2.3 storm sewer system - waterloo.ca · the gis-integrated infoworks cs software was used for the...

WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011

2.3 STORM SEWER SYSTEM

2.3.1 Approach

The scope of the storm infrastructure assessment was limited to evaluation of the underground sewer system only. Hence the interaction of the overland drainage system, such as surface conveyance capacity and catchbasin inlet capacity, was not including in the modeling exercise.

A major source of background information was the 2005 Master Drainage Study (MDS) by MRC. Two (2) modeling exercises were completed as part of that study: a macro-level watershed model using GAWSER, and a micro-level storm sewer model using XP-STORM. As this study is focused on sewer infrastructure capacity upgrade potential, the modeling exercise was tailored to suit this need. Upon discussions with City staff, it was felt that significant changes to the base sewer asset data had been achieved since the completion of the MDS, therefore it was recommended that the sewer information from the previous modeling not be used. Therefore, the approach to model development was to use the validated storm GIS data, and to develop a new hydrologic model based on parameters outlined in the MDS. It was decided that a dynamic model would be best suited for future adaptation by the City; therefore the GIS-integrated InfoWorks CS software was used for the analysis. InfoWorks allows for significant data analysis, validation, asset management and documentation within the model environment, with extremely flexible exportation capabilities to shapefiles for incorporation into future analyses with other models. The underlying hydrology is based on the EPA SWMM engine, and therefore the input parameters developed are compatible with other similar modeling platforms.

Given the project emphasis on sewer capacity, the model exercise did not incorporate the dynamic hydraulics of Laurel Creek since this would require a watershed-scale model which was outside the scope of the current assignment. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that each sewershed outfall is free flowing, with no impacts resulting from creek water levels. Since we are evaluating only the minor system storm events, this assumption was considered acceptable.

Drainage Areas

Drainage areas for each storm sewershed were delineated using the previous MDS figures and current topographic contours as a guide. An inlet-to-inlet approach was applied in dense areas within the core, while a lumped modeling approach was applied in areas external to the study boundary that flowed through the storm sewer infrastructure under investigation. The delineated subcatchments were assigned to the upstream-most node, to ensure flow was applied through the appropriate sewers. All subcatchment flow generated for this study was assumed to enter 100% into the storm sewer system. The storm drainage areas are shown in Figure 2.7.

rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.14

Erb

King

Uni

vers

ity

Albert

Allen

Ellis

Park

John

Moore

Margaret

Weber

Bridgeport

Hazel

Keats

Phillip

Duke

Dunbar

Linc

oln

Willia

m

Rin

g Bluevale

Guelph

Avondale

Ahrens

Roslin

Westmount

Amos

Waterloo

Alexa

ndra

Marshall

Conestoga

Bearing

er

Roger

Lester

Caroline

Columb

ia

Mary

Lourde

s

Dawso

n

Union

Herbert

High

Louisa

Royal

Mayfield

Welling

ton

Dietz

Rodney

Norm

an

Blucher

Victoria

York

Glasgo

w

Willow

Lodge

Dover

Dekay

Euclid

Breithau

pt

Earl

Austin

Bristol

Wat

er

Mcdougall

Seag

ram

Shanley

Forsyth

Harvard

Forrest

Stanley

Wilhelm

Carter

Neilson

Marsland

Spruce

Dorset

Devitt

Walter

Wes G

raham

Elgin

Agne

s

Alvin

Esson

Spring

Verm

ont

Mt Hope

Cornwa

ll

Dick

Tamarack

Fathe

r Dav

idBa

uer

Gildner

Menno

Empire

Lillian

Cardina

l

Colerid

ge

Sunview

Milford

Churc

hill

Culpe

pper

Hett

Dal

e

Fairfield

Shakes

peare D

upont

Winfield

Gruhn Hilliard

Helene

OldPo

st

Brunswick

Dixie

Thornc

rest

Karen

Severn

Pine

Murdock

Braun

Glen

ridge

Floyd

Bellehaven

Lucan

Eden

Oriole

Moh

awk

Colle

ge

St Leger

Fischer-Hallman

Bell

Willowdale

Meaford

Hickory

TheLion

's

Gre

en

Corrie

Melbourne

Strange

Craigle

ith

Beverley

Belmont

Reiber Dou

glas

Hiawa

tha

Braeside

Wood

Was

hingt

on

Mulberry

Dieppe

Blythw

ood

Sunshi

ne

Roosevelt

Christ

ophe

r

Fran

cis

Cardill

Delisle

Elm

Graham

Quiet

Rock

Parkm

ount

Candlewood

Raitar

Maple

wood

Crestwood

Woodward

Ceda

rbra

e

Rusholme

Mccarron

Dominio

n

Ascot

Ridgewood

Breeze

wood

Macgr

egor

Academy

Hagey

Midwoo

d

Andr

ew

Park

side

Vogel

Bismark

Spring

dale

Forw

ellCr

eek

Briarcliffe

Arlen

e

Che

lford

Stahl

RegRd

57To

Hwy

85S_bnd

Briar

Fern

dale

Algon

quin

Goldbeck

Weston

Qui

ckfa

ll

Barrie

Anatolin

Langford

Lion's

Carlaw

Tennyson

Somerset

Pinewo

od

Comberm

ere

Westrid

ge

Gillen

Browning

RoseLea

Post Horn

Sorre

l

Villa

Glenburn

Keats Way

Cambria

Argyle

Ashton

Reinh

ardt

Laurier

Linw

ood

York

York

Conestoga

Park

Louisa

Belmont

Devitt

John

Union W

ood

Lexi

ngto

n

I 49 Frederick Street Kitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7 Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733 www.stantec.com

Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported toStantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction of use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

Consultants

22 Legend Study Area1 Parcel Watercourse

23

25

Storm Sewershed 1 (Columbia/CNR)

2 3 18

19 20

21 2 (University/CNR) 3 (Seagram/CNR) 4 (Erb/Caroline) 5 (Caroline South of Erb) 6 (King/WIllis Way) 7 (Regina/Laurel Ck) 8 (William/Herbert) 9 (Willow/Railway Corridor) 10 (King N of Laurel Ck) 11 (Erb/Willow) 12 (Peppler/Laurel Ck) 13 (Erb W. of Laurel Ck) 14 (Bridgeport E. of Laurel Ck) 15 (Erb W. of Laurel Ck) 16 (Laurel/Laurel Ck) 17 (William/Railway Corridor) 18 (Peppler/Elgin)

30

4

26 27 28

6

10

7

12 13

15

24

29

11 16

17

8

14

9 Revision

Issued

Dwn.

File Name:

Permit-Seal

Incorporate City Comments

Draft Final Report - For Comments

By

By

Chkd.

DFE

DFE

Appd. YY.MM.DD

Appd. YY.MM.DD

Dsgn. YY.MM.DD

SZ 11.07.21

SZ 11.03.08

19 (Brighton/Laurel Ck) 20 (Weber N. of Laurel Ck) 21 (Weber S. of Laurel Ck) 22 (University Ave/Laurel Ck) 23 (Weber S. of University) 24 (Willis Way/Regina)

5 CITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA IASSESSMENTNFRASTRUCTURE Client/Project

25 (Marshall W. of Laurel Ck) 26 (Albert/Young) Storm Sewersheds

Title

27 (Dupont/Caroline) 28 (Erb W of Caroline) 29 (King/William) 30 (Father David Bower) 2.7

Project No. Figure No. 1611-10917

Sheet Scale

of

1:15,000 50 0 50 100

m

Revision 1

Lang

W:\a

ctiv

e\16

1110

917_

wat

erlo

o_se

rvic

e_ca

paci

ty\p

relim

inar

y\an

alys

is\g

is\m

xd\F

inal

Rep

ort\f

ig2-

3_ex

-stm

-sew

ersh

eds.

mxd

http:www.stantec.com


Hydrologic Loading

Hydrologic parameters were derived based on the GIS data, aerial imagery, and the information contained in background stormwater management studies and the MDS. The following highlights the key hydrologic parameterization for the subcatchments:

Slope was generated based off topographic GIS contours.

Width parameter was estimated as twice the longest sewer length in the sewershed, based on past experience in similar urban hydrologic studies.

Typical impervious ratios developed in the MDS were applied to two (2) general land use types; 50% for residential properties, and 85% for ICI. Where combinations of land use or non-typical impervious cover existed based on aerial photography, the percentage was modified to reflect actual impervious levels.

Design storm hyetographs were developed for the 2- and 5-year 3-hour Chicago distribution, based on IDF parameters established in the MDS. The storm events were subsequently utilized in the model to produce runoff results.

2.3.2 Storm Sewer System Design Criteria

The design criteria used to assess the storm collection system is summarized in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Storm Sewer System Design Criteria1

PARAMETER CRITERIA REFERENCE Slope Minimum Varies by pipe size, to meet velocity criteria MOE (2008)

Full Flow Velocity Minimum Not less than 0.6 m/s MOE (2008)

Maximum Not greater than 6.0 m/s MOE (2008)

Pipe Capacity 5-Year Peak Flow to Full Flow Ratio

Qpeak/Qfull not greater than 1.0; less than 0.8 preferred where feasible

MOE (2008)

1. Taken from MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (2008).

2.3.3 Baseline (2008) Results

The storm sewer modeling analysis required review of the peak flow occurring during the storm events, and comparing to the pipe capacity. As the model is dynamic, surcharge conditions can impact the flow in the sewer, sometimes causing negative flows. Therefore close interpretation



was required to evaluate the causes of system capacity issues. A key indicator of this is the Surcharge State; a value representative of the cause of a specific pipes surcharge condition. The Surcharge State is based on the slope of the HGL relative to the pipe slope. If the HGL slope is steeper than the pipe slope, then the pipe is the limiting capacity constraint. Otherwise, the surcharge is a result of a downstream bottleneck. Figure 2.8 presents the storm sewer capacity results for the Surcharge State.

From Figure 2.8, it is clear that the storm system experiences a high degree of capacity deficiencies for the intended design storm events (2- to 5-year). This finding is not unexpected given the known issues of storm drainage in Waterloo, the historic differences in design methodology (i.e. simple Rational Method vs. hydrologic modeling), uncertainty in some of the storm sewer profile, and the conservative nature of the modeling exercise (i.e. all inflow assumed to enter the sewer; Chicago storm distribution). The high degree of imperviousness in the Study Area is likely also a factor.

The determination of specific bottlenecks was not as revealing as that for the sanitary system, given the widespread issues. Also, the impact of intensification on the storm system is expected to be smaller than that of the population-dependent water and sanitary services, since much of the study area is already developed and new development requires considerations for stormwater management practices for both water quality and water quantity. Therefore, it is proposed that municipal storm sewer improvement works be considered in the evaluation of priorities based on proximity to other infrastructure improvements and the ultimate storm outfall, to offset the financial restrictions of complete system redesign.

The following outlines the results of the baseline storm sewer modeling assessment:

High number of data gaps given difficulties in obtaining thorough and accurate details on the storm system from record drawings and fieldwork; therefore, necessary to infer a large amount of system parameters

Several capacity issues throughout the system

System not capable of handling peak flow from 2-year storm event in many cases

Assessment is conservative in that it assumes that all flow that falls on the surface will enter the sewer during these storms, so additional capacity may exist

Given the widespread capacity issues and associated cost to replace, recommended that storm improvements be targeted with other infrastructure upgrades where feasible

Future stormwater management practices can mitigate impact of future development


Wgni

R

llagu

Milfo

Austin

Cardill

allwo

o

lerroSSm

d

aibmuloC

k car

ama

leza

T

HB

ellrwo

tral

pS

cnirP

Du

ain

We

Osto

H

ni

ele

k

aarv r

RoseLe

r oD

ya

dd

ofs

aa

er

eM

Bedi

sae

i

Nei

i

l

r

s

e

on

Union

r

adnn

hpleuG

d

Briar

d

un

H

rp e

dll s

eBl

ku

Ce

ov

na

el

Ae

stoh

gar

Be

hc

Lillian l b

io

h

oHw

y85

S_bnd

l anid

RegRd

57T

r

tsirC

Go

Ca

E

r oo l

et

to

acs

WA

a

enelrA

Union

Conestoga

dooweniP

rnswick

sett

Duke

door wtaH

t rd

Rahnei

Wilhelm

Stahl

Raitar

Blucher

Shanley

Louisa

I

ek

rCe

Carlaw

r

Macgr

ego Langford

ril

Marsha

ll

Murdock

L

Lodge

t l

ard

e

ayf eM

r

semaJrekceoN

layoR

ig

aM

Elgin

Elgin itt

v

io

infe

gnirD

an W

lcu

aL

dYoung

lln

woi

aW

mwo

Bridgeport

Dix

Bie

Cornwa

ll

Carter

ittssecnirP

vew

a re

illiV

ll

ll

afkciuQ

actnoMyrokciH

nlocniL

Alvin D

o

los ots se irBtnopuD

Wo

Mt Rod

ney

pon

Nod

r

Dom

inion

em

ewT

llert

n dn

silliWo

alsRog

era

M

Brighton Peppler

e bG

illen L

Ge

ex

oin

rg

gt

Je

oR

egina o

nn

h

A

r

La

Delisle

rW

eber oline

t e

oD

orsetCa

hr

Frem

SP oa k

nMary

r t

B oelmo

F

n

au

n

B ss

Y

n

rk

Hr e t

ull

re

en

l

Mac

kM

at

yH

ope

Fern

dale

Gle

i ge

Belle

hav

Dela

en

Graha

P

m

eltz

Bra

F

u

e

n

r

t Ee ol

nrd

mnt

Y rk oo

Pine

e

ev

lder

DErb

VW

ash

erin

gm

onto

nt

Linw

ood

Rn

ue

ad

Che

lford

F

High

esFir

tcU

nive

rsity

ou

rt

yrokciH

hceeBmaslaB

arzE

age

HeB

m

me

Bricker

ra

Cen

lock Roslin

verley

Father David Bauer

ine

Sunsh

liSp

dr

Muc

ae

ple

a

xr

nalA e

d

Lourdes

vonda

Daw

Hoc

s

llye

on

tM

StD

ae

ten

uH

nn

awo

tb

horna

Wr

ellsEu

ic

am

KingFount

illW

sDick

rill

Hel

A

Larch

tz Die

Albert

S

Sunview

Lester

atavia

illip Ph

lgonq

uin

s'noiLehT

Shakesp

eare

Wes moun

Longfellow t

t

t a hai

tHwa

s ae

C

e

in oAna

t l

Gleu

n

n

l g

ole

M

rid

o

g

b

h

e

a

r

w

V

k

S

o

ha

r

k

h

e

i

s

ll

peare

K

cC

uh

od

Mc

y

A

ar

nl

e ts

ae e

eHagey

ennyson K

aW

Ke

Hn

T

so

mA

Lion's

W:\a

ctiv

e\16

1110

917_

wat

erlo

o_se

rvic

e_ca

paci

ty\p

relim

inar

y\an

alys

is\g

is\m

xd\F

inal

Rep

ort\f

ig2-

8_ba

selin

e-st

m-5

yr-r

esul

ts.m

xd

Storm Sewershed 1 (Columbia/CNR)

2 (University/CNR)

3 (Seagram/CNR)

4 (Erb/Caroline)

5 (Caroline South of Erb)

6 (King/WIllis Way)

7 (Regina/Laurel Ck)

8 (William/Herbert)

9 (Willow/Railway Corridor)

10 (King N of Laurel Ck)

11 (Erb/Willow)

12 (Peppler/Laurel Ck)

13 (Erb W. of Laurel Ck)

14 (Bridgeport E. of Laurel Ck)

15 (Erb W. of Laurel Ck)

16 (Laurel/Laurel Ck)

17 (William/Railway Corridor)

18 (Peppler/Elgin)

19 (Brighton/Laurel Ck)

20 (Weber N. of Laurel Ck)

21 (Weber S. of Laurel Ck)

22 (University Ave/Laurel Ck)

23 (Weber S. of University)

24 (Willis Way/Regina)

25 (Marshall W. of Laurel Ck)

26 (Albert/Young)

27 (Dupont/Caroline)

28 (Erb W of Caroline)

29 (King/William)

30 (Father David Bower)

rd Bearinger

Wes

Graham

eiorr

ForresC

t

49 Frederick Street Kitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7 Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733 www.stantec.com

Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property ofStantec. Reproduction of use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

Consultants

Legend StudyBoundary Parcel Watercourse (GRCA)

