Appendix C – Agency Consultation McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Organization Name Position TRCA Harsimrat Pruthi Planner MNRF Emmanuel Ogunjobi Natural Resources Manager MECP Emilee O’Leary Environmental Planner CN Michael Vallins Public Works Manager MTO Frank Martins Manager MTO Margaret Mikolajczak Senior Project Manager 407ETR Maria Efimova Engineering Technician 407ETR Jeff Booker Manager Metrolinx Anna Krol Project Coordinator City of Toronto Benjamin Morell Assistant Planner City of Toronto Alan Filipuzzi Program Manager City of Markham Mark Siu Senior Capital Works Engineer City of Markham Marija Ilic Manager York Region Edward Chiu Senior Project Manager York Region Jessica Lee Planning and Design Coordinator
The following summarizes meetings with individual agencies, stakeholders, property owners/residents, and other interested parties throughout the duration of the McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Study. Key correspondence and meeting minutes are included in this appendix. Records of all correspondence and meetings are documented in the Region’s project file.
TRCA • TRCA Meeting #1: September 22, 2017 • TRCA Meeting #2: April 4, 2019
MNRF • MNRF Meeting #1: July 18, 2017 • MNRF Meeting #2: September 19, 2017 • MNRF Meeting #3: June 27, 2018
MECP (formerly MOECC) • MECP Meeting #1: December 11, 2017 • MECP Meeting #2: April 15, 2019
CN • CN Meeting #1: February 15, 2018 • CN Meeting #2: August 20, 2018 • CN Meeting #3: April 4, 2019
Ministry of Ontario (MTO) and 407ETR • 407ETR Design Options Meeting: January 18, 2019 • 407ETR ESR Comments Meeting: September 8, 2020
Metrolinx • Metrolinx GO Transit Meeting #1: August 11, 2017 • Metrolinx GO Transit Meeting #2: July 20, 2018 • Metrolinx GO Transit Meeting #3: April 2, 2019 Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
City of Markham Meetings: • City of Markham Meeting #1: June 1, 2017 • City of Markham Meeting #2: July 24, 2018 • City of Markham Meeting #3: April 2, 2019 • City of Markham Meeting #4: June 17, 2020
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) TAC Meeting #1: June 21, 2017 TAC Meeting #2: September 21, 2017 TAC Meeting #3: July 19, 2018 TAC Meeting #4: April 4, 2019
Stakeholder Group (SHG) SHG Meeting #1: June 21, 2017 SHG Meeting #2: September 21, 2018 SHG Meeting #3: June 14, 2018 SHG Meeting #4: April 24, 2019
TRCA Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment TRCA Meeting #1 – Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: TRCA Meeting #1 Date: Friday, September 22, 2017 Location: TRCA Office, 101 Exchange Avenue Attendees: Edward Chiu (York Region) Tara Erwin (HDR) Jessica Lee (York Region) Michelle Li (HDR) Gerrard Sullivan (York Region) Grant Kauffman (LGL) Scott Smith (TRCA) Katherine Bibby (LGL) Eric Wang (TRCA) Brad Stephens (TRCA) Jamie Milnes (TRCA)
Topic Facilitator Action 1 Introduction HDR Information Project Background; this is the first meeting with TRCA to go over Only the McCowan Road Environmental Assessment (EA), the study corridor is from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive The project is currently in Phase 2 of the EA progress, York Region has completed the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and the preferred solution recommended to widen the road to 6-lanes to accommodate transit and HOV, with a right-of-way between 36m to 43m, and a right-of-way of 32.1 m at the Rouge river crossing 2 Environmental LGL Information Multi-session of field investigation was completed during the Only summer, including wildlife, vegetation and tree inventory, fisheries. Noted an Environmental Report that documents the existing findings will be circulated to TRCA for review Noted the project team has confirmed with MNFR that streetscaping planted vegetation will not be treated as protected under ESA 3 Major Watercourse (Rouge River Crossing) HDR/LGL Information As per Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment result, the meander belt Only width is 95 m to 116 m, 100-year erosion limit is 64 m. Preliminary recommendation is to provide a span width of 45 m from Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment. The final recommendation will be provided in the Fluvial Geomorphic Report. Under existing condition, the crossing does not meeting the MTO Highway drainage design criteria. TRCA noted that there are special policy areas upstream to the crossing, and it is most likely caused by flooding. Options of a bridge replacement, road profile adjustment or bridge widening are to be explored. It was acknowledged that the existing bridge span width is 26 m, project team is to come up a preferred recommendation based on best effort approach, with technical justification to support the decision. Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment TRCA Meeting #1 – Meeting Minutes
Topic Facilitator Action Hydraulic assessment is to be completed based on 2-year to 100- year storm event, and to evaluate floodplain and backwater condition based on the regional flow. LGL noted that fish habitats were observed within the Rouge River, numbers of bird species and wildlife SAR were also identified in the study area. Rouge River watershed is not identified as a Redside dace regulated watercourse, wetland and environmental significant areas are located downstream of the crossing. TRCA noted that the environmental impact study including territorial study should comply with TRCA Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines issued in Oct 2014. The proposed road cross-section will be a 6-lanes road cross section, and landscaping opportunity may be eliminated at the crossing due to narrow ROW constraints. It was noted that there is a pedestrian bridge located upstream of the crossing, future crossing recommendation should take into the consideration of the pedestrian bridge crossing. 4 Major Watercourse (Robinson Creek Crossing) HDR/LGL Information As per Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment result, the meander belt Only width is 46 m, 100-year erosion limit is 22 m. Preliminary recommendation is to provide a span width of 22 m from fluvial Geomorphic Assessment. The final recommendation will be provided in the Fluvial Geomorphic Report. The physical condition of the culverts are good, the current hydraulic opening is approximately 14 m, and meets the MTO highway drainage design criteria. The existing culvert length is 35 m, options to accommodate roadway widening are to be determined. The proposed road cross-section will be a 6-lanes road cross section, and landscaping opportunity may be eliminated at the crossing due to narrow ROW constraints. LGL noted the channel alignment at the crossing is relatively straight, fish and amphibians habitat were observed within Robinson Creek, numbers of bird species and wildlife SAR were also identified in the study area. The tributary of the Robinson Creek is identified as a Redside Dace regulated watercourse. TRCA noted that City of Markham has a restorative project at the northwest corner of the crossing and at the next downstream crossing near Castlemore, there is some groundwater contributing to the Robinson swamp and also at the location near Sixteenth Avenue.
5 General All Information The first public open house is scheduled to be held on October 4th Only and October 5th. Stakeholders and agencies feedback are being incorporated. Phase one of the EA report has been submitted to TRCA for review. The Draft Natural Heritage Report should cover phase 1 and phase 2 requirements and it will be circulated; it was noted to include Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment TRCA Meeting #1 – Meeting Minutes
Topic Facilitator Action fisheries and aquatic information. Fluvial Geomorphic Report will be circulated. An Impact Assessment Report will be prepared by LGL to document the mitigation recommendation at a later stage based on the preferred road alternative. Opportunity for overall benefit to compensate for Redside Dace habitat will be explored. TRCA noted that stormwater management design should consider to provide water quality treatment to remove 80% total suspended solid for the entire road corridor, to provide water quantity control from post condition to pre condition, and to consider best management practices to retain the first 5mm surface runoff from an ecology perspective. TRCA suggested to include stormwater management support calculation on the proposed measures, conceptual design to identify potential low impact development locations
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Class Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: TRCA Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Thursday, April 04, 2019 Location: 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan ON L4K 5R6 - Don Room Attendees: Harsimrat Pruthi, TRCA Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Matthew Kuyntjes, TRCA Christopher Rotella, York Region Jamie Milnes, TRCA Tara Erwin, HDR Laleh Farhadi, TRCA Soheil Kashi, HDR Edward Chiu, York Region Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Gerard Sullivan, York Region
Meeting Overview: T.Erwin and M.Mascarenhas presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project overview, design approach for widening and active transportation for the corridor, evaluation criteria, design options, evaluation and recommendations at areas of special consideration, and next steps. A brief overview of natural heritage features in the corridor was presented to recap from previous meeting materials.
Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Erwin) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken for McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. Project team clarified the Kennedy Road EA is separate from the McCowan Road EA. Previously, joint meetings were held to discuss both EA projects but this meeting is to provide an update on the McCowan Road EA. The project team will arrange to meet with TRCA for the Kennedy Road EA separately. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations for comment since the last meeting with TRCA. 3. Key Discussion
Active Transportation Recommendation E.Chiu noted that the City of Markham provided feedback on the active transportation facility interim and ultimate recommendation. Instead of asphalt multi-use path (MUP), the City’s current practice is to install concrete MUPs. They also suggested to install a 3.3m concrete multi-use path, instead of an interim 3.0m multi-use path so that transition to the ultimate 3.3m facility requires only line markings and signage to delineate the cycle track and sidewalk.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Rouge River Project team recommends replacement at the Rouge River to accommodate existing overtopping. Three single-span bridge options were considered (25m, 35m and 45m). Each option includes a raise of the road profile to address existing overtopping. The 25m span is based on the existing opening size. The 45m span option accommodates the fluvial geomorphological recommended span length. The 35m span partially address the fluvial geomorphological recommendation. Engineering solutions can be employed where the fluvial geomorphological recommendation (45m) is not provided. The fluvial geomorphological findings noted that the crossing is relatively straight, stable and partially confined at the south bank valley wall. There is no evidence of meander bends upstream of the crossing that are at risk of encroaching existing or future infrastructure. There has been limited evidence of movement. Any new bridge structure will be widened towards the north bank of the channel given the south bank is confined by the valley wall. The 25m span option is recommended. It addresses the 100 yr hydraulic requirements and maintains the existing opening size. Dam and pump system or temporary barrier or coffer dam during excavation are options that can be considered during construction. Temporary dewatering rates during construction at the Rouge River are approximated 150m3/day and therefore a Permit To Take Water is not anticipated to be required. The Provincially Significant Wetland is within the zone of influence but estimated dewatering volumes are minor. Detailed design will include a fluvial geomorphological requirement. Project team consulted with the City of Markham and will review the request to consolidate the trail access with a new signal at the Milne Park entrance.
Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is
reviewing the request to provide wildlife passage at this location,
as per City’s policy.
Robinson Creek
Project team recommends replacement at the Robinson Creek
crossing even though the existing three culverts are in good
condition and can be widened to accommodate the proposed
improvements because the remaining service life of the culverts
would not be significant with the current timing of construction for
the widening (outside of the Region’s 10 year capital program).
Four options were considered (extend culvert, replace with 12m precast concrete box culvert, replace with 22m precast concrete box culvert, and replace with 22m single span bridge). The 22m options accommodate the fluvial geomorphological recommended span length. The 12m span option provide the existing opening size which meets the hydraulic requirement. Engineering solutions can be employed where the fluvial geomorphological recommendation (22m) is not provided. There are no existing hydraulic concerns with the existing opening size.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
This crossing is a location for aquatic species at risk as it is identified as a Redside Dace regulated watercourse. The recommendation is to replace the Robinson Creek culverts with a 12m precast concrete box culvert, that is oversized to include natural substrate bottom. The fluvial geomorphological findings noted that upstream and downstream of the crossing are 13m span concrete box and 18m span bridge, respectively. The channel has been significantly altered and has low sinuosity. Dam and pump system or temporary barrier or coffer dam during excavation are options that can be considered during construction. Temporary dewatering rates during construction at the Robinson Creek are approximated 38m3/day and therefore a Permit To Take Water is not anticipated to be required. Detailed design will include a fluvial geomorphological assessment. Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is reviewing the request to include wildlife passage at this location, as per City’s policy.
Metrolinx Underpass design is recommended to grade separate the Stouffville GO Rail crossing with McCowan Road as the ultimate solution.
Temporary dewatering rates during construction are anticipated
approximately 4,800m3/day which will result in a Category 3
PTTW.
Long term dewatering strategy is required for the underpass due
to the high ground water table and will result in the need for
permanent pumping station.
CN
The existing structure opening can accommodate the widening of McCowan Road to six lanes withouth structure widening. Active transportation facilities are recommended behind the outside pier requiring modifications to the existing embankment (retaining wall). Construction is not anticipated to require dewatering.
407ETR The existing structure currently carries six lanes with the curb lanes currently functioning as speed change lanes to the 407ETR on-ramps. The widening of McCowan Road to six lanes for Transit/HOV can be accommodated on the existing bridge over the 407ETR without bridge widening. Active transportation facilities are recommended as separate structures over Highway 407 on both sides of McCowan Road. Construction is not anticipated to require dewatering.
Other Woodlot 9413 is a location of potential habitat for Eastern Peewee, a species of Special Concern. E.Chiu noted the project team is revising the road design further to what has been previously circulated to provide a more optimal road alignment at
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
this location. This will result in some infringement to the woodlot. Compensation requirements for this impact will be discussed. TRCA crossing guidelines to be reviewed and considered in assessments. Stormwater management options to be reviewed as the study progresses and shared with TRCA for comment. Potential low impact development (LID) options will be identified during the EA phase, and confirmed during detailed design. HDR to add TRCA’s requirements for detail design in the HDR Environmental Study Report under future commitments
4. Next Steps Project team to circulate technical report package upon HDR finalization of draft reports in the upcoming weeks. TRCA to provide comments on the recommendations based on review of the drawings, evaluation tables, presentation and TRCA technical report package. Comments to be provided adhering to timelines from the TRCA service level agreement. Project team is meeting with review agencies and the stakeholder group to review the recommendations. Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
TRCA ID ESR Section # Comment Response TRCA Comments to Responses Response Status Section updated in ESR Water Resources Comments 1 Please note that the quantity control criteria for certain locations along Report was revised to reflect the most recent TRCA is looking for documentation in the McCowan Complete ESR Appendix I - Stormwater McCowan Road is as per the Rouge River Watershed Hydrology Study quantity control criteria for Robinson Creek. Revised Road SWM report regarding the criteria from the Management Report Update (Wood Canada Ltd., 2018). Particularly quantity control criteria storage volume calculations are provided in Rouge River Watershed Hydrology Study Update for locations within the Robinson Creek – Lower West and Upper Appendix D. related to: Unitary Storage (pg. 51 of 73 of the Basins and Eckardt Creek - Upper East Basin include unitary flow rates guidelines and Flow Retention Volumes (pg. 54 or and detention volumes and increased retention volume. Please revise 73 of the guidelines) . They would like to see what is Section 4.1 to reflect the most recent criteria and any other related required for these criteria with discussion as to why sections of the report. Please provide calculations of the required or why not they can be achieved. It is acknowledged storage and retention volumes to achieve the quantity control criteria, it will be difficult to achieve the criteria for linear as well as the volumes being proposed to satisfy these criteria. TRCA road corridors. It was noted this information was staff recognize that it would likely be difficult to meet the SWM criteria documented for unitary discharge but missing for laid out in the Rouge River Watershed Hydrology Study Update in this the unitary storage and flow retention volumes. It study area, please demonstrate how our criteria can be achieved to the was clarified this is related to Robinson Creek as greatest extent possible. there is no quantity control requirements for Rouge River downstream of Major Mackenzie. 2 Please provide SWM controls for all catchments of the subject site (i.e. Per MECP direction, stormwater management TRCA noted the length of McCowan Road corridor Complete ESR Appendix I - Stormwater A 1 to A 17) to provide 80% TSS removal and applicable storage and (water quality) measures within the study limits are spans four sub-watersheds but only crosses two sub - Management Report retention volumes, to achieve TRCA criteria. Please consider and designed to provide “Enhanced” water quality watersheds. They clarified that the quality control assess other options for providing water quality and erosion control for treatment, as a minimum, for the increased and water balance for catchment discharging Future Commitments catchments A-1 to A-4, A-9 to A-14, A-17. pavement area as a result of roadway widening / directly to Rouge River and Robinson Creek have improvements. Refer to the design criteria in Section been addressed sufficiently but comment is related 4.1 of the SWM report. Enhanced level quality to the other catchment areas that discharge control is provided for the entire pavement areas in indirectly to Rouge River tributaries via municipal cahtchments discharging directly to a watercourse systems. (Catchments A6-A8 and A15-A16). Quality control is not provided for Catchments A-1 to A-4, A-9 to A- 14, A-17, since they discharge into municipal system and will be treated by end-of-pipe facilities. Over the entire corridor, the pavement areas for which quality control is provided exceed the increased pavement areas, meeting MECP’s requirement.
3 It appears that the calculated “Proposed Storage Volume” in Table 01 of The report and table are revised to reflect the void no action required Complete ESR Appendix I - Stormwater Appendix D does not include the void ratio of the proposed infiltration ratio. Management Report trenches. Please revise the calculations accordingly. 4 Based on information provided in the Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment The proposed Robinson Creek structure has been Since the scouring would be dependent on the Complete ESR Sections 9.1.7.5, 9.3.3.5, 10.1.15 (Golder, January 2019) the crossing upstream of McCowan Road, at revised to a precast open footing culvert structure to detailed design of the structure we will include this Castlemore Avenue, has a span of 13 m and the preliminary span the existing hydraulic opening of 12m as the as a future commitment during the Detailed Design recommended span of McCowan Road is 22 m (i.e. the approximate existing hydraulic opening is found to be sufficient. phase based on the requirements identified for the 100 year erosion limit). While it is acknowledged that water surface To address potential fluvial geomorphological scour assessment to meet TRCA’s requirements. elevations decrease in the proposed condition for the 12 m span hazards additional engineering controls in the Robinson Creek crossing, it is recommended that a hydraulic structure design would be needed. The Region will review with a larger span / greater flow capacity be considered. additional engineering controls in Detailed Design for the proposed structure and will consider increasing the opening size in consultation with review agencies during Detailed Design. Please note that TRCA do not have a formal terms of reference for a scour assessment. The ultimate goal is protection of the asset and would require the consultant to demonstrate how abutments / footings are protected from erosion since they are within the 100 year erosion limit. This could be done by looking at the velocities, shear stress, etc. (which can be referenced from HEC-RAS) at the structure and ensuring that stone sizing and depth is sufficient to resist erosive forces and protect the structure.
5 For the Rouge River model, please provide a table showing the existing This table is provided in Appendix B. Model sent to TRCA August 27, 2020 complete Not applicable and proposed water surface elevations for the cross-sections that, at a minimum, are showing a change in water surface elevation between existing and proposed conditions. During detailed design, staff would be looking for a similar table for Robinson Creek as well as floodplain mapping sheets for both crossings.
6 During the detailed design stage, please update the hydrology and Acknowledged. No comment on response provided no action required no action required Not applicable hydraulics of the modelled hydraulic crossings using the most current information for the Rouge River Watershed. Figures and tables to be provided clearly demonstrating no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposed works. Ecology Comments TRCA ID ESR Section # Comment Response TRCA Comments to Responses Response Status Section updated in ESR Water Resources Comments 7 The Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment (Golder, January 2019) For the Rouge River structure the proposed No comment on response provided no action required For Rouge River structure - no ESR Sections 9.1.7.5, 9.3.5, 10.1.15 recommends a 45 m crossing structure for the Rouge River and a 22 m improvements (match the existing span, depth and action required. crossing structure Robinson Creek respectively. However, the Natural elevation to support the wider superstructure and Heritage Report (LGL, January 2020) and Stormwater Management use a 1% crossfall) are recommended to minimize For Robinson Creek structure - Report (HDR, August 1, 2019) indicate that the existing 25 m crossing increases to the Regional upstream flood levels and see response to Comment #4. for the Rouge River will be widened and that a 12 m precast box culvert overtopping that currently exists with the existing is being proposed for Robinson Creek. Please provide a rationale as to structure. Increasing the existing span will result in why the recommendations of the Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment have adverse hydraulic impacts to flood levels and not been incorporated into the proposed crossings. overtopping. An emergency response plan is required at this location to close this section of McCowan Road to address significant flooding from the Regional Storm event. As such increasing the span for fluvial geomorphology is not recommended however engineering controls (such as armouring the bridge abutments) can be considered during Detailed Design.
For the proposed Robinson Creek structure please see response to Comment #4.
8 Please revise Section 4.1 of the Natural Heritage Report removing the To be revised No comment on response provided no action required Complete ESR Appendix F – Natural Heritage reference of straw bale check dams, TRCA does not support the use of Report straw bales to settle and filter sediment. Furthermore, please consider ESR Section 11 Impacts and the use of silt sock check dams in place of rock check dams as it has Mitigation been the experience of TRCA Staff that silt sock check dams are more effective at settling out sediments.
9 Please note that TRCA has recorded incidence of American Eel within Region confirmed the information on American Eel No comment on response provided no action required no action required Not applicable the reach of the Rouge River within the project area. Please consult with in the vicinity is historic data and further the Ministry of Environment Conservation Parks (MECP) for any investigation and mitigation for American Eel is not requirements under the Endangered Species Act. required for this area.
10 In order to limit the impacts to raptorial birds, TRCA recommends that Comment noted and to be carried forward to No comment on response provided no action required Complete ESR Appendix F – Natural Heritage no tree removal occur between December 1st and March 31st in detailed design and construction stages. Region will Report addition to the migratory bird timing window (Migratory Birds include qualified biologist prior to any tree removal Convention Act) noted in Section 4.4.5 of Natural Heritage and Arborist in the contract documents to address tree removals Report (January 2020). Should removals be required in that period, nest outside of the timing window. sweeps need to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any tree removal.
11 TRCA is supportive of the mitigation and edge management proposed To be reviewed in detailed design and documented No comment on response provided no action required Complete ESR Appendix F – Natural Heritage as mentioned under Item #11 in Table 11-1: Summary of Anticipated in Natural Heritage Report Report Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures of the draft ESR (Forest Edge Management Plan, TRCA 2004); however, staff recommend that improvements to the effects of lighting on wildlife at the two crossing locations be incorporated as part of the works.
12 TRCA will provide comments on impacts to the natural heritage system noted. No comment on response provided no action required no action required Not applicable and restoration based on final calculations at detailed design.
13 Please note that the geotechnical comments to be addressed at detailed comments i., iii., and iv. noted and to be carried No comment on response provided no action required complete ESR 12.2 Commitments For Future design stage: forward to detailed design stage. Work, under #14 Geotechnical and i. A topographical survey that clearly illustrates the existing top of slope, Pavement Design contours of the slope, toe of the slope, watercourse, etc. be provided, as Comments ii., v., vi., and vii. documented under applicable. section 12.2 Commitments For Future Work ii. If there are valley slopes close to the proposed structures, then a slope stability and erosion hazard assessment will have to be carried out to ensure that the proposed work will not be adversely affected by erosion hazards or slope instability. Slope stabilization, if required, to be designed by geotechnical engineer to ensure that the minimum safety factor of 1.50 is met. iii. Please provide engineering drawings of all the proposed structures, as applicable. iv. Please provide cross-sections along the alignment in adequate intervals, which show the proposed grade with respect to the existing ground, as applicable. The cross-section to illustrate all slopes/banks and other features. The proposed grades also be shown on the site plan. v. The proposed cut/fill plan to be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. A slope stability assessment is required to confirm that the proposed side slopes for the cuts satisfy a minimum safety factor of 1.50, as applicable. vi. If the construction work is in close proximity to steep slopes, then the construction methodology and sequence plan to be provided to ensure that the surrounding area/slope is not adversely impacted during the construction. TRCA ID ESR Section # Comment Response TRCA Comments to Responses Response Status Section updated in ESR Water Resources Comments vii. If access into the steep slopes and valleys is required then the construction access path, cross-sections and profile to be provided. A slope stability assessment of the cross-sections (cuts and fills) is required. The slope stability analyses to also account for heavy machinery, equipment loads, vibrations, etc. viii. If the construction results in alterations and disturbance of the slopes and valleys, any stabilization measures required to be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Depending on the slope geometry and extent of the alterations, the stabilization may require to be engineered (e.g. engineering structures) to ensure that the stabilization remains stable long-term (minimum safety factor of 1.50). Furthermore, all necessary engineering details, cross-sections to be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and drawings, signed and sealed by licensed Professional Engineer.
TRCA Property Comments 14 As shown in Sheets 10 and 11, there are two areas where the proposed Comment noted and carried forward to detailed No comment on response provided no action required no action required Not applicable Right-of-Way (RoW) impacts TRCA property within the Milne Dam design stage. Conservation Park, which is under a Management Agreement with the City of Markham. Please contact City of Markham for Permission to Enter (PTE) to enter Milne Dam Conservation Park. Once property requirements for the project area have been confirmed, please contact TRCA property staff (Trina Seguin, [email protected]) to discuss the process and timeline for the proposed transfers.
Archaeology Comments 15 Staff have no concerns associated with the built heritage Comment noted and carried forward to detailed No comment on response provided no action required complete Section 10.1.9 Property Requirements, recommendations; however, there are two areas in Milne Dam design, and documented in ESR under sections Section 12.2 Commitments For Future Conservation Park where the RoW appears to extend into TRCA 10.1.9 and 12.2. work, #1 - Property Requirements, #2 - property, as identified by the yellow polygons in Appendix B. Please Archaeology note that these areas may require a Stage 2 assessment. TRCA Staff recommends a site visit to clarify the need to undertake an investigation. Additional Comments 16 Staff note that the most up to date hydrology and hydraulic information Comment noted. must be used to inform the detailed design to ensure that there will be no impacts to flooding or erosion due to the proposed works, and to reflect the final design and grading footprint of the crossings. TRCA staff has completed their review and detailed comments are provided in Appendix A. In order to facilitate the review of the next submission, please provide one copy of a cover letter with Central File Number (CNF) 56172 quoted, which outlines how the comments in Appendix A have been addressed. Please ensure that the requested edits and TRCA correspondence is included in the final ESR.
