City Response to Part II Order Requests

AECOM 300 Water Street Whitby , ON, Canada L1N 9J2 T 905.668.9363 F 905.668.0221 www.aecom.com

MOE Response Cover Letter_FINAL.Docx

May 2, 2014

Ms. Dawnett Allen

Project Evaluator

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Environmental Approvals Branch

12A-2 St. Clair Avenue West

Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

Dear Ms. Allen:

Regarding: Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study

Part II Orders

In response to your emails of March 5, 2014 and April 7, 2014, please find enclosed Table A

and the Proponent Information Requirements table and associated attachments.

Table A, provided as Attachment A, documents the issues / concerns raised in the Part II

Order requests and provides a summary of the response to each issue / concern and where

it is addressed in the Environmental Study Report (ESR). For your convenience, and due to

the size of the submission received from the Greenspace Coalition, we have provided a

consolidated response table for this submission that directly addresses the main comments

expressed in their Part II Order submission. Many of the issues are similar to concerns

raised by other requestors; therefore responses to concerns raised by the Greenspace

Coalition have also been integrated into Table A.

A map of the requesters’ properties in relation to the Project is provided as Attachment B.

The map presents the locations of requesters who provided mailing addresses. Several

Part II Order requests which were received via email did not include a mailing address so

they could not be mapped.

The Proponent Information Requirements table is provided as Attachment C. Reference to

the ESR and/or attached information is indicated within the table where applicable.

A brief overview of the Project information is provided herein.

Overview of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Followed

The Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study was carried

out in accordance with the Planning and Design process for Schedule ‘C’ projects, as

outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as

amended in 2007 & 2011). The study met and/or exceeded the requirements set out in

http://www.aecom.com/

Page 2

May 2, 2014


Phases 1 through 4 of the process for a Schedule ‘C’ project. Phase 5 will be completed

prior to construction, subject to resolution of the Part II Order requests.

At the outset of the study, the public, agencies and other stakeholders were given an

opportunity to review, discuss and comment on the draft Problem/Opportunity Statement.

The draft Problem/Opportunity Statement was presented to Council on September 4, 2012,

and was also presented at Public Information Centre (PIC) 1, held on October 2, 2012.

Based on the feedback received, the study team evaluated and refined the draft

Problem/Opportunity Statement and established the Problem/Opportunity Statement for the

Project, as documented in Section 3.4 of the ESR. The final Problem/Opportunity Statement

was presented to City Council for approval in November 2012, prior to PIC 2 and prior to

evaluating the Alternative Solutions. Through the Council meeting process members of the

public could provide comments prior to Council debating and adopting the Problem/

Opportunity Statement, which occurred on November 13, 2012.

The study included the development and assessment of various Alternative Transportation

Solutions and Alternative Road Network Designs to address the Problem/Opportunity

statement for the Project.

As described in Section 5 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were generated, assessed

and evaluated, specifically Do Nothing, Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection

Improvements, and Widen Existing Roads/Add New Road. A combination solution including

Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or

Add New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the

Problem/Opportunity Statement.

As described in Section 6 of the ESR, Network Alternatives were generated based on a two-

step process: the first step included the development of road network alternatives

representing various combinations of road widening and new road connections to address

the Problem/Opportunity Statement; and, the second step involved the development of the

preferred road network alternative to a higher level of design, with alternative design

treatments applied for major intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and alternative

alignments considered to avoid or minimize impacts to environmental features and/or

properties within the corridor.

Given the size of the study area and complexity of the Project, the study area was divided

into three segments (i.e. North End, South End and Jackson Park), with multiple alternatives

generated for each segment. A three step evaluation process was used, similar to the

approach used in other complex Class EA, Individual EA, and route planning studies. The

alternatives were assessed and evaluated using a broad range of evaluation criteria

reflecting the transportation performance of each alternative, the potential effects on the

natural, built, social, cultural and economic environments and also included various financial

evaluation criteria to determine the Preferred Design.

The Preferred Design, described in Section 7 of the ESR, provides a truly multi-modal

corridor, balancing the needs of a growing City while remaining sensitive to the features and

current uses/users of the right-of-way. It best addresses future capacity deficiencies,

identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity improvements

Page 3

May 2, 2014


that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Preferred Design was not

implemented. It offers the best balance of avoiding/minimizing potential adverse

environmental effects while still achieving the goals of the project by addressing the

Problem//Opportunity Statement.

Inventory of the Environment

A detailed inventory of the natural, social, cultural, economic and technical environments

was undertaken as part of the Class EA Study to describe existing environmental conditions

and to support the evaluation of alternatives. Environmental studies were completed in

relation to drainage, cultural heritage, archaeology, natural heritage features (i.e., terrestrial

and aquatic), air quality and noise. Additional and/or more detailed studies were also completed in response to comments received during the course of the study, including:

Supplemental fisheries assessments to collect fisheries community data at several

key locations requested by Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and to confirm

fish bearing status of several of the watercourses;

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed for the recommended corridor

and additional archaeological investigations were completed in the vicinity of the Lee

Pioneer Cemetery to confirm the limits of the cemetery boundary;

Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment in response to concerns from the

Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee in relation to the

heritage value of Jackson Park;

Cost-Benefit Analysis in response to requests for more information related to the

methodology used to undertake the Benefit-Cost assessment and in consideration of

greenspace value; and

Sensitivity analysis assuming full build out of the Lily Lake Planning area, which was

not originally included in the 2031 growth forecasts.

Consultation

An extensive public consultation program was undertaken which exceeded the requirements

set out for a Schedule ‘C’ project. The consultation program included study notices, four

PICs, a design workshop for members of the public and agencies that had expressed an

interest in participating, external agency meetings, presentations to City Advisory

Committees and City staff from varying departments, Council presentations, a study email

address and a study website. The public consultation program was enhanced to include the

first PIC being held during Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. In addition, design

concepts were presented at PIC 2, prior to undertaking the evaluation of the alternatives so

that stakeholder feedback could be considered in the evaluation and a fourth PIC was added

during the study to provide additional information on conceptual designs for the Jackson

Park Area Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern expressed about this

area.

A summary of the comments received and the associated responses were posted on the

website throughout the course of the study. A copy of the comments received from the

public and associated responses prepared by members of the study team are included in

Appendix D of the ESR. The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was

Page 4

May 2, 2014


considered and addressed at each stage of the study process, including how it influenced

the evaluation criteria, the study process, the selection of the preferred alternative and the

recommended design.

In addition to the concerns and opposition received regarding the Project, it should be noted

that support for the project has also been expressed by members of the community. This

has been demonstrated in written commentary received from the public during the study,

verbal exchange between study team members and the public during consultation events,

and an online petition formed and signed by members of the community who have indicated

their desire to have the Parkway project proceed. In addition, comments historically

received from the public during the course of previous Municipal Class EA studies related to

transportation projects in the City (i.e., New PRHC Road Network Improvements Addendum

and Parkhill Road West) have indicated a measure of public support for the extension of the

Parkway corridor.

Aboriginal Consultation

In addition to extensively consulting with the public and agencies, consultation with

Aboriginal peoples was also carried out as part of the study through a separate but parallel

process in recognition of their distinctiveness. A record of the Aboriginal consultation

activities carried out as part of this study, including copies of correspondence, are included

as Attachment D of this letter.

Contact with Aboriginal peoples was initiated at the onset of this study. The initial

identification of appropriate Aboriginal communities and/or organizations to contact was

established based on desktop research carried out by the Study Team. Given that the study

area is situated within the Williams Treaty Territory, the Chippewas of Rama, Beausoleil,

Christian Island and Georgina Island First Nations, as well as the Mississauga Ojibway of

Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Scugog Island and Alderville First Nations, were included on the

Aboriginal contact list. It was further recognized that Williams Treaty First Nations have

rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather throughout the Treaty Number 20 land area, which

includes the City of Peterborough. In addition, the study area was also noted to be situated

within the Traditional Harvesting Territory of the Métis Nation of Ontario. As such, the Metis

Nation of Ontario (head office) and Peterborough and District Wapiti Métis Council were

included on the contact list. Information received from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern

Development Canada provided information related to other Aboriginal groups/organizations

that may have an interest in the study.

Based on the above information, the following Aboriginal communities, groups and/or

organizations were included on the study mailing list and contacted throughout the course of

the study through letter correspondence notifying them of the study and related events, and inviting them to provide input. The list was updated regularly to ensure accuracy.

‐ Curve Lake First Nation

‐ Hiawatha First Nation

‐ Alderville First Nation

‐ Mississauga's of Scugog Island First Nation

‐ Chippewas of Rama First Nation

Page 5

May 2, 2014


‐ Williams Treaty First Nations (Coordinator)

‐ Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

‐ Beausoleil First Nation

‐ Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

‐ Union of Ontario Indians

‐ Kawartha Nishnawbe

‐ Métis Nation of Ontario Head Office

‐ The Peterborough and District Wapiti Métis Council

Focus of the Part II Order Requests

Many of the Part II Order requests focussed on criticisms of the current City Official Plan,

and the recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, including the

demand management program, which were fundamental policy documents that set the

context for how the City has decided to manage growth, land use, and the city-wide

transportation system. These documents were developed in accordance with the Planning

Act and the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans and included full public

consultation as part of the municipal decision making and approval process.

The purpose for initiating this Class EA was to implement the recommendations of the

Hospital Access Road Class EA Addendum, approved by City Council in November 2011,

and two of the recommended projects from the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan

Update; essentially completing Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process for these

two projects. As a result, undertaking an Individual EA would not change the fundamental

policies put in place to guide the City’s current land use planning activities nor would it

change the policy and infrastructure directions adopted by the City through their recently

completed Transportation Master Plan.

Similarly, in recognition of the extensive work undertaken during this Class EA, undertaking

an individual EA would not provide additional information beyond that considered for this

Schedule ‘C’ project that would alter the outcome of the EA process (i.e. the preferred

alternative). The Class EA process followed and the level of detail undertaken by the City

was sufficient to comprehensively evaluate the alternatives considered and identify a

preferred alternative taking into account the need to satisfy the Problem/Opportunity

Statement while avoiding/minimizing adverse environmental effects and taking comments

into consideration. Further, the City is committed to implementing the preferred alternative in

a manner sensitive to both the environment and involved stakeholders through the Detailed

Design and permitting process that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA process.

With this in mind, additional/more detailed technical studies will be completed during

Detailed Design prior to any construction to further refine the preferred plan and the

associated mitigation measures and to support site specific permits and/or approvals. All

EA projects (including Individual EA’s) include some need for additional permits to be

acquired during detailed design / pre-construction stages of the project when the final design

is complete.

A number of the Part II Order requests expressed concerns with the City’s hiring of

AECOM’s former project manager for this Class EA as the new Manager of Transportation.

Page 6

May 2, 2014


The hiring for the Transportation Manager’s position was conducted following normal hiring

practices for senior managers at the City of Peterborough. The process was transparent and

open to all applicants and relied upon the services of an independent personnel agency to

advertise the position and recruit qualified candidates. The search did not begin until

December 2013, following the retirement of the incumbent. Mr. Jones’ involvement in the

Parkway Corridor Class EA was considered only as valuable experience on a challenging

project. At no time was the nature of the recommendation made by AECOM a factor in the

hiring decision, and no members of City Council were involved in the hiring decisions.

The Transportation Manager portfolio encompasses all aspects of the City’s transportation

network that serves to move goods, services and people throughout the community. The

primary role of the position is to manage the Public Transit, Traffic Engineering,

Transportation Planning, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Operations of

the City. Upon approval of the Class EA, responsibility for implementation of the Parkway

Corridor will shift to the Engineering and Construction Division. As such Mr. Jones will have

only a limited role in the implementation of the Parkway Corridor project.

Summary

The work/studies and consultation undertaken and documented for this Class EA Study met

and/or exceeded the requirements set out in Phases 1 through 4 of the planning and design

process for a Schedule ‘C’ project. The City recognized the sensitive nature of the study

area and thus the consultation program and the natural, social and cultural environment

studies and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail

than is typically done for a Class EA. This level of detail was sufficient for the City to make

an informed decision. Undertaking an individual EA would not provide additional information

beyond that considered for this Schedule ‘C’ project that would alter the outcome of the EA

process (i.e. the preferred alternative).

Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or

Robert Dunford at the City of Peterborough.

Sincerely,

AECOM Canada Ltd.

Brenda Jamieson, P. Eng.

Consultant Project Manager

Encl. Attachment A – Table A and the Greenspace Coalition Response Table Attachment B – Map of Requesters’ Properties

Attachment C – Proponent Information Requirements (table and attachments)

Attachment D – Aboriginal Consultation Summary

cc: Robert Dunford, City of Peterborough

Atta

ch

me

nt A

Attachment A –

Table A and Greenspace Coalition Response Table

Table A – Proponent Response to Part II Order Requests

May 9, 2014 1

TABLE A – PROPONENT RESPONSE TO PART II ORDER REQUESTS

PROPONENT: The City of Peterborough

PROJECT TITLE: Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule C)

PROJECT LOCATION: Clonsilla Avenue to Cumberland Avenue/Water Street

PREPARED BY: Robert Dunford, City of Peterborough

PHONE # and E-MAIL: Phone: 705.742.7777 ext. 1867; Email: [email protected]

NOTE – This table has been modified for public viewing purposes. Personal information has been removed.

Issues and Concerns Proponent Response Status

*Specify issue in request * specify response- either from EA report, separate consultation material,

etc

* present status (ongoing meetings with requesters, etc.—

DATES important)

Growth Projections

Growth projections are exaggerated; need for the project is based on a modelled forecast of 18 years

As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006. Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes and accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Based on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).

The recently approved Amendment 2 to the Provincial Growth Plan has even higher growth forecasts for the City of Peterborough with the population expected to exceed 100,000 people by 2031 and 115,000 people by 2041. The Official Plan update will reflect these updated forecasts once it is completed. If the recently approved higher growth forecasts are realized, it is conceivable that all of the north end growth areas may be built out by 2031.

Addressed in EA

mailto:[email protected]

May 9, 2014 2


All municipalities utilize growth forecasts as the foundation for future planning including land use and infrastructure planning. This approach is consistent with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The City, through regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends, update their growth forecasts, and update the assessment of transportation policies and infrastructure needs and priorities. Any portions of the Parkway Corridor or other projects recommended in the current CTPU that have not been implemented will be included in any review.

This EA study has used the original 2006 forecasts as the basis for the growth projections in the travel demand forecast work. These growth forecasts are consistent with the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the current City Official Plan, however they are lower than recent forecasts the province has directed municipalities to use in their planning.

Provincial projections have been wrong for Peterborough in the past; population predictions are overly optimistic and inaccurate

As described in Section 3 of the ESR, the City’s actual population growth has been consistent with the provincial forecasts since the original release of the Growth Plan in 2006, with the population and employment growth actually underestimated by 4% compared to actual population and employment figures. Since the Growth Plan became law in 2006, municipalities have been required to conform with the policies, forecasts, and targets in the Growth Plan.

Since commencement of the study the Province approved Amendment 2 to the Growth Plan, which has even higher growth forecasts for the City of Peterborough, with population expected to reach 115,000 people by 2041. This EA study has used the original 2006 forecasts as the basis for the growth projections in the travel demand forecast work. These growth forecasts are consistent with the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the current City Official Plan, however they are lower than recent forecasts the province has directed municipalities to use in their planning.

Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council has the authority to implement the project or portions of the project as growth occurs and/or as the City can afford it. The City will complete a review of their transportation plan every 5-10 years, and that review may include a review of projects that have not been completed yet compared to updated information on travel patterns and growth forecasts to confirm the need or adjust the plan to respond to changes that may have occurred. This is consistent with proper planning

Addressed in EA and through ongoing monitoring

May 9, 2014 3


processes that occur throughout the province.

Difficult to predict traffic flows 18 years into the future

As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was undertaken during this EA to consider various factors and how they might impact the need for the project including:

Implications of aging population

Implications of fuel cost increases and the role of non-auto based travel (transit / walking / cycling)

Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031

A phasing plan for implementing the improvements was developed to link infrastructure to demonstrated needs and allow for implementation to be accelerated or delayed in response to observed growth, which would be subject to ongoing monitoring

The need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Provincial Growth Plan. Municipalities use the PPS to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other planning matters.

The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is prior to the growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and infrastructure to support growth can be made in a co-ordinated fashion. The lack of a clear decision on the transportation infrastructure needed to support growth in the North End of the City has impacted the ability of the municipality to plan for the north end growth in an integrated fashion, and proposed Secondary Plans for the Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas were delayed due to concerns about unresolved transportation issues. Completion of the 2012 CTPU and this Class EA study provide the transportation certainty to allow the City to proceed with planning for growth in these planned growth areas.

Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The review may include assessing projects that have not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur throughout the province.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 4


An implementation phasing plan for the recommended improvements is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the Environmental Study Report. The proposed timing for implementation considered the longer term growth needs in the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the City, both in terms of volume increases and distribution of this growth.

Study made no comparison to more recent transportation data than the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS)

The 2006 TTS was the most recent data available at the time of the study. The 2011 TTS data was not released until December 2013.

Addressed in EA

Official Plan Review has not been completed Although currently under review, the City’s Official Plan remains a valid and guiding document until it is updated through an Official Plan Amendment. The City adopted OPA 142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing and future planning initiatives related to where and how to accommodate urban growth, in accordance with the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update established the transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the basis for the transportation policies to be incorporated into the new Official Plan. The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was undertaken within the policy context of the current Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Addressed in EA

Project Need

There is no existing need for the project / no current traffic problem; traffic issues identified in the study are only perceived / potential; need for the Parkway has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the ESR

The traffic issues identified in the ESR represent a mix of current deficiencies and forecasts of future conditions that can be expected to occur as growth occurs. The assessment of existing and future network capacity and intersection capacity deficiencies and safety concerns in the Study Area are fully documented in Chapter 3 of the ESR.

As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing congestion are beginning to appear in many portions of the road network in Peterborough today. The ESR has documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at Fairbairn Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and PM peak periods that already exceed the road network performance targets established in the Official Plan and result in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods. This is occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents forecast to live in planned development areas in the north end of the City by 2031 - the majority of whom will continue to drive despite the City’s aggressive TDM program and will pass through these very road segments on their daily travels. Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also demonstrated that increased traffic at many


May 9, 2014 5


of the key intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion. The results of this assessment were shared with the public at PIC 1 as part of the development of the problem statement.

There is also clear evidence to show that motorists are already diverting to use other routes to avoid congestion or delays within the City (i.e. the continued growth in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the east side of the City to access new development areas in the north end of the City).

One of the key roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through traffic into many residential neighbourhoods. For example not one arterial roadway north of Parkhill Road provides a continuous route between Fairbairn Street and Water Street, or between Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill Road cannot accommodate all of this travel and is not designed to modern arterial road standards, traffic from the existing north end neighbourhoods use a series of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across the north end of the City, and many of these roads are carrying more traffic than designed and/or intended.

The need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Provincial Growth Plan. Municipalities use the PPS to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other planning matters. All land use and infrastructure planning in the province entails the use of forecasts to inform the assessment of future needs, and recognizing this fact ongoing monitoring, reviews and updates of major planning documents such as Transportation Master Plans and Official Plans are required or recommended at regular intervals.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity. An increase in congestion in a number of areas is expected as illustrated in Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in increased travel delays and increased out of way travel as drivers use alternate routes to avoid congestion. The increased traffic demand is also forecast to increase congestion and delays at the major intersections within the study area as discussed in Section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many of the key intersections noted in the assessment would also be over capacity, resulting in long queues of traffic, particularly for many left turn movements. Not only does this create additional delays for motorists, but it increases the number of vehicle conflicts and the risk of collisions as frustrated drivers take risks to avoid extensive delays.

May 9, 2014 6


As required by the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, municipalities are required to develop infrastructure plans to accommodate forecasts of future growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has developed a transportation model which is calibrated to forecast existing conditions prior to being used to forecast future transportation conditions associated with planned growth and infrastructure improvements. This model was developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU), the City’s long range transportation plan that examined system-wide transportation policies and improvements using a comprehensive public process in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans.

Travel demand forecasts for this Class EA were developed using the updated City Transportation Model developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The model is developed using industry standard methodologies and is calibrated to be able to predict existing travel patterns and traffic volumes on City roads before being used to prepare forecasts.

While it is recognized that any forecast is based on a series of assumptions about future conditions, if growth does not occur, or occurs faster, Council can always delay or accelerate implementation through the annual budget review and prioritization process.

The recommended road network improvements in this Class EA study will be implemented in phases as growth occurs, road network deficiencies are realized, and as the municipality can afford to do so. This phased approach provides an infrastructure plan to accommodate planned growth, and can be adjusted or amended through subsequent updates to the CTPU in the event that there are changes to the growth forecasts or other key assumptions used in the 2012 CTPU or this ESR.

Need for project overstated (extreme traffic growth estimates or reductions in other areas); relies on weak numbers from a computer model of questionable accuracy based on projected growth; transportation model assumed that streets were flat and not hills that would cause sight line issues; general critique of the modelling process

As above.

Travel demand forecasts for this Class EA were developed using the updated City Transportation Model developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The model is developed using industry standard methodologies and is calibrated to be able to predict existing travel patterns and traffic volumes on City roads before being used to prepare forecasts.

An excerpt from the transportation model development and calibration portion of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update report is included in Appendix P of the ESR. In addition, a summary of the travel capacity analysis carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 7


Study uses peak traffic flow rates as the basis of determining traffic handling need; study did not clearly state what portion of each day traffic capacity will be exceeded

The City has developed policies within the Official Plan and the 2012 TMP that guide decision making for transportation investments. As per the Official Plan policies and the 2012 TMP, a level of service D during peak periods is considered the maximum acceptable performance target, representing 90% of the planning capacity of the road.

As described in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the updated transportation model developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update was designed and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday. Travel demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity during peak periods.

Addressed in EA

Only vague discussions of traffic problems at various intersections were presented in the ESR

Section 3.3.1 of the ESR provided a detailed description of existing and future capacity concerns and Section 3.3.2 provides a detailed assessment of collision problems at these same intersections. Supporting detail capacity analysis worksheets with additional detail are also provided in Appendix Q of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Completion of the Chemong Road/Reid Street Widening project would ultimately affect traffic capacity on Chemong Road

Agreed. All modelling work assumed Chemong Road would be widened as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Addressed in EA

No issues with access to the hospital since Medical Drive constructed. Better access to hospital was not a major point discussed at the Public meetings.

The construction of Medical Drive did improve access to the hospital from Sherbrooke Street to Parkhill Road and reduced traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital. The Parkway will provide enhanced access to the Hospital for residents living in the north end of the City and the communities to the north, and will enhance connectivity to the south end road network from Medical Drive. That being said, it is true that enhanced access to the hospital was not a primary purpose of the Class EA and was not featured in the definition of the problem statement. In fact it is only mentioned in the Executive Summary to the ESR as part of the statement that the preferred alternative “Provides the best access to the hospital and the south end of the City from the growing north end neighbourhoods”. The point about access to the south end of the city was a major element of the problem statement for this Class EA.

Addressed in EA

North End residents already served by big box development within north end and do not need to travel south; assumes travel from northeast end of

North end residents do and are expected to continue to travel to destinations in the broader City and to destinations external to the City. As detailed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, trip distribution patterns in the City model are based on observed origin-destination trip patterns from the 2006 Transportation

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 8


City to Lansdowne Street in south Tomorrow Survey and projected growth in residential and employment areas in various areas of the City as per the Official Plan. Forecasts of future travel demands were estimated using the updated transportation model developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update completed by Morrison Hershfield. The model was designed and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday.

Does not service the north end areas where population growth expected; east end of Lansdowne not served by Parkway; only 1/10th of traffic addressed, links 1/5th of new development

As detailed in Section 6.4.5 of the ESR, the Preferred Plan will service the north end areas of the City where population growth is planned to occur. The roadway does not need to run through a development area to service that area. The Preferred Parkway Plan in the north end of the study area (combined with the Parkway in the south end) will reduce the overall capacity deficiencies in the north end road network, the south end road network, within the entire study area, and across the entire City transportation network. This is primarily due to the fact that the Parkway corridor provides relief to a number of existing roadways in the north end of the City, which frees up capacity that can be used by traffic to and from the north end growth areas, even traffic that is not oriented to use the Parkway itself (i.e. traffic to and from the downtown). No single road can reasonably be expected to service all of the trips to and from all areas of the City. The Parkway will have broad benefits for many users in the network, including those whose destinations/origins are located to the east of the Parkway. As noted in Chapter 6 of the ESR, this is demonstrated in Table 6.23, which notes many of the major road corridors where future widening needs can be deferred as a result of implementing the Parkway Corridor.

Addressed in EA

Does not determine the destinations people would want to travel – with existing uses on Hilliard Street (i.e., school, churches, senior’s complexes, etc.) the Parkway will not reduce need to access these facilities.

Agreed. The Parkway will not reduce the need for access to facilities on Hilliard Street. A single lane roundabout will be provided at the Parkway / Hilliard Street intersection, maintaining access to existing facilities in this area.

Addressed in EA

Did not complete analysis of Peterborough residents in 2030 (i.e. retired), problem period does not align with population projections, Study did not consider updated travel pattern data; increasing portion of the population will not place a burden on the transportation network during peak hours

The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated 22% growth in internal traffic from 2006 to 2031 during the PM Peak Period. The CTPU assessed trip making patterns due to the aging population and suggested that base travel demands could be overstated by up to 5% but did not recommend any changes to travel demands due to the uncertainty in this initial assessment.

PM Peak Hour travel is used by the City in their travel demand forecast model

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 9


to determine roadway improvement needs because this period not only includes home-work related travel but it also includes a significant portion of discretionary trip making activity (as illustrated in Figure 3-3 of the ESR), which includes trip making made by retirees, students, and part time workers.

In response to comments expressed about the influence of aging population, AECOM undertook a more detailed assessment of trip making patterns by age category, time of day, and trip purpose using data from the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Using this data, combined with the estimated age profile for Peterborough in 2031 PM peak hour growth in travel demand is estimated at 20%. This assumes no significant increase in work trip making for those over age 55, although trends suggest that people may end up working longer in the future. Mid-day trip making is expected to grow by over 23%. Based on this more detailed assessment, the base travel demand forecasts from the CTPU are in line with these estimates. This analysis was presented at PIC 3 and is fully documented in Section 3.2 of the ESR

The transportation modelling development was based on 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey Data (TTS) which is the only reliable data available for use in the study. The 2011 TTS data was only released for use in December 2013, after completion of the technical work on the study and the approval of the study by City Council.

Does not consider effect of induced traffic Induced traffic was not included in the modelling and cost-benefit work for the Parkway Corridor EA Study. A network wide modelling approach was used, where the same overall demand for travel was used in the modelling of each scenario, including the Do Nothing scenario (without the Parkway Corridor in place). In this approach drivers may change their route as result of road network improvements that reduce travel times but no new demand is generated. As a result of the shift in route choice, higher traffic volumes would be experienced on portions of the network, however this would be offset by traffic volume reductions in other areas of the network. Some of the previous research on induced traffic has included this diverted traffic in the calculation of “induced traffic”.

The issue of induced traffic is complex. In a heavily congested network (such as the Toronto area) some travelers choose to defer making trips, some travel outside of peak periods, and others shift to travel by other modes (such as transit) to avoid traffic congestion. In these cases, the addition of road network capacity may improve peak period auto travel times enough to “induce” these users to change their trip making and revert back to travel by auto during the peak periods. This is the phenomenon examined by most of

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 10


the researchers that have studied the issue of induced traffic in urban areas in the past.

Even these are not necessarily new trips – they are just trips added to the peak periods instead of other periods of the day or other travel modes. Generally, a corresponding reduction in demand would occur in the off peak periods or in the number of trips made by other modes as a result. The extent of peak period congestion in Peterborough is not expected to be so significant by 2031 to suppress trip making or force a substantial number of drivers to travel outside of peak times to avoid congestion. Therefore it is not expected that the completion of the Parkway Corridor would induce any new travel in the City than is forecast to occur in the “Do Nothing” scenario.

That being said, there is clear evidence to show that motorists are already diverting to use other routes to avoid congestion or delays within the City (i.e. the continued growth in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the east side of the City to access new development areas in the north end of the City). These trips that divert to the Parkway Corridor have been included in the modelling work for the project.

The other case where induced traffic can be found is for a new highway or rail projects that links two communities and reduces travel times between them significantly. In this case new inter-city travel may be induced, however this is often traffic that would have traveled within each community or to other communities prior to the improvement. This would be similar to the widening of Highway 35/115 which contributed to increased commuting between the Peterborough Area and Durham Region, for example. This condition also does not apply in the context of the Parkway corridor study as the majority of traffic is internal to the City and the new road capacity provided does not fundamentally change travel times between adjacent communities.

There is no evidence the Parkway will move traffic more efficiently than the existing road network; future road use patterns not considered

The assessment of the need and justification for transportation improvements in the study area, as required by the Municipal Class EA process, has confirmed the findings and recommendations in the approved Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update in accordance with the transportation policies established through the City Official Plan. This is documented in Chapter 3 of the ESR. Given that the need has been established and confirmed, the intent and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to determine how best to implement the recommendations of the Transportation Plan and satisfy the problem statement established for the project.

On the basis of the assessment of Alternative Solutions, a combination

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 11


solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the CTPU), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended to address the Problem Statement.

Alternative Road Network Designs were developed, assessed and evaluated to determine the Recommended Design which includes the Parkway. The transportation performance of each alternative was assessed with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended Design best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity works that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not implemented. There is also evidence that a reduction in overall travel time and a reduction in ‘out of way trips’ will occur, which is reflected in the documentation within Chapter 6 of the ESR and in the Cost-Benefit analysis documented in Appendix M.

It is important to note that the Recommended Design incorporates a truly multi-modal corridor that will serve as one of the City’s major pedestrian/transit spines in the future.

Timing for project not demonstrated; request for full City Transportation Plan Update prior to project implementation; construction of the Parkway is being contemplated prior to completion of the Official Plan Review






Although currently under review, the City’s Official Plan remains a valid and guiding document until it is updated through an Official Plan Amendment. The City adopted OPA 142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing and future planning initiatives related to where and how to accommodate urban growth, in accordance with the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update established the transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the basis for the transportation policies to be incorporated into the new Official Plan. The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was undertaken within the policy context of the


May 9, 2014 12


current Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

It is important to note that the need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of the Provincial Policy Statement. Municipalities use the Provincial Policy Statement and the Provincial Growth Plan to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other planning matters.

The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is prior to the growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and infrastructure to support growth can be made in a co-ordinated fashion. The lack of a clear decision on the transportation infrastructure needed to support growth in the North End of the City has impacted the ability of the municipality to plan for the north end growth in an integrated fashion, and proposed Secondary Plans for the Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas have not been able to be completed to date. However, the Lily Lake functional plan is just now moving forward in consideration of the results of this Class EA study, as documented in the Environmental Study Report.

An implementation phasing plan for the recommended corridor, to be in place by 2028, is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the Environmental Study Report. The proposed timing for implementation considered the longer term growth needs in the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the City, both in terms of volume increases and distribution of this growth. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the project, as growth occurs.

The City, through regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends, update their growth forecasts, and update the assessment of transportation policies and infrastructure needs and priorities. Any portions of the Parkway Corridor or other projects recommended in the current CTPU that have not been implemented will be included in any review. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur throughout the province.

Study does not consider economic trends including aging population, rising fuel prices, increasing urbanization, improving travel options, increasing health and environmental concerns and changing travel and housing location preferences; traffic and congestion predications fail to account for various demographic and economic trends that

As described in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was undertaken during this EA to consider various factors and how they might impact the need for the project including:

Implications of aging population were specifically addressed in response to comments received during the study and the review (documented in Section 3.2) found that the base travel demand forecasts are in line with these updated demand estimates.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 13


are reducing automobile travel demand and increasing demand for alternative modes

Implications of fuel cost increases and the role of non-auto based travel (transit / walking / cycling). The Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update assessed the potential impacts in travel demand based on increased fuel costs and recommended no adjustment be made to the base travel demand forecasts. It is expected that increased fuel costs and public attitudes towards non-auto travel will play a large role in encouraging the shifts in demand from auto modes of travel to transit and other non-motorized travel modes that the CTPU relies upon.

Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031 were assessed during the study in response to comments received including the implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area, as documented in Section 6.4.5.


Sudden decision to proceed with plan; project and EA came out of nowhere; project has been ‘fast-tracked’

This EA study builds upon the recommendations of the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum completed in November 2011 and completes the remaining phases of the Class EA process for projects related to the Parkway Corridor that were identified in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, approved by City of Peterborough Council in November 2011.

Previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update indicated the need to consider the impacts and benefits of the improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an entire new corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class EA process.

The separate “Parkway related” projects identified in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum, represent a combination of improvements required to solve the north-south travel needs of the City to 2031 and are inter-connected, in that the solution does not work if one or more of the projects are not implemented. As such, the City determined that the combined recommendations collectively required an integrated Environmental Assessment of the entire Parkway Corridor to properly assess the city wide impacts and benefits of these projects.

This EA study has been undertaken over an approximately two year process. As noted in Section 2.5.8 of the ESR, the Notice of Study Commencement was

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 14


issued on July 23, 25 and 26 and August 1, 2012, Public Information Centre #1 was held on October 2, 2012, Public Information Centre #2 was held on March 21, 2013, Public Information Centre #3 was held on June 27, 2013, Public Information Centre #4 was held on September 26, 2013 and the Notice of Study Completion was issued on February 7, 2014.

It is anticipated that the project will be implemented over a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10 implementation stages which would see the new corridor in place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow flexibility for investments in other priorities.

Parkway was originally intended to go around the City limits.

As discussed in the Executive Summary of the ESR, the history of the Parkway corridor goes back to 1947 when a new transportation corridor was recommended to bypass the west side of the City of Peterborough to connect to the recreational areas north of the City. The City purchased the required land for the Parkway Corridor and designated the corridor within the Official Plan, but never moved forward to implement the entire project. Since then the City has grown around the corridor and other routes have evolved to fill the role of the “highway bypass” envisioned in the 50’s. However, as the City has grown, new arterial roadways to serve the growth in the west and north ends of the City have not been constructed, primarily because the “Parkway Corridor” was protected and would serve that need. Essentially, the remaining areas of the City have been planned around this corridor assuming it would be built at some point in time.

As a result, not one arterial roadway north of Parkhill Road provides a continuous route between Fairbairn Street and Water Street or even between Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill Road cannot accommodate all of this travel and is not even designed to modern arterial road standards, traffic from the north end neighbourhoods that already exist today use a series of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across the north end of the City. One of the roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through traffic from many of these residential areas and support safer and healthier neighbourhoods.

Addressed in EA

Improve planning for new developments, redirect growth to east, west and/or south; proposed residential development on existing farmland around Peterborough was not considered.

As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan designates the type of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification within the City’s existing 2006 built

Beyond scope of EA Process, Addressed in EA and through other

Policy Documents (Official Plan)

May 9, 2014 15


boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Provincial Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.

The planned growth per the Provincial Growth Plan targets, excluding the growth allocated to intensification areas, is distributed between a number of planned growth areas. In the north end, these include the Carnegie East, Carnegie West, Chemong East, and Chemong West growth areas and the Lily Lake Planning Areas. Other planned growth areas in the City include the Liftlock (east) and Coldsprings (south) Planning Area. Each of these future development areas also has transportation and other servicing challenges and these factors were considered by the Planning Department in developing the City wide growth forecasts and allocation used in the Official Plan and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. There are limited new opportunities to redirect growth to the east, west and/or south due to the lack of available land, lack of available servicing infrastructure (water and sanitary services) and other transportation management challenges. In accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, the use of existing infrastructure should be maximized and directing future development to the north end of the City best achieves this objective when the broad range of services are considered.

Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as these areas build out to capacity. The City has also recently adopted a proposed Secondary Plan for the Lily Lake planning area, which includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to accommodate future longer term growth.

Parkway study has not fostered the coordination of planning activities (i.e., Chemong Road, Lily Lake Planning, etc.); Parkway creates planning conflicts involving public and private interests and land use planning was not considered

As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan designates the type of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) provided a holistic and system wide assessment of transportation policies, infrastructure and services needed to support the planned growth and Official Plan Policies of the City.

The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was not intended to replace these policy documents but was intended to undertake the planning for two of the projects identified in the CTPU, and therefore incorporated the policy framework from the CTPU and assumed that all of the other improvements

Addressed in EA and through other Policy Documents (Official Plan)

May 9, 2014 16


identified in the city-wide would be completed. This demonstrates an integrated and co-ordinated planning process that respects and conforms to established local and provincial policies in place.

Similarly, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders, the Class EA incorporated additional sensitivity analysis to determine what implications the proposed Lily Lake Planning Area would have on the assessment and evaluation of alternatives. This was treated as a sensitivity analysis in the Class EA, since the Lily Lake growth area had no official planning approvals at the time the EA commenced. Again, the assessment approach utilized in the Class EA demonstrates a co-ordinated approach to considering the transportation needs of the community both today and in the longer range future.

Traffic demands are possible, not actual; questioned validity of the model used to predict future traffic growth in the study area and to accurately model traffic congestion

Forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided in the Provincial Growth Plan, issued by the province in 2006. Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes and accordingly the original Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City Official Plan and the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow 11.8% (from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000) by 2031. Since the original release of the Growth Plan in 2006, the City’s actual population growth has been consistent with the provincial forecasts.

Traffic demand modelling work is an estimate which is based on industry standard techniques, the best information available at the time, and assumptions about future land use and demographic patterns and public attitudes about how residents may choose to travel in the future. The travel demand model is designed and calibrated to industry standard levels of accuracy to be able to forecast current traffic volumes using the road network prior to being used to forecast future demands. As a result of the various assumptions used about future conditions, actual traffic demands could be higher or lower than the forecasting results presented in the study. The methodology applied as part of the traffic demand modelling work is typical for transportation planning exercises, whether an Individual EA or a Class EA study is being undertaken.

