Transportation Master Plan Final Draft by kawarthalakes

Draft Transportation Master Plan Report

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Masterplan Update Prepared by: Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash January 2025

January 30th, 2025 Mike Farquhar – Manager of Infrastructure City of Kawartha Lakes 322 Kent Street Lindsay, ON K9V 4T7

Dear Mr. Farquhar: Re: City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Draft TMP Report Enclosed is the City of Kawartha Lake’s Draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) report. The TMP study is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short, medium and long-term transportation infrastructure investments. It will guide how the City: •

Develops their roadways;

•

Coordinates infrastructure improvements with land uses;

•

Responds to future growth and demand on the transportation network.

The TMP is developed in full compliance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Planning Process.

Contributors We would like to thank all the contributors and stakeholders who helped guide and create this Transportation Master Plan Update. The project has been carried out by Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash and close consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes. Following is a list of key contributors that have been part of the development of the Transportation Master Plan study: City of Kawartha Lake Advisors • •

Mike Farquhar, Project Manager Joseph Kelly, CET – Traffic Management Supervisor, Engineering & Corporate Assets – Technical Services

Egis Consulting Team • • •

Kassel Prince, P.Eng., PMP – Senior Transportation/Traffic Engineer Thomas Gryz, P.Eng. - Senior Transportation/Traffic Engineer Alina Ahmad, Transportation Planner

Stakeholders: • • • • • • • •

Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) City of Kawartha Lakes Departments/Municipalities Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Department of National Defense (DND) Hydro One Ontario Power Generation (OPG) The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Private Landowners, Emergency Services, Business Associations, and School Boards General Public, utilities, local business associations, and township committees.

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Executive Summary Transportation plays a fundamental role in shaping not only the physical, but the social and economic landscape of cities and regions. The City of Kawartha Lakes has prepared its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update to guide proactive approach to planning a transportation system that will serve the community to the year 2051. Over the last few years, the City of Kawartha Lakes has experienced a 5.1% growth in population from approximately 75,423 people in 2016 to 79,247 people in 2021. Based on the City’s Growth Management Strategy, population is forecasted to reach 130,000 by 2051. Due to this rapid growth, the City’s landscape is constantly changing, posing not only significant transportation challenges but great potential for opportunity in terms of impacting and shaping the City’s future population dynamics, culture, and identity in a positive manner. To strategically prepare for this growth and enhance the municipality’s existing transportation network, the City of Kawartha Lake’s retained Egis to undertake the development of the municipality’s TMP update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will be used to help plan for the City’s population growth and to serve as a road map for short-range, mediumrange, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The City is expected to grow considerably in the fullness of time, and the TMP can address the transportation challenges that the growth imposes – connecting new communities, promoting accessibility and inclusivity, overcoming barriers to travel. The growth also represents an opportunity for the City to capitalize upon re-thinking the function of streets to be more inclusive and accommodate all modes of transportation, while becoming more efficient, sustainable, and safe. The resulting prioritized list of transportation network strengthening recommendations and set of policy recommendations will guide the implementation plan in the years to come. The TMP was developed through a collaborative process led by Egis under the direction of the City staff with significant input from various stakeholders and the public. It was carried out in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process for Master Plans, completing requirements for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Engagement Multiple public consultation and stakeholder engagement opportunities were offered throughout the duration of the study. These events were published through the City’s website and consisted of various stakeholder meetings, and two public information centres. All the comments, input and feedback from the various stakeholders and the public were assessed to help inform the recommendations for the TMP.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table of Contents Contributors .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0

2.0

3.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Geographical Context ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Purpose of the Plan ........................................................................................................... 4

1.3

Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6

1.4

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................ 7

1.5

Project Methodology.......................................................................................................... 8

1.6

Consultation Process ........................................................................................................ 9

1.7

Public and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................ 9

Planning Context..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1

Planning and Policy Compliance ..................................................................................... 11

2.2

Provincial Documents...................................................................................................... 12

2.3

Local and Regional Documents....................................................................................... 12

Community and Growth.......................................................................................................... 17 3.1

Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Population and Employment ........................................................................................... 17 3.2 4.0

Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 19

Stakeholder and Public Engagement .................................................................................... 28 4.1

Overview of the City’s Engagement Process .................................................................. 28

4.2

Public Information Centre 1 ............................................................................................. 29

4.2.1 Online Survey 1 ............................................................................................................... 29 4.3

Public Information Centre 2 ............................................................................................. 30

4.3.1 Online Survey 2 ............................................................................................................... 30 5.0

Existing Transportation Network ........................................................................................... 33 5.1

The City’s Transportation System ................................................................................... 33

5.2

Road Classification and Design....................................................................................... 33

5.3

Truck Network ................................................................................................................. 42

5.4

Railway Network.............................................................................................................. 42

5.5

Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 42

5.6

Parking ........................................................................................................................... 45

5.7

Active Transportation Network ........................................................................................ 47

5.7.1 Trails and Sidewalks ....................................................................................................... 47 | Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.7.2 Cycling ............................................................................................................................ 53 5.8

Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................... 55

5.9

Existing EV Charging in Kawartha Lakes ........................................................................ 57

5.10 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 58 5.10.1

Travel Demand Trends ............................................................................................. 58

5.10.2

Network Volumes...................................................................................................... 63

5.10.3

Intersection Volumes ................................................................................................ 71

5.10.4

Traffic Analysis Operation ......................................................................................... 77

5.11 Collision Review .............................................................................................................. 84 5.11.1 6.0

Collision Analysis of Intersections............................................................................. 84

Future Conditions ................................................................................................................... 92 6.1

Planned Improvements ................................................................................................... 92

6.2

Growth and Development ................................................................................................ 94

6.3

Forecasting Future Needs ............................................................................................. 100

6.3.1 Future Traffic (AADT) Volume Projections .................................................................... 100 6.4

Future Traffic Operations .............................................................................................. 107

6.5

Intersection and Corridor Improvements ....................................................................... 113

6.5.1 Lindsay .......................................................................................................................... 113 6.5.2 Fenelon Falls ................................................................................................................. 118 6.5.3 Bobcaygeon .................................................................................................................. 123 6.5.1 Omemee ....................................................................................................................... 126 7.0

8.0

A Vision for the City of Kawartha Lakes ............................................................................. 129 7.1

Opportunities and Challenges ....................................................................................... 129

7.2

Strategic Priorities ......................................................................................................... 130

7.3

TMP Vision Statement ................................................................................................... 132

7.4

Alternative Solutions...................................................................................................... 133

7.5

Selection of Preferred Solution ...................................................................................... 135

TMP Supportive Policies ...................................................................................................... 138 8.1

Speed Limit Policy ......................................................................................................... 138

8.2

Automated Speed Enforcement Policy .......................................................................... 140

8.3

Special Speed Zone ...................................................................................................... 141

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.3.3 Community Safety Zones .............................................................................................. 145 8.3.4 Reduced Speed Zone Areas ......................................................................................... 145 8.4

Traffic Calming Policy.................................................................................................... 147

8.5

Traffic Control Facilities ................................................................................................. 148

8.5.1 All-Way Stop Control Policy .......................................................................................... 149

9.0

8.6

Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines ............................................................. 150

8.7

Vision Zero Policy.......................................................................................................... 151

8.8

Goods Movement Policy ............................................................................................... 154

8.9

Infrastructure Guidelines ............................................................................................... 155

Multi-Modal Network ............................................................................................................. 157 9.1

TMP Integration with ATMP .......................................................................................... 157

9.1.1 Principles ....................................................................................................................... 157 9.1.2 Types of Recommendations .......................................................................................... 158 9.2

Transit Network ............................................................................................................. 160

9.3

Road Network................................................................................................................ 163

9.3.1 Urbanization .................................................................................................................. 163 9.3.2 Complete Streets........................................................................................................... 163 9.3.3 Protected Intersections .................................................................................................. 165 9.4

Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................. 166

9.4.1 Micro-mobility ................................................................................................................ 166 9.4.2 Automated, Connected, and Electric Vehicles .............................................................. 166 9.4.3 Information Technology ................................................................................................. 167 10.0 Implementation Plan and Costs ........................................................................................... 169 10.1 Costing .......................................................................................................................... 169 10.2 Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................................... 169 10.3 Road Network Implementation Plan .............................................................................. 171 10.4 TMP Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 175 10.5 TMP Updates ................................................................................................................ 176

Contributors .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Geographical Context ........................................................................................................ 1

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

2.0

3.0

1.2

Purpose of the Plan ........................................................................................................... 4

1.3

Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6

1.4

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................ 7

1.5

Project Methodology.......................................................................................................... 8

1.6

Consultation Process ........................................................................................................ 9

1.7

Public and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................ 9

Planning Context..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1

Planning and Policy Compliance ..................................................................................... 11

2.2

Provincial Documents...................................................................................................... 12

2.3

Local and Regional Documents....................................................................................... 12

Community and Growth.......................................................................................................... 17 3.1

Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Population and Employment ........................................................................................... 17 3.2 4.0

Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 19

Stakeholder and Public Engagement .................................................................................... 28 4.1

Overview of the City’s Engagement Process .................................................................. 28

4.2

Public Information Centre 1 ............................................................................................. 29

4.2.1 Online Survey 1 ............................................................................................................... 29 4.3

Public Information Centre 2 ............................................................................................. 30

4.3.1 Online Survey 2 ............................................................................................................... 30 5.0

Existing Transportation Network ........................................................................................... 33 5.1

The City’s Transportation System ................................................................................... 33

5.2

Road Classification and Design....................................................................................... 33

5.3

Truck Network ................................................................................................................. 42

5.4

Railway Network.............................................................................................................. 42

5.5

Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 42

5.6

Parking ........................................................................................................................... 45

5.7

Active Transportation Network ........................................................................................ 47

5.7.1 Trails and Sidewalks ....................................................................................................... 47 5.7.2 Cycling ............................................................................................................................ 53 5.8

Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................... 55

5.9

Existing EV Charging in Kawartha Lakes ........................................................................ 57

5.10 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 58

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.10.1

Travel Demand Trends ............................................................................................. 58

5.10.2

Network Volumes...................................................................................................... 63

5.10.3

Intersection Volumes ................................................................................................ 71

5.10.4

Traffic Analysis Operation ......................................................................................... 77

5.11 Collision Review .............................................................................................................. 84 5.11.1 6.0

Collision Analysis of Intersections............................................................................. 84

Future Conditions ................................................................................................................... 92 6.1

Planned Improvements ................................................................................................... 92

6.2

Growth and Development ................................................................................................ 94

6.3

Forecasting Future Needs ............................................................................................. 100

6.3.1 Future Traffic (AADT) Volume Projections .................................................................... 100 6.4

Future Traffic Operations .............................................................................................. 107

6.5

Intersection and Corridor Improvements ....................................................................... 113

8.0

A Vision for the City of Kawartha Lakes ............................................................................. 129 7.1

Opportunities and Challenges ....................................................................................... 129

7.2

Strategic Priorities ......................................................................................................... 130

7.3

TMP Vision Statement ................................................................................................... 132

7.4

Alternative Solutions...................................................................................................... 133

7.5

Selection of Preferred Solution ...................................................................................... 135

TMP Supportive Policies ...................................................................................................... 138 8.1

Speed Limit Policy ......................................................................................................... 138

8.2

Automated Speed Enforcement Policy .......................................................................... 140

8.3

Special Speed Zone ...................................................................................................... 141

8.3.1 School Zones and Areas ............................................................................................... 141 8.3.2 Playground Zones and Areas ........................................................................................ 143 8.3.3 Community Safety Zones .............................................................................................. 145 8.3.4 Reduced Speed Zone Areas ......................................................................................... 145 8.4

Traffic Calming Policy.................................................................................................... 147

8.5

Traffic Control Facilities ................................................................................................. 148

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.5.1 All-Way Stop Control Policy .......................................................................................... 149

9.0

8.6

Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines ............................................................. 150

8.7

Vision Zero Policy.......................................................................................................... 151

8.8

Goods Movement Policy ............................................................................................... 154

8.9

Infrastructure Guidelines ............................................................................................... 155

Multi-Modal Network ............................................................................................................. 157 9.1

TMP Integration with ATMP .......................................................................................... 157

Transit Network ............................................................................................................. 160

9.3

Road Network................................................................................................................ 163

Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................. 166

List of Maps Map 1 - Existing Study Area.................................................................................................................. 3 Map 2 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3 ........................ 16 Map 2 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3 ........................ 21 Map 3 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-5 ........................ 22 Map 4 - Lindsay Development Areas .................................................................................................. 23 Map 5 - Fenelon Falls Development Areas ......................................................................................... 24 | Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Map 6 - Bobcaygeon Development Areas .......................................................................................... 25 Map 7 - Omemee Development Areas ................................................................................................ 26 Map 8 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification .......................................................................... 31 Map 8 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification .......................................................................... 37 Map 8 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification .......................................................................... 37 Map 9 - Lindsay Existing Road Classification ..................................................................................... 38 Map 10 - Fenelon Falls Existing Road Classification .......................................................................... 39 Map 11 - Omemee Existing Road Classification ................................................................................. 40 Map 12 - Bobcaygeon Existing Road Classification ............................................................................ 41 Map 13 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)Figure 9 – Existing Trails (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan)................................................................................................................ 48 Map 13 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) .......................................................................... 50 Map 14 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)Map 13 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) ................................................................................................................................... 50 Map 14 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) ................................................................. 51 Map 15 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)Map 14 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) ................................................................................................................................... 51 Map 15 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) .................................................................. 52 Map 15 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) .................................................................. 52 Map 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes............................. 64 Map 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes............................. 64 Map 18 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 64 Map 18 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 65 Map 19 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 18 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 65 Map 19 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................ 66 Map 19 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................ 66 Map 20 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................. 67 Map 21 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 20 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 67 Map 21 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................... 68 Map 22 – TMP Count LocationsMap 21 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes 68 Map 22 – TMP Count Locations.......................................................................................................... 72 Map 23 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 22 – TMP Count Locations............................................................................................................................................. 72 Map 23 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................ 102 Map 24 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 23 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 102 Map 24 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 103 Map 25 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 24 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 103

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Map 25 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................... 104 Map 26 – Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 25 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 104 Map 26 – Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................ 105 Map 27 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 26 – Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 105 Map 27 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 106 Map 20 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesUpdate ................................ 125

List of Figures Figure 1 – City Location in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area .............................................. 2 Figure 2 - MCEA Process ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Project Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 - Population Age Structure .................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 - Online Survey Result Example 1 ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 6 - Online Survey Result Example 2 ........................................................................................ 31 Figure 7 - Existing Transit in Lindsay .................................................................................................. 44 Figure 8 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1).......................................................... 45 Figure 9 - Existing Trails (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan) .................................... 48 Figure 10 - Existing Cycling Routes .................................................................................................... 54 Figure 11 - AM Peak Mode Split – All Purposes ................................................................................. 58 Figure 12 - PM Peak Mode Split ......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 13 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016) ........................................................................... 62 Figure 14 - Trip Purpose by Mode, PM Peak (2016) ........................................................................... 63 Figure 15 - Lindsay 2023 Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 73 Figure 16 - Bobcaygeon 2023 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 74 Figure 17 - Fenelon Falls 2023 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 75 Figure 18 - Omemee 2023 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 76 Figure 19 - Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ............. 78 Figure 20 - Existing Lindsay LOS........................................................................................................ 80 Figure 21 - Existing Bobcaygeon LOS ................................................................................................ 81 Figure 22 - Existing Fenelon Falls LOS .............................................................................................. 82 Figure 23 - Existing Omemee LOS ..................................................................................................... 83 Figure 24 - Intersection Collision Hot Spot Locations ......................................................................... 87 Figure 25 - Road Segment Collision Hot Spot Locations .................................................................... 90 Figure 26 - Population, Housing and Employment Growth Summary ................................................. 94 Figure 27 - Lindsay Future Development Density ............................................................................... 96 Figure 28 - Fenelon Falls Future Development Density ...................................................................... 98 Figure 29 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density ....................................................................... 99 Figure 30 - Omemee Future Development Density............................................................................. 99

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Figure 31 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Lindsay ................. 109 Figure 32 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Fenelon Falls ........ 110 Figure 33 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Bobcaygeon ......... 111 Figure 34 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Omemee .............. 112 Figure 35 - Lindsay Improvements .................................................................................................... 117 Figure 36 - Clifton Street Pedestrian Bridge...................................................................................... 120 Figure 37 - Fenelon Falls Improvements .......................................................................................... 122 Figure 38 - Bobcaygeon Improvements ............................................................................................ 125 Figure 39 - Corridor improvements ................................................................................................... 127 Figure 40 - Hierarchy of Controlled Crossing Treatment Systems (OTM Book 15)........................... 149 Figure 41 - Elements of Vision Zero. ................................................................................................. 152 Figure 42 - TMP Update Integration with ATMP Recommendations ................................................. 159 Figure 43 - Multi-modal Street Cross-section .................................................................................... 164 Figure 44 - City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide ....................................................... 165

List of Tables Table 1 - Population and Employment Statistics ................................................................................. 17 Table 2 – Rural Road Design Classifications ...................................................................................... 34 Table 3 – Urban Road Design Classifications ..................................................................................... 34 Table 4 – Existing Government of Canada Policies ............................................................................ 56 Table 5 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes’ from Home to Work during AM Hours ................. 59 Table 6 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes from Home to Work during PM Hours ................. 60 Table 7 - Home-to-Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas ...................................................... 60 Table 8 - Home to Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside Region .................................... 60 Table 9 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages ........................................................................................ 70 Table 9 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages ........................................................................................ 70 Table 10 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............................. 77 Table 11 - HCM Level of Service Description ..................................................................................... 78 Table 28 - Long Term ImprovementsFigure 21- Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual................................................................................................................... 78 Table 12 - Intersection Collision Severity (2014-2022) ....................................................................... 85 Table 13 - Top 10 Intersection Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes ................................................ 86 Table 14 - Road Segment Collision Severity (2014-2022) .................................................................. 88 Table 15 - Top 10 Segment Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes .................................................... 89 Table 16 - Future Development Density Forecast............................................................................. 100 Table 17 - Future Development Density Forecast............................................................................. 107 Table 18 - Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................................... 113 Table 19 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary Table ....................................................... 115 Figure 22 - Existing Fenelon Falls LOSTable 19 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary Table .......................................................................................................................................................... 115 Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary TableMTO Improvements ..................... 117 | Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary TableMTO Improvements ..................... 117 Table 20 - Fenelon Falls Intersection Improvements Summary Table .............................................. 119 Table 21 - Bobcaygeon Intersection Improvements Summary Table ................................................ 124 Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table ..................................................... 126 Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table ..................................................... 126 Table 23 - Alternative Solutions ........................................................................................................ 136 Table 24 - School Zones and Areas .................................................................................................. 142 Table 25 - Playground Zones and Areas .......................................................................................... 144 Table 26 - Short Term Improvements ............................................................................................ 172 Table 27 - Medium Term Improvements ........................................................................................... 173 Table 19 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary TableTable 27 - Medium Term Improvements ................................................................................................................................... 173 Table 28 - Long Term Improvements ................................................................................................ 174 Table 27 - Medium Term ImprovementsTable 28 - Long Term Improvements ................................. 174 Table 30 - Measures For Tracking Progress ..................................................................................... 176

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

List of Appendices Appendix A: Communication and Consultation Plan Appendix B: Public Consultation B.1 Notice of Commencement B.2 Public Information Centre 1 (Survey Results) B.3 Public Information Centre 2 (Survey Results) B.4 Notice of Completion Appendix C: Commercial Vehicle Percentages Appendix D: ATR Count Data Maps Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis E.1 Lindsay E.2 Bobcaygeon E.3 Fenelon Falls E.4 Omemee Appendix F: Collision Analysis Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051) G.1 Lindsay G.2 Bobcaygeon G.3 Fenelon Falls G.4 Omemee Appendix H: Future Conditions Traffic Volumes (2031-2051) Appendix I: Future Conditions Capacity Analysis I.1 Lindsay I.2 Bobcaygeon I.3 Fenelon Falls I.4 Omemee Appendix J: Future Conditions Network LOS Summaries J.1 Unmitigated Base Condition J.2 Mitigated Condition Appendix K: Future Conditions Screenline Analysis Appendix L: Policy Documents L.1 Speed Limit Policy L.2 Traffic Calming Policy L.3 All-Way Stop Policy L.4 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines L.5 Vision Zero Policy L.6 Goods Movement Policy

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update L.7 Infrastructure Guidelines

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

This Transportation Master Plan update will assist the City of Kawartha Lakes by identifying policies, guidelines, providing recommendations and an implementation plan. The goal is to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner, align with the City’s objectives to maintain a high quality of life, and foster economic development in both rural and urban areas.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.0 Introduction The City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update (TMP) sets the vision for the City’s transportation infrastructure and services. As a central document, this 2025 TMP tailors the direction of planning, policies, strategies for walking, cycling, transit and roads to shape and support future development within the City. At the same time it provides guidance to staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers on transportation development and is updated every five to ten years to reflect changes in population, employment, travel trends, or policy direction. The City of Kawartha Lakes undertook its previous TMP in February 2012 to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation network. The 2012 TMP addressed and recommended improvements to the road network and to the transportation infrastructure in order to meet the projected population and employment growth, up to the year 2031. The City of Kawartha Lakes is now undertaking an update to their 2012 TMP to align with the City’s Official Plan, Growth Management Strategy, and Strategic Plan policies. This revision includes incorporating the latest population and employment forecasts and providing guidance to the City for the continued development of a multi-modal transportation network until the year 2051. The City wide 2025 TMP update will reflect development aspirations to provide a sustainable transportation system with a strong focus on connectivity and accessibility.

1.1 Geographical Context The City of Kawartha Lakes is a single-tier municipality located within central Ontario bordered by many municipalities such as, the Regional Municipality of Durham, Peterborough, and Simcoe County. According to the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth forecasts to 2051, the City of Kawartha Lakes is located in the outer Ring, north-east of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTAH) as shown in Figure 1. The pattern of settlement is rural, interspersed with small urban centers; the largest of these is Lindsay which serves as a mid-sized regional service center. Outside Lindsay, tourism and agriculture predominate. The City wide transportation network and municipal boundary is illustrated in Map 1 - Existing Study Area .

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 1

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 1 – City Location in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 2

. Map 1 - Existing Study Area

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.2 Purpose of the Plan This TMP update will serve as a long-range strategic plan for the City that identifies transportation infrastructure requirements to accommodate projected growth, address existing challenges, identify areas of opportunity and guide transportation and land use decisions. Sustainability principles will also be embedded into this TMP update to provide a framework for implementing the suggested improvements on a City-wide basis. This TMP update also provides an opportunity for proactive thinking, preparing for emerging technologies in transportation, and anticipating community needs. The City of Kawartha Lakes highlighted some general requirements for the TMP update which include: ▪

A review of the City’s existing road network, including recommendations for network optimization and improvements to address growth and travel demand up to the horizon year of 2051.

▪

Mobility across all transportation modes, for residents of all ages and abilities, that is safe, efficient, connected, accessible, affordable, and sustainable.

▪

Review, coordination and incorporation of updates from the ongoing Growth Management Strategy, Active Transportation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan update

▪

Develop a sustainable transportation network implementation plan that reflects future development scenarios for the short term (1-5 year), mid term (5-10 year) and long term (10-20 year) that will assist the City in prioritizing capital works and investing efficiently.

▪

A review of roadways and intersections with high traffic volumes to highlight potential operational and safety issues and develop recommendations to achieve the City’s goals.

▪

A review of current transit opportunities and the City’s mid- and long-term transit requirements/feasibility.

▪

Creation of a detailed Terms of Reference (ToR) for Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) to be used as a standard guideline for developments to ensure consistency.

▪

Completion of a Traffic Calming Policy uniquely tailored to Kawartha Lakes which includes definition of key features, guidelines for implementation and recommended list of solutions based on road type.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 4

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

▪

Policy or guideline recommendations to incorporate traffic calming into design and planning of new subdivisions.

▪

Review and provide updated recommendations for City’s parking needs in key builtup areas.

▪

Review of the City’s seasonal load restriction policies, existing routes, feasibility of designating route(s), while considering ways to limit the disruption to local agricultural, tourist, and recreational activities

▪

Development of a road classification system, to assess the City’s future arterial and collector road needs, and update to the design standards for roads to consider multimodal uses

▪

Implementing a meaningful consultation and engagement process for City staff, business communities, the public and external stakeholders that meets the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) requirements for a TMP.

▪

Development of an implementable action plan with recommended capital projects and/or initiatives for transportation infrastructures (roads, active transportation facilities, etc.) based on priority, estimated cost, and timelines for completion (by 2043), under the MCEA process.

▪

Review of the City’s collision statistics and traffic operational assessments

▪

Development of a framework for the implementation of a Vision Zero/ Safe Systems program in the City using and building on comparable Canadian best practices

▪

Review and development of policies and plans tailored to the City including a posted speed limit review policy, a goods movement strategy, and an all-way stop policy.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 5

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.3 Project Objectives A multi-modal transportation network that is well-designed and efficient can be an essential part in achieving the local goals set out in various City plans. This TMP study will help in enhancing the transportation network for the City to establish it as a leader in building, preserving, and enhancing livable communities, which will be supported by economic development, tourism, sustainable transportation practices, and the emerging shared economy. The objectives for this study were tailored specifically to the needs of the City of Kawartha Lakes and have been listed below.

Assessing the existing state of the City’s transportation network (roads and intersections), including recommendations for network optimization and improvements to address growth and travel demand up to the 2051 horizon year.

Improving mobility across all transportation modes that is safe, connected, sustainable, affordable, and accessible for residents of all ages and abilities.

3 2

Reviewing active transportation network gaps and opportunities to better integrate the City’s communities through efficient and safe infrastructure.

Integrating the City’s active transportation network within the broader context of the active transportation plans of its neighbors.

Integrating the City’s active transportation network within the broader

Developing a sustainable transportation network implementation plan that reflects future development scenarios for the short term (1 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years) and long term (15 to 30 years) that will assist the City in prioritizing capital works and investing efficiently.

5 | Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 6

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.4 The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process The TMP update will be developed in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following the Approach 1 as outlined in the 2023 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) document. As shown in Figure 2, the TMP update will satisfy Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process and facilitate streamlining and implementation of recommended capital works.

Phase 1: Problems and Opportunity

• Identify City of Kawartha Lakes transportation challenges and opportunities • Identify what has changed in infrastructure • Review previous studies and identify any factors that lead to an improvement • Obtain population and employment forecasts • Research key background information

Phase 2: Alternative Solutions

• Evaluate identified alternatives and recommendations • Gather input from the community and various stakeholders to inform preferred alternative and recommendations • Select preferred alternative and set of recommendations

Figure 2 - MCEA Process

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 7

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.5 Project Methodology The project methodology for this TMP update is summarized in Figure 3 below. The TMP Update will have three phases that will follow the MCEA process: 1. Assess the existing conditions, area context and specific challenges 2. Assess traffic operations and road safety • Assess the City’s transportation needs • Develop preferred solutions to meet those needs • Update and implement policies and develop design standards to align with the City’s goals 3. Refine the preferred solutions and develop a comprehensive TMP update document

Figure 3 - Project Methodology

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 8

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

1.6 Consultation Process The project team established the guiding principles for the study through gathering local knowledge and having open and effective communication with the public, as well as all stakeholders. The philosophy behind the approach and methodology of the study included the following: ▪

Maintain and preserve the local character and protect the natural environment that makes City of Kawartha Lakes a desirable place for residents, business, and tourists alike.

▪

Provide safe and accessible streets for all modes of traffic, ensuring all modes of transportation are promoted as effective and safe mobility options regardless of age or ability.

▪

Ensuring a vibrant and attractive downtown cores to enhance tourism and economic development within the City.

▪

Minimize traffic congestion, ensuring the City’s Road network can accommodate future growth and travel demand.

▪

Effective consultation with all stakeholders, including the City staff, indigenous communities and general public to ensure success of the 2025 TMP.

1.7 Public and Stakeholder Engagement An integral part of the MCEA process is public consultation as there are requirements for notifications and consultations with the public, agencies, and other stakeholders at key phases of the process. During the 2025 TMP’s development multiple audiences were engaged and feedback was incorporated into technical milestones and this report. A summary of the engagement tactics, milestones and stakeholders involved is provided below and further discussed in Section 4 of this report that provides more detailed information such as the date, time, and consultation material used during the engagement sessions.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 9

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Who was Engaged? Residents: this represents the individuals who live, work, and play within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Stakeholders and Technical Agencies: this group included various City departments and technical agencies such as Indigenous Communities, MTO, and the Ministry of Environment City Staff and Council: this group is involved in the planning, implementation, decision making, operation, and management of the TMP. City Staff and Council: this group is involved in the planning,

How were they Engaged? In-Person: Two rounds of public engagement sessions, survey’s and meetings with stakeholders and technical agencies

Outreach: Promotional tools, social media, and the City’s JumpIn project webpage to post consultation material and keep the public informed about the project

In-Person: Two rounds of

When were they Engaged? Notice of Study Commencement circulated in August 2023

Presentation to Council held in December 2024

PIC 1 held on November 23rd & 24th, 2023

PIC 2 held on October 8th & 9th, 2024

Notice of Study Completion in January 2025

What we Heard Promote Sustainable Transportation: Promote sustainable transportation options like cycling, walking, and public transit to reduce congestion and improve road conditions, creating a more efficient and What we Heard eco-friendlier network. Improve Network: The City has Promote an aging sustainable population, therefore Promote Transit Sustainable Transportation: there is a need options to extend reach walking, of transitand service to transit a widertoarea and transportation likethe cycling, public reduce increase operating hours. congestion and improve road conditions, creating a more efficient and eco-friendlier network. Improve Transit Network: The City has an aging population, therefore there is a need to extend the reach of transit service to a wider area and increase operating hours. | Transportation Master Plan Update P a g e | 10

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

2.0 Planning Context A detailed review of various background documents and studies was conducted as part of this TMP study which provided the current context for Kawartha Lake’s planning objectives as well as direction for developing the TMP update. The documents that were reviewed for the purpose of this TMP update are highlighted below.

2.1 Planning and Policy Compliance The City of Kawartha Lakes operates within a legislative framework established by the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada. Two recent initiatives by the Ontario Government have direct bearing on this study, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is a policy document in Ontario, that provides direction on land use planning, development, and resource management throughout the province. It serves as a framework for planning decisions made by municipalities, land-use planners, developers, and various stakeholders. The PPS is periodically updated to reflect evolving priorities and policies. On the other hand, the "Places to Grow" plan is another important policy document in Ontario, that focuses on managing growth, land use, and development in the province. Like the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the "Places to Grow" plan is intended to guide planning decisions and shape the future development of communities in Ontario. It is also important to note that, the City is undertaking a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) in accordance with the Provincial Growth Plan, A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The MCR program applies the policies and schedules of the Growth Plan, reflects the community’s interests and establishes the Official Plan goals, objectives and policies for land use and development over the next 25 years.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 11

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

2.2 Provincial Documents Provincial Policy Statement (2020) provides the guiding principles and policy direction on key land use planning issues within Ontario. It aims to promote land-use patterns that support multi-modal transportation options and increase the use of sustainable modes of transportation. The Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth Forecasts to 2051 (2020) report presents long-term growth forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and its constituent upper- and single-tier municipalities. The forecasts form part of a review of population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 of the Provincial plan A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019.

2.3 Local and Regional Documents City of Kawartha Lakes Strategic Plan (2024-2027) aims to provide a holistic view of community through a sustainability approach that considers the natural environment, the economy and the community. It provides guidance for developing services to meet expectations of Kawartha Lakes’ residents and sets strategic priorities over the short, medium and long term. City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (2012) provides policy guidance to manage the use of land and resources desired to maintain and improve the quality of the environment and the quality of life for City residents. It is important to understand that various sections of the City’s Official Plan continue to be under appeal. Additionally, the secondary plan’s reviewed as part of the study are identified below: • •

•

The Fenelon Falls Secondary Plan is no longer under appeal and is in effect. The Lindsay Secondary Plan is no longer under appeal but is not in effect until the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approves the City’s repeal of the Lindsay Official Plan. The Omemee Secondary Plan, the Bobcaygeon Secondary Plan and the Woodville Secondary Plan all remain under appeal.

Overall, the plan highlights the following key points: • Tells us where new housing, industry, offices and shops will go; • Identifies land that needs protection from development; • Helps the City plan for services like roads, watermains, sewers, parks and schools that will be needed in the future; and • Describes when and how communities will experience growth.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 12

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update City of Kawartha Lakes Secondary Plans are more detailed land use plans prepared for five settlement areas: Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Lindsay, Omemee, and Woodville. At this time, the Secondary Plans for these settlement areas have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and currently not in effect. City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) outlines and defines policies, programs and infrastructure improvements needed to manage both existing and future transportation demands. It focuses on all modes of transportation to promote a safe, effective and sustainable transportation network. The City of Kawartha Lakes’ previous TMP was adopted in February 2012. City of Kawartha Lakes 2006 Trails Master Plan addresses the need for a comprehensive approach to trails planning and development throughout the City, and provides a framework for future decision-making. It’s a long-term planning tool to guide the development of new trails and open space linkages and to assists in negotiations to acquire routes for recreation/transportation a opportunities arise. City of Kawartha Lakes Trails Master Plan Update (2023) outlines the vision and strategy for developing and managing a network of trails in the city. The Trails Master Plan update was developed with the intent of serving as the City’s policy support, blueprint, and guide to trail planning, design, implementation, management, and maintenance. The Trails Master Plan update was completed in April 2023. Kent Street and Colborne Street Corridor Studies Existing Conditions Report (2013): Building upon recommendations from the City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy and the previous Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the City initiated corridor studies in the Town of Lindsay for two east‐west corridors: Kent Street and Colborne Street. The report provided an update on the 2013 traffic conditions for Kent Street and Colborne Street, confirming existing operations, identifying capacity deficiencies, and addressing safety issues. According to the traffic operations findings, due to slight decrease in traffic volumes it was identified that there were no capacity deficiencies during both AM and PM peak. Colborne Street Schedule B Class EA and Corridor Study Report (2017): The limits of this study for Colborne Street West were from Highway 35 to William Street North. For Kent Street West the limits were from Highway 35 to Lindsay Street North. Given the proximity of these two corridors and the connection and interaction of north-south streets between these two arterial roads, the corridor studies were conducted at the same | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 13

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update time. Overall, this report addresses the study findings and recommendations for Colborne Street only; the findings for Kent Street are documented under the Kent Street Schedule B Class EA report (2016). Fenlon Falls Corridor Study of Lindsay St and Colborne St (CKL 121) (2016) was developed following the 2012 City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan. The CKL 121 corridor was identified as requiring review due to current operating and development pressures. This corridor study/class EA includes the completion of an operational review of the corridor, the identification of existing and future deficiencies; and the provision of recommendations for improvements to vehicular capacity, pedestrian safety, accessibility, and streetscaping. Limo Specialized Transit Guide report provides information and guidance on specialized limousine transportation services within the Kawartha Lakes region. Road Needs 2016 & 2021 Study Reports highlight the existing road network and assesses the physical condition as well as confirms various road attributes within Kawartha Lakes. Data collected from field reviews are also documented in these reports that were used to identify and develop a prioritized listing of the road network needs in the reports. City of Kawartha Lakes Downtown Parking Strategy (2021) examined the current state and administration of parking, forecasted future parking demand, and determined future parking supply needs, and identified recommendations accordingly. Overall, while some users of the Core Area parking systems may perceive a shortage of parking at certain times, this study shows that, based on industry best practices and utilization data, the existing parking supply is adequate to meet existing demand. City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy Update (GMS 2024) provides an introduction to the overall study and sets out, at a high level, several fundamental opportunities and challenges that the City of Kawartha Lakes faces over the next few decades from a growth management perspective. The study provides the technical analysis and evaluations to determine where and how forecast population and employment growth will be accommodated in the City over the next three decades. 2023 Road Infrastructure Guidelines provides the City’s infrastructure design preferences and standards under normal circumstances. Refusal to follow these design guidelines requires written approval of the Director of Engineering & Corporate Assets or designate. This guideline also highlights that all proposed works within the City of Kawartha | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 14

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Lakes Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) shall comply with all applicable current industry standards and specifications for design, installation, modification, quality management and quality control. City of Kawartha Lakes Lindsay Transit Master Plan (2018) builds on past successes of Lindsay Transit and LIMO service and incorporates best practices that have evolved over the years throughout Ontario and Canada. The transit market has changed and as such, the proposed Master Plan provides various recommendations to improve service on Lindsay Transit. The plan also includes a community Transit plan for locations outside of Lindsay for the years 2023-2027. Some of the key recommendations outlined in the Transit Master Plan included the following: •

Provide more service-coverage by expanding Lindsay Transit’s fixed route service to serve residents outside of Lindsay. This will help address current needs as well as growth within Lindsay.

•

Provide more affordable and accessible transit options for Kawartha Lake residents and visitors

•

When designing for new residential developments, maximum transit route coverage at minimal cost must be viewed as a priority

•

Provide more arterial transit routes which is a more attractive service since they are more direct and cost-effective than transit routes along slower internal collector roads and residential streets

•

Provide a potential connection between Lindsay and Peterborough in combination with the Fleming College Bus Services that currently exist between Sutherland Campus (Peterborough) and Frost Campus (Lindsay). The primary intent is to achieve an enhanced transit modal split in order to reduce auto dependence.

The Housing Pledge was another document that was reviewed as part of this study. It highlights the council’s commitment to build 6500 housing units by 2031.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 15

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

According to the GMS, City of Kawartha Lakes is expected to grow to 130,000 people and 40,600 jobs by 2051. To plan for this growth, the City’s Planning Division commenced a new Growth Management Strategy (GMS). This is the second GMS exercise the City is administering; the City’s first GMS was completed in 2010 and updated in 2011. The City of Kawartha Lakes new GMS will plan for population growth, housing and employment needs, and coordinate with infrastructure investments to the year 2051. The new GMS establishes a foundation for the forthcoming update of the City’s Official Plan, which is also referred to as the municipal comprehensive review (MCR).

Map 2 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3 According to the GMS, City of Kawartha Lakes is expected to grow to 130,000 people and 40,600 jobs by 2051. To plan for this growth, the City’s Planning Division commenced a new Growth Management Strategy (GMS). This is the second GMS exercise the City is administering; the City’s first GMS was completed in 2010 and updated in 2011. The City of Kawartha Lakes new GMS will plan for population growth, housing and employment needs, and coordinate with infrastructure investments to the year 2051. The new GMS establishes a foundation for the forthcoming update of the City’s Official Plan, which is also referred to as the municipal comprehensive review (MCR).

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 16

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

3.0 Community and Growth To identify opportunities for improvements, recommendations, and strategies for the City of Kawartha Lakes transportation network, a comprehensive understanding of the current community context is essential. The existing conditions review of the City’s transportation network will serve as the basis for assessing opportunities and improvements in the future.

3.1 Community Profile The transportation network for a City must be planned in accordance to the local landscape and demographics in order to address the problems and recommend solutions tailored specifically to the local community. It is essential to understand the relationship between the changing demographics and land use in order to know the needs of the community and find out where residents and businesses will go in the future. 3.1.1

Population and Employment

According to the most recent 2021 census data, the City of Kawartha Lake’s has a total population of 79,247. According to Statistics Canada, 2021 Census of Population data, the land area of Kawartha Lakes is 3,033.66 square kilometres and the population density was reported to be 26.1 people per square kilometre. Growth within the City has been modest in recent decades. There has been a +5.1% growth in population from approximately 75,423 people in 2016 to 79,247 people in 2021. Based on the City’s updated Growth Management Strategy, population is forecasted to reach 130,000 by 2051 as shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Population and Employment Statistics Population

2016 75,423

2021 79,247

2051 130,000

Employment

25,640

30,270

40,600

Error! Reference source not found. shows growth projections for the City of Kawartha Lakes and indicates a modest increase in both population and employment. A notable portion of the population growth is expected to result from the conversion of second homes into permanent residences. By 2051, the age structure of Kawartha Lakes is also projected to exhibit a more mature profile compared to many other areas within the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). Currently, the largest age demographic within the City are residents aged 65 years or over which account for approximately 60% of the total population which is slightly higher than the City’s median age being 51.6 and the provincial median which is 41.6. Regardless of a growing senior population, a younger cohort of 14 years of age and | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 17

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update under are expected to enter the working-age bracket in the next 10 – 15 years as well. This presents an opportunity to guide the transportation choices for the next generation of working-age residents and make transportation related decisions accordingly. Monitoring trends in demographics enables the City to better understand change over time (and how that might affect the transportation system) and assess the effectiveness of the TMP update in meeting stated objectives.

Figure 4 - Population Age Structure

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 18

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

3.2 Land Use Significant land uses within City limits consists of rural, agricultural, environmental, natural resource and urban areas, as identified per the City of Kawartha Lakes’ Official Plan Schedule A-3 and A-5 shown in Map 3 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3

and Map 4 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-5

. Land use designations play an important role within the City, governing its growth and development. This TMP update will outline the impacts and needs of the City’s transportation system based on forecasted growth and development. Urban settlement areas are the primary locations for the anticipated growth within the City. As defined in the City’s official plan, the goal of urban settlement areas is to manage growth through efficient land use and development that supports strong, liveable and healthy communities, protects the environment and public health and safety and facilitates economic growth. Designated urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls (including fringe area), Omemee, and Bobcaygeon are key areas for assessment within the TMP update.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 19

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update As outlined in the City’s Growth Management Strategy, the City of Kawartha Lakes is expected to experience significant growth. The population of the City is projected to reach 130,000 by 2051. This growth forecast is based on intensification within designated growth areas, planned future developments, and Minister’s Zoning Orders (“MZO”) across the City. These factors will contribute to population growth, particularly in the urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Omemee, and Fenelon Falls, as shown in Error! Reference source not found. through Map 8 - Omemee Development Areas

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 20

Map 3 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3

Map 4 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-5

Map 5 - Lindsay Development Areas

Map 6 - Fenelon Falls Development Areas

Map 7 - Bobcaygeon Development Areas

Map 8 - Omemee Development Areas

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Designated urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls (including fringe area), Omemee, and Bobcaygeon are key areas for assessment within the TMP Update.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 27

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

4.0 Stakeholder and Public Engagement 4.1 Overview of the City’s Engagement Process The engagement program ensured that residents, stakeholders, businesses, and institutions had ample opportunity to be heard and their opinions made known throughout the course of the study. The following stakeholders were informed and included as part of the study: 1. Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO); 2. City of Kawartha Lakes Departments; 3. Kawartha Region Conservation Authority; 4. Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP); 5. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF); 6. Lindsay Transit; 7. Utilities (i.e., Hydro One Ontario Power Generation); 8. Emergency services (Police, Fire, Paramedic); 9. Community and business group associations; and 10. Indigenous communities and Local residents. Comments from these stakeholders were vital in the development and completion of the TMP update that is relevant, understood and broadly supported by the public. As part of the Stakeholder Engagement process, two in person Public Information Centres (PIC) and two online survey’s were conducted during Phase 1 and 2 of the study. The first online survey was conducted from September 22nd, 2023 to October 31st, 2024 and the second survey was available to the public from October 7th, 2024 to October 29th, 2024. The survey was advertised through the City of Kawartha Lake’s JumpIn project website. All public engagement material and detailed survey results have been included in Appendix B.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 28

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

4.2 Public Information Centre 1 The first public workshop was held during phase 1 of this TMP update in November 2023 in Fenelon Falls and in the Lindsay area to collect initial concerns and feedback from community members. The meetings began with a 15-minute summary presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. The remaining time consisted of an open house drop-in style session for review of display boards by the participants. At the first PIC, the participants learned about the study’s approach and findings. Feedback was also gathered in real-time through comment forms to capture the community's needs effectively. 4.2.1

Online Survey 1

The goal of the online survey’s was to collect information on how people use the transportation and mobility network, their preferred modes of transportation, and to establish an overall vision for the future multi-modal transportation network within the City of Kawartha Lakes. During Phase One of the study for the first online survey, a total of 258 respondents completed the survey. Of the 258 respondents, the majority were primary residents of the City with varying ages ranging from 18 to 65 and older. Based on the responses received, the main issues identified and raised by the respondents were about the following: 1. Traffic Congestion (Downtown Fenelon Falls, Downtown Lindsay, 2. Kent Street & Angeline Street) 3. Inadequate Public Transit Options 4. Poor Road Conditions 5. Local Operations/Roadway Capacity (Traffic Signals, Widenings, etc.) 6. By-pass bridge and In-Town crossing needs to be improved in Fenelon Falls. During Summer season traffic on bridge is high and potentially impacts emergency services. (CKL Rd 21 to 8).

Figure 5 illustrates how many of the respondents’ believed to be the most significant transportation related issue within the City.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 29

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 5 - Online Survey Result Example 1

4.3 Public Information Centre 2 The second public workshop took place in October 2024, to validate the findings from Phase 1. This event presented key themes and insights gathered from previous engagement activities, allowing attendees to confirm that their experiences and perspectives are accurately reflected throughout the study process. All feedback collected during this PIC was documented and utilized to guide and inform the development of this TMP update. 4.3.1

Online Survey 2

Online Survey 2 was launched in October 2024 and the goal of the second online survey was to gather further input from the community on the refined findings and proposals resulting from Phase 1. The survey served as a follow-up to ensure that the public's views are aligned with the direction of the project, particularly in relation to the proposed solutions and priorities identified in the earlier phases. This survey included a combination of multiple choice and a few open-ended questions to collect additional suggestions and insights. The survey was available online to complete through the project's JumpIn website.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 30

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update During Phase Two of the study for the second online survey, a total of 99 respondents completed the survey. Of the 99 respondents, the majority were primary residents of the City with majority of the respondents from the Fenelon Falls and Lindsay area ranging between 45 and 65 years old. Based on the responses received, the main issues identified and raised by the respondents were about the following, similar to what was identified during Phase 1 of this TMP update: 1. Traffic Congestion, 2. Inadequate Public Transit Options, and 3. Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns

Figure 6 below illustrates how many of the respondents’ believed to be the top factor influencing their transportation mode choice within the City. 4. Traffic Congestion, 5. Inadequate Public Transit Options, and 6. Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns

Figure 6 - Online Survey Result Example 2

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 31

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 32

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.0 Existing Transportation Network 5.1 The City’s Transportation System A City’s transportation network plays a fundamental role in shaping not only the physical, but its social and economic landscape. Therefore, it is essential to understand the existing context of the transportation facilities in order to identify the improvements needed to serve its population and help achieve a progressive, prosperous and safe community well-served by its transportation infrastructure. The subsequent sections provide a summary of the existing transportation network including the current road classification system, traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and the active transportation network.

5.2 Road Classification and Design A roadway network performs most efficiently and effectively when the roads comprising that network are designed, built and operated to serve their intended purposes. In order to ensure roads serve their intended purpose classification systems are used to designate roads into different groups according to the function they serve. The City of Kawartha Lakes boasts a diverse and extensive road network and the classifications currently in use are described below: Provincial Highways: Fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and serves high traffic volumes at high speed for long distance, inter-urban travel. These include Highway 7/7A, 115, and Highway 35. MTO currently has jurisdiction over access to Highways 7, 115, and 35. Arterial Roads: The former county road system, now known as CKL Roads, are primarily arterial roads. Arterial roads are major roads designed to carry high volumes of traffic over long distances. They serve as primary routes for the movement of vehicles between different areas, often connecting major centers such as cities or neighborhoods. Arterial roads typically have higher speed limits, multiple lanes, and limited points of access. Notable examples include Angeline Street, Kent Street, Queen Street, and Colborne Street in Kawartha Lakes. These vital roadways facilitate regional and long-distance travel, supporting economic growth and connectivity. Collector Roads: Collector roads form the backbone of Kawartha Lakes local transportation system, providing essential connections between arterial roads and local streets. They play a crucial role in distributing traffic within the City and ensuring accessibility to residential, commercial, and recreational areas. Collector roads may have | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 33

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update moderate traffic volumes and are designed to balance local access with the need to move traffic efficiently. Local Roads: These roads provide access to individual properties and neighborhoods, offering convenience and connectivity for daily activities. Local streets typically have lower speed limits, fewer lanes, and are intended for local traffic within neighborhoods or communities. The road classification system designates roads into different groups according to the type of service each group is intended to provide. For the purposes of design and asset management planning purposes, all roads are classified according to their roadside environment (Urban or Rural) and function within the system. The characteristics for design classification have been adapted from the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Manual. Table 2 and Table 3 are to be utilized for establishing the design classification. Not illustrated in these tables are the additional restrictions recommended by the TAC geometric design classification which must be considered when undertaking design for City Roads. Table 2 – Rural Road Design Classifications TAC Classification

Local (R1)

Collector (R2)

Arterial (R3)

AADT

<1,000

<5,000

<12,000

Posted Speed (km/h)

40 - 80

50 - 90

Connections

Collectors, Locals

Arterials, Collectors, Locals

Freeways. Arterials, Collectors

Table 3 – Urban Road Design Classifications TAC Classification

Local (U1)

Collector (U2)

Arterial (U3)

Residential: <1,500 Industrial/Commercial: < 3,000

Residential: 1,500 – 8,000 Industrial/Commercial: 3,000 – 12,000

5,000 – 12,000

Posted Speed (km/h)

40 or less

40-50

50-80

Connections

Locals, Collectors

Arterials, Collectors, and Locals

Collectors, Arterials Freeways

AADT

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 34

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Overall, the existing road network serves as the essential framework for the daily lives of residents and the growth of businesses. It embodies the character of the City’s communities, connects diverse landscapes, and fuels the economic vitality of the City’s region. Understanding Kawartha Lakes’ existing road network is fundamental in working towards improving the transportation network and making it efficient, safe, and sustainable. The City of Kawartha Lakes boasts a diverse and extensive road network and the classifications currently in use are in Map 10 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification

Map 11 through Map 15 - Bobcaygeon Existing Road Classification .

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 35

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 36

Map 10 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification

Map 12 - Lindsay Existing Road Classification

Map 13 - Fenelon Falls Existing Road Classification

Map 14 - Omemee Existing Road Classification

Map 15 - Bobcaygeon Existing Road Classification

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.3 Truck Network Aside from the existing provincial road network of Kawartha Lakes, it is important to understand that the City does not have any designated trucking or haul routes, but rather imposes seasonal load restrictions and lists routes that are not affected by the restriction on its website. Restrictions are put into place in accordance with By-Law 2022-190, when road damage is most likely to occur due to heavy loading. The unrestricted roadways as of March 1, 2023 are specified in the load restriction By-law on the City’s website. In addition to the load restriction By-law, a number of local roads that experienced disruptive heavy truck traffic have had by-laws passed restricting them. Overall, these roadway segments will provide a starting point to determine appropriate commercial truck routes, and the feasibility of designating routes instead of the current strategy of imposing seasonal load restrictions. Equally important will be the need for a plan to minimize the disruption of truck movements to local, agricultural, tourist, and recreational areas.

5.4 Railway Network The rail corridor connecting Toronto and Peterborough is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), known as the Havelock Subdivision. Stretching from the CPR Agincourt Yard in Toronto to Peterborough, Havelock, and Blue Mountain, this section of the line crosses the southern part of the City, at the Pontypool station. Covering an approximate distance of 120 kilometers, the line is only used for limited freight operations. VIA Rail passenger service has been absent on this route since around 1990, primarily due to the deteriorated track condition and restricted operating speeds. Ongoing studies are investigating the feasibility of upgrading the line to accommodate heightened freight and passenger traffic. Further exploration of these opportunities and their potential impacts on the City's transportation system and services is detailed in subsequent sections of this report.

5.5 Transit Network Kawartha Lakes is situated on the periphery of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as such it is critical for the City to be aware of and plan for opportunities to expand its transit service. Lindsay Transit is the only available transit service within Kawartha Lakes. As shown in Figure 8, Lindsay’s transit network consists of four transit routes (Red, Blue, Orange, and Green Routes). The Orange route is one of Lindsay’s fourth newest route. The Orange Route brings Lindsay Transit to the Springdale Gardens area and offers a direct route from the Transit Hub to Lindsay Square Mall. Service on the new route began on February 23, 2023. | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 42

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Currently, no service is available on statutory holidays and all routes operate Monday to Saturday from 7am to 7pm, and Sunday from 9am to 4pm. Lindsay Transit also operates a Specialized Transit system called LIMO that provides accessible door to door transportation within Lindsay to residents that are unable to use Lindsay Transit. According to the Lindsay Transit Master Plan (2018), there was a 22.1 % growth in total transit ridership from 2012 to 2016 while the service area population grew by only 7.2%. For every 1% in population growth, the public transportation demand grew by 3%. Thus, both services have experienced an increase in ridership, operational efficiencies and community acceptance. Hence, in order to meet the needs of an aging population. The demand for accessible public transportation both within the Lindsay urban area and to adjacent and remote areas outside of Lindsay will continue to grow. As such, increasing transit options within Kawartha Lakes’ and providing more reliable access to transportation options will help facilitate an accessible and sustainable environment for the City of Kawartha Lakes. Inter-Municipal Transit According to the 2018 City of Kawartha Lakes Transit Master Plan, the inter-municipal transit services that operate within or through the City of Kawartha Lakes are operated by GO Transit as described below: GO Transit has two inter-regional bus routes operating through the municipality:

1 12

GO Route 81 operates along Highway 12 between Whitby GO Station and Beaverton four trips in each direction on weekdays and weekends. This route is located approximately 28 kilometers west of Lindsay and just outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries. GO Route 88 Operates along Highway 115 between Trent University in GO Route 81 operates along Highway 12 between Whitby GO Station every and Peterborough and the Oshawa GO Station with service approximately Beaverton four trips in eachon direction on weekdays and weekends. two hours in each direction weekdays and weekends. This routeThis stops route located 35 approximately kilometers Lindsay and 35 just at the isHighway and Highway28115 Park andwest Rideoffacility about outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries. kilometers south of Lindsay, approximately 1.5km outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries.

Figure 7 - Existing Transit in LindsayGO Route 88 Operates along Highway 115

between Trent University in Peterborough and the Oshawa GO Station with service approximately every two hours in each direction on weekdays and weekends. This route stops at the Highway 35 and Highway 115 Park | Transportation Master Plan Update P aand g e | 43 Ride facility about 35 kilometers south of Lindsay, approximately 1.5km

Figure 8 - Existing Transit in Lindsay Figure 9 - Existing Trails (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan)Figure 10 - Existing Transit in Lindsay

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.6 Parking A 2021 Downtown Parking Strategy study was undertaken by the City of Kawartha Lakes for Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, and Fenelon Falls, via a need identified through the 2012 TMP. The objective of the Downtown Parking Strategy was to examine the current state and administration of parking, forecast future parking demand, determine future parking supply needs, and provide appropriate recommendations. The parking strategy aimed to ensure future parking demand in core areas is met, utilized public consultation, parking demand surveys, review of modal splits and potential modal shifts. The study also sought to: 

Address stakeholder concerns;



Review parking service delivery models; and



Develop solutions for meeting future growth-related parking demands.

The parking strategy identified that while some users in core parking areas may perceive a shortage of parking at certain times. Public consultation responses showed that for Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon over 60% of respondents were neutral to satisfied on core area parking. In Lindsay only 45% of respondents were neutral to satisfied on core area parking with 65% indicating dissatisfaction as summarized in Error! Reference source not found..

Lindsay

Fenelon Falls

Bobcaygeon

(256 respondents)

(53 respondents)

(40 respondents)

Figure 11 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1) Figure 12 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1) | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 45

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Parking utilization surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 (winter and spring) prior to the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, showed existing parking supplies were adequate. On a system-wide basis, existing parking supply was found to be sufficient, in some cases significantly more than sufficient, to accommodate existing parking demand. Rather than a shortage of parking shortage a number of parking challenges were discovered, which included: 

Uneven distribution of parking activity;



Deficient wayfinding and awareness of the availability of parking; and



Restrictive notions of an acceptable walking distance.

Study forecasts show that by 2027-2028 horizon Lindsay is demonstrated to reach effective capacity (defined as between 85% and 90% of total capacity). Through to a 2041 study horizon, utilization in Lindsay is forecasted to reach total capacity and Bobcaygeon is forecasted to effective capacity. The Fenelon Falls parking system however, is forecasted to continue operating well below effective capacity through to 2041. Based on future parking demand only the Lindsay core area is anticipated to require a parking supply expansion. Recommendations were provided based on a short-medium-long term consideration and identified that the City should take advantage of low-cost expansions to parking supply wherever possible. A sample of implementable recommendations from the study included: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Pavement marking refurbishment and delineation to provide accessible parking spaces in lots where none have been provided. Revision of pavement markings to eliminate unnecessary “no parking” zones Introduction of 2-hour parking duration limit to prime parking assets Introduction of proactive enforcement Implementation of wayfinding systems Upgrade of parking lots to provide increased parking supply Upgrades on on-street parking areas to increase supply Introduce dynamic pricing to municipal parking lots within core areas Reduce duration for free off-street parking Consider applications for reduced parking requirements Changes to cash-in-lieu policies Increase overtime parking fines to match peer municipalities; Adopt handheld license plate recognition (LPR) software to improve on-street parking enforcement in Lindsay. Undertake another Downtown Parking Strategy in 2029.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 46

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.7 Active Transportation Network Active Transportation enhances quality of life by fostering social cohesion, promoting inclusion, and contributing to economic development. Focusing on investing in and promoting active transportation will provide the City with the opportunity to enhance its existing active transportation network. The City of Kawartha Lakes has currently updated their Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) 2024, which is a new plan and initiative for Kawartha Lakes that will consider how the City can improve active and accessible transportation experiences that accommodate safe trips for people of all and abilities, as well as longer distance cycling trips for touring purposes. This TMP Update will ensure to integrate and consider the recommendations being implemented in the ATMP plan in order to successfully develop a sustainable and connected multi-modal transportation network. The following sections is a review of the existing trails, sidewalk conditions, and cycling infrastructure. 5.7.1

Trails and Sidewalks

As noted in the 2012 TMP, trails in Kawartha Lakes contribute to the idea of a “Community of Communities,” fostering stronger community bonds. Integrating active transportation policies into the Transportation Master Plan will help align with both City and Provincial objectives and promote travel modes beyond private automobiles. This approach, known as the ‘Complete Streets’ approach, guarantees that transportation rights-of-way are carefully planned, designed, and operated to ensure safe access for all users, encompassing drivers, transit users, pedestrians, cyclists, as well as older people, children, and persons with disabilities. The existing trails network in the City of Kawartha Lakes is shown in Figure 9 and the City’s sidewalk network, which provides links to community areas, school zones, and the downtown core areas are illustrated in Map 13 to Map 16. There are more than 600 km of trails spread across Kawartha Lakes. The Ganaraska Trail, Kawartha Trans Canada Trail and Victoria Rail Trail Corridor have several access points in different areas of Kawartha Lakes. The Trails Master Plan Update was recently completed and approved on April 18, 2023.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 47

Figure Figure 9 – Existing 13 - Existing TrailsTrails (Retrieved (Retrieved from from Active Active Transportation Transportation Master Master Plan)Plan) Map Figure 16 - Lindsay 14 - Existing Existing Trails Sidewalk (Retrieved Network from (2022)Figure Active Transportation 9 – ExistingMaster Trails Plan) (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan)

Map 17 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) Map 18 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)Map 19 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)

Map 20 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) Map 21 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)Map 22 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)

Map 23 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) Map 24 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)

Map 16 – Omemee Existing Sidewalk Network (2022)

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.7.2

Cycling

Cycling is important to integrate into the transportation network for several reasons. Firstly, it promotes sustainable and environmentally friendly modes of transportation, contributing to reduced carbon emissions and mitigating the impact of climate change. Secondly, cycling enhances personal health and well-being by encouraging physical activity. Additionally, integrating cycling into the transportation network helps alleviate traffic congestion, especially in urban areas, and provides an efficient and cost-effective means of commuting. Moreover, it fosters a sense of community, as cycling infrastructure often connects neighborhoods and facilitates social interactions. Finally, cycling supports economic development, particularly in the realm of tourism and local businesses, as bike-friendly infrastructure attracts visitors and residents alike. The 2006 Trails Master Plan identified improvements to the cycling network that included: •

A need for signed safe cycling routes in the urban areas;

•

A need for cycling routes to connect the gaps in the Victoria Rail Trail Corridor; and

•

A need to identify safe routes through urban areas, particularly in Lindsay.

