Class Environmental Assessment Study from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive

Kennedy Road Class Environmental Assessment Study from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive Open House Two November 25, 2019 December 2, 2019 Please sign in and join our mailing list Study Area, Study Objectives and Municipal Class EA Process Description of Project Objectives York Region is undertaking a transportation Environmental Accommodate current and future transportation needs of Assessment (EA) Study for improvements to Kennedy pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists Road from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Markham. Supplement the findings of the 2016 York Region Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP) Adhere to the principles of York Region’s Design Guidelines Environmental Assessment (EA) Study An EA study is a planning process for municipal infrastructure, legislated by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. This EA study is being conducted as a Schedule ‘C’ project under the Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015). Stouffville GO At-Grade Crossing North of Austin Kennedy Road Class EA HIGHWAY 7 407ETR We are here! LEGEND Stouffville GO Kennedy At-Grade Crossing Road Study North of Clayton Corridor Study Area N C I T Y O F T O R O N T O Key Feature Purpose of Open House Two and Preferred Solution Purpose and Framework of Open House Two Share key feedback received so far from the Station 1 - Background Station 3 – Areas of Special Station 3 – Areas of Special Consideration Consideration public and other agencies Study Area and Objectives Hagerman Cemeteries Stouffville GO Rail Crossing Present the design approach and the Class Environmental Alternatives and Evaluation North of Clayton Drive evaluation of alternatives for the road design, Assessment Process St. Philips and Bethesda Alternatives and Evaluation pedestrian and cyclist (active transportation) Cemeteries Alternatives and What We’ve Heard So Far Stouffville GO Rail Crossing facilities and areas of special consideration Evaluation North of Austin Drive Alternatives and Evaluation Present the Recommended Plan and Station 2 – Design Approach CN Rail Crossing & Preliminary Design Miller Avenue Extension Watercourse Crossing at Evaluation Criteria Alternatives and Evaluation Rouge River Obtain your input and answer any questions Road Widening Alternatives 407ETR Crossing you may have about the project and Evaluation Alternatives and Evaluation Station 4 – Next Steps Active Transportation (AT) Viva Rapidway Alternatives and We want your feedback! Discuss next steps Alternatives and Evaluation Evaluation Summary of Preferred Solution from Open House One Widen to six lanes for Transit / HOV is identified as the preferred solution due to its alignment with YR-TMP objectives. Proposed Six Lane Widening Frequent Transit Network Separated Cycling Facilities What We’ve Heard so Far Community Outreach Direct mail notices Open Houses Stakeholder Group (SHG) Newspaper notices Project website Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) York Region social media Road signs (Facebook and Twitter) Public Open House One Signal timing needs Concerns about Concerns about noise Concerns about costs improvement congestion level related to construction Better connections to Request to add signage Unionville GO Station along AT facilities Online Comments General support for HOV lanes Increase public transit Concerns about Concerns about widening at service pedestrian safety the cemeteries Stakeholder Group Plan for a cycle track and sidewalk but implement Install a cycling facility on the east side of Kennedy Road to a multi-use path in the interim better serve schools Preference to maintain the centre-left turn lane for Need for a physical barrier separation from buses at the residents and businesses on the east side of Kennedy Hagerman Cemeteries location due to the lack of separation Road between vehicular traffic and pedestrians/cyclists Key Technical Studies and Evaluation Criteria Key Technical Studies to inform the evaluations and impact assessments: Natural Heritage Geotechnical and Cultural Heritage Noise Impact Hydrogeological Impact Assessment Pavement Assessment Resource Assessment Assessment Assessment Drainage and Stormwater Structural Assessment Archaeological Contamination Fluvial Management Report Assessment Study Overview Geomorphological Assessment Air Quality Impact Heritage Impact Assessment Assessment Evaluation Criteria The Alternative Designs were evaluated based on the following criteria: Transportation Service Infrastructure Design • Improve public transit service • Minimize utility relocation • Reduce traffic congestion and delays • Minimize disruption due to construction • Create a pedestrian and cyclist-friendly environment • Minimize constructability complexity • Improve safety for all travel modes • Improve mode choice Economic Environment and Cost Effectiveness • Accommodate planned development and growth Social Environment • Minimize impacts on business properties • Minimize impacts on existing residential, institutional and • Improve access to businesses and key employment areas recreational dwellings / properties • Maximize construction value • Improve access to residential areas, institutional and • Minimize property requirements recreational facilities • Minimize operating costs • Mitigate traffic on local streets • Minimize traffic noise Natural Environment • Preserve archaeological and cultural heritage features • Protect designated natural areas • Minimize impacts to cemeteries and burial grounds • Protect vegetation • Improve visual aesthetics • Protect wildlife • Improve community character • Protect aquatic habitat • Surface water and ground water management • Improve air quality • Minimizes effects on climate change Road Widening Design Approach Design Approach and Typical Cross-Sections Road Widening Alternatives Based on available right-of-way (ROW), two typical cross-sections Current Roadway were developed. Both options provide for the recommended six lane Property Property Line Centreline Line widening for Transit / HOV lanes, continuous facilities for Alternative 1: Widening pedestrians and cyclists, and streetscaping. About the Centreline ROW Typical 36m Cross-Section Provide additional lanes on 36m ROW both sides of the street to balance the impacts on both 2.9m Cycle TrackBoulevard.3.7 1m Curb lane Curb lane Boulevard Cycle sides of Kennedy Road Track Alternative 2: Widening ROW Typical 43m Cross-Section to the West 43m ROW Shift road centreline so additional lanes and associated 2.9m impacts occur on the west side Boulevard Cycle Track .3.7 1m Curb lane Curb lane BoulevardCycle Track of Kennedy Road Alternative 3: Widening ROW to the East Shift road centreline so 43 m Official additional lanes and associated Plan ROW 2.9m impacts occur on the east side Boulevard Cycle Track .3.7 1m Curb lane Curb lane BoulevardCycle Track of Kennedy Road Stouffville GO At-Grade Crossing North of Austin HIGHWAY 7 45 m Official Recommendations Plan ROW 407ETR Widening about the Centreline is preferred because: • It balances impacts on both sides of Kennedy Road and minimizes impacts 43 m Official Approximate < 36 m Right-of-Way Plan ROW at existing structures and watercourses Stouffville GO Approximate > 36 m Right-of-Way At-Grade Crossing • Minimizes impacts to area properties and need for residential displacement North of Clayton N Approximate 43 m Right-of-Way Active Transportation (AT) Facilities Active Transportation Alternatives Evaluation and Recommendations The following alternatives were considered to determine how Alternative 1: Alternative 3: best to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.. Alternative 2: Cycle Tracks and Multi-Use Path One Criteria Multi-Use Paths, Sidewalks, Both Side, Sidewalk One Both Sides Sides Side Transportation Service Less Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred Alternative 1: Cycle Tracks and Sidewalks, Both Sides Natural Environment Less Preferred Less Preferred Most Preferred Social Environment Most Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred Infrastructure Design Less Preferred Less Preferred Most Preferred Economic Environment Least Preferred Less Preferred Most Preferred and Cost Effectiveness Recommendation Recommended Alternative 2: Multi-Use Paths, Both Sides Multi-Use Paths, Both Sides is the preferred Solution because: • It improves the pedestrian and cyclist environment while minimizing operational costs • It fits within the available right-of-way and provides for continuous and Alternative 3: Multi-Use Path One Side, Sidewalk One Side uniform facilities through constrained areas and throughout the corridor GO Rail Crossing North of Clayton Drive Design Considerations GORVETTE ROAD Safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists, and low pedestrian and cycling level of service GORVETTE ROAD STOUFFVILLE GO RAIL LINE Access to adjacent land use Delays to vehicles as they are required to stop for trains to cross – safety concerns for motorists due to conflicts with crossing trains ROAD KENNEDY KENNEDY Increased train frequency due to GO N expansion service GO Expansion – Stouffville GO Corridor All-day, two-way rail services between Union and Unionville Stations in the medium to long-term Distance to Clayton Drive intersection Proximity between Rail Crossing and Wetland Market Village Access Hollywood Plaza access Proximity between Rail Crossing and N residential homes Distance to Gorvette Road intersection GO Rail Crossing North of Clayton Drive GO Rail Crossing Alternatives These alternatives considered how to best accommodate

Load more