Appendix K Transportation Technical Report Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment Study for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

September 2020

Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2) Regional Municipality of York August 12, 2019

Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Study Area ...... 5 2 Planning Context ...... 7 2.1 Provincial Planning Context ...... 7 2.2 Regional Planning Context ...... 9 2.2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan (2016) ...... 10 2.2.2 Richmond Hill/Langstaff Centre Transportation Study ...... 13 2.2.3 York Region Committee of the Whole Report No. 16, November 16, 2017: Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Regional Centre – Growth Capacity and Timing ...... 14 2.2.4 York Region Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications (2016) ...... 15 2.3 Municipal and Other Relevant Planning Context ...... 17 2.3.1 City of Richmond Hill ...... 18 2.3.2 City of Markham ...... 29 2.3.3 Yonge Subway Extension ...... 39 3 Existing Conditions ...... 40 3.1 Current Land Use Context...... 40 3.2 Current Transportation System ...... 40 3.2.1 Existing Road network...... 40 3.2.2 Existing Transit Network...... 41 3.2.3 Existing Pedestrian and Cyclist Network...... 45 3.3 Traffic Analysis ...... 47 3.3.1 Methodology ...... 47 3.3.2 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis ...... 50 3.3.3 Existing Traffic Operations ...... 53 3.4 Active Transportation Analysis ...... 57 3.4.1 Bicycle Level of Service ...... 57 3.4.2 Pedestrian Level of Service ...... 61 4 2041 Future Conditions ...... 65 4.1 Future Land Use Context ...... 65 4.2 Future Transportation System Context / Plans ...... 66 4.3 Transportation Modelling Methodology ...... 67 4.4 Future Scenario Macro Analysis ...... 68 4.4.1 Screenline and Link Analysis ...... 68 4.4.2 Network Congestion Analysis ...... 69 4.4.3 Preliminary Macro Scenario Recommendations ...... 70 4.5 Future 2041 Traffic Operations ...... 70 4.5.1 Future Intersection Traffic Volumes ...... 71 4.5.2 Do Nothing (No Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension) ...... 74 4.5.3 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension ...... 78 4.6 Traffic Infiltration Impact Analysis ...... 85 4.7 Future Active Transportation ...... 86 4.8 Future Transit / HOV Considerations ...... 86 4.9 Signal Warrant Analysis ...... 87

August 12, 2019 | i Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

4.9.1 Traffic Signal Warrants ...... 87 4.9.2 Active Transportation Considerations ...... 88 4.10 Traffic Control Sensitivity Analysis ...... 88 5 Recommendations ...... 92

Tables

Table 2-1: Provincial Planning Context ...... 7 Table 2-2: Regional Planning Context ...... 9 Table 2-3: Markham Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan Growth Projections ...... 38 Table 2-4: Langstaff Gateway Infrastructure Phasing ...... 39 Table 3-1: Description of L.O.S...... 49 Table 3-2: Existing Turning Movement Counts ...... 50 Table 3-3: Critical Movements under Existing Conditions ...... 53 Table 4-1: 2041 Population and Employment Forecast Assumptions ...... 65 Table 4-2: Screenline Capacity Analysis – 2041 AM Peak Hour Scenarios ...... 69 Table 4-3: Network* VKT and VHT by Scenario, 2041 AM Peak Hour ...... 70 Table 4-4: Critical Movements under Future Do Nothing Conditions ...... 74 Table 4-5: Critical Movements Comparison of Do Nothing and 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension Conditions ...... 81 Table 4-6: Signal Warrant Justification – Red Cedar Ave & High Tech Rd ...... 87 Table 4-7: Signal Warrant Justification –Cedar Ave & Langstaff Rd ...... 88 Table 4-8: Sensitivity Analysis – 2041 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ...... 89

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Study Area and Project Site Area ...... 6 Exhibit 2-1: Proposed 2041 Road network (Source: YR-TMP) ...... 11 Exhibit 2-2: Proposed 2041 Cycling Network (Source: YR-TMP) ...... 12 Exhibit 2-3: Proposed 2041 Transit Network (Source: YR-TMP) ...... 13 Exhibit 2-4: Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Regional Centre ...... 15 Exhibit 2-5: Existing Land Use ...... 19 Exhibit 2-6: Richmond Hill Centre “Interim Development Area” ...... 20 Exhibit 2-7: Proposed Road Network ...... 21 Exhibit 2-8: Proposed Transit Network ...... 22 Exhibit 2-9: Proposed Active Transportation (AT) Facilities ...... 23 Exhibit 2-10: Pedestrian Facilities Phasing Plan...... 26 Exhibit 2-11: Cycling and Trails Facilities Phasing Plan ...... 27 Exhibit 2-12: Recommended Road Network ...... 28 Exhibit 2-13: Centre, Corridors, and Transit Network ...... 30 Exhibit 2-14: Road Network ...... 31 Exhibit 2-15: Langstaff Gateway Land Use Map ...... 32 Exhibit 2-16: Proposed Pathways and Trails Network ...... 33 Exhibit 2-17: Proposed Road Network ...... 34 Exhibit 2-18: Recommended Urban Growth Centre Cycling Network ...... 35

August 12, 2019 | ii Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-19: Recommended Community Structure ...... 38 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Road Network ...... 41 Exhibit 3-2: Existing Transit Services (Source: Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study) ...... 42 Exhibit 3-3: Richmond Hill GO Train Line ...... 43 Exhibit 3-4: YRT Route Map (Effective April 28, 2019) ...... 44 Exhibit 3-5: Existing Pedestrian and Cycling Network ...... 46 Exhibit 3-6: Existing* Lane Configuration ...... 51 Exhibit 3-7: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 52 Exhibit 3-8: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (L.O.S.) ...... 55 Exhibit 3-9: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Volume-Capacity Ratio (v/c Ratio) ...... 56 Exhibit 3-10: Inputs for Bicycle LOS ...... 58 Exhibit 3-11: Examples of different bicycle LOS scores ...... 59 Exhibit 3-12: Existing Bicycle Level of Service ...... 60 Exhibit 3-13: Inputs for Pedestrian LOS Analysis ...... 62 Exhibit 3-14: Examples of Pedestrian Level of Service ...... 63 Exhibit 3-15: Existing Pedestrian Level of Service ...... 64 Exhibit 4-1: 06GTA Traffic Zone Boundaries ...... 66 Exhibit 4-2: Future 2041 Traffic Volumes ...... 72 Exhibit 4-3: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension Traffic Volumes ...... 73 Exhibit 4-4: Future 2041 Do Nothing AM Peak Hour L.O.S...... 76 Exhibit 4-5: Future 2041 Do Nothing AM Peak Hour v/c Ratio ...... 77 Exhibit 4-6: Future 2041 4-Lane Cedar Avenue Extension Lane Configuration ...... 79 Exhibit 4-7: Future 2041 4-Lane Cedar Avenue Extension Traffic Volumes ...... 80 Exhibit 4-8: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension L.O.S...... 83 Exhibit 4-9: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension v/c Ratios ...... 84 Exhibit 4-10: Select-link volumes for users of the Red Cedar / Cedar Ave Extension, 4-lane scenario, 2041 AM Peak Hour ...... 85

Appendices Appendix A – Intersection Turning Movement Counts Appendix B – Signal Timings Appendix C – Existing (2019) Conditions Synchro Summary Appendix D – Screen-line Level Comparison Appendix E – Forecasted Screen-line Volumes Appendix F – EMME Volume to Capacity Plots Appendix G - Future 2041 Do Nothing Conditions Synchro Summary Appendix H - Future 2041 4-Lane Cedar Avenue Extension Conditions Synchro Summary Appendix I – Traffic Control Sensitivity Analysis

August 12, 2019 | iii Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

This page is intentionally left blank.

August 12, 2019 | iv Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

1 Introduction

York Region is responsible for monitoring its transportation network and implementing required improvements in a timely manner. The Region’s 2016 Transportation Master Plan Update (TMP) has identified that a road link between the Langstaff Gateway Planning Area and the Richmond Hill Centre Planning Area will support the growth and intensification in these growth areas. A transportation link has the potential to provide improved walking, cycling and vehicular traffic facilities for access between Langstaff Gateway and Richmond Hill Centre. Structures under Highway 7 and the 407ETR provide the preferred alignment of a new road link. York Region retained HDR to conduct the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road. This report documents the transportation need and justification for the new roadway through a review of the planning context, existing and future transportation conditions, and analysis of roadway improvement scenarios. 1.1 Study Area The Study Area is located in the City of Markham and the City of Richmond Hill, within the Regional Municipality of York. The Study Area for the transportation study is generally bounded by High Tech Road to the north, Bayview Avenue to the east, Langstaff Road East to the south, and Yonge Street to the west. The Project Site Area extends from Langstaff Road East & Cedar Avenue to High Tech Road & Red Cedar Avenue. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the Study Area as well as the Project Site Area.

August 12, 2019 | 5

Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

East

Exhibit 1-1: Study Area and Project Site Area

August 12, 2019 | 6

Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

2 Planning Context

A summary of the Provincial, Regional, and Municipal planning and policy context is provided in this section as they relate to the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Class EA. As Cedar Avenue aims to serve future travel demands, the planning documents reviewed consider long-term recommendations and vision for the study area. 2.1 Provincial Planning Context Provincial planning policies were reviewed to identify their relevance to the Cedar Avenue EA. Provincial plans are identified and summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Provincial Planning Context Provincial Planning Description/Relevance Document Provides direction on land use planning and development as well as the transportation system, including:  Providing appropriate development while protecting resources, public health and safety, and the natural and built environments  Building strong, healthy communities by supporting density and land uses which support active transportation, are transit-supportive, are Provincial freight-supportive Policy  Safe, energy efficient, transportation systems that move people and Statement goods (2014)  Integrated transportation and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process  Use of travel demand management (TDM) strategies to maximize efficiency  Land use pattern, density, and mix of uses to minimize length and number of vehicle trips, support current and future use of transit and active transportation Originally published in 2002, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Oak Ridges (ORMCP) provides direction on how to protect the Moraine’s ecological and Moraine hydrogeological features. Conservation The study area does not fall within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Plan (2017) Moraine.

August 12, 2019 | 7 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Provincial Planning Description/Relevance Document Updated in 2017 as a result of the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review, the Greenbelt Plan identifies environmentally and agriculturally protected lands within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, where urbanization should not Greenbelt Plan occur, in order to protect ecological features. (2017) Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue between Langstaff Road East and High Tech Road does not fall within the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan, as per Schedule 1.

Originally adopted in 2006, the 2017 update sets forth a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s 2041 vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the region. Within York Region, four Regional Centres (Markham, Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway, Vaughan Metropolitan, and Newmarket) are designated as Urban Places to Grow Growth Centres. The Growth Plan contains policies applicable to Act / Growth infrastructure planning including directing intensification toward strategic Plan for the growth areas, supporting a balanced, sustainable and connected Greater Golden transportation system for all modes, facilitating efficient goods movement in Horseshoe and out of employment areas. (2006, 2017) The land surrounding Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue within the study limits is classified as a ‘Built-Up’ area in the Growth Plan. Moreover, the Richmond Hill Centre / Langstaff Gateway is designated as an Urban Growth Centre with minimum density targets of 200 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031 (or earlier). The 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies a long-term vision for building an integrated transportation system in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). It sets forth a plan for Regional Rapid Transit, Highway Network and Regional Express Rail (RER) now referred to as the GO Expansion Project.

According to the RTP, planning is underway for several projects relevant to the study area including: 2041 Regional  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Yonge Street, linking Richmond Hill, Transportation Aurora and Newmarket Plan (2018)  The Yonge North Subway Extension, from Finch Station in Toronto to Highway 7 in Richmond Hill  Upgrades to the Richmond Hill GO line to accommodate two-way, all- day service. The line operates between Union Station and Richmond Hill GO and has a stop at Langstaff GO station located 400m west of Cedar Avenue. Beyond 2041, the Richmond Hill line is planned for 15- minute service.