Complete Comment-response table updated 17 As noted in the draft ESR, permits in accordance with Ontario Comment noted. Regulation 166/06 are required from TRCA prior to project construction. The Pre-Design Brief summarizing all TRCA requirements and technical commitments made during the EA stage, together with committments in Appendix A of this letter, should be used o develop the permit submission.
To be addressed in Detailed Design No action
MNRF Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road and Kennedy Road Class EA Assessment Study
Subject: MNRF Meeting
Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Location: York Region Office - 90 Bales Drive, Room 20010
Attendees: Edward Chiu, York Region Katherine Bibby, LGL Jessica Lee, York Region Grant Kauffman, LGL David Atkins, York Region Tara Erwin, HDR David Rahikka, York Region Michelle Li, HDR Jayesh Boily, York Region Jeff Anderson, MNRF Emmanuel Ogunjobi, MNRF Gerard Sullivan, York Region
Topic Facilitator Action 1 Introduction HDR/ LGL Information • Project Background; two separate Class EAs being undertaken Only on McCowan Road and Kennedy Road, from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive. • Project Schedule: Both projects currently in Phase 1, with Open Houses for McCowan Road being planned for Fall 2017, and for Kennedy Road, Winter 2018. • Fisheries, Vegetation and Tree, Amphibian, and Wildlife field investigations have taken place within appropriate survey period • Background information was received from MNRF and TRCA • Existing Aquatic Species, Terrestrial and vegetation species were presented based on the NHIC findings and preliminary field investigation
2 McCowan Road EA HDR/ LGL Information • LGL noted there are Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) Only within the study area: the Robinson Swamp Wetland Complex and Milne Park PSW • Two major water crossings are located within the McCowan Road corridor, including the Rouge River Crossing and Robinson Creek Crossing • Road widening from 4-lanes to 6-lanes is anticipated at the Rouge River Crossing; proposed recommendation is to be determined with hydraulic assessment recommendation based on the preferred road alternative • Proposed recommendation at Robinson Creek crossing is to be determined along with hydraulic assessment at a later stage based on the preferred road alternative • There is an opportunity to improve fish habitat at Robinson Creek. The presence of potential spawning redds will be confirmed through field investigations. • MNRF asked if the crossing at the Rouge River will span the river; this will be determined as the study progresses.
3 Kennedy Road EA HDR/ LGL Information • LGL noted that the Unionville March PSW is located west of Only Kennedy Road outside of the study corridor • There are two major water crossings within the Kennedy Road corridor, including the Rouge River Crossing and Rouge River Tributary Crossing. The presence of fish habitat at the Rouge River tributary will be confirmed through field investigations. Regulated habitat for Redside Dace occurs at the Rouge River Crossing. • Proposed recommendation is to be determined with hydraulic assessment recommendation based on the preferred road alternative
4 General • LGL noted that the Environmental Existing Conditions Report will be circulated for MNRF review in Fall 2017; Impact Assessment will be prepared at a later stage based on the preferred road alternative • Field visit at the crossing locations could to be arranged with MNRF at a later stage as the project proceeds • MNRF suggested having joint meetings with TRCA for these two projects • A snag tree survey has been carried out by LGL. The Region should assume that bats are present and provide overall benefit as required. The Region may take the position that bats are not present and prepare the necessary justification to support this position.
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment MNRF Meeting #2 Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: MNRF Meeting #2 Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 Location: York Region Office - 90 Bales Drive, Room 20010 Attendees: Edward Chiu, York Region Katherine Bibby, LGL Jessica Lee, York Region Tara Erwin, HDR David Atkins, York Region Merlin Yuen, HDR Gerard Sullivan, York Region Teresa Li, York Region Kenny Sun, York Region Jeff Anderson, MNRF Emmanuel Ogunjobi, MNRF Mark Heaton, MNRF
Topic Facilitator Action 1 Introduction HDR/ LGL Information • Highlight of previous MNRF meeting Only o All timing windows met for the Data Collection Schedule o Identification of relevant natural heritage areas, structures, and species at risk (SAR) • Project has progressed to Phase 2 – selection of preferred solution in accordance with YR-TMP 2016 recommendation 2 Field Investigation Update HDR/ LGL Information • Potential for endangered bat species due to several forest Only communities within study area • No barn swallow nests found • Confirmed habitat for Eastern Peewee found in 9413 McCowan Road woodlot • Potential for snapping turtle habitat on road shoulder 3 Trees and Woodlots HDR/ LGL Information • 8 trees identified of significance (>50 cm DBH) Only • 1 SAR (Kentucky Coffee Tree) identified however as the trees are planted, they do not have status • MNRF confirmed that the streetscape Kentucky Coffee Tree will not be treated as protected under the ESA due to their non- native origin 4 Rouge River Crossing HDR/ LGL Project • Rouge River at this crossing is not identified as Redside Dace team to regulated habitat revisit • Field investigation observed cyprinids, adult Common Carp overall • No amphibians recorded during the amphibian survey benefit at a • The breeding bird survey identified ten species, none of which later phase are SAR of the Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment MNRF Meeting #2 Minutes
• Inquiry on overall benefit at this location – as the preferred study solution at this location is chosen, overall benefit will be revisited • Two vegetation species of conservation (rare) were identified – Meadow Horsetail, and White Spruce • The preferred solution at this crossing will require widening or replacement of the structure, to be determined at a later phase of the study 5 Robinson Creek Crossing HDR/ LGL Project • Robinson Creek at this crossing is identified as a Redside Dace team to regulated watercourse revisit • Field investigation observed cyprinids, Brook Stickleback, and overall spawning Blacknose Dace benefit at a • Amphibian surveys noted American Toad and Green Frog later phase • The breeding bird survey identified nine species, none of which of the are SAR study • Two vegetation species of conservation were identified – Blue Cohosh, and Black Walnut • The preferred solution at this crossing will require widening or replacement of the structure, to be determined at a later phase of the study If there are any errors or omissions to these minutes, please contact Merlin Yuen at [email protected]
MECP Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan/Kennedy Road Class EAs between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive MOECC Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary Project: Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Studies
McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Meeting Summary Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 Location: 5775 Yonge Street – 8th Floor (Newtonbrook Room) Attendees: MOECC Other Project Team Representatives Amanda Graham (MOECC) Paul Acquaah (York Region) Emilee O’Leary (MOECC) David Atkins (York Region) Steven McAvoy (MOECC) Gerard Sullivan (York Region) Zeljko Romic (MOECC) Colin Wong (York Region) Kenny Sun (York Region) Kennedy Road EA Project Team & Veronica Restrepo (HDR) McCowan Road EA Project Team Jackson Marin (York Region) Edward Chiu (York Region) Billy Cheung (York Region) Jessica Lee (York Region) Jamal Ahmed (York Region) Teresa Li (York Region) Vitha Sivatharman (York Region) Tara Erwin (HDR) Lloyd Fernandes (York Region) Michelle Mascarenhas (HDR)
Topic Action 1
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan/Kennedy Road Class EAs between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive MOECC Meeting Summary
2 MOECC Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) Draft Protocol
MOECC is in receipt of the Region’s comments on the Draft AQIA Protocol. Finalization of the AQIA Protocol is currently on hold due to Senior Management staff changes at MOECC. MOECC to provide a status update on the AQIA protocol at the next MOECC YR/MOECC Meeting.
3
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan/Kennedy Road Class EAs between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive MOECC Meeting Summary
o
4 McCowan Road EA – Air Quality Impact Assessment Scope:
HDR presented the proposed air quality scope for McCowan Road EA which follows the same approach outlined for Kennedy Road EA as well as the same recommendations; to undertake a Partial AQIA for the McCowan Road EA. MOECC is in agreement with the aforementioned approach to undertake a Partial AQIA for the McCowan Road EA, where a hot spot area representative of the worse-case scenario is selected for detailed air quality modelling for McCowan Road. The receptors for the analysis will be identified during the modelling stage. HDR presented each of the seven segments for consideration, identifying the critical and sensitive receptors and traffic volumes for each. The recommended “hot spot area” to represent the “worst case scenario” for the McCowan Road EA is the segment from Highway 7 to Carlton Road based on the following attributes: o Highest future traffic volumes of all segments o Largest cluster of critical receptors adjacent to McCowan Road; o High volume of sensitive receptors on both sides of McCowan Road from the Stouffville GO Rail Crossing to Carlton Road hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan/Kennedy Road Class EAs between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive MOECC Meeting Summary
MOECC is in agreement with the representative segment from Highway 7 to Carlton Road to represent the “hot spot area” for the McCowan Road EA. HDR to undertake a Partial AQIA for the McCowan Road EA by completing emissions modelling for the segment from Highway 7 to Carlton Road. HDR
6 First Nations and Public Consultation for Region’s EAs
Mississauga of New Credit have requested to have active on-site participation at all archaeological surveys and assessments for the Region’s EA studies. York Region is not obligated by law to accommodate this request but will review. MOECC noted that different levels of consultation are required with Indigenous Groups depending on whether the consultation is Indigenous rights-based or Indigenous interest-based. Guidance is requested by York Region from MOECC as the duty to consult has changed in recent years, and clarification on responsibilities would be helpful to determine Region-wide updates to process with First Nations. Region and MOECC to discuss further and clarify Crown’s requirements to address this request/concern. York Region noted that other methods of notification were more effective than the newspaper postings that are mandated by the EA process. MOECC supports the use of alternative methods to notify the public however, mentions that the newspaper postings are still necessary. MOECC notes that the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) is in the process of providing an update to the EA process with regards to the notification process.
If there are any errors or omissions, please advise [email protected] within five business days.
Minutes prepared by
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary Project: McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: MECP Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Monday, April 15, 2019 Location: 8th Floor, 5775 Yonge Street, Newtonbrook Room (MECP Office) Attendees: Emilee O’Leary, MECP Edward Chiu, York Region Amanda Graham, MECP Gerard Sullivan, York Region Sandy Zammar, MECP Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Jeff Anderson, MECP (via teleconference) Christopher Rotella, York Region Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR
Meeting M.Mascarenhas presented materials as per attached presentation slides including Overview: project overview, design approach for widening and active transportation for the corridor, evaluation criteria, design options, evaluation and recommendations at areas of special consideration, and next steps. A brief overview of natural heritage features in the corridor was presented to recap from previous meeting materials. Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and M. Mascarenhas) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations. Background information including, widening options, and active transportation options were presented. 3. Key Discussion
Active Transportation Recommendation Project team consulted with the City of Markham who provided feedback on the active transportation facility interim and ultimate recommendation. Instead of asphalt multi-use path (MUP), the City’s current practice is to install concrete MUPs. They also suggested to install a 3.3m concrete multi-use path, instead of an interim 3.0m multi-use path so that transition to the ultimate 3.3m facility requires only line markings and signage to delineate the cycle track and sidewalk.
Rouge River This crossing is not identified as an aquatic species at risk regulated watercourse. Project team recommends replacement at the Rouge River to accommodate existing overtopping. Three single-span bridge options were considered (25m, 35m and 45m). Each option
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
includes a raise of the road profile to address existing overtopping. The 25m span is based on the existing opening size. The 45m span option accommodates the fluvial geomorphological recommended span length. The 35m span partially address the fluvial geomorphological recommendation Engineering solutions can be employed where the fluvial geomorphological recommendation (45m) is not provided. The fluvial geomorphological findings noted that the crossing is relatively straight, stable and partially confined at the south bank valley wall. There has been limited evidence of movement. Any new bridge structure will be widened towards the north bank of the channel given the south bank is confined by the valley wall. The 25m span option is recommended. It addresses the 100 year hydraulic requirements and maintains the existing opening size. Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is reviewing the request to provide wildlife passage at this location as per City’s policy.
Robinson Creek This crossing is identified as an aquatic species at risk regulated watercourse. Project team recommends replacement at the Robinson Creek crossing even though the existing three culverts are in good condition and can be widened to accommodate the proposed improvements, because the remaining service life of the culverts would not be significant with the current timing for the widening (outside of the Region’s 10 year capital program). Four options were considered (extend culvert, replace with 12m precast concrete box culvert, replace with 22m precast concrete box culvert, and replace with 22m single span bridge). The 22m options accommodate the fluvial geomorphological recommended span. The 12m span option provide the existing opening size which meets the hydraulic requirement. Engineering solutions can be employed where the fluvial geomorphological recommendation (22m) is not provided.
There are no existing hydraulic concerns with the existing
opening size.
Project team’s recommendation is to replace the Robinson Creek
culverts with a 12m precast concrete box culvert, which will be
oversized to include natural substrate bottom.
Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is reviewing the request to include wildlife passage at this location based on City’s policy. Jeff A. (MECP) indicated that an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Overall Benefit 17(2)(c) permit would be required at this location for the proposed work. It will be difficult to find a location for overall benefit in this area as it has already been used by other projects. Jeff A. (MECP) prefers the single span bridge option overall instead of the precast concrete box culvert options (12m and 22m) with the proposed embedded natural substrate bottoms,as the culverts may accumulate debris over time that blocks the openings. The bridge option also allows the watercourse to
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
meander over time. Between the 12m and 22m precast concrete box culverts, Jeff A. (MECP) prefers the 22m option. Project team to send Jeff A. (MECP) email outlining the HDR study recommendation, options assessed, evaluations and provide supplementary technical studies (including natural heritage, fluvial geomorphology, drainage and stormwater management documenting velocities and storm events used in the assessment, foundation report etc.) to inform the recommendations. Jeff A. (MECP) to review and provide comments on the MECP (Jeff A.) package from the project team, addressing: o Between the 22m precast concrete box culvert and 22m span bridge, what benefits MECP feels these options achieve to assist the project team in reviewing the overall recommendation at this crossing. o For the recommended 12m precast concrete box culvert, what requirements does MECP need to have addressed for this option to proceed to implementation? Requirements beyond the EA study would be included in the Environmental Study Report (ESR) as future commitments. HDR Project team to submit design plans of preferred design for Jeff A. (MECP) to comment on once recommendation is confirmed. Based on the Region’s current 10-Year Capital Program, the section of McCowan Road that includes the Robinson Creek crossing is slated for construction to start beyond the next 10 years.
Metrolinx Underpass design is recommended to grade separate the Stouffville GO Rail crossing with McCowan Road as the ultimate solution. Interim solution is to provide an at-grade crossing. Temporary dewatering rates during construction of the underpass are anticipated to require a Category 3 PTTW. Long term dewatering strategy is required for the underpass due to the high ground water table and will result in the need for a permanent pumping station.
CN
The existing structure opening can accommodate the widening of
McCowan Road to six lanes without structure widening. Active
transportation facilities are recommended behind the outside pier
requiring modifications to the existing embankment (retaining
wall).
407ETR
The existing structure currently carries six lanes with the curb
lanes currently functioning as speed change lanes to the
407ETR on-ramps. The widening of McCowan Road to six lanes
for Transit/HOV can be accommodated on the existing bridge
over the 407ETR without bridge widening. Active transportation
facilities are recommended as separate structures over Highway
407 along McCowan Road. HDR
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
Interim vs Ultimate Solutions Project team to provide clear documentation in the Environmental Study Report for implementation assumptions for the interim and ultimate solutions. It should be evident in the study documentation what triggers or conditions are in place for the interim solution and ultimate solution.
Air Quality Impact Assessment MECP reviewed the AQIA report and provided high level comments: idling was not considered and needs to be, additional discussion required on traffic assumptions, and clarification of MECP (Amanda modelling parameters. G.) MECP to provide detailed comments on AQIA to the project team.
Other Items Region noted the consultation program for this study exceeds minimum mandatory requirements including road signs, paid Facebook ads, online open house, video presentation, study website etc. MECP noted proponents can change their notification bylaw which will result in the proponent’s ability to use other measures for notification in place of the newspaper advertisements. Project team to circulate the draft ESR to MECP for review as the study progresses.
HDR
4. Next Steps MECP requested to provide any comments on the drawings, MECP evaluation tables and presentation in the upcoming weeks. Project team will meet with review agencies and the stakeholder group in the upcoming weeks to review the recommendations. Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
MECP ID Date ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR We are still in a period of transition and currently reviewing the draft. If the Region moves forward and issues their notice of completion for this project, we will provide comments at the Final ESR stage. If any concerns 1 20200127 do arise during our draft review, we will let you know. Acknowledged No action required None Permits/permissions under the Endangered Species Act may be required To be confirmed during Detailed Design subject to a review of final plans. & identified in Section 12.2 commitment 2 20200127 for Future Work No action required Section 12.2 The ministry’s “Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch” is 3 20200707 Page 6 now the “Environmental Assessment Branch” (page 6). revised Complete page 6, section 1.3.1 The Provincial Policy Statement was updated in 2020 4 20200707 (https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020). revised complete section 2.1 Page 156 states “Signals at Wilfred Murison Avenue/James Parrot Avenue are planned to be installed in 2019”. Please update this sentence as it is 5 20200707 Page 156 now 2020. revised complete 10.1.7 Stormwater management (SWM) is described in detail in Appendix I. We find the selected SWM criteria for both water quality and quantity meet ministry requirements. Detailed design of SWM for each road section will be undertaken in the future. At this time, the draft ESR identifies that SWM will largely be achieved through the use of infiltration trenches, online storage pipes, bioretention systems and OGS, as appropriate. In our opinion, the use of these types of BMPs is appropriate for SWM for linear infrastructure. Whether the combination of selected BMPs for a given road section meets the selected criteria or not is something that will be reviewed 6 20200707 Appendix I at the Environmental Compliance Approval stage. Acknowledged No action required None The need for water taking and Permits to Take Water/EASRs is discussed in the hydrogeological assessment report in Appendix K. While adequate for purposes of the EA, more detailed investigations will be required in support of PTTW applications (a Category 3 Hydrogeological Assessment will need to be submitted if a PTTW is required for construction dewatering). Please take a careful look at the EASR requirements and exemption provisions for stream bypassing, as significant unforeseen complications can arise related to a stream bypass that may initially be considered to be exempt from a requirement to obtain a PTTW (for example one of the requirements to qualify for the exemption of active bypasses is to have refueling stations > 30 m from the stream).
7 20200707 Acknowledged No action required none Excess Soil Management – In December 2019, MECP released a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act, titled “On-Site and Excess Soil Management” (O. Reg. 406/19) to support improved management of excess construction soil. The new regulation is being phased in over time, with the first phase currently set to take effect on January 1, 2021 for reuse rules including risk-based standards, waste designation and approvals. More information is found here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/handling-excess-soil. In addition to the ministry’s excess soil guidelines, please also include compliance with O. 8 20200707 Reg. 406/19 in Table 11-1. revised complete 11.1 Table 11-1 should also discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures 9 20200707 related to accidental spills into watercourses. revised complete 11.1 MECP ID Date ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR With respect to impacts to groundwater, the Region needs to consider the recommendations of the Contamination Overview Study (Golder, 2017): o Conduct a subsurface investigation in the vicinity of each APEC identified as having a moderate risk in order to assess the potential presence of subsurface environmental impacts and the potential for these impacts, if any, to affect the proposed ROW improvements. Depending on the depth of excavation required for the proposed ROW improvement, the investigation may include the characterization of both soil and groundwater quality; and Incorporate requirements in the construction specification regarding the environmental characterization and management of excess soil. 10 20200707 revised complete 11.1 We note from the consultation tracker in Appendix B that some responses are pending. Please ensure Appendix B is updated with any outstanding 11 20200707 responses or future actions required by the Region. revised complete Appendix B Section 4.3.1 Technical Advisory Committee states that “Key agency- specific correspondence is included in Appendix C. Detailed minutes and additional correspondence are contained with the Region’s project files.” It should be noted that those consultation records form a part of the public file for this project and are available for review should it be requested. Acknowledged. Appendix C will be 12 20200707 updated to inlcude key meeting minutes complete Appendix C We note that the information for section 11.1 Key Agency Direction the draft ESR comment-response tables requires updating for the final report and that at this time, it is unclear are added which show that how final whether there are any outstanding concerns/comments for some review comments are addressed 13 20200707 agencies. complete Appendix C
CN Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
The Regional Municipality of York Courier Address: 90 Bales Drive East | East Gwillimbury, ON L0G 1V0 Mailing Address: 17250 Yonge Street | Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1
O: 1-877-464-9675 ext. 75908 | [email protected] | www.york.ca Our Values: Integrity, Commitment, Accountability, Respect, Excellence
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Chiu, Edward Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 6:25 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: MacKay, Doug Subject: Kennedy Road and McCowan Road EAs - Summary of Discussion with CN Rail (draft)
Hi Michael,
Here are my notes on our discussion with CN Rail on February 15:
McCowan Road
· Existing CN bridge will likely be retained as there appears to be sufficient width to provide 3 lanes of traffic in each direction
· Options to provide active transportation facility (multi-use path or bike lane with sidewalk) include: o Active transportation facility (AT) between curb and pier o AT between pier and abutment · CN noted trains typically stack west of McCowan Road to allow westbound train to pass before proceeding
· CN has no objection to provide AT between pier and abutment, provided there is sufficient frost treatment protection for the abutment
· CN to provide frost treatment requirement to York Region for use · A list of data request is provided to CN, CN to review and provide available information
·
Please let me know if I missed anything, thanks.
Edward Chiu, P.Eng | Sr. Project Manager, Capital Planning & Delivery, Transportation Services ------The Regional Municipality of York Courier Address: 90 Bales Drive East | East Gwillimbury, ON L0G 1V0 Mailing Address: 17250 Yonge Street | Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1
O: 1-877-464-9675 ext. 75908 | [email protected] | www.york.ca Our Values: Integrity, Commitment, Accountability, Respect, Excellence
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments CN Rail Meeting #2 Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Studies, between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: CN Rail Meeting #2 – Review of Design Alternatives Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 Location: CN Rail Offices, 1 Administration Road, Vaughan Attendees: Michael Vallins, CN Rail Edward Chiu, York Region Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Teresa Li, York Region
Tyrone Gan, HDR Matthew Goulet, HDR Merlin Yuen, HDR Meeting Meeting with CN to discuss design options for the CN crossing at McCowan Road. Purpose:
Item Action 1 Introductions and Safety Briefing Information Only 2 Key Points of Discussion
McCowan Road – CN Rail Segment For the McCowan Road CN Rail segment, CN is not concerned with widening for the preferred alternative as long as the construction does not impact the existing structure and the new cross section does not facilitate trespassing on the railway right of way. CN noted that it would need to review the design and construction techniques at the detail design stage for any potential impacts to footings and piers. CN noted that there shouldn’t be any restrictions with construction on the slopes however, this should be confirmed with the structural assessment at this location. CN did not have a preference with the type of active transportation (AT) facility as long as it promoted the reduction of trespassing along CN Rail property and has no impact to the bridge abutment and footing if the AT facility is behind the piers.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments CN Rail Meeting #2 Minutes
crossing
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments CN Rail Meeting #2 Minutes
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Merlin Yuen at [email protected].
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: CN Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Thursday, April 04, 2019
Location: CN Office - 1 Administration Rd, Concord, ON L4K 1B9, Canada Attendees: Michael Valins, CN Tyrone Gan, HDR Edward Chiu, York Region Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Matthew Goulet, HDR
Meeting T.Gan presented design approach for improvements at the CN crossing at McCowan Overview: Road including design options, evaluation and recommendations, and next steps.
Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) Safety Briefing by Michael Vallins 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Gan) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations at the CN crossing for comment. 3. Key Discussion McCowan Road study corridor crosses two rail lines: o Stouffville GO Line crosses McCowan Road at-grade north of Bullock Drive but is now owned by Metrolinx and no longer owned by CN. o CN rail is grade-separated at McCowan Road south of Highway 407, as the rail crosses over McCowan Road on a bridge. This crossing is the focus of the meeting. T.Gan presented the design options at the CN structure located south of Highway 407. As previously discussed the structure has an existing opening that can accommodate a six lane widening of McCowan Road. The options developed review if active transportation (AT) facilities (for pedestrian and cyclists) are placed either between the curb and outside pier (Option 1), or behind the outside pier cutting into the existing embankment (Option 2). Two variations of Option 1 (1A and 1B) explore different side clearance widths (1.0m vs 1.5m) and resulting reductions of the centre median width. Options 1A and 1B require reduction in the centre median width resulting in travel lanes in closer proximity to the centre pier and
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
run over top of the existing foundation. Equipment would be need under the bridge to construct the improvements. Option 2 requires modifications to the embankment to accommodate the AT facilities behind the pier. A retained soil system (RSS) or concrete wall could be used to support the embankment. The options will be reviewed and confirmed during detailed design and will follow the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation. CN noted piles support the existing bridge footing. Options should not impact the existing footings/foundation and not expose the slope. CN is not concerned with pedestrian and cyclist loading on top of the existing foundation. CN noted freight by-pass has no impact at this crossing CN noted Options 1A and 1B results in traffic closer to centre pier which increases risk of conflicts with the pier. This option may also result in an alignment shift and reconstruction of catch basins etc. CN is in agreement with the recommendation of Option 2 as the travel lanes are not on top of the existing footing. HDR to confirm if side clearance of 1.5m is required at this location given the road is under the bridge. Side clearance is HDR typically used for the road on the structure.
CN (M.Valins) to confirm that no formal agreement is needed CN between CN and YR for this work given the structure is not
changing. CN assumes it is not required.
HDR to add future commitments in the Environmental Study HDR Report that includes: o Consideration of vibration monitoring / restrictions / limitations to minimize impacts to utilities on the bridge (i.e. Bell). o Settlement monitoring points should be placed at the abutments. o Consultation with CN during detailed design and confirmation if a CN work permit is required. CN noted that flagging might not be required for this work as long as it remains below track level. CN to review prior to mobilization.
