Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report

8/9/2019 Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report

1/110

Prepared by:

AECOM

300 Water Street 905 668 9363 tel

Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2 905 668 0221 fax

www.aecom.com

Project Number:

60196264

Date:

March 2012

Region of Durham

Class Environmental AssessmentHighway 2 Transit Priority MeasuresDraft Traffic Report


2/110

AECOM Region of Durham Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority MeasuresDraft Traffic Report

AECOM: 2012-01-06

2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Hwy 2 BRT - Draft Traffic Report - Mar28-2012 RM.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the Report) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (Consultant) for the benefit of the client

(Client) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the

Agreement).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the Information):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the Limitations);

represents Consultants professional judgement in l ight of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation

of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on theassumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no

obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have

occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical

conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other

representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the

Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or

construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultants professional judgement in light of i ts experience and the

knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic

conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and

employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or

implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no

responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or

opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental

reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and reliedupon only by Client.

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to

the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, ordecisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (improper use of the Report), except to the extent those

parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss

or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.


3/110


Hwy 2 BRT - Draft Traffic Report - Mar28-2012 RM.Docx

Distribution List

# of Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

Revision Log

Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description

AECOM Signatures

Report Prepared By: Kevin Jones

Associate Vice President

Transportation Planning Lead

Report Reviewed By: Brenda Jamieson, P.Eng.

Associate Vice President, Transportation


4/110


Table of Contents

Statement o f Qualifications and L imitations

Distribution List

page

1. Background & Context ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe .............................................................................. 1

1.2 Durham Region Official Plan ........................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Growing Durham Study (ROPA 128) ............................................................................................... 2

1.4 Regional Transportation Master Plan .............................................................................................. 2

1.5 Regional Cycling Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 City of Pickering Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan......................................................... 4

1.7 Town of Ajax Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan .............................................................. 4

1.8 Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy ................................................................................... 4

1.9 Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move) ................................................................ 5

1.10 MoveOntario 2020 and Quick Win Initiatives .................................................................................. 62. Exist ing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Road Network ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Current Transit Service ................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Highway 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Use ........................................................................................... 9

2.4 Highway 2 Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................ 12

2.4.1 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Pickering Area ............................................................ 12

2.4.2 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Ajax Area ................................................................... 14

3. Future Needs & Opportunit ies .................................................................................................. 17

3.1 Population and Employment Growth ............................................................................................. 17

3.2 Planned Network Improvements ................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Business as Usual (BAU) Forecasts.............................................................................................. 18

3.4 Problem & Opportunity Statement ................................................................................................. 19

4. Alternative Solut ions ................................................................................................................. 22

4.1 Role of TDM & Active Transportation ............................................................................................ 22

4.2 Widening Alternate Roads ............................................................................................................ 22

4.3 Widening Highway 2 ..................................................................................................................... 22

5. Assessment of Highway 2 Widening (Design) Alternatives .................................................... 23

5.1 Modelling Methodology, Development & Calibration ...................................................................... 24

5.1.1 Sub Area Model Development & Calibration ..................................................................... 25

5.1.2 VISSIM Model Development & Calibration ........................................................................ 29

5.2 Modeling Highway 2 Widening Alternatives ................................................................................... 355.2.1 Comparison of Travel Times ............................................................................................. 35

5.2.2 Comparison of Transit Delays........................................................................................... 38

5.2.3 Comparison of Total Person Throughput .......................................................................... 40

5.2.4 Local Traffic Infiltration ..................................................................................................... 41

5.3 Safety Assessment of Design Alternatives .................................................................................... 46

5.4 Transportation Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................. 49

5.5 Transportation Evaluation Discussion ........................................................................................... 55


5/110


5.6 Assessment of Cycling Lane Alternatives ...................................................................................... 56

5.6.1 On-Road Bicycle Lane or Bike Lane ................................................................................. 56

5.6.2 Off-Road Cycling Path or Cycle Track .............................................................................. 58

5.6.3 Off-Road Shared Pedestrian / Bicycle Multi-Use Path ....................................................... 59

5.6.4 Compatibility Analysis....................................................................................................... 60

5.6.5 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 61

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Region of Durham - Proposed Cycling Network ........................... ........................... .......................... ........ 3

Figure 2 - Metrolinx 25 Year Transit Network Plan.................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 - Transit Routes in Pickering (2011) ........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4 - Transit Routes in Ajax (2011) ........................... ........................... .......................... ........................... ........ 9

Figure 5 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Pickering ........................... ........................... ........ 10

Figure 6 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Ajax ..................................................................... 11

Figure 7 - Durham Region Official Plan - Designated Road Network....................... ........................... ..................... 18

Figure 8 - 2010 - 2021 AM Peak Hour Screenline Performance - BAU ................................................................... 19

Figure 9 - Transit Priority Opportunity Areas........................................................................................................... 21

Figure 10 - Sub Area / VISSIM Model Limits .......................................................................................................... 25

Figure 11 - 2010 Observed vs Simulated Link Volumes.......................................................................................... 27

Figure 12 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Volumes......................................................................................... 28

Figure 13 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Turning Volumes ....................... ........................... .......................... 28

Figure 14 - Ajax VISSIM Model Limits .................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 15 - Pickering VISSIM Model Limits............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 16 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Ajax ................................................................................................ 33

Figure 17 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Pickering......................................................................................... 34

Figure 18 - Traffic Infiltration - Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 ......................... ........................... ....................... 43Figure 19 - Traffic Infiltration - Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2 ......................... ........................... ....................... 44

Figure 20 - Traffic Infiltration - Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 ......................... ........................... ....................... 45

Figure 21 - Buffered Bike Lane in Austin Texas ...................................................................................................... 57

Figure 22 - Two-Way Cycle Track .......................................................................................................................... 58

List of Tables

Table 1. Highway 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Transit Priority Opportunity Areas .................................................. 12

Table 2. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area......................................................................... 13

Table 3. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area (cont.) .............................................................. 14

Table 4. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area ................................................................................ 15

Table 5. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area (cont.) ..................................................................... 16

Table 6. Population and Employment Projections ............................................................................................. 17

Table 7. VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Ajax ................................................................................................ 31

Table 8. VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Pickering ........................................................................................ 31

Table 9. VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Ajax .................................................................................... 32


6/110


Table 10. VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Pickering............................................................................. 32

Table 11. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering ...................................... 36




Table 15. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax .............................................. 37Table 16. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax .............................................. 37

Table 17. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering ........................................................... 38




Table 21. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ................................................................... 39

Table 22. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ................................................................... 40

Table 23. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering.................................................... 40

Table 24. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2 - Pickering.................................................... 41

Table 25. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ........................................................... 41Table 26. Safety Implications of BRT Running Way Types .................................................................................. 47

Table 27. Transportation Evaluation Summary.................................................................................................... 49

Table 28. Density of Vehicle Crossings ............................................................................................................... 60

Table 29. Density of Vehicle Crossings and Proposed Cycling Facility by Transit Priority Opportunity Area ......... 62

Appendices

Appendix A. Road Safety Assessment of Bus Running Way Alternative

Appendix B. Buffer Width for Cycling Lanes

Appendix C. Intersection / Entrance Summary Data

Appendix D. Bicycle / Pedestr ian Count Data


7/110


1

1. Background & Context

1.1 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

In June 2006, the Province of Ontario released the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan).

The Growth Plan was prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 which provides a legal framework for growthplanning in Ontario. The Growth Plan guides decisions on a wide range of issues including transportation,

infrastructure, land use planning, housing, natural heritage and resource protection.

