75 Dublin Street North Transportation Impact Study Update · Dublin Street North in the City of...

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited

September 2017

75 Dublin Street North Transportation Impact Study

Update

Project Summary

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited

75 Dublin Street North Transportation Impact Study Update

_______________

Signature Engineer’s Seal Engineer’s Seal

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authorization of Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited being obtained. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited for all loss or damage resulting there from. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether through contract or tort, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited and used by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited in preparing this report.

Project Number 162090 September 2017 Client Rykur Holdings Inc. 24 Crestwood Place Guelph, Ontario N1E 4M3 Client Contact Tom Lammer Consultant Project Team James Mallett, P.Eng, PTOE Stewart Elkins, BES, MITE Scott Catton, CET, MITE

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited 22 King Street South Suite 300 Waterloo ON N2J 1N8 p: 519.896.3163 www.ptsl.com

75 Dublin Street North | TIS Update | 162090 | September 2017

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page i

Executive Summary

Content

Rykur Holdings Inc. is planning a residential development consisting of affordable rental seniors apartment units and market apartment units at 75 Dublin Street North in the City of Guelph’s downtown.

The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Centre. The Urban Growth Centre is identified as an area to accommodate intensification with higher densities.

The purpose of this study is to determine the impacts of the development related traffic on the surrounding road network and identify any improvements necessary to accommodate this traffic. The study also assesses the site’s vehicle and bicycle parking needs.

Development Concept

The subject site is located 75 Dublin Street North in the City of Guelph. The site plan includes the following land uses:

20 affordable rental seniors apartment units including 4 barrier free units; and

15 market apartment units.

Vehicular access to the subject site will be provided by a single driveway connection to Cork Street West east of Dublin Street North. The site driveway connection will experience deficient sightlines to the east where Cork Street West crests at Dublin Street North. The sight distance to the east is limited to approximately 50 metres. The limited sight distance allows for the distance travelled in 3 seconds at a 50 kilometre per hour design speed.

The site’s parking supply and bicycle parking supply comply with the City’s requirements. The build-out of the site is anticipated to occur by Year 2018. The timing may change to reflect market conditions.

Conclusions

The main findings and conclusions of this study are as follows:

Development Generated Traffic: The development of the subject site is estimated to generate approximately 14 total vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 16 total vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Non-auto oriented trips to/from the development are estimated to reduce the site’s net generation to approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. The


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page ii

new vehicle trips generated by the subject site are generally less than the daily variation in traffic volumes along an arterial roadway.

The build-out of the subject site is not anticipated to have a significate impact to the Central Public School site given that the proposed access is located onto Cork Street West. The new vehicle trips generated by the site are less than the daily variation in traffic volumes. Furthermore, the development will in no way change the existing operation of the school site.

Existing Traffic Conditions: From a capacity perspective the intersections in the study area are operating with satisfactory levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. During the PM peak hour localized congestion is occurring on the side street approaches of Cork Street West to Norfolk Street. This condition will continue to occur with or without the development of the subject site.

Forecast Background Traffic: The forecast background traffic volumes in the vicinity of the subject site have been assessed for a five-year horizon (Year 2023) following the anticipated build-out of the subject site (Year 2018). The forecast traffic volumes are estimated to consist of a generalized growth rate of 2.0 percent per annum in addition to traffic related to the build-out of the surrounding lands.

Background Traffic Conditions: The congestion identified under existing conditions at the Norfolk Street intersection with Cork Street West is anticipated to continue to occur.

Total Traffic Conditions: The congestion identified under existing conditions at the Norfolk Street intersection with Cork Street West is anticipated to continue to occur.

No capacity issues are estimated to occur at the proposed site driveway connection to Cork Street West.

Roadway Improvements: The City of Guelph consider implementing hidden driveway warning signage on Cork Street West.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following is recommended with respect to the subject site:

The City of Guelph consider implementing hidden driveway warning signage on Cork Street West.

The owner work with the City of Guelph to implement the following TDM initiatives to further mitigate the site’s transportation impact:

• Include transit and active transportation maps and information on transit passes and carshare membership with tenants; and

• Enhanced on-site and peripheral pedestrian amenities (benches, landscaping, and lighting).


