recreational pathway crossing richmond street municipal class … · 2015-04-23 · recreational...
Post on 13-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Recreational Pathway Crossing of
Richmond StreetMunicipal Class Environmental Assessment
Public Information Centre #2April 22, 2015
1. Study Process
PHASE 1
PHASE 1 : Problem/Opportunity• Identify & describe the problem/opportunity.
PHASE 5 : Implementation• Project design and construction
PHASE 4
PHASE 4: Environmental Study Report• Prepare and File Environmental Study Report (Schedule C projects)
PHASE 3
PHASE 3: Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution
• Identify and evaluate Alternative Design Concepts• Identify environmental effects• Select the Preferred Design
PHASE 2
PHASE 2 : Alternative Solutions• Prepare environmental inventory• Identify & evaluate Alternative Solutions• Establish the Preferred Solution• Prepared and File the Project File (Schedule B projects)
PHASE 5
This study will follow the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process as defined by the Municipal Engineers Association (as amended in 2011).
Schedule B projects include Phases 1, 2 & 5.
Schedule C projects include Phases 1 – 5.
This project is proceeding as a Schedule C project (Phases 1-4).
We are here.
2. Purpose of PIC #2
• To provide interested and/or potentially affected stakeholders with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process for this Class EA.
• To present and receive public input on:• the public comments from PIC #1;• the design concepts for the crossing alignment & recommended preferred crossing alignment;• possible crossing structure types (to be finalized during detailed design);• possible crossing/gateway aesthetics (to be finalized during detailed design); and• the next steps in the process.
Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street
3. Study Context• The purpose of this study is to determine
the most appropriate means of linking the recreational pathway system from west to east at known terminus points ( )
• The need and justification for a pedestrian/cyclist connection in north London has been identified in the City’s Official Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
• Pathway alignments east and west of Richmond Street were identified in the Uplands North and Sunningdale North Area Plans and are being incorporated into ongoing and future development applications.
• An opportunity exists to create a gatewayinto north London within the study area.
_gh
4. Summary of Comments from PIC #1Comments from the Public Project Team Response
Pathway connection
• Creates a long and continuous pathway system in North London.
• Provides a much needed pathway connection.
• Acknowledged
At-grade crossing(Option 4)
• Dangerous even at traffic lights.• A natural at-grade crossing will be provided
when Villagewalk Blvd is extended east.• Preferred crossing (least cost and future
maintenance costs).• Install a crosswalk until traffic signals are
installed at the future road intersection.
• Acknowledged
Overpass (Option 3)
• Nice gateway feature opportunity.• Safer than a tunnel (Option 2).• Preferred as it has the least impact on
Richmond Street property.• Overpass not needed in this location.• Overpass will only be used by a few residents.
• Acknowledged• Population growth in the area
is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years.
Gateway • There are less expensive options to create a gateway to the City.
• Acknowledged
Miscellaneous • Consider a design competition for bridge.• Wait until area develops more to create
crossing.• Money could be better spent on other items (to
purchase parkland or park equipment).
• Acknowledged• Population growth in the area
is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years.
5. Preferred Crossing Location – Phase 2The Preferred Solution from PIC #1 in Phase 2 of this study was:
Option 3: Overpass at Torrey Pines Way.
Advantages
• No conflict between bridge users and vehicles.
• Direct access to known pathway terminus points.
• Improves pedestrian/cycling connectivity.
• High potential for gateway opportunity into north London.
• User safety is improved due to higher visibility of bridge.
• No conflicts with vehicles.• Minimal impacts to existing
utilities.• Medium length construction
period (30 days).
Disadvantages
• Retaining walls will be required.
• Impact to adjacent development area.
6. Alternative Design Concepts – Phase 3
Crossing Alignment Alternative 1:North Skew
Crossing Alignment Alternative 2:Perpendicular
Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South Skew
Crossing Alignment Alternatives
Pathway Alignment Alternatives
A
B
Recommended Crossing Alignment
Pathway Alignment Option A
Recommended Pathway Alignment
Pathway Alignment Option B
Pathway Alignment Option C
7. Crossing Alignment AlternativesCrossing Alignment
Alternative 1:North Skew
Crossing Alignment Alternative 2:Perpendicular
Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South SkewA
Recommended Crossing Alignment
LegendExisting Multi-use Pathways
Wetland
Upland_gh Terminus Point and FuturePathway Connection
Potential Bridge Skew
8. Crossing Alignment AlternativesCrossing Alignment
Alternative 1:North Skew
Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South Skew
• Shortest crossing.• Crossing and pathway alignment
may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street.
• Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment.
• Lowest cost.
• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.
• Crossing and pathway alignment may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street.
• Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment.
• Higher cost (23% more).
• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.
• Crossing and pathway alignment is unlikely to impact future develop east of Richmond Street.
• Bridge orientation accommodates a direct and very functional pathway alignment.
• Higher cost (23%).
Crossing Alignment Alternative 2:Perpendicular
*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.
9. Recommended Crossing Alignment
Recommended Crossing Alignment
Alternative 3:South Skew
• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.• Crossing will not impact future develop east of
Richmond Street.• Higher cost (23%).
Crossing Alignment Alternatives
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative3
Social/Cultural
Natural Environment
Technical
Economic
Ability to connect pathway system
Recommended Alternative
Recommended
GOOD MODERATE POOR NO DIFFERENCE
LEGEND
*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.
10. Pathway Alignment AlternativesPathway Alignment
Option A
Recommended Pathway Alignment
B Pathway Alignment Option B
Pathway Alignment Option C
_
P1
LegendExisting Multi-use Pathways
Wetland
Upland
Potential Bridge Skew_gh Terminus Point and FuturePathway Connection
Pathway Alignment Option 2
Pathway Alignment Option 1_
P2
Pathway West Side of Richmond
Alignment P1 Alignment P2
Pros: The existing grade on the east side of Richmond
Street changes less in an east‐ west direction
than in the north south direction (along
Richmond Street) indicating less impact for
grading if an east‐west route is taken.
Route is located on table land for 90% of route.
Passive walking environment (adjacent parking
lots & woodlot) for most of length of pathway.
Natural plantings to provide screening will be
considered as part of detailed design.
Pros: Can be placed in Richmond Street ROW with retaining
wall, 75m ‐80m long (x2). Wall average height 3m (0‐
6m).
Interior of site may be graded without concern of path
routing .
Route is located on table land for 53% of route.
Passive walk environment for 50% of the length.
Natural plantings to provide screening will be considered
as part of detailed design.
Cons: One field drainage ditch requires culvert
crossing on this route (not in PSW or Significant
Woodlot).
Route travels over potential bio swale pipe that
feeds wetland from the property directly
adjacent to bridge landing at grade of 274+/‐
(should be a small impact).
Length of retaining wall required 30mx2=60m.
One hydro pole guy wire and one pole affected.
Requires some co‐ordination with developer
for grading and property acquisition.
Cons: Significant grade drop associated with the northern PSW.
Wetland would require a retaining structure or grading
from the ROW into the wetland area., complicating the
stability of the fill, or wall and the pipe easement issue
with respect to cover and loading on the pipe.
Driveway location may present sight distance issues with
sag to the north of the site. The pathway may partially
block the sight triangle for vehicles leaving the site.
Daily usage of the multi‐use pathway may lead to
pedestrian/bike conflicts at the entrance of the
development site (up to 21000 new units will be
ultimately linked to the TVP making this a busy route).
Length of retaining wall required 150 m on both sides of
path for 75‐ 80m.
Views of multi‐storey units from potential future
Richmond Street development will be blocked by a
retaining wall ramp system. The site would not be
symmetric with the twin multi‐storey unit located north
of the entrance.
Views from the lower level units of the potential future
Richmond Street development will be blocked by the
retaining wall ramp system.
Drainage from the ramp system may flow downwards
and on to Richmond Street at the potential building
entrance.
Two small creek crossings required with boardwalk or
bridge on this route in PSW.
Road side environment for 50% of length of pathway.
Four potential hydro poles affected
North routing may result in property impacts inside the
Municipality of Middlesex Centre invoking other
approvals in the process.
11. Pathway Alignment Pros and Cons_
P1
_P2
12. Pathway Alignment AlternativesPathway Alignment
Option P2Pathway Alignment
Option P1
• Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 400m.
• Does not require wetland crossing but would have impact to adjacent wetland and tributaries to the wetland.
• Does not cross upland area.• Least expensive option.(grading,walls,
wetland crossing)• No impact to future development east of
Richmond Street. • Requires highest amount of grading.• Direct linkage to proposed County trail
network but not as direct as Option C.• Less attractive pathway alignment.• Pathway alignment along existing arterial
road and future development.
• Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 425m.
• Requires narrow wetland crossing at a locations that is very disturbed.
• Requires crossing upland area.• Most expensive option.• Pathway would be located within a
required development setback from upland and wetland features. No additional property required.
• Minimal grading required.• Most direct linkage to proposed County
trail network.• Pathway alignment avoids sensitive
natural features.
Pathway Alignment Alternatives
Option P1 Option P2
Social/Cultural
Natural Environment
Technical
Economic
Recommended Alternative
Recommended
GOOD MODERATE POOR
LEGEND
13. Potential Crossing Structure TypesCrossing Structure
Type 1: Box Girder
Crossing Structure Type 2:Girder
Crossing StructureType 3:
Steel Truss
Crossing Structure Type will be determined during the detailed design phase of this project.
Concrete Girder
Steel Truss
14. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 1: The Forest City
• The approaches to the structure would be vegetated with indigenous forest species.• LED lighting could be integrated to simulate flowing water.
*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.
15. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 2: Thames River Flow
• The structure would be wrapped in multi-coloured translucent panels that represent the flowing river.• Bridge architecture could be adapted to convey the forest theme.• Up-lighting could be installed to enhance night time appearance and accentuate the gateway.
*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.
16. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 3: Forks of the Thames
• A tube would installed over and around the basic structure to represent the Thames River and its ‘forks’.• Tube could be steel or light weight carbonate material.• LED lighting could be integrated to illuminate the tube at night.
*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.
17. Gateway FeaturesThe focus of this study is the location and alignment of the recreational crossing of Richmond Street and associated pathway alignment. However the City would also like your feedback on how the bridge may look. The previous boards illustrate possible examples of enhanced bridge themes and aesthetics for you to consider.
Please mark your favourite bridge theme with a coloured dot in the appropriate box below and provide any comments you have.
Forest City
Thames River Flow
Forks of the Thames
18. Design ConsiderationsThe following criteria will be considered during detailed design:
Structural Crossing Type• Aesthetics: Steel truss vs. box girder vs. girder• Cost: Comparative cost to construct each design concept
Gateway Opportunity• Features: Theme of the crossing (Forest City, Thames River, Forks of the Thames or other)• Aesthetics: Visual appearance of crossing• Cost: Cost to construct basic crossing vs. cost of enhanced aesthetic features & operating
costs.
19. Preliminary Recommended Design Concept• Recommended alignment is a south skewed
alignment crossing Richmond Street.• Structure will be either a single span concrete
girder, box girder or steel truss.• Richmond Street will ultimately be widened to 6
lanes. The structure will be constructed prior to the widening of Richmond Street and will accommodate the increased road width.
• The design will accommodate a 3.0mrecreational pathway.
• Pathway/sidewalk connections to the bridge may include passive landscaping and streetscape features.
• Pathway will be a 3.0m asphalt multi-use pathway.
• Connectivity to existing and future sidewalks and pathways within the vicinity.
• Landscape feature lighting. Not street type lighting. Pathway will not be used after hours.
• Bridge theme and aesthetics to be determined during detailed design.
• Detailed Design (2015 –2016)
• Approvals (2016)• Construction (2017)
20. Next Steps
Thank you for attending and participating in the study process. We encourage you to fill out a comment sheet provided and drop it in the comment box or send your comments by May 8, 2015 to either of the
individuals listed below:
• Receive comments on the Recommended Alternative Design
• Confirm Preferred Design
• Prepare Environmental Study Report (ESR)
• Prepare Environmental Impact Study
• EEPAC/Council Approval• File ESR for 30 day
review period
WINTER 2015 SPRING/SUMMER 2015 BEYOND
Tony Fediw, P.Eng.,Project ManagerAECOM Canada250 York Street, Suite 410London ON, N6A 6K2Tel: 519-963-5898Email: antony.fediw@aecom.com
Karl Grabowski, P.Eng.,Transportation Design EngineerThe Corporation of the City of London300 Dufferin AvenueLondon ON, N6A 4L9Tel: 519-661-2500 Ext. 5071Email: kgrabows@london.ca
Public comments will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
Additional information is available on the City of London website:http://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/EAs/Pages/default.aspx
top related