The purpose of tonight s PIC is to:

The purpose of tonight s PIC is to: Provide an overview of the work completed to date and a summary of the Class EA process being followed; Provide a summary of public input received so far, including the results of the online survey; Present design alternatives considered, and preliminary recommendations for public review and comment. Project Milestones: Notice of Study Commencement January 2015 First Public Information Centre No. 1: overview alternative solutions were presented to the public for review and comment June 2015 Alternative solutions were updated based on comments received from the public and agencies and additional public input was sought through the online survey October 2015 Recommendations and Design Alternatives are presented, and public and agency comments are received July 27, 2016 The Class EA process is documented in an Environmental Study Report, and placed on public record for a 30 calendar day review period. August - September 2016 If no Part II Order Requests are received, the project is completed and the City may proceed to design and implementation, dependent on the availability of funding and budgeting timelines. We Are Here

The Class EA process is a five phase planning process which: Typical or Emergency Operational Infrastructure Projects Pre-approved Proceed to Construction o identifies reasonable solutions to the Problem; Typical Infrastructure Projects Pre-approved Notify Public Prior to Implementation o considers advantages and disadvantages including net environmental effects; Phase 1 Problem or Opportunity Identify & Describe the Problem/Opportunity o o requires public consultation; and provides clear documentation that describes the decision making process. Schedule C Phase 2 Alternative Solutions Prepare Environmental Inventory, Identify/Evaluate Alternative Solutions & Establish the Preferred Solution Prepare and file Project File This study will : o Follow the Schedule C Class EA requirements. o Complete Phases 1-4. o Document the decision-making process in an Environmental Assessment Report to be filed for a 30 calendar day review Projects Phase 3 Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution Phase 4 Environmental Study Report Phase 5 Evaluate Alternative Designs, Identify Environmental Impacts, Mitigation, and Preferred Design Prepare and File Environmental Study Report (ESR) Documenting Phases 1-3 for Public Review period. Implementation Project Constructed / Restore Disturbed Areas

Dalewood Drive Bridge

The Dalewood Drive Bridge is a temporary modular bridge supplied by the Ministry of Transportation in 1983. The single-lane structure requires traffic to yield from both directions. Vehicles proceed based on courtesy queuing, and are required to alternate with pedestrians and cyclists, including Dalewood Reservoir Trail users. Structural reviews completed in 2014, 2015, and 2016 indicate that some elements of the bridge are in urgent need of replacement, including the abutments and embankments. Problem and Opportunity Statement Bridge Approach Looking South The City of St. Thomas has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to identify a preferred solution to address the deficiencies of the Dalewood Drive Bridge as they relate to safety, structural condition, performance and applicable design standards. A preferred alternative should limit impacts to the adjacent Dalewood Reservoir, Kettle Creek and surrounding ecosystem and should support the City of St. Thomas Official Plan by creating a safe link across the Reservoir that promotes a balanced transportation network and a sustainable future for adjacent residents and institutions within the Community. Bridge Looking North

Terrestrial and Aquatic investigations were undertaken to inventory and characterize the significance and sensitivity of the natural features within the study area. As part of the final recommendations, impacts of the preferred design on the surrounding area will be determined, and mitigation measures identified.

Bridge Bridge Official Plan Schedule A Surrounding Lands Natural Heritage Official Plan Schedule B Dalewood Drive Major Collector

PIC 1 was held on June 4 th, 2015 at which a number of options were considered for the bridge including Do Nothing, Remove the Bridge, Rehabilitate the Bridge, and Design a New Bridge. Consideration was also given to the feasibility of combining the nearby bridge and dam structures, providing pedestrian access on the dam, and maintaining the bridge as a pedestrian/cyclist only crossing. Subsequent to PIC 1, through consultation with Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA), providing pedestrian access on the dam was not carried forward as a viable option due to cost considerations, provincial regulations, and maintenance requirements. Similarly, a combined bridge-dam structure was not deemed feasible within the planning period of this study. The feasibility of maintaining the Bridge as a pedestrian/cyclist only crossing was investigated, which included a review of travel times and alternate routes. This information was presented to the public through the online survey. Upon review of the public input received, traffic data collected, geotechnical information, preliminary cost estimates, and input from City Council, it was determined that replacing the structure with a bridge for all modes of transportation should be carried forward as the preferred planning solution. + TONIGHT we will be presenting a summary of the evaluation process, proposed bridge cross sections, structure type, and preliminary design recommendations in accordance with Phase 3 of the Class EA process for public review and comment.