The Growth Plan aims to revitalize downtowns to become more vibrant centres by: creating communities that offer

more options for living, working, shopping and playing; providing a variety of housing types to meet the needs of

people at all stages of life; curb urban sprawl; protect farmland and green spaces; and, reduce traffic gridlock by

improving access to a greater range of transportation choices.

The Growth Plan establishes the Provinces vision for managing population and employment growth in the GGH and

presents population and employment forecasts for Durham Region up to the year 2031. Growth projections reported

within the Growth Plan indicate that the 2001 population and employment statistics for the Region, 530,000 and

190,000, respectively, will increase to approximately 960,000 and 350,000 by 2031.

Planning and strategic investment for transportation, water and wastewater systems and community infrastructure to

support efficient growth is outlined in the Growth Plan. These policies support a transportation network that links

Urban Growth Centres through an extensive multi-modal system anchored by efficient public transit (i.e., Highway 2

(Kingston Road), from Pickering to Oshawa). The Growth Plan identifies major transit station areas and

intensification corridors to be designated in municipal official plans. The Growth Plan identifies Highway 2 through

the City of Toronto and Durham Region as a corridor for Improved Higher Order Transit and as an Intensification

Corridor. Higher Order Transit consists of heavy and/or light rail and buses in dedicated rights-of-way. Intensification

Corridors include higher order transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus on higher density, mixed

use development that is consistent with planned transit service levels.

This project is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Plan: public transit will be the first priority for transportation and major transportation investments

major transit station areas and intensification corridors will be designated in official plans

major transit station area and intensification corridors will be planned to ensure the viability of existing and

planned transit service levels

major transit stations will be planned and designed to provide access from various transportation modes

including pedestrians, bicycles and passenger drop-off

1.2 Durham Region Offic ial Plan

Durham Regions Official Plan identifies Highway 2 (and Simcoe Street) as the most significant transit corridors

within the Region linking designated transportation hubs. According to the Official Plan, the transportation system inDurham Region is to be integrated, safe, efficient and reliable for all users and modes and offer a variety of mobility

choices for all Durham residents. The Official Plan states that Regional Council supports the planning, design and

operation of a fully integrated Regional Transportation System, composed of road, transit priority and strategic goods

movement networks.

The Official Plan supports the planning, design and operation of an integrated and coordinated Transit Priority

Network, as designated on Schedule 'C' Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network. The Transit Priority Network is

comprised of the following elements: a) transit spines, b) commuter rail service, c) transportation hubs; and d)


8/110


2

freeway transit services. Highway 2 (Kingston Road) is designated as a transit spine, as an element of the transit

network that facilitates inter-regional and inter-municipal services and intersects with local transit services.

1.3 Growing Durham Study (ROPA 128)

In response to the Growth Plan, the Growing Durham study (Regional Official Plan Amendment 128) was initiated byDurham Region in July 2007 to build upon the Regions Official Plan review and provide a comprehensive analysis

of the implications of growth in the region. A review and evaluation of alternative growth scenarios was carried out

by the Region in the context of the Growth Plan. Through the selection of a recommended growth scenario, the

Growing Durham study forms the basis of future decisions on amendments to the Official Plan to implement the

Growth Plan. The study addresses population and employment forecasts up to the year 2031, intensification and

greenfield density targets and urban land needs in the region.

As per the direction of the Growing Durham study, Regional Centres and waterfront places are to be linked with

supportive corridors that are focused on active transportation and transit routes. Urban Growth Centres are

specifically identified as focal areas supporting higher order transit services and designated Transit Spines (i.e.,

major corridors where a higher level of transit service is to be promoted within urban areas).

A Long Term Growth and Mobility Structure (Schedule A-Map A4, Regional Structure) for the region is proposed in

which Highway 2 is illustrated as a Regional Corridor connecting two Urban Growth Centres identified in the Growth

Plan. In addition, two Regional Centres are identified in the Growing Durham study within the Study Area (i.e.,

between Harwood Avenue and Salem Road and between Brock Road and Liverpool Road). Several Regional

Centres are identified to the east of the Study Area and generally located along Highway 2 at Brock Street in Whitby;

Simcoe Street in Oshawa; and Courtice Road, Regional Road 57 and Liberty Street in Clarington.

1.4 Regional Transportat ion Master Plan

Durham Regions Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is being updated to conform to the Growth Plan and the

Regions OP (ROPA 128, Growing Durham Study). The TMP defines the policies, programs and infrastructureimprovements required to address Durham Regions transportation needs.

The TMP identifies Highway 2 as the Regions Mainstreet and a significant Major Transit Corridor to feature high

levels of service, enhanced connections with other Transit Corridors and higher densities with a mix of uses. Major

Transit Corridors facilitate inter-regional and inter-municipal service, and intersect with Minor Transit Corridors and

local transit services. These corridors link to Transportation Centres, commuter and inter-city passenger rail stations,

and connect the Central Areas designated in the ROP with other major employment and population nodes. Land use

along these corridors should be designed to support transit consistent with their designations in the ROP and local

official plans. Major Transit Corridors will be considered for reserved lanes first, assuming service levels necessitate

priority treatment (potentially 20 or more buses per hour in the peak direction).

The proposed regional road expansion projects (2004 2021) list identifies widening Highway 2 to an ultimate 6 laneconfiguration through Pickering and Ajax. Specifically, the following is recommended in Appendix 5 of the TMP:

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes from Pickering/Toronto Boundary to Whites Road (2.1 km)

Widen from 5 to 7 lanes from Whites Road to Brock Road (4.7 km)

Widen from 5 to 7 lanes from Westney Road to Audley Road (3.9 km)

The purpose of the widening is to address projected capacity deficiencies in the Pickering/Ajax East-West sub-area

resulting from growth in the Region. The widening of Highway 2 is planned to:


9/110


3

Support development in the southern urban areas of Pickering, Ajax and Whitby for both residential and

employment uses, and improve access to nearby retail/commercial land uses;

Support provision of higher-order transit service in the designated Major Transit Corridor;

Eliminate bottlenecks between existing widened sections of Highway 2 within Ajax and the widening of

several north-south roads, including Altona Road, Whites Road, Liverpool Road, Brock Road, Westney

Road and Salem Road; and

Provide needed inter-municipal transportation connection.

1.5 Regional Cycling Plan

The Regional Cycling Plan was established by the Region in 2008 to develop a network of cycling routes and

facilities across the Region that connects urban and rural areas. The Highway 2 corridor, from the Toronto

Boundary to the Village of Newcastle is identified as a Cycling Spine in the Cycling Plan. It is further noted that the

form of cycling facility to be provided on Highway 2 will be reviewed as part of the Regions Highway 2 Bus Rapid

Transit Study.

Figure 1 - Region of Durham - Proposed Cycling Network


10/110


4

1.6 City of Pickering Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan

In response to the Growth Plan and updates to the Regions Official Plan and TMP, the City of Pickering (City)

revised their Official Plan and TMP. The Citys Official Plan describes the Citys transportation policies as

encouraging a well connected network of corridors (roads, rails, sidewalks, trails and bikeways), designed as

desirable places to be and with a variety of travel modes accommodated, including driving, walking, cycling and

transit use.

Consistent with the Regions Official Plan and TMP, the Citys Official Plan identifies Highway 2 as a Main Street and

Regional Transit Spine.

1.7 Town of Ajax Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan

The Official Plan for the Town of Ajax conforms with the Regions Official Plan and TMP. In addition, the

transportation policies outlined in the Towns Official Plan indicate that Highway 2 is considered a Transit Spine.

