Transportation Master Plan — full text

This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document. Snapshot ec033265b62c · verified 2026-06-10 · original document · archived snapshot · unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.

Page | 1 October 2022 The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan - FINAL REPORT - October 2022 Page | i - FINAL REPORT - October 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan could not have been completed without the efforts of the many individuals and groups who contributed ideas, solutions, and thoughtful debate to the study process. Every conversation throughout the course of the study helped to shape the direction and the recommendations contained within it. The project team would like to thank the members of the public who attended public information centres, completed surveys, and contacted the project team to contribute their ideas to the Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan. We would also like to thank the Working Group for providing their time, insights, and knowledge throughout the study. WORKING GROUP Doug Black - Mayor Diane Smithson - CAO Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief Jessica Hansen - Recreation Niki Dwyer - Development Services Carleton Place District Chamber of Commerce Carleton Place Environmental Advisory Committee Carleton Place Hospital County of Lanark Downtown Carleton Place BIA Lanark Transportation Association Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit Ontario Ministry of Transportation Ontario Provincial Police People First of County of Lanark Upper Canada District School Board TOWN OF CARLETON PLACE TEAM Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Amanda Charania - Communications Coordinator PARSONS CONSULTING TEAM Ron Clarke - Project Manager Austin Shih - Deputy Project Manager Basel Ansari Muna Awatta Mark Baker Andrew Evraire Chris Redden Source: https://www.pinterest.ca/johnston4225/_saved/ (Linda Johnston): Accessed 2021-06-15. Page | ii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Town of Carleton Place has prepared its first Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to guide a proactive approach to planning a multi-modal transportation system that will serve the community through to the year 2041 and beyond. The TMP represents a roadmap for future planning decisions and capital investments in the Town, while being used to align the goals and necessities of staff, stakeholders, and decision makers under a comprehensive community vision. The Town is expected to grow considerably in the fullness of time, and the TMP can help address the transportation challenges that growth imposes - connecting new communities, promoting accessibility and inclusivity, and overcoming barriers to travel. Growth also presents opportunities for the Town to capitalize upon re-thinking the function of streets to be more inclusive of other modes by adopting a Complete Streets approach, while becoming more efficient, sustainable, and safe. The resulting prioritized list of transportation network strengthening recommendations and set of policy recommendations will guide the implementation plan in the years to come. The TMP was developed through a collaborative process led by Parsons under the direction of Town staff with significant input from various stakeholders and the public. The TMP was carried out in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process for Master Plans, completing requirements for Phase 1 and Phase 2. ENGAGEMENT Multiple public consultation and stakeholder engagement opportunities were offered throughout the duration of the study. These events were published through the project website, social media, and newspaper notices, and consisted of an online community survey, three stakeholder working groups meetings, two public information centres, and multiple meetings with the Committee of the Whole. All the comments, input, and feedback from stakeholders and the public were grouped, mapped, and assessed to help inform the recommendations in the TMP. A TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR CARLETON PLACE The TMP was guided by the following vision and objectives, crafted through consultation with Town staff, stakeholders and members of the public. "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." Key Objectives: - Ensure an inclusive and accessible/barrier free environment for all users regardless of age, physical ability, and financial means. Page | iii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Develop a truly multi-modal network that emphasizes sustainable travel modes in an effort to reduce pollution, enhance quality of life through active living, and reducing dependency on the automobile. - Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups. - Improve connectivity within the Town, overcome barriers between communities and amenities. - Maintain satisfactory mobility levels considering the Town's future growth. - Implement the plan in a fiscally sustainable and accountable manner. NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES The Town of Carleton Place is growing rapidly, travel patterns are changing, and transportation is evolving. The Town will need to respond to these driving forces in order to develop a transportation system that meets the community's future needs. The main overarching needs for the Town and its transportation network over the coming decades include: Improving Connectivity: - Complete gaps in the pedestrian and cycling network. - Plan for increased demand for alternative modes of travel. - Overcome mobility barriers between communities, businesses, and local amenities, thereby promoting accessibility and inclusivity. Improving Safety: - Update existing policies to promote and enhance safety for all users regardless of physical or financial means. - Update existing municipal standards and maintenance practices to better accommodate a multi-modal transportation system. - Improve pedestrian crossing conditions at strategic locations within the Town. Supporting Sustainable Modes: - Upgrade existing cycling and pedestrian facilities, and construct new facilities to encourage sustainable modes of travel, and improve overall community health. - Investigate opportunities to enhance or expand transit service. - Investigate opportunities to expand ridesharing support services and facilities (e.g. carpooling). - Reduce single occupant vehicle travel to support climate change mitigation. Improving System Performance: - Address localized congestion through minor operational improvements to increase road network efficiency - Increase capacity of the road network at the corridor level to accommodate rapid population and employment growth. - Improve universal accessibility of the transportation network. - Improve the cost-effectiveness of the transportation network. Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and encouraging transit and active transportation as alternative modes were compared to a 'Do Nothing' scenario (i.e. existing or previously planned conditions remain) to assess whether they would be sufficient on their own in meeting the Town's transportation needs. Page | iv October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - It was determined that while these solutions will benefit the community, they are not expected to fully address the problems identified, and road network improvement solutions must also be considered. Therefore, in accordance with the TMP vision and objectives, a sustainable strategy was chosen as the preferred approach to developing the Town's transportation system. The sustainable strategy strikes a balance, addressing localized congestion and road network inefficiencies, while investing in infrastructure and policies that support walking, cycling, transit, and mobility services (e.g. ride sharing and carpooling) to improve system performance by reallocating demand from personal vehicles to more sustainable modes. RECOMMENDATIONS This TMP consists of recommendations that include physical infrastructure projects, policies, and additional studies to strengthen the Town's multi-modal transportation network. The recommendations from the various chapters of the TMP have been summarized below. Active Transportation Providing continuous and connected active transportation facilities is important to support sustainable modes of transportation, to increase overall neighbourhood accessibility, and improve safety for vulnerable road users. An Active Transportation (AT) Network Strengthening Plan and a Cycling Priority Route network were developed for the Town, as depicted in Map ES-1 and Map ES-2 respectively. Key factors in developing the AT Network Strengthening Plan included the location of key destinations (e.g. schools, residential, commercial, and recreational areas), crossing of major barriers (e.g. the Mississippi River), available right-of-way, future growth plans, traffic volumes, safety, physical feasibility, and costing. The plan identifies sidewalk gaps to be filled and a tailored approach to expanding the Cycling Priority Route network, with recommended facilities to be implemented within the 20-year planning horizon, and potentially longer- term projects to be implemented incrementally over time. It is important to note that MTO retains ultimate approval authority for all planning matters that fall within their permit control areas. In the case of Highway 7 and Highway 15, MTO prioritizes the movement of vehicles first. Active Transportation recommendations that fall within the MTO permit control area were chosen to reflect aspirations based on the vision and objectives established by the Town and stakeholders in this TMP. In these instances, collaboration between the Town, neighbouring townships where applicable, and MTO will be needed to ensure active transportation needs are properly considered in proximity to provincial highways prior to implementation. Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities It is recommended the Town: 1. Implement the AT Network Strengthening Plan (Map ES-1) to encourage and support sustainable modes of travel. 2. Target an unobstructed sidewalk width of 1.8m for all new or reconstructed sidewalks, with a minimum 1.5m unobstructed sidewalk width if necessary. 3. Target a minimum multi-use pathway (MUP) width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. 4. Adopt the Cycling Priority Route designations (Map ES-2) to support continuous cycling connectivity across Town and to key destinations within Town. Page | v October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 5. Ensure the design of new or reconstructed collector and arterial streets along Cycling Priority Routes protect for potential widening of MUPs or the segregation of off-street pedestrian and cycling facilities, where possible, to accommodate long-term growth. 6. Consider a Special Downtown Cycling District (along Bridge Street between Lake Ave and the Mississippi River) in the Official Plan to acknowledge the importance of this Town destination for cyclists and to support local businesses, despite not being designated a Cycling Priority Route and having limited space for cycling facilities. It should be afforded specialized cycling treatments to enhance safety for cyclists where possible. 7. Explore opportunities to implement new bicycle racks at Town destinations that are currently underserved. 8. Establish bicycle parking requirements for new developments in the Official Plan, as well as end user facilities for commuter cyclists such as showers and bike lockers at larger businesses. Accessibility It is recommended the Town: 9. Ensure sidewalks, curbs and PXOs meet provincial accessibility standards (AODA) for all street construction or re-construction work, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals be provided where new pedestrian signals are being installed or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced. 10. Consider accessibility enhancements such as benches and rest areas as the opportunities arise. 11. Require accessibility reviews be incorporated in re-development and new development projects in the Official Plan, including accessible connections between the Town's active transportation facilities and all future development/re-development projects, including buildings, parks, and open spaces. Active Transportation on Bridges To ultimately achieve the TMP vision and objectives, it is critical for the Town to foster safe, accessible, and equitable crossing points over the Mississippi River to encourage greater active transportation participation in the fullness of time. It is recommended the Town: 12. Construct a separate active transportation bridge alongside McNeely Ave over the Mississippi River, integrated with the future widening of McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes. 13. Revisit the need for the Mill St and Gilles active transportation bridge in future TMP updates. Recreational Trails The following recommendations should be reviewed by the Town for consideration or inclusion in the Carleton Place Recreational Master Plan Update: 14. Construct a new recreational trail system within Arklan Island that connects the Mississippi Boardwalk Trail to a new active transportation connection across the Mississippi River. 15. Require all new recreational trails be designed in accordance with provincial accessibility standards (AODA), where feasible. 16. Require any new recreational trails to have a minimum width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. 17. New development applications consider connections to recreational trails to strengthen linkages between neighborhood destinations and the Town's active transportation network. Page | vi October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 18. Continue to consider PXOs at all new recreational trail crossings of roadways. 19. Recreational trail amenities, including parking spaces (regular and accessible), washrooms, waste receptacles, signage, lighting, canopies, and benches/seating be considered at busy trail intersections or resting points. 20. Consider Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) when designing new recreational trails or upgrading existing trails. Key principles include signage and lighting near trail entrances and crossings of streets. 21. Collaborate with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), provincial police (OPP) and relevant stakeholders on any safety concerns on existing ATV and snowmobile trails. Consider initiating a separate study to review existing ATV and snowmobile trails within the Town to better understand how they are being used, how they can be made safer, and how they may be enhanced or expanded in the future as the Town grows. Community Education and Promotion It is recommended the Town: 22. Consider implementing education and promotional programs to support the investments in active transportation infrastructure outlined in this TMP. Additional AT Supporting Policies It is recommended the Town: 23. Update existing winter maintenance policies to Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, O Reg 239/02, updated May 3, 2018, which includes new winter maintenance standards for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and significant weather events. 24. Update winter maintenance practices to include regular snow clearing on all MUPs along Cycling Priority Routes. This will maintain pathway connectivity to key Town destinations and help ensure that active transportation modes remain realistic options year-round. 25. Update the language in the Official Plan regarding the development review process such that active transportation facilities required to support new developments connecting to the Town's municipal AT network can be included as special conditions to subdivision agreements, with the active transportation facility costs covered by the developer. Road Network The road network will need to be expanded and upgraded to keep up with anticipated growth in the Town of Carleton Place, to provide the key connections to enable access between existing and new neighbourhoods, to better accommodate other modes and to foster economic development within the Town. The various recommendations culminated in the Street Network Strengthening Plan (illustrated in Map ES-3), which have been grouped into three categories. The MTO represent an important partner/stakeholder governing two highways in the Town: Highway 7 and Highway 15. The TMP acknowledges that all planning matters within the permit control area as defined by the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act is subject to MTO approval. It is recommended the Town: 1. Adopt the Street Network Strengthening Plan (Map ES-3) to accommodate future growth in the Town and neighbouring municipalities. Page | vii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Corridor Capacity 2. Engage the County of Lanark to widen McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes between Lake Ave and Townline Rd E, including the two bridges over the Mississippi River. 3. Monitor the McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd corridors between Highway 7 and Lake Ave, while exploring opportunities for optimization and to reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark in order to extend vehicular corridor capacity. Review the needs of these corridors in future TMP updates. 4. Monitor Townline Rd E vehicular operations between Joseph St and Industrial Ave, while exploring opportunities to optimize operations and reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark to extend vehicular corridor capacity, such as rebalancing options to add and/or enhance active transportation facilities within the corridor. Review the needs in future TMP updates. 5. Engage the County of Lanark to widen Townline Rd E from McNeely Ave to Ramsay Concession 8, as dictated in the County of Lanark TMP. Confirm the schedule for implementation in future TMP updates. 6. Engage the County of Lanark to rebalance Townline Rd E from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes with enhanced active transportation facilities. 7. Review the needs and opportunities for a Captain A Roy Brown Blvd extension to Cemetery Side Rd as part of future TMP updates or if triggered by annexation discussions with Beckwith Township in support of development south of Highway 7. Intersections 8. Monitor long-term traffic operations at the Hwy 7/McNeely Ave intersection. Engage MTO regarding additional modifications, such as those outlined in the Hwy7/15 TESR, if vehicle capacity is shown to be exceeded. 9. Monitor traffic operations at the Franktown Rd/Coleman St intersection and consider optimizations to extend intersection capacity as needed. Reassess needs in future TMP updates. 10. Monitor traffic operations at the Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave intersection, Moore St/Lansdowne Ave intersection, and the Moore St OVRT PXO. If vehicle queues interfere with upstream intersection operations or safety at the PXO, consider mitigation, such as converting Moore/Lansdowne to a right-in right-out only intersection. 11. Monitor traffic operations at the intersections of McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access, McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E, McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, and Bridge St/Townline Rd, and consider signal timing adjustments to improve operations if warranted. Specific Issues 12. Request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to investigate the traffic implications of implementing a continuous municipal road connection between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave, north of Highway 7, to support long-term development needs and multi-modal aspirations of the Town. 13. Traffic operations at the Lansdowne/Coleman intersection did not trigger the OTM traffic signal warrant; thus the intersection should be monitored. The traffic signal warrant should be reassessed annually, and a safety review be completed if local concerns persist. Page | viii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Road Classifications and Design Criteria The road classification system was also reviewed and updated. The new classification system now separates residential and commercial contexts, to enable more appropriate designs be accounted for based on the local land-use context. There were seven (7) upgrades or downgrades to existing roads. The recommended road classifications are depicted in Map ES-4. These changes were completed in coordination with the Complete Streets approach to account for active transportation and roadway safety for each road classification category so that municipal geometric design standards support the over- arching policy. Therefore, a revised design criteria for the various road types was developed to support the new road classification system. It is recommended the Town: 14. Adopt the recommended road classification system (Map ES-4) and update the Official Plan accordingly. 15. Adopt the recommended design criteria to support the new road classification system, and update the Town's municipal design standards accordingly. Assumption of Local Roads The County of Lanark has an established framework for evaluating the potential for lower tier municipalities to upload transportation infrastructure. The assessment results suggest the Town may consider initiating discussions with the County of Lanark in the future regarding uploading Cavanagh Road. Therefore, it is recommended the Town: 16. Consider initiating discussions with the County of Lanark regarding the uploading of Cavanagh Rd. Supporting Strategies Complete Streets The TMP promotes the development of Complete Streets by treating any transportation design, retrofit and maintenance projects as opportunities to address the needs of all road users. This policy also acknowledges that its applicability is dependent on each local context and sensitive to topographical, technical, or legal considerations. Official Plan Principles The Complete Streets approach is based on the needs of all road users, of all ages and abilities, who must be considered during all phases of planning, design, implementation, and operation. The following principles should be incorporated into the recommended policy: - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing vulnerable road user safety, and pedestrians and cyclists are explicitly considered early in the planning and design phases, rather than as an afterthought. - Consider All Projects - Each project will be planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with the explicit consideration for the needs of road users of all ages and abilities. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods shall be designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian/cycling facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes. - Understanding Constraints - It is recognized that not all projects will be able to accommodate all road users to the highest level of service. Where constraints exist, planners and designers will need to demonstrate that the Page | ix October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - prevailing design afforded due consideration for all potential road users and meets the needs of the intended function of the street and fits within the existing and planned community context. To support the Complete Street policy and the shift to a Complete Streets approach, it is recommended the Town: 1. Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan. 2. Collaborate with County of Lanark and external stakeholders to describe this new approach and how best to adopt these new road planning and design processes. 3. Integrate the Complete Streets approach in all relevant Town departments. 4. Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets. 5. Prioritize the Complete Streets cross-sections prepared for Arterial, Collector and Local Streets (Map ES-5 and Map ES-6) along the Cycling Priority Routes, and consider them on all new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street approach. 6. Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. 7. Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes, and consider adopting a multi-modal level-of-service framework (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). 8. Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Safety The key principles for a safe transportation system require a complete rethinking of road design, controlling speeds and enforcing vehicle design controls. These principles are included implicitly throughout this document as safety is an important driver in all aspects of transportation planning. Improving road safety benefits all road users and reduces external societal costs such as health care and emergency services. It is recommended the Town: Traffic Calming 9. Continue to use the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to identify when, where, and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. 10. Consider implementing traffic calming measures on shared cycling facilities, where feasible. Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. 11. Consider updating the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to reflect new traffic calming measures presented in the updated Transportation Association Canada - Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (2018). Speed Management 12. Consider reduced speed limit signs where the street merits it based on the surrounding land uses and local context. Reduced speed signage should be accompanied with design measures such as traffic calming, where appropriate. Page | x October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 13. Utilize OTM Book 5 when identifying locations for School Zones and Community Safety Zones. Pedestrian and Cycling Crossings 14. Initiate pedestrian crossing reviews at problem locations identified by the public or Town staff. 15. Pedestrian crossing reviews should continue to be based on OTM Book 15, which provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. 16. Cycling crossings should adhere to OTM Book 18 if possible, to ensure they are safe and adequately prioritize cyclists as they navigate across an intersection or crossing. Roundabout 17. Develop a new policy that requires roundabouts to be considered at all new and retrofit intersections. 18. Adopt a roundabout screening and assessment process based on the Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Traffic Control 19. Periodically review intersection signal timing plans to ensure sufficient pedestrian crossing times. Street Lighting 20. Explore street lighting needs at OVRT crossings and new MUPs as they are constructed. Local Safety Concerns 21. Consider the potential safety measures outlined in Section 6.2.3 to address local safety concerns heard during the TMP process, and utilize the Safety Toolbox developed in the TMP to respond to any new concerns raised by the public. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the use of policies, programs, services, and products to influence travel behaviour and improve the efficiency of the transportation network. Targeted TDM programming aims to increase awareness of available travel options, educate residents on sustainable travel, and remove common barriers that individuals face when considering travel by sustainable modes. TDM-supportive infrastructure, including cycling facilities, multi-use trails, end-of-trip facilities, and carpool parking, builds capacity for daily sustainable travel. The TMP aims to shift trips from single-occupancy automobiles to more sustainable modes such as walking, cycling, transit, or carpooling, which supports the TMP vision and objectives. It is recommended that the Town: 22. Investigate the initiatives outlined in the TDM Toolbox (Section 6.3) to leverage investments in active transportation and transit; and consider preparing a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Carleton Place. Goods Movement The need to expand the County of Lanark Truck Route network has not been identified at this time. If warranted in the future, the Town should work with the County to augment the network. To support the future of goods movement, it is recommended the Town: 23. Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. Page | xi October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 24. Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Public Transit and Ridesharing The reality of providing a local transit system within the Town is likely out of reach based on the geographic and economic challenges, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Town's relatively small population and employment base, where the majority of commuter travel is to/from the City of Ottawa, is likely to be insufficient in the short-term to sustain a local service. However, as the Town grows and matures, population density and employment increases, and as stakeholder input, political will, and funding opportunities arise in the fullness of time, the feasibility of a public transit system can be revisited. The door will always remain open to consider a local public transit system when the demand is there to make it sustainable, to ensure the highest probability of success. A more gradual approach to addressing the needs and challenges of transit in the Town is recommended. The Town should remain committed to supporting ongoing commuter and long-distance services provided by private operators and the Lanark Transportation Association (Ride the LT). Moving forward, the Town should actively engage with the LTA and neighbouring municipalities (including the City of Ottawa) to better integrate the existing commuter and Ride the LT services and look for innovative ways to improve the quality of service that will increase ridership over time. Potential examples to aspire to include the Township of Russell "Russell Transpo" and the South Grenville partnership service "River Route" (discussed in Section 7.3), which offer commuter transit service for rural or smaller municipalities to a larger adjacent City. The Town can also support ridesharing opportunities as demand grows through third party programs, which is documented within the TDM Toolkit. They may also collaborate with the County of Lanark, who maintains a ridesharing Facebook group (Community Ride Share Connection County of Lanark) to find ways to promote and expand this service. It is recommended the Town: 1. Coordinate with OC Transpo, the County of Lanark, and private transit operators to target commuter travel to the City of Ottawa by: a. Exploring opportunities to improve transit service integration and commuter travel by advocating for better connections (e.g. flexible stops to the existing fixed-route service or more direct service to reduce transfers) with existing transit service to City of Ottawa. b. Exploring the potential of demand-responsive transit to improve mobility and access to opportunities for commuters to City of Ottawa. c. Considering incentives or subsidies to increase commuter transit ridership and ridesharing use to capitalize on potential demand, such as institutional campuses (e.g. Algonquin College) or other sources. 2. Engage the County of Lanark and Lanark Transportation Association to: a. Support the expansion of existing transit service i.e. Ride the LT, and specialized services within the County, with emphasis on improving mobility and access between the larger municipalities, i.e. Carleton Place, Perth, Smiths Falls and Almonte. Page | xii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - b. Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities, ridesharing platforms, and subsidized Uber service to key community destinations and special events to improve service levels and attract new ridership. c. Consider opportunities to increase rideshare engagement through incentives, promotion, and potential expansion of park and ride locations within the Town that is accessible by walking and cycling. 3. Improve access to transit by prioritizing pedestrian facilities to transit stops, ensure AODA compliance and ensure links are prioritized for winter maintenance. 4. Prepare a Transit Feasibility Study at the appropriate time, to advance the discussion and inform how a local transit service may feasibly be provided in the Town that will be sustainable in the fullness of time. Emerging Technologies Emerging technologies can present opportunities to reduce the reliance on private vehicles. Shared mobility services (e.g. bike share) can foster increased active transportation use. Technology is also improving the ease of use of transit - a potential rider can see real-time bus positions and stop schedules and plan accordingly. Carsharing platforms and ridesharing companies are enabling families to go car-free or "car-light", reducing the total number of private vehicles on the road network. Big Data and the future proliferation of 5G wireless capabilities will enable affordable real-time monitoring of travel behaviour, to a degree that has been impossible using conventional data collection techniques. To better prepare for the emergence of new technologies, it is recommended the Town: 1. Continue to explore opportunities to expand electrified vehicle supportive infrastructure within the Town. 2. Investigate the opportunities to improve and expand ridesharing and bikesharing programs in coordination with County of Lanark and neighbouring municipalities as new platforms and technologies become available. 3. Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand-responsive approaches. 4. Investigate opportunities to utilize Big Data platforms (such as Streetlight Data Inc.) and other service providers to monitor and assess the transportation network performance. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Identified street and active transportation network strengthening plan recommendations were incorporated into an implementation plan that prioritizes the capital projects into three phases based on implementation timing. High-level cost estimates were developed for each project and allocated to either the Municipality or the County based on its jurisdiction. Active transportation projects are all expected within the existing right-of-way, and would be considered Schedule 'A' or 'A+' projects under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. Street network projects are all categorized as Schedule 'C' projects. The recommended Street Network and Active Transportation Networks are described with proposed phasing and estimated costs in Table ES-1 and Table ES-2 respectively. The estimated cost for the Town to construct the 20-year build-out of recommended infrastructure projects within the TMP is approximately $28.5 million, or 1.42 million per year over the next 20 years. Page | xiii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Plan Monitoring and Updates A monitoring program will allow the Town to track both the progress of implementing the TMP's recommendations and the impact of the TMP on shaping the way people and goods travel within and through Carleton Place. Key performance indicators will help the Town determine whether it is moving forward towards its vision and making progress towards the stated objectives of this plan. Key performance indicators, which should be assessed at fixed intervals, include: - Percent of Plans Implemented (Street Network and AT Network Strengthening Plans) - Cycling and Pedestrian Usage at strategic locations on the Cycling Priority Routes - Transit ridership and service hours on local and regional services (e.g. Ride the LT, private operators, and any future services) - Intersection turning movement counts at locations identified for monitoring - Collision Incidents (detailed reports on the number of vehicles/pedestrians/cyclists, type impact, severity, etc.) - Survey of resident behaviour (Census or StreetLight Data) Additionally, as the Town of Carleton Place continues to grow and change, the TMP will need to be reviewed and updated to reflect new realities that may not have been contemplated while this plan was being developed. The TMP is intended to be a living document, to be updated periodically as local priorities, trends and available resources change. Page | xiv October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table ES-1: Active Transportation Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 (2021 CAD) Description Town Cost SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) 1. Hwy 7 / Hwy 15 / Franktown Rd / McNeely Ave Sidewalks and Pathways Included in Capital Budget Plan 2. Central Bridge & Bridge St Renewal 3. Mill Street / Princess Street Sidewalk 4. Findlay Avenue MUP on one side from Franktown Rd to the OVRT $230,000 TOTAL $230,000 MEDIUM-TERM (6-10 YEARS) 1. Townline Rd E - MUP on both sides from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave Bundled in SNSP2 Costs 2. McNeely Avenue - MUPs on both sides from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to Lake Ave 3. McNeely Avenue - New MUPs on both sides from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to South Town Limit 3 $2,340,000 4. Townline Rd W - MUP on both sides from Joseph St to West Town Limit $970,000 TOTAL $3,310,000 LONG-TERM (11-20 YEARS) 1. New Connection North of Highway 7 4 McNeely Ave to Franktown Rd - MUP on both sides Bundled in SNSP Costs 2. McNeely Avenue - MUPs on both sides from Lake Ave to Townline Rd E 3. New Arklan Island Trail Connection $1,380,000 TOTAL $1,380,000 LIFE-CYCLE STREET RENEWAL 1. Filling sidewalk gaps as part of municipal street renewal program $8,140,000 GRAND TOTAL $13,060,000 DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd (MUP on south side from Hwy 15 to East Town Limit) 3 $900,000 2. Future Employment Lands (MUP on one side of street to a new OVRT connection) 3 Contingent on Development Application and subject to MTO Approval $450,000 LONG-TERM INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS (20+ YEARS) 1a. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Full (MUP on both sides where possible) OR 1b. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Partial (MUP on north side only) $2,680,000 $620,000 2a. Townline Rd: Full (MUP on both sides where possible) OR 2b. Townline Rd: Partial (MUP only on north side) $2,340,000 $1,520,000 3a. Lake Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 3b. Lake Ave: Partial (MUP only on north side) $4,540,000 $2,270,000 4. Gilles Bridge and Mill St. Bridge (Based on Central Bridge ESR Cost Estimate) $1,150,000 Page | xv October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 5a. Mississippi Rd: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 5b. Mississippi Rd: Partial (MUP replaces existing sidewalk on west side) $2,130,000 $1,240,000 6a. High St: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 6b. High St: Partial (MUP replaces existing sidewalk on south side) $750,000 $370,000 Notes: 1. All MUPs assumed to be 3.0m width and sidewalks 1.8m width. All projects within existing right-of-way are Schedule "A+" projects. 2. SNSP - Street Network Strengthening Plan 3. MUPs within the MTO permit control area are subject to MTO approval prior to implementation. 4. Town Council requested MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to review the traffic implications for a new municipal continuous multi-modal road connection north of Hwy 7 to better align with long-term development plans. The ultimate design and cost of the road connection will depend on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, subject to approval by MTO. Page | xvi October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table ES-2: Street Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 (2021 CAD) Description County Cost Town Cost ALREADY APPROVED CAPITAL PROJECTS 1. McNeely Avenue 2 Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to Lake Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $5,890,000 $1,270,000 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS (20 YEAR PLAN) 1. McNeely Avenue Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Lake Ave to Townline Rd E, includes two bridge structures and MUPs on both sides. $22,430,000 $6,240,000 2. New Connection North of Highway 7 3 Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $0 $6,490,000 4 3. Townline Rd E Street rebalancing from Industrial Ave to West of McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $1,435,000 $1,435,000 4. Moore St Corridor optimization from Lake Ave to OVRT. Potentially limit Lansdowne/Moore to right-in right-out only if needed. Requires further study TOTAL $29,755,000 $15,435,000 POTENTIAL LONG-TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 20 YEAR) 5 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd Extension from Rathwall St to Cemetery Side Rd - subject to annexation. Requires further study 2. McNeely Avenue Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Highway 7 to Cavanagh Rd. Schedule "C' Project. $10,250,000 $2,000,000 3. Townline Rd E Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from McNeely Ave to the East Town Limit. Schedule "C' Project. $2,500,000 $400,000 TOTAL $12,750,000 $2,400,000 Notes: 1. Costs estimates are for construction plus factors for utilities, engineering, and project contingency. It does not include HST, property acquisition, or other miscellaneous costs. All projects are considered Schedule "C" projects. 2. Although this project has been confirmed by County staff as being planned within the next 5 years, no budget was included in the County's 20-Year Capital Plan. The estimated costs herein reflect a Complete Streets approach defined in this TMP. 3. Town Council requested MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to review the traffic implications of a new continuous municipal multi-modal road connection north of Hwy 7 to better align with the Town's long-term development plans and Complete Streets Approach established in this TMP. The outcome is subject to MTO approval. 4. The ultimate cost of this new connection will depend on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, subject to approval by MTO. The cost estimate herein was based on a municipal collector road classification with active transportation facilities on both sides, but excludes potential intersection modification requirements at Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave. 5. Potential projects are to be revisited in future TMP Updates to reaffirm the need and opportunities. Page | xvii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 What is a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) .........................................1 How Was The TMP Developed? .............................................................2 Environmental Assessment Process ......................................................3 Public and Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................3 2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 Policy Context ........................................................................................7 2.1.1 Provincial .........................................................................................7 2.1.2 Regional ...........................................................................................8 2.1.3 Local ................................................................................................9 Transportation System Overview .........................................................13 2.2.1 Active Transportation .....................................................................13 2.2.2 Transit and Ridesharing .................................................................22 2.2.3 Roads ............................................................................................24 2.2.4 Parking ..........................................................................................41 2.2.5 Emerging Technology ....................................................................43 Growth and Transportation Trends ......................................................44 2.3.1 Current State .................................................................................44 2.3.2 Historic Growth ..............................................................................45 2.3.3 Transportation Trends ...................................................................48 2.3.4 Population and Employment Projections .......................................52 3.0 TMP STRATEGY 56 Transportation Vision And Objectives ..................................................56 3.1.1 Existing Policy Direction ................................................................56 3.1.2 Vision and Objectives ....................................................................56 Needs and Opportunities ......................................................................57 Alternative Solutions ............................................................................58 Page | xviii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Evaluation of Alternatives .....................................................................58 Preferred Alternative ............................................................................61 Opportunities and Challenges in Preferred Approach ..........................61 3.6.1 Active Transportation .....................................................................61 3.6.2 Accessibility and Inclusivity ...........................................................62 3.6.3 Safety and Traffic Calming .............................................................62 3.6.4 Transit and Ridesharing .................................................................62 3.6.5 Transportation Demand Management ...........................................63 3.6.6 Road Network ................................................................................63 3.6.7 Complete Streets ...........................................................................63 3.6.8 Road Design ..................................................................................64 4.0 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY 66 Benefits of Active Transportation .........................................................66 General Methodology ...........................................................................67 AT Network Strengthening Plan ...........................................................68 Pedestrians and Cyclists ......................................................................68 4.4.1 Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................68 4.4.2 Pedestrian Accessibility .................................................................72 4.4.3 Cycling Priority Routes ..................................................................73 4.4.4 Special Downtown Cycling District (Bridge Street) ........................75 4.4.5 Cycling Facilities ............................................................................75 4.4.6 Cycling End-User Facilities ............................................................78 4.4.7 Long-Term Incremental Projects ...................................................79 Active Transportation on Bridges .........................................................79 4.5.1 Potential Bridge Expansion Options ...............................................80 Recreational Trails ................................................................................82 4.6.1 New Recreational Trails .................................................................82 4.6.2 Recreational Trail Design Considerations ......................................83 4.6.3 Recreational Trail Crossing PXO Warrants .....................................83 4.6.4 ATV/Snowmobile Considerations ...................................................83 Community Education and Promotion ..................................................84 4.7.1 Education .......................................................................................84 Page | xix October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 4.7.2 Promotion ......................................................................................85 Additional AT Supporting Policies ........................................................86 4.8.1 Winter Maintenance Practices .......................................................86 4.8.2 New Developments ........................................................................86 Summary of Recommendations ...........................................................87 5.0 ROAD NETWORK STRATEGY 90 Future Context......................................................................................90 5.1.1 Capital Projects ..............................................................................90 Future Traffic Conditions ......................................................................91 5.2.1 Background Traffic Growth ............................................................91 5.2.2 Local Development ........................................................................91 5.2.3 Future Traffic Scenarios ................................................................92 Future Traffic Operations .....................................................................92 5.3.1 Performance Criteria......................................................................92 5.3.2 Transportation Analysis Results ....................................................93 5.3.3 Specific Issues...............................................................................95 5.3.4 Confirmation of Needs and Opportunities .....................................97 Street Network Strengthening Plan ......................................................98 5.4.1 Alternative Solutions ......................................................................98 5.4.2 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ................................................99 5.4.3 Preferred Solutions ......................................................................100 5.4.4 Summary of Recommendations ..................................................110 Road Classifications ...........................................................................112 5.5.1 Purpose of Road Classifications ..................................................112 5.5.2 Best Practices ..............................................................................112 5.5.3 Road Classification Framework ....................................................114 5.5.4 Recommended Road Reclassifications ........................................116 5.5.5 Recommended Design Parameters .............................................119 Assumption of Local Roads ...............................................................122 6.0 TMP SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES 123 Complete Streets ...............................................................................123 6.1.1 Why Complete Streets? ...............................................................124 Page | xx October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.1.2 Policy Review ..............................................................................124 6.1.3 Needs and Opportunities .............................................................126 6.1.4 Complete Streets Framework ......................................................127 6.1.5 Complete Streets Strategy ...........................................................128 6.1.6 Recommended Complete Streets Cross-Sections .......................131 6.1.7 Design Resources........................................................................136 6.1.8 Evaluation and Monitoring ...........................................................136 6.1.9 Recommendations .......................................................................136 Safety .................................................................................................137 6.2.1 Acknowledging Vision Zero .........................................................138 6.2.2 Safety Toolbox .............................................................................138 6.2.3 Local Safety Concerns .................................................................143 6.2.4 Recommendations .......................................................................145 Transportation Demand Management ................................................146 6.3.1 Recommendation .........................................................................146 Goods Movement ...............................................................................149 6.4.1 Goods Movement and Complete Streets .....................................149 6.4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................150 7.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT AND RIDESHARING STRATEGY 151 Existing Conditions and Operating Context ........................................151 7.1.1 Policy Context ..............................................................................151 7.1.2 Existing Services .........................................................................151 7.1.3 Previous Trials .............................................................................152 7.1.4 Funding ........................................................................................152 Needs, Opportunities and Challenges ................................................152 Examples from Other Smaller Municipalities .....................................153 Future Considerations and Upcoming Trials ......................................156 7.4.1 County of Lanark Corridor Loop ..................................................156 7.4.2 Intra-County Service to Ottawa ....................................................157 7.4.3 Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) .............................................157 7.4.4 Algonquin College Shuttle (Perth to Ottawa) ...............................158 7.4.5 Park and Rides ............................................................................158 Page | xxi October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 7.4.6 Facilities and Access ....................................................................158 7.4.7 Potential Costs .............................................................................158 Recommendations .............................................................................161 8.0 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 164 General Overview ...............................................................................164 8.1.1 Changes to Mobility .....................................................................164 8.1.2 Changes to Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................165 Planning for the Future ......................................................................165 8.2.1 Risks ............................................................................................165 8.2.2 Opportunities ...............................................................................166 Recommendations .............................................................................168 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND COST 170 Capital Investment ..............................................................................170 Active Transportation Network Implementation Plan .........................170 Street Network Implementation Plan..................................................172 9.3.1 Summary of Street Network Recommendations .........................172 Potential Funding Sources .................................................................175 9.4.1 Federal Funding ...........................................................................175 9.4.2 Provincial Funding .......................................................................175 9.4.3 Regional / Local Funding .............................................................176 TMP Monitoring .................................................................................176 TMP Updates .....................................................................................177 Summary of TMP Recommendations ................................................177 Page | xxii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - List of Tables Table 1: Existing Road Network Summary ......................................................................................................................... 30 Table 2: Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ..................................................... 34 Table 3: V/C Ratio Criteria for Intersection and Screenline Analysis .................................................................................. 34 Table 4: Screenline Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 5: Screenline Analysis Results .................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 6: Existing Conditions Synchro Analysis Results ...................................................................................................... 38 Table 7: Intersection Collision Counts (2015-2020) ........................................................................................................... 40 Table 8: 2016 Census Population Count, by Age Group .................................................................................................... 44 Table 9: 2016 Census Population Count, by Year .............................................................................................................. 45 Table 10: 2011 and 2016 Population, Employment and Housing Census Data .................................................................. 47 Table 11: 2020 Population, Employment and Housing CRBR Data .................................................................................... 47 Table 12: Workplace Location of CP Residents .................................................................................................................. 48 Table 13: Residence Location of CP Employees and Change from 2011 to 2016 .............................................................. 49 Table 14: Historical CP Mode Share Comparison ............................................................................................................... 51 Table 15: 2016 CP, Lanark, and Ontario Mode Share Comparison .................................................................................... 51 Table 16: Population Forecasts .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 17: Employment Forecasts ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 18: Evaluation of Alternative Strategies .................................................................................................................... 59 Table 19: Cycling Facility Type Design Considerations (OTM Book 18) ............................................................................. 77 Table 20: Approved Capital Projects................................................................................................................................... 90 Table 21: Local Residential Subdivisions............................................................................................................................ 91 Table 22: Future Screenline Performance Summary .......................................................................................................... 94 Table 23: Intersection Performance Results - Greatest to Lowest Needs ......................................................................... 95 Table 24: Summary of Road Network Needs/Opportunities ............................................................................................... 97 Table 25: Evaluation of Alternative Road Network Solutions ............................................................................................ 100 Table 26: Summary of Road Reclassifications ................................................................................................................. 117 Table 27: Local Streets Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 119 Table 28: Collector Streets Design Criteria....................................................................................................................... 120 Table 29: Arterial Streets Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 120 Table 30: TAC Rural Arterial Design Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 121 Table 31: McNeely Ave - Lanark TMP Design Criteria with Cycling Facilities .................................................................. 121 Table 32: Complete Streets Cross-Section Summary ...................................................................................................... 132 Table 33: Complete Streets Application on Cycling Priority Routes ................................................................................. 133 Table 34: TDM Toolbox .................................................................................................................................................... 147 Table 35: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates per Unit ................................................................................................. 160 Table 36: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Full Scale Operation)............................................................................ 161 Table 37: Active Transportation Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 .................................................... 171 Table 38: Street Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 (2021 CAD) ......................................................... 174 Page | xxiii October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - List of Figures Figure 1: The Town's Location within the County of Lanark ................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: TMP Project Schedule and Key Milestones ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Carleton Place 2013 Official Plan: Schedule B .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Highway District Secondary Plan: Schedule D .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Transit Commuter Plan (2017) ............................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 7: MTO Permit-Controlled Areas near Carleton Place ............................................................................................. 26 Figure 8: Highway 7 South Conceptual Development Plan ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 9: Highway District Secondary Plan, Schedule A .................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10: Preferred Central Bridge Design ....................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 11: Existing and Future Lane Designs at Highway 7 / Highway 15 / Franktown Rd ................................................ 32 Figure 12: Existing and Future Lane Designs at Highway 7 / McNeely Ave ....................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Carleton Place Collision Locations (2015-2020) ............................................................................................... 39 Figure 14: Highway 7/15 ESR Collision Locations (Highway 7/15 TESR, 2020) ................................................................. 41 Figure 15: Highway 7/McNeely Tim Horton's EV Charging Station .................................................................................... 43 Figure 16: 2016 Carleton Place Residents Work Location .................................................................................................. 49 Figure 17: 2016 Carleton Place Employees Residence Location ........................................................................................ 50 Figure 18: Development Applications Summary (2020) ................................................................................................... 54 Figure 19: Type D PXO across Lake Avenue at the OVRT .................................................................................................. 71 Figure 20: East side of Bridge St looking south at Mill St .................................................................................................. 75 Figure 21: MUP Crossing Intersection Approach ............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 22: Potential AT Bridge Location Assessment Map ................................................................................................. 82 Figure 23: Identified Corridor Constraints from Screenline Analysis .................................................................................. 93 Figure 24: Highway District Secondary Plan, Excerpt from Schedule C ............................................................................. 96 Figure 25: McNeely Ave Bridges over Mississippi River .................................................................................................. 101 Figure 26: McNeely Ave north of Canadian Tire (Facing North) ....................................................................................... 102 Figure 27: Townline Rd E, West of Industrial Ave (Facing West) ..................................................................................... 103 Figure 28: Townline Rd W, East of Joseph St (Facing East) ............................................................................................ 104 Figure 29: Townline Rd E, East of McNeely Ave (Facing East) ......................................................................................... 104 Figure 30: Townline Road E, at OVRT Crossing (Facing West) ........................................................................................ 105 Figure 31: Highway 7 South CDP - Conceptual Captain A Roy Brown Blvd Extension ................................................... 106 Figure 32: Highway 7/McNeely Intersection ..................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 33: Coleman/Franktown Intersection ..................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 34: Moore St Corridor (Between Lake Ave and OVRT Crossing) .......................................................................... 108 Figure 35: Conceptual Municipal Connection Road .......................................................................................................... 109 Figure 36: Example of Local Street that Accommodates all Road Users (McDiarmid Lane) ............................................ 123 Figure 37: Multi-modal Hierarchy for Complete Streets ................................................................................................... 126 Figure 38: Shared-use and Multi-use Pathway Cycling Treatments ................................................................................. 130 Figure 39: Suggested Shared Use Signage and Pavement Markings ........................................................................... 130 Figure 40: Bus Stop Infrastructure Example .................................................................................................................... 159 Page | xxiv October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - List of Maps Map 1: Existing Active Transportation Network ................................................................................................................. 17 Map 2: Existing Safe Cycling Routes .................................................................................................................................. 19 Map 3: Existing Road Network ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Map 4: Town Screenlines ................................................................................................................................................... 36 Map 5: Existing Parking Regulations .................................................................................................................................. 42 Map 6: Existing Land Use Designations ............................................................................................................................. 46 Map 7: Active Transportation Network Strengthening Plan ................................................................................................ 69 Map 8: Recommended Cycling Priority Routes .................................................................................................................. 74 Map 9: Street Network Strengthening Plan ...................................................................................................................... 111 Map 10: Recommended Road Classifications .................................................................................................................. 118 Map 11: Recommended Cross Sections - Collector Streets ............................................................................................ 134 Map 12: Recommended Cross Sections - Arterial Streets .............................................................................................. 135 Appendices Appendix A Consultation Summary Report Appendix B Supporting Traffic Analysis Documentation Appendix C Assumption of Local Roads Page | 1 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report represents the Town of Carleton Place's first Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which aims to ensure future transportation infrastructure meets the needs of current and future residents, visitors, and businesses. The development of this TMP comes at a strategic point in the Town's evolution. The Town of Carleton Place is one of nine local area municipalities in the County of Lanark located in eastern Ontario as shown in Figure 1. The Town is expecting significant growth in the coming years and decades because of its desirable small-town character, affordable housing, and the high quality of life it offers within a short distance from the City of Ottawa. The Carleton Place TMP was developed to set out a long-term planning framework to address the transportation challenges that come with growth: connecting new neighbourhoods and communities, balancing the needs of an aging and evolving population, and managing increased demand for crossing the Town's major geographic barriers, most notably the Mississippi River. Growth also presents transportation opportunities that the Town can capitalize upon including re- thinking the function of streets, transitioning to a Complete Streets approach where streets are planned and designed with consideration for all modes of travel, and becoming more efficient, sustainable, and safe. The TMP was also developed so that the Town is well-positioned to adapt to the macro-level changes occurring in the world. Employment and settlement patterns are changing, and technology is driving new forms of mobility. The way local residents move within and through their town is changing and the TMP will help develop infrastructure and strategies to adapt to these changes. What is a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) A Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a long-term, strategic planning document that sets policy direction and prioritizes infrastructure investment in the transportation system. A TMP takes a high-level approach to transportation planning and is closely integrated with land-use planning. It presents a bundle of actions and projects designed to be implemented over the longer term that collectively work towards achieving the vision of the study. It also analyses the entire transportation system, including infrastructure for all modes and the associated policies and programs. This report and the accompanying maps represent a blueprint that will help Council make decisions about transportation infrastructure investment over the coming years. Figure 1: The Town's Location within the County of Lanark Page | 2 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - This report is also an action plan that will help the Town focus its transportation policies and priorities towards achieving the objectives of this TMP and realizing the vision that has been set out. The Carleton Place TMP takes a multi-modal approach to maximize the effectiveness of each mode of travel. This approach best supports the Town's mobility, sustainability, and economic objectives in order to: - Effectively address anticipated growth; - Enhance community benefits; - Respond to changes in travel patterns and new transportation trends; - Coordinate the development of transportation networks, policies and programs; - Implement a Complete Streets approach to street design that considers the needs of drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders; - Encourage public participation in the decision-making process; and - Shift to a more financially and environmentally sustainable transportation system. How Was The TMP Developed? The TMP was developed through a collaborative process led by Parsons under the direction of Town staff and with significant input from stakeholders and the public. The study was structured into five key steps. Laying the Groundwork The first step to establishing the context for the TMP was comprised of a review of the existing transportation infrastructure, relevant plans and policies, and trends in population, employment and travel demand that are shaping the Town's future and driving the need for the TMP. This work is documented in Section 2.0. Zero in on the TMP Vision and Objectives The next step in developing the TMP was to establish the Town's vision. Where does Carleton Place see itself in 20 years? What are the main objectives? These questions are answered in Section 3.0. Identify Needs and Opportunities Once the existing conditions are understood and the vision has been set, the technical analysis begins with a high-level needs and opportunities assessment of all modes of transportation. This work is also documented in Section 3.0. Developing Recommendations To address the identified needs and opportunities, a collection of solutions was developed. These solutions were comprised of recommendations for modifications to the transportation networks, physical infrastructure as well as supporting strategies. Collectively, these represent a long-term plan and are detailed in Sections 4.0 through 8.0. Developing an Implementation Plan The final step of the TMP was to create an implementation plan. High-level cost estimates were developed for the recommended infrastructure projects. These projects were grouped based on relative need, cost considerations, and ease of implementation. Additionally, a list of actions for the Town to undertake was developed, integrating the recommendations made throughout this report. The implementation plan is documented in Section 9.0. Page | 3 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Environmental Assessment Process The TMP study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for a Master Plan (Approach #1), as described in Section A.2.7 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class EA Manual, under the Environmental Assessment Act. This process is shown in Figure 2. The Class Environmental Assessment process provides a transparent approach to planning and building municipal infrastructure. Public and stakeholder participation is mandatory throughout the process. Phases 1 and 2 involve identifying problems and opportunities and presenting alternative solutions. For the TMP, the major problems that needed to be addressed were planning for future growth, meeting the needs of current and future residents, and shifting the transportation system to a more multi-modal approach. Broad alternative approaches were developed in order to address these needs. They were evaluated and a preferred alternative was chosen. The preferred alternative led to the package of projects, policies and actions that are presented in this TMP. Individual projects recommended through this TMP that require an individual Environmental Assessment will be able to proceed to Phase 3, starting with alternative design concepts. Figure 2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Public and Stakeholder Engagement Input from stakeholders and the public is integral and mandated by the Environmental Assessment process. The outcomes of this study need to reflect the wants and desires of the community and key stakeholders as they will be directly impacted by this plan over the coming decades. Consultation efforts for the TMP focused on two streams: engaging the public and engaging stakeholders. Various forms of communication were utilized throughout the study to keep the public informed of progress and solicit feedback, including the Town website and social media. Documentation of this process has been provided in Appendix A. Online Consultation Early on in the TMP process, the Town created a TMP-dedicated webpage serving as a tool for public engagement. With the provincial restrictions for in-person gatherings due to COVID-19, this forum was essential so the public could learn about the study and provide feedback. Notices and display boards were posted to the platform, and links to feedback surveys were available directly from the website. In addition, the Town's Page | 4 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - own newsletter, the "CP Scoop" was utilized often as a notification and reminder of key milestones and events for subscribers. Engaging The Public Public engagement is essential in assessing community values. It provides the project team with the ability to identify issues and opportunities from varying perspectives. An overview of key public and stakeholder consultation milestones is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: TMP Project Schedule and Key Milestones The key events and milestones in the consultation process is described below. 1. An Online Community Survey [3 weeks in January 2021]: An online survey with an interactive mapping tool was made available through the TMP website to garner feedback about the current transportation system and key priorities, which helped shape the vision of the TMP. Over 300 persons responded to this anonymous 19 question survey ranging from personal travel choices, demographics to general thoughts/concerns. 2. An Interactive Mapping Tool [3 weeks in January 2021]: The online survey was supplemented by an online mapping site that allowed users to "pin" and describe transportation locations of concern within the Town; nearly 300 "pins" were received. 3. Two Public Information Centers (PICs) were held through a live presentation and question and answer period, as follows: a. Public Information Centre Meeting #1 [June 17, 2021]: This PIC introduced the study, provided an overview of needs and opportunities and a draft recommended active transportation and road network plan. b. Public Information Centre Meeting #2 [September 23, 2021]: This PIC presented a refined active transportation and road network plan based on input received, and presented the recommended TMP supporting strategies and policies. Page | 5 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Engaging Stakeholders A stakeholder Working Group was formed for the duration of the study with representatives from the County of Lanark, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, transportation providers (e.g. Lanark Transportation Association), institutional representatives (e.g. Carleton Place Hospital), and other important community groups/representatives. The group met three times over the course of the study, roughly aligning with each round of public engagement. Input from the Working Group contributed significantly to the development of the recommendations in this TMP. Study notices were also sent out to Indigenous communities to invite input and participation. A summary of the key discussion items from each working group meeting has been provided below: 1. Working Group Meeting #1 [February 16, 2021]: This meeting introduced the project and provided an opportunity to receive initial feedback, thoughts, and concerns about transportation within the Town. 2. Working Group Meeting #2 [June 9, 2021]: This meeting outlined the project progress to date and provided an opportunity to provide feedback. The key focus of this meeting was infrastructure recommendations, culminating in the draft Street and Active Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. 3. Working Group Meeting #3 [September 15, 2021]: This meeting focused on TMP supporting strategies, policies, implementation, and costs of the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. What We Heard Over the course of the study's engagement program, several themes were identified by members of the public, including the need to: - Improve safety and accessibility for all road users; - Address gaps in the pedestrian and cycling networks; - Improve the pedestrian and cycling environment; - Increase driver awareness of cyclists; - Provide more affordable alternatives to personal vehicles via transit or ridesharing; - Improve mobility on major streets and intersections; and - Improve winter maintenance practices. Page | 7 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a strategic plan that develops networks, policies, and programs to achieve the Town's transportation vision and associated goals over the next 20 years. This section presents a review of relevant plans and policies, existing transportation infrastructure, and population and employment trends to provide an understanding of the Town's existing and future transportation needs. Policy Context The TMP has been developed within the context of previous and ongoing land use and transportation planning initiatives undertaken by the Town of Carleton Place, County of Lanark and Provincial government ministries and agencies. The following sections detail the relevant provincial and local plans and policies that have informed the TMP. 2.1.1 Provincial Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The 2020 PPS is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on May 1, 2020. The 2020 PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The policy statement includes a range of policies related to building strong healthy communities, wise use and management of resources and protecting public health and safety. Policy 1.6.7.3 of the 2020 PPS states "as part of a multimodal transportation system, connectivity within and among transportation systems and modes should be maintained and, where possible, improved including connections which cross jurisdictional boundaries". Policy 1.6.7.4. states "a land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be promoted that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation." Policy 1.2.1 (d) states "a coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within municipalities, across lower, single and/or upper-tier municipal boundaries, and with other orders of government, agencies and boards including...infrastructure [and] multi modal transportation systems...." The 2020 PPS defines a Multi Modal Transportation System as one which "may include several forms of transportation such as automobiles, walking, trucks, cycling, buses, rapid transit, rail (such as commuter and freight), air and marine". #CycleON - MTO Cycling Strategy (2013) #CycleON: Ontario's Cycling Strategy (2013) is the province's 20-year plan designed to encourage the growth of cycling and improve the safety of people who cycle across the province. The Strategy's vision is to have cycling in Ontario recognized, respected, and valued as a core mode of transportation that provides individuals and communities with health, economic, environmental, social, and other benefits by 2033. Achieving the Strategy's vision requires a commitment from all partners for integrated action to: Design healthy, active, and prosperous communities; Improve cycling infrastructure; Make highways and streets safer; Promote cycling awareness and behavioral shifts; and Increase cycling tourism in Ontario. Page | 8 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The Province's Cycling Network within Carleton Place consists of existing off-road routes including the Ottawa Valley Rail Trail, and Trans Canada Trail east of Hooper St, and existing on-road routes on Coleman St between Park Ave and Hooper St. A proposed on-road route is shown on Coleman St between the Ottawa Valley Rail Trail and Park Ave, which have recently been constructed as an off-road cycling facility from the OVRT to east of Franktown. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) was enacted for the purpose of improving accessibility standards for Ontarians by 2025. The AODA outlines mandatory standards for private, public, and nonprofit sectors to remove barriers and ensure equitable access for all individuals with disabilities. Ontario Regulation 191/11 under the AODA establishes accessibility standards to apply when planning, designing, and building transportation facilities, which will be referenced as part of the TMP. Ontario Trails Strategy (2005) The Ontario Trails Strategy (2005) is a long-term plan that establishes strategic directions for planning, managing, promoting, and using trails in Ontario. The Strategy recognizes trails as key economic and tourism assets for Ontario communities that, in addition to their economic benefits, bring important health benefits and contribute to a high quality of life. With a vision to develop a world-class system of diversified trails, planned and used in an environmentally responsible manner, that enhances the health and prosperity of all Ontarians, the Strategy focuses on: Improving collaboration among stakeholders; Enhancing the sustainability of Ontario's trails; Enhancing the trail experience; Educating Ontarians about trails; and Fostering better health and a strong economy through trails. Transit Supportive Guidelines (2012) The Transit Supportive Guidelines (2012) prepared by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) promote transit-oriented planning and design throughout the province based on transit- friendly land use planning, urban design, and operational best practices. The aim is to assist practitioners in creating environments that are supportive of transit and develop services and programs to increase transit ridership in communities over time. The document is structured in to four key chapters with strategies applicable to all community scales including: Community-Wide Guidelines to create transit-supportive communities through a range of high-level planning strategies; District-Level and Site-Specific Guidelines detailing design guidelines relating to streets, buildings infrastructure, and unique uses; Transit Improvement Guidelines noting transit improvement programs, innovations and services that can help to increase transit ridership; and Implementation tools that can be used to achieve the principles and guidelines within the document. 2.1.2 Regional County of Lanark Sustainable Communities Official Plan (2012) The County of Lanark's Sustainable Communities Official Plan (SCOP) provides a vision for growth within a 20-year timeframe and is approved under the Planning Act. The SCOP provides an overview of County objectives "that are consistent with the Provincial Page | 9 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Policy Statement", whereas "more detailed and focused policies reflecting local priorities are in local Official Plans". The SCOP states "the County Plan and the local Official Plan [are to be read together] when considering new development or when moving towards the implementation of a policy or sustainable action plan". The County's vision in the SCOP is as follows: "County of Lanark is proud of its heritage and cherishes its small-town character, rural way of life, sense of community and distinctive natural features. We want to strengthen and diversify the economy effectively manage growth, protect the environment, preserve our heritage, and maintain our unique character for future generations". Section 4.3 of the OP outlines the County's Objective for transportation which is "for the development and maintenance of [transportation infrastructure] to ensure that the road network within the County will function in a cost effective, efficient and safe manner for the movement of people and goods throughout the County". County of Lanark Transportation Master Plan (2010) The County of Lanark's 2010 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identifies transportation needs over a 20-year timeline that was intended to fulfil requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for transportation projects. Goals of the TMP include balancing "current and future transportation standards and needs, as well as between public safety, the environment, business needs and aesthetic considerations." Key Strategies include Optimizing the Existing Transportation Network (access management, operational improvements, safety improvements, accessibility improvements), Managing Transportation Demand (cycling, flexible hours and telecommuting, ridesharing and ride sharing, transit and land use planning) and Expanding/Improving the Transportation Network through widening of roads and building of new roads. A range of transportation projects and strategies were identified from 2008 to beyond 2028. County of Lanark Accessibility Plan (2012) The County of Lanark's 2020 Accessibility Plan outlines policies and actions to improve opportunities for people with disabilities in Lanark. For the Built Environment, the plan notes "the AODA's built environment standard shall require accessibility features to be incorporated into newly constructed facilities and those that need significant renovations" and "County of Lanark shall continue to model best practices when undertaking accessibility retrofits of existing facilities". 2.1.3 Local Town of Carleton Place Official Plan (2013) The Town of Carleton Place Official Plan (OP) provides the policy framework that guides the land use decisions within the Town over the next 20 years. Future development in the Town must proceed in a manner which is in full conformity with the policies of the Town's OP. The Town's vision, as identified in the 2013 OP, is as follows: "The Town of Carleton Place is committed to maintain and celebrating its heritage through balanced and sustainable growth which will support a sense of place respectful of our unique historical, cultural and natural heritage where citizens can enjoy an unparalleled quality of life." Page | 10 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The 2013 OP's objectives related to transportation infrastructure are as follows: "That the road network within Carleton Place, regardless of which level of government is responsible, will function in a cost effective, efficient and safe manner for the movement of people and goods". An additional objective of the OP is to "incorporate pedestrian and cycling amenities into new development and public infrastructure projects where appropriate". Section 4.3.3.2. of the OP states "Arterial roads have the capacity to carry large traffic volumes, which link two or more communities or which function as an integral part of the provincial transportation network through linkages to Provincial Highways". This section of the OP states these roads "must maintain a high level of efficiency for the movement of vehicles while also providing opportunities for pedestrian pathway connections as well as commercial and industrial development which can benefit from high traffic volumes". Carleton Place is currently in the process of updating its 2013 OP. Town of Carleton Place Corporate Strategic Plan (2007) The goal of this strategy was to provide economic development directions in addition to being a broad-based community strategy. Elements of the strategy included: Economic and Tourism Development; Downtown Transformation; Development of the Creative Industries: Arts and Cultures; Heritage and History; Recreation and Natural Environment; and Seniors and Youth Development. While Transportation and Transit is not a theme of the Carleton Place Community Strategy, there was vocal support for publicly supported public transit, and it is fundamental to the successful implementation of several of the theme areas of this strategy. A community group was formed and has completed substantial work on identifying this need. An inter-urban transit service was thought of as the best chance of success, involving multiple municipalities in a cost-sharing arrangement. The strategy recommended that the Town determine the extent of demand and public support for a public transit system within the Town to assist in the mobility of seniors and youth, and to support downtown; and that the Town determine the extent of demand and public support for a public transit system to and from Ottawa to support seniors with medical appointments; attendance at educational institutions; and commuters working in Ottawa. Town of Carleton Place Active Transportation and Commuter Transit Plan - Interim Report (2017) The Town initiated the Active Transportation and Commuter Transit Plan to meet future demands for safe and convenient connections to local amenities and other communities as the Town's population grows. The main goals of this plan were to: - Develop strong Active Travel (AT) links so residents are encouraged to use AT to travel from their homes to their destination, particularly to schools, local businesses, recreational opportunities, and commuter transit stops. - Develop pleasant AT routes that encourage AT for leisure and physical fitness - Develop convenient AT routes to encourage AT (particularly cycling) tourists to visit the community and its local businesses. - Encourage commuters into Ottawa to utilize transit or car-pooling rather than personal automobiles. Page | 11 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - AT routes were designed to connect residents to their destination, particularly to schools, local businesses, recreational opportunities, and commuter transit stops. The system also provided pleasant AT routes that encouraged AT for leisure, physical fitness, and tourists (particularly cycling) to visit the community and its local businesses. To increase the accessibility of commuter transit, the plan recommended more commuter transit stops be designated and some unused town lots be converted to Park and ride lots for carpoolers and transit riders. According to the plan, transit stops are planned in the future at Captain A Roy Brown/McNeely Ave and along Cavanagh Rd. Town of Carleton Place Recreation, Parks and Cultural Master Plan (2009) The Town of Carleton Place developed a Culture, Parks and Recreation Master Plan "to identify community needs and priorities related to culture, parks and recreation and recommend how these needs should be addressed and services delivered in the next ten years." Some transportation relevant community themes identified in the 2009 Recreation Master Plan included: - Expansion of pathway and trail network; - Safe bike routes, cross country ski trails and sustainable snowmobile trails; - Maintain a healthy Mississippi River environment; - Public transportation was lacking and sidewalks inconsistent; and, - Need to consider trails and pedestrian access in any new development. The emphasis on transportation within the implementation plan focused on enabling the various cultural and recreational programs and services to reach their potential. As highlighted in the following key recommendations: "Recommendation #4 - That the Town of Carleton Place should consider the following initiatives to meet the needs of youth...establish a ski bus, coordinate transportation services for special events." "Recommendation #8 - That the Department work with Community Home Support to coordinate volunteer transportation services to recreation activities for seniors within the Town of Carleton Place." Town of Carleton Place Development Charges Background Study (2020) The Town of Carleton Place 2020 Development Charges Background Study (DC Study) is prepared to meet the requirements of the Development Charges Act, 1997 and recommends new Development Charges and policies to accommodate growth in the Town. Section 5.2.1 of the DC Study quantifies the Town's existing Roads and Related Services and notes the that "roads and related needs for the forecast period [2020-2038] identifies $12.63 million on gross capital projects" which include "road and bridge projects, additional vehicles and facility space and transportation master plans". Major transportation projects identified in the 2020 DC Study include the Cavanagh Rd Arterial Expansion from Hooper to Boundary, Bates Ave Extension, new sidewalks, and Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave Turning Lanes and Traffic Signals. Town of Carleton Place Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy This policy document was based off the County of Lanark Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy (TCSMP) from 2009. The main goal of the TCSMP is to have drivers behave safely and appropriately to the functional classification of the road and its surrounding land uses. The policy lays out the process for addressing traffic and traffic calming requests. Page | 12 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The first stop of this process involves identifying traffic problems or issues within the Town. Once current traffic data has been assembled, this data is analyzed and compared with specific thresholds. Following, appropriate mitigation factors for the specific complaint and location are considered. Key traffic calming measures include horizontal deflection, textured crosswalks, streetscaping, speed zones, pavement markings, speed watch signs, targeted enforcement, and safety and education programs. Measures that were not recommended included vertical deflection measures, chicanes, curb radius reductions, full closures, and diverters. Town of Carleton Place Streetscape Design Guideline The Town of Carleton Place has developed a streetscape design guideline for development of major roads and new streets in the Town. The Plan identifies a range of guidelines for County Roads, Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collector roads, and Local roads. The intent of the guidelines is to design streets which "reflect the character and identity of the existing neighbourhoods in Carleton Place." The guidelines are noted to be an illustrative guideline and tool, while detailed design will determine the "actual placement of streetscape components based on specific site conditions". General design guidelines for County and Major Arterials include 2 to 4 lanes, introduction of a roadway curb and median at specific locations. On street parking is not provided on County Roads but is considered at specific locations on Major Arterials. A Multi Use Pathway is desired on one-side for County Roads, whereas a sidewalk is desired on Major Roads and Arterials, Collectors and Local Roads. Boulevards and Street Trees are preferred on County Roads and Arterials and the use of Fences or Noise Attenuation Barrers are desired on all roads where backyards and sideyards of residential lots abut the roadway. Carleton Place Multi-Year Accessibility Plan (2016-2020) The Town's Multi-Year Plan outlines policies and actions to be taken to enhance opportunities for people with disabilities, working within the policies defined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Initiatives within this framework that will influence the TMP include the adoption of policies and infrastructure that support accessible transportation needs, such as the installation of audible signals at signalized crossings and sidewalk curb depressions at intersections. Although the Town is not required to make changes to existing public spaces, AODA standards would apply to the development of new public spaces or major changes to existing public spaces. Highway District Secondary Plan (2020) The Highway District Secondary Plan was prepared by the Town of Carleton Place as an amendment to the Official Plan, which was approved in 2021. The Secondary Plan provides guidance for future transportation infrastructure within developable lands that surround the Hwy 7 corridor between Hwy 15 and McNeely. Public and stakeholder feedback emphasized active transportation connectivity, particularly to the Hwy 7 commercial developments, while prioritizing safety at the Hwy 7 intersections. The key transportation elements within the secondary plan include the widening of Hwy 7, pedestrian facilities along the corridor, adhering to AODA standards at the main intersections. and pedestrian, cycling and recreational vehicle connections for travel within the Highway District and to/from the surrounding area. Page | 13 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Highway 7 South Conceptual Design Plan (2013) The Highway 7 South Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) was prepared by Novatech Consultants for the Town of Carleton Place in June 2013. The purpose of the CDP was to outline a development concept plan and urban design framework for the lands south of Highway 7 and to guide the future development of these lands. The lands were envisioned to include a mix of low to high-rise residential units, 13.94 hectares of employment land and 18.75 hectares of commercial development, all of which will be developed in three phases. Buildout of Phase 3 was anticipated by 2025. The portion of the CDP between Highway 15 and McNeely Ave was recently superseded by the Highway District Secondary Plan, which included new AT connections. Traffic Impact Studies The following traffic studies provided greater detail for growth areas in the Town: - Miller's Crossing - Phases 4 and 5 TIS (Novatech - 2019) - NuGlobe Coleman Street Subdivision TIS (McIntosh Perry - 2019) - Comfort Inn Hotel & Suites TIS (Novatech - 2018) - Bodnar Lands TIS (Stantec - 2017) - Jackson Ridge Subdivision TIS (Novatech - 2013) - Residential Development McNeely Ave TIS (CastleGlenn Consultants - 2012) These documents include land-use plans, population and/or employment projections for their specific sub-area, and expected traffic impacts and recommended mitigation based on proposed growth. These documents will be used to inform the assessment of future transportation needs in the Town of Carleton Place. Transportation System Overview The transportation system in Carleton Place is managed between the Province, County and Town, consisting of provincial highways, arterial, collector and local roads, and a limited number of private roads. 2.2.1 Active Transportation Active transportation (AT) refers to a mode of travel that requires physical activity such as walking and cycling, to travel from one location to another. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, such as sidewalks, pathways, trails, and bike lanes, are needed to accommodate AT as it allows pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely and efficiently between destinations. The Town has an active transportation network that is highlighted by several local trails, including the Trans Canada Trail and the recently constructed Ottawa Valley Recreational Trail (OVRT) in 2018, in addition to pathways, sidewalks and a limited on-road cycling facility. Active Transportation Policies Carleton Place Official Plan (2013) Conceptual future trails are provided in Schedule B of the 2013 OP, as shown in Figure 4. Since the 2013 OP was approved, several of the proposed expansion plans have been completed, such as the Ottawa Valley Recreational Trail (OVRT) that opened in 2018. Page | 14 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 4: Carleton Place 2013 Official Plan: Schedule B Carleton Place Active Transportation and Commuter Transit Plan - Interim Report (2017) The Interim Active Transportation and Commuter Transit plan outlined existing, proposed, and conceptual sidewalk and pathway modifications, including: - Construction of asphalt path along the OVRT; - The widening of sidewalks along Coleman St, Lake Ave, Townline Rd and High St; - Construction of the future Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd pathway; - Extension of the O-Kee-Lee trail to High St; - Extending the McNeely MUP north to the Mississippi Riverwalk Trail; and, - Providing pathway connections between different communities in Carleton Place. In recent years, many of the proposed modifications have been completed including: - Construction of asphalt path along the OVRT; - Construction of the future Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd pathway east of the McNeely roundabout; - Extension of the McNeely MUP north to the Mississippi Riverwalk Trail; and, - Widening of sidewalks on the north side of Lake Ave between Bridge St and Park Ave, and Coleman St between Bridge St and Queen St. Page | 15 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Highway District Secondary Plan (2020) Schedule D of the Highway District Secondary Plan outlines active transportation and recreational vehicle routes within the Highway District area and is provided in Figure 6. This Schedule also identifies a municipal role for snowmobiles/all- terrain vehicles (ATVs) to access Thruway/Pioneer Energy gas station/Tim Hortons from the OVRT. The Secondary Plan states that the trail north of Highway 7 is expected to follow a required drain, which includes a 30- metre setback in vicinity of the water course. The trail also continues north of Findlay Ave and connects to the OVRT, subject to further community consultation and determination of design details. Figure 5: Highway District Secondary Plan: Schedule D Streetscape Design Guideline The Streetscape Design Guide Conceptual design elements include pedestrian priority measures at crosswalks and intersections, in addition to recommendations for new community streetscapes that emphasized the importance of pedestrians in new communities. The guideline identified the following two types of walkways depending on the width of the right-of-way: - Concrete sidewalks with a width of 1.5 to 2.0 m - Multi-use meandering asphalt pathways with a width of 2.5 to 3.0 m (right-of-way should be 24.0 m) In addition, the guideline recommends that multi-use pathways be provided on a minimum of one side of County roads, but not along Town roadways (including major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and major local roads), whereas sidewalks would only be provided along Town roads and not along County roads. These guidelines no longer represent contemporary design standards, where direct multi-use pathway alignments are preferred, and are suitable facilities to accommodate cyclists along arterial and collector roadways. Page | 16 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Furthermore, any active transportation facilities within MTO permit control areas are subject to their approval and require a legal agreement with the MTO regarding winter control and maintenance, which would not be MTO's responsibility. Existing Sidewalks The Town has gradually expanded the sidewalk network over the years, reaching approximately 45km in total sidewalk length in 2020. The majority of the road network has a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, with some larger roadways having sidewalks on both sides (e.g. Townline, Bridge, Lake, Moore, Franktown, and some local roadways near the downtown). There are some exceptions however, where a sidewalk is not provided, including Hwy 7, McNeely (which is instead supplemented by a multi-use pathway), and some isolated pockets of local streets. The existing sidewalk network is illustrated in Map 1. Traffic signals, pedestrian crossovers (PXO) and stop signs are distributed throughout the Town's roads. All traffic lights have audible signals in addition to tactile paving to aid those who are visually impaired. In addition, priority sidewalks such as Bridge St and Townline Rd are maintained during the winter season to ensure year-round accessibility. Existing Trails The Town's trail system includes O-Kee-Lee, Riverside, Roy Brown Park, Mississippi Riverside Walk, Edmund St Trail, Curro Park, Trans Canada Trail, OVRT, Beckwith Trail and Rotary Centennial Trail, also illustrated in Map 1. A notable feature of the Mississippi Riverside Walk is its boardwalk. The OVRT is a 30km trail that connects Carleton Place to Arnprior and Smiths Falls. In Carleton Place, the OVRT also connects to the Trans Canada Trail. The OVRT is a part of the former 300km corridor belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway line and was recently repurposed in 2018 for recreational use. In addition to pedestrians and cyclists, the OVRT also accommodates other modes including ATVs, snowmobiles, and cross-country skiing. A vehicle parking lot with more than 50 parking spaces is available for OVRT users at 17 Coleman St. The OVRT crosses several roads within the Town of Carleton Place. As a result, new pedestrian crossings (PXOs) were installed in 2020 at Coleman St, Lake Ave, Albert St, Franklin St, and Rosamond St. In 2021, 2 new PXOs were installed at Moore St and Townline Rd. Snowmobile routes in Carleton Place, designated by the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), include Route 311 (OVRT) and Route 205 (Trans Canada Trail, east of Hooper St). Route 202 consists of McNeely Ave, from the OVRT (north of Townline Rd East) to the Trans-Canada Trail, via Lake Ave East and off-road routes east of Hooper Street. By- Law 19-92 states that motorized snow vehicles are prohibited between the hours of midnight and 7:00am. It is also noted that snowmobiles may require permits issued by the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), while ATVs may require permits issued by the Ottawa Valley ATV Club. Page | 18 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Existing Cycling Routes Key cycling routes within the Town are the OVRT, TransCanada Trail, Rotary Centennial Trail, and Beckwith Trail. The OVRT connects Carleton Place to Arnprior and Smiths Falls in addition to providing a connection to the Trans Canada Trail, the Trans Canada Trail provides a cycling connection to Ottawa, the Rotary Centennial Trail extends from Carleton Place to Appleton, and Beckwith Trail connects Carleton Place to Beckwith's recreation complex. There are currently no bike lanes constructed on municipal streets, with the exception of a short section of cycle tracks along the north side of Coleman St from the OVRT to roughly 100m east of Franktown Rd. County of Lanark Tourism has designated the following five (5) recreational cycling routes in the Town of Carleton Place: - Route 1: begins and ends at Centennial Park, this route travels north towards Quarry Rd and circles back via municipal roads. - Route 2: this route utilizes the bike paths along Coleman St, the Mississippi Riverwalk Trail, and the Riverside Trails, along with municipal roads to travel along the Mississippi river and cover different sections in Carleton Place. - Route 3: this route travel south from Riverside Park to 10th line and back to Riverside Park, using Mississippi Rd and Lake Park. - Route 4: this route starts on the Trans Canada Trail, just off of Cavanagh Rd past McNeely Ave, travelling east to Appleton Side Rd and looping at River Rd for a scenic route. - Route 5: another scenic route that travels east along Cavanagh Rd to Ashton Station Rd and loops around via McArton Rd and Appleton Side Rd. Internally, Carleton Place previously developed a "Safe Cycling Routes" initiative, which identified recommended cycling routes along certain municipal streets. The initial stage included promotion and raising awareness. The second stage of the initiative included plans to install new signage and larger maps throughout the Town, however this stage was not implemented as the required funding was not secured. The Town's designated Safe Cycling Routes are illustrated in Map 2. Anticipated Modifications Central Bridge Reconstruction (2021/2022) As part of the Central Bridge replacement project, additional work will be carried out for the reconstruction of Bridge St, Mill St, and Bell St. A summary of modifications to the AT network is provided below: - Existing pedestrian crossings are being redesigned to the latest standards for pedestrian crossovers (PXOs), including pedestrian push-buttons. There will be three PXOs, with an additional crossing location at the Emily St traffic signal. The existing Mill St crossing remains, a new crossing approximately 60m south of Emily St, and the existing Bridge St/Albert St crossing location is being relocated to the south leg of Bridge/College. - A sidewalk has been constructed on the south side of Mill St from the current terminus to the OVRT. - Sidewalks on Central Bridge will be 2.4m in width as opposed to 2.55m in width. - Although Bell St will be reconstructed, there will be no significant changes to sidewalk facilities on the street. The ESR also noted the reconstruction of the Gillies Bridge and Mill St Bridge, including: - At Gillies Bridge, a separate adjacent bridge will be constructed for pedestrians and cyclists. - The Mill St Bridge will be widened, and a sidewalk will be constructed on the south side. Page | 20 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - However, the Town currently has no plans to advance the Gillies Bridge and Mill St Bridge projects. Hwy 7/15 Environmental Assessment Study (2020) The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) completed a Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for improvements to the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 15. The key active transportation measures proposed in the design are summarized below: - Installation of sidewalks on: o Both the north and south sides of Hwy 7, between McNeely Ave and Hwy 15; o On the west side of Franktown Rd, between Hwy 7 and Findlay Ave; and, o On the west side of Hwy 15, between Hwy 7 and approximately 75m south of Hwy 7. - Removal of the channelized right-turns at the Hwy 7/Hwy 15/Franktown intersection and replacing them with standard right-turn design, which will reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, discourage high-speed right-turns, and improve blind spots. Existing Active Transportation Network Performance The 2016 Census Program of Statistics Canada (Census) showed AT modes made up 7% of total workplace related travel among residents of Carleton Place, with walking being 6% and cycling being 1%. Since these percentages refer to workplace related travel, a potentially higher percentage of AT travel may occur throughout the day for recreational use. The Online Community Survey revealed an even higher AT mode share among workplace trips, which may have been influenced by COVID-19. Respondents chose to walk for daily work/school trips approximately 20% of the time, while cycling was chosen roughly 5% of the time. For non-work-related trips, the walking mode choice increased to over 35%, while cycling remained approximately 5%. A more detailed discussion of existing transportation trends will be provided in Section 4.3. Intersection counts compiled within Carleton Place indicate that pedestrian and cyclist activity is limited during the morning and afternoon commuter peak hours, with most crosswalks having fewer than 10 pedestrians and 5 cyclists. The one notable exception was the south crosswalk at the intersection of McNeely/Patterson/Stonewater, where 51 pedestrians were counted during the afternoon peak hour. The increased pedestrian demand at this location is expected to be related to Arklan Community Public School, located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. It is also noteworthy that the Town and County are already aware of this high demand crossing based on the augmented school signage and pavement marking treatments at this location. Slightly higher pedestrian volumes were also observed at the north and west crosswalks of the intersection of Bridge/Lake, which was not unexpected as it is in close proximity to the Downtown District of Carleton Place. It is important to note that pedestrian and cycling data was not available during off-peak hours, where recreational users are more prominent. Existing cycling volumes have been provided in Appendix B-1. The project team completed a site visit on November 21, 2020, and recorded observations and conditions along portions of the AT network. The notable observations have been provided below with supporting illustrations. Page | 21 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Inadequate sidewalk width (less than 1.5m effective width) and conflicts with street infrastructure (e.g. streetlights). - Gaps in pedestrian network leading to higher risk walking situations. - Lack of adequate cycling- vehicle separation along main streets and refuges at intersections. - No buffer between motorized trail area and pathway area along OVRT. - Portions of OVRT have narrower pathway space, potentially inadequate for pedestrian and cycling shared use. Page | 22 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Lack of crossing treatments at OVRT crossings. - Town staff have confirmed that pedestrian crossovers (PXO) will be implemented on various existing crossings over the course of 2021. 2.2.2 Transit and Ridesharing The Town currently has limited transit service, which caters primarily to commuter and intra-County travel. There are no formal ridesharing or carpool services. Transit Policies There are no transit specific policies in the Town Official Plan. The Active Transportation and Commuter Transit Plan provided general guidance on the potential of transit within the Town, recommending additional commuter transit stops (at Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd, McNeely Ave and along Cavanagh Rd) and converting some unused town lots to Park and Ride lots for carpoolers and transit riders, as shown in Figure 7. However, the plan acknowledged that providing a competitive alterative to a personal vehicle was not realistic based on the costs and low demand for daily intra-County travel. Page | 23 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 6: Transit Commuter Plan (2017) Existing Transit Service Classic Alliance Motorcoach (a division of Leduc Bus Lines Ltd.) provides commuter service between Carleton Place, adjacent municipalities, and the City of Ottawa. Leduc Bus Lines operates the Routes 502 & 503 (between Almonte, Carleton Place and Perth), which have been temporarily suspended due to COVID. Route 538 previously provided (between Ottawa and Carleton Place), but has been discontinued due to low ridership. There are five bus stop locations within the Town: - Bridge/Townline intersection - Lake/Bridge intersection - Lake/Prince intersection - Carleton Place Arena - Coleman/Franktown intersection County of Lanark, operated by Lanark Transportation Association, has two intra-County bus services called "Ride the LT." The first is available to residents of Lanark Highlands, which operates between Perth and Carleton Place every Tuesday. The second is available to residents of Carleton Place. It is a registered service with two designated pickup locations in Carleton Place, Carambeck Community Page | 24 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Centre, and Carleton Place Town Hall, but also offers personalized pickup and drop-off for those with mobility issues. The service operates Wednesday. Both services were temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but have since resumed service. Greyhound service passes through the Town, with a pickup/drop-off area located off Hwy 7. This service has also been discontinued indefinitely resulting from COVID-19. Existing Ridesharing Services At this time, the Town does not have any official ridesharing or carpooling services, but there are informal arrangements that occur organically within the community. County of Lanark has a "Community Ride Share Connection" Facebook group that helps people connect and provides a platform to make rideshare arrangements. The County has four park and ride lots, the nearest to the Town is the Appleton Road Park and Ride located off Hwy 7 and Cemetery Side Road interchange. The primary users of this lot are commuters who carpool/rideshare to adjacent municipalities (e.g. the City of Ottawa). The Appleton Road Park and Ride has 30 parking spaces and 4 accessible spaces. Anticipated Modifications Neither the Town nor County have plans in place to expand transit service or facilities. The onset of COVID-19 has significantly reduced transit ridership, which may have a lingering effect on long-term expansion. For example, Leduc Bus Lines confirmed Route 538 would remain discontinued indefinitely, due to low ridership. Transit and Ridesharing Performance Based on data collected by the 2016 Census, roughly 3% of workplace related travel made by residents was by transit; approximately 6% were carpoolers/passengers. According to the Online Community Survey, approximately 10% of respondents used transit daily for work or school related trips, while less than 2% used them for non-work or school related trips. Passengers and ride-hailing services represented approximately 9% of work or school related trips, and less than 5% of non-work or school related trips. A more detailed discussion of existing transportation trends will be provided in Section 4.3. According to the Leduc Bus Lines, the daily transit ridership to the City of Ottawa was approximately 30 to 40 passengers (pre-COVID), which represents modest demand given the Town's size, but since that time ridership has dropped further to historically low levels for sustained transit service. Additionally, the Lanark Transportation Association and Town officials confirmed that the intra-County "Ride the LT" program has not been successful in attracting significant ridership. Despite the desire and positive feedback, ridership has been low even before the onset of COVID-19. It is uncertain what factors contributes to the low demand for this service, whether it is the routes, stop locations, schedule, comfort, quality, or external factors. 2.2.3 Roads Existing Roadway Policies The existing road or street 1 network in the Town of Carleton Place contains five (5) types of roads - Provincial Highway, Arterial roads, Collector roads, Local roads, and Private roads, as outlined as Schedule B to the Town's Official Plan, 1 The terms "roads" and "streets" are used interchangeably in this TMP, which refer to the elements in the corridor right-of-way and may include travel lanes, on-street parking, cycling facilities, boulevards, sidewalks, segregated cycling facilities, property frontage, etc. Page | 25 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - previously shown in Figure 4. The key policy statements, based on Section 4.3.3 of the Official Plan, related to each roadway type has been summarized below: - Provincial Highways - Provincial Highways which form an integral part of the road system in Carleton Place: Highway 7 and Highway 15. Their primary purpose is to move traffic efficiently and that access is only a minor purpose of the highway and only when no other option exists - Arterial Roads - intended to carry large traffic volumes, which link two or more communities or which function as an integral part of the provincial transportation network through linkages to Provincial highways. These roads must maintain a high level of efficiency for the movement of vehicles while also providing opportunities for pedestrian pathway connections as well as commercial and industrial development which can benefit from high traffic volumes. - Collector Roads - Access to collectors shall generally be minimized in order to ensure that the main function of the roadway as an efficient transportation artery is maintained. The minimum width of any collector right of way shall be 20m. - Local Roads - The minimum width of any street right of way shall be 20m. A reduced right of way standard may be accepted through the development review process provided that the right-of-way widths can accommodate all of the required servicing infrastructures for the proposed development and provided that the approval authority is satisfied that the reduced widths will not result in lower quality development. In all new developments a sidewalk on at least one side of the street shall be required as will linkages to the Town's pathway system. - Private Roads - New private roads or the extension of existing private roads is only permitted where such roads are required as part of a condominium plan which defines responsibility for the long-term maintenance of the private road, and must access public roads. This classification system is useful in identifying and explaining the role of different types of Town roads in terms of service function (i.e. degree of mobility) and land requirements. However, beyond these features there is limited guidance on specific design characteristics or elements within the proposed right-of-way, including but not limited to: - Urban and Rural Considerations - Sidewalks and Cycling Facilities - Vehicle Types - Composition of Traffic (i.e. % Heavy Trucks) - Design/Running Speed - Parking Provisions - Traffic Calming Potential - Traffic Volume Limits Streetscape Design Guide Although the Streetscape Design Guide does not address the engineering requirements of roadway elements, the guideline provides recommendations to ensure public spaces within the Town are designed to be safe, creating a pleasant travel corridor for all users, including pedestrian and cyclists. Key recommendations for different levels of roads include number of travel lanes, presence of on-street parking, presence of sidewalks and multi-use pathways, and crosswalk treatments. As previously mentioned, the guideline recommends that multi-use pathways be provided on a minimum of one side of County roads, but not along Town roads, whereas sidewalks would only be provided along Town Roads. The TMP highlights the historical preference of the Town towards multi-use pathways to accommodate cyclists. Page | 26 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy The current Town Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy presents information specific to conditions in Carleton Place, such as the goals for resolving traffic concerns, the applicability of various traffic calming devices to conditions in Carleton Place and the approach to implementing traffic calming or speed management measures. The TMP will review the Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy and consider potential modifications to proactively include traffic calming measures in the design of new roads. Commercial Vehicles The County of Lanark TMP noted that "all County roads are considered truck routes."2 This includes CR 29 (McNeely Ave) between Townline Rd E and Highway 7, and CR 7B (Townline Rd) from the east Town limit to the west Town limit. CR 29 does not have a reduced load restriction in springtime. Ministry of Transportation Permit Control Area The Ministry of Transportation is the approval authority for all transportation and development within their permit control are as defined by the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. The Ministry of Transportation regulates the permit-controlled area for buildings, structures, roads, entrances, and the placement of signs. All municipal plans and approvals must be consistent with provincial plans and provincial direction as per sections Part II, 1.6.8.3, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Permit-controlled areas near the Town are depicted in Figure 8. Figure 7: MTO Permit-Controlled Areas near Carleton Place Source: Google © 2 County of Lanark Transportation Master Plan, The County of Lanark. AECOM. 2010, Section 5.10. 57. Page | 27 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Highway 7 South Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) Figure 9 illustrates the Highway 7 South CDP lands, which overlaps with a portion of the Highway District Secondary Plan. Some elements of this plan have already been constructed including: - The extension of McNeely Ave to the southern Town limit. - The construction of a new roundabout at Captain A. Roy Brown/McNeely. - Construction of the new east-west road (Captain A. Roy Brown Boulevard) from just west of the McNeely roundabout, to the eastern limit of Miller's Crossing subdivision. Figure 8: Highway 7 South Conceptual Development Plan Highway 7/15 Transportation Environmental Study Report and Highway District Secondary Plan In June 2020, MTO completed a Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for improvements to Highway 7 and Highway 15 in the Town of Carleton Place; the findings were presented in a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR). In parallel to the TESR, MTO supported the Town in developing the Highway District Secondary Plan for lands surrounding the EA area. The preferred design for Highway 7 and Highway 15 improvements is described in more detail in Section 2.2.3.3. Figure 10 illustrates the boundary of the Secondary Plan, as well as some of the proposed future road network modifications. The Secondary Plan proposes two new private roads north of Highway 7 that connect to Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave respectively - with a potential future connection between the two roads that would make the entire corridor continuous. The plan was approved in 2021, and none of the local roadway elements (besides those that overlap with the Highway 7 South CDP) have been constructed. Page | 28 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 9: Highway District Secondary Plan, Schedule A During the public consultation process for the TMP, there was a collective desire among Town staff and Council to revisit the TESR to investigate the potential for a continuous municipal road connection, in place of two separate private road connections between McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd that would better accommodate all road users and future development plans north of Highway 7. On February 22, 2022, Town Council passed a motion to formally request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to investigate the traffic implications that will ultimately determine the future form and function of this future east-west connection. Existing Road Network An updated existing road network, with the key roadway classifications, has been provided in Map 3. A list of all the provincial highways, arterial roads and collector roads have been provided in Table 1 below, based on the 2013 OP. These roadway classifications will be revisited as part of this TMP. Page | 30 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 1: Existing Road Network Summary Road Classification Name Jurisdiction Posted Speed (km/h) 1 Length (km) 2 PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS Highway 7 Highway 15 MTO 60 50 2.5 1.5 ARTERIAL ROADS McNeely Ave (County Road 29) Townline Rd Franktown Rd/ Moore St Lanark Lanark CP 60 40 & 50 50 3.5 2.5 3 1.6 COLLECTOR ROADS Lake Ave Bridge St Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd Mississippi Rd Napoleon St High St Park Ave/Neelin St William St Ramsay Con 8 Princess St Albert St/Sussex St Victoria St Beckwith St Victoria St Arthur St (Lansdowne Ave to Napoleon St) Rosamund St/Gemmill St Mill St (Bridge St to Beckwith St) Allen St (Bridge St to Victoria St) CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP 40 & 50 50 4 50 & 60 50 50 50 50 50 4 60 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 2.7 1.7 3 1.6 3 1.3 1.2 3 1.2 1 1 0.5 3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Notes: CP = The Town of Carleton Place; Lanark = The County of Lanark; MTO = The Ministry of Transportation Ontario 1 - Posted speed limits within Town limits only. 2 - Approximate length, rounded to nearest 100m. 3 - Length up to Town Limit. 4 - No posted speed, set to By-law limit. Anticipated Modifications Central Bridge Reconstruction (2021/2022) Town of Carleton Place is planning to reconstruct the Central Bridge as well as reconstruction work on Bridge St, Mill St, and Bell St. Additional work has also been proposed on Gillies Bridge and Mill St Bridge, which the Town has decided not to advance at this time. The preferred Central Bridge design for the three is shown in Figure 11. The relevant roadway modifications planned within the current scope of work has been summarized as follows: - Central Bridge will feature 3.8m vehicular travel lanes. - Bridge St will undergo full reconstruction of pavement and sidewalk from Central Bridge to Lake Ave, with repainting of pavement markings and upgraded landscaping on both sides of the roadway. - Bell St will undergo reconstruction, however, there will not be any significant changes to the existing infrastructure. - Gillies Bridge will be converted to a one-way northbound only lane while the Central Bridge is being reconstructed in 2022. Page | 31 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The Central Bridge replacement was originally scheduled to begin in 2021, but was recently deferred to incorporate the reconstruction of Bell St in 2021. Therefore, construction of the Central Bridge and Bridge St is expected to begin in 2022. Figure 10: Preferred Central Bridge Design Highway 7/15 Transportation Environmental Study Report (<10 yrs) The Highway 7/15 TESR was completed by WSP in July 2020 to identify the required future improvements to the intersections of Hwy 7/Hwy 15 and Hwy 7/McNeely in order to accommodate future traffic volumes. Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrate existing conditions and future recommended plans at the two intersections, respectively. The recommended improvement plan includes the following key features: - Provide an additional WB through lane on Hwy 7 from 460 m east of McNeely to Hwy 15, - Provide an additional EB through lane on Hwy 7 from 360 m west of Hwy 15 to Hwy 15, - Provide an additional NB through lane on Hwy 15 from 850 m south of Hwy 7 to Hwy 7, - Provide an additional SB through lane on Franktown Rd from Alexander St (430m north of Hwy 7) to Hwy 7, - Provide dual left-turn lanes at the NB, SB, and WB movements of Hwy 7/Hwy 15, - Provide dual left-turn lanes at the NB and WB movements of Hwy 7/McNeely, and - Remove the channelized NB and WB right-turn lanes and provide controlled right-turn lanes. Both interim (2025) and ultimate (2040) plans follow similar recommendations listed above, with the exception of a centre median that will be implemented on Highway 7 between Highway 15 and McNeely in ultimate conditions. The detailed design for these works in underway and construction for interim option is anticipated to commence in 2024 or 2025 at the earliest, with construction for ultimate scenario commencing 3 to 5 years following implementation of interim plan. Page | 32 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 11: Existing and Future Lane Designs at Highway 7 / Highway 15 / Franktown Rd Figure 12: Existing and Future Lane Designs at Highway 7 / McNeely Ave Page | 33 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Development Related Modifications The intersection of Coleman/Lansdowne has been identified by the Town as a potential location for a future traffic signal due to congestion, anticipated adjacent development, and public concerns. This proposal will be evaluated in further detail in Section 5.0 of the TMP. Existing Road Network Performance Travel Behaviour The 2016 Census showed approximately 83% of total workplace related travel by Carleton Place residents was made by a personal vehicle. The Online Community Survey showed nearly 60% of respondents chose to drive for daily work/school trips, and roughly 50% for non-work-related trips. The differences in the recent online survey were likely based on the current COVID-19 related impacts and a larger proportion of retirees that responded to the survey, which reduced the effective labour force sample size. Driving is the most popular mode of travel for work trips. Therefore, the road network is expected to be well utilized during peak commuter periods. A more detailed discussion on existing transportation trends has been provided in Section 2.3.3. Evaluation Approach The existing road network performance was evaluated in two stages: - Screenline analysis - which evaluates a set of corridors for performance; and - Intersection capacity analysis - which evaluates individual intersection performance. The morning and afternoon peak hour periods were the chosen design periods for each evaluation. Evaluation Criteria According to the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Ed. (2010), traffic operations are evaluated based on a Level-of-Service (LOS) variable that ranges from LOS 'A', denoting low delays, to a LOS 'F', denoting congested traffic operations with high delays. Delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line at the intersection, which is then averaged to determine the total intersection delay. A secondary performance measure is to determine the maximum volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, which compares the traffic demand to theoretical capacity. A v/c ratio greater than 1.00 is a strong indication of congested conditions. Synchro 10 Trafficware is a software product that can evaluate both LOS and v/c ratio at an intersection, which will be used for this purpose. The Screenline analysis will focus only on v/c ratio, and will be evaluated using first principles and industry accepted roadway capacities. The LOS criteria, based on the Highway Capacity Manual (2010), for signalized and unsignalized intersections has been outlined in Table 2. It is important to note how the traffic delay thresholds differ between signalized and unsignalized intersections. Page | 34 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 2: Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay (seconds) Signalized Unsignalized (Stop Control or Roundabout) A <10 <10 B >10 and <20 >10 and <15 C >20 and <35 >15 and <25 D >35 and <55 >25 and <35 E >55 and <80 >35 and <50 F >80 >50 The v/c ratio criteria used in the evaluation for the intersection capacity analysis and screenline analysis has been summarized in Table 3. Table 3: V/C Ratio Criteria for Intersection and Screenline Analysis Criteria Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c) Acceptable 0 to 0.60 0.61 to 0.70 0.71 to 0.80 0.81 to 0.90 Periods of Congestion 0.91 to 1.00 Extended Periods of Congestion >1.00 Existing Traffic Volumes The existing study area network composed primarily of signalized intersections, with one unsignalized location. Turning movement counts and signal timing plans were requested at all locations. Highway 7 intersection counts were obtained from MTO, some counts were obtained from approved Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in support of local development, and the remainder were completed by Parsons in November 2020. Town staff confirmed that traffic volumes in Town were nearing pre-COVID levels, and supported the collection of existing traffic data in November 2020. The one exception was the Lansdowne/Coleman unsignalized intersection, which was specifically requested for an in-depth review of the intersection control and configuration. A Spring 2021 count was completed at this location to better capture pedestrian and cycling activity along the OVRT. The study area intersections and their associated count data have been listed below. - Highway 7 / McNeely Ave (signalized) - 2019 - Highway 7 / Highway 15 / Franktown Rd (signalized) - 2019 - Coleman St / Franktown Rd (signalized) - 2019 - Lake Ave / Bridge St (signalized) - 2020 - Bridge St / Townline Rd (signalized) - 2020 - McNeely Ave / Townline Rd (signalized) - 2020 - McNeely Ave / Stonewater Bay / Patterson Crescent (signalized) - 2012 - McNeely Ave / Lake Ave (signalized) - 2018 - McNeely Ave / Coleman St / Cavanagh Rd (signalized) - 2018 - McNeely Ave / Canadian Tire Access (signalized) - 2018 Page | 35 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - McNeely Ave / Home Depot Access (signalized) - 2018 - Lake Ave / Mississippi Rd (unsignalized) - 2017 - Lansdowne Ave / Moore St (signalized) - 2020 - Joseph St / Townline Rd (signalized) - 2021 - Emily St / Bridge St (signalized) - 2020 - Coleman St / Lansdowne Ave (unsignalized) - 2021 The traffic counts from 2012, were adjusted based on background growth to reflect existing traffic conditions more accurately. The resulting existing peak hour traffic volumes have been provided in Appendix B-1. Screenline Analysis A screenline is an imaginary line on a map that is meant to capture traffic volumes crossing the screenline from all relevant intersecting corridors. In this manner, roadway capacity and traffic demand are aggregated. This 'holistic' approach encourages decision-making that fully utilizes road network capacity; congestion along a particular corridor may not warrant modifications if underutilized capacity is available in a parallel corridor. Six general screenline locations were developed for the Town (four east/west, and two north/south screenlines), as shown in Map 4. The alignments were strategically chosen to reflect key travel 'checkpoints' within the Town. Three additional "spot screenlines" were developed specifically along the Townline Rd corridor, which has significant spacing constraints for an arterial road. A description of each Screenline has been provided in Table 4. Table 4: Screenline Descriptions Screenline Description 1 Represents travel N/S travel north of the Mississippi River, including Townline Rd E, Ramsay Conn, and Quarry Rd 2 Represents N/S travel across the Mississippi River, comprising 4 bridges: Central Bridge, Gilles Bridge, Mill St Bridge and McNeely Bridge 3 Represents N/S travel across Lake Ave, includes Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, Moore St, and McNeely Ave 4 Represents N/S travel north of Hwy 7, includes Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, Moore St, and McNeely Ave 5 Represents E/W travel west of the east Town limit, includes Cavanagh Rd and Hwy 7 (with future consideration for the Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd extension) 6 Represents E/W travel east of Moore/Franktown, includes Lake Ave, Coleman St, Hwy 7, and Captain A. Roy Brown. The capacity of each screenline was the sum of the capacities of viable alternative roadways (limited to collector roads, arterial roads, and provincial highways), using a "vehicle per hour per lane" (vphpl) unit, where a vehicle is defined as a passenger car. The 'vphpl' capacities were based on City of Ottawa capacities per roadway classification, but adapted for the Town. The roadway capacities have been summarized as follows: - Provincial Highway = 1,600 vphpl [Hwy 7 and 15] - Major Arterial = 900 vphpl [McNeely, Cavanagh, Townline E of Industrial, Hwy 7 within the Town Limits] - Minor Arterial/ Major Collector = 600 vphpl [Franktown/Moore, Townline W of Industrial, Lake, Coleman, Bridge] - Minor Collector = 300 vphpl [Mississippi, Napoleon] - Local = 120 vphpl [Mill] Page | 37 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The 'major' and 'minor' distinction was developed to reflect the variations in form and function of roadways that are under the same classification. For example, McNeely Ave, Franktown Rd are both arterial roads, but McNeely Ave would have a much higher traffic volume threshold since it does not have direct residential frontage, it has wider travel lanes, and a sizeable shoulder. Similarly, collector roads located residential subdivisions, such as Mississippi Rd and Napoleon St, experience less traffic and have a different context than those that also serve commercial/institutional traffic, such as sections of Lake Ave and Coleman St. The screenline analysis was also expanded to isolate sections of Townline Rd to better understand the impacts on this lone east-west connection through the Town north of the Mississippi River. The screenline demand was calculated from available traffic data, including intersection turning movement counts and 24-hr 'tube' counts. A summary of the screenline analysis results has been provided in Table 5. Table 5: Screenline Analysis Results Description Traffic Volumes (vph) One-Way Capacity (vphpl) v/c ratio AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB SL1 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic in/out at north end of Town 469 577 729 642 1,740 0.27 0.33 0.42 0.37 SL2 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic crossing the River 884 892 1,144 1,040 1,620 0.55 0.55 0.71 0.64 SL3 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic crossing Lake Ave 976 1,058 1,481 1,412 2,100 0.46 0.50 0.71 0.67 SL4 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic to/from Hwy 7 896 879 1,637 1,383 3,000 0.30 0.29 0.55 0.46 SL5 N/S SL, captures E/W traffic to/from the east Town limit 1,256 771 1,138 1,857 3,800 0.33 0.20 0.30 0.49 SL6 N/S SL, captures E/W traffic crossing Moore/Franktown 1,307 1,089 1,444 2,092 3,000 0.44 0.36 0.48 0.70 * E/W, Townline Road at Bridge St 339 245 260 396 600 0.57 0.41 0.43 0.66 ** E/W, Townline Road West of McNeely 362 299 342 467 1,800 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.26 *** E/W, Townline Road East of McNeely 312 342 464 467 900 0.35 0.38 0.52 0.52 Notes: vph = vehicles per hour; vphpl = vehicles per hour per lane 1. SL2: Despite its OP road classification, Mill St lane capacity was considered a local road based on geometric features. 2. SL3: Mississippi Rd and Napoleon volumes assumed 75% of north leg at respective Hwy 7 intersections. 3. SL5: Townline Rd excluded. 4. SL6: Capacity of Hwy 7 assumed to be similar to a Major Arterial through Town based on geometric features. The results from the screenline analysis confirmed that existing screenline capacity is adequate at all locations in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Page | 38 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Intersection Capacity Analysis The intersection capacity analysis for the existing study area intersections was completed in Synchro v10. The results have been summarized in Table 6, showing the average intersection delay and maximum v/c ratio at each intersection. Pedestrian and cyclist volumes have been included in the Synchro model, but were limited at most locations. Table 6: Existing Conditions Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio or Delay LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(C) 20.4(24.5) 0.74(0.85) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) C(D) 25.7(35.1) 0.55(0.88) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(B) 10.8(11.5) 0.44(0.59) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.9(25.6) 0.47(0.87) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(B) 12.4(19.2) 0.34(0.57) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(B) 12.9(20.0) 0.46(0.81) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(B) 10.8(14.9) 0.33(0.69) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 11.4(15.1) 0.42(0.53) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(B) 11.6(17.7) 0.59(0.74) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 6.2(7.1) 0.30(0.40) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 10.2(13.3) 0.25(0.43) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) B(C) 19.2(21.7) 0.57(0.66) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(B) 10.1(13.1) 0.23(0.33) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.0(2.1) 0.20(0.27) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) B(B) 17.5(19.2) 0.67(0.77) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 8.1(5.2) 0.36(0.16) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.3(4.8) 0.13(0.37) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 3.4(4.2) 0.04(0.06) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout The highest delays were experienced at the intersection of Hwy 7/McNeely, which was not unexpected based on the observed volume of traffic. The locations that experienced high levels of vehicular congestion aligned with feedback received during public consultation: - The Hwy 7/Hwy 15 and Hwy 7/McNeely intersections; - The commercial access intersections off McNeely; and, - Franktown/Coleman. It is noteworthy that the intersection of Hwy7/Townline Rd W is approaching an LOS D in the afternoon peak hour, suggesting additional capacity may be needed in the near future to support growth. Page | 39 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - All remaining intersections operated at a LOS 'C' or better with regards to their average delay and none of the intersections exceeded 0.90 v/c ratio. Overall, while congestion may occur at times, existing intersection operations within the Town during peak hour periods are acceptable. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis One of the specific issues the TMP was mandated to investigate was the need for traffic signals at the Lansdowne/Coleman intersection. A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed at this location based on a Spring 2021 traffic count and confirmed traffic signals are not warranted at this time. Collision History A six-year collision history data (2015-2020) was compiled by Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and provided at the request of the Town of Carleton Place. Based on the data provided, there was a total of 844 collisions that have occurred within the entire Town of Carleton Place, within the six-year collision history period. Excluding parking lot and private property collisions, the total number of reported collisions was 625. Of the 625 collisions, 206 (33%) occurred along McNeely Ave alone and 173 (28%) occurred on Highway 7. It is important to note that various details were missing from the collisions reports, such as the date or type of collision, and environmental conditions; therefore insights into the potential cause and severity of each collision were limited. A map illustrating the location and concentration of collisions within the Town over the six-year period is shown in Figure 14. The collisions were most frequently found along collector and arterial roadways (e.g. Hwy 7, McNeely, Bridge, Townline, Coleman etc.). Figure 13: Carleton Place Collision Locations (2015-2020) Page | 40 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The OPP also provided a table ranking the intersection locations where collisions have occurred most over the six-year period, as shown in Table 7. Table 7: Intersection Collision Counts (2015-2020) Intersection Collision Count Intersection Collision Count Highway 7 / McNeely 106 Townline / Joseph 5 Highway 7 / 15 57 Bridge / Emily 4 McNeely / Coleman 49 Bridge / Franklin 4 Franktown / Coleman 34 Coleman / McGregor 4 Bridge / Lake 14 Franktown / Findlay 4 Bridge / Townline 13 Franktown / Alexander 4 Coleman / Franktown 10 Moore / Lansdowne 4 Townline / McNeely 10 High / Joseph 4 Bridge / Allan 6 Beckwith / Albert 4 Bridge / College 6 Coleman / Park 5 TOTAL 347 The highest volume of collisions occurred at the Hwy 7/McNeely and Hwy 7/Hwy 15 intersections. This result was not unexpected based on the level of vehicular traffic, the number of uncontrolled driveway accesses nearby, and corresponding congestion observed during peak periods at these two locations. The proposed modifications outlined in the Highway 7/15 TESR are expected to help mitigate congestion and safety concerns once implemented. A higher collision frequency was also observed at the intersections of McNeely/Coleman and Coleman/Franktown. Due to the lack of information regarding collision type (e.g. rear-end, sideswipe etc.), weather, and road conditions, the probable cause for the collisions could not be confirmed. Based on geometric features at Coleman/Franktown intersection, a contributing factor may be that Coleman St from the west is skewed approaching the intersection combined with commercial entrances in close proximity to the intersection that create additional conflicts. The intersection of McNeely/Coleman is a large intersection with significant traffic volumes, which likely contributes to congestion related incidents. The Hwy 7/15 TESR also included a five-year review of vehicle collision data (from 2013-2017). Figure 15 identifies the approximate locations of the vehicle collisions that occurred along Highway 7 during that five-year period. Page | 41 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 14: Highway 7/15 ESR Collision Locations (Highway 7/15 TESR, 2020) The review confirmed 16 collisions occurred at Hwy 7/Hwy 15, with the majority resulting in property damage only and one being a fatal collision that occurred in December 2015 during slushy road conditions. At Hwy 7/McNeely, 24 collisions were recorded with the majority resulting in property damage only. At midblocks, approximately 48 collisions occurred, with the majority resulting in property damage only. It is noteworthy that the type of collisions recorded were primarily rear-end, turning movement and sideswipe collisions. A significant portion of the midblock collisions (particularly on Hwy 7 between Hwy 15/Franktown and McNeely) occurred as a result of turning movements in/out of the businesses on either side of Hwy 7. For this purpose, a centre median was recommended in the TESR along Highway 7 between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave at ultimate conditions, thereby effectively permitting only right-in/right-out movements for the business accesses. 2.2.4 Parking Parking Policies The Town's on-street parking supply is regulated through the Consolidated Traffic and Parking By-Law (Jan 7, 2021). In general, this document outlines the location of parking prohibitions and accessible parking spaces. One recent amendment to the By-law worth noting is the winter parking ban. In 2019, the Town adopted an overnight (12:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) on-street parking ban during the winter season (November 15 through to April 1) in order to allow for thorough and efficient winter road maintenance operations by the Town. In response, designated overnight parking areas were created, as shown in Map 5, to accommodate visitors of property owners that may have insufficient driveway/garage space for additional vehicles. The visiting vehicles are required to leave the parking areas by 11:00am the following day. Existing Parking Inventory On-street parking is permitted in various locations throughout the Town, also illustrated in Map 5. On-street parking is facilitated by either wider travel lanes that accommodate both parked and moving vehicles, or though designated parking spaces with pavement markings. Page | 43 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - On-street parking on local streets is generally unrestricted on at least one-side of the street. Collector and arterial streets within the Town permit on-street parking with different levels of restriction, including unrestricted, 2h maximum parking limit or less than 2h maximum parking limit. The Downtown District mostly permits a 2h maximum parking, while unrestricted parking on at least one side of the roadway is applicable elsewhere. However, it is noted that McNeely Ave, the majority of Townline Rd, Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd and Highway 7 do not permit on-street parking, mainly due to their function as arterial roads, or roads with higher speeds or higher volumes of traffic that are at odds with providing onstreet parking. Proposed Modifications As previously discussed, the Central Bridge Reconstruction project will include reconstruction of Bridge St between the Central Bridge and Lake Ave. This project will include a reduction of the existing on-street parking supply from 42 spaces to 35 spaces. At this time, there are no plans to add off-street parking or alter current prohibitions to the on- street parking supply in the surrounding area. However, the providing of on-street parking on new local streets will continue as part of ongoing developments. 2.2.5 Emerging Technology Electric Vehicle (EV) Stations The Town currently has two publicly accessible EV stations, one located at the Tim Hortons near Highway 7 (10418 Highway 7), and the second located at the Scotiabank parking lot downtown (85 Bridge St). The Tim Horton's EV station is operated by Ivy Charging Network, and consists of two Level 3 charging stations with 50 kW plugs, as shown in Figure 16. The Scotiabank EV station is operated by myEVroute, and consists of one Level 3 charging station with 30 kW plugs. A third EV station is privately operated within the Bean Chevrolet dealership (62 - 150 Hopper St). Figure 15: Highway 7/McNeely Tim Horton's EV Charging Station Page | 44 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Three additional EV stations are planned for installation in 2022, in partnership with Ontario Power Generation at the following locations: - Carleton Place Community Centre on Neelin St; - Police and Fire Headquarters on Coleman St; and - Carleton Place Public Library on Beckwith St. Growth and Transportation Trends The following sections will provide a general overview of population, employment, land uses and transportation trends in the Town of Carleton Place. The information provided was based on census data conducted by Statistics Canada, information provided by the Town of Carleton Place and County of Lanark, and the Online Community Survey. Statistics Canada completes their national surveys every five years. The most recent available census data sets were collected in 2016 and in 2011 prior to that. The latest data set was collected in the summer of 2021 and as such, was only made available after the majority of the TMP analysis was completed. However, the growth experienced since 2016 (up to 2021) is in keeping with the growth projections used in the TMP. 2.3.1 Current State The Town of Carleton Place is located approximately 25km from the west end of Stittsville, Ottawa. It has an area of approximately 9 square kilometers and a population of approximately 10,600 people in 20163. The Town is one of nine municipalities within the County of Lanark, which has a total population of approximately 68,700 people (2016). Carleton Place had the second highest population in County of Lanark compared to other municipalities, while being the smallest in terms of its land area. A total of 4,403 private households were reported in Carleton Place (2016), with an average total income of $83,000 per occupied household. As of 2016, the median age of residents in Carleton Place is approximately 42 years old, compared to the Ontario median age of approximately 41 years old and approximately 48 years old in County of Lanark. Carleton Place residents are generally younger by a significant margin. A comparison between the population of different age groups in Carleton Place and Ontario is shown in Table 8. Table 8: 2016 Census Population Count, by Age Group Age Groups Census Count Carleton Place Percentages Ontario Percentages Under 19 years 2,365 22% 2,847,685 21% 19 to 25 years 780 8% 1,246,510 9% 26 to 45 years 2,705 25% 3,461,825 26% 46 to 65 years 2,945 28% 3,792,790 28% Over 65 years 1,850 17% 2,099,685 16% Total 10,655 100% 13,448,495 100% 3 The 2021 Census information was only available after the majority of the TMP was completed. For reference, the Town of Carleton Place population in 2021 was 12,517. Page | 45 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Overall, the Town of Carleton Place had a similar population age distribution as the province in 2016. Approximately 30% of the Town was 25 years of age or under, nearly 55% were between the ages of 26 and 65, and 18% were at retirement age. This wide distribution of among age cohorts is an important finding, as there will be near equal representation amongst a wide range of age groups in the Town. Thus, inclusivity will be a critical theme moving forward; to develop transportation system balances the needs of all users. Key land uses within the Town include residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and environmental land uses. Map 6 outlines land use designations based on the 2013 OP, but has been updated to reflect changes since 2013, and the locations of key amenities (schools, health campus, etc.). The map also reflects the designated Official Plan districts: - Mississippi District: Areas surrounding the Mississippi River, which includes the Mississippi residential sector, Mississippi transitional sector, High Street residential sector, downtown district, and strategic property. - Highway District: Areas that are surrounding Highway 7 and lands on either side of McNeely Ave, up to Lake Ave. Most major commercial and retail businesses in Carleton Place are located along this stretch of McNeely Ave. The Highway District Secondary Plan and Hwy 7 South CDP encompass a large portion of this district. - Employment District: Health campus, business park campus and industrial campus. - Residential District: Primarily of residential areas, which makes up the most land area of all Carleton Place districts. Both the Highway District Secondary Plan and Hwy 7 South CDP include portions of this district. - Future Development District: This district included lands approximately 400m east of McNeely Ave, between Cavanagh Rd and Highway 7. These lands are reserved for major residential developments, although no proposal applications have been filed yet. 2.3.2 Historic Growth The Town's median age has increased since 2006, but the rate of increase slowed between 2011 and 2016, as shown in Table 9. This pattern is similar to County of Lanark and Ontario, which suggests younger cohorts are growing at a faster pace. Travel choices are a factor of age; children and youths are too young to drive, and young adults may not have access to a personal vehicle. Alternative modes typically have higher mode share for youths and young adults. Seniors may be more reliant on transit or ride-hailing services due to health or economic reasons, but they are typically more active in retirement. Table 9: 2016 Census Population Count, by Year Location Year 2006 2011 2016 Carleton Place 39.1 41.7 42.3 County of Lanark 43.1 46.2 48.2 Ontario 39.0 40.4 41.3 Carleton Place residents are typically younger than County of Lanark residents. Carleton Place has a balanced age distribution. < 25 years 30% 26 to 45 years 25% 46 to 65 years 28% > 65 years 17% Page | 47 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The 2006, 2011 and 2016 census statistics were used to reflect the growth percentage of the population, dwellings, and employment in Carleton Place, as shown in Table 10. Table 10: 2011 and 2016 Population, Employment and Housing Census Data 2006 2011 2016 Population 9,453 9,809 10,640 Employment1 4,645 4,780 5,175 Housing 3,832 4,246 4,403 1 - Includes employees that work at home and with no fixed workplace The Town's population and employment has experienced accelerated growth from 2006 to 2016, despite the rate of housing growth slowing between 2011 and 2016. Between 2011 and 2016, the population increased by 8.5% (831 residents) or approximately 1.7% per annum. During the same period, employment increased by 395 employees (8.3%), or 1.65% per annum. The number of new households increased by 157 (3.7%) or roughly 0.7% per year. Overall, the Town accounted for 27% of population growth, 66% of employment growth and 12% of housing growth, within the County of Lanark. The increase in housing between 2011 to 2016 primarily came from construction of the Carlgate Subdivision along Townline Rd, the Carleton Crossing between McNeely Ave and Park Ave, and a new residential community by Waterside Retirement Community. The increased employment may simply be related to the population growth increasing the labour force, as the rates were similar. According to the recent Comprehensive Review Background Report (CRBR)4, the Town has been averaging approximately 250 new builds per year between 2016 and 2020, whereas the County of Lanark TMP estimated an average of 75 units built annually.5 In 2018, the County of Lanark Council recognized the increased population growth throughout the County, and adjusted their growth projections in the SCOP including the Town of Carleton Place, as noted in Table 11. Further discussion on future growth projections will be provided in Section 4.4. It is worth noting that the population of Carleton Place based on the 2021 Census was approximately 12,500, which is slightly lower than the SCOP projection but still represented an increase of 17% over 2016. Therefore, the pace of population and employment growth in the Town is increasing, which will have profound implications on future traffic growth and the long-term transportation network. Table 11: 2020 Population, Employment and Housing CRBR Data 2020 Population 13,153 Employment 5,730 Housing 5,2611 1 - Housing estimated based on 2.5 average household size 4The Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place Staff Report. March 23, 2021. 1. 5County of Lanark TMP, The County of Lanark. AECOM 2010, Section 5.2.4. 36. Population and employment growth has been accelerating. Page | 48 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 2.3.3 Transportation Trends According to the 2016 Census, the total employed labour force of Carleton Place consists of approximately 5,170 employees. Work related transportation trends of the total employed labour force consisted of 4,180 employees traveling to a consistent work location, 645 employees with no fixed work location, 325 employees working from home and 20 employees working outside of Canada. More than 50% of employees travelled to a consistent or no fixed workplace (4,825 total) between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., which coincides with typical commuter peak periods. Among the 4,180 employees with a consistent work location, approximately 35% (1,435) were employed internally within Carleton Place, 14% (580) externally to another municipality within County of Lanark, 50% (2,115) outside of County of Lanark but within the province of Ontario, and roughly 1% (55) to a different province or territory in Canada. A large portion of this external to County travel was destined to the City of Ottawa, an approximate 30- to 60-minute commute. The majority of Carleton Place residents do not work in Carleton Place. Table 12 and Table 13 below summarizes workplace destinations (by municipality) based on the 2016 census commuter flows for employees residing in Carleton Place and employees living externally but employed in Carleton Place. The tables also provide the change in these statistics between 2006 and 2016. Table 12: Workplace Location of CP Residents CP Residents - Where they Work Municipality 2006 % 2011 % 2016 % Internal (CP) 1,420 38% 1,505 38% 1,435 35% Ottawa 1,925 51% 2,115 53% 2,035 50% Mississippi Mills 185 5% 145 4% 245 6% Smith's Falls 100 3% 100 2% 100 3% Gatineau 50 1% 50 1% 45 1% Perth 35 1% 45 1% 85 2% Beckwith - - - - 85 2% Tay Valley - - - - 30 1% Drummond/North Elmsley - - - - 20 0% Kingston - - - - 20 0% Arnprior 30 1% 20 1% - - Total 3,745 100% 3,980 100% 4,100 100% Note: A dash indicates a lack of 2011 census data. Overall, more local residents worked externally than in the Town. In 2016, approximately half of residents worked in Ottawa, while 35% work in the Town, and 15% work in surrounding municipalities and regions. These trends were fairly consistent with the employment distribution in both 2011 and 2006. Employment within the rural municipalities does appear to be increasing at the expense of the Town and City of Ottawa, albeit gradually. Page | 49 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 13: Residence Location of CP Employees and Change from 2011 to 2016 CP Employees - Where they are from Municipality 2006 % 2011 % 2016 % Internal (CP) 1,420 39% 1,505 39% 1,435 37% Ottawa 415 11% 440 11% 530 14% Mississippi Mills 550 15% 785 20% 520 13% Smith's Falls 35 1% 60 2% 85 2% Perth 50 1% 50 1% 30 1% Arnprior 50 1% 25 1% 20 0% Beckwith 615 17% 905 23% 690 18% Tay Valley 45 1% - - 60 1% Drummond/North Elmsley 170 5% - - 170 4% Lanark Highlands 240 6% - - 170 4% Montague 35 1% 70 2% 80 2% Rideau Lakes 20 1% 35 1% 65 2% McNab/Braeside 35 1% - - 25 1% Elizabethtown-Kitley - - - - 25 1% Total 3,680 100% 3,875 100% 3,905 100% Note: A dash indicates a lack of 2011 census data. From the employee origin perspective, Town workers were predominantly from Carleton Place at 37%, with 18% from Beckwith Township, 14% from Ottawa, 13% from Mississippi Mills and 18% from other surrounding municipalities and townships. The origin trends from 2011 to 2016 indicated an increased employment draw from Ottawa, Rideau Lake and Smiths Falls, whereas employment originating from Mississippi Mills and Beckwith Township notably decreased. Figure 16: 2016 Carleton Place Residents Work Location The City of Ottawa is the most common place of work among Carleton Place residents. Page | 50 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 17: 2016 Carleton Place Employees Residence Location Over half of employees that work in Carleton Place live in Carleton Place or the Township of Beckwith. The 2016 Census travel data for the resident labour force that travel to consistent or no fixed workplace (4,825 total), the main modes of commuting from home to work were 83% (3,990) auto driver (car, truck, van), 6% (295) auto passenger, 3% (135) public transit, 6% (315) walking, 1% (35) cycling and 1% (55) 'other'. The "home-to-work" trip distances by mode highlights the two extremes among the work locations among Carleton Place residents. Roughly 35% of residents' work trips were less than 3km in distance, while nearly 60% were over 30km. Driving was the dominant mode choice among all distances, but active transport figures prominently among short trips (over 20%). In contrast, the vast majority of long-distance trips (over 5 km) were made by vehicle, with a small portion by transit. When compared to historical mode share trends in the Town, as shown in Table 14, 2016 represented a shift in mode choice in Driving alone is the dominant commuting mode choice. Home to work trips are predominantly long-distance trips, made by an automobile. Auto Driver 83% Auto Passenger 6% Walking 6% Transit 3% Other (incl. Cycling) 2% < 2.9 km 34% 3 to 19.9 km 9% > 19.9 km 57% Page | 51 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - favour of personal vehicles, with a 5% increase in the auto driver mode share, which came directly at the expense of passengers and walking. This outcome may be attributed to the accelerated growth of the Town and a higher proportion of residents working externally in adjacent municipalities. Table 14: Historical CP Mode Share Comparison Mode Carleton Place Mode Shares by Year 2006 2011 2016 Auto Driver (Car, Truck, Van) 78% 78% 83% Auto Passenger 8% 8% 6% Public Transit 2% 3% 3% Walking 9% 9% 6% Cycling 1% 0% 1% Other 2% 2% 1% For the sake of comparison, mode share statistics were also obtained from the 2016 Census for each of County of Lanark and the province of Ontario, as shown in Table 15. Table 15: 2016 CP, Lanark, and Ontario Mode Share Comparison Mode Mode Share by Location Carleton Place County of Lanark Ontario Auto Driver (Car, Truck, Van) 83% 86% 72% Auto Passenger 6% 6% 6% Public Transit 3% 2% 15% Walking 6% 5% 5% Cycling 1% 0% 1% Other 1% 1% 1% The Carleton Place and County of Lanark residents have similar mode choice preferences, but have a higher auto-driver and lower transit use compared to the Province. This result was not unexpected given the limited transit infrastructure and service available in the County. The Town had a small but meaningful improvement in the walking mode share compared to the County and Province. Use of sustainable modes of travel is flat or dropping. Page | 52 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 2.3.4 Population and Employment Projections Population According to the 2016 Census data, the population of the Town of Carleton Place was 10,644. The CRBR noted the Town has been issuing approximately 250 building permits per year since 2016. This represents a rate of growth of approximately 24% from 2016 to 2020, which is over double the rate of growth between 2011 and 2016. Based on the new building permits, the Town's population in 2020 was estimated to be 13,153. According to the County's growth projections, the population is estimated to increase from 10,644 in 2016 to 20,964 by 2038, an increase of 97%. The Town's 2020 Development Charge Background Study forecasted population in Carleton Place will reach approximately 17,630 by 2030, 20,964 by 2038 (citing the County projection), and 23,640 by build-out (i.e. when all available land has been fully development) 6. A summary population forecasts has been provided in Table 16. Table 16: Population Forecasts Year/ Horizon Population Approx. Growth from 2016 (%) Source 2016 10,644 - 2016 Census 2020 13,153 1 24% CRBR (2021) 2030 17,630 66% Town DC Study (2020) 2038 20,960 97% SCOP - amendment #8 Build-out 23,640 122% Town EC Study (2020) Notes: 1 - The Town's population estimate from the 2021 Census was 12,571. Population growth is expected to continue at an accelerated rate. 6Table 3-1: Town of Carleton Place Residential Growth Forecast Summary. 3-3. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Page | 53 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Employment According to the Census, the working population in the Town excluding work at home and people with no fixed place of employment, was 4,180 persons in 2016. The 2020 Development Charges Study projects that the Town employment population, excluding work at home and people with no fixed place of employment, will reach approximately 5,730 by 2030, 6,560 by 2038 and 7,150 by buildout, as outlined in Table 17. The CRBR estimated the total working population of 5,724 persons in 2020 (between the ages of 15 and 64). Based on the projected increase in population of 7,811 to the year 2038 and the 2020 Activity Rate of 17%, the CRBR estimates that the Town will need an additional 1,328 jobs to meet the County's growth projections to 2038. The study found that the Town has sufficient vacant employment land to meet this demand. Table 17: Employment Forecasts Year/ Horizon Employment Approx. Growth from 2016 (%) Source 2016 4,180 - 2016 Census 2030 5,730 37% Town DC Study (2020) 2038 6,560 57% Town DC Study (2020) Build-out 7,150 71% Town DC Study (2020) Employment growth is expected to continue at a rapid pace. Development Applications Anticipated population and employment growth can be attributed to sizable land development applications that have been approved or are under construction. The general size and location of current development applications within the Town has been provided in Figure 18. The notable developments include: 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Page | 54 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 18: Development Applications Summary (2020) 7 - Bodnar Subdivision (draft approved): residential development with 582 units between Highway 7 and Lake Ave at the west end of Carleton Place; - Jackson Ridge Subdivision (under construction): residential development with 143 units along Morris St; - Millers Crossing Subdivision (under construction): residential development with 274 units east of McNeely Ave, south of McNeely/Home Depot intersection; - Carmichael Farm Subdivision (application filed): residential development with 323 units south of Highway 7, east of Rona Hardware Store; - Carleton Landing North (under construction): residential development with 554 units, bound by Hooper St, between Cavanagh Rd and Highway 7; - NuGlobe/Coleman Central Subdivision (under construction/proposed): residential development with 134 units south of Coleman St, east of Park Ave; and, - McNeely Landing - Uniform Urban Developments Ltd (application filed); - Potential expansions of various existing commercial blocks along McNeely Ave; - Municipal land for sale to be developed for industrial uses and create employment, located south of Highway 7 between Ottawa Valley Recreational Trail and Highway 15. It is noteworthy that the majority of ongoing development permits are concentrated in the southeastern area of Town along the Highway 7 corridor, which coincides with long-term plans outlined in the Highway District Secondary Plan and Highway 7 South CDP. Therefore, future traffic growth is expected to be more pronounced surrounding the Highway 7 and NcNeely intersection. 7 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1M4NyTtqKcu4pr_bKl9CwmbVqtiQ&ll=45.1370839691371%2C-76.1368582&z=14). Date Accessed: 2021-05-12. Page | 56 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 3.0 TMP STRATEGY Various transportation strategies are available to address the different needs and opportunities in the Town. In some cases, multiple strategies may be used to tackle a single problem, or a single strategy may be used for multiple problems. The following section outlines the development of a preferred transportation strategy, beginning with the establishment of a vision and set of objectives for the Carleton Place TMP. Transportation Vision And Objectives 3.1.1 Existing Policy Direction The 2013 Town of Carleton Place Official Plan's (OP) objectives related to transportation infrastructure are as follows: "That the road network within Carleton Place, regardless of which level of government is responsible, will function in a cost effective, efficient and safe manner for the movement of people and goods". An additional objective of the OP is to "incorporate pedestrian and cycling amenities into new development and public infrastructure projects where appropriate". The Town has since initiated a comprehensive review of the OP in early 2021, which will refine the Town vision and strategic direction moving forward. The County of Lanark Sustainable Communities Official Plan's (SCOP) objectives for transportation focused on "the development and maintenance of [transportation infrastructure] to ensure that the road network within the County will function in a cost effective, efficient, and safe manner for the movement of people and goods throughout the County. At the provincial level, the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (2020 PPS) emphasizes "a multimodal transportation system, connectivity within and among transportation systems and modes should be maintained and, where possible, improved including connections which cross jurisdictional boundaries". It also states "Planning authorities shall not permit development in planned corridors that could preclude or negatively affect the use of the corridor for the purpose(s) for which it was identified. New development proposed on adjacent lands to existing or planned corridors and transportation facilities should be compatible with, and supportive of, the long-term purposes of the corridor and should be designed to avoid, mitigate, or minimize negative impacts on and from the corridor and transportation facilities." Therefore, MTO has ultimate approving authority within their permit control area as defined by the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. 3.1.2 Vision and Objectives The following vision was developed based on existing policy documents, input from public and stakeholders, and consultation with Town staff. The Carleton Place TMP vision is as follows: "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." To support the Vision, the following TMP key objectives were developed: - Ensure an inclusive and accessible/barrier free environment for all users regardless of age, physical ability, and financial means. - Develop a truly multi-modal network that emphasizes sustainable travel modes in an effort to reduce pollution, enhance quality of life through active living, and reducing dependency on the automobile. Page | 57 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups. - Improve connectivity within the Town, overcome barriers between communities and amenities. - Maintain satisfactory mobility levels considering the Town's future growth. - Implement the plan in a fiscally sustainable and accountable manner. Needs and Opportunities The Town of Carleton Place is growing rapidly, travel patterns are changing, and transportation is evolving. The Town will need to respond to these driving forces in order to develop a transportation system that meets these future needs. Based on the review of existing conditions (Section 2.0) and feedback from key stakeholders and the public, the various transportation needs and opportunities were grouped into the following four categories: Improving Connectivity: Key connections to link the Town's neighbourhoods together and beyond to neighbouring municipalities are needed. This means addressing operational constraints on the road network, connecting growth areas, finding ways to reduce the impact of major barriers such as the Mississippi River, addressing sidewalk gaps, addressing missing links in the cycling infrastructure. - Complete gaps in the pedestrian and cycling network. - Plan for increased demand for alternative modes of travel. - Overcome mobility barriers between communities, businesses, and local amenities, thereby promoting accessibility and inclusivity. Improving Safety: There has been growing concerns regarding speeding on sensitive streets resulting in a desire to implement traffic calming in various locations. This is a common outcome in smaller municipalities that have more traditional road design standards, prioritizing motorists over other road users. A concerted effort is needed to modernize the design and maintenance of the transportation system, as well as the tools used to respond to local safety concerns in order to support evolving travel behaviour and prioritize safety of all road users. - Update existing policies to promote and enhance safety for all users regardless of physical or financial means. - Update existing municipal standards and maintenance practices to better suit a multi-modal transportation system. - Improve pedestrian crossing conditions at strategic locations within the Town. Supporting Sustainable Modes: Public demand is growing for travel by sustainable modes in reaction to concerns for the environmental impact of cars and trucks and their contributions to climate change, a recognition of the health benefits of active transportation and the cost savings associated with walking, cycling, or taking transit. This means connecting active transportation networks and making them safer, more comfortable, and more efficient; and exploring opportunities to enhance transit and ridesharing services, and seek to broaden existing partnerships with the County of Lanark and City of Ottawa to renew transit ridership. - Upgrade existing cycling and pedestrian facilities, and construct new facilities to encourage sustainable modes of travel, and improve overall community health. - Investigate opportunities to enhance transit service. - Investigate opportunities to expand ridesharing support services and facilities (e.g. carpooling). - Reduce single occupant vehicle travel to support climate change mitigation. Page | 58 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Improving System Performance: The challenge to improving system performance is multi-faceted. Performance of the transportation system can be measured using a variety of approaches. Traditionally, road networks are assessed by measuring the level of traffic congestion during peak periods. But performance can also be measured to show the cost- effectiveness of the system or the degree of overall accessibility of the transportation network. To be most effective, Carleton Place must address this need from a multi-modal perspective. - Address localized congestion through minor operational improvements to increase road network efficiency - Increase capacity of the road network at the corridor level to accommodate rapid population and employment growth - Improve universal accessibility of the transportation network - Improve the cost-effectiveness of the transportation network Alternative Solutions The following four alternative transportation solution strategies were identified for the TMP: 1. Do Nothing: maintain the current Town transportation network and policy/programming as is. This first alternative would not further expand roads under the Town's jurisdiction, but would assume that County and Provincial expansions proceed as planned (e.g. McNeely Ave and Hwy 7). This first alternative would see existing traffic congestion continue to worsen and would not encourage a shift to sustainable travel modes. 2. Status Quo: continue infrastructure expansion and upgrades at the Town's current pace without new or refined policies or programming. The second alternative represents the Town's current practice of ad-hoc incremental enhancements to the transportation network in support of local development. The lack of new policies and programming would limit the potential of sustainable travel modes. 3. Road Network Strategy: focus investments on road network vehicular capacity enhancements at key locations with no additional policies and programming for sustainable travel modes. The third alternative aims to address transportation needs and congestion by focusing on improving or expanding the existing road network. Existing active transportation policies would be maintained, but not expanded or enhanced. Roads in this alternative would not prioritize active travel facilities such as sidewalks and multi-use pathways, which does not incentivize users to shift to more sustainable modes of travel. 4. Sustainable Strategy: focus on strategic road network capacity enhancements, promote, and expand the active transportation network, and pursue new policy/programs to encourage sustainable transportation choices to reduce long-term auto demand. The fourth alternative takes a multi-modal approach, which includes road enhancements balanced with a strong emphasis on expanding the active transportation network and encouraging the use of sustainable modes through policy and investment. Evaluation of Alternatives The four alternative strategies were evaluated against criteria based on the established TMP Vision and Objectives at the outset of the study, and based on the estimated environmental impacts of the strategy.Each strategy was ranked based on a relative score, Low, Medium, High, related to how well each alternative supports the given criteria. The evaluation has been summarized in Table 18. Page | 59 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 18: Evaluation of Alternative Strategies TMP Objectives Do Nothing Status Quo Road Network Strategy Sustainable Strategy Support inclusivity and accessibility/ barrier free system Low - does not address existing barriers and challenges for more vulnerable users. Medium - current "as needed" approach will have limited potential benefit to inclusivity and accessibility. Low - expanding/ improving the road network in isolation does not support inclusivity or improve opportunities to those without access to a vehicle, and may potentially increase barriers to vulnerable users. High - a balanced approach that focuses on optimizing the existing system and directing resources to support more sustainable, affordable, and accessible modes is likely to have the highest benefit to vulnerable users. Support sustainable travel modes Low - does not encourage a shift to sustainable modes. Medium - current "as needed" approach will have limited influence to shift users to sustainable modes. Medium - A road network strategy approach generally encourages auto-use when considered in isolation. However, a road network strategy could include some active travel elements. High - a balanced approach improves competitiveness of sustainable modes, while still addressing localized congestion. Support safety for all road users Low - does not address existing safety concerns Medium - the Town currently addresses some safety concerns through its current approach (e.g. new pedestrian crossovers) Medium - expanding/improving the road network may reduce collision occurrences related to congestion High - a balanced approach has the highest potential to improve safety outcomes by addressing both active transportation and road network 'hot- spots' and refining or adding to policies that enhance safety Support financial sustainability High - only requires maintaining existing infrastructure High - future capital costs have already been planned Low - a road network expansion focus has a higher potential capital and maintenance costs Medium - a balanced approach between road and active travel networks has moderate potential capital and maintenance costs Support economic development Low - does not address existing congestion and network connectivity issues that would Medium - will address some of the existing network issues, but unlikely to accommodate High - will address several existing network issues through road network expansion and Medium - aims to address network issues through strategic network expansion/ Page | 60 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - restrict economic growth potential in the Town anticipated growth in the Town localized improvements improvements and reducing the reliance on personal vehicles Support mobility and efficient use of existing transportation system Low - does not address mobility issues, nor optimizes the existing infrastructure to manage future growth. Medium - will gradually enhance mobility through incremental improvements to the active transportation system Low - adds roadway capacity to the network rather than making use of existing capacity; limited improvements to the active transportation system or non-auto mobility High - new policies and programming will help shift travel demand to more sustainable modes, to make better use of existing infrastructure. Minimize negative impacts to natural environment High - maintaining existing network will reduce construction impacts to the natural environment Medium - planned improvements will have some negative impacts to the natural environment Low - focuses expansion of the road network will have the highest potential negative impact to the natural environment from construction Medium - a balanced network expansion approach will have some negative impacts to the natural environment Support climate change mitigation Low - does not help mitigate climate change impacts associated with auto- use and congestion. Medium - maintains status-quo, which has limited focus on sustainable travel modes and lower potential to mitigate climate change. Low - encourages auto-use through focused road network expansion, creating the highest potential negative impact on mitigating climate change. High - a balanced approach will have the greatest potential to mitigate climate change impacts by investing in sustainable travel modes to reduce congestion by reducing auto-use Minimize negative socio- economic and cultural impacts Low - while lack of network expansion does not impact property, culture, or heritage resources, it does not align with planning objectives nor public/ stakeholder feedback; significant negative impacts related to worsening network issues in the future Medium - localized improvements may have some impacts on property, culture, or heritage resources; partially aligns with planning objectives and public/ stakeholder feedback; some negative impacts related to congestion from future growth. Medium - road network expansion would address congestion, but potentially higher property, cultural and heritage resource impacts; increased auto-use may have negative impacts related to air and noise pollution; partially aligns with planning objectives nor public/ stakeholder feedback Medium - localized road network improvements may impact property, culture, or heritage resources; reduced air and noise pollution by encouraging sustainable travel and reducing auto-use; closely aligns with planning objectives and public/ stakeholder feedback. Page | 61 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Preferred Alternative Based on the evaluation of alternative strategies, the Sustainable Strategy (Alternative 4) is the preferred approach for the Town of Carleton Place TMP. This approach best aligns with the vision and objectives of the TMP, such as encouraging sustainable growth and provincial policy objectives to maintain and improve connectivity as part of a multimodal transportation system. It also supports the wide-ranging priorities heard during early public and stakeholder consultation, and provides the highest potential to adapt to changing and emerging transportation trends in the Town. The sustainable strategy strikes a balanced approached, addressing localized congestion and road network inefficiencies, with investments in infrastructure and policies that supports walking, cycling, transit, and mobility services (e.g. ride sharing and carpooling) to improve system performance by reallocating demand from personal vehicles to more sustainable modes. It also has other benefits to the community including: - Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental impacts. - Encouraging more active lifestyles, which has positive impacts on public health and preventing chronic disease. - Promoting equity for all road users by providing options for those who are mobility challenged or do not own or drive a car. Opportunities and Challenges in Preferred Approach 3.6.1 Active Transportation Early consultation with Town staff, stakeholders and the public highlighted the strong desire to expand the active transportation network throughout the Town; ensuring it is a focal point in the TMP. The Town already boasts a significant trail system, highlighted by the OVRT and Trans Canada Trail, which are predominantly used for recreational purposes. As a result, walking and cycling is a popular recreational activity (with notable mode share representation from the Online Community Survey), but active transportation for commuter means were not as popular according to the 2016 Census. Walking and cycling comprised 6% and 1% respectively of all home-based work trips among Town residents. However, the 2016 Census predates the completion of the OVRT, and it is noteworthy that the Online Community Survey revealed 20% of daily work trips among respondents were by walking, and 5% by cycling. While not fully representative of current transportation trends in the Town, it is certainly indicative that demand for active transportation options for all trip purposes is growing. Historically (in 2006 and 2011), Carleton Place had a higher walking mode share, nearly 10%, suggesting that there is room for growth. Additionally, approximately 35% of Town residents also work in the Town (Table 12), which would primarily constitute short trips less than 3km in distance. This proportion of short trips represents an excellent opportunity to increase active transportation use in the Town, as many short trips can be comfortably made using an active mode. The recent completion of the OVRT presents another tremendous opportunity to increase active transportation use through enhancing existing trails to encourage use, such as site furnishings (public art, shade shelters/canopy, bike racks), lighting, resting/viewing areas, etc. Relatively simple and cost-effective measures that improve the quality of experience along these facilities can have meaningful impacts on people's mode choice. It is also opportune that the Town is in the process of developing a Recreation Master Plan Update. A coordinated approach to trails and other cycling infrastructure will be necessary. Under the right circumstances, it may Page | 62 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - be possible to provide infrastructure that can serve the dual purpose of providing recreational opportunities while serving as useful transportation links. 3.6.2 Accessibility and Inclusivity Accessibility standards aim to ensure equal opportunity to activities and services for all people, including those with physical, sensory, and cognitive challenges. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) promotes the goal of making Ontario fully accessible for people with disabilities by 2025. Beyond physical challenges, a balanced approach to transportation planning encourages alternate modes of travel, which fosters inclusivity by enabling people with varied backgrounds and financial status to have a viable means to access local amenities and destinations without the need to own a personal vehicle. These important aspirations were evident in the Online Community Survey responses, and the TMP aims to advance the Town's progress towards inclusivity and accessibility and help remove barriers of travel for all users. 3.6.3 Safety and Traffic Calming One of the key messages heard during early public consultation process has been the removal and prevention of barriers to the physically and mobility challenged. This study provides an opportunity to identify areas to improve accessibility and inclusivity in the Town's transportation network. Additionally, there have been concerns with safety, specifically aggressive driving and speeding on certain streets and portions of the OVRT (where motorized vehicles are permitted) resulting in a desire to implement speed reductions, traffic calming measures or other localized modifications in select locations. One specific issue that has been raised by residents prior to this study, and re-affirmed during the recent public consultation process, is the south crossing at Patterson/McNeely, a key intersection between Arklan Public School and the Stonewater Bay community. Despite recent upgrades to signage and pavement markings, the crossing signal timing was considered too short for youths or elderly to cross, and the rural arterial design of McNeely result in higher vehicular speeds. Other notable safety concerns in the Town have included: - Crossing of major roadways - Hwy 7, Townline Rd, McNeely, and Bridge/Moore/Franktown; - Speeding and crossing conditions on Mississippi, Coleman, and Cavanagh associated with growing development; - Narrow streets and underpass concerns along Mill St; and, - OVRT crossings with municipal streets. Opportunities exist to explore potential traffic calming and speed management measures to address these concerns, such as curb extensions, raised median islands, textured crosswalks, streetscaping, signage and pavement markings. The Town may also consider the use of roundabouts as a measure to slow down traffic, improve pedestrian safety, while maintaining adequate traffic flow. 3.6.4 Transit and Ridesharing The desire among local residents and businesses to improve transit service dates back as far as the 2007 Corporate Strategic Plan. However, attempts to address this need over the years have not yielded the intended results. Historical census data confirmed transit ridership remained flat from 2006 to 2016, despite renewed emphasis towards inter- Page | 63 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - regional transit service outlined in the County of Lanark TMP. The County's more recent effort in developing the "Ride the LT" program has so far been ineffective in generating notable transit ridership growth, which may have reflected the limited service (between Carleton Place and Perth) or frequency (twice a month). The onset of COVID-19 has also temporarily suspended local transit service, which presents additional challenges to fund a new service that is competitive enough to have a meaningful impact on auto use. However, 2016 transportation trends show that the majority (65%) of residents' commute to the City of Ottawa and adjacent municipalities, and nearly 58% of work trips were over 20km in distance. Transit and ridesharing service improvements will be an important part of decreasing the number of single-occupant vehicle trips. Engaging with Lanark Transportation Association (LTA) and Ottawa's public transit operator (OC Transpo) will be a critical element towards improving transit service and increasing ridership in the Town. Specific needs to be explored include increasing the frequency of fixed-route services and improving connectivity to these services from existing and future growth areas. There was also positive feedback received in the Online Community Survey and participants in the first Working Group meeting for a Carleton Place specific (local) transit system. The potential for a local transit system will be investigated, but a comprehensive transit feasibility or affordability study is not within the scope of the TMP. 3.6.5 Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has an important role to play in reducing reliance on single-occupant vehicles, as well as reducing demand on the road network during peak-periods. A TDM strategy will be developed as part of the TMP that will focus on education and programming to encourage more sustainable mode use. 3.6.6 Road Network The road network in Carleton Place stands to benefit from minor improvements that will be supported by planned and proposed Provincial and County infrastructure projects. The road network recommendations will focus on the following: - Review planned Hwy 7 infrastructure improvements by MTO; - Review long-term corridor capacity along key streets, particularly the McNeely corridor and current plans for widening by the County of Lanark; - Review long-term operational needs at existing signalized intersections; - Landsdowne/Coleman intersection requirements - traffic signal warrant; - Connections to support growth areas and annexed land areas (e.g. Bodnar, NuGlobe, Miller's Crossing, and Carleton Landing North); and, - Mississippi River bridge crossing capacity. 3.6.7 Complete Streets One of the key themes heard during the early public and stakeholder engagement was the need for better cycling connections to/from the various trail networks in Town. These linkages require cyclists to share the road with vehicles, and in rare instances, pedestrians. The Carleton Place TMP presents an opportunity to improve safety for all road users while encouraging greater active transportation use by adopting a Complete Streets Approach. Complete streets are road corridors that are designed, operated, and maintained with all road users in mind. A Complete Streets policy encourages more equitable distribution of road space, increasing road safety for all road users and making the road network more inviting for active modes. A road network that is more inviting for active modes Page | 64 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - increases the probability that more trips will be made by active modes, contributing to a healthier community and more efficient use of the road network. 