CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED … · 2011-12-09 · Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to address the capacity and traffic operation deficiencies

Region of Durham

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING OF BROCK STREET (REGIONAL HIGHWAY 12) ROSSLAND ROAD TO TAUNTON ROAD

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

MARCH 2010

I B I G R O U P

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Study Team ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Related Studies / Background.............................................................................................................. 2

1.4 .1 Durham Regional Of f ic ia l P lan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 .2 Regional Transporta t ion Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 .3 Town of Whitby Of f ic ia l P lan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 .4 Highway 407 Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 .5 Region of Durham Arter ia l Corr idor Guidel ines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 .6 Highway 12 Pre l iminary Design Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 .7 Places To Grow Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 .8 Provinc ia l Po l icy Statement 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...................................................................... 8

2.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act ............................................................................................. 8

2.1 .1 Munic ipal C lass Envi ronmental Assessment (EA) Process (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 .2 Part I I Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 .3 Environmenta l Study Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) .......................................................................... 11

2.3 Public Consultation Program ............................................................................................................. 11

2.3 .1 Not ice of Commencement / Publ ic Informat ion Centre No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 .2 Publ ic In format ion Centre No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 .3 Technica l Agency and Stakeholder Consul tat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 .4 First Nat ions Consul tat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT .......................................................................... 16

3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 .1 Physica l Descr ipt ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.1 .2 Exist ing Traf f ic Operat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1 .3 Col l is ion Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

I B I G R O U P

Region of Durham CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING OFBROCK STREET (REGIONAL HIGHWAY 12)

ROSSLAND ROAD TO TAUNTON ROAD

Page ii

3.2 Future Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 .1 2016 Intersect ion Operat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements ...................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Future Intersection Operations with Widening ................................................................................. 21



3.5 Findings and Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 22

3.5 .1 Traf f ic Operat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.5 .2 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.5 .3 Pedest r ian Operat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.5 .4 Col l is ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.5 .5 Transi t Operat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.6 Problem / Opportunity Statement ...................................................................................................... 24

3.7 Planning Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 24

4. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 27

4.1 Existing Road Network ....................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 .1 Cross St reets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1 .2 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 .3 Exist ing S idewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 .4 Cycl ing Fac i l i t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 .5 Transi t Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 .6 Pavement St ructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Social Environment ............................................................................................................................. 29

4.2 .1 Region of Durham Of f ic ia l Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 .2 Town of Whitby Of f ic ia l P lan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.2 .3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3 Natural Environment ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.3 .1 Fisher ies and Aquat ic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

I B I G R O U P




Page iii

4.3 .1 Vegetat ion and Vegetat ion Communit ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.3 .2 Wild l i fe and Wi ld l i fe Habi ta t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.3 .3 Designated Natural Areas / Ecosystem Protect ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.3 .4 Drainage / Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.3 .5 Groundwater / Contaminat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.4 Cultural Environment .......................................................................................................................... 37

4.4 .1 Bui l t Her i tage and Cul tural Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.4 .2 Archaeologica l Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................. 39

5. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 41

5.1 Design Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 41

5.2 Design Alternatives Development ..................................................................................................... 41

5.2 .1 South Sect ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.2 .2 Centre Sect ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.2 .3 North Sect ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.3 Assessment of Design Alternatives .................................................................................................. 43

5.3.1 Evaluat ion Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.3 .2 Evaluat ion Cr i ter ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.3 .3 Design Al ternat ive Evaluat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.4 Agencies Review ................................................................................................................................. 49

5.4 .1 Town of Whitby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.4 .2 Durham Transi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................... 50

6.1 Design Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 50

6.2 Typical Cross Section ......................................................................................................................... 50

6.3 Alignment and Grade .......................................................................................................................... 53

6.4 Intersections ........................................................................................................................................ 53

6.5 Median .................................................................................................................................................. 54

I B I G R O U P




Page iv

6.6 Provision for Pedestrians / Cyclists .................................................................................................. 54

6.7 Access .................................................................................................................................................. 54

6.8 Illumination .......................................................................................................................................... 54

6.9 Drainage / Stormwater Management ................................................................................................. 54

6.9 .1 Stormwater Quant i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.9 .2 Stormwater Qual i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.10 Geotechnical and Pavement............................................................................................................... 57

6.11 Landscaping ........................................................................................................................................ 57

6.12 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................. 57

6.13 Right-of-Way and Property Requirement .......................................................................................... 58

6.14 Construction Staging .......................................................................................................................... 58

6.15 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... 58

6.16 Summary of Comments ...................................................................................................................... 58

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION COMMITMENTS .................................... 61

7.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 61

7.2 Natural Environment ........................................................................................................................... 61

7.2 .1 Fisher ies and Aquat ic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.2 .2 Vegetat ion and Vegetat ion Communit ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.2 .3 Wild l i fe and Wi ld l i fe Habi ta t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.3 Soil ........................................................................................................................................................ 63

7.4 Drainage and Stormwater Management ............................................................................................ 63

7.5 Noise..................................................................................................................................................... 64

7.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 64

7.7 Groundwater Commitments ............................................................................................................... 64

7.8 Cultural Environment .......................................................................................................................... 64

I B I G R O U P




Page v

7.8 .1 BUILT HERITAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

7.8 .2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.9 Construction Noise ............................................................................................................................. 66

7.10 Other Construction Commitments ..................................................................................................... 66

7.11 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 66

ENCLOSED APPENDICES

Appendix A: Public Consultation Material Appendix B: Transportation Impact Assessment Appendix C: Natural Environment Report Appendix D: Drainage/Stormwater Management Appendix E: Geotechnical/Pavement (AMEC) Appendix F: Built Heritage & Cultural Landscape Assessment / Stage 1 Archaeological

Assessment Appendix G: Noise Analysis Appendix H: Preliminary Design

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Study Area .......................................................................................................... 1 Exhibit 2: Proposed Regional Road Expansion ................................................................. 4 Exhibit 3: Transit Priority Network ...................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 4: 407 East Environmental Assessment – Technically Recommended Route ...... 5 Exhibit 5: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ..................................... 10 Exhibit 6: Looking South – North of McCartney Avenue / Kenneth Hobbs Avenue ........ 16 Exhibit 7: Looking North – South of Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue ......... 16 Exhibit 8: Existing Intersection Operations ...................................................................... 17 Exhibit 9: Preliminary Collision Screening ....................................................................... 18 Exhibit 10: 2016 intersection Operations, Without Widening ........................................... 19 Exhibit 11: 2026 Intersection Operation, Without Widening ............................................ 20 Exhibit 12: 2016 Intersection Operations, With Widening ................................................ 21 Exhibit 13: 2026 Intersection Operation, With Widening ................................................. 22 Exhibit 14: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ................................................................. 26 Exhibit 15: Brock Street Bus Stop (Typical) .................................................................... 29 Exhibit 16: Region of Durham Official Plan ...................................................................... 30 Exhibit 17: Brock /Taunton Major Central Area ................................................................ 31 Exhibit 18: Rossland /Garden Major Central Area Secondary Plan ................................ 31 Exhibit 19: Existing Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................................... 33 Exhibit 20: Summary of Widening Alternatives ................................................................ 43 Exhibit 21: Summary of Design Alternative Evaluation .................................................... 46 Exhibit 22: Alternatives Evaluation .................................................................................. 47 Exhibit 23: Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 51 Exhibit 24: Typical Cross – Sections ................................................................................ 52 Exhibit 25: Summary of Comments.................................................................................. 59

I B I G R O U P




Page 1

Exhibit 1 Study Area

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Purpose

Brock Street (Regional Highway 12) is a north-south arterial roadway beginning at Lake Ontario and passing through the Town of Whitby Downtown, continuing as Baldwin Street at Taunton Road, and Highway 12 north of Highway 7 in the Village of Brooklin. Between Rossland Road and Highway 7, Brock Street is under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. Presently, Brock Street crosses over Highway 401 with a direct access facility, and is being proposed to cross the proposed Highway 407 with a fully directional interchange. Brock Street is designated as “Type B” arterial road in the Region of Durham Official Plan as well as a “Major Transit Corridor”. In 2005, the Region of Durham completed and adopted a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in order to provide a transportation strategy for the Region. The TMP emphasizes the support measures needed to maximize the use of public transit within the Region and to provide more travel choices. The TMP also proposed a widening of Brock Street between Rossland Road and Taunton Road from an existing 3-lane rural roadway to a 5-lane roadway to address the future traffic demands. Giving the foregoing, the Region of Durham initiated a Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to address the capacity and traffic operation deficiencies on Brock Street between Rossland Road and Taunton Road in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process, which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (Act). The purpose of this EA study is to: 1. Determine the need and justification for the

reconstruction and widening of Brock Street; 2. Develop and identify alternative solutions; 3. Develop and identify the technically preferred

design; 4. Assess the potential environmental impacts and

identify mitigations for the preferred design.

1.2 Study Area

The study area of this EA is Brock Street (Regional Highway 12) between Rossland Road (Regional Road 28) and Taunton Road (Regional Road 4) in the Town of Whitby as shown in Exhibit 1. It includes the land and properties abutting the east and west sides of the Brock Street right-of-way and the intersections in the study area. The total study area length is approximately 2.1 km. Currently the study area consists of residential and commercial areas. No special natural environmental features are located within the study area.

I B I G R O U P




Page 2

1.3 Study Team

The study was undertaken by the direction of the Region of Durham Works Department. The Study Team consists of both Regional Staff and Consultants from IBI Group to conduct this study on behalf of the Region of Durham. The Consultant team including the specialty sub-consultants are as follows:

Region of Durham Douglas MacKay – Project Manager

Marco Finocchi – Project Coordinator

IBI Group Project Management / Consultation

Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering

Road Design

Noise Analysis

Drainage

Land Use

Sub-Consultant Team

Natural Environment – LGL Limited

Geotechnical and Pavement / Hydrogeology – AMEC

Built Heritage and Archaeological Service – Archaeological Services Inc.

1.4 Related Studies / Background

1.4 .1 DURHAM REGIONAL OFFIC IAL PLAN

The Region of Durham Official Plan contains policies and maps to provide a framework for the future growth of the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1993 and is currently in a major review process (Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 114). Although Regional Council approved the review in 2006, the Official Plan is pending approval as a number of appeals of the Official Plan have not been resolved.

The Official Plan identifies Brock Street as a Type “B” arterial road and has the following characteristics:

Designed to accommodate the movement of moderate volumes of traffic and truck traffic with the provision of transit facilities;

Have a right-of-way ranging from 30 to 36 metres;

Maintain a desired operating speed of 60 km/h in urban areas and 80 km/h in rural areas;

Able to accommodate high occupancy vehicle or bus lanes where required;

Private accesses are permitted to be located 80 m apart (minimum) in urban areas.

I B I G R O U P




Page 3

1 .4 .2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

The Region of Durham consolidated its Transportation Master Plan Study (TMP) in May 2005 in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a dynamic integrated transportation strategy that reflects Durham’s transportation vision over the next 20 years and considers all modes of travel.

The TMP provides the Region with the strategies, tools and policies needed to manage the transportation infrastructure safely, effectively and cost efficiently and to offer a range of transportation choices to meet the needs of Durham residents. The specific guidelines, plans and strategies that make up the TMP include: Provide More Travel Choices;

Improving the Road System;

Mitigation of Environmental and Community Effects.

The TMP identifies Brock Street as a Type “B” arterial road that will require a widening from 3 to 5 lanes in 2008. Brock Street also has been identified as a Major Transit Corridor as part of the Region of Durham Transit Priority Network. As noted in the TMP, the Major Transit Corridor will provide inter-regional transit services with the connection to transportation centres, commuter and inter-city passenger rail station, and connect the central areas designated in the Region of Durham Official Plan. These two Regional policies form the basis for the need and justification to widen and reconstruct the section of Brock Street that is the subject of this ESR.

Therefore, reconstructing and widening Brock Street is consistent with the recommendations of the 2005 Durham Region Transportation Master Plan, which “recognizes that selective road expansion is needed to support growth” (p. S-4). Brock Street is a Type B arterial road, and to that end, the TMP recommends that the Region continue to maintain its existing hierarchy of roads as a means to move through and within the Region of Durham.

As shown in Exhibit 2, the TMP designates this section of Brock Street as a proposed candidate for “expansion” by 2021. In this case, the section of Brock Street outlined in the exhibit indicates “widening to 3 – 5 lanes.” The current reconstruction of Taunton Road is shown in red, indicating widening to six lanes.

Figure 11 of the TMP designates Brock Street as a “major transit corridor,” as shown in Exhibit 3. Further discussed in Section 3, both Durham Region Transit and GO Transit operate bus service on this section of Brock Street. Taunton Road is also designated as a major transit corridor, while Rossland Road is a minor transit corridor as shown on Exhibit 3. The TMP also identifies the following proposed infrastructure improvement projects in the vicinity of the study area:

Proposed road rehabilitation on Rossland Rd – from 0.3km east of Brock Street to Garden Street;

Intersection improvement project at Rossland Road and Cochrane Street (2008 –2012);

Road widening on Taunton Road from Church Street to Brock Street from 2 lanes to 5 lanes (complete);

Road widening on Taunton Road from Brock Road to Brock Street from 5 lanes to 7 lanes (ongoing);

I B I G R O U P




Page 4

Road widening on Baldwin Street from Taunton Road to Garden Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (2008 – 2012).

The Region is also considering the construction of the intersection of Brock Street and Rossland Road due to substandard road geometry. It is anticipated that this work will be further evaluated as part of the Rossland Road (Garden Street to Brock Street) EA.

Exhibit 2: Proposed Regional Road Expansion Projects (2004 – 2021)

Exhibit 3: Transit Priority Network

I B I G R O U P




Page 5

Finally, the TMP promotes cycling and walking as viable means of transportation within the Region, both to reduce the number of vehicle trips on roads within the Region, as well as to promote active and healthy lifestyles. While local municipalities are responsible for the provision of pedestrian facilities within the Region, provision of cycling facilities is a shared responsibility on Regional Roads such as Brock Street. The reconstruction of Brock Street provides an opportunity to implement the recommendations of the TMP through features such as dedicated paths/trails or paved shoulders, should they be required by the Town. The Regional Cycling Plan does not identify Brock Street as a Cycling Spine, so on or off-road cycling facilities are not included as part of this EA.

1 .4 .3 TOWN OF WHITBY OFFIC IAL PLAN

In January 2006 the Town of Whitby Council recommended that the Region accelerate the widening of Brock Street from 2008 to 2007, noting that the revised construction schedule would coincide with improvements to Brock Street near Highway 401. The Town of Whitby is currently in the process of developing its first Transportation Master Plan, with completion expected in the summer of 2010.

Similar to the Region of Durham Official Plan, the Town of Whitby Official Plan guides the growth within the Town of Whitby. The latest version of the Official Plan was adopted by the Town of Whitby Council in 1994 and was approved by the Region of Durham in 1995. In May 2007, the Town of Whitby initiated a major official plan review and update.

1 .4 .4 HIGHWAY 407 EXTENSION

MTO is currently undertaking an EA study for the extension of Highway 407 east through the Region of Durham. The EA study is anticipated to be approved in April 2010 and the subsequent detailed design and construction activities are anticipated to follow. Exhibit 4 shows a portion of the technically recommended route through Durham. An interchange is being proposed for Baldwin Street (Brock Street) south of Winchester Road. It is expected that this interchange will result in increased Brock Street traffic volumes through the study area.