August 12, 2019 | 8 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Provincial Planning Description/Relevance Document

The Province completed a simultaneous review of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan. This Coordinated Review of the four plans recognizes their common geography and the interconnected nature of their policies and provides an opportunity to assess progress to date, address challenges and make improvements to strengthen the plans Provincial Co- and ensure a vibrant, healthy region for current and future generations. The ordinated Plan Plan Review’s role is to develop consensus-based recommendations to the Review (2017) Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Natural Resources and Forestry on ways to amend and improve the plans. The review recommends increased efforts to curb sprawl, build complete communities, grow the Greenbelt, support agriculture and address traffic congestion.

The proposed revisions were released in May 2017 and do not affect the study area.

2.2 Regional Planning Context Regional planning policies were reviewed to identify their relevance to the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Class EA. Regional plans are identified and summarized in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Regional Planning Context Regional Planning Document Description/Relevance Provides direction to guide economic, environmental, and community-building decisions to manage growth. The York Region Official Plan (YR-OP) incorporates the Planning for Tomorrow study, undertaken to identify how York Region will accommodate the several provincial planning initiatives. The main theme of the YR-OP is to York Region Official Plan move York Region towards sustainability, completed (2013) through policies that emphasize a reduction in automobile reliance and an increase in active transportation facilities. The YR-OP transportation road network (Map 12 Street Network) identifies a planned street width of up to 26.0 m for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension connecting Markham and Richmond Hill.

August 12, 2019 | 9 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Regional Planning Document Description/Relevance Vision 2051 is York Region’s long-term strategy. It identifies eight goal areas that will guide policies to create strong, caring, and safe communities designed with sustainability in mind. The Vision outlines actions to help achieve these goals, several pertaining to the design of York Region Strategic Plan future transportation facilities and the importance of their (Vision 2051) (2011) positive contribution to vibrant communities.

The Richmond Hill / Langstaff Gateway Centre is one of four Regional Centres where intensification is directed to accommodate population and employment growth through 2051. Provides infrastructure and policy requirements for a 25- year outlook that allows York Region to achieve its strategic vision of an advanced, interconnected system of York Region Transportation mobility within the Region. Further information pertaining Master Plan (YR-TMP) (2016) to transportation infrastructure improvements as documented in the YR-TMP is described within Section 2.2.1 of this report.

2.2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan (2016) Completed in 2016, the YR-TMP helps define a long-term transportation vision based on integrated road and transit network planning and support growth in York Region through 2041. The plan aims to establish “an interconnected mobility system that encourages active transportation, and is supported by compact, complete communities to create a healthy, economically-vibrant, socially-connected and sustainable Region”. The major themes outlined in the YR-TMP include prioritizing active and shared modes of transportation, integrating land use and transportation planning, protecting the environment, enhancing cultural heritage and implementing transportation demand management techniques. The following sections summarize the key elements of the YR-TMP and their relevance to the EA study within the 2041 horizon year. The YR-TMP Project ID is 2095 – Midblock Crossing of Highway 407 – at Cedar Avenue and can be viewed at www.york.ca/tmp under Background Report E – Project Details and Summary Sheets, Appendix A - Road Projects Part 3.

Proposed 2041 Road network The YR-TMP identifies Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue as a midblock crossing connecting Langstaff Road East and High Tech Road as a candidate for widening by 2021, as shown in Exhibit 2-1.

August 12, 2019 | 10 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-1: Proposed 2041 Road network (Source: YR-TMP) Bayview Avenue north and south of Highway 7 is proposed for a six (6) lane widening. Rapid transit improvements are proposed for Yonge Street and Highway 7.

Proposed 2041 Cycling Network In the ultimate 2041 cycling network vision, the YR-TMP identifies Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue within the study limits as a separated cycling route, as can be seen in Exhibit 2-2.

August 12, 2019 | 11 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-2: Proposed 2041 Cycling Network (Source: YR-TMP) Separated facilities provide physically separate space for cyclists. Types of facilities can include cycle tracks, raised bike lanes or multi-use trails. The cycling facility along Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue will help connect the shared routes along Langstaff Road East and High Tech Road with the separated cycling facilities along Highway 7.

Proposed 2041 Transit Network Unlike Highway 7 which is set to become a Rapid Transit Corridor and the 407ETR Transitway, Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue is not planned for transit improvements by 2041. However, immediately north-east of Red Cedar /

August 12, 2019 | 12 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Cedar Avenue there are plans for a potential future subway station at Richmond Hill / Langstaff Gateway Centre, as shown in Exhibit 2-3.

Exhibit 2-3: Proposed 2041 Transit Network (Source: YR-TMP)

2.2.2 Richmond Hill/Langstaff Centre Transportation Study In May 2011, Regional Council endorsed the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Centre-Wide Transportation Study. The 2011 Transportation Study

August 12, 2019 | 13 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

recommended that development on both sides of the Centre be phased and supported by the following transportation improvements for the study area:  Signalized control at Red Cedar Avenue and High Tech Road  Signalized control, southbound left, eastbound left and westbound left- turn lanes at Cedar Avenue and Langstaff Road / North Boulevard  Connection between Red Cedar Avenue and Cedar Avenue containing four lanes, two of which are HOV/transit lanes, plus bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The Study analysis generally confirms the findings of local transportation studies but also more closely examines the cumulative and spatial implications of simultaneous development in Richmond Hill and Markham. The study emphasizes that the viability and success of the Centre is highly dependent on the Yonge Subway extension to Highway 7. A bold and comprehensive congestion management plan is recommended for the Centre to function successfully both in terms of the transportation network and development potential. The Study reconfirms that without the early implementation of transportation and infrastructure improvements, service levels will further deteriorate resulting in increased traffic delays on key corridors and at key intersections. Missing links or gaps in the cycling network will require attention in order to create a continuous cycling network to support the use of cycling as a viable means of travel.

2.2.3 York Region Committee of the Whole Report No. 16, November 16, 2017: Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Regional Centre – Growth Capacity and Timing The 2017 council report confirmed that the extension of Red Cedar Avenue from its current terminus in Richmond Hill to Cedar Avenue in Markham is required prior to any significant development proceeding within Langstaff Gateway. The connection is deemed a key component of linking this Regional Centre in the early stages of development. The connection between Cedar Avenue and Red Cedar Avenue is recommended to accommodate development beyond 2,000 units. The timing of construction of this connection is to be based on further transportation studies prepared to support development proposals, as they are submitted, while the need for the connection is to be founded on the 2011 Richmond Hill/Langstaff Centre Transportation Study. Attachment 2 of the 2017 Study, illustrated in Exhibit 2-4 highlights the planned Cedar Avenue connection as well as well as the pedestrian connections along Cedar Avenue and GO Rail line.

August 12, 2019 | 14 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-4: Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Regional Centre Source: Attachment 2 of York Region Committee of the Whole Report No. 16, November 16, 2017

2.2.4 York Region Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications (2016) The Transportation Mobility Plan provides the tools necessary to implement and connect the policies and requirements of York Region’s Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. As an update to the Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (2007), the Plan is focused on transit, active transportation and strategic measures that will reduce the travel demand and minimize single- occupant vehicle trips to and from the proposed developments. The Plan

August 12, 2019 | 15 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

aims to expedite the development review process and is a combination of multimodal plans along with traditional traffic impact analyses. The Mobility Plan emphasizes the importance of reviewing and assessing existing and future conditions for all modes of transportation. To that end, York Region has developed its preferred multimodal level of service (LOS) evaluation approach to address the performance requirements for driving, walking, cycling and transit. These multimodal LOS evaluations, in combination with the other best practice evaluation framework, will be used to examine the existing conditions for all modes of transportation in this study. A high-level summary of the framework and the LOS targets are summarized in the following sections.

Automobile Level of Service There are two criteria required for the automobile mode level of service performance: vehicle delay and volume-to capacity ratio. Both of these criteria are to be completed and included in the Transportation Mobility Plan Study.

Automobile LOS and V/C Target: D (0.85) or better for urban area and LOS C (0.70) or better for rural area

Transit Level of Service There are three required criteria for the transit mode level of service performance: 1. Access to the transit stops, measured through a development’s potential transit riders’ straight line walking distance to transit stops; 2. Transit headways, measured through the time interval between transit vehicles for a transit corridor and; 3. Transit vehicle performance at the intersection approach, measured by examining the delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for curb lanes.

Transit LOS Target: C or better for Access to Transit Stops and Transit Headways (<15 minutes) and LOS D or better (<0.9) for Intersection Approach. Pedestrian Level of Service The pedestrian level of service is measured at the segment level (between two or more intersections) and at the intersection level. Criteria used to assess Segment LOS for pedestrians are:  The sidewalk / multi-use path width; and

August 12, 2019 | 16 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 The buffer width or separation distance between the sidewalk and the street curb. In addition to the above, the assessment of pedestrian LOS at signalized or unsignalized intersections incorporates the following supplementary considerations:  Cross-walk treatment (marked, unmarked, high-visibility zebra markings); and  Pedestrian clearance time.

Segment LOS Target: a score of C or better (≥1.5 m curb-faced sidewalk, buffer > 0m) Intersection LOS Target: a score of C or better (≥1.5 m curb-faced sidewalk, buffer > 0m, pedestrian signal head with sufficient pedestrian clearance time, clearly delineated cross-walk)

Bicycle Level of Service Similarly to pedestrian level of service, the bicycle LOS is measured at the segment level (between two or more intersections) and at the intersection level. Criteria used to assess Segment LOS for cyclists are:  The type of cycling facility (dedicated, separated, shared);  The width of the cycling facility; and  The buffer width or separation distance between the facility and the street curb. In addition to the above, the assessment of cyclist LOS at signalized or unsignalized intersections incorporates the following supplementary consideration into the assessment:  Presence of bicycle box, clearly delineated bicycle treatment or bicycle signal head.

Segment LOS Target: a score of C or better (>1.5m dedicated cycling facilities, buffer ≥ 0m)

Intersection LOS Target: a score of C or better (>1.5m dedicated cycling facilities, buffer ≥ 0m, bicycle box or clearly delineated bicycle treatment or bicycle signal head)

2.3 Municipal and Other Relevant Planning Context The following documents the municipal planning context.

August 12, 2019 | 17 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

2.3.1 City of Richmond Hill

Official Plan In May 2011, the Town (now City) of Richmond Hill Official Plan, July 2010, modified by York Region and was partially approved by the order of the Ontario Municipal Board on January 23, 2019. With respect to transportation, Section 3.5 Connectivity and Mobility, of the Plan states the following goals:  Plan for transit and pedestrian oriented development; and,  Promote connectivity, mobility and accessibility within and between neighbourhoods, employment lands, parks and open spaces. Pertaining to the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA, the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Urban Growth Centre is planned to become a vibrant, urban mixed- use centre containing the greatest height and densities in the Town, focused around a major inter-modal Regional transit hub, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-5.

August 12, 2019 | 18 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-5: Existing Land Use Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill O.P. The extension of Cedar Avenue is proposed in the O.P., extending from High Tech Road to Highway 7. The extension of Cedar Avenue is also proposed to connect to the proposed extension of Garden Avenue as illustrated in schedule A13 of the O.P., and shown in Exhibit 2-6. It is identified as a collector street with a 26 m R.O.W. illustrated in Exhibit 2-7.

August 12, 2019 | 19 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-6: Richmond Hill Centre “Interim Development Area” Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill O.P.

August 12, 2019 | 20 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-7: Proposed Road Network Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill O.P.