The existing cycling network for Kawartha Lakes is shown in Figure 10.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 53

Figure 16 - Existing Cycling Routes Figure 17 - Lindsay Future Development DensityFigure 18 - Existing Cycling Routes

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.8 Emerging Technologies The transportation sector is experiencing significant changes in technological advancement and municipalities need to better prepare in response to these emerging trends. This involves adapting and evolving current transportation and land use planning policies and practices to help their communities be prepared for the upcoming transformative shift in mobility services. Technology plays a critical role in how people move, and communities develop. This has never been truer than it is today. As digital technology rapidly evolves, it is having a substantial impact on transportation networks, particularly in urban areas. The challenge for municipalities is to proactively manage these new technologies so that they have a positive impact on transportation trends and the region more broadly. In general, much of the emerging technology such as those involving shared mobility (ride sharing) and micro-mobility (e-bikes/e-scooters) have yet to be adopted in rural environments such as in the City of Kawartha Lakes. Electric Vehicles (EVs), however, have become common place on all Canadian Roads. The Government of Canada has set a mandatory target for all new cars and passenger trucks to be zero emission by 2035, accelerating Canada’s previous goal of 100% sales by 2040. Planning for this will be critical for Kawartha Lakes, in order for it to continue to be a viable place for people to live and visit. More details are provided in Table 4 which highlights some key Government of Canada electric vehicle and sustainability related policies.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 55

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Table 4 – Existing Government of Canada Policies Policy

Objective

The Treasury Board of Secretary Greening Government Strategy (TB GGS, 2018)

The government will adopt low-carbon mobility solutions, deploy supporting infrastructure in its facilities, and modernize its fleet as follows:

Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS, 2019-2022)

•

Starting in the 2019 to 2020 fiscal year, 75% of new lightduty unmodified administrative fleet vehicle purchases will be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) or hybrid, with the objective that the government’s administrative fleet comprises at least 80% ZEVs by 2030.

•

Long Term Target: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels.

•

GGS requires low carbon commuting be considered to achieve reduction in GHG emissions (Decrease GHG emissions from commuting = Adopt alternative modes of transportation etc).

•

Take public transit or explore active transportation to get around

•

Use low-carbon forms of transportation to reduce emissions from commuting such as biking, walking, carpooling or public transit

•

Modern and Resilient Infrastructure: By the end of the 2027– 2028 fiscal year, invest $26.9 billion in funding for green infrastructure initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve climate resilience and environment quality

•

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from federal government facilities and fleets by 40% by 2030 (with an aspiration to achieve this target by 2025) and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 (with an aspiration to be carbon neutral)

•

Increase sales of zero emission vehicles in Canada to 10% of light-duty vehicle sales by 2025, 20% by 2030 and 100% by 2040

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 56

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Policy

Objective • Under Canada’s Paris Agreement, the target for Canada is to reduce emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030

RPS Sustainable Development and Environmental Strategy (RPSDES, 2018)

•

Supply fast charging electric vehicle charging stations with the objective to support the conversion of fleet and private vehicles from gas to electric.

5.9 Existing EV Charging in Kawartha Lakes Currently, the City of Kawartha Lakes has 4 public charging station ports for the public to use offering either Level 2 or 3 chargers. Overall, the City has a limited number of electric charging stations, and moving forward, significant opportunity exists for collaboration with developers and stakeholders for expanding EV capacity throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 57

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.10 Existing Traffic Conditions 5.10.1

Travel Demand Trends

Understanding the existing travel patterns is important for the effective planning of a City’s transportation network and infrastructure development. Mode Splits Information on travel patterns for the City of Kawartha Lakes was extracted from the 2016 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS). As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, automobile mode share has remained consistent as the primary mode for over 70% of trips since 2016. Alternative modes of transportation like cycling, walking, and transit have all seen limited increases in mode share over the past seven years.

Figure 19 - AM Peak Mode Split – All Purposes

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 58

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 20 - PM Peak Mode Split Figure 21 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016)Figure 22 - PM Peak Mode Split Based on the 2016 TTS data, home to work trips from Lindsay to other areas was reviewed. This provided an overview of the internal distribution of trips happening between the settlement areas in Kawartha Lakes’ and outside the City’s region. As shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Table 6 below, about 94% of Kawartha Lakes residents use a car as their main mode of transportation for commuting from home to work during AM peak hours. Likewise, approximately 95% of residents rely on driving a car for their home to work trips during peak evening hours. Table 5 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes’ from Home to Work during AM Hours Trip Purpose Home Based-Work Trips

Primary Travel Mode Auto Driver

Cycle

Transit

Walk

Other

13,876

147

135

487

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 59

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

94%

<1%

Table 6 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes from Home to Work during PM Hours Trip Purpose

Primary Travel Mode Auto Driver

Cycle

Walk

Other

6,167

160

95%

Home Based-Work Trips

Error! Reference source not found.Table 7 below shows that 56% of daily trips in the AM peak hours going from home to work remain within Lindsay. About 4% of the trips that leave Lindsay go to Fenlon Falls, 13% to Bobcaygeon, and 27% to Omemee. More than 60% of journeys stay within the confines of Kawartha Lakes, showcasing a strong local commuting pattern. On the other hand, as shown in Table 8Error! Reference source not found., 88% of all of the other trips leaving Kawartha Lakes go to neighboring municipalities like Durham and Peterborough. These individuals most likely reside in Kawartha Lakes but do not work within the City. Table 7 - Home-to-Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas Home to Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas within Kawartha Lakes (AM Peak) Location TTS Zones No. of Trips % of trips 8706 417 Lindsay to Fenlon Falls 4 8707, 8713 1309 Lindsay to Bobcaygeon 13 8714, 8715 2674 Lindsay to Omemee 27 8709, 8710, 8711, 8712 5561 Within Lindsay 56 Total 9961 100% Table 8 - Home to Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside Region Home to Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside GTA Zone Areas (AM Peak) Location No. of Trips % of trips Kawartha Lakes to Toronto 369 7 Kawartha Lakes to Durham 2794 52 Kawartha Lakes to Simcoe 116 2 Kawartha Lakes to Peterborough 1909 36 Kawartha Lakes to Dufferin 30 1 Kawartha Lakes to Orillia 159 3 | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 60

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Total

5377

| Transportation Master Plan Update

100%

P a g e | 61

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update As shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 below, 63% of AM peak trips and 29% of PM peak trips happening in Kawartha Lakes’ are both work and school related. Although a significant number of school-related trips during the AM hours are made by the school bus, many of these journeys rely more on automobiles as the primary mode of travel. This indicates a demand during these times for employment and educational purposes. On the other hand, during PM peak hours, 43% of trips in Kawartha Lakes are home-based discretionary trips. These trips involve non-essential or optional travel for purposes other than commuting to work, school, or essential activities. Overall, in comparison to the previous 2012 TMP, Home to Work trips being made within Kawartha Lakes in the Lindsay area have dropped from 62% to 56%, and Home to work trips that go to other areas outside the City have increased over the past few years by 5%. (Motorcycle, Auto Passenger, School Bus, Taxi Passenger)

Figure 24 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016) Figure 25 - Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the 2000 Highway Capacity ManualFigure 26 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016)

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 62

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

(Motorcycle, Auto Passenger, School Bus, Taxi Passenger)

Figure 28 - Trip Purpose by Mode, PM Peak (2016) 5.10.2

Network Volumes Figure 29 - Trip Purpose by Mode, PM Peak (2016)

An understanding of the existing traffic volumes in Kawartha Lakes is important to determining traffic demand characteristics within the City. This information is also essential for the forecasting of future traffic conditions and building a properly calibrated model to analyze traffic capacity and level of service on existing and future road networks. The City of Kawartha Lakes 2021 Road Needs Study was used for current estimates of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Current (2021) AADT volumes for all roads within Kawartha Lakes are illustrated in Map 17 through Map 21. AADT is a theoretical estimate of the total volume of vehicles using a specific segment of a roadway (in both directions) on any given day of the year. AADT is an essential factor in the analysis of the road network, including: •

Establishing adequacy of the available roadway capacity in comparison to the roadways traffic demand and its Level of Service (LOS);

•

Establishing design and maintenance classifications for the roadway; and

•

Establishing the relative priority for maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 63

Map 25 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 26 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 28 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 31 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 32 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 33 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 34 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 35 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 36 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 37 – TMP Count LocationsMap 38 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Seasonal Trends The population of the City of Kawartha Lakes fluctuates with the changing seasons. The period from June to August is regarded as the peak summer season when the number of transient and seasonal residents is at the highest. According to historical data on average for annual daily traffic (AADT) and summer average daily traffic (SADT) volumes provided by the MTO for the year 2015 to 2019, saw that traffic volumes are 28% higher during those peak months. The seasonal factor provided in the 2012 City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan report was 25%. Vehicle Classifications Using data from Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) on selected corridors, counts of categorized vehicles were analyzed based on their axle configurations to identify areas with high truck volumes. The focus of this analysis was on corridors where trucks represented more than 10% of the total traffic. As shown in, Table 9, 17 roadways within the City of Kawartha Lakes were found to have commercial vehicle traffic exceeding 10%. These high truck volumes can be attributed to several factors, including the City’s seasonal road restrictions and the strategic locations of its roadways, which provide access to key economic activities and transportation routes. In general, certain roads within the City experience higher truck volumes due to their role in bypassing seasonal road restrictions and providing direct access to major highways, other cities, and key commercial hubs. These routes are essential for transporting goods to and from facilities like quarries and industrial zones within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Trucks use these roads to reach larger, unrestricted highways, allowing for more efficient travel. Additionally, these routes help trucks avoid seasonal restrictions or weight limits on lowerorder roads, especially during weather-related limitations. The design of these roads also facilitates better access to commercial and industrial facilities, supporting improved logistics and trade. More detailed results of all commercial vehicle traffic percentages are summarized in Appendix C.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 69

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Table 9 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages Table 10 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 70

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.10.3

Intersection Volumes

To understand the traffic demand characteristics, volume, type of vehicle (trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians), and traffic pattern using the roadway, a comprehensive count program was undertaken across the City. Automated traffic recorder (ATR) counts and turning movement count (TMC) data was collected and the locations for collected traffic data is illustrated in Map 22. Locations for ATR data collection throughout the City is provided in Appendix D. As part of the data collection exercise 48 key intersection locations across the four urban areas of Lindsay (29 locations), Bobcaygeon (10 locations), Fenelon Falls (5 Locations) and Omemee (4 locations) were selected for detailed review based on discussions with the City Staff. Due to seasonal trends that impact traffic patterns within the City data collection was focused within the summer periods or count data adjusted where necessary to reflect these conditions. The existing traffic volumes, in terms of peak hourly traffic movements at key intersections across the four urban settlement areas, are shown in Figure 16 through Figure 19.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 71

Map 39 – TMP Count Locations Map 40 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 41 – TMP Count Locations

Figure 31 - Lindsay 2023 Traffic Volumes Figure 32 - Lindsay 2023 Traffic Volumes

Figure 34 - Bobcaygeon 2023 Traffic Volumes

Figure 33 Fenelon Falls 2023 Traffic Volumes

[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]

Figure 38 - Fenelon Falls 2023 Traffic Volumes

[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]

Figure 40 - Omemee 2023 Traffic Volumes

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.10.4

Traffic Analysis Operation

Intersection operations were assessed using Synchro 11 traffic analysis software which utilizes methodologies established within The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 th Edition methodology published by the Transportation Research Board National Research Council (TRBNRC). Intersection operational performance metrics are reported in terms of Level of Service (LOS), delays, volume-to-capacity (V / C) ratios, and 95th percentile queues. LOS is based on the average control delay per vehicle for a given movement. Delay is an indicator of how long a vehicle must wait to complete a movement and is represented by a letter between ‘A’ and ‘F’, with ‘F’ being the longest delay. Delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line at the intersection, which is then averaged to determine the total intersection delay. A secondary performance measure is to determine the maximum volume-to-capacity (V / C) ratio, which compares the traffic demand to theoretical capacity. A V / C ratio greater than 1.00 is a strong indication of congested conditions, high delays, and long queues. Error! Reference source not found.10, summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections and Table 11 provides LOS descriptions. An illustration of LOS is also provided in Figure 19. Table 11 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS

Signalized Intersection

Unsignalized Intersection

≤ 10 sec

≤ 10 Sec

10-20 sec

10-15 sec

20-35 sec

15-25 sec

35-55 sec

25-35 sec

55-80 sec

35-50 sec

> 80 sec

> 50 sec

\ | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 77

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure - Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of 2000 the 2000 Highway Capacity Figure 21- 43 Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the Highway Capacity Manual Manual Figure - Intersection Levels of Service21(Courtesy of the 2000 of Highway Table 12 - 44 Long Term ImprovementsFigure Intersection Levels ServiceCapacity (Courtesy Manual of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Table 13 - HCM Level of Service Description LOS A B C D

DESCRIPTION Free-flow operations where vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Reasonably free flow conditions where the ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted. Traffic speeds at or near the free-flow speed with noticeable restricted freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream Declining speeds due to increasing flows with seriously limited freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.

\ | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 78

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Operations at or near capacity are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream; unstable with no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption.

Unstable flow with queues forming behind bottlenecks. Breakdowns occur for several reasons.

The results of the capacity analyses reveal that most of the assessed intersections operate satisfactorily under existing (2023) traffic conditions. The analysis results for each of the urban settlement areas are described below and analysis details are provided in Appendix E.

Lindsay Signalized intersections were found to be generally operating satisfactorily under existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes. One key intersection was noted, the Kent Street and Angeline Street intersection, which operates at a LOS of D, with an average delay of 52.8 seconds, and a V/C ratio of 0.89 in the PM peak hour with capacity constraints on the eastbound left-turn and westbound through movement. A significant part of traffic entering or leaving Lindsay, connecting to the highway system, passes through the Kent Street and Angeline Street intersection. D.

Bobcaygeon The two signalized and other unsignalized intersections in Bobcaygeon were found to be operating satisfactorily with minimal delays. The traffic analysis results shows that unsignalized intersections are functioning well, while signalized intersections are operating satisfactorily. The only critical unsignalized intersection was CKL Road 49/East Street intersection at Main Street.

Fenelon Falls The study intersections in Fenelon Falls are operating with minimal delays and sufficient capacity. The two signalized intersections studied were found to be operating at volume-tocapacity ratios below 60 percent. All unsignalized intersections are found to be operating satisfactorily.

Omemee The unsignalized intersection at King Street N and Ski Hill Rd/Deane St N was found to be operating at LOS C. Other unsignalized intersections were operating satisfactorily. Figure 21 to Error! Reference source not found. 23 summarizes the intersection levels of service and operations in the key urban settlement areas in Kawartha Lakes’. \ | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 79

Figure 45 - Existing Lindsay LOS

Figure 47 - Existing Bobcaygeon LOS

Figure 48 - Existing Fenelon Falls LOS

Figure 51 - Existing Omemee LOS

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

5.11 Collision Review A high-level collision analysis was completed as part of this study in order to aide in highlighting any significant collision trends such as over represented collision types, areas of localized high collision densities, etc. The most recent collision data was provided for the years 2014-2022. The analysis covered the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2022, including all corridors and intersections in the settlement areas within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Collisions for 2023 were excluded as the data was not available for a whole year. Collisions outside the City’s municipal limits were omitted from the data analysis. The objective of the safety review and detailed collision analysis is to identify possible contributing factors for higher overall collision frequency, subsequently identify appropriate mitigation measures, and guide the city in prioritizing potential safety enhancements. 5.11.1

Collision Analysis of Intersections

Methodology The intersections were classified into signalized, unsignalized, and three-legged and fourlegged intersections. A review of historical collision data was performed based on information provided by the city. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Results In total, 60 signalized and 872 unsignalized intersections were considered for the study. Among them, there were 548 three legged and 384 four legged intersections. Collision by Severity Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 75% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 0.2% of collisions were fatal and 22% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 4% non-reportable collisions. Collision by Impact Type Analyzing initial impact type, single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 41%, and turning movement and rear-end collisions together makeup over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile,

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 84

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. External Factors External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Table 12 below shows the collision severity over the years (20142022). Table 14 - Intersection Collision Severity (2014-2022) Year

Fatal Injury

Non-fatal injury

Property Damage only

Non-reportable

2014

273

2015

220

2016

188

2017

242

2018

274

2019

279

2019

279

2020

203

2021

230

2022

236

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 85

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Intersections were sorted according to the number of collisions and top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. Intersections were also sorted according to the number of collisions and the top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. Key hotspots are listed in Table 13 and shown in Figure 24. Table 15 - Top 10 Intersection Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes Intersection Type

Total No. of Collisions

Signalized

4 legged

127

Kent Street & Angeline Street

Signalized

4 legged

112

Kent Street & Commerce Road

Unsignalized

3 legged

Angeline Street & Colborne Street

Signalized

4 legged

Highway 35 & Highway 7

Signalized

4 legged

Kent Street & William Street

Signalized

4 legged

Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street

Signalized

4 legged

Signalized

4 legged

Russell Street & William Street

Signalized

4 legged

Kent Street & Cambridge Street

Signalized

4 legged

No.

Intersection

Kent Street & St. Joseph Road

Traffic Control

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 86

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 53 - Intersection Collision Hot Spot Locations All hotspot intersections follow the same trend, with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Collision hotspots are mainly along Kent Street in Lindsay which is the main part of the urban core and would consist of some the highest volumes within the City. The three highest intersection collision locations are within close proximity to the Lindsay Square Mall indicating that the high level of traffic volumes within this commercial area, the number of lanes on Kent Street and driver behavior has an impact on collisions in the area. 5.11.2

Collison Analysis of Road Segment

Collison by Severity Collisions that occurred over road segments were analyzed identifying 78% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 1% of collisions were fatal and 18% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 3% non-reportable collisions. A summary of collision severity is provided in Table 14.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 87

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 16 - Road Segment Collision Severity (2014-2022) Year

Fatal Injury

Non-fatal injury

Property Damage only

Non-reportable

2014

416

2015

240

678

2016

183

630

2017

179

686

2018

139

740

2019

148

823

2019

130

532

2020

129

595

2021

610

2022

416

Collision by Impact Type Data review indicated single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) account for 42% of collisions, while turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions account for approximately another 15%. A summary of External Factors Over the reviewed period the maximum number of collisions were recorded in 2019. The greatest number of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring under clear and dry road conditions during daylight hours during the week. It was also identified collision frequency was lower in the dark and on the weekends. The major reason stated for most of the collisions was that "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Road conditions was not cited as a causal factor for many collisions and drivers, were not under the influence (Non-DUI) in most of the collisions. Inattentive driving however was the major reason for angle collisions. Road segments were also sorted according to the number of collisions, and the top ten were identified as key hotspots. Key hotspots are listed in Table 15 and shown in Figure 25.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 88

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 17 - Top 10 Segment Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes No.

Intersection

Total No. of Collisions

Kent Street

908

Highway 35

579

Highway 7

471

Lindsay Street

329

Angeline Street

224

County Road 121

176

County Road 36

164

Glenarm Road

155

Pigeon Lake Road

147

Little Britain Road

143

Kent Street intersections and the Kent Street corridor has the highest number of collisions. Additional measures would be required by the City to mitigate the number of collisions along the Kent Street corridor. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the hotspots listed above by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them. Collision Analysis summaries are provided in Appendix F.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 89

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 54 - Road Segment Collision Hot Spot Locations Figure 55 - Road Segment Collision Hot Spot Locations | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 90

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 91

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

6.0 Future Conditions 6.1 Planned Improvements A number of planned and ongoing infrastructure projects have been identified within the City of Kawartha Lakes which will improve network connectivity and the movement of goods and people across the City. Improvements and their locations are summarized below. Colborne Street Scugog River Crossing: Colborne Street has been identified as the preferred location for a new bridge crossing of the Scugog River within Lindsay. This new crossing will address the need for additional capacity across Scugog River and will connect Colborne Street West to Colborne Street. Assessment and design of the crossing is ongoing with implementation of the bridge anticipated to be in place by 2031. Colborne Street Intersections: As part of the Colborne Street Scugog River bridge crossing project, improvement and development of adjacent intersections are proposed. West of the future bridge crossing, signalization is planned for the Colborne Street and William Street intersection. To the east of the bridge crossing a new intersection is to be built for a future Colborne Street and Lindsay Street three-legged intersection. The future Colborne Street and Lindsay Street intersection is forecasted to operate under stop control with future signalization by 2051. Colborne Street and Angeline Street: Planned intersection improvements will result in dedicated left and right-turn lanes on all approaches of the intersection. Upgrades planned for this intersection are anticipated to implemented by 2031. Angeline Street and Kent Street: Corridor studies and approved MCEA have been used to identify the required improvements to the intersection. The City’s preferred alternative for the intersection twining of northbound and southbound lanes, a dedicated southbound left and right-turns, double eastbound left-turn, a westbound left-turn and a through and through right turn in the eastbound, westbound and northbound directions. Canal Street / Boyd Street and East Street (CKL Rd 36): The process of signalizing this intersection, upgrading it from a minor road stop control is currently ongoing. Full signalization of this intersection location is to be completed shortly. Cedartree Lane / Duke Street and East Street (CKL Rd 36): A second intersection along the East Street (CKL Rd 36) corridor that is in the process of being signalized. Signalization is anticipated to be completed imminently.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 92

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Somerville 3rd Concession Crossing: In Fenelon Falls an additional vehicle crossing via a new bypass connection at the Somerville 3rd Concession (Burnt River) has been endorsed by council. The need for further study of the crossing and surrounding network has been identified. Implementation of this crossing is anticipated to be in place by 2041. Ministry Ministry of Transportation (MTO): A a few key transportation infrastructure improvements have been identified by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). These types of projects through providing enhanced network capacity can significantly impact travel patterns and traffic volumes, altering the way people travel throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes. Currently, MTO owns and operates three provincial “King’s Highways” within the City of Kawartha Lakes; Highway 7, Highway 7A and Highway 35. As discussed in the Connecting the East: A draft transportation plan for eastern Ontario (2022) it identifies MTO plans to explore opportunities to add passing lanes on Highway 35 south of Lindsay to alleviate local congestion. Within the City of Kawartha Lake, Highways 7, 7A, 35 and 115 were also identified to be a part of the Strategic Goods Movement Network.

Additional On-going Improvements 1. Figure Highway Corridor 56 - 35 Fenelon FallsImprovements: Future Development Ongoing improvements along the Highway 35 corridors, which are key routes for DensityAdditional On-going Improvements both local traffic and inter-regional transportation. These improvements aim to address congestion and safety concerns, while also supporting the growing population and economic activity in the City. 2. City-wide Road Rehabilitation Program (Various Locations throughout City): The City of Kawartha Lakes is committed to maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure. A city-wide road rehabilitation program is underway to improve the condition of local roads, particularly in rural and suburban areas. 3. Active Transportation & Trail Network Development: As part of an effort to promote sustainable transportation, the City is developing a more comprehensive network of cycling and walking trails, connecting key areas of the City for both residents and tourists. This includes trails around lakes, parks, and residential areas.

4. Highway 35 Corridor Improvements: Ongoing improvements along the Highway 35 corridors, which are key routes for both local traffic and inter-regional These improvements aim to | Transportation Master Plan transportation. Update P a g e | 93 address congestion and safety concerns, while also supporting the growing

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

6.2 Growth and Development The rate of traffic growth across the City was identified in the City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy Update (GMS) completed in 2024. Growth management involves establishing a long-term vision for the City including its urban communities, rural lands, and protected areas. For the City of Kawartha Lakes, population growth is anticipated to be driven by migration from other parts of Ontario, rather than by immigration as opposed to Canada’s larger urban centers. From 2021 to 2051 the population of Kawartha Lakes is forecasted to grow to 130,000 with employment growing to 40,600 and housing to 48,900 as illustrated in Figure 26.

Figure 57 - Population, Housing and Employment Growth Summary Figure 58 - PM Peak Mode SplitFigure 59 - Population, Housing and Employment Growth Summary

The Growth Management Strategy indicates that to accommodate this projected population growth, the City will need approximately 21,640 new households by 2051, which equates to about 720 new households annually. For historical context, between 2001 and 2021, the City averaged approximately 300 new households per year. To meet the future housing demand across the City, a diverse range of new housing typologies will be required. These will need to address various factors such as built form, location, tenure, and affordability, ensuring that housing options are available for a broad | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 94

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update spectrum of demographic and socio-economic groups throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes. Residential and commercial densities forecasted across the four key urban areas of the City up to 2051 are illustrated in Figures 27 through Figure 30.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 95

Figure 60 - Lindsay Future Development Density Figure 61 - Lindsay Future Development Density

Figure 62 - Fenelon Falls Future Development Density Figure 63 - Bobcaygeon Future Development DensityFigure 64 - Fenelon Falls Future Development Density

Figure 66 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density Figure 67 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density

Figure 30 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density Figure 70 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour LindsayFigure 30 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density

Figure 68 - Omemee Future Development Density Figure 69 - Omemee Future Development Density

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Future development densities were forecasted based on development information where known and high-level planning estimates. Estimates of future densities have been summarized in Table 16. Table 18 - Future Development Density Forecast

Note: Commercial density includes future institutional lands

Specific development density forecasts for Omemee where not available, however available density information for urban areas as shown in Table 16 estimate an addition of 26,866 residential units and 6,082,500 sq.ft. of commercial to be developed up to 2051.

6.3 Forecasting Future Needs 6.3.1

Future Traffic (AADT) Volume Projections

Existing 2021 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) volumes from the City of Kawartha Lakes 2021 Road Needs Study, existing conditions network volumes and development density information provided in Table 16, were used to forecast future traffic volumes up to 2051. The City’s Growth Management Strategy (GMS) identified a City wide traffic growth of 1.6% per annum will occur within Kawartha Lakes. This growth rate is consistent with the annual growth rate identified in the previous 2012 TMP. This growth rate was used to project volumes for all future horizons up to 2051. Given the concentration of future development in the growth areas discussed in Section 3.2, further growth beyond the GMS rate of 1.6% is anticipated on main corridors across the four urban areas. These key corridors are anticipated to experience traffic intensification between 2% to 5% based on development density in segments of the urban areas. It is important to note that other factors beyond development activity will influence future traffic volumes using the City’s road network. Growth in communities adjacent to the City

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 100

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update also contributes to more vehicles using Kawartha Lake roads. Furthermore, greater use of City roads by seasonal and recreational travellers also adds to traffic volumes. While growth rates were applied to traffic volumes based on the respective urban settlement areas, future development plans could result in relatively higher short-term growth. Traffic volume growth associated with development activity should be accounted for on a case by-case basis as supporting traffic impact studies are undertaken in support of development applications. Future Future AADT projections for Kawartha Lakes for 2051 have been illustrated in Map 23 through to Map 27. Projections for the 2031 and 2051 horizons have been provided in Appendix G.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

Page | 101

Map 42 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 43 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 44 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 45 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 46 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 47 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 48 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 51 – Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 52 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic VolumesMap 53 – Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

Map 54 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes Map 27 – Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

6.4 Future Traffic Operations Similar to the existing conditions traffic operations assessment, was performed for future horizon conditions at key intersections to identify any potential future capacity issues. Forecasts for future conditions considered the following in the development of traffic volumes for assessment: •

Forecasted traffic volume for future horizons would align with summer weekday peak period as per existing conditions.

•

Traffic redistribution was applied to network volumes for Lindsay due to the planned Colborne bridge which would connect Colborne Street, east and west of the Scugog River.

•

Trips were forecasted for residential units based on densities obtained from the City (see Table 16) with assumptions made on unit types i.e. single detached, townhouse, mid-rise etc. when detail information was not available.

•

Commercial densities were applied based on City planning guidelines, with trips forecasted based on assumed commercial land use types and mixes, which align with existing development in growth areas where specific detail had not been provided.

•

Morning and evening peak hour trips were generated for residential and commercial land uses using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

•

A 1.6% annual growth was applied to movements away from key corridor areas that were not subject to intensification.

•

Based on trips forecasted for residential and commercial uses corridor intensification was applied to main corridors listed in Table 17.

Table 19 - Future Development Density Forecast Area

Intensified Corridors

Lindsay Fenelon Falls

Colborne Street; Kent Street; Wellington / Queen Street; Angeline Street; Verulam Road (CKL 36) County Road 8 (Helen St); Lindsay Street (CKL 121)

Bobcaygeon

County Road 8 / Duke Steet; County Road 36

Omemee

N/A

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 107

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Traffic volumes were forecasted for the four urban areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon and Omemee for 2031, 2041 and 2051 for key intersections reviewed and assessed under existing conditions. Given the level of progressive development within the City, 2051 ultimately provides the highest cumulative future development densities of all horizons as shown in Table 16 and highest network volumes. Forecasted peak period volumes for urban areas for study horizons are provided in Appendix H. The ability of urban area networks to accommodate future travel demand was assessed for future horizons. From 2031 to 2051 there was a progressive increase in the number of intersections experienced operational deficiencies and exceeding capacity. To manage future demand a number of improvements were required to mitigate deficiencies and improve network operation. A summary of analysis for 2051 inclusive of measure to improve intersection operations for 2051 for the four urban areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon and Omemee is illustrated in Figure 31 through Figure 34. Proposed improvements to address anticipated deficiencies are discussed in Section 6.5 of this report. Intersection analysis for all future horizons and LOS summaries with and without improvements are provided in Appendix I and Appendix J respectively.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 108

Figure 72 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Lindsay Figure 73 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Lindsay

Figure 74 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Fenelon Falls Figure 75 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour BobcaygeonFigure 76 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Fenelon Falls

Figure 77 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Bobcaygeon Figure 78 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour OmemeeFigure 79 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Bobcaygeon

Figure 80 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Omemee Figure 81 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1)Figure 82 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Omemee

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

6.5 Intersection and Corridor Improvements Network demand also necessitated the need for corridor improvements to be examined. Screenlines and link analysis was undertaken to assess demand and long-term adequacy of a transportation network. A screenline is an imaginary line that extend across a number of parallel roadways on a network and are used to summarize travel demands and capacity across these corridors. In this manner, roadway capacity and traffic demand are aggregated. This ‘holistic’ approach encourages decision-making that fully utilizes road network capacity; congestion along a particular corridor may not warrant modifications if underutilized capacity is available in a parallel corridor. The capacity of each screenline is defined as the sum of the capacities of all viable alternative roadways, using a “vehicle per hour per lane” (v/h/l) unit, whereby vehicles are defined as a passenger car. The ‘v/h/l’ capacities were assigned according to individual roads based on their existing functional design classification. These roadway capacities are summarized in Table 18. Table 20 - Roadway Capacity Road Type

6.5.1

Lane Capacity (v/h/l)

Arterial

750

Collector

500

Local

400

Lindsay

Moderate improvements are required by 2031 to address network demands. Improvements previously identified for the Angeline Street and Kent Street intersection are anticipated to be implemented and signalization of two new intersections have been proposed to address capacity constraint and turning movement delay. By 2051 the significant increase in development across Lindsay would require significant upgrades across the network including provision dedicated turning lanes, signalization and increased capacity. Based on future conditions analysis for Lindsay the following intersection improvements listed in Table 19 have been identified for short term (2031), medium term (2041) and long term (2051). A screenline with a path drawn along the Scugog River was established to assess capacity of travel lanes crossing the river. Assessment was based on crossings via the new Colborne Bridge, Wellington Street, Lindsay Street North and Lindsay Street South.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 113

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Capacity constraints begin to appear at Lindsay Street South by 2041, however sufficient capacity is available within the network a v/c of 0.76. By 2051 however, demand indicates a new crossing or additional capacity at an existing crossing would be required as the river crossing screenline v/c is expected to increase to 1.01. Link analysis also identifies that main corridors within Lindsay would be approaching capacity by 2041. By 2051 main corridors will operate with capacity deficiencies and would require additional capacity to be provided. Results of screenline and link analysis for Lindsay are summarized in Appendix K. A summary of network improvements for Lindsay is provided in Figure 36.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 114

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 21 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements

Angeline St

Improvement Areas Falls LOSTable 22 - Lindsay New Intersection Recommendations Figure 83 - Existing Fenelon Improvements Summary Table

Angeline Street at Kent Street Kent St

Future Existing

Colborne Street and William Street

Intersection signalization as part of Colborne Street bridge

Verulam Road and Colborne Street

Signalization recommended

Kent Street and St. Joseph Road Kent Street and Angeline Street

Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length. Optimization of signal times including cycle length. Construction of dual eastbound left-turn lanes, southbound right-turn lane, and twinning of Angeline Street northbound and southbound.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 115

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas Colborne Street and William Street

New Recommendations Recommend addition of WBL & NBL turn lane. (City planned to add signal and new bridge construction by 2025).

Scugog River Crossing

No additional improvements proposed. Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle Highway 35 & Thunder Bridge Road length. Angeling Street and Connolly Road / Signalization recommended. Timing driven by demands of future Orchard Park Road area development. Introduction of an eastbound and westbound protected/permitted Colborne Street and Albert Street left-turn phase and optimization of signal times. Colborne Street and David Street Signalization recommended. Wellington Street at William Street

Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.

Queen Street and St. David Street

Signalization recommended.

Angeline Street and Mary Street

Construction of a westbound left-turn lane.

Wellington Street and Queen Street Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times. Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

Colborne Street from Highway 35 to No additional changes. Colborne Study Underway Albert Street Highway 7 and Dew Drop Inn Road Construction of westbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times. Little Britain Road & Elm Tree Road

Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times.

Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane and optimization of signal times. Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be Albert Street and Fair Avenue conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. Wellington Street / Queen Street and Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times. Lindsay Street Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane, Queen Street and Verulam Road eastbound right-turn lane Parkside Drive and Verulam Road Construction of an eastbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and intersection Lindsay Street and Logie signalization. Increased capacity required along corridor. Twining recommened Verulam Road (CKL36) from Needham Street to Parkside Drive Adelaide Street and Colborne Street

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 116

Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Completed

Areas of Interest

Intersection Improvements Completed Areas of Interest Ongoing Intersection MTO Completed Improvements AreasImprovements of Interest Ongoing Completed Update Ongoing Update Ongoing

MTO AreasImprovements of Interest

Table 24 Table 23 Omemee Update Omemee Intersection Intersection Improvements Figure 84 - Lindsay Improvements Improvements Summary Summary Table MTO Improvements Figure 85 - Lindsay Improvements Table MTO Update

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 6.5.2

Fenelon Falls

Fenelon Falls has a single crossing of the Fenelon River via Lindsay Street / CKL 121 and Helen Street (CKL 8) which continues in 2031. With the single crossing intersections along Lindsay Street / CKL 121 corridor would operate with satisfactory levels of service for this horizon. The 3rd concession Somerville bypass is anticipated to be in place by 2041 allowing for diversion of some traffic that would have typically used the existing Fenelon River crossing. Increases in traffic demand by 2041 in Fenelon Falls will require signalization of the Bond Street and Colborne Street intersection and signal timing improvements through the study corridor. Traffic demand through the corridor indicates v/c ratios of 1.05 across the bridge in 2031. Increased crossing capacity is required in Fenelon Falls and by 2041 and the network benefits from diversion of traffic to the bypass crossing. The v/c ratio at bridge improves marginal to 0.99 however by 2051 it will operate with a v/c ratio of 1.19 warranting a new crossing to be provided. Intersection improvements have been summarized in Table 20 for short term (2031), medium term (2041) and long term (2051). In addition to vehicular crossing of Fenelon River, an in-town pedestrian crossing has also been reviewed by the City as part of the Lower Gorge Renewal project. The crossing would not accommodate any type of vehicular traffic but will connect Clifton Street on both sides of the river via a pedestrian bridge. Timing of implementation is to be confirmed, however geotechnical and site planning studies have been completed for the potential pedestrian crossing and deemed the crossing feasible. The potential crossing location is illustrated in Figure 37. Network improvements for Fenelon Falls has been illustrated in Figure 38.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 118

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 25 - Fenelon Falls Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements Improvement Areas Fenelon River Crossing

New Recommendations By-pass: Option has been brought forward. EA assessment for crossing has been endorsed by council with study assessment to commence in 2025.

Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

Lindsay Street and Helen Street

Introduction of an eastbound protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times.

Colborne Street and Francis Street

Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.

Colborne Street and Bond Street

Signalization recommended beyond 2041.

County Road 121 and Northline Road / Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually County Road 8 or as deemed appropriate. Bolton Street and Canal Street

Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and bridge crossing.

Fenelon River Crossing

In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period.

Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

Fenelon River Crossing

In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 119

Figure 86 - Clifton Street Pedestrian Bridge

Intersection Improvements Completed

Areas of Interest

Ongoing

MTO Improvements

Update

Figure 87 - Fenelon Falls Improvements Figure 88 - Existing Cycling RoutesFigure 89 - Fenelon Falls Improvements

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 6.5.3

Bobcaygeon

Bobcaygeon is served by two crossings of the Trent/Severn Waterway linking the island to the north side of canal; one on East Street and one via a swing bridge on Bolton/Main Street. The majority of growth experienced in Bobcaygeon is planned to south along East Street (County Road 36) and to the west along North Street (County Road 8). Limited intersection improvement is required for future conditions. Signalization of West Street and North Street, driven by future development and signal timing improvements for East Street and King Street. Due to the general increase in future traffic demand and intersection geometry i.e. skewed alignment of the intersection further study is recommended for the intersection of Main Street and East Street (County Road 36) / County Road 49. Intersection improvements for Bobcaygeon is summarized in Table 21. The screenline analysis of travel demands compared to the available capacity is contained in Appendix O. Analysis indicates that overall, there is sufficient link capacity to accommodate future demand in 2031, capacity deficiencies begin to occur in 2041 along East Street. Although high demand along East Street will lead to deficiencies on this link in 2041 and 2051 it is estimated that the Canal Road crossing will operate with some reserve capacity. Crossings however will operate V/C ratio of 1.01 by 2051 and will be above capacity. Network improvements for Bobcaygeon is provide in Figure 39.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 123

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 26 - Bobcaygeon Intersection Improvements Summary Table Implementation Plan Short Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

East Street at Cedartree Lane / Duke Street Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization proposed by 2025 East Street and Boyd Street

Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization proposed by 2025

East Street and King Street

Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.

Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

West Street and North Street

Signalization of intersection and construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane recommended. Upgrades driven by demands of future area development.

Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

East Street and King Street

Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.

Main Street and Duke Street

Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.

Bolton Street and Canal Street

Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and bridge crossing.

Main Street and East Street

All-way stop operating at an acceptable LOS for long term conditions. Recommend detail intersection study to identify geometric intersection improvements.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 124

Intersection Improvements Completed

Areas of Interest

Ongoing

MTO Improvements

Update

Figure 91 - Bobcaygeon Improvements

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

6.5.1

Omemee

Based on future conditions analysis for Omemee identified improvements are limited to the intersection of King Street and Sturgeon Road. Addition of a northbound left-turn lane and signal timing improvement are both required by 2041. Forecasts indicate high levels of through traffic along Highway 7 limiting capacity on this corridor that City may want to address. Intersection improvements have been summarised in Table 22 and network improvements provide in Figure 40. Table 27 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements Table Improvement 28 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table Areas New Recommendations King Street and Sturgeon Road

Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.

Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas King Street and Ski Hill Road

New Recommendations Monitor intersection for signalization driven by continued build-out of tourist traffic generator. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.

Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas King Street and Sturgeon Road

New Recommendations Construction of a left-turn lane in the northbound direction.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 126

Areas of Interest MTO Improvements

Figure 92 - Corridor improvements Figure 93 - Corridor improvements

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 128

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

7.0 A Vision for the City of Kawartha Lakes 7.1 Opportunities and Challenges Key opportunities and challenges were identified as part of the analysis and are summarised below: Challenges Growth and Urbanization: As the City of Kawartha Lakes continues to grow there is a need to create complete communities for the residents to ensure their basic needs are met. With that, there is also a need to ensure sufficient transportation infrastructure is available to accommodate the growing population while having a strong emphasis on minimizing environmental impacts and contributing to sustainable growth. Growth and Urbanization: As the City of Kawartha Lakes continues to grow there is a need to create complete communities for the residents to High Kawartha Lakes has aplanned and ensureAuto-Dependency: their basic needs areAlthough met. With that, there is also need tofor ensure accommodates all modesinfrastructure of transportation within its network, sufficient transportation is available to existing accommodate theit is still a highly auto-dependent City.aAutomobiles represent over 70% of the growing population while having strong emphasis on minimizing modal split as discussed in Section 5.10.1. existinggrowth. auto dominance environmental impacts and contributing to The sustainable travel and behavioral patterns exist as they perceived as the most convenient, accessible, and attractive choice. Therefore, it is essential to build a city with viable age-friendly transportation options with a renewed focus on sustainability.

Aging Population: The City has an aging population as it is an attractive location for older adults, therefore, meaningfully responding to the needs of the community is a vital aspect of developing a TMP update. Adopting an age-friendly planning framework is an important consideration regarding developing a safe, dependable, and accessible transportation network. Figure 94 - Lindsay ImprovementsAging Population: The City has an

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 129

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Opportunities Transit Integration with the GTA: The City can provide the opportunity for enhancing connections with the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) resulting in improved access, increased ridership and mode share for public transit, and support future needs in a sustainable, effective, and efficient way. Transit Integration with the GTA: The City can provide the Strategic Kawartha Lakes iswith at the of Highway opportunityLocation: for enhancing connections thecross-roads Greater Toronto Area 35 and 7 which are in important links and trade corridors. Theyshare provide (GTA) resulting improvedeconomic access, increased ridership and mode connections from Kawartha Lakes to the Greater Toronto andeffective, Hamiltonand Area for public transit, and support future needs in a sustainable, (GTHA) that goods and people keep moving across the region. This efficientensuring way. provides the opportunity to enhance community connections, and improve people’s access to jobs, housing, healthcare, and education. Strategic Location: Kawartha Lakes is at the cross-roads of Highway 35 Dynamic Diversified Economy: City is trade making significant and 7 which are important economicThe links and corridors. They provide investments that will be beneficial to residents and commercial interests. connections from Kawartha Lakes to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area There are new industrial and business parks planned for the City and the (GTHA) ensuring that goods and people keep moving across the region. This City plansthe to opportunity achieve the to target of building over 21,600 new residential provides enhance community connections, and improve units by 2051. Therefore, Kawartha Lakes approach to growth people’s access to jobs, housing, healthcare, and education. coupled with a commitment to preserving its unique identity, positions the City as an inviting destination for businesses and residents alike. Diversified Economy: The City is making significant 7.2 Strategic Dynamic Priorities

investments that will be beneficial to residents and commercial interests. There are new industrial and business parks planned for the City and the The feedback received from Kawartha Lakes residents, the stakeholders, and technical City plans to achieve the target of building over 21,600 new residential agencies was reviewed, and the current transportation network, demand, policies, and units by 2051. Therefore, Kawartha Lakes approach to growth coupled programs were assessed to guide theto future direction the City’s transportation with a commitment preserving its for unique identity, positions thenetwork. City as A few key themesan were emphasized that were later translated into the vision statement in inviting destination for businesses and residents alike. the subsequent section. The strategic priorities to support the evaluation and recommendation of projects are given below.

Mobility Options Mobility Options

Improve the travel options available for the movement of people and goods by providing an increased number of reliable, equitable, and accessible options that meaningfully respond to the mobility needs of the community and ensure an efficient use of the transportation system.

Improve the travel options available for the movement of people andMaster goods Plan by providing | Transportation Update an increased number of reliable, equitable, P a g e | 130 and accessible options that meaningfully respond to the mobility

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Community Develop a transportation network to support the growth of Building healthy and vibrant communities in the region. Community Develop a transportation network to support the growth of Enhance the vibrant safety ofcommunities the transportation system for all users. Building healthy and in the region. Safe, Ensure that investments in the transportation network serve all Livable modes and enhance equity and accessibility by expanding Communities access to jobs, services, and amenities regardless of age, ability, and travel choice. Safe, Enhance the safetyagainst of the transportation system to forthe all natural users. Livable Provide protection the negative impacts Climate that investments the transportation networkthe serve all Communities Ensure environment and reduce in vehicle emissions to achieve Mitigation modes and and accessibility Province of enhance Ontario’s equity Climate Change goals. by expanding access to jobs, services, and amenities regardless of age, Climate ability, and travel choice. Provide protection against the negative impacts to the natural Mitigation environment and reduce investment vehicle emissions to achieve the Leverage transportation to catalyze economic Province of Ontario’s Climate Change goals. growth and promote tourism through enhancing access to jobs, Economic services, and amenities to support a more resilient regional & Financial economy. Invest strategically in new capital projects that will Prosperity provide long-term benefit to the City, while ensuring that existing assets are maintained and supported. Economic & Financial Leverage transportation investment to catalyze economic Prosperity growth and promote tourism through enhancing access to jobs, services, and amenities to support a more resilient regional economy. Invest strategically in new capital projects that will provide long-term benefit to the City, while ensuring that existing assets are maintained and supported.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 131

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

7.3 TMP Vision Statement The vision statement is a declaration of the project’s aspirations and articulates the future state of the City of Kawartha Lakes as it relates to its transportation network. It shapes decision-making and provides a road map for where the City wants to be at the end of the TMP update planning horizon. The vision statement also reflects the City’s priorities for transportation planning, which were established through extensive consultation and engagement process undertaken in developing the 2025 TMP update. The vision for the City of Kawartha Lake’s TMP update is stated below and was informed by existing City legislation with feedback from public and stakeholders.

Vision Statement To foster thriving and growing communities by creating an inclusive, sustainable, and Vision Statement barrier-free multi-modal transportation network. The TMP update aims to enhance mobility and accessibility for all residents and visitors while preserving the natural environment. This approach will establish an integrated transportation system that meets the needs of a growing population and promotes a connected multi-modal network through the year 2051. To foster thriving and growing communities by creating an inclusive, sustainable, and barrier-free multi-modal transportation network. The TMP update aims to enhance mobility and accessibility for all residents and visitors while preserving the natural environment. This approach will establish an integrated transportation system that meets the needs of a growing population and promotes a connected multi-modal network through the year 2051.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 132

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

7.4 Alternative Solutions Phase 2 of the MCEA process includes identifying an opportunity or alternative solutions to the problem for the study area. These are the different approaches that the City can take to design the future transportation network to solve the issues identified.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 133

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Four alternative strategies have been identified for this TMP update and are provided below: Alternative 1: Do Nothing Maintain the current City’s transportation network and policy/programming. This alternative would not include further development of roads under the jurisdiction of the City but all City improvements would proceed as planned. Alternative 1: Do Nothing

Alternative 2: Status Quo The City would continue infrastructure development and expansion at its current pace with new or refined policies/programming. New infrastructure development would continue to be based on recommendations within previous TMP and have incremental enhancements in response to local development. Alternative 2: Status Quo The City would infrastructure development and expansion at its Alternative 3:continue Road Network Strategy current with newinvestment or refined on policies/programming. New infrastructure The Citypace would focus local traffic operation improvements, development would continue be network, based onand recommendations ensuring to close gaps in the to road improve safety within through previous TMP and have incremental enhancements in response to traffic calming measures, and identifying haul routes. Roads wouldlocal development. prioritize active transportation facilities such as sidewalks and multi-use pathways. No additional policies/programming would be provided for sustainable travel modes. Alternative 3: Road Network Strategy The City would4: focus investmentNetwork on local traffic operation improvements, Alternative Multi-Modal Strategy (PREFERED ensuring to close gaps in the road network, and improve safety through ALTERNATIVE) traffic measures, androad identifying haul routes.improvements, Roads would Focuscalming is placed on strategic network capacity prioritize active such as sidewalks and multi-use promoting andtransportation enhancing thefacilities active transportation network, transit pathways. No additional policies/programming would be provided opportunities, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) for sustainable strategies. travel Takes modes. a multi-modal approach, which includes a balance of traditional road network improvements and sustainable modes through policy and investment. Alternative 4: Multi-Modal Network Strategy (PREFERED ALTERNATIVE) Focus is placed on strategic road network capacity improvements, promoting and enhancing the active transportation network, transit opportunities, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Takes a multi-modal approach, which includes a balance of traditional road network improvements and sustainable modes through policy and investment. | Transportation Master Plan Update P a g e | 134

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

7.5 Selection of Preferred Solution The alternative solutions were evaluated against the strategic priorities and transportation vision to select the preferred alternative. Each strategy was ranked based on a relative score, Low, Medium, High, related to how well each alternative supports the TMP update priority. Evaluation of the four identified alternatives based on the strategic priorities is highlighted in Table 23.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 135

Table 29 - Alternative Solutions TMP Update Priority Provide Mobility Choice & Efficient Use of Existing Transportation System

Support Safe and Healthy Communities

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

Low – Does not address mobility issues, nor optimizes the existing infrastructure to manage future growth.

Low – Does not address existing safety concerns.

Alternative 2: Status Quo

Alternative 3: Road Network Strategy

Alternative 4: Multi-Modal Network Strategy

Medium – Gradually enhances mobility through incremental improvements to the active transportation system.

Low – Adds roadway capacity to the network rather than making use of the existing capacity, limited improvements to the active transportation system or non-auto mobility options.

High – New policies and programming will help shift travel demand to more sustainable modes, to make better use of existing infrastructure.

Medium – Expanding/Improving the road network may reduce collision occurrences related to congestion and the speeding problem.

High – A balanced approach has the highest potential to improve safety outcomes by addressing both the active transportation and road network ‘hot-spots’ and refining or adding to polices that enhance safety. This also encourages residents to use active modes of travel ensuring a healthier community.

Medium – the City addresses some safety concerns through its current approach (e.g. new pedestrian crossovers).

Low – Expanding/improving the road network in isolation does not support inclusivity or improve opportunities to those without access to a vehicle and may potentially increase barriers to vulnerable users. Low – Focuses expansion of the road network will have the highest potential negative impacts to the natural environment from construction.

High – A balanced approach that focuses on optimizing the existing system, and directing resources to support more sustainable, affordable, and accessible modes is likely to have the highest benefit to vulnerable users.

Create an Inclusive and Accessible Transportation System

Low – Does not address existing barriers and challenges for more vulnerable road users.

Medium – Current “as needed” approach will have limited potential benefit for inclusivity and accessibility.

Minimize Negative Environmental Impacts

High – Maintaining existing network will reduce construction impacts to the natural environment.

Medium – Planned improvements will have some negative impacts to the natural environment.

Support Climate Change Mitigation

Low – Does not help mitigate climate change impacts associated with auto-use and congestion

Medium – Maintains status-quo, which has limited focus on sustainable travel modes and lower potential to mitigate climate change.

Low – Encourages auto-use through focused road network expansion, creating the highest potential negative impact on mitigating climate change.

High – A balanced approach will have the greatest potential to mitigate climate change impacts by investing in sustainable travel modes to reduce congestion by reducing auto-use.

Support Financial Stability

High – Only requires maintaining existing infrastructure.

High – Future capital costs have already been planned.

Low – A road network expansion focus has higher potential capital and maintenance costs.

Medium – A balanced approach between road and active travel network has moderate potential capital and maintenance costs.

Support Economic Development

Low – does not address existing congestion and network connectivity issues that would restrict economic growth potential in the City.

Medium – Addresses some of the existing network issues, but unlikely to accommodate anticipated growth in the City.

High – Addresses several existing network issues through road network expansion and localized improvements.

Medium – Addresses network issues through strategic network expansion/improvements and reducing auto-dependency.

Medium – A balanced network expansion approach will have some negative impacts to the natural environment.

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 137

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.0 TMP Supportive Policies A range of City policies to support the management and operation of the transportation system, particularly the City’s road network have been prepared as part of this TMP update. It included a review of existing guidance and emerging issues to ensure the transportation policy framework reflects industry best practice and remains relevant for the objective decision-making now and into the future. City of Kawartha Lakes policy documents discussed in this section are provided in Appendix L. Roadway Safety and Operations Roadway safety was a big priority for the City and the policy developed included improving the safety for all users such as pedestrian, cyclists, motorists, and vehicle passengers. This section summarizes the safety and operational considerations for the City’s road network.

8.1 Speed Limit Policy Reduced speed limit signs should be considered where streets warrant lower limits based on surrounding land use and local context. The Speed Limit Policy aims to enhance roadway safety by establishing appropriate speed limits that reflect these factors. Reduced speed limits are particularly essential in areas with high pedestrian activity, vulnerable road users, or unique environmental features. Key strategies include assessing roadway conditions, gathering community input, and aligning speed limits with traffic calming measures to promote safer streets. The benefits of this policy include improved safety for all users, reduced collision rates, and increased encouragement of active transportation. It is recommended that the City adopt a systematic approach to speed limit evaluations, ensuring alignment with best practices and community needs to create a safer and more vibrant environment for everyone. Road safety may be enhanced through credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. Speed limits set lower than the design speed can make a significant number of reasonable drivers “illegal” for each 10 km/h increment of speed decreased, place unnecessary burden on law enforcement personnel, lead to lack of credibility of speed limits and lead to increase tolerance by law enforcement. Therefore, speed limits should be carefully set to reflect the classification, function, and physical characteristics. The selection of posted speed limits must also take into consideration legislative regulation, public recognition and understanding, ease of implementation, and adherence to recognized engineering standards and practices.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 138

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) establishes the regulatory framework for setting speed limits in Ontario. HTA Subsection 128.(1) states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than the following: •

50 km/h on a roadway within a local municipality or a built-up area.

•

80 km/h on roads not within a built-up area and within local municipality

These legislative provisions are more commonly known as statutory speed limits and apply to all roads without a Maximum Speed sign posted. HTA Subsection 128. (2) however, permits municipal councils to prescribe rates of speed that differ from these statutory limits on roads under their jurisdiction so long as they are posted less than 100 km/h. The City currently does not have a official speed limit policy, but uses the TAC guidelines. The TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (2009) were developed to provide guidance and to enhance consistency in the evaluation of posted speed limits. As part of the guidelines an automated spreadsheet was developed to facilitate application of the procedures involved in determining the recommended posted speed limit. It is also important to note that before this TMP update process began the spreadsheet was already in use by the City. It should be noted that there are circumstances when there is a desire to have a speed limit posted lower than the design speed of a road. In these circumstances a road may have been designed to accommodate higher speeds, however, development and land use changes overtime warrant consideration for a speed lower than the road was initial designed for. This is often observed in rural roads in areas that should see some degree of urbanization and development. In these circumstances consideration must be given to reducing the roadway design speed to that of the posted speed limit. This can be achieved through traffic calming.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 139

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Recommendations: 1. Apply the methodology set out in the TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits in setting speed limits on municipal roads and refer to the City’s Traffic calming policy in instances whereby the recommended posted speed is lower than the design speed (in response to public petition or Council direction). 2. In addition to the Road Needs study the City conducts, it is recommended for the City to also conduct a comprehensive review of its posted speed limits every 5-years for all roads in the City to ensure that posted speed limits remain appropriate and effective in promoting safety for all road users. Recommendations: 3. Apply the methodology set out in the Policy TAC Canadian Guidelines for 8.2 Automated Speed Enforcement Establishing Posted Speed Limits in setting speed limits on municipal roads andprovincial refer to the City’s Traffic calmingthe policy in instances whereby In 2017, the government amended Highway Traffic Act (HTA)the as part of the recommended posted speed is lower than the design speed (in response to Safer School Zones Act, 2017 to allow municipalities to use Automated Speed Enforcement public petition or Council direction). (ASE) technology to address vehicle speed concerns and collisions involving speeding. ASE is an automated system that uses a camera and a speed measurement device to enforce 4. In addition to the Road Needs study the City conducts, it is recommended for speed limits in identified areas. The strategy is designed to work in tandem with other road the City to also conduct a comprehensive review of its posted speed limits safety measures such as engineering activities, education initiatives, and traditional police every 5-years for all roads in the City to ensure that posted speed limits enforcement, to help improveand safety for people of all ages and for abilities by:users. remain appropriate effective in promoting safety all road •

Increasing speed compliance

•

Altering driver behavior

•

Increasing public awareness about the consequences of inappropriate vehicle operating speeds and the critical need for drivers to slow down.

If a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit in an ASE area, the system captures an image and records the speed of the vehicle and date and time of the offence. In Ontario, the recorded information is reviewed by officer appointed pursuant. ASE can be effective program if implemented correctly at appropriate locations. Early results of modern deployment show positive safety statistics in the form of reduced vehicle operating speeds and collision activity. Site selection has been a key area of consideration for many municipalities, with selection primarily being based on vehicle operating speeds,

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 140

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update collision activity, pre-existing Community Safety Zone and school zone presence, and community input. ASE program size needs to match the needs of the municipality, but also reasonably align with realistic constraints, such as potential capital and labor costs. Recommendations: 1. Engage vendors to present logistical and financial considerations to implementing an administrative monetary penalty system which includes an automated speed enforcement component. 2. Review safety statistics for potential sites to form a priority ranking. 3. Liaise with other agencies/municipalities for opportunities to share resources such as the use of pre-established joint processing centers.

8.3 Special Speed Zone Traffic conditions near school zones and playgrounds represent particular concern to communities. The safety of vulnerable road users as they arrive and depart from these community nodes is a sensitive issue that demands particular attention. One way to enhance safety near schools, is to alert drivers they are entering a section of roadway with a school or playground. This is accomplished through signing and pavement marking to define the area. Under the HTA, the City has authority to designate (through the installation of regulatory signs) the following types of zones for heightened safety and enforcement emphasis on roads abutting schools and community facilities: 8.3.1

School Zones and Areas

Advise drivers to reduce speed at certain times because they are entering an area where school children are present and may be crossing the road in increased frequency. The TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining school zone areas. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 24 provides the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for School Zones, and School Areas based on site specific conditions.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 141

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 30 - School Zones and Areas Installation Criterion

School Type

Road Classification

Fencing

Property Line Separation

School Entrance

Sidewalks

Maximum Point Value (MPV)

Weighting Factor (WF)

Description Elementary Middle / Junior High High School Post Secondary / College /University Rural Urban Land Use Land Use Local -

1 0.4 0.2 0

Local Collector

0.75 0.50

Major Collector / Minor Arterial

Arterial

0.25

Major Arterial / Expressway

Freeway

Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None or Non-School Side School Side Both Sides

Rural Land Use

Minor Collector / Minor Arterial

Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable

Score (MPV*WF)

1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0

1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0

Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score

Area or Zone?

0 - 40

None

41 - 64

SCHOOL AREA

65 - 80

SCHOOL AREA or SCHOOL ZONE

81 - 100

SCHOOL ZONE

*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018)

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 142

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 8.3.2

Playground Zones and Areas

Playground zones or areas can be considered for facilities used by children where there is a possibility of them entering the roadway. These facilities include playgrounds, recreation facilities such as sports fields, indoor or outdoor skating rinks, baseball diamonds, etc. Similar to school zones and areas, the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining playground areas and zones. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 25 provides and illustrates the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for playground areas and zones based on site specific conditions.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 143

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018)

Table 31 - Playground Zones and Areas Installation Criterion

Maximum Point Value (MPV)

Description

Frontage

Playground Type

Road Classification

Fencing Property Line Separation Playground Entrance

Sidewalks

40 ≥ 50 m

*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018) Weighting Score

Playground Capacity (number of children) 16 or more 5 to 15 1 to 4 No play equipment: sports field or open field only Any Facilities

< 50 m Urban Land Rural Land Use Use Local Minor Local Collector Collector Collector Major Collector / Arterial Minor Arterial Major Arterial Freeway / Expressway Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None (or Non-Playground Side) Playground Side Both Sides

Factor (WF)

(MPV*WF)

N/A 1 0.75 0.4 0.2 0.2 Rural Land Use 1

0.75 0.5 0.25 0

1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0

1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0

Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score

Area or Zone?

