uptown west neighbourhood transportation studycity of waterloo uptown west neighbourhood...

Uptown west neighboUrhood transportation stUdyFinal Report

Project No. TR12-0697

CoLe engineering groUp Ltd.

head oFFice

70 Valleywood drive

Markham, oN caNada L3R 4T5

t. 905.940.6161 | 416.987.6161

F. 905.940.2064 | www.coleengineering.ca

GTa WeST oFFice

150 courtneypark drive West, Unit c100,

Mississauga, oN caNada L5W 1Y6

T. 905.364.6161

F. 905.364.6162

JUNe 2014

City of Waterloo Uptown West Neighbourhood Transportation Study Final Report

TR12-0697 (June 2014) i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

The City of Waterloo initiated a study that would investigate measures to be implemented in the Uptown West neighbourhood to address various transportation‐related concerns shared by some residents. Some key issues involved potential traffic infiltration, implications of installing new sidewalks, trail connectivity, and potential reclassification of some neighbourhood streets as presented in the 2011 approved Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The neighbourhood is bounded by three Regional roads, including Westmount Road to the west, Erb Street to the north, King Street to the east, and the City’s municipal boundary with Kitchener to the south. The Study Team consisted of City staff, and Cole Engineering and GLPi, who were retained to undertake this neighbourhood study, which was intended to build upon the Residential Uptown Traffic Study (RUTS), completed in 2003. The overall study objective is as follows: “To preserve the neighbourhood streets against potential traffic infiltration and safety issues due to growth, whilst recognizing the City’s strategic plans and approved policies on transportation.” The study involved the following tasks: Data Collection and Review Concept Development Design Development • Background information • Transportation data • Field observations

• Evaluation criteria• Alternative solutions and costs

• Evaluate alternatives• Review street classifications • Provide recommendations

Problem/Opportunity Assessment

After a comprehensive review of existing conditions and traffic operations, as well as consideration of anticipated growth and implementation of LRT, the Study Team identified a number of problems and opportunities for the transportation network within and around the study area, as listed below: Problems Opportunities• Development growth • Residential low‐rise character of the neighbourhood

• Physical constraints - Short block lengths - Closely spaced intersections

• Arterial road network under jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo

• Consider how other neighbourhoods adjusted to / addressed similar issues

• Increase pedestrian and cyclist traffic within and through the neighbourhood to access local and adjacent land use destinations

• Increase the safety of all users, especially the elderly, school children, parents with young children, and persons with disabilities


TR12-0697 (June 2014) ii

Work Undertaken

The study involved a comprehensive review of existing transportation conditions within the neighbourhood, including traffic volumes, speeds and collisions. It was concluded there was no evident traffic infiltration issue in the neighbourhood. A few isolated areas of speeding were observed on Dunbar Road and William Street, and the City intersection of Park / Allen was noted as the highest collision location. In general, the neighbourhood functions well. A walkability audit was undertaken which concluded that, in general, most streets in Uptown West can accommodate cyclists and pedestrians satisfactorily, however, some missing sidewalk connections were observed along a few roads, making it difficult and unsafe for pedestrians. The City plans to develop a sidewalk prioritization program to prioritize City‐wide sidewalk needs and will look to provide sidewalks where there are missing connections based on City‐wide priorities. A number of alternative scenarios were developed and refined with input from the Public Task Force, public, Technical Agencies Committee, and City staff. The refined scenarios were then evaluated by Cole Engineering by considering the previously established evaluation criteria. A review of road classifications of three roads within the study area was also undertaken. A comprehensive consultation process was followed for this study, which included: • Regular meetings with the Public Task Force between January 2013 and June 2014 • Three study newsletters were distributed to residents of the neighbourhood (July 2013, September 2013, and February 2014)

• Two meetings with the Technical Agencies Committee (October 2013 and March 2014) • Two meetings with residents of the neighbourhood (October 2013 and May 2014) Street Classifications Review

Following the completion of the City’s TMP, the classifications of three roads within the Uptown West neighbourhood – Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street, were deferred. After a review of relevant data, it was found that the sections of Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street within the study area could maintain their local road designations. City staff are supportive of this finding. Development of Alternative Scenarios

The Study Team engaged various stakeholders during the course of the study in order to determine appropriate neighbourhood solutions to the transportation issues and concerns brought forth by residents. Many different measures and combinations of measures were considered to address the issues and concerns raised through the study while recognizing the needs of emergency response providers, city services such as snow plow operations, garbage and recycling collection, and maintenance works. Alternative scenarios were developed using technical data and includes feedback from the Public Task Force, the October 30 Public Engagement Session, the Technical Agencies Committee and City staff. The scenarios were refined through an iterative process of analysis and consultation with technical agency representatives and City staff.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) iii

During the development of the alternative scenarios, feedback from multiple perspectives were received. Some noted that the scenarios address the issues and objectives of the study. Others noted that the scenarios do not protect the neighbourhood enough. And still others noted that that the scenarios go so far in protecting the neighbourhood that the ability of residents to travel easily in and out of their own neighbourhood is disrupted. Through consultation with City staff and the Technical Agencies Committee (see Section 6.2), a number of operational constraints were required to be considered in the development of solutions. These include: • Turning restrictions on Regional roads – Erb Street and Westmount Road are under the jurisdiction of the Region and, as such, the Region must approve any changes to the traffic controls at the intersections along these two arterials. The Region has stated that it will only approve turning movement restrictions when data indicates that there is an infiltration problem and analysis indicates that the turning movement restrictions will not create problems in the vicinity.

• The snow plowing, garbage and recycling collection operations, will be impacted by traffic calming measures.

• Emergency response providers could be impeded by traffic calming measures. Emergency response providers have expressed concerns over the incremental impacts of traffic calming measures when multiple measures are implemented.

Evaluation

Evaluation criteria for assessing the traffic calming plans and their potential effectiveness within the Uptown West neighbourhood were developed by the Study Team in consultation with the Public Task Force. Criteria Measures Community • Addresses the study objective.

• Protects integrity of low density residential streets. • Provides safe, appropriate local access. • Encourages active transportation – for recreation, commuting and access to the future LRT.

• Enhances community space. Traffic Operations • Minimizes detrimental impacts to other residential streets / locations.

• Minimizes impact on emergency response times. • Reduces vehicle speeds. • Considers operations of the future LRT.

Infiltration • Mitigates the amount of cut‐through vehicular traffic.• Minimizes detrimental impacts to residents.

Safety • Improves safety for all users – pedestrians of all ages and abilities, cyclists, drivers.

• Likelihood of compliance. Cost • Installation/construction costs.

• Operation and maintenance costs.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) iv

Based on the overall evaluation, two of the alternative scenarios have been ranked equally and higher than the other two (see Section 5.2). While both higher ranked scenarios (Scenario 1 and Scenario 3) have features that meet the study criteria, both also have negative impacts and disadvantages. Feedback from the public has provided a range of comments both for and against the alternatives. A full summary of the consultation process is documented in Section 6. Many members of the public have commented that the proposed measures result in major impacts to their neighbourhood and that, at this time, the traffic issues and concerns do not appear to be serious enough to warrant such major changes. Many others noted there is a need to make these changes to the neighbourhood as a preventative measure against potential infiltration from new developments in the surrounding area. Still others acknowledged that while changes to traffic are expected in Uptown West, we cannot be certain how the traffic will change, therefore the plan needs to be flexible to adapt to changes as they occur. Consultation

Public Task Force A Public Task Force comprised of 14 members of the public, most of whom live in or near the study area, was formed to represent neighbourhood and broader City interests during the study. The Public Task Force acted in an advisory capacity to the Study Team on behalf of community, neighbourhood and other representative group interests. Four meetings between City staff and members of the Public Task Force were held between January 2013 and April 2013. After the consulting team was retained, an additional eight meetings with the Study Team and Public Task Force were held from June 2013 to June 2014. Technical Agencies Committee A Technical Agencies Committee was formed of review agencies and stakeholders including representatives from the City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo, City of Kitchener, local schools and school boards, neighbourhood association, fire rescue and police services. The Technical Agencies Committee acted in an advisory capacity to the Study Team to ensure technical considerations were identified, reviewed and incorporated, where appropriate. Public Consultation One of the main priorities throughout the course of the study was to consult and engage with the public. Over the course of the study, three newsletters and two notices were circulated to the community via mail, email lists, the City’s website and/or local newspapers. Two main points of contact were made with the public – a Public Engagement Session in October 2013 and a Public Open House in May 2014. The Public Engagement Session #1 was held on the evening of Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex. Attendees were welcomed by members of the Study Team and/or Public Task Force. A total of 153 individuals signed in at the event. Display boards were arranged at the side of the meeting room for attendees to browse relevant information at their leisure. Attendees seated themselves around 26 tables, in groups of 5 or 6. Following the presentation, a group session involved all the attendees in summarizing issues and concerns, as well as brainstorming solutions for those issues and concerns.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) v

The Public Open House #2 was held on the evening of Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at the Knox Presbyterian Church. Attendees were welcomed by the Chair of the Public Task Force and invited to sign‐in upon arrival. A total of 206 individuals signed in at this event. Seventeen display boards were arranged around the meeting room for attendees to browse relevant information at their leisure. Three stations were set up to play a pre‐recorded looped video to explain the characteristics of each of the developed Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. Information from the open house, including the video presentations, were made available on the City’s project website. Resident Survey In combination with the second public meeting, an online survey (using Survey Monkey) was provided via a link from the City’s Uptown West website as another means for collecting input from the public. Recommendations

Road Classification Recommendation The classification of three roads – Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street – were deferred after the completion of the City’s TMP. As part of this study, a review of the City’s TMP, relevant road classification criteria, traffic volumes, operating speeds, road widths, and the road character and function at a more detailed level determined that a local road designation for the sections of Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street within the study area are appropriate. Overall Neighbourhood Transportation Network Recommendation Based on the current transportation conditions, technical analysis undertaken to date, the evaluation of the alternatives and comments from the Public Task Force, Technical Agencies and public, and the fact that the magnitude and timing of any impacts from LRT and/or area developments are uncertain at this current time, a progressive traffic management strategy is recommended for the Uptown West neighbourhood. This strategy would take steps towards a comprehensive plan over time in response to measurable traffic calming needs and be flexible and versatile to adapt to changing conditions over time using the various tools and techniques identified in this study to address situations as they arise. Phase 1 In the short term, as a first phase to the progressive traffic management strategy, the following measures are recommended: Sidewalks The City should initiate its City‐wide assessment of priorities for sidewalks to fill in the

missing gaps in Uptown West. Within Uptown West, the priorities for sidewalks should be the sections of roads which are missing sidewalks on both sides of the road (i.e. at a minimum sidewalks should be provided on one side of the road) and in areas with higher volumes of pedestrians (i.e. routes to schools and other public facilities).