Exhibit 4: 407 East Environmental Assessment – Technically Recommended Route

I B I G R O U P




Page 6

1 .4 .5 REGION OF DURHAM ARTERIAL CORRIDOR GUIDELINES

The Regional Council adopted the Arterial Corridor Guidelines in February 2007. The guidelines provide directions and implementation strategies for arterial corridors that would result in rights-of-way becoming more responsive to the character of local and adjacent land uses while recognizing the specific activities that occur within, and adjacent to, arterial road rights-of-way. The Arterial Corridor Guidelines were developed as a toolbox of potential strategies and common reference points in the process of planning and designing arterial road corridors in the Region. Typical cross-sections are included in the guidelines for various types of regional roads. This EA study reviewed the guidelines and follows its principles in developing the typical cross-sections.

1 .4 .6 HIGHWAY 12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT

Brock Street is former Provincial Highway 12 when the Region of Durham took possession of the Road in 1997. MTO completed a Preliminary Design Report in 1993 where the study recommended a widening of Brock Street to a 5-lane cross-section north to Brooklin. Both MTO and the Region have used the PDR as guide to implement development accordingly.

1 .4 .7 PLACES TO GROW PLAN

Places to Grow is the Ontario government's initiative to manage growth and development in Ontario in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment and helps communities achieve a high quality of life.1 This EA adheres to the following relevant policies of Places to Grow:

Infrastructure to Support Growth – Transportation components of this policy supported by the widening and reconstruction of the section of Brock Street that is the subject of this EA include:

Connectivity between modes of moving people (roads, transit, cycling, walking) and moving goods (roads, rail, air).

Balance transportation choices provided by transit by improving transit service in the Brock Street corridor.

Sustainability by optimizing use of existing infrastructure (i.e. Brock Street) and encouraging only the most financially and environmentally appropriate modes of future trip-making.

Coordinated long-range provincial infrastructure planning through the integration of the Brock Street corridor with Highway 401 and the Highway 407 Extension.

Strategies for Moving People – The Brock Street widening and upgrading provides for improved transit and pedestrian service in the corridor, and helps support more transit-supportive land use in the corridor area.

Strategies for Moving Goods – The Brock Street project recognizes the great importance of the movement of goods within and through the Region as part of the Region’s economic base. This includes recommendations for improved planning and management of truck routes to reduce impacts on associated land use.

1 Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal

I B I G R O U P




Page 7

1 .4 .8 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2005

The Provincial Policy Statement came into effect on March 1, 2005 under the authority of the Planning Act. It requires that in planning matters, including development of infrastructure, decisions “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act. In the case of this Brock Street EA, the following Provincial Policies are supported:

Policy 1.6.5: Transportation Systems -

Brock Street facilitates the movement of people and goods, and the proposed widening and reconstruction are appropriate to address projected needs.

The Brock Street project is based on efficient use being made of the Region’s existing and planned transportation infrastructure.

The Brock Street project and Regional TMP consider the connectivity of the Region’s transportation infrastructure with adjacent municipalities and the integration of transportation modes where appropriate and necessary.

The project supports development of viable choices for public transit and active transportation in new urban development areas of the Region.

Policy 1.6.6: Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors – The Brock Street project responds to the need to protect required transportation corridor improvements and additions in the short, medium and long term.

I B I G R O U P




Page 8

2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

The provincial Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) identifies two types of environmental assessment and approval processes:

Individual EA’s are large complex projects with extensive potential for environmental impacts for which a Terms of Reference and an individual environmental assessment are carried out and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval.

Class EA’s include projects which are approved subject to compliance with an approved class EA process. Projects proceed provided that this approval process is followed and the proponent has complied with the EA Act requirements.

2 .1 .1 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) PROCESS (2007)

A Municipal Class EA is described as an approved planning process for an undertaking (project) that must be followed in order to meet the requirements of the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. Since environmental impacts vary from project to project, Class EA projects are classified in terms of the following schedules:

Schedule A – Normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities with minimal environmental effects, and so are pre-approved;

Schedule A+ – Also pre-approved by requiring public notice prior to construction;

Schedule B – Improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities with potential for some adverse environmental impacts, and so requires a screening process including consultation prior to construction; and

Schedule C – Construction of new facilities and major expansion of existing facilities that must proceed through the Class Environmental Assessment planning process.

The proponent of this study is the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham has conducted this EA study as a Schedule “C” project because this project is a “Reconstruction or widening where the reconstruction road or other linear paved facilities will not be for the same purpose use, capacity or the same location as the facility being reconstruction (e.g. additional lanes), and expected to cost more than $2.2 million to construct”. The Municipal Class EA process, as shown in Exhibit 5, involves the following five mandatory phases includes:

Phase 1 – Identify the Problem or Opportunity

Phase 2 – Identify alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity

Phase 3 – Examine alternative methods and implement the preferred solution

Phase 4 – Document in the Environmental Study Report (ESR) a summary of the rationale and planning

Phase 5 – Design and consultation process used for the project; Implement the project with contract drawings and tender documents, through project.

I B I G R O U P




Page 9

As this study follows the Schedule “C” project of the EA process, a Class EA document (i.e. Environmental Study Report) is required for MOE for approval. The approved Class EA document establishes a streamlined planning process for proponents to follow in order to fulfill the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) for approval of a project within the class of undertakings. This is a self-assessment proponent-driven process where the proponent of a project is responsible for meeting the requirements in the Class EA prior to implementing a project. The Class EA approach allows for evaluation of the environmental effects of alternatives to an undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out a project, includes mandatory public consultation requirements, and expedites the environmental assessment of smaller recurring projects (e.g., road widening/upgrading). The ESR will be filed for a minimum of 30 day period for public review. If concerns are raised and cannot be resolved through discussion with the proponent of the project during the Class EA process period, the public and agencies can write to the Minister of the Ministry of Environment for a “Part II Order” request, which will be described in details in Section 2.1.2. However, the public, stakeholders and agencies are encouraged to work together to determine the preferred solution of addressing the problem and opportunity during the EA study period.

2 .1 .2 PART I I ORDERS

A common feature of Class EA documents is a provision which enables any individual, group or agency that has significant environmental concerns with a project to write to the Minister of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) requesting that the project be required to comply with Part II of the EA Act, and be conducted as an Individual EA.

All Part II Order requests are reviewed by the MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB). MOE Staff would consult with the requester(s), the proponent and any other agency or group potentially affected by the Minister’s decision. Information would be summarized by MOE staff and a recommendation is made to the Minister who is ultimately responsible for a decision. Evaluation criteria for Part II Order requests include the purpose of the EAA, factors suggesting that the proposed undertaking differs from other undertakings in the class to which the Class EA applies, the significance of these factors and differences, the nature of concerns raised by the requester(s), and the benefits of carrying out an Individual EA. MOE Staff would also evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of other legislation and decision-making processes to address the concerns of the requester(s).

The EAAB has 45 days to review a Part II Order request and prepare a report for the Minister’s or delegate’s consideration. There is no time limit on making this decision, and the Minister has four options for a decision on a Part II Order request:

Deny the request

Deny the request with conditions

Refer to mediation

Grant the request and require the proponent to undergo an Individual EA.

I B I G R O U P




Page 10

Exhibit 5 Municipal Class EA Process

I B I G R O U P




Page 11

2 .1 .3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

As noted above, the Environmental Study Report documents the overall environmental study process to determine the recommended alternative and the environmentally significant aspects of the planning, design and construction of Brock Street. The ESR includes the identification of problems being addressed; transportation solutions that were considered; the recommended alternative and its purpose; the existing and future natural and cultural environmental considerations, environmental effects, proposed mitigation measures, the commitment to the future work, and consultation and monitoring associated with the implementation of the project.

2.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), a federal environmental assessment may be required if the following conditions apply to the project if it is:

1. funded with federal money

2. on federal land

3. likely to affect a line or property regulated by the National Energy Board or a railway

4. expected to affect fish or fish habitat or a navigable waterway

5. likely to affect Indian reserve lands.

None of these conditions apply to this EA, and so the CEAA does not apply.

2.3 Public Consultation Program

All relevant external agencies and members of the public were contacted throughout all stages of the study to establish opportunity for input. The Notice of Study Commencement and two (2) Public Information Centres were advertised in local newspapers, and sent to residents abutting Brock Street. The Public Information Centres were held during the course of study to provide stakeholders and the public with the opportunity to discuss the proposed project with the project team. Individual meetings were set up with the property owners to discuss the potential impacts of the proposed reconstruction of Brock Street. A summary of public and agency input with corresponding responses are included in Appendix A of this ESR.

2 .3 .1 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT / PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE NO. 1

A Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre No. 1 (See Appendix A) was issued by the Region of Durham and published in the Whitby This Week on Friday, November 30 and Wednesday, December 5, 2007. The advertisement provided information on the project with details specifics surrounding Public Information Center No. 1. Copies of the newsletter were also sent to all residents and businesses abutting Brock Street. Approximately 30 members of the public attended PIC No. 1 (24 signed in). PIC No. 1 was a drop-in format and held as noted below:

Date: December 10, 2007 (Monday) Time: 5:00 to 8:00 pm Location: Regional Municipality of Durham

Headquarters, Room LL-C (Lower Level)

I B I G R O U P




Page 12

The purpose of PIC No. 1 was to:

Introduce the study and the EA Process;

Present the study approach, background, the existing conditions, the problem statement, need and justification for the undertaking and alternative planning solutions;

Present the recommended alternative solution;

Outline the next steps and activities of this study, and;

Obtain public input on current problems and areas of improvement.

2 .3 .2 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE NO. 2

The Notice of Public Information Centre No. 2 (See Appendix A) was published in the Whitby This Week, Friday, March 14 and Wednesday, March 19, 2008. The advertisement provided information on the project. Copies of the newsletter were also sent to all residents and businesses abutting Brock Street. Members of public who attended the first PIC also received correspondence pertaining to Public Information Center No. 2. Approximately 30 members of the public attended PIC No. 2 (23 signed in).

Date: March 26, 2008 (Wednesday) Time: 5:00 to 8:00 pm Location: Regional Municipality of Durham

Headquarters, Room LL-C (Lower Level) The purpose of PIC No. 2 was to: Update the findings and work completed since PIC No. 1;

Provide the public with an opportunity to review and offer comments on the evaluation of the alternative design concepts and the Preferred Alternative design;

Outline the next steps and activities of the study, and;

Answer any questions and concerns about this study.

2 .3 .3 TECHNICAL AGENCY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

During the course of the study, federal and provincial ministries, authorities and utility companies were contacted and requested to provide technical input and to comment on the study’s findings. The technical agencies that were contacted are listed in the following table:

FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Department of Fisheries and Oceans Transport Canada - Ontario Region Health Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Environment Canada Department of Canadian Heritage Department of Indian and Northern Affairs

Environmental Unit, Comprehensive Claims Branch, Litigation Management & Resolution Branch, Regional Director General

SCHOOL BOARDS / SCHOOLS Durham Student Transportation Services Durham Catholic District School Board Durham District School Board UTILITIES Bell Canada Enbridge Consumers Gas Rogers Cable Whitby Hydro Hydro One

I B I G R O U P




Page 13

PROVINCIAL MINISTRIES AND AGENCIES Ministry of Government and Consumer Services Ministry of Culture Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Education Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Community and Social Services Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of the Attorney General Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration FIRST NATIONS Association of Iroquois & Allied Nations Chiefs of Ontario Métis Nation of Ontario LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Town of Whitby CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority

EMERGENCY AGENCIES Ontario Provincial Police Durham Region Police Services Whitby Fire and Emergency Services Whitby Community Police Office Durham Region Emergency Medical Services TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION Durham Region Transit GO Transit OTHER AGENCIES Ontario Cycling Association Whitby Chamber of Commerce Durham Home and Small Business Association Durham Region Association of Realtors Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Durham Region Manufacturer’s Association The Whitby Historical Society Durham Cycling - Touring Concept Cycling Group

The following table provides a summary of the main points of contact. The related correspondence is provided in Appendix A.

Date Agencies Information Provided Purpose December 04, 2007

All Agencies listed above

Letter Agency Response Form Notice of Study

Commencement and Public Information Centre No. 1

To inform the agencies of the study and obtain initial input and pertinent background information

To invite the agencies to attend PIC No. 1

February 27, 2008

Utility Companies

Letter Key Map Typical cross-sections with

potential utility impacts

To inform the utilities about the potential impacts of the proposed reconstruction of Brock Street

Invite to attend a joint-utility meeting

March 13, 2008

All Agencies listed above

Letter Notice of Public

Information Centre No. 2

To inform the agencies about the status of the study

To invite the agencies to attend PIC No. 2

Agency responses provided during the preparation of this EA are limited to the following contacts which are included in Appendix A:

I B I G R O U P




Page 14

DATE AGENCY RESPONSE

December 6, 2007 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, David Fumerton, District Manager, Central Region

Request to be copied on further project correspondence.

December 6, 2007 Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, Michael D’Mello, Registrar

Ensure no cemetery is impacted.

December 10, 2007 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Dave Bell, Senior Program Officer

Information of CEAA triggers and requirements as part of the Municipal Class EA process.

December 12, 2007 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Ontario Region, Environmental Unit, Daniel Johnson, Environmental Officer

INAC is not likely to require an Environmental Assessment under section 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

December 20, 2007 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Kevin Clement, Comprehensive Claims Branch

No comprehensive claims in the Town of Whitby. Provided contacts for further information.

December 20, 2007 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Chunmei Liu, Environmental Resources Planner & EA Coordinator

Acknowledge Notice of Commencement.

Provide introductory information of MOE requirements for: Ecosystem Protection & Restoration Groundwater & Surfacewater Dust & Noise Contaminated Soils Transmission Lines Mitigation & Monitoring Class EA process First Nations Consultation

January 18, 2008 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Ontario Region, Environmental Unit, Daniel Johnson, Environmental Officer

Same as December 12, 2007 contact.

April 1, 2008 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Marc-Andre Millaire, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch

Inventory includes active litigation case in vicinity of project property. How to obtain further information.

April 11, 2008 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Ontario Region, Environmental Unit, Daniel Johnson, Environmental Officer

Request to send further correspondence to the Environmental Unit.

April 18, 2008 Indian & Northern Affairs Canada, Ontario Region,

Will not provide a project review.

I B I G R O U P




Page 15

Environmental Unit, Daniel Johnson, Environmental Officer

Provided First Nations contacts.

August 24, 2009 Town of Whitby, Tara Painchaud, Transportation Project Engineer

See response comments in Appendix A.

August 31, 2009 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Dorothy Moszynski, Environmental Resource Planner & EA Coordinator

See response comments in Appendix A.

2 .3 .4 FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

As part of the required stakeholder and agency consultation, this EA initially contacted potentially interested agencies of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) and the Department of Indian and North Affairs (INAC), along with the other First Nations organizations include on the above list, with the Notice of Study Commencement and PIC #1. Responses were first received from the Environmental Unit of INAC advising on further information sources and contacts, and from the INAC Comprehensive Claims Branch confirming there are no comprehensive claims in the Town of Whitby. The MAA and INAC responses also noted that they had no specific interest in the project and no further involvement was required (see letters in Appendix A). A subsequent letter from the INAC Litigation Management and Resolution Branch dated April 1, 2008 noted an active litigation case in the vicinity of the study area. The case title did not involve a location within the Town of Whitby and so further action was taken.

No response was received from the notices sent to the three First Nations organizations listed on page 13.

I B I G R O U P




Page 16

3. PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT

3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions

3.1 .1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS

Brock Street (Regional Highway 12) is a two-lane Type B arterial road running north-south with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. Brock Street begins in the south at Lake Ontario and passes through Downtown Whitby before entering the study area. South of the study area Brock Street is posted at 50 km/h. North of the study area, Brock Street continues as Baldwin Street until it meets Highway 7 where it continues as Highway 7/12. Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 show typical Brock Street cross sections within the study area.