The corridor is also identified as a Main Street and future location for BRT.

The Towns TMP identifies a proactive multimodal strategy for transportation investment and infrastructure thatincludes public transit. In addition, the Towns TMP envisions a future road network with a primary focus on transit

and transit-dedicated facilities, in addition to Transportation Demand Management measures, and pedestrian and

cycling policies.

1.8 Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy

Durham Regions Long Term Transit Strategy (LTTS) report recommended a strategy to plan and implement rapid

transit service to enhance connections between municipalities within Durham Region and neighbouring

municipalities. The LTTS builds upon and supports Durham Regions TMP which identified Highway 2 as the

Regions most significant inter-municipal transit corridor. The TMP describes Highway 2 as a Major Transit Corridor

that will connect Durham Regions urban centres, will feature high ridership levels and provide enhanced

connections with other Regional Transit Corridors.

The LTTS assessed a set of alternative solutions that reflected varying levels of transit service and transit

investment along Durham Regions rapid transit corridors. The alternatives ranged from a business as usual case

through to a significantly intensified regional rapid transit network (i.e. major transit improvements). Four types of

transit service were identified and applied in the alternative solutions assessed through the LTTS, including:

1. conventional bus service regular buses operating on a timetable for a pre-set route and on existing

roadways in mixed traffic

2. enhanced conventional bus service bus service operating on a timetable but enhanced, faster service

through transit signal priority and roadway improvements

3. bus rapid transit service (BRT) enhanced conventional bus service using high occupancy vehicle (HOV)

lanes or dedicated transit lanes4. light rail transit (LRT) service transit rail service using dedicated lanes

The report concluded that major transit improvements were required for Durham Region (known as Alternative E in

the LTTS) representing a comprehensive transit solution comprised of conventional bus service, enhanced bus

service, bus rapid transit, and light rail transit throughout the Region. Within the long-term vision for Durham Region,

Highway 2, Simcoe Street and Taunton Road were designated as light rail transit corridors. This light rail network will

create a high-speed, high-capacity grid that will connect with all other transit services (i.e., GO Transit, local feeder


11/110


5

service, etc.). The entire network of transit services is projected to further decrease transit travel time and increase

network capacity.

The LTTS recognizes that implementing more than 32 kilometres of LRT on Highway 2 at one time would be a large

undertaking; therefore, a multi-stage implementation plan was envisaged. The LTTS recommended that the long

term vision for Highway 2 (Alternative E) be implemented in three stages to allow the Region to best meet ridership

demand and growth potential while providing the greatest balance of costs and benefits to the community, as

follows:

Stage 1 initial improvements to Highway 2 through Pickering and Ajax that would provide support for

transit services in the short term as well as the flexibility for an eventual transition to the BRT and LRT

systems envisaged by the LTTS.

Stage 2 - implementation of an exclusive-median based BRT system along the full length of Highway 2 rapid

transit corridor.

Stage 3 modification of the median BRT system to a median LRT system.

As part of Stage 1 of the longer-term vision, the LTTS assumed the following:

The Highway 2 GO bus service is replaced with a Durham Region Transit bus service in mixed-traffic (7.5-

minute service during peak periods and average travel speed of 22 km/h); Highway 2 transit service is supported by some transit priority measures such as transit signal priority (TSP)

and road works at key intersections provided through the Highway 2 BRT Quick Win funding;

Transit services are supported by a transit network including key arterial corridor service along Taunton

Road, Whites Road, Brock Road, Salem Road-Harwood Avenue, Brock Street, and Simcoe Street; and

Transit-supportive land use policies, transportation demand management (TDM) policies and promotional

efforts will continue such as the Smart Commute programs.

The scope and design of the Stage 1 improvements (initial improvements in Pickering/Ajax) was not finalized as part

of the LTTS. As discussed earlier, the focus of this Class EA study is to satisfy the initial stage of the LTTS

recommendations. The intent of this phase of the Class EA study is to assess alternative solutions that will best

implement the Quick Win project while ensuring the context of the longer term vision for the corridor is maintained.

Several opportunities may be achieved with Stage 1 including: develop ridership numbers to support the longer term transit vision

build a system that can evolve over time while avoiding throw-away costs

address the immediate concerns of traffic congestion impact on transit service within the study area

focus the available funds where the greatest benefits for transit would be realized within timelines set

1.9 Metrolinx Regional Transportat ion Plan (The Big Move )

The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) released in December 2008 is a long range plan divided into two

distinct phases covering the first 15 years of implementation, followed by the 16 to 25 year horizon. Within Durham

Region a number of transit improvements have been recommended for each time period, including the introduction

of Rapid Transit service along the Highway 2 corridor, as part of a larger system connecting Oshawa to the

Scarborough Town Centre. Within the initial 15 year period, recommended projects in Durham Region include:

Rapid transit service along Highway 2 between Oshawa and into Scarborough (University of Toronto

Scarborough Campus (UTSC) and Scarborough Town Centre)

Improvements to existing Lakeshore East GO rail services including electrification, as well as express and

frequent all day, bi-directional service between Oshawa and Toronto

Extended peak period GO rail service to Bowmanville

GO Rail service between the proposed Seaton Community in North Pickering and Toronto

Rapid Transit Service on Brock Road in Pickering between Seaton and the Pickering urban growth centre


12/110


6

Improved Highway 407 bus service between Durham, York, Peel, and Halton Regions

In the 16 to 25 year horizon, the following additional transit improvements were recommended within Durham

Region:

Rapid transit service along Taunton Road / Steeles Avenue with inter-regional service between Durham

Region and Toronto

Rapid transit along Simcoe Street between the Oshawa urban growth centre (and connecting to teh Oshawa

GO station), Durham College / University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), and Highway 407

The Metrolinx 25-year transit improvement plan is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Metrolinx 25 Year Transit Network Plan

1.10 MoveOntario 2020 and Quick Win Initiatives

The Government of Ontario, through its MoveOntario 2020 initiative, announced a list of 52 rapid transit

improvements and expansion projects for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton in June 2007. The province has

committed $11.5 billion ($17.5 billion with federal participation) to finance the plans implementation and major

municipal transit expansions are included in this funding. Durham Regions Highway 2 Bus Rapid Transit Spine

(including more frequent service and capacity) is included in the MoveOntario 2020 Quick Win funding plan.


13/110


7

While some funding for the projects was previously announced, the provincial government signalled it will fund all of

Metrolinx's $744.2 million "quick win" projects, designed to be completed quickly.

Metrolinx defines a Quick Win project as either the commencement of a new project or the advancement of an

existing project to a completion date earlier than its originally scheduled timeframe for completion. To qualify, a

quick win project should meet the following criteria:

1. Estimated completion within two years (later changed to 5 years for projects like the Highway 2 Transit

Priority Measures requiring an EA

2. Visible, tangible benefit for the consumer

3. Cross-boundary or regionally significant in terms of benefit

4. Low risk path to implementation

5. Relatively moderate cost

6. Will not prejudice the roll-out of the ultimate Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move)


14/110


8

2. Existing Conditions

2.1 Road Network

Based on the Durham Region Official Plan, Highway 2 is a Type B arterial road through the communities of

Pickering and Ajax. Type B arterials are intended to provide a balance of local access to adjacent land uses whileaccommodating high traffic volumes. Highway 2 is also designated a Major Transit Corridor and is considered to be

Durhams Main street. The Regional Cycling plan designates Highway 2 as a cycling spine.