0 - 40

None

41 - 80

Playground Area

81 - 100

Playground Zone

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 144

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 8.3.3

Community Safety Zones

Community Safety Zones inform drivers they are entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. These sections of roadway are typically near schools, playgrounds, community centers, senior citizen residences, hospitals, etc. Traffic related offences within these zones carry increased fines, and in many cases are doubled. Implementation of Community Safety Signage and monetary penalty are established through municipal by-law. Community Safety Zone signs (Rc-9) and optional Begins tab signs (Rb-85t) inform drivers entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. The signage does not change the rules of the road but increase the penalties associated with any traffic act violation. The signage is installed to define the legal limits of the zone as prescribed in the zoning by-law and installed at the beginning and end of the zone. Depending on the length of the zone, signage may be installed within the zone as well. 8.3.4

Reduced Speed Zone Areas

World Health Organization (WHO) statistics show a significant improvement in survival rates when speed limits are decreased. For example, there is a reported 1.5 in 10 survival rates for pedestrians being struck at 50 km/h. However, at 30 km/h the survival rate is 9 in 10. In May 2018, the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) was amended to allow for speed limits other than 50 km/h without block-by-block signage in bounded zones. When a road authority through municipal by—law, designates an entire area to have a speed limit other than the default 50 km/h speed limit, standard Maximum Speed signs must be used with the Area tab sign. OTM Book 5, provides detailed application of the signage with respect to sign types and locations. City of Kawartha Lakes, currently enforces a speed by-law for designated areas within towns, villages, settlement areas and hamlets known as "community speed zones" that outlines a speed limit of 50 km/h. However, recently through the City’s Speed Limit Project, the

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 145

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update City’s community speed zones have been reduced to 40km/h. During phase one of the project, which focused on rural speed zones, the implementation began in October 2021 in 16 communities and was completed in November 2022 and during phase two, it focused on urban speed zones, and was completed in 2023. It is recommended that the City continue to implement reduced speed zone areas that are designated as community speed zones or in established residential and low / medium density areas. In addition to the reduced speed zone areas, and in consideration with the previous sections, School Zones should be reduced to 30 km/h with appropriate signage and identified as Community Safety Zones. Due the scope of the proposed changes to the overall City network, implementation is recommended to be phased, with sufficient time to assess adherence to the reduced speed areas and implementation of traffic calming measures as necessary. Appendix L1 provides the full Speed Limit Policy for the City.

Recommendations: 1. Utilize the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation in considering new School and Playground Zones or Areas on local municipal roads. 2. OTM Book 5 and OTM Book 6 should be consulted, ensuring proper signage for existing and new School Zones or Areas is implemented on local municipal roads. 3. Update the criteria and process for establishing a Community Safety Zone on a municipal Road. 4. Implementation of 40 km/h neighborhood zones within the City with proper signage is complete. It is recommended to keep the 40 km/h signs in place and consider 40 km/h areas for future development. 5. School Zone speed limits within the neighborhood speed areas should be set at 30 km/h and marked as Community Safety Zone. 6. Implement traffic calming measures as necessary to facilitate new speed limits. Additionally, traffic calming measures for 30km/h areas would be needed in majority of school zones, requiring it’s own study 7. Assess the merit of implementing an Administrative Monetary Penalty System for adjudicating fines. Initial Implementation should be considered along Arterial and Collector Roads.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 146

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.4 Traffic Calming Policy Traffic calming refers to design strategies aimed at reducing vehicle speeds and enhancing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, contributing to vibrant and safe communities. Traffic calming is a way to slow down traffic that is too fast for the environment or divert traffic that is short-cutting through neighbourhoods to avoid congestion. It is a retroactive process whereby measures are applied by road authorities to address concerns about behaviour of motor vehicles on existing roads. Controlling vehicle speed is important for the safety of all road users and can prevent collisions and reduce their impact when they happen. It is also essential to consider traffic calming measures during the design and implementation of reconstructed streets and new residential subdivisions. The City’s Traffic Calming Policy provides policy directives for the application of traffic calming measures within the City. It provides screening criteria for identifying neighbourhoods for implementing traffic calming along with a tool kit of potential measures that can be applied when traffic calming is justified. Typically, a trial solution will be used to assess a traffic calming solution prior to a final installation. Key strategies include implementing physical measures such as speed bumps or tables, chicanes and curb extensions, raised crosswalks, and roundabouts. Benefits of such measures encompass improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and reduction in vehicle speeds and noise. Appendix L2 provides the full Traffic Calming Policy for the City. The following but not limited to are a few efficient and cost-effective traffic calming measures that could be used successfully such as: •

Speed Display Device: An interactive sign that alerts drivers of their speeds. These can be solar powered and portable making them quite versatile and adaptive. They have the added benefit of illustrating speeds not only top drivers passing by but to the general public within the vicinity which can assist in addressing a public speeding perception which may not be supported by empirical data.

•

Speed Posted Bollard: Vertical posts installed at the edge of traffic lanes with the speed limit displayed. These alert drivers of a separation requirement without physically constraining the roadway. The objective is to narrow the road, guide traffic, and encourage drivers to slow down so they can pass through safely. One disadvantage is that the maintenance and roadway operations time may be increased.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 147

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update •

Speed Hump: A raised area built across the entire roadway and causes vertical upward movement of a traversing vehicle. The objective is to cause a discomfort for drivers travelling at higher speeds resulting in reduced vehicle speeds. Seasonal speed humps can also be used, in place of constructing a permanent one, which are a rubber unit placed across an entire roadway width.

•

Raised Crosswalk: A marked pedestrian crosswalk constructed in a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. The objective is to enhance awareness of pedestrian crossings, reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility, and reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflict. It may include the implementation of an appropriate level of PXO per OTM Book 18. Raised crosswalks will only be implemented at mid-block, unprotected pedestrian crossing locations and should be signed properly.

•

Curb Extension: A horizontal intrusion of the curb visually and physically narrowing the roadway width. The curb may be on one or both sides of the roadway. The objective is to reduce vehicle speeds, reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and prevent parking too close to an intersection. However, it can result in a potential loss of on-street parking.

It is essential to design the road for the posted speed. Signage is considered to only be marginally effective at controlling the operating speeds of a roadway. Drivers naturally operate at speeds appropriate to the features of a roadway which are reflective of the design speed. Should the City, reduce the posted speed limit of a roadway which has previously been designed for higher operating speeds, measures must be taken to ensure the roadway is designed for the new posted speed limit. This could include traffic calming measures which would encourage operating speeds more in line with the posted speed limit. It is recommended that City apply a systematic and data driven approach to responding to requests for traffic calming and follow industry guidelines for installation of best practices to ensure safe roadway operations.

8.5 Traffic Control Facilities The management of the movement of people and vehicles is critical to ensure the safety and efficiency of the transportation network. However, the appropriate selection of the traffic control treatment is of utmost important and is governed by existing or anticipated conditions and complexity of the surrounding environment. The selection of the most appropriate type of traffic control treatment should be done based on the hierarchy of controlled crossing treatment systems shown in Figure 36 and current policies and guidelines.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 148

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 95 - Hierarchy of Controlled Crossing Treatment Systems (OTM Book 15) This section discusses the policies developed for traffic control treatment that should be adopted by the City to ensure the efficient deployment of the treatment systems. 8.5.1

All-Way Stop Control Policy

As part of this TMP update, an all-way stop policy was developed with the City staff. The policy followed the OTM Book 5 – Regulatory Signs which states, all-way stops should only be considered under the following situations: •

As an interim measure where traffic signals are warranted but cannot be installed immediately.

•

At locations having a high collision frequency and less intrusive measures have not resulted in decreased collision frequencies.

•

As a transitionary period to accustom drivers to a change in right-of-way (ROW).

Key strategies include conducting traffic assessments, analyzing collision data, and engaging community input to ensure that all-way stops are placed where they can effectively improve

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 149

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update safety. Benefits of this policy include reduced collision rates, enhanced visibility for all road users, and improved pedestrian crossings. It is recommended that the City adopt a systematic approach to all-way stop evaluations, ensuring alignment with best practices and community needs to create safer intersections for everyone. It is also important to note that all-way stops should not be used as a traffic calming measure, which is to slow traffic or to deter traffic movement through residential area. Appendix L3 provides the full all-way stop control policy that was prepared as a part of this TMP update.

Recommendations: 1. Adopt an all-way stop policy to ensure fair access to the right-of-way for similar volumes of traffic travelling in opposing directions. 2. Ensure all-way stop control is not relied upon to manage or reduce vehicle speeds. 3. Ensure all-way stop control is not used as a traffic calming measure.

8.6 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) Guideline provides a framework for evaluating the effects of proposed developments on the transportation network. This guideline is to ensure that potential traffic impacts are systematically analyzed to enhance safety and mobility within the City. Key strategies include assessing existing traffic conditions, estimating future traffic volumes, and identifying necessary mitigation measures. Benefits of this guideline include improved traffic flow, enhanced safety for all users, and informed decision-making for development approvals. Overall, a TIA serves to identify on-site and off-site measures to be taken by a developer to align the transportation network’s performance with the goals set forth by the City. The City of Kawartha Lakes TIA guidelines assess potential impacts of traffic changes caused by proposed development on municipal roads. They aim to identify any infrastructure improvements or mitigation measures needed to ensure the road network will operate acceptably and safely upon completion of the proposed development. It is recommended that the City adopt these TIA guidelines to align with best practices and community needs, fostering a sustainable and efficient transportation system.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 150

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update The TIA guidelines have been prepared to provide a structured framework for conducting TIAs, to ensure methodologies, data collection, and analysis approaches are consistent with industry best practices. As part of the requirements of a TIA or traffic brief a functional internal traffic study (FIT) is required to be completed as part of the submission. Where a TIA has not been required a FIT should be completed as part of the development application. Appendix L4 provides the full TIA Guidelines that have been prepared for the City to assist with informed decisionmaking regarding land use approvals, infrastructure investment, and mitigation measures.

8.7 Vision Zero Policy The ultimate goal of Vision Zero is to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the road. As part of Canada’s Road Safety Strategy 2025 and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario’s vision, Vision Zero prioritizes safety in transportation planning, recognizing that every life lost on the road is unacceptable. Key components include road safety assessments, improvements to roadway design for vulnerable users, targeted enforcement, enhanced signage and lighting, speed management, and public education on safe transportation practices. By adopting this approach, Vision Zero aims to ensure safe travel for all, fostering a culture of responsibility while promoting active transportation. It is recommended that the City of Kawartha Lakes adopt a data-driven, collaborative approach to engage stakeholders and the community, assess risks, and prioritize interventions based on best practices and industry standards to ensure road safety and create safer streets for everyone. Vision Zero can be achieved by addressing road safety through five main elements as shown in Figure 32.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 151

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 97 - Elements of Vision Zero. *Retrieved from City of Hamilton’s Action Plan (2019-2025)

All of the elements need to be implemented in a coordinated and strategic manner to achieve improvements to road safety and to strive towards the goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries on the City of Kawartha Lakes roads. 1. Evaluation – Identification of key challenges on Kawartha Lake’s Road network using a data driven approach. 2. Engineering – Strategic use of resources to improve existing engineering practices and policies, as they pertain to road safety. 3. Enforcement – Strategic use of enforcement resources in key areas for maximized effectiveness. 4. Education – Targeted and collaborative campaigns to address safety for all road users. 5. Engagement – Enhanced community engagement to create a safe roads culture The Vision Zero policy for Kawartha Lakes represents a pivotal step towards creating safer roads and promoting sustainable mobility within the community. Vision Zero policies adopted by municipalities typically include the goal of zero fatal and serious collisions by a

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 152

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update specific timeframe and involve the development of a detailed Vision Zero Action Plan. The action plan provides specific steps, timelines, and priorities to achieve this goal. The Key elements of Vision Zero include: safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe roads, and safe drivers. This TMP update acknowledges the principles of Vision Zero approach in planning and design of Kawartha Lake’s future transportation network. This initiative not only aligns with national and provincial road safety strategies but also aligns with the City’s 2024-2027 Strategic Plan, which focuses on creating a safe, accessible, and a connected transportation system. As the City implements a Vision Zero plan, it is essential to continue to refine it with input from all stakeholders, ensuring it serves as a model for safe, equitable, and vibrant transportation for future generations. The Vision Zero plan should be informed by best practices, extensive consultation, and thorough analysis of collision data. The plan should be designed to evolve over time and be adaptable. Overall achieving the ambitious goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries on Kawartha Lakes' roads will require commitment and collaboration from all stakeholders involved. Appendix L5 provides the policy document that has been prepared for the City to assist with informed decision-making regarding Vision Zero.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 153

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.8 Goods Movement Policy The Goods Movement Policy aims to enhance the efficiency and safety of freight transportation within the City. This policy focuses on optimizing the movement of goods by identifying key corridors, assessing infrastructure needs, and promoting multimodal solutions. Key strategies include evaluating freight traffic patterns, coordinating with local businesses, and ensuring that road designs accommodate larger vehicles. Benefits of this policy include improved reliability for businesses, reduced congestion, and enhanced safety for all road users. It is recommended that the City adopt a proactive approach to goods movement planning, aligning with best practices and community needs to create a more efficient and sustainable transportation network.

Appendix L6 contains the Goods Movement policy document, developed to support informed decision-making for the City.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 154

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

8.9 Infrastructure Guidelines The Infrastructure Guideline Policy developed for the City provides a comprehensive framework for the planning, design, and maintenance of transportation facilities within the City. This policy emphasizes safety, accessibility, and efficiency in all infrastructure projects. Key components include establishing design standards for sight triangles, road widths, and intersection visibility to ensure safe and efficient movement for all users. The guidelines also address the integration of multimodal transportation options and the consideration of environmental impacts. Benefits of this policy include improved safety at intersections, enhanced connectivity, and better support for active transportation. It is recommended that the City adopt the Infrastructure Guidelines as part of the TMP update to align with best practices and community needs, thereby creating a safe and functional transportation network for everyone. See Appendix L7 for the complete infrastructure guidelines policy document.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 155

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 156

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

9.0 Multi-Modal Network The TMP update provides an outline to move Kawartha Lake’s transportation network forward to address the City’s needs into 2051. By embracing a multi-modal strategy as the preferred alternative, the City will harness the ability to provide residents and visitors with a wider range of opportunities for travel mode choice that is not exclusively dependent on single-occupant vehicles. This section of the TMP update will present recommendations for the network improvement, including active transportation, transit, and, roads that align with the vision of the City.

9.1 TMP Integration with ATMP Kawartha Moves, the City’s Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) completed in 2024 provides city-wide planning, design and implementation of active transportation (AT) facilities, policies, and programs. The ATMP provides recommendations for the City’s active transportation network identifying facilities across the City for both on and off-road locations. It is also important to note that, MTO operates three provincial highways within the City of Kawartha Lakes: Hwy 7, Hwy 7A, and Hwy 35. Any transportation improvements within MTO’s permit control areas require MTO’s review and approval. This includes improvements on, adjacent to, or crossing provincial highways. As such, recommendations for Active Transportation (AT) routes near Hwy 35 and Hwy 7, as outlined in the Active Transportation Master Plan, are subject to MTO endorsement and approval. 9.1.1

Principles

The integration of the City of Kawartha Lakes Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) into the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update is guided by several key principles that reflect the City's commitment to enhancing mobility, safety, and sustainability. These principles are designed to ensure that active transportation plays an integral role in shaping the future of transportation across the City. They include: 1. Connectivity: Ensuring a seamless and connected network for all modes of active transportation such as, pedestrian, cycling, and other non-motorized forms by linking residential areas, employment hubs, recreation spaces, and key public facilities. In the City’s Official Plan the transportation policies also state that where feasible, “pedestrian and bicycle networks will be integrated into transportation planning to … provide safe, comfortable travel (and) provide linkages between intensification areas.” 2. Accessibility: Prioritizing infrastructure that is universally accessible, inclusive, and safe for people of all ages and abilities, including those with mobility challenges. The active

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 157

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update transportation network will be designed to cater to diverse needs, making it easy for everyone to access and use. 3. Safety: Creating safe and well-designed routes that protect active transportation users from traffic-related incidents. This principle emphasizes the importance of both physical separation from vehicular traffic and traffic-calming measures to enhance user safety. 4. Sustainability: Supporting the City’s broader sustainability goals by promoting active transportation as an environmentally friendly alternative to single-occupancy vehicle use, reducing traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and reliance on fossil fuels. 5. Health and Well-being: Encouraging an active lifestyle through the promotion of walking, cycling, and other forms of non-motorized transport. This principle aligns with public health objectives by fostering physical activity, improving air quality, and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents. 6. Equity and Inclusion: Ensuring that active transportation options are equitably available across all areas of the City, regardless of socio-economic status or geographical location. The network will be developed with the goal of providing equal access to all residents, including underserved and rural communities. 7. Collaboration: Fostering partnerships between various stakeholders, including local government, community organizations, residents, indigenous communities, and regional agencies, to ensure that the active transportation network meets the needs of all users and is supported by a wide range of initiatives and programs. These guiding principles will ensure that the integration of the ATMP into this TMP update results in a holistic, user-centered, and sustainable transportation system that supports the City’s vision for a more connected and vibrant future. 9.1.2

Types of Recommendations

To guide City staff, recommendations are provided based on six (6) categories. The categories and associated recommendations were developed based on best and comparable practices as well as the most effective and impactful approach for the City. Categories for recommendations have been illustrated in Figure 33.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 158

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Figure 98 - TMP Update Integration with ATMP Recommendations

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 159

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

9.2 Transit Network Transit is a basic mobility service that provides residents with access to key destinations within the City and beyond. Integrating transit planning into broader economic and land use planning helps to reduce sprawl, and create a sense of community by increasing street presence which enhances neighbourhood safety and security. A reliable, frequent and wellconnected transit network can also help reduce congestion, travel times, and pollution. To create more sustainable communities, provide residents with mobility options and support the forecasted growth, the City should consider exploring the opportunity to engage with its transit agency and Metrolinx to enhance viable and accessible transit services for its residents. One of the largest obstacles for small municipalities to enhance public transit is funding. However, there are certain programs the funding can come from such as, tax rebate programs, federal or provincial grants as well as municipal investments obtained through property taxes. Based on the evolving needs and forecasted growth for the City of Kawartha Lakes, it is recommended to explore the feasibility of the alternatives mentioned below in order to enhance the local transit network and ensure seamless connectivity with improved connections to surrounding regional and provincial networks: 1. Commuter Rail Link to Peterborough: There is no commuter rail link between Kawartha Lakes and Peterborough, with public transit between these areas primarily limited to bus services. While there have been discussions about regional transit improvements, establishing a commuter rail link would require significant investment and coordination among local, provincial, and federal governments. The Peterborough Rail Study, completed by Metrolinx in 2010, explored a potential rail connection between Toronto and Peterborough along the 120 km corridor owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (Havelock Subdivision), which has not had passenger service since 1990. The study identified substantial capital investments needed to bring the track to current passenger rail standards. As of 2025, there have been no significant changes, with no formal commitments or funding re-announced for the proposed link, which included a station in Pontypool in Kawartha Lakes. The rail link remains under consideration with no confirmed timeline. Given this, the City should review the 2010 study, assess feasibility, and evaluate ridership demand, infrastructure upgrades, and potential funding. If the assessment supports feasibility, the City could initiate discussions with provincial and federal governments to explore next steps for developing this regional connection to other urban settlements. 2. GO Bus Service Expansion: The City should consider reviewing the feasibility of introducing GO Bus service into Kawartha Lakes before moving forward with any recommendations for implementation. This process should include assessing the potential benefits, demand, and logistical considerations for expanding the City’s intermunicipal transit system to improve connectivity with the Peterborough GO Bus line. Specifically, the City should explore extending the transit system southward to the junction of Highways 115 and 35, connecting with the

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 160

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update existing Peterborough GO Bus route. However, expanding beyond the City limits would require approval from the Province. A thorough assessment will ensure that any proposed expansion is realistic, effective, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and funding. 3. Frequent Transit Network Corridors: The City should prioritize the implementation of Frequent Transit Network corridors with 15-minute or better service. These corridors would support key connections to Transit Priority Corridors and facilitate seamless links to neighboring transit services. An efficient and frequent transit network will be essential to meeting the growing demand for reliable public transportation within the City and connecting to the broader regional transit system. 4. Expansion of On-Demand and Local Routes: To accommodate the City’s growing service area and population, it is recommended that the City expand its on-demand and local transit routes. This will ensure that transportation services are accessible to more residents, particularly in areas that are currently underserved. The expansion of flexible, on-demand routes will also improve coverage for key residential, commercial, and recreational destinations. 5. Enhanced Service for Key Growth Areas: The City should focus on enhancing transit service for key growth areas identified in this Transportation Master Plan. This may include increasing frequency, extending service hours, or developing new routes that directly serve expanding residential and commercial zones, ensuring that new developments are wellintegrated into the overall transit network. 6. Rideshare Initiatives: The implementation of rideshare programs should be explored to complement existing public transit services. Rideshare initiatives can offer more flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective alternatives to conventional transit, particularly in areas where demand for public transport is lower or more localized. 7. Partnerships with Other Transit Agencies: The City should pursue partnerships with regional transit agencies such as Metrolinx and others in neighboring municipalities. Collaboration with these agencies will facilitate the coordination of schedules, improve transfer options, and create a more integrated transportation network that serves the region’s needs. Such partnerships are crucial for expanding transit access across jurisdictions and ensuring that Kawartha Lakes residents can seamlessly connect to regional and provincial transit networks. By potentially exploring these recommendations, the City of Kawartha Lakes could create a more robust, efficient, and accessible transit system that meets the current and future needs of its residents, while enhancing its connections to the broader regional transit network. 8. Intermunicipal Transit: The City of Kawartha Lakes is not directly serviced by any public intermunicipal transit system. Compared to the 2012 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the percentage of Home-to-Work trips within the City, particularly in the Lindsay area, has decreased from 62% to 56%. Conversely, the proportion of Home-to-Work | Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 161

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update trips to areas outside the City has increased by 5% over the past few years. The highest demand for home-to-work trips from residents of Kawartha Lakes is directed toward Durham Region and Peterborough, with considerably less demand for travel to Toronto or other major employment centers. When evaluating intermunicipal transit options, the need for transit services for students traveling to Lindsay, as well as for trips between Lindsay and Peterborough, should be prioritized. As noted in the 2012 TMP, GO Bus service to the City is expected to become a feasible option only in the longer-term planning horizon (i.e., beyond five years). However, the expansion of intramunicipal transit services within the City could help lay the groundwork for more effective intermunicipal connections in the future. A few additional recommendations for consideration for the City of Kawartha Lake’s future transit network have also been listed below after consultation with the public and review of the existing transit network: •

Consider looking at the opportunity to increase local transit service in Lindsay based on ridership demand to include Statutory Holidays. The City should also assess the feasibility of expanding transit services to other urban areas within the City of Kawartha Lakes and developing inter-city connections to nearby regional centers, such as Peterborough and Durham Region, to enhance local and regional mobility.

•

Explore opportunities to partner with neighbouring municipalities to leverage resources, reduce costs, and expand the ridership base to support a wider and more connected transit network.

•

Look for innovative ways to improve quality of service and increase ridership throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes.

•

Improve access to transit by prioritizing pedestrian facilities to transit, ensure AODA compliance and ensure links are prioritized for winter maintenance.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 162

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

9.3 Road Network The road network within the City of Kawartha Lakes is critical to its overall transportation system and the movement of people and goods. Streets are an integral part of the social fabric of the City where residents, commuters and visitors will interact. They also allow for utilities, goods movement, pick-up and drop-off of goods and people, parking, stormwater management, trees and greenery. 9.3.1

Urbanization

Road urbanization is a critical aspect of transportation planning, aligning infrastructure development with urban growth. As the City continues to grow, a well-designed road network is essential to accommodate increasing traffic volumes, support efficient mobility, and reduce congestion. The City should therefore urbanize the rural or semi-urban roads within its network, parallel to growth and expansion of urban boundaries where and when appropriate to meet the needs and requirements of communities. Decisions to urbanize specific roads are typically based on factors such as: •

Traffic Volume and Safety: Roads experiencing increased traffic or higher accident rates may be prioritized for upgrades.

•

Community Development: Areas undergoing significant growth might necessitate the urbanization of adjacent roads to support new infrastructure.

•

Economic Considerations: Enhancing roads that facilitate commerce and tourism can boost local economies.

Urban road design must consider connectivity, safety, environmental impact, and fostering resilience to future demands. Strategic planning and phased implementation allow for adaptability, ensuring the road infrastructure grows in tandem with urbanization while enhancing the overall quality of life. Therefore, it is recommended that the City adopt a phased approach to urbanization of rural or semi-urban roads based on road-cross-sections, planned growth and level of development. 9.3.2

Complete Streets

Given the finite resource of available street space, it should be designed to provide the best use for public benefit. Streets and the overall road network must adapt to changing travel demand and travel modes. In addition to cars, it must accommodate people who walk, cycle or take transit, and people of all ages and abilities as illustrated in Figure 34. A “Complete Streets” approach provides primary tools for managing street space where multiple needs

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 163

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update are factored, yielding streets that provide safety, comfort, mobility for all ages and abilities irrespective of travel mode. The relationship between transportation and land use is important in building communities with complete streets balancing the movement of people with economics, sustainability, health and the environment. There is no singular approach to creating a complete street, as each street is dependent on multiple factors including context and its own characteristics. Guidelines for complete streets can be implemented to assist in prioritizing the needs and requirements of individual streets, for new builds, rehabs or otherwise. As such, an urban local road and rural collector may both be complete streets but look and function very differently given that the concept of complete streets places emphasis on balancing needs of all users. Complete streets can provide multiple benefits to the communities they serve. Benefits provided can include reduction in pollution from active transportation whilst providing health benefits of the selected active mode choice. Improvements of adequate and accessible pedestrian and transit infrastructure through development planning, while providing faster and improved transit due to dedicated lanes or signal priority. Economic benefits may be yielded from complete streets benefitting local business1 due to reduced auto traffic. Traffic reductions through traffic calming measures can increase foot traffic for local business turning into increase sales. Traffic calming can also have the effect of increasing property values. Complete Streets can also assist benefit the City in supporting it’s Vision Zero policy, with further protections for vulnerable road users.

Figure 99 - Multi-modal Street Cross-section Source: https://Streetmix.net

1 Transportation Canada, Complete Streets: Making Canada’s roads safer for all (2009).

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 164

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 9.3.3

Protected Intersections

The City of Ottawa’s Protected Intersection Design Guide2 identifies a protected intersection as one where cyclist and pedestrians are separated from cars at grade. The application of this concept is on the rise and the City of Ottawa’s guide is aimed at providing a consistent approach to design. Protected intersections have been shown to reduce the number and severity of collisions involving vulnerable road users. These types of intersections minimize conflict points at intersection through the separation of pedestrians, cyclist, and motor vehicles providing separate spaces for each user. This separation thus improves the safety and comfort of road users. The implementation of protected intersections is being adopted by an increasing number of municipalities with considerations being incorporated in the planning and design stage of road networks. This type of approach to intersection design is becoming the preferred option in some City’s where dedicated cycling facilities are to be provided on at least one of the intersecting streets. An example of a fully protected intersection is provided in Figure 35.

Figure 100 - City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide Source: City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide

2 Protected intersection designs are also applicable at some unsignalized intersections, as per the Protected Intersection Design Guide

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 165

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

9.4 Emerging Technologies 9.4.1

Micro-mobility

Micro-mobility is an umbrella term that typically refers to light weight personal transportation devices that include human and motorized vehicles that operate below 25 km/h. Types of micro-mobility vehicles include bicycles, electric assist bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters). An e-scooter is a power-assisted scooter with a step-through frame where a single rider can stand while driving the vehicle with no seat. They can vary in design, weight, and speed and are available in a wide variety of configurations. Shared micro-mobility programs provide access to vehicles through a membership, pay-peruse, and/or time-based fares. Vehicles can be rented through a mobile app or kiosk, with picked up and dropped off on public property, and are meant for short trips. This allows for vehicles to be picked up and dropped off at any designated location. Ridesharing and rental of micro-mobility scooters have increased popularity especially in congested areas. Issues and safety concerns surrounding the use of micro-mobility vehicles are also at the forefront of usage and would require polices to reduce accidents and injury. Helmet use, falls, collisions with objects, pedestrians, moving vehicles, braking problems, battery relates fires and charging issues are areas of concern regarding operation. Operation of e-scooters on higher speed, rural roads also poses safety concerns. It is unlikely that e-scooters would be considerable or desirable in a high-speed rural environment as they are most effective in built-up urban areas for short distance trips. Prohibiting e-scooter use on higher speed roads, would also provide clear direction for enforcement. In 2020, a pilot program was introduced by the Province of Ontario to permit the operation of e-scooters on public roads in Ontario. Pursuant to O.Reg. 389/19 under the Highway Traffic Act appropriate by-laws should be in place to govern the use of micro-mobility options within City limits. 9.4.2

Automated, Connected, and Electric Vehicles

The automotive industry is rapidly evolving due to innovation and advancement in technology which also has an impact on local governments. In the coming years transformative automobile technology will likely have significant impacts on municipal land use and transportation.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 166

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Automated, connected, and electric (ACE) vehicles offer promise to improve the transportation system safety and efficiency in communities. At the same time, if not deployed and managed properly these technologies could lead to more traffic, inequitable access to mobility, and adverse environmental impacts. While large scale deployment of ACE vehicles is not immediately imminent, a strategic action plan can aide in outlining the tasks required to prepare for their inevitable introduction in Kawartha Lakes. The plan, should be completed in the next 5 to 10 years in collaboration with key stakeholders, should address potential implications, preparations, and public acceptance of ACE vehicles, ensuring the City is well-positioned to both maximize opportunities and mitigate impacts arising from their arrival. 9.4.3

Information Technology

Recent advancements in technology have opened new opportunities for municipalities to incorporate information technology (IT) solutions into the management of their transportation systems. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is the broad term used to describe the application of IT in transportation. ITS are the control and information systems that use integrated communications and data processing technologies, such as cameras, Bluetooth detection, and advanced data analytics, for the purpose of: •

Improving the mobility of people and goods;

•

Increasing safety, reducing traffic congestion, and managing incidents effectively; and

•

Meeting transportation policy goals and objectives such as transportation demand management or public transportation priority measures.

The use of ITS will grow as new technologies such as automated and connected vehicles develop. ITS can be deployed for transit systems, parking and traffic signal operations in the City. The City does not have a policy pertaining to IT solutions for transportation purposes currently and should develop a strategic action plan outlining the tasks required to better leverage emerging technologies.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 167

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 168

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

10.0 Implementation Plan and Costs To address the future needs of the City of Kawartha Lakes, the plan for implementation of the TMP update must align with the goals and vision of the City. Network development builds on ongoing work and studies within the City which includes Ministry of Transportation work on Highway 35 and Highway 7 and opportunities for expansion and connection to the GO Transit system. Implementation timelines have been considered in three timeframes: • • •

2031 (short term); 2041 (medium term), and; 2051 (long term).

10.1 Costing The recommended network improvements as part of this TMP update, not including development or MTO driven projects is projected to have the following capital costs: •

➢ Short-Term – $8,646,725;

•

➢ Medium-Term – $24,313,500, and;

•

➢ Long-Term – $24,165,500

Across future planning horizons a total of $57,125,725 is anticipated. The City of Kawartha Lakes Capital Budget may be inadequate to fully fund all identified projects within the timelines identified. To supplement the City’s capital budgets opportunities exist to obtain external funding to achieve development targets.

10.2 Potential Funding Sources Funding for development will be obtained either by internal or external means. Internal funding sources would include development charges and property taxes. External funding sources would consist of federal, provincial or privately sourced funds. Funding opportunities exist at Federal, Provincial, and Private levels to fulfill project’s beyond the City’s annual capital budgets. Some funding options available are outlined below. The City should routinely review available funding programs at all government levels to fully utilize funding opportunities.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 169

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Federal Funding Build Faster Fund - is a three-year, $1.2 billion program that is designed to encourage municipalities to address the housing supply crisis. The fund rewards municipalities that make significant progress against their targets by providing funding for housing-enabling and community-enabling infrastructure. Funding is provided to municipalities that have reached at least 80 per cent of their provincially assigned housing target for the year with increased funding for municipalities that exceed their target. Federal Gas Tax Funding - One-time top-up of approximately $4.66 million, to be used for infrastructure projects including: local roads and bridges; regional and local airports; broadband connectivity; public transit; drinking water; waste; recreation; culture and tourism. Provincial Funding Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) is a program that supports northern and rural municipalities who struggle with fiscal challenges. For 2025, the OMPF will provide $550 million in unconditional funding to 390 municipalities. Funding is designed to assist municipalities in providing critical municipal services to people across the province. Infrastructure Ontario Loan Program The program support local infrastructure investments across Ontario providing affordable, long-term financing to public sector clients, allowing them to modernize and renew their infrastructure to deliver to residents. Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund As part of the ongoing commitment to maintaining and improving a City's infrastructure, the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) offers a significant opportunity for funding transportation-related projects within the City of Kawartha Lakes. The OCIF is aimed at supporting municipalities with populations under 100,000, which makes the City of Kawartha Lakes eligible for both Top-Up funding and Application-Based funding. The OCIF can be a valuable resource for addressing key transportation infrastructure needs identified in the 2025 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), including road repairs, upgrades to bridges, and improvements to public transit facilities. By leveraging OCIF funding, the City can implement critical projects that enhance transportation safety, mobility, and sustainability, while reducing the financial burden on municipal budgets. The City of Kawartha Lakes should explore opportunities to apply for OCIF funding as part of the TMP update implementation process, prioritizing projects that align with the fund’s objectives of

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 170

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update ensuring the long-term viability and resilience of municipal infrastructure. Potential projects eligible for funding could include: •

Road Rehabilitation: Addressing deteriorating road conditions to improve safety and efficiency.

•

Bridge Repairs and Upgrades: Ensuring the safety and durability of transportation infrastructure.

•

Traffic Management Improvements: Implementing measures that improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.

Incorporating OCIF funding into this TMP update implementation strategy will allow the City to accelerate its transportation infrastructure improvements and ensure that the City’s transportation network can support future growth and development. Municipal staff should continue to actively monitor upcoming funding opportunities and ensure timely applications for eligible projects.

10.3 Road Network Implementation Plan Transportation network improvement projects recommended for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan for the Short- (2023-2031), Medium- (2031-2041) and Long-terms (2041-2051) are summarized in Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28 respectively.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 171

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Angeline St

Table 32 - Short Term Improvements

Angeline Street at Kent Street

$2,575,000.00 Kent St

Future Existing

Lindsay

Colborne Street and William Street

Intersection signalization as part of Colborne Street bridge

On-going

Verulam Road and Colborne Street

Signalization recommended

$550,000

Kent Street and St. Joseph Road Kent Street and Angeline Street

County Road 36 and Weldon Road / Signalization recommended Riverview Road Increase link capcity capacity required from Highway 35 to Adelaide Kent Street Street. Further review need to confirm to confirm if capacity required to Linday Street Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization East Street at Cedartree Lane / Duke Street proposed by 2025 Bobcaygeon East Street and Boyd Street Fenelon Falls

Fenelon River Crossing

Omemee

King Street and Sturgeon Road

Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization proposed by 2025 By-pass: Option has been brought forward. EA assessment for crossing has been endorsed by council with study assessment to commence in 2025. Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length. Capital Cost

| Transportation Master Plan Update

$3,500 $1,587,725 $550,000 $775,000

$700,000.00

$500,000.00 $1,400,000 $3,500 $8,646,725

P a g e | 172

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 33 - Medium Term Improvements Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

Estimated Capital Costs

Table 34 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary TableTable 35 - Medium Term Recommend addition of WBL & NBL turn lane. Colborne Street and William Street Improvements (City planned to add signal and new bridge construction by 2025). $16.8 Million (On-going)

Lindsay

Bobcaygeon

Fenelon Falls

Scugog River Crossing No additional improvements proposed. Angeling Street and Connolly Road / Signalization recommended. Timing driven by demands of future Orchard Park Road area development. Introduction of an eastbound and westbound protected/permitted Colborne Street and Albert Street left-turn phase and optimization of signal times. Colborne Street and David Street Signalization recommended.

$20,000 $550,000

Wellington Street at William Street

Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.

$3,500

Queen Street and St. David Street

Signalization recommended.

$550,000

Angeline Street and Mary Street

Construction of a westbound left-turn lane.

$330,100

Wellington Street and Queen Street Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times. Signalization of intersection and construction of an eastbound and West Street and North Street westbound left-turn lane recommended. Upgrades driven by demands of future area development. Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and Bolton Street and Canal Street bridge crossing.

$3,500 $957,400.00 $3,500.00

Main Street (CKL 36)

Twining recommended along corridor from King Street to Duke Street

$1,980,000.00

North Street (CKL 8)

Twining recommended along corridor from Joseph Street to at least 500m west of West Street

$1,980,000.00

Lindsay Street and Helen Street

Introduction of an eastbound protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times.

$20,000

Colborne Street and Francis Street

Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.

$3,500

Colborne Street and Bond Street

Signalization recommended.

$550,000

County Road 121 and Northline Road Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be / County Road 8 conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.

Omemee

$550,000

$2000 (per warrant)

Fenelon River Crossing

In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period.

$15-20 million*

King Street and Ski Hill Road

Monitor intersection for signalization driven by continued build-out of tourist traffic generator. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.

$2000 (per warrant)

Capital Cost

| Transportation Master Plan Update

$24,313,500

P a g e | 173

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 36 - Long Term Improvements Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas

New Recommendations

Table 37 - Medium Term ImprovementsTable 38 - Long Term Improvements Colborne Street from Highway 35 to Albert Street

No additional changes. Colborne Study Underway

Highway 7 and Dew Drop Inn Road Construction of westbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times. Little Britain Road & Elm Tree Road

Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times.

Lindsay

East Street and King Street Main Street and Duke Street Bobcaygeon

Bolton Street and Canal Street Main Street and East Street

Fenelon Falls Omemee

Fenelon River Crossing King Street and Sturgeon Road

Increase of cycle length and optimization of signal times. Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and bridge crossing. All-way stop operating at an acceptable LOS for long term conditions. Recommend detail intersection study to identify geometric intersection improvements. In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period. Construction of a left-turn lane in the northbound direction. Capital Cost

Estimated Capital Costs

On-going $330,125 $330,125 $660,250 $2000 (per warrant) $330,125 $924,350 $594,200 $627,200 $495,000 $3,500.00 $2000 (per warrant) $3,500 $20,000

$15-20 million* $330,125 $24,165,500

*As identified in presentation for second crossing EA. Cost identified in secondary EA. Cost to be revised post covid.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 174

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

10.4 TMP Monitoring A multi-modal approach to implementation of infrastructure improvements within the City is important to meet strategic goals and the City’s vision. Monitoring the progress of this TMP update will provide continued guidance on project implementation and required future updates. How and where the City grows, in addition to travel behaviour will impact how the City proceeds with improvements. Monitoring can be implemented by measuring of collected data against milestones or established performance indicators. Monitoring can be completed on an annual basis, coincide with City data collection programs or census. Implementation plan metrics to be applied in the monitoring process of the 2025 TMP are identified in Table 29.

Measure Number of Completed Projects Identified in the TMP

Network Development

Investment Levels

Indicator

Source

Frequency

Street Networks (# of projects)

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Bicycle Route (# of projects)

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Sidewalks (# of projects)

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Transit (# of projects)

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Road Network

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Transit Network

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Cycling Network

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Sidewalk Network

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Road Network

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Transit

Lindsay Transit

Annual

Cycling

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Walking

Kawartha Lakes

Annual

Apply measures identified in Table 29, progress for the 2025 TMP update can be measured by the City using Table 30.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 175

City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update

Table 39 - Measures For Tracking Progress Measure Trips by Mode Mode Split

Indicator

Unit

Walking, Cycling, Transit, Auto Trips Transit ridership Mode split (daily)

Trips Trips Trips % of City within 400m of a bus stop

Transit coverage Cycling coverage Proximity Sidewalk coverage

Collision Frequency and Severity

Cost

Total number of reported Collisions Number of reported vehicle collisions per year resulting in injuries or fatalities

Kawartha Lakes / TTS Lindsay Transit TTS

Frequency Every 5 Years Every 5 Years Every 5 Years

Kawartha Lakes

Every 5 Years

Kawartha Lakes

Every 5 Years

Kawartha Lakes

Every 5 Years

Police reports

Annual

Collisions

Police reports

Annual

Collisions

Police reports

Annual

Dollars Dollars

Kawartha Lakes Kawartha Lakes

Annual Annual

% of City within 400m of existing bicycle route % of urban road network KM with sidewalks Collisions

Number of vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists Capital cost by mode Operating cost by mode

Source

10.5 TMP Updates This TMP update is intended as a living document. As the City of Kawartha Lakes grows, the TMP will require further updates that reflect the new paradigm following the development of this plan. It is recommended that a review of this TMP update be conducted at regular intervals to ensure that the underlying assumptions are still relevant and applicable. This TMP update built on the previous 2012 TMP and projected recommendations up to the planning horizon year of 2051. Many of the previous 2012 TMP recommendations were carried forward while some were removed as they were no longer relevant or no longer supported. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process recommends a review of master plans every five years. The regular reviews are intended to determine if there is a need to undertake a formal TMP update. As a living document, is it recommended that version control and routine review are implemented to effectively manage the changes and updates to the plan over time. Instituting a version control system will not only streamline the management of future TMP updates but also enhance clarity, traceability, and coherence across all revisions of the plan.

| Transportation Master Plan Update

P a g e | 176

Appendix A: Communication and Consultation Plan

CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION PLAN

Prepared for:

City of Kawartha Lakes 26 Francis Street Lindsay, ON, K9V 5R8

Prepared By:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. 6240 Hwy 7, Suite #200, Woodbridge, ON L4H 4G3

October 2023

October 10th, 2023 Micheal Farquhar - Project Manager City of Kawartha Lakes 26 Francis Street Lindsay, ON K9V 5R8

Dear Micheal: Re: Communication and Consultation Plan for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan

Enclosed is the Communication and Consultation Plan for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The purpose of this Communication and Consultation plan is to set out the desired outcome, objectives, audience, and strategy for communication throughout the consultation period.

Please note that this document is intended for internal use only. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Thomas Gryz, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Mehemed Delibasic, P.Eng.

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd., Project Team:

Project Manager m.delibasic@mcintoshperry.com

Traffic/Transportstion Engineer t.gryz@mcintoshperry.com

Alina Ahmad, BES Transportation Planner alina.ahmad@mcintoshperry.com

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 3.0 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................ 6 4.0 CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES............................................................................................. 6 5.0 COMMUNICATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 7 5.1 External Agency and Public Notices...................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Website Postings .................................................................................................................................. 8

5.3 Contact List ........................................................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Communication Log .............................................................................................................................. 8

5.5 Meetings with the City of Kawartha Lakes, and Review Agencies ....................................................... 9

6.0 CONSULTATION PLAN ...................................................................................................... 9 6.1. Public Notices........................................................................................................................................ 9

6.1.1 Notice of Study Commencement .................................................................................................... 9 6.1.2 Notice of Public Information Centres ........................................................................................... 10

6.1.3 Notice of Study Completion .......................................................................................................... 10 6.2 External Negotiations and Consultation ............................................................................................. 10 6.3 Public Information Centres ................................................................................................................. 11 6.4 Indigenous Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 11

7.0 QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................................................ 12 8.0 ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES COMPLIANCE ................................. 12 9.0 SCHEDULING .................................................................................................................. 12 10.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 12

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process……………………………………………………………………………………….7

APPENDIX

Appendix A – Notice of Study Commencement………………………………………………………………………………………..……14

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

INTRODUCTION McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (McIntosh Perry) has been retained by the City of Kawartha Lakes to undertake the development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The goal is to optimize existing infrastructure and adopt sustainable practices for accommodating new development, aligned with the city's Growth Management Strategy. The plan will guide how we:

•

Develop our roadways Coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses Provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity Respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network

• • •

McIntosh Perry has prepared this Communication and Consultation Plan for implementation throughout this study. The purpose of the Communication and Consultation Plan is to describe the timing and means of communicating with the public, governing agencies, indigenous communities and other stakeholders throughout the study.

Consultation with stakeholders is a fundamental component of the study. Consultation will be ongoing throughout the project and will be carried out in conjunction with the transportation, engineering and environmental protection principles. It is essential for the success of this study that the consultation program be fully transparent, open and inclusive, and all public / stakeholder communication be clear, accessible and timely. As such, the stakeholder management plan will be complemented by this consultation strategy which will outline the consultation program including milestones, roles and responsibilities, format, and preparation steps. Stakeholders will include agencies such as, but not limited to:

1.0

CCO-24-0008

1. Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) 2. City of Kawartha Lakes Departments 3. Kawartha Region Conservation Authority 4. Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) 5. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 6. Lindsay Transit 7. Utilities (i.e., Hydro One Ontario Power Generation) 8. Emergency services (Police, Fire, Paramedic) 9. Community and business group associations 10. Indigenous communities and Local residents Comments from these stakeholders will be vital in the development and completion of a TMP that is relevant, understood and broadly supported by the public. Prior to project commencement, the city will be engaged for the appropriate process to access and upload materials onto the city’s premier online consultation platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. The consultant team will commit to supporting the city in developing content for the

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

webpage, including notices, records of consultation, presentation slides, and technical documents as the study progresses. Once the study team is ready to commence the study, a Notice of Study Commencement will be prepared and published in local publications, as well as on the city’s website. Overall, McIntosh Perry understands that actively engaging the community, not simply to receive input, but more importantly to foster a sense of ownership, community pride and commitment to the project is of great importance to the City. As such, we have developed this Public Communication and Consultation Plan to undertake a comprehensive public and stakeholder consultation program for the City of Kawartha Lakes TMP. The primary objectives of this Consultation Plan are to: • • •

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The scope of work for the City of Kawartha Lakes will place significant emphasis on traffic operations, active transportation connectivity, and assessing the City’s current transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, and culverts) as well as updating existing and establishing new policies and design standards as well as road classifications. The TMP will also ensure forecasted future traffic volumes are adequately accommodated by the City and local road networks. Our understanding of the scope of work includes the following:

1. Perform traffic data collection at the identified intersections and arterials. 2. Coordinate and incorporate updates from the ongoing updates to the city’s Growth Management Strategy, Active Transportation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan Update. Collect other background studies, improvements and developments in the area done by others. 3. Build a traffic analysis model using industry standards and software to represent the current state, base year of 2023, of the city’s transportation network (roads and intersections). 4. Assess the city’s current transportation network with respect to screenline, level of service and capacity analysis. 5. Confirm and develop future development scenarios for the city based on updates to the city’s forecasted growth and incorporate planned and ongoing developments. 6. Build a traffic analysis model using industry standards and software to represent the forecasted year, horizon year of 2051, of the city’s transportation network (roads and intersections). 7. Assess the city’s current transportation network under future conditions with respect to screenline, level of service and capacity analysis to identify the problems and opportunities. 8. Develop a list of alternative solutions for problems identified as needed, based on the new 2023 MCEA process. 9. Review the city’s collision statistics and develop an empirical model suitable for conducting future safety and operational assessments.

2.0

Identify and include potentially affected members of the public and stakeholders; Outline how to inform public / agencies / Indigenous Communities about the Study and how to receive input, comments, questions and concerns; and Use the information received to identify issues early in the process and address through the Study.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

10. Develop a framework for the implementation of a Vision Zero/ Safe Systems program in the city using and building on comparable Canadian experience. 11. Review the city’s parking needs in key built-up areas and update programming and planning of parking initiatives for the new 2051 horizon year. 12. Review the city’s current transit needs and reaffirm or adjust recommendations to the 2051 horizon year. Ensure recommendations line up with planned improvements to higher order corridors within the city, such as provincial highways and intermunicipal arterials. 13. Review the city’s seasonal load restriction policies, review existing routes, review the feasibility of designating route(s), while considering ways to limit the disruption to local agricultural, tourist, and recreational activities. 14. Develop the city’s road classification system, assess the city’s future arterial and collector road needs, and update design standards for roads to consider multi-modal uses and safety. 15. Review and develop policies and plans uniquely tailored to the city including a traffic calming policy, a posted speed limit review policy, an aggregate truck route policy, a ‘Traffic Impact Study’ guideline policy, etc. 16. Perform consultation activities and coordinate with the city’s online engagement platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. 17. Complete the Transportation Master Plan in accordance with the 2023 MCEA Process for Master Plans.

The Transportation Master Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Municipal Engineer’s Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document. This document planning process is designed to address concerns of those affected by the undertaking (i.e. local public, business community, etc.).

The objective for completing this Study as a Master Plan will be to ensure that environmental assessment planning principles and stakeholders/ and public input are considered in the identification of existing and future transportation infrastructure requirements. The Municipal Class EA Master Planning process is wellsuited to address the objectives of the TMP study, since it examines transportation systems or groups of related projects within a common geographic area and implementation of subsequent projects with environmental protection and mitigation measures integrated into the project. The Master Plan process as prescribed in the “Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects, (the Class EA) document requires the completion of Phases 1 (Problem Identification) and Phase 2 (Alternative Solutions) of the five phases of the Municipal Class EA process. Depending on the scope and level of analysis of a Master Plan, the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 may be satisfied for projects identified through this process. The combined impact of alternatives of the multi-modal transportation network (active transportation, public transportation, motorized transportation) is also better understood, leading to other more positive and sustainable solutions.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

The goal will be to develop and enhance the transportation network to help establish the City of Kawartha Lakes as a leader in building, preserving, and enhancing livable communities, which will be supported by economic development, tourism, sustainable transportation practices, and the emerging shared economy. Understanding the balance and interaction between modes will help us define a practical vision for the City, building on the City’s current and planned projects. Lastly, to meet the Master Planning requirements of the Municipal Class EA Process, the project team is committed to undertaking two (2) rounds of consultation. The “two rounds” of engagement will include public information sessions (PIC #1 and PIC #2) and stakeholder group meetings.

3.0

PROJECT TEAM

The project will be carried out by McIntosh Perry in partnership with Concept Dash and in close consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes. Following is a list of key Project Team members that will have direct involvement during the consultation process:

City of Kawartha Lakes •

Micheal Farquhar - Project Manager at the City of Kawartha Lakes (Primary Contact)

•

Joseph Kelly, CET - Traffic Lead at the City of Kawartha Lakes

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Mehemed Delibasic, P.Eng. - Project Manager at McIntosh Perry (Primary Contact)

•

Thomas Gryz, Traffic Engineer

•

Alina Ahmad, Transportation Planner

4.0

Concept Dash

•

Vivek Sharma - QA/QC Review/ Transportation Engineer

•

Chandi Ganguly - Transportation Specialist/ Traffic Engineer

•

Sagar K.P - Transportation Specialist

•

Famitha Salam - Transportation Specialist

•

Preeti Nagarkar - Transportation Specialist

CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES Consultation with local private and public stakeholders as part of this project is another critical component of achieving success and is required as part of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (“MCEA”) process. A TMP would follow the new MCEA and would typically cover Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process. Currently, our understanding of changes to the MCEA process include new criteria for classifying projects. Projects that would have previously been considered Schedule B/C

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

projects could now be Schedule A/A+, or exempted, subject to new conditions and cost thresholds. This would be relevant in categorizing improvements for the purposes of the TMP, and determining which projects require further detail investigation. The city confirms that it expects to follow Approach 1 detailed in Appendix 4, Section 4.5 of the 2023 MCEA, which approaches the TMP from broader and more general lens. We understand that all public consultation will be on the city’s online public engagement platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. Our consultation materials such as notices, presentations, reports, and design plates will be prepared with this in mind.

McIntosh Perry will guide the City of Kawartha Lakes though Phase 1-2 of the MCEA. Please refer to Figure 1 outlining the MCEA planning design and process.

Figure 1: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process The above elements will be part of the consultation process involving external agencies (provincial, federal, municipal) and the public as an essential component of this MCEA process.

5.0

COMMUNICATION PLAN As per the RFP, a communication plan must be established as part of the project management tools defining the communication methods, contact list and frequency of contacts with the City of Kawartha Lakes. The communication plan will include the following: •

The communication methods.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP • • • • •

5.1

CCO-24-0008

Public Notices; External Agency/Public contact list; Communication log; Agency and Stakeholder Meetings and Consultation (i.e., MTO, MECP, MNRF, etc.); and Stakeholder meetings with Indigenous Communities

External Agency and Public Notices

Public Notices will be prepared by McIntosh Perry as part of the Communication Plan and forwarded in draft format to the City of Kawartha Lakes for their review/input and approval. The notices will be distributed to the Contact List vie email and posted on the City’s project website, and social media. All notices will be provided to the City by McIntosh Perry for review and acceptance a minimum of 2 weeks (10) working days prior to release.

5.2

Website Postings

5.3

McIntosh Perry will work with the City of Kawartha Lakes staff to facilitate the posting of project information on the City’s website, including project notices and PIC materials. Any other relevant information, as identified through the course of the study, will also be posted so that interested members of the public have access to this information.

Contact List

McIntosh Perry has compiled a Contact List of potentially interested stakeholders. The draft Contact List includes government ministries/agencies, municipal staff, emergency services, school boards, businesses, affected public, member of provincial parliament, Indigenous Communities, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) and public interest groups. The Contact List will be used as a mailing list for project notices. Contact with stakeholders will be via email and documented in the Study Report.

5.4

The Contact List will be considered a “living document”, which will be regularly updated throughout the course of the project to add, remove or revise information as necessary.

Communication Log

McIntosh Perry will maintain a Communication Log for this project. The Communication Log will record and document the individual contacted, date and time of the contact, topic of discussion and commitments made. The record will be maintained throughout the duration of the study and will provide a chronological history of consultation and commitments made. The Communication Log is a work-in-progress and will be regularly updated throughout the course of the project to add, remove or revise information as necessary.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

5.5

CCO-24-0008

Meetings with the City of Kawartha Lakes, and Review Agencies

McIntosh Perry will consult with the City of Kawartha Lakes Staff and outside stakeholders. We will ensure that all interested parties are provided a direct opportunity for input through correspondence and/or meetings (as necessary). During each stage of the Project, the Project Team will consult with the City of Kawartha Lakes and key agencies, such as the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Environment, conservation and parks authorities, and stakeholders to discuss the progress of the study and provide an opportunity to discuss and address any concerns. McIntosh Perry will be responsible for preparing all meeting agendas, invites, minutes, and materials.

CONSULTATION PLAN

McIntosh Perry will ensure the City of Kawartha Lakes conducts the appropriate level of consultation to satisfy the TMP public consultation requirements, as well as emphasize the points of contact planned for the TMP, the detailed methods, contents, and purpose and time. The Consultation efforts will include, at a minimum: Notice of Study Commencement

•

Notice of Public Information Centre #1 and #2; and

•

Notice of Study Completion.

•

External Consultations

•

Public Information Centres; and

•

Indigenous Communities Consultation

•

McIntosh Perry has prepared this Consultation Plan to ensure that a thorough, coordinated and transparent consultation process is in place and properly documented for the duration of this project.

6.1

6.0

Public Notices

6.1.1 Notice of Study Commencement McIntosh Perry will prepare a Notice of Study Commencement letter to distribute to the Contact List as the first form of contact with stakeholders. The Notice of Study Commencement letter outlines the purpose of the notice, the project study area, a description of the project and requirements for a TMP including whom to contact with questions and comments. McIntosh Perry will email all letters and the notice to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will publish the notice in local publications, as well as post the notice as required on the City’s Jump In project website, The final Notice of Study Commencement is provided in Appendix A.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

6.1.2 Notice of Public Information Centres Two in-person or virtual Public Information Centres (PIC) will be held to disseminate information related to the study. McIntosh Perry will continue to discuss this with the City of Kawartha Lakes to determine the best approach and review the schedule as required. A PIC Notice will be published at least two weeks in advance providing the date, time, and location of the meeting. A Notice of PIC will be distributed to inform stakeholders that the TMP review and update is being undertaken and to provide details regarding the PIC. The notice will provide a description of the project background, the MCEA process that will be followed, the purpose of the PIC being conducted and key detail such as the date, time, location or where to access the PIC. McIntosh Perry will email the notice to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will post the notice as required on the City of Kawartha Lakes Jump In project website.

The notices will be prepared by McIntosh Perry as part of this Consultation Plan and forwarded in draft format to the City of Kawartha Lakes for their review and approval. Once finalized, McIntosh Perry will provide the Notice to the City of Kawartha Lakes in a format suitable to arrange for publication.

A draft of the PIC notice will be provided to the City a minimum of 2 weeks prior to distribution, as well as draft presentation (PowerPoint) at a minimum of 3-4 weeks prior to hosting PIC. Submission deadlines will be discussed with the City of Kawartha Lakes well in advance of the PIC.

6.1.3 Notice of Study Completion

The purpose of the Notice will be to inform interested stakeholders that an updated TMP has been prepared and is available for a 30-day public review period.

McIntosh Perry will email all letters to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will post the notice as required on the City of Kawartha Lakes Jump In project website. If no concerns are raised by the conclusion of the 30-day review period, a letter will be prepared and submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes indicating the successful completion of the study and identifying that this project is eligible to proceed to implementation. A draft Notice of Study Completion will be provided to the City of Kawartha Lakes a minimum of 2 weeks prior to distribution.

6.2

External Negotiations and Consultation

In addition to the Notice Letters, there will be the need for external consultation with stakeholders to obtain, input and address/discuss/ resolve if any issues. Any discussions held with external government ministries/agencies, interest groups or local landowners/residents regarding the study will be documented in a letter to the responsible individual(s) or agency. This record will ensure commitments and agreements are fully documented.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

CCO-24-0008

The City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager will be copied on all external correspondence and subsequent responses related to the TMP study requirements. Discussions held with external contacts will be documented and forwarded to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager. Responses to all letters, comments, and inquiries about the TMP study received from the public, ministries and agencies, and local government will be prepared by McIntosh Perry staff and reviewed by the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager prior to being sent. All formal written responses received from the aforementioned will be copied to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager. This transfer of information will be facilitated by email to expedite the review process. All drafts of external correspondence will be submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager for review and approval a minimum of five (5) days prior to the date required.

6.3

Public Information Centres

The project team will host two (2) Public Information Centres (PIC) to gather public input and present findings of the study, with the first PIC anticipated later in 2023. The purpose of the first PIC will be to present findings of the existing conditions assessment and to disseminate information related to the study and gather feedback from the public. Additionally, the purpose of the second PIC will be to present future conditions assessment and proposed solutions for the City’s transportation network. Overall, these two public information centres will be held at key phases of the project to disseminate project information. The PICs will allow the project team to collect input on the existing and future conditions, needs and issues within the study area and allow the public an opportunity to review findings of investigations, proposed alternative solutions/design concepts, evaluation criteria, and preliminary preferred alternative solution and design concepts.

6.4

McIntosh Perry will be responsible for preparing all display materials including plans, presentation materials, questionnaires, etc. in draft format for City’s review prior to finalizing. McIntosh Perry will work with the City to support in uploading all Public Information Centre materials to the project website and other social media platforms, as required.

Indigenous Consultation

Indigenous communities are an important stakeholder group for municipal consultation. McIntosh Perry will acquire the contact information from the City of Kawartha Lakes. As per the RFP, MP will identify all Indigenous Communities to be consulted during the study and will finalize the consultation list and communication with the City’s Project Manager. An Indigenous Engagement Summary will be updated to ensure all communication is properly documented and taken into consideration. All written correspondence with Indigenous groups will be directly through the City of Kawartha Lakes; however McIntosh Perry will be responsible for preparing the letters and background information.

Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP

7.0

CCO-24-0008

QUALITY CONTROL All correspondence, notices, plans, reports and documentation will be checked for quality, accurateness, conformity with the guidelines and applicability by the McIntosh Perry team before forwarding to the City of Kawartha Lakes for review and approval.

8.0

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES COMPLIANCE McIntosh Perry will ensure that all documents prepared in support of the TMP study (i.e., notices, presentations, reports, etc.) for this assignment are in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

9.0

SCHEDULING

SUMMARY

10.0

A Consultation Schedule has been prepared for the TMP study. The schedule is subject to change only through consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager.

McIntosh Perry has prepared this Consultation Plan for implementation throughout the TMP development process. The purpose of this Consultation Plan is to describe the timing and means of communicating with the public, agencies and other stakeholders satisfying the requirements of the MCEA planning process.

APPENDIX A

NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT

Notice of Study Commencement Posted August 24th, 2023

Transportation Master Plan

Phases

To strategically prepare for this growth and enhance the City’s existing transportation network, the City of Kawartha Lakes has retained McIntosh Perry to undertake the development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The goal is to optimize existing infrastructure and adopt sustainable practices for accommodating new development, aligned with the city's Growth Management Strategy. The plan will guide how we: o Develop our roadways o Coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses o Provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity o Respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network

The TMP update will be developed in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following the new Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Planning process. The TMP will cover Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process and facilitate streamlining and implementation of recommended capital works. Overall, the TMP will have three phases that will follow the MCEA process: 1. Assess the existing conditions, area context and specific challenges 2. Assess traffic operations and road safety o Assess the City’s transportation needs o Develop preferred solutions to meet those needs o Update and implement policies and develop design standards to align with the city’s goals 3. Refine the preferred solutions and develop a comprehensive TMP document 14

Have your say An important part of this study is consultation with the public, stakeholders, and the City’s agency partners. We want to hear from you on the issues and opportunities that you see for the City’s Transportation System to the horizon year of 2051. At any time during this study, you can provide comments, questions, and concerns to the project team. We will also organize Public and Stakeholder engagement events to present an overview of the study and existing conditions while outlining alternatives, evaluation, and study recommendations. The project team will host two (2) Public Information Centres (PIC) to gather public input and present findings of the study, with the first PIC anticipated later in 2023. A PIC Notice will be published at least two weeks in advance providing the date, time, and location of the meeting.

