Town of Ajax 2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan

Final Draft Report April 2019 2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... I

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 What is the Integrated Transportation Master Plan? ...... 1

1.2 Conception of an Integrated Transportation Master Plan for Ajax ...... 1

1.3 Plan purpose ...... 2

1.4 Objectives of the ITMP ...... 3

1.5 What is the modal split goal for Ajax? ...... 3

1.6 The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process ...... 4

1.7 Consultation process ...... 4

1.7.1 Approach ...... 5

1.7.2 Methods ...... 5

1.7.3 Stakeholders engaged ...... 6

1.7.4 Milestones ...... 7

1.8 Organization of the report ...... 8

2.0 Existing Conditions ...... 9

2.1 Chapter overview ...... 9

2.2 Policy framework ...... 9

2.2.1 Federal ...... 9

2.2.2 Provincial ...... 9

2.2.3 Regional ...... 10

2.2.4 Local ...... 11

2.2.5 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ...... 12

2.2.6 Benefits of conformity ...... 12

2.3 Socio-economic profile ...... 12

2.3.1 Population ...... 12

2.3.2 Income and employment ...... 13

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

2.4 Existing mobility characteristics ...... 13

2.4.1 Modal split ...... 13

2.4.2 Trip volumes ...... 16

2.4.3 Trip origin and destination ...... 16

2.4.4 Commute duration ...... 17

2.5 Existing transportation networks ...... 18

2.5.1 Active transportation network ...... 18

2.5.2 Transit network ...... 20

2.5.3 Road network ...... 22

2.5.4 Goods movement ...... 23

2.6 Current multi-modal operations ...... 24

2.6.1 Existing active transportation facilities review ...... 24

2.6.2 Transit operations review ...... 28

2.6.3 Travel demand model ...... 31

2.6.4 Traffic operations ...... 33

3.0 Vision and Stakeholder Engagement ...... 39

3.1 Chapter overview ...... 39

3.2 Vision statement ...... 39

3.3 Key principles ...... 39

3.4 Consulting and engaging with the community ...... 40

3.4.1 Project launch ...... 40

3.4.2 Promotional tools ...... 40

3.4.3 Public engagement opportunities ...... 40

3.4.4 Engagement round 1 summary ...... 41

3.4.5 Engagement round 2 summary ...... 47

4.0 Recommendations ...... 51

4.1 Chapter overview ...... 51

4.2 Future active transportation network ...... 51 ii

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

4.2.1 Active transportation strategy ...... 51

4.2.2 The active transportation development process ...... 52

4.2.3 Designing the active transportation network ...... 63

4.2.4 AT network and infrastructure recommendations ...... 73

4.3 Future road network ...... 74

4.3.1 Travel demand model approach ...... 74

4.3.2 Population and employment allocation ...... 75

4.3.3 Model validation ...... 76

4.3.4 Transportation scenario analysis - Alternative strategies ...... 76

4.3.5 Scenario assessment ...... 77

4.3.6 Preferred future road network ...... 78

4.4 Traffic operations ...... 81

4.4.1 Bayly Street West corridor ...... 81

4.4.2 Harwood Avenue South corridor ...... 84

4.4.3 Westney Road South corridor...... 85

4.5 Supportive policies and transportation initiatives ...... 87

4.5.1 Continuing with Complete Streets ...... 87

4.5.2 Improving multi-modal transportation ...... 90

4.5.3 Strengthening transportation demand management ...... 92

4.5.4 Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero ...... 94

4.5.5 Preparing for new mobility technologies...... 95

4.5.6 Introducing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 98

4.6 Road classification review ...... 100

4.6.1 Existing classification system ...... 100

4.6.2 Engineering standards for collector roads ...... 102

5.0 Implementation Strategy ...... 104

5.1 Chapter overview ...... 104

5.2 Phasing ...... 104 iii

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

5.2.1 Future active transportation network phasing ...... 104

5.2.2 Future road network phasing ...... 106

5.3 Costing ...... 109

5.3.1 Active transportation network ...... 109

5.3.2 Road network ...... 110

5.4 Funding ...... 111

5.4.1 Federal funding ...... 111

5.4.2 Provincial funding ...... 112

5.4.3 Regional funding ...... 113

5.4.4 Development charges ...... 113

5.4.5 Town funding ...... 113

5.5 Monitoring the integrated multi-modal network ...... 113

5.5.1 Monitoring progress ...... 113

5.5.2 Data collection framework ...... 114

6.0 Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations ...... 116

6.1 Summary of recommendations ...... 116

6.1.1 Future active transportation network ...... 116

6.1.2 Future road transportation network ...... 117

6.1.3 Road operations ...... 117

6.1.4 Continuing with Complete Streets ...... 117

6.1.5 Improving multi-modal transportation ...... 118

6.1.6 Strengthening transportation demand management (TDM) ...... 118

6.1.7 Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero ...... 119

6.1.8 Preparing for new mobility technologies...... 119

6.1.9 Introducing intelligent transportation systems ...... 120

7.0 End Notes - Bibliography ...... 121

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Specific objectives of the ITMP ...... 3 Figure 2. Percentage of employed commuters using transit, cycling and walking in Ajax (historic and goal) ...... 4 Figure 3. Public participation spectrum in consultation ...... 5 Figure 4. Consultation methods ...... 5 Figure 5. Stakeholders engaged during the ITMP process ...... 6 Figure 6. Main mode of commuting for employed labour force (2006-2016) ...... 14 Figure 7. Modal split (trips) by period of day in Ajax (2006-2016) ...... 15 Figure 8. Distribution of trip volumes (all day and peak hour periods) - 2016 ...... 16 Figure 9. Afternoon peak hour (16:30 -17:30) inbound trip volumes -2016 ...... 17 Figure 10. Commuting duration and time leaving for work ...... 18 Figure 11. Ajax active transportation existing network ...... 19 Figure 12. Existing transit network operating in Ajax ...... 21 Figure 13. Existing road network in Ajax ...... 22 Figure 14. Town of Ajax Bicycle Friendly award ...... 24 Figure 15. Wayfinding signage in Ajax ...... 24 Figure 16. #GetAjaxMoving toolkits for walking and biking ...... 25 Figure 17. Sample of trail etiquette sign ...... 25 Figure 18. Sample of the Ajax Active and Safe Routes to School Manual ...... 25 Figure 19. Sample from the Ajax TDM Plan ...... 26 Figure 20. Recently introduced Bus Rapid Transit service PULSE ...... 28 Figure 21. Daily transit trips by transit mode (2006-2016)...... 29 Figure 22. Proximity to a transit stop in Ajax (Fall 2015) ...... 30 Figure 23. GO Rail Lakeshore East Line service ...... 31 Figure 24. Volume over capacity model output (existing conditions a.m. peak hour)...... 32 Figure 25. Bayly Street West intersections existing levels of service ...... 35 Figure 26. Harwood Avenue South intersections existing levels of service ...... 36 Figure 27. Fairall Street and Westney Road South existing level of service ...... 37 Figure 28. Stakeholder workshops, public information events, and online engagement opportunities during ITMP .... 41 Figure 29. Word cloud of key themes processed from approximately 310 comments ...... 42 Figure 30. Distribution of travel modes referenced in comments and ideas (n = 310) ...... 43 Figure 31. Distribution of public feedback grouped by specific transportation topic (n = 310) ...... 43 Figure 32. Geo-location of comments received (n = 300) ...... 44 Figure 33. Mode of travel referenced in stakeholder mapped comment (n = 300) ...... 45 Figure 34. Comments mapped in Ajax identified by marker type (n = 300) ...... 45 Figure 35. Key gaps in existing active transportation network ...... 46 Figure 36. Cycling preferences according to facility types (n = 248) ...... 47 Figure 37. Budget allocation preferences (n = 634) ...... 48 Figure 38. Active transportation implementation priorities (n = 80) ...... 49 Figure 39. Road implementation priorities (n = 80) ...... 50 Figure 40. Ajax's AT Strategy development process ...... 51 Figure 41. Existing and previously proposed active transportation routes ...... 54 Figure 42. Ajax’s Waterfront Trail ...... 56 Figure 43. Candidate AT routes considerations ...... 57 Figure 44. Proposed active transportation network concept ...... 59 Figure 45. OTM Book 18 facility selection process overview ...... 60 Figure 46. Existing multi-use path in Ajax ...... 60 Figure 47. Preferred active transportation network by facility types ...... 61

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Figure 48. Examples of bike boxes in Ontario ...... 67 Figure 49. Green pavement marking and cross-ride at unsignalized intersection of Harwood Avenue and McRae Road, Ajax ...... 68 Figure 50. AODA compliant trails signage in Aurora, ON ...... 69 Figure 51. Accessible trail crossing in Hamilton, ON ...... 69 Figure 52. Ajax's ‘Bike this Way’ signage program ...... 69 Figure 53. Dedicated bus lane adjacent to buffered bike lanes on Kingston Road, Ajax ...... 71 Figure 54. Waste receptacles along the Waterfront Trail, Ajax...... 72 Figure 55. Bicycle parking at Da Vinci Public School, Ajax ...... 73 Figure 56. 2031 population and employment projections allocated by traffic analysis zones (TAZ) ...... 75 Figure 57. Volume over capacity 2031 modelled network scenario comparison ...... 80 Figure 58. Westney Road South and Fairall Street westbound queue analysis ...... 86 Figure 59. Complete Streets: Our goals have changed ...... 88 Figure 60. Example of Complete Streets application on Harwood Avenue South, Ajax ...... 89 Figure 61. Metrolinx mode share forecasts for Ajax GO station ...... 91 Figure 62. Three-pronged approach to travel behaviour change ...... 92 Figure 63. Durham Region Traffic Watch (ATMS) ...... 98 Figure 64. Example of OPP twitter Post ...... 99 Figure 65. Calgary Citizen Dashboard ...... 99 Figure 66. Proposed road classification review (IDs referenced in Table 30)...... 101 Figure 67. 23 metre wide collector roadway cross-section with on-street parking (curb-side) ...... 102 Figure 68. 23-metre-wide collector roadway cross-section with parking ...... 103 Figure 69. Proposed phasing of the active transportation network...... 105 Figure 70. Proposed road improvements phasing...... 108

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. ITMP milestones...... 7 Table 2. Report structure of the ITMP ...... 8 Table 3. Town of Ajax and Region of Durham population data, years 1991 – 2016 ...... 12 Table 4. Town of Ajax, Region of Durham and Province of Ontario population by age group (2016) ...... 13 Table 5. Median total income of households in 2015 ...... 13 Table 6. Inbound, outbound, and internal trips in Ajax - 2016 ...... 16 Table 7. Road class descriptions ...... 23 Table 8. Jurisdiction of main roads ...... 23 Table 9. Active transportation network in Ajax by facility type ...... 27 Table 10. List of intersections analyzed ...... 33 Table 11. Existing levels of service for intersections along Bayly Street West ...... 34 Table 12. Harwood Avenue South intersection levels of service ...... 36 Table 13. Westney Road South and Fairall Street intersection level of service ...... 37 Table 14. Active transportation network development process ...... 52 Table 15. Summary of Ajax's active transportation network (existing and proposed) ...... 62 Table 16. Upgrades to previously proposed AT facility types ...... 62 Table 17. Active transportation facility type considerations ...... 63 Table 18. Regulatory signage for an active transportation network ...... 70 Table 19. Travel demand model evaluation framework ...... 74 Table 20. Population and employment data used for the travel demand model ...... 75 Table 21. Road network scenarios tested with respective road improvements ...... 76 Table 22. Road network model scenario performance metrics ...... 77

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Table 23. Individual proposed road project assessment ...... 78 Table 24. Bayly Street West optimized level of service ...... 82 Table 25. Queue results for Bayly Street West corridor ...... 83 Table 26. Queue results for Harwood Avenue South corridor ...... 84 Table 27. Westney Road South and Fairall Street optimized level of service ...... 85 Table 28. Queue results for Westney Road South corridor ...... 85 Table 29. New mobility audit to assess risk for future road network investments ...... 97 Table 30. New adjustments to the roads classification system in Ajax ...... 101 Table 31. Proposed active transportation network by phase and facility type ...... 106 Table 32. Proposed road improvements phasing of preferred alternative ...... 106 Table 33. Proposed improvements in lane kilometres by phase period and improvement type ...... 107 Table 34. Estimated capital costs to build Ajax’s active transportation routes...... 109 Table 35. Estimated costing for proposed road improvements of preferred alternative ...... 110 Table 36. Estimated costing for proposed road improvements (lane-km) by phase period and improvement type .... 111 Table 37. Multi-modal data collection framework with key indicators ...... 114

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Public consultation and engagement supporting documents Appendix B – Travel demand modelling supporting documents Appendix C – Traffic operations analysis supporting documents Appendix D – Active transportation and road network costing

vii

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 Introduction

The Town of Ajax’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) is a multi-modal planning tool for short, medium, and long-term goals that seeks to continue improving walking, cycling and motorized transportation such as transit, driving, and carpooling in the Town to the year 2031 and beyond. The purpose of the ITMP is to help Ajax address population growth, align the plan with Provincial and Regional government policies, enhance community benefits, respond to new transportation trends, and encourage public engagement and participation in decision- making. Utilizing the 2010 Ajax Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the 2013 Transportation Master Plan, the ITMP strives to merge the two documents into one all-encompassing planning document. The ITMP has been prepared under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process and addresses both Phase 1 (opportunity statement) and Phase 2 (assessment of alternatives). Through three engagement rounds which involved committee workshops, public information centres, online surveys, and council presentations, the Town of Ajax adopted public consultation and engagement as a core component while developing this ITMP. The Town adopted an audience-focussed consultation approach applying qualitative and quantitative data collection methods to maximize the impact of stakeholders’ feedback.

2.0 Existing Conditions

Understanding Ajax’s existing conditions is key to develop a vision for the future. This section includes an analysis of the existing policy framework, Ajax’s socio-economic profile, mobility characteristics, transportation networks (walking, cycling, transit, and road), and current multi-modal operations with the most recent initiatives. Federal, provincial, regional, and local policy framework were summarized to set a baseline for developing the policy recommendations of the ITMP.

3.0 Vision and Stakeholder Engagement

Ajax’s future transportation vision was shaped by residents, stakeholders, Town staff and decision makers. It reflects the priorities and principles that are important to the Town, in its current state and for the future. It clearly defines what the Town intends to achieve for its transportation system and sets the guiding principles for decision-making.

The vision of the Integrated Transportation Master Plan is to enhance the sustainable and multi-modal transportation system for the Town of Ajax by planning, designing, “ constructing and maintaining a community and transportation network that supports pedestrian, cyclists, transit and vehicular traffic. The Town’s transportation system will be accessible to all users and all modes of transportation.

Multiple public consultation and engagement opportunities were offered throughout the” duration of the study. These were published through the project website, social media, and newspaper notices, and consisted of four stakeholder workshops, two public information open houses, two rounds of online surveys, and one presentation to Council. All the comments, input, and feedback from stakeholders and the public were grouped, mapped, and assessed to help inform the recommendations and the ITMP.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

4.0 Recommendations

Using a multi-modal approach that highlights the interaction of non-motorized and motorized modes of transportation, recommendations were made for future walking, cycling and road infrastructure improvements as well as a series of fully-rounded policies to support these.

The recommended improvements to the active transportation network consisted of adding new facilities including off-road trails, multi-use paths, cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes and paved shoulders, regular bike lanes, shared facilities, and sidewalks. Developing Ajax’s future active transportation network involved mapping existing and planned conditions, creating criteria to determining new routes, identifying missing links, and finally confirming preferred routes and facility types. With reference to the most recent design guidelines and standards, the Town can continue to invest in active transportation infrastructure with the most up-to-date and inclusive design considerations to provide safe and context-sensitive solutions. The preferred future active transportation network is illustrated in Figure ES-1.

In conformity with Phase 2 of the MCEA process, the assessment of three alternative future alternatives for Ajax’s road network were studied and evaluated. Existing and future population and employment forecasts were used in a travel demand model that helped to evaluate the different alternatives considered, measured through multiple parameters grouped in three themes including mobility, congestion, and sustainability. The results showed that scenario 2 and 3 would result in less congested roadways but scenario 3 would result in additional capacity and higher costs, but limited benefit to the vehicle traffic flow on the road network. As a result, the preferred network alternative (Scenario 2) represents better network performance and fiscally responsible improvements both medium and long term. The preferred future proposed road network is depicted in Figure ES- 2.

Traffic operations along three road corridors were analyzed in order to provide recommendations to optimize levels of service at major intersections. The three corridors studied included Bayly Street West, Harwood Avenue South, and Westney Road South. Recommended improvements ranged from signal optimization, adding a protected left turn, and extending right turn lanes.

Ajax’s ITMP also provides a toolkit of six policies to support infrastructure investment and help achieve an inclusive, safe, and innovative transportation network. The Complete Streets policy will continue to provide attractive streets that are accessible for users of all ages and abilities. A policy to improving multi-modal operations seeks to reduce car-dependency and congestion while providing alternative travel mode options. The transportation demand management (TDM) policy intends to develop a balanced transportation system that provides a full range of travel choices through infrastructure, programming, education, and marketing of alternative modes of transportation. Through a Vision Zero policy, road safety is emphasized and proposes guidelines to develop a strategy with the goal of eliminating road traffic deaths and serious injuries within the Town. A policy to help prepare for new mobility technologies is also essential with the development of ride-sharing apps, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. Lastly, the toolkit includes a policy to develop a strategic plan to consider intelligent transportation systems as a way to manage assets and optimize transportation operations.

5.0 Implementation Strategy

With the preferred recommended active transportation and road network improvements, the project timeframes were divided into short (generally within four years), medium (generally within 10 years), and long term (generally within 11-20+ years). Estimated costs for both the active transportation network and the road network have been

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

developed to guide and inform future decision making. Opportunities for funding have also been noted. Finally, an integral monitoring strategy with a comprehensive data-collection framework was developed to ensure that infrastructure investments translate into desired benefits and continue to assess the impact of public policy on key mobility trends and indicators.

6.0 Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations

This ITMP consists of recommendations that include physical infrastructure projects, policies, and additional studies to strengthen the Town’s multi-modal transportation network and make the Town “future ready”. The recommendations from the various chapters of the ITMP have been grouped in this section.

Future active transportation network

► Implement the proposed active transportation network illustrated on Figure ES-1.

► Update the Town’s mapping and GIS database on an on-going basis to reflect the most up- to-date conditions and changes to the active transportation network.

► Consider the recommendations to plan, design and implement active transportation infrastructure that accommodate a range of user abilities and ages, and encourage more people to engage in active form of recreation and travel.

► Refer to the latest design guidelines and standards to proceed with the design and implementation of inclusive and comprehensive active transportation infrastructure.

Future road transportation network

► Consider the implementation of Scenario 2 as the preferred alternative for the Town’s future 2031 and beyond road network, which includes thirteen roadways that could help to provide future capacity and enhance connectivity around the Town. Refer to Figure ES-2 for the proposed road improvements and corresponding phasing.

► Monitor traffic conditions to determine whether a possible flyover extension of Audley Road over Highway 401 to Chambers Drive is required at a long-term future date.

► Monitor and evaluate the extension of Clements Road from Green Court to Church Street; and the extension of Williamson Drive from Harwood Avenue to Thackery Drive during the next official plan update. Constructing these links would not be anticipated to result in dramatic improvements of time savings or distance travelled and have a high financial cost risks due to infrastructure grade-separation challenges entailed.

III

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Road operations

► Bayly Street West corridor: o Ask Region to consider optimizing signals at Westney Road South and Bayly Street West. o Add a protected westbound left turn phase on Finley Street and Bayly Street West. o Ask Region to consider optimizing signals at Harwood Avenue South and Bayly Street.

► Harwood Avenue South corridor: o Monitor Harwood Avenue South & Westney Road South / Dreyer Road.

► Westney Road South corridor: o Ask the Region to consider optimizing signals and monitor Westney Road South and Fairall Street. o Monitor the intersection’s southbound right turn lane. o Extend the westbound right turn lane.

Continuing with Complete Streets

► Continue promoting multi-functional street corridors to provide better accessibility and travel options to different users.

► Incorporate the best practice design guidelines available.

► Promote Complete Streets across different Town departments and with private developers to integrate efforts toward a common goal.

► Acknowledge applicability exceptions within the practical, legal, technical, topographical, and financial limitations.

► Apply concepts to all existing, retrofit, and new transportation projects, acknowledging the importance of multi-modal integration, accessibility, safety and streetscape.

Improving multi-modal transportation

► Build accessible sidewalks and bike facilities at transit stops.

► Optimize traffic signals to enhance access to and from the GO station.

► Participate and join efforts for multi-modal initiatives with all levels of government, transit agencies, and private developers.

► Find synergies with the private sector to promote Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to inform users on how to use and benefit from multiple modes to perform a trip.

► Explore the feasibility of a bike-sharing program, with special connections to transit and popular destinations such as schools, libraries, and community centres.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Strengthening transportation demand management (TDM)

► Infrastructure o Monitor regularly the condition and performance of the transportation infrastructure and find mechanisms to channel and process user feedback efficiently. o Integrate land use planning in transportation infrastructure projects to promote development that encourages short-distance trips that are not necessarily dependant on motorized vehicles. o Monitor the progress of smart technologies and be an early adopter of technologies that can make the existing infrastructure more efficient. o Require major private destinations and employers to provide locker rooms and shower facilities for cyclists.

► Promotion o Champions and mentors – Reach out to volunteers or pay community ambassadors to be part of a sustainable travel mentorship program. o Impart sustainable travel lessons to young children by working with police and elementary schools to deliver safe riding programs like Bicycle Rodeos. o Design and promote a Bicycle Mentor Program. o Continue enhancing the network of bicycle-friendly businesses and offer incentives to join the program. o Continue to work with Smart Commute Durham to promote TDM measures and programs in the Town of Ajax.

► Normalization o Strengthen the inclusion of TDM actions in key municipal documents. o Encourage the Province to place a greater onus on drivers with respect to their behaviour in the presence of vulnerable road users, through higher fines for offences. o Neighbourhood retailing - bring back neighbourhood retailing so households may avoid unnecessary long-distance trips; encourage such businesses through tax incentives.

Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero

► Using the Durham Region Road Safety Action Plan as a foundation, develop a Town of Ajax Road Safety Action Plan to provide the road safety goals and directives for preferred countermeasures, community initiatives, pilot studies, and education programs. This plan should be evidence-based by utilizing the collision analysis database to inform its content. To strengthen the Road Safety Action Plan’s resiliency, it should be developed collaboratively across disciplines and contextually to the unique conditions of Ajax’s transportation framework.

► In conjunction with Durham Region and other Regional Municipalities, create a database of KSI collision analysis.

► Develop a Road Safety Management Steering Committee which consists of a broad range of system designers and can inform implementation measures and objectives as the plan develops.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

► Coordinate efforts with Durham Region to strengthen programs and continue to align objectives and data- collections methods.

► Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework for Vision Zero and the Road Safety Action Plan which allows for the continual update of the plan as conditions evolve.

Preparing for new mobility technologies

► Review opportunities for implementing electric charging infrastructure at public parking lots / garages for electric vehicles.

Work with Durham Region to explore establishing a regional working group to track new mobility trends and appropriate policy responses. Members of this working group should include representatives from Durham Region, the local municipalities, Durham Region Transit, Metrolinx, educational institutions, citizen representatives and other relevant industry actors ► Undertake new mobility audits for any major construction investments.

► Provide as much separated cycling infrastructure on major streets as possible to mitigate future conflict between cyclists and AVs.

► Undertake an AVs pilot project.

► Identify areas of the Town where there is an unmet need for better transit service and explore opportunities for a coordinated program with Durham Region Transit and a ride share provider to improve mobility options.

► Explore opportunities to establish a regulatory environment together with Durham Region and Durham Region Transit that integrates micro-transit and ride-sharing services in a manner that complements conventional transit services.

Introducing intelligent transportation systems

► Develop an intelligent transportation systems (ITS) Strategic Plan.

► Determine key data needs and develop a plan to collect or purchase data through data needs assessment.

► Analyze real-time data to understand the performance of the Town’s existing infrastructure and present these data online.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Figure ES-1. Map depicting the existing and proposed future active transportation network

VII

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Figure ES-2. Map of proposed preferred future road network

VIII

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 What is the Integrated Transportation Master Plan?

The Town of Ajax’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) is a dynamic, multi-modal planning tool for the short, medium, and long-term horizons that embraces opportunities to improve walking and cycling and motorized transportation such as transit, driving, and carpooling to the year 2031 and beyond. Instead of addressing these opportunities through two independent plans for non-motorized versus motorized transportation, an integrated plan acknowledges the interrelation of theses modes and their synergies within a single transportation system.

A true multi-modal transportation network is built upon a comprehensive understanding of the existing interactions between all modes that share the street. Often the challenges and opportunities of these modes are not mutually exclusive and their successful interplay sharing the road space depends on coordinated efforts to seamlessly integrate facilities, thus allowing safe, accessible and comfortable usage and transfers between modes for all users. The ITMP is a toolkit with a series of recommendations to achieve a community vision of a well- connected, inclusive, and accessible transportation system that caters to the needs of all users and all modes.

1.2 Conception of an Integrated Transportation Master Plan for Ajax

The Town of Ajax has adopted many useful transportation planning documents in the past. In 2010, the Town adopted Walkable & Bikeable Ajax: the Ajax Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, which focused on building the Town’s Active Transportation (AT) network and related facilities. In 2013, the Town updated its previous Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to provide recommendations for its future road network along with strategies to support multi-modal transportation including transit, goods movement, walking and cycling. The 2013 plan and its implementation strategy had a special focus on the evolution of the road network in the Uptown and Downtown and included active transportation components principally applied to specific locations in these locations.

Leveraging from these past strategic documents, the 2019 ITMP seeks to update and unify these past plans into one holistic planning document. The document amplifies the discussion around the role of active transportation in planning and consolidating a multi-modal network that balances the needs of multiple mode users regardless of age or ability. This integrated approach pays greater emphasis to sustainable modes of travel and builds on current efforts to provide more transportation opportunities for residents and visitors of Ajax. The ITMP also considers what has changed since the previous plans and looks to position the Town to be an early adopter of emerging technology and the latest best practices in transportation planning.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 1

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

1.3 Plan purpose

There are five key reasons why the Town of Ajax is developing an ITMP:

i. Address growth

Ajax continues to experience population growth and with limited greenfield development opportunities. While these trends may continue to exert pressure on the transportation road network capacity, its is also an opportunity to increase mixed land use and promote sustainable modes of transportation such as walking, cycling and transit, which can optimize street space, time and resources.

ii. Align with higher-tier Provincial and Regional policy

Recent policy directives from the provincial government, Durham Region and Metrolinx have all refocused the vision for urban development in Ajax and throughout southern Ontario in a way to better utilize infrastructure investment by optimizing land uses in developed areas and creating hubs that include all modes of transportation. As a result, the Town intends to develop its ITMP to align with these government policies in a manner that addresses the needs of its own growing population and changing community dynamics.

iii. Enhance community benefits

The Town recognizes the benefits of sustainable mobility by planning for all modes of transportation to support the economy, protect the environment, and promote active and healthy lifestyles. Building and maintaining facilities that provide multiple mobility options enhance residents’ opportunities to reach employment, recreational, and educational benefits.

iv. Respond to new transportation trends

The ITMP explores the potential impact of emerging trends in mobility such as ridesharing, electric vehicles, telecommuting, autonomous vehicles, and intelligent transportation systems. It recognizes these new technologies as opportunities to optimize travel demand management and a behavioral shift towards more sustainable modes of transportation. A key intent of this document is to provide recommendations on how the Town may anticipate synergies of these trends with the rest of the transportation system.

v. Encourage public participation in the decision-making process

The ITMP is a document co-created by public and stakeholder engagement that together developed a comprehensive and aspirational community vision to address different user needs and goals. Throughout the engagement, multiple challenges and opportunities were voiced and helped shape the recommendations provided in this plan.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

1.4 Objectives of the ITMP

The main objective of this study is to update and bridge together the Town’s 2010 Ajax Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the 2013 Transportation Master Plan into one single comprehensive and holistic planning document. The goal is to provide a series of recommendations in the form of policies and infrastructure improvements for a fully integrated and multi-modal transportation network in order to accommodate population and employment growth to the year 2031 and beyond.

This plan builds on earlier plans and achievements which have sought to move travellers away from the single occupancy vehicle to more sustainable modes of transportation including transit, cycling and walking. What differentiates this plan from earlier plans is its emphasis on policies and strategies intended to foster real differences in the way people move around. Figure 1 illustrates the specific project goals of the ITMP.

Figure 1. Specific objectives of the ITMP

► Locate network gaps in the walking and cycling network to recommend safe and usable facilities. ► Identify road improvements and provide alternatives for the Town’s road network to meet future demand ► Evaluate existing traffic operations and make recommendations to enhance future performance at key intersections and busy corridors ► Develop practical policies to promote road safety and multi-modal travel ► Formulate recommendations for managing future travel demand and emerging trends ► Recommend active transportation facilities for design, operation and maintenance standards ► Propose an implementation and phasing strategy that integrates active transportation and road improvements ► Organize a data collection framework as part of a monitoring strategy to evaluate results

1.5 What is the modal split goal for Ajax?

The previous 2013 TMP Update set as a goal that transit, cycling and walking will account for 30 percent of all commuter trips by the year 2031.1 This is an ambitious target considering that in the 10-year period between 2006-2016, commuters travelling in sustainable modes grew approximately 3.4 percent (See Figure 2). This represented a moderate annual growth rate between 2006-2011 in sustainable modes of 2.2 percent, but then decreased in the following census period of 2011-2016 to 1.2 percent. This ITMP sets an ambitious but attainable goal to revert the trend to achieve over 2 percent growth between each census years, so that by 2031 the percentage of commuters taking sustainable modes account for around 26 percent, that is, almost 6.5 additional percentage points to the year 2031.

Previous efforts in Ajax to support a more balanced mode split were focused on the development of “Complete Streets”, the introduction of road, transit, cycling, walking and parking strategies in the Downtown and Uptown neighbourhoods, and the development of a transportation demand management plan which recommended promoting education and outreach programs, incentives and disincentive measures, and land use and urban design actions. In order to meet the 2031 goal shown in Figure 2, the Town needs to continue promoting and implementing these initiatives along with new strategies.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

Figure 2. Percentage of employed commuters using transit, cycling and walking in Ajax (historic and goal)2 30.0% 26.4% 25.0% 18.9% 20.1% 20.0% 16.7% 15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

2006 2011 2016 2031 (goal)

1.6 The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process

This ITMP was conducted under the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (October 2000, last amended in October 2015), sets out a methodology in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act for municipal infrastructure projects. Master plans such as this one are required to be consistent with Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, which entail the completion of the following key components:

• Identification of a problem or opportunity statement. ► Phase 1:

• Assessment of alternatives/solutions to address the problem or opportunity statement considering the local context and stakeholders input. • Evaluation of alternatives and identification of preferred solution and ► Phase 2: recommendations. • Selection of preferred alternative and recommendations.

► Public • Engagement throughout Phases 1 and 2 with public representatives and Consultation: stakeholders on preferred solution and recommendations.

1.7 Consultation process

Public consultation and engagement is a core component of the Class EA master plan process. An comprehensive consultation and engagement program was designed and implemented to inform key stages of the Ajax ITMP process. The next subsections provide an overview of the consultation approach, the stakeholders engaged during the study, as well as the project’s principal consultation milestones. A summary of the stakeholder engagement process and the corresponding feedback analysis is provided in Section 3.3. For detailed supporting documentation on this process please refer to Appendix A.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

1.7.1 Approach

A Transportation Master Plan is a communication tool to shape a community vision through dialogue and engagement. Effective consultation provides valuable opportunities to building consensus among stakeholders while empowering them to commit to a plan’s desired outcome. Involving stakeholders from an early stage of a plan helps improve public buy-in for its implementation and amplifies its intended benefits as ideas are enriched and complemented by different actors to address different needs and expectations.

The Town of Ajax adopted an audience-focused consultation approach with the goal of maximizing the impact of stakeholders’ feedback on decision making on the ITMP This was measured based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum (see Figure 3), which is quickly becoming an international standard. A number of public events and online engagement opportunities were held to involve, collaborate, and empower various stakeholders to help inform the recommendations provided in this document.

Figure 3. Public participation spectrum in consultation

Increasing impact on the decision-making

1.7.2 Methods

The consultation and engagement process employed four main methods that steered the design and development of the information presented during the engagement opportunities, as well as the way feedback was reviewed and processed (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Consultation methods

Document & Identify Manage Analyze Incorporate

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

► Identify which audiences will be engaged and assess their communication and engagement preferences.

► Manage the way in which the audiences are involved in the study process to obtain the most relevant and useful feedback.

► Document the input received and develop a method to track the ideas, questions and interests that are generated at key stages in the study.

► Incorporate findings by providing a clear strategy of how input received will inform decision-making.

1.7.3 Stakeholders engaged

The consultation and engagement program was designed with the intention of exchanging ideas with three key audiences:

► Residents and visitors: People who live and work in the Town of Ajax. Visitors who commute to or visit the Town also fall in this category.

► Advisory stakeholders: Local groups and technical agencies who play a direct or indirect role advising, working or collaborating in the Ajax’s transportation affairs.

► Staff and local decision makers: Councillors and Town staff responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the ITMP.

A detailed diagram of the stakeholders who were engaged during the ITMP process is depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Stakeholders engaged during the ITMP process

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

1.7.4 Milestones

Various consultation opportunities were offered throughout the development of Ajax ITMP. The engagement rounds informed each key stage of the master planning process and were designed based on specific objectives. The most relevant milestones and objectives are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. ITMP milestones

November 2017 – February 2018 Objective Engagement Opportunities ► Introduce ITMP objectives and desired ► Notice of Study Commencement goals ► Transportation Advisory Committee ► Draft an opportunity statement and a ► Steering Committee Workshop “working vision” for Ajax’s future (Town Staff) #1 Engagement transportation ► Technical Agencies Workshop #1 Examine challenges, opportunities, and Public Information Centre #1 Round 1 ► ► needs assessment ► Online survey MetroQuest Tool #1 ► Identify gaps, barriers, and opportunities in the road, transit, and active transportation network ► Understand existing conditions and travel patterns March 2018 – May 2018 Objective Engagement Opportunities ► Analyze and summarize findings from ► Transportation Advisory Committee consultation round 1 ► Steering Committee Workshop ► Refine the working “Vision Statement” (Town Staff) #2 ► Present ITMP recommendations on road ► Technical Agencies Workshop #2 Engagement and active transportation improvements ► Public Information Centre #2 and alternatives as well as supporting ► Online survey MetroQuest Tool #2 Round 2 policies ► Identify priorities to consider for draft implementation strategy ► Receive input from stakeholders on how to improve proposed recommendations, and facilities/investment preferences June 2018 – May 2019 Objective Engagement Opportunities ► Analyze and summarize findings from ► Community Affairs and Planning consultation rounds and integrate Committee presentation Engagement feedback ► Public review ► Present ITMP draft report with revised ► Posting of Project File Round 3 recommendations and implementation strategy ► Incorporate any additional feedback from Council, stakeholders and the public

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v. 5.0

1.8 Organization of the report

The ITMP report is organized into six chapters. Table 2 summarizes this structure and the corresponding contents.

Table 2. Report structure of the ITMP

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 Introduces the ITMP stating the purpose, study objectives, planning framework, public consultation approach and key milestones

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Summarizes current planning policies that frame Ajax’s ITMP followed by a presentation of the Town’s socio-economic profile, existing mobility patterns and current transportation network (including active

Chapter 2 transportation). This chapter also reports on recent transportation initiatives and current multi-modal operations.

VISION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Chapter 3 States the vision and principles that guided the recommendations as well as the stakeholder and engagement summary that informed them.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Provides strategic recommendations on policy, active- and road transportation network improvements. This chapter includes the road network travel demand modelling of alternatives and the analytical Chapter 4 process to select a preferred future transportation network. The chapter also provides recommendations to improve traffic operations on three key corridors, active transportation design and maintenance standards, supportive recommendations on travel demand management, as well as guidelines to prepare for emerging future trends.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Details the plan to implement the recommended active transportation Chapter 5 and road improvements according to short-, medium- and long-term horizons, including costs, monitoring plan, and data collection framework.

CONCLUSION

Chapter 6 Provides a summary of key recommendations and next steps.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Chapter overview

This chapter encompasses various aspects of existing conditions related to transportation in the Town of Ajax. First, the most relevant provincial, regional and local policies are summarized to set an analytical framework for the recommendations of the report. Second, key socio-economic and travel characteristics are examined, followed by a detailed review of the active transportation, road, and transit network. Lastly, multi-modal operations are assessed including key performance and network indicators of the system. The content of this chapter is meant to provide a picture of existing transportation challenges and opportunities that will inform, together with key stakeholder feedback and robust technical analysis, the recommendations of the ITMP.

2.2 Policy framework

All levels of government are challenging the Town of Ajax and other municipalities across Ontario to play a significant role in reducing single-occupancy car trips for commuting. Federal, Provincial, Regional, and Town policies have been written to promote less dependence on driving as the main commuting mode and moving towards a balanced use of alternative and more sustainable transportation modes. The most relevant policies to Ajax are listed and summarized below.

2.2.1 Federal

► National Vision for Urban Transit to 2020 (2001): This policy proposed a new direction for urban transit policy in Canadian communities, featuring a reduced level of motorized travel per person; less dependence on the private automobile; and more accessible transit service as widely available as possible.

► Federal Sustainable Development Act (FDSA) (2008): The FDSA sets a policy precedent at the federal level, asking other orders of government to take sustainability seriously, both in their own actions and the types of economic and development-related decisions they make within their jurisdictions.

2.2.2 Provincial

► CycleON - Ministry of Transportation Cycling Strategy (2013): The Cycling Strategy outlines a 20-year vision for cycling in the province, with proposed cycling infrastructure, education and legislation. The strategy acknowledges the importance of developing cycling facilities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ease gridlock, benefit the economy, increase tourism and increase the quality of life for the residents of Ontario. The Province’s vision is to ultimately “develop a safe cycling network that connects the province, for collision rates and injuries to continue to drop, and for everyone from the occasional user to the daily commuter to feel safe when they get on a bicycle in Ontario.”

► Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (2014): The PPS sets the foundation for regulating land use planning and development within Ontario, promoting land use patterns that support “a mix of housing, including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and transportation choices that increase the use of active transportation and transit before other modes of travel.” Transportation systems as defined in the PPS consist of corridors and rights-of-way used for the movement of people and goods as well as associated transportation facilities, including cycling lanes and park and ride lots.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 9

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

► GO Rail Station Access Plan (2016): This document provides strategic direction to accommodate growing demand in response to the Provincial commitment to Regional Express Rail (RER), which will put pressure on existing GO services and rail network. The main guidelines are set to increase multi-modal access at GO stations, managing demand for new parking, supporting transit-oriented development, promoting cost effectiveness, among others. The Plan expects doubling the system’s demand by 2031.

► Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe – Places to Grow (2017 Update): This plan directs much future growth to traditional downtown communities where it believes that the potential for intensification is highest. In Durham Region, those downtown areas are in Whitby and Pickering, while Ajax is identified as a Delineated Built-up Area. This means the Town must develop a strategy to achieve a certain intensification target (a minimum of 60 percent of all residential development occurring annually within delineated built-up area) and prioritize planning, infrastructure investment and public service facilities to support that intensification. It must also work with the Region to maximize the size of the area and the number of potential transit users (residents and employees) within walking distance of the Ajax GO station.

► 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (2018): The Metrolinx 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) outlines the coordination plan between government and transit agencies to further enhance and build an integrated public transportation system in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, with some projects reaching further beyond this geographic region. The Town of Ajax can significantly benefit from the proposals outlined within the RTP such as the provision of 15-minute two-way, all day rail service on the Lakeshore East Line as well as investment in the Durham Region Transit PULSE system, a bus rapid transit system. These investments will help the Town to work towards increasing the sustainable modal share.

2.2.3 Regional

► Durham Region Official Plan (2017): The plan sets the policy framework to guide future investment to the year 2031 and beyond. It aligns with future population and employment forecasts for this horizon and includes policies to enhance the quality of life and employment opportunities; strategies for future sustainable land development, measures to protect significant natural assets and agricultural lands, mechanisms to improve transportation linkages locally and with adjacent areas, among others. Many of the key transportation linkages include main arterial roads in Ajax.

► Durham Regional Cycling Plan (2012): The plan has a 20-year implementation horizon for a comprehensive, long term, commuter and recreational bicycle network, including key corridors in Ajax. Key recommendations include:

o A financing arrangement in which the Region remains responsible for all capital costs and maintaining on-road facilities on key Regional roads, while area municipalities maintain off-road, multi-use paths on Regional Roads; o The development of a communications strategy to ensure consistency in cycling messaging and policy across jurisdictions;

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

o Consideration of constructing off-road facilities outside of the Region’s road construction plan to close gaps and connect routes in the Cycling Network; and o Establishing partnerships with adjacent municipalities to fund and connect cycling routes beyond regional boundaries.

► Durham Transportation Master Plan (2017): The plan recognizes new regional population and employment targets of 970,000 and 360,000, respectively, with the goal to optimize existing infrastructure while also investing in new infrastructure where appropriate. Specifically, the plan outlines new high-level targets for mode share to 2031, and identifies corridors that require expansion, increased transit service, and improved AT connections; including numerous located in Ajax.

2.2.4 Local

► Ajax Official Plan (2016): The plan provides strategic direction on a series of key items to sustain a healthy population and a competitive workforce through land use designations; housing and employment opportunities; open spaces; and recreational and community facilities. In terms of transportation, it provides clear guidelines on the road system classification, parking, roads within the Downtown, active transportation, and support on the railway and transit system.

► Ajax Transportation Master Plan (2013): This document sets the stage for strategic transportation planning to the year 2031 for the Town. A major component included developing the preferred transportation road network and individual projects including: Hunt St., Finley Ave., Audley Rd. extension, Achilles Rd. extension, Harwood Ave. widening, Church St. widening, Rossland Rd. widening, and additional Downtown and Uptown improvements. The plan also emphasized transportation supportive strategies such as adopting a Complete Streets Policy, multimodal recommendations for specific locations in up/down-town, as well as traffic calming and school crossings warrants. Emphasis of this master plan was to identify strategies to encourage alternatives to the personal automobile and to raise the percentage of trips by transit and other sustainable modes.

► Ajax Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2010): The master plan details strategies for walking and cycling by focusing on key components including making pedestrian and cycling infrastructure visible through signage, wayfinding, and on-road markings. Emphasis was placed around Pickering Village, the Town Centre, areas with high pedestrian traffic, and key pedestrian crossings. The plan suggested connections to the trail system to connect neighbourhoods to key recreational destinations as well as filling in the gaps of sidewalks along the collector and arterial roadways. The proposed infrastructure improvements were supported by an array of policies, practices, and programs to encourage and reward walking and cycling as the way to help advocacy and commuter groups.

► Ajax Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (2015): This plan adds to the Town’s efforts to increase the modal share of sustainable modes through a series of education and outreach programs, incentives and disincentive measures, and land use and urban design actions. In the short and medium term, the TDM Plan recommends 25 actions to encourage more sustainable travel behaviour including supportive actions such as enhanced partnerships with agencies, organizations and businesses throughout Durham Region.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.2.5 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

► Trail Strategy (2018): In 2018, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) developed the Trail Strategy that serves as a framework to shape the planning, development and management of the landscape and trail network. This document seeks to acquire, protect and enhance natural assets while connecting people to nature. It provides the purpose, vision, strategic objectives, initiatives and actions and implementation guidelines to shape and direct the plan and develop 1,100 kilometres of regional trails for the Greater Toronto Region. It also identifies key challenges and benefits of the trail network as well as classifies the various trail typologies to provide an overview of the different components and their unique contributions to the overall network.

2.2.6 Benefits of conformity

The benefits of producing an ITMP that conforms to these policy directions lie in the support the Town is likely to receive from partners at other levels of government. Working in parallel with the planning and transportation initiatives undertaken by Durham Region and the Province of Ontario provides opportunities related to funding support, service improvements, and other complementary future projects from higher orders of government. It also establishes a basis for positive and mutually-supportive relationships among levels of government working towards common goals related to improved mobility, sustainability, and growth management.

2.3 Socio-economic profile

2.3.1 Population

The Town of Ajax has witnessed significant growth in the last three decades. In 2016, the population reached approximately 120,000 inhabitants. This is twice as many people as there were in 1991 and 10,000 more than just five years ago. The latter demonstrates a population percentage change of 9.2 percent since 2011; which is a considerable increase when compared to the Region’s 6.2 percent change in the same period. Table 3 summarizes the historic population for the Town of Ajax and the Region.

Table 3. Town of Ajax and Region of Durham population data, years 1991 – 20163 Town of Ajax Region of Durham Year Population Population 1991 57, 350 409,070 1996 64, 430 458,616 2001 73, 753 506,901 2006 90,167 561,258 2011 109, 600 608,135 2016 119,677 645,862

In terms of age classification, approximately 69 percent of Ajax’s population fall in the standard labour force age group. The remaining 20 and 11 percent correspond to children-young teenagers and senior population age groups, respectively (see Table 4). While comparatively similar, Ajax has slightly higher young-, and lower senior- age population groups when compared to the Region and Province. This classification is relevant to transportation planning as often the young and senior groups may experience more limited mobility options such as the ability to legally operate vehicles, and/or physical capability to access other travel mode choices. The ITMP recognizes the needs of all age groups, especially the more vulnerable ones, by planning to provide facilities and travel options for all ages and abilities.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 4. Town of Ajax, Region of Durham and Province of Ontario population by age group (2016)4 Age Town of Ajax Region of Durham Province of Ontario Group Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Population Population Population (years) Population Population Population 0 -14 23,660 20% 116,185 18% 2,207,975 16% 15 – 64 82,890 69% 436,895 68% 8,988,870 67% 65+ 13,131 11% 92,797 14% 2,251,662 17% Total 119,681 100% 645,877 100% 13,448,507 100%

2.3.2 Income and employment

Income in the context of transportation planning is an important variable influencing modal choice, trip frequency and car ownership. In 2016, the average household size in Ajax was of 3.2 persons and the median household income in 2015 nearly $97,000, which is nearly 30-38 percent above the Ontario and national medians, respectively (see Table 5). While there are many factors influencing modal choice, numerous studies suggest that higher car ownership responds strongly to rising incomes. This may partly explain why in Ajax the rate of car ownership is 20 percent higher than the GTHA. In 2011, there were 1.8 vehicles per household in Ajax, compared to 1.5 per household in the GHTA as a whole5.

Table 5. Median total income of households in 20156 Area Population Median Household Income ($) Town of Ajax 119,677 96,945 Ontario 13,448,494 74,287 Canada 35,151,728 70,336

Ajax residents enjoy many employment opportunities. According to the 2016 Census, around 92 percent of the labour force (approximately 61,900 people) is employed. Most common occupations are related to sales and services (~24 percent), business and administration (~19 percent), along with trades and transportation (~13 percent). Furthermore, most of the employed labour force works in industries related to retail, health/social care, and finance/insurance with 11, 10, and 10 percent, respectively. Many of these industries and occupations rely on efficient supply-chains and transportation logistics, which is why it is important to make sure the transportation network supports their performance.

2.4 Existing mobility characteristics

The Town of Ajax supports an inter-connected multi-modal road network. The system of roads, multi-use trails, sidewalks and cycling facilities accommodate trips from residential nodes to employment, commercial, and recreational destinations. This section analyzes modal split and trip volume origin-destination data.

2.4.1 Modal split

Modal split is a useful indicator to show the proportion of people or trips using a certain mode of transportation to travel. Two known primary sources provide this information: 1) Main mode of commuting for the employed labour force provided every 5 years by the Census (see Figure 6); and 2) Number of trips by mode, source of origin/destination 7 , and time of day provided every 5 years by University of Toronto’s Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (TTS). (see Figure 7).

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

While results between sources may slightly vary due to the nature of the unit of measure (people versus trips, respectively) and the sample population that qualified for the survey, overall trends remain consistent. As observed in Figure 6, in 2016 approximately 74 percent of the employed commuters still relied on single- occupancy vehicles to go to work. This is similar to the TTS data depicted in Figure 7 which indicates that all-day inbound, outbound and internal trips on this mode corresponds to 71 percent, with a spike of 74 percent, respectively, during the afternoon peak period (16:00 – 19:00). The most striking but positive fluctuation in this mode happens in the morning peak period (6:00 – 9:00) where single occupancy vehicle share decreases to 67 percent.

