessment
4.1 Countermeasures Program
Each year, staff review the top-ranked locations (worst for collisions) from the annual collision report, determine the causes of any dominant and/or over-represented collision types and assess the potential to reduce those collision types through the implementation of proven countermeasures.
Typical countermeasures considered, as part of past countermeasure programs included:
• Roundabouts;
• Dual left-turn lanes;
• Protected left-turns at signalized intersections;
• Raised medians and pedestrian refuge islands;
• Offset crosswalks (crosswalks set back further from intersections);
• Rumble strips;
• “Smart” channels;
• Additional illumination
• Pedestrian countdown signals;
• High-visibility ladder crosswalks; and
• Installation of cycling lanes to reduce cycling on sidewalks.
2332036 V8 Page 13 of 26 108 108 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
As an example of an effective countermeasure to reduce pedestrian collisions, the Region has implemented pedestrian countdown signals (PCS) at traffic signals. Since the installation of PCS, pedestrian collisions have reduced by 20% at traffic signals.
4.2 Vision Zero
“Vision Zero” is an initiative adopted by Sweden in 1997 that recognizes that road fatalities and injuries are preventable. “Vision Zero” is a long term goal aimed to have zero fatalities and serious injuries through the use of education, enforcement, engineering, evaluation and engagement. Many road authorities in Europe and North America have adapted various forms of a “Vision Zero” strategy; some of which did or did not include clear targets for fatality and injury reductions.
Although the Region has not officially adopted “Vision Zero”, staff continually strive to reduce collisions of all severities that occur on the Regional road system. The Region’s routine programs already in place to reduce collisions of all severities includes but is not limited to the following:
• Fatal collision reviews;
• Annual Collision Report;
• Top 10 vehicle collision review;
• Top 10 pedestrian collision review;
• Top 10 cycling collision review;
• Annual Countermeasures Program;
• Safety through planning and design;
• Planned safety enhancements incorporated into every Transportation Capital project; and
• Education (roundabouts, pedestrian and cycling safety)
Staff is investigating safety strategies adopted by other road authorities such as the Cities of Toronto and London, Ontario. Staff will compare some of these strategies with current Region of Waterloo practices and will provide this comparison to Regional Council along with a recommended strategy.
4.3 Pedestrian Safety Strategy at Signalized Intersections
The Region is also currently developing an enhanced strategy to reduce pedestrian collisions at signalized intersections. The strategy will enhance current countermeasure programs by including the use of signal phasing and timing to make 2332036 V8 Page 14 of 26 109 109 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
pedestrians more visible at signalized intersections. For example, a leading pedestrian phase could provide pedestrian priority and allow pedestrians to begin crossing intersections before motorists and thus be more visible.
5.0 Next Steps
Staff plan to present a report to Regional Council in September 2017 that includes an assessment of the top 10 vehicular collision locations, top 10 pedestrian collision locations and top 10 cycling collision locations in detail. The report will also include an assessment of potential countermeasures for these locations.
Staff plan to present a report to Regional Council in the Summer/Fall of 2017 regarding its assessment of “Vision Zero” strategies and recommendations for a “Made in Waterloo” Safety Strategy.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
This report addresses the Region’s goal to enhance and implement safety awareness and education programs for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. (Strategic Objective 2.4.1).
Financial Implications
Nil
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Nil
Attachments
Appendix A – Executive Summary of the 2016 Region of Waterloo Collision Report
Appendix B – 2016 Vehicular Collision Ranking
Appendix C – 2016 Pedestrian Collision Ranking
Appendix D – 2016 Cyclist Collision Ranking
26TPrepared By:26T Ashfaq Rauf, Engineering Technologist (Traffic)
26T Approved By:26T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2332036 V8 Page 15 of 26 110 110 Appendix A Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Executive Summary 2016 Collision Report
STATISTIC 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Number of Collisions 5791 6321 6462 6275 5795
Number of Fatal Collisions 6 9 9 10 10
Number of Injury Collisions 1371 1486 1441 1433 1350
Number of Collisions Involving 120 150 113 109 154 Pedestrians
Number of Collisions Involving 87 110 107 122 130 Cyclists
Number of Persons Injured in Collisions (includes drivers, 1851 2049 1974 1965 1898 passengers, cyclists and pedestrians)
Number of Persons Sustaining Fatal Injuries in Collisions 6 11 9 10 10 (includes drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians)
Percentage of Collisions 64% 66% 63% 64% 65% Occurring at Intersections
Day with Highest Number of Thursday Friday Friday Friday Friday Collisions