The major north-south roads intersecting with Highway 2 within the study area are a mixture of Type A and Type B

arterial roads, with Whites Road and Brock Road being designated as Type A Arterials, due their role in carry large

volumes of auto and truck traffic, combined with their role in connecting to major provincial highways such as

Highway 401, Highway 407, and Highway 7.

2.2 Current Transit Service

There is currently no continuous local transit service offered along the Highway 2 corridor. Within Pickering, Route

107 travels along Highway 2 between Altona Road and Whites Road, and Route 107B provides a connectioneasterly to the Pickering Town Centre. Route 121 and 111 also run along Highway 2, between Whites Road and the

Pickering Town Centre, before looping north. Route 104 and 141, access Highway 2 from Dixie Road and continue

east to the Pickering Town Centre as well. Figure 3 illustrates the current transit routes through Pickering.

Figure 3 - Transi t Routes in Pickering (2011)

Within Ajax, there are no Durham Region Transit routes that provide service along Highway 2. A short portion of

Route 225 runs along Highway 2 between Salem Road and Alexander Crossing as illustrated in Figure 4.


15/110


9

There are two basic GO transit bus routes that run along Highway 2 throughout the study area. GO Route 94

(Oshawa - Toronto Yorkdale Terminal) runs along Highway 2 throughout the study area, except in Ajax where it

deviates to Station Street between Harwood Avenue and Westney Road (accessing the Ajax GO Train Station). The

GO Route 94 bus operates in the study area section of Highway 2 as a local bus service, stopping at all bus stops.

GO Route 95 (Oshawa - Toronto Finch Terminal) operates as a semi-express bus through a portion of the study

area, running along Highway 2 with stops at 3 major intersections in Ajax and 3 major intersections in Pickering. It

deviates onto Highway 401 just east of Whites Road, not serving Highway 2 west of Fairport Road.

The GO Route 94 bus is planned to be discontinued when the Durham Region Transit Highway 2 BRT service (DRT

Pulse) is inaugurated as part of this project. GO Transit is still examining options for servicing customers with the

GO Route 95 bus, after the Pulse begins operating.

Figure 4 - Transit Routes in Ajax (2011)

2.3 Highway 2 Bicycle and Pedestr ian Use

To better understand the pedestrian and cycling activity on Highway 2, pedestrian and cyclist counts were

undertaken at two locations within the EA study area for a typical weekday and weekend condition. These counts

were undertaken on Tuesday October 11, 2011 and Saturday October 8, 2011, during and just after the

Thanksgiving long weekend. While not totally representative of summer peak conditions, this weekend featured

sunny and relatively warm weather conditions and it can be expected that this would encourage both recreational

and commuter based cycling activity.


16/110


10

The pedestrian and cycling counts were completed on Highway 2 at the Whites Road intersection, in Pickering, and

at the Westney Road intersection, in Ajax. In Pickering, there are sidewalks along Highway 2 in the Whites Road

area, but there are no formal cycling lanes or other facilities. In the vicinity of the Ajax site, there are sidewalks along

Highway 2 and a multi-use path is provided along the north side of Highway 2.

At the Pickering site, there is minimal cycling demand on weekdays except during peak periods, however there is

significant pedestrian activity on weekdays associated with Dunbarton High School, where students use the north

crossing at noon and during the afternoon peak. There are an average of 1.4 1.6 bikes per hour on Highway 2

(after 8 am), and a maximum observed demand of 6 bikes per hour, in the westbound direction. Most of the bikes

were observed using the sidewalk as opposed to riding in mixed traffic.

During the weekend, there is higher cycling demand on Saturday, largely distributed throughout the day.

Pedestrian activity is somewhat lower on Saturdays, likely influenced by fewer students walking during this period.

There was an average of 2.5 3.1 bikes per hour on Highway 2 (after 8 am) on the Saturday, with a maximum

demand of 9 bikes per hour in the eastbound direction. Most of the bikes were found to be traveling on road. Figure

5 summarizes the results of the weekday and weekend counts undertaken in Pickering.

Figure 5 - Highway 2 Cyclis t and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Pickering

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

EB Bikes 0 0 5 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 0

E-W Peds South Crossing 0 11 30 4 17 72 43 6 9 36 9 13 10

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians -East of Whites RoadTuesday Oct 11, 2011

EB Bikes E-W Pe ds So uth Crossing

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

WB Bikes 0 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 3 2 0E-W Peds North Crossing 0 8 59 23 17 179 59 24 24 129 23 11 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

WB Bicycles & Pedestr ians - East of Whites RoadTuesday Oct 11, 2011

W B Bikes E-W Peds North C rossing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

WB Bikes 0 0 4 2 2 0 4 3 2 4 5 3 1

E-W Peds North Crossing 0 3 3 6 21 18 12 18 24 18 14 17 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites RoadSaturday Oct 8 , 2011

WB Bikes E-W Peds North Cr ossing

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

EB Bikes 0 0 2 4 2 2 3 9 3 3 5 3 1


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites RoadSaturday Oct 8 , 2011

EB Bike s E-W Pe ds South Crossing


17/110


11

At the Ajax site, there is a moderate amount of cycling demand weekdays with slightly higher demands during peak

periods. There is significant pedestrian activity on weekdays with most of the pedestrians using the north sidewalk

adjacent to the commercial development areas. There are an average of 3.1 3.7 bikes per hour on Highway 2

(after 8 am), and a maximum observed demand of 11 bikes per hour, in the eastbound direction. Most of the bikes

were observed using the multi-use path on the north side of Highway 2, and most of these were adult riders.

During the weekend, the cycling demand was almost the same as during the weekday although the demands were

concentrated in the afternoon period. Pedestrian activity is somewhat lower on Saturdays, likely influenced by fewer

transit users walking to bus stops during this period. There was an average of 3.1 3.6 bikes per hour on Highway

2 (after 8 am) on the Saturday, with a maximum demand of 10 bikes per hour in the eastbound direction. Most of

the bikes were found to be traveling on road, likely due to lower traffic volumes on Saturdays, but a few used the

multi-use path, primarily those with young children. Figure 6 summarizes the results of the weekday and weekend

counts undertaken in Pickering.

Figure 6 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Ajax

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

EB Bikes 0 1 1 3 2 7 1 2 5 3 11 4 4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney RoadTuesday Oct 11, 2011

EB Bikes E-W Peds South Crossing

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

WB Bikes 0 0 2 5 0 3 5 3 6 2 5 2 4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney RoadTuesday Oct 11, 2011

WB Bikes E-W Peds North Crossing

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

EB Bikes 0 1 1 0 2 1 4 6 5 10 8 5 0


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians -East of Westney RoadSaturday Oct 8, 2011

EB Bike s E-W Ped s South Cr ossing

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

WB Bikes 0 1 4 2 2 6 3 3 2 5 5 4 0


-5

5

15

25

35

WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney

RoadSaturday Oct 8 , 2011

WB Bikes E-W Peds North Crossing


18/110


12

2.4 Highway 2 Traffic Volumes

Within the study area, Highway 2 plays the dual role of carrying significant long distance inter-regional traffic from

Durham Region communities into the Toronto area, while providing access to the urban retail core area within the

communities of Pickering and Ajax. This dual role results in having to continually balance the need to accommodate

severely heavy traffic volumes, while also serving the needs of other road users; including pedestrians, cyclists, and

local access to adjacent developments. Table 1 summarizes the estimated 2010 Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT) volumes on the various segments of Highway 2 within the Transit Priority Opportunity Areas. On a daily

basis, approximately 2-3% of the daily traffic volumes are trucks, primarily serving local retail and industrial uses, or

connecting to other primary arterial routes.