However, this is true of any forecast – whether it be transportation planning, school needs planning, or retirement planning. Any forecast relies on assumptions about future conditions. In the case of the forecasts used in this Class EA study, the forecast is based on the best estimate of what the City expects to occur and has planned for – as a result of the policies established in

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 17


the City Official Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the Provincial Growth Plan.

Automobile trip making, forecast in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, could be considered conservative as it assumes a significant reduction in demand due to the substantial increase in non-auto travel projected as part of the forecast.

Modelling methods used in this study are biased; modelling methods used in the study did not model driver behaviour accurately, and used a simplistic model to predict driver behaviour

The modelling completed as part of this study was completed in accordance with industry standard approaches. The model was calibrated and validated for base year conditions and reflects changing trip making patterns for future conditions.

Addressed in EA

Project based on travel time savings; marginal time savings for travel between the north and the south

As per the Municipal Class EA process, a Problem/ Opportunity Statement was developed for the project to address identified problems and opportunities, including the need to provide additional road capacity to accommodate north-south travel demands on the west side of the Otonabee River and to address capacity, operational and safety concerns in the north end of the City by 2031. Chapter 3 of the ESR documents how the Problem/Opportunity Statement was developed for this project.

The final Problem/Opportunity statement was presented to City Council for approval in November 2012 prior to PIC 2 and prior to evaluating the alternative solutions. Through the Council meeting process members of the public could provide comments prior to Council debating and adopting the Problem/Opportunity statement, which occurred on November 13, 2012.

Travel time savings for individual trips was not a primary purpose of the project and is not a component of the problem statement. The evaluation of alternatives was based on a broad range of criteria as detailed in Sections 5.3 and 6.3 of the ESR. Travel time savings was one of 27 criteria considered in the evaluation process. It was primarily used in aggregate as an input to the cost-benefit analysis which was completed at the request of stakeholders.

Addressed in EA

Morrison-Hershfield’s report to Council (April 2011) said problem was at river crossings and not in north end of City; results of this study differ from previous studies

The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) completed by Morrison Hershfield identified a number of road network capacity deficiencies by 2031, including the Otonabee River crossings north of Lansdowne Street, Fairbairn Street, Towerhill Road, portions of Chemong Road, Parkhill Road, and other roads.

This current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 18


transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The current project is implementing the above noted recommendations presented in that study.

There have been a number of studies which have assessed the need for and most appropriate transportation improvements to address future travel demands in the study area and these past studies have consistently recommended the Parkway Corridor as the preferred solution. These studies include the 1990 Transportation Plan, the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, the West Side Corridor Study (2003), and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

The Cost-Benefit Assessment included in Appendix M of the ESR also provides a review of the differences between the previous Cost Benefit study for the Parkway Corridor undertaken by Morrison-Hershfield in 2003 and the more recent results presented in this ESR.

Nothing has been done to discourage traffic infiltration and improve traffic flow on main roads; Parkway will cause traffic infiltration in the Chemong Road area

One of the key roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through traffic into many residential neighbourhoods as not one arterial roadway north of Parkhill Road provides a continuous route between Fairbairn Street and Water Street, or between Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill Road cannot accommodate all of this travel and is not designed to modern arterial road standards, traffic from the north end neighbourhoods that already exist today use a series of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across the north end of the City.

Chapter 6 of the ESR specifically documented how each alternative addressed neighbourhood traffic infiltration and this was one of the evaluation criteria that was added in response to public comments received during the study, as documented in Section 6.3.1 of the ESR.

It should also be noted that implementation of traffic calming or placing turning restrictions would either move traffic from one neighbourhood to another, or if implemented on an area- wide basis, would simply result in more congestion on the arterial road network than has already been forecast as part of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Traffic studies should be peer reviewed The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) was completed by Morrison Hershfield looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 19


current project is implementing the above noted recommendations presented in that study.

The transportation model was developed by Morrison Hershfield and Paradigm Transportation Solutions as part of their work on the CTPU, and they used the model to develop the need and justification for transportation improvements, originally identified in the 2012 CTPU by Morrison Hershfield, which included the Parkway Corridor in the north end of the City. The ESR confirmed the findings of this previous study and completed the remaining phases of the Class EA process for this project.

Problem Statement

Biased towards the Parkway The current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, completed as per the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans, and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The current project is implementing the recommendations from the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

As discussed in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. Section 6 describes how the West Bypass route was also considered as a possible solution, however it was concluded that the west bypass would not attract enough traffic to relieve the north-south capacity problems in the City and therefore this alternative would not address the problem statement. As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.

The Preferred Design, described in Section 7 of the ESR, provides a truly multi-modal corridor, balancing the needs of a growing City while remaining sensitive to the features and current uses/users of the right-of-way. The

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 20


preferred design incorporates infrastructure to support enhanced walking and cycling through the provision of a continuous multi-use trail and sidewalks along the entire corridor. Infrastructure to support transit is incorporated into the preferred design, and the City will be looking to utilize this corridor as a future transit spine to improve north-south service. None of the other alternatives offer the same opportunities to achieve the mode share targets established in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Alternative Solutions / Network Alternatives

Reference to other jurisdictions/experiences in other cities to inform alternatives not considered

The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update examined the system-wide approaches to dealing with mobility needs to 2031 and this study examined a series of best practices from other jurisdictions in developing the policy recommendations that were considered appropriate for the City of Peterborough. This previous Master Plan study, which included full public consultation and was approved by City Council, established the planning context through which the Parkway Corridor EA study was completed.

A broad range of alternative solutions was considered in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process and standard industry practice. The alternatives included: Do Nothing; Non-Auto Based Improvements (transit, TDM, cycling/pedestrian use); Intersection Improvements; and Widen Existing Roads / Add New Roads.

Further, as per the discussion in Section 6.4.6.2 of the ESR related to the Jackson Park Alternatives, references are made to other long span bridge crossings of valley systems to inform the assessment and evaluation of the Jackson Park long span bridge, including the crossings of Sixteen Mile Creek Valley and Lions Valley Park in Oakville, and Pennypack Park and Wissahickon Valley Park, in the United States, etc.

Beyond scope of EA Process, Addressed in EA and through other

Policy Documents (CTPU)

All possible alternatives were not fully considered/properly evaluated; full range of reasonable alternatives to the project were not considered and evaluated; concerned that a full range of reasonable alternative means of carrying out the project were not considered and evaluated

This Class EA study is not intended to revisit the policy decisions in the Official Plan or the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update which were undertaken in accordance with the Planning Act and Municipal Class EA process, respectively. This ESR was intended to undertake the more detailed planning necessary to implement two of the road network improvement recommendations from this plan, taking into account longer term growth. Thus, the basis, or starting point, for the study was the 2012 Transportation Master Plan, and the travel demand forecasting work assumed that all of the recommended policies and infrastructure needed to support the reductions in auto use that were recommended in the Transportation Plan would occur and corresponding auto use reductions would be realized.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 21


As per Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, all reasonable and feasible solutions to the problems are to be identified and described. As detailed in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. Section 6 describes how the West Bypass route was also considered as a possible solution, however it was concluded that the west bypass would not attract enough traffic to relieve the north-south capacity problems in the City and therefore this alternative would not address the problem statement.

As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the CTPU), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.

The City has a comprehensive transportation demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update study, which was approved by Council in November 2011. This study is available on the City website.

The City’s strategy to manage the growth in auto trips is made up of three basic initiatives:

1) An aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, shifting the time of travel and reducing the number and length of trips. The City has a full time transportation demand management planner that is responsible for implementing this program;

2) An extensive set of policies to support active transportation in an effort to increase the share of peak period trips made by walking and cycling from 6% today to 8% by 2031. The infrastructure program includes the expansion of the cycling network in the City with a budget of $38-52 M over the next 20 years which will add 130km of new on-road and off road facilities; and

3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28% and increase the share of trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The report recommends the purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M

May 9, 2014 22


plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing operating costs (total $33.1 M) to expand current transit service to achieve this target.

To date, the City has implemented or is in the detailed planning stages for the implementation of 3 km of new trails, 13 km of sidewalks and 2.7 km of bike lanes since adoption of the CTPU. Further, the City has purchased or is planning to purchase 9 new conventional buses and has increased transit service frequency on four routes with an overall annual increase in service hours of 11% since 2011 which has increased annual ridership from 3.18M riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the conventional system. These measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU mode share targets.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.

Given the size of the City and a review of mode shares in other comparable communities, the CTPU concluded that the transit mode share targets adopted for Peterborough are aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips to use alternate modes was not considered to be feasible or realistic. Therefore the deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR would not be addressed by the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative. As a result, the same potential for adverse implications noted above in the assessment of the Do Nothing alternative would also exist for the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative.

As detailed in Section 6.1 of the ESR, Network Alternatives were generated based on a two-step process: the first step included the development of road network alternatives representing various combinations of road widening and new road connections to address the problems and opportunities; and, the second step involved the development of the preferred road network alternative to a higher level of design, with alternative design treatments applied for major intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and alternative alignments considered to avoid or minimize impacts to features or properties within the corridor.

As per Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and complexity of the project, the study area was divided into three segments (i.e., North End, South End and Jackson Park). With four alternatives within the

May 9, 2014 23


south end of the study area, six potential alternatives in the Jackson Park area, and three alternatives in the north end of the study area, 72 different network combinations were possibly available, resulting in a complex and difficult evaluation process to present to the public. To simplify and clarify the evaluation approach, a three step evaluation process was used, as per other complex EA/route planning studies, allowing for an integrated but independent selection of the preferred alternative for each segment.

As indicated in Section 6.3.2 of the ESR, the evaluation of Network Alternatives was carried out via the same “Reasoned Argument Process” process described in Section 5.3, which evaluates the advantages and disadvantages (or positive and negative effects) of each Network Alternative in response to each criteria. Based on the descriptions provided, each Network Alternative is ranked in terms of how well it responds to the criteria. Opportunities to incorporate mitigation to offset potential adverse impacts are also considered as part of this process. This is commonly referred to as a “Net Effects” evaluation. An evaluation of this sort is common practice in Individual and Class EA studies.

The evaluation criteria used to assess Network Alternatives are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures, as well as public input. For some criteria that are not easily measured or quantified, qualitative measures are used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative with respect to each criteria. The evaluation considered opportunities to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for impacts within subsequent stages of design or construction. For other criteria, quantitative measures were used based on the corridor right-of-way width (representing the footprint impacts), to compare the advantages and disadvantages for criteria in numeric terms, where the higher (or lower) values indicates a better ranking.

The detailed evaluation tables related to each of the Network Alternatives for each segment of the study area is included in Appendix O of the ESR. The assessment rationale for the South End, North End and Jackson Park area Network Alternatives is further discussed in Section 6 of the ESR.

ESR does not consider Transportation Demand Management alternatives, beyond the background levels; study did not seriously consider alternative modes of transportation; Parkway fosters a culture of automobile use rather than a multi-modal, TDM-based alternative

Alternative modes of transportation were identified and evaluated as documented in Section 5 of the ESR and described in preceding sections of this table. The policy directions and TDM program recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update go well beyond current background levels.

The City’s strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an aggressive

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 24


TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active transportation, including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the City’s 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.


As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) was assumed to occur as part of establishing need. In addition, the ability to support transit was considered as part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys, and intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).

Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update’s active transportation and TDM programs are modest; analysis fails to consider a targeted alternative mode improvement and TDM program; targeted TDM programs required; economic analysis does not account for full benefits of TDM program or benefits of more comprehensive TDM programs

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in November 2011. This study is available on the City website.


1) An aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, shifting the time of travel and reducing the number and length of trips. The City has a full time transportation demand management planner that is responsible for implementing this

Addressed in EA and through other Policy Documents (CTPU)

May 9, 2014 25


program;


3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28% and increase the share of trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The report recommends the purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing operating costs (total $33.1 M) to expand current transit service to achieve this target.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents a policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation planning in this regard.

As described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As per Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the TMP), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.

Given the size of the City and a review of mode shares in other comparable communities, the CTPU concluded that the transit mode share targets adopted for Peterborough are aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips to use alternate modes was not considered to be feasible or realistic. Therefore the deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR would not be addressed by the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative. As a result, the

May 9, 2014 26


same potential for adverse implications noted above in the assessment of the Do Nothing alternative would also exist for the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative.

Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update biased, favouring roadway expansion

This issue pertains to the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update which was approved by City Council in November 2011.

As noted above, the City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Even with its aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.


Improve transit; adopt higher transit mode share target of 6%

The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update assessed City wide strategies to improve transit use in the City and concluded that the City could realistically increase the share of peak hour trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The Transportation Plan report noted that this increase would represent an increase of 890,000 riders per year or a 28% increase in transit use from 2011. The Transportation Plan estimated the capital costs to purchase new buses at $5.1 million with additional net operational costs of $1.4 million annually for increased services. Over the 20 year life of the plan, to 2031, this represents an investment of $33.1 million. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents a policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation planning.

The base forecasts used for the current EA study analysis has assumed that the increased transit use recommended in the 2012 CTPU would be achieved by 2031, in accordance with this policy direction.


Should focus on improving existing roads. As detailed in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As documented in Chapter 5 of the ESR, Intersection Improvements, such as the addition of turning lanes and optimizing signal timings, was one of the Alternative Solutions that was developed, assessed and evaluated. The evaluation showed that completing minor intersection improvements can address some of the potential short and longer term capacity and safety issues, but cannot improve connectivity within the road network nor accommodate long term growth.

Addressed in EA and through planned City-wide traffic operations

study

May 9, 2014 27


While this alternative did not fully address the identified transportation problems, there were some potential benefits associated with implementing improvements to existing intersections in combination with other improvements in terms of addressing safety concerns noted, or reducing localized traffic infiltration problems. As such, this alternative was considered in combination with the Widening Existing Roads or Building New Roads alternative. Intersection improvements alone, also will not address connectivity concerns in the south end of the study area, as noted in the problem statement, and cannot effectively contribute to achieving the transit and non-auto mode shares recommended in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in 2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Study did not consider the efficient use of the existing road network to shift / spread peak and traffic flow over a longer time period

As described in Chapter 5 of the ESR, widening existing roads was one of the alternative solutions considered in combination with adding new roads. The widening existing roads / adding new roads alternative was generated, assessed and evaluated and carried forward as part of the recommended alternative solution to Phase 3 of the Class EA study. Shifting the peak hour or spreading the peak period is a strategy that was considered as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU).

Addressed in EA

Concerned with the safety at intersections, not related to the Parkway intersections that are not covered by the ESR, and feel that these would be better served by alternatives that would reduce the number and severity of collisions

Not applicable to this project. Improvements to intersections and/or other roadways not related to the Parkway Corridor will be explored as part of separate studies. The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in 2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.


study

‘Do Nothing’ alternative was not considered. This EA study did consider a “Do Nothing” Alternative, during Phase 1. This scenario includes all of the projects and initiatives recommended in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, except those improvements related to the Parkway Corridor (new 2 lane arterial between Fairbairn St and Cumberland Ave, plus Fairbairn St widening – Parkhill Rd to Parkway Corridor). The results of this assessment were presented at PIC 1. The Do

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 28


Nothing alternative did not address the problem statement for the project and would result in adverse impacts to the social and economic environments. As a result it was recommended that this alternative not be carried forward for further consideration as it did not represent a reasonable alternative. Instead a Combined Solution including non-auto based improvements (as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), intersection improvements, and widening roads and/or adding new roads was the recommended solution to address the Problem Statement.

For many of the criteria, measures of performance were provided relative to base conditions which represent the conditions that would exist if the City implemented everything in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, except for the Alternatives being evaluated in this study. In the context of this EA Study, this is the same as “Do Nothing” which represents completion of all other committed projects except for the project in question. This is not evaluated as a reasonable alternative since it failed to address the problem statement in Phase 1 of the EA process.

As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, congestion and safety concerns, as expressed in the Problem and Opportunity Statement are expected to occur under the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative, and these concerns are already beginning to manifest in the City.

ESR does not fairly assess the option of a ring road for residents of new developments north of the City to access Highway 115 or downtown Peterborough.

Consideration was given to a “West Bypass” route (refer to Section 6.1.1, pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings presented as part of PIC #1 (please refer to Panel 21, Appendix D of the ESR).

As described in Section 6.1.1 of the ESR, numerous past studies have assessed the viability of a West Bypass Concept to provide a route to attract traffic around the City and relieve capacity deficiencies within the City limits. The 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan and the subsequent West Side Corridor Study undertook a thorough evaluation of the west bypass concept compared to various other network alternatives involving the Parkway corridor and concluded that the west bypass would not attract enough traffic to address the north-south capacity problems in the City.

The recent 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update did not assess the West Bypass concept. To ensure that a complete range of reasonable alternatives were carried forward for consideration in this Class EA study, the first step in developing the range of network alternatives to be tested involved the reconsideration of the West Bypass alternative to determine if this alternative could address the problems and opportunities identified in the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 29


study.

Since the route making up the West Bypass already exists, 3rd

Line, Fairbairn Street, Lily Lake Road, Ackison Road and Brealey Drive would need to be upgraded to a 4 lane highway standard to provide for operating speeds equivalent to a provincial highway, with posted speed limits of 80 km/h, limited direct access, and high design speeds, in order to attract traffic. As noted in Section 6.1.1 of the ESR, the results of the traffic modelling indicated that there would still be a number of road network capacity deficiencies in the study area that would remain with these improvements in place.

While this alternative provides relief to Towerhill Road and provides some relief to volumes on Chemong Road, it does not address the key capacity deficiencies in the south end of the study area nor those around the Jackson Park area. This existing route does provide an alternate route to bypass the City from north to south, however it does not address the traffic safety or congestion concerns of the City, nor does it enhance connectivity to the south end road network from Medical Drive. As a result, the west bypass alternative does not provide sufficient relief to the key problems identified for this Class EA study to be considered a reasonable alternative, and was therefore not recommended to be carried forward for further evaluation.

The rationale for not carrying the West Bypass forward in the evaluation process is also discussed in Table 2 – Summary of Public Comments and Responses, provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and Table 4 – Summary of Public Comments, provided in Appendix F of the PIC #2 Summary Report.

EA study was limited to a study of the Parkway Corridor given that it was identified in the CTPU as a possible solution, and did not address the overall transportation system

The City of Peterborough just recently completed an update to their city-wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPU) in 2012, which examined the overall transportation needs of the City for the next 20 years. This study was completed in accordance with the Master Planning process framework provided in the Municipal Class EA document, included extensive public consultation, and was approved through public meetings of City Council. Transportation Master Plans are intended to determine broader system-wide transportation policies and infrastructure needs on a more holistic basis to provide the policy context for subsequent Class EA studies. As such, the 2012 CTPU was intended to determine city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified a number of strategies, policies and projects that would be required by 2031. The current Parkway Corridor EA study is implementing two of the above noted recommendations presented in that study. The intent and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 30


determine how best to implement the recommendations of the Transportation Plan and satisfy the problem statement established for the project.

EA did not develop a comprehensive road-centred alternative to the Parkway; West By-pass route dismissed too early; other alternative solutions and network options not seriously considered

As described in Chapter 6 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and complexity of the project, the study team divided the study area into the following segments: Jackson Park; South End; and North End. Network Alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated for each of the above-referenced segments. This enabled the study team to evaluate the unique qualities of each segment in more detail, recognizing that for most of the evaluation criteria the impacts are localized in nature and specific to a particular segment (i.e. property impacts). For the system-wide performance evaluation, each of the area based alternatives was modeled with improvements in the other parts of the study area included. For example, the system-wide modeling of the south end alternatives included the new roadway in the Parkway Corridor (as recommended in the 2012 CTPU). Similarly, the modeling for the north end alternatives included the recommended alternative in the south end to ensure that the system wide performance results for each alternative were representative. For the assessment of the Jackson Park Area Alternatives, the recommended alternative for the north end and south end were used in the modeling assessment.

Consideration was given to a “West By-Pass” route (refer to Section 6.1.1, pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings presented as part of PIC #1 (please refer to Panel 21, Appendix D of the ESR). This rationale is also discussed in Table 2 – Summary of Public Comments and Responses, provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and Table 4 – Summary of Public Comments, provided in Appendix F of the PIC #2 Summary Report. The assessment concluded that the West By-Pass would not address the problems and opportunities established for this study, and therefore did not represent a reasonable alternative as defined in the Municipal Class EA.

Addressed in EA

Inconsistent treatment of alternatives and application of evaluation criteria means decision making / planning process not logical, traceable or replicable; walking and cycling ought to have been considered as modes of transportation; criteria did not sufficiently prioritize protection and enhancement of important natural areas, wildlife corridors and green spaces; double-disturbance not factored in

As described in Section 4 of the ESR, in accordance with the EA Process, a systematic evaluation of alternatives was undertaken for this project in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, considering both positive and negative effects on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments as part of the assessment and evaluation process. The evaluation process was also based on three important evaluation objectives: compatibility, traceability and objectivity. The assessment and evaluation results were presented for public review and comment at each key study milestone.

The evaluation criteria were grouped under the following seven categories: Technical Considerations; Natural Environment; Built Environment; Social

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 31


Environment; Cultural Environment; Economic Environment; and Financial Considerations. A reasoned argument evaluation process, as has been used on numerous Class EA’s and Individual EA studies, was utilized to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the relative “net” environmental effects.

Given the extent of public comments about the importance of greenspace the impacts to natural and greenspace areas were considered under numerous evaluation categories including the natural, social and cultural environments ensuring the natural features as well as the role and function of the trail and greenspace areas was assessed and explicitly considered in the evaluation of alternatives.

The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s Official Plan not greenspace. The existing corridor is bisected by a number of road crossings. The potential impacts on the natural environment in association with the construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section 8.2 of the ESR and in the specialist reports provided in Appendix K of the ESR. In summary, concerns regarding impacts to the natural environment were received from the public and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the evaluation criteria, the route selection, and preliminary design, with mitigation measures and design guidelines developed to mitigate potential impacts.

Walking and cycling was considered as a mode of transportation. As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement. The recommended design for the Parkway Corridor includes a continuous multi-use trail from the south end of the study area to the north end of the study area, completing a number of missing links in the sidewalk and trail network in this portion of the City. In addition, sidewalk and trail crossing infrastructure is included in the proposed design, including 5 new grade separated trail crossings, 5 pedestrian crossing signals, and pedestrian crosswalks at all intersections.

The Preferred Plan does account for initial and ultimate requirements (i.e. road widening from two to four lanes) with the ultimate road platform established

May 9, 2014 32


and mitigation measures placed to accommodate the ultimate road platform during the initial construction works. Incremental effects of the widening to four lanes, associated with the new bridge across Jackson Park, were included in the assessment of the Jackson Park Area alternatives as appropriate and as described in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.

Feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated - Transportation Plan 2011 has not been incorporated into City’s Official Plan; City has not completed its Official Plan review; no approved land use planning alternative to consider; assumes Lily Lake Planning Area will be developed but is has not yet received approval

As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006. Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes. Accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).

The City Official Plan and OPA 142 designate the type of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification within the City’s existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.

The planned growth per the Growth Plan targets, excluding the growth allocated to intensification areas, is distributed between the Carnegie East, Carnegie West, Chemong East, and Chemong West growth areas. It is neither the purpose nor the intent of the Class EA process to over-ride the Planning Act or re-write the current Official Plan.

Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as these areas build out to capacity. While the City has initiated the planning for the future Lily Lake planning area, which includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to accommodate future longer term growth, the growth forecasts used in the modelling work for the 2012 CTPU and the initial modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not include any planned growth within the Lily Lake Planning Area since it is has not been approved.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 33


In response to concerns raised by members of the public regarding the impacts of full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area on the evaluation of the north end alternatives, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the future demands and improvement needs associated with build out of this development area in addition to the planned growth to 2031.

The Parkway is not only feasible, within the context of the City’s current Planning and Policy environment, but it is necessary to support the planning decisions made by the City.

Preferred alternative is ineffective and needlessly expensive; proposed Parkway extension will do little to address the identified problems and in some cases will make the problems worse

The ESR included the development and assessment of various Alternative Transportation Solutions and Alternative Road Network Designs to address the problem / opportunity statement for the project. A series of road network alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated using a number of evaluation criteria reflecting the transportation performance of each alternative, the potential effects on the natural, built, social, cultural and economic environments and also included various financial evaluation criteria to determine the Recommended Design. The transportation performance of each alternative was assessed with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended Design, which consists of a truly multi-modal corridor, best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity improvements that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not implemented.

For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, a benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives from a financial perspective. The results (as documented in Appendix M of the ESR) show that the proposed Parkway Corridor, returns total benefits that are about 31% higher than total implementation costs and this is significantly better than the performance of the other alternatives evaluated. When the timing of the cost and benefit streams are considered in the present value analysis, the benefits exceed the costs by about 1% resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01.

It should be noted that a large portion of the project cost is attributed to the mitigation measures being proposed as part the project, including landscaping, stormwater management, and vegetation restoration plans. Further, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, to span the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 34


creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, to investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. The cost includes an additional contingency of $5.8M to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).

Preferred alternative will have significant environmental impacts, in spite of some mitigation measures

The potential impacts to the natural, cultural and social environments are discussed in Chapter 7 of the ESR while Chapter 8 discusses the mitigation measures that were developed in consideration of the identified potential impacts.

Every alternative considered has positive and negative effects. The intent of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process is to evaluate these potential effects and rank alternatives based on that evaluation. The Recommended Design is considered to be the best balance of those potential effects while still achieving the goals of the project by addressing the problem statement.

Further, Chapter 9 of the ESR lists 66 specific commitments for further work required to implement the project as it moves through the next stages of detailed design and construction, including permit and approval requirements (MOE, MNR, DOF, ORCA). These commitments are grouped in a series of topic areas covering the primary potential environmental impacts identified through the completion of this ESR, including: Fisheries, Stormwater Management, Hydrogeology, Wetlands and Wet Features / Depressions, Erosion and Sedimentation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Archaeology, Built Heritage, Noise, Air Quality, and Materials Management during construction. Including these commitments in the EA will ensure mitigation of any adverse effect is a high priority and a commitment on the part of the City.

Addressed in EA

Preferred option included a bridge since the outset of the study

Refer to alternative development, assessment and evaluation process described above, and in Sections 5.3, 6.1 and 6.1.4 of the ESR. A number of alternative solutions were developed and examined during Phase 2 of the Class EA process, as described in Section 2 of the ESR.

A preliminary assessment of the Jackson Park area alternatives (i.e., New Bridge Across Valley and Parkhill Road/Fairbairn Street Widening) based on initial observations was carried out by the study team and presented at PIC #2. The recommendation for the New Bridge Across Valley alternative was made based on the detailed evaluation, as presented at PIC #3, and described in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Fairbairn Street route likely to perform as well or better than chosen alternative with reduced

As described in Section 6 of the ESR, the Fairbairn Street alternative was one of the network alternatives generated, assessed and evaluated for the north

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 35


impacts to the natural environment and comparable or reduced effects to other aspects of the environment

end of the study corridor. On the basis of the comparative evaluation that considered over 27 criteria, the Parkway Corridor alternative, which included a bridge over Jackson Park, was the preferred alternative. With respect to the Transportation Assessment, the Fairbairn Street widening alternative results in more congested road segments in the study area than the proposed bridge crossing and the intersection assessment for Fairbairn Street / Parkhill Road concluded that the intersection would operate at or over capacity with the Fairbairn Street widening, while the new bridge provided significant capacity relief to this key intersection. The ESR also noted that the Fairbairn Street widening could not accommodate the potential future traffic that would be generated by the full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area, while the new bridge crossing provided sufficient capacity for this additional growth. This assessment is discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.

Installation of smart lights and/or synchronization of traffic lights not considered; improve/upgrade traffic lights/intersections

As documented in Chapter 5 of the ESR, Intersection Improvements, such as the addition of turning lanes and optimizing signal timings, was one of the Alternative Solutions that was developed, assessed and evaluated. The evaluation showed that completing minor intersection improvements can address some of the potential short and longer term capacity and safety issues, but cannot improve connectivity within the road network nor accommodate long term growth. While this alternative did not fully address the identified transportation problems, there were some potential benefits associated with implementing improvements to existing intersections in combination with other improvements in terms of addressing safety concerns noted, or reducing localized traffic infiltration problems. As such, this alternative was considered in combination with the Widening Existing Roads or Building New Roads alternative.

The synchronization of traffic lights has already been implemented throughout much of the study area, to the extent possible. This was accounted for in the modelling work.

The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in 2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Given the lack of separate left turn lanes at many intersections in the area, it is virtually impossible to provide efficient traffic signal control with advance greens to provide protected left turns at intersections. This type of signal


study

May 9, 2014 36


operation works best when there are separate left turn lanes at intersections and detectors can be imbedded in the pavement in the left turn lane, to indicate when vehicles are waiting for an advance green phase. The traffic signal controller can then provide an advance green move in one direction or both directions if there is demand to warrant the advance green phase.

Without a separate left turn lane, there is no way to know if a vehicle stopped at the intersection is intending to proceed through the intersection or is planning to turn left. Without separate turn lanes, the only way to provide the advance green is to provide it for every cycle of the traffic signal irrespective of any vehicles actually wanting to turn left. To provide advance greens in both directions at the same time, would require a separate signal phase to only allow left turning vehicles to proceed first, followed by the through vehicles later. Again this would occur regardless of the presence of a left turn vehicle at the stop line, and even if the left turning vehicle was second or third in the line, they would be blocked and not be able to use the advance green.

Widening of narrow roads through the area, such as Monaghan Road, to provide separate left turn lanes, even at the major intersections, would result in significant impacts to adjacent properties; would eliminate the sidewalks and boulevards; and would remove many of the mature trees along the corridors. Even if the City did undertake this improvement to roads such as Monaghan Road, this would not address the remaining problem areas that were identified early on in the study (refer to Chapter 3 of the ESR).

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) not examined as a viable alternative solution to the problem statement

The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal system that is currently controlling about two-thirds of the traffic signals in the City. As part of the City’s normal traffic management policy, the signal timing settings are optimized to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various road corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal priority is currently being used to optimize the traffic signal timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water Street) to give priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to manage its transportation system.

These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and the quality of service provided but they cannot increase the functional capacity of a roadway. In most arterial road applications the functional capacity is governed by vehicle following distances (1.75 – 2.0 seconds per vehicle) and the available green time provided at signalized intersections. There are currently no proven ITS technologies that can allow for reduced car following distances while maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies may allow for

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 37


optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic signals, this often comes at the expense of other movements, when more green time is devoted to the major road.

A recent study completed as part of the City of London Transportation Master Plan (2004) found that traffic signal optimization (with no geometric improvements) could at best increase the capacity of a major arterial road by only 5%, and this improvement would result in increased side road delay as priority is given to the major road.

Alternative/innovative methods of traffic management not considered (i.e., traffic calming, restricted turns, improved sight lines, timed lane use/lights, Adaptive Signal Control Systems, introduce signage to encourage use of existing roads, one way street limitations etc.)

Measures to restrict traffic infiltration through local neighbourhoods are not able to address the problem statement for this study. If the City were to implement measures to restrict through traffic from using local roads, this would force more trips out onto the arterial road network and increase the extent of network congestion beyond what has been forecast to date. If measures were applied only in localized areas, this would simply shift traffic to use other local roads to short cut.

The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal system that is currently controlling about two-thirds of the traffic signals in the City. As part of the City’s normal traffic management policy, the signal timing settings are optimized to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various road corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal priority is currently being used to optimize the traffic signal timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water Street) to give priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to manage its transportation system. It should also be noted that the Parkway corridor will support the future potential implementation of higher order transit.

These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and the quality of service provided but they cannot significantly increase the functional capacity of a roadway. In most arterial road applications the functional capacity is governed by vehicle following distances (1.75 – 2.0 seconds per vehicle) and the available green time provided at signalized intersections. There are currently no proven ITS technologies that can allow for reduced car following distances while maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies may allow for optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic signals, this often comes at the expense of other movements, when more green time is devoted to the major road.

A recent study completed as part of the City of London Transportation Master Plan (2004) found that traffic signal optimization (with no geometric

Addressed in EA and through ongoing monitoring of existing

transportation system

May 9, 2014 38


improvements) could at best increase the capacity of a major arterial road by only 5%, and this improvement would result in increased side road delay as priority is given to the major road.

Parkway will accommodate a larger number of cars, enabling cars to move quickly and encourage auto use; invest in alternative transportation modes (walking, cycling, transit)

The Preferred Alternative includes a multi-modal arterial road corridor, designed to accommodate:

‐ Four lanes between Clonsilla Avenue and Chemong Road ‐ Two lanes from Chemong Road to Cumberland Avenue and Water Street ‐ Future express transit route ‐ Provision for transit infrastructure ‐ Sidewalks and a continuous multi-use trail ‐ Pedestrian/trail crossings ‐ Enhanced landscaping and vegetation ‐ Noise mitigation treatments ‐ Enhanced stormwater management ‐ Various intersection arrangements

The Parkway will be a major arterial roadway not a highway. It has been designed to have a posted speed of 50 to 60 km/h. A 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. This trail will be separated from the roadway where feasible to provide a ‘natural feel’ to the extent possible.

The City’s existing strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active transportation, including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%.

Even with the City implementing an aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M (equivalent to the cost of the Parkway) over the next 20 years, the City’s 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.

As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) and even with this shift in use, capacity deficiencies were forecast to occur. The ability to support transit was

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 39


considered as part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys, and intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).

Develop new pathways for high school students; Parkway places pathways near to an arterial road that will reduce the willingness of pedestrians and cyclists to use such routes

As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of the roadway in accordance with the policies in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along the entire corridor which does not currently exist. This system will connect populated areas in the north with employment/commercial areas in the south for non-auto based commuters.

Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections (including crossings serving 3 schools) along the corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park.

Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to separate the trail and the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for preserving existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of construction works will be explored to allow new vegetation to grow and mature, providing screening during construction and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard environment upon opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which may include replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).

Addressed in EA

Natural heritage reviewed for only one existing route for a Parkway alternative, and not others

The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance (NHFAS) report is included in Appendix F of the ESR, with the results summarized in Sections of the ESR. As per Section 4.5 of the ESR, the NHFAS was carried out to assess the existing natural environment conditions within each of the Network Alternatives and to determine the level of significance of terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage features in each to facilitate the evaluation of the Network Alternatives.

Addressed in EA

Policies

May 9, 2014 40


Contradicts requirement for municipalities to protect natural heritage systems including natural corridors and linkages; project conflicts with policies to protect ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions

The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and Corridors that provide linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the Official Plan. The City’s Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands are protected and do not include the Parkway Corridor lands which are designated as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow for transportation facilities within a Natural Area where supported by an Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment.

The Provincial Policy Statement also requires Municipalities to protect efficient transportation corridors to support future growth, which is the why the Parkway Corridor lands have been designated as such in the Official Plan.

Further, the proposed bridge across Jackson Park will be designed to minimize intrusion and disruption within the park, so that longer term ecological functions and longer term use and enjoyment of the park can continue with minimal adverse effects.

Addressed in EA

Contradicts urban intensification; growth areas are not in agreement with either Plan it Peterborough or Provincial Growth Plan; transportation system should be focused on non-auto uses

Land use forecasts are consistent with the forecasts set forth in the City’s Official Plan, which was amended through the adoption of OPA 142 which implemented the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification within the City’s existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Provincial Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.

The Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement is a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads.

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by Council in November 2011. This study is available on the City website.


Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 41




3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28% and increase the share of trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The report recommends the purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing operating costs (total $33.1 M) to achieve this target.

To date, the City has implemented or is in the detailed planning stages for the implementation of 3 km of new trails, 13 km of sidewalks and 2.7 km of bike lanes since adoption of the CTPU. Further, the City has purchased or is planning to purchase 9 new conventional buses and has increased transit service frequency on four routes with an overall annual increase in service hours of 11% since 2011 which has increased annual ridership from 3.18M riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the conventional system. These measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU mode share targets.

Does not consider Natural Areas Strategy The City of Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy was reviewed as part of the NHFAS report, included in Appendix F of the ESR. Specifically, Section 1.2.3 summarizes the findings of the Natural Areas Strategy, and notes that there are six proposed natural areas within the Parkway Corridor study area. This includes the Otonabee River system, Jackson Creek system, Byersville Creek system, Bears Creek system, Riverview Creek system and the Parkway system.

Chapter 5 of the Natural Areas Strategy does recognize the ultimate role of the Parkway as a transportation corridor and acknowledges its eventual development into a transportation corridor.

Addressed in EA

Study does not support policies for safe and healthy communities as the Parkway will separate

The City has been planned around the Parkway corridor assuming it would be built at some point in time. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 42


residential, commercial and employment areas. within the City’s existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031. The new development areas in the north end of the City were annexed for the purpose of supporting future residential growth and these growth areas are reflected in the current Official Plan. The Parkway will provide an efficient connection between these residential, commercial and employment areas of the City.

Parkway would not appear to be consistent with various policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and may not conform to the City’s current Official Plan (as described in our PIC 4 submission)

Our review of the material in support of this opinion (refer to Appendix E) concludes that the Parkway Project does in fact comply with the various policy statements extracted from the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Peterborough Official Plan. For example:

Plan for healthy communities – the proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safer for pedestrians and allows for improved social interaction (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). By reducing congestion and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project can improve overall quality of life as suggested in the Official Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project balances the transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the community and is compatible with the small city character of Peterborough (as suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6 lane roads and complicated intersections (that would be required in some of the other alternatives), by reducing regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by improving safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are already experiencing collision problems. Finally, by choosing a route that does not provide new roadway capacity at the edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually less likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent rural areas than other alternatives (specifically the West By-Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3

rd Line

Alternatives) and supports the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan and the PPS.

Prioritize the preservation / conservation of natural areas – the proposed route does not affect or impact any provincial parks, conservation areas, or other protected areas (reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d) –

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 43


however the Fairbairn Street / 3rd

Line Alternative does traverse through a designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection of natural areas within the City is already protected within the Official Plan through buffer lands designated adjacent to the Parkway Corridor through the north end of the study area. These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway, which is being located within a designated transportation corridor (2005 City Official Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation measures proposed in the ESR (including landscaping, bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans) provide protection to features considered to be part of the natural heritage of the community (2005 Official Plan section 4.5.1.3). Designated open space / greenspace areas are not being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to Schedule A of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area – although the proposed design will span this area preserving the natural functions of the valley area below.