Month with Highest Number of December February January October January Collisions
Time of Day with Highest 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Number of Collisions
Most Common Collision Type Rear End Rear End Rear End Rear End Rear End
Most Frequently Recorded Following Following Following Following Following Improper Driving Action Too Close Too Close Too Close Too Close Too Close
Percentage of Alcohol-Related 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% Collisions
Horse-Drawn Vehicle 0 5 5 11 8 Collisions
2332036 V8 Page 16 of 26 111 111 Appendix B Report: TES-TRP-17-02
2016 Top 100 Vehicular Collision Ranking
FI = Fatality/Injury PD = Property Damage
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
1 10941 HOMER WATSON BLVD at Block Line Rd KIT RA 38080 435 10.20 4.40 6.00 88.60 39.20 77.60 $271,780.00
2 11768 OTTAWA ST at HOMER WATSON BLVD KIT TS 54434 178 10.40 2.00 4.00 33.80 7.70 27.40 $220,114.00
HOMER WATSON BLVD at MANITOU DR/Doon 3 21818 KIT TS 54537 125 8.40 2.10 3.70 22.40 8.00 18.90 $155,419.00 Village Rd
4 12688 VICTORIA ST N btwn BRUCE & EDNA KIT 32036 99 5.80 2.80 4.50 17.20 6.40 15.80 $148,083.00
FRANKLIN BLVD btwn CLYDE (SAMUELSON) 5 13830 CAM 26317 66 6.40 3.10 5.20 11.00 6.90 10.50 $145,587.00 & Savage
6 10710 FAIRWAY RD at Wilson Ave KIT TS 41021 141 8.00 1.70 3.00 24.20 6.60 19.20 $140,417.00
7 27986 FRANKLIN BLVD at CAN-AMERA PKWY CAM TS 48220 121 7.20 2.10 3.50 20.80 8.00 17.90 $135,118.00
8 20363 HESPELER RD at BISHOP ST CAM TS 47586 109 6.80 2.20 3.20 19.40 8.30 16.60 $101,489.00
9 19083 FRANKLIN BLVD at Elgin St/Saginaw Pkwy CAM TS 49317 95 6.40 2.30 3.20 19.20 8.70 17.10 $97,947.00
10 19445 EAGLE ST N btwn HESPELER & Industrial CAM 20476 72 5.00 1.10 2.10 12.20 2.70 8.90 $95,462.00
11 6349 OTTAWA ST at WESTMOUNT RD KIT TS 36100 99 7.00 1.20 2.00 18.00 4.50 13.00 $95,185.00
12 6271 OTTAWA ST at FISCHER-HALLMAN RD KIT TS 52350 116 6.60 3.10 4.00 21.60 12.00 20.20 $95,111.00
13 7533 WEBER ST at UNIVERSITY AVE WAT TS 40060 112 5.00 1.30 2.00 20.60 5.10 15.60 $90,219.00
LACKNER BLVD/Bingemans Centre at 14 10258 KIT TS 42472 93 5.40 1.90 2.80 16.80 7.40 14.40 $89,676.00 VICTORIA ST
CORONATION BLVD/DUNDAS ST at 15 18008 CAM TS 59409 134 6.00 3.60 4.30 24.00 13.90 22.50 $89,093.00 HESPELER RD/WATER ST
16 20632 VICTORIA ST at FISCHER-HALLMAN RD KIT TS 40196 86 6.00 1.50 2.40 14.60 5.70 11.60 $86,260.00
17 6110 HIGHLAND RD at FISCHER-HALLMAN RD KIT TS 40434 80 6.40 1.70 2.70 13.60 6.40 11.60 $85,801.00
2332036 V8 Page 17 of 26 112 112 B 18 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
18 15355 HESPELER RD at EAGLE ST/PINEBUSH RD CAM TS 56802 127 6.00 4.10 4.80 25.60 15.70 24.60 $85,392.00
FAIRWAY RD S btwn Wilson & W to 19 10714 KIT 30322 82 4.40 2.40 3.10 15.20 5.40 13.80 $85,206.00 Signals(Fairway Best Plaza)
20 22058 HOMER WATSON BLVD at Pioneer Dr KIT TS 38556 94 5.40 1.70 2.50 17.00 6.60 14.10 $81,756.00
21 12372 EBYCREST RD/Woolwich St at VICTORIA ST WOO TS 37191 48 2.20 1.00 2.00 8.40 3.20 7.40 $78,438.00
HESPELER RD btwn EAGLE/PINEBUSH & S to 22 19365 CAM 32350 60 3.60 1.80 2.50 12.20 4.60 10.70 $77,566.00 Signals-Petsmart/Travel Lo#600/605/611
23 17349 KING ST at FOUNTAIN ST (RR 8/17) CAM TS 27304 113 5.40 1.40 2.00 22.60 2.40 11.00 $77,302.00
24 22325 KING ST at FAIRWAY RD KIT TS 41163 102 4.60 2.50 3.00 20.20 9.50 17.80 $74,841.00
25 11084 WEBER ST at VICTORIA ST KIT TS 38752 82 4.80 1.60 2.30 14.60 6.30 12.40 $73,511.00
26 10831 OTTAWA ST at Strasburg Rd KIT TS 29624 93 4.60 1.30 1.80 17.20 4.90 13.10 $73,193.00
27 6959 LANCASTER ST/Lancaster St at VICTORIA ST KIT TS 36215 80 4.80 1.70 2.50 14.40 6.70 12.60 $73,120.00
28 11629 OTTAWA ST at Alpine Rd/Hwy 7/8 EB Off Ramp KIT TS 31529 81 5.20 1.50 2.10 15.60 5.60 12.60 $71,702.00
29 21985 HOMER WATSON BLVD at BLEAMS RD KIT TS 38506 77 5.00 1.60 2.30 12.80 6.10 10.80 $69,222.00
30 8511 WESTMOUNT RD at VICTORIA ST KIT TS 40735 93 5.40 1.50 2.10 16.00 6.00 13.00 $66,572.00
WESTMOUNT RD/Max Becker Dr at FISCHER- 31 26749 KIT TS 29723 80 5.40 1.00 1.60 12.80 3.80 9.30 $64,309.00 HALLMAN RD
32 2695 ARTHUR ST S btwn Gerrat & SAWMILL WOO 24484 45 3.40 1.50 2.50 6.80 4.10 5.50 $64,267.00
33 14593 DUNDAS ST at FRANKLIN BLVD CAM TS 29505 73 4.60 1.10 1.60 13.00 4.10 9.50 $61,011.00
34 18248 DUNDAS ST at BEVERLY ST/Beverly St CAM TS 30124 70 5.20 1.50 2.20 10.40 5.70 8.80 $60,959.00
35 13957 DUNDAS ST at MAIN ST CAM TS 29313 74 5.40 1.00 1.60 11.80 3.90 8.90 $60,645.00
36 5899 KING ST at VICTORIA ST KIT TS 33623 83 3.20 1.30 1.60 17.60 5.10 13.40 $60,631.00
37 18343 DUNDAS ST at Wellington St CAM SS 21243 58 4.40 0.50 1.30 8.60 0.80 3.70 $59,644.00
2332036 V8 Page 18 of 26 113 113 B 19 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
38 670 KING ST at NORTHFIELD DR WAT TS 41797 84 3.80 1.60 2.00 16.00 6.20 13.10 $59,039.00
39 7613 KING ST at Columbia St WAT TS 46343 80 4.00 1.70 2.10 14.60 6.50 12.60 $58,091.00
40 8991 UNIVERSITY AVE E btwn Regina & WEBER WAT 18740 60 2.60 1.10 1.40 12.80 2.30 9.30 $57,879.00
41 10410 VICTORIA ST N btwn Forfar & Frederick KIT 30631 55 3.40 1.50 2.10 9.40 3.80 8.10 $55,528.00
42 373 KING ST at UNIVERSITY AVE WAT TS 47507 97 5.20 2.00 2.20 19.00 7.60 16.10 $55,484.00
43 1419 WESTMOUNT RD at UNIVERSITY AVE WAT TS 37394 77 4.20 1.30 1.60 15.20 4.80 11.50 $55,276.00