Signed bike routes

The City should implement the cycling network as identified in its TMP. Signed bike routes have been identified in the TMP on William Street, Allen Street, Park Street (south of Allen Street), Erb Street and Westmount Road. It is recommended that Alexandra Avenue be designated as a signed bike route in addition to, or in place of, the signed bike route on William Street. It is also recommended that Roslin Avenue be considered for a signed bike route as it provides a connection to the crossing opportunity at the pedestrian signal at Erb Street / Roslin Avenue.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) vi

Neighbourhood signage

Neighbourhood signage can raise driver awareness that this is a residential community with traffic calming measures. Standard signage for a “traffic‐calmed neighbourhood” could be installed or custom Uptown West neighbourhood signage could be commissioned, to provide individual identity to this unique and historic neighbourhood.

Raised crosswalk

A raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue in the vicinity of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School, shown conceptually south of Lourdes Street in place of the existing painted crosswalk, is recommended. The raised crosswalk enhances the existing crosswalk by improving driver awareness of the pedestrian and is a speed reduction measure for vehicles on Roslin Avenue across the frontage of the school.

Park Street / Allen Street

A safety assessment of the intersection should be undertaken to confirm that the intersection island will address the collision concerns at this intersection. The design of any median at this location must accommodate pedestrians and cyclists crossing Park Street, and the movement of emergency response vehicles on Allen Street which is a designated secondary fire rescue route.

Park Street / William Street

Further investigation into the traffic operations at this intersection is recommended. The intersection appears to be approaching the traffic signal warrant and a complete 8‐hour traffic count should be undertaken to confirm the warrant analysis. However, given the close spacing to the intersection at Caroline Street / William Street, any changes to traffic control at Park Street will impact the flows and queues at the upstream intersection. A combined assessment of the two intersections should be undertaken to identify potential solutions. The timing of this investigation may need to be postponed if construction for the LRT is underway on Caroline Street.

Monitoring Program

One of the critical pieces of the traffic management strategy will be to continue monitoring traffic in and adjacent to Uptown West. The City currently undertakes a regular program of traffic counts and speed surveys. The City should continue with the program so that any significant changes in traffic characteristics could be monitored and addressed, as appropriate. In particular, speeds should be monitored along Dunbar Road between Alexandra Avenue and Dawson Street, and along William Street between Avondale Avenue and Euclid Avenue, due to previous data which showed 85th percentile speeds over 50 km/h.

On‐going consultation with Region of Waterloo

The City should continue to consult and work with the Region to support improvements to traffic flow on the Regional roads such as Erb Street and Westmount Road. Traffic signal coordination studies should be undertaken by the Region on a regular basis to ensure optimal flow of traffic on the arterial road system as the Region grows and traffic patterns change. With the upcoming LRT construction on Caroline Street through Erb Street, traffic management during construction will play a vital role in minimizing the effects of infiltration.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) vii

Implementation of the recommendations for Phase 1 is estimated to have a cost in the range of $20,000 to $40,000, not including monitoring, which would be part of the City’s regular program of traffic counts and speed surveys, and sidewalks which will be implemented through other City programs. These costs include standard neighbourhood signage, bike route signage, a raised crosswalk and a raised median island. Next Phases As the City continues to monitor and review the traffic conditions in Uptown West, and issues identified, additional measures could be implemented as problems arise. Initially, less costly (e.g. pavement markings) or temporary measures could be implemented to test the effectiveness of the measure against the observed problem. The next phase could also include less intrusive measures (such as “pinch points”, median islands, raised intersections and crosswalks) that do not significantly impact residents mobility needs to get in and around their neighbourhood. Should problems still persist, then a full network scenario could be implemented over time. At this time, given the feedback from the public for a progressive and flexible plan, we acknowledge the final network solution that is implemented may not be exactly any of the four alternatives that were presented at Public Open House #2 in May 2014. Implementation The City develops a City‐wide traffic calming implementation prioritization plan in order to prioritize the installation of traffic calming in accordance with available budget. The Phase 1 recommendations of this study will be assessed, along with study recommendations from other areas of the city, and prioritized accordingly.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) viii

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. i 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Process ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Study Objective and Guiding Principles ............................................................................... 3

2.0 Problem/Opportunity Assessment ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Existing Transportation Network ......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Anticipated Growth ............................................................................................................. 8 2.4 Collision Summary............................................................................................................. 10 2.5 Parking Management ........................................................................................................ 10 2.6 Traffic Control Policies ...................................................................................................... 11 2.7 Problem / Opportunity Statement ..................................................................................... 11

3.0 Road Classification ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Traffic Calming ............................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Purpose of Traffic Calming ................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Principles of Traffic Calming .............................................................................................. 13 4.3 City of Waterloo Traffic Calming Policy .............................................................................. 14 4.4 Traffic Calming Measures .................................................................................................. 14

4.4.1 Passive Traffic Calming Measures ......................................................................... 14 4.4.2 Physical Traffic Calming Measures ........................................................................ 14

4.5 Traffic Control Measures ................................................................................................... 14 5.0 Alternative Scenarios ................................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Development of Solutions ................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Operational Constraints .................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Analysis of Select Traffic Calming Measures ...................................................................... 16

5.3.1 Signal Warrants .................................................................................................... 16 5.3.2 Diverters............................................................................................................... 17 5.3.3 Road Closure ........................................................................................................ 18 5.3.4 Traffic Circle ......................................................................................................... 18 5.3.5 Intersection Median Island ................................................................................... 19 5.3.6 Median Islands ..................................................................................................... 19 5.3.7 Speed Cushions .................................................................................................... 20 5.3.8 Raised Crosswalk .................................................................................................. 20

5.4 Alternative Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 21 5.4.1 Scenario 1............................................................................................................. 21 5.4.2 Scenario 2............................................................................................................. 21 5.4.3 Scenario 3............................................................................................................. 22 5.4.4 Scenario 4............................................................................................................. 23

6.0 Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios .............................................................................................. 28 6.1 Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................................. 28 6.2 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 28 6.3 Summary of Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 28


TR12-0697 (June 2014) ix

7.0 Consultation Process .................................................................................................................... 34 7.1 Consultation with Public Task Force .................................................................................. 34 7.2 Consultation with Technical Agencies Committee ............................................................. 34 7.3 Consultation with the Public ............................................................................................. 35

7.3.1 Public Engagement Session #1 .............................................................................. 37 7.3.2 Public Open House #2 ........................................................................................... 37 7.3.3 Online Survey ....................................................................................................... 38 7.3.4 General Public Comments..................................................................................... 39

8.0 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 40 8.1 Road Classification Recommendation ................................................................................ 40 8.2 Overall Neighbourhood Transportation Network Recommendation .................................. 40

8.2.1 Phase 1 ................................................................................................................. 40 8.2.2 Next Phases .......................................................................................................... 42 8.2.3 Implementation .................................................................................................... 42

List of Figures Figure 1‐1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2‐1: LRT Route through Uptown West ........................................................................................... 4 Figure 2‐2: Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2‐3: Existing 85th Percentile Speed Summary ................................................................................. 7 Figure 2‐4: Future Developments ............................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3‐1: Road Classification ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5‐1: Intersection Spacing William/Park to William/Caroline......................................................... 16 Figure 5‐2: Diverter (Belmont / John)..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5‐3: Diverter (Alexander / Euclid) ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 5‐4: Road Closure (Roslin Avenue / Allen Street / John Street) .................................................... 18 Figure 5‐5: Traffic Circle (Avondale Avenue / William Street) ................................................................. 18 Figure 5‐6: Intersection Median Island (Park Street / Allen Street) ......................................................... 19 Figure 5‐7: Median Islands (Father David Bauer Drive) ........................................................................... 19 Figure 5‐8: Speed Cushion ..................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5‐9: Alternative Network Scenario 1............................................................................................ 24 Figure 5‐10: Alternative Network Scenario 2 .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 5‐11: Alternative Network Scenario 3 .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 5‐12: Alternative Network Scenario 4 .......................................................................................... 27

List of Tables Table 2‐1: 85th Percentile Speed Summary ............................................................................................... 5 Table 6‐1: Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 28 Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 29


TR12-0697 (June 2014) x

List of Appendices APPENDIX A: Technical Paper #1 – Existing Conditions and Problem/Opportunity Assessment APPENDIX B: Traffic Calming Memo APPENDIX C: Technical Agencies Committee Consultation APPENDIX D: Study Newsletters and Notices APPENDIX E: Public Consultation E1 – Public Engagement Session #1 E2 – Public Open House #2 and Online Survey E3 – Public Comments


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 1

1.0 Introduction

The Uptown West Neighbourhood, which comprises of areas in the Westmount and Central planning districts, lies adjacent to the City’s central core and part of the study area is within the designated Urban Growth Centre. As part of the growth plan, the City of Waterloo (the City) is looking to encourage intensification in key areas and along intensification corridors, in particular along the Light Rail Transit system and in the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre. The Region of Waterloo (the Region) and City have provided direction and guidance to help manage growth through the development of a multi‐modal transportation system. The Region has further approved a Light Rail Transit system to help manage future movement of commuters between the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge and anticipated growth in the Region. 1.1 Background

Residents of the established neighbourhood have expressed concerns that these high level strategic plans will disrupt the existing neighbourhood character and allow deterioration of the contiguous nature of the community. Residents have expressed their desire to preserve and protect their community in anticipation of future traffic issues due to intensification in around the neighbourhood. More than 100 residents voiced their concerns at an Uptown Transportation Summit in September 2012 which was hosted by the City. Some of the key issues raised included traffic infiltration, implications of installing new sidewalks, trail connectivity, and potential reclassification of some neighbourhood streets as presented in the 2011 approved Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Following the Uptown Transportation Summit, the City committed to the Uptown West Neighbourhood Transportation Study (UWNTS). In June 2013, Cole Engineering and GLPi were retained to undertake this study. This study is intended to build upon the Residential Uptown Traffic Study (RUTS) which was completed in 2003. A number of recommendations are already in place within the study area based on recommendations from this earlier study, which included implementing all‐way stop control at various intersections and traffic calming measures such as speed humps, raised crosswalks and pavement markings at specific locations. A Study Team to guide the UWNTS, was developed consisting of: • City Engineering Services staff • City Transportation Services staff • Cole Engineering Group Limited (consultant for transportation) • GLPi (consultant for facilitation and public communication) 1.2 Study Area

The study area, shown in Figure 1‐1, is bounded by three Regional roads, including Westmount Road to the west, Erb Street to the north, King Street to the east, and the City’s municipal boundary with Kitchener to the south.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 2

Figure 1‐1: Study Area

1.3 Study Process

The UWNTS was planned to be conducted in three phases, as listed below. Phase 1 Data Collection and Review

Phase 2Concept Development

Phase 3Design Development

• Background information • Transportation data • Field observations

• Evaluation criteria• Alternative solutions and costs

• Evaluate alternatives• Review street classifications • Analyze temporary layout • Provide recommendations

However, in the early stages of the study, the review of street classifications remained a hot topic, which prompted the Study Team to complete this task earlier than planned. A recommendation regarding this issue was presented at the first public meeting in October 2013. The targeted completion date, study schedule and duration of the 2013‐2014 winter impacted an installation and assessment of a temporary layout scenario. In addition, a sidewalk prioritization task planned under this study could not be achieved due to project schedule and cost limitations.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 3

1.4 Study Objective and Guiding Principles

The study objective and guiding principles, developed and agreed to by the City and the Public Task Force in the January 2013 Terms of Reference are as follows: • Overall Study Objective: - “To preserve the neighbourhood streets against potential traffic infiltration and safety issues due to growth, whilst recognizing the City’s strategic plans and approved policies on transportation.”