Adopt a TDM approach to mitigate congestion and capacity Issues – As noted previously, the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has provided an extensive set of policies and infrastructure to support and promote TDM. The Class EA is being planned within this City–wide planning context and assumes the initiatives will be completed. This Class EA is also implementing some of the infrastructure necessary to achieve that vision, including new pedestrian / trail connections and a future transit spine route through the City (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.2). Given the size of the City and a review of mode shares in other comparable communities, the CTPU concluded that the transit mode share targets adopted for Peterborough are aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips to use alternate modes was not considered to be feasible or realistic. Therefore the deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR would not be addressed by the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative.

Encourage active and efficient modes of transportation while discouraging vehicular travel – The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns and a mix of uses do not apply to this project, however, the land use patterns adopted in the Official Plan and OPA 142 requires multi-modal transportation infrastructure that supports walking, cycling, and transit use. The Parkway Corridor achieves all of these better than any of the other reasonable alternatives. (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.4). The proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and

May 9, 2014 44


future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safer for pedestrians and allows for non-motorized movement (reference to 2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). Providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine provides for accessible active transportation opportunities that are attractive alternatives to the automobile and make it less convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012 Official Plan Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5 and 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan). Providing a balanced transportation system requires the provision of transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of travel. The Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the other alternatives, and in turn helps to support the achievement of the mode share targets and objectives of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation through education, promotion, and land use planning - The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions do not apply to this project (would be better directed to the Official Plan Update), however the ESR has shown that the proposed Parkway Corridor will reduce regional airborne emissions compared to the No Build or Do Nothing Alternative (see section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix I). Net environmental impacts were considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives in accordance with the Class EA requirements (and in reference to the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan).

Official Plan Compliance - The proposed Parkway and the Jackson Park bridge crossing are not contrary to the Official Plan. The Parkway Corridor and the proposed crossing location are actually identified in Schedule B of the Official Plan as a future High Capacity Arterial. With respect to natural area, the Official Plan Section 3.3.4 notes ...” Dedicated public roadways and public utilities are discouraged from locating within Natural Areas but may occur subject to policy 3.3.7 (which refers to the need for a Class Environmental Study for any new roads in Natural Areas). Roadways are discouraged from locating within Natural Corridors except along The Parkway route shown on Schedule B.” The lands designated as Protected Natural Areas in Schedule A of the Official Plan refer to lands north and west of the proposed bridge crossing location.

May 9, 2014 45


Study Process

Project has been piecemealed Piecemealing relates to splitting a project into separate, smaller EA studies where the Environmental Approvals are sought on one project or piece of a project at a time, without consideration for the combined impacts of all of the improvements needed to implement the overall solution.

As noted in the Background and Context provided as part of the ESR Executive Summary, access to the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre became an issue in the community following the 2003 referendum, as the previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part because of its central location along the “Parkway Corridor” which could provide excellent access to all area of the City and to/from the outlying communities in Peterborough County. Residents surrounding the proposed hospital site expressed significant concerns about the traffic impacts of the new hospital on their neighbourhood streets. Due to the issues surrounding the City’s unwillingness to proceed with the Parkway Corridor EA in the aftermath of the 2004 Referendum, however, the scope of study for the Hospital Access Road EA was constrained to only examining the improvements necessary to address the impacts of the new hospital construction and consolidation of related medical services around the hospital campus area. Thus the primary purpose of Hospital Access Road Class EA study was to improve access to the hospital and reduce traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital due to the proposed expansion. The study recommended the construction of the current two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road, along with a southerly termination of the new road with a connection to Clonsilla Ave, in the vicinity of Third Avenue.

Previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update indicated the need to consider the impacts and benefits of the improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an entire new corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class EA process. As a result, the Class EA study does address the entire Parkway Corridor from the south end to the north end, including the existing section of Medical Drive.

The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt with as a single project, in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. The term piecemealing does not refer to the evaluation process used within a Class EA process, and the evaluation process used in the Parkway Class EA is similar to other complex Class EA studies and Individual EA studies (i.e. Highway 407

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 46


East EA), where a long or complicated series of routes are split into distinct segments for evaluation where the effects are localized to the respective segments. For the purpose of understanding the net effects of the project, all components of the Parkway Project were considered in their entirety.

As described in Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, the study area was broken into three separate areas (North End, Jackson Park Area, and South End) and a three step evaluation process was used to simplify and clarify the evaluation approach. This approach has been used numerous times on complex EA / Route planning studies (i.e. Highway 407 East Extension) where there are a number of sub alternatives within various portions of the study area.

The ESR clearly indicates that the entire project, including the recommended alternatives in North End, Jackson Park Area, and South End are all required to address the Problem / Opportunities identified in Chapter 3 of the ESR, and this entire system has been considered in the development of the design for the corridor (described in Section 7 of the ESR, and in the Identification of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures described in Section 8 of the ESR.

To highlight the fact that the entire corridor was being studied the project was called the “Parkway Corridor Class EA” which would ensure instant recognition by mostly everybody in the City of Peterborough.

Concerned about a potential piecemealing approach through the Lily Lake draft Official Plan Amendment

Official Plan Amendment studies are completed in accordance with the Planning Act, not through the Municipal Class EA process.

Not Applicable

Study does not comply with the requirements or expectations of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)

The Class EA process addresses the requirements of the EA Act. Since this study is related to the construction of a new road within a designated transportation corridor, the project has predictable impacts which can be mitigated through proven mitigation strategies used in other projects and this combination of factors makes the Class EA process an appropriate planning and design process. The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the natural environment study and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required for a routine Class EA study. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City was sufficient to identify and compare the range of potential advantages and disadvantages of all reasonable alternatives and make an informed decision, recognizing that the project specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting process that follows both a Class EA and an Individual EA.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 47


EA study is beyond the scale of building a new road and that the integrated approach and/or the Master Plan process would have been more appropriate for this study

This study built upon the recommendations of the 2012 CTPU which followed the Master Planning process outlined in the Municipal Class EA process and was designed to address Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per Section A.2.7.1 of the Master Planning Process, when projects are undertaken which implement specific elements recommended in the Master Plan, it is necessary for the applicable schedule to be determined for those projects subject to the Municipal Class EA.

The Municipal Class EA is an approved process under the EA Act by which municipal infrastructure projects (i.e., municipal road projects) are planned. As documented in Section 1.3 of the ESR, this study was carried out as a Schedule C project, continuing the planning (Phases 3 and 4) for two of the projects recommended in the Master Plan. Schedule C undertakings are subject to the full planning process of the Class EA given that they have the potential for significant environmental impacts but the effects are predictable and mitigable.

Addressed in EA

Project should be completed as three individual EAs after they have been demonstrated to be economically and financially sound

The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt with as a single project, in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process and requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. This study built upon the recommendations of the 2012 CTPU which followed the Master Planning process outlined in the Municipal Class EA process and was designed to address Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per Section A.2.7.1 of the Master Planning Process, when projects are undertaken which implement specific elements recommended in the Master Plan, it is necessary for the applicable schedule to be determined for those projects subject to the Municipal Class EA.

In addition, previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update indicated the need to consider the impacts and benefits of the improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an entire new corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class EA process. Under the definition of a project in the Municipal Class EA (Page G-6), proposed works are considered as separate projects if “they are initiated to solve distinctly different sets of problems; and the resulting works are standalone facilities without the requirement of further works to completely solve the problem.

As such, the Municipal Class EA is the appropriate planning and design process for this project.

As documented in Appendix M of the ESR, the results show that the proposed

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 48


Parkway Corridor returns total benefits that are about 31% higher than total implementation costs. When the timing of the cost and benefit streams are considered in the present value analysis, the benefits exceed the costs by about 1% resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01.

Reasoned argument approach is vague. The relative values assigned to categories are not reported in the EA documents.

A “Reasoned Argument Process”, which describes the advantages and disadvantages (or positive and negative affects) of each alternative in response to the evaluation criteria, was utilized to evaluate alternatives and identify a preferred alternative. The reasoned argument approach is a standard methodology used to evaluate alternatives for Individual and Class EA projects. An arithmetic (or weighted) evaluation process was not used.

A detailed discussion related to the comparative evaluation of the Alternative Solutions is provided in Section 5.4 of the ESR. In addition, Chapter 6 of the ESR provides a comprehensive discussion of the rationale used during the evaluation of the Network Alternatives. Detailed evaluations of the Network Alternatives are included in Appendix O of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

The environmental impacts were not disclosed until after the November 2013 Council meeting

The potential impacts to the natural environment were included as part of the evaluation of alternatives presented at each of the public events held as part of the study and based on the findings of the NHFAS report completed as part of the EA study. A summary of the potential impacts was identified on the presentation panels at each of the PICs and available on the City website following the PIC. In addition, detailed evaluation tables were available at PIC 2 and PIC 3 for reference on the resource tables. The formal NHFAS report was made available as part of final documentation of the Environmental Study Report.

Addressed in EA

Studies completed as part of the EA study were done at the time of preparation of the Parkway Trail and do not reflect current conditions; concerned that the NHFAS report does not specify when the field studies occurred for this project

The Parkway Trail was constructed in 2005. Tree removal adjacent to the corridor, between Fairbairn Street and Chemong Road, took place in 2010 and 2011 as part of a new subdivision development on private land. As noted in the ESR, several field surveys were completed throughout the course of the study in association with the natural heritage, cultural heritage and archaeological assessment studies carried out as part of this EA study.

The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report, included in Appendix F of the ESR, documents the findings of the field surveys carried out to assess the existing natural environment conditions in the study area. These field surveys were conducted at different times of the year to capture the varying seasonal conditions. Specifically, field surveys were carried out on September 17, October 16, December 11 and 12, 2012, and July 10 and 12, 2013, to assess the existing aquatic conditions (i.e., habitat and fisheries

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 49


assessment and spawning survey), and on August 27, 28, 29 and 30 and November 30, 2012, to assess terrestrial features, including woodlands and wetlands, within 200 m of each of the network alternatives. A photographic log of these field surveys is also included in Appendices D and G of the Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report.

A field survey was conducted on April 24 and 25, 2013, to identify existing potential cultural heritage resources in the Parkway Corridor, along a portion of Parkhill Road and along a portion of Fairbairn Street South, as part of the Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment for the entire corridor. An additional field survey was carried out within the Parkway Corridor and within Jackson Park on November 14, 2013 as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment for the Parkway Corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment completed for Jackson Park. A copy of the Cultural Heritage studies carried out as part of this assessment is provided in Appendix H of the ESR.

As noted in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) reports, included in Appendix G of the ESR, a site visit was carried out on April 15, 2013, and a field survey was conducted on August 19, 20, 21, 23 and 30, 2013, respectively.

A field review of trees to be potentially impacted by the construction of the bridge within Jackson Park was undertaken by the City of Peterborough’s Urban Forester on November 11, 2013. A record of this field survey is included in Appendix B of the ESR.

This Class EA study is similar to the Pine Valley Drive Extension Class EA in Vaughan where the Minister required a full individual EA to the undertaken

Each project is unique and undertaken to address a defined problem and opportunity statement.

The Parkway Corridor Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The Parkway Corridor Study was classified as a Schedule C project since it had the potential for significant environmental impacts. It proceeded under the full planning and documentation procedures of the Municipal Class EA document.

The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the consultation program and the natural, social and cultural environment studies and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required for a typical Class EA. Undertaking an individual EA would not provide any more information or consultation activities that would alter the outcome of the EA process. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City was sufficient to make an informed decision and the project

Not applicable to this EA

May 9, 2014 50


specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting process that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA process.

Public Consultation

Consultation process was non-compliant with the Municipal Class EA document.

The EA Study was carried out in accordance with the planning and design process for Schedule ‘C’ projects as outlined in the Municipal Class EA document. An extensive public consultation program was undertaken which exceeded the requirements set out for a Schedule ‘C’ project. The public consultation program was enhanced during the study as a fourth PIC was added to provide additional information on conceptual designs for the Jackson Park Area Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern expressed about this area. At PIC 2 these design concepts were presented prior to undertaking the evaluation of these alternatives so that stakeholder feedback could be considered in the evaluation. The consultation program included the release of study notices, four public information centres (PIC) held through the duration of the study (October 2012, March 2013, June 2013, and September 2013), a design workshop (August 2013) for members of the public and agencies that had expressed an interest in participating, external agency meetings, Council presentations, a study email address and a study website.

Addressed in EA

Public input ignored; public feedback did not have any impact during the process; responses reported as part of PIC Summary Reports were “noted” and there was no evidence that the public had an impact on the directions of the City

The study included an extensive public consultation program as detailed in Chapter 2 of the ESR.

The ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process. For example, as per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area. Specifically, the recreation use of the trail was considered as part of three different evaluation criteria. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.

Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received throughout the study and the Corridor Design Workshop.

Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 51


the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA study.

Public feedback not included in the ESR The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process. Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA study.

Addressed in EA

Online opposition petition was not considered As discussed in the ESR Executive Summary, an online petition opposing the bridge and/or the retaining walls in Jackson Park was initiated by the Friends of Jackson Park. This online petition also provided an opportunity for respondents to provide rationale as to why they signed. Although the petition itself does not provide a complete description of the various alternatives considered, nor does it provide a link to the study website for respondents to obtain more information about the project, there was a link to the Friends of Jackson Park Facebook page where users could find a link to the study website. As of the end of August, more than 4000 people had signed the petition and more than 2700 comments were received through the comment option. The study team reviewed and considered the comments submitted through this petition and have identified a series of design principles and mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects noted by many respondents. The online petition is also discussed in Section 4.1 of the PIC #2 Summary Report provided in Appendix D of the ESR.

The petition information was detailed in the Council Report and was also presented to City Council by the petitioners.

Addressed in EA

Parkway opposition was not quantified/majority opposed

As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, various members of the public have requested that a statistical analysis of comments be completed with respect to support or opposition to recommendations and that this be reported to Council. The EA process is designed to take a full range of environmental and technical criteria into consideration in the evaluation of alternative solutions or designs. That process results in identifying a “technically preferred” alternative. Although public input is taken into consideration during the EA process and documented as part of the study it does not change the “technical” advantages and disadvantages of the preferred plan or the outcome of the evaluation, regardless of how many people choose to speak out for or against the “preferred plan”.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 52


Study failed to achieve timely and meaningful public consultation


Public Information Centres (PICs) were considered key to engaging/sharing information with the public in relation to this study. Four PICs were held throughout the course of the study to present:

PIC#1: background of the study, an overview of the Municipal Class EA process, feedback received from the public since the commencement of the study, an overview of the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the Problem Statement, the alternative solutions that had been developed to address the Problem Statement and the preliminary network alternative

PIC#2: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #1, feedback received from the public since PIC #1, the preliminary evaluation of the Network Alternatives for the North End and South End and associated approach and the alternative design concepts for the Network Alternatives.

PIC#3: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #2, feedback received from the public since PIC #2, the preliminary evaluation of the Jackson Creek Valley Alternatives, the final evaluation of the North End and South End Network Alternatives and the recommended design concepts for the corridor

PIC#4: overview of the information presented to date, the comments received since PIC #3, a review of the proposed design treatments and mitigation measures proposed as part of the study

A website for the study was established through the City of Peterborough’s website at the initiation of the study. Information related to the study was posted on the study website throughout the course of the study. This information included notices of PICs, copies of PIC presentation material, responses to frequently asked questions and comprehensive questions and/or concerns raised by the public or other stakeholders and associated responses and copies of final reports related to the study.

The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process.

For example, as per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 53


Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.

Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received.

Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA study.

PIC 3 was held at inappropriate times and locations

The timing for PIC 3 was governed by venue availability, project team availability, notification requirements, and project team readiness (in terms of completing the supporting technical work and preparation of the presentation materials). Given the number of respondents that had signed the online petition and submitted comments to us by email following PIC 2, combined with the extensive press coverage following PIC 2 and the extensive mail out we did for PIC 3 (over 6,100 notices were mailed) larger attendance than received at the previous two PIC’s was anticipated. The Wellness Centre was selected as the venue for PIC 3 to ensure there was sufficient space to accommodate 300 - 500 people for the presentation which was scheduled late in the afternoon with a repeat presentation in the evening. The Evinrude Centre did not have enough capacity to accommodate this level of attendance and the project team did not want to risk having to turn people away in the event of large crowds. There were no other available venues in the study area that could provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the attendance we anticipated. Despite the location and timing of the event over 300 people signed in to PIC 3, over twice the number that attended PIC 2.

Addressed in EA

Requests for an extended comment period were denied; a 30-day comment period was provided each time there was an opportunity for public comment

The request for an extension to the comment period was initially sought following PIC 2, at which time the comment period was extended from 15 days to 30 days. In recognition of this concern, all subsequent comment periods held for PICs 3 and 4 were also extended to 30 days. A 45-day review period was provided for the ESR when a 30 day period is the norm.

It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No Parkway group that comments received after the comment period were welcomed and reviewed by the study team and that these comments could be addressed as

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 54


part of the study they would be.

Technical background reports were not shared with the public before the ESR was issued and requests for draft documentation were not met

Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public throughout the course of the study. There were a number of documents posted on the project website during the study and detailed responses to comments received during the study were also posted on the website prior to the final PIC#4. Final technical reports were included in the ESR.

Addressed in EA

There was no opportunity to determine adequacy of the technical reports; there was no opportunity to review and/or supplement the biological field work; stakeholders did not have the ability to follow up with review agencies regarding technical concerns

All technical studies carried out as part of this study were completed by qualified specialist consultants and/or subconsultants. Cultural heritage and archaeological assessment reports are reviewed by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport as part of the Municipal Class EA process. In addition, natural heritage and stormwater studies were carried out in consultation with the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and MNR. Please refer to Appendix B of the ESR.

Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public throughout the course of the study. Final technical reports were included in the ESR and an extended review period of 45 days was provided.

Addressed in EA

Proponent and/or consultant did not respond to repeated information requests or provided last minute responses during the study; requests for travel time savings over key points in the corridor were not received in a timely manner; requests for capacity modelling were not provided

A number of responses were received from the public throughout the duration of the study. Each response was reviewed and respectfully considered by members of the study team. Where appropriate, responses were dutifully prepared in consideration of each concern raised. A summary of the comments received and the associated responses were posted on the website throughout the course of the study. The requests for customized travel time estimates between various locations in the City were not part of the study technical work program or ESR documentation, as the technical work utilized aggregate travel time savings estimates for the evaluation inputs used in the study. The approach used to calculate the aggregate time savings were documented in the Cost-Benefit working paper which was released to the public in draft following PIC 2. The custom travel time requests were provided in response to a special request from a member of the public and the additional analysis required to undertake this work was completed after the main work required to support the ESR findings and conclusions was completed. A copy of the comments received from the public and associated responses prepared by members of the study team are included in Appendix D of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Did not receive response to two requests for information

A response to the issues raised regarding Induced Travel was responded to directly (copy of response is included in Appendix D of the ESR and was documented in the Cost-Benefit Report in Appendix M). A response to the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 55


issue of quantifying individual travel time savings for each user was addressed in a response to similar requests from the Friends of Jackson Park, following PIC 2. This response was posted on the study website and was included in Appendix D of the ESR. The following excerpt of this response is included herewith… “While measuring individual travel time savings from Point A to Point B along the route are one way to measure the benefits of an alternative it is not the focus of the project. There are other travel time savings associated with the Parkway Corridor that are not simply generated by driving along the route.”

In addition to this, responses to the entire issue of travel time savings as it relates to the cost-benefit study have been included in numerous responses included on PIC displays and in formal comment response tables included in Appendix D of the ESR. The primary purpose of the cost-benefit study was to provide a comparison between reasonable alternatives, and for this reason, it was only one of a number of evaluation criteria used to assess advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. The Parkway Alternative was ranked consistently higher than each of the other alternatives assessed for this criterion.

Copy of the Municipal Class EA document should have been available for review

A copy of the Municipal Class EA document was available on the resource table at each PIC event and at the Corridor Design Workshop. In addition, a copy of the document is available at the City of Peterborough Public Library. A copy of the Municipal Class EA can also be requested from the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), however municipalities are not authorized to provide or distribute this document to members of the public. A digital version of the Class EA document is also available on the MEA website, however this version can neither be printed nor saved.

Addressed in EA

Study did not follow the discretionary planning component of the Municipal Class EA.

As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City updated the Official Plan through Amendment 142 to adopt provincial growth forecasts and intensification targets as per the Provincial Growth Plan. This Class EA Study was not intended to redo the Official Plan and/or the City’s development policies. The EA process (whether it be a Class EA or an Individual EA) is not the appropriate mechanism to develop municipal growth policies that are subject to the Planning Act and the Places to Growth Act.

Addressed in EA

Evaluation tables found in Appendix O of the ESR had not been previously shared with the public and/or Council

Copies of the north end and south end alternatives draft evaluation tables were made available for review on the resource table at PIC 2 and were posted on the study website. The draft evaluation results for the Jackson Park Area (bridge versus widening alternative) were made available at PIC 3 and were

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 56


also posted on the study website following the PIC. In addition, a summary of the evaluation tables was presented as part of the presentation material provided at each event. . Additional supporting evaluation material (intersection design alternatives, sub alternatives for the “best” Fairbairn Street widening alternative) was released as part of the full documentation for the ESR and these evaluation tables were included in Appendix O.

Release of different evaluation framework in the ESR that had not earlier been shared with the public for the East vs West widening options for Fairbairn Street

The conceptual design alternatives for the East vs West widening alternatives for Fairbairn Street were presented to the public at PIC 2 for initial comments. The effects were summarized on the display panels and during the public meeting presentation. The evaluation process for the Jackson Park Area presented at PIC 2 and again at PIC 3 clearly identified that the best new bridge alternative (long span vs short span) would be evaluated against the best widening alternative (which included 3 sub evaluations; the best Parkhill Road widening; the best Fairbairn Street widening; and the best Fairbairn Street / Highland Road / Parkway intersection treatments). A summary of this process and the results of the best new bridge and best widening alternatives were presented at PIC 3 on display boards 16, 17 and 18 (included in the ESR Appendix D). The detailed evaluation tables supporting this evaluation summary were included in Appendix O of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Details of the preliminary design were only released prior to the Special Committee of the Whole meeting, of which the public was not invited to speak

The purpose of PIC #4, held on September 26, 2013, was to present the study recommendations included the proposed preliminary design for the project, and associated mitigation measures being proposed. Following the PIC, some minor refinements to the preliminary design were completed in response to comments from the public and agencies. The PIC provided all members of the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the information presented, and speak with members of the study team. In addition, a 30 day review/comment period was provided following the PIC to allow time for meaningful input. It should be noted that similar information was presented at the Special Committee of the Whole meeting.

Addressed in EA

Council was not provided with enough time to confirm their decision

City Council is able to defer an issue at its discretion. Addressed in EA

An integrated Cost Benefit Ratio was not made available to the public

The costs and benefits were presented at each stage of the decision making process. Further, the final release of the Cost Benefit Analysis included a sensitivity analysis, in consideration of responses received from the public. A copy of the Cost-Benefit analysis report was made available for review at PICs 3 and 4, was posted on the City website, following each PIC and is available in Appendix M of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 57


Concerned about the timing of the release of the draft Lily Lake Secondary Plan; secondary plan for Lily Lake Planning Area was not released/approved prior to filing the ESR

This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is proceeding under the applicable Planning Act approval processes. The implications of additional growth in the Lily Lake planning area was only addressed as a sensitivity analysis in response to comments received from the public and because the status had not been approved during the Class EA study.

Not Applicable

Unresolved technical matters were raised by advisory bodies to the City, including the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority

A letter response was received from the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority subsequent to the filing of the ESR indicating that they are satisfied that any outstanding issues can be resolved during detailed design. They are undertaking a thorough review of the natural hazards and natural heritage information contained within the report in order to clearly outline additional information that may be required during the detailed design phase.

In addition, no issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Air Quality

Increased pollution The impacts to air quality were investigated for the proposed Parkway corridor. The findings of the air quality assessment carried out as part of this EA study outline the impact to regional air quality levels (i.e., within the City of Peterborough and surrounding area) associated with the operation of the Parkway, in comparison to the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario. The findings of the assessment indicated that a regional decrease in airborne emissions would be expected due to a total reduction in travelled distances. The results of the assessment are documented in the Air Quality Assessment Report provided in Appendix I of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Impacts to air associated with construction activities not considered

As discussed in Section 8.3.7 of the ESR, an Air Quality Assessment was carried out as part of this project that considered air emissions generated during construction activities and associated impacts to construction workers and the surrounding community. As such, a series of mitigation measures are noted and are to be carried out at the time of construction.

Addressed in EA

Please provide study that indicates that air quality in pond area within park and Hamilton Park will be lower due to traffic on Parkhill Road.

As noted in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, traffic along Parkhill Road and Fairbairn Street is forecast to decrease as a result of the project and therefore should result in lower emission levels affecting Hamilton Park, the Pond and Pagoda Bridge Area within Jackson Park, and the residential neighbourhoods adjacent to Fairbairn Street. A copy of the Air Quality Assessment report is included in Appendix I of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Air quality identified benzene increase, impacts to The Air Quality Assessment completed as part of this study identified an Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 58


residences, school children, etc. increase in selected air contaminants in proximity to the Parkway, when compared to the Do Nothing case. The Parkway is designed to direct larger volumes of traffic through the project area instead of on existing City roadways, many of them in residential neighbourhoods. As such, an overall regional decrease in airborne emissions is expected due to the total reduced travelled distances anticipated in association with the Parkway.

Given the projected increase in future traffic volumes, elevated concentrations of benzene are anticipated in association with the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario, as well as the Parkway, however the ambient conditions make up a large percentage of the total benzene concentrations. In addition, the highest concentrations of benzene were noted to be situated closest to roadways and intersections and these concentration levels would decrease with distance.

Ozone was not mentioned in the Air Quality Assessment.

Section 6.2 of the Air Quality Assessment, included in Appendix I of the ESR, notes the findings of the assessment of impact to regional air quality levels (i.e., within the City of Peterborough and surrounding area) associated with the operation of the Parkway, in comparison to the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario. This section notes that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NOx) were analyzed for the assessment given that these pollutants are important in the production of ozone. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2) was evaluated due to its interest in relation to climate change.

As noted above, the findings of the assessment indicated that a regional decrease in airborne emissions, including VOC, NOX, CO2 and CO, would be expected due to a total reduction in travelled distances.

Addressed in EA

Social Impacts

Greenspace value not considered during evaluation/EA; concerned about the loss of greenspace in association with the Parkway Trail

Impacts to and the loss of greenspace were considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives (refer to Chapter 6 of the ESR). Further, as noted in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis. The concern raised was related to the lack of value attributed to the loss of greenspace). As such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled, “Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario”. The findings of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study. A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis is included in

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 59


Appendix M of the ESR.

Greenspace value is further recognized in the evaluation of alternatives, in consideration of the natural, social and built environments. A copy of the evaluation tables is included in Appendix O of the ESR.

Inappropriate to use value of ecosystem services to assess environmental impact

The use of a value for ecosystem services was only used in the Cost-Benefit Analysis work at the request of numerous members of the public. The report clearly identified the limitations in using such values given the uncertainties involved and the small number of studies that have been used to generate such values. For this reason, this assessment was only used as a sensitivity analysis as described in Appendix M (page 26). At no time was this value used to infer the environmental impact of the project.

Addressed in EA

Project will negatively impact quality of life for adjacent residents

The properties adjacent to the Parkway Corridor were planned and designed to back onto a designated major transportation corridor. Many of them have deeper lots and buffer areas to separate the rear yards from the road corridor, and these factors were considered in assessing the potential impacts.

Impacts to residential and commercial properties were considered during the evaluation of alternatives, selection of a preferred alternative and in the final preliminary design work. The assessment of property impacts included consideration of property displacements and acquisition, direct impacts due to construction and proximity impacts from a noise and air quality perspective. Given potential impacts and taking into consideration input received through the consultation process, mitigation measures were developed to address proximity impacts to adjacent properties through maximizing use of vegetated berms, privacy screening, noise barriers where needed, and maintaining / enhancing buffer area treatments.

It should be noted that quality of life will improve for those residents living on minor streets in adjacent neighbourhoods carrying traffic that more properly should be using the Parkway Corridor.

Addressed in EA

Increased noise Based on the results of the noise assessment, documented in Appendix J of the ESR, traffic noise impacts due to the operation of the Parkway are expected to comply with the applicable MTO/MOE noise guidelines at all assessed location with the implementation of noise barriers in several locations as shown on the Recommended Design drawings. Recommended noise mitigation treatments include:

3.3 km of vegetated noise berms along the corridor

2.5 km of noise wall of various heights – often integrated with berm treatments to reduce wall heights

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 60


Depressed road segments where feasible to provide natural noise mitigation (north of Parkhill Road, north of Hilliard Street

Property value for adjacent properties will decrease

There is no absolute in terms of what will happen to the value of property once the roadway is in place. Property value is dependent upon a variety of influences. Some residents may have enjoyed higher values, however these may have been a false perception. It should also be noted that property values may be improved for those residents living on minor streets in adjacent neighbourhoods carrying traffic that more properly should be using the Parkway Corridor.

The project area is identified as a major transportation corridor as part of the City’s Official Plan. Given the potential impacts, and taking into consideration input received through the consultation process, mitigation measures were developed to address proximity impacts to adjacent properties through maximizing use of vegetated berms, privacy screening, noise barriers where needed, and maintaining / enhancing buffer area treatments.

Addressed in EA

Impact to physical health / mental health / well-being / quality of life / peace / serenity not considered during evaluation of alternatives

As discussed in Section 6.4.4 of the ESR, the potential to impact mental and physical health was considered as part of the built (i.e., recreational facilities) and social (i.e., noise, air, open space, recreational facilities) categories in the evaluation of the Network Alternatives. In addition, these impacts were considered as part of the detailed evaluation of the Network Alternatives (i.e., effect on recreational pedestrian/cycling facilities), included in Appendix O of the ESR.

The ESR also recognizes the change in the recreational experience for users in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. It is noted that the length of the trail remains uninterrupted; however the experience of trail users may change in the vicinity of the bridge. This was reflected in the evaluation of the alternatives and resulted in the extension of mitigation measures proposed in the bridge design. Mitigation measures have been identified in Chapter 8 of the ESR for implementation to mitigate the effects to the extent possible.

Addressed in EA

Recreational use of corridor not considered In the north end of the study area the evaluation has noted the potential displacement of the Parkway Trail under the Built Environment and Social Environment categories. The evaluation has noted the opportunity to replace the trail within the corridor to compensate for the removal and there are a variety of ways this can be done. While this approach replicates the function of the trail as an active transportation corridor it is recognized that this does not necessarily create an equivalent environment and experience for trail users.

In many portions of the corridor the right-of-way is quite wide and can

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 61


accommodate a separate trail through wooded areas which provides some of the same benefits as the original trail. Additional measures to assist in mitigating these impacts, such as enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping, to provide an environment to support recreational and commuter trail usage were explored in preliminary design and have been incorporated into the Preferred Design.

The replacement of an off road trail within the corridor will address the potential safety issues associated with recreational users of the current Parkway Trail. It is recognized that the introduction of a road corridor parallel to the existing trail and adjacent neighbourhoods will create a barrier effect for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to cross the corridor. This is less severe for portions of the corridor that are constructed as 2 lane roads, but may become more significant for portions of the corridor constructed to accommodate 4 lanes.

The preferred plan illustrated in Section 7 of the ESR incorporates 4 new underpass grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections (including crossings serving 3 schools) along the corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park. Further opportunities to mitigate this impact are detailed in Section 8.3 and 9 of the ESR.

Impacts to school children who use existing trail for recreational and educational purposes

As above. Addressed in EA

Impacts to Cyclists / Pedestrians / Trail Users were not considered (i.e., reduction in use); impacts to Parkway Trail / TransCanada Trail not considered; while trail will be more connected, it will be less used and less safe due to proximity to new road

Impacts to the Parkway Trail were considered in the evaluation of alternatives under a number of different criteria including the transportation and social categories. The Preferred Plan includes a bridge across the existing Parkway Trail. The trail system and its function are maintained, with additional connectivity provided.

As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of the roadway in accordance with the policies in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided between the trail and the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along the entire corridor which does not currently exist.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 62


Mitigation measures were developed that included efforts to replace trees and separate the trail from the road while providing opportunities for pedestrian crossings. Recognizing concerns received from the public, the following measures have been included in the preliminary design of the Parkway:

Designing a continuous multi-use trail to connect the existing trail south of Clonsilla Ave. to Water St. along the Parkway corridor

Incorporating 4 new underpass grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor

5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections along the corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users

Providing 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park

Careful design and placement of the road and trail to maximize separation between facilities where possible

Incorporation of buffer treatments including vegetated berms and new tree planting between the trail and roadway

Creation of new separate walking paths / trail connections and enhanced landscaping around storm ponds and park areas to provide separate walking areas away from the road

Improved trail connection along Water Street to avoid zoo parking lot area and connect to Parkway trail system

It is recognized that this does not necessarily create an equivalent environment and experience for trail users. However, the enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping are being planned to provide an environment to support recreational and commuter trail usage and to maintain the trail experience. The new bridge crossing alternative will also permit the introduction of new trail connections from the Parkway Trail system to access the Jackson Park trail system.

Minimal landscaping implemented on Medical Drive, assume Parkway will be similarly treated

As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a landscaping plan as part of the detailed design for Stage 1 of implementation (south end section) that addresses landscaping requirements for this segment of the new corridor and provides landscaping treatments along the recently constructed segments of Medical Drive. It should be noted that landscaping treatments have been and are currently being implemented along Medical Drive. Implementation of additional landscaping treatments will be undertaken in conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation work.

In addition, the City recently implemented additional landscaping around the

Addressed in EA and will be addressed further in Detailed

Design phase

May 9, 2014 63


stormwater ponds in the area and further plantings are planned to be implemented this year.

Economic Impacts

The route does not direct traffic to the downtown core and/or will impact small businesses; Parkway will encourage end to end commuting and not to the downtown area

As detailed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the majority of the employment growth has been planned in the downtown and southwest areas of the City. As a result, future travel demands to the southwest and downtown core areas are projected to increase above those experienced today. Compared to the “Do Nothing” Alternative, the Parkway Corridor would result in a slight reduction in through traffic in the downtown area, however this can be considered a benefit by reducing traffic congestion and allowing for more of a focus on cycling and walking infrastructure in this area.

The Preferred Parkway Plan will reduce the overall capacity deficiencies across the entire City transportation network. This is primarily due to the fact that the Parkway corridor provides broad area relief to a number of roadways in the City, which frees up capacity that can be used by traffic destined to and from other areas in and beyond the City, even traffic that is not oriented to use the Parkway itself (i.e. traffic to and from the downtown).

Addressed in EA

Paving over the Parkway Trail will discourage tourists

As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of the roadway in accordance with the policies in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along the entire corridor which does not currently exist.

Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections along corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park.

Theses mitigation treatments being planned along the corridor are being implemented to maintain the character of the area to the extent possible.

Addressed in EA

2003 Referendum

Referendum results ignored; 2003 referendum demonstrated that the majority of citizens rejection

The question posed at the time of the 2003 Referendum was, “Do you approve of the construction of the Parkway extension at an estimated cost of $22.0

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 64


the Parkway option million”. It is understood that the “No” vote received more votes, however the turnout was only 47.89% of registered voters. The turnout is required to be at least 50% for the results to be binding under the Provincial Legislation governing municipal referendums. In addition, there are a number of reasons why residents may have voted no:

Some have noted that this referendum was for the “partial parkway” concept recommended in the 2002 Transportation Plan, and because this proposal did not include a bridge across Jackson Park they voted no;

Others assumed that the expenditure was to be funded 100% from property taxes and that construction would proceed immediately – and as a result they felt the City could not afford the expenditure at that time; and

Others were opposed to the Parkway itself and voted no to the project.

As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, Council agreed to put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum result. Council did provide direction for staff to report back on the process to have the “Parkway” corridor removed from the Official Plan. It was noted that removal of the corridor would require the identification of new solution to address future needs and support growth, and council subsequently decided not to follow through on the studies needed to support the removal.

Given the many reasons for residents voting no at the time, the City included the Parkway Alternative as one of the alternatives when they completed a review and update of their Transportation Master Plan. The CTPU looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and examined a series of alternatives to the Parkway. The CTPU identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The CTPU was approved by City Council in November 2011. The current EA study has carried out the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum.

There have been repeated past decisions to turn down the project over the past 67 years of debate

The history of this corridor goes back to 1947 when a new transportation corridor was recommended to by-pass the west side of the City of Peterborough to connect to the recreational areas north of the City. This first “Official Plan” for the City, known as the Faludi Report, established the future road network and guided the development of lands around the corridor as the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 65


City continued to grow.

The City purchased the required land for the Parkway Corridor and designated the corridor within the Official Plan. Since the Parkway route was designated in the Official Plan, the City has grown around the corridor and other routes have evolved to fill the role of the original “highway by-pass” envisioned in the 50’s. However, as the City has grown, new arterial roadways to serve the growth in the west and north ends of the City have not been constructed, primarily because the “Parkway Corridor” was protected and would serve that need.

Portions of the original corridor have been implemented; most notably the section of the corridor between Highway 115 and Clonsilla Avenue (a distance of 2.6 km), which has been in operation for over 20 years, and serves as the main entrance into the City from the south.

Following the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update the City held a referendum on the ‘Partial Parkway’ concept as part of the 2004 municipal election. The vote resulted in 55% voting against construction of the “partial Parkway” plan, although the vote was not binding as the turnout was less than 50% of eligible voters. Council agreed to put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum result, but they did not remove the “Parkway” corridor from the Official Plan.

Following the referendum, access to the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre became an issue in the community, as the previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part because of its central location along the “Parkway Corridor”. In 2011, Hospital Access Road was constructed as a two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road within the Parkway Corridor.