There has been a lot of public participation in the study so far, representing a wide range of interests and perspectives. All comments received have been reviewed by the project team and will become part of the Environmental Study Report. Over 40 comments were received following Public Information Centre No. 1. Here is an overview of what we ve heard: The Bridge is part of an important north-south commuter route for access to the City of London. Due to the current load restrictions, Fire Services cannot currently use the bridge for service calls to the north of the bridge. A new bridge may increase traffic in the area, and impact neighbouring residential and school zones, which currently experience periods of congestion during pick up and drop off times. The Bridge is crucial to the use of the KCCA Dalewood Reservoir trail loop, and is an important route for cyclists. Safe access for pedestrians and cyclists must be considered. The cost of replacing and/or maintaining the bridge and the impact to St. Thomas tax payers need to be considered. The Bridge could be maintained as a pedestrian/cyclist only structure, with vehicle traffic diverted to the arterial roads within the City (Hwy 3, Talbot St., Burwell Rd., and First Ave.). The Bridge is vital to the accessibility of the KCCA Campground, and removal of the bridge may affect this important revenue stream for the Conservation Authority.

The survey was distributed to over 2000 residences and businesses throughout the City of St. Thomas, including those on the Dalewood Drive Bridge Class EA mailing list, and posted on the City s website. How Often Do You Use the Dalewood Drive Bridge? I don't know where the Bridge is Never Several Times a Year Monthly Weekly 1 7 38 45 101 Nearly 300 survey responses were received from residents throughout St. Thomas and surrounding areas. Did You Attend the First Public Information Centre? 233 40 Yes No The online survey was distributed to get additional public feedback on: A - maintaining the Dalewood Drive Bridge as a pedestrian and cyclist only crossing; B - constructing a bridge to accommodate all modes (vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists; C - Removing the bridge. Daily 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Maintaining vehicular access on the bridge is a higher cost alternative, equivalent to a charge of approx. $110-177 per St. Thomas household in taxes, whereas a pedestrian/cyclist only crossing would be equivalent to approx. $25 per household. 216 3 Do You Think the City Should 50 Move Forward with a Bridge for Pedestrians and Cyclists Only 82 Move Forward with a Bridge for Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Cyclists Do Nothing/Remove the Bridge.

Natural Environment Terrestrial & Aquatic Wildlife/Vegetation including species at risk Water Quality Erosion & Sediment Control Social Environment Public Health & Safety Cultural Heritage Resources Aesthetics Nuisance Impacts Property Impacts Pedestrian/Cyclist Impacts Impacts to Existing Land Use First Nations Land Claims Economic Environment Technical Environment Service Life & Maintenance Hydraulic Performance Design and Constructability Approval Requirements & Regulations Traffic Operations Geotechnical Considerations Construction Cost Operation and Maintenance

A qualitative evaluation was undertaken to determine the suitability of each alternative, and to identify impacts to the Social/Cultural, Natural, Technical, and Economic Environments Dalewood Bridge Alternatives Crossing for All Modes of Traffic was considered preferred for the following reasons: Maintains Official Plan (OP) objectives (Dalewood Dr. classified as Major Collector/County Collector north of the Bridge); Supported by the majority of the public who have participated in the process as well as technical agencies; Maintains bypass route to London for EMS, and provides opportunity to remove load restrictions to allow Fire services crossing; Maintains KCCA recreational trail connection/cycling route (signed route in Cycling Master Plan) Crossing No Crossing Vehicle/ Pedestrian Crossing Active Transportation Crossing Only Rehabilitate Vs. New Bridge Rehabilitating the existing bridge was considered, but was ruled out due to the extensive cost in relation to the ultimate service life, as well as the existing deck constraint which does not have adequate space for the provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities. Rehabilitate Existing Bridge One Lane Construct New Structure Two Lanes Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Construct New Structure One Travel Lane and Two Travel Lanes were considered: One Vehicle Travel Lane This option involves one vehicle travel lane similar to the existing bridge. Signal control would be recommended to replace the existing yield condition to define the right of way, removing the courtesy queuing requirement and the potential for vehicle conflicts. Two Vehicle Travel Lanes This option is preferred as it provides one travel lane in each direction to match the existing road approaches. Two-lane structure more appropriate for Major Collector OP road classification (up to 10,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic - AADT).