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page iii

To accommodate local deliveries and mobility vans, the City of Guelph should consider relaxing the parking restrictions within the designated Kiss N’ Ride on Dublin Street North to reflect school bell times.

No other improvements are required or recommended at this time to accommodate the development of the subject site.


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page v

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................. 1

1.1 Overview ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area ........................................................................................ 1

2 Existing Conditions .................................................. 3

2.1 Existing Roadways .......................................................................... 3 2.2 Central Public School ...................................................................... 4 2.3 Existing Transit Service ................................................................... 6 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 6 2.5 Existing Traffic Operations ........................................................... 10

3 Development Concept ........................................... 12

3.1 Site Description ............................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Cork Street West Sight Distance ..................................................... 15 3.1.2 Site Loading Requirements .............................................................. 15 3.2 Site Traffic Estimates .................................................................... 16 3.3 Transportation Demand Management ......................................... 20 3.3.1 Proposed Transportation Demand Management Initiatives ............. 20 3.3.2 Recommended Transportation Demand Management Initiatives .... 21

4 Future Traffic Conditions ....................................... 22

4.1 Traffic Forecast .............................................................................. 22 4.2 Background Traffic Operations .................................................... 27 4.3 Total Traffic Operations ................................................................ 29

5 Parking Requirements ........................................... 31

6 Remedial Measures ................................................ 32

6.1 All-way Stop Warrant ..................................................................... 32

7 Conclusions & Recommendations ........................ 34

7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................... 34 7.2 Recommendations ......................................................................... 35


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page vi

Appendices Appendix A Terms of Reference Appendix B Existing Data Appendix C Existing Traffic Operational Conditions Appendix D Background Traffic Operational Conditions Appendix E Total Traffic Operational Conditions Appendix F OTM Book 5 All-Way Stop Warrants

Figures Figure 1.1: Location of Subject Site....................................................... 2 Figure 2.1: Existing Lane Configuration & Traffic Control ................... 5 Figure 2.2: Existing Transit Network ..................................................... 7 Figure 2.3A: Base Year Existing Traffic – AM Peak Hour ....................... 8 Figure 2.3B: Base Year Existing Traffic – PM Peak Hour........................ 9 Figure 3.1: Preliminary Site Concept Plan ........................................... 13 Figure 3.3A: Estimated Site Generated Traffic – AM Peak Hour .......... 18 Figure 3.3B: Estimated Site Generated Traffic – PM Peak Hour .......... 19 Figure 4.1A: Forecast Background Traffic – AM Peak Hour ................. 23 Figure 4.1B: Forecast Background Traffic – PM Peak Hour ................. 24 Figure 4.2A: Forecast Total Traffic – AM Peak Hour ............................. 25 Figure 4.2B: Forecast Total Traffic – PM Peak Hour ............................. 26

Tables Table 2.1: Existing TMC Data ................................................................ 6 Table 2.2: Existing Traffic Operations ................................................ 11 Table 3.1: Estimated Trip Generation ................................................. 16 Table 3.2: Estimated Trip Distribution ................................................ 17 Table 4.1: Background Traffic Operations ......................................... 28 Table 4.3: Total Traffic Operations ..................................................... 30


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Rykur Holdings Inc. retained Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited to undertake a transportation impact study, parking study and bicycle parking study for the proposed development at 75 Dublin Street North in the City of Guelph’s downtown. The original study was submitted to the City of Guelph in October 2016. Since then, the site concept plan has been refined. Figure 1.1 illustrates the general location of the subject site.

This study determines the impacts of additional site generated traffic on the surrounding road network, and the remedial measures necessary (if any) to accommodate future traffic in a satisfactory manner. The scope of the study includes:

Assessment of the current traffic and site conditions within the study area;

Estimates of background traffic growth;

Estimates of additional traffic generated by the subject site;

Analyses of the impact of the future traffic on the surrounding road network;

Recommendations necessary to mitigate this future traffic in a satisfactory manner; and

Determination of the TDM measures specific to this site to further mitigate the transportation impacts.

