Main Street Reconstruction From Ninth Line to Stouffer Street. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Public Information Centre

Transcription

1 Main Street Reconstruction From Ninth Line to Stouffer Street Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Public Information Centre November 23, :30 to 6:00 pm & 7:00 to 8:00 pm 6240 Main Street, Stouffville Welcome! 1

2 Welcome! Welcome to this Public Information Centre. Please sign in and take a comment sheet. Step 1: Review the display boards Step 2: Ask questions of staff Step 3: Provide written comments please submit them online (see below), place comment sheets in the comment box, or send them by December 2, 2016 to: Brian Kavanagh, P.Eng. Manager, Capital Projects Public Works Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville 111 Sandiford Drive Stouffville, Ontario L4A 0Z8 Brian.Kavanagh@townofws.ca Arun P. Jain, M.Eng., P.Eng. Linear Infrastructure Practice Lead exp Services Inc Clark Blvd. Brampton, ON L6T 4V1 Arun.Jain@exp.com Visit to view these display boards and submit your comments online. 2

3 Project Overview Construction phasing Phase 1 (2017), Stouffer Street to Park Drive Phase 2 (2018), Park Drive to Albert Street Phase 3 (2019), Albert Street to Ninth Line 3

4 Project Scope of Work Underground utilities Required rehabilitation or replacement of watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer Phases 1, 2, and 3 Road reconstruction Phases 1, 2, and 3 Improved streetscape Phase 2 Traffic and transportation Signalized pedestrian crossing at GO Station Traffic signal modifications for AODA compliance Other considerations Active transportation (bike facilities) Ninth Line to Tenth Line Burry overhead hydro and phone lines 4

5 Downtown Streetscape Typical 5

6 Downtown Streetscape Alternative A Barrier curb between parking and pedestrian zone Example Existing Barrier curb Advantages Safely defines the separation of the vehicles from pedestrians Disadvantages May hinder summer patio extensions Curb may hinder accessibility when summer patio extensions are in use Both can be addressed through frequent curb cuts 6

7 Downtown Streetscape Alternative B No curb between parking and pedestrian zone Example Example No curb Advantages More flexibility for summer patio extensions Disadvantages Safety of children and pedestrians is a major concern Mountable curb meets accessibility needs when summer patio extensions are in use Potential for children to walk into live traffic Less clear delineation between parking area and sidewalk 7

8 Downtown Streetscape Amenity Zone Paving alternatives (from back of curb to edge of walkway) Alternative 1: Concrete Paving with Pavers for Accent Pros: cost effective, durable and low maintenance, in keeping with heritage theme Cons: less appealing than the unit pavers Alternative 2: Heritage style red paver in herringbone pattern Pros: rich texture, maximize the heritage image of the street Cons: more costly compared with concrete paving and difficult to maintain Example Example 8

9 Downtown Streetscape Paved Areas Comparison of pavement material options Pavement Material Initial cost Maintenance Advantages Disadvantages Regular concrete Medium Low Durable, cost effective & low maintenance Lack of texture and color changes Imprint concrete Medium to Medium Provide variety of color and Potential for surface high texture on the surface of the cracks; slippery surface concrete when wet Unit pavers on Medium to Low Medium Provide variety of color and Pavers may heave over concrete base high texture use of heritage style time red brick pavers to match streetscape theme Regular asphalt Low low Cost effective and low maintenance. Lack of texture and color options; less durable than concrete. Imprint asphalt Medium to Low - medium Provide variety of color and Surface will show wear high texture use of heritage style quicker. red brick pattern to match streetscape theme 9

10 Downtown Streetscape Asphalt Imprint asphalt Red herringbone pattern Use for crosswalk / on street parking Maintenance friendly Example Example 10

11 Downtown Streetscape Patio Extensions Removable Bollard Recommended design (Alternative A with curb, shown here) allows flexible creation of temporary patios facilitated by frequent curb cuts. 11

12 Downtown Streetscape Patio Extensions Patio in use Patio not in use 12 (11A)

13 Downtown Streetscape Public Spaces Existing conditions of proposed gathering points GO Station Art Gallery Clock Tower Square Creek Trail Post Office 13

14 Downtown Streetscape Public Spaces Gathering points with crosswalks and bump-outs GO Station Creek Trail (gazebo) / Art Gallery Clock Tower Square Post Office 14 (13A)

15 Downtown Streetscape Public Spaces Barrier curb between vehicle and pedestrian areas for curb bumpouts 15

16 Downtown Streetscape Tree Grates Existing Alternative 1: Metal black Pros: Style will match site furniture Cons: May rust over time Alternative 2: Weathered steel Pros: Rustic aged look, durable Cons: Color mismatch Example Example 16

17 Downtown Streetscape Trees Existing tree conditions Existing tree conditions Trees labeled with red numbering are in poor condition or dead, and should be removed (7 trees total). Additional trees in conflict with services may be removed/replaced. 17 (16A)

18 Downtown Streetscape Seating Bench alternatives Alternative 1: Metal black Alternative 2: Wood Alternative 3: Composite Heritage style, durable, cost effective May need frequent maintenance More expensive, does not age as well Example Example Example Existing Example Chair 18