In terms of carpooling, according to the Census data, the trend in time from 2006 to 2016 shows that the share decreased from 8 to 6 percent, respectively. Although percentage totals vary, this decreasing trend is consistent with TTS data where all-day inbound and outbound carpool trip share declined from 17 to 15 percent in the same 10-year period. Nevertheless, both Census and all-day TTS data show that the 2016 modal share in private vehicles as driver and passenger account together between 80 – 86 percent of the modal split.

Transit shows the most variation among data sources during different times of the day. While the Census reports that transit is an important mode for employed commuters with 17 percent of the share; TTS data only suggests that it adds to 8 percent of all-day trips (Durham Region Transit, GO Transit or a combination of the two). This percentage share is higher during both morning (9 percent) and afternoon (10 percent) commuting periods.

Walking and cycling have yet to play a significant commuting mode as only 3 percent of commuters seem to utilize these modes according to the 2016 Census data. TTS trip data suggests that cycling and walking play a more significant role, as all-day trips account 4 percent of the of mode share and climb up to 7 percent during the morning peak period (6:00 – 9:00). The latter could be explained by internal trips made walking and cycling to school during the day (which is not accounted in the Census employed commuter data). Conversely, the evening peak period shows a substantial decline in this mode (2 percent). It is also noteworthy that TTS school bus trips conform most of the “Other” category during the morning peak period, and so it adds to 4 percent of trips.

Figure 6. Main mode of commuting for employed labour force (2006-2016) 100% 3% 3% 3% 17% 16% 14% 80% 6% 6% 8%

60%

40% 74% 75% 75%

20%

0% 2016 2011 2006

Car, truck, van, as driver Car, truck, van, as passenger Public transit Walked or bicycled

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 7. Modal split (trips) by period of day in Ajax (2006-2016)8

All Day (24 h) 100% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 8% 8% 6% 80% 15% 17% 17%

60%

40% 71% 69% 70%

20%

0% 2016 2011 2006 Morning Peak Period (6 - 9 am) 100% 4% 3% 3% 7% 6% 8% 10% 12% 10% 80% 12% 13% 13%

60%

40% 67% 66% 66%

20%

0% 2016 2011 2006 Afternoon Peak Period (4 - 7 pm) 1% 1% 1% 100% 2% 1% 1% 9% 9% 8% 80% 14% 17% 17%

60%

40% 74% 72% 73%

20%

0% 2016 2011 2006

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.4.2 Trip volumes

The most recent TTS data (2016) suggests that approximately 288,900 trips are made in Ajax in one typical weekday. These include trips from Ajax to other neighboring regional municipalities including Durham, York, Peel, and Toronto; and vice versa. The all-day volume distribution of inbound, outbound, and internal trips remains even (33, 34, and 33 percent, respectively). Two important peaks occur in the morning (7:30 – 8:30) and afternoon (16:30 – 17:30); these two periods are when the transportation network hosts the most number of trips in all modes, especially outbound trips in the morning (41 percent) and inbound trips in the afternoon (52 percent). Internal trips in the morning peak hour are nearly double to those in the afternoon counterpart. Table 6 and Figure 8 summarize these findings.

Table 6. Inbound, outbound, and internal trips in Ajax - 20169 Total trips Total trips Direction Total trips (all day) (morning peak hour: 7:30 – (afternoon peak hour: 16:30 – 8:30) 17:30) Inbound 96,200 6,300 14,600 (exc. internal) Outbound 96,500 13,100 7,200 (exc. internal) Ajax Internal 96,200 12,300 6,100 TOTAL 288,900 31,700 27,900

Figure 8. Distribution of trip volumes (all day and peak hour periods) - 2016 All Day Morning peak hour Afternoon peak hour (24 h) (7:30- 8:30) (16:30 - 17:30)

20% 22% 33% 33% 39%

52% 26% 41% 34%

2.4.3 Trip origin and destination

Transportation trips are cyclical, and their origin and destination generally respond to commuting patterns. The afternoon peak hour (16:30 – 17:30), as illustrated in Figure 8, shows the highest number of trips in one direction (14,600 - 52 percent). This suggest that this is probably the busiest time of the network for commuters heading back to Ajax. These trips start at different origins and their volumes are depicted in Figure 9. The greatest attractor of trips corresponds to Toronto (excluding downtown) with 32 percent of inbound trips, followed by Downtown Toronto (16 percent), and Pickering (14 percent).

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 9. Afternoon peak hour (16:30 -17:30) inbound trip volumes -2016

2.4.4 Commute duration

During a typical weekday, Ajax experiences approximately 35,000 outbound trips between 6:00 – 9:00, and 34,000 inbound between 16:00 – 19:00. These likely represent the two “commuter waves”, respectively, with an expected higher commuting-time duration since the nature of the trips implies crossing the Town’s boundaries. As illustrated by Figure 10, in 2016 only 38 percent of employed commuters had travelled under 30 minutes, compared to 56 percent in Ontario as a whole. Meanwhile, more than one in four (26 percent) of all commutes lasted an hour or more, compared to just 12 percent for Ontario. This may imply planning to leave for work at an earlier hour than other Ontarians, which explains why one in three Ajax commuters (29 percent) leave for work before 7 a.m., while for Ontario this ratio was closer to 24 percent. Commuting duration and time leaving work is relevant as they are variables influencing the quality of life of residents. As indicated in Ajax’s TDM Plan on commute perceptions, most respondents said they would like more time with family, less stress, more free time and spend less on travel10.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 10. Commuting duration and time leaving for work Commuting Duration Time Leaving for Work Ajax and Ontario (2016) Ajax and Ontario (2016) 35% 30% 32%

26% 30% 26% 25% 27% 22% 24% 25% 20% 22% 21% 20% 20% 20% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 12% 12% 12% 10% 10% 10% 8% 7%

5% 5%

0% Less than 15 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 0% 15 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes Between 5 Between 6 Between 7 Between 8 Between 9 and over a.m. and a.m. and a.m. and a.m. and a.m. and 5:59 a.m. 6:59 a.m. 7:59 a.m. 8:59 a.m. 11:59 a.m. Ajax Ontario Ajax Ontario

2.5 Existing transportation networks

This section summarizes the existing network of roads, routes, and facilities of Ajax’s multi-modal transportation network. These are divided according to travel mode and the corresponding main features have been highlighted.

2.5.1 Active transportation network

Ajax is recognized as a leader in Durham Region both in the quantity and quality of active transportation facilities provided. The Town’s existing active transportation network consists of pedestrian sidewalks, multi-use trails, multi-use paths, cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes, bike lanes, and shared facilities. Ajax’s multi-use trail corridors include Duffins Creek, Millers Creek, Carruthers Creek and the Lake Ontario waterfront. For a detailed review of cycling and pedestrian facility types by kilometres covered, please refer to Section 2.6.1. The Town’s current Official Plan states that sidewalks be provided on both sides of new roads greater than 300 metres in length within the urban boundary; and on one side where roads are less than 300 metres in length. Furthermore, the plan stipulates that road widenings and new road construction projects include provision for cycle tracks, on-street bicycle lanes, and multi-use trails within the boulevard where appropriate.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 11. Ajax active transportation existing network

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.5.2 Transit network

Local and regional transit services in Ajax are provided by Durham Region Transit (DRT) and GO Transit. The Ajax GO Station provides connections between DRT bus routes operating locally and the GO Rail Lakeshore East line and GO feeder bus services. DRT bus services include 13 routes that operate in the Town including the “PULSE” bus-rapid high-frequency line that runs on Kingston Road/Highway 2 between downtown Oshawa and Pickering, with continuing service to Scarborough. Ajax’s transit network is depicted in Figure 12.

Local transit service provides a critical element of the transportation system in the Town of Ajax. Many residents in Ajax utilize this sustainable mode of transportation in their daily commutes and trips. Continued improvements to this service will help achieve municipal and regional mode share targets and support the vision for a sustainable future. Continuing to identify transit improvements in conjunction with walking and cycling improvements will help strengthen the connection between these sustainable transportation modes and allow residents to understand their local and regional transportation options.

The Durham Regional Official Plan identifies a Transit Priority Network. This network is responsible for providing inter-municipal transit service. The Highway 2 / Kingston Road Rapid Transit Spine provides regional east-west service with high projected ridership beyond 2031. It connects municipalities, regional centres and major employment and population nodes. Coordinating regional and local municipalities’ planning and implementation process to protect the right-of-way for future BRT service is outlined in the Durham Region Official Plan.

A High Frequency Network is also identified in the Transit Priority Network. By 2031, this network is expected to consist of transit vehicles operating in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and shared lanes with transit frequencies of 10 minutes or less in the peak hours. Roads in Ajax that are identified on this network include Taunton Road, Rossland Road, Westney Road (from Bayly Street to Highway 407), Harwood Avenue (from Bayly Street to Kingston Road) and Bayly Street.

The above Transit Priority Network is characterized in the Regional Official Plan with Policy 11.3.18, which outlines that development adjacent to Transit Spines and the High Frequency Network shall provide for:

► Complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context in accordance with Policy 8A.2.9; ► Buildings oriented towards the street, to reduce walking distances to transit facilities; ► Facilities which support non-auto modes including: drop off facilities, bus bays, bus loop, bus shelters, walkways, trails and other pedestrian and cycling facilities; and ► Limited surface parking and the potential redevelopment of existing surface parking.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 12. Existing transit network operating in Ajax

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.5.3 Road network

Ajax’s road network includes a Provincial Highway (401), arterial road types A, B, and C, collector and local roads. The road network in the Town is shown in Figure 13. A succinct description of each road class and jurisdiction can be found in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. When planning and designing proposed Town roads, consideration should be given to protecting space requirements within the right-of-way for future transit facilities including transit stops and connections to them. As new growth areas are identified in the Town, staff will communicate this information with Durham Region Transit so that they are able to plan for future service enhancements to service these areas as appropriate.

Figure 13. Existing road network in Ajax

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 7. Road class descriptions

Classification Role / Function Characteristics - Traffic movement a primary consideration > 10,000 AADT Type ‘A’ Arterial - Connects with freeways and arterials 70-80 km/h - Inter-regional and inter-municipal trips 36-45m right-of-way - Traffic movement a primary consideration 5,000 - 40,000 AADT Type ‘B’ Arterial - Connects with freeways, arterials and collectors 70-80 km/h - Inter and intra-municipal trips 30-36m right-of-way - Traffic movement slightly more important than land access 4,000 – 20,000 AADT Type ‘C’ Arterial - Connects with arterials, collectors and limited local road access 50-60 km/h - Intra-municipal trips 26-30m right-of-way 1,000 – 3,000 AADT - Collecting and distributing traffic from local roads to other collectors Collector 50 km/h and/or Type ‘C’ Arterials 20-26m right-of-way 0 – 1,000 AADT - Provide access to individual abutting properties. Roads are designed Local 40-50 km/h to carry low traffic volumes 17-23m right-of-way

Table 8. Jurisdiction of main roads

Jurisdiction Roadway Classification Ministry of Highway 401 Provincial Highway Transportation Bayly Street (RR 22) Type ‘A’ Arterial Lake Ridge Road (RR 23) (northern Town limits to Bayly Type ‘A’ Arterial Street) Region of Taunton Road (RR 4) Type ‘A’ Arterial Durham Church Street (RR 24) (South of Highway 401 to Bayly Street) Type ‘B’ Arterial Kingston Road (Highway 2) Type ‘B’ Arterial Salem Road (RR 41) (Taunton Road to Bayly Street) Type ‘B’ Arterial Westney Road (RR 31) Type ‘B’ and ‘C’ Arterial Types ‘B’ and ‘C’ Arterials, Town of Ajax All remaining Roads Collector Roads and Local Roads Note 1: Church Street (Regional Road 24) from Highway 401 to Kingston Road (Regional Highway 2) was to be transferred to the Town of Ajax in 2013/14 Note 2: Salem Road from Chambers Drive to Taunton Road was transferred to the Region in 2012. Note 3: Harwood Avenue from Kingston Road to Lake Ontario was transferred from the Region to the Town in 2012.

2.5.4 Goods movement

The Town supports goods movement by working with the Region to promote designated truck routes and goods movement corridors. In the Region’s 2017 TMP, there are three Regional roads in Ajax which are part of the Region’s Strategic Goods Movement Corridor. They include Taunton Road, Bayly Street, and Lake Ridge Road.

Bayly Street is a key east-west arterial road through the Town of Ajax. It travels directly through the Town’s Downtown, which is a unique area where development is intended to be compact, urban, intensive, mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented and accessible. Working with the Region, the Town will work to ensure

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 the vision and goals for Downtown Ajax are not hampered by the designation of Bayly Street as a goods movement corridor.

The Town is also a stakeholder in the environmental assessments that the Ministry of Transportation is undertaking regarding widening, long-term rehabilitation and operational needs of the Highway 401 corridor through Ajax.

2.6 Current multi-modal operations

This section addresses the existing transportation facilities within the Town, covering active transportation, transit and the road network.

2.6.1 Existing active transportation facilities review

Recent initiatives Since completing the 2013 Transportation Master Plan and the 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Town of Ajax has implemented a number of initiatives to help encourage more users to engage in active forms of travel and recreation. The following section provides a summary of the Town’s successes related to the promotion and outreach of active transportation and recreation in Ajax. Bicycle Friendly Community In 2010, the Town was awarded a Bicycle Friendly Community Bronze designation from Share the Road Cycling Coalition. In 2017, this designation was upgraded to a Silver award (see Figure 14). In 2018, the Town was a funding partner of the 2018 Cycling Survey run by Share the Road Cycling Coalition. This survey is an important study which highlights public support and demand for improved cycling conditions in Ontario. Figure 14. Town of Ajax Bicycle Friendly award

Bike This Way Pilot Project The pilot is a wayfinding project intended to help cyclists navigate between downtown Ajax and Ajax GO Station. The key goals of the pilot project are to: encourage active travel between downtown Ajax and Ajax GO Station; reduce greenhouse gas emission and traffic congestion; and improve the visibility of the cycling network and educate drivers to share the road with cyclists. Examples of the wayfinding signage and illustrated in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Wayfinding signage in Ajax

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

#GetAjaxMoving #GetAjaxMoving is the Town’s transportation awareness campaign intended to provide residents with information they need to walk and cycle around Ajax. As part of the initiative, a set of toolkits and resources were developed for different transportation modes and travel considerations including walking, biking, transit, carpooling, telecommuting, and school and winter travel. Examples of the toolkits are depicted in Figure 16. Several outreach events have also been undertaken by Town staff to promote active transportation including Bike to School Week, Winter Walk Day and Walktober. Figure 16. #GetAjaxMoving toolkits for walking and biking

Trail Etiquette The Town has implemented a number of signs along the Waterfront Trail to inform users of proper and safe use along the off-road trails. There are currently 11 locations along the Waterfront Trail that contain Trail Etiquette signs. The signs include information to remind users to keep right, slow down to pass, give audible warning, control speeds, keep dogs on minimal leash length and to be courteous. A sample of the Trail Etiquette sign that is implemented along the Waterfront Trail is displayed in Figure 17.

Active and Safe Routes to School Figure 17. Sample of trail etiquette sign The Town has undertaken the Active and Safe Routes to School program to encourage students to engage in active forms of travel such as walking and cycling. As part of this initiative, a manual was created as a resource to guide teachers and school administrations to establish an Active and Safe Routes to school program. The manual provides guidance on how to set up the program, potential events / initiatives and next steps. A sample of the manual is illustrated in Figure 18. The Town promotes annual town- wide active school travel campaigns that encourage schools to collect data on how students get to/from school. In 2018 the Town started working with four schools in town to Figure 18. Sample of the Ajax Active and Safe Routes develop personalized School Travel Plans. to School Manual

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Additional initiatives In addition to these initiatives, the Town has invested in a number of supportive programs and policies including Complete Streets, Transportation Demand Management actions (Figure 19) and a School Crossing Guard Strategy. Collectively, these initiates are intended to improve conditions for walking and cycling in the Town of Ajax and encourage users to engage in active forms of travel and recreation more often.

Figure 19. Sample from the Ajax TDM Plan

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Facilities review

The Town’s existing active transportation network includes facilities to accommodate pedestrians, cycling and multi-use purposes. In total, there are 582.9 kilometres of existing active transportation routes. The network is comprised of approximately 187.7 kilometres of cycling and multi-use facilities and approximately 395.2 kilometres of pedestrian facilities. Table 9 summarizes facility types and total lengths by their respective facility class.

Table 9. Active transportation network in Ajax by facility type Facility Class Facility Type Length (km)

Designated Facilities Bike Lane 25.8

Typically, on roads with low to moderate traffic volumes and speeds whereby cyclists have a designated space on the road. Buffered Bike Lane 8.1

Cycle Track 0.2

Separated Facilities

Typically, along higher traffic volume, Multi-use Path (In-Boulevard higher speed roads whereby the cyclists 31.2 are physically separated from the road. A Trail) separated facility can also include an off- road route that is located out of the road right-of-way.

Off Road Trail 93.7

Shared Facilities

Typically, on low traffic volume, low Shared Facility 28.7 speed roads whereby cyclists and motorists share the road space.

Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk 395.2

Total Active Transportation Network 582.9

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.6.2 Transit operations review

Recent initiatives

Transit services in Ajax, provided by Durham Region Transit (DRT) and GO Transit, have recently seen numerous changes and improvements. In June 2013, through Metrolinx and Durham Region funding, DRT launched its Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit service PULSE on Highway 2 connecting the University of Toronto (Scarborough Campus) to Downtown Oshawa (see Figure 20). The route serves Ajax and includes a 1.1 km exclusive lane from east of Salem Road to west of Harwood Avenue. Constant improvements in other bus routes have followed in 2017, such as the added changes to Routes 225 and 915 in the Town to provide 30-minute or better headway service. These routes intersect with the PULSE line which also offers 30-minutes or better frequencies on a 20- hour daily basis, with 10-min or better headways during weekday peak and mid-day periods. Additionally, Durham Transit also recently widened Bayly Street for improved bus service on this major corridor.

Figure 20. Recently introduced Bus Rapid Transit service PULSE11

Ajax’s GO Station services have also seen numerous improvements. Since 2013, new facilities have been implemented including a parking structure with approximately 1,300 parking spaces, a “kiss-and-ride” lot, and a snow-melting system at the platform and bus shelters. Furthermore, Ajax’s GO Rail station began generating solar power in 201412, becoming one of Metrolinx’s four stations that together generate 1,000 kW annually. In 2017, a new pedestrian bridge at Ajax GO Station was opened connecting the north and south parking lots over Fairall Street, benefiting pedestrians and enhancing overall access for motorists as well.

Transit signal priorities are currently being considered and evaluated along the Kingston Road / Highway 2 corridor. This technology is intended to improve local and regional transit wait times and could serve to inform the implementation of the technology at other key locations, such as the area surrounding the Ajax GO Station.

Operations review

In 2016, Ajax recorded approximately 21,800 daily transit trips13. This number includes all inbound, outbound, and internal transit trips made in different transit modes including GO Train, local transit (DRT), and joint trips which include a mixture of both. As seen in Figure 21, between 2006 and 2011 transit trips increased by around 50 percent, but the next five-year survey period showed a small decrease of 8 percent. This trend is consistent with 28

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 overall DRT ridership data which also saw a decrease in 2015-2016 as a result of a teacher’s strike that impacted student demand during April and May of 2016, as well as some significant route changes and a fare increase14.

The highest percentage increase between these transit modes was in GO Rail trips between 2006 and 2011, with a 60 percent jump from approximately 4,600 to 7,500 trips; in 2016, this number dropped to 5,900 trips. Likewise, between 2008 and 2013, boardings at Ajax Station grew by 32 percent - a much higher figure when compared to neighbouring counterparts Whitby (25 percent) and Oshawa (21 percent)15. Local transit continues to be the preferred transit mode among more than half of Ajax transit users, likely due to its coverage and since over 80 percent of dwellings in Ajax are within 400 metres or less to a transit stop (see Figure 22). In this sense, local transit in this period increased its transit share from 47 to 52 percent. In this regard, GO Train daily trips decreased from 30 to 27 percent. It is important to acknowledge that while the number of transit trips has grown in Ajax between 2006 - 2016, the travel market share of transit, as a percentage of all trips has remained the same, with 10 percent of the overall modal share during the morning commute period of 6:00 – 9:0016.

Figure 21. Daily transit trips by transit mode (2006-2016)17

25,000 23,640

21,805 22%

20,000 21%

15,633 31% 15,000 27% 23%

30% 10,000

47% 52%

5,000 47%

- 2006 2011 2016 Joint Trip (GO rail and local transit) 3,568 5,151 4,513 GO Train 4,658 7,452 5,868 Local Transit 7,407 11,037 11,424

Local Transit GO Train Joint Trip (GO rail and local transit)

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 22. Proximity to a transit stop in Ajax (Fall 2015) 18

Westney Rd. Westney Salem Rd. Salem Taunton Rd.

Rossland Rd.

Kingston Rd.

Bayly St.

In terms of rail operations, there are 41 weekday trips in the GO Rail Service along the Lakeshore East line that run from downtown Oshawa to Union Station and 39 weekday trips in the opposite direction. The Lakeshore East line (see Figure 23) is the second most heavily used inter-regional rail line in the GTHA, carrying 52,000 passengers on an average weekday in 2014. In 2016, Ajax GO Station alone was origin and/or destination station to approximately 5,900 trips19. This suggests that more people use rail transit to work outside Ajax than people who take rail to work in the Town. According to GO Rail Station Access Plan, current station access mode split includes walking (4 percent), riding local transit (18 percent), cycling (1 percent), pick-up/drop-off (15 percent), “park and ride” (55 percent), and carpooling (5 percent).

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 23. GO Rail Lakeshore East Line service20

Ajax GO Rail station plays an important role in the Lakeshore East Line. Approximately 5,900 daily trips are conducted in GO Rail to and from Ajax (2016)

2.6.3 Travel demand model

The Region’s travel demand model that was prepared as part of the Region’s 2017 TMP was utilized to evaluate existing roadway traffic conditions specific to Ajax. The model is primarily a tool to measure capacity and any deficiencies on a north-south or east-west basis. The assessment of the road network is based on a volume to capacity (v/c) calculation, where the assumed capacity of the travel lanes is compared to the volumes of vehicles using the travel lanes. The existing conditions model specific to Ajax was validated using statistical methods, including the coefficient of determination (R2 value) and the maximum desirable percent error. For details on the model validation results, please refer to Appendix B.

Figure 24 depicts the road links in the model for Ajax and shows the current volume to capacity (v/c) of the roadway segments during the morning peak hour. When a v/c of a road segment is close to reaching 1.0, it is understood that the level of service is poor. The road links showing medium to high congestion include Highway 401 and arterial roads north of Highway 401 providing access to the highway. The model also reports congestion on links at arterial road intersections, such as where Church Street and Westney Road intersect Kingston Road. Rossland Road also exhibits congestion at various stretches. Immediately south of Highway 401, there is

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 congestion on Westney Road related to access to the GO Station. Bayly Street is typically the only other street south of Highway 401 that experiences congestion. For more information on the modelling validation, methods and analysis, please refer to Section 4.2.

Figure 24. Volume over capacity model output (existing conditions a.m. peak hour)

Taunton Rd.

Rossland Rd.

Church St. Church Kingston Rd.

Harwood Ave. Harwood Hwy. 401

Bayly St.

Westney Rd. Westney Salem Rd. Salem

Lake Driveway

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2.6.4 Traffic operations

Several corridors with existing traffic operational challenges were selected for detailed study as part of the ITMP, with a goal of identifying quick wins that could help alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow during peak periods. This section gives an overview of the existing levels of service of three road corridors and their respective intersections. The recommendations to optimize the operations of these key intersections are provided in Section 1.1. The analyzed corridors are in the Town’s Downtown area and the GO Station, including:

► Bayly Street West corridor;

► Harwood Avenue South corridor; and

► Westney Road South corridor.

Existing conditions overview

An intersection capacity analysis provides an indication of existing traffic operations based on calculations of volume to capacity ratios (v/c) and delays for individual movements at a specific intersection. Turning movement counts were collected in 2017 from the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham for selected intersections along Bayly Street West, Harwood Avenue South and Westney Road South. Existing signal timing plans and phasing plans were collected from the Region of Durham for all the signalized intersections. The intersections studied for their existing level of service are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. List of intersections analyzed Bayly Street West Westney Road South Harwood Avenue South Bayly St. W at Westney Rd. S Harwood Ave. S at Signalized Westney Rd. S / Bayly St. W at Finlay Rd. Dreyer Dr. E Signalized Bayly St. W at Monarch Rd. Westney Rd. Harwood Ave. S at Signalized Bayly St. W at Kitney Rd. at Fairall St. Clover Ridge Dr. Bayly St. W at Harwood Ave. S Unsignalized Harwood Ave. S at Unsignalized Bayly St. W at MacKenzie Rd. Lake Driveway (stop control)

Methods

Synchro files were created with the signal timing plans and phasing plans for the intersections studied. The turning movement counts were input into the Synchro files in order to identify operational performance of intersections in the morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) rush hour periods and to identify opportunities for modifications that could be made to improve the functionality of the intersections.

Level of Service (LOS) denoted by letters “A” through “D”, represent adequate traffic operations. LOS denoted by the letters “E” and “F” represent congested traffic operations. Critical movements are defined as those with a volume to capacity ratio of 0.85 or higher. Typically, an LOS of “E” or “F” or a critical movement of 0.85 or higher is identified as an issue for further study and improvement.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Bayly Street West corridor

The Bayly Street West corridor was analyzed from Westney Road South in the west to Harwood Avenue South in the east. This stretch of roadway includes many retail and offices uses. Intersections within this corridor were analyzed to assess the level of service and to identify critical movements. The analysis of morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) weekday peak hour conditions is summarized in Table 11 and displayed graphically in Figure 25. Detailed Synchro output sheets for each intersection in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are provided in Appendix C.

Table 11. Existing levels of service for intersections along Bayly Street West A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Signalized LOS Critical Movement LOS Critical Movement Intersection (Delay in (Volume/Capacity (Delay in (Volume/Capacity Ratio) Seconds) Ratio) Seconds) EBT (1.04) NBL (0.97) Westney Rd. S & Bayly St. W C (30) SBL (0.93) D (48) SBL (0.99) SBTR (0.85) WBL (1.09) Finlay Ave. & Bayly St. W A (7) - C (24) NBLTR (0.93) MacKenzie Ave. & Bayly St. W B (14) - F (58) NB-LTR (0.56) Monarch Ave. & Bayly St. W B (11) - C (22) - Kitney Dr. & Bayly St. W A (9) - B (13) - EBTR (0.91) Harwood Ave. S & Bayly St. W C (27) - D (36) SBL (1.10)

Traffic volumes and intersection performance along the Bayly Street West corridor results in adequate levels of service during the a.m. peak period. However, there are multiple movements that are considered critical or theoretically over capacity during the p.m. peak period. The intersection of Bayly Street West and Mackenzie Avenue is operating at a level of service of “F” during the p.m. peak hour. The poor level of service is due to heavy through volumes along Bayly Street West that are not allowing enough gaps for the northbound traffic to execute their turns. However, given the northbound left-turn movement is still well within its capacity no changes are currently proposed at this intersection. Further study of this intersection and possible improvements are described in Section 4.4.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 25. Bayly Street West intersections existing levels of service

Harwood Avenue South corridor

The Harwood Avenue South corridor was analyzed from Westney Road South in the north to Lake Driveway in the south. The land uses along this stretch of roadway are primarily residential.

Intersections within this corridor were analyzed to assess the level of service and to identify critical movements. The analysis of morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) weekday peak hour conditions is summarized in Table 12 and displayed graphically in Figure 26. The analysis suggests that traffic volumes and intersection performance along the Harwood Avenue South corridor results in adequate level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with no critical movements identified. Detailed Synchro output sheets for each intersection in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are provided in Appendix C.

Based on public traffic perception, this corridor was identified as problematic due to the reduction of travel lanes along the corridor. However, the results indicate that the intersections are operating at adequate (LOS “D” or better) conditions. The complaints may be due to the perception and comparison between travel times of the past four-lane cross section and the present two-lane cross section. Furthermore, given the termination of the road at Lake Driveway and the typical land use around this corridor (mature residential blocks), the vehicle traffic growth along this corridor is projected to be minimal and the two-lane cross section can readily accommodate the traffic.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 12. Harwood Avenue South intersection levels of service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Critical Movement LOS Critical Movement Intersection (Delay in (Volume/Capacity (Delay in (Volume/Capacity Seconds) Ratio) Seconds) Ratio) Harwood Ave. S & Westney Rd. S / Dreyer B (13) - B (12) - Rd. E Harwood Ave. S & Clover Ridge Dr. W / D (31) - C (23) - Clover Ridge Dr. E Lake Driveway W / Lake Driveway E & A (9) - A (9) - Harwood Ave. S

Figure 26. Harwood Avenue South intersections existing levels of service

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Westney Road South corridor

The intersection of Westney Road South and Fairall Street where the Ajax GO station entrance is located was analyzed for the a.m. and p.m. weekday peak hours. The analysis of morning and evening weekday peak hour conditions is summarized in Table 13 and displayed graphically in Figure 27. Detailed Synchro output sheets for each intersection in the morning and evening peak hours are provided in Appendix C. It should be noted that changes to this intersection were implemented in 2017 to improve the traffic flow through this intersection.

Table 13. Westney Road South and Fairall Street intersection level of service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

LOS Critical Movement LOS Critical Movement Intersection (Delay in Seconds) (Volume/Capacity (Delay in Seconds) (Volume/Capacity Ratio) Ratio) EB-L (1.30) Fairall St. & WB-T (0.92) D (51) C (33) SB-L (0.93) Westney Rd. S NB-L (0.92) SB-R (1.01)

Figure 27. Fairall Street and Westney Road South existing level of service

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Typically, traffic volumes and intersection performance at Westney Road South and Fairall Street results in adequate levels of service during the p.m. peak period. Additional delay can occur around the time that an eastbound train arrives in the p.m. peak period when many passengers board buses or get into their vehicles and exit the station. Improvements made to the intersection and the circulation within the GO Station are believed to have helped to mitigate some of the capacity constraints found at this intersection during the p.m. peak period. Despite the changes, there are multiple movements (such as Westbound-through and northbound) that are considered critical or theoretically over capacity during the a.m. peak period. Further study of this intersection and possible improvements are provided in Section 4.

3.0 VISION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Chapter overview

This chapter introduces the process that shaped the “Vision Statement” and founding principles for the ITMP. Moreover, it summarizes all the feedback received from multiple stakeholders who helped to shape this vision and inform the recommendations of the master plan. In compliance with the Phase 1 “problem / opportunity statement” of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process for master plans, the vision (opportunity) statement, along with the key principles, clearly indicate why the Town is undertaking this project.

3.2 Vision statement

Ajax’s transportation vision was shaped by residents, stakeholders, Town staff and decision makers. It reflects the priorities and principles that are important to the Town, in its current state and for the future. It clearly defines what the Town intends to achieve for its transportation system.

The vision of the Integrated Transportation Master Plan is to enhance the sustainable “ and multi-modal transportation system for the Town of Ajax by planning, designing, constructing and maintaining a community and transportation network that supports pedestrian, cyclists, transit and vehicular traffic. The Town’s transportation system will be accessible to all users and all modes of transportation.

” 3.3 Key principles

The vision for Ajax’s transportation future integrates four key principles:

1. Support mobility for all modes of transportation to create an accessible and efficient multi-modal transportation network.

2. Improve and maintain existing and future transportation network and infrastructure that can adapt to the Town’s future growth.

3. Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups in the mobility pyramid.

4. Enhance quality of life by promoting walking and cycling as a mechanism for active living and an effort to reduce pollution and car dependency.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 39

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

3.4 Consulting and engaging with the community

3.4.1 Project launch

In November 2017, the Notice of Study Commencement was advertised on the Town’s website, announcing the formal launch of the ITMP study. The notice was also advertised in the Ajax Pickering News Advertiser and on the Town’s social media platforms, emphasizing key project milestones and engagement opportunities.

3.4.2 Promotional tools

Various tools were used to promote the study and invite stakeholders and the public to participate in the planning

process. Key messages to raise awareness and encourage active participation throughout the ITMP process s were published in the following channels:

Project Website: The URL https://www.ajax.ca/itmp was created to act as a central hub for information and updates. As part of the Town’s webpage, the page advertises upcoming events, the timeline of the project and links to online surveys. The project team emails were also provided as primary points of contact to receive questions and feedback.

Social Media: The Town’s Facebook and Twitter accounts were used to promote the online and in-person engagement opportunities. In addition to events hosted, social media was also used to increase the general awareness of the project and provide on-going updates.

Newspaper Notices: The Town published two notices in the Ajax Pickering News Advertiser to advertise and promote the ITMP study. The newspaper augmented the reach of the online social media promotion.

3.4.3 Public engagement opportunities

Various engagement opportunities were offered throughout the development of the ITMP to the public, technical agencies, steering committee, and local advisory groups. These included four stakeholder workshops, two public information open houses, and two rounds of online surveys (See Figure 28). During the whole consultation process, the Town collected approximately 1,600 data points/comments, from which 460 were referenced to a specific location within the Town boundaries. The next subsections of the report summarize and highlight all the feedback and input received during these consultation rounds. These findings together with the technical analysis were vital in steering the multi-modal transportation recommendations provided in Chapter 4.

For a detailed overview of engagement dates and milestones, please refer to Section 1.7.4. For detailed comment- tracking, please refer to Appendix A. The following subsections summarize the findings for each engagement round.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 28. Stakeholder workshops, public information events, and online engagement opportunities during ITMP

3.4.4 Engagement round 1 summary

The first round of engagement was held between November 2017 and February 2018. This engagement round sought to receive input on the future transportation vision for Ajax in terms of challenges and opportunities. Multiple activities were held to identify these challenges and opportunities according to specific transportation modes as well as to solicit suggestions on how to improve the connectivity, integration, accessibility, and multi- modality of the network. The Town received over 615 data points and/or comments, from which approximately 300 were geolocated on a map of the Town.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Working vision

To gain feedback on the working vision, an exercise was undertaken to identify key recurring themes to then classify them according to mode of transportation and specific topic. Approximately 310 written comments were collected and a “word cloud” was created to illustrate the most common words that were used. As seen in Figure 29, the most prevalent themes revolve around “buses”, “roads” and “bikes”, as well as “traffic”, “safety”, and “trails”. From a high-level analysis, these themes are indicative of where challenges or opportunities for the transportation network are perceived by respondents of the study.

Figure 29. Word cloud of key themes processed from approximately 310 comments

As part of this activity, participants were encouraged to provide feedback on how travel in Ajax can be improved from the present to the year 2041. These ideas were grouped into four categories: walking and cycling, driving/carpooling, riding transit and other travel ideas. Figure 30 depicts the number of ideas or comments received distributed by mode of transportation and Figure 31 breaks these down into specific transportation topics or issue class. The top two topics identified by participants were related to operation/service (18 percent) and supporting infrastructure/end-trip facilities (13 percent). Around 60 percent of the comments related to the operation/service alluded to transit operation, while around 45 percent of the comments related to supporting infrastructure/end-trip facilities alluded to walking and cycling.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 30. Distribution of travel modes referenced in comments and ideas (n = 310)

Walking and Cycling 25% 29% Transit

Driving / Carpooling

20% Other Ideas 26%

Figure 31. Distribution of public feedback grouped by specific transportation topic (n = 310)

Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 13%

Operation / Service 18%

Education 12%

Connectivity/Coverage 12%

Safety 10%

Main Network Infrastructure 10%

Innovation 7%

Accessibility 6%

Other 12%

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Mapping challenges and opportunities

Exactly 300 comments were geographically mapped to identify gaps, challenges and opportunities. Figure 32 illustrates these locations on a heat map based on dot-density. The densest locations were studied closer to identify seven key transportation challenges and opportunities that were reported.

Figure 32. Geo-location of comments received (n = 300)

Williamson Dr. - Connection opportunity and pedestrian/bicycle safety challenges.

Increase multimodal facilities and enhance access to and around the GO Station.

Review corridor for all modes along Kingston Rd. (Westney Rd. to Salem Rd.).

Harwood Ave. and Hwy. 401 crossing: - Enhance walking and cycling safety - Improve transit service - Key route to connect with schools and popular up/downtown destinations.

Audley Rd. Extension - Connection opportunity.

Review corridor for all modes along Bayly St. (Finley Ave. to Harwood Ave.).

Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections and facilities between Shoal Point Rd. to Lakeview 1 No. Mapped Comments 7< Blvd.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Comments posted on the map were categorized according to their mode. The distribution in Figure 33 showed that the greatest number (49 percent) of the comments referred to active transportation related facilities. In Figure 34, the comments were categorized by the marker type, and 41 percent of these were identified in Ajax as opportunities for connections or areas of improvement.

Figure 33. Mode of travel referenced in stakeholder mapped comment (n = 300)

17%

Active Transportation

Transit 18% 49% Driving/Carpooling

Other 16%

Figure 34. Comments mapped in Ajax identified by marker type (n = 300) 60%

50% 41% 40%

30%

19% 20% 18% 15%

10% 7%

0% Barrier Challenge Missing Link Opportunity Priority

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

The Town’s existing AT facilities and previously proposed routes were also assessed to develop an understanding of current gaps in the network. A summary of key AT gaps identified by stakeholders and members of the public is provided in Figure 35. These were also ratified through fieldwork observations conducted by the study team.

Figure 35. Key gaps in existing active transportation network

Trail Connection Construct trail link to connect over railway.

Rossland Road Complete gap between Audley Rd. & Lake Ridge Rd.

Ajax GO Station Connect trails surrounding GO station to improve access. Improve access to bike facilities at station.

North-South Connection Link North and South Ajax using Carruthers Creek. Connect residential to local business area. Better crossings over rail.

Trail Connection Connect Callander Court to Shoal Point Road trail.

Trail Connection Connect Kinsmen Park Trail to Southwood Parkland Trail.

Harwood Avenue Complete gap between Westney Rd. and Bayly St. (to schools and library).

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

3.4.5 Engagement round 2 summary

The second round of engagement sought to understand cycling facilities preferences, budget allocation preferences as well as feedback on the roads and active transportation phasing and implementation strategy. During this round, the Town received over 1,000 data points and/or comments, from which approximately 160 referenced a specific location within the Town. For detailed comment-tracking, please refer to Appendix A. The following subsections summarize the findings for each of these components.

Cycling facility type preferences

Figure 36 illustrates the data collected from approximately 80 participants who provided insight on cycling facility type preferences in Ajax. For designated cycling facilities, approximately half (49 percent) of the respondents preferred buffered bike lanes. For separated facilities, a closely even percentage of participants preferred either off-road trails or multi-use paths (in-boulevard trails). For shared facilities, the signed bike route with edge-lines was preferred (64 percent). While a general assumption may suggest cyclists feel safer and most comfortable riding on facilities with the greatest degree of separation and protection from cars, it may not necessarily apply to all contexts. For example, while an off-road trail offers the greatest protection from other motorized vehicular traffic, it is not always the most direct route and may be require higher maintenance due to proximity to natural vegetation and falling foliage.

Figure 36. Cycling preferences according to facility types (n = 248) 100%

90% 26% 31% 80% 46%

70% Signed Bike Route with Sharrows Signed Bike Route with Edgelines 60% Signed Bike Route Off Road Trail 50% Multi-use Path 49% 64% Cycle Track 40% Buffered Paved Shoulder 41% 30% Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 20%

10% 20% 13% 10% 0% Designated Facilities Separated Facilities Shared Facilities

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Budget allocation preferences

Figure 37 summarizes the data collected from approximately 60 participants who shared transportation budget allocation preferences in Ajax. Each participant was given the same quantity of symbolic coins (10) representing the allowed budget to spend. Resources to road improvements, road maintenance, and traffic calming correspond to 26, 19, and 15 percent of the total budget allocated by participants, respectively. It is worth noting that cycling and pedestrian infrastructure improvements add to around 23 percent of the budget allocated, suggesting its importance among investments priorities.

Figure 37. Budget allocation preferences (n = 634)

180 159 160 140 121 120 94 100 89 26% 80 59 60 45 19% Numberof coins 14% 15% 40 28 27 9% 7% 12 20 4% 4% 2% 0

Phasing and implementation feedback

A third exercise was conducted to elicit feedback on the proposed AT and road improvements implementation strategy. This input guided the phasing planning (short-, medium-, and long- term) for the proposed projects detailed in Chapter 5. Approximately 160 comments were collected to inform the implementation strategy of the ITMP Figure 38 and Figure 39 illustrate, respectively, the AT and road improvement priorities marked by respondents. The main findings of this analysis are highlighted in textboxes.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 38. Active transportation implementation priorities (n = 80)

Strong opportunities of integration upon implementation with facilities in Whitby along Lake Ridge Rd.

Most priorities identified are located south of Highway 401.

Key clusters of AT priority no.1 and 2: Concentration of most points • Kingston Rd. and Salem Rd. located between Kingston • Bayly St. and Harwood Ave. Rd. and Bayly St. principally • Lake Driveway along Harwood Ave.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 39. Road implementation priorities (n = 80)

Concentration of most points located along Rossland Rd. (between Westney Rd. and Lake Ridge Rd.)

Most priorities mapped are located north of Highway 401.

Key clusters of road priority no.1 and 2: • Rossland Rd. and Salem Rd. • Westney Rd. (around GO Station).

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Chapter overview

Ajax’s ITMP has been prepared using a holistic multi-modal approach that considers the interaction of non- motorized and motorized modes of transportation within a single transportation system. This chapter presents the recommendations for future infrastructure and operation improvements of active transportation and road works as well as the supporting policies that will continue to work towards enhanced safety, multi-modality, and resilience towards future mobility trends.

The chapter is divided into five subsections. First, it presents the future proposed active transportation network highlighting up-to-date standards for design and maintenance of its facilities. Second, the road network travel demand model results are examined with the corresponding alternatives analysis that led to the preferred future road network scenario. Third, recommendations are provided for three key traffic corridors to enhance their future operation. Fourth, recommendations related to six supporting policies are developed including: continuing with Complete Streets; improving multi-modal transportation; strengthening transportation demand management (TDM); enhancing road safety through Vision Zero; preparing for new mobility technologies; and introducing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). This chapter carefully considers input received from all stakeholders and combines this with technical analysis, staff knowledge, and best practice experience to create tailor-made recommendations for the Town of Ajax. Finally, this chapter will review the existing road network classification to determine if any roads were not operating consistent tot heir intended classification.

4.2 Future active transportation network

4.2.1 Active transportation strategy

A comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy was developed to build upon the Town’s 2010 Ajax Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the 2013 Transportation Master Plan. The Strategy provides an integrated and holistic approach when planning, designing and implementing active transportation as part of the Town’s overall transportation network.

The Active Transportation Strategy was developed using a four-stage process. This process was informed by the input collected from Town staff, stakeholders, technical agencies and members of the public. The Strategy is intended to be used as a reference for Town staff when addressing the future planning, design and implementation of active transportation, and the overall integration of active travel modes into the Town’s transportation network. Figure 40 illustrates the process used to develop Ajax’s Active Transportation Strategy, and the sections within the ITMP that contain additional details on each phase.

Figure 40. Ajax's AT Strategy development process

1: Review Background Information I T M P Complete a review of the Town’s 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Regional s e c t i o n Cycling Plan and other plans from local municipalities to establish an understanding of the local context. 2.5.1

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 51

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

2: Update the Town’s Active Transportation (AT) Network I T M P Build upon existing routes and previously planned routes to identify a Town-wide active s e c t i o n transportation network including the preferred routes, facility types and network enhancements. 4.1.1

3: Identify Design Considerations I T M P Identify design considerations that are consistent with current guidelines and standards, s e c t i o n including facility design, integration of AT with other elements of a transportation network (crossings, intersections, transit) and end-of-trip facilities. 4.1.2

4: Prepare an Implementation Plan I T M P Prepare a realistic phasing plan to facilitate the implementation of the Active Transportation Strategy into day-to-day decision making including phasing, costing, funding, partnerships s e c t i o n and roles and responsibilities. 5.0

4.2.2 The active transportation development process

The process used to update the Town’s active transportation network builds upon the approach identified in the 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, while also taking into consideration current trends and existing guidelines such as Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities, OTM Book 15: Pedestrian Crossings and the MTO Bikeways Design Manual. The process used to update the Town’s active transportation network was iterative and consisted of five steps, each informed by the input collected from Town staff, stakeholders, technical agencies and members of the public. Table 14 outlines each step of the network development process and the outcome of each step. Additional details and the outcomes of each step are documented in the following sections.

Table 14. Active transportation network development process Step 1: Map Existing and Planned Conditions Outcome:

Identify what is currently existing and what has been previously Map of existing and previously planned in other planning / strategic documents proposed routes

Step 2: Select Route Selection Criteria Outcome: Develop criteria to help select potential new active transportation Route selection criteria routes to form part of the network Step 3: Identify missing links Outcome: Assess gaps in the existing network and identify potential new Map of candidate active routes for the active transportation network transportation routes

Step 4: Confirm preferred routes Outcome: Confirm routes to form part of the active transportation network Map of preferred routes

Step 5: Confirm facility types Outcome: Confirm the preferred facility types based on current guidelines and Map of preferred facility types site-specific considerations

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Step 1: Map existing and planned conditions

Information and spatial data was collected from the Town to develop a GIS database of existing and previously planned active transportation conditions in Ajax. The database also included relevant information related to land use, transportation features and infrastructure in Ajax. The database was updated on an on-going basis to reflect new information, input received and the overall iterative approach of the network development process.

Figure 41 illustrates the existing and previously planned active transportation routes in Ajax. In total, there are 582.9 km of existing routes and 78.4 km of previously planned routes. The Town’s existing and previously planned network includes pedestrian facilities (such as sidewalks), cycling facilities (such as bike lanes and shared facilities) and routes intended for multi-use purposes (such as multi-use paths and off-road trails). The following is a more detailed description of the various elements that make up the Town’s active transportation network:

Regional Routes: These routes form direct north-south and east-west connections through Ajax. Regional routes typically facilitate long distance travel, utilitarian trips and link to surrounding municipalities. Key regional routes that form part of the Town’s active transportation network include Bayly Street (Regional Road 22), Kingston Road (Highway 2), Taunton Road (Regional Road 4), Westney Road (Regional Road 31), Salem Road (Regional Road 41), Church Street south of Highway 401 (Regional Road 24) and Lake Ridge Road (Regional Road 23). Typically, these routes feature a multi-use path on one side of the road with a sidewalk on the other side. In the existing network, some areas have sidewalks on both sides of

the road while other areas have not been fully urbanized and therefore the sidewalk or multi-use path have not been installed yet.

Significant Trail Systems: There are three significant trail systems in Ajax including the Waterfront Trail, the Great Trail (formerly the Trans Canada Trail) and the Province-wide cycling network. These trail systems provide opportunities for users of all ages and abilities to engage in daily forms active transportation and recreation. These trails also facilitate regional travel as they connect the Town to surrounding municipalities.

Local Trails: There are a number of existing local off-road trails, including the Duffins Creek, Millers Creek and Carruthers Creek trails, which provide access to neighbourhoods and communities through the natural and open spaces of Ajax. These routes are typically implemented in the Town’s urban and suburban areas, including parks or linear corridors within Ajax. Local trails provide opportunities for residents to engage in recreational activities within their neighbourhood and

promote active travel within the Town. Key Destinations: Connections to key community destinations such as Ajax GO station, Conservation Areas, schools, parks, community centres, and recreation centres can help increase the desirability for users to engage in active travel for a variety of purposes such as commuting, leisure, health and fitness.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 41. Existing and previously proposed active transportation routes

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Step 2: Route selection criteria

Route evaluation and selection is supported by a set of criteria that are intended to reflect the desired outcomes of the active transportation network. These criteria are meant to help achieve the Town’s overall transportation vision (see section 3.2) and future priorities for active transportation. They are also consistent with the principles outlined in existing planning and engineering guidelines such as OTM Book 18, as well as best practices from studies of similar scope and scale.

These criteria were used over the course of the network development process to consider, review and ultimately confirm the preferred routes and facility types for the Town’s active transportation network. The following criteria and questions were used to assess each route.

Access and Does the route connect to significant Town or local neighbourhood destinations? Potential Use

Connectivity and Does the route allow users to travel long distances and / or provide a direct Directness connection to key destinations in the Town?

Integration with Does the route provide access to other transportation modes? other travel modes

Environmental Does the route have minimal impacts on natural features? Does the route Protection consider the impact of natural hazards (such as flooding and erosion hazards)?

