«Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes of Fourth Meeting Tuesday, ...»
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 1 of 9
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel
Minutes of Fourth Meeting
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 @ 7.00 p.m.
Port Credit Library, Texaco Room
Attendees: Twelve (12) members of the Panel were present. Two (2) Policy Planning
Staff attended in support of the Panel. There were four (4) guests.
Local Politicians: Councillor Carmen Corbasson; Regrets: MPP Charles Sousa
Community Groups: Chris Mackie, Brian Holtham, Leonard Walsh, Don McVie, Boran Hrelja, Deb Greenfield, Dorothy Tomiuk Business: Marion Morewood, Robert Cutmore, Frank Giannone; Jonathan James Policy Planning Staff: Susan Tanabe, Paul Stewart Guest Staff: Steve Barrett, Manager, Transportation Asset Mgt, City of Mississauga Anne Farrell, Planner, Community Services, City of Mississauga Mel Kayama, Transportation Planning Analyst, City of Mississauga Guest: Stephen Keen, Consultant, HDR|iTRANS Consulting
1. Overview and Introductions Councillor Carmen Corbasson introduced the guests, and substitute panelists in attendance. Staff then indicated that the Panel would be presented with the preliminary results from the Lakeshore Corridor Study in progress. The Study encompasses Lakeshore Road from Port Credit to Lakeview District. It was noted that the Clarkson section of Lakeshore Road was already dealt with by the City’s Transportation and Works Dept. as part of the Clarkson Village Study. Panelists were invited to ask questions during the presentation.
Staff provided further background by referring to the Directions Report for Lakeview and Port Credit, citing sections pertaining to need for a balance of transportation modes for pedestrians, cyclists, transit and motor vehicles on Lakeshore Road in order to maintain the mainstreet vibrancy and help to realize Port Credit’s vision of “Evolving the Urban Village”.
Note from Secretary & Staff: The Directions Report is located at the following link:
http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/residents/lakeviewportcreditreview?paf_gear_id=9700018&itemId=104802865n With reference to the presentation by Metrolinx of “The Big Move” at the previous month’s Panel meeting (see PCLAP Minutes for October 20, 2009), staff affirmed that Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Lakeshore Road east of Port Credit is a designated regional rapid transit route, along with the Highway 10 (Hurontario Street) and Dundas Street Corridors. It was noted that as of yet there are no funding commitments to implement rapid transit in any of these corridors.
Councillor Corbasson stated that in her opinion it was unlikely that there would be any higher-order transit on Lakeshore Road within the next 10 years.
2. Background; Termsof Reference for Lakeshore Road Transportation Review The Panel was shown a table of the highest-ranked transit routes in the City by ridership. The highest was Highway 10, followed by Burnhamthorpe Road and several other routes, with Lakeshore Road last, in 15th place.
It was noted that there are presently other studies being conducted concerning this same issue of rapid transit routes, including the Hurontario Main Street Corridor Study and the Port Credit Mobility Hub Study, per presentations at the previous month’s Panel meeting (see PCLAP Minutes for October 20, 2009). In addition, there is a Lakeshore Road Urban Design Review, as well as the Port Credit District Policies Review in progress.
Staff have been participating in the Transportation Review Study from different departments to ensure all perspectives are considered.
Consultant Stephen Keen then began his presentation by reviewing the Terms of Reference for the Lakeshore Corridor Study. The Goals are (1) to determine how to accommodate all modes of transportation along the Corridor, and (2) provide input and background for the preparation of the Official (Secondary) Plans i.e. District Policies for Port Credit and Lakeview.
The Objectives of the Corridor Study include development of a long-term transportation strategy for the Corridor and responding to stakeholder suggestions identified in the Directions Report.
The Scope of the work entails the review of a number of issues including: a traffic analysis, on-road cycling, right-of-way restrictions, safety, narrowing of lane widths, provision of a continuous centre left-turn lane (going east from Seneca Ave.), elimination of on-street parking and provision of pedestrian facilities. The Work Program includes data analysis, evaluation and concept design drawings.