Within the study area, Brock Street operates with two northbound lanes from Rossland Road to a point north of Dryden Boulevard. It then operates with one northbound lane until the approach to Taunton Road, where it widens to two through lanes. Southbound, it operates with two through lanes from Taunton Road to Timber Mill Avenue, where the right lane becomes an exclusive right turn lane. It continues with one southbound lane until the approach to Rossland Road, where it widens to two through lanes.

Turning lanes are provided for left turns at all intersections at Rossland Road, James Rowe Drive / Dryden Boulevard, Whitburn Street / Woodlands Drive, Timber Mill Boulevard / Joy Thompson Avenue, and Taunton Road. Dedicated right turn lanes are also provided at Taunton Road. Additionally, a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) lane is provided from a point north of Dryden Boulevard to Taunton Road.

Exhibit 6: Looking South – North of McCartney Avenue / Kenneth Hobbs Avenue

Exhibit 7: Looking North – South of Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

I B I G R O U P




Page 17

3 .1 .2 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

An analysis of the existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions was undertaken using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology and the Synchro 6.0 software package. Exhibit 8 is a summary of the results of the intersection analysis. The exhibit shows the overall intersection LOS and v/c ratio, as well as the LOS and v/c ratio of both the northbound and southbound Brock Street through movement. The transportation analysis is provided in Appendix B and includes full analysis summaries.

Exhibit 8: Existing Intersection Operations

Intersection Overall1

Northbound Brock Street

SouthboundBrock Street

LOS2 V/C3 LOS V/C LOS V/C AM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road C 0.88 C 0.31 C 0.49 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

A - B 0.46 A 0.44

Brock Street and Whitburn Street / Woodlands Avenue

B 0.50 B 0.58 B 0.60

Brock Street and James Rowe Drive / Dryden Blvd

B 0.72 A 0.29 C 0.85

Brock Street and Rossland Road C 0.80 C 0.43 C 0.80 PM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road E 1.39 C 0.43 C 0.49 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

A - B 0.55 B 0.54


B 0.65 B 0.81 B 0.65


B 0.53 A 0.45 B 0.59

Brock Street and Rossland Road C 0.85 C 0.83 C 0.80 Notes: 1) Overall - overall intersection operations 2) LOS - level of service which is a measure of the delay at the intersection with A to D representing acceptable operating conditions; whereas, LOS E and F represent excessive delays 3) V/C – volume to capacity ratio is a measure of the volume of traffic negotiating a movement versus its theoretical capacity.

Based on the preceding analysis and field observations of the existing operating conditions, the following can be concluded:

Many of the capacity issues at the Taunton Road and Rossland Road intersections are the result of the volumes on these roads, and not Brock Street volume;

Brock Street volumes result in significant left turn delays at unsignalized cross streets; and

The following through movements on Brock Street are approaching capacity:

Southbound at James Rowe Drive / Dryden Boulevard (AM peak hour); Southbound at Rossland Road (AM peak hour); Northbound at Whitburn Street / Woodlands Avenue (PM peak hour); and Both directions at Rossland Road (PM peak hour).

I B I G R O U P




Page 18

3 .1 .3 COLLIS ION ANALYSIS

Collision data for the corridor was obtained for a five-year period encompassing January 1st, 2002 to January 1st, 2007. Included in Exhibit 9 is a summary of the review of the collision attributes at each mid-block and intersection location.

Exhibit 9: Preliminary Collision Screening

Location Frequency Key Attributes Taunton Road to Timber Mill Avenue

11 Sideswipe (4) and rear end (5) collisions Four injury collisions

Timber Mill Avenue Intersection

6 No definitive trends One bicycle collision

Timber Mill Avenue to Hillcourt Avenue

0 N/A

Hillcourt Avenue to Whitburn Street

4 No definitive trends

Whitburn Street Intersection 9 Eight property damage collisions Three wet weather collisions Six rear end collisions

Whitburn Street to Clear Spring Road

0 N/A

Clear Spring Road 1 No definitive trends Clear Spring Road to Dryden Boulevard

8 50% during dark conditions No other trends

Dryden Boulevard Intersection 11 Seven rear end collisions Dryden Boulevard to Rossland Road


Dryden Boulevard to James Rowe Drive


Note: N/A = Not applicable

There were no reported collisions involving pedestrians in the study corridor. One vehicle-bicycle collision was reported at the Brock Street/Timber Mill Avenue intersection. It involved an eastbound right turn vehicle and a northbound cyclist. Raw collision reports were not available for this review. Based on the data summaries provided, it appears that either the cyclists was travelling on the sidewalk or northbound on the southbound lanes.

Based on the above preliminary analysis, detailed field investigations and positive guidance reviews will be undertaken to review the following:

Sideswipe and rear end collisions on Brock Street from Taunton Road to Timber Mill Avenue. Through the Region’s network screening process this mid-block section was identified with a potential for safety improvement (PSI) of 1.4;

Rear end collisions at the Whitburn Street intersection; and

Rear end collisions at the Dryden Boulevard intersection.

I B I G R O U P




Page 19

3.2 Future Traffic Conditions

IBI Group undertook an analysis of future intersection operations without the proposed Brock Street widening, i.e. the roadway cross-section, intersection configurations and intersection control remain as they are under existing operations. Both AM and PM peak hour intersection operations were assessed using Synchro based on the projected traffic volumes described in Appendix B.

3 .2 .1 2016 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Exhibit 10 shows that without widening the road, the additional volume will degrade the v/c ratio for all movements, as well as the LOS for some intersections and movements. While Brock Street through movements at all intersections still operate at acceptable levels of service, overall intersection operations at Brock Street and Taunton Road are expected to degrade to LOS F during the PM peak hour (currently LOS E). The poor LOS is more a function of expected Taunton Road volumes than of Brock Street volumes, however. Appendix B includes full analysis summaries.

Exhibit 10: 2016 Intersection Operations, Without Widening

Intersection Overall



LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C AM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road D 1.04 C 0.36 C 0.54 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

B - B 0.54 B 0.49


B 0.55 B 0.67 B 0.66


C 0.78 A 0.33 C 0.93

Brock Street and Rossland Road C 0.88 C 0.49 C 0.87 PM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.59 C 0.47 C 0.57 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

C - C 0.60 B 0.63


B 0.71 C 0.89 B 0.75


B 0.6 A 0.49 B 0.69

Brock Street and Rossland Road D 0.92 D 0.90 D 0.91

The analysis also indicates:

The southbound Brock Street v/c ratio at James Rowe Drive / Dryden Boulevard during the AM peak hour is expected to be 0.93, very close to the upper limit of its capacity;

The v/c ratio for PM peak hour northbound through traffic at Whitburn Street / Woodlands Avenue will be 0.89;

The v/c ratio for Brock Street through traffic in both directions at Rossland Road during the PM peak hour will be 0.90 or greater; and

I B I G R O U P




Page 20

The increased Brock Street volume will increase cross-street delay at unsignalized intersections.


By 2026, the increased Brock Street volumes, partially attributable to the proposed interchange of the Highway 407 extension at Baldwin Street, will further degrade operations from existing conditions. In particular, some individual movements on Brock Street are now projected to operate beyond their theoretical capacities, as shown in Exhibit 11. The intersection with Taunton Road is expected to operate at an overall LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, and at Rossland Road, both overall operations and southbound Brock Street are expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Appendix B includes full analysis summaries.

Exhibit 11: 2026 Intersection Operations, Without Widening




LOS LOS LOS V/C LOS V/C AM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.27 C 0.42 C 0.60 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

C - B 0.62 B 0.54


B 0.62 B 0.77 B 0.73


C 0.85 A 0.37 D 1.03

Brock Street and Rossland Road D 0.95 C 0.55 D 0.94 PM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.91 C 0.52 C 0.66 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

D - C 0.66 B 0.73


C 0.77 C 0.98 B 0.88


B 0.68 A 0.53 B 0.79

Brock Street and Rossland Road E 1.01 D 0.98 E 1.03

3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements

The proposed widening of Brock Street would incorporate a five-lane cross section between Taunton Road and Rossland Road, maintaining two through lanes throughout the entire study area and providing left turn lanes at cross streets and, where necessary, development driveways. Some sections of Brock Street already provide two through lanes, e.g. the approaches to Taunton Road and Rossland Road, and northbound until just north of Dryden Boulevard.

For the analysis, it was assumed that all existing left turn lanes would remain the same length and that exclusive right turn lanes (e.g. southbound at Timber Mill Avenue) would ultimately be converted into shared through/right turn lanes. Since that analysis was conducted, the Region has initiated a new guideline whereby all signalized regional road intersections will include exclusive right turn lanes. Therefore, right turn lanes will be included in the detailed design of Brock Street.

I B I G R O U P




Page 21

As noted previously, existing traffic control operations were maintained at each intersection.

3.4 Future Intersection Operations with Widening

3.4 .1 2016 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Exhibit 12 shows that when compared to 2016 intersection operations without widening, the additional through lanes on Brock Street provide a substantial improvement to the v/c ratio at the three internal studied intersections. In particular, the southbound AM peak hour v/c ratio at James Rowe Drive / Dryden Boulevard is reduced from 0.93 to 0.52. Appendix B includes full analysis summaries.

Exhibit 12: 2016 Intersection Operations, With Widening




LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C AM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road D 1.06 C 0.42 C 0.57 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

A - A 0.41 B 0.34


B 0.36 A 0.40 A 0.38


B 0.50 A 0.37 A 0.52

Brock Street and Rossland Road C 0.90 C 0.55 C 0.91 PM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.62 C 0.50 C 0.66 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

A - B 0.42 B 0.49


A 0.40 A 0.49 A 0.47


B 0.64 A 0.51 A 0.42

Brock Street and Rossland Road D 0.97 D 0.94 E 1.03

It can be seen that some movements show a slight increase in v/c ratio when compared to operations without widening. The Region’s traffic model shows additional volume on Brock Street under a widened scenario. The overall impact, however, is an improvement in the v/c ratio for Brock Street through traffic.

Finally, for the intersections of Brock Street with Taunton Road and Rossland Road, the additional Brock Street lanes do not improve the v/c ratios for Brock Street by 2016 as shown in Exhibit 10 compared to Exhibit 12. The southbound Brock Street v/c may worsen slightly with LOS E at the Rossland Road intersection in the PM Peak Hour.

As Brock Street already provides two through lanes on its approaches to these intersections, the additional lanes elsewhere within the study area do not serve to significantly improve operations at these intersections. As noted in the analysis of existing conditions, much of the capacity and delay problems at these intersections can be attributed to volumes on Taunton Road and Rossland Road,

I B I G R O U P




Page 22

rather than Brock Street. As well, due to the heavy volumes on the east-west streets, the amount of green time that can be devoted to Brock Street is reduced, resulting in poor v/c ratios for north-south traffic.


It can be seen from Exhibit 13 that in 2026, all internal study area intersections will continue to operate at good to excellent levels of service, with Brock Street v/c ratios ranging from 0.40 – 0.60, considerably below the 2026 operations without widening. As discussed above, the additional volume associated with widening and background traffic growth will cause operations at Taunton Road and Rossland Road to continue to degrade from the non-widened scenarios. Appendix B includes full analysis summaries.

Exhibit 13: 2026 Intersection Operations, With Widening




LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C AM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.34 C 0.51 C 0.66 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

A - B 0.50 B 0.40


B 0.42 A 0.49 A 0.44


B 0.55 A 0.45 B 0.60

Brock Street and Rossland Road D 0.99 C 0.66 E 1.02 PM Peak Hour Brock Street and Taunton Road F 1.99 C 0.58 C 0.80 Brock Street and Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue

B - C 0.48 B 0.59


A 0.48 A 0.56 A 0.58


B 0.80 A 0.58 A 0.50

Brock Street and Rossland Road F 1.08 E 1.07 F 1.23

3.5 Findings and Conclusions

3.5 .1 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Brock Street will approach its theoretical capacity in the next several years, with a number of movements operating at capacity by 2016, and others operating at or over capacity by 2026. The provision of a second through lane in each direction between Taunton Road and Rossland Road will serve to improve the v/c ratios throughout the corridor and ensure that Brock Street has the excess capacity to support growth throughout the Town and Region, including the proposed Highway 407 extension and associated Baldwin Street interchange north of the study area.

It should be understood that widening Brock Street will not contribute significantly to an improvement of the delay and capacity issues at the intersections of Taunton Road and Rossland

I B I G R O U P




Page 23

Road. The new Brock Street cross section is expected to tie into the existing cross section at these intersections, i.e. no additional lanes or capacity will be added. As these are major east-west corridors through the Region, they are expected to carry increasingly heavy traffic volumes into the future, and their overall performance is dependent on traffic volumes in all directions, not on Brock Street alone.

The proposed five-lane Brock Street cross section will maintain left turn lanes at intersections and other access points. In the future, the opportunity exists to introduce a centre median on some sections of the road where turn lanes are not required. The benefits of median versus a TWLTL are discussed below.

3 .5 .2 ACCESS

Most of the Brock Street corridor is fully built-out today. The major parcels of undeveloped land are located adjacent to Taunton Road and Rossland Road. If a centre median is constructed on Brock Street, the ability to provide additional left turn access will be restricted. This is not expected to be problematic throughout much of the corridor, as the necessary access points are in place. For the undeveloped parcels, though, such a median may require that access be restricted to right-in, right-out driveways. Their proximity to Taunton and Rossland Roads, combined with the projected Brock Street widening and increased traffic volumes, may point towards right-in, right-out driveways as the most practical solution whether a median is constructed or not, thereby negating the impacts of the centre median on site access

3 .5 .3 PEDESTRIAN OPERATIONS

Pedestrians crossing Brock Street at unmarked, unsignalized locations are seen as a problem for both pedestrian safety and traffic operations. With or without widening, the future will bring additional traffic to Brock Street. If Brock Street is widened, it is possible that the average operating speed may increase, compounding the pedestrian crossing problem.

A five-lane Brock Street cross section will create opportunity to provide a centre median through mid-block locations and adjacent to intersections. Such a median would offer pedestrians a crossing refuge and allow them to cross Brock Street in two stages. While the Region of Durham Works Department does not support the creation of uncontrolled crossings, it is recognized that pedestrians will cross and thus the construction of a centre median is supported where possible on Brock Street.

A secondary benefit of reconstructing Brock Street not directly associated with the widening is the opportunity to provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street between Taunton and Rossland Roads. IBI Group staff observed pedestrians walking in areas of Brock Street with no sidewalks. The reconstruction of Brock Street also presents an opportunity to promote sustainable modes of transportation such as walking and cycling through means such as a multi-use trail along one side of the road. This option could be discussed with the Town during detailed design.

3 .5 .4 COLLIS IONS

There are relatively few driveway accesses on Brock Street, and a median will serve to accommodate left turns where necessary and restrict them (as well as u-turns) where not. An additional potential benefit of such a median will be a reduction in the potential for head-on collisions or vehicles travelling in the wrong direction. While no head-on collisions were reported in the collision data provided to IBI Group, their potential with the TWLTL provided today is greater than with a centre median.

I B I G R O U P




Page 24

3 .5 .5 TRANSIT OPERATIONS

The reconstruction and widening of Brock Street provides an opportunity to enhance and improve transit service and operations throughout the corridor. Currently, buses either stop in a travel lane, or they pull over onto the soft shoulder. Transit shelters or concrete waiting pads may or may not be present, depending on stop location. A redesigned Brock Street provides the opportunity to:

Construct shelters or concrete pads at all locations, creating a uniform look and feel for transit operations throughout the corridor; and

Seek input from Durham Region Transit and GO transit about their preferences for bus bays and for near-side versus far-side stop locations.

