Recreational Pathway Crossing of Richmond Street Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Public Information Centre #2 April 22, 2015

Transcription

1 Recreational Pathway Crossing of Richmond Street Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2 April 22, 2015

2 1. Study Process PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 1 : Problem/Opportunity Identify & describe the problem/opportunity. PHASE 2 : Alternative Solutions Prepare environmental inventory Identify & evaluate Alternative Solutions Establish the Preferred Solution Prepared and File the Project File (Schedule B projects) PHASE 3: Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution Identify and evaluate Alternative Design Concepts Identify environmental effects Select the Preferred Design PHASE 4: Environmental Study Report Prepare and File Environmental Study Report (Schedule C projects) This study will follow the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process as defined by the Municipal Engineers Association (as amended in 2011). Schedule B projects include Phases 1, 2 & 5. Schedule C projects include Phases 1 5. This project is proceeding as a Schedule C project (Phases 1-4). We are here. PHASE 4 PHASE 5 : Implementation Project design and construction PHASE 5

3 2. Purpose of PIC #2 To provide interested and/or potentially affected stakeholders with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process for this Class EA. To present and receive public input on: the public comments from PIC #1; the design concepts for the crossing alignment & recommended preferred crossing alignment; possible crossing structure types (to be finalized during detailed design); possible crossing/gateway aesthetics (to be finalized during detailed design); and the next steps in the process. Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street

4 3. Study Context The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate means of linking the recreational pathway system from west to east at known terminus points ( ) _gh The need and justification for a pedestrian/cyclist connection in north London has been identified in the City s Official Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Pathway alignments east and west of Richmond Street were identified in the Uplands North and Sunningdale North Area Plans and are being incorporated into ongoing and future development applications. An opportunity exists to create a gateway into north London within the study area.

5 4. Summary of Comments from PIC #1 Pathway connection Comments from the Public Creates a long and continuous pathway system in North London. Provides a much needed pathway connection. Project Team Response Acknowledged At-grade crossing (Option 4) Dangerous even at traffic lights. A natural at-grade crossing will be provided when Villagewalk Blvd is extended east. Preferred crossing (least cost and future maintenance costs). Install a crosswalk until traffic signals are installed at the future road intersection. Acknowledged Overpass (Option 3) Nice gateway feature opportunity. Safer than a tunnel (Option 2). Preferred as it has the least impact on Richmond Street property. Overpass not needed in this location. Overpass will only be used by a few residents. Acknowledged Population growth in the area is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years. Gateway Miscellaneous There are less expensive options to create a gateway to the City. Consider a design competition for bridge. Wait until area develops more to create crossing. Money could be better spent on other items (to purchase parkland or park equipment). Acknowledged Acknowledged Population growth in the area is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years.

6 5. Preferred Crossing Location Phase 2 The Preferred Solution from PIC #1 in Phase 2 of this study was: Option 3: Overpass at Torrey Pines Way. Advantages No conflict between bridge users and vehicles. Direct access to known pathway terminus points. Improves pedestrian/cycling connectivity. High potential for gateway opportunity into north London. User safety is improved due to higher visibility of bridge. No conflicts with vehicles. Minimal impacts to existing utilities. Medium length construction period (30 days). Disadvantages Retaining walls will be required. Impact to adjacent development area.

7 6. Alternative Design Concepts Phase 3 Crossing Alignment Alternatives A Crossing Alignment Alternative 1: North Skew Crossing Alignment Alternative 2: Perpendicular Crossing Alignment Alternative 3: South Skew Recommended Crossing Alignment Pathway Alignment Alternatives B Pathway Alignment Option A Pathway Alignment Option B Pathway Alignment Option C Recommended Pathway Alignment

8 7. Crossing Alignment Alternatives A Crossing Alignment Alternative 1: North Skew Crossing Alignment Alternative 2: Perpendicular Crossing Alignment Alternative 3: South Skew Recommended Crossing Alignment Legend Existing Multi-use Pathways Wetland Upland _ ghterminus Point and Future Pathway Connection Potential Bridge Skew