To accomplish this, the Main Steps are:
1. Division of the Corridor into critical segments in order to identify the constraints and opportunities of each. This segmentation is based on measurements of the right-of-way, which in turn determine the range of options available. Especially critical are the segments with narrow right-of-ways.
This is where the Study sits at this moment.
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 3 of 9
2. Address the segments with wider right-of-ways for evaluation and development of a plan and drawings.
In order to match the Metrolinx transit plan, the Lakeshore Corridor Study is broadly divided into two portions: East of Highway 10 (where rapid transit has been identified) and West of Highway 10. In addition the Study also recognizes that the Corridor is located within both the ‘Lakeview’ and ‘Port Credit’ planning districts.
3. Review Existing Conditions
Going further into the data analysis, Stephen Keen reviewed existing conditions on the Corridor, beginning with trip origins. Of drivers, 77% of those crossing Mississauga Road going East originate from within Mississauga. For these commuters, there is no choice – it is either Lakeshore Road or the Q.E.W., neither of which are particularly good options during rush hour. A further 19% of the drivers come from Oakville, and the rest are from Halton Region.
In terms of trip destinations, 50% are heading somewhere else in Mississauga, 23% are heading to Etobicoke and 12% are driving to downtown Toronto, with the remainder going elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area. The City’s modeling projects little growth in traffic along Lakeshore Road over the next 20 years. There will be a small peak in the morning rush hour due to job growth in SW Mississauga.
Otherwise, any growth will come from localized development. The 50% figure for destinations within Mississauga will increase, and travel to Etobicoke and Toronto will go down slightly.
The concept of average annual daily traffic counts was then presented over the last 10 years. Volumes have held steady, going from approximately 30,000 in 1999 to 32,000 in 2009. This is pretty much the same story everywhere along the Port Credit portion of the Corridor, with little growth projected over the next 20 years, and the road already saturated.
A panelist asked at what percent capacity Lakeshore Road is operating in rush hour?
Staff replied that it operates at 100% during key times. West of the Credit River it is bad. East of Highway 10 it gets better. The bridge over the Credit River is a bottleneck, especially since the GO Station and Highway 10 are significant driving destinations for the morning traffic. In the afternoon it is the reverse, though not as concentrated as in the morning. There are no alternatives south of the QEW, and the QEW can cause problems for Lakeshore Road when highway traffic backs up and the overflow comes down to the Lakeshore.
The consultant continued by reviewing the locations of highest collision rates, which are at the Highway 10, Stavebank Road and Mississauga Road intersections. He stated that it is hard to cross the Credit River in other spots and there is local resistance to adding additional motor vehicle crossings through neighbourhoods (e.g.
Mineola), so the existing intersections are high-volume and prone to accidents.
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 4 of 9 A panelist pointed out that drivers will seek alternatives when the commuting time becomes too long. Active transportation needs to be supported. Staff indicated that realignment of the Lakeshore–Stavebank Intersection would help reduce the collision rate at this intersection.
The consultant then reviewed the right-of-way constraints and the options possible to balance use of the road. Shawnmarr to Broadview is 39M, Broadview to Highway 10 is
26.2M (for 2 km), and Highway 10 to Seneca is 26.8M (for 2 km). While there is potential to make improvements in the multi-modal use of the Corridor, one has to look at the constraints and plan for the most restricted sections and then expand out to the other sections. The constricted conditions in Port Credit will dictate the options.
Staff stated that it is also the length of the section that is important to consider: 2-3 km is a long section to try and implement creative solutions (e.g. it would be difficult to run a streetcar on a single track through this area without causing backups elsewhere on the route as streetcars wait to take turns going through the area).
In the analysis, the division of Lakeshore Road east and west of Highway 10 shows an LRT could run to the east of Highway 10, since west of Highway 10 is most constrained. The LRT needs a width of 7.2M within the road allowance. As well, Metrolinx documents indicate that the LRT would stop at Hurontario and connect to the Port Credit Go Station.