Learn more

All public input, consultations, and stakeholder engagement activities will be conducted through the exclusive City of Kawartha Lakes engagement platform called "Jump In" hosted by Engagement Headquarters. For regular updates and to share your valuable input, visit the project website at https://jumpinkawarthalakes.ca

Stay connected and participate in shaping the future of our community!

Privacy Statement

Information is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act. Information collected will be used and managed by the City of Kawartha Lakes in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. If you require additional information, please view our Freedom of Information and Routine Disclosure Policy

Contact Us For further information or to be added to the study mailing list, please contact the study team: Mehemed Delibasic, P.Eng. Micheal Farquhar Joseph Kelly, CET Consultant Project Manager Project Manager Traffic Lead McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers City of Kawartha Lakes City of Kawartha Lakes Phone: 647-463-7993 Phone: 705-324-9411x1156 Phone:705-324-9411x1168 m.delibasic@mcintoshperry.com mfarquhar@kawarthlakes.ca jkelly@kawarthalakes.ca

D T

Appendix B: Public Consultation

B.1 Notice of Commencement

Notice of Study Commencement Posted August 24th, 2023

Transportation Master Plan

Phases

Learn more

Stay connected and participate in shaping the future of our community!

Privacy Statement

Appendix B: Public Consultation

B.2 Public Information Centre 1 (Survey Results)

Jump In Kawartha Lakes Report Type: Form Results Summary Date Range: 22-09-2023 - 04-10-2024 Exported: 31-10-2024 11:16:19

Closed Transportation Master Plan Survey: City of Kawartha Lakes Needs your Input Transportation Master Plan Study

561 Contributors

590 Contributions

Contribution Summary 1. Select the option that best describes yourself. Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

89.66%

529

5.93%

Business Owner

0.17%

Both a Resident and Business Owner

2.71%

Working in Kawartha Lakes but living elsewhere

0.68%

Visitor

1.02%

Full Time Resident Seasonal Resident

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 1 of 18

2. Do you think everyone in the community has equal access to transportation options? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Yes

16.61%

68.31%

403

Don't Know

15.25%

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 2 of 18

3. What area within Kawartha Lakes do you live or own a property? Required

Answer choices

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Fenlon Falls and area

27.46%

162

Lindsay and area

42.88%

253

Omemee and area

2.88%

Bobcaygeon and area

7.97%

Kinmount and area

0.34%

Kirkfield and area

2.37%

Manvers and area

2.88%

Sebright and area

0.51%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 3 of 18

1.02%

Coboconk and area

5.76%

Woodville and area

0.34%

Other

6.27%

Segrave and area

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 4 of 18

4. What is your most common reason for travelling on public transit within Lindsay? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Work or School

3.73%

Recreation or Leisure

6.27%

88.31%

521

3.73%

Answer choices

I don't travel on Public Transit

Other

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 5 of 18

5. What is your most common reason for travelling around the municipality? Select all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Answer choices Work or School

Recreation or Leisure Tourism Medical Appointments

Count

34.92%

206

70.85%

418

16.10%

52.54%

310

32.37%

191

Other

Percent

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 6 of 18

6. Which of the following (if any) limits you from using your ideal mode(s) of travel? Select all that apply. Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Road safety or personal safety concerns (i.e., traffic and road conditions, lighting and dark areas)

40.17%

237

Accessibility issues or concerns (i.e., disability, age, injury)

4.58%

Inconvenient

16.78%

Environmental limitations (i.e., hot or cold weather, steep hills)

9.66%

Inadequate infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, bike lanes, public transit, lack of connectivity)

44.58%

263

Cost

6.10%

No limitations

31.02%

183

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 7 of 18

7. Which of the following travel modes do you use most when travelling around the municipality? Select all that apply. Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

42.20%

249

20.51%

121

3.39%

Local Ride Hailing Services (Y Drive, Taxi)

1.36%

Electric Bicycle (E-Bike) or Electric Scooter

5.08%

93.39%

551

Answer choices Walking Cycling

Car or Motorcycle

Public Transit

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 8 of 18

8. Which transportation related issue do you think has the most significant impact in your community? Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Answer choices Traffic Congestion Lack of Parking Spaces

Poor Road Conditions Other

Unsafe Pedestrian Crossings

Inadequate Public Transit Options

Percent

Count

28.98%

171

10.00%

25.59%

151

9.83%

39.15%

231

13.56%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 9 of 18

9. Do you consider traffic congestion an issue on Kawartha Lakes' roads? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Yes

54.41%

321

45.59%

269

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 10 of 18

10. Should the municipality consider creating temporary “pedestrian only” areas on certain roads during summer months, reducing access to vehicular traffic in those areas to create auto-free zones? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Percent

Count

Yes

39.83%

235

60.17%

355

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 11 of 18

11. What is the most important transportation improvement that needs to be made in Kawartha Lakes? Rank the following in order of importance (1 being the highest priority) Required Ranking | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Count

Score

Avg Rank

Active Tran sportation (Trails, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, etc.)

15.38% 88

15.03% 86

17.48% 100

24.83% 142

27.27% 156

572

2.58

3.34

Road Maintenan ce

46.79% 270

26.86% 155

12.65% 73

6.24% 36

577

3.92

1.99

Public Transit/Bu s Services

14.64% 83

18.34% 104

25.75% 146

567

2.71

3.18

Local Oper ations/Roa dway Capacity (Traffic Signals, Road Widenings, etc.)

20.74% 117

Road Safety (Signage, Reduced Speeds)

5.70% 32

7.45% 43

19.75% 112

28.90% 163

22.87% 129

14.18% 80

13.30% 75

564

3.15

2.70

12.12% 68

25.31% 142

25.67% 144

31.19% 175

561

2.24

3.65

21.52% 122

Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights are inverse to ranked positions. Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 12 of 18

12. What improvements could make travel options safer or more convenient in Kawartha Lakes? Rank the following in order of most to least importance (1 being the highest importance) Required

Ranking | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Count

Score

Avg Rank

Providin g more public tr ansport ation services (i.e., bus, accessib le transit)

20.00% 112

9.64% 54

15.89% 89

13.57% 76

14.29% 80

11.25% 63

15.36% 86

560

3.91

3.88

Increas ed enfor cement of speed limits within C ommuni ty Safety Zones

10.87% 60

10.51% 58

11.96% 66

12.50% 69

13.77% 76

18.12% 100

22.28% 123

552

3.26

4.51

Increas ed Bylaw enfo rcement (i.e., parking restricti ons; load res

2.89% 16

11.37% 63

14.98% 83

14.80% 82

16.97% 94

23.65% 131

15.34% 85

554

3.16

4.64

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 13 of 18

trictions ; no trucks routes) 41.52% 240

21.97% 127

12.46% 72

7.09% 41

6.92% 40

5.54% 32

4.50% 26

578

5.38

2.51

Adding i ntersect ion impr ovemen ts (i.e., turning lanes, turn arrows, traffic signals, traffic circles) at more intersec tions

18.69% 106

30.16% 171

17.46% 99

11.64% 66

9.35% 53

7.23% 41

5.47% 31

567

4.74

3.06

Improvi ng pede strian crossing s

4.47% 25

12.16% 68

16.99% 95

26.48% 148

17.53% 98

15.92% 89

6.44% 36

559

3.66

4.14

Improvi ng trail crossing s or install cyclist crossing at inters ections

5.55% 31

6.98% 39

11.09% 62

13.42% 75

18.96% 106

15.92% 89

28.09% 157

559

2.91

4.93

Improvi ng the conditio n of roads and bridges

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 14 of 18

13. How important is having a connected, safe and inclusive active transportation network within Kawartha Lakes? Required

Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)

Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Count

Score

54.92% 324

15.93% 94

14.58% 86

8.98% 53

5.59% 33

590

1.94

Fairly Important

Select any one of the following

Very Important

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 15 of 18

14. Where do you find traffic congestion an issue? Short Text | Skipped: 230 | Answered: 360 (61%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 16 of 18

15. Do you know of a specific road or area of the municipality's transportation network requiring attention? Provide precise location(s). Long Text | Skipped: 143 | Answered: 447 (75.8%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)

Page 17 of 18

16. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the Transportation Master Plan? Long Text | Skipped: 199 | Answered: 391 (66.3%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Page 18 of 18

Appendix B: Public Consultation

B.3 Public Information Centre 2 (Survey Results)

Jump In Kawartha Lakes Report Type: Form Results Summary Date Range: 07-10-2024 - 29-10-2024 Exported: 31-10-2024 11:17:10

Open Transportation Master Plan Survey 2 Transportation Master Plan Study

93 Contributors

99 Contributions

Contribution Summary 1. Please select the option that best describes yourself. Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

83.84%

7.07%

Business owner

1.01%

Both a resident and business owner

6.06%

Working in Kawartha Lakes but living elsewhere

1.01%

Visitor

1.01%

Total

100.00%

Full time resident Seasonal resident

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 1 of 22

2. Which age group applies to you? Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

3.03%

5.05%

7.07%

14.14%

24.24%

43.43%

Prefer not to say

3.03%

Total

100.00%

18 to 24

45 to 54 55 to 64 65

35 to 44

25 to 34

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 2 of 22

3. What area within Kawartha Lakes do you live or own a property? Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

Fenelon Falls and area

49.49%

Lindsay and area

25.25%

Omemee and area

2.02%

Bobcaygeon and area

5.05%

Kinmount and area

Kirkfield and area

2.02%

Manvers and area

2.02%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 3 of 22

Seagrave and area

2.02%

Coboconk and area

7.07%

Woodville and area

I do not live or own property within Kawartha Lakes

1.01%

Other

4.04%

Total

100.00%

Sebright and area

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 4 of 22

4. How important are the following factors when choosing a mode of transportation? Required

Important

Cost

31.31% 31

33.33% 33

Convenience

54.55% 54

31.31% 31

Safety

57.58% 57

34.34% 34

Environment al impact

37.37% 37

Travel time

44.44% 44

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Not important

Count

Score

9.09% 9

2.02% 2

2.17

11.11% 11

2.02% 2

1.01% 1

1.64

5.05% 5

2.02% 2

1.01% 1

1.55

28.28% 28

23.23% 23

6.06% 6

5.05% 5

2.13

34.34% 34

17.17% 17

2.02% 2

1.83

24.24% 24

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 5 of 22

5. What is the top factor influencing your transportation mode choice within the City? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

Cost

10.10%

Reliability

48.48%

Travel time

41.41%

100.00%

Answer choices

Total

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 6 of 22

6. Which transportation modes do you believe will be most important in 2051 in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Public transit Personal vehicles (cars, motorcycles, etc.)

Walking

Autonomous vehicles

Rideshare services (Uber, Lyft, local)

Bicycles

Answer choices

Percent

Count

57.58%

76.77%

28.28%

27.27%

14.14%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 7 of 22

7. Cycling Priorities: What are the top three factors influencing cycling as your preferred mode of transportation choice? (choose your top three, if applicable) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

8.08%

13.13%

42.42%

Environmental impact

14.14%

Cost

4.04%

Health benefits

29.29%

I only cycle for recreation

32.32%

I don't use cycling as a travel mode

50.51%

Other

2.02%

Answer choices

Travel time Safety/Comfort

Access to facilities

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 8 of 22

8. What improvements would make travelling safer or more accessible for cyclists and pedestrians? (select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

More sidewalks or multi-use paths Convert all sidewalks to multi-use paths

More dedicated bicycle lanes

Pedestrian only roads or lanes in core areas

Better connectivity of active transportation network Other

Answer choices

Percent

Count

50.51%

15.15%

21.21%

46.46%

42.42%

11.11%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 9 of 22

9. What infrastructure improvements do you believe are necessary to support transportation in 2051 in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Expanded public transit networks More bike lanes and pedestrian pathways

Increased parking facilities

Other

More electric vehicle charging stations

Enhanced road safety measures (ex. traffic calming)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

63.64%

38.38%

43.43%

33.33%

29.29%

15.15%

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 10 of 22

10. What technological advancements do you think will impact transportation in the City by 2051? (Select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Electric vehicles Smart traffic management systems Rideshare services (Uber, Lyft, local)

Count

49.49%

55.56%

33.33%

23.23%

11.11%

Other

Autonomous transportation

Percent

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 11 of 22

11. What improvements would most enhance your transportation experience? Required

Important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Not important

Count

Score

Increases public transit network

29.29% 29

28.28% 28

17.17% 17

10.10% 10

15.15% 15

2.54

Better signage and information

26.26% 26

34.34% 34

24.24% 24

8.08% 8

7.07% 7

2.35

More bike lanes

16.16% 16

26.26% 26

18.18% 18

12.12% 12

27.27% 27

3.08

Improved pedestrian pathways

34.34% 34

30.30% 30

13.13% 13

14.14% 14

8.08% 8

2.31

Enhanced safety measures to ensure a safe road network

48.48% 48

27.27% 27

11.11% 11

7.07% 7

6.06% 6

1.95

Improved availability of public EV charging stations

14.14% 14

22.22% 22

23.23% 23

8.08% 8

32.32% 32

3.22

Very important

Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 12 of 22

12. Which transportation related issue do you think has the most significant impact in your community? Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

26.26%

4.04%

19.19%

3.03%

23.23%

Dangerous driving/speeding

14.14%

Other

10.10%

Total

100.00%

Traffic congestion

Inadequate public transit options

Poor road conditions

Unsafe pedestrian crossings

Lack of parking spaces

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 13 of 22

13. What challenges do you face when navigating around Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

40.40%

11.11%

68.69%

Safety concerns (ex. traffic, crime, etc.)

34.34%

Lack of bike lanes or pedestrian pathways

27.27%

Limited information on transit routes and schedules

9.09%

Accessibility issues for people with disabilities

15.15%

Seasonal weather conditions that affect travel

38.38%

Other

14.14%

Limited public transportation options

Poor road conditions

Inadequate signage or wayfinding

Answer choices

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 14 of 22

14. How important do you think sustainability should be in transportation planning for 2051? Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices Very important

Important Neutral Somewhat important

Count

41.41%

34.34%

17.17%

7.07%

100.00%

Total

Not important

Percent

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 15 of 22

15. What traffic calming measures do you believe would be most effective in improving safety and reducing speed in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

34.34%

17.17%

2.02%

54.55%

Chicanes (curved road design)

10.10%

Enhanced signage and visibility

34.34%

Increased enforcement of speed limits

52.53%

Traffic circles

20.20%

Speed bumps or humps

Narrower lanes Roundabouts

Raised crosswalks

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 16 of 22

16. What do you believe will be impacted the most due to development in Kawartha Lakes? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

16.16%

49.49%

20.20%

Reduced availability of local resources (water, land, etc.)

6.06%

Other

8.08%

100.00%

Answer choices Environmental impact

Increase in traffic

Total

Changes to community character

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 17 of 22

17. What is your vision for transportation in our community by the year 2051? (select all that apply) Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Answer choices

Percent

Count

63.64%

42.42%

52.53%

31.31%

48.48%

Improved sustainable transportation options (electric vehicles, micromobility)

29.29%

Other

7.07%

Congested roadways

Long delays at intersections

Increased safety concerns

Enhanced transit service

Improved pedestrian and active transportation facilities

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 18 of 22

18. Do you know of a specific road or area of the municipality's transportation network requiring attention? Provide up to three precise location(s) where applicable and include the improvements needed. Long Text | Skipped: 21 | Answered: 78 (78.8%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 19 of 22

19. How often do you use public transit, if at all? Required

Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)

Percent

Count

1 to 2 times per week

4.04%

3 to 4 times per week

3.03%

92.93%

100.00%

Answer choices

5 times per week I do not use public transit

Total

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 20 of 22

20. What factors influence your decision to use or not use public transit? Required Long Text | Skipped: 93 | Answered: 6 (6.1%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)

Page 21 of 22

21. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the Transportation Master Plan? Long Text | Skipped: 28 | Answered: 71 (71.7%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions

No featured contributions

Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Page 22 of 22

Appendix B: Public Consultation

B.4 Notice of Completion

Notice of Study Completion Transportation Master Plan Update About the Study The City of Kawartha Lakes has completed the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update that incorporates updated population and employment forecasts to guide the enhancement of a multi-modal transportation network to the year 2051. The TMP will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments. It will guide how we: develop our roadways

•

coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses

•

provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity

•

respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network

•

The Study Process

The TMP Update was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Master Planning process, an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, including extensive public and agency consultation and input.

As part of the TMP process, our consultants, Egis assessed the City of Kawartha Lake’s existing and future transportation challenges and opportunities and identified long-term transportation infrastructure needs. Recommendations in the TMP Update support plans, improve connectivity, enhance safety, and encourage active transportation. The TMP Update includes recommendations for operational, design, and transportation policies that supports the City’s transportation infrastructure through the year 2051. The study addresses transportation needs and justification at a broad level, so the recommended infrastructure projects will require further examination and detailed study to complete the requirements of the Municipal Class EA prior to implementation. Notice of Review Period

By this notice, the TMP Update is being placed on public record for a 30 calendar-day review period in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process. The review period will begin on Insert Date. Please provide written comments by Insert Date. All comments will become part of the public record of the study, except for personal information. The TMP Update report will be available for review online at the following link: Transportation Master Plan Study | Jump In Kawartha Lakes Please provide written comments to the study team below by Insert Date: Micheal Farquhar Project Manager City of Kawartha Lakes Phone: 705-324-9411 x1156 mfarquhar@kawarthlakes.ca

Francois Tomoe, P.Eng Vice President, Transportation Planning and Mobility, North America Consultant Project Manager Egis Canada Ltd. Phone: 613-894-6274 Francois.TOMEO@egis-group.com

This Notice was first Issued on August 24th, 2023.

Appendix C: Commercial Vehicle Percentages

D AF

Appendix D: ATR Count Data Maps

D AF

Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis

E.1 Lindsay

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

31 31 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1573 0.73 1207 0.96 32 0 32 16% Perm

36 36 1900 7.1 1.00 0.92 1.00 1730 1.00 1730 0.96 38 29 49 3% NA 4

38 38 1900

12 12 1900

0.96 40 0 0 2%

0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm

29 29 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1794 0.92 1672 0.96 30 0 43 7% NA 8

79 79 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1498 1.00 1498 0.96 82 59 23 9% Perm

11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 746 0.96 11 0 11 2% Perm

240 240 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 1.00 1779 0.96 250 0 250 8% NA 2

3 3 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 3 1 2 2% Perm

94 94 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.60 1138 0.96 98 0 98 2% Perm

489 489 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.96 509 0 509 4% NA 6

50 50 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1361 1.00 1361 0.96 52 23 29 20% Perm

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 420

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 418

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 638

0.02 0.05 23.4 1.00 0.1 23.5 C

0.01 0.03 8.7 1.00 0.1 8.8 A

0.00 0.00 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.6 A

0.09 0.15 9.4 1.00 0.2 9.6 A

25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 469

0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.6 24.2 C

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 485 c0.03

4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 338

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.10 23.7 1.00 0.4 24.2 C 24.2 C

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

13.9 0.36 89.1 68.8% 15

0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C 23.6 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 998 0.14 0.25 10.0 1.00 0.6 10.6 B 10.5 B

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1036 c0.28 0.49 11.8 1.00 0.6 12.5 B 11.8 B

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 763 0.02 0.04 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.8 A

B 14.1 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

Max Max None None 57 32.1 57 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 30.1 35 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 29 66 29 66 0 57 0 57 50 82 50 82 29 66 29 66

1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio

EBL 32 0.09 24.7 0.0 24.7 4.0 10.8 150.0 338 0 0 0 0.09

EBT WBT 78 43 0.15 0.09 14.5 24.4 0.0 0.0 14.5 24.4 4.8 5.4 14.8 13.2 1366.5 1368.7 514 0 0 0 0.15

469 0 0 0 0.09

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

WBR 82 0.17 6.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 10.0

NBL 11 0.03 9.0 0.0 9.0 0.8 3.0

170.0 479 0 0 0 0.17

250.0 418 0 0 0 0.03

NBT 250 0.25 10.8 0.0 10.8 20.3 33.1 1562.1 998 0 0 0 0.25

NBR 3 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SBL 98 0.15 10.2 0.0 10.2 7.5 15.2

135.0 920 0 0 0 0.00

200.0 638 0 0 0 0.15

SBT 509 0.49 13.9 0.0 13.9 49.2 73.7 1053.3 1036 0 0 0 0.49

SBR 52 0.07 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 4.5 200.0 786 0 0 0 0.07

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

SEL

SET

SER

NWL

NWT

NWR

0 0 1900

91 91 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1695 1.00 1695 0.90 101 1 104 13% NA 4

4 4 1900

96 96 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.69 1261 0.90 107 0 107 5% Perm

67 67 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1642 0.90 74 0 74 17% NA 8

92 92 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.90 102 68 34 2% Perm

143 143 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1237 0.90 159 0 159 2% Perm

136 136 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 151 0 151 2% NA 2

0 0 1900

3 3 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.66 1085 0.90 3 0 3 17% Perm

142 142 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.90 158 0 158 4% NA 6

141 141 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.90 157 75 82 6% Perm

8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 534

2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 644

0.02 0.06 21.8 1.00 0.2 22.0 C

c0.13 0.25 12.6 1.00 0.9 13.5 B

0.90 4 0 0 7%

8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 420

32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 547 0.05

32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 565 0.06

c0.08 0.25 23.3 1.00 1.5 24.7 C

R 0.18 22.7 1.00 0.2 22.8 C 22.8 C

16.6 0.25 95.9 62.7% 15

0.14 22.3 1.00 0.5 22.8 C 23.2 C

0.90 0 0 0 2%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

NBL

Existing Traffic 2023

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 565

50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 981 0.08

0.00 0.01 11.0 1.00 0.0 11.0 B

0.15 11.9 1.00 0.3 12.3 B 12.9 B

50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 962 0.09 0.16 12.0 1.00 0.4 12.4 B 12.1 B

6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 803 0.05 0.10 11.6 1.00 0.3 11.9 B

B 13.9 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

4 6 NBTL NWTL

8 SBTL

C-Max None C-Max Max 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 32.9 39 32.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1 1.1 1 20 10 20 10 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 25 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 57 0 57 0 50 89 50 89 25 73 25 73 0 57 0 57 50 89 50 89 25 73 25 73

2 SETL

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT 105 0.19 23.4 0.0 23.4 13.4 25.4 530.8 566 0 0 0 0.19

SBL 107 0.25 25.3 0.0 25.3 14.3 27.4

SBT 74 0.14 23.2 0.0 23.2 9.5 19.4 249.9

100.0 420 0 0 0 0.25

547 0 0 0 0.14

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

SBR 102 0.17 5.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 10.6

SEL 159 0.25 13.9 0.0 13.9 15.4 27.4

100.0 602 0 0 0 0.17

200.0 644 0 0 0 0.25

SET 151 0.15 12.5 0.0 12.5 13.9 24.1 374.7 981 0 0 0 0.15

NWL 3 0.01 11.0 0.0 11.0 0.3 1.6 200.0 565 0 0 0 0.01

NWT 158 0.16 12.6 0.0 12.6 14.6 25.2 359.2 962 0 0 0 0.16

NWR 157 0.18 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.8 100.0 878 0 0 0 0.18

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

16 16 1900

249 249 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1812 0.97 1761 0.84 296 6 336 5% NA 2

23 23 1900

8 8 1900

15 15 1900

10 10 1900

8 8 1900

0.84 18 0 0 2%

0.84 12 0 0 10% Perm

0.84 12 0 0 2%

0.84 10 0 0 2% Perm

33 33 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 0.99 1753 0.98 1727 0.84 39 20 68 3% NA 4

33 33 1900

0.84 10 0 0 2% Perm

20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 0.99 1738 0.95 1671 0.84 24 6 42 5% NA 8

10 10 1900

0.84 27 0 0 2%

279 279 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1835 0.98 1808 0.84 332 4 356 4% NA 6

0.84 19 0 0 2% Perm 2

0.19 0.65 15.8 1.00 2.9 18.7 B 18.7 B

15.0 15.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 530

15.0 15.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 516

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

17.0 0.30 51.1 39.6% 15

c0.20 0.67 15.9 1.00 3.4 19.2 B 19.2 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.84 39 0 0 2%

25.1 25.1 0.49 5.0 3.0 820

25.1 25.1 0.49 5.0 3.0 848

0.03 0.05 6.8 1.00 0.1 6.9 A 6.9 A

c0.04 0.08 6.9 1.00 0.2 7.1 A 7.1 A B 11.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

6 WBTL

None Max None Max 41 30 41 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 41 25 41 25 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 25 10 25 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 0 41 41 0 41 0 35 66 35 66 10 56 10 56 0 41 0 41 35 66 35 66 10 56 10 56

EGIS

4 SBTL

AM Peak Hour

8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 EBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBT 342 0.66 21.7 0.0 21.7 26.1 42.1 123.3

WBT 360 0.68 22.5 0.0 22.5 28.0 44.6 258.1

NBT 48 0.06 7.1 0.0 7.1 1.5 6.2 366.5

SBT 88 0.10 5.9 0.0 5.9 2.1 8.3 390.1

1212 0 0 0 0.28

1244 0 0 0 0.29

826 0 0 0 0.06

868 0 0 0 0.10

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

12 12 1900

253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1860 0.98 1825 0.87 291 3 328 NA 6

23 23 1900

9 9 1900

16 16 1900

23 23 1900

9 9 1900

0.87 18 0 0

0.87 26 0 0 Perm

0.87 6 0 0

0.87 10 0 0 Perm

71 71 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1843 0.98 1814 0.87 82 5 100 NA 4

11 11 1900

0.87 10 0 0 Perm

42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.98 1835 0.90 1687 0.87 48 3 77 NA 8

5 5 1900

0.87 26 0 0

284 284 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 0.99 1848 0.87 326 2 352 NA 2

0.87 14 0 0 Perm 6

0.18 0.41 19.1 1.00 1.5 20.7 C 20.7 C

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 813

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 803

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

20.0 0.28 100.0 39.0% 15

c0.19 0.43 19.4 1.00 1.7 21.1 C 21.1 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.87 13 0 0

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 742

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 798

0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B

c0.06 0.13 16.6 1.00 0.3 16.9 B 16.9 B C 12.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55

6 EBTL

Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 28 24 26 24 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 20 10 20 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 15 11 13 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 50 0 50 50 0 50 0 44 94 44 94 29 83 31 83 0 50 0 50 44 94 44 94 29 83 31 83

EGIS

4 SBTL

AM Peak Hour

9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 WBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBT 331 0.41 20.8 0.0 20.8 42.0 61.4 258.1

WBT 354 0.43 21.3 0.0 21.3 45.8 66.1 647.5

NBT 80 0.11 16.0 0.0 16.0 8.3 16.3 153.3

SBT 105 0.13 15.8 0.0 15.8 10.7 19.8 103.2

805 0 0 0 0.41

814 0 0 0 0.43

745 0 0 0 0.11

802 0 0 0 0.13

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

72 72 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 781 0.88 82 0 82 2% pm+pt 5 2 35.9 35.9 0.54 5.0 3.0 534 0.02 0.06 0.15 7.5 1.00 0.1 7.7 A

604 604 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.88 686 2 698 2% NA 2

12 12 1900

71 71 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 600 0.88 81 0 81 2% pm+pt 1 6 35.9 35.9 0.54 5.0 3.0 457 c0.02 0.07 0.18 7.7 1.00 0.2 7.9 A

391 391 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3448 1.00 3448 0.88 444 20 521 3% NA 6

85 85 1900

61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1100 0.88 69 0 69 2% Perm

55 55 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1660 1.00 1660 0.88 62 33 74 2% NA 4

39 39 1900

131 131 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1296 0.88 149 0 149 2% Perm

76 76 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1660 1.00 1660 0.88 86 61 136 2% NA 8

98 98 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

28.3 28.3 0.42 5.0 3.0 1460 0.15

4 15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 261

28.3 28.3 0.42 5.0 3.0 1511 c0.20

0.88 97 0 0 3%

0.46 13.8 1.00 1.0 14.8 B 14.1 B

15.7 0.43 66.8 73.3% 15

0.88 44 0 0 18%

0.88 14 0 0 2%

Existing Traffic 2023

0.36 13.1 1.00 0.2 13.2 B 12.5 B

0.06 0.26 20.7 1.00 0.5 21.2 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

8 15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 308

15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 395 0.04

c0.11 0.48 21.9 1.00 1.2 23.1 C

0.19 20.3 1.00 0.2 20.5 C 20.8 C

0.88 111 0 0 9%

15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 395 0.08 0.34 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.6 C 22.3 C

B 15.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EGIS

83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75

Splits and Phases:

1 2 4 5 6 8 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None Max None None None None 20 33 30 20 33 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 26 15 33 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 28 15 10 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 10 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 20 53 0 20 53 20 53 0 20 53 0 15 48 78 15 48 78 15 38 68 15 38 68 63 0 33 63 0 33 78 28 58 78 28 58 78 18 48 78 18 48

13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 15

Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBL 82 0.14 6.2 0.0 6.2 3.5 8.8 70.0 705 0 0 0 0.12

EBT 700 0.46 15.6 0.0 15.6 32.7 49.3 368.2 1538 0 0 0 0.46

WBL 81 0.16 6.3 0.0 6.3 3.4 8.7 120.0 637 0 0 0 0.13

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

WBT 541 0.36 13.7 0.0 13.7 22.4 35.7 68.4

NBL 69 0.26 24.7 0.0 24.7 7.3 16.7

NBT 107 0.25 15.9 0.0 15.9 6.6 17.2 306.6

1504 0 0 0 0.36

423 0 0 0 0.16

664 0 0 0 0.16

SBL 149 0.48 28.8 0.0 28.8 16.7 31.7 30.0 498 0 0 0 0.30

SBT 197 0.43 17.0 0.0 17.0 12.5 27.8 418.3 687 0 0 0 0.29

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 13

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

205 205 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.16 305 0.90 228 0 228 4% pm+pt 1 6 52.8 52.8 0.47 5.0 3.0 295 c0.08 c0.28 0.77 22.4 1.00 11.9 34.3 C

386 386 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 429 0 429 2% NA 6

219 219 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.90 243 150 93 2% Perm

35 35 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.39 726 0.90 39 0 39 3% pm+pt 5 2 40.9 40.9 0.37 5.0 3.0 309 0.01 0.04 0.13 23.4 1.00 0.2 23.6 C

438 438 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 487 0 487 2% NA 2

75 75 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.90 83 56 27 3% Perm

204 204 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.23 442 0.90 227 0 227 2% pm+pt 3 8 47.2 47.2 0.42 5.0 3.0 357 c0.08 0.19 0.64 23.5 1.00 3.7 27.2 C

140 140 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1768 1.00 1768 0.90 156 11 204 5% NA 8

53 53 1900

67 67 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.62 1152 0.90 74 0 74 4% pm+pt 7 4 35.1 35.1 0.31 5.0 3.0 399 0.01 0.05 0.19 27.6 1.00 0.2 27.8 C

123 123 1900 6.0 1.00 0.91 1.00 1700 1.00 1700 0.90 137 48 298 4% NA 4

188 188 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

2 36.1 36.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 510

0.06 0.15 22.6 1.00 0.5 23.1 C

R 0.59 27.5 1.00 3.6 31.1 C 29.7 C

36.1 36.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 606 0.26

35.2 0.76 112.0 82.0% 15

0.80 34.7 1.00 10.8 45.5 D 41.5 D

0.90 59 0 0 2%

6 43.0 43.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 614

43.0 43.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 722 0.23

Existing Traffic 2023

0.02 0.05 26.2 1.00 0.2 26.4 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 554 0.12 0.37 29.8 1.00 1.9 31.7 C 29.4 C

0.90 209 0 0 2%

28.0 28.0 0.25 6.0 3.0 425 c0.18 0.70 38.2 1.00 9.3 47.5 D 44.0 D

D 22.0 E

Synchro 11 Report Page 17

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EGIS

113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95

Splits and Phases:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EBL WBTL NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None Max None Max None Max None Max 17 40 23 33 17 40 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 13 33 13 33 13 33 13 33 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 17 57 80 0 17 57 80 17 57 80 0 17 57 80 0 12 51 75 107 12 51 75 107 12 34 75 90 12 34 75 90 96 0 40 63 96 0 40 63 108 34 58 90 108 34 58 90 108 17 58 73 108 17 58 73

14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 18

Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBL 228 0.76 36.5 0.0 36.5 28.5 #61.1 30.0 302 0 0 0 0.75

EBT 429 0.58 31.9 0.0 31.9 76.8 116.7 607.3

EBR 243 0.31 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 16.7

743 0 0 0 0.58

779 0 0 0 0.31

WBL WBT 39 487 0.11 0.83 17.4 49.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 49.0 4.3 96.4 10.6 #156.4 443.3 65.0 428 587 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.83

WBR 83 0.14 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.9

NBL 227 0.62 27.9 0.0 27.9 30.8 47.9

581 0 0 0 0.14

100.0 414 0 0 0 0.55

NBT 215 0.37 29.7 0.0 29.7 33.4 55.8 278.0 580 0 0 0 0.37

SBL 74 0.17 19.9 0.0 19.9 9.1 17.9 300.0 578 0 0 0 0.13

SBT 346 0.74 41.8 0.0 41.8 56.2 #98.8 268.1 469 0 0 0 0.74

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 16

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

4 4 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1460 0.51 776 0.95 4 0 4 25%

86 86 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1665 1.00 1665 0.95 91 3 96 15%

8 8 1900

86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.52 963 0.95 91 0 91 4%

101 101 1900 6.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1629 1.00 1629 0.95 106 115 330 9%

322 322 1900

1 1 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1310 0.95 1 0 1 2%

35 35 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1745 1.00 1745 0.95 37 21 47 3%

29 29 1900

280 280 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1165 0.95 295 0 295 2%

87 87 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1857 1.00 1857 0.95 92 1 94 3%

3 3 1900

Perm

NA 8

pm+pt 7 4 31.7 31.7 0.32 5.0 3.0 395 0.03 0.05 0.23 24.8 1.00 0.3 25.1 C

NA 4

pm+pt 1 6 56.4 56.4 0.56 5.0 3.0 771 c0.07 c0.14 0.38 11.6 1.00 0.3 11.9 B

NA 6

Perm

2 32.9 32.9 0.33 6.0 3.0 430

15.2 15.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 252 0.06

0.38 38.2 1.00 1.0 39.2 D 39.1 D

0.64 29.3 1.00 2.6 31.9 C 30.8 C

24.2 0.53 100.1 57.3% 15

0.95 31 0 0 2%

0.95 339 0 0 3%

0.01 0.03 36.2 1.00 0.1 36.3 D

0.95 8 0 0 2% 0

8 15.2 15.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 117

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Parking (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

31.7 31.7 0.32 6.0 3.0 515 c0.20

0.00 0.00 22.6 1.00 0.0 22.6 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NA 2

32.9 32.9 0.33 6.0 3.0 573 0.03 0.08 23.2 1.00 0.3 23.5 C 23.5 C

0.95 3 0 0 2%

56.4 56.4 0.56 6.0 3.0 1046 0.05 0.09 10.0 1.00 0.2 10.2 B 11.5 B

C 22.0 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 20

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

1 2 4 6 7 8 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None Max None Max None None 31 31 48 62 23 25 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 31 31 32 32 23 21 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 18 25 15 25 15 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 18 7 8 8 8 8 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 31 62 0 62 85 31 62 0 62 85 0 26 56 104 56 80 104 26 48 96 48 80 96 79 0 31 79 31 54 105 25 73 25 49 73 105 17 65 17 49 65 110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110

Splits and Phases:

16: William Street North & Wellington Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 21

Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBL 4 0.03 38.8 0.0 38.8 0.7 3.8 50.0 150 0 0 0 0.03

EBT 99 0.38 43.3 0.0 43.3 17.6 33.5 648.3 323 0 0 0 0.31

WBL 91 0.21 24.6 0.0 24.6 12.4 23.5 60.0 456 0 0 0 0.20

WBT 445 0.72 25.1 0.0 25.1 46.8 81.3 112.7 792 0 0 0 0.56

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

NBL 1 0.00 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.1 1.4 50.0 434 0 0 0 0.00

NBT 68 0.11 16.5 0.0 16.5 5.1 15.2 118.6 599 0 0 0 0.11

SBL 295 0.37 13.3 0.0 13.3 29.8 46.5 30.0 840 0 0 0 0.35

SBT 95 0.09 11.3 0.0 11.3 8.5 16.3 52.7 1057 0 0 0 0.09

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 19

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

128 128 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 688 0.89 144 0 144 2% Perm

233 233 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.89 262 8 292 8% NA 4

34 34 1900

154 154 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.45 844 0.89 173 0 173 3% pm+pt 3 4 24.5 24.5 0.37 2.0 3.0 406 c0.04 0.11 0.43 14.9 1.00 0.7 15.6 B

297 297 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1787 1.00 1787 0.89 334 3 349 6% NA 4

16 16 1900

53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.68 1274 0.89 60 0 60 2% Perm

79 79 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1678 1.00 1678 0.89 89 53 134 6% NA 2

87 87 1900

5 5 1900

0.89 98 0 0 5%

0.89 6 0 0 2% Perm

107 107 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 0.99 1825 0.89 120 0 126 4% NA 2

159 159 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 179 103 76 2% Perm

17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 472 0.20

17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 464 0.17

0.89 18 0 0 19%

2 28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 537

c0.21 0.80 22.8 1.00 21.0 43.8 D

0.89 38 0 0 2%

4 17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 181

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.63 21.6 1.00 2.7 24.3 C 30.6 C

Existing Traffic 2023

21.8 0.42 66.6 59.9% 15

0.74 22.4 1.00 6.0 28.4 C 24.2 C

0.05 0.11 11.7 1.00 0.4 12.1 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 707 c0.08

28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 770 0.07 0.16 12.0 1.00 0.5 12.4 B 12.2 B

0.19 12.1 1.00 0.6 12.7 B 12.5 B

2 28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 675 0.05 0.11 11.7 1.00 0.3 12.0 B

C 14.0 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 23

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70

EGIS

3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58

Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18

17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Splits and Phases:

2 NBSB

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 24

Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBL 144 0.80 54.8 0.0 54.8 16.5 #41.8 180.0 227 0 0 0 0.63

EBT 300 0.64 27.3 0.0 27.3 31.5 53.1 138.6 589 0 0 0 0.51

WBL 173 0.38 13.1 0.0 13.1 12.1 22.1 20.0 460 0 0 0 0.38

AM Peak Hour

WBT 352 0.74 32.3 0.0 32.3 39.3 64.1 145.1

NBL 60 0.11 14.0 0.0 14.0 4.5 11.7

NBT 187 0.25 8.4 0.0 8.4 7.3 19.5 388.0

SBT 126 0.16 14.0 0.0 14.0 9.8 20.5 574.8

594 0 0 0 0.59

536 0 0 0 0.11

759 0 0 0 0.25

768 0 0 0 0.16

30.0 777 0 0 0 0.23

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

SBR 179 0.23 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 10.1

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 22

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

122 122 1900

71 71 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.97 1646 0.66 1114 0.91 78 11 247 6% NA 4

42 42 1900

9 9 1900

79 79 1900

0.91 46 0 0 5%

0.91 10 0 0 33% Perm

136 136 1900 6.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1736 0.98 1706 0.91 149 27 219 4% NA 8

28 28 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.67 1230 0.91 31 0 31 4% Perm

198 198 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.91 218 0 218 12% NA 2

10 10 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 1.00 1484 0.91 11 5 6 10% Perm

29 29 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.62 1048 0.91 32 0 32 14% Perm

130 130 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1642 0.91 143 0 143 17% NA 6

97 97 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.91 107 48 59 15% Perm

2 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 812

6 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 573

0.00 0.01 7.5 1.00 0.0 7.6 A

0.03 0.06 7.7 1.00 0.2 7.9 A

c0.22 0.83 25.3 1.00 17.1 42.3 D 42.3 D

19.7 19.7 0.27 6.5 3.0 457

2 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 673

19.7 19.7 0.27 6.5 3.0 298

0.91 87 0 0 4%

0.91 134 0 0 16% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

20.4 0.43 73.4 66.3% 15

0.13 0.48 22.5 1.00 0.8 23.3 C 23.3 C

0.03 0.05 7.7 1.00 0.1 7.8 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 939 c0.13 0.23 8.6 1.00 0.6 9.2 A 9.0 A

40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 899 0.09 0.16 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.6 A 8.3 A

6 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 777 0.04 0.08 7.8 1.00 0.2 8.0 A

C 13.5 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 26

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

Max None Max None 47 31.5 47 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 2 2.5 2 20 10 20 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 16 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 0 47 47 0 47 0 40 72 40 72 24 61 24 61 0 47 0 47 40 72 40 72 24 61 24 61

19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 27

Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT 258 0.83 46.9 0.0 46.9 31.5 #64.7 544.5

WBT 246 0.51 22.7 0.0 22.7 24.0 43.5 206.8

391 0 0 0 0.66

607 0 0 0 0.41

NBL 31 0.05 9.6 0.0 9.6 1.9 6.2 75.0 672 0 0 0 0.05

NBT 218 0.23 10.5 0.0 10.5 15.2 29.5 173.0 938 0 0 0 0.23

SBL 32 0.06 9.8 0.0 9.8 2.0 6.4

50.0 834 0 0 0 0.01

130.0 573 0 0 0 0.06

SBT 143 0.16 10.1 0.0 10.1 9.5 20.1 418.3 898 0 0 0 0.16

SBR 107 0.13 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.9 100.0 825 0 0 0 0.13

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

NBR 11 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 25

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

44 44 1900

100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1760 0.81 1447 0.78 128 6 196 5% NA 4

14 14 1900

89 89 1900

59 59 1900

292 292 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1720 1.00 1720 0.78 374 20 521 5% NA 2

71 71 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.37 681 0.78 91 0 91 5% Perm

235 235 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1663 1.00 1663 0.78 301 8 347 8% NA 6

42 42 1900

0.78 114 0 0 2% Perm

41 41 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 987 0.78 53 0 53 2% Perm

130 130 1900

0.78 18 0 0 11%

108 108 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1789 0.81 1468 0.78 138 17 311 2% NA 8

0.14 0.49 19.3 1.00 0.9 20.2 C 20.2 C

17.8 17.8 0.28 5.5 3.0 408

2 35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 542

17.8 17.8 0.28 5.5 3.0 402

0.78 76 0 0 3%

15.6 0.62 64.0 88.8% 15

0.78 167 0 0 10%

0.78 56 0 0 8% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

c0.21 0.76 21.2 1.00 8.2 29.3 C 29.3 C

0.05 0.10 6.8 1.00 0.4 7.2 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 374

35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 946 c0.30

0.13 0.24 7.5 1.00 1.5 9.0 A

0.55 9.3 1.00 2.3 11.6 B 11.2 B

0.78 54 0 0 40%

35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 914 0.21 0.38 8.2 1.00 1.2 9.4 A 9.3 A

B 11.0 E

Synchro 11 Report Page 29

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

8 WBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75

6 SBTL

Max None Max None 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 34.6 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 15 25 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5

EGIS

4 EBTL

AM Peak Hour

23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 30

Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBT 202 0.50 22.6 0.0 22.6 18.9 29.3 158.8

WBT 328 0.77 32.4 0.0 32.4 32.7 46.6 158.6

NBL 53 0.10 9.2 0.0 9.2 2.7 7.7

NBT 541 0.56 12.5 0.0 12.5 34.6 58.2 321.6

572 0 0 0 0.35

590 0 0 0 0.56

542 0 0 0 0.10

965 0 0 0 0.56

SBL 91 0.24 11.5 0.0 11.5 5.2 13.0 50.0 374 0 0 0 0.24

SBT 355 0.39 10.5 0.0 10.5 20.8 37.1 760.4 921 0 0 0 0.39

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 28

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

76 76 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.74 1252 0.89 85 0 85 14% Perm

8 8 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1595 1.00 1595 0.89 9 103 24 12% NA 4

105 105 1900

4 4 1900

3 3 1900

275 275 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.89 309 1 324 5% NA 2

3 3 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1372 0.56 815 0.89 3 0 3 33% Perm

184 184 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1746 1.00 1746 0.89 207 14 302 5% NA 6

97 97 1900

0.89 4 0 0 25% Perm

148 148 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.57 1061 0.89 166 0 166 3% Perm

14 14 1900

0.89 118 0 0 3%

13 13 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.99 1695 0.93 1595 0.89 15 3 19 8% NA 8

0.12 27.4 1.00 0.3 27.7 C 29.5 C

9.3 0.29 71.0 81.7% 15

0.89 16 0 0 7%

9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 204

0.89 3 0 0 2%

2 51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 775

c0.07 0.53 29.0 1.00 3.4 32.3 C

8 9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 204 0.02

4 9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 160

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.01 0.10 27.3 1.00 0.2 27.5 C 27.5 C

0.16 0.21 3.0 1.00 0.6 3.7 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 595

51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 1326 c0.18

0.00 0.01 2.6 1.00 0.0 2.6 A

0.24 3.1 1.00 0.4 3.6 A 3.6 A

0.89 109 0 0 3%

51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 1276 0.17 0.24 3.1 1.00 0.4 3.5 A 3.5 A

A 10.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 32

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 40.5 0 35.5 66 35.5 66 25.5 56 25.5 56 0 40.5 0 40.5 35.5 66 35.5 66 25.5 56 25.5 56

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

Synchro 11 Report Page 33

Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBL 85 0.45 34.5 0.0 34.5 10.6 21.1 30.0 449 0 0 0 0.19

EBT 127 0.37 9.8 0.0 9.8 1.1 12.9 1201.3

WBT 22 0.09 22.8 0.0 22.8 2.2 7.3 482.8

648 0 0 0 0.20

575 0 0 0 0.04

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

NBL 166 0.21 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.9 15.4 50.0 805 0 0 0 0.21

NBT 325 0.24 4.3 0.0 4.3 11.7 25.5 440.8 1379 0 0 0 0.24

SBL 3 0.00 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.8 35.0 619 0 0 0 0.00

SBT 316 0.24 3.8 0.0 3.8 9.3 21.7 214.1 1339 0 0 0 0.24

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 31

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

4 4

2 2 Stop 0% 0.90 2

113 113

5 5

1 1

116 116

1 1

0.90 1

0.90 129

0.90 8

0.90 1

54 54 Free 0% 0.90 60

5 5

0.90 6

44 44 Free 0% 0.90 49

7 7

0.90 126

4 4 Stop 0% 0.90 4

0.90 4

0.90 6

13 None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

377

379

379 7.1

380 6.5

63 6.2

377 7.1

379 6.5

3.5 99 537

4.0 100 505

3.3 87 996

3.5 99 472

4.0 99 506

EB 1 132 4 126 1043 0.13 3.3 9.3 A 9.3 A

WB 1 11 6 1 509 0.02 0.5 12.2 B 12.2 B

NB 1 186 129 8 1511 0.09 2.1 5.5 A 5.5

SB 1 67 1 6 1547 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1

53 6.2

66 4.2

57 4.1

3.3 100 1014

2.3 91 1511

2.2 100 1547

380

None

379

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

6.0 27.3% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

67 67

127 127 Free 0% 0.96 132

1 1

30 30

1 1

2 2

3 3

0.96 1

0.96 2

0.96 57

0.96 3

31 31 Stop 0% 0.96 32

52 52

0.96 31

51 51 Stop 0% 0.96 53

55 55

0.96 1

130 130 Free 0% 0.96 135

0.96 54

540

470

132

554

470

136

540 7.1

470 6.5

132 6.2

554 7.1

470 6.5

136 6.3

3.5 99 382

4.0 88 457

3.3 94 911

3.5 99 359

4.0 93 456

3.4 94 892

0.96 70

None

133

136 4.1

133 4.1

136

2.2 95 1448

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 167 31 1 1446 0.02 0.5 1.5 A 1.5

NB 1 112 2 57 610 0.18 5.1 12.2 B 12.2 B

SB 1 89 3 54 640 0.14 3.7 11.5 B 11.5 B

EB 1 203 70 1 1448 0.05 1.2 2.9 A 2.9

2.2 98 1446

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

5.7 31.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

4 4

6 6 Stop 0% 0.83 7

29 29

57 57

66 66

19 19

58 58

0.83 80

0.83 23

0.83 36

0.83 70

204 204 Free 0% 0.83 246

5 5

0.83 69

116 116 Free 0% 0.83 140

30 30

0.83 35

3 3 Stop 0% 0.83 4

0.83 5

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

249

632

596

675 7.1

611 6.5

249 6.2

632 7.1

596 6.5

3.5 98 315

4.0 98 381

3.3 96 790

3.5 80 352

4.0 99 389

EB 1 47 5 35 598 0.08 1.9 11.5 B 11.5 B

WB 1 153 69 80 515 0.30 9.4 14.9 B 14.9 B

NB 1 199 23 36 1313 0.02 0.4 1.0 A 1.0

SB 1 322 70 6 1382 0.05 1.2 2.0 A 2.0

158

252

176

158 6.2

252 4.1

176 4.1

3.3 91 882

2.2 98 1313

2.2 95 1382

611

0.83 6

None

675

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.1 45.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

1 1 Stop 0% 0.79 1

80 80

66 66 0.79 84

32 32 Free 0% 0.79 41

4 4

0.79 101

13 13 Free 0% 0.79 16

None

228 6.4

44 6.2

46 4.1

3.5 100 720

3.3 90 1027

2.2 95 1555

EB 1 102 1 101 1022 0.10 2.5 8.9 A 8.9 A

NB 1 100 84 0 1555 0.05 1.3 6.3 A 6.3

SB 1 46 0 5 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0

228

0.79 5

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

6.2 22.7% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1

5 5 Stop 0% 0.88 6

108 108

9 9

0 0

184 184

1 1

0.88 0

0.88 209

0.88 7

0.88 1

173 173 Free 0% 0.88 197

16 16

0.88 10

112 112 Free 0% 0.88 127

6 6

0.88 123

10 10 Stop 0% 0.88 11

0.88 1

None

0.88 18

None

382

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

206

882

766

762 7.1

760 6.5

206 6.2

882 7.2

766 6.5

3.5 100 275

4.0 98 284

3.3 85 829

3.6 95 190

4.0 96 282

EB 1 130 1 123 751 0.17 4.7 10.8 B 10.8 B

WB 1 21 10 0 229 0.09 2.3 22.3 C 22.3 C

NB 1 343 209 7 1355 0.15 4.1 5.5 A 5.5

SB 1 216 1 18 1451 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0

130

215

134

130 6.2

215 4.1

134 4.1

3.3 100 919

2.2 85 1355

2.2 100 1451

760

762

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.3 43.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

113 113

78 78 Free 0% 0.89 88

1 1

3 3

9 9

3 3

5 5

0.89 10

0.89 3

0.89 4

0.89 6

19 19 Stop 0% 0.89 21

96 96

0.89 3

37 37 Stop 0% 0.89 42

4 4

0.89 1

136 136 Free 0% 0.89 153

0.89 108

625

512

532

507

158

625 7.1

512 6.6

88 6.5

532 7.5

507 6.5

158 6.3

3.5 99 311

4.1 90 414

3.5 100 910

3.9 98 345

4.0 95 420

3.4 88 867

0.89 127

None

163 4.2

89 4.1

163

2.3 91 1374

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 166 3 10 1506 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1

NB 1 49 3 4 424 0.12 3.0 14.6 B 14.6 B

SB 1 135 6 108 703 0.19 5.4 11.3 B 11.3 B

EB 1 216 127 1 1374 0.09 2.3 5.0 A 5.0

2.2 100 1506

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

5.9 36.7% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

46 46

4 4 Stop 0% 0.93 4

19 19

4 4

3 3

17 17

2 2

0.93 3

0.93 18

0.93 3

0.93 2

242 242 Free 0% 0.93 260

125 125

0.93 4

287 287 Free 0% 0.93 309

3 3

0.93 20

1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1

0.93 49

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

327

700

744

681 7.2

679 6.5

327 6.3

700 7.3

744 6.5

3.6 86 348

4.0 99 367

3.4 97 696

3.7 99 309

4.0 100 337

EB 1 73 49 20 405 0.18 4.9 15.8 C 15.8 C

WB 1 8 4 3 400 0.02 0.5 14.2 B 14.2 B

NB 1 330 18 3 1143 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6

SB 1 396 2 134 1248 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1

310

394

312

310 6.2

394 4.2

312 4.1

3.3 100 730

2.3 98 1143

2.2 100 1248

679

0.93 134

None

681

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

1.8 39.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

2 2

14 14 Stop 0% 0.88 16

4 4

33 33

8 8

0 0

1 1

0.88 9

0.88 0

0.88 2

0.88 1

46 46 Free 0% 0.88 52

0 0

0.88 38

64 64 Free 0% 0.88 73

2 2

0.88 5

0 0 Stop 0% 0.88 0

0.88 2

None

0.88 0

None 387

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

141

128

137 7.1

129 6.6

52 6.2

141 7.1

128 6.5

3.5 100 826

4.1 98 752

3.3 100 1016

3.5 95 809

4.0 100 762

EB 1 23 2 5 804 0.03 0.7 9.6 A 9.6 A

WB 1 47 38 9 838 0.06 1.4 9.6 A 9.6 A

NB 1 75 0 2 1554 0.00 0.0 0.0

SB 1 53 1 0 1524 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1

74 6.2

52 4.1

75 4.1

3.3 99 988

2.2 100 1554

2.2 100 1524

129

137

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

3.4 19.1% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

17 17

247 247 Free 0% 0.83 298

20 20

9 9

6 6

24 24

5 5

0.83 7

0.83 29

0.83 11

0.83 6

8 8 Stop 0% 0.83 10

16 16

0.83 11

17 17 Stop 0% 0.83 20

9 9

0.83 24

269 269 Free 0% 0.83 324

0.83 19

724

703

310

720

712

328

724 7.1

703 6.5

310 6.2

720 7.1

712 6.5

328 6.2

3.5 91 319

4.0 94 353

3.3 98 730

3.5 98 317

4.0 97 349

3.3 97 714

0.83 20

None

322

331 4.1

322 4.1

331

2.2 98 1228

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 342 11 7 1238 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3

NB 1 60 29 11 369 0.16 4.4 16.7 C 16.7 C

SB 1 35 6 19 472 0.07 1.8 13.2 B 13.2 B

EB 1 342 20 24 1228 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6

2.2 99 1238

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

2.3 34.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

2 2 Stop 0% 0.95 2

22 22

24 24 0.95 25

301 301 Free 0% 0.95 317

3 3

0.95 23

166 166 Free 0% 0.95 175

None

320

542 6.9

317 6.3

320 4.1

4.0 100 419

3.4 97 697

2.2 98 1229

EB 1 25 2 23 661 0.04 0.9 10.7 B 10.7 B

NB 1 25 25 0 1229 0.02 0.5 8.0 A 1.0

NB 2 175 0 0 1700 0.10 0.0 0.0

317

0.95 3

542

SB 1 317 0 0 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.9 29.9% 15

SB 2 3 0 3 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

3 3

42 42 Stop 0% 0.92 46

7 7

23 23

100 100

12 12

106 106

0.92 109

0.92 13

0.92 36

0.92 115

212 212 Free 0% 0.92 230

4 4

0.92 25

209 209 Free 0% 0.92 227

33 33

0.92 8

16 16 Stop 0% 0.92 17

0.92 3

None

0.92 4

None 197

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

232

762

735

245

234

263

832 7.1

751 6.5

232 6.2

762 7.1

735 6.5

245 6.2

234 4.1

263 4.1

3.5 99 221

4.0 85 307

3.3 99 807

3.5 90 261

4.0 95 313

3.3 86 794

2.2 99 1333

2.2 91 1301

EB 1 57 3 8 328 0.17 4.7 18.2 C 18.2 C

WB 1 151 25 109 526 0.29 9.0 14.6 B 14.6 B

NB 1 13 13 0 1333 0.01 0.2 7.7 A 0.4

NB 2 263 0 36 1700 0.15 0.0 0.0

SB 1 115 115 0 1301 0.09 2.2 8.0 A 2.6

SB 2 234 0 4 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0

751

832

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.1 43.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

15 15 Stop 0% 0.90 17

6 6

9 9 0.90 10

195 195 Free 0% 0.90 217

19 19

0.90 7

204 204 Free 0% 0.90 227

None

238

474 6.4

228 6.2

238 4.3

3.5 97 544

3.3 99 812

2.4 99 1220

EB 1 24 17 7 602 0.04 0.9 11.2 B 11.2 B

NB 1 237 10 0 1220 0.01 0.2 0.4 A 0.4

SB 1 238 0 21 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0

228

474

0.90 21

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

0.7 28.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

49 49 Stop 0% 0.90 54

93 93

358 358 Free 0% 0.90 398

40 40

43 43

0.90 44

0.90 48

220 220 Free 0% 0.90 244

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

4 None

420

442

760 6.4

420 6.2

442 4.1

3.5 85 358

3.3 84 629

WB 1 157 54 103 959 0.16 4.4 13.6 B 13.6 B

NB 1 442 0 44 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0

760

None

2.2 96 1118

SB 1 292 48 0 1118 0.04 1.0 1.7 A 1.7

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

0.90 103

0.0

3.0 48.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 13

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1

27 27 Stop 0% 0.71 38

15 15

7 7

2 2

7 7

3 3

0.71 3

0.71 10

0.71 4

34 34 Free 0% 0.71 48

4 4

0.71 10

34 34 Free 0% 0.71 48

7 7

0.71 21

22 22 Stop 0% 0.71 31

0.71 1

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

172

135

150 7.1

137 6.5

51 6.2

172 7.1

135 6.5

3.5 100 784

4.0 95 747

3.3 98 1017

3.5 99 740

4.0 96 749

EB 1 60 1 21 824 0.07 1.8 9.7 A 9.7 A

WB 1 44 10 3 760 0.06 1.4 10.0 B 10.0 B

NB 1 68 10 10 1551 0.01 0.1 1.1 A 1.1

SB 1 58 4 6 1546 0.00 0.1 0.5 A 0.5

53 6.2

54 4.1

58 4.1

3.3 100 1014

2.2 99 1551

2.2 100 1546

137

0.71 6

None

150

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

4.9 16.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

7.8 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

8 8 0.80 2 10 0

98 98 0.80 3 123 1

4 4 0.80 2 5 0

2 2 0.80 2 3 0

86 86 0.80 4 108 1

10 10 0.80 10 13 0

5 5 0.80 2 6 0

5 5 0.80 2 6 1

3 3 0.80 2 4 0

17 17 0.80 2 21 0

5 5 0.80 2 6 1

6 6 0.80 2 8 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 7.9 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.6 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 7.7 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 38% 7% 2% 61% 38% 89% 88% 18% 23% 4% 10% 21% Stop Stop Stop Stop 13 110 98 28 5 8 2 17 5 98 86 5 3 4 10 6 16 138 122 35 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.157 0.138 0.044 4.478 4.108 4.069 4.51 Yes Yes Yes Yes 804 865 872 799 2.479 2.17 2.137 2.51 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.044 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.7 A A A A 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1

Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 7.8 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

56 56 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.73 1281 0.94 60 0 60 9% Perm

33 33 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1755 1.00 1755 0.94 35 21 43 2% NA 4

27 27 1900

7 7 1900

0.94 29 0 0 2%

0.94 7 0 0 2% Perm

37 37 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1824 0.96 1772 0.94 39 0 46 5% NA 8

121 121 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 129 93 36 2% Perm

35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.46 855 0.94 37 0 37 3% Perm

534 534 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 568 0 568 3% NA 2

13 13 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 14 6 8 2% Perm

114 114 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.35 649 0.94 121 0 121 4% Perm