At the same time, the City had embarked on an update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and in November 2011, City Council approved the recommended road network plan, which indicated the need to construct a new two lane arterial roadway in the Parkway Corridor (from Fairbairn Street to Cumberland Avenue) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon period along with the need for widening Fairbairn Street to 4 lanes (from Parkhill Road to Highland Road) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon.

Charlotte Nicholls Parks Trust

Charlotte Nichols left Jackson Park to City on condition that it would be protected/undeveloped;

During the course of this EA study, several members of the public felt that the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park would be a contravention of the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 66


legal feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated – may violate Nicholls Trust; concerned that a detailed legal opinion is necessary in relation to the Nicholls Parks Trust

Nicholls Trust Agreement. As noted in Section 6.4.1 of the ESR, it was understood that the lands transferred to the City in October 1961 were to be maintained as a public park and recreation grounds and for no other purpose. The City’s solicitor undertook a review of the Agreement during this EA Study. Based on a review of the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the wording of the Deed did not preclude the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park provided that the park and recreation use were maintained. In response to comments received, the alignment of the bridge was refined to reduce fill placement and tree loss in the valley while minimizing the extent of the former trust lands that are crossed. Jackson Park will remain accessible for park and recreation uses during and after construction. Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR (Cultural Environment) discusses the Charlotte Nicholls Parks Trust.

Natural Environment

Irreversible impacts to natural environment / biodiversity and wildlife habitats

The potential impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environment are discussed in Section 8.2 of the ESR. Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure net losses are minimized to the extent possible, including construction and post-construction impacts.

Addressed in EA

Project puts unnecessary pressure on sensitive Brook Trout populations in Byersville Creek

Site characterization and impact assessment activities carried out as part of this project were based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria. As noted in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, strategies to address thermal impacts to Byersville Creek will be investigated as part of detailed design including canopy trees planted near water edges to provide shade and other stormwater treatments to maintain water temperatures. Please note that Brook Trout populations in Ontario are not currently on the decline and are not under consideration as Species at Risk (i.e., MNR Transition List) at this time.


Design phase

Byersville Creek is southern Ontario’s only urban trout stream

Byersville Creek is not the only coldwater system with brook trout running through a municipal area in Ontario. There is Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket, several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in Richmond Hill, and Tributary C in London to name just a few. The alignment of the Parkway Corridor has been shifted to avoid direct impacts to Byersville Creek, and mitigation measures have been proposed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the ESR to improve water quality entering the creek, mitigate thermal impacts on the coldwater status of Byersville Creek, and reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff which during peak flow events can cause significant damage to spawning areas and vegetation within the creek bed area.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 67


Impacts to the brook trout population are also shared by Curve Lake First Nation, as identified by Chief Phyllis Williams as part of another nearby project related to Harper Creek

The alignment of the Preferred Design at the south end approaching Clonsilla Avenue was modified to avoid Byersville Creek, which is a cold water fishery, and to minimize the extent of impacts to woodland areas adjacent to the creek. Further, at the Clonsilla Avenue intersection, the intersection was shifted approximately 30 m to the east to avoid Byersville Creek.

Responses from Curve Lake First Nation were received on July 31, 2012 and July 11, 2013 in response to the Notice of Study Commencement and Notification of PIC #3, respectively. No concerns were raised with respect to this issue.

Addressed in EA

Brook trout genetics should be considered a distinct, significant species; project affects a genetically pure strain of brook trout (i.e., unaffected by hatchery fish genetics)

The response included in Appendix H of the Greenspace Coalition’s submission does not support this interpretation or suggestion. This population is distinct from the Hills Lake hatchery strain. This population “fit the expected patterns for native ancestry and showed genetic similarities to other native populations in Peterborough District, but also some evidence of genetic contributions from the provincial Hills Lake hatchery strain.”

Addressed in EA

Concerned about the increase in impervious surfaces and its impact on receiving waters

The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive stormwater management plan as described in Section 7.5 of the ESR. Stormwater management measures will treat roadway run off to improve water quality prior to discharging the water into the receiving creeks.

Addressed in EA

Concerned about maintenance of the brook trout population

Section 8 of the ESR includes a discussion on potential for thermal effects on Byersville Creek and measures to mitigate impacts to the water temperature entering the receiving watercourse. As per Section 9, ID#6 of the ESR, monitoring programs will be undertaken by the City at least one year prior to site alteration to assess needs for dewatering, potential impacts to fish communities and fish habitat, and to plan mitigation measures where necessary. Should impacts be observed after mitigation measures have been implemented, solutions will be determined at that time utilizing the data collected during the monitoring programs.

Addressed in EA

Byersville Creek and Harper Creek is the only coldwater system running through a municipal area

This is incorrect. There are several coldwater systems running through municipalities in Ontario. For example, Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket, Oshawa Creek in Oshawa and several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in Richmond Hill.

The coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek is acknowledged. All subsequent site characterization and impact assessment was based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 68


The cumulative effects on Byersville Creek and other water systems in the City from the Project have not been examined

Section 8.2.2 of the ESR discusses the impacts of the project on Byersville Creek, Jackson Creek, Bears Creek and Riverview Creek, as well as the associated mitigation measures. Section 9 of the ESR outlines the commitments for detailed design and construction activities to mitigate impacts to watercourses. In addition, the potential existing, short and long term impacts to the aquatic environment are discussed in Section 7 of the Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report, included in Appendix F of the ESR.


Design phase

Fish sampling equipment used as part of the assessment was unsuitable for catching eggs or fry

The in-water fisheries investigations were completed in accordance with established standards developed by MNR. It is not appropriate to capture eggs or fry at any time. Those are the most sensitive life stages for all fish species. Disturbance of eggs and fry results in extensive mortality. The absence of egg or fry collection did not detract from the coldwater, brook trout characterization of the Byersville Creek system. Sucker and perch may well be active in the referenced reach. Instream construction timing guidelines per MNR policy would protect those functions and any modifications to stream habitat would necessarily maintain or enhance those functions.

Addressed in EA

Only one day devoted to the brook trout spawning survey; brook trout spawning survey effort was inadequate in duration and timing

As per Section 5.7 of the NHFAS report, “The most sensitive habitat within the study area is that of Byersville Creek which is a coldwater system and provides input to downstream reaches which are known to support Brook Trout.” As such, the coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek was acknowledged and all subsequent site characterization and impact assessment was based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria. Since the highest level of habitat protection has been used in the assessment, additional site surveys or spawning surveys would not change the approach to mitigation. That the team did not directly observe or capture brook trout does not diminish the requirement to manage the reach as coldwater habitat and contributing to brook trout production.

Addressed in EA

Concerned that when ten young fish were caught in Jackson Park, near the proposed bridge, they were not identified

As documented in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, no fish surveys / electrofishing were conducted for Jackson Creek as part of this Class EA Study. Aquatic species found in Jackson Creek were identified through fish surveys conducted by EcoTec Environmental Consultants in 2005 and through MNR records from 2005. During these previous studies, approximately 10 young of the year fish were observed but not caught so species could not be confirmed. The proposed design of the new bridge will span across Jackson Creek and will not involve any in water work or any impacts to fish or fish habitat in this

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 69


watercourse.

There was no study completed for ordinary wildlife Table 6, Wildlife Species Observed in the Study Area and pages 55 & 56 of the Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report documents wildlife species observed during field investigations and anecdotal references to other fauna are also acknowledged. As noted in the report common wildlife, particularly urban and near urban wildlife, is managed on the basis of habitat at this stage of investigation and assessment of alternatives.

Addressed in EA

Concerned about the effects to wildlife habitat AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for wildlife functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the valley floor ranges up to 23m. The span between the piers would leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede the movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or minimal.

Restoration planting associated with the construction of the proposed bridge would be focused on the immediate disturbance areas associated with the bridge abutments, piers and construction access routes. Though no long term, valley-wide habitat connectivity impacts are expected as a result of the installation of the proposed bridge the recommended plantings would help restore the short term functions.

Addressed in EA

Wildlife habitat fragmentation Section 6 of the ESR discusses the potential to affect candidate wildlife habitat recognized as part of the NHFAS report. It is noted that 0.3 ha of candidate wildlife habitat including potential woodland raptor nesting habitat, woodland area-sensitive breeding bird habitat, and waterfowl nesting areas may be impacted, however the presence of these species was not confirmed during field visits. Surveys to confirm the presence/absence of significant wildlife habitat will be conducted during detailed design. Any negative effects would be compensated for, by implementing a habitat restoration plan based on

consultation with review agencies and data from field surveys.


Design phase

Does not evaluate loss of natural corridor from the Otonabee River to Cavan Bog; project would impact the natural corridor connecting the Jackson

In a direct line, the Cavan Swamp and Bog is located approximately 4 km to 6 km west of the west limits of the City of Peterborough, and approximately 7 km to 10 km west of the recommended crossing of the Jackson Creek bridge. It should be noted that stream distances would be greater. The corridor

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 70


Creek valley to the Otonabee River connection between the Otonabee and Cavan Bog is weakest through the urban portions of Peterborough east of the Parkway.

As discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, construction of a high level bridge over Jackson Creek does not interfere with wildlife movement when considering the nominal requirements for small and large mammals under highways. Where dry culverts up to 2m in height are deemed adequate for large mammal (deer) passage it is important to note that the bridge would provide more than 20 m clearance from the valley floor. The proposed bridge structure does not interfere with aquatic connectivity.

Natural heritage assessment work completed for this study was generally completed as a desk review of existing sources and that the latest review for species at risk was in 2006; concerned that the report does not indicate the specific location of species at risk and provides only general information

As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies were carried out to supplement the desktop review of secondary source information. Field studies related to fisheries were carried out on September 17, October 16, December 12, 2012 and July 10 and 12, 2013, and brook trout spawning survey was carried out on December 11, 2013. Field studies related to terrestrial features, including wetlands, were carried out on August 27 to August 30, 2012 and on November 30, 2012.

Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in publicly distributed documents per the Natural Heritage Sensitivity Training. These limitations on publication are established to protect the SAR from excessive disturbance or inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these detailed data from MNR and the information is included in considerations for the alternative alignments and impact assessment.

On commencement of detailed design more focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken to guide the selection of the preferred method for valley crossings, for example. At that time, based on detailed site inventory the data requirements will be met to properly recommend pier locations, valley span requirements etc. Detailed mitigation in design, construction, and rehabilitation will be defined at that stage.

Addressed in EA

Field assessment of Species at Risk is simply an analysis of habitat

To determine the presence/absence of Species at Risk within a given area cannot be completed without an analysis of habitat. An analysis of habitat effectively screens SAR that are known for a region or municipality and targets field surveys to those species that are most likely to occur within an area according to what habitat is available.

As described in Section 5.1 of the NHFAS, and according to MNR, there are 15 SAR known to occur in proximity to the study area. Through the habitat assessment, 6 of these 15 have suitable habitat within the immediate limits of the alternative alignments and include: Butternut (Endangered), Barn Swallow


Design phase

May 9, 2014 71


(Threatened), Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened), Milksnake (Special Concern), Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern). Butternut prefers wooded areas with open canopies as it is shade intolerant, the turtle species require waterbodies, Barn Swallow typically utilizes bridge structures to build their nests and Milksnake has a wide range of habitat preferences. More detail concerning the habitat preferences of these SAR is presented in Appendix I of the NHFAS. During detailed design, and in consultation with MNR, the requirement for field surveys will be determined for these species and any that may have been added to the Endangered or Threatened list within the Endangered Species Act during the time between the completion of the EA and the commencement of detailed design. These surveys are deferred to detailed design so that the most up-to-date data will be available for incorporation into the design.

Gaps in collection of birds data As described in Section 3 of the NHFAS report, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Ontario was reviewed as part of the background review of existing information for the study area. Appendix B of the NHFAS includes a list of birds identified within the study area, as noted in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas.

Field work carried out at as part of this study was completed to supplement the findings of the background information. As noted in Section 4.7.2 of the NHFAS report, a number of bird species were identified at the time of the terrestrial field work, carried out between August 27 and August 30, 2012, and on November 30, 2012. In addition, potential habitat for bird species was identified as part of the NHFAS.

Additional bird investigations will be conducted during detailed design to ensure the most recent data is available to inform the design.

Addressed in EA

Concerned that the Breeding Bird Atlas search results could not initially be found in ESR; important to know where breeding birds located; were surveys completed in Jackson Park and if so, what were results

The Breeding Bird Atlas does not report specific location of their reported observations but rather collectively documents for each Atlas Square. The site specific field investigations, conducted on the dates noted above, are detailed in the AECOM report. Furthermore, the location of SAR would not be detailed, as discussed above. Again, in support of the subsequent detailed design stage more intensive breeding bird surveys would be conducted. Finally, at construction stage the nesting areas would be further protected under the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Addressed in EA

Understory and the canopy of forested areas were not fully inventoried

As described in Section 4.2 of the NHFAS, a botanical survey was conducted by completing transects through vegetation communities. Along each transect, observations were made of all canopy layers in the vegetated area. All species observed were recorded. Photographs and samples were taken of species

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 72


that could not be identified in the field to be identified in an office setting. A complete list of plants observed in each community type is included as Appendix F of the NHFAS.

The report contributes very little new information on natural features, relies on limited and outdated pre-existing information and does not present a fulsome inventory.

The NHFAS report included in Appendix F of the ESR utilizes a combination of background review and fieldwork to determine the existing natural heritage conditions within the study area for the EA. The background review included review of existing documents and consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA). MNR identified to the project team potential Species at Risk and their intent to update the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Evaluation file. ORCA confirmed the presence/absence of significant natural features, confirmed the thermal status of creek systems and indicated the presence of several unevaluated wetlands along the Jackson Creek corridor and upper reaches of Bears Creek. This base of information is what determined the field program where additional information was needed.

The field program conducted the following;

i) delineated all natural vegetation communities within proximity to the alternative alignments according to MNR’s Ecological Land Classification (ELC) protocols,

ii) conducted aquatic habitat assessments of creek systems including spawning and electrofishing surveys utilizing the MNR, Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (2010),

iii) evaluated several unevaluated wetlands within the study area according to the MNR’s Ontario Wetland Evaluation System,

iv) evaluated the woodland areas according to provincial guidelines and v) undertook an assessment of habitat to determine potential presence

of significant wildlife habitat and habitat for Species at Risk, also according to MNR’s protocols.

This field program provided the rationale to identify an additional Provincially Significant Wetland that is now complexed with the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (see Appendix H of the NHFAS), nine new significant woodlands and one significant valleyland. Candidate areas for significant wildlife habitat and Species at Risk habitat were also identified. Surveys to confirm the presence/absence of these habitat areas are typically deferred to detailed design once a preferred solution is selected.


Design phase

Impact analysis does not address: reptile habitat degradation; behavioural modification of wildlife in

AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 73


response to presence of large concrete object; and, how activities may facilitate the establishment of a variety of invasive species

alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for amphibian and reptile functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the valley floor ranges up to 20m. The span between the piers would leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or minimal.


Once the additional field assessments during detailed design are complete, a more comprehensive impact analysis and mitigation strategy can be completed, including opportunities to manage the potential establishment of invasive species in the park area.

Amphibian crossings being proposed as part of mitigation are unrealistic in an urban location

Guided crossings referenced in this document only as an example. The detailed design stage will address specifics. A variety of wildlife crossing structures are typically applied in urban areas throughout Ontario.

Addressed in EA

Concerned that the restoration measures do not mention amphibian and reptile breeding requirements

Recommendation of the pier supported bridge over Jackson Creek addresses the wildlife habitat functions of the valley by minimizing the impact of the structure and its construction. However, the exact restoration methods and details are appropriately specified in conjunction with detailed design, including timing guidelines for construction.

Addressed in EA

Does not consider destruction of natural environment; impacts to natural environment not fully addressed; fragmentation of connected greenspace; loss of greenspace; does not consider the Parkway a “greenfield” project

The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s Official Plan not greenspace. The existing corridor is bisected by a number of road crossings.

The potential impacts on the natural environment in association with the construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section 8.2 of the ESR and in the specialist reports provided in Appendix K of the ESR. In summary, concerns regarding impacts to the natural environment were received from the public and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the evaluation criteria, the route selection, and preliminary design, with mitigation measures and design

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 74


guidelines developed to mitigate potential impacts. Specific examples include:

The evaluation included a number of different criteria reflecting various features within the natural environment in the study area.

Additional fisheries investigation was undertake to confirm / identify fish species in various watercourses to assist in understanding potential affects and the need for mitigation measures.

The alignment of the Parkway Corridor approaching Clonsilla Avenue was shifted to the east to avoid the cold water fishery in Byersville Creek and minimize woodlot fragmentation in the Byersville Creek area, resulting in added property impacts and costs.

Extensive mitigation treatments have been incorporated into the stormwater management design to protect cold water habitat in Byersville Creek.

Bridge designed to minimize impacts to natural environment and guidelines introduced to examine further enhancements.

Mitigation treatments include extensive vegetation replacement and restoration in areas where disturbances are necessary.

Does not consider potential for salt impact associated with splash/spray into valley from bridge

The introduction of a new bridge across the valley may introduce the possibility of longer term decrease in groundwater quality from road salt applications for an area of approximately 0.90 km of new road. This will be minimized by eliminating the use of deck drains on the bridge, providing a wide sidewalk area separated by roadside barrier treatments on both sides of the bridge to reduce snow spill-over during plowing operations in the winter, providing a continuous grade to direct standing water from the bridge and away from the valley, and by collecting all roadway run-off on the bridge and directing it to a water quality treatment facility outside of the valley prior to discharge into adjacent watercourses. Through this approach, there would be limited potential for roadway related runoff of contaminants to infiltrate into any groundwater sources.

As documented in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, stormwater quality control for this portion of the Parkway will be provided with a wet SWM facility to achieve enhanced (Level 1) quality treatment. Runoff from the new bridge across Jackson Park will be directed to the Stormwater Management Pond via insulated storm sewers installed on the bridge, to reduce pollutant loading and sodium from road salt applications from entering Jackson Creek.

Addressed in EA

Long term environmental impact of the project not considered

The long term impacts to the natural environment are discussed in Section 7 of the NHFAS report, included in Appendix F of the ESR. The short and long term impacts of the project are summarized for each segment of the corridor and

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 75


discussed as part of the impact analysis in Section 7.2.3 of the NHFAS report.

Mitigation measures proposed are inadequate and/or weak in their design for natural heritage

Mitigation measures have been defined on the basis of the preliminary design and impact assessment work undertaken as part of this EA Study. During detailed design, a more focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken to guide the selection of the preferred method for the valley crossing and the identification of detailed mitigation measures to address identified impacts during and post construction. Based on extensive experience with valley crossings throughout Ontario, the success of typical mitigation measures leads to a conclusion that the proposed Jackson Creek crossing, in design and construction methods, can be managed such that ecological functions are maintained.

Addressed in EA

Kawarthas Naturally Connected project was not considered

Section 3.4 and Appendix A of the NHFAS located within Appendix F of the ESR notes the Kawarthas Naturally Connected project, which identified a regional natural heritage system (NHS). This study was considered during the evaluation of alternatives.

Addressed in EA

Significance of natural heritage features within the City of Peterborough was not recognized

The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and Corridors that provide linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the Official Plan. The City’s Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands are protected and do not include the Parkway Corridor lands which are designated as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow for transportation facilities within a Natural Area where supported by an Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment. This study has maintained the protection of adjacent natural areas.

As per the policies set forth in the Provincial Policy Statement efficient transportation are to be planned to support development.

Addressed in EA

Concerned that there is no discussion of post-construction, long-term monitoring

Construction and post-construction monitoring is typically associated with conditions of approval from regulating agencies and always defined in response to elements of the detailed design. They are conditions of approval of construction plans following approval of a detailed design. Monitoring during construction will be similarly detailed based on specific aspects of the construction plan, timing guidelines, sediment and erosion control plans, arborist requirements etc.


Design phase

May 9, 2014 76


Jackson Park

Jackson Park is a Provincial Park While Jackson Park is a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape, it is not a designated Provincial Park.

Addressed in EA

Roadway would remove a large section of the park

The Preferred Plan for the Parkway Corridor will not remove a large section of the park. It includes a bridge over Jackson Park which will span the valley from bank to bank, resulting in a bridge that is about 370 m in length and about 24-26 m above the ground level in the valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, it is estimated that approximately 3,000 m

2 - 3,500 m

2 of vegetation

would be removed from the valley slopes of Jackson Park due to construction of the bridge abutments and related fill area on the east and west ends of the bridge. Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the pier locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in width another 1,500m

2

of vegetation may be removed due to construction of the 8 sets of piers. However, as per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal required in the park. It is further noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices that would be carried out in consultation with review agencies, and implementing a vegetation restoration plan following construction. Innovative construction techniques, including building centre spans of the bridge completely from above can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent possible.


Design phase

Extent of physical and environmental damage to park not considered

The potential impacts to Jackson Park are recognized and discussed as part of the evaluation of alternatives, summarized in Section 6 and provided in Appendix O of the ESR. Section 8 of the ESR identifies the potential impacts to the physical environment along the corridor including the permanent loss of vegetation and aquatic habitat and function. As such, a commitment to carry out a series of mitigation strategies as part of detailed design and construction of the project have been developed to reduce and/or mitigate these impacts to the extent possible.

As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, the potential impacts to Jackson Park were considered in the evaluation under a number of different criteria (i.e., social, cultural, and built environment) with mitigation measures and bridge design principles developed. Specific measures to address concerns raised


Design phase

May 9, 2014 77


include:

Selecting a long span bridge to reduce physical impacts within valley

Adjusting bridge profile to raise height of bridge and lengthen structure to permit vegetation growth under bridge, direct all runoff to a stormwater pond avoiding impacts to Creek and fish habitat, and reduce amount of fill in valley

Including pedestrian lookouts on bridge to provide opportunities for new views of park and valley areas and opportunities for interpretive displays to recognize heritage of Jackson Park

Providing wide walking paths on both sides of bridge to provide trail connections to Parkway Trail / Medical Drive Trail

Developing bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques, etc.

Concerned with effects to specialized geological features in Jackson Creek (i.e., limestone bedrock creek bed)

As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge design concept consists of a 23 m high bridge with a span of 367 m across the valley of Jackson Park. As part of the bridge design principles developed for this project, placement of the piers will be designed to avoid sensitive features such as Jackson Creek and the associated creek bed.


Design phase

ESR should include a comprehensive assessment of the possible negative impacts to the natural, cultural and social environment

The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance (NHFAS) report is included in Appendix F of the ESR, with the results summarized in Sections of the ESR. As detailed in Section 4.5 of the ESR, the NHFAS was carried out to assess the existing natural environment conditions within each of the Network Alternatives and to determine the level of significance of terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage features in each to facilitate the evaluation of the Network Alternatives. A copy of the NHFAS is included in Appendix F of the ESR.

With regards to the cultural environment, a Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment were completed for the entire corridor/Jackson Park as part of this EA study. A copy of the Cultural Heritage studies carried out as part of this assessment is provided in Appendix H of the ESR.

Chapter 6 of the ESR provides a summary of the rationale used in selecting the recommended alternatives. In addition, the detailed evaluation tables are provided in Appendix O of the ESR.

The potential impacts to these environments are discussed in Chapter 7 of the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 78


ESR. In addition, Chapter 8 of the ESR discusses the mitigation measures that were developed in consideration of the identified potential impacts.

Concerned about the significant cultural heritage impacts the recommended bridge will have on Jackson Park; measures proposed to mitigate the identified cultural heritage impacts of the bridge in Jackson Park are not sufficient

As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, Jackson Park has been identified as a significant cultural heritage landscape feature. The bridge will become a prominent, new structure within the valley, and become a backdrop against which park features will be viewed and a significant feature in the view upstream from the park. As such, a series of detailed design commitments are being proposed to ensure that the new structure is sympathetic to both the natural and cultural heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within the park and maintaining a bridge height above the valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth.

Addressed in EA

Concerned about the mitigation measures being recommended for this project

Bridge construction over and through urban valley systems is common place in Ontario. Bridges supported on piers are highly preferred over structures that require placement of large volumes of fill material across the entire valley for the maintenance and protection of hydrological functions, wildlife movement, loss of vegetation and fish habitat.

Addressed in EA

Impacts to large white pines/eastern hemlock in Jackson Park; tree loss/importance of trees; largest/highest native trees will not be conserved; concerned with the impacts of salt spray to the natural environment

As described in Sections 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park. The proposed bridge has 8 sets of piers located within the Jackson Park Valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, it is estimated that approximately 3,000 m

2 – 3,500 m

2 of vegetation would be

removed from the valley slopes of Jackson Park due to construction of the bridge abutments and related fill area on the east and west ends of the bridge. Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the pier locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in width another 1,500m

2 of vegetation may be removed due to construction of the 8 sets of

piers. However, as per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal required in the park and an appropriate budget to accommodate this has been included in the proposed project budget. It is further noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices that would be carried out in consultation with review agencies, and implementing a vegetation restoration plan following construction. Innovative construction techniques, including building centre spans of the bridge completely from above can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the


Design phase

May 9, 2014 79


commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent possible.

With respect to root disturbance, as covered in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected through installation of fencing at an appropriate distance determined by a qualified professional. In typical practice, trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require a greater protected root zone. As an example and through discussion with our Certified Arborist at AECOM, white pine trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm will require a root protection zone of 3m from the trunk, totaling a 6m diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction disturbance, however hemlock species are less so, which would result in a larger protection zone compared to white pine. These types of details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.

With respect to salt disturbance, as described in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, runoff from the new bridge across Jackson Park will be directed to the Stormwater Management Pond via insulated storm sewers installed on the bridge, to reduce pollutant loading and sodium from road salt applications. The cross section of the new bridge also includes a barrier wall adjacent to the travelled lanes and wide sidewalks across the bridge as well. This additional width and second barrier wall treatment will reduce the extent of snow and road spray that can intrude into the valley.

As detailed in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that to guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been established and include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. Salt spray would impede vegetation growth, so as part of this Bridge Design Principle, an analysis of the potential for salt spray into the forest communities below the bridge will be conducted and where appropriate, input to the overall bridge design and mitigation will be determined during detailed design.

Concerned that the potential impacts associated with tree and limb removal, etc. on individual trees was not addressed

A specific alignment and bridge design has not been selected in this study. As such, details of tree cutting, limb removal, topping etc. are premature. The impacts to trees and vegetation and associated mitigation measures are described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR. In addition, the detailed list of commitments to be carried out during detailed design and/or construction is provided in Section 9, ID#30. As noted, the detailed design stage and during


Design phase

May 9, 2014 80


construction proper arboricultural practices under the guidance of a Certified Arborist or Professional Forester would be implemented to optimize the health and survival of individual trees.

Presence of roadway lighting in Jackson Park As discussed in Section 7.9 of the ESR, low level shielded illumination will be provided to reduce light spill into the Jackson Park Valley Area.

Addressed in EA

Impacts to existing use of Jackson Park; concerned about the social impacts of the project on Jackson Park and trail users

As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Jackson Park Bridge will be located approximately 220 m north of the north end of the pond area, and almost 400 m north of the activity areas (picnic area, playground) at the south end of the pond near the Pagoda Bridge. The bridge will span across the TransCanada Trail, the creek and many of the informal trails through the wooded area. Thus, all of these existing uses within the park will be retained.

The bridge may be visible from the pond area to the south, although this could be mitigated over time through new vegetative plantings. Given the distance from the bridge to the pond activity areas, noise from the bridge would be no worse than existing noise from the Parkhill Road Bridge at the south end of the Park which is closer than the proposed bridge to the pond area. The new bridge would be visible from the TransCanada trail and users would hear the traffic noise from the bridge as they approach and pass under the structure. The extent of noise impact could be mitigated through the use of low noise pavement designs and through careful design of the structure to minimize expansion joints on the structure which can create noise as vehicles drive over them.

The ESR recognizes the change in the recreational experience for users in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. Although the length of the trail remains uninterrupted, the experience of trail users may change in the vicinity of the bridge. This was reflected in the evaluation of the alternatives and resulted in the extension of mitigation measures proposed in the bridge design.

Impacts to Jackson Park will be minimized to the extent possible through bridge design and mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR, including a series of bridge design principles that were developed to guide future design work to reduce the number of piers and/or utilize non-invasive construction techniques.

Addressed in EA

Impacts of noise from bridge on Jackson Park users; noise increase in the vicinity of the bridge, will be broadcast throughout a significant portion of Jackson Park

The predicted increase in noise in the Jackson Park Area associated with the new bridge has been modelled as part of the Traffic Noise Assessment completed as part of this study (included in Appendix J of the ESR), as discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR. While noise mitigation is not required per the MTO/MOE Noise Protocol, mitigation measures to reduce noise


Design phase

May 9, 2014 81


impacts to Jackson Park will be considered during detailed design as stated in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR.

Impacts to natural heritage features in Jackson Park

In general, the most significant response received from respondents opposed the potential new bridge across the Jackson Park area. The Preferred Plan includes a longer span bridge to reduce the amount of vegetation removal. Further, a series of bridge design principles have been established, to guide future design work on the new bridge in consideration of the potential impacts to natural environment features as detailed in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR. These consist of the following:

Minimize the number of piers within valley during detailed design

Design pier placements to avoid sensitive features (i.e. Jackson Creek)

Design the bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley

Utilize low impact construction techniques (i.e. building from above) to minimize impacts within the Valley where possible

Provide native vegetation to restore areas disturbed during construction

Provide new native vegetation to visually screen the bridge and piers from the trail

Maintain the bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth

Collect/direct rainwater from the bridge to off-site stormwater treatment facilities


Design phase

Contamination from micro climatic changes due to air current, sunlight and solar mass; park may never fully recover to its pre-parkway state

The bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park (see Sections 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR). To guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been established and include:

design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley;

maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth; and

promotion of openness and the bridge height will mitigate sunlight changes within the immediate vicinity of the bridge.

Dominant tree species include mature eastern hemlock and eastern white cedar (see Section 4.2.2.2, Table 2, of the NHFAS). These species can tolerate a mix of shade and full sun conditions. The specimens directly


Design phase

May 9, 2014 82


underneath the bridge will be shaded when the sun is at its highest resulting in full shade conditions up to a couple of hours per day and so significant negative effects are not anticipated. An analysis of the forest vegetation and their specific lifecycle requirements, specifically their shade tolerance/intolerance will be conducted and where appropriate, input to the overall bridge design and mitigation will be determined during detailed design.

Negligible effects are anticipated with respect to micro climatic changes of air currents. The height and the span of the bridge will dissipate wind speed and mitigate against any wind tunneling. Regardless, all species documented within the study area can tolerate high to low temperature conditions and a variety of wind velocities save extreme weather events (i.e. tornado).

Solar mass changes will not result from the Parkway project.

Given the height of the recommended bridge, new trees planted as part of the mitigation measures recommended for this project will not grow sufficiently tall and full to provide reasonable screening, with the exception of the bottom of the bridge piers; concerned that since the number and location of piers will not be known until detailed design, it is not feasible to plant trees now to mitigate future impacts

As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park. To guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been established and include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. As described in 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected, as determined by a qualified professional. Additional details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.

Upon approval of the Class EA, the City would be a position to initiate detailed design to finalize the pier locations and allow for advance tree planting to occur prior to construction. While the exact location of the bridge piers is not known at this time, the preferred alignment of the bridge would guide advanced tree planting activities for the purpose of screening views of the bridge from the valley. Additional trees would be planted for the purpose of screening the piers, once bridge pier locations are determined.

There are a number of fast-growing tree species options that could be considered as part of this mitigation treatment, including the dominant Easter White Pine. Other deciduous tree species that are relatively fast-growing and may be considered include, but are not limited to, Aspens, Poplars and Red Maples.


Design phase

Concerned that the concept of a management plan for Jackson Park has been suggested in the

The Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken as part of this Class EA for the Jackson Park area provides the context and framework for the City to use in


May 9, 2014 83


past and has not been acted upon; plantings recommended as part of the 2008 Medical Drive Class EA have still not been completed

addressing the potential effects associated with a new bridge crossing. This HIA can also provide input to an overall Management Plan for the Park itself, which is much broader than the bridge crossing location.

As per Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a landscaping plan as part of the Detailed Design that addresses landscaping requirements for the new corridor and provides landscaping treatments along the recently constructed segments of Medical Drive. Based on the comments received during the Class EA, the City has planned to implement landscaping treatments along Medical Drive in conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation work.

In addition, the City recently implemented additional landscaping around the stormwater ponds in the area and further plantings are planned to be implemented this year.

Design phase

Smog/climate change As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Preferred Plan, which includes the Jackson Park bridge, is predicted to perform better from an air quality perspective than the other network alternatives assessed as it reduces traffic along Parkhill Road and Fairbairn Street and therefore should result in lower emission levels affecting Hamilton Park, the Pond and Pagoda Bridge Area within Jackson Park, and the residential neighbourhoods adjacent to Fairbairn Street. Maximum pollutant concentrations from conservative modelling indicate concentrations well below accepted air quality standards, with the exception of benzene, which has higher levels under all cases modeled, including ‘Do Nothing’. While emissions may increase within the interior of the park to some degree, this is generally located in areas with less activity (by comparison). In addition, the height of the bridge may also allow for greater dispersion of any emissions and particulate matter that do occur, resulting in lower concentrations at ground level.

Addressed in EA

Concerned about the potential for an increase in the concentration of particulate and air temperatures, in association with the loss of trees and/or shrubs along the corridor

The results of air modelling for the preferred corridor were compared to current standards and guidelines for air contaminants of CO, NOx, NO2, SO2, PM and VOCs. Greater increases of these contaminants are anticipated in close proximity to the preferred corridor due to the new road and higher traffic volumes.

The results of the air assessment modelling indicated that the contaminants analyzed were well below their respective standard, guideline or interim reference level in the vicinity of all intersections within the preferred corridor, with the exception of benzene, which exceeds the applicable guideline. However, benzene is also noted to exceed the guideline in the ambient


Design phase

May 9, 2014 84


condition.

The air quality assessment also considered potential changes on a regional basis (i.e., within the City of Peterborough) and found that the overall reduction in total vehicle kilometers travelled and the reduced traffic on other roadways in the City resulted in an overall reduction in airborne emissions as a result of implementation of the preferred solution relative to the no build case. As described in Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR, a landscape plan, including enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping, will be developed during Detailed Design to mitigate potential effects on the natural and social environments, including loss of vegetation along the corridor.

Bridge will be unattractive/cast shadows on/within Jackson Park

As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge could become a prominent, new structure within the valley, and become a backdrop against which park features will be viewed, and a significant feature in the view upstream from the park. Shadows caused by the proposed bridge may be visible in open areas to the east of the bridge as large, geometric forms and light. To mitigate these issues, a series of detailed design commitments are being carried to ensure that the new structure is sympathetic to both the natural and cultural heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within the park and maintaining a bridge height above the valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth.


Design phase

Litter thrown from vehicles will be deposited into Jackson Park

The Jackson Park bridge will include parapet walls on both sides of the structure which will typically contain discarded litter within the roadway corridor, similar to the Parkhill Road bridge crossing at the south end of the park area.

Addressed in EA

Potential for suicide site and associated prevention fencing not considered/noted

While there may be suicide potential associated with any type of infrastructure project that does not mean that a municipality should avoid planning for necessary infrastructure to support growth. Given that the existing Parkhill bridge located approximately 200 m to the south of the proposed Jackson Park bridge has not had a history of suicides, there is no evidence to suggest that this concern is valid for the Parkway corridor. Should this become an issue in the future, prevention fencing could be considered for implementation at that time.

Addressed through ongoing monitoring

Will attract graffiti, gangs, vandals and unsafe environment, similar to existing Parkhill Road

The recommended bridge would be designed to span the valley from top of bank to top of bank, and eight sets of piers would be constructed within the valley. Through careful placement of bridge piers and vegetation treatments

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 85


bridge that make pier locations inaccessible, the impacts of vandalism and graffiti can be avoided or reduced significantly in association with the new bridge. The experience at the existing Parkhill Road bridge is magnified due to the short span and relative ease of access to the underside of the bridge abutments and embankments which provide an area where people can congregate. While it may be difficult to restrict access to the underside of the bridge in the abutment areas, the longer bridge span bridge will result in these areas being located largely out of sight of the existing trail.

Stormwater Considerations

Contamination from runoff (i.e., sand, salt, road maintenance chemicals)

Drainage and Stormwater Management (SWM) Plans were developed for the entire Parkway as part of this study. As noted in Section 7.5 of the ESR, the design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at or below pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of Environment’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.

Addressed in EA

Concerns related to stormwater management and other related studies - proposed locations for stormwater management ponds inappropriate; stormwater pond would jeopardize brook trout through thermal pollution and suggested mitigation is unrealistic; several ponds too small to provide adequate quantity control; use of trapezoidal channel configuration violates natural channel design; re-routing of water would have impacts relating to dewatering of natural ecological features that has not been addressed; some stormwater management issues deferred to other projects (Bears Creek Flood Reduction Study; Chemong Road EA; Master Drainage Plan)

The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater Management strategy. The Parkway Corridor was divided into four segments to correspond to different outlet locations along the corridor and facilitate appropriate stormwater management (SWM) design strategies for each area. The detailed analyses of drainage and stormwater management recommendations for the Parkway corridor are detailed in the Stormwater Management Reports, provided in Appendix K of the ESR. These were completed in consideration of the Flood Reduction Master Plan, the Water Quality Master Plan, and other location specific watershed studies.

The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at or below pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of Environment’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.

The stormwater management plans were developed in consultation with and reviewed by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority to provide the basis for more detailed stormwater management design treatments to be completed during detailed design as noted in Sections 7 and 8 of the ESR.

While concern was expressed that one flood reduction pond (the pond at The Parkway and Clonsilla Avenue) could not be constructed due to space limitations, the preferred plan will actually increase the available space for this

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 86


future flood control pond.

To demonstrate how the implementation of the preferred alternative may proceed without negatively impacting the upstream and downstream lands and watercourses, consideration was given to flood potential, erosion, thermal impacts, current and future drainage patterns, infrastructure improvement opportunities, social economic value and aesthetics.