Attractiveness / Does the route offer scenic value that enriches the experience? Aesthetics

Does the route reduce potential conflict for all users? Does the route appeal to

Safety and Comfort users of varying ages and abilities?

Cost Do the benefits offset the cost to implement the route?

Tourism Does the route support local and regional tourism initiatives?

Does the route provide opportunities to support different experiences, user

Diverse groups, and trip types such as commuter or recreational?

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Step 3: Identify missing links

Gaps in the existing and previously planned active transportation network were assessed to identify locations for potential new candidate routes. Based on input received from Town staff, stakeholders and residents, as well as the application of the route selection criteria, candidate routes (including on and off-road connections) were identified. The candidate routes were further investigated to confirm their appropriateness within the Town’s active transportation network.

Potential candidate routes were identified and reviewed based on their ability to:

► Connect to regional transit hubs such as GO Transit and Durham Region Transit. ► Facilitate direct north-south and east-west connections. ► Provide direct access to schools, key community destinations and areas of employment. ► Connect to regional trail systems. ► Enhance opportunities to engage in commuter travel. ► Increase connectivity to surrounding municipalities. ► Provide access to parks including lands owned and operated by the Conservation Authority.

Figure 43 highlights these factors that were considered when selecting candidate active transportation routes.

Figure 42. Ajax’s Waterfront Trail21

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 43. Candidate AT routes considerations Map Legend -

Connections a to transit b hubs c

f Direct north- b south link

Connection c to regional trail system

Enhance d commuter travel

e Connect to d e surrounding municipality

Connect to conservation f authority park a

Candidate route

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Step 4: Confirm preferred routes

The selection of preferred active transportation routes was refined based on the outcomes of steps 1 to 3 of the network development process, and input received from the public, stakeholders and Town staff. Figure 44 illustrates the preferred active transportation routes. The preferred active transportation routes are organized into the following categories:

Off-Road or In-Boulevard Facility

On-Road Facility

Sidewalk

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Desired Connection

The active transportation network was further assessed to select the most appropriate facility type for each preferred route. These results of this assessment are outlined in step 5.

Step 5: Confirm facility types

Based on the preferred active transportation network (see step 4), the OTM Book 18 three-step facility selection tool was applied to identify the preferred facility type for each on-road route. Both existing and previously proposed routes were assessed to determine the appropriate facility type. The three-step process is illustrated in Figure 45 and contains the following steps:

► Assess operating speed and traffic volumes to predetermine a level of separation (step 1). ► Review detailed contextual considerations (step 2). ► Document the rationale that supports the facility type recommendation (step 3).

Routes located outside of the road right-of-way (such as off-road trails and sidewalks) were assessed to address pedestrian connectivity and missing gaps. Missing off-road links were identified based on:

► Input provided by Town staff, stakeholders and members of the public. ► Capital budgets / future planned projects. ► Route selection criteria. ► ITMP objectives. ► Route specific conditions and context. ► Best practices and principles identified in existing guidelines including OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities and Book 15: Pedestrian Crossings.

Figure 47 illustrates the proposed active transportation network by facility types. Figure 47 illustrates that Church Street will be closed to vehicle traffic and will be maintained as a multi-use connection to Greenwood Conservation Area. A summary of the facility types is provided in Table 15. In total, there are 71 kilometres of proposed active transportation routes in Ajax. As a result of step 5, there are a number of previously proposed routes that have been identified as locations to upgrade the facility type. The proposed upgrades are intended to reflect the current conditions of the route location that have evolved since the initial facility type recommendation. These recommendations also align with proposed road improvements detailed in Section 4.3. A summary of these recommended upgrades is outlined in Table 16

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 44. Proposed active transportation network concept

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 45. OTM Book 18 facility selection process overview

Step 1: Facility Pre-Selection Shared Designated Separated Off-Road

Step 2: Examine other factors On-Road Routes Off-Road Routes • Function of the roadway • Connectivity • Vehicle mix and speed • Environmental Protection • Collision history • Safety • Available space • Potential use • Cost • User experience • Anticipated use • Topography • Type of improvement • Barriers • On-street parking • Cost • Intersection Frequency • Maintenance • Accessibility (AODA)

Step 3: Recommend and Document Results

Figure 46. Existing multi-use path in Ajax22

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 47. Preferred active transportation network by facility types

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 15. Summary of Ajax's active transportation network (existing and proposed) Facility Existing km* Proposed km* Total km PEDESTRIAN ONLY Sidewalk 395.2 3.1 398.3 CYCLING ONLY Cycle Track 0.2 2.7 2.9 Buffered Bike Lane 8.1 12.5 20.6 Bike Lane 25.8 18.1 43.9 Shared Facility 28.7 10.7 39.4 MULTI-USE Off-Road Trail 93.7 11.6 105.3 Multi-Use Path 31.2 10.1 41.3 Buffered Paved Shoulder 0 2.1 2.1 TOTAL 582.9 71.0 653.9 Note: * Includes routes under the jurisdiction of Ajax, Durham Region and the Conservation Authority.

Table 16. Upgrades to previously proposed AT facility types Recommended Previously Proposed Route Name From To Facility Types Facility Type Upgrade Western Town Rossland Road Lake Ridge Road Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Boundary

Chambers Drive Audley Road Kingston Road Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Extension

Chambers Drive Chambers Drive Audley Road Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Extension

Achilles Road Achilles Road Lake Ridge Road Off Road Trail Multi-Use Path Extension

Harwood Avenue Falby Court Dreyer Drive Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane South

Harwood Avenue Westney Road South Clements Road Bike Lane Multi-Use Path South

Audley Road Audley Road South Audley Road North Off Road Trail Multi-Use Path Extension/Connection

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.2.3 Designing the active transportation network

There are several facilities that have been identified as part of the Town’s active transportation network that are currently existing in Ajax. There are also other facility types that are being recommended that do not currently exist. Table 17 outlines key design considerations for a variety of facility types.

Table 17. Active transportation facility type considerations Facility Type Description Context Application

Signed Bike Route N/A Width: Motorists and cyclists share the Urban same vehicular travel lane. Location: Bicycle route signs are used to Rural ► Green Bike Route sign provide route guidelines. Could Road ► Share the Road sign be supplemented by a Share Low the Road Sign in select Volume: locations. Road Low Speed:

Suggested Signed Bike Route 1.5m with Edgelines Width: Cyclists are provided their own space by painting an edgeline in the space Location: Urban Green Bike Route sign designated for on-street ► ► Share the Road sign parking. Parking is not Road Low ► Line marking restricted along the road, Volume: however, bike route signage is provided. Road Low Speed:

Paved Shoulder Width: 1.5m

Cyclists are provided with a designated space on the road Location: Rural platform. The route is signed as ► Green Bike Route sign a bicycle route and could ► Share the Road sign Road include supplementary share Moderate ► Painted line the road signage in select Volume: locations. Road Moderate Speed:

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Facility Type Description Context Application

Bike Lane Width: 1.5m Cyclists are provided with a designated space which is identified by pavement Location: Urban markings and signage. Bike ► Bike Lane sign lanes could include green ► Bike stencil Road painted treatment along key Moderate ► Painted line corridors. When approaching Volume: an intersection dash lines to Road allow for passing. Moderate Speed:

Buffered Paved 1.5m + Width: Shoulder 0.5m buffer On roads with higher volume and speed within rural areas, in Location: Rural addition to the paved shoulder ► Green Bike Route sign a buffer may be implemented. ► Share the Road sign Road The width depends on the High ► Line marking speed and volume of the Volume: roadway. Road High Speed:

Buffered Bike Lane 1.5m + Width: 0.5m buffer

On roads with higher volume and speed within urban and Location: Urban ► Bike Lane sign suburban areas a buffer may be ► Bike stencil implemented to provide more Road High ► Painted line separation between the cyclist Volume: and motor vehicles. Road High Speed:

Multi-Use Path Width: 3.0m A separated space found within the boulevard of the roadway – in place of a sidewalk – which Location: Urban ► Pathway sign accommodates both ► Bike stencil pedestrians and cyclists in a Road High ► Painted line shared space. Can be uni- or bi- Volume: directional Road High Speed:

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Facility Type Description Context Application

Off Road Trail Width: 3.0m A separated space typically through a natural area or Urban Location: corridor that accommodates Rural pedestrians and cyclists. The ► Pathway sign

surface type can range from Road N/A natural surface to asphalt Volume: depending on the location. Road N/A Speed:

Sidewalk Width: 1.5m A space within the road boulevard which Urban Location: accommodates pedestrians. Rural Depending on surrounding ► N/A context, sidewalks may be Road N/A setback from the roadway by a Volume: boulevard. Road N/A Speed:

General design considerations

There are a number of existing guidelines and resources that can be referenced as the Town moves forward with the planning, design and implementation of active transportation infrastructure. The following guidelines and standards from international, national and provincial sources should be used as guide by Town staff:

► National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeways Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide

► American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Bicycle Facilities

► Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads

► Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Bikeway Traffic Control Guideline for Canada

► Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities

► Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15: Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

► Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Bikeways Design Guidelines

► Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act – Built Environment Standards

In addition to the abovementioned guidelines and standards, local resources should also be used to guide the design of active transportation facility types within the Town of Ajax and complement these existing guidelines which include:

► Town of Ajax Engineering Design Criteria and Standard Drawings

► Town of Ajax Urban Design and Built Form Guidelines for Pickering Village

► Town of Ajax Employment Areas Urban Design Guidelines

Consideration should also be given to designing and implementing design features that help to increase a user’s sense of comfort and encourage increased use of active transportation infrastructure. The following sections provide an overview of key design elements that should be considered when planning and implementing the active transportation network.

Transitions

In order to enhance connectivity, users of all ages and abilities should be able to transition between facilities and cross conflict points safely and comfortably. Without appropriate transitions from one facility type to another, it may discourage people from selecting certain mode choices like walking or cycling or from using certain routes. Common conflict areas include intersections and cross-section changes such as narrow cross-sections, existing on- street parking, and distribution of the travel lanes. People often select their route based on level of comfort and experience using the facility type. The following are examples of different design treatments that can be applied to improve a user’s ability to cross a roadway or transition between facility types more comfortably and safely.

Bike Boxes

A bike box is a designated area between the crosswalk and the stop bar that is meant to be used by cyclists while waiting for a signal to change. This allows cyclists to wait ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase at an intersection. The bike box is intended to increase a cyclist’s visibility for motorists and allows cyclists to proceed ahead of motorists on the green traffic signal. The bike box can also extend across the entire intersection enabling cyclists to transition from the right side of the roadway to the left in order to make a left turn movement rather than weaving through motorized traffic.

Figure 48 provides examples of where bike boxes have been installed in other municipalities in Ontario.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 48. Examples of bike boxes in Ontario23

Oshawa bike box Guelph bike box

Hamilton bike box Kitchener bike box

Pavement Markings Pavement markings are visual cues which increase awareness of the presence of cyclists on the road. Pavement markings can be used to provide cyclists with a space to use when going through an intersection or transitioning to another facility. Markings can include lines to designate the space, stencils of pedestrians and cyclists, or sharrows.

Throughout the Town, green coloured pavement has been implemented along cycling facilities and at the approach to intersections. Green coloured pavement is used to highlight potential conflict zones, clearly mark the designated space for cyclists and to generally make motorists aware of their presence. In addition, crossing treatments such as cross-rides have been implemented throughout the Town. Cross-rides allow cyclists to bike through an intersection without having to dismount and walk.

Figure 49 illustrates an example of green coloured pavement and a cross-ride in Ajax.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 49. Green pavement marking and cross-ride at unsignalized intersection of Harwood Avenue and McRae Road, Ajax24

Accessibility

Today, there are more than 3.8 million Canadians with some form of a disability, and the numbers are growing. In Canada, and all around the world, people with disabilities face social, attitudinal, and physical barriers. Approximately one in seven Canadians have a disability and that number will rise to one in five by 2036. The Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR), created under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), applies to all organizations in Ontario. It establishes accessibility standards, introduces requirements and establishes the compliance framework thereby increasing accessibility for all through the removal of barriers.

The Accessibility Standards for the Design of Public Spaces (DOPS) applies to pathways, trails and sidewalks. The intent is to help remove barriers to buildings and outdoor spaces. The standard only applies to new construction and significant renovation and is not mandatory for the design of on-road cycling facilities. Nevertheless, when designing and implementing off-road cycling facilities and multi-use trails, reference should be made to Part VI.1 of the DOPS standard to ensure that they are met. Sections 80.9 to 80.13 and 80.23 to 80.29 of the DOPS standard provide the technical requirements for multi-use recreational trails and exterior pathways (sidewalks).

For all projects, the AODA requirements should be met to the greatest extent possible. However, it is important to note that this may not be possible in all proposed locations within the network. Specifically, for trails, one must take into consideration the context of each trail, including but not limited to; the location, the surrounding environment, and the type of trail experience that is desired. In some locations it may not be possible to implement an accessible trail. In these cases, the Town should provide sufficient information to all potential users to make them aware of the conditions and the expected experience. These exceptions to the technical requirements can be found in sections 80.14,80.15 and 80.30 of the DOPS standard.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 50. AODA compliant trails signage in Aurora, ON25 Figure 51. Accessible trail crossing in Hamilton, ON26

Signage and wayfinding

A connected and continuous active transportation network requires signage for a variety of purposes. The Ajax “Bike This Way” signage program was developed to help cyclists navigate from Downtown Ajax to the GO station. At part of the program, signage has been installed along Fairall Street, Dowty Road, Station Street, Hunt Street and Monarch Avenue as alternatives routes to Westney Road and Bayly Street. The signage provides information including the length in kilometres to key destinations such as the Ajax GO Station or Town Hall, and the approximate amount of time to the destination. Figure 52 illustrates some of the signage installed throughout Ajax. It is recommended that wayfinding for distance to exchanges and transit hubs be included in future wayfinding signage.

Figure 52. Ajax's ‘Bike this Way’ signage program27

The Town is currently completing the Active Transportation Wayfinding Strategy. This project builds on the “Bike This Way” signage program and involves the establishment of a comprehensive wayfinding strategy, which includes the design and location of information and direction signage, for the Town’s entire active transportation network. The strategy will provide clear and concise information to all active transportation users to effectively orient themselves along facilities in the Town. The project is estimated to be completed and presented to Council for endorsement in 2019.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

In addition to the Town’s branded signage program, regulatory signage must be installed along the active transportation network to indicate traffic laws for all road users. Table 18 provides an overview of the proposed signs to be implemented as part of the active transportation network in Ajax.

Table 18. Regulatory signage for an active transportation network

Sign Type & Dimensions Description Application Reference Other Information

Bicycle Route Marker Sign ► Placed every 2.0km on To be used on rural roadways ► Signed Bike OTM Book segments of a ► Placed every 400m to Route 18, Section shared roadway 800m on urban roadways ► Buffered Paved 4.1.1.2 that are designated ► Installed on the far side of Shoulder (page 44) as a bicycle route major intersections or M511 (OTM) other major decision points 450mm x 450mm Share the Road Sign

► In locations where Intended to motorists are discouraged caution all road ► Signed Bike from passing cyclists, (such users on the OTM Book Route as where lane widths are approach to 18, Section ► Signed Bike narrow) the ‘Shared Use Wc-19 (OTM) locations where 4.1.1.2 Route with Single File’ sign (Wc-24, 600mm x 600mm there may be a (page 46) Sharrows OTM) and supplementary change in the road tab sign (Wc-24t, OTM) configuration should be installed Wc-19t(OTM) 300mmx 300mm Shared Pathway Sign ► Signs should be mounted To be installed with a minimum clearance along in-boulevard OTM Book of 2.5m between the shared-use ► In-boulevard 18, Section pavement surface and facilities to indicate Trails 4.4.1.2 lower edge of the sign that users are (page 117) ► Installed on the far side of expected to share major intersections or Rb-71 (OTM) the space other major decision points 300mm x 450xx

Reserved Bicycle Lane Sign ► Maximum spacing between signs is 200m Used to designate OTM Book ► Signs should be installed ► Bike Lane an on-road lane for 18, Section after every intersection ► Buffered Bike the exclusive use of 4.2.1.2 ► Oversized version may be Lane cyclists (page 63) used where traffic conditions warrant greater RB-91 (TAC) visibility 600mm x 750mm

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Sign Type & Dimensions Description Application Reference Other Information

Reserved Bicycle Lane Ends Sign ► Should be installed up to 15 metres upstream of the Used to designate OTM Book end of a bicycle lane the terminus an ► Bike Lane 18, Section ► Share the Road sign should on-road lane for ► Buffered Bike 4.2.1.2 be installed following the the exclusive use Lane (page 63) end of a bicycle lane to of cyclists indicate to users that they RB-92 (TAC) are entering a shared space 600mm x 750mm

Access to transit

The integration of supportive active transportation facilities at transit hubs, such as secure bike parking, and connections between active transportation facilities and transit routes is a critical component to support multi- modal travel. Walking and cycling can be a cost-effective way to complete a user’s first or last mile of a trip, and when combined with transit, it can reach farther distances and create greater access. All Durham Region Transit (DRT) busses are equipped with a bike rack that can hold up to two bikes. In addition, Ajax GO station has sheltered bicycle parking facilities to support the needs of cyclists.

It is recommended that as the Town’s active transportation network is implemented, consideration be given to connect facilities to existing and planned transit routes and /or stops. For example, in locations where a cycling route crosses a bus bay, buses would be required to cross the facility to access the bus bay (curbside). Where no bus bay is provided, buses must maneuver up to the curb to minimize the gap where passengers board the bus thus encroaching on any curbside cycling route. In some cases, practitioners may consider incorporating the bike facility into the transit platform. For example, the bike facility can ramp up to the platform to slow cyclists and they approach the conflict area. Additional design considerations are outlined in Section 5.4.2. of OTM Book 18.

Figure 53. Dedicated bus lane adjacent to buffered bike lanes on Kingston Road, Ajax28

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

End-of-trip facilities

Implementing active transportation amenities at the end of a route can help to improve the overall experience and sense of comfort for users. There several types of supportive amenities and features that can be designed and implemented to help improve the user’s experience including rest areas and end-of-trip facilities.

Rest areas are designated locations along an active transportation route that provides users with a comfortable location to stop. The design of rest areas can include lighting, seating, car and bicycle parking, signage, loading and unloading areas, garbage receptacles, washrooms, amenity buildings and gates / access barriers.

End-of-trip facilities are implemented at key locations throughout the Town that are considered major destinations such as the Ajax GO station, libraries and community centres. Depending on the location, end-of-trip facilities could include showers, change rooms, bike rooms, lockers, bicycle repair stations, or other amenities.

Section 7.0 of OTM Book 18 provides design considerations and details about the different types of rest areas and end-of-trip facilities based on various land uses and building types. Rest areas and end-of-trip facilities should be provided at strategic locations in Ajax such as gathering points, attractions and destinations as well as other locations where users are expected to stop. The types of amenities and design should be considerate and reflective of context sensitive characteristics of the site and best practices.

Figure 54. Waste receptacles along the Waterfront Trail, Ajax29

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.2.4 AT network and infrastructure recommendations

► Implement the proposed active transportation network illustrated on Figure 47.

► Update the Town’s mapping and GIS database on an on-going basis to reflect the most up- to-date conditions and changes to the active transportation network.

► Consider the recommendations identified in Section 4.2.2 to plan, design and implement active transportation infrastructure that accommodate a range of user abilities and ages and encourage more people to engage in active form of recreation and travel.

► Refer to the design guidelines and standards indicated in Section 4.2.3 to proceed with the design and implementation of active transportation infrastructure.

► In coordination with Durham Region Transit, when feasible, upgrade and improve transit stops in Ajax to meet AODA requirements.

Figure 55. Bicycle parking at Da Vinci Public School, Ajax30

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.3 Future road network

4.3.1 Travel demand model approach

In compliance with Phase 2 (alternatives assessment) of the MCEA process, three future alternatives for Ajax’s road network were studied using Durham Region’s transportation model and transportation principles considering a multiple account evaluation framework. The alternatives used in the modelling analysis build upon the existing conditions of the road network (see Section 2.6.3) to the planning horizon of the year 2031 using the approved Durham Region population and employment forecasts. The development of a preferred transportation network for the year 2031 followed a three step-approach:

► Step 1. Develop assessment criteria and a framework to evaluate the proposed transportation network alternatives. The criteria should improve mobility, reduce congestion and encourage sustainability.

► Step 2. Identify a list of projects that have the potential to improve travel through the Town; and

► Step 3. Test the proposed improvements (from Step 2) using the 2031 Durham Region Transportation Planning Model (DRTPM), built in EMME software. Quantify and assess the impacts of the improvements based on criteria developed in Step 1. Based on the assessment results choose a list of projects to be implemented.

This approach was further complemented by developing an evaluation framework with key assessment criteria to examine the different road network alternatives. These criteria were grouped into three themes: “Mobility, Congestion, and Sustainability” as detailed in Table 19. These performance measures are important to provide a balanced analysis and trade-offs for which alternative is the optimal in the long term for Ajax. Each theme was used to serve as an evaluation framework for testing the performance of network alternatives.

Table 19. Travel demand model evaluation framework Themes Objectives Key Performance Measures Measures how easy it is to reach a preferred destination point. If certain links are not provided, ► Daily Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) or over-congested, it forces people to divert from Mobility ► % of total VKT on congested links their direct path, and requires them to travel longer ► Vehicle lane‐kms distances to get to their destination, which is undesirable. Measures the amount of time an individual spends in traffic. By upgrading certain roadways and/or ► Daily Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) providing new links, roadway users spend less time Congestion ► % of total VHT on congested links idle in traffic and less time looking for alternate ► Travel Time Index routes. This gets people to their destinations faster and decreases environmental impact. Measures the long-term environmental conditions of the Town. This measures the impact the ► Overall Screenline capacity Sustainability proposed changes have on bus travel times and how ► Number of Transit Routes Impacted much capacity the Town must accommodate future growth.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.3.2 Population and employment allocation

Population and employment data are the building blocks of the travel demand model that was utilized to evaluate the road network alternatives for Ajax. As illustrated on Table 20, the base year population and employment data was extracted from the 2011 Census while the forecasts to the year 2031 were provided by the Region of Durham. Figure 56 shows the distribution of population and employment through the Town of Ajax for the year 2031 by traffic analysis zones (TAZ).

Table 20. Population and employment data used for the travel demand model 2011 2031 Jurisdiction Population Employment Population Employment Region of Durham 633,134 188,441 911,952 340,535 Town of Ajax 114,105 28,809 137,290 44,590

Figure 56. 2031 population and employment projections allocated by traffic analysis zones (TAZ)

Legend ## - Population ## - Employment

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.3.3 Model validation

The first step before evaluating different future road network scenarios is to validate the base scenario with existing conditions data. The elements to build the existing conditions scenario included the 2011 regional roadway network and the a.m. peak hour auto demand matrix generated and provided by the Region for the Durham Region Transportation Planning Model (DRTPM), built in EMME software. Existing traffic counts were used to validate the existing conditions model performance, using the coefficient of determination (R2 value) and the maximum desirable percent error. For details on the model validation results, please refer to Appendix B.

4.3.4 Transportation scenario analysis - Alternative strategies

Three network scenarios were developed and tested using the 2031 population and employment allocations. Each road network scenario builds upon the last by adding new road improvements. Given the types of proposed roadways changes, it was determined that simply re-assigning the auto demand matrix onto a modified 2031 network was sufficient to test the three scenarios. The three road network scenarios with specific project details are indicated next in Table 21.

Table 21. Road network scenarios tested with respective road improvements Scenario Road Network Projects The following criteria were used to develop the 2031 Business As-Usual (BAU) network: ► 2011 Network ► Projects completed by 2017 ► Projects currently under construction (Region and Town roads) ► 5-year and 10-year Capital Program from the Region ► Ministry of Transportation Ontario initiatives

The following projects make up the Base Case: ► Partial interchange on Highway 401 and Lake Ridge Road Scenario 1 – ► Highway 407 East Extension (6 lanes from Brock Road to West Durham Link; and 4 lanes 2031 BAU thereafter), West Durham Link (WDL) and the East Durham Link (EDL) at 4 lanes. Interchanges Alternative #1 were modeled at Lake Ridge Road, Baldwin Street, Thickson Road, Simcoe Street, Harmony Road, Enfield Road, Regional Road 57, Darlington Clarke Townline, Highway 35/115 along Highway 407; Highway 7, Taunton Road, Kingston Road and Highway 401 along the WDL; and, Taunton Road, Highway 2 and Highway 401 along the EDL ► Bayly Street widening to 4 lanes from Shoal Point Road to Lake Ridge Road ► Lake Ridge Road widening to 4 lanes from Bayly Street to Rossland Road ► Salem Road widening to 4 lanes from Rossland Road to Taunton Road (Note: this improvement has been constructed since the 2006 transportation model network was prepared. The widening has been added to the base case network.) ► Westney Road widening to 4 lanes from Magill Drive to Taunton Road Scenario 2 is an accumulation of the 2031 Business As-Usual scenario and the following projects:

► 4-lane urban widening of Rossland Road from Church Street to Lake Ridge Road Scenario 2 – ► New 2-lane urban construction of Hunt Street from Mackenzie Avenue to Westney Road 2031 Road ► New 2-lane urban construction of Chambers Drive from Beck Crescent to Audley Road Improvements ► New 2-lane urban construction of Audley Road from Chambers extension to Kingston Road Alternative #2 ► 4-lane urban widening of Harwood Avenue from Woodcock Avenue to Taunton Road ► 4-lane urban widening of Church Street from Kingston Road to Rossland Road ► New 2-lane urban construction of Achilles Road extension to Audley Road ► New 2-lane urban construction of Audley Road extension to Achilles Road (extension)

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Scenario Road Network Projects Scenario 3 includes all the projects identified in Scenario 2 and the following projects:

Scenario 3 – ► New 2-lane urban construction of Achilles Road from Audley Road. (extension) to Lake Ridge 2031 Road Road Improvements ► New 2-lane urban construction of Audley Road over Highway 401 to Chambers Drive (extension) Alternative #3 ► New 2-lane urban construction of Clements Road from Green Court to Church Street ► New 2-lane urban construction of Williamson Road from Harwood Avenue to Thackery Drive

4.3.5 Scenario assessment

The model evaluation framework referred previously in Table 19 was adopted to test the performance of each scenario with system-wide network performance metrics. However, the metrics results indicated in this analysis pertain only to the road network confined within Ajax town boundaries. The daily metrics were calculated by multiplying the a.m. peak hour outputs by a factor of 10. This approach was based on the TTS trip data that showed that the a.m. peak hour represents 10 percent of the daily car traffic. Table 22 portrays these results for each of the scenarios analyzed.

Table 22. Road network model scenario performance metrics 2031 All Roads Within Ajax Themes System Metrics Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Daily VKT 2,397,780 2,391,220 2,389,680

524,820 495,230 483,750 Mobility VKT on links with v/c > 0.9 (%) (22%) (21%) (20%)

Lane Km 541 568 574

Daily VHT 45,452 44,156 43,984

12,839 11,440 11,008 Congestion VHT on links with v/c > 0.9 (%) (28%) (26%) (25%)

Travel Time Index (TTI) 1.22 1.19 1.19 Overall Screenline analysis 0.63 0.60 0.59 (v/c) Sustainability Number of Transit Routes -* 7 8 Impacted

* This will be used as base case

It is important to note that as new roads or lanes are added, the VKT and the VHT in the network decrease. This is to be expected, as the added roadways/lanes allow alternate routes between origins and destinations. These alternate routes can provide a direct connection between origins and destinations, or they can decrease the length of diversion, which was previously observed due to the congestion on the links.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Moreover, the mobility drastically improved between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, with a reduction of about 30,000 vehicle-kilometres travelled on congested links with a volume to capacity > 0.9. This improvement is even more acute between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3, with a reduction of about 41,000 vehicle-kilometres.

The proposed changes have also provided a relief from congestion. Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 the amount of time spent (VHT) on congested links with a volume to capacity > 0.9 decreased by approximately 1,400 hours. Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3, this same value was approximately 1,890 hours. The travel time index (TTI), which is a ratio of travel time for all network trips to the hypothetical total travel time for those trips on an uncongested network, has decreased between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (1.22 to 1.19) but has stayed constant when comparing Scenario 2 to Scenario 3 (1.19). Finally, the proposed improvements have also benefited transit routes. Majority of the improvements to the transit network occurred with the Scenario 2 roadway additions.

4.3.6 Preferred future road network

The data for the modelling performance metrics suggests that both Scenario 2 and 3 would result in less congested roadways when compared to Scenario 1 (Business As-Usual) 2031 horizon. Although projects proposed under Scenario 3 result in additional capacity, more alleviation to congestion and improved mobility (refer back to Table 22), they do not anticipate dramatic improvements of time savings or distance travelled compared to Scenario 2 and have a high risk of higher costs due to the type of infrastructure required31: Audley Road extension requires a flyover over Highway 401; Clements Road extension requires a crossing over Duffins Creek; and the Williamson Drive connection requires railway track grade crossing. Therefore, the preferred future road network is Scenario 2.

The network modelling assessment was complemented with further insight on challenges and opportunities tied to each potential road project for Scenarios 2 and 3 (see Table 23), where “I” represents to “Implement” a road project and “M” to “Monitor for future.” It is important to note that the Audley Road extension across Highway 401 provides a strong north-south connection between uptown-downtown Ajax, and so it is recommended to monitor traffic conditions around it in case the link is needed in a longer-term horizon (2031-beyond).

Table 23. Individual proposed road project assessment Project Assessment Action ► Expected to carry approximately 20,000 ADT; 4-lane urban widening of ► Will support the current and future population growth in the Rossland Road (Church Street to northeast quadrant of the Town; and I Lake Ridge Road) ► Potential to provide relief to Kingston Road and Taunton Road, while improving transit operations. ► Expected to carry approximately 3,000 ADT; ► Secondary access into and out of industrial lands; New 2-lane urban construction of ► Provides a relief conduit for traffic from the Ajax GO Transit Station; Hunt Street (Mackenzie Avenue and I to Westney Road) ► Will alleviate some of the congestion along Bayly Street while allowing vehicles to go east-west between Harwood Avenue and Westney Road. New 2-lane urban construction of ► Provides alternative route to east west travel, bypassing congestion at Chambers Drive (Beck Crescent to Salem Rd and Kingston Rd; and I Audley Road); and ► Extension would support urbanization of the area.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Project Assessment Action ► Provides relief to Salem Road for all trips that are coming from Whitby ► New 2-lane urban construction of that are destined to main adjacent residential area. Audley Road from Chambers ► Extension would support urbanization of the area and offer new direct extension to Kingston Road linkage to arterial road (Kingston Road). ► Expected to carry approximately 10,000 ADT; 4-lane urban widening of ► Would provide relief to Salem Road and Westney Road; and Harwood Avenue (Woodcock I ► Widening would support urbanization of the area and transit Avenue to Taunton Road) operations. ► Expected to carry approximately 13,000 ADT; 4-lane urban widening of Church ► Widening would provide congestion relief along this section of Church Street (Kingston Road to Rossland Street, I Road) ► Improve transit service on Church Street; and ► Opportunity for enhanced cycling facility. New 2-lane urban construction extension of Achilles Road ► Expected to provide relief and connectivity to Bayly Street between (Terminus to Audley Road); and Salem Road and Audley Road; and I ► Expected to provide alternative route for trucks at Loblaws New 2-lane urban construction of distribution centre. Audley Road (Bayly Street to Achilles Road extension) New 2-lane urban construction of ► Anticipated to provide direct connectivity to main arterial road at Lake Achilles Road (Audley Road to Ridge Road; and I Lake Ridge Road) ► Anticipated to provide relief of traffic on Bayly Street. ► Expected to carry approximately 3,300 ADT, a low volume for an arterial road; Flyover extension of Audley Road ► Provides continuous arterial connection across Highway 401; over Highway 401 to Chambers ► It is projected the existing parallel streets (Salem Road and Lake Ridge M Drive extension onto Kingston Road) will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the crossing of Road Highway 401 in this area; and ► Expected to be costly to build. New Extension of Clements Road ► Provides limited relief to Bayly Street; and from Green Court to Church ► Significant environmental costs due to the required crossing of Duffins M Street Creek. ► Expected to carry approximately 3,000 ADT; ► Provides limited relief to Taunton Road and Rossland Road; Extension of Williamson Road ► Expensive to cross railway-tracks; from Harwood Avenue to ► Supports the completion of a mid-block collector system, albeit at a M Thackery Drive very high cost due to the railway tracks; ► Potential to encourage traffic infiltration; and ► Could provide active transportation and transit connection.

In the Region’s 2017 TMP, the Town requested that the Clements Road and Williamson Road extensions be removed from the Official Plan, but the request was rejected by the Region. A comprehensive assessment of all three projects identified to “Monitor for Future” should be completed during the next Official Plan review. The assessment should evaluate the potential improvements these connections would offer to the overall network and compare them to the costs associated with these connections and the potential environmental and social impacts associated with them.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

The Notion Road / Squires Beach Road connection over Highway 401 was not included in the modelling analysis as it is seen as beyond the 2031 time frame for this ITMP. This is consistent with the approach and recommended phasing which was proposed in the 2017 Durham Region Transportation Master Plan.

Overall, the preferred network alternative (Scenario 2) is depicted in Figure 57. The identified road improvements of this scenario not only represent better network performance as suggested by the model, but also fiscally responsible improvements in the medium and long term. Moreover, as the aforementioned figure illustrates, Scenario 2 volume to capacity (v/c) ratios show visible improvements in zones subject to increasing congestion, such as is the case for Harwood Avenue, Rossland Avenue and Church Street. These improvements are further backed by the feedback received during the engagement and consultation phases where stakeholders identified many of these areas sensitive to congestion and safety. It is important to acknowledge that while this section of the report does not analyze active transportation (AT), the preferred network selected was taken into consideration for developing the proposed AT and trails network that is detailed in Section 4.2.

Figure 57. Volume over capacity 2031 modelled network scenario comparison

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Preferred Road Network Recommendations Proposed Road Widening (2 to 4 lanes) Proposed Road Extension (2-lanes) 1. Harwood Ave. (Taunton Rd. to Woodcock Ave.) 4. Hunt St. (Mackenzie Ave. to Westney Rd.) 2. Rossland Rd. (Church St. to Lake Ridge Rd.) 5. Chambers Dr. (Beck Cresc. to Audley extension) and Audley Rd. (Chambers extension to Kingston Rd.) 3. Church St. (Kingston Rd. to Rossland Rd.) 6. Audley Rd. (Bayly St. to Achilles Rd. extension) and Achilles Road (Terminus to Audley extension)

4.4 Traffic operations

The following subsections build upon the existing conditions traffic operations analysis of three road corridors of Ajax, as examined in Section 2.6.4, in order to provide recommendations to optimize the performance at the key intersections from the three corridors of Bayly Street West, Harwood Avenue South, and Westney Road South. The recommendations were tested and evaluated on the existing conditions Synchro files previously calibrated, in order to determine optimized levels of service (LOS) and critical movements volume over capacity ratio (v/c). Traffic signal operations are under the jurisdiction of Durham Region. The Region has an ongoing program to monitor and optimize phasing/timing at signalized intersections. Following the finalization of the ITMP the recommendations will be submitted to the Region for consideration.

Additionally, SimTraffic was utilized for queue analysis to determine if storage lengths are adequate for the traffic conditions at every intersection. The maximum average queue was used to determine the sufficiency of the storage lanes. SimTraffic records the maximum back of queue observed for every two-minute period. The maximum average queue is the average of all the two-minute maximum queues.

4.4.1 Bayly Street West corridor

The recommendations for Bayly Street West intersections with movements that exhibit overcapacity are:

Optimize signals at Westney Road and Bayly Street

The intersection of Westney Road and Bayly Street had an acceptable level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (LOS “C” and “D”, respectively), however, there were multiple movements identified as critical and the eastbound through movement is theoretically over capacity (v/c = 1.04). The signal timings were optimized to improve the performance of this intersection. ► Table 24 shows the updated result. After the optimization, there are several movements that are still critical, however all the movements are within capacity. Given that these conditions are only expected during one hour of the day, no additional improvements are suggested; nonetheless, this intersection should continue to be monitored.

► A southbound right turn lane is being added to the Bayly and Westney intersection in 2019 as part of the intersection modifications required to accommodate the Durham Live development in Pickering.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Add a protected westbound left turn phase on Finley Street and Bayly Street

The intersection of Finley Avenue and Bayly Street has an acceptable level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (LOS “A” and “C”, respectively), however, the westbound left turn movement is theoretically over capacity during the p.m. peak hour (v/c = 1.09). A protected westbound left turn phase was added to this intersection. ► Table 24 shows the updated results. After the addition of the westbound left protected phase, the movement is operating well below the critical threshold and the v/c ratio for the northbound left-turn movement has decreased. Given that these conditions are only expected during one hour of the day no additional improvements are suggested.

Optimize signals at Harwood Avenue and Bayly Street

► The intersection of Harwood Avenue Road and Bayly Street had an acceptable level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (LOS “C” and “D”, respectively), however there were a couple movements identified in the p.m. peak hour as critical and the southbound left movement is theoretically over capacity (v/c = 1.10). The signal timings were optimized to improve the performance of this intersection. ► Table 24 summarizes the updated result. After the optimization, the movements are still critical, however all the movements are within capacity. Given that these conditions are only expected during one hour of the day no additional improvements are suggested. This intersection should continue to be monitored.

Table 24. Bayly Street West optimized level of service P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Critical Movement (Delay in Seconds) (Volume/Capacity Ratio) EB-T (0.96) NB-L (0.86) Westney Rd. S & Bayly St. W D(47) NB-TR (0.90) SB-L (0.97) SB-TR (0.97) Finley Ave. & Bayly St. W C(23) NB-LTR (0.88) EB-TR (0.98) Harwood Ave. S & Bayly St. W D(38) SB-L (0.93)

Queue analysis for Bayly Street West

Based on the SimTraffic results, Table 25 shows the average maximum queues for each movement of the analyzed intersections of this corridor.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 25. Queue results for Bayly Street West corridor Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Criteria Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Westney Rd. S & Bayly St. W Storage (m) 75.0 692.31 - 85.0 660.91 - 140.0 372.3 120.0 105.0 465.8 60.0 Average A 1 1 M 29.9 42.0 - 43.3 34.6 - 15.5 17.6 9.6 7.8 40.5 32.9 Max P 1 1 Queue M 32.1 46.0 - 66.8 64.1 - 27.4 110.7 37.6 12.4 33.7 24.9 Finley Ave. & Bayly St. W Storage (m) - 675.23 - - 131.33 - - 465.8 20.0 40.0 250.8 - Average A 3 3 M - 16.6 - - 0.2 - - 14.5 4.3 15.0 25.6 - Max P 3 3 Queue M - 45.3 - - 1.5 - - 51.9 2.5 18.7 24.1 - MacKenzie Ave. & Bayly St. W Storage (m) - 437.63 - - 429.13 - 80.0 250.81 - 70.0 341.51 - Average A 3 3 1 M - 6.2 - - 11.6 - 8.9 - - 4.8 0.3 - Max P 3 3 1 1 Queue M - 15.5 - - 19.6 - 11.4 0.6 - 6.7 0.5 - Monarch Ave. & Bayly St. W Storage (m) 25.0 666.91 - - 471.23 - 80.0 341.5 19.0 80.0 469.1 20.0 Average A 1 3 M 16.2 17.1 - - 19.1 - 2.3 17.9 12.1 23.8 38.0 3.1 Max P 1 3 Queue M 28.6 52.5 - - 24.9 - 12.1 62.6 19.0 14.3 18.4 1.4 Kitney Dr. & Bayly St. W Storage (m) 25.0 402.1 25.0 40.0 567.8 - 70.0 469.11 - 40.0 220.5 50.0 Average A 1 M 3.2 5.9 - 10.9 8.1 - 10.2 16.2 - 19.6 35.6 3.8 Max P 1 Queue M 9.8 16.0 1.7 9.6 13.6 - 24.0 63.3 - 22.6 17.0 3.7 Harwood Ave. S & Bayly St. Storage (m) 50.0 557.01 - 65.0 517.5 30.0 75.0 220.51 - 145.0 506.41 - Average A 1 1 1 M 32.0 44.8 - 26.7 32.4 29.7 11.6 24.6 - 15.4 57.1 - Max P 1 1 1 Queue M 23.5 46.7 - 49.1 49.6 23.4 17.5 74.2 - 16.8 31.0 - 1This is a through right movement 2This is a left through movement 3This is a left through right movement

Based on Table 25, there are two movements that result in slightly longer average maximum queue length than its storage length. Additional recommendations at these movements of these intersections include:

Monitor Monarch Avenue & Bayly Street W

► The northbound left direction presently has a storage length of 25 metres, however, the average maximum queue during the p.m. peak hour is approximately 29 metres, resulting in a deficit of 4 metres. Due to the small difference in average maximum queue length, it is recommended that this movement be closely monitored to see if future growth will have drastic changes to the queue.

► The eastbound right direction presently has a storage length of 19 metres, however, the average maximum queue is approximately 19 metres during the p.m. peak hour, resulting in a maximum average

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

queue equal to the storage length. Since there is no difference between the queue length and storage length, and any spillover should not have a drastic impact to the through movement, no changes to the storage lane is needed at this time. The movement should be monitored.

4.4.2 Harwood Avenue South corridor

Although some of the intersections were perceived as problematic due to the reduction of travel lanes along the corridor, the traffic analysis as detailed in Section 2.6.4, indicates that the intersections are operating at adequate conditions (LOS “D” or better) with no critical movements. For this reason, new optimizations to signal operations to enhance the level of service are not presently required. As previously indicated, the vehicle traffic growth along this corridor is projected to be minimal and the two-lane cross section can readily accommodate the traffic.

Queue analysis at Harwood Avenue South

Further analyses to evaluate impact on queue lengths on these intersections were also closely examined. Based on the Simtraffic results, Table 26 shows the average maximum queues for each movement at the intersections of this corridor.

Table 26. Queue results for Harwood Avenue South corridor Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Criteria Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Harwood Ave. S & Westney Rd. S / Dreyer Rd. E Storage (m) 25.0 537.7 25.0 30.0 203.0 30.0 15.0 232.9 95.0 20.0 278.21 - Average AM 16.7 13.5 2.1 6.3 11.2 8.5 9.9 10.9 5.5 3.0 23.21 - Max PM 11.5 8.8 0.6 8.4 12.8 7.6 17.9 37.4 11.6 0.8 16.31 - Queue Harwood Ave. S & Clover Ridge Dr. W / Clover Ridge Dr. E Storage (m) - 321.92 30.0 - 537.72 30.0 - 164.33 - - 182.23 - Average AM - 0.42 0.1 - 2.22 0.7 - 12.13 - - 10.73 - Max PM - 0.52 0.1 - 4.22 0.5 - 8.63 - - 9.03 - Queue Lake Driveway W / Lake Driveway E & Harwood Ave. S Storage (m) - - - - 177.74 - - 257.12 - - - - Average AM - - - - 6.64 - - 1.02 - - - - Max PM - - - - 9.64 - - 1.02 - - - - Queue 1This is a through right movement 2This is a left through movement 3This is a left through right movement 4This is a left right movement

Based on Table 26, there is only one movement that has an average maximum queue longer than its storage length. Thereby, one recommendation at this intersection includes:

Monitor Harwood Avenue South & Westney Road South / Dreyer Road East

► The eastbound left direction presently has a spacing of 15 metres, however, the average p.m. queue is approximately 18 metres. Currently, there is a deficit of 3 metres. Since there is small difference between

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

the queue length and storage length, no changes to the storage lane is needed at this moment but should continue to be monitored.

Westney Road South corridor

The following recommendations are made for Westney Road South intersections with movements that exhibit overcapacity during the p.m. peak period:

Optimize signals and monitor Westney Road South and Fairall Street

► The intersection of Westney Road South and Fairall Street had an acceptable level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, however, there were multiple movements identified as critical and the eastbound left and southbound right movement were theoretically over capacity. The signal timings were optimized to improve the performance of this intersection. Further, an overlap phase was given to the southbound right turn movement in conjunction to the eastbound left phase.

► Table 27 below shows the updated results. After the optimization, there are several movements that are still critical, however all the movements are within capacity. Given that these conditions are only expected during one hour of the day, no additional improvements are suggested. This intersection should be monitored.

Table 27. Westney Road South and Fairall Street optimized level of service A.M. Peak Hour LOS Critical Movement Intersection (Delay in Seconds) (Volume/Capacity Ratio) EB-L (0.93) WB-T (0.96) NB-L (0.92) Westney Rd. S & Fairall St. D(48) NB-TR (0.93) SB-L (0.94) SB-T (0.95) SB-R (0.91)

Queue analysis for Westney Road South

Based on the SimTraffic results, Table 28 shows the average maximum queues for each movement at the intersection analyzed on this corridor. Table 28. Queue results for Westney Road South corridor Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Criteria Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Fairall St. & Westney Rd. S Storage (m) 80.0 212.61 - 90.0 171.1 85.0 110.0 196.0 110.0 25.0 211.6 25.0 Average AM 32. 173.61 - 39.6 164.9.4 88.4 47.2 22.2 20.0 15.8 65.3 41.9 Max PM 11.5 76.01 - 65.8 58.2 7.9 48.8 17.6 9.5 8.3 24.2 35.3 Queue

Based on Table 28, there are two movements that results in a longer average maximum queue length than its storage length for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The proposed recommendations for these include: 85

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Monitor the intersection’s southbound right turn lane

► The southbound right direction presently has a spacing of 85 metres, however, the average p.m. queue is approximately 88 metres, resulting in a deficit of 3 metres. Since there is small difference between the queue length and storage length, no change to the storage lane is needed at this moment but the vehicular demand for storage length should continue to be monitored.

Extend the westbound right turn lane

► The westbound right direction presently has a spacing of 25 metres, however, the average queue is 42 metres and 36 metres during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Currently there is a deficit of 17 metres. Given the width of the through lane on the approach, there is a potential to extend the right turn lane using pavement marking further westbound to accommodate additional right turn storage. This intersection should be analyzed further to determine the best way to provide the additional storage. Figure 58 shows the storage lane for the westbound right movement at Westney Road S and Fairall Street.

Figure 58. Westney Road South and Fairall Street westbound queue analysis

Realign pavement markings westbound to extend right turn lane

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.5 Supportive policies and transportation initiatives

The provision of municipal transportation services today goes far beyond constructing, maintaining and operating road networks and planning for infrastructure improvements. To complement this, Ajax’s ITMP also provides a policy toolkit to promote inclusive multimodal mobility, enhance safety for all transportation users and prepare for new technological innovations and trends. The success of these policies is dependent on the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders and the continuous promotion of the programs through educational and communicational campaigns. This subsection presents six policy guidelines to support an inclusive, safe and resilient mobility system including:

► Continuing with Complete Streets ► Improving multi-modal transportation ► Strengthening transportation demand management (TDM) ► Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero ► Preparing for new mobility technologies ► Introducing Intelligent transportation systems

4.5.1 Continuing with Complete Streets

Complete Streets provide comfortable and attractive streets to travel along for users of all ages and abilities. A Complete Streets approach advocates that streets must accommodate the social, recreational, ecological and mobility needs of its users. In other words, cities and towns can change the nature of streets to be more than just venues for mobility, but means for economic development, community well-being, environmental and public health promotion. Some associated benefits to implementing Complete Streets include:

► Increased health benefits through walking and cycling; ► Enhanced safety; ► Lower transportation costs; ► Greater opportunities for social interaction; and ► Reduce road congestion and pollution.

Balancing the needs of different road users and purposes is an important objective for Ajax’s transportation planning. Traditionally, roads have been planned to prioritize motor vehicle traffic. The new twenty-first century approach has shifted from a ‘vehicle-centric’ to a ‘user-centric’ road design (see Figure 59). By applying a Complete Streets approach and retrofitting existing roadways to integrate inclusive and multi-modal design, it can help improve accessibility and interconnectivity between different land uses and transportation users.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 59. Complete Streets: Our goals have changed

Twentieth Century Street Design Priorities Twenty-first Century Street Design Priorities

Multi-Modal Mobility + Access Public Health / Safety Auto-Mobility Economic Development Automobile Safety Environmental Quality Livability / Quality of Life

The importance of Complete Streets is recognized by the Town and addressed in several planning documents including the 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the 2013 Transportation Master Plan and the 2016 Official Plan. These planning documents address various elements of Complete Streets including: surrounding land uses, the intended roadway function within the overall transportation network, traffic volumes, existing transportation modes, cyclist and pedestrian demand, transit services, utilities, and right-of-way. A Complete Streets approach to planning and designing has been applied to several roadways within the Town of Ajax including but not limited to Harwood Avenue, Church Street, Taunton Road and Williamson Drive.