4. Next Steps CN is requested to provide any comments on the drawings, CN evaluation table and presentation in the upcoming weeks. Project team will meet with review agencies and the stakeholder group in the upcoming weeks to review the recommendations. Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
MTO and 407ETR Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham MTO – 407 Meeting Summary
MTO – 407 Meeting Summary Project: Class EA Study for McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive
Subject: MTO – 407 Design Options Meeting Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 Location: 159 Sir William Hearst Ave, Toronto ON, M3M 0B7, 7th Floor Main Boardroom Attendees: Edward Chiu, York Region Frank Martins, MTO Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Margaret Mikolajczak, MTO Dragan Mrkela, 407 ETR Tyrone Gan, HDR Jeff Booker, 407 ETR Ben Loucks, HDR Tony Angelo, 407 ETR Laura Chong, HDR
Meeting T.Gan and B. Loucks presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project Overview: overview, design approach, VISSIM analysis results, design options at the 407ETR interchange, evaluation criteria, and next steps.
Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Gan) Information Only. Two separate Schedule ‘C’ Class EAs are being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive) The projects are being run concurrently. Project Schedule: Both projects are in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House for each project is planned for 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss what options the project team is considering for the 407 crossing and to present the VISSIM analysis. Background information, widening options, and active transportation options were presented.
3. VISSIM Analysis Results (B.Loucks) Three scenarios were assessed: existing conditions, 2041 without Speed Change Lanes (SCL), and 2041 with SCL. Key measures of effectiveness included delay for traffic using the loop ramps and queue lengths that could impact ramp operations. Overall, the delay analysis indicated very little benefit from speed change lanes. The only movement with a noticeable benefit is the McCowan SB to 407ETR EB movement in the AM (-2 s improvement). Queue analysis results are consistent with the delay analysis, as observed queues do not extend beyond the gore of the loop ramps in the HOV/Transit lane.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham MTO – 407 Meeting Summary
407ETR inquired whether or not we are looking at changing the lane configuration at off-ramps. Currently the median island prohibits a double left-turn. 407ETR is contemplating revising the off ramps (where needed) to provide double left movements. HDR responded that for the purposes of analysis we assumed double-left turn movements at the off-ramp. The project team will investigate what needs to change to accommodate it and incorporate into the preliminary design. MTO commented that SCL are not provided when there are 3 lanes of through traffic. 407ETR noted that from a business perspective,they have to make the highway attractive to customers. The bridges are girder bridges that are easy to widen. There are also new Active Transportation (AT) requirements that we need to take into consideration. 407ETR commented that they permitted median transit infrastructure on the Bathurst Street underpass but this is not desirable as this configuration created operational issues for them. 407ETR commented that TAC standard is 3.5 m lanes minimum for all lanes. HDR noted that the McCowan Road controlling points are 14th and Hwy 7, so widening will help improve traffic flow to the 407ETR interchanges, increasing potential customer traffic. HDR commented that they’re not widening for Cycle Track (CT) and Sidewalk (SW), 2.4 m clear space is needed for Multi-Use Path (MUP). 407ETR inquired if 2.4 m is sufficient for an MUP based on current TAC guidelines. HDR to confirm. 407 noted that the heights of barrier walls should be considered for each scenario to accommodate AT users. Key documentation needed for 407ETR to proceed includes cross-sections, conceptual GA, and preliminary construction staging. HDR is reviewing staging as part of the preliminary design process. 407ETR commented that, they have to maintain traffic lanes for customers on the mainline. 407 to provide 407ETR noted that vertical clearances should be reviewed before pavement info for advancing the design. 407ETR commented that median construction at other crossings under the bridges is planned for 2021. McCowan could be bundled with this construction if contract packages are ready in time. 407ETR inquired if cycle lengths were adjusted in the HDR will provide optimization process for the analysis. HDR responded that queuing analysis for existing green ratios for the off-ramps were maintained. off-ramps.
MTO commented that with respect to normalizing the on-ramps from high-speed ramps to right turns to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist crossings, the terms of the agreement with 407ETR is that all interchanges must be Parclo A4. This may preclude normalizing the ramps. In addition, the normalization of the ramps will also reduce the operations of the ramps. hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham MTO – 407 Meeting Summary
HDR noted that the preliminary design will include the 407 Transitway crossing concept. MTO commented that MTO permits will be required to cross the transitway alignment. 407ETR noted that they are obligated to meet TAC and MTO standards. The Region inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of a separate AT structure if this is selected as the preferred concept. 407ETR prefers to maintain everything within their right- of-way. This could be arranged through a cost agreement.
4. Next Steps 407ETR to send comments 407ETR to review VISSIM memos (2 weeks) and will prioritize by Febuary 1, 2019 McCowan Road.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Environmental Assessments MTO – 407ETR Meeting Summary
MTO – 407ETR Meeting Summary Project: Class EA Study for McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive and Kennedy Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: MTO – 407ETR Post Draft ESR Comments Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 Location: Webex Attendees: Jeff Booker, 407 ETR Edward Chiu, York Region Tony Angelo, 407 ETR Shawn Ellsworth, York Region Marek Wiesek, 407 ETR Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Craig White, 407 ETR Laura Chong, HDR Frank Martins, MTO Meeting To discuss MTO’s and 407ETR’s concerns regarding the Recommended and Ultimate Vision for Overview: separated Active Transportation Bridge(s) over the 407ETR Interchange.
Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Overview Information Only. • E. Chiu noted the project team thought we had buy-in from 407ETR and MTO for the separated active transportation (AT) bridge(s) based on discussions at previous meetings and circulation of the Draft ESR. • E. Chiu clarified that the project team looked into multiple options to widen the existing bridge; and the separate AT bridges were recommended. The proposed improvements include a Recommended Design to provide AT bridge(s) over407ETR to be supplemented by an Ultimate Vision to provide active transportation bridges over the ramps to eliminate the at-grade crossing conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. Timing of implementation of the Ultimate Vision to be determined in Detailed Design as the bridges over the on-ramps and off-ramps would be built when there is more demand.
3. Discussion • J. Booker noted that separate AT structures are beneficial when conflict points are reduced. • 407ETR has the following concerns: • The ESR does not address the conflict points in the Recommended Design and only in the Ultimate Vision. Timing of the Ultimate Vision (separate AT bridges over the ramps) is deferred to be determined in Detailed Design, however 407ETR feels timing should be identified in the EA. • Vertical clearance on the existing structure is not an issue which permits options to widen the existing structure. • The existing sidewalks on the bridge must be removed if the recommendation is separate AT bridges. If sidewalks are removed, the barrier walls on the existing structure need to
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1 Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Environmental Assessments MTO – 407ETR Meeting Summary
be heightened because cyclists are likely to stay on the bridge. • The cost of removing the sidewalks and heightening the barrier walls was not considered in the materials 407ETR has reviewed. • J. Booker noted that 407ETR would like the Region to reconsider the centre median AT facility. • F. Martins noted that MTO is in favour of separate AT structures when the conflict points are removed. He also noted that he was skeptical of the median AT facility at Highway 7 & Highway 400; however, it has proven to reduce the conflict points. • F. Martins noted that MTO would also like to revisit the median AT facility during Detailed Design, because it would reduce the conflict points. • E. Chiu clarified the reasons a median AT facility was not recommended includes: • When this option was introduced previously, MTO and 407ETR were not in favour / supportive. • Any rehabilitation of the bridge would be a challenge to maintain traffic since the median barrier will limit shifting of traffic. • It would have increased mainteance cost.The northbound and southbound lanes on McCowan Road would be shifted,
resulting in realignment and reconstruction of the loop ramps. • When considering the pilot location for the median AT structure it is noted there is less north-south traffic on
McCowan Road than on the 400 series highway.The Highway 7 & Highway 400 area has bus lanes that provides more separation from pedestrians and cyclists.
• Subsequent to the meeting, it was also noted that the conflict points were eliminated at Hwy. 400/Hwy. 7 by shifting the interchange ramps beyond the ramp terminal traffic signals.
If similar ramp realignment is not provided at McCowan Road, only 2 conflict points (inner loop ramps) will be removed with the median AT facility.
• F. Martins noted he would like to see AT bridges over all the at-
grade pedestrian / cyclist ramp crossings to eliminate conflicts. • E. Chiu asked HDR to prepare a profile of the the AT bridge on HDR one side of McCowan Road (east or west) to demonstrate how
the clearances can work at the conflict points for the interim and ultimate conflicts. • J. Booker noted that if there is a jug handle, the crossing should
meet OTM standards for cycling facilities. • J. Booker noted that part of the legal agreement will be an indemnification clause for the removal of sidewalks and addition of the AT bridge. 407ETR to provide sample language for the 407ETR agreement (e.g. Rodick Road).
• J. Booker asked if a separate bridge is constructed on one side and sidewalks are removed from the bridge on both sides, where will pedestrians cross to one side? Pedestrians and cyclists will cross the street at the ramp terminal traffic signal. • E. Chiu clarified that it has not been confirmed which side the AT bridge will be constructed first (east or west) because the City of Markham’s input is still needed.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Environmental Assessments MTO – 407ETR Meeting Summary
• J. Booker noted that the transition at the signalized ramp terminal HDR should be made clear in the ESR. HDR to update ESR and add as a commitment. • J. Booker noted that 407ETR does not think clearance is an issue and can be maintained with structural engineering. M.Mascarenhas clarififed the existing vertical clearances are met with the existing structure however when the project team looked at alternatives to widen the structure we did not include additional widening on the west side of McCowan Road. This is because the bridge was previously widened on the west side and based on the 2001 GA widening drawings additional widening on the west side would reduce the vertical clearance to less than the
minimum requirements. The McCowan Road EA did include options to widen the existing structure, but only options to widen on the east side. Widening on the east side only did not preclude any options to modify the existing structure then reviewed in the Kennedy Road EA that incorporated widening both east and west sides. • HDR to revisit median multi-use path at the 407ETR. HDR • E. Chiu noted that Kennedy Road is the same; however, noted the challenges with Kennedy. • J. Booker noted that widening the 407ETR has been deferred and is no longer planned for 2021 construction, as traffic v olumes are not justified at this point. Construction could be delayed until 2022, but it is uncertain. 407ETR could keep the widening for the Region in the 407ETR tender package, but at a minimum would like to do their pier work first. J. Booker to provide a status of 407ETR the work when known. • J. Booker noted that the AT work for the McCowan Road EA at the 407ETR interchange would be combined with a much larger 407ETR construction project so the cost to the Region is anticipated to be significantly less then if tendered separately by the Region under another contractor. • E. Chiu noted that senior management would need to sign off on any commitments for advancing York Region’s work in 407ETRs tender package. • HDR to circulate the AT bridge profile (ultimate) on one side of HDR McCowan Road which eliminates all ramp at-grade crossing conflicts with AT users along one side, and also send the review of the consideration of the median AT alternative to 407ETR (J.Booker, M.Efimova.) and MTO (F.Martins, M.Mikolajczak, M.Wiesek)
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
407ETR ID ESR Section # Comment Response Additional Comments Status Section that was updated Structural Assessment Report 1 407ETR Section. The structure should be properly labelled as Mccown Road Text will be revised as noted in Structural Design Report and ESR text to be revised in SDR; Appendix L - 407ETR SDR, Intechange Underpass of 407. complete in ESR ESR Section 6.13.2 407ETR Interchange, 9.3.3.2 2 407ETR Section 3.1 - Mccowan Road underpass of 407 - the existing barrier wall Barrier width will be revised as noted. to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR Intechange width is 0.43 and not 0.48 as stated 3 407ETR Section 4.1 - we disagree with the statement that "… any future widening Based on the 2001 west side widening drawings the available minimum clearance 407ETR has advised that the construction of a separate Text to be added to clarify Appendix L - 407ETR SDR Intechange may only occur on the east side". It is noted that there are alternatives that is 5054mm. Hence further widening on this side is not feasible without encroaching structures are not preferable. A such, the EA should review all have not been explored that could widen the superstructure to the east. into the minimum required clearance and not considered as an alternatives in our alternatives for widening of the existing structure. The widening Revise report study. Since the recommendation is to provide separate AT facilities, the widening of the existing bridge can be completed on the east and west of the existing bridge is not required. sides while maintaining the required vertical clearances. these alternative should be reviewed as part of the EA
4 407ETR Section 4.1. sections 4.11-4.16. it is noted that to pratically inspect the Text will be revised as noted. to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR Intechange underside of the Mccowan Road underpass of 407, the access would be via lane closures on hwy 407. 5 407ETR section 4.1.6 - separate AT. The proposed truss structure would need to As per CHBDC the maintenance vehicle width is 2.200m and the provided width to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR Intechange be designed wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles. As 3.9m should be sufficient. We can make use of 4 Tube railing on concrete curb or such traffic barriers will be required. a traffic barrier with railing. The AT bridge will have to be widened by 0.6m on each side to accommodate this arrangement. In addition to the minimum width as per CHBDC, during Detailed Design York Region will be confirming the width with City of Markham and Operations to meet maintenance requirements.
6 407ETR section 4.1.6 - separate AT. The proposed steel truss structure will need This will be reviewed during detailed design stage when actual location of the AT complete ESR Section 12.2 Future Intechange to be throughly reveiwed for potential interference with our tolling bridge is finalized. Commitments infrastructure 7 407ETR section 4.1.6 - separate AT. MUP pathway width shall be reveiwed. TACC The EA study will continue to protect for the 3.3m MUP plus side clearances which No change Not applicable Intechange guideline suggest 4.0m plus side clearances is greater then the 3.0m minimum MUP and absolute minimum MUP width of 2.4m. The proposed 3.3m width with side clearancesallows for future delineation / conversion to 1.8m cycle track and 1.5m in the remainder of the study corridor beyond the separate AT structures. During Detailed Design York Region will be confirming the width with City of Markham and Operations to meet maintenance requirements.
8 407ETR section 4.1.6 - separate AT. The proposed separate AT structure would 407ETR's request to revise the existing bridge structure will be discussed in complete ESR Section 12.2 Future Intechange still require rehabilitation of the existing McCowan Road Underpass of greater detail during the detailed design phase. Commitments 407. The existing sidewalks along the bridge would require removal and the existing barrier walls will be required to be raised to meet bicycle guidelines. These costs should be included in this alternative. Also, the costs associated with the removals of the sidewalk and the upgrade of the barrier wall will be the responsibility of the proponent York Region.
9 Appendix A Option 1-4: multi-use pathway width of 3.0m plus side clearance is not This option was not carried forward for further study nor recommended, however No change Not applicable recommended. TACC suggest a 4.0m plus side clearance. MUP widths considered were consistent throughout the study and along other proposed structures. No change as this option is not recommended
10 Appendix A Option 1, 3, 4, and 5: the barrier wall along the multi-use pathway will be Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 - Barrier wall will be modified to meet the height requirements to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR required to be rasied to meet bicycle traffic. Revise for bicycle traffic. 11 Appendix A Option 1, 2, and 3: the existing barrier wall will be required to be raised to Options 1, 2 & 3 - Barrier wall will be modified to meet the height requirements for to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR meet bicycle traffic. Revise bicycle traffic. 12 Appendix B GA drawing. The existing barrier walls on the Mccowan Road Underpass Since separate AT facilities will be provided, there is no need to modify the railing No change ESR Section 12.2 Future will be required to be raised to meet bicycle traffic. Revise on the existing bridge. Revision to the existing bridge structure will be discussed in Commitments greater details during the detailed design phase with 407ETR.
13 Appendix B GA drawing. The existing barrier walls on the Mccowan Road Underpass See response for Item 12. No change ESR Section 12.2 Future will be required be reconstructed to meet current CHBDC guidelines. Commitments Revise 407ETR ID ESR Section # Comment Response Additional Comments Status Section that was updated 12 Appendix B GA drawing. 407ETR has previously advised that the construction of an Comment noted. York Region is protecting for both east and west sides for the AT no change ESR Section 10.1.12 407ETR additional structure (s) is not preferable. bridges through the EA study. During Detailed Design the Region will review and Interchange, Section 12.2 Future confirm with MTO, 407ETR and the City of Markham on the preferred locations. Commitments
14 Appendix B GA drawing. The proposed truss structure should be designed wide See response for Item 5. to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR enough to accommodate maintenance vehicle. 15 Appendix B GA drawing. The proposed truss structure shall have traffic barriers. Steel Tube railing or traffic barriers will be added. See also response for Item 5. to be revised Appendix L - 407ETR SDR Revise 16 The currently recommended option does not reduce the existing number The ESR document will be updated to reflect a recommended (AT bridge over complete ESR Section 9.3.5 Overall of conflict points between vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians. the 407ETR only on one or both sides) and ultimate vision (bridges over the Design Recommendations 407ETR and at the on-ramps which can be on one or both sides). The cost already discussed in: estimate will only include bridges over the 407ETR only (recommended) and that - Section 10.1.12 407ETR the ultimate vision (additional bridges over 407ETR) will result in costs that are not Interchange yet funded.During Detailed Design in discussions with 407ETR, MTO, City of - 10.1.12.1 Structural Markham and York Region will be held to confirm one or both sides of the AT Recommendations bridges (east or west) and if bridges over on-ramps (ultimate solution) are - 10.1.12.2 Geotechnical identified at that time. Recommendations - Section 10.1.21 Preliminary Cost Estimate - Section 11.2.9 Ministry of Transportation and 407ETR - Section 12.2 commitments for Future Work #10 - Section 12.3 Timing of Improvements
17 Any type of crossing (new structure or modification of existing) will require Noted. The Region will work with 407ETR to develop an appropriate agreement. Complete ESR Section 12.2 Commitments a legal agreement detailing rights and responsibilities during construction This is documented under Section 12.2 Commitments for Future Work in the ESR for Future Work and future maintenance. This agreement will also outline the and to be addressed during detailed design. responsibility of the region to cover any/all costs for temporary and permanent utility relocation that may affect the 407 ETR in future operations as a result of a new bridge installation. 18 407 ETR is opposed to two separate pedestrian/cyclist crossings. Noted. This was documented under Section 11.1 Key Agency Direction and Complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency Construction should be done in one stage and built for future ped/cyclist Section 12.2 Commitments in the ESR and to be addressed during detailed Direction volumes/requirements without the need to come back and expand the design. ESR Section 12.2 Commitments potential structure or add a new one. 407 ETR would not support for Future Work construction in various stages over the course of 5/10 years as it would During Detailed Design in discussions with 407, MTO, City of Markham and York cause unnecessary impact to traffic on McCowan Rd & Highway 407 Region will discuss and confirm one or both sides of the AT bridges (east or west) ETR. and if bridges over on-ramps (ultimate solution) are identified at that time.
19 Currently, 407ETR inside (median) widening is tentatively scheduled to Noted. This was documented under Section 11.1 Key Agency Direction. Text was Complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency take place approximately starting on the following dates: 2021 with the updated to reflect constructions dates 2021 to Fall 2022 OR 2022 to Fall 2023. Direction completion date fall 2022 or 2022 with the completion date fall 2023. 407 This was also updated in Section 12.2 Commitments for Future work in the ESR ESR Section 12.2 Commitments ETR will keep York Region informed of the construction dates once the and to be addressed during detailed design. for Future Work dates are confirmed. It should be noted 407 ETR capital projects within the 407 ROW will take precedence over York Region’s work. During Detailed Design in discussions with 407, MTO, City of Markham and York Region will review and confirm ability to accelerate design of AT bridges to coincide with 407 construction.
20 407 ETR will not permit lane shifts, lane width reductions or reductions of Noted. Updated and documented under Section 11.1 Key Agency Direction and Complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency lanes (during peak hours) for the construction of new structure or Section 12.2 Commitments in the ESR and to be addressed during detailed Direction modification of the existing bridge once the 407 ETR median widening is design. ESR Section 12.2 Commitments complete. for Future Work
Additional Emailed Comments (Nov 17 2020) 407ETR requests an additional evaluation for Alternative 6. Please add Evaluation table revised Evaluation table to be reviewed. Complete Evaluation table revised column for interim solution as Alternative 6 A - Interim Solution and Alternative 6 B - Ultimate 407 ETR requests that 2 separate drawings be provided in the ESR - Separate ESR design drawings are being prepared to reflect the Ultimate and ESR updated drawings to be reviewed. The transition from Interim and Ultimate Interim recommendations. This design work will be confirmed during Detailed interim to ultimate vision shall be submitted to 407ETR for Design (including the transition from interim to ultimate) with the collection of review and comments during detailed design. additional topo survey. complete drawing revised The interim solution drawings shall represent the following: Comment noted. This has already been updated in the ESR text to respond to Drawings to be reviewed. a) Removal of the existing sidewalks on the bridge 407’s previous comments. Removal cost was also prepared. To be reflected on design drawings. complete drawing revised b) Proper cycle terminations as per OTM To be updated. Drawings to be reviewed. complete drawing revised c) Alignment of the new sidewalks connecting to the new AT structure To be updated. Drawings to be reviewed. complete drawing revised The current provided drawings for ultimate vision show sidewalk and 2 To be updated. Drawings to be reviewed. alignments of the AT structure (refer to plan/profile – yellow line). The sidewalk and one of the AT alignments shall be removed from the drawings. Please update drawings accordingly complete 407ETR ID ESR Section # Comment Response Additional Comments Status Section that was updated Please clarify how four conflict points at 407ETR ramps are reduced These conflict points will be addressed with crossing at-grade as per existing The evaluation table to be updated to illustrate that 4 conflict Evaluation table revised during the interim solution conditions (waiting for gaps) and perpendicular crossings in compliance with OTM points still exist at ramps during the interim solution requirements. complete If AT separate bridges are to be implemented, the existing sidewalks (east Comment noted. This was updated in the ESR text to respond to 407’s previous Drawings to be reviewed. and west) shall be removed and the existing barrier walls (east and west) comments and cost for sidewalk removal and raising barrier heights were added. shall be heightened at the same time as the beginning of construction of separate structures complete drawing revised 407ETR has a concern with the proposed alignment of AT bridge (Sheet A more direct alignment will require additional height of the AT structure and / or Noted for the record. # 9 ). The new AT bridge will significantly encroach on 407ETR lands. steeper slopes. This can be reviewed and confirmed in consultation with 407ETR Please consider a more direct alignment during Detailed Design when additional topographic survey data is collected to inform the design. No change N/A It appears that the Ultimate vision might affect the MTO Transitway. oThe ESR plates and Ultimate AT profile plan include the plan design of the Noted for the record. Please submit ESR to MTO Transitway for review and comments. Please MTO Transitway, however the linework will be darkened to improve its visibility and update plan/profile drawings to show MTO Transitway profile updated. oIt is clarified that MTO was given the opportunity to review and provide comments throughout the EA study, and was circulated on the Draft ESR and additional 407AT Bridge Profile package for review and comment. oThe project team has followed up with MTO and has since circulated the 407AT Bridge Profile and ESR drawings to the MTO Transitway contact on October 22. oThe project team is reviewing and updating the alignment of the Ultimate AT bridges at the ramps at the south of the interchange to address the elevated MTO transitway at this location. no change N/A Please update plan/profile drawings to show the existing ground to ensure oFor the Interim Recommendation, pedestrians will be directed to stay within the In Interim and Ultimate Visions, the proponent shall ensure the Evaluation table revised the pedestrians cannot enter the controlled-access highway from AT McCowan Road corridor. Additional controls can be added in consultation with pedestrians cannot enter the controlled-access highway. structures 407ETR during detailed design. oIn the Ultimate Vision the AT user will be elevated from the 407ETR ramps and highway and reduce the likelihood of users entering the highway corridor. complete Please clarify how snow will be removed from AT structures. AT oAs per CHBDC the maintenance vehicle width is 2.200m and the provided width Noted, to be reviewed during detailed design. structures shall be designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles (e.g. 3.9m should be sufficient. We can make use of 4 Tube railing on concrete curb or snow removals equipment) a traffic barrier with railing. The AT bridge will have to be widened by 0.6m on each side to accommodate this arrangement. In addition to the minimum width as per CHBDC, during Detailed Design York Region will be confirming the width with City of Markham, Operations, and 407ETR to meet maintenance requirements. No change N/A Consider to extend the MUP in the median to Unionville Avenue in order toEvaluation table to be updated. This suggestion will result in additional properties Noted for the record. Evaluation table revised reduce to one conflict point at the 407ETR Ramp on both sides to accommodate the MUP centre median and maintain the left turn lane. It is noted the east and west boulevards can not be eliminated as they provide utility corridors and transition to the AT facilities from the centre median back to the boulevards. It is also noted the Rouge River structure is located ~200m upstream of the Unionville Avenue intersection and additional widening of the structure beyond what has been identified on the plan are not permitted as it will result in adverse impacts to flooding. Evaluation Table complete •Disagree. The ultimate vision has longer distance to travel with low/high Comment noted. To be reviewed. Comment to be addressed. Evaluation table revised elevation which is difficult for bikers / pedestrians to cycle/walk. Summary of Transportation service “preferred” instead of “less preferred” for Alternative 2 complete •Clarification on interim solution and reduction of four conflict points for Alternative 6A - Interim Solution to be added to the table. Evaluation Table to be reviewed. Evaluation table revised interim solution. complete •Ultimate vision will significantly impact 407ETR ROW during construction Comment noted. To be reviewed and updated in the table. Moderate impact is consistent with Kennedy Road EA No change and there are construction impacts on loop ramps. No change •Comments [future maintenance of bridge(s)] should only pertain to AT oImpacts to the existing structure are an important consideration and factor in Revise response, see above. bridge this alternative and should be considered standalone. For example, a separate AT bridge will allow more flexibility to shift traffic when rehabilitating the road bridge in the future, whereas the median MUP will significantly limit traffic MAY IMPACT shift during the same type of rehabilitation. complete response revised •Disagree that this (summary of infrastructure design) is least preferred The evaluation table documented Alternative 2 MUP in Median and Alternative 6 Noted for the record. Ultimate AT Bridges, however they were excerpts from the larger evaluation table which considered all alternatives at the 407ETR interchange as previously circulated during the study. The summary “least preferred” for this criteria is appropriate when considering all Alternatives. No change N/A •Costs should be a major contributor so this (summary of economic The evaluation table documented Alternative 2 MUP in Median and Alternative 6 Noted for the record. environment and cost effectiveness) should be rated as preferred Ultimate AT Bridges, however they were excerpts from the larger evaluation table which considered all alternatives at the 407ETR interchange as previously circulated during the study. The summary “less preferred” for this criteria is appropriate when considering all Alternatives. In addition, as per the EA process cost is a factor for consideration when evaluating various alternatives, but should not outweigh other factors. Although the Ultimate AT bridges may cost higher overall, other benefits are when compared to the median MUP option. No change N/A Additional Emailed Comments (March 26 2021) 407ETR ID ESR Section # Comment Response Additional Comments Status Section that was updated Please circulate the proposed interim and ultimate visions to Transitway The project team has corresponded with Graham De Rose from MTO Transitway for their review and comments. in October 2020 and January 2021 regarding the identified conflicts with the McCowan Road Ultimate Vision AT bridges at the MTO Transitway and TPAP addendum required to modify the alignment of the MTO Transitway to mitigate the conflict. The materials (interim and ultimate drawings) were circulated to MTO Transitway on March 26th by Jeff Booker.