Existing 5-year Capacity RatioAvailable Capacity (


2.4 TRANSPORTATION

2.4.1 Approach

The quality of traffic operations at signalized and un-signalized intersections is evaluated in terms of level of service (LOS) and volume to capacity (v/c) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS is evaluated on the basis of average control delay per vehicle and includes deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity with a capacity condition represented by a v/c ratio of 1.00 (i.e., volume demand equals capacity). For signalized intersections, LOS ranges from A, for 10 seconds average delay or less, to F, for delays greater than 80 seconds as shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersections

Level of Service (LOS) Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 0 10

B > 10 20

C > 20 35

D > 35 55

E > 55 80

F > 80

The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different from the criteria for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation facilities result in different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. The delay values for unsignalized intersections range from 10 seconds or less for LOS A, to greater than 50 seconds for LOS F as shown in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Level of Service Criteria Unsignalized Intersections

Level of Service (LOS) Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 0 10

B > 10 15

C > 15 25

D > 25 35

E > 35 50

F > 50



Acceptable operations are generally considered to be LOS C or better. However, during peak hours a LOS D is considered acceptable for both through and right-turn movements and the intersection overall and a LOS E is considered acceptable for left-turn movements. Similar to LOS, the v/c ratio is calculated for the intersection as a whole, and for individual movements at an intersection. For un-signalized intersections, LOS is only calculated for those movements that conflict with opposing free-flow traffic and is not defined for the intersection as a whole.

While the LOS and v/c ratio for each movement are related, they are calculated independently. Therefore it is possible to have a poor level of service associated with a low v/c ratio or a good level of service associated with a high v/c ratio. The designation LOS F does not automatically imply that the intersection or movement is over capacity, nor does a LOS better than E automatically imply that unused capacity is available.

To assess operating conditions for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour future traffic forecasts for the various scenarios, a level of service analysis was undertaken for the Study Area intersections using the Synchro 7 software package.

The key parameters of the analysis include:

Existing signal timings as provided by the Region of Waterloo

Observed heavy vehicle percentages

Saturated flow rate, lost time and peak-hour factors as per the Region of Waterloos Transportation Impact Studies Requirements for Capacity Analysis, Roundabouts, Turn Lanes

Synchro defaults for all other factors

2.4.2 Baseline Results

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2.7. For signalized intersections, the overall intersection level-of-service and v/c ratio are shown. For unsignalized intersections, the levelof-service and v/c ratio for major movements are shown. These results are also presented graphically in Figure 2.9. Level-of-service and v/c ratios at an individual movement level are attached in Appendix A3, along with Synchro analysis outputs.


ALBERT ST

KING

ST N

ERB ST

E

ERB S

T W

WEBER ST N

UN

IVER

SITY

AVE

W

UNIVE

RSITY

AVE E

KING

ST S

BRIDG

EPOR

T RD E

BEARIN

GER RD

WEBER ST S

WESTMOUNT RD N

COLUM

BIA ST

W

KING ST W

WES G

RAH

AM W

AY

COLUM

BIA ST

E

WESTMOUNT RD S

HAGEY BLVD

4

I

3

2 5 9

49 Frederick Street Kitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7 Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733 www.stantec.com

Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported toStantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction of use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

Consultants

Legend Study Area Parcels

Intersection Level of Service Good

Fair

Poor

ID Baseline Street Cross Street 1 Good 2 Poor

Columbia St Columbia St

Philip St Albert St

3 Good 4 Fair

Columbia St Columbia St

King St Weber St

5 Good 6 Good 7 Good 8 Fair 9 Good

10 Good 11 Good 12 Fair 13 Good 14 Good

King St University Ave University Ave University Ave University Ave Bridgeport Rd Bridgeport Rd Bridgeport Rd E Bridgeport Rd Erb St

Hickory St Philip St Albert St King St Weber St Albert St King St Peppler St Weber St Avondale Ave

15 Good Erb St Father David Bauer Dr 16 Poor Erb St Caroline St 17 Good 18 Good

Erb St Erb St

King St Weber St

19 Good Alexandra Ave Caroline St 20 Poor William St Caroline St 21 Good 22 Poor

William St Allen St

King St Park St

23 Good 24 Good

Allen St John St

King St Park St

25 Good 26 Good

John St Union St

King St King St

1 8

7

6

W:\a

ctiv

e\16

1110

917_

wat

erlo

o_se

rvic

e_ca

paci

ty\p

relim

inar

y\an

alys

is\g

is\m

xd\F

inal

Rep

ort\f

ig2-

9_tra

ns-in

ters

ectio

n-LO

S.m

xd

12 11 10

17 16

15 14

19 21 20 23

25 22 26 24

13

18

Incorporate City Comments DFE SZ 11.07.21 Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD

Draft Final Report - For Comments DFE SZ 11.03.08 By Appd. YY.MM.DD Issued

File Name:

Dwn. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD

Permit-Seal

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTUREASSESSMENT Title 2008 IntersectionLevel of Service Results Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:12,500 m Figure No. Sheet Revision

2.9 of 1

http:YY.MM.DDhttp:YY.MM.DDhttp:11.03.08http:YY.MM.DDhttp:11.07.21http:www.stantec.com


Table 2.7: Baseline Peak Hour Level of Service

Intersection Approach/Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS v/c LOS v/c

Columbia Street at Philip Street Overall Intersection C 0.72 C 0.78

Columbia Street at Albert Street Overall Intersection D 1.03 F 1.65

Columbia Street at King Street Overall Intersection C 0.87 D 0.81

Columbia Street at Weber Street Overall Intersection D 0.75 E 1.73

Hickory Street at King Street Overall Intersection A 0.24 A 0.37

University Avenue at Philip Street Overall Intersection C 0.85 E 1.26

University Avenue at Albert Street Overall Intersection C 0.68 D 0.92

University Avenue at King Street Overall Intersection C 0.53 D 0.86

University Avenue at Weber Street Overall Intersection B 0.79 C 1.26

Bridgeport Road at Albert Street Overall Intersection B 0.64 C 0.83

Bridgeport Road at King Street Overall Intersection B 0.55 C 0.79

Bridgeport Road at Peppler Street WB Left/Thru/Right A 0.05 A 0.03

Bridgeport Road at Weber Street Overall Intersection B 0.94 C 0.94

Erb Street at Avondale Avenue WB Left/Thru/Right A 0.01 A 0.02

Erb Street at Father David Bauer Dr Overall Intersection C 0.93 D 0.71

Erb Street at Caroline Street Overall Intersection C 0.79 F 0.96

Erb Street at King Street Overall Intersection B 0.65 C 0.78

Erb Street at Weber Street Overall Intersection B 0.55 C 1.18

Alexandra Avenue at Caroline Street WB

Left/Thru/Right C 0.06 D 0.42

William Street at Caroline Street Overall Intersection C 0.85 F 1.39

William Street at King Street Overall Intersection B 0.67 E 0.84

Allen Street at Park Street EB Left/Thru/Right D 0.42 F 0.79

Allen Street at King Street Overall Intersection B 0.64 A 0.54

John Street at Park Street Overall Intersection B 0.24 B 0.38

John Street at King Street WB Left/Thru/Right C 0.08 E 0.22

Union Street at King Street Overall Intersection B 0.63 C 1.02



The PM peak hour is typically the critical peak period hour for the Study Area intersections. Most of the major arterial-arterial intersections operate at or exceeding capacity while the arterial intersections with collector roads typically operate with some available capacity remaining. The intersections with deficiencies are as follows:

Columbia Street and Weber Street

Columbia Street and Albert Street

University Avenue and King Street

Bridgeport Road and Peppler Street

Erb Street and Caroline Street

William Street and Caroline Street

Allen Street and Park Street

Based on the results of the level-of-service analysis:

There is limited potential for larger auto-dependent trip generators that would attract trips from outside the Study Area, such as large employment areas, commercial retail, etc.

There appears to be some capacity for trips that have both the origin and destination within the Study Area.

There is minimal capacity for additional trips between the Study Area and the

surrounding areas.

There is potential for developments that typically generate trips outside of the commuter AM and PM peak hours and/or create traffic flows in the opposite direction of commuter peak hour flows, such as entertainment centres, cultural institutions, etc.


2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment2.3 STORM SEWER SYSTEM2.3.1 Approach2.3.2 Storm Sewer System Design Criteria2.3.3 Baseline (2008) Results

2.4 TRANSPORTATION2.4.1 Approach2.4.2 Baseline Results

2.3 storm sewer system - waterloo.ca · the gis-integrated infoworks cs software was used for the...

Documents