3.6 Problem / Opportunity Statement

Based on the review of the existing and future conditions, the transportation problems and opportunities being addressed by this EA study on the Brock Street study area are as follows:

Problem:

Increasing traffic volumes leading to operational issues along Brock Street

Poor transit stop provisions (i.e., protection, amenities, access)

Geometric issues, such as sightlines at entrances and turning lane lengths

Sidewalks not provided continuously along Brock Street

Boulevard and streetscape is inconsistent throughout the corridor

Drainage and pavement condition issues have been identified

Opportunity:

Address current and future travel demands and operational needs

Encourage sustainable transportation solutions and improve the corridor as a liveable community

Provision for sidewalks on both sides continuously throughout the corridor

Recognizing that Brock Street is a major transit corridor, improve the transit facilities

Investigate opportunities for an off-road facility, such as a trail or pathway

Examine improved and consistent boulevard and streetscape treatments along Brock Street

Support land use and development objectives

Address identified geometric problems and enhance safety along the corridor

Improve the drainage system and pavement conditions

3.7 Planning Alternatives

At the broad planning level, five planning alternatives were identified and evaluated to address the traffic operational concerns and capacity issues.

I B I G R O U P




Page 25

1. Do Nothing

2. Travel Demand Management Measures

3. Transportation System Management Measures

4. Improvements to Other Roadways

5. Widening of the Brock Street.

The following describes each planning alternatives, with the results of the evaluation process summarized on Exhibit 14:

1. Do Nothing – This alternative provides a continuation of the existing conditions with no changes or improvements, other than the maintenance activities. This alternative also provides as a base to compare with the other alternatives. As identified in the Regional Transportation Master Plan, travel demand will grow in the Town of Whitby as development occurs in the northern part of Whitby. It is projected that traffic growth on Brock Street will reduce the roadway’s operational Level-of-Service, and increase the associated safety issues. The Do Nothing alternative is not considered to be a reasonable alternative because it does not address any of the traffic operations and capacity issues.

2. Travel Demand Management Measures – Travel Demand Management (TDM) provides measures to reduce the number of vehicles, primarily single-occupant travel operating on the roadway especially during peak periods. Examples include increasing transit usage and encouraging carpooling. The travel forecasting and modeling already incorporates projected changes in travel demand, showing that TDM alone cannot fully address the projected future demand, existing traffic operation concerns, and safety issues. However, TDM measures should still be carried forward in conjunction with the preferred solution for Brock Street.

3. Transportation System Management Measures – Minor geometric / physical improvements and / or operational modifications to increase the capacity were considered in the provisions of Transportation System Management Measures. It also includes the improvement of the existing road network operations; examples include adding lanes at intersections, improving signage and markings, and changes to traffic signal timings. However, the provision of Transportation System Management Measures cannot alone fully address the projected future demand and the existing traffic operations and safety issues, but should be carried forward in conjunction with the preferred solution.

4. Improvements to Other Roadways - Upgrading other north-south Regional and/or Town roadways in the vicinity, such as Lake Ridge Road and Anderson Street, has been considered in the Region of Durham TMP. The conclusion is that improvements to other roadways cannot address the projected Brock Street future traffic demand and the existing traffic operations and safety issues. Therefore this alternative is set aside.

5. Widen Brock Street - Widening Brock Street to 5 lanes would address existing and future traffic volumes through the study area (maintaining the existing centre left-turn lane). The Region of Durham TMP identifies Brock Street as a major arterial road with a transit corridor. The reconstruction of Brock Street will address future safety and capacity issues. Therefore, this alternative is considered as the preferred planning alternative and will be examined further in the next phase of the study as describes in Section 5.

I B I G R O U P




Page 26

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

Factors

Do Nothing Transportation System

Management (TSM) Transportation Demand

Management (TDM) Improve Adjacent Roadways Widen Brock Street

Transportation - Does not address the existing traffic operation issues and the identified transportation capacity deficiencies on Brock Street

- Does not provide additional north-south capacity to support future growth in the Region, especially for the northern urban areas of Whitby

- Traffic infiltration to local neighbourhoods will continue

- Does not completely address the existing traffic operation issues and the identified transportation capacity deficiencies on Brock Street

- Slightly increased north-south transportation capacity on Brock Street


- Limited opportunity to improve transit without the proposed widening

- Provided other travel choices in the Town of Whitby


- Does not address connectively throughout the network

- Does not provide the required infrastructure for the provision of transit priority network on Brock Street

- Provided additional north-south capacity

- The widening of Brock Street from 3 lanes to 5 lanes has been identified in the Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to address the existing and future transportation capacity deficiencies resulting from growth in the Region

- Opportunity to improve transit services along Brock Street

- Supported the provision of higher-order transit service within the transit priority network as identified in the TMP

- Eliminated bottleneck between existing widened section

Socio-Economic Environment & LandUse

- No property impact - Does not provide opportunity to

enhance streetscaping on Brock Street

- No improvements to air quality along Brock Street



- Slightly improvements to air quality resulting of improvements of transportation system



- Slightly improvements to air quality resulting from slight decrease in auto demand

- Significant impacts to the direct frontage properties along Cochrane Street

- Does not provide opportunity to enhance streetscaping on Brock Street

- Improved air quality with slightly less traffic congestion along Brock Street

- Minimal impacts to the adjust land use

- Improved emergency response time

- Improved access to residential and commercial developments

- Opportunity to enhance streetscaping on Brock Street

- Improved air quality with less traffic congestion along Brock Street

- Supported the development of the Major Centre Areas as identified in the Town of Whitby Official Plan

- Supported the development of the northern urban areas of Whitby as identified in TMP

Natural Environment

- No impacts to existing vegetation and wildlife habitat



- Potential impact to Lynde Creek and Pringle Creek??

- Potential impact to the natural environmental on Cochrane Street

- Potential impact to the vegetation located within the Brock Street right-of-way

- Opportunity to improve landscaping vegetation on Brock Street

- Opportunity to improve runoff treatment

Costs - N/A - No direct construction and property costs

- No direct construction and property costs

- High construction and property Costs

- High construction Costs and low property costs

Summary Does Not Recommend to Carry Forward

- Does not address the identified transportation capacity deficiencies

Recommend to Carry Forward - Required to implement in

conjunction with the preferred alternative solution

Recommend to Carry Forward

- Required to implement in conjunction with the preferred alternative solution

Does Not Recommend to Carry Forward

- Significant impact to existing property on Cochrane Street and Lynde Creek

Recommend to Carry Forward - Addressed the identified

transportation capacity deficiencies

- Supported the Higher-transit transit network

- Eliminated the bottleneck between the widened section

- Minimized the socio-economic and natural environment impacts to the adjacent areas

Exhibit 14: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

I B I G R O U P




Page 27

4. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Road Network

As noted in Section 3.0, Brock Street begins at Lake Ontario and extends north of Taunton Road where it becomes Baldwin Street. Through the study area, Brock Street is a three lane Type “B” arterial road with a 3.0 m shoulder and ditches on both sides. The major roads that run parallel to Brock Street are Cochrane Street and Garden Street, which are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Whitby. Cochrane Street and Garden Street are located approximately 850 m west and 815 m east of Brock Street, respectively.

4 .1 .1 CROSS STREETS

There are six (6) major intersections located within the study area. This section summarizes the key features of the intersection from north to south.

Taunton Road (Durham Regional Road 4) is a Type A arterial road running east-west through the study area. Taunton Road begins in Pickering as an extension of Steeles Avenue and continues through Durham Region, intersecting with Highway 35/115 in Clarington before continuing east as Concession Road 6. Taunton Road operates with two through lanes in each direction at Brock Street with dedicated left and right turn lanes at this signalized intersection.

Timber Mill Avenue / Joy Thompson Avenue serves residential development and intersects Brock Street at an unsignalized intersection approximately 325 metres south of Taunton Road. Dedicated left turn lanes are provided on both approaches.

Whitburn Street / Woodlands Avenue intersects Brock Street at a signalized intersection approximately 740 metres south of Taunton Road. This street primarily serves residential development on both sides of Brock Street. Whitburn Street curves to the south and eventually intersects Rossland Road. Dedicated left turn lanes are provided on both approaches to Brock Street.

James Rowe Drive / Dryden Boulevard is an east-west road intersecting Brock Street at a signalized intersection approximately 340 metres north of McCartney Avenue / Kenneth Hobbs Avenue. Dryden Boulevard extends east as a Type C arterial road and ends east of Anderson Street. Dryden Boulevard generally operates with two lanes in each direction along its length, with turning lanes provided at most intersections. The approach to Brock Street has a dedicated left turn lane, through lane and right lane. James Row Drive is a minor residential street serving a recently constructed residential subdivision.

McCartney Avenue / Kenneth Hobbs Avenue is a local road serving residential development on both sides of Brock Street, approximately 350 metres north of Rossland Road. The road operates with one lane in each direction, although the eastbound approach at the unsignalized Brock Street intersection is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles.

Rossland Road (Durham Regional Road 28) is a Type B arterial road running east-west through the study area. Rossland Road begins at Brock Road in Pickering and ends at Grandview Street in Oshawa. Rossland Road operates with two through lanes in each direction at its signalized Brock Street intersection; dedicated left turn lanes are also provided.

I B I G R O U P




Page 28

4 .1 .2 ACCESS

The study area is primarily back-lotted residential properties, with access from the adjacent cross streets. There are a limited number of driveways serving older residential properties, along with the following commercial driveways:

Right-in, right-out driveway serving the gas station in the southwest corner of Brock Street and Taunton Road;

Right-out driveway serving the commercial property immediately to the south of the above. It should be noted that while this driveway is designed and marked as a right-out only, there is no signing prohibiting entry and motorists were observed turning into the driveway from northbound Brock Street;

Full moves driveway on southbound Brock Street serving The Village at Taunton Mills;

Full moves driveway on northbound Brock Street serving Woodycrest Motel;

Two full moves driveways serving the Shoppers Drug Mart plaza; and

Right-in driveway serving the shopping plaza south of McCartney Avenue.

4 .1 .3 EXISTING S IDEWALK

A continuous sidewalk is provided on the west side of Brock Street between Taunton Road and Rossland Road. The sidewalk is separated from the roadway by a boulevard of varying width, which is necessary due to roadway alignment, utility location, drainage ditch, property lines and other features. Sidewalks are limited and discontinuous on the eastside of Brock Street, with the longest section approaching the Shoppers Drug Mart plaza. Where no sidewalk is provided, pedestrians were observed walking either on the soft shoulder or in the grass boulevard.

Of note are the unsignalized, uncontrolled crossings. The northbound bus stop at Kenneth Hobbs Avenue is located near the crest of a hill, and sight distance is poor for pedestrians crossing to the bus stop from the west side of Brock Street. It is also expected that the new shopping plaza in the southwest corner of this intersection will attract pedestrians from the housing development on the east side of Brock Street. A similar situation exists for pedestrians crossing from the east to the Shoppers Drug Mart Plaza further north on Brock Street. While good sight distance is available for this crossing, pedestrians must still cross Brock Street at an unmarked, uncontrolled location.

No cycling facilities are present. Cyclists observed during the field visit rode either on the sidewalk, the shoulder or the right edge of the travel lane.

4 .1 .4 CYCLING FACIL IT IES

The Brock Street study section has no on-road bike lanes, and cyclists were observed riding either on the sidewalk, the shoulder or on the far right edge of the travel lanes. The Region’s Cycling Master Plan does not include Brock Street as a Regional Cycling Spine. The Town of Whitby is supportive of a multi-use path for cyclists in the Brock Street corridor.

4 .1 .5 TRANSIT SERVICES

Both Durham Region Transit (DRT) and GO Transit operate transit services on Brock Street. Five (5) bus stops are located on the section of Brock Street between Taunton and Rossland Roads, including these stops. The existing bus stops shown on Exhibit 15 within study area are typically on the road shoulders. Only a couple bus stops are equipped with shelters. Where possible, buses

I B I G R O U P




Page 29

pull over into the shoulder for boarding and alighting. In other locations, the bus must stop in the travel lane, blocking traffic.

DRT currently operates Route 302 on Brock Street within the study area. In addition, Routes 915 and 916 operate on Taunton and Rossland Roads, respectively. DRT operates no other transit service within the study area. A number of the Brock Street bus stops in the study area lack sidewalks or any hard surface (see Exhibit 15), resulting in complaints from passengers.

GO Transit currently operates one bus route through the study area, Route 81, which runs between the Whitby GO station and Beaverton. The route operates both northbound and southbound within the study area six times daily, stopping on demand at all DRT bus stops. There are two trips in each direction on weekends and holidays.

4 .1 .6 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

A visual condition survey was carried out by AMEC in January, 2008. The existing pavement condition between Rossland Road and Woodlands Avenue is considered to be in a “fair condition” with few to intermittent slight surface defects, few to frequent slight to moderate surface deformation, and few to frequent very slight to moderate cracking. From Woodlands Avenue to Taunton Road, the existing pavement conditions are considered to be fair to poor. The surface defects, from very slight to slight, surface deformation (intermittent slight) and intermittent to frequent slight to moderate cracking were observed during the condition survey.

The existing pavement structure information was obtained through the Borehole testing within the study area. The thickness of the of the existing pavement structure as per AMEC’s investigation are as noted as follows:

Material Descriptions Average Existing Hot Mix Asphalt 156 mm Existing Granulars 664 mm Existing Granular Base Equivalency

527 mm

4.2 Social Environment

4.2 .1 REGION OF DURHAM OFFIC IAL PLAN

In Map A4 of the Region of Durham Official Plan, the Brock Street study area is designated as a Regional Corridor located next to Living Areas as shown on Exhibit 16. The Living Area designates land to be used for mainly housing purposes with limited mixed-use developments given that the central areas of the Town are designated for that in the Regional Official Plan. A Main Regional Centre Area is identified in the official plan for the intersection of Brock Street and Taunton Road.

Exhibit 15 Brock Street Bus Stop (Typical)

I B I G R O U P




Page 30

4 .2 .2 TOWN OF WHITBY OFFIC IAL PLAN

The Town of Whitby Official Plan is generally consistent with the Regional Official Plan in terms of the land use type. The primary land use within the study area is designated as medium/high density residential. A local commercial area and a convenience commercial area are also designated along the Brock Street study corridor. According to the Official Plan Schedule C, Environmental Management Plan, a former waste disposal site is located on the east side of Brock Street between Dryden Boulevard and Taunton Road.

Exhibit 16: Region of Durham Official Plan

Study Area

Within the Brock Street study area, two Secondary Plans were developed as part of the Official Plan to provide a more detailed pattern of land use, development densities, supporting facilities and the major road network for the secondary plan area. The secondary plans also provided detailed goals, policies and development guidelines in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan.

The Brock/Taunton Major Centre Area, as shown in Exhibit 17, consists of mixed-use areas, media residential area and a major commercial area. The land within the area, including the road network, has been developed since the Secondary Plan approval in 1995, except for a planned medium density residential area and the Mixed-Use Area No. 2 located in the southeast quadrant of Brock and Taunton Road. As of November 2007, the Town of Whitby has not received any development applications for this parcel of land.