Based on the OP, there are a number of proposed transit improvements within the Study area, including the proposed Yonge Street Subway extension to Richmond Hill Centre as well as the proposed 407ETR Transitway. Exhibit 2-8 illustrates the proposed transit improvements. A number of Active Transportation improvements are also proposed, including cycling facilities on Yonge Street, Highway 7, Bayview Avenue, as well as the link ramps from Highway 7 to Yonge Street and Highway 7 to Bayview Avenue. Exhibit 2-9 illustrates the proposed Active Transportation facilities.

August 12, 2019 | 21 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-8: Proposed Transit Network Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill O.P.

August 12, 2019 | 22 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-9: Proposed Active Transportation (AT) Facilities Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill O.P.

Transportation Master Plan The City of Richmond Hill is currently updating its Transportation Master Plan (TMP). For the purpose of this study, the Transportation Master Plan Technical Update, May 2014, will be used to guide the assessment of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA. The Town (now City) of Richmond Hill Transportation Master Plan aims to incorporate a number of key policy and planning documents and initiatives released by Metrolinx and York Region. The TMP focuses on promoting the use of active transportation and traffic demand management in the Town and emphasized the role of public consultation in developing a sustainable transportation system for all. The TMP proposes a midblock crossing of Highway 7 by extending Cedar Avenue to Langstaff Road East in Markham to High Tech Road in Richmond Hill. The extension would be built to an urban cross-section, provide 4 lanes of capacity and connect the north and south sides through an underpass below Highway 7 and the 407ETR.

August 12, 2019 | 23 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan The March 2010 City of Richmond Hill Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan aims to guide the Town in implementing a Town-wide pedestrian system and cycling network. Primary goals of the Master Plan include:  Consult with the public, key stakeholder groups and local and Regional municipal staff and other partners to identify the role of the Town, Region and other partners in facilitating walking and cycling and to identify the elements of a Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan that is right for Richmond Hill.  Recommend actions to improve conditions for walking and cycling in Richmond Hill for people of all ages by providing a convenient and continuous pedestrian sidewalk system as well as an on and off-road Town-scale cycling network that is integrated with Regional network facilities.  Develop an effective and practical implementation strategy that will identify priorities, annual costs, best practices for facility design and support an improved sidewalk system and proposed cycling network that can also be integrated with Regional transit. The implementation strategy will also recommend management tools and approaches to assist Town staff in both implementation and monitoring of the plan.

The plan proposes two implementation phases:

1. Short-term (Phase 1: 2010 to 2011) includes a detailed schedule of specific projects and their associated costs to guide implementation through 2010 and 2011 and which focuses on improving cycling facilities; and,

2. Longer-term (Phase 2: 2012 to 2036 +) which provides a longer term network strategy and a preliminary cost estimate for both cycling and trail facilities and sidewalks. Specific projects identified as part of the longer term strategy will be assessed through an annual Town staff review process that will have regard to available funding, ability to be implemented as part of other road and infrastructure projects and municipal priorities as determined by Council. Once a project is identified for implementation it would then need to be integrated into the Town’s scheduled capital works program and submitted to Council for funding approval. The phasing of the plan for the pedestrian network and cycling and trails network are illustrated in Exhibit 2-10 and Exhibit 2-11. Long-term

August 12, 2019 | 24 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

pedestrian network is identified on the existing portion of Red Cedar Avenue, however there is no further pedestrian connection shown. There is no planned or existing cycling facilities identified on Red Cedar Avenue. It is noted that this Plan is currently being updated by the City, and prior to completion of this EA study all information should be verified accordingly.

August 12, 2019 | 25 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-10: Pedestrian Facilities Phasing Plan Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan

August 12, 2019 | 26 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-11: Cycling and Trails Facilities Phasing Plan Source: Town (now City) of Richmond Hill Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan

August 12, 2019 | 27 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Richmond Hill Centre Design and Land Use Study The January 2010 Richmond Hill Regional Centre Design & Land Use Study is the third of three reports created as part of the Richmond Hill Regional Design and Land Use Study. The report communicates the guiding principles that will inform the future growth of the Richmond Hill Regional Centre. Section 3.2.1 of the report identifies the proposed street network and need for a finer grid street network. The grid will improve east west connections, mitigating the existing barrier of the rail corridor, and will also improve north- south connections. Exhibit 2-12 illustrates the recommended road network.

Exhibit 2-12: Recommended Road Network Source: Richmond Hill Centre Design and Land Use Study The report estimates that the Richmond Hill Regional Centre could accommodate approximately 7,900 residential units, 15,800 people, and 15,700 jobs for an estimated 450 people and jobs per hectare. This level of

August 12, 2019 | 28 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

development is expected to evolve over at least a 25-year time frame, growing along with increasing levels of transit service. It is noted that the longer-term anticipated growth in this area exceeds the population and employment assumptions being considered for use in this study. This is discussed further in Section 4.1.

Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan In parallel to the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension EA study, the City of Richmond Hill is currently undertaking a Secondary Plan study which will identify a preferred land use and transportation plan building upon the 2010 Design and Land Use Study. It is thus recognized that the findings of the Secondary Plan study will ultimately inform the transportation requirements for Cedar Avenue.

2.3.2 City of Markham

Official Plan The City of Markham’s new official Plan was adopted by Council on December 10, 2013, and approved by York Region on June 12, 2014. The new Official Plan has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and is not yet fully in force. On October 30, 2015, May 26, 2016, March 10, 2017, April 21, 2017 and November 24, 2017, the Ontario Municipal Board issued Partial Approval Orders, bringing parts of the Plan into force, with the last Order being updated by the Tribunal on April 9, 2018. The City of Markham Official Plan directs responsible future development in the city through several guiding principles, including: growth management, environmental stewardship, economic prosperity, and transportation/transit development. It provides a framework for decision-making regarding land-use planning and the requirement of municipal services to support growth. According to the Plan, the Langstaff Gateway will be the focus for strategic investment in transit, and will be developed as pedestrian and transit-oriented mixed-use centre, in accordance with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan. As illustrated in Map 2 of the Official Plan, the Langstaff Gateway area has been identified as an Anchor Hub with connections to Go Rail service, proposed regional transit priority, proposed regional rapid transit, and the future Yonge Subway extension. Exhibit 2-13 illustrates the proposed transit network. Map 10 of the Plan identifies a potential Provincial 400 Series Highway mid-block crossing in the Langstaff Gateway area, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-14.

August 12, 2019 | 29 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-13: Centre, Corridors, and Transit Network Source: City of Markham O.P.

August 12, 2019 | 30 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-14: Road Network Source: City of Markham O.P. The land use objectives for the Langstaff Gateway district are to: a) provide for a mixed-use Regional Centre that: i. functions as an urban growth centre; and ii. integrates a balance and diversity of residential, retail, office and public uses, at transit-supportive densities within a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor; and b) create a complete, compact, vibrant, integrated community of transit and pedestrian oriented development containing a mix of land uses and intensity of development suitable to a portion of a Regional Centre, including residential, mixed use, commercial, office, open space, recreational, cultural and institutional facilities that are transit dependent. Exhibit 2-15 illustrates the Langstaff Gateway Land Use Map.

August 12, 2019 | 31 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

HIGHWAY 7

Exhibit 2-15: Langstaff Gateway Land Use Map Source: City of Markham O.P.

Pathways and Trails Master Plan The Pathways and Trails Master Plan was adopted in 2009. The Plan sets out the means for improving and expanding Markham’s trail system and it provides a vision and objectives for pathways and trails to guide the development of the network in Markham. The Plan proposes: “An interconnected system of pathways and trails, which;  Accommodates a wide variety of users  Achieves Town’s priority as identified in the Town of Markham’s Parks, Recreation, Culture and Library Master Plan 2005-2021  Provides a diversity of experiences which allow greater appreciation and enjoyment of the natural, cultural and heritage environment.  Provides improved connections to existing and planned sidewalks  Is more accessible and connects neighbourhoods to key destinations in the Town.”

August 12, 2019 | 32 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Map 5 of the Pathways and Trails Master Plan, provided in Exhibit 2-16, proposes bike lanes on Highway 7 and Baview Avenue as well as partnership Trail Zones south of the Langstaff Gateway area.

Exhibit 2-16: Proposed Pathways and Trails Network Source: City of Markham Pathways and Trails Master Plan

Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan The Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan represents a progressive policy document that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and conforms to both the 1994 and 2010 York Region Official Plans. It achieves the city-building objectives set out by the Province, Region and City and has a long-term vision for the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and Regional Centre also supported by comprehensive infrastructure improvements in a phased and managed framework. The Secondary Plan accommodates the extension of certain streets to connect with the City’s existing road network. The Cedar Avenue underpass is planned to be opened to permit automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access north to Richmond Hill. Exhibit 2-17 illustrates the proposed Cedar Avenue extension with a 20 m right-of-way and Exhibit 2-18 illustrates the

August 12, 2019 | 33 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

proposed on-road bike lanes along the Cedar Avenue extension. The Cedar Avenue extension north from Langstaff Road in Markham to High Tech Road in Richmond Hill is included in Phase 1 of the development of the Langstaff Gateway West and East lands.

Exhibit 2-17: Proposed Road Network Source: Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan

August 12, 2019 | 34 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 2-18: Recommended Urban Growth Centre Cycling Network Source: Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan

In June 2010, the City of Markham Council adopted Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 183 and 184. OPA 184 is the technical amendment that removes the Langstaff Gateway area from the existing Thornhill Planning District in the Markham Official Plan. OPA 183 provides the detailed Official Plan and new Secondary Plan policies for the new Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan area. Specific to the Cedar Avenue extension, OPA 183 provides the following modifications: 1. “Modify Schedule ‘D’ – Amendment to Schedule ‘G’ – Site Plan Control by adding all the rights‐of‐way noted in Section 8.1.6.1 and 8.1.6.2 of Part III ‐ The Secondary Plan to the Schedule. Further

August 12, 2019 | 35 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

modifying Schedule ‘D’ by showing Cedar Avenue north of Langstaff Road at 26 m rather than south of Langstaff Road; 2. Modify Section 4.4.11 j) by deleting the Section and replacing it with the following: “j) To provide a Multi‐use Corridor under Highway 407 adjacent to the CN Rail Line with a separate busway and bicycle/pedestrian trail from Langstaff Road north to the Richmond Hill Centre Transit Terminal in the earliest phase of development, and subsequently providing a covered, weather protected Pedestrian Concourse for the safe and comfortable passage of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users between the Langstaff Gateway and Richmond Hill Centre area in the same general location.” 3. Modify Section 8.1.5 a) by adding the following new paragraph to the end of the section: “The Multi‐use Corridor with separate busway and bicycle/pedestrian trail from the Richmond Hill Centre Viva Terminal to Langstaff Road shall be opened to permit transit, bicycle and pedestrian access north to Richmond Hill.”, such that the subsection reads: “a) The Official Plan Amendment provides for, and this Secondary Plan accommodates, the extension of certain streets to connect with the Town’s existing road network. The Cedar Avenue underpass shall be opened to permit automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access north to Richmond Hill.