MTO Transitway has indicated they are not supportive of the McCowan Road Ultimate Vision AT bridge as its design is in direct conflict with the approved MTO Transitway alignment, and modifications to the MTO transitway will require a TPAP addendum. MTO Transitway has indicated that it does not intend to undertake a TPAP addendum.
The Region acknowledges the MTO does not intend to complete a TPAP Addendum to adjust the Transitway Profile. The Region’s current capital budget and program does not include funding for the Ultimate Vision AT bridges at McCowan Road interchange, and no commitment to implement the ultimate vision at this time. If Regional and City of Markham Councils wish to implement the Ultimate Vision AT bridges in the future, the Region or the City will formally request 10. Project Description -> this with MTO. All tasks required included to address MTO and 407ETR, including 407ETR Interchange; 11.2 Key the possible need to complete a TPAP addendum, will be confirmed with MTO. Agency Direction -> 11.2.6 This information and commitment will be reflected in the ESR under the following Ministry of Transportation and sections: 10. Project Description -> 407ETR Interchange; 11.2 Key Agency 407ETR; 12.2 Commitments for Direction -> 11.2.6 Ministry of Transportation and 407ETR; 12.2 Commitments for Future Work -> 10.407ETR Future Work -> 10.407ETR Interchange and AT Bridges, 20. Additional Interchange and AT Bridges, 20. Consultation and Coordination; and 12.3 Timing of Improvements. Additional Consultation and Coordination; and 12.3 Timing of Improvements. Sheet No. 407 AT ULT E8 and Sheet No. 407 AT ULT W8, the profile The preliminary design of the Ultimate Vision AT bridges was developed to meet drawing illustrates inadequate clearance between proposed AT structures the minimum vertical clearance over the interchange ramps, with the 11.2 Key Agency Direction -> and Transitway less than 1 meter. Please revise design to meet understanding that the required clearance to the MTO Transitway would not be 11.2.6 Ministry of Transportation appropriate clearance. met. To meet the required clearance, the MTO Transitway design will need to be and 407ETR; 12.2 Commitments adjusted which will require an addendum to the TPAP. As MTO Transitway is not for Future Work -> 10.407ETR supportive of the Ultimate Vision AT bridges due to the conflict with the MTO Interchange and AT Bridges, 20. Transitway, the Region will document this comments from MTO Transitway into Additional Consultation and the ESR and commit to provide the tasks as outlined in the response to Comment Coordination; and 12.3 Timing of 1 above. Improvements. Sheet No. 407 AT ULT E8, plan drawing: the proposed East AT Comment noted. We acknowledge that the EA design reflects the ramp structure ramping encroaches into 14 meters setback. The ramping may encroachment into the 14 metre setback. The Region is committed to revising the obstruct sight lines and driver’s clear vision and will need to meet all alignment and design during Detailed Design when additional topographic survey standards and shall be further investigated during detailed design. In is collected, to meet the required setbacks and design criteria in consultation with addition, setbacks requirements for McCowan/407ETR shall be further MTO and 407ETR. investigated during detailed design. N/A Please ensure all 407 ETR and MTO correspondences throughout the All comments provided by 407ETR and MTO throughout the EA will be 10. Project Description -> ESR to be included in final ESR filing. documented in ESR Appendix C – Agency Consultation. In addition the following 407ETR Interchange; 11.2 Key sections of the body of the ESR will reflect the discussions and commitments as Agency Direction -> 11.2.6 required: 10. Project Description -> 407ETR Interchange; 11.2 Key Agency Ministry of Transportation and Direction -> 11.2.6 Ministry of Transportation and 407ETR; 12.2 Commitments for 407ETR; 12.2 Commitments for Future Work -> 10.407ETR Interchange and AT Bridges, 20. Additional Future Work -> 10.407ETR Consultation and Coordination; and 12.3 Timing of Improvements. Interchange and AT Bridges, 20. Additional Consultation and Coordination; and 12.3 Timing of Please add the barrier wall to be heightened to ”Significant construction impacts to existing bridge structure to remove existing sidewalks and construct median MUP and accommodate traffic staging on Kennedy Road” revised Evaluation Table
Metrolinx Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York | GO Transit Meeting Meeting Minutes
Minutes prepared by
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessments Metrolinx Design Alternatives Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: Schedule ‘C’ Class Environmental Assessments for: McCowan Road, Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive, and
Subject: Metrolinx Meeting #2 – Review of Design Alternatives Date: Friday, July 20, 2018 – 10:30AM Location: Room 16A, 16th Floor, Metrolinx Office, 10 Bay Street Attendees: Dindial Baljit, Metrolinx Carolina Daza Ortiz, Metrolinx Brandon Gaffoor, Metrolinx (Third Party) Ian McNeil (via teleconference), Metrolinx Kelvin O’Brien, Metrolinx Edward Chiu, York Region Ahmed Hussein, Metrolinx Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Ben Kwok, Metrolinx Tyrone Gan, HDR Aubrey Iwanin, Metrolinx Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR
Meeting Overview: T.Gan presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project overview, design approach, overpass and underpass design options at three Stouffville GO Rail crossings ( , McCowan north of Bullock), detour designs, evaluation criteria, schedule and next steps. Large roll plots of the grade separation options and detour designs were provided. Item Action 1. Introductions and Safety Briefing (ALL, D.Baljit) Information Only. 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu) Information Only. Two separate Schedule ‘C’ Class EAs are being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive)
Drive). The projects are being run concurrently. Project Schedule: Both projects are in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House for each project is planned for 2019 and filing of the Environmental Study Reports (ESR) are planned for the summer of 2019. 3. Grade Separation Exposure Index (T.Gan) Information Only. Stouffville GO Rail crossings at McCowan Road north of Bullock Drive, exceeded the exposure index for consideration of grade separation under existing and future conditions. Metrolinx noted RER planned service along the Stouffville GO Corridor has increased as follows: HDR to update exposure o ~42 trains per day for rail crossing on McCowan Road index. north of Bullock Drive o
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessments Metrolinx Design Alternatives Meeting Minutes
4. Grade Separation Design Options and Design Parameters (T.Gan) Grade-separation overpass and underpass designs at the three rail crossings were prepared by HDR. Detour designs were prepared for McCowan Road north of Bullock Drive and assume only one rail track, four lanes of traffic and one sidewalk are in operation during construction. T.Gan presented plans, profiles, access impacts, and detour/staging concepts as per presentation slides for discussion with the meeting attendees. Overpass and underpass designs span the full Metrolinx right- of-way at all three locations to allow for future rail expansion. Overpass designs accommodate vertical clearance of 9.58m to allow for potential future electrification at all three crossings (7.58m clearance based on Metrolinx standards for electrification + 2m bridge deck). Designs reflect 5-6% grades but intent is to flatten grade where possible as they are too steep. HDR to flatten grades where Detour options will be reviewed and revised as required to feasible. minimize impacts from at-grade and grade-separated detour roads (for example maximize separation between at-grade HDR to review opportunities to detour road and residential communities). refine detour roads. HDR has completed topographic survey of the rail at all three crossings. McCowan crossing north of Bullock Drive overpass and underpass options require closure of access to Cennential GO Station from McCowan Road due to grades. 5. Metrolinx Double-Track and Service Expansion Plans K. O’Brien confirmed double tracks are planned to be K.O’Brien to send as-builts for constructed up to Unionville GO Station by 2021 as detailed 2nd track designs to YR. design of the second track is complete;
North of Unionville GO Station double tracks have not yet been identified through an EA, but are anticipated to be required.
I.McNeil to provide contact to Service plans north of Unionville GO Station to be confirmed address service plans north of by another Metrolinx contact. Unionville GO Station. I.McNeil confirmed hourly service is currently provided between Unionville GO Station and Mount Joy GO Station. I.McNeil to confirm when Mid-day service and weekend service will be extended to second track is needed for Mount Joy GO Station by January 2019 and April 2019, service. respectively. HDR to review if two rail tracks can be maintained for detour at Kennedy crossing north of
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessments Metrolinx Design Alternatives Meeting Minutes
Clayton Drive. Feasibility of maintaining two rail tracks during construction has not been reviewed. 6. Pedestrian and Transit Considerations Metrolinx noted multi bus-bays are proposed along McCowan Road to service Centennial GO Station. It was clarified that transit is proposed to stop in live Transit/HOV curb lane. Bus- HDR to review potential for bays would be considered in addition to Transit/HOV lane on bus bays at McCowan Road at an individual basis and would be subject to available property. Centennial GO Station. Existing transit stops that service the at-grade crossing configuration may need to be relocated during construction HDR to discuss potential stop only with grade separation options as at-grade access would reconfiguration with transit no longer be provided (for example McCowan bus stop at authorities. Loblaws entrance to be relocated to Bullock Drive intersection). Metrolinx’s objective is to increase transit user access to the station five times the existing usage by improving the transit and walking experience. Direct at-grade pedestrian access to Centennial GO Station platform from the community will likely not be maintained due to property requirements and grade-separation conflicts. Metrolinx suggested provision of a pedestrian bridge at track level with the underpass option at crossings at McCowan Metrolinx to confirm if a Road north of Bullock Drive pedestrian bridge is requested to service and connect the existing/planned to be protected for at these communities. A pedestrian bridge was protected for in the locations. Rutherford-Carrville Road EA to provide access to the Rutherford GO station. A pedestrian bridge is also being constructed at the crossing of Stouffville GO line at Steeles Avenue. The detour typical section protects for pedestrian access on one side only to minimize property impacts. Concern was raised that transit will still service both the northbound and southbound directions and how pedestrian access can be HDR to confirm if pedestrian maintained on both boulevards while adjacent to the grade- access can be provided on separated construction zone. Consideration should be given to both sides during construction. providing pedestrian access on both boulevards during construction; this could be achieved with at-grade pedestrian facilities adjacent to the property line in addition to the pedestrian detour facility. Metrolinx to provide example Metrolinx has an example of how pedestrian access was on pedestrian access during maintained during construction to service the Agincourt GO construction. Station. 7. City of Markham’s Whistle Cessation Policy Metrolinx noted City of Markham’s whistle cessation policy is HDR to confirm if compliance in effect which has included implementation of pedestrian with whistle cessation policy is crossing gates and extra signage along the rail corridor required during construction crossings. Compliance with the whistle cessation policy during for documentation in ESR. construction should be confirmed with the City. 8.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessments Metrolinx Design Alternatives Meeting Minutes
9.
10. Construction Schedule and Timing of Improvements Construction Schedule for McCowan Road improvements: o Steeles Avenue to 16th Avenue – 2026, based on YR’s 2018 10-Year Capital Plan, but may not include the grade separation. Detailed design would likely commence in 2020. o 16th Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive – identified for construction to start beyond the current 10 year plan.
McCowan Road crossing north of Bullock Drive is the third priority of these locations. Metrolinx EA has not initiated the
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan and Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessments Metrolinx Design Alternatives Meeting Minutes
double-track study at this location.
11. Next Steps Metrolinx to provide comments HDR circulated presentation materials (drawing and presentation by August 7, 2018. slides) following the meeting. Metrolinx to provide comments on materials by August 7, 2018.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Merlin Yuen [email protected].
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 5
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Class Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: Metrolinx Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 Location: Metrolinx Office, 10 bay Street Floor 15, Room 15A Attendees: Dindial Baljit, Metrolinx Chirag Shah, Metrolinx Brandon Gaffoor, Metrolinx Edward Chiu, York Region Nadine Khouri, Metrolinx Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Ahmed Hussein, Metrolinx Christopher Rotella, York Region Aubrey Iwaniw, Metrolinx Tyrone Gan, HDR Laura Filice, Metrolinx Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR
Regrets Benjamin Kwok, Metrolinx Muyiwa Adebayo, Metrolinx Kelvin O'Brien, Metrolinx Katie Bright, Metrolinx Ian McNeil, Metrolinx Jana Neumann, Metrolinx
Meeting T.Gan presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project Overview: overview, design approach for widening and active transportation for the corridor, evaluation criteria, design options, evaluation and recommendations at Stouffville GO Rail crossing, and next steps. Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Gan) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations for comment. Background information, widening options, and active transportation options were presented. Region noted that based on consultation with the City of Markham, the 3.0m multi-use path interim solution versus 3.3m cycle track and sidewalk combination ultimate solution does not provide a significant difference in construction given MUPs in Markham are constructed as concrete. As such instead of extending the MUP by 0.3m to create the cycle-track and sidewalk combination, the City suggests to install a 3.3m multi- use path. Signage and line markings to delineate the facility as a cycle track and sidewalk could be installed at a later date as usage increases. 3. Stouffville GO Rail Crossing Discussion
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Metrolinx will be increasing its rail mid-day service up to Mount Joy Station to two trains per hour starting in April 2019. Metrolinx noted that the Stouffville GO line requires electrification. Project team confirmed the underpass and overpass design options account for vertical clearance electrification as per Metrolinx’s standards. This is noted on the profile of the design options. Metrolinx is reviewing other requirements for electrification which may result in the need for retaining walls / barriers. Project team confirmed the underpass and overpass design options span the full Metrolinx ROW and will not preclude future improvements by Metrolinx. Project team reviewed overpass and underpass designs with the attendees as per the presentation slides and confirmed underpass design is recommended as the ultimate solution and an at-grade crossing for interim solution. Topographical and Legal Survey HDR HDR to review the property fabric at the northwest corner of the rail corridor as it appears to be incorrect. Metrolinx Metrolinx (B. Gaffoor) to provide legal survey for the property (B.Gaffor) at the rail line. Metrolinx Metrolinx (B. Gaffoor) to assist with coordination of (B.Gaffor) additional topographic survey needed for reviewing the
existing pedestrian connection and Centennial Community
Centre / Centennial GO Station access.
Transit Stops
Metrolinx’s target is to increase transit ridership to the Station
from 5% to 20%
Existing transit stops at the rail crossing provide access to the station and platform Project team reviewed maintaining the bus stops at the existing location near the rail crossing; however this resulted in the bus stop at the deepest point of the underpass. Provision of bus stops with bus bays at this location also results in impacts to the overall profile and impacts to the Loblaws driveway. This configuration would require a three level elevator to service the stops (at ground level, raised AT platform, and track level) as well as a pedestrian bridge. This configuration was not recommended because of these impacts. Bus stops with bus bays will be provided at Bullock Drive. YRT is in agreement with relocation of the existing stops. Metrolinx is in agreement of using the Bullock Drive bus stops as the pick up/drop off locations for transit users to access the Centennial GO Station. Access Modifications Project team clarified the overpass design option results in closure of all accesses between Bullock Drive and Carlton Road. The underpass design is able to maintain existing access to Centennial Community Centre / Centennial GO Station entrance, with some access modifications required, for example restriction to right-in-right-out movement. The YRP entrance and Loblaws entrance may be possible but will require additional treatment as the driveway grades will be relatively steep (>10%). Project Team will be consulting with YRP and Loblaws to identify possible treatments. The emergency access however would be hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
too steep to connect for the underpass and requires closure. The project team will be consulting with emergency services regarding this closure as well. HDR to review bus turning radius at the Centennial Community Centre / Centennial GO Station entrance. HDR HDR to complete additional topographic survey to confirm impacts to Centennial Community Centre / Centennial GO HDR Station entrance. Pedestrian Connections Underpass design will impact four direct pedestrian connections to existing McCowan Road north of the Stouffville GO Rail crossing. The two furthest north direct pedestrian connections can be re-instated to McCowan Road underpass with ramps for AODA compliance as shown on the plan. The other two direct pedestrians connections, located closer to rail line, are too steep to connect to the underpass and achieve AODA compliance. HDR to consider stairs at these two locations to provide access if ramps are not possible. HDR Direct pedestrian connection to the Centennial GO Station platform to McCowan Road is shown as closed with the underpass. Additional topographic survey is required to confirm if this connection can be maintained with a ramp to the underpass. HDR to review pedestrian connection (ramp) from platform to the underpass further south of existing location if grades are HDR challenging. Metrolinx requests to maintain ramp connections for pedestrians wherever possible for AODA compliance. Pumping Station and Sanitary Sewer As this location has high water table, a permanent pumping station is required for the underpass design. A potential location for the pumping station is shown on the plans in the southwest corner of the rail crossing. A sanitary sewer is proposed to be relocated with the implementation of the underpass design. A potential alignment for the sanitary sewer is shown on the plans and will be confirmed during detailed design. Staging and Rail Detour Previous meeting with Metrolinx presented a construction staging concept for the underpass design to confirm the feasibility of its construction. It requires an at-grade and grade-separated detour road, as well as reconstruction of the platform and a second track for a rail detour. The construction staging will be confirmed during detailed design. Project team presented a conceptual rail detour design to address previous Metrolinx comment on staging. The conceptual rail detour was developed based on Metrolinx standards and confirms the feasibility to maintain the existing track speed on the rail detour alignment. 4. Next Steps Metrolinx is requested to provide any comments on the Metrolinx drawings, evaluation table and presentation in the upcoming weeks. Project team will meet with review agencies and the stakeholder group in the upcoming weeks to review the recommendations. hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong at [email protected].
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
Metrolinx ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section that was updated
1 1.1.1 McCowan Road southbound buses – stop in current location, approximately 60m north of the rail corridor This comment is related to MX's previous comments and preference for on- Complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency Direction (and a total walking distance of approximately 135m to the rail platform). Do not relocate southbound stop street bus stops for the Recommended Design for the At-Grade Crossing. The ESR Section 12 Future Commitments south of platform as it will increase vehicle queues over tracks ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency comments has been updated to reflect this information and noted that future transit stop locations will be reviewed and confirmed in detail design under ESR Section 12 Future Committments.
YRT mentioned "Southbound stop (just north of the tracks) will be moved further north closer to Carlton Road"
Metrolinx - P&D - There is also an exisitng stop at the NW corner of McCowan and Bullock for southbound busses - this Transit Integration needs to be considered. TTC and YRT stop here and will be the closest stop to the station. 2 1.1.1 McCowan Road northbound buses – the primary stop for GO users at Bullock Drive where there is a This comment is related to MX's previous comments and preference for on- Complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency Direction signalized crossing of McCowan Road (resulting in a walking distance of approximately 300m). Directional street bus stops for the Recommended Design for the At-Grade Crossing. The ESR Section 12 Future Commitments signage and pedestrian improvements to the route between the bus stop and rail platform should be ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency comments has been updated to reflect this integrated with the road widening project information and noted that future transit stop locations will be reviewed and confirmed in detail design under ESR Section 12 Future Committments.. Metrolinx - P&D - YRT mentioned the existing "Northbound stop (by Loblaws) will be moved further south to the SE corner of Transit Integration McCowan Road and Bullock Drive" 3 Metrolinnx- Rail 9.3.5 Please provide a scope and drawings for the proposed interim phase (widening while retaining an at-grade The timing for the Recommended At-Grade option will follow the Region's 10 Complete ESR Section 12 Future Commitments Corridor Planning crossing). Since this is a modification of the crossing after the coming-in-force of the Grade Crossing Year Capital Plan and at this time is not identified to be constructed for at Regulations, any modifications to, or in the vicinity of, the exisitng crossing must be compliant with the least 10 years. The timing for the Ultimate Vision for the underpass is not Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards. In particular, confirm that the length of the identified at this time. If the Recommended At-Grade option is implemented gate arm for the new cross-section does not exceed the maximum allowable length specified in the Grade the crossing design and grade crossing standards at the time of Crossing Standards. implementation will be reviewed for compliance with the Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards. This has been added to the future committments section of the ESR for the at-grade crossing. The ESR design plates reflect the Ultimate Vision underpass.
Ensure that the that the phasing and design of future road widenings are compliant with Section 3.1 of the Grade Crossing Standard, which states: "The crossing surface must be of a width that is equal to the width of the travelled way and shoulders of the road, plus 0.5 m on each side, measured at right angles to the centreline of the road, as shown in Figure 3-1(a) or (b), as the case may be. " (i.e. the road approaches to the crossing should not be widened without also widening the crossing itself).
4 Metrolinnx- Rail 10.1.21 Costs to upgrade the at-grade crossing warning system do not appear to have been considered. This is correct that the cost estimate assess the Ultimate Vision underpass but Complete ESR Section 10.1.21 Preliminary Cost Corridor Planning does not include the at-grade crossing warnig system for the Recommended Estimate At-Grade. Text has been added to ESR Section 10.1.21 Preliminary Cost Estimate to clarify.
5 5.5.3 Should this read 4 trains the peak hour in 2041? (1 peak train/20 minutes = 3 trains per hour; 1 counterpeak Updated to 4 instead of 6 in ESR. complete ESR Section 5.5.3 train/60 minutes = 1 train per hour) TTR #1 reads 4 trains (no need to update TTR)
6 Metrolinnx- Rail 5.5.3 Confirm if queues from adjacent intersections will extend over the crossing, resulting in potential risks of Under future conditions (2041) queues in either direction may extend beyond complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency Direction Corridor Planning vehicles stopping on the tracks. Identify mitigation measures to address this risk if the crossing is proposed the tracks. Should the Recommend 6 lane At-grade be implemented then ESR Section 12 Future Commitments to remain at-grade. during Detailed Design a review of signage and pavement markings per Transport Canada’s Grade Crossing Handbook, 2019, in addition to a review of compliance with the Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards will be undertaken for compliance. This has been added to ESR Section 11.1 Key Agency Direction and ESR Section 12.2 Commitment for Future Work.
9 Metrolinnx- Rail 2.2.1 and 5.1.5 As mentioned in section 2.2.1 and 5.1.5, Planned Improvements for Transit have been identified in York Updated text in ESR Section 2.2.1. Section 5.1.5 refers to Section 2.2.1. Complete ESR Section 2.2.1 Corridor Planning Region's TMP. For reference, this includes mention of planned improvements being delivered as part of GO Expansion, which includes frequent two-way, all-day service on the Stoufville GO corridor between Union Station and Mount Joy GO Station.
This is inclusive of Centennial GO Station, which is directly adjacent to McCowan Road and falls within the study area covered by this EA.
10 5.3 and 5.4 While ridership is expected to grow on the Stouffville GO corridor, the number of parking spaces will not be Noted. Dual MUPs (or sidewalk with cycle track) are proposed for both interim No change. Not applicable. able to increase to meet demand at GO Rail stations. In accordance with the GO Rail Station Access Plan, Recommended and Ultimate Vision. Intersection configuration includes Metrolinx will be investing in cycling and pedestrian connectivity in order to facilitate station access. crossrides and cross-walks to accommodate passage of cyclists and pedestrians. Path to access the GO platform from the underpass as well as As such, we expect that local and regional infrastructure will be designed to facilitate safe and convienient community connections were added as per Metrolinx's previous requests. access to transit for pedestrians and cyclists.
Metrolinx - P&D - Stations Planning Metrolinx ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section that was updated
11 10.1.4 Please ensure that adequate pedestrian and cycling crossings are provided at intersections adjacent to Intersection treatment for pedestrians and cyclists (crosswalks and cross-rides)complete ESR Section 10.1.7 Centennial GO along McCowan Rd to facilitate safe, comfortable, and efficient station access, while was previously included in ESR Section 10.1.4 Cycling and Pedestrial facilities minimizing pedestrian/cyclist interactions with vehicles. and reflected on the design plans. This will be reviewed in Detailed Design against the Region's current Pedestrian and Cyclist Design Guidelines. Reference to Section 10.1.4 is added to Section 10.1.7 Intersection Design, Traffic Signals, and Illumination.
12 Metrolinx - EPA Appendix A Sheet No. 14 on Appendix A – Metrolinx Stouffville Rail Corridor is labeled as CN Railway. Please revise. To be revised Complete ESR Appendix A
13 Metrolinx - EPA Appendix L Structural Design Report – Stouffville Go Rail Crossing is included under Appendix L in the list of A separate structural design report was provided for each crossing along the Complete Not applicable. Appendices of the draft ESR report. However, there is no reference to Stouffville Go Rail Crossing within McCowan Road corridor. The Stouffville GO Rail Crossing Structural Design the Appendix L – Structural design. Please revise the Structural Design report to include the preliminary Report is provided in Appendix L starting on Page 265. Email sent to Metrolinx design and constructability of the future underpass. to clarify this and additional comments provided below.