The Rossland/Garden Major Centre Area shown in Exhibit 18 is located east of Brock Street and extends to west of Garden Street. This major centre area consists of low and medium density residential areas with pedestrian corridors, a community activity node, an elementary school, open space areas (parks and cemetery) and institutional facilities. Construction of the residential area along Brock Street has been completed or is the process of construction, except for a parcel of an undeveloped land located immediate north of Rossland Road.

I B I G R O U P




Page 31

Exhibit 17 Brock / Taunton Major Central Area Exhibit 18 Rossland/Garden Major Central Area

Secondary Plan

4 .2 .3 LAND USE

Land uses along this section of Brock Street primarily consist of back-lotted residential development. There are very few residential driveways with direct access to Brock Street. Non-residential land uses include:

Whitby Christian Assembly—located in the northwest quadrant of Brock Street and Rossland Road. There is no Brock Street access;

Shopping plaza—located on the west side of Brock Street south of McCartney Avenue. As of July 2009 this plaza is generally occupied. While the primary access is from McCartney Avenue, it does have a right-in access from Brock Street;

Shoppers Drug Mart plaza—located on the west side of Brock Street south of Whitburn Street. This plaza contains a Shoppers Drug Mart, various sit-down and fast food restaurants, and other retail and professional services. This plaza has two full turn accesses to Brock Street located approximately 110 metres apart;

Woodycrest Motel—located at 3775 Brock Street, on the east side south of Joy Thompson Avenue, with one access to Brock Street;

I B I G R O U P




Page 32

The Village of Taunton Mills—Senior care facility located at 3800 Brock Street with one access to Brock Street. This is a three phase project, as follows:

Phase I: 120-bed long term care facility, occupied;

Phase II: 200-bed retirement home, recently constructed and operating; and

Phase III: 50-unit senior apartment complex, planned to open in 3-4 years.

Whitby Cardiovascular Clinic (immediately north of Whitby Christian Assembly)

Retail Land Uses— area located in the southwest quadrant of Brock Street and Taunton Road. Two Brock Street driveways serve a gas station and other retail uses in the area. One of the driveways is right-in/right-out, and while the other was designed to be a one-way, right-out-only driveway, IBI Group staff observed motorists turning left into the driveway from Brock Street.

The Brock Street study area is located in the Town of Whitby within the Regional Municipality of Durham. The main land uses within the vicinity of the study area are residential areas with scattered retail/commercial areas. The majority of the residential area is driven by subdivision development and therefore has no direct access to Brock Street, whereas a number of older residential homes located on larger lots have direct access.

The main land uses within the study area are shown on the Exhibit 19 air photo.

I B I G R O U P




Page 33

Exhibit 19: Existing Aquatic Ecosystems

I B I G R O U P




Page 34

4.3 Natural Environment

4.3 .1 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

The study area is located within the Lynde Creek and Pringle Creek watersheds. Both of these watersheds are located within the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority’s (CLOCA) jurisdiction.

Lynde Creek and Pringle Creek drain southerly toward Lake Ontario from their headwaters in the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The Lynde Creek watershed is divided into 5 subwatersheds, with the most easterly one, the Lynde Main subwatershed being adjacent to the western boundary of the Pringle Creek watershed as presented in Exhibit 19. As these watercourses flow south, passing through areas of urban and agricultural land uses, there is a gradual trend for increased water temperatures and higher sedimentation/siltation levels and this is reflected in the type of fish communities that are present in the different reaches of the creeks. In the upper reaches, the fish communities are representative of a coldwater regime, supporting species such as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). The mid and lower reaches provide habitat for coolwater northern pike (Esox lucius), and warmwater tolerant species such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), spottail shiner (Notropus hudsonius) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni).

A tributary of Lynde Creek presently originates on the west side of Brock Street. Historically, this small tributary would have crossed the lands currently occupied by the Brock Street corridor, however at this time there was no evidence of any watercourse crossing of Brock Street.

4 .3 .1 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The geographical extent, composition, structure and function of vegetation communities were identified through air photo interpretation and field investigations. Air photos were interpreted to determine the limits and characteristics of vegetation communities. Field investigations of natural/semi-natural vegetation were conducted within the study area on November 7, 2007 to visually confirm the boundaries of vegetation communities and to conduct a botanical survey. While botanical inventories were not conducted during optimal seasons, the heavily urbanized character of the study area limits the potential for the discovery or species of conservation concern. A landscape/ornamental tree inventory of trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) greater than 10 cm adjacent to Brock Street was also conducted during field investigations.

Vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). The community was sampled using a plotless method for the purpose of determining general composition and structure of the vegetation. Vascular plant nomenclature follows Newmaster et al. (1998).

Vegetation and Vegetation Communities - Much of the vegetation within the study area is of anthropogenic origin, resulting from agricultural and residential land use. Natural vegetation communities in the study area include Dry-Moist old field meadow (CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Thicket (CUT1) and Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1). These communities are delineated in Exhibit 19 and described in detailed in Appendix C - Natural Environment Report in Table 1.

Flora - A total of 42 plant species were identified in the Brock street corridor. A working plant list of these species is presented in Appendix C – Natural Environment Report. In addition to the natural vegetation occurring in the study area, there are a number of roadside planted trees. The tree

I B I G R O U P




Page 35

inventory identified a total of 80 trees or tree clusters located along Brock St. These trees are predominantly planted native species such as white elm (Ulmus Americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum ), American basswood (Tilia americana) and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). A summary of these tree species is presented in Appendix C – Natural Environment Report. Species at Risk - Plant species status was reviewed for the Regional Municipality of Durham (Varga et al. 2000) and Ontario (Oldham 1999). No plant species considered rare, threatened or endangered (R,T,E) in Ontario were noted during field investigations. One species, ciliate aster (Symphotrichum ciliolatum), that is considered to be regionally rare was identified at one location and one species, Canada goldenrod (Solidago Canadensis), that is considered to be regionally uncommon was observed at three locations.

4 .3 .2 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Field investigations along Brock Street from Rossland Road to Taunton Road were conducted within and directly adjacent to the right-of-way on October 22 and 29, 2007 to document wildlife and wildlife habitat and to characterize the nature, extent and significance of animal usage within the project limits. Direct observations, calls, tracks, scats and runways were used to record wildlife present within the study area. While wildlife inventories were not conducted during optimal seasons, the heavily urbanized character of the study area limits the potential for the discovery or species of conservation concern.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat - The entire study area along Brock Street consists of highly disturbed and human impacted habitat. The majority of the study area consists of residential and business structures (houses/retail plazas and buildings), with associated driveways and parking lots. Habitat directly adjacent to Brock Street is composed of manicured grass with scarcely scattered trees and shrubs. Small areas of cultural meadow habitat were found at the south east corner of the intersection of Brock Street and Taunton Road. An isolated parcel of agricultural land is situated north and east of the intersection of Brock Street and Rossland Road. The majority of the wildlife species that would occur in the study area are considered urban or tolerant of human presence. Fauna - No herpetofauna or any evidence of their presence were observed along the study corridor. Seventeen (17) species of wildlife can be verified as occurring in the study area based on field observations and inference from interpretation of available habitat present. A total of 13 species of birds were observed during field investigations. All of the species present are typical of a disturbed urban type of environment and are not unexpected residents. A slightly higher bird count would be demonstrated during the spring/early summer season due to transient migratory visitors that would be using the vegetated valley systems associated with Lynde and Pringle Creeks. No species of mammals were directly observed during field investigations. However based on habitat types present in the study area and secondary source information, four species of mammals are likely to inhabit the study area. The species that would be present are best described as opportunistic and could easily relocate if disturbed by the proposed road reconstruction. A summary of wildlife documented in the study area during field investigations and through secondary source information is presented in Table 3 of Appendix C – Natural Environment Report. Species at Risk - Background information indicated that of the 17 wildlife species recorded within the study area, none are protected federally under COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) or provincially under COSSARO (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario). Nine species of birds recorded are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) while one species is protected under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA). Two

I B I G R O U P




Page 36

of the bird species found within the study area are recommended by Bird Studies Canada as priority species for conservation. Two species of mammals recorded are offered protection under the FWCA.

4 .3 .3 DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS / ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

Designated natural areas for ecosystem protection and restoration include areas identified for protection by the OMNR, CLOCA and upper and lower tier municipalities. There are no Significant Wetlands (PSWs) or Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) or Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESAs) located in the study area.

The site is located outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Area.

4 .3 .4 DRAINAGE / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A Stormwater Management Study was completed for this project and is included as Appendix D. In summary, Brock Street is currently characterized by a rural cross section, with stormwater draining to the ditches on either side of the road. The major overland system flow is divided into two parts; areas draining to the north through the Lynde Main Subwatershed, and areas draining to the south through the Pringle Creek Watershed. There is no minor system on Brock Street, but there are various systems within the residential subdivisions that have slowly been developed. There is also a small minor system at the south end of the study area where Brock Street has been urbanized for 150 metres north of Rossland Road. This system drains to the south, which eventually outlets to Pringle Creek. Based on the road widening alternatives, it is expected that this will result in an increase in impervious area with potential impacts on stormwater quality. The following conclusions and recommendations are made in the Stormwater Management Study (Appendix D):

Given space limitations within the project limits, stormwater quantity control facilities or

stormwater quality wetlands could only be constructed downstream and outside of the project limits;

Based on land use constraints, stormwater management would require the use of end-of pipe controls such as oil grit separators for stormwater quality control. However, it is recommended that a centralized facility would be more effective; and

The capacity of the existing Lynde Creek stormwater management facilities north of Brock Street should be investigated to determine if sufficient capacity is available to provide stormwater quantity and quality control for the road expansion. If capacity is limited, an enhancement or expansion of the facilities should be considered.

4 .3 .5 GROUNDWATER / CONTAMINATION

Groundwater levels were observed in the open borehole during the drilling operation in the period of January 2008. The groundwater depths ranged from 0.6 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground surface. In the area south of Dryden Avenue, the boreholes were full of water on the completion of drilling. Detailed water levels are included in the Appendix E – Geotechnical Report.

I B I G R O U P




Page 37

4.4 Cultural Environment

A review of the existing Cultural Environment, including a review of the Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape and a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment in the area was undertaken by Archaeological Services Inc (ASI) and is available In Appendix F. It is summarized as follows.

4 .4 .1 BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

The term cultural heritage is used to describe both cultural landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual built heritage features and other related features that together form farm complexes, roadscapes and uncleared settlements. Built heritage features are typically individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development. The details of the Built Heritage report are provided in Appendix F.

As part of the heritage review, the following features were identified along Brock Street.

Features Locations Feature Type Age Description / Comments

BHF 1 3705 Brock Street Residence 1900 – 1939 Has been demolished in 2008

BHF 2 3210 Brock Street Residence 1900 – 1950 -

CLU 1 3015 Brock Street Farmstead Ca. 1942 Identified on the Town of Whitby’s Heritage Inventory

CLU 2 3450 Brock Street Residence 1900 –1939 -

CLU 3 3040 Brock Street Farmstead 1875 Identified on the Town of Whitby’s Heritage Inventory

CLU 4 Rossland Road Roadscape No Information -

CLU 5 Brock Street Roadscape No Information -

CLU 6 Taunton Road Roadscape No Information -

CLU 7 St. John the Evangelist Cemetery

Cemetery Pre – 1900 -

Historic research revealed that the study area has origins in nineteenth-century survey and settlement. It was anticipated that field survey would yield cultural heritage resources adjacent to the right of way or set well back from the road. Field survey conducted in October 2007 confirmed an altered nineteenth century landscape that maintains little of its rural heritage character. The following section provides a summary of field work findings:

Historic research revealed that the roads within the study area have origins in nineteenth-century survey and settlement, and it was anticipated that field survey might yield cultural heritage resources adjacent to Rossland Road, Brock Street, and Taunton Road;

Field survey conducted in October 2007 confirmed that the study area is an altered nineteenth century agricultural landscape that maintains little of its rural heritage character, and few cultural heritage resources continue to exist in the landscape;

I B I G R O U P




Page 38

A total of two built heritage features and seven cultural landscape units were identified in the study corridor during field review, which include three residences (BHF 1-2; CLU 2), two farmsteads (CLU 1 and CLU 3), three roadscapes (CLU 4-6) and one cemetery (CLU 7);

The two remaining built heritage features that were identified in the study corridor are representative of twentieth century development in the former Township of Whitby yet face potential threat as one residence (BHF 2) is currently for sale and the other residence (BHF 1) appears to be abandoned and accompanied by a rezoning application. Both BHF 1 and BHF 2 are situated in excess of 40 meters from the current right of way; and

The three cultural landscape units that were identified in the study corridor (CLU 1-3) are comprised of tangible elements and represent varying periods of development in the former Township of Whitby. CLU 1 is surrounded by sizeable acreage and features an apple orchard on the north and east elevations of the property. While the structure that presently sits on this property allegedly dates back to 1942, historical mapping illustrates that a structure was once located on the southwest corner of this lot, adjacent to the right of way. CLU 2 is also surrounded by sizeable acreage and is representative of twentieth century development in the Township of Whitby. CLU 3 is also surrounded by sizeable acreage and offers a powerful impression of late nineteenth century development in the former Township of Whitby. All three of the cultural landscape units are set back from the current right of way but are framed by mature tree lines situated near the current right of way;

The three roadscapes (CLU 4-6) identified in the study corridor reflect varying levels of heritage integrity, as determined by levels of alteration to the road itself and surrounding landscapes:

The Brock Street roadscape retains little heritage integrity. This roadscape has been highly altered to accommodate increasing traffic flows and intensified subdivision development. This road features three lanes in parts, with two lanes of traffic fluctuating between the east and west sides of the road in segments, between Rossland Road and Taunton Road. Brock Street features either very wide shoulders or no shoulders with concrete curbs adjacent to wide boulevards and sidewalks. Subdivision development on the east and west sides of Brock Street dominates this roadscape. The few cultural heritage resources still intact in the landscape and adjacent to the right of way offer an impression of this historic road;

The Rossland Road roadscape retains little heritage integrity. This roadscape has been highly altered and features a paved four lane road with concrete curbs, wide boulevards, sidewalks, hydro lines, and street lighting. Undeveloped and undisturbed lands at the northeast and southwest corners of the Rossland Road and Brock Street intersection provide a partial image of past uses and functions of this historic road; and

The Taunton Road roadscape retains no heritage integrity. Near the Brock Street intersection, Taunton Road accommodates six lanes of traffic and features concrete curbs, wide boulevards, sidewalks, hydro lines, and street lighting. Subdivision development is concentrated on the south side of Taunton Road, east of Brock Street, while big-box commercial development is concentrated on the north side of Taunton Road and at the Brock Street intersection.

The cemetery (CLU 7) identified during the field review is located on Rossland Road, just east of Brock Street. The St. John’s Evangelist Cemetery has not been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act but features gravestones dating back to the 1870s. While this cemetery is not located on Brock Street, it should be given consideration when planning and designing road improvements.

I B I G R O U P




Page 39

A search on the Ontario Heritage Properties Database revealed that no features in the study corridor have been designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. A total of two (2) cultural heritage resources (CLU 1 and CLU 3) have been identified by the Town of Whitby on a Heritage Inventory.

4 .4 .2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for this EA study was undertaken by ASI in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Culture’s requirements (see Appendix F). The assessment revealed that no archaeological sites have been registered within the study corridor, but seven are within two kilometres of its limits. One site, an isolated Aboriginal findspot (AlGr-69) was within 250 metres of the study corridor.

Additional, a review of the general physiographic suggested that the study corridor exhibits both aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological potential.

The finding and recommendations of Stage 1 archaeological assessment are in the ASI report in Appendix F of this report.