9 8. Crossing Alignment Alternatives Crossing Alignment Alternative 1: North Skew Crossing Alignment Alternative 2: Perpendicular Crossing Alignment Alternative 3: South Skew Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required. Crossing and pathway alignment may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street. Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment. Higher cost (23% more). Shortest crossing. Crossing and pathway alignment may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street. Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment. Lowest cost. Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required. Crossing and pathway alignment is unlikely to impact future develop east of Richmond Street. Bridge orientation accommodates a direct and very functional pathway alignment. Higher cost (23%). *Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

10 9. Recommended Crossing Alignment Crossing Alignment Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Recommended Crossing Alignment Alternative 3: South Skew Social/Cultural Natural Environment Technical Economic Ability to connect pathway system Recommended Alternative LEGEND GOOD MODERATE POOR NO DIFFERENCE Recommended Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required. Crossing will not impact future develop east of Richmond Street. Higher cost (23%). *Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

11 10. Pathway Alignment Alternatives B Pathway Alignment Option A Pathway Alignment Option B Pathway Alignment Option C Recommended Pathway Alignment Legend Existing Multi-use Pathways Wetland Upland _ ghterminus Potential Bridge Skew Point and Future Pathway Connection Pathway West Side of Richmond _ P1 Pathway Alignment Option 1 _ Pathway Alignment Option 2 P2

12 11. Pathway Alignment Pros and Cons Alignment P1 _ P1 Alignment P2 _ P2 Pros: Cons: The existing grade on the east side of Richmond Street changes less in an east west direction than in the north south direction (along Richmond Street) indicating less impact for grading if an east west route is taken. Route is located on table land for 90% of route. Passive walking environment (adjacent parking lots & woodlot) for most of length of pathway. Natural plantings to provide screening will be considered as part of detailed design. One field drainage ditch requires culvert crossing on this route (not in PSW or Significant Woodlot). Route travels over potential bio swale pipe that feeds wetland from the property directly adjacent to bridge landing at grade of 274+/ (should be a small impact). Length of retaining wall required 30mx2=60m. One hydro pole guy wire and one pole affected. Requires some co ordination with developer for grading and property acquisition. Pros: Cons: Can be placed in Richmond Street ROW with retaining wall, 75m 80m long (x2). Wall average height 3m (0 6m). Interior of site may be graded without concern of path routing. Route is located on table land for 53% of route. Passive walk environment for 50% of the length. Natural plantings to provide screening will be considered as part of detailed design. Significant grade drop associated with the northern PSW. Wetland would require a retaining structure or grading from the ROW into the wetland area., complicating the stability of the fill, or wall and the pipe easement issue with respect to cover and loading on the pipe. Driveway location may present sight distance issues with sag to the north of the site. The pathway may partially block the sight triangle for vehicles leaving the site. Daily usage of the multi use pathway may lead to pedestrian/bike conflicts at the entrance of the development site (up to new units will be ultimately linked to the TVP making this a busy route). Length of retaining wall required 150 m on both sides of path for 75 80m. Views of multi storey units from potential future Richmond Street development will be blocked by a retaining wall ramp system. The site would not be symmetric with the twin multi storey unit located north of the entrance. Views from the lower level units of the potential future Richmond Street development will be blocked by the retaining wall ramp system. Drainage from the ramp system may flow downwards and on to Richmond Street at the potential building entrance. Two small creek crossings required with boardwalk or bridge on this route in PSW. Road side environment for 50% of length of pathway. Four potential hydro poles affected North routing may result in property impacts inside the Municipality of Middlesex Centre invoking other approvals in the process.