14 Metrolinx - EPA Section 11 We understand that a permanent groundwater dewatering will be required due to the artesian pressure Additional geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations are required to be Compelte ESR Section 12 Future Commitments condition and high groundwater level. The report has not identified the long term impacts of the permanent completed during Detailed Design as indicated in the ESR Appendix K. These dewatering and required mitigation measures. The potential of land subsidence (long term impact) within include settlement monitoring, review and refine dewatering estimates and the zone of influence should be assessed to ensure no impacts to the Metrolinx’s infrastructure. development of monitoring and mitigation plans. These are documented in ESR Section 12 Future Committments.
There may be an opportunity to install a deep storm sewer to drain the underpass to the south. Investigation of the feasibility to drain the underpass will be reviewed during detailed design. 15 Metrolinx - EPA It appears from the report that a direct pedestrian connection from underpass to Centennial GO Station These community connections were requested by Metrolinx and are identified No change. Not applicable. platform is requested by Metrolinx. Also stairways requested by Metrolinx for pedestrian connections. I on the design plans. During detailed design these connections and stairways suggest that these options needs more in-depth analysis will be reviewed and confirmed in consultation with City of Markham and Metrolinx. This was previously listed as a Future Committment in Section 12.2
Comments on GO Structral Design Report (Appendix L) Add: A Table of Content needs to be added on the 2nd page for the overall Appendix L - Structural Design, to Appendices for Final ESR with separate reports will be uploaded as separate 16 Metrolinx B&S General indicate six (6) components of the Appendix L report. PDFs and listed in the Table of Contents with reference numbers Complete Stouffville GO Line ESR text Crossing The official title of the railway is "Go Transit Stouffville Railway Corridor", rather than the "Stouffville Go ESR Appendix L - SDR 17 Metrolinx B&S - General Line". Please revise all the relevant in the report accordingly. Text to be revised Complete For the design of Alternative 2, please indicate: ESR Appendix L - SDR Stouffville GO Line The proposed bridge should be designed in accordance with the latest AREMA Manual and Metrolinx Crossing Guidelines, and capable to carry Cooper E-80 live loading plus diesel impact, with a service life of 100 18 Metrolinx B&S - Section 6.1 years. Text to be added Complete For the substructure configuration in Alternative 2: ESR Appendix L - SDR Stouffville GO Line Per Metrolinx General Guidelines for Design of Railway Bridges and Structures (Metrolinx Guidelines), Part We will revise the text to indicate that the proposed structure is a 2 span Crossing 1, Section 8, semi-integral and integral abutment bridges will not be permitted unless there is written simply supported structure. Section 2 on Dwg. Sheet S004 shows a 2 simply 19 Metrolinx B&S - Section 6.1 approval from the Rail Corridor Infrastructure Senior Manager Track and Structures. supported spans. Complete Stouffville GO Line For the superstructure configuration in Alternative 2: ESR Appendix L - SDR Crossing Per Metrolinx Guidelines, Part 2A, Section 1.2, the superstructure of proposed railway bridge shall be 20 Metrolinx B&S - Section 6.1 simply-supported spans. See response for previous comment on comment 19. Complete Stouffville GO Line For the superstructure in Alternative 2: ESR Appendix L - SDR Crossing Two spans of simply-supported precast prestressed concrete girders can also be considered, besides the 21 Metrolinx B&S - Section 6.1 proposed steel girders structure. We will include Single/Double Voided Concrete Box Girders also for review. Complete Stouffville GO Line For Alternative 3, please revise /indicate: ESR Appendix L - SDR Crossing The minimum vertical clearance should be at least 7.595 mm, measured from the top of the highest rail to 22 Metrolinx B&S - Section 6.1 the bottom of the proposed overhead bridge. Text to be updated to reference this. Complete Please add into Design Codes: ESR Appendix L - SDR Stouffville GO Line The design of the railway bridge will be undertaken in accordance with the latest edition of American Crossing Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering and 23 Metrolinx B&S - Section 11.1 Metrolinx General Guidelines for Design of Railway Bridges and Structures. Text to be added Complete Add: ESR Appendix L - SDR Stouffville GO Line Min. 28 days concrete compressive strength in railway bridges: Crossing Precast prestressed elements fc' = 50 MPa; and 24 Metrolinx B&S - Section 11.6 Conventionally reinforced concrete elements, fc' = 35 MPa Text to be added Complete Stouffville GO Line Add: ESR Appendix L - SDR Crossing The type of structural steel and non-ferrous bearing components in the proposed railway bridge shall be in 25 Metrolinx B&S - Section 11.7 accordance with the Metrolinx Guidelines, Part 2A, Chapter 15. Text to be added Complete Stouffville GO Line ESR Appendix L - SDR Crossing Add: 26 Metrolinx B&S - Section 11.8 For Alterative 2, rebar welding is not allowed in any components in railway bridges and structures. Text to be revised Complete General Arrangement drawing is only prepared for the Ultimate Vision No change. Not applicable. (Alternative 2 - Underpass). Stouffville GO Line Plan and profile drawings of the overpass option previousl circulated and Crossing Add into Appendix: presented to Metrolinx. 27 Metrolinx B&S - Appendix A General Arrangement Drawings for Alternative 3
City of Markham Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Road Environmental Assessments, from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: City of Markham Meeting #1 Date: Thursday, June 01, 2017 Location: Ontario Room, 101 Town Centre Boulevard Attendees: Andrew Johnson, City of Markham Alice Lam, City of Markham Dereje Tafesse, City of Markham Richard Kendall, City of Markham Mark Siu, City of Markham Loy Cheah, City of Markham Reena Mistry, City of Markham Andrea Liu, City of Markham Edward Chiu, York Region Geoff Day, City of Markham Jessica Lee, York Region Mansoor Ali, City of Markham Marion Plaunt, City of Markham Tyrone Gan, HDR Lilli Duoba, City of Markham Tara Erwin, HDR Robert Marinzel, City of Markham Merlin Yuen HDR Alan Manlucu, City of Markham
Item Action 1. Introduction Information Only Project Background; two separate Class EAs being undertaken on McCowan Road , from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive. Project Schedule: Both projects currently in Phase 1, with Open Houses for McCowan Road being planned for Fall 2017,
2. Previous McCowan Road EAs Previous EAs for McCowan Road conducted in 2007. Markham Transportation Strategic Plan left in draft final stage; however, the recommendations from this plan have been incorporated into the Markham Official Plan. Regional Sustainable Travel Choices Study was terminated due to overlap with Markham Transportation Strategic Plan.
3. Regional Context Markham noted concerns with ROW in certain areas (e.g. HDR to send Markham McCowan Road and Highway 7) and the possibility of property construction phasing acquisition. for both projects Markham inquired about construction timing for both projects. 4. Construction Schedule Region to review and Markham noted concerns regarding the four EAs currently discuss offsetting underway in terms of construction schedule and construction construction timing overlap. Project team is Construction Year for McCowan Road: reviewing consultation o Steeles Avenue to 14th Avenue – 2021 (based on 2017 10- approach Year Capital Plan) o 14th Avenue to 16th Avenue – 2026 (based on 2017 10- Year Capital Plan) o 16th Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive – 2027 (earliest construction budget)
5. Stakeholder Engagement Markham indicated preference for a consultation-center based approach instead of an open house approach, requiring a facilitator. POH #1 timelines are as follows: o McCowan Fall 2017 o 6. McCowan Road EA – Planned Development HDR to review Region Two site plan applications submitted for Markville Mall to comments on Markville repurpose the north portion of the property: site application o York Region has commented on Markville site application Valleymede site application returning to OMB, OMB hearing settlement indicates that there will be a new signalized intersection approximately 300 m north of 14th Avenue MESP being undertaken for Markville KDA Miller Avenue EA has been approved. 7. McCowan Road EA – Need for grade separation Markham indicated concerns regarding timeline of grade Project team to follow separation and pedestrian safety concerns at the at-grade up with Nelson Costa crossing. for TC Report at the at- Markham indicated that traffic safety issues at this crossing are grade crossing highlighted in a Transport Canada (TC) report. 8. McCowan Road EA – Existing CN Grade Separation Markham indicated concerns about the relatively new condition of the structure and its interest in minimizing the need for replacement. 9. McCowan Road EA – Milne and Rouge Park Project team to provide Markham expressed interest in enhancing the trail network to Milne Markham with natural Park and consolidation of traffic signals adjacent to the Milne Park heritage reports when entrance with a dedicated left turn lane into the park finalized Markham is undertaking a preliminary study on enhancing Milne Project team to look Park. into site plans at Foody Markham indicated concerns with the Rouge crossing as a Mart Plaza to significant wildlife crossing corridor. determine access plans Markham is looking into enhanced development (Foody Mart) Project team to north of the Rouge crossing, on the west side of McCowan Road. investigate opportunity o Existing traffic operation concerns at the plaza SW of to extend centre McCowan and Highway 7 median to permit RO only, and restrict left- out movements 10. McCowan Road EA Constraints - Highway 7 to Major Mackenzie Dr. Markham indicated that Metrolinx may have plans to protect Project team to discuss McCowan as a regional transit corridor. with Metrolinx 11. Kennedy Road EA – Planned Development Markham indicated that (OPA No.144) the boundary for the HDR to update Milliken Milliken Secondary Plan has changed. Secondary Plan Area Markham indicated that active transportation facilities were planned, parallel to the rail line south of Gorvette Road. Markham provided preliminary hydrogeological investigation for Project team to review wetland/woodlands directly east of at-grade crossing south of preliminary Gorvette Road, and indicated that it will assist in developing hydrogeological treatment for the defined natural heritage area. investigation provided Markham indicated realignment of Gorvette Road to a four-way intersection configuration and its extension to Old Kennedy Road Midland Road extension EA by the City of Toronto is ongoing. Markham indicated that the Markham Centre boundary extends to HDR to update Highway 7. Markham Centre Markham is undergoing a mobility hub study with Metrolinx, looking boundary into connecting Unionville GO to 407ETR, reconfiguration of 407 interchange; westerly off-ramp extending to Markham Centre boundary with connection to Warden Avenue. A direct connection at the north 407 terminal may result in a northbound left turn lane into this intersection, as well as the possibility of extending the viva dedicated bus lane to this location from Enterprise Way. Markham is working to reconfigure 407 transitway alignment in this segment. 12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. Questions
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Merlin Yuen [email protected]. Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: McCowan Road Road Environmental Assessments, from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: City of Markham Meeting #2 Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 Location: Planning Board Room, City of Markham Office, 101 Town Centre Boulevard Attendees: Dereje Tafesse, City of Markham Edward Chiu, York Region Lihana da Silva, City of Markham Solmaz Rezaei, York Region John Yeh, City of Markham Teresa Li, York Region Henry Lo, City of Markham Marija Ilic, City of Markham Tyrone Gan, HDR Mark Siu, City of Markham Tara Erwin, HDR Regan Hutcheson, City of Markham Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Sally Campbell, City of Markham Merlin Yuen, HDR Alice Lam, City of Markham Robert Marinzel, City of Markham Richard Kendall, City of Markham Nehal Azmy, City of Markham
Meeting Overview: T.Gan and M.Mascarenhas presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project overview, key feedback from public and stakeholders, design approach, updates on design options in constrained areas, evaluation criteria and next steps. Large roll plots of the Metrolinx grade-separation design options and options at the cemeteries were provided for discussion. Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu) Information Only. Two separate Schedule ‘C’ Class EAs are being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive) and The projects are being run concurrently. Project Schedule: Both projects are in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House for each project is planned for 2019 and filing of the Environmental Study Reports (ESR) are planned for the summer of 2019. 3. Design Approach – Corridor and Active Transportation (AT) Facilities Best fit design approach recommended to implement the preferred design for the overall corridor. Results in localized shifts to the alignment. City of Markham (City) inquired if there is a preferred AT facility type. Project team noted that the public showed a preference for cycle track and sidewalk combination during the first Open House, because it has lower potential for pedestrian-cyclist conflicts than the multi-use path (MUP) option. The City prefers MUPs over the cycle track and sidewalk combination. The preferred solution for AT facilities along the corridor will be developed with a context sensitive approach that considers surrounding land use, connections to existing facilities, and
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham Meeting Minutes
continuity/consistency along the study corridor. The City inquired which AT facilities considered are bi- directional. The Project team responded that MUP option is bi- directional for both pedestrians and cyclists, but the cycle track and sidewalk combination only allows for uni-directional movement. The City inquired if there would be a physical separation between cycle track and sidewalk and if there would be a barrier. Project team noted additional widths are being protected for, however AT facility type and widths to be confirmed as the study progresses and based on constraints. 4. McCowan Road EA – CN Crossing The existing structure is in good condition. Design options consider modifications to the existing structure to accommodate various AT facility types. Project team will be meeting with CN to discuss design options. 5. McCowan Road EA – 407 ETR Interchanges City inquired about the width of the separate AT bridge. It was clarified that this option is either a standalone AT bridge parallel to the corridor, or a combination of separate AT bridges at the ramp crossings and bridge. The structure can be considered of various widths; 3.0m width is assumed. City inquired if these options are similar to the 16th Avenue interchange at Highway 404. It was clarified that they differ in that 16th Avenue crosses under Highway 404 and both McCowan Road cross over 407 ETR. City inquired regarding responsibilities for capital and City and Region to hold maintenance costs if the separate AT bridge is recommended. It future discussions regarding was clarified that cost-sharing agreements would be required to cost-sharing and address this. maintenance of AT bridge, if City noted legislation does not stipulate maintenance for MUP required. but does for cycle tracks. For Highway 7, this resulted in increased resources and equipment modifications to City to provide council report accommodate the cycle track. A council report would be required referencing life cycle and (similar to Highway 7) to address annual maintenance and life maintenance cost for cycle cost agreements. City of Markham operations staff prefer Highway 7 AT facilities for MUP over cycle track. reference. 6. McCowan Road EA – GO Rail Crossing North of Bullock Drive The grade of the overpass option is currently designed at 5% HDR will review opportunities which is AODA compliant but still quite steep. to flatten the grades. City commented that detour staging sequences have significant grade differences and will require traffic protection. Project team noted Metrolinx is currently reviewing the overpass and underpass options and staging concepts and will provide comments. Metrolinx requested provision of pedestrian access on both boulevards during construction, and consideration of a permanent pedestrian bridge with the underpass option to maintain community connectivity across McCowan Road. City raised concerns regarding funding for maintenance and City and Region to hold capital costs of the separate pedestrian facility suggested by future discussions regarding Metrolinx. Cost-sharing agreements would need to be developed cost-sharing and to address this. maintenance of AT facilities, City inquired if track profile adjustments could be made in place including pedestrian bridge
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham Meeting Minutes
of changing the profile of McCowan Road. HDR considered at rail crossing, if required. changing the railway profile, but noted that the proximity of the GO station, platform, and residential homes backing onto the rail right-of-way make this option challenging. In addition as track profiles can only be raised or lowered by a certain grade, impacts to modifying the rail corridor are much more extensive then changes to the road profile. City will need to update politicians in advance of construction to accommodate future Canada Day parades as traffic management plans for the parades start at Bullock Drive. City raised concerns regarding illegal pedestrian crossings at track level when signal arms are down. City inquired how electrification for the rail should be protected. Project team confirmed that all overpass design options meet Metrolinx standards for electrification vertical clearance. 7.
8.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham Meeting Minutes
9.
10.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessments City of Markham Meeting Minutes
11.
12. McCowan Road EA and Kennedy Road EA – Rouge River Crossings Information only. Existing bridges will need to be widened or replaced to accommodate recommended improvements. The Project team noted feedback from the second Stakeholder Group Meeting suggested an option with two separate AT facility bridges in the valley rather then carrying AT facilities on the vehicular bridge. This option was added for consideration. City of Markham does not prefer the separate AT bridge option due to maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, and environmental impacts. This comment should be considered by the Region for all other Regional EA projects. 13.
14. Next Steps City to provide comments by HDR circulated presentation materials (drawings and August16, 2018. presentation slides) following the meeting. City of Markham to provide comments on materials by August 16, 2018.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Merlin Yuen [email protected].
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 5
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes Project: Class EA Study for McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: City of Markham Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 Location: Markham Office, Markham Civic Centre - 101 Town Centre Boulevard – Planning Boardroom-RC Attendees: Dereje Tafesse, City of Markham Richard Kendall, City of Markham Marija Ilic, City of Markham Loy Cheah, City of Markham Joseph Palmisano, City of Markham Edward Chiu, York Region Henry Lo, City of Markham Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Lilli Duoba, City of Markham Christopher Rotella, York Region Regan Hutcheson, City of Markham Tyrone Gan, HDR Robert Marinzel, City of Markham Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Regrets Reza Fani, City of Markham Nehal Azmy, City of Markham Margaret Wouters, City of Markham Alice Lam, City of Markham
Meeting T.Gan presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project Overview: overview, design approach for widening and active transportation for the corridor, evaluation criteria, design options, evaluation and recommendations at areas of special consideration, and next steps. Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Gan) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations. Background information, widening options, and active transportation options were presented. 3. Key Discussion City of Markham contact will change to Mark Siu in place of HDR Dereje Tafesse. HDR to update contact list.
Active Transportation (AT) Recommendation City of Markham Operations noted their preference for dual multi- use path (MUP) over cycle track and sidewalk combination. City of Markham’s current practice is to install concrete multi-use paths and not asphalt. As such they suggest to provide a 3.3m concrete multi-use path, instead of an interim 3.0m multi-use path so that the transition to the ultimate 3.3m facility requires only line markings and signage to delineate the cycle track and sidewalk.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
City of Markham confirmed maintenance of a 3.3m MUP versus 3.0m MUP is not a concern to preclude implementation of a 3.3m MUP as long as it is not solely designated for cycling. HDR to review width allocated for bus pad with either a killstrip HDR or splash pad.
Rouge River Project team recommends replacement at the Rouge River to address existing overtopping. Three single-span bridge options were considered (25m, 35m and 45m). Each option includes a raise of the road profile. The 25m span option is recommended. It addresses the 100 year hydraulic requirements and maintains the existing opening size. HDR to consider wildlife passage at this location as per City’s HDR request and review Region’s policy for these crossings. City noted trail connection under the bridge isn’t recommended because of existing flooding issues. City of Markham requested to review removal of the at-grade pedestrian crossing signals for the trail crossing north of the Rouge River and re-alignment to a new signalized intersection at the Milne Park entrance. A safe crossing is needed because the volume and usage of the trail users and road traffic will increase over time. HDR to review reconfiguration and signalization at this location. HDR
Access Modifications Region noted the improvements result in a raised centre median which results in right-in-right-out restrictions to various access points throughout the corridor unless it is at a signalized intersection, or if large trucks must be allowed to turn left instead of performing a U-turn at an intersection in the interest of safety and traffic operations. This minimizes potential conflict points with vehicles turning left across the wider road platform.
The proposed design restricts left-turn access to the Foodymart
entrance south of Highway 7 to right-in-right-out access.
HDR to review site plan agreement for Foodymart for any HDR restrictions.
Robinson Creek
Project team recommends replacement at the Robinson Creek crossing even though the existing three culverts are in good condition and can be widened to accommodate the proposed improvements, because the remaining service life of the culverts would not be significant with the current timing of construction for the widening (outside of the Region’s 10 year capital program). Four options were considered (extend culvert, replace with 12m precast concrete box culvert, replace with 22m precast concrete box culvert, and replace with 22m single span bridge). Project team’s recommendation is to replace the Robinson Creek culverts with a 12m precast concrete box culvert, which is oversized to include natural substrate bottom which meets the hydraulic requirement. City inquired if the recommended opening size benefits fisheries, considering Roy Rainy bridge is designed for Redside Dace. The
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
Project Team will be reviewing the recommendations with TRCA and MNRF/MECP. HDR to consider need for wildlife passage at this location as per City’s request and review Region’s policy for these crossings. HDR
CN The existing structure opening can accommodate the widening of McCowan Road to six lanes without structure widening. Active transportation facilities are recommended behind the outside pier requiring modifications to the existing embankment (retaining wall). The proposed buffers to the active transportation facilities are identified on the slides.
Metrolinx Centennial GO Crossing underpass design is recommended to grade separate the Stouffville GO Rail crossing with McCowan Road as the ultimate solution. Interim solution is to provide an at- grade crossing. Overpass option has significant impacts to access and requires reconstruction of Bullock Drive intersection and is not recommended. Long term dewatering strategy is required for the underpass due to the high ground water table and will result in the need for a permanent pumping station. Region clarified sidewalks are proposed as 2.0m at the underpass rather than 1.5m width proposed in the rest of the corridor. Following the same approach as initially discussed, this would result in a 3.8m MUP in the interim prior to delineation of cycle track and sidewalk. Region inquired if this width is an issue for snow ploughing. The City (Richard) noted it is not an issue as the City isn’t required to plough all hard surfaces. The City (Loy) inquired if the interim at-grade option is acceptable as economic concerns shouldn’t preclude the right facility. The Region clarified implementation of the interim solution versus ultimate solution will consider timing of Metrolinx’s increased service as well as available funding for the underpass construction including the pumping station. The ultimate solution is included to ensure the space is protected for when the grade separation is required.
HDR to review if there are opportunities to reduce the 5%
grade of the AT facility in the underpass, which may require
reviewing the allocated vertical clearance. HDR Entrance to Loblaws is proposed to be restricted to right-in-right-
out. Full closure is not recommended based on a review of traffic
operations and impacts to the Bullock Drive intersection.
HDR to review shifting Loblaws access further south to assist with the grade of the entrance with consideration of its proximity to the Bullock Drive intersection HDR HDR to consult with Fire Department regarding closure of the emergency access as Fire requires two access points. City of Markham to provide Fire Department contact HDR information and will attend meeting. Whistle-cessation is implemented at this location and will need to City be considered in subsequent design and construction phases. hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
HDR to document as future commitments in Environmental Study Report. HDR 407ETR The implementation of McCowan Road to six lanes for Transit/HOV can be accommodated on the existing bridge over the 407ETR without bridge widening. Various active transportation (AT) facility combinations at the interchange have been considered. The recommended active transportation facility is separate AT structures to accommodate multi-use paths over the 407ETR on either side of McCowan Road. This option permits the Region to implement the structures as needed, for example one side AT bridge before both side AT bridges based on demand as cyclist and pedestrian volumes increase. Preference for east side versus west side for the AT structure is not determined at this time but it is noted there is a high school on the east side south of the 407ETR at the northeast corner of the 14th Avenue and McCowan Road intersection. City of Markham to indicate if there is a preference for which AT separate structure is implemented first (east side versus west side). City Region in consultation with the City, MTO and 407ETR to confirm ownership, operations and maintenance requirements for the AT structure(s). Region Inquiry about why the median AT bridge facility was not carried forward. The project team explained that this option was not supported by MTO, 407ETR or the Region based on operational concerns as pedestrians and cyclists cross into and out of the median at the signalized ramp terminals. The pedestrian and cyclists demands at this location are also not as significant as the Highway 400 and Highway 7 crossing where the pilot median-AT facility is being implemented. Rehabilitation in the future of the median facility would also be challenging. Inquiry if separate AT bridges can be implemented for on-ramps. Region noted each bridge is approx. $2M. The recommendation does not preclude separate AT bridge structures at conflict points but it is cost prohibitive to grade separate all locations for the pedestrian and cyclist volumes in the corridor.
4. Next Steps City of Markham requested to provide any comments on the City drawings, evaluation tables and presentation in the upcoming weeks. Project team will meet with review agencies and the stakeholder group in the upcoming weeks to review the recommendations. Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
5. Other Items City inquired about request to extend Kennedy Road EA limits further north. The Region noted the EA study was based on the Region’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and improvements north of the study area were not identified in the TMP. As such a separate EA study would be needed in the future. It was also hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Minutes
clarified the northern section is not within the Region’s 10 year plan.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected].
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 5
City of Markham ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR At detailed design, opportunities to further reduce the construction disturbance limit adjacent Updated and documented in Section 11.1 Key complete Section 11.2 Key Agency to natural heritage features should be reviewed. For instance, at Manhattan Woods and Milne Agency Direction and Section 12.2 Direction 1 Natural Heritage Park (east side), review whether the tree planting zone can be reduced/eliminated in order to Commitments for Future Work and to be Section 12.2 Commitments for minimize impacts to natural areas. addressed during detailed design. Future Work
The City prefers MUPs on both sides of the ROW, with adequate space designed into the The interim MUP width is 3.3m to accommodate complete Section 11.2 Key Agency plans for the future construction of the sidewalk/cycle track alignment, see further discussion the ultimate vision for separate sidewalks (1.5m) Direction under Comment #4 and cycling tracks (1.8m) on both sides. During Section 12.2 Commitments for Detailed Design York Region will be confirming Future Work 2 Road Operations the width with City of Markham and review opportunities to increase to 3.5m as per the Cities request.
During detail design the follow should be considered: - York Region will consult with the City of complete Sections 6.7 and 10.1 regarding • Please ensure that MUP width is consistent from intersection to intersection Markham to review the recommended AT facility utilities. • Should MUP width be larger than 3m, proper engineering design is required to avoid pre- type in detailed design. Section 11.2 Key Agency mature cracking should be considered - All underground utilities were identified at the Direction 3 Road Operations • Locate all underground utilities (Rogers, Bell, Enbrdige, etc.) and work with the companies time the SUE-B was conducted. Utility Section 12.2 Commitments for so they can update their future expansion plans Relocation plans will be developed during Future Work Detailed Design. Refer to Sections 6.7 and 10.1 in the ESR.