• Guiding Principles: - Develop traffic solutions that function holistically to protect the integrity of Uptown, low density residential neighbourhoods but do not function to the severe detriment of any street(s)

- Seek to protect the integrity of low density, residential Uptown neighbourhoods - Mitigate the amount of cut‐through traffic within low‐density, residential Uptown neighbourhoods - Traffic calming measures for residential Uptown neighbourhoods should be incorporated into the plan

- Plan for safer streets for all users - Consider the efficacy of RUTS and other existing calming measures

2.0 Problem/Opportunity Assessment

During the first phase of the study, the existing transportation conditions within the study area were documented. Various data and background reports were reviewed, and a “walk/drive‐about” exercise was conducted. A comprehensive report (Technical Paper #1) was produced, and is summarized in the following subsections. The full Technical Paper #1 can be found in Appendix A. 2.1 Existing Transportation Network

The transportation network is made up of an integrated system of facilities for multiple user groups – pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists. The City recognizes the importance of a convenient, safe, well‐designed, efficient, and comfortable active transportation network, both for commuting and recreational purposes. Within the Uptown West study area, the Iron Horse Trail is a primary, off‐road facility for active transportation (cycling / walking) along with sidewalks on most roads, an on‐road bike route along Dawson Street and bike lanes along Park Street and Caroline Street. Six Grand River Transit routes operate within the boundaries of Uptown West along Erb Street, Caroline Street, Westmount Road and King Street. Rapid transit, in the form of light rail transit (LRT) is planned for the Waterloo Region and will serve both the City of Waterloo and City of Kitchener. Within the Uptown West neighbourhood, the LRT will travel southerly along Caroline Street and northerly along King Street as shown in Figure 2‐1.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 4

Figure 2‐1: LRT Route through Uptown West

Source: Region of Waterloo (2013) The following describes the emergency response routes within the study area: • Primary route: Erb Street West; Westmount Road South and King Street South • Secondary route: William Street West; Caroline Street South and Allen Street West The road network in Uptown West is primarily a grid network of 2‐lane roads with multiple connections to the three Regional arterial roads – Erb Street, Westmount Road and King Street, as well as neighbourhoods to the south in the City of Kitchener The overall walkability of the Uptown West neighbourhood was independently assessed by Cole Engineering, based on a walkability checklist. Walkability is defined as the level of integration of pedestrian facilities and municipal infrastructure, based on design elements and characteristics of the road environment, that influence the ease in which pedestrians can move through the network, conveniently, enjoyably and safely. In general, most streets in Uptown West can accommodate cyclists and pedestrians satisfactorily, however, some missing sidewalk connections were observed along a few roads. 2.2 Existing Traffic Conditions

Within the residential neighbourhood, daily traffic volumes range from a few hundred up to 5,000 vehicles on William Street. While on the Regional arterial roads adjacent to the Uptown West neighbourhood, volumes are in the range of 17,000 to over 20,000 vehicles per day. Existing volumes are presented in Figure 2‐2.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 5

As expected, traffic volumes are higher on Caroline Street and Park Street, reflecting the adjacent land uses (commercial, higher density residential) and function of those roads. Given the low traffic volumes under existing conditions on the residential roads, the data does not indicate any significant issues with capacity or infiltration. We acknowledge that some traffic may be diverting from the arterial road system into the neighbourhood during times of peak congestion on the arterial roads. However, the volumes on almost all of the neighbourhood streets remain at less than 1,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes of 2,000 vehicles per day for a local road is identified in the City’s TMP. The speed limit in Uptown West is 50 km/h with the exception of Roslin Avenue, between Alexandra Avenue and Lourdes Street (near Our Lady of Lourdes School), where a speed limit of 40 km/h was recently introduced. Travel speeds were collected at various locations in 2012 as summarized in Table 2‐1 and presented graphically in Figure 2‐3. Of the data reviewed, the highest 85th percentile speed (i.e. 85% of the vehicles travel at or below this speed) was recorded on Dunbar Road, between Alexandra Avenue and Dawson Street (approximately 55 km/h). Most of the other streets were found to operate around 50 km/h which is in keeping with the speed limit. The observed travel speeds do not indicate any significant issues with speeding. As the speed data on Roslin Avenue was collected before the new school zone limit was introduced, the City should consider collecting additional data (during the school year) to assess the effectiveness of the speed limit. Table 2‐1: 85th Percentile Speed Summary

85th percentile speed recorded in 2010/2012

No. Street Location 85th percentile speed (km/h) Year

1. Alexandra Avenue Menno Street & Euclid Avenue 46.9 20122. Alexandra Avenue Roslin Avenue South & Dunbar Road South 43.7 20123. Allen Street West Esson Street & Park Street 53.0 20124. Avondale Avenue Alexandra Avenue & Dawson Street 49.3 20125. Avondale Avenue Allen Street West & Norman Street 47.1 20126. Belmont Avenue Union Boulevard & John Street West 48.0 20127. Dawson Street Roslin Avenue South & Dunbar Road South 42.0 20128. Dietz Avenue South Lourdes Street & Dawson Street 53.4 20129. Dunbar Road South John Street West & Allen Street West 41.0 201210. Dunbar Road South Alexandra Avenue & Dawson Street 54.6 201211. Dunbar Road South Allen Street West & Norman Street 52.0 201212. Dunbar Road South Norman Street & William Street West 49.0 201213. Esson Street John Street West & Allen Street West 45.1 201214. Euclid Street Alexandra Avenue & Dawson Street 47.7 201215. John Street West Roslin Avenue South & Dunbar Road South 41.1 201216. John Street West Severn Street & Belmont Avenue 48.4 201217. John Street West Westmount Road South & Roslin Road South 35.0 201218. Menno Street Dawson Street & Erb Street West 43.7 201219. Norman Street Avondale Avenue South & Park Street 51.5 201220. Norman Street Roslin Avenue South & Dunbar Road South 36.2 201221. Roslin Avenue South Alexandra Avenue & Lourdes Street 53.7 201222. Roslin Avenue South John Street West & Norman Street 53.3 201223. William Street West Avondale Avenue South & Euclid Avenue 54.1 201224. William Street West Dunbar Road South & Avondale Avenue South 49.2 201225. William Street West Roslin Avenue South & Dunbar Road South 48.4 201226. York Street John Street West & Allen Street West 46.0 2012


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 6

Figure 2‐2: Existing Traffic Volumes


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 7

Figure 2‐3: Existing 85th Percentile Speed Summary


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 8

2.3 Anticipated Growth

The Uptown West neighbourhood is situated adjacent to the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre, which consists of a commercial core centred along King Street and complementary transition areas which provide a buffer between the commercial core and the established low rise residential neighbourhood. Within the transition area, the City’s Official Plan allows for medium density development with a maximum height ranging from 20 m to 81 m. The Urban Growth Centre is supported by future LRT which provides the opportunity for transit‐oriented development which will attract new residents that are less reliant on the private automobile for commuter trips. A number of new developments in the study area are in the application process or have been approved with construction underway. Some of these include the Barrel Yards, 144 Park Street, 31 Alexandra Avenue, The Red Condominiums, and 220‐226 King Street. Locations of these developments with respect to the study area, as well as additional information are identified in Figure 2‐4. For all new development, a traffic impact assessment, following industry standards and professional practice, is required as part of the application process. These studies assess the anticipated traffic impacts of new development to mitigate operational issues that may arise.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 9

Figure 2‐4: Future Developments


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 10

2.4 Collision Summary

A review of 5‐year City collision data (2008 to 2012 inclusive), from Waterloo Regional Police Services was undertaken for the Uptown West neighbourhood with respect to severity (fatal, non‐fatal injury, property damage only, non‐reportable), environment condition (clear, rain, snow, freezing rain, fog), and type of impact (approaching, angle, rear‐end, sideswipe, turning movement, single motor vehicle / animal, single motor vehicle / fixed object, other). Generally, the incidence of collisions in the Uptown West neighbourhood is low and no fatal collisions were recorded in the defined review period. Ten or more collisions between 2008 and 2012 were observed at four intersections within the neighbourhood. These intersections are located along the Caroline Street and Park Street corridors, and include: • Caroline Street / William Street • Park Street / Allen Street • Park Street / John Street • Park Street / William Street In comparison to the roads within the neighbourhood, the frequency of collisions on the Regional roads was much higher, reflecting the higher traffic volumes on these roads. Regional collision data (2007 to 2011), identified eight intersections in the study area with 20 or more collisions in the 5‐year period. These intersections include: • Erb Street / Westmount Road • Erb Street / King Street • Erb Street / Father David Bauer Drive • Erb Street / Caroline Street • King Street / William Street • King Street / Union Street • King Street / Allen Street • King Street / Willis Way In addition, for the same time period, 75 collisions occurred at midblock locations along King Street, between Erb Street and William Street. It should be noted that the data which was available for purposes of conducting the review of collisions along Regional roads (from 2007 to 2011) did not include 2012 collision data, which identified one fatality on King Street at Willis Way. 2.5 Parking Management

The City produced an Uptown Parking Strategy Report in 2008, which included the eastern section of the Uptown West neighbourhood in its study area. A number of recommendations were presented as part of that report. Additionally, the City’s TMP addresses a number of issues associated with parking and recommends the continuation of applying the guiding principles from the 2008 Uptown Parking Strategy.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 11

2.6 Traffic Control Policies

The TMP noted that the best means to achieve effective and safe traffic control is through the uniform application of realistic policies and standards within a municipality, and warrants for traffic control devices assist in attaining these goals. 2.7 Problem / Opportunity Statement

The TMP concluded that continuing to plan and build for the auto mode was not a sustainable nor affordable approach, and therefore in developing its recommendations, placed an emphasis on providing people with choice in how they travel, whether for work or leisure. A balance between meeting mobility needs of the greater area and local community needs of the neighbourhood residents is necessary. The problems and opportunities identified by the Study Team regarding the transportation network within and around the study area are documented below. Problems • While the future rapid transit system will serve as a means to decrease auto dependency within the neighbourhood and promote transit and active transportation, it will also attract developments, which can cause an increase in trips by all modes of transportation. Residents have expressed concerns regarding potential increased traffic volumes through the study area as a result of development, and how the residential character of the Uptown West low rise neighbourhood may be impacted.