Table 1. Highway 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Transit Priority Oppor tuni ty Areas

From To 2010 AADT

Pickering

Whites Rd Hwy 401 Ramps 51,000

Dixie Rd Walnut Lane 49,100

Valley Farm Rd Brock Rd 42,800Ajax

Elizabeth St Linton Ave./Randall Dr 46,000

Church St Rotherglen Rd 38,700

Rotherglen Rd Westney Rd 42,250

Westney Rd Chapman Dr 48,500

Chapman Dr Harwood Ave 42,800

Salem Rd Wicks Dr 44,700

2.4.1 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Pickering Area

Under current conditions, Highway 2 is operating close to capacity at the major intersections, and capacity problems

are apparent at many of the intersections with the major north-south arterial roads. Level of Service (LOS) is used a

measure of operations of an intersection. LOS A is the highest and LOS F is the lowest. As illustrated in Tables 2

and 3, within the Pickering Area, the Whites Road and Highway 401 off ramp intersections both operate at LOS C

during the am and pm peak hours, although east-west turning volumes at Whites Road are at or over capacity with

limited opportunity to reallocate green time due to the need to manage congestion related to the Highway 401

interchange ramps. The Highway 2 / Liverpool Road intersection operates at a LOS C in the AM peak and LOS D in

the PM peak with turning volumes, particularly the westbound and northbound left turn movements, approaching

capacity during peak hours. Volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is used in tables below to aid in the evaluation of

intersection operations.


19/110


13

Table 2. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area

EXISTING TRAFFIC PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS

Intersections Approach/MovementAM PM

Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c

Kingston Rd/Whites Rd

EB

Left 83.9 F 0.88 55.3 E 0.77

Thru 25.2 C 0.28 29.1 C 0.56

Right 5.6 A 0.28 5.5 A 0.29

WB

Left 18.7 B 0.70 57.2 E 0.85

Thru 26.9 C 0.86 37.7 D 0.82

Right 6.4 A 0.25 17.8 B 0.61

NB

Left 45.5 D 0.75 37.7 D 0.83

Thru 26.4 C 0.49 29.6 C 0.63

Right 3.4 A 0.31 25.0 C 0.78

SB

Left 18.8 B 0.62 47.2 D 0.77

Thru 39.4 D 0.94 28.5 C 0.43

Right 9.5 A 0.31 13.8 B 0.23Overall Intersection 28.4 C 0.78 31.2 C 0.81

Kingston Rd/HWY 401

EB Thru/Left 28.0 C 0.47 17.4 B 0.73

WBLeft 32.3 C 0.88 49.6 D 0.84

Thru 8.5 A 0.29 12.2 B 0.30

NBLeft 42.0 D 0.80 40.2 D 0.75

Right 9.4 A 0.12 8.4 A 0.17

Overall Intersection 26.7 C 0.82 22.7 C 0.76

Kingston Rd/Liverpool Rd

EB

Left 12.5 B 0.26 31.6 C 0.70

Thru 18.2 B 0.43 44.4 D 0.93

Right 0.2 A 0.15 0.2 A 0.15

WB

Left 46.7 D 0.83 138.8 F 0.96

Thru 22.4 C 0.48 23.2 C 0.45

Right 6.1 A 0.06 0.0 A 0.04

NBLeft 66.3 E 0.84 52.9 D 0.91

Thru/Right 24.3 C 0.39 29.8 C 0.93

SBLeft 14.1 B 0.24 44.5 D 0.73

Thru/Right 32.5 C 0.78 21.6 C 0.48

Overall Intersection 26.8 C 0.79 35.9 D 0.91


20/110


14

Table 3. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area (cont.)




Kingston Rd/Glenanna Rd

EB

Left 18.2 B 0.05 23.4 C 0.17

Thru 27.9 C 0.28 91.2 F 1.02

Right 15.9 B 0.10 10.5 B 0.25

WB

Left 16.1 B 0.30 19.7 B 0.57

Thru 14.3 B 0.38 9.6 A 0.34

Right 5.6 A 0.16 3.5 A 0.16

NB

Left 26.7 C 0.22 23.0 C 0.41

Thru 22.8 C 0.13 25.3 C 0.32

Right 6.6 A 0.12 5.3 A 0.22

SB

Left 21.8 C 0.04 19.3 B 0.42

Thru 24.2 C 0.24 25.2 C 0.31

Right 152.7 F 1.00 321.4 F 1.00Overall Intersection 29.2 C 0.34 48.1 D 0.68

Kingston Rd/Brock Rd

EB

Left 21.8 C 0.18 16.0 B 0.36

Thru 41.2 D 0.60 392.8 F 1.20

Right 15.2 B 0.27 4.8 A 0.37

WB

Left 666.6 F 1.35 390.2 F 1.18

Thru 10.0 A 0.58 17.5 B 0.47

Right 1.7 A 0.35 3.0 A 0.34

NB

Left 37.2 D 0.50 50.8 D 0.79

Thru 41.8 D 0.61 173.9 F 1.07

Right 22.4 C 0.26 31.5 C 0.77

SBLeft 27.8 C 0.80 65.6 E 0.87

Thru/Right 27.2 C 0.85 46.9 D 0.67

Overall Intersection 84.9 F 1.00 165.2 F 1.20

The Glenanna Road intersection also operates at LOS C / D conditions in the peak periods, with eastbound through

movements approaching capacity during the PM peak. The Highway 2 / Brock Road intersection operates at LOS F

for both peak periods, with numerous movements on all approaches operating at or over capacity. Additional

capacity is required at this intersection now to restore acceptable traffic operations.

2.4.2 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Ajax Area

Within Ajax, the major intersections along Highway 2 are also operating at or close to capacity. Tables 4 and 5

summarize the current operational performance of the major Highway 2 intersections within Ajax. Within Pickering

Village (at Elizabeth Street and at Church Street), the constrained roadway cross section results in peak hour

congestion during both peak periods, however the PM peak is most acute, with the eastbound through movement

operating at LOS F, along with the eastbound left turn. This congestion results in recurring delays for traffic and

buses using the Highway 2 corridor today.


21/110


15

Table 4. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area




Kingston Rd/Elizabeth St

EB

Left 661.4 F 1.32 96.9 F 0.94

Dual Thru 12.0 B 0.38 215.0 F 1.10

WB Thru / Right 9.6 A 0.61 12.0 B 0.51

SBLeft 30.6 C 0.32 42.9 D 0.42

Right 73.3 E 0.96 11.9 B 0.54

Overall Intersection 59.8 E 0.76 136.5 F 0.97

Kingston Rd/Church St

EBLeft 28.1 C 0.70 181.3 F 1.08

Dual Thru 18.4 B 0.42 186.3 F 1.09

WBLeft 18.1 B 0.69 21.6 C 0.33

Thru 13.0 B 0.58 36.3 D 0.69

NBLeft 51.9 D 0.78 26.7 C 0.53

Thru/Right 31.3 C 0.57 201.6 F 1.07

SB

Left 44.3 D 0.77 52.6 D 0.76

Thru 44.9 D 0.79 30.2 C 0.36

Right 15.9 B 0.67 6.3 A 0.37

Overall Intersection 24.8 C 0.73 130.0 F 1.04

Kingston Rd/Westney Rd

EB

Left 99.8 F 0.91 312.3 F 1.14

Thru 19.5 B 0.42 79.4 E 1.01

Right 9.1 A 0.38 6.9 A 0.18

WB

Left 600.2 F 1.31 >80 F 1.80

Thru 23.1 C 0.78 22.7 C 0.53

Right 4.0 A 0.07 8.1 A 0.19

NB

Left 40.2 D 0.60 112.5 F 0.99

Thru 32.8 C 0.50 603.9 F 1.32

Right 13.0 B 0.19 23.0 C 0.70

SB

Left 17.9 B 0.46 246.4 F 1.08

Thru 207.4 F 1.09 28.5 C 0.76

Right 3.9 A 0.25 6.9 A 0.22


At the Highway 2 / Westney Road intersection there are numerous movements operating at or over capacity during

both the AM and PM peak hours, leaving little flexibility under the current configuration to improve operations.