The Multi‐use Corridor with separate busway and bicycle/pedestrian trail from the Richmond Hill Centre Viva Terminal to Langstaff Road shall be opened to permit transit, bicycle and pedestrian access north to Richmond Hill.” 4. Further modify Section 11.5.2 Development Phasing Plan, by deleting subsection 11.5.2 b) and replacing it with the following: Based on these modifications Section 11.5.2 b) will read: b) Phase 1 of the development of Langstaff Gateway shall be limited, as per the above noted paragraphs, to those areas depicted on Schedule ‘II’ – Development Phasing and Precinct Plan as Phase 1 for the Langstaff Gateway West and East lands delineated by CNR tracks. Phase 1 shall include the following: i) Up to 5,000 residential units;

August 12, 2019 | 36 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

ii) A minimum of 21,600m2 of retail and service floor space; iii) A minimum of 6,100 m2 of community services and facilities (civic uses); iv) A minimum of 33,600 m2 of office; and v) 4.83 ha of public parks and open space. Phase 1 for the Langstaff Gateway West shall include the development and acquisition of Pomona Mills Creek Park, and transit circulator connection north to Richmond Hill Transit Station through the Highway 407 underpass (Multi‐use Corridor) adjacent to the CN Rail line, Langstaff Road as a 4-lane major collector with a grade separation at the CNR tracks, Cedar Avenue extension north from Langstaff Road in Markham to High Tech Road in Richmond Hill, and transit priority measures on Bayview Avenue, amongst other requirements established in the Langstaff Gateway Development Phasing Plan. Phase 1 for the Langstaff Gateway East shall include completion of the Langstaff Woodlot Management Plan, and development and acquisition of parklands associated with Woodland Park and Linear Park East, and completion of the Cedar Avenue extension north from Langstaff Road in Markham to High Tech Road in Richmond Hill, Langstaff Road as a 4-lane major collector east of the CNR tracks, and transit priority measures on Bayview Avenue, amongst other requirements established in the Langstaff Gateway Development Phasing Plan. […]” As per OPA 183, Exhibit 2-19 illustrates the proposed Cedar Avenue extension and has been identified as transit corridor with recommended plans for cycling network connections. Table 2-3 summarizes the infrastructure phasing for the Langstaff Gateway.

August 12, 2019 | 37 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

The Markham Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan anticipates, at full buildout, a population of 32,000 people (15,164 units), and approximately 15,000 jobs.

Table 2-3: Markham Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan Growth Projections Development Minimum Maximum Phase Office Retail Community Public Parks Residential (m2) and Services & Open Units Service (m2) Space (m2) (ha) Phase 1 33,600 21,600 6,100 4.83 5,000

Phase 2 132,700 20,300 5,350 1.64 3,650

Phase 3 126,555 24,400 1,775 0.50 6,514

Total 292,855 66,300 13,225 6.97 15,164

It is noted that the longer-term anticipated growth in this area exceeds the population and employment assumptions being considered for use in this study. This is discussed further in Section 4.1.

Exhibit 2-19: Recommended Community Structure Source: City of Markham Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 183

August 12, 2019 | 38 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Table 2-4: Langstaff Gateway Infrastructure Phasing

2.3.3 Yonge Subway Extension The planned Yonge Subway Extension (YSE) is a cross-jurisdictional project from the City of Toronto into the City of Markham, City of Vaughan and City of Richmond Hill. The YSE extends 7.4 kilometres north from Finch Station in Toronto to the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Urban Growth Centre at Highway 7. The YSE will complete a critical missing link that will include five stations at Cummer/Drewry, Steeles, Clark, Langstaff/Longbridge and Richmond Hill Centre, and will replace 2,500 bus trips currently serving the demand between Finch Avenue and Highway 7. Currently, the preliminary planning, design, and engineering phase is underway and is expected to be complete by the end of 2019.

August 12, 2019 | 39 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

3 Existing Conditions

This section documents findings from a summary of existing transportation conditions through a review of current land uses and existing road network, transit, cycling, and pedestrian facilities. 3.1 Current Land Use Context South of the Highway 7 in the City of Markham, land uses are predominately industrial/commercial. There are cemeteries directly south of the industrial/commercial area, as well as low-rise residential further south. North of Highway 7 in City of Richmond Hill, land uses within the study area include the Richmond Hill Centre, low density residential, and utility corridor, as discussed in Section 2.3 of this report. 3.2 Current Transportation System

3.2.1 Existing Road network Between High Tech Road and Garden Street in Richmond Hill, Red Cedar Avenue is a 2-lane industrial collector road with an un-posted speed limit of 50 km/hr. Approaches to the study area include High Tech Road, Garden Road, and Langstaff Road East with all intersections being signal controlled. High Tech Road is a 5 lane collector street, while Garden Road and Langstaff Road are both 2-lane streets allowing bi-directional traffic. There are only two access points within Langstaff Gateway: Langstaff Road at Yonge Street and Langstaff Road at Bayview Avenue. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the existing road network based on information from York Region’s Open Database.

August 12, 2019 | 40 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-1: Existing Road Network

3.2.2 Existing Transit Network The study area is situated on the border of the City of Richmond Hill and the City of Markham at the junction of the Richmond Hill GO Train line, GO Transit bus routes and YRT/Viva bus service, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-2. Given its location, the Langstaff Gateway / Richmond Hill Centre exhibits a strategic importance regionally and has been identified as an anchor hub in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA).

August 12, 2019 | 41 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-2: Existing Transit Services (Source: Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study)

Cedar Avenue is located less than 500 meters away from the Langstaff GO station on the Richmond Hill Line and the York Region Transit / VIVA Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal. At present, there is no transit service along the existing portion of Cedar Avenue (named Red Cedar Avenue in Richmond Hill).

Richmond Hill GO Train Line The Richmond Hill GO Train line operates from Union Station in downtown Toronto to Gormley Station in Richmond Hill, as depicted in Exhibit 3-3. In 2019, the northerly extension to Bloomington Road is planned to open. The Richmond Hill line runs along the Canadian National (CN) Bala Subdivision which is owned by Metrolinx between Union Station and Doncaster Junction, where the line crosses the CN York Subdivision in Thornhill. North of Doncaster, the line is owned by CN and is part of its transcontinental freight route. Moreover, the Via Rail Canadian transcontinental service from Vancouver to Toronto operates along the entire route of the Richmond Hill line, but does not stop at any stations other than Union Station. In terms of frequency, the Richmond Hill line provides weekday rush-hour train service at stops including Oriole, Old Cummer, Langstaff, Richmond Hill and Gormley Stations (Bloomington in 2019*). As of April 2019, trains run

August 12, 2019 | 42 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

southbound every 15 minutes in the morning between 6:30AM and 8:30AM and northbound in the afternoon from 3PM through 6PM at 15 minute intervals, then at 30 minute intervals during off-peak hours until 8 PM.

Exhibit 3-3: Richmond Hill GO Train Line Note: A new station at Bloomington Road is currently under construction (opening 2019)

GO Buses The following GO Transit Bus routes have stops at the Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal:  Highway 407 - York University buses  Route 40: Hamilton/Richmond Hill Pearson Express to Hamilton GO Centre via Toronto Pearson International Airport and Square One Bus Terminal[4]  Route 51 York University - Pickering GO Station  Route 52 York University - Oshawa Bus Terminal  Route 54 York University - Mount Joy GO Station

However, Route 61 with service between Gormley GO Station and Union Station stops at the Langstaff GO station instead of at the Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal.

August 12, 2019 | 43 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

York Region Transit / VIVA York Region Rapidway Transit Corportation (YRRTC)'s Viva bus rapid transit serves the Richmond Hill Centre Terminal immediately west of Langstaff GO station, but is separated by the train tracks. A pedestrian bridge was opened in March 2008 to connect Richmond Hill Centre Terminal and the GO train station with location shown in Exhibit 3-2. Exhibit 3-4 illustrates the bus routes that run throughout the Study Area.

Exhibit 3-4: YRT Route Map (Effective April 28, 2019) The following York Region Transit bus routes have stops at the Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal  Viva Purple, running east-west along Highway 7 Rapidway between Markham-Stouffville Hospital and Richmond Hill Centre, with headway of approximately 13 minutes  Viva Pink, running north-south along Yonge Street from Finch Station to Unionville GO Station, with headway of approximately 15 minutes  Viva Orange, running along Highway 7 in its entirety, between Martin Grove Road and Richmond Hill Centre Terminal, with headway of approximately 13 minutes

August 12, 2019 | 44 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 Viva Blue, running north-south from the Newmarket Terminal to Finch Station. The Viva Blue alternates between service that stops at Bernard Station and Newmarket station. Service that stops at Bernard Station has headway of approximately 15 minutes, while service that stops at Newmarket Station has headway that ranges between 15 – 20 minutes.  1 Highway 7,  91B Bayview,  760 Vaughan Mills/Wonderland, Mobility Plus  83 Trench  87 Autumn Hill  99 Yonge southbound and northbound  86 Newkirk-Red Maple

3.2.3 Existing Pedestrian and Cyclist Network York Region’s Open Database was used to determine any sidewalk gaps within the study area, as well as the current cycling network. The existing, built portions of Red Cedar Avenue and Cedar Avenue have no sidewalks, nor dedicated cycling facilities. There are also no sidewalks, nor dedicated cycling facilities provided along Langstaff Road East, Ruggles Avenue, and Essex Avenue. Based on the Open Database, on-road cycling facilities include dedicated cycle lanes, signed cycle routes, and paved shoulders. There are no off-road cycling facilities provided within the study area; however, there are some off-road trails that connect to existing on-road cycling facilities. Exhibit 3-5 illustrates the existing pedestrian and cyclist networks.

August 12, 2019 | 45 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-5: Existing Pedestrian and Cycling Network

August 12, 2019 | 46 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

3.3 Traffic Analysis

3.3.1 Methodology A traffic analysis was undertaken to document the existing and future growth conditions that may influence the planned transportation network. The following briefly highlights the approach to major components of this analysis: Fourteen intersections were analyzed within the Study Area, including: 1. High Tech Road & Yonge Street 2. High Tech Road & Red Maple Road 3. High Tech Road & Red Cedar Avenue 4. High Tech Road & Silver Linden Drive 5. High Tech Road & Bayview Avenue 6. Garden Avenue/Yonge Ramp & Yonge Street 7. Highway 7 & Yonge Ramp 8. Highway 7 & Red Maple Road 9. Highway 7 & Silver Linden Drive 10. Highway 7 & Bayview Avenue Ramp 11. Creswick Road/Bayview Link & Bayview Avenue 12. Langstaff Road East & Yonge Street 13. Langstaff Road East & Cedar Avenue 14. Langstaff Road East & Bayview Avenue

Scenarios An existing conditions (2019) and a 2041 future conditions scenario were analyzed. It is noted that at the time of this study (including the collection of up-to-date traffic counts), there is on-going vivaNext construction along Yonge Street within the study area which is expected to be completed in 2020. The construction is resulting in lane closures at different times of the day, including a reduction in off-peak direction through lanes (i.e. reduced lanes on Yonge Street northbound in the AM peak and southbound in the PM peak). In order to avoid the traffic variations caused by the construction works when comparing the existing condition with the future scenarios, it is recommended that the existing conditions analysis supporting the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA study replicate the planned vivaNext lane configurations

August 12, 2019 | 47 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

along Yonge Street from Garden Avenue to High Tech Road based on detailed design drawings provided by York Region.

Time Periods for Analysis This study focused on impacts during the weekday AM peak hours (between 7:00 am and 9:00 am) and PM peak hours (between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm).

Existing Traffic Turning Movement Counts (T.M.C.s) were provided by York Region, the City of Richmond Hill, and the City of Markham for intersections. Any T.M.C.s over 2 years old were re-counted by a sub-consultant hired by HDR. As a result, this study uses counts collected between 2018 and 2019:  1 location uses T.M.C.s collected in November 2018  3 locations use T.M.C.s collected in February 2019  10 locations use T.M.C.s collected in May 2019 Traffic volumes were adjusted and balanced on the older counts where the link difference was greater than 10%, to compensate the seasonal variation. It is further noted that the above counts reflect conditions during which vivaNext Construction on Yonge Street has been ongoing and impacting traffic patterns since 2015. The T.M.C.s are provided in Appendix A.

Signal Timings Signal timing plans were provided by York Region for the following intersections: 1. Garden Avenue/Yonge Ramp & Yonge Street 2. Highway 7 & Yonge Ramp 3. Highway 7 & Red Maple Road 4. Highway 7 & Silver Linden Drive 5. Highway 7 & Bayview Ramp 6. Langstaff Road East & Yonge Street 7. High Tech Road & Yonge Street 8. High Tech Road & Bayview Avenue 9. Langstaff Road East & Bayview Avenue

Signal timing plans were provided by the City of Richmond Hill for High Tech Road & Red Maple Road and High Tech Road & Silver Linden Drive. Signal timings plans are provided in Appendix B.