• The existing road network provides challenges due to the physical constraints such as short block lengths and closely spaced intersections, particularly in the King/Caroline/Park/William area. These constraints reduce the effective movement of traffic on the higher order roads. Rapid Transit will add a further complication in this section.

• The arterial road network falls under the jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo and therefore, this study will be limited in its recommendations for the arterial roads.

Opportunities • Rapid transit will provide some opportunities for “thinking outside the box”. • There are opportunities to review how neighbourhoods in other areas/municipalities have adjusted to/addressed similar issues.

• There are opportunities to: - increase pedestrian and cycling traffic within and through the neighbourhood to access local and adjacent land use destinations, and

- increase the safety of all user types, but specifically the vulnerable user groups such as elderly, school‐children, parents with young children and persons with disabilities.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 12

3.0 Road Classification

The City’s TMP reviewed street classification at the city‐wide (macro) level, based principally on how streets connected to one another in the network. The classification of three roads in the Uptown West study area – Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street – have been deferred until the completion of this neighbourhood study. The three deferred roads are shown in Figure 3‐1. Figure 3‐1: Road Classification

Source: City of Waterloo – Official Plan (2012) – Road Classification System – Schedule “E” The City’s TMP developed a roadway classification system which included five types of City roads as follows: • City arterial • Major collector • Minor collector • Local • Laneway Each of the road class designations have typical characteristics and functions. With respect to the subject roads, the adjacent land uses are primarily low density residential and the primary function of the roads is to provide access to individual properties. Volumes on the subject roads are less than 1,500 vehicles per day, with many block having less than 1,000 vehicles per day. Observed operating speeds are generally within the speed limit of 50 km/h, with one section of Allen Street having an 85th percentile speed just over 50 km/h. Existing pavement widths range from 7.3 m to 8.6 m (not including


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 13

the segments of John Street with the landscaped median). Pedestrians and cyclists are intended to be accommodated within the road right‐of‐way on sidewalks and in shared lanes. The existing road characteristics for the three subject roadways indicate that local road designations are appropriate and best match the desired road functions within the context of this study area.

4.0 Traffic Calming

Various road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, automobiles, transit, trucks, and service vehicles, are intended to co‐exist in relative safety and harmony on urban residential roads. When problems related to traffic speeds and volumes, roadway geometry, traffic operations, or any combination of these, are experienced, these residential streets are no longer perceived as being pleasant or safe for all road users (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers). Some problems can be addressed by correcting deficiencies in the arterial road network, which may eliminate speeding or short‐cutting on residential streets. However, additional solutions are sometimes required, which may include traffic calming. A definition of traffic calming was derived by the Subcommittee on Traffic Calming of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in 1997, and was presented in the Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming (1998):

“Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour, and improve conditions for non‐motorized street users.”

This definition has also been adopted by the City of Waterloo. 4.1 Purpose of Traffic Calming

The purpose of traffic calming is to restore streets to their intended function. Traffic calming is intended to achieve one or more of the following objectives: • Reduce vehicle speeds. • Discourage through traffic. • Minimize conflicts among various road users. • Improve the livability and walkability of a neighbourhood. 4.2 Principles of Traffic Calming

It is important to note that every situation is unique and there is no single “best” traffic calming measure. However, the Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming presents principles of traffic calming that can help to foster community acceptance / support for traffic calming recommendations. These principles include: • Identify the real problem. • Quantify the problem. • First consider improvements to the arterial road network. • Apply traffic calming measures on an area‐wide basis. • Avoid restricting access and egress. • Use self‐enforcing measures, which can maintain a 24‐hour presence and do not require police enforcement to be effective.

• Do not impede non‐motorized modes.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 14

• Consider all services, including transit, police, fire, ambulance, other emergency services, garbage collection, snow removal, etc.

• Monitor and follow‐up on implemented measures to determine if desired results were achieved and collect community feedback.

A combination of local knowledge, technical expertise, and careful judgement should be used to select an appropriate traffic calming measure, or combination of measures within a neighbourhood. 4.3 City of Waterloo Traffic Calming Policy

The City’s Traffic Calming Policy is used to identify when traffic issues reach undesirable conditions on City streets:

“Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measurements that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour, and improve conditions for non‐motorized street users. The goal of traffic calming is to restore streets to their intended function by reducing vehicular speeds, discouraging through traffic, and minimizing conflicts between street users.”

4.4 Traffic Calming Measures

Traffic calming measures can be either “passive” or “physical”, as described in the following sections. Examples of common measures can be found in Appendix B. 4.4.1 Passive Traffic Calming Measures

Passive traffic calming measures refer to the application of modified pavement markings, additional roadway signs, and other forms of road modifications which do not affect the width or grade of the road. These measures have been shown to achieve marginal reductions in speeds, although when used in combination with physical measures have greater level of effect. 4.4.2 Physical Traffic Calming Measures

Physical traffic calming measures refer to modifications of the road platform, and have been observed to significantly alter driver behaviour and improve safety conditions for road users. These measures are applicable to all widths of roads, and can include raised medians, diverters, curb extensions, chicanes, neighbourhood traffic circles/roundabouts, speed humps / cushions and raised crosswalks / intersections. Physical traffic calming measures provide more effective deterrence to speeding and other issues than passive measures. 4.5 Traffic Control Measures

Forms of traffic control, such as traffic signals, stop signs, and yield signs differ from traffic calming measures, as they are intended to assign traffic right‐of‐way. In order to install these devices, traffic volume, delay, and collision warrants must be met according to City standards before they are recommended. It is not the intention for these traffic control devices to address traffic speeds and/or volumes of vehicles; however, it is recognized that there are several traffic control devices, that in addition to their primary function, sometimes provide some form of traffic calming at the neighbourhood level, such as turn restrictions, road closures, and one‐way streets, which can discourage cut‐through traffic. Some of these measures are further described and illustrated in Appendix B.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 15

5.0 Alternative Scenarios

5.1 Development of Solutions

The assessment of existing conditions did not identify a strong need for traffic calming to address existing issues. However, residents have expressed their desire to preserve and protect their community in anticipation of future traffic issues that may arise from intensification in around the neighbourhood and from impacts of the future LRT. The Study Team engaged various stakeholders during the course of the study in order to identify neighbourhood solutions to address concerns as brought forth by residents and potential future traffic issues based on assumptions of future traffic patterns and infiltration. Many different measures and combinations of measures were considered to address the issues and concerns raised through the study while recognizing the needs of emergency response providers, city services such as snow plow operations, garbage and recycling collection, and maintenance works. Alternative scenarios were developed to address assumed future traffic issues based on known developments and existing technical data where available. The scenarios were refined through an iterative process of analysis and consultation with technical agency representatives and City staff. The alternatives presented in this report includes feedback from the Public Task Force, the October 30 Public Engagement Session, the Technical Agencies Committee and City staff. During the development of the alternative scenarios, feedback from multiple perspectives were received. Some noted that the scenarios address the issues and objectives of the study. Others noted that the scenarios do not protect the neighbourhood enough. And still others noted that that the scenarios go so far in protecting the neighbourhood that the ability of residents to travel easily in and out of their own neighbourhood is disrupted. 5.2 Operational Constraints

Through consultation with City staff and the Technical Agencies Committee (see Section 7.2), a number of operational constraints were required to be considered in the development of solutions. These include: • Turning restrictions on Regional roads – Erb Street and Westmount Road are under the jurisdiction of the Region and, as such, the Region must approve any changes to the traffic controls at the intersections along these two arterials. The Region has stated that it will only approve turning movement restrictions when data indicates that there is an infiltration problem and analysis indicates that the turning movement restrictions will not create problems in the vicinity.

• The snow plowing, garbage and recycling collection operations, will be impacted by traffic calming measures.

• Emergency response providers could be impeded by traffic calming measures, resulting in an impact on response times. Emergency response providers have expressed concerns over the incremental impacts of traffic calming measures when multiple measures are implemented.

• Diverting traffic from City of Waterloo streets onto City of Kitchener Streets. • Capital, maintenance and operational costs.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 16

5.3 Analysis of Select Traffic Calming Measures

In developing the alternative scenarios, the Study Team conducted analysis to ensure that certain measures would be feasible, i.e. they could be accommodated within the available City right‐of‐way, and would not require any additional property. The analysis is summarized in the following subsections. Other measures considered in the study are deemed standard. 5.3.1 Signal Warrants

Although traffic operations analysis is beyond the scope of a traffic calming study, signal warrant analysis was undertaken as concerns were brought forth regarding the intersection of William Street / Park Street. The William Street / Park Street intersection, shown in Figure 5‐1, operates as a T‐intersection, with the north leg of Park Street off‐set by about 16 m to the east (centreline to centreline distance). This off‐set alignment results in difficult left‐turns from Park Street onto William Street during peak hours when there are higher volumes on William Street. The signal warrant analysis suggests that the total volume (Justification 1) is close to being met and the other warrant justifications are below the threshold criteria.