Eastbound and westbound turning volumes are extremely high and this results in significant delays for both turning

and through traffic. At the same time, the northbound and southbound left turn movements are also operating at

capacity during the PM peak, impacting the efficiency of the through movements as well. The high turning volumes

at this location are influenced by the number of motorists trying to access/exit the Highway 401 interchange and the

Ajax GO Station, south of Highway 401 during peak periods.


22/110


16

Table 5. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area (cont.)




Kingston Rd/Harwood Ave.

EB

Left 17.4 B 0.41 40.0 D 0.79

Thru 22.3 C 0.36 388.2 F 1.19

Right 9.7 A 0.30 8.2 A 0.37

WB

Left 42.0 D 0.85 309.6 F 1.12

Thru 16.5 B 0.60 19.7 B 0.45

Right 3.6 A 0.07 6.2 A 0.15

NB

Left 30.3 C 0.66 54.3 D 0.86

Thru 26.3 C 0.42 23.1 C 0.76

Right 6.6 A 0.15 6.5 A 0.47

SB

Left 21.2 C 0.35 32.8 C 0.52

Thru 31.6 C 0.60 37.3 D 0.62

Right 9.6 A 0.35 14.0 B 0.30Overall Intersection 23.4 C 0.72 139.0 F 0.98

Kingston Rd/Salem Rd

EB

Left 12.7 B 0.36 31.5 C 0.72

Thru 17.5 B 0.57 46.4 D 0.93

Right 3.9 A 0.38 14.7 B 0.41

WB

Left 442.5 F 1.23 378.7 F 1.18

Thru 16.3 B 0.57 21.8 C 0.53

Right 2.4 A 0.10 6.8 A 0.05

NB

Left 55.8 E 0.77 723.7 F 1.37

Thru 19.3 B 0.44 18.1 B 0.61

Right 8.5 A 0.29 331.7 F 1.17

SB

Left 22.1 C 0.27 50.8 D 0.67

Thru 315.3 F 1.15 31.6 C 0.71

Right 2.7 A 0.34 6.4 A 0.22


At the Harwood Avenue intersection, the PM peak hour tends to operate worst with the overall intersection operating

at LOS F. The eastbound through movement and the westbound left turns are both currently operating over

capacity during the PM peak. Similarly, the Salem Road intersection is also operating at LOS F during both AM and

PM peak hours. The heavy northbound volumes from the Highway 401 interchange contribute to the capacity issues

experienced during the PM peak, with the northbound left and right turn movements both operating over capacity.

As a result, there is not sufficient east-west green time for the heavy movements along Highway 2, resulting in the

westbound left turn operating at LOS F and the eastbound through movement operating at LOS D.


23/110


17

3. Future Needs & Opportunit ies

3.1 Populat ion and Employment Growth

The population of the Region of Durham is expected to grow from approximately 585,000 residents in 2006 to almost

one million by 2031. During the same period, employment is forecast to grow from approximately 220,000 jobs to375,000 jobs. Future population and employment projections used in this study are based on projections prepared

as part of the Growing Durham: Recommended Growth Scenario and Policy Directions report, updated to reflect the

forecasts in ROPA 128. Table 6 summarizes the Population and Employment forecasts by municipality used in the

assessment of future travel demands in the study area.

Table 6. Population and Employment Projections

Population Employment

2006* 2016 2021 2031 2006* 2016 2021 2031**

Pickering 91,425 141,125 177,915 225,670 36,795 54,770 67,910 85,795

Ajax 94,000 126,325 132,325 137,670 28,690 40,665 46,115 49,290

Whitby 115,915 140,625 156,915 192,860 43,510 47,795 56,745 77,100Rest of Durham Region 283,020 320,955 342,835 403,800 109,855 121,885 139,210 162,815

Total 584,360 729,030 809,990 960,000 218,850 265,115 309,980 375,000

Notes: * Region of Durham Planning Committee Report No. 2009-P-58, 2006 Census Place of Work Data (includes no fixed place of work and work

at home)

** Includes Additional Employment per ROPA 128 (currently under appeal)

3.2 Planned Network Improvements

As population and employment growth occurs in the Region, future travel demands on the existing transportation

network will increase, and the level of congestion on the Regional and local road network will also increase.

Figure 7 illustrates the proposed road network and classification system as defined in the Regional Official Plan.

Planned improvements include the Highway 407 East extension, from Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 35/115,

including north-south freeway links in Whitby (east of Lake Ridge Road) and in Clarington (east of Courtice Road).

Additional Regional and Municipal road improvements have been identified for the 2008-2020 period as part of the

Durham Development Charge Background Study. For the purpose of forecasting future travel demands in the

Highway 2 study area, the assumed network improvements have been incorporated into the Durham model for each

respective horizon year. Within the Highway 2 study area planned improvements include:

Widening of Whites Road to 7 lanes, Bayly Street to Finch Avenue

Widening Liverpool Road to 7 lanes, Highway 401 to Highway 2 (Kingston Road)

Widening Brock Road to 7 lanes, Bayly St to Finch Avenue

Widening Bayly Street to 7 Lanes, Brock Road to Harwood Avenue

Widening Bayly Street to 5 lanes, Shoal Point Road to Seaboard Gate

Widening Westney Road to 7 lanes, Bayly Street to Highway 2 (Kingston Road)

New Interchange at Highway 401 / Lake Ridge Road

Widening Lake Ridge Road to 5 lanes, Bayly Street to Taunton Road


24/110


18

Figure 7 - Durham Region Official Plan - Designated Road Network

3.3 Business as Usual (BAU) Forecasts

Based on the planned population growth in Durham Region to 2021, and the network improvements noted above,

forecasts from the Durham Region Transportation model indicate that there will continue to be congestion in the road

network in the southern portion of the Region. To illustrate the network implications associated with the Business as

Usual (BAU) forecasts, a screenline just west of Brock Road was established (which matches the current cordon

count screenline at this location). This screenline is a north-south line just west of Brock Road; all vehicles crossing

this line are counted in the screenline volume. Based on the 2006 cordon count data, the current transit mode share

across this screenline is 26% during the AM peak period, however most of this transit demand is using the

Lakeshore East GO Rail service. If trips using the GO Rail system are excluded, approximately 2% are currently

using transit. Based on the 2006 Cordon Count, this represents about 575 transit person trips using the GO Busservice on Highway 2 in the peak (Westbound) direction. By 2009, this increased to 660 riders in the AM peak

period.

The current auto demands across this screenline result in a screenline volume-capacity ratio of 0.74 in the AM peak

hour in the westbound peak direction. By 2021, with the expected population growth in Durham Region and the

planned road network improvements, including opening of Highway 407 East, the AM peak period screenline

performance is expected to continue to degrade to 0.90 unless the share of trips made by transit can be increased.

