Post on 28-Jul-2018
transcript
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
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.16
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.17
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 (
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.19
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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.
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.20
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
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.22
WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011
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.
rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.23
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