• Note, most of the streetlight illumination along McCowan Rd belongs to the City of Markham, Acknowledged. no action required Not applicable 4 Road Operations with the exception of all intersections and bus stops which are owned by the York Region.
The McCowan EA recommends an interim / ultimate condition for active transportation Further to the meeting of June 17, 2020 with the complete Section 11.2 Key Agency facilities, where the recommended alternative would show the ultimate condition as cycle Region to discuss this request the EA study will Direction tracks and sidewalks and the interim condition for multi-use paths identify an interim MUP width of 3.3m to Section 12.2 Commitments for accommodate the ultimate vision for separate Future Work As per City Comments to the Kennedy Road EA, the width of the cycle track and sidewalk sidewalks (1.5m) and cycling tracks (1.8m) on should include a buffer between the 2 facility types at a minimum of 0.2 m for a combined total both sides. During Detailed Design York Region of 3. 5 meters (1.8 + 0.2 + 1.5). Given the intention of the MUP is to facilitate the transition will be confirming the width with City of from shared to separate use , the MUP should be similarly sized at 3.5 meters. Markham and review opportunities to increase 5 Transportation to 3.5m as per the City's request. The City further requests the following notes provided in the ESR Notes have been added to the ESR.
-Cycle Track /Sidewalk option and Multi-use Path option both have the same width (3.5m). Facility type to be consulted with the City of Markham during detail design.
-Cycle Track and Sidewalk on Both Sides is illustrated on the recommended plan throughout the corridor unless otherwise noted in an area of special consideration.
added per email The City requested that the Region review the opportunity to provide 3.5 m MUP in order to See response to comment 5 complete Section 11.2 Key Agency from M.Siu transition from MUP to cycle track and sidewalk in the future. Direction 20191223 (re. Section 12.2 Commitments for 6 Kennedy OH - Future Work applies to McCowan EA too) Further to the comment above, the City requests for the Region to consider enhanced cyclist Meeting held on June 17 2020. Intersection complete Section 11.2 Key Agency added per email protection at all major intersections along the corridor, which could include “protected” or design includes crossrides and crosswalks. Direction from M.Siu “Dutch” intersections. The City requests a meeting with City Staff to discuss this in more Intersection configuration will be revisited during Section 12.2 Commitments for 20191223 (re. detail. Detailed Design and will review the current Future Work 7 Kennedy OH - available York Region Pedestrian and Cyclist applies to McCowan Planning and Design Guidelines EA too) City of Markham ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR a) Page 158 – 8205 McCowan Road is identified in the overall study as a cultural heritage a) Acknowledged. All references to 8251 and complete Appendix G - Cultural and Built resource. In this section, it indicates that some land will be required from the property. In 8265 McCowan Road have been removed from Heritage Assessment Report other parts of the document it says that no CHR will be impacted. Just want to make sure that the report. A paragraph acknowledging that the updated the land needed does not negatively impact the contextual environment of the CHR. properties have no heritage status has been added to the bottom of Page 21. Based on this ESR Section 6.4 Built Heritage b) Page 191 – (Table 11.1 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage) - no issues, support the information, the number of known properties has and Section 11 Impacts & recommendations for treatment of cultural heritage resources (CHRs) in the document. been revised from eight (8) to six (6), with one Mitigation (1) property of potential cultural heritage value Separate Document or interest. c) Appendix G – Cultural and Built Heritage Assessment Report (prepared by Golder Associates) b) Acknowledged. All references to 8251 and - In a number of places in the report it indicates that 8251 and 8265 McCowan Road are 8265 McCowan Road have been removed from protected by Part V designation (heritage conservation district) provisions of the Ontario the report, including on pages 18 and Appendix Heritage Act. This is not totally accurate. The Markham Village Heritage Conservation A. A paragraph acknowledging that the two 8 Heritage District does not extend over to McCowan Road. It only includes a small portion of Milne Dam properties have no heritage status has been Park adjacent to Main Street Markham/Princess Street (however these lands are addressed added to the bottom of Page 21. Figure 5 has under the McCowan Road address). See mapping below that shows the boundary of the been revised to exclude the HCD and 8251 and heritage conservation district (red hatch). It could be understood how the consultants got 9265 McCowan Road. confused as our Heritage Register indicates that the two properties are Part V but in reality it is only a small portion under those addresses) c) Acknowledged. This suggested wording has - The above reference is also made in Appendix A of this document (see page 6/9 of been added to the report and can be found at Appendix A)) and on pages 18 and 21. Also the map on page 22 indicates that the two the bottom of Page 21. properties are part of the heritage conservation district. - The document should instead indicate that the identified properties within the McCowan Road EA Study Area have no heritage status but that portions of the properties outside of the Study Area near Main Street Markham South are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
8 Heritage City of Markham ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR Engineering Drawings – Waterworks O&M 1. No change. The list of underground assets complete ESR Section 11.2 Future 1. Please ensure that the locations of the following underground assets are listed in the ESR. were included in Section 6.7 Utilities. Committments 2. Please ensure that Plan & Profiles and Details on the locations that contain the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure (see lists below that are based on the City’s GIS database) will 2. updated and documented in Section 11.1 Key be included at the Detailed Design stage and will be provided to the City for review and Agency Direction and to be addressed during comment. detailed design. a) Sanitary sewers that are either crossed or along (green fonts) the subject area. 450mm sanitary sewer cross McCowan Rd at Gillingham Ave/Elson St. Environmental 9 450mm sanitary sewer cross McCowan Rd at Denison St. Services 200mm sanitary sewer along McCowan Rd flowing southward connect to Bullock Dr sanitary sewer system. 200mm sanitary sewer along McCowan Rd between Highway 7 and Milne Dam Conservation Park that tie in to the McCowan trunk sewer. 200mm sanitary sewer south of Heritage Rd that tie in to the Heritage Rd sanitary sewer.
b) Watermain that are either crossed or along (green fonts) the subject area. 3. The SUE-B investigation has been completed No change No change 400mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Elson St. and includes storm infrastructure. During 400mm watermain along McCowan Rd south of Elson Street connect to the 900mm Detailed Design utility information will be verified Regional WM. and conflicts and relocations reviewed and 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Colerain Ave. confirmed. 400mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Denison St. 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Highglen Ave. 400mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at 14th Ave. 600mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at north of 14th Ave connect to the 900mm Regional WM. 150mm watermain along McCowan Rd north of Highway 407 eastbound ramp and 8192 McCowan Rd (south of Rouge River). 150-200mm watermain along McCowan Rd between 63 Walkerton Dr and Hwy 7 E 200-300mm watermain along McCowan Rd between Hwy 7 E and north of 16th Ave 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Bullock Dr connect to the 600mm Regional WM. 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd from Havagal Cres via an easement. 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd between Manhattan Dr and Raymerville Dr. 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Bur Oak Ave. 300mm watermain cross McCowan Rd at Castlemore Ave. 200mm watermain along McCowan Rd between Castlemore Ave and Percy Reesor St (within Boulevard). 200mm watermain along McCowan Rd between Percy Reesor St and Major Mackenzie Dr (within Boulevard).
3. Infrastructure - Stormwater o Please ensure that the plan and profile drawings at the detail design stage will include storm infrastructure once the utility information is collected and updated. At this time, further review Please note that City is preparing the Markville Secondary Plan process and will initate the the Noted. Previously documented in Section 12.2 complete ESR Section 11.2 Key Agency MESP this year. Please include "the City may require updates to the streetscape requirements Commitmment for Future Work #13. Text in Direction 10 Planning and active transportation facilities along this portion of McCowan Rd." into the ESR. Section 11.1 Key Agency Direction was updated.
Please note that the City of Makrham currently is not in the position to take on ownership, - Noted. Updated and documented in Section complete Section 11.2 Key Agency maintainenance / operations responsibilites for AT bridge across highway 407. 11.1 Key Agency Direction. Direction - Final cost sharing agreement for the 11 General construction and maintenance of this bridge will be determined outside of the EA study.
City Staff identified that Daylight triangles have not been provided the Heritage Road / 5m x 5m daylight triangle will be added to the complete ESR Appendix A - Design Plates McCowan Road intersection, please confirm with York Region whether triangles are required. southeast corner, 6m x 6m daylight triangle From the City's perspective, it appears that the north boulevard sidewalk along Heritage Road added to northeast corner and no daylight 12 Engineering is disconnected to McCowan Road, please confirm whether additional property / day light triangles added to the westside to avoid impacts triangle will be required to connect to the existing sidewalk to the proposed design. to existing parking City of Markham ID ESR Section # Comment Response Status Section updated in ESR The design plates identifies a proposed walkway from McCowan Road to the Centennial GO, The proposed walkway is to replace the existing no change Not applicable please confirm who will be the owner of the walkway / provide maintenance for it walkway to the GO platform. The ownership and maintenance of this facility will remain 13 Engineering unchanged (Markharm or Metrolinx). This will be discussed further during detailed design.
The City's fire services has indicated that a secondary access to Sunway Square is required. George Macris (Fire Chief Officer) responded complete Section 12.2 Commitments for As per the meeting with Fire Services last year, Staff is awaiting alternatives to review. on March 2, 2020 to confirm that either of the Future Work two proposed fire access route concepts (profile, access plan, and alternate access concepts provided on Aug 7, 2019 following 14 Fire Services meeting with project team) were acceptable if constructed in accordance with the Building Code and have a change in gradient not more then 1 in 12.5 over a minimum distance of not less than 15m. Added to future committments for Detailed Design in ESR.
Please see the attached minor CAD comment to the preliminary drawings. revised. complete Appendix A - Design Plates
15 Design
TAC Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Meeting Summary Project: Class EA Study for McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Class EA Study for Kennedy Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Summary Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Location: Centennial Community Centre, Markham, ON Attendees: Ben Morell (City of Toronto) David Rahikka (York Region) Dragan Mrkela (407ETR) Jayesh Boily (York Region) Alice Lam (City of Markham) Grant Kaufmann (LGL) Dereje Tafesse (City of Markham) Tara Erwin (HDR) Edward Chiu (York Region) Tyrone Gan (HDR) Jessica Lee (York Region) Alan Xaykongsa (HDR)
Q denotes a question. Action items bolded. R denotes a response. Agencies responsible for action items underlined. C denotes a comment.
McCowan Road Discussion:
Topic 1 Introduction:
Q: Will separate crossing structures be considered for pedestrians and cyclists at the 407ETR interchange? Conflicts between motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians exist at highway crossings. R: As part of Phase 2 of the study, design alternatives for active transportation facilities, particularly at highway crossings, will be examined.
Q: Have the planned developments adjacent to McCowan Road been captured in the York Region Transportation Master Plan’s (YR-TMP) traffic forecasts? R: The YR-TMP’s 2041 traffic forecasts account for the planned and active developments adjacent to McCowan Road. 2 Stouffville GO Line Rail Crossing:
Q: Does Metrolinx have any plans for grade separation at the McCowan Road at-grade crossing north of Bullock Drive? R: Metrolinx completed a feasibility study for grade separations of the Stouffville GO Line up to Highway 7. Once York Region confirms the preferred solution for McCowan Road, they will follow up with Metrolinx and confirm their preference. York Region to confirm the preferred solution for the Stouffville GO Rail Line Crossing with Metrolinx.
C: There are safety concerns at the at-grade crossing on McCowan Road north of Bullock Drive. Pedestrians are performing dangerous crossing maneuvers. City of Markham to share their video of this at-grade crossing with York Region in confidence.
1
3 CN Rail Grade Separation:
Q: What is the timeline for construction regarding the potential replacement of the existing CN Grade Separation? R: Construction of the segment north of 14th Avenue (the segment in which the CN Grade Separation is located) is scheduled for 2026, according to the 2017 10-Year Capital Works Program.
Q: What is the condition of the existing CN Grade Separation? R: The structure is in good condition. Replacement of the structure will be considered, but the bridge will be retained if possible.
C: Other municipalities have developed staging processes to allow railway grade separation structures to be built while maintaining functionality. R: Design alternatives for the CN grade separation will be examined as required. Staging options will be identified as needed. 4 Rouge River Crossing:
C: The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is looking to establish stricter tree replacement guidelines, similar to those developed by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA).
C: Residents are anticipated to advocate for maintaining the wildlife corridor, expansion of the trail network, and mitigation measures.
C: Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) is identified in the Milne Dam Conservation Area; therefore, continued consultation with MNRF is required. HDR and York Region to consult with MNRF.
C: An EA was completed by the City of Markham for the construction of a multi-use path connecting Milne Park to Bob Hunter Memorial Park. HDR to request EA from City of Markham.
C: City of Markham noted that the floodplain needs to be considered in the design phase as it extends up to the right-of-way (ROW); wetland compensation must also be examined due to the loss of wetland function. 5 407ETR:
C: 407ETR engages MTO on any projects that are to be completed as part of 407ETR’s agreement with the province.
Q: Are there ramp volume counts for the 407ETR on/off-ramps? R: There are no Turning Movement Counts; however, 407ETR has ramp volumes. York Region to obtain ramp volumes from 407ETR.
C: Active transportation needs identified by this study introduce challenges with motorist conflicts. 407ETR suggests a separate pedestrian/cyclist facility to maintain separation between modes and reduce potential for conflicts.
C: 407ETR prefers minimal disruption to general purpose lanes and to existing overpass geometrics. C: In the construction stage, 407ETR will require agreements on maintenance and rehabilitation costs with York Region.
2
York Region to communicate future agreements on maintenance and rehabilitation with 407ETR.
C: The existing 407ETR ramps currently have tapered lanes. 407ETR expressed desire to maintaining the existing configuration if possible.
C: 407ETR has encountered situations in the past where HOV lanes on major overpasses have been terminated, such as on the Dufferin Street overpass.
C: Any modification to the 407ETR overpass structure will require 407ETR buy-in. Modifying the design of the direct access ramps is not favorable to 407ETR.
C: 407ETR is open to alternative pedestrian crossing design alternatives. 6 City of Toronto:
Q: Does the City of Toronto have plans to expand transit outside of the core as per the Big Move? R: The City of Toronto has not formally communicated plans for this.
C: York Region noted that a three lane configuration ending at Steeles Avenue may create a potential pinch-point. R: The City of Toronto could look into extending the third lane southbound, merging back into two lanes south of Steeles Avenue. R: York Region to look into intersection improvements at the McCowan Road and Steeles Avenue intersection, as well as take into consideration any desired upgrades by City of Toronto.
C: Concerns from City of Toronto regarding the widening from a four- to six-lane cross-section include a potential bottleneck at the traffic light, and increase in crossing distance. R: There is no intent to increase traffic levels from York Region. York Region may need to discuss further solutions and involve the City of Toronto more in the discussion. York Region and City of Toronto to discuss road improvement plan between municipalities. 7 Final Comments/Questions:
C: City of Markham community centres (e.g. Armadale Community Centre, Centennial Community Centre) along both McCowan Road and Kennedy Road must be kept up to date on all project updates and construction phasing. R: Project updates have been forwarded to the City of Markham along with individual community facilities adjacent to each study corridor. York Region and HDR to continue communication with community facilities within study corridors.
C: Request that minutes and presentation be sent to all agencies invited to be part of TAC. HDR to provide minutes and materials to TAC.
C: City of Markham may request that the project team present to City Council at a later phase of the study.
Q: How will maintenance costs for the City of Markham be affected by this project. Sidewalks and illumination are currently under the jurisdiction of the City of Markham. R: York Region will discuss these changes with the City of Markham as the preferred design is developed. York Region will discuss changes to maintenance responsibilities with the City of Markham.
3
Kennedy Road Discussion:
Topic 1 Stouffville GO Line Rail Crossing:
C: There is currently demand for bicycle parking at the Unionville GO Station according to City of Markham. 2 CN Rail Grade Separation
C: The CN grade separation was a key constraint in the design phase of alternatives for the City of Markham Miller Avenue Extension EA. MTO has policy on intersection spacing in proximity to a highway. HDR to reconfirm the City of Markham Miller Avenue Extension EA preferred design as part of the Kennedy Road EA as it relates to the CN grade separation.
C: City of Markham indicated its preference for a direct connection of Miller Avenue to Kennedy Road. 3 Rouge River Crossing:
C: City of Markham indicated its preference for maintaining existing trails wherever possible. 4 407ETR and 407 Transitway
C: MTO must be consulted for the future mobility hub if the alignment of the 407ETR bridge is to be changed.
C: City of Markham is currently conducting a Mobility Hub Study near the 407ETR and Kennedy Road Interchange, involving MTO and Metrolinx. C: Potential for the 407 Transitway alignment to be modified City of Markham to provide contact regarding 407 Transitway modifications to York Region.
C: 407ETR indicated that setbacks are a concern—no construction is allowed 14 m from the fenceline of the 407ETR. The 407 Transitway will have its own requirements.
C: City of Markham noted strong political interest in this area from the Regional Councilor, due to its proximity to Downtown Markham.
5 VIVA Rapidway on Kennedy Road
C: Kennedy Road between YMCA Boulevard and Highway 7 is planned to have a rapid transit configuration similar to Highway 7 west of Town Centre Boulevard, as identified in the Highway 7 Corridor & Vaughan North-South Link Public Transit Improvements EA.
C: Signal timing changes will require buy-in from 407ETR. 6 Cemeteries
C: The area highlighted in the presentation may require additional property if the six lane configuration is to be kept through that section.
C: The 43 metre ROW described in the cemetery slides represent the designated Official Plan ROW width to accommodate the proposed cross-section as per the Towards Great Regional Streets Guidelines. A 36 metre ROW is generally considered too narrow to accommodate the
4
proposed cross-section. 43 m ROW cross-section concepts will be developed first and narrowed as needed to fit in constrained locations.
7 York Downs Re-Development:
Q: Has a bypass been considered through the York Downs re-development? R: As approval on “Draft Plan of Subdivision for Kylemore Yorkton Phase 2 by Kylemore Communities (Yorkton) Ltd.” is imminent, a bypass cannot be implemented and therefore was screened out as an alternative. 8 Final Comments/Questions:
C: Before the first Open House, another TAC meeting will be held (tentatively set for September 2017). The meetings will be scheduled such that they do not conflict with council meetings, and the date/location of the next meeting will be provided to the TAC. HDR to communicate upcoming TAC meeting and Open House dates.
C: A minimum of 2 weeks’ notice should be provided for Open Houses to TAC members. Email communications are preferred. R: TAC members will be notified of upcoming Open Houses. HDR to prepare notice of Open House and distribute to TAC members at least 2 weeks prior to meeting.
C: In terms of communicating the Open House dates to the public, social media and roadside signs have been effective in the past.
C: An electronic open house for McCowan Road will be trialed. The format of the traditional open house is still subject to change.
C: HDR notes dot voting (with stickers) is one method that has been used to engage the silent majority. R: City of Markham has seen that attendees may place multiple dots under a certain option as per previous open houses, where this exercise was used.
Q: What is the preferred method for the TAC to receive investigation reports for review? R: TAC members prefer a consolidated package to be sent, for ease of documentation. HDR and York Region to send consolidated package of reports in the future.
C: City of Markham is supportive of Multi-use Paths (MUPs) as active transportation facilities.
C: City of Markham indicated its preference for a separated cycle track. In areas of constraint, a 3 meter MUP on both sides is preferred, replacing sidewalks and cycle track.
Q: What is the plan for the cycle track? R: Alternative designs in Phase 3 will identify the type of cycle facility to be used at each segment.
C: City of Markham notes MUP may need to accommodate directional signage to indicate usage.
C: City of Markham would prefer streetscaping with tree canopy along the study corridor. R: Due to ROW constraints, streetscaping elements may be limited, this will be identified in Phase 3, confirmed in phase 4 of the study.
5
C: Separate cycling facilities are preferred to reduce operational costs by City of Markham. Asphalt facilities are preferred for user comfort. If MUP is being considered, City of Markham would prefer MUP along the entirety of the corridor for consistency.
C: City of Toronto uses a 2.1 metre sidewalk on main streets for accessibility requirements.
C: City of Markham notes that higher densities in Markham Centre require the need for a wider sidewalk.
C: City of Markham has noted ash tree removal has occurred recently and should be reflected in the topo survey.
If there are any errors or omissions, please advise Merlin Yuen ([email protected]) within ten business days of the issuance of these minutes.
Minutes prepared by Merlin Yuen (HDR).
6
TAC Meeting #2 Summary Project: Class EA Study for McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 2 Summary Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 Location: HDR Offices, 100 York Boulevard Attendees: Edward Chiu, York Region Peter Chan, City of Markham Jessica Lee, York Region Dragan Mrkela, 407ETR Teresa Li, York Region Tyrone Gan, HDR Ben Morell, City of Toronto Merlin Yuen, HDR Dindial Baljit, Metrolinx Q denotes a question. R denotes a response. C denotes a comment.
McCowan Road Discussion:
Topic 1 Cycling Facilities:
Q: Does the City of Markham have a framework on the different type of cycling facilities to be applied? R: Markham wants to minimize the number of transitions between the types of cycling facilities (i.e. between multi-use path and cycle track). Transitions between types are a concern for Markham – continuity between the types of facilities is desired. A second meeting may be needed to reach consensus on the type of treatment to be applied for cycling facilities
Q: Does the City of Markham have a preference on the width of cycling facilities? R: Operations will prefer a 3.0 m width for multi-use path, however, consultation from various stakeholders such as CPAC may have a differing response
C: 407ETR has concerns about active transportation (AT) facilities mixing with vehicular traffic on the 407ETR crossing, the preferred design should incorporate MTO standards on the minimums for the buffer between vehicular traffic and AT facilities (1 m)
2 Stouffville GO Line Rail Crossing:
C: It has been confirmed that Metrolinx has no plans for an additional tracks at this location, RER is only planned up to Unionville GO Station
ACTION: Metrolinx will send the electrification clearances to the project team
C: At a later phase of the study when the preferred solution at this location is being developed, Metrolinx would like to review the conceptual designs
1
4 Rouge River Crossing:
Q: Has it been considered in the evaluation of alternative options that there is an ESA to the east of the crossing? C: As part of this study, a natural heritage report has been completed to understand the surrounding natural heritage features adjacent to the crossing and McCowan Road in general. During Phase 3, the development of the preferred solution will ensure that minimal impacts or mitigation to the areas surrounding the crossing will occur. The project team has regular meetings with TRCA and MNRF to ensure that the appropriate mitigation and overall benefit will be sought.
5 407ETR:
C: 407ETR is concerned with the designation of HOV lanes over the 407ETR crossing due to issues with vehicles merging into the HOV lane to access 407ETR ramp.
C: For the Keele Street project in York Region, curb lanes over the 407ETR crossing were not dedicated as HOV lanes – perhaps the same designation may be considered for McCowan Road
C: Lane widths are currently 3.75 m for the 407ETR Crossing, with a minimum MTO requirement of 3.5 m, 407ETR prefers to keep a minimum of 3.5 m lanes over the crossing. York Region will look into the implication and maintain the requirement if possible.
C: For the accesses in both directions, 407ETR prefers to retain the length of the taper lanes
Q: Will the tapers of the ramp accesses be affected if the 407ETR bridge is widened? As well, how will the two intersections be affected, will there be transit signal priority?
C: Whether the tapers will be affected will be assessed in Phase 3 of the project when the preferred design is being developed, at which point, additional consultation with 407ETR with respect to this location, will occur. The same applies with the two intersections at the 407ETR crossing, the preferred design will determine the type of improvements required
C: 407ETR is concerned about the side clearances at the 407ETR crossing – the preferred design must incorporate the appropriate side clearances in accordance with Geometric design standards for Ontario Highways
C: With the design of Alternative 2 (MUP in median), 2 conflict points of the outside ramps will still remain for pedestrian/cyclist crossing. Realignment of those ramps could remove all conflict points, however relocation of the gantry will involve a higher cost
C: As the design for Alternative 2 (MUP in median) is developed, 407ETR is requesting to review the design as implications to the ramps and ramp realignment may be prohibitive
Q: Will an option for a separate bridge for Active Transportation be considered as part of Phase 2 of the project?
C: A separate bridge for Active Transportation facilities is being considered as part of the alternatives. If in later phases a separate pedestrian bridge is selected as the preferred, YR and HDR will further study how to direct Active Transportation to the bridge.
6 City of Toronto:
Q: Has the project team begun to develop alternatives for the Steeles Avenue intersection
2
C: This will be investigated at Phase 3 of the study when the preferred solution is being developed. A separate meeting with the City of Toronto may be required at this stage to understand the City’s plan for this intersection in terms of pedestrian and cycling facilities, and transit plans.
Q: Does the City have any preference for either Multi-Use Path or Sidewalk + Cycle Track? R: The city currently does not have a particular preference; in later stages the City would like to include its cyclist design group in further discussion.
7 Trails:
Q: At the Rouge River Crossing, does Markham have any plans to develop trails along the Rouge River?
C: Markham has no plans for any trailing along the Rouge River – however, Markham would prefer an integration of existing trails north of this location with active transportation facilities. Markham is also concerned about maintaining the trails north of the Rouge River Crossing
8 Landscaping:
Q: Who will fund the maintenance of medians if they are landscaped?
