Public Consultation Project Update · Transportation Improvements Municipal Class EA 8 Existing...

Public Consultation – Project Update

Muskoka Rd 15 (Santa’s Village Rd)

Transportation Improvements

Oct. 12, 2017

muskoka.on.ca

Agenda:

• Introductory Comments

• Present the summary report on public

comments received

• Present the Consultant’s

recommendations

• Discuss next steps in the project decision

making process and project timelines

• Open Session : Q & A

Muskoka Road 15 (Santa’s Village Rd) Transportation

Improvements

from the Beaver Creek Bridge to

the Entrance of Santa’s Village

District of Muskoka

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Muskoka Road 15 (Santa’s Village Rd)

Transportation Improvements Municipal Class EA

4

Purpose of this

presentation is to:

• Provide a summary of

the project,

• Present an evaluation

of the various

Alternative Solutions,

and

• Summarize public input

on the Alternative

Solutions presented at

the Public Information

Centre.

Problem/Opportunity Statement

The District of Muskoka has identified a need for transportation improvements to

Muskoka Road 15 from Beaver Creek Bridge to the entrance of Santa’s Village.

Improvements to address road surface, road base and subgrade performance

deficiencies, drainage, erosion control and active transportation will be considered



5

Municipal Class EA Process

We Are Here

This project is being considered as a Schedule ‘B’ Project (Phases 1 to 2)



6

Existing Natural Environment

Birds

• Potential for several breeding bird

species including Species at Risk birds,

as well as area sensitive species.

Bats

• Overall the study area is considered to

have low potential for candidate roosting

habitat.

Vegetation

• Common vegetation communities.

• Mature trees

Reptiles

• Preferred potential habitat for Species at

Risk reptiles beyond the existing right-of-

way

CUP3-2 -White Pine Coniferous Plantation Type

CUM1-1 -Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type

FOD3 -Dry-Fresh Poplar-White Birch Deciduous Forest Ecosite

FOD3-2 -Dry-Fresh White Birch Deciduous Forest Type

FOD2-1 -Dry-Fresh Oak – Red Maple Deciduous Forest Type

FOC1-2 -Dry-Fresh White Pine – Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type

FOC2 -Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest Ecosite

FOM2 -Dry-Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Ecosite

FOM1 -Dry Oak – Pine Mixed Forest Ecosite

MAS3 -Organic Shallow Marsh Ecosite

RES - Residential

REC - Recreational



7

• Existing speed limit is 50 km/h.

• Existing pavement width varies

between 6.0 and 8.5 metres wide.

• Sight distances are deficient at some

curves and intersections.

• Roadside hazards include trees,

embankments and the river.

• No Active Transportation facilities.

• Shallow ditches with minimal outlets to

the river.

• Drainage issues have been reported in

some areas.

• Cable guide rails are present in limited

areas along the corridor; some are in

need of repair.

Existing Technical Environment



8

Existing Social/Cultural Environment

• Docks/boathouses located on the

south (river) side of the road, with

unobstructed access.

• The existing road has minimal

shoulders and other features to

support active transportation.

• The road provides a main access route

to Santa’s Village.

• Large number of mature trees, which

provide privacy, shade and scenic

attributes.

• Archaeological potential in the study area.

• Potential cultural landscape features are

not anticipated to be directly impacted by

the proposed alternatives.



9

Alternative Solutions

Alternative 1: Do Nothing



10

Alternative 2: Rural Cross Section with Shallow Ditch


Legend

Yellow lines - guiderail

Red lines - property acquisition



11

Alternative 3: Semi-Urban Cross Section with Bicycle Lanes


Legend





12

Alternative 4: Semi-Urban Cross Section with Multi-Use Trail


Legend





13

Alternative 5: Semi-Urban Cross Section (No multi-use trail or

bike lanes)


Legend





14

Alternative 6A: Enhanced Road Profile Complete with 2m Paved

Shoulder on South Side and 1m Paved Shoulder on North Side of Road


Legend





15

Alternative 6B: Enhanced Road Profile Complete With 1.5m Bicycle

Lanes on Both Sides of Road


Legend





16

• A key component of the study included consultation with interested stakeholders.

• A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on August 10, 2017.

• The comments received during the PIC and subsequent comment period included

the following themes:

– Concern about the existing traffic speed and that road improvements, such as

widening or straightening curves, may result in an increase in speed.

– Concern that guiderails will limit access to the River, including for people with

accessibility issues.

– Concern about existing property and private infrastructure that may be

removed or damaged during construction.

– Concern about the removal of trees and habitat.

– Concern the curb and gutter would ruin the rural nature of the road, create a

hazard for cyclists, and be a problem for winter maintenance.

– Desire for safe active transportation along the road.

– Desire to improve the road for increased tourism and enjoyment of the River.

Public Information Centre



17

Overall Preference

Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5 Alt 6A

Alt 6B

First Choice

• Alternative 6B had over half of all first

rank scores.

• Alternative 1 and Alternative 6A were the

next highest respectively, based on the

number of first ranks received.

• Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 all received the

fewest first ranks.

Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5 Alt 6A

Alt 6B Last

Choice

• Alternative 1 had the highest number

of last place ranks scores, with over

half of all last ranks, of those comment

sheets that indicated a least preferred

(i.e. ranked as a 7).

• Alternatives 6A and 6B received the

fewest last ranks.



18

General Preference

Group Most Often in Top Three Most Often in Bottom Three

Residents Of Santa’s Village

Road

Alternative 1, 6B and 6A Alternatives 1 to 5

(Alternatives 6A and 6B least often)

Residents Of Local Roads Alternative 6B and 6A Alternatives 1 and 5

(Alternatives 6A and 6B least often)

Residents Of the Greater

Area

Alternative 6B and 6A Alternatives 1 and 5

(Alternatives 2, 6A and 6B least

often)

• Alternatives 6A and 6B were rated high across all three Groups and had the

fewest low rankings of any Alternative.

• Of all Alternatives, 6B had the highest positive ranking overall. Alternatives 2, 3,

4, and 5 had minimal support from stakeholders.

• Alternative 1 had the most support from Group 1 but also placed within the

bottom three ranks for Group 1 along with Alternatives 2 to 5.

• Alternative 1 had the least support from Groups 2 and 3 and was ranked most

often among the bottom three rankings.

Summary of Rankings



19

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1: Do

Nothing

Alternative 2: Rural

Cross Section with

Shallow Ditch

Alternative 3: Semi-

Urban Cross Section

with Bike Lanes


Urban Cross Section

with Multi-Use Trail


Urban Cross Section

Alternative 6A: Enhanced Road

Profile Complete with 2m Paved

Shoulder on South Side and 1m

Paved Shoulder on North Side of

Road

Alternative 6B: Enhanced Road

Profile Complete With 1.5m Paved

Shoulder On Both Sides Of Road

A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Vegetation/Terrestrial Habitat

SUMMARY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

B SOCIAL-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Construction Nuisance Impacts

Property Impacts

Traffic/Motorist Safety

Pedestrian/Cyclist Accommodation

Impacts to Trees

Archaeological Resources Impacts

Heritage Resources Impacts

SUMMARY SOCIAL-CULTURAL

ENVIRONMENT

C FINANCIAL FACTORS

Lifecycle Costs, including Capital Costs,

Maintenance Costs and Property

Acquisition Costs (over 25 years)

SUMMARY FINANCIAL FACTORS

D TECHNICAL FACTORS

Sight Distances

Base Deficiencies

Drainage

Retaining Walls

SUMMARY TECHNICAL FACTORS

E PROBLEM STATEMENT

Addresses Problem Statement No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

SUMMARY PROBLEM STATEMENT Not Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1: Do

Nothing

Alternative 2: Rural

Cross Section with

Shallow Ditch


Urban Cross Section

with Bike Lanes


Urban Cross Section

with Multi-Use Trail


Urban Cross Section

Alternative 6A: Enhanced Road

Profile Complete with 2m Paved

Shoulder on South Side and 1m

Paved Shoulder on North Side of

Road

Alternative 6B: Enhanced Road

Profile Complete With 1.5m Paved

Shoulder On Both Sides Of Road

OVERALL SUMMARY Not Preferred Least Preferred Minorly Preferred Somewhat Preferred Moderately Preferred Most Preferred Most Preferred

ORDER OF PREFERENCE

Most Preferred Moderately Preferred Somewhat Preferred Minorly Preferred Least Preferred

Evaluation of Alternatives



20

Preliminary Preferred Solution

Alternative 6A: Alternative 6B:

Advantages Disadvantages

• Resurfacing of the road (along the same footprint), with full depth reconstruction of

the road widening area only, pending geotechnical engineering recommendations.

• Existing horizontal alignment of the road remains basically the same.

• Minor changes to the road geometrics.

• 3.0 m lanes to minimize road cross section and contribute to traffic calming.

• Additional guiderail may be required in localized areas.

• Estimated 25 year Lifecycle Cost: $3,623,000.

muskoka.on.ca

• Burnside will present the Preliminary Preferred Alternative Solution to the District at

the October EPW meeting, on October 18, 2017.

• District staff will provide a report at the November EPW Committee meeting with

the recommended alternative.

• A notice of study completion will be issued in the winter of 2017/2018.

• With option 6A or 6B, the project becomes a Schedule A+ project.

• Schedule A+ projects are considered to represent minimal adverse impacts to the

environment and generally include normal operational and maintenance activities.

• Schedule A+ projects are pre-approved under the Municipal Class EA process,

with the public being advised before the project is implemented. The public retains

the opportunity to comment to municipal council.

• Detailed Design and Construction – Currently proposed for 2018 (as identified in

the capital budget and is subject to change).

Next Steps

www.muskoka.on.ca 22

Questions and

Answers

muskoka.on.ca

Stay Informed and Engage with Us!

How Can We Engage You?

What Do You Want to Hear More About?

Date post:	14-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Public Consultation Project Update · Transportation Improvements Municipal Class EA 8 Existing...

Documents