4.5 Utilities

Based on the field visit and information provided from the utility companies, the existing utility plants located in the study area have been identified and are listed as follows:

1. Whitby Hydro – A 13.8 KV aerial cable exists within the Brock Street right-of-way at the following location:

West side of Brock Street between Rossland Road intersection and Station 10+250, then crosses diagonally to the east side and runs along east side to Taunton Road

South side of Rossland Road from the east to 50 m east of Brock Street, then crosses diagonally to north side of Rossland Road and extends to the west.

South side of Taunton Road running from east to west.

A hydro box is located 120 m south of Timber Mills Road / Joy Thompson Avenue.

2. Bell Canada – Conduits and cables exist within the study at the following location:

Aerial plant on the west side of Brock Street from Rossland Road to Taunton Road

Buried cable on the east side of Brock Street between James Rowe Drive and Clear Spring Road

Buried cable on the west side of Brock Street between Woodlands Avenue and Joy Thompson Avenue

Three high-quality conduits are located within the study area: northeast quadrant of Brock/Rossland intersection, 195m north of Clear Spring Road on east side of Brock Street (i.e. Station 11+005) and southeast quadrant of Brock/Rossland intersection.

3. Enbridge Gas Pipeline – Existing gas mains are located at the following locations:

I B I G R O U P




Page 40

Along the west side of Brock Street property line between 165 m north of Rossland Road and McCartney Avenue

Along the west side Brock Street property line between James Rowe Drive and Taunton Road

Along the east side of Brock Street property line north of Taunton Road.

Along the north side Clear Spring Road property line

Gas main crossings Brock Street are found at the following location:

South approach of Taunton Road North approach of Timber Mill Avenue/Joy Thompson Avenue intersection 3705 Brock Street North, North approach of James Rowe Drive/Dryden Boulevard intersection, South approach of McCartney Avenue/Kenneth Hobbs Avenue South approach of Rossland Road

4. Rogers Cable – Coaxial and Fibre Cables are located at the following locations:

Aerial fibre optic cable generally follows the Whitby Hydro aerial line from Rossland Road to Taunton Road, with the exception of the crossing over the intersection.

Buried coaxial cables on the west side of Brock Street between James Rowe Drive and Taunton Road and on the east side of Brock Street between 190 m south of Woodlands Avenue (Station 11+150) and 150 m south of Joy Thompson Avenue (Station 11+600).

5. Existing luminaries are on both sides of Brock Street. Standalone illumination poles are located along west side of Brock Street and the illumination heads are mounted on the hydro poles on the east side.

6. Water / Fire Hydrants - along the west side of Brock Street right-of-way.

I B I G R O U P




Page 41

5. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Following the evaluation of the planning alternatives, considering input received at Public Information Centre No. 1, widening Brock Street from 3 to 5 lanes was selected as the preferred planning alternative. The widening of Brock Street can be best described as addressing the identified operational and safety concerns to accommodate the forecasted traffic volume increase. The widening of Brock Street is also consistent with the recommendations provided in the Region of Durham Transportation Master Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan, and the Town of Whitby Official Plan.

Widening alternatives of Brock Street was then developed and evaluated in order to select the preferred widening alternative. This section describes the rationale and methodology of the development of the design alternatives and the process of identifying the technically preferred alternative.

5.1 Design Considerations

The design criteria were developed during the initial stages of the alternative evaluation to guide the development of the widening alternatives as shown in Exhibit 23. As identified in the Region of Durham Transportation Master Plan, Brock Street is a Type “B” arterial road with a design speed of 80 km/h. Both the horizontal and vertical alignments were developed based on this design speed. A typical cross-section was also developed. The assumptions and considerations of the development of the alternative alignments are as follows:

1. The design would follow the applicable design standards: Region of Durham Design and Construction Specifications, Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads and the MTO Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways;

2. The ultimate road cross-section would include 4 through lanes and a median or two way left-turn lane;

3. The existing right-of-way width would remain the same;

4. Sidewalk would be provided within the right-of-way;

5. Minimize the utility impacts along Brock Street;

6. The existing rural cross-section would be changed to urban cross-sections in order to minimize the property impact. The urban cross-section can also provide an opportunity to improve the corridor features, including provision of sidewalks, transit shelters, landscaping and potentially multi-use pathway.

5.2 Design Alternatives Development

Taking the existing and the potential land uses into consideration relative to the above noted design considerations, widening options are limited to three potential alternatives.

Widening on both sides keeping the centreline of the existing road,

Widening to the east side, generally maintaining the existing west edge of pavement; and

I B I G R O U P




Page 42

Widening to the west side, generally maintaining the existing east edge of pavement.

During Public Information Centre No. 1, an interested person indicated that the current Brock Street profile north of Rossland Road is too steep which poses a safety concern for Brock Street southbound traffic. An alternative of lowering the roadway vertical profile north of the Rossland Road intersection was developed and evaluated.

An initial assessment of the corridor indicated that there were three distinct sections which reflect the design considerations and the characteristics of the road that were identified in the corridor. The three distinct sections are:

South Section – Rossland Road to Clear Spring Road

Centre Section – Clear Spring Road to south of Whitburn / Woodlands

North Section – from south of Whitburn / Woodlands to Taunton Road

The following sub sections describe in detail the design alignments for each section in detail:

5 .2 .1 SOUTH SECTION

This section of Brock Street consists of residential development on the west side and an individual resident house on the east side. One horizontal curve appears just north of the Rossland Road intersection. The existing radius of the horizontal curve on Brock Street is approximate 973 m. By improving the horizontal alignment as well as the drainage area, the horizontal alignment is upgraded from 973 m to 2170 m. This upgraded alignment would properly align the roadway south of Rossland Road, therefore complying with appropriate design standards. Given the above, the South Section presented two reasonable widening alternatives:

1. Widening on both sides on the centreline of the existing ground

2. Widening to the west side, generally maintaining the existing east edge of pavement.

As noted above, an alternative to lowering the roadway vertical profile between Rossland Road and McCartney / Kenneth Hobbs intersection was considered as part of the evaluation. A total of four alternatives were developed for the south section in the alternative analysis. Alternative 1A – Widening on both sides and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 1B – Widening on both sides and lowering the existing roadway profile north of Rossland Road;

Alternative 2A – Widening to the west side and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 2B – Widening to the west side and lowering the existing roadway profile north of Rossland Road.

5 .2 .2 CENTRE SECTION

This centre section of Brock Street possesses the narrowest right-of-way of 30.4 m in width. Due to property constraints, the centre section presented only one reasonable alternative, which is widening on both sides of the centreline on the existing road. With the provision of the median and the sidewalk, no other reasonable design alternatives could be developed.

I B I G R O U P




Page 43

5 .2 .3 NORTH SECTION

Throughout this section of Brock Street, the right-of-way is relatively wide from south of Whitburn Street / Woodlands Road intersection to Taunton Road. Three reasonable alternatives were developed for the evaluation.

Alternative 1 – Widening on both sides and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 3 – Widening to the east side and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 4 – Widening to the west side and maintaining the existing roadway profile.

Exhibit 20 provides a summary of the widening alternatives within the Brock Street study area.

Exhibit 20 Summary of Widening Alternatives

5.3 Assessment of Design Alternatives

5 .3 .1 EVALUATION APPROACH

The purpose of the evaluation is to emphasize the need for the proposed undertaking (i.e., widening of Brock Street from 3 to 5 lanes) while complimenting environmental protection and transportation engineering principles. A good evaluation process should be traceable, replicable and comprehensible by the study participants. In order to select the preferred design alternative for each section, a “reasoned argument” approach was selected as the evaluation methodology.

Rossland Road Kenneth Hobbs Avenue

Dryden Boulevard

Clear Spring Road

McCartney Avenue

Taunton Road

Timber Mill Avenue

Joy Thompson Road

WhitburnStreet

James Rowe Boulevard

Woodlands Avenue

Alternative 1B – widen on both sides and lower the roadway profile

Alternative 1 – widen on both sides and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 1A – widen on both sides and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 2B – widen on the west side and lower the roadway profile

Alternative 2A – widen on the west side and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 4 – widen on the west side and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 3 – widen on the east side and maintain existing roadway profile

SOUTH SECTION NORTH SECTIONCENTRE SECTION

I B I G R O U P




Page 44

This reasoned argument approach highlights the differences in net impacts associated with various alternatives. Based on these differences, the advantages and disadvantages can then be identified. A comparative analysis table was prepared, included in Section 5.3.3, to present the transportation benefits and environmental effects for each alternative. The relative significance of the impacts is examined to provide a clear rationale for the selection of a technically-preferred alternative.

5 .3 .2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Based on the data collection and inventory of the existing conditions for the corridor, appropriate evaluation criteria was identified in order to assist in the comparative assessment between the design alternatives. Criteria that did not present any differences between the developed design alternatives or did not present any impacts were not used in the comparative assessment.

These criteria are also used in the detailed assessment of the technically preferred design alternative in order to develop the appropriate mitigation measures.

Criteria Rationale Note

Natural Environment Relates to potential impacts on vegetation, hydrogeological resources and surface water.

Natural Heritage Assessment was completed. Related criteria, such as the impact on wildlife and fisheries, were not considered in the evaluation owing to the existing conditions and the minimal differences between the design alternatives.

Social / Cultural Environment

Relates to social impacts pertinent to quality of life in and near the study area, as well as Cultural/Archaeological impacts.

Archaeological and built heritage resources were assessed and documented. No significant features will be affected. A number of other criteria, such as aesthetics and visual impact were not considered in the evaluation given the minimal differences between the design alternatives.

Technical / Transportation

Related to safety, provision of enhanced roadway geometrics, utility impacts, constructability issues, and opportunity for the provision of a multi-use trail facility.

A number of other criteria, such as access to properties, were not considered in the evaluation given the similar impact for the design alternatives, but will be used in the detailed assessment and in the consideration of mitigation.

Cost

Relates to estimated construction cost.

No property acquisition required. Operations and maintenance costs similar for each design alternatives.

5 .3 .3 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

As noted in Section 5.2.1, four widening alternatives were included in the evaluation:

Alternative 1A – Widening on both sides and maintaining the existing roadway profile

I B I G R O U P




Page 45

Alternative 1B – Widening on both sides and lowering the existing roadway profile north of Rossland Road

Alternative 2A – Widening to the west side and maintaining the existing roadway profile

Alternative 2B – Widening to the west side and lowering the existing roadway profile north of Rossland Road.

All alternatives have a similar natural environment and noise impacts. The alternatives that would lower the existing roadway profiles (Alternatives 1B and 2B) would only be able to provide a marginal enhancement to the geometric, with a higher cost and more property affected with the surrounding area. The collision analysis that was undertaken as part of this study also confirmed that the steep slope does not contribute to a collision problem or safety concern in this area. Given the above, lowering the existing roadway profile alternatives (Alternative 1B and 2B) were not recommended as preferred alternative.

By comparing Alternative 1A and 2A, the net effects are very similar with the exception Alternative 2A would require higher construction costs, therefore, Alternative 2A was less preferred than 1A. Alternative 1A was preferred and was selected as the Technically-Preferred Alternative as summarized in Exhibit 21: Summary of Design Alternative Evaluation.

For the north section, as noted in Section 5.2.1, three widening alternatives were included in the evaluation:

Alternative 1 – Widening on both sides and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 3 – Widening to the east side and maintaining the existing roadway profile;

Alternative 4 – Widening to the east side and maintaining the existing roadway profile.

All alternatives would have similar natural environment and noise impacts. Alternative 3 would have a higher property impact with a higher construction cost. Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 would have the same net effect with the exception that Alternative 4 would result in higher construction costs. Therefore, Alternative 4 was less preferred than 1 and that Alternative 1 was preferred and was selected as the Technically-Preferred Alternative as noted in the following evaluation chart.

Exhibit 22 provides a summary of the evaluation. Alternative 1A for the south section and 1 for the north section were identified as the Technically Preferred Alternatives.

I B I G R O U P




Page 46

Exhibit 21: Summary of Design Alternative Evaluation

Rossland Road Kenneth Hobbs Avenue

Dryden Boulevard

Clear Spring Road

McCartney Avenue

Taunton Road

Timber Mill Avenue

Joy Thompson Road

WhitburnStreet

James Rowe Boulevard

Woodlands Avenue

Alternative 1B – widen on both sides and lower the roadway profile

Alternative 1 – widen on both sides and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 1A – widen on both sides and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 2B – widen on the west side and lower the roadway profile

Alternative 2A – widen on the west side and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 4 – widen on the west side and maintain existing roadway profile

Alternative 3 – widen on the east side and maintain existing roadway profile

SOUTH SECTION NORTH SECTIONCENTRE SECTION

I B I G R O U P




Page 47

Exhibit 22 Alternatives Evaluation

I B I G R O U P




Page 48

Exhibit 22 Alternative Evaluation (cont.)

I B I G R O U P




Page 49

5.4 Agencies Review

5 .4 .1 TOWN OF WHITBY

During of the course of the study, meetings with the Town of Whitby indicated that they support the proposed facility enhancements and the Technically Preferred Alternatives.

5 .4 .2 DURHAM TRANSIT

A meeting with Durham Transit and the Traffic Engineering Division was held after the second Public Information Centres to review the proposed design. The meetings concluded that the proposed far side bus bays would be required for the ideal condition at each intersection. As a temporary improvement, bus pads are being proposed to provide better access for transit riders. The details of the bus stop location will be described in Section 6.

I B I G R O U P




Page 50

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

Following the evaluation process to select the Technically Preferred Alternative, a preliminary design based on these alternatives was completed, as shown on the preliminary design plans in Appendix H. This chapter describes the project recommendations for major elements of this preliminary design, including project construction staging, costs, and environmental impacts. The mitigation measures with the associated commitment from the Region of Durham are described in Section 7.

The total length of the reconstruction of Brock Street is approximate 2.1 km. The recommended undertaking for this project includes widening Brock Street on both sides on the existing centreline, generally maintaining the existing roadway profile to an urban cross-section with:

2 lanes in each direction;

5m median to provide either a left turn lane, a two-way left turn lane, or a raised island;

Traffic operational improvements at intersections (Section 6.4);

Continuous sidewalks on both sides throughout the corridor;

Boulevard grading to provide streetscaping and landscaping opportunities;

Protection of existing mature trees;

Construct sideroads and entrances to Regional standards;

New drainage and stormwater management system;

New roadway illumination throughout the corridor;

Utility relocation;

Reconstructed and improved pavement conditions;

Correction of minor geometric deficiencies;

Provisions for improved transit facilities throughout the corridor (i.e., bus bays, pads, amenities).

6.1 Design Criteria

Currently Brock Street has a posted speed of 60 km/h. The posted speed is proposed to remain the same. The existing geometric conditions and the associated Design Criteria for Brock Street between Rossland Road and Taunton Road are included in Exhibit 23. The Design Criteria follows Transportation Association Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads.

Although sections of the road experience high traffic volumes in an urban setting, exceeding the TAC minimum standard of a 5% grade was selected specifically at the Brock Street/Rossland Road intersection because the intersection has not experienced a collision history issue, and property access and cost is an issue in this intersection area (see Section 6.3).

6.2 Typical Cross Section

Exhibit 24 includes the proposed typical cross-sections for the reconstruction of Brock Street. The proposed cross-section highlights:

4 lanes (2 in each direction), with a 5.0 m median;

urban cross-section – i.e. curb and gutter with storm sewers; and

continuous sidewalks on both sides.