C: It will be York Region’s responsibility to maintain the medians. The experience from the 16th Avenue project is that medians are not desired by Richmond Hill and the town desires additional landscaping in the boulevard over the median
Q: Will the median be landscaped at locations where there are left turns? Markham is concerned that sightlines will be poor at these locations
C: As with other similar project, trees will be considered at these locations depending on right-of- way width and road geometry; with consideration of sightlines at intersection to ensure safety
C: Hydro pole on McCowan Road is on one-side (west side). Two species of short trees can be planted in between hydro poles for additional tree planting opportunities
9 Final Comments/Questions:
C: For future TAC meetings, Toronto would like materials be sent earlier to their teams so that they may draw on the relevant discipline expertise
ACTION: HDR to send Toronto the materials for presentation for future TAC meetings two weeks prior to the meetings
C: Toronto would like to view the public consultation materials before they are presented to the public to provide feedback
ACTION: HDR to send Toronto the public consultation materials prior to OH1
3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary Project: McCowan Road Class Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive Subject: TAC Meeting - Alternative Design Review Date: Thursday, April 04, 2019 Location: 100 York Blvd, Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8, HDR office – Boardroom Attendees: Jeff Booker, 407ETR Edward Chiu, York Region Dragan Mrkela, 407ETR Solmaz Rezaei, York Region Frank Martins, MTO Christopher Rotella, York Region Heather Inglis Baron, City of Toronto Tyrone Gan, HDR Dereje Tafesse, City of Markham Michelle Mascarenhas, HDR Mark Siu, City of Markham
Meeting T.Gan presented materials as per attached presentation slides including project overview, Overview: design approach for widening and active transportation for the corridor, evaluation criteria, design options, evaluation and recommendations at areas of special consideration, and next steps. Item Action 1. Introductions (ALL) 2. Study Overview (E.Chiu and T.Gan) Information Only. A Schedule ‘C’ Class EA is being undertaken: McCowan Road (Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive). Project Schedule: Currently in Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts of the Class EA process. Second Open House planned for May 2019. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a study update, discuss design options, evaluations and recommendations for comment. Background information, widening options, and active transportation options were presented. 3. Key Discussion
Active Transportation (AT) Recommendation Project team consulted with the City of Markham who provided feedback on the active transportation facility interim and ultimate recommendation. Instead of asphalt multi-use path (MUP), the City’s current practice is to install concrete MUPs. They also suggested to install a 3.3m concrete multi-use path, instead of an interim 3.0m multi-use path so that the transition to the ultimate 3.3m facility requires only line markings and signage to delineate the cycle track and sidewalk.
Rouge River Project team recommends replacement at the Rouge River to address existing overtopping. Three single-span bridge options were considered (25m, 35m and 45m). Each option includes a raise of the road profile. The 25m span option is recommended.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 1
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
It addresses the 100 year hydraulic requirements and maintains the existing opening size. Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is reviewing the request to provide wildlife passage at this location as per City’s policy.
Robinson Creek Project team recommends replacement at the Robinson Creek crossing even though the existing three culverts are in good condition and can be widened to accommodate the proposed improvements, because the remaining service life of the culverts would not be significant with the current timing for the widening (outside of the Region’s 10 year capital program). Four options were considered (extend culvert, replace with 12m precast concrete box culvert, replace with 22m precast concrete box culvert, and replace with 22m single span bridge). Project team’s recommendation is to replace the Robinson Creek culverts with a 12m precast concrete box culvert which meets the hydraulic requirement, and will be oversized to include natural substrate bottom. Project team consulted with the City of Markham and is reviewing the request to provide wildlife passage at this location based on City’s policy.
CN The existing structure opening can accommodate the widening of McCowan Road to six lanes without structure widening. Active transportation facilities are recommended behind the outside pier requiring modifications to the existing embankment (retaining wall).
Metrolinx Underpass design is recommended to grade separate the Stouffville GO Rail crossing with McCowan Road as the ultimate solution. Interim solution is to provide an at-grade crossing. Long term dewatering strategy is required for the underpass due to the high ground water table and will result in the need for a permanent pumping station.
Implementation of interim solution versus ultimate solution will
consider timing of Metrolinx’s increased service as well as
available funding for the underpass construction including the
pumping station.
407ETR
The existing structure currently carries six lanes with the curb
lanes currently functioning as speed change lanes to the
407ETR on-ramps.
Project team met with 407ETR and MTO in January 2019 and presented findings of the VISSIM analysis which demonstrated no benefit of speed change lanes in addition to Transit/HOV lanes. The implementation of McCowan Road to six lanes for Transit/HOV can be accommodated on the existing bridge over the 407ETR without bridge widening. 407ETR noted they are generally in agreement with the findings of the VISSIM analysis. They had questions / comments hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 2
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
regarding the level of service (LOS) for the general purpose 407ETR lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes and allocation of green time. Various active transportation (AT) facility combinations at the interchange have been considered which include widening of the existing structure, no widening of the existing structure, median AT facility, separate AT structures, shifts to the centerline of McCowan Road and re-alignment/modification to on-ramps. The recommended active transportation facility is separate AT structures to accommodate multi-use paths over the 407ETR along McCowan Road. This option permits the Region to implement the structures as needed, for example one side AT bridge before both side AT bridges based on demand as cyclist and pedestrian volumes increase. Preference for east side versus west side for the AT structure is not determined at this time but it is noted there is a high school on the east side south of the 407ETR at the northeast corner of the 14th Avenue and McCowan Road intersection. Inquiry about why the median AT bridge facility was not carried forward. The project team explained that this option was not supported by MTO, 407ETR or the Region based on operational concerns as pedestrians and cyclists cross into and out of the median at the signalized ramp terminals. The pedestrian and cyclists demands at this location are also not as significant as the Highway 400 and Highway 7 crossing where the pilot median-AT facility is being implemented. MTO is not supportive of normalization of the ramp terminal intersections. MTO noted the recommendation for separate AT structure does not impact the existing bridge and on-ramps. MTO is supportive of the recommendation. MTO/407ETR identified that the recommendation for separate AT bridges does not address ramp conflicts as pedestrians and cyclists will cross ramps at-grade, which is the standard design. There have been conflicts with pedestrians/cyclists at ramps. The Region clarified that the recommendation does not preclude separate AT bridge structures at conflict points but it is cost prohibitive to grade separate all locations. MTO indicated that the separate AT bridge structures will need to be designed to meet vertical and horizontal clearance requirements. Bridge inspections will also be needed to accommodate future maintenance. The 407ETR would own the structure as it would be located on their lands and the Region / City would maintain it. A crossing agreement is likely required HDR and can establish ownership and maintenance. The project team will identify future commitments for the separate AT structures in the Environmental Study Report.
Project team clarified that MTO/407ETR requested conversion of
the shared left-right turn lane to dual left-turn lanes at the
eastbound off-ramp terminal intersections. However York
Region’s traffic group has requested to maintain the existing left,
shared left-right and right-turn lane configuration at the ramp
terminal intersections based on conflicts with pedestrian 407ETR crossings. The project team will be revising the design to reflect
the existing ramp terminal lane configuration. 407ETR will
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 3
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Meeting Summary
review their request for conversion to dual left turn lanes and advise if any concerns of maintaining the existing configuration. City of Markham by-law does not permit cycling on sidewalks; therefore, the existing sidewalk on the 407 structure does not accommodate cyclists. The Region noted MTO’s Controlled Access Highway (CAH) limits don’t appear to be correct. MTO is aware of inconsistencies and suggests to use the fence line to understand the limits as they are in the process of updating them.
Steeles Avenue Intersection At the Steeles Avenue intersection the Transit/HOV curb lane terminates as a southbound right-turn lane. Region inquired if the City of Toronto would consider if the Transit/HOV lane can be City of Toronto carried through the intersection and terminate south of Steeles Ave. This will assist in TTC operations and connections to the Scarborough Centre growth area. Previous City of Toronto Council did not support improvements further south. City of Toronto (Heather) to follow-up and confirm City’s direction. City of Markham noted transit stops north and south of Steeles Avenue have double fare. Existing bus loop north of Steeles Avenue has access from McCowan Road. An understanding of future operations of this bus loop from YRT and TTC is required. A bus bay is proposed City of Toronto / TTC north of Steeles Avenue with the improvements, but may be redundant if existing bus loop is still in operation. Alternatively HDR the bus bay could be extended to transition to the bus loop. City of Toronto (Heather) to consult with TTC to comment on bus loop and bus bays and access needs. City of Toronto / TTC HDR to review transit routes and confirm which buses access the bus loop. HDR City of Toronto / TTC to advise if they can turn around at Centennial GO Station instead of at Steeles Avenue bus loop. Project team to provide City of Toronto (Heather) meeting materials (presentation slides and drawings of bus loop and Steeles Ave intersection) to assist in discussions with City staff and TTC. 4. Next Steps TAC is requested to provide any comments on the drawings, ALL evaluation tables and presentation in the upcoming weeks. Project team is meeting with review agencies and the stakeholder group in the upcoming weeks to review the recommendations. Open House is planned for May 1 and 2, 2019.
If there are any omissions or errors within these minutes, please contact Laura Chong [email protected]
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600 4
SHG Meeting Minutes McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York
August 4, 2017
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Context for June 2017 Stakeholder Meeting York Region is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study along McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Markham. This study will identify possible improvements to McCowan Road to address current and future transportation needs and opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. This study is being carried out in accordance with the Municipal Engineer Association’s (MEA) requirements for the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
Public input is an important part of the multi-step McCowan Road Class EA process and a number of public and stakeholder consultation activities are being held to provide opportunities for engagement. An overview of the key consultation milestones is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Consultation Milestones
Consultation Event Date Notice of Study Commencement March 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 2017 Committee Meeting #1 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory September 2017 Committee Meeting #2 Public Open House #1 Fall 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory March 2018 Committee Meeting #3 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory November 2018 Committee Meeting #4 Public Open House #2 Fall 2018 Notice of Study Completion Spring 2019
The first Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting was held on June 21, 2017. The SHG was held between 6:00PM and 8:00PM, at the Centennial Community Centre in the City of Markham. Members of the York Region and HDR study team were in attendance at the SHG to present, answer questions, record comments, and discuss issues relating to McCowan Road. Methods of Communication The Notice of Commencement for McCowan Road was mailed to residents with properties adjacent to or abutting the study corridor, informing them of the SHG group and providing an opportunity to participate. Notices were also placed in several local newspapers (Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao, Markham Economist & Sun).
Interested members of the public contacted York Region to apply to be a part of the SHG, through phone or email. All applicants who applied were invited by the Region to form the SHG and were emailed with an Eventbrite invitation providing the time, location, and details for the first SHG meeting.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
McCowan Road Discussion Summary A total of nineteen (19) members of the public attended the SHG meeting at the Centennial Community Centre. The most common comments included:
General support for improvements to McCowan Road Support for active transportation improvements and separated cycling facilities along McCowan Road Poor operations at the Bullock Drive and McCowan Road intersection Concerns about the construction phasing for McCowan Road Concerns regarding utilization of transit/HOV lanes along McCowan Road
The presentation accompanying the SHG Meeting is attached.
Members of the study team recorded the comments received at the SHG meeting. A summary along with the project team’s responses to each comment has been provided below in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of SHG Comments and Project Team Responses
Category Questions and Comments Response
Introduction Will a copy of meeting minutes be A summary of the SHG comments provided? and Project Team responses will be provided. .
Will there be a Stakeholder Group (SHG) The Region will provide contact for the 16th Avenue and Bayview Avenue information for the 16th Avenue EA EA studies? and Bayview Avenue EA project teams. 16th Avenue is currently in Phase 3 and Bayview Avenue is in Phase 4. Transportation Why is rapid transit not part of the YR-TMP identified McCowan Road Master Plan preferred solution? as a Frequent Transit Network (YR-TMP) corridor, which will provide transit services every 15 minutes. Future traffic forecasts completed as part of YR-TMP did not identify the need for rapid transit along McCowan Road. Transit on Warden Avenue is fast and Comment noted. efficient. Future transit service along McCowan Road must be frequent to be effective.
Is there a need for dedicated cycling The McCowan Road improvements lanes? are being planned as part of a multi- modal approach that considers the needs of all road-users, not only the needs of cars.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response
Transit Are bus bays also being considered? Project Team continues to discuss Busses in the Transit/HOV lane will delay with YRT for opportunity to HOV vehicles. incorporate bus bays along the corridor where possible
Comment to be carried forward to preferred design Please clarify what is meant by the The Frequent Transit network will “Frequent Transit Network”. involve an increased frequency of buses (transit services will arrive every 15 minutes). There will also be use of transit signal priority at traffic lights. Busses will use the transit/HOV lanes. Does YRT have plans to enforce Presto Transit enforcement is under the fares? jurisdiction of YRT and will not be examined as part of this study. Mandatory stops at at-grade crossings for Consult with YRT for potential transit vehicles cause traffic delays. relocation of bus stops.
Comment to be carried forward to preferred design. Are there plans for a transit hub? The project team will be examining YRT and the City of Markham’s plans for transit hubs in the vicinity of the study area.
Busses should be adjacent to the sidewalk. Comment noted.
Will YRT buses be a part of the Frequent YRT will establish the Frequent Transit Network? Transit Network along McCowan Road as identified by the YR-TMP. Concerns regarding the frequency of transit Comment noted. and the potential for its success The Region may want to consider the The project team is in ongoing extension of GO Rail service to Mount Joy, consultation with Metrolinx to as this may reduce congestion. understand its future plans for service upgrades along the Stouffville GO Rail Line. Will the project team favour transit options This EA is being undertaken with a in their analysis of design alternatives? multi-modal approach to road improvements, meaning that the needs of all road users are considered in the evaluation of design alternatives. Is a permanent separated cycling facility A permanent, separated cycling being considered? facility will be considered.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Active Will cycling facilities be protected through a Protected, separated cycling Transportation physical barrier such as bollards? facilities will be considered, subject – Cycling to each corridor segment’s constraints.
Physical separation should be considered Comment to be carried forward to as part of the active transportation preferred design. component of the study. Bidirectional cycling facilities protected by landscaping and transit facilities should be considered. Bidirectional cycling facilities create a safer environment for cyclists. Protected intersections for cyclists should Comments to be carried forward to be considered. preferred design. E-bikes are a safety concern as they ride in E-bikes are classified as vehicles cyclist lanes and do not stop at and ought to obey the laws of the intersections. road as they pertain to all vehicles. Comment noted. There are many examples of great cycling Comment noted. facilities in Markham and Toronto, notably, Queens Quay. Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Separated cycling facilities have Committee (CPAC) does not support been identified. Preferred design will terminating bike lanes into travel lanes. not consider on-road bike lanes. Is there significant demand for cycling No studies have been conducted on along the study corridor? cycling demand in Markham, however, there are trip attractors in the corridor and the construction of cycling facilities can encourage use of active transportation to these local destinations. There ought to be statistics on cycling The traffic analysis uses Strava data facility use in Markham. to map cycling metrics and usage in Markham. Biking to transit facilities may be feasible in Comment noted. the future as parking at transit facilities (particularly GO Stations) is an issue. Active What improvements for pedestrians are Improvements to create a complete Transportation being considered? There are currently and continuous pedestrian – Walking many ramps from malls and strip plazas environment are being considered that separate the pedestrian environment. as part of the study.
Pedestrian safety and comfort concerns Comment to be carried forward to with a sidewalk directly adjacent to travel preferred design. lanes.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Consider changing design standards to Outside of study scope. have parking lots to the rear of buildings to encourage walking. Connectivity to the City of Markham’s trail Consultation with City of Markham network should be emphasized with better for potential signage improvement. signage; access to parklands is not currently maximized. Pedestrian demand is not significant in Connectivity outside of the municipal Markham as connectivity is an issue, ROW is not within the scope of this particularly to amenities such Markville study. Mall. Are we able to improve the visibility of Intersection improvements for all pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings)? road users will be examined as part of the study. There are pedestrian safety concerns Comment to be carried forward to crossing six-lanes. preferred design. The intersection at McCowan Road and Comments to be carried forward to Bullock Drive is poorly designed for preferred design. pedestrians and the double left turn is confusing for drivers. The at-grade crossing north of Bullock Comment noted. Drive should be more visible and pedestrian facilities should be made safer. The pedestrian environment requires Streetscape improvements will be improvement including the addition of examined as part of this study. street furniture if there is to be more pedestrian demand. Comments to be carried forward to preferred design. A two-phase pedestrian crossing with Comments to be carried forward to refuge islands should be considered at Bur preferred design. Oak Avenue. A pedestrian crossing should be placed The signal warrant based on existing between 16th Avenue and Bur Oak Avenue traffic volumes (at James Parrot) do as the distance between crossings is too not warrant for a signal. Will discuss large. with Traffic Ops to seek for opportunity for pedestrian signal. Improve trail connectivity to McCowan Consultation with City of Markham Road at Milne Park. for potential improvement.
Comments to be carried forward to preferred design. An elevated walkway for access to Consult with Metrolinx. Centennial GO Station should be considered. Comments to be carried forward to preferred design.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Traffic and Will the volume of trucks and high-speed Regional arterial roads are designed Operations – traffic be looked at? A time restriction for to support goods movement. A time Motorists trucks should be considered. restriction for trucks has not been identified as part of YR-TMP.
Concerns regarding the underutilization of Share findings of the HOV warrant HOV lanes. analysis. Bus rapid transit (BRT) lane visibility for McCowan Road will not be a rapid cars must be increased, for example, at transit corridor. The Transit/HOV Highway 7 and Leslie Street. lane will be a curbside lane. The high number of accesses on the west Outside of the study scope. side of McCowan Road results in a high volume of cars entering McCowan Road. The gates at the at-grade crossing north of Comment has been relayed to Bullock Drive drop even when there is no Metrolinx for potential train crossing, causing additional traffic improvements. delays. Street parking on Markham Road creates Street parking will not be designed congestion and should not be considered on McCowan Road. for McCowan Road. The pedestrian crossing at Milne Park Review with Traffic Signal group for causes congestion. potential congestion measures. Traffic safety issues at the Foody Mart Comment to be carried forward to entrance south of Highway 7. Exiting preferred design. vehicles block southbound lanes when turning left onto northbound McCowan Road. There is traffic infiltration in the car dealership west of the Foody Mart Plaza as a result of the access issues at the Foody Mart entrance. Traffic safety issues at the Milne Park Review with Traffic Safety for entrance. potential safety improvements. Traffic and The Michigan-left should be implemented. Intersection design and Operations – improvements will be examined as Intersections part of the study, a Michigan-left would be difficult to implement as there are ROW constraints present. A box intersection measure should be Congestion measures, may review considered, where drivers in the painted with Traffic Ops and Enforcement for box area of the intersection during a red the potential improvement. light are subject to a gridlock fine (box junction).
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Suggestion to implement roundabouts at Roundabout screening has been the 407ETR ramps to improve pedestrian completed and roundabout options quality of service. will not be carried forward.
Share the findings. Roundabouts require better visibility for Comment noted. motorists. Traffic enforcement at intersections must Traffic Ops. be improved to reduce gridlock. Outside of study scope. Suggestion for an increase in traffic Red-light cameras will be cameras for traffic enforcement. considered by the Region for the purposes of traffic enforcement, and have recently been installed at several intersections in the Region. Collision rates provide criteria for red-light camera installation at a specific location. Rail – At- Is there a study for the GO station grade A grade separation warrant analysis Grade separation? will be conducted as part of the Crossing traffic analysis for this study, based on existing and future vehicle and train volumes.
Share the findings. Construction Why is construction stopping at 14th Construction staging has been Staging Avenue? It should be extended to identified by the 2017 10-Year Highway 7. Roads and Transit Capital Construction program, and must be balanced between McCowan Road and Kennedy Road to avoid having both corridors under construction simultaneously. The section of McCowan Road from Steeles Ave. to 14th Ave. is relatively simple in comparison to the potential impacts north of 14th Ave., this improvement can be implemented much faster than the remaining section. What is happening between now and 2021 Signal improvements are an as congestion increases? opportunity to ease congestion. Any major capital work improvements will require an EA and additional funding. Other How is signal timing considered as there is Signal timing issues at identified Inquiries an influx of traffic along certain corridors? intersections will be addressed as part of this study.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York
September 21, 2017
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
Context for September 2017 Stakeholder Meeting York Region is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study along McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Markham. This study will identify possible improvements to McCowan Road to address current and future transportation needs and opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. This study is being carried out in accordance with the Municipal Engineer Association’s (MEA) requirements for the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process for a Schedule ‘C’ project, which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
Public input is an important part of the multi-step McCowan Road Class EA process and a number of public and stakeholder consultation activities are being held to provide opportunities for engagement. An overview of the key consultation milestones is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Consultation Milestones
Consultation Event Date Notice of Study Commencement March 1, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #1 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory September 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #2 Public Open House #1 October 4 and 5, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Tentatively for March 2018 Committee Meeting #3 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Tentatively for November 2018 Committee Meeting #4 Public Open House #2 Tentatively for Fall 2018 Notice of Study Completion Tentatively for Spring 2019
The second Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting was held on September 21, 2017. The SHG was held between 6:00PM and 8:00PM, at the Centennial Community Centre in the City of Markham. Members of the York Region and HDR study team were in attendance at the SHG to present, answer questions, record comments, and discuss issues relating to McCowan Road. Methods of Communication The methods of communication for the second Stakeholder Meeting followed the same format as the first Stakeholder Meeting. An Eventbrite page was set up to track attendance, with the same list of stakeholders carried forth from respondents to the Notice of Commencement. Stakeholders were contacted by email and by phone. The first invitation for the second Stakeholder Meeting was sent on September 6, 2017 with follow-up emails sent on September 14th and 19th, 2017.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
McCowan Road Discussion Summary A total of eight (8) members of the public attended the SHG meeting at the Centennial Community Centre. The most common comments included:
• General support for improvements to McCowan Road • Concerns about separation between pedestrian and cycling facilities • Poor vehicular operations at the Stouffville GO Rail Line Crossing • Inquiries about grade separation alternatives for the Stouffville GO Rail Line Crossing • Concerns about construction phasing and timing of improvements
The presentation accompanying the SHG Meeting is attached.
Members of the study team recorded the comments received at the second SHG meeting. A summary along with the project team’s responses to each comment has been provided below in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of SHG Comments and Project Team Responses
Category Ques tions and Comments Response Transportation – The commercial and retail Comment Noted. Current Traffic developments in proximity to Conditions McCowan Road and Highway 7 are a main cause of the traffic congestion, particularly on weekends. Why is the section of McCowan Constrained sections are locations identified Road south of Highway 7 not where there are right-of-way constraints. The considered a constrained section, section south of Highway 7 along McCowan there are traffic issues that are Road has been identified as an operations persistent at that location. issue and the project team will continue to review with internal Regional staff to develop a solution. Transportation – Roundabouts should be considered As part of the traffic analysis completed for Intersection as an intersection improvement if the study to supplement YR-TMP findings, a Improvements the available right-of-way permits. roundabout feasibility screening was completed for each intersection along McCowan Road. Roundabouts were not carried forward as a design alternative for intersection improvements due to the following criteria: number of lanes recommended for McCowan Road, proximity of the nearest intersections, and designing intersections as pedestrian-friendly environments. Concerns that roundabouts would Comment Noted. cause driver confusion as there are no current roundabouts for a six lane arterial in Markham.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
Category Ques tions and Comments Response The median should be removed Comment Noted. before and after intersections to allow for U-turns.
Transportation – Where does the 900 vehicle The methodology for the HOV warrant Widening for estimate originate from, when analysis is sourced from the US DoT Transit/HOV referring to HOV warrant analysis? Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidelines on HOV Lanes, 2016.
In past transportation studies, The recommendation for the McCowan Road Markham has been leaning towards study is based on the approved York Region widening for general purpose Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP), 2016 improvements, why is widening for Update. This study reviewed regional Transit/HOV being recommended in transportation needs to the year 2041 and this study? recommended widening for Transit/HOV for McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive. There will be more driver confusion As part of the improvements to McCowan with a six-lane configuration on Road, all intersections along the study McCowan Road, particularly at corridor will be examined for potential safety intersections. improvements for all users.
Planted medians may obstruct Tree species within the median will be sightlines for drivers, particularly at examined at a later stage of the project at intersections. locations where planted medians will be provided to ensure that the appropriate guidelines, such as safety and streetscaping standards are followed. Planting will be set back away from intersection to minimize sight-line obstruction. Transportation – The prevalence of cycling data As part of the AT analysis for the McCowan Cycling Facilities should be more prominent in Road corridor, STRAVA data was utilized to making decisions related to active understand the travel patterns of cyclists and transportation improvements. which segments of McCowan Road were most utilized. STRAVA is a data collection app for cyclists and pedestrians which processes activity data to determine trends such as travel times and preferred routes. Will cyclist safety be accounted for As part of the improvements to McCowan at intersections? Road, all intersections along the study corridor will be examined to improve safety for all users. A number of treatments may be recommended such as bicycle boxes that allow for a two-stage turn for cyclists.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
Category Ques tions and Comments Response If the facilities for pedestrian and The treatment for separating pedestrian and cyclists are separated, how will this cycling facilities will be evaluated during be envisioned? Will there be Phase 3. separation through grading changes? If the right-of-way does not permit for this, painted markings should be considered. Cycling and pedestrian facilities Comment Noted. should be separated – distracted pedestrians may pose as safety issues, designing for optimal safety means separation of the two facilities. An example of this is at Queens Quay where near-misses are common. Enforcement of bi-directional cycling Comment Noted. facilities should be stringent to ensure a safe cycling environment.