Figure 60 shows aerial imagery of Harwood Avenue before and after a Complete Streets redesign. Harwood Avenue was formerly a four-lane cross section with sidewalks on both sides of the road and no cycling facility. Following the redesign of Harwood Avenue, an integrated cycle track and sidewalk design was implemented in place of the existing sidewalks on both sides of the road from Lake Driveway to McRae Road. Providing a dedicated facility for both cyclists and pedestrians at McCrae Road, the cycling facility transferred from a cycle track to buffered bike lanes. The buffered bike lanes extend from McRae Road to Dryden Road. Harwood Avenue South is now a two-lane cross-section from Dryer Drive to Lake Driveway, with on-street parking. The redesign of Harwood Avenue South is meant to have a traffic calming affect and enhance the public realm as a space where residents want to walk and bike along.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 60. Example of Complete Streets application on Harwood Avenue South, Ajax32

Left: Harwood Ave. South before Complete Streets redesign; Right: Harwood Ave. South after Complete Streets

The ITMP promotes the continuation of Complete Streets by treating any transportation design, retrofit and maintenance projects as opportunities to address the needs of multiple modes of travel. This policy also acknowledges that its applicability is dependant on each local context and sensitive to topographical, technical, or legal considerations. All Complete Streets projects will benefit from a rich and inclusive consultation process with residents and stakeholders where desired benefits are emphasized and shared with all road users.

The ITMP Complete Streets policy also stresses the importance of addressing new and retrofit projects across different Town and Regional departments, as well as private developers, as its implementation often benefits from the coordination of multiple efforts working towards a common goal. Furthermore, best design guidelines such as Toronto’s Complete Street Guide (2012); Boston Complete Streets Design Guideline (2013); NACTO’s recent “Designing for All Ages and Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities” (2017); and Transportation Associations of Canada’s (TAC) “Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads” (2017) make great sources with successful case studies of Completes Streets applications that can inform design criteria and standards.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Complete Streets policy recommendations

► Continue promoting multi-functional street corridors to provide better accessibility and travel options to different users.

► Incorporate the best practice design guidelines available.

► Promote Complete Streets across different Town departments and with private developers to integrate efforts toward a common goal.

► Acknowledge applicability exceptions within the practical, legal, technical, topographical, and financial limitations.

► Apply concepts to all existing, retrofit, and new transportation projects, acknowledging the importance of multi-modal integration, accessibility, safety and streetscape.

4.5.2 Improving multi-modal transportation

Multi-modality is often referred to as a network that facilitates the inter-operation and transfer between two or more modes of transportation. In an effort to reduce car-dependency and vehicle road congestion, a multimodal network provides alternative travel mode options. Policies that favour multi-modal trips and mode transfers may vary: from introducing park-and-ride facilities, to bicycle parking, accessible transit facilities, to promoting mix- land use development, among others. These and other related initiatives were frequently voiced during the consultation phase of this ITMP, with particular emphasis on notable multi-modal opportunities at the Ajax GO train station, where many modes converge to feed the transit system.

In this regard, one of the most significant new upper-tier policies that will affect Ajax in the current planning period relates to GO Transit and the Ajax GO Station. A major commitment has been made by Metrolinx to transition the regional commuter rail service, with a plan to offer greater frequencies and reliability, and an eventual change to electrification and all-day service.

Recognizing that the societal cost of adding new parking facilities at the GO stations is no longer sustainable, Metrolinx is requiring municipalities to address this problem by encouraging people to find other ways than driving to get to and from the station. By 2031, Metrolinx anticipates that rail ridership for Ajax as a home station should increase to 8,000 from the current 4,300 (2015), and up to 1,000 as destination trips (from the current 125)33. At the same time, Metrolinx has set a goal to increase walking to and from the station from 4 to 6-8 percent; cycling from 1 to 2-3 percent; pickup/drop off from 15 to 16-18 percent; carpooling from 5 to 6-8 percent; transit from 18 to 20-22 percent; and micro-transit (not currently available) to 12-24 percent. Moreover, the number of people using drive alone and park is set to reduce from 55 to 38-40 percent. These goals are illustrated in Figure 61.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 61. Metrolinx mode share forecasts for Ajax GO station34

60% 55%

50%

40% 40%

30% 24% 22% 20% 18% 18% 15%

10% 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 1% 0% 0% walking bicycling transit carpool drive & park micro-transit pickup/drop off

2016 2031 goal

Although transit services are not provided by the Town of Ajax, there are numerous Town-led initiatives and synergies that can build upon current efforts to support existing transit operations. In this line, the Town supports Metrolinx’s initiative and is already taking actions towards achieving the modal share goal at its station. Some of the initiatives include the optimization of the intersection of Westney Road S and Fairall Street to enhance transit and vehicular access to and from the station; the completion of the elevated pedestrian bridge to connect the north and south parking lots over Fairall Street, and bike parking at the station. Complementary policies like Complete Streets, Ajax’s Transportation Demand Management Plan, and the continuous promotion of its active transportation facilities, will continue to advocate for the use of alternative modes of transportation. The integration and coordination of these efforts by all local, regional, and private stakeholders will encourage smooth, safe and convenient transfers between modes.

Multi-modal transportation recommendations

► In coordination with Durham Region Transit, build accessible sidewalks and bike facilities at transit stops.

► Optimize traffic signals to enhance access to and from the GO station.

► Participate and join efforts for multi-modal initiatives with all levels of government, transit agencies, and private developers.

► Find synergies with the private sector to promote Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to inform users on how to use and benefit from multiple modes to perform a trip.

► Explore the feasibility of a bike-sharing program, with especial connections to transit and popular destinations such as schools, libraries, and community centres.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.5.3 Strengthening transportation demand management

Transportation demand management (TDM) encompasses a wide range of policies, programs, and services that seek to encourage sustainable travel behaviour. In an effort to reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicle trips, TDM measures are designed to make more efficient and effective use of existing alternative modes of transportation. A holistic TDM approach combines a mixture of service, marketing, and also infrastructure development to reduce auto-dependence, congestion, pollution and health-related issues.

In 2015, the Town of Ajax adopted its TDM plan which states a vision and short-, medium-, and long-term TDM goals actions and programs. The proposed vision seeks to develop a balanced transportation system that provides a full range of travel choices through infrastructure, programming, education and promotion of alternative modes of transportation. Specific goals of Ajax’s TDM Plan include:

► Position the Town of Ajax as a leading example within the Region of Durham for sustainable transportation programs. ► Reduce the use of single-occupant vehicle trips. ► Increase the multi-occupant vehicle modal split (such as with car sharing and transit). ► Incrementally increase mode share of transit, carpooling and active transportation (walking, cycling). ► Provide leadership and incentives to area businesses to encourage them to adopt TDM initiatives. ► Support active transportation and associated infrastructure. ► Monitor and effectively measure the benefits associated with TDM programs. ► Communicate the need and benefits of TDM to staff, Council, and the public.

The supportive TDM measures of the ITMP build upon these goals and the existing TDM plan by framing its recommendations under a three-pronged approach: infrastructure, promotion, and normalization (see Figure 62). The relationship of these elements is not mutually-exclusive, as they all provide vital synergies to sway sustainable travel behaviour.

Figure 62. Three-pronged approach to travel behaviour change

Includes roads, trails, buses and related facilities necessary to get people to places by other means than driving. The infrastructure Infrastructure must be well maintained and it must be perceived as safe. Infrastructure

Includes information, incentives, educational programs, special events and other encouragements that will be required to get people to think about using other modes. Focus marketing to the kind of traveller, whether a driver, a pedestrian, a novice cyclist or Promotion experienced rider as each needs to hear the appropriate message. Normalization Promotion

Includes social and legal strategies to induce travel behaviour change. This can include the appointment of multi-modal champions and mentors to act as community ambassadors. It can also mean the creation of the legislative and regulatory policies (such as congestion Normalization charging, toll-roads, paid parking, parking cash out, among other).

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

TDM supporting policy recommendations

Infrastructure

► Monitor regularly the condition and performance of the infrastructure and find mechanisms to channel and process user feedback efficiently. ► Integrate land use planning in transportation infrastructure projects to promote development that encourages short-distance trips that are not necessarily dependant on motorized vehicles. ► Monitor the progress of smart technologies and be an early adopter of technologies that can make the existing infrastructure more efficient35. ► Require major private destinations and employers to provide locker rooms and shower facilities for cyclists.

Promotion

► Champions and mentors – Reach out to volunteers or pay community ambassadors to be part of a sustainable travel mentorship program. ► Impart sustainable travel lessons to young children by working with police and elementary schools to deliver safe riding programs like Bicycle Rodeos. ► Bicycle Mentor Program - Match experienced cyclists as volunteers who can mentor newcomers to the Town. Bicycles can be loaned to participants temporarily (typically the summer months) which they can use for any purpose including group rides, work travel and leisure. Group rides, tours, social events, and training sessions would be offered as a way to introduce newcomers to the Town, practice language skills, get to know people, and ultimately, help normalize cycling as a transportation mode36. ► Continue enhancing the network of bicycle-friendly businesses and offer incentives to join the program. ► Continue to work with Smart Commute Durham to promote TDM measures and programs in the Town of Ajax.

Normalization

► Strengthen the inclusion of TDM actions in key municipal documents:

o Traffic Impact Study Guidelines – Introduce supportive infrastructure including priority parking for carpools, car share and electric vehicles; bicycle parking; connections to transit; pedestrian-first approach to site design, among others.

o Official Plan & Land Use By-law (by-law currently under review). ▪ Reviewing parking requirements with a goal to reducing them. ▪ Replacing parking minimums with parking maximums. ▪ Encouraging corner neighbourhood retailing. ▪ Encourage more mix-use development.

► Encourage the Province to place a greater onus on drivers with respect their behaviour in the presence of vulnerable road users, through higher fines for offences. ► Neighbourhood retailing - bring back neighbourhood retailing so households may avoid unnecessary long- distance trips; encourage such businesses through tax incentives.37

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.5.4 Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero

Road safety is integral to the functionality, usability, and enjoyment of the overall transportation system. No deaths or serious injury should be considered acceptable consequences of mobility. The contemporary Vision Zero perspective of road safety, along with its safe systems approach, encourages the long-term goal of eliminating road traffic deaths and serious injuries.

The first step of implementing Vision Zero plan in Ajax is to understand the existing local road safety approach. The Town of Ajax operates a Share the Road campaign which educates pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists on tips to educate road users about safe road behaviour. In addition, the Town of Ajax implements speed management through traffic calming initiatives. The Traffic Calming Warrant Update was completed in 2015 measuring speed, establishing a collision threshold and various other indicators to determine if traffic calming measures should be implemented. As of now, all traffic calming measures must first originate as a public request. Road safety in neighborhoods and around school zones is promoted through municipally sponsored initiatives like Road Watch and Active and Safe Routes to School.

In tandem with the Region, Ajax road safety will be supported through the Vision Zero Durham Region Strategic Road Safety Action Plan (SRSAP), which is expected to be completed by summer 2019. This Action Plan’s goal is to reduce fatal and injury collisions by 10% within five years (2019-2023), and will be measured through an all- collision analysis, emphasizing eight collision factors: intersections, aggressive driving, distracted driving, young drivers, pedestrians, impaired driving, cyclists and commercial vehicles.

Through Road Safety Action Plans, municipalities can guide interim road safety goals and mitigation measures. Vision Zero envisions these goals and outcomes as a shared responsibility between road users and system designers such as traffic engineers, transportation planners, land-use planners, public health professionals, police enforcement and emergency response teams. Through a mix of collaborative efforts, safe infrastructure design and policies (which account human error and vulnerability), key directives for a Vision Zero are proposed:

► Focus on facilities and injury collision analysis. ► Design a road system that accounts for human error and vulnerability. ► Implement the safe system approach, which considers the multiple influences of road safety. ► Understand road safety as a shared responsibility between system designers and users.

The proposed evidence-based and collaborative action items for road safety seek to enhance Ajax’s mobility systems towards a safer, healthier and more resilient future. Adopting Vision Zero requires a long, mid and short- term understanding of road safety, so that interventions that reduce (and eventually eliminate) road traffic deaths and serious injuries can be appropriately monitored and evaluated. Adaptable interventions are a key element to the longevity of Vision Zero plans. The Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan should be contextual, flexible and contain achievable steps that will impact change in road safety.

Vision Zero supporting policy recommendations

► Using the Durham Regional Road Safety Plan as a foundation, develop a Town of Ajax Road Safety Action Plan. The plan will provide Town of Ajax-specific road safety goals and directives for preferred countermeasures, community initiatives, pilot studies, and education programs. This plan should be evidence-based by utilizing the collision analysis database to inform its content. To strengthen the Road

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Safety Action Plan’s resiliency, it should be developed collaboratively across disciplines and contextually to the unique conditions of Ajax’s transportation framework. A successful Road Safety Action Plan will: o Integrate and align efforts from existing educational initiatives. o Evaluate the results of the KSI collision analysis to develop a well-suited initial Vision Zero objective for Ajax. o Have contextual implementation measures for Ajax which are based on a review of existing strategies. o Integrate multi-disciplinary initiatives that influence road safety (such as the walking school bus, enforcement education programs and traffic calming).

► In conjunction with Durham Region and other Regional Municipalities, create a database of KSI collision analysis and an Ajax Road Safety Action Plan. Providing evidence-based collision analysis is fundamental to the informed development of Road Safety Action Plans. The proposed Injury Prevention collision analysis for the Town of Ajax should be implemented either concurrently or in advance of the Road Safety Manual (RSM) process which performs network screening, diagnoses problem locations, proposes countermeasures and evaluates success. Injury Prevention Screening will quantitively analyze KSI collision trends and help to prioritize interventions based on system-level collision sources. The database could inform the Local and Regional Road Safety Action Plans and should be initiated by: o Collecting KSI collision data from the past 5 or more years, using a variety of sources including hospital and police reports, intersection cameras and media reports. o Focusing data analysis on system-level collision cause trends. o Identifying trends which inform preventative measures.

► Develop a Road Safety Management Steering Committee which is consists of a broad range of system designers and can inform implementation measures and objectives as the plan develops. ► Coordinate efforts with Durham Region to strengthen programs and continue to align objectives and data- collections methods. ► Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework for Vision Zero and the Road Safety Action Plan which allows for the continual update of the plan as conditions evolve.

4.5.5 Preparing for new mobility technologies

Several recent technological advances have begun to expand travel options and are poised to transform transportation in the coming decades. These technologies include ride-sharing platforms, electric vehicles, and in a not too distant future, autonomous vehicles. Collectively, these technologies create a new mobility landscape that will continue to evolve over the planning horizon of the ITMP.

Ride-sharing platforms, such as Uber and Lyft, offer transportation services operated by private vehicle owners. These services are accessed through smart phone and mobile applications that allow users to request pick-up and drop-off locations. In many jurisdictions, including parts of the GTHA, the carpool feature allows multiple passengers traveling in similar directions to ride in a single, dynamically routed vehicle providing a service that is considerably more cost competitive than a taxi, though usually less cost competitive than transit.

Electric vehicles are motor vehicles with electric engines instead of traditional combustion engines. These vehicles do not generate point source emissions and make a positive contribution toward reducing transportation

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 emissions. These vehicles, however, require charging infrastructure, and the provision of public charging locations can encourage more motorists to consider switching to this technology. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) use advanced sensors and artificial intelligence to perform all driving-related tasks. While this technology is in relatively advanced stages of development, it is not clear when it will be widely deployed with estimates ranging from the early 2020’s to the 2030’s or beyond. When they are introduced on a wide-scale, it is expected that AVs will improve road safety, reduce the cost of ride-sharing and enable more flexible use of time for drivers. The potential to reduce the need for vehicle ownership, reduced parking demand and greater opportunities for shared parking38 are among the important implications of this technology for towns like Ajax.

Micro-transit

As defined by Metrolinx, micro-transit “refers to on-demand, dynamically-routed transit services typically using smaller vehicles (such as vans) than conventional buses, supported by an online application.”39 Examples include Chariot, which operates in several U.S. cities, and ride-share services such as UberPool, UberPool Express and LyftLine which operate in the City of Toronto and surrounding municipalities. These companies offer a service that is generally considered to be more convenient than conventional transit and usually less expensive than a taxi.

In low density areas with limited transit service, micro-transit has the potential to significantly improve mobility options for individuals who do not own a vehicle and may actually be a more cost-effective approach to providing conventional transit. Some municipalities such as Innisfil, Ontario have therefore chosen to subsidize private micro-transit operators in specific areas. Micro-transit can also complement existing transit, particularly regional services, by making it easier for individuals to reach key terminals. However, in areas with moderate or extensive conventional transit service, private micro-transit operators can have the opposite effect. Micro-transit services compete with conventional transit for the same riders in this context, making it more difficult and costly to deliver effective conventional transit. This complex relationship between micro-transit and conventional transit means that an effective regulatory environment is key to leveraging its potential benefits.

Assessing major infrastructure investments

The future introduction of autonomous vehicles into the transportation system will likely affect both the demand for travel within the Town of Ajax and the capacity of the road network. Automation is likely to make ride-sharing trips more affordable, which may induce additional demand for travel. Similarly, automation is expected to allow more people to use their travel time for work or recreation, which could induce further travel demand. Finally, road pricing may play a more prominent role in the long-term future, which could also affect travel demand.

As with travel demand, the capacity of the road network is likely to be affected by AVs, particularly in the long term when AVs may constitute a significant portion of the vehicle mix in the Town. Shorter headways and the potential to achieve improved optimization of both traffic signals and vehicle routing could all increase the capacity of the existing road network. Average vehicle occupancy, which could increase or decrease depending on road pricing and how AVs are introduced, may also have a significant impact on road capacity. While there is considerable uncertainty about how AVs may affect overall demand and capacity, the introduction of AVs may also present an opportunity to introduce new policy instruments (such as road pricing or dynamic speed limits for example) that can influence both demand and capacity.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

With so much uncertainty surrounding the transportation network in the long term, it is recommended that the Town consider undertaking a risk assessment—or new mobility audit—for large scale network investments that are rationalized over a long-time horizon. A new mobility audit would assess the risk that a major investment could be underutilized in the long term, and therefore be an inefficient use of limited public resources. At a high level, the risk for various kinds of transportation projects can be classified as illustrated in Table 29.

Table 29. New mobility audit to assess risk for future road network investments Project Typology Risk Level Justification Maintenance projects lower risk Helps to maintain the existing conditions of the network. Most existing infrastructure is well utilized and any potential capacity increases or demand reductions from new mobility technologies would likely be offset by population growth within the Town. Complete Streets lower risk The benefit of public realm improvements will not be undermined by new projects mobility technologies. Designing a roadway to allocate more space for transit, cycling, and pedestrian facilities will likely be beneficial as a future reduction in vehicle ownership may contribute to increased walking and cycling. New road construction low risk These will be necessary for property access in new developments. Due to projects for new limited greenfield development in Ajax, these projects will not be as common. developments Road expansion/ higher risk The implementation of more intelligent transportation systems, greater widening projects vehicle occupancy, reduced vehicle ownership and more effective travel demand management are likely to impact usage of these.

New mobility technologies recommendations

► Review zoning bylaw parking requirements and consider where it may be appropriate to reduce parking minimums due to potentially lower demand over the full building lifecycle; identify strategies to reduce parking demand in the interim on case-by-case basis. ► Review opportunities to implement electric charging infrastructure at public parking lots / garages for electric vehicles. ► Work with Durham Region to establish a regional working group to track new mobility trends and appropriate policy responses. Members of this working group should include representatives from Durham Region, the local municipalities, Durham Region Transit, Metrolinx, educational institutions, citizen representatives and other relevant industry actors. ► Undertake new mobility audits for any major construction investments. ► Provide as much separated cycling infrastructure on major streets as possible to mitigate future conflict between cyclists and AVs. ► Undertake an AVs pilot project. ► In coordination with Durham Region Transit, explore opportunities to provide micro-transit or other mobility options for areas in Town where their traditional transit service is not practical but there is an unmet need for improved transit service. ► Explore opportunities to establish a regulatory environment together with Durham Region and Durham Transit that integrates micro-transit and ride-sharing services in a manner that complements conventional transit services.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.5.6 Introducing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) encompass the application of technology across all aspects of transportation infrastructure delivery and operations. As of late, infrastructure technologies have expanded beyond transportation to wider applications that serve to enhance the efficiency and intelligence of city infrastructure and operations. ITS and Smart City applications present opportunities to improve the experience of travellers and the ability of Town staff to continuously assess the performance of their facilities. In line with the Town’s four key principles, these applications support accessibility, efficiency and safety, and can work to enhance the quality of life of Town residents. Peer municipalities in the GTHA regard ITS applications as a congestion management tool. While congestion may not be of critical concern on Town roads, ITS applications like traveller information systems, signal upgrades, data collection and performance monitoring are relevant considerations that the Town can contemplate further through this ITMP. The Town may also explore opportunities to integrate the Town’s data into the Regional active transportation management system (ATMS) software that may provide a common, one window interface to the public.

Traveller Information

As one of most common outputs for ITS, traveller information represents information provided by agencies or third parties to travellers to help inform timing, mode and route decisions for trips on transportation facilities. Traveller information can be delivered to travellers in the field using dynamic signage (ex: variable message signs), online, by email, using social media platforms, using mobile applications or by radio and TV communications. Traveller information relies upon the types and frequency of data being collected across a transportation system, as it is then disseminated to its most valuable form and communicated to travellers before the trip and/or en-route. The Town currently provides static transportation-related information online through their Public Notices webpage. Relevant information that is readily available through other channels includes information shared by the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO), Durham Region’s Traffic Watch, Durham Region Transit, OPP and third parties like Waze and Google Maps.

Durham Region has recently acquired active traffic Figure 63. Durham Region Traffic Watch (ATMS) management system (ATMS) software to input and communicate planned construction and road maintenance events on Regional roads (Figure 63). The public facing portion of this system, known as Traffic Watch, integrates the region’s data with MTO data and shared local municipality data on a web-based platform to communicate camera locations and feeds, incidents, planned events (special, construction and maintenance) and infrastructure updates (ex: new signalized intersection). Opportunities to integrate the Town’s data into the regional ATMS should be explored to strengthen the Region’s

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 ability to provide traveller information, allow for quick and efficient implementation and “one window” interface for the public and promote data sharing.

MTO currently provides a mix of traveller information along their highways across the Province. Within the Town’s borders, Highways 401 and 412 are covered by a network of CCTV cameras available online and planned maintenance activities are displayed on their 511 website. MTO also manages a Twitter account to communicate traveller information through this platform (#ONHwys). In the winter, a Track My Plow portal is also made available by the MTO to communicate to travellers the activities of snow clearing equipment on the Provincial highways. Durham Region Transit (DRT) provides transit service information to their Figure 64. Example of OPP twitter Post travellers online, by text and phone (voice). Recently, DRT installed GPS technology on their bus fleet to allow for real-time bus arrival information to be communicated to their travellers. The OPP operates a GTA Traffic Twitter account to provide up-to-date and valuable road condition and incident information to users of this social media platform across the region (see Figure 64 for example). On the other side of the industry, Google Maps and Waze leverage their large consumer base to generate enormous amounts of traveller information and communicate this data to users in real-time.

Transportation Big-Data

Big data and open data are recent trends across Canadian municipalities where data is actively being collected and made available to understand communities better. Prioritizing data represents a positive shift towards transparent government processes and evidence-based decision making. Transportation data is a powerful medium to understand both finite details and large-scale patterns of transportation systems and Town operations. At this time, the Town has an established open data portal where a series of datasets relating to boundaries, transportation, recreation, planning and development, housing and community services are downloadable online. The Town’s open data portal has laid a good foundation for further investment in data collection and analytics, as well as citizen engagement through online performance reporting.

At key locations across Town, pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle counts are being collected to help the Town understand the performance of their transportation facilities. However, this performance data is not currently included as a downloadable dataset online. As discussed in Section 5.6, it is recommended that the Town establishes a strategy to expand the coverage and frequency of traffic data collection, across all modes, and that these data be made available through the existing open data portal. Through this strategy, the Town can also develop a series of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to report traffic performance data in a dashboard format (see Figure 65 for example from the City of Calgary’s Citizen Dashboard40). It is recommended that Figure 65. Calgary Citizen the Town explores further developments available regarding open data and the Dashboard analytics of transportation big data to understand the performance of existing 99

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 infrastructure and monitor the impact of future infrastructure investments. Given the evolution of the data market, it is recommended that the Town undertakes a data needs assessment and a market scan to determine whether data collection should be undertaken internally or purchased from a third party. Additionally, the Town’s existing website may include a platform for citizen and industry feedback to inform what type of data is valuable on the portal and at what frequency should it be updated by the Town.

Overall, it is recommended that the Town develops an ITS Strategic Plan to establish a vision for infrastructure technologies to enhance the efficiency and safety of Town transportation operations and services. Part of this strategic plan includes the undertaking of a transportation information needs assessment to identify gaps and user expectations about the information that is being provided to travellers of different modes. Additionally, the ITS Strategic Plan could be leveraged as well as part of a grander Smart Cities strategy that could be subject to grant applications offered by other Regional and Provincial agencies.

ITS policy recommendations

► Develop an ITS Strategic Plan in consultation with the Durham Region. ► Determine key data needs and develop a plan to collect or purchase data through data needs assessment. ► Analyze real-time data to understand the performance of the Town’s existing infrastructure and present this data online.

4.6 Road classification review

4.6.1 Existing classification system

The Official Plan of the Town of Ajax in its Schedule C-1 and Schedule C-4 classifies the existing road network based on a clear set of criteria that considers the roadways’ role in the system catering to various needs and modes of transportation. The existing road classification criteria that governs the hierarchy of Arterial roads (Type A, B, and C), Collector, Local, and Lanes was reviewed to determine if any existing roads were not operating consistent to their intended classification. Based on field visits and Town staff local expertise, the local roads indicated in Table 30 were found to be operating in a manner more consistent to a collector road hierarchy. Figure 66 depicts these roads referencing the unique IDs listed in Table 30.

The rationale to the proposed changes varies according to each case. Brennan Road provides access to Westney Heights Public School and functions as a collector road between Ravenscroft Road and Delaney Drive. Pearce Drive is designated as a collector between Rossland Road and Coughlen Street. Its designation as a collector should be extended to the intersection with Delaney Drive to complete this link. The proposed change in designation from local road to collector road for Brennan Road and Pearce Drive also is due to average annual daily traffic volumes of greater than 1,000 vehicles on both roads – a number that is above the maximum volume criteria for local roads.

Moreover, Coughlen Street is a natural extension of Sullivan Drive and provides a connection with Westney Road (arterial road). Furthermore, many local streets and neighbourhoods continue to branch out of Old Harwood Road, which is currently the only corridor that offers a higher-tier road class connection between Chapman Drive and Fishlock Street. Due to presumed lower traffic volumes on this corridor, the proposed action would be to monitor this road segment and take actions to change the road hierarchy once it is appropriate. This same

100

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 recommendation can applicable to Seward Drive, Ainley Road and Ainsbury Avenue, with the latter two servicing relatively newer neighbourhoods that will continue to grow in the coming decades.

Any changes to the classification of these roads would need to be made through future updates to the Town’s Official Plan. Reclassification implications such as the impact on pavement structure and provision of other urban elements including sidewalks should also be considered for these updates.

Table 30. New adjustments to the roads classification system in Ajax Existing Proposed Proposed ID Road Name Location Classification classification Action Implement in 1 Brennan Road Ravenscroft Road to Delaney Drive Local Collector Short-time Implement in 2 Pearce Drive Coughlen Street to Delaney Drive Local Collector Short-time Coughlen Implement in 3 Pearce Drive to Westney Road Local Collector Street Short-time Old Harwood Monitor – 4 Fishlock Street to Chapman Drive Local Collector Avenue Medium-term Monitor – 5 Seward Drive Entire loop (Williamson Drive. E) Local Collector Medium-term Monitor – 6 Ainley Road Audley Road to Ainsbury Avenue Local Collector Medium-term Ainsbury Monitor – 7 Kerrison Drive to Ainley Road Local Collector Avenue Medium-term

Figure 66. Proposed road classification review (IDs referenced in Table 30)

101

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

4.6.2 Engineering standards for collector roads

The Town’s existing Standard Drawings for AS-204 13.0m Collector Roadway in a 23.0m Right-of-Way, was reviewed to assess options to better integrate various travel modes into collector road cross-sections. Based on a review of the Town’s standard, three suggested cross-section modifications are proposed for the Town’s consideration. The following provides a description and graphic for each of the three suggested modifications to AS-204 13.0m Collector Roadway in a 23.0m Right-of-Way.

Two lane cross-section with on-street parking (curb-side) and buffered bike lanes

The suggested cross-section identified in Figure 67 includes two 3.25 metre travel lanes, with on-street parking (2.4 metres) on one-side of the road, adjacent to the curb. The cross-section also includes 1.5 metres cycling facilities and a 0.6 metre buffer on the side of the road with on-street parking. If speeds on travel lane are low, on the side of the road where on-street parking exists, it is recommended that the buffer be placed between the cycling facility and on-street parking; otherwise the buffer can be placed between the travel lane and bike lane to add more separation to the bike lane. An additional 5 metres is provided on both sides of the road right-of-way for a boulevard and pedestrian zone. This cross-section assumes that transit service is not provided on the road.

Figure 67. 23-metre-wide collector roadway cross-section with on-street parking (curb-side)

Two lane cross-section with on-street parking and buffered bike lanes

The suggested cross-section identified in Figure 68 includes two 3.25 metre travel lanes, with on-street parking (2.4 metres) on one-side of the road. The on-street parking is adjacent to a travel lane and a buffer zone between a cycling facility. The cross-section also includes 1.5 metres cycling facilities (adjacent to the curb); a 0.6 metre buffer on one side and a 0.5 metre buffer on the other side of the road. On the side of the road where on-street parking exists, it is recommended that the buffer be placed between the bike lane and on-street parking to protect cyclists from the “door zone”. An additional 5 metres is provided on both side of the road right-of-way for a

102

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0 boulevard and pedestrian zone. This cross-section assumes that transit service is not provided on the road. This cross-section assumes that transit service is not provided on the road.

Figure 68. 23-metre-wide collector roadway cross-section with parking

Collector Roads with transit service

On collector roads with a transit route, as per TAC standards the minimum travel lane width should be 3.3m. To accommodate the wider travel lanes consideration should be given to reducing the width of other on road elements including the parking, buffer and bike lane widths.

103

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

5.1 Chapter overview

This chapter presents the implementation approach for the recommended active transportation and road network improvements, with their corresponding phasing, costing, and monitoring strategies. The implementation plan recognizes that no project will be constructed without funding and approval from Council. The plan is dynamic and acknowledges that priorities may change over time. The implementation plan is supported by a high-level costing plan to provide an indication of estimated funds needed to build the different projects. In order to gauge progress and impact of public policy toward creating a more complete multi-modal transportation network, a monitoring plan with a data collection framework is included at the end of the chapter.

5.2 Phasing

The phasing recommendations respond to the Town’s priorities analysis and build upon the technical expertise of Town staff, the travel demand modelling analysis which is based on population and employment forecasts, and input from multiple stakeholders and the public received during the second phase of consultation. The timeframes utilized for the study were divided into three future horizons:

► Short-term, generally within four years (2019 – 2022); ► Medium-term, generally within 10 years (2023 – 2030); and ► Long-term, generally within 11-20+ years (2031 and beyond).

The proposed phasing for active transportation facilities was coordinated to match the proposed phasing for road projects, as a means to further emphasize the multi-modal integration of these projects and to optimize resources when building them together, as opposed to separate standalone projects. It is recognized that the availability of funding will play a role in the exact dates of implementation of the transportation improvements. The proposed phasing for recommended infrastructure has been aligned with the 2018 Development Charge Background Study as this study was carried out in full coordination with the ITMP.

5.2.1 Future active transportation network phasing

Implementation of the Town’s active transportation network has been organized into the three future horizons. The recommended phasing of active transportation infrastructure is intended to be flexible and used as a guide to inform future decision making and planning in the Town. The proposed phasing of active transportation infrastructure is not a commitment to funding. It is recommended that Town staff review the active transportation network on an annual basis and report back to Council on an action plan to advance the implementation of future active transportation projects.

The phasing horizons for the Town`s active transportation network is aligned with the road network phasing identified in the ITMP (see section 5.2.2). Figure 69 illustrates the proposed phasing of active transportation routes.

104

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 69. Proposed phasing of the active transportation network

105

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

An overview of the proposed active transportation facility types by phase is provided in Table 31.

Table 31. Proposed active transportation network by phase and facility type

Short Term Medium Term Long Term Facility Type Total (km) 2019-2022 (km) 2023-2030 (km) 2031 and beyond (km) Bike Lane 9.7 8.4 0.0 18.1 Buffered Bike Lane 3.5 7.5 1.5 12.5 Cycle Track 0.5 2.2 0.0 2.7 Multi-Use Path 0.8 8.6 0.8 10.1 Off Road Trail 1.9 0.0 9.7 11.6 Buffered Paved Shoulder 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 Shared Facility 5.8 1.4 3.6 10.7 Sidewalk 0.0 1.6 1.5 3.1 Total 22.1 29.7 19.3 71

5.2.2 Future road network phasing

Road improvements of the preferred alternative (Scenario 2) with proposed street widenings or extensions were allocated to the most appropriate of the three horizon periods to best serve the expected growth. The individual projects with their estimated completion period are listed in Table 32, summarized by phasing period in Table 33, and depicted in a map in Figure 70.

Table 32. Proposed road improvements phasing of preferred alternative

Estimated Length Town Road Segment Start of Phasing Period Improvement Type km Construction Rossland Rd. Church St. to Westney Rd. 1.68 2020 Short-term 4-lane urban widening Rossland Rd. Westney Rd. to Salem Rd 2.06 2022 Short-term 4-lane urban widening Achilles Rd. Terminus to Audley Rd. 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Audley Rd. Kingston Rd. to Chambers Rd. 0.7 2023-2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Audley Rd. Achilles Rd. to Bayly St. 0.92 2023 - 2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Chambers Dr. Carruthers Creek to Audley Rd. 0.84 2023-2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Chambers Dr. Beck Cres. to Carruthers Creek 0.3 2023-2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Church St. Rossland Rd. to Kingston Rd. 1.95 2028-2030 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening Commercial Ave. Hunt St. to Station St. 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening Harwood Ave. Taunton Rd. to Woodcock Ave. 1.4 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening Hunt St. Westney Rd. to MacKenzie Ave. 0.56 2023-2027 Medium-term new 2-lane urban construction Rossland Rd. Salem Rd to Lake Ridge Rd. 2.11 2023 - 2026 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening Achilles Rd. Audley Rd. to Lake Ridge Rd. 0.85 2031 + Long-term new 2-lane urban construction

106

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 33. Proposed improvements in lane kilometres by phase period and improvement type

Phasing Period 4-lane urban widening new 2-lane urban construction Total (lane-km) (lane-km) (lane- km) Short-term (2019 – 2022) 14.96 - 14.96 Medium-term (2023 – 2030) 23.76 7.6 31.36 Long-term (2031 and beyond) - 1.7 1.7 Total (lane-km) 38.72 9.3 48.02

It is important to note that the timeline of the proposed road and AT projects is not intended to be prescriptive, especially for medium and long-term improvements. The preferred transportation networks are to a provide a road map for Town staff and decision makers to guide future investment, that will be confirmed at the time of implementation and based on available resources and priorities.

Coordination of multi-modal improvements is imperative to leverage the Town’s investments. On-going coordination with relevant external and Regional agencies, as well as internal Town departments, will reduce implementation risks that were not anticipated and/or duplicity of efforts. Road construction should be coupled with appropriate improvements for transit and active transportation. For instance, if a road is being extended and the active transportation plan calls for multi-use paths along both sides of the roadway, then the road and active transportation works should be constructed concurrently, along with any facilities needed to support or connect to transit. A Complete Streets approach to addressing all modes of transportation simultaneously will help to meet the multi-modal vision of the ITMP and leverage the investment to help create a connected network faster than trying to retrofit already-built infrastructure in the future.

107

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Figure 70. Proposed road improvements phasing

108

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

5.3 Costing

5.3.1 Active transportation network

An estimated cost to implement the Town’s active transportation network has been developed to help inform future decision making. For most of the proposed active transportation projects, the estimated cost to implement the Town’s AT network was calculated using the Town’s 2018 Development Charge Background Study. For projects that were not included in that document, a set of standard unit prices that have been previously identified in studies of similar scope from various municipalities in Ontario were utilized. The unit prices used to cost the Town’s active transportation network are highlighted in Appendix D.

It is recognized that the level of effort to implement an active transportation route will vary on a project-by-project basis, and some projects could require additional work compared to other projects included in cost estimates. The unit prices are:

► Intended to be used for functional design purposes as they only include the installation of facilities and do not include contingency, design and approvals costs. ► Do not include the cost of property acquisitions, signal modifications, utility relocations, major roadside draining works, or costs associated with site-specific projects such as bridges, railway crossings, retaining walls, and stairways, unless otherwise noted. ► Assume typical environmental conditions and topography. ► Further detailed studies will also need to be completed in coordination with TRCA and other relevant agencies for trails shown off road and through the Natural Heritage System, particularly on TRCA lands, to ensure on-road connections are made in appropriate location and to ensure alignments meet required policies. ► Do not include applicable taxes and permit fees – which are considered additional.

Table 34 outlines the estimated costs to build the Town’s active transportation network.

Table 34. Estimated capital costs to build Ajax’s active transportation routes

Funding Type Short Term Medium Term Long Term Total Development Charge $ 2,203,342 $ 5,212,449 $ 10,745,000 $ 18,160,791 Funded Funding required from $ 6,761,109 other sources $ 1,499,902 $ 1,314,661 $ 9,575,672 Total $ 3,703,244 $ 11,973,557 $ 12,059,661 $ 27,736,463

Note: 1. This table does not include capital costs for routes under the jurisdiction of Durham Region. The estimated capital costs to implement active transportation routes and facilities under the jurisdiction of Durham Region is identified in the Regional Cycling Plan (2012).

The estimated cost to build the Town’s active transportation network is approximately $2775 million. Approximately $18 million of the total cost (equivalent to 65% of the total cost) is expected to be funded through

109

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

the Town’s Development Charges. Approximately $9.6 million of the total cost (equivalent to 35% of the total cost) will require additional consideration regarding alternative funding options.

Detailed costing information for the Town`s active transportation network is contained in Appendix D. It is recommended that this appendix be used as a tool by Town staff to track implementation of the network and to inform future decision making.

5.3.2 Road network

The proposed road network improvements of the preferred alternative (Scenario 2) are listed in Table 35 with the respective gross capital cost estimates. These roadway improvements will be implemented by the Town of Ajax and supported by development charges in accordance with Provincial legislation. The costing for the infrastructure improvements were based on the estimates indicated in the 2018 Development Charge Background Study published by the Town. These costs have also been summarized by short, medium and long-term horizons and by improvement type in Table 36.

Table 35. Estimated costing for proposed road improvements of preferred alternative Estimated Gross Capital Length Town Road Segment Start of Phasing Period Improvement Type Cost km Construction Estimates Rossland Rd. Church St. to Westney Rd. 1.68 2018-2022 Short-term 4-lane urban widening $ 7,298,000 Rossland Rd. Westney Rd. to Salem Rd 2.06 2019-2023 Short-term 4-lane urban widening $ 9,314,000 new 2-lane urban Achilles Rd. Terminus to Audley Rd. 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term $ 2,300,000 construction Kingston Rd. to Chambers new 2-lane urban Audley Rd. 0.7 2023-2027 Medium-term $ 3,474,000 Rd. construction new 2-lane urban Audley Rd. Achilles Rd. to Bayly St. 0.92 2023 - 2027 Medium-term $ 3,977,000 construction Carruthers Creek to Audley new 2-lane urban Chambers Dr. 0.84 2023-2027 Medium-term $ 3,847,000 Rd. construction Beck Cres. to Carruthers new 2-lane urban Chambers Dr. 0.3 2023-2027 Medium-term $ 1,452,000 Creek construction Chambers Dr. at Carruthers Chambers Dr. 2023-2027 Medium-term structure $5,332,000 Creek Church St. Rossland Rd. to Kingston Rd. 1.95 2028-2030 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $ 7,650,000 Commercial Ave. Hunt St. to Station St. 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $ 2,861,000 Taunton Rd. to Woodcock Harwood Ave. 1.4 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $ 5,464,000 Ave. Westney Rd. to MacKenzie new 2-lane urban Hunt St. 0.56 2023-2027 Medium-term $ 7,651,000 Ave. construction Westney Rd. to MacKenzie Hunt St. 2023-2027 Medium-term structure $15,597,000 Ave. Rossland Rd. Salem Rd to Lake Ridge Rd. 2.11 2023 - 2026 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $ 11,389,000 new 2-lane urban Achilles Rd. Audley Rd. to Lake Ridge Rd. 0.85 2031 + Long-term $ 4,992,000 construction

110

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

Table 36. Estimated costing for proposed road improvements (lane-km) by phase period and improvement type Phasing Period 4-lane urban Gross Capital new 2-lane urban Gross Capital Total Total Gross widening Cost Estimates construction Cost (lane- km) Capital Cost (lane-km) (lane-km) Estimates Estimates Short-term 14.96 $16,612,000 - $ 0 14.96 $ 16,612,000 (2019 – 2022) Medium-term 23.76 $27,364,000 7.6 $ 43,630,000 31.36 $ 70,994,000 (2023 – 2030) Long-term (2031 - $ 0 1.7 $ 4,992,000 1.7 $ 4,992,000 and beyond) Total (lane-km) 38.72 $ 43,976,000 9.3 $ 27,693,000 48.02 $ 92,598,000

5.4 Funding

Implementation of the ITMP will require significant investment from the Town with additional funding support from contributing partners including the Federal, Provincial and Regional governments and other key stakeholders. It is recommended that future investment options be monitored by the Town to leverage opportunities and increase funding to implement the various facets of the ITMP. Ajax would have to build a business case for each specific project and go through an application process with the respective funding source stream that is most relevant to the nature of the project. The following section outlines potential funding sources that can be explored to support the implementation of the ITMP.

5.4.1 Federal funding

Investing in Canada Plan: Starting in 2016, the federal government has committed to investing more than $180 billion during the next 10+ years in five main infrastructure priorities including public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, rural and northern communities, and transportation infrastructure. The program is intended to be supported by various funding streams including but not limited to:

► Green Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program ($9.2 Billion/10 years) ► Smart Grid ($100 Million/4 years) ► Climate Adaptation and Resilience ($281 Million/11 years) ► Public Transit Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program ($20.1 Billion/10 years) ► National Trade Corridors Fund ($2.0 Billion/11 years) ► Connecting Communities by Rail and Water ($1.9 Billion/3 years) ► Modernizing Transportation iii ($76.7 Million/5 years) ► Trade and Transportation Information System ($50 Million/11 years)

The program is being delivered by Infrastructure Canada in partnership with other federal departments and agencies including Natural Resources Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Employment and Social Development Canada and Transport Canada.

Federal Gas Tax Fund: The Gas Tax Fund provides municipalities with long-term funding for the construction and rehabilitation of public infrastructure including roads, bridges, public transit and recreational facilities. The Town’s annual capital budget fully allocates the Gas Tax Fund to be received by Ajax towards local initiatives such as road resurfacing and construction, neighbourhood improvements and recreational facilities.

111

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

New Building Canada Fund – Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component – National and Regional Projects (PTIC-NRP): This program provides $10 billion in funding to support infrastructure projects of national and regional significance that contribute to economic growth and innovation, move people and goods more freely and help to improve the environment. Eligible projects to be funded through this program include the construction, rehabilitation and enhancement of highways and roads, public transit infrastructure, culture, recreation and tourism. The application for potential projects closed in March 2018, however, it is recommended that the Town seek additional opportunities to apply for funding should it become available in the future.

Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP): The MCIP is a five-year $75 million program designed to encourage Canadian municipalities to better prepare for and adapt to the new realities of climate change as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The programs support a variety of projects including plans to encourage residents to use less polluting forms of transportation by encouraging cycling, walking and transit. The application for potential projects is closed, however, it is recommended that the Town seek additional opportunities to apply for funding should it become available in the future.

5.4.2 Provincial funding

Infrastructure Ontario (IO): IO offers a Loan Program that provides long-term financing to public sector clients to help renew infrastructure. IO loans have been used by several Ontario municipalities to revitalize roads and bridges, build recreational facilities, and improve the overall mobility of municipal residents. The Loan Programs provide various benefits to public sector clients such as:

► Affordable interest rates.

► Flexible terms of up to 30 years, designed to match the life of the asset.

► Access to dedicated and experienced staff throughout the loan process.

► Instant access to capital markets with no extra fees or commissions.

► No need to refinance over the life of the loan.

Provincial Gas Tax Program: The program provides long-term funding to reduce congestion, support economic growth and improve the overall quality of life of municipal residents. As part of the program, Ontario currently provides two cents to municipalities for every litre of gasoline sold to help fund local public transit improvements. Since the program began in 2004, more than $3.7 billion in funding has been allocated to Ontario municipalities.

Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund (OSRCF): The OSRCF is a grant program intended to support active lifestyles for Ontarians through sport, recreation and physical activity. 2018-2019 funded projects include programs to support activities such as bike and hike workshops, CAN-Bike certified lessons and installation of bike repair stations.

Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF): The OTF is an agency of the Government of Ontario, and one of Canada’s leading granting foundations. The goal of OTF is to build healthy and vibrant communities throughout Ontario through investments in community-based initiatives. Key priority outcomes for OTF grants include:

112

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

► High quality programming and infrastructure to support physical activity.

► Reduced impact on the natural environment.

► Increased engagement with the community.

► Increase economic stability and opportunity.

Tourism Development Fund: This program provides project-based funding to support tourism investment, tourism product development and industry capacity building. The program is meant to assist not-for-profit organizations, national and/or provincial industry sector associations, municipalities, and businesses to develop quality tourism products, encourage the competitiveness of our tourism sector organizations, stimulate increased tourist attendance and expenditures, and encourage private sector tourism investment in Ontario. The Town’s cycling network and cycling tourism could be eligible ways that the Town could apply for funding from this source.

5.4.3 Regional funding

Proposed infrastructure improvements located on roads and lands under the jurisdiction of Durham Region should be funded through the Region’s capital budget and other available funding sources.

5.4.4 Development charges

Funding for roadway and active transportation infrastructure projects has been identified in the Town’s 2018 Development Charge Background Study. The study outlines the capital investments required to support municipal services for the anticipated growth in the Town including roads, active transportation and transit.

5.4.5 Town funding

Capital projects are identified on an annual basis which includes the construction and rehabilitation of roadway and active transportation projects. Specifically, active transportation improvements can be identified as part of the overall cost of roadway projects in order to achieve efficiencies in project delivery and ultimately cost savings.

5.5 Monitoring the integrated multi-modal network

5.5.1 Monitoring progress

The impact of public policy and proposed improvements of the ITMP can only be measured through an integral monitoring strategy. The Town of Ajax will want to evaluate the progress in their policy application and infrastructure investments translated into the desired benefits aligned with the Vision Statement and principles listed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Monitoring this progress will help to steer future decision making and resource allocation based on key indicators, needs, and measurable outcomes. This will provide the opportunity to refine and update the ITMP in the future. Addressing this key aspect of the ITMP will ensure that a more balanced, safer and multi-modal transportation system continues to contribute to the Town’s well-being, health, and economy.

113

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

5.5.2 Data collection framework

A comprehensive and detailed data collection framework was developed to serve as a blueprint for monitoring progress. A key aspect in developing a monitoring strategy is to have clear list of indicators that measure different aspects of multi-modal facilities, services and their respective performance. Table 37 portrays this list by mode of transportation, data source, unit of measure, and frequency of collection. The progress can be monitored by establishing a baseline of historic and existing available indicators (many of which have been indicated in Section 2.0 of the ITMP) and constantly updating the indicators as they change in time. The information then can be published in the Town’s open data portal as an online performance dashboard that is available for any stakeholder and the public audience41. This may empower those reviewing the data to be more conscious of the benefits of multi-modal travel and contribute more proactively towards enhancing them.