While this does not indicate that the screenline capacity has been exceeded, the impacts on the busiest traffic


25/110


19

corridors such as Highway 2 will be noticeable considering that Highway 2 is already operating at capacity at many

of the major intersections. Figure 8 illustrates the screenline volume capacity ratio for the 2010 and 2021 horizon

years, assuming current 2010 local transit mode shares continue to be achieved.

Figure 8 - 2010 - 2021 AM Peak Hour Screenline Performance - BAU

Forecasts from the Durham Region transportation model anticipate that higher transit mode shares can be achieved

in the study area if improvements are made to transit services. Planned improvements to the Lakeshore East GO

Rail line identified in the Metrolinx Big Move report will likely evolve over a longer time horizon as the province

moves to electrification of these corridors to be able to implement the Express Rail service concept envisioned in the

Big Move report. As such, by 2021, it is likely that additional service improvements and capacity will continue to be

added to the Lakeshore East GO line as appropriate, but the significant increase in frequency associated with

electrification would not occur. Implementation of improved transit frequencies on the Highway 2 corridor from the

current 15 minute service provided on the two GO Bus routes, to 7.5 minute service envisioned for the Highway 2

BRT service, is forecast to increase the peak period, peak direction transit ridership at the Brock Road screenline

from 820 transit persons (on all routes) in 2009 to approximately 1,900 total transit persons by 2021. With this

enhancement, the screenline v/c ratio for auto trips would be reduced to 0.84, only moderately worse than today.

3.4 Problem & Opportunity Statement

Funding totalling $25.4 Million has been committed by the Province of Ontario, through Metrolinx under the

MoveOntario 2020 Quick Win funding plan, towards implementation of roadworks for improved transit along the

Highway 2 corridor, connecting Oshawa to the existing transit (TTC) in the City of Toronto. This money is targeted

towards implementing the Stage 1 intersection modifications that are identified in the LTTS. This EA assesses road


26/110


27/110


28/110


22

4. Alternative Solutions

4.1 Role of TDM & Active Transportat ion

Although not studied as a standalone alternative solution, the implementation of enhanced Transportation Demand

Management (TDM) measures and policies / infrastructure to support Active Transportation (walking & cycling) werekey components of the recommended strategies contained with the Durham Region Transportation Master Plan and

the Durham Long Term Transit Strategy. Both studies recognized the role that these types of initiatives can

contribute to a better balance between auto and non-auto use in the community and can also help to support

improved transit ridership.

The Transportation Master Plan recommended an aggressive TDM program aimed at achieving a 15% reduction in

auto demand by 2031. Measures, such as the Regions participation in the Smart Commute Program, which

promotes and facilitates ride sharing / car pooling, have already been initiated to begin this process of change and to

encourage more awareness of alternative modes of travel in the Region. Both studies recognized, however, that

these measures on their own would not be sufficient to address future travel demands. Currently, only about 10% of

morning peak hour car trips have more than one person in the vehicle.

4.2 Widening Alternate Roads

The LTTS study evaluated the transit demand that would utilize service on various arterial road corridors such as

Bayly Street and Rossland Road. Neither of these corridors provided as much transit demand as the Highway 2

corridor, and a continuous service would be difficult to implement along Rossland Road given the discontinuous

nature of this roadway through Pickering. As a result, other roads would not have the same ability to serve the

Regions future transit needs as a widening of Highway 2 for transit priority. The widening of alternative roadway

corridors, in advance of widening Highway 2, is not compatible with the Long Term Transit Strategy and the

Transportation Master Plan.

The local municipalities have established policies to encourage intensification and a mix of land uses in the Highway

2 corridor, all of which support and are supported by rapid transit. Other parallel corridors have built up over time as

mature residential neighbourhoods or other lower density land uses and would not be as suitable for intensification.

4.3 Widening Highway 2

The Highway 2 corridor provides the best integrated solution for implementation of the transit priority improvements

intended to build ridership and reduce auto use. The widening of Highway 2 through key intersection areas

incorporates capacity improvements where they are most needed, as the majority of the key Highway 2 intersections

are operating at or over capacity during peak periods. The widening of Highway 2 will allow for the introduction of a

continuous BRT transit service to replace the current GO bus route serving portions of Highway 2, and will allow forimproved transit frequency and improved service to generate new riders in preparation for a transition to the longer

term LTTS vision of median LRT along Highway 2. The widening of Highway 2 to incorporate enhanced transit is

consistent with the recommendations of the LTTS and the Durham Region TMP. The introduction of Rapid Transit

on the Highway 2 corridor will result in enhanced transit service on the corridor with the highest ridership potential of

the various corridors tested in the LTTS study.


29/110


23

5. Assessment of Highway 2 Widening (Design) Alternatives

The Municipal Class EA process requires the examination of alternative methods of implementing the preferred

undertaking by considering design alternatives. Given the range of existing characteristics of the Highway 2 corridor,

the development and evaluation of certain design decisions for parts of the study area were required prior todeveloping and evaluating the design alternatives. This section of the report provides a discussion on the

development and evaluation of the design decisions and the design alternatives considered for the Highway 2

corridor.

The recommended design alternative must have the ability to transition to higher capacity median transit, be cost

effective and constructible. Important engineering considerations for the alternative design were property acquisition

requirements, utility impacts and costs. The project team considered how each design alternative could be

converted in the future in terms of costs, traffic impacts and the ability to maintain transit service during construction

of the next phase (median transit). Implementation risks were also taken into account because the design

alternative must be completed within the Provincial Quick Win funding allocation and schedule (i .e., March 2016

completion).

The CN Rail crossing and Pickering Village were excluded from the study area because of environmental, schedule

and financial constraints associated with the range of potential issues and solutions in these areas. This led to the

creation of 3 transit priority opportunity areas where the alternative design concepts would be evaluated: 1) the

Whites Road segment, 2) the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment, and 2) the Westney Road Harwood Avenue

Salem Road segment.

Further analysis of the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment revealed that a portion of that segment, from east of

the CN Rail crossing to west of Pine Creek, operates well under current and future traffic conditions. Therefore, this

portion of the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment was not recommended for improvements in this EA. The limits

for the three transit priority opportunity areas where the Alternative Design Concepts were developed are listed

below:

Whites Road Segment

City of Pickering (from west of Whites Road easterly to Dixie Road); approximately 650 m west of

Whites Road to 1200 m east of Whites Road

Liverpool Road Brock Road Segment

City of Pickering (Dixie Road easterly to Notion Road); approximately 500 m west of Liverpool Road to

750 m east of Brock Road

Westney Road Harwood Avenue Salem Road Segment

Town of Ajax (Rotherglen Road easterly to east of Salem Road); approximately 300 m west of Westney

Road to 900 m east of Salem Road

Each design alternative has a 45m right-of-way including 1.5m on-road cycling lanes with a 0.6m width buffer, 1.8m

sidewalks and 4.3m boulevards in either direction. In the Town of Ajax, an existing multi-use path will remain on the

north side of the roadway in place of the 1.8m sidewalk shown on the typical section.

Four design alternatives were developed as described below. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are geometrically identical in

all aspects of design except for the way in which the curbside lane is signed. In Alternative 1 the curbside lane is

open to all traffic, in Alternative 2 the curbside lane is open to only high occupancy vehicles, and in Alternative 3 the

curbside lane is open only to buses. All three alternatives have a 29.8m curb to curb typical roadway cross section


30/110


24

throughout the study area. No access restrictions are proposed for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and existing median left

turn lanes are retained at all unsignalized intersections.