Figure 5‐1: Intersection Spacing William/Park to William/Caroline

However, the close proximity of this intersection to the signalized intersection at William Street / Caroline Street (approximately 70 m) does pose significant challenges in storing queues, accommodating traffic movements from the north leg of Park Street, and coordinating traffic flows between the two intersections. The City will need to continue to monitor this intersection. With the implementation of LRT, traffic patterns may change and congestion can be expected to worsen during construction of the LRT. Although the signal warrant is close to being met, traffic signals may not be the best solution given the spacing to Caroline Street. Further investigation into the feasibility of signal coordination with William Street / Caroline Street with LRT (during and post‐construction) should be considered before new traffic controls of any type are added at the William Street / Park Street intersection. In response to comments at the first public meeting, the intersections of Westmount Road / Alexandra Avenue and Westmount Road / Dietz Avenue were also investigated to look into concerns regarding the


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 17

existing pedestrian signal at Dietz Avenue. The count data indicates that full traffic signals are not warranted at this location. We note that the Region, during the course of this study, installed advanced warning signals (flashing amber beacons) on Westmount Road north and south of Dietz Avenue to alert approaching drivers that the pedestrian signal has been activated. These warning signals will assist in raising driver awareness of the pedestrian signal and alert drivers that there is a stop ahead. Pedestrian countdown signal heads were also added. 5.3.2 Diverters

The use of diverters at various locations in Uptown West was investigated. To assess the physical constraints of a diverter, two locations were tested with a diverter approximately 1.5 m wide. At the intersections of Belmont Avenue / John Street and at Euclid Avenue / Alexandra Avenue which have roadway widths of 7.32 m to 7.92 m, turning movements for passenger vehicles can be accommodated as shown in Figure 5‐2. Larger vehicles, such as waste collection vehicles or emergency response vehicles, can also be accommodated, but opposing traffic will not be able to turn the corner at the same time (see Figure 5‐3). Given low traffic volumes experienced on the residential streets in this neighbourhood, this is not considered to be an issue. Snow plows will be able to manoeuver through the diverted intersection, but there will be limited snow storage on the diverter and snow removal may be required which is an additional operational cost to the City. Given the limited available width of the diverters at the constrained intersections, limited landscaping opportunities exist. The detailed design of such measures could investigate the use of planters to provide some aesthetics to the street. They should also be designed to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists crossing through the intersection (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists will be able to travel in all directions at the diverter).

Figure 5‐2: Diverter (Belmont / John)

Passenger car turning path Figure 5‐3: Diverter (Alexander / Euclid)

HSU (heavy single unit) truck turning path


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 18

5.3.3 Road Closure

This skewed intersection is non‐standard and provides operational challenges. A road closure provides the opportunity to remove intersection turning movement conflicts, and opportunities for increasing landscaping in the area. Turning movements for larger vehicles, such as waste collection vehicles or emergency response vehicles, can be accommodated, but opposing traffic will not be able to turn the corner at the same time (see Figure 5‐4). The ultimate design of such a measure should consider emergency response services, snow clearing/removal, and waste collection.

Figure 5‐4: Road Closure (Roslin Avenue / Allen Street / John Street)

HSU turning path 5.3.4 Traffic Circle

A traffic circle is a potential measure that could be implemented in Uptown West. The geometry of a traffic circle within the physical constraints of the roadway was investigated. As an example, a traffic circle at William Street and Avondale Avenue is shown in Figure 5‐5. Avondale Avenue has a width of 7.32 m and William Street has a width of 8.53. A traffic circle with a diameter of 5 m can be retrofitted within the existing roadway. The traffic circle can be designed with a mountable curb to accommodate large trucks and emergency vehicles. Sidewalks will need to be reconfigured so that pedestrians are directed to cross the approaches of the traffic circle and not through the circle.

Figure 5‐5: Traffic Circle (Avondale Avenue / William Street)

Passenger vehicle turning path.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 19

5.3.5 Intersection Median Island

An option that was investigated for the Park Street / Allen Street intersection is a median island that extends across the intersection. Based on the review of 5‐year collision data, this intersection has had a higher incidence of collisions than other City intersections in the study area (14 from 2008 to 2012). An intersection median island would remove all left‐turning movements and the east‐west through movements, reducing the number of conflict points. A median island would also provide pedestrians with a pedestrian refuge while crossing the north side of the intersection. There is an existing median island on the south leg of the intersection, as shown in Figure 5‐6.

Figure 5‐6: Intersection Median Island (Park Street / Allen Street)

5.3.6 Median Islands

Father David Bauer Drives connects Erb Street to Caroline Street and may be attractive for drivers avoiding the Erb Street / Caroline Street intersection. The 90° corner mid‐way between Erb Street and Caroline Street is a location where speeds are perceived to be higher as drivers “cut” across the corner giving the impression of higher speeds even if they are below the speed limit. Median islands are one option on Father David Bauer Drive to assist in forcing vehicles to slow down as they approach the corner.

Figure 5‐7: Median Islands (Father David Bauer Drive)

The median islands can be constructed such that the driveway accesses on Father David Bauer Drive are not impeded. To do so, the median islands must be placed further back from the corner as shown in


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 20

Figure 5‐7. However, additional traffic and speed data should be collected to verify the severity and frequency of the speeding issue as existing data does not highlight any issues (i.e. no reportable collisions). 5.3.7 Speed Cushions

Speed cushions are traffic calming measures that are similar to speed humps. The City has implemented speed cushions in other areas of the City of Waterloo. The design of the speed cushion differs from a speed hump in that the configuration allows emergency response vehicles, with wider wheelbases, to cross the speed cushion with no significant impact, but effectively slow passenger vehicles. The design provides appropriate space for cyclists to pass freely, and does not impact surface water; however, driveway spacing needs to be considered. A drawing of a speed cushion is shown in Figure 5‐8. However, to implement a speed cushion requires a pavement width of at least 9 m in order to provide the necessary spacing of the cushions to slow down passenger vehicles but permit emergency

Figure 5‐8: Speed Cushion

response vehicles without impeding them. Within Uptown West, most roads have pavement widths less than 9 m, and thus there are very limited opportunities for speed cushions. One location where a speed cushion could be used is at Father David Bauer Drive, as an alternative to median islands. 5.3.8 Raised Crosswalk

Raised crosswalks were considered at a few locations in the neighbourhood as a measure to enhance existing crosswalks and to calm traffic. Generally, crosswalks should only be provided at traffic‐controlled locations – including traffic signals, stop controls or adult crossing guards. At uncontrolled locations, pedestrians do not have the right‐of‐way, but must wait for safe gaps in traffic in order to cross the roadway. OTM Book 15 Pedestrian Crossing Facilities does not recommend enhancements at uncontrolled crossings at high exposure locations that have the following conditions: • Speed limit of 60 km/h • The pedestrian and traffic volumes exceed warrant thresholds for controlled crossing devices


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 21

• The roadway is more than two through lanes in each direction • The road classification is higher than a collector road One of the locations at which a raised intersection is being considered is at the existing crosswalk on Roslin Avenue south Lourdes Street. The existing uncontrolled crosswalk has pedestrian crossing warning signs on both sides of the roadway, and pedestrian ahead warning signs on both approaches to the crosswalk. A school zone speed limit of 40 km/h was introduced on this section of Roslin Avenue in 2013 and volumes on Roslin Avenue is in the range of 600 vehicles per day. This road section does not exhibit high exposure conditions. A raised crosswalk at this location can enhance the existing crosswalk by improving driver awareness of the potential for pedestrians through its design and markings and have a traffic calming effect on Roslin Avenue. It is important to note that a marked or raised crosswalk does not give pedestrians the right‐of‐way and care must still be taken by the pedestrian, especially school children, when crossing the roadway. Curb extensions could be incorporated into the design of the raised crosswalk to improve sightlines for pedestrians around stopped or parked vehicles on the side of the road. 5.4 Alternative Scenarios

Four alternative network scenarios were developed and presented to the public as described in the following sections. 5.4.1 Scenario 1

The first alternative network scenario is the “business as usual” scenario. In this scenario, shown in Figure 5‐9, no new traffic calming features will be implemented within Uptown West. However, through other programs and initiatives, several changes to the transportation network are anticipated. The Region’s LRT project will introduce LRT on Caroline Street between Erb Street and Allen Street. The Region has also recently installed flashing amber beacons as well as pedestrian countdown signal heads on Westmount Road at the pedestrian signal at Dietz Avenue. The Region is also conducting a traffic control study at Westmount Road / Union Boulevard intersection that will consider different options for traffic control at this location. The City’s TMP identified future bike routes on Avondale Avenue, William Street and Allen Street, as well as Westmount Road, Erb Street, Park Street (south of Allen Street) and Caroline Street (between William Street and Allen Street). The City also has a sidewalk program that will look to prioritize city‐wide sidewalk needs and looks to provide sidewalks where there are missing connections based on city‐wide priorities. 5.4.2 Scenario 2

Scenario 2 builds upon the changes in the “business as usual” scenario with measures to calm traffic and discourage infiltration. Scenario 2 is illustrated in Figure 5‐10. The following measures could be implemented in this scenario: • Right‐turn restrictions on Westmount Road during the weekday peak periods at the intersections of Dawson Street, Dietz Avenue and Norman Street

• Right‐turn restrictions on Erb Street during the weekday peak periods at Dietz Avenue, Beverly Street, Dunbar Road, and Avondale Avenue


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 22

• Raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue at Lourdes Street • Raised intersection on Roslin Avenue at Alexandra Avenue • Diverter at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Alexandra Avenue • Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive • Road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street • Southbound one‐way segment on Dunbar Road between Dawson Street and Alexandra Avenue • Northbound one‐way segment on Dunbar Road between William Street and Norman Street • Southbound one‐way segment on Avondale Avenue between Alexandra Avenue and William Street • Northbound one‐way segment on Avondale Avenue between Norman Street and Allen Street • Westbound one‐way segment on Alexandra Avenue between Roslin Avenue and Avondale Avenue • Westbound one‐way segment on Norman Street between Dunbar Road and Avondale Avenue • Eastbound one‐way segment on Norman Street between Avondale Avenue and Park Street • Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street • Diverter at the intersection of John Street and Belmont Avenue Turning restrictions on Westmount Road and Erb Street are under the jurisdiction of the Region. Consultation with the Region indicated that they would not support the implementation of turning restrictions without traffic data and analysis indicating that infiltration was a problem and that the turning restrictions would mitigate this issue without undue impacts elsewhere in the transportation network. At this time, the traffic data does not show a significant traffic infiltration problem at the subject intersections, but turn restrictions remain a valid option should issues arise. 5.4.3 Scenario 3

Scenario 3 builds upon the changes in the “business as usual” scenario with measures to calm traffic and discourage infiltration. Scenario 3 is illustrated in Figure 5‐11. The following measures could be implemented in this scenario: • Diverter at the intersection of Dawson Street and Dietz Avenue • Right‐turn restrictions during the weekday peak periods from Beverly Street on to Erb Street and from Roslin Avenue on to Erb Street

• Raised crosswalk on Lourdes Street at Dietz Avenue • Raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue at Lourdes Street • Raised intersection on Roslin Avenue at Alexandra Avenue • Northbound one‐way segment on Dunbar Road between Erb Street and Dawson Street • Diverters at the intersections of Euclid Avenue and Alexandra Avenue and at Avondale Avenue and Alexandra Avenue

• Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive • Road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street • Traffic calming ‘pinch points’ on Dunbar Road between Dawson Street and Alexandra Avenue • Traffic circle at the intersection of Avondale Avenue and William Street • Westbound one‐way segment on Norman Street between Dunbar Road and Avondale Avenue • Eastbound one‐way segment on Norman Street between Avondale Avenue and Belmont Avenue • Traffic calming ‘pinch points’ on Norman Street between Belmont Avenue and Park Street • Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street • Diverter at the intersection of John Street and Belmont Avenue Turning restrictions on Westmount Road and Erb Street are under the jurisdiction of the Region. Consultation with the Region indicated that they would not support the implementation of turning


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 23

restrictions without traffic data and analysis indicating that infiltration was a problem and that the turning restrictions would mitigate this issue without undue impacts elsewhere in the transportation network. At this time, the traffic data does not show a significant traffic infiltration problem at the subject intersections. 5.4.4 Scenario 4

Scenario 4 builds upon the changes in the “business as usual” scenario with measures to calm traffic and discourage infiltration. Scenario 4 is illustrated in Figure 5‐12. The following measures are implemented in this scenario: • Diverter at the intersection of Dawson Street and Dietz Avenue • Raised crosswalk on Lourdes Street at Dietz Avenue • Raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue at Lourdes Street • Northbound one‐way segment on Dunbar Road • Northbound one‐way segment on Avondale Avenue • Northbound one‐way segment on Menno Street • Diverter at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Alexandra Avenue • Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive • Northbound one‐way segment on Roslin Avenue between William Street and Norman Street • Half‐closure on Roslin Avenue at John Street • Southbound one‐way segment on Dunbar Road • Traffic circle at Avondale Avenue and Williams Street • Diverter at intersection of Avondale Avenue and Norman Street • Northbound one‐way segment on Belmont Avenue between Norman Street and Allen Street • Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street • Half road closure on Allen Street at John Street • Diverter at intersection of John Street and Belmont Avenue


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 24

Figure 5‐9: Alternative Network Scenario 1


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 25



TR12-0697 (June 2014) 26



TR12-0697 (June 2014) 27



TR12-0697 (June 2014) 28

6.0 Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

Table 6‐1 presents the evaluation criteria for assessing the traffic calming plans and their potential effectiveness within the Uptown West neighbourhood. These evaluation criteria were developed early in the study process by the Study Team in consultation with the Public Task Force. The intent of the criteria was to help determine a technically preferred neighbourhood transportation solution. The evaluation was completed independently by the consultant team to reflect an impartial and technical perspective. Table 6‐1: Evaluation Criteria Criteria Measures Community • Addresses the study objective.

• Protects integrity of low density residential streets. • Provides safe, appropriate local access. • Encourages active transportation – for recreation, commuting and access to the future LRT.

• Enhances community space. Traffic Operations • Minimizes detrimental impacts to other residential streets / locations.

• Minimizes impact on emergency response times. • Reduces vehicle speeds. • Considers operations of the future LRT.

Infiltration • Mitigates the amount of cut‐through vehicular traffic.• Minimizes detrimental impacts to residents.

Safety • Improves safety for all users – pedestrians of all ages and abilities, cyclists, drivers.

• Likelihood of compliance. Cost • Installation/construction costs.

• Operation and maintenance costs.

6.2 Evaluation

The evaluation of the four alternative network scenarios against the above criteria was completed from a technical perspective and is summarized in Table 6‐2. 6.3 Summary of Evaluation

Based on the overall evaluation, two of the alternative scenarios (1 and 3) have been ranked equally and higher than the other two. While both Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 have features that, from the perspective of the evaluation team, meet the study criteria, both scenarios also have negative impacts or disadvantages.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 29

Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Community Addresses the study objective.

• No new measures in place to address the study objective.

• Existing measures from RUTS (Residential Uptown Transportation Study) already provides some degree of traffic calming.

• Measures in place to provide traffic calming and discourage infiltration.



Protects integrity of low density residential streets.

• No new measures in place to protect the integrity of low density residential streets.

• Existing character of mature neighbourhood streets is maintained.

• Measures in place to provide traffic calming and discourage infiltration on residential streets.

• Changes existing character of mature neighbourhood streets.





Provides safe, appropriate local access.

• Community will be similar to existing conditions.

• No impediments to local access. • Residents have choice in how to access/egress neighbourhood.

• Impediments to local access for some residents. Longer routes may be required.

• Most impact on access to neighbourhood compared with other scenarios (turning restrictions).



Encourages active transportation – for recreation, commuting and access to the future LRT.

• New bike routes (as per TMP) with connections to path associated with LRT improvements and to existing trails.

• New sidewalks will be prioritized based on City‐wide program.

• New bike routes with connections to path associated with LRT improvements and to existing trails.


• One new raised crosswalk and one raised intersection to provide safer crossing opportunities.



• Two new raised crosswalks and one raised intersection to provide safer crossing opportunities.



• Two new raised crosswalks to provide safer crossing opportunities.

Enhances community space. • No new opportunities to enhance community

space. • Diverters and road closure could be designed with urban design/streetscape features.

• Over time, boulevard areas on one‐way street could be widened for improved streetscape features and community space.

• Diverters and road closure could be designed with urban design/streetscape features.

• Mobile “pinch points” (e.g. planters) could enhance streetscape on Dunbar Road and Norman Street.


• Diverters could be designed with urban design/streetscape features.



TR12-0697 (June 2014) 30

Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives (cont.) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Traffic Operations Minimizes detrimental impacts to other residential streets / locations.

• No detrimental impacts to any other streets / locations resulting from calming measures.

• Turn restrictions along Erb Street and Westmount Road may divert traffic to streets without turn restrictions (i.e. Roslin Avenue and Lourdes Street) which must remain open due to school access.

• One way streets and diverters may also divert traffic to other streets.

• One‐way segment (Dunbar Road) and paired diverters (Avondale/Alexandra, Euclid/Alexandra) may result in higher traffic volumes on Roslin Avenue which must remain open due to school access.

• Other one way streets and diverters may also divert traffic to other streets.

• One‐way segments (Dunbar Road, Avondale Avenue, Menno Street) and diverter (Euclid/Alexandra) may result in higher traffic volumes on Roslin Avenue which must remain open due to school access.

• Other one way streets and diverters may also divert traffic to other streets

Minimizes impact on emergency response times.

• No impact to emergency vehicles. • Median across Park Street / Allen Street intersection must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

• Some impacts to emergency response routes/times due to various measures throughout the neighbourhood. Less physical measures that would impact response times compared to Scenarios 3 and 4.

• Median across Park Street / Allen Street intersection must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

• Some impacts to emergency response routes/times due to various measures throughout the neighbourhood. Most physical measures that would impact emergency response times compared to Scenarios 2 and 4.

• Median across Park Street / Allen Street intersection must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

• Some impacts to emergency response routes/times due to various measures throughout the neighbourhood.

Reduces vehicle speeds.

• No impact to traffic speeds. However, traffic speed data has shown that existing speeds are reasonable in most locations – existing measures (through RUTS) have had a positive impact on traffic speeds on most streets.

• Raised crosswalk and raised intersection could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue near the school.

• Longer one‐way segments may encourage higher speeds. Appropriate design features needed on one‐ways streets.

• Traffic circle could reduce vehicular speeds on William Street and Avondale Avenue.

• Raised crosswalk and raised intersection could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue and Lourdes Street near the school.

• “Pinch points” on Dunbar Road and Norman Street.

• Traffic circle could reduce vehicular speeds on William Street and Avondale Avenue.

• Raised crosswalk could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue and Lourdes Street near the school.

• Longer one‐way segments may encourage higher speeds. Appropriate design features needed on one‐ways streets.

Considers operations of the future LRT.

• No negative impacts to future LRT. • No negative impacts to future LRT. • No negative impacts to future LRT. • No negative impacts to future LRT.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 31

Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives (cont.) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Infiltration Mitigates the amount of cut‐through vehicular traffic.

• No measures in place to discourage infiltration. • Existing grid network disperses and distributes traffic over many streets.

• Measures to discourage infiltration:From Westmount Road to Erb Street: - Right‐turn restrictions on Westmount Road at the intersections of Dawson Street, Dietz Avenue and Norman Street

From Erb Street: - Right‐turn restrictions on Erb Street during the peak period at Dietz Avenue, Beverly Street, Dunbar Road, and Avondale Avenue

- Diverter at Euclid Avenue/Alexandra Avenue - Raised crosswalk and raised intersection on Roslin Avenue

- Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive

North‐south through traffic: - Raised crosswalk and raised intersection on Roslin Avenue; road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street

- One‐way segments on Dunbar Road and Avondale Road

East‐west through traffic: - Diverter, one‐way segment and raised intersection on Alexandra Avenue

- One‐way segments on Norman Street; right‐turn restriction on Westmount Road at Norman Street

- Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street; road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street

- Diverter on John Street at Belmont Avenue

• Measures to discourage infiltration:From Westmount Road to Erb Street: - Diverter at Dawson Street at Dietz Avenue - Right‐turn restrictions from Beverly Street on to Erb Street and from Roslin Avenue on to Erb Street

- Raised crosswalk on Lourdes Street at Dietz Avenue

From Erb Street: - Diverters at Euclid Avenue/Alexandra Avenue and at Avondale Avenue/Alexandra Avenue

- One‐way segment on Dunbar Road - Raised crosswalk and raised intersection on Roslin Avenue

- Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive

North‐south through traffic: - Raised crosswalk and raised intersection on Roslin Avenue; road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street

- One‐way segments and traffic calming ‘pinch points’ on Dunbar Road

- Diverter at Avondale Avenue/Alexandra Avenue

East‐west through traffic: - Diverter on Dawson Street at Dietz Avenue - Diverters and raised intersection on Alexandra Avenue

- Traffic circle on William Street at Avondale Avenue

- One‐way segments and traffic calming ‘pinch points’ on Norman Street

- Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street; road closure at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street


• Measures to discourage infiltration:From Westmount Road to Erb Street: - Diverter on Dawson Street at Dietz Avenue - Raised crosswalk on Lourdes Street at Dietz Avenue

From Erb Street: - Diverter on Euclid Avenue at Alexandra Avenue

- One‐way segments on Dunbar Road, Avondale Avenue and Menno Street

- Raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue - Raised median islands or speed cushions on Father David Bauer Drive

North‐south through traffic: - Raised crosswalk and one‐way segment on Roslin Avenue; half‐closure on Roslin Avenue at John Street

- One‐way segments on Dunbar Road - One‐way segment, traffic circle and diverter on Avondale Avenue

East‐west through traffic: - Diverter on Dawson Street at Dietz Avenue - Diverter on Alexandra Avenue at Euclid Avenue

- Traffic circle on William Street at Avondale Avenue

- Diverter on Norman Street at Avondale Avenue

- Intersection median on Park Street at Allen Street; half road closure on Allen Street at John Street



TR12-0697 (June 2014) 32

Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives (cont.) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Minimizes detrimental impacts to residents.