Table 37. Multi-modal data collection framework with key indicators # Mode Indicator Unit Data Source Frequency Total kilometres of on- Active Town of Ajax 1 road and off-road Km Every 2 years Transportation Durham Region cycling facilities Active Total kilometres of 2 Km Town of Ajax Every 2 years Transportation new sidewalks Number of collisions or Active Durham Region Police 3 accidents to Unit Frequency Every year Transportation OPP pedestrians or cyclists Number of existing and new bicycle end- Active trip facilities (bike 4 Transportation/ Unit Frequency Town of Ajax Every year parking, bike share, Transit bus units with bike racks) Number of kilometres of existing and new 5 Transit Km Durham Region Transit Every 2 years transit routes (Transit coverage) Durham Region Transit 6 Transit Ridership Ridership Every year GO Transit Effective kilometres Durham Region Transit 7 Transit travelled by transit Km Every year GO transit units PKI – Passenger-fares Durham Region Transit 8 Transit per effective kilometre Index (Pax/km) Every year GO Transit index Private vehicle Index MTO/Census Canada 9 Car ownership per 1000 (registered vehicles Every 5 years (population) inhabitants / 1000 people) Number of collisions or Durham Region Police 10 Car Unit Frequency Every year accidents (motorists) OPP Total lane kilometres Town of Ajax 11 Car of new, repaved or Lane km Every 3 years Durham Region newly-treated roads

114

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

# Mode Indicator Unit Data Source Frequency Daily Vehicle Town of Ajax (through 12 Car Kilometres Travelled Km Durham Region traffic Every 5 years (VKT) model) Town of Ajax (through Daily Vehicle Hours 13 Car Hours Durham Region traffic Every 5 years Travelled (VHT) model) Town of Ajax (through Screenline analysis A.M. peak volume 14 Car Durham Region traffic Every 5 years (volume/capacity) / capacity model) Town of Ajax (through Modal split 15 All modes Percentage of trips Durham Region traffic Every 5 years (commuting) model) Transportation for 16 All modes Number of daily trips Trips Every 5 years Tomorrow Survey (TTS)

115

6.0 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The ITMP contains important recommendations throughout several chapters of the document that should be implemented in a priority manner as outlined in the phasing plans. The recommendations include physical infrastructure projects as well as policies and additional studies to help strengthen the Town’s multi-modal transportation network and to help make the Town “future ready” for anticipated changes in travel behaviour due to emerging technologies. This chapter collects in one place all the recommendations of the ITMP.

6.1 Summary of recommendations

The key recommendations of the ITMP have been grouped into categories including:

► Future active transportation network;

► Future road transportation network;

► Road operations;

► Enhancing complete streets;

► Improving multi-modal transportation;

► Strengthening transportation demand management;

► Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero;

► Preparing for new mobility technologies; and

► Developing an intelligent transportation systems Strategic Plan.

6.1.1 Future active transportation network

► Implement the proposed active transportation network illustrated on Figure 47 recognizing the proposed phasing shown in Figure 69.

► Update the Town’s mapping and GIS database on an on-going basis to reflect the most up- to-date conditions and changes to the active transportation network.

► Refer to the design guidelines and standards indicated in Section 4.2.3 to proceed with the design and implementation of active transportation infrastructure.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 116

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

6.1.2 Future road transportation network

► Consider the implementation of Scenario 2 as the preferred alternative for the Town’s future 2031 and beyond road network, which includes thirteen roadways that could help to provide future capacity and enhance connectivity around the Town. Refer to Figure 70 for the proposed road improvements and corresponding phasing.

► Monitor traffic conditions to determine whether a possible flyover extension of Audley Road over Highway 401 to Chambers Drive is required at a long-term future date.

6.1.3 Road operations

► Harwood Avenue South corridor: o Monitor Harwood Avenue South & Westney Road South / Dreyer Road.

► Westney Road South corridor: o Ask Region to consider optimizing signals and monitor Westney Road South and Fairall Street. o Monitor the intersection’s southbound right turn lane. o Extend the westbound right turn lane.

6.1.4 Continuing with Complete Streets

► Continue promoting multi-functional street corridors to provide better accessibility and travel options to different users.

► Incorporate the best practice design guidelines available.

► Promote Complete Streets across different Town departments and with private developers to integrate efforts toward a common goal.

► Acknowledge applicability exceptions within the practical, legal, technical, topographical, and financial limitations.

► Apply concepts to all existing, retrofit, and new transportation projects, acknowledging the importance of multi-modal integration, accessibility, safety and streetscape.

117

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

6.1.5 Improving multi-modal transportation

► Build accessible sidewalks and bike facilities at transit stops.

► Optimize traffic signals to enhance access to and from the GO station.

► Participate and join efforts for multi-modal initiatives with all levels of government, transit agencies, and private developers.

► Find synergies with the private sector to promote Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to inform users on how to use and benefit from multiple modes to perform a trip.

► Explore the feasibility of a bike-sharing program, with special connections to transit and popular destinations such as schools, libraries, and community centres.

6.1.6 Strengthening transportation demand management (TDM)

118

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

6.1.7 Enhancing road safety through Vision Zero

► In conjunction with Durham Region and other Regional Municipalities, create a database of KSI collision analysis.

► Develop a Road Safety Management Steering Committee which consists of a broad range of system designers and can inform implementation measures and objectives as the plan develops.

► Coordinate efforts with Durham Region to strengthen programs and continue to align objectives and data- collections methods.

► Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework for Vision Zero and the Road Safety Action Plan which allows for the continual update of the plan as conditions evolve.

6.1.8 Preparing for new mobility technologies

► Review opportunities for implementing electric charging infrastructure at public parking lots / garages for electric vehicles.

► Work with Durham Region to explore establishing a regional working group to track new mobility trends and appropriate policy responses. Members of this working group should include representatives from Durham Region, the local municipalities, Durham Region Transit, Metrolinx, educational institutions, citizen representatives and other relevant industry actors.

► Undertake new mobility audits for any major construction investments.

► Provide as much separated cycling infrastructure on major streets as possible to mitigate future conflict between cyclists and AVs.

► Undertake an AVs pilot project.

119

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

6.1.9 Introducing intelligent transportation systems

► Develop an ITS Strategic Plan.

► Determine key data needs and develop a plan to collect or purchase data through data needs assessment.

► Analyze real-time data to understand the performance of the Town’s existing infrastructure and present these data online.

120

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

7.0 END NOTES - BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Town of Ajax, Transportation Master Plan Update (2013), p. 95. 2 Census Main Mode of Commuting, Statistics Canada (2006, 2011, 2016). 3 Census Population, Statistics Canada (1991 - 2016). 4 Census Population Age Characteristics, Statistics Canada (2016). 5 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (2011) as reported in Town of Ajax Transportation Demand Management Plan (June 2015), p.21. 6 Census Income of Households, Statistics Canada (2016). 7 Trips from/to Ajax were analyzed including origins and destination from Toronto, York, Peel and Durham Region. 8 Trips inbound/outbound Ajax, Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (2006, 2011, 2016). 9 Trips inbound/outbound Ajax, Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (2016). 10 Respondent Perception of Daily Commute, Ajax Transportation Demand Management Plan (June 2015), p.28. 11 Image Credits: DRT 900 Bus Schedule – Durham Region Transit (left); Bus image credit - Adrian Badaracoo (right). 12 Moving the Region Forward 2014-2015 Annual Report, Metrolinx (2015). 13 Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (2016). 14 DRT historical ridership, Durham Transportation Master Plan (2017), p. 60. 15 Ibid., p.61. 16 For details please see Figure 7. 17 Inbound, outbound and internal daily trips in Ajax conducted in different transit modes, Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (2006, 2011, 2016). 18 Adapted from Area coverage map of the current transit network, DRT Five-Year Service Strategy (2016), Appendix A.1 19 Inbound, outbound and internal daily trips in GO Rail, Transportation for Tomorrow Survey (2016). 20 Image Credit: GO Rail Access Plan (2016), p.205. 21 Image Credit: WSP (2018). 22 Image Credit: WSP (2018). 23 Image Credit: Google Street View (2017). 24 Image Credit: Google Street View (2017). 25 Image Credit: WSP (2017). 26 Image Credit: https://raisethehammer.org. 27 Image Credit: Town of Ajax (2018). 28 Image Credit: Google Street View (2017). 29 Image Credit: WSP (2018). 30 Image Credit: Town of Ajax (2018). 31 For more details on costing, please see Chapter 5, Section 5.3. 32 Image Credit: Google Earth (2017). 33 GO Rail Station Access Plan, released by Metrolinx in 2016. 34 GO Rail Station Access Plan, released by Metrolinx in 2016. 35 For more information, see Sections 4.4.5 and 4.4.6. 36 For more information, see City of Toronto’s Bike Host Program. 37 A similar idea termed micro-retail is being proposed in the City of Toronto for a project at 12 High Park Avenue. Whereas standalone units are proposed for Ajax, the Toronto project features 14 units ranging in size from 188 sq. ft. to 307 sq. ft. 38 Shared parking refers to the use of a single parking space to accommodate multiple parking demands (residential, commercial) throughout the day / week / year. In today’s environment, parking is typically provided in very close proximity

121

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.5.0

to the associated destination, limiting the potential to achieve shared parking solutions. Automated vehicles will allow passengers to be dropped off at their destination enabling the vehicle to park at a further distance from this location. 39 GO Rail Station Access Plan, released by Metrolinx in 2016, p. 28. 40 For more information, please visit: https://data.calgary.ca/stories/s/Citizen-Dashboard/pjhq-u8zk. 41 For an example, please visit: https://www.oakville.ca/dashboard/index.html

122

Appendix A: Public Consultation and Engagement Supporting Documentation

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.3.0 Winter 2019

CONSULTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

A-1. Appendix overview

Appendix A outlines the consultation process used as part of the planning approach and summarizes the most relevant supporting information that was collected throughout the various opportunities. The feedback received was documented, analyzed and incorporated into the recommendations provided in this ITMP. This section provides the following supporting documentation and feedback collected that was used during this consultation process:

A-1. Appendix overview

A-2. Notice of Study Commencement

A-3. Sample of project webpage

A-4. Display boards utilized for Public Information Centre 1

A-5. Display boards utilized for Public Information Centre 2

A-6. Stakeholder comments received during engagement round 1

A-6a. Working vision

A-6b. Mapping challenges and opportunities

A-7. Stakeholder comments received during engagement round 2

A-7a. Cycling preferences

A-7b. Phasing and implementation feedback

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 124

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-2. Notice of study commencement

Notification of Study Commencement was posted on the Town’s website and published in the Ajax News- Advertiser in November 2017 and February 2018. At the same time, a page was created on the Town’s website to provide information on the study and an online survey was created and promoted in coordination with the Notice of Study Commencement.

125

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-3. Sample of project website

126

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-4. Display boards utilized for Public Information Centre 1

127

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

128

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

129

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

130

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

131

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

132

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

133

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

134

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-5. Display boards utilized for Public Information Centre 2

135

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

136

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

137

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

138

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

139

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

140

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

141

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

142

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

143

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-6. Stakeholder comments received during engagement round 1

A-6a. Working vision

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification 1 Appropriate sidewalks connected accessible Walking and Cycling Accessibility 2 Wider sidewalk Walking and Cycling Accessibility Age Friendly design - consider needs of all ages and 3 abilities (older adults, those living with disabilities), safe Walking and Cycling Accessibility school zones 4 New subdivisions - can they handle buses/ cycling facilities Walking and Cycling Accessibility 5 Cross rides at municipal/regional intersection Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 6 East-west connectivity is key especially with AT facilities Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 7 East-west connections, big gaps for cyclists Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 8 Fill missing links Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 9 Fulling integrated network between municipalities Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 10 Connect Whitby with Pickering Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 11 Network connectivity Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage Integrate multi-use neighbourhood trail connections and 12 Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage connections to trails in the NHS Reduce trail fragmentation - connectivity to shopping 13 Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage centres, transit, schools etc 14 Improvement for cyclists through regional intersections Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage Permeable street network - better pedestrian connections 15 Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage to arterials Off road connection between north 401 and south 401 16 Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage (cycling) 17 Bike lanes hwy 2 Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 18 Connectivity of trails Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 19 Poor/none north south cycling lanes Walking and Cycling Connectivity/Coverage 20 Educate pedestrians "look before you cross" Walking and Cycling Education 21 Public education on network Walking and Cycling Education 22 Educate drivers / cyclists Walking and Cycling Education 23 Health + active lifestyle Walking and Cycling Education Multi-use trails and sidewalks better promoted and 24 Walking and Cycling Education enforcement 25 Education promotion Walking and Cycling Education 26 Signage maps trailheads Walking and Cycling Education 27 Community engagement through events and campaigns Walking and Cycling Education 28 Promote health benefits associate with active travel Walking and Cycling Education 29 Increase promotion of AT for public Walking and Cycling Education Education needs to be improved to teach people how to 30 Walking and Cycling Education use facilities better 31 Ride share program (cycle) Walking and Cycling Innovation 32 Wayfinding App Google Maps? Walking and Cycling Innovation 33 All walking and cycling trails should be off road Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure Also, pedestrian route at large retail centres. Too many shoppers drive to other locations rather than walking. (aka 34 Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure Durham Centre . Trip to LCBO and then drive to chapters. Why not walk, Need Sidewalk area 35 Separated and protected bike lanes on roads - barriers Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 36 Better lights (intersection) Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 37 All trails twinned Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 38 All bike lanes should be off road Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure

144

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification 39 Wide off road trails / paths for multi-use Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 40 Hard to draw the edges where facilities start or end Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 41 Create cycle tracks Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 42 More pedestrian infrastructure for new developments Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure I'd like to see off-road trails completed, like the bike path 43 and bridge on the west side of Westney north of Bayly to Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure the GO station. 44 Less bike lanes on roads that are beside multiuse trail. Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 45 Less bike lanes on roads that are beside multiuse trail. Walking and Cycling Main Network Infrastructure 46 Scramble intersections Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 47 Winter Ice/snow walking - clear quick / salt & sand Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 48 Don’t plow some trails for crossing country skiing Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 49 Higher services delivery Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 50 Bike share Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 51 Trail and sidewalk maintenance (winter) Walking and Cycling Operation / Service 52 More POX (& cyclists) Walking and Cycling Other Making the active transportation experience better - 53 Walking and Cycling Other trees, etc 54 Consider priority neighbourhood (Downtown Ajax) Walking and Cycling Other 55 Pedestrian oriented land uses - (e.g mixed use) Walking and Cycling Other Town needs to add to MTO standards for greater height of 56 Walking and Cycling Other walls and width of sidewalk on Harwood over 401 57 All kids walk or bike to school Walking and Cycling Safety 58 Safe crossing facilities on sidewalk/trails Walking and Cycling Safety 59 More green caution areas Walking and Cycling Safety Safer (off-road) cycling infrastructure (Kingston Road 60 Walking and Cycling Safety should be off the road or on parallel routes 61 Cameras with good visual capability on bike racks Walking and Cycling Safety 62 Improvement of safe walk paths Walking and Cycling Safety On road bike lanes dwindle to nothing when approaching 63 Walking and Cycling Safety an intersection - this is not good 64 Ease, convenience. Safety for AT. Especially at main roads Walking and Cycling Safety 65 Safety is a big issue for AT Walking and Cycling Safety 66 Standard width for trail networks Walking and Cycling Safety 67 Address safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists Walking and Cycling Safety Pay attention to pedestrian/cyclists at highway 68 Walking and Cycling Safety interchanges Physical separation on Kingston (or major roads) - bollard, 69 Walking and Cycling Safety curbs, etc 70 Harwood overpass dangerous for pedestrians Walking and Cycling Safety Public schools' grads: 3 - Ajax high schools students' * 71 Walking and Cycling Safety safety of youth Bike lanes on Hwy 2 Harwood and beyond are dangerous, 72 Walking and Cycling Safety especially at vehicle right turning spots. 73 Cycling parking station at mall Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities Secure bike parking (lockers or monitored/controlled 74 Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities access areas 75 Facilities to the front door (GO Train / Malls) Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 76 Bike racks at bus stops ("first mile / last mile") Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 77 Bike share (Bixi) in Ajax Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 78 Bike rentals in parks Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 79 Malls should have bike racks (e.g. Harwood, etc.) Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 80 Pavement markings Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 81 Bicycle safe roadway bridges Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 145

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification 82 Storage facilities (racks) Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 83 More cycle repair stations Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 84 Signage (active) Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 85 Better use of sidewalks. Pilot sharing with bikes Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 86 Bike boxes Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 87 Public amenities for cyclists - tools, pumps Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 88 Good draining and lighting on paths Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 89 Bike share program Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 90 Electric bike facilities Walking and Cycling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 91 Bugger Capacity GO Train Transit Accessibility 92 Accessible buses - Kneeling buses Transit Accessibility 93 Access to public transit for seniors (apartment buildings) Transit Accessibility 94 Make transit accessible to people with disabilities Transit Accessibility Being able to walk is not the only thing defining a person's 95 Transit Accessibility ability to use conventional transit The seniors in town need some more attention, re where 96 Transit Accessibility the bus stops are located. We need 100% handicapped buses and vans and wheel trans.What does only bus mean? How about bus only. 97 Transit Accessibility To turn right from Harwood you need to go through the by=us land and the bicycle lane .?

The vision outlined in the ITMP is in line with my own. I would like to see a focus on making public transit 98 Transit Accessibility accessible for elderly residents and having public transit run more frequently in the evenings. To have a transit system which supports all citizens of Ajax 99 Transit Accessibility and is a reliable and efficient service. I hope we'll have transit that everyone can use to get 100 Transit Accessibility around town quickly and easily in all weathers. Transit that is accessible for the elderly and those with disability. Bus routes that go to key centres - recreation, 101 shopping, libraries. Roads that allow traffic to flow Transit Accessibility especially during rush hours. Good go transit routes. Change the bus only lanes to high occupancy lanes. 102 More linear routes Transit Connectivity/Coverage 103 412 - GO station, bus service DRT Transit Connectivity/Coverage 104 Links to UOIT, Durham College Transit Connectivity/Coverage 105 Circular bus route in both directions for continual access Transit Connectivity/Coverage 106 Eliminate one-way routes Transit Connectivity/Coverage Buses taken away from subdivisions incl. Adams Rd. - 107 Transit Connectivity/Coverage poor connectivity with school (Ajax High) 108 On demand transit solutions are required Transit Connectivity/Coverage 109 Transit is not available where I want to go Transit Connectivity/Coverage Not everyone is going to the GO station. Bus all the way 110 Transit Connectivity/Coverage down Harwood no westbound at Hunt St. To have an integrated transit system with easier access to 111 buses and more routes servicing North Ajax as well as Transit Connectivity/Coverage easier access to the railway. I believe we should have a subway to York region from 112 Transit Connectivity/Coverage Durham. Provide a Transit system that is not solely focused on 113 Transit Connectivity/Coverage getting people to Toronto 114 Shift the culture/view re: public transit Transit Education

146

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Improve DRT customer service training, particularly for specialized service, to ensure staff are respectful of in a 115 Transit Education manner consistent with Ontario Human Rights Code. Work with users to find service solutions that meet their needs 116 Advertise Durham Region Transit Advisory Committee Transit Education 117 Phone or online bus schedule Transit Innovation 118 Wi-Fi on Buses, GPS on Buses Transit Innovation 119 GPS on buses for users? Transit Innovation 120 Transit app Transit Innovation I think that when the install bus lanes that restrict use for cars should only be during rush hours (6 to 9 am and 4 to 8 121 pm) and not on weekends. Also, they should monitor the Transit Innovation roads that the cyclists are actually using before installing cyclist lanes. All transit should run north to south and east to west on ALL major routes. No travelling through subdivisions. This 122 Transit Innovation is how ALL major city transit systems work. And work WELL. More of busses and reduced bile lane as currently they are 123 Transit Main Network Infrastructure really rec purpose and everyone need car for sure There should be enough public transportation available so 124 that those without cars can get around without waiting Transit Main Network Infrastructure too long. 125 24/7 GO Train Service, with DRT adjustment Transit Operation / Service 126 DRT to coincide with GO Schedule Transit Operation / Service 127 DRT off route pick up / drop off Transit Operation / Service 128 Empty buses during the day. Transit Operation / Service 129 Free rides for Seniors during Day Transit Operation / Service 130 Flag transit for pick-up / drop off Transit Operation / Service 131 Space Buses Better (clumped and then large gaps is had) Transit Operation / Service 132 More buses at rush hour. More routes Transit Operation / Service 133 Larger buses for busier routes Transit Operation / Service 134 Incentive - money, free Transit Operation / Service 135 Seamless transfers Transit Operation / Service 136 Higher transit order Transit Operation / Service 137 Cost of student bus pass Transit Operation / Service 138 Provide better bus services to schools Transit Operation / Service 139 Increased service better connections Transit Operation / Service Use school buses during non school hours for other 140 Transit Operation / Service purposes (senior transit) 141 Better customer service from transit providers Transit Operation / Service Need greater flexibility of transit options that would rival 142 Transit Operation / Service the convenience of driving my own car 143 Server sensitive Transit Operation / Service 144 Not to have transport buses run through neighbourhoods Transit Operation / Service Frequent enough service that I can take my kids to school 145 and get to work in a reasonable time frame (less than Transit Operation / Service 45mins) Install more bus only lanes. Bike lanes are nice but don 146 not work for the majority of the year, a ton of money for Transit Operation / Service only a few months! Making Ajax less car dependent! We need more reliable 147 Transit Operation / Service transit.

147

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification I would like to see bus shelters on each bus stop especially in rural areas. I think it is hard for seniors and young 148 Transit Operation / Service children to wait especially in the winter at the bus stop. The routes are not always on time. Id love to see busing made available to our major 149 Transit Operation / Service shopping, recreation centres and dr. locations. 150 Incrase of Accessible transportation Transit Operation / Service North/ south and east/west routes that intersect at exact 151 times only. Similar to major cities, including Toronto Transit Operation / Service proper. 152 Change ajax bus route 224 back Transit Operation / Service I would like a vision in which it is much easier to use DRT on the weekends and in the evenings. I spend alot of time 153 Transit Operation / Service driving my children to their jobs because of the poor service during those times. 20 minute service on all routes would be great including 154 straight route down westney from Harwood to the GO Transit Operation / Service station. 155 Improve public transport schedules Transit Operation / Service The buses should come more often during the weekend and the buses should come more often during rush 156 Transit Operation / Service hourand the Westney should be widened north of Rossland Make it easy to travel without looking up the bus you are about to go on where it is going.....there should be a bus that travels along major roads without detouring all over 157 the place..... For instance there is no bus route along baily Transit Operation / Service from Ajax to Whitby that stretch has nothing...... I would like to take the bus to Lynde shores but there is no option at this time.....

158 Food and Drink service on transit Transit Other 159 Eliminate 1 car per household Transit Other Calculate walk distance to stop including crossing and 160 Transit Other walking on other side of road 161 Goods movement? Transit Other Recognize that the integrated travel specialized services 162 Transit Other modal may not meet the needs of a given customer 163 DRT and TTC Hub Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 164 Additional GO stop in Durham (Lakeridge) Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 165 All buses need to have a bicycle rack? Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 166 More shelters - access to them Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 167 More stops Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 168 Accessible and safe stops (well lit - lighting) Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 169 Better bike storage and safety/security Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 170 Bike parking at bus stops Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities Better integration between transportation and active 171 Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities transportation I don’t want to wait in traffic so often driving to the GO 172 station. I want local busses to support GO train times so Transit Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities that I can actually keep my car at home. 173 Equity issues have to be accounted Other Ideas Accessibility 174 Design pedestrian, bike and transit friendly development Other Ideas Accessibility

148

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Vision is good. How will the system work for all users and modes? Would like to see less traffic on some streets and better movement of cars on others. Would love to see 175 Other Ideas Accessibility more bike lanes on Ajax streets and consideration for moving cyclists across busy streets like Rossland and Taunton. 176 Ferry Service (Toronto) Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage Facilitate road and other modes connections to 177 Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage neighbouring municipalities 178 Connect efficiently with natural heritage network Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage 179 Work from home. More opportunities Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage 180 Trail buses Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage 181 Working from home Other Ideas Connectivity/Coverage What does integrated mean? Opportunity to develop 182 Other Ideas Education practical recommendations 183 Leaders for each action - empower them Other Ideas Education 184 Awareness campaigns on roundabouts Other Ideas Education 185 Communication is key to coordinate efforts Other Ideas Education Learn from common challenges with neighbouring 186 Other Ideas Education municipalities 187 Valid information to communicate opportunities Other Ideas Education Lack of education/communication to share road space 188 Other Ideas Education with other users Statistics are handy to have to communicate investment 189 Other Ideas Education impact 190 Age promotion and marketing complement Other Ideas Education Knowing the different actions and strategies early helps 191 Other Ideas Education manage resources better Helps to redirect/communicate a strategy to common 192 Other Ideas Education concerns 193 TDM should be taught in grade school Other Ideas Education School travel planning - collaboration with schools to 194 Other Ideas Education increase active travel 195 Embrace community engagement & communication Other Ideas Education 196 Engage with high school students Other Ideas Education I would like see a balance between regular vehicle traffic and pedestrian/mass transit. Even better education for 197 Other Ideas Education drivers who ignore or don’t know how to react to the new busy lanes and are putting other drivers at risk 198 Automated Cars Other Ideas Innovation 199 Rideshare network app Other Ideas Innovation 200 Drone travel Other Ideas Innovation 201 Autonomous vehicles Other Ideas Innovation 202 Skype at work Other Ideas Innovation Reducing need to travel - telecommuting, neighborhood 203 Other Ideas Innovation nudos (?) etc 204 Autonomous vehicles - ready policy realm Other Ideas Innovation

149

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification

We should try to promote less dependence on personal vehicles, more transit/carpooling, safe and effective cycling routes to major areas ie: GO Station, shopping centres, schools, community centres, parks, etc. Make sure our Town of Ajax fleet is as environmentally friendly 205 Other Ideas Innovation as possible.. Phase out older vehicles for newer, cleaner electric vehicles.. Put electric vehicle charging stations in public spaces. Build more off road cycling trails/paths and encourage residents to consider cycling on shorter, local trips..

Where the infrastructure can keep up with the growth in 206 Other Ideas Innovation north Ajax. higher population density along transport corridors, introduce scramble crossings at major intersections, 207 replace four stops with roundabouts . More mixed Other Ideas Innovation retail/residential developments e.g. residential above retail. Being able to leave the car at home whenever I want to 208 Other Ideas Innovation and still get things done 209 Lane splitting motorcycles Other Ideas Main Network Infrastructure 210 Roundabouts Other Ideas Main Network Infrastructure I get that public transportation and bike lanes are the ‘in’ thing right now but whether we admit it or not, Ajax is a 211 Other Ideas Main Network Infrastructure ‘bedroom community’ and that will not change. We do not need anymore empty buses or bike lanes.

While I’m not an expert it seems obvious to me that the majority if not the vast majority of people in Ajax work outside of Ajax. Any transportation system needs to take 212 Other Ideas Main Network Infrastructure that into account. I would also argue that most of the residents use cars to get to work because of this. So any plan must put a lot emphasizes on cars. 213 Rapid Towing plan - Main routes Other Ideas Operation / Service 214 Synchronize traffic signals Other Ideas Operation / Service 215 Better coordination Other Ideas Operation / Service Stop wasting money on stupid things... dedicated bus 216 lanes on Kingston Road... Seriously? How much taxpayer Other Ideas Operation / Service money did that waste??? 217 Flexible work hours Other Ideas Other 218 Companies to Ajax - incentives Other Ideas Other Food and beverages available long bike trails (food trucks, 219 Other Ideas Other pop-up restaurants Different neighbourhoods different demo graphics 220 Other Ideas Other different needs 221 Transportation infrastructure's impact on natural features Other Ideas Other 222 Low impact development take into account in design Other Ideas Other Business partners can contribute better with an existing 223 Other Ideas Other strategy Alternate modes of travel to support/promote tourism 224 Other Ideas Other activities 225 Maintenance legislation requirements and right resources Other Ideas Other 226 If you build it, they will come. Think about future impact Other Ideas Other 227 Incentives - employer? Other Ideas Other 228 Networking Other Ideas Other 229 Flex hours from employers Other Ideas Other

150

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification 230 Walking school buses Other Ideas Other 231 Live/work developments Other Ideas Other 232 Land use + transportation better integrated Other Ideas Other 233 Easy & fast commute Other Ideas Other 234 This seems like a sensible plan. Other Ideas Other 235 Agree with the Town's vision. Other Ideas Other It's not practical or realistic to construct a transportation system that considers bicycling as a method of transportation equal to the car or bus. Bikes are single 236 Other Ideas Other user vehicles, busses are multi user; cars aren't always multi user but they're far more likely to have more than one occupant than a bike is. 237 Something similar Other Ideas Other 238 More enforcement in school zones Other Ideas Safety 239 Red light cameras Other Ideas Safety 240 Safety especially for vulnerable group Other Ideas Safety Integrate Durham strategic road safety action plan (vision 241 Other Ideas Safety zero)

Safety should be the main concern, above all. This is no longer a safe community to drive in, let alone ride a bicycle in. Distances between necessary destinations (doctor's offices, grocery stores, etc.) are large enough that it's unreasonable to expect people to walk, and public transportation simply isn't good enough. Bus lanes have confused the issue. Exponential increase in traffic volume 242 Other Ideas Safety is, I suspect, one of the main reasons for decreased safety, as is driver distraction, the commuter rush, weekend shopping, etc. Stats indicate Ajax is second only to Halifax for being the worst Canadian community for traffic accidents. https://www.allstate.ca/webpages/docs/custcare/allstate- 2017-data-tables-national-final.pdf

Enough Parking for housing (multi-family homes, sell 243 Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities parking passes 244 School bus facilities incorporated Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 245 School sites accommodate safe pick-up drop-off zones Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities Supporting facilities and modes that can be there for 246 Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities flexible needs 247 Re-charge stations Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 248 Travel signals Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 249 EV charging stations Other Ideas Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 250 Connect the existing disconnected roads (dead ended) Driving / Carpooling Connectivity/Coverage 251 Improve connectiviy between neighbourhoods Driving / Carpooling Connectivity/Coverage 252 Poor connnections north south in highway 401 crossings Driving / Carpooling Connectivity/Coverage 253 Education - do's and don’ts Driving / Carpooling Education 254 More roundabouts (educate drivers) Driving / Carpooling Education 255 Promote a culture shift Driving / Carpooling Education 256 Education, marketing, promotion Driving / Carpooling Education Promote/leverage existing programs - Smart Commute, 257 Driving / Carpooling Education Ridematching 258 What is multi modeal? - Simply language Driving / Carpooling Education 259 Ride Sharing Driving / Carpooling Innovation 260 Uber ride share Driving / Carpooling Innovation 261 Real time car pool matching Driving / Carpooling Innovation

151

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification 2 LANES OF TRAFFIC IN EACH DIRECTION ON HARWOOD AVENUE FROM LAKEDRIVE NORTH TO TAUTON RD. (WITH 262 3' WIDE BICYCLE LANE LOCATED ON BLVD ALONGSIDE Driving / Carpooling Innovation PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK) ALLOTING A LANE ON SIDEWALK IS A SIMPLE DIVIDING LINE. SAFER FOR PEDs & MOTs. 263 Dedicated bike/walk path on Westley to GO Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure Take advantage to develop local roads since no major 264 Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure roads have to be built 265 Build missing links Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 266 Improve conditions of poor roads Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 267 Complete critical road segments at Rossland Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 268 Improve infrastructure to address flooding safety - swm Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 269 More access to 401 Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 270 Durham live will exacerbate traffic in ajax Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 271 Highway 401 overpass on Harwood below standards Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure

Traffic is bottlenecked in Ajax. Need more n/s and e/w connections or more lanes on current roads. Alternative modes is only a small part of the solution. Cycling lanes are not being used and sharrows are confusing. Vision should include improved routes - not just within Ajax but 272 to and through Ajax. Building facilities for pedestrians and Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure cyclists does not ensure that they will be used. Unrealistic to think that people will ride their bikes to jobs in Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan or Brampton. Hard to even get transit there. Cars will continue to be a primary mode of transportation well into the future.

273 No rush hour traffic Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 274 I hate medians on roads and parking lots. Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure Most routes are very friendly however 412 should not be a 275 toll road to 407. More traffic would use it thus help Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure backups on the 401 at rush hours. 276 To move vehicles through Durham more efficiently. Driving / Carpooling Main Network Infrastructure 277 Stop paying for 412 Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 278 Remove gridlock Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 279 Toll Free 412 Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 280 Carshare in Durham Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 281 Create a carpooling network in Durham Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 282 Car share Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 283 HOV lanes on major roads and Taunton Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 284 Ajax HOV lane (similar to Danish free for bus and carpool) Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service 285 Paid parking Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service A right hand turn lane is needed at Harwood and Bayley on the north bound side. Traffic is backed up by 286 Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service pedestrians crossing . The new buildings at that corner will add to that congestion. Better maintenance of roads for cars. Faster snow 287 clearing/removal. A public transit system that actually Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service makes sense. Ajax needs to focus on traffic flow. Right now, the town slogan should be "Where traffic comes to die". It doesn't 288 Driving / Carpooling Operation / Service matter what road - from Taunton to Bayly - traffic flow dies in Ajax. 289 Buy-in from business community Driving / Carpooling Other

152

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification AT development review stage, introduce carpool elements 290 Driving / Carpooling Other in applications Use existing transportation systems and avoid building 291 Driving / Carpooling Other new roads etc through/adjacent to NKS 292 Eliminate tolls on 407/412 for carpooling Driving / Carpooling Other 293 I drive everywhere Driving / Carpooling Other Car and pedestrians. NO more bike lanes, they are a 294 Driving / Carpooling Other hideous waste of money for the volume. 295 Consistent speed limits in marked school zones Driving / Carpooling Safety 296 Speed limit consistency throughout the region Driving / Carpooling Safety 297 Widen Westney Road to GO, carpool lane Driving / Carpooling Safety 298 Lower speeds on "Local Roads" - 40km/hr Driving / Carpooling Safety 299 Slower turn in design of roads Driving / Carpooling Safety 300 Increase safety around schools Driving / Carpooling Safety 301 Roundabout safety training - for all users Driving / Carpooling Safety 302 Increased road safety - vision zero Driving / Carpooling Safety Improving road safety - does this imply only vehicles? 303 Driving / Carpooling Safety Needs to capture all users

There needs to be more advance left turns at a lot of 304 street like McGill on to westney Driving / Carpooling Safety more slower speeds for school zones to 30kmh

To lessen traffic and make it a safer place to travel 305 Driving / Carpooling Safety through. 306 Preferred GO parking for carpool cars Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 307 Designated carpool lots Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 308 E-vehicle charging ports at community centres Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 309 Expand GO parking lot Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 310 Bus stop should be in a layby Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities 311 Carpool lots/parking (more) Driving / Carpooling Supporting Infrastructure/End-Trip Facilities

153

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-6b. Mapping challenges and opportunities

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 4 way stop is vital as there is no safe zone for pedestrians on this 1 Active Transportation Barrier 43.886968 -79.040588 street.

2 4 way stop to eliminate speeding and allow children to cross safely Active Transportation Barrier 43.887733 -79.039402

4 way stops to allow children and pedestrians to cross safely and 3 Active Transportation Barrier 43.885359 -79.044418 eliminate highway speeding. there are a lot of seniors use this walk way the bus should go past 4 Active Transportation Barrier 43.84957 -79.020695 the community centre Monarch is a poor place to cross Bayly. The intersection is not aligned perfectly and drivers don't adjust to the slight adjustment 5 Active Transportation Barrier 43.842728 -79.024996 needed going N/S. I've been almost knocked off my bike here by cars 6 Remove S/W and replace with multiuse trail Active Transportation Challenge 43.858265 -79.010861 7 Remove S/W and replace with multiuse trail Active Transportation Challenge 43.856242 -79.012672 Very poor for cyclists (OK sidewalks) pilot share sidewalks with 8 Active Transportation Challenge 43.852806 -79.022123 cyclists - interim 9 Dangerous exiting at high speed ramps Active Transportation Challenge 43.848729 -79.040374 10 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.846642 -79.039257 11 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.837988 -79.015676 12 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.853141 -79.022306 13 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.885198 -79.003643 14 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.902708 -79.011215 15 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.855049 -79.011703 16 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.853141 -79.022306 17 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.848797 -79.040399 18 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.886003 -79.025587 19 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.902708 -79.011215 20 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.879217 -79.065988 21 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.89247 -79.071833 22 Gaps or Areas of Concern - AT Active Transportation Challenge 43.905086 -79.076756 23 Need Winter Maintenance Active Transportation Challenge 43.816605 -79.035932 24 Priority AT link needs improvement Active Transportation Challenge 43.853048 -79.022192 25 Support link Active Transportation Challenge 43.833994 -78.976514 26 the bus lanes are not needed Active Transportation Challenge 43.848858 -79.014697 Kids play there all the time.. can't have bicycle running crazy there! 27 Active Transportation Challenge 43.891341 -79.046657 Residential neighborhoods 28 bike lane Active Transportation Challenge 43.832019 -78.995471 29 bike lane Active Transportation Challenge 43.838458 -78.985171 30 bike lane Active Transportation Challenge 43.814928 -79.02431 Need better, easier access to bike facility at GO train. Currently have 31 to ride through pedestrian areas or busy parking lots to access bike Active Transportation Challenge 43.846274 -79.042435 parking.

With increased development, thus increased traffic, already happening at Bayly and Harwood, how can the Town possibly think 32 it a good idea to implement a buffered bike lane here? This is a very Active Transportation Challenge 43.838709 -79.017214 busy route, and it will only get busier as time goes on. Decreasing it by a whole lane doesn't make sense.

154

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude

Neither of these proposals seems logical, for the same reason as further along Harwood: the already increased traffic volume around this intersection, due to increased development currently in the 33 Active Transportation Challenge 43.843303 -79.017995 works, is going to become an even larger issue, especially as it pertains to accommodating bicycles. Perhaps this isn't the place for bicycles.

Road is very dark and lots of deer along this route. Adding bikes 34 Active Transportation Challenge 43.839436 -78.994372 during night time is very dangerous 35 WTF is a "Signed Route"??? Active Transportation Challenge 43.844849 -79.007774 36 Major Gap in North Side Active Transportation Missing Link 43.88513 -79.003886 37 Add trail link Active Transportation Missing Link 43.89319 -79.011585 38 Weak links for all modes Active Transportation Missing Link 43.842684 -79.039692 39 Missing link Active Transportation Missing Link 43.865443 -79.037936 40 Cycling infrastructure Gap Active Transportation Missing Link 43.846714 -79.047231 41 Cycling infrastructure Gap Active Transportation Missing Link 43.84109 -79.040018 42 Walking connections between Rushworth and Salem Active Transportation Missing Link 43.885578 -79.01481 43 Admiral - connect to Porte Rd. and bike walk path Active Transportation Missing Link 43.846837 -79.009414 44 Missing_Link Active Transportation Missing Link 43.859008 -79.034953 45 Missing_Link Active Transportation Missing Link 43.857771 -79.041391

46 Connect trail from Callander to trail from Shoal Point Rd. Active Transportation Missing Link 43.836699 -78.994613

G: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 47 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.832365 -78.996288 path away from roadway F: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 48 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.834756 -78.995559 path away from roadway E: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 49 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.836131 -78.994733 path away from roadway D: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 50 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.837106 -78.994028 path away from roadway D: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 51 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.841854 -78.996115 path away from roadway C: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 52 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.844007 -78.999242 path away from roadway B: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 53 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.845373 -78.99981 path away from roadway A: Connect ABCDEFG to make safe and viable pedestrian/cycling 54 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.848087 -78.998754 path away from roadway 55 Disagree with confusing cyclist road markings. Active Transportation Missing Link 43.832762 -78.943629

56 There is no connection any more to trail south of Westney Active Transportation Missing Link 43.841709 -79.038872

57 This trail has been closed and needs repairs and reopening Active Transportation Missing Link 43.838147 -79.036944

58 crossing the 401 is not safe. Missing links between routes. Active Transportation Missing Link 43.852972 -79.022228

Connect top of Kinsmen part trail with this trail? I've always 59 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.833691 -79.00777 wondered why it isn't already connected.

A connection between the top end of the parkland trail (noted below) and the library complex (via Exeter Road, perhaps) would be 60 Active Transportation Missing Link 43.842709 -79.015881 good, but does not currently exist. This would be for pedestrians too.

61 OMCC funded 2019-20 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.903883 -79.005923 62 Protect for future overpass at Audley Active Transportation Opportunity 43.85977 -78.992517

155

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 63 Sidewalks for 2019-20 (per OMCC) Active Transportation Opportunity 43.842964 -79.023131 64 Needs safety implementation Active Transportation Opportunity 43.863449 -79.015979

65 Extend proposed off road trail on south side of Kingston to Whitby Active Transportation Opportunity 43.869145 -78.990951

66 New cycle trail at Paradise Park Active Transportation Opportunity 43.828266 -78.995195 67 New work here? Active Transportation Opportunity 43.819372 -79.03071 68 Cycle connection Active Transportation Opportunity 43.853949 -79.05785 69 Use creeks, etc to go under 401 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.846678 -79.056266 70 Bridge or pedestrian-cyclist tunnel Active Transportation Opportunity 43.85958 -78.992387 71 Tunnel - pedestrian and bike Active Transportation Opportunity 43.85958 -78.992387 72 Pedestrian crossover Active Transportation Opportunity 43.886003 -79.025587 73 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.831005 -79.014741 74 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.842525 -79.025031 75 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.821572 -79.012477 76 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.832666 -79.014823 77 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.847477 -79.019868 78 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.845525 -79.028681 79 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.898846 -79.009517 80 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.866724 -79.039107 81 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.857618 -79.041787 82 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.854556 -79.055383 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians - Real Canadian 83 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.860963 -79.030521 Superstore 84 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.861175 -79.025903 85 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians - Costco Active Transportation Opportunity 43.863354 -79.024185 86 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians - Walmart Active Transportation Opportunity 43.865968 -79.013972 87 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.846642 -79.039257

88 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians - Comn. Plaza Active Transportation Opportunity 43.859391 -79.025115

89 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.856862 -79.0239 90 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.847461 -79.019913 91 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians Active Transportation Opportunity 43.844016 -79.018343

92 Key Destination for Cyclists and Pedestrians - Soccer Field Active Transportation Opportunity 43.837521 -79.02193

93 Walking trails connecting Shoal Point and Pickering Beach Active Transportation Opportunity 43.841834 -78.999476

94 Walking connection over rail tracks Active Transportation Opportunity 43.893613 -79.010931 95 Steep grade - walking connection to Westney Active Transportation Opportunity 43.8811 -79.043198 96 Support bikeway on Lake Driveway Active Transportation Opportunity 43.818397 -79.029398

Rotary Park Bridge: Use same cyclist yield to pedestrian sign (e.g 97 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.816532 -79.038987 south side of Bayly west of Westney and Whitby Lynde Shores)

98 Use Carruthers Creek to connect North Ajax to South Ajax Active Transportation Opportunity 43.85769 -79.003841

99 Opportunity Active Transportation Opportunity 43.860494 -79.029031

Opportunity: Often see people drive to lakefront and get out for walk alongside waterfront trail. Strategic installations of bike racks 100 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.827328 -78.995274 along waterfront trail could encourage more people to ride their bike to the lake as opposed to drive.

We should have safe and designated bike lanes along all major 101 arterial roadways. Maybe look into curbed/protected bike lanes on Active Transportation Opportunity 43.843906 -79.017201 these busy areas.

156

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude

Agree with proposed trail/bridge over Carruthers Creek, connecting Marjoram Dr.and Greenhalf Cres. This would ease traffic/pollution 102 as need for bussing for kids attending Carruthers Creek Public Active Transportation Opportunity 43.844478 -79.003519 School would decrease as many would be able to walk/bike to school using a safer route than Bayly.

Support expansion of off road trail in this area. This is a beautiful 103 green space and would love to use it for walking/biking in the Active Transportation Opportunity 43.832095 -78.993237 neighbourhood. Excellent opportunity to connect residential community to local 104 business area. Will make walking/cycling an option for local Active Transportation Opportunity 43.851249 -79.001962 residents.

105 More off road bike trails in green, natural spaces? Yes please!  Active Transportation Opportunity 43.902158 -79.081728

Off road cycling trails providing safe connection from residential 106 neighbourhoods to Greenwood Park is a great way to encourage Active Transportation Opportunity 43.898087 -79.043405 local residents to become active and enjoy a healthy active lifestyle.

Good idea.. Better idea to connect to existing path heading in direction of Shoal Point/Bayly making a safe and viable 107 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.832284 -78.994493 pedestrian/cycling path away from roadway.. See Missing Link suggestions for possible route

108 Excellent idea. Will allow kids to safely walk/cycle to school. Active Transportation Opportunity 43.843913 -79.000358

Would allow more people to cycle to the Go train - I currently will 109 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.845391 -79.038215 not ride with the traffic in the mornings 110 would allow better use of the park Active Transportation Opportunity 43.902933 -79.059844 Trails are very rough - cannot use if you have a stroller or walking 111 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.90083 -79.07053 challenges. Open park to everyone! trail is very busy - need to expand for bikes/roller blades to be 112 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.827809 -78.992081 somewhere different than those walking 113 Able to enjoy nature and serve numerous households Active Transportation Opportunity 43.832483 -78.995686 114 bike lane should be buffered Active Transportation Opportunity 43.884761 -79.005446 115 walking trail Active Transportation Opportunity 43.84143 -79.04182

Much of this area is marsh through the spring and summer. It accepts runoff from the surrounding area during rainfall and the 116 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.850422 -79.010928 spring thaw. A trail or path at the road level would be much better than constructing a seperate path through the grass area.

I've always wondered why the town hasn't connected up the north end of this already extensive parkland trail to the library/town 117 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.837236 -79.014733 hall/pool complex? I would use it if it were there, and IF it didn't entail riding on Harwood.

With reference to opportunity pointed out to the south of the library/town hall/pool complex... This is where I would have thought the Town might end the extensive parkland trail that already exists 118 in south Ajax. I think this is a prime opportunity to encourage cycling Active Transportation Opportunity 43.850854 -79.019454 to use these facilities. What could be better than taking your kids to the library on their bicycles... IF they don't have to drive on busy streets, e.g. Harwood?

157

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude Connect the top of Kinsmen Park trail with Southwood parkland 119 Active Transportation Opportunity 43.831292 -79.009305 trail. 120 Best waterfront I've seen yet. Well done, Ajax! Active Transportation Opportunity 43.824325 -79.002906 121 Well done, Ajax! Active Transportation Opportunity 43.820067 -79.013067 122 Well done, Ajax! Active Transportation Opportunity 43.816553 -79.027883

It would be good to see the trail also continue straight to Bryant, as it once did, simply so a person without children (and perhaps also 123 on a bicycle) doesn't have to detour the long way around, and Active Transportation Opportunity 43.830892 -79.008335 through the playground area. I've noticed some people are doing that anyway, i.e. walking straight across the grass to the street.

124 Double Paths , one for Bikes one for walkers Active Transportation Opportunity 43.816448 -79.027106 125 A trail along the Hydro Corridor Active Transportation Opportunity 43.899273 -79.040377 126 This trail is so busy - create a second trail for bikes Active Transportation Opportunity 43.827743 -78.992159 127 Built sooner Active Transportation Priority 43.869092 -78.991028 128 Priority Active Transportation Priority 43.883187 -79.067823

129 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized -AT - TCT Active Transportation Priority 43.894441 -79.072624

130 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - AT Active Transportation Priority 43.848797 -79.040399 131 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - AT Active Transportation Priority 43.841775 -79.028269 132 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - AT Active Transportation Priority 43.886003 -79.025587 133 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - AT Active Transportation Priority 43.846642 -79.039257 134 Priority Active Transportation Priority 43.888955 -78.985944 This would reduce need for school buses on the road and will bridge the two communities together. Kids from Shoal Point, Marjoram, 135 Active Transportation Priority 43.844006 -78.999833 Salt, Wilkie attending Carruthers Creek PS can walk/cycle to school safely. Lots of issues running red lights for drivers impatient to get on the 136 401. This is a school crossing zone. Need enforcement - maybe red Active Transportation Priority 43.859503 -79.014161 light camera trail is very busy - need to expand for bikes/roller blades to be 137 Active Transportation Priority 43.831152 -78.986513 somewhere different than those walking trail is very busy - need to expand for bikes/roller blades to be 138 Active Transportation Priority 43.827809 -78.994033 somewhere different than those walking trail is very busy - need to expand for bikes/roller blades to be 139 Active Transportation Priority 43.822561 -79.00664 somewhere different than those walking

There needs to be a traffic light here with a pedestrian crosswalk. The creation of the plaza has created a severe traffic accident 140 Active Transportation Priority 43.891341 -79.038918 waiting to happen with cars going in all 4 directions and pedestrians darting across the road.