Appendix A contains the terms of reference for this study. The scope of the study includes:

1.2 Study Area

The following intersections have been analyzed in this report to examine the impacts of additional traffic due to the development of the subject site:

Cork Street West & Norfolk Street (unsignalized);

Cork Street West & Dublin Street North (unsignalized);

Dublin Street North & Cambridge Street (unsignalized);

Dublin Street North & Paisley Street (signalized); and

The proposed Site Driveway to Cork Street West.



Figure 1.1: Location of Subject Site

Location of Subject SiteFigure 1.175 Dublin Street North

162090

NTSImage Source: maps.Guelph.ca

Subject Site



2 Existing Conditions This section of the report provides an overview of the existing conditions on the roadways in the study area. The roadways of interest include Cork Street West, Dublin Street North, Norfolk Street, Cambridge Street and Paisley Street.

2.1 Existing Roadways

The main roadways in the vicinity of the subject site that have been considered in assessing the traffic impacts of the development include Cork Street West, Dublin Street North, Norfolk Street, Cambridge Street and Paisley Street. The characteristics of these roadways are as follows:

Cork Street West is an east-west local roadway with a basic two-lane urban cross-section and an assumed speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Pedestrian sidewalk facilities are present on both sides of this roadway. On-street parking is permitted west of Dublin Street North along the north side of the roadway. There is a significant grade change between Dublin Street North and Norfolk Street. The roadway generally crests at Dublin Street North and effectively limits the available sightlines along Cork Street West.

Dublin Street North is a north-south local roadway with a basic two-lane urban cross-section and a posted speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour. The reduced speed limit is provided through the Central Public School’s School Zone. Outside the study area the speed limit is increased to 50 kilometres per hour. Pedestrian sidewalk facilities are present on both sides of this roadway. A school crossing is present on the south leg of the Cambridge Street intersection. During school hours, the crossing functions with an adult crossing guard. On-street parking is permitted between Cork Street West and Cambridge Street in a designated Kiss N’ Ride parking bay from 08:30 to 16:30 from Monday to Friday, September 1st to June 30th for 5-minutes only. At all other times, this parking area is available for general use. There is a significant grade change between Cork Street West and Northumberland Street. The roadway generally crests at Cork Street West and effectively limits the available sightlines along Dublin Street North.

Norfolk Street is a north-south arterial roadway with an urban cross-section ranging from three to four lanes. The speed limit on this roadway is assumed to be 50 kilometres per hour. Pedestrian sidewalk facilities are present on both sides of this roadway. On-street bicycle lanes are provided in both directions through the study area. On-street parking is generally restricted at all times through the study area.



Cambridge Street is an east-west local roadway with a basic two-lane urban cross-section and an assumed speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Pedestrian sidewalk facilities are present on both sides of this roadway. On-street parking is permitted along the north side of this roadway. A marked school crossing is present at the Dublin Street North intersection. There is a significant grade change between Dublin Street North and Glasgow Street North. The roadway generally crests at Dublin Street North.

Paisley Street is an east-west arterial roadway with a basic two-lane urban cross-section and an assumed speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Pedestrian sidewalk facilities are present on both sides of this roadway. On-street bicycle lanes are provided in both directions through the study area. On-street parking is generally restricted at all times through the study area. The intersection with Dublin Street North is signalized.

Figure 2.1 details the existing lane configurations and traffic control at the study area intersections.

2.2 Central Public School

Located to the north of the subject site at 97 Dublin Street North is the Upper Grand District School Board – Central Public School. The school’s current enrollment is approximately 215 students with 22 staff members. The current bell times are 08:45 and 15:15. The school does not currently have school bus service. Pick-up and drop-off activities generally occur within the designated Kiss N’ Ride parking bay on Dublin Street North.

The Kiss N’ Ride parking bay allows for 5-minutes of parking from 08:30 to 16:30 from Monday to Friday, September 1st to June 30th.

An adult crossing guard is present during school hours at the marked school crossing on the south leg of the Dublin Street North intersection with Cambridge Street.

The development of the subject site will not impact the layout of the school site. Access to the subject site is proposed via Cork Street West. It should be noted that the site’s PM peak hour would typically occur outside school bell times.



Figure 2.1: Existing Lane Configuration & Traffic Control

Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control

Figure 2.175 Dublin Street North 162090


Subject Site

1

2

3

4



2.3 Existing Transit Service

Guelph Transit operates multiple routes along the boundary roadways of Norfolk Street and Paisley Street. Figure 2.2 details the Guelph Transit routes in proximity to the subject site. Bus stops are located on Paisley Street and Norfolk Streets in proximity to the subject site.