44 20333 HESPELER RD at Langs Dr/Sheldon Dr CAM TS 45264 95 4.40 2.20 2.50 18.00 8.40 15.90 $53,726.00
45 11708 OTTAWA ST at WEBER ST KIT TS 34060 84 4.00 1.30 1.60 15.80 5.10 11.80 $52,971.00
HESPELER RD btwn Munch & CAN- 46 20352 CAM 34629 38 3.00 0.90 1.60 5.80 2.40 4.30 $52,701.00 AMERA/YMCA #250
HESPELER RD at MAPLE GROVE RD/Fisher 47 18701 CAM TS 27626 56 5.00 1.10 1.70 8.80 4.30 7.10 $51,616.00 Mills Rd
KING ST at SPORTSWORLD DR/Pioneer 48 16064 KIT TS 47611 91 3.60 2.80 3.10 18.20 10.60 17.00 $51,557.00 Tower Rd
49 20994 HIGHLAND RD W btwn Butler & WESTMOUNT KIT 20398 60 1.80 1.00 1.30 12.00 2.10 8.40 $51,471.00
50 366 KING ST N btwn Hickory & UNIVERSITY WAT 22010 49 2.80 0.80 1.30 8.00 1.70 5.50 $50,933.00
51 8754 HIGHLAND RD at Belmont Ave KIT TS 26509 62 6.00 1.50 2.10 9.40 5.60 7.80 $50,927.00
52 20993 HIGHLAND RD at WESTMOUNT RD KIT TS 41459 76 3.80 1.40 1.70 14.00 5.30 11.00 $50,586.00
IRA NEEDLES BLVD btwn HIGHLAND & 53 600734 KIT 26668 44 3.20 1.30 1.90 7.00 3.10 5.90 $50,487.00 VICTORIA
HESPELER RD btwn Dunbar & CAN- 54 30956 CAM 37164 41 2.60 1.50 2.10 7.00 4.10 6.40 $50,486.00 AMERA/YMCA #250
ERB ST at ERBSVILLE RD/IRA NEEDLES 55 29541 WAT RA 28585 215 5.40 4.10 4.40 44.80 36.60 42.90 $49,774.00 BLVD
56 8520 VICTORIA ST at Belmont Ave KIT TS 27725 60 3.60 1.20 1.60 11.40 4.70 9.20 $46,297.00
2332036 V8 Page 19 of 26 114 114 B 20 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
57 11572 OTTAWA ST at River Rd KIT TS 38054 75 3.80 1.60 1.90 13.80 6.20 11.60 $45,270.00
58 8992 WEBER ST at Columbia St WAT TS 32844 64 2.80 1.20 1.50 12.60 4.60 9.90 $45,109.00
59 18302 WATER ST at CEDAR ST/CONCESSION ST CAM TS 36315 65 4.60 1.60 2.10 10.40 6.10 8.90 $44,558.00
HESPELER RD at CAN-AMERA/YMCA (250 60 28255 CAM TS 45164 72 4.40 2.20 2.70 12.80 8.40 11.70 $44,338.00 Hespeler Rd)
61 20569 ERB ST at UNIVERSITY AVE WAT TS 29549 54 4.40 1.00 1.50 9.20 4.00 7.40 $44,228.00
62 14504 AINSLIE ST at PARK HILL RD/Park Hill Rd CAM TS 25751 55 3.80 1.10 1.50 10.00 4.20 7.90 $43,994.00
63 22108 FAIRWAY RD at Hwy 8 SB Ramp KIT TS 42120 58 5.00 2.60 3.10 10.60 4.80 7.90 $42,752.00
64 20586 UNIVERSITY AVE at FISCHER-HALLMAN RD WAT TS 35097 68 4.40 1.30 1.70 11.80 5.10 9.20 $42,654.00
65 9234 OTTAWA ST at KING ST/King St KIT TS 29132 71 3.40 1.00 1.30 12.60 3.70 8.60 $42,504.00
66 1394 ERB ST at WESTMOUNT RD WAT TS 34555 63 3.80 1.30 1.60 11.40 4.90 9.30 $41,522.00
67 20107 HESPELER RD at Munch Ave/Isherwood Ave CAM TS 44339 75 4.20 2.10 2.30 13.60 7.80 12.50 $41,087.00
68 20365 HESPELER RD at Dunbar Rd CAM TS 42795 75 5.00 2.20 2.60 12.40 8.30 11.50 $40,621.00
69 13954 DUNDAS ST S btwn FRANKLIN & MAIN CAM 13967 46 2.40 0.60 1.00 9.20 1.60 5.30 $40,392.00
70 21307 TRUSSLER RD at CEDAR CREEK RD NDF SS 8177 16 1.60 0.60 1.30 2.00 1.20 1.70 $40,209.00
71 22283 FAIRWAY RD at RIVER RD/River Rd KIT TS 23781 52 2.80 1.20 1.50 11.20 4.80 9.20 $38,535.00
72 8772 VICTORIA ST at Park St KIT TS 41167 55 4.40 1.90 2.50 8.60 7.40 8.50 $38,495.00
73 16338 ROSEVILLE RD at DICKIE SETTLEMENT RD NDF SS 10483 19 1.80 0.30 0.90 2.00 1.00 1.40 $38,373.00
74 18979 HESPELER RD btwn Hwy 401 Ramps CAM 36283 25 1.80 0.80 1.30 4.40 2.10 3.50 $37,696.00
FISCHER-HALLMAN RD btwn Activa & 75 21754 KIT 24140 42 2.40 1.30 1.50 8.60 3.10 7.10 $37,624.00 OTTAWA
76 20086 HESPELER RD at Avenue Rd/Jaffray St CAM TS 38134 63 5.60 1.90 2.40 10.40 7.40 9.40 $37,168.00
77 14495 WATER ST at PARK HILL RD CAM TS 29717 58 3.00 1.00 1.30 10.40 3.80 7.50 $36,839.00
2332036 V8 Page 20 of 26 115 115 B 21 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
78 270 UNIVERSITY AVE at Albert St WAT TS 33364 53 5.00 1.30 1.70 8.40 4.90 7.20 $36,628.00
79 7303 FISCHER-HALLMAN RD at Columbia St WAT TS 34376 53 2.80 1.00 1.30 11.00 4.00 8.40 $35,976.00
80 8449 ERB ST at FISCHER-HALLMAN RD WAT TS 33722 68 3.20 1.20 1.40 12.00 4.70 9.50 $35,847.00
81 7842 WEBER ST at KING ST WAT TS 38470 61 3.00 1.60 1.80 12.20 6.10 10.70 $35,269.00
82 9772 VICTORIA ST at EDNA ST (com'l driveway) KIT TS 34214 69 2.60 1.70 1.80 12.60 6.40 11.10 $34,774.00
FAIRWAY RD at Fairview Park Mall/Access to 83 28246 KIT MTS 34520 68 3.20 1.60 1.90 11.60 6.10 10.00 $34,387.00 225 Fairway Rd
84 6775 FREDERICK ST at WEBER ST KIT TS 25071 56 2.60 1.00 1.30 9.80 4.00 7.50 $33,675.00
OTTAWA ST S btwn Alpine & W to 85 11628 KIT 24565 33 2.40 0.90 1.20 6.60 2.10 5.00 $32,731.00 Signals(Laurentian Pwr Cntr)
86 17750 WATER ST at Samuelson St/GCI driveway CAM TS 30464 47 3.80 1.80 2.30 7.40 6.80 7.10 $31,651.00
BRIDGE ST at UNIVERSITY AVE/University 87 8967 WAT TS 40419 69 3.00 1.60 1.70 13.00 6.00 11.00 $31,620.00 Ave
88 7496 UNIVERSITY AVE at Dale Cr/Lincoln Rd WAT TS 32341 46 4.00 1.60 2.00 7.00 6.10 6.80 $31,478.00
89 16210 FOUNTAIN ST at MAPLE GROVE RD CAM TS 24665 53 2.80 0.90 1.10 9.80 3.50 7.40 $31,043.00
90 18638 ST. ANDREWS ST at CEDAR ST CAM TS 23462 47 2.80 0.90 1.10 8.20 3.30 6.10 $30,980.00
91 7614 UNIVERSITY AVE E btwn Marsland & WEBER WAT 21614 36 2.00 1.20 1.50 6.40 2.60 5.30 $30,953.00
92 21001 WESTMOUNT RD at Queen's Blvd KIT TS 29425 49 3.60 1.30 1.50 8.60 4.80 7.50 $30,312.00
UNIVERSITY AVE at Seagram Dr/UofW Ring 93 7182 WAT TS 33829 55 3.20 1.40 1.70 10.60 5.50 8.90 $30,293.00 Rd
94 7519 WEBER ST at BRIDGEPORT RD WAT TS 34788 68 2.40 1.90 1.90 14.60 7.10 12.60 $30,159.00
95 5888 VICTORIA ST at Duke St KIT TS 24813 46 3.40 1.30 1.60 7.00 4.80 6.50 $29,823.00