• No detrimental impacts to residents resulting from traffic calming measures.

• Turn restrictions along Erb Street and Westmount Road will also impact neighbourhood residents returning home.

• Route choice will be impacted for residents of one‐way streets (135 properties).

• Route choice of visitors to Erb Street Mennonite Church will be directly impacted due to turn restriction at Erb Street / Dunbar Road.

• Circuitous routes may be required for some residents in the neighbourhood which may result in higher traffic volumes on some streets (i.e. one‐way streets, parallel to one‐way streets, routes around diverters).

• Turn restrictions will impact neighbourhood residents exiting at Beverly Street on to Erb Street and Roslin Avenue on to Erb Street.


• Route choice of visitors to Erb Street Mennonite Church will be directly impacted due to one‐way segment on Dunbar Road.




Safety Improves safety for all users – pedestrians of all ages and abilities, cyclists, drivers.

• Provides signed bike routes (as per TMP) which raises driver awareness of cyclists on road.

• Provides sidewalks (as per City’s sidewalk program).

• Does not address identified speeding issues in the neighbourhood (i.e. Roslin Avenue at school)

• Does not address identified collision issues (i.e. Park & Allen)

• Provides signed bike routes which raises driver awareness of cyclists on road.


• Raised crosswalk and raised intersection could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue and provide safer crossing opportunities for pedestrians near the school.

• Median through intersection at Park/Allen provides a pedestrian refuge for crossing Park Street.

• Conflicting movements removed at Roslin Avenue/Allen Street/John Street intersection.



• Two raised crosswalks and raised intersection could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue and Lourdes Street and provide safer crossing opportunities for pedestrians near the school.





• Raised crosswalks could reduce vehicle speeds on Roslin Avenue and Lourdes Street and provide safer crossing opportunities for pedestrians near the school.



Likelihood of compliance.

• Minor improvements are not expected to result in non‐compliance.

• Turn restrictions may have lower compliance.• One way segments may have some non‐compliance.

• Turn restrictions may have lower compliance. • One way segments may have some non‐compliance.

• One way segments may have some non‐compliance.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 33

Table 6‐2: Evaluation of Alternatives (cont.) Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Cost Installation/construction costs.

• Costs for bike routes and sidewalks are part of City’s other programs.

• No additional costs.

• Estimated cost to construct: $100k to $315k • Estimated cost to construct: $120k to $310k • Estimated cost to construct: $100k to $275k

Operation and maintenance costs.

• No additional associated costs. • One‐way streets will impact garbage and recycling collection and snow plow operations. Longer and more circuitous routes will be required to clear all streets. Some areas may require several passes of the plow on same street.

• Turn restrictions will impact garbage and recycling collection and snow plow operations (during peak hours).

• Diverters will impact snow plow operations. Snow removal may be required as storage space within the intersection will be limited.

• [If used to help control speeds in longer one‐way section ‐ Portable “pinch points” (e.g. planters) will require maintenance and winter storage.]

• One‐way streets will impact garbage and recycling collection and snow plow operations. Longer and more circuitous routes will be required to clear all streets.

• Turn restrictions will impact garbage and recycling collection and snow plow operations (during peak hours).


• Traffic circle will impact snow plow operations (usually requires more time to clear than a standard intersection).

• Portable “pinch points” (e.g. planters) will require maintenance and winter storage.

• One‐way streets will impact garbage and recycling collection and snow plow operations. Longer and more circuitous routes will be required to clear all streets.


• Traffic circle will impact snow plow operations (usually requires more time to clear than a standard intersection).

• [If used to help control speeds in longer one‐way section ‐ Portable “pinch points” (e.g. planters) will require maintenance and winter storage.]

Summary


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 34

7.0 Consultation Process

The Study Team engaged members of the Public Task Force, Technical Agencies Committee, and the general public in a comprehensive consultation program on this neighbourhood study. 7.1 Consultation with Public Task Force

A Public Task Force comprised of 14 members of the public, most of whom live in or near the study area, was formed in early 2013 to represent neighbourhood and broader City interests during the UWNTS. Within this group, there was one representative from each of the following: • City Council • Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee • Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation • City‐at‐large The Public Task Force acted in an advisory capacity to the Study Team on behalf of community, neighbourhood and other representative group interests. The role/objectives of the Public Task Force were to: • participate and provide feedback into the UWNTS, including development of the consultant terms of reference,

• provide feedback into the development of and participate in a public engagement strategy related to the study,

• support the study by acting as a conduit for information between stakeholders and the Study Team, • support Council by providing comments to them, if required, at key milestones. Four meetings between City staff and members of the Public Task Force were held between January 2013 and April 2013. After the consulting team was retained, an additional eight meetings with the Study Team and Public Task Force were held from June 2013 to June 2014. Public Task Force members were engaged throughout the study process and provided valued input into various aspects of the study. It was recognized that there were a number of differing perspectives on the issues and the level of traffic measures to address those issues. The Public Task Force provided input into developing the neighbourhood newsletters, evaluation criteria and development of alternative network scenarios (plans). 7.2 Consultation with Technical Agencies Committee

A Technical Agencies Committee was formed of review agencies and stakeholders. The following agencies were invited to participate: • City of Kitchener, Planning and Transportation • City of Waterloo, Councillor, Uptown Ward 7 • City of Waterloo, Engineering Services • City of Waterloo Fire Rescue Services • City of Waterloo, Integrated Planning and Public Works (Engineering, Transportation and Planning) • Empire Public School


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 35

• Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee • Our Lady of Lourdes School • Region of Waterloo, Councillor • Region of Waterloo Public Health • Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planning • Region of Waterloo Traffic Engineering • Region of Waterloo, Waste Management Services • Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region • Uptown Streetscape Improvement Project Task Force • Uptown Waterloo BIA • Uptown West Neighbourhood Association • Uptown West Neighbourhood Transportation Study Public Task Force • Uptown Vision Committee • Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation • Waterloo Advisory Committee on Safe and Healthy Communities • Waterloo Catholic District School Board • Waterloo Region District School Board • Waterloo Region Police Service ‐ Traffic Department • Waterloo Region Police Service ‐ Investigative Services The Technical Agencies Committee acted in an advisory capacity to the Study Team to ensure technical considerations were identified, reviewed and incorporated, where appropriate from respective agencies. Two meetings were held with the Technical Agencies Committee. The first meeting was held on October 1, 2013 and the second was held on March 13, 2014. At each of the meetings, the technical agency representatives provided input and insight on the following issues. • Recent recommendations from the Region’s draft Active Transportation Master Plan. • Observed speeds are not unreasonable for a residential neighbourhood. Experience in other neighbourhoods have shown 85th percentile speeds as high as 70 km/h.

• Development density in growth area will support the transit‐oriented vision for growth area. • Cumulative effects of traffic calming on emergency response. Council‐mandated initial response time of 5 minutes must be met.

• Critical not to impede primary and secondary emergency response routes. • Impacts of traffic calming on parking and garbage collection. • Origin and destination surveys to measure actual infiltration. • Concern for safety at pedestrian crossings on Westmount Road (at Dietz Avenue) and on Erb Street (at Roslin Avenue).

• Impacts of traffic calming on City snow plow operations. • Missing sidewalks, current condition of existing sidewalks. • Impacts of diverting traffic from Waterloo to Kitchener. The minutes of these meetings are included in Appendix C. 7.3 Consultation with the Public

One of the main priorities throughout the course of the study was to consult and engage with the public. A chronology of the public consultation process under the UWNTS is provided below:


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 36

July 30, 2013 Newsletter #1 – The first newsletter informed members of the public that the

study had commenced, provided some background information, and identified key Study Team contacts. The newsletter was distributed by: email (study mailing list, CORE mailing list, Neighbourhood Association mailing list), Canada Post (unaddressed mail system), and posted on the City’s website.

September 24, 2013 Newsletter #2 – The second newsletter provided members of the public with a study update. It also provided advanced notice of an upcoming Public Engagement Session and presented a preliminary recommendation regarding the potential reclassification of three roads within the study area – Avondale Avenue, Allen Street, and John Street. The newsletter was distributed by: email (study mailing list, CORE mailing list, Neighbourhood Association mailing list), Canada Post (unaddressed mail system), and posted on the City’s website.

October 11, 2013 Notice of Public Engagement Session – This notice invited members of the public to attend a Public Engagement Session scheduled for October 30, 2013. The notice was distributed by: email (study mailing list, CORE mailing list), Canada Post (unaddressed mail system), posted on the City’s website and Neighbourhood Association website, and was also published in the Waterloo Chronicle on October 16 and 23, 2013.

October 30, 2013 Public Engagement Session – This public meeting was held on October 30, 2013 at the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex from 6:30 to 9:00 PM. More than 150 individuals signed in at the event. Display boards were available for attendees to review, and handouts were also provided. This session began with a brief presentation, followed by a question and answer period, and then finally a group exercise, which was highly participatory in nature. Attendees were encouraged to share their comments and concerns with members of the Study Team, by engaging in discussions at the event or by filling in comment cards for the Study Team to review at a later time.

February 3, 2014 Newsletter #3 – The third newsletter was published to provide a study update. The third newsletter provided members of the public with a study update. It also confirmed that Avondale Avenue, Allen Street, and John Street could maintain their local road designations, and presented the evaluation criteria. The newsletter was distributed by: email (study mailing list, CORE mailing list, Councillor Durrell’s mailing list, Neighbourhood Association mailing list), Canada Post (unaddressed mail system), and posted on the City’s website.

April 15, 2014 Notice of Public Open House #2 –Notice of Public Engagement Session – This notice invited members of the public to attend a Public Open House scheduled for May 6, 2014. The notice was distributed by: email (study mailing list, CORE mailing list), Canada Post (unaddressed mail system), posted on the City’s website and Neighbourhood Associate website, and published in the Waterloo Chronicle on April 23 and 30, 2014.