It was understood that the tributary to Byersville/Harper Creek serves as headwaters for sensitive fisheries habitat that currently support cold water species. As such, Section 8.1.1 of the ESR commits to investigating strategies to address thermal impacts as part of detail design.

Section 7.5.1 of the ESR states that final configuration and design of the bio-retention swale between Hilliard Street and Cumberland Avenue and the associated connection to Bears Creek will be provided during detailed design and completed in consideration of the 2008 Bears Creek Flood Reduction Master Plan which has already been completed.

Stormwater Management not fully considered As above. Addressed in EA

Pollution run-off from the roadway into Jackson Creek not recognized

As above.

Section 7.5.2 of the ESR describes the drainage and SWM plan being planned to mitigate stormwater quality in the vicinity of Jackson Park. This section further notes that the total level of treatment for runoff discharging into Jackson Creek would be improved as a result of the Parkway. A copy of the Drainage and SWM Plans developed for the corridor are provided in Appendix K of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Study does not consider City’s flood prevention initiatives above need for new/paved surfaces

The focus of this EA study was to examine the opportunity to improve traffic flow and increase roadway capacity to address long term growth in the City. As per the Municipal Class EA process, the planning and design of municipal infrastructure projects must identify and consider the effects on all aspects of the environment. In consideration of increased paved surfaces/decreased natural attenuation and associated increase in stormwater flows, stormwater management strategies were developed for various sections of the corridor. The SWM strategies were developed for this project in consideration of the City’s existing flood prevention initiatives.

As described in Section 7.5 of the ESR, the design strategy for stormwater management was to provide stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at/below pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of Environment’s

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 87


Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003. These strategies were developed in consideration of the City’s existing flood prevention initiatives. A copy of the Stormwater Management Reports completed for this study are included in Appendix K and summarized in Section 7.5 of the ESR.

In addition, the study recognized opportunities with the SWM plan for the Parkway Corridor to address some areas with historical downstream flooding. Accordingly, enhanced measures were incorporated into the SWM pond at the Chemong Road / Sunset Boulevard intersection area to address historical flooding concerns downstream along Chemong Road.

Cultural Environment

History of Jackson Park not considered The history of the Parkway Corridor, including Jackson Park, was reviewed as part of three cultural heritage reports completed as part of this study and included in Appendix H of this ESR. Section 2 of the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment completed for Jackson Park provides a detailed review of the land use history within Jackson Park. The history of Jackson Park is considered as part of determining cultural heritage significance of the area.

Addressed in EA

Cultural heritage assessments carried out as part of this project were not undertaken until after the selection of the preferred alternative and did not inform the selection of the preferred alternative

Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study (i.e., Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment). The assessment of the Alternative Solutions and Network Alternatives was completed in consideration of the potential to impact the cultural heritage environment (i.e., Effect on built heritage resources and cultural heritage features and landscapes). The Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation provided a preliminary review of built heritage resources within each of the Network Alternatives which assisted in informing the evaluations.

The Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment and the Heritage Impact Assessment were undertaken in response to comments received from the Arts, Cultural and Heritage Advisory Committee to identify the cultural heritage resources within the recommended alternative and provide measures to mitigate the potential impacts of the project to the identified resources. The HIA confirmed the findings of the evaluation of Alternative Solutions and Network Alternatives.

Addressed in EA

Archaeological studies indicate that additional studies are needed, particularly in Jackson Park

The findings of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments (AA) are provided in Appendix G of the ESR. As noted in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, the


May 9, 2014 88


and several other areas of high archaeological potential

findings of the Stage 2 AA activities recommended Stage 3 AA mitigation within 3 locations of the Parkway corridor, including in the vicinity of Jackson Park, north of Parkhill Road and south of Jackson Creek. This location of the identified area is specific in nature, and was noted to be associated with a 19

th

century domestic structure and a number of domestic and structural artifacts. As per Detailed Design Commitments #43 and #46, outlined in Section 9 of the ESR, Stage 3 AA will be completed in these areas. In addition, all First Nations communities and/or organizations contacted throughout the course of this study will be contacted immediately should any Aboriginal heritage, remains or significant Aboriginal artifacts be uncovered. It should be further noted that as per the requirements of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, no ground disturbing activities can proceed until MTCS has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.

Design phase

Corridor would cross several areas of high archaeological potential, including the Chemong Portage route; further investigation of the potential cultural/archaeological resources are required (i.e., Lee Cemetery, Jackson Park and Chemong Portage)

As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report, provided in Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage Route is outlined and recognized as potentially traversing the corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent of Frost Map and Pammett Map interpretation). All of the Network Alternatives considered for the north end of the study area traversed the historical route. The undeveloped portions of the corridor were identified as areas of having archaeological potential and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the interpreted areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have been either previously disturbed, thereby not having archaeological potential, or were investigated as part of the Stage 2 AA. In addition, comprehensive archaeological assessment activities were carried out at the Lee Cemetery site to supplement the work carried out by others and delineate the limits of potential burial shafts. Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made for selected areas of the corridor. This will be completed as part of detailed design. Note that ground disturbing activities cannot proceed until the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.

Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study, each of which is included in Appendix H of the ESR. The Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment were completed for the entire corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment was completed for Jackson Park. The MTCS has reviewed the impacts and mitigation measures documented within these reports and are satisfied with the recommendations to be carried forward into the detailed design phase of


Design phase

May 9, 2014 89


the project.

Preservation of Lee Pioneer Cemetery; potential for the recommended alignment to interfere with the Lee Pioneer Cemetery

Archaeological activities carried out as part of this study interpreted the potential for grave shafts to be located in proximity to the existing grave cross marker and this area would not be impacted by the proposed construction activities as illustrated in Figure 6-16 in the ESR. Additional archaeological investigations (i.e. Stage 3 AA) in the vicinity of the cemetery will be carried out during detailed design to confirm the interpretation of the findings. Sections 8.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, outline commitments that the City has made to undertake addition archaeological work as part of the detailed design for this project to confirm the presence/absence of grave shafts. The archaeological assessments carried out as part of this EA study are provided in Appendix G of the ESR. In addition, Section 8.4.1 notes the City’s intent to preserve this significant heritage feature through protective fencing and formal registration of the cemetery.


Design phase

Concerned that Lee Pioneer Cemetery may constrain the design of the road, thereby rerouting the trail.

The trail has been incorporated into the design of the Parkway throughout the study corridor. In response to comments received during the study, additional geophysical investigations were undertaken to confirm the limits of the Lee Pioneer Cemetery. The Parkway design in the vicinity of the Lee Pioneer cemetery site preserves the cemetery boundaries. The Lee Pioneer cemetery site will be located to the south of the roadway and the multi-use trail. The cemetery will not be disturbed by construction and as part of the work, new fencing will be provided around the cemetery and a recognition plaque has been proposed to be provided by the trail.

Addressed in EA

Costs

Costs for project are too high/create significant tax burden; cost of the Parkway would lead to higher property taxes, increased debt load and more infrastructure maintenance costs

The development of infrastructure to support growth in the City of Peterborough may be funded through several sources, including the capital tax levy (which may be debentured), development charges (which may be debentured), federal gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding. As described in Section 7.11 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will be implemented over a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10 implementation stages which would see a new continuous 2 lane road corridor in place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow flexibility for investments in other priorities.

Addressed in EA

Will preclude other projects needed within City; The 2014 capital budget includes a number of improvements to other Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 90


other capital road projects have been pushed back/put on hold because of the Parkway project; large cost of Parkway project has implications on other City initiatives

roadways in the City. The implementation timing of the Parkway improvements as recommended in the ESR suggests that the proposed improvements should be implemented over the next 20 years in response to actual demands and the priorities of City Council.

The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that a significant number of other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. That said, City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget. Further, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget process.

Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the project within any specific time frames and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.

Potential costs associated with the Parkway will preclude other projects in the City, including social, cultural and recreational facilities.

City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget and project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the project within any specific time frames and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.

Addressed in EA

Table ES-6 does not distinguish between projects to be deferred versus eliminated as a result of Parkway

The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. There were also a number of other capacity deficiencies that were not addressed during the CTPU, but where modelling results indicated that capacity deficiencies would be expected by 2031. The Parkway Corridor provides relief to many of these areas and is forecast to defer the need to widen these roads, which supports the road program put forward in the CTPU rather than conflicting with it.

There really is no difference between “deferred projects” and “eliminated projects” as these terms both refer to the need for improvements by 2031. The term deferral is the more accurate description to use, since there may be a need for improvements beyond 2031 on some of the roads noted, if the land use changes or additional growth (beyond that considered during Class EA) continues on adjacent lands.

This part of the technical work program was included in the ESR and the reporting to City Council to respond to claims from some stakeholders that

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 91


suggested the City could not afford the proposed Parkway Corridor or that there would not be sufficient funds to address capital needs in other areas of the City. The analysis was presented to illustrate that implementation of the Parkway would actually reduce the need for widening other roads by 2031, and the amount saved would almost fund the entire project. That said, City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget and, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by City Council through the annual budget process.

Funding availability to build mitigation measures into bridge is questionable

Chapter 8 of the ESR documents the proposed mitigation measures, key commitments and monitoring programs, including those associated with the Jackson Park bridge.

The development of infrastructure to support growth in the City of Peterborough may be funded through several sources, including the capital tax levy (which may be debentured), development charges (which may be debentured), federal gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding.

Addressed in EA

Full costs not accounted for; cost of the bridge escalated from $35 M to $75 M at the public meetings. This is dishonest

The $35M cost referred to was for the Jackson Park crossing alternative, which included the bridge and approach roadways and estimated mitigation measures. This was presented at PIC 3. The cost of the bridge itself is estimated to be $25 Million based on 2013 unit prices. As described in Section 7.12 of the ESR, the preliminary cost to complete this project includes all roadworks and mitigation measures identified in the ESR. Table 7.3 of the ESR summarizes the approximate cost of the project by major cost category. These include noise mitigation, stormwater ponds, pedestrian/cyclist crossing treatments and the new multi-use trail. A contingency of $5.8M was added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers). The total program costs include utility relocations, property costs, costs associated with phased implementation, plus Engineering & Construction Administration Costs of 15% ($8.7M) added to the capital budget. The total program cost is estimated at $78.91 Million, based on 2013 unit prices.

Addressed in EA

Cost of the bridge increased from $51.7 million at PIC 3 to $79 million in the ESR

The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million. The overall cost of the project is estimated to be $79 Million. At PIC 3 the estimated total cost of the project was $66.4 Million (see PIC#3 display panel 24, in Appendix D). The estimated cost of the project did increase between PIC 3 and the final completion of the project as additional costs for mitigation measures were included to address concerns raised by members of the public. In addition, the

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 92


total cost of the project reported to council included costs for the phased implementation, and for project design and construction administration activities (which were not included in the initial estimates presented at PIC 3).

For example, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. An additional contingency of $5.8 Million has been added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers.

Unclear whether bridge costs documented in ESR account for more expensive bridge design per mitigation measures

The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million based on 2013 unit prices. As noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. As a result, an additional contingency of $5.8M was added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).

Addressed in EA

Costs of maintaining the bridge was not considered

As stated in Appendix M of the ESR, future rehabilitation costs for the new bridge across Jackson Park Valley were excluded from the cost-benefit assessment as the first cycle of bridge deck rehabilitation is not expected to be needed for 20-25 years which is beyond the 2031 analysis period used in this assessment. Operating costs were also considered as part of the evaluation of the Network Alternatives, as noted in Table 6.3 and Appendix O of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

The additional $15M cost for a long span bridge versus the short span bridge is not justified.

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.6.1 of the ESR, the short span bridge alternative would require approximately 160 m of fill on the east side of the valley and approximately 80 m of fill on the west side of the valley. The long span bridge would span the valley from top of bank to top of bank, and seven sets of piers would be constructed within the valley. Fill placement in the valley would be limited to the areas surrounding the east and west bridge abutments for the long span bridge.

Based on the evaluation of the bridge span alternatives, it was noted that there

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 93


was no significant difference between the alternatives from a technical, built, economic, noise, air quality, or local traffic infiltration perspective. However, the extensive fill placement in the valley that is required to accommodate the short span bridge would have significant impacts to the natural, social and cultural environments.

With regards to the natural environment, the short span bridge would have a much greater impact on the natural heritage features of the valley, including significant woodland areas and terrestrial vegetation. Larger areas of potential wildlife habitat would be impacted, and wildlife movement would be restricted to a smaller area through the valley. Drainage patterns within the Jackson Creek floodplain would also be significantly altered in association with the short span bridge. In addition, the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has expressed its concerns with altering the natural state of the valley.

It is understood that the long span bridge would also have an impact on the Jackson Park cultural heritage landscape, however the effects are considered much less intrusive. In addition, there is greater potential to design an aesthetically pleasing bridge when maintaining visual continuity within the valley.

As such, the short span bridge alternative was not the preferred alternative selected for crossing the Jackson Park valley.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Question extent of which the cost/benefit to the greater community traffic flow was measured in EA

As noted in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, the benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives.

The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The current project is implementing the above noted recommendations presented in that study.

Addressed in EA

Questionable benefits; unaccounted costs; benefit cost ratio likely overestimated; no integrated benefit cost ratio

As described in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, the benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives to identify a Preferred Design.

A detailed description of the benefit-cost assessment, including the calculated benefits and costs is provided in Appendix M of the ESR and all assumptions, including the sources used for the value of time are fully documented.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 94


As document in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis. The biggest concerns raised were related to the lack of value attributed to the loss of greenspace (as well as the lack of consideration of impacts to property values for homes that back onto the corridor). As such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled, “Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario”. The findings of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study. A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix M of the ESR.

Benefit/Cost ratio of 1.05 is very low; targeted alternative mode improvements or TDM programs are probably more cost effective; defer roadway improvements until congestion is realized for more than one hour per day



Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The review may include assessing projects that have

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 95


not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur throughout the province.

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in November 2011. The program to support non-auto modes of travel is aggressive, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years.

The quantity of trail and/or Jackson Park users was not considered

While the quantity of trail displaced and/or the number of Jackson Park users was not explicitly considered or monetized in the Cost-Benefit analysis work, the evaluation of alternatives considered the potential impacts to users of Jackson Park and/or the existing trail. It should be further noted that the existing trail along the Parkway Corridor is being replaced with a 3.0 m wide multi-use trail, and is not being displaced.

Addressed in EA

Parkway Design

Preferred Plan may require additional permits and approvals, the issuance of which is not certain

No issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR. Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR document potential environmental effects, mitigation measures and key commitments, including permits and approvals that will be required prior to construction. All EA projects (including Individual EA’s) include some need for additional permits to be acquired during detailed design / pre-construction stages of the project when the final design is complete. This does not suggest the project is not feasible.


Design phase

AODA Compliance. Implications for citizens with mobility challenges not fully considered (pedestrian-activated signals on all approaches); Preferred Plan may not comply with AODA requirements

Pedestrian-activated signals and crossings at intersections will comply with AODA requirements and will be determined/ verified during detailed design.

The City currently has accessibility standards and guidelines and is continually working with accessibility committees and advisors to further develop and improve those standards and guidelines in order to comply with legislation.

Will be addressed in Detailed Design phase

Parkway impedes access for students attending Highland Heights and Edmison Heights Public Schools and crossing from the north

As stated in Chapter 7 of the ESR, signalized intersections will provide provisions for pedestrian cross walks on all approaches, and new pedestrian crossing signals will be provided north of Fairbairn Street at Highland Heights Public School and at the Hilliard Street intersection (across the Parkway and across Hilliard Street) which will facilitate access to Edmison Heights Public School.

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 96


Pedestrian signals and underpass being recommended at the Parkway and Fairbairn Street roundabout accommodate east-west pedestrian crossing only, and not north south

As per Chapter 7 of the ESR, signalized intersections will provide provisions for pedestrian cross walks on all approaches, and new pedestrian crossing signals will be provided at the following locations:

Goodfellow Road,

North of Fairbairn Street at Highland Heights Public School,

Hilliard Street intersection (across the Parkway and across Hilliard

Street)

Water Street at the new Zoo Entrance

The pedestrian-activated signal is being recommended for the crossing at Hilliard Street, adjacent to the St. Paul’s School property. The roundabout intersection at this location will slow traffic while minimizing delays and improving safety, when compared to a signalized intersection. The pedestrian signal will provide a safer, more controlled crossing situation for users compared to today where they cross Hilliard Street uncontrolled.

The existing pedestrian signal at St. Peters High School is proposed to be converted to a full signalized intersection in conjunction with the future widening of the Parkway to 4 lanes.

In addition to these locations, grade separated crossings will be provided north of Clonsilla Avenue, in the vicinity of Whitefield Park; north of Parkhill Road, approaching the bridge across Jackson Park; at the Fairbairn Street intersection, to the north of Chemong Road, and to the south of Hilliard Street. These will provide a safe controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the new roadway and maintain connectivity between neighbourhoods on either side of the Parkway Corridor.

Addressed in EA

The Parkway is a bypass and/or highway. As detailed in Section 7 of the ESR, the Parkway will be a major arterial roadway not a highway. It has been designed to have a posted speed of 50 to 60 km/h.

Addressed in EA

Additional intersections/traffic lights on existing roadways and pedestrian-activated crossing on Parkway will add to congestion problem.

The recommended plan provides the best overall transportation solution to address the problem statement by reducing the extent of network congestion both within the study area and in areas outside the study area. The need for additional intersections and traffic signals as well as pedestrian-activated crossings was accounted for in the assessment of system performance, as detailed in Chapter 6 of the ESR.

Addressed in EA

Parkway design does not consider use of illumination beneath bridge to reduce the risk of

As stated in Section 7.9 of the ESR, it is recognized that there may be a safety benefit associated with illumination adjacent to trails and sidewalks that can

Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014 97


vandalism enhance security during periods of darkness. It is noted that in these cases, sidewalk and/or trail illumination will be considered.

Closure of Highland Road would add to emergency service travel time for associated residents

Closure of Highland Road at Fairbairn Street is not predicted to result in a measurable increase in emergency response time for residents in this area. Further, the Preferred Plan through this area results in fewer road closures than the Parkhill-Fairbairn widening alternative, reducing potential impacts to emergency response times in this area.

During subsequent design phases, emergency response routes will be reviewed and adjusted if required to ensure EMS response time targets are met.


Design phase

Project Construction

Impact of construction activities in park not considered (i.e., timing/closures/etc); construction activities will destroy park

As discussed in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR, low impact construction techniques, including building the bridge completely from above, will be considered to reduce construction impacts on environmental features and park areas. The cost for this type of construction technique falls within the range of the cost estimates developed for this project.

The alignment of the approach to the bridge has been carefully selected to minimize the amount of fill that would need to be placed in the valley and the bridge design will span the valley from bank to bank, resulting in a bridge that is about 370 m in length and about 24-26 m above the ground level in the valley. During subsequent design phases, the ESR includes a commitment to minimize the number of bridge piers in the valley and avoid pier placements in the creek or other sensitive areas. Further, the City will restore areas disturbed by the construction of the new bridge including any trails and vegetation removed.

The use of the park and associated trails will be maintained during construction. Temporary realignment of some existing trails may be required to facilitate the bridge construction over Jackson Park. It should be noted that construction activities will not directly impact other features within Jackson Park such as the Pagoda Bridge, the pond, designated sitting areas and/or the parking area.

Addressed in EA

AECOM will be the contractor selected to build the Parkway/bridge

AECOM is a consulting firm, providing professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation. AECOM is not a construction firm.

Not applicable

Asbestos/Hazardous materials removal for Prior to any building demolition, the City of Peterborough would undertake a review of the building condition, including age and potential for hazardous

Will be addressed in Detailed

May 9, 2014 98


acquired buildings building materials (i.e., friable/non-friable asbestos, UFFI, heating oil releases, etc.). If the presence of hazardous materials is confirmed (through sample analyses), the City would retain the services of an Environmental/Environmental Health and Safety Specialist to complete an abatement and/or remediation program. All work would be completed in accordance with applicable Standards. Costs to complete such work would be considered as part of the Project and associated budget review process. It should be noted that this issue would potentially arise with any of the alternatives considered as part of the EA. The preferred corridor has the lowest property displacement required and therefore represents the lowest risk of all of the alternatives.

Design Phase

Lily Lake

Suggested arterial road upgrades to Towerhill Road, Fairbairn Street, etc. as part of recently initiated secondary planning not in line with EA rationale

The transportation analysis conducted for the Lily Lake Functional Planning Study was based on the full build-out of the Lily Lake area, however, it did not take into account the timing of that growth in light of overall City-wide population and employment growth projections to 2031 as reflected in Section 2.4.3 of the Official Plan. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPU), approved by Council in November 2011, does not assume full build-out of the Lily Lake area within its horizon, since the planning area does not have formal approval, but instead considers a City-wide distribution of future population and employment growth projected to 2031. As a result, the growth forecasts used in the modelling work for the 2012 CTPU and the initial modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not include any planned growth within the Lily Lake Planning Area.


As detailed in Section 6.4.5 of the ESR, Fairbairn Street north of Highland Road will need to be widened to 4 lanes up to Lily Lake Road / Towerhill Road, regardless of which north end alternative is selected in this Class EA study, to accommodate the full build out of Lily Lake.

Addressed in EA

Fairbairn Street, between Parkhill Road and the Parkway will ultimately need to be widened

As above. Addressed in EA

Greenspace Coalition Response Table

Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment Peterborough Greenspace Coalition Submission

May 2, 2014 1

Main Document

Issue Response

1. Introduction

Traffic issues identified in the study are only perceived/potential


As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing congestion are beginning to appear in many portions of the road network in Peterborough today. The ESR has documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at Fairbairn Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and PM peak periods that already exceed the road network performance targets established in the Official Plan and result in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods. This is occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents forecast to live in planned development areas in the north end of the City by 2031 - the majority of whom will continue to drive and will pass through these very road segments on their daily travels. Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also demonstrated that increased traffic at many of the key intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity based on policies in the City’s Official Plan. An increase in congestion in a number of areas is expected as illustrated in Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in increased travel delays and increased out of way travel as drivers use alternate routes to avoid congestion. The increased traffic demand is also forecast to increase congestion and delays at the major intersections within the study area, as discussed in Section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many of the key intersections noted in the assessment would be over capacity, resulting in long queues of traffic, particularly for many left turn movements. Not only does this create additional delays for motorists, but it increases the number of vehicle conflicts and the risk of collisions as frustrated drivers take risks to avoid extensive delays.

As required in the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, municipalities are required to develop infrastructure plans to accommodate forecasts of future growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has developed a transportation model which is calibrated to forecast existing conditions prior to being used to forecast future transportation conditions associated with planned growth and infrastructure improvements. This model was developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation


May 2, 2014 2

Issue Response

Plan Update (CTPU), the City’s long range transportation plan that examined system-wide transportation policies and improvements using a comprehensive public process in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans.

An excerpt from the transportation model development and calibration portion of the CTPU report is included in Appendix P of the ESR and a summary of the travel capacity analysis carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q of the ESR.


There have been repeated past decisions to turn down the project over the past 67 years of debate

The history of this corridor goes back to 1947 when a new transportation corridor was recommended to by-pass the west side of the City of Peterborough to connect to the recreational areas north of the City. This first “Official Plan” for the City, known as the Faludi Report, established the future road network and guided the development of lands around the corridor as the City continued to grow.

The City purchased the required land for the Parkway Corridor and designated the corridor within the Official Plan. Since the Parkway route was designated in the Official Plan, the City has grown around the corridor and other routes have evolved to fill the role of the original “highway by-pass” envisioned in the 50’s. However, as the City has grown, new arterial roadways to serve the growth in the west and north ends of the City have not been constructed, primarily because the “Parkway Corridor” was protected and would serve that need.

Portions of the original corridor have been implemented; most notably the section of the corridor between Highway 115 and Clonsilla Avenue (a distance of 2.6 km), which has been in operation for over 20 years, and serves as the main entrance into the City from the south.

Following the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update the City held a referendum on the ‘Partial Parkway’ concept as part of the 2004 municipal election. The vote resulted in 55% voting against construction of the “partial Parkway” plan, although the vote was not binding as the turnout was less than 50% of eligible voters. Council agreed to put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum result, but they did not remove the “Parkway” corridor from the Official Plan.

Following the referendum, access to the new Peterborough


May 2, 2014 3

Issue Response

Regional Health Centre became an issue in the community, as the previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part because of its central location along the “Parkway Corridor”. In 2011, Hospital Access Road was constructed as a two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road within the Parkway Corridor.

At the same time, the City had embarked on an update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and in November 2011, City Council approved the recommended road network plan, which indicated the need to construct a new two lane arterial roadway in the Parkway Corridor (from Fairbairn Street to Cumberland Avenue) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon period along with the need for widening Fairbairn Street to 4 lanes (from Parkhill Road to Highland Road) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon.

Preferred alternative is ineffective and needlessly expensive

The ESR included the development and assessment of various Alternative Transportation Solutions and Alternative Road Network Designs to address the problem / opportunity statement for the project. A series of road network alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated using a number of evaluation criteria reflecting the transportation performance of each alternative, the potential effects on the natural, built, social, cultural and economic environments and also included various financial evaluation criteria to determine the Recommended Design. The transportation performance of each alternative was assessed with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended Design best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity improvements that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not implemented. It is important to note that the Recommended Design incorporates a truly multi-modal corridor.


It should be noted that a large portion of the project cost is attributed to the mitigation measures being proposed as part the project, including landscaping, stormwater management, and vegetation restoration plans. Further, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the


May 2, 2014 4

Issue Response

objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, to span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, to investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. The cost includes an additional contingency of $5.8M to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).

Preferred alternative will have significant environmental impacts, in spite of some mitigation measures

The potential impacts to the natural, cultural and social environments are discussed in Chapter 7 of the ESR while Chapter 8 discusses the mitigation measures that were developed in consideration of the identified potential impacts.

Every alternative considered has positive and negative effects. The intent of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process is to evaluate these potential effects and rank alternatives based on that evaluation. The Recommended Design is considered to be the best balance of those potential effects while still achieving the goals of the project by addressing the problem statement.

Further, Chapter 9 of the ESR lists 66 specific commitments for further work required to implement the project as it moves through the next stages of detailed design and construction, including permit and approval requirements (MOE, MNR, DOF, ORCA). These commitments are grouped in a series of topic areas covering the primary potential environmental impacts identified through the completion of this ESR, including: Fisheries, Stormwater Management. Hydrogeology, Wetlands and Wet Features / Depressions, Erosion and Sedimentation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Archaeology, Built Heritage, Noise, Air Quality, and Materials Management during construction. Including these commitments in the EA will ensure mitigation of any adverse effect is a high priority and a commitment on the part of the City.

Study failed to achieve timely and meaningful public consultation


Public Information Centres (PICs) were considered key to engaging/sharing information with the public in relation to this study. Four PICs were held throughout the course of the study to present:

PIC#1: background of the study, an overview of the Municipal Class EA process, feedback received from the public since the commencement of the study, an overview of the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the Problem Statement, the alternative solutions that had been developed to address the Problem Statement and the preliminary network alternative

PIC#2: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #1, feedback received from the public since PIC #1, the preliminary evaluation of the Network Alternatives for the North End and South End and associated approach and the alternative design


May 2, 2014 5

Issue Response

concepts for the Network Alternatives.

PIC#3: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #2, feedback received from the public since PIC #2, the preliminary evaluation of the Jackson Creek Valley Alternatives, the final evaluation of the North End and South End Network Alternatives and the recommended design concepts for the corridor

PIC#4: overview of the information presented to date, the comments received since PIC #3, a review of the proposed design treatments and mitigation measures proposed as part of the study

A website for the study was established through the City of Peterborough’s website at the initiation of the study. Information related to the study was posted on the study website throughout the course of the study. This information included notices of PICs, copies of PIC presentation material, responses to frequently asked questions and comprehensive questions and/or concerns raised by the public or other stakeholders and associated responses and copies of final reports related to the study.

The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process. For example, as per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.

Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received.

Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA study.

Full range of reasonable alternatives to the project were not considered and evaluated; Concerned that a full range of reasonable alternative means of carrying out the project were not considered and evaluated

This Class EA study is not intended to revisit the policy decisions in the Official Plan nor the recently completed Transportation Plan Update, which was undertaken in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. This ESR was intended to undertake the more detailed planning necessary to implement two of the road network improvement recommendations from this plan, taking into account longer term growth. Thus, the basis, or starting point, for the study was the 2012 Transportation Master Plan, and the travel demand forecasting work assumed that all of the


May 2, 2014 6

Issue Response

recommended policies and infrastructure needed to support the reductions in auto use that were recommended in the Transportation Plan would occur and corresponding auto use reductions would be realized..

As per Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the TMP), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in Nov 2011. This study is available on the City website.





Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that


May 2, 2014 7

Issue Response

include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.

As described in Section 6.1 of the ESR, Network Alternatives were generated based on a two-step process: the first step included the development of road network alternatives representing various combinations of road widening and new road connections to address the problems and opportunities; and, the second step involved the development of the preferred road network alternative to a higher level of design, with alternative design treatments applied for major intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and alternative alignments considered to avoid or minimize impacts to features or properties within the corridor.

As described in Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and complexity of the project, the study area was divided into three segments (i.e., North End, South End and Jackson Park). With four (4) alternatives within the south end of the study area, six (6) potential alternatives in the Jackson Park area, and three (3) alternatives in the north end of the study area, 72 different network combinations were possibly available, resulting in a complex and difficult evaluation process to present to the public. To simplify and clarify the evaluation approach, a three step evaluation process was used, as per other complex EA/route planning studies.

As described in Section 6.3.2 of the ESR, the evaluation of Network Alternatives was carried out via the same “Reasoned Argument Process” process described in Section 5.3, which evaluates the advantages and disadvantages (or positive and negative effects) of each Network Alternative in response to each criteria. Based on the descriptions provided, each Network Alternative is ranked in terms of how well it responds to the criteria. Opportunities to incorporate mitigation to offset potential adverse impacts are also considered as part of this process. This is commonly referred to as a “Net Effects” evaluation.

The evaluation criteria used to assess Network Alternatives are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures. For some criteria that are not easily measured or quantified, qualitative measures are used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative with respect to each criteria. The evaluation considered opportunities to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for impacts within subsequent stages of design or construction. For other criteria, quantitative measures were used based on the corridor right-of-way width (representing the footprint impacts), to compare the advantages and disadvantages for criteria in numeric terms, where the higher (or lower) values indicates a better ranking.

The detailed evaluation tables related to each of the Network Alternatives for each segment of the study area are included in Appendix O of the ESR.

Study does not comply with the The Class EA process addresses the requirements of the EA


May 2, 2014 8

Issue Response

requirements or expectations of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)

Act. Since this study is related to the construction of a new road within a designated transportation corridor, the project has predictable impacts which can be mitigated through proven mitigation strategies used in other projects and this combination of factors makes the Class EA process an appropriate planning and design process. The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the natural environment study and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required for a routine Class EA study. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City was sufficient to identify and compare the range of potential advantages and disadvantages of all reasonable alternatives and make an informed decision, recognizing that the project specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting process that follows both a Class EA and an Individual EA.

This Class EA study is similar to the Pine Valley Drive Extension Class EA in Vaughan where the Minister required a full individual EA to the undertaken

Each project is unique and undertaken to address a defined problem and opportunity statement.

The Parkway Corridor Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The Parkway Corridor Study was classified as a Schedule C project since it had the potential for significant environmental impacts. It proceeded under the full planning and documentation procedures of the Municipal Class EA document.

The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the consultation program and the natural, social and cultural environment studies and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required for a typical Class EA. Undertaking an individual EA would not provide any more information or consultation activities that would alter the outcome of the EA process. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City was sufficient to make an informed decision and the project specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting process that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA process.

2. Project Has Significant Environmental Effects

2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features and Impacts

Impacts to the brook trout population are also shared by Curve Lake First Nation, as identified by Chief Phyllis Williams as part of another nearby project related to Harper Creek

The alignment of the Preferred Design at the south end approaching Clonsilla Avenue was modified to avoid Byersville Creek, which is a cold water fishery, and to minimize the extent of impacts to woodland areas adjacent to the creek. Further, at the Clonsilla Avenue intersection, the intersection was shifted approximately 30 m to the east to avoid Byersville Creek.

Responses from Curve Lake First Nation were received on July 31, 2012 and July 11, 2013 in response to the Notice of Study Commencement and Notification of PIC #3, respectively. No concerns were raised with respect to this


May 2, 2014 9

Issue Response

issue.

Byersville Creek and Harper Creek is the only coldwater system running through a municipal area

This is incorrect. There are several coldwater systems running through municipalities in Ontario. For example, Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket, Oshawa Creek in Oshawa and several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in Richmond Hill.

Brook trout genetics should be considered a distinct, significant species

The response included in Appendix H of the Greenspace Coalition’s submission does not support this interpretation or suggestion. This population is distinct from the Hills Lake hatchery strain. This population “fit the expected patterns for native ancestry and showed genetic similarities to other native populations in Peterborough District, but also some evidence of genetic contributions from the provincial Hills Lake hatchery strain.”

Concerned about the increase in impervious surfaces and its impact on receiving waters

The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive stormwater management plan as described in Section 7.5 of the ESR. Stormwater management measures will treat roadway run off to improve water quality prior to discharging the water into the receiving creeks. The coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek is acknowledged. All subsequent site characterization and impact assessment was based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria.

Concerned about maintenance of the brook trout population

Section 8 of the ESR includes a discussion on potential for thermal effects on Byersville Creek and measures to mitigate impacts to the water temperature entering the receiving watercourse. As per Section 9, ID#6 of the ESR, monitoring programs will be undertaken by the City at least one year prior to site alteration to assess needs for dewatering, potential impacts to fish communities and fish habitat, and to plan mitigation measures where necessary. Should impacts be observed after mitigation measures have been implemented, solutions will be determined at that time utilizing the data collected during the monitoring programs.

Concerned for the protection of white pine heritage trees in the valley

As per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal required in the park. It is further noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices that would be carried out in consultation with review agencies, and implementing a vegetation restoration plan following construction. Innovative construction techniques, including building centre spans of the bridge completely from above can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent possible.

With respect to root disturbance, as per Section 8.2.1.1 of the


May 2, 2014 10

Issue Response

ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected through installation of fencing at an appropriate distance determined by a qualified professional. In typical practice, trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require a greater protected root zone. As an example and through discussion with our Certified Arborist at AECOM, white pine trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm will require a root protection zone of 3m from the trunk, totaling a 6m diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction disturbance, however hemlock species are less so, which would result in a larger protection zone compared to white pine. These types of details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.

Concerned with the impacts of salt spray to the natural environment

With respect to salt disturbance, as described in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, runoff from the new bridge across Jackson Park will be directed to the Stormwater Management Pond via insulated storm sewers installed on the bridge, to reduce pollutant loading and sodium from road salt applications. The cross section of the new bridge also includes a barrier wall adjacent to the travelled lanes and wide sidewalks across the bridge as well. This additional width and second barrier wall treatment will reduce the extent of snow and road spray that can intrude into the valley.

As per Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that to guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been established and include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. Salt spray would impede vegetation growth, so as part of this Bridge Design Principle, an analysis of the potential for salt spray into the forest communities below the bridge will be conducted and where appropriate, input to the overall bridge design and mitigation will be determined during detailed design.

Concerned with effects to specialized geological features in Jackson Creek (i.e.,limestone bedrock creek bed).

As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge design concept consists of a 23 m high bridge with a span of 367 m across the valley of Jackson Park. As part of the bridge design principles developed for this project, placement of the piers will be designed to avoid sensitive features such as Jackson Creek and the associated creek bed.

Concerned about the effects to wildlife habitat

AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for wildlife functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the


May 2, 2014 11

Issue Response

valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the valley floor ranges up to 23m. The span between the piers would leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede the movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or minimal.


Kawartha Natural Connected was not considered.

Section 3.4 and Appendix A of the NHFAS located within Appendix F of the ESR notes the Kawarthas Naturally Connected project, which identified a regional natural heritage system (NHS). This study was considered during the evaluation of alternatives.

Significance of natural heritage features within the City of Peterborough was not recognized.

The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and Corridors that provide linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the Official Plan. The City’s Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands are protected and do not include the Parkway Corridor lands which are designated as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow for transportation facilities within a Natural Area where supported by an Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment. This study has maintained the protection of adjacent natural areas,

As per the policies set forth in the Provincial Policy Statement efficient transportation are to be planned to support development.

2.2 Insufficient Inventory, Impacts Analysis, and Mitigation Measures

Fish sampling equipment used as part of the assessment was unsuitable for catching eggs or fry

The in-water fisheries investigations were completed in accordance with established standards developed by MNR. It is not appropriate to “capture eggs or fry” at any time. Those are the most sensitive life stages for all fish species. Disturbance of eggs and fry results in extensive mortality. The absence of egg or fry collection did not detract from the coldwater, brook trout characterization of the Byersville Creek system. Sucker and perch may well be active in the referenced reach. Instream construction timing guidelines per MNR policy would protect those functions and any modifications to stream habitat would necessarily maintain or enhance those functions.

Only one day devoted to the brook trout As per Section 5.7 of the NHFAS report, “The most sensitive habitat within the study area is that of Byersville Creek which


May 2, 2014 12

Issue Response

spawning survey is a coldwater system and provides input to downstream reaches which are known to support Brook Trout.” As such, the coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek was acknowledged and all subsequent site characterization and impact assessment was based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria. Since the highest level of habitat protection has been used in the assessment, additional site surveys or spawning surveys would not change the approach to mitigation.

Concerned that when ten young fish were caught in Jackson Park, near the proposed bridge, they were not identified

As documented in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, no fish surveys / electrofishing were conducted for Jackson Creek as part of this Class EA Study. Aquatic species found in Jackson Creek were identified through fish surveys conducted by EcoTec Environmental Consultants in 2005 and through MNR records from 2005. During these previous studies, approximately 10 young of the year fish were observed but not caught so species could not be confirmed. The proposed design of the new bridge will span across Jackson Creek and will not involve any in water work or any impacts to fish or fish habitat in this watercourse.