The consultant indicated that in the ideal scenario, the right-of-way would be 41M, with 2 traffic lanes each way, plus 2 bike lanes (either side), 2 LRT lanes and parking on both sides. This is not possible west of Highway 10, given the narrow road allowance.
4. Transportation options / Cross Section Analysis East of Highway 10 to Seneca, there are 4 possible scenarios and sub-options: status quo, buses in mixed traffic, dedicated LRT and operational variances (e.g. LRT in mixed traffic). In these scenarios, it is possible to look at bike lanes.
The consultant then presented an Evaluation Matrix with codes for all the sub-options.
After this analysis, only the physically feasible options remained. Some permutations
One traffic lane (each direction) only: separate LRT and bike lanes will fit, but there is no room for parking spaces LRT with mixed traffic (i.e. LRT and traffic share a lane) is another option that allows bike lanes, but there is no room for parking spaces Buses in mixed traffic, with a wide curb lane to accommodate bicycles, with bay parking for vehicles It was also noted that pedestrians can suffer if the sidewalk is too narrow.
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 5 of 9 In summary, the consultant presented the draft Interim Option which is considered doable at this stage of the Study. It was stressed that this is only a “Preliminary Draft Finding”. The Interim Option includes: mixed traffic, a wide curb lane that is more bike-friendly, sufficient sidewalk for pedestrians, streetscaping the same as now, parking the same as now (2.7M wide) and the 4M curb lane to be marked with “sharrows” to indicate “Share the Road”.
The consultant stated that in some cases, narrowing the road down to one lane each way would result in a reduction of traffic, but that is not expected in this case as there are no alternative routes to Lakeshore Road in order to get across the River. The Study will not consider this option. The consultant cited the traffic congestion in Clarkson, which was not reduced when the lanes went from 4 to 2 during the extensive infrastructure work over the past year.
Jane Street north of Bloor Street in Toronto is similar to Lakeshore Road in Port Credit, and the solution is mixed traffic, according to the consultant.
East of Highway 10, in the long-term, possible options include dedicated LRT lanes (with one lane for vehicular traffic in either direction, plus bike lanes, larger sidewalk, but no street parking) and LRT in mixed traffic (which would have two lanes for vehicular traffic in either direction, plus bike lanes, larger sidewalks, but no parking).
West of Highway 10, the options are status quo, mixed traffic or dedicated BRT (bus lanes), with various sub-options. It would be feasible to have no dedicated bus lanes, but rather buses in mixed traffic with bike lanes (but no parking) – this is a long-term view that would require a parking solution for Port Credit.
The Real Option in the short-term is similar to what is proposed East of Highway 10:
parking, 2 lanes of traffic each way, sidewalks and shared bike (curb) lanes.
It was stressed by the consultant that the only way to rebalance Lakeshore Road is to provide a wide enough curb lane for cyclists, keep the parking and wide sidewalks and 2 lanes of traffic each way. Rapid transit is years away and in the longer term there will need to be a parking solution. In the intermediate term, rapid buses in mixed traffic will work.
5. Additional Panel Comments / Summary / Next Steps A panelist asked if the LRT line could not fit along the CNR dedicated right-of-way instead of being positioned on Lakeshore Road?
Staff replied that there is likely not enough room and getting the railway companies to cooperate would be a significant challenge. Electrification of the CNR line will have to happen first.
Port Credit Local Advisory Panel Minutes for November 17, 2009 Page 6 of 9 The panelist rejoined that would be an opportune time to parallel the two transportation lines (train and LRT), and that the walk down to Lakeshore from the LRT would not be onerous.
Councillor Corbasson indicated that she thought the railway right-of-way allowed room for a total of 6 lines. Further to this, Staff indicated that the City had never looked at higher-order transit in the CNR right-of-way.
A panelist asked if we needed another bridge at the Queensway, or the North or South Service roads, or on Queen Street? Another panelist added that we need a pedestrian/cycling bridge just south of the CNR line to take the pressure off Lakeshore Road and allow for more aggressive solutions to balance use of the road.
Staff indicated that Queensway and Mineola Roads have both been identified as possible traffic routes, but they will need funding to be built and further study is required.