I B I G R O U P




Page 51

Exhibit 23: Design Criteria

Design Speed = 80 km/h

Posted Speed = 60 km/h

EXISTING CONDITIONS

TAC DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

REFERENCE

(TAC)

REGION OF DURHAM DESIGN

STANDARDS

Roadway Classification

RAU 80 UAU 80 UAU 80 Table 1.3.2.1

(Page 1.3.2.1) UAU 80

Minimum Stopping Sight Distance

140 m 140 m 140 m Table 1.2.5.4

(Page 1.2.5.3) 140 m

Equivalent Minimum ‘K’ Factor

Crest – 36

Sag – 16

Crest – 36

Sag – 16

Crest – 36

Sag – 16

Table 2.1.3.2 & .4

(Page 2.1.3.6

& .8)

Crest – 36

Sag – 16

Maximum Grade 6% 7% 6.1% (A)

5.0 % (B)

Table 2.1.3.1

(Page 2.1.3.2) 8.0 %

Minimum Grade 0.11% 0.50% 0.50% Section 2.1.3.2

(Page 2.1.3.3) 0.50%

Minimum Radius 873 m 2130 m (NC)

400 m (RC) 873 m

Table 2.1.2.8

(Page 2.1.2.18)

TAC –

2130 (NC)

400 m (RC)

Number of Vehicle Lanes

2 N/A 4 N/A N/A

Vehicle Lane Width

3.75 m 3.7 m 3.5 – 3.7 m Table 2.2.2.3

(Page 2.2.2.2) 3.5 M

Two Way Left Turn Lane Width

3.0 m 4.0 – 5.0 m 5.0 m Section 3.2.6.2

(Page 3.2.6.3) 4.0 – 5.0 m

Shoulder Width 3.0 m partially

paved N/A N/A - N/A

Sidewalk Width 1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m Section 2.2.6.5

(Page 2.2.6.5) -

Basic Right-of-Way

30 to 45 m n/a 30 to 45 m N/A 30 > 36 m

I B I G R O U P




Page 52

Exhibit 24: Typical Cross-Sections

I B I G R O U P




Page 53

6.3 Alignment and Grade

The horizontal alignment of Brock Street would generally remain the same with the exception of the section immediately north of Rossland Road. A 2130 m curve is proposed to provide a better tie in with the existing Rossland Road intersection with the provision of normal crown. Along the alignment, another two curves with both 973 m radius from south to north are located near the Taunton Road intersection. The vertical alignment is designed to closely match the existing pavement structure to minimize cost and property impacts. The maximum grade within the study area is 6.1 % which is located immediately north of the Rossland Road intersection. The grades of the Brock Street are generally ranged from 0.1% to 2.7%. It should be noted that the proposed maximum grade of the road is between 5.0% and 6.1%. The Brock Street grade immediately north of Rossland Road was reviewed to determine if the existing significant 6% grade could be reduced. A 5% grade was possible, but would result in some major property impacts and associated acquisition costs. Since the collision history at the Brock Street/Rossland Road intersection does not support any need to improve the grade, this option was not carried forward in this EA. Also, this EA concluded that any future work at the Brock Street/Rossland Road intersection would be deferred and included in a future Rossland Road EA.

6.4 Intersections

Within the study area, there are seven intersections that will be improved. Each intersection would be designed to match with the reconstruction of the Brock Street profile.

Intersection Proposed Improvements

Rossland Road Traffic Island for SB to Eastbound EB Provide a SB RTL and Westbound WB RTL Proposed shift of Rossland/Brock intersection north to

improve E-W alignment (protect for this option while minimizing any throw-away costs)

Kenneth Hobbs Avenue / McCartney Avenue

Provision a NBRTL, SB and NB left turn lanes

Dryden Boulevard / James Rowe Drive

Provision a NBRTL, SB and NB LTLs Removal of traffic island on James Rowe Drive

Clear Spring Road Provision a NBRTL and a 5m median for vehicle turning on/off to Brock Street

Woodlands Avenue / Whitburn Street

Provision a NB and SB RTLs, SB and NB LTLs Removal of traffic island on Woodlands Avenue

Joy Thompson Avenue / Timber Mill Avenue

Provision a NB and SB RTLs, SB and NB LTLs

Taunton Road Traffic Island for NB to EB and WB to NB Traffic Note: NB = Northbound WB = Westbound, RTL = Right Turn Lane SB = Southbound EB = Eastbound, LTL = Left Turn Lane

I B I G R O U P




Page 54

6.5 Median

A 5.0 m wide raised median is proposed to provide a streetscaping opportunity along Brock Street, with the exception that left turn lanes are required for either commercial driveway access or at the intersections. Depressed medians are proposed for individual abutting residents to access their properties.

6.6 Provision for Pedestrians / Cyclists

Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Brock Street. Some of the sidewalks may require reconstruction due to the widening. Being a major arterial and transit corridor, the Region and the Town have not identified the need for Brock Street to include bikeway facilities as part of cycling plans, for example with the use of on-street bike lanes. However, provision of an off-road multi-use pathway has been considered during the EA study. The sidewalk has been set back along the existing Brock Street property line so that a multi-use pathway can be provided. The final plan of a multi-use pathway should be confirmed with the Town of Whitby during the detailed design phase.

6.7 Access

All driveway accesses, including both residential and commercial, will be designed to Regional standards with an appropriate turning radius. As noted in Section 6.5, depressed medians are proposed in order to provide full-turning movements for individual fronting residential driveways, with the exception of the property located in the northwest quadrant of James Rowe Drive. That property currently has a direct access from all directions from/to Brock Street and just 20 m north of the James Rowe Road. Due to the close proximity to the intersection, safety concerns would arise if a full turning movement access remained in place. A median would be required for traffic signals which would limit driving to a right-in/right-out access.

Minor entrance modifications (i.e., grade change) would be required for two locations due to the widening. The first access is located at the commercial plaza access 65 m south of SW quadrant of Brock/MacCartney intersection. The second access is located 110 m north of Clear Spring Road on the west side of Brock Street

The Woodycrest Motel driveway on the east side of Brock Street is being relocated southward as part of the Brock Street reconstruction based on a previous site plan agreement made with the property owner.

6.8 Illumination

The existing east and west side conventional illumination will continue along Brock Street. The salvageability of the existing illumination along Brock Street will be determined during the detail design phase. Illumination will be as per Region of Durham standards.

6.9 Drainage / Stormwater Management

The Brock Street EA study area is located in an urbanized corridor. A stormwater management analysis of the study area has been completed and is documented in the Stormwater Management Report provided in Appendix D. The analysis assessed existing conditions in the study area (see Section 4.3.5), identified increases in peak flows that area expected to occur with the proposed development in the study area and recommended measures to deal with the projected flows. The conclusions and recommendations of that study are summarized as follows.

I B I G R O U P




Page 55

6 .9 .1 STORMWATER QUANTITY

The preferred design alternative (i.e., widening of Brock Street to four lanes) will result in increased runoff volumes due to an increase in imperviousness and conversion of ditch drainage to storm sewers. Existing and proposed areas are summarized below.

Existing and Proposed Areas – Brock Street

Total Area (m2) Impervious Area (m2) Imperviousness (%)

Existing 80,900 30,750 38

Proposed 80,900 38,830 48

Increase - 8,080 10

Existing and Proposed Areas – North and South Areas

Catchment Total Area

(ha) Imperviousness

(%)

Existing Conditions

South-Draining

Area 101 – Draining to Rossland Road 3.211 38

Area 102 – Draining to Clear Spring Road 0.749 38

North-Draining

Area 103 – Draining to Whitburn Street 0.944 38

Area 104 – Draining to Timber Mill Avenue 3.186 38

Proposed Conditions

South-Draining

Area 101 & 102 – Draining to Rossland Road 3.960 48

North-Draining

Area 103 & 104 – Draining to Timber Mill Avenue 4.130 48

As shown in the tables, the increase in imperviousness is from 38 percent to 48 percent, which will result in an increase in runoff peak flow rates and volumes. When the road section is constructed as an urban cross-section, it is assumed that drainage from area 102 will be diverted south in the new Brock Street storm sewer. Similarly, it is assumed that drainage from area 103 will be diverted north in the new Brock Street storm sewer.

I B I G R O U P




Page 56

Peak flows toward the north and south are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent based on increased imperviousness and diversion of drainage areas. Since the adjacent lands to Brock Street are privately owned and generally developed, limited space exists for stormwater management ponding areas to control runoff. As such, stormwater quantity control within the Brock Street right-of-way is limited to storage within oversized storm sewer pipes. The pipe capacity of the receiving storm sewers and the need for on-site storage should be confirmed during the detailed design stage. Based on the preliminary analysis, the receiving storm sewers have the capacity to convey the 10 year peak flows from Brock Street under proposed conditions.

6 .9 .2 STORMWATER QUALITY

The quality of stormwater on a roadway is, in part, a function of the area of asphalt. The increase in asphalt area proposed by the widening is approximately 25 percent. As such, water quality will likely degrade to some degree.

Oil/grit separator (OGS) units could be located at the outlets of the Brock Street storm sewer system, to ensure that treatment is provided for the entire Brock Street right-of-way. Watercourses within the Lynde Creek and Pringle Creek Watersheds have been identified as supporting coldwater species.

While using OGS units would treat stormwater discharging from Brock Street, it would then mix with untreated stormwater from adjacent areas. Accordingly, a better solution would be to create or enhance a centralized stormwater management facility or OGS unit(s) to treat runoff from a larger area prior to discharge to downstream watercourses.

The Town of Whitby Stormwater Quality and Erosion Control Enhancement Study Project Report identifies several potential locations for stormwater quantity and quality facilities. For the north-draining portion discharging to the Timber Mill Avenue storm sewer, runoff would continue to discharge to an existing water quality pond (facility # PD34-0). For the south-draining area, runoff would ultimately discharge to a tributary of Pringle Creek at Owen Court approximately 1000m south of Rossland Road.

The capacity of the existing PD34-0 facility should be investigated at the detailed design stage to determine if sufficient volume is available to treat the additional impervious area from the Brock Street widening, and if modifications should be made. For the south-draining area, the Town should investigate the appropriate location for a water quality facility to service the entire drainage area discharging to tributary of Pringle Creek. (There is also the future storm pond at Burns and Garden Street – see Town’s letter of December 14, 2009).

Based on discussions between the Region of Durham and the Town of Whitby, an informal agreement has been made for a cash-in-lieu payment for the Brock Street area draining to external stormwater management facilities.

In conclusion, based on the preferred design alternative to improve this road section, the proposed construction will result in an increase in impervious area and potential impacts on stormwater quality. To address this in the detailed design, the following conclusions and recommendations are made in the Drainage/Stormwater Management Study report included in Appendix D: Given space limitations within the project limits, stormwater quantity control ponds or


I B I G R O U P




Page 57

Peak flows are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent based on increased impervious areas and potential diversion of drainage areas toward the proposed Brock Street storm sewer;

On-site water quantity control could potentially be provided in oversized storm sewer pipes and orifice controls. Based on the preliminary analysis, the receiving storm sewer pipes have the capacity to convey the proposed conditions 10 year peak flow from Brock Street. As part of the final design, a detailed assessment of receiving pipe capacity should be completed. If capacity is not available, pipe storage and orifice control could be considered to control flows to existing levels;

Based on land use constraints, stormwater management would require the use of end-of-pipe controls such as oil grit separators for stormwater quality control. However, it is recommended that centralized facilities downstream of the project limits would be more effective;

The capacity of the existing Lynde Creek stormwater management facility PD34-0 west of Brock Street should be investigated to determine if sufficient capacity is available to provide stormwater quantity and quality control for the road expansion. If capacity is limited, an enhancement or expansion of the facilities should be considered;

A cash-in-lieu agreement between the Region and Town has been informally agreed to, and will be implemented by the Town.

6.10 Geotechnical and Pavement

Preliminary geotechnical recommendations were provided by AMEC as part of this study in their report included in Appendix E. Based on the traffic loading and soil conditions, the minimum new pavement structure for widening Brock Street to use in the detailed design should be as follows:

HL3 (or Superpave 12.5 mm) – 40 mm;

HL8 ( or Superpave 19 mm) – 100 mm (2lifts);

Granular A Base – 150 mm;

Granular B Subbase – 600 mm.

The Region typical does not use Superpave, HL3 (except for driveways) or HL8. Rather, experience has proven HL1 and HDBC to be superior for Regional roads.

6.11 Landscaping

A landscaping plan for the Brock Street project limits will be prepared in the detail design phase with involvement and consent from the Town of Whitby. The objective of the landscaping plan will be to provide a unified streetscape within the project limits. Any special landscaping or streetscaping features requested by the Town and beyond the scope of the Region’s standard landscaping provisions (i.e. gateway features) will be the Town’s responsibility.

6.12 Utilities

Utility relocation plans or modifications within the study area will be finalized at the detailed design stage based on the information provided by the utility companies and the Region of Durham.

A number of Whitby Hydro poles will require relocation due to the Brock Street widening, intersection improvements and/or the amount of new fill placed over the bases of poles. These

I B I G R O U P




Page 58

poles will be relocated to the boulevard area. The existing aerial equipment and lines (i.e. Bell and Rogers) will require relocation with the pole as well.

Luminaries along Brock Street will require redesign or adjustments to the pole and arm heights.

6.13 Right-of-Way and Property Requirement

The existing road right-of-way for the Brock Street project limits will remain unchanged. A permanent easement will be required for drainage and grading purposes. Individual property owners will be contacted during the detailed design stage regarding any temporary property impacts during construction, or construction easement requirements.

6.14 Construction Staging

Assuming that reconstruction and widening of Brock Street will be undertaken in a single contract, construction staging will likely proceed as follows:

1. Advance utility relocation;

2. Initial stage of shifting the traffic to the west side, including temporary works where required (i.e. traffic signal, temporary paving of shoulders, environmental protection requirements), whereby construction on the east side would proceed;

3. Shifting both vehicular and pedestrian traffic to one side of the road, and proceed with the construction on the other side;

4. Completion of the remaining works such as the surface course, and landscaping and boulevard treatments would likely be completed in the following year; and

5. Construction staging will be coordinated with other area construction projects, including the Garden Street widening between Taunton Road and Dryden Boulevard and the Thickson Road widening.

6.15 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

The preliminary construction cost associated with the proposed reconstruction and widening of Brock Street as reflected in the preferred preliminary design drawings is $8,170,357. A detailed cost estimate is available under separate cover. An allowance for minor items and contingencies has been included plus 15% for engineering.

6.16 Summary of Comments

During the course of this EA study, comments were received from agencies, stakeholders and the public at the PICs and direct email/mail to the Regional staff. Exhibit 25 provides a summary of comments and the associated responses.

I B I G R O U P




Page 59

Exhibit 25: Summary of Comments and Responses

Comments Received Response Noted that there was a commitment to provide a full movement access to Brock Street for the property located at the southeast quadrant of Brock / Taunton intersection. Would like to arrange a meeting with the Region.

Comment noted and addressed.

Concerned that the location of the sidewalk is close to existing property line and that pedestrians may throw litter into their yard.

The sidewalk location was adjusted to the exiting property line in order to provide sufficient room for the provision of boulevard and multi-use pathway. Multi-use pathway to provide residents with an alternative mode of travel which is encouraged by the Transportation Master Plan.

Noted that median option is not very attractive unless it is being landscaped.

Landscaping plan will be prepared as part of the detailed design where this will be considered.

Concerned with access to Joy Thompson Avenue and dust during construction.

Dust management will be part of the Detailed Design phase.

Interested in the results of the noise evaluation, questioned how the traffic noise level will be increased and if so, how to mitigate.