3.6.8 Road Design In order to recognize the variety of land use contexts and road functions in the Town, a new road class system will be developed to provide more detailed guidance on the function, design characteristics and land requirements of Carleton Place streets. Guidance is also needed for rural roads in areas that are evolving from rural to urban communities. In addition, parking has been identified as a key component of commercial use in the Town. Road design in the Town will consider parking requirements balanced with other needs or priorities, such as pedestrian and cycling facilities, and driveway space. Road design will provide guidance for parking on different types of roads, such as residential and commercial contexts. Page | 66 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 4.0 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY Active transportation provides the opportunity to travel in a safe, affordable, and efficient manner while incorporating physical activity into residents' daily lives and contributing to healthier lifestyles. A major focus of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is to promote sustainable and active transportation, including walking and cycling, through improvements to active transportation infrastructure. The TMP also provides an excellent opportunity to create a new and enhanced pedestrian and cycling culture that will support the Town's projected growth and encourage shifts to active travel. In general, there is definite scope and desire to improve the walking and cycling environment within Town, which was evident through feedback from the Online Community Survey (discussed in Section 2.2.1) and public consultation process, ranking as one of the top public priorities for the TMP. This section provides a vision for an Active Transportation (AT) Network Strengthening Plan, which aims to create a safe, efficient, and connected AT network that removes AT barriers that meets the Town's needs for the next 20+ years. Benefits of Active Transportation The sustainability of a community is closely related to the sustainability of its transportation system. At the community level, sustainable transportation typically centers around the use of "active" travel modes - walking, cycling and public transit. Modes such as walking, cycling, and transit support healthy communities; foster a sense of community; ensure that all residents are able to move around safely and efficiently regardless of age, income, or level of mobility; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on climate change; improve air quality; encourage economic development; and promote tourism. A summary of some of the key reasons for investing in active transportation infrastructure includes: - Public Health: walking and cycling increase physical activity and promote healthier communities, which reduces the strain on the health care system. - Livability: Active transportation encourages people to get outside, promote social interaction, and create a sense of community pride. People who commute by active modes are more likely to enjoy their commute. Source: https://www.aprso.org/. Accessed 2021-09-08. Page | 67 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Equity: active transportation serves all ages, income levels and mobility levels. Such modes enable an aging community to maintain independence and autonomy without the use of a vehicle and provide an affordable alternative to driving for those on a limited income. - Environment: Active transportation modes result in fewer emissions and fresher air. According to Environment Canada, road transportation accounts for roughly 20% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, a shift towards more sustainable modes is an important strategy for acting on climate change. - Economy and Tourism: Active modes of transportation are good for business and can help revitalize the downtown area. Studies have shown that pedestrian and bicycle tourists spend more money than tourists who arrive by car. - Efficient Infrastructure: Sustainable modes are also more efficient. For example, one vehicle parking space can accommodate 20 bicycles. A shift to alternative modes can relieve traffic congestion on existing roads and reduce the need for new or expanded road infrastructure. General Methodology The process for developing the pedestrian and cycling network included the following steps: - Reviewing the existing active transportation facilities within the Town, including sidewalks, multi-use pathways and trails; - Identifying key areas of interest including schools, community facilities, employment areas, recreational/tourism and commercial areas; - Identifying major barriers to accessibility (e.g. the Mississippi River); - Reviewing future growth plans, including growth in the south-eastern (south of the Highway Commercial District area) and north-western (south of Lake Ave W) areas of Town; - Review all information to identify existing and future gaps in the active transportation network and potential locations for new active transportation facilities; - Identify potential facility types based on vehicular volumes and speeds along the corridor, and the level of conflict between AT modes and vehicles; and - Investigate the feasibility of potential facilities based on a review of the available right-of-way, the surrounding street context, the availability of nearby active transportation facilities that may serve as alternative routes, and field investigations. The development of the AT Network Strengthening Plan also incorporated input received from public consultation and working group members, Town staff, previous studies including the Town's Interim Active Transportation and Trails Plan, and the general principles outlined in the 2011 "Active Transportation in Canada" guide published by Transport Canada. Key industry guidelines and practices were also referenced including the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities and OTM Book 15: Pedestrian Crossing Facilities. Regarding the existing pedestrian facilities within the Town, they consist of sidewalks, multi-use pathways (MUPs) and trails. In general, the sidewalk network within the Town provides relatively good pedestrian connectivity. However, there Page | 68 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - remain various gaps in the sidewalk network; in some cases there are short segments where the network connection is broken by the absence of sidewalks on either side of the street. For example, the MUP along McNeely Ave, which provides a key north-south cross-town pedestrian connection, is not continuous and requires pedestrians to cross the street at two locations to stay on the MUP or simply travel on the gravel shoulder. In addition, pedestrian facilities are not currently provided along Highway 7 (though sidewalks have been included among the Hwy 7/15 TESR recommendations), nor the industrial/business area along Hooper Street, which is a key destination within the Town. Furthermore, there are currently no opportunities for active users to cross the Mississippi River west of Bridge St. The Town's west end is a rapidly growing development area with several amenities and popular destinations, and the lack of a river crossing in this area limits pedestrian and cycling connectivity for many residents in Town. Providing a network of safe, comfortable, and connected cycling facilities is the best way to entice people to try cycling in the Town. Although the Town has designated "Safe Cycling Routes" to promote cycling, there are virtually no designated, continuous cycling facilities available on municipal streets, they are nearly exclusive to the recreational trail system. As such, cyclists face significant challenges cycling within the Town, particularly along high speed, and high- volume roadways (e.g. Townline Rd, Lake Ave and Cavanagh Rd), and many choose to cycle on sidewalks. AT Network Strengthening Plan Based on the methodology and considerations presented in the previous section, a recommended AT Network Strengthening Plan was developed for the Town and is illustrated in Map 7. The various elements of the plan are described in the forthcoming sub-sections. It is important to note that although the AT Network Strengthening proposed in this study is intended to guide the implementation of pedestrian and cycling facilities within the Town, the AT recommendations within this TMP are not intended to be inflexible and are expected to change as the Town grows and its needs evolve in the fullness of time. Pedestrians and Cyclists 4.4.1 Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks and MUPs are an integral part of the Town's infrastructure and provide vital connections within and between neighbourhoods and key destinations. They are also integral to the Town's livability and promoting health of its residents. To identify recommended pedestrian facilities, the existing sidewalk and MUP network was closely reviewed to identify gaps, particularly near schools, senior's residences, along commercial and industrial areas, within the downtown area, and along arterial and collector streets. Input received during the public consultation process was also incorporated. Page | 70 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Key pedestrian related recommendations in the AT Network Strengthening Plan include: - A new continuous MUP on both sides of McNeely Ave; - A new MUP along Townline Rd between the Town boundary and Joseph St, in addition to Townline Rd between Industrial and McNeely Ave; - A new MUP along Captain A. Roy Brown from the Town eastern boundary, across Highway 15 through development lands and connecting to the OVRT - as depicted in the Highway District Secondary Plan and Highway 7 South Conceptual Design Plan. - A new MUP along the future road connection north of Highway 7 connecting McNeely Ave and the OVRT, which is dependent on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR (requested by Town Council) and subject to MTO approval; - New sidewalks along Highway 7 within the Highway District Secondary Plan area (to be completed as part of the Highway 7 and Highway 15 Intersection Improvements project), in addition to linking of sidewalk gap along Franktown Rd north of Highway 7 (part of the Town's Asset Management Plan); - Linking of sidewalk gaps along the sidewalk network (primarily along local streets); - New sidewalk along Hooper St between Lake Ave E and Cavanagh Rd, and new sidewalk along Industrial Ave; - Widening of the McNeely Bridge over the Mississippi River to include a multi-use pathway on at least one side of the bridge; and - Long-term incremental Active Transportation improvements along Townline Rd, Lake Ave, Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, Mississippi Rd, and High St. The design of all new or reconstructed sidewalks and MUPs should follow the Complete Street design recommendations specified in this TMP (to be discussed in Section 6.1), in addition to AODA standards. Providing 1.8m of unobstructed sidewalk width is optimal and should be targeted in all contexts if possible. A width of 1.8m allows wheelchairs to comfortably pass each other or turn around anywhere on the route. If a 1.8m wide sidewalk is not feasible, a minimum unobstructed width of 1.5m is acceptable based on AODA standards. The AODA standard also states that a minimum 1.2m unobstructed width may be acceptable, but only in highly constrained locations and in short sections. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town consider an unobstructed sidewalk width of 1.8m for all new or reconstructed sidewalks, and adopt a minimum 1.5m unobstructed sidewalk width requirement. It is also recommended that the Town provide sidewalks on both sides of new or reconstructed collector and arterial streets, and at least one side of new or reconstructed local streets. It is noted that where sidewalk gaps are illustrated in Map 7, confirmation of whether sidewalk links are required on one or both sides of the street will be determined during the planning and design of each facility. However, as identified sidewalk gaps are mainly along local streets with existing sidewalks on one side only, it was assumed that sidewalk links will only be provided on one side of the street for costing purposes. Further discussion on MUP design requirements is provided in Section 4.4.5. Pedestrian Crossings The Highway Traffic Act indicates that pedestrian crossings fall into one of the following two categories: - Protected crossing - where vehicles must yield to pedestrians, and - Unprotected crossing - where pedestrians must yield to vehicles. Page | 71 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The standard practice for protected pedestrian crossing design is OTM Book 15: Pedestrian Crossing Facilities. Types of controlled pedestrian crossings include traffic control signals, pedestrian crossovers (PXOs), stop signs, all-way stop control, pedestrian signals, pedestrian grade separation, and crossing guards. Investigation of potential new PXO locations may be initiated by Town staff or through resident requests. OTM Book 15 provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for a PXO and a Pedestrian Crossover Selection Matrix to identify the appropriate type of PXO. It is recommended that the Town continue to implement the screening and selection processes identified in OTM Book 15 when considering requests for pedestrian crossings. All PXOs must also comply with AODA requirements. Figure 19: Type D PXO across Lake Avenue at the OVRT Recently, the Town has responded to the need for better pedestrian crossing safety with the installation of Type D PXOs at all OVRT crossings within the Town. The Type D PXOs include zebra crosswalks, signage, and a centre lane bollard (employed between spring and fall). Pedestrian crossing improvements are also planned on Bridge St as part of the Bridge St Reconstruction Project, which includes removal of unprotected courtesy crosswalks and implementation of new PXOs. It is recommended that the Town continue to be proactive in addressing pedestrian crossing needs, in addition to continuing to review locations identified through resident requests. The Town may also consider implementing a policy that prohibits the implementation of any future unprotected courtesy crosswalks to avoid pedestrian and driver confusion (at this point, the Town already has plans to remove all such unprotected crossings). Residents expressed their desire for additional pedestrian crossings along different Town roadways. Among these were the following crossing locations already addressed by the Town: - New protected pedestrian crossings on all OVRT street crossings. - Planned protected crossings along Bridge St (as part of Bridge St Reconstruction), and - Planned PXO at the intersection of Coleman St / Park St (to be installed in 2022). Additional crossing locations identified as areas of concern during public consultation included: - Beckwith St in front of the Carleton Place Library - Intersection of Lake Ave / Mississippi Rd in front of Carleton Place High School - Woodward St / Caldwell St near the Caldwell St Elementary School - Intersection of Nelson St / Franktown Rd - Intersection of Townline Rd / Industrial Ave - Bridge St / High St All-way stop control (AWSC) was also frequently requested by residents to address pedestrian crossing safety concerns at two-way stop intersections. However, an AWSC should not be implemented at intersections unless they meet the criteria and warrants specified in OTM Book 5: Regulatory Devices, which states that AWSC should only be considered based on traffic volumes, or at locations with a high collision frequency where other measures have been found to be inadequate. This is due to the fact that the implementation of "unwarranted" installations can result in driver frustration and compliance issues, which ultimately diminishes safety for all road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Page | 72 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 4.4.2 Pedestrian Accessibility Accessible Pedestrian Spaces One of the key objectives of the TMP is to provide equitable opportunities to access activities and services for all Town residents and visitors, including those with physical, sensory, and cognitive challenges. In fact, feedback received from the public showed that accessibility was among the top priorities for Town residents. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) promotes the goal of making Ontario accessible for people with disabilities by 2025. The Accessibility Standards for the Built Environment applies to pathways, trails, and sidewalks. The intent is to help remove barriers to buildings and outdoor spaces, and all new infrastructure projects in Ontario are required to incorporate the Accessibility of Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) standards. Sections 80.8 and 80.10 of the AODA provides the technical requirements for multi-use recreational trails, while Sections 80.21 to 80.31 provide the technical requirements for sidewalks. To improve accessible pedestrian spaces within the Town, the TMP recommends the following: - Street construction or re-construction work should include any necessary upgrades to ensure sidewalks and curbs meet provincial accessibility standards (AODA). Currently, some sidewalks within the Town do not meet the best practices for accessibility due to factors such as obstructions along the sidewalk (e.g. hydro poles) or lack of curb depressions at intersections. - Accessible pedestrian signals provide audio or tactile information about whether it is safe to cross at intersections or crosswalks. It is recommended that Accessible Pedestrian Signals be provided where new pedestrian signals are being installed or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced. - Accessibility enhancements such as benches and rest areas should be considered as the opportunities arise. - Official Plan Update should require that accessibility reviews be incorporated in re-development and new development projects. This includes ensuring that accessible connections are provided between the Town's active transportation facilities and all future development/re-development projects, including buildings, parks, and open spaces. Accessible On-Street Parking Section 80.39 of the AODA provides the technical requirements for on-street parking. The standard states that public sector organizations must consult with the public and people with disabilities before creating on-street parking spaces, in addition to consulting with their municipal accessibility advisory committees. The Town currently provides accessible on-street parking at key locations throughout the Town, including spaces at the following locations: - Bridge St (3 spaces dispersed along the east side of the street between Lake Ave and Mill St in the downtown) - Mill St (1 space in front of Town Hall) - George St (2 spaces in front of the Royal Canadian Legion) - Edmond St (2 spaces in front of St. James Church) - Hawthorne Ave (2 spaces in front of St. Mary's Church) Page | 73 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Although a review of current on-street accessible parking spaces did not identify a clear need for additional accessible on-street parking at this time, the Town may consider additional accessible on-street parking on the east side of Bridge Street within the downtown area. However, it is recommended that any additional accessible on-street parking spaces or changes to current spaces only occur after public consultation through the Town's Accessibility Advisory Committee. It is also noted that no comments were received regarding additional on-street accessible parking needs during the public consultation process. 4.4.3 Cycling Priority Routes The TMP identified Cycling Priority Routes within Town based on a review of key points of interest and desire lines within the community, the locations of future communities, inspired by the Town's own Safe Cycling Routes, and feedback received through the public consultation process. The recommended Cycling Priority Routes generally aim to provide continuous connectivity over longer distances for cycling across Town, in addition to access to key destinations and amenities. It also provides guidance to Town staff on where to focus resources and efforts to enhance the cycling environment for local residents, which informs future infrastructure priorities, e.g. the AT Network Strengthening Plan as well as management of the network, e.g. winter maintenance priorities. The recommended Cycling Priority Routes, illustrated in Map 8, include the following key east-west and north-south corridors within the Town: - Townline Rd (west Town limit to east Town limit) - Lake Ave (Boundary Rd to east Town limit) - Captain A Roy Brown Blvd - Cavanagh Rd (McNeely Ave to east Town Limit) - Coleman St (Lansdowne Ave to McNeely Ave) - Bridge St (Prime Pl to Bell St) - High St (Joseph St to Bridge St) - Mississippi Rd (Lake Ave W to south Town limit) - Bell St (Bridge St to Rosamond St) - Rosamund St (Mill St to Bell St) - Princess St (Mississippi River Walk Trail to Mill St) - Joseph St (Prime Pl to High St) - Prime Pl - Sarah St (Lake Ave to Arthur St - Arthur St (Sarah St to the Lansdowne Ave) - Stonewater Bay (McNeely Ave to Hackberry Tl) - Findlay Ave (OVRT to Franktown) - Future road connection north of Hwy 7 (subject to approval by MTO) It is important to note that Highway 7 and Highway 15 remain significant barriers for active transportation. MTO has ultimate approval on intersection and crossing treatments along these highways, which place a greater emphasis on the movement of vehicles over cyclists. The recommended Cycling Priority Routes were chosen to reflect optimal connections based on the objectives and priorities set by the Town. Collaboration between the Town, Beckwith Township and MTO will be needed to ensure active transportation needs are properly considered in proximity to provincial highways in the fullness of time. Page | 75 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 4.4.4 Special Downtown Cycling District (Bridge Street) Local residents expressed concerns about the level of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles along Bridge St within the Downtown District Area, between Lake Ave and the Central Bridge. While it is acknowledged the planned Bridge St renewal project will address various pedestrian and accessibility concerns, measures to improve cycling conditions were not explicitly incorporated. Bridge St is the spine road through the heart of the Town's downtown core, and has unique features not found elsewhere in Town - significant pedestrian traffic, on-street parking on the east side, pedestrian crossover (PXO) crossings, streetlighting, and utility poles, which all fit within limited right-of-way. These competing features result in very little space to accommodate cyclists, which is reason the Cycling Priority Route network identifies the OVRT as the preferred cycling route to cross the Mississippi River rather than direct cyclists across the Central Bridge. Figure 20: East side of Bridge St looking south at Mill St Building on the Downtown District Area as a special destination, despite not being included as a Cycling Priority Route, it is recommended that this section of Bridge St be designated as a "Special Cycling District." The Town may consider specialized measures to apply to Bridge St in the fullness of time (only to be enacted if deemed appropriate/applicable upon a design review) to support the local businesses, while acknowledging the unique character and vital role played by this venerable street: - Add a gateway feature on each end to inform travelers they are entering a special district, - Reduce the posted speed limit, - Add sharrow pavement markings, and - Implement "Share the Road" signage. 4.4.5 Cycling Facilities The selection of cycling facility types was based on guidance from the OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities, which is generally based on traffic volumes and speeds. The different cycling facility types fall into the following two categories: - On-road facilities - bike lanes, marked shared lanes and signed cycling routes on low-volume/low-speed; and Page | 76 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Off-road facilities - cycle tracks, multi-use pathways (MUPs) and trails. The type of cycling facilities recommended along each of the Cycling Priority Routes are illustrated in the AT Network Strengthening Plan (Map 7). Based on the input from Town Staff, public engagement, and consideration of the Town's context, the TMP recommends the implementation of off-road facilities, particularly MUPs and trails, as the preferred type of facilities for accommodating cyclists. Off-road facilities provide a higher level of comfort for less experienced cyclists as they provide separation from vehicles and generally appeal to more experienced cyclists as well. Therefore, the AT Network Strengthening Plan aims to accommodate cyclists through new MUPs and improvements to existing MUPs, as previously listed in Section 4.4.1 and depicted in Map 7. In addition, shared cycling routes are designated along low-volume and low-speed local streets and locations where significant right-of-way constraints exist. Shared cycling routes would require specialized signage, which may include "Share the Road" signs, in addition to the potential implementation of traffic calming measures (as discussed in Section 6.2.2.2). Shared bike routes are also recommended along the corridors below: - Joseph St (Prime Pl to Mississippi River), Prime Pl, - Bridge St (Prime Pl to Bell St), Bell St (Bridge St to Rosamond St), Princess St (Mississippi River Walk Trail to Mill St), Rosamund St (Mill St to Bell St). - John St (Frank St to street west limit), Frank St (Lake Ave to John St), Sarah St (Lake Ave to Coleman St) A description of the recommended cycling facility types is provided in Table 19. While the Town's preference to accommodate cyclists is through MUPs, OTM Book 18 acknowledges there are operating limits for MUPs at a certain volume threshold for pedestrians and cyclists, and once exceeded it is suggested they be separated. These suggests limits are: 8 - More than 20% of path users are pedestrians and total user volumes greater than 33 persons per hour per metre of path width, or - Less than 20% of path users are pedestrians but total user volumes are greater than 50 persons per hour per metre of path width. The Town should monitor MUPs along the Cycling Priority Routes to confirm if these pedestrian and cyclist volume thresholds are exceeded. To protect for this outcome, the Town should ensure new or reconstructed collector and arterial roads along Cycling Priority Routes plan for potential widening of MUPs or segregation of pedestrian and cycling facilities to accommodate increased demand in the future. Retrofits may include widening a 3.0m MUP to 4.0m or 5.0m, or converting a 3.0m MUP to a 2.0m unidirectional cycle-track (1.5m if constrained), a 1.5m sidewalk with a 0.6m tactile strip between them. 8 Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. June 2021. 70. Page | 77 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 19: Cycling Facility Type Design Considerations (OTM Book 18) Facility Type Description Application Example Illustration (source: OTM Book 18) Shared Bike Route Motorists and cyclists share the same travel lane. No reserved or separated space is provided for bicycles. As streets have low vehicle speeds and less traffic, they are more comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to ride. Treatments may include signage, pavement markings (e.g. sharrows, as shown in the illustration), lower speed limits and bicycle friendly traffic calming measures to slow down vehicles. The typical width for a shared cycling lane is 4.5 m. Low speed, low volume streets (local streets). Urban and rural areas. Multi-Use Path Physically separated from traffic vehicles and shared between people walking, cycling, and using other forms of active transportation, like wheelchairs, skateboards, in-line skating and scooters. MUPs are located in the boulevard of the roadway. MUPs may be uni-directional or bi- directional. The typical widths for a MUP are 2.0m for a one-way facility, and 3.0-4.0m m for a two-way facility. High-volume, high-speed streets (arterial and collector streets). Urban areas. The recommended cross-sections for the MUP and shared bicycle facilities follow the Complete Streets approach (presented in Section 6.1). However, it is important to highlight that all new cycling facilities within the Town should be designed in accordance with the June 2021 update to the OTM Book 18. For example, OTM Book 18 recommends that two-way in-boulevard shared-use pathways be a minimum of 3.0m. As such, it is recommended that any new two-way MUPs or trails be designed with a minimum width of 3.0m, where feasible. The guide also states that the MUP width may be reduced to 2.4 m over very short distances in constrained areas or in complex circumstances (e.g. avoiding of utility poles that may be costly to relocate, or in cases where a very low volume of users is anticipated). If a 2.4m MUP is implemented due to constraints, a sign should indicate that the path narrows. Page | 78 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - It is also recommended that the implementation of special signage, such as "Share the Road" and traffic calming measures be considered along the recommended cycling priority routes in order to lower vehicle speeds and improve cycling safety and comfort. Cycling crossing treatments along corridors and at intersections (an example depicted in Figure 21) should also adhere to OTM Book 18, if possible, to ensure they are safe and adequately prioritize cyclists as they navigate across an intersection or corridor. Figure 21: MUP Crossing Intersection Approach 9 4.4.6 Cycling End-User Facilities Since each walking or cycling trip ends at a destination, it is important to consider the needs of users once they reach their destination. A cyclist requires safe and convenient bike storage and may also need shower or change room facilities. Long-term storage options (offering covered/secure parking such as bike lockers) are important at workplaces and schools, while short-term options (bike racks, post-and-rings) may be used for commercial areas. To ensure an appropriate amount of short- and long-term bicycle parking, it is recommended that requirements for end-of-trip facilities be defined in the Zoning By-law. Such requirements should address both the type and amount of bicycle parking to be 9 Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. June 2021. Figure 6.40. 162. Source: Insideottawavalley.com. 2018. Page | 79 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - provided as a function of the development type, size, and location. Bicycle racks at key destinations will improve the awareness of cycling as a viable mode of travel and may help reduce vehicular trips to and from these destinations. The following enhancements to cycling end-user facilities are recommended: - Implement new bicycle racks at strategic locations, including downtown and commercial areas. It is noted that there are currently approximately 20 bike racks throughout Town. - Establish bicycle parking requirements for new developments, as well as end user facilities for commuter cyclists such as showers and bike lockers at larger businesses, as part of the Zoning By-law. 4.4.7 Long-Term Incremental Projects As some of the roadways that were identified as desired Cycling Priority Routes were found to have notable challenges and complexities to achieve implementation, the AT Network Strengthening Plan (Map 7) identifies these corridors as locations for long-term incremental improvements to be implemented as part of the capital renewal or asset management program in the fullness of time. For example, although the Townline Rd and Lake Ave corridors are important east-west cycling desire lines, the presence of frequent driveways and limited right-of-way poses a challenge to the implementation of a MUP or any other segregated cycling facility along these corridors. Although bicycle lanes are generally preferred over MUPs along corridors with a high density of driveways as cyclist visibility is greater, the most appropriate type of cycling facility along these corridors will be selected at the time of project design and implementation. The long-term incremental active transportation project corridors are listed below: - Townline Rd E between Joseph and Industrial - Lake Ave - Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd between the OVRT and McNeely Ave - High St between Joseph St and Bridge St - Mississippi Rd Active Transportation on Bridges One of the specific directives identified by the Town was to investigate opportunities for a new active transportation crossing over the Mississippi River. The TMP is based upon a Sustainable Strategy, as presented in Section 3.0. This approach was proven to best align with the TMP vision and objectives, which epitomizes a multi-modal transportation system, a greater focus on infrastructure and policies that support active transportation (i.e. walking, cycling, and rolling) in order to promote a healthier, more integrated, and environmentally conscious community. Expanding the active transportation network is a critical component to this strategy. Section 3.6.1 described the opportunities for active transportation investment within the Town, which included: - Strong support for expanding active transportation infrastructure within the Town based on the public consultation feedback; - Despite active transportation modes were not highly utilized for work related travel according to the 2016 Census and the TMP Online Community Survey, the population and employment statistics reveal a significant portion of Town residents also work in the Town; and Page | 80 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - A significant investment was made into the OVRT, which provides a strong foundation for the active transportation network from which the Town may build upon. The Mississippi River presents a significant barrier for active transportation users that wish to travel between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Town. Three crossing points are currently available, the Central Bridge, Mill St and Gilles Bridges, and McNeely Ave bridges. Only the Central Bridge has dedicated (meaning separated from vehicle traffic) pedestrian facilities on both sides. The McNeely Ave bridges only have sidewalk on one side (with only a narrow shoulder on the other side) and it is not continuous; there is a gap between them across Grape Island. None of the bridges currently have dedicated cycling facilities, as previously shown in Map 1. Based on the above, enhancing active transportation crossings over the Mississippi River was considered in keeping with the long-term vision and objectives of the TMP. 4.5.1 Potential Bridge Expansion Options The TMP investigated the merits of different active transportation River crossing options in the Town, including: - Central Bridge: The ongoing Central Bridge reconstruction maintains the existing sidewalk facilities on both sides of the bridge, but does not incorporate segregated cycling facilities. The Central Bridge is a focal vehicle crossing through the Town's downtown area, and with the recent construction of the OVRT, a cycling crossing over the Central Bridge was not deemed critical to the Town's long-term active transportation network. - Mill St Bridge and Gilles Bridge: The Central Bridge Environmental Study Report included future plans for pedestrian and cycling enhancements at these bridges: o Gillies Bridge: A separate adjacent bridge constructed for pedestrians and cyclists. o Mill St Bridge: Widening of the bridge deck and a new sidewalk constructed on the south side. Despite the Environmental Assessments having already been completed, the Town chose not to advance these projects. Similar to the Central Bridge, the OVRT provides a segregated pedestrian and cycling crossing nearby, but these enhancements would provide redundancy and resiliency in the active transportation network. It is recommended the Town review the need for these enhancements in future TMP updates, and consider them long-term enhancements at their next life-cycle renewal. - Widening of the McNeely bridge crossing: It is recommended the Town widen both McNeely Bridge structure to accommodate pedestrian and cyclists when the bridge is ready for rehabilitation or integrated with potential widening of vehicle travel lanes. In the interim, "Sharrows" and signage may be used along the bridge to increase driver awareness of cyclists. The Town will need to work in partnership with the County for implementing active transportation enhancements along this bridge, as McNeely Ave is within the County's jurisdiction. - New Active Transportation (AT) Bridge located west of Bridge St: The TMP investigated potential locations for a new active transportation bridge, where key factors were considered in identifying suitable locations and alignment options, including: o Municipal Property - locate the AT bridge on municipal lands to maximize flexibility and reduce costs; o Minimize impact on trees - the location of the AT bridge must prioritize the conservation of trees; Page | 81 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - o Improve access to Destinations - the AT bridge must demonstrate improved active transportation access to key destinations, such as local amenities, institutions, public facilities, and green spaces; o Equitable access - locate the AT bridge to prioritize underserved areas of the Town; o Reduce Costs - identify a location and alignment that will minimize costs, such as reducing the crossing distance/span, avoid conflicts with existing utilities or buildings; and o TMP Integration - choose a location that aligns with recommended policies developed in the TMP, such as fulfilling a key role in the Cycling Priority Route network. A potentially viable section along the Mississippi River was identified, as shown in Figure 22. A summary of the key supporting factors included: o Both sides of the river are municipally owned; o There is a modest impact on trees within Centennial Park; o Travel distances for pedestrians and cyclists to nearby destinations would be reduced between 1km and 1.5km compared to crossing the Central Bridge; o The new AT Bridge would relieve the burden of carrying active transportation users across the Central Bridge, which is not equipped to accommodate cyclists; o The location supports future development areas within the Town and potential annexation to the northwest and southwest; and o The proposed location would fill a gap in the recommended Cycling Priority Route (Map 8), that is presently underserved by active transportation crossings within the Town. Ultimately, Town Council did not believe this was the right time to invest in a new active transportation bridge. The Town may elect to revisit the option in future TMP updates. Page | 82 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 22: Potential AT Bridge Location Assessment Map Recreational Trails The Town is currently undertaking an update to its Recreation Master Plan, which is envisioned to complement the AT Network Strengthening Plan recommended in the TMP. Some high-level recommendations for consideration in the ongoing Recreation Master Plan Update are provided below. 4.6.1 New Recreational Trails A new recreational trail system within Arklan Island may be considered. This new trail would connect to the Mississippi Boardwalk Trail and include a new active transportation connection across the Mississippi River and would provide the opportunity for Town residents to enjoy the beautiful natural environment that Arklan Island has to offer and provide an exciting way for residents, both young and old, to experience the beauty of the Town. Source: Google © Page | 83 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 4.6.2 Recreational Trail Design Considerations - All new recreational trails should be designed in accordance with provincial accessibility standards (AODA), where feasible. - As OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities recommends that two-way in-boulevard shared-use pathways be a minimum of 3.0m, it is recommended that any new recreational trails should have a minimum width of 3.0m. A constrained minimum of 2.4m can be allowed for short sections which are highly constrained. - New development applications should consider recreational trail connections to strengthen linkages to neighborhood destinations and the Town's active transportation network. - Recreational trail amenities, including parking spaces (regular and accessible), washrooms, waste receptacles, signage, lighting, canopies, and benches/seating should be considered at busy trail intersections or resting points. - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) should be considered when designing new trails or upgrading existing trails. Key principles include signage and lighting near trail entrances and crossings of streets. 4.6.3 Recreational Trail Crossing PXO Warrants An important consideration when designing recreational trails is how to properly accommodate the crossing of roadways. The Town has recently installed Type C or Type D pedestrian crossovers (PXO) at all OVRT roadway crossings as a key measure for enhancing pedestrian safety. The PXOs include side mounted regulatory signs, pavements markings and bollards installed in the middle of the street between spring and fall. For any future trail crossings, it is recommended that the Town continue to assess the appropriateness of PXOs by implementing the OTM Book 15 PXO warrant. 4.6.4 ATV/Snowmobile Considerations The OVRT is a shared-use trail that allows both pedestrians and cyclists along a paved pathway section, and ATVs and snowmobiles along a gravel section. A key concern expressed during public consultation was the lack of separation between the ATV/snowmobile gravel section and the pedestrian asphalt section on the OVRT. To help manage safety, the Town has recently installed new signage to inform trail users of appropriate trail usage. The Town has also increased trail patrols to monitor compliance with speed limits. It is recommended that the Town continue to monitor speed limits along the OVRT, in addition to implementing a strategic education program to promote safe and responsible ATV/snowmobile use, particularly for youth. In addition, as ATV/snowmobile use is popular within the Town, a desire for more ATV/snowmobile trails emerged during public consultation. The Highway District Secondary Plan (2020) recommended a potential ATV/Snowmobile trail north of Highway 7 between the OVRT and McNeely Ave to allow access to the Pioneer Energy gas station/Tim Hortons Page | 84 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - from the OVRT. The section of the trail between the OVRT and Franktown Rd, planned to run north of Findlay Ave, is subject to further community consultation and determination of design details. Although designation of ATV/snowmobile routes is not within this scope of this TMP, the presence of ATV and snowmobile trails has potential economic and tourism benefits to the Town. Ultimately, the various snowmobile trails are governed by the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), and the Town should address public concerns collectively, through workshops or appropriate outreach, with OFSC representatives who have experience with the safe operation of other formal snowmobile routes that travel through urban areas, and others involved in safety including the OPP and potentially MTO who may have experience and policies surrounding snowmobiling along public highways. If public concerns persist, the Town may consider initiating a separate study to review existing ATV and snowmobile trails within the Town. This study would include the noted stakeholders and public input on how existing trails are being used, how they can be made safer, and how they may be enhanced or expanded in the future as the Town grows. Community Education and Promotion Providing infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is key to supporting active transportation in any community. However, the infrastructure needs to be supported by programs that both promote the improvements and educate the community on how to use them safely. Residents should be informed on the Town's AT network for both commuting and recreational cycling, and education programs should be implemented to teach safe cycling practices and raise awareness of the benefits of cycling. This section provides an overview of potential education and promotion programs the Town may implement to the support the success of the AT Plan. 4.7.1 Education Share the Road Signage The "Share the Road" sign aims to remind vehicle drivers that cycling is a legitimate road use and one likely to be encountered on streets in the community. It is recommended that "Share the Road" signs be implemented at strategic locations, including shared cycling facilities along Cycling Priority Routes and Bridge Street within the Downtown District, in order to increase driver awareness of cyclists. These signs are official signs approved by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. Public Awareness Campaigns The "Share the Road Coalition," which is an Ontario based cycling advocacy organization, provides professionally produced public awareness campaigns that are available for free to all municipalities in Ontario. These campaigns can be shared via social media or put into rotation on public screens in places such as libraries. The different campaign titles offered are "Give Space, Lighten Up", "It Movies Us All", and "Stay Safe Stay Back". Further information regarding these resources can be obtained by contacting [email protected]. Safe Routes to School For parents to allow their children to walk or cycle to school, it is important to address both real and perceived safety concerns. The County of Lanark TMP recommended the development of Cycling to School and Active & Safe Routes to School programs in Carleton Place (among other Towns). It is recommended that the Town follow-up with the County to further this initiative. Potential Strategies include: - Developing walking route maps to educate parents and children on safe routes to school, Page | 85 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Establishing "walking school buses" where groups of students travel to school together under the supervision of an adult, and - Participation in initiatives such as iWalk (International Walk to School Week/Day). Can-BIKE program The Can BIKE program, coordinated through Cycling Canada, provides a series of courses on all aspects of safe and effective on-road cycling. It is recommended that the Town deliver safe-cycling courses to youth as a priority, with consideration to eventually providing training for seniors and the general population as well. The Town may also consider providing skateboarding training programs to access a wider group of youth. 4.7.2 Promotion Advertisements The Town website currently provides information on "Safe Cycling Routes" within the Town, which should be repurposed to align with the Cycling Priority Routes identified in this TMP. Cycling tourism routes are also identified on the County website. As the cycling network is implemented, information regarding new cycling facilities should be advertised on the Town website and on social media, in addition to relevant publications (e.g. "Ontario By Bike"). The use of social media in particular is a key method of communication for youth especially. Cycling maps should also be made available in hard copy at community buildings. Information provided on the cycling maps should include key commuter and recreational destinations, washrooms open to the public, and locations of bicycle racks. Bicycle Friendly Community Designation The Bicycle Friendly Community Designation, run by the Share the Road Coalition, recognizes communities that support cycling, which may bring added economic and tourism benefits to the Town. Municipalities that apply are evaluated by a panel of cycling experts based on Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation. The Town may wish to apply for a Bicycle Friendly Community Designation once some of the AT recommendations are implemented. Cycling Friendly Tourism Downtown Carleton Place is currently certified as an "Ontario By Bike" stop. It is recommended that the Town leverage this certification through both enhancements to cycling signage and increases to bicycle parking within the downtown. Safe Cycling Routes Initiative The Town previously developed a "Safe Cycling Routes" initiative, which identified recommended cycling routes within the Town based on several factors including wider shoulders, lower traffic volumes and bike rack access. This initiative included publishing a "Safe Cycling Routes" pamphlet, which is available online on the Town's website and made available in hard copy at various community buildings. This initiative should be revisited and adapted to the new Cycling Priority Routes developed in this TMP. The second stage of the initiative included plans to install new signage along identified corridors and larger maps throughout the Town. Although the entire project was anticipated to be completed by June 2019, the signage recommendations have not yet been implemented as the required funding was not secured. The Town may consider Page | 86 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - following through with the signage recommendations, adapted to the Cycling Priority Routes to enhance cycling awareness within the Town. Bike Month The Town may wish to celebrate "Bike Month," which is celebrated annually in June in Ontario, as an opportunity to encourage residents to cycle more. Events may include guided rides, educational events, and professional cycling races. Additional AT Supporting Policies 4.8.1 Winter Maintenance Practices Maintenance is key in providing an appropriate level of service for road and active transportation facilities, such as sidewalk and shoulder sweeping, tree pruning, sealing pavement cracks and potholes, repairing pavement markings, and winter maintenance, which includes snow clearing from sidewalks and MUPs. The level of required maintenance generally depends on the specific facility type and demand. A frequent comment arising from the public consultation process was regarding the difficulty of walking during the winter as not all sidewalks are plowed. The Town's existing Winter Maintenance By-Law 104-2019 states that due to physical constraints within the proximity of sidewalks and constraints regarding the Town's staff and equipment resources, the Town is unable to maintain all sidewalks within the Town's boundaries during the winter season. Maintenance of key pedestrian and cycling facilities is critical to ensuring that these modes remain viable and safe options year-round. In colder climates, several communities have shown the ability to retain people cycling through the winter if winter operational considerations are part of the design process and if they have predictable and consistent maintenance practices. Generally, municipalities will create a priority or classification system for cycling facilities to distinguish varying levels of snow clearing priority (similar to what is currently done in the Town for roadways and sidewalks). It is recommended that winter maintenance policies be updated to include regular snow clearing on all MUPs along Cycling Priority Routes. This will improve both pedestrian and cycling conditions during the winter and help ensure that these modes remain realistic options during the winter. It is also the Town's responsibility to clear snow from sidewalks on Provincial Highways through a legal agreement with the MTO. In addition, Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, O Reg 239/02, updated May 3, 2018 includes new winter maintenance standards for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and significant weather events. These should also be considered for inclusion into the Town's existing winter maintenance policies. 4.8.2 New Developments The development review process should ensure that pedestrian and cycling connections are provided within future subdivisions, and between future subdivisions and existing neighborhoods and active transportation facilities. It is recommended that the planning and public works departments coordinate potential development reviews to ensure that these requirements are met. The Town may also consider updating the language in the Official Plan regarding the Page | 87 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - development review process, such that active transportation facilities required to support new developments connecting to the Town's municipal network can be included as special conditions to subdivision agreements, with the active transportation facility costs partially or fully funded by the developer. Summary of Recommendations To encourage and support the Town's long term active transportation system, it is recommended the Town: Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities - Implement the AT Network Strengthening Plan (Map 7) to encourage and support sustainable modes of travel. - Target an unobstructed sidewalk width of 1.8m for all new or reconstructed sidewalks, with a minimum 1.5m unobstructed sidewalk width if necessary. - Target a minimum multi-use pathway (MUP) width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. - Adopt the Cycling Priority Route designations (Map 8) to support continuous cycling connectivity across Town and to key destinations within Town. - Ensure the design of new or reconstructed collector and arterial streets along Cycling Priority Routes protect for potential widening of MUPs or the segregation of off-street pedestrian and cycling facilities, where possible, to accommodate long-term growth. - Consider a Special Downtown Cycling District (along Bridge St between Lake Ave and the Mississippi River) in the Official Plan to acknowledge the importance of this Town destination for cyclists and to support local businesses, despite not being designated a Cycling Priority Route and having limited space for cycling facilities. It should be afforded specialized cycling treatments to enhance safety for cyclists where possible. - Explore opportunities to implement new bicycle racks at Town destinations that are currently underserved. - Establish bicycle parking requirements for new developments in the Official Plan, as well as end user facilities for commuter cyclists such as showers and bike lockers at larger businesses. Accessibility To support equitable access and inclusivity for all people, including the most vulnerable road users, it is recommended the Town: - Ensure sidewalks, curbs and PXOs meet provincial accessibility standards (AODA) for all street construction or re-construction work, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals be provided where new pedestrian signals are being installed or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced. - Consider accessibility enhancements such as benches and rest areas as the opportunities arise. - Require accessibility reviews be incorporated in re-development and new development projects in the Official Plan, including accessible connections between the Town's active transportation facilities and all future development/re-development projects, including buildings, parks, and open spaces. Active Transportation on Bridges To overcome the barrier presented by the Mississippi River and promote a more connected active transportation network, it is recommended the Town: Page | 88 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Construct a separate active transportation bridge alongside McNeely Ave over the Mississippi River, integrated with the future widening of McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes. - Revisit the need for the Mill St and Gilles active transportation bridge in future TMP updates. Recreational Trails The following recommendations should be reviewed by the Town for consideration or inclusion in the upcoming of Carleton Place Recreational Master Plan Update: - Construct a new recreational trail system within Arklan Island that connects the Mississippi Boardwalk Trail to a new active transportation connection across the Mississippi River. - Require all new recreational trails be designed in accordance with provincial accessibility standards (AODA), where feasible. - Require any new recreational trails to have a minimum width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. - New development applications consider connections to recreational trails to strengthen linkages between neighborhood destinations and the Town's active transportation network. - Continue to consider PXOs at all new recreational trail crossings of roadways. - Recreational trail amenities, including parking spaces (regular and accessible), washrooms, waste receptacles, signage, lighting, canopies, and benches/seating be considered at busy trail intersections or resting points. - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) be considered when designing new trails or upgrading existing trails. Key principles include signage and lighting near trail entrances and crossings of streets. - Collaborate with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), provincial police (OPP) and relevant stakeholders on any safety concerns on existing ATV and snowmobile trails. Consider initiating a separate study to review existing ATV and snowmobile trails within the Town to better understand how they are being used, how they can be made safer, and how they may be enhanced or expanded in the future as the Town grows. Community Education and Promotion To encourage participate and promote the investments made in the active transportation system, it is recommended the Town: - Consider implementing education and promotional programs to support the investments in active transportation infrastructure outlined in this TMP. Additional AT Supporting Policies It is recommended the Town: - Update existing winter maintenance policies to Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, O Reg 239/02, updated May 3, 2018, which includes new winter maintenance standards for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and significant weather events. - Update winter maintenance practices to include regular snow clearing on all MUPs along Cycling Priority Routes. This will maintain pathway connectivity to key Town destinations and help ensure that active transportation modes remain realistic options year-round. Page | 89 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Update the language in the Official Plan regarding the development review process such that active transportation facilities required to support new developments connecting to the Town's municipal AT network can be included as special conditions to subdivision agreements, with the active transportation facility costs covered by the developer. Page | 90 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 5.0 ROAD NETWORK STRATEGY A well-functioning road network is critical to support the unprecedented growth expected in the coming decades, and with it, a growing and vibrant economy. The Town's road network performance was assessed in analysis periods: 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year, representing the 2026, 2031 and 2041 horizons. Future Context 5.1.1 Capital Projects According to the latest capital budget forecasts, the Town of Carleton Place and County of Lanark have committed funding to a number of transportation infrastructure projects within the Town of Carleton Place over the next 10 years. Table 20: Approved Capital Projects Location Description Year Jurisdiction Coleman/Lansdowne Intersection Turning Lanes & Signals 2027 Carleton Place Bridge St Revitalization of Bridge St from Central Bridge to Lake Ave to improve accessibility and active transportation facilities. 2022 Carleton Place Capt. A. Roy Brown Blvd. Highway 7 to Highway 15 2023 Carleton Place to construct, then convey to County of Lanark Mill St New sidewalk on south side will be constructed on Mill St from Judson St to the OVRT. 2022 Carleton Place Highway 7, between Franktown Rd & McNeely Ave Roadway and intersection modifications and sidewalk installation 2025 MTO McNeely Ave Road widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Coleman St to Lake Ave Est 2026 1 County of Lanark Cavanagh Rd Widening from 2 to 4 lanes- Hooper to Boundary 2027 Carleton Place Bates Ave Road Extension to Town Limit 2030 Carleton Place Notes: 1 - McNeely Ave widening from Coleman St to Lake Ave was not in the County's 10-year plan (from 2015), but County staff confirmed this Phase of the McNeely Ave widening may be completed in 5 years. These need for these investments were borne out of recommendations from County of Lanark TMP, technical studies following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process, or driven by local development. The Coleman/Lansdowne intersection modification is the one exception, where funding has been allocated, but the need will be verified in this TMP. Page | 91 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - It is worth noting that the timing for the McNeely Ave widening from 2 to 4-lanes between Coleman St and Lake Ave was confirmed by County staff in the first TMP Working Group Meeting on February 16, 2021. The County of Lanark TMP recommended widening of McNeely Ave between Coleman St and Lake Ave by 2018. Future Traffic Conditions Future traffic volumes for this study were developed using the following information: - Existing traffic counts from the Town of Carleton Place, County of Lanark and MTO; - Development generated traffic volumes from traffic studies for upcoming and on-going development projects; and, - Future population forecasts provided by the Town of Carleton Place and County of Lanark. 5.2.1 Background Traffic Growth Background traffic growth rates for specific corridors were based on population and employment forecasts from the County of Lanark Sustainable Communities Official Plan (SCOP) and the ongoing Town of Carleton Place Comprehensive Review of the Official Plan. These forecasts were discussed previously in Section 2.3.4. Traffic growth on Highway 7 was based on the Hwy7/15 TESR, which derived growth rates from historical daily volumes provided by MTO. From these various sources, the resulting linear traffic growth rates for key corridors have been summarized below: - McNeely Avenue = 3.0% - Townline Road = 2.5% - Franktown Road/Moore Street = 2.0% - Highway 7 = 1.5% - Highway 15 & Collector Streets = 1.0% 5.2.2 Local Development Traffic volume estimates from known development applications in Carleton Place were provided by supporting traffic studies. The following table provides a list of these developments and their application status. Table 21: Local Residential Subdivisions Name Status Bodnar Subdivision Under Construction Jackson Ridge Under Construction Carmichael Farm Application Filed Coleman Central Under Construction Carleton Landing North Under Construction Hwy 7 South CDP Phase 1A (Miller's Crossing) Under Construction Phase 1B No Application Phase 2 & 3 No Application Page | 92 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - For the purposes of this study, it was assumed all local developments with at least a filed application would be constructed and occupied by the 2026 horizon year. Additionally, the Highway 7 South Conceptual Design Plan (CDP) represents the Town's long-range development plan for residential and employment lands south of Highway 7. The CDP area is made up of three (3) phases, of which Phase 1A is currently under construction, assumed to be constructed by 2026. Town staff advised Phase 1B should be assumed to be occupied by 2031, and Phases 2 and 3 occupied by 2041. The TMP acknowledges the application filing of McNeely Landing by Uniform Urban Developments Ltd., but at the time of undertaking this analysis, a traffic study was not available. However, the long-term traffic implications of this development have been accounted for within the Highway 7 South CDP traffic projections. The estimated peak hour traffic volumes forecast from existing traffic studies for the noted developments have been provided in Appendix B-2. 5.2.3 Future Traffic Scenarios The future traffic projections in each horizon year were based on the following assumptions: - Year 2026 - Existing Traffic + Background Linear Growth (on Hwy 7 and Hwy 15 from Existing to 2026) + Local Development Traffic - Year 2031 - Year 2026 Traffic + Background Linear Growth (on all noted roadways from 2026 to 2031) + Hwy 7 CDP Phase 1B - Year 2041 - Year 2031 Traffic + Background Linear Growth (on other noted roadways from 2031 to 2041) Four different transportation scenarios were considered in order to assess the sensitivity of the operational results and to provide a comprehensive analysis of potential future traffic conditions by the 2041 horizon year. The four (4) transportation scenarios are as follows: - Scenario 1: Status Quo - no changes to base projections or planned infrastructure. - Scenario 2: CARB Extension to Cemetery Side Rd - assess impact this potential bypass corridor on key intersections along Hwy 7. - Scenario 3: Status Quo with all growth capped at 1.5% - Scenario 4: Status Quo with all growth rates increased by 1.0% - worst case scenario where sustainable transportation vision is not achieved and no CARB extension. The future peak hour traffic volumes forecast for each scenario and horizon year have been provided in Appendix B-3. Future Traffic Operations 5.3.1 Performance Criteria The performance criteria for screenlines and intersections was previously discussed in the existing conditions analysis (Section 2.2.3.4), but has been revisited for reference in this section. Screenlines Six screenlines were developed to evaluate corridor capacity within the Town as previously shown in Map 4. The roadway capacities based on existing road classifications have been summarized as follows: Page | 93 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Provincial Highway = 1,600 vphpl [Hwy 7 and 15] - Major Arterial = 900 vphpl [McNeely, Cavanagh, Townline E of Industrial, Hwy 7 within the Town Limits] - Minor Arterial/ Major Collector = 600 vphpl [Franktown/Moore, Townline W of Industrial, Lake, Coleman, Bridge] - Minor Collector = 300 vphpl [Mississippi, Napoleon] - Local = 120 vphpl [Mill] The performance criteria for the screenline analysis are as follows: - v/c ratio < 0.91 reflects acceptable operation - v/c ratio 0.91 - 1.00 reflects early warning of capacity constraints, possible mitigation. - v/c ratio > 1.00 reflects capacity constraints, mitigation is recommended. Intersections A total of 16 intersections were evaluated in this study, which accounted for all signalized intersections and roundabouts in Carleton Place and one unsignalized intersection (Lansdowne/Coleman). Synchro v10 software was used to evaluate signalized and unsignalized intersection performance, while Sidra software was used to evaluate roundabouts. The performance criteria for the intersection analysis are similar to the screenline analysis, which are as follows: - Target LOS D or better, v/c ratio < 0.91 or better for adequate operations. - LOS E or v/c ratio 0.91 - 1.00 reflect operational limit and monitoring is needed, possible mitigation required. - LOS F or v/c > 1.00 reflect poor operations and mitigation is recommended. 5.3.2 Transportation Analysis Results Screenlines The screenline analysis was repeated using estimated future traffic volumes in all four scenarios (as previously done for existing conditions in Section 2.2.3.4). Overall, the afternoon peak hour vehicular traffic volumes were shown to be higher than the morning peak hour, which defined the critical analysis period. Similar to the existing conditions analysis, three "spot screenlines" along Townline Rd were included in the analysis. The future screenline analysis identified the following constraints by the 2041 planning horizon, as shown in Figure 23: 1. Mississippi River crossings 2. North-South corridor capacity between Highway 7 and Coleman St 3. Isolated sections of Townline Rd The future 2041 screenline performance has been summarized in Table 23, with operational results provided in Appendix B-4. Figure 23: Identified Corridor Constraints from Screenline Analysis Page | 94 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 22: Future Screenline Performance Summary Screenline Performance Summary 1 SL1 does not indicate any long-term capacity constraints in the 2041 planning horizon. However, there were sections of Townline Rd that had notable vehicular capacity constraints only in the 2041 planning horizon, and only in certain scenarios. - Isolated sections of Townline Rd between Joseph St to Industrial Ave are expected to experience capacity constraints in the 2041 planning horizon if current growth projections continue at the same pace. If growth slowed, as described for Scenario 3, available vehicular capacity would be sufficient. The difference between forecasted vehicular demand and available capacity was less than 100 vph based on current growth projections. - Townline Rd, McNeely Ave to East Town Limit was approaching its capacity limit in Scenarios 1- 3, but only exceeded capacity in the worst-case scenario (Scenario 4) where growth projections were accelerated. - Townline Rd, Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave is a unique case where there is underutilized capacity along the corridor, over twice the demand even under the worst-case scenario (Scenario 4). 2 SL2 is expected to experience capacity constraints in both the NB and SB directions in the 2031 and 2041 planning horizons. The Mississippi River presents a significant barrier and crossing points will be heavily constrained approaching the 2041 planning horizon in all scenarios. There are only two viable vehicle crossing points within the Town: McNeely Ave, and Bridge St. The Mill St and Gilles St bridges are single lane crossings that provide very limited capacity. 3 SL3 is expected to have sufficient vehicular capacity to accommodate forecasted demand in the 2031 planning horizon. In the 2041 planning horizon, Scenarios 1-3 perform well, but vehicular capacity becomes constrained in the worst-case scenario (Scenario 4) with accelerated growth forecasts. 4 SL4 is expected to have sufficient vehicular capacity to accommodate forecasted demand in the 2031 planning horizon. In the 2041 planning horizon, forecasted vehicular demand in the NB direction exceeds vehicular capacity in only the worst-case scenario (Scenario 4) with accelerated growth forecasts. 5 SL5 has sufficient vehicular capacity through to the 2041 planning horizon, suggesting that a potential extension of CARB eastward to Cemetery Side Rd may not be needed to maintain adequate vehicular capacity to/from the east of the Town within the 20-year planning horizon. 6 SL6 (without the CARB extension) is expected to have sufficient vehicular capacity to accommodate forecasted demand in the 2031 planning horizon. In the 2041 planning horizon, Scenarios 1-3 perform well, but vehicular capacity becomes constrained in the worst-case scenario (Scenario 4) with accelerated growth forecasts. It is noteworthy that the potential CARB extension to Cemetery Side Rd would effectively mitigate this constraint. Page | 95 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Intersections The intersection performance analysis in future planning horizons was also completed using Synchro v10, similar to the existing conditions analysis. The afternoon peak hour was shown to have high vehicular traffic volumes compared to the morning peak hour, making it the critical peak hour. Performance criteria was previously outlined in Section 2.2.3.4. Overall, most intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS 'D' or better during the morning peak hour, while LOS 'E' or 'F' were observed more frequently in the afternoon peak hour at the 2041 planning horizon. A summary of the needs has been provided in Table 24. Detailed analysis results have also been provided in Appendix B-4. It is important to reiterate that all approved infrastructure projects, as previously noted in Table 21 (Section 5.1.1) at the anticipated buildout date were accounted for in future planning horizons. Table 23: Intersection Performance Results - Greatest to Lowest Needs Intersection Performance Summary Greatest Needs Hwy 7/McNeely Ave - Operational issues anticipated by the 2041 planning horizon. - The recent Transportation Environmental Study Report by WSP recognized the long-term capacity constraints at this intersection. Those findings were confirmed in this analysis. Moderate to Low Needs McNeely/Canadian Tire Access McNeely/Townline Bridge/Townline Franktown/Moore/Coleman Bridge/Moore/Lake - Congestion is expected on certain movements at the 2041 planning horizon, but overall intersection performance was acceptable in all scenarios. However, if traffic growth accelerates (Scenario 4), more expansive intersections modifications may be needed. Hwy 7/Hwy 15/Franktown Hwy 7/Lake Park/Mississippi Hwy 15/Captain A Roy Brown McNeely/Coleman/Cavanagh McNeely/Lake McNeely/Captain A Roy Brown McNeely/Patterson/Stonewater McNeely/SmartCentres Access McNeely/Home Depot Joseph/Townline Lansdowne/Coleman Bridge/Emily - These intersections are expected to operate adequately at the 2041 planning horizon in Scenarios 1-3. If traffic growth accelerates (Scenario 4), some intersections experience congestion on certain movements, though overall intersection performance is acceptable. - No geometric modifications are expected to be required to support these locations. 5.3.3 Specific Issues The following specific road network issues were identified by Town staff as well as other issues identified during the public and stakeholder consultation process for consideration in the TMP. Page | 96 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Highway 7 intersections with Townline Rd W and Napoleon St Concerns regarding traffic congestion and safety at the noted Highway 7 intersections were heard during the TMP consultation process. Neither intersection is located within the Town limits, and are therefore outside the purview of the TMP. However, these concerns were shared with MTO. The intersection of Hwy 7/Townline Rd W is continually monitored by MTO, and they will ultimately determine if and when the signalization of this intersection is appropriate. MTO also stated they will not support the signalization improvement at the Hwy 7/Napoleon intersection as this it does not meet minimum signal spacing requirements for a Controlled Access Highway. The Town may elect to collaborate with the neighbouring Beckwith Township to engage MTO to investigate alternative options to address local concerns if they persist. Lansdowne/Coleman Intersection There have been requests from the local community to implement traffic control signals at this location. The Town would like the TMP to assess the operations and provincial traffic signal warrant assessment to determine whether this modification is justified. The existing intersection operates at a LOS 'A' in both peak hours. Based on existing traffic volumes, traffic signals are not warranted. The warrant was reanalyzed with double the volumes at the intersection, and the traffic signal was still not warranted. Therefore, a traffic control signal is not required at this intersection. Access to Commercial lands north of Highway 7 The ultimate design of Highway 7 between McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd is outlined in the approved Hwy 7/15 TESR (2020), and includes a new median along the study area length that will prohibit left turns to/from all existing and future commercial accesses along this section (as previously discussed in Section 2.2.3.3). The Hwy 7/15 TESR, which informed the approved Highway District Secondary Plan (previously discussed in Section 2.2.3.1), outlines the long-term plan for vehicular access to the adjacent lands after the median is constructed, as shown in Figure 24 below. The commercial lands on the north side of Highway 7 would have three new private road connections, limited to 15m of right-of-way, extending from existing intersections at McNeely Ave to the east and Franktown Rd to the west, as well as a new private connection to Highway 7. The Hwy 7/15 TESR also identifies a "potential future connection" between the two east-west private roads in the future resulting in a continuous corridor. The Town expressed interest in reviewing the Hwy 7/15 TESR recommendations to see how they aligns with the Town's long-term development plans and the TMP vision and objectives. Figure 24: Highway District Secondary Plan, Excerpt from Schedule C Page | 97 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 5.3.4 Confirmation of Needs and Opportunities Table 25 summarizes the overall street network needs and opportunities identified in the preceding sections. Table 24: Summary of Road Network Needs/Opportunities Location Need or Opportunity Corridor Capacity Mississippi River Bridge crossings - Additional vehicular corridor capacity is required over the Mississippi River in the northbound direction by 2031 and in both directions by the 2041 planning horizon. North-South corridors b/w Hwy 7 and Lake - Additional northbound and southbound vehicular corridor capacity is required between Highway 7 and Lake Ave at the 2041 planning horizon. Townline Rd: W of Industrial to Joseph & E of McNeely to Town Limit - These sections of Townline Rd were shown to be approaching the vehicular capacity limit by the 2041 planning horizon. Townline Rd E: Industrial to McNeely - This section of Townline Rd had excess vehicular capacity at the 2041 planning horizon, presenting an opportunity to reassess the design. Captain A Roy Brown Extension to Cemetery Side Road - Confirm the need for this project identified in the Highway 7 South CDP. Intersection Capacity Hwy 7/McNeely - This intersection is expected to require additional vehicular capacity by the 2041 planning horizon. Franktown/Coleman/Moore Moore/Bridge/Lake McNeely/Canadian Tire Access McNeely/Townline Bridge/Townline - Congestion on certain movements is expected at the 2041 planning horizon, but overall intersection performance is acceptable. Specific Issues Hwy 7 North Commercial Lands Access - The Hwy 7/15 TESR reflects a long-term plan for access to adjacent lands north and south of the highway that may limit development potential and the Town's ability to accommodate active transportation modes in the future. - The Town would like to review the recommendations within Hwy 7/15 TESR to determine how it may be revised to better align with the Vision and Objectives in this TMP Lansdowne/Coleman - Traffic control signals are not needed. Confirm what is an appropriate approach to address local concerns. Page | 98 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Street Network Strengthening Plan 5.4.1 Alternative Solutions There are various solutions to address the range of future street network needs and opportunities identified in the Town of Carleton Place. In this TMP, the process to identify most appropriate solution to each of the needs identified in Table 25 were based on the following general approaches: 1. Status Quo for Infrastructure Improvements - Focus on Reducing Vehicle Travel Demand Maintaining status quo as it relates to the current Town road network is the most cost-effective approach in the short- and medium-term, but it has been shown that current infrastructure commitments would not address all long-term street network needs. While Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives and policies may reduce vehicle travel demand to a degree, without supporting infrastructure investments in alternate modes of transportation, they are not likely to create a reduction in traffic volumes significant enough to resolve capacity issues (further discussion on TDM as a supporting strategy is provided in Section 6.3). Therefore, any existing gaps or deficiencies will worsen over time, such as the lack of vehicular capacity at bridges crossing the Mississippi River, leading to ad hoc reactions that are often less effective in addressing the need and may end up costing the Town more to reconcile in the fullness of time. 2. Rebalancing the Existing Street Network Road rebalancing is the act of re-allocating available pavement width to better suit traffic volumes and context. Opportunities to rebalance infrastructure within corridors that have excess road capacity may include converting vehicular lanes or reducing lane width to accommodate additional boulevard and/or active transportation facilities that enhance alternative modes of travel and potentially reduce vehicular traffic demand. Enhancing active transportation facilities will also improve safety and efficiency on corridors where vehicles and active users (e.g. cyclists) that must share travel lanes, and at intersection crossings. 3. Optimizing the Existing Street Network Optimizing the existing street, or otherwise known as Transportation System Management, deals with minor or localized improvements to the street network that result in better performance for users. Existing streets can be improved to serve more demand and potentially extending its service life. The most common form of street optimization are intersection improvements. Busy intersections will often deteriorate before the corridor reaches its functional capacity; intersection improvements can be an effective method to optimize the existing street network. Typical operational improvements include changes to traffic control such as signalization or signage, adding islands to restrict left-turns and permit only right-in right-out movements, adding auxiliary left- or right-turn lanes, construction of right-turn islands to channelize that movement, prohibiting parking in the vicinity of the intersection, etc. 4. Expanding the Street Network This strategy increases the capacity of the street network by expanding to the network, either by improving existing transportation facilities or by building new transportation infrastructure. In this case, either widening existing streets or constructing new streets on new alignments. Widening existing streets will typically have less impact on property and buildings where width of the right-of-way is sufficient. Many of the venerable corridors in the Town will face numerous challenges to widen due to the potential social, community and business impacts where buildings are close to the street. Page | 99 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The construction of new streets on new alignments requires significant capital and operating investment, as well as a comprehensive planning, design, and implementation process. New roads are generally classified as Schedule 'C' projects under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process that would confirm the need, solution, environmental impacts, and include a thorough public and stakeholder consultation process. 5.4.2 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions The different solution approaches to the established needs were assessed based on general criteria, such as potential cost, social implications, natural environment implications, and transportation implications. Based on this general methodology, the preferred solution approach was determined for each identified need/opportunity. The criteria for the evaluation were based on three tiers: 1. Optimal: Solution has high potential benefit and acceptable disbenefits  2. Adequate: Solution has moderate potential benefit and/or moderate disbenefits - 3. Constrained: Solution has low potential benefit or severe disbenefits  Table 26 presents the assessment results. A discussion on the outcome for each identified need/opportunity has been provided thereafter. Page | 100 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 25: Evaluation of Alternative Road Network Solutions Need/Location Status Quo/TDM Rebalancing Network Optimizing Network Expanding Network Corridor Capacity Mississippi River Bridge Crossings     North/South Travel b/w Hwy 7 and Lake -  - - Townline Rd b/w Industrial and Joseph - - -  Townline Rd b/w McNeely and East Town Limit     Townline Rd b/w Industrial and McNeely -    Captain A Roy Brown Extension to Cemetery Side Road     Intersection Capacity Hwy 7/McNeely     Franktown/Coleman/Moore Moore/Bridge/Lake McNeely/Canadian Tire Access McNeely/Townline Bridge/Townline   -  Specific Issues New Municipal Connection North of Hwy 7   -  Lansdowne/Coleman  -   5.4.3 Preferred Solutions A summary of the rationale behind each evaluation result has been provided below. Preferred Solutions - Corridors Mississippi River Bridge Crossings: The existing Mississippi River bridge crossings will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicle travel demand based on current growth projections between the 2031 to 2041 planning horizons. Of the available solution options, the only viable means of addressing this need is to expand the network. Optimizing and rebalancing options would provide limited benefit, based on the operational analysis, where even reduced traffic growth forecasts yielded screenline deficiencies. Therefore, it is unlikely that investment in sustainable modes and transportation demand management initiatives alone will sufficiently reduce vehicle traffic demand to mitigate this constraint. Page | 101 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The reality is population and employment forecasts expect significant growth within the Town and in adjacent municipalities across the County, and the need to plan for adequate river crossing capacity will be vital. Therefore, two expansion options were considered: - Constructing a new vehicle bridge; or - Widening an existing vehicle bridge. Constructing a new vehicle bridge would adequately mitigate bridge crossing capacity. However, this modification raises various new challenges since vehicles require a wider and more robust structure (broadening the environmental and cost implications), triggering new alignment constraints, and needs an existing road connection of sufficient capacity (such as a collector street class or higher) on both sides of the river to be effective. The available shoreline west of the Central Bridge is primarily occupied by park space and public amenities, which would be heavily impacted by introduction of new vehicle traffic. Additionally, this option does not align with the TMP vision and objectives that aims to limit proliferation of vehicle travel within the Town. Discussions with Town staff and feedback from stakeholders confirmed this option was not a justifiable investment. Widening an existing bridge corridor may have fewer environmental, social, and financial impacts compared to constructing a new vehicle bridge crossing, and was considered the preferred solution to address this need. The ongoing Central Bridge renewal project (slated for completion by the end of 2022) maintains the existing two-lane crossing capacity, meaning the widening of McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes was the remaining feasible option. The County acknowledged the 1989 and 2007 Environmental Assessments related to the widening of McNeely Ave included four phases, but the County decided the phase that included the widening of McNeely Ave north of Patterson Cr to Townline Rd E, including the existing bridges, was not required at the time. However, based on the current growth projections throughout the County, it is unrealistic to rule-out the option to upgrade an essential piece of infrastructure or expect the Town can realistically limit long-term river crossing demand that comprises a notable County traffic presence. The TMP acknowledges that this project would represent a sizeable cost for the County and Town, but it is one that will have significant long-term benefits by mitigating traffic constraints along this important connection to Highway 7. It focuses vehicle capacity on the arterial road network, and more specifically the County road network, ensuring regional traffic stays avoids infiltrating Town streets. Furthermore, the additional capacity is expected to be sufficient to accommodate river crossing demand for both Town and County traffic well beyond the 2041 planning horizon. The recommended widening extends north of Coleman St to Townline Rd, including the two existing bridges across Grape Island. The County has already committed to widening McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes from Coleman St to Patterson Cr within the next 5 years. There would be minimal property or social impacts as the County has already secured adequate right-of-way width to accommodate a 4-lane cross section up to Townline Rd. The Town will be required to engage County of Lanark to collaborate and share the cost on this capital project. Figure 25: McNeely Ave Bridges over Mississippi River Source: Google © Page | 102 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Recommendation: Engage the County of Lanark to widen McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes between Patterson Cr and Townline Rd, including the two bridges over the Mississippi River. North-South Screenline b/w Hwy 7 and Lake Ave: Cumulative north-south vehicle travel between Highway 7 and Lake Ave is expected to increase significantly, in tandem with projected Town growth. McNeely Ave is expected to carry the majority of traffic based on its design and designation as a County arterial road. The corresponding Town streets: Franktown Rd, Napoleon St, and Mississippi Rd should experience less traffic since they are primarily used by Town residents, they have narrower rights-of-way that result in fewer travel lanes and lower traffic volume capacity; they are not expected to accommodate regional traffic demand. The combined corridor capacity of these roads is expected to reach its operating capacity in the 2041 planning horizon. Reducing travel demand on McNeely Ave may not be realistic given the importance of the street for both the Town and County as a connection to/from Highway 7 and by extension, the City of Ottawa. Adding a new north-south corridor is unrealistic due to the lack of feasible space and significant environmental and cost implications. MTO has confirmed that adding new accesses or connecting streets to Highway 7 would not be supported, due to their strict access management policies, and would only support the use of existing intersections/connections. Therefore, widening an existing street was the only viable option to address the noted challenge. In this case, widening McNeely Ave (between Highway 7 and Lake Ave) was preferred, whereas the alternative streets would trigger significant property implications. It is acknowledged that there would be a sizeable cost associated with widening this section of McNeely Ave as it increases from 4 to 6 lanes; the available right-of-way may not be sufficient to maintain the current rural design, and an urban design with underground services may be required to avoid acquiring additional property. Alternatively, the Town may elect to defer the network expansion and opt to monitor and optimize the existing Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave corridors while exploring opportunities to reduce travel demand on these streets where possible. Supporting transportation initiatives outlined in this TMP provide potential opportunities to encourage alternative modes of travel to help reduce automobile use, such as the Active Transportation Strategy (Section 4.0), the Complete Streets approach (Section 6.1), and Transportation Demand Management (Section 6.3). Figure 26: McNeely Ave north of Canadian Tire (Facing North) Source: Google © Recommendation: Monitor the McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd corridors between Highway 7 and Lake Ave, while exploring opportunities for optimization and to reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark in order to extend vehicular corridor capacity. Review the needs in future TMP updates. Page | 103 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Townline Rd between Industrial Ave and Joseph St: This section of Townline Rd is expected to exceed its corridor capacity limit in the 2041 planning horizon by less than 100 vehicles during the critical peak hour period based current growth projections. Expanding the network through a widening is not realistic since the right-of-way is severely constrained at several locations along the corridor, due to buildings being located directly on the property line, which creates significant challenges to accommodate additional travel lanes. There are also very few opportunities to provide a new east-west corridor to support Townline Rd without significant property impacts to adjacent landowners or annexing lands from the Town of Mississippi Mills. The cost and land implications relative to the traffic impacts were too high to justify this approach. Optimizing or rebalancing the corridor while focusing on reducing vehicular travel demand are all potential solution options to help limit long-term corridor capacity constraints, but all present challenges due to anticipated growth. The existing two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) and on-street parking along Townline Rd may be re-allocated to cycling facilities and enhanced pedestrian facilities, to encourage sustainable travel and reduce automobile use, while maintaining or expanding existing auxiliary lanes at signalized intersections. There would be a need to assess whether the loss of the TWLTL could be managed throughout the corridor. Additionally, it is worth noting that High St, located parallel to Townline Rd W to the south, provides an alternate route for travel to and from the west on Townline Rd W that may help extend vehicular capacity of the Townline Rd corridor west of Bridge St. Addressing the long-term vehicular demand along this corridor represents a long-term initiative, as there is no immediate need to increase capacity. The Town should monitor corridor vehicular operations an explore opportunities to consider optimizations or rebalancing to help manage Town growth and promote sustainable modes of travel. The Town should also revisit the capacity needs in future TMP updates, and adjust course as needed. Figure 27: Townline Rd E, West of Industrial Ave (Facing West) Source: Google © Page | 104 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 28: Townline Rd W, East of Joseph St (Facing East) Source: Google © Recommendation: Monitor Townline Rd E vehicular operations between Joseph St and Industrial Ave, while exploring opportunities to optimize operations and reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark to extend vehicular corridor capacity, such as rebalancing options to add and/or enhance active transportation facilities within the corridor. Review the needs in future TMP updates. Townline Rd E b/w McNeely Ave and East Town Limit: This section of Townline Rd will be approaching its capacity limit in the 2041 planning horizon based on current growth projections. The County of Lanark TMP recommended the widening Townline Rd (to Ramsay 8) from 2 to 4 lanes with corresponding intersection improvements, to be implemented between 2023 and 2028. This TMP confirms the need for this modification, but the implementation schedule may be deferred closer to the 2041 planning horizon. Figure 29: Townline Rd E, East of McNeely Ave (Facing East) Source: Google © Recommendation: Engage the County of Lanark to widen Townline Rd E from McNeely Ave to Ramsay Concession 8, as dictated in the County of Lanark TMP. Confirm the schedule for implementation in future TMP updates. Townline Rd E b/w Industrial Ave and McNeely Ave: This section of Townline Rd is unique compared to other sections within the Town limits. It possesses a 4-lane cross section without residential frontage, on-street parking, and limited Page | 105 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - driveway accesses. It can be characterized similar to McNeely Ave, a major arterial with ample vehicular capacity and generally higher observed speeds. Approaching Industrial Ave represents the transition from this vehicle-oriented context to the Town proper, a 2-lane minor arterial with direct residential frontage and lower speeds. Figure 30: Townline Road E, at OVRT Crossing (Facing West) Source: Google © The 4-lane cross section was shown to have over double the capacity than needed at the 2041 planning horizon. This presented an opportunity to rebalance this section of Townline Rd, from 4-lanes to 2-lanes, but use this reallocated space to introduce or improve active transportation facilities. It will be important to ensure heavy trucks are still accommodated along the corridor and at the intersection at Industrial Ave/Townline Rd travelling to/from the Town's industrial lands to the north. Recommendation: Engage the County of Lanark to rebalance Townline Rd E from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes with enhanced active transportation facilities. Captain A Roy Brown Extension: The Highway 7 South CDP (Figure 31) presents a conceptual vision of Captain A Roy Brown that extends east, beyond the current Town limit, connecting to Cemetery Side Rd. The purpose of this visioning exercise was to identify potential access alternatives for future development lands south of Highway 7 (currently within the Township of Beckwith). It was found that this conceptual connection would improve long-term corridor operations on Highway 7 between Highway 15 and McNeely Ave by providing direct access to the CDP area without relying on Highway 7. However, Town staff noted there have been no discussions with the Township of Beckwith regarding annexation agreements or the County of Lanark regarding ownership and funding, which are necessary first steps. There are also various challenges and constraints to implementing this extension, such as potentially significant wetlands are located along the potential alignment, which makes this long-term unlikely to be realized prior to the 2041 planning horizon. The appropriate environmental studies would be required to confirm the appropriate alignment, design elements, and cost implications. Recommendation: Review the needs and opportunities for a Captain A Roy Brown Blvd extension to Cemetery Side Rd as part of future TMP updates or if triggered by annexation discussions with Beckwith Township in support of development south of Highway 7. Page | 106 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 31: Highway 7 South CDP - Conceptual Captain A Roy Brown Blvd Extension 10 Preferred Solutions - Intersections Hwy 7/McNeely Ave Intersection: The Hwy 7/McNeely Ave intersection, in its existing configuration, will have insufficient vehicular capacity to anticipated growth. The planned modifications to the Highway 7 corridor between Hwy 15 and McNeely Ave (including both signalized intersections) will extend the operational life along the corridor for several years. However, the longevity of the upgraded Hwy 7/McNeely intersection is limited, which was noted in the WSP ESR Report11. Certain movements are expected to be congested approaching the 2041 planning horizon. Therefore, the intersection may require further modifications in the future, such as adding auxiliary right-turn lanes on the west and northbound approaches, and optimizing the intersection signal timings to increase intersection capacity. Figure 32: Highway 7/McNeely Intersection Source: Google © Recommendation: Monitor long-term traffic operations at the Hwy 7/McNeely Ave intersection. Engage MTO regarding additional modifications, such as those outlined in the Hwy 7/15 TESR, if vehicle capacity is shown to be exceeded. 10Highway 7 South Conceptual Development Plan: Transportation Master Plan. Novatech, Ottawa ON. Sept 2013. Figure 3. 11Highway 7 and Highway 15 Intersection Improvements: Transportation Environmental Study Report. WSP. July 2020. 54. Page | 107 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Coleman St and Cavanagh Rd: The Town is already planning to widen Cavanagh Rd from 2 to 4-lanes east of Hooper St to the Town eastern limit, which is an approved capital project. The widening will help accommodate future residential development east of McNeely Avenue. By the 2041 planning horizon, there may be additional congestion on Coleman St west of Park Ave to Franktown Rd, where the road reduces to a 2-lane cross-section. Ensuring optimal operations at the Coleman/Franktown intersection is important to minimize congestion. Therefore, the Coleman/Franktown intersection should be regularly monitored to ensure traffic operations are acceptable through to the 2041 planning horizon. The east and westbound approaches at this location have an unconventional configuration, with auxiliary right-turn lanes and a shared through/left-turn lanes. The Town may consider optimizations to extend intersection capacity, such as reconfiguring the approaches to auxiliary left-turn lanes and shared through/right-turn lanes if the current configuration reaches its operational limit. This type of optimization may help improve the overall operations of the intersection by enabling more flexibility in the signal phasing design. However, the geometric implications and specific elements of the modifications would need to be confirmed during the detailed design. Recommendation: Monitor traffic operations at the Franktown Rd/Coleman St intersection and consider optimizations to extend intersection capacity as needed. Reassess needs in future TMP updates. Moore Street Corridor: Intersection capacity constraints are not expected along Lake Ave by the 2041 planning horizon. However, traffic operations at the Moore/Bridge/Lake intersection should be monitored due to the close proximity of the Moore/Lansdowne intersection and the Moore St PXO at the OVRT crossing, which spans approximately 175m. Over time, as vehicular traffic on Moore St and active travel on the OVRT gradually increase, congestion may intensify and potentially cause queue spillback along the corridor. An intervention the Town may consider as development intensifies in the area, would be to convert the Moore/Lansdowne intersection to a right-in/right-out intersection only, which would reduce left-turn conflicts and maximize queue storage space between Lake Ave and the Moore St PXO. Figure 33: Coleman/Franktown Intersection Source: Google © Page | 108 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 34: Moore St Corridor (Between Lake Ave and OVRT Crossing) Source: Google © Recommendation: Monitor traffic operations at the Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave intersection, Moore St/Lansdowne Ave intersection, and the Moore St OVRT PXO. If vehicle queues interfere with upstream intersection operations or safety at the PXO, consider mitigation, such as converting Moore/Lansdowne to a right-in right-out only intersection. McNeely Ave Intersections and Bridge/Townline Intersection: Traffic operations at the intersections of McNeely/Canadian Tire Access, McNeely/Townline, and Bridge/Townline should be monitored over time as traffic levels rise as a result of Town growth. Adjusting the traffic signal timing to allocate more green time to the critical movements was shown to be successful in mitigating operational constraints in the future. A public comment identified a need for an advanced left-turn signal phase at the McNeely/Coleman/Cavanagh intersection. The Town should review the signal timing plan at this location and any future location as concerns arise, to confirm whether an adjustment is warranted. Recommendation: Monitor traffic operations at the intersections of McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access, McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E, McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, and Bridge St/Townline Rd, and consider signal timing adjustments to improve operations if warranted. Preferred Solution Approach - Specific Issues New Connection North of Highway 7: As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the approved Hwy 7/15 TESR and Highway District Secondary Plan propose three new private road connections north of Hwy 7: one that extends east from Franktown Rd, one that extends west from McNeely Ave, and one that extends north from Hwy 7. The two documents also identify a potential future connection between the two east-west private roads that, if ratified, would create a continuous east-west corridor. This road network solution was triggered by the new median planned along Hwy 7 by MTO along Hwy 7 that will ultimately prohibit left-turn movements in and out from all existing accesses along Highway 7 between McNeely Ave and Highway 15. A frequent comment heard during the TMP public and stakeholder consultation was the need to better connect people to the Town's destinations and activity centres; not just for vehicles but for all road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. The areas surrounding Highway 7 were considered one of the destinations in the Town with the greatest barriers for multi-modal access due to the MTO's controlled access highway restrictions. 120m 55m Page | 109 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The Town would also benefit from having the flexibility to expand the potential land use mix within the Highway District Secondary Plan area from strictly commercial to mixed-use developments, which is limited if primary access is by private roads. The Development Permit By-Law states all residential buildings with more than 4 dwelling units must be located on an arterial or collector roadway. The use of private road connections (limited to 15m of right-of-way) also creates challenges for the Town to incorporate multi-modal facilities to encourage more sustainable modes of travel. Therefore, the Town's assumption of these important private roads in the fullness of time was deemed essential to support the long-term development plans of lands north of Highway 7. Upon considering the TMP vision and objectives, which were based on extensive consultation with Town staff, stakeholders, and the public, there is a desire to modify the ultimate vision of this north road connection by ratifying the "potential future connection" and develop continuous municipal road connection north of Hwy 7 between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave. A conceptual view of the new connection is shown in Figure 35; it is important to recognize the alignment would remain unchanged from the approved Hwy 7/15 TESR and Highway District Secondary Plan. Figure 35: Conceptual Municipal Connection Road This future road connection may be initially constructed as private roads as depicted in the approved Hwy 7/15 TESR, but the Town protect the required property to implement a municipal road in the fullness of time adhering to the general criteria outlined in the TMP and the Town's engineering design standards. This approach provides long-term assurances that the roadway can be easily assumed by the municipality, safeguard long-term continuity in the municipal network, and enable multi-modal elements to be included in the street design that is serving a future growth area in the Town. On February 22, 2022, Town Council passed a motion to formally request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to investigate the traffic implications of this modified vision for the future road connection north of Hwy 7. Depending on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, which is subject to MTO approval, the Town preferred continuous municipal connection may or may not be pursued - in the latter case, the original TESR recommendations would proceed. If the proposed continuous municipal connection is supported by the revised Hwy 7/15 TESR, additional study Continuous Municipal Road Maintain Private Road Designation Page | 110 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - would be required to identify the most appropriate alignment and design elements for the corridor prior to implementation. Potential intersection modifications or enhancements will need to be confirmed in this study at Franktown/Findlay and McNeely/Canadian Tire, such as the need for new traffic signals, new auxiliary turn lanes, or adjustments to existing signal timings. Recommendation: Request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR, and work with MTO to investigate the implications of a continuous municipal road connection north of Highway 7 between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave. Lansdowne/Coleman Intersection: A traffic signal warrant was completed for this intersection at the 2041 planning horizon, and it did not trigger the need for this modification. That said, if local concerns regarding safety persist, the Town may review this location and investigate various optimization and mitigation measures outlined in this TMP (Section 6.2), such as traffic calming measures. Recommendation: Traffic operations at the Lansdowne/Coleman intersection did not trigger the traffic signal warrant; thus the intersection should be monitored. The traffic signal warrant should be reassessed, and a safety review be completed if local concerns persist. 