404 404 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 430 0 430 5% NA 6

60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 64 28 36 15% Perm

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 479

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 364

0.02 0.08 23.6 1.00 0.1 23.7 C

0.04 0.08 9.0 1.00 0.3 9.3 A

0.00 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.6 A

0.19 0.33 10.5 1.00 0.9 11.5 B

25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 497

c0.05 0.17 24.2 1.00 1.0 25.2 C

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 492 0.02

4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 359

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

0.09 23.6 1.00 0.4 24.0 C 24.6 C

Existing Traffic 2023

14.9 0.42 89.1 72.1% 15

0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C 23.7 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.30 0.54 12.3 1.00 2.0 14.4 B 13.9 B

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.24 0.42 11.2 1.00 0.5 11.7 B 11.4 B

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.8 A

B 14.1 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBL 60 0.17 25.8 0.0 25.8 7.7 17.3 150.0 359 0 0 0 0.17

EBT WBT 64 46 0.12 0.09 15.9 24.4 0.0 0.0 15.9 24.4 4.4 5.8 13.6 13.7 1366.5 1368.7 513 0 0 0 0.12

496 0 0 0 0.09

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

WBR 129 0.24 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 12.3

NBL 37 0.08 9.6 0.0 9.6 2.7 7.1

170.0 542 0 0 0 0.24

250.0 479 0 0 0 0.08

NBT 568 0.54 14.8 0.0 14.8 57.1 84.8 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.54

NBR 14 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SBL 121 0.33 13.8 0.0 13.8 10.4 22.1

135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02

200.0 363 0 0 0 0.33

SBT 430 0.42 12.8 0.0 12.8 39.4 59.7 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.42

SBR 64 0.08 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.1 200.0 824 0 0 0 0.08

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

SEL

SET

SER

NWL

NWT

NWR

0 0 1900

84 84 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1870 1.00 1870 0.93 90 2 93 2% NA 4

5 5 1900

155 155 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.70 1193 0.93 167 0 167 12% Perm

120 120 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 129 0 129 2% NA 8

219 219 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 235 188 47 3% Perm

166 166 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.63 1187 0.93 178 0 178 2% Perm

199 199 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 214 0 214 11% NA 2

0 0 1900

7 7 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1176 0.93 8 0 8 2% Perm

189 189 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 203 0 203 7% NA 6

96 96 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 103 35 68 11% Perm

8 19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 315

2 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 779

0.03 0.15 31.7 1.00 0.2 31.9 C

c0.15 0.23 6.6 1.00 0.7 7.3 A

0.93 5 0 0 2%

8 19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 237

19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 375 0.07

19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 372 0.05

c0.14 0.70 35.8 1.00 9.2 44.9 D

R 0.25 32.4 1.00 0.4 32.7 C 32.7 C

20.4 0.34 95.9 65.8% 15

0.34 33.0 1.00 0.6 33.6 C 36.4 D

0.93 0 0 0 2%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

NBL

Existing Traffic 2023

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 772

63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 1137 0.12

0.01 0.01 5.7 1.00 0.0 5.7 A

0.19 6.4 1.00 0.4 6.8 A 7.0 A

63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 1179 0.11 0.17 6.4 1.00 0.3 6.7 A 6.5 A

6 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 966 0.05 0.07 5.9 1.00 0.1 6.1 A

C 13.8 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

4 6 NBTL NWTL

8 SBTL

C-Max None C-Max None 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 38.9 39 38.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1 1 1 20 10 20 10 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 25 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 57 0 57 0 50.1 89 50.1 89 25.1 73 25.1 73 0 57 0 57 50.1 89 50.1 89 25.1 73 25.1 73

2 SETL

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT 95 0.25 30.8 0.0 30.8 14.5 24.8 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.15

SBL 167 0.71 50.8 0.0 50.8 29.1 45.3

SBT 129 0.34 33.7 0.0 33.7 20.8 32.6 249.9

100.0 397 0 0 0 0.42

628 0 0 0 0.21

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

SBR 235 0.47 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 16.5

SEL 178 0.23 8.9 0.0 8.9 11.8 27.6

100.0 685 0 0 0 0.34

200.0 780 0 0 0 0.23

SET 214 0.19 8.1 0.0 8.1 13.7 29.9 374.7 1137 0 0 0 0.19

NWL 8 0.01 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.5 2.5 200.0 772 0 0 0 0.01

NWT 203 0.17 8.0 0.0 8.0 12.9 28.2 359.2 1180 0 0 0 0.17

NWR 103 0.10 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 6.5 100.0 1002 0 0 0 0.10

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

26 26 1900

318 318 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1809 0.96 1742 0.96 331 6 386 5% NA 2

33 33 1900

9 9 1900

12 12 1900

27 27 1900

8 8 1900

0.96 12 0 0 2%

0.96 28 0 0 4% Perm

0.96 16 0 0 2%

0.96 8 0 0 2% Perm

42 42 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1778 0.98 1754 0.96 44 17 67 2% NA 4

31 31 1900

0.96 9 0 0 2% Perm

42 42 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.92 1678 0.96 44 8 80 2% NA 8

15 15 1900

0.96 34 0 0 3%

309 309 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 0.98 1828 0.96 322 3 341 3% NA 6

0.96 27 0 0 2% Perm 2

c0.22 0.71 16.0 1.00 4.2 20.2 C 20.2 C

16.5 16.5 0.31 6.0 3.0 572

16.5 16.5 0.31 6.0 3.0 545

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

16.6 0.34 52.7 50.9% 15

0.19 0.60 15.3 1.00 1.7 17.0 B 17.0 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.96 32 0 0 2%

25.2 25.2 0.48 5.0 3.0 802

25.2 25.2 0.48 5.0 3.0 838

c0.05 0.10 7.5 1.00 0.2 7.8 A 7.8 A

0.04 0.08 7.5 1.00 0.2 7.6 A 7.6 A B 11.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

6 WBTL

EGIS

4 SBTL

PM Peak Hour

8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 EBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

EBT 392 0.71 23.2 0.0 23.2 31.2 54.1 123.3

WBT 344 0.60 19.6 0.0 19.6 26.5 45.8 258.1

NBT 88 0.11 8.4 0.0 8.4 3.4 11.7 366.5

SBT 84 0.10 6.9 0.0 6.9 2.4 10.0 390.1

1167 0 0 0 0.34

1222 0 0 0 0.28

809 0 0 0 0.11

854 0 0 0 0.10

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

26 26 1900

304 304 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1857 0.96 1780 0.94 323 2 372

22 22 1900

7 7 1900

10 10 1900

50 50 1900

4 4 1900

0.94 11 0 0 2

0.94 53 0 0 7 Perm

0.94 13 0 0 3

0.94 4 0 0 3 Perm

37 37 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1785 0.99 1768 0.94 39 10 50

16 16 1900

0.94 7 0 0 6 Perm

74 74 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 1811 0.88 1628 0.94 79 3 142

12 12 1900

0.94 23 0 0 6

310 310 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1872 0.99 1858 0.94 330 1 347

NA 6

NA 2

NA 8

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 783

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 817

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 716

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 777

c0.21 0.47 19.8 1.00 2.1 21.9 C 21.9 C

0.19 0.42 19.3 1.00 1.6 20.9 C 20.9 C

c0.09 0.20 17.2 1.00 0.6 17.8 B 17.8 B

0.03 0.06 16.1 1.00 0.2 16.3 B 16.3 B

20.5 0.34 100.0 55.9% 15

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.94 17 0 0 7

NA 4

0.94 28 0 0 2 Perm

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

C 12.0 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55

6 EBTL

EGIS

4 SBTL

PM Peak Hour

9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 WBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

EBT 374 0.48 22.1 0.0 22.1 49.4 74.6 258.1

WBT 348 0.42 21.2 0.0 21.2 44.9 67.8 647.5

NBT 145 0.20 17.4 0.0 17.4 16.0 28.6 153.3

SBT 60 0.08 12.9 0.0 12.9 4.7 11.8 103.2

785 0 0 0 0.48

819 0 0 0 0.42

719 0 0 0 0.20

787 0 0 0 0.08

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

151 151 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 411 0.89 170 0 170 2% pm+pt 5 2 38.8 38.8 0.50 5.0 3.0 395 c0.06 0.16 0.43 11.4 1.00 0.8 12.1 B

603 603 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 678 2 691 2% NA 2

13 13 1900

134 134 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.29 545 0.89 151 0 151 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.4 38.4 0.50 5.0 3.0 438 0.05 0.13 0.34 10.9 1.00 0.5 11.4 B

554 554 1900 5.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3427 1.00 3427 0.89 622 33 779 3% NA 6

169 169 1900

109 109 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 971 0.89 122 0 122 2% Perm

117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1710 1.00 1710 0.89 131 33 198 2% NA 4

89 89 1900

234 234 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1014 0.89 263 0 263 2% Perm

95 95 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 107 56 190 2% NA 8

124 124 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

28.1 28.1 0.37 5.0 3.0 1252 c0.23

4 23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 294

28.3 28.3 0.37 5.0 3.0 1312 0.19

0.89 190 0 0 2%

0.53 19.1 1.00 1.5 20.6 C 18.9 B

22.3 0.68 76.9 73.8% 15

0.89 100 0 0 9%

0.89 15 0 0 2%

Existing Traffic 2023

0.62 20.0 1.00 1.0 21.0 C 19.5 B

0.13 0.41 21.4 1.00 1.0 22.3 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

8 23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 307

23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 518 0.12

c0.26 0.86 25.2 1.00 20.3 45.5 D

0.38 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.6 C 21.9 C

0.89 139 0 0 3%

23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 519 0.11 0.37 21.0 1.00 0.4 21.4 C 33.9 C

C 15.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EGIS

83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75

Splits and Phases:

1 2 4 5 6 8 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None Max None None None None 20 33 30 20 33 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 26 15 33 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 28 15 10 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 10 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 20 53 0 20 53 20 53 0 20 53 0 15 48 78 15 48 78 15 38 68 15 38 68 63 0 33 63 0 33 78 28 58 78 28 58 78 18 48 78 18 48

13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 15

Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBL 170 0.43 12.3 0.0 12.3 11.5 20.2 70.0 500 0 0 0 0.34

EBT 693 0.53 21.2 0.0 21.2 41.8 58.2 368.2 1313 0 0 0 0.53

WBL 151 0.35 11.0 0.0 11.0 10.1 18.2 120.0 548 0 0 0 0.28

PM Peak Hour

WBT 812 0.63 21.9 0.0 21.9 48.3 68.3 68.4

NBL 122 0.41 26.4 0.0 26.4 13.9 29.0

NBT 231 0.42 19.4 0.0 19.4 20.5 39.6 306.6

1283 0 0 0 0.63

316 0 0 0 0.39

588 0 0 0 0.39

30.0 329 0 0 0 0.80

SBT 246 0.43 16.6 0.0 16.6 18.1 37.3 418.3 612 0 0 0 0.40

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

SBL 263 0.86 52.8 0.0 52.8 35.2 #75.5

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 13

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

248 248 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 261 0 261 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.47 5.0 3.0 264 c0.11 c0.36 0.99 31.5 1.00 51.7 83.2 F

584 584 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 615 0 615 2% NA 6

305 305 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 321 166 155 2% Perm

52 52 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.13 233 0.95 55 0 55 6% pm+pt 5 2 41.8 41.8 0.38 5.0 3.0 179 0.02 0.10 0.31 24.7 1.00 1.0 25.7 C

595 595 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 626 0 626 2% NA 2

72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 76 52 24 2% Perm

197 197 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 419 0.95 207 0 207 2% pm+pt 3 8 44.3 44.3 0.40 5.0 3.0 337 c0.08 0.17 0.61 24.0 1.00 3.3 27.3 C

151 151 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.95 159 6 189 3% NA 8

34 34 1900

103 103 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.64 1185 0.95 108 0 108 3% pm+pt 7 4 36.9 36.9 0.34 5.0 3.0 451 0.02 0.06 0.24 25.7 1.00 0.3 26.0 C

156 156 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1713 1.00 1713 0.95 164 38 321 3% NA 4

185 185 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

2 35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 512

0.10 0.26 24.2 1.00 1.1 25.3 C

R 0.89 32.5 1.00 15.6 48.2 D 49.7 D

35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 602 0.33

52.8 0.89 109.7 93.8% 15

1.04 37.3 1.00 47.4 84.7 F 74.5 E

0.95 36 0 0 3%

6 40.4 40.4 0.37 6.0 3.0 589

40.4 40.4 0.37 6.0 3.0 693 0.33

Existing Traffic 2023

0.02 0.05 25.8 1.00 0.2 25.9 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

30.8 30.8 0.28 6.0 3.0 509 0.10 0.37 31.7 1.00 2.1 33.7 C 30.4 C

0.95 195 0 0 3%

27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 423 c0.19 0.76 38.3 1.00 12.1 50.4 D 44.7 D

D 22.0 F

Synchro 11 Report Page 17

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EGIS

113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95

Splits and Phases:

14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 18

Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBL EBT 261 615 0.98 0.88 81.4 49.2 0.0 0.0 81.4 49.2 40.4 124.6 #98.4 #210.8 607.3 30.0 265 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.98 0.88

EBR 321 0.42 8.1 0.0 8.1 8.4 31.6 760 0 0 0 0.42

WBL WBT 55 626 0.27 1.06 19.9 91.7 0.0 0.0 19.9 91.7 6.1 ~146.4 13.9 #225.0 443.3 65.0 265 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 1.06

WBR 76 0.13 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.3

NBL 207 0.60 27.7 0.0 27.7 27.7 43.9

588 0 0 0 0.13

100.0 406 0 0 0 0.51

NBT 195 0.38 32.4 0.0 32.4 31.4 53.3 278.0 520 0 0 0 0.38

SBL SBT 108 359 0.23 0.77 20.5 45.8 0.0 0.0 20.5 45.8 13.6 61.6 24.3 #110.1 268.1 300.0 587 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.77

Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 16

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.27 475 0.97 10 0 10 10% Perm

125 125 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.97 129 4 141 2% NA 8

16 16 1900

75 75 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 875 0.97 77 0 77 2% pm+pt 7 4 32.9 32.9 0.32 5.0 3.0 387 0.02 0.04 0.20 24.4 1.00 0.3 24.7 C

108 108 1900 6.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1659 1.00 1659 0.97 111 138 401 2% NA 4

415 415 1900

6 6 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1327 0.97 6 0 6 2% Perm

122 122 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 126 14 172 2% NA 2

58 58 1900

281 281 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.52 965 0.97 290 0 290 4% pm+pt 1 6 56.5 56.5 0.56 5.0 3.0 684 c0.08 c0.16 0.42 12.2 1.00 0.4 12.6 B

73 73 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.97 75 2 79 2% NA 6

6 6 1900

32.9 32.9 0.32 6.0 3.0 538 c0.24

0.47 38.6 1.00 1.2 39.8 D 39.6 D

27.9 0.60 101.4 105.4% 15

0.97 60 0 0 2%

16.4 16.4 0.16 6.0 3.0 298 0.08

0.97 428 0 0 2%

2 32.6 32.6 0.32 6.0 3.0 426

0.02 0.13 36.4 1.00 0.8 37.2 D

0.97 16 0 0 6%

8 16.4 16.4 0.16 6.0 3.0 76

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.75 30.5 1.00 5.6 36.1 D 34.7 C

0.00 0.01 23.4 1.00 0.1 23.5 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

32.6 32.6 0.32 6.0 3.0 576 0.10 0.30 25.8 1.00 1.3 27.2 C 27.0 C

0.97 6 0 0 2%

56.5 56.5 0.56 6.0 3.0 1038 0.04 0.08 10.4 1.00 0.1 10.5 B 12.2 B

C 22.0 G

Synchro 11 Report Page 20

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

1 2 4 6 7 8 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None Max None Max None None 31 31 48 62 23 25 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 31 31 32 32 23 21 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 18 25 15 25 15 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 18 7 8 8 8 8 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 31 62 0 62 85 31 62 0 62 85 0 26 56 104 56 80 104 26 48 96 48 80 96 79 0 31 79 31 54 105 25 73 25 49 73 105 17 65 17 49 65 110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110

Splits and Phases:

16: William Street North & Wellington Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 21

Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBL 10 0.13 41.8 0.0 41.8 1.8 6.7 50.0 93 0 0 0 0.11

EBT 145 0.48 43.8 0.0 43.8 26.2 44.9 648.3 366 0 0 0 0.40

WBL 77 0.18 23.6 0.0 23.6 10.4 20.2 60.0 455 0 0 0 0.17

WBT 539 0.81 29.2 0.0 29.2 61.1 101.6 112.7 818 0 0 0 0.66

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

NBL 6 0.01 27.5 0.0 27.5 0.8 4.2 50.0 430 0 0 0 0.01

NBT 186 0.31 26.7 0.0 26.7 24.8 49.1 118.6 595 0 0 0 0.31

SBL 290 0.41 14.6 0.0 14.6 29.4 52.3 30.0 759 0 0 0 0.38

SBT 81 0.08 11.8 0.0 11.8 6.9 15.8 52.7 1051 0 0 0 0.08

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 19

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

123 123 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.51 936 0.91 135 0 135 5% Perm

314 314 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1850 1.00 1850 0.91 345 7 381 2% NA 4

39 39 1900

146 146 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 607 0.91 160 0 160 2% pm+pt 3 4 23.3 23.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 310 c0.04 0.14 0.52 15.5 1.00 1.5 16.9 B

244 244 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.91 268 1 270 2% NA 4

3 3 1900

89 89 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1245 0.91 98 0 98 2% Perm

92 92 1900 6.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1672 1.00 1672 0.91 101 120 236 4% NA 2

232 232 1900

6 6 1900

0.91 255 0 0 2%

0.91 7 0 0 2% Perm

131 131 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1879 0.98 1849 0.91 144 0 151 2% NA 2

232 232 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 255 145 110 3% Perm

18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 513 0.14

18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 506 c0.21

0.91 3 0 0 33%

2 28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 538

0.14 0.53 20.2 1.00 2.0 22.2 C

0.91 43 0 0 3%

4 18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 256

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

0.75 21.8 1.00 6.3 28.1 C 26.6 C

Existing Traffic 2023

18.3 0.49 65.7 78.6% 15

0.53 20.2 1.00 1.0 21.2 C 19.6 B

0.08 0.18 11.5 1.00 0.7 12.2 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 722 c0.14

28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 799 0.08 0.19 11.5 1.00 0.5 12.1 B 11.9 B

0.33 12.3 1.00 1.2 13.5 B 13.3 B

2 28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 685 0.07 0.16 11.4 1.00 0.5 11.9 B

B 14.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 23

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70

EGIS

3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58

Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18

17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Splits and Phases:

2 NBSB

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 24

Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBL 135 0.53 28.8 0.0 28.8 14.3 30.0 180.0 319 0 0 0 0.42

EBT 388 0.75 31.7 0.0 31.7 43.4 71.0 138.6 636 0 0 0 0.61

WBL 160 0.42 14.1 0.0 14.1 11.1 20.7 20.0 382 0 0 0 0.42

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

WBT 271 0.53 24.4 0.0 24.4 28.7 48.8 145.1

NBL 98 0.18 14.9 0.0 14.9 7.8 17.8

NBT 356 0.42 8.0 0.0 8.0 11.7 31.1 388.0

SBT 151 0.19 14.3 0.0 14.3 12.1 24.3 574.8

639 0 0 0 0.42

540 0 0 0 0.18

845 0 0 0 0.42

802 0 0 0 0.19

SBR 255 0.31 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 12.3 30.0 832 0 0 0 0.31

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 22

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

156 156 1900

152 152 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.98 1728 0.79 1387 0.95 160 8 368 5% NA 4

49 49 1900

21 21 1900

16 16 1900

0.95 52 0 0 2%

0.95 22 0 0 24% Perm

133 133 1900 6.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1705 0.93 1597 0.95 140 5 174 9% NA 8

60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.59 1100 0.95 63 0 63 3% Perm

135 135 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 142 0 142 9% NA 2

23 23 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 24 11 13 17% Perm

72 72 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.67 1231 0.95 76 0 76 4% Perm

262 262 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 276 0 276 6% NA 6

142 142 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 149 71 78 6% Perm

2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 731

6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 645

0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.8 A

0.06 0.12 9.2 1.00 0.4 9.6 A

c0.27 0.89 25.6 1.00 19.9 45.4 D 45.4 D

22.9 22.9 0.30 6.5 3.0 478

2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 576

22.9 22.9 0.30 6.5 3.0 415

0.95 17 0 0 6%

0.95 164 0 0 10% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

22.0 0.51 76.5 84.6% 15

0.11 0.36 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.5 C 21.5 C

0.06 0.11 9.2 1.00 0.4 9.6 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 923 0.08 0.15 9.4 1.00 0.4 9.8 A 9.6 A

40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 949 c0.15 0.29 10.2 1.00 0.8 11.0 B 10.3 B

6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 807 0.05 0.10 9.1 1.00 0.2 9.4 A

C 13.5 E

Synchro 11 Report Page 26

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 27

Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT 376 0.89 50.0 0.0 50.0 50.1 #96.5 544.5

WBT 179 0.37 22.6 0.0 22.6 19.4 35.4 206.8

461 0 0 0 0.82

527 0 0 0 0.34

NBL 63 0.11 10.7 0.0 10.7 4.6 10.7 75.0 576 0 0 0 0.11

NBT 142 0.15 10.6 0.0 10.6 10.6 19.8 173.0 923 0 0 0 0.15

SBL 76 0.12 10.7 0.0 10.7 5.6 12.3

50.0 755 0 0 0 0.03

130.0 644 0 0 0 0.12

SBT 276 0.29 11.8 0.0 11.8 22.4 36.9 418.3 949 0 0 0 0.29

SBR 149 0.17 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.0 100.0 878 0 0 0 0.17

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

NBR 24 0.03 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 25

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

35 35 1900

124 124 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1761 0.88 1561 0.86 144 12 215 4% NA 4

36 36 1900

116 116 1900

89 89 1900

277 277 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1746 1.00 1746 0.86 322 17 420 7% NA 2

94 94 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 833 0.86 109 0 109 2% Perm

315 315 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1768 1.00 1768 0.86 366 7 419 3% NA 6

52 52 1900

0.86 135 0 0 5% Perm

23 23 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.86 27 0 27 2% Perm

99 99 1900

0.86 42 0 0 2%

125 125 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.77 1388 0.86 145 20 363 2% NA 8

0.14 0.45 19.8 1.00 0.7 20.4 C 20.4 C

21.8 21.8 0.31 5.5 3.0 426

2 38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 457

21.8 21.8 0.31 5.5 3.0 479

0.86 103 0 0 2%

18.9 0.59 71.0 105.5% 15

0.86 115 0 0 2%

0.86 41 0 0 14% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

c0.26 0.85 23.1 1.00 15.1 38.1 D 38.1 D

0.03 0.06 7.8 1.00 0.2 8.1 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 448

38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 939 c0.24

0.13 0.24 8.7 1.00 1.3 10.0 B

0.45 10.0 1.00 1.5 11.5 B 11.3 B

0.86 60 0 0 27%

38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 951 0.24 0.44 9.9 1.00 1.5 11.4 B 11.1 B

B 11.0 G

Synchro 11 Report Page 29

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 15 25 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5

2 NBTL

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

Synchro 11 Report Page 30

Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

PM Peak Hour

EBT 227 0.46 20.7 0.0 20.7 21.1 35.4 158.8

WBT 383 0.86 41.1 0.0 41.1 42.1 #74.4 158.6

NBL 27 0.06 9.7 0.0 9.7 1.7 5.3

NBT 437 0.46 11.9 0.0 11.9 31.8 52.0 321.6

561 0 0 0 0.40

507 0 0 0 0.76

457 0 0 0 0.06

957 0 0 0 0.46

50.0 448 0 0 0 0.24

SBT 426 0.44 12.3 0.0 12.3 32.5 52.1 760.4 959 0 0 0 0.44

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

SBL 109 0.24 11.9 0.0 11.9 7.6 16.6

Existing Traffic 2023

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 28

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

88 88 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.73 1382 0.93 95 0 95 2% Perm

15 15 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 16 177 53 2% NA 4

199 199 1900

19 19 1900

2 2 1900

304 304 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1870 1.00 1870 0.93 327 2 341 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.55 911 0.93 6 0 6 17% Perm

308 308 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1820 1.00 1820 0.93 331 8 391 3% NA 6

63 63 1900

0.93 20 0 0 2% Perm

106 106 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 982 0.93 114 0 114 2% Perm

15 15 1900

0.93 214 0 0 4%

13 13 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.97 1819 0.70 1317 0.93 14 2 34 2% NA 8

0.19 19.7 1.00 0.3 20.0 C 20.5 C

9.8 0.35 55.6 89.9% 15

0.93 16 0 0 2%

9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 227

0.93 2 0 0 2%

2 35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 618

c0.07 0.40 20.4 1.00 1.1 21.5 C

8 9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 274 0.03

4 9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 238

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.03 0.15 19.5 1.00 0.3 19.8 B 19.8 B

0.12 0.18 4.3 1.00 0.7 5.0 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 573

35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 1177 0.18

0.01 0.01 3.8 1.00 0.0 3.9 A

0.29 4.7 1.00 0.6 5.3 A 5.2 A

0.93 68 0 0 2%

35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 1145 c0.21 0.34 4.9 1.00 0.8 5.7 A 5.6 A

A 11.0 E

Synchro 11 Report Page 32

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

8 WBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75

6 SBTL

Max None Max None 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 30.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 15 25 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5

EGIS

4 EBTL

PM Peak Hour

24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 33

Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBL 95 0.40 25.6 0.0 25.6 8.6 19.5 30.0 621 0 0 0 0.15

EBT 230 0.51 8.7 0.0 8.7 1.4 16.0 1201.3

WBT 36 0.16 20.2 0.0 20.2 2.9 9.1 482.8

832 0 0 0 0.28

592 0 0 0 0.06

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

NBL 114 0.18 5.8 0.0 5.8 3.8 11.1 50.0 617 0 0 0 0.18

NBT 343 0.29 5.7 0.0 5.7 12.2 27.1 440.8 1178 0 0 0 0.29

SBL 6 0.01 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.2 1.4 35.0 573 0 0 0 0.01

SBT 399 0.35 6.0 0.0 6.0 14.2 31.5 214.1 1153 0 0 0 0.35

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 31

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

13 13

2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2

180 180

6 6

1 1

183 183

0 0

0.87 1

0.87 210

0.87 6

0.87 0

36 36 Free 0% 0.87 41

5 5

0.87 7

41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47

5 5

0.87 207

0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0

0.87 15

0.87 6

13 None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

515

517

515 7.1

517 6.5

44 6.2

515 7.1

517 6.5

3.5 96 421

4.0 100 400

3.3 80 1026

3.5 98 335

4.0 100 400

EB 1 224 15 207 1110 0.20 5.7 9.7 A 9.7 A

WB 1 8 7 1 366 0.02 0.5 15.1 C 15.1 C

NB 1 263 210 6 1560 0.13 3.5 6.3 A 6.3

SB 1 47 0 6 1553 0.00 0.0 0.0

50 6.2

47 4.1

53 4.1

3.3 100 1018

2.2 87 1560

2.2 100 1553

517

None

515

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

7.3 31.2% 15

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

136 136

203 203 Free 0% 0.91 223

3 3

60 60

5 5

0 0

3 3

0.91 5

0.91 0

0.91 55

0.91 3

52 52 Stop 0% 0.91 57

76 76

0.91 66

32 32 Stop 0% 0.91 35

50 50

0.91 3

172 172 Free 0% 0.91 189

0.91 84

958

848

224

918

848

192

958 7.1

848 6.5

224 6.3

918 7.1

848 6.5

192 6.2

3.5 100 156

4.0 86 252

3.4 93 805

3.5 98 186

4.0 77 253

3.3 90 845

0.91 149

None

226

194 4.1

226 4.1

194

2.2 89 1379

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 260 66 5 1342 0.05 1.2 2.3 A 2.3

NB 1 90 0 55 434 0.21 5.9 15.4 C 15.4 C

SB 1 144 3 84 423 0.34 11.3 17.9 C 17.9 C

EB 1 375 149 3 1379 0.11 2.8 3.7 A 3.7

2.2 95 1342

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

6.9 46.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

3 3

1 1 Stop 0% 0.90 1

26 26

36 36

102 102

25 25

76 76

0.90 113

0.90 28

0.90 61

0.90 84

171 171 Free 0% 0.90 190

7 7

0.90 40

235 235 Free 0% 0.90 261

55 55

0.90 29

9 9 Stop 0% 0.90 10

0.90 3

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

194

739

714

828 7.1

740 6.5

194 6.2

739 7.1

714 6.5

3.5 99 225

4.0 100 315

3.3 97 847

3.5 87 299

4.0 97 326

EB 1 33 3 29 650 0.05 1.2 10.8 B 10.8 B

WB 1 163 40 113 516 0.32 10.2 15.2 C 15.2 C

NB 1 350 28 61 1375 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8

SB 1 282 84 8 1238 0.07 1.7 2.9 A 2.9

292

198

322

292 6.2

198 4.1

322 4.1

3.3 85 748

2.2 98 1375

2.2 93 1238

740

0.90 8

None

828

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

4.7 55.3% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

14 14 Stop 0% 0.88 16

85 85

111 111 0.88 126

19 19 Free 0% 0.88 22

4 4

0.88 97

26 26 Free 0% 0.88 30

None

306 6.4

24 6.2

27 4.1

3.5 97 631

3.3 91 1052

2.2 92 1587

EB 1 113 16 97 961 0.12 3.0 9.2 A 9.2 A

NB 1 156 126 0 1587 0.08 2.0 6.1 A 6.1

SB 1 27 0 5 1700 0.02 0.0 0.0

306

0.88 5

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

6.8 26.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

8 8

9 9 Stop 0% 0.99 9

172 172

10 10

1 1

187 187

4 4

0.99 1

0.99 189

0.99 21

0.99 4

158 158 Free 0% 0.99 160

18 18

0.99 10

291 291 Free 0% 0.99 294

21 21

0.99 174

12 12 Stop 0% 0.99 12

0.99 8

None

0.99 18

None

382

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

169

1038

868

866 7.1

870 6.5

169 6.2

1038 7.2

868 6.5

3.5 97 235

4.0 96 250

3.3 80 867

3.6 93 140

4.0 95 250

EB 1 191 8 174 706 0.27 8.3 12.0 B 12.0 B

WB 1 23 10 1 191 0.12 3.1 26.4 D 26.4 D

NB 1 504 189 21 1392 0.14 3.6 3.8 A 3.8

SB 1 182 4 18 1245 0.00 0.1 0.2 A 0.2

304

178

315

304 6.2

178 4.1

315 4.1

3.3 100 735

2.2 86 1392

2.2 100 1245

870

866

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.4 58.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

82 82

99 99 Free 0% 0.87 114

3 3

2 2

3 3

5 5

9 9

0.87 3

0.87 6

0.87 9

0.87 10

40 40 Stop 0% 0.87 46

179 179

0.87 2

26 26 Stop 0% 0.87 30

8 8

0.87 3

126 126 Free 0% 0.87 145

0.87 206

683

456

116

478

456

146

683 7.1

456 6.5

116 6.2

478 7.2

456 6.5

146 6.2

3.5 98 246

4.0 94 464

3.3 99 937

3.6 98 431

4.0 90 467

3.3 77 901

0.87 94

None

117

148 4.2

117 4.1

148

2.3 93 1403

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 150 2 3 1471 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1

NB 1 45 6 9 456 0.10 2.5 13.8 B 13.8 B

SB 1 262 10 206 747 0.35 12.0 12.4 B 12.4 B

EB 1 211 94 3 1403 0.07 1.6 3.8 A 3.8

2.2 100 1471

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

7.0 41.7% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

55 55

1 1 Stop 0% 0.89 1

22 22

3 3

0 0

8 8

2 2

0.89 0

0.89 9

0.89 3

0.89 2

401 401 Free 0% 0.89 451

101 101

0.89 3

291 291 Free 0% 0.89 327

3 3

0.89 25

4 4 Stop 0% 0.89 4

0.89 62

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

508

884

914

860 7.1

860 6.5

508 6.2

884 7.1

914 6.5

3.5 77 271

4.0 100 291

3.3 96 565

3.5 99 252

4.0 99 270

EB 1 88 62 25 318 0.28 8.4 20.6 C 20.6 C

WB 1 7 3 0 262 0.03 0.6 19.1 C 19.1 C

NB 1 339 9 3 1008 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3

SB 1 566 2 113 1229 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0

328

564

330

328 6.2

564 4.1

330 4.1

3.3 100 713

2.2 99 1008

2.2 100 1229

860

0.89 113

None

860

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

2.1 42.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

3 3

27 27 Stop 0% 0.89 30

8 8

46 46

13 13

0 0

4 4

0.89 15

0.89 0

0.89 10

0.89 4

65 65 Free 0% 0.89 73

0 0

0.89 52

82 82 Free 0% 0.89 92

9 9

0.89 9

0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0

0.89 3

None

0.89 0

None 387

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

202

178

193 7.1

183 6.5

73 6.2

202 7.1

178 6.5

3.5 100 753

4.0 96 709

3.3 99 989

3.5 93 724

4.0 100 714

EB 1 42 3 9 758 0.06 1.3 10.0 B 10.0 B

WB 1 67 52 15 766 0.09 2.2 10.2 B 10.2 B

NB 1 102 0 10 1527 0.00 0.0 0.0

SB 1 77 4 0 1490 0.00 0.1 0.4 A 0.4

102

97 6.2

73 4.1

102 4.1

3.3 98 959

2.2 100 1527

2.2 100 1490

183

193

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

3.9 23.4% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

20 20

307 307 Free 0% 0.91 337

33 33

8 8

4 4

19 19

2 2

0.91 4

0.91 21

0.91 10

0.91 2

21 21 Stop 0% 0.91 23 1 3.7 1.1 0

19 19

0.91 9

18 18 Stop 0% 0.91 20 5 3.7 1.1 0

9 9

0.91 36

291 291 Free 0% 0.91 320

0.91 21

776

747

360

760

763

323

776 7.1

747 6.5

360 6.2

760 7.1

763 6.5

323 6.2

3.5 93 281

4.0 94 331

3.3 99 681

3.5 99 296

4.0 93 324

3.3 97 717

0.91 22

None

378

325 4.1

378 4.1

325

2.2 98 1234

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 333 9 4 1175 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3

NB 1 51 21 10 340 0.15 4.0 17.4 C 17.4 C

SB 1 46 2 21 430 0.11 2.7 14.4 B 14.4 B

EB 1 395 22 36 1234 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6

2.2 99 1175

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

2.3 43.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0

12 12

11 11 0.91 12

246 246 Free 0% 0.91 270

2 2

0.91 13

347 347 Free 0% 0.91 381

None

272

675 6.4

270 6.5

272 4.7

3.5 100 417

3.5 98 716

2.8 99 1009

EB 1 13 0 13 716 0.02 0.4 10.1 B 10.1 B

NB 1 12 12 0 1009 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 0.3

NB 2 381 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0

270

0.91 2

675

SB 1 270 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.3 28.3% 15

SB 2 2 0 2 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

6 6

28 28 Stop 0% 0.92 30 11 3.7 1.1 1

20 20

46 46

96 96

20 20

93 93

0.92 104

0.92 22

0.92 36

0.92 101

203 203 Free 0% 0.92 221 7 3.7 1.1 1

7 7

0.92 50

173 173 Free 0% 0.92 188 102 3.7 1.1 10

33 33

0.92 22

41 41 Stop 0% 0.92 45 183 3.7 1.1 17

0.92 7

None

0.92 8

None 197

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

338

995

875

396

240

407

804 7.1

889 6.5

338 6.2

995 7.1

875 6.5

396 6.2

240 4.1

407 4.1

3.5 96 158

4.0 85 204

3.3 97 631

3.5 56 113

4.0 78 208

3.3 81 538

2.2 98 1313

2.2 89 955

EB 1 59 7 22 260 0.23 6.5 22.8 C 22.8 C

WB 1 199 50 104 234 0.85 51.2 70.7 F 70.7 F

NB 1 22 22 0 1313 0.02 0.4 7.8 A 0.7

NB 2 224 0 36 1700 0.13 0.0 0.0

SB 1 101 101 0 955 0.11 2.7 9.2 A 2.8

SB 2 229 0 8 1700 0.13 0.0 0.0

889

804

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

19.8 46.1% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

14 14 Stop 0% 0.87 16

13 13

17 17 0.87 20

251 251 Free 0% 0.87 289

12 12

0.87 15

175 175 Free 0% 0.87 201

None

303

537 6.4

296 6.5

303 4.1

3.5 97 497

3.6 98 680

2.2 98 1258

EB 1 31 16 15 571 0.05 1.3 11.7 B 11.7 B

NB 1 221 20 0 1258 0.02 0.4 0.8 A 0.8

SB 1 303 0 14 1700 0.18 0.0 0.0

296

537

0.87 14

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

1.0 33.3% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

36 36 Stop 0% 0.96 38

71 71

318 318 Free 0% 0.96 331

57 57

73 73

0.96 59

0.96 76

435 435 Free 0% 0.96 453

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

4 None

360

390

966 6.5

360 6.2

390 4.1

3.6 85 260

3.3 89 684

WB 1 112 38 74 765 0.15 3.9 14.4 B 14.4 B

NB 1 390 0 59 1700 0.23 0.0 0.0

966

None

2.2 93 1158

SB 1 529 76 0 1158 0.07 1.6 1.8 A 1.8

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

0.96 74

0.0

2.5 60.5% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 13

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

8 8

29 29 Stop 0% 0.75 39

14 14

20 20

11 11

15 15

2 2

0.75 15

0.75 20

0.75 24

0.75 3

46 46 Free 0% 0.75 61

5 5

0.75 27

69 69 Free 0% 0.75 92

18 18

0.75 19

46 46 Stop 0% 0.75 61

0.75 11

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

253

218

260 7.1

226 6.5

64 6.2

253 7.1

218 6.5

3.5 98 627

4.0 94 663

3.3 98 1000

3.5 96 649

4.0 91 670

EB 1 69 11 19 723 0.10 2.4 10.5 B 10.5 B

WB 1 103 27 15 694 0.15 3.9 11.1 B 11.1 B

NB 1 136 20 24 1533 0.01 0.3 1.2 A 1.2

SB 1 71 3 7 1473 0.00 0.0 0.3 A 0.3

104

116

104 6.2

68 4.1

116 4.1

3.3 98 951

2.2 99 1533

2.2 100 1473

226

0.75 7

None

260

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.4 24.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

8 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

14 14 0.96 2 15 0

121 121 0.96 2 126 1

5 5 0.96 2 5 0

4 4 0.96 2 4 0

134 134 0.96 2 140 1

18 18 0.96 2 19 0

5 5 0.96 2 5 0

7 7 0.96 2 7 1

7 7 0.96 2 7 0

6 6 0.96 2 6 0

13 13 0.96 7 14 1

14 14 0.96 2 15 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.1 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.6 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 7.6 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 26% 10% 3% 18% 37% 86% 86% 39% 37% 4% 12% 42% Stop Stop Stop Stop 19 140 156 33 5 14 4 6 7 121 134 13 7 5 18 14 20 146 162 34 1 1 1 1 0.025 0.168 0.184 0.042 4.475 4.151 4.077 4.408 Yes Yes Yes Yes 805 855 871 817 2.476 2.222 2.145 2.409 0.025 0.171 0.186 0.042 7.6 8.1 8.1 7.6 A A A A 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.1

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.1 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

E.2 Bobcaygeon

Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

5 5 1900

36 36 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1771 0.97 1724 0.77 47 16 64 2% NA 1

21 21 1900

46 46 1900

5 5 1900

10 10 1900

0.77 6 0 0 2%

0.77 13 0 0 2% Perm

34 34 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.77 44 0 44 3% Perm

10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1779 0.90 1641 0.77 13 5 27 2% NA 4

5 5 1900

0.77 60 0 0 6% Perm

0 0 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 761 0.77 0 0 13 2% NA 2

10 10 1900

0.77 27 0 0 2%

28 28 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1755 0.77 1397 0.77 36 0 102 2% NA 1

0.77 6 0 0 2% Perm 1

0.04 0.24 24.6 1.00 0.5 25.1 C 25.1 C

10.2 10.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 215

10.2 10.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 265

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

23.5 0.51 66.2 53.3% 15

c0.07 0.47 25.6 1.00 1.7 27.2 C 27.2 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 229

0.02 0.06 16.4 1.00 0.1 16.5 B 16.6 B

2 20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 473 c0.03 0.09 16.6 1.00 0.1 16.7 B

0.77 13 0 0 2% Perm

0.77 6 0 0 2%

4 15.0 15.0 0.23 6.0 3.0 371 c0.02 0.07 20.1 1.00 0.1 20.2 C 20.2 C

C 51.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St

EGIS

6 Hold

None Ped Min None 31 29 31 31 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 29 29 21 31 4 4 4 2 2 5 2 28 8 20 15 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 31 60 91 31 60 91 0 25 51 85 92 17 41 85 92 91 0 29 60 116 20 54 61 108 10 54 61

4 SBTL

122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL Lag

17: Bolton St & Canal St

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

1 EBWB Lead

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBT 80 0.28 22.5 0.0 22.5 6.7 14.1 149.9

WBT 102 0.48 33.3 0.0 33.3 11.6 20.6 179.7

NBT 13 0.06 18.3 0.0 18.3 1.1 4.2 223.5

663 0 0 0 0.12

527 0 0 0 0.19

229 0 0 0 0.06

NBR 44 0.09 18.1 0.0 18.1 3.8 9.3 20.0 473 0 0 0 0.09

SBT 32 0.09 19.0 0.0 19.0 2.5 7.5 92.3 624 0 0 0 0.05

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

101 101 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.94 107 0 107 3% Perm

51 72 51 72 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.55 1583 1017 0.94 0.94 54 77 45 0 9 77 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 10.5 36.8 10.5 36.8 0.17 0.60 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 271 708 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.11 21.2 5.1 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.3 21.2 5.4 C A

279 279 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.94 297 0 297 9% NA 12

295 295 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.94 314 0 314 5% NA 2

137 137 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.94 146 78 68 2% Perm

38.8 38.8 0.63

28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 844 c0.17

2 28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 738

c0.06 0.36 22.4 1.00 0.7 23.1 C 22.5 C

1103 c0.17

4 10.5 10.5 0.17 6.0 3.0 300

EBR

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

10.8 0.35 61.3 47.2% 15

0.27 5.0 1.00 0.6 5.6 A 5.5 A

0.37 10.6 1.00 1.3 11.8 B 11.0 B

0.04 0.09 9.1 1.00 0.2 9.4 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

B 14.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E

EGIS

No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68

70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

Splits and Phases:

Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0

2 4 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 44 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54

20: East St S & King St E

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

1 NBTL Lead

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 20: East St S & King St E

EBL 107 0.26 22.9 0.0 22.9 10.6 22.4 452.1 597 0 0 0 0.18

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBR 54 0.13 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.5

NBL 77 0.10 4.3 0.0 4.3 2.7 6.3

25.0 575 0 0 0 0.09

70.0 794 0 0 0 0.10

NBT 297 0.24 4.9 0.0 4.9 12.1 21.1 128.0

SBT 314 0.36 13.3 0.0 13.3 24.1 41.4 311.0

1263 0 0 0 0.24

863 0 0 0 0.36

SBR 146 0.18 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 8.2 50.0 831 0 0 0 0.18

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0

191 191 Free 0% 0.93 205

4 4

11 11

1 1

8 8

1 1

0.93 1

0.93 9

0.93 14

0.93 1

1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1

0 0

0.93 12

0 0 Stop 0% 0.93 0

13 13

0.93 4

173 173 Free 0% 0.93 186

0.93 0

418

207

432

420

186

418 7.1

418 6.5

207 6.3

432 7.1

420 6.5

186 6.2

3.5 98 541

4.0 100 521

3.4 98 818

3.5 100 521

4.0 100 520

3.3 100 856

0.93 0

None

209

187 4.1

209 4.2

187

2.2 100 1387

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 199 12 1 1321 0.01 0.2 0.5 A 0.5

0.0

NB 1 23 9 14 682 0.03 0.8 10.5 B 10.5 B

SB 1 2 1 0 521 0.00 0.1 11.9 B 11.9 B

EB 1 209 0 4 1387 0.00 0.0 0.0

2.3 99 1321

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

0.9 28.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

16 16

0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0

173 173

11 11

4 4

158 158

3 3

0.89 4

0.89 178

0.89 9

0.89 3

296 296 Free 0% 0.89 333

6 6

0.89 12

205 205 Free 0% 0.89 230

8 8

0.89 194

6 6 Stop 0% 0.89 7

0.89 18

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

336

1119

932

230

340

239

936 7.4

938 6.5

336 6.3

1119 7.1

932 6.5

230 6.2

340 4.2

239 4.1

3.8 90 187

4.0 100 225

3.4 72 694

3.5 90 117

4.0 97 226

3.3 100 809

2.3 85 1192

2.2 100 1328

EB 1 212 18 194 564 0.38 13.2 15.2 C 15.2 C

WB 1 23 12 4 166 0.14 3.6 30.1 D 30.1 D

NB 1 178 178 0 1192 0.15 4.0 8.6 A 3.6

NB 2 230 0 0 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0

NB 3 9 0 9 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0

SB 1 3 3 0 1328 0.00 0.1 7.7 A 0.1

SB 2 340 0 7 1700 0.20 0.0 0.0

938

R 5.5 46.3% 15

ICU Level of Service

0.89 7

None

936

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

21 21 Stop 0% 0.85 25

19 19

15 15 0.85 18

28 28 Free 0% 0.85 33

21 21

0.85 22

25 25 Free 0% 0.85 29

None

110 6.4

46 6.2

58 4.1

3.5 97 869

3.3 98 1024

2.2 99 1546

EB 1 47 25 22 935 0.05 1.2 9.1 A 9.1 A

NB 1 47 18 0 1546 0.01 0.3 2.9 A 2.9

SB 1 58 0 25 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0

110

0.85 25

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

3.7 18.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

46 46

5 5 Stop 0% 0.95 5

4 4

1 1

21 21

14 14

13 13

0.95 22

0.95 15

0.95 4

0.95 14

393 393 Free 0% 0.95 414

139 139

0.95 1

382 382 Free 0% 0.95 402

4 4

0.95 4

9 9 Stop 0% 0.95 9

0.95 48

None

0.95 146

None

335

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

414

880

1020

402

560

406

900 7.1

878 6.5

414 6.2

880 7.1

1020 6.5

402 6.2

560 4.1

406 4.1

3.5 80 236

4.0 98 279

3.3 99 638

3.5 100 257

4.0 96 230

3.3 97 648

2.2 99 1011

2.2 99 1153

EB 1 57 48 4 251 0.23 6.5 23.6 C 23.6 C

WB 1 32 1 22 416 0.08 1.9 14.4 B 14.4 B

NB 1 417 15 0 1011 0.01 0.3 0.5 A 0.5

NB 2 4 0 4 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0

SB 1 428 14 0 1153 0.01 0.3 0.4 A 0.3

SB 2 146 0 146 1700 0.09 0.0 0.0

878

900

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

2.0 47.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

37 37 Stop 0% 0.95 39

63 63

260 260 Free 0% 0.95 274

17 17

50 50

0.95 18

0.95 53

302 302 Free 0% 0.95 318

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

None

292

637 6.4

274 6.2

292 4.1

3.5 90 392

3.3 91 765

WB 1 105 39 66 565 0.19 5.1 12.8 B 12.8 B

NB 1 274 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0

274

152 0.93 698

2.2 96 1270

NB 2 18 0 18 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0

SB 1 53 53 0 1270 0.04 1.0 8.0 A 1.1

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

0.95 66

0.0

2.3 32.9% 15

SB 2 318 0 0 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

9.2 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

59 59 0.92 5 64 0

157 157 0.92 5 171 1

8 8 0.92 2 9 0

9 9 0.92 2 10 0

141 141 0.92 8 153 1

5 5 0.92 2 5 0

4 4 0.92 2 4 0

23 23 0.92 2 25 1

10 10 0.92 2 11 0

3 3 0.92 33 3 0

25 25 0.92 2 27 1

78 78 0.92 2 85 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.7 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.2 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 11% 26% 6% 3% 62% 70% 91% 24% 27% 4% 3% 74% Stop Stop Stop Stop 37 224 155 106 4 59 9 3 23 157 141 25 10 8 5 78 40 243 168 115 1 1 1 1 0.055 0.311 0.215 0.161 4.907 4.6 4.597 5.028 Yes Yes Yes Yes 727 782 780 711 2.958 2.635 2.635 3.073 0.055 0.311 0.215 0.162 8.2 9.7 8.9 9 A A A A 0.2 1.3 0.8 0.6

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.9 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

10.7 B

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

13 13 0.92 39 14 1

70 70 0.92 6 76 1

9 9 0.92 2 10 0

152 152 0.92 5 165 1

88 88 0.92 2 96 1

13 13 0.92 23 14 0

5 5 0.92 2 5 0

102 102 0.92 10 111 1

123 123 0.92 10 134 1

19 19 0.92 21 21 0

117 117 0.92 7 127 1

21 21 0.92 10 23 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 10 A

NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 9.7 A

SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 12 B

NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 5% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 12% 95% 0% 0% 89% 0% 87% 75% 0% 100% 0% 11% 0% 13% 13% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 107 123 13 79 152 101 157 5 0 13 0 152 0 19 102 0 0 70 0 88 117 0 123 0 9 0 13 21 116 134 14 86 165 110 171 5 5 5 5 5 5 4b 0.192 0.199 0.029 0.147 0.297 0.178 0.298 5.951 5.358 7.34 6.181 6.47 5.821 6.287 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 604 670 488 580 557 617 572 3.681 3.088 5.076 3.917 4.199 3.549 4.318 0.192 0.2 0.029 0.148 0.296 0.178 0.299 10.1 9.4 10.3 10 11.9 9.8 12 B A B A B A B 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.2

WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 11.1 B

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

8 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

6 6 0.91 2 7 0

73 73 0.91 2 80 1

4 4 0.91 2 4 0

17 17 0.91 2 19 0

79 79 0.91 3 87 1

72 72 0.91 1 79 0

6 6 0.91 2 7 0

4 4 0.91 2 4 1

17 17 0.91 2 19 0

52 52 0.91 4 57 0

6 6 0.91 2 7 1

15 15 0.91 2 16 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 7.9 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.5 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.2 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 22% 7% 10% 71% 15% 88% 47% 8% 63% 5% 43% 21% Stop Stop Stop Stop 27 83 168 73 6 6 17 52 4 73 79 6 17 4 72 15 30 91 185 80 1 1 1 1 0.035 0.11 0.208 0.103 4.292 4.361 4.063 4.616 Yes Yes Yes Yes 836 825 888 779 2.308 2.374 2.063 2.63 0.036 0.11 0.208 0.103 7.5 7.9 8.1 8.2 A A A A 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.1 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

5 5 1900

37 37 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1776 0.97 1727 0.95 39 13 50 2% NA 1

18 18 1900

66 66 1900

5 5 1900

14 14 1900

0.95 5 0 0 2%

0.95 15 0 0 2% Perm

55 55 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 58 0 58 2% Perm

10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1780 0.90 1643 0.95 11 4 23 2% NA 4

5 5 1900

0.95 69 0 0 2% Perm

5 5 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1795 0.60 1126 0.95 5 0 20 2% NA 2

10 10 1900

0.95 19 0 0 2%

49 49 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1803 0.79 1473 0.95 52 0 126 2% NA 1

0.95 5 0 0 5% Perm 1

0.03 0.18 24.1 1.00 0.3 24.4 C 24.4 C

10.9 10.9 0.16 6.0 3.0 239

10.9 10.9 0.16 6.0 3.0 281

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

23.5 0.57 66.9 53.3% 15

c0.09 0.53 25.6 1.00 2.1 27.7 C 27.7 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 336

0.02 0.06 16.7 1.00 0.1 16.8 B 17.1 B

2 20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 473 c0.04 0.12 17.1 1.00 0.1 17.2 B

0.95 11 0 0 2% Perm

0.95 5 0 0 2%

4 15.0 15.0 0.22 6.0 3.0 368 c0.01 0.06 20.4 1.00 0.1 20.5 C 20.5 C

C 51.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St

EGIS

6 Hold

4 SBTL

122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL Lag

17: Bolton St & Canal St

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

1 EBWB Lead

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

EBT 63 0.21 20.9 0.0 20.9 5.1 14.1 149.9

WBT 126 0.53 33.9 0.0 33.9 14.5 29.1 179.7

NBT 20 0.06 18.5 0.0 18.5 1.8 6.6 223.5

654 0 0 0 0.10

550 0 0 0 0.23

336 0 0 0 0.06

NBR 58 0.12 18.9 0.0 18.9 5.2 13.6 20.0 472 0 0 0 0.12

SBT 27 0.07 19.5 0.0 19.5 2.2 8.1 92.3 617 0 0 0 0.04

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

283 283 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.93 304 0 304 2% Perm

93 92 93 92 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1770 1.00 0.44 1583 816 0.93 0.93 100 99 75 0 25 99 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 16.6 36.0 16.6 36.0 0.25 0.54 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 394 555 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.18 19.1 7.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.7 19.1 8.3 B A

339 339 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.93 365 0 365 3% NA 12

366 366 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.93 394 0 394 7% NA 2

184 184 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 198 115 83 2% Perm

38.0 38.0 0.57

28.0 28.0 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.22

2 28.0 28.0 0.42 6.0 3.0 665

c0.17 0.69 22.7 1.00 4.5 27.1 C 25.1 C

1052 c0.20

4 16.6 16.6 0.25 6.0 3.0 441

EBR

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

15.9 0.55 66.6 54.9% 15

0.35 7.7 1.00 0.9 8.6 A 8.5 A

0.53 14.4 1.00 2.7 17.0 B 15.4 B

0.05 0.13 11.8 1.00 0.4 12.2 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

B 14.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E

EGIS

No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68

70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

Splits and Phases:

Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0

2 4 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 44 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54

20: East St S & King St E

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

1 NBTL Lead

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 20: East St S & King St E

EBL 304 0.69 31.5 0.0 31.5 34.1 57.6 452.1 531 0 0 0 0.57

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

EBR 100 0.21 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 9.5

NBL 99 0.16 6.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 10.2

25.0 545 0 0 0 0.18

70.0 604 0 0 0 0.16

NBT 365 0.31 7.0 0.0 7.0 17.6 34.7 128.0

SBT 394 0.53 18.2 0.0 18.2 34.6 63.1 311.0

1163 0 0 0 0.31

746 0 0 0 0.53

SBR 198 0.25 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 10.8 50.0 779 0 0 0 0.25

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0

222 222 Free 0% 0.97 229

10 10

8 8

0 0

5 5

0 0

0.97 0

0.97 5

0.97 11

0.97 0

0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0

0 0

0.97 8

0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0

11 11

0.97 10

231 231 Free 0% 0.97 238

0.97 0

488

234

499

493

238

488 7.1

488 6.5

234 6.2

499 7.1

493 6.5

238 6.2

3.5 99 488

4.0 100 477

3.3 99 805

3.5 100 473

4.0 100 474

3.3 100 801

0.97 0

None

239

238 4.1

239 4.1

238

2.2 100 1329

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 246 8 0 1328 0.01 0.1 0.3 A 0.3

0.0

NB 1 16 5 11 669 0.02 0.6 10.5 B 10.5 B

SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 A

EB 1 239 0 10 1329 0.00 0.0 0.0

2.2 99 1328

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

0.5 28.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

7 7

5 5 Stop 0% 0.91 5

190 190

15 15

5 5

215 215

5 5

0.91 5

0.91 236

0.91 21

0.91 5

308 308 Free 0% 0.91 338

13 13

0.91 16

341 341 Free 0% 0.91 375

19 19

0.91 209

3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3

0.91 8

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

345

1406

1209

375

352

396

1208 7.1

1223 6.5

345 6.3

1406 7.1

1209 6.5

375 6.2

352 4.1

396 4.1

3.5 94 132

4.0 97 143

3.4 69 684

3.5 76 67

4.0 98 146

3.3 99 671

2.2 80 1201

2.2 100 1163

EB 1 222 8 209 554 0.40 14.6 15.8 C 15.8 C

WB 1 24 16 5 90 0.27 7.4 59.2 F 59.2 F

NB 1 236 236 0 1201 0.20 5.5 8.7 A 3.3

NB 2 375 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0

NB 3 21 0 21 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0

SB 1 5 5 0 1163 0.00 0.1 8.1 A 0.1

SB 2 352 0 14 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0

1223

R 5.7 51.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

0.91 14

None

1208

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

27 27 Stop 0% 0.78 35

37 37

37 37 0.78 47

29 29 Free 0% 0.78 37

28 28

0.78 47

36 36 Free 0% 0.78 46

None

195 6.4

55 6.2

73 4.1

3.5 95 769

3.3 95 1012

2.2 97 1520

EB 1 82 35 47 892 0.09 2.3 9.4 A 9.4 A

NB 1 93 47 0 1520 0.03 0.7 3.9 A 3.9

SB 1 73 0 36 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0

195

0.78 36

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

4.6 21.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

73 73

1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1

17 17

1 1

15 15

9 9

19 19

0.93 16

0.93 10

0.93 9

0.93 20

500 500 Free 0% 0.93 538

128 128

0.93 1

610 610 Free 0% 0.93 656

8 8

0.93 18

5 5 Stop 0% 0.93 5

0.93 78

None

0.93 138

None

335

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

0.81 1392

1218 7.1

0.81 656

676

0.81 665

1206 6.5

538 6.2

1218 7.1

1366 6.5

454 6.2

676 4.1

465 4.1

3.5 33 116

4.0 99 143

3.3 97 543

3.5 99 119

4.0 96 115

3.3 97 489

2.2 99 915

2.2 98 884

EB 1 97 78 18 136 0.71 31.0 79.7 F 79.7 F

WB 1 22 1 16 260 0.08 2.1 20.1 C 20.1 C

NB 1 666 10 0 915 0.01 0.3 0.3 A 0.3

NB 2 9 0 9 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0

SB 1 558 20 0 884 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.5

SB 2 138 0 138 1700 0.08 0.0 0.0

538

0.81 1272

0.81 1263

0.81 1272

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

5.8 60.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

12 12 Stop 0% 0.91 13

47 47

368 368 Free 0% 0.91 404

17 17

44 44

0.91 19

0.91 48

384 384 Free 0% 0.91 422

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

None

423

833 6.5

404 6.2

423 4.1

3.6 95 274

3.3 92 647

WB 1 65 13 52 509 0.13 3.3 13.1 B 13.1 B

NB 1 404 0 0 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0

404

152 0.87 922

2.2 96 1136

NB 2 19 0 19 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0

SB 1 48 48 0 1136 0.04 1.0 8.3 A 0.8

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

0.91 52

0.0

1.3 36.3% 15

SB 2 422 0 0 1700 0.25 0.0 0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

9.7 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

85 85 0.95 7 89 0

177 177 0.95 6 186 1

7 7 0.95 2 7 0

8 8 0.95 2 8 0

169 169 0.95 2 178 1

5 5 0.95 2 5 0

9 9 0.95 11 9 0

33 33 0.95 2 35 1

20 20 0.95 2 21 0

1 1 0.95 2 1 0

40 40 0.95 2 42 1

73 73 0.95 4 77 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 10.6 B

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.8 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.7 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 15% 32% 4% 1% 53% 66% 93% 35% 32% 3% 3% 64% Stop Stop Stop Stop 62 269 182 114 9 85 8 1 33 177 169 40 20 7 5 73 65 283 192 120 1 1 1 1 0.094 0.373 0.251 0.159 5.203 4.745 4.716 4.758 Yes Yes Yes Yes 684 756 759 749 3.271 2.794 2.769 2.818 0.095 0.374 0.253 0.16 8.8 10.6 9.4 8.7 A B A A 0.3 1.7 1 0.6

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.4 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

11.9 B

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

20 20 0.94 2 21 1

93 93 0.94 2 99 1

4 4 0.94 2 4 0

180 180 0.94 2 191 1

89 89 0.94 2 95 1

22 22 0.94 2 23 0

3 3 0.94 2 3 0

147 147 0.94 2 156 1

189 189 0.94 2 201 1

15 15 0.94 20 16 0

140 140 0.94 6 149 1

25 25 0.94 4 27 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 10.9 B

NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 11 B

SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 13.4 B

NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 8% 98% 0% 0% 96% 0% 80% 78% 0% 100% 0% 4% 0% 20% 14% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 150 189 20 97 180 111 180 3 0 20 0 180 0 15 147 0 0 93 0 89 140 0 189 0 4 0 22 25 160 201 21 103 191 118 191 5 5 5 5 5 5 4b 0.276 0.308 0.043 0.191 0.365 0.204 0.355 6.232 5.513 7.2 6.66 6.859 6.209 6.668 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 574 649 496 537 523 576 538 3.99 3.27 4.969 4.429 4.616 3.966 4.73 0.279 0.31 0.042 0.192 0.365 0.205 0.355 11.4 10.7 10.3 11 13.5 10.6 13.4 B B B B B B B 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.8 1.6

WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 12.4 B

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

9 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

17 17 0.89 2 19 0

131 131 0.89 2 147 1

10 10 0.89 2 11 0

39 39 0.89 2 44 0

72 72 0.89 2 81 1

85 85 0.89 2 96 0

9 9 0.89 2 10 0

6 6 0.89 2 7 1

42 42 0.89 2 47 0

100 100 0.89 2 112 0

5 5 0.89 2 6 1

12 12 0.89 2 13 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.1 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.1 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9.2 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 16% 11% 20% 85% 11% 83% 37% 4% 74% 6% 43% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 57 158 196 117 9 17 39 100 6 131 72 5 42 10 85 12 64 178 220 131 1 1 1 1 0.082 0.229 0.269 0.183 4.604 4.646 4.404 5.023 Yes Yes Yes Yes 774 770 815 713 2.656 2.686 2.442 3.069 0.083 0.231 0.27 0.184 8.1 9.1 9.1 9.2 A A A A 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.7

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.1 A

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

E.3 Fenelon Falls

Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

138 138 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.65 1150 0.83 166 0 166 9% Perm

21 21 1900 5.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 1666 1.00 1666 0.83 25 66 42 2% NA 4

69 69 1900

28 28 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1084 0.83 34 0 34 2% pm+pt 3 8 26.9 26.9 0.30 3.5 3.0 365 0.01 0.02 0.09 22.7 1.00 0.1 22.8 C

40 40 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1683 1.00 1683 0.83 48 82 83 2% NA 8

97 97 1900

54 54 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.57 1035 0.83 65 0 65 6% Perm

200 200 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1785 1.00 1785 0.83 241 3 275 6% NA 2

31 31 1900

75 75 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1079 0.83 90 0 90 2% Perm

232 232 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.83 280 0 280 5% NA 6

129 129 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.83 155 45 110 5% Perm

0.83 117 0 0 2%

0.83 37 0 0 2%

AF T

c0.14 0.72 33.7 1.00 10.8 44.6 D

0.83 83 0 0 2%

18.0 18.0 0.20 5.5 3.0 332 0.02

4 18.0 18.0 0.20 5.5 3.0 229

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.13 29.6 1.00 0.2 29.8 C 38.7 D

Existing Traffic 2023

17.6 0.37 90.1 76.7% 15

26.9 26.9 0.30 5.5 3.0 502 c0.05

0.17 23.3 1.00 0.2 23.5 C 23.4 C

2 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 599

0.06 0.11 8.5 1.00 0.4 8.9 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 625

52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 1034 c0.15

0.08 0.14 8.7 1.00 0.5 9.2 A

0.27 9.4 1.00 0.6 10.0 B 9.8 A

52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 1060 0.15 0.26 9.4 1.00 0.6 10.0 B 9.5 A

6 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 900 0.07 0.12 8.6 1.00 0.3 8.9 A

B 14.5 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EGIS

4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1

None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114

119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75

22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

Splits and Phases:

Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1

3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EBL 166 0.71 51.1 0.0 51.1 28.5 45.0 25.0 475 0 0 0 0.35

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

EBT 108 0.27 12.4 0.0 12.4 3.7 14.0 148.3

WBL 34 0.08 19.5 0.0 19.5 4.0 9.1

WBT 165 0.29 8.7 0.0 8.7 5.9 15.9 296.8

NBL 65 0.11 12.4 0.0 12.4 5.4 13.2

NBT 278 0.26 12.1 0.0 12.1 25.0 43.9 119.3

737 0 0 0 0.15

504 0 0 0 0.07

1152 0 0 0 0.14

609 0 0 0 0.11

1053 0 0 0 0.26

SBL 90 0.14 12.6 0.0 12.6 7.7 17.2 20.0 634 0 0 0 0.14

SBT 280 0.26 12.4 0.0 12.4 25.9 45.0 126.0 1076 0 0 0 0.26

SBR 155 0.16 5.3 0.0 5.3 4.0 13.1 20.0 958 0 0 0 0.16

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.74 1254 0.89 17 0 17 13% Perm

14 14 1900 5.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1647 1.00 1647 0.89 16 71 27 2% NA 4

73 73 1900

83 83 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1306 0.89 93 0 93 2% Perm

18 18 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1789 1.00 1789 0.89 20 9 21 2% NA 4

9 9 1900

34 34 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.48 902 0.89 38 0 38 2% Perm

296 296 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.89 333 4 374 6% NA 2

40 40 1900

7 7 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1009 0.89 8 0 8 2% Perm

391 391 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.89 439 2 464 5% NA 2

24 24 1900

0.89 10 0 0 2%

0.89 45 0 0 3%

AF T

0.01 0.10 27.8 1.00 0.3 28.1 C

0.89 82 0 0 2%

4 9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 169

9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 213 0.02

c0.07 0.55 29.6 1.00 3.8 33.4 C

4 9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 162

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.13 27.9 1.00 0.3 28.2 C 28.2 C

Existing Traffic 2023

9.5 0.38 72.5 47.9% 15

9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 231 0.01

0.09 27.8 1.00 0.2 28.0 C 32.1 C

2 53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 660

0.04 0.06 2.7 1.00 0.2 2.9 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

2 53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 739

53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 1308 0.21

0.01 0.01 2.6 1.00 0.0 2.6 A

0.29 3.3 1.00 0.5 3.8 A 3.7 A

0.89 27 0 0 2%

53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 1330 c0.26 0.35 3.5 1.00 0.7 4.2 A 4.2 A

A 10.0 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EGIS

Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50

None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75

80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55

23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

Splits and Phases:

2 4 NBSB EBWB

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EBL 17 0.08 26.1 0.0 26.1 2.0 6.8 10.0 351 0 0 0 0.05

EBT 98 0.29 11.4 0.0 11.4 1.9 12.9 171.8 519 0 0 0 0.19

WBL 93 0.44 34.3 0.0 34.3 11.4 24.0 25.0 365 0 0 0 0.25

WBT 30 0.10 20.1 0.0 20.1 2.3 8.6 264.0 507 0 0 0 0.06

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

NBL 38 0.06 4.1 0.0 4.1 1.2 4.4 40.0 682 0 0 0 0.06

NBT 378 0.28 4.5 0.0 4.5 13.7 29.6 74.9 1355 0 0 0 0.28

SBL 8 0.01 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.3 1.5 50.0 764 0 0 0 0.01

SBT 466 0.34 5.0 0.0 5.0 18.5 38.9 125.1 1376 0 0 0 0.34

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

5 5

2 2 Stop 0% 0.93 2

21 21

11 11

3 3

20 20

5 5

0.93 3

0.93 22

0.93 10

0.93 5

393 393 Free 0% 0.93 423

15 15

0.93 12

296 296 Free 0% 0.93 318

9 9

0.93 23

4 4 Stop 0% 0.93 4

0.93 5

None

0.93 16

None

149

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

431

0.98 824

0.98 816

0.98 323

439

0.98 328

796 7.1

801 6.5

431 6.2

812 7.1

804 6.5

303 6.2

439 4.1

308 4.1

3.5 98 290

4.0 99 305

3.3 96 624

3.5 96 275

4.0 99 304

3.3 100 725

2.2 98 1121

2.2 100 1232

EB 1 30 5 23 495 0.06 1.5 12.7 B 12.7 B

WB 1 19 12 3 312 0.06 1.5 17.3 C 17.3 C

NB 1 22 22 0 1121 0.02 0.5 8.3 A 0.5

NB 2 328 0 10 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0

SB 1 5 5 0 1232 0.00 0.1 7.9 A 0.1

SB 2 439 0 16 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0

AF T

0.98 813

0.98 808

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

1.1 31.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

9 9 Stop 0% 0.92 10

13 13

12 12 0.92 13

376 376 Free 0% 0.92 409

6 6

0.92 14

266 266 Free 0% 0.92 289

None

412

416

728 6.4

412 6.2

416 4.1

3.5 97 386

3.3 98 640

2.2 99 1143

EB 1 24 10 14 502 0.05 1.1 12.5 B 12.5 B

NB 1 13 13 0 1143 0.01 0.3 8.2 A 0.4

NB 2 289 0 0 1700 0.17 0.0 0.0

AF T

728

0.92 7

SB 1 416 0 7 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.5 30.2% 15

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

10.1 B

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

30 30 0.87 2 34 0

73 73 0.87 10 84 1

174 174 0.87 7 200 1

8 8 0.87 25 9 0

12 12 0.87 6 14 1

1 1 0.87 2 1 1

225 225 0.87 5 259 0

12 12 0.87 2 14 1

5 5 0.87 2 6 0

2 2 0.87 2 2 0

16 16 0.87 2 18 1

45 45 0.87 2 52 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 9.5 A

EGIS

AF T

NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 11.3 B

SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 8.3 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 93% 29% 0% 40% 0% 3% 5% 71% 0% 60% 0% 25% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 71% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 242 103 174 20 1 63 225 30 0 8 0 2 12 73 0 12 0 16 5 0 174 0 1 45 278 118 200 23 1 72 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.39 0.184 0.271 0.041 0.002 0.094 5.051 5.595 4.879 6.382 5.143 4.695 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 709 638 732 557 688 757 3.105 3.355 2.638 4.169 2.929 2.766 0.392 0.185 0.273 0.041 0.001 0.095 11.3 9.6 9.5 9.4 7.9 8.3 B A A A A A 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.1 0 0.3

WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 9.3 A

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

195 195 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.62 1130 0.95 205 0 205 6% Perm

32 32 1900 5.5 1.00 0.90 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.95 34 58 52 2% NA 4

72 72 1900

32 32 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.59 1114 0.95 34 0 34 2% pm+pt 3 8 30.8 30.8 0.33 3.5 3.0 403 0.00 0.02 0.08 21.8 1.00 0.1 21.9 C

56 56 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1678 1.00 1678 0.95 59 103 112 2% NA 8

148 148 1900

43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.48 830 0.95 45 0 45 12% Perm

324 324 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1839 1.00 1839 0.95 341 4 400 2% NA 2

60 60 1900

81 81 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 863 0.95 85 0 85 2% Perm

354 354 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.95 373 0 373 4% NA 6

170 170 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.95 179 41 138 5% Perm

0.95 156 0 0 2%

0.95 63 0 0 2%

AF T

c0.18 0.78 33.9 1.00 14.1 47.9 D

0.95 76 0 0 3%

21.9 21.9 0.23 5.5 3.0 390 0.03

4 21.9 21.9 0.23 5.5 3.0 262

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

0.13 28.6 1.00 0.2 28.7 C 41.2 D

Existing Traffic 2023

19.4 0.49 94.1 82.9% 15

30.8 30.8 0.33 5.5 3.0 549 c0.07

0.20 22.8 1.00 0.2 23.0 C 22.8 C

2 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 461

0.05 0.10 9.8 1.00 0.4 10.2 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 479

52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 1022 c0.22

0.10 0.18 10.3 1.00 0.8 11.1 B

0.39 11.9 1.00 1.1 13.0 B 12.7 B

52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 1026 0.20 0.36 11.6 1.00 1.0 12.6 B 11.9 B

6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 864 0.09 0.16 10.2 1.00 0.4 10.6 B

B 14.5 E

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EGIS

4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1

None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114

119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75

22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

Splits and Phases:

Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1

3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

2 NBTL

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access

EBL 205 0.77 53.0 0.0 53.0 36.8 61.7 25.0 448 0 0 0 0.46

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

EBT 110 0.24 12.7 0.0 12.7 5.1 17.6 148.3

WBL 34 0.08 18.5 0.0 18.5 4.0 9.6

WBT 215 0.34 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.6 21.7 296.8

NBL 45 0.10 14.8 0.0 14.8 4.1 12.3

NBT 404 0.39 15.5 0.0 15.5 43.7 82.4 119.3

710 0 0 0 0.15

520 0 0 0 0.07

1119 0 0 0 0.19

468 0 0 0 0.10

1042 0 0 0 0.39

SBL 85 0.17 15.5 0.0 15.5 8.2 21.1 20.0 486 0 0 0 0.17

SBT 373 0.36 15.4 0.0 15.4 40.7 76.6 126.0 1042 0 0 0 0.36

SBR 179 0.20 7.9 0.0 7.9 8.0 23.4 20.0 917 0 0 0 0.20

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

51 51 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.73 1368 0.89 57 0 57 2% Perm

10 10 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1618 1.00 1618 0.89 11 141 37 2% NA 4

149 149 1900

65 65 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.55 1028 0.89 73 0 73 2% Perm

15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1682 1.00 1682 0.89 17 25 22 2% NA 4

27 27 1900

53 53 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.45 826 0.89 60 0 60 4% Perm

450 450 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.89 506 6 580 4% NA 2

71 71 1900

20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 748 0.89 22 0 22 2% Perm

423 423 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1801 1.00 1801 0.89 475 2 502 6% NA 2

26 26 1900

0.89 30 0 0 4%

0.89 80 0 0 2%

AF T

0.04 0.27 27.1 1.00 0.7 27.8 C

0.89 167 0 0 2%

4 11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 161

11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 254 0.02 0.15 26.6 1.00 0.3 26.9 C 27.1 C

10.6 0.45 73.2 74.6% 15

11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 264 0.01

c0.07 0.45 28.0 1.00 2.0 30.0 C

4 11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 214

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.08 26.3 1.00 0.1 26.5 C 28.6 C

2 51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 583

0.07 0.10 3.4 1.00 0.4 3.8 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

2 51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 528

51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 1281 c0.32

0.03 0.04 3.3 1.00 0.1 3.4 A

0.45 4.6 1.00 1.2 5.8 A 5.6 A

0.89 29 0 0 2%

51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 1272 0.28 0.39 4.4 1.00 0.9 5.3 A 5.2 A

B 10.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EGIS

Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50

None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75

80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55

23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

Splits and Phases:

2 4 NBSB EBWB

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E

EBL 57 0.27 29.4 0.0 29.4 6.8 16.0 10.0 373 0 0 0 0.15

EBT 178 0.45 9.6 0.0 9.6 1.3 15.6 171.8 564 0 0 0 0.32

WBL 73 0.45 36.6 0.0 36.6 9.0 20.2 25.0 281 0 0 0 0.26

WBT 47 0.16 15.2 0.0 15.2 2.0 9.7 264.0 482 0 0 0 0.10

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

NBL 60 0.10 4.5 0.0 4.5 1.9 6.6 40.0 583 0 0 0 0.10

NBT 586 0.46 6.2 0.0 6.2 24.5 53.6 74.9 1286 0 0 0 0.46

SBL 22 0.04 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.7 3.1 50.0 528 0 0 0 0.04

SBT 504 0.40 5.8 0.0 5.8 20.3 44.8 125.1 1272 0 0 0 0.40

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

15 15

4 4 Stop 0% 0.96 4

55 55

12 12

5 5

22 22

8 8

0.96 5

0.96 23

0.96 10

0.96 8

402 402 Free 0% 0.96 419

16 16

0.96 12

496 496 Free 0% 0.96 517

10 10

0.96 57

1 1 Stop 0% 0.96 1

0.96 16

None

0.96 17

None

149

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

428

0.90 1062

0.90 1020

0.90 522

436

0.90 527

959 7.1

964 6.5

428 6.2

1014 7.1

967 6.5

415 6.2

436 4.1

420 4.1

3.5 92 206

4.0 98 224

3.3 91 623

3.5 93 172

4.0 100 223

3.3 99 575

2.2 98 1124

2.2 99 1026

EB 1 77 16 57 412 0.19 5.2 15.7 C 15.7 C

WB 1 18 12 5 216 0.08 2.0 23.1 C 23.1 C

NB 1 23 23 0 1124 0.02 0.5 8.3 A 0.3

NB 2 527 0 10 1700 0.31 0.0 0.0

SB 1 8 8 0 1026 0.01 0.2 8.5 A 0.2

SB 2 436 0 17 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0

AF T

0.90 1016

0.90 1012

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

1.7 37.7% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

3 3 Stop 0% 0.98 3

15 15

11 11 0.98 11

362 362 Free 0% 0.98 369

17 17

0.98 15

462 462 Free 0% 0.98 471

None

378

386

870 6.4

378 6.3

386 4.1

3.5 99 319

3.4 98 658

2.2 99 1172

EB 1 18 3 15 559 0.03 0.8 11.7 B 11.7 B

NB 1 11 11 0 1172 0.01 0.2 8.1 A 0.2

NB 2 471 0 0 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0

AF T

870

0.98 17

SB 1 386 0 17 1700 0.23 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Existing Traffic 2023

0.3 34.3% 15

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

12 B

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

68 68 0.97 2 70 0

160 160 0.97 4 165 1

269 269 0.97 4 277 1

12 12 0.97 17 12 0

127 127 0.97 9 131 1

4 4 0.97 25 4 1

228 228 0.97 3 235 0

24 24 0.97 2 25 1

8 8 0.97 2 8 0

1 1 0.97 2 1 0

20 20 0.97 5 21 1

45 45 0.97 2 46 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 11.8 B

EGIS

AF T

NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 13.3 B

SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 9.4 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 88% 30% 0% 9% 0% 2% 9% 70% 0% 91% 0% 30% 3% 0% 100% 0% 100% 68% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 260 228 269 139 4 66 228 68 0 12 0 1 24 160 0 127 0 20 8 0 269 0 4 45 268 235 277 143 4 68 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.434 0.388 0.394 0.26 0.006 0.107 5.831 5.944 5.118 6.534 5.639 5.687 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 616 606 704 549 634 629 3.867 3.677 2.851 4.278 3.383 3.737 0.435 0.388 0.393 0.26 0.006 0.108 13.3 12.4 11.2 11.6 8.4 9.4 B B B B A A 2.2 1.8 1.9 1 0 0.4

WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 11.5 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis

E.4 Omemee

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

7 7 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.55 815 0.90 8 0 8 29% Perm

299 299 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1811 1.00 1811 0.90 332 0 334 6% NA 2

2 2 1900

4 4 1900

5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1838 1.00 1883 0.90 6 0 12 2% NA 5

0 0 1900

27 27 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.75 1346 0.90 30 0 30 7% Perm

4 4 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1617 1.00 1617 0.90 4 0 37 2% NA 6

30 30 1900

0.90 4 0 0 2% Perm

15 15 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.90 17 7 10 27% Perm

5 5 1900

0.90 2 0 0 2%

318 318 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 1.00 1774 0.90 353 0 357 8% NA 2

0.90 6 0 0 2% Perm

0.90 0 0 0 2%

AF T

0.01 0.02 5.7 1.00 0.1 5.8 A

42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 1088 0.18

42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 1065

2 42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 489

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.31 7.0 1.00 0.7 7.7 A 7.7 A

Existing Traffic 2023

10.3 0.33 71.4 75.8% 15

c0.20 0.34 7.1 1.00 0.8 8.0 A 7.9 A

2 42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 772

0.01 0.01 5.7 1.00 0.0 5.8 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 5.8 5.8 0.08 7.0 3.0 109

1.7 1.7 0.02 7.0 3.0 44

c0.01 0.27 34.2 1.00 3.3 37.6 D 37.6 D

0.02 0.28 30.8 1.00 1.4 32.2 C

0.90 33 0 0 3%

5.8 5.8 0.08 7.0 3.0 131 c0.02 0.28 30.8 1.00 1.2 32.0 C 32.1 C

B 21.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EGIS

6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0

Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58

Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80

87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

Splits and Phases:

Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36

5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

2 EBWB

AM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EBL 8 0.01 8.6 0.0 8.6 0.3 2.8 20.0 597 0 0 0 0.01

EBT 334 0.25 7.8 0.0 7.8 15.6 49.9 761.0

WBT 357 0.27 8.0 0.0 8.0 17.0 54.3 568.3

1327 0 0 0 0.25

1300 0 0 0 0.27

WBR 17 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 979 0 0 0 0.02

NBT 12 0.05 26.6 0.0 26.6 1.2 6.1 233.0 455 0 0 0 0.03

SBL 30 0.14 27.3 0.0 27.3 2.9 11.4 50.0 326 0 0 0 0.09

Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour

SBT 37 0.14 26.9 0.0 26.9 3.5 13.2 315.8 391 0 0 0 0.09

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N

EGIS

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

7 7

304 304 Free 0% 0.83 366

298 298 Free 0% 0.83 359

12 12

24 24 Stop 0% 0.83 29

9 9 0.83 11

None

748

366

748 6.4

366 6.3

3.5 92 377

3.4 98 660

0.83 8

373 4.1 2.2 99 1185 WB 1 373 0 14 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0

SB 1 40 29 11 428 0.09 2.3 14.3 B 14.3 B

EB 1 374 8 0 1185 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2

0.83 14

AF T

373

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

0.8 31.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7

EGIS

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

2 2

311 311 Free 0% 0.83 375

13 13

32 32

2 2

18 18

4 4

0.83 2

0.83 22

0.83 23

0.83 5

2 2 Stop 0% 0.83 2

0 0

0.83 39

3 3 Stop 0% 0.83 4

19 19

0.83 16

296 296 Free 0% 0.83 357

0.83 0

391

824

383

848

831

358

391 4.1

824 7.2

383 6.2

848 7.1

831 7.0

358 6.2

2.2 97 1162

3.6 92 272

4.6 98 236

3.3 97 658

3.5 98 261

4.5 99 248

3.3 100 686

0.83 2

None

AF T

359 359 5.1 3.1 100 812

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

AM Peak Hour

EBL

WB 1 398 39 2 1162 0.03 0.8 1.1 A 1.1

NB 1 49 22 23 369 0.13 3.4 16.2 C 16.2 C

SB 1 7 5 0 257 0.03 0.6 19.4 C 19.4 C

EB 1 393 2 16 812 0.00 0.1 0.1 A 0.1

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

1.7 48.1% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7

EGIS

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0

326 326 Free 0% 0.89 366

11 11

0 0

30 30

2 2

0.89 0

0.89 34

0.89 10

0.89 2

0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0

5 5

0.89 0

0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0

9 9

0.89 12

322 322 Free 0% 0.89 362

0.89 6

378

740

734

372

744

740

362

378 4.1

740 7.1

734 6.5

372 6.2

744 7.1

740 6.5

362 6.2

2.2 100 1180

3.5 90 328

4.0 100 347

3.3 99 674

3.5 99 326

4.0 100 345

3.3 99 683

0.89 0

None

AF T

362 362 4.1 2.2 100 1197

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

AM Peak Hour

EBL

WB 1 362 0 0 1180 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.0

NB 1 44 34 10 372 0.12 3.0 16.0 C 16.0 C

SB 1 8 2 6 536 0.01 0.3 11.8 B 11.8 B

EB 1 378 0 12 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

1.0 29.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

43 43 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.96 45 0 45 2% Perm

453 453 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1853 1.00 1853 0.96 472 1 482 3% NA 2

11 11 1900

0 0 1900

12 12 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1810 0.57 1053 0.96 12 0 31 2% NA 5

4 4 1900

35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.74 1336 0.96 36 0 36 6% Perm

8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1563 1.00 1563 0.96 8 0 53 37% NA 6

43 43 1900

0.96 0 0 0 2%

31 31 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 32 14 18 2% Perm

13 13 1900

0.96 11 0 0 18%

432 432 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.96 450 0 450 2% NA 2

0.96 14 0 0 2% Perm

0.96 4 0 0 2%

AF T

0.05 0.10 8.0 1.00 0.4 8.4 A

42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 1029 c0.26

42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 1045 0.24

2 42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 472

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

PM Peak Hour

EBL

0.47 10.2 1.00 1.5 11.8 B 11.5 B

Existing Traffic 2023

13.7 0.45 76.7 75.8% 15

0.43 10.0 1.00 1.3 11.3 B 11.0 B

2 42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 889

0.01 0.02 7.7 1.00 0.0 7.7 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 8.0 8.0 0.10 7.0 3.0 139

5.1 5.1 0.07 7.0 3.0 70

c0.03 0.44 34.4 1.00 4.4 38.9 D 38.9 D

0.03 0.26 31.6 1.00 1.0 32.6 C

0.96 45 0 0 2%

8.0 8.0 0.10 7.0 3.0 163 c0.03 0.33 31.8 1.00 1.2 33.0 C 32.9 C

B 21.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EGIS

6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0

Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58

Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80

87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

Splits and Phases:

Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36

5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0

AF T

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

2 EBWB

PM Peak Hour

Existing Traffic 2023

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E

EBL 45 0.08 12.3 0.0 12.3 1.8 10.6 20.0 531 0 0 0 0.08

EBT 483 0.42 13.5 0.0 13.5 24.7 86.9 761.0

WBT 450 0.38 13.1 0.0 13.1 22.5 78.9 568.3

1160 0 0 0 0.42

1178 0 0 0 0.38

WBR 32 0.03 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 1054 0 0 0 0.03

NBT 31 0.18 29.7 0.0 29.7 2.8 11.7 233.0 228 0 0 0 0.14

SBL 36 0.18 32.5 0.0 32.5 3.4 13.6 50.0 289 0 0 0 0.12

Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour

SBT 53 0.23 32.7 0.0 32.7 5.1 18.0 315.8 338 0 0 0 0.16

AF T

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N

EGIS

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

12 12

433 433 Free 0% 0.95 456

419 419 Free 0% 0.95 441

45 45

18 18 Stop 0% 0.95 19

4 4 0.95 4

None

946

464

946 6.5

464 6.2

3.6 93 282

3.3 99 598

0.95 13

488 4.1 2.2 99 1075 WB 1 488 0 47 1700 0.29 0.0 0.0

SB 1 23 19 4 310 0.07 1.8 17.5 C 17.5 C

EB 1 469 13 0 1075 0.01 0.3 0.4 A 0.4

0.95 47

AF T

488

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

PM Peak Hour

EBL

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.0

0.6 42.5% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7

EGIS

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0

438 438 Free 0% 0.95 461

17 17

35 35

9 9

21 21

2 2

0.95 9

0.95 22

0.95 51

0.95 2

3 3 Stop 0% 0.95 3

0 0

0.95 37

1 1 Stop 0% 0.95 1

48 48

0.95 18

440 440 Free 0% 0.95 463

0.95 0

479

1013

1016

470

1063

1020

468

479 4.1

1013 7.2

1016 7.5

470 6.2

1063 7.1

1020 7.2

468 6.2

2.2 97 1083

3.6 89 202

4.9 99 158

3.3 91 594

3.5 99 178

4.6 98 177

3.3 100 595

0.95 0

None

AF T

472 472 4.1 2.2 100 1090

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

PM Peak Hour

EBL

WB 1 509 37 9 1083 0.03 0.8 1.0 A 1.0

0.0

NB 1 74 22 51 368 0.20 5.6 17.2 C 17.2 C

SB 1 5 2 0 178 0.03 0.7 25.9 D 25.9 D

EB 1 479 0 18 1090 0.00 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

1.8 64.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7

EGIS

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0

438 438 Free 0% 0.97 452

18 18

13 13

0 0

16 16

1 1

0.97 0

0.97 16

0.97 10

0.97 1

0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0

2 2

0.97 13

0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0

10 10

0.97 19

500 500 Free 0% 0.97 515

0.97 2

471

1004

1002

462

1012

515

471 4.1

1004 7.2

1002 6.5

462 6.2

1012 7.1

1012 6.5

515 6.2

2.2 99 1091

3.6 93 214

4.0 100 239

3.3 98 600

3.5 100 212

4.0 100 236

3.3 100 560

0.97 0

None

AF T

515 515 4.1 2.2 100 1051

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

PM Peak Hour

EBL

WB 1 528 13 0 1091 0.01 0.3 0.3 A 0.3

0.0

NB 1 26 16 10 284 0.09 2.3 18.9 C 18.9 C

SB 1 3 1 2 362 0.01 0.2 15.0 C 15.0 C

EB 1 471 0 19 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Traffic 2023

0.7 46.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Appendix F: Collision Analysis

Project No: CCO-0008

Prepared for: City of Kawartha Lakes

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

November 2024

Prepared by: Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................4 1.1.

Collisions at Intersections .............................................................................4

1.1.1.

Methodology .........................................................................................4

1.1.2.

Results .................................................................................................4 1.1.2.1 Collision by Severity......................................................................4 1.1.2.2 Collision by Initial Impact Type .....................................................4

1.1.3.

Analysis of hotspot locations ................................................................ 12

Collisions at Road Segments ....................................................................... 16

1.2.

1.1.2.3 External factors ............................................................................5

1.2.1.

Methodology ....................................................................................... 20

1.2.2.

Results ............................................................................................... 20 1.2.2.1 Collision by Severity.................................................................... 20

1.2.2.2 Collision by Initial Impact Type ................................................... 20 1.2.2.3 External factors .......................................................................... 20 Analysis of Hotspot locations ............................................................... 28

1.2.3.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Severity (2014-2022) ...................................................................................5 Table 2: Key Hotspots: Intersections ....................................................................... 12 Table 3: Collision summary – Hotspot intersections ................................................... 14 Table 4: Hotspot Intersections – Severity & Initial impact type .................................. 18 Table 5: Hotspot Intersections – Light conditions ...................................................... 19 Table 6: Hotspot Intersections – Environment conditions........................................... 20 Table 7: Hotspot Intersections – Road Surface conditions .......................................... 21

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 8: Severity (2014-2022) ................................................................................. 25 Table 9: Key Hotspots - Road segments ................................................................... 31 Table 10: Collision Percentages ................................................................................ 34 Table 11: Hotspot road segments – Severity & Initial impact type .............................. 37 Table 12: Hotspot road segments – Light conditions ................................................. 38 Table 13: Hotspot road segments – Environmental conditions ................................... 39 Table 14: Hotspot road segments – Road surface conditions ..................................... 40 LIST OF FIGURES

APPENDICES

Figure 1: Collisions - Intersections By Temporal Distribution ........................................7 Figure 2: Collision Analysis – Intersections (Heat Map) ................................................9 Figure 3a: Collision Analysis – Intersections .............................................................. 10 Figure 3b: Collision Analysis – Intersections .............................................................. 11 Figure 4: Hotspots - Intersections ............................................................................ 13 Figure 5: Collisions - Road Segments By Temporal Distribution .................................. 26 Figure 6: Collision Analysis – Road Segments (Heat Map) .......................................... 28 Figure 7a: Collision Analysis – Road Segments .......................................................... 29 Figure 7b: Collision Analysis – Road Segments .......................................................... 30 Figure 8: Hotspot Locations – Road Segments .......................................................... 32 Figure 9: Road Diet Example ................................................................................... 42

Appendix A: Collision Data Tables

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

Collision Analysis

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

1. Introduction A collision analysis for the City of Kawartha Lakes was undertaken to develop an empirical model to conduct future operational and safety assessments for its roadways and intersections. The study covered the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2022, including all corridors and intersections in the City of Kawartha Lakes settlement areas. The 2023 traffic collisions were excluded as the data was unavailable for a whole year. Furthermore, traffic collisions outside of COKL municipal limits were omitted from the data analysis. Road cross-sections were classified as Urban, Rural, and Semi-urban to serve as a starting point. The collisions were analyzed separately, such as those that happened at intersections and those at road segments.

1.1.1.

Methodology

1.1. Collisions at Intersections

The objective of the safety review and detailed traffic collision analysis was to identify possible contributing factors for higher overall collision frequency, subsequent identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and guide the City in prioritizing potential safety enhancements.

Results

1.1.2.

The intersections were classified into signalized, unsignalized, three-legged and fourlegged intersections. A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors.

In total, 60 signalized and 872 unsignalized intersections were considered for the study. Among them, there were 548 three-legged and 384 four-legged intersections.

1.1.2.1

Collision by Severity

Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 75% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 0.2% of collisions were fatal and 22% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 4% non-reportable collisions.

1.1.2.2

Collision by Initial Impact Type

Analyzing initial impact type, Single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 41%, and turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile, angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop 4

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. All drivers need to remain vigilant and follow traffic laws to prevent these types of accidents from happening.

1.1.2.3

External factors

External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Collisions were maximum in 2019, and there is a considerable reduction in the next few years. Table 1 shows the collision severity over the years (2014-2022). Table 1: Severity (2014-2022) Non-fatal injury

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2022

220

188

242

274

2021

273

279

203

230

236

2020

Fatal Injury

Year

Property Damage only Non-reportable

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Majority of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring in clear and dry road conditions, during daylight hours during the week. The frequency of collisions was low in the dark and on weekends. Most collisions took place in off-peak hours, on Fridays, within 6 hours from 12 p.m. (noon) to 6 p.m. as illustrated in Figure 1. Accounting for Road users, about 2% of collisions involved pedestrians with less than 1% fatal injuries and 58% major injuries. No hanger-on or one sitting on the lap was injured in the collisions considered under intersections.

321

431

434

482

395

444

389

Number of Collisions

Collisions according to year of occurrence

2022

2021

Number of Collisions

2020

2019

277

Collisions according to month of occurrence

470 323 193 89 12:00:00 AM 06:00:00 AM

06:01:00 AM 11:59:00 AM

12:00:00 PM 06:00:00 PM

06:00:00 PM 11:59:00 PM

Time interval

Collisions according to the day of occurrence

Figure 1: Collisions - Intersections by Temporal Distribution

258

Collisions according to time of occurrence

December

2018

July

2017

April

2016

March

2015

206

279

153

271 February

2014

206

272

November

249

201

272

October

292

279

239

September

245

August

288

387

June

313

367

May

337

348

CCO-0008

January

Number of Collisions

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

The major reason for most of the collisions was "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Collisions kept on happening irrespective of the good road conditions. Drivers were NOT Under the Influence (Non-DUI) in most collisions; however, inattentive driving was the main reason for Angle Collisions. The details of collision analysis are depicted in Figure 2 Heat Map and Figures 3a & 3b Collision Analysis.

Cambridge Street & Durham Street Kent Street & Highway 35 Highway 7 & River Road Kirk field Road & Avery Point Road Monck Road & Cockburn Street

● ● ● ● ●

Only five fatalities were recorded during the analysis period, one at each of the following intersections.

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

Figure 2: Collision Analysis – Intersections (Heat map)

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis 0ther ApproachingAngle 6% 2% 7%

Nonreportable 5%

Rearend 12%

CCO-0008 Fatal Injury 0%

Non-fatal injury 21%

2840

3000 2500 2000 1500 56

Property Damage only 74% Collisions classification according to severity Dark 14%

Dusk 3%

Others 0%

Daylight 82%

Dawn 1%

Pedestrian

Passenger

Collisions according to involved persons

Drifting snow Fog, mist, smoke, 2% Strong wind dust 2% Freezing rain 1% 2%

Other 1%

Snow 9% Rain 9%

Loose sand or Mud Packed snow lce Other gravel 0% 4% 1% Spilled liquid 6% 1% Stush 0% 3% Loose snow 5%

Turning movement SMV 11% unattended vehicle 15% Collisions classification according to initial impact type

Wet 18%

500

SMVother 42%

1000

Sideswipe 5%

Dry 62%

Collision classification according to road surface conditions

Figure 3a Collision Analysis – Intersections

Clear 74%

Collision classification according to light conditions

Collision classification according to environmental conditions

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

1218

107 146

Poor 2%

168 255

174

Normal

Collision classification according to driver actions

Collision classification according to driver’s conditions

Number of Collisions

Fatigue inattentive Unknown Ability Medical or Other impaired, physical drugs disability Ability impaired, alcohol Ability impaired, alcohol(over. 08) Had been drinking

CCO-0008

Under 0% repair or Constructi on 0%

Good 98%

Collision classification according to road conditions

Figure 3b: Collision Analysis – Intersections

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

1.1.3.

CCO-0008

Analysis of hotspot locations

Intersections were sorted according to the number of collisions and the top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. All the intersections considered in the study and the collisions associated with them are added to Appendix A. Key hotspots are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4. Table 2: Key Hotspots: Intersections Intersection

Traffic control

Intersection geometry

Total No. of collisions

Kent Street & St. Joseph Road

Signalized

4 legged

127

Kent Street & Angeline Street

Signalized

4 legged

112

Kent Street & Commerce Road

Unsignalized

3 legged

Angeline Street & Colborne Street

Signalized

3 legged

Highway 35 & Highway 7

Signalized

4 legged

Kent Street & William Street

Signalized

4 legged

Lindsay Street & Russell Street

Signalized

4 legged

Victoria Avenue & Kent Street

Signalized

4 legged

Russell Street & William Street

Signalized

4 legged

Kent Street & Cambridge Street

Signalized

4 legged

Sl.no

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

1.1.4.

Figure 4: Hotspots – Intersections

Hotspot locations analysis

A summary table of concerns in each hotspot location is added in Table 3. All hotspot intersections follow the same trend as the City with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Lindsay Street & Russell Street, Angeline Street & Colborne Street, and Victoria Avenue & Kent Street intersections have more than 25% non-fatal collisions as listed in Table 4. It may be noted that there are no fatal collisions among these ten hotspots. From Table 4, it is obvious that every hotspot location has a higher percentage of Single motor vehicle collisions. Kent Street & Cambridge Street and Victoria Avenue & Kent Street have SMV collision percentages way more than the City percentage. A higher proportion of SMV collisions occur due to external factors such as environmental conditions, light conditions, and road surface conditions than other collisions. These external factors are analyzed in the next sections. 13

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Among hotspots, Victoria Avenue & Kent Street have 23% rear-end collisions. Distracted Driving and Speeding are the main reasons for rear-ending collisions. This intersection is signalized, and the City should consider providing appropriate signage at regular intervals. It is noteworthy that no fatalities have happened at any of the hot spot locations. While analyzing hotspots for light conditions, it is clear from Table 5 that majority of the collisions happened in daylight only. However, the following intersections have the percentage of collisions that happened in the dark to be around 20%. • • •

Kent Street & Commerce Road Kent Street & William Street Russell Street & William Street

The City must monitor the sufficiency of roadway lighting and take necessary actions in these locations. Even though a higher proportion of collisions happened in clear environmental conditions at every hotspot location, it should be noted that Lindsay Street & Russell Street have 30% collisions under snow as shown in Table 6.

Location

No.

Considering road surface conditions, collisions are higher irrespective of the fact that the road surface is dry. At Kent Street & Angeline Street, 18% of collisions happened during wet road surface conditions, which is clear from Table 7. Table 3: Collision summary – Hotspot intersections

Kent Street & St. Joseph Road

Collision Percentage • • • • • • •

2 Kent Street & Angeline Street

• • •

45% single motor vehicle collisions 13% collisions in the dark 16% collisions in rain and snow 9% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 9% collisions due to inattentive driving 38% single motor vehicle collisions 8% collisions in the dark 15% collisions in rain and snow 18% collisions in wet road surface 14

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Location

Collision Percentage • • •

3 Kent Street & Commerce Road

• • •

Angeline Street & Colborne Street

• • •

• •

•

• • •

9% lost control collisions 16% collisions due to inattentive driving 36% single motor vehicle collisions 22% collisions in the dark 17% collisions in rain and snow 14% collisions in wet road surface 14% failed to yield collisions 14% collisions due to inattentive driving 41% single motor vehicle collisions 12% collisions in the dark 9% collisions in rain and snow 3% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 12% collisions due to inattentive driving 41% single motor vehicle collisions. 9% collisions in the dark. 21% collisions in rain and snow. 6% collisions in wet road surface. 12% lost control collisions. 9% of collisions are due to inattentive driving. 43% of single motor vehicle collisions. 23% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 13% lost control collisions.

No.

CCO-0008

Highway 35 & Highway 7

• • • • • •

6 Kent Street & William Street

• • • •

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Location

Lindsay Street & Russell Street

Collision Percentage •

7% of collisions are due to inattentive driving.

•

37% single motor vehicle collisions. 4% collisions in the dark. 34% collisions in rain and snow. 7% collisions in wet road surface. 15% lost control collisions 15% of collisions were due to inattentive driving. 50% single motor vehicle collisions. 8% collisions in the dark. 12% collisions in rain and snow. 8% collisions in wet road surface. 12% lost control collisions. 15% of collisions were due to inattentive driving. 33% of single motor vehicle collisions. 17% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 17% failed to yield collisions. 4% of collisions are due to inattentive driving. 61% single motor vehicle collisions. 4% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 4% collisions in wet road surface.

• • • • •

• • •

Victoria Avenue & Kent Street

•

No.

CCO-0008

• •

Russell Street & William Street

• • • • • •

Kent Street & Cambridge Street

• • •

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Location

Collision Percentage 4% lost control collisions. 17% of collisions are due to inattentive driving.

• •

No.

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 4: Hotspot Intersections – Severity & Initial impact type

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

Nonfatal injury 23%

112

20%

Initial Impact Type Sideswip Turning e moveme nt

Nonreporta ble

Othe r

Approachi ng

Angl e

Rear end

SMV unattende d vehicle

SMV othe r

0the r

13%

14%

45 %

77%

11%

15%

12%

38 %

22%

75%

11%

14%

11%

17%

36 %

29%

71%

15%

18%

41 %

18%

79%

12%

18%

17%

15%

19%

41 % 43 % 37 %

13%

87%

37%

59%

27%

65%

23%

50 %

21%

79%

13%

17%

33 %

13%

83%

17%

61 %

Kent Street & St. Joseph Road Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7 Kent Street & William Street Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street Kent Street & Cambridge Street

Fata l Inju ry 0%

Severity Propert y Damag e only 75%

Total number of collision s 127

Intersection

Sl. N o.

7% 0%

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 5: Hotspot Intersections – Light conditions Daylight

Daylight, artificial

127 112 36 34

81% 85% 69% 85%

1% 1% 6% 0%

34 30 27 26 24 23

76% 57% 85% 81% 83% 87%

0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Dawn

Dawn, artificial

Dusk

Dusk, artificial

Dark

Dark, artificial

Other

0% 2% 0% 0%

1% 0% 0% 0%

2% 2% 3% 0%

1% 1% 0% 0%

13% 8% 22% 12%

2% 2% 0% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 4%

0% 3% 0% 4% 0% 0%

6% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0%

0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4%

9% 23% 4% 8% 17% 4%

6% 7% 4% 4% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 6 7 8 9 10

Light Conditions

1 2 3 4

Total number of collisions

Intersection

Sl. No.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 6: Hotspot Intersections – Environment conditions Sl. No.

Intersection

Total number of collisions

Clear

Rain

Snow

Environment Conditions Freezing Driftin Strong rain g snow wind

Fog, Other mist, smoke, dust 0% 0%

127

81%

12%

2 3

112 36

79% 69%

8% 11%

7% 6%

0% 0%

3% 0%

3% 8%

1% 6%

0% 0%

82%

0% 0%

5 6 Kent Street & William Street

7 Lindsay Street & Russell

Road Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7

1 Kent Street & St. Joseph

15% 10%

0% 3%

59%

30%

3% 10 % 0%

81%

67%

17%

78%

13%

6% 7%

Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street Kent Street & Cambridge Street

76% 67%

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 7: Hotspot Intersections – Road Surface conditions

5 6 7 8 9 10 Kent Street & Cambridge Street

Dry

Wet

Loose snow

127 112 36 34

35% 33% 39% 29%

9% 18% 14% 3%

4% 5% 3% 9%

34 30 27 26 24

50% 40% 44% 38% 46% 43%

6% 10% 7% 8% 0% 4%

3% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4%

Stush

Packed snow

lce

Mud

Loose sand or gravel

Spilled liquid

Other

2% 4% 0% 0%

0% 2% 0% 3%

2% 4% 0% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 3% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 3% 7% 0% 8% 0%

0% 7% 0% 0% 8% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Road Surface Condition

1 2 3 4

Total number of collisions

Intersection

Sl. No.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

1.1.5.

CCO-0008

Conclusion and Recommendations

A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. The review identified key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Based on a thorough review and analysis of the traffic collisions at the hotspot intersections in the City of Kawartha Lakes, the key recommendations are summarized as follows: 1. Recommendations based on the collision types:

• •

•

Single motor vehicle collisions o Better Lighting and Visibility: Improve lighting on rural and remote roads, which are more prone to single-vehicle accidents due to low visibility at night. Collisions in the dark o Reflective Road Markings: Use reflective paint or road markers to improve visibility in low-light conditions. o Enhanced Headlights and Signage: Enforce regulations for properly functioning vehicle headlights and reflective signage. Collisions in the rain, snow and wet conditions o Road Maintenance: Ensure regular clearing of snow and ice in winter months, along with proper drainage to prevent water accumulation. o Improved Road Surface Materials: Invest in high-friction road surfaces that provide better traction in wet conditions. Collisions due to loss of control o Anti-Skid Surfaces: Install anti-skid road surfaces in high-risk areas like bridges, sharp curves, and downhill roads. Collisions due to inattentive driving o Driver Fatigue Management: Implement measures to detect and prevent driver fatigue, such as encouraging rest stops and implementing laws for maximum driving hours, especially for commercial drivers. Collisions due to failure to yield o Clearer Signage: Ensure that "Yield" signs, traffic signals, and right-of-way signs are clearly visible and placed at the correct locations (e.g., at intersections, pedestrian crossings). Reflective signs or illuminated traffic signals should be used, especially in low-light conditions.

•

2. Recommendations for pedestrian collisions at signalized intersections: • Use smaller curb radii to reduce the walking distance 22

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis •

CCO-0008

Modify traffic signal timings to provide pedestrians ahead start

Additionally, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the hotspots by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

1.2. Collisions at Road Segments 1.2.1.

Methodology

A review of historical collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. At key hotspots, a detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed to identify causal factors.

1.2.2.

Results

Collisions that occurred over road segments were analyzed separately and the following conclusions were obtained.

1.2.2.1

Collision by Severity

1.2.2.2

Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 78% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 1% of collisions were fatal and 18% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 3% non-reportable collisions.

Collision by Initial Impact Type

1.1.2.1

Single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 42% and turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile, angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. All drivers need to remain vigilant and follow traffic laws to prevent these types of accidents from happening.

External factors

External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Collisions were maximum in the year 2019, and there is a considerable reduction in collisions in the next few years. Table 8 shows the collision severity over the years (2014-2022).

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 8: Severity (2014-2022) Non-reportable

2014

416

2015

240

678

2016

183

630

2017

179

686

2018

139

740

2019

148

823

2020

130

532

2021

129

595

2022

610

Non-fatal injury

Property Damage only

Year

Fatal Injury

The greatest number of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring under clear and dry road conditions during daylight hours during the week. The frequency of collisions was lower in the dark and on the weekends. Most collisions occurred in off-peak hours, on Fridays, during the 6 hours from 12 p.m. (noon) to 6 p.m. as shown in Figure 5.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

698

767

602

766

541 436

590

616

578

587

September

632

August

907

July

838

893

June

922

768

685

387

512

1068

1096

1091

1239

903

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

1066

859

Sunday

Number of Collisions

Collisions according to year of occurrence

Year

2022

Collisions according to the day of occurrence

Number of Collisions

2021

2020

December

2019

November

2018

October

2017

May

2016

April

2015

March

2014

February

January

Number of Collisions

900 1019

Collisions according to month of occurrence

3279 1959

1552

615 12:00:00 AM 06:00:00 AM

06:01:00 AM 11:59:00 AM

12:00:00 PM 06:00:00 PM

06:00:00 PM 11:59:00 PM

Collisions according to time of occurrence

Figure 5: Collisions - road segments by temporal distribution

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Taking road users into account, about 1% of collisions involve pedestrians. Among the people involved, there were less than 1% fatal injuries and 60% major injuries. Two hangers-on and no one sitting on the lap were injured in the collisions considered under road segments.

The major reason for most of the collisions was that "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Collisions kept on happening, irrespective of the good road conditions. Drivers were NOT Under the Influence (Non-DUI) in most of the collisions; however, inattentive driving was the major reason for Angle Collisions. 39 fatal accidents occurred in the period considered in the collisions that happened at road segments. The details of collision analysis are illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7a & 7b.

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

Figure 6: Collision Analysis – Road Segments (Heat map)

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis 0ther Approaching Angle 2% 6% 7%

Non-reportable 3%

Fatal Injury 1%

Rearend 11%

Turning movement 12%

Dry 62%

AF Dark 14%

Spilled Other liquid 1% 0%

Dusk 3% Dawn 1%

Others 0%

Daylight 82%

Wet 18%

lce 6%

Property Damage only 78% Collisions classification according to severity

Collisions according to involved persons Drifting snowStrong wind 2% 2% Freezing rain 2% Snow 8%

Fog, mist, Other smoke, dust 1% 2%

Rain 8%

Loose snow 6%

snow 4%

SMV unattended vehicle 16% Collisions classification according to initial impact type

Stush 2%

Non-fatal injury 18%

Sideswipe 4%

SMVother 42%

Loose sand Mud or gravel 0% 1% Packed

CCO-0008

Collision classification according to road surface conditions

Figure 7a: Collision Analysis – Road Segments

Clear 75%

Collision classification according to light conditions

Collision classification according to environmental conditions

Poor 2%

3195

238 Normal 85%

Under repair 0% or Constructio n 1%

423

Collision classification according to driver actions

Good 97%

Collision classification according to road conditions

Collision classification according to driver’s conditions

380 280 124 442 697

Had been Ability impaired, drinking alcohol(over.08) 1% 1%

CCO-0008

Fatigue inattentive Medical or Ability physical Unknown Other 1% 10% impaired, disability 0% 1% drugs 1% Ability 0% impaired, alcohol 0%

Number of Collisions

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

Figure 7b: Collision Analysis – Road Segment

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

1.2.3.

CCO-0008

Hotspot location analysis

Road segments were also sorted according to the number of collisions, and the top ten were identified as key hotspots. All the road segments considered in the study and the collisions associated with them are provided in Appendix A. Key hotspots are listed in Table 9 and shown in Figure 8. A heatmap of these hotspots is added as Figure 9. Table 9: Key Hotspots - Road sections Sl. no Road Name

Number of collisions

Kent Street

908

Highway 35

579

Highway 7

471

Lindsay Street

Angeline Street

County Road 121

176

County Road 36

164

Glenarm Road

155

Pigeon Lake Road

147

Little Britain Road

143

329 224

CCO-0008

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

Figure 8: Hotspot Road segment heat maps 32

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

1.2.4. Collision by Impact Type and Driver Action

A summary table including all concerns associated with hotspot road segments are added in Table 10. All hotspot segments follow the same trend as the City with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The following road segments had fatal accidents as listed in Table 11. Kent Street - 5 Highway 35 - 6 Highway 7 - 1 Lindsay Street – 4 Angeline Street County Road 121 - 3 County Road 36 - 1 Glenarm Road - 1 Pigeon Lake Road – 1 Little Britain Road -

• • • • • • • • • •

From Table 11, it is obvious that every hotspot location has a higher percentage of Single motor vehicle collisions. Single motor vehicle unattended collisions are around 20% for Highway 7, Lindsay Street, and Pigeon Lake Road. A higher proportion of SMV collisions occur due to external factors such as environmental conditions, light conditions, and road surface conditions than other collisions. These external factors are analyzed below.

While analyzing hotspots for light conditions, it is clear from Table 12 that most collisions happen in daylight only. However, the percentage of collisions in the dark is about 25-30% at all locations. At Highway 7, it is coming to be around 35%, and at Highway 35, around 32%. The city must monitor the sufficiency of roadway lighting and take necessary actions in these locations. Even though a higher proportion of collisions happened in clear environmental conditions at every hotspot location, it should be noted that County Road 36 and Pigeon Lake Road have 13% and 11% collisions under rain respectively as depicted in Table 13. Considering road surface conditions, collisions are higher irrespective of the fact that the road surface is dry. At Pigeon Lake Road, 14% of collisions happened during wet road surface conditions which is clear from Table 14.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 10: Collision Percentages

Location

Concerns • •

Kent Street

• • • • •

• • •

Highway 35

• •

5 fatal collisions 41% single motor vehicle collisions 30% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 11% collisions in wet road surface 10% lost control collisions 7% collisions due to inattentive driving 6 fatal collisions 42% single motor vehicle collisions 32% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 9% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 9% collisions due to inattentive driving 1 fatal collision 41% single motor vehicle collisions 35% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 11% collisions in wet road surface 8% failed to yield collisions 7% collisions due to inattentive driving

No.

Highway 7

• • • • • • • • •

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Location

Concerns • •

Lindsay Street

• • • • • •

Angeline Street

• •

• • •

•

4 fatal collisions 38% single motor vehicle collisions 29% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 12% collisions in wet road surface 8% lost control collisions 8% collisions due to inattentive driving 37% single motor vehicle collisions. 28% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 9% lost control collisions. 6% collisions due to inattentive driving. 46% single motor vehicle collisions. 27% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 6% collisions in wet road surface. 13% lost control collisions. 9% collisions due to inattentive driving. 47% single motor vehicle collisions. 24% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface.

No.

CCO-0008

County Road 121

• • • • • •

7 County Road 36

• • •

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Location

Concerns • • •

• • Glenarm Road

• • • •

Pigeon Lake Road

• •

•

• •

Little Britain Road

9% lost control collisions 5% collisions due to inattentive driving. 44% single motor vehicle collisions. 29% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 10% lost control collisions. 7% collisions due to inattentive driving. 39% single motor vehicle collisions. 27% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 14% collisions in wet road surface. 7% failed to yield collisions. 7% collisions due to inattentive driving. 41% single motor vehicle collisions. 30% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 7% lost control collisions. 8% collisions due to inattentive driving.

No.

CCO-0008

• • • • • •

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 11: Hotspot road segments – Severity & Initial impact type

5 6 7 8 9 10

Initial Impact Type

Fatal Injur y

Nonfatal injury

Property Damage only

Nonreportable

Othe r

Approachin g

Angle

Rear end

Sideswipe

Turning movemen t

SMV unattended vehicle

SMV other

0ther

908 579 471 329

1% 1% 0% 1%

16% 18% 20% 23%

80% 79% 77% 71%

3% 2% 3% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

2% 3% 1% 2%

8% 7% 8% 7%

11% 12% 9% 12%

4% 4% 6% 5%

13% 11% 10% 12%

15% 16% 19% 20%

41% 42% 41% 38%

6% 5% 6% 5%

224

14%

83%

13%

16%

37%

176

18%

77%

13%

14%

46%

164

21%

76%

10%

11%

18%

47%

155

22%

74%

15%

12%

44%

147

15%

82%

13%

19%

39%

143

15%

79%

12%

13%

41%

Kent Street Highway 35 Highway 7 Lindsay Street Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36 Glenarm Road Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road

Severity

1 2 3 4

Total number of collisions

Road Segment

Sl. No.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 12: Hotspot road segments – Light conditions Sl. No.

Intersection

Total number of collisions

Light Conditions Daylight

Daylight, artificial

Dawn

Dawn, artificial

Dusk

Dusk, artificial

Dark

Dark, artificial

Other

Kent Street

908

63%

30%

2 3 4 5 6 7

Highway 35 Highway 7 Lindsay Street Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36

579 471 329 224 176 164

58% 55% 62% 62% 65% 65%

1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 3% 5% 4% 2% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

32% 35% 29% 28% 27% 24%

1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1%

0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

8 9 10

Glenarm Road Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road

155 147 143

65% 64% 61%

0% 0% 0%

2% 5% 3%

0% 0% 0%

3% 3% 5%

0% 0% 0%

29% 27% 30%

1% 0% 1%

0% 1% 0%

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 13: Hotspot road segments – Environmental conditions Environment Conditions

Clear

Rain

908 579

74% 77%

9% 9%

Highway 7 Lindsay Street Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36 Glenarm Road

471 329 224 176 164 155

73% 78% 70% 76% 70% 78%

9% 6% 8% 9% 13% 6%

Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road

147 143

70% 78%

11% 9%

Freezing rain

Drifting snow

9% 8%

2% 2%

2% 1%

8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7%

1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 2%

10% 6%

2% 1%

Kent Street Highway 35

Snow

Total number of collisions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Intersection

Strong wind

Other

1% 1%

Fog, mist, smok e, dust 2% 2%

4% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3%

2% 1% 4% 1% 3% 3%

2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1%

1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%

2% 1%

3% 4%

1% 1%

1% 0%

1% 1%

Sl. No.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

Table 14: Hotspot road segments – Road surface conditions Total number of collisions

Road Surface Condition Dry

Wet

Loose snow

Stush

Packed snow

lce

Mud

Loose sand or gravel

Spilled liquid

Other

908

37%

11%

Highway 35 Highway 7 Lindsay Street Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36

579 471 329 224 176 164

37% 35% 34% 37% 34% 37%

9% 11% 12% 10% 6% 10%

3% 3% 3% 2% 6% 2%

1% 0% 2% 3% 2% 2%

3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1%

2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1%

Glenarm Road Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road

155 147 143

32% 32% 34%

10% 14% 10%

3% 1% 5%

2% 2% 2%

3% 3% 1%

3% 4% 7%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 1%

0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 2%

Kent Street

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Intersection

Sl. No.

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis

CCO-0008

1.2.5. Conclusion and Recommendations A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. The review identified key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Based on a thorough review and analysis of the traffic collisions at the highest 10 traffic collision segments in the City of Kawartha Lakes, the key recommendations are summarized as follows: Recommendations based on the road segment and collision types:

• • • • • • •

• •

•

Enhanced Safety Regulations: Strengthen laws for seat belt use, and child safety restraints. Invest in Road Safety Infrastructure: Install barriers, guardrails, and improved intersection designs to reduce the severity of collisions. Install traffic islands to force drivers to slow down in high-risk zones. Better Lighting and Visibility: Improve lighting on rural and remote roads, which are more prone to single-vehicle accidents due to low visibility at night. Reflective Road Markings: Use reflective paint or road markers to improve visibility in low-light conditions. Enhanced Headlights and Signage: Enforce regulations for properly functioning vehicle headlights and reflective signage. Road Maintenance: Ensure regular clearing of snow and ice in winter months, along with proper drainage to prevent water accumulation. Improved Road Surface Materials: Invest in high-friction road surfaces that provide better traction in wet conditions. Anti-Skid Surfaces: Install anti-skid road surfaces in high-risk areas like bridges, sharp curves, and downhill roads. Driver Fatigue Management: Implement measures to detect and prevent driver fatigue, such as encouraging rest stops and implementing laws for maximum driving hours, especially for commercial drivers. Clearer Signage: Ensure that "Yield" signs, traffic signals, and right-of-way signs are clearly visible and placed at the correct locations (e.g., at intersections, pedestrian crossings). Reflective signs or illuminated traffic signals should be used, especially in low-light conditions. Posted speed limit: Periodic posted speed limit reviews are recommended on road segments that experience a high number of collisions. Police Speed Enforcement: The local police service is recommended to deploy officers for targeted speed enforcement during peak hours.

•

City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Existing Traffic Operations •

CCO-0008

Road diet: it would be beneficial for road segments with two travel lanes in each direction with no dedicated left turn or right turn lanes and have too many driveways along the road segment. Motorists may suddenly slow down to turn, while other motorists may be following too closely, or being distracted. An example of a road diet is changing a four lane to three-lane roadway by providing one-lane per direction and a centre two-way left turn (TWLTL). The TWLTL will provide storage for left-turn movements, while additional space may be utilized for bike lanes, parking etc. based on the pavement width.

Figure 9: Road Diet Example Before

After

It is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the identified road segments by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them.

Collision Rate Analysis Memo Data Provided Two sets of data was used for the analysis. 1. Road data for COKL including essential information, such as Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for 2016 and 2021, road segment lengths, and geographical locations of road segments. 2. Collision history data received for 2014-2022 – The number of collisions at each road segment for 2018 to 2022 are taken from this dataset.

Methodology

•

• •

Misaligned collision locations: Several collision points fell slightly outside the borders of the road network, resulting in isolated data points with no associated link information. Duplicates: There was a possibility of double-counting owing to probable duplication in the collision data collection or reporting, which potentially resulted in an overestimation of collision counts. Missing link data: Some collisions were not associated with specific road segments because attribute data such as AADT, length, or link location were absent in the provided network files. Outliers in collision rate estimates: Collision rate estimates showed significant variations, which were generally caused by short connection segments or exceptionally low AADT values because they are inversely related to collision rate. The equation used to determine the collision rate was:

•

Challenges Encountered

A spatial analysis was performed on the known collision sites using QGIS, a Geographic Information System (GIS). Each collision was assigned to its corresponding road connection in the network. Buffer polygons were employed around each link to mimic the actual dimension of roads, making collision counting more effective. A complete spreadsheet was then created, detailing the number of collisions per link. This GIS-based approach enabled effective visualization of collision distributions across the road network. Using the available AADT value for 2021, the AADT value for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022 was estimated based on the provided growth rate. The median AADT was then determined.