Mitigation measures proposed are inadequate and/or weak in their design for natural heritage

Mitigation measures have been defined on the basis of the preliminary design and impact assessment work undertaken as part of this EA Study. During detailed design, a more focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken to guide the selection of the preferred method for the valley crossing and the identification of detailed mitigation measures to address identified impacts during and post construction. Based on extensive experience with valley crossings throughout Ontario, the success of typical mitigation measures leads to a conclusion that the proposed Jackson Creek crossing, in design and construction methods, can be managed such that ecological functions are maintained.

The field assessment of Species at Risk is simply an analysis of habitat.

To determine the presence/absence of Species at Risk within a given area cannot be completed without an analysis of habitat. An analysis of habitat effectively screens SAR that are known for a region or municipality and targets field surveys to those species that are most likely to occur within an area according to what habitat is available.

As described in Section 5.1 of the NHFAS, and according to MNR, there are 15 SAR known to occur in proximity to the study area. Through the habitat assessment, 6 of these 15 have suitable habitat within the immediate limits of the alternative alignments and include: Butternut (Endangered), Barn Swallow (Threatened), Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened), Milksnake (Special Concern), Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern). Butternut prefers wooded areas with open canopies as it is shade intolerant, the turtle species require waterbodies, Barn Swallow typically utilizes bridge structures to build their nests and Milksnake has a wide range of habitat


May 2, 2014 13

Issue Response

preferences. More detail concerning the habitat preferences of these SAR is presented in Appendix I of the NHFAS. During detailed design, and in consultation with MNR, the requirement for field surveys will be determined for these species and any that may have been added to the Endangered or Threatened list within the Endangered Species Act during the time between the completion of the EA and the commencement of detailed design. These surveys are deferred to detailed design so that the most up-to-date data will be available for incorporation into the design.

Gaps in collection of birds data. As described in Section 3 of the NHFAS report, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Ontario was reviewed as part of the background review of existing information for the study area. Appendix B of the NHFAS includes a list of birds identified within the study area, as noted in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas.

Field work carried out at as part of this study was completed to supplement the findings of the background information. As noted in Section 4.7.2 of the NHFAS report, a number of bird species were identified at the time of the terrestrial field work, carried out between August 27 and August 30, 2012, and on November 30, 2012. In addition, potential habitat for bird species was identified as part of the NHFAS.

Additional bird investigations will be conducted during detailed design to ensure the most recent data is available to inform the design.

Understory and the canopy of forested areas were not fully inventoried.

As described in Section 4.2 of the NHFAS, a botanical survey was conducted by completing transects through vegetation communities. Along each transect, observations were made of all canopy layers in the vegetated area. All species observed were recorded. Photographs and samples were taken of species that could not be identified in the field to be identified in an office setting. A complete list of plants observed in each community type is included as Appendix F of the NHFAS.

The report contributes very little new information on natural features, relies on limited and outdated pre-existing information and does not present a fulsome inventory.

The NHFAS report included in Appendix F of the ESR utilizes a combination of background review and fieldwork to determine the existing natural heritage conditions within the study area for the EA. The background review included review of existing documents and consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA). MNR identified to the project team potential Species at Risk and their intent to update the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Evaluation file. ORCA confirmed the presence/absence of significant natural features, confirmed the thermal status of creek systems and indicated the presence of several unevaluated wetlands along the Jackson Creek corridor and upper reaches of Bears Creek. This base of information is what determined the field program where additional information was needed.


May 2, 2014 14

Issue Response

The field program conducted the following:

i) delineated all natural vegetation communities within proximity to the alternative alignments according to MNR’s Ecological Land Classification (ELC) protocols;

ii) conducted aquatic habitat assessments of creek systems including spawning and electrofishing surveys utilizing the MNR, Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (2010);

iii) evaluated several unevaluated wetlands within the study area according to the MNR’s Ontario Wetland Evaluation System;

iv) evaluated the woodland areas according to provincial guidelines; and

v) undertook an assessment of habitat to determine potential presence of significant wildlife habitat and habitat for Species at Risk, also according to MNR’s protocols.

This field program provided the rationale to identify additional Provincially Significant Wetland that is now complexed with the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (see Appendix H of the NHFAS), nine new significant woodlands and one significant valleyland. Candidate areas for significant wildlife habitat and Species at Risk habitat were also identified. Surveys to confirm the presence/absence of these habitat areas are typically deferred to detailed design once a preferred solution is selected.

2.3. Project has Significant Cultural and Social Environment Impacts

Concerned about the significant cultural heritage impacts the recommended bridge will have on Jackson Park; measures proposed to mitigate the identified cultural heritage impacts of the bridge in Jackson Park are not sufficient

As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, Jackson Park has been identified as a significant cultural heritage landscape feature. The bridge will become a prominent, new structure within the valley, and become a backdrop against which park features will be viewed and a significant feature in the view upstream from the park. As such, a series of detailed design commitments are being proposed to ensure that the new structure is sympathetic to both the natural and cultural heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within the park and maintaining a bridge height above the valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth.

Unclear whether bridge costs documented in ESR account for more expensive bridge design per mitigation measures

The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million based on 2013 unit prices. As noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas


May 2, 2014 15

Issue Response

disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. As a result, an additional contingency of $5.8M was added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).

Given the height of the recommended bridge, new trees planted as part of the mitigation measures recommended for this project will not grow sufficiently tall and full to provide reasonable screening, with the exception of the bottom of the bridge piers; concerned that since the number and location of piers will not be known until detailed design, it is not feasible to plant trees now to mitigate future impacts

As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park. To guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been established and include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. As described in 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected, as determined by a qualified professional. Additional details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.

Upon approval of the Class EA, the City would be a position to initiate detailed design to finalize the pier locations and allow for advance tree planting to occur prior to construction. While the exact location of the bridge piers is not known at this time, the preferred alignment of the bridge would guide advanced tree planting activities for the purpose of screening views of the bridge from the valley. Additional trees would be planted for the purpose of screening the piers, once bridge pier locations are determined.

There are a number of fast-growing tree species options that could be considered as part of this mitigation treatment, including the dominant Eastern White Pine. Other deciduous tree species that are relatively fast-growing and may be considered include, but are not limited to, Aspens, Poplars and Red Maples.

Concerned that the concept of a management plan for Jackson Park has been suggested in the past and has not been acted upon; plantings recommended as part of the 2008 Medical Drive Class EA have still not been completed

The Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken as part of this Class EA for the Jackson Park area provides the context and framework for the City to use in addressing the potential effects associated with a new bridge crossing. This HIA can also provide input to an overall Management Plan for the Park itself, which is much broader than the bridge crossing location.

As per Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a landscaping plan as part of the Detailed Design that addresses landscaping requirements for the new corridor and provides landscaping treatments along the recently constructed segments of Medical Drive. Based on the comments received during the Class EA, the City has agreed to implement landscaping treatments along Medical Drive in conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation work.

In addition, the City recently implemented additional


May 2, 2014 16

Issue Response

landscaping around the stormwater ponds in the area and further plantings are planned to be implemented this year.

Cultural heritage assessments carried out as part of this project were not undertaken until after the selection of the preferred alternative and did not inform the selection of the preferred alternative

Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study (i.e., Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment). The assessment of the Alternative Solutions and Network Alternatives was completed in consideration of the potential to impact the cultural heritage environment (i.e., Effect on built heritage resources and cultural heritage features and landscapes). The Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation provided a preliminary review of built heritage resources within each of the Network Alternatives which assisted in informing the evaluations.

The Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment and the Heritage Impact Assessment were undertaken in response to comments received from the Arts, Cultural and Heritage Advisory Committee to identify the cultural heritage resources within the recommended alternative and provide measures to mitigate the potential impacts of the project to the identified resources. The HIA confirmed the findings of the evaluation of Alternative Solutions and Network Alternatives.

Archaeological studies indicate that additional studies are needed, particularly in Jackson Park and several other areas of high archaeological potential

The findings of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments (AA) are provided in Appendix G of the ESR. As noted in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, the findings of the Stage 2 AA activities recommended Stage 3 AA mitigation within 3 locations of the Parkway corridor, including in the vicinity of Jackson Park, north of Parkhill Road and south of Jackson Creek. This location of the identified area is specific in nature, and was noted to be associated with a 19

th century

domestic structure and a number of domestic and structural artifacts. As per Detailed Design Commitments #43 and #46, outlined in Section 9 of the ESR, Stage 3 AA will be completed in these areas. In addition, all First Nations communities and/or organizations contacted throughout the course of this study will be contacted immediately should any Aboriginal heritage, remains or significant Aboriginal artifacts be uncovered. It should be further noted that as per the requirements of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, no ground disturbing activities can proceed until MTCS has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.

Concerned that Lee Pioneer Cemetery may constrain the design of the road, thereby rerouting the trail.

The trail has been incorporated into the design of the Parkway throughout the study corridor. In response to comments received during the study, additional geophysical investigations were undertaken to confirm the limits of the Lee Pioneer Cemetery. The Parkway design in the vicinity of the Lee Pioneer cemetery site preserves the cemetery boundaries. The Lee Pioneer cemetery site will be located to the south of the roadway and the multi-use trail. The cemetery will not be disturbed by construction and as part of the work, new fencing will be provided around the cemetery and a recognition plaque has been proposed to be provided


May 2, 2014 17

Issue Response

by the trail.

Concerned about the social impacts of the project on Jackson Park and trail users

As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Jackson Park Bridge will be located approximately 220 m north of the north end of the pond area, and almost 400 m north of the prime activity areas (picnic area, playground) at the south end of the pond near the Pagoda Bridge. The bridge will span across the TransCanada Trail, the creek and many of the informal trails through the wooded area. Thus, all of these existing uses within the park will be retained.

The bridge may be visible from the pond area to the south, although this could be mitigated over time through new vegetative plantings. Given the distance from the bridge to the pond activity areas, noise from the bridge would be no worse than existing noise from the Parkhill Road Bridge at the south end of the Park which is closer than the proposed bridge to the pond area. The new bridge would be visible from the TransCanada trail and users would hear the traffic noise from the bridge as they approach and pass under the structure. The extent of noise impact could be mitigated through the use of low noise pavement designs and through careful design of the structure to minimize expansion joints on the structure which can create noise as vehicles drive over them.

The ESR recognizes the change in the recreational experience for users in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. It is noted that the TransCanada trail through Jackson Park provides 4.5 km of uninterrupted trail along Jackson Creek, running from Parkhill Road to the at-grade trail crossing of Ackison Road. The proposed new bridge crossing will not interrupt this trail but will span across the trail, similar to the existing Parkhill Road bridge. In terms of the secluded trail environment, there will be 3.9 km of uninterrupted trail remaining between the new bridge and Ackison Road, which represents approximately 87% of the original trail within the valley.

Impacts to Jackson Park will be minimized to the extent possible through bridge design and mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR, including a series of bridge design principles that were developed to guide future design work, including efforts to reduce the number of piers and/or utilize non-invasive construction techniques.

Concerned about the potential for an increase in the concentration of particulate and air temperatures, in association with the loss of trees and/or shrubs along the corridor

The results of air modelling for the preferred corridor were compared to current standards and guidelines for air contaminants of CO, NOx, NO2, SO2, PM and VOCs. Greater increases of these contaminants are anticipated in close proximity to the preferred corridor due to the new road and higher traffic volumes.

The results of the air assessment modelling indicated that the contaminants analyzed were well below their respective standard, guideline or interim reference level in the vicinity of all intersections within the preferred corridor, with the exception of benzene, which exceeds the applicable


May 2, 2014 18

Issue Response

guideline. However, benzene is also noted to exceed the guideline in the ambient condition.

The air quality assessment also considered potential changes on a regional basis (i.e., within the City of Peterborough) and found that the overall reduction in total vehicle kilometers travelled and the reduced traffic on other roadways in the City resulted in an overall reduction in airborne emissions as a result of implementation of the preferred solution relative to the no build case. As described in Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR, a landscape plan, including enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping, will be developed during Detailed Design to mitigate potential effects on the natural and social environments, including loss of vegetation along the corridor.

Concerned about the loss of greenspace in association with the Parkway Trail

The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s Official Plan and is not designated as greenspace. In response to public concerns about the change in use of the lands within the Parkway corridor these lands were also included in the assessment of impacts to and the loss of greenspace as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives (refer to Chapter 6 of the ESR). Further, as noted in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this EA study, and the lack of value attributed to the loss of greenspace (as well as the lack of consideration of impacts to property values for homes that back onto the corridor). As such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled, “Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario”. The findings of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study. A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix M of the ESR.

3. Need is Not Demonstrated

Need for the project is based on a modelled forecast of 18 years

As per Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006. Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes and accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).

The recently approved Amendment 2 to the Provincial Growth Plan has even higher growth forecasts for the City of Peterborough with the population expected to exceed 100,000 people by 2031. The Official Plan update will reflect


May 2, 2014 19

Issue Response

these updated forecasts. If the recently approved higher growth forecasts are realized, it is conceivable that all of the north end growth areas may be built out by 2031.

All municipalities utilize growth forecasts as the foundation for future planning including land use and infrastructure planning. This approach is consistent with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The City, through regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends, update their growth forecasts, and update the assessment of transportation policies and infrastructure needs and priorities. Any portions of the Parkway Corridor or other projects recommended in the current CTPU that have not been implemented will be included in any review.

Need for the Parkway has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the ESR


As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing congestion are beginning to appear in many portions of the road network in Peterborough today. The ESR has documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at Fairbairn Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and PM peak periods that already exceed the road network performance targets established in the Official Plan and result in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods. This is occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents forecast to live in planned development areas in the north end of the City by 2031 - the majority of whom will continue to drive and will pass through these very road segments on their daily travels. Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also demonstrated that increased traffic at many of the key intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity. An increase in congestion in a number of areas is expected as illustrated in Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in increased travel delays and increased out of way travel as drivers use alternate routes to avoid congestion. The increased traffic demand is also forecast to increase congestion and delays at the major intersections within the study area, as discussed in section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many of the key intersections noted in the assessment are over capacity, resulting in long queues of traffic, particularly for many left turn movements. Not only does this create additional delays for motorists, but it increases the number of vehicle conflicts and the risk of collisions as frustrated drivers


May 2, 2014 20

Issue Response

take risks to avoid extensive delays.

As required in the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, municipalities are required to develop infrastructure plans to accommodate forecasts of future growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has developed a transportation model which is calibrated to forecast existing conditions prior to being used to forecast future transportation conditions associated with planned growth and infrastructure improvements. This model was developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU), the City’s long range transportation plan that examined system-wide transportation policies and improvements using a comprehensive public process in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans.

An excerpt from the transportation model development and calibration portion of the CTPU report is included in Appendix P of the ESR and a summary of the travel capacity analysis carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q of the ESR.


Study does not consider economic trends including aging population, rising fuel prices, increasing urbanization, improving travel options, increasing health and environmental concerns and changing travel and housing location preferences




Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031 were assessed during the study in response to comments received including the implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area,


May 2, 2014 21

Issue Response

as documented in Section 6.4.5.


Questioned validity of the model used to predict future traffic growth in the study area and to accurately model traffic congestion

Traffic demand modelling work is an estimate which is based on industry standard techniques, the best information available at the time, and assumptions about future land use and demographic patterns and public attitudes about how residents may choose to travel in the future. The travel demand model is designed and calibrated to industry standard levels of accuracy, prior to being used to forecast future demands. As a result of the various assumptions used about future conditions, actual traffic demands could be higher or lower than the forecasting results presented in the study. The methodology applied as part of the traffic demand modelling work is typical for transportation planning exercises, whether an Individual EA or a Class EA study is being undertaken.

However, this is true of any forecast – whether it be transportation planning, school needs planning, or retirement planning. Any forecast relies on assumptions about future conditions. In the case of the forecasts used in this Class EA study, the forecast is based on the best estimate of what the City expects to occur and has planned for – as a result of the policies established in the City Official Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the Provincial Growth Plan.

Only vague discussions of traffic problems at various intersections were presented in the ESR

Section 3.3.1 of the ESR provided a detailed description of existing and future capacity concerns and Section 3.3.2 provides a detailed assessment of collision problems at these same intersections. Supporting detail capacity analysis worksheets with additional detail are also provided in Appendix Q of the ESR.

ESR does not consider Transportation Demand Management alternatives, beyond the background levels

Alternative modes of transportation were identified and evaluated as documented in Section 5 of the ESR and described in preceding sections of this table. The policy directions and TDM program recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update go well beyond current background levels.

The City’s strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active transportation, including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the City’s 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period


May 2, 2014 22

Issue Response

trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.


As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) was assumed to occur as part of establishing need. In addition, the ability to support transit was considered as part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys, and intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).

Concerned with the safety at intersections, not related to the Parkway intersections that are not covered by the ESR, and feel that these would be better served by alternatives that would reduce the number and severity of collisions

Not applicable to this project. Improvements to intersections and/or other roadways not related to the Parkway Corridor will be explored as part of separate studies. The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in 2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Other capital road projects have been pushed back/put on hold because of the Parkway project

The 2014 capital budget includes a number of improvements to other roadways in the City. The implementation timing of the Parkway improvements as recommended in the ESR suggests that the proposed improvements should be implemented over the next 20 years in response to actual demands and the priorities of City Council.

The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that a significant number of other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. That said, City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget. Further, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget process.

EA study was limited to a study of the Parkway Corridor given that it was

The City of Peterborough just recently completed an update to their city-wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPU)


May 2, 2014 23

Issue Response

identified in the CTPU as a possible solution, and did not address the overall transportation system

in 2012, which examined the overall transportation needs of the City for the next 20 years. This study was completed in accordance with the Master Planning process framework provided in the Municipal Class EA document, included extensive public consultation, and was approved through public meetings of City Council. Transportation Master Plans are intended to determine broader system-wide transportation policies and infrastructure needs on a more holistic basis to provide the policy context for subsequent Class EA studies. As such, the 2012 CTPU was intended to determine city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified a number of strategies, policies and projects that would be required by 2031. The current Parkway Corridor EA study is implementing two of the above noted recommendations presented in that study. The intent and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to determine how best to implement the recommendations of the Transportation Plan and satisfy the problem statement established for the project.

Difficult to predict traffic flows 18 years into the future





Assessment of phasing plan for improvements, to link infrastructure to demonstrated needs

Development of monitoring and implementation recommendations

The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is prior to the growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and infrastructure to support growth can be made in a coordinated fashion. The lack of a clear decision on the transportation infrastructure needed to support growth in the North End of the City has impacted the ability of the municipality to plan for the north end growth in an integrated fashion, and proposed Secondary Plans for the Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas were delayed due to concerns about unresolved transportation issues. Completion of the 2012 CTPU and this Class EA study provide the transportation certainty to allow the City to proceed with planning for growth in these planned growth areas.

Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The


May 2, 2014 24

Issue Response

review may include assessing projects that have not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur throughout the province.

An implementation phasing plan for the recommended improvements, is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the Environmental Study Report. The proposed timing for implementation considered the longer term growth needs in the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the City, both in terms of volume increases and distribution of this growth.

4. Study is based on Unreliable Assumptions and Traffic Modelling

Population predictions are overly optimistic and inaccurate

As described in Section 3 of the ESR, the City’s actual population growth has been consistent with the provincial forecasts since the original release of the Growth Plan in 2006, with the population and employment growth actually underestimated by 4% compared to actual population and employment figures. Since commencement of the study the Province approved Amendment 2 to the Growth Plan, which has even higher growth forecasts for the City of Peterborough, with population expected to reach 115,000 people by 2041. As such, this EA study is based on the original 2006 forecasts that are lower than recent forecasts the province has directed municipalities to use in their planning.

Study uses peak traffic flow rates as the basis of determining traffic handling need; study did not clearly state what portion of each day traffic capacity will be exceeded

The City has developed policies within the Official Plan and the 2012 TMP that guide decision making for transportation investments. As per the Official Plan policies and the 2012 TMP, a level of service D during peak periods is considered the maximum acceptable performance target, representing 90% of the planning capacity of the road.

As described in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the updated transportation model developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update was designed and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday. Travel demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity during peak periods.

Increasing portion of the population will not place a burden on the transportation network during peak hours

The 2012 CTPU estimated 22% growth in internal traffic from 2006 to 2031. The CTPU assessed trip making patterns due to aging and suggested that travel demands could be overstated by up to 5% but did not recommend any changes to travel demands due to the uncertainty in this initial assessment.

AECOM undertook a more detailed assessment of trip making patterns by age category and trip purpose using data from the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Using this


May 2, 2014 25

Issue Response

data, combined with the estimated age profile for Peterborough in 2031, PM peak hour growth is estimated at 20%. This assumes no significant increase in work trip making for those over age 55, although trends suggest that people may end up working longer in the future. Mid-day trip making is expected to grow by over 23%. Based on this more detailed assessment, it was concluded that the travel demand forecasts from the CTPU are in line with these estimates (see Section 3.2 of the ESR).

Study made no comparison to more recent transportation data than the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS)

The 2006 TTS was the most recent data available at the time of the study. The 2011 TTS data was not released until December 2013.

Modelling methods used in this study are biased; modelling methods used in the study did not model driver behaviour accurately, and used a simplistic model to predict driver behaviour

The modelling completed as part of this study was completed in accordance with industry standard approaches. The model was calibrated and validated for base year conditions and reflects changing trip making patterns for future conditions.

Results of this study differ from previous studies

The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) completed by Morrison Hershfield identified a number of road network capacity deficiencies by 2031, including the Otonabee River crossings north of Lansdowne Street, Fairbairn Street, Towerhill Road, portions of Chemong Road, Parkhill Road, and other roads.

This current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The current project is implementing the above noted recommendations presented in that study.

There have been a number of studies which have assessed the need for and most appropriate transportation improvements to address future travel demands in the study area and these past studies have consistently recommended the Parkway Corridor as the preferred solution. These studies include the 1990 Transportation Plan, the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, the West Side Corridor Study (2003), and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

The Cost-Benefit Assessment included in Appendix M of the ESR also provides a review of the differences between the previous Cost Benefit study for the Parkway Corridor undertaken by Morrison-Hershfield in 2003 and the more recent results presented in this ESR.

5. Not a Full Consideration of Alternatives

Improve transit; adopt higher transit mode share target of 6%

The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update assessed City wide strategies to improve transit use in the


May 2, 2014 26

Issue Response

City and concluded that the City could realistically increase the share of peak hour trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The Transportation Plan report noted that this increase would represent an increase of 890,000 riders per year or a 28% increase in transit use from 2011. The Transportation Plan estimated the capital costs to purchase new buses at $5.1 million with additional net operational costs of $1.4 million annually for increased services. Over the 20 year life of the plan, to 2031, this represents an investment of $33.1 million. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents a policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation planning.

The base forecasts used for the current EA study analysis has assumed that the increased transit use recommended in the 2012 CTPU would be achieved by 2031, in accordance with this policy direction.

Targeted TDM programs required; economic analysis does not account for full benefits of TDM program or benefits of more comprehensive TDM programs

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in Nov 2011. This study is available on the City website.




3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28% and increase the share of trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The report recommends the purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing operating costs (total $33.1 M) to achieve this target.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents a policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation


May 2, 2014 27

Issue Response

planning in this regard.

As described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As per Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the TMP), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.


Does not fully consider effect of induced traffic

Induced traffic was not included in the modelling and cost-benefit work for the Parkway Corridor EA Study. A network wide modelling approach was used, where the same overall demand for travel was used in the modelling of each scenario, including the Do Nothing scenario (without the Parkway Corridor in place). In this approach drivers may change their route as result of road network improvements that reduce travel times but no new demand is generated. As a result of the shift in route choice, higher traffic volumes would be experienced on portions of the network, however this would be offset by traffic volume reductions in other areas of the network. Some of the previous research on induced traffic has included this diverted traffic in the calculation of “induced traffic”.

The issue of induced traffic is complex. In a heavily congested network (such as the Toronto area) some travelers choose to defer making trips, some travel outside of peak periods, and others shift to travel by other modes (such as transit) to avoid traffic congestion. In these cases, the addition of road network capacity may improve peak period auto travel times enough to “induce” these users to change their trip making and revert back to travel by auto during the peak periods. This is the phenomenon examined by most of the researchers that have studied the issue of induced traffic in urban areas in the past.

Even these are not necessarily new trips – they are just trips


May 2, 2014 28

Issue Response

added to the peak periods instead of other periods of the day or other travel modes. Generally, a corresponding reduction in demand would occur in the off peak periods or in the number of trips made by other modes as a result. The extent of peak period congestion in Peterborough is not expected to be so significant by 2031 to suppress trip making or force drivers to travel outside of peak times to avoid congestion. Therefore it is not expected that the completion of the Parkway Corridor would induce any new travel in the City than is forecast to occur in the “Do Nothing” scenario.

That being said, there is clear evidence to show that motorists are already diverting to use other routes to avoid congestion or delays within the City (i.e. the continued growth in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the east side of the City to access new development areas in the north end of the City). These trips that divert to the Parkway Corridor have been included in the modelling work for the project.

The other case where induced traffic can be found is for a new highway or rail project that links two communities and reduces travel times between them significantly. In this case new inter-city travel may be induced, however this is often traffic that would have traveled within each community or to other communities prior to the improvement. This would be similar to the widening of Highway 35/115 which contributed to increased commuting between the Peterborough Area and Durham Region, for example. This condition also does not apply in the context of the Parkway corridor study as the majority of traffic is internal to the City and the new road capacity provided does not fundamentally change travel times between adjacent communities.

EA did not develop a comprehensive road-centred alternative to the Parkway; West By-pass route dismissed too early; other alternative solutions and network options not seriously considered

As described in Chapter 6 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and complexity of the project, the study team divided the study area into the following segments: Jackson Park; South End; and North End. Network Alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated for each of the above-referenced segments. This enabled the study team to evaluate the unique qualities of each segment in more detail, recognizing that for most of the evaluation criteria the impacts are localized in nature and specific to a particular segment (i.e. property impacts). For the system-wide performance evaluation, each of the area based alternatives was modeled with improvements in the other parts of the study area included. For example, the system-wide modeling of the south end alternatives included the new roadway in the Parkway Corridor (as recommended in the 2012 CTPU). Similarly, the modeling for the north end alternatives included the recommended alternative in the south end to ensure that the system wide performance results for each alternative were representative. For the assessment of the Jackson Park Area Alternatives, the recommended alternative for the north end and south end were used in the modeling assessment.


May 2, 2014 29

Issue Response

Consideration was given to a “West By-Pass” route (refer to Section 6.1.1, pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings presented as part of PIC #1 (please refer to Panel 21, Appendix D of the ESR). This rationale is also discussed in Table 2 – Summary of Public Comments and Responses, provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and Table 4 – Summary of Public Comments, provided in Appendix F of the PIC #2 Summary Report. The assessment concluded that the West By-Pass would not address the problems and opportunities established for this study, and therefore did not represent a reasonable alternative as defined in the Municipal Class EA.

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) not examined as a viable alternative solution to the problem statement

The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal system that is currently controlling about two-thirds of the traffic signals in the City. As part of the City’s normal traffic management policy, the signal timing settings are optimized to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various road corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal priority is currently being used to optimize the traffic signal timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water Street) to give priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to manage its transportation system.

These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and the quality of service provided but they cannot significantly increase the functional capacity of a roadway. In most arterial road applications the functional capacity is governed by vehicle following distances (1.75 – 2.0 seconds per vehicle) and the available green time provided at signalized intersections. There are currently no proven ITS technologies that can allow for reduced car following distances while maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies may allow for optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic signals, this often comes at the expense of other movements, when more green time is devoted to the major road.

A recent study completed as part of the City of London Transportation Master Plan (2004) found that traffic signal optimization (with no geometric improvements) could at best increase the capacity of a major arterial road by only 5%, and this improvement would result in increased side road delay as priority is given to the major road.

Inconsistent treatment of alternatives and application of evaluation criteria means decision making / planning process not logical, traceable or replicable; walking and cycling ought to have been considered as modes of transportation; criteria did not sufficiently prioritize protection and enhancement of important natural areas, wildlife corridors and green spaces; double-disturbance not factored in

As described in Section 4 of the ESR, in accordance with the EA Process, a systematic evaluation of alternatives was undertaken for this project in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, considering both positive and negative effects on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments as part of the assessment and evaluation process. The evaluation process was also based on three important evaluation objectives: compatibility, traceability and objectivity. The assessment and evaluation results were presented for public review and comment at each key study milestone.


May 2, 2014 30

Issue Response

The evaluation criteria were grouped under the following seven categories: Technical Considerations; Natural Environment; Built Environment; Social Environment; Cultural Environment; Economic Environment; and Financial Considerations. A reasoned argument evaluation process, as has been used on numerous Class EA’s and Individual EA studies, was utilized to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the relative “net” environmental effects.

Given the extent of public comments about the importance of greenspace the impacts to natural and greenspace areas were considered under numerous evaluation categories including the natural, social and cultural environments ensuring the natural features as well as the role and function of the trail and greenspace areas was assessed and explicitly considered in the evaluation of alternatives.

The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s Official Plan not greenspace. The existing corridor is bisected by a number of road crossings. The potential impacts on the natural environment in association with the construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section 8.2 of the ESR and in the specialist reports provided in Appendix K of the ESR. In summary, concerns regarding impacts to the natural environment were received from the public and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the evaluation criteria, the route selection, and preliminary design, with mitigation measures and design guidelines developed to mitigate potential impacts.

Walking and cycling was considered as a mode of transportation. As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not support the achievement of increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement. The recommended design for the Parkway Corridor includes a continuous multi-use trail from the south end of the study area to the north end of the study area, completing a number of missing links in the sidewalk and trail network in this portion of the City. In addition, sidewalk and trail crossing infrastructure is included in the proposed design, including 5 new grade separated trail crossings, 5 pedestrian crossing signals, and pedestrian crosswalks at all intersections.

The Preferred Plan does account for initial and ultimate requirements (i.e. road widening from two to four lanes) with the ultimate road platform established and mitigation measures placed to accommodate the ultimate road platform during the initial construction works. Incremental effects of


May 2, 2014 31

Issue Response

the widening to four lanes, associated with the new bridge across Jackson Park, were included in the assessment of the Jackson Park Area alternatives as appropriate and as described in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.

6. Different Alternative Route Should Be Preferred

Fairbairn Street route likely to perform as well or better than chosen alternative with reduced impacts to the natural environment and comparable or reduced effects to other aspects of the environment

As described in Section 6 of the ESR, the Fairbairn Street alternative was one of the network alternatives generated, assessed and evaluated for the north end of the study corridor. On the basis of the comparative evaluation that considered over 50 criteria, the Parkway Corridor alternative, which included a bridge over Jackson Park, was the preferred alternative. With respect to the Transportation Assessment, the Fairbairn Street widening alternative results in more congested road segments in the study area than the proposed bridge crossing and the intersection assessment for Fairbairn Street / Parkhill Road concluded that the intersection would operate at or over capacity with the Fairbairn Street widening, while the new bridge provided significant capacity relief to this key intersection. The ESR also noted that the Fairbairn Street widening could not accommodate the potential future traffic that would be generated by the full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area, while the new bridge crossing provided sufficient capacity for this additional growth. This assessment is discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.

7. Extensive Agency and Public Concern

2003 referendum demonstrated that the majority of citizens rejection the Parkway option

The question posed at the time of the 2003 Referendum was, “Do you approve of the construction of the Parkway extension at an estimated cost of $22.0 million”. It is understood that the “No” vote received more votes, however the turnout was only 47.89% of registered voters. The turnout is required to be at least 50% for the results to be binding under the Provincial Legislation governing municipal referendums. In addition, there are a number of reasons why residents may have voted no:

Some have noted that this referendum was for the “partial parkway” concept recommended in the 2002 Transportation Plan, and because this proposal did not include a bridge across Jackson Park they voted no;

Others assumed that the expenditure was to be funded 100% from property taxes and that construction would proceed immediately – and as a result they felt the City could not afford the expenditure at that time; and

Others were opposed to the Parkway itself and voted no to the project.

As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, Council agreed to put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum result, but they did not remove the “Parkway” corridor from


May 2, 2014 32

Issue Response

the Official Plan. Given the many reasons for residents voting no at the time, the City included the Parkway Alternative as one of the alternatives when they completed a review and update of their Transportation Master Plan. The CTPU looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and examined a series of alternatives to the Parkway. The CTPU identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The CTPU was approved by City Council in November 2011. The current EA study has carried out the planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum.

Majority of the public opposed to Preferred Design

As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, various members of the public have requested that a statistical analysis of comments be completed with respect to support or opposition to recommendations and that this be reported to Council. The EA process is designed to take a full range of environmental and technical criteria into consideration in the evaluation of alternative solutions or designs. That process results in identifying a "technically preferred" alternative. Although public input is taken into consideration during the EA process and documented as part of the study it does not change the "technical" advantages and disadvantages of the preferred plan or the outcome of the evaluation, regardless of how many people are for or against the "preferred plan". Accordingly, trying to quantify support or opposition based on numbers is inappropriate for the Class EA process.

Public feedback did not have any impact during the process


The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process. Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA study.

For example, as per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.

Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made


May 2, 2014 33

Issue Response

based on the feedback received throughout the study and the Corridor Design Workshop.

8. Problematic Public Consultation

Requests for an extended comment period were denied

The request for an extension to the comment period was initially sought following PIC 2, at which time the comment period was extended from 15 days to 30 days. In recognition of this concern, all subsequent comment periods held for PICs 3 and 4 were also extended to 30 days. A 45-day review period was provided for the ESR when a 30 day period is the norm.

It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No Parkway group that comments received after the comment period were welcomed and reviewed by the study team and that if these comments could be addressed as part of the study they would be.

Technical background reports were not shared with the public before the ESR was issued and requests for draft documentation were not met

Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public throughout the course of the study. There were a number of documents posted on the project website during the study and detailed responses to comments received during the study were also posted on the website prior to the final PIC#4. Final technical reports were included in the ESR.

Proponent and/or consultant did not respond to repeated information requests or provided last minute responses during the study; requests for travel time savings over key points in the corridor were not received in a timely manner; requests for capacity modelling were not provided

A number of responses were received from the public throughout the duration of the study. Each response was reviewed and respectfully considered by members of the study team. Where appropriate, responses were dutifully prepared in consideration of each concern raised. A summary of the comments received and the associated responses were posted on the website throughout the course of the study. The requests for customized travel time estimates between various locations in the City were not part of the study technical work program or ESR documentation, as the technical work utilized aggregate travel time savings estimates for the evaluation inputs used in the study. The approach used to calculate the aggregate time savings were documented in the Cost-Benefit working paper which was released to the public in draft following PIC 2. The custom travel time requests were provided in response to a special request from a member of the public and the additional analysis required to undertake this work was completed after the main work required to support the ESR findings and conclusions was completed. A copy of the comments received from the public and associated responses prepared by members of the study team are included in Appendix D of the ESR.

Details of the preliminary design were only released prior to the Special Committee of the Whole meeting, of which the public was not invited to speak

The purpose of PIC #4, held on September 26, 2013, was to present the study recommendations included the proposed preliminary design for the project, and associated mitigation measures being proposed. Following the PIC, some minor refinements to the preliminary design were completed in response to comments from the public and agencies. The PIC provided all members of the public with an opportunity to


May 2, 2014 34

Issue Response

review and comment on the information presented, and speak with members of the study team. In addition, a 30 day review/comment period was provided following the PIC to allow time for meaningful input. It should be noted that similar information was presented at the Special Committee of the Whole meeting.

The City of Peterborough standard rules of Council procedure does not permit public delegations during Committee of the Whole meetings, but provides an opportunity for public delegations prior to Council considering the recommendation from Committee of the Whole. A special Council Meeting was held for this project, over two nights, to allow all members of the public who wished to provide comments a chance to address Council.

Council was not provided with enough time to confirm their decision

City Council is able to defer an issue at its discretion.

An integrated Cost Benefit Ratio was not made available to the public

The costs and benefits were presented at each stage of the decision making process. Further, the final release of the Cost Benefit Analysis included a sensitivity analysis, in consideration of responses received from the public. A copy of the Cost-Benefit analysis report was made available for review at PICs 3 and 4, was posted on the City website, following each PIC and is available in Appendix M of the ESR.

Responses reported as part of PIC Summary Reports were “noted” and there was no evidence that the public had an impact on the directions of the City

The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at each stage of the study process. As per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.

Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received throughout the study and the Corridor Design Workshop.

PIC 3 was held at inappropriate time and location

The timing for PIC 3 was governed by venue availability, project team availability, notification requirements, and project team readiness (in terms of completing the supporting technical work and preparation of the presentation materials). Given the number of respondents that had signed the online petition and submitted comments to us by email following PIC 2, combined with the extensive press coverage following PIC 2 and the extensive mail out we did for PIC 3 (over 6,100 notices were mailed) larger attendance than received at the previous two PIC’s was anticipated. The Wellness Centre


May 2, 2014 35

Issue Response

was selected as the venue for PIC 3 to ensure there was sufficient space to accommodate 300 - 500 people for the presentation The Evinrude Centre did not have enough capacity to accommodate this level of attendance and the project team did not want to risk having to turn people away in the event of large crowds. There were no other available venues in the study area that could provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the attendance we anticipated. Despite the location and timing of the event over 300 people signed in to PIC 3, over twice the number that attended PIC 2.

Concerned about the timing of the release of the draft Lily Lake Secondary Plan

This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is proceeding under the applicable Planning Act approval processes. Based on comments received from the public, the implications of this future potential development area were assessed as part of the evaluation of alternatives.

Cost of the bridge increased from $51.7 million at PIC 3 to $79 million in the ESR

The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million. The overall cost of the project is estimated to be $79 Million. At PIC 3 the estimated total cost of the project was $66.4 Million (see PIC#3 display panel 24, in Appendix D). The estimated cost of the project did increase between PIC 3 and the final completion of the project as additional costs for mitigation measures were included to address concerns raised by members of the public. In addition, the total cost of the project reported to council included costs for the phased implementation, and for project design and construction administration activities (which were not included in the initial estimates presented at PIC 3).