A detailed noise analysis was undertaken as part of this study (see Appendix F). Noise mitigation measures are not required according to the MOE/MTO noise criteria.

Questioned the bike lane provision in the study area as it would bring the sidewalk back to fence line.

The sidewalk location was adjusted to the exiting property line in order to provide sufficient room for the provision of boulevard and multi-use pathway. Multi-use pathway to provide residents with an alternative mode of travel which is encouraged by the Transportation Master Plan.

Requested a drawing showing the NE quadrant of Brock / Taunton.

Drawing provided on March 27, 2008.

Acknowledged receipt of the drawing and to thank Region for replying to request.

Comment noted.

Appreciated the bus pad condition at the NE quadrant of Brock / Taunton.

Comment noted.

In support of Brock Street Widening. Comment noted. Suggest improving the appearance of the neighbourhood.

Comment noted. The appearance will be improved with the widening of Brock Street. Median and appropriate streetscaping will be provided with an effective landscaping plan.

Suggestion to construct paved bus platform areas.

Paved bus platform has been proposed as part of this EA study.

Suggest relocating driveway access from Brock Street to James Rowe Drive.

Comment noted.

Ingress and egress from Clear Spring Road to Brock Street are difficult. Brock Street northbound left turn lane is unsafe at Clear Spring Road.

A 5.0 m median is proposed in this study. The median will provide a refuge place for vehicles to turn to Clear Spring Road.

Clear Spring Road should be clearly signed. Comment noted. This comment will forward to Traffic Operation.

After the Town of Whitby constructed the sidewalk at Clear Spring Road area, garbage accumulated in the culvert during heavy rainfall. Excess water is washed in front of the property.

A detailed drainage analysis was undertaken as part of this study and drainage improvements are planned as part of the road reconstruction.

Garbage fills ditches and causes drainage issues. Will forward comment to the Region of Durham Waste Management Department.

I B I G R O U P




Page 60

Suggest providing a continuous sidewalk on the east side of Brock Street.

Comment noted. Sidewalk enhancement will be investigated in the detailed design phase of the study.

Suggest providing a raised median for pedestrian crossing at Joy Thompson Avenue/Timber Mill Avenue intersection. Suggest constructing a roundabout at Joy Thompson Avenue if traffic signal cannot be provided at this location.

Median options will be considered in the detailed design phase of the study. Intersection treatment for this intersection will be investigated in the next phase of the study.

Do not want to have raised median south of the intersection of Joy Thompson Avenue/Timber Mill Avenue.

Median options will be considered in the detailed design phase of the study.

Would like to have raised median south of McCartney Avenue/Kenneth Hobbs Avenue intersection.

Median options will be considered in the detailed design phase of the study.

Suggest providing traffic signals at McCartney Avenue/Kenneth Hobbs Avenue intersection.

Traffic signal analysis will be undertaken as part of the detailed design phase to determine warrant for additional signals.

Town of Whitby asked if collision data for the Brock Street/Taunton Road and Brock Street/Rossland Road will be included in the final ESR.

No, the Rossland Road intersection will be the subject of a further Environmental Assessment, at which time collision data will be included, and the Taunton Road intersection has already been rebuilt.

Town of Whitby noted that the undesirable vertical and horizontal alignment of the Brock Street/Rossland Road intersection has not been considered in this EA.

This EA addresses this intersection conceptually. More detailed assessments will be the subject of a future Rossland Road EA.

Town of Whitby noted that the median islands adjacent to the Shoppers Drug Mart plaza do not appear to provide full ability for left turns out of the plaza.

Designs in the ESR are prepared at a functional level of detail, and will be finalized at the detailed design stage.

Town of Whitby asked why some transit stops are not located on the far side of intersections.

Where transit stops are located on the near side of an intersection, it is because that is either the existing location, or there is no space on the far side to locate a stop. These locations will be finalized in the detailed design stage.

Town of Whitby questioned the appropriateness of installing channelized intersections in combination with facilitating pedestrian traffic.

The Region of Durham supports the use of channelized intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and enhance pedestrian safety.

I B I G R O U P




Page 61

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION COMMITMENTS

7.1 Land Use

The proposed undertaking supports the land uses policies of the Regional Official Plan and Town of Whitby Official Plan.

7.2 Natural Environment

7.2 .1 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

The study area is located in the watersheds of Lynde Creek and Pringle Creek. As mentioned above, tributaries of these creeks were likely present historically within the study area; however, no evidence of any watercourses was detected during field investigations. As a result, there are no concerns related to fish and aquatic ecosystems.

7 .2 .2 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Reconstruction and widening of Brock Street between Rossland Road and Taunton Road has the potential to result in impacts related to the displacement of or disturbance to vegetation and vegetation communities. The significance of this disturbance is what is of relevance. Displacement of Vegetation Communities Three vegetation communities were identified in the study area. Two areas, a cultural meadow (CUM1-1) and a cultural thicket (CUT1) are located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Brock Street and Taunton Road. Another cultural thicket is located on the northeast corner near the intersection of Brock Street and Rossland Road was identified. These types of vegetation communities provide habitat for birds and small mammals. Impacts resulting from loss of vegetation at these locations are considered to be of a minor nature only as resident avian and mammalian species in the area are opportunistic and could easily relocate to available habitat.

It should also be noted that road improvements to Brock Street at these locations have already been implemented, consequently additional encroachment on the CUM1-1 and CUT1 vegetation communities is highly unlikely. Disturbance to Vegetation The majority of the vegetation located adjacent to Brock Street is characteristic of typical roadside ditches. Plant species that are present are predominantly non-native, considered invasive and are generally referred to as weeds. The ditches are boarded by manicured lawn and pedestrian walkways. A number of typical roadside tree plantings are also present on the existing road allowance.

The new road cross section that will be required for Brock Street reconstruction will result in some infilling and ditch realignment, reduction in width of the adjacent manicured lawn area and relocation roadside tree plantings. Impacts resulting from this disturbance are regarded as negligible. Nonetheless, prior to construction, protective fencing should be placed adjacent to the existing sidewalk to minimize any disturbance to property owners adjacent to the construction area.

I B I G R O U P




Page 62

Displacement of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Vegetation or Significant Vegetation Communities No plant species considered rare, threatened or endangered were identified in the project area. Natural or significant vegetation communities are also absent.

In conclusion, impacts on existing vegetation resulting from road reconstruction can be mitigated through the following measures:

Reduce grading footprint where possible through slope modifications and retaining walls to preserve mature and noteworthy trees;

Compensate for loss of vegetation, if impacts cannot be avoided;

New plantings and landscape treatments to be developed as part of the landscape plan during detail design; and

Install tree protection barriers during construction.

7 .2 .3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Widening and improvements to Brock Street have the potential to result in the displacement of and disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Effects on wildlife related to these improvements could include:

Displacement of wildlife and wildlife habitat;

Barrier effects on wildlife passage;

Wildlife/vehicle conflicts;

Disturbance to wildlife from noise, light and visual intrusion; and

Displacement of rare, threatened or endangered wildlife and significant wildlife habitat.

Brock Street widening and improvements will be constructed within and extending beyond the existing right-of-way. The areas potentially impacted by the works described above consist entirely of an urbanized environment. The associated, previously modified/disturbed terrestrial wildlife habitat has minimal habitat structure, low habitat diversity and limited habitat potential. Consequently, widening and reconstruction of Brock Street will have no significant effect on wildlife and habitat utilized by wildlife. Barrier Effects on Wildlife Passage No new migratory barriers to wildlife will be created as a result of road widening and reconstruction. The existing barrier posed by Brock Street will be greater due to widening. Given the urban nature of the study area, the widening and reconstruction will have no significant impact on wildlife passage. Wildlife/Vehicle Conflicts The widening of Brock Street will increase the width of the traveled surface resulting in an increased risk of mortality for wildlife that elects to cross the road. While this increase in width of Brock Street will increase exposure of wildlife to vehicle conflicts, the potential increase in wildlife mortality above existing conditions is considered minor.

I B I G R O U P




Page 63

Disturbance to Wildlife from Noise, Light and Visual Intrusion Noise, light and visual intrusion may alter wildlife activities and patterns. In urban settings such as the study area, wildlife has become acclimatized to urban conditions and only those species that are tolerant of human activities remain. Given that existing wildlife in the study area are already acclimatized to the presence of Brock Street, the tolerance of the wildlife assemblage to human activities and the limited zone of influence of the proposed widening, disturbance to wildlife from noise, light and visual intrusion will have no significant adverse effects. Displacement of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Wildlife or Significant Wildlife Habitat No rare, threatened or endangered wildlife or significant wildlife habitat was documented within the study area along Brock Street.

7.3 Soil

The soils within the study area are classified as Darlington loam and Newcastle loam characterized as having good drainage. Soil disturbance along the section Brock Street between Rossland Road and Taunton Road will be minimal as the existing grade associated with the present alignment will not be significantly altered to meet the required upgrading necessary along this section. Excavation and cut/fill operations will be necessary; however impacts resulting from these operations will be minimal and short term in a worst case scenario. Nonetheless, site specific mitigation measures will be implemented prior to and during the construction phase. These control measures will include: Limiting the geographical extent and duration that soils are exposed to the elements

Implementing standard erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS)577 including: straw bale and/or rock flow checks placed at regular intervals in ditches down gradient from areas of soil disturbance; silt fence placed along the margins of areas of soil disturbance; applying conventional seed and mulch and/or erosion control blanket in areas of soil disturbance to provide adequate slope protection and long term slope stabilization; and,

Managing surface water outside of work areas to prevent water from coming in contact with exposed soils.

Monitoring of these imitative control measures during and after construction will be implemented to ensure their effectiveness. These environmental measures will greatly reduce/minimize adverse environmental impacts.

7.4 Drainage and Stormwater Management

The Brock Street EA project limits are located in an urbanized corridor. Based on the preferred alternative, the proposed construction will result in an increase in impervious area with potential impacts on stormwater quality. The following conclusions and recommendations are provided:

Given space limitations within the project limits, stormwater quantity control facilities or


Based on land use constraints, stormwater management would require the use of end-of pipe controls such as oil grit separators for stormwater quality control. However, it is recommended that a centralized facility would be more effective;

The capacity of the existing Lynde Creek stormwater management facilities north of Brock Street should be investigated to determine if sufficient capacity is available to provide

I B I G R O U P




Page 64

stormwater quantity and quality control for the road expansion. If capacity is limited, an enhancement or expansion of the facilities should be considered;

The Brock Street storm sewers should be sized to collect the minor storm, and overland flow routes should be designed to convey overland storms greater than the minor storm. Existing drainage issues on private property should be considered in the final design; and

The Region of Durham has reached an agreement with the Town of Whitby, in principle, to provide cash-on-lieu of installing stormwater quality units (oil grit separators). The Region also supports the preparation of a comprehensive study to identify downstream stormwater management facilities to enhance, create or incorporate stormwater management measures for the Brock Street study area.

7.5 Noise

A noise analysis was carried out for the reconstruction of Brock Street as part of the EA process, included in Appendix G, to determine noise impacts. In summary, the projected noise level change as a result of the improvements are predicted to experience a less than 5 dBA increase in noise levels and therefore, the consideration of noise mitigation is not required in according to MTO/MOE Criteria. Further details of the noise analysis are provided in Appendix G.

7.6 Air Quality

Road construction activities will create dust that may be an irritant to local residents and motorists. Fumes and odours may also be created by machinery working along the site. These fumes may degrade air quality in the immediate vicinity of the work site. Dust generated during the construction period will be controlled by the application of dust suppressants. Odour and fume impacts will be minimized by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained and that all pollution control devices on the equipment are in good working order.

7.7 Groundwater Commitments

No impacts are anticipated to occur to the groundwater chemistry of the local groundwater regime provided that construction does not occur within or adjacent to any discharge or recharge area. Although no groundwater seepage areas were noted in the study area, if during project construction a seepage area is identified, work within this area will only occur during mid to late summer when water table levels are depressed. This timing will minimize potential disruption or contamination of surface groundwater regimes.

If proposed construction activities are to involve dewatering in excess of 50,000 litres per day, a Permit To Take Water must be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment. Any subsequent discharge of water should be planned to avoid adverse effects on receiving waters and may require a Certificate of Approval.

7.8 Cultural Environment

7 .8 .1 BUILT HERITAGE

Road projects can have a variety of impacts upon built heritage features and cultural landscapes. These include the loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the

I B I G R O U P




Page 65

disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting.

Cultural heritage resources may also be directly affected where the study routes intersect adjoining road rights-of-way that form roadscapes (these are landscapes that are historically associated with the original township surveys, agricultural settlement and transportation). Typically these adjoining roadscapes are two lane paved surfaces with gravel shoulders, flanked by grassed ditches, fences and/or tree lines. Any adverse effects are usually limited to intersection improvements such as vegetation removal for sight lines and daylight triangles, and installing concrete curbs and portions of sidewalks.

Since a number of built heritage features were identified in the heritage study (Appendix F and see Section 4.7.1), it is recommended that:

Any proposed road projects and preferred alternative designs within the study area should be suitably planned in a manner that avoids any identified above ground cultural heritage resources;

Where any identified above ground cultural heritage resources will be lost or displaced, further research should be undertaken to identify the specific heritage significance of the affected cultural heritage resource, and appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted such as detailed recording where appropriate. In this regard, provincial guidelines should be consulted for advice and further heritage assessment work should be undertaken as necessary;

Encroachment of lands close to built heritage features and cultural landscape units should be avoided wherever possible;

Wherever possible, landscaping with historic plant materials for berms or vegetative screens is recommended, and fence rows and hedge rows should be preserved where extant; and

Various route alternatives should be assessed by a professional heritage consultant, when available, to evaluate levels of impact upon identified built heritage features and cultural landscape units located in the study area.

7 .8 .2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL

A Stage 2 archaeological assessment should be conducted in selected portions of the study corridor determined to have archaeological site potential that will be impacted by the proposed undertaking (Appendix F - Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report Figure 3: green highlighted areas), in accordance with the Ministry of Culture’s Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists, final draft 2006). This work is required in order to identify any archaeological remains in advance of proposed construction disturbance; The above recommendation is subject to Ministry of Culture approval, and it is an offence to alter any archaeological site without Ministry of Culture concurrence. No grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance of an archaeological site are permitted until notice of Ministry of Culture approval has been received. The following Ministry of Culture conditions also apply:

Should deeply buried archaeological remains be found during construction activities, the Heritage Operations Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Culture should be notified immediately;

I B I G R O U P




Page 66

In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact both the Ontario Ministry of Culture and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Government Services at 416-326-8404 or toll-free at 1-800-889-9768.

7.9 Construction Noise

Construction noise management will adhere to the Town of Whitby by-laws. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained.

7.10 Other Construction Commitments

Prepare the Municipal Consent for utilities, including circulation of the contract drawings, through the Utilities Coordinating Committee;

Design bus stop locations with concrete landing pads and space for passenger amenities in consultation with Durham Transit;

Stage construction to minimize traffic delays and enhance transportation safety;

Standard construction safety practices to be undertaken.

7.11 Monitoring

A construction monitoring program is to be implemented to ensure compliance with the contract requirements regarding construction practices specified for the project, and to assess the overall performance and effectiveness of the required environment construction practices in the field. It Is recommended that Durham Region conduct fulltime construction supervision so as to carry out inspection and monitoring services during construction of the project. Provincial and Regional standards and procedures will be used to ensure that this project is constructed as specified in the contract documents with monitoring in accordance with normal inspection practices with the Region.

Documents

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED … · 2011-12-09 · Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to address the capacity and traffic operation deficiencies