CMVK = Collisions per Million Vehicle Kilometers

Mitigation Strategies

•

Correcting misaligned collision locations: To guarantee proper representation, isolated collisions that occurred near existing road linkages were modified by snapping them to the nearest link using GIS tools. Duplicate elimination: A comprehensive GIS-based procedure was used to discover and eliminate duplicate collision records. The geometrical overlapping of roads was isolated and collision points belonging to these overlapped areas were identified, hence reducing counting mistakes. Handling missing link data: These cannot be snapped to any nearby geometry, because they are completely isolated. Missing AADT data provided later was inadequate to accurately identify certain linkages. To remedy this, median AADT values for road links belonging to the same parent road were calculated, and connection lengths were estimated using OpenStreetMap geometry. Managing outliers: Due to significantly low AADT on some links, collision rate values were disproportionately high. To maintain data integrity, all links with extremely low AADT were excluded from the study. Moreover, links with very short length were either merged with adjacent links if possible or omitted. COKL average collision rate calculated to be 0.832. Collision rates exceeding the average collision rate of the city were flagged as hotspots and are shown in the figure below.

•

T AF R D Figure 1: Road Segments with collision rate more than City average

Table 1: Collision rate analysis Description

Length (km) 2.325

Total Collisions 30

Median AADT (2018-2022) 2442

Rate of Collision 2.895

Adelaide St. N.

From Elgin St Lnd To Pottinger St Lnd

Agnes St

From Woodville Rd Eld Mpo To John St Wdv

0.380

1178

1.224

1.437

2704

6.769

0.510

606

1.771

1.286

1867

0.456

0.934

1867

0.629

0.694

11884

1.329

0.379

10581

1.913

Angeline St. N.

From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Pleasant Point Rd Mpo From Willow Glen Dr Ops To Kenrei Rd Fen Ops From Thunder Bridge Rd Ops To Willow Glen Dr Ops From Northlin Park Rd Lnd To David Dr Lnd From Kent St W Lnd To Colborne St W Lnd Near Orchard Park Rd Lnd

0.223

11884

0.207

Angeline St. N.

From Oak St Lnd To Flavelle Cr Lnd

0.098

11797

0.474

Angeline St. S.

From Mcdonagh Dr Lnd To Durham St W Lnd Near Auk Tl Lnd

0.863

8748

1.452

Algonquin Rd. Angeline St. N. Angeline St. N. Angeline St. N.

0.651

9912

0.425

0.600

9912

0.184

0.400

9912

1.244

0.400

9912

1.244

0.147

8748

0.852

0.638

775

1.109

0.784

1392

2.511

From Mallard Bay Rd Emi To Birch Point Dr Emi From Cardinal Rd Emi To Skyline Rd Mpo From Yankee Li Emi To Mallard Bay Rd Emi From Miller Rd Crd To Kirkfield Rd Crd

2.389

951

0.723

Angeline St. N.

Angeline St. S.

Albert St.

Label

1.466

951

1.965

1.398

1209

1.620

1.669

546

1.202

From Campbell Beach Rd Crd To Miller Rd Crd Near Country Rd 121 Smv

1.213

550

0.821

0.644

674

1.262

From The Glen Rd Mpo To Opmar Rd Mpo Ops Near Robin Rd Fen

1.940

1793

0.158

0.322

789

2.156

Cambridge St.

1.035

8833

1.498

Cameron Rd.

0.658

1414

1.767

0.514

2055

3.631

1.278

889

0.482

0.839

825

1.584

Angeline St. S. Angeline St. S. Angeline St. S.

Bolsover Rd. Bond St. Boundary Rd. Boundary Rd. Boundary Rd. Brechin Rd. Brechin Rd. Burnt River Rd. Cambray Rd. Cambray Rd.

From Roosevelt St Lnd To Kent St W Lnd From Canal Rd Eld To Armitage Av Eld

Angeline St. S.

Canal St. E. Centennial Park Rd. Centennial Park Rd.

From Portage Rd Eld To Driftwood Shores Rd Eld Near Driftwood Shores Rd Eld

Description

Centreline Rd.

From Shamrock Rd Emi To Traceys Hill Rd Emi From St Lukes Rd Emi To Pigeon Lake Rd Emi From Traceys Hill Rd Emi To St Lukes Rd Emi From Peace Rd Emi To Clearview Dr Emi From Mark Rd Fen To Cameron Rd Fen

Centreline Rd. Centreline Rd. Centreline Rd. Chamber's Rd.

Length (km) 1.475

Total Collisions 3

Median AADT (2018-2022) 3790

Rate of Collision 0.294

1.448

3049

0.745

1.381

3049

0.390

1.145

3790

0.379

1.510

646

1.124

1.259

13005

1.305

From Green Forest Dr Ops To Monarch Rd Ops Near St Joseph Rd Lnd

0.769

1961

1.090

0.733

9265

0.726

From Angeline St N Lnd To Adelaide St N Lnd From Adelaide St N Lnd To Albert St N Lnd From Sussex St N Lnd To Victoria Av N Lnd From Charles St Lnd To St Joseph Rd Lnd From Cambridge St N Lnd To William St N Lnd From Angeline St N Lnd To Walker St Lnd From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Washburn Island Rd Mpo From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Dovehaven Rd Mpo From Somerville 7Th Concession Smv To Country Rd 49 Smv From Cedar Tree Rd Ver To Hughes Rd Ver From Somerville 9Th Concession Smv To Somerville 11Th Concession Smv From Burys Green Rd Smv To Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv From Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv To Wrex Rd Smv From Burnt River Rd Smv To Somerville 7Th Concession Smv From Somerville 11Th Concession Smv To Flintrock Rd Smv From Russett Rd Fen To Johnston Rd Fen From Country Rd 8 Ver To Cedar Tree Rd Ver From Poulsom Rd Ver To Burys Green Rd Smv From Country Rd 49 Smv To Union Creek Rd Smv From Union Creek Rd Smv To Somerville 9Th Concession Smv

0.282

13868

0.280

0.277

13868

0.998

0.256

13868

0.617

9265

1.832

13868

0.205

0.115

9265

1.029

1.515

2218

0.326

1.462

881

1.276

5.590

1868

0.630

3.173

2542

0.747

3.079

3505

0.254

2.978

2112

0.348

2.776

2112

0.374

2.621

2112

0.297

2.500

3505

0.125

2.034

6348

0.042

1.942

2542

0.444

1.744

2542

0.247

1.336

3505

0.819

1.318

3505

0.356

Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Cottage Rd. Cottage Rd. Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121

Colborne St. W.

0.226 0.193

Colborne St. E.

Label

Length (km) 1.306

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 6348

Rate of Collision 0.066

Country Rd. 121

From Ranchers Rd Fen To Long Beach Rd Fen Near Jenkins Rd Fen

0.929

6348

0.557

0.806

11837

0.172

Country Rd. 121

From Clifton St Fef To Country Rd 8 Fen Near Flintrock Rd Smv

0.760

3505

0.823

Country Rd. 121

Near Boundary Rd Smv

0.652

2542

0.331

Country Rd. 121

From Monck Rd Smv To The Avenue Smv From Long Beach Rd Fen To Russett Rd Fen Near West St S Fen

0.629

3505

1.243

0.617

6348

0.140

0.602

6348

1.148

From Ledge Hill Rd Smv To Burnt River Rd Smv Near Bobcaygeon Rd Smv

0.514

2112

0.505

0.370

2796

1.059

From Johnston Rd Fen To Jenkins Rd Fen From Station Rd Smv To Monck Rd Smv From Clifford Dr Ver To Scotch Line Rd Ver From Country Rd 36 Ver To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Birch Point Rd Ver To Lodge Rd Ver Near Pine Park Rd Ver

0.215

6348

0.401

0.140

3505

2.233

1527

0.717

1973

0.219

0.694

1820

0.434

0.524

1820

0.575

2.291

6104

0.588

1.688

6104

0.585

Country Rd. 36

From Cheese Factory Rd Ops To Snug Harbour Rd Fen From Settlers Rd Ops To Pleasant Point Rd Fen Near Clover Dr Ver

1.601

4201

0.244

Country Rd. 36

Near Pigeon Lake Rd Ver

1.450

9400

0.161

Country Rd. 36

From Pleasant Point Rd Fen To Kenhill Beach Rd Ver From Beattys Rd Ver To Kenstone Beach Rd Ver From Cedar Glen Rd Ver To Emily Creek Rd Ver From Wilson Rd Ops To Cheese Factory Rd Ops From Birch Point Rd Ver To Clover Dr Ver From Pasture Rd Fen To Settlers Rd Ops From Snug Harbour Rd Fen To Post Rd Ops From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Gil-Mar Rd Ver From Ranch Rd Ver To Pigeon Lake Rd Ver From Dunsford Rd Ver To Sturgeon Rd Ver

1.391

6104

0.258

1.389

4201

0.188

1.330

4201

0.196

1.307

6104

0.481

1.288

4170

0.102

1.226

6104

0.146

1.151

6104

0.078

1.114

6104

0.081

1.101

4201

0.118

1.080

6104

0.249

Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36

Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36

Country Rd. 121

2.502 1.266

Description

Label

Description

Country Rd. 36

From Kennedy Bay Rd Fen To Heights Rd Fen Ver Near Beattys Rd Ver

Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36

From Country Rd 24 Ver To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Scotch Line Rd Ver To Hows Rd Ver From Sturgeon Rd Ver To Country Rd 24 Ver

Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46

From Gil-Mar Rd Ver To Dunsford Rd Ver From Eldon Station Rd Eld To Portage Rd Eld From Glenarm Rd Eld To Palestine Rd Eld From Palestine Rd Eld To Eldon Station Rd Eld Near Glenarm Rd Eld

Country Rd. 46

Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49

Rate of Collision 0.512

0.930

4201

0.140

0.874

4201

0.448

0.806

4201

0.324

0.731

6104

0.246

0.695

6801

0.348

0.502

6104

0.179

3.495

1696

0.185

3.181

1696

0.102

3.018

1696

0.107

2.891

1861

0.407

1861

0.134

1169

0.336

1.394

Country Rd. 46

Median AADT (2018-2022) 6104

From Peniel Rd Mpo To Black School Rd Mpo From Quaker Rd Mpo To Peniel Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo

1.378

1178

0.675

1.368

5145

0.078

From Skyline Rd Mpo To Quaker Rd Mpo From The Glen Rd Mpo To Linden Valley Rd Mpo Near French Settlement Rd Bex

1.342

5183

0.079

1.331

1178

0.350

3.198

3126

1.151

From South Mountain Rd Bex To Country Rd 41 Bex From Country Rd 41 Bex To Maritime Rd Bex From Balsam Lake Dr Bex To Blanchards Rd Bex From Maritime Rd Bex To Ferguson Rd Bex From Blanchards Rd Bex To South Mountain Rd Bex Near North Bay Dr Bex

2.879

3126

0.183

2.278

3126

0.231

2.275

3103

0.155

1.521

3126

0.461

0.856

3103

0.206

0.748

3126

0.703

From Ferguson Rd Bex To North Bay Dr Bex From Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv To Country Rd 121 Smv From Irwins Rd Ver To Burys Green Rd Smv From Anderson Li Ver To Irwins Rd Ver From Burys Green Rd Smv To Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv From Bick St Bob Ver To Anderson Li Ver

0.546

3126

0.642

5.644

2205

0.264

4.401

2634

0.284

3.035

2634

1.028

2.733

2321

0.259

1.837

2634

0.679

Country Rd. 46

Total Collisions 6

2.200

Country Rd. 46

Length (km) 1.052

Label

Total Collisions 3

Median AADT (2018-2022) 3323

Rate of Collision 0.322

Country Rd. 8

From Patterson Rd Ver To Bulmers Rd Ver From St Albans Rd Ver To Coshs Rd Ver From Coshs Rd Ver To West St Bob

1.437

4732

0.161

1.422

4747

0.244

From Fairbairn Rd Ver To St Albans Rd Ver From Cable Rd Ver To Martins Rd Ver

1.374

4732

0.506

1.276

3323

0.646

From Country Rd 30 Ver To Providence Rd Ver From Hickory Beach Rd Ver To Patterson Rd Ver From Bulmers Rd Ver To Cable Rd Ver

1.255

4732

0.277

1.207

3575

0.254

1.125

3323

0.293

From Sturgeon Point Rd Ver Fen To Mitchells Rd Ver From Stanley Dr Ver To Fairbairn Rd Ver From Verulam Dr Ver To Stanley Dr Ver From Providence Rd Ver To Verulam Dr Ver From Martins Rd Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To White Rock Rd Mpo From Elm Tree Rd Ops To Monarch Rd Ops Near Monarch Rd Ops

1.094

3323

1.206

1.020

3323

0.808

0.623

4732

0.186

4732

0.762

3323

0.274

3.030

675

0.536

1.384

2196

0.361

0.781

2196

3.194

Near Centennial Park Rd Eld

2.050

527

1.522

From Helen St Bob To East St N Bob

0.467

4732

0.992

Durham St. E.

From Lindsay St S Lnd To Mill St Lnd

0.122

1767

2.542

Durham St. W.

0.245

2293

1.951

0.193

2327

2.440

Durham St. W.

From Victoria Av S Lnd To Hamilton St Lnd From Sussex St S Lnd To Albert St S Lnd From Albert St S Lnd To Bay St Lnd

0.139

2760

1.429

Durham St. W.

From Bay St Lnd To Adelaide St S Lnd

0.137

2760

1.449

East St. S.

From Snake Point Rd Bob To Mill St Bob From Riverside Dr Bob To Duke St Bob From Country Rd 8 Ver To Lily Ln Ver

1.623

7191

1.502

0.223

7191

1.367

1.233

546

0.814

From Peniel Rd Mpo To Black School Rd Mpo From Cresswell Rd Mpo To Farmstead Rd Mpo From Zion Rd Mpo To Ranch Rd Mpo

1.416

1462

0.794

1.386

1834

0.647

1.385

2785

0.284

From Salem Rd Mpo To Cresswell Rd Mpo

1.383

1834

0.216

Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Cresswell Rd. Dew Drop Inn Rd. Dew Drop Inn Rd. Driftwood Shores Rd. Duke St.

Durham St. W.

East St. S. Echo Bay Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd.

Country Rd. 8

0.607 0.602

Description

Length (km) 1.536

Label

Length (km) 1.378

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 2765

Rate of Collision 0.144

Eldon Rd.

From Ramsey Rd Mpo To Zion Rd Mpo From Skyline Rd Mpo To Quaker Rd Mpo From Linden Valley Rd Mpo To Woodville Rd Eld Mpo From Black School Rd Mpo To The Glen Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo

1.367

1462

0.548

1.353

1462

0.554

1.279

1462

0.586

Eldon Rd.

Near Perry St Mpo

0.780

1462

0.961

0.762

2765

0.780

Eldon Rd.

Near Whiteside St Mpo

0.816

2154

1.247

Elm Tree Rd.

From Cross Creek Rd Ops To Little Britain Rd Ops From Boulder St Ops To Cross Creek Rd Ops From Chambers Rd Fen To Islay Rd Fen From Little Britain Rd Ops To Dew Drop Inn Rd Ops From Islay Rd Fen To Glenarm Rd Fen

3.097

2356

0.300

3.094

1741

0.916

3.090

957

0.556

3.074

3087

0.577

869

0.618

From North St Fef To Chambers Rd Fen Near Thunder Bridge Rd Ops

2.899

1092

0.173

2.215

2391

0.621

From Thunder Bridge Rd Ops To Peniel Rd Mpo From Peniel Rd Fen Ops To Kings Ln Fen From Valentia Rd Mpo To Sand Bar Rd Mpo Ops From Beach Rd Ops To Boulder St Ops Near Dew Drop Inn Rd Ops

2.190

2391

0.209

1.540

2576

0.276

1.486

1253

0.294

1.008

1167

0.931

0.884

3245

1.146

From Sand Bar Rd Mpo Ops To Beach Rd Ops From Cambray Rd Fen To North St Fef

0.658

1159

0.718

0.186

1092

2.698

1.479

4806

0.154

1.468

4806

0.388

Emily Park Rd.

From Meadowview Rd Emi To Cottingham Rd Emi From Hayes Li Emi To Meadowview Rd Emi Near Grassy Rd Emi

1.441

5882

0.840

Emily Park Rd.

Near Cottingham Rd Emi

1.383

4806

0.494

Emily Park Rd.

From Valley Rd Emi To Peace Rd Emi

1.182

5589

0.415

Emily Park Rd.

0.817

5882

0.114

0.277

5589

0.354

0.476

589

1.955

Fenel Rd.

From Grassy Rd Emi To Andrew Ct Emi From Andrew Ct Emi To Lupton Ct Emi From Glengarry Rd Man To Loraine Dr Man Near Palestine Rd Eld

2.579

1452

0.439

Fenel Rd.

Near Portage Rd Eld

1.288

1452

0.586

Fenel Rd.

Near Highgate Rd Bex Fen

1.163

1452

0.324

Eldon Rd.

Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Emily Park Rd. Emily Park Rd.

Emily Park Rd. Erin Dr.

Eldon Rd.

3.060

Description

Label

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 1452

Rate of Collision 0.418

Fenel Rd.

Near Fish Hawk Rd Fen

Fenel Rd.

From Glenarm Rd Eld To Branch St Fen From Concession Rd Fef Fen To Ridge Hill Ct Fen From Janlisda Dr Fef To Concession Rd Fef Fen From Colborne St Fef To Clifton St Fef

0.366

1446

3.105

0.505

611

1.776

0.462

2395

0.495

0.108

2395

2.118

1.418

2355

0.328

1.246

3886

0.679

0.819

2355

0.568

Frank Hill Rd.

From Valley Rd Emi To Sunrise Rd Emi From Lancaster Dr Emi To Peninsula Dr Emi From Windmill Rd Emi To Yankee Li Emi Near Dickie Rd Emi

0.693

4436

1.248

Frank Hill Rd.

From Dickie Rd Emi To Patricia Ct Emi

0.534

4403

0.233

Front St. W.

From West St Bob To Cole St Bob

0.403

1256

1.082

Gil-Mar Rd.

From Country Rd 36 Ver To Stone Gate Rd Ver From Sandringham Rd Eld To Kirkfield Rd Eld From Hartley Rd Eld To Fenel Rd Eld Fen From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Creek View Rd Eld From Windmere Rd Eld To Prospect Rd Eld From Country Rd 46 Eld To Windmere Rd Eld From Branch St Fen To Elm Tree Rd Fen From Killarney Bay Rd Fen To Balsam Grove Rd Fen From Birch Point Rd Fen To Killarney Bay Rd Fen From Prospect Rd Eld To Sandringham Rd Eld From Simcoe St Mpo To Farms Rd Eld

2.423

646

1.051

4087

0.520

4087

0.744

1.454

4087

0.369

1.373

3499

0.456

1.364

3499

0.115

1.354

4464

1.360

1.354

3487

0.464

1.342

4464

0.457

1.340

3499

0.234

1.329

4724

0.524

From Elm Tree Rd Fen To Birch Point Rd Fen Near Farms Rd Eld

1.264

4464

0.194

1.220

4724

0.190

From Lees Rd Fen To Kagawong Rd Fen Near Byrnell Av Fen

1.073

3618

0.423

1.003

5503

0.397

From Response St Fen To Gardiner Rd Fen Near Country Ln Fen

0.998

5503

0.100

0.952

3618

0.796

From Lees Rd Fen To Cameron Rd Fen From Balsam Grove Rd Fen To Lees Rd Fen

0.872

3618

0.174

0.531

3618

0.285

Francis St. E. Francis St. E. Frank Hill Rd. Frank Hill Rd. Frank Hill Rd.

Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd.

Francis St. E.

2.838 2.161

Description

Length (km) 0.902

Label

Length (km) 0.531

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 4087

Rate of Collision 0.252

Glenarm Rd.

From Sandhills Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld Near Response St Fen

0.419

5503

1.426

From Creek View Rd Eld To Sandhills Rd Eld Near Country Rd 46 Eld

0.226

4087

0.593

0.180

4724

1.933

From Fenel Rd Eld Fen To Branch St Fen From Simcoe St Lnd To Georgian St Lnd From Victoria Av S Lnd To Sussex St S Lnd From Chipmunk Rd Man To Janetville Rd Man Near Janetville Rd Man

0.133

4087

4.032

0.120

517

8.838

0.794

1585

9.142

3.012

1509

0.844

2.490

1509

0.583

0.454

1816

5.981

Golf Course Rd.

From Stub Rd Man To Cartwright Manvers Boundary Rd Man Near Stub Rd Mpo

0.386

2124

0.668

Grandy Rd.

Near Shedden St Bex

0.511

616

1.740

Hayes Line

Near Orange Corners Rd Emi

2.031

778

1.041

Helen St.

From Bass St Fen To West St N Fen Fef Near Colborne St W Lnd

0.324

5503

0.615

0.261

1178

1.783

From North Bayou Rd Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver

1.887

752

0.386

5.900

7438

0.212

5.768

7438

0.192

5.043

7438

0.073

4.941

7438

0.209

4.636

7438

0.159

4.527

7438

0.114

4.223

7438

0.122

3.919

7438

0.113

Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenelg St. E. Glenelg St. W. Golf Course Rd. Golf Course Rd. Golf Course Rd.

Heritage Way Hickory Beach Rd. Highway 35

Highway 35 Highway 35 Highway 35 Highway 35 Highway 35

Highway 35

Highway 35 Highway 35

Description

Label

3.894

7438

0.095

Highway 35

3.637

7438

0.020

Highway 35

2.748

7438

0.295

Highway 35

2.573

7438

0.229

Highway 35

2.489

7438

0.059

Highway 35

2.106

7438

0.105

Highway 35

1.879

7438

0.235

Highway 35

1.508

7438

1.319

Highway 35

1.399

7438

0.211

Highway 35

1.300

7438

0.170

Highway 35

1.269

7438

0.232

Highway 35

1.235

7438

0.298

Highway 35

1.110

7321

0.067

Highway 35

Length (km) 1.076

Total Collisions 2

Median AADT (2018-2022) 7321

Rate of Collision 0.139

Highway 35

0.790

7321

0.189

Highway 35

0.574

7438

0.513

Highway 35

0.264

7438

0.279

Highway 7

10.495

8966

0.070

Highway 7

8.146

8966

0.068

Highway 7

5.832

8966

0.251

Highway 7

4.960

8966

0.049

Highway 7

2.542

8966

0.096

Highway 7

2.400

8966

0.255

Highway 7

2.114

8966

0.058

Highway 7

1.727

8966

0.071

Highway 7

1.153

8966

0.053

Highway 7

1.100

8966

0.111

Highway 7

0.565

8824

0.220

Highway 7

0.505

8824

0.123

Highway 7

0.061

8824

1.025

Highway 7 / 35

2.710

8966

0.158

0.284

8966

0.861

0.175

8966

1.746

0.038

8966

1.608

10.945

9089

0.044

6.970

9089

0.078

From Fleetwood Rd Man To Pigeon Creek Rd Man From Sugar Bush Rd Man To St Alban Rd Man From St Alban Rd Man To Fleetwood Rd Man Near Golf Course Rd Man

1.465

882

0.848

1.458

1137

0.991

1.414

882

0.879

0.800

882

0.776

From Pigeon Creek Rd Man To Janet Dr Man

0.483

882

1.286

3.662

25025

0.012

3.642

25025

0.018

2.812

25025

0.039

2.733

25025

0.048

2.579

25025

0.068

Highway 7 / 35 Highway 7 / 35 Highway 7 / 35

Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway

Janetville Rd.

Highway 7A Highway 7A

Description

Label

Description

Length (km) 0.352

Total Collisions 3

Median AADT (2018-2022) 25025

Rate of Collision 0.187

1.339

986

2.489

Joseph St.

From Coulter Dr Man To Hooper Dr Man From Main St Bob To Queen St Bob

0.213

942

2.730

Kenrei Rd.

Near Angeline St N Lnd

1.701

628

2.052

2.738

414

15577

5.319

10.983

1796

0.333

28.833

1077

0.812

John M. Turner Memorial Highway John St.

Kent St. Near Chambers Rd Fen

Laurent Blvd.

From Mcgibbon Bv Lnd To Gee Cr Lnd

0.401

581

2.352

Lindsay St. N.

From Colborne St W Lnd To Pottinger St Lnd Near Logie St Lnd

1.137

15113

0.925

2.938

14490

0.965

3.059

2321

0.463

Little Britain Rd.

From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Beacroft Rd Mpo From Simcoe St Mpo To Fingerboard Rd Mpo Near White Rock Rd Mpo

Little Britain Rd.

Near Davidson Rd Mpo

6.176

Little Britain Rd.

1.382

Little Britain Rd.

From Monarch Rd Ops To Bridle Rd Ops From Opmar Rd Mpo Ops To Elm Tree Rd Mpo From Elm Tree Rd Ops To Monarch Rd Ops From Bridle Rd Ops To Ridgewood Rd Ops Near Beacroft Rd Mpo

Long Beach Rd.

Near Manor Rd Fen

Main St.

From Prince St E Bob To Duke St Bob

Little Britain Rd. Little Britain Rd. Little Britain Rd.

Mary St.

3.055

2321

0.773

2885

0.440

6176

0.517

5745

0.207

1.379

5745

0.277

1.376

5745

0.208

1.374

5658

0.634

1.036

2885

1.100

3.249

1362

0.991

1.439

3704

2.776

1.628

3601

1.215

2.592

Little Britain Rd.

Lindsay St. S.

Killarney Bay Rd. Kirkfield Rd.

Maryknoll Ave.

Near Logie St Lnd

0.404

589

2.303

McGibbon Blvd.

From Pearson St Lnd To Mcquarrie Rd Lnd From Kent St W Lnd To Moose Rd Lnd

0.448

942

1.298

0.366

3200

3.275

Near Maple Ridge Dr Emi

1.142

798

0.601

0.500

798

2.742

5.611

1416

0.414

3.153

1416

0.491

3.054

1462

0.368

Monck Rd.

From Woodcock Li Smv To Crego Lake Rd Smv From Buller Rd Smv To Base Line Rd Smv From Turner Rd Dal To Victoria Rd Crd Ldl Near Victoria Rd Crd Ldl

3.001

1462

0.999

Monck Rd.

Near Crego Lake Rd Smv

2.949

1416

1.181

McLaughlin Rd. Meadowview Rd. Meadowview Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd.

Length (km) 2.714

Total Collisions 5

Median AADT (2018-2022) 1752

Rate of Collision 0.576

Monck Rd.

From Laxton Twp 8Th Li Ldl To Als Av Ldl Near Ripleys Way Ldl

2.374

1462

0.158

From Laxton Twp 6Th Li Ldl To Deer Lake Rd Ldl Near Lake Dalrymple Rd Dal

2.318

1752

0.270

1.900

1439

0.601

From Nevison Dr Smv To Buller Rd Smv From Taylor Rd Dal To Rumohr Dr Dal

1.659

1405

0.235

1.627

1439

1.873

1.536

1462

1.220

1.249

1462

0.900

Monck Rd.

From Ripleys Way Ldl To DigbyLaxton Boundary Rd Ldl From Suter Dr Ldl To Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl From Hills Rd Dal To Watt Ln Dal

1.222

1439

0.312

Monck Rd.

From Turner Rd Dal To Turner Rd Dal

1.084

1439

0.703

Monck Rd.

1.042

1462

0.719

Monck Rd.

From Digby-Laxton Boundary Rd Ldl To Suter Dr Ldl Near Young St Dal

0.983

1439

0.775

Monck Rd.

Near Laxton Twp 6Th Li Ldl

0.937

1752

1.001

Monck Rd.

From Kirkfield Rd Crd To Taylor Rd Dal From Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl To Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl From Deer Lake Rd Ldl To Laxton Twp 8Th Li Ldl From Country Rd 121 Smv To Bobcaygeon Rd Smv From Base Line Rd Smv To Woodcock Li Smv Near Cockburn St Ldl

0.808

1439

0.942

Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd.

Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd.

0.706

1462

1.062

0.681

1752

0.459

0.680

1416

3.415

0.242

1416

1.599

0.137

1739

2.299

6.006

885

2.372

Mount Horeb Rd. Nappadale St.

Near Argyle St Wdv

0.174

1178

2.673

North St.

From Reid St Bob To Head St Bob

0.098

4732

1.182

Northlin Park Rd. Northline Rd.

Monck Rd.

Description

Label

From Weldon Ct Lnd To Redwing St Lnd

0.182

939

3.205

11.057

587

1.350

Ogemah Rd.

From Rainbow Ridge Rd Mpo To Cottage Rd Mpo From Ramsey Rd Mpo To August Ln Mpo From August Ln Mpo To Cottage Rd Mpo From Rogers Rd Lnd To Sanderling Cr Lnd From Lance St Bob To Mansfield St Bob From Esker Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi Near Sturgeon Rd Emi

1.420

652

1.184

1.372

1996

0.200

1.259

2218

0.196

0.385

2744

2.075

0.400

1820

1.505

2.340

1609

1.019

1.500

3503

0.208

Ogemah Rd. Ogemah Rd. Orchard Park Rd. Park St. Peace Rd. Peace Rd.

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 1609

Rate of Collision 0.292

Peace Rd.

From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Esker Rd Emi Near Centreline Rd Emi

1.033

3452

0.461

0.940

1509

0.386

Peace Rd.

From Lilac Rd Ops To Heights Rd Ops Emi From Marina Dr Bob To Marina St Emi

0.863

3452

1.287

Peace Rd.

Near Slanted Rd Ops

0.502

1509

2.895

Peace Rd.

0.231

3452

0.687

3.522

2427

0.385

3.232

5643

0.180

2.271

3429

0.352

1.705

2427

0.662

1.598

3766

0.637

Pigeon Lake Rd.

From Centreline Rd Emi To Cowans Dr Emi From Sturgeon Rd Emi To Centreline Rd Emi From Mcginnis Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi From Colony Rd Emi Ver To Old Surrey Ln Ver From Centreline Rd Emi To Cork Rd Emi From Old Surrey Ln Ver To Falls Bay Rd Ver Near Cork Rd Emi

2427

0.150

Pigeon Lake Rd.

From Post Rd Ops To Settlers Rd Ops

1.412

4711

0.247

Pigeon Lake Rd.

From Settlers Rd Ops To Lilac Rd Ops

1.412

4711

0.165

Pigeon Lake Rd.

From Falls Bay Rd Ver To Walmac Shores Rd Ver From Settlement Rd Emi To Perdue Rd Emi From Country Rd 36 Ops To Weldon Rd Ops From Short Dr Ver To Old Surrey Ln Ver From Lilac Rd Ops To Heights Rd Ops Emi Near Post Rd Ops

1.391

3766

0.209

1.230

3112

0.286

0.990

3384

0.981

0.891

3766

0.980

0.871

5643

0.223

0.835

4711

0.696

From Walmac Shores Rd Ver To Country Rd 36 Ver From Perdue Rd Emi To Shoreview Rd Emi From Perdue Rd Emi To Perdue Rd Emi Near Fieldside Rd Ops

0.806

3429

1.190

0.725

3112

0.486

0.625

3112

0.282

0.529

3384

0.612

Pleasant Point Rd. Pontypool Rd.

From Country Rd 36 Fen To Snug Harbour Rd Fen

1.408

1121

0.347

5.027

789

2.486

Portage Rd.

From Prospect Rd Eld To Rockview Rd Eld From Country Rd 46 Eld To Centennial Park Rd Eld From Hillcrest Av Eld To Fenel Rd Eld Fen From Simcoe St Mpo To Farms Rd Eld

2.779

2980

0.132

1.733

3675

0.430

1.550

3581

0.099

1.453

3675

0.411

From Centennial Park Rd Eld To Prospect Rd Eld

1.397

2980

0.132

Peace Rd.

Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd.

Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd.

Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd.

Peace Rd.

1.501

Description

Length (km) 1.168

Label

Description

Length (km) 0.974

Total Collisions 2

Median AADT (2018-2022) 3581

Rate of Collision 0.314

Portage Rd.

From Hartley Rd Eld To Hillcrest Av Eld Near Mitchellview Rd Eld

0.971

3581

0.315

From Orchard St Eld To Kirkfield Rd Eld From Mitchellview Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Union St Eld

0.543

2969

0.680

0.515

3555

0.299

0.122

3581

1.254

From Solanum Wy Man To Ballyduff Rd Man Near Weston Rd Man

1.455

1817

0.622

1.398

1817

0.431

1.101

1817

0.274

0.774

1817

0.389

Porter Rd.

From Telecom Rd Man To Solanum Wy Man From Ballyduff Rd Man To Gray Rd Man From Gray Rd Man To Weston Rd Man

0.762

1817

0.396

Prince St. E.

From Helen St Bob To Anne St Bob

0.437

998

2.512

1.515

9376

1.427

4979

0.466

4979

0.252

1.839

4979

0.060

1.838

1810

0.165

1.217

3586

0.377

1.214

4979

0.453

Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd.

Queen St.

3.069

River Rd.

From Simcoe St Mpo To Fingerboard Rd Mpo From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Beacroft Rd Mpo From Beacroft Rd Mpo To Port Hoover Rd Mpo From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Valentia Rd Mpo From Eldon Rd Mpo To Ogemah Rd Mpo From Port Hoover Rd Mpo To Eldon Rd Mpo Near Montys Inn St Ops

1.350

587

2.074

River Rd.

Near Montys Inn St Ops

0.616

587

1.515

Riverside Dr.

From East St N Bob To Birch Cr Bob

0.587

1201

1.555

Salem Rd.

From Eldon Rd Mpo To Bush Rd Mpo

3.031

640

0.565

Sanderling Cres.

0.411

1013

2.633

0.217

11837

1.067

1.444

4340

0.087

Simcoe St.

From Albert St N Lnd To Eglington St Lnd From Princes St W Fef To Clifton St Fef From Zion Rd Mpo To Little Britain Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo

1.362

3818

0.421

Simcoe St.

Near Woodville Rd Eld Mpo

0.988

2933

0.189

Simcoe St.

0.782

4340

0.161

Simcoe St.

From Ramsey Rd Mpo To Hallett Cr Mpo Near Edward St Mpo

0.136

4273

0.943

Ski Hill Rd.

Near Hayes Li Emi

10.428

1518

0.692

Slanted Rd.

Near Post Rd Ops

1.864

1163

0.759

Slanted Rd.

From Settlers Rd Ops To Post Rd Ops

1.597

1163

0.295

Snake Point Rd.

From East St S Bob To Need St Bob

0.211

1133

2.292

Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd.

Short St. Simcoe St.

3.053

Ramsey Rd.

Label

Description

Snug Harbour Rd. Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 7th Concession St. Joseph Rd. Sturgeon Point Rd. Sturgeon Point Rd. Sturgeon Rd.

Total Collisions 1

Median AADT (2018-2022) 916

Rate of Collision 0.304

Near Northline Rd Smv

2.098

540

0.967

From Potters Rd Smv To Northline Rd Smv From Schell Li Smv To Country Rd 49 Smv Near Potters Rd Smv

1.872

622

0.941

1.840

9621

0.031

1.736

622

1.014

Near Northline Rd Smv

2.128

801

0.643

Near Colborne St W Lnd

0.320

2515

1.361

From Country Rd 8 Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver From Gray Rd Fen Ver To Rutherford Rd Fen From Four Points Rd Ver Emi To Rehill Dr Ver From Fox Rd Emi To Peace Rd Emi

4.547

1435

0.420

0.633

646

1.340

1.926

1256

0.453

From Shamrock Rd Emi To Traceys Hill Rd Emi From Pigeon Lake Rd Emi To January Ln Emi From Mustang Dr Emi To Kings Wharf Rd Emi From Kings Wharf Rd Emi To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Beaver Rd Emi To Fox Rd Emi

1.479

2152

0.687

2152

0.172

1256

0.903

1.425

1208

0.637

1.415

1208

0.641

1.394

2152

0.183

From January Ln Emi To Mustang Dr Emi Near Traceys Hill Rd Emi

1.370

1208

0.994

1.000

2152

0.509

0.765

1256

1.140

Sturgeon Rd.

From Cedar Glen Rd Ver To Four Points Rd Ver Emi Near Beaver Rd Emi

0.728

2152

0.350

Sturgeon Rd.

Near St Lukes Rd Emi

0.359

2152

0.709

Sturgeon Rd. N.

Near Church St E Ome

0.183

2152

2.783

Sweetnam Dr.

From Angeline St S Lnd To Cook St Lnd From Coulter Dr Man To Carscadden Rd Man From Monarch Rd Ops To Elm Tree Rd Ops Near Monarch Rd Ops

0.357

800

1.918

3.590

646

0.236

1.387

2911

0.271

1.327

2832

0.146

Near Thunder Bridge Rd Ops

1.125

3730

0.261

Near Springdale Dr Ops

0.359

3441

0.887

From Springdale Dr Ops To Angeline St N Lnd Near Country Rd 36 Ver

0.241

3441

1.322

2.407

705

1.292

Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd.

Telecom Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thurstonia Rd.

1.483

1.449

Sturgeon Rd.

Near Balsam Rd Fen

Length (km) 1.966

Label

Description

Length (km) 2.331

Total Collisions 2

Median AADT (2018-2022) 605

Rate of Collision 0.777

Tracey's Hill Rd. Tracey's Hill Rd.

From Esker Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi From Post Rd Ops To Settlers Rd Ops

1.393

939

1.256

Tracey's Hill Rd. Tracey's Hill Rd.

From Settlers Rd Ops To Lilac Rd Ops

1.390

716

0.550

1.178

605

0.769

Tracey's Hill Rd.

From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Esker Rd Emi From Post Rd Ops To Post Rd Ops

0.701

939

0.833

Tracey's Hill Rd.

Near Fieldside Rd Ops

0.226

1245

1.948

5.608

1239

1.577

2.033

6199

0.870

1.338

3316

2.594

From Cottage Rd Mpo To Hillside Dr Mpo From Snake Point Rd Bob To King St E Bob From Wellington St Lnd To Colborne St W Lnd From Stuart St Wdv To Country Rd 46 Mpo From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld Near Simcoe St Mpo

1.417

824

0.469

1.740

4142

2.129

0.374

13868

1.902

1.227

From Grasshill Rd Eld To Eldon Rd Mpo From White Rock Rd Mpo To Sandringham Rd Eld From Windmere Rd Eld To Dukelow Rd Mpo From Prospect Rd Eld To White Rock Rd Mpo Near Maple Hills Dr Wdv

Valentia Rd. Verulam Rd. N.

Near Wilson Rd Ops

Victoria Ave. N.

Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yelverton Rd.

1.560

1873

1.125

1138

0.973

1873

0.477

0.992

1543

0.358

0.807

1543

0.440

0.747

1767

0.415

0.585

1543

0.607

0.421

1873

0.695

From Westview Dr Emi To Frank Hill Rd Emi From Ryan Rd Emi To Liberty Ln Emi

2.330

2489

0.661

1.475

2489

0.149

From Bethel Rd Emi To Kenedon Dr Emi From Frank Hill Rd Emi To Boundary Rd Emi From Kenedon Dr Emi To Mitchell Dr Emi From Corner Rd Man To Janetville Rd Man

1.134

2630

0.367

1.058

3874

0.802

1.489

2489

0.739

1.922

511

1.674

1.978

Woodville Rd.

William St. N.

Washburn Island Rd. William St.

Label

Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051)

G.1 Lindsay

AF T

G.2 Bobcaygeon

Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051)

AF T

G.3 Fenelon Falls

Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051)

AF T

Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051)

G.4 Omemee

AF T

Appendix H: Future Conditions Traffic Volumes (2031-2051)

125(101) 242(401) 2(2)

96(179) 19(40) 5(9)

(8)17 ↗ (291)287 → (3)3 ↘

97(142) 130(262) 29(72)

Weldon Rd

4(7) 212(203) 106(93)

(60)28 ↗ (135)198 → (23)10 ↘

19(12) 195(251)

(6)3 ↗ (28)42 → (20)7 ↘

Pigeon Lake Rd

↖100(96) ←16(41) ↙ 23(46) (20)12 ↗ (173)209 → (33)33 ↘

(5)3 ↗ (26)37 → (8)4 ↘

16(19) 8(21) 5(2)

(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘

(89)53 ↗ (92)79 → (232)87 ↘ (106)148 ↗ (304)275 → (15)14 ↘

↖ 93(71) ↙ 49(36) (318)358 → (57)40 ↘

(187)184 ↗ (291)112 → (21)6 ↘ (6)1 ↗ (122)35 → (58)29 ↘

3(6) 87(73) 280(281)

159(232) 107(131) 5(6) 97(63) 184(308) 3(6)

Riverview Rd Mary St E

(11)24 ↗ (347)166 ↘

(111)66 ↗ (26)13 →

220(435) 43(73)

(15)7 ↗ (69)34 → (18)7 ↘

4(5) 34(46) 3(2)

(156)122 ↗ (152)71 → (49)42 ↘

Parkside Dr Logie St

(14)15 ↗ (13)6 ↘ Verulam Rd N

Signalized Intersection

↖ 79(16) ← 136(133) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 9(21)

(17)9 ↗ (175)204 →

4(4) 32(19) 16(18) 173(158) 1(4)

AF T (50)23 ↗ (74)42 → (7)5 ↘

(0)0 ↗ (82)64 → (9)2 ↘

(27)10 ↗ (42)20 → (15)10 ↘

(5)5 ↗ (7)5 → (7)3 ↘

6(14) 5(13) 17(6) 11(16) 71(37) 9(4)

33(31) 33(42) 8(8)

(197)204 ↗ (151)140 → (34)53 ↘ (23)41 ↗ (277)292 → (99)130 ↘

(20)17↗ (307)247 → (33)20 ↘

Colborne St E

→ ↘

Lindsay St S

Lane Movement

↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8)

↖ 3(2) ← 13(13) ↙ 4(19) ↙ ↓ ↘ Mary St W (88)76 ↗ (15)8 → (199)105 ↘

(55)46 ↗ (1)4 → (22)19 ↘

↗ → ↘

42(52) 235(315) 71(94)

(123)128 ↗ (314)233 → (39)34 ↘

↖ 3(0) ← 1(4) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 4(3)

St David St

(109)61 ↗ (117)55 → (89)39 ↘

188(185) 123(156) 67(103)

(0)2 ↗ (32)51 → (50)55 ↘

0(0) 46(65) 1(4)

5(5) 54(36) 1(0) 5(7) 204(171) 58(76)

(183)116 ↗ (41)44 → (5)7 ↘ (25)19 ↗ (235)116 → (55)30 ↘

(35)11 ↗ (534)240 → (13)3 ↘

50(60) 489(404) 94(114) (7)3 ↗ (189)142 → (96)141 ↘

0(0) 136(199) 143(166) 52(76) 31(52) 3(3)

98(124) 76(95) 131(234)

↖ 16(3) ← 297(244) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 154(146)

↗ →

↑

↖ 322(415) ←101(108) ↙ 86(75)

(82)113↗ (99)78 → (3)1↘

CKL Rd 36

Verulam Rd N

St David St

Peel St

Colborne St W

Lindsay St N

(8)1↗ (29)27 → (14)15 ↘

↖9(3) ←136(126) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙3(2)

↖ 0(1) ←10(12) ↙ 9(10)

William St N

↑

Mary St W

Angeline St S

Legend

(0)2 → (12)22 ↘

William St N

Peel St

(10)4 ↗ (125)86 → (16)8 ↘

↖ 2(11) ←22(46) ↙ 7(20)

Cambridge St N

(35)44 ↗ (124)100 → (36)14 ↘

(8)1 ↗ (9)5 → (172)108 ↘

Wellington St

↗ → ↘

↖ 59(89) ← 108(125) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 89(116)

William St N

(3)2 ↗ (27)14 → (8)4 ↘

↖ 8(13) ←0(0) ↙ 33(46)

Albert St N

(248)205 ↗ (584)386 → (305)219 ↘

Fair Ave

Colborne St W

↗ → ↘

↖ 75(72) ← 438(595) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 35(52) Kent St W

↗ → ↘

(151)72 ↗ (603)604 → (13)12 ↘

Adelaide St N

Angeline St N

St Joseph Rd

↖ 85(169) ← 391(554) ↙ 71(134) Kent St W ↙ ↓ ↘

(26)12 ↗ (304)253 → (23)23 ↘

Cambridge St N

(26)16 ↗ (318)249 → (33)23 ↘ Little Britain Rd

↖ 16(16) ← 284(310) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 9(46)

↖ 15(12) ← 279(309) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 8(9)

↗ → ↘

Colborne St W

(14)1 ↗ (85)80 ↘

Orchard Park Rd

Albert St N

Highway 35

↖1(5) ←130(172) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙30(60) (136)67↗ (203)127 → (3)1↘

(14)8 ↗ (121)98 → (5)4 ↘

Orchard Park Rd

↖10(18) ←86(134) ↙ 2(4)

← 3(2) ↙ 301(246)

Wilson Rd

→ ↘

↖ 66(102) ←3(9) ↙ 57(36)

Adelaide St N

↖ 92(219) ← 67(120) ↙ 96(155)

Thunder Bridge Rd

Sanderling Cres

(3)4 ↗ (1)6 → (26)29 ↘

↖1(1) ←4(0) ↙ 5(6)

↗ → ↘

Connolly Rd

Angeline St N

(13)4 ↗ (2)2 → (180)113 ↘

↗ → ↘

Elm Tree Rd

(0)0 ↗ (84)91 → (5)4 ↘

Trans Canada Highway

Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 79(121) ← 29(37) ↙ 12(7)

↗ → ↘

(56)31↗ (33)36 → (27)38 ↘

Highway 35

Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

Stop-Controlled Intersection 00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 1

2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY

196(199) 287(462) 28(8)

(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘

(11)22 ↗ (240)249 → (9)29 ↘

83(104) 192(387) 92(157)

(89)41 ↗ (93)123 → (140)185 ↘

(21)13 ↗ (30)42 → (24)15 ↘

16(19) 8(21) 5(2)

15(23) 313(300) 157(137)

↖148(142) ←18(47) ↙ 34(68) Weldon Rd

22(49) 288(371)

(23)39 ↗ (256)309 → (49)49 ↘

131(245) 26(55) 17(22)

(72)30 ↗ (134)120 → (263)99 ↘ (120)168 ↗ (385)348 → (17)16 ↘

(22)13 ↗ (32)48 → (23)33 ↘

Parkside Dr Logie St

(16)17 ↗ (15)17 ↘ Verulam Rd N

(403)454 → (72)51 ↘

(40)43 ↗ (120)34 → (24)17 ↘ (22)11 ↗ (139)40 → (66)33 ↘

13(22) 99(83) 31(45)

18(26) 151(181) 16(22)

110(72) 233(390) 14(43) 279(551) 54(92)

(52)33 ↗ (78)39 → (55)33 ↘

15(21) 39(52) 13(17)

(11)24 ↗ (347)166 ↘

(111)66 ↗ (26)13 →

↖122(93) ↙ 65(47)

Signalized Intersection

Riverview Rd

Pigeon Lake Rd

(19)35 ↗ (259)301 →

4(4) 32(19) 18(20) 19(36) 178(148)

12(18) 81(42) 35(20)

AF T (57)26 ↗ (84)48 → (43)16 ↘

(25)10 ↗ (121)73 → (13)13 ↘

(31)36 ↗ (48)23 → (17)36 ↘

D (26)47 ↗ (365)385 → (112)148 ↘

(5)5 ↗ (7)5 → (7)3 ↘

6(14) 5(13) 17(6)

(224)232 ↗ (199)184 → (39)60 ↘

(124)69 ↗ (133)62 → (101)44 ↘

213(210) 162(205) 76(117)

111(141) 86(108) 149(266)

(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘

15(25) 52(96) 11(41)

16(23) 269(225) 66(86)

(241)153 ↗ (47)50 → (6)8 ↘

(44)14 ↗ (606)272 → (17)14 ↘

37(35) 37(48) 19(24)

(8)3 ↗ (215)161 → (126)186 ↘

(28)22 ↗ (309)153 → (62)34 ↘

6(6) 61(41) 1(0)

57(68) 555(459) 124(150)

59(86) 35(59) 3(3)

48(59) 309(415) 81(107)

Mary St E

(53)27 ↗ (174)56 → (56)48 ↘

→ ↘

Lane Movement

(20)17↗ (307)247 → (33)20 ↘

Colborne St E

↖ 117(24) ← 151(148) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 13(31)

↗ → ↘

(100)86 ↗ (17)19 → (226)119 ↘

(216)190 ↗ (6)30 → (64)59 ↘

↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8)

↖ 13(17) ← 15(15) ↙ 15(22) ↙ ↓ ↘ Mary St W

Lindsay St S

↑

(33)47 ↗ (253)151 → (16)12 ↘

↖ 7(23) ← 43(65) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 8(26)

St David St

Peel St

(93)128↗ (275)237 → (18)11↘

↖ 18(18) ← 353(238) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 175(166)

↗ →

Angeline St S

Legend

↑

Mary St W

Cambridge St N

(40)50 ↗ (141)114 → (41)16 ↘

(44)11↗ (33)31 → (16)17 ↘

↖107(110) ←149(160) ↙ 98(85)

William St N

Peel St

↖12(47) ←25(52) ↙ 33(23)

Colborne St W

CKL Rd 36

Verulam Rd N

Wellington St (46)15 ↗ (185)127 → (18)34 ↘

↗ → ↘

↖ 67(101) ← 123(142) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 101(132)

(24)11 ↗ (212)140 → (38)16 ↘

St David St

(18)12 ↗ (40)21 → (44)15 ↘

↖11(19) ←10(25) ↙ 43(68)

Albert St N

(291)240 ↗ (684)452 → (357)257 ↘

Fair Ave

Colborne St W

↗ → ↘

↖ 88(84) ← 513(697) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 41(61) Kent St W

↗ → ↘

(171)82 ↗ (685)686 → (15)14 ↘

Adelaide St N

↖ 97(192) ← 458(649) ↙ 81(152) Kent St W ↙ ↓ ↘

Angeline St N

Little Britain Rd

(36)16 ↗ (416)346 → (31)31↘

↖35(18) ←266(286) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙13(17)

↖ 93(211) ←213(224) ↙ 35(11) Lindsay St N

(36)22 ↗ (435)341 → (45)31↘

St Joseph Rd

(154)76↗ (230)144 → (3)1↘

↖ 22(22) ← 389(424) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 12(63)

↖ 21(16) ← 382(423) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 11(12)

Cambridge St N

↖1(6) ←148(195) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙34(68)

(14)1 ↗ (85)80 ↘

↗ → ↘

Colborne St W

(0)2 → (12)22 ↘

William St N

Highway 35

Orchard Park Rd

Albert St N

Elm Tree Rd

(0)0 ↗ (95)103 → (6)5 ↘

Adelaide St N

↖ 121(288) ← 85(152) ↙ 126(204) ↙ ↓ ↘ Dew Drop Inn Rd

(14)8 ↗ (121)98 → (5)4 ↘

Orchard Park Rd

↖10(18) ←86(134) ↙ 2(4)

William St N

(18)15 ↗ (16)17 → (30)33 ↘

↖ 75(116) ←13(45) ↙ 65(41)

← 3(2) ↙ 301(246)

Wilson Rd

→ ↘

↗ → ↘

Connolly Rd

Thunder Bridge Rd

Sanderling Cres

(15)5 ↗ (2)2 → (237)149 ↘

↖1(1) ←5(0) ↙ 6(7)

↗ → ↘

Trans Canada Highway

0(0) 154(226) 188(219)

↗ → ↘

(71)39 ↗ (43)47 → (34)48 ↘

Angeline St N

Highway 35

↖ 104(159) ← 38(49) ↙ 16(44) ↙ ↓ ↘ Thunder Bridge Rd

Stop-Controlled Intersection 00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 1

2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY

Logie St

277(280) 405(652) 156(96)

(15)32 ↗ (338)351 → (98)158 ↘

97(122) 313(631) 149(255)

20(29) 510(489) 255(224)

Pigeon Lake Rd

↖ 241(231) ←21(55) ↙ 55(111) Weldon Rd

25(56) 469(604)

(28)19 ↗ (37)56 → (27)39 ↘

(144)67 ↗ (152)200 → (228)301 ↘

(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘

Riverview Rd

(27)46 ↗ (416)503 → (79)79 ↘

(27)19 ↗ (35)49 → (31)20 ↘

16(19) 8(21) 5(2)

(47)51 ↗ (141)40 → (28)23 ↘

(67)31 ↗ (98)56 → (49)22 ↘

194(363) 38(81) 90(98)

(541)609 → (97)68 ↘

↖173(132) ↙ 91(67)

(63)32 ↗ (284)91 → (65)56 ↘

Parkside Dr

(19)20 ↗ (17)23 ↘

(23)42 ↗ (421)491 →

20(25) 43(25) 19(28) 116(97) 36(52)

21(31) 177(212) 22(28) 129(84) 313(524) 20(50)

(84)35 ↗ (157)141 → (309)116 ↘ (141)197 ↗ (518)468 → (20)19 ↘

Mary St E

↖ 190(39) ← 245(241) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 22(51)

Verulam Rd N

Lindsay St S

Signalized Intersection

↖ 19(23) ← 17(17) ↙ 20(25)

(15)32 ↗ (645)308 ↘

(148)88 ↗ (35)17 →

375(741) 73(124)

20(27) 45(61) 19(23)

(28)16 ↗ (162)47 → (77)39 ↘

21(24) 23(43) 209(173)

(60)39 ↗ (92)45 → (64)39 ↘

(117)101↗ (20)26 → (265)140 ↘

↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8) (20)17↗ (307)247 → (33)20 ↘

Colborne St E

→ ↘

(25)15 ↗ (197)85 → (22)20 ↘

(36)43 ↗ (56)27 → (20)43 ↘

(27)22 ↗ (49)22 → (49)19 ↘

23(19) 22(17) 23(28)

AF T 15(21) 94(49) 42(25)

44(41) 44(56) 26(31)

(262)271 ↗ (280)260 → (45)71 ↘ (31)55 ↗ (515)542 → (132)173 ↘

Mary St W ↙ ↓ ↘

(305)267 ↗ (93)157 → (75)69 ↘

↗ → ↘

56(69) 437(585) 94(125)

(53)77 ↗ (412)245 → (26)19 ↘

↖ 94(106) ← 135(155) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 93(110)

St David St

(145)81 ↗ (156)73 → (118)52 ↘

250(246) 228(290) 89(137)

(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘

15(25) 61(156) 17(50)

7(7) 72(48) 1(0) 22(29) 379(318) 77(101)

(340)215 ↗ (55)59 → (7)9 ↘ (33)25 ↗ (437)215 → (73)40 ↘

(60)19 ↗ (711)319 → (24)21 ↘

67(80) 651(538) 175(212) (9)4 ↗ (252)189 → (178)262 ↘

0(0) 181(265) 266(308) 69(101) 41(69) 4(4)

130(165) 101(126) 174(311)

↖ 21(24) ← 575(387) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 205(194)

↗ →

Lane Movement

(109)150↗ (322)278 → (24)16 ↘

CKL Rd 36

Verulam Rd N

↖125(129) ←243(260) ↙114(100)

St David St

Peel St

Colborne St W

Lindsay St N

↖18(55) ←29(61) ↙ 39(27)

↖42(24) ←393(423) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙19(23)

↖109(248) ←316(332) ↙ 42(13)

William St N

(51)16 ↗ (39)36 → (19)20 ↘

(0)3 → (16)29 ↘

William St N

↑

William St N

↗ → ↘

Angeline St S

Legend

↑

Mary St W

Peel St

Cambridge St N

(47)59 ↗ (165)133 → (48)19 ↘

(31)16 ↗ (314)207 → (63)26 ↘

Wellington St (53)20 ↗ (301)207 → (21)41 ↘

↗ → ↘

↖ 79(118) ← 144(166) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 118(154)

(24)18 ↗ (65)34 → (51)20 ↘

↖15(31) ←15(25) ↙ 61(111)

Albert St N

(354)293 ↗ (834)551 → (436)313 ↘

Fair Ave

Colborne St W

Cambridge St N

↖ 107(103) ← 626(850) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 50(74) Kent St W

(53)24 ↗ (616)513 → (47)47 ↘

↗ → ↘

(201)96 ↗ (802)804 → (17)16 ↘

Adelaide St N

St Joseph Rd

↖ 113(225) ← 558(791) ↙ 94(178) ↙ ↓ ↘ Kent St W

Angeline St N

Little Britain Rd

↖ 32(32) ← 575(628) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 18(93)

↖ 30(24) ← 565(626) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 16(18)

(53)32 ↗ (644)504 → (67)47 ↘

(19)16 ↗ (113)106 ↘

↗ → ↘

Colborne St W

Orchard Park Rd

Albert St N

Highway 35

↖1(7) ←173(229) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙40(80) (181)89↗ (270)169 → (4)1↘

(19)41 ↗ (161)130 → (27)20 ↘

Orchard Park Rd

↖13(24) ←114(178) ↙18(25)

← 4(3) ↙ 559(457)

Wilson Rd

→ ↘

↖ 88(136) ←19(52) ↙ 76(48)

Adelaide St N

↖ 171(407) ← 114(204) ↙ 178(288)

Thunder Bridge Rd

Sanderling Cres

(24)20 ↗ (21)23 → (35)39 ↘

↖1(1) ←5(0) ↙ 7(8)

↗ → ↘

Connolly Rd

Angeline St N

(17)5 ↗ (3)3 → (334)210 ↘

↗ → ↘

Elm Tree Rd

(0)0 ↗ (112)121 → (7)5 ↘

Trans Canada Highway

Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 147(225) ← 54(69) ↙ 22(53)

↗ → ↘

(95)53 ↗ (61)67 → (46)65 ↘

Highway 35

Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

Stop-Controlled Intersection 00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 2

2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY

390(396) 571(920) 218(305)

Logie St

(21)45 ↗ (477)495 → (308)221 ↘

114(143) 510(1027) 243(416)

26(36) 831(796) 416(365)

Pigeon Lake Rd

↖ 392(376) ←25(64) ↙ 90(180) Weldon Rd

30(64) 764(984)

(34)25 ↗ (44)66 → (31)46 ↘

(235)110 ↗ (248)326 → (371)489 ↘

(33)25 ↗ (41)58 → (37)26 ↘ (30)37 ↗ (28)27 → (59)49 ↘

Riverview Rd

(31)54 ↗ (678)819 → (129)129 ↘

288(537) 57(120) 115(127) 25(30) 47(33) 28(28)

25(36) 207(248) 28(34)

25(34) 136(114) 42(59)

(55)59 ↗ (165)47 → (33)29 ↘ (34)22 ↗ (190)55 → (90)45 ↘

(98)41 ↗ (184)165 → (362)136 ↘ (165)231 ↗ (696)629 → (23)22 ↘ (728)819 → (130)92 ↘

(68)46 ↗ (108)53 → (73)46 ↘

26(33) 53(72) 25(28)

151(98) 421(705) 27(59) 503(995) 98(167)

↖ 244(186) ↙128(94)

(73)37 ↗ (463)149 → (76)66 ↘

Parkside Dr

(22)23 ↗ (20)29 ↘

(27)49 ↗ (686)800 →

6(6) 50(30) 25(28) 27(50) 245(203)

AF T

Mary St E

↖ 310(63) ← 400(392) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 35(82)

Verulam Rd N

Lindsay St S

Signalized Intersection

↖ 25(28) ← 20(20) ↙ 26(30)

Colborne St E

→ ↘

(137)119 ↗ (23)32 → (310)164 ↘

↖29(31) ←827(815) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙49(57) (31)27↗ (643)968 → (51)31↘

(17)37 ↗ (909)435 ↘

(173)103 ↗ (41)20 →

(8)8 ↗ (11)8 → (11)5 ↘

9(22) 8(20) 27(9) (42)51 ↗ (66)31 → (23)51 ↘

(78)36 ↗ (115)66 → (56)28 ↘

(25)20 ↗ (321)100 → (35)28 ↘

(307)318 ↗ (396)367 → (53)83 ↘

17(25) 111(58) 49(31)

51(48) 51(66) 32(37)

293(289) 322(409) 104(161)

(36)64 ↗ (726)765 → (154)203 ↘

Mary St W ↙ ↓ ↘

(430)377 ↗ (302)219 → (87)81↘

↗ → ↘

66(81) 616(825) 111(147)