96 30828 HIGHLAND RD at IRA NEEDLES BLVD KIT RA 35030 185 3.20 3.20 3.20 38.00 28.80 35.40 $29,618.00
97 12495 EBYCREST RD at BRIDGE ST WOO SS 9952 27 1.40 0.30 0.60 4.00 0.70 1.80 $29,237.00
2332036 V8 Page 21 of 26 116 116 B 22 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Excess Tot FI FI FI PD PD PD Social 2015 Col Observed Predicted Expected Observed Predicted Expected Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Costs Vol (5yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr) (Avg/Yr)
FISCHER-HALLMAN RD btwn Greenbrook/Hwy 98 6143 KIT 29687 43 2.60 2.10 2.30 7.40 4.70 7.10 $27,306.00 7&8 WB Ramp & McGarry
HESPELER RD btwn Sheldon/Langs & S to 99 19338 CAM 35113 65 3.20 2.40 2.40 13.20 6.40 12.10 $27,105.00 Signals-Shoppers #471/480/499
100 18120 HESPELER RD at Brooklyne Rd CAM SS 35563 37 2.40 0.90 1.10 5.60 1.40 3.50 $27,058.00
2332036 V8 Page 22 of 26 117 117 Appendix C Report: TES-TRP-17-02
2016 Top 20 Pedestrian Collision Ranking Annual Average/Year Excess
5 Yr. Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Observed Predicted Diff Social Cost Tot Col
1 373 KING ST at UNIVERSITY AVE WAT TS 9 1.80 0.30 1.50 $91,840.81
KING ST at BISHOP ST/Bishop 2 17215 CAM TS 8 1.60 0.10 1.50 $88,310.03 St
River Rd at Holborn Dr/Access to 3 11503 KIT TS 7 1.40 0.10 1.30 $79,359.89 Stanley Park Mall
WESTMOUNT RD at VICTORIA 4 8511 KIT TS 7 1.40 0.20 1.20 $71,358.19 ST
ERB ST at ERBSVILLE RD/IRA 5 29541 WAT RA 8 1.60 0.40 1.20 $69,771.94 NEEDLES BLVD
6 14477 AINSLIE ST at Main St CAM TS 7 1.20 0.10 1.10 $65,429.21
KING ST W btwn Andrew & N to 7 11061 KIT 5 1.00 0.00 1.00 $58,373.04 signals (Central/KCI)
Kingsway Dr (multi-res driveway) 8 10715 KIT TS 5 1.00 0.10 0.90 $56,160.72 at Wilson Ave
9 6632 King St at Queen St KIT TS 5 1.00 0.10 0.90 $55,044.40
10 10816 Block Line Rd at Strasburg Rd KIT TS 5 1.00 0.10 0.90 $53,985.77
2332036 V8 Page 23 of 26 118 118 C-2 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Annual Average/Year Excess
5 Yr. Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Observed Predicted Diff Social Cost Tot Col
UNIVERSITY AVE at Phillip St 11 275 WAT TS 5 1.00 0.10 0.90 $52,521.82 (com'l driveway)
12 270 UNIVERSITY AVE at Albert St WAT TS 5 1.00 0.20 0.80 $49,486.26
13 10710 FAIRWAY RD at Wilson Ave KIT TS 5 1.00 0.20 0.80 $45,783.58
14 14517 Main St at Wellington St CAM TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $45,127.17
HESPELER RD at Avenue 15 20086 CAM TS 5 1.00 0.30 0.70 $43,957.36 Rd/Jaffray St
16 20365 HESPELER RD at Dunbar Rd CAM TS 5 1.00 0.30 0.70 $41,854.04
17 14619 DUNDAS ST at Elgin St CAM TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $41,470.44
18 8880 VICTORIA ST at Joseph St KIT TS 4 0.80 0.20 0.60 $39,064.00
19 10967 WEBER ST at Franklin St KIT TS 4 0.80 0.20 0.60 $37,580.00
VICTORIA ST S btwn Weichel & 20 1726 KIT 3 0.60 0.00 0.60 $34,750.52 WESTMOUNT
2332036 V8 Page 24 of 26 119 119 Appendix D Report: TES-TRP-17-02
2016 Top 20 Cyclist Collision Ranking Annual 5 yr. Average/Year Excess Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Tot Col Observed Predicted Diff Social Cost 1 11301 Cedar St AT King St KIT TS 6 1.40 0.10 1.30 $79,739.51 HESPELER RD AT Munch 2 20107 CAM TS 7 1.40 0.20 1.20 $70,565.03 Ave/Isherwood Ave COURTLAND AVE AT Siebert 3 10741 KIT SS 6 1.20 0.10 1.10 $67,012.35 Ave (com'l driveway) HESPELER RD AT Avenue 4 20086 CAM TS 4 1.20 0.20 1.00 $59,259.16 Rd/Jaffray St 5 20363 HESPELER RD AT BISHOP ST CAM TS 5 1.20 0.20 1.00 $57,606.45 UNIVERSITY AVE E BTWN 6 8991 WAT 4 1.00 0.10 0.90 $57,166.41 Regina & WEBER HIGHLAND RD AT FISCHER- 7 6110 KIT TS 5 1.00 0.20 0.80 $48,907.84 HALLMAN RD OTTAWA ST AT HOMER 8 11768 KIT TS 4 1.00 0.20 0.80 $46,706.21 WATSON BLVD 9 14475 WATER ST AT MAIN ST/Man St CAM TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $43,072.03 10 6913 King St AT Stirling Ave KIT TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $42,693.66 QUEEN ST/Queen St AT 11 8700 KIT TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $42,307.09 COURTLAND AVE/Courtland Ave 12 7057 WEBER ST AT Water St KIT TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $42,138.53 UNIVERSITY AVE AT Hazel 13 358 St/WLU mid campus (com'l WAT TS 3 0.80 0.10 0.70 $41,595.79 driveway) WESTMOUNT RD AT Fr David 14 175 WAT TS 3 0.80 0.10 0.70 $41,024.37 Bauer Dr/Westcourt Pl Columbia St AT Hagey 15 27142 Blvd/University of Waterloo WAT TS 4 0.80 0.10 0.70 $40,996.26 Access(n.campus)
2332036 V8 Page 25 of 26 120 120 D-2 Report: TES-TRP-17-02
Annual 5 yr. Average/Year Excess Rank Geo ID Location MUN TCON Tot Col Observed Predicted Diff Social Cost 16 8880 VICTORIA ST AT Joseph St KIT TS 3 0.80 0.10 0.70 $40,870.96 DUNDAS ST AT BEVERLY 17 18248 CAM TS 2 0.80 0.20 0.60 $38,198.94 ST/Beverly St 18 11084 WEBER ST AT VICTORIA ST KIT TS 3 0.80 0.20 0.60 $37,015.31 WATER ST N BTWN AINSLIE & 19 17762 CAM 3 0.60 0.00 0.60 $35,823.90 Simcoe 20 8772 VICTORIA ST AT Park St KIT TS 4 0.80 0.20 0.60 $34,995.61
2332036 V8 Page 26 of 26 121 121
Report: TES-TRP-17-03 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Transportation
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: T04-10/28
Subject: Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road Roundabout Operational Review
Recommendation:
For Information.