August 12, 2019 | 48 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection operations were assessed using the Synchro 9 software. Synchro 9 can analyze both signalized and unsignalized intersections within a road corridor or network by taking the spacing, intersection, queues, and operations between intersections into account. Two Measures of Effectiveness (M.O.E.s) are considered in the signalized intersection analysis:  Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio; and  Level of Service (L.O.S.) for all intersection movements. Two M.O.E.s are considered in the two-way unsignalized intersection analysis:  Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio; and  The highest movement Level of Service. Level of service is based on the average control delay per vehicle for a given movement. Delay is an indicator of how long a vehicle must wait to complete a movement and is represented by a letter between ‘A’ and ‘F’, with ‘F’ being the longest delay as described in Table 3-1. The volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is a measure of the degree of capacity expected at an intersection.

Table 3-1: Description of L.O.S. Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) L.O.S. Signalized Unsignalized Intersections Intersections A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B >10 and ≤20 >10 and ≤15 C >20 and ≤35 >15 and ≤25 D >35 and ≤55 >25 and ≤35 E >55 and ≤80 >35 and ≤50 F >80 >50

Calibration In the existing condition, calibration adjustments were conducted on the turning movement with v/c ratios great than 1.10, accomplished by adjusting one, or any combination of the following variables to most reasonable/realistic results:  Lost Time Adjustment (LTA)  Saturation Flow Rate (ISF)

August 12, 2019 | 49 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 Peak Hour Factor (PHF) The resulting adjusted parameters were carried forward to the future scenarios.

3.3.2 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis Exhibit 3-6 illustrates the lane configuration of the Study Area and identifies restrictions in the eastbound through movement at Yonge Street & High Tech Road, as well as the southbound right and northbound left movements at the Yonge Street & 407ETR eastbound off-ramp intersection. The existing traffic condition analysis was completed using volumes derived from the most recent turning movement counts available as indicated in Section 3.3.1. The date of the traffic counts used are summarized in Table 3-2. In order to compensate for seasonal differences, the older counts were balanced within a 10% difference for link volumes between the adjacent intersections. The balanced turning volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 3-7.

Table 3-2: Existing Turning Movement Counts Intersecting Roadway Signalized? Date of Count*

High Tech Road & Yonge Street Yes May 17, 2019 High Tech Road & Red Maple Road Yes November 28, 2018 High Tech Road & Red Cedar Avenue No May 17, 2019 High Tech Road & Silver Linden Drive Yes May 17, 2019 High Tech Road & Bayview Avenue Yes May 17, 2019 Garden Avenue/Yonge Ramp & Yonge Street Yes May 17, 2019 Highway 7 & Highway 7/Yonge Ramp Yes February 06, 2019 Highway 7 & Red Maple Road Yes February 06, 2019 Highway 7 & Silver Linden Drive Yes February 06, 2019 Highway 7 & Bayview Ramp Yes May 17, 2019 Creswick Road/Bayview Ramp & Bayview Avenue Yes May 17, 2019 Langstaff Road East & Yonge Street Yes May 17, 2019 Langstaff Road East & Cedar Ave** No n/a Bayview Ave & Langstaff Rd E Yes May 17, 2019 * All the counts were collected during the weekday (Tuesday – Thursday). ** Count was not available at this location, used the imbalance volumes between the adjacent intersections.

August 12, 2019 | 50 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-6: Existing* Lane Configuration *Post vivaNext construction

August 12, 2019 | 51 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-7: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes *Post vivaNext construction lane configurations, with 2018-2019 traffic volumes

August 12, 2019 | 52 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

3.3.3 Existing Traffic Operations The existing traffic operations for weekday AM and PM peak hours were assessed for 12 signalized intersections and 2 unsignalized intersections within the study area.

Intersection Capacity The existing conditions Synchro model results show that the majority of the turning movements operate with some residual capacity, at Level of Service (L.O.S.) D or better. Red bold text represents movements that meet the above criteria. Table 3-3 summarizes the critical movements under existing conditions. Critical movements consider the following measures:  Through or shared-through movement with v/c of 0.85 or above;  Exclusive turning movement with v/c of 1.0 or above; and/or,  Any movement with a LOS ‘E’ or worse. Red bold text represents movements that meet the above criteria.

Table 3-3: Critical Movements under Existing Conditions Base Calibrated Calibration Critical Turning Movements v/c LOS v/c LOS Adjustments* Yonge St & High Tech Rd

Westbound Left 0.95 F Southbound Left 0.52 E Yonge St & Garden Ave All Movement: Eastbound Left 0.50 F 0.75 F PHF** = 0.96 Eastbound Through-Right 1.24 F 0.99 F EBTR: Westbound Left 0.76 E 0.48 E LTA = -3.0 E E Northbound Left 0.51 0.49 ISF = 2050 Southbound Left 0.71 E 0.69 E Southbound Through 0.89 D 0.85 D Yonge St & Langstaff Rd

Westbound Left 0.32 E AM Bayview Ave & High Tech Rd Eastbound Left 0.63 E Eastbound Through-Left 0.64 E Northbound Left 0.79 E Westbound Through-Left 0.33 E Bayview Ave & Creswick Rd Eastbound Left 0.58 E SBTR: Eastbound Through 0.54 E LTA = -2.0 Westbound Left 0.86 F ISF = 2000 Westbound Left-Through-Right 0.69 E Southbound Through-Right 1.12 E 1.02 D Bayview Ave & Langstaff Rd

August 12, 2019 | 53 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Base Calibrated Calibration Critical Turning Movements v/c LOS v/c LOS Adjustments* Eastbound Left 0.18 E Yonge St & High Tech Rd

Westbound Left 0.96 F Southbound Left 0.37 E Yonge St & Garden Ave Eastbound Left 0.45 E Westbound Left 0.61 E Northbound Left 0.76 E Southbound Left 0.55 E Yonge St & Langstaff Rd

Westbound Left 0.66 E Bayview Ave & High Tech Rd Eastbound Left 0.81 E Eastbound through 0.84 F PM Northbound Left 0.90 E Westbound Through-Left 0.32 E Bayview Ave & Creswick Rd Eastbound Left 0.59 E Eastbound Through-Left 0.59 E SBTR: Northbound Left 0.96 E LTA = -2.0 Northbound-Through 0.85 D ISF = 2000 Westbound Left 0.39 E Southbound Through-Right 1.11 E 1.00 E Highway 7 & Bayview Ave Westbound Left 0.96 E Eastbound Through 0.98 D Bayview Ave & Langstaff Rd Eastbound Left 0.58 E * The default value for PHF, LTA, and ISF are 0.92, 0.00s, and 1900 vphpl, respectively. ** Adjusted PHF was calculated at an intersection level using the field data, therefore, apply to all movements of the intersection.

Exhibit 3-8 and Exhibit 3-9 provide an overview of the existing L.O.S. and Volume-Capacity Ratio (v/c ratio) for the AM and PM peak hour. The L.O.S. and v/c ratio and L.O.S. are summarized for each turning movement in Appendix C. During the AM peak hour the critical turning movements are:  Eastbound through-right movement at Yonge St & Garden Ave  Southbound through-right movement at Bayview & Creswick Rd During the PM peak hour, the most notable turning movement are:  Southbound through-right movement at Bayview Ave & Creswick Rd The above movements have both the v/c ratio and L.O.S. criteria flagged as a critical movement.

August 12, 2019 | 54 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-8: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (L.O.S.) *Post vivaNext construction lane configurations, with 2018-2019 traffic volume

August 12, 2019 | 55 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-9: Existing Conditions* AM and PM Peak Hour Volume-Capacity Ratio (v/c Ratio) *Post vivaNext construction lane configurations, with 2018-2019 traffic volumes

August 12, 2019 | 56 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

3.4 Active Transportation Analysis A multimodal level of service analysis was undertaken to assess the quality of existing cycling and pedestrian facilities in the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue study area. The analysis and results are summarized in the following section of the report.

3.4.1 Bicycle Level of Service

Methodology The methodology for the bicycle level of service (BLOS) is based on the York Region Transportation Mobility Plan (2016, described in Section 2.2.4) and enhanced by the City of Ottawa’s Multimodal Analysis Guideline (2015). BLOS is calculated at the intersection and mid-block (segment) in recognition that a cyclist’s experience is determined by the conditions both between crossings and at the crossing itself. The base criteria in the York Region and Ottawa Guidelines are similar for the most part, but the BLOS analysis is more detailed under the Ottawa methodology, which considers not only the type and width of bikeway but also the adjacent road characteristics such as road and vehicular speeds. The differences between the Ottawa and York Region level of service approaches are most pronounced when reviewing the methodologies at the intersection level. The Ottawa methodology calls for a more involved list of inputs, including road-way characteristics such as the presence of turning lanes and turning speeds lead to a more rigorous evaluation of conditions at intersections. The Ottawa methodology offers a more detailed review of the user experience, especially at the intersection level. Overall, the York Region Transportation Mobility Plan multi-modal level of service methodology is a good baseline from which to initiate an existing conditions review. Nevertheless, the Ottawa methodology sets a higher level of standard that is arguably more appropriate for urbanizing areas of Markham and Richmond Hill, especially ones aiming to prioritize active transportation. The segment BLOS evaluation utilizes a look-up table approach based on roadway characteristics and facility type and quality. The score is influenced by factors such as facility type, street width, operating speed, and parking characteristics. For intersection BLOS, a similar look-up table approach is used to evaluate the left and right-turning conditions for cyclists at the intersection. Intersection BLOS is affected by turning and operating speeds, dual turning lanes and bike boxes. Other impediments to cyclists seeking to turn right or left (such as

August 12, 2019 | 57 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

right-turn lane length and crossing distances) are also assessed. The average score of all approaches (north, south, west and east) is then used to determine the overall intersection BLOS. The input of the BLOS are summarized in Exhibit 3-10.

Exhibit 3-10: Inputs for Bicycle LOS Segment BLOS is most sensitive to facility type, with physically separated bikeways such as cycle tracks, protected bike lanes and multi-use paths receiving a score of ‘A’ while cycling in mixed traffic conditions with varying operating speeds and street widths generally scoring lower – ‘D’ to ‘F’. The scoring ranges as follows:  BLOS ‘A’ to ‘C’ – Physically separated facilities such as cycle tracks, protected bike lanes, and multi-use paths (MUP) are attractive to most cyclists. At intersections, continuous cycling facilities are provided and separated from vehicles and pedestrians.  BLOS ‘D’ to ‘E’ – Designated bike lanes adjacent to high speed traffic lanes or shared facilities on low volume, low speed streets with wide curb lanes provide some comfort, but the majority of potential cyclists typically will not cycle. Greater conflicts at intersections with turning vehicles are experienced.  BLOS ‘F – Non-separated, shared roadways with high traffic volumes and speeds, and no accommodations at intersections.

Examples of the segment Bicycle LOS are shown in Exhibit 3-11.

August 12, 2019 | 58 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-11: Examples of different bicycle LOS scores

BLOS Results The BLOS results of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue study area are illustrated in Exhibit 3-12. In the absence of cycling infrastructure in the study area, intersections and segments experience a BLOS of 'D' and ‘E’. While cycling facilities are non-existent on both Red Cedar and Cedar avenues, the difference between the segment PLOS scores are due to the number of vehicle lanes along each, which impact the cycling experience. The results are intuitive; biking in shared conditions along a quieter, narrower street is less dangerous, more pleasant and more likely to occur than on a busier, wider, hostile one. Similarly, intersection BLOS scores are marginally higher at smaller intersections. This is the case on Silver Linden Drive and Langstaff Road East where there are lower turning speeds (smaller curb radii) and less lanes for cyclists to cross while going through the intersections.