(86)125 ↗ (670)400 → (43)31↘

↖ 277(229) ← 324(287) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 275(234)

St David St

(170)95 ↗ (182)86 → (139)61 ↘

(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘

15(25) 72(255) 24(61)

8(8) 84(56) 2(0) 28(36) 535(448) 90(119)

(479)304 ↗ (64)69 → (8)11 ↘ (39)30 ↗ (616)304 → (86)47 ↘

(80)25 ↗ (833)374 → (34)28 ↘

78(94) 763(630) 246(299) (11)5 ↗ (295)221 → (252)369 ↘

0(0) 212(310) 375(435) 81(119) 48(81) 5(5)

153(193) 119(148) 204(365)

↖ 25(30) ← 937(631) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 240(228)

↗ →

Lane Movement

(128)176↗ (377)326 → (30)22 ↘

CKL Rd 36

Verulam Rd N

↖147(151) ←396(423) ↙134(117)

St David St

Peel St

Colborne St W

Lindsay St N

(57)22 ↗ (45)42 → (22)23 ↘

↖ 23(62) ←34(72) ↙ 46(31)

↖19(30) ←582(627) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙25(28)

↖128(290) ←468(492) ↙ 49(16)

William St N

↑

(0)3 → (19)34 ↘

William St N

Angeline St S

Legend

↑

Mary St W

Peel St

Cambridge St N

(55)69 ↗ (193)156 → (56)22 ↘

Wellington St (61)26 ↗ (490)337 → (25)47 ↘

↗ → ↘

↖ 92(139) ← 168(195) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 139(181)

William St N

↖ 21(51) ←20(25) ↙ 86(180)

(37)22 ↗ (465)306 → (102)43 ↘

↗ → ↘

(30)23 ↗ (106)55 → (57)26 ↘

Cambridge St N

(432)357 ↗ (1017)672 → (531)381↘

Fair Ave

Colborne St W

Albert St N

(236)112 ↗ (940)942 → (20)19 ↘

↖ 131(125) ← 763(1036) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 61(91) Kent St W

(78)36 ↗ (912)759 → (69)69 ↘

↗ → ↘

↖ 133(264) ← 681(965) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 111(209)

Adelaide St N

St Joseph Rd

Kent St W

Angeline St N

Little Britain Rd

↖ 48(48) ← 852(930) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 27(138)

↖ 45(36) ← 837(927) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 24(27)

(78)48 ↗ (954)747 → (99)69 ↘

(22)2 ↗ (133)125 ↘

↗ → ↘

Colborne St W

Orchard Park Rd

Albert St N

Highway 35

↖2(8) ←203(268) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙47(94) (212)104↗ (317)198 → (5)2↘

(22)12 ↗ (189)153 → (8)6 ↘

Orchard Park Rd

↖16(28) ←134(209) ↙ 3(6)

← 5(3) ↙ 789(645)

Wilson Rd

→ ↘

↖103(159) ←25(56) ↙ 89(56)

Adelaide St N

↖ 241(574) ← 153(275) ↙ 252(406)

Thunder Bridge Rd

Sanderling Cres

(30)26 ↗ (27)29 → (41)45 ↘

↖ 2(2) ←6(0) ↙ 8(9)

↗ → ↘

Connolly Rd

Angeline St N

(20)6 ↗ (3)3 → (472)296 ↘

↗ → ↘

Elm Tree Rd

(0)0 ↗ (131)142 → (8)6 ↘

Trans Canada Highway

Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 207(317) ← 76(97) ↙ 31(63)

↗ → ↘

(128)71↗ (86)94 → (62)87 ↘

Highway 35

Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘

Stop-Controlled Intersection 00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 3

2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY

37(12)

63(47)

(55)34 ↘

Canal St E

(37)15 ↗

(36)25 → (5)0 →

(14)10 ↗

↖5(5) ←28(49) ↙46(66)

(42)17 ↘

(6)4 →

↖ 72(85) ← 79(72) ↙ 17(39) (9)6 ↗

(17)6 ↗ (131)73 → (10)4 ↘

(283)101 (93)51

21(15) 9(5) 1(1)

4(5) 6(3) 11(15)

AF T

(20)10 ↘

(9)4 ↗

(33)23 →

28(29)

21(28)

5(5) 10(10) 10(5)

↗ → ↘

King St W

6(5) 52(100)

↑

15(12)

Legend Lane Movement

(73)46 ↗ (1)5 → (17)4 ↘

(7)16 ↗ (5)0 → (190)173 ↘

(4)9 ↘

(93)70 →

(20)13 ↗

13(22)

88(89) 152(180) 25(40) 3(1)

78(73)

(0)0 →

(11)13 ↘

(5)8 ↗

0(0)

1(0) 1(0)

(5)5 ↗ (37)36→ (18)21↘

↙↘

↙ ↓ ↘

(44)50 ↗ (384)302 →

Duke St

Main St

Canal St W

(366)295→ (184)137 ↘

↖ 5(5) ← 141(169) ↙ 9(8)

→ ↘ (27)21 ↗

Stop-Controlled Intersection

(128)139 ↘

East St N

↖ 17(17) ← 260(368)

King St S

(85)59 ↗ (177)157 → (7)8 ↘

(37)19 ↘

Signalized Intersection

(19)13 ↗ (500)393 →

Mill St

(5)3 ↗ (308)296 → (13)6 ↘

←279(339) ↙72(92)

↗ ↘

East St N

↙ ↓ ↘

↖4(8) ←382(610) ↙14(9)

Boyd St

Duke St

Joseph St

↑

Boyd St

↖ 1(0) ← 173(231) ↙ 11(8)

↗ → ↘

(0)0 ↗ (222)191 → (10)4 ↘

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 8(19) ← 205(341) ↙ 158(215)

Duke St

↗ → ↘

North St

Cedartree Ln

Main St

↗ → ↘

West St

(15)19 ↗ (140)117 → (25)21 ↘

↖ 123(189) ← 102(147) ↙ 5(3)

King St E

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 2

2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BOBCAYGEON

(377)134 (124)68

49(16)

84(63)

AF T

(73)45 ↘

(89)60 ↗

(48)33 →

Canal St E

(12)8 ↗

(56)23 ↘

↗ → ↘

↖ 72(113) ← 79(96) ↙ 17(52)

Signalized Intersection (23)8 ↗ (174)97 → (13)5 ↘

(12)5 →

(19)13 ↗

↖7(7) ←37(65) ↙61(88)

(8)5 →

20(16)

↑

King St W

8(7) 69(133)

Legend Lane Movement

(97)61 ↗ (1)7 → (23)5 ↘

28(20) 12(7) 1(1)

10(17) 18(10) 30(35)

37(39)

28(37)

52(62) 13(13) 13(13) ↙ ↓ ↘

(62)52 ↗ (49)48→ (24)28 ↘

↑

(9)39 ↗ (8)15 → (296)270 ↘

(31)17 ↗

(5)12 ↘ (27)13 ↘

(44)31 →

(22)10 ↗

40(50)

10(10) 40(50)

(145)93 →

17(29)

117(139) 202(240) 33(53) 4(1)

188(176)

(26)31 ↘

(20)20 →

(50)19 ↗

Duke St

Main St

Canal St W

(59)67 ↗ (511)402 →

↖ 5(7) ← 339(225) ↙ 9(8)

→ ↘ (36)28 ↗

(487)393→ (245)182 ↘

↙↘

(170)185 ↘

East St N

↖ 23(23) ← 346(490)

King St S

(133)92 ↗ (276)245 → (11)19 ↘

(89)86 ↘

Stop-Controlled Intersection

(25)17 ↗ (665)523 →

Mill St

(7)4 ↗ (410)394 → (17)14 ↘

←371(451) ↙96(122)

↗ ↘

East St N

↙ ↓ ↘

↖5(11) ←508(812) ↙19(12)

Boyd St

Duke St

Joseph St

↑

Boyd St

↖ 20(25) ← 416(556) ↙ 26(19)

↗ → ↘

(50)0 ↗ (534)460 → (24)10 ↘

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 11(25) ← 273(454) ↙ 246(335)

Duke St

↗ → ↘

North St

Cedartree Ln

Main St

↗ → ↘

West St

(20)25 ↗ (186)156 → (39)28 ↘

↖ 164(252) ← 136(196) ↙ 7(4)

King St E

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 4

2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON

(441)158 (145)80

58(19)

98(73)

(86)53 ↘

(20)5 →

Canal St E

(56)39 →

(145)73 ↗ (22)16 ↗

↖8(8) ←44(76) ↙72(103)

(66)27 ↘

(9)6 →

↖ 72(133) ← 79(112) ↙ 17(61) (14)9 ↗

(27)9 ↗ (204)114 → (16)6 ↘

(114)72 ↗ (2)8 → (27)6 ↘

33(23) 14(8) 2(2)

11(18) 19(11) 32(38)

AF T

(31)16 ↘

(51)36 →

(35)16 ↗

44(45)

33(44)

70(85) 16(16) 16(16) 23(19) King St W

↗ → ↘

↑

Lane Movement

9(8) 81(156)

Legend

↑

(11)63 ↗ (20)15 → (379)345 ↘

(9)14 ↘

(40)20 ↗

(186)109 →

20(34)

137(178) 237(281) 39(62) 5(2)

306(286)

(43)51 ↘

(50)31 ↗

(20)20 →

40(50)

10(10) 40(50)

(85)70 ↗ (58)56→ (28)33 ↘

↙↘

↙ ↓ ↘

(69)78 ↗ (599)471 →

Duke St

Main St

Canal St W

(571)460→ (287)214 ↘

↖ 5(8) ← 553(264) ↙ 9(8)

→ ↘ (42)33 ↗

Stop-Controlled Intersection

(200)217 ↘

East St N

↖ 27(27) ← 406(574)

King St S

(170)118 ↗ (353)313 → (14)31 ↘

(145)124 ↘

Signalized Intersection

(30)20 ↗ (780)613 →

Mill St

(8)5 ↗ (480)462 → (20)24 ↘

←435(529) ↙112(143)

↗ ↘

East St N

↙ ↓ ↘

↖6(12) ←596(951) ↙22(14)

Boyd St

Duke St

Joseph St

↑

Boyd St

↖ 20(25) ← 678(906) ↙ 43(31)

↗ → ↘

(50)0 ↗ (870)749 → (39)16 ↘

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 12(30) ← 320(532) ↙ 315(429)

Duke St

↗ → ↘

North St

Cedartree Ln

Main St

↗ → ↘

West St

(23)30 ↗ (218)182 → (50)33 ↘

↖ 192(295) ← 159(229) ↙ 8(5)

King St E

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 5

2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON

58(19)

98(73)

(86)53 ↘

Canal St E

(145)73 ↗

(56)39 → (20)5 →

(22)16 ↗

↖8(8) ←44(76) ↙72(103)

(66)27 ↘

(9)6 →

↖ 72(133) ← 79(112) ↙ 17(61) (14)9 ↗

23(19)

(27)9 ↗ (204)114 → (16)6 ↘

(441)158 (145)80

33(23) 14(8) 2(2)

11(18) 19(11) 32(38)

AF T

(31)16 ↘

(51)36 →

(35)16 ↗

44(45)

33(44)

70(85) 16(16) 16(16)

↑

↗ → ↘

↑

King St W

9(8) 81(156)

Legend Lane Movement

(114)72 ↗ (2)8 → (27)6 ↘

(11)63 ↗ (20)15 → (379)345 ↘

(6)14 ↘

(40)20 ↗

(186)109 →

20(34)

137(178) 237(281) 39(62) 5(2)

306(286)

(43)51 ↘

(50)31 ↗

(20)20 →

40(50)

10(10) 40(50)

(85)70 ↗ (58)56→ (28)33 ↘

↙↘

↙ ↓ ↘

(69)78 ↗ (599)471 →

Duke St

Main St

Canal St W

(571)460→ (287)214 ↘

↖ 5(8) ← 553(264) ↙ 9(8)

→ ↘ (42)33 ↗

Stop-Controlled Intersection

(200)217 ↘

East St N

↖ 27(27) ← 406(574)

King St S

(170)118 ↗ (353)313 → (14)31 ↘

(145)124 ↘

Signalized Intersection

(30)20 ↗ (780)613 →

Mill St

(8)5 ↗ (480)462 → (20)24 ↘

←435(529) ↙112(143)

↗ ↘

East St N

↙ ↓ ↘

↖6(12) ←596(951) ↙22(14)

Boyd St

Duke St

Joseph St

↑

Boyd St

↗ → ↘

(50)0 ↗ (870)749 → (39)16 ↘

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 12(30) ← 320(532) ↙ 315(429)

Duke St

↖ 20(25) ← 678(906) ↙ 43(31)

↗ → ↘

North St

Cedartree Ln

Main St

↗ → ↘

West St

(23)30 ↗ (218)182 → (50)33 ↘

↖ 192(295) ← 159(229) ↙ 8(5)

King St E

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 6

2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON

Colborne St

(11)12↗ (462)266 →

Hwy 121

45(45) 16(20) 2(1)

13(15) 9(3)

21(55) 2(4) 5(15)

73(149) 14(10) 15(51)

69(72) 21(32) 138(195)

AF T ↖ ↑↗

(68)30 ↗ (160)73 → (269)174 ↘

↖ ↑↗

Hwy 121

Hwy 8

Bond St E

Francis St E

Commercial Access

(22)20↗ (496)296→ (10)9↘

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 1(4) ← 12(127) ↙ 8(12)

5(8) 12(24) 225(228)

(71)40 ↘

↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St

3(5) 4(1) 11(12)

(53)34 ↗ (450)296 →

9(27) 18(15) 83(65)

97(148) 40(56) 28(32)

(60)31 ↘

Colborne St

↙↘

↖6(17) ←376(362)

↖ ↑↗

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 15(16) ← 393(402) ↙ 5(8)

Northine Rd

↖24(26) ←391(423) ↙7(20)

Lindsay St

(43)54 ↗ (324)200 →

Princess St W

↙ ↓ ↘

Bond St W

Francis St W

Helen St

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 129(170) ← 232(354) ↙ 75(81)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 3

2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS

Colborne St

Hwy 121

57(57) 18(23) 2(1)

24(62) 2(5) 6(17)

83(169) 16(11) 17(58)

78(82) 24(36) 175(247)

15(17) 10(3)

(12)14↗ (585)337 →

↙ ↓ ↘ (86)38 ↗ (203)92 → (341)220 ↘

↖ ↑↗

Hwy 121

Hwy 8

AF T ↖ ↑↗

Bond St E

Francis St E

Commercial Access

(25)23↗ (628)375→ (11)10↘

↙↘

↖ 1(5) ← 75(161) ↙ 9(14)

6(9) 14(27) 323(259)

(81)45 ↘

↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St

3(6) 5(1) 12(14)

(60)39 ↗ (570)375 →

↙ ↓ ↘

↖7(19) ←476(459)

Colborne St

10(31) 20(17) 94(74)

110(168) 45(64) 32(36)

(68)35 ↘

↖ ↑↗

↖ 17(18) ← 498(509) ↙ 6(9)

Northine Rd

↖27(30) ←495(536) ↙8(23)

Lindsay St

(49)61↗ (410)253 →

Princess St W

↙ ↓ ↘

Bond St W

Francis St W

Helen St

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 163(215) ← 294(448) ↙ 85(92)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 7

2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS

Colborne St

Hwy 121

60(60) 21(27) 3(1)

28(73) 3(5) 7(20)

97(198) 19(13) 20(68)

92(96) 28(43) 147(208)

17(20) 12(4)

(15)16↗ (629)362 →

↙ ↓ ↘ (93)41 ↗ (218)99 → (366)237 ↘

↖ ↑↗

Hwy 121

Hwy 8

AF T ↖ ↑↗

Bond St E

Francis St E

Commercial Access

(29)27↗ (676)403→ (13)12↘

↙↘

↖ 1(5) ← 80(169) ↙ 11(16)

7(11) 16(32) 339(303)

(94)53 ↘

↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St

4(7) 5(1) 15(16)

(71)45 ↗ (561)369 →

↙ ↓ ↘

↖8(23) ←512(493)

Colborne St

12(36) 24(20) 110(86)

129(197) 53(75) 37(43)

(80)41 ↘

↖ ↑↗

↖ 20(21) ← 535(548) ↙ 7(11)

Northine Rd

↖32(35) ←488(528) ↙9(27)

Lindsay St

(57)72 ↗ (370)229 →

Princess St W

↙ ↓ ↘

Bond St W

Francis St W

Helen St

↙ ↓ ↘

↖ 147(194) ← 265(404) ↙ 100(108)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 8

2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS

↖ ↑↗

Colborne St

Hwy 121

70(70) 25(31) 3(2)

20(23) 14(5)

(17)19↗ (846)487 →

↙ ↓ ↘ (124)55 ↗ (293)134 → (492)318 ↘

↖ ↑↗

Hwy 121

Hwy 8

Bond St E

Francis St E

Commercial Access

(34)31↗ (908)542→ (16)14↘

↙↘

↖ 2(6) ← 87(198) ↙ 12(19)

8(12) 19(37) 398(356)

(111)62 ↘

↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St

5(8) 6(2) 17(19)

(83)53 ↗ (719)473 →

14(42) 28(23) 129(101)

(94)48 ↘

Colborne St

↙ ↓ ↘

↖9(27) ←688(663)

↖ ↑↗ 151(231) 62(87) 44(50)

(67)84 ↗ (451)279 →

↖ 23(25) ← 719(736) ↙ 8(12)

AF T

Lindsay St

33(86) 3(6) 8(23)

114(232) 22(16) 23(80)

108(112) 33(50) 172(243)

↖37(41) ←625(676) ↙11(31)

Northine Rd

↙ ↓ ↘

Princess St W

↙ ↓ ↘

Bond St W

Francis St W

Helen St

↖ 180(237) ← 323(493) ↙ 117(126)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 9

2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS

(10)9 ↘

5(2) 0(0) 2(1)

(438)326 → (18)11 ↘

← 322(500) ↙ 0(13) (16)30 ↗

King St E

Queen St S

Sturgeon Rd S

Ski Hill Rd

(13)5 ↗ (12)5 → (4)0 ↘

27(35)

30(43) 4(8)

0(0) 2(3) 4(2)

9(4) 24(18)

AF T (43)7 ↗ (453)299 → (11)2 ↘

(21)18 ↗ (1)3 → (48)19 ↘

King St W

↖ 15(31) ← 318(432) ↙ 4(0)

↗ → ↘

(0)2 ↗ (438)211 → (17)13 ↘

↗ → ↘

King St W

Queen St N

Sturgeon Rd N

Deane St N

(12)7 ↗ (433)304 →

↗ → ↘

↙↘

Sibley Ave N

Hwy 7

↖ 12(45) ← 298(419)

↖ 2(9) ← 296(440) ↙ 32(34)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 4

2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE

(11)10 ↘

6(2) 0(0) 2(1)

(497)370 → (20)12 ↘

Queen St S

Sturgeon Rd S

Ski Hill Rd

King St E

← 366(568) ↙ 0(15) (18)34 ↗

(49)8 ↗ (514)339 → (12)2 ↘

(15)6 ↗ (14)6 → (5)0 ↘

31(40)

34(49) 5(9)

AF T King St W

(24)20 ↗ (1)3 → (54)22 ↘

10(5) 27(20)

0(0) 2(3) 5(2)

(0)2 ↗ (497)240 → (19)15 ↘

↖ 17(35) ← 361(490) ↙ 5(0)

↗ → ↘

King St W

↗ → ↘

(14)8 ↗ (492)345 →

Queen St N

Sturgeon Rd N

Deane St N

↖ 2(10) ← 336(500) ↙ 36(39)

↗ → ↘

↙↘

Sibley Ave N

Hwy 7

↖ 14(51) ← 338(476)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 10

2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE

(13)12 ↘

7(3) 0(0) 3(1)

(583)434 → (24)15 ↘

← 428(665) ↙ 0(17) (21)40 ↗

King St E

Queen St S

Sturgeon Rd S

Ski Hill Rd

(17)7 ↗ (16)7 → (5)0 ↘

36(47)

40(57) 5(11)

0(0) 3(4) 5(3)

12(5) 32(24)

AF T (57)9 ↗ (603)398 → (15)3 ↘

(28)24 ↗ (1)4 → (64)25 ↘

King St W

↖ 20(41) ← 423(575) ↙ 5(0)

↗ → ↘

(0)3 ↗ (583)281 → (23)17 ↘

↗ → ↘

King St W

Queen St N

Sturgeon Rd N

Deane St N

(16)9 ↗ (576)405 →

↖ 3(12) ← 394(586) ↙ 43(45)

↗ → ↘

↙↘

Sibley Ave N

Hwy 7

↖ 16(60) ← 397(558)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 11

2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE

(16)14 ↘

8(3) 0(0) 3(2)

(683)508 → (28)17 ↘

(25)47 ↗

(20)8 ↗ (19)8 → (6)0 ↘

42(55)

47(67) 6(12)

0(0) 3(5) 6(3)

14(6) 37(28)

AF T

King St E

← 502(780) ↙ 0(20)

Queen St S

(67)11 ↗ (707)466 → (17)3 ↘

Sturgeon Rd S

Ski Hill Rd

(33)28 ↗ (2)5 → (75)30 ↘

King St W

↖ 23(48) ← 496(674) ↙ 6(0)

↗ → ↘

(0)3 ↗ (683)329 → (27)20 ↘

↗ → ↘

King St W

Queen St N

Sturgeon Rd N

Deane St N

↖ 19(70) ← 465(653)

↗ → ↘

(19)11 ↗ (675)474 →

Sibley Ave N

↙↘

Hwy 7

↖ 3(14) ← 462(686) ↙ 50(53)

Legend

↑

Lane Movement Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection

00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

Not to Scale

Figure - 12

2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE

Appendix I: Future Conditions Capacity Analysis

I.1 Lindsay

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.69 1221 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm

43 43 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.94 46 26 56 2% NA 4

34 34 1900

44 44 1900

0.94 36 0 0 2%

0.94 47 0 0 2% Perm

49 49 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1812 0.83 1536 0.94 52 0 99 5% NA 8

159 159 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 169 122 47 2% Perm

44 44 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 769 0.94 47 0 47 3% Perm

606 606 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 645 0 645 3% NA 2

17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 18 8 10 2% Perm

150 150 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.30 545 0.94 160 0 160 4% Perm

459 459 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 488 0 488 5% NA 6

68 68 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 72 32 40 15% Perm

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 431

2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 305

0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C

0.06 0.11 9.1 1.00 0.5 9.6 A

0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A

0.29 0.52 12.2 1.00 2.6 14.8 B

25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 430

0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C

8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 493 0.03

4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 342

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.11 23.8 1.00 0.5 24.3 C 25.2 C

Future Traffic 2031

16.3 0.49 89.1 77.8% 15

c0.06 0.23 24.6 1.00 0.3 25.0 C 24.3 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.35 0.62 13.1 1.00 2.7 15.8 B 15.3 B

50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.27 0.48 11.7 1.00 0.6 12.3 B 12.5 B

6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A

B 14.1 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBL 76 0.22 26.8 0.0 26.8 9.9 21.0 150.0 342 0 0 0 0.22

EBT WBT 82 99 0.16 0.23 15.9 26.5 0.0 0.0 15.9 26.5 5.8 13.0 16.3 25.5 1366.5 1368.7 519 0 0 0 0.16

430 0 0 0 0.23

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

WBR 169 0.30 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 13.9

NBL 47 0.11 10.0 0.0 10.0 3.5 8.7

170.0 570 0 0 0 0.30

250.0 430 0 0 0 0.11

NBT 645 0.62 16.3 0.0 16.3 69.0 102.2 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.62

NBR 18 0.02 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4

SBL 160 0.52 19.9 0.0 19.9 15.8 35.6

135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02

200.0 305 0 0 0 0.52

SBT 488 0.48 13.6 0.0 13.6 46.5 70.0 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.48

SBR 72 0.09 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.4 200.0 828 0 0 0 0.09

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

SEL

SET

SER

NWL

NWT

NWR

0 0 1900

95 95 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1869 1.00 1869 0.93 102 2 106 2% NA 4

6 6 1900

204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.69 1179 0.93 219 0 219 12% Perm

152 152 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 163 0 163 2% NA 8

288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 310 207 103 3% Perm

219 219 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1158 0.93 235 0 235 2% Perm

226 226 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 243 0 243 11% NA 2

0 0 1900

8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1141 0.93 9 0 9 2% Perm

215 215 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 231 0 231 7% NA 6

126 126 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 135 65 70 11% Perm

8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 528

2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 603

0.07 0.20 22.8 1.00 0.8 23.6 C

c0.20 0.39 13.8 1.00 1.9 15.7 B

0.93 6 0 0 2%

8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 393

32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 628 0.09

32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 623 0.06

c0.19 0.56 26.2 1.00 5.6 31.8 C

R 0.17 22.6 1.00 0.1 22.7 C 22.7 C

19.6 0.45 95.9 68.7% 15

0.26 23.3 1.00 1.0 24.3 C 26.4 C

0.93 0 0 0 2%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

NBL

Future Traffic 2031

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 594

50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 902 0.14

0.01 0.02 11.1 1.00 0.0 11.1 B

0.27 12.8 1.00 0.7 13.5 B 14.6 B

50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 935 0.13 0.25 12.6 1.00 0.6 13.2 B 12.7 B

6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 766 0.05 0.09 11.5 1.00 0.2 11.8 B

B 13.9 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

4 6 NBTL NWTL

8 SBTL

2 SETL

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7

NBT 108 0.17 22.9 0.0 22.9 13.6 25.7 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.17

SBL 219 0.56 32.7 0.0 32.7 32.9 56.3

SBT 163 0.26 24.7 0.0 24.7 21.8 37.4 249.9

100.0 393 0 0 0 0.56

628 0 0 0 0.26

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

SBR 310 0.42 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 17.1

SEL 235 0.39 16.2 0.0 16.2 24.8 42.4

100.0 735 0 0 0 0.42

200.0 603 0 0 0 0.39

SET 243 0.27 13.8 0.0 13.8 23.8 38.3 374.7 902 0 0 0 0.27

NWL 9 0.02 11.2 0.0 11.2 0.8 3.1 200.0 594 0 0 0 0.02

NWT 231 0.25 13.5 0.0 13.5 22.3 36.1 359.2 935 0 0 0 0.25

NWR 135 0.16 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 8.3 100.0 831 0 0 0 0.16

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

36 36 1900

435 435 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.95 1720 0.96 453 6 532 5% NA 2

45 45 1900

12 12 1900

16 16 1900

31 31 1900

24 24 1900

0.96 17 0 0 2%

0.96 32 0 0 4% Perm

0.96 18 0 0 2%

0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm

48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.94 1688 0.96 50 21 90 2% NA 4

35 35 1900

0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm

48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.91 1653 0.96 50 10 90 2% NA 8

17 17 1900

0.96 47 0 0 3%

423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.98 1820 0.96 441 2 469 3% NA 6

0.96 38 0 0 2% Perm 2

c0.31 0.80 16.1 1.00 6.6 22.7 C 22.7 C

23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 706

23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 667

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

18.6 0.45 59.5 60.3% 15

0.26 0.66 15.0 1.00 2.4 17.4 B 17.4 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.96 36 0 0 2%

25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 705

25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 720

c0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B

0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B B 11.0 B

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70

6 WBTL

EGIS

4 SBTL

AM Peak Hour

8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 EBTL

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

EBT 538 0.80 25.3 0.0 25.3 48.5 78.9 123.3

WBT 471 0.67 19.5 0.0 19.5 39.8 64.1 258.1

NBT 100 0.14 11.9 0.0 11.9 5.1 16.9 366.5

SBT 111 0.15 10.3 0.0 10.3 4.6 16.5 390.1

1028 0 0 0 0.52

1085 0 0 0 0.43

712 0 0 0 0.14

739 0 0 0 0.15

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

36 36 1900

416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.94 1744 0.94 443 2 512

31 31 1900

63 63 1900

22 22 1900

57 57 1900

20 20 1900

0.94 23 0 0 2

0.94 61 0 0 7 Perm

0.94 46 0 0 3

0.94 21 0 0 3 Perm

42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.91 1651 0.94 45 11 74

18 18 1900

0.94 67 0 0 6 Perm

84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1774 0.89 1597 0.94 89 11 185

43 43 1900

0.94 33 0 0 6

424 424 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1858 0.86 1610 0.94 451 2 539

NA 6

NA 2

NA 8

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 767

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 708

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 702

44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 726

0.29 0.67 22.2 1.00 4.6 26.8 C 26.8 C

c0.33 0.76 23.6 1.00 7.6 31.2 C 31.2 C

c0.12 0.26 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.6 B 18.6 B

0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B

26.7 0.51 100.0 66.6% 15

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.94 19 0 0 7

NA 4

0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm

EBT

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

C 12.0 C

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

8 NBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55

6 EBTL

EGIS

4 SBTL

AM Peak Hour

9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Splits and Phases:

2 WBTL

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

EBT 514 0.67 27.3 0.0 27.3 76.3 112.5 258.1

WBT 541 0.76 32.0 0.0 32.0 85.6 128.2 647.5

NBT 196 0.27 17.2 0.0 17.2 20.9 36.2 153.3

SBT 85 0.12 13.5 0.0 13.5 7.3 16.1 103.2

769 0 0 0 0.67

709 0 0 0 0.76

713 0 0 0 0.27

737 0 0 0 0.12

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

171 171 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 265 0.89 192 0 192 2% pm+pt 5 2 40.2 40.2 0.51 5.0 3.0 351 c0.08 0.20 0.55 13.1 1.00 1.7 14.8 B

685 685 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 770 2 785 2% NA 2

15 15 1900

152 152 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 448 0.89 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.4 38.4 0.48 5.0 3.0 392 0.06 0.15 0.44 12.4 1.00 0.8 13.2 B

649 649 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.89 729 32 913 3% NA 6

192 192 1900

124 124 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 888 0.89 139 0 139 2% Perm

133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 149 32 230 2% NA 4

101 101 1900

266 266 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 934 0.89 299 0 299 2% Perm

108 108 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 121 55 224 2% NA 8

141 141 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

28.0 28.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 1211 c0.27

4 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 279

28.9 28.9 0.36 5.0 3.0 1299 0.22

0.89 216 0 0 2%

0.60 20.5 1.00 2.1 22.6 C 21.1 C

28.3 0.82 79.3 78.1% 15

0.89 113 0 0 9%

0.89 17 0 0 2%

Future Traffic 2031

0.75 22.6 1.00 2.7 25.3 C 23.5 C

0.16 0.50 22.1 1.00 1.4 23.5 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

8 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 294

25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 539 0.13

c0.32 1.02 27.1 1.00 56.9 84.0 F

0.43 21.5 1.00 0.5 22.0 C 22.5 C

0.89 158 0 0 3%

25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 540 0.13 0.41 21.4 1.00 0.5 21.9 C 54.0 D

C 15.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EGIS

83 Semi Act-Uncoord 80

Splits and Phases:

13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 15

Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W

EBL 192 0.55 17.0 0.0 17.0 13.2 27.2 70.0 434 0 0 0 0.44

EBT 787 0.61 22.9 0.0 22.9 49.1 67.9 368.2 1298 0 0 0 0.61

WBL 171 0.43 12.7 0.0 12.7 11.6 20.2 120.0 496 0 0 0 0.34

AM Peak Hour

WBT 945 0.76 26.5 0.0 26.5 59.9 88.1 68.4

NBL 139 0.50 30.0 0.0 30.0 16.4 35.7

NBT 262 0.46 21.1 0.0 21.1 24.5 47.8 306.6

1244 0 0 0 0.76

280 0 0 0 0.50

571 0 0 0 0.46

30.0 294 0 0 0 1.02

SBT 279 0.47 18.5 0.0 18.5 22.3 45.9 418.3 596 0 0 0 0.47

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

SBL 299 1.02 87.6 0.0 87.6 43.7 #97.6

Future Traffic 2031

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 13

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

291 291 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 306 0 306 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.47 5.0 3.0 262 c0.13 c0.42 1.17 32.1 1.00 108.8 140.8 F

684 684 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 720 0 720 2% NA 6

357 357 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 376 167 209 2% Perm

61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.11 207 0.95 64 0 64 6% pm+pt 5 2 42.0 42.0 0.38 5.0 3.0 172 0.02 0.12 0.37 26.7 1.00 1.4 28.0 C

697 697 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 734 0 734 2% NA 2

84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 88 60 28 2% Perm

224 224 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 241 0.95 236 0 236 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.9 45.9 0.41 5.0 3.0 304 c0.10 0.22 0.78 25.4 1.00 11.7 37.1 D

199 199 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.95 209 6 244 3% NA 8

39 39 1900

117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.55 1022 0.95 123 0 123 3% pm+pt 7 4 37.3 37.3 0.34 5.0 3.0 414 0.03 0.07 0.30 26.2 1.00 0.4 26.6 C

205 205 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1724 1.00 1724 0.95 216 33 404 3% NA 4

210 210 1900

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

2 35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 507

0.13 0.36 25.8 1.00 1.7 27.6 C

R 1.05 35.2 1.00 49.6 84.8 F 81.7 F

35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 597 0.39

86.2 1.08 110.7 107.2% 15

1.23 37.8 1.00 117.5 155.3 F 133.3 F

0.95 41 0 0 3%

6 40.2 40.2 0.36 6.0 3.0 581

40.2 40.2 0.36 6.0 3.0 683 0.38

Future Traffic 2031

0.02 0.06 26.3 1.00 0.2 26.5 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

31.3 31.3 0.28 6.0 3.0 514 0.13 0.48 32.9 1.00 3.1 36.0 D 36.6 D

0.95 221 0 0 3%

27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 420 c0.23 0.96 41.4 1.00 35.6 76.9 E 65.9 E

F 22.0 G

Synchro 11 Report Page 17

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EGIS

113 Semi Act-Uncoord 125

Splits and Phases:

14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 18

Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W

EBL EBT 306 720 1.17 1.04 137.3 82.2 0.0 0.0 137.3 82.2 ~63.2 ~176.5 #122.7 #263.8 607.3 30.0 262 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.17 1.04

EBR 376 0.50 11.6 0.0 11.6 17.1 47.1 752 0 0 0 0.50

WBL WBT 64 734 0.32 1.26 21.4 162.9 0.0 0.0 21.4 162.9 7.3 ~198.1 15.5 #278.0 443.3 65.0 254 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 1.26

WBR 88 0.15 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.0

NBL 236 0.77 40.6 0.0 40.6 32.2 58.7

583 0 0 0 0.15

100.0 358 0 0 0 0.66

NBT 250 0.48 35.3 0.0 35.3 42.6 69.1 278.0 523 0 0 0 0.48

SBL SBT 123 437 0.29 0.96 21.1 70.8 0.0 0.0 21.1 70.8 15.6 85.0 27.1 #152.4 268.1 300.0 546 456 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.96

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 16

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

46 46 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.59 1028 0.97 47 0 47 10% Perm

185 185 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1851 1.00 1851 0.97 191 3 207 2% NA 8

18 18 1900

85 85 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.97 88 0 88 2% pm+pt 7 4 33.5 33.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 327 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.2 C

160 160 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1769 1.00 1769 0.97 165 24 254 2% NA 4

110 110 1900

22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1293 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm

139 139 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 143 12 199 2% NA 2

66 66 1900

45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 987 0.97 46 0 46 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.7 58.7 0.56 5.0 3.0 631 0.01 0.03 0.07 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.5 B

83 83 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.97 86 8 101 2% NA 6

22 22 1900

33.5 33.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 568 c0.14

0.69 41.1 1.00 6.4 47.5 D 45.9 D

28.2 0.37 104.2 80.0% 15

0.97 68 0 0 2%

17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 301 c0.11

0.97 113 0 0 2%

2 43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 538

0.05 0.28 38.2 1.00 0.9 39.2 D

0.97 19 0 0 6%

8 17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 167

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

0.45 28.0 1.00 0.6 28.6 C 28.0 C

0.02 0.04 18.1 1.00 0.1 18.2 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.11 0.27 20.0 1.00 0.9 20.8 C 20.6 C

0.97 23 0 0 2%

58.7 58.7 0.56 6.0 3.0 1027 c0.06 0.10 10.5 1.00 0.2 10.7 B 10.6 B

C 22.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 20

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

Splits and Phases:

16: William Street North & Wellington Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 21

Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street

EBL 47 0.27 43.1 0.0 43.1 8.5 19.4 50.0 195 0 0 0 0.24

EBT 210 0.67 51.1 0.0 51.1 40.2 64.3 648.3 354 0 0 0 0.59

WBL 88 0.23 24.2 0.0 24.2 11.9 22.6 60.0 417 0 0 0 0.21

WBT 278 0.47 25.7 0.0 25.7 37.1 59.5 112.7 763 0 0 0 0.36

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

NBL 23 0.04 25.5 0.0 25.5 3.3 9.4 50.0 556 0 0 0 0.04

NBT 211 0.27 23.4 0.0 23.4 29.8 51.0 118.6 782 0 0 0 0.27

SBL 46 0.07 12.0 0.0 12.0 4.2 9.9 30.0 762 0 0 0 0.06

SBT 109 0.11 10.7 0.0 10.7 8.7 17.8 52.7 1028 0 0 0 0.11

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 19

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

33 33 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.47 854 0.91 36 0 36 5% Perm

253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 278 4 292 2% NA 4

16 16 1900

166 166 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 830 0.91 182 0 182 2% pm+pt 3 4 22.3 22.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 391 c0.05 0.11 0.47 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B

238 238 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.91 262 5 277 2% NA 4

18 18 1900

72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1166 0.91 79 0 79 2% Perm

134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 147 93 343 4% NA 2

263 263 1900

22 22 1900

0.91 289 0 0 2%

0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm

181 181 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.93 1756 0.91 199 0 223 2% NA 2

26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 29 16 13 3% Perm

15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 433 0.15

15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 443 c0.16

0.91 20 0 0 33%

2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 508

0.04 0.18 19.5 1.00 0.4 20.0 B

0.91 18 0 0 3%

4 15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 202

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

0.66 22.2 1.00 3.5 25.7 C 25.1 C

Future Traffic 2031

18.6 0.52 64.4 79.2% 15

0.64 22.1 1.00 3.2 25.3 C 21.8 C

0.07 0.16 11.0 1.00 0.7 11.6 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 735 c0.20

28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 766 0.13 0.29 11.7 1.00 1.0 12.7 B 12.4 B

0.47 12.8 1.00 2.1 15.0 B 14.5 B

2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 691 0.01 0.02 10.3 1.00 0.0 10.4 B

B 14.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 23

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70

EGIS

3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58

Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18

17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

Splits and Phases:

2 NBSB

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 24

Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street

EBL 36 0.18 21.1 0.0 21.1 3.4 9.7 180.0 292 0 0 0 0.12

EBT 296 0.67 29.4 0.0 29.4 31.3 52.9 138.6 643 0 0 0 0.46

WBL 182 0.41 14.0 0.0 14.0 12.8 23.4 20.0 443 0 0 0 0.41

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

WBT 282 0.65 28.7 0.0 28.7 29.5 50.5 145.1

NBL 79 0.16 13.6 0.0 13.6 5.4 15.0

NBT 436 0.53 11.5 0.0 11.5 20.5 51.7 388.0

SBT 223 0.29 14.2 0.0 14.2 16.2 35.2 574.8

629 0 0 0 0.45

508 0 0 0 0.16

829 0 0 0 0.53

765 0 0 0 0.29

SBR 29 0.04 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 30.0 735 0 0 0 0.04

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 22

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

53 53 1900

174 174 1900 6.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1758 0.88 1560 0.95 183 13 285 5% NA 4

56 56 1900

31 31 1900

24 24 1900

0.95 59 0 0 2%

0.95 33 0 0 24% Perm

148 148 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.89 1511 0.95 156 7 207 9% NA 8

89 89 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.50 926 0.95 94 0 94 3% Perm

93 93 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 98 0 98 9% NA 2

140 140 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 147 64 83 17% Perm

157 157 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1281 0.95 165 0 165 4% Perm

387 387 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 407 0 407 6% NA 6

104 104 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 109 47 62 6% Perm

2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 789

6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 724

0.06 0.11 7.1 1.00 0.3 7.4 A

0.13 0.23 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A

c0.18 0.75 24.8 1.00 7.8 32.7 C 32.7 C

17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 369

2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 523

17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 381

0.95 25 0 0 6%

0.95 56 0 0 10% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

15.6 0.50 71.1 76.4% 15

0.14 0.56 23.5 1.00 2.0 25.5 C 25.5 C

0.10 0.18 7.5 1.00 0.8 8.2 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 996 0.06 0.10 7.1 1.00 0.2 7.3 A 7.6 A

40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 1024 c0.22 0.40 8.7 1.00 1.2 9.8 A 9.1 A

6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 871 0.04 0.07 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A

B 13.5 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 26

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

EGIS

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 27

Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd

EBT 298 0.76 36.1 0.0 36.1 34.6 59.0 544.5

WBT 214 0.57 28.5 0.0 28.5 23.8 42.5 206.8

561 0 0 0 0.53

539 0 0 0 0.40

NBL 94 0.18 10.2 0.0 10.2 5.5 15.6 75.0 523 0 0 0 0.18

NBT 98 0.10 8.9 0.0 8.9 5.5 14.4 173.0 995 0 0 0 0.10

NBR 147 0.17 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.0

SBL 165 0.23 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 24.3

50.0 852 0 0 0 0.17

130.0 724 0 0 0 0.23

SBT 407 0.40 11.2 0.0 11.2 27.7 57.0 418.3 1023 0 0 0 0.40

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

SBR 109 0.12 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.9 100.0 917 0 0 0 0.12

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 25

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900

141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1760 0.87 1540 0.86 164 12 247 4% NA 4

41 41 1900

132 132 1900

101 101 1900

365 365 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1751 1.00 1751 0.86 424 15 539 7% NA 2

107 107 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 621 0.86 124 0 124 2% Perm

415 415 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.86 483 7 545 3% NA 6

59 59 1900

0.86 153 0 0 5% Perm

26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 624 0.86 30 0 30 2% Perm

112 112 1900

0.86 48 0 0 2%

142 142 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.76 1361 0.86 165 19 416 2% NA 8

0.16 0.48 18.2 1.00 0.7 18.9 B 18.9 B

23.3 23.3 0.34 5.5 3.0 456

2 35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 315

23.3 23.3 0.34 5.5 3.0 517

0.86 117 0 0 2%

22.1 0.73 69.4 109.4% 15

0.86 130 0 0 2%

0.86 47 0 0 14% Perm

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

c0.31 0.91 22.1 1.00 22.3 44.4 D 44.4 D

0.05 0.10 8.9 1.00 0.6 9.5 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 314

35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 885 c0.31

0.20 0.39 10.6 1.00 3.7 14.3 B

0.61 12.2 1.00 3.1 15.4 B 15.1 B

0.86 69 0 0 27%

35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 899 0.31 0.61 12.2 1.00 3.0 15.3 B 15.1 B

C 11.0 H

Synchro 11 Report Page 29

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

8 WBTL

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75

6 SBTL

EGIS

4 EBTL

AM Peak Hour

23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

Splits and Phases:

2 NBTL

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 30

Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street

AM Peak Hour

EBT 259 0.49 20.5 0.0 20.5 24.2 41.0 158.8

WBT 435 0.91 47.1 0.0 47.1 49.9 #92.7 158.6

NBL 30 0.10 10.7 0.0 10.7 2.0 5.9

NBT 554 0.62 15.8 0.0 15.8 48.0 72.3 321.6

566 0 0 0 0.46

510 0 0 0 0.85

315 0 0 0 0.10

900 0 0 0 0.62

50.0 314 0 0 0 0.39

SBT 552 0.61 16.0 0.0 16.0 49.1 73.3 760.4 904 0 0 0 0.61

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

SBL 124 0.39 16.2 0.0 16.2 9.8 21.3

Future Traffic 2031

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 28

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

100 100 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1355 0.93 108 0 108 2% Perm

17 17 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.93 18 204 57 2% NA 4

226 226 1900

22 22 1900

17 17 1900

385 385 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 414 1 431 2% NA 2

43 43 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.49 810 0.93 46 0 46 17% Perm

390 390 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.93 419 6 490 3% NA 6

72 72 1900

0.93 24 0 0 2% Perm

120 120 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.93 129 0 129 2% Perm

17 17 1900

0.93 243 0 0 4%

15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.98 1768 0.56 1009 0.93 16 15 43 2% NA 8

0.22 25.9 1.00 0.4 26.4 C 27.2 C

11.2 0.41 71.0 93.2% 15

0.93 18 0 0 2%

11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 162

0.93 18 0 0 2%

2 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 593

c0.08 0.50 27.2 1.00 1.8 29.0 C

8 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 255 0.04

4 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 217

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

0.04 0.26 26.1 1.00 0.9 27.0 C 27.0 C

0.15 0.22 3.8 1.00 0.8 4.6 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

6 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 565

49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1307 0.23

0.06 0.08 3.4 1.00 0.3 3.7 A

0.33 4.2 1.00 0.7 4.9 A 4.8 A

0.93 77 0 0 2%

49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1274 c0.27 0.38 4.4 1.00 0.9 5.3 A 5.2 A

B 10.0 F

Synchro 11 Report Page 32

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

4 EBTL

6 SBTL

8 WBTL

2 NBTL

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Splits and Phases:

EGIS

Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

Synchro 11 Report Page 33

Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W

EBL 108 0.50 34.4 0.0 34.4 13.4 25.3 30.0 486 0 0 0 0.22

EBT 261 0.57 10.0 0.0 10.0 2.1 18.7 1201.3

WBT 58 0.33 23.9 0.0 23.9 4.8 13.3 482.8

727 0 0 0 0.36

373 0 0 0 0.16

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

NBL 129 0.22 5.7 0.0 5.7 4.8 13.8 50.0 592 0 0 0 0.22

NBT 432 0.33 5.5 0.0 5.5 17.6 37.7 440.8 1308 0 0 0 0.33

SBL 46 0.08 4.7 0.0 4.7 1.6 5.6 35.0 564 0 0 0 0.08

SBT 496 0.39 5.8 0.0 5.8 20.5 44.3 214.1 1280 0 0 0 0.39

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 31

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 49 0 49 6% Prot 8

93 93 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 97 88 9 2% Perm

403 403 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 420 5 490 2% NA 2

72 72 1900

92 92 1900

0.96 75 0 0 2%

0.96 96 0 0 4% Perm

551 551 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1849 0.87 1628 0.96 574 0 670 3% NA 6

0.32 31.7 1.00 1.3 33.0 C 31.8 C

8 6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 140

58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1287

0.01 0.06 31.0 1.00 0.2 31.2 C

6 58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1459 0.27

6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 151 c0.03

WBR

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

WBL

Future Traffic 2031

0.34 2.2 1.00 0.6 2.8 A 2.8 A

6.8 0.50 74.1 75.1% 15

c0.41 0.52 2.8 1.00 1.5 4.3 A 4.3 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service

Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

9.0 D

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

EGIS

Max Max None 56 56 24 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 56 56 56 0 51.5 51.5 75.5 40.5 40.5 64.5 0 0 56 51.5 51.5 75.5 40.5 40.5 64.5

8 WBL

80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60

Splits and Phases:

6 SBTL

25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle

2 NBT

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street

WBL 49 0.28 32.9 0.0 32.9 6.4 14.6 194.8 460 0 0 0 0.11

WBR 97 0.38 11.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 11.6

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

NBT 495 0.33 3.1 0.0 3.1 14.1 27.5 343.1

SBT 670 0.51 4.9 0.0 4.9 25.2 51.3 224.5

1506 0 0 0 0.33

1324 0 0 0 0.51

30.0 499 0 0 0 0.19

Intersection Summary

EGIS

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

15 15

2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2

237 237

7 7

1 1

241 241

0 0

0.87 1

0.87 277

0.87 7

0.87 0

41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47

6 6

0.87 8

47 47 Free 0% 0.87 54

6 6

0.87 272

0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0

0.87 17

0.87 7

13 None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

663

666

663 7.1

666 6.5

50 6.2

663 7.1

666 6.5

3.5 95 323

4.0 99 312

3.3 73 1018

3.5 97 236

4.0 100 312

EB 1 291 17 272 1089 0.27 8.2 10.3 B 10.3 B

WB 1 9 8 1 258 0.03 0.8 19.5 C 19.5 C

NB 1 338 277 7 1551 0.18 4.9 6.7 A 6.7

SB 1 54 0 7 1542 0.00 0.0 0.0

58 6.2

54 4.1

61 4.1

3.3 100 1009

2.2 82 1551

2.2 100 1542

666

None

663

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

7.8 35.7% 15

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

154 154

230 230 Free 0% 0.91 253

3 3

68 68

6 6

2 2

3 3

0.91 7

0.91 2

0.91 60

0.91 3

59 59 Stop 0% 0.91 65

86 86

0.91 75

51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56

55 55

0.91 3

195 195 Free 0% 0.91 214

0.91 95

1088

964

254

1048

962

218

1088 7.1

964 6.5

254 6.3

1048 7.1

962 6.5

218 6.2

3.5 98 114

4.0 73 210

3.4 92 774

3.5 98 131

4.0 69 211

3.3 88 817

0.91 169

None

256

221 4.1

256 4.1

221

2.2 87 1348

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 296 75 7 1309 0.06 1.4 2.4 A 2.4

NB 1 118 2 60 326 0.36 12.2 22.2 C 22.2 C

SB 1 163 3 95 365 0.45 16.9 22.6 C 22.6 C

EB 1 425 169 3 1348 0.13 3.3 3.9 A 3.9

2.2 94 1309

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

8.7 50.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

18 18

16 16 Stop 0% 0.90 18

30 30

41 41

116 116

28 28

86 86

0.90 129

0.90 31

0.90 69

0.90 96

225 225 Free 0% 0.90 250

23 23

0.90 46

309 309 Free 0% 0.90 343

62 62

0.90 33

45 45 Stop 0% 0.90 50

0.90 20

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

263

936

908

1048 7.1

929 6.5

263 6.2

936 7.1

908 6.5

3.5 85 129

4.0 92 239

3.3 96 776

3.5 77 203

4.0 80 246

EB 1 71 20 33 260 0.27 8.2 23.9 C 23.9 C

WB 1 225 46 129 361 0.62 30.5 30.1 D 30.1 D

NB 1 443 31 69 1287 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8

SB 1 372 96 26 1147 0.08 2.1 2.8 A 2.8

378

276

412

378 6.2

276 4.1

412 4.1

3.3 81 669

2.2 98 1287

2.2 92 1147

929

0.90 26

None

1048

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

8.9 62.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18

97 97

126 126 0.88 143

22 22 Free 0% 0.88 25

20 20

0.88 110

30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34

None

356 6.4

36 6.2

48 4.1

3.5 97 583

3.3 89 1036

2.2 91 1559

EB 1 128 18 110 934 0.14 3.6 9.5 A 9.5 A

NB 1 177 143 0 1559 0.09 2.3 6.2 A 6.2

SB 1 48 0 23 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0

356

0.88 23

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

0.0

6.6 28.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

24 24

212 212 Stop 0% 0.99 214

38 38

11 11

211 211

40 40

148 148

0.99 213

0.99 40

0.99 24

0.99 149

36 36 Free 0% 0.99 36

20 20

0.99 11

120 120 Free 0% 0.99 121

24 24

0.99 38

224 224 Stop 0% 0.99 226

0.99 24

None

0.99 20

None

382

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

702

567

883 7.1

569 6.5

46 6.2

702 7.2

567 6.5

3.5 75 98

4.0 43 377

3.3 96 1015

3.6 93 166

4.0 40 378

EB 1 276 24 38 325 0.85 57.6 55.7 F 55.7 F

WB 1 450 11 213 502 0.90 77.1 47.5 E 47.5 E

NB 1 185 40 24 1542 0.03 0.6 1.8 A 1.8

SB 1 205 149 20 1437 0.10 2.6 5.9 A 5.9

133

145

133 6.2

56 4.1

145 4.1

3.3 77 916

2.2 97 1542

2.2 90 1437

569

883

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

34.3 58.6% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

93 93

275 275 Free 0% 0.87 316

18 18

17 17

18 18

21 21

22 22

0.87 21

0.87 24

0.87 28

0.87 25

55 55 Stop 0% 0.87 63

245 245

0.87 20

30 30 Stop 0% 0.87 34

24 24

0.87 21

286 286 Free 0% 0.87 329

0.87 282

1234

930

326

965

930

340

1234 7.1

930 6.5

326 6.2

965 7.2

930 6.5

340 6.2

3.5 64 68

4.0 86 237

3.3 96 715

3.6 86 178

4.0 74 239

3.3 60 703

0.87 107

None

337

350 4.2

337 4.1

350

2.3 91 1182

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 370 20 21 1222 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6

NB 1 86 24 28 160 0.54 20.5 51.0 F 51.0 F

SB 1 370 25 282 459 0.81 56.6 38.0 E 38.0 E

EB 1 444 107 21 1182 0.09 2.3 2.7 A 2.7

2.2 98 1222

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

15.7 68.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

216 216

6 6 Stop 0% 0.89 7

64 64

26 26

23 23

11 11

8 8

0.89 26

0.89 12

0.89 10

0.89 9

462 462 Free 0% 0.89 519

199 199

0.89 29

240 240 Free 0% 0.89 270

9 9

0.89 72

65 65 Stop 0% 0.89 73

0.89 243

None

631

1024

1060

1010 7.1

953 6.5

631 6.2

1024 7.1

1060 6.5

3.5 0 154

4.0 97 254

3.3 85 481

3.5 83 175

4.0 67 219

EB 1 322 243 72 184 1.75 172.1 404.8 F 404.8 F

WB 1 128 29 26 240 0.53 21.6 35.8 E 35.8 E

NB 1 292 12 10 864 0.01 0.3 0.5 A 0.5

SB 1 752 9 224 1283 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2

275

743

280

275 6.2

743 4.1

280 4.1

3.3 97 764

2.2 99 864

2.2 99 1283

953

0.89 224

None

1010

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

90.5 68.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

18 18

40 40 Stop 0% 0.89 45

44 44

68 68

19 19

25 25

41 41

0.89 21

0.89 28

0.89 15

0.89 46

96 96 Free 0% 0.89 108

25 25

0.89 76

121 121 Free 0% 0.89 136

13 13

0.89 49

25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28

0.89 20

None

0.89 28

None 387

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

122

485

428

448 7.1

421 6.5

122 6.2

485 7.1

428 6.5

3.5 96 468

4.0 91 497

3.3 95 929

3.5 82 417

4.0 94 493

EB 1 114 20 49 613 0.19 5.2 12.2 B 12.2 B

WB 1 125 76 21 477 0.26 7.9 15.2 C 15.2 C

NB 1 179 28 15 1448 0.02 0.4 1.3 A 1.3

SB 1 182 46 28 1430 0.03 0.8 2.1 A 2.1

144

136

151

144 6.2

136 4.1

151 4.1

3.3 98 904

2.2 98 1448

2.2 97 1430

421

448

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

6.5 33.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 8

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

93 93

275 275 Free 0% 0.91 302

18 18

17 17

18 18

21 21

22 22

0.91 20

0.91 23

0.91 26

0.91 24

55 55 Stop 0% 0.91 60 1 3.7 1.1 0

245 245

0.91 19

30 30 Stop 0% 0.91 33 5 3.7 1.1 0

24 24

0.91 20

286 286 Free 0% 0.91 314

0.91 269

1182

894

317

922

894

325

1182 7.1

894 6.5

317 6.2

922 7.1

894 6.5

325 6.2

3.5 71 78

4.0 87 252

3.3 96 720

3.5 88 201

4.0 76 252

3.3 62 715

0.91 102

None

327

335 4.1

327 4.1

335

2.2 92 1223

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBL

WB 1 353 19 20 1227 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6

NB 1 82 23 26 178 0.46 16.5 41.6 E 41.6 E

SB 1 353 24 269 481 0.73 45.7 30.4 D 30.4 D

EB 1 424 102 20 1223 0.08 2.1 2.6 A 2.6

2.2 98 1227

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

Future Traffic 2031

12.8 68.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0

14 14

12 12 0.91 13

0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0

0 0

0.91 15

0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0

None

26 6.4

0 6.5

0 4.7

3.5 100 985

3.5 99 1021

2.8 99 1301

EB 1 15 0 15 1021 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A

NB 1 13 13 0 1301 0.01 0.2 7.8 A 7.8

NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0

0.91 0

SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

8.2 13.3% 15

SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

22 22

32 32 Stop 0% 0.92 35 11 3.7 1.1 1

23 23

68 68

142 142

23 23

137 137

0.92 154

0.92 25

0.92 53

0.92 149

300 300 Free 0% 0.92 326 7 3.7 1.1 1

23 23

0.92 74

256 256 Free 0% 0.92 278 102 3.7 1.1 10

49 49

0.92 25

47 47 Stop 0% 0.92 51 183 3.7 1.1 17

0.92 24

None

0.92 25

None 197

0.97 452

0.97 1306

0.97 1198

494

0.97 362

514

1151 7.1

1202 6.5

418 6.2

1300 7.1

1188 6.5

494 6.2

326 4.1

514 4.1

3.5 58 57

4.0 71 119

3.3 95 551

3.5 0 56

4.0 58 121

3.3 67 473

2.2 98 1184

2.2 83 872

EB 1 84 24 25 111 0.76 31.8 101.6 F 101.6 F

WB 1 279 74 154 135 2.07 172.2 561.4 F 561.4 F

NB 1 25 25 0 1184 0.02 0.5 8.1 A 0.6

NB 2 331 0 53 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0

SB 1 149 149 0 872 0.17 4.7 10.0 A 3.0

SB 2 351 0 25 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0

0.97 1212

0.97 1162

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

136.9 55.0% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

16 16 Stop 0% 0.87 18

15 15

19 19 0.87 22

371 371 Free 0% 0.87 426

49 49

0.87 17

259 259 Free 0% 0.87 298

None

482

796 6.4

454 6.5

482 4.1

3.5 95 349

3.6 97 550

2.2 98 1081

EB 1 35 18 17 424 0.08 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B

NB 1 320 22 0 1081 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8

SB 1 482 0 56 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0

454

796

0.87 56

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

Future Traffic 2031

0.0

0.9 39.3% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

44 44

33 33 Stop 0% 0.75 44

16 16

23 23

47 47

52 52

17 17

0.75 63

0.75 69

0.75 73

0.75 23

52 52 Free 0% 0.75 69

21 21

0.75 31

78 78 Free 0% 0.75 104

55 55

0.75 21

52 52 Stop 0% 0.75 69

0.75 59

None

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

EGIS

AM Peak Hour

EBL

450

422

505 7.1

444 6.5

83 6.2

450 7.1

422 6.5

3.5 84 378

4.0 91 477

3.3 98 976

3.5 93 450

4.0 86 491

EB 1 124 59 21 460 0.27 8.2 15.7 C 15.7 C

WB 1 163 31 63 585 0.28 8.6 13.5 B 13.5 B

NB 1 246 69 73 1496 0.05 1.1 2.4 A 2.4

SB 1 120 23 28 1399 0.02 0.4 1.6 A 1.6

140

177

140 6.2

97 4.1

177 4.1

3.3 93 907

2.2 95 1496

2.2 98 1399

444

0.75 28

None

505

Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Future Traffic 2031

7.5 33.9% 15

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 11 Report Page 14

HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour

8.8 A

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

16 16 0.96 2 17 0

137 137 0.96 2 143 1

21 21 0.96 2 22 0

20 20 0.96 2 21 0

152 152 0.96 2 158 1

20 20 0.96 2 21 0

21 21 0.96 2 22 0

43 43 0.96 2 45 1

43 43 0.96 2 45 0

22 22 0.96 2 23 0

15 15 0.96 7 16 1

16 16 0.96 2 17 0

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.9 A

NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.5 A

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.3 A

NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 20% 9% 10% 42% 40% 79% 79% 28% 40% 12% 10% 30% Stop Stop Stop Stop 107 174 192 53 21 16 20 22 43 137 152 15 43 21 20 16 111 181 200 55 1 1 1 1 0.145 0.227 0.25 0.074 4.668 4.503 4.495 4.845 Yes Yes Yes Yes 767 796 798 737 2.707 2.536 2.527 2.89 0.145 0.227 0.251 0.075 8.5 8.9 9 8.3 A A A A 0.5 0.9 1 0.2

WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9 A