13 12. Pathway Alignment Alternatives Pathway Alignment Option P1 Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 425m. Requires narrow wetland crossing at a locations that is very disturbed. Requires crossing upland area. Most expensive option. Pathway would be located within a required development setback from upland and wetland features. No additional property required. Minimal grading required. Most direct linkage to proposed County trail network. Pathway alignment avoids sensitive natural features. Pathway Alignment Alternatives Pathway Alignment Option P2 Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 400m. Does not require wetland crossing but would have impact to adjacent wetland and tributaries to the wetland. Does not cross upland area. Least expensive option.(grading,walls, wetland crossing) No impact to future development east of Richmond Street. Requires highest amount of grading. Direct linkage to proposed County trail network but not as direct as Option C. Less attractive pathway alignment. Pathway alignment along existing arterial road and future development. Social/Cultural Natural Environment Technical Economic Option P1 Option P2 LEGEND GOOD MODERATE POOR Recommended Alternative Recommended

14 13. Potential Crossing Structure Types Crossing Structure Type 1: Box Girder Crossing Structure Type 2: Girder Crossing Structure Type 3: Steel Truss Concrete Girder Steel Truss Crossing Structure Type will be determined during the detailed design phase of this project.

15 14. Gateway Features Design Theme 1: The Forest City The approaches to the structure would be vegetated with indigenous forest species. LED lighting could be integrated to simulate flowing water. *Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

16 15. Gateway Features Design Theme 2: Thames River Flow The structure would be wrapped in multi-coloured translucent panels that represent the flowing river. Bridge architecture could be adapted to convey the forest theme. Up-lighting could be installed to enhance night time appearance and accentuate the gateway. *Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

17 16. Gateway Features Design Theme 3: Forks of the Thames A tube would installed over and around the basic structure to represent the Thames River and its forks. Tube could be steel or light weight carbonate material. LED lighting could be integrated to illuminate the tube at night. *Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

18 17. Gateway Features The focus of this study is the location and alignment of the recreational crossing of Richmond Street and associated pathway alignment. However the City would also like your feedback on how the bridge may look. The previous boards illustrate possible examples of enhanced bridge themes and aesthetics for you to consider. Please mark your favourite bridge theme with a coloured dot in the appropriate box below and provide any comments you have. Forest City Thames River Flow Forks of the Thames

19 18. Design Considerations The following criteria will be considered during detailed design: Structural Crossing Type Aesthetics: Steel truss vs. box girder vs. girder Cost: Comparative cost to construct each design concept Gateway Opportunity Features: Theme of the crossing (Forest City, Thames River, Forks of the Thames or other) Aesthetics: Visual appearance of crossing Cost: Cost to construct basic crossing vs. cost of enhanced aesthetic features & operating costs.

20 19. Preliminary Recommended Design Concept Recommended alignment is a south skewed alignment crossing Richmond Street. Structure will be either a single span concrete girder, box girder or steel truss. Richmond Street will ultimately be widened to 6 lanes. The structure will be constructed prior to the widening of Richmond Street and will accommodate the increased road width. The design will accommodate a 3.0m recreational pathway. Pathway/sidewalk connections to the bridge may include passive landscaping and streetscape features. Pathway will be a 3.0m asphalt multi-use pathway. Connectivity to existing and future sidewalks and pathways within the vicinity. Landscape feature lighting. Not street type lighting. Pathway will not be used after hours. Bridge theme and aesthetics to be determined during detailed design.

21 20. Next Steps WINTER 2015 SPRING/SUMMER 2015 BEYOND Receive comments on the Recommended Alternative Design Confirm Preferred Design Prepare Environmental Study Report (ESR) Prepare Environmental Impact Study EEPAC/Council Approval File ESR for 30 day review period Detailed Design ( ) Approvals (2016) Construction (2017) Thank you for attending and participating in the study process. We encourage you to fill out a comment sheet provided and drop it in the comment box or send your comments by May 8, 2015 to either of the individuals listed below: Tony Fediw, P.Eng., Project Manager AECOM Canada 250 York Street, Suite 410 London ON, N6A 6K2 Tel: antony.fediw@aecom.com Karl Grabowski, P.Eng., Transportation Design Engineer The Corporation of the City of London 300 Dufferin Avenue London ON, N6A 4L9 Tel: Ext kgrabows@london.ca Public comments will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. Additional information is available on the City of London website: