City of London Commissioners Road West Realignment Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre No. 2 November 29, 2017
Welcome to the Public Information Centre This 2 nd Public Information Centre (PIC) provides an update for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for the realignment of Commissioners Road West, from Springbank Drive/Byron Baseline Road, extending through the Byron Pit to Cranbrook Road/Westmount Drive. We welcome your input on: Assessment criteria Evaluation results Preliminary preferred design You are invited to: Review the information boards Ask questions and discuss your comments with the study team Fill out and submit a comment sheet Sign in to receive future updates on the study Visit the project website: https://www.london.ca/residents/environment/eas/pages/commissioners-road-west-realignment.aspx 2
Class EA Process This project is subject to the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000 as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015). The Municipal Class EA is a planning and design process approved by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. This study follows the Class EA process for Schedule C projects. Study Commencement PIC 1 PIC 2 Study Completion / Public Review March 2016 Spring 2017 Winter 2017 Spring 2018 We are here Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Problem and/or Alternative Alternative Environmental Implementation Opportunity Solutions Design Concepts Study Report (subject to budget) The Commissioners Road West Realignment was first identified in the South-East Byron Area Study (1992) and confirmed in the City s Transportation Master Plan (2013). The City commenced this EA study to identify the property requirements for development coordination with the South-East Byron Secondary Plan, which will be initiated shortly. 3
Study Organization The City of London Environmental and Engineering Services Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Services Legal, Corporate and Realty Services Technical Agencies Committee (TAC) Municipal and Provincial Agencies (e.g., Upper Thames River Conservation Authority) Utilities Consultant Team CIMA Canada Inc. Golder Associates GSP Group Inc. Public Adjacent property owners Nearby businesses Developers Agencies First Nations Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Lafarge 4
Study Area Bulk Water Station MN #809 Water Pumping Station MN#844 Total length of the study-area corridor is approximately 1.2 km 5
Historical Context Commissioners Road in 1942 just as it is today Official Plan (1989) South-East Byron Area Study (1992) proposed road realignment 6
Policy Context Official Plan (1989) & South-East Byron Area Study (1992) Recommends realigning Commissioners Road between Byron Baseline Road and Cranbrook Road Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan (2013) Recommends to realign Commissioners Road West between Byron Baseline Road and Cranbrook Road and to widen the road to four through lanes within the next 15 to 20 years Realignment of Commissioners Road is intended to open an improved route for all users including public transit, school buses and emergency vehicles Also recommends widening of Commissioners Road (from Cranbrook Road to Viscount Road) and Byron Baseline Road (from Commissioners Road to Colonel Talbot Road) London s Design Specifications & Requirements Manual Right-of-way width of arterial roads is specified as 36 metres Bicycle Master Plan (Draft 2015) Recommends bike lanes along the realigned Commissioners Road 7
Public Information Centre No 1 Summary The PIC was held on March 30, 2017 from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm at Byron Optimist Community Centre Key comments + General understanding and support for the preferred solution + Slightly higher number in favour for new corridor + Concerns regarding staff/visitors parking at Westmount Gardens and Longworth Retirement Residence + Requests to ensure a noise barrier wall is built + Support of active transportation facilities along the new corridor 8
Evaluation Criteria The recommended alternative design concept was selected based on review of comments received from agencies, stakeholders and members of the public Alternative design concepts for the preferred solution were developed, assessed and evaluated based on the following evaluation criteria: Cultural Archaeological Features Built Heritage Resources (BHRs) Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHLs) Natural Environment Groundwater Impact Erosion Slope Stabilization Vegetation Species at Risk Socio-Economic Environment Capital Costs Construction Staging and Phasing Noise Impacts Impact on Development Municipal Servicing and Utilities Coordination Infrastructure Planning Road Length Streetscpae Complete Streets 9
Alternative Design Concepts Four alternative designs of a new corridor were considered: Do Nothing Alternative 1 Southerly Alignment Alternative 2 Northerly Alignment Alternative 3 Middle Alignment (options developed based on 36m right of way) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 10
Alternative Design Concepts Alternative 1- Southerly Alignment Advantages: + Noise impacts to subdivision residences similar for all alternatives Disadvantages: Large amount of fill required Highest capital cost ($36m) Furthest away but most visible to the existing residences on hill overlooking quarry 11
Alternative Design Concepts Alternative 2- Northerly Alignment Advantages: + Noise impacts to subdivision residences similar for all alternatives + Least amount of fill material + Lowest capital cost ($19m) Disadvantages: Closest but less visible to the existing residences on hill overlooking quarry 12
Alternative Design Concepts Alternative 3- Middle Alignment Advantages: + Noise impacts to subdivision residences similar for all alternatives + Reduced amount of fill material (second highest of three alternatives) + Second highest capital cost ($25m) Disadvantages: Close and somewhat visible to the existing residences on hill overlooking quarry 13
Alternative Design Concept Comparison TECHNICAL CRITERIA CULTURAL ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 SOUTHERLY ALIGNMENT NOTHERLY ALIGNMENT MIDDLE ALIGNMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES (BHRs) AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHLs) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT GROUNDWATER IMPACT EROSION/ SLOPE STABILIZATION VEGETATION SPECIES AT RISK SOCIO-ECONOMIC CAPITAL COSTS CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND PHASING NOISE IMPACTS IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICING AND UTILITIES COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ROAD LENGTH CRITERIA NOT SIGNIFICANT STREETSCAPE COMPLETE STREETS Very Low Impact Fairly Low Impact Medium/Ambivalent Impact Fairly High Impact Very High Impact 14
Alternative Design Concept Comparison ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 SOUTHERLY ALIGNMENT NOTHERLY ALIGNMENT MIDDLE ALIGNMENT SUMMARY Highest Cost Lowest Cost Moderate Cost Moderate encroachment on a source of groundwater. No encroachment on a source of groundwater. Minor encroachment on a source of groundwater. No encroachment to erosion hazard area. Moderate encroachment to erosion hazard area. No encroachment to erosion hazard area. Minor encroachment to areas with unstable slope. Minor encroachment to areas with unstable slope. Minor encroachment to areas with unstable slope. OVERALL FINDINGS This option intrudes into one active Bank swallow colony. This option intrudes into two active Bank swallow colony. This option intrudes into one active Bank swallow colony. Moderate impact to 6 noise receptors in the area west of Crestwood Drive. Significant impact to 40 noise receptors in the area east of Crestwood Dr. Significant impact to 6 noise receptors in the area west of Crestwood Drive. Significant impact to 40 noise receptors in the area east of Crestwood Dr. Significant impact to 6 noise receptors in the area west of Crestwood Drive. Significant impact to 40 noise receptors in the area east of Crestwood Dr. Minor impact on new potential development lot Minor impact on new potential development lot Minor impact on new potential development lot SUMMARY Least Preferred Most Preferred Moderately Preferred 15
Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts Alternative Design Option 2 is most preferred based on the following: + Lowest cost + Least visibility from top of hill overlooking quarry + No impact on built, natural heritage/archaeology resources + Noise impacts can be mitigated 16
Preliminary Preferred Design Based on Preferred Design Alternative 2 + The initial cross-section includes 1 lane in each directions plus turning lanes and a truck climbing lane through the quarry + A 36m right of way will be protected for to allow for future widening to 2 lanes in each direction + Timing of construction is in the 15+ years horizon it will be part of City s future budget considerations going forward + Mitigation measures required noise walls between subdivision (Crestwood to Cranbrook) + Bank swallow habitat to be protected according to MNRF guidance + Property to be acquired SEE ROLL PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY PREFERRED DESIGN PLAN 17
Typical Cross-Sections and Streetscape Opportunities + Opportunity for landscaping within right-of-way + Accommodates continuous pedestrian and cycling with a multi-use trail on both sides of the roadway + Left turn lanes provided for access into various properties 18
Road Network Alternatives Alternative A Road closed Reduction of traffic volumes Minor increase in traffic volumes Alternative B New driveways Increase of traffic volume due to network modification expected to be small (less than 30 vehicles per hour) Alternative C Alternative D New driveways Increase of traffic volume due to network modification expected to be small (less than 60 vehicles per hour) Increase of traffic volume due to network modification expected to be small (less than 60 vehicles per hour) 19
Road Network Alternative Evaluation Network Alternative A is most preferred road network since it has the least impact on the traffic operation, municipal services and utilities 20
Next Steps Following this Public Information Centre, the Project Team will: Review your input Confirm the preliminary interim design Prepare the Environmental Study Report (ESR) which documents the Study decision making process and recommendations File the Study ESR for a 30 day public review period Consult with Technical Agencies and Stakeholders, including + Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry + Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change + Land owners + London Transit Commission Finalize preferred design 21
What do you think? Please share your comments by December 15 th, 2017: Ted Koza, P.Eng. City of London Project Manager 300 Dufferin Avenue London, ON N6A 4L9 T: 519-661-2489 E: tkoza@london.ca Stephen Keen, P.Eng. CIMA+, Project Manager 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400 Burlington, ON L7N 3G7 T: 289-288-0287 Ext. 6834 F: 289-288-0285 E: stephen.keen@cima.ca Thank you for attending this PIC 22