5.4.4 Summary of Recommendations It is recommended the Town adopt the Street Network Strengthening Plan (Map 9) to support the vision and objectives outlined in this TMP (Section 3.1). The corresponding recommendations have been summarized below based on the identified needs (Section 5.3.4). Corridor Capacity - Engage the County of Lanark to widen McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes between Patterson Cr and Townline Rd E, including the two bridges over the Mississippi River. - Monitor the McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd corridors between Highway 7 and Lake Ave, while exploring opportunities for optimization and to reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark to extend vehicular corridor capacity. Review the needs in future TMP updates. - Monitor Townline Rd E vehicular operations between Joseph St and Industrial Ave, while exploring opportunities to optimize operations and reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark to extend vehicular corridor capacity, such as rebalancing options to add and/or enhance active transportation facilities within the corridor. Review the needs in future TMP updates. - Engage the County of Lanark to widen Townline Rd E from McNeely Ave to Ramsay Concession 8, as dictated in the County of Lanark TMP. Confirm the schedule for implementation in future TMP updates. - Engage the County of Lanark to rebalance Townline Rd E from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes with enhanced active transportation facilities. - Review the needs and opportunities for a Captain A Roy Brown Blvd extension to Cemetery Side Rd as part of future TMP updates or if triggered by annexation discussions with Beckwith Township in support of development south of Highway 7. Intersections - Monitor long-term traffic operations at the Hwy 7/McNeely Ave intersection. Engage MTO regarding additional modifications, such as those outlined in the Hwy7/15 TESR, if vehicle capacity is shown to be exceeded. Page | 112 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Monitor traffic operations at the Franktown Rd/Coleman St intersection and consider optimizations to extend intersection capacity as needed. Reassess needs in future TMP updates. - Monitor traffic operations at the Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave intersection, Moore St/Lansdowne Ave intersection, and the Moore St OVRT PXO. If vehicle queues interfere with upstream intersection operations or safety at the PXO, consider mitigation, such as converting Moore/Lansdowne to a right-in right-out only intersection. - Monitor traffic operations at the intersections of McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access, McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E, McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, and Bridge St/Townline Rd, and consider signal timing adjustments to improve operations if warranted. Specific Issues - Request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to investigate the traffic implications of implementing a continuous municipal connection between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave, north of Highway 7, to support long-term development needs and multi-modal aspirations of the Town. - Traffic operations at the Lansdowne/Coleman intersection did not trigger the traffic signal warrant; thus the intersection should be monitored. The traffic signal warrant should be reassessed, and a safety review be completed if local concerns persist. Road Classifications The Town requested the project team establish a road classification system including road standards and minimum right-of-way widths. 5.5.1 Purpose of Road Classifications A road classification system establishes a hierarchical structure of roadway types according to their physical and functional characteristics and the type of service they are intended to provide to the public. The existing road classifications in Carleton Place is provided in Section 4.3.3 of the 2013 Official Plan, which consists of the following five (5) main roadway types in the Town: Provincial roads, Arterial roads, Collector roads, Local roads, and Private roads. Road classifications also provide an opportunity and guidance to the Town and residents to consider other factors relating to road operations such as: - Development Impacts - changes to roadway classification due to future street connections or development. - Future Road Linkages - recommend specific locations where future street linkages should be developed based on the Town's Official Plan and Secondary Plans. - Complete Streets - incorporate complete streets principles into the roadway classification system, where applicable, to ensure that all roadway users are considered in the design of new streets and roadway retrofit projects, in support of an accompanying complete streets policy or guideline document. 5.5.2 Best Practices Transportation Association Canada (TAC) The TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads provides general structure for roadway classification with recommended standards. The most common approach taken from municipal comparisons is to classify roads as the Page | 113 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - basic Highway, Arterial, Collector and Local as per TAC guidelines, which is the current practice in Carleton Place. Under TAC, roadways are divided into "Rural" and "Urban" sub-classes, which refer to the primary characteristics of adjacent land use. Beyond this, various divisions can be established, including: - Differentiating by Level-of-Access, whereby land access is prioritized over mobility at the local and collector end of the spectrum, and mobility is prioritized over land access at the arterial and highway end of the spectrum. - Differentiating by Adjacent Land Use, whereby the individual needs of adjacent land uses is represented, e.g. residential, industrial, and commercial. TAC recognizes the following factors as the most important characteristics to consider when assigning a roadway classification: - Land Use and its relationship with access demands, geometric requirements, vehicular traffic, and site-specific objectives. - Service Function which defines the degree of priority between serving traffic and providing land access. - Traffic Volumes which provide an indication of service function based on the level of priority given to facilitating traffic movement. It is important to note that traffic volume should not be used as the main criteria for classifying roadways as it reflects how a road is serving demand in a particular part of the network rather than the role of the road in the overall network. - Flow Characteristics represent the desired characteristics of traffic flow along a roadway, which impacts performance. Uninterrupted flow prioritizes traffic movement, whereas interrupted flow is restricted by higher traffic conflicts or specific design features, such as traffic calming or on-street parking. - Design and Posted Speeds typically increase as you progress up the road hierarchy (i.e. local roads to highways). Appropriate care must be taken in selecting a design speed that corresponds with the adjacent land- use, service function and speed zoning policy for the roadway. - Vehicle Types relate the proportion of passenger cars to heavy vehicles served by a roadway. Allowances can be made within classifications for operational needs of vehicle types accessing industrial and/or commercial areas. - Connections whereby roadways typically connect with roadways of similar or one class above or below in the hierarchy, e.g. local roads connect to collector roads, and collector roads to arterial roads, but not local roads generally avoid connecting to arterial roads. This order maintains consistency in the overall road network for short and long-term planning. TAC Guidelines provide a good starting point for road design classifications. Jurisdictions across Canada commonly adopt the TAC system, but may modify the guidelines to meet their specific needs. Examples of this include: County of Lanark - The SCOP identifies three (3) transportation system components, Provincial highways, County roads and local public roads. The TMP outlined the design criteria for the County road system based on the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads by TAC and the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways by MTO. They define both urban and rural context for arterial and collector roads. Design criteria for potential cycling facilities on County roads were also provided. Municipality of Mississippi Mills (MMM) - The TMP outlined a standard hierarchical road classification system including Local, Collector and Arterial Roads, subdivided by urban and rural cross-sections. Design criteria were based Page | 114 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - on TAC Guidelines, with provisions for different forms of cycling facilities on arterial roads, i.e. multi-use pathway vs on- road bike lane. For the TMP, an updated classification system will be developed that can be used to re-classify streets where warranted. The following factors were considered in the new road classification system: - Roadway Geometry - standard right-of-way and pavement widths to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. - Traffic Management - including vehicle types, speed, and volume. - Roadway Services - including on-street parking, property access, active transportation, truck access, streetscaping and character. The benefits of expanding the basic hierarchical system include: - Consistent application of geometric design standards on all roadways in various settings; - Established standards for functional characteristics (e.g. land access, traffic volume thresholds, speed limits, parking, and cycling/pedestrian accommodations); - Improved coordination and planning of land use and transportation facilities; - Set appropriate speed limits based on street geometry, function, and abutting land use; and - Preserve the intended service function of planned roadways and promote a safer environment with operational integrity. 5.5.3 Road Classification Framework A framework has been developed to define the function of the street network to inform the planning outcomes and investment decisions for the Town. The framework defines the future function of the street network on the basis of overall land use and transport objectives. The Town of Carleton Place Official Plan (OP) includes the following existing definitions and established road classifications 12: - Provincial Highways - Highways 7 and 15 are controlled access highways within the Town. A portion of Highway 7 through the Highway District in Town provides direct access to adjacent commercial properties, but these will be reduced as properties redevelop. - Arterial - Arterials have the capacity to carry large traffic volumes, linking two or more communities or facilitating linkages to Provincial highways. Direct access to arterial roads is generally not permitted unless traffic impacts have been assessed and, if necessary, mitigated. - Collector - Collectors provide efficient multi-modal access between Arterials and Locals. Access to Collectors is established in the Development Permit By-law, which are generally minimized to ensure this function is maintained. - Local - Locals carry multi-modal traffic to individual properties. Access to these roads is subject to the jurisdiction of the Town. New development and lot creation on local streets may be permitted in accordance 12 Town of Carleton Place Official Plan. The Town of Carleton Place. 2013. Section 4.3.3.1 to 4.3.3.5 Page | 115 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - with relevant policies of the OP and requirements of the Development Permit By-law. In all new developments a sidewalk on at least one side of the street shall be required, as will linkages to the Town's pathway system. - Private - New private roads or the extension of existing private roads is only permitted where such roads are required as part of a condominium plan that defines long term maintenance. Conversion of private roads to public roads require an amendment to the OP, and demonstrate the private road meets municipal design standards for public local streets. New roads or road extensions to existing public streets may proceed without an OP amendment provided the requirements improves the Town's road system, or are a result of the approval of a Plan of Subdivision or condition of Development Permit approval. In the latter case, municipal standards must be met, and Council must deem the cost and need are justified. Land acquisitions for road widenings, road extensions, right-of-way, or intersection improves may be acquired through the subdivision or consent process through Development Permit conditions or formal agreements. "Urban" vs "Rural" Streets The Town's OP does not distinguish between urban and rural roads since there are very few rural roads in Carleton Place. The one main exception is McNeely Ave (County Road 29) between Highway 7 and Townline Rd East, which falls under the County's jurisdiction. For the purposes of this study, the proposed roadway classifications will focus on the urban context. Land Use Sub-Classification The Town's current road classification system does not account for potentially different road environments within the various districts outlined in the 2013 OP (Map 6), such as employments areas located in the northeast (along Industrial Ave) and commercial areas in the Highway District Secondary Plan area, surrounding Highway 7 and McNeely Ave. These distinctions dictate basic road geometry, traffic management, and services offered by the road that best serve the adjacent land uses, which are highlighted in the TAC Guidelines within two sub-classes: Residential and Commercial. It is recommended that the Town delineate roads into these two sub-classes based on the adjacent land uses and service context to help inform future designs of streets, ensuring they Revisiting Road Classification Descriptions The road classifications based on the function they serve within the transportation network have been refocused based on the updated land use sub-classifications. The following road classifications apply to urban locations unless otherwise specified: Arterial Streets: Dedicated to the quick and efficient movement of goods and people over long distances with Arterials playing a strategically significant function within the road network. Rural Arterial Roadways: Similar to Arterial Roadways but are designed to rural cross-sections and speeds. Commercial Collector Streets: High demand for movement as well as destinations and activity centres within the same road space. These streets should balance pass-through vehicular operations, with destination-based needs such as on- street parking, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Residential Collector Streets: Provide safe, reliable, and efficient movement for all users between neighbourhoods and strategic centres. Page | 116 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Commercial Local Streets: Service commercial nodes as well as provide a link to the broader Collector Street system. Residential Local Streets: Facilitates access to neighbourhood nodes, local communities, and private properties. 5.5.4 Recommended Road Reclassifications The recommended changes to the road classification system, as summarized in Table 26 and depicted in Map 10, are intimately connected with land use planning. As a result, the proposed changes to roadway classification should be amended in the next Official Plan Update. These changes were also completed in coordination with the Complete Streets approach (discussed in Section 6.1) to account for active transportation and roadway safety for each road classification category so that municipal geometric design standards support the over-arching policy. The supporting design criteria to accompany the new road classification system have been provided in Section 5.5.5. Page | 117 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 26: Summary of Road Reclassifications Jurisdiction Name Current Classification Proposed Classification MTO Highway 7 Highway 15 Highway Highway Lanark CP McNeely Ave (County Road 29) Conc 8 (Townline Rd to North Limit) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Lanark Lanark CP CP Townline Rd Captain A Roy Brown Franktown Rd/ Moore St Cavanagh Rd (McNeely to E Town Limit) Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial CP CP CP Bridge St (Lake Ave to Townline Rd), Victoria St, Beckwith St, Mill St (Bridge St to Beckwith St), and Allan St (Bridge St to Victoria St) Lansdowne Ave NEW Street Connection North of Hwy 7 * Collector Local N/A Commercial Collector CP CP Industrial Ave, Bruce Cr, Smythe Rd Bates Dr, Hooper St, Roe St, and Costello Dr NEW Hwy 7 South Commercial Development Street Local N/A Commercial Local CP CP Lake Ave, Arthur St (Lansdowne Ave to Napoleon St), Coleman St, Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, High St, Park Ave/Neelin St, Princess St, Bridge St (Townline Rd to Quarry Rd), Albert St/Sussex St, Mill St (Princess St to Rosamond St), and Rosamond St (Mill St to Bell St) Mullett St and Ramsay Conc 7A Collector Local Residential Collector CP CP William St, Gemmill St, and Rosamond St (Bell St to William St) All remaining local streets Collector Local Residential Local (R) - Designates a rural roadway. * - As previously discussed in Section 5.4.3.3., the Town and MTO have elected to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to identify an appropriate alignment, design, and cost for a new street connection between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave. If the Town were to assume responsibility of this road, it is expected that it would be designated a Commercial Collector. Page | 119 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 5.5.5 Recommended Design Parameters Smaller municipalities often face unique transportation challenges when trying to evolve the transportation network into a multi-modal one. Major roads that bring traffic through the Town can present significant safety barriers for residents on foot or on bike, and in Carleton Place, many key roadways are controlled by higher tier government, such as Highway 7 and McNeely Ave. These challenges are compounded by traditional policies that often overlook the alternative modes of travel in deference to the movement of personal vehicles. As a result, road classifications and their design parameters often have a robust definition of motor vehicle requirements. This TMP aims to develop a plan to guide the Town in transitioning the transportation network to one that emphasizes sustainable modes of travel, and is inclusive to all road users, by adopting a Complete Streets approach. In that regard, there are opportunities to re-define the road network in a way that incorporates appropriate design parameters and considerations for active transportation, which will be defined in the following section. A more thorough discussion on the development of a Complete Streets Strategy for the Town will be provided in Section 6.1. Basic design guidelines for the recommended road classifications are shown in Table 28 to Table 30, which include those that may have shared jurisdictions with the County of Lanark, i.e. McNeely Ave and Townline Rd. These guidelines were based on planning and geometric characteristics for urban roads outlined in the TAC Guidelines. Table 27: Local Streets Design Criteria Residential Commercial Service Function Land access primary; traffic movement secondary Expected Traffic Volume (vpd) < 1,000 vpd < 3,000 vpd Flow Characteristics Interrupted Flow Design Speed (km/h) 40 - 60 Posted Speed (km/h) 50 (Lower speed limits can be enacted if warranted) Vehicle Type Passenger and Service Vehicles All Types Desirable Connections Private, Locals and Collectors Traffic Calming Applications Where Required Cycling Treatment Shared lanes; no segregated facilities unless context dictates it. Shared lanes; consider segregated facilities on cycling priority routes if spacing is available. Pedestrian Treatment [sidewalk or multi-use path (MUP)] One or Both sides Where Required Parking Treatment One or Both sides Commercial Vehicle Access Not permitted unless required by adjacent land use Permitted. ROW 20* 20 - 22 * - Narrower ROW may be approved through the development review process. Note: Cross-sections, design treatments and ROW for existing local streets vary and may not meet these guidelines. Page | 120 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 28: Collector Streets Design Criteria Residential Commercial Service Function Land access and traffic movement of equal importance Expected Traffic Volume (vpd) <8,000 vpd <12,000 vpd Flow Characteristics Interrupted flow Design Speed (km/h) 50 - 80 Posted Speed (km/h) 40 (if warranted) - 70 Vehicle Type Passenger and Service Vehicles All Types Desirable Connections Local, Collectors and Arterials Traffic Calming Applications Where Required Cycling Treatment Segregated facilities on cycling priority routes; shared or onstreet facilities permitted if justified or constrained Segregated facilities on cycling priority routes Pedestrian Treatment [sidewalk or multi-use path (MUP)] Both sides One side; Two sides where required Parking Treatment One or both sides; peak hour restrictions may be applied. Commercial Vehicle Access Permitted; may be subject to time restrictions. Permitted ROW 20m (minimum) - 24m (optimal) Note: Cross-sections, design treatments and ROW for existing collector street vary and may not meet these guidelines. The Collector street network is particularly nuanced within the Town; they have wide-ranging contexts and land-uses that change the makeup of the streetscape as you travel along the corridor. As a result, unique design elements may be required in short sections of a corridor to fit the local needs. For example, Lake Ave is currently classified a collector road, and the majority of the corridor providing access to residential properties, but there are pockets of institutional and commercial zones in front of the hospital and near Bridge Street. Therefore, elements of both the residential collector and commercial collector design criteria may be applied along this corridor. Table 29: Arterial Streets Design Criteria Arterial (Urban) Service Function Traffic movement primary consideration; land access secondary Expected Traffic Volume (vpd) 5,000 - 20,000 Flow Characteristics Uninterrupted flow except at signals and crosswalks Design Speed (km/h) 50 - 90 Posted Speed (km/h) 40 - 80 Vehicle Type All Types Desirable Connections Collectors, Arterials and Freeways Traffic Calming Applications Not Required Cycling Treatment Segregated facilities Pedestrian Treatment [sidewalk or multi-use path (MUP)] Both sides Parking Treatment Peak period restrictions Commercial Vehicle Access Permitted ROW 26m - 36m Note: Cross-sections, design treatments and ROW for existing urban arterial streets vary and may not meet these guidelines. Page | 121 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Similar to Collector Streets, there are multiple instances of varying land uses and local contexts that do not fit the typical profile of an urban arterial street. Townline Rd and Franktown Rd are two examples. The Town may consider the conveyance of land for road widening to meet the desired design criteria. Until such time where additional right-of-way space is attained, compromises will have to be made to the design criteria Rural Treatments McNeely Ave is under County of Lanark jurisdiction. It has a rural cross-section within the Town limits, which is unique to Carleton Place. The rural characteristics, as defined in the TAC Guidelines and the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways (GDSOH) have been provided in Table 31. The design criteria for McNeely Ave were defined in the Lanark TMP, as shown in Table 32. Table 30: TAC Rural Arterial Design Characteristics Rural Arterial Service Function Traffic movement primary consideration Expected Traffic Volume (vpd) < 12,000 Flow Characteristics Uninterrupted flow except at signals Design Speed (km/h) 80 - 100* Posted Speed (km/h) 60 - 80* Vehicle Type All Types, up to 20% trucks Desirable Connections Collectors, Arterials and Freeways * Amended for Lanark TMP requirements Source: Table 2.6.4., TAC Guidelines (2017) Table 31: McNeely Ave - Lanark TMP Design Criteria with Cycling Facilities RAU80-100 Lane Widths 3.5 - 3.7m (>450 vph) Shoulder Width 2.5 - 3.0m (>450 vph) Curb Offset - SSD 115 - 160m Minimum Horizontal Radius 250 - 440m Minimum Gradient 0% (drainage ditch) Cross Fall 2% Maximum Gradient 3 - 4% Maximum Superelevation 6% Boulevard Outer - Sidewalk - Design Speed (km/h) 80 - 100 Posted Speed (km/h) 60 - 80 Potential Cycling Facility Shoulder Bikeway Cycling Facility Width 2.0m (desirable) Source: Table 10.1 and 10.2, Lanark TMP (2010) Page | 122 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Assumption of Local Roads The County of Lanark has an established framework for evaluating the potential for lower tier municipalities to upload transportation infrastructure. The framework is outlined in a County of Lanark Public Works Department Operational Practice, shown in Appendix C. A minimum score of eight (8) is required to initiate discussions for uploading. An initial review of the current Town roads did not suggest any were applicable for uploading to the County; three facilities were noted as having potential: 1. Franktown Rd and Moore St - This corridor is heavily used in the Town to access the Downtown and connects to Highway 7 and Highway 15. 2. Cavanagh Rd - This short section provides access to commercial areas on the north side and connects to County Road 29 (McNeely Ave) 3. Coleman St and Cavanagh Rd - This corridor connects to County Road 29 (McNeely Ave). The results of the assessment have also been provided in Appendix C. The assessment results suggest the Town may consider initiating discussions with the County of Lanark in the future regarding uploading Cavanagh Road. The other two facilities did not meet the minimum trigger. In comparison to existing County roads within the Town, i.e. Townline Rd and McNeely Ave, these two facilities are very much Town roads. They provide some connectivity to the Town, but do not provide the same level of regional connectivity, access to industry/amenities, nor are expected to carry significant amounts of County traffic. As the Town intensifies development or expands through annexation agreements with adjacent municipalities, this review should be revisited in future TMP updates. Recommendation: It is recommended the Town consider initiating discussions with the County of Lanark regarding the uploading of Cavanagh Rd. Page | 123 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.0 TMP SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES Various transportation network supportive strategies are available to address the various needs and opportunities in the Town. Multiple strategies may be used for a single problem, or a single strategy may be used for multiple problems in more than one instance. The following section outlines the development of the recommended supportive strategies for the Carleton Place TMP. Complete Streets Roads or streets play several roles in an urban transportation system; they can act as social places (e.g. sidewalk patios), they provide access to a variety of uses (e.g. businesses, parks, schools, homes), and they represent the spine within the system for moving people and goods. Balancing the needs for all users and the various functions often requires a municipality to often make challenging choices. "Complete Streets incorporate the physical elements that allow a street to offer safety, comfort, and mobility for all users of the street regardless of their age, ability, or mode of transportation." 13 Complete streets come in all shapes and sizes, a quiet local road can accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists with minimal infrastructure, while higher order roadways require additional and possibly specialized infrastructure. The Town already has a number of complete streets that fit the lower end of this spectrum, as shown in Figure 36. Figure 36: Example of Local Street that Accommodates all Road Users (McDiarmid Lane) Source: Google © However, there are also many streets in Carleton Place that could better accommodate all road users through a Complete Street approach. The process of transforming a road network to a Complete Streets network begins with adopting a Complete Streets approach that informs planning and design for all road-related projects. It is about gradual, opportunistic changes over time that improve mobility needs for all residents. 13 City of Ottawa, Complete Streets in Ottawa (Infosheet), [https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/documents/complete_streets_en_0.pdf]. 1. Page | 124 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.1.1 Why Complete Streets? The vision of the Carleton Place TMP calls for a multi-modal transportation system that is inclusive and supports a high quality of life for all users. A Complete Streets strategy is instrumental to achieving this vision by improving the comfort and safety of active transportation users and more equitably utilizing the road right-of-way; making it possible to encourage more people to use sustainable modes. Complete Streets provide a wide range of benefits as compared to traditional street designs, including 14: - Help reduce heavy traffic and collisions by getting more people cycling, walking, and taking transit; - Help create safe, livable and welcoming communities; - Encourage healthy lifestyles by making it easier to walk or bike; - Help build sustainable communities by reducing pollution caused by traffic; - Ensure that more people can easily get to stores and businesses; and, - Improve the lives of people with mobility impairments or disabilities. 6.1.2 Policy Review The Town of Carleton Place currently does not have a defined Complete Streets policy, however, the 2013 OP does speak indirectly to a complete street approach in Section 2.2, where it strives to "incorporate pedestrian and cycling amenities into new development and public infrastructure projects where appropriate," as well as Section 4.3.3.4 that recommends "in all new developments a sidewalk on at least one side of the street shall be required as well as linkages to the Town's pathway system." This TMP presents an opportunity to expand these policies further within a Complete Streets framework. Carleton Place currently classifies roads under its jurisdiction into three general classes, Arterial, Collector and Local. These road classes are under review as part of this TMP, as noted in Section 5.5.3. Currently, any street right-of-way (ROW) must be at least 20m. In addition to these classes of municipal roads, the County of Lanark manages a set of arterial roads, and the Province manages highways through the Town. The County of Lanark TMP, Section 8.2.5, outlines various cycling supporting initiatives such as physical and operational measures, education, and incentive measures. The design guidelines for cycling facilities were developed under retrofit conditions. The Municipality of Mississippi Mills (MMM) TMP emphasized the importance of maximizing value of existing road corridors for all users and promoting active transportation as a viable and convenient mode of travel. MMM also 14 'Complete Streets in Ottawa.' 2. Page | 125 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - recognized the varied priorities and considerations in different locations, and while the "overriding principle of complete streets is to offer safety, comfort and convenience to all users," where high demands from multiple modes exist, a balancing of needs must be found in a sustainable way. 15 The City of Ottawa represents an aspirational vision for the Town when it comes to complete streets. The City's Complete Streets policies were approved by Council within the 2013 TMP Update as part of the Building a Livable Ottawa Initiative, which included the following related actions: 16 - Adopt a Complete Streets Policy for road design, operation and maintenance; - Update road design guidelines, standards, and processes to reflect complete streets principles; and - Use Multi-Modal Levels of Service (MMLOS) to assess road designs and allocate right-of-way. This framework outlined how policies were to be implemented, which led to subsequent planning and design guidelines to direct complete streets principles. The City of Ottawa Building Better and Smarter Suburbs Initiative (2015) addressed the challenge of supporting land efficiency and functionality in new suburban subdivisions, while at the same time improving urban design. Ten (10) strategic directions were recommended, where #10 was the "ensure components of a 'complete street' are provided in the ROW," such as: Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities, On-street parking, Trees, and Utility/Operational considerations that do not interfere with attributes of complete streets. 17 The City of Ottawa Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) provides up-to date technical guidelines that demonstrate how to balance space within typical street rights-of-way to accommodate walking and cycling, transit amenities, large trees, and low-impact stormwater management features - all while integrating low vehicle speed design. 18 This guide applies to new collector streets through new development in support of development applications, as well as potential renewal projects, and acts as a reference during the preparation of Community Design Plans and Secondary Plans, during the review of development applications, and when updating the City's engineering design standards for urban collector streets. 15 Municipality of Mississippi Mills (2015), Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan - Final Report. 69. 16 City of Ottawa (2015), Transportation Committee Report 8. 70. 17 City of Ottawa (2015), Building Better and Smarter Suburbs: Strategic Directions and Action Plan. 48. 18 City of Ottawa (2019), Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets. Page | 126 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.1.3 Needs and Opportunities An overview of the needs that the Town must address and the opportunities that the Town can seize when moving forward with implementing a Complete Streets approach are described in this section. Needs Road User Safety - Municipalities adopting a Complete Streets approach need to plan for and operate roads that account for the safety of all road users. Figure 37 illustrates a shift from the traditional hierarchy of road users where cars are prioritized to a hierarchy that prioritizes the safety of vulnerable road users, based on the Vision Zero philosophy discussed in the Safety Toolbox (Section 6.2). One of the key principles of Vision Zero is that traffic related deaths are preventable through road design and policy. A Complete Streets approach is an important component of this concept. Prioritizing the needs of vulnerable road users should also be included in the Town's Official Plan, which is one of the TMP objectives discussed in Section 3.1.2. To supplement active transportation infrastructure, traffic calming can be considered, when warranted, to make active modes safer and more comfortable. For example, physical traffic calming measures such as pedestrian median refuges and curb extensions can be used to reduce traffic speeds. A more detailed discussion about traffic calming measures is provided in Section 6.2.2. Land Use - For a Complete Streets approach to apply across the entire Town, distinct land use contexts need to be identified, such as the Downtown (Bridge Street), the Highway District Secondary Plan area, the Highway 7 South Development area, and the existing built-up areas made up primarily of residential and institutional uses that surround the Downtown area. Measuring the Experience of Multiple Road Users - For Complete Streets to be achieved, it is necessary to measure road network performance for all road users. This means that mode-specific performance metrics that include active transportation level of service should be considered. Expanding how road network performance is measured may require additional data collection. Funding - The incremental cost of considering all modes upfront is less than the cost of having to rebuild or upgrade to add infrastructure for specific modes later. Funding for a complete street is more readily available for new roads in growth areas, where the Town can leverage developer contributions and/or development charges for new infrastructure to accommodate growth. Implementing a complete street through retrofitting roads in established areas requires an opportunistic approach. The concept of Complete Streets needs to be embedded in all projects and procedures related to streets - from large projects such as road reconstructions, resurfacing and rehabilitation to routine procedures such as traffic signal updates, maintenance activities, etc. Maintenance - Another cost consideration for Complete Streets is ongoing maintenance, particularly in a municipality with regular and substantial snowfall. In addition to being a legislative requirement per Ontario Regulation 239/02 Figure 37: Multi-modal Hierarchy for Complete Streets Page | 127 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - (O.Reg. 239/02) under the Municipal Act, road maintenance plays a significant role in improving the safety of the transportation network and improving mobility for all road users. As previously outlined within the Active Transportation Strategy (Section 4.8.1), the 2018 update to O. Reg 239/02 includes updates to sidewalk maintenance standards and bike lane maintenance; infrastructure will need to be designed with consideration for these maintenance requirements. Implementation - The successful adoption of the Complete Streets approach requires comprehensive "buy-in" from all Town departments, municipal representatives, and partner jurisdictions. Several key roadways within the Town are County roads, which means implementing a Complete Streets approach requires the cooperation and commitment from the County. Opportunities There are many opportunities to link a Complete Streets approach with broader planning initiatives in Carleton Place. The Town already has a strong off-street pathway network system, centered upon the OVRT, which is the backbone to support a Complete Streets approach. The Town is also well positioned to implement a Complete Streets approach based on current political momentum and recent successes in expanding the Town's trail system (e.g. the OVRT). The Town in recent years has already begun the transition to a Complete Streets philosophy by including multi-use pathways on new road projects and promotion of sustainable travel options, such as the "Safe Cycling Routes" initiative. There have also been fruitful collaborations with the County on infrastructure expansion, such as the Captain A Roy Brown extension, which included a MUP on one side, showing an increased awareness of the needs of all road users. The Cycling Priority Route Plan and AT Network Strengthening Plan (Section 4.3 and Section 4.4) formalizes this commitment by providing a comprehensive road map to create a more multi-modal transportation network. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) supporting strategies also being developed as part of the TMP (further discussed in Section 6.3), provides education and programming strategies that can complement infrastructure additions by encouraging people to try active transportation for at least some of their trips. Traffic Calming supporting strategies (further discussed in Section 6.2.2.2) can also complement a Complete Streets approach. While not a replacement for purpose-built active transportation infrastructure, traffic calming where warranted can make streets safer for all road users and more inviting for vulnerable road users. 6.1.4 Complete Streets Framework The recommended Road Classifications (Section 5.5) helped define the form and function that the street environment plays in the Town. The supporting design criteria (Section 5.5.5) include not only motor vehicle priorities, such as access and movement, but how Active Transportation modes are considered for different road classes. However, the design criteria fall short of defining the appropriate application of Complete Streets principles, as there is no singular design prescription for Complete Streets. Each location is unique and responds to the community context. Therefore, a standardized Complete Streets implementation process will encourage the systematic application of Complete Streets principles. This TMP will develop a series of design options for different road classifications that align with the Complete Streets approach. The general process involved: - Define the Scope - funding is an important consideration for all municipalities, and it is important to define which corridors within the transportation network should be targeted for the Complete Streets approach. - Define a Vision and Goals - how will these corridors exemplify the Complete Streets principles. Page | 128 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Analyze Opportunities and Constraints - how do these competing themes weigh against the vision and goals; opportunities may be prevalent, but must be weighed against constraints, such as right-of-way width. - Identify Potential Needs for the Street - it is essential to understand the how infrastructure considerations differ between different road classes, i.e. arterials, collector, and local streets. - Develop Designs that fit the Context - use the design criteria developed for each road classification as a guide, but refine and adapt designs for different street topologies and community priorities. In this vein, corridors within the same road class may have very different design outcomes. Utilizing this decision-making framework, an overall Complete Streets Strategy was formulated for each road class (i.e. arterial, collector, and local streets). 6.1.5 Complete Streets Strategy Over the course of an extensive public consultation process including various Town staff, municipal representatives, agency representatives, local stakeholders, and the general public, the Town has developed a Complete Street Strategy to help achieve the vision and objectives defined in this TMP. The previously defined Complete Streets framework was followed to guide the process. A summary of the key steps has been provided below: Define the Scope: The Complete Streets approach can be applied to any street based on contextual need, but in order to maximize the impact of the Town's investment into Complete Streets, the scope was based on the corridors defined in the Cycling Priority Route Plan that was developed in this TMP. This approach provides focus to the Complete Streets Strategy, but gives the Town the discretion to apply the proposed designs as they see fit in the future, in either new streets or as part of the life cycle renewal of existing streets. Define a Vision and Goals: Central to the TMP Vision is establishing a future multi-modal transportation network that takes a holistic approach to equally sharing the roadway for all road-users, regardless of physical ability and financial means. Analyze Opportunities and Constraints: As previously discussed, there is a strong desire within the Town to adopt a Complete Streets approach, which is opportune as the Town enters a period of accelerated growth. There is also an established recreational pathway and trail system already in the Town, providing a foundation to build upon. There are also constraints to overcome, including: - Constrained rights-of-way on various corridors, which forces trade-offs to be made in order to accommodate active transportation facilities. - Inconsistent rights-of-way along corridors. - Direct residential frontage on some collector and arterial streets, which creates friction for cycling facilities and impacts resident driveway parking space. Identify Potential Needs for the Street: The needs of a road should be determined by land use and network context, and the functional class of the road. For the Town's road network, the proposed functional classes developed as part of the TMP can serve as the basis for prioritizing the needs of vulnerable road users. Understanding the potential needs for the different road classes is an important step in the Complete Street Strategy. However, every street is unique, and an individual review of each street is needed at the time of detailed design and construction to determine what, if any, changes are required to better accommodate the needs of the street's users. In many cases, infrastructure needs will be similar across multiple roads and functional classes should only be one of many considerations. Page | 129 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Provincial Highways: The purpose of a provincial highway is to move regional and provincial traffic efficiently at high speeds to facilitate goods movement and economic prosperity. - Arterials: The TMP recognizes that arterial roads can serve different functions depending on the surrounding land use context. Within the Town, arterials provide quick and efficient movement of goods and people, typically over long distances, providing access to a wide range of Town destinations. In some sections, they also provide direct driveway access to residential properties. Arterial streets typically require higher order cycling infrastructure, i.e. segregated facilities, for cyclists to feel comfortable. - Collectors: These streets connect urban neighbourhoods or employment nodes to the arterial street network. Collectors in the Town accommodate a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. Active transportation needs on collector streets vary greatly based on adjacent land use, but connectivity to neighbourhood destinations, such as schools, can generate significant volumes of pedestrian traffic. Most collector streets require some type of cycling infrastructure to be comfortable for most cyclists. - Locals: These streets provide access to individual properties and connect to collector streets or directly to arterials. Land uses are primarily residential with some roads serving light commercial uses. Like Collectors, community destinations on Locals can generate large volumes of pedestrian traffic. Active transportation on Local roads is typically accommodated with signed routes and/or shared lanes when traffic volumes and speeds are low. Short, cul-de-sac or dead-end streets with single detached homes as the predominant land use do not serve through traffic and require minimal infrastructure to accommodate active transportation users. - Rural Roads: are less prominent, and are generally being transitioned to urban streets over time. Cycling and pedestrian traffic is usually very low on these corridors. It is important to note that the Cycling Priority Route Plan is made up primarily of existing streets, most of which do not provide adequate pedestrian and cycling facilities to accommodate the most vulnerable users. The identified right-of-way and residential driveway constraints on certain corridors will require flexible design alternatives in order to balance the competing needs of the local community. Develop Designs that fit the Context: In adopting a Complete Streets philosophy, the question of "What is the right facility?" is often cited, and there are various answers to this question. The design criteria developed for each road class is a good starting point to help determine what design features should be included on a particular corridor, but these must be expanded upon for different street topologies and community priorities. In most cases, the width of the right- of-way will ultimately determine what design features can fit. In this vein, corridors within the same road class may have very different design outcomes. For example, the arterial street design criteria (Table 30) specify "segregated facilities" for the recommended type of cycling treatment, but it does not specify which facility is most appropriate, nor does it specify whether a segregated facility will fit within all arterial street contexts. As previously discussed in Section 4.4.5, if space is available, off-road cycling facilities, specifically Multi-Use Pathways (MUPs) are the preferred type of facilities for accommodating cyclists on municipal streets amongst Town staff and stakeholders. On-street bike lanes were considered, but ultimately not recommended upon confirming how constrained road rights-of-way are within the Town. Additionally, the preference for the Town was to be aspirational and strive for the segregated facilities where possible. In locations that are constrained or of appropriate context, shared use cycling lanes may be considered. A description of each approach is provided below, and illustrated in Figure 38. Page | 130 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Figure 38: Shared-use and Multi-use Pathway Cycling Treatments - Multi-use Pathway (MUP): MUPs are shared between pedestrians and cyclists, and are physically separated from vehicles. This facility type is recommended parallel to high volume and high-speed corridors (i.e. arterials and collector streets). - Shared Use Cycling Lanes: Cyclists travel in the vehicle travel lane with lane markings, sharing the road with motorists. This approach is recommended on local streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. They may also be applied to collector or arterial streets with a constrained right-of-way whereby segregated cycling facilities may not be possible. This approach represents a lower-cost option that can help to increase the network of Complete Streets without large financial expenditures and enables the network of streets that better accommodate the needs of all users to be implemented more quickly. Specialized treatments are recommended to improve the cycling environment, such as "Cycling Route" and "Share the Road" signs and sharrow pavement markings, as shown in Figure 39. Figure 39: Suggested Shared Use Signage and Pavement Markings 19 19 Regulatory signs referenced from OTM Book 18, Section 4.1.1.2. Shared Use Lane (Sharrow) Pavement Marking referenced from OTM Book 18, Section 4.2.2. M511 (OTM) 450mm x 450mm Wc-19 (OTM) 600mm x 600mm Wc-19t (OTM) 300mm x 300mm Figure 4.18 (OTM) Page | 131 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Additional Options and Considerations: It is important to acknowledge that Complete Streets Strategy is flexible and may change as Town needs evolve. It was acknowledged in Section 4.4.5 that MUPs are shared facilities between pedestrians and cyclists and at a certain volume threshold, providing separate facilities may be preferred to maintain optimal level of comfort for users. Therefore, another important piece of the Complete Streets approach is identifying affordable retrofit options that do not require substantial roadway reconstruction, giving the Town the discretion to adjust the Complete Streets Strategy and consider these alternatives if the context warrants it. Where practical and appropriate, these options can help to augment the network of Complete Streets without significant additional investment. Some options include: - Planning Ahead: As noted among the Active Transportation Strategy recommendations, the Town should be prepared to expand or retrofit existing MUPs along Cycling Priority Routes to adequately accommodate future growth. - On-street Bike Lanes: applicable in cases where there is enough space to safely accommodate bike lanes within the existing right-of-way. - Road Rebalancing: reallocate road space to accommodate more road users by, for example, taking a four-lane street with four through lanes and creating two through lanes, a centre left turn lane, and bike lanes. - High Visibility Crosswalks: crosswalks can be made to be more visible through pavement markings and signage, which can improve pedestrian safety. Crossing treatments are discussed in further detail in Section 6.2.2. - Mid-Block Crossings: mid-block pedestrian crosswalks or crossovers can provide a safer location to cross the street when distances between intersections are long. Crossing treatments are discussed in further detail in Section 6.2.2. - Curb Extensions: curb extensions can shorten the distance that pedestrians must cross and make pedestrians more visible to drivers. These are typically implemented in areas with on-street parking. The application of other traffic calming measures is discussed in further detail in Section 6.2.2. - Traffic Signals: pedestrian signals can be added at signalized intersections. 6.1.6 Recommended Complete Streets Cross-Sections The recommended Complete Streets cross-sections for Arterial and Collector Streets have been provided on the following pages, including two tables that summarize the specific design elements for each option and recommended locations, and conceptual drawings of each cross-section. Page | 132 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 32: Complete Streets Cross-Section Summary Cross-Section Recommended Treatments Comments 1 Local Street 3.5m to 4.5m travel lanes, sidewalk on one or both sides, cycling shared use lanes, onstreet parking on one or both sides. Standard local street design, enhance environment for cyclists through signage and pavement markings. 2 Collector Street (<20m ROW) 3.5m travel lanes, sidewalk on one or both sides, and shared use lanes For constrained contexts only, enhance environment for cyclists through signage and pavement markings. Arterial Street (<20m ROW) 3 Collector Street (20m ROW) - 3 design contexts provided - Active Transportation Focus 3.5m travel lanes, MUP both sides with boulevard, no on-street parking Prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists with MUP on both sides, sacrificing on-street parking and driveway space. - Parking Focus 3.5m travel lanes, MUP on one side with boulevard, sidewalk on one side, with on-street parking on one side Provides on-street parking on one side with a sidewalk, sacrificing cycling on one side. - Driveway Focus 3.5m travel lanes, MUP on one side with minimum buffer, sidewalk on one side, no on-street parking Prioritizes driveway space by minimizing buffer space1, sacrificing on-street parking, and cycling on one side. 4 Arterial Street (20m ROW) 4.25m travel lanes and MUP on both sides For constrained contexts only, 2 travel lanes, reduce buffer space1 as needed while maintaining MUP on both sides where possible. 5 Collector Street (24m ROW) 3.5m travel lanes, MUP on both sides with boulevard and on- street parking on one side Recommended design for new or reconstruction of Collector Streets - allotted space for MUP expansion or retrofit. 6 Arterial Street (26m ROW) 4.25m travel lanes, MUP on both sides with boulevard and on- street parking on one side Recommended design for new or reconstruction of Arterial Streets with 2 travel lanes - allotted space for MUP expansion or retrofit. 7 Arterial Street (36m/43m ROW) 3.75m travel lanes, MUP on both sides with boulevard and centre median Recommended design for multi-lane Arterial Streets - allotted space for MUP expansion or retrofit. 8 Arterial Street (48m ROW Rural) 3.75m travel lanes, 2.0m shoulder, MUP on both sides with boulevard and centre median Recommended design for multi-lane Arterial Streets in rural contexts (i.e. sections of McNeely Ave) -- allotted space for MUP expansion or retrofit. 1 - 0.6m buffer only applicable in exception basis only 1.0m buffer minimum (concrete) 2.0m buffer desirable (grass) 2- All MUPs 3.0m width Page | 133 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 33: Complete Streets Application on Cycling Priority Routes Cross-Section Location 1 Joseph St (Prime Pl to Mississippi River), Prime Pl, Stonewater Bay (McNeely Ave to Hackberry Tl), Arthur St (OVRT to Sarah St), Sarah St (Lake Ave to Coleman St), Frank St (Lake Ave to John St), John St (Frank St to west limit), Bell St (Bridge St to Rosamond St), Rosamund St (Mill St to Bell St) * - Findlay Ave and a future commercial site west of Highway 15 and north of Highway 7: a MUP on one side is recommended along both streets since space is available. 2 Bridge St (Bell St to Prime Pl), Princess St (Mississippi River Walk Trail to Mill St), New Municipal Connection north of Highway 7 (Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave) 3 Lake Ave, Mississippi Rd 4 Townline Rd E (Industrial Ave to Joseph St) 5 Coleman St (OVRT to McGregor St) 6 Townline Rd W (Joseph St to West Town Limit), Townline Rd E (Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave) 7 Coleman St (McGregor St to McNeely Ave), Cavanagh Rd (McNeely Ave to East Town Limit), McNeely Ave (Highway 7 to South Town Limit), Captain A Roy Brown Blvd 8 McNeely Ave (Cavanagh Rd to Townline Rd E) Page | 136 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.1.7 Design Resources There is no one universal set of design guidelines for Complete Streets. Like many jurisdictions, the Town has developed their own design guidelines within this TMP (Map 11 and Map 12), while many others use other resources. It is important to recognize the recommended Complete Streets designs in this TMP are intended to be flexible, and may be refined or adjusted over time as needs and opportunities evolve. In this eventuality, the Town can draw on existing guidelines and standards. Common resources for Complete Streets design elements include: - Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15: Pedestrian Crossings (2016) and OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities (2021). The OTM Books provide information and guidance to promote uniformity of treatment in the design, application and operation of traffic control devices and systems across Ontario. Book 15 and Book 18 provide guidance specifically on pedestrian and cycling facilities. - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Transportation Association of Canada (2017). The recent release of the updated Geometric Design Guide includes guidance on cross-sectional elements and two chapters dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. - Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, Transportation Association of Canada (2018). A common reference for guidance on traffic calming elements such as curb extensions, refuge islands, and other devices that slow traffic. - Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) (2011). NACTO developed this guide as part of its Cities for Cycling initiative to provide cities with state-of-the-practice solutions to create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for cyclists. It includes descriptions, benefits, applications, design guidance, renderings, images and case studies for bike lanes, cycle tracks (segregated bike lanes), intersections, bicycle signals, and signage and pavement markings. - Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO (2013). This guide provides direction for improving street design for inclusive, multi-modal urban environments. 6.1.8 Evaluation and Monitoring The Town may consider utilizing existing evaluation techniques to better understand how given segments of the road network serve all users. Data for all modes would be collected before and after the implementation of a Complete Streets project. Performance measurement is an iterative process; it can be used to identify gaps and prioritize improvements and illustrate progress being made on encouraging sustainable modes. To measure performance, multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) indicators would be used. MMLOS indicators measure road performance for all modes by assigning a level of service (LOS) of A through F for each mode based on performance, traffic conditions, and infrastructure features. Performance measures can include lane width, pedestrian crossing distance, and traffic stress experienced by cyclists among others. The province is in the process of developing a set of MMLOS Guidelines as part of their Ontario Traffic Manual series in 2022, which the Town may refer to. 6.1.9 Recommendations The TMP promotes the development 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 dependent on each local context and sensitive to topographical, technical, or legal considerations. All Page | 137 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 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. Official Plan Principles The Complete Streets approach is based on the needs of all road users, of all ages and abilities, who must be considered during all phases of planning, design, implementation, and operation. The following principles should be incorporated into the recommended policy: - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing vulnerable road user safety, and pedestrians and cyclists are explicitly considered early in the planning and design phases, rather than as an afterthought. - Consider All Projects - Each project will be planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with the explicit consideration for the needs of road users of all ages and abilities. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods shall be designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian/cycling facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes. - Understanding Constraints - It is recognized that not all projects will be able to accommodate all road users to the highest level of service. Where constraints exist, planners and designers will need to demonstrate that the proposed design afforded due consideration for all potential road users and that the prevailing design meets the needs of the intended function of the street and fits within the existing and planned community context. Complete Street Recommendations - Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan. - Collaborate with County of Lanark and external stakeholders to describe this new approach and how best to adopt these new road planning and design processes. - Integrate the Complete Streets approach in all relevant Town departments. - Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets. - Prioritize the Complete Streets cross-sections prepared for Arterial, Collector and Local Streets (Map 11 and Map 12) along the Cycling Priority Routes, and consider them on all new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street approach. - Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. - Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes, and consider adopting a multi-modal level-of-service framework (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). - Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Safety This section aims to provide Town staff with guidance regarding the implementation of road safety measures within the Town. These measures are meant to supplement the Complete Street approach and AT Strengthening Plan described in this TMP. Page | 138 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 6.2.1 Acknowledging Vision Zero In reviewing road safety policies and programs in Ontario and worldwide, Vision Zero emerged as the foremost approach to road safety intervention. Vision Zero is a Swedish road safety approach that aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries on roads through education, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, and engagement. A core concept of Vision Zero is designing a road system in such a way that it is forgiving to human error and mistakes with as low impact forces as possible. The Vision Zero approach is part of Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Vision, and has been adopted by many Canadian municipalities. Vision Zero policies adopted by municipalities typically include the goal of zero fatal and serious injury collisions by a specific timeframe and involve the development of a detailed Vision Zero Action Plan that lays out specific steps, timelines, and priorities to achieve this goal. The development of a Vision Zero Action Plan requires that recommendations be based on a solid understanding of fatal and serious injury collisions within a jurisdiction, thus requiring a robust database, in addition to input from the broader community and stakeholders. The key themes of Vision Zero include: Safe Speeds; Safe Vehicles; Safe Roads and Safe Drivers. The TMP acknowledges the principles within the Vision Zero approach in the planning and design of the Town's future transportation network, particularly as they relate to safe speeds and safe roads. As the Town grows, it may consider adopting a Vision Zero policy and expanding the current recommendations into the development of a full Road Safety Action Plan. 6.2.2 Safety Toolbox The safety toolbox presented in this section identifies several potential measures that the Town may consider in addressing resident safety concerns. Complete Streets Approach It is recommended that the Town implement the Complete Streets Approach presented in this TMP in the design of all new and reconstruction road projects as a key approach to improving road safety for all travel modes. The Complete Street approach includes design guidelines that improve safety for all road users, including continuous sidewalks and segregated cycling facilities along collector and arterial roads. Traffic Calming Traffic calming is a way to slow down traffic that is too fast for the environment or divert traffic that is shortcutting through neighbourhoods to avoid congestion. Controlling vehicle speed is important for the safety of all road users and can prevent collisions and reduce their impact when they do happen. The Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy (2009) identifies the process for confirming neighbourhood speeding issues, the range of solutions that can be employed, and the appropriateness of these solutions under different conditions. Traffic calming is typically applied to local or collector streets in residential neighbourhoods. The two key goals in undertaking traffic calming and speed management projects, as identified within the Town policy, are as follows: - "Safety - Traffic calming and speed management can increase the safety of the roads for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Page | 139 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Appropriate driver behaviour - Traffic calming and speed management can encourage driver behaviour that is appropriate for the class of the road and the environment of the road." The Carleton Place Traffic Calming and Speed Management Policy aims "to respond to the concerns of the general public while balancing a technically sound process with the efficient use of town resources". The process specified in the policy applies to both general traffic concerns and traffic calming requests to provide efficient and coordinated completion of traffic reviews by Town staff. A process flow chart is included in the policy as Figure 1. The process for addressing general traffic and traffic calming requests is illustrated in the flow chart is outlined below: 1. Initiation: This can be triggered by either a resident request, staff initiation or council direction. As stated in the policy, resident requests may relate to traffic safety concerns, traffic speed or volume concerns, or explicit requests for traffic calming measures. 2. Evaluation: Objective data such as traffic counts, speed data and collision reports are collected and evaluated to ensure a consistent approach. Data must be no more than three years old. The data analysis is completed based on a comparison to traffic volume and speed thresholds identified in the policy. For example, for a street with an average annual daily traffic volume more than 1,000 vehicles per day, traffic calming measures should be considered when the 85th percentile speed is 10km/h over the speed limit. With the thresholds presented, the policy also states that staff should always apply speed management measures as a first step and continue on to consider traffic calming measures if speeds have not been adequately reduced. Speed management measures may include signage repair/improvements, sightline improvements, pavement marking improvements, public education/awareness, and increased enforcement. 3. Implementation: The policy states that the implementation process shall include the development and evaluation of alternatives and public consultation. Design proposals are generated and reviewed with internal stakeholders, including emergency services personal and a preferred solution is developed. A survey is then circulated to impacted households in the area to determine the level of support for the preferred solution. A public meeting is then held to consider the preferred solution before Council determines to proceed. It is recommended that the Speed Management and Traffic Calming Guideline process be applied to locations identified by residents through public complaints. It is also recommended that the Town consider implementing traffic calming measures along shared cycling facilities identified as Cycling Priority Routes. Although the scope of this study does not include the development of traffic calming plans, several promising traffic calming measures were identified and are listed below: - Flexible posts in the road centerline (seasonal measure) o Pros: Potential reduction in speed. Can be implemented quickly and economically. o Cons: Seasonal measure from spring to fall. May require frequent replacement due to impact, which increases operating costs. - Radar speed signs to alert drivers of their speeds (may be temporary or permanent) Page | 140 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - o Pros: Can reduce vehicle speeds and educate the public regarding the level of speeding. o Cons: Require enforcement for long-term effectiveness. - Pavement markings: Used to visually narrow the road using edge lines or lane striping in the centre portion of the road o Pros: Potential reduction in speeds and can be implemented quickly and economically. o Cons: May be less effective in the winter months due to visibility issues and effects may be reduced over time. - Centre Island Narrowings: An elevated median constructed in the middle of a two-lane road which reduces the width of the vehicle travel lanes. o Pros: Mostly on arterial roads. Can reduce vulnerable street user exposure to traffic by providing refuge between travel lanes at crossings. o Cons: Cyclists can feel "squeezed" if no dedicated bike facility is present. - Mini Roundabouts: Include raised islands located in the centre of an intersection around which traffic must circulate. o Pros: Fewer potential conflict points than a traditional four-leg intersection o Cons: Street users may be confused as to who has right-of-way at pedestrian crossings. Cyclists may feel "pinched" as merge with vehicles. May negatively impact emergency response. - Targeted Speed Enforcement: Additional police enforcement in locations when speed, collision, resident comments, or other sources of information suggest that the site is unusually hazardous. - Education campaigns: Events, programs, or media campaigns to try and raise awareness on road safety issues. It is noted that the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming Policy explicitly excludes the use of vertical traffic calming measures such as speed humps due to their impact on emergency vehicles, in addition to the use of chicanes and curb-radii reductions at intersections. It is recommended that the Town consider an update to its 2009 Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to reflect the updated Transportation Association Canada - Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (2018). This may include updates to existing industry best practices, such as consideration of proactive traffic calming measures during the road design and development review phases, and the addition of several new traffic calming measures to the "traffic calming toolbox" such as flexible posts and speed signs. Speed Limits, School Zones, and Community Safety Zones A notable public concern heard throughout the TMP process was speeding on residential streets, and there was a desire to implement a more widespread speed limit reduction within the Town. Page | 141 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - It is important to reiterate that research has shown that posted speed limit signage alone may have limited real impacts on driver behaviour without regular enforcement and/or other features to support the lower speed limit. 20 21 Making changes to the roadway design, such as implementing traffic calming measures, is thus necessary to achieve sustained benefit if reduced speed limits are to be applied. In addition, under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), the Town has the authority to designate two types of "zones" for heightened safety and enforcement emphasis, including: - School Zones: Indicates to motorists that they should reduce their speeds at certain times because they are entering an area where school children are present; and - Community Safety Zones: Inform drivers they are entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its children/citizens. These sections of roadway are typically near schools, day care centres, playgrounds, parks, hospitals, senior citizen residences and may also be used for collision-prone areas within a community. Traffic-related offences committed within these zones are subject to increased fines through a special designation under the Highway Traffic Act. Implementing these two types of zones enable the Town to focus resources and attention on specific locations where safety risk to vulnerable road users is highest. However, experience from other communities suggests that signs alone are typically ineffective and the benefits not commensurate with the enforcement effort required. For this reason, the Town should use School Zones and Community Safety Zones selectively following the guidance provided in OTM Book 5: Regulatory Signs when identifying locations. While final determination of the School Zone limits will still rely on sound engineering judgment, the School Zone Input Worksheet detailed in the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation can be used as a guide. If designating a School Zone, the speed limit should be set at no lower than 30 km/h and supplemented with the flashing signal indication. The Town currently has Community Safety Zones along Townline Rd (near Joseph St and St. Gregory Catholic School) and along Patterson Cr (near Arklan Public School). Crossing Treatments As previously discussed on Section 4.4.1, OTM Book 15: Pedestrian Crossing Treatments provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control treatment. Where warranted, pedestrian crossing treatments such as PXOs are an important tool for addressing pedestrian safety concerns. It is recommended that the Town respond to future pedestrian crossing concerns utilizing the processes outlined above, supported by appropriate data including speed surveys and traffic/pedestrian counts. In general, PXOs are intended for low/moderate traffic volume and speed corridors. PXOs must not be used on high traffic volume or high-speed corridors, or corridors with more than four lanes of two-way traffic or three lanes of one-way traffic. As previously discussed in Section 4.4.5, OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities should be referred to in order to properly design cycling crossing treatments along corresponding corridors or at intersections, where possible. 20 Effects of raising and lowering speed limits on selected roadway sections, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-RD-9 7-084, Jan 1997. 21 Mannering, F. (2009). An empirical analysis of driver perceptions of the relationship between speed limits and safety. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(2), 99-106. Page | 142 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Roundabouts Roundabouts are becoming a more and more common type of intersection traffic control in Canada. Roundabouts have several advantages over traffic signals, including improved traffic safety as they have fewer potential conflict points, lower vehicle speeds and reduced collision severity. Roundabouts also improve traffic operations by providing higher capacity and shorter delays than traditional traffic signals, in addition to reducing environmental impacts through reduced fuel consumption and emissions. Despite these benefits, roundabouts have several disadvantages including higher space requirements than conventional stop-controlled or signalized intersections, higher construction costs, and may pose a challenge for cyclists and pedestrians with vision or mobility impairments. The Canadian Roundabout Design Guide (CRDG) released in 2017 by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) identifies three categories of roundabouts: - Mini-roundabout - A small, low-speed roundabout characterized by a fully traversable centre island and a typical diameter of less than 27m. - Single-lane roundabout - A mid-sized roundabout with single-lane approaches and a single circulatory lane. - Multi-lane roundabout - A roundabout with at least one leg having multiple approach lanes, with a wider circulatory roadway, usually of 2 lanes or more. A variation of the multi-lane roundabout that is increasing in use is the turbo roundabout, which has stricter lane controls, often with the use of raised curbs Many jurisdictions in Canada have adopted policies that require the consideration of a roundabout when a new intersection is being constructed, when a traffic control signal or all-way stop control becomes warranted or capital improvements are planned to alleviate capacity or safety concerns. A policy such as this ensures that roundabouts are given proper consideration as a traffic control option. Currently, the Town has one roundabout at McNeely/Captain A Roy Brown, and two future roundabouts planned on Captain A Roy Brown. It is recommended that the Town adopt a policy that requires roundabouts to be considered and evaluated as standard practice in the event of the following: - Existing intersections where a traffic control upgrade is warranted or being considered. - New intersections along arterial or collector roads that warrant or may warrant traffic control signals or all-way stop control. - New intersections along local roads where traffic calming is required. Traffic Control There are currently five (5) existing traffic signals within the Town. It is recommended that the timing plans for these and any future traffic signals be reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient crossing time for pedestrians, in addition to the optimization of overall signal timing plans. It is noted that traffic signals located near schools or seniors' residences may require longer crossing times to accommodate slower walking speeds of seniors and children. In addition, warrants and guidelines for traffic signals and all-way stop control should be based on provincial guidelines. Source: Google © Page | 143 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Street Lighting Lack of adequate street lighting was a frequent concern identified by Town residents in the public consultation process. Street lighting is critical for improving safety of pedestrians and cyclists as it improves their visibility to vehicle drivers, reduces the risk of tripping and falling, and increases security while walking at night. It should be noted that the Town is currently in the process of converting its streetlight network to LED, and is also evaluating lighting levels as part of this exercise. It is recommended that this ongoing process include OVRT trail access points. It is also recommended that as new MUPs or trails are constructed, including the recommended MUPs along McNeely Rd, adequate street-lighting be installed to ensure safe use during the night. 6.2.3 Local Safety Concerns Several road safety concerns were identified by Town residents through the public consultation process, several of which have already been addressed by other Town initiatives, including: - Lack of sidewalks and poor pedestrian crossing safety along Highway 7: Addressed in the Highway 7/15 TESR - Lack of appropriate pedestrian crossings on Bridge St: Addressed as part of the Bridge St Reconstruction project - Lack of sidewalks on Mill St / Mill St underpass: Addressed as part of the Bridge St Reconstruction project - Lack of pedestrian crossings at OVRT street crossing locations: Addressed through the implementation of new PXOs at all OVRT street crossings Additional concerns expressed by Town residents are summarized below: - Insufficient pedestrian crossing time at the McNeely/Patterson signalized intersection (under review by the County of Lanark) - Need for pedestrian crossing at several locations including: o Coleman St/Park St o Lake Ave/Mississippi Rd o Townline Rd/Industrial o Nelson St/Franktown Rd o Woodward St/Caldwell St (near Caldwell St Elementary School) o Bridge St/High St o Beckwith St (in front of the Carleton Place Library) - Vehicle speeding along several corridors, including: o McNeely Ave o Townline Rd o Coleman St o Napoleon St - Insufficient pedestrian lighting along McNeely and at OVRT crossing locations - Safety concerns based on collision data at McNeely/Coleman and Coleman/Franktown - Conflict between ATV/snowmobile users and pedestrians on the OVRT Page | 144 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - It is important to note that although the above list highlights the most common concerns expressed by Town residents, this list is not exhaustive. Based on the safety toolbox presented in the previous section, several potential safety measures were identified for consideration by Town staff. Data collection such as traffic counts, pedestrian counts and collision records may be required for the assessment of some measures. Potential safety measures for the Town's consideration are listed below: - McNeely / Patterson intersection: o Review the traffic signal timing plan at the McNeely Ave/Patterson Cr intersection to ensure sufficient pedestrian crossing time is available for pedestrians crossing McNeely Ave. o Ensure that the traffic signal timing plan only brings up the pedestrian crossing signal when it is activated through the pedestrian push button, and not when the traffic light is activated along Patterson without the pedestrian push button being activated. o Implement radar speed signs ahead of the McNeely Ave/ Patterson Cr intersection to help manage vehicle speeds. - Review AWSC and PXO warrants at the following locations, and implement appropriate measure where warrants are met: o Intersection of Coleman St/Park St o Intersection of Lake Ave/Mississippi Rd (in front of Carleton Place Highschool) o Intersection of Townline Rd E/Industrial Ave o Intersection of Nelson St/Franktown Rd o Woodward St/Caldwell St (near Caldwell St Elementary School) o Bridge St / High St o Beckwith St (in front of the Carleton Place Library) - Assess the appropriateness of traffic calming measures along Coleman St and Napoleon St. These assessments should be completed based on the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming Policy, which clearly outlines the procedure from initiation to implementation, a warrant system, and a list of appropriate measures to be considered. As a first step, an investigation of 85th percentile operating speeds would be completed. As stated in the policy, traffic calming measures may be appropriate along these corridors if operating speeds exceed the posted speed limit by 10 km/h. - Coordinate with OPP to record detailed collision data annually at McNeely/Coleman and Coleman/Franktown, including date, time of day, type of collision, number of vehicles, roadway conditions, and type of damage. If collision trends continue to increase, prepare safety assessments to identify any geometric deficiencies and develop appropriate mitigation. - Consider implementing radar speed signs along Townline Rd, particularly as it is designated by the County as a Community Safety Zone. - As previously discussed in Section 4.5.2, designate Bridge St between Lake Ave and as a "Special Cycling District" and consider special measures to improve the cycling environment (if deemed appropriate/applicable upon a more detailed review), such as gateway features, reducing posted speed limits, sharrow pavement markings and "Share the Road" signage. Page | 145 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Improve lighting at access points to the OVRT trail and the MUPs along McNeely Rd to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and security. - Continue enhanced speed enforcement for ATVs/snowmobiles along the OVRT. 6.2.4 Recommendations To enhance and support safety in the transportation system for existing and future residents, it is recommended the Town: Traffic Calming - Continue to use the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to identify when, where, and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. - Consider implementing traffic calming measures on shared cycling facilities, where feasible. Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. - It is recommended that the Town consider updating its Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to reflect new traffic calming measures presented in the updated Transportation Association Canada - Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (2018). Speed Management - Consider reduced speed limit signs where the street merits it based on the surrounding land uses and local context. Reduced speeds should be accompanied with design measures such as traffic calming, where appropriate. - Utilize OTM Book 5 when identifying locations for School Zones and Community Safety Zones. Pedestrian and Cycling Crossings - Initiate pedestrian crossing reviews at problem locations identified by the public or Town staff. - Pedestrian crossing reviews should continue to be based on OTM Book 15, which provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. - Cycling crossings should adhere to OTM Book 18 if possible, to ensure they are safe and adequately prioritize cyclists as they navigate across an intersection or crossing. Roundabout - Develop a new policy that requires roundabouts to be considered at all new and retrofit intersections. - Adopt a roundabout screening and assessment process based on the Canadian Roundabout Design Guide Traffic Control - Periodically review intersection signal timing plans to ensure sufficient pedestrian crossing times. Street Lighting - Explore street lighting needs at OVRT crossings and new MUPs as they are constructed. Page | 146 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Local Safety Concerns - Consider the potential safety measures outlined in Section 6.2.3 to address local safety concerns heard during the TMP process, and utilize the Safety Toolbox developed in the TMP to respond to any new concerns raised by the public. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to an approach to transportation planning and design that focuses on creating a more sustainable transportation system. TDM influences existing travel mode share through encouraging other modes of travel including walking, cycling, transit, and carpooling, as well as measures that reduce the need to travel or the timing of trips, such as telecommuting and flexible working hours. The benefits of TDM include reducing traffic congestion, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and promoting healthy lifestyles. It is important to note that to be effective, TDM efforts must be accompanied by improvements to alternative modes such as waking, cycling and transit to ensure that these modes are attractive and viable alternatives. As such, a key component of TDM is supporting investments in pedestrian and cycling facilities. Municipalities in Ontario have created TDM guidelines that are comprised of strategies and a matrix of tools to better select and implement travel demand measures. A TDM plan typically includes a vision and short-, medium-, and long- term TDM goals, actions, and programs. Although the development of a full TDM plan is not within the scope of the TMP, Table 34 outlines a toolbox of TDM measures that the Town may consider leveraging its future investment in active transportation. Before considering any specific TDM measures, the Town would first need to commit to supporting infrastructure and policies, otherwise the effectiveness of any TDM measures will be limited. Supporting infrastructure and policies include: 1. Commit to implementing the Active Transportation Network Strengthening Plan and accelerate implementation, if possible. 2. Explore opportunities to incentivize transit or ridesharing as a commuter option with the County and private transit service providers. 3. Strengthen land-use policies to encourage more mixed-use development and higher density, in addition to policies to incorporate AT connectivity in the development review process (as recommended in the Active Transportation Strategy). In time, the Town may consider developing its own TDM Plan that offers a range of options focused on balancing the use of its transportation infrastructure for all users. The TDM Plan would enact policy that provides residents with greater sustainable transportation options in the long-term. The TDM program would be adopted through policy included in the Official Plan. It may be supplemented with guidance and/or policy supporting TDM initiatives in secondary plans, public health initiatives, active transportation plans, transit plans, etc. 6.3.1 Recommendation It is recommended that the Town investigate the initiatives outlined in the TDM Toolbox to leverage investments in active transportation and transit; and consider the development of a TDM Plan for the Town of Carleton Place. Page | 147 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 34: TDM Toolbox Measure Description Difficulty of Implementation Marketing and Outreach Marketing is needed to educate residents and increase awareness of travel choices. - Consider using social media to promote national initiatives such as "The Commuter Challenge" (www.commuterchallenge.ca), "Walk to School" (www.saferoutestoschool.ca.) and "Bike to Work" (www.smartcommute.ca.). - Consider public awareness programs such as that provided by Share the Road (www.sharetheroad.ca). - Use social media and the Town website to provide updates and information on new pedestrian and cycling infrastructure as improvements are made. Low Ride Sharing Program Ridesharing (or carpooling) encourages residents to drive together to work/school, increasing the average vehicle occupancy and reducing traffic congestion. Ride-share programs have the potential to greatly increase the convenience of ridesharing as they provide a convenient way for users to connect and find rideshare/carpool/vanpool partners. However, there will need to be a high user rate for these programs to be useful - Consider promoting ride-share programs on the Town's website to help connect passengers and drivers (e.g. eRideShare.com or RideShark.com). Medium Active and Safe Routes to School Programs Active and Safe Routes to School is a nationwide program that encourages walking and cycling to and from school. One of the recommendations of the County of Lanark TMP was to develop an Active and Safe Routes to School program in Carleton Place. - Liaise with the County to implement the Active and Safe Routes to School program within the Town. - Prioritize the implementation of sidewalks and other safety measures in and around schools, as appropriate. This may include prioritizing linking sidewalk gaps around schools should funding become available, prohibiting parking, or hiring school crossing guards. Medium Bikeshare and e-Scooter- share Programs The Town currently provides a bike-share program with four cruiser bikes available for locals and tourists outside the Chamber of Commerce and Information Centre at 170 Bridge St, near the Mississippi River. Bike-share and e-scooter-share programs provide a service in which bikes or electric scooters (e-scooters) are made available to users for short-term rentals. These services allow individuals access to bikes or e-scooters by creating an account with a service provider. E-scooter systems are typically "dockless" where scooters can be returned to any location within a specific zone, while bikes may be either docked systems Medium to High Page | 148 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - (i.e. bikes are rented from/returned to certain stations), or dockless systems similar to e-scooters. While more common in urban areas, these services can be successful in addressing the transportation challenges of smaller communities like the Town of Carleton Place, especially with its compact urban form, short trip lengths, attractiveness as a tourist destination, and the desire for alternative modes of transportation for travel within Town. An expanded bike-share program with stations available at different locations throughout town, or a new e-scooter-share services would provide an alternative option for local mobility within the Town and help reduce traffic congestion. It is also noted that e-scooter sharing has gained noted popularity in recent years as compared to bike-sharing programs. E-scooters have been allowed on Ontario roads as a pilot project since January 1, 2020. Municipalities that wish to allow e-scooters on their roads, must first pass a by-law. A framework for such municipalities is available on the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website. - Consider commissioning a study to assess the potential viability of a bike-share or e-scooter program within the Town context. The program may involve partnership with the County and other Towns. - If an e-scooter-sharing program is deemed viable, the Town may consider allowing e-scooters on the OVRT and multi-use pathways in addition to roadways. - If the Town wishes to proceed further with an e-scooter-sharing program, a potential service provider that the Town may consider is Bird Canada. This provider is currently in use by several other Canadian cities including the City of Ottawa. Special Event Transportation Management and Workplace Programs TDM is often most effective when targeted at specific areas, such as special events or the workplace. - Consider encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation to concerts, festivals, and other special events. For example, the Town may provide a bike valet service, priority carpool parking, or special transit shuttles. - Consider working with large employers to implement TDM program in the workplace, for example, by allowing flexible working hours, allowing employees to work from home (telework), or providing bicycle racks and change rooms for employees who commute by active modes. Medium to High Implementation of TDM in the Land Development Process Implementing TDM in the land development and approvals process is an important factor in realizing the full benefits of TDM. - Consider including TDM in the development application review process through a policy that requires specific developments to complete a TDM checklist. Medium to High Page | 149 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Consider a policy that requires larger businesses to provide cycling supportive facilities, e.g. showers, change rooms, secured storage etc. - Develop TDM supportive Official Plan/Zoning By-Law policies. TDM Coordinator Position & TDM Monitoring Program Should the Town have an interest in implementing a TDM program, it is recommended that the following additional factors be considered: - Establishing a TDM specific budget. - Establishing a part-time equivalent (FTE) staff position for a TDM coordinator. - Establishing a TDM monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of different measures. Medium to High Goods Movement Goods movement play a central role in supporting local industry and business in Carleton Place, but requires oversight and management as heavy vehicle traffic often affects the safe use of roads by pedestrians and cyclists. Large trucks generate various forms of pollution, from air quality, noise, and vibration on roads. Designated truck routes are defined to limit truck traffic to specific roadways except for the purposes of local deliveries and/or specify load restrictions to prohibit truck traffic on roads as needed. Both of these solutions can be enacted through municipal bylaw. The Town currently has no truck route map, and no specific load restrictions. The majority of large, heavy truck traffic travel on County or Provincial roads within the Town, which are beyond the Town's jurisdiction. Most of the significant goods movement generators in the Town are located at the periphery, north of Townline Rd, east of McNeely Ave or along Highway 7. 6.4.1 Goods Movement and Complete Streets As part of the TMP, the Town is adopting a Complete Streets approach to planning its transportation network. Balancing the needs of all road users - in particular, planning with a renewed focus on pedestrians and cyclist - can pose challenges for goods movement. This section provides guidance on how to balance the needs of freight movement with the need to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on the road network. The interaction between Complete Streets principles and goods movement generally occurs in two locations: on truck corridors adjacent to industrial areas and commercial main streets that generate both truck traffic and pedestrian/cyclist activity. In the former locations, the Ministry of Transportations Freight Supportive Guidelines contain several recommendations to manage the needs of trucks and vulnerable road users. These include: - Limiting the number of cycling corridors that overlap with higher volume truck corridors; - Planning an off-street bike path where cycling routes and truck routes overlap; - Implementing marked bike lanes and signs where cycling routes and truck routes overlap, and an off-road facility is not possible; and Page | 150 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - Ensuring that truck access points are well signed with cyclist-oriented signage. Main street commercial areas present other challenges. While not typically high-volume goods movement corridors, commercial and retail uses generate a lot of delivery traffic. Delivery traffic often conflicts with active transportation users. For example, delivery vehicles may illegally park in cycling lanes or spaces to make deliveries. In cases where road space is a constraint for making deliveries, drivers may temporarily park unlawfully, resulting in fines for the delivery company and temporary congestion on the roadway. Several strategies can be used to manage deliveries on commercial main streets. These include: - Providing designated on-street loading areas where off-street loading facilities are not possible; - Ensuring that new developments provide off-street loading facilities; - Working with local businesses to understand their delivery needs; and - Providing education and enforcement of appropriate delivery procedures. 6.4.2 Recommendations The need to expand the County Truck Route network has not been identified at this time. If warranted in the future, the Town should work with the County to augment the network. In addition, the Town should: - Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. - Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Page | 151 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 7.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT AND RIDESHARING STRATEGY Public transportation is an essential need for many residents. Although not offered as frequently in smaller municipalities, public transportation is becoming more common in these settings while being economically sustainable given the appropriate size and supply of services. For some, having accessible public transportation is a choice, but for many, it is a necessity, such as people who cannot drive based on their age or financial means, and seniors or a person with a disability who are unable to drive themselves. There are many examples of barriers to driving that leave the community isolated if there are no available forms of public transportation available. The following section will review potential transit strategies to help guide the Town towards its ultimate vision of to developing a truly multi-modal and sustainable transportation system. Existing Conditions and Operating Context A detailed account of the Town's existing transit and ridesharing services was provided in Section 3.2. A brief summary has been provided here for context. 7.1.1 Policy Context There are no transit specific policies in the Town OP at this time. The Active Transportation and Commuter Transit Plan recommended additional commuter transit stops (at Captain A. Roy Brown/McNeely and along Cavanagh) and converting some unused town lots to Park and Ride lots for carpoolers and transit riders. However, the plan acknowledged that providing a competitive transit alternative to a personal vehicle was not realistic based on the costs and low demand for daily inter-regional travel. The County of Lanark TMP acknowledged the need to promote alternative transportation modes and the importance of providing more choices to residents, but cited the costs of developing a transit system as a deterrent to implementation. 7.1.2 Existing Services The Town does not currently operate its own transit service, it relies on services provided by the County operated Lanark Transportation Association (LTA). The LTA provides various services within the County, including Carleton Place, including: - Ride the LT: The LTA provides transport service between Lanark Town Hall and Carleton Place every 1st and 3rd Wednesday per month, and Perth every 2nd and 4th Tuesday per month for $2. The stops are fixed locations (5 within Carleton Place) with additional stops available by request if near or on the route. The service can be booked a day in advance or can be caught at the pre-determined pick-up locations. - Accessible Transportation and Medical Services: separate on-demand door-to-door service for anyone with medical related trips and for accessible users. The service can be booked a day in advance or can be caught at the pre-determined pick-up locations. This program is subsidized for those in need. - Vaccination Shuttle Services: The United Way has provided funding for municipalities to support local transportation providing shuttles to and from COVID-19 vaccine appointments. Greyhound service passes through the Town, with a pickup/drop-off area located off Hwy 7. This service has been suspended due to COVID-19. Page | 152 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The Town does not have any official ridesharing or carpooling services, but there are informal arrangements that occur organically within the community. County of Lanark has a "Community Ride Share Connection" Facebook and four park and ride lots. The nearest to the Town is the Appleton Road Park and Ride, which has 30 parking spaces and 4 accessible spaces. 7.1.3 Previous Trials In 2010, the Town of Carleton Place ran a pilot program called "Lanark Community Transit" which provided bus service from Carleton Place to the City of Ottawa. At the time, a private bus company already operated this route, however, Lanark Community Transit (LCT) believed they could offer a cheaper, more convenient service. The LCT completed community outreach and public consultation, and secured funding to launch. After three months of operating, the company was in serious financial distress and required a loan from the Town. The LCT eventually sold their buses to a private operator, Leduc Bus Lines Ltd. Since that time, Leduc Bus Lines Ltd. have been providing daily transit service between Carleton Place and Ottawa. Prior to COVID-19, Route 538 was discontinued due to low ridership, and Routes 502 and 503 between Almonte, Carleton Place and Perth have been temporarily suspended since the onset of COVID-19. It is unclear when or if these services will ever resume. 7.1.4 Funding One of the largest obstacles for small municipalities to the implementation of public transportation is funding. In a study done by Transportation Association of Canada, multiple small municipalities were analyzed to get a collective idea of feasibility, usage, and overall costs. On average, a town of 50,000 people or less, the average per capita funding a town invests is $50 22. This funding can come from tax rebate programs such as the 'gas tax', federal or provincial grants as well as municipal investments obtained from property taxes. According to data received from Lanark Transportation Association (LTA), they currently receive approximately 50% of their operating budget from medical fare recovery, in part subsidized by Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works Program. The County of Lanark provides approximately $85,000 and approximately $450,000 comes from the provincial gas tax. Needs, Opportunities and Challenges The lack of public transportation in smaller communities can lead to the exodus of those who depend on it. The youth may relocate to larger cities for work or educational reasons rather than commute from afar. The elderly may be forced to move to relocate to receive chronic medical treatments without a reliable and affordable means to make their appointments (or to visit their partner receiving treatment). The lack of public transportation may directly affect the local economy. The study "Rural Transportation Issues and Options for County of Lanark" found that quite frequently, good 22https://www.ruralontarioinstitute.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/Right%20Sizing%20TransitWhat%20is%20a%20reasonable%20level%20of%20investment%20TAC%20Sept 2010.pdf. Date Accessed: 2021-06-14. Page | 153 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - jobs in rural settings sat with vacancies as the employers struggled to find employees who could commute to the site 23. A lack of public transportation could mean a loss of business opportunities, affecting the local municipal economy, and sustainability of good jobs. During the public consultation process, one of the recurring themes and desires of various stakeholders was the importance of providing more choices for residents and visitors on how they can access amenities, destinations and business within the Town and County at large. The demographic and travel trends (discussed in Section 2.3.3 of this report) confirmed the majority of Carleton Place residents do not work in Carleton Place, most Carleton Place employees do not live in Carleton Place, and the Town has a predominantly older population. These figures suggest there are potential transit opportunities to increase ridership if residents and visitors are presented with a competitive alternative to the personal vehicle. Despite these opportunities, significant challenges exist to the development of a local transit system in the Town. The initial capital costs and the operating cost of drivers is a significant barrier for a town with approximately 13,000 people at present time. As noted, many residents and employees in Carleton Place travel outside the Town, which creates a challenging operating environment without strategic partnerships with the County or adjacent municipalities. One of the risks is the impact of duplication that ultimately limits ridership potential. The LTA already provides specialized service to the Town and other regions in the County, and a private operator provides a service to the City of Ottawa for commuters. Examples from Other Smaller Municipalities There have been various transit system trials in other small to mid-sized municipalities in recent years that are worth noting. It is important to keep in mind that each municipality is unique and what succeeds in one area does not necessarily translate to success in another. Nevertheless, these examples can serve as inspiration in the near-term, and if an opportunity arises in the long-term, the Town may consider integrating into the TMP: 1. Corridor 11 Bus: This is a 125km bus loop in Muskoka which extends from Huntsville to Orillia, which transfer to the LINX connection leading to the City of Barrie. The transit service is priced based on distance travelled, allowing for cheaper fares for people travelling shorter distances. The tickets can be pre-purchased and reserved or can be bought directly from the bus operator. This route has major attraction destinations, such as shopping centers, hospitals, and colleges. One of the major difficulties noted within the "Accelerating Rural Transportation Solutions Report"24 is connecting riders from outlying areas to transit stops. There are noted similarities between Muskoka and County of Lanark, with a number of smaller municipalities connected by a single service. The key difference the City of Barrie provides a sizeable population to provide sustained ridership for the service, which the County lacks. 23Rogers, N. & Leitch R. (2016). Rural Transportation Issues and Options for County of Lanark. Sonoptic Media & Communications. 24https://www.niagaraknowledgeexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/01/2014-Accelerating-Rural-Transportation-Solutions-Case-Studies.pdf [Pg 28]. Date Accessed: 2021-06-14. Page | 154 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 2. Belleville 'BT Let's Go': The City of Belleville launched a 'transit on demand' network which allows riders to request transit services between two locations. Users use their smartphones, computers or can call to request transit services. This service is operated by a third-party provider (Pantonium Inc.). The platform uses a dynamic software which routes the transit services to pick up other on demand requested users, thus forming a rideshare or shared taxi like program within a transit service. 25 3. Innisfil Transit/UBER Partnership: In 2017, a public-private partnership was formed in the town of Innisfil, ON with Transportation Network Company UBER. The town subsidized UBER rides with a flat rate of $3-5 for travel to specific community hubs or a $5 discount to travel to specific destinations in town. Ryerson University prepared a study assessing the program's performance26; in the 3-year study period (May 2017 to Feb 2020), over 220,000 trips were taken on Innisfil Transit. These trips cost approximately $17 each with the rider paying an average of $7 per trip and the town paying an average of $10 per trip. The total cost of the program to the town during the study period was $2.2 million, slightly higher than what the two-bus fixed- route system was estimated to cost ($1.8 million based on $610k annually over 3 years). However, these costs are not directly comparable, as the current service provides coverage across all of Innisfil, as opposed to the proposed bus routes that would have only provided access to those within direct walking distance to the bus stops along the route. The potential disbenefit of providing this form of program is it may not necessarily reduce vehicle trips and may in fact increase vehicle travel within the Town and County due to its convenience and relative affordability (further discussion on this subject is provided in Section 8.0). However, this form of service has significant upside if used for specific destinations, in specific contexts, such as special events or to support a more conventional transit system for the "first mile and last mile" of the trip. It could also be tailored such that the subsidy benefit increases with more passengers. 4. Brockville to Cardinal "River Route": The City of Brockville initiated a public transit pilot project in August 2021 that is intended to connect four municipalities: Brockville, Augusta, Prescott and Edwardsburg/Cardinal. The two-hour loop includes 11 stations, with six routes per weekday from 5:30am to 5:30pm. The service was provided in response to needs for an "intra-community transit system" that utlizes Highway 2. 27 The fare structure permits one-way tickets for $5 and a book of 10 tickets for $40, and tickets on the River Route are transferable to the Brockville transit system (with certain exceptions) at no extra cost. The River Route is a good example of the potential or 25https://www.niagaraknowledgeexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/01/2014-Accelerating-Rural-Transportation-Solutions-Case-Studies.pdf. 37. Date Accessed: 2021-06-14. 26Innisfil Transit System Performance. Sweet, Mitra, and Benaroya. Ryerson University. Toronto, ON. Jan 2021. Retrieved from: https://innisfil.ca/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/innisfil_uber_report_20210112.pdf. 27River Route public transit launches Aug 30, connecting Seaway communities from Cardinal to Brockville. Vandermeer. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/river-route-public- transit-launches-aug-30-connecting-seaway-communities-from-cardinal-to-brockville-1.5564532. CTV News. 2021. Date Accessed: 2022-03-25. Page | 155 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - aspiration for the Ride the LT service; establishing a intra-County commuter route that captures adjacent municipalities, including the City of Ottawa, and enables transfers to the OC Transpo network. 5. Township of Russell - "Russell Transpo": The Township of Russell, which includes local municipalities such as Russell, Embrun and Limoges, is located approximately 40km southeast of the City of Ottawa and had a combined population of approximately 16,500 residents in 2017 and is expecting continued growth. The Township is best described as a "bedroom community", meaning that a large portion of the population lives, but does not work there. Approximately 72% of working population is employed in Ottawa. Since 2008, the Township of Russell has offered transit service (under the moniker of "Russell Transpo") from Embrun and Russell to Ottawa/Hull during weekday peak periods. The service provides direct transit options for commuters working in Ottawa/Hull, and is not intended to serve local trips within the Township. The service is operated by a private company under a fixed-fee contract, with fare revenue going to the Township. The Township also receives other forms of revenue such as sponsorship programs (bus shelter and bus advertisements). Ticket sales, scheduling, and customer service are managed by the Township. In 2018, the Township prepared a Transit Feasibility Study that reviewed the existing transit service and how it could look in the future.28 The following discussion is based on the findings of this study. Russell Transpo operates a single route (Route #528), which has different options during peak periods: two depart/arrive in Russell via Embrun to/from Ottawa/Hull and two that depart/arrive in Embrun via Russell to/from Ottawa/Hull. The routes take between 70 to 82 minutes in one direction. The service provides real time tracking of buses and provide WIFI service while on them. The cost for a single ride fare is $15, for a 10 ticket booklet is $102 and $245 for a monthly pass ($176 for monthly student pass). Monthly pass holders are eligible to transfer on to OC-Transpo (City of Ottawa bus/LRT network) and STO (Ville de Gatineau bus network) at no extra cost. It is noteworthy that approximately 7% of monthy pass users tapped their cards on OC-Transpo and STO buses on a regular basis, meaning that the majority of riders relied solely on the Russell Transpo buses. Additionally, survey respondants noted they would stop using the service if a transfer was required and responded very positively to the fact that the route was very direct. The proportion of costs for a monthly pass compared to a single fare ticket is significantly lower than the average ratio of a monthly pass to a single fare for other municipalities, making getting a monthly pass more attractive. Given the demographic of the Township's "bedroom community", attractive monthly passes and an integrated network to major employment areas in Ottawa/Hull, the Russell Transpo transit system has become a reliable transportation option for commuters to and from Ottawa/Hull. Between the years of 2013 and 2017, ridership 28 Township of Russell Transit Feasibility Study. Steer Davies Gleave. Township of Russell Economic Development Department. May 2018. Page | 156 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - has remained fairly consistent with approximately 73,000 trips taken per year. Russell Transpo has been successful in reducing the quantity of subsidies required to operate the system, providing the highest revenue to operating cost ratio of any local transit agency in Ontario, and indicates that Russell Transpo operates at a high level of financial efficiency. The system pays a flat yearly service contract expense which is payed in great part by fare revenue (~60% to 70%), partially by other revenues such as gas tax funding (~20% to 25%) and only a small portion by Township subsidies (~5% to 15%). Given the low density setting for the Township, with approximately 85% plus of the population living in single detached homes, the implementation and use of Park and Ride facilities has artificially created higher density hubs with locations for buses to pick up and drop off large percentage of commuters at a single stop rather than having many small stops causing delays to the route. There are currently four Park and Ride facilities including two in Russell, one in Embrun and one in Vars. The Embrun park and ride alone accounts for approximately 30% of all ridership and it is estimated that Park and Rides are operating at approximately 75% of capacity, suggesting that they are well utilized. Overall, the Russell Transpo service provides an excellent commuter transit system for the Town and LTA to aspire to. Key elements that contribute the success of this service, which the Town and LTA should consider: - Provide direct service: the majority of Russell Transpo riders do not require a transfer at their destination stop, and the majority of survey respondent would discontinue using the service if a transfer was required. - Strategic pricing: providing a monthly fee that is significantly lower than the proportional cost of a single ticket, to encourage frequent use and sustained ridership. - Leverage revenue: look for other revenue sources, such as bus shelter advertising, in addition to public sources. - Provide a quality service: despite Russell Transpo having over 1-hour one-way travel time, ridership remains stable, which is a testament to the quality of the experience for riders. Providing comfort oriented offerings, such as real-time tracking and WIFI service, is critical to maintaining customer loyalty. - Park and Ride: the Township of Russell strategically placed Park and Ride locations at central and accessible locations within local municipalities to create artificial density and reduce the number of stops along the route. Future Considerations and Upcoming Trials 7.4.1 County of Lanark Corridor Loop The proximity of the three sizeable municipalities within the County, the Town of Carleton Place, the Town of Smith Falls, and the Town of Perth provide a potential opportunity for a transit service-loop that offers riders the option to take the bus in the direction which offers the shortest connection to their destination. The loop would take approximately 90 minutes between the three towns, or approximately 2 to 3 hours if Almonte is also included. In a study "Rural Page | 157 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Transportation Issues and Options for County of Lanark" 29, and in conjunction with studies conducted for Clarence- Rockland, CUTA and Temiskaming Shores, project that operating a 60-service hour per week (10 hrs/day Monday to Friday and 5 hrs/day Saturday and Sunday) would cost approximately $1.0-1.5 million a year. These operating costs could be in part subsidized by the gas tax, shared by the municipalities and recovered through fare fees. The study projects an annual ridership of over 700,000 rides, though it warns that it may take several years and to be truly successful, it would need to be supported by local feeder services. 7.4.2 Intra-County Service to Ottawa Carleton Place is within a 45-minute drive of downtown City of Ottawa, making it the gateway Town connecting Ottawa to County of Lanark (including the Town of Perth and the Town of Smiths Falls). The City of Ottawa is also the largest employment draw for the Town, with over half of residents employed in the City. Targeting these riders to shift their mode of travel would substantially increase the viability of County-operated transit system. Expanding the County of Lanark Corridor Loop to the City of Ottawa provides the anchor-City needed to sustain the system, such as the City of Barrie provides for the Corridor 11 Bus service or the River Route that connects to the City of Brockville transit system (discussed in Section 7.3). Integrating with the OC Transpo system, at least to the LRT station on the Confederation Line (currently Moodie Station as part of Stage 2, but ultimately at Palladium Station as part of Stage 3) or even further into the City to reduce the need for transfers, would be essential to attract commuters by reducing transfer times and overall travel time. 7.4.3 Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) DRT has seen widespread expansion recently, particularly in the wake of COVID-19 and the subsequent financial pressures facing transit systems world-wide. Service providers have to adapt to changing expectations and the enhanced mobility competitors that now exist from Transportation Network Companies, such as Uber, to capture more users, provide more convenience, while maintaining affordability. The advent of emerging technologies now enables rural municipalities with larger regional transit networks to provide more efficient and cost-effective service by utilizing smartphone connectivity and computer algorithms to optimize routing, meaning fewer buses and lower capital costs (further discussion on the impact of emerging technologies in the TMP is provide in Section 8.0). While this level of sophistication is currently beyond the Town and County, the LTA have made strides in the last decade towards a more demand responsive transit system, facilitating specialized trips predominantly for medical appointments, seniors, and accessible purposes, utilizing a traditional dial-a-ride system. In 2017, the LTA engaged Pantonium Inc. to optimize their dispatch and on-boarding service to great success. 30 This partnership provides the LTA the ability to upscale their service to more sophisticated offerings within the Pantonium platform, such as a fully optimized, on-demand transit service, similar to the Belleville DRT system. 29Rogers, N. & Leitch R. Rural Transportation Issues and Options for County of Lanark. Sonoptic Media & Communications. 2016. 28. 30https://pantonium.com/onboarding-pantonium-dispatch-software-case-study/. Date Accessed: 2021-11-03. Page | 158 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 7.4.4 Algonquin College Shuttle (Perth to Ottawa) Algonquin College has a campus located in the Town of Perth which has a sizeable student population that live in the City of Ottawa, while some students who live in Perth or Carleton Place may attend Algonquin College in the main campus in Ottawa. If the demand is adequate, the Town can support (in partnership with the City of Ottawa, Town of Perth, and Algonquin College) to provide a student shuttle between the Perth Campus and Ottawa Campus, with a stop in Carleton Place. 7.4.5 Park and Rides Although park and ride facilities require the end user to own and operate a vehicle, it does offer those commuters the means to meet and rideshare/carpool for longer distance trips (such as from Carleton Place to Ottawa). The Town may collaborate with the County to find ways to increase rideshare opportunities (such as investigating a third-party online ridesharing platform to support car/vanpooling), and as demand grows, investigate opportunities to provide more park and ride locations for ridesharing purposes and along potential future transit stops. In terms of transit operations, a park and ride facility artificially increase the density by capturing larger numbers of commuters at a single stop. 7.4.6 Facilities and Access A key aspect of a transit service is the supporting infrastructure, such as transit stop benches, staging area, shelters etc. All existing and future transit stops should also be directly connected to the pedestrian network, meet accessible design standards (AODA), provide adequate shelter, and be properly maintained for all seasons. 7.4.7 Potential Costs Transit providers must balance their decisions for how to deliver needed services to consumers with the costs for delivering those services, which can vary as discussed earlier - fixed-route, flex-route, commuter service, demand- response, and micro-transit options like van-pools. Having a solid understanding of what drives costs and market demand can help agencies make better decisions when it comes to balancing finite resources with providing the best services to its customers.31 This section provides a starting point for these discussions by focusing on the potential costs to start a local service. While developing a local transit system may not be feasible in the short-term, as stakeholder input, political will, and funding opportunities arise in the fullness of time, the Town may build upon the work in this TMP at the appropriate time with a focused transit feasibility study, where ridership, pricing and fare structures can be explored, funding sources defined, with an implementation process. The following section provides a high-level order of magnitude estimate of capital and operating costs for a startup fixed-route transit service. There are several factors and elements to a transit system that must be considered, such as fleet costs, stop infrastructure and amenities, attendants/drivers, administration, maintenance, fuel, fare collection etc. For the purposes of this simplified estimate, capital cost estimates reflect relatively conservative pricing based on unit costs of a given item collected between 2017 and 2020. Both full-sized (seating between 50 and 80 passengers) and mid-sized vehicles (seating between 10 and 30 passengers) have been included in the estimate, where prices represent average fixed capital costs. It is worth noting financing may 31 Guidebook: Managing Operating Costs for Rural and Small Urban Public Transit Systems. Edrington et.al. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. March 2014. Pg 3. Page | 159 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - be available in many cases, depending on the vehicle technology chosen and funding strategy. Both electric and traditional diesel buses have also been provided. The cost differential is notable, and it does not factor the cost of plug- in chargers, fuel, or qualitative priorities, such as environmental impacts and air pollution. There are also vehicle lease options that may help reduce initial costs, but have recurring payments over time. Each stop should provide amenities to enhance the transit user experience, such as shelter, seating, passenger information displays and micro-mobility facilities, as shown in Figure 40. All stops should also be augmented with appropriate design treatments, such as lane striping, lane symbol, concrete pad, and concrete curb ramp; and incorporate the latest accessible design standards (AODA). The infrastructure elements do not account for design considerations, for example, some full-sized buses may require supporting roadway modifications or infrastructure to navigate some constrained Town streets. Figure 40: Bus Stop Infrastructure Example Operating costs assumed a full-time staff of onboard operators at an hourly rate that includes overhead. Maintenance costs have a wide range depending on the chosen vehicle platform and the underlying partnership agreements. The operations and monitor/evaluation fee includes typical program management costs, data collection/analysis, ongoing safety assessments, and reporting on an annual basis. Capital and operating cost estimates per unit have been provided in Table 35. Page | 160 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 35: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates per Unit Item Unit Cost Infrastructure / Fleet Elements Full-Sized Bus (Diesel) - Vehicle Ownership Each $800,000 Full-Sized Bus (Electric) - Vehicle Ownership Each $1,300,000 Mid-Sized Bus / Paratranspo - Vehicle Ownership Each $500,000 Full-Sized Bus (Electric) - Vehicle Lease Each $450,000 / 3-yr. Mid-Sized Bus (Electric) - Vehicle Lease Each $150,000 / 3-yr. Bus Stop Infrastructure & Amenities Each $30,000 Operating Elements Onboard Attendant/Drivers Each $42/hr. Maintenance Each $18,000 Operations/Monitor & Evaluation Each $125,000 Using the base assumptions above, a high-level cost for full scale operation of a local transit system has been provided in Table 36, with a 20% contingency applied to represent margin of error, but may be substituted to represent a design fee, if required. This hypothetical transit system was assumed to have the following elements: - 4 Mid-Sized Buses - 6 Onboard Attendants - 8 Stops The above example is intended to provide a very high-level cost estimate to start a local transit system in the Town, based on a vehicle ownership model and a broad set of assumptions. There are a number of variations that are possible for the system, depending on the needs and priorities of local stakeholders and the Town, who would be the transit providers in this case. A more focused transit feasibility study is recommended in the fullness of time (ideally when existing ridership levels, stakeholder demand, political will, and funding opportunities create an opportune environment to expand this discussion), and considers different service options, expanded capital costs and other overhead, revenue generation, fare structures and collection methods, and funding sources. Page | 161 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 36: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Full Scale Operation) # Unit Price Cost Capital Cost (To Own) Mid-Sized Bus / Paratranspo 4 $500,000 $2,000,000 Stop Infrastructure & Amenities 8 $30,000 $240,000 Contingency 1 20% $448,000 Subtotal $2,688,000 Exclusions: Storage, Maintenance, Project Management and Design Fees Annual Operating Cost (in addition to Capital Cost) Onboard Attendant/Drivers 6 $42/hr $524,000 Maintenance 4 $18,000 $72,000 Operations/Monitor & Evaluation 2 $125,000 $250,000 Contingency 1 20% $169,200 Subtotal $1,015,200 TOTAL CAPITAL + FIRST YEAR OPERATING COSTS $3,703,200 Exclusions: Onboarding/training, Electricity, Insurance, Software Licensing, Fare Collection Costs, and other overhead. Recommendations The reality of providing a local transit system within the Town is likely out of reach based on the geographic and economic challenges, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Town's relatively small population and employment base, where the majority of commuter travel is to/from the City of Ottawa, would be insufficient to sustain a local service. Partnering with neighbouring municipalities (including the City of Ottawa) and the County is needed to leverage resources, reduce costs, and expand the ridership base to support a wider and more connected transit system, but this also comes with its own unique geographical challenges. The disadvantage of a large service area the size of the County, is it makes the provision of more specialized forms of transit more costly, because it can result in longer average trip lengths to serve door-to-door trips. Consequently, the capacity of a specialized transit service is limited by the trip lengths and travel time, when shared itineraries are not possible. However, as the Town grows and matures, population density and employment increases, and as stakeholder input, political will, and funding opportunities arise in the fullness of time, the feasibility of a public transit system can be revisited. The door will always remain open to consider a local public transit system when the demand is sufficient to make it sustainable and ensure the highest probability of success. Therefore, a more gradual approach to addressing the needs and challenges of transit in the Town is recommended. The Town should remain committed to supporting ongoing commuter and long-distance services provided by private operators and the LTA (Ride the LT), where the latter provides vital options for the most vulnerable users, including hospital visits, appointments, and accessible travel, as demand for this service is starting to return to pre-pandemic Page | 162 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - levels. 32 Moving forward, the Town should actively engage with the LTA and neighbouring municipalities to expand the existing Ride the LT system, and look for innovative ways to improve the quality of service and increase ridership. An example to aspire to is the Township of Russell commuter service, "Russell Transpo" that has had success operating an affordable commuter transit service to the City of Ottawa, or the "River Route" which serves as a feeder system for smaller municipalities to connect to the City of Brockville (both previously discussed in Section 7.3). Additionally, a common topic for rural transportation is facilitating a service to people rather than a people to service approach by providing smaller 'feeder services' that connect the outskirts to more populated centres and higher order transit systems (typically the traditional fixed route systems). Feeder services can also take advantage of lower startup and operating costs, and act as pilot programs for various contemporary approaches such as demand responsive transit, rideshare services, or TNC partnerships (e.g. UBER), thereby reducing risks. These services could link with more traditional transit systems such as the existing Ride the LT service, a future County of Lanark Corridor Loop, or a County of Lanark-City of Ottawa partnered service. In some cases, providing specific charter routes can be beneficial, such as a shuttle between institutional campuses (e.g. Algonquin College) with stops on towns enroute, or a shuttle from retirement homes to key destinations. The Town can also support ridesharing opportunities as demand grows through third party programs, which is documented within the TDM Toolkit. They may also collaborate with the County of Lanark, who maintains a ridesharing Facebook group (Community Ride Share Connection County of Lanark) to find ways to promote and expand this service. It is recommended the Town: - Coordinate with OC Transpo, the County of Lanark, and private transit operators to target commuter travel to the City of Ottawa by:  Exploring opportunities to improve transit service integration and commuter travel by advocating for better connections (e.g. flexible stops to the existing fixed-route service or more direct service to reduce transfers) with existing transit service to City of Ottawa.  Exploring the potential of demand-responsive transit to improve mobility and access to opportunities for commuters to City of Ottawa.  Considering incentives or subsidies to increase commuter transit ridership and ridesharing use to capitalize on potential demand, such as institutional campuses (e.g. Algonquin College) and other sources. - Engage County of Lanark and Lanark Transportation Association to:  Support the expansion of existing transit service i.e. Ride the LT, and specialized services within the County, with emphasis on improving mobility and access between the larger municipalities, i.e. Carleton Place, Perth, Smiths Falls and Almonte. 32https://www.toronto.com/news-story/10187552-lanark-transportation-may-have-to-return-mesh-trips-as-demand-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. Date Accessed: 2021-11-03. Page | 163 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT -  Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities, ridesharing platforms, and subsidized Uber service to key community destinations and special events to improve service levels and attract new ridership.  Consider opportunities to increase rideshare engagement through incentives, promotion, and potential expansion of park and ride locations within the Town that is accessible by walking and cycling. - Improve access to transit by prioritizing pedestrian facilities to transit, ensure AODA compliance and ensure links are prioritized for winter maintenance. - Prepare a Transit Feasibility Study at the appropriate time, to advance the discussion and inform how a local transit service may feasibly be provided in the Town that will be sustainable in the fullness of time. Page | 164 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 8.0 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Technology has always influenced how people move and how cities develop. This continues to be the case today. As digital technology rapidly evolves it is having a substantial impact on urban transportation. Technology is making new forms of shared mobility possible and changing the way existing forms of shared mobility operate. The challenge for municipalities is to proactively manage new technology and shared mobility so that they have a positive impact on transportation trends and the municipality more broadly. This section describes emerging technology and its relationship with shared mobility, details the opportunities and risks for Carleton Place, and proposes areas for further exploration. General Overview Below is an overview of emerging technologies that are most relevant to multimodal transportation planning. - Smartphone Applications and Related Software: New programs are enabling users to access real-time transportation information (such as next bus arrival times) and mobility services (such as ridesharing or bike sharing). Software also enables mobility service providers to be able to provide their services efficiently. For example, new technology enables ridesharing providers to automatically assign drivers to trips and determine the route between destinations and intermediary pick-up/drop-off points. - Electric Vehicles (EVs): Vehicles that operate entirely on electricity or, in the case of a hybrid vehicle, alternate between conventional fuel and electric power improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. EV technology can be combined with CAV technology. - Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs): Connectivity refers to the ability of vehicles to communicate with other vehicles, traffic signals, smartphones, and more. This communication can aid safety and traffic management goals. Autonomy is the capability of sensing the immediate environment and navigating with little or no human input. The level of autonomy can vary with the most sophisticated being fully self-driving vehicles. More basic levels of autonomy can include semi-autonomous driver warning systems that intervene only to avoid collisions, vehicles with adaptive cruise control, parking assist, and lane-keeping assist. Transport Canada released a "Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Readiness Plan" in 2020, which is intended to describe how transportation and transit agencies can begin to address this shift in technology and prepare for a future towards CAVs. 8.1.1 Changes to Mobility Technology advancements enables new services and models are what truly impacts growth and city building. The terms shared mobility, new mobility, and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) are used extensively in transportation planning to refer to the convergence of new technology and transportation. The following definitions were developed by Metrolinx in the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): - Shared Mobility: A type of new mobility that refers to a broad set of transportation services and business models that are shared among users, such as bike-sharing, car-sharing, micro-transit, ride-sourcing, and ridesharing. Page | 165 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - New Mobility: A term to describe the suite of emerging transportation services and that are enabled through the development and convergence of technologies (e.g., smartphones, real-time data, autonomous and connected vehicles) and business models (e.g., shared mobility and mobility as a service). - Mobility as a Service (MaaS): A new mobility technology that describes the integration of various transport services including public transit, bike or car-sharing, taxis, ride-sourcing and other forms of shared mobility that are bundled together and consumed on a subscription basis or on demand to meet the particular needs of individuals. It is important to note that many of the services noted above predate the widespread use of the internet and smartphones. Bike sharing systems have been in widespread use in the province since the mid-1990s and demand responsive transit (i.e. dial-a-ride) has been in operation in County of Lanark for years through the Ride the LT program. However, new technology has changed the way that services are delivered and accessed, and new technology-enabled business models have empowered more private sector service provision. 8.1.2 Changes to Monitoring and Evaluation Advancements in wireless and data storage technology enable new monitoring and evaluation services that can help us glean people's travel information and system performance in real-time down to the minute. While our traditional data collection tools are familiar and intuitive, they're also time-consuming and expensive. Conventional tools were designed to collect data about yesterday's transportation systems and behaviors - not the fast-changing travel patterns we see today. That means transportation planners today face a far more complex transportation reality than their predecessors did, and their jobs are more challenging than ever. The proliferation of smartphone technology and "always on" applications has made vast amounts of user location information available to gain insights into "hidden" information about residents, which led to the moniker of "Big Data." One of the most important benefits of Big Data to the transportation industry is that you can spend less time collecting data and more time optimizing transportation plans. Two ways that Big Data differs from most traditional resources: 1. They can measure current travel behavior accurately, precisely, and comprehensively. 2. They take less time and effort to collect. That means that once you have the information you need, the actual use of Big Data for transportation projects is similar to using traditional data sources. Planning for the Future As noted, the challenge for municipalities will be managing the fast pace of changes occurring in the technology fields and anticipating their impacts on mobility. An agile municipality is able to adapt quickly and effectively to the changing landscape of mobility. This means being open and receptive to new technologies, but not without proper oversight, community consultation or risk mitigation. 8.2.1 Risks The major risk with the advancements in technology is they will actively detract from goals and objectives centered on encouraging sustainable mobility and reducing private car trips, while simultaneously bringing benefits to individual users. Page | 166 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - For connected, and autonomous vehicles, while having the ability to use road space more efficiently, it may also make driving easier, encouraging more people to take car trips. There is also a prominent risk with CAVs in the emergence of "ghost vehicles". That is, empty vehicles circulating rather than parking, or empty vehicles making return trips after dropping off their passengers. The latter is exacerbated by a model that promotes private ownership of CAVs and could in effect double the number of trips demanded. There are also many risks with new mobility, specifically ridesharing platforms operated by Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). For example, ridesharing services can enable relatively inexpensive and convenient car trips that may otherwise have been made by a sustainable mode or not made at all, contributing to increased traffic congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They also present a potential hindrance to future transit adoption or expansion in the Town and County. Another example of the need to manage mobility concepts is when mobility companies flood municipalities with electric scooters. Without a solid regulatory framework and effective and enforceable policies in place, e-scooters were littering sidewalks and other public spaces, which created significant problems for accessibility. There are also significant equity risks presented by these mobility developments. While some individual users may benefit, a major challenge with new technology-enabled mobility is that not all residents may be able to access benefits offered by the technology. For example, residents with low-incomes or disabilities are not likely to be able to access privately-run technology-enabled ridesharing services, detracting from equity and inclusion objectives. Personal vehicles are not typically equipped for wheelchairs and the requirement to own a smartphone and possess a payment card present significant barriers to access these services for vulnerable residents. Other shared mobility services, such as bike share and car share can also suffer from similar barriers to access. These equity risks also affect Big Data applications, which can only track users with a smartphone or vehicles with navigation support. Underrepresentation of these vulnerable groups when relying on Big Data for monitoring and evaluation can lead to further disparities in transportation planning within the Town. 8.2.2 Opportunities Although there are many risks for municipalities posed by new technology and new mobility in general there are also many opportunities. For example, TNCs (such as Uber and Lyft) have the ability to reduce private car ownership by providing individuals who generally rely on sustainable modes for short trips an option to occasionally travel to a destination that is farther away and not served by high quality transit. Ridesharing platforms can also extend the reach of transit service by providing first/last mile connections to/from communities that do not have transit-supportive density. Car sharing services can also offer similar benefits of reducing the need for car ownership by providing access to cars for occasional use. Shared mobility services can themselves provide access to active transportation, to reduce reliance on private car trips and potentially extending the reach of conventional transit service. Municipalities around the globe have embraced bike sharing systems to increase access to bikes and encourage the use of more sustainable modes. Some municipalities are also embracing the rise of shared e-scooter services that enable users to access electric scooters via their smartphones (both of which are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4). Although the evidence is mixed on whether bike share services reduce car trips, reduce transit trips, or even replace trips that would have been made by a privately owned bike, services that encourage active travel are a positive feature of the shared mobility landscape. Page | 167 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Bike sharing systems (as previously discussed in Section 6.3) offer short term bike rentals that are typically intended for one- way trips. Bike sharing systems have increased in popularity in recent years, with many North American municipalities, large and small, introducing the service, sometimes in collaboration with a private sector partner. Most current bike share systems fall into two categories: docked and dockless systems. Docked systems store bikes in docking stations and users access the bikes through automated kiosks. Bikes must be rented from and returned to a docking station. Dockless systems operate with GPS tracked bikes that have locks built into the frame. Depending on the system, users typically access the bikes through a combination of a mobile application and an on-bike computer. Bikes can be picked-up and left anywhere within a designated area. Dockless systems are usually easier to implement and have lower capital costs than docked systems. However, docked systems provide consistent and safe parking locations for the fleet and can be easily identified from the street. Transit systems as we know them today may also be directly impacted by new technology. Farther into the future, connected and autonomous vehicles could alter the cost of providing both conventional and flexible transit service, making it more efficient. A large cost of providing transit service today is the cost of the driver and reducing the need for drivers would save money. However, apart from limited autonomous shuttle services, the widespread use of fully autonomous surface transit vehicles is far off, and it remains to be seen if transit agencies would be willing to operate vehicles with no operator on board. Although autonomous vehicles could have monumental impacts on the transportation system, the specific impacts are somewhat unknown. Electric vehicles have become more commonplace on Canadian roads in the past decade and trends suggest continued growth. The Town has supported growth in the electric vehicle market by investing in two publicly accessible charging stations, and submitted a letter of intent to enter into a partnership to provide three additional electric vehicle charging stations within the Town by 2022. While electric vehicles could reduce GHG emissions, they will not by themselves change transportation behaviour. The Town can support and encourage the growth in electric vehicle usage and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by continuing their support for electric vehicle infrastructure. Monitoring and Evaluating transportation systems has traditionally relied exclusively on manual travel surveys and traffic counts. The greatest disadvantage of these methods is the low sample size, making transportation planning and design decisions based on a small set of data. Big Data applications seek to overcome this disadvantage by leveraging the proliferation of location-based devices (smartphones, smartwatches etc.) and vehicle navigation technology, which track a user's location by the minute. Municipalities across North America have begun to utilize these applications to monitor and evaluate multi-modal travel behaviour to better understand mobility trends over time. We have provided a summary of one third party application, Streetlight Data, which the City of Ottawa has partnered with to access their technology. Page | 168 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - - StreetLight Data Inc. is a Big Data software application that provides detailed travel information that would traditionally be too inefficient and costly to obtain manually. StreetLight harvests data from onboard GPS units and mobile apps with location-based services to determine multi-modal traffic patterns in a specified area. Use cases include, but are not limited to, turning movement counts, origin-destination analysis, speed analysis, vehicle routing, and trip speed/duration/length metrics, etc. Benefits: StreetLight allows the user to conduct analysis for a specific time of year, month, week, and day, as far back as 2016. This makes it a powerful validation tool. This is particularly advantageous in the current climate, since COVID restrictions have seen a wide-scale reduction in 'typical' traffic intensity. Streetlight has many use cases, such as visualizing multi-modal traffic patterns, understand congestion mitigation tactics, network evaluation pre- and post-special events, assess road closure or construction impacts, track changes in travel behaviour over time etc. Constraints: Streetlight greatly reduces but does not fully eliminate the need for traditional surveys or counts. Streetlight is intended to be a strong alternative to these typical data collection methods, but calibrating the Streetlight results with traditional counts in areas with lower samples or underrepresented may be required. An annual subscription comes at a moderate cost. Recommendations If the inherent risks are managed, emerging technologies present tremendous opportunities to reduce the reliance on private vehicles. Shared mobility services (e.g. bike share) can foster increased active transportation use; technology is also improving the ease of use of transit - a potential rider can see real-time bus positions and stop schedules and plan accordingly. Carsharing platforms and ridesharing companies are enabling families to go car-free or "car-light", reducing the total number of private vehicles on the road network. Big Data and the future proliferation of 5G wireless capabilities will enable affordable real-time monitoring of travel behaviour, to a degree that has been impossible using conventional data collection techniques. To better prepare for the emergence of new technologies, it is recommended the Town: - Continue to explore opportunities to expand electrified vehicle supportive infrastructure within the Town. - Investigate the opportunities to improve and expand ridesharing and the feasibility of bikesharing programs in coordination with County of Lanark and neighbouring municipalities as new platforms and technologies become available. - Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand-responsive approaches. - Investigate opportunities to utilize Big Data platforms (such as Streetlight Data Inc.) and other service providers to monitor and assess the transportation network performance. Page | 170 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND COST Committing to undertake the actions identified in this TMP is integral to achieving the objectives and realizing the vision for Carleton Place. The following section summarizes the specific actions, capital investments, and a recommended time frame for each investment. Capital Investment Conceptual order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates (Engineering D Level estimates in 2021 dollars) for each proposed project has been provided. These conceptual costs were developed based on the following unit cost assumptions based on typical unit costs and recent construction pricing. The estimated cost for the Town to construct the 20-year build-out of recommended infrastructure projects within the TMP is approximately $28.5 million, or 1.42 million per year over the next 20 years. The estimated costs and timing of these infrastructure investments will be further refined through the Town's annual capital budgeting process. The following sections will breakdown the different elements within the total cost estimate will be provided in the following sections. Active Transportation Network Implementation Plan The Active Transportation (AT) network implementation plan consists of three phases: - Short-term (0-5 years), - Medium-term (6-10 years), and - Long-term (10-20+ years). The implementation considered potential to allow integration with other capital projects, creating north-south and east- west spine cycling routes to connect across the Town, urgency of need (e.g. safety, locations near schools), lower-cost projects that can be advanced for quick implementation, and input received from the public. These projects are all categorized as Schedule 'A+' projects, as they all fit were expected to fit within the existing right-of-way. Any deviations to property limits or additional property protection requirements may trigger Schedule 'B' or 'C' projects. The suggested phasing of the AT Network Strengthening Plan, with estimated Class 'D' cost estimates have been detailed in Table 37. The Town's prioritization of new sidewalk and MUP construction may ultimately be tied to the asset management life cycle of existing roadways. If funding is available for the construction of new sidewalks, it is recommended that the following sidewalks/MUPs be prioritized in the order listed below. 1. All sidewalk gaps within 300m of schools (e.g. all sidewalk gaps near Caldwell St Elementary School, John St sidewalk gap near St. Mary Catholic School, and Patterson Cr sidewalk gap near Arklan Community Public School); 2. New sidewalks on Hooper St, which is along an industrial/business area; and 3. New MUP on the south side of Cavanagh Rd between McNeely Ave and Hooper St (100m). Cavanagh Rd is a Collector Street, and this new connection would provide better access to the new development on the south side of the street. It is important to note that the proposed implementation plan is intended to be used as a guide, with actual level of priority being dependent on available funding and opportunities. As the cost of implementing the plan will be lower when Page | 171 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - undertaken in conjunction with other infrastructure projects, it may be necessary to adjust the timing and priority of projects to take advantage of opportunities that arise. In addition, certain proposed cycling corridors have been highlighted as "Incremental Improvement" projects due to difficulties in implementation, including limited right of way and high driveway density. Table 37: Active Transportation Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 Description Town Cost SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) 1. Hwy 7 / Hwy 15 / Franktown Rd / McNeely Ave Sidewalks and Pathways Included in Capital Budget Plan 2. Central Bridge & Bridge St Renewal 3. Mill Street / Princess Street Sidewalk 4. Findlay Avenue MUP on one side from Franktown Rd to the OVRT $230,000 TOTAL $230,000 MEDIUM-TERM (6-10 YEARS) 2. Townline Rd E - MUP on both sides from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave Bundled in SNSP2 Costs 3. McNeely Avenue - MUPs on both sides from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to Lake Ave 4. McNeely Avenue - New MUPs on both sides from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to South Town Limit 3 $2,340,000 5. Townline Rd W - MUP on both sides from Joseph St to West Town Limit $970,000 TOTAL $3,310,000 LONG-TERM (11-20 YEARS) 1. New Connection North of Highway 7 4 McNeely Ave to Franktown Rd - MUP on both sides Bundled in SNSP Costs 2. McNeely Avenue - MUPs on both sides from Lake Ave to Townline Rd E 3. New Arklan Island Trail Connection $1,380,000 TOTAL $1,380,000 LIFE-CYCLE STREET RENEWAL 1. Filling sidewalk gaps, at the time of street renewal $8,140,000 GRAND TOTAL $13,060,000 DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd (MUP on south side from Hwy 15 to East Town Limit) 3 $900,000 2. Future Employment Lands (MUP on one side of street to a new OVRT connection) 3 Contingent on Development Application and subject to MTO Approval $450,000 LONG-TERM INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS (20+ YEARS) 1a. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Full (MUP on both sides where possible) OR 1b. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Partial (MUP on north side only) $2,680,000 $620,000 2a. Townline Rd: Full (MUP on both sides where possible) OR 2b. Townline Rd: Partial (MUP only on north side) $2,340,000 $1,520,000 Page | 172 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 3a. Lake Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 3b. Lake Ave: Partial (MUP only on north side) $4,540,000 $2,270,000 4. Gilles Bridge and Mill St. Bridge (Based on Central Bridge ESR Cost Estimate) $1,150,000 5a. Mississippi Rd: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 5b. Mississippi Rd: Partial (MUP replaces existing sidewalk on west side) $2,130,000 $1,240,000 6a. High St: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 6b. High St: Partial (MUP replaces existing sidewalk on south side) $750,000 $370,000 Notes: 1. All MUPs assumed 3.0m width and sidewalks 1.8m width. 2. SNSP - Street Network Strengthening Plan 3. MUPs within the MTO permit control area are subject to MTO approval prior to implementation. 4. Town Council requested MTO reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to review the traffic implications for a new municipal continuous multi-modal road connection north of Hwy 7 to better align with long-term development plans. The ultimate design and cost of the road connection will depend on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, subject to approval by MTO. Street Network Implementation Plan 9.3.1 Summary of Street Network Recommendations The following list summarizes the comprehensive Street Network Strengthening Plan recommendations, including projects that are expected to be triggered beyond the 2041 planning horizon, but have been included for consideration in future TMP updates. The year associated with each project could be sooner if Town growth and development occurs more rapidly than projected in this TMP or later if development occurs more slowly. The list includes both road network segments and intersections needed to address capacity needs, organized by anticipated planning horizon. Note, the " * " indicates projects that have already been approved for funding. 2021-2026: - McNeely Ave Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Coleman St to Lake Ave (County of Lanark) * - Hwy 7 Widening from Hwy 15 to McNeely Ave, including intersection modifications (MTO) * - McNeely Ave Extension (including Captain A Roy Brown Blvd) from Hwy 7 to Hwy 15, including intersection modifications (County of Lanark) * 2026-2031: - Cavanagh Rd Widening from 2 to 4 lanes east of McNeely Ave * - Bates Ave Extension west of Industrial St * - Townline Rd E Rebalancing from 4 to 2 lanes, McNeely Ave to Industrial St - New 2 lane municipal road connection with active transportation facilities north of Hwy 7 - McNeely Ave to Franktown Rd - the ultimate design of the new road corridor will be informed based on the outcome of reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, which is subject to MTO approval. 2031-2041: - McNeely Ave Widening from 2 to 4 lanes, Lake Ave to Townline Rd E (County of Lanark) Page | 173 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Beyond 2041: - Townline Rd Widening from 2 to 4 lanes east of McNeely Ave (County of Lanark) - McNeely Ave Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Hwy 7 to Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (County of Lanark) - Captain A Roy Brown Blvd, East of Rathwell St (Development Driven and subject to discussion with the County of Lanark and Beckwith Township) A breakdown of recommended capital investments, with an estimated split between the County of Lanark and the Town of Carleton Place, has been provided in Table 38. The estimated cost split was determined as follows: - McNeely Ave and Townline Rd E projects - Elements between the curbs were assumed to be the County's responsibility, the elements outside the curb (within the boulevard) were assumed to be the Town's share. - Townline Rd E rebalancing project - It was assumed the cost would be split 50/50. - Potential new municipal connection - 100% Town responsibility if approved by MTO. These figures represent a Class 'D' cost estimate. Projects that have already been approved and funded, and isolated intersection projects noted in this TMP that are within the jurisdiction of MTO have not been included in the cost estimate. Town projects that require further feasibility study and funding partnerships have been included for reference, but no cost has been attributed. All recommended projects are expected to follow the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process as Schedule "C" projects. Page | 174 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Table 38: Street Network Implementation Plan with Estimated Costs1 (2021 CAD) Description County Cost Town Cost ALREADY APPROVED CAPITAL PROJECTS 1. McNeely Avenue 2 Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd to Lake Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $5,890,000 $1,270,000 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS (20 YEAR PLAN) 1. McNeely Avenue Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Lake Ave to Townline Rd E, includes two bridge structures and MUPs on both sides. $22,430,000 $6,240,000 2. New Connection North of Highway 7 3 Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $0 $6,490,000 4 3. Townline Rd E Street rebalancing from Industrial Ave to West of McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides. $1,435,000 $1,435,000 4. Moore St Corridor optimization from Lake Ave to OVRT. Potentially limit Lansdowne/Moore to right-in right-out only if needed. Requires further study TOTAL $29,755,000 $15,435,000 POTENTIAL LONG-TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 20 YEAR) 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd Extension from Rathwall St to Cemetery Side Rd - subject to annexation Requires further study 2. McNeely Avenue Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Highway 7 to Cavanagh Rd $10,250,000 $2,000,000 3. Townline Rd E Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from McNeely Ave to the East Town Limit $2,500,000 $400,000 TOTAL $12,750,000 $2,400,000 Notes: 1. Costs estimates are for construction plus factors for utilities, engineering, and project contingency. It does not include HST, property acquisition, or other miscellaneous costs. 2. Although this project has been confirmed by County staff as being planned within the next 5 years, no budget was included in the County's 20-Year Capital Plan. The estimated costs herein reflect a Complete Streets approach defined in this TMP. 3. Town Council requested MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to review the traffic implications of a new continuous municipal multi-modal road connection north of Hwy 7 to better align with the Town's long-term development plans and Complete Streets Approach established in this TMP. The outcome is subject to MTO approval. 4. The ultimate cost of this new connection will depend on the outcome of the reopened Hwy 7/15 TESR, subject to approval by MTO. The cost estimate herein was based on a municipal collector road classification with active transportation facilities on both sides, but excludes potential intersection modification requirements at Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave. Page | 175 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Potential Funding Sources Implementation of the TMP 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 TMP. The Town 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 TMP. Municipal staff should continue to explore external funding sources to help fund implementation of the proposed road network improvements as well as recommended policy. 9.4.1 Federal Funding 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 Community Improvement Fund: This fund consists of the Gas Tax Fund and the incremental Goods and Services Tax Rebate for Municipalities. It provides over $32 billion to municipalities across Canada for projects such as roads, public transit and recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure. 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 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. Active Transportation Fund, Infrastructure Canada: The first ever Active Transportation Fund is a national, merit-based contribution program intended to support projects that improve active transportation infrastructure across Canada. Announced in March 2021, the Fund will make available $400 million over five years to help build new and expanded networks of pathways, bike lanes, trails, and pedestrian bridges, as well as support Active Transportation planning and stakeholder engagement activities. Infrastructure Canada will be accepting applications for both the planning and capital funding streams of the Active Transportation Fund between January 27, 2022 and March 31, 2022. COVID-19 Community Resilience Fund, Infrastructure Canada: A new temporary COVID-19 Resilience stream, with over $3 billion available in existing funding, has been created to provide provinces and territories with added flexibility to fund quick-start, short-term projects that might not otherwise be eligible under the existing funding streams. Eligible projects include Active transportation infrastructure, including parks, trails, foot bridges, bike lanes and multi-use paths. 9.4.2 Provincial Funding 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. Page | 176 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 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. 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 high quality programming and infrastructure to support physical activity. Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund (GMF): The GMF provides funding for municipal environmental initiatives that improve air, water, and soil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funding is available to all Canadian municipal governments and their partners for eligible projects. 9.4.3 Regional / Local Funding County of Lanark: Proposed infrastructure improvements located on roads and lands under the jurisdiction of County of Lanark should be funded through the County's capital budget and other available funding sources. Capital projects are identified on an annual basis which includes the construction and rehabilitation of roadway and active transportation projects. Active transportation improvements can be completed at the same time as roadway projects in order to achieve cost efficiencies. Local: Other sources of funding may include local business donations, local charity events, and development charges. TMP Monitoring A monitoring program will allow the Town to track both the progress of implementing the TMP's recommendations and the impact of the TMP on shaping the way people and goods travel within and through Carleton Place. Key performance indicators will help the Town determine whether it is moving forward towards its vision and making progress towards the stated objectives of this plan. The following list of key performance indicators that should be tracked on an annual basis if possible. The one exception is a survey of residents' travel behaviour, which can be collected from the Canadian Census or through Big Data platforms which provide multi-modal information (e.g. StreetLight). Much of the data required to track these metrics are accessible from existing sources (e.g. transit service operators or OPP). In some cases, however, additional data collection may be necessary (e.g. traffic counts). The TMP recognizes that the Town may not be able initiate data collection and monitoring immediately - the aim is to record and measure each indicator and to measure progress on a regular basis. - Percent of Plans Implemented (Street Network and AT Network Strengthening Plans) - Cycling and Pedestrian Usage at strategic locations on the Cycling Priority Routes (to assess demand and capacity of MUP network) - Transit ridership and service hours on local and regional services (e.g. Ride the LT, private operators, and any future services) - Intersection turning movement counts at locations identified for monitoring - Collision Incidents (detailed reports on the number of vehicles/pedestrians/cyclists, type impact, severity, etc.) - Survey of residents' travel behaviour (Census or StreetLight Data) Page | 177 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - The following list includes recommended Street Network monitoring throughout planning horizons, in collaboration with the County of Lanark and MTO where applicable: - McNeely Ave corridor operations and safety between Hwy 7 and Lake Ave (Lanark) - Townline Rd corridor operations and safety between Industrial St and Joseph St (Lanark) - Moore St corridor operations and safety between Lake Ave and the OVRT PXO - Intersection operations and safety at: o Lansdowne Ave/Coleman St, o Franktown Rd/Coleman St, o McNeely Ave /Canadian Tire Access, o McNeely Ave /Townline Rd E, o McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, and o Bridge St/Townline Rd (Lanark) - Intersection operations and safety at: Hwy 7/McNeely Ave TMP Updates The TMP is a living document. As the Town of Carleton Place changes and grows, the TMP will need to be updated to reflect the new realities that may not have been contemplated while this plan was being developed. It is recommended that a review of the TMP be conducted at regular intervals to ensure that its underlying assumptions continue to apply. Has growth occurred as expected? Have travel patterns shifted in a way that was not anticipated? Has technology changed the face of local mobility in a major way? The development of TMP has attempted to consider the likely trajectory of the Town over the course of the next two decades. Regularly updating the TMP ensures that it remains relevant and useful in guiding Carleton Place into the 2040s. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process recommends a review of master plans every five years. This review will determine whether there is a need to undertake a formal TMP update. Summary of TMP Recommendations The Town's commitment to the TMP recommendations will support the stated objectives of the TMP and address the needs for Carleton Place, which have been reiterated below: Improve Connectivity: Building key connections linking the Town's neighbourhoods to each other and beyond, addressing operational constraints, connecting growth areas, infilling sidewalk gaps, growing and connecting the cycling network, making transit more attractive and finding ways to mitigate the impact of major barriers such as the Mississippi River. Improve Safety: Developing a transportation system that is inclusive and barrier free which accommodates the most vulnerable road users. Supporting Sustainable Modes: Providing the support necessary to make walking, cycling, and taking transit more attractive, connecting walking, and cycling networks and making it safe, comfortable and efficient, improving transit service frequencies, increasing service hours and expanding the reach of the transit network. Improving System Performance: Increasing the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and degree of accessibility of the transportation networks. Page | 178 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - This TMP consists of recommendations that include physical infrastructure projects, policies, and additional studies to strengthen the Town's multi-modal transportation network, which have been summarized below. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION (SECTION 4.0) Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities 1. Implement the AT Network Strengthening Plan (Map 7) to encourage and support sustainable modes of travel. 2. Target an unobstructed sidewalk width of 1.8m for all new or reconstructed sidewalks, with a minimum 1.5m unobstructed sidewalk width if necessary. 3. Target a minimum multi-use pathway (MUP) width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. 4. Adopt the Cycling Priority Route designations (Map 8) to support continuous cycling connectivity across Town and to key destinations within Town. 5. Ensure the design of new or reconstructed collector and arterial streets along Cycling Priority Routes protect for potential widening of MUPs or the segregation of off-street pedestrian and cycling facilities, where possible, to accommodate long-term growth. 6. Consider a Special Downtown Cycling District (along Bridge Street between Lake Ave and the Mississippi River) in the Official Plan to acknowledge the importance of this Town destination for cyclists and to support local businesses, despite not being designated a Cycling Priority Route and having limited space for cycling facilities. It should be afforded specialized cycling treatments to enhance safety for cyclists where possible. 7. Explore opportunities to implement new bicycle racks at Town destinations that are currently underserved. 8. Establish bicycle parking requirements for new developments in the Official Plan, as well as end user facilities for commuter cyclists such as showers and bike lockers at larger businesses. Accessibility 9. Ensure sidewalks, curbs and PXOs meet provincial accessibility standards (AODA) for all street construction or re-construction work, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals be provided where new pedestrian signals are being installed or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced. 10. Consider accessibility enhancements such as benches and rest areas as the opportunities arise. 11. Require accessibility reviews be incorporated in re-development and new development projects in the Official Plan, including accessible connections between the Town's active transportation facilities and all future development/re-development projects, including buildings, parks, and open spaces. Active Transportation on Bridges 12. Construct a separate active transportation bridge alongside McNeely Ave over the Mississippi River, integrated with the planned widening of McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes. 13. Revisit the need for the Mill St and Gilles active transportation bridge in future TMP updates. Page | 179 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Recreational Trails The Town review the following recreational trail recommendations for consideration or inclusion in the upcoming of Carleton Place Recreational Master Plan Update: 14. Construct a new recreational trail system within Arklan Island that connects the Mississippi Boardwalk Trail to a new active transportation connection across the Mississippi River. 15. Require all new recreational trails be designed in accordance with provincial accessibility standards (AODA), where feasible. 16. Require any new recreational trails to have a minimum width of 3.0m, and a minimum 2.4m width in constrained conditions only. 17. New development applications consider connections to recreational trails to strengthen linkages between neighborhood destinations and the Town's active transportation network. 18. Continue to consider PXOs at all new recreational trail crossings of roadways. 19. Recreational trail amenities, including parking spaces (regular and accessible), washrooms, waste receptacles, signage, lighting, canopies, and benches/seating be considered at busy trail intersections or resting points. 20. Consider Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) when designing new recreational trails or upgrading existing trails. Key principles include signage and lighting near trail entrances and crossings of streets. 21. Collaborate with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), provincial police (OPP) and relevant stakeholders on any safety concerns on existing ATV and snowmobile trails. Consider initiating a separate study to review existing ATV and snowmobile trails within the Town to better understand how they are being used, how they can be made safer, and how they may be enhanced or expanded in the future as the Town grows. Community Education and Promotion 22. Consider implementing education and promotional programs to support the investments in active transportation infrastructure outlined in this TMP. Additional AT Supporting Policies 23. Update existing winter maintenance policies to Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, O Reg 239/02, updated May 3, 2018, which includes new winter maintenance standards for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and significant weather events. 24. Update winter maintenance practices to include regular snow clearing on all MUPs along Cycling Priority Routes. This will maintain pathway connectivity to key Town destinations and help ensure that active transportation modes remain realistic options year-round. 25. Update the language in the Official Plan regarding the development review process such that active transportation facilities required to support new developments connecting to the Town's municipal AT network can be included as special conditions to subdivision agreements, with the active transportation facility costs covered by the developer. Page | 180 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - ROAD NETWORK (SECTION 5.0) Street Network Strengthening Plan 1. Adopt the Street Network Strengthening Plan (Map 9) to accommodate future growth in the Town and neighbouring municipalities. 2. Engage the County of Lanark to widen McNeely Ave from 2 to 4 lanes between Lake Ave and Townline Rd E, including the two bridges over the Mississippi River. 3. Monitor the McNeely Ave and Franktown Rd corridors between Highway 7 and Lake Ave, while exploring opportunities for optimization and to reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark in order to extend vehicular corridor capacity. Review the needs in future TMP updates. 4. Monitor Townline Rd E vehicular operations between Joseph St and Industrial Ave, while exploring opportunities to optimize operations and reduce vehicle travel demand with the County of Lanark to extend vehicular corridor capacity, such as rebalancing options to add and/or enhance active transportation facilities within the corridor. Review the needs in future TMP updates. 5. Engage the County of Lanark to widen Townline Rd E from McNeely Ave to Ramsay Concession 8, as dictated in the County of Lanark TMP. Confirm the schedule for implementation in future TMP updates. 6. Engage the County of Lanark to rebalance Townline Rd E from Industrial Ave to McNeely Ave from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes with enhanced active transportation facilities. 7. Review the needs and opportunities for a Captain A Roy Brown Blvd extension to Cemetery Side Rd as part of future TMP updates or if triggered by annexation discussions with Beckwith Township in support of development south of Highway 7. 8. Monitor long-term traffic operations at the Hwy 7/McNeely Ave intersection. Engage MTO regarding additional modifications, such as those outlined in the Hwy7/15 TESR, if vehicle capacity is shown to be exceeded. 9. Monitor traffic operations at the Franktown Rd/Coleman St intersection and consider optimizations to extend intersection capacity as needed. Reassess needs in future TMP updates. 10. Monitor traffic operations at the Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave intersection, Moore St/Lansdowne Ave intersection, and the Moore St OVRT PXO. If vehicle queues interfere with upstream intersection operations or safety at the PXO, consider mitigation, such as converting Moore/Lansdowne to a right-in right-out only intersection. 11. Monitor traffic operations at the intersections of McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access, McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E, McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd, and Bridge St/Townline Rd, and consider signal timing adjustments to improve operations if warranted. 12. Request MTO to reopen the Hwy 7/15 TESR to investigate the traffic implications of implementing a continuous municipal connection between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave, north of Highway 7, to support long-term development needs and multi-modal aspirations of the Town. 13. Traffic operations at the Lansdowne/Coleman intersection did not trigger the OTM traffic signal warrant; thus the intersection should be monitored. The traffic signal warrant should be reassessed annually, and a safety review be completed if local concerns persist. Page | 181 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - Road Classifications and Design Criteria 14. Adopt the recommended road classification system (Map 10) and update the Official Plan accordingly. 15. Adopt the recommended design criteria to support the new road classification system, and update the Town's municipal design standards accordingly. Assumption of Local Roads 16. Consider initiating discussions with the County of Lanark regarding the uploading of Cavanagh Rd. SUPPORTING STRATEGIES (SECTION 6.0) Complete Streets Official Plan Principles The following principles should be incorporated into the recommended Complete Streets policy: - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing vulnerable road user safety, and pedestrians and cyclists are explicitly considered early in the planning and design phases, rather than as an afterthought. - Consider All Projects - Each project will be planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with the explicit consideration for the needs of road users of all ages and abilities. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods shall be designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian/cycling facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes. - Understanding Constraints - It is recognized that not all projects will be able to accommodate all road users to the highest level of service. Where constraints exist, planners and designers will need to demonstrate that the proposed design afforded due consideration for all potential road users and that the prevailing design meets the needs of the intended function of the street and fits within the existing and planned community context. Complete Streets Recommendations 1. Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan. 2. Collaborate with County of Lanark and external stakeholders to describe this new approach and how best to adopt these new road planning and design processes. 3. Integrate the Complete Streets approach in all relevant Town departments. 4. Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets. 5. Prioritize the Complete Streets cross-sections prepared for Arterial, Collector and Local Streets (Map 11 and Map 12) along the Cycling Priority Routes, and consider them on all new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street approach. 6. Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. 7. Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes, and consider adopting a multi-modal level-of-service framework (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). Page | 182 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - 8. Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Safety 9. Continue to use the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to identify when, where, and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. 10. Consider implementing traffic calming measures on shared cycling facilities, where feasible. Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. 11. Consider updating the Town's Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy to reflect new traffic calming measures presented in the updated Transportation Association Canada - Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (2018). 12. Consider reduced speed limit signs where the street merits it based on the surrounding land uses and local context. Reduced speeds should be accompanied with design measures such as traffic calming, where appropriate. 13. Utilize OTM Book 5 when identifying locations for School Zones and Community Safety Zones. 14. Initiate pedestrian crossing reviews at problem locations identified by the public or Town staff. 15. Pedestrian crossing reviews should continue to be based on OTM Book 15, which provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. 16. Cycling crossings should adhere to OTM Book 18 if possible, to ensure they are safe and adequately prioritize cyclists as they navigate across an intersection or crossing. 17. Develop a new policy that requires roundabouts to be considered at all new and retrofit intersections. 18. Adopt a roundabout screening and assessment process based on the Canadian Roundabout Design Guide 19. Periodically review intersection signal timing plans to ensure sufficient pedestrian crossing times. 20. Explore street lighting needs at OVRT crossings and new MUPs as they are constructed. 21. Consider the potential safety measures outlined in Section 6.2.3 to address local safety concerns heard during the TMP process, and utilize the Safety Toolbox developed in the TMP to respond to any new concerns raised by the public. Transportation Demand Management 22. Investigate the initiatives outlined in the TDM Toolbox to leverage investments in active transportation and transit; and consider preparing a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Carleton Place. Goods Movement 23. Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. 24. Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Page | 183 October 2022 - FINAL REPORT - PUBLIC TRANSIT AND RIDESHARING (SECTION 7.0) 1. Coordinate with OC Transpo, the County of Lanark, and private transit operators to target commuter travel to the City of Ottawa by: a. Exploring opportunities to improve transit service integration and commuter travel by advocating for better connections (e.g. flexible stops to the existing fixed-route service or more direct service to reduce transfers) with existing transit service to City of Ottawa. b. Exploring the potential of demand-responsive transit to improve mobility and access to opportunities for commuters to City of Ottawa. c. Considering incentives or subsidies to increase commuter transit ridership and ridesharing use to capitalize on potential demand, such as institutional campuses (e.g. Algonquin College) and other sources. 2. Engage the County of Lanark and Lanark Transportation Association to: a. Support the expansion of existing transit service i.e. Ride the LT, and specialized services within the County, with emphasis on improving mobility and access between the larger municipalities, i.e. Carleton Place, Perth, Smiths Falls and Almonte. b. Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities, ridesharing platforms, and subsidized Uber service to key community destinations and special events to improve service levels and attract new ridership. c. Consider opportunities to increase rideshare engagement through incentives, promotion, and potential expansion of park and ride locations within the Town that is accessible by walking and cycling. 3. Improve access to transit by prioritizing pedestrian facilities to transit stops, ensure AODA compliance and ensure links are prioritized for winter maintenance. 4. Prepare a Transit Feasibility Study at the appropriate time, to advance the discussion and inform how a local transit service may feasibly be provided in the Town that will be sustainable in the fullness of time. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES (SECTION 8.0) 1. Continue to explore opportunities to expand electrified vehicle supportive infrastructure within the Town. 2. Investigate the opportunities to improve and expand ridesharing and bikesharing programs in coordination with County of Lanark and neighbouring municipalities as new platforms and technologies become available. 3. Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand-responsive approaches. 4. Investigate opportunities to utilize Big Data platforms (such as Streetlight Data Inc.) and other service providers to monitor and assess the transportation network performance. CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Draft Consultation Summary Report March 2022 Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Consultation Summary Report Prepared for: Town of Carleton Place 175 Bridge Street, Carleton Place, ON K7C 2V8 Prepared by: Parsons Inc. 100-1223 Michael Street North Ottawa ON K1J 7T2 March 2022 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | i Consultation Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Consultation Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 CONSULTATION METHODS.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.1. Stakeholder List ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2. Website ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2.1. Online Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.3. Project Email .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4. Notifications ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4.1. Notice of Commencement.................................................................................................................. 3 2.5. Public Information Centres ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.6. Working Group Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 ONLINE SURVEY (JANUARY 2021) .............................................................................................................. 5 3.1.1. Travel Mode and Demographics ........................................................................................................ 5 4.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE #1 ........................................................................................................... 13 4.1. Notification ............................................................................................................................................... 13 4.2. Summary of Open House Feedback ....................................................................................................... 13 5.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE #2 ........................................................................................................... 14 5.1. Notification ............................................................................................................................................... 15 5.2. Summary of Open House Feedback ....................................................................................................... 15 6.0 APPENDICES: ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Appendix B1 - Working Group Meeting #1 Notes and Presentation .......................................................... 20 Appendix B2 - Working Group Meeting #2 Notes and Presentation .......................................................... 21 Appendix B3 - Working Group Meeting #3 Notes and Presentation .......................................................... 22 Appendix C1 - PIC #1 Notes, Presentation and Boards and Survey Results ............................................. 24 Appendix C2 - PIC #2 Notes, Presentation and Boards and Survey Results ............................................. 25 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | ii Consultation Summary Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Newsletter Article Regarding Online Community Survey ................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Online Community Survey: Daily Mode Share .................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Online Community Survey: Live and Work Question ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Online Community Survey: External Workplace Question ............................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Online Community Survey: Age Group Question .............................................................................................. 7 Figure 6: Online Community Survey: AT Questions.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Online Community Survey: Traffic Congestion Question ................................................................................. 9 Figure 8: Tim Hortons (10418 Hwy 7) Drive-Thru Queue ............................................................................................. 10 Figure 9: Interactive Mapping Tool: Main 'Clusters' ..................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Stakeholders Receiving Notice of Commencement in January 2021 ................................................................... 3 Table 2: Working Group Meeting #1 Discussion Summary .................................................................................................. 4 Table 3: Summary of Interactive Mapping Tool Comments ............................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Comment-Questionnaire/Email Tabulation .......................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Comment-Questionnaire/Email Tabulation .......................................................................................................... 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: Comment Tracker Appendix B: Working Group Meetings: Notes and Presentations Appendix C: Public Information Centre Materials Appendix D: Notifications Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 1 Consultation Summary Report 1.0 Introduction The Town of Carleton Place has drafted the municipality's first Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP will guide transportation infrastructure improvements over the next two decades, and identify policies, guidelines, and recommendations to meet the needs of all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, transit and cars. This plan considered the unique opportunity for proactive thinking, anticipation of community needs, and preparation for emerging trends in transportation solutions, such as complete streets and a system that is inclusive and accessible. The study commenced in late 2020 and is anticpated to be completed by the winter of 2022. 1.1. Consultation Overview This report provides a summary of the multi-faceted consultation initiatives conducted throughout the course of the Master Planning Process. The strategy for consultations has been developed as a broad and accessible program to include the following:  Project Management team meetings;  Workshops with technical experts;  Public Information Centres;  Letters and emails; and  Project website. 1.2. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment The study process will conform with the provisions for Master Plans completing Phases 1 & 2 as outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (October 2000, as amended in 2001, 2011 & 2015) by the Municipal Engineers Association following "Approach #1". This process will include consultation with the public and stakeholders, consideration of reasonable alternative solutions and a high-level assessment of the effects on the environment at the network level. 2.0 Consultation Methods A variety of methods will be employed to communicate and obtain feedback on the draft TMP; these are discussed below. 2.1. Stakeholder List A list of stakeholders for the study was created and updated throughout the study. It was composed of technical representatives from the Town, agencies, public interest groups and major landowners in Carleton Place. Members of the public could also request to be added to the contact list for the study to receive updates throughout the study process. 2.2. Website A website for the Project was created via the Town's central website at: https://carletonplace.ca/transportation-master- plan.php [carletonplace.ca]. Information was posted as well as a link provided for the public to subscribe to notifications. 2.2.1. Online Survey An online survey was launched January 8, 2021, to gather feedback on a variety of transportation-related topics through the winter of 2021. The online survey also included an online mapping site that allowed users to "pin" and describe Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 2 Consultation Summary Report transportation locations of concern within the Town Notification of the Community Survey was sent via emails to the stakeholder list for the study as well as notifications and reminders placed on the Town's website, Facebook page and newsletter (Figure 1). Figure 1: Newsletter Article Regarding Online Community Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 3 Consultation Summary Report 2.3. Project Email Emails received throughout the study process were received through the Town Project Manager, Parsons Project Manager and/or an email established for the project at: [email protected]. Comments received outside of Public Consultation periods were tracked and tabulated in a 'Comment Tracker' provided in Appendix A. 2.4. Notifications Notifications were sent out by a variety of means, including Emails, newspaper advertisements and letters. Notifications sent out during the study are provided in Appendix D. 2.4.1. Notice of Commencement A Notice of Commencement was sent out to agency contacts as well as Indigenous Communities via email in January 2021 (Table 1). General information regarding the project was provided as well as a copy of the formal Notice of Commencement. Follow-up letters were mailed out with the same information to all Indigenous Communities as well as three additional communities identified for consultation by the MECP in April 2021 these are:  Mississaugas of the Scugog Island First Nation;  Curve Lake First Nation; and  Hiawatha First Nation. The Notice of Commencement was also published in the local Carleton Place Canadian Gazette newspaper and on the TMP website on Thursday, December 24th, 2020. Table 1: Stakeholders Receiving Notice of Commencement in January 2021 Stakeholder Name Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Stephen Kapusta Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Jon Orpana Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Mike Elms MECP Ottawa Charlie Primeau Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Scott Lee Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHTCSI) Karla Barboza Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) Matt Craig and Sally McIntyre Leeds, Grenville & Lanark District Health Unit Joseph Reid Indigenous Communities Metis Nation of Ontario Algonquins of Ontario Ottawa Region Metis Sharbot Obaadijiwan First Nation Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation (AOPFN) High Land Waters Metis Council Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 4 Consultation Summary Report Alderville First Nation 2.5. Public Information Centres Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were held during the study process at key milestones. Due to the public health guidelines for COVID-19, in-person PICs were not held. In its place, a live presentation including a question and answer period was provided along with information boards on the study's website. More details regarding the PICs are found in Section 3.0 and Section 5.0. 2.6. Working Group Meetings Three Working Group meetings were held throughout the study process at key milestones to discuss and hear feedback from stakeholders. Project notification emails were sent out to confirm participation in the Working Group and identify correct representatives from agencies, organizations and Town departments. Due to the public health guidelines for COVID-19 working group meetings were held virtually on MS Teams. A presentation was given by the study team and informal discussion followed. Table 2 provides dates and a summary of the key points discussed during each working group meeting held. Detailed notes are provided in Appendix B. Table 2: Working Group Meeting #1 Discussion Summary Date Agenda Comments/concerns February 16, 2021 10:00am - 12:00pm Introduction to the study and outline of its purpose. Provide an opportunity to discuss and receive feedback. - how the Town and the TMP were addressing accessibility at various time horizons, 1 year, 5 year, immediately, etc. - concerns with respect to winter snow clearing - high conflict intersections, areas of consistent or peak congestion - improving overall traffic flow - design choices and opportunities were discussed, i.e. roundabouts - improvements to active transportation facilities and coordination with provincially-owned roads. - active transportation gap analysis and improvements to safety for all users. - changes to user's habits as a result of Covid-19 pandemic - transit improvement opportunities - project Coordination and Timing - emphasis placed on segregated cycling facilities on arterial roads. June 9, 2021 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM Outline progress to date and provide an opportunity to provide feedback. Focus on infrastructure, culminating in the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. Discussion of refining plans - it was described how draft TMP Plans are 20-year recommendations, as feedback and priorities are worked through over the coming months, a full lens financial look will be produced - discussion as to whether additional access to Highway 7 was being considered. - support for the active transportation bridge connecting Centennial Park to Riverside Park. Safety issues were discussed as well. - TMP Coordination and Project Scope coordination between the TMP and environmental, climate change, and GHG emissions policies/goals. - downtown Carleton Place is now certified as a "Ontario By Bike" stop and indicated Cycling markers/signage are very important to include/consider in the TMP and area planning - supportive of an active transportation (people-centered) perspective to the TMP and the resulting public health benefits. - next steps for the study are to collect and review all public feedback from the PIC#1, revise the transportation network strengthening plans Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 5 Consultation Summary Report Date Agenda Comments/concerns based on feedback received. accordingly, and proceed with developing support strategies/policies and preliminary costing. September 15, 2021 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Review and comment on draft recommendations. Focus on TMP supporting strategies, policies, and implementation and costs of the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. - support indicated for the TMP's active transportation focus and network strengthening plan, including the cycling routes, complete streets approach, and the active transportation bridge over the Mississippi River - discussion of identifying active transportation gaps - bridge street street renewal opportunities and limitations - winter snow clearing and accessibility - accessibility at a network level - traffic calming measures implementing, consideration and options - 30km/h street design toolkits were discussed as a traffic calming tool - in-depth discussion around the multi-faceted issue of traffic speeds and calming measures - knowledge gap in motorists and how to share the road with cyclists. Education component to the TMP - development and growth of Carleton Place, adapting to and with this through the TMP. 3.0 Online Survey (January 2021) A summary of input received through the online survey completed in January 2021 is provided below. Over 300 responses were received to this anonymous survey with 19 questions ranging from personal travel choices, demographics to general thoughts/concerns. 