May 6, 2014 Public Open House – This public meeting was held on May 6, 2014 at the Knox


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 37

Presbyterian Church from 6:00 to 8:00 PM. More than 200 individuals signed in at the event. Display boards were available for attendees to review, and stations were set up to play a pre‐recorded video that described the characteristics of three alternative scenarios. Attendees were encouraged to share their comments and concerns with members of the Study Team, by engaging in discussions at the event or by filling in comment cards for the Study Team to review at a later time.

Copies of each newsletter and notice are included in Appendix D. 7.3.1 Public Engagement Session #1

Public Engagement Session (PES) #1 was held on Wednesday, October 30, 2013, at the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM. Attendees were welcomed by members of the Study Team and/or Public Task Force. A total of 153 individuals signed in at the event which does not include members of the Study Team or Public Task Force. Eight display boards were arranged at the side of the meeting room for attendees to browse relevant information at their leisure. Most of the information on the display boards were also included in either the “Facilitator Discussion Guide” or the “Information Package”. A “General Comment Station” was available for those interested in sharing additional comments with the Study Team. Comment forms were also available for residents to provide their thoughts if that method was preferable. Residents were encouraged to take the comment forms with them if they required more time to provide comments and return to the Study Team by various means (as indicated on the comment form) by Friday, November 15, 2013. An overview of the study data and issues to date was provided in a presentation format, followed by a Q&A session. Attendees seated themselves around 26 tables, in groups of 5 or 6, which were set up for the Group Session following the presentation and Q&A session. A full report of this Public Engagement Session can be found in Appendix E1. 7.3.2 Public Open House #2

Public Open House #2 was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Knox Presbyterian Church. Attendees were welcomed by the Chair of the Public Task Force and invited to sign‐in upon arrival. A total of 206 individuals signed in at the event. This number does not include members of the Study Team or other attendees who declined to sign‐in. Seventeen display boards were arranged around the meeting room for attendees to browse relevant information at their leisure, some of which was previously presented at the Public Engagement Session in October 2013, and included as part of the “Public Open House #2 – Information for Review” which was made available on the City’s website on April 29, 2014. Three stations were set up to play a pre‐recorded looped video to explain the characteristics of each of the Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. One member of the Study Team was assigned to each of the three stations to address any questions or to listen to any concerns from residents and other attendees. Other members of the Study Team were also available for discussion. There was no pre‐recorded presentation for Scenario 1, but it was displayed on a board for review and comment by attendees.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 38

A “General Comment Station” with comment cards and pens was also set up, for those interested in writing comments to be reviewed by the Study Team after the event. Residents were also allowed to take the comment cards away but were requested to have them returned to the Study Team by following the printed instructions. In total, 126 comment sheets were received from 119 individuals at the conclusion of the open house. Feedback from the public has provided a range of comments both for and against the four alternatives. Many members of the public have commented that the proposed measures result in major impacts to their neighbourhood and that, at this time, the traffic issues and concerns do not appear to be serious enough to warrant such major changes. Many others noted there is a need to make these changes to the neighbourhood now as a preventative measure against potential infiltration from new developments in the surrounding area. Still others acknowledged that while changes to traffic are expected in Uptown West, we cannot be certain how the traffic will change, therefore the plan needs to be flexible to adapt to changes as they occur. A full report of this Public Open House can be found in Appendix E2. 7.3.3 Online Survey

In combination with the second public meeting, an online survey (using Survey Monkey) was provided via a link from the City’s Uptown West website as another means for collecting input from the public. The survey asked seven questions and provided a text box for additional comments.

Survey Questions 1. From your perspective, which of the four scenarios best:

a) …minimizes potential traffic infiltration into the Uptown West neighbourhood? b) …enhances the safety of all road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians) and neighbourhood

residents? c) …provides appropriate level of access for residents, services and deliveries? d) …encourages active transportation (walking, cycling, rollerblading, skateboarding, etc.)? e) …encourages driving at or below the speed limit? f) …protects the integrity of the Uptown West neighbourhood?

2. Which of the four scenarios do you think is most appropriate for the Uptown West

neighbourhood?

In total, 210 survey forms submitted, of which only 137 surveys contained actual responses (i.e. at least one question was answered or a comment was provided). Summaries of the online survey responses are included in Appendix E2. A wide range of comments were received. Many supported one or more of the scenarios while others did not support any of the scenarios. Several respondents were strongly against implementing any measures in Uptown West. The charts below summarize the responses to the seven questions. It is noted that some respondents did not respond to every question and others noted that they selected one of the scenarios even though they did not believe that the scenario fully meet the objectives of the study.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 39

7.3.4 General Public Comments

During the study, a number of comments were received from members of the public via email and telephone. Four telephone calls were received, and 59 emails were received from 47 individuals. A summary of the comments received from the public via email and telephone are included in Appendix E3.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 40

8.0 Recommendations

The following presents the recommendations for the City of Waterloo with respect to the UWNTS based on technical analysis and consultation with the Study Team, Technical Agencies Committee, Public Task Force and the public. 8.1 Road Classification Recommendation

The classification of three roads – Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street – were deferred after the completion of the City’s TMP. A review of the City’s TMP, relevant road classification criteria, traffic volumes, operating speeds, road widths, the road character and function at a more detailed level determined that a local road designation for the sections of Allen Street, Avondale Avenue, and John Street within the study area are appropriate. City staff are supportive of this finding that reflects a review of travel data and roadway characteristics to a level of local detail greater than that allowed for at the more macro TMP stage. 8.2 Overall Neighbourhood Transportation Network Recommendation

Based on the current transportation conditions, technical analysis undertaken to date, the evaluation of the alternatives and comments from the Public Task Force, Technical Agencies Committee, the public, and the fact that the magnitude and timing of any impacts from LRT and/or area developments are uncertain at this current time, a progressive traffic management strategy is recommended for the Uptown West neighbourhood. This strategy would take steps towards a comprehensive plan over time in response to measurable traffic calming needs and be flexible and versatile to adapt to changing conditions over time using the various tools and techniques identified in this study to address situations as they arise. 8.2.1 Phase 1

In the short term, as a first phase to the progressive traffic management strategy, the following measures are recommended: Sidewalks The City should initiate its City‐wide assessment of priorities for sidewalks to fill in the

missing gaps in Uptown West. Within Uptown West, the priorities for sidewalks should be the sections of roads which are missing sidewalks on both sides of the road (i.e. at a minimum sidewalks should be provided on one side of the road) and in areas that with higher volumes of pedestrians (i.e. routes to schools and other public facilities).

Signed bike routes

The City should implement the cycling network as identified in its TMP. Signed bike routes have been identified in the TMP on William Street, Allen Street, Park Street (south of Allen Street), Erb Street and Westmount Road. It is recommended that Alexandra Avenue be designated as a signed bike route in addition to, or in place of, the signed bike route on William Street. It is also recommended that Roslin Avenue be considered for a signed bike route as it provides a connection to the crossing opportunity at the pedestrian signal at Erb Street / Roslin Avenue.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 41

Neighbourhood signage

Neighbourhood signage can raise driver awareness that this is a residential community with traffic calming measures. Standard signage for a “traffic‐calmed neighbourhood” could be installed or custom Uptown West neighbourhood signage could be commissioned, to provide individual identity to this unique and historic neighbourhood.

Raised crosswalk

A raised crosswalk on Roslin Avenue in the vicinity of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School, shown conceptually south of Lourdes Street in place of the existing painted crosswalk, is recommended. The raised crosswalk enhances the existing crosswalk by improving driver awareness of the pedestrian and is a speed reduction measure for vehicles on Roslin Avenue across the frontage of the school.

Park Street / Allen Street

A safety assessment of the intersection should be undertaken to confirm that the intersection island will address the collision concerns at this intersection. The design of any median at this location must accommodate pedestrians and cyclists crossing Park Street, and the movement of emergency response vehicles on Allen Street which is a designated secondary fire rescue route.

Park Street / William Street

Further investigation into the traffic operations at this intersection is recommended.The intersection appears to be approaching the traffic signal warrant and a complete 8‐hour traffic count should be undertaken to confirm the warrant analysis. However, given the close spacing to the intersection at Caroline Street / William Street, any changes to traffic control at Park Street will impact the flows and queues at the upstream intersection. A combined assessment of the two intersections should be undertaken to identify potential solutions. The timing of this investigation may need to be postponed if construction for the LRT is underway on Caroline Street.

Monitoring Program

One of the critical pieces of the traffic management strategy will be to continue monitoring traffic in and adjacent to Uptown West. The City currently undertakes a regular program of traffic counts and speed surveys. The City should continue with the program so that any significant changes in traffic characteristics could be monitored and addressed, as appropriate. In particular, speeds should be monitored along Dunbar Road between Alexandra Avenue and Dawson Street, and along William Street between Avondale Avenue and Euclid Avenue, due to previous data which showed 85th percentile speeds over 50 km/h.

On‐going consultation with Region of Waterloo

The City should continue to consult and work with the Region to support improvements to traffic flow on the Regional roads such as Erb Street and Westmount Road. Traffic signal coordination studies should be undertaken by the Region on a regular basis to ensure optimal flow of traffic on the arterial road system as the Region grows and traffic patterns change. With the upcoming LRT construction on Caroline Street through Erb Street, traffic management during construction will play a vital role in minimizing the effects of infiltration.


TR12-0697 (June 2014) 42

Implementation of the recommendations for Phase 1 is estimated to have a cost in the range of $20,000 to $40,000, not including monitoring, which would be part of City’s regular program of traffic counts and speed surveys, and sidewalks which will be implemented through other City programs. These costs include standard neighbourhood signage, bike route signage, a raised crosswalk and a raised median island. 8.2.2 Next Phases

As the City continues to monitor and review the traffic conditions in Uptown West, and issues identified, additional measures could be implemented as problems arise. Initially, less costly (e.g. pavement markings) or temporary measures could be implemented to test the effectiveness of the measure against the observed problem. The next phase could also include less intrusive measures (such as “pinch points”, median islands, raised intersections and crosswalks) that do not significantly impact residents mobility needs to get in and around their neighbourhood. Should problems still persist, then a full network scenario could be implemented over time. At this time, given the feedback from the public for an adaptive and flexible plan, we acknowledge the final network solution that is implemented may not be exactly any of the four alternatives that were presented at Public Open House #2 in May 2014. 8.2.3 Implementation

The City develops a City‐wide traffic calming implementation prioritization plan in order to prioritize the installation of traffic calming in accordance with available budget. The Phase 1 recommendations of this study will be assessed, along with study recommendations from other areas of the city, and prioritized accordingly.

uptown west neighbourhood transportation studycity of waterloo uptown west neighbourhood...

Documents