Summary:
The Homer Watson Boulevard Block Line Roundabout continues to experience a higher number of fail-to-yield collisions than other similar roundabouts in the Region. Since opening in 2011, this roundabout has experienced few serious injuries and zero fatalities. A number of other North American road agencies with successful roundabout programs also have one or more roundabouts with collision frequencies considered unusual compared to other similar roundabouts. Staff has been communicating with these road authorities to better understand what factors may be contributing to these unusual cases. Staff will continue to seek further improvements to reduce collisions at this location by continuing to work with others in the profession dealing with similar issues, focus future educational efforts on the causes of fail-to-yield collisions and to further evaluate and or modify more recent countermeasures at this roundabout.
The public has expressed to Regional staff and Council that fatalities on Regional roads are unacceptable and that roundabouts are key to preventing fatal incidents even if roundabouts are predicted to result in more non-fatal collisions. The Homer Watson Boulevard roundabout continues to be a highly effective solution to help prevent a future fatal collision. To date, the Region has implemented countermeasures similar to those installed by other municipalities. There are no new or different countermeasures that
2220342 V9 Page 1 of 8 122 122 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
Regional staff would recommend implementing at this time. Regional staff do recommend ongoing continuing education as the majority of accidents seem to be related to driver error.
Report:
1.0 Background
On May 26, 2015, staff presented a report to the Regional Planning and Works Committee regarding the Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line roundabout. The report summarized past educational programs, countermeasures, and roundabout operation between 2011 and 2014. The report highlighted an over-representation of fail-to-yield collisions in the northbound and southbound directions. The report concluded these collisions were caused by motorists entering the roundabout from the curb lane and inadvertently colliding with motorists exiting the roundabout from the inner lane. A human factors specialist retained by the Region concluded that this collision type was not a result of the speed of motorists or the design of the roundabout, but rather due to driver cognitive error when entering the roundabout from the curb lane. In other words, drivers are simply not understanding that they are required to yield to drivers who may be exiting the roundabout from the inner circulating lane of the roundabout. The following figure illustrates this typical collision.
Figure 1 – Typical Fail-to-Yield Collision
2220342 V9 Page 2 of 8 123 123 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
The report recommended a revised approach to identifying potential countermeasures based on conclusions drawn by the human factors specialist. Specific staff recommendations included a two-fold approach to addressing the problem of fail-to- yield collisions at the roundabout. The first part of the approach included the installation of additional warning signs, which had already been initiated by Transportation staff. The second approach included driver education that specifically targeted the driver error that was causing these specific fail-to-yield collisions.
2.0 Latest Countermeasures Implemented
Regional staff developed an education pamphlet in 2015 describing how to avoid the particular fail-to-yield collision and delivered it to every household in the Region in September 2015. See Appendix A for a copy of the pamphlet. The Region’s website was also updated to include an animated video describing how to avoid the fail-to-yield collision.
The Region installed text-based “Caution” signs on March 27, 2015. See Appendix B for examples of the text-based signs that were installed on the central island of the roundabout for northbound and southbound traffic.
Overhead pictograph signs were installed above the northbound and southbound entries to the roundabout on April 28, 2016. See Appendix C for an illustration of the pictograph sign.
3.0 Roundabout Safety
3.1 Collision Analysis
The Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road Roundabout continues to experience a higher-than-expected number of fail-to-yield collisions. The high frequency of this type of collision is considered unusual when compared to the collision frequencies occurring at the other Region roundabouts. Since opening in 2011, this roundabout has experienced few serious injuries and zero fatalities.
The following graph illustrates total collisions by year at the Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road roundabout. It appears that overall collisions have stabilized in 2015 and that total collisions may be on the decline as there were 86 collisions reported in 2016.
2220342 V9 Page 3 of 8 124 124 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
Figure 2 – Total Annual Collisions per Year
Annual Collisions per Year 120
100
80
60
40 Annual Collisions 20
0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year
The Region is aware that some other North American road agencies are experiencing similar rates of fail-to-yield collisions at some of their roundabouts. These agencies include the City of Ottawa, City of Fredericton and the Road Commission for Oakland County in the State of Michigan. Staff is communicating with these agencies in an effort to identify countermeasures to reduce the frequency of collisions. The Region is also working with consulting professionals testing new initiatives that may help assist with the cognitive needs of the driving public, however both road agencies and consulting professionals do not have any new countermeasures to recommend at this time.
3.2 Positive Social Benefits
Although the Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road roundabout may be considered an anomaly for the time being, it continues to provide positive social benefits including the ability to process high volumes of traffic much better than a traffic signal. More importantly, the roundabout by design has nearly eliminated the potential for a fatal collision to occur. Based on recent safety concerns with other Regional intersections, Regional staff and Council have clearly been advised by the public that it is fully prepared to accept more non-fatal collisions at roundabouts, including injury collisions, to prevent a future fatal incident. The Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road roundabout continues to be a highly effective solution to help prevent a future fatal collision at this intersection.
4.0 Next Steps
Regional staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the overhead pictograph signs and if necessary will modify the signs (e.g. vertical height and or position relative to the roundabout entry). Staff is planning to continue educational efforts in 2017 and is
2220342 V9 Page 4 of 8 125 125 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
also working with other engineering professionals testing new signs in an effort to address the fail-to-yield issue. Staff is also communicating and working with other North American agencies that are experiencing a similar phenomenon in an effort to find a potential solution(s).
Corporate Strategic Plan:
This report addresses the Region’s goal to optimize road capacity to safely manage traffic and congestion (Strategic Objective 2.4).
Financial Implications:
Nil
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Nil
Attachments
Appendix A – Pamphlet
Appendix B – Text-based Warning Signs
Appendix C – Overhead Pictograph Signs
20TPrepared By:20T Bob Henderson, Manager, Transportation Engineering
20T Approved By:20T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2220342 V9 Page 5 of 8 126 126 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
Appendix A – Pamphlet
2220342 V9 Page 6 of 8 127 127 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
Appendix B – Text-based Warning Signs
2220342 V9 Page 7 of 8 128 128 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-TRP-17-03
Appendix C – Overhead Pictograph Signs (to get actual design)
2220342 V9 Page 8 of 8 129 129
Report: TES-WAS-17-08 Region of Waterloo
Transportation and Environmental Services
Water Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: C06-60
Subject: Water Services SCADA Hardware Standardization
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley, as the new standard supplier for the Water Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) for replacement of PLCs as required;
And that the Manager of Procurement - Chief Purchasing Officer be authorized to enter into a supply agreement with Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley that is agreeable to the Commissioner of the Transportation and Environmental Services and to implement the above recommendation.