August 12, 2019 | 59 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-12: Existing Bicycle Level of Service

August 12, 2019 | 60 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

3.4.2 Pedestrian Level of Service

Methodology Similar to the BLOS, the pedestrian level of service (PLOS) methodology is based on the York Region Transportation Mobility Plan (2016, described in Section 2.2.4) and enhanced by the City of Ottawa’s Multimodal Analysis Guideline (2015). PLOS is calculated at the intersection and mid-block, acknowledging that a pedestrian’s experience is determined by the conditions both between crossings and at the crossing itself. The base criteria used to measure the performance or level of service are similar for the most part between the York Region and Ottawa Guidelines, such as the width of active transportation facilities and their separation from the roadway curb. Compared to the York Region methodology, the Ottawa methodology incorporates additional considerations that help better capture the nuances of different road typologies and their effect on user experience. When walking, these factors such as traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways, on-street parking, and roadway operating speeds have an impact on a pedestrian’s level of comfort and should not be neglected. At the intersection level, the Ottawa methodology offers a more detailed review of the user experience, including crossing distances, corner radii and signal phasing and timing features, to produce an intersection level of service for pedestrians. Overall, the York Region Transportation Mobility Plan multi- modal level of service methodology is a good baseline from which to initiate an existing conditions review. Nevertheless, the Ottawa methodology sets a higher level of standard that is arguably more appropriate for the urbanizing areas of Richmond Hill and Markham. For example, a 1.5m sidewalk with no buffer adjacent to a 70km/hr road receives an ‘F’ under the Ottawa MMLOS methodology but a ‘C’ under York Region’s guidelines. The methodology for segment PLOS utilizes a look-up table approach based on cross-section and roadway characteristics. The segment PLOS score is influenced by sidewalk and boulevard widths, traffic volumes, presence of on- street parking, and operating speeds. Intersection PLOS uses the Pedestrian Exposure to Traffic at Signalized Intersections (PETSI) and assigns points based on a number of crossing characteristics (e.g., crossing distance, presence of a median, presence of a crossing refuge, turning restrictions, right hand turn characteristics, curb radii, right-turn on red). However, as the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue study area does not contain any signalized intersection, certain modifications and assumptions have been made to readapt the Ottawa methodology to the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA study. These revisions include:

August 12, 2019 | 61 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 Understanding that stop and yield controlled approaches affect the pedestrian experience the same way a “permissive” signalized movement does, such as when a right-turn-on-red is allowed and a green is permissive. Because the turn is allowed based on driver judgment, pedestrians will feel less safe where a car is waiting to make the turn in their vicinity.  Penalizing intersections that do not provide a curb separating pedestrians from turning vehicles. Visibility is an important factor in pedestrian safety. The input for the PLOS is summarized in Exhibit 3-13.

Exhibit 3-13: Inputs for Pedestrian LOS Analysis The average score of each intersection approach is averaged to determine the overall intersection PLOS. Scoring ranges as follows:  PLOS ‘A’ to ‘C’ – Attractive to most pedestrians, including locations where lower speeds and volumes, wider sidewalks, and larger boulevards with ample separation from moving traffic are present. Crosswalks are provided on all four legs of the intersections and with shorter crossing distances at intersections.  PLOS ‘D’ to ‘E’ – Elements may not appeal to pedestrians due to narrow sidewalks, lack of separation from traffic, longer crossing distances, etc.  PLOS ‘F’ – Not adequate – locations without any facility or where no buffer is provided adjacent to high speed and high-volume traffic. No crosswalks provided and long crossing distances at intersections. Higher segment scores are characterized by locations where lower vehicle speeds and volumes, wider sidewalks, and larger boulevards with ample separation from moving traffic are present. Lower segment scores are

August 12, 2019 | 62 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

observed in locations where high vehicle speeds, narrow sidewalks, and minimal separation from traffic are present. Examples of the Pedestrian LOS are shown in Exhibit 3-14. Figure 3-1: Examples of Pedestrian Level of Service

Exhibit 3-14: Examples of Pedestrian Level of Service

PLOS Results The segment and intersection PLOS analysis results are illustrated in Exhibit 3-15. The lack of sidewalks along Red Cedar and Cedar avenues explains the poor segment PLOS ‘F’, as pedestrians are highly exposed and vulnerable to adjacent vehicular traffic. Moreover, the corridor in its current state fails to satisfy AODA minimum requirements. Intersection PLOS in the study area suffers from several shortfalls, including the lack of crosswalk markings at all intersections, larger turning speeds (curb radii), the lack of crossing medians and the absence of intersection curbs (as is the case at Langstaff Road East). Moreover, the “permissive” nature of conflicting movements due to unsignalized controls prevents any protected or dedicated crossing time for pedestrians, making crossing the street and risky undertaking.

August 12, 2019 | 63 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 3-15: Existing Pedestrian Level of Service

August 12, 2019 | 64 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

4 2041 Future Conditions

This section documents future transportation conditions for the 2041 horizon year including growth assumptions, planned transportation improvements, and future traffic analysis including transportation modelling methodology, analysis of a 2041 no build scenario and a 2041 build scenario with the Cedar Avenue Extension at 2 and 4 lanes. 4.1 Future Land Use Context By the 2041 horizon year, as it is within a designated Urban Growth Centre, York Region is forecasting significant study area growth from about 600 population and 3,700 employment today to about 13,000 population and 13,000 employment by 2041. It is noted that these forecasts are lower relative to the ultimate vision for the Richmond Hill Centre (Richmond Hill Centre Design and Land Use Study 2010) and for the Markham Langstaff Gateway (Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan 2011). These studies project 15,800 people and 15,700 jobs in Richmond Hill Centre, and 32,000 people and 15,000 jobs in the Langstaff Gateway. This is a total of about 47,800 people and 30,700 jobs which is over three times the number of people and over two times the number of jobs being used to assess the needs for this study. While much of that growth while be phased in alignment with the Yonge Subway Extension, it is still important to note that the long-term transportation network needs are anticipated to be far greater than those being assessed within the scope of this study. The growth assumptions being used for this study are summarized by “traffic zones” in Table 4-1, and a reference map for the traffic zone system (06GTA) is provided in Exhibit 4-1.

Table 4-1: 2041 Population and Employment Forecast Assumptions Area 06GTA Population Employment Traffic Zone 2016 2041 2016 2041 RHC - West 2249 625 3,999 1,301 3,576

RHC - East 2250 0 2,229 1,618 4,209

Langstaff West 2359 0 3,223 396 2,775

Langstaff East 2361 0 3,223 363 2,742

Total 625 12,674 3,678 13,302

Source: York Region 45% Intensification Scenario, November 2015

August 12, 2019 | 65 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-1: 06GTA Traffic Zone Boundaries 4.2 Future Transportation System Context / Plans As documented in Section 2 of this report, there are a number of transportation improvements within the study area which are influencing the need and justification for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension and which provide important context for the future conditions analysis for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension. These include:  Transit Improvements o Yonge Subway Extension o Service improvements to the Richmond Hill GO line o Service improvements to YRT Viva pink, purple and blue (Highway 7 and Yonge Street) o Highway 407 Transitway  Road Network Improvements

August 12, 2019 | 66 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

o Garden Avenue Extension, a new east-west street intersecting Red Cedar Avenue / Cedar Avenue Extension south of High Tech Road o Realignment of Langstaff Road o New grid street networks supporting new development in both the Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway areas  Active Transportation Network Improvements o Dedicated cycling facilities throughout the Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway areas o A potential active transportation connection along the Richmond Hill GO Rail Line identified in the November 2017 York Region Committee of the Whole report With respect to the Cedar Avenue Extension, existing policies identify future Right-of-Way width, while other studies have made preliminary recommendations:  The City of Markham Official Plan identifies Cedar Avenue, south of Highway 7 as a local street with a 20 m R.O.W. width  Town (now City) of Richmond Hill Official Plan identifies Red Cedar Avenue, north of Highway 7 as a collector street with a R.O.W. of 26 m.  The Richmond Hill T.M.P. recommends the extension to provide 4 lanes as an underpass below Highway 7 and the 407ETR.  Signalized control at Red Cedar Avenue and High Tech Road  Signalized control, southbound left, eastbound left and westbound left- turn lanes at Cedar Avenue and Langstaff Road / North Boulevard  The Cedar Avenue Extension, connecting Red Cedar Avenue and Cedar Avenue, to be planned for four lanes, two of which are HOV/transit lanes, plus bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 4.3 Transportation Modelling Methodology The transportation demand modelling software Emme was used to forecast 2041 traffic volumes in the study area during the AM peak hour. The York Region Emme model was used for this study. A calibration exercise was first conducted for the base year network, where the road network assumptions in the base year network (lanes, speed, and lane capacity) were compared against Google Maps Streetview, and changes

August 12, 2019 | 67 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

were made accordingly. The base model run results were compared against observed counts to assess the model’s accuracy. The model’s accuracy was determined via screenline analysis where peak direction screenline-level modelled traffic flows were compared against the screenline-level traffic counts. This comparison can be found in Appendix D. The G.E.H. statistic is the metric used to assess accuracy, where a G.E.H. statistic below 5 is considered accurate and above 5 is inaccurate. Link-level adjustments were applied to screenline locations to match the counts at those locations as accurately as possible. These adjustments were capped at plus or minus 500 vehicles per hour. The calibration network edits and the link-level volume adjustments were carried forward to the 2041 horizon year model network and run results, respectively. The resulting screenline totals from 2011 and 2041 were also compared to estimate screenline-level growth percentages to be applied to existing counts to estimate future turning movements in 2041. 4.4 Future Scenario Macro Analysis The 2041 horizon year model was used to forecast traffic flows for three scenarios: 1. Do Nothing (no Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension) 2. 2-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension 3. 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension Consideration for other scenarios, such as transit-HOV lanes or 3 lanes (i.e. with a two-way centre left-turn lane) were not explicitly modelled, but should be assessed qualitatively. Performance measures considered within this report including screenline and link analysis, network congestion analysis, traffic infiltration impact analysis, and intersection operational analysis.

4.4.1 Screenline and Link Analysis Screenline and link analysis are conducted to understand the macro-level change in travel demand and congestion on links in the study area. At a screenline level, there are limited crossings of Highway 407ETR at Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue only. Two screenlines, south of Highway 7 and north of Langstaff Road are considered to understand the capacity benefits of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue connection.

August 12, 2019 | 68 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

A summary of the screenline analysis is presented in Table 4-2. Detailed screenline volume tables can be found in Appendix D and Appendix E, while Emme volume to capacity plots can be found in Appendix F.

Table 4-2: Screenline Capacity Analysis – 2041 AM Peak Hour Scenarios Screenline Do Nothing 2-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Location Ave Ave Peak Capacity Volume to Peak Capacity Volume Peak Capacity Volume Direction Capacity Direction to Direction to Traffic Ratio Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Volume Ratio Volume Ratio

South of Highway 7 Yonge St 2,493 2,400 1.04 2,252 2,400 0.94 2,225 2,400 0.93 Cedar Ave 0 0 533 500 1.07 906 1,000 0.91 Bayview 3,678 2,700 1.36 3,557 2,700 1.32 3,459 2,700 1.28 Ave TOTAL 6,171 5,100 1.21 6,342 5,600 1.13 6,590 6,100 1.08 North of Langstaff Rd Yonge St 1,683 2,400 0.70 1,394 2,400 0.58 1,321 2,400 0.55 Cedar Ave 0 0 533 500 1.07 906 1,000 0.91 Bayview 2,952 2,700 1.09 2,792 2,700 1.03 2,621 2,700 0.97 Ave TOTAL 4,635 5,100 0.91 4,719 5,600 0.84 4,848 6,100 0.79

Based on this analysis, there is a benefit to improving transportation capacity crossing Highway 407 ETR. In the Do-nothing scenario, the south of Highway 7 screenline V/C ratio is 1.21, and improves to 1.13 in the 2-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension Scenario, and 1.08 in the 4-lane scenario. It is also evident that there is significant demand for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension. In the 2-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue scenario, the roadway is over capacity with over 500 vehicles, while over 900 vehicles use the road in the 4-lane scenario.

4.4.2 Network Congestion Analysis Table 4-3 displays the vehicle-kms travelled (VKT) and the vehicle-hours travelled (VHT) for all three scenarios in the AM peak hour, as well as the Congested VKTs and VHTs (where Volume/Capacity > 0.85) and their proportions relative to their respective totals. These values are shown for the Study Area bounded by Yonge Street, High Tech Road, and Langstaff Road East.

August 12, 2019 | 69 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Table 4-3: Network* VKT and VHT by Scenario, 2041 AM Peak Hour Do 2-Lane 4-Lane Nothing Study Study % vs Do Study % vs Do Area Area Nothing Area Nothing Vehicle-kms 32,800 33,200 1.0% 33,500 1.9% travelled Vehicle-hours 950 920 -2.8% 900 -5.4% travelled Congested VKT 12,400 11,200 -9.8% 10,800 -13.0% % Congested VKT 38% 34% -4.1% 32% -5.6% Congested VHT 520 430 -17.3% 380 -27.0% % Congested VHT 55% 47% -8.2% 42% -12.6% *Collector and arterial road network only Relative to the Do Nothing scenario, despite a slight increase in total VKT (as a result of adding road km’s due to the extension), both alternatives show a significant reduction in the congested proportion of VKT and VHT, thus implying reduced congestion levels and improved connectivity through the area. These benefits are significant in the 2-lane extension scenario with a 10% to 17% benefit, and further pronounced in the 4-lane extension scenario with a 13% to 27% benefit in absolute terms.

4.4.3 Preliminary Macro Scenario Recommendations Based on the macro-level EMME analysis results, it is evident that the future 2041 transportation demands will exceed the available capacity for both the 2-lane and 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension scenarios. It is further noted that the projected level of growth within the study area which this analysis is based on will be exceeded by the level of growth anticipated by the Secondary Plans on both sides of this roadway. Based on the macro-analysis it is recommended to carry forward the both the 2-lane and 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension scenarios, with note that further study is required to determine the appropriate measures to maximize the efficiency of this infrastructure (including transit priority or high- occupancy vehicle priority). 4.5 Future 2041 Traffic Operations To inform the understanding of future conditions and to further establish the need and justification for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension, additional traffic operations analyses are conducted for two scenarios: 1. Do Nothing (No Cedar Avenue extension)

August 12, 2019 | 70 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

2. 4-lane extension of Cedar Avenue crossing under Highway 7 and the 407ETR The future traffic operations for the weekday AM peak hour was assessed for 12 signalized intersections and 2 unsignalized intersections within the study area. For each future scenario, signal optimization was conducted on individual intersection signal timings based on the future condition. The splits were first optimized using the built-in Synchro algorithms; if needed, further improvements through manual adjustments after close review of traffic conditions were made. The cycle lengths, clearance times, and offsets remain the same as the existing signal timing plans.

4.5.1 Future Intersection Traffic Volumes The adjusted link-level Compounded Annually Growth Rates (C.A.G.R.) derived from the Emme model were carried forward to generate the turning movement volumes through the Fratar/Furness method. For the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension scenarios, select link analysis was conducted on the Emme model to understand where the traffic comes/goes due to the extension. The turning movement forecast procedure involves the following steps: 1. Apply adjusted link-level C.A.G.R.’s from Emme to the existing link volumes to generate future inbound and outbound link volumes at all directions, which would be target volumes; 2. Iterative calculations of turning movements to achieve the target volumes with acceptable errors (Fratar/Furness method); 3. Manual adjustments based on the future Emme volume plots and link select analysis to obtain reasonable and practicable peak hour volumes; and 4. Balance the link volume within a 10% difference. The balanced future turning movements are illustrated in Exhibit 4-2. These volumes were imported into the Synchro model to determine the future traffic operations within the study area.

August 12, 2019 | 71 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-2: Future 2041 Traffic Volumes

August 12, 2019 | 72 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-3: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension Traffic Volumes

August 12, 2019 | 73 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

4.5.2 Do Nothing (No Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension) The future traffic volumes were presented in Section 4.4.4 of this report and are illustrated in Exhibit 4-2. The future Do Nothing conditions Synchro model results show that the majority of the turning movements operate with some residual capacity, at Level of Service (L.O.S.) D or better. Red bold text represents movements that meet the above criteria. Table 4-4 summarizes the critical movements under future 2041 Do Nothing conditions. Critical movements consider the following measures:  Through or shared-through movement with v/c of 0.85 or above;  Exclusive turning movement with v/c of 1.0 or above; and/or,  Any movement with a LOS ‘E’ or worse. Red bold text represents movements that meet the above criteria.

Table 4-4: Critical Movements under Future Do Nothing Conditions Future Do Nothing Critical Turning Movements v/c LOS AM Yonge St & High Tech Rd Westbound Left 1.08 F Southbound Left 0.53 E Southbound Through-Right 0.88 B Northbound Through 0.87 D Yonge St & Garden Ave Eastbound Left 0.88 F Eastbound Through-Right 1.69 F Westbound Left 0.88 E Northbound Left 1.10 F Northbound Through 0.91 D Southbound Left 1.12 F Southbound Through 1.39 F Yonge St & Langstaff Rd Westbound Left 0.31 E Eastbound-Right 0.88 E Southbound Through 0.87 C Bayview Ave & High Tech Rd Eastbound Left 0.63 E Eastbound through 0.64 E Southbound Through-Right 1.16 F Westbound Through-Left 0.56 F Bayview Ave & Creswick Rd Eastbound Left 1.00 F Eastbound Through-Left 0.85 E Westbound Left 0.95 F Westbound Left-Through-Right 1.15 F Southbound Through-Right 1.38 E Bayview Ave & Langstaff Rd Eastbound Left 0.34 F

August 12, 2019 | 74 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Future Do Nothing Critical Turning Movements v/c LOS Highway 7 & Yonge St Westbound Through 0.94 C Highway 7 & Red Maple Rd Eastbound Left 1.18 F Westbound Through 1.17 F Highway 7 & Silver Linden Dr Southbound Left 0.57 E Highway 7 & Bayview Ave Eastbound Left 1.28 F Westbound Through 1.08 D Southbound Right 1.18 F

Exhibit 4-4 and Exhibit 4-5 provides an overview of the future Do Nothing L.O.S. and Volume-Capacity Ratio (v/c ratio) for the AM peak hour. The L.O.S. and v/c ratio and L.O.S. are summarized for each turning movement in Appendix G. During the AM peak hour, there a number of turning movements that are expected to operate approaching or above capacity, especially at major-major intersections.

August 12, 2019 | 75 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-4: Future 2041 Do Nothing AM Peak Hour L.O.S.

August 12, 2019 | 76 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-5: Future 2041 Do Nothing AM Peak Hour v/c Ratio

August 12, 2019 | 77 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

4.5.3 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension In this scenario, Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue is extended from the existing street at High Tech Road, crossing under Highway 7 and the 407ETR, and connects to Cedar Avenue at Langstaff Road East, with a 4-lane cross- section. The future lane configurations for this alternative is illustrated in Exhibit 4-6 and the traffic volumes for are illustrated in Exhibit 4-7. The future Do Nothing conditions Synchro model results show that the majority of the turning movements operate with some residual capacity, at Level of Service (L.O.S.) D or better. Table 4-5 provides a comparison of the Do Nothing and 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension alternatives critical movements under future 2041 conditions. Critical movements consider the following measures:  Through or shared-through movement with v/c of 0.85 or above;  Exclusive turning movement with v/c of 1.0 or above; and/or,  Any movement with a LOS ‘E’ or worse. It is noted that while both the 2-lane and 4-lane scenarios are carried forward, the analysis presented is based upon the 4-lane scenario to understand the range of outcomes with respect to intersection traffic volumes.

August 12, 2019 | 78 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-6: Future 2041 4-Lane Cedar Avenue Extension Lane Configuration

August 12, 2019 | 79 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-7: Future 2041 4-Lane Cedar Avenue Extension Traffic Volumes

August 12, 2019 | 80 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Table 4-5: Critical Movements Comparison of Do Nothing and 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension Conditions Future Do Nothing Future 4-Lane Critical Turning Movements v/c LOS v/c LOS AM Yonge St & High Tech Rd Westbound Left 1.08 F 0.99 F Southbound Left 0.53 E 0.50 E Southbound Through-Right 0.88 B 0.87 E Northbound Through 0.87 D 0.79 C Yonge St & Garden Ave Eastbound Left 0.88 F 0.83 F Eastbound Through-Right 1.69 F 1.55 F Westbound Left 0.88 E 0.88 E Northbound Left 1.10 F 1.00 F Northbound Through 0.91 D 0.96 E Southbound Left 1.12 F 1.17 F Southbound Through 1.39 F 1.27 F Yonge St & Langstaff Rd Westbound Left 0.31 E 0.86 F Eastbound Left 0.41 D 0.80 E Eastbound Through-Right 0.41 D 0.79 E Eastbound-Right 0.88 E 0.38 B Southbound Through 0.87 C 0.73 C Bayview Ave & High Tech Rd Eastbound Left 0.63 E 0.67 E Eastbound through 0.64 E 0.72 E Southbound Through-Right 1.16 F 1.04 E Westbound Through-Left 0.56 F 0.61 F Bayview Ave & Creswick Rd Eastbound Left 1.00 F 1.05 F Eastbound Through-Left 0.85 E 0.89 E Westbound Left 0.95 F 0.86 F Westbound Left-Through-Right 1.15 F 1.17 F Southbound Through-Right 1.38 E 1.18 F Northbound Left 0.98 F 1.03 F Bayview Ave & Langstaff Rd Eastbound Left 0.34 F 0.91 E Highway 7 & Yonge St Westbound Through 0.94 C 0.96 C Highway 7 & Red Maple Rd Eastbound Left 1.18 F 0.88 E Westbound Through 1.17 F 1.18 F Highway 7 & Silver Linden Dr Southbound Left 0.57 E 0.49 E Highway 7 & Bayview Ave Eastbound Left 1.28 F 1.27 F Westbound Through 1.08 D 1.12 D Southbound Right 1.18 F 1.18 F High Tech Rd & Red Cedar Ave Northbound Left 0.03 B 0.33 E

August 12, 2019 | 81 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-8 and Exhibit 4-9 provides an overview of the future 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension L.O.S. and Volume-Capacity Ratio (v/c ratio) for the AM peak hour. The L.O.S. and v/c ratio and L.O.S. are summarized for each turning movement in Appendix H. During the AM peak hour, under the 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension alternative, there are some intersection improvements. For example, the 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension will help to improve operations at High Tech Road & Yonge Street by decreasing WB left turns, bringing the movement’s operations under capacity. At the intersection of High Tech Road & Bayview Avenue, the southbound through-right turn operations improve slightly; however, will continue to operate over capacity. It is noted however that as a tradeoff to the improvements noted, operations are negatively impacted in terms of v/c ratio at the Creswick Road/Highway 7 Ramp & Bayview Avenue intersection and the Yonge Street & Langstaff Road intersection. Based on the analysis presented, it is clear that in terms of intersection operations at Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue, a balancing effect occurs. In particular there is a reduction in demand and delays at the intersections north of Highway 7 and 407, and an increase in demand and delays south of Highway 7 and 407. This is a beneficial which provides additional mobility choice to drivers.