3.1. Travel Mode and Demographics The Online Community Survey, with over 300 respondents, included questions related to travel choices and place of residence/work, to help correlate with the 2016 Census data. The mode share distribution among daily work/school and non-work/school trips has been summarized in Figure 2. Figure 2: Online Community Survey: Daily Mode Share Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 6 Consultation Summary Report The Online Community Survey clearly showed lower auto-driver mode shares for both work/school trips, roughly 25% lower than the 2016 Census results. This was offset by a significant increase in alternate modes, nearly 15% in walking, 7% in transit and 4% in cycling. The most likely reasons for such a discrepancy are the sample size and COVID impacts on employment and workplace locations. For non-work-related trips, the personal vehicle mode share was only slightly above 50%, with over 35% walking, and 5% cycling. Clearly, among the group of respondents, there was a strong desire to use alternate modes of transportation over the personal vehicle. Part of the explanation to this may be the demographics amongst the respondents, which is discussed in the next section. Each respondent was asked what their connection was to the Town, which helped identify where they live and work. The results have been tabulated in Figure 3. Among the roughly 270 responses to these questions, nearly 245 lived in Carleton Place, and nearly 70 worked in Carleton Place. Figure 3: Online Community Survey: Live and Work Question For those that did not work in Carleton Place, nearly 75% stated they worked in the City of Ottawa, as shown in Figure 4. 243 67 126 25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 I live in Carleton Place I work in Carleton Place I visit, shop, or gain access to services in Carleton Place Other Municipality (please specify) Number of Responses WHAT IS YOUR CONNECTION TO CARLETON PLACE? Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 7 Consultation Summary Report Figure 4: Online Community Survey: External Workplace Question The Online Community Survey also asked respondents to record their age (note, the age group below 19 years of age was not considered) and the results have been summarized in Figure 5. A significant portion of respondents were between the ages of 46 and 65 (over 50%), and nearly 17% were retirement age (65+). Overall, the respondents were predominately older, which likely factored into the transportation trends noted previously. Figure 5: Online Community Survey: Age Group Question It was not unexpected that the majority of respondents lived in Carleton Place, since it is the origin of the TMP study. Based on the age distribution, assuming respondents in the age range between 19 and 65 were still employed in the workforce, roughly 30% of them worked in Carleton Place, which is slightly lower than the 2016 Census (~35%). This result may be attributed to COVID implications. The 75% of external workplace trips destined to the City of Ottawa was higher than the 2016 Census (~50%), and may be indicative of a shift in employment patterns over the last 5-years, but is likely due to randomness from a low sample size and a high retiree count. Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 8 Consultation Summary Report Overall, the Online Community Survey provides an important perspective from the largest demographic pool within the Town, middle-aged labour force and retirees. Each cohort have some synergistic views on transportation, but also some competing ones, as demonstrated in the broad spectrum of TMP topics of interest to respondents. 1.1.1.1 Active Transportation The Online Community Survey showed that pedestrian issues ranked highest in overall interest among the respondents, while cycling issues was ranked 4th (tied with Transit and Parking). Generally, the majority of respondents indicated they were comfortable walking and cycling within the Town, as noted in Figure 6. Figure 6: Online Community Survey: AT Questions Additional feedback from written comments, the mapping tool, and the Working Group discussions did highlight some of the challenges that pedestrians and cyclists currently face in the Town. For pedestrians, the most common themes related to network gaps that force users to walk on the road or switch sides of the street, inadequate winter maintenance leading to the former, encumbrances on the sidewalk (e.g. streetlights or hydro poles) that make passage uncomfortable, and courtesy crossings that provide a false sense of security. The most sensitive pedestrian locations included the Hwy 7 corridor (lack of sidewalks in front of the commercial areas and crossing at Hwy 15 or McNeely), Bridge St (Courtesy crossings and narrow travel space), and McNeely (where sidewalks do not exist, only a multi-use path on one side of the road in some cases). For cyclists, the common themes also included network gaps that force cyclists onto the roadway, lack of "shared" space on busy streets and a general lack of connections between trails and pathways. The sensitive cycling locations were similar to the pedestrian locations, Bridge St, and Hwy 7, being the most common areas of concern. A particularly noteworthy result from the Online Community Survey was the respondents' thoughts about accessibility and inclusivity. Over 60% of respondents did not feel the Town's transportation system was accessible and inclusive. This perspective was reinforced in the Working Group meeting, where participants noted that accessibility is a longstanding concern that has been flagged by the community, particularly physically challenged individuals. SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Very few lights, especially along paths (Riverside park, Roy Brown, OVRT) and places people are encouraged and WANT to walk." "In the winter, some sidewalks are not cleared properly. In some areas of town, there are no sidewalks. The OVRT is "Sidewalks in and around Hwy 7; crossing the Hwy doesn't feel safe." "Need a dedicated bike lane because streets are too narrow with the parking and sidewalks are narrow." Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 9 Consultation Summary Report 1.1.1.2 Transit General feedback from the Online Community Survey suggests that there is demand for a CP specific transit system and, to a lesser extent, improving transit connections to other municipalities. The common thread was providing residents with more alternatives to the personal vehicle for short to medium length trips where walking is not reasonable. This point was mainly speaking directly to the elderly or mobility challenged, but also for people who either choose not to or cannot afford to own a car. Additionally, there was a strong desire among residents for an efficient alternative means of travel within the Town to access services and amenities that is more affordable than taxis or ride hailing services. These thoughts are not new - the Town of Carleton Place Corporate Strategic Plan demonstrated there was vocal support for publicly-supported public transit in 2007. At that time, key goals were to assist in the mobility of seniors and youth, commuters to Ottawa, and local businesses and tourism industries. 1.1.1.3 Roads The Online Community Survey showed that road and safety issues ranked second and third highest, respectively in overall interest among the respondents. Generally, a slight majority of respondents believe the Town does not have traffic congestion issues, as noted in Figure 7. Figure 7: Online Community Survey: Traffic Congestion Question great and well looked after but the number of snowmobiles & ATVs can make walking on it feel less secure." "Sidewalk need improvement for accessibility. Horrible in winter." "The stores and new housing are too far apart for walking or they've closed them down. Very little retail on one side of river used to be grocery store IGA and Beer Store but lots of houses on that side of town. Forces people to drive over to McNeely and hwy." SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS: "We would really look forward to a regular, continuous transit service. The route would allow residential streets pick up/drop off and stops along Bridge St. and the main stores in town. We'd like to get away from having to use our personal vehicle." "Taxis are expensive and not inclusive towards people with disabilities (i.e. wheelchair)." "I live and work in Carleton Place, but do wish there were more options for day trips into Ottawa not geared solely towards commuters." "An accessible and efficient transit system within CP and Lanark County would allow more people to access employment, social services and life enriching activities which lead to a healthier, more cohesive and prosperous community for all residents." Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 10 Consultation Summary Report Public and stakeholder feedback highlighted various traffic and road network concerns within the Town. A summary of the more frequent concerns raised has been provided below: - Congestion on major streets, specifically: o Hwy 7 intersections with McNeely and Hwy 15 - heavy congestion, long delays. o McNeely Ave - congestion approaching Hwy 7 at the commercial access intersections. o Bridge St - heavy traffic during peak seasons, parking conflicts exacerbate congestion. o Franktown Rd - congestion from Coleman to Hwy 7. - Key destinations: o Tim Horton's junction off McNeely, north of Hwy 7 - this location consistently sees significant traffic queues from the drive thru window back towards McNeely (This observation was confirmed during Parsons' Nov 21,2020 site visit, as shown in Figure 8). o Downtown - on street parking is permitted on most side streets surrounding the downtown. The combination of parking and increased traffic during the peak seasons creates additional congestion. o Arklan School / Daycare - traffic activity surrounding the school and daycare facility was noted as significant (i.e. Patterson, Francis, Lake and McNeely) during pickup/drop-off hours. Figure 8: Tim Hortons (10418 Hwy 7) Drive-Thru Queue - Infrastructure Gap (falling behind development): various public comments were related to the traffic impacts from ongoing development along Coleman, Cavanagh, and surrounding Hwy 7. These undeveloped areas, once occupied, will worsen traffic conditions along the adjacent roads and the major streets noted above. - Traffic Management: o Speeding observed on various roadways (such as, McNeely, Coleman, Napoleon, and Patterson). o Stop sign infractions were noted at 4-way stops, rolling stops or lack of stopping altogether. o Traffic infiltration (short cutting) on local streets that increase safety risks; one notable route was Napoleon to Hwy 7. During the Working Group meeting, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) representative reiterated the public sentiments of traffic and safety concerns along Hwy 7 between Hwy 15 and McNeely. He also confirmed that since the onset of COVID, local traffic complaints have increased, which are often related to stop sign or lane-merging infractions. The Interactive Mapping Tool provided respondents the ability to 'pin' and comment on problem locations in the Town via an interactive mapping software. The main concerns were predominately safety related. Figure 9 highlights the location of 'clusters,' where a high concentration of 'pins' was observed. Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 11 Consultation Summary Report Figure 9: Interactive Mapping Tool: Main 'Clusters' Six (6) main clusters were identified. The following table summarizes the main comments received for each of these clusters. Table 3: Summary of Interactive Mapping Tool Comments Cluster Summary of Comments #1: McNeely/Patterson - Extend pedestrian crossing times, not enough time to cross McNeely, especially with children - Speeding vehicles, need to designate as a school zone and lower the speed limit - Need left-turn lanes turning onto McNeely - Extend signal time for cars turning to McNeely #2: Coleman between Franktown and McNeely - Speeding - Difficult crossing as a pedestrian, especially for children - Difficult making left turns at Franktown and McNeely intersections #3: Hwy 7 between Hwy 15 and McNeely - Congestion at Highway 7/Highway 15 intersection Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 12 Consultation Summary Report - Vehicles backed up along Highway 7, leading to frustrated drivers and unsafe driver behaviour - Need pedestrian and cycling facilities along Highway 7 to access businesses - Highway 7/McNeely intersection unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists #4: Mill Street between Bridge and Princess - Close underpass to vehicles - Mill Street too narrow with parked cars, make it a one-way #5: Hwy 7/Townline Road - Need for traffic signal - Ramp too short, vehicles back up #6: Mississippi Road/Morris Street - Need four-way stop with new development - Unsafe for pedestrians to cross The Interactive Mapping Tool comments generally reflected the issues highlighted in the Online Community Survey and by the Working Group, but provided additional focus to areas farther removed from the major roads, such as Mississippi Rd, Mill St, and Patterson Cr. 1.1.1.4 Parking The Online Community Survey showed that parking issues ranked fourth highest (tied with Cycling and Transit) in overall interest among the respondents. The concerns were largely focused on the winter parking ban and parking by-law enforcement, specifically: - Lack of on-street parking in residential neighbourhoods, relax winter parking restrictions to allow more parking; - Parking on both sides of the road creates uncomfortable vehicle environment, limited space allows only a single vehicle to pass, particularly in winter; and, - Insufficient by-law enforcement for illegal parking, recurring issue particularly in winter. SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Some intersections in town such as Coleman & Franktown and Bridge & Lake need to be examined to see how the congestion can be reduced in those areas." "I strongly feel that the speed limit in town should be 40 on all streets. The constant change between 50 and 40 is unsafe and ridiculous. Exception - 30 in school zones." "Put the infrastructure in place before the new developments." "Tim Hortons junction in town." "Traffic calming measures. Especially at Queen Street south and Coleman Street." "Hwy 7 to turn left onto Hwy 15 is always congested especially in the summer and summer weekends. McNeely is very busy also. Napoleon street is turning into the town detour to avoid certain areas and I live on this street and people are driving way too fast.". SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Revisit the winter parking restrictions please. People are parking all over on lawns." "With Mississippi Rd being the main access from Hwy 7 to the new Bodnar subdivision, parking on both sides of this road will create major safety concerns and congestion. Currently, when cars are parked on both sides of the street, "On street parking in neighbourhoods is lacking, particularly in the winter. We have room in our driveway for our vehicles but not for guests. When it snows we need to put our cars somewhere for our plows to clear the driveway but there aren't enough spots for that in our neighborhood. Especially with everyone working from home right now." Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 13 Consultation Summary Report 4.0 Public Information Centre #1 Due to the public health guidelines for COVID-19, an in-person PIC was not held. In its place, a live presentation was given on Thursday June 17, 2021 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm including a question and answer period following. Information boards were also available for review on the study's website. Feedback on the materials was requested between June 17 and July 6, 2021. Materials presented are provided in Appendix C. The presentation and information boards presented included:  Welcome  Introduction Event Objectives and Study Timeline  Study Background  Study Context  Vision and Objectives  Existing Road Network  Existing Active Transportation Network  Early Community and Stakeholder Feedback  Forecasts and Trends  Issues and Opportunities  Meeting Future Needs  Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft  Cycling Priority Routes - Drafts  Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft  Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft  Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft  Next Steps 4.1. Notification Notification of the live presentation event and subsequent consultation period occurred through a variety of means. Email reminders were sent on three occasions to the project stakeholder list including Indigenous Communities on Thursday June 10 and 17, 2021. Notice was posted to the study website and social media. Advertisements were also placed in the Carleton Place Scoop Newsletter and paper on June 10 and 17 2021. Notifications can be found in Appendix D. 4.2. Summary of Open House Feedback Feedback received during the consultation period from both submitted online survey responses and emails were examined and tabulated to better understand the comments and concerns. A total of 3 emails and 12 responses to the Survey Monkey were received in support of the consultation event. The following are the most frequently discussed topics, in order of frequency by theme. Comments received outside each round of consultation events are included in a Comment-Tracking worksheet that, in addition to this summary, is documented in Appendix A. Table 4: Comment-Questionnaire/Email Tabulation Frequency Comments/Concerns 6 Agree with the draft vision and objectives 6 Agreement with the transportation issues identified 6 Expressed safety concerns for all users 5 Support for the draft street network strengthening plan 5 Support for the complete street approach only one car can safely navigate, especially if the vehicle is a late model pick-up truck or delivery vehicle." "I would like to see By-Law use its powers more to deal with some of the parking issues in town." Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 14 Consultation Summary Report Frequency Comments/Concerns 4 Support for the draft active transportation network strengthening plan 3 Desire for improved public transit for commuters to City and around the county 3 Support for more active transportation facilities in addition to those presented as part of the plan 2 Appreciated the quality of materials presented during the PIC 2 Support for additional crossings, protected intersections 2 Does not agree with pedestrian facilities being added to Arklan Island 2 Not supportive of making the arterial roads wider 1 Suggest resurfacing roads near new bridge that are in bad condition e.g. John/Joseph 1 Desire for segregated cycling facilities 1 Desire for greater/improved accessibility 1 More emphasis on emissions and CC re: draft vision 1 Concern for noise pollution 1 Request for more traffic calming measures 5.0 Public Information Centre #2 Due to the public health guidelines for COVID-19, an in-person PIC was not held. In its place, a live presentation was given on Thursday Sept 23, 2021 from 6:00pm - 8:00pm including a question and answer period following. Information boards were also available for review on the study's website. Feedback on the materials was requested between September 23 and October 12, 2021. Materials presented are provided in Appendix C. The presentation and information boards presented included:  Welcome  Introduction Event Objectives and Study Objectives  Study Background  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Priority Routes and Facility Types  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets  Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft  Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Active Transportation and TDM  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Continued  Supporting Strategies/Policies: Other  Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft  Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft  Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs  Closing 5.1. Notification Notification of the live presentation event and subsequent consultation period occurred through a variety of means. Members of the working group were emailed notice on September 15. Notice was posted to the study website and social media. Advertisements were also placed in the Carleton Place Scoop Newsletter and paper on September 16 and September 23, 2021. Notifications can be found in Appendix C: Public Information Centre Materials. 5.2. Summary of Open House Feedback Feedback received during the consultation period from both submitted online survey responses and emails were examined and tabulated to better understand the comments and concerns. A total of 11 emails and 4 responses to the Survey Monkey were received in support of the consultation event. The following are the most frequently discussed topics, in order of frequency by theme. Comments received outside each round of consultation events are included in a Comment-Tracking worksheet that, in addition to this summary, is documented in Appendix A. Table 5: Comment-Questionnaire/Email Tabulation Frequency Comments/Concerns 10 Expressed safety concerns for all users 3 Desire to implement traffic calming measures 3 Adding/enforcing Community safety zones 2 Request to add facilities in more locations to the strengthening plans 2 agreement with the draft Complete Street strategies/policies and Road Classification Updates 2 agreement with the draft Transit, Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies strategies/policies 2 Support for the new active transportation bridge to Arklan Island 2 Inquiries and suggestions for timing/phasing/prioritizing network improvements 2 Need for improved education and signage for all facilities 1 Support for widening roads, does not like narrow roadways 1 Concerns for lack of winter maintenance 1 Support for improvements to active transportation facilities 1 Does not support the new active transportation bridge to Arklan Island 1 Support for the complete street approach 1 Implement controlled pedestrian crossings, courtesy crosswalks are not safe enough 1 Reconsider interactions from a safety perspective of ATV/snow machines with pathways. Sharing paths between these users is not adequately safe enough as is. Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Page | 16 Consultation Summary Report Frequency Comments/Concerns 1 Consideration for a truck by-pass to reduce noise and congestion 1 timing of the signal lights at the intersection of McNeely and Patterson/Stonewater Bay being insufficiently long enough to allow pedestrians to cross McNeely without having to rush to make it across. 1 Noise concerns from area roadways 5.0 Appendices: Appendix A: Comment Tracker Appendix B: Working Group Meetings Appendix C: Public Information Centre Materials Appendix D: Notices Appendix A: Comment Tracker Sensitive# Comment Summary Link to File January 8, 2021 LA Herwig Public Traffic problem areas: 1. Townline W and 7 - difficult to turn . Need traffic lights 2. Townline W - heavy traffic and speed limits not observed. Difficult to cross at rush hour. Dangerous for school children 3. Blind laneways on properties on Bridge St. I have almost been hit when walking by drivers coming out of Lakeway. 4. Drivers crossing lanes from Tim Hortons/Pioneer gas to get into left turning lanes. Blocking access onto McNeely may be needed. Alternatively, add a concrete medium PublicComment_8Jan2021.pdf Comments sent to Austin January 11, 2021, for inclusion in the survey. January 22, 2021 Matt Craig MVCA Confirmed interest in the project following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. MVCA_NOC_22Jan2021.pdf January 22, 2021 John Price MVCA Provided updated contact information for new contact - Sally McIntyre MVCA2_NOC_22Jan2021.pdf January 22, 2021 Mary Dillon MNRF Provided updated contact information for new contact - Scott Lee MNRF_NOC_22Jan2021.pdf January 22, 2021 Stephen Kapusta MTO Confirmed interest in the project following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. MTO_NOC_22Jan2021.pdf January 26, 2021 Alanna Hein Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation Provided comments following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. NOC_AOPFN_26Jan2021.pdf February 17, 2021 Joseph Harvey MHSTCI Provided comments following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. MHSTCI_NOC_response- 19Feb2021.pdf 19-Feb-21 Good Morning Laura and Joseph,Thank you for providing comment from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) on the Notice of Study Commencement for the Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan. At this time I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that the process will conform with the provisions for Master Plans in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2001, 2011 & 2015) by the Municipal Engineers Association following Approach #1. Following Approach #1 involves preparing the Master Plan document at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2 and does not become the notice of completion for Schedule B projects. It involves a broad level of assessment, requiring more detailed investigations, such as those you indicated, i.e. Archaeological Assessment or a Cultural Heritage Report to be completed for identified Schedule B and C projects at a future time, once they are initiated. Thereby, these reports at this time, as part of the Master Planning process will not be completed and you do not need to expect them for review.Future notices for this project will continue to be shared with you. February 17, 2021 Joseph Reid Leeds, Grenville & Lanark District Health Unit Provided comments following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. LGLDHU Comments_TMP.pdf LGLDHU added to stakeholder working group. February 23, 2021 Chrysanthe Michaelis Chair, Arklan Parent Council My name is Chrysanthe Michaelis and I'm the current parent council chair for the Arklan Community Public School. I'm contacting you today with some concerns we have been dealing with over the past few years involving the safety of our students who walk to and from school, mainly for those students who have to cross McNeely at the Patterson intersection. There have been issues with the lights not being long enough for the amount of traffic that passes through there (which has increased now with the construction at the arena making it necessary for all traffic coming from the school to use that intersection as that end of Francis is a one way street). This has resulted with frustrated drivers trying to "beat the light" and narrowly missing the crossing guard and other pedestrians on several occasions. There have also been instances of vehicles driving far too fast in that area making it even more dangerous. We have tried approaching our local OPP with the issue and they have sent our cars to watch that area a few times but, as you can imagine, drivers are always in their best behavior when a police vehicle is around. A fellow parent on our council tried bringing the issue to the town and there were some new lines painted at the end of last year which were already worn away before the start of the new school year. As you will see from the email I've included below from a fellow parent council member who has been spearheading this matter, these are only a couple of the issues we are experiencing. He has included some other infirmation including examples and comments from other citizens. Our main objective is to get that area deemed a school zone and to make it safer for our children. I am writing today with the hopes that you may be willing to join us for a future Parent Council meeting to discuss further some of the converns we have with that particular intersection. We typically meet the first Wednesday of each month with our next 2 meetings scheduled to take place March 3rd and April 7th and start at 6:30 pm. If you are able to join us, that would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if either of thos dates works for you and I will be sure to send along the link to our Teams meeting. Comment Tracking Emails\CMichaelis_23Feb2021.pdf March 15, 2021 Good afternoon Chrysanthe, In response to your e-mail to Mayor Black, please be advised that we have forwarded your concerns to our transportation consultant, Parsons, who are presently undertaking our Transportation Master Plan and looking at trouble spots in our community on both Carleton Place Roads and County Roads such as McNeely. Their analysis is presently on-going and their report is expected to be completed by the end of the year. I have also copied Terry McCann at the County of Lanark with your concerns so that he is aware. February 26, 2021 Jon Orpana MECP Provided comments following receipt of the Notice of Commencement. NOC_MECP_Comments_26Feb2021. pdf March 3, 2021 Public Comment Public Details of a concern about intersection Safety submitted to the Mayor. PublicComment_3Mar2021.pdf March 26, 2021 Gabe Thirlwall Public I have been spending time with my parents on Nelson St. They are both active seniors and walk everyday. The most challenging part of our daily walks is crossing Franktown Road at Nelson St. I would like to suggest some kind of pedestrian crossing at that intersection. There are a set of lights further down at Coleman and another set up at hwy 7. However there is a long stretch down Franktown where the traffic is fast and furious. Crossing at Nelson is scary business! I am concerned for my parents safety, and also concerned that it will get worse once people move into the new development near the water tower. What can be done? A crosswalk with flashing lights? A full set of traffic lights? I would welcome anything that would make the neighbourhood safer for folks on Nelson St. NOC Winter 2021\PublicComment_26Mar2021.pdf March 30,2021 Councillor Jeff Atkinson responded "to let her know about the Master Traffic Plan that is in the works, but this spot is likely worth a closer look. Another area of concern is the stretch of Franktown between the existing and proposed apartment blocks across from the plaza with the Mac's, M&M, etc." April 7, 2021 Pauline Patterson Public I live at 217 Park Ave. My husband and I as well as other parents have always been concerned with children crossing Coleman Street on the way to school. My daughters when they were in elementary school always found this intersection scary. They are young adults now and are driving and we all find that intersection needs a four-way stop or something. It's only getting worse. The town is getting busier and you have to pull out almost into oncoming cars to see properly to cross , when in a car. Winter of course can be worse with some pileup of snow. With the new development right behind us there is so much more traffic. It's just an accident waiting to happen at this intersection whether car accident or pedestrian. I am really hoping there is a plan soon to put some thing to make this a safer intersection for everyone. NOC Winter 2021\PublicComment_7Apr2021.pdf April 7, 2021 Good Afternoon Pauline, Thank you for your e-mail. The Town is presently undertaking a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which is looking at areas of concern throughout the Town as they impact all modes of travel including pedestrians. Parsons has been contracted to complete the TMP by the end of the year. I have forwarded your concern to them to add to the feedback that they received this winter from residents during their on-line survey. They will be providing the necessary guidance to the Town on these issues. April 26, 2021 Rhonda Huff Public I am emailing this afternoon regarding community safety related speeding vehicles in the area east of Franktown Rd and south of Coleman St., specifically along Nelson St and Park Ave. Frequently vehicles have been accelerating when entering from Coleman St heading south on Park Ave or entering Park Ave via Nelson St heading north to Coleman, which raises safety concerns for the people living in the area. At present neither Neilson St nor Park Ave have stop signs (or posted speed limits) along the routes. Often people are using Nelson St and Park Ave as a thruway to Coleman and vice-versa (avoiding the lights or long traffic lines at the corner of Franktown Rd and Coleman St.). I believe it is safe to predict traffic in this area will continue to increase as the subdivision around the water tower is further developed. As the traffic along Coleman St continues to increase, there also remains the safety concern of exiting Park Ave onto Coleman St via foot or vehicle without traffic lights. The absence of this safety measure presence challenges when accessing the parks and other amenities on the other side of Coleman. The primary safety concern is for the growing number of young families with small children in this area. It would be appreciated if the Town of Carleton Place can address the safety concerns of both the speed limit and the traffic light at the corner of Park Ave and Coleman St. Please let me know the next steps in the process of addressing these concerns. Comment Tracking Emails\RHuff_26Apr2021.pdf April 26, 2021 Good afternoon Rhonda,Thank you for your e-mail. The Town is presently undertaking a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which will be looking at the Town's major collectors such as Coleman and determining what if any measures are required and when. I have sent a copy of your e-mail to the consultant leading the TMP. It will be added to the list of concerns which residents provided at the start of the year when we had our on-line survey active.With respect to your speeding concern, the Town owns radar equipment which is installed in locations to obtain data on speed and volume of traffic. We will add this location to the list to be monitored in the near future. Once we have obtained the necessary data, I will provide feedback to you on the results. As we receive many requests of this nature, the radar equipment is deployed based on the order the concerns are received. We appreciate your patience while we address the multiple speeding complaints which we have received to date this year. May 28, 2021 Anne Raine Public I am wondering if the plan covers regional transit, or just transit within the Town of CP? Given the number of CP residents who commute to Kanata, Ottawa, or other nearby communities to work, a proper regional public transit system is sorely needed, to make it easier and more affordable for more people to reduce their reliance on cars. It would be great to see the Town of CP really get behind this. Comment Tracking Emails\ARaine_28May2021.pdf May 4, 2021 Colin MacDuff Carleton Place Environmental Advisory Committee First of all, I read about something called the "Safe Cycling Initiative" on the town's website. As part of this initiative, the town prepared a pamphlet with safe cycling routes and committed to installing safe cycling signage on designated roadways by June 2019. The town also said that they would install larger map signage throughout the town. I saw the pamphlet online but I haven't seen any signage around town. Perhaps I didn't look carefully enough for the signage but I was wondering if there's any way to verify if the signage has been installed or if the initiative was shelved. Secondly, I was glad to see that sidewalks are now a central part of the transportation planning. Unfortunately, it wasn't clear to me whether or not sidewalks would be installed on both sides of all the arterial roads in the area. I believe that this is very important from a safety perspective to help people avoid crossing back and forth across busy roads. I also believe that this would encourage more people to walk to retail zones. On a related note, I was wondering why some crosswalks are mandatory and others are not. My third comment involves the safe use of the OVR trail. I know that this was brought up at the stakeholders' meeting and that a number of groups have expressed concerns about the mixed-use trail. I am on the trail nearly every day - as a walker, runner or cross-country skier - and have had few "close encounters" with snowmobiles and ATVs. I am aware of the problems of limiting vehicle traffic on the trail but I was wondering if the town or county have any new specific initiatives (other than signage to reduce speed) to help avoid any accidents between pedestrians and vehicles. And finally, I don't believe that this is in the purview of the TMP but I would like to see a paved shoulder for Cavanagh Road. It's a popular route with cyclists and a paved shoulder makes a huge difference in terms of safety. I realize that it's a county road but even some signage would help. Comment Tracking Emails\CMacDuff_4May2021.pdf May 4, 2021 Dave Simpson Alderville First Nation Thank you for reaching out to our community as Carleton Place is in the Treaty Territory of Alderville First Nation. However I don't think that this transportation plan will have any impact on our treaty rights. Please keep us informed as this plan is developed should any changes effect our treaty lands. Comment Tracking Emails\Alderville FN_4May2021.pdf Date From: Response Date Response Organization/Associat ion Page 1 of 2 Sensitive# Comment Summary Link to File Date From: Response Date Response Organization/Associat ion May 20, 2021 Derek Metcalfe Public This is a follow-up to the voicemail I left you today. I am writing to you with concern over the current driving conditions on Hwy 29, also known as Townline Road E., in Carleton Place. It is my understanding that it is under Lanark County's jurisdiction. Over the course of the past year, several circumstances have arisen that I and several of my neighbours feel bears direct attention. Issue 1 With all of the new building construction going on there has been an exponential increase in commercial traffic - most of which seems to be coming from Hwy 7. Presumably as a short cut, very large trucks including dump trucks, long floating trucks, moving trucks, and tandem trucks roar down the road (instead of using McNeely which is better catered towards commercial traffic) and often well in excess of the speed limit. They are frequently having to apply engine breaks, which is extremely disruptive to peaceful living. Issue 2 The second issue pertains to the increase in careless driving and excessive speed - when I say excessive, it is not hyperbole. I have taken it upon myself to measure out a 100 metre stretch on the road, time drivers and have calculated speeds ranging from 50km/hour to as high as 110km/hr, in a 40 km/hour zone! The stretch of road I am referring to is between Bridge Street and McNeely, which has signage indicating it as a community zone. I wish I could say these incidences are isolated, but most of the speeding drivers (using my rough calculation method) average 75 km/hr. On a related note, I have friends that live only a few doors from Townline on William Street and they have mentioned a common theme of drivers, soon after filling up with gas, at the corner by McNeely, "floor it", screech tires and carelessly race down the road at great speeds. I'm sure you would agree with me that this scenario is unacceptable. I would sincerely appreciate knowing what traffic-calming measures can be implemented. Many of us have children and pets and want to ensure that tragedy can be avoided. Should you need further details, I would be pleased to speak with you. Should a petition be required to initiate action, I would be happy to volunteer my time to gather neighbours names and contact information. Comment Tracking Emails\DMetcalfe_20may2021.pdf June 10, 2021 David Nanton MMAH My name is David Nanton and I am a planner with MMAH with areas of coverage including Lanark County, and I would like to be added to the circulation list for the Transportation Master Plan. Comment Tracking Emails\DNanton_10June2021.pdf December 21, 2021 January 4, 2022 A. Niedbala Public I was looking through the 10-year capital plan and I had a few questions. I'd be interested to know more about some of the projects that are listed there if possible, and their rationale for falling on the dates that they do. Would you be able to provide more information about: - Emily St (2022) - Frank St (2023) - Cavanagh Road (2027) I'm also interested to know whether you would expect any changes would be required to the capital plan as a result of the upcoming Transportation Master Plan. But I understand if it's too early to comment on that since it's incomplete at the moment. Thanks for your reply. I am glad to hear that you are re-prioritising based on the facts on the ground. While having a plan is important from a capital management point of view, it's really important to re-evaluate upcoming projects since no plan can be perfect. I'm generally quite happy with (from what I've seen) the new direction being proposed in the TMP, particularly with regard to improving pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure. But the existing upcoming projects aren't going to align with the TMP (since they were conceived before the TMP was finalized) and will therefore end up spending Town resources in inefficient ways. And the new initiatives will require funding as well. With that it mind, I'd like to propose these cost-cutting measures in order to better prioritize Town resources for future implementation of projects recommended in the TMP: 1. Emily Street: Defer the western portion (45m west of Frank St.) until the DRS property has been developed, as there are only 3 houses on this dead-end section, so it will survive correspondingly longer. Savings of roughly 20%. This savings could be used to construct sidewalks on the western portion of James St which is much more heavily used. The portion of Emily Street west of Frank Street, including asphalt and sidewalk, is in poor condition and requires replacement. While I understand that there may not be heavy traffic usage on this portion of the roadway currently, the road needs to be reconstructed and it is more efficient and economical to do it now rather than as an orphan piece of roadway in the future. There has been interest expressed for the redevelopment of the DRS property however nothing has been finalized yet. 2. Frank Street: Defer this project for "many" years. This street is in quite good condition! As mentioned, we will be taking a look at the data captured in 2021 to establish our priorities going forward. This will include looking at the priorities for 2023. 3. Cavanagh Road: Defer or cancel this project. While I understand it is funded by Development Charges, there is still the issue of prioritization (those funds could be used for better projects). If this project is based on projected growth (presumably in the "future development district"), those projections should be re-done based on the outcome of the in-progress Comprehensive Review/OP Review. And there are other, less expensive ways of servicing projected traffic that I don't see mentioned anywhere (eg. extending Robertson Lane west to McNeely). This project is one of the largest in the 10-year plan and in my opinion requires a correspondingly large amount of scrutiny. I have many more arguments against this project, but I don't know the best venue for expressing them. Traffic Volumes anticipated on Cavanagh Road as the Town continues to experience extensive growth have warranted the need for this project to go forward. The TMP has been coordinated with the Comprehensive Review to ensure continuity, and the Director of Development Services has actively participated in the TMP Stakeholder meetings. The project has been identified in our Development Charges Study and funds are being collected specifically for this project. As an aside, unlike tax funded projects (e.g. road reconstructions), DC's cannot be arbitrarily re-assigned to other non-DC projects and must be used for their intended purpose. I am not a transit professional or civil engineer, so I'd be especially interested in your thoughts on these suggestions. But I am interested in seeing the highest-priority, highest-ROI projects implemented by the Town. Comment Tracking Emails\A.Niedbala_4Jan2022.pdf January 3, 2022 January 4, 2022 You are correct that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has yet to be finalized and presented to Council. The TMP does recommend various projects and implementation dates which Council will need to review. Once approved by Council, these projects would then need to be reflected in the long term capital plan. With respect to Emily Street, the Town will be reconstructing Emily Street from Victoria to its western terminus in 2022. The work will include replacement of the granular base, new asphalt, 170 m of new curb, and sidewalk replacement. Cavanagh Road is scheduled to be widened to four lanes from Hooper to the eastern Town boundary in 2027 to accommodate increased traffic volumes due to growth. This project would be funded from development charges. Frank Street was previously approved tentatively for 2023. However, the Town will be reviewing its road priorities during 2022 based on data gathered late in 2021 to determine whether changes are required to intervention years based on the current conditions of our existing road network. Therefore it is too soon to say whether any portion of Frank Street will be undertaken next year. I hope that the above information is sufficient for your needs at this time. If you have any further questions, please let me know. December 7, 2021 S. Kapusta MTO Please see attached for detailed correspondence. Comment Tracking Emails\CarletonPlaceTransportationMas terPlanMTOCommentsDecember7202 1.pdf N/A Comments were discussed and addressed during a subsequent Council Meeting. Please see attached for detailed correspondence. Page 2 of 2 Ministry of Transportation Corridor Management Section 1355 John Counter Boulevard Postal Bag 4000 Kingston, Ontario K7L 5A3 Tel.: 613 545-4834 Fax: 613-540-5106 [email protected] Ministère des Transports Section de gestion des couloirs routiers 1355, boulevard John Counter CP/Service de sacs 4000 Kingston (Ontario) K7L 5A3 Tél.: 613 544-2220 Téléc. 613 540-5106 Town of Carleton Place December 7, 2021 Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works 175 Bridge Street Carleton Place, ON K7C 2V8 Via email RE: Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Highway 7 and Highway 15 The Ministry of Transportation has reviewed the Draft Transportation Master Plan and there are a number of items that are of concern to the MTO. To put our comments into context, the MTO and the Town of Carleton Place recently worked together on a Secondary Plan for the area that surrounds the Highway 7 and 15 TESR study area. The MTO and the Town had extensive consultation with area land owners and stakeholders to achieve a plan that took into consideration the needs of the MTO, the Town and the interests of various land owners. The result was a TESR for the highway improvements with a complimentary Secondary Plan. The Draft Transportation Master Plan is inconsistent with the approved and agreed to plans which is the MTO's main concern. 1) The Transportation Master Plan illustrates road connections that are inconsistent with the recently approved Secondary Plan that was created in concert with the MTO's TESR for Highway 7 and Highway 15. This secondary plan was created with the full support of the Town of Carleton Place in order to support the improvements to Highway 7. 2) The connection of concern is the proposed public road between Franktown Road and McNeely Avenue that is roughly in alignment with Findlay Avenue to the west and the access to the Canadian Tire and Independent Grocery store to the east. The secondary plan illustrated interconnections from both the west and east with a possible connection between the two in the future from both of these road intersections but did not include a full connection via public road. The connections in the Secondary Plan were to be via a private road that was in the form of an easement on title and addressed during the development of each of the respective sites to achieve interconnections that offset the loss of left turn access from Highway 7 as a result of the new median island. 3) It was understood during the Secondary Plan and TESR that the traffic impact of making a full public road connection would place pressure on both the Franktown Road at Findlay intersection and the McNeely at Independent/Canadian Tire intersection that may not be able to be addressed operationally as a result of the volume of traffic that could be attracted by a full connection. Specifically, the available storage for the Northbound left turn lane on McNeely was insufficient to support the potential traffic and could potentially result in a short cut. The MTO recognizes that the Transportation Master Plan is a high level aspirational planning document. However, we feel that it would be poor planning to include illustrations for road connections that neither meet good planning or accepted transportation planning best practices. This high level document must demonstrate that the plan will work well beyond the 2040 design year. -2- 4) In addition to the east west connection, the draft master plan illustrates a connection to the subdivision and lands to the North and to the east of Franktown Road. The addition of these lands generating traffic that would be served by this proposed east west public road was not contemplated in the approved Secondary Plan and has not been studied. This new connection will generate traffic that must be addressed. It is also understood that the Town wishes to increase the density of development within these lands that they are proposing to connect to the proposed east west public road. 5) While the MTO can appreciate that the Town wants to make the best use of the lands in close proximity to Highway 7 and Highway 15, those development plans require the endorsement and approval of the MTO relative to already approved Provincial Plans/TESR. Likewise, the town's proposed plans will require a detailed traffic analysis in the form of a Traffic Impact Study and permits from the MTO in order to proceed. 6) The MTO asks that language be included in the Transportation Master Plan that reaffirms the MTO's authority for approval of transportation connections within our permit control area. We suggest the following wording: "The Ministry of Transportation is the approval authority for all transportation and development within their permit control are as defined by the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. All municipal plans and approvals must be consistent with provincial plans and provincial direction as per sections Part II, 1.6.8.3, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Provincial Policy Statement." 7) Since the MTO is in the process of implementing the TESR and furthermore that TESR relies on the approved Secondary Plan that was a collaborative effort between the MTO and the Town, we respectfully advise that the efforts to illustrate or move forward with the connection illustrated in the Transportation Master Plan be removed until such time that the TESR has been implemented and the Town has received its approval from the MTO for their new plans for this area. The MTO would like to have a meeting to continue this discussion to review the Town and MTO's plans with a view ensuring alignment of both the Town and MTO's plans. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen Kapusta MCIP, RPP Senior Project Manager cc Kingston Area Office Corridor Management Alain Nadeau - Corridor Management Planner - MTO Peter Fraser - Senior Project Engineer - MTO Niki Dwyer - Director of Development Services Carleton Place Kate Green - Head, Corridor Management -MTO Julie Stewart - County Planner County of Lanark Diane Smithson - CAO Town of Carleton Place From: Shih, Austin [NN-CA] To: Rogers, Sarah [NN-CA] Subject: FW: Carleton Place TMP - Hwy 7 Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 2:50:02 PM Attachments: image001.png Austin From: Guy Bourgon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 7:58 AM To: Shih, Austin [NN-CA] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Carleton Place TMP - Hwy 7 Hi Austin, Council tweaked their recommendation slightly last night to read as follows: Highway 7 Improvement - Council directed staff to make a formal request to the Ministry of Transportation to open the Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR); and that the Transportation Master Plan continue to depict a public or private through street north of Highway 7. The TESR is the formal report which presents the findings of the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment study for improvements to the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 15 in the Town of Carleton Place. Not certain what prompted the addition of "private" to the recommendation, can only suspect that one of the landowners approached a Councillor with concerns over cost or land. Just wanted you to know before you present to Council. Guy Bourgon, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Town of Carleton Place 175 Bridge Street, Carleton Place, ON K7C 2V8 Tel: 613-257-6209 Fax: 613-257-8170 Website: www.carletonplace.ca [carletonplace.ca] 'NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged and confidential information, and information that is protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth in this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of the information contained herein without the express written authorization of the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have any questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the sender will provide you with further instructions.' Appendix B: Working Group Meetings: Notes and Presentations APPENDIX B1 - WORKING GROUP MEETING #1 NOTES AND PRESENTATION Page 1 of 6 1223 Michael Street North, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 7T2 P: +1 613.738.4160| F: +1 613.739.7105 | www.parsons.com The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 Date: Tuesday, February 16th 2021 File No.: 477702 Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting ATTENDEES: Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Ron Clarke - Vice President Austin Shih - Senior Transportation Engineer Mark Baker - Manager, Transportation Pl & Traffic Sarah Rogers - Planner Rachel MacKnight - Planner Town of Carleton Place Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Doug Black - Mayor Diane Smithson - CAO Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief Jessica Hansen - Recreation Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Terry McCann - Director of Public Works Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Lanark County Lanark County MTO Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP Jackie Kavanagh - Chamber of Commerce Kate Murray - BIA Randy Shaw - CP Hospital Peter Bosch - UCDSB Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson Colin MacDuff - Environment Advisory Committee, Cycling Advocate Ben Clare, McIntosh Perry Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Development Representative REGRETS: Niki Dwyer - Development Services Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan February 2021 Page 2 of 6 MEETING NOTES: Guy Bourgon and the Parsons Team walked through a presentation that introduced the TMP, outlined the overall process and schedule, and included early results from online public engagement, a review of existing policies and existing transportation infrastructure. An open group discussion followed, whereby the key topics and discussion points have been summarized below. Item Discussion Action By 1.0 Accessibility 1.1 It was noted by Kory Earle that accessibility is a longstanding concern that has been flagged by the community, not just those in wheelchairs but all forms of physically challenged individuals. The Community Survey poll result on Accessibility and Inclusivity were not surprising. Questions were posed as to how the Town and how the TMP were addressing accessibility at various time horizons (1 year, 5 year, immediately, etc.). Diane Smithson confirmed that the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan is up for renewal, and that Stacey Blair at the Town will be working with the Accessibility Committee on it. The library renewal will include a ramp. Guy Bourgon noted that a downtown renewal is in progress which will include accessibility improvements, including raising the sidewalk to allow approximately 42 storefronts to have flush entranceways; widening sidewalks to 1.5m; and replacing 2 existing courtesy crossings with 3 pedestrian crossovers (PXOs). The Parsons team noted there are provincial (AODA) requirements that will be followed, in conjunction with municipal policies. The Community Survey results to- date indicate the downtown, key service destinations, and crossing Highway 7 are notable accessibility priorities/challenges. The team confirmed that accessibility will be at the forefront of the TMP and indicated a desire to be kept informed of site- specific accessibility issues as the TMP process is conducted. Information 1.2 Kory Earle noted that the TMP project team was invited to engage with the Accessibility Committee as the project process moves along. Information 1.3 Colin McDuff reiterated the importance of accessibility, that while Bridge Street will do well in terms of accessibility, the whole town should be accessible. Information 2.0 Safety 2.1 Colin McDuff and other stakeholders raised concerns with winter snow clearance, winter sidewalk maintenance, etc. as an important transportation issue in the town. Kory Earle reaffirmed that snow clearance could improve within the Town. Information 2.2 Rob Croth (OPP) noted the important links between good traffic flow and general community safety from the police perspective. Traffic flow is important for emergency vehicles, public works, etc. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan February 2021 Page 3 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 2.3 Rob Croth noted three (3) locations that need particular attention in terms of reducing motor vehicle accidents: - Highway 7 & McNeely - Highway 7 & Highway 15 - Townline & McNeely Proposed Highway 7 & 15 improvements will hopefully reduce accidents. The Parsons team confirmed that survey respondents cited Highway 7 as a challenging corridor to navigate, especially for the new community on the south side. Information 2.4 Rob Croth confirmed that Vision Zero is part of the Carleton Place OPP detachment's language and Traffic Management Plan. Information 2.5 Rob Croth noted an increased number of complaints received since COVID-19 restrictions began; these comments are often to do with requests for a 4-way stop or a merge lane. The police often cannot meaningfully respond to these requests, so they are eager to support the TMP project to push forward some of these issues. Information 2.6 Retrieving data on motor vehicle accidents, etc., can take time and can be complicated, but Rob Croth confirmed the police are willing to provide this data to support the TMP project. Follow-up by Parsons 2.7 Rob Croth noted that traffic congestion is a problem in Carleton Place, especially along the highways and on long weekends; traffic can be congested for hours with community members trying to get out of town. Information 2.8 As noted by Jessica Hansen, new communities in Carleton Place such as Miller's Crossing increase the importance of being able to cross town safely. The example of having to cross town to reach Walmart (a common destination) was raised, where there are multiple large streets to cross. Information 2.9 Colin McDuff asked about roundabouts as a potential intersection solution. Stephen Kapusta (MTO) indicated that a roundabout option was considered for the Highway 7 & 15 intersection but it would have required a 3-lane roundabout so it was not supported at this location. The Parsons team confirmed that the TMP will include discussions about the viability of roundabouts and possible policy directions to be added in the future. Information 3.0 Active Transportation 3.1 Multiple stakeholders indicated support of improved active transportation facilities, access, etc., as part of the TMP project and indicated support for the time and attention that the Working Group meeting gave to active transportation. Randy Shaw outlined the benefits as a preventative health intervention. There was significant support to consider active transportation in future transportation decision-making. Information 3.2 Stephen Kapusta (MTO) agrees that Highway 7 & 15 are barriers to active transportation. He noted a provincial cycling plan/policy exist but has not seen it. Right now, MTO have little mandate regarding cycling. A workaround may be cycling facilities be provided off-road and paid for by Town. An access trail may extend from the areas to the south that goes under Highway 7 rather than crossing it. A maintenance agreement (e.g. winter clearing) would be needed. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan February 2021 Page 4 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 3.3 Colin McDuff noted the importance of including provisions for cycling infrastructure such as bike racks in the TMP. This would allow cycling to be used as a mode for errands and other trips that require a temporary stop, not only recreation. Diane Smithson noted that cycling infrastructure such as bike racks is often included in the Development Applications process. Information 3.4 Colin McDuff noted the importance of considering future growth projections when evaluating bike lanes. Certain bike lanes may be safe now but less so with increased traffic. Information 3.5 Jessica Hansen noted that Carleton Place was the host of the 2017 Active Transportation Summit, indicating that this is a cultural priority and aspect of the community. Information 3.6 Colin McDuff noted the importance of sidewalk facilities on bridges, for example on McNeely and Hwy 7. A common question in the community is how to cross these bridges as a pedestrian. Information 3.7 Colin McDuff also raised the importance of sidewalk facilities on both sides of roads, for example at locations such as McNeely and Highway 7. People are having to cross the road often and walk back/out of their way, etc. Diane Smithson indicated that MTO has supported putting sidewalks along Highway 7 which is unusual but shows the need. Information 3.8 As noted by Jessica Hansen, new communities in Carleton Place such as Miller's Crossing increase the demand for active transportation facilities especially sidewalks. Information 3.9 Mayor Doug Black indicated that Town Council receives less feedback on bike lanes, cycling infrastructure, etc., compared to pedestrian-centered feedback. Information 3.10 Peter Bosch raised that the School Board has transportation profiles of students. The profiles focus on mode share of students (e.g. number of students who walk to school) more than specific bus routes. More data could be tracked down via STEO (Student Transportation of Eastern Ontario). Parsons team confirmed that this would be useful. Follow-up by Parsons 4.0 Trails 4.1 Colin McDuff noted the trade-offs of putting cyclists on trails (i.e. separated recreational trails/MUPs) rather than bike lanes integrated through the town. Recreational trails can contain a lot of multi-modal traffic (e.g. cyclists, 4-wheelers, pedestrians) and it cannot be assumed that a trail is always the best facility for cyclists. Parsons team responded that determining the threshold traffic level on recreational trails (where separate facilities become necessary) would be important here. Information 4.2 Jessica Hansen noted that COVID-19 showed an increased community demand for heading out onto trails which increases the necessity for improved safety on the trails (safety from other trail users as well as in terms of physical distancing/public health). Kory Earle noted that accessibility is also a concern at the trails. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan February 2021 Page 5 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 4.3 Sean Derouin and Terry McCann provided clarity on the County/Town responsibilities and ownership of the trail. Lanark County purchased the trail from the railway. The Town added viewing areas and paved portions of the trail. The County is responsible for the gravel parts while the Town is responsible for asphalt parts. Information 4.4 Mayor Doug Black highlighted how the OVRT Trail was underutilized before beautification. This indicates the importance of comfort, etc., of facilities in addition to connectivity (OP focus is on connectivity). Information 5.0 Transit 5.1 It was noted by Randy Shaw that the potential/opportunity for public transit is connected to the well-being of seniors, who often reach a point where they can no longer drive or no longer own private vehicles. Information 5.2 Mayor Doug Black recalled a recent pilot project bus service that brought people from Carleton Place to Perth. Despite desire and positive feedback, ridership was very low and then COVID-19 hit. The Town is not sure whether route, stops, timing, etc. was the main reason for low ridership. Information 5.3 It was noted that Lanark County Public Works and Lanark County Transportation are different entities. Further discussions with Lanark Transportation on this issue was offered. Follow-up by Parsons 6.0 Project Coordination and Timing 6.1 Jessica Hansen noted that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is also being updated this year. The project has not started but is slated for 2021 and is being spearheaded by Joanne Henderson at the Town. The Parsons project team confirmed that receiving sample glimpses of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (as it is updated) would be helpful, to highlight important-to- identify origins and destinations throughout Carleton Place. Information 6.2 It was noted by Diane Smithson that the Town worked with the MTO on an EA (Environmental Assessment) and a Secondary Plan planning process for: - Highway 7 & McNeely - Highway 7 & Highway 15 The Town has ensured that multi-modality was a part of both processes. Information 6.3 Diane Smithson noted a new PXO crossing is planned at Moore and the OVRT this year, a high demand intersection. Information 6.4 It was confirmed by Diane Smithson that Highway 7 work is being undertaken by MTO (that includes sidewalks) and that the timing for this work is perhaps a two-year horizon. The Town wants to ensure that the project is a priority for the Ministry due to high number of traffic accidents. Information 6.5 Rob Croth asked if the Bridge St and Hwy 7/15 corridor projects would occur at the same time? Guy Bourgon confirmed they would not be occurring at the same time. Central Bridge/Bridge St works are expected in the next year, while Hwy 7/15 modifications are likely 2 years out at the earliest. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan February 2021 Page 6 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 6.6 Sean Derouin and Terry McCann (Lanark County, Public Works) confirmed that the 1989 and 2007 EAs related to widening of McNeely included Phase 1 and 2, from Hwy 7 to Coleman (completed), Phase 3 between Coleman, Lake and Patterson may be done in 5 years. Phase 4 to Townline was not recommended. It was also not recommended to widen bridges. Information 6.7 The County confirmed their jurisdiction within the Town includes McNeely, Townline in addition to OVRT. This includes all elements curb-curb and stormwater on Townline and McNeely. The Town is responsible for sidewalk, sanitary and water. Lanark County has installed a new pedestrian crossing (PXO) at Townline Road (waiting on line painting prior to opening) but otherwise no plans for further crossings. The County verified that the crossing timing exceeds standards for accessibility at some locations. Lanark County confirmed that there is no planned capital works for Townline Rd within the next 5 years. Information 6.8 From the MTO perspective the timing of the TMP project is ideal. EA Designs are being put to construction designs for the Hwy 7 corridor improvements. Information 6.9 Colin McDuff asked a question about the TMP project and budget impact. Guy Bourgon explained that the TMP project will present to Council a plan for the next 20 years including recommendations. Council will agree or disagree. Budget/funding comes after Council approval. Information 7.0 Other 7.1 Question was asked by the Mayor on whether the next set of traffic lights (location decision) is part of the TMP project. The Parsons team indicated that the TMP will produce criteria for making this decision, but not necessarily recommend a location. The mandate for the TMP is to evaluate all signalized intersections and assess current road classification re: growth projections. If lots of change is needed to road classifications, this may require highlighting potential locations for new signals. Information 7.2 Benjamin Clare raised questions on the connections between the OP Comprehensive Review, Development Applications process, Traffic & Parking By-law 46-2003, and the TMP; role of Road Network, level of detail given to ROWs, daylight corners, etc., in the TMP. Guy Bourgon confirmed that the Comprehensive Review and the TMP project have people in contact between the two projects. Confirmed that Traffic & Parking By-law 46- 2003 can be reviewed with Parsons, but the intent is not to have any direct changes, only minor adjustments if warranted. Parsons team confirmed that the planning of municipal right-of-way (ROW) will be a key component of the TMP, which is the link/connection piece to plans of subdivision. Reimagining streets, finding ways to incorporate transportation elements in new roads, e.g. lanes, landscaping, parking, pedestrian/cycling facilities etc.; and provide a suite of alternative cross-sections. Information Errors and omissions in these notes must be provided to Rachel MacKnight ([email protected]), within 5 business days, otherwise the notes will be assumed as an accurate reflection of the discussions at the meeting. 11/12/2021 1 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Working Group Meeting #1 February 16, 2021 10:00am - 12:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 2 List of Participants  Project Team - Guy Bourgon, Director of Public Works - Town of Carleton Place - Ron Clarke, Vice President - Parsons - Austin Shih, Senior Transportation Engineer - Parsons  Working Group Town of Carleton Place - Doug Black - Mayor - Diane Smithson - CAO - Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief - Jessica Hansen - Recreation - Niki Dwyer - Development Services Lanark County - Terry McCann - Director of Public Works - Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager MTO - Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Local Representatives - Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP - Jackie Cavanagh - Chamber of Commerce - Kate Murray - BIA - Randy Shaw - CP Hospital - Peter Bosch - UCDSB - Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson - Colin MacDuff - Cycling Advocate - Ben Clare, Development Representative - McIntosh Perry Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What is the Transportation Master Plan?  The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the Town's blueprint for planning, developing and operating its transportation networks over the next 20 years.  This plan represents a new vision for the Town, identifying a multi-modal, complete streets approach to the planning, design and implementation of transportation infrastructure.  The TMP falls under the Town's overarching Official Plan document. 3 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 Why does Carleton Place need a TMP?  The Town has been experiencing significant growth in recent years.  County projections suggest the Town's population will nearly double (from ~11k to >20k) within the next two decades.  Transportation practices, travel patterns and behavior are evolving. Source: Town of Carleton Place 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 '000 Population Projections Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What is the Study Schedule? 5  The study has commenced and is anticipated to be complete by Q4 2021.  Our public consultation began with an Online Community Survey and Interactive Mapping Tool, which was open for 3 weeks in January/February 2021.  The Public Information Centres will be held in the Spring/Summer of 2021. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What is your role? 6  Your role will be to represent the interests of your department/agency to provide knowledge of your area of expertise, or as a member of the public to convey your concerns and priorities, as part of the TMP process.  The primary purpose of this Working Group Meeting is to provide you an opportunity to share any thoughts, concerns and comments about the transportation system in the Town of Carleton Place.  This information is critical to help inform the TMP vision and guiding principles moving forward. What is the Purpose of this Working Group Meeting? 1 2 3 4 5 6 11/12/2021 2 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 7 - Over 300 respondents - The anonymous survey asked 19 questions ranging from personal travel choices, demographics to general thoughts/concerns 36.1% 5.5% 1.6% 4.4% 0.3% 52.2% Daily Non-Work/School Trip Mode Share 19.7% 5.3% 10.0% 6.9% 0.9% 57.1% Daily Work/School Trip Mode Share What we know - Online Community Survey Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Online Community Survey 8 82.5% 17.5% I feel safe and comfortable Walking within the Town. 67.7% 32.3% I feel safe and comfortable Cycling within the Town. 38.9% 61.1% The Town has a transportation system that is Accessible and Inclusive (i.e. people of all ages, financial means, and physical abilities). 45.3% 54.7% The Town has Traffic Congestion issues. AGREE DISAGREE Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Online Community Survey 9 20.5% 47.9% 22.8% 7.6% 1.3% Overall, how do you feel about your travel experiences within the Town? 3.0% 29.1% 51.1% 16.8% What is your age group? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Online Community Survey 10 181 91 90 8 23 155 132 91 43 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number of Responses Which of the following transportation topics below would be of most interest to you (Up to 3 choices)? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 11 - General themes among comments: What we know - Online Community Survey Theme Comments Pedestrians - Network gaps, walking on road - Poor lighting - Winter maintenance - Courtesy Crossings, false sense of security Cyclists - Expand the system and address gaps - Lack of "shared" space on streets (e.g. Bridge St and Central Bridge) - Difficulty getting to Trails, which were generally well received Safety - Vehicle speeding - Crossing Highway 7 - Stop sign infractions - OVRT crossings - Accessibility concerns Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 12 - General themes among comments: What we know - Online Community Survey Theme Comments Traffic - Congestion on major streets (Hwy 7 corridor, Bridge St, McNeely) - Infrastructure falling behind development Transit - Develop CP transit system, and improve transit connections between municipalities - Need more alternatives to car - Accessible service for elderly/retirees Parking - Road space with parking on both sides - Relax winter parking restrictions - Bylaw enforcement for illegal parking 7 8 9 10 11 12 11/12/2021 3 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Interactive Mapping Tool 13 - A tool for respondents to 'pin' problem areas based on type of issue - Nearly 300 'pins' recorded Pedestrian and Cycling Issues Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 14 Traffic Issues What we know - Interactive Mapping Tool Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Interactive Mapping Tool 15 Safety Issues Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 16 Source: Hometown News Carleton Place What we know - Municipal Context Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Land Use Designations 17 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Road Network 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 11/12/2021 4 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 What we know - Active Transportation Network 19 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 Group Discussion 20 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 From your or your group/organization's perspective: What are the most important issues? 21 Please use the hand raise button to directly pose a question or comment and/or type it in the chat room. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #1 Next Steps After this Working Group Meeting, we will:  Review your feedback.  Develop a Transportation Vision and Guiding Principles.  Proceed with identifying opportunities/constraints. Upcoming Public Engagement:  The first round of public engagement will take place in Q2 2021. Contact the Project Team and receive updates:  Email: [email protected] OR [email protected]  Website: carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php 22 19 20 21 22 APPENDIX B2 - WORKING GROUP MEETING #2 NOTES AND PRESENTATION Page 1 of 5 1223 Michael Street North, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 7T2 P: +1 613.738.4160| F: +1 613.739.7105 | www.parsons.com The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Date: Wednesday, June 9th 2021 File No.: 477702 Time: 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting ATTENDEES: Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Ron Clarke - Vice President Austin Shih - Senior Transportation Engineer Muna Awatta - Senior Transportation Engineer Sarah Rogers - Senior Environmental Planner Rachel MacKnight - Planning, Communications Town of Carleton Place Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Doug Black - Mayor Diane Smithson - CAO Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief Jessica Hansen - Recreation Niki Dwyer - Development Services Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Terry McCann - Director of Public Works Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Lanark County Lanark County MTO Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP Jackie Kavanagh - Chamber of Commerce Kate Murray - BIA Randy Shaw - CP Hospital Angie Kelly - CP Hospital Joseph Reid - LGLDHU Elaine Murkin - LGLDHU Danielle Shewfelt - LGLDHU Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson Ben Clare, McIntosh Perry Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Development Representative REGRETS: Colin MacDuff - CPEAC Peter Bosch - UCDSB Local Representative Local Representative Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 2 of 5 MEETING NOTES: Guy Bourgon and the Parsons Team (Austin Shih and Ron Clarke) walked through a presentation that outlined progress on the TMP to date and culminated in the presentation of the Draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. The Working Group Meeting provided an opportunity for the Project Team to receive feedback on the TMP approach and draft plans. An open group discussion followed, whereby the key topics and discussion points have been summarized below. Item Discussion Action By 1.0 Active Transportation 1.1 It was noted by Joe at the LGLDHU (Health Unit) that LGLDHU supports an active transportation (people-centered) perspective to the TMP as this has public health benefits. Information 1.2 Niki Dwyer expressed support for the Arklan Island new MUP or trail as this would support increased recreational uses on the island and connections to existing trail system. Kate Murray (BIA) also expressed support for the Arklan Island recreational trail. Information 1.3 There was a discussion about separated/dedicated cycling lanes/tracks compared to MUPs. Stephen Kapusta (MTO) raised the point that MUPs carry potential for conflict between vulnerable and utilitarian users. The project team emphasized the context-specific complete street approach, acknowledging that some corridors have limited-width ROW. Information 1.4 Niki Dwyer expressed support for having MUPs rather than sidewalks and on-street bike lanes on the collector roads. Information 1.5 Kate Murray (BIA) noted that Downtown Carleton Place is now certified as a "Ontario By Bike" stop and indicated Cycling markers/signage are very important. Information 2.0 TMP Coordination and Project Scope 2.1 There was a question from Stephen Kapusta on recommendations regarding end user facilities for utilitarian cyclists such as showers, bike lockers for commutes to work. Some municipalities require such faculties for larger businesses in their zoning bylaw as recommended in their TMP. The project team responded that the TMP supporting policy may address this. Information 2.2 There was a question from Rob Croth (OPP) about whether the TMP would include traffic calming measures. The project team responded that the TMP supporting policy will address this as well as safety. Information 2.3 There was a question from Ben Clare as to whether statements acknowledging the Official Plan Comprehensive Review and changes from the Planning Department could be included in the TMP. The project team responded affirmatively. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 3 of 5 Item Discussion Action By 2.4 There was a discussion as to the potential coordination between the TMP and environmental, climate change, and GHG emissions policies/goals. Niki Dwyer indicated that Council provided mandate to look at green infrastructure and climate change. Diane Smithson indicated that the County is producing a climate action community plan while the Council/Town is producing a corporate plan. The project team indicated support for coordinating the TMP language accordingly. Information 2.5 There was a discussion surrounding the legality of ATV/snowmobiles on the OVRT and throughout the Town. The project team including Guy Bourgon clarified that designation of ATV and snowmobile routes on Town roads is largely outside the scope of the TMP project. This would be something investigated under a separate assignment. Information 3.0 Pedestrian/Active Transportation Bridge 3.1 Kate Murray (BIA) expressed support for the AT bridge connecting Centennial Park to Riverside Park. Information 3.2 Mayor Black and Diane Smithson expressed support for the Centennial Park-Riverside Park AT bridge. Mayor Black indicated his advocation for a similar bridge in the Town for many years. Some issues include the potential conflict with the Canoe Club finish line location. The project team responded noting a current wave of support for such "community- building projects" with municipalities showing an appetite for capital investment. The project team indicated availability for discussion as to the specific alignment of the bridge. Information 3.3 Jessica Hansen indicated support for the bridge, highlighting that many community events take place at Riverside Park. The bridge provides access to those events for community members without cars. Mayor Black noted that the bridge could allow students to commute to school without cars, reducing traffic among other benefits. However, he noted that in the past there has been no appetite for an Arklan Island Bridge. Information 3.4 Jessica Hansen noted that kids jumping into the river is a risk that should be considered in the ultimate bridge design. Information 4.0 Intersections 4.1 There was a question from Jackie Kavanagh about the intersection of Highway 7 and Mississippi Road, especially in light of the growth when new homes at South Shores are considered as they may increase motor vehicle traffic. The project team responded that this intersection was analysed for existing and future conditions, and new traffic signals were not found to be warranted at this time. The team also confirmed that the future analysis accounted for background growth as well as traffic from current development applications. Stephen Kapusta (MTO) responded that MTO is closely monitoring this intersection and is available discuss any concerns residents may have. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 4 of 5 Item Discussion Action By 4.2 There was a question from Mayor Black on whether new traffic lights are recommended as part of this TMP. The project team confirmed new Town traffic signals were not recommended at this time. A number of locations are recommended to be monitored. Information 4.3 Mayor Doug Black raised the intersection of Coleman and Lansdowne and noted that the previous administration studied this location. The project team confirmed that traffic signals were not warranted at this location. Information 5.0 General / Other 5.1 Kate Murray (BIA) expressed support for the Draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans and indicated support for the creation of a ring road style system with multiple easy access points to reach downtown safely from all the new neighbourhoods. Information 5.2 There was a discussion as to whether additional access to Highway 7 was being considered. The project team confirmed that by the 20-year horizon, additional north-south corridor capacity through Town may be needed - McNeely is critical in this regard, to reduce traffic infiltration on more sensitive Town streets, e.g. Franktown, Mississippi and Napoleon. Early on, the project team investigated the opportunity of a new Hwy 7 access intersection to address this constraint but was removed from consideration based on a number of challenges. Stephen Kapusta (MTO) added that Highway 7 from McNeely to Appleton Side Rd is already at minimum separation distance. There is no appetite for added entrances; the focus of the highway is interprovincial travel. Information 5.3 There was a discussion around the number of entrances on Townline compared to private approaches and the appropriateness of active transportation there raised by Sean Derouin (Lanark County). The project team responded that this is a long-term recommendation in the fullness of time, and that active transportation would be desirable as it's a key spine in the north part of the town. Information 5.4 There was a question on truck routes considering the proposed Townline lane reduction from Sean Derouin. The project team responded that there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate trucks with the Townline street rebalancing. The team also noted that all County roads are meant to accommodate trucks and no new truck routes were being designated. Information 5.5 There was general support for the Captain A Roy Brown approved and long-term projects. It was noted that residents would have an alternative, closer route compared to just McNeely to access their homes. It was noted that a 40m ROW dedication might not occur due to development/growth in the area. Information 5.6 There was a question about timing horizons by Ben Clare. The project team responded that at this point the Draft TMP Plans are 20-year recommendations, as feedback and priorities are worked through over the coming months, a full lens financial look will be produced. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 5 of 5 Item Discussion Action By 5.7 There was a question on whether sound mitigation would be addressed in the TMP, with specific concerns on Townline Rd. The project team responded that this issue is outside the scope of the TMP. The concern has been noted and would be assessed (among other specific design details) as part of the life cycle renewal of the corridor. Information 6.0 Next Steps 6.1 The project team noted the next steps in the TMP project are to collect and review all public feedback from the PIC, revise the transportation network strengthening plans accordingly, and proceed with developing support strategies/policies and preliminary costing. Information 6.2 The project team confirmed the 2nd and final PIC will be held in early September 2021. Information 6.3 The project team will be collecting feedback on the PIC presentation and on-line materials up to July 6th, 2021. Information Errors and omissions in these notes must be provided to Rachel MacKnight ([email protected]), otherwise the notes will be assumed as an accurate reflection of the discussions at the meeting. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Working Group Meeting #2 June 9, 2021 9:00am - 11:00am Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 2 List of Participants Project Team - Guy Bourgon, Director of Public Works - Town of Carleton Place - Ron Clarke, Vice President - Parsons - Austin Shih, Senior Transportation Engineer - Parsons Working Group Town of Carleton Place - Doug Black - Mayor - Diane Smithson - CAO - Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief - Jessica Hansen - Recreation - Niki Dwyer - Development Services Lanark County - Terry McCann - Director of Public Works - Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager - Marilyn Bird - Lanark Transportation Association MTO - Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Other Representatives - Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP - Jackie Kavanagh - Chamber of Commerce - Kate Murray - BIA - Randy Shaw - CP Hospital - Angie Kelly - CP Hospital - Peter Bosch - UCDSB - Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson - Colin MacDuff - CPEAC - Ben Clare, Development Representative - McIntosh Perry - Joseph Reid - LGLDHU - Elaine Murkin - LGLDHU - Danielle Shewfelt - LGLDHU Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 To Recap... 3 - The Town of Carleton Place has initiated a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to provide a blueprint for planning, developing, and operating its transportation networks over the next 20 years. - The TMP was initiated in late 2020. The First Working Group Meeting was held on February 16th, 2021. - At this meeting, a summary of existing transportation conditions and early consultation feedback was shared. - Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback and discuss the Town's transportation issues. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 4 What is the Purpose of this Working Group Meeting? - The primary purpose of this Working Group Meeting is to outline our progress to date and provide you an opportunity to comment. - The focus of this meeting will be on infrastructure, culminating in the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. - Your feedback is essential as it will help us refine our recommendations moving forward. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 - The assessment of Existing and Future Conditions has since been completed. - The consultation process began with an Online Community Survey, an Online Interactive Mapping Tool, and the First Working Group Meeting on February 16, 2021. - The first Virtual Public Information Centre will be held in the June 17, 2021. 5 What is the Current Schedule? 2021 2022 - Initial Consultation Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 6 Early Community and Stakeholder Feedback What have we heard? An Online Community Survey was created whereby public feedback was welcomed from Jan 8, 2021, to Feb 1, 2021. Over 300 respondents provided feedback. Transportation Topics of Highest Public Interest Transportation Feedback Agree 82.5% Disagree 17.5% I feel safe and comfortable Walking within Carleton Place. Agree 67.7% Disagree 32.3% I feel safe and comfortable Cycling within Carleton Place. Agree 38.9% Disagree 61.1% Carleton Place has a transportation system that is Accessible and Inclusive (i.e. people of all ages, financial means, and physical abilities). Agree 45.3% Disagree 54.7% Carleton Place has Traffic Congestion issues. 1% 3% 5% 11% 11% 11% 16% 19% 22% Ride-sharing/Car-pooling Ride-hailing (e.g. Taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.) Emerging Tech (e.g. AVs, EVs etc.) Parking Transit Cyclists Safety Roads Pedestrians Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Internal (CP) 35% Ottawa 50% Other 15% 7 Forecasts and Trends Who lives in Carleton Place? - Carleton Place has a balanced age distribution - younger, middle aged, and elderly age groups have different travel needs and challenges. Where do residents work? - 35% of employed Carleton Place residents also work in Carleton Place; many (50%) work in Ottawa - Commuter trips are either short (<3km) or long (>20km) < 2.9 km 34% 3 to 19.9 km 9% > 19.9 km 57% < 25 years 30% 26 to 45 years 25% 46 to 65 years 28% > 65 years 17% How is Carleton Place growing? [2016 to 2038] - Population is expected to grow by 98% - Employment is expected to grow by 57% How are residents travelling to work? - Most residents drive to work (83%) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Auto Driver 83% Auto Passenger 6% Walking 6% Transit 3% Other (incl. Cycling) 2% Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 8 Vision and Objectives Draft Vision "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." Draft Objectives To support the vision, the following TMP Objectives were developed: Ensure an Inclusive and Accessible/Barrier free environment for all users regardless of age, physical ability, and financial means. Develop a multi-modal network that emphasizes sustainable travel modes in an effort to reduce pollution, enhance quality of life through active living, while reducing dependency on the automobile. Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups. Improve connectivity within the Town, overcome barriers between communities and amenities. Maintain adequate mobility to support the Town's anticipated growth. Implement the plan in a fiscally sustainable and accountable manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 What are the Issues? 9 - The early public consultation process identified various transportation issues spread across several themes. - Two prominent themes were active transportation and roads. - The most frequently heard issues were related to existing network gaps and deficiencies and meeting the needs for future growth. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 What are the Issues? 10 THEME ISSUE Pedestrians - Network gaps - Poor lighting and conflicts (snow, poles etc.) - Courtesy Crossings a false sense of security - Walkability to Town destinations for existing and future development Cyclists - Network gaps - Difficulty getting to trail systems - Lack of "shared" space on streets Safety - Accessibility concerns - Crossing Highway 7 and the OVRT - Vehicle speeding and stop sign infractions Traffic - Congestion on major streets and intersections - Mississippi River bridge crossing capacity - Infrastructure falling behind development Transit - Need more affordable alternatives to personal vehicles, Uber and taxis - Considerations for elderly/retirees Parking - Constrained road space in residential subdivisions - Winter control practices - Bylaw enforcement for illegal parking Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Source: Highway 7 South CDP (2013) What are the Issues? 11 This highlights some of the challenges of growth: - How do we connect new communities to the street and active transportation networks? - How do we plan for active transportation infrastructure (multi- use pathways, sidewalks, trails) within new developments? - How do we maintain adequate vehicular mobility? Source: Highway District Secondary Plan (2020) Source: Hwy 7 and Hwy 15 Improvements TESR (2020) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Street Network Capacity 12 The evaluation of future conditions confirmed the following street network constraints by the 20-year planning horizon: 1. Highway 7 corridor between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave 2. Mississippi River crossing 3. North-South corridor capacity between Highway 7 and Coleman St Opportunities to improve the efficiency of the street network were also explored and incorporated into the network strengthening plan, such as street rebalancing and intersection modifications. 2 3 1 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft 13 Working Group Meeting #2 Plan - Draft Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 14 Pedestrian and Cycling Networks - Connect and integrate sidewalk, multi-use pathways, and trail networks. - Build out the pedestrian network with age friendly and accessible design standards. - Provide safe and efficient cycling connections between key destinations. - Develop a connected active transportation network to promote sustainable travel choices. Source: Hometown News Carleton Place Source: Google © Source: Google © Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 15 The Complete Streets Approach - Complete Streets are road corridors that are designed, operated and maintained to consider all modes of travel more equitably and efficiently. - Developing Complete Streets policies can help: Account for different land use contexts Guide infrastructure decisions in growing or transitioning neighbourhoods Identify options for retrofitting existing streets to include pedestrian and cycling facilities where appropriate Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 16 The Complete Streets Approach - Elements of a Complete Street can be prioritized based on the context of each specific corridor and its intended users and function. For Pedestrians: Sidewalks or paths, accessible crossings with appropriate markings, curb cuts and tactile indicators. For Cyclists: Cycling facilities suitable for the context, bicycle parking, intersection crossing markings. For Transit Users: Accessible transit stops, shelters or benches, sidewalk access to transit stops. For Motorists: Travel lanes, turn lanes, parking and loading areas. Shared Dedicated Separated Types of Cycling Facilities Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Cycling Priority Routes - Draft 17 - Cycling Priority Routes represent parts of the Town's street network targeted for higher quality cycling facilities and/or treatments. - These routes were strategically chosen for connecting to amenities, institutions, public spaces, and various trail systems. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 g p g Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft 18 C Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft 19 - The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Local and Collector Streets. - These design guidelines must be considered on all Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Complete Streets: Collectors - Draft 20 - In some retrofit situations, there is limited space to accommodate all user needs. - The Complete Streets approach can be adapted to fit the specific needs in the local context, such as: Maximizing active transportation facilities The need for on-street parking Preserving driveway space Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft 21 - The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Arterial Streets. - These design guidelines must be considered on all Cycling Priority Routes. Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft 22 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Group Discussion 23 Please use the hand raise button to directly pose a question or comment and/or type it in the chat room. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Group Discussion Questions 24 1. Do the Transportation themes and recommendations represent the values and aspirations of the community? 2. Will this plan meet the long-term transportation requirements of the municipality? 3. From your perspective, which of the identified transportation projects are the most important? 4. What do you see as barriers to the incremental implementation of the plan over the long term? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #2 Next Steps After this Working Group Meeting, we will: - Review your feedback. - Refine the draft strengthening plans. - Develop supporting policies, strategies and implementation plan. Upcoming Public Engagement: - The first Virtual Public Information Centre will take place on June 17, 2021. - The comment period for the 1st PIC will be open until July 6, 2021. - The second round of public engagement will take place in early September. Contact the Project Team and receive updates: Email: [email protected] OR [email protected] Website: carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php 25 Page 1 of 6 1223 Michael Street North, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 7T2 P: +1 613.738.4160| F: +1 613.739.7105 | www.parsons.com The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Date: Wednesday, September 15th 2021 File No.: 477702 Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting ATTENDEES: Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Ron Clarke - Vice President Austin Shih - Senior Transportation Engineer Muna Awatta - Senior Transportation Engineer Rachel MacKnight - Planning, Communications Town of Carleton Place Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Doug Black - Mayor Diane Smithson - CAO Jessica Hansen - Recreation Maggie Yet - Planning Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Town of Carleton Place Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Lanark County MTO Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP Jackie Kavanagh - Chamber of Commerce Kate Murray - BIA Randy Shaw - CP Hospital Angie Kelly - CP Hospital Joseph Reid - LGLDHU Danielle Shewfelt - LGLDHU Colin MacDuff - CPEAC Ben Clare, McIntosh Perry Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Local Representative Development Representative REGRETS: Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson Local Representative Niki Dwyer - Development Services Town of Carleton Place Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief Town of Carleton Place Terry McCann - Director of Public Works Lanark County Elaine Murkin - LGLDHU Local Representative Peter Bosch - UCDSB Local Representative APPENDIX B3 - WORKING GROUP MEETING #3 NOTES AND PRESENTATION Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan September 2021 Page 2 of 6 MEETING NOTES: Guy Bourgon and the Parsons Team (Austin Shih and Ron Clarke) walked through a presentation that outlined progress to date and focused on draft TMP Supporting Policies/Strategies and Preliminary Cost Estimates of the Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. The Working Group Meeting provided an opportunity for the Project Team to receive feedback on the various draft recommendations. An open group discussion followed, whereby the key topics and discussion points have been summarized below. Item Discussion Action By 1.0 Active Transportation/Complete Streets 1.1 There was general support indicated for the TMP's active transportation focus and network strengthening plan, including the cycling routes, complete streets approach, and the active transportation bridge over the Mississippi River. Colin McDuff expressed this support and was echoed by Jessica Hansen. Information 1.2 Colin McDuff raised the southwest area of Carleton Place, questioning whether there was a gap in the cycling network there. A common cycling route is along Mississippi Road. This provides a route to/from the Town and rural areas such as rural subdivisions, areas towards Perth, Maggie's Place, etc., which are popular cycling destinations. Other stakeholders including Jessica Hansen indicated that this area/Mississippi road is busy for cyclists. The project team responded that if this is a desire line, it will be looked at and considered as an addition to the network. AS 1.3 Bridge Street was raised by Kate Murray with respect to cycling routes. It is understood that there is limited width in the Bridge Street right-of-way to accommodate dedicated cycle lanes, but redirecting cyclists to adjacent Victoria or Beckwith Streets reduces commercial foot traffic potential along Bridge Street/the downtown core. Question as to whether there are other solutions such as public education. The project team and Guy Bourgon responded that the downtown is undergoing a well-deserved facelift including widened sidewalks to meet AODA standards and adding bike parking. The project team indicated that once street renewal is completed, there are options that can be explored such as supporting policy, shared use markers, and speed reduction. The project team will look into ways to emphasize Bridge Street as a cycling friendly destination/district, if not a cycling priority route through Carleton Place with dedicated cycling facilities. More on education in item 5.3. Information 1.4 There was a question raised by Joe Reid as to best practices for funding active transportation facilities, particularly the pros and cons of creating conditions of approval for developers to include active transportation in new subdivisions. The project team confirmed that they would turn to subdivision conditions of approval once TMP is in place. TMP is the first step. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan September 2021 Page 3 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 2.0 Coordination with Official Plan, Conditions of Development (Scope of TMP Project) 2.1 There was a question raised as to whether Official Plan (OP) discussion on annexation/population allocation/Township of Beckwith was resolved. The project team indicated that Niki Dwyer was best positioned to answer this question, but that annexation is not off the table but not slated for right now. There are wetland issues at Captain A. Roy Brown and other issues that need further study. Stephen Kapusta indicated that the MTO wanted to keep an eye on this area. Information 2.2 A question was raised about land zoning and the degree of flexibility. Colin McDuff noted that certain neighbourhoods have a lack of commercial services, how to remedy that? The project team noted that 'complete communities' or the '15-minute neighbourhood' approach is acknowledged in the TMP, and is considered favourable for Carleton Place. Support from Kate Murray on 15-minute neighbourhood approach. Information 2.3 There was a discussion surrounding neighbourhood complete street design. Stephen Kapusta noted that residential street design standards can be amended to include different intersection treatments and added to the OP, emphasizing that developers can be amenable to these standards as they make their neighbourhood attractive. This feedback was noted. Information 3.0 Accessibility 3.1 There was a discussion on accessibility in terms of the length/distance that people must travel to access the building entrance, which is sometimes not considered in the site plan control process. The project team noted that this is bridging urban design and OP/TMP and agree that accessibility is a priority. The project team responded that they will look to add specific language on this topic to the TMP as part of the Draft Recommendations and reference the Municipal Site Plan Control By-law, to facilitate the topic's reinforcement in the OP. AS 3.2 The topic of accessibility during the winter was raised. It was noted that often private developments will include an accessible sidewalk to bridge any gaps to the municipal network, but ends up being used for snow storage during the winter. Its important to ensure inclusivity year-round. This feedback was noted. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan September 2021 Page 4 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 3.3 There was a discussion on alternative methods for crossing the street. Colin McDuff raised the safety/convenience/accessibility issue of having vehicles turn right at the same time as people crossing the street, noting that there are other examples worldwide e.g. the UK. McNeely and Highway 7 was the example given. The project team noted that e.g. the "scramble crossing" is indeed a pedestrian- priority, highly context sensitive tool, currently not indicated to suit the McNeely/Highway 7 location. Other solutions/tools are to add additional points of refuge to break up the crossings. No right turns on reds is another simple solution. MTO acknowledges the challenges and barriers Hwy 7 creates for active users, but indicated that pedestrian considerations are beyond their mandate. However, a grade separated solution may be contemplated over the long-term for pedestrians. Information 4.0 Traffic Calming 4.1 There was a question asked by Mayor Black as to what new subdivisions would look like with these recommendations implemented (e.g. right-of-way cross-sections, traffic calming measures, complete street designs). The project team responded that collector roads, which serve as the transportation spine through the communities, would likely change the most. They would include features such as wider sidewalks and tree-lined streets with cycling facilities at strategic locations. Local streets (with houses fronting) would likely see less of a difference because the speed limits are already lower, therefore cycling and walking works without dedicated facilities. Information 4.2 There was a question from Colin McDuff on traffic calming measures, with the example of Franktown and Napoleon Streets given. There are lots of motorcycles racing up and down these streets, what measures are possible to combat this? The project team answered that there is an existing Town framework in place for implementing speed management and traffic calming measures, and the new TMP will highlight some of them. Potential measures include horizontal deflection measures such as narrowing streets, which provides friction and discourages speeding, and overall making streets/areas less convenient to speed. Information 4.3 There was a conversation about neighbourhood street design as a pre-emptive way to traffic calm. Stephen Kapusta raised the issue of frequent traffic speed complaints upon the opening of a new subdivision. Complete streets traffic calm by default. The project team and Guy Bourgon responded in support of traffic calming through street design. Complete street/traffic calming can be done upon street reconstruction as well, in consultation with emergency services. The project team also noted that 30km/h street design toolkits exist in other municipalities. Guy Bourgon noted that 30km/h areas are limited in Carleton Place (e.g. on Patterson) and exist due to petition from residents. By default, streets are 50km/h so reducing to 30km/h or 40km/h has an associated cost of putting up and maintaining signage and may not be effective in and of itself without road modifications. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan September 2021 Page 5 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 4.4 Joe Reid at the Health Unit also indicated that there is evidence that when a car is travelling below 30km/h, if a pedestrian is hit, they sustain lower severity of injury. Guy Bourgon responded affirmatively that Vision Zero speaks to this evidence. Most roads in Carleton Place do not encourage 30km/h speeds. Results from quantitative data collection (radar surveys) indicates that speeding is not a widespread problem on residential roads, most people are driving in the 40km/h range. Carleton Place has a limited police presence to enforce speeding (but police does a great job). Rob Croth from the OPP confirmed that people often consider the police the solution to the problem, but police are just one part. OPP prefers managing speeds through design standards rather than police enforcement. Information 4.5 Mayor Black added input on the most common complaint issues received from residents during his service as mayor: - speed of traffic; - perception of speed of traffic; and - growth. Mayor has reiterated these comments to police and is reiterating now. Mayor supports active traffic calming and speed limit reductions as frequent feedback is that it's not safe to walk in Carleton Place, nor to play in the streets. Carleton Place has attempted to put forward a high quality of life to distinguish the town from Kanata and Stittsville but is seeing similar issues. Confirmed that police are doing a great job. Highlighted that there is a difference between qualitative results of radar surveys and public perception of speed. The public perception of safety and quality of life is important and the Mayor's desk receives lots of feedback/complaints on this. Information 4.6 There was a follow-on discussion around the multi-faceted issue of traffic speeds and calming measures: - Multiple stakeholders indicated that there are multiple reasons for the complaints such as: people working from home during the pandemic, increased noise, and increased traffic due to Carleton Place transitioning from rural to urban in some areas. - There is a balance between traffic calming and traffic flow (e.g. 4-way stops are often desired to calm traffic, however they should not be used for traffic calming as they reduce traffic flow and may result in compliance issues requiring additional enforcement). - Residents may have concerns about 30km/h speeds on residential streets, does this affect the amount of street parking? Response that street parking is actually a good way to traffic calm. Some vertical and horizontal traffic calming measures can have a minor effect on street parking. - Issue of preferred road width discussed between Guy Bourgon and Mayor Black. Guy Bourgon indicated that 20m ROW width is the current standard. Mayor indicated that wider ROWs are preferred by many residents to have a higher quality of life that reduces sightline issues for vehicles and allows for pedestrians and play on residential streets. The project team acknowledged this is a complex subject in finding the right balance of land usage and may be more appropriate for the new OP to address in the zoning policies. The project team will look out for these topics during the public consultation. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan September 2021 Page 6 of 6 Item Discussion Action By 5.0 Other 5.1 There was a discussion on public education for sharing the road (please also see item 1.3) Kate Murray indicated that there is a gap in education with many motorists not knowing how to interact with cyclists or share the road with them, particularly in the absence of dedicated cycle lanes. This is particularly an issue on Bridge Street where it is desirable to share the road to have a vibrant downtown. Kate indicated that Carleton Place is part of Ontario by Bike and there is room for collaboration on public education. Colin McDuff agreed that there is a need for public education e.g. many in Ontario don't know how to use a roundabout. Project team responded that education is covered in the TMP and one of the Active Transportation draft recommendations. Information 5.2 There was a question about the Townline and Highway 7 intersection. Mayor Black reported concerns from Beckwith residents and indicated future development plans in that area. Mayor Black asked whether Beckwith residents can be included in the discussion. Future development plans near the Mississippi Road and Highway 7 intersection was also discussed. General response from Guy Bourgon and project team is that this area is outside town limits. Stephen Kapusta (MTO) indicated desire to know where the acres for sale near the Townline and Highway 7 intersection are located. Information 5.3 Question from Mayor Black about the active transportation bridge budget (for bridge at Riverside Park) and why the estimate is so high at $8 million dollar. Project team and Guy Bourgon responded that this is a high-level estimate, which includes a sizable contingency and is very conservative. The team would prefer to over- estimate rather than under-estimate on budget. Once the bridge project moves to detailed design, we will get a better estimate. Bridge design and bearing of soil and impact to the river itself are all considerations that will impact budget. Information 6.0 Next Steps 6.1 The next PIC (Public Information Centre) is slated for Thursday September 23, 2021. Feedback from this meeting will be taken into consideration with public feedback to further refine the draft recommendations prior to completing the draft TMP Report. Information Errors and omissions in these notes must be provided to Rachel MacKnight ([email protected]), otherwise the notes will be assumed as an accurate reflection of the discussions at the meeting. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Working Group Meeting #3 September 15, 2021 10:00am - 12:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 2 List of Participants Project Team - Guy Bourgon, Director of Public Works - Town of Carleton Place - Ron Clarke, Vice President - Parsons - Austin Shih, Senior Transportation Engineer - Parsons - Muna Awatta, Senior Transportation Engineer - Parsons Working Group Town of Carleton Place - Doug Black - Mayor - Diane Smithson - CAO - Pascal Meunier - Fire Chief - Jessica Hansen - Recreation - Niki Dwyer - Development Services Lanark County - Terry McCann - Director of Public Works - Sean Derouin - Public Works Manager - Marilyn Bird - Lanark Transportation Association MTO - Stephen Kapusta - Senior Project Manager Other Representatives - Rob Croth, Sergeant - OPP - Jackie Kavanagh - Chamber of Commerce - Kate Murray - BIA - Randy Shaw - CP Hospital - Angie Kelly - CP Hospital - Peter Bosch - UCDSB - Kory Earle - Accessibility Chairperson - Colin MacDuff - CPEAC - Ben Clare, Development Representative - McIntosh Perry - Joseph Reid - LGLDHU - Elaine Murkin - LGLDHU - Danielle Shewfelt - LGLDHU Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 To Recap 3 - The Town of Carleton Place initiated a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in late 2020. - Working Group Meetings were held: February 16th, 2021 June 9th, 2021 - The first Public Information Centre (PIC) was held June 17, 2021. - Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. - The primary purpose of this Working Group Meeting is to provide you an opportunity to comment on draft recommendations. - This meeting will focus on TMP supporting strategies, policies, and implementation and costs of the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans What is the Purpose of this Working Group Meeting? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 4 What We Heard - Some of the feedback received at the PIC #1 and Working Group Meeting #2 regarding the Transportation Network Strengthening Plans and the TMP overall included: Support for the Complete Streets approach Support for strengthening the AT network Support for the AT Bridge at Centennial Park Safety concerns - schools and local streets Need for AT supporting policies Need for traffic calming measures Congestion at Hwy 7 intersections Transit and commuter transport Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 5 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets Draft Official Plan Principles - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing safety needs of vulnerable road users. - Consider All Projects - Every project must consider the needs of all road users. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods that are designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes that support the Complete Street approach. Source: https://www.aprso.org/. Accessed 2021-09-08. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 6 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets Draft Recommendations - Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan - Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets (e.g. Complete Streets Cross-Sections). - Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. - Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). - Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Source: City of Ottawa - MMLOS Guidelines (2015) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 7 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Priority Routes The Cycling Priority Route designations, in the map to the right, identifies the target corridors for enhanced cycling facilities. AT Network Strengthening Plan identifies the type of cycling facility to be introduced based on the Complete Streets Approach. Routes Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 8 Shared Use Cycling Lanes Shared use lane markings and signs. Cyclists travel in the same lane with lane markings. Recommended on local streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Multi-use Pathways Cyclists physically separated from vehicles. MUPs are shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Recommended parallel to high volume and high- speed corridors (Arterials & Collectors). Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Facility Types Off-road cycling facilities, specifically Multi-Use Pathways (MUPs) and trails were the preferred type of facilities for accommodating cyclists. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 9 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Local and Collector Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. They may also be applied to new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street Approach. tors - Draft s. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 10 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Arterial Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. They may also be applied to new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street Approach. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 11 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates Draft Recommendations Expand the Town's Road Classification system (Arterial, Collector and Local) to differentiate between urban residential and commercial contexts. Adopt new road classifications to better reflect the function of the current and future road network as per the image to the right. Jurisdiction Orange - Provincial (Highway) Red - County (Arterial) Blue - Town (Arterial, Collector and Local) Denotes Future NEW Street * All existing local streets will be classified "Residential Local" unless otherwise indicated. Proposed Road Classifications Arterial Commercial Collector Residential Collector Commercial Local p erwise indicated. cations ollector lector ocal ` Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 12 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates (R) denotes rural cross section Red denotes upgrade or downgrade in classification Jurisdiction Name Current Classification Proposed Classification MTO Highway 7 Highway 15 Highway Highway Lanark CP McNeely Ave (County Road 29) Conc 8 (Townline Rd to North Limit) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Lanark Lanark CP CP Townline Rd Captain A Roy Brown Franktown Rd/ Moore St Cavanagh Rd (McNeely to E Town Limit) Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial CP CP CP Bridge St (Lake Ave to Townline Rd), Victoria St, Beckwith St, Mill St (Bridge St to Beckwith St), and Allen St (Bridge St to Victoria St) Lansdowne Ave NEW Commercial St (North of Hwy 7) Collector Local N/A Commercial Collector CP CP Industrial Ave, Bruce Cr, Smythe Rd Bates Dr, Hooper St, Roe St, and Costello Dr NEW Hwy 7 South Commercial Street Local N/A Commercial Local CP CP Lake Ave, Arthur St/Coleman St, Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, High St, Park Ave/Neelin St, Princess St, Bridge St (Townline Rd to Quarry Rd), Albert St/Sussex St, Mill St (Princess St to Rosamond St), and Rosamond St (Mill St to Bell St) Mullett St and Ramsay Conc 7A Collector Local Residential Collector CP CP William St and Rosamond St (Bell St to William St) All remaining local streets Collector Local Residential Local Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 The Active Transportation network will strive to achieve the Town vision of a truly multi-modal transportation system and a connected, healthy, and inclusive community. Draft Recommendations - Designate key cycling corridors as Cycling Priority Routes. - Apply Complete Streets designs on all Cycling Priority Routes. - Prioritize winter maintenance on Cycling Priority Routes. - Review and consider updates to long-term winter maintenance priorities for sidewalks. - Complete sidewalk gaps and consider widening existing sidewalks as part of street reconstruction work. - Review pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety and visibility at locations of concern. - Prioritize additional bicycle parking downtown and at key Town destinations. - Prioritize cycling education programs. - Identify cycling end-user guidelines for larger businesses (e.g. showers and lockers). - Consider enhancements to existing trails as part of the Town's upcoming Recreation Master Plan. - Consider a future ATV/Snowmobile network study. 13 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Active Transportation Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Sources: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/long-range-planning-home/air-quality-planning/transportation-demand-management-tdm.html https://www.anyauto.com.au/the-future-of-personal-transport-a-look/ (Pete Wilson): Accessed 2021-06-15. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to a set of strategies that aim to encourage the use of available infrastructure for walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit, thereby reducing the transportation network's reliance on single-occupant vehicles. Draft Recommendations - Consider the feasibility of establishing a part-time TDM Coordinator role. - Ensure that AT and TDM are key considerations in the development review process. - TDM initiatives that may be considered include: Ridesharing strategies Special events strategies (e.g. providing shuttles and temporary carpool locations away from core areas) Marketing of AT on Town website and social media Promotion of Walk to School Programs 14 Supporting Strategies/Policies: TDM Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Draft Recommendations - Explore opportunities to improve transit service integration in coordination with OC Transpo and private transit operators to enhance commuter travel to the City of Ottawa Advocate for better connections with existing transit service Investigate opportunities to increase commuter transit ridership - Engage Lanark Transportation to: Support expansion of transit service within the County, i.e. Ride the LT. Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities or a subsidized Uber service for key community destinations and special events. - Ensure pedestrian links to transit are provided, meet AODA guidelines, and are prioritized for winter maintenance. 15 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Transit Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 The goal of accessibility is to ensure that the physical environment can be accessed by people of all abilities and is inclusive. The TMP acknowledges the principles within the Vision Zero approach. The Town should consider the following key concepts and measures to help address future safety and accessibility related issues and concerns. Draft Recommendations Accessibility - New and re-construction work on streets or pathways should ensure that facilities meet accessible design standards (i.e. AODA), including minimum sidewalk widths, tactile walking indicators and curb depressions. - Require re-development and new development applicants to demonstrate accessibility of proposed design plans. - Accessibility enhancements such as accessible pedestrian signals and benches/rest areas should be considered as opportunities arise. 16 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: Google © ues and concerns. Source: www.participatoryplanning.ca. Accessed 2021-09-07. Source: www.newdesigngroup.ca. Accessed 2021-09-07 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Traffic Calming - The Town Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy should be used to identify when, where and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. - It is recommended that the Town implement traffic calming measures on Cycling Priority Routes for collector and local streets where appropriate. Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. - The Town should consider roundabouts at all new and retrofit intersections. 17 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: Google © Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Pedestrian Crossing Treatments - Pedestrian crossing reviews should be initiated at problem locations. - OTM Book 15 provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. - It is recommended that the Town implement the Decision Support Tool in OTM Book 15 when considering requests for pedestrian crossings. 18 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: OTM Book 15 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Intersection Traffic Control - Warrants and guidelines for AWSC and traffic signal warrants should be based on provincial guidelines (OTM). - Periodic review of signal timing plans should be completed to ensure sufficient crossing time for pedestrians. Speed Limits, School Zones and Community Safety Zones - Reduced speed limit signs should be considered where the street merits a lower speed limit due to the surrounding land use and local context. - School Zones and Community Safety Zones combine speed limit signs with school or community area signs to indicate that the area requires a reduced speed. 19 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Goods Movement - The need to expand the County Truck Route network has not been identified at this time. - Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. - Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Emerging Technologies Emerging transportation technologies cover a broad range of possibilities, from micromobility (bike share, e-scooters, etc.) to connected and autonomous vehicles. Preparing for changes in technology will enable the Town to dictate implementation of new technology on its own terms. - Continue to explore opportunities to support electrified vehicle infrastructure. - Investigate the feasibility of a bike share program in coordination with the County. - Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand-responsive approaches. 20 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies Source: https://www.cbc.ca/. Accessed 2021-09-08 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 21 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft The TMP recommends modifications to Carleton Place's street network as described in the map and table to the right. Provincial or County corridors/intersections would be shared responsibilities with MTO or the County. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 22 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft - The TMP recommends modifications to Carleton Place's AT network as described in the table to the right. - Focus on enhancing cycling connections between major destinations, established neighbourhoods and new communities. - Measures include: Filling in sidewalk gaps New MUPs and enhancing existing MUPs along key corridors New recreational trails Two new pedestrian/cycling bridges Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 rking Group Meeting #3 23 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft - The proposed corridor enhancements are based on new Cycling Priority Route designations and the proposed Complete Streets cross-sections. - The draft AT network is intended to be flexible and may change as the Town's needs grow. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 24 Potential Centennial Park AT Bridge Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 25 Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs Description County Cost Town Cost RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS (20 YEAR PLAN) 1. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Patterson Cr to Townline Rd, includes bridge structure costs and MUPs on both sides $18,390,000 $5,330,000 2. New Commercial Collector North of Highway 7 * Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $0 $6,490,000 3. Townline Rd E * Street rebalancing from Industrial Ave to West of McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $1,435,000 $1,435,000 4. Moore St Corridor optimization from Lake Ave to OVRT. Potentially limit Lansdowne/Moore to right-in right-out only if needed. Requires further study TOTAL $19,825,000 $13,255,000 POTENTIAL LONG-TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 20 YEAR) 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd * Extension from Rathwall St to Cemetery Side Rd - subject to annexation Requires further study 2. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Highway 7 to Cavanagh Rd $2,000,000 $10,250,000 3. Townline Rd E * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from McNeely Ave to the East Town Limit $2,500,000 $400,000 TOTAL $4,500,000 $10,650,000 Street Network Strengthening Plan (SNSP) * Must meet the requirements of a Schedule 'C' project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 26 Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs AT Network Strengthening Plan Note: All MUPs will be 3m width Description Town Cost SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) 1. Hwy 7 / Hwy 15 / Franktown / McNeely Sidewalks Included in Capital Budget Plan 2. Central Bridge & Bridge St Renewal 3. Mill Street / Princess Street Sidewalk 4. Findlay Avenue (MUP on one side from Franktown Rd with new OVRT connection) $230,000 TOTAL $230,000 MEDIUM-TERM (6-10 YEARS) 1. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Townline Rd E to Patterson Cr (Excluding bridge structure costs) Included in SNSP Costs 2. Townline Rd E - MUP on both sides from Industrial Rd to McNeely Ave 3. Commercial Collector North of HWY 7 4. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Patterson Cr to South Town Limit $3,780,000 5. Townline Rd W - MUP on both sides from Joseph St to West Town Limit $970,000 TOTAL $4,750,000 LONG-TERM (11-20 YEARS) 1. New Arklan Island AT Bridge & Trail (New AT bridge) $1,380,000 2. New AT Bridge (Assumed Flora St to Riverside Park Beach Alignment) $8,420,000 TOTAL $9,800,000 LIFE-CYCLE STREET RENEWAL 1. Filling of sidewalk gaps (at time of street renewal) $5,480,000 GRAND TOTAL $20,260,000 Description Town Cost DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd (MUP on south side from HWY 15 to East Town Limit) $900,000 2. Future Employment lands (MUP on one side with new OVRT connection) - Contingent on Dev Application $450,000 TOTAL $1,350,000 LONG-TERM INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS (20+ YEARS) 1a. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 1b. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,680,000 $620,000 2a. Townline Rd: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 2b. Townline Rd: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,340,000 $1,520,000 3a. Lake Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 3b. Lake Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $4,540,000 $2,270,000 4. Gilles Bridge and Mill St. Bridge (Based on Central Bridge ESR Cost Estimate) $1,150,000 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Group Discussion 27 Please use the hand raise button to directly pose a question or comment and/or type it in the chat room. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Group Discussion Questions 28 1. Do the draft recommendations represent the values and aspirations of the community? 2. Will this plan meet the long-term transportation requirements of the municipality? 3. From your perspective, which of the identified transportation projects are the most important? 4. What do you see as barriers to the incremental implementation of the plan over the long term? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Working Group Meeting #3 Next Steps After this Working Group Meeting, we will: - Review your feedback. - Refine the draft recommendations. - Prepare the draft TMP Report. Upcoming Public Engagement: - The second and final Virtual Public Information Centre will take place on September 23, 2021. - The comment period for the 2nd PIC will be open until October 12, 2021. Contact the Project Team and receive updates: Email: [email protected] OR [email protected] Website: carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php 29 Appendix C: Public Information Centre Materials Appendix C1 - PIC #1 Notes, Presentation and Boards and Survey Results Appendix C2 - PIC #2 Notes, Presentation and Boards and Survey Results APPENDIX C1 - PIC #1 NOTES, PRESENTATION AND BOARDS AND SURVEY RESULTS Page 1 of 3 1223 Michael Street North, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 7T2 P: +1 613.738.4160| F: +1 613.739.7105 | www.parsons.com The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre (PIC) #1 Date: Thursday, June 17th 2021 File No.: 477702 Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Location: Zoom Meeting ATTENDEES: Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Ron Clarke - Vice President Austin Shih - Senior Transportation Engineer Muna Awatta - Senior Transportation Engineer Rachel MacKnight - Planning, Communications Members of the Public. Town of Carleton Place Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa MEETING NOTES: Guy Bourgon and the Parsons Team (Austin Shih and Ron Clarke) walked through a presentation that outlined progress to date, TMP project goals, and culminated in the presentation of the Draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. The Public Information Centre (PIC) was open to the public and provided an opportunity for the Project Team to receive feedback on the draft plans. An open discussion also took place, whereby the key topics, discussion points, and Q&As have been summarized below. Item Discussion Action By 1.0 Active Transportation Facilities 1.1 Q: There was a question as to why there are no sidewalks planned for Hooper between Cavanagh and Lake. A: The project team shared that this is an industrial area. The team made note to look carefully at this location and expressed thanks for the comment. The team noted that guidelines are also being developed, and some of the TMP work will be transformed into municipal guidelines/by-laws, especially for new streets and streets that are approaching the end of their lifecycle. Information 1.2 Q: There was a question regarding the surface materials used for the multi-use pathways (MUPs). The citizen differentiated between asphalt and concrete pavement, suggesting that concrete performs better for rollers (e.g. wheelchairs, rollerblades, skateboards). A: The project team noted that many MUPs/trails in Carleton Place are stone dust. Asphalt pavement is generally the preferred surface for a number of reasons. Asphalt moves better, so can shift with the spring thaw and then shift back into place, or be repaired section by section or with piecemeal crack sealing. In contrast, concrete is harder to repair. The team noted that any paved surface will be reviewed as part of the Asset Management Plan. Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 2 of 3 Item Discussion Action By 2.0 Safety 2.1 Q: There was a question concerning considerations for the school crossing at the intersection of McNeely and Patterson, in light of the expansion of McNeely to 4 lanes Patterson and possibly to Townline. There was also an associated discussion on the subject of new streets being too narrow. A: The project team offered perspective on the plans for McNeely, noting that from a capacity perspective, McNeely's function is to allow regional traffic to access various parts of the Town without infiltrating more sensitive streets. The TMP should enhance and strengthen this function. Regarding the safety of the intersection and schools, the TMP will be providing the Town with guidance on how best to respond to such issues. This guidance can be seen as a toolbox of interventions that can then be applied to site-specific issues. For that specific intersection, the road widening project would usually undergo a detailed design/engineering process that would dive into safety issues at that time. In terms of narrow streets, the team noted that they have also received complaints that streets are too wide. It's important to balance needs between e.g. snow storage capacity as well as traffic calming measures. Avoiding high vehicle speeds and long crosswalk lengths (common problems with wide streets) is also important. Information 2.2 Q: There was a question concerning the potential for a barrier on the OVRT trail to separate pedestrian traffic from motorized vehicles in light of recent accident. A: The team noted the Town is following the situation and monitoring the issue. Signage has been set up to indicate that vehicular traffic must stay away from the pathway. The OVRT pathway is the responsibility of Lanark County. Information 3.0 Scope of TMP 3.1 Q: There was a question concerning construction traffic, particularly as it affects County Road 29 and traffic into Carleton Place. A: The team noted that construction was a challenge for all citizens and that there have been many construction projects in recent years. The Town is monitoring and directing traffic to larger roads whenever possible. Dealing directly with this issue is outside the scope of the TMP. Information 3.2 Q: There was a question concerning the degree of regional consultation occurring as part of the TMP work, particularly with Beckwith and Mississippi Mill and concerning Carleton Place growth impact on rural roads in those Towns. A: The team clarified that it is the responsibility of each municipality to look after their roads, and the County for County roads. The TMP uses a 20-year timing horizon and is intended to manage Carleton Place's growth as well as traffic incoming to Carleton Place. Information 6.0 Next Steps 6.1 The project team requested feedback by July 6th 2021 on the draft plans and noted that the next PIC would be in September 2021. The project team encouraged feedback via: https://carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php Information Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 3 of 3 Errors and omissions in these notes must be provided to Rachel MacKnight ([email protected]), otherwise the notes will be assumed as an accurate reflection of the discussions at the meeting. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Public Information Centre #1 June 17, 2021 6:00pm - 8:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 2 Agenda Introduction - Study Purpose, Process & Timeline - Tonight's Objectives What do we know? - Early Feedback, Trends & Forecasts - Issues/Concerns Where are we headed? - Complete Streets Approach - Draft Strengthening Plans for Streets and Active Transportation Group Discussion Next Steps Source: https://www.pinterest.ca/johnston4225/_saved/ (Linda Johnston): Accessed 2021-06-15. Source: Hometown News Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 What is a Transportation Master Plan? 3 - The Town of Carleton Place has initiated a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to provide a blueprint for planning, developing, and operating its transportation networks over the next 20 years. - This plan represents a new vision for the Town, identifying a multi-modal, complete streets approach to the planning, design and implementation of transportation infrastructure. - The Town has been experiencing significant growth in recent years. - Transportation practices, travel patterns and behavior are evolving. Why does Carleton Place need a TMP? Source: https://www.anyauto.com.au/the-future-of-personal-transport-a-look/ (Pete Wilson): Accessed 2021-06-15. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Municipal Class EA Process 4 - The TMP is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process (following "Approach #1") under the Environmental Assessment Act. - The Class Environmental Assessment process provides a transparent approach to planning and building municipal infrastructure which includes public and stakeholder participation throughout. Source: City of Thorold TMP (2019) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 - The assessment of Existing and Future Conditions has since been completed. - The initial consultation process began with an Online Community Survey and an Online Interactive Mapping Tool open to the public from January 8, 2021, to February 1, 2021 - We have had two Working Group Meetings with stakeholders on February 16, 2021 and June 9, 2021. - This Virtual Public Information Centre (PIC) concludes the first round of public consultation. 5 What is the Current Schedule? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 6 Objectives of Tonight's Event - The primary purpose of this PIC is to introduce the TMP and provide you an opportunity to comment on its progress to date. - The focus of this meeting will be on infrastructure, culminating in the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. - The PIC comment period will be open to until July 6, 2021. - Your feedback is essential as it will help us refine our recommendations moving forward. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 7 Early Community and Stakeholder Feedback What have we heard? An Online Community Survey was created whereby public feedback was welcomed from Jan 8, 2021, to Feb 1, 2021. Over 300 respondents provided feedback. Transportation Topics of Highest Public Interest Transportation Feedback Agree 82.5% Disagree 17.5% I feel safe and comfortable Walking within Carleton Place. Agree 67.7% Disagree 32.3% I feel safe and comfortable Cycling within Carleton Place. Agree 38.9% Disagree 61.1% Carleton Place has a transportation system that is Accessible and Inclusive (i.e. people of all ages, financial means, and physical abilities). Agree 45.3% Disagree 54.7% Carleton Place has Traffic Congestion issues. 1% 3% 5% 11% 11% 11% 16% 19% 22% Ride-sharing/Car-pooling Ride-hailing (e.g. Taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.) Emerging Tech (e.g. AVs, EVs etc.) Parking Transit Cyclists Safety Roads Pedestrians Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Internal (CP) 35% Ottawa 50% Other 15% 8 Forecasts and Trends Who lives in Carleton Place? - Carleton Place has a balanced age distribution - younger, middle aged, and elderly age groups have different travel needs and challenges. Where do residents work? - 35% of employed Carleton Place residents also work in Carleton Place; many (50%) work in Ottawa - Commuter trips are either short (<3km) or long (>20km) < 2.9 km 34% 3 to 19.9 km 9% > 19.9 km 57% < 25 years 30% 26 to 45 years 25% 46 to 65 years 28% > 65 years 17% How is Carleton Place growing? [2016 to 2038] - Population is expected to grow by 98% - Employment is expected to grow by 57% How are residents travelling to work? - Most residents drive to work (83%) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Auto Driver 83% Auto Passenger 6% Walking 6% Transit 3% Other (incl. Cycling) 2% Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 9 Vision and Objectives Draft Vision "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." Draft Objectives To support the vision, the following TMP Objectives were developed: Ensure an Inclusive and Accessible/Barrier free environment for all users regardless of age, physical ability, and financial means. Develop a multi-modal network that emphasizes sustainable travel modes in an effort to reduce pollution, enhance quality of life through active living, while reducing dependency on the automobile. Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups. Improve connectivity within the Town, overcome barriers between communities and amenities. Maintain adequate mobility to support the Town's anticipated growth. Implement the plan in a fiscally sustainable and accountable manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 What are the Issues? 10 - The early public consultation process identified various transportation issues spread across several themes. - Two prominent themes were active transportation and roads. - The most frequently heard issues were related to existing network gaps and deficiencies and meeting the needs for future growth. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 What are the Issues? 11 THEME ISSUE Pedestrians - Network gaps - Poor lighting and conflicts (snow, poles etc.) - Courtesy Crossings a false sense of security - Walkability to Town destinations for existing and future development Cyclists - Network gaps - Difficulty getting to trail systems - Lack of "shared" space on streets Safety - Accessibility concerns - Crossing Highway 7 and the OVRT - Vehicle speeding and stop sign infractions Traffic - Congestion on major streets and intersections - Mississippi River bridge crossing capacity - Infrastructure falling behind development Transit - Need more affordable alternatives to personal vehicles, Uber and taxis - Considerations for elderly/retirees Parking - Constrained road space in residential subdivisions - Winter control practices - Bylaw enforcement for illegal parking Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Source: Highway 7 South CDP (2013) What are the Issues? 12 This highlights some of the challenges of growth: - How do we connect new communities to the street and active transportation networks? - How do we plan for active transportation infrastructure (multi- use pathways, sidewalks, trails) within new developments? - How do we maintain adequate vehicular mobility? Source: Highway District Secondary Plan (2020) Source: Hwy 7 and Hwy 15 Improvements TESR (2020) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Street Network Capacity 13 The evaluation of future conditions confirmed the following street network constraints by the 20-year planning horizon: 1. Highway 7 corridor between Franktown Rd and McNeely Ave 2. Mississippi River crossing 3. North-South corridor capacity between Highway 7 and Coleman St Opportunities to improve the efficiency of the street network were also explored and incorporated into the network strengthening plan, such as street rebalancing and intersection modifications. 2 3 1 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft 14 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 15 Pedestrian and Cycling Networks - Connect and integrate sidewalk, multi-use pathways, and trail networks. - Build out the pedestrian network with age friendly and accessible design standards. - Provide safe and efficient cycling connections between key destinations. - Develop a connected active transportation network to promote sustainable travel choices. Source: Hometown News Carleton Place Source: Google © Source: Google © Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 16 The Complete Streets Approach - Complete Streets are road corridors that are designed, operated and maintained to consider all modes of travel more equitably and efficiently. - Developing Complete Streets policies can help:  Account for different land use contexts  Guide infrastructure decisions in growing or transitioning neighbourhoods  Identify options for retrofitting existing streets to include pedestrian and cycling facilities where appropriate Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 17 The Complete Streets Approach - Elements of a Complete Street can be prioritized based on the context of each specific corridor and its intended users and function.  For Pedestrians: Sidewalks or paths, accessible crossings with appropriate markings, curb cuts and tactile indicators.  For Cyclists: Cycling facilities suitable for the context, bicycle parking, intersection crossing markings.  For Transit Users: Accessible transit stops, shelters or benches, sidewalk access to transit stops.  For Motorists: Travel lanes, turn lanes, parking and loading areas. Shared Dedicated Separated Types of Cycling Facilities Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Cycling Priority Routes - Draft 18 - Cycling Priority Routes represent parts of the Town's street network targeted for higher quality cycling facilities and/or treatments. - These routes were strategically chosen for connecting to amenities, institutions, public spaces, and various trail systems. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft 19 C Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft 20 - The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Local and Collector Streets. - These design guidelines must be considered on all Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Complete Streets: Collectors - Draft 21 - In some retrofit situations, there is limited space to accommodate all user needs. - The Complete Streets approach can be adapted to fit the specific needs in the local context, such as:  Maximizing active transportation facilities  The need for on-street parking  Preserving driveway space Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft 22 - The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Arterial Streets. - These design guidelines must be considered on all Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft 23 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Discussion Period 24 Please use the chat room to directly pose a question or comment. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Discussion Questions 25 1. Do the Transportation themes and recommendations represent the values and aspirations of the community? 2. Will this plan meet the long-term transportation requirements of the municipality? 3. From your perspective, which of the identified transportation projects are the most important? 4. What do you see as barriers to the incremental implementation of the plan over the long term? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Next Steps After this PIC, we will:  Review your feedback.  Refine the draft strengthening plans.  Review affordability and priorities.  Develop supporting policies, strategies and implementation plan. Upcoming Public Engagement:  A brief online survey will be available on the website after the PIC.  The comment period for the 1st PIC will be open until July 6, 2021.  The second round of public engagement will take place in early September. Contact the Project Team and receive updates: Email: [email protected] OR [email protected] Website: carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php 26 Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Public Information Centre #1 June 17, 2021 6:00pm - 8:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 2 Introduction Welcome! We appreciate your participation in the first Public Information Centre for the Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan! We want to hear from you! Please help shape the future of transportation in Carleton Place by: - Asking us a question - Submitting a comment - Visiting the TMP webpage at: carletonplace.ca Key questions and discussion points are on the display panels, identified with the following icon: Study Timeline Event Objectives - Introduce the study - Share the draft vision and objectives of the study - Share the draft long-term network strengthening plans - Help begin to answer the question: What should Carleton Place's future transportation system look like? 2 Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 3 Study Background What is a Transportation Master Plan? The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the Town's blueprint for planning, developing and operating its transportation system over the next 20 years. The TMP will identify policies and infrastructure investments to meet the needs of all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, transit, trucks and general traffic. The TMP will develop a practical and affordable plan to meet the needs of the Town's existing and future residents. An implementation plan will identify short-, medium- and long-term initiatives and projects. Municipal Class EA Process The Transportation Master Plan is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (following "Approach #1") under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class Environmental Assessment process provides a transparent approach to planning and building municipal infrastructure which includes public and stakeholder participation throughout. Source: City of Thorold TMP (2019) Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 4 Study Context Why does Carleton Place need a TMP? The Town has been experiencing significant growth in recent years. The County projects the Town's population will nearly double (from approximately 11k to over 20k) within the next two decades. The TMP will enable the Town to effectively accommodate planned growth and coordinate the development of transportation networks, policies and programs. The TMP provides the unique opportunity for proactive thinking, anticipating community needs, and preparing for emerging trends in transportation solutions, such as "Complete Streets" and a system that is inclusive and accessible to a broad spectrum of our society. Relationship to Other Policies The TMP considers existing provincial, regional, and municipal policies and plans, including the Town's Official Plan which is also being updated. The TMP will focus on the needs and opportunities at the Town level, while broadly adhering to the direction in the Lanark County TMP. "Complete Streets" are streets that are planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained with consideration given to all modes of transportation. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 5 Vision and Objectives Draft Vision "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." Multi-modal refers to the availability of multiple modes (driving, transit, cycling, walking, etc.) within the transportation system. Draft Objectives To support the vision, the following TMP Objectives were developed: Ensure an Inclusive and Accessible/Barrier free environment for all users regardless of age, physical ability, and financial means. Develop a multi-modal network that emphasizes sustainable travel modes in an effort to reduce pollution, enhance quality of life through active living, while reducing dependency on the automobile. Improve road safety, especially to the most vulnerable groups. Improve connectivity within the Town, overcome barriers between communities and amenities. Maintain adequate mobility to support the Town's anticipated growth. Implement the plan in a fiscally sustainable and accountable manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Are we missing any key objectives or directions? Is there anything you would change? Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 6 Existing Road Network The following map describes the existing road network. The road classifications are based on the Town's 2013 Official Plan. A road classification system is a hierarchical structure of roadway types based on geometry, function and the type of service they provide to the public. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 7 Existing Active Transportation Network Active Transportation (AT) refers to any type of human-powered means of travel such as walking, cycling etc. The following map describes the existing active transportation network in the Town, including the location of sidewalks, trails and pathways. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 8 Early Community and Stakeholder Feedback What have we heard? Consultation began with an Online Community Survey and an Interactive Mapping Tool, whereby feedback was welcomed from Jan 8, 2021, to Feb 1, 2021. Over 300 respondents provided feedback! Transportation Topics of Highest Public Interest Agree 82.5% Disagree 17.5% I feel safe and comfortable Walking within Carleton Place. Agree 67.7% Disagree 32.3% I feel safe and comfortable Cycling within Carleton Place. Agree 38.9% Disagree 61.1% Carleton Place has a transportation system that is Accessible and Inclusive (i.e. people of all ages, financial means, and physical abilities). Agree 45.3% Disagree 54.7% Carleton Place has Traffic Congestion issues. 1% 3% 5% 11% 11% 11% 16% 19% 22% Ride-sharing/Car-pooling Ride-hailing (e.g. Taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.) Emerging Tech (e.g. AVs, EVs etc.) Parking Transit Cyclists Safety Roads Pedestrians Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Internal (CP) 35% Ottawa 50% Other 15% 9 Forecasts and Trends Who lives in Carleton Place? - Carleton Place has a balanced age distribution - younger, middle aged, and elderly age groups have different travel needs and challenges, which highlights the importance of inclusivity in this study. Where do residents work? - 35% of employed Carleton Place residents also work in Carleton Place; 50% work in Ottawa - Commuter trips are either short (<3km) or long (>20km) < 2.9 km 34% 3 to 19.9 km 9% > 19.9 km 57% < 25 years 30% 26 to 45 years 25% 46 to 65 years 28% > 65 years 17% How is Carleton Place growing? [2016 to 2038] - Population is expected to grow by 98% - Employment is expected to grow by 57% How are residents travelling to work? - Most residents drive to work (83%) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Auto Driver 83% Auto Passenger 6% Walking 6% Transit 3% Other (incl. Cycling) 2% Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 Source: © Google Source: © Google 10 Theme Issue Pedestrians - Network gaps - Poor lighting and conflicts (snow, poles etc.) - Courtesy Crossings a false sense of security - Walkability to Town destinations for existing and future development Cyclists - Network gaps - Difficulty getting to trail systems - Lack of "shared" space on streets Safety - Accessibility concerns - Crossing Highway 7 and the OVRT - Vehicle speeding and stop sign infractions Traffic - Congestion on major streets and intersections - Mississippi River bridge crossing capacity - Infrastructure falling behind development Transit - Need more affordable alternatives to personal vehicles, Uber and taxis - Considerations for elderly/retirees Parking - Constrained road space in residential subdivisions - Winter control practices - Bylaw enforcement for illegal parking Issues & Opportunities Source: © Google Source: © Google Source: Lanark Transportation Association Are there any other Issues we should explore? Source: © Google The following specific issues/challenges related to transportation were heard during the early consultations and discussions with Town staff. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 11 Meeting Future Needs The Challenges of Growth - Connecting new communities to the street and active transportation networks. - Planning for active transportation infrastructure (multi-use pathways, sidewalks, trails) within new developments. - Maintaining adequate vehicular mobility. Pedestrian and Cycling Networks - Connect and integrate sidewalks, MUPs, and trails. - Build out the pedestrian network with age friendly and accessible design standards. - Provide safe and efficient cycling connections between key destinations. - Develop a connected network of cycling facilities to promote sustainable travel choices. Transit - Explore opportunities to improve existing transit service (Ride the LT) in the Town and to adjacent municipalities. The Complete Streets Approach Complete Streets are road corridors that are designed, operated and maintained to consider all modes of travel more equitably and efficiently. Elements of a Complete Street can be prioritized based on the context of each specific corridor and its intended users and function. - For Pedestrians: Sidewalks or paths, accessible crossings with appropriate markings, curb cuts and tactile indicators. - For Cyclists: Cycling facilities suitable for the context, bicycle parking, intersection crossing markings. - For Transit Users: Accessible transit stops, shelters or benches, sidewalk access to transit stops. - For Motorists: Travel lanes, turn lanes, parking and loading areas. Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Shared Dedicated Separated Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 12 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft i A long-term street network improvement plan to accommodate future growth. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 13 Cycling Priority Routes - Draft Are there other streets we should consider? Cycling Priority Routes represent parts of the Town's street network targeted for higher quality cycling facilities and/or treatments. These routes were strategically chosen for connecting to key amenities, institutions, public spaces and various trail systems. tes - Draft sent parts of the ed for higher r treatments. lly chosen for institutions, il systems. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 14 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft Transportation A long-term AT network strengthening plan to expand existing facilities and encourage sustainable modes of travel. C Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 15 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Local and Collector Streets in various contexts. These design would ideally be applied along designated Cycling Priority Routes. nated Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 16 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" to the design of Arterial Streets in various contexts. These design would ideally be applied along designated Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation MasterPlan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #1 17 Next Steps THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING!! What is next for the TMP? The study team will: Summarize and review input received. Finalize the TMP's vision and objectives. Refine the network strengthening plans. Present the remaining draft recommendations and strategies at the final Public Information Centre in early September. Stay Connected! Visit us online at: https://carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php Tell Us What You Think! Contact the TMP Project Managers to provide us with your thoughts! Guy Bourgon, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Town of Carleton Place Email: [email protected] Ron Clarke, MCIP, RPP Vice President, Ottawa Parsons Inc. Email: [email protected] 1 2 3 4 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 1 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Respondent skipped this question #1 #1 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 11, 2021 12:33:17 PM Friday, June 11, 2021 12:33:17 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 11, 2021 12:33:44 PM Friday, June 11, 2021 12:33:44 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:00:26 00:00:26 IP Address: IP Address: 209.128.255.129 209.128.255.129 Page 1: On-line Survey Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 2 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 3 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? I applaud the effort that went into this report, it was well thought out and overall, pretty well done. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? I agree with them. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? I have no real opinion on this. Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? I am not sure the bridge connecting Joseph St. to John St. is a good plan, for a number of reasons. Firstly, this would divert foot traffic from the main bridge on Bridge St., which, to mean, is one of the nicest places in Carleton Place (town hall in particular). These businesses have struggled enough given the big box stores on the edge of town and global pandemic. Secondly, the town is planning a new bridge already, if there is concern for pedistrian or bicycle safety, wouldn't it make way more sense to make the new bridge more accommodating? Why build two bridges within 300 m of each other if one could suffice. It would be more cost efficient and would keep the lake feel for the canoe club and birds. Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? I agree with it. #2 #2 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:18:35 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 9:18:35 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:24:04 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 9:24:04 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:05:28 00:05:28 IP Address: IP Address: 172.97.170.62 172.97.170.62 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 4 / 26 Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Just have an issue with the bridge. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 5 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? love it Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? yes. Maybe address commuter transport to Ottawa to reduce traffic on HWY7. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? nice and easy to read #3 #3 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:45:52 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 9:45:52 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:47:29 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 9:47:29 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:01:36 00:01:36 IP Address: IP Address: 174.95.8.165 174.95.8.165 Page 1: On-line Survey Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 6 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Respondent skipped this question Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 7 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? I like it. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? I would add another traffic light with cross walk along Highway 7 halfway between McNeely and Highway 15. If you are planning to have increased foot traffic, you need more places to cross. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? I would add to resurface the roads around where the new bridge would be from John/Joseph. Those tiny streets are in such bad condition. Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Respondent skipped this question #4 #4 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:51:35 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 9:51:35 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 18, 2021 10:06:49 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 10:06:49 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:15:13 00:15:13 IP Address: IP Address: 198.84.207.11 198.84.207.11 Page 1: On-line Survey Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 8 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 9 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? I agree with all but one. I would be concerned about the suggestion of a bridge over to Arklan Island and a path around the island. My main concern is that this could easily become a place for teens to hangout and have bush parties with drinking. This then leads to trash being left behind and potential damage to the area. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Agree Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Agree Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Agree Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Agree Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Overall it looks like a good long term plan for the community. #5 #5 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 18, 2021 10:12:15 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 10:12:15 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 18, 2021 10:17:20 AM Friday, June 18, 2021 10:17:20 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:05:05 00:05:05 IP Address: IP Address: 45.72.250.110 45.72.250.110 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 10 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 11 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes I agree Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes I agree Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes I agree. A walking bring over the river near the canoe club should be a priority. Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? yes Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? yes Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? no further comments #6 #6 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, June 18, 2021 1:41:07 PM Friday, June 18, 2021 1:41:07 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, June 18, 2021 1:44:12 PM Friday, June 18, 2021 1:44:12 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:03:05 00:03:05 IP Address: IP Address: 208.65.73.220 208.65.73.220 Page 1: On-line Survey Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 12 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Respondent skipped this question Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 13 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? Mostly, but there are also issues with some of the older neighborhoods in town and visibility for traffic. For instance, Coleman and Queen South. There are a fair number of issues here as it is a blind corner and traffic WHIPS through there. Something needs to be done to improve safety. Whether it is straightening the road, or adding some sort of intersection... Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Respondent skipped this question #7 #7 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Saturday, June 19, 2021 12:32:47 AM Saturday, June 19, 2021 12:32:47 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Saturday, June 19, 2021 12:35:16 AM Saturday, June 19, 2021 12:35:16 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:02:28 00:02:28 IP Address: IP Address: 135.0.52.162 135.0.52.162 Page 1: On-line Survey Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 14 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 15 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? Increased focus on public transit to provide solutions to commuters into Ottawa that do not require the use of a car. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Connections with public transit in Ottawa were completely brushed over. Significant investment is going to be required to be put in to make public transit a better option for travelling into Ottawa. As it is said in the TMP there are a lot of commuters and there are very few options other than driving for them. Furthermore, there is no mention of improving the advertising and public knowledge of existing services. If the public are unaware of a services existence they cannot use it. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? The roadways for cars are excessively large, on arterial streets there is already enough traffic. Increasing lanes will cause drivers to drive faster and make those roads even more unsafe for the local residents for the sake of saving a minute on someone's morning commute. This is clearly unacceptable. Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? I really like the ideas proposed about the large increases in the MUP network but I am concerned about street crossings. If active transportation is not given sufficient signal priority and protected intersections, then those who choose to use active transportation will still feel unsafe. Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Painted bike lanes are terrible so making sure that cars are fully separated with a barrier from cyclists and pedestrians is crucial and should be considered on every roadway possible. #8 #8 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Saturday, June 19, 2021 9:59:57 PM Saturday, June 19, 2021 9:59:57 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Saturday, June 19, 2021 10:21:16 PM Saturday, June 19, 2021 10:21:16 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:21:19 00:21:19 IP Address: IP Address: 174.112.43.36 174.112.43.36 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 16 / 26 Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Overall I like the plan, but transit needs to be a bigger priority and so should the densification of other areas. If more areas of town had similar density to downtown, or downtown were to be expanded with the elimination of massive parking lots, the town would be a safer place for all, and would work to achieve the goals of the TMP. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 17 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes - I would add in improved accessibility into town from the county and townships: bike paths, hiking trails, park and bike etc... Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes: Take a deeper dive into to affordable and accessible transit. Shuttles, mini bus routes, better transportation around the county - think shuttles from Almonte to CP to Perth Also like to see something done to remove bottle neck at Hwy 7 and Hwy 15 Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes bring in the townships and county Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Let's remember to not over complicate and not over accommodate use of cars Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Respondent skipped this question #9 #9 INCOMPLETE INCOMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Monday, June 21, 2021 11:36:48 PM Monday, June 21, 2021 11:36:48 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Monday, June 21, 2021 11:41:14 PM Monday, June 21, 2021 11:41:14 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:04:26 00:04:26 IP Address: IP Address: 174.95.10.102 174.95.10.102 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 18 / 26 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Respondent skipped this question Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 19 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? There is a miss for intersection monitoring. There really should be consideration for a 4-way stop at Mississippi and Morris. This intersection is very dangerous. We have had many close calls for a serious collision when attempting to cross Mississippi. The line of sight is clipped due to the curve on the street. Vehicles approaching from the highway are moving fast. Morris street now opens up access to both neighborhoods and as a result has increased the volume of traffic. Consider being proactive and putting a 4-way stop in place before there is a pedestrian or vehicle tragedy. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes. See notes above about a 4-way stop at Morris and Mississippi Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes the plan sounds positive Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes I agree with the plan Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? I like the proposal #10 #10 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Thursday, July 01, 2021 1:13:12 PM Thursday, July 01, 2021 1:13:12 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Thursday, July 01, 2021 1:23:44 PM Thursday, July 01, 2021 1:23:44 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:10:31 00:10:31 IP Address: IP Address: 174.95.11.16 174.95.11.16 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 20 / 26 Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? The material is very detailed and speaks to many of the challenges that the town is currently or will be dealing with. The quality of the presentation is wonderful Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 21 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? I am in complete disagreement with proposed Aklan Island trail. I have many concerns including; destruction of the natural environment due to misuse and overuse, loss of ecological features, wetland destruction, species (birds, otters, small mammals, reptiles, turtles etc..) habitat destruction, fire, vandalism, partying, safety, unlawful camping, size/width of the trail, encroachment of existing homeowners, security, maintenance, garbage collection, shoreline erosion, flooding and more. All of these items are already happening and evident on the Riverwalk system already in place on the existing trail on the opposing shoreline. Trail users are not staying on the path (widening from 8ft to 28 ft in some places), creating camping areas, and destroying parts of the shoreline. The entire Island donated to the town with the intent of being a nature preserve. There are very few remaining untouched parcels of land in the town's official plan. There is absolutely no need to increase the amount of boardwalk along the river, when the existing system is not being properly used of maintained. There is too many people "trimming trees" off the path with leads to all sorts of problems. Arklan Island is rich with wildlife including endangered species, not to mention an entire family of river otters whose numbers range anywhere between 5-8 in the last 13 years that I cam aware of. This topic has countlessly been brought to council in previous decades and it was agreed that the town would leave the island "as is". Countless homeowners from CP and Beckwith Township in the past have gone to meeting after meeting with previous councils, to stop the development of an unnecessary trail system on the Arklan Island. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? Removal of additional trail system on Arklan Island. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? Respondent skipped this question Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? "Transportation" Arklan Island is not transportation, it;s unnecessary access to an environmental oasis of local and endangered species habitats and species at risk. Bald Eagle, Herons, Egrets, Butternut tree, snapping turtles and others, salamanders, and many many species of birds. #11 #11 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Monday, July 05, 2021 10:22:07 PM Monday, July 05, 2021 10:22:07 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Monday, July 05, 2021 11:02:42 PM Monday, July 05, 2021 11:02:42 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:40:35 00:40:35 IP Address: IP Address: 174.112.210.128 174.112.210.128 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 22 / 26 Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? N/A Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Wondering the purpose of the Arklan Island Trail? And if this "purpose" is not already full filled with the existing system on the other side of the river. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 23 / 26 Q1 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives? Is there anything you would add or change? In general the draft vision and objectives are excellent. The only thing I would consider expanding is Item 2 to mention the role of transportation on emissisons and climate change. This is almost already pointed out in that item but it could be a bit more explicit. Q2 Do you agree with the transportation issues identified? Is there anything you would add or change? I broadly agree with the the issues identified. I have a different take on Network Gaps (for the pedestrian and cycling networks) that I will expand on in the AT section. Noise pollution: One concern I have is of noise pollution along Highway 7. In particular, I believe that Highway 7, even with the planned infrastructure improvements (eg. sidewalks) may remain unwalkable due to the high levels of road noise and the numerous dangerous vehicle-pedestrian conflict points as vehicles turn in to the shops along the road. Since I'm not sure whether it is feasible to actually fix these problems, I suggest that high-quality pedestrian access is instead provided from the to-be-built streets parallel to 7 (Highway 7 North Commerial, Cpt A. Roy Brown). Please see my "attached" map for rough examples of this idea. Traffic calming: Often it seems that complaints about speeding are dealt with in temporary, half-hearted ways (eg. temporary radar, or requests to "please drive slowly"). Instead, appropriate traffic calming measures are a much better tool for sustainably and permanently managing speeding. There is an opportunity here to create a long-term plan for the areas which could benefit from traffic calming. This should ideally include the entire suite of available calming tools and not just speed bumps! #12 #12 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Tuesday, July 06, 2021 10:20:11 AM Tuesday, July 06, 2021 10:20:11 AM Last Modified: Last Modified: Tuesday, July 06, 2021 10:26:05 AM Tuesday, July 06, 2021 10:26:05 AM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:05:54 00:05:54 IP Address: IP Address: 216.154.18.225 216.154.18.225 Page 1: On-line Survey Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 24 / 26 Q3 Do you agree with the draft Street network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? In general this looks like a good set of plans. However, I would like to suggest that item II (widening McNeely from 4 to 6 lanes) be removed from consideration completely. The congestion along this section of McNeely is caused by intersections, not the number of lanes. Increasing the number of lanes would only serve to allow more vehicles to wait at the intersections. I'm specifically talking about both intersections immediately north of Highway 7 on McNeely (Walmart entrance, Independent entrance). As noted in the presentation, McNeely is a "heavy lifter" arterial with high projected traffic volumes - it's inappropriate for a small handful of stores to dominate the use of this important roadway. I propose that redesigning the intersections would be a much better use of resources than increaasing the width of the intersection queue. Some sample solutions: - Turn both intersections into roundabouts - Delete the northern (Walmart) intersection - replace it with an access road off of the to-be-built "Highway 7 North Commercial Street" + a right-turn-only access to/from McNeely. At minimum I suggest that both of these intersections are added to the "Intersection Monitoring" list in order to better understand their impact on the flow of traffic through this area. Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 25 / 26 Q4 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation network strengthening plan? Is there anything you would add or change? I think this network strengthening plan is really excellent. While I think both AT bridges over the Missisippi are excellent ideas, the western bridge would be especially useful at connecting the two halves of town at a very amenity-rich location. Re: Missing streets. I think there could be opportunity to extend the cycling-priority infrastructure deeper though and into the south- western neighbourhoods including Bodnar and all the way to Roy Brown Park. For example, the maps presented in the PIC don't include the MUP to be constucted along Boyd street that could form part of this network. Re: Network gaps There are 3 types of walking path: 1. street-oriented - these are along streets. Basically, sidewalks; 2. recreational - graceful curves and loops, these don't connect destinations - they are destinations. eg. O-Kee-Lee trail; 3. off-street "connectors" - practical, straight walking infrastructure designed to connect areas of town. These can be very short and practical eg. connector from Dulmage Cres to St. Gregory school, or from Napoleon to Elzabeth Streets @ the Anytime Fitness. I would like to see an increase in the number of "connector" paths (item 3). These are always the most desirable places to walk when they exist because they: are dedicated to walking so they are safe; provide a respite from the street; are often the most direct way to get between places. Pedestrians create these paths themselves in the form of "desire paths" - but these are of lower quality and accessibility than proper, sanctioned paths that are maintained by the Town. These paths can also be of the cheaper stone-dust construction - they don't necessarily need to be paved. I believe this kind of path is often overlooked despite its importance and usefulness, and the proposed strengthening map is a good example of that. Only items 7 and 8 (Employment Lands, Findlay Ave) could be considered this kind of path. Please see this map of a large suburban grocery store (Sainsbury's) in Winchester, UK: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.04622/-1.33980 This can be directly compared to the big-box store complexes in Carleton Place. Note all of the walking infrastructure that's present even in this otherwise car-oriented suburban development! This is what walkability looks like, and it is mostly composed of simple "connector" paths. In my opinion this kind of infrastructure needs to be prioritised because it is cheap, practical and fills an existing need. It's particularly important to extend these connections into car- oriented "bix-box" developments to reduce overall traffic caused by them Please find an email "attached" to this survey. I will include a map of the connector paths that I believe could be built in Carleton Place that would contribute significantly to walkability. Q5 Do you agree with the complete streets approach? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes, I think this is an excellent guiding principle! I don't see much reference to additional transit under consideration in the PIC, despite the fact that it was identified as a priority by residents. I believe there may be opportunities to improve transit both within and without the Town and that they should fall under the purview of this Master Plan. Of particular note is the fact that Stage 2 of the Ottawa LRT will be completing in the near future. This could become a possible terminus for an improved bus service from Carleton Place in to Ottawa. Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #1 SurveyMonkey 26 / 26 Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Some of the maps provided in the PIC are of the "current" town (eg. they don't include Coleman Central or the Bodnar Subdivision) while others are the "future" town that include these. It is difficult to compare apples-to-apples when the maps keep changing! While I recognize that it's a moving target when things are under active construction, I think future materials like this should pick a standard map (ideally the "future" one in my opinion since this a planning, future-oriented excercise). Additionally, it may be outside the scope of this study, but I would like to suggest the possibility of adding a pedestrian underpass across McNeely at Lake. This would improve safety by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. It would also allow for simpler and more efficient signalling to make the intersection more efficient for vehicles. Of course, this might be completely unfeasible! Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 APPENDIX C2 - PIC #2 NOTES, PRESENTATION AND BOARDS AND SURVEY RESULTS Page 1 of 2 1223 Michael Street North, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 7T2 P: +1 613.738.4160| F: +1 613.739.7105 | www.parsons.com The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre (PIC) #2 Date: Thursday, September 23, 2021 File No.: 477702 Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Location: Zoom Meeting ATTENDEES: Guy Bourgon - Director of Public Works Ron Clarke - Vice President Austin Shih - Senior Transportation Engineer Muna Awatta - Senior Transportation Engineer Sarah Rogers - Planning, Communications Members of the Public approximately 8. Town of Carleton Place Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa Parsons Ottawa MEETING NOTES: Guy Bourgon and the Parsons Team (Austin Shih and Ron Clarke) walked through a presentation that outlined progress to date. The Public Information Centre (PIC) was open to the public and provided an opportunity for the Project Team to receive feedback on the draft plans. An open discussion also took place, whereby the key topics, discussion points, and Q&As have been summarized below. Discussion It was discussed where the demand/desire stemmed from to put a trail system on Arklan Island and concerns what this would mean for the residents on the island with respect to privacy, emergency response and undesirable behaviour (camping, partying). For over 20 years council has heard of the desire by residents to make the island accessible. A survey was conducted in the winter with over 300 respondents regarding the transportation network in CP. A strong theme was people wanting improvements to the active transportation network, this includes such amenities as trails such as the trail system proposed to allow people to access the island. More details of what that trail network would look like would be developed as part of the Town's upcoming Recreation Master Plan (underway). It was discussed that the worst intersection in CP is Bridge and Townline. Traffic volumes in this corridor create a hassle on a daily basis. It is acknowledged that this corner is constrained by existing buildings/homes but what is the plan for making improvements. It is acknowledged that this intersection (county-owned) is very busy and it is constrained by heritage buildings, etc. Opportunities for improvements where possible are being considered but not all can be dealt with in the TMP. It was discussed that the landscaping and winter maintenance of the town's sidewalks could be improved. These concerns are acknowledged, there are forms that can be submitted to the town identifying where landscape trimming is required. Winter clearing of sidewalks is a costly endeavour due to the need for overnight snow removal when sidewalks are plowed. Other factors include narrow or obstructed (hydro poles) which do not allow Town equipment to maintain these sidewalks. As roads are redeveloped, providing an accessible unobstructed sidewalk on one side of the road is top of mind. Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan June 2021 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Accessibility of CP was discussed. Particularly the north-south connectivity was expressed as lacking from the perspective of the user of mobility aids. The existing facilities are disconnected, sloped and generally in a state of disrepair. It was also discussed how wider sidewalks are not necessarily the best way to improve conditions, bumpy facilities make for a very uncomfortable ride for those using mobility aids. Accessibility is intrinsic to the TMP being developed. Contemporary accessibility guidelines are used to develop the plan. the TMP should be able to provide recognition and policy to strengthen the town's position and further accessibility. The lack of north-south connectivity in CP was identified early on in the study as a challenge and the proposed recommendations in the TMP aim to address these challenges. It was discussed that the redeveloped Patterson Crescent sidewalk is problematic. The sidewalks are slanted and difficult to navigate, let alone how difficult it must be using a mobility device. Slopes of sidewalks are dictated by surrounding conditions and constraints. When reviewing new subdivision plans efforts are made to mitigate the slope of sidewalks. It was discussed that the Patterson Cr crossing at McNeely is a concern, particularly with the planned widening of McNeely from 2 to 4 lanes. The TMP team acknowledged this concern has been received from various residents and confirmed the TMP will provide some context and approaches to consider. At the detailed design stage for the McNeely widening, the Town will ensure that these concerns are communicated to the County of Lanark, and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, such as pedestrian refuges. It was discussed that the McNeely and Townline area should be identified as a school zone with reduced speed limits. Existing conditions are not safe enough given the number of families accessing the nearby school. Concerns have been raised regarding this area. When the area is reconstructed, opportunities for improvement will be explored i.e. signage, line painting and generally improving visibility for drivers. There are opportunities to increase the size of the refuge etc. to improve safety in the area. The County continues to work with the town to improve this location. It was discussed if the County would relinquish jurisdiction of Townline and McNeely to the Town. The Town confirmed that this is neither planned nor expected. It was discussed what the basis was for widening McNeely Avenue. The TMP team is working closely with the OP team and the combination of growth projections and population are used to forecast transportation improvements. In consideration of expected growth and population the need to look at potential solutions to accommodate the increased travel demand. The one that provided the most benefit was to widen. The functionality of intersection and level of service will improve and help aid in pedestrians crossing. The project team requested feedback by October 12, 2021 on the material presented The project team encouraged feedback via the website for the project. These notes are assumed to be an accurate reflection of the discussions at the meeting. Error or omissions can be sent to Sarah Rogers ([email protected]) within 5 days of receipt, otherwise assumed final and become part of the project record. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 6:00pm - 8:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 2 Agenda Introduction - Recap - What We Heard Draft Supporting Strategies/Policies - Complete Streets - Road Classifications - Active Transportation and TDM - Transit - Goods Movement and Emerging Tech - Safety and Accessibility - Preliminary Costs for Network Strengthening Plans Group Discussion Next Steps Source: https://www.pinterest.ca/johnston4225/_saved/ (Linda Johnston): Accessed 2021-06-15. Source: Hometown News Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 To Recap 3 - The Town of Carleton Place initiated a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in late 2020. - Working Group Meetings were held:  February 16th, 2021  June 9th, 2021  September 15, 2021 - The first Public Information Centre (PIC) was held June 17, 2021. - Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans. - The primary purpose of this Working Group Meeting is to provide you an opportunity to comment on draft recommendations. - This meeting will focus on TMP supporting strategies, policies, and implementation and costs of the draft Transportation Network Strengthening Plans What is the Purpose of this PIC? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 4 What We Heard - Some of the feedback received after PIC #1 regarding the Transportation Network Strengthening Plans and the TMP overall included:  Support for the Complete Streets approach  Support for strengthening the AT network  Support for the AT Bridge at Centennial Park  Safety concerns - schools and local streets  Need for AT supporting policies  Need for traffic calming measures  Congestion at Hwy 7 intersections  Transit and commuter transport Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 5 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets Draft Official Plan Principles - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing safety needs of vulnerable road users. - Consider All Projects - Every project must consider the needs of all road users. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods that are designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes that support the Complete Street approach. Source: https://www.aprso.org/. Accessed 2021-09-08. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 6 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets Draft Recommendations - Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan - Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets (e.g. Complete Streets Cross-Sections). - Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. - Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). - Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Source: City of Ottawa - MMLOS Guidelines (2015) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 7 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Priority Routes The Cycling Priority Route designations, in the map to the right, identifies the target corridors for enhanced cycling facilities. AT Network Strengthening Plan identifies the type of cycling facility to be introduced based on the Complete Streets Approach. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 8 Shared Use Cycling Lanes Shared use lane markings and signs. Cyclists travel in the same lane with lane markings. Recommended on local streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Multi-use Pathways Cyclists physically separated from vehicles. MUPs are shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Recommended parallel to high volume and high- speed corridors (Arterials & Collectors). Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Facility Types Off-road cycling facilities, specifically Multi-Use Pathways (MUPs) and trails were the preferred type of facilities for accommodating cyclists. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 9 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Local and Collector Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. They may also be applied to new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street Approach. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 10 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Arterial Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. They may also be applied to new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street Approach. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 11 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates Draft Recommendations Expand the Town's Road Classification system (Arterial, Collector and Local) to differentiate between urban residential and commercial contexts. Adopt new road classifications to better reflect the function of the current and future road network as per the image to the right. Jurisdiction Orange - Provincial (Highway) Red - County (Arterial) Blue - Town (Arterial, Collector and Local) Denotes Future NEW Street * All existing local streets will be classified "Residential Local" unless otherwise indicated. Proposed Road Classifications Arterial Commercial Collector Residential Collector Commercial Local ` Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 12 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates (R) denotes rural cross section Red denotes upgrade or downgrade in classification Jurisdiction Name Current Classification Proposed Classification MTO Highway 7 Highway 15 Highway Highway Lanark CP McNeely Ave (County Road 29) Conc 8 (Townline Rd to North Limit) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Lanark Lanark CP CP Townline Rd Captain A Roy Brown Franktown Rd/ Moore St Cavanagh Rd (McNeely to E Town Limit) Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial CP CP CP Bridge St (Lake Ave to Townline Rd), Victoria St, Beckwith St, Mill St (Bridge St to Beckwith St), and Allen St (Bridge St to Victoria St) Lansdowne Ave NEW Commercial St (North of Hwy 7) Collector Local N/A Commercial Collector CP CP Industrial Ave, Bruce Cr, Smythe Rd Bates Dr, Hooper St, Roe St, and Costello Dr NEW Hwy 7 South Commercial Street Local N/A Commercial Local CP CP Lake Ave, Arthur St/Coleman St, Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, High St, Park Ave/Neelin St, Princess St, Bridge St (Townline Rd to Quarry Rd), Albert St/Sussex St, Mill St (Princess St to Rosamond St), and Rosamond St (Mill St to Bell St) Mullett St and Ramsay Conc 7A Collector Local Residential Collector CP CP William St and Rosamond St (Bell St to William St) All remaining local streets Collector Local Residential Local Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 The Active Transportation network will strive to achieve the Town vision of a truly multi-modal transportation system and a connected, healthy, and inclusive community. Draft Recommendations - Designate key cycling corridors as Cycling Priority Routes. - Apply Complete Streets designs on all Cycling Priority Routes. - Prioritize winter maintenance on Cycling Priority Routes. - Review and consider updates to long-term winter maintenance priorities for sidewalks. - Complete sidewalk gaps and consider widening existing sidewalks as part of street reconstruction work. - Review pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety and visibility at locations of concern. - Prioritize additional bicycle parking downtown and at key Town destinations. - Prioritize cycling education programs. - Identify cycling end-user guidelines for larger businesses (e.g. showers and lockers). - Consider enhancements to existing trails as part of the Town's upcoming Recreation Master Plan. - Consider a future ATV/Snowmobile network study. 13 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Active Transportation Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Sources: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/long-range-planning-home/air-quality-planning/transportation-demand-management-tdm.html https://www.anyauto.com.au/the-future-of-personal-transport-a-look/ (Pete Wilson): Accessed 2021-06-15. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to a set of strategies that aim to encourage the use of available infrastructure for walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit, thereby reducing the transportation network's reliance on single-occupant vehicles. Draft Recommendations - Consider the feasibility of establishing a part-time TDM Coordinator role. - Ensure that AT and TDM are key considerations in the development review process. - TDM initiatives that may be considered include: Ridesharing strategies Special events strategies (e.g. providing shuttles and temporary carpool locations away from core areas) Marketing of AT on Town website and social media Promotion of Walk to School Programs 14 Supporting Strategies/Policies: TDM Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Draft Recommendations - Explore opportunities to improve transit service integration in coordination with OC Transpo and private transit operators to enhance commuter travel to the City of Ottawa Advocate for better connections with existing transit service Investigate opportunities to increase commuter transit ridership - Engage Lanark Transportation to: Support expansion of transit service within the County, i.e. Ride the LT. Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities or a subsidized Uber service for key community destinations and special events. - Ensure pedestrian links to transit are provided, meet AODA guidelines, and are prioritized for winter maintenance. 15 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Transit Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 The goal of accessibility is to ensure that the physical environment can be accessed by people of all abilities and is inclusive. The TMP acknowledges the principles within the Vision Zero approach. The Town should consider the following key concepts and measures to help address future safety and accessibility related issues and concerns. Draft Recommendations Accessibility - New and re-construction work on streets or pathways should ensure that facilities meet accessible design standards (i.e. AODA), including minimum sidewalk widths, tactile walking indicators and curb depressions. - Require re-development and new development applicants to demonstrate accessibility of proposed design plans. - Accessibility enhancements such as benches/rest areas and accessible pedestrian signals should be considered as opportunities arise. 16 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: Google © Source: www.participatoryplanning.ca. Accessed 2021-09-07. Source: www.newdesigngroup.ca. Accessed 2021-09-07 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Traffic Calming - The Town Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy should be used to identify when, where and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. - It is recommended that the Town implement traffic calming measures on Cycling Priority Routes for collector and local streets where appropriate.  Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. - The Town should consider roundabouts at all new and retrofit intersections. 17 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: Google © Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Pedestrian Crossing Treatments - Pedestrian crossing reviews should be initiated at problem locations. - OTM Book 15 provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. - It is recommended that the Town implement the Decision Support Tool in OTM Book 15 when considering requests for pedestrian crossings. 18 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: OTM Book 15 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Intersection Traffic Control - Warrants and guidelines for AWSC and traffic signal warrants should be based on provincial guidelines (OTM). - Periodic review of signal timing plans should be completed to ensure sufficient crossing time for pedestrians. Speed Limits, School Zones and Community Safety Zones - Reduced speed limit signs should be considered where the street merits a lower speed limit due to the surrounding land use and local context. - School Zones and Community Safety Zones combine speed limit signs with school or community area signs to indicate that the area requires a reduced speed. 19 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Goods Movement - The need to expand the County Truck Route network has not been identified at this time. - Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. - Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Emerging Technologies Emerging transportation technologies cover a broad range of possibilities, from micromobility (bike share, e-scooters, etc.) to connected and autonomous vehicles. Preparing for changes in technology will enable the Town to dictate implementation of new technology on its own terms. - Continue to explore opportunities to support electrified vehicle infrastructure. - Investigate the feasibility of a bike share program in coordination with the County. - Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand-responsive approaches. 20 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies Source: https://www.cbc.ca/. Accessed 2021-09-08 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 21 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft The TMP recommends modifications to Carleton Place's street network as described in the map and table to the right. Provincial or County corridors/intersections would be shared responsibilities with MTO or the County. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 22 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft - The TMP recommends modifications to the Town's Active Transportation network as described in the table to the right. - Focus on enhancing cycling connections between major destinations, established neighbourhoods and new communities. - Measures include: Filling in sidewalk gaps New MUPs and enhancing existing MUPs along key corridors New recreational trails Two new pedestrian/cycling bridges Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 23 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft - The proposed corridor enhancements are based on new Cycling Priority Route designations and the proposed Complete Streets cross-sections. - The draft AT network is intended to be flexible and may change as the Town's needs grow. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 24 Potential Centennial Park AT Bridge Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 25 Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs Description County Cost Town Cost RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS (20 YEAR PLAN) 1. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Patterson Cr to Townline Rd, includes bridge structure costs and MUPs on both sides $18,390,000 $5,330,000 2. New Commercial Collector North of Highway 7 * Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $0 $6,490,000 3. Townline Rd E * Street rebalancing from Industrial Ave to West of McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $1,435,000 $1,435,000 4. Moore St Corridor optimization from Lake Ave to OVRT. Potentially limit Lansdowne/Moore to right-in right-out only if needed. Requires further study TOTAL $19,825,000 $13,255,000 POTENTIAL LONG-TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 20 YEAR) 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd * Extension from Rathwall St to Cemetery Side Rd - subject to annexation Requires further study 2. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Highway 7 to Cavanagh Rd $2,000,000 $10,250,000 3. Townline Rd E * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from McNeely Ave to the East Town Limit $2,500,000 $400,000 TOTAL $4,500,000 $10,650,000 Street Network Strengthening Plan (SNSP) * Must meet the requirements of a Schedule 'C' project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 26 Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs AT Network Strengthening Plan Note: All MUPs will be 3m width Description Town Cost SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) 1. Hwy 7 / Hwy 15 / Franktown / McNeely Sidewalks Included in Capital Budget Plan 2. Central Bridge & Bridge St Renewal 3. Mill Street / Princess Street Sidewalk 4. Findlay Avenue (MUP on one side from Franktown Rd with new OVRT connection) $230,000 TOTAL $230,000 MEDIUM-TERM (6-10 YEARS) 1. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Townline Rd E to Patterson Cr (Excluding bridge structure costs) Included in SNSP Costs 2. Townline Rd E - MUP on both sides from Industrial Rd to McNeely Ave 3. Commercial Collector North of HWY 7 4. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Patterson Cr to South Town Limit $3,780,000 5. Townline Rd W - MUP on both sides from Joseph St to West Town Limit $970,000 TOTAL $4,750,000 LONG-TERM (11-20 YEARS) 1. New Arklan Island AT Bridge & Trail (New AT bridge) $1,380,000 2. New AT Bridge (Assumed Flora St to Riverside Park Beach Alignment) $8,420,000 TOTAL $9,800,000 LIFE-CYCLE STREET RENEWAL 1. Filling of sidewalk gaps (at time of street renewal) $5,480,000 GRAND TOTAL $20,260,000 Description Town Cost DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd (MUP on south side from HWY 15 to East Town Limit) $900,000 2. Future Employment lands (MUP on one side with new OVRT connection) - Contingent on Dev Application $450,000 TOTAL $1,350,000 LONG-TERM INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS (20+ YEARS) 1a. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 1b. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,680,000 $620,000 2a. Townline Rd: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 2b. Townline Rd: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,340,000 $1,520,000 3a. Lake Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 3b. Lake Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $4,540,000 $2,270,000 4. Gilles Bridge and Mill St. Bridge (Based on Central Bridge ESR Cost Estimate) $1,150,000 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Group Discussion 27 Please use the hand raise button to directly pose a question or comment and/or type it in the chat room. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Group Discussion Questions 28 1. Do the draft recommendations represent the values and aspirations of the community? 2. Will this plan meet the long-term transportation requirements of the municipality? 3. From your perspective, which of the identified transportation projects are the most important? 4. What do you see as barriers to the incremental implementation of the plan over the long term? Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 Next Steps After this PIC, we will: - Review your feedback. - Refine the draft recommendations. - Prepare the draft TMP Report. Upcoming Public Engagement: - A brief online survey will be available on the TMP website after the PIC. - You may also email your questions or comments to the Project Team below. - The comment period for the 2nd PIC will be open until October 12, 2021. Contact the Project Team and receive updates: - Email: [email protected] OR [email protected] - Website: carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php 29 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Public Information Centre #2 Sept 23, 2021 6:00pm - 8:00pm Virtual Meeting The Town of Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 "I am not sure the bridge connecting Joseph St. to John St. is a good plan." "Overall, I like the plan, but transit needs to be a bigger priority and so should densification of other areas." "Address commuter transport to Ottawa to reduce traffic on Highway 7." "A walking bridge over the river near the canoe club should be a priority." "The material is very detailed and speaks to many of the challenges that the Town is currently or will be dealing with." "Let's remember to not over complicate and not over accommodate use of cars." "There should be consideration for a 4-way stop at Mississippi and Morris." "Painted bike lanes are terrible so making sure that cars are fully separated from cyclists and pedestrians is crucial and should be considered on every roadway possible. "Overall, it looks like a good long-term plan for the community." Welcome! The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the Town's blueprint for planning, developing and operating its transportation system over the next 20 years. The TMP will identify policies and infrastructure investments to meet the needs of all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, transit, trucks and general traffic. We appreciate your participation in the second and final Public Information Centre (PIC) for the Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan! Please help shape the future of transportation in Carleton Place by: - Asking us a question - Submitting a comment Event Objectives - Recap the draft network strengthening plans - Share transportation supporting strategies - Share implementation plan with costs What we heard in PIC #1 2 Introduction Transportation Vision "The Town of Carleton Place will strive to create an inclusive and barrier-free multi-modal transportation system. The transportation system will move people and goods safely, sustainably, and efficiently while maintaining the values of a growing, vibrant, heritage-rich and healthy community." Guy Bourgon, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Town of Carleton Place Email: [email protected] Ron Clarke, MCIP, RPP Vice President, Ottawa Parsons Inc. Email: [email protected] For more information on the study and to provide feedback, please visit: https://carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php Contact the Project Managers: Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 3 Study Background Municipal Class EA Process The TMP is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (following "Approach #1") under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class Environmental Assessment process provides a transparent approach to planning and building municipal infrastructure which includes public and stakeholder participation throughout. History The Town of Carleton Place initiated a TMP in late 2020. The initial consultation process began with an Online Community Survey and an Online Interactive Mapping Tool open to the public from January 8, 2021, to February 1, 2021 Working Group Meetings were held: - February 16th, 2021 - June 9th, 2021 The first PIC was held June 17, 2021. Study Timeline Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 4 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Cycling Priority Routes and Facility Types Shared Use Cycling Lanes Shared use lane markings and signs. Cyclists travel in the same lane with lane markings. Recommended on local streets with low traffic volumes and speeds. Multi-use Pathways Cyclists physically separated from vehicles. Multi-use pathways are shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Recommended parallel to high volume and high-speed corridors. ¾ In recognition of the TMP vision, the Town's local context, and input from key stakeholders (including Town staff and the public), off-road cycling facilities, specifically Multi-Use Pathways (MUPs) and trails were the preferred type of facilities for accommodating cyclists. ¾ The Cycling Priority Route designations, in the map below, identifies the target corridors for enhanced cycling facilities. The AT Network Strengthening Plan identifies the type of cycling facility to be introduced based on the Complete Streets Approach. ¾ New MUPs and improvements to existing MUPs were prioritized on the arterial and collector streets, and the designation of shared cycling routes through signage and pavement markings were prioritized on the local streets. T i g y Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 5 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Complete Streets What are Complete Streets? Complete Streets are roads that are designed, operated, and maintained with the needs and safety of all road users in mind. This means that roads account for people who walk, use mobility aids, ride bicycles, take transit, or drive. Need - Plan and design safe and accessible space for all road users. Draft Official Plan Principles All projects must be planned, designed and operated using the Complete Streets approach. - Prioritize the Needs of Vulnerable Road Users - The aim of complete streets is to accommodate all modes, which requires prioritizing vulnerable road user safety. - Consider All Projects - Every project must consider the needs of all road users. - Plan for Neighbourhood Connectivity - Neighbourhoods that are designed with pedestrian/cycling connections between streets and pedestrian/cycling facilities are more supportive of sustainable modes. Draft Complete Streets Cross-Sections The Complete Streets cross-sections prepared for Arterial, Collector and Local Streets must be applied to the Cycling Priority Routes. They may also be applied to new or retrofit streets identified as candidates for the Complete Street Approach. Draft Recommendations - Adopt the Complete Streets policy in the Official Plan - Update design guidelines and standards to include accommodations for all users on all streets (e.g. Complete Streets Cross-Sections). - Review and update maintenance standards to address all modes. - Review traffic operational study policies and procedures to ensure that they explicitly consider the safety of all modes (e.g. upcoming OTM MMLOS Guidelines). - Review pavement marking and signage guidelines and adopt new approaches to enhance the safety of vulnerable users. Shared Dedicated Separated Source: City of Ottawa - Designing Neighbourhood Collector Streets (2019) Source: City of Ottawa - MMLOS Guidelines (2015) Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 6 Complete Streets: Locals and Collectors - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Local and Collector Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 7 Complete Streets: Arterials - Draft The following cross-sections showcase a "Complete Streets Approach" for the design of Arterial Streets in various contexts. These designs should be applied to streets designated as Cycling Priority Routes. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 8 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Proposed Road Classification Updates Need - Review and update the Town's road classification system to reflect existing and future road function. Draft Recommendations - Expand the Town's road classification system to differentiate between urban residential and commercial contexts for Collector and Local streets. - Adopt new road classifications to better reflect the function of the current and future road network as per Table below and image to the right. (R) denotes rural cross section Red denotes upgrade or downgrade in classification Jurisdiction Orange - Provincial (Highway) Red - County (Arterial) Blue - Town (Arterial, Collector and Local) Denotes Future NEW Street * All existing local streets will be classified "Residential Local" unless otherwise indicated. Proposed Road Classifications Arterial Commercial Collector Residential Collector Commercial Local Updates ad nd d ` Jurisdiction Name Current Classification Proposed Classification MTO Highway 7 Highway 15 Highway Highway Lanark CP McNeely Ave (County Road 29) Ramsay Conc 8 (Townline Rd to North Limit) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Arterial (R) Collector (R) Lanark Lanark CP CP Townline Rd Captain A Roy Brown Blvd Franktown Rd/ Moore St Cavanagh Rd (McNeely to E Town Limit) Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial CP CP CP Bridge St (Lake Ave to Townline Rd), Victoria St, Beckwith St, Mill St (Bridge St to Beckwith St), and Allen St (Bridge St to Victoria St) Lansdowne Ave NEW Commercial St (North of Hwy 7) Collector Local N/A Commercial Collector CP CP Industrial Ave, Bruce Cr, Smythe Rd Bates Dr, Hooper St, Roe St, and Costello Dr NEW Hwy 7 South Commercial Street Local N/A Commercial Local CP CP Lake Ave, Arthur St/Coleman St, Mississippi Rd, Napoleon St, High St, Park Ave/Neelin St, Princess St, Bridge St (Townline Rd to Quarry Rd), Albert St/Sussex St, Mill St (Princess St to Rosamond St), and Rosamond St (Mill St to Bell St) Mullett St and Ramsay Conc 7A Collector Local Residential Collector CP CP William St and Rosamond St (Bell St to William St) All remaining local streets Collector Local Residential Local Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 Active Transportation (AT) Needs - Move towards the Town vision of a multi-modal transportation system. - Strive for a connected, healthy, and inclusive community. - Encourage more sustainable modes of travel, i.e. human powered transport. Draft Recommendations - Designate key cycling corridors as Cycling Priority Routes. - Apply Complete Streets designs on all Cycling Priority Routes. - Prioritize winter maintenance on Cycling Priority Routes. - Review and consider updates to long-term winter maintenance priorities for sidewalks. - Complete sidewalk gaps and consider widening existing sidewalks as part of street reconstruction work. - Review pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety and visibility at locations of concern. - Prioritize additional bicycle parking downtown and key Town destinations. - Prioritize cycling education programs. - Identify cycling end-user guidelines for larger businesses (e.g. showers and lockers). - Consider enhancements to existing trails as part of the Town's upcoming Recreation Master Plan. - Consider a future ATV/Snowmobile network study. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) TDM refers to a set of strategies that aim to encourage use of the available infrastructure for walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit. Needs - Reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles. - Improve efficiency of the transportation system. Draft Recommendations - Consider the feasibility of establishing a part-time TDM Coordinator role. - Key TDM initiatives that may be considered include: Ridesharing strategies Special events strategies (e.g. providing shuttles and temporary carpool locations away from core areas) Marketing of AT on Town website and social media Promotion of Walk to School Programs Ensure that AT and TDM are key considerations in the development review process. 9 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Active Transportation and TDM Source: https://www.tn.gov/. Accessed 2021-06-15. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 Introduction Safety and accessibility are arguably the highest priorities for the Town in its role as a road authority. Below are key concepts and measures the Town should consider in addressing safety and accessibility related issues and concerns. Vision Zero The ultimate goal of Vision Zero is to eliminate deaths or serious injuries on roads. Vision Zero is part of Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025 and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Vision. The TMP acknowledges the principles within the Vision Zero approach in the planning and design of the Town's future transportation network. Accessibility The goal of accessibility is to ensure that the physical environment can be accessed by people of all abilities and that everyone is included. - New and re-construction work on streets or pathways should ensure that facilities meet accessible design standards (i.e. AODA), including minimum sidewalk widths, tactile walking indicators and curb depressions. - Require re-development and new development applicants to demonstrate accessibility of proposed design plans. - Accessibility enhancements such as accessible pedestrian signals and benches/rest areas should be considered as opportunities arise. Traffic Calming - The Town Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy should be used to identify when, where and how to implement traffic calming measures at locations of concern. - It is recommended that the Town implement traffic calming measures on Cycling Priority Routes for collector and local streets where appropriate. Potential traffic calming measures include curb extensions, raised medians, flex posts, streetscaping, pavement markings, and signage. - The Town should consider roundabouts at all new and retrofit intersections. 10 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: Google © Source: www.participatoryplanning.ca. Accessed 2021-09-07. Source: www.newdesigngroup.ca Accessed 2021-09-07 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 Draft Recommendations (continued) Intersection Traffic Control - Warrants and guidelines for AWSC and traffic signal warrants should be based on provincial guidelines. - Periodic review of signal timing plans should be completed to ensure sufficient crossing time for pedestrians. Pedestrian Crossing Treatments - Pedestrian crossing reviews should be initiated at problem locations. - OTM Book 15 provides a Decision Support Tool to aid in determining the need for and selection of the appropriate pedestrian crossing control, including PXOs. - It is recommended that the Town implement the Decision Support Tool in OTM Book 15 when considering requests for pedestrian crossings. Speed Limits, School Zones and Community Safety Zones - Reduced speed limit signs should be considered where the street merits a lower speed limit due to the surrounding land use and local context. - School Zones and Community Safety Zones combine speed limit signs with school or community area signs to indicate that the area requires a reduced speed. 11 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Safety and Accessibility Source: OTM Book 15 S Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 Transit Needs - Encourage the use of transit for commuter trips. - Support a growing Town to access amenities and services within the County. Draft Recommendations - Explore opportunities to improve transit service integration in coordination with OC Transpo and private transit operators to enhance commuter travel to the City of Ottawa. Advocate for better connections with existing transit service. Investigate opportunities to increase commuter transit ridership. - Engage Lanark Transportation to: Support expansion of transit service within the County, i.e. Ride the LT. - Explore the feasibility of demand-responsive transit opportunities or a subsidized Uber service for key community destinations and special events. - Ensure pedestrian links to transit are provided, meet AODA guidelines, and are prioritized for winter maintenance. Goods Movement Need - Support local businesses and economic prosperity by accommodating efficient goods movement. Draft Recommendations The majority of heavy truck traffic is on County Roads, beyond the Municipality's jurisdiction. - The need to expand the County Truck Route network has not been identified at this time. If warranted in the future, the Town should work with the County to augment the network. - Consider the needs of freight movement when designing Complete Streets. - Engage with goods movement stakeholders when changes to the road network are being planned. Emerging Technologies Needs - Prepare for changes in transportation technology. - Enable the Town to dictate implementation of new technology on its own terms. Draft Recommendations Emerging technologies cover a broad range of possibilities, from micromobility (bike share, e-scooters, etc.) to connected and autonomous vehicles. They present a complementary approach to TDM strategies that help improve efficiency of the existing system. The Town should: - Continue to explore opportunities to support electrified vehicle infrastructure. - Investigate the feasibility of a bike share program in coordination with the County. - Investigate alternative methods of providing transit service as technology provides more efficient options for demand- responsive approaches. 12 Supporting Strategies/Policies: Other Transpo nspo T Source: https://www.cbc.ca/ Accessed 2021-09-08 Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 13 Long-Term Street Network Strengthening Plan - Draft Needs - The population in Carleton Place is expected to nearly double within the next two decades to over 20k. Draft Recommendations The TMP recommends modifications to Carleton Place's street network as shown on the map to the right, including: - Widening key corridors or sections (Highway 7, McNeely Avenue, Cavanagh Road and Townline Road). Provincial/County corridors would be shared responsibilities with MTO or the County. - Providing new streets to accommodate future development (Captain A Roy Brown and Commercial Street north of Highway 7). - Rebalancing the cross-section of Townline Road to better utilize available corridor space to enhance active transportation facilities. - Capacity improvements or monitoring of various intersections. Recommended Highway 7 intersection modifications or monitoring would be MTO responsibility. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 14 Long-Term AT Network Strengthening Plan - Draft Introduction - The Town's existing infrastructure does not meet resident Active Transportation (AT) demands. Needs - Need to develop cycling connections between major destinations, established neighbourhoods and new communities. - Need to improve sidewalk connectivity by filling in gaps in sidewalk network. Draft Recommendations - Implement the AT Network Strengthening Plan, which includes: Filling in sidewalk gaps New MUPs and enhancing existing MUPs along key corridors New recreational trails Two new pedestrian/cycling bridges - The proposed corridor enhancements are based on the new Cycling Priority Route designations and the proposed Complete Streets cross-sections. - The proposed AT network is intended to be flexible and may change as the Town's needs grow. The facility types at each location will be confirmed during the detailed design of each project. ent Active mmunities. s in ridors e new Complete d may each f each Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 15 Network Implementation Plan - Draft Preliminary Costs Description County Cost Town Cost RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS (20 YEAR PLAN) 1. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from Patterson Cr to Townline Rd, includes bridge structure costs and MUPs on both sides $18,390,000 $5,330,000 2. New Commercial Collector North of Highway 7 * Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $0 $6,490,000 3. Townline Rd E * Street rebalancing from Industrial Ave to West of McNeely Ave, includes MUPs on both sides $1,435,000 $1,435,000 4. Moore St Corridor optimization from Lake Ave to OVRT. Potentially limit Lansdowne/Moore to right-in right-out only if needed. Requires further study TOTAL $19,825,000 $13,255,000 POTENTIAL LONG-TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 20 YEAR) 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd * Extension from Rathwall St to Cemetery Side Rd Requires further study 2. McNeely Avenue * Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Highway 7 to Cavanagh Rd $10,250,000 $2,000,000 3. Townline Rd E * Widening from 2 to 4 lanes from McNeely Ave to East Town Limit $2,500,000 $400,000 TOTAL $12,750,000 $2,400,000 Description Town Cost SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) 1. Hwy 7 / Hwy 15 / Franktown / McNeely Sidewalks Included in Capital Budget Plan 2. Central Bridge & Bridge St Renewal 3. Mill Street / Princess Street Sidewalk 4. Findlay Avenue (MUP on one side from Franktown Rd with new OVRT connection) $230,000 TOTAL $230,000 MEDIUM-TERM (6-10 YEARS) 1. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Townline Rd E to Patterson Cr (not including bridge structure costs) Included in SNSP Costs 2. Townline Rd E - MUP on both sides from Industrial Rd to McNeely Ave 3. Commercial Collector North of Highway 7 4. McNeely Avenue - MUP on both sides from Patterson Cr to South Town Limit $3,780,000 5. Townline Rd W - MUP on both sides from Joseph St to West Town Limit $970,000 TOTAL $4,750,000 LONG-TERM (11-20 YEARS) 1. New Arklan Island AT Bridge & Trail (New AT bridge) $1,380,000 2. New AT Bridge (Assumed Flora St to Riverside Park Beach Alignment) $8,420,000 TOTAL $9,800,000 LIFE-CYCLE STREET RENEWAL 3. Filling of sidewalk gaps (at time of street renewal) $5,480,000 GRAND TOTAL $20,260,000 Street Network Strengthening Plan (SNSP) AT Network Strengthening Plan Description Town Cost DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN 1. Captain A Roy Brown Blvd (MUP on south side from HWY 15 to East Town Limit) $900,000 2. Future Employment lands (MUP on one side with new OVRT connection) - Contingent on Dev Application $450,000 TOTAL $1,350,000 LONG-TERM INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS (20+ YEARS) 1a. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 1b. Coleman St/Cavanagh Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,680,000 $620,000 2a. Townline Rd: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 2b. Townline Rd: Partial (MUP only on one side) $2,340,000 $1,520,000 3a. Lake Ave: Full (MUP on both sides) OR 3b. Lake Ave: Partial (MUP only on one side) $4,540,000 $2,270,000 4. Gilles Bridge and Mill St. Bridge (Based on Central Bridge ESR Cost Estimate) $1,150,000 * Must meet the requirements of a Schedule 'C' project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process. Note: All MUPs will be 3m wide. Note: All MUPs will be 3m wide. Transportation Master Plan 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Information Centre #2 September 23, 2021 16 THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING!! Visit the website to complete an online survey and contact the Project Managers to provide feedback! The comment period for PIC #2 will be open until October 12, 2021. What is next for the TMP? The study team will: Summarize and process input received. Prepare the draft report for Council. 1 2 Closing Guy Bourgon, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Town of Carleton Place Email: [email protected] Ron Clarke, MCIP, RPP Vice President, Ottawa Parsons Inc. Email: [email protected] Website: https://carletonplace.ca/transportation-master-plan.php Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 1 / 9 Q1 Do you agree with the draft Complete Street strategies/policies and Road Classification Updates? Is there anything you would add or change? The streets are so narrow that it is becoming very stressful to drive down most of the downtown core these days. Cyclists, skateboarders, wheelchair users, in-line skaters, joggers, scooters, e-bikes ..... all on streets that are, in my opinion, not meant for anything other than cars. The illustrations depicted in the TMP do not reflect any streets I know of in Carleton Place with the possible exception on Coleman Street. Q2 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation (AT) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? With the streets as narrow as they are now would not the widening of existing sidewalks only serve to exasperate the current issues associated with the narrow streets? - Review pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety and visibility at locations of concern - this is particularly important on the Lake Ave crossing. There is a dire need for proper lighting of this crossing; existing signage obstructs one's view of the trail users as they approach Lake Ave; What happens in the Winter when snow [from the parking lot is piled up at that end of the lot [creating even more of an obstruction. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Safety and Accessibility strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? When new subdivisions are built instead of going with the MINIMUM widths for streets, why are they not built wider so as to allow for safe parking [at least on one side of the street] ... current practices seem to accept the Status Quo when looking a street widths. More families moving into town with young children who will be drawn to play in the streets will only increase the potential for accidents on such narrow streets....... Existing Pedestrian crossings leave much to be desired - tit should be made MANDITORY to stop for pedestrians, no parking should be allowed within a couple car lengths of the crossing [as it is difficult to see when there are people who want to use the crossing until they are actually in the process of crossing]... #1 #1 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:44:18 PM Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:44:18 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:28:33 PM Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:28:33 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:44:14 00:44:14 IP Address: IP Address: 76.67.36.159 76.67.36.159 Page 1: Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 2 / 9 Q4 Do you agree with the draft Transit, Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? One thing our town and county needs is a good transportation network not just for commuters into Ottawa but for those citizens wishing to make a day trip to other parts of the county. Q5 Do you agree with the potential Centennial Park AT Bridge location and phasing of AT projects? Is there anything you would change? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? When discussing Accessibility and new development projects emphasis should / must be made to include affordable senior housing and housing for those of low income. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 3 / 9 Q1 Do you agree with the draft Complete Street strategies/policies and Road Classification Updates? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes, agree. Q2 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation (AT) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Include an AT network along highway 7 between Townline and McNeely. Q3 Do you agree with the draft Safety and Accessibility strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Include removing sidewalk obstructions (I.e., signs, branches/bushes) to increase accessibility. Q4 Do you agree with the draft Transit, Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Yes, agree. Q5 Do you agree with the potential Centennial Park AT Bridge location and phasing of AT projects? Is there anything you would change? No. You should not add a bridge from Joseph street to John St. There are already 3 other bridge crossings. An additional one is not necessary and will interrupt other activities the community offers such as boating and swimming, as well as negatively impacting wildlife. #2 #2 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:11:59 PM Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:11:59 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:29:18 PM Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:29:18 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:17:19 00:17:19 IP Address: IP Address: 72.140.183.3 72.140.183.3 Page 1: Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 4 / 9 Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? I feel that this survey and the Transportation plan are not easily accessible to the majority of residents in Carleton Place. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 5 / 9 Q1 Do you agree with the draft Complete Street strategies/policies and Road Classification Updates? Is there anything you would add or change? Complete Streets is a welcome concept that moves us away from our current vehicle focus. In moving in this direction, please ensure traffic signals give pedestrians enough time to cross intersections (currently an issue on McNeely). In terms of Road Classification changes, the Mill Street proposals can be safe and can accommodate increased AT, but only if improved traffic calming measures are put in place to ensure an effective transition from "Commercial Collector" to "Residential Local Street" at the corner of Mill & Beckwith. Q2 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation (AT) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Motorized vehicles like ATVs & snowmobiles should not share paths/spaces with AT uses. There are several places along the Town's portion of the OVRT where the two usages currently share space (eg: near street crossings). These should be reworked to separate ATVs/snowmobiles from AT users. Also, where ATVs/snowmobiles and AT paths are in close proximity, barriers should be provided. (Note: We have already had one serious accident along this path.) Q3 Do you agree with the draft Safety and Accessibility strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Eliminate "courtesy" crosswalks. (For safety reasons, either they're a crosswalk, or they're not.) Give serious consideration to implementing and enforcing a policy of no ATVs/snowmobiles on town streets and AT paths. Give serious consideration to creating an ATV/snowmobile bypass around the town for safety reasons. In addition to the currently listed traffic calming measures, serious consideration should be given to the following additional, proven traffic calming measures for the limited number of streets where we need to limit both the amount and the speed of traffic (eg: Mill St): peninsulas that narrow the street, (particularly at transition points), all-way stops at all corners, and strategically placed speed bumps. #3 #3 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Friday, October 08, 2021 5:01:20 PM Friday, October 08, 2021 5:01:20 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Friday, October 08, 2021 5:12:13 PM Friday, October 08, 2021 5:12:13 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 00:10:53 00:10:53 IP Address: IP Address: 174.113.3.50 174.113.3.50 Page 1: Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 6 / 9 Q4 Do you agree with the draft Transit, Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? Consider limiting truck traffic on Bridge Street and the central bridge to "local truck traffic/deliveries only" by requiring "through" truck traffic to take McNeely or Townline (via #7). This would reduce heavy noise and traffic on a revitalized Bridge Street and make it more appealing to shoppers & visitors. Consider a user-pay shuttle bus that circulates around the town on a set schedule. Meaford Ontario, which is about the same size as us, offers this service to its residents/seniors. It could connect residential neighbourhoods with the various shopping areas and benefit businesses as well. Extending the sidewalk on the south side of Mill Street between Judson and Princess is a good plan but Mill Street also needs a comprehensive plan that takes several factors into account: 1) the transition from a "Commercial Collector" to a "Residential Local Street" at Beckwith; 2) the narrowing of the street just east of this transition point; 3) the ongoing need for on-street parking; 4) significant residential development on McArthur Island, the Public Works yard and 84 Mill Street; and 5) increased AT on Mill Street, linking with the OVRT. To address this complex set of needs, please give serious consideration to: 1) a peninsula on the SE corner of Mill & Beckwith, where Mill transitions from collector to local; 2) closing the Mill Street underpass to vehicle traffic to allow safe AT travel through this narrow/blind passageway; 3) adding "all-way" stops at Mill/Judson as well as Mill/Beckwith; 4) adding speed bumps or rumble strips across Mill Street just east of Beckwith and half a block east & west of Judson; and 5) with the above traffic calming measures in place, make Mill Street one-way (eastbound) between Beckwith and Judson. Q5 Do you agree with the potential Centennial Park AT Bridge location and phasing of AT projects? Is there anything you would change? The proposed new AT bridge would be a great addition to the town and the location & timing looks to be reasonable. Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? Thanks for the opportunity to input and make suggestions to what appears to be a reasonable and comprehensive plan. Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 7 / 9 Q1 Do you agree with the draft Complete Street strategies/policies and Road Classification Updates? Is there anything you would add or change? This is excellent! I have concerns about the effectiveness of "specialized treatment" cycling infrastructure. I understand that these recommendations are meant to be flexible and can evolve over time. I'd like to suggest that some of the painted infrastructure be converted to dedicated infrastructure in the future if there are safety concerns. It's also worth noting that some of the other recommendations in this Plan suggest that the Cycling Priority routes should be given special treatment regarding traffic calming and complete streets. One way of achieving all of this is to simply give these routes dedicated cycling facilities even though they might otherwise appear to be unnecessary. In short, dedicated cycling facilities would kill many birds with one stone: improved cycling, traffic calming and a Complete Street. Q2 Do you agree with the draft Active Transportation (AT) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? 1. Recreational trails and sidewalks/MUPs are two sides of the same coin. AT users will potentially use both as part of a single trip. I think this Plan could do more to acknowledge this, and to strive to integrate the two types of infrastructure (recreational, practical) into one cohesive network. 2. I think some of the sidewalk improvements are more urgent than others and could stand to be prioritized before its associated street needs reconstruction. For example, there are some short gaps on otherwise intact streets, which may take decades before reconstruction is required (eg. 100m on the south side of Cavanagh Road between McNeely, Hooper; and the 75m at the end of John). #4 #4 COMPLETE COMPLETE Collector: Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link) (Web Link) Started: Started: Sunday, October 10, 2021 2:07:45 PM Sunday, October 10, 2021 2:07:45 PM Last Modified: Last Modified: Sunday, October 10, 2021 8:47:53 PM Sunday, October 10, 2021 8:47:53 PM Time Spent: Time Spent: 06:40:07 06:40:07 IP Address: IP Address: 167.88.23.45 167.88.23.45 Page 1: Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 8 / 9 Q3 Do you agree with the draft Safety and Accessibility strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? This is a really excellent improvement. My one comment is that it's unclear to me what the Town Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy is. Traffic calming is the most reliable solution to speeding. When the Town receives complaints about speeding, this should be considered a failure of its traffic calming efforts - not of its police force. I very much support traffic calming solutions applied to Cycling Priority streets. But I want to ensure that some policy (either this Plan or the aforementioned Speed Management and Traffic Calming policy) acknowledges its usefulness as a safety tool in other areas as well (school zones, residential collectors and even commercial collectors with heavy residential presence). Q4 Do you agree with the draft Transit, Goods Movement and Emerging Technologies strategies/policies? Is there anything you would add or change? These are excellent policies! I especially like the enhancement to transit suggested in these policies. In addition to commuter transit, I think it would be beneficial to pilot a basic intra-Town system, with a focus on: seniors, youth and low-income earners. Carleton Place is compact enough that even a traditional fixed-route transit system could viably connect the vast majority of the Town at a reasonable cost. I'd support further investigation into any kind of transit system for the town (demand- responsive or traditional) and I believe it would do a lot to complement our goals of AT, affordability and inclusiveness. Q5 Do you agree with the potential Centennial Park AT Bridge location and phasing of AT projects? Is there anything you would change? It's not clear to me what the intended phasing of AT projects is. Maybe I missed it. I mentioned above that some sidewalk gaps (particularly short, "last 10m" gaps) seem more urgent and achievable than others and in my view should be prioritized. I think the newly proposed alignment of the Centennial Park AT bridge (to Flora) is definitely preferable to the originally proposed alignment. I'm very much in favour of this bridge but there are many challenges that will need to be addressed. It needs to be high enough to allow boat traffic (to eg. the Town dock) but not so high that it's difficult to actually use. And it needs to be aesthetically pleasing due to its prominent location on the river. Q6 Do you have any other comments on the PIC materials provided? For the record I definitely support the proposed AT Bridge and trail system to Arklan Island. Some of my comments from PIC #1 weren't meaningfully addressed, and therefore still apply to this one. (Not that I expect them to - just pointing out that they still apply). The main comments were, briefly: that improving/removing the existing intersections on McNeely would be preferable to widening it to 6 lanes; that off-street "connector" paths are an excellent way of improving AT connectivity. Besides this, I'd like to say that this is really an excellent plan that I very much support. Thanks! Carleton Place Transportation Master Plan Public Information Center #2 SurveyMonkey 9 / 9 Q7 If you would like to be added to the stakeholder list to be kept up to date on the project, please provide your name and email below. (optional) Name Email Address Page 2 Appendix D: Notifications insideottawavalley.com Carleton Place/Almonte Canadian Gazette | Thursday, December 24, 2020 | 4 Municipal Matters December 24th, 2020 NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT The Town of Carleton Place has initiated a study process that will result in the municipality's first Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP will guide transportation infrastructure improvementsoverthenexttwodecades,andidentifypolicies,guidelines,andrecommendations to meet the needs of all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, transit and cars. This plan will also provide the unique opportunity for proactive thinking, anticipating community needs, and preparing for emerging trends in transportation solutions, such as complete streets and a system that is inclusive and accessible to a broad spectrum of our society. The process will conform with the provisions for Master Plans (Phases 1 & 2) in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2001, 2011 & 2015) by the Municipal Engineers Association. This process will include consultation with the public and stakeholders, consideration of reasonable alternative solutions, a high-level assessment of the effects on the environment at the network level, evaluation of alternatives, and documentation of the process that results in a recommended plan. It is anticipated that the study will be completed by the end of 2021. HOw TO gET INvOlvED? Variousopportunitiesforpublicinvolvementwillbeprovided,andpublicinputwillbewelcomed throughout the study process. Public Information Centers will be held during the study to solicit your feedback regarding key issues, solutions, and recommendations. In addition, an online survey will be launched on the Town's website to gain a better understanding of your mobility needs. Future notices to announce public information events as well as online surveys will be published in the Town's news bulletins and social media feeds, and the Town's website at www.carletonplace.ca. wE lOOk FOrwarD TO HEarINg FrOM YOU ON THIS IMpOrTaNT prOjECT FOr CarlETON plaCE! Visit the Town website or you may contact the study's Project Managers: Guy Bourgon, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Town of Carleton Place Tel: 613-257-6209 Email: [email protected] Ron Clarke, MCIP, RPP Vice President, Ottawa Parsons Inc. Tel: 613-691-1526 Email: [email protected] With Earle stepping down in 2019, and considering the demand, "I felt the din- ner needed to continue," Vantijswijk ex- plained. "Christmas is a season for fami- ly, friends and getting together." There will be three sittings on Christ- mas Day: 12 p.m., 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. Only 50 people are permitted per sitting. Pick- up and delivery is also available, run- ning from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. "The pub is already set up for physi- cal distancing," Vantijswijk noted. "Masks are required to enter and exit or to use any of the public facilities inside." Masks can be removed when people are seated. "We are asking people to make a res- ervation for eat-in, pick up or delivery," Vantijswijk said. "They can call 613-816- 6275, and we are already taking calls." There will be entertainment, but San- ta Claus is not able to attend, resting up after a busy night and trying to keep himself healthy. Once again, Bud's Taxi is offering complimentary transportation within town to and from the community din- ner. People can call 613- 257-5911. As mentioned above, there is no charge to attend the Christmas commu- nity dinner. "We are fortunate to be working with some amazing people and businesses to make this event happen," Vantijswijk stressed. "We have funds (leftover) from last year, but we have no presents or hats and mitts yet." ALMONTE DINNER Over in Almonte, registration closed Dec. 18 for St. Paul Anglican Church's annual Community Christmas Dinner. This year, St. Paul's has banded togeth- er with Carebridge Community Sup- port, the Almonte Lions Club, Stone- bridge Haven and Omar Rajab of Paken- ham's Centennial Restaurant to offer approximately 75 takeout meals to resi- dents. Contactless pickup will take place at the Almonte church (62 Clyde Street) to- day between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. "We're all joining our hands to look after our neighbours," noted Deane Zee- man, a member of the office administra- tion team at St. Paul's. "We're building on each other's skills and networks to make this happen." -- With files from Ashley Kulp EVENTS Continued from page 1 COMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER FOR THOSE IN NEED SUPPORTING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION Appendix B1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure B1-1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 20(35) 344(869) 588(489) 52(36) 23(64) 17(20) 127(144) 111(170) 3(4) 0(0) 135(127) 15(15) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 133(374) 422(881) 59(187) 94(151) 629(596) 159(249) 115(310) 80(188) 279(223) 87(202) 108(113) 98(213) 23(67) 15(26) 0(0) 0(0) 15(26) 108(319) 53(89) 35(111) 159(281) 106(65) 0(0) 0(0) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 75(49) 475(484) 57(158) 275(753) 3(15) 81(89) 34(90) 86(153) 36(72) 79(108) 77(141) 49(31) 76(40) 176(280) 42(48) 233(334) 45(69) 79(125) 79(180) 41(142) 25(64) 118(159) 66(52) 53(96) 49(76) 511(491) 125(91) 316(595) 28(45) 74(274) 26(57) 34(81) 57(80) 110(132) 33(49) 24(41) 52(63) 471(465) 25(44) 304(585) 32(54) 97(185) 129(179) 206(278) 232(198) 123(137) 183(318) 164(278) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 8(10) 401(385) 17(13) 248(495) 19(37) 6(6) 38(78) 61(104) 49(77) 60(105) 97(93) 60(54) 76(60) 195(248) 40(42) 198(306) 56(63) 61(60) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 14(65) 155(203) 72(121) 95(88) 226(132) 9(6) 9(6) 66(70) 37(29) 45(89) 71(96) 93(99) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 53(33) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 18(56) 18(56) 53(33) 0(0) 0(0) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 100(106) 203(317) 246(333) 17(22) 4(9) 17(18) 11(9) 322(361) 266(437) 14(15) 33(126) 277(692) 33(138) 16(36) 426(422) 16(22) 19(31) 8(25) 75(51) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 35(49) 115(174) 5(11) 1(14) 153(165) 34(17) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 94(199) 4(8) 28(49) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(2) 431(426) 122(138) 284(683) 32(80) 3(16) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 76(172) 488(490) 306(526) 38(163) 154(325) 336(707) 279(456) 45(21) 454(417) 30(23) 9(39) 99(240) 145(178) 187(195) 342(385) 29(66) ST O P Smart Centres Traffic Summary Station # - HF36NTAV, Cr 7b 007900 Hwy. #7 to PIN #267 (Miss. Mills Bndry). Located by Dulmage Cres intersection at 60Km posted sign. Date - Tuesday, October 01, 2019 to Friday, October 04, 2019 (3 days of data) Volume Total Weekday Weekend ADT AWDT AWET Combined 11378 11378 0 3793 3793 0 North 5732 5732 0 1911 1911 0 South 5646 5646 0 1882 1882 0 Days 3 3 - 3 3 - Speed All Days Weekdays Weekend Mean speed 64.4 64.4 - km/h Median speed 64.8 64.8 - km/h 85% speed 74.2 74.2 - km/h PSL = 60 km/h Class Class (Scheme F3) All Days % Weekdays Weekend 1 - CYCLE 21 0.2% 21 0 2 - PC 7552 66.4% 7552 0 3 - 2A-4T 2870 25.2% 2870 0 4 - BUS 285 2.5% 285 0 5 - 2A-6T 400 3.5% 400 0 6 - 3A-SU 96 0.8% 96 0 7 - 4A-SU 7 0.1% 7 0 8 - <5A DBL 4 0.0% 4 0 9 - 5A DBL 48 0.4% 48 0 10 - >6A DBL 83 0.7% 83 0 11 - <6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 12 - 6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 13 - >6A MULTI 12 0.1% 12 0 Average Daily Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun North 0 1906 1881 1945 0 0 0 South 0 1852 1912 1882 0 0 0 Combined 0 3758 3793 3827 0 0 0 AM Pk North - 123 118 117 - - - PM Pk North - 220 220 224 - - - AM Pk South - 210 212 189 - - - PM Pk South - 160 177 160 - - - Days - 1 1 1 - - - Report created 15:04 Thursday, October 10, 2019 using MTE version 4.0.6.0 Lanark County 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth Ontario K7H 3C6 Tel: 613 267 1353 Fax: 613 267 2793 Traffic Summary Station # - HG46Z0J5, Cr 7b 007912 PIN #267 (Miss. Mills Bndry) to Bridge St. Located just west of Moffatt St. at 99 Townline Rd West Date - Tuesday, October 01, 2019 to Friday, October 04, 2019 (3 days of data) Volume Total Weekday Weekend ADT AWDT AWET Combined 19603 19603 0 6534 6534 0 North 9853 9853 0 3284 3284 0 South 9750 9750 0 3250 3250 0 Days 3 3 - 3 3 - Speed All Days Weekdays Weekend Mean speed 47.1 47.1 - km/h Median speed 46.8 46.8 - km/h 85% speed 54.0 54.0 - km/h PSL = 60 km/h Class Class (Scheme F3) All Days % Weekdays Weekend 1 - CYCLE 56 0.3% 56 0 2 - PC 15428 78.7% 15428 0 3 - 2A-4T 3261 16.6% 3261 0 4 - BUS 272 1.4% 272 0 5 - 2A-6T 231 1.2% 231 0 6 - 3A-SU 204 1.0% 204 0 7 - 4A-SU 55 0.3% 55 0 8 - <5A DBL 1 0.0% 1 0 9 - 5A DBL 43 0.2% 43 0 10 - >6A DBL 38 0.2% 38 0 11 - <6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 12 - 6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 13 - >6A MULTI 14 0.1% 14 0 Average Daily Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun North 0 3167 3298 3388 0 0 0 South 0 3173 3270 3307 0 0 0 Combined 0 6340 6568 6695 0 0 0 AM Pk North - 196 207 200 - - - PM Pk North - 364 371 363 - - - AM Pk South - 310 284 278 - - - PM Pk South - 241 285 282 - - - Days - 1 1 1 - - - Report created 15:05 Thursday, October 10, 2019 using MTE version 4.0.6.0 Lanark County 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth Ontario K7H 3C6 Tel: 613 267 1353 Fax: 613 267 2793 Traffic Summary Station # - FP771PAC, Cr 7B 007921 Bridge Street to McNeely Ave. (Co. Rd. #29. Located at 106 Townline Rd East at 40km begins posted sign Date - Tuesday, October 01, 2019 to Friday, October 04, 2019 (3 days of data) Volume Total Weekday Weekend ADT AWDT AWET Combined 23636 23636 0 7879 7879 0 North 11739 11739 0 3913 3913 0 South 11897 11897 0 3966 3966 0 Days 3 3 - 3 3 - Speed All Days Weekdays Weekend Mean speed 51.6 51.6 - km/h Median speed 51.5 51.5 - km/h 85% speed 58.3 58.3 - km/h PSL = 60 km/h Class Class (Scheme F3) All Days % Weekdays Weekend 1 - CYCLE 55 0.2% 55 0 2 - PC 18087 76.5% 18087 0 3 - 2A-4T 4296 18.2% 4296 0 4 - BUS 292 1.2% 292 0 5 - 2A-6T 464 2.0% 464 0 6 - 3A-SU 258 1.1% 258 0 7 - 4A-SU 59 0.2% 59 0 8 - <5A DBL 5 0.0% 5 0 9 - 5A DBL 57 0.2% 57 0 10 - >6A DBL 45 0.2% 45 0 11 - <6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 12 - 6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 13 - >6A MULTI 18 0.1% 18 0 Average Daily Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun North 0 3798 3954 3987 0 0 0 South 0 3862 3988 4047 0 0 0 Combined 0 7660 7942 8034 0 0 0 AM Pk North - 233 259 258 - - - PM Pk North - 477 528 532 - - - AM Pk South - 350 329 330 - - - PM Pk South - 286 283 298 - - - Days - 1 1 1 - - - Report created 15:01 Thursday, October 10, 2019 using MTE version 4.0.6.0 Lanark County 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth Ontario K7H 3C6 Tel: 613 267 1353 Fax: 613 267 2793 Traffic Summary Station # - HG518ZVN, Cr 29 029000 Hwy 7 to Lake Ave. Located in front of Bean Chevrolet, Buick car dealership at 60Km posted sign Date -September 22, 2020 to September 25, 2020 (3 days of data) Volume Total Weekday Weekend ADT AWDT AWET Combined 41395 41395 0 13798 13798 0 North 19886 19886 0 6629 6629 0 South 21509 21509 0 7170 7170 0 Days 3 3 - 3 3 - Speed All Days Weekdays Weekend Mean speed 64.6 64.6 - km/h Median speed 64.4 64.4 - km/h 85% speed 72.7 72.7 - km/h PSL = 60 km/h Class Class (Scheme F3) All Days % Weekdays Weekend 1 - CYCLE 217 0.5% 217 0 2 - PC 30021 72.5% 30021 0 3 - 2A-4T 8681 21.0% 8681 0 4 - BUS 361 0.9% 361 0 5 - 2A-6T 1389 3.4% 1389 0 6 - 3A-SU 413 1.0% 413 0 7 - 4A-SU 43 0.1% 43 0 8 - <5A DBL 6 0.0% 6 0 9 - 5A DBL 112 0.3% 112 0 10 - >6A DBL 86 0.2% 86 0 11 - <6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 12 - 6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 13 - >6A MULTI 66 0.2% 66 0 Average Daily Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun North 0 6522 6599 6765 0 0 0 South 0 7026 7110 7373 0 0 0 Combined 0 13548 13709 14138 0 0 0 AM Pk North - 476 429 457 - - - PM Pk North - 693 706 645 - - - AM Pk South - 523 512 545 - - - PM Pk South - 607 621 622 - - - Days - 1 1 1 - - - Report created 14:17 September 25, 2020 using MTE version 4.0.6.0 Lanark County 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth Ontario K7H 3C6 Tel: 613 267 1353 Fax: 613 267 2793 Traffic Summary Station # - HF06VC3E, Cr 29 029016 Lake Ave to Town Line Rd. Located by the entrance of WRC 105 McNeely Ave. Date - 0:00 September 22, 2020 to 0:00 September 25, 2020 (3 days of data) Volume Total Weekday Weekend ADT AWDT AWET Combined 33560 33560 0 11187 11187 0 North 16631 16631 0 5544 5544 0 South 16929 16929 0 5643 5643 0 Days 3 3 - 3 3 - Speed All Days Weekdays Weekend Mean speed 66.0 66.0 - km/h Median speed 65.9 65.9 - km/h 85% speed 73.4 73.4 - km/h PSL = 60 km/h Class Class (Scheme F3) All Days % Weekdays Weekend 1 - CYCLE 154 0.5% 154 0 2 - PC 24657 73.5% 24657 0 3 - 2A-4T 6604 19.7% 6604 0 4 - BUS 382 1.1% 382 0 5 - 2A-6T 1064 3.2% 1064 0 6 - 3A-SU 419 1.2% 419 0 7 - 4A-SU 32 0.1% 32 0 8 - <5A DBL 14 0.0% 14 0 9 - 5A DBL 100 0.3% 100 0 10 - >6A DBL 93 0.3% 93 0 11 - <6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 12 - 6A MULTI 0 0.0% 0 0 13 - >6A MULTI 41 0.1% 41 0 Average Daily Volume Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun North 0 5420 5588 5623 0 0 0 South 0 5410 5739 5780 0 0 0 Combined 0 10830 11327 11403 0 0 0 AM Pk North - 370 369 381 - - - PM Pk North - 584 602 591 - - - AM Pk South - 384 415 409 - - - PM Pk South - 467 486 478 - - - Days - 1 1 1 - - - Report created 14:20 September 25, 2020 using MTE version 4.0.6.0 Lanark County 99 Christie Lake Road, Perth Ontario K7H 3C6 Tel: 613 267 1353 Fax: 613 267 2793 Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 2 0 4 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 24 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 0 9 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 6 24 Arthur Street/Coleman Street & Lansdowne Avenue Carleton Place, ON Lansdowne Ave. Tuesday, April 20, 2021 7 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 6 1 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 6 Arthur St. 9 (B) Bicycles comprise Coleman St. 19 24 22 Approaching Intersection 9 (A+B+C+D) 10 (D) 9 Total Bicycle Volume 9 55 0 0.84% of total traffic 13 Total 81 172 Lansdowne Ave. 0 0 0 (C) 12 Southbound Time Period Arthur St. Coleman St. Lansdowne Ave. Lansdowne Ave. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19 pandemic). All schools closed. Drivers appear confused as to the signing at this location as a few treat it as an all-way stop. Some eastbound/westbound drivers slow down while a few come to a complete stop. Some southbound drivers assume it is an all-way stop and complete their turn close to oncoming traffic. All pedestrian crossings on the east side are associated with the pedestrian crosswalk. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 4/22/2021 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 52 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 7 8 0 0 8 16 Totals Southbound Time Period 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1200 1200-1300 1300-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 7 (C) 135 Eastbound Westbound Northbound of total traffic 1 1 (B) 15 Total 12 199 Emily St. N/A Bridge St. Bridge St. Bridge St. 7 8 1 Bicycles comprise 0.31% 2 16 Emily St. Bridge Street & Emily Street Carleton Place, ON Bridge St. Tuesday, 17 November 2020 15 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 8 7 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 8 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Total bicycle volume, all approaches. (A + B + C) Printed on: 2/15/2021 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 0 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 21 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 11 Bridge Street & Townline Road Carleton Place, ON Bridge St. Tuesday, 17 November 2020 5 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 2 3 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 2 Townline Rd. (West) 1 (B) Bicycles comprise Townline Rd. (East) 4 11 7 Approaching Intersection 1 (A+B+C+D) 3 (D) 7 Total Bicycle Volume 7 27 6 0.17% of total traffic 0 Total 20 88 Bridge St. 1 5 1 (C) 20 Southbound Time Period Townline Rd. (West) Townline Rd. (East) Bridge St. Bridge St. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count undertaken during Covid-19 pandemic. Light flurries during portions of the morning time period. A couple of large tractor trailers had difficulty with the turning radius with a westbound left turn driving over the sidewalk and one northbound right turn using the southbound lane on Bridge Street and two westbound lanes to complete the turn. Buses and school buses comprise 47.29% of the heavy vehicle traffic. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 11/27/2020 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 53 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 3 1 1 0 5 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 4 15 Bridge Street/Lake Avenue & Moore Street Carleton Place, ON Bridge St. Tuesday, 17 November 2020 9 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 4 5 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 4 Lake Ave. (West) 5 (B) Bicycles comprise Lake Ave. (East) 10 15 5 Approaching Intersection 5 (A+B+C+D) 5 (D) 4 Total Bicycle Volume 4 63 6 0.19% of total traffic 1 Total 31 246 Moore St. 2 4 2 (C) 99 Southbound Time Period Lake Ave. (West) Lake Ave. (East) Moore St. Bridge St. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count undertaken during Covid-19 pandemic. Light flurries during portions of the morning time period. Occasional back-up southbound primarily during the PM portion of the survey from the traffic signal at Lansdowne; however, the queues cleared very quickly. Buses and school buses comprise 44.57% of the heavy vehicle traffic. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 11/27/2020 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 7 14 Joseph Street & Townline Road (West) Carleton Place, ON Joseph St. Tuesday, 17 November 2020 12 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 7 5 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 7 Townline Rd. (West) 5 (B) Bicycles comprise Townline Rd. (West) 10 14 1 Approaching Intersection 5 (A+B+C+D) 5 (D) 1 Total Bicycle Volume 1 38 5 0.44% of total traffic 0 Total 24 126 Joseph St. 1 4 1 (C) 32 Southbound Time Period Townline Rd. (West) Townline Rd. (West) Joseph St. Joseph St. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count undertaken during Covid-19 pandemic. Light flurries during portions of the morning time period. An adult crossing guard assists pedestrian crossings before and after school. Buses and school buses comprise 53.88% of the heavy vehicle traffic. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 1/16/2021 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 6 0 1 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 9 1 2 2 0 5 18 Lansdowne Avenue & Moore Street Carleton Place, ON Moore St. Tuesday, 17 November 2020 12 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 5 7 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 5 Lansdowne Ave. 4 (B) Bicycles comprise Apt. Bldg. Access 9 18 1 Approaching Intersection 4 (A+B+C+D) 5 (D) 0 Total Bicycle Volume 0 64 14 0.32% of total traffic 1 Total 39 200 Moore St. 9 5 9 (C) 96 Southbound Time Period Lansdowne Ave. Apt. Bldg. Access Moore St. Moore St. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count undertaken during Covid-19 pandemic. Light flurries during portions of the morning time period. Foliage growing on the northwest quadrant obstructs sightlines for southbound right turns and drivers exiting the parking lot on the same quadrant. The traffic signals cycle continuously even when pedestrians or vehicles on Lansdowne Avenue are not present. Accordingly, vehicles on Moore Street are unnecessarily delayed. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 2/15/2021 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Turning Movement Count Bicycle Summary Flow Diagram 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT ST RT UT EB Tot LT ST RT UT WB Tot LT ST RT UT NB Tot LT ST RT UT SB Tot GR Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 McNeely Avenue & Townline Road East Carleton Place, ON Townline Rd. East Tuesday, 24 November 2020 2 0700-1000, 1130-1330 & 1500-1800 (A) 1 1 8 Hour Survey City of Ottawa Ward -N/A 1 N/A 0 (B) Bicycles comprise McNeely Ave. 0 2 2 Approaching Intersection 0 (A+B+C+D) 0 (D) 1 Total Bicycle Volume 1 7 0 0.02% of total traffic 1 Total 3 10 Townline Rd. East 0 0 0 (C) 0 Southbound Time Period N/A McNeely Ave. Townline Rd. East Townline Rd. East Eastbound Westbound Northbound Totals Traffic count conducted during Covid-19 pandemic. The roadway geometry at this intersection changes as Townline Road East is a north-south roadway at this location with McNeely Avenue turning to form an east-west roadway. Buses and school buses comprise 14.84% of the heavy vehicle traffic. Comments: 1700-1800 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 1130-1230 1230-1330 1500-1600 1600-1700 Bicycles (Including electric bicycles and electric scooters) Note: Bicycle volumes are NOT included in vehicle totals. Includes all bicycles travelling on sidewalks. All Pedestrian Crossings Printed on: 11/26/2020 Prepared by: [email protected] Summary: Bicycles Appendix B2 Adjacent Development Traffic Volume Excerpts Figure B2-1: Bodnar Subdivision Plan Figure B2-2: Bodnar Subdivision Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure B2-3: Jackson Ridge Plan Figure B2-4: Jackson Ridge Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure B2-5: Carmichael Farm Phase 1 Plan Figure B2-6: Carmichael Farm Phase 2 Plan Figure B2-7: Coleman Central Plan Figure B2-8: Coleman Central Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure B2-9: Miller's Crossing Plan Figure B2-10: Miller's Crossing Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 1 Figure B2-11: Miller's Crossing Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 2 Appendix B3 Future Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Total Projected 2026 Figure B3-1: Total Projected 2026 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 35(52) 457(1137) 802(663) 56(39) 23(64) 32(38) 127(144) 131(182) 3(4) 0(0) 148(156) 15(15) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 175(518) 458(996) 118(324) 90(127) 739(663) 194(326) 147(378) 109(249) 415(295) 134(261) 213(199) 65(193) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 5(5) 15(26) 108(319) 53(89) 110(265) 159(281) 225(190) 5(5) 5(5) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 75(49) 504(545) 57(158) 322(812) 3(15) 81(89) 77(117) 102(162) 41(75) 80(112) 89(166) 49(31) 76(40) 180(303) 56(98) 256(353) 46(74) 83(128) 97(188) 64(186) 70(118) 158(215) 90(80) 72(122) 53(86) 539(581) 129(104) 389(637) 35(85) 117(324) 26(57) 34(81) 57(80) 112(143) 39(55) 24(41) 52(63) 525(584) 25(44) 397(647) 32(54) 112(194) 129(179) 231(341) 261(254) 123(137) 236(354) 204(305) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 8(10) 455(504) 17(13) 341(557) 19(37) 6(6) 38(78) 61(104) 49(77) 60(105) 97(93) 150(117) 114(154) 213(321) 40(42) 264(352) 56(63) 61(60) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 14(65) 155(203) 82(157) 106(114) 226(132) 9(6) 9(6) 76(92) 37(29) 63(106) 97(116) 128(119) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 85(50) 38(22) 0(0) 11(38) 11(38) 51(56) 40(67) 26(90) 26(90) 85(50) 0(0) 38(22) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 100(106) 221(390) 312(379) 17(22) 4(9) 17(18) 11(9) 378(528) 422(546) 14(15) 84(292) 336(789) 35(148) 17(39) 476(497) 27(53) 47(51) 8(25) 227(145) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 35(49) 150(194) 5(11) 1(14) 164(191) 34(17) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 94(199) 4(8) 28(49) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(2) 491(530) 131(148) 371(800) 34(86) 3(17) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 76(172) 517(551) 353(585) 38(163) 50(30) 0(0) 65(81) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 423(687) 14(50) 528(642) 58(82) 0(0) 156(349) 415(907) 256(435) 85(69) 611(543) 57(50) 18(65) 119(269) 142(169) 225(231) 313(360) 67(113) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2031 Figure B3-2: Total Projected 2031 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 36(54) 506(1226) 867(723) 60(41) 25(70) 34(40) 140(158) 142(199) 3(4) 0(0) 162(169) 17(17) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 185(546) 504(1066) 152(414) 97(136) 790(722) 216(389) 227(483) 150(361) 499(362) 194(291) 293(239) 65(193) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 5(5) 15(26) 108(319) 53(89) 160(410) 159(281) 365(260) 5(5) 5(5) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 98(64) 709(757) 74(205) 465(1107) 4(20) 105(116) 80(126) 111(177) 45(82) 88(123) 97(180) 54(34) 91(48) 268(389) 64(108) 330(473) 55(88) 99(153) 105(206) 68(200) 73(124) 187(249) 97(85) 77(132) 53(86) 588(639) 129(104) 442(693) 35(85) 135(343) 29(63) 37(89) 63(88) 140(174) 42(60) 26(45) 68(82) 697(757) 33(57) 518(858) 42(70) 157(267) 161(224) 297(431) 335(318) 154(171) 306(468) 268(405) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 10(13) 606(653) 22(17) 445(741) 25(48) 8(8) 42(86) 67(114) 54(85) 66(116) 107(102) 156(122) 122(160) 285(377) 44(46) 331(467) 67(76) 73(72) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 18(81) 194(254) 108(194) 141(141) 283(165) 11(8) 10(7) 90(103) 41(32) 70(123) 109(135) 144(138) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 85(50) 38(22) 0(0) 11(38) 11(38) 191(125) 90(212) 26(90) 26(90) 85(50) 0(0) 38(22) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 120(127) 314(483) 389(499) 20(26) 4(9) 17(18) 12(10) 463(595) 478(644) 15(17) 87(302) 380(866) 38(159) 18(41) 528(552) 28(54) 49(54) 9(28) 235(150) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 44(61) 185(246) 6(14) 1(18) 213(237) 43(21) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 118(249) 5(10) 35(61) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(2) 544(585) 140(159) 416(875) 37(92) 3(18) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 99(224) 725(765) 505(812) 49(212) 90(50) 0(0) 85(91) 7(30) 0(0) 28(120) 120(32) 464(758) 28(90) 583(706) 64(102) 30(8) 166(373) 440(959) 336(484) 110(94) 645(574) 60(51) 19(69) 182(325) 156(186) 265(296) 344(438) 93(142) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 1) Figure B3-3: Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 39(60) 592(1426) 1001(850) 68(47) 28(77) 35(42) 152(173) 153(216) 4(5) 0(0) 175(181) 18(18) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 205(602) 600(1192) 177(530) 111(171) 948(797) 260(444) 303(553) 251(601) 573(413) 275(450) 339(348) 95(205) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 4(4) 15(26) 109(320) 47(77) 275(745) 151(264) 521(539) 13(22) 11(17) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 120(78) 961(1048) 91(253) 638(1503) 5(24) 130(142) 84(135) 119(193) 48(89) 96(134) 104(194) 59(37) 106(56) 468(597) 73(117) 454(770) 64(102) 115(178) 113(224) 72(214) 75(131) 226(303) 103(90) 83(141) 53(86) 672(755) 129(104) 517(825) 35(85) 160(387) 31(68) 41(97) 68(96) 178(226) 46(65) 29(49) 83(101) 894(969) 40(70) 655(1118) 51(86) 208(365) 194(269) 375(543) 423(398) 185(206) 385(609) 339(528) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 13(16) 782(841) 27(21) 566(974) 30(59) 10(10) 46(94) 73(125) 59(92) 72(126) 116(112) 162(128) 129(166) 470(554) 48(50) 448(758) 78(88) 85(84) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 21(98) 233(305) 152(258) 198(186) 339(198) 14(9) 11(7) 120(129) 44(35) 83(168) 129(183) 171(189) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 269(155) 112(43) 10(27) 36(51) 29(150) 199(319) 151(417) 33(69) 71(240) 63(56) 18(7) 34(36) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 140(148) 520(698) 515(795) 24(31) 4(9) 17(18) 13(11) 661(784) 582(918) 17(18) 92(321) 456(1039) 43(179) 21(47) 639(669) 31(58) 51(57) 10(30) 242(155) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 53(74) 232(331) 8(17) 2(21) 285(302) 51(26) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 141(299) 6(12) 42(74) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(3) 655(704) 159(179) 493(1047) 42(104) 4(21) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 122(275) 982(1057) 688(1140) 61(261) 189(293) 22(66) 131(194) 17(88) 13(58) 55(273) 249(88) 501(806) 130(284) 623(728) 136(219) 67(32) 205(428) 507(1038) 445(553) 105(154) 771(634) 64(55) 20(73) 362(518) 166(187) 345(538) 408(512) 114(244) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 2) Figure B3-4: Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 39(60) 592(1426) 1001(850) 68(47) 28(77) 35(42) 152(173) 153(216) 4(5) 0(0) 175(181) 18(18) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 205(587) 511(789) 149(307) 111(171) 754(423) 260(444) 303(553) 251(616) 573(398) 275(465) 237(169) 95(205) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 4(4) 15(26) 109(320) 47(77) 247(537) 151(264) 419(375) 13(22) 11(17) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 120(78) 961(1048) 91(253) 638(1503) 5(24) 130(142) 84(135) 119(193) 48(89) 96(134) 104(194) 59(37) 106(56) 468(597) 73(117) 454(770) 64(102) 115(178) 113(224) 72(214) 75(131) 226(303) 103(90) 83(141) 53(86) 672(755) 129(104) 517(825) 35(85) 160(387) 31(68) 41(97) 68(96) 178(226) 46(65) 29(49) 83(101) 894(969) 40(70) 655(1118) 51(86) 208(365) 194(269) 375(543) 423(398) 185(206) 385(609) 339(528) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 13(16) 782(841) 27(21) 566(974) 30(59) 10(10) 46(94) 73(125) 59(92) 72(126) 116(112) 162(128) 129(166) 470(554) 48(50) 448(758) 78(88) 85(84) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 21(98) 233(305) 152(258) 198(186) 339(198) 14(9) 11(7) 120(129) 44(35) 83(168) 129(183) 171(189) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 167(126) 201(581) 10(27) 36(51) 223(559) 199(184) 151(282) 33(69) 43(167) 63(56) 18(7) 34(36) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 140(148) 520(698) 515(795) 24(31) 4(9) 17(18) 13(11) 661(784) 582(918) 17(18) 92(321) 456(1039) 43(179) 21(47) 639(669) 31(58) 51(57) 10(30) 242(155) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 53(74) 232(331) 8(17) 2(21) 285(302) 51(26) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 141(299) 6(12) 42(74) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(3) 655(704) 159(179) 493(1047) 42(104) 4(21) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 122(275) 982(1057) 688(1140) 61(261) 208(376) 22(66) 201(514) 17(88) 13(58) 55(273) 249(88) 461(581) 204(328) 503(498) 256(449) 67(32) 205(413) 488(970) 375(233) 179(183) 697(605) 64(55) 20(73) 362(533) 166(172) 345(553) 288(182) 133(312) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 3) Figure B3-5: Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 3) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 39(60) 592(1426) 1001(850) 68(47) 28(77) 35(42) 152(173) 153(216) 4(5) 0(0) 175(181) 18(18) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 205(602) 600(1192) 177(530) 111(171) 948(797) 260(444) 269(460) 230(555) 490(346) 275(450) 339(348) 95(205) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 4(4) 15(26) 109(320) 47(77) 275(745) 151(264) 521(539) 13(22) 11(17) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 98(64) 822(912) 74(205) 566(1283) 4(20) 105(116) 84(135) 119(193) 48(89) 96(134) 104(194) 59(37) 99(52) 451(570) 69(112) 432(737) 60(95) 107(166) 113(224) 72(214) 75(131) 226(303) 103(90) 83(141) 53(86) 672(755) 129(104) 517(825) 35(85) 160(387) 31(68) 41(97) 68(96) 178(226) 46(65) 29(49) 68(82) 754(834) 33(57) 569(946) 42(70) 182(311) 168(233) 334(489) 377(359) 160(178) 333(515) 292(446) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 10(13) 663(730) 22(17) 496(829) 25(48) 8(8) 46(94) 73(125) 59(92) 72(126) 116(112) 162(128) 129(166) 470(554) 48(50) 429(728) 73(82) 79(78) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 18(85) 202(264) 138(234) 179(169) 294(172) 12(8) 11(7) 120(129) 44(35) 83(168) 129(183) 171(189) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 269(155) 112(43) 10(27) 36(51) 29(150) 199(319) 151(417) 33(69) 71(240) 63(56) 18(7) 34(36) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 130(138) 500(668) 492(763) 22(29) 4(9) 17(18) 13(11) 661(784) 582(918) 17(18) 92(321) 456(1039) 43(179) 21(47) 639(669) 31(58) 51(57) 10(30) 242(155) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 46(64) 209(296) 7(14) 1(18) 255(269) 44(22) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 122(259) 5(10) 36(64) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(3) 655(704) 159(179) 493(1047) 42(104) 4(21) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 99(224) 838(920) 606(988) 49(212) 189(293) 22(66) 131(194) 17(88) 13(58) 55(273) 249(88) 501(806) 130(284) 623(728) 136(219) 67(32) 205(428) 507(1038) 445(553) 105(154) 771(634) 64(55) 20(73) 362(518) 166(187) 345(538) 408(512) 114(244) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 4-1) Figure B3-6: Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 4-1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 43(67) 659(1598) 1118(946) 78(54) 32(90) 39(46) 178(202) 175(250) 4(6) 0(0) 202(207) 21(21) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 232(677) 684(1369) 186(558) 128(195) 1074(916) 292(494) 326(615) 265(632) 629(457) 275(450) 339(348) 95(205) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 4(4) 15(26) 109(320) 47(77) 275(745) 151(264) 521(539) 13(22) 11(17) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 135(88) 1054(1138) 103(284) 687(1649) 5(27) 146(160) 91(153) 136(223) 55(104) 112(155) 120(222) 69(43) 122(64) 503(650) 81(127) 498(835) 73(115) 130(203) 129(260) 80(243) 80(144) 249(333) 116(101) 93(160) 53(86) 672(755) 129(104) 517(825) 35(85) 160(387) 36(80) 48(113) 80(112) 200(251) 52(75) 34(57) 94(113) 987(1058) 45(79) 713(1233) 58(97) 226(401) 219(304) 416(597) 468(436) 209(233) 420(671) 370(582) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 14(18) 861(914) 31(23) 612(1071) 34(67) 11(11) 53(109) 85(146) 69(108) 84(147) 136(130) 174(139) 144(178) 509(602) 56(59) 485(817) 90(101) 98(96) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 24(111) 264(345) 166(281) 217(203) 384(224) 15(10) 13(8) 133(143) 52(41) 92(185) 143(202) 189(208) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 269(155) 112(43) 10(27) 36(51) 29(150) 199(319) 151(417) 33(69) 71(240) 63(56) 18(7) 34(36) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 160(170) 560(760) 562(861) 27(35) 4(9) 17(18) 15(13) 725(854) 633(1004) 20(21) 99(346) 509(1176) 50(207) 24(54) 723(752) 34(62) 55(63) 11(35) 257(165) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 60(83) 254(365) 9(19) 2(24) 315(334) 58(29) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 160(338) 7(14) 48(83) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(3) 741(787) 183(207) 548(1182) 48(120) 5(24) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 137(310) 1077(1149) 742(1241) 68(293) 189(293) 22(66) 131(194) 17(88) 13(58) 55(273) 249(88) 584(948) 130(284) 734(855) 136(219) 67(32) 234(492) 572(1178) 499(643) 114(159) 861(715) 70(60) 22(81) 382(566) 195(221) 383(577) 475(587) 120(257) ST O P Smart Centres Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 4-2) Figure B3-7: Total Projected 2041 (Scenario 4-2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 43(67) 659(1598) 1118(946) 78(54) 32(90) 39(46) 178(202) 175(250) 4(6) 0(0) 202(207) 21(21) 5(39) 2(4) 66(151) 2(5) 5(3) 1(0) 227(662) 545(966) 113(335) 128(195) 830(542) 292(494) 326(615) 270(647) 624(442) 280(465) 192(169) 95(205) 23(67) 15(26) 5(5) 4(4) 15(26) 109(320) 47(77) 207(537) 151(264) 379(375) 13(22) 11(17) 37(99) 7(9) 30(151) 6(15) 6(5) 41(48) 135(88) 1054(1138) 103(284) 687(1649) 5(27) 146(160) 91(153) 136(223) 55(104) 112(155) 120(222) 69(43) 122(64) 503(650) 81(127) 498(835) 73(115) 130(203) 129(260) 80(243) 80(144) 249(333) 116(101) 93(160) 53(86) 672(755) 129(104) 517(825) 35(85) 160(387) 36(80) 48(113) 80(112) 200(251) 52(75) 34(57) 94(113) 987(1058) 45(79) 713(1233) 58(97) 226(401) 219(304) 416(597) 468(436) 209(233) 420(671) 370(582) 18(24) 5(8) 47(41) 45(57) 6(12) 15(24) 14(18) 861(914) 31(23) 612(1071) 34(67) 11(11) 53(109) 85(146) 69(108) 84(147) 136(130) 174(139) 144(178) 509(602) 56(59) 485(817) 90(101) 98(96) McNeely Hwy 15 Moore Bridge Joseph Hwy 7 Rona Home Depot Canadian Tire Cavanagh Coleman Lake Townline Stonewater Emily Lansdowne 24(111) 264(345) 166(281) 217(203) 384(224) 15(10) 13(8) 133(143) 52(41) 92(185) 143(202) 189(208) Patterson Franktown xx AM Peak Hour Volumes (yy) PM Peak Hour Volumes Lansdowne STO P S TO P 172(126) 296(581) 10(27) 36(51) 318(559) 154(184) 106(282) 33(69) 48(167) 63(56) 18(7) 34(36) Captain A. Roy Brown 24(25) 69(113) 160(170) 560(760) 562(861) 27(35) 4(9) 17(18) 15(13) 725(854) 633(1004) 20(21) 99(346) 509(1176) 50(207) 24(54) 723(752) 34(62) 55(63) 11(35) 257(165) 11(22) 96(68) 15(18) 60(83) 254(365) 9(19) 2(24) 315(334) 58(29) 37(15) 4(6) 88(30) 0(10) 7(9) 2(6) 160(338) 7(14) 48(83) 9(7) 9(5) 0(2) 0(3) 741(787) 183(207) 548(1182) 48(120) 5(24) Hwy 7 ST O P Napoleon STO P Mississippi 38(163) 49(116) 137(310) 1077(1149) 742(1241) 68(293) 213(376) 22(66) 246(514) 17(88) 13(58) 55(273) 249(88) 499(723) 209(328) 569(625) 301(449) 67(32) 229(477) 553(1110) 384(323) 188(188) 787(686) 70(60) 22(81) 387(581) 190(206) 388(592) 310(257) 139(325) ST O P Smart Centres Appendix B4 Future Screenline and Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Screenline Summary Table Table B4-1: Screenline Analysis Summary Table Description Existing FT2026 FT2031 FT2041 (Sc1) FT2041 (Sc2) FT2041 (Sc3) FT2041 (Sc4-1) FT2041 (Sc4-2) SL1 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic in/out at north end of Town - - - - - - - - SL2 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic crossing the River - PM: NB/SB > 0.80 AM: NB > 0.80, PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.8 AM/PM: NB/SB > 1.0 AM/PM: NB/SB > 1.0 AM: NB/SB > 0.8, PM: NB/SB > 1.0 AM/PM: NB/SB > 1.0 AM/PM: NB/SB > 1.0 SL3 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic crossing Lake Ave - - - PM: NB/SB > 0.80 PM: NB/SB > 0.80 PM: NB > 0.80 PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.80 PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.80 SL4 E/W SL, captures N/S traffic to/from Hwy 7 - - PM: NB > 0.80 PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.8 PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.8 PM: NB > 1.0, SB > 0.8 PM: NB/SB > 1.0 PM: NB/SB > 1.0 SL5 N/S SL, captures E/W traffic to/from the east Town limit - - - - - - PM: WB > 0.80 - SL6 N/S SL, captures E/W traffic crossing Moore/Franktown - - - PM: WB > 0.80 PM: WB > 0.80 PM: WB > 0.80 PM: WB > 1.0 PM: WB > 1.0 * E/W, Townline Road at Bridge St - - PM: WB > 0.80 AM: EB > 0.80, PM: WB > 1.0 AM: EB > 0.80, PM: WB > 1.0 AM: EB > 0.80 PM: WB > 0.8 AM: EB > 1.0, PM: EB > 0.80, WB > 1.0 AM: EB > 1.0, PM: EB > 0.80, WB > 1.0 ** E/W, Townline Road West of McNeely - - - - - - - - *** E/W, Townline Road East of McNeely - - - PM: EB/WB > 0.80 PM: EB/WB > 0.80 PM: EB/WB > 0.80 PM: EB > 0.8, WB > 1.0 PM: EB > 0.8, WB > 1.0 Notes: 1. SL2: Despite its OP road classification, Mill St lane capacity was considered a local road based on geometric features. 2. SL3: Mississippi Rd and Napoleon volumes assumed 75% of north leg at respective Hwy 7 intersections. 3. SL5: Townline Rd excluded. 4. SL6: Capacity of Hwy 7 assumed to be similar to a Major Arterial through Town based on geometric features. Synchro Future Analysis Summary Tables Table B4-2: Projected 2026 Conditions Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(B) 14.9(15.0) 0.59(0.62) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) C(D) 28.4(38.9) 0.70(0.83) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(B) 16.9(15.8) 0.66(0.75) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 11.9(22.0) 0.46(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(B) 12.2(18.8) 0.33(0.55) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(B) 13.2(19.6) 0.47(0.79) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(B) 12.0(17.9) 0.36(0.78) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) A(B) 9.9(12.8) 0.35(0.51) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(B) 12.9(17.9) 0.65(0.75) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 5.2(5.7) 0.27(0.30) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) A(B) 10.0(13.3) 0.25(0.42) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(C) 21.0(23.9) 0.63(0.64) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(B) 11.3(13.6) 0.29(0.37) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 1.9(2.2) 0.25(0.32) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) C(C) 20.6(21.4) 0.76(0.82) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 7.8(4.3) 0.35(0.13) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(A) 6.0(6.5) 0.29(0.35) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(A) 1.4(5.0) 0.47(0.78) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) A(E) 3.4(39.3) 0.35(1.44) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.2(4.6) 0.13(0.36) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 4.4(4.6) 0.09(0.11) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout Table B4-3: Projected 2031 Conditions Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(B) 15.9(16.4) 0.60(0.66) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) C(D) 33.4(50.5) 0.91(0.96) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(B) 18.3(16.9) 0.68(0.80) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.1(21.5) 0.46(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(C) 12.9(21.7) 0.40(0.75) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(C) 13.6(22.5) 0.50(0.87) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(B) 12.2(19.5) 0.39(0.85) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 10.9(14.0) 0.41(0.55) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(C) 15.4(23.0) 0.72(0.86) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 5.0(5.7) 0.27(0.30) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 10.4(14.6) 0.35(0.51) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(C) 21.6(24.7) 0.65(0.73) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(B) 11.6(15.5) 0.36(0.47) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.0(2.3) 0.28(0.38) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) C(C) 22.5(24.3) 0.82(0.89) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 7.3(4.1) 0.35(0.16) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(A) 6.5(8.4) 0.35(0.45) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(A) 1.6(8.5) 0.51(1.01) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) A(F) 4.5(100.1) 0.50(2.25) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.2(4.6) 0.13(0.38) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 5.3(4.7) 0.15(0.16) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout Table B4-4: Projected 2041 Conditions (Scenario 1) Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(C) 18.5(21.7) 0.63(0.69) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) D(F) 49.0(85.4) 1.19(1.32) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(B) 20.8(19.5) 0.78(0.86) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.9(25.2) 0.54(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(D) 13.9(38.9) 0.52(1.03) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(C) 15.6(32.0) 0.54(0.93) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(C) 12.8(22.3) 0.45(0.89) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 12.1(16.8) 0.49(0.70) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(D) 18.2(38.7) 0.79(1.03) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 4.9(5.9) 0.29(0.39) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 11.4(17.1) 0.48(0.72) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(D) 27.1(41.3) 0.86(0.98) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(D) 14.7(36.9) 0.51(0.76) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.2(3.1) 0.38(0.54) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) C(D) 28.6(50.2) 0.90(1.17) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 6.9(3.9) 0.35(0.20) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(B) 8.8(17.6) 0.50(0.83) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(C) 2.1(22.1) 0.59(1.68) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) A(F) 9.1(*) 0.81(*) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.1(4.6) 0.14(0.40) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 5.1(5.9) 0.30(0.47) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout *Very high delays (more than 15 minutes) Table B4-5: Projected 2041 Conditions (Scenario 2) Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(C) 17.7(21.7) 0.56(0.70) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) D(D) 41.6(54.8) 1.07(1.09) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(B) 20.8(19.5) 0.78(0.86) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.1(22.3) 0.47(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(D) 13.9(38.9) 0.52(1.03) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(C) 15.6(32.0) 0.54(0.93) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(C) 12.8(22.3) 0.45(0.89) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 12.1(16.8) 0.49(0.70) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(D) 18.2(38.7) 0.79(1.03) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 4.9(5.9) 0.29(0.39) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 11.4(17.1) 0.48(0.72) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(D) 27.1(41.3) 0.86(0.98) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(D) 14.7(36.9) 0.51(0.76) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.2(3.1) 0.38(0.54) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) C(D) 28.6(50.2) 0.90(1.17) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 6.9(3.9) 0.35(0.20) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(C) 10.0(25.8) 0.62(0.97) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(C) 2.1(22.1) 0.59(1.68) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) A(F) 9.1(*) 0.81(*) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.1(4.6) 0.14(0.40) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 4.7(6.0) 0.33(0.67) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout *Very high delays (more than 15 minutes) Table B4-6: Projected 2041 Conditions (Scenario 3) Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(C) 18.5(21.7) 0.63(0.69) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) D(F) 41.0(80.1) 1.01(1.30) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(B) 20.8(19.5) 0.78(0.86) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.9(25.2) 0.54(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(C) 12.9(24.3) 0.44(0.87) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(C) 15.4(29.8) 0.54(0.91) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(C) 12.8(22.3) 0.45(0.89) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 11.3(15.1) 0.47(0.59) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(C) 16.2(26.1) 0.74(0.90) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 4.9(5.7) 0.27(0.33) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 10.7(15.4) 0.41(0.61) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(D) 27.3(40.0) 0.86(0.98) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(C) 14.2(32.7) 0.49(0.73) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.2(3.1) 0.38(0.54) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) C(D) 27.6(52.1) 0.90(1.17) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 7.1(4.0) 0.35(0.18) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(B) 8.8(17.6) 0.50(0.83) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(C) 2.1(22.1) 0.59(1.68) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) A(F) 6.6(*) 0.70(4.11) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.1(4.6) 0.14(0.40) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 5.1(5.9) 0.30(0.47) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout *Very high delays (more than 15 minutes) Table B4-7: Projected 2041 Conditions (Scenario 4-1) Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(C) 20.7(25.2) 0.71(0.81) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) E(F) 59.4(119.9) 1.35(1.42) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(C) 23.4(29.1) 0.83(0.98) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.9(25.2) 0.54(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(E) 15.1(58.9) 0.64(1.14) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(D) 17.9(54.5) 0.64(1.12) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(C) 13.2(25.5) 0.46(0.95) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 13.1(20.0) 0.55(0.80) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(D) 19.7(54.3) 0.83(1.13) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 4.9(6.0) 0.32(0.43) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 11.9(18.7) 0.53(0.80) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(E) 32.9(58.1) 0.95(1.09) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(D) 18.2(43.0) 0.56(0.85) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.4(3.7) 0.42(0.59) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) D(E) 35.4(68.9) 0.96(1.32) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 6.8(3.8) 0.35(0.23) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) A(C) 9.3(21.3) 0.50(1.00) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(E) 3.5(48.4) 0.66(2.80) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) D(F) 25.3(*) 1.23(*) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.1(4.8) 0.16(0.45) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 5.1(5.9) 0.30(0.47) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout *Very high delays (more than 15 minutes) Table B4-8: Projected 2041 Conditions (Scenario 4-2) Synchro Analysis Results Intersection Weekday AM Peak (PM Peak) Intersection Delay Max v/c Ratio LOS Average Delay (s) Highway 15/Franktown Rd/Highway 7 (S) B(C) 18.9(24.1) 0.61(0.76) McNeely Ave/Highway 7 (S) D(E) 47.7(73.7) 1.18(1.25) Lake Park Rd/Mississippi Rd/Highway 7 (S) C(C) 23.4(29.1) 0.83(0.98) McNeely Ave/Home Depot Access/Rona Access (S) B(C) 12.0(22.3) 0.47(0.83) McNeely Ave/Canadian Tire Access (S) B(E) 15.1(58.9) 0.64(1.14) Franktown Rd/Moore St/Coleman St (S) B(D) 17.9(54.5) 0.64(1.12) McNeely Ave/Coleman St/Cavanagh Rd (S) B(C) 13.2(25.5) 0.46(0.95) McNeely Ave/Lake Ave St (S) B(B) 13.1(20.0) 0.55(0.80) McNeely Ave/Townline Rd E/County Rd 29 S (S) B(D) 19.7(54.3) 0.83(1.13) McNeely Ave/Patterson Crescent/Stonewater Bay (S) A(A) 4.9(6.0) 0.32(0.43) McNeely Ave/Smart Centers Access (S) B(B) 11.9(18.7) 0.53(0.80) Moore St/Bridge St/Lake Ave W/Lake Ave E (S) C(E) 32.9(58.1) 0.95(1.09) Moore St/Lansdowne Ave (S) B(D) 18.2(43.0) 0.56(0.85) Bridge St/Emily St (S) A(A) 2.4(3.7) 0.42(0.59) Bridge St/Townline Rd E (S) D(E) 35.4(68.9) 0.96(1.32) Joseph St/Townline Rd E (S) A(A) 6.8(3.8) 0.35(0.23) Highway 15/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (S) B(C) 11.4(33.1) 0.69(1.20) Highway 7/Napoleon (U) A(E) 3.5(48.4) 0.66(2.80) Highway 7/Townline Rd W (U) D(F) 25.3(*) 1.23(*) Coleman St/Lansdowne Ave (U) A(A) 2.1(4.8) 0.16(0.45) McNeely Ave/Captain A. Roy Brown Blvd (R) A(A) 4.5(6.0) 0.36(0.67) Note: Analysis of signalized intersections assumes a PHF of 0.95 and a saturation flow rate of 1900 veh/h/lane. (S) - Signalized Intersection; (U) - Unsignalized Intersection; (R) - Roundabout *Very high delays (more than 15 minutes) ASSUMPTION OF LOCAL ROADS Table C-1: Facility Transfer Assessment - Franktown Rd/Moore St Criteria Score Comment Criterion 1 - Connects Population Centres [2 to 3] 3 Connects Carleton Place to Hwy 7 and 15 Criterion 2 - Connections Commercial/Industrial areas within the County to Provincial Highways [2] 0 Services Residential and Downtown Criterion 3 - Provinces service to major truck generating areas/truck traffic approaching form outside the County [2] 0 Does not serve truck generators Criterion 4 - Provides Service across or parallel to major barriers [0] 0 Crosses no barriers Criterion 5 - Provides service to public recreational areas (resorts, parks, provincial parks) [1] 1 Serves Riverside Park and Carleton Canoe Club Criterion 6 - Urban Arterial Extension [3] 0 Not an extension of an urban arterial CR Criterion 7 - Speed limit is 80 kph along the majority of the road [1] 0 Posted speed <80 Criterion 8 - Traffic volumes > 1000 vpd (AADT) [1 to 3] 2 Estimate 2041 AADT between 2500 and 7500 Criterion 9 - Peak Seasonal/Monthly volumes [1] 0 TOTAL 6 Does not qualify Table C-2: Facility Transfer Assessment - Coleman St (Franktown Rd to McNeely Ave) Criteria Score Comment Criterion 1 3 Connect Carleton Place to CR29/McNeely Avenue Criterion 2 0 Services Residential and Downtown Criterion 3 0 Does not serve truck generators Criterion 4 0 Crosses no barriers Criterion 5 1 Serves Riverside Park and Carleton Canoe Club Criterion 6 0 Not an Arterial Road Criterion 7 0 Posted speed <80 Criterion 8 2 Estimate 2041 AADT between 2500 and 7500 Criterion 9 0 TOTAL 7 Does not qualify Table D-3: Facility Transfer Assessment - Cavanagh Rd Criteria Score Comment Criterion 1 3 Connect Carleton Place to CR29/McNeely Avenue Criterion 2 2 Serves commercial areas to the north Criterion 3 0 Does not serve truck generators Criterion 4 0 Crosses no barriers Criterion 5 0 Does not serve major recreation facility. Criterion 6 3 Connects to CR29 (McNeely Ave) Criterion 7 0 Posted speed <80 Criterion 8 2 Estimate 2041 AADT between 2500 and 7500 Criterion 9 0 TOTAL 10 Meets the minimum