For example, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. An additional contingency of $5.8 Million has been added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers.

There was no opportunity to determine adequacy of the technical reports; there was no opportunity to review and/or supplement the biological field work; stakeholders did not have the ability to follow up with review agencies regarding technical concerns

All technical studies carried out as part of this study were completed by qualified specialist consultants and/or subconsultants. Cultural heritage and archaeological assessment reports are reviewed by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport as part of the Municipal Class EA process. In addition, natural heritage and stormwater studies were carried out in consultation with the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and MNR. Please refer to Appendix B of the ESR.

Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public throughout the course of the study. Final technical reports were included in the ESR and an extended review


May 2, 2014 36

Issue Response

period of 45 days was provided.

Copy of the Municipal Class EA document should have been available for review

A copy of the Municipal Class EA document was available on the resource table at each PIC event and at the Corridor Design Workshop. In addition, a copy of the document is available at the City of Peterborough Public Library. A copy of the Municipal Class EA can also be requested from the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), however municipalities are not authorized to provide or distribute this document to members of the public. A digital version of the Class EA document is also available on the MEA website, however this version can neither be printed nor saved.

Evaluation tables found in Appendix O of the ESR had not been previously shared with the public and/or Council

Copies of the north end and south end alternatives draft evaluation tables were made available for review on the resource table at PIC 2 and were posted on the study website. The draft evaluation results for the Jackson Park Area (bridge versus widening alternative) were made available at PIC 3 and were also posted on the study website following the PIC. In addition, a summary of the evaluation tables was presented as part of the presentation material provided at each event. Additional supporting evaluation material (intersection design alternatives, sub alternatives for the “best” Fairbairn Street widening alternative) was released as part of the full documentation for the ESR and these evaluation tables were included in Appendix O.

Release of different evaluation framework in the ESR that had not earlier been shared with the public for the East vs West widening options for Fairbairn Street

The conceptual design alternatives for the East vs West widening alternatives for Fairbairn Street were presented to the public at PIC 2 for initial comments. The effects were summarized on the display panels and during the public meeting presentation. The evaluation process for the Jackson Park Area presented at PIC 2 and again at PIC 3 clearly identified that the best new bridge alternative (long span vs short span) would be evaluated against the best widening alternative (which included 3 sub evaluations; the best Parkhill Road widening; the best Fairbairn Street widening; and the best Fairbairn Street / Highland Road / Parkway intersection treatments). A summary of this process and the results of the best new bridge and best widening alternatives were presented at PIC 3 on display boards 16, 17 and 18 (included in the ESR Appendix D). The detailed evaluation tables supporting this evaluation summary were included in Appendix O of the ESR.

Study did not follow the discretionary planning component of the Municipal Class EA.

As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City updated the Official Plan through Amendment 142 to adopt provincial growth forecasts and intensification targets as per the Provincial Growth Plan. This Class EA Study was not intended to redo the Official Plan and/or the City’s development policies. The EA process (whether it be a Class EA or an Individual EA) is not the appropriate mechanism to develop municipal growth policies that are subject to the Planning Act and the Places to Growth Act.

Official Plan Review has not been Although currently under review, the City’s Official Plan


May 2, 2014 37

Issue Response

completed remains a valid and guiding document until it is updated through an Official Plan Amendment. The City adopted OPA 142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing and future planning initiatives related to where and how to accommodate urban growth, in accordance with the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update established the transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the basis for the transportation policies to be incorporated into the new Official Plan. The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was undertaken within the policy context of the current Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Secondary plan for Lily Lake Planning Area was not released/approved prior to filing the ESR

This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is proceeding under the applicable Planning Act approval processes. The implications of additional growth in the Lily Lake planning area was only addressed as a sensitivity analysis in response to comments received from the public and because the status had not been approved during the Class EA study.

Completion of the Chemong Road/Reid Street Widening project would ultimately affect traffic capacity on Chemong Road

Agreed. All modelling work assumed Chemong Road would be widened as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Consultation process was non-compliant with the Municipal Class EA document.

The EA Study was carried out in accordance with the planning and design process for Schedule ‘C’ projects as outlined in the Municipal Class EA document. An extensive public consultation program was undertaken which exceeded the requirements set out for a Schedule ‘C’ project. The public consultation program was enhanced during the study as a fourth PIC was added to provide additional information on conceptual designs for the Jackson Park Area Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern expressed about this area. At PIC 2 these design concepts were presented prior to undertaking the evaluation of these alternatives so that stakeholder feedback could be considered in the evaluation. The consultation program included the release of study notices, four public information centres (PIC) held through the duration of the study (October 2012, March 2013, June 2013, and September 2013), a design workshop (August 2013) for members of the public and agencies that had expressed an interest in participating, external agency meetings, Council presentations, a study email address and a study website.

9. Does Not Improve Stated Problem

Proposed Parkway extension will do little to address the identified problems and in some cases will make the problems worse

Alternative Road Network Designs were developed, assessed and evaluated to determine the Recommended Design. The transportation performance of each alternative was assessed with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended Design, which consists of a truly multi-modal corridor, best addresses future capacity deficiencies,


May 2, 2014 38

Issue Response

identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity works that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not implemented.

While trail will be more connected, it will be less used and less safe due to proximity to new road



Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to separate the trail and the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for preserving existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of construction works will be explored to allow new vegetation to grow and mature, providing screening during construction and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard environment upon opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which may include replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).

No issues with access to the hospital since Medical Drive constructed. Better access to hospital was not a major point discussed at the Public meetings.

The construction of Medical Drive did improve access to the hospital from Sherbrooke Street to Parkhill Road and reduced traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital. The Parkway will provide enhanced access to the Hospital for residents living in the north end of the City and the communities to the north, and will enhance connectivity to the south end road network from Medical Drive. That being said, it is true that enhanced access to the hospital was not a primary purpose of the Class EA and was not featured in the definition of the problem statement. In fact it is only mentioned in the Executive Summary to the ESR as part of the statement that the preferred alternative “Provides the best access to the hospital and the south end of the City from the growing north end neighbourhoods”. The point about access to the south end of the city was a major element of the problem statement for this Class EA.

Marginal time savings for travel between the north and the south

As per the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process, a Problem/Opportunity Statement was developed for the project to address identified problems and opportunities, including the need to provide additional road capacity to


May 2, 2014 39

Issue Response

accommodate north-south travel demands on the west side of the Otonabee River and to address capacity, operational and safety concerns in the north end of the City by 2031. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the ESR for the Problem/Opportunity Statement which formed the basis for this project.

Travel time savings for individual trips was not a primary purpose of the project and is not a component of the problem statement. The evaluation of alternatives was based on a broad range of criteria as detailed in Sections 5.3 and 6.3 of the ESR. Travel time savings was one of 26 criteria considered in the evaluation process. It was primarily used in aggregate as an input to the cost-benefit analysis which was completed at the request of stakeholders.

Table ES-6 does not distinguish between projects to be deferred versus eliminated as a result of Parkway

The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. There were also a number of other capacity deficiencies that were not addressed during the CTPU, but where modelling results indicated that capacity deficiencies would be expected by 2031. The Parkway Corridor provides relief to many of these areas and is forecast to defer the need to widen these roads, which supports the road program put forward in the CTPU rather than conflicting with it.

There really is no difference between “deferred projects” and “eliminated projects” as these terms both refer to the need for improvements by 2031. The term deferral is the more accurate description to use, since there may be a need for improvements beyond 2031 on some of the roads noted, if the land use changes or additional growth (beyond that considered during Class EA) continues on adjacent lands.

This part of the technical work program was included in the ESR and the reporting to City Council to respond to claims from some stakeholders that suggested the City could not afford the proposed Parkway Corridor or that there would not be sufficient funds to address capital needs in other areas of the City. The analysis was presented to illustrate that implementation of the Parkway would actually reduce the need for widening other roads by 2031, and the amount saved would almost fund the entire project. That said, City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget and, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by City Council through the annual budget process.

10. Feasibility is Not Demonstrated

Feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated – Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has not been incorporated into City’s Official Plan; City has not completed its Official Plan review; no

As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006. Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are


May 2, 2014 40

Issue Response

approved land use planning alternative to consider; assumes Lily Lake Planning Area will be developed but is has not yet received approval

required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes. Accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).

The City Official Plan and OPA 142 designate the type of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification within the City’s existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.

The planned growth per the Growth Plan targets, excluding the growth allocated to intensification areas, is distributed between the Carnegie East, Carnegie West, Chemong East, and Chemong West growth areas. It is neither the purpose nor the intent of the Class EA process to over-ride the Planning Act or re-write the current Official Plan.

Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as these areas build out to capacity. While the City has initiated the planning for the future Lily Lake planning area, which includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to accommodate future longer term growth, the growth forecasts used in the modelling work for the 2012 CTPU and the initial modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not include any planned growth within the Lily Lake Planning Area since it is has not been approved.


The Parkway is not only feasible, within the context of the City’s current Planning and Policy environment, but it is necessary to support the planning decisions made by the City.

Parkway would not appear to be consistent with various policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and may not conform to the City’s current Official Plan (as described in our PIC 4 submission)

Our review of the material in support of this opinion (refer to Appendix E) concludes that the Parkway Project does in fact comply with the various policy statements extracted from the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Peterborough Official Plan. For example:


May 2, 2014 41

Issue Response

Plan for healthy communities – the proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safe for pedestrians and allows for improved social interaction (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). By reducing congestion and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project can improve overall quality of life as suggested in the Official Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project balances the transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the community and is compatible with the small city character of Peterborough (as suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6 lane roads and complicated intersections (that would be required in some of the other alternatives), by reducing regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by improving safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are already experiencing collision problems. Finally, by choosing a route that does not provide new roadway capacity at the edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually less likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent rural areas than other alternatives (specifically the West By-Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3

rd Line Alternatives), and

supports the2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan and the PPS.

Prioritize the preservation / conservation of natural areas – the proposed route does not affect or impact any provincial parks, conservation areas, or other protected areas (reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d) – however the Fairbairn Street / 3

rd Line Alternative does traverse through a

designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection of natural areas within the City is already protected within the Official Plan through buffer lands designated adjacent to the Parkway Corridor through the north end of the study area. These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway, which is being located within a designated transportation corridor (2005 City Official Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation measures proposed in the ESR (including landscaping, bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans) provide protection to features considered to be part of the natural heritage of the community (2005 Official Plan, Section 4.5.1.3). Designated open space / greenspace areas are not being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to Schedule A of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area – although the proposed design will span this area preserving the natural functions of the valley area below.

Adopt a TDM approach to mitigate congestion and capacity Issues – As noted previously, the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has provided an extensive set of policies and infrastructure to support and


May 2, 2014 42

Issue Response

promote TDM. The Class EA is being planned within this City–wide planning context and assumes the initiatives will be completed. This Class EA is also implementing some of the infrastructure necessary to achieve that vision, including new pedestrian / trail connections and a future transit spine route through the City (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.2).

Encourage active and efficient modes of transportation while discouraging vehicular travel – The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns and a mix of uses does not apply to this project, however, the land use patterns adopted in the Official Plan and OPA 142 requires multi-modal transportation infrastructure that supports walking, cycling, and transit use. The Parkway Corridor achieves all of these better than any of the other reasonable alternatives (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.4). The proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safe for pedestrians and allows for non-motorized movement (reference to 2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). Providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine provides for accessible active transportation opportunities that are attractive alternatives to the automobile and make it less convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012 Official Plan Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5 and 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan). Providing a balanced transportation system requires the provision of transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of travel. The Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the other alternatives, and in turn helps to support the achievement of the mode share targets and objectives of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation through education, promotion, and land use planning - The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not apply to this project (would be better directed to the Official Plan Update), however the ESR has shown that the proposed Parkway Corridor will reduce regional airborne emissions compared to the No Build or Do Nothing Alternative (see section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix I). Net environmental impacts were considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives in accordance with the Class EA requirements (and in reference to the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan).

Official Plan Compliance - The proposed Parkway and the Jackson Park bridge crossing are not contrary to the Official


May 2, 2014 43

Issue Response

Plan. The Parkway Corridor and the proposed crossing location are actually identified in Schedule B of the Official Plan as a future High Capacity Arterial. With respect to natural area, the Official Plan Section 3.3.4 notes ...” Dedicated public roadways and public utilities are discouraged from locating within Natural Areas but may occur subject to policy 3.3.7 (which refers to the need for a Class Environmental Study for any new roads in Natural Areas). Roadways are discouraged from locating within Natural Corridors except along The Parkway route shown on Schedule B.” The lands designated as Protected Natural Areas in Schedule A of the Official Plan refer to lands north and west of the proposed bridge crossing location.

Legal feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated – may violate Nicholls Trust

During the course of this EA study, several members of the public felt that the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park would be a contravention of the Nicholls Trust Agreement. It was understood that the lands transferred to the City in October 1961 were to be maintained as a public park and recreation grounds and for no other purpose. Based on a review of the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the wording of the Deed did not preclude the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park provided that the park and recreation use were maintained. In response to comments received, the alignment of the bridge was refined to reduce fill placement and tree loss in the valley while minimizing the extent of the former trust lands that are crossed. Jackson Park will remain accessible for park and recreation uses during and after construction. Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR (Cultural Environment) discusses the Charlotte Nicholls Parks Trust.

Preferred Plan may require additional permits and approvals, the issuance of which is not certain

No issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR. Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR document potential environmental effects, mitigation measures and key commitments, including permits and approvals that will be required prior to construction. All EA projects (including Individual EA’s) include some need for additional permits to be acquired during detailed design / pre-construction stages of the project when the final design is complete. This does not suggest the project is not feasible.

Preferred Plan may not comply with AODA requirements

The Preferred Plan, which will be developed in greater detail during Detailed Design, will comply with AODA requirements, including pedestrian-activated signals and crossings at intersections.

11. Costs are Prohibitive and Exceed Benefits

Large cost of Parkway project has implications on other City initiatives

City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget and project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the project within any specific time frames


May 2, 2014 44

Issue Response

and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.

Questionable benefits; unaccounted costs; benefit cost ratio likely overestimated; no integrated benefit cost ratio

As described in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, the benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives to identify a Preferred Design.

A detailed description of the benefit-cost assessment, including the calculated benefits and costs is provided in Appendix M of the ESR and all assumptions, including the sources used for the value of time are fully documented.

As document in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis. The biggest concerns raised were related to the lack of value attributed to the loss of greenspace (as well as the lack of consideration of impacts to property values for homes that back onto the corridor). As such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled, “Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario”. The findings of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study. A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix M of the ESR.

12. Project Constitutes Piecemealing

Concerned about a potential piecemealing approach through the Lily Lake draft Official Plan Amendment

Official Plan Amendment studies are completed in accordance with the Planning Act, not through the Municipal Class EA process.

Project has been piecemealed As noted in the Background and Context provided as part of the ESR Executive Summary, access to the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre became an issue in the community following the 2003 referendum, as the previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part because of its central location along the “Parkway Corridor” which could provide excellent access to all area of the City and to/from the outlying communities in Peterborough County. Residents surrounding the proposed hospital site expressed significant concerns about the traffic impacts of the new hospital on their neighbourhood streets. Due to the issues surrounding the City’s unwillingness to proceed with the Parkway Corridor EA in the aftermath of the 2004 Referendum, however, the scope of study for the Hospital Access Road EA was constrained to only examining the improvements necessary to address the impacts of the new hospital construction and consolidation of related medical services around the hospital campus area. Thus the primary purpose of Hospital Access Road Class EA study was to


May 2, 2014 45

Issue Response

improve access to the hospital and reduce traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital due to the proposed expansion. The study recommended the construction of the current two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road, along with a southerly termination of the new road with a connection to Clonsilla Ave, in the vicinity of Third Avenue.

Note that previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update indicated the need to consider the impacts and benefits of the improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an entire new corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class EA process. Under the definition of a project in the Municipal Class EA (Page G-6), proposed works are considered as separate projects if “they are initiated to solve distinctly different sets of problems; and the resulting works are standalone facilities without the requirement of further works to completely solve the problem.

The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt with as a single project, in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. The term piecemealing does not refer to the evaluation process used within a Class EA process, and the evaluation process used in the Parkway Class EA is similar to other complex Class EA studies and Individual EA studies (ie. Highway 407 East EA), where a long or complicated series of routes are split into distinct segments for evaluation where the effects are localized to the respective segments. For the purpose of understanding the net effects of the project, all components of the Parkway Project were considered in their entirety.

13. Negatively Affects Many Provincial Interests

Project conflicts with policies to protect ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions

The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and Corridors that provide the linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the Official Plan.

The City’s Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands do not include the Parkway Corridor, lands which are designated as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow for transportation facilities within Natural Areas where supported by an Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment.

Further, the proposed bridge across Jackson Park will be designed to minimize intrusion and disruption within the park, so that longer term ecological functions and longer term use and enjoyment of the park can continue with minimal adverse effects.

Byersville Creek is southern Ontario’s only urban trout stream

Byersville Creek is not the only coldwater system with brook trout running through a municipal area in Ontario. There is


May 2, 2014 46

Issue Response

Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket, several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in Richmond Hill, and Tributary C in London to name just a few. The alignment of the Parkway Corridor has been shifted to avoid direct impacts to Byersville Creek, and mitigation measures have been proposed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the ESR to improve water quality entering the creek, mitigate thermal impacts on the coldwater status of Byersville Creek, and reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff which during peak flow events can cause significant damage to spawning areas and vegetation within the creek bed area.

Project would impact the natural corridor connecting the Jackson Creek valley to the Otonabee River

In consideration of direct distance, the Cavan Swamp and Bog is located approximately 4 km to 6 km west of the west limits of the City of Peterborough, and approximately 7 km to 10 km west of the recommended crossing of the Jackson Creek bridge. It should be noted that stream distances would be greater. The corridor connection between the Otonabee and Cavan Bog is weakest through the urban portions of Peterborough east of the Parkway.

As discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, construction of a high level bridge over Jackson Creek does not interfere with wildlife movement when considering the nominal requirements for small and large mammals under highways. Where dry culverts up to 2m in height are deemed adequate for large mammal (consider deer) passage it is important to note that the bridge would provide more than 20 m clearance from the valley floor. The proposed bridge structure does interfere with aquatic connectivity.

Largest/highest native trees will not be conserved

As per Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park. The proposed bridge has 8 sets of piers located within the Jackson Park Valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, it is estimated that approximately 3,000 m

2 – 3,500 m

2

of vegetation would be removed from the valley slopes of Jackson Park due to construction of the bridge abutments and related fill area on the east and west ends of the bridge. Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the pier locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in width another 1,500m

2 of vegetation may be removed due to

construction of the 8 sets of piers. However, as per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal required in the park. It is further noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices that would be carried out in consultation with review agencies, and implementing a vegetation restoration plan following construction. Innovative construction techniques, including building centre spans of the bridge completely from above can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the


May 2, 2014 47

Issue Response

commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent possible.

With respect to root disturbance, as per Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected through installation of fencing at an appropriate distance determined by a qualified professional. In typical practice, trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require a greater protected root zone. As an example and through discussion with our Certified Arborist at AECOM, white pine trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm will require a minimum root protection zone of 4m from the trunk, totaling a 8m diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction disturbance, however hemlock species are less so, which would result in a larger protection zone compared to white pine. These types of details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.

Project affects a genetically pure strain of brook trout (i.e., unaffected by hatchery fish genetics)

Appendix H to the Greenspace Coalition response does not support this interpretation or suggestion. This population is distinct from the Hills Lake hatchery strain. This population “fit the expected patterns for native ancestry and showed genetic similarities to other native populations in Peterborough District, but also some evidence of genetic contributions from the provincial Hills Lake hatchery strain.”

Potential for the recommended alignment to interfere with the Lee Pioneer Cemetery.

Archaeological activities carried out as part of this study interpreted the potential for grave shafts to be located in proximity to the existing grave cross marker and this area would not be impacted by the proposed construction activities as illustrated in Figure 6-16 in the ESR. Additional archaeological investigations (i.e. Stage 3 AA) in the vicinity of the cemetery will be carried out during detailed design to confirm the interpretation of the findings. Sections 8.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, outline commitments that the City has made to undertake addition archaeological work as part of detailed design for this project to confirm the presence/absence of grave shafts. The archaeological assessments carried out as part of this EA study are provided in Appendix G of the ESR. In addition, Section 8.4.1 notes the City’s intent to preserve this significant heritage feature through protective fencing and formal registration of the cemetery.

Corridor would cross several areas of high archaeological potential, including the Chemong Portage route

As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report, provided in Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage Route is outlined and recognized as potentially traversing the corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent of Frost Map and Pammett Map interpretation). All of the Network Alternatives considered for the north end of the study area traversed the historical route. The undeveloped portions of the corridor were identified as areas of having archaeological potential and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the interpreted areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have been


May 2, 2014 48

Issue Response

either previously disturbed, thereby not having archaeological potential, or were investigated as part of the Stage 2 AA. In addition, comprehensive archaeological assessment activities were carried out at the Lee Cemetery site to supplement the work carried out by others and delineate the limits of potential burial shafts. Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made for selected areas of the corridor. This will be completed as part of detailed design. Note that ground disturbing activities cannot proceed until MTCS has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.

Study did not seriously consider alternative modes of transportation; Parkway fosters a culture of automobile use rather than a multi-modal, TDM-based alternative

Alternative modes of transportation were identified and evaluated as documented in Section 5 of the ESR and described in preceding sections of this table.

The City’s existing strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active transportation, including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%.

Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the City’s 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.

As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) assumed to occur as part of establishing need. The ability to support transit was considered as part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys, and intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).

Study did not consider the efficient use of the existing road network to shift / spread peak and traffic flow over a longer time period

As described in Chapter 5 of the ESR, widening existing roads was one of the alternative solutions considered in combination with adding new roads. The widening existing roads / adding new roads alternative was generated, assessed and evaluated and carried forward as part of the recommended alternative solution to Phase 3 of the Class EA study. Shifting the peak hour or spreading the peak period is a strategy that was considered as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU).

Study does not support policies for safe and healthy communities as the Parkway will separate residential, commercial and employment areas.

The City has been planned around the Parkway corridor assuming it would be built at some point in time. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification within the


May 2, 2014 49

Issue Response

City’s existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth available for “greenfield” development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031. The new development areas in the north end of the City were annexed for the purpose of supporting future residential growth and these growth areas are reflected in the current Official Plan.

Potential costs associated with the Parkway will preclude other projects in the City, including social, cultural and recreational facilities.

City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital Budget and project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the project within any specific time frames and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.

Cost of the Parkway would lead to higher property taxes, increased debt load and more infrastructure maintenance costs.

The development of infrastructure to support growth in the City of Peterborough may be funded through several sources, including the capital tax levy (which may be debentured), development charges (which may be debentured), federal gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding. As per Section 7.11 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will be implemented over a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10 implementation stages which would see a new continuous 2 lane road corridor in place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow flexibility for investments in other priorities.

Parkway study has not fostered the coordination of planning activities (i.e., Chemong Road, Lily Lake Planning, etc.); Parkway creates planning conflicts involving public and private interests and land use planning was not considered

As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan designates the type of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) provided a holistic and system wide assessment of transportation policies, infrastructure and services needed to support the planned growth and Official Plan Policies of the City.

The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was not intended to replace these policy documents but was intended to undertake the planning for two of the projects identified in the CTPU, and therefore incorporated the policy framework from the CTPU and assumed that all of the other improvements identified in the city-wide would be completed. This demonstrates an integrated and co-ordinated planning process that respects and conforms to established local and provincial policies in place.

Similarly, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders, the Class EA incorporated additional sensitivity analysis to


May 2, 2014 50

Issue Response

determine what implications the proposed Lily Lake Planning Area would have on the assessment and evaluation of alternatives. This was treated as a sensitivity analysis in the Class EA, since the Lily Lake growth area had no official planning approvals at the time the EA commenced. Again, the assessment approach utilized in the Class EA demonstrates a co-ordinated approach to considering the transportation needs of the community both today and in the longer range future.

Parkway will encourage end to end commuting and not to the downtown area

As detailed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the majority of the employment growth has been planned in the downtown and southwest areas of the City. As a result, future travel demands to the southwest and downtown core areas are projected to increase by virtue of the land use allocations with or without the Parkway in place. Trip distribution patterns in the City model are based on observed origin-destination trip patterns from the 2006 TTS survey. Forecasts of future travel demands were estimated using the updated transportation model developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update completed by Morrison Hershfield. The model was designed and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday.

The Preferred Parkway Plan will reduce the overall capacity deficiencies across the entire City transportation network. This is primarily due to the fact that the Parkway corridor provides broad area relief to a number of roadways in the City, which frees up capacity that can be used by traffic destined to and from other areas in and beyond the City, even traffic that is not oriented to use the Parkway itself (i.e. traffic to and from the downtown).

Parkway places pathways near to an arterial road that will reduce the willingness of pedestrians and cyclists to use such routes



Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to separate the trail and the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for preserving existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of


May 2, 2014 51

Issue Response

construction works will be explored to allow new vegetation to grow and mature, providing screening during construction and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard environment upon opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which may include replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).

14. Scope is Beyond a Municipal Class EA

EA study is beyond the scale of building a new road and that the integrated approach and/or the Master Plan process would have been more appropriate for this study

This study built upon the recommendations of the 2012 CTPU which followed the Master Planning process outlined in the Municipal Class EA process and was designed to address Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per Section A.2.7.1 of the Master Planning Process, when projects are undertaken which implement specific elements recommended in the Master Plan, it is necessary for the applicable schedule to be determined for those projects subject to the Municipal Class EA.

The Municipal Class EA is an approved process under the EA Act by which municipal infrastructure projects (i.e., municipal road projects) are planned. As documented in Section 1.3 of the ESR, this study was carried out as a Schedule C project, continuing the planning (Phases 3 and 4) for two of the projects recommended in the Master Plan. Schedule C undertakings are subject to the full planning process of the Class EA given that they have the potential for significant environmental impacts but the effects are predictable and mitigable.

15. Unresolved Technical Matters

A 30-day comment period was provided each time there was an opportunity for public comment

The request for an extension of the comment period was initially sought following PIC 2, at which time the comment period was extended to 30 days. In recognition of this concern, all subsequent comment periods held for PICs #3 and #4 were also extended (i.e., 30 days following PIC #3 and PIC #4, and 45 days following the release of the ESR).

It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No Parkway group that comments received after the comment period were welcomed and reviewed by the study team and that if these comments could be addressed as part of the study they would be.

Natural heritage assessment work completed for this study was generally completed as a desk review of existing sources and that the latest review for species at risk was in 2006

As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies were carried out to supplement the desktop review of secondary source information. Field studies related to fisheries were carried out on September 17

th October 16

th, December 12

th, 2012 and

July 10th and 12

th, 2013, and brook trout spawning survey

was carried out on December 11, 2013. Field studies related to terrestrial features, including wetlands, were carried out on August 27

th to August 30th, 2012 and on November 30

th,

2012.

Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in publicly distributed documents per the Natural Heritage


May 2, 2014 52

Issue Response

Sensitivity Training. These limitations on publication are established to protect the SAR from excessive disturbance or inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these detailed data from MNR and the information is included in considerations for the alternative alignments and impact assessment.

On commencement of detailed design more focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken to guide the selection of the preferred method for valley crossings, for example. At that time, based on detailed site inventory the data requirements will be met to properly recommend pier locations, valley span requirements etc. Detailed mitigation in design, construction, and rehabilitation will be defined at that stage.

Further investigation of the potential cultural/archaeological resources are required (i.e., Lee Cemetery, Jackson Park and Chemong Portage)

As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report, provided in Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage Route is outlined and recognized as potentially traversing the corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent of Frost Map and Pammett Map interpretation). The undeveloped portions of the corridor were identified as areas of having archaeological potential and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the interpreted areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have been either previously disturbed, thereby not having archaeological potential, or were investigated as part of the Stage 2 AA. In addition, comprehensive archaeological assessment activities were carried out at the Lee Cemetery site to supplement the work carried out by others and delineate the limits of potential burial shafts. Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made for selected areas of the corridor. This will be completed as part of detailed design. Note that ground disturbing activities cannot proceed until the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.

Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study, each of which is included in Appendix H of the ESR. The Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment were completed for the entire corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment was completed for Jackson Park. The MTCS has reviewed the impacts and mitigation measures documented within these reports and are satisfied with the recommendations to be carried forward into the detailed design phase of the project.

Concerns related to stormwater management and other related studies

The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater Management strategy. Stormwater management plans were completed for the entire corridor, copies of which are provided in Appendix K of the ESR. These were completed in consideration of the Flood Reduction Master Plan, the Water Quality Master Plan, and other location specific watershed studies. In addition, as noted in Sections 7 and 8 of the ESR, the stormwater management plans will be further


May 2, 2014 53

Issue Response

refined during the detailed design component of the project. These stormwater management plans were reviewed and approved by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority to provide the basis for more detailed stormwater management design treatments to be completed during detailed design.

Concerned that a detailed legal opinion is necessary in relation to the Nicholls Parks Trust

As noted in Section 6.4.1 of the ESR, it was understood that the lands transferred to the City in October 1961 were to be maintained as a public park and recreation grounds and for no other purpose. The City’s solicitor undertook a review of the Agreement during this EA Study. Based on a review of the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the wording of the Deed did not preclude the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park provided that the park and recreation use were maintained. In response to comments received, the alignment of the bridge was refined to reduce fill placement and tree loss in the valley while minimizing the extent of the former trust lands that are crossed.

Unresolved technical matters were raised by advisory bodies to the City, including the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority

A letter response was received from the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority subsequent to the filing of the ESR indicating that they are satisfied that any outstanding issues can be resolved during detailed design. They are undertaking a thorough review of the natural hazards and natural heritage information contained within the report in order to clearly outline additional information that may be required during the detailed design phase.

In addition, no issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR.

Appendix C: Natural Heritage

Issue Response

Brook trout spawning survey effort was inadequate in duration and timing

None of the work represented in this EA challenges the documentation and management of this stream reach as coldwater habit supporting brook trout. That the team did not directly observe or capture brook trout does not diminish the requirement to manage the reach as coldwater habitat and contributing to brook trout production.

Amphibian crossings being proposed as part of mitigation are unrealistic in an urban location

Guided crossings referenced in this document only as an example. The detailed design stage will address specifics. A variety of wildlife crossing structures are typically applied in urban areas throughout Ontario.

Concerned that the potential impacts associated with tree and limb removal, etc. on individual trees was not addressed

A specific alignment and bridge design has not been selected in this study. As such, details of tree cutting, limb removal, topping etc. are premature. The impacts to trees and vegetation and associated mitigation measures are described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR. In addition, the detailed list of commitments to be carried out during detailed design and/or construction is provided in Section 9, ID #30. As noted, the detailed design stage and during construction proper arboricultural practices under the guidance of a Certified


May 2, 2014 54

Issue Response

Arborist or Professional Forester would be implemented to optimize the health and survival of individual trees.

Concerned that the report does not indicate the specific location of species at risk and provides only general information

Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in publicly distributed documents per the Natural Heritage Sensitivity Training. These limitations on publication are established to protect the SAR from excessive disturbance or inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these detailed data from MNR and the information is included in considerations for the alternative alignments and impact assessment.

Concerned that the NHFAS report does not specify when the field studies occurred for this project

As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies related to fisheries were carried out on September 17

th October 16

th,

December 12th, 2012 and July 10

th and 12

th, 2013, and brook

trout spawning survey was carried out on December 11, 2013. Field studies related to terrestrial features, including wetlands, were carried out on August 27

th to August 30th,

2012 and on November 30th, 2012.

Concerned that the Breeding Bird Atlas search results could not initially be found in ESR; important to know where breeding birds located; were surveys completed in Jackson Park and if so, what were results

The Breeding Bird Atlas does not report specific location of their reported observations but rather collectively documents for each Atlas Square. The site specific field investigations, conducted on the dates noted above, are detailed in the AECOM report. Furthermore, the location of SAR would not be detailed, as discussed above. Again, in support of the subsequent detailed design stage more intensive breeding bird surveys would be conducted. Finally, at construction stage the nesting areas would be further protected under the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Concerned about the mitigation measures being recommended for this project

Bridge construction over and through urban valley systems is common place in Ontario. Bridges supported on piers are highly preferred over structures that require placement of large volumes of fill material across the entire valley for the maintenance and protection of hydrological functions, wildlife movement, loss of vegetation and fish habitat.

Concerned that the restoration measures do not mention amphibian and reptile breeding requirements

Recommendation of the pier supported bridge over Jackson Creek addresses the wildlife habitat functions of the valley by minimizing the impact of the structure and its construction. However, the exact restoration methods and details are appropriately specified in conjunction with detailed design, including timing guidelines for construction.

Impact analysis does not address: reptile habitat degradation; behavioural modification of wildlife in response to presence of large concrete object; and, how activities may facilitate the establishment of a variety of invasive species.

AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for amphibian and reptile functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the valley floor ranges up to 20m. The span between the piers would leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede


May 2, 2014 55

Issue Response

movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or minimal.


Once the additional field assessments during detailed design are complete, a more comprehensive impact analysis and therefore, mitigation strategy can be completed.

Concerned that there is no discussion of post-construction, long-term monitoring

Construction and post-construction monitoring is typically associated with conditions of approval from regulating agencies and always defined in response to elements of the detailed design. They are conditions of approval of construction plans following approval of a detailed design. Monitoring during construction will be similarly detailed based on specific aspects of the construction plan, timing guidelines, sediment and erosion control plans, arborist requirements etc.

Appendix D: Stormwater Management

Issue Response

Proposed locations for stormwater management ponds inappropriate

The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater Management strategy. The Parkway Corridor was divided into four segments to correspond to different outlet locations along the corridor and facilitate appropriate stormwater management (SWM) design strategies for each area. The detailed analyses of drainage and stormwater management recommendations for the Parkway corridor are detailed in the Stormwater Management Reports, provided in Appendix K of the ESR. These were completed in consideration of the Flood Reduction Master Plan, the Water Quality Master Plan, and other location specific watershed studies.

The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at or below pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of Environment’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.

The stormwater management plans were developed in consultation with and reviewed by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority to provide the basis for more detailed stormwater management design treatments to be completed during detailed design as noted in Sections 7 and 8 of the

Stormwater pond would jeopardize brook trout through thermal pollution and suggested mitigation is unrealistic

Several ponds too small to provide adequate quantity control

Use of trapezoidal channel configuration violates natural channel design

Re-routing of water would have impacts relating to dewatering of natural ecological features that has not been addressed

Some stormwater management issues deferred to other projects (Bears Creek Flood Reduction Study; Chemong Road EA; Master Drainage Plan)


May 2, 2014 56

Issue Response

ESR.

While concern was expressed that one flood reduction pond (the pond at the Parkway and Clonsilla Avenue) could not be constructed due to space limitations, the preferred plan will actually increase the available space for this future flood control pond.

To demonstrate how the implementation of the preferred alternative may proceed without negatively impacting the upstream and downstream lands and watercourses, consideration was given to flood potential, erosion, thermal impacts, current and future drainage patterns, infrastructure improvement opportunities, social economic value and aesthetics.

It was understood that the tributary to Byersville/Harper Creek serves as headwaters for sensitive fisheries habitat that currently support cold water species. As such, Section 8.1.1 of the ESR commits to investigating strategies to address thermal impacts as part of detail design.

Section 7.5.1 of the ESR states that final configuration and design of the bio-retention swale between Hilliard Street and Cumberland Avenue and the associated connection to Bears Creek will be provided during detailed design and completed in consideration of the 2008 Bears Creek Flood Reduction Master Plan which has already been completed.

Appendix E: Policy Conflicts Between the Parkway Approach and Local and Provincial

Policy

Issue Response

Parkway not consistent with policies regarding plan for healthy communities and a high quality of life

The proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safe for pedestrians and allows for improved social interaction (section 1.5.1.a 2014 PPS). By reducing congestion and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project can improve overall quality of life as suggested in the Official Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project balances the transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the community and is compatible with the small city character of Peterborough (as suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6 lane roads and complicated intersections (that would be required in some of the other alternatives), by reducing regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by improving safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are already experiencing collision problems. Finally, by choosing a route that does not provide new roadway capacity at the edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually


May 2, 2014 57

Issue Response

less likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent rural areas than other alternatives (specifically the West By-Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3

rd Line Alternatives) and

supports the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan and the PPS.

Parkway not consistent with policies regarding prioritization of the preservation and conservation of natural areas

The proposed route does not affect or impact any provincial parks, conservation areas, or other protected areas (reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d) – however the Fairbairn Street / 3rd Line Alternative does traverse through a designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection of natural areas within the City is already protected within the Official Plan through buffer lands designated adjacent to the Parkway Corridor through the north end of the study area. These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway, which is being located within a designated transportation corridor (2005 City Official Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation measures proposed in the ESR (including landscaping, bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans) provide protection to features considered to be part of the natural heritage of the community (2005 Official Plan, Section 4.5.1.3). Designated open space / greenspace areas are not being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to Schedule A of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area – although the proposed design will span this area preserving the natural functions of the valley area below.

Parkway not consistent with policies regarding the adoption of a TDM approach to mitigate congestion and capacity issues

As noted previously, the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has provided an extensive set of policies and infrastructure to support and promote TDM. The Class EA is being planned within this City–wide planning context and assumes the initiatives will be completed. This Class EA is also implementing some of the infrastructure necessary to achieve that vision, including new pedestrian / trail connections and a future transit spine route through the City (reference to 2014 PPS Section 1.6.7.2).