The treatment for cycling and Comment Noted. pedestrian facilities should be consistent along the study corridor and there should be minimal transition between separated and combined cyclist/pedestrian facilities. How will the Region handle winter If the preferred design for AT facilities is a operations with regard to snow separated cycle track and sidewalk, a clearance if the facilities are potential solution for winter maintenance will separated? be to clear sidewalks and utilize the cycle track as a snow storage zone. If the preferred solution is a MUP, it will be routinely maintained and cleared, similar to a regular sidewalk. Either design option will be maintained by the City of Markham. Strategy to address winter maintenance will be confirmed with City of Markham after selection of the preferred design. Another method to separate Comment Noted. The treatment for pedestrians and cyclists can be separating pedestrian and cycling facilities through different pavement will be explored at a later stage of the study, materials used. For example, during Phase 3. sidewalks can be concrete whereas cycle track can be asphalt. Transportation – Concerns about pedestrian visibility Comment Noted. Pedestrian at intersections with a six lane Facilities cross-section.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
Category Ques tions and Comments Response High visibility pedestrian cross- Comment Noted. walks (zebra markings) should be considered as a treatment at intersections. Stouffville GO Currently there are safety issues at Comment Noted. Rail Line the Stouffville GO Rail Line Crossing Crossing, with pedestrians alighting the train and illegally crossing McCowan Road, or crossing when the crossing arms are down (train approaching). Often times the gates descend Comment Noted. The project team will without any trains passing, causing follow-up with Metrolinx on this comment, congestion. this may also be a design aspect of the crossing gates for the safety of motorists.
Public transit vehicles stopping at Comment Noted. the Stouffville GO Rail Line Crossing causes delays to traffic as one lane becomes stalled. Stouffville GO If an overpass is the preferred As part of Phase 2 of this study, a preferred Rail Line solution, how will Bullock Drive solution will be selected. The design Crossing – interact with McCowan Road? Will specifications of preferred solution will be Alternatives the double left turn lane be completed during Phase 3 of this study. retained? Concern about the aesthetics of an Comment Noted. overpass and the views for residents abutting the study corridor. Consider Cadillac Fairview as a Comment Noted. proponent for this project for a potential access into their parking lot. Is it possible to change the grade of Changing the grade of the track would the rail, or the alignment, such that require extensive consultation with Metrolinx Centennial GO Station is relocated? and would have significant implication and high cost for the purposes of this study, hence, has not been considered. York Region will continue discussions with Metrolinx to determine the feasibility of this option. 407ETR The alternative showing pedestrians Comment noted. Interchange in the median is a good idea to minimize potential conflicts. However, bringing the pedestrians to the median requires traffic signals and pedestrian cross-walks.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #2 Summary Report
Category Ques tions and Comments Response The project team should consider a Comment noted. If the opportunity is viable, tunnel underneath the ramps on the ramp cannot exceed 5-6% to meet either the east or west side, with a AODA requirements. pedestrian bridge underneath the existing 407ETR structure. Utilities Has there been any consideration to This has not been considered as part of the relocating utility lines to be project as the cost of below-ground utility underground? relocation is cost prohibitive. Other – With the first phase of construction The project team will gather feedback from Construction scheduled to begin in 2021 and the stakeholders on segments where there are Phasing year being subject to change under operational issues to develop interim the 10-Year Roads and Transit solutions for these segments, i.e. the project Capital Construction Program, will team will look into areas where a potential there be an interim solution? traffic signal is warranted.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #1 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Have smart sensors been implemented? Currently smart sensors are not used on Regional Roads. Why do certain intersections have signage York Region utilizes vehicle loop that require motorists to pull up to the stop detectors at certain intersections bars? requiring vehicles to be in a certain position to trigger signal changes. Does York Region perform maintenance on Construction and maintenance of roads? Regional Roads is completed by York Region. Snow clearing of sidewalks is completed by the City of Markham Snow clearing operations should be Comment noted. prioritized for transit and community facilities. Driving etiquette in Markham is lacking, Comment noted. causing concerns with safety.
Will Kennedy Road be undergoing an EA Kennedy Road is currently study for widening as well? undergoing an EA study between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive. Are any smart technologies being A previous study was undertaken by considered for transportation infrastructure York Region; however, the difficulty use? implementing these technologies lies with practicality in terms of operational use.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York
June 14, 2018
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Context for June 2018 Stakeholder Meeting York Region is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study along McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Markham. This study will identify possible improvements to McCowan Road to address current and future transportation needs and opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. This study is being carried out in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) requirements for the Class EA process for a Schedule ‘C’ project, which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Currently the study is in Phase 3 of the Class EA process; the premise of the third Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting is to present the preliminary engineering design concepts for the study corridor, including constrained sections where modifications to the typical section will be made.
Public input is an important part of the McCowan Road Class EA process and a number of public and stakeholder consultation activities are being held to provide opportunities for engagement. An overview of the key consultation milestones is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Consultation Milestones
Consultation Event Date Notice of Study Commencement March 1, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #1 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory September 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #2 Open House #1 October 4 and 5, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 14, 2018 Committee Meeting #3 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Tentative 2019 Committee Meeting #4 Open House #2 Tentative for 2019 Notice of Study Completion Tentative for 2019
The third Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting was held on June 14, 2018. The SHG was held between 6:00PM and 8:00PM, at the Centennial Community Centre in the City of Markham. Members of the York Region and HDR study team were in attendance at the SHG to present, answer questions, record comments, and discuss issues relating to McCowan Road. Methods of Communication The methods of communication for the third Stakeholder Meeting followed the same format as the first Stakeholder Meeting. An Eventbrite page was set up to track attendance, with the same list of stakeholders from respondents to the Notice of Commencement, and others who wish to participate during the course of the study. Stakeholders were contacted by email. The first invitation for the third Stakeholder Meeting was sent on June 1, 2018 with a follow-up email sent on June 11, 2018.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
McCowan Road Discussion Summary A total of eight (8) members of the public attended the SHG meeting at the Centennial Community Centre. The most common comments included:
General support for improvements to McCowan Road Support for an underpass option at the Stouffville GO Rail crossing Concerns about noise at the Stouffville GO Rail crossing Support for a separate pedestrian structure at the 407ETR crossing Concerns about construction phasing and timing of improvements
The presentation accompanying the SHG Meeting is attached.
Members of the study team recorded the comments received at the third SHG meeting. A summary along with the project team’s responses to each comment has been provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of SHG Comments and Project Team Responses
Category Questions and Comments Response Transportation – What does a context sensitive Using a context sensitive approach to assess Transit Facilities approach mean when assessing bus bays includes consideration of available accommodations for bus bays? right-of-way (ROW), location-specific constraints, and feedback from York Region Transit (YRT). Will sidewalks be located behind This concern will be reviewed during the bus shelters, as there are currently design process and will be addressed as part conflicts along Highway 7 between of the preferred design. pedestrians and cyclists at these locations? Transportation – A traffic signal should be installed The installation of traffic signal at the Wilfred Intersection at James Parrott Avenue – the Murison Avenue/James Parrot Avenue. Improvements local councilor mentioned that the intersection is planned for 2019, subject to criteria for a traffic signal were met. funding availability. The issue with implementing a traffic signal at this location is budget. The understanding is that this will occur in 2019.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Protected intersection design Intersection design will follow AODA should be incorporated for this requirements to accommodate all road users project. including cyclists.
Protected intersection design entails providing at-grade road separation between cyclists and pedestrians with the cars (for example, including crossride pavement markings for cyclists and cross walks for pedestrians to minimize conflicts between different users).
Transportation – The minimum number of Currently Regional policy for HOV lanes is a Implementation passengers within a car should be minimum of two people per car – there may of HOV more than two for HOV. be opportunities to increase this number in the future as the use of HOV lanes becomes more significant.
In past transportation studies, Current Regional policy supports widening Markham has been leaning from four to six lanes for transit/HOV and not towards widening for general for general purpose lanes. In addition the purpose improvements, why is recommendation for the McCowan Road widening for Transit/HOV being study is based on the approved York Region recommended in this study? Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP), 2016 Update. This study reviewed regional transportation needs to the year 2041 and recommended widening for transit/HOV for McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive. Transportation – Multi-Use Paths (MUPs) are not The preferred solution AT facilities along the Cycling Facilities the preferred design alternative for corridor will be developed with a context active transportation (AT) facilities sensitive approach that considers north of Highway 7 due to high surrounding land use, connections to existing pedestrian volumes from existing facilities, and continuity/consistency along the land uses (i.e. Markville Mall, study corridor. business plazas along McCowan Road, Centennial Community Centre, etc.) At the CN Rail Crossing, the This option will be considered. project team should consider an alternative where the pedestrian facilities are between the slopes and piers and the cycling facilities are between piers and vehicular traffic, within boulevard.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Stouffville GO What is the current delay for During peak hour periods, the current queues Rail Line vehicles when the crossing arms is about one kilometer in both directions. With Crossing are down and trains approach? the implementation of the GO RER Program, traffic delays at this location are expected to increase with higher train frequency Concern about the aesthetics and Comment Noted. Aesthetics and noise noise impacts of an overpass and impacts will be considered when evaluating the views for residents abutting the the design concepts. A noise assessment will study corridor. be completed as part of the study and the results will be used to determine the mitigation measures required. If tying back at Bullock Drive is This alternative would have major economic such a challenge at this location, implications to accommodate raising Bullock why not create an elevated left turn Drive and maintaining access along both lane onto the overpass option, this Bullock Drive and McCowan Road, and is not would eliminate any grade issues. considered as a feasible option to carry forward. Are underpasses generally more Underpasses typically have a higher capital cost prohibitive than overpasses? and operating cost than overpass if a pumping station is required, as there are long-term operational and maintenance costs required to maintain a pumping station that are not required for an overpass. At this location, there was previous A pedestrian connection to the residential discussion of a grade separated subdivision within Metrolinx property west of pedestrian walkway in the north- the GO Station is beyond the scope of this south direction linking Centennial study. GO Station and the residential subdivision to the north. If a wider bridge has a greater The intent of a grade separation is to improve economic impact, can York Region operations (including traffic safety) for all road grade separate only the vehicular users, including AT users. Grade separating lanes while leaving AT facilities at- just for vehicles does not improve the safety grade? of AT users as AT users would have to cross at track level with increased train frequency and increased pedestrian and cyclist volumes. There seems to be a significant Retaining walls may be installed to limit the impact from grading for the impacts of grading, but will result in a greater overpass option – are there any cost. other measures that can reduce grading impacts and what are the cost implications? When the grade separation is The project team is currently reviewing being constructed, how will York construction phasing and detour options for Region maintain traffic along grade separation to determine how traffic can McCowan Road? be maintained during construction.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Are there any showstoppers at this Metrolinx is a member of the Technical location – i.e. can Metrolinx stop Advisory Committee for this study and the the process, and what is the timing Region is working with them to ensure that of this grade separation? comments and feedback are incorporated. There is no current timing on the grade separation however improvements to McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and 16th Avenue are scheduled for 2026 as shown in the current Region’s 10 Year Road and Transit Capital Construction Plan. As the design alternatives and mitigation measures are further developed, the study team will have a better estimate of construction timing and costs, and will present them to SHG members at future meetings. 407ETR For the design alternative with a Pedestrians will cross at the south and north Interchange separate pedestrian structure, off ramps to access the pedestrian bridge at where do pedestrians cross to signalized locations. reach the separate structure?
Traffic signals at the 407ETR Comment noted. Phased signal at 407ETR crossing are currently oriented will be discussed with 407ETR and towards vehicles – there should be incorporated into the design, if acceptable to a phased signal timing interval for 407ETR and MTO. pedestrians. Concern regarding height Comment noted. A separate AT structure clearances for the separate AT would be designed to provide the required structure and snow clearance height clearances. Pedestrian and cyclist requirements with a longer facilities would be designed in accordance structure with AODA standards. Maintenance of the facility/structure would be discussed with MTO/407/City. If facility continuity is a priority for Options that provide continuous facilities the Region, there should be two throughout the corridor will be considered in pedestrian bridges at this location the evaluation process however, the cost to ensure there are AT facilities on implications of two separate AT structures both sides. would be substantially greater and may not provide substantial benefit at this time. Support for separate AT bridge on Comment noted. one side instead of both sides due to economic implication and constructability. Suggestion for short pedestrian Comment noted; however, the cost bridges above 407ETR on-ramps implications for the additional structures may to reduce AT-vehicle conflict. not provide substantial benefit at this time.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Species At Risk What is Redside Dace and why is it Redside Dace is a fish species with a Species a concern at a watercourse at Risk (SAR) status of "Endangered" under crossing? Are there any the provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007. construction implications? Protection of the species and its habitat was regulated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Subsequent to the meeting, with the recent change to the Ontario government, as of June 29, 2018 requirements and permits associated with Species At Risk have been transferred to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). All permits regarding endangered species must now go through MECP approval. Other – Markham With the ROW constraints along The ROW for McCowan Road is in Future Area McCowan Road, will the FUA’s accordance with the Region’s Official Plan (FUA) ROW be protected for such that designation. The ROW for the FUA has not future widenings will be been determined and is beyond the scope of accommodated for? this study. Other – Previous What happened to the previous The previous EA study for widening McCowan Road study for McCowan Road why can McCowan was paused as a result of EA this study not build from the changing transportation priorities between findings of the previous EA? York Region and the City of Markham. As the study was initiated over 10 years ago, investigations must be updated to understand the most recent conditions along McCowan Road and the study must conform to the current policy and legislation. Phases 1 and 2 of the EA study are built on the findings and recommendations of the Region’s approved Transportation Master Plan. Other – Why did the York Region 10 Year York Region’s 10 Year Roads and Transit Construction Roads and Transit Capital Capital Construction Program is reviewed Timing Construction Program change the annually based on balancing priorities in the construction date for McCowan region, budget restrictions and updated Road to 2026 and what information. The 2017 10 year plan indicated improvements will be completed in 2021 for McCowan Road between Steeles the next eight years prior to Avenue and 14th Avenue and 2026 between construction? 14th Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive. This has been revised in the 2018 plan to 2026 for McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and 16th Avenue.
Prior to construction and upon completion of the Class EA (anticipated in 2019), the project will undergo a detail design stage including utility relocation, obtaining permits and property acquisition as required. These processes typically take a few years to complete prior to construction commencement.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #3 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Will the improvements for The improvements to all three corridors will McCowan Road be coordinated be coordinated to minimize the overall with Kennedy Road and 16th disruptions to road users. Based on York Avenue, and will the improvements Region’s 2018 10 Year Roads and Transit for McCowan Road start earlier Capital Construction Program, construction than Kennedy Road? on 16th Avenue is to be initiated in 2021. Kennedy Road is scheduled for 2023, and McCowan Road for 2026.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive
Regional Municipality of York
April 24, 2019
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Context for April 2019 Stakeholder Meeting York Region is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study along McCowan Road between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Markham. This study will identify possible improvements to McCowan Road to address current and future transportation needs and opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. This study is being carried out in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) requirements for the Class EA process for a Schedule ‘C’ project, which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Currently the study is in Phase 3 of the Class EA process; the purpose of the fourth Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting is to present the recommendations and preliminary engineering design concepts for the study corridor, including constrained sections where modifications to the typical section will be made.
Public input is an important part of the McCowan Road Class EA process and a number of public and stakeholder consultation activities are being held to provide opportunities for engagement. An overview of the key consultation milestones is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Consultation Milestones Consultation Event Date Notice of Study Commencement March 1, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #1 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory September 21, 2017 Committee Meeting #2 Open House #1 October 4 and 5, 2017 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory June 14, 2018 Committee Meeting #3 Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory April 24, 2019 Committee Meeting #4 Open House #2 May 1 and 2, 2019 Notice of Study Completion End of 2019
The fourth Stakeholder Group (SHG) meeting was held on April 24, 2019. The SHG meeting was held between 6:00PM and 8:00PM, at the Centennial Community Centre in the City of Markham. Members of the York Region and HDR study team were in attendance at the SHG meeting to present, answer questions, record comments, and discuss issues relating to McCowan Road. Methods of Communication The methods of communication for the fourth Stakeholder Meeting followed the same format as the other Stakeholder Meetings. An Eventbrite page was set-up to track attendance, with the same list of stakeholders from respondents to the Notice of Commencement, and others who requested to participate during the course of the study. Stakeholders were contacted by email; however, one stakeholder only provided a mailing address and was contacted by direct mail. The first invitation for the fourth Stakeholder Meeting was sent on April 15, 2019 with a follow-up email sent on April 22, 2019.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
McCowan Road Discussion Summary A total of six (6) members of the public attended the fourth SHG meeting at the Centennial Community Centre. The most common comments included:
General support for improvements to McCowan Road Concern that widening to six lanes for Transit/HOV will not improve conditions Support for an underpass option at the Stouffville GO Rail crossing Support for a separate pedestrian structure at the 407ETR crossing
The presentation accompanying the SHG Meeting is attached.
Members of the study team recorded the comments received at the fourth SHG meeting. A summary along with the project team’s responses to each comment has been provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of SHG Comments and Project Team Responses Category Questions and Comments Response Widening, Did Regional Council pass a High Regional Council policy supports widening Access and Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)-only policy from four to six lanes for Transit/HOV and Turning for road widening projects? not general purpose lanes. Movements
Will the median be a raised concrete The centre median will be a raised planter wall similar to Highway 7 concrete island. In select locations there is design? potential to provide landscaping in the median, however for the majority of the The median should be a raised barrier corridor a raised narrow concrete median to prevent vehicles from crossing is proposed to separate opposing traffic opposing lanes of traffic. and minimize left-turn conflict points but is not in the form of a raised planter box like Highway 7, due to property constraints.
How do you turn left with the raised The typical cross section shown is at the concrete median with trees? It will be mid-block (between intersections). U-turns hard to see because of the trees would be permitted at signalized proposed in the median. Pedestrians intersections and would have a narrow will be difficult to see. concrete island with raised planters or trees further away from the intersection to provide proper visibility.
How many left turn lanes are provided There are about 25 signalized in the corridor? intersections which would permit left turn and u-turn movements in the study area.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Will all non-signalized intersections be Non-signalized intersection will be closed? converted to right-in/right-out (RIRO) movements to minimize potential turning conflicts. U-turns are permitted at signalized intersections. The Region clarified in select locations a gap in the median would be provided to permit movements for large trucks, assessed on an individual basis. Widening attracts more cars. The proposed widening is planned for designated Transit/HOV lanes to support McCowan Road as a Frequent Transit Network.
Transit network is needed in a grid. Noted. The proposed widening is planned for designated Transit/HOV lanes to support McCowan Road as a Frequent Transit Network and feeder into a broader transit system. Transit service is planned for up to every 15 minutes in the corridor by 2041. There was a report that Transit/HOV Noted. lanes work and are faster.
Active In the future there will be more e- Preference noted for implementation of Transportation bikes. As such, there is a preference the ultimate solution without the interim (AT) Facilities for the separate and continuous cycle solution. tracks and sidewalks from Steeles Ave. to Major Mackenzie Dr. Project team clarified in consultation with the City of Markham, the City’s preference There is a preference for is to construct a 3.3 m multi-use path in implementation of the ultimate solution place of the interim 3.0m multi-use path and to not bother with the interim and convert to cycle track and sidewalk in solution. the future as ridership/usage increases. This will minimize reconstruction for the ultimate facility given the width of the cycle track and sidewalk is 3.3m. It was not anticipated that the cost for There would be additional costs cycle track / sidewalk was more than associated with the cycle track and the multi-use path (MUP) and not the sidewalk option due to increased width, same cost. signage and pavement markings to delineate the facilities. How much does it cost for signals for York Region has not installed any at this bike lanes or cycle tracks? time; however the greater cost is in the maintenance cost of the signal.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response CN Rail Are you widening the CN bridge? Project team clarified no bridge widening Crossing is recommended as the existing bridge was designed to accommodate 6 lanes. The Project team has consulted with CN and they are supportive of the recommendations (place active transportation facilities behind the outer piers). The preferred option is favourable as Comment noted. there is not a significant cost difference between the two options. Rouge River What is the life expectancy of the Improvements at the bridge crossing bridge? consider various elements include structural condition, ability to How often does the storm event occur accommodate the widened road platform, for which the improvements are consideration of hydraulics (considering designed? criteria for the Regional Storm event), wildlife passage (if applicable), etc. These considerations are discussed with the respective review and regulatory agencies including Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and City of Markham. What provisions are made for Active The project team clarified that there is Transportation Facilities at the bridge? additional buffer identified between vehicle Have you studied the potential to bring travel lanes and AT facilities referred to as the trail / path system underneath the the side clearance (similar approach as bridge? applied in the recent 16th Ave EA).
The City doesn’t support continuing the trail system under the bridge due to the flooding conditions at this location. Are you changing the Rouge Valley at- The Project Team is reviewing the grade trail crossing? opportunity to signalize the Milne Park Entrance and relocate the at-grade trail The Milne Park Entrance is only busy crossing connection to the new signal. during weekends in the summer and for Canada Day or special events; otherwise the rest of the year the entrance is not heavily used. GO Rail Is the City of Markham in favour of the City of Markham is supportive of the Underpass underpass recommendation? ultimate solution for the underpass. Opportunities to further improve pedestrian access at this location are under review.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response What is the total cost? What is the A similar underpass is proposed at cost-sharing for the proponent for the Rutherford Road which also requires a grade separation of the underpass? pumping station. The cost is approx. $55M for the Rutherford Underpass. It should be noted this cost is based on Metrolinx’s design-build process rather than the traditional, design and tender process.
Cost sharing agreements will be identified and prepared at later stages in the project. Typically for rail grade separations the cost – sharing split is 85% and 15%; with the greater cost borne to the proponent requesting for the grade separation. If train service will be increasing then Train service will increase along the rail grade separation is needed. corridor; however, Metrolinx doesn’t have timelines for full service beyond the Unionville GO station at this time.
Metrolinx is also undertaking studies for the next set of grade separation studies crossings at Steeles Avenue and Denison St. Those interested can contact the Region to have their information forwarded to Metrolinx. Consider another option to raise the A hybrid option to raise the rail and reduce train tracks so the underpass would the lowering of the road will result in not be as low (hybrid option). modifications to the track profile for about 500 – 600 m along the railway corridor, which would result in the need to also raise the station platform. This would result in significant impacts. Has double track and electrification Yes, the project team developed the been factored into the design? underpass design such that Metrolinx’s future expansion to accommodate a second track is not precluded. The design also follow’s the clearances specified by Metrolinx standards to accommodate electrification. Consider moving the Loblaws access Impact to Loblaws access and potential to south to minimize the grade impact. relocate further south will be reviewed and discussed with Loblaws. Loblaws has been circulated invitations to participate throughout the study including an invitation to attend the Open Houses. The project team will be meeting with impacted owners, including Loblaws.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response Are there problematic accesses to the The emergency access to the north is north? proposed to be closed as it will be too steep to remain open based on the depth For the EMS access one suggested to of the underpass at this location. purchase residential homes to maintain the entrance. Acquisition of residential properties to maintain the emergency access would be Consider an alternate EMS access a significant impact and is not along Raymerville Road. recommended.
The project team will meet with representatives from EMS to review and confirm the impacts of the proposed closure and discuss mitigation measures as appropriate. Consider stairs be provided at the Ramp connections are provided as they underpass to maintain pedestrian meet AODA standards. Stairs can be connections near track and existing considered to supplement the ramp neighbourhood paths. connections however they would not meet AODA standards. 407 Active Regarding Alternative 2: Centre For this alternative pedestrians and Transportation Median AT, how do pedestrians and cyclists would cross into the centre median Bridge cyclists enter the centre median? at signalized intersections. It is similar to Is this option similar to the median AT the design proposed at Highway 400; facility proposed at Highway 400? however, at the Highway 400 crossing The centre median AT alternative is there are significantly higher traffic ramp not desired for people who have volumes then along McCowan Road. This asthma because of fumes from traffic option is not recommended. on both sides of the street.
Indicated support of separate AT Noted. bridges at 407 ETR Interchange. Misc. Are all evaluation criteria weighted the Yes, the evaluation did not place greater same? emphasis on transportation criteria. The recommendations are assessed based on their compliance to address the problems and opportunities identified for the corridor, while balancing impacts. Reversible lanes in Calgary now have Reversible lanes are not recommended for an option with moveable barriers to McCowan Road as noted in previous increase the safety of this option. discussions. Reversible lanes work best when there are long stretches of road with fewer intersections.
This option does not fit the McCowan Road corridor and could result in potential conflicts with opposing traffic, queues from left-turn vehicles at intersections, and does not accommodate piers in the middle of the underpass.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600
Regional Municipality of York | McCowan Road Environmental Assessment Stakeholder Group (SHG) Meeting #4 Summary Report
Category Questions and Comments Response What population growth is planned Population and employment growth was for? projected to 2041 as per the York Region Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update. How is population growth accounted Congestion will be there. Transit is more for? People aren’t going to take the reliable and proposed up to every 15 bus. minutes by 2041.
Comment made that bus routes are designed for High School students and access to hospital routes.
Comment made that research shows that the improvements won’t help congestion. Transit/HOV won’t work.
Comment that Transit/HOV is needed and we can’t keep widening roads. What is the timing for the work? Based on the Region’s current (2019) 10- Year Roads and Transit Capital Can the Region complete parallel Construction Program, construction on streams of designs? McCowan Road from 14th Avenue to Highway 7 is planned to start construction in 2026. Priorities are reviewed annually by Council.
Comment made that a tax increase of Noted. 1% is proposed to accelerate projects; local municipalities pay for upgrades to sanitation/sewer/sidewalks. How will HOV lanes be enforced? Did Enforcement to be discussed during York Region Police commit to subsequent stages of the project. The additional staffing for enforcement? earliest construction of a portion of the Can automated enforcement be corridor is planned to start in 2026. implemented? Automatic enforcement is not precluded by the proposed improvements but not currently available.
hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600