In areas where signalized intersections are in close proximity, specifically through the Whites Road segment and the

Town of Ajax, there is not sufficient distance to taper from the 34.0m roadway section to the 29.8m roadway section

between intersections and the additional width in the median will be used as a potential landscape area.

1. Widening Highway 2 Mixed Use Traffic

Mixed use of a lane by both transit and general-purpose traffic. Optional intersection treatments such as roadway

widening and added auxiliary lanes at intersections provide buses with the ability to jump the queue at such

locations and provide some level of improved service times and reliability.

2. Widening Highway 2 High Occupancy Vehicle / Bus Rapid Transit Lanes

Located on the outside of the arterial roadway (next to the curb) for designated use of buses and shared with other

high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). HOV vehicles would be restricted to 2+ occupants, except where right turning

traffic must enter the HOV lane to turn right at intersections or entrances.

3. Widening Highway 2 Curbside Bus Rapid Transit LanesThis is similar to Alternative 2, but exclusively dedicated to bus operation except for being accessible to right-turning

motorists at intersections and driveways / accesses along the road.

4. Widening Highway 2 Median Bus Rapid Transit Lanes

Alternative 4 differs from Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 as a dedicated transitway is constructed down the median of

Highway 2. The median transitway is physically separated from the mixed traffic lanes which provides an obstruction

free environment for transit vehicles but requires the closure of all left turn movements along Highway 2 at

unsignalized intersections. Retaining left turn movements at unsignalized locations would be a major safety concern

to have vehicles crossing the transitway without signal control. Alternative 4 has a typical 29.8m roadway cross

section between signalized intersections and a 34.0m typical roadway cross section in the vicinity of signalized

intersections to accommodate left-turn lanes and median transit platforms. Alternative 4 has a corresponding 2.1mreduction in boulevard width on either side of Highway 2 to accommodate the wider roadway cross section in the

vicinity of signalized intersections.

Due to the offset that would be created for opposing left turn vehicles at signalized intersections, all left turn

movements would be converted to run on fully protected signal phasing, to ensure safety for motorists. Pedestrian

crossing would be run in two split pedestrian phases, allowing pedestrians to cross into the centre median and wait

until the next phase to finish crossing Highway 2. This reduces the crossing time required for a full crossing of

Highway 2, and reduces the capacity impact that this would have on north-south arterial roads within the study area.

5.1 Modell ing Methodology, Development & Calibration

The modelling work for the assessment of widening alternatives was structured using a two step process. Overall

travel demands within the Ajax and Pickering areas were obtained from the Durham Region Transportation Model

based on forecasts of population and employment growth in the various communities within the Region. Using the

model results for 2016 and 2021 horizon years, a sub area model was developed focusing on the major arterial road

network in the EA study area to provide a refined assignment of travel demands for each scenario.

The sub area model was built from the Durham emme/3 model network and zone system to maintain consistency

with broader forecasts that the Region would produce for various planning studies. Within the sub area, the zone


31/110


25

system and road network was refined to provide more detail on the route choice for motorists to be able to assess

how local traffic patterns would change as a result of different Highway 2 widening alternatives. By implementing

advanced intersection delay estimates, the rerouting of traffic in response to intersection delays was estimated using

the sub area model, which was calibrated to link level of detail.

A separate VISSIM model was used to simulate operations along Highway 2 for the various widening alternatives

including operations of dedicated transit lanes, transit priority, etc. This type of micro simulation model provides

detailed intersection performance results to allow for an assessment of network performance including implications

due to signal phasing changes, pedestrian signal timing plans, detailed lane arrangements at intersections, etc.

Intersection delays from the VISSIM model are fed back into the sub area model to incorporate estimates of

intersection delays into the model routing / assignment process. Figure 10 illustrates the limits of the sub area

model and two separate VISSIM models used in the subsequent modelling work.

Figure 10 - Sub Area / VISSIM Model L imits

5.1.1 Sub Area Model Development & Calibration

The sub area model was built from the Durham emme/3 model network and zone system to maintain consistency

with broader forecasts that the Region would produce for various planning studies. Within the sub area, the zone


32/110


26

system and road network was refined to provide more detail on the route choice for motorists to be able to assess

how local traffic patterns would change as a result of different Highway 2 widening alternatives.

In the original Regional model there are 120 internal zones within the Pickering and Ajax limits of our sub area

model. These were split into 323 internal zones for use in the sub area model, essentially breaking each zone down

into the most refined neighbourhood level that reflected the road network used in the sub area model. The sub area

model features 59 external gateway zones that feed traffic into the sub area.

The base travel demand matrices from the Durham model were disaggregated to the new internal zone system

using zone split factors developed by AECOM. The zone split factors were based on the following assumptions:

For residential areas the split factors were based on the share of the total zone population living within each

of the smaller sub area zones. Census block face population count data for 2006 was used to estimate the

share of population residing within each sub zone;

For zones with all commercial development we used generic trip generation rates based on the type of

development within each sub zone to determine the relative share of trips for each sub zone. The trip

generation rates were based on ITE trip rates for representative retail / commercial and mixed use

developments and these were only used to estimate the percentage of the original trips in the matrix thatwould be allocated to each sub zone; and

For zones with a mix of residential and commercial uses, trip generation rates were again used to determine

the relative share of trips that would be assigned to each sub zone. For the residential component ITE trip

rates for residential uses were used, and for retail / commercial uses the same process noted above was

used.

Additional network detail was also added within the study area to include additional network links to represent the

minor roads and major access points that were not included in the Durham Regional model. Speeds, capacities and

volume-delay functions were refined as part of an intensive calibration effort to ensure that simulated link volumes

matched observed link volumes along Highway 2 and major arterial / collector roads in the study area. Intersection

turn delays were introduced into the emme sub area model for signalized and stop-controlled intersections to better

reflect the delays that drivers experience at intersections, and how this may influence their route choice. Turn delayestimates from the Regions Synchro model were used as the turn delay penalties in the emme model for the

intersections along Highway 2. For the remaining intersections outside of the Highway 2 corridor, generic HCM turn

delay functions were utilized to estimate the turn delays for the intersection nodes.

After the initial calibration work was completed to an acceptable level of detail, a demand adjustment process was

used to modify the base matrix for the sub area to match the observed turning volumes for the PM peak hour (the

worst case scenario used for the VISSIM modelling). The demand adjustment process is the final step that corrects

for local trips making not well represented in macro models (i.e linked trips or mid trip stops); it adjusts the matrix to

include intrazonal trips that are not typically included in the assignment runs in macro models; and it captures the

influence of midblock entrances which can add or remove trips from the network. A summary of the key steps in the

sub area model development process is as follows:

1. Initial 2010 base demands obtained from Durham model

2. Reviewed calibration within sub area

i. Gateway links leading into subarea

ii. Key internal links within sub area (Highway 2, Bayly Street, North-South arterials)

3. Adjusted link attributes to improve local calibration results

4. Included intersection turn delay penalties into model to improve localized calibration

i. Generic HCM based turn delays for intersections outside of Highway 2 corridor


33/110


27

ii. Synchro-based turn delays for Highway 2 intersections

5. Input observed link volumes on key network links and turn volumes for Highway 2 intersections

6. Use demand adjustment process to modify base matrix so that assignment matches observed PM peak hour

counts

Figures 11, 12 and 13 illustrate the correlation between simulated and observed link volumes on the entire sub areanetwork, on Highway 2 itself, and for the Highway 2 turning volumes.

Figure 11 - 2010 Observed vs Simulated Link Volumes


34/110


28

Figure 12 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Volumes

Figure 13 -

Documents

Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report