August 12, 2019 | 82 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Exhibit 4-8: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension L.O.S.

August 12, 2019 | 83 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Weekday AM v/c Ratio

Exhibit 4-9: Future 2041 4-Lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension v/c Ratios

August 12, 2019 | 84 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

4.6 Traffic Infiltration Impact Analysis Considering concerns of increased traffic through the residential area of Bayview Glen, select-link analysis was conducted for users of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension to understand the potential for induced traffic infiltration. The results are illustrated in Exhibit 4-10 for the 4-lane scenario.

Exhibit 4-10: Select-link volumes for users of the Red Cedar / Cedar Ave Extension, 4-lane scenario, 2041 AM Peak Hour

Based on the analysis, users of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension access the roadway on the Richmond Hill side primarily through the non- residential collector streets including Red Maple Road and High Tech Road. It

August 12, 2019 | 85 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

is worth noting however that there is potential for infiltration on Silver Linden Drive for vehicles wishing to proceed northbound on Bayview Avenue, and where High Tech Road at Bayview Avenue is congested. While noteworthy, it should also be recognized that this issue may already be occurring today with or without the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension. Appropriate mitigation measures should be considered in later phase of this EA study including consideration of turn restrictions or operational improvements at the High Tech Road & Bayview Avenue intersection. 4.7 Future Active Transportation The currently planned active transportation improvements in the study area were noted in Section 4.7, and includes a finer grid network and active transportation supportive land use surrounding the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension in the Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan areas. The alternative solutions for this study must consider improvements above and beyond the current levels of service for pedestrians and cyclists observed on Red Cedar and Cedar Avenue today. Detailed analysis of active transportation facility options will be considered in later phases of this study. 4.8 Future Transit / HOV Considerations Further to the recommendations of the Richmond Hill Centre Design and Land Use Study, the Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan and Markham Official Plan Amendment 183, and York Region’s Richmond Hill Langstaff Gateway Regional Centre study, priority measures to improve multimodal transportation capacity through measures such as transit priority or HOV designation should be considered. York Region’s Transportation Master Plan identifies a policy to designate Transit-HOV lanes along corridors where peak passenger demand (including auto passengers and transit passengers) exceeds 1,000 per hour in the peak direction. Based on the demand analysis presented in Section 4.4, the projected traffic demand for the four lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension is approximately 900 vehicles in the AM peak hour peak southbound direction of travel. To estimate passenger demand, we can consider auto passengers and potential transit riders based on the auto demand:  While the number of passengers in the Emme model are not explicitly modelled, applying a typical occupancy factor of 1.2 would result in an estimate of 180 auto passengers in the peak direction.

August 12, 2019 | 86 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 A transit route using the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension was not explicitly modelled in Emme. To meet the TMP’s Transit-HOV lane warrant policy of a total 1,000 auto passengers and transit passengers, about 820 transit riders in the AM peak southbound direction would need to use this new link in the network. This represents a transit share of over 40% on the Extension specifically.  In our professional opinion, this level of transit ridership is unlikely to be achieved given the current growth assumptions as well as the potential for a new north-south busway connecting the Markham- Langstaff Gateway and Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan areas alongside the GO Rail tracks. Based on the projected transportation demands and planning context, Transit–HOV lanes as per the York Region TMP policy are not warranted. 4.9 Signal Warrant Analysis 4.9.1 Traffic Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted to determine the need for traffic signals with the road extension at the intersections of Red Cedar Ave & High Tech Road and Cedar Ave & Langstaff Rd which are currently unsignalized today. The analysis is based on peak hour volumes for the 2041 4-lane extension scenario. The signal warrants analysis in this section follows the methodology and warrants criteria outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual – Book 12 Traffic Signals, March 2012 (OTM Book 12).

Based on the criteria listed in OTM Book 12, it was found that neither intersection satisfies OTM signal warrant criteria. The justification and its associated compliance were provided in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7.

Table 4-6: Signal Warrant Justification – Red Cedar Ave & High Tech Rd Justification Compliance Signal Justified? Total Volume 99% 1. Minimum Vehicle Volumes No Crossing Volume 53% Main Road 98% 2. Delay to Cross traffic No Crossing Rod 98% 3. Collision Experience* n/a n/a Justification 1 53% 4. Combination Justification No Justification 2 98% Volume Not Meet 5. Pedestrian Volume No Delay Not Meet *The collision history was not available.

August 12, 2019 | 87 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Table 4-7: Signal Warrant Justification –Cedar Ave & Langstaff Rd Justification Compliance Signal Justified? Total Volume 86% 1. Minimum Vehicle Volumes No Crossing Volume 100% Main Road 61% 2. Delay to Cross traffic No Crossing Rod 100% 3. Collision Experience* n/a n/a Justification 1 86% 4. Combination Justification No Justification 2 98% Volume n/a 5. Pedestrian Volume** No Delay n/a *The collision history was not available. ** Existing pedestrian volumes was not available

4.9.2 Active Transportation Considerations While from a traffic perspective the signalization warrant is not met, other criteria should be considered to inform the decision for signalization. This includes multimodal benefits for improved active transportation accessibility, connectivity, comfort and experience for users of all ages and abilities particularly adjacent to residential neighbourhoods and existing or potential future transit stops. Given the context of the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension as a key connection between the Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan areas (which are designated as one Urban Growth Centre in the Provincial Growth Plan), and that these areas are envisioned as transit- oriented, walkable communities, it is recommended that traffic signals be installed at High Tech Road and at Langstaff Road. 4.10 Traffic Control Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted to better understand intersection control needs and detailed lane requirements for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension at the intersections of High Tech Road and at Langstaff Road. Four scenarios were assessed during the AM peak hour, considering both the 4-lane and 2-lane scenarios which were carried forward at the macro-analysis stage:  4-lane Cedar Ave with signalized traffic control  4-lane Cedar Ave with unsignalized traffic control  2-lane Cedar Ave with signalized traffic control

August 12, 2019 | 88 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

 2-lane Cedar Ave with unsignalized traffic control The lane configuration assumptions and intersection traffic performance measures are provided in Table 4-8. Red bold text represents movements that meet the critical movement criteria considering the following thresholds:  Through or shared-through movement with v/c of 0.85 or above;  Exclusive turning movement with v/c of 1.0 above; and/or  Any movement with a LOS ‘E’ or worse

Table 4-8: Sensitivity Analysis – 2041 AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Recommended Movement v/c, LOS, delay, Scenario Lane Configuration Storage* 95th percentile queue

EBTR: 0.45, A, 0.0s, 0.0m WBL: 0.51, C, 16.3s; 21.7m WBL 50m WBT: 0.21, A, 0.0s, 0.0m (existing length) NBL: 0.35, E, 42.5s, 10.8m NBR: 0.24, B, 14.8s, 7.0m 4-lane Cedar Ave with unsignalized traffic control EBLTR: 0.10, A, 0.8s~5.2s,2.5m WBLTR: 0.0, A, 0.0s, 0.0m - NBLTR: 0.25, D, 29.7s, 7.3m SBL: 1.10, F, 97.4s, 133.3m SBTR: 0.36, B, 11.0s, 12.6m

4-lane at EBTR: 0.74, B, 14.4s, 57.9m Cedar Ave WBL: 0.82, C, 31.6s, 61.9m with WBL 65m WBT: 0.35, A, 8.6s, 33.0m signalized (15m extension) NBL: 0.09, B, 17.6s, 11.4m traffic NBR: 0.20, A, 5.0s, 9.8m control

August 12, 2019 | 89 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

Recommended Movement v/c, LOS, delay, Scenario Lane Configuration Storage* 95th percentile queue

EBLTR: 0.71, C, 28.1s, 48.8m WBLTR: 0.31, A, 9.5s, 17.0m - NBLTR: 0.12, B, 15.6s, 10.8m SBL: 0.55, A, 9.8s, 63.9m SBTR: 0.29, A, 1.8s, 10.2m

EBTR: 0.45, A, 0.0s, 0.0m WBL 50m WBL: 0.51, C, 16.3s; 21.7m (existing Length) WBT: 0.21, A, 0.0s, 0.0m NBLR: 0.56, D, 34.2s, 26.1m 2-lane Cedar Ave with unsignalized traffic control EBLTR: 0.10, A, 0.8s~5.2s,2.5m SBL 150m WBLTR: 0.0, A, 0.0s, 0.0m (new) NBLTR: 0.25, D, 29.7s, 7.3m SBL: 1.10, F, 97.4s, 133.3m SBTR: 0.36, B, 11.0s, 12.6m

EBTR: 0.74, B, 14.4s, 57.9m WBL 65m WBL: 0.82, C, 31.6s, 61.9m (15m extension) WBT: 0.35, A, 8.6s, 33.0m NBLR: 0.27, A, 8.0s, 16.8m 2-lane Cedar Ave with signalized traffic control EBLTR: 0.71, C, 28.1s, 48.8m WBLTR: 0.31, A, 9.5s, 17.0m SBL 60m NBLTR: 0.12, B, 15.6s, 10.9m (new) SBL: 0.49, A, 9.1s, 55.8m SBTR: 0.38, A, 2.9s, 17.5m

* The recommended storages were based on Synchro 95th percentile queues.

August 12, 2019 | 90 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

It is noted firstly that the two-lane versus four-lane scenario Synchro sensitivity analysis presented is based upon the same four-lane traffic scenario demand from the EMME model. Thus, based on the analysis presented, the following conclusions are drawn:  Operations at the intersections are similar in both scenarios, and are dependent upon intersection lane configurations as opposed to through lanes.  Thus, based on this analysis it is concluded that two general purpose through-lanes (one in each direction) for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue extension are appropriate to serve the anticipated vehicular demand in the area. It is recognized that further travel demands due to growth anticipated in the Richmond Hill Regional Centre Secondary Plan and the Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan will be accommodated by active transportation, transit, carpooling or ridesharing, or TDM measures such as encouraging travel outside of traditional peak hours.  Signalization will mitigate delays at the intersections for specific movements (while also providing protected crossings for active transportation)  A northbound left-turn lane is recommended at High Tech Road, pending PM peak hour analysis and recognizing that additional growth and intensification is anticipated beyond the growth assumptions used in this analysis. It is also recognized that the proposed Garden Avenue extension has not been incorporated into this analysis. Despite these limitations, protecting for flexibility in design without compromising public realm is recommended, and this includes an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane at the High Tech Road intersection.  A southbound left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane are recommended at Langstaff Road, based on the AM analysis presented. Detailed Synchro reports for this traffic control sensitivity analysis are provided in Appendix I.

August 12, 2019 | 91 Class Environmental Assessment for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road Transportation System Technical Report (Revision 2)

5 Recommendations

The Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension is a critical road network improvement connecting the Richmond Hill Centre and Markham Langstaff Secondary Plan areas which are part of a provincially designated Urban Growth Centre. The study area is located at the convergence of numerous existing and planned higher-order transit routes, including the Langstaff GO Station, the Highway 7 and Yonge Street YRT/Viva Bus Rapid Transit routes, the YRT Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal, the future Yonge Subway Extension, and the future potential Highway 407 Transitway. The study area today experiences traffic congestion particularly on Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue. With significant growth planned within the study area alongside the transit improvements, new road connections supporting this growth are needed to improve road network capacity while also providing additional opportunities for active transportation connectivity between the Markham and Richmond Hill growth areas and to provide additional opportunities for transit service routing. The demand analysis presented in this report confirms the need for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Extension, and also indicates the need for two general purpose traffic lanes (one in each direction), with local widening at intersections to accommodate turning movements. Finally, traffic signals should be provided at both ends of the roadway at High Tech Road and at Langstaff Road.

August 12, 2019 | 92