Parkway not consistent with policies regarding encouraging active and efficient modes of transportation while discouraging vehicular traffic

The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns and a mix of uses does not apply to this project, however, the land use patterns adopted in the Official Plan and OPA 142 requires multi-modal transportation infrastructure that supports walking, cycling, and transit use. The Parkway Corridor achieves all of these better than any of the other reasonable alternatives. (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.4). The proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safer for pedestrians and allows for non-motorized movement (reference to 2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). Providing a connected trail system along the


May 2, 2014 58

Issue Response

corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine provides for accessible active transportation opportunities that are attractive alternatives to the automobile and make it less convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012 Official Plan Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5 and 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan). Providing a balanced transportation system requires the provision of transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of travel. The Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the other alternatives, and in turn helps to support the achievement of the mode share targets and objectives of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

Parkway not consistent with policies regarding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation through education, promotion and land-use planning

The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not really apply, however the ESR has shown that the proposed Parkway Corridor will reduce regional airborne emissions compared to the No Build or Do Nothing Alternative (see section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix I). Net environmental impacts were considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives in accordance with the Class EA requirements (and in reference to the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan).

Appendix F: Transportation Demand Management Comments

Issue Response

Traffic and congestion predications fail to account for various demographic and economic trends that are reducing automobile travel demand and increasing demand for alternative modes




Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031 were assessed during the study in response to comments received including the implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area,


May 2, 2014 59

Issue Response

as documented in Section 6.4.5.

A phasing plan for implementing the improvements was developed to link infrastructure to demonstrated needs and allow for implementation to be accelerated or delayed in response to observed growth, which would be subject to ongoing monitoring.

Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update’s active transportation and TDM programs are modest; analysis fails to consider a targeted alternative mode improvement and TDM program

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in November 2011. This study is available on the City website.





Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.



May 2, 2014 60

Issue Response

Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update biased, favouring roadway expansion

This issue pertains to the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update which was approved by City Council in November 2011.

As noted above, the City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Even with its aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.

Benefit/Cost ratio of 1.05 is very low; targeted alternative mode improvements or TDM programs are probably more cost effective; defer roadway improvements until congestion is realized for more than one hour per day



Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The review may include assessing projects that have not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur


May 2, 2014 61

Issue Response

throughout the province.

The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in November 2011. The program to support non-auto modes of travel is aggressive, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years.

Atta

ch

me

nt B

Attachment B –

Map of Requesters’ Properties

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Íï

18

Íï

27

Íï

24

Íï

3

Íï

29

Íï

19

Íï

11

Íï

9

Íï

35

Íï

4

Íï

21Íï

26

Íï

5

Íï

12

Íï

39

Íï

15

Íï

35

Íï

1 0 1,250 2,500625metres

´

1:52,000

www.aecom.com

PROJECT ID

LAST MODIFIEDCREATED BY

60269791MT07/04/2014

UTM Zone 17 NAD 83

1Figure

ClientCity of PeterboroughReport TitleParkway Environmental Assessment

Requester Property Location Map

Site LocationPeterborough and Surrounding Area

Data sources:Base Data: (c) 2012 City of Peterborough & Land Information Ontario

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Peterborough

Kawartha Lakes

Guelph Otonabee-South Monaghan

Legend! Address Location

Parkway CorridorExpressway / HighwayArterial RoadLocal RoadWaterbodyMunicipal Border

Sherbrooke Street

Sir Sandford Fleming Drive

Clonsilla Avenue

Parkhill Road West

Chemong Road

Landsdowne Street

Lily Lake Road

Lindsay Road

Mona

ghan

Roa

d Georg

re Str

eet N

orth

Reid

Stree

t

Telev

ision

Roa

d

Water Street

Armo

ur Ro

ad

Centre Line

L¾

DEPF

DEPF

Ashb

urnha

m Dr

ive

(When printed at ANSI B)

Woolwich Street

Norfolk StreetWyndham Street

York Street

DEPF

Woolwich StreetSpeed River

Edinburgh Road

Settlers Line

DEPF

Indian River Line

Blezard Line

Jermyn Line

Pigeon Lake Boundary Road

Little Lake

Otonabee River

Otonabee River

Lily Lake

Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield

Otona

bee-S

outh

Mona

ghan

Douro-Dummer

Cavan

-Mon

agha

n

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

! !

! !

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Íï

44Íï

40

Íï

46

Íï

47

Íï

44 Havelock-Belmont-Methuen

Round Lake

Atta

ch

me

nt C

Attachment C –

Proponent Information Requirements


Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study

1

May 2, 2014

Required Information

Response or Attachments

Response to Requester Issues

Table A, attached.

Environmental Study Report and Technical Appendices

and other assessment documentation.

Email confirmation of receipt, Dawnett Allen, Project Evaluator, March 5, 2014.

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment work

required to demonstrate no impacts on Aboriginal

archaeological resources and other issues that may be

identified in the requests.

A copy of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) reports are

included in Appendix G of the ESR. The findings of the Stage 2 AA

recommended Stage 3 AA activities within three areas of the corridor, generally

in relation to: Lee Pioneer Cemetery site; 19th

century artifacts located in

proximity to the cemetery site; and, a site consisting of domestic and structural

artifacts. No evidence of Aboriginal heritage was recovered during the Stage 2

AA.

Notice of Completion

Attached.

Consultation Record

Public, Agency, Aboriginal

Note: Proponents will be required to justify why

notification and/or consultation was not undertaken with

Aboriginal communities or that consultation was adequate.

Inadequate justification (when potential interest or effects

anticipated) or inadequate consultation may require the

proponent to provide a notice and/or undertake

consultation or additional consultation as may be

applicable in the appropriate circumstance prior to a

decision being rendered on a Part II Order request.

The study included an extensive public consultation program, including

consultation with Aboriginal communities, as detailed in Chapter 2 of the ESR.

A copy of all correspondence is provided in Appendices B (Agency), C

(Aboriginal) and D (Public) of the ESR.



2

May 2, 2014



Project Data

Size of facility

Area of land owned by proponent

Length and width of linear facilities (roads,

sidewalks, etc)

Amount of private vs public lands to be acquired or

expropriated (hectares and percent)

Location of requesters properties on a map

Map for undertaking (separate electronic copy)

Cost of project

Funding for project

Construction timing

Size of Facility

Refer to attached.

Area of Land Owned by Proponent

Refer to attached.

Length and Width of Linear Facilities

Refer to attached.

Amount of Private vs Public Lands to be Acquired or Expropriated

Refer to attached.

Property Acquisition

Acquisition of the necessary property can be carried out in the following ways:

Purchase at the appraised value. The City would rely upon the services

of a licensed commercial appraiser to identify the fair market value of the

land. Negotiation with the property owner would follow to determine the

final agreed selling price and inclusions (i.e., legal fees, etc.)

If an agreeable purchase is not possible per the above, the City could

proceed with an expropriation. This method would be followed as a last

resort only.

Through site plan approval, the Planning Act allows a municipality to

request property as part of the site plan approval process. This is

typically how the City has acquired property from developers in the

past. Most developers are aware of this provision and provide the land to

the City when needed.

Location of Requesters’ Properties on a Map

Refer to Attachment B.



3

May 2, 2014



Map of Undertaking

Refer to attached and Preferred Design Drawings in Section 7 of the ESR.

Cost of Project

A preliminary cost estimate is provided in Section 7.12 of the ESR. Table 7.2

breaks down costs by major construction phase and Table 7.3 provides a cost

breakdown by category. The total estimated cost is based on the preliminary

design and includes all roadworks and mitigation measures noted in the ESR.

An additional contingency of $5.8 Million has been added to reflect the

commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson

Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers. The

total program costs include utility relocations, property costs, costs associated

with phased implementation, plus Engineering & Construction Administration

Costs of 15% ($8.7M) added to the capital budget. The total program cost is

estimated at $78.91 Million, based on 2013 unit prices.

Funding for Project:

The current capital budget indicates funding for the entire project to be sourced

as follows:

Development Charges (Debentures) - Currently estimated at roughly

42% of the project - will be refined during DC Bylaw update

General Municipal Revenues (Debentures) - includes tax supported, gas

tax revenues, provincial and federal funding grants/stimulus etc.

Exact revenue sources have not yet been determined. However, this will be

completed through the annual budget process and pending the results of the

MOE review of the various Part II Order requests.



4

May 2, 2014



Construction Timing

The recommended implementation schedule lists the elements that comprise the

recommended design and the various anticipated implementation stages and cost

estimates throughout the study timeline. The implementation schedule is based

on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the City both in terms of

volume increases and distribution of this growth.

As documented in Section 7.13 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will

be implemented through a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10

implementation stages which would see a new continuous 2 lane road corridor in

place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a

number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer

period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow

flexibility for investments in other priorities.

Source Protection - in all cases

Information to support how proponent has considered

source protection (e.g. source protection plan area and

whether any policies would be applicable, comments and

consideration by the Conservation Authority, potential

threats, well head protection areas, water intakes etc, if

any).

The alignment of the widened portion of existing roadways in the northeast end

of the Parkway study area do not cross or enter into the defined capture zone at

the Otonabee River. Therefore, the surface water source is not threatened by the

proposed road widening in that area.

Similarly, the municipal well west of the City is several kilometres from the

Parkway. As such, the project limits do not approach the capture zone for that or

any other municipal well.

Adaptive Climate Change- how considered-as may be

applicable depending on the nature of the projects

Improved Regional Air Quality

The findings of the Air Quality Assessment carried out as part of this EA study

indicate that decreases in airborne emissions are expected on a regional level due

to the total reduced travelled distances associated with the implementation of

this Project.



5

May 2, 2014



Stormwater Management

A stormwater management (SWM) plan for the entire corridor was developed as

part of this EA study. The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide

stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at or below

pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1)

protection as per the Ministry of Environment’s Stormwater Management

Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March

2003.

Supports Higher Order Transit

The Parkway corridor will support future potential implementation of higher

order transit. Bus stops will be provided at key intersections throughout the

corridor. The bus stop locations are identified on the preliminary design

drawings and will be confirmed during detailed design.

Trail Connectivity (Pedestrians and Cyclists)

A 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the

Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter

cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-use path will also be

provided on the opposite side of the roadway Grade separated crossings will be

provided at various locations to provide a safe controlled crossing for

pedestrians and cyclists to cross the new roadway and maintain connectivity

between neighbourhoods on either side of the Parkway Corridor.

Vegetation Restoration Plan

The Project will result in the permanent loss of trees and shrubs. However, earth

moving, trail relocation, and vegetation restoration works can occur prior to

construction of the roadway. The City will prepare a Vegetation Restoration

Plan during detailed design so that opportunities for preserving existing trees and

pre-planting new trees in advance of construction works can occur to allow new



6

May 2, 2014



vegetation to grow and mature. The Vegetation Restoration Plan will identify the

approach to new tree plantings which may include replacement of lost vegetation

at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).

City-Wide Initiatives

The City of Peterborough has also implemented the following city-wide

initiatives which support Adaptive Climate Change:

Flood Reduction Master Plan - a strategy to reduce flooding in the City

Urban Forest Strategic Plan – a long term strategy for the maintenance

renewal and community awareness of the City’s urban forest resource

Transportation Demand Management Initiatives:

o Pedestrians and Cyclists - since adoption of the Comprehensive

Transportation Plan Update the City has or is planning to

construct new Active Transportation infrastructure comprised of

13 km of new sidewalks, 3 km of new trails, and 2.7 km of new

cycling lanes, and

o Transit - since adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation

Plan Update the City has purchased 9 new conventional buses to

expand and modernize the fleet and to provide 12,000 new hours

(+11%) of transit service which has increased annual ridership

from 3.18M riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the

conventional system.

o These measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU

mode share targets

Species at Risk under Endangered Species Act included as

part of Transition List for new MNR Regulation regarding

protection of habitat

The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance considered Species at

Risk (SAR) as identified by MNR prior to the finalization of the report as of

February 5th

, 2014. As per Section 8.2.1.3 of the ESR, it is stated that SAR may

be present in the preferred corridor. While suitable habitat for butternut and

milksnake was observed, no SAR were identified in the preferred corridor at the



7

May 2, 2014



time of the field studies carried out in support of the EA study. It was further

recommended that surveys be carried out at the detailed design phase to confirm

presence or absence of SAR. If any species are found during these surveys,

appropriate mitigation or compensation plans will be developed in consultation

with the MNR. These surveys will consider additional species that are

considered transition species as listed in Schedule 3 or 4 of the Endangered

Species Act.

Statement of Environmental Values Considerations

Cumulative effects, as may be appropriate

Related predominately to projects with waste

Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) and

other ECAs

Ecosystem approach, as may be appropriate

It is anticipated that during the construction phase, Permit(s) to Take

Water and/or approval to discharge water (Sewage Works) may be

required.

With respect to an ecosystem approach, the intent is to look at the natural

system as a whole (i.e., to evaluate where the corridor may bisect a

woodland or a linkage). In the case of the Parkway Corridor Municipal

Class EA study, the overall natural heritage system contains many urban

influences with very few areas containing natural heritage features.

Jackson Park is the largest natural feature with respect to area and its

linkage function for wildlife movement. The decision to utilize a span

bridge was to ensure these functions for the overall ecosystem within the

study area are not lost.

Hectares (Ha)

Total Land Required

(Private + Public + City)

Hectares (Ha) Percentage

South 0.9704 4.8621 20.0% 4

Medical Drive 0 3.8396 0.0% 0

Jackson 0.2338 2.4243 9.6% 5

North 0.0229 14.6147 0.2% 1

TOTAL 1.2271 25.7407 4.8% 10

Hectares (Ha)

Total Land Required


Hectares (Ha)Percentage of Total

South 0 4.8621 0.0% 0

Medical Drive 0 3.8396 0.0% 0

Jackson 0 2.4243 0.0% 0

North 0 14.6147 0.0% 0

TOTAL 0 25.7407 0.0% 0

Hectares (Ha)

Total Land Required


Hectares (Ha) Percentage of Total

South 3.8917 4.8621 80.0%

Medical Drive 3.8396 3.8396 100.0%

Jackson 2.1905 2.4243 90.4%

North 14.5918 14.6147 99.8%

TOTAL 24.5136 25.7407 95.2%

Project Sections

Area of Need/ Within Proposed ROW

City Owned Land

Public Land to be Acquired/Expropriated

Project Sections


No. of

DisplacementsNotes

Project SectionsNo. of

DisplacementsNotes

Private Land to be Acquired/Expropriated


Width of facilities - best illustrated in the typical sections 30m Right-of-Way Requirement

o Roadways 2-Lane Sections: 10m (2 x 5m lane) 4-Lane Sections: 14m (4 x 3.5m lane) + 5m Left Turn Lane/Median

(where applicable) o Sidewalks – 1.5m o Multi-Use Path – 3.0m

Length of Linear Facilities Roadway - Parkway Corridor

o 5.1km of new roadway (15.4 Ln-km of new through lanes) 1.0km of 4-lane roadway - Clonsilla Ave to Sherbrooke Street 1.6km of 4-lane roadway – Parkhill Rd to Chemong Road 2.5km of 2-lane roadway – Chemong Road to Cumberland Ave

o 0.6km of Realigned Roadway 0.3km Parkway (at South Limit) 0.3km of Water Street (at North Limit)

o 1.6km of Widening (2-lane to 4-lane) on Medical Drive o 1.0km of 2-lane urbanization of existing roadway on Cumberland Ave

Other Roadway – Crossing/Intersecting

o 0.3km of Intersection Widening for 5m Left Turn/Median (Clonsilla) o 0.5km Lane Reduction for Left Turn Lane/Median (Sherbrooke) o 0.9km of Realigned Roadway

0.3km of Fairbairn Street 0.3km of Water/Carnegie

Sidewalk

o 5.2km of New Sidewalk 0.6km - South Limit to 10+600 0.3km - Parkhill Rd to 13+200 4.3km – Fairbairn St to Carnegie Ave

o 1.9km of Maintained/Relocated/Realigned Sidewalk 1.6km - Medical Drive 0.3km – Water Street

Multi-Use Trail

o 3.1km of New Multi-Use Trail 1.0km – Clonsilla to Sherbrooke (West) 0.7km – 10+600 to Sherbrooke (East) 0.7km – Parkhill to Fairbairn (West) 0.4km – 13+300 to Fairbairn (East) 0.3km – Water Street

o 6.2km of Maintained/Relocated/Realigned Multi-Use Trail 0.3km - South Limit to Clonsilla 1.6km - Sherbrooke to Parkhill 4.3km – Fairbairn to Carnegie

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PARKWAY CORRIDOR (LANSDOWNE STREET TO WATER STREET AT CARNEGIE AVENUE)

NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION

THE STUDY The City of Peterborough (City), through their consultant AECOM, has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study (Study) to examine the opportunity to improve traffic flow and increase roadway capacity to address long term growth in the City.

The Preferred Alternative includes a multi-modal arterial road corridor, designed to accommodate: ‐ Four lanes between Clonsilla Avenue and

Chemong Road ‐ Two lanes from Chemong Road to Cumberland

Avenue and Water Street ‐ Future express transit route ‐ Provision for transit infrastructure ‐ Sidewalks and a continuous multi-use trail ‐ Pedestrian/trail crossings ‐ Enhanced landscaping and vegetation ‐ Noise mitigation treatments ‐ Enhanced stormwater management ‐ Various intersection arrangements

THE PROCESS The study was carried out in accordance with the planning and design process for Schedule ‘C’ projects, as outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011). The Municipal Class EA process includes identifying/assessing alternatives, assessing potential environmental effects, identifying reasonable measures to eliminate or reduce potentially adverse effects, and the recommended alternative.

The Environmental Study Report (ESR) has been prepared to document the planning and decision making process that was followed. By this Notice, the ESR is being placed on the public record for review in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA. Subject to comments received as a result of this Notice, and the receipt of all necessary approvals, the City intends to move forward to the next phase, detailed design and phased construction.

The ESR will be available for public review, beginning on February 7, 2014 and ending on March 24, 2014, at the following locations:

The City of Peterborough Office of the City Clerk

500 George Street North Peterborough, ON K9H 3R9

Monday – Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm

The City of Peterborough Public Library

345 Aylmer Street North Peterborough, ON K9H 3V7

Mon-Thurs 10:00 am to 8:00 pm Fri-Sat 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

Sun 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Further information may be obtained from the City’s consultant, AECOM, 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario, L1N 9J2. Toll Free: 1.800.668.1983. Tel: 905.668.9363. Email: [email protected]. Fax: 905.668.0221. Attention: Mr. Kevin Jones, Project Manager.

A 45-calendar day review period is being provided. If concerns arise during the review period that cannot be resolved through discussions with the City, a person or party may request that the Minister of Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. This request must be received within the 45-calendar day review period by the Minister, at the address listed below and copied to the City Clerk. If no request is received by March 24, 2014, the City will proceed with design and construction of the Preferred Alternative as outlined in the ESR.

Honorable Jim Bradley Minster of Environment 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T5 E-mail: [email protected]

This Notice issued February 7, 2014. www.peterborough.ca


http://www.peterborough.ca/

The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority 250 Milroy Drive, Peterborough, ON K9H 7M9 Phone: 705-745-5791, Fax: 705-745-7488 Email: [email protected], Website: www.otonabee.com Member of Conservation Ontario

March 26, 2014 Kevin Jones Consultant Project Manager AECOM Canada Ltd. 300 Water Street Whitby, Ontario L1N 9J2 Robert Dunford Senior Project Manager City of Peterborough 500 George Street North Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3R9 Dear Mssrs. Jones and Dunford: Re: Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment Study, City of Peterborough, ORCA

file: 2012-ST010 Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) staff have received the Notice of Completion of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study examining opportunities to improve traffic flow and increase road capacity within the City of Peterborough. As noted in previous correspondence, ORCA’s interest in this EA is multi-layered. ORCA is primarily participating as a public commenting body under the Environmental Assessment Act, providing technical clearance. Our interest is also as service provider to the City of Peterborough in that we provide technical advice to the City on natural hazard and natural heritage matters through a Memorandum of Understanding. Thirdly, our interest is as a regulatory agency. Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, ORCA administers Ontario Regulation 167/06, this Authorities ‘Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses’ regulation. Finally, ORCA is reviewing this information as a neighbouring landowner along portions of the potential corridor. Given the above, in addition to the complexity of the study, ORCA staff are undertaking a thorough review of the natural hazards and natural heritage information contained within the report in order to clearly outline additional information that may be required during the detailed design phase, the sufficiency of the mitigation measures proposed, as well as identify any additional or alternative mitigation measures that could be used. These comments will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

Page 2 of 2

We are satisfied that any outstanding issues can be resolved during detailed design and have not submitted a Part II order request. Best Regards,

Jennifer Clinesmith, MSc., MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning & Development Services Cc: Daryl Bennett, ORCA Director Jack Doris, ORCA Director Bob Hall, ORCA Director

From: Chung, Tammy (MNR) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:25 PM

To: Epp, Jessica

Subject: RE: Data Request (MNR File No: 12-SMIT-PET-EAE-1550)

Hello,

MNR Peterborough District has received your e-mail (dated August 14, 2012) regarding the Parkway

Corridor Class Environmental Assessment for the City of Peterborough with respect to the study area

located in geographic townships of Monaghan and Smith. We provide the following general information

for your consideration:

MNR Data and Information:

We would like to inform you that MNR’s natural heritage and natural resources data and information for

the study area can be obtained through the Land Information Ontario Warehouse (LIOW) through the

Ministry’s Land Information Ontario (LIO) website at:

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_068994.html.

A data sharing agreement is required to access data within the LIO database. The following link provides

information about obtaining an

agreement: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167959.html

You can also obtain Species at Risk occurrence information on our Natural Heritage Information Centre

website: http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/.

In addition, the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List can be obtained at: http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm

NEW Environmental Registry posting regarding additional species to be added to SARO List in 2012 can

be viewed at:

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE0ODY5&statusId=MTcyMjA3&language=en

We recommend that you use the above-noted sources of information during the review of your project

proposal. MNR may provide additional information and technical advice if details of the proposed

location(s) and design(s) of the proposed works are circulated to our office.

Wetlands

There are unevaluated wetlands within the study area.

Fisheries

The study area traverses several watercourses:

Byersville Creek is a coldwater watercourse. Fish species found within this watercourse are: brook trout,

Sunfishes, Sculpins, eastern blacknose dace, rock bass No in-water works are permitted between Oct 1

– Jun 30 of any given year.

Jackson Creek contains a warmwater fish community within this reach. Fish species found within this

watercourse are: rock bass, white sucker, pumpkinseed, pearl dace, common shiner, blacknose shiner,

bluntnose minnow, eastern blacknose dace, longnose dace, brassy minnow, northern redbelly dace,


http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_068994.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167959.html

http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE0ODY5&statusId=MTcyMjA3&language=en

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE0ODY5&statusId=MTcyMjA3&language=en

creek chub, brook stickleback. No in-water works are permitted between Apr 1 – Jun 30 of any given

year.

Bears Creek contains a warmwater fish community within this reach. Fish species found within this

watercourse are: creek chub, eastern blacknose dace, longnose dace. No in-water works are permitted

between Apr 1 – Jun 30 of any given year.

Unnamed Creek #1 Smith refers to the watercourse which runs parallel to Water street, up by the

zoo. There is no fish community information, however a warm-water fish community is assumed given its

location. No in-water work are permitted between Apr 1 – Jun 30 of any given year.

* Please contact your local Conservation Authority for recommendations on any approvals or

sediment/erosion control measures that may be required to be installed prior/during/after construction.

For more information on fisheries management, please contact Holly Simpson, Management Biologist, at

our Peterborough District office at 705-755-3302 or [email protected]

Species at Risk

A review of our best available information indicates that there are occurrences of Milksnake (Special

Concern), Common Nighthawk (Special Concern), Common Five-lined Skink (Special Concern), Black

Tern (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern), Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern),

Least Bittern (Threatened), Barn Swallow (Threatened), Chimney Swift (Threatened), Blanding’s Turtle

(Threatened), Bobolink (Threatened), Butternut (Endangered) and Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) in

the general area of the proposed works. Although no other threatened or endangered species or their

habitat have been documented in the area of the proposed project, these features may be present and

this list should not be considered complete.

Your NHIC search resulted in restricted records that consist of a combination of Least Bittern, Black Tern,

Spotted Turtle, and Common Five-lined Skink. Please note that Spotted Turtle is a historical record.

Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected

under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Section 9(1) of the ESA prohibits a person from killing,

harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or

extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a

species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list.

Since comprehensive mapping for most Species at Risk is not available and since this proposal involves

site alterations, a site assessment is recommended to identify the presence of any Species at Risk and/or

their habitat on the subject lands. The focus of the site assessment can include a review of the

information about known occurrences provided by MNR above along with other information sources such

as species distributions and habitat requirements as well as field visits using MNR approved protocols

during the appropriate seasons by a qualified professional. It is the responsibility of a person(s)

undertaking any proposed activity to ensure they are in compliance with all provincial and federal

legislation including the ESA. Therefore a person(s) should ensure their proposed activities will not

adversely affect a Species at Risk or its habitat protected under the ESA. If an impact to a Species at

Risk or its habitat cannot be avoided, a person(s) may apply for an authorization under the ESA.

However, if an authorization is not issued by MNR, the person(s) must comply with the ESA by modifying

proposed activities to avoid impacts to Species at Risk and habitat protected under the ESA.


Should any species at risk or their habitat be potentially impacted by on site activities, MNR should be

contacted immediately and operations should be modified to avoid any negative impacts to species at risk

or their habitat until further discussions with MNR can occur regarding opportunities for mitigation. If any

species at risk are found, please contact the Species at Risk Biologist at the Peterborough District MNR

office at 705-755-3104. Please provide pictures and coordinates for the occurrence at that time.

For more information on Species at Risk, please contact Kate Pitt (Species at Risk Biologist) at our

Peterborough District office at 705-755-3104 or [email protected]

Significant Woodlands

The study area may contain wooded areas. The identification of significant woodlands is the

responsibility of the respective planning authority. As such, we recommend that you contact the local

municipality for more information and potential study requirements.

General Information Regarding MNR approvals:

Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act

Approval may be required under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), if any dyking, dredging or

damming activities are planned along or near watercourses or wetland areas. If you have any questions

regarding the LRIA, please contact please contact Julie Reeder, Land Tenure Administrator, at our


Public Lands Act

Except for federal canals and harbours, the beds of most lakes and streams are public land in

Ontario. Please note that you may require a Work Permit under the Public Lands Act (PLA) if you are

proposing work in water or near shore (shoreline) areas below the spring high water mark. If you have

any questions regarding the PLA, please contact Julie Reeder, Land Tenure Administrator, at our


Other Approvals

It is the responsibility of the proponent to acquire all other necessary approvals from any other municipal,

provincial or federal authority under other legislation. We recommend that you contact your local

Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of

Tourism and Culture, etc.

Please reference the above noted MNR file no. for future correspondence. If you have any specific

questions regarding natural heritage and natural resource features as they relate to the study area and

project proposal, please do not hesitate to contact the me.

Sincerely,

Tammy Chung, MCIP, RPP

District Planner

Peterborough District Office

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

tel: 705-755-3294




fax: 705-755-3125

[email protected]

P Please consider the environment before printing

this email note

From: Epp, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: August 14, 2012 11:17 AM

To: Pitt, Kathleen (MNR); Simpson, Holly (MNR)

Cc: Jones, Kevin (Whitby); Addley, Diana

Subject: Data Request

Good Morning Kate and Holly,

We are beginning background review on the Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment for the

City of Peterborough. The project will involve a series of road network improvements along portions of

the Parkway Corridor to address growth and capacity deficiencies in the north end of Peterborough. Our

study area is east of the Otonabee River encompassing the area between Lansdowne St W, Wallis Dr,

Line Road 3 and Carnegie Ave (see attached map, study area is outlined with a black dotted line).

Attached to this email are results of background data collection completed to date:

• NHIC search results of the SAR’s in the study area

• NHIC search results of Natural areas within the study area

• Search results from the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario for square 17QK10 and 17QK11 in

Peterborough

If you could please review all provided data, and provide us with any additional information for the entire

study area pertaining to:

• Natural areas (ESA, PSW, ANSI, significant woodlands)

• Thermal regime and watercourse names

• Fish records

• Fisheries Management designations

• Recovery strategies

• Presences of critical habitat

• Species at Risk

• Evaluated wetlands including wetland evaluation records

We noted that there are restricted records in the NHIC for this area – please could you forward these to

us? Any other relevant information pertaining to our study area would also be appreciated.

Thanks for your time,

Jessica Epp, B.Sc. (Hons.)

Environmental Scientist

Environment

D 519-840-2221

[email protected]

AECOM




55 Wyndham Street North, Suite 215

Guelph, ON N1H 7T8

T 519-763-7783 F 519-763-1668

www.aecom.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

http://www.aecom.com/

Atta

ch

me

nt D

Attachment D –

Aboriginal Consultation Summary

September 20th, 2012

Att: Mr. Kevin Jones

Re: Class Environmental Assessment Study

Parkway Corridor, Lansdowne Street to Water Street (at Carnegie Avenue)

Notice of Public Information Centre #1

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class

Environmental Assessment Study for the Parkway Corridor, which is being proposed

within our Traditional and Treaty Territory. We appreciate the fact that the City of

Peterborough and AECOM Canada Ltd., recognizes the importance of First Nations

Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to

Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed

a level 3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations’ rights, therefore, please

keep Alderville apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any environmental

impacts, should any occur.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our

wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be contacted at the

mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email address below.

In good faith and respect,

Dave Simpson [email protected]

Lands and Resources

Communications Officer Tele: (905) 352-2662

Alderville First Nation Fax: (905) 352-3242

ALDERVILLE FIRST NATION

P.O. Box 46

11696 Second Line

Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0

Chief: James R. Marsden

Councillor: Dave Mowat

Councillor: Pam Crowe

Councillor: Wes Marsden Jr.

Councillor: Randall Smoke



11696 Second Line

P.O. Box 46


PHONE:(905) 352‐2011

Fax: (905) 352‐3242

May 9, 2013

AECOME 300 Water Street whitby On L1N 9J2

Att: Kevin Jones.

Re: Class environmental assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street (at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public Information Centre #2

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class environmental assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street (at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public Information Centre which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territories. We appreciate the fact that Aecom recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, please forward in a timely manner project information such as; a project information overview, PIC meeting agendas, all required project assessment summaries, addendums, and updates, etc. directly to myself, either, at the mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email address below.

In addition to those, hard copies of the relevant Environmental Site Assessment and Site Selection studies, or draft plan of subdivision, as well as all applicable Reports (Stage 1-3) of Archaeological Assessments conducted for the subject property, would be appreciated via Canada Post or courier service.

In order to assist us in providing you with timely input it would be appreciated if you could provide a summary statement indicating how the project will address the following areas that are of concern to our

Chief: James R Marsden

Councilor: Pam Crowe

Councilor: Wes Marsden

Councilor: Dave Mowat

First Nation within our Traditional and Treaty Territory, such as; possible environmental impact to drinking water, endangerment to wild game, impact on Aboriginal heritage and cultural values, and to endangered species, lands, savannas etc.

Additionally, we are interested in being made aware of any undertaking in the Alderville First Nation Traditional and Treaty Territories that have potential economic benefits to community members, for example; construction contracts, employment opportunities, hiring of community monitors on archaeological field crews, natural resources benefit sharing, etc.

As well, where opportunities in the process allow, e.g. individual EA undertakings, etc., we will be interested in obtaining funding for outside peer review of the undertakings.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be reached at the contact information below.



Lands and Resources



AECOM

300 Water Street 905 668 9363 tel

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

www.aecom.com

Transmittal Form

60269791 Adlerville FN Transmittal June 11, 2013.Docx

Date June 11, 2013 Project Number 60269791

Contact Mr. Dave Simpson

Company Alderville First Nation

Address 11696 Second Line

P.O. Box 46, Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0

Telephone # (905) 352-2011

Sent By Kevin Jones Copies To -

Project Name Municipal Class EA Study - Parkway Corridor

Urgent For Your Use For Review For Your Information Confidential

List of Drawings and Other Materials:

Quantity Description Date

1 AECOM Letter Response June 6, 2013

1 PIC #1 Presentation Panels October 12, 2012

1 PIC #2 Presentation Panels March 21, 2013

Comments:

Sent Via: mail courier picked up by hand email fax other

Sent By:

Authorized Signature:

Name: Kevin Jones Title: Project Manager

(please print) (please print)


11696 Second Line

P.O. Box 46


PHONE:(905) 352-2011

Fax: (905) 352-3242

May 9, 2013

AECOME

300 Water Street

whitby On L1N 9J2

Att: Kevin Jones.

Re: Class environmental assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street

(at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public Information Centre #2

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class environmental

assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street (at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public

Information Centre which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territories. We appreciate

the fact that Aecom recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office is

conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, please forward in a timely manner project

information such as; a project information overview, PIC meeting agendas, all required project assessment

summaries, addendums, and updates, etc. directly to myself, either, at the mailing address above or

electronically via email, at the email address below.

In addition to those, hard copies of the relevant Environmental Site Assessment and Site Selection studies,

or draft plan of subdivision, as well as all applicable Reports (Stage 1-3) of Archaeological Assessments

conducted for the subject property, would be appreciated via Canada Post or courier service.

In order to assist us in providing you with timely input it would be appreciated if you could provide a

summary statement indicating how the project will address the following areas that are of concern to our

Chief: James R Marsden

Councilor: Pam Crowe

Councilor: Wes Marsden

Councilor: Dave Mowat

First Nation within our Traditional and Treaty Territory, such as; possible environmental impact to drinking

water, endangerment to wild game, impact on Aboriginal heritage and cultural values, and to endangered

species, lands, savannas etc.

Additionally, we are interested in being made aware of any undertaking in the Alderville First Nation

Traditional and Treaty Territories that have potential economic benefits to community members, for

example; construction contracts, employment opportunities, hiring of community monitors on archaeological

field crews, natural resources benefit sharing, etc.

As well, where opportunities in the process allow, e.g. individual EA undertakings, etc., we will be

interested in obtaining funding for outside peer review of the undertakings.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept

apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be reached at the contact information below.



Lands and Resources




July 12, AECOM 300 WatWhitby, Att: K P Re: P M Pa Dear Mr Thank yo6026979is being AECOM conform As per ta level 3keep Aldimpacts,electron

2013

ter Streeet Ontario

Kevin Jones roject Mana

roject No. Municipal Claarkway Corr

r. Jones,

ou for your 91, Municipproposed wrecognizesing to the r

he Aldervill, having min

derville appr should any ically via em

t

ager

60269791ass Environmridor

consultatiopal Class Enithin our Tr the import

requirement

le First Natnimal potentrised of any occur. I camail, at the

mental Asse

n request tonvironmentaraditional antance of Firsts within the

tion Consulttial to impacy archaeologn be contacemail addre

essment St

o Aldervilleal Assessmend Treaty Tst Nations Ce Duty to Co

ation Protoct our First gical findingcted at the ess below.

tudy

e First Natioent Study, Territory. WConsultationonsult Proce

col, your pr Nations’ rig

gs, burial sitmailing add

on regardin Parkway C

We appreciatn and that yess.

roposed projghts, theretes or any eress above

g Project NCorridor whte the fact your office

ject is deemefore, pleaseenvironmentor

No. ich that is

med e tal

2

In good faith and respect, Dave Simpson [email protected] Lands and Resources Communications Officer Tele: (905) 352-2662 Alderville First Nation Fax: (905) 352-3242

Chief: James R. Marsden

Councillor: Julie Bothwell

Councillor: Jody Holmes

Councillor: Dave Mowat

Councillor: Angela Smoke


11696 Second Line

P.O. Box 46


Phone: (905) 352-2011

Fax: (905) 352-3242

October 1, 2013

AECOM

300 Water Street

Whitby, ON L1N 9J2

Att: Mr. Kevin Jones, Project Manager

Re: Project No. 60269791

Dear Mr. K. Jones,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment Study which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty

Territory. We appreciate the fact that AECOM recognizes the importance of First Nations

Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult

Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed a level

3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations’ rights, therefore, please keep Alderville

apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any environmental impacts, should any

occur. I can be contacted at the mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email

address below.



Lands and Resources





Aboriginal Consultation

A record of the notification and/or consultation activities carried out as part of this study is

summarized below.

Contact Date Comments

Alderville First Nation

September 20, 2012

‐ Study area is situated within their Traditional and Treaty Territory, however was deemed as having minimal potential impact to First Nations’ rights.

May 9, 2013 ‐ Requested that all relevant project documentation be issued to the community, and that possible impacts to their Traditional and Treaty Territory be identified

AECOM June 6, 2013 ‐ The City and AECOM issued a letter response to Alderville First Nation to acknowledge receipt of the previous letter responses, provide an overview of the study background and work that had been completed to date

‐ A list of the technical studies being carried out as part of the study was provided, indicating that a copy would be provided to the First Nation once the work was completed and associated documentation finalized

‐ An invitation to meet with members of the study team was extended, and PIC #1 and PIC #2 presentation material and study team contact information was provided as part of the letter response

Alderville First Nation

October 1, 2013

‐ Study area was situated within their Traditional and Treaty Territory, however was deemed as having minimal potential impact to First Nations’ rights.

Curve Lake First Nation

July 31, 2012; July 11, 2013

‐ Project situated within Traditional Territory of Curve Lake First Nation, incorporated within the Williams Treaty Territory

‐ Should excavation unearth evidence of Aboriginal remains/artifacts, immediately notify community,

‐ Archaeological liaisons available at community ‐ Advise immediately if potential for negative impacts to

Treaty and Aboriginal rights arises over course of study

Hiawatha First Nation

June 17, 2013 ‐ Study area within First Nations’ Traditional and Treaty Territories

‐ Project is deemed to have minimal potential impact to Hiawatha First Nations’ rights

‐ Notify of project updates, archaeological findings, etc. ‐ Requested copies of archaeological reports once

completed Chippewas of Rama First Nation

August 10, 2012; October 2, 2012; July 8, 2013

‐ Acknowledged receipt of letter pertaining to notification of study and confirmed membership of the Williams Treaties First Nations

Chippewas of Georgina Island

September 19, 2012; October 14, 2013

‐ No significant concerns and/or comments to provide ‐ Wish to be kept informed regarding progress and

remain on study contact list


Contact Date Comments

AECOM January 28, 2014

‐ A copy of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment report was issued to Hiawatha First Nation on January 28, 2014

Copies of all Aboriginal correspondence are provided on the subsequent pages.