There are three components that should be evaluated in order to determine the most appropriate replacement design for the new structure based on the identified needs and uses of the bridge: the vehicle cross section, active transportation facilities, and structure type/span of the bridge. Active Transportation An overview of the existing and planned active transportation facilities adjacent to the bridge was conducted (Elgin-St. Thomas Cycling Master Plan), and the function of the corridor was reviewed in identifying the most appropriate active transportation facilities to include in the design. A sidewalk on the east side, along with shared bicycle lanes in each direction were determined to be the most appropriate facilities; the sidewalk provides a dedicated space for pedestrians continuing along the Dalewood Reservoir Trail, and shared bicycle lanes were identified as an appropriate transition between the shared bicycle route south of the bridge, and paved shoulders identified to the north. General Arrangement Building a new structure will include the need for new abutment/piers to provide a new solid foundation for the bridge, new structural support members or girders, and a new bridge deck. The new deck will be built to maintain the existing clearance to the reservoir water level, which is maintained by the downstream dam. Outside of the new structure, Dalewood Drive will be reconstructed to accommodate the new road profile. The road would need to be raised in order to allow for the new structural supports of the bridge components. The road reconstruction would necessitate modifications to the adjacent car parking area, adjacent trail connections and maintenance access to the dam. Road grade changes can be accommodated through regrading and relocation of the facilities, and/or retaining walls. Roadway illumination and utilities will be relocated as required. Conceptual Bridge Cross Section

Conceptual Bridge Crossing along Dalewood Drive

Three structure types were reviewed as feasible options for replacement of the Bridge: Slab on Girder Bridge Through Truss Bridge Tied Arch Bridge Advantages Simple to design and construct; Durable structure that is easy to maintain; Suitable for integral abutment configurations (i.e. no expansion joint required on bridge deck), which is desirable from a maintenance perspective; Lower construction cost than other bridge types; Span configuration alternatives can be investigated to minimize structure depth and impacts to the road approaches. Disadvantages Typically not as architecturally pleasing as other types of bridge structures; however opportunities exist to incorporate aesthetic features such as patterned concrete and barrier wall insets; Limited visibility through the structure from below. Advantages Similar to existing bridge structure; Efficient use of materials (i.e. slender structural members can be used); Shallow depth of construction under roadway Disadvantages More complex to design and construct; Main structural members (trusses) are situated above the roadway, requiring more maintenance effort and/or protection; Larger bridge footprint needed than slabon-girder (trusses are outside of the roadway); Relatively higher construction costs; Not as aesthetically pleasing as compared to the arch bridge type; however opportunities exist for aesthetic enhancements/gateway features. Advantages Arch bridges tend to be the most aesthetically pleasing, and provide the opportunity to create a defining streetscape and iconic gateway feature to St. Thomas; Efficient use of materials (i.e. slender structural members can be used); Shallow depth of structure under roadway Disadvantages More complex to design, and labour intensive construction; Arches are situated above the roadway, requiring more maintenance effort and/or protection; Larger bridge footprint needed (arches are outside of the roadway);

The slab-on-girder bridge and tied arch bridge types were the preferred bridge types due to the following: Provides greater opportunities for integrated aesthetic enhancements, providing the opportunity to create a gateway feature into the City of St. Thomas. Cantilevered look outs can be incorporated into structural design of the slab on girder. Less grade impacts to the adjacent roadway approaches means less impact to the existing parking area, dam access road, trail, and frisbee golf course, and greater opportunity to match existing conditions. Can cross the reservoir with a single span, with minor in water works required at the abutments. Hydraulic clearance can be maintained. Considerations to carry forward to detail design include: Approval for in-water work will be required by Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and DFO approvals may be required. Slope stabilization and embankment protection is required. Potential tree removal associated on north and south approaches. Potential costing to carry forward: Approximate cost- $3.5-4.5 Million - to be refined during detailed design

Public and Agency input received until Friday, August 12 th, 2016 Recommendations will be confirmed, and the project will be documented in an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to be placed on public record for the mandatory 30-day review period If concerns cannot be addressed, member of the public may send a request for a Part II Order to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change within the 30-day review period. If no Part II Orders are received, the project is complete and the City may proceed to project implementation dependent on the availability of funding and budgeting timelines. Thank you for attending Public Information Centre No. 2 Public input is an essential component of the decision-making process. We encourage you to provide comments on the information presented tonight. Please place comments in the box provided, or contact a member of the study team by Friday August 12, 2016. Stephanie Bergman, MA Planner Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stephanie.bergman@stantec.com 600-171 Queens Ave London, ON N6A 5J7 Justin Lawrence, P. Eng. Director, Environmental Services & City Engineer jlawrence@stthomas.ca P.O. Box 520 545 Talbot Street St. Thomas, ON N5P 3V7 David Jackson, P.Eng. Manager of Capital Works djackson@stthomas.ca P.O. Box 520 545 Talbot Street St. Thomas, ON N5P 3V7 If concerns regarding the project can not be resolved with the City of St. Thomas, a person may request that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) issue and order to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, bumping up the project to a full Environmental Assessment. The Part II Order Procedure is as follows: 1. A person with the concerns directs them to the City of St. Thomas and Stantec during the 30 calendar day review period for consideration ; 2. If concerns can not be resolved the person with the concern may submit a Part II Order request to the MOECC, 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12 th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5