Summary:
The Region of Waterloo (Region) supplies water to the seven area municipalities through a very complex water supply system. This system is operated and monitored by a computerized system called SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). Each facility has one or more Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC)s which is the core of the SCADA system and essential for the operation of the Region’s water supply system.
In 2010, Regional Council approved the standardization of PLCs for the Region’s water and wastewater systems. The standardized PLC supplier for the Region’s water system was Control Microsystems, and for the wastewater system it was Allen Bradley. The Control Microsystems unit is being phased out of production and replaced with a new product that is incompatible with the Region’s current SCADA system. As a result, the
2326891 Page 1 of 16 130 130 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-08
Region will need to replace all PLCs in the water system with a compatible product over the next five years based on priority and as they approach the end of their service life.
In 2016, the Region initiated a Needs Assessment Study (Needs Assessment) of the whole water supply SCADA System. This assessment includes improving alignment of the SCADA components for its water and wastewater systems. An important section of this assessment was the review of the PLC currently used by the Region, and recommended its replacement.
Based on a thorough review and evaluation process, the Needs Assessment recommends that the Region moves to standardize to the Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley (Rockwell) PLC unit. Details about the evaluation of PLCs for the Region’s water system are provided in Attachment B. Other components of the SCADA system are also being assessed and will be integrated in a comprehensive document providing a SCADA strategy.
The proposed approach is aligned with the Region’s By-law Number 16-032 for the Procurement of Goods and Services and the Disposal of its Surplus Goods, Part VII – Purchase By Negotiation, Section 21.(1).(i). This section states that the Chief Purchasing Officer may acquire goods and services through negotiation where the acquisition is required or is beneficial in regard to the standardization of goods and services for the Region.
Report:
Background The Region of Waterloo (Region) supplies water to the integrated Tri-City System (cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, towns of Elmira and St. Jacobs in the Township of Woolwich, and rural settlements of Lloyd Brown and St. Agatha in the Township of Wilmot), and sixteen independent rural systems in the Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich.
Water supply in the Region is very complex and includes 120 wells, 17 groundwater treatment plants, 1 surface water treatment plant, 32 reservoirs and 35 pumping stations. These systems are operated and monitored by a computerized system called SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).
Each facility has one or more Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), which is essentially a small computer that allows the operation and monitoring of equipment and processes at these facilities. These PLCs are the core of the SCADA system and are essential for the operation of the Region’s water supply systems. A similar system is also used for
2326891 Page 2 of 16 131 131 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-08
the operation and monitoring of the Region’s wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations.
Regional Council approved in January 2010 (Planning & Works Committee Report E- 10-002 of January 26, 2010) the standardization of PLCs for the Region’s water and wastewater systems. The standardized PLC supplier for the Region’s water system was Control Microsystems, the supplier of PLCs for this system since the late 1980s. The standardized PLC supplier for the wastewater system was Allen Bradley, which was the predominant PLC supplier for most of the Region’s wastewater facilities before 2010.
The Control Microsystems unit is being phased out of production and replaced with a new product that is incompatible with the Region’s current SCADA system. As a result, the Region will need to replace all PLCs in the water system with a compatible product over the next five years based on priority and as they approach the end of their service life.
In 2016, a Needs Assessment Study (Needs Assessment) of the whole water supply SCADA System was conducted. This assessment includes improving the alignment of the SCADA components for its water and wastewater systems. An important section of this assessment was the review of the PLC currently used by the Region, and to recommend the approach for replacing it.
The main considerations for PLC replacement are as follows:
• Large corporate presence and local vendor support to provide overall training opportunities, hardware supply, and technical support; • A track record of longevity and compatibility between new and old hardware; • Competitive costs.
Based on the above considerations, two suppliers of PLC hardware were short listed for further evaluation: Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley (Rockwell) and General Electric (GE). Further analysis and a financial evaluation of the products supplied by these two companies were undertaken in the Needs Assessment and are provided in Attachment B.
The Needs Assessment recommended that the Region standardize on the Rockwell PLC hardware platform for its water supply SCADA system, for the following reasons:
• The Region’s Wastewater and Solid Waste already use this PLC hardware; • Track record for support and migration of their legacy systems; • The wastewater PLCs have been or are in the process of being replaced by the
2326891 Page 3 of 16 132 132 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-08
most recent generation of Rockwell PLCs as part of recent facility upgrades, and replacing the existing hardware with those of another supplier would be onerous, disruptive and time consuming; • Suppliers of other equipment used in water and wastewater treatment (for example: UV, ozone, package plants, etc.) often use Rockwell hardware with their products; • The wastewater system has documented standards based around this platform that water can leverage and jointly implement their standards; • This supplier has previously provided preferred pricing to the Region and thus has demonstrated a positive working relationship; • This supplier had the lowest estimated cost used for the comparison of the two short listed suppliers; • Rockwell‘s Canadian headquarters is located in Cambridge where they support their industrial automation and manufacture their medium voltage drives for global shipments, supporting the Waterloo Region Economic Development Strategy.
The Water SCADA system currently has an estimated 178 PLCs that need replacing over the next five years based on priority and as they approach the end of their service life. The total cost for acquiring this equipment in 2016 Canadian dollars was estimated at $1.65 million over the next five years, not including costs for design, installation, wiring and programming.
The replacement of the PLCs for the Region’s water supply facilities will be a multi-year initiative and is expected to be completed by 2022. For new facilities and at facilities with planned upgrades, the replacement will be included as part of these larger capital upgrades. For other facilities, an implementation program will be developed. Future reports will be brought to committee as necessary.
The approach is aligned with the Region’s By-law Number 16-032 for the Procurement of Goods and Services and the Disposal of its Surplus Goods, Part VII – Purchase By Negotiation, Section 21.(1).(i). This section estates that the Chief Purchasing Officer may acquire goods and services through negotiation where the acquisition is required or is beneficial in regard to the standardization of goods and services for the Region.
Approvals Standardizing and replacing the PLC hardware is considered regular maintenance, and no special permits or approvals are required from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
2326891 Page 4 of 16 133 133 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-08
Corporate Strategic Plan:
SCADA hardware standardization and upgrades support the 2015-2018 Corporate Strategic Focus, Area 1: “Thriving Economy”, Strategic Objective 1.2: “Plan for and provide the infrastructure and services necessary to create the foundation for economic success.”
Financial Implications:
The Council approved 2017 Ten Year Water Capital Budget & Forecast (Capita Program) includes a total combined budget of $17,600,000 for SCADA Communications Strategy and Upgrades (Project #04969). This budget includes $1.65 million over the next five years for the acquisition of the PLCs, part of this report, and $2.45 million for the installation of the PLCs (total of $4.1 million). Attachment A summarizes the preliminary cost estimate to implement the total SCADA project. These costs will be updated upon the completion of the SCADA Strategy by Eramosa, and further refined as the detailed design for this project evolves.