19 Downtown Streetscape Amenities Bike rack and bollard alternatives Alternative 1: Metal black Recommended due to colour match with proposed heritage style Alternative 2: Grey Not recommended as it does not fit with heritage character Bike racks - Example Non-removable Bollards - Example Removable Bollards - Example 19

20 Downtown Streetscape Planters Alternative 1: Plastic in black Alternative 2: Concrete in black Alternative 3: Curb planters Pros: Durable, cost effective, easily removed to facilitate snow removal Cons: Shorter lifespan Pros: Longer lasting Cons: Higher cost, hard to move in winter Pros: Custom fit shapes and sizes Cons: Reduced flexibility A combination of alternatives will be used as appropriate throughout the Downtown. 20

21 Downtown Streetscape Light Poles Proposed light pole details Metal black with decorative base Single light head using LED bulbs Likely to be replaced in same place Example Example Example Dual fixture Existing 21

22 Downtown Streetscape Entry Points Surface treatment at both Park Drive and Albert Street intersections 22

23 Downtown Streetscape Entry Points Gateway and banner at both Park Drive and Albert Street intersections Custom designed banner, support structure (poles), and base The pole could to be with /or without light Base of the pole should be decorative with red brick/ stone veneer to match the heritage character 23

24 Proposed Pedestrian Crossings Locations of controlled and un-controlled crossings 24

25 Proposed Pedestrian Crossings Proposed un-controlled crossing west of Mill Street Source: OTM Book 18 Figure (24A)

26 GO Station Pedestrian Crossover Proposed controlled pedestrian crossing east of GO Station No parking 30 meters before and 10 meters after the cross over location 26

27 Potential Bicycle Lane Plan 9 th Line to Albert Street (conventional bike lane) Albert Street to Park Drive (shared roadway) Park Drive to 10 th Line (conventional bike lane) Source: OTM Book 18 Figures 4.10 and

28 Underground utilities Ninth Line to Stouffer Street (Phases 1, 2, 3) Watermain Existing: cast iron pipes (1950s) throughout, mm diameters Proposed: replace with PVC pipe, mm diameter Size includes capacity for future development and intensification Verifying spacing of fire hydrants Sanitary sewer Existing: vitrified clay pipes throughout, mm diameters Proposed: replace with PVC pipe, including service laterals All sizes will be reviewed and increased as needed to ensure capacity for future development and intensification Storm sewer Existing: concrete pipes (1950s-1960s) throughout, mm diameters Stormwater management review and improvements Other considerations: Burying overhead hydro and/or telephone lines 28

29 Burying Overhead Hydro Downtown Main Street High level feasibility analysis Existing conditions Pole-mounted along south side of Main Street 670 m between Albert St and Park Dr Primary circuit: 16/27.6 kv (3-phase) Numerous primary feeds to other streets branch off this primary circuit Secondary circuit: 120/240 V (1-phase) Connected to the aerial services to the buildings Other pole-mounted equipment: Transformers Switches Bell and Rogers cables (with aerial services to the buildings) 29

30 Burying Overhead Hydro Downtown Main Street High level feasibility analysis Cost Item Notes $8,000,000 Bury overhead hydro lines Unit rate of $12,000/m (based on similar work estimated by Town of Markham for burying overhead hydro lines in heritage area) $1,600,000 Bury overhead utility lines Based on 20% of cost to bury overhead hydro lines (Rogers and Bell) $1,050,000 Bury aerial hydro, Bell, and Rogers services 40 aerial hydro services at $20,000 each 50 aerial Bell and Rogers services at $5,000 each $10,650,000 Sub-total* See additional costs below *Additional costs not included in this cost estimate Overall contingency factor of -30% / +40% Design fees (Hydro One, Bell, Rogers, exp) Allowance for pad-mounted transformers and pad-mounted switchgears Costs to private owners for consequent electrical upgrades required 30

31 Reroute Overhead Hydro to Rear of Buildings Downtown Main Street High level feasibility analysis Challenges with relocating overhead hydro from front to rear of buildings: With exception to Library Lane and Commercial Street, there are no public/municipallyowned laneways or road right-of-ways or easements that run parallel to Downtown Main Street along the rear of the buildings Rogers/Bell lines are also aerial serviced to the front of the buildings. If the overhead hydro lines are relocated to the rear of the buildings, Rogers/Bell aerial lines would also require relocation in order to remove all overhead utilities from Downtown. The few buildings that have hydro serviced from the rear still have Rogers/Bell aerial serviced to the front of the building. Capacities of the existing hydro transformers and primary power supply lines on an alternative route are unknown and may either require upgrading or prevent the feasibility of this option. 31

32 We want to hear from you! Thank you for attending this Public Information Centre. Your feedback is important, so please provide us with your written comments. You can use the comment sheet provided or send your comments to the contacts provided below. Please place your comment sheets in the Comment Box or send them by December 2, 2016 to: Brian Kavanagh, P.Eng. Manager, Capital Projects Public Works Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville 111 Sandiford Drive Stouffville, Ontario L4A 0Z8 Arun P. Jain, M.Eng., P.Eng. Linear Infrastructure Practice Lead exp Services Inc Clark Blvd. Brampton, ON L6T 4V1 Visit to view these display boards and submit your comments online. 32