Pedestrian safety is of upmost important especially for children walking to and fro from the local schools (Nottingham and Brother Andre). There is no safe zone pedestrian crossing on this road. Cars 141 speed through here like a highway and there will be fatality if this is Active Transportation Priority 43.88795 -79.039129 not handled. Suggestions: Speed Bumps or 4 way stops at each 3 intersections which will eliminate speed and will be safe zones for pedestrian crossing.

142 Keep in good repair and safe.. ie bikers going to fast Active Transportation Priority 43.816331 -79.023368 Unused bike lanes removed one lane of traffic. Too much 143 Active Transportation Priority 43.849868 -79.054021 congestion 144 lots of families use this Active Transportation Priority 43.829272 -78.99503

158

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 145 create a second trail for bikes Active Transportation Priority 43.827696 -78.99174 146 would allow more people to bike to the GO station Active Transportation Priority 43.846623 -79.039488 Develop the off-road trails and quit destroying them. Mountain 147 Active Transportation Priority 43.90403 -79.08031 biking is a very healthy activity. 148 Continuity Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.890081 -79.065331

149 Need to widen Bayly and Church streets to improve traffic flow Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.838706 -79.04697

Lack of street parking for Shoal Point, Salt and Marjoram residents. 150 Creates a logjam of cars and poor sightlines are a safety issue as Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.843951 -78.997393 neighbourhood kids often playing in community..

No street parking for Shoal Point Rd leads Shoal Point homeowners parking on Salt Rd. Too many cars parked tightly in a small area, 151 Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.843894 -78.997375 creates safety hazard.. Widening of Shoal Point to allow for street parking would resolve this issue..

152 Highway Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.859302 -78.992189 Absolutely useless median. Whom ever approved this should think about another career. Probably adds around 20-30 kms a week of 153 Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.869844 -78.962905 driving for only myself. How many others are in the same boat as me? On Fridays, traffic here is horrible because some of the attendees to 154 this Islamic centre park their cars ON Harwood, which is already a 1 Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.887816 -79.037266 lane per direction road. 155 Intersection is operationally ineffective Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.863222 -79.01543

Kingston through Pickering Village is a barrier for traffic but also an 156 opportunity to showcase this area. A more sustainable solution to Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.853603 -79.058688 divert through traffic around this section is needed

Not able to make a left tuen out of the gas station onto Rossland. 157 This is necessary when accessing Harwood South. Creates Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.880511 -79.016671 dangerous driving strategies. Add some lights into this road. It's very dangerous with deer 158 Driving/Carpooling Barrier 43.842593 -78.995874 crossings 159 Contunity Problems Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.854556 -79.055383 160 Under bridge overpass? Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.846821 -79.052226 161 Relief for E-W traffic Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.830973 -79.037949

Problems with trucks turning - reduce SB left turn lane on Westney 162 Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.832003 -79.033037 and SBL and WBR (provide more space to turn)

163 the bike lanes on harwood are useless and impede the traffic Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.82657 -78.990665

164 Not needed Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.844692 -79.032772

Connecting Williamson from the other side cannot work if there are no preventative measures for pedestrians. If cars are speeding 165 through from Hardwood to Westney then more traffic will be Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.888468 -79.037407 coming through and more cars will be speeding. Again 4 way stops at the intersections is TOP PRIORITY.

TOTAL LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR MOTORISTS. RETURN TO 4 USEABLE LANES OF TRAFFIC. CURRENT SITUATION IS A MONEY PIT - 166 CONSTANT MAINT. CYCLE LANE ON SIDEWALK MAKES MORE Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.824626 -79.01345 SENSE. REMOVE PARKING BAYS BTM. OF HARWOOD (E. SIDE). REMOVE HUMP AT HARWOOD & CLOVER RIDGE E&W.

159

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 167 Too much traffic on Rossland road Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.871632 -79.061732

168 Open this up to vehicle traffic to ease congestion elsewhere Driving/Carpooling Challenge 43.833266 -78.97976

169 Connect Audley across 401 to relive Salem & Lake Ridge Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.85977 -78.992517

170 Missing link Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.888424 -79.037618 171 Missing link Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.889278 -79.035295 172 Extend Clements Rd Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.82979 -79.042163 173 North to south ajax link needed Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.856494 -78.991451 174 North to south link needed Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.862406 -78.99383 175 need a right hand turn lane Driving/Carpooling Missing Link 43.843656 -79.018448

176 Options for access to/from GO station? (transit and cars) Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.847555 -79.041168

177 Finish Ringer? Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.866943 -79.017378 High quality streetscape with transit, walking and cycling in 178 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.848634 -79.020158 downtown area 179 Urbanize road Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.828994 -78.995751 180 Urbanize road Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.842208 -78.995932 181 Complete road connections Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.888424 -79.037618 182 RIS Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.843696 -79.060297 183 Detail design now? Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.874588 -79.064038 184 SIgnals needed Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.841961 -79.02795

185 Stop sign needed along clover ridge to slow down traffice Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.828157 -79.00593

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on all Town of Ajax properties.. Community Centres, Public Libraries, etc. Could be "Pay For Use" which could help offset cost of installation.. Financial gains could be used to finance new "environmentally friendly" 186 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.838716 -79.020184 investments in other areas. This will encourage Ajax residents to consider electric vehicles and reduce the amount of pollution, carbon emissions and greenhouse gases being produced by our community.

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on all Town of Ajax properties.. Community Centres, Public Libraries, etc. Could be "Pay For Use" which could help offset cost of installation.. Financial gains could be used to finance new "environmentally friendly" 187 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.86609 -79.037213 investments in other areas. This will encourage Ajax residents to consider electric vehicles and reduce the amount of pollution, carbon emissions and greenhouse gases being produced by our community.

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on all Town of Ajax properties.. Community Centres, Public Libraries, etc. Could be "Pay For Use" which could help offset cost of installation.. Financial gains could be used to finance new "environmentally friendly" 188 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.89696 -79.007266 investments in other areas. This will encourage Ajax residents to consider electric vehicles and reduce the amount of pollution, carbon emissions and greenhouse gases being produced by our community.

160

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on all Town of Ajax properties.. Community Centres, Public Libraries, etc. Could be "Pay For Use" which could help offset cost of installation.. Financial gains could be used to finance new "environmentally friendly" 189 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.85161 -79.020162 investments in other areas. This will encourage Ajax residents to consider electric vehicles and reduce the amount of pollution, carbon emissions and greenhouse gases being produced by our community.

Great idea.. Will connect residential area to Achilles 190 business/commercial area.. Can also use to bike to Achilles to reach Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.85 -79.002685 public library pool 191 I love the 900! It is very convenient and easy to access. Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.862925 -79.019613 Lots of traffic, narrow lanes, a priority and opportunity to improve, 192 Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.880913 -79.0274 good bus route 193 would help with congestion on baseline Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.854305 -78.99045 194 proposed road widening Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.848115 -79.029803 195 This link is great Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.87108 -79.064893 continue to have the 224 go down pickering beach to the durham 196 centre area. huge time saver to hit the gym, go to shopping area, Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.859172 -79.013923 eliminates several buses.

197 the road should be widened Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.888982 -79.048031

198 Wider! Driving/Carpooling Opportunity 43.857352 -79.057029 199 Please this needs to be removed Driving/Carpooling Priority 43.832762 -78.981157 200 right hand turn lane needed Driving/Carpooling Priority 43.843052 -79.017857 201 Keep Seaton Traffic in Seton and off Rossland Road Driving/Carpooling Priority 43.8699 -79.07495

Bylaw needs to monitor parking in the Costco lot. Patrons regularly park in the driving areas where there aren't any spots or block the 202 traffic by parking in front of the doors to load their purchases. Other Driving/Carpooling Priority 43.865332 -79.019277 drivers become frustrated and drive aggressively as a result. Costco is either unable or unwilling to deal with this.

203 Barrier Other Barrier 43.858579 -79.033229 204 Barrier Other Barrier 43.853562 -79.022594 205 Barrier Other Barrier 43.870027 -79.022017 206 Disagree Other Challenge 43.841584 -79.020341 207 Disagree Other Challenge 43.883758 -79.108424 208 Disagree Other Challenge 43.890647 -79.045976 209 Disagree Other Challenge 43.890192 -79.085078 210 Disagree Other Challenge 43.857791 -79.057058 211 Disagree Other Challenge 43.858018 -79.000964 212 Disagree Other Challenge 43.861236 -79.023452 213 Challenge Other Challenge 43.831036 -79.012009 214 Missing_Link Other Missing Link 43.85674 -79.04182 215 Missing_Link Other Missing Link 43.866621 -79.039521 216 Missing_Link Other Missing Link 43.869218 -79.029815 217 Missing_Link Other Missing Link 43.852077 -79.038901 218 Missing_Link Other Missing Link 43.833691 -79.00777 219 Agree Other Opportunity 43.862967 -79.059284 220 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.857987 -79.037227 221 Agree Other Opportunity 43.829542 -78.989753 222 Agree Other Opportunity 43.831323 -78.986909

161

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 223 Agree Other Opportunity 43.843662 -79.032162 224 Agree Other Opportunity 43.850514 -79.018484 225 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.919875 -79.009891 226 Agree Other Opportunity 43.815423 -79.028773 227 Agree Other Opportunity 43.893724 -79.062334 228 Agree Other Opportunity 43.820419 -79.015951 229 Agree Other Opportunity 43.818644 -79.009891 230 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.827561 -79.021907 231 Agree Other Opportunity 43.82093 -79.015847 232 Agree Other Opportunity 43.849771 -79.009994 233 Agree Other Opportunity 43.860555 -78.980637 234 Agree Other Opportunity 43.821919 -79.012355 235 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.893625 -79.062654 236 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.863367 -79.015874 237 Opportunity Other Opportunity 43.859052 -78.982495 238 Priority Other Priority 43.853561 -79.041119 239 Priority Other Priority 43.863337 -79.026966 240 Priority Other Priority 43.858529 -79.035359 241 Priority Other Priority 43.857404 -79.039151 242 This needs a water connection Other Priority 43.833092 -78.971697 243 Priority Other Priority 43.852033 -78.990678 244 Priority Other Priority 43.866763 -79.034294 245 Priority Other Priority 43.843411 -79.003711 246 Priority Other Priority 43.858018 -79.000106 247 Priority Other Priority 43.849784 -79.020597 248 Priority Other Priority 43.830293 -79.022488 249 Priority Other Priority 43.877921 -79.036035 250 Priority Other Priority 43.866732 -79.061037 251 Priority Other Priority 43.893797 -79.066279 Improve traffic flow! Bike path on both sides of the road and fully 252 Other Priority 43.880559 -79.024992 extended from Whitby to Pickering.

The barely used transit lanes need to go. The amount of traffic for 253 the space used makes no sense. Make them a 3+ carpool lane or Other Priority 43.861043 -79.027947 commercial vehicle/bus lane so cars can move more smoothly.

254 Bus Transit Barrier 43.822168 -79.013186 255 Poorly implemented transit strategy on Kingston Road Transit Barrier 43.861236 -79.031348

256 Infrequent public transit operation on weekends and evenings . Transit Barrier 43.879941 -79.066272

257 Clarify routing Transit Challenge 43.895295 -79.042431 258 Transit Transit Challenge 43.853048 -79.022192 259 Advance left right onto Bramwell Transit Challenge 43.853899 -79.041305 So many stop lights along this road! Often find yourself getting 260 Transit Challenge 43.862196 -79.026585 caught at each one.

261 Change bus route 224 back Transit Challenge 43.824872 -79.014991

262 Dedicated bus lanes are stupid. Get rid of them. Transit Challenge 43.860467 -79.028423 263 Gaps or Areas of Concern - Transit Transit Missing Link 43.895295 -79.042431 264 Gaps or Areas of Concern - Transit Transit Missing Link 43.886003 -79.025587 265 Gaps or Areas of Concern - Transit Transit Missing Link 43.882927 -79.067609 266 Gaps or Areas of Concern - Transit Transit Missing Link 43.870113 -78.9862 267 Notion Road overpass of 401 Transit Missing Link 43.847125 -79.052806 268 Missing_Link Transit Missing Link 43.858279 -78.992258

162

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 269 No direct access to the seniors club through DRT Transit Missing Link 43.856348 -79.058873 270 Bus connecting south and north Harwood. Transit Missing Link 43.822675 -79.012586 271 Add transit Transit Opportunity 43.901532 -79.056714 272 Need bus route, high school students need bus route Transit Opportunity 43.853048 -79.022192 There is a vast amount of homes in this area that have to travel a 273 Transit Opportunity 43.873322 -79.031187 fair distance to access the bus system. 274 Busing in front of the seniors building Transit Opportunity 43.848934 -79.01741 275 we need the bus to stop here Transit Opportunity 43.848982 -79.018871 276 Bus access to the existing seniors club Transit Opportunity 43.848781 -79.018532 277 Harwood and Kingston could become a Mobility Hub. Transit Opportunity 43.861812 -79.025279

why not have a bus that goes straight down westney to the go station instead of having to switch from 217 to walk down westney 278 Transit Opportunity 43.831734 -79.032729 or go our of your way for 226. Consider a direct route for those working down westney.

279 great to have option of 900 or go bus along hwy 2 at salem Transit Opportunity 43.863278 -79.015189

280 more busses Transit Opportunity 43.891828 -79.049748

281 more busses Transit Opportunity 43.896281 -79.029577 282 Add bus route Transit Opportunity 43.847513 -78.995055

Improve how the bus stops at the high school. Currently there is a laneway that is not designated for a bus stop.....if the bus does not 283 Transit Opportunity 43.84432 -79.010643 stop in this laneway it backs up traffic. You need to designate this lane for buses only...

Bus to travel along Delaney from Elizabeth to Westney for access to 284 Transit Opportunity 43.852819 -79.02225 the community centre. It is broken if you live in the Village.

Run a bus north on Elizabeth and across Kearney. It's a long walk 285 from Hwy 2 up to the top of the Village and there are no buses. The Transit Opportunity 43.845144 -79.026885 Church bus is far from Elizabeth north.

286 Greater transit priority lane to get out of GO station Transit Priority 43.852806 -79.022123

287 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.895295 -79.042431

288 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.887275 -79.037035

289 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.854556 -79.055383

290 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.852105 -79.065412

291 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.883491 -79.010876

292 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.844682 -79.03209

293 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.853074 -78.997085

294 Key Proposed Routes that should be Prioritized - Transit Transit Priority 43.859078 -78.990793

There needs to be a bus route re-launched to meet the demand for 295 students currently attending Durham College and UOIT as the 915 is Transit Priority 43.870044 -79.028385 almost constantly full and overcrowded.

163

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Issue Classification Latitude Longitude 296 Priority Transit Priority 43.840604 -79.016589

We need a bus route that goes straight up Harwood to Kingston 297 Transit Priority 43.853873 -79.022502 Road instead of all buses going to the GO Station.

298 Road is always backed up delaying buses and cars Transit Priority 43.844896 -79.015727

Create better exits from the GO train station. The traffic to get out is 299 Transit Priority 43.846191 -79.040127 horrible. There should be more than just the one exit.

Stop Durham Live! 300 Transit Priority 43.837837 -79.047784 Bayly is a mess

164

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-7. Stakeholder comments received during engagement round 2

A-7a. Cycling preferences

ID Comment Facility Class

1 Buffered bike lane helps enforce 1m passing law, more space from vehicles better with higher speeds Designated Facilities

2 Buffered bike lanes for suburbs Designated Facilities 3 Buffered bike lanes along with other nodes and connections to public transit Designated Facilities 4 Buffered paved shoulder for rural Designated Facilities 5 Provides better sepearation and sense of safety with buffered bike lanes Designated Facilities 6 Buffered bike lanes forces the user to slow down Designated Facilities 7 Education of motorists & cyclists on the use of ALL designated bike lanes is critical! Designated Facilities All three of these layouts are acceptable. As I like to get out of (sub)urban areas from time to time, having a buffered 8 paved shoulder is an incremental safety item on rural roads - but I too often have found that the paved shoulder areas Designated Facilities that could be used by a cyclist are in deplorable condition. 9 as long as there are bike lanes, that's all that really matters Designated Facilities 10 In the summer the buffer should consist of cement barriers. Removed in winter. Designated Facilities 11 Less chance of pedestrian collision with cycle track Separated Facilities

12 In boulevard trail promotes active travel because its on a boulevard (more specific route to and from destinations) Separated Facilities

13 Boulevard trails dangerous where driveways/side streets cross Separated Facilities 14 No line to divide bikers and walkers lead to decreased safety perception for off road trails Separated Facilities 15 Cycle tracks good for low speed, high volume Separated Facilities 16 Share facility with pedestrian active transportation in in boulevard trails Separated Facilities 17 Easier maintenance with snow plow, separation from autos with in boulevard trails Separated Facilities 18 In boulevard trails are separated from speeds, not volumes Separated Facilities 19 Off road trails for recreation Separated Facilities 20 Cycle tracks are better in a more dense urban area Separated Facilities Education may be required for drivers and cyclist to use cycle tracks, re: transitions where roads/cycle tracks meet at 21 Separated Facilities intersection

22 Accessibility concerns for direction of traffic for those who have visual impairments with in boulevard trails Separated Facilities

23 Off road trails have the most pleasant experience, safe, access to nature and lines to perception Separated Facilities 24 Off road trails allow for routes beyond road network Separated Facilities

25 Challenge in user mode i.e. cyclist vs walkers/runners, pathway not delineated, require info/educational for users Separated Facilities

26 Choosing an option here is difficult - cost considerations are very applicable. Vertical separated track is a 'no go' for me! Separated Facilities

27 Not a great question, different response for different areas. Separated Facilities 28 Sharrows/signs remind motorist that bikes have a right to be there Shared Facilities 29 Signage on road and post for sharrows is age-friendly (more visibility) Shared Facilities 30 Safe and clear for auto traffic Shared Facilities 31 Better defined facility between cars/bikes with edgelines Shared Facilities 32 Sharrows provides both signage and pavement visual indicators, hard to miss as a driver Shared Facilities It is unclear what are 'low volume' roads? e.g. Station St./Fairall R. has painted edge lines, yet it is one of the busiest roads 33 Shared Facilities in Ajax (as ti serves the GO station). 34 Would also like the bike route sign Shared Facilities 35 Paint on roads I have been cycling on for 24 years are a nonsense. Shared Facilities 36 Prefer painted edgelines with sharrows Shared Facilities 37 I'm not a cyclist Shared Facilities

165

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

A-7b. Phasing and implementation feedback (mapping)

ID Comment Topic Priority Latitude Longitude 1 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.821521 -79.012841 2 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.819278 -79.030201 3 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.834236 -79.015649 4 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.841798 -79.018243 5 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.841842 -79.018569 6 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.846384 -79.019348 7 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.852797 -79.022104 8 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.8289 -79.014221 9 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.836548 -79.034487 10 As far as GO Station AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.846981 -79.040103 11 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.865816 -79.050746 12 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.823721 -79.008609 13 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.866574 -79.01223 14 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.861747 -79.015062 15 Range line needs sidewalk! AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.829077 -78.998472 16 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.829604 -78.98294

17 Right hand turn lane from Pickering Beach Northbound to Bayly Westbound AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.843906 -79.006801

Lake Driveway - The pavement is horrible for cycling closer to the curbs, 18 bordering on dangerous. A (well-)maintained dedicated cycling path here AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.81873 -79.018836 may help reduce cycling and pedestrian congestion on the Waterfront Trail.

19 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.878374 -79.016165 20 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.812965 -79.06193 21 need to add pedestrian lane AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.861437 -79.014933 22 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.894258 -79.007748

It would be better if there were a completely separate pedestrian/bicycle 23 AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.853095 -79.02219 crossing. This crossing discourages pedestrians and cyclists.

24 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.834492 -79.035781 Give options to pedestrian and cyclist to have multiple ways 25 AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.847297 -79.043089 Out of the station. Now there are no option. 26 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.845514 -79.03065 27 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.827561 -79.037357 28 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.853005 -79.05478 29 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.865491 -79.007252 30 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.843234 -79.025887 31 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 1 43.867177 -79.017444 32 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.846275 -78.976606 33 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.831417 -78.974031 34 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.825101 -79.001497 35 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.857337 -79.024332 36 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.860135 -79.025301 37 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.827994 -78.992725

Duffins Creek trail north of Rotary Park - Is this actually completed and open all the way to Bayly now? Sections of it were closed and/or in great disrepair 38 AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.837073 -79.036546 a summer or two ago. I have been avoiding the route, as my bicycle is not well-suited to for "off-road", let alone off-path.

39 For pitty’s sake. Just double the width of the sidewalks on both sides. AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.848021 -79.020098

166

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Priority Latitude Longitude 40 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.854301 -79.029945 41 Add a western trail expansion AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.871919 -79.038619 42 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.864949 -79.049275 43 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.826818 -78.998218 44 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.844014 -79.018152 45 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.847257 -79.020523 46 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 2 43.848858 -79.019332 47 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.841136 -78.995333 48 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.857279 -78.981161 49 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.876148 -79.039524 50 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.846116 -79.009057 51 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.829914 -78.977704

Dreyer Rd. is unsafe for cyclists, as the condition of the road closer to the 52 curbs is even worse than the more central part of the road. Dreyer can be a AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.83214 -79.008185 rough ride in a car, let alone a bicycle with properly inflated tires.

53 Pedestrian access to the hospital is pathetic. Pave the paths of desire. AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.837935 -79.016387

54 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.847617 -79.021018 55 Connect more and add signage AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.823678 -79.020589 56 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.852695 -79.004385 57 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.851086 -79.041133 58 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.85237 -78.982919 59 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.843539 -79.017323 60 Not provided AT network A.T. Priority 3 43.834248 -79.033065 61 Connect to Pickering AT network Other 43.887749 -79.070659 62 Rossland Rd to Brock Rd & Seaton? Pickering ITMP AT network Other 43.86826 -79.077846 63 Extend along Lake Ridge Rd AT network Other 43.878707 -78.989945 64 Pedestrian and cyclist access along bridge over 401 @ Harwood Ave AT network Other 43.853067 -79.022243 65 Utilize our abandoned rail lines? AT network Other 43.839645 -79.032505 66 Proposed new trail along Frisco Rd 2018/2019 AT network Other 43.818253 -79.039599 67 Improve trails in Carruther Creek Corridor AT network Other 43.833223 -78.997371 68 Multi-use trail to Whitby AT network Other 43.852584 -78.978871 69 Multi-use trail to Whitby AT network Other 43.870004 -78.98628 70 Multi-use trail to Whitby AT network Other 43.887422 -78.993633 71 Multi-use trail to Whitby AT network Other 43.904928 -79.001253 Pedestrian refugee island on Town roads where no signal or crossing is 72 AT network Other 43.891374 -78.995395 available; assess to bus stops and pedestrian crossings 73 Cycle/pedestrian connection vs roads, 5-10 years out?; On road? AT network Other 43.889472 -79.034826 Pedestrian connection connection with switchback from Seggar to Westney 74 (Near the schools north of Rossland), will require land from the schools, AT network Other 43.882432 -79.044502 transit access Pedestrian connection from on subdivisions off map Friffiths Dr to 75 AT network Other 43.864339 -79.051441 Ravenscroft, access to transit requires crossing valley retrofit Pedestrian connection between Westney and neighbourhood NorthWest of 76 AT network Other 43.851485 -79.040775 Westney and 401, transit access, retrofit 77 Not sure if this facility exists AT network Other 43.853518 -79.041147 Elementary school - consideration for active school travel - off road route for 78 AT network Other 43.853888 -79.049775 active travel (safety concerns) 79 Underpass at HWY 401 Notion Rd Pickering Road network Other 43.843204 -79.061435 Pay parking at Lakefront Parks on weekend, similar to Scarborough at 80 Road network Other 43.818381 -79.0187 Bluffers Park 81 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.838334 -79.028516

167

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Priority Latitude Longitude Rossland Road from Salem to Audley NEEDS to be made into 4 lanes. It is ridiculous that this major artery remains a one lane road each way. The traffic is heavy. As well, making a left hand turn onto Rossland from Salem 82 Road network Road Priority 1 43.881973 -79.018063 (north) is incredibly dangerous having to look out for multiple lanes of traffic coming your way and worrying about the car turning right onto Rossland from Salem (south).

As a primary route to the Go station Station/Fairall improvements should be 83 Road network Road Priority 1 43.848812 -79.029885 a Road Priority 1 84 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.841941 -79.018405 85 Range line needs repaving and bike lanes Road network Road Priority 1 43.829572 -78.996283 86 Rossland NEEDS to be 4 lanes (2 lanes each way) Road network Road Priority 1 43.880718 -79.018482 87 Bicycle travel on Harwood between the 401 and Kingston is scary. Road network Road Priority 1 43.856223 -79.023581 88 Repaved from Hwy2 to Lake Driveway Road network Road Priority 1 43.835239 -79.015384 The left turn signal for vehicles turning left onto Rossland from Salem needs 89 to be addressed. Rossland immediately east of this intersection needs to be Road network Road Priority 1 43.881348 -79.018755 widened. 90 Complete up to Bayly and over the high school Road network Road Priority 1 43.841315 -79.006379 91 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.849919 -79.05429

Rossland Rd between Harwood and Audley needs to be widened to 4 lanes (2 92 lanes each way). The traffic is heavy along this stretch of road and there are Road network Road Priority 1 43.881704 -79.018928 multiple subdivisions and schools that utilize this road.

93 Kingston road, the traffic is ridiculous at the beginning and end of the days. Road network Road Priority 1 43.860494 -79.03255

94 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.844539 -79.015644 95 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.837467 -79.020877 96 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.833753 -79.032894 Too much of Rossland is in terrible shape, even for cars. The edges of the road in many places are not safe for cyclists because of the ongoing 97 crumbling of the road. With the eventual widening of the road, dedicated Road network Road Priority 1 43.879798 -79.023642 space for cycling will be appreciated by those on human-powered two wheels. 98 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.865456 -79.008535

99 Need access from South Ajax to commercial area and restaurants Road network Road Priority 1 43.850242 -79.00713

Widen Rossland Road preferably from Harwood to Lakeridge. This is a heavily used road and the fact that it remains only one way each way with all 100 Road network Road Priority 1 43.881926 -79.017999 of the development is not in keeping up with the needs of the taxpayers of this area of Ajax. 101 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.853067 -79.044566 102 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.841475 -79.040597 103 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.895317 -79.010543

104 Rossland Road needs to be widened to 4 lanes (2 each way) immediately. Road network Road Priority 1 43.882303 -79.016079

Make this two lanes and add a street light here, it's getting hard to turn from 105 Road network Road Priority 1 43.872059 -79.058637 Harkins to Rossland Add a right turn lane going from rotherglen to highway two, this Street really 106 Road network Road Priority 1 43.857259 -79.045824 backs up on morning commutes because of this Widen Rossland road to at least two lanes and add left and right turn lanes at 107 Road network Road Priority 1 43.877959 -79.034866 each intersection 108 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.856529 -79.018787 You need to make two left turns out of the go train station. This is a major 109 Road network Road Priority 1 43.846479 -79.039328 choke point that anyone could describe. 110 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.877076 -79.016053

168

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Priority Latitude Longitude 111 Hwy 2 - Kingston Road Ajax East and West (out to Pickering) Road network Road Priority 1 43.861731 -79.031864 112 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.873906 -79.054587 113 Not provided Road network Road Priority 1 43.830319 -79.030942

The Town of Ajax and Bylaw needs to take the parking situation on Mansbridge Crescent (parallel to Rossland) seriously. There is a white cube van parked on the road EVERY DAY. There is a car parked along the grass of 114 the boulevard at the house on the corner and pretty much every house along Road network Road Priority 1 43.884549 -79.010873 this stretch has cars parked half in the driveway, half onto the road. It is COMPLETELY UNSAFE to travel this road. And it is a COMPLETE EYESORE to the first street into this subdivision.

115 Salem between Kingston Rd and Bayly Road network Road Priority 1 43.855542 -79.011264 116 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.859503 -79.040704

Lights should be installed at this entry point. This is the only way one can exit left out of this plaza in order to get back to Rossland heading east. 117 Again, it is dangerous making this left hand turn looking for two lanes of Road network Road Priority 2 43.883612 -79.020295 traffic heading north on Salem, while also looking at the two lanes of traffic heading south on Salem. Cars travel 80km on this road at most times.

Now that there is a plaza here, coming out onto Harwood is difficult to go 118 Road network Road Priority 2 43.876752 -79.026053 left because of all the cards doing illegal U-turns. Why bike path on road with perfectly sized sidewalk that could be shared. 119 Road network Road Priority 2 43.83621 -79.01505 Silly use of a road. 120 Fix railway crossing north of Clements Road network Road Priority 2 43.834248 -79.02843 Rossland road from Harwood to Audley needs to be widened to two lanes 121 Road network Road Priority 2 43.883235 -79.020042 each for eastbound and westbound traffic. 122 Bike lane access to the high school Road network Road Priority 2 43.845773 -79.010199 123 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.834566 -79.026481

The left hand turn signal at Salem/Rossland needs to be extended. At best 2 124 cars get through on the actual green, with 1-2 cars squeezing through when Road network Road Priority 2 43.881832 -79.018708 they shouldn't (as the oncoming light has already turned green).

Rossland Road needs turn offs into subdivisions. If someone is making a left 125 across traffic going East it stops everyone all along. I get that it cant all be Road network Road Priority 2 43.878314 -79.039245 two lanes, but at least turn lanes 126 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.845737 -79.038653

127 same as previous comment, Road network Road Priority 2 43.855813 -79.012237

Better signage to indicate no left hand turns from Rossland into this plaza. 128 People try to do this all the time, thereby blocking the only lane of traffic of Road network Road Priority 2 43.882313 -79.016379 vehicles heading east along Rossland. The road is already bad enough as it is.

129 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.881463 -79.027844 The advanced green light standard for traffic travelling south on Salem and 130 turning left onto Rossland needs to be extended beyond the current 10 Road network Road Priority 2 43.881801 -79.018831 seconds. 131 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.847864 -79.040073 You have three lanes at the 401 and 3 lands at Kingston. Make westney three lanes from Kingston down to go train lot. Otherwise you’re choking us out, 132 Road network Road Priority 2 43.852589 -79.040965 and you have available space there. While your traffic engineers are busy reducing lanes on harwood 133 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.869404 -79.07562 Dundas Street West to Brock (transfer at Brock going to Ontario Shores in 134 Road network Road Priority 2 43.874849 -78.967491 Whitby)

169

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix A

ID Comment Topic Priority Latitude Longitude 135 Not provided Road network Road Priority 2 43.838071 -79.045532

Better traffic enforcement along Rushworth Drive. Cars drive in excess of 80km an hour at all times of the day. This is a road with many families who 136 Road network Road Priority 2 43.884727 -79.011439 play outside. Someone is going to get killed. We watch cars speed down the road and curves as though it's the Hondy Indy.

137 Harwood between Westney Rd and Kingston Road network Road Priority 2 43.851086 -79.021221 138 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.865545 -79.016895 139 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.856656 -79.031692 140 Just highlighting my #1 and #2. These two areas are an issue. Road network Road Priority 3 43.882355 -79.016769 141 Again,4 lanes on Rossland! Road network Road Priority 3 43.885475 -79.002492 Make roundabouts bigger and more education so buses and others know 142 Road network Road Priority 3 43.836719 -79.00419 and are able to use them properly 143 Widen Westney south of Bayly to Lake Driveway Road network Road Priority 3 43.833257 -79.034267 144 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.882582 -79.013031 145 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.840675 -79.018239 146 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.87195 -79.030944

Lights need to be installed at this section for traffic turning out of this plaza. This is the only exit out of this plaza that you can legally go back east along 147 Road network Road Priority 3 43.883702 -79.019999 Rossland. Traffic travels extremely fast along this stretch and is becoming increasingly dangerous to turn left onto Salem.

The lights on Salem Road S, either need to be sync'd up or a real round about 148 needs to be put in place, at the moment the off timing of lights creates Road network Road Priority 3 43.853067 -79.003368 massive traffic issues trying to get home 149 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.859008 -79.016242 150 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.849078 -79.020485 151 all along Bayly to cross Ajax East to West quickly and safely Road network Road Priority 3 43.844424 -79.016057

Lights need to be installed at this intersection as soon as possible. It is a HUGE risk to drivers who are legally making a left hand turn out of this plaza 152 onto Salem south. It is the only LEGAL way to exit this plaza in order to then Road network Road Priority 3 43.883635 -79.020021 turn left onto Rossland. (Road Priority #4 would be to extend the length of time the left hand turn signal stays at Salem/Rossland.)

153 Installation of lights at this intersection. Road network Road Priority 3 43.883625 -79.020049 154 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.861976 -78.997157 Rossland is two lanes at church but goes down to one in the heart of Ajax. 155 You have space to make a two lane road, even the new intersection are Road network Road Priority 3 43.878652 -79.032544 expanded. 156 Not provided Road network Road Priority 3 43.86532 -78.984902 157 King Street out to Oshawa Road network Road Priority 3 43.895635 -78.874278 A lot of cars do not stop at this stop sign. Many blow right through it as 158 though it doesn't exist while most others slow to about 40km (from their Road network Road Priority 3 43.887325 -79.011702 90km) and roll through it. 159 Westney Road to GO Station Road network Road Priority 3 43.834 -79.03358

170

Appendix B: Travel Demand Model Supporting Documentation

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.3.0 Winter 2019

TRAVEL DEMAND MODELLING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

B-1. Appendix overview

Appendix B outlines the travel demand modelling process and tools used for forecasting the volumes on the existing road network. For the purposes of this study an AM peak hour auto demand matrix were provided, as well as the regional roadway network. This section provides the following supporting documentation used during the modelling process and is organized the following fashion:

B-1. Appendix overview

B-2. 2011 model performance

B-2a. Roadway network

B-2b. Data validation

B-2. 2011 model performance

The demand matrices were generated by the Regional staff from their existing model, the Durham Region Transportation Planning Model (DRTPM), built in EMME software. The provided network was populated with available traffic counts. Using the available counts the region’s auto demand adjustment factors were updated for the zones in Ajax, and an updated AM peak hour auto demand matrix was produced.

B-2a. Roadway network

The received roadway network was also reviewed to match 2011 conditions. New roadway links were added to the network to increase the roadway granularity in Ajax. Shapes of the links were updated to better reflect the curvature and length of the various roadways. Finally, the properties (speed and capacity) of the existing links were reviewed and updated wherever necessary. The changes to the roadway network are shown in Figure B-1. After the changes were implemented, the updated 2011 AM peak hour auto matrix was re-assigned and the model was then validated with the existing traffic counts.

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 172

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix B

Figure B-1. Geometrical changes to the base existing network

Legend Links with no differences

Links with differences

Links and segments in scenario 3

Transit segments with differences

173

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix B

B-2b. Data validation

With the input data incorporated into the model, the next step was to develop a level of comfort that the model was representing existing conditions reasonably accurately. A popular validation technique used to determine how well the modelled volumes portray the observed volumes is using the co-efficient of determination (R2 value). The R2 value is a statistical measure of the model’s “Goodness of Fit”, with R2 equal to 1 indicating a perfect correlation between the modelled and observed volumes. Figure B-2 illustrates the observed volumes versus the modelled volumes at all the locations where traffic count data was available. For the Ajax model, an R2 value of 0.89 was obtained, which signified a very good correlation between the observed volumes and modelled volumes.

Figure B-2. Model calibration results: Correlation between counts and model volumes

6000

5000

4000

3000 R² = 0.8861 2000 Observed Observed Volume

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Modelled Volume

Further validation tests were performed on the model using the maximum desirable percent error method. A percent difference between modelled volumes and counts was calculated for all the count stations. The percent difference was then plotted against their corresponding count volumes. There are both upper and lower limits to model error, which were defined in the NCHRP Report 765. The philosophy of the max desirable percent error (MDE) curve is that errors falling between the curves are unlikely to affect a decision as to the number of lanes on a roadway. For a valid model we expect that majority of the points fall between the max desirable percent error curves. Figure B-3 illustrates the AM peak hour MDE graphs.

174

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix B

Figure B-3. Maximum desirable error validation for AM peak hour (Auto)

200

150

100

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 -50

Percent Percent Difference -100

-150 Max Desirable Error -200 Peak Hour Count Overall majority of the points (98%) fall between the max desirable percent error curves. Given the scope and purpose of this study and the model’s relatively good accuracy across all the count locations, the model was considered validated to existing condition

175

Appendix C: Traffic Operations Analysis Supporting Documentation

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.3.0 Winter 2019

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

C-1. Appendix overview

Appendix C includes the detailed Synchro traffic analysis from the three major corridors and their respective intersections during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The output was analyzed and incorporated into the recommendations provided in the main text of the ITMP. This section compiles the output reports of the traffic operations of the major corridors studied and it is organized in the following manner:

C-1. Appendix overview

C-2. Bayly Street West corridor

• SimTraffic Simulation Summary including Queueing and Blocking Report (AM and PM) • Lanes, volumes, and timings report including Levels of Service (AM and PM) C-3. Harwood Avenue South corridor

• SimTraffic Simulation Summary including Queueing and Blocking Report (AM and PM) • Lanes, volumes, and timings report including Levels of Service (AM and PM) C-4. Westney Road South corridor

• SimTraffic Simulation Summary including Queueing and Blocking Report (AM and PM) • Lanes, volumes, and timings report including Levels of Service (AM and PM)

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 177

C-2. Bayly Street West Corridor Traffic Operations Reports

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 178

SimTraffic Simulation Summary SimTraffic Simulation Summary Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 04/03/2018 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 04/03/2018 Summary of All Intervals Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 End Time 7:10 Start Time 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 Total Time (min) 10 End Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Total Time (min) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1036 1080 1047 1038 1014 979 974 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Exited 1022 1015 995 1024 1014 943 922 Vehs Entered 1036 1080 1047 1038 1014 979 974 Starting Vehs 244 222 221 228 262 233 237 Vehs Exited 1022 1015 995 1024 1014 943 922 Ending Vehs 258 287 273 242 262 269 289 Starting Vehs 244 222 221 228 262 233 237 Travel Distance (km) 1670 1723 1702 1670 1665 1606 1578 Ending Vehs 258 287 273 242 262 269 289 Travel Time (hr) 44.0 47.0 46.9 44.9 44.8 43.5 42.2 Travel Distance (km) 1670 1723 1702 1670 1665 1606 1578 Total Delay (hr) 11.5 13.7 13.9 12.7 12.7 12.4 11.6 Travel Time (hr) 44.0 47.0 46.9 44.9 44.8 43.5 42.2 Total Stops 1083 1276 1312 1225 1181 1143 1150 Total Delay (hr) 11.5 13.7 13.9 12.7 12.7 12.4 11.6 Fuel Used (l) 133.0 140.6 139.4 136.0 135.3 131.0 128.0 Total Stops 1083 1276 1312 1225 1181 1143 1150 Fuel Used (l) 133.0 140.6 139.4 136.0 135.3 131.0 128.0 Interval #1 Information Recording

Summary of All Intervals Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 10 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Start Time 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 End Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Total Time (min) 13 13 13 13 Vehs Entered 1011 1056 1040 1021 Time Recorded (min) 10 10 10 10 Vehs Exited 942 1016 997 986 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 Starting Vehs 233 218 238 236 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Ending Vehs 302 258 281 268 Vehs Entered 1011 1056 1040 1021 Travel Distance (km) 1621 1666 1639 1654 Vehs Exited 942 1016 997 986 Travel Time (hr) 43.3 44.7 44.2 44.6 Starting Vehs 233 218 238 236 Total Delay (hr) 12.0 12.3 12.4 12.5 Ending Vehs 302 258 281 268 Total Stops 1192 1194 1206 1197 Travel Distance (km) 1621 1666 1639 1654 Fuel Used (l) 130.1 133.5 133.0 134.0 Travel Time (hr) 43.3 44.7 44.2 44.6 Total Delay (hr) 12.0 12.3 12.4 12.5 Total Stops 1192 1194 1206 1197 Fuel Used (l) 130.1 133.5 133.0 134.0

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:57 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Queuing and Blocking Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 04/03/2018 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 04/03/2018 Intersection: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Intersection: 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Movement EB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T TR L Directions Served L L T TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (m) 29.2 28.4 25.1 18.1 15.4 53.7 57.0 49.7 45.5 57.8 57.0 56.2 Maximum Queue (m) 16.0 10.3 1.4 1.2 11.3 16.5 Average Queue (m) 15.5 17.6 15.0 9.6 7.8 36.8 40.5 32.9 29.9 41.9 42.0 43.3 Average Queue (m) 8.9 4.8 0.3 0.3 6.2 11.6 95th Queue (m) 34.2 33.1 32.0 20.7 17.2 61.4 63.7 57.4 53.2 61.8 62.0 72.0 95th Queue (m) 20.0 12.9 3.6 2.2 14.0 19.8 Link Distance (m) 372.3 372.3 465.8 465.8 692.3 692.3 Link Distance (m) 341.5 341.5 437.6 429.1 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 140.0 120.0 105.0 60.0 75.0 85.0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 80.0 70.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 1 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Intersection: 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W

Movement SB SB Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T TR Directions Served L T T R L T T R L TR LTR Maximum Queue (m) 45.2 49.4 Maximum Queue (m) 8.2 29.3 34.8 24.3 37.4 59.6 63.9 14.4 27.2 31.2 33.0 Average Queue (m) 28.6 34.6 Average Queue (m) 2.3 15.8 17.9 12.1 23.8 35.8 38.0 3.1 16.2 17.1 19.1 95th Queue (m) 54.0 55.9 95th Queue (m) 8.8 32.6 38.3 27.1 42.4 68.4 72.6 19.0 29.9 32.6 37.3 Link Distance (m) 660.9 660.9 Link Distance (m) 341.5 341.5 469.1 469.1 666.9 471.2 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) Storage Bay Dist (m) 80.0 15.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) 8 1 0 15 0 9 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 1 3 0 11 8

Intersection: 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St Intersection: 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LTR LTR Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T L T Maximum Queue (m) 21.8 26.0 10.2 26.5 40.7 46.4 27.3 1.2 Maximum Queue (m) 16.6 25.0 28.5 38.5 59.7 56.6 9.6 8.2 12.5 19.0 17.4 Average Queue (m) 13.6 14.5 4.3 15.0 18.0 25.6 16.6 0.2 Average Queue (m) 10.2 12.5 16.2 19.6 35.6 34.0 3.8 3.2 5.9 10.9 8.1 95th Queue (m) 29.1 34.1 13.5 29.8 45.7 54.3 31.6 2.2 95th Queue (m) 20.2 31.5 33.4 45.2 69.0 65.9 11.0 9.7 14.8 23.0 20.6 Link Distance (m) 465.8 465.8 250.8 250.8 675.2 131.3 Link Distance (m) 469.1 469.1 220.5 220.5 402.1 567.8 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 20.0 40.0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 70.0 40.0 50.0 25.0 40.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 0 1 15 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 2 2

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 3 Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 04/03/2018 Intersection: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L T T Maximum Queue (m) 18.7 31.0 34.9 28.5 74.0 74.2 46.9 56.6 61.9 38.3 44.8 43.5 Average Queue (m) 11.6 18.4 24.6 15.4 57.1 56.4 32.0 36.9 44.8 26.7 32.4 30.6 95th Queue (m) 21.6 35.3 42.4 30.2 80.9 84.5 53.2 63.2 74.7 43.8 49.2 52.8 Link Distance (m) 220.5 220.5 506.4 506.4 557.0 557.0 517.5 517.5 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 75.0 145.0 50.0 65.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 3 20

Intersection: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W

Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (m) 41.0 Average Queue (m) 29.7 95th Queue (m) 47.2 Link Distance (m) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 92

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary SimTraffic Simulation Summary Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 04/03/2018 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 04/03/2018 Summary of All Intervals Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 End Time 7:10 Start Time 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 Total Time (min) 10 End Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Total Time (min) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1298 1289 1292 1353 1314 1265 1248 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Exited 1210 1227 1216 1282 1203 1176 1170 Vehs Entered 1298 1289 1292 1353 1314 1265 1248 Starting Vehs 305 315 300 325 296 315 310 Vehs Exited 1210 1227 1216 1282 1203 1176 1170 Ending Vehs 393 377 376 396 407 404 388 Starting Vehs 305 315 300 325 296 315 310 Travel Distance (km) 2083 2074 2027 2117 2060 1984 2032 Ending Vehs 393 377 376 396 407 404 388 Travel Time (hr) 64.8 60.0 61.7 62.2 62.1 59.7 60.2 Travel Distance (km) 2083 2074 2027 2117 2060 1984 2032 Total Delay (hr) 24.7 19.8 22.5 21.1 22.0 21.2 21.0 Travel Time (hr) 64.8 60.0 61.7 62.2 62.1 59.7 60.2 Total Stops 1766 1622 1733 1723 1737 1695 1718 Total Delay (hr) 24.7 19.8 22.5 21.1 22.0 21.2 21.0 Fuel Used (l) 179.9 171.9 171.3 176.7 172.7 166.1 170.2 Total Stops 1766 1622 1733 1723 1737 1695 1718 Fuel Used (l) 179.9 171.9 171.3 176.7 172.7 166.1 170.2 Interval #1 Information Recording

Summary of All Intervals Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 10 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Start Time 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 End Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Total Time (min) 13 13 13 13 Vehs Entered 1343 1328 1342 1307 Time Recorded (min) 10 10 10 10 Vehs Exited 1272 1272 1231 1226 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 Starting Vehs 328 324 308 309 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Ending Vehs 399 380 419 394 Vehs Entered 1343 1328 1342 1307 Travel Distance (km) 2145 2148 2071 2074 Vehs Exited 1272 1272 1231 1226 Travel Time (hr) 64.5 64.1 62.9 62.2 Starting Vehs 328 324 308 309 Total Delay (hr) 23.0 22.6 22.8 22.1 Ending Vehs 399 380 419 394 Total Stops 1797 1762 1788 1735 Travel Distance (km) 2145 2148 2071 2074 Fuel Used (l) 181.6 180.6 173.9 174.5 Travel Time (hr) 64.5 64.1 62.9 62.2 Total Delay (hr) 23.0 22.6 22.8 22.1 Total Stops 1797 1762 1788 1735 Fuel Used (l) 181.6 180.6 173.9 174.5

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:57 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Queuing and Blocking Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 04/03/2018 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 04/03/2018 Intersection: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Intersection: 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T TR L Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (m) 49.4 136.2 134.4 64.4 24.0 43.6 48.9 42.2 53.2 65.4 69.8 93.3 Maximum Queue (m) 20.0 3.0 12.0 2.0 24.7 34.0 Average Queue (m) 27.4 110.7 107.4 37.6 12.4 29.2 33.7 24.9 32.1 42.6 46.0 66.8 Average Queue (m) 11.4 0.6 6.7 0.5 15.5 19.6 95th Queue (m) 84.1 168.6 171.1 102.5 28.5 47.3 55.0 45.9 61.5 70.7 75.2 106.6 95th Queue (m) 23.1 4.3 14.7 3.0 32.4 36.7 Link Distance (m) 372.3 372.3 465.8 465.8 692.3 692.3 Link Distance (m) 250.8 341.5 437.6 429.1 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 140.0 120.0 105.0 60.0 75.0 85.0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 80.0 70.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 6 1 0 0 6 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 20 2 0 0 22 Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Intersection: 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W

Movement SB SB Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T TR Directions Served L T T R L T T R L TR LTR Maximum Queue (m) 79.2 82.5 Maximum Queue (m) 22.8 87.1 90.3 35.0 23.6 31.4 30.9 5.2 34.5 83.8 38.2 Average Queue (m) 60.0 64.1 Average Queue (m) 12.1 58.0 62.6 19.0 14.3 18.0 18.4 1.4 28.6 52.5 24.9 95th Queue (m) 86.6 90.8 95th Queue (m) 37.6 97.6 100.2 43.0 28.1 35.5 36.1 7.4 42.4 101.4 44.0 Link Distance (m) 660.9 660.9 Link Distance (m) 341.5 341.5 469.1 469.1 666.9 471.2 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) Storage Bay Dist (m) 80.0 15.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 30 1 8 29 37 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 38 8 2 86 60