This project is being funded by the Water Development Charges Reserve Fund $1.07 million (26%) and the Water Capital Reserve Funds $3.03 million (74%).
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Regional Information Technology Services has been part of the assessment and implementation team for the SCADA Strategy. Regional Purchasing and Inventory Management has also been part of the procurement approach for this SCADA strategy.
Attachments
Attachment A: 2017 Ten Year Water Capital Budget & Forecast - SCADA Communications Strategy and Upgrades Cost Estimates, Project #04969
Attachment B: Water SCADA System Needs Assessment - PLC Hardware Upgrade Business Case Review
20TPrepared By:20T Paul Balint, Infrastructure Coordinator, Water Services
Approved By: Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2326891 Page 5 of 16 134 134 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2017 Ten Year Water Capital Budget & Forecast
SCADA Communications Strategy and Upgrades Cost Estimates
Project #04969
Item Cost Estimate PLC Replacement and Programming $4,100,000 Replacement of Other SCADA Hardware $8,600,000 Software $600,000 Engineering $4,300,000 Total (Excluding Taxes) $17,600,000
2326891 Page 6 of 16 135 135 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
Water SCADA System Needs Assessment
PLC Hardware Upgrade Business Case Review
2326891 Page 7 of 16 136 136 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 8 of 16 137 137 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 9 of 16 138 138 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 10 of 16 139 139 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 11 of 16 140 140 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 12 of 16 141 141 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 13 of 16 142 142 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 14 of 16 143 143 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 15 of 16 144 144 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-08
2326891 Page 16 of 16 145 145
Report: TES-WAS-17-10 Region of Waterloo Transportation and Environmental Services Water Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: E03-20/4015-10
Subject: Waterloo North Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment Addendum: Notice of Completion
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the “Waterloo North Water Supply Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Addendum to the Environmental Study Report” summarized in this Report TES-WAS-17-10 dated March 7, 2017;
And that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo publish the Notice of Completion for the EA Addendum and provide the Addendum Report along with the original Environmental Study Report for public review and comment for a 30-day period, in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association’s Class Environmental Assessment process.
Summary:
The Waterloo North Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in 2012 and recommended bringing two groundwater sources (Laurel Well and Well W5A) online and treating the combined water at a centralized treatment facility located at the site of the existing Laurel water tank.
Since the completion of this EA, there have been changes in water demands as identified in the 2015 Water Supply Master Plan and changes in the requirements of the Class EA process. This triggered the need for a Class EA Addendum to examine any impacts from these changes on the preferred solution.
The Addendum study has now been completed by Stantec. The report recommends that the Laurel Well, located at the site of the existing Laurel Water Tank, be brought
2337652 Page 1 of 4 146 146 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-10
online with iron and manganese treatment and that well W5A be deferred until such time as water demand requires it. Commissioning the Laurel well system within the next few years will provide increased security of water supply within the City of Waterloo.
The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process requires public advertisement of a Notice of Completion for the EA Addendum, and public release of the Addendum Report, along with the original Class EA Report, for review and comment for a period of at least 30 days following issue of the notice. Water Services recommends that the Region approve the publication of the Notice of Completion, and placement of the Addendum Report and original Class EA Report for public review at the Regional Clerk’s office, on the Region’s web site, and at the City of Waterloo’s Clerk’s office, tentatively from April 3 to May 5, 2017.
Report:
In 2012, the Region completed the Waterloo North Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment (EA) (Report E-12-007, dated January 10, 2012) that recommended bringing two groundwater sources (Laurel Well and Well W5A) online and treating the combined water source at a centralized treatment facility located at the site of the existing Laurel water tank.
Since the completion of the original Class EA, the Region has updated its Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP) in 2015. One of the main findings from the WSMP was the declining trend of water supply demands and its impact on long term water demand projections. The timing of the requirement of future water sources has changed since the completion of the initial Waterloo North EA and the WSMP recommended examining the phasing of the two sources of this system. This could allow one source to be brought online initially to contribute to the security of supply of the City of Waterloo and another to be brought online in the future as demand dictates.
Since the completion of the original Class EA in 2012, the Municipal Engineers Association Class EA guidance document was updated to integrate the requirements of the Clean Water Act with the Class EA process. This update requires the proponent of a Class EA to consider local Source Protection Policies as part of the evaluation of alternatives. The Waterloo North Water Supply Class EA recommendations included new water supplies which would result in the creation of vulnerable areas associated with new wellhead protection areas.
In the event that there are significant modifications to a project or change in the environmental conditions after completing a Class Environmental Assessment, an Addendum should be prepared and filed for public review. The addendum should provide a description of the change in environmental conditions or circumstances
2337652 Page 2 of 4 147 147 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-10
resulting in the change in study recommendations, environmental impacts of the proposed changes, and mitigation measures for any negative environmental impacts identified.
With the findings from the WSMP and the update to the Municipal Class EA document, the Region decided to complete an Addendum to the original Waterloo North Water Supply Class EA to examine what impact these proposed changes would have on the recommended solution.
In July 2015, the Region retained Stantec to complete an Addendum to the Waterloo North Water Supply Class EA. The scope of this assignment was to examine the changes since the completion of the original Class EA in 2012 and to determine any impact this would have on the original recommendations.
The Addendum study has now been completed by Stantec. The report recommends that the Laurel Well, located at the site of the existing Laurel Water Tank, be brought online with iron and manganese treatment and that well W5A be deferred until such time as water demand requires it. Projections from the WSMP estimate that well W5A will not be required until around 2040. Commissioning the Laurel Tank well system within the next few years will provide increased security of water supply within the City of Waterloo.
As part of the Addendum study the Well Head Protection Area for the new well was delineated and a vulnerability assessment was completed. This study found that the only significant threats associated with the new water supply were municipal sanitary sewers. Under current Source Protection Policies, these threats are addressed through existing provincial approvals.
The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process requires public advertisement of a Notice of Completion for the EA Addendum, and public release of the Addendum Report, along with the original Class EA Report, for review and comment for a period of at least 30 days following issue of the notice. Water Services recommends that the Region approve the publication of the Notice of Completion, and placement of the Addendum Report and original Class EA Report for public review at the Regional Clerk’s office, on the Region’s web site, and at the City of Waterloo’s Clerk’s office, tentatively from April 3 to May 5, 2017.
After the public comment period has expired and any comments received on the report are addressed, Stantec will continue with the preliminary design phase of the proposed works. Consultant selection for the detailed design and construction will follow the completing of the preliminary design and will be part of a separate Planning & Works Committee Report. Detailed design of this project will be initiated later in 2017. It is expected that construction of the works will take place between 2018-2020.
2337652 Page 3 of 4 148 148 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-10
Corporate Strategic Plan:
The Waterloo North Water Supply Class EA Addendum and Preliminary Design supports the 2015 - 2018 Corporate Strategic Focus Area 1: “Thriving Economy,” Strategic Objective 1.2: “Plan for and provide the infrastructure and services necessary to create the foundation for economic success.”
Financial Implications:
The Council approved 2017 Ten Year Water Capital Forecast includes $7.345 million between 2017 and 2020 for design and construction of the Waterloo North Water Supply System. The estimated cost of construction from the EA Addendum is $6.7 million. The construction of Well W5A is being deferred to 2041. More detailed cost estimates will be developed during the preliminary and detailed design phases of the project, and will be used for updating future Water Capital Forecasts.
This project is being funded by the Water Development Charges Reserve Fund (100%).
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
Nil
Attachments
Nil
20TPrepared By:20T Pam Law, Senior Project Engineer, Water Services
20T Approved By:20T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2337652 Page 4 of 4 149 149
Report: TES-WAS-17-13
Region of Waterloo
Transportation and Environmental Services
Water Services
To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Planning and Works Committee
Date: March 7, 2017 File Code: E04-80
Subject: 2016 Summary Report for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Integrated Urban and Rural Water Systems, Drinking Water Quality Management System Program Update, and Infrastructure Maintenance Plan
Recommendation:
That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive the 2016 Summary Report, the minutes from the annual Management Review of the Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS) and maintenance plan update as outlined in report TES-WAS-17-13 dated March 7, 2017.
Summary:
This report provides an overview of the 2016 Summary Report as required by Ontario Regulation 170/03, the results of the 2016 management review and a summary of the infrastructure maintenance plan and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Chief Drinking Water Inspector’s report released in November 2016.
Report: Background Ontario Regulation 170/03 has several provisions including a requirement to keep Regional Council informed. The provisions require:
2319874 Page 1 of 18
150 March 7, 2017 Report: TES-WAS-17-13 150
1. The preparation of a summary report for the period January 1 to December 31, 2016, to be issued by March 31, 2017 that includes: a. A statement identifying compliance with requirements including the Act, Regulations, Approvals and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) orders b. The details of non-compliances with any requirement including duration c. A summary of the quantities and flow rates of water supplied d. A comparison of quantities and flow rates to system’s approvals 2. That top management report the results of the management review, identify deficiencies, and note decisions and action items to the system owner. The management review is conducted annually evaluating the quality management system for suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. The review also follows-up on previous management reviews and staff suggestions, and reviews the status of management action items identified throughout the year. 3. That the report on the infrastructure maintenance plan highlights any changes since 2016.
Overview of Summary Report
During this reporting period the MOECC performed 22 inspections of the Region’s water supply systems including the combined inspections of the water supply and distribution systems in the Townships of Wellesley and North Dumfries. A Drinking Water System Inspection Report (DWSIR) is issued after each inspection reviewing all regulatory issues, non-compliance corrective actions and/or best management practices. The Region’s 2016 Summary Report includes all non-compliance issues identified by Waterloo Region staff through the MOECC inspections and any other relevant legislation. Reports are prepared by staff on all related corrective action or mitigating measures.
The key findings from the 2016 Summary Report (Attachment A) identified a few minor incidents that were detected and corrected quickly. There were no significant issues in the Region’s water supply systems or in the Townships of Wellesley and North Dumfries distribution systems. The Region’s Water Services department has initiated plans to address all best management and non-compliance issues identified by the MOECC. The MOECC Chief Drinking Water Inspector’s report was released in November 2016 for the 2015 period and identifies 19 inspection reports with 100% compliance rating and 3 inspection reports with 95% compliance rating. In summary, the water quality meets the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
A copy of the 2016 Summary report will be placed in the Councillors’ Library after the Council meeting on March 22, 2017. Copies of the report are available free of charge
2319874 Page 2 of 18
151 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-WAS-17-13 151
from Water Services and the report will be posted on the Region's website at
36TU www.regionofwaterloo.ca/waterU.
Annual Management Review for Compliance with the Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS)
One requirement of the DWQMS is to conduct a management review every twelve months. The management review occurred December 12, 2016, at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant and included operations management staff, Nick Crawford, Public Health and top management who as defined by the Quality Management System (QMS) procedure are Thomas Schmidt – Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services (absent); Nancy Kodousek – Director, Water Services; Olga Vrentzos – Manager, Operations and Maintenance.
The purpose of the management review is to evaluate the QMS for suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness and to follow-up on previous management reviews, staff suggestions, and review the status of management action items identified throughout the year. There were no major non-conformances identified and no staff suggestions in 2016. As part of the annual management review process, top management is required to provide the results of the management review, identify deficiencies, and note decisions and action items to the system owner - Regional Council. The minutes from the management review along with the identified deficiencies, decisions, and action items can be found in Attachment B: QMS Management Review 2016 Meeting Minutes.
Infrastructure Management Plan
Elements 14 and 15 of the DWQMS require that the operational plan documents a procedure for the annual review of the adequacy of the infrastructure necessary to operate and maintain the system. The purpose is to review what infrastructure is necessary to maintain the system and to determine that the required infrastructure is in place as needed. The “do” component of Element 14 requires that the operating authority carry out the review and report findings to the owner. Element 15 requires a summary documenting the maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal programs for the infrastructure. These summaries must be updated as changes occur and must be communicated to the owner. The report also includes an assessment on the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Preventative maintenance is based on industry standards, regulatory requirements, past history, manufacturers’ recommendations, and risk analysis. A summary of the preventative maintenance being performed can be found in the 2016 Summary Report Section 5.0.
2319874 Page 3 of 18
152 March 7, 2016 Report: TES-WAS-17-13 152
Corporate Strategic Plan: The Annual Summary Report, the DWQMS Management Review and the Infrastructure Maintenance Plan supports Focus Area 3.2: Protect the quality and quantity of our water resources.
Financial Implications:
All costs associated with operating and maintaining the water systems are covered by the approved Water User Rate.
Other Department Consultations/Concurrence:
The Public Health Department has reviewed this report.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2016 Summary Report for Integrated Urban and Rural Water System - (no tables or appendices) Attachment B: 2016 Management Review 2016 Meeting Minutes
26TPrepared By:26T Olga Vrentzos, Manager, Water Operations and Maintenance
26T Approved By:26T Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services
2319874 Page 4 of 18
153 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 153
2319874 Page 5 of 18
154 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 154
2319874 Page 6 of 18
155 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 155
2319874 Page 7 of 18
156 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 156
2319874 Page 8 of 18
157 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 157
2319874 Page 9 of 18
158 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 158
2319874 Page 10 of 18
159 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 159
2319874 Page 11 of 18
160 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 160
2319874 Page 12 of 18
161 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 161
2319874 Page 13 of 18
162 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 162
2319874 Page 14 of 18
163 March 7, 2017 Attachment A Report: TES-WAS-17-13 163
2319874 Page 15 of 18
164 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-13 164
2319874 Page 16 of 18
165 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-13 165
2319874 Page 17 of 18
166 March 7, 2017 Attachment B Report: TES-WAS-17-13 166
2319874 Page 18 of 18
167 167
Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Planning and Works Committee Anticipated Response Meeting date Requestor Request Assigned Department Date
08-Dec-15 J. Mitchell Report on using Renewable Energy for LRT TES Fall 2017
Report on Vision Zero Movement and how 06-Dec-16 J. Nowak the Region can achieve the basic objective TES Fall 2017
122904