Intersection: 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St Intersection: 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LTR LTR Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (m) 77.2 88.2 10.8 29.3 33.1 36.9 68.5 5.4 Maximum Queue (m) 55.8 82.7 89.0 37.2 31.4 26.8 9.6 17.8 28.5 8.3 18.5 22.9 Average Queue (m) 47.9 51.9 2.5 18.7 17.4 24.1 45.3 1.5 Average Queue (m) 24.0 58.1 63.3 22.6 17.0 15.5 3.7 9.8 16.0 1.7 9.6 13.6 95th Queue (m) 86.1 93.9 13.7 35.6 38.6 45.0 84.5 6.8 95th Queue (m) 57.4 93.6 100.9 42.1 34.2 29.9 10.9 21.4 31.5 15.1 22.8 27.1 Link Distance (m) 465.8 465.8 250.8 250.8 675.2 131.3 Link Distance (m) 469.1 469.1 220.5 220.5 402.1 567.8 Upstream Blk Time (%) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 20.0 40.0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 70.0 40.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 16 0 1 0 20 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 3 0 1 3 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 1 5 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 7 0 4 6 3

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 3 Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 04/03/2018 Intersection: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L T T Maximum Queue (m) 27.8 126.3 156.4 25.5 42.4 44.9 39.2 58.3 65.0 67.0 69.8 71.0 Average Queue (m) 17.5 64.3 74.2 16.8 31.0 30.6 23.5 41.5 46.7 49.1 49.6 47.5 95th Queue (m) 29.8 138.1 162.6 28.1 48.3 51.9 45.0 65.3 72.9 83.4 84.1 78.3 Link Distance (m) 220.5 220.5 506.4 506.4 557.0 557.0 517.5 517.5 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (m) 75.0 145.0 50.0 65.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 4 11 1 20 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 6 29 2 38

Intersection: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W

Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (m) 44.9 Average Queue (m) 23.4 95th Queue (m) 48.5 Link Distance (m) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 363

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St 01/15/2019 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.27 0.47 0.29 Traffic Volume (vph) 87 303 105 57 696 390 227 660 29 303 344 158 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.29 0.19 0.12 0.66 0.54 0.57 0.80 0.93 0.54 Future Volume (vph) 87 303 105 57 696 390 227 660 29 303 344 158 Control Delay 19.9 25.8 5.8 15.4 32.3 5.6 22.0 41.0 57.5 28.4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 19.9 25.8 5.8 15.4 32.3 5.6 22.0 41.0 57.5 28.4 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS BCABCACD EC Storage Length (m) 140.0 120.0 105.0 60.0 75.0 0.0 85.0 0.0 Approach Delay 20.5 22.4 36.3 39.3 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Approach LOS C C D D Taper Length (m) 50.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.850 0.994 0.953 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 97.7 Satd. Flow (prot) 1475 3305 1536 1785 3433 1521 1716 3410 0 1700 3215 0 Natural Cycle: 80 Flt Permitted 0.237 0.557 0.382 0.176 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Satd. Flow (perm) 368 3305 1513 1045 3433 1499 690 3410 0 315 3215 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 30.0 Intersection LOS: C Satd. Flow (RTOR) 112 415 4 73 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 60 60 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 389.3 484.0 711.8 677.1 Travel Time (s) 23.4 29.0 42.7 40.6 Splits and Phases: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 21% 8% 4% 0% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 4% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 93 322 112 61 740 415 241 702 31 322 366 168 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 322 112 61 740 415 241 733 0 322 534 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 22.0 22.0 5.0 22.0 22.0 5.0 24.0 5.0 24.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 29.3 29.3 8.0 29.3 29.3 8.0 30.7 8.0 30.7 Total Split (s) 11.0 39.0 39.0 11.0 39.0 39.0 17.0 33.0 17.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 11.0% 39.0% 39.0% 11.0% 39.0% 39.0% 17.0% 33.0% 17.0% 33.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.8 4.8 3.0 4.8 4.8 3.0 4.2 3.0 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 7.3 7.3 3.0 7.3 7.3 3.0 6.7 3.0 6.7 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) 42.8 32.3 32.3 41.7 31.8 31.8 42.0 26.4 45.5 28.5

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.12 0.13 Traffic Volume (vph) 2 606 55 166 1150 0 51 0 59 0 0 1 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.26 0.06 0.34 0.48 0.60 0.00 Future Volume (vph) 2 606 55 166 1150 0 51 0 59 0 0 1 Control Delay 4.0 4.2 1.3 6.6 5.7 34.5 0.0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 4.0 4.2 1.3 6.6 5.7 34.5 0.0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS AAAAA C A Storage Length (m) 50.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach Delay 4.0 5.8 34.5 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Approach LOS A A C Taper Length (m) 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.927 0.865 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.977 Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 3400 1452 1716 3466 1842 0 1525 0 0 1604 0 Natural Cycle: 60 Flt Permitted 0.198 0.399 0.852 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 372 3400 1419 720 3466 1842 0 1329 0 0 1604 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 6.8 Intersection LOS: A Satd. Flow (RTOR) 60 55 77 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 40 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 484.0 265.3 689.2 145.5 Travel Time (s) 29.0 15.9 49.6 13.1 Splits and Phases: 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 10% 4% 3% 2% 18% 2% 6% 2% 2% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 2 666 60 182 1264 0 56 0 65 0 0 1 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 666 60 182 1264 0 0 121 0 0 1 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 2 2 2 6 6 6 8 8 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 29.1 29.1 27.5 27.5 Total Split (s) 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.1 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 11.0 12.6

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 591 40 53 1205 42 9 0 26 4 0 73 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 591 40 53 1205 42 9 0 26 4 0 73 Future Volume (vph) 63 591 40 53 1205 42 9 0 26 4 0 73 Future Volume (Veh/h) 63 591 40 53 1205 42 9 0 26 4 0 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Storage Length (m) 80.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 68 635 43 57 1296 45 10 0 28 4 0 78 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 5 5 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 0 0 Frt 0.990 0.995 0.901 0.872 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.987 0.998 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Satd. Flow (prot) 1653 3311 0 1623 3443 0 0 1493 0 0 1480 0 Median storage veh) 2 2 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.987 0.998 Upstream signal (m) 265 356 Satd. Flow (perm) 1653 3311 0 1623 3443 0 0 1493 0 0 1480 0 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.98 0.84 0.84 0.98 0.84 0.84 0.83 Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 vC, conflicting volume 1346 683 1638 2258 344 1919 2256 676 Link Distance (m) 265.3 356.3 449.8 439.8 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 798 798 1438 1438 Travel Time (s) 15.9 21.4 32.4 31.7 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 840 1460 482 819 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 vCu, unblocked vol 1012 644 1290 2028 299 1625 2027 206 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 4.3 4.3 8.0 6.5 7.1 7.5 6.5 7.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.0 5.5 6.5 5.5 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 2.3 2.3 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 7% 3% 10% 3% 8% 23% 2% 8% 0% 2% 11% p0 queue free % 87 93 95 100 96 97 100 88 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 cM capacity (veh/h) 535 866 207 131 665 159 171 640 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 68 635 43 57 1296 45 10 0 28 4 0 78 Volume Total 68 423 255 57 864 477 38 82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 68 0 0 57 0 0 10 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 678 0 57 1341 0 0 38 0 0 82 0 Volume Right 0 0 43 0 0 45 28 78 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop cSH 535 1700 1700 866 1700 1700 420 558 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.25 0.15 0.07 0.51 0.28 0.09 0.15 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.9 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 14.4 12.6 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS B A BB Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.4 14.4 12.6 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS BB Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W 01/15/2019 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.15 0.15 0.15 Traffic Volume (vph) 9 453 127 209 1230 18 96 65 51 7 88 41 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.22 0.12 0.36 0.55 0.02 0.63 0.43 0.55 Future Volume (vph) 9 453 127 209 1230 18 96 65 51 7 88 41 Control Delay 5.8 5.1 1.4 7.8 7.7 1.0 50.5 25.6 34.9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 5.8 5.1 1.4 7.8 7.7 1.0 50.5 25.6 34.9 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS AAAAAADC C Storage Length (m) 80.0 15.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach Delay 4.3 7.6 36.9 34.9 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Approach LOS A A D C Taper Length (m) 0.0 0.0 15.0 2.5 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.850 0.934 0.959 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.998 Actuated Cycle Length: 84 Satd. Flow (prot) 1594 3187 1566 1767 3400 1507 1700 1663 0 0 1638 0 Natural Cycle: 65 Flt Permitted 0.177 0.477 0.601 0.981 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 297 3187 1513 881 3400 1460 1065 1663 0 0 1610 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 10.9 Intersection LOS: B Satd. Flow (RTOR) 132 35 41 23 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.4% ICU Level of Service E Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 356.3 486.8 680.9 485.3 Travel Time (s) 21.4 29.2 49.0 34.9 Splits and Phases: 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 5 5 4 10 7 7 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 12% 2% 1% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 29% 7% 10% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 10 482 135 222 1309 19 102 69 54 7 94 44 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 482 135 222 1309 19 102 123 0 0 145 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 2 2 2 6 6 6 8 8 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 Total Split (s) 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 12.7 12.7 12.7

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W 01/15/2019 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 Traffic Volume (vph) 73 432 20 137 1221 62 13 33 87 44 43 124 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.20 0.23 0.51 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.56 Future Volume (vph) 73 432 20 137 1221 62 13 33 87 44 43 124 Control Delay 8.6 4.3 5.5 6.4 1.4 30.9 31.6 10.1 38.6 34.8 29.8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 8.6 4.3 5.5 6.4 1.4 30.9 31.6 10.1 38.6 34.8 29.8 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS AA AAACCBDCC Storage Length (m) 70.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 25.0 Approach Delay 4.9 6.1 17.5 32.6 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS A A B C Taper Length (m) 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.97 Area Type: Other Frt 0.993 0.850 0.850 0.850 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 86.7 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 3314 0 1750 3466 1566 1785 1879 1566 1668 1879 1597 Natural Cycle: 60 Flt Permitted 0.190 0.480 0.728 0.734 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 355 3314 0 866 3466 1464 1348 1879 1521 1268 1879 1553 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.56 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 8.9 Intersection LOS: A Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 65 92 56 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 486.8 243.4 414.0 580.8 Travel Time (s) 29.2 14.6 29.8 41.8 Splits and Phases: 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 19 19 22 11 12 12 11 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 7% 0% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 2% 7% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 77 455 21 144 1285 65 14 35 92 46 45 131 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 476 0 144 1285 65 14 35 92 46 45 131 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 2 2 6 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 25.3 25.3 25.3 27.4 27.4 27.4 Total Split (s) 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 12.5 12.5 12.5 10.4 10.4 10.4

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 9 Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W 01/15/2019 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.51 0.41 0.38 0.26 0.38 0.26 0.26 Traffic Volume (vph) 77 375 106 121 871 119 195 380 180 174 392 256 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.41 0.30 0.77 0.56 0.69 0.65 0.46 0.50 Future Volume (vph) 77 375 106 121 871 119 195 380 180 174 392 256 Control Delay 15.8 21.1 13.9 30.1 27.0 33.8 32.0 33.0 11.4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 15.8 21.1 13.9 30.1 27.0 33.8 32.0 33.0 11.4 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS BC BC CC CCB Storage Length (m) 75.0 0.0 145.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 65.0 30.0 Approach Delay 20.4 28.4 32.1 26.1 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 Approach LOS C C C C Taper Length (m) 25.0 2.5 25.0 25.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.91 0.91 0.94 Area Type: Other Frt 0.967 0.982 0.952 0.850 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 99.7 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 3121 0 1733 3287 0 1716 3058 0 1733 3466 1566 Natural Cycle: 80 Flt Permitted 0.147 0.405 0.420 0.272 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Satd. Flow (perm) 275 3121 0 720 3287 0 741 3058 0 452 3466 1477 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 27.3 Intersection LOS: C Satd. Flow (RTOR) 43 18 76 214 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 243.4 518.3 568.9 528.0 Travel Time (s) 14.6 31.1 41.0 38.0 Splits and Phases: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 37 51 51 37 35 199 199 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 11% 2% 3% 6% 6% 4% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 399 113 129 927 127 207 404 191 185 417 272 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 512 0 129 1054 0 207 595 0 185 417 272 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 28.0 5.0 28.0 5.0 23.0 5.0 23.0 23.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 34.8 8.0 34.8 8.0 29.0 8.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 46.0 10.0 46.0 12.0 32.0 12.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 46.0% 10.0% 46.0% 12.0% 32.0% 12.0% 32.0% 32.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.8 3.0 6.8 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None Max None Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 49.6 39.2 50.5 41.2 38.0 26.1 37.7 26.0 26.0

Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Abyly St W <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St 01/15/2019 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.20 0.46 0.30 Traffic Volume (vph) 160 1210 310 73 426 314 180 428 134 359 764 109 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.96 0.44 0.58 0.41 0.46 0.86 0.90 0.97 0.97 Future Volume (vph) 160 1210 310 73 426 314 180 428 134 359 764 109 Control Delay 21.0 52.3 6.4 33.8 30.4 4.9 58.7 61.6 69.3 62.3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 21.0 52.3 6.4 33.8 30.4 4.9 58.7 61.6 69.3 62.3 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS CDACCAEE EE Storage Length (m) 140.0 120.0 105.0 60.0 75.0 0.0 85.0 0.0 Approach Delay 40.9 20.8 60.9 64.3 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Approach LOS D C E E Taper Length (m) 50.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.850 0.964 0.981 Cycle Length: 120 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 119.6 Satd. Flow (prot) 1684 3500 1551 1785 3275 1536 1716 3331 0 1750 3305 0 Natural Cycle: 110 Flt Permitted 0.393 0.092 0.165 0.147 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Satd. Flow (perm) 695 3500 1524 173 3275 1510 298 3331 0 270 3305 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 47.0 Intersection LOS: D Satd. Flow (RTOR) 303 353 31 13 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 60 60 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 389.3 484.0 711.8 677.1 Travel Time (s) 23.4 29.0 42.7 40.6 Splits and Phases: 1: Westney Rd S & Bayly St Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 3 7 7 3 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 2% 3% 0% 9% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 25% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1360 348 82 479 353 202 481 151 403 858 122 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 1360 348 82 479 353 202 632 0 403 980 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 22.0 22.0 5.0 22.0 22.0 5.0 24.0 5.0 24.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 29.3 29.3 8.0 29.3 29.3 8.0 30.7 8.0 30.7 Total Split (s) 12.0 54.0 54.0 8.0 50.0 50.0 15.0 31.0 27.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% 6.7% 41.7% 41.7% 12.5% 25.8% 22.5% 35.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.8 4.8 3.0 4.8 4.8 3.0 4.2 3.0 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 7.3 7.3 3.0 7.3 7.3 3.0 6.7 3.0 6.7 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) 58.9 48.2 48.2 52.0 42.7 42.7 39.6 24.3 54.7 36.4

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.69 0.67 0.20 0.22 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1592 27 115 719 0 93 0 245 6 0 1 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.03 0.59 0.33 0.88 0.02 Future Volume (vph) 0 1592 27 115 719 0 93 0 245 6 0 1 Control Delay 24.2 0.1 25.1 7.7 47.0 0.1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 24.2 0.1 25.1 7.7 47.0 0.1 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS CACA D A Storage Length (m) 50.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach Delay 23.8 10.1 47.0 0.1 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Approach LOS C B D A Taper Length (m) 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.96 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.902 0.981 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.986 0.959 Actuated Cycle Length: 96.3 Satd. Flow (prot) 1842 3466 1536 1750 3368 1842 0 1622 0 0 1768 0 Natural Cycle: 90 Flt Permitted 0.069 0.904 0.811 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 1842 3466 1476 127 3368 1842 0 1487 0 0 1495 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 22.5 Intersection LOS: C Satd. Flow (RTOR) 83 123 87 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.6% ICU Level of Service E Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 40 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 484.0 265.3 689.2 145.5 Travel Time (s) 29.0 15.9 49.6 13.1 Splits and Phases: 2: Finley Ave & Bayly St Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 4% 2% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0% 2% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1624 28 117 734 0 95 0 250 6 0 1 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1624 28 117 734 0 0 345 0 0 7 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 2 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 9.5 24.5 24.5 29.1 29.1 27.5 27.5 Total Split (s) 59.6 59.6 59.6 11.2 70.8 70.8 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 Total Split (%) 59.6% 59.6% 59.6% 11.2% 70.8% 70.8% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.1 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max None Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 53.4 53.4 66.5 64.5 19.2 20.8

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019 3: MacKenzie Ave & Bayly St 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 143 1555 45 50 745 50 22 7 49 22 2 111 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 143 1555 45 50 745 50 22 7 49 22 2 111 Future Volume (vph) 143 1555 45 50 745 50 22 7 49 22 2 111 Future Volume (Veh/h) 143 1555 45 50 745 50 22 7 49 22 2 111 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Storage Length (m) 80.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 151 1637 47 53 784 53 23 7 52 23 2 117 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 5 7 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 0 1 Frt 0.996 0.991 0.914 0.889 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.986 0.992 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 3452 0 1684 3367 0 0 1543 0 0 1569 0 Median storage veh) 2 2 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.986 0.992 Upstream signal (m) 265 356 Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 3452 0 1684 3367 0 0 1543 0 0 1569 0 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.96 Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 vC, conflicting volume 844 1689 2584 2918 847 2100 2914 426 Link Distance (m) 265.3 356.3 449.8 439.8 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1968 1968 924 924 Travel Time (s) 15.9 21.4 32.4 31.7 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 616 950 1176 1991 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 5 5 7 vCu, unblocked vol 762 829 2064 2601 0 1286 2596 327 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.7 7.1 7.0 7.6 7.5 7.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.7 6.1 6.6 6.5 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.3 3.4 3.5 4.5 3.3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 3% 6% 5% 6% 10% 29% 7% 5% 50% 5% p0 queue free % 81 89 67 90 92 89 90 81 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 cM capacity (veh/h) 810 465 70 67 642 216 19 632 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 151 1637 47 53 784 53 23 7 52 23 2 117 Volume Total 151 1091 593 53 523 314 82 142 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 151 0 0 53 0 0 23 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 1684 0 53 837 0 0 82 0 0 142 0 Volume Right 0 0 47 0 0 53 52 117 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop cSH 810 1700 1700 465 1700 1700 160 359 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.64 0.35 0.11 0.31 0.18 0.51 0.40 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 5.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 19.1 14.0 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 10.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 49.0 21.4 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS B B EC Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.8 49.0 21.4 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS EC Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W 01/15/2019 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.22 0.22 0.22 Traffic Volume (vph) 56 1366 128 73 634 24 164 170 121 26 110 27 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.74 0.16 0.35 0.31 0.03 0.75 0.77 0.64 Future Volume (vph) 56 1366 128 73 634 24 164 170 121 26 110 27 Control Delay 13.7 19.6 7.2 10.5 8.4 2.3 53.0 41.8 41.1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 13.7 19.6 7.2 10.5 8.4 2.3 53.0 41.8 41.1 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS BBABAADD D Storage Length (m) 80.0 15.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach Delay 18.4 8.4 45.8 41.1 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Approach LOS B A D D Taper Length (m) 0.0 0.0 15.0 2.5 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.93 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.99 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.850 0.938 0.977 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.992 Actuated Cycle Length: 90.3 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 3500 1551 1785 3400 1413 1750 1715 0 0 1753 0 Natural Cycle: 80 Flt Permitted 0.395 0.093 0.582 0.682 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 717 3500 1444 175 3400 1335 1059 1715 0 0 1204 0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 21.5 Intersection LOS: C Satd. Flow (RTOR) 68 35 37 10 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 356.3 486.8 680.9 485.3 Travel Time (s) 21.4 29.2 49.0 34.9 Splits and Phases: 4: Monarch Ave & Bayly St/Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 18 18 13 14 13 13 14 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 3% 0% 5% 13% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 8% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 60 1453 136 78 674 26 174 181 129 28 117 29 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 1453 136 78 674 26 174 310 0 0 174 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Detector Phase 2 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 8.0 24.1 24.1 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 Total Split (s) 54.0 54.0 54.0 10.0 64.0 64.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 10.0% 64.0% 64.0% 36.0% 36.0% 36.0% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.0 4.4 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.0 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max None Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 61.3 58.2 58.2 19.8 19.8 19.8

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W 01/15/2019 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 Traffic Volume (vph) 127 1347 13 139 587 61 48 82 189 50 76 134 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.65 0.54 0.25 0.06 0.27 0.32 0.62 0.34 0.35 0.46 Future Volume (vph) 127 1347 13 139 587 61 48 82 189 50 76 134 Control Delay 9.6 12.1 10.7 4.5 1.4 35.2 35.0 23.5 39.6 37.9 11.5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 9.6 12.1 10.7 4.5 1.4 35.2 35.0 23.5 39.6 37.9 11.5 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS AB BAADDCDDB Storage Length (m) 70.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 25.0 Approach Delay 11.9 5.4 28.2 24.6 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS B A C C Taper Length (m) 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.96 Area Type: Other Frt 0.999 0.850 0.850 0.850 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 83.5 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 3495 0 1767 3466 1597 1785 1842 1551 1785 1879 1566 Natural Cycle: 75 Flt Permitted 0.421 0.126 0.706 0.702 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 774 3495 0 234 3466 1487 1289 1842 1484 1282 1879 1499 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 13.1 Intersection LOS: B Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 64 118 140 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 486.8 243.4 414.0 580.8 Travel Time (s) 29.2 14.6 29.8 41.8 Splits and Phases: 5: Kitney Dr & Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 24 25 25 24 22 22 22 22 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 132 1403 14 145 611 64 50 85 197 52 79 140 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 1417 0 145 611 64 50 85 197 52 79 140 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 24.0 24.0 5.0 24.0 24.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 31.0 31.0 8.0 31.0 31.0 25.3 25.3 25.3 27.4 27.4 27.4 Total Split (s) 59.0 59.0 8.0 67.0 67.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 59.0% 59.0% 8.0% 67.0% 67.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 7.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 52.0 52.0 64.0 60.0 60.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 10.0 10.0 10.0

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 9 Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W 01/15/2019 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.42 0.46 0.37 0.36 0.25 0.38 0.26 0.26 Traffic Volume (vph) 206 1277 113 100 468 131 129 405 181 264 549 185 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.98 0.60 0.51 0.45 0.68 0.93 0.61 0.38 Future Volume (vph) 206 1277 113 100 468 131 129 405 181 264 549 185 Control Delay 15.9 48.4 28.7 25.0 24.9 34.4 63.8 35.8 10.1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total Delay 15.9 48.4 28.7 25.0 24.9 34.4 63.8 35.8 10.1 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS BD CC CC EDB Storage Length (m) 75.0 0.0 145.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 65.0 30.0 Approach Delay 44.2 25.5 32.7 38.4 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 Approach LOS D C C D Taper Length (m) 25.0 2.5 25.0 25.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 Area Type: Other Frt 0.988 0.967 0.954 0.850 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 3416 0 1785 3221 0 1750 3316 0 1767 3500 1566 Natural Cycle: 90 Flt Permitted 0.314 0.109 0.316 0.245 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Satd. Flow (perm) 583 3416 0 204 3221 0 573 3316 0 448 3500 1485 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.98 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 37.5 Intersection LOS: D Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 40 68 154 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 243.4 518.3 568.9 528.0 Travel Time (s) 14.6 31.1 41.0 38.0 Splits and Phases: 6: Harwood Ave S & Bayly St W Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 31 35 35 31 31 40 40 31 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 1% 0% 7% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 210 1303 115 102 478 134 132 413 185 269 560 189 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 1418 0 102 612 0 132 598 0 269 560 189 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 28.0 5.0 28.0 5.0 23.0 5.0 23.0 23.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 34.8 8.0 34.8 8.0 29.0 8.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 49.0 8.0 42.0 11.0 31.0 12.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 49.0% 8.0% 42.0% 11.0% 31.0% 12.0% 32.0% 32.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.8 3.0 6.8 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None Max None Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 54.0 42.2 45.5 36.7 35.7 25.0 38.3 26.3 26.3

Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Bayly St W <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Page 12

C-3. Harwood Avenue South Corridor Traffic Operations Reports

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 196

SimTraffic Simulation Summary SimTraffic Simulation Summary Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 03/06/2018 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 03/06/2018 Summary of All Intervals Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 End Time 8:00 Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 Total Time (min) 60 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1282 1384 1389 1358 1362 1359 1340 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Exited 1287 1395 1385 1374 1352 1347 1335 Vehs Entered 1282 1384 1389 1358 1362 1359 1340 Starting Vehs 26 44 29 40 20 18 21 Vehs Exited 1287 1395 1385 1374 1352 1347 1335 Ending Vehs 21 33 33 24 30 30 26 Starting Vehs 26 44 29 40 20 18 21 Travel Distance (km) 979 1067 1051 1043 1032 1049 1013 Ending Vehs 21 33 33 24 30 30 26 Travel Time (hr) 28.9 31.7 31.0 30.6 30.5 31.0 29.6 Travel Distance (km) 979 1067 1051 1043 1032 1049 1013 Total Delay (hr) 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.7 6.0 5.3 Travel Time (hr) 28.9 31.7 31.0 30.6 30.5 31.0 29.6 Total Stops 1067 1150 1142 1113 1093 1116 1086 Total Delay (hr) 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.7 6.0 5.3 Fuel Used (l) 84.2 91.7 92.2 89.8 89.6 90.6 88.4 Total Stops 1067 1150 1142 1113 1093 1116 1086 Fuel Used (l) 84.2 91.7 92.2 89.8 89.6 90.6 88.4 Interval #1 Information Recording

Summary of All Intervals Start Time 7:00 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 60 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 Vehs Entered 1439 1399 1332 1366 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 Vehs Exited 1443 1391 1329 1363 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 Starting Vehs 29 27 27 26 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Ending Vehs 25 35 30 26 Vehs Entered 1439 1399 1332 1366 Travel Distance (km) 1099 1051 1031 1042 Vehs Exited 1443 1391 1329 1363 Travel Time (hr) 32.4 30.8 30.6 30.7 Starting Vehs 29 27 27 26 Total Delay (hr) 5.9 5.6 5.8 5.7 Ending Vehs 25 35 30 26 Total Stops 1171 1121 1123 1115 Travel Distance (km) 1099 1051 1031 1042 Fuel Used (l) 95.7 91.1 89.2 90.3 Travel Time (hr) 32.4 30.8 30.6 30.7 Total Delay (hr) 5.9 5.6 5.8 5.7 Total Stops 1171 1121 1123 1115 Fuel Used (l) 95.7 91.1 89.2 90.3

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:50 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 2 SimTraffic Performance Report Queuing and Blocking Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 03/06/2018 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 03/06/2018 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Performance by movement Intersection: 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Directions Served L T R L TR L T T R L T T Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 Maximum Queue (m) 25.0 33.5 16.5 16.9 57.4 34.6 23.5 28.7 13.3 18.9 20.6 25.0 Travel Dist (km) 17.6 24.0 17.2 5.8 64.2 14.6 73.0 135.4 8.5 7.8 29.7 16.9 Average Queue (m) 9.9 10.9 5.5 3.0 23.2 16.7 11.2 13.5 2.1 6.3 7.6 11.2 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 2.5 0.5 2.6 4.3 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.6 95th Queue (m) 20.2 24.3 12.5 11.0 44.4 28.7 19.7 23.0 8.2 14.9 17.0 21.3 Link Distance (m) 232.9 278.2 537.7 537.7 203.0 203.0 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Performance by movement Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Movement All Storage Bay Dist (m) 15.0 95.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 Denied Delay (hr) 0.3 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 4 0 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Delay (hr) 4.0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Travel Dist (km) 414.7 Travel Time (hr) 14.9 Intersection: 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E

2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E Performance by movement Movement SB Directions Served R Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Maximum Queue (m) 20.5 Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Queue (m) 8.5 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 95th Queue (m) 17.5 Travel Dist (km) 27.7 4.9 0.3 9.0 16.5 0.6 36.6 3.3 18.0 24.2 92.3 233.3 Link Distance (m) Travel Time (hr) 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.5 2.2 6.1 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S Performance by movement Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection: 2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E Travel Dist (km) 22.3 6.0 5.2 2.2 1.5 0.8 5.4 43.5 Travel Time (hr) 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.2 Movement EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LT T R LT T R Total Network Performance Maximum Queue (m) 28.6 25.4 8.8 2.5 2.9 15.7 1.6 9.8 Average Queue (m) 12.1 10.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.7 95th Queue (m) 22.6 19.3 3.9 1.7 1.5 9.7 1.6 4.7 Denied Delay (hr) 0.4 Link Distance (m) 164.3 182.2 321.9 321.9 537.7 537.7 Total Delay (hr) 5.3 Upstream Blk Time (%) Travel Dist (km) 1041.6 Queuing Penalty (veh) Travel Time (hr) 30.7 Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 30.0 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 3 Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 03/06/2018 Intersection: 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S

Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (m) 11.6 13.6 Average Queue (m) 1.0 6.6 95th Queue (m) 6.2 14.1 Link Distance (m) 257.1 177.7 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 23

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary SimTraffic Simulation Summary Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 03/06/2018 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 03/06/2018 Summary of All Intervals Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 End Time 8:00 Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 Total Time (min) 60 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1640 1652 1693 1586 1582 1658 1648 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Exited 1636 1641 1697 1576 1576 1662 1642 Vehs Entered 1640 1652 1693 1586 1582 1658 1648 Starting Vehs 29 33 39 30 28 36 29 Vehs Exited 1636 1641 1697 1576 1576 1662 1642 Ending Vehs 33 44 35 40 34 32 35 Starting Vehs 29 33 39 30 28 36 29 Travel Distance (km) 1172 1178 1246 1150 1188 1238 1199 Ending Vehs 33 44 35 40 34 32 35 Travel Time (hr) 34.5 34.8 36.6 33.4 34.6 36.5 35.3 Travel Distance (km) 1172 1178 1246 1150 1188 1238 1199 Total Delay (hr) 7.1 7.2 7.5 6.5 6.7 7.5 7.3 Travel Time (hr) 34.5 34.8 36.6 33.4 34.6 36.5 35.3 Total Stops 1232 1210 1287 1161 1209 1270 1228 Total Delay (hr) 7.1 7.2 7.5 6.5 6.7 7.5 7.3 Fuel Used (l) 101.0 102.9 107.7 99.3 102.8 106.0 103.2 Total Stops 1232 1210 1287 1161 1209 1270 1228 Fuel Used (l) 101.0 102.9 107.7 99.3 102.8 106.0 103.2 Interval #1 Information Recording

Summary of All Intervals Start Time 7:00 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 60 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Run Number 7 8 9 Avg Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 Vehs Entered 1744 1649 1656 1650 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 Vehs Exited 1747 1644 1645 1645 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 Starting Vehs 44 32 28 31 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Ending Vehs 41 37 39 33 Vehs Entered 1744 1649 1656 1650 Travel Distance (km) 1307 1206 1225 1211 Vehs Exited 1747 1644 1645 1645 Travel Time (hr) 38.2 35.2 36.3 35.5 Starting Vehs 44 32 28 31 Total Delay (hr) 7.6 7.0 7.7 7.2 Ending Vehs 41 37 39 33 Total Stops 1343 1202 1279 1242 Travel Distance (km) 1307 1206 1225 1211 Fuel Used (l) 113.3 104.5 106.5 104.7 Travel Time (hr) 38.2 35.2 36.3 35.5 Total Delay (hr) 7.6 7.0 7.7 7.2 Total Stops 1343 1202 1279 1242 Fuel Used (l) 113.3 104.5 106.5 104.7

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:50 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 1 Page 2 SimTraffic Performance Report Queuing and Blocking Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 03/06/2018 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 03/06/2018 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Performance by movement Intersection: 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Directions Served L T R L TR L T T R L T T Total Delay (hr) 0.8 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 Maximum Queue (m) 28.0 81.2 31.4 7.7 37.8 26.2 15.7 21.5 7.5 20.5 29.1 21.4 Travel Dist (km) 30.2 93.4 55.1 1.1 47.6 10.0 45.3 78.1 3.3 11.5 36.4 15.8 Average Queue (m) 17.9 37.4 11.6 0.8 16.3 11.5 6.8 8.8 0.6 8.4 12.8 8.6 95th Queue (m) 31.9 67.0 25.7 4.6 30.7 21.3 13.9 18.1 4.0 17.0 24.3 18.7 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Performance by movement Link Distance (m) 232.9 278.2 537.7 537.7 203.0 203.0 Upstream Blk Time (%) Movement All Queuing Penalty (veh) Denied Delay (hr) 0.6 Storage Bay Dist (m) 15.0 95.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 Total Delay (hr) 5.2 Storage Blk Time (%) 14 28 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Travel Dist (km) 427.8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 85 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E Performance by movement Intersection: 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement SB Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Directions Served R Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Maximum Queue (m) 15.3 Travel Dist (km) 13.1 5.0 0.3 1.2 4.6 13.9 0.6 24.0 1.8 76.0 80.3 60.1 Average Queue (m) 7.6 95th Queue (m) 14.8 2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E Performance by movement Link Distance (m) Upstream Blk Time (%) Movement All Queuing Penalty (veh) Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 Storage Blk Time (%) Travel Dist (km) 280.9 Queuing Penalty (veh)

3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S Performance by movement Intersection: 2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Movement EB WB NB NB NB SB SB Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Directions Served LTR LTR LT T R LT R Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Maximum Queue (m) 20.2 20.2 8.9 2.3 2.1 16.9 7.5 Travel Dist (km) 15.4 10.5 6.7 3.4 2.0 4.8 13.8 56.5 Average Queue (m) 8.6 9.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 4.2 0.5 95th Queue (m) 15.8 16.1 5.0 1.7 1.2 13.2 4.4 Total Network Performance Link Distance (m) 164.3 182.2 321.9 321.9 537.7 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Denied Delay (hr) 0.6 Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 30.0 Total Delay (hr) 6.6 Storage Blk Time (%) Travel Dist (km) 1210.9 Queuing Penalty (veh)

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 3 Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 03/06/2018 Intersection: 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S

Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (m) 8.9 16.6 Average Queue (m) 1.0 9.6 95th Queue (m) 5.6 15.2 Link Distance (m) 257.1 177.7 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 187

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> SimTraffic Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Harwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E 01/15/2019 1: Harwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Traffic Volume (vph) 77 101 76 21 224 55 136 241 14 38 146 83 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future Volume (vph) 77 101 76 21 224 55 136 241 14 38 146 83 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Walk Time (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Flash Dont Walk (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Storage Length (m) 15.0 95.0 20.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Act Effct Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 Taper Length (m) 13.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.50 0.38 0.44 0.03 0.13 0.27 0.17 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Control Delay 14.8 12.5 3.7 11.6 15.6 16.2 16.0 0.1 13.1 13.9 3.8 Frt 0.850 0.971 0.850 0.850 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Total Delay 14.8 12.5 3.7 11.6 15.6 16.2 16.0 0.1 13.1 13.9 3.8 Satd. Flow (prot) 1767 1807 1551 1700 1766 0 1785 1842 1493 1733 1789 1521 LOS BBABB BBABBA Flt Permitted 0.489 0.673 0.638 0.530 Approach Delay 10.6 15.3 15.5 10.6 Satd. Flow (perm) 907 1807 1517 1203 1766 0 1195 1842 1460 966 1789 1497 Approach LOS B B B B Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Summary Satd. Flow (RTOR) 99 24 65 108 Link Speed (k/h) 50 40 40 40 Area Type: Other Link Distance (m) 246.3 292.7 553.9 212.7 Cycle Length: 60 Travel Time (s) 17.7 26.3 49.9 19.1 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 Natural Cycle: 55 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.50 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Intersection Signal Delay: 13.3 Intersection LOS: B Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 0% 2% 7% 3% 5% 5% Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Analysis Period (min) 15 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Splits and Phases: 1: Harwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Adj. Flow (vph) 100 131 99 27 291 71 177 313 18 49 190 108 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 131 99 27 362 0 177 313 18 49 190 108 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Minimum Split (s) 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Total Split (%) 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Harwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E 01/15/2019 2: Harwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 161 26 0 2 50 89 3 132 12 36 43 171 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 161 26 0 2 50 89 3 132 12 36 43 171 Future Volume (vph) 161 26 0 2 50 89 3 132 12 36 43 171 Future Volume (Veh/h) 161 26 0 2 50 89 3 132 12 36 43 171 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Storage Length (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 212 34 0 3 66 117 4 174 16 47 57 225 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pedestrians 3 6 6 1 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 0 1 1 0 Frt 0.915 0.850 0.850 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.959 0.999 0.999 0.978 Median type None None Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1772 0 0 1655 0 0 1814 1597 0 1706 1566 Median storage veh) Flt Permitted 0.959 0.999 0.999 0.978 Upstream signal (m) Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1772 0 0 1655 0 0 1814 1597 0 1706 1566 pX, platoon unblocked Link Speed (k/h) 40 40 50 50 vC, conflicting volume 487 358 66 362 567 181 285 196 Link Distance (m) 178.8 196.3 332.3 553.9 vC1, stage 1 conf vol Travel Time (s) 16.1 17.7 23.9 39.9 vC2, stage 2 conf vol Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 6 6 1 3 6 6 3 vCu, unblocked vol 487 358 66 362 567 181 285 196 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.3 4.8 4.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 tC, 2 stage (s) Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.8 2.4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 12% 2% 0% 0% 6% 67% 2% 0% 17% 0% 2% p0 queue free % 41 94 100 99 84 86 100 96 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 cM capacity (veh/h) 359 526 990 542 415 846 979 1285 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 212 34 0 3 66 117 4 174 16 47 57 225 Volume Total 246 186 178 16 104 225 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 212 3 4 0 47 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 246 0 0 186 0 0 178 16 0 104 225 Volume Right 0 117 0 16 0 225 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free cSH 376 614 979 1700 1285 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.65 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.13 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 33.9 9.7 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 31.0 13.4 0.2 0.0 3.7 0.0 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS DBA A Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 31.0 13.4 0.2 1.2 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS DB Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Harwood Ave S 01/15/2019 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Harwood Ave S 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 86 23 20 8 8 28 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 23 20 8 8 28 Future Volume (vph) 86 23 20 8 8 28 Future Volume (Veh/h) 86 23 20 8 8 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Free Free Stop Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Storage Length (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 121 32 28 11 11 39 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Pedestrians 3 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 0 Frt 0.962 0.895 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.962 0.989 Median type None None Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1766 1807 0 1663 0 Median storage veh) Flt Permitted 0.962 0.989 Upstream signal (m) Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1766 1807 0 1663 0 pX, platoon unblocked Link Speed (k/h) 40 40 40 vC, conflicting volume 42 310 36 Link Distance (m) 261.0 249.2 188.5 vC1, stage 1 conf vol Travel Time (s) 23.5 22.4 17.0 vC2, stage 2 conf vol Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 vCu, unblocked vol 42 310 36 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 tC, 2 stage (s) Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% p0 queue free % 92 98 96 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 cM capacity (veh/h) 1556 631 1039 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 121 32 28 11 11 39 Volume Total 153 39 50 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 121 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 153 39 0 50 0 Volume Right 0 11 39 Sign Control Free Free Stop cSH 1556 1700 910 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.02 0.05 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 1.9 0.0 1.3 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 6.1 0.0 9.2 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS A A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.6% ICU Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 6.1 0.0 9.2 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 AM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E 01/15/2019 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Traffic Volume (vph) 127 382 238 5 168 35 84 137 6 57 176 81 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future Volume (vph) 127 382 238 5 168 35 84 137 6 57 176 81 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Walk Time (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Flash Dont Walk (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Storage Length (m) 15.0 95.0 20.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Act Effct Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 Taper Length (m) 13.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.55 0.33 0.02 0.30 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.13 0.26 0.13 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Control Delay 14.4 17.2 3.2 11.2 12.4 13.6 13.2 0.0 12.8 13.8 3.9 Frt 0.850 0.974 0.850 0.850 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Total Delay 14.4 17.2 3.2 11.2 12.4 13.6 13.2 0.0 12.8 13.8 3.9 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1860 1597 1785 1790 0 1785 1824 1597 1785 1824 1597 LOS BBABB BBABBA Flt Permitted 0.623 0.439 0.640 0.664 Approach Delay 12.3 12.4 13.0 11.1 Satd. Flow (perm) 1160 1860 1554 822 1790 0 1199 1824 1545 1235 1824 1572 Approach LOS B B B B Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Summary Satd. Flow (RTOR) 253 21 65 86 Link Speed (k/h) 50 40 40 40 Area Type: Other Link Distance (m) 246.3 292.7 553.9 212.7 Cycle Length: 60 Travel Time (s) 17.7 26.3 49.9 19.1 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 5 9 4 8 8 4 Natural Cycle: 55 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Intersection Signal Delay: 12.2 Intersection LOS: B Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Analysis Period (min) 15 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Splits and Phases: 1: Hardwood Ave S & Westney Rd S/Dreyer Rd E Adj. Flow (vph) 135 406 253 5 179 37 89 146 6 61 187 86 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 135 406 253 5 216 0 89 146 6 61 187 86 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Minimum Split (s) 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Total Split (%) 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 51.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% 49.0% Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All-Red Time (s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E 01/15/2019 2: Hardwood Ave S & Clover Ridge Dr W/Clover Ridge Dr E 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 77 28 1 6 26 72 3 79 6 137 126 112 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 28 1 6 26 72 3 79 6 137 126 112 Future Volume (vph) 77 28 1 6 26 72 3 79 6 137 126 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 77 28 1 6 26 72 3 79 6 137 126 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Storage Length (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 31 1 7 29 81 3 89 7 154 142 126 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pedestrians 7 7 5 3 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 1 1 0 0 Frt 0.999 0.907 0.850 0.850 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.965 0.997 0.998 0.975 Median type None None Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 0 0 1631 0 0 1766 1597 0 1804 1581 Median storage veh) Flt Permitted 0.965 0.997 0.998 0.975 Upstream signal (m) Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1798 0 0 1631 0 0 1766 1597 0 1804 1581 pX, platoon unblocked Link Speed (k/h) 40 40 50 50 vC, conflicting volume 650 566 154 574 685 99 275 103 Link Distance (m) 178.8 196.3 520.8 553.9 vC1, stage 1 conf vol Travel Time (s) 16.1 17.7 37.5 39.9 vC2, stage 2 conf vol Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 5 5 3 7 7 7 7 vCu, unblocked vol 650 566 154 574 685 99 275 103 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.3 5.1 4.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 tC, 2 stage (s) Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.1 2.2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 100% 3% 0% 3% 0% 1% p0 queue free % 70 92 100 98 91 91 100 90 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 cM capacity (veh/h) 295 385 888 366 329 938 878 1473 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 87 31 1 7 29 81 3 89 7 154 142 126 Volume Total 119 117 92 7 296 126 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 87 7 3 0 154 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 119 0 0 117 0 0 92 7 0 296 126 Volume Right 1 81 0 7 0 126 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free cSH 316 604 878 1700 1473 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 12.9 5.4 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 23.1 12.4 0.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS CBA A Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 23.1 12.4 0.3 3.1 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS CB Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S 01/15/2019 3: Lake Driveway W/Lake Driveway E & Hardwood Ave S 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 64 40 30 14 11 73 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 40 30 14 11 73 Future Volume (vph) 64 40 30 14 11 73 Future Volume (Veh/h) 64 40 30 14 11 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sign Control Free Free Stop Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grade 0% 0% 0% Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Storage Length (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hourly flow rate (vph) 79 49 37 17 14 90 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Pedestrians 3 3 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 Lane Width (m) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.1 1.1 Ped Bike Factor Percent Blockage 0 0 Frt 0.957 0.883 Right turn flare (veh) Flt Protected 0.970 0.993 Median type None None Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1768 1759 0 1647 0 Median storage veh) Flt Permitted 0.970 0.993 Upstream signal (m) Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1768 1759 0 1647 0 pX, platoon unblocked Link Speed (k/h) 40 40 40 vC, conflicting volume 57 256 52 Link Distance (m) 261.0 249.2 520.8 vC1, stage 1 conf vol Travel Time (s) 23.5 22.4 46.9 vC2, stage 2 conf vol Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 vCu, unblocked vol 57 256 52 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 tC, 2 stage (s) Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% p0 queue free % 95 98 91 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 cM capacity (veh/h) 1524 697 1017 Parking (#/hr) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 79 49 37 17 14 90 Volume Total 128 54 104 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Volume Left 79 0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 128 54 0 104 0 Volume Right 0 17 90 Sign Control Free Free Stop cSH 1524 1700 958 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.11 Intersection Summary Queue Length 95th (m) 1.2 0.0 2.8 Area Type: Other Control Delay (s) 4.8 0.0 9.2 Control Type: Unsignalized Lane LOS A A Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1% ICU Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 4.8 0.0 9.2 Analysis Period (min) 15 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> 11/20/2017 Hardwood Ave <2017 PM Peak> Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Page 6

C-4. Westney Road South Corridor Traffic Operations Reports

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 209

SimTraffic Simulation Summary Go Station <2017 AM> 08/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3820 3727 3653 3798 3655 3731 Vehs Exited 3793 3743 3653 3775 3629 3718 Starting Vehs 74 82 74 63 56 70 Ending Vehs 101 66 74 86 82 82 Travel Distance (km) 1540 1511 1480 1537 1475 1509 Travel Time (hr) 70.1 69.1 75.2 71.7 63.9 70.0 Total Delay (hr) 39.6 39.1 45.9 41.4 34.7 40.1 Total Stops 3056 2982 3080 3077 2844 3008 Fuel Used (l) 184.8 182.6 186.6 186.7 174.0 182.9

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:50 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 60 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 3820 3727 3653 3798 3655 3731 Vehs Exited 3793 3743 3653 3775 3629 3718 Starting Vehs 74 82 74 63 56 70 Ending Vehs 101 66 74 86 82 82 Travel Distance (km) 1540 1511 1480 1537 1475 1509 Travel Time (hr) 70.1 69.1 75.2 71.7 63.9 70.0 Total Delay (hr) 39.6 39.1 45.9 41.4 34.7 40.1 Total Stops 3056 2982 3080 3077 2844 3008 Fuel Used (l) 184.8 182.6 186.6 186.7 174.0 182.9

Go Station <2017 AM> SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Go Station <2017 AM> 08/17/2018 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Performance by movement

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 Total Delay (hr) 2.3 0.6 0.2 1.1 4.9 1.7 2.2 8.0 0.3 3.1 8.0 3.0 Travel Dist (km) 47.2 22.2 20.0 15.8 65.3 41.9 32.5 173.6 9.9 39.6 164.9 88.4 Travel Time (hr) 3.6 1.0 0.8 1.6 6.5 3.0 3.0 11.0 0.6 4.1 11.1 5.5

1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Performance by movement

Movement All Denied Delay (hr) 2.0 Total Delay (hr) 35.6 Travel Dist (km) 721.3 Travel Time (hr) 51.8

Total Network Performance

Denied Delay (hr) 2.0 Total Delay (hr) 38.2 Travel Dist (km) 1508.6 Travel Time (hr) 70.0

Go Station <2017 AM> SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Go Station <2017 AM> 08/17/2018 Intersection: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T TR L T T Maximum Queue (m) 85.2 33.3 28.2 49.8 168.1 50.0 66.0 120.2 107.4 93.0 121.3 121.7 Average Queue (m) 40.1 13.3 9.7 25.4 85.9 37.1 32.1 73.6 64.9 43.9 76.2 63.2 95th Queue (m) 69.0 29.4 22.7 54.9 169.1 62.9 56.4 107.8 99.3 80.5 111.2 99.6 Link Distance (m) 196.0 211.6 212.6 212.6 171.1 171.1 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 110.0 110.0 20.0 25.0 80.0 90.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 53 7 0 6 1 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 148 28 1 10 6 8 4

Intersection: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S

Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (m) 103.9 Average Queue (m) 52.0 95th Queue (m) 97.8 Link Distance (m) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 85.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 271

Go Station <2017 AM> SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Go Station <2017 PM> 08/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3275 3397 3339 3389 3355 3350 Vehs Exited 3303 3407 3345 3358 3360 3355 Starting Vehs 72 58 66 28 48 56 Ending Vehs 44 48 60 59 43 50 Travel Distance (km) 1331 1377 1351 1363 1359 1356 Travel Time (hr) 52.7 57.7 53.6 58.8 54.1 55.4 Total Delay (hr) 27.1 31.2 27.8 32.5 27.8 29.3 Total Stops 2134 2393 2225 2440 2262 2289 Fuel Used (l) 150.8 161.2 154.4 160.1 154.4 156.2

Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 6:50 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval.

Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 60 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 3275 3397 3339 3389 3355 3350 Vehs Exited 3303 3407 3345 3358 3360 3355 Starting Vehs 72 58 66 28 48 56 Ending Vehs 44 48 60 59 43 50 Travel Distance (km) 1331 1377 1351 1363 1359 1356 Travel Time (hr) 52.7 57.7 53.6 58.8 54.1 55.4 Total Delay (hr) 27.1 31.2 27.8 32.5 27.8 29.3 Total Stops 2134 2393 2225 2440 2262 2289 Fuel Used (l) 150.8 161.2 154.4 160.1 154.4 156.2

Go Station <2017 PM> SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Go Station <2017 PM> 08/17/2018 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Performance by movement

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 3.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.5 2.6 0.4 7.8 0.6 5.0 4.3 0.1 Travel Dist (km) 47.9 21.9 19.3 6.9 8.5 73.4 9.2 194.9 18.1 56.8 179.0 14.7 Travel Time (hr) 4.3 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.7 4.8 0.6 11.1 1.0 6.4 7.5 0.5

1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Performance by movement

Movement All Denied Delay (hr) 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 25.8 Travel Dist (km) 650.6 Travel Time (hr) 39.7

Total Network Performance

Denied Delay (hr) 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 28.0 Travel Dist (km) 1356.1 Travel Time (hr) 55.4

Go Station <2017 PM> SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Go Station <2017 PM> 08/17/2018 Intersection: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T TR L T T Maximum Queue (m) 93.7 48.6 28.7 22.5 87.2 50.0 29.6 115.5 106.8 131.1 124.7 103.0 Average Queue (m) 48.8 17.6 9.5 8.3 24.2 35.3 11.5 76.0 65.1 65.8 58.2 48.1 95th Queue (m) 81.2 37.1 22.3 18.9 65.1 55.3 24.8 112.3 100.2 119.1 109.9 81.7 Link Distance (m) 196.0 211.6 212.6 212.6 171.1 171.1 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (m) 110.0 110.0 20.0 25.0 80.0 90.0 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 7 33 8 8 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 26 26 3 43 1 0

Intersection: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S

Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (m) 25.1 Average Queue (m) 7.9 95th Queue (m) 19.0 Link Distance (m) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (m) 85.0 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 110

Go Station <2017 PM> SimTraffic Report Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S 01/15/2019 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.41 0.29 0.48 0.33 0.54 Traffic Volume (vph) 247 106 99 77 302 201 163 824 46 236 945 501 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.15 0.23 0.40 0.96 0.53 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.91 Future Volume (vph) 247 106 99 77 302 201 163 824 46 236 945 501 Control Delay 58.2 18.2 3.8 37.9 75.2 18.9 66.3 51.1 63.6 50.1 35.4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Total Delay 58.2 18.2 3.8 37.9 75.2 18.9 66.3 51.1 63.6 50.1 35.4 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% LOS EBADEBED EDD Storage Length (m) 110.0 110.0 20.0 25.0 80.0 0.0 90.0 85.0 Approach Delay 36.7 52.3 53.8 46.9 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Approach LOS D D D D Taper Length (m) 0.0 30.0 70.0 70.0 Intersection Summary Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.94 1.00 0.81 Area Type: Other Frt 0.850 0.850 0.990 0.850 Cycle Length: 100 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Satd. Flow (prot) 1674 1746 1432 1722 1812 1471 1706 3400 0 1722 3544 1555 Natural Cycle: 90 Flt Permitted 0.155 0.685 0.136 0.123 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Satd. Flow (perm) 269 1746 1399 1229 1812 1388 244 3400 0 223 3544 1254 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Signal Delay: 48.1 Intersection LOS: D Satd. Flow (RTOR) 157 135 7 90 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4% ICU Level of Service E Link Speed (k/h) 50 50 60 60 Analysis Period (min) 15 Link Distance (m) 210.6 224.6 222.6 181.3 Travel Time (s) 15.2 16.2 13.4 10.9 Splits and Phases: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 8 8 32 71 13 13 71 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.95 0.63 0.69 0.76 0.90 0.82 0.94 0.77 0.88 0.84 0.72 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 10% 14% 6% 6% 11% 7% 6% 5% 6% 3% 5% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 338 112 157 112 397 223 199 877 60 268 1125 696 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 338 112 157 112 397 223 199 937 0 268 1125 696 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 7 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 8.0 26.4 8.0 26.4 8.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 49.2 49.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 11.0 35.8 15.0 39.8 20.0 Total Split (%) 20.0% 49.2% 49.2% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 11.0% 35.8% 15.0% 39.8% 20.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.0 4.2 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 3.0 6.4 3.0 6.4 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None Max None Act Effct Green (s) 46.2 42.8 42.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 40.8 29.4 47.8 33.4 53.8

Go Station <2017 AM> 11/21/2017 Go Station <2017 AM> Synchro 9 Report Go Station <2017 AM> 11/21/2017 Go Station <2017 AM> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S 01/15/2019 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S 01/15/2019

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Traffic Volume (vph) 242 106 97 35 43 347 45 929 90 331 1039 85 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future Volume (vph) 242 106 97 35 43 347 45 929 90 331 1039 85 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None Max Max Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Flash Dont Walk (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Storage Length (m) 110.0 110.0 20.0 25.0 80.0 0.0 90.0 85.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Act Effct Green (s) 36.2 32.8 32.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 53.6 44.1 70.4 59.5 59.5 Taper Length (m) 0.0 30.0 70.0 70.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.48 0.39 0.63 0.53 0.53 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.88 0.34 0.82 0.93 0.60 0.20 Ped Bike Factor 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.77 Control Delay 46.8 31.3 6.7 48.2 45.7 33.2 15.3 37.4 62.0 21.5 4.0 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.986 0.850 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Total Delay 46.8 31.3 6.7 48.2 45.7 33.2 15.3 37.4 62.0 21.5 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1674 1746 1445 1630 1614 1601 1521 3472 0 1706 3476 1328 LOS DCADDCBD ECA Flt Permitted 0.601 0.677 0.233 0.093 Approach Delay 33.4 35.8 36.0 29.1 Satd. Flow (perm) 1007 1746 1418 1155 1614 1493 360 3472 0 167 3476 1016 Approach LOS C D D C Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Intersection Summary Satd. Flow (RTOR) 146 300 10 120 Link Speed (k/h) 50 50 60 60 Area Type: Other Link Distance (m) 210.6 224.6 222.6 181.3 Cycle Length: 120 Travel Time (s) 15.2 16.2 13.4 10.9 Actuated Cycle Length: 112.6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 33 4 4 33 73 13 13 73 Natural Cycle: 90 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.85 0.64 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.56 0.91 0.87 0.95 0.94 0.71 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Intersection Signal Delay: 32.8 Intersection LOS: C Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 10% 13% 12% 19% 2% 20% 3% 4% 7% 5% 23% Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000 Analysis Period (min) 15 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Splits and Phases: 1: Fairall St & Westney Rd S Adj. Flow (vph) 323 125 152 44 52 399 80 1021 103 348 1105 120 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 125 152 44 52 399 80 1124 0 348 1105 120 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 8.0 26.4 8.0 26.4 26.4 Total Split (s) 18.0 46.8 46.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 9.6 50.4 22.8 63.6 63.6 Total Split (%) 15.0% 39.0% 39.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 8.0% 42.0% 19.0% 53.0% 53.0% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 40.4 40.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 6.6 44.0 19.8 57.2 57.2 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.0 4.2 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 2.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 3.0 6.4 3.0 6.4 6.4 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Go Station <2017 PM> 11/21/2017 Go Station <2017 PM> Synchro 9 Report Go Station <2017 PM> 11/21/2017 Go Station <2017 PM> Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2

Appendix D: Active Transportation and Road Network Costing Analysis

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Final Draft Report v.3.0 Winter 2019

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD NETWORK COSTING ANALYSIS

D-1. Appendix overview

Appendix D documents the detailed inventory of active transportation (AT) and road improvements and unit prices used to estimate the total costs for the Town to build their transportation network. This section provides the following supporting documentation for costing the network, and it is organized in the following manner:

D-1. Appendix Overview

D-2. Active Transportation

D-2a. AT Unit Prices

D-2b. AT Improvements

D-2c. AT Costing

D-2d. AT Costing by Facility

D-3. Road Network

D-3a. Road Improvements

D-3b. Road Costing

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 219

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

D-2. Active Transportation

D-2a. AT Unit Prices

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS 1.0 GENERAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Shared Lanes / Paved Shoulders Price for both sides of the road, assumes one sign a minimum of 1.1 Signed Bike Route in Urban Area linear KM $3,000 every 330m / direction of travel (e.g. 6 signs / km). Price for both sides of the road, assumes one sign a minimum of 1.2 Signed Bike Route in Rural Area linear KM $2,500 every 600m / direction of travel (e.g. 4 signs / km) Price for both sides of the road, includes route signs every 330m, Signed Bike Route with Sharrow and sharrow stencil every 75m as 1.3 linear KM $9,500 Lane Markings per Ministry Guidelines (Thermoplastic Stencil Marking $250 each x 26/km) Price for both sides of the road, includes signs and edge line. Price is 1.4 Signed Route with Edgeline linear KM $14,000 for thermoplastic line marking, (assumes painted lane line at $5.5 / m + $3000 for signs) Price for both sides of the road, 1.5m paved shoulder. Assumes Signed Bike Route with Paved cycling project pays for additional Shoulder in conjunction with granular base, asphalt and 1.5 linear KM $150,000 existing road reconstruction / thermoplastic edge line. Price may resurfacing vary from $100,000 to $200,000 depending on work needed to improve platform. Price for both sides of the road, 1.5m paved shoulder + 0.5 to 1.0m Signed Bike Route with Buffered paved buffer, assumes cycling Paved Shoulder in conjunction with 1.6 linear KM $250,000 project pays for additional granular existing road reconstruction / base, asphalt, thermoplastic edge resurfacing project lines and signs (buffer zone framed by white edge lines) Addition of Rumble Strip to Existing 1.7 linear KM $12,000 Price for both sides. Buffer $6 / m. Buffered Paved Shoulder (rural)

220

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS Both sides spray emulsion applied to harden the granular shoulder. This will reduce gravel on the paved 1.8 Granular Shoulder Sealing linear KM $18,000 portion of the shoulder and significantly reduce shoulder maintenance. Use $9 / m. Price includes pulverizing existing Upgrade Granular Surface Back surface with double treatment ($6 / 1.9 linear KM $56,000 Road to Chip Seal Surface m²) or tar and chip ($2 /m²) at 7m wide. Conventional and Separated Bike Lanes Price for both sides of the road, includes signs, stencils and edge Conventional 1.5m-1.8m Bicycle line. Price is for thermoplastic 1.10 Lanes by Adding Bike Lane Markings linear KM $20,950 markings, (assumes painted lane and Signs line at $5.5 / m + $250 / symbol x 26 + $3000 for BL signs + $75/sign for no parking) Price for both sides. Includes Conventional 1.5m-1.8m Bicycle grinding of existing pavement, 1.11 Lanes through Lane Conversion linear KM $35,000 markings, signs, thermoplastic from 4 lanes to 3 lanes markings. Price for both sides of the road, assumes 1.5m bike lanes on both Conventional 1.5m-1.8m Bicycle sides of the roadway (1.5m x 2 sides Lanes in Conjunction with a New = 3.0m). Includes catch basin leads, 1.12 linear KM $300,000 Road or Road Reconstruction asphalt, signs, thermoplastic Project pavement markings and sub-base only. Road project funds all other improvements. Conventional 1.5m-1.8m Bicycle Price for both sides of the road, 1.13 Lanes in Conjunction with a Road linear KM $250,000 includes signs, stencils and Widening Project thermosplastic edge line. Price for both sides of the road, includes the cost for excavation, Conventional 1.5m-1.8m Bicycle adjust catch basins, lead extensions, 1.14 Lanes by Retrofitting / Widening linear KM $700,000 new curbs/driveway ramps, asphalt Existing Road and sub-base, thermoplastic pavement markings and signs. Price for both sides of the road, assumes 2.0m to 2.5m bike lanes on Wide Bicycle Lane (2.0m - 2.5m BL) both sides of the roadway . Includes 1.15 in Conjunction with New Road or linear KM $350,000 catch basin leads, asphalt, signs, Road Widening Project thermoplastic pavement markings and sub-base only.

221

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS 1.5m bike lanes with 1m hatched buffer (5m) including: 4000m line paint, 1000m hatching paint, 26 Buffered Bicycle Lane with Hatched symbols and 6 signs. (assumes 1.16 Pavement Markings - No Road linear KM $37,450 painted lane line at $5.5 / m + $250 Construction / Widening Required / symbol x 26 + $3000 for BL signs + $75/sign for no parking). Costing is for thermoplastic markings. Price for both sides of the road, assumes 1.5m bike lanes + 0.5m - Buffered Bicycle Lane with Hatched 1.0m buffer zone with hatched Pavement Markings - Assumes New pavement markings on both sides of 1.17 Road or Road linear KM $290,000 the roadway. Includes catch basin Reconstruction/Widening already leads, asphalt, signs, thermoplastic Planned pavement markings and sub-base only. Road project funds all other components. Conventional and Separated Bike Lanes - CONT'D Price for both sides of the road, assumes 1.5m bike lanes + flex Buffered Bicycle Lane with Flex bollards centered in hatched buffer Bollards - Assumes New Road or zone at 10m intervals. Includes 1.18 linear KM $365,000 Road Reconstruction/Widening catch basin leads, asphalt, signs, Already Planned thermoplastic pavement markings (both sides of buffer zone) and sub- base only. Price for both sides of the road, assumes 1.5m bike lanes + pre-cast Buffered Bicycle Lane with Pre-Cast and anchored curb delineators. Barrier - Assumes New road or Road 1.19 linear KM $550,000 Includes catch basin leads, asphalt, Reconstruction/Widening Already signs, thermoplastic pavement Planned markings (both sides of buffer zone) sub-base only. Supply and install surface mounted 1.20 each $110 flexible post delineators Approximately $95,000 - $100,000 per 1 linear kilometre. Assumes 70% of roadway to include physical Standard precast concrete curb 178 delineation (700 metres per 1 linear 1.21 mm high, 216 mm wide and 1.83 each $250 kilometre): metre long - 700 metres / 1.83 metres = 382.5 pre-cast concrete curbs - 382.5 x $250 = $95,000

222

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS Approximately $315,000 - $320,000 per 1 linear kilometre. Assumes 70% of roadway to include physical Standard precast concrete curb 457 delineation (700 metres per 1 linear 1.22 mm high, 457 mm wide and 3.05 each $1,380 kilometre): metre long - 700 metres / 3.05 metres = 229.5 pre-cast concrete curbs - 229.5 x $1,380 = $317,000 Approximately $550,000 - $560,000 per 1 linear kilometre. Assumes 70% of roadway to include physical delineation (700 metres per 1 linear Standard precast concrete bullnose kilometre): 1.23 457 mm high, 457 mm wide and each $970 - 700 metres / 1.22 metres = 573.8 1.22 metre long pre-cast concrete curbs - 573.8 x $970 = $556,557

Cycle Tracks Both sides. Includes construction but excludes design and signal modifications. Form of cycle track and materials as well as related Uni-directional Cycle Tracks: Raised $500,000 - components such as bike signals, 1.24 and Curb Separated - Retrofit linear KM $1,200,00 upgrade/modification of signal Existing Roadway 0 controllers, utility/lighting pole relocations, bike boxes etc. are project specific and will impact unit price One side. Includes construction but excludes design and signal modifications. Form of cycle track and materials as well as related Two Way Cycle Track - Retrofit $500,000 - components such as bike signals, 1.25 linear KM Existing Roadway $800,000 upgrade/modification of signal controllers, utility/lighting pole relocations, bike boxes etc. are project specific and will impact unit price Active Transportation Paths and Multi-Use Trails 3.0m wide hard surface pathway (asphalt) within road right of way Two Way Active Transportation $275,000 - (no utility relocations). Price 1.26 Multi-use path within road right-of- linear KM $375,000 depends of scale / complexity of way project and if existing sidewalk is being removed (i.e. crushing of 223

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS existing sidewalk and compacting for trail base).

Concrete Splash Strip placed within road right-of-way between Active 1.27 m² $150 Colour Stamped Concrete Transportation Multi-Use Path and Roadway 3.0m wide hard surface pathway Hard Surfaced Off-Road Multi-Use (asphalt) within park setting $250,000 - 1.28 Trail Outside of Road Right-of-Way linear KM (normal conditions) 90mm asphalt $350,000 in an Urban Setting (New) depth. Price depends of scale / complexity of project. Includes some new base work (25% Hard Surfaced Off-Road Multi-Use approx.), half of the material Trail Outside of Road Right-of-Way $150,000 - 1.29 linear KM excavated is removed from site. in an Urban Setting (Upgrade $225,000 Price depends of scale / complexity existing granular surface) of project. 3.0m wide, compacted stone dust Granular Surfaced Off-Road Multi- $150,000 - surface normal site conditions. Price 1.30 Use Trail Outside of Road Right-of- linear KM $165,000 depends of scale / complexity of Way in an Urban Setting project. 3.0m wide, compacted stone dust Granular Surfaced Off-Road Multi- surface in complex site conditions 1.31 Use Trail Outside of Road Right-of- linear KM $200,000 (includes cost of clearing and Way in an Rural Setting (New) grubbing). Price depends of scale / complexity of project. Includes some new base work (25% approx.) and an average of 20 Upgrade existing granular surface $75,000 - regulatory signs per kilometre. Price 1.32 trail to meet 3.0m wide compacted linear KM $125,000 depends of scale and existing trail granular trail standard conditions e.g. width, slope, location of trail, etc. Active Transportation Paths and Multi-Use Trails - CONT'D 3.0m wide, compacted stone dust surface, includes signage along trail Off-Road Multi-Use Trail Outside of $80,000 - and gates at road crossings. 1.33 Road Right-of-Way on Abandoned linear KM $125,000 Assumes ballast is still in place. Price Rail Bed depends of scale / complexity of project. 2.4m wide, compacted stone dust Granular Surfaced Multi-use Trail in 1.34 linear KM $175,000 surface. Price depends of scale / a Woodland Setting complexity of project. Varies depending on a number of Major rough grading (for multi-use 1.35 m² $8.00 factors including site access, pathway) disposal location etc.

224

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS 2.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Price for 1.5m concrete sidewalk. Include site prep., select utility 2.1 Sidewalk linear KM $300,000 relocation, minor drainage modifications / traffic control. 3.0 STRUCTURES AND CROSSINGS Structure on footings, 3.0m wide 3.1 Pedestrian Boardwalk (Light-Duty) linear m $2,500 with railings. Price depends of scale / complexity of project. Self weathering steel truss Price for 4.0m width bridge includes 3.2 linear m $10,000 pedestrian / cyclist bridge abutments 3.0 STRUCTURES AND CROSSINGS - CONT'D 1.8m wide, galvanized steel Metal stairs with hand railing and 3.3 each $6,500 (assumes 8ft between each gutter to roll bicycle landing). Adjustment of existing curb cuts to Pathway Crossing of Private $1500 - 3.4 each accommodate 3.0m multi-use Entrance $2000 pathway Average price for basic refuge with 3.5 Median Refuge each $20,000 curbs, no pedestrian signals Average price for pedestrian and 3.6 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride each $80,000 cyclist crossride 3.7 Mid-block Crossing each $80,000 Average price for mid-block crossing Average price for intersection 3.8 Intersection Pedestrian Signal each $80,000 pedestrian signal Flashing lights, motion sensing 3.9 At grade railway crossing each $120,000 switch (C.N. estimate) Flashing lights, motion sensing 3.10 At grade railway crossing with gate each $300,000 switch and automatic gate (C.N. estimate) 3.0m wide, unlit culvert style $500,000 - 3.11 Below grade railway crossing each approx. 10 m long for single $750,000 elevated railway track $1,000,00 0 - Guideline price only for basic 3.3 m 3.12 Multi use subway under 4 lane road each $1,200,00 wide, lit. 0 Face metre squared 3.13 Retaining Wall m² $1,200

4.0 BARRIERS AND ACCESS CONTROL FOR MULTI-USE TRAILS OUTSIDE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Heavy duty gates (e.g. equestrian supported step over gate). Price for 4.1 Lockable gate (2 per road crossing) each $4,000 one side of road - 2 required per road crossing. Typically only

225

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS required in rural settings or city boundary areas 4.2 Metal offset gates each $2,000 "P"-style park gate Basic style (e.g. 75mm diameter $500 - 4.3 Removable Bollard each galvanized), with footing. Increase $750 budget for decorative style bollards Price for one side of road (2 4.4 Berming/boulders at road crossing each $1,200 required per road crossing) Basic granular surfaced parking area (i.e. 300mm granular B sub-base with 150mm granular A surface), Granular parking lot at staging area 4.5 each $45,000 with precast bumper curbs. Includes (15 car capacity-gravel) minor landscaping and site furnishings, such as garbage receptacles and bike racks. 4.6 Paige wire fencing linear M $60 1.5m height with peeled wood posts 4.7 Chain link fencing linear M $90 - $110 Galvanized, 1.5m height 5.0 SIGNAGE Regulatory and caution Signage $150 - 300mm x 300mm metal signboard 5.1 (off-road pathway) on new metal each $250 c/w metal "u" channel post post Does not include graphic design. Based on a 600mm x 900mm typical size and embedded polymer 5.2 Signboards for interpretive sign each $2,400 material, up to 40% less for aluminum or aluminum composite panel Wide range provided. Price depends $2,000 - on design and materials selected. 5.3 Staging area kiosk each $10,000 Does not include design and supply of signboards Typical production cost, does not include graphic design (based on a Signboards for staging area kiosk $1,500 - 900mm x 1500mm typical size and 5.4 each sign $2,000 embedded polymer material). Up to 40% less for aluminum or aluminum composite panel $350 - Bollard / post (100mm x100mm 5.5 Pathway directional sign each $500 marker), with graphics on all 4 sides Bollard / post (100mm x100mm 5.6 Pathway marker sign each $250 marker), graphics on one side only Price for both sides of the path, 5.7 Pathway marker sign linear KM $1,000 assumes one sign on average, per direction of travel every 0.5 km 5.8 Bike sign each $200 Price for one side of road. 226

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS 6.0 BICYCLE PARKING INFRASTRUCTURE Holds 2 bicycles , price varies $150 - 6.1 Bicycle rack (Post and Ring style) each depending on manufacturer $250 (includes installation). Holds 2 bicycles , price varies 6.2 Bicycle rack (U style) each $600 depending on manufacturer (includes installation). Holds 6 bicycles, price varies 6.3 Bicycle rack each $1,800 depending on manufacturer (includes installation). Price varies depending on style and 6.4 Bicycle Locker each $3,000 size. Does not include concrete mounting pad. Price for installation including labour and equipment. Price also includes materials e.g. two channel 6.5 Bike Loop each $2,500 detector for traffic cabinet, bike loop (wire and sealant), cable to traffic cabinet, handhole and conduit. Price may vary from $1,500 (galvanized finish with the mad Bicycle Corral (one parking space $1,500 - shield corrosion warranty) to $2,900 6.6 each with bollards) $2,900 (stainless finish with the mad shield corrosion warranty) for one parking space. 7.0 LIGHTING AND UTILITIES Includes cabling, connection to 7.1 Pathway Lighting per 25 m $5,000 power supply, transformers and fixtures. Adjustment of pole offset (distance 7.2 Relocation of Light / Support Pole each $4,000 between pole and roadway). Relocation of Signal Pole / Utility Adjustment of pole offset (distance 7.3 each $8,000 Box between pole and roadway). 8.0 PAVEMENT MARKINGS Price for thermoplastic paint. 8.1 Sharrow Symbol each $400 Sharrow symbol with green pavement marking $100 to 8.2 Bike Symbol each Price depend on volume $150 8.2 Line Painting linear M $6 Price for thermoplastic paint. 8.2 Removal of Line Painting linear M $3 N/A 9.0 OTHER

227

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT VALUE COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS Price may vary depending on road cross-section (e.g. two lane roadway, four lane roadway, etc.). Price includes installing a bike box on the approach of an intersection 9.1 Bike Box each $1,500 using a bike stencil and thermoplastic e.g. green surface treatment ($250 / each). Price also include estimate to move stop-bar back to provide space for bike box. 9.2 Clearing and Grubbing m² $15 Price varies depending on style and $1,000 - 9.3 Bench each size. Does not include $2,000 footing/concrete mounting pad 9.4 Safety Railings / Rubrail linear M $300 1.4m height basic post and rail style Price range applies to 400mm to 9.5 Small diameter culvert each (6 m) $1,200 600mm diameter PVC or CSP culverts for drainage below trail Should be placed at 10m intervals 9.6 Flexible Bollards each $110 where required. Cost depends on product type used.

Notes: 1. Unit Prices are for functional design purposes only, include installation but exclude contingency, design and approvals costs (unless noted) and reflect 2018 dollars, based on projects in southern Ontario. 2. Estimates do not include the cost of property acquisitions, signal modifications, utility relocations, major roadside drainage works or costs associated with site-specific projects such as bridges, railway crossings, retaining walls, and stairways, unless otherwise noted. 3. Assumes typical environmental conditions and topography. 4. Applicable taxes and permit fees are additional.

228

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

D-2b. Proposed Active Transportation Improvements

Road Name From To Recommendation Sidewalks, Street-lighting and Signals Kingston Rd. Lakeridge Rd. Wicks Dr. Street-lighting Kingston Rd. Superstore Plaza 200M east of Westney Rd. Street-lighting Pedestrian Crossing (PXO) Church St. at Hydro Corridor Signals Across Church St. Lake Ridge Rd. (1 side only) Rossland Rd. Kingston Rd. Street-lighting Ravenscroft Rd. (east side) Taunton Rd. Beverton Cres. Sidewalks Rossland Rd./ Riverside Dr. At intersection Signals Salem Rd. South of Kerrison Dr. Kerrison Dr. Sidewalks Westney Rd. Rossland Rd. Taunton Rd. Street-lighting Westney Rd. Rossland Rd. Taunton Rd. Sidewalks Multi-use Trails on Regional Roads and Town Roads Bayly St. Salem Rd. Harwood Multi-use Trail Bayly St. Harwood Ave. Westney Rd. Multi-use Trail Current terminus of Chambers Dr. Salem Rd. Multi-use Trail Chambers Kingston Rd. 150m East of Boundary Ajax/Pickering Boundary Multi-use Trail Kingston Rd. Westney Rd. Rotherglen Rd. Multi-use Trail Kingston Rd. Lake Ridge Rd. Salem Rd. Multi-use Trail Lake Ridge Rd. Kingston Rd. Bayly St. Multi-use Trail (1 side only) Ravenscroft MUT Paulynn Park Beverton Cres. Multi-use Trail Ravenscroft MUT Taunton Rd. Paulynn Park Multi-use Trail Salem Rd. Ringer Rd. Kingston Rd. Multi-use Trail Salem Rd. Rossland Rd. Kerrison Dr. Multi-use Trail Salem Rd. Kingston Rd. Chambers Dr. Multi-use Trail Salem Rd. Taunton Rd. CPR Bridge Multi-use Trail Salem Rd. Chambers Dr. Achilles Rd. Multi-use Trail Taunton Rd. Lake Ridge Rd. Audley Rd. Multi-use Trail Westney Rd. Rossland Rd. Taunton Rd. Multi-use Trail Westney Rd. Delaney Dr. Kingston Rd. Multi-use Trail Westney Rd. North of Delaney Dr. Delaney Dr. Multi-use Trail Westney Rd. Bayly St. 401 WB Off-Ramp Multi-use Trail Off-road Trails Carruthers Trail Achilles Rd. Bayly St. Off-Road Trail Carruthers Trail Marjoram Dr. Greenhalf Dr. Off-Road Trail 229

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Road Name From To Recommendation Carruthers Trail Shoal Point Rd. Mayor Cres. Off-Road Trail Church St. Trail Taunton Rd. Ajax/Pickering Boundary Off-Road Trail Duffins Trail (HEPC) Paulynn Park Church St. Off-Road Trail Duffins Trail (HEPC) Ravenscroft Rd. Paulynn Park Off-Road Trail Lion's Clubhouse Trails At Lion's Clubhouse Off-Road Trail Connection Porte Rd. Trail - (Design Bayly St. Achilles Rd. Off-Road Trail 2017, Construction 2018) Bike Lanes, Cycle Tracks, Paved Shoulders Audley Rd. S Ashbury Ave. Bayly St. Bike Lanes Formosa Ave. Turnerberry Ave. Lloyd Minster Ave. Bike Lanes Harwood Ave. (West Side) Falby Crt. Bayly St. Bike Lanes Harwood Ave. (East Side) Falby Crt. Bayly St. Cycle Track Harwood Ave. Westney Rd. Falby Crt. Buffered Bike Lanes Harwood Ave. Station St. Kingston Rd. Cycle Track Harwood Ave. Bayly St. Station St. Cycle Track Hunt St. Monarch Ave. Harwood Ave. Cycle Track Hurst Dr. Church St Stannardville Dr. Bike Lanes Lloyd Minster Ave. Formosa Ave Rossland Rd. Bike Lanes Mills Rd. Hunt St. Station St. Bike Lanes Old Kingston Rd. Elizabeth St. Windsor Dr. Bike Lanes Riverside Dr. Delaney Dr. Rossland Rd. Bike Lanes Rushworth Dr. Audley Rd. Rossland Rd. Bike Lanes Salem Rd. Concession Rd. 5 Buggey Ln. Paved Shoulders Shoal Point Rd. Lakeview Blvd. Bayly St. Bike Lanes Stanndardville Dr. Hurst Dr. Bayly St. Bike Lanes Telford St. Westney Rd. Ravenscroft Rd. Bike Lanes Turnerberry Ave. Kerrison Dr. Formosa Ave. Bike Lanes Windsor Dr. Old Kingston Rd. Sherwood Rd. Bike Lanes Woodcock Ave Rossland Rd. Harwood Ave. Bike Lanes

230

D-2c. Proposed AT Costing

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Audley Road 1.39 Bike Lane South Bayly Street East Moynahan Crescent Town Short Term $ 22,061 Audley Road 0.75 Bike Lane South Moynahan Crescent Ashbury Boulevard Town Short Term $ 11,939 Lloydminster 0.35 Bike Lane Formosa Avenue Avenue Turnerberry Avenue Town Short Term $ 6,000 Harwood Avenue 1.09 Bike Lane South Kingston Road West Station Street Town Medium Term $ 1,774,000 Harwood Avenue 0.46 Bike Lane South Bayly Street West Falby Court Town Short Term $ 4,000 Bike Lane Hurst Drive Stannardville Drive Church Street North Town 0.44 Short Term $ 7,000 Bike Lane Lake Ridge Road Bayly Street East Ontoro Boulevard Town 2.19 Medium Term $ 657,663 Lloydminster 0.26 Bike Lane Avenue Rossland Road East Formosa Avenue Town Short Term $ 4,000 Commercial Bike Lane Hunt Street Station Street Town 0.46 Medium Term $ 9,728 Avenue Bike Lane Riverside Drive Rossland Road West Delaney Drive Town 1.03 Medium Term $ 21,524 Bike Lane Shoal Point Road Bayly Street East Ashbury Boulevard Town 1.81 Short Term $ 29,281 Bike Lane Shoal Point Road Range Road Lakeview Boulevard Town 0.23 Short Term $ 3,719 Stannardville 0.62 Bike Lane Drive Rossland Road West Hurst Drive Town Short Term $ 10,000 Bike Lane Tellford Street Ravenscroft Road Westney Road North Town 0.84 Short Term $ 13,000 Turnerbury 1.02 Bike Lane Avenue Formosa Avenue Kerrison Drive East Town Short Term $ 16,000 Woodcock Harwood Avenue 0.71 Bike Lane Avenue North Rossland Road West Town Short Term $ 11,000 Buffered Bike Audley Road 0.65 Lane South Kingston Road East East of Chambers Drive Town Medium Term $ 188,456

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan 231

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Buffered Bike 1.02 Lane Chambers Drive Carruthers Trail East of Chambers Drive Town Medium Term $ 294,498 Buffered Bike 0.23 Lane Chambers Drive Chambers Drive Carruthers Trail Town Medium Term $ 66,527 Buffered Bike Harwood Avenue 0.67 Lane South Falby Court Clements Road West Town Medium Term $ 259,981 Buffered Bike Harwood Avenue Clements Road 0.44 Lane South West Westney Road Town Medium Term $ 169,019 Buffered Bike East of Salem Road 2.22 Lane Kingston Road North Lake Ridge Road Region Medium Term $ 644,460 Buffered Bike 0.19 Lane Kingston Road Notion Road Duffins North Trail Region Medium Term $ 54,383 Buffered Bike Rossland Road 1.26 Lane East Salem Road North Audley Road Town Medium Term $ 365,570 Buffered Bike Rossland Road 0.84 Lane East Audley Road Lake Ridge Road Town Medium Term $ 244,202 Buffered Bike Rossland Road Harwood Avenue 0.71 Lane East North Salem Road South Town Short Term $ 206,799 Buffered Bike Rossland Road 1.28 Lane West Town Boundary Church Street North Town Medium Term $ 371,748 Buffered Bike Rossland Road Westney Road 1.36 Lane West North Harwood Avenue North Town Short Term $ 394,883 Buffered Bike Rossland Road 1.68 Lane West Church Street North Westney Road North Town Short Term $ 487,541 Buffered Bike Harwood Avenue 0.45 Lane Williamson Drive North Thackery Drive Town Long Term $ 129,594 Harwood Avenue 0.86 Cycle Track South Station Street Bayly Street West Town Medium Term $ 1,375,000 Harwood Avenue 0.46 Cycle Track South Bayly Street West Falby Court Town Short Term $ 358,000 Westney Road 0.56 Cycle Track Hunt Street South Mackenzie Avenue Town Medium Term $ 666,827 232

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Harwood Avenue 0.53 Cycle Track Hunt Street South Monarch Avenue Town Medium Term $ 847,000 Cycle Track Hunt Street Mackenzie Avenue Dowty Road Town 0.22 Medium Term $ 266,996 Cycle Track Hunt Street Dowty Road Monarch Avenue Town 0.07 Medium Term $ 78,798 Buffered Paved Salem Road 1.12 Shoulder North Concession Road 5 Buggey Lane Town Long Term $ 225,000 Buffered Paved Westney Road 1.01 Shoulder North Greenwood Road Taunton Road West Town Long Term $ 253,602 Multi-use Path Achilles Road Audley Road Lake Ridge Road Town 0.79 Long Term $ 296,771 Achilles Road 0.48 Multi-use Path Achilles Road Terminus Audley Road Town Medium Term $ 179,867 Achilles Road 0.93 Multi-use Path Audley Road Extension Bayly Street East Town Medium Term $ 347,123 Westney Road 0.83 Multi-use Path Bayly Street West South Monarch Avenue Region Medium Term $ 553,163 Multi-use Path Bayly Street West Monarch Avenue Harwood Avenue South Region 0.52 Medium Term $ 347,837 Harwood Avenue 1.01 Multi-use Path Bayly Street West South Salem Road South Region Short Term $ 708,000 Multi-use Path Chambers Drive Carruthers Trail Audley Road Town 1.06 Medium Term $ 395,750 Multi-use Path Chambers Drive Salem Road South Beck Crescent Town 0.51 Medium Term $ 247,958 Multi-use Path Chambers Drive Beck Crescent Carruthers Trail Town 0.22 Medium Term $ 105,042 Church Street 0.77 Multi-use Path North Hurst Drive Rossland Road West Town Short Term $ 288,662 Harwood Avenue 0.86 Multi-use Path North Taunton Road Williamson Drive East Town Medium Term $ 323,522 Harwood Avenue Williamson Drive 0.28 Multi-use Path North East Morland Crescent Trail Town Medium Term $ 103,790 Rotherglen Road 0.30 Multi-use Path Kingston Road North Westney Road North Region Medium Term $ 157,000 East of Salem Road 2.21 Multi-use Path Kingston Road North Lake Ridge Road Region Medium Term $ 2,094,000 233

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Multi-use Path Kingston Road Town Boundary Duffins North Trail Region 0.15 Short Term $ 79,000 Multi-use Path Lake Ridge Road Kingston Road Bayly Street East Region 2.03 Long Term $ 1,063,000 Pickering Beach 0.72 Multi-use Path Road Bayly Street East Emperor Street Town Medium Term $ 268,597 Paulynn Park 0.26 Multi-use Path Ravenscroft Road Entrance Beverton Crescent Town Medium Term $ 157,000 North of Hydro 0.41 Multi-use Path Ravenscroft Road Corridor Trail Paulynn Park Entrance Town Medium Term $ 214,509 North of Hydro Corridor 0.54 Multi-use Path Ravenscroft Road Taunton Road Trail Town Medium Term $ 281,625 Rossland Road 0.28 Multi-use Path East Hilton Gate Audley Road Town Medium Term $ 104,974 Rossland Road 0.82 Multi-use Path East Audley Road Lake Ridge Road Town Medium Term $ 306,744 Salem Road 1.27 Multi-use Path North Taunton Road East North of Tracks Region Medium Term $ 665,000 Salem Road 1.30 Multi-use Path North Rossland Road East Kerrison Drive Region Medium Term $ 681,000 Salem Road 0.36 Multi-use Path North Ringer Road Kingston Road Region Short Term $ 188,000 Salem Road 0.76 Multi-use Path South Chambers Drive Achilles Road Region Medium Term $ 408,000 Salem Road 0.45 Multi-use Path South Kingston Road Chambers Drive Region Medium Term $ 236,000 Multi-use Path Taunton Road Audley Road Lake Ridge Road Region 0.78 Medium Term $ 432,000 Westney Road 1.04 Multi-use Path North Delaney Drive Kingston Road Region Medium Term $ 543,000 Westney Road 1.93 Multi-use Path North Taunton Road West Rossland Road West Region Short Term $ 1,037,000 Westney Road 0.96 Multi-use Path South Bayly Street West Clements Road West Region Long Term $ 476,000

234

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Westney Road 1.43 Multi-use Path South Lake Driveway West Harwood Avenue South Region Long Term $ 748,743 Westney Road Clements Road 0.31 Multi-use Path South West Lake Driveway West Region Long Term $ 162,257 Westney Road 0.80 Multi-use Path South Fairall Street Bayly Street West Region Medium Term $ 419,067 Westney Road 0.47 Multi-use Path South 401 Ramp Fairall Street Region Medium Term $ 245,933 Westney Road 0.37 Multi-use Path South Kingston Road Ritchie Avenue Region Medium Term $ 140,195 Off Road Trail Bayly Street East Achilles Road Bayly Street East Town 0.81 Long Term $ 1,258,000 Off Road Trail Audley Road Alexanders Crossing Audley Road Town 0.88 Long Term $ 331,831 Off Road Trail Greenhalf Drive Greenhalf Drive Marjoram Drive Town 0.35 Long Term $ 576,000 Shoal Point Road Off Road Trail North 0.38 Off Road Trail South of Mayor Crescent Shoal Point Road South Town Short Term $ 199,000 Off Road Trail Chambers Road Chambers Drive Beck Crescent Town 0.46 Short Term $ 161,192 Multi-use Path Taunton Road Taunton Road Duffins Trail (HEPC) Town 1.22 Medium Term $ 456,319 Church Street 0.88 Off Road Trail North Church Street North Paulynn Park Town Short Term $ 1,361,000 Off Road Trail Ravenscroft Road Paulynn Park Ravenscroft Road Town 0.16 Short Term $ 84,000 Off Road Trail GCL Church Street North Concession Road 5 Town 0.77 Long Term $ 134,709 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.20 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 35,098 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.23 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 40,714 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.15 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 26,328 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.43 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 75,687 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.12 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 20,912 235

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.52 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 91,695 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.20 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 34,480 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.08 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 13,993 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.32 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 56,182 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.10 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 17,307 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.14 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 25,040 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.13 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 23,585 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.08 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 14,422 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.13 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 22,117 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.33 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 57,161 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.10 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 16,743 Off Road Trail West 0.47 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Off Road Trail East of Rail Town Long Term $ 83,041 Off Road Trail East of Church Street Off Road Trail West of 0.08 Off Road Trail GCL North Greenwood Road Town Long Term $ 14,648 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.28 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 48,910 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.61 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 106,322

236

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.17 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 30,066 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.10 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 17,301 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.10 Off Road Trail GCL of Sideline 16 Rail Town Long Term $ 18,146 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.06 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Long Term $ 10,465 Off Road Trail GCL Church Street North Church Street North Town 0.45 Long Term $ 78,893 Off Road Trail West of Church Street 1.44 Off Road Trail GCL North Taunton Road West Town Short Term $ 252,288 Off Road Trail East Off Road Trail West of 0.45 Off Road Trail GCL of Rail Church Street North Town Short Term $ 79,030 Off Road Trail GCL Sideline 16 Off Road Trail East of Rail Town 0.35 Short Term $ 61,539 Off Road Trail Taunton Road Ravenscroft Road Taunton Road West Town 1.47 Long Term $ 1,530,000 Off Road Trail Audley Road Sideline 4 Audley Road Town 0.76 Long Term $ 849,000 Off Road Trail Audley Road Audley Road Lake Ridge Road Town 0.92 Long Term $ 954,000 North of Clements 0.02 Off Road Trail Clements Road Road West Clements Road West Town Short Term $ 52,000 Off Road Trail Porte Road Achilles Road Bayly Street East Town 0.70 Short Term $ 256,000 Off Road Trail Taunton Road Taunton Road West Williamson Drive Town 0.91 Long Term $ 985,000 Off Road Trail Hearson Street Hearson Street Carruthers Trail Town 0.42 Long Term $ 776,000 Off Road Trail Audley Road Carruthers Trail Audley Road Town 0.55 Long Term $ 776,000 Off Road Trail Taunton Road Church Street North Taunton Road West Town 2.63 Long Term $ 2,756,000 Sidewalk Bayly Street East Audley Road South West of Lake Ridge Road Region 0.54 Long Term $ 130,000 Harwood Avenue 1.07 Sidewalk South Bayly Street West Falby Court Town Long Term $ 60,000 Sidewalk Ravenscroft Road Taunton Road West Beverton Crescent Town 1.16 Medium Term $ 278,000

237

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Rossland Road 0.41 Sidewalk East Salem Road North Carruthers Trail Town Medium Term $ 122,354 Salem Road 0.17 Sidewalk North Blowers Crescent Kerrison Drive Region Medium Term $ 50,743 Salem Road 0.40 Sidewalk North Kerrison Drive Ringer Road Region Short Term $ 120,000 Westney Road 0.50 Sidewalk North Taunton Road West North of Curtis Gate Region Short Term $ 120,000 Westney Road 1.16 Sidewalk South Lake Driveway West Monarch Avenue Region Medium Term $ 346,571 Westney Road Clements Road 0.30 Sidewalk South West Lake Driveway West Region Medium Term $ 88,994 Hydro Corridor Trail East of Dexshire Hydro Corridor Trail on 1.11 Signed Route Audley Road Drive Audley Road Town Long Term $ 2,782 Signed Route Beck Crescent Chambers Drive Chambers Drive Town 0.53 Short Term $ 1,601 Signed Route Beck Crescent Chambers Drive Carruthers Trail Town 0.25 Short Term $ 763 Signed Route Buggey Lane Concession Road 5 Salem Road North Town 2.01 Long Term $ 5,034 Harwood Avenue Pickering Beach Road 1.13 Signed Route Dreyer Drive South South Town Short Term $ 3,378 Signed Route Greenwood Road Greenwood Road Westney Road North Town 0.43 Long Term $ 1,069 Pickering Beach Road 0.29 Signed Route Hickman Road Michaelman Road South Town Medium Term $ 1,243 Rotherglen Road 0.41 Signed Route Lachlan Drive North Hettersley Drive Town Short Term $ 1,243 Lake Driveway Harwood Avenue 0.67 Bike Lane East South Mcclaran Road Town Short Term $ 11,000 Lake Driveway Westney Road 3.01 Bike Lane West South Harwood Avenue South Town Short Term $ 48,000 Michaelman 0.40 Signed Route Road Bayly Street East Hickman Road Town Medium Term $ 1,200

238

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

Length Type Main Road From To Jurisdiction Phasing Cost Estimate (km) Old Kingston 0.16 Bike Lane Road Elizabeth Street Windsor Drive Town Short Term $ 3,000 Ontoro Off Road Trail East 0.46 Signed Route Boulevard of Hoile Drive Lake Ridge Road Town Short Term $ 1,368 Signed Route Porte Road Porte Road Bayly Street East Town 0.69 Medium Term $ 2,084 Signed Route Ravenscroft Road Rossland Road West Westney Road North Town 1.90 Short Term $ 5,701 Sherwood Road 0.42 Signed Route East Church Street North West of Hewson Ct Town Short Term $ 1,254 Sherwood Road 0.30 Signed Route East East of Hewson Ct Rotherglen Road North Town Short Term $ 893 Sherwood Road 0.31 Bike Lane West Windsor Drive Church Street North Town Short Term $ 6,531 Rotherglen Road 0.36 Signed Route Ventris Drive North Ravenscroft Road Town Short Term $ 1,070 Rotherglen Road 0.36 Signed Route Ventris Drive North Ravenscroft Road Town Short Term $ 1,070 Sherwood Road 0.09 Bike Lane Windsor Drive West Old Kingston Road Town Short Term $ 2,000

239

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

D-2d. AT Costing By Facility

Town of Ajax Durham Region Facility Type 1 Short Term Medium Term Long Term Total Total (0-5 years) (6-10 years) (10+ years) Distanc Estimated Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Estimated Cost e (KM) Cost (km) (km) (km) (km) Bike Lane 9.7 $ 171,531 8.4 $ 2,552,921 0.0 $ - 18.1 $ 2,724,453 0.5 Buffered Bike 3.5 $ 1,010,440 7.5 $ 2,288,357 1.5 $ 445,694 12.5 $ 3,744,492 2.4 Lane Cycle Track 0.5 $ 358,000 2.2 $ 3,234,621 0.0 $ - 2.7 $ 3,592,621 0.0 Multi-Use 0.8 $ 288,662 8.6 $ 3,492,820 0.8 $ 296,771 10.1 $ 4,078,253 18.8 Path Off Road Trail 1.9 $ 1,857,192 0.0 $ - 9.7 $ 10,769,709 11.6 $ 2,626,901 0.8 Buffered Paved 0.0 $ - 0.0 $ - 2.1 $ 478,602 2.1 $ 478,602 0.0 Shoulder Shared Facility 5.8 $ 17,418 1.4 $ 4,484 3.6 $ 8,885 10.7 $ 30,787 0.0 Sidewalk 0.0 $ - 1.6 $ 400,354 1.5 $ 60,000 3.1 $ 460,354 3.1 Total 22.1 $ 3,703,244 29.7 $ 11,973,557 19.3 $ 12,059,661 71.0 $ 27,736,463 25.6

Notes: 1. Estimated capital costs for active transportation routes and facilities under the jurisdiction of Durham Region are identified in the Regional Cycling Plan (2012).

240

2019 Integrated Transportation Master Plan – Appendix D

D-3. ROAD NETWORK

D-3a. Road Costing

Length Estimated Start Phasing Gross Capital Town Road From To Improvement (km) of Construction Period Cost Estimates Rossland Road Church Street Westney Road 1.68 2018-2022 Short-term 4-lane urban widening $7,298,000 Rossland Road Westney Road Salem Road 2.06 2019-2023 Short-term 4-lane urban widening $9,314,000 new 2-lane urban Achilles Road Terminus Audley Road 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term $2,300,000 construction new 2-lane urban Audley Road Kingston Road Chambers Road 0.7 2023-2027 Medium-term $3,474,000 construction new 2-lane urban Audley Road Achilles Road Bayly Street 0.92 2023 - 2027 Medium-term $3,977,000 construction new 2-lane urban Chambers Drive Carruthers Creek Audley Road 0.84 2023-2027 Medium-term $3,847,000 construction Chambers Drive Chambers Dr. at Carruthers Creek 2023-2027 Medium-term Structure $5,332,000 new 2-lane urban Chambers Drive Beck Crescent Carruthers Creek 0.3 2023-2027 Medium-term $1,452,000 construction Church Street Rossland Road Kingston Road 1.95 2028-2031 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $7,650,000 Commercial Hunt Street Station Street 0.48 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $2,861,000 Avenue Harwood Avenue Taunton Road Woodcock Avenue 1.4 2023-2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $5,464,000 new 2-lane urban Hunt Street Westney Road MacKenzie Avenue 0.56 2023-2027 Medium-term $7,651,000 construction Hunt Street Westney Road MacKenzie Avenue 2023-2027 Medium-term Structure $15,597,000 Rossland Road Salem Road Lake Ridge Road 2.11 2023 - 2027 Medium-term 4-lane urban widening $11,389,000 new 2-lane urban Achilles Road Audley Road Lake Ridge Road 0.85 2031 + Long-term $4,992,000 construction

241