The Guelph Central Station is located approximately 750 metres east of the subject site and offers connections to 22 Guelph Transit routes. Opportunities for users to utilize inter-regional GO Transit and VIA Rail service is possible at the Guelph Central Station. The estimated walking time to the Guelph Central Station is approximately 9 minutes.

Following a successful pilot period, the City of Guelph made its Affordable Bus Pass program permanent, effective 1 January 2014. Guelph Transit’s Affordable Bus Pass is a lower cost pass for adults, youths and seniors living in low-income households1.

2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes

The traffic volumes used to establish the existing traffic conditions in this report have been derived from turning movement counts provided by the City of Guelph and data collected by Paradigm (September 2016). All of the traffic counts were obtained on dates in which the Central Public School was open. The existing turning movement count data is considered up-to-date. Appendix B contains the turning movement count data. Table 2.1 summarizes the turning movement count data and Figure 2.3A-B details the peak hour traffic volumes.

The observed peak hour traffic volumes between the study area intersections have been balanced to help ensure continuity. In all cases, volumes at the upstream or downstream intersections were increased to remain conservative.

TABLE 2.1: EXISTING TMC DATA

1 http://guelph.ca/living/getting-around/bus/fares-and-passes/affordable-bus-pass/

Intersection Count DateCork Street West & Norfolk St Thursday, 22 October 2015Cork Street West & Dublin Street North Thursday, 29 September 2016Dublin Street North & Cambridge Street Tuesday, 1 April 2014Dublin Street North & Paisley Street Wednesday, 4 November 2015



Figure 2.2: Existing Transit Network

Exiting Transit NetworkFigure 2.275 Dublin Street North

162090


Subject Site

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp

ortation Solutions Lim

ited | Page 8

Figure 2.3A:

Base Y

ear Existing Traffic – A

M P

eak Hour

Base Year Existing Traffic– AM Peak Hour

Figure 2.3A75 Dublin Street North162090

NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 0

61

95

No

rfo

lk S

t

93

0 729

0 558

352 11 325

185 12 188

158

22 56 17

15

83

87

35 35 13

19

295 Paisley St

3 42 20

41

519

39

1 43

32 650

47

34

5 Cork St W 0 1

588

58 5

63 11 46

96

8

4 50 18

58 10

3013 37

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

38

50

95

3 58

11

9 2

65

101

7

8

65

101

Dub

lin S

t N

Cambridge St

Cork St E

61

0 0

19 10 46 58 0 58

12 17 63 63 63 63

0

0

OUT

SUM

60

Site

D

rive

way

704

72

50

63 13 63

46 21 58

25

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 9

Figure 2.3B:

Base Y

ear Existing Traffic – P

M P

eak Hour

Base Year Existing Traffic– PM Peak Hour

Figure 2.3B75 Dublin Street North162090

NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 0

393 16 397

364

15 44 17

1369

76

15 39 16

50

404 Paisley St434 17 471

69

76

4 65

Cambridge St9

2 0

2

5 76

81

No

rfo

lk S

t

46

9 Cork St W 0

0 806

81 0 849

66

11 Cork St E67 8 7414 21 67 74 74 74 74 19 96

7 3 37 38 0 38 38 9 79

66

828

4

0 41 11

38 3

24 774

30

0 26

5 40 22

37

0 0 39 721

Dub

lin S

t N

67

OUT 0

SUM 0

Site

D

rive

way

61 766

52

6770

110

37 32 38

5

1 6

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

13

7



2.5 Existing Traffic Operations

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) is a recognized method of quantifying the efficiency of traffic flow at intersections. It is based on the delay experienced by individual vehicles executing the various movements. The delay is related to the number of vehicles desiring to make a particular movement, compared to the estimated capacity for that movement. The capacity is based on a number of criteria related to the opposing traffic flows. The highest possible rating is LOS A, under which the average total delay is equal or less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. When the average delay exceeds 80 seconds at signalized intersections, the movement is classified as LOS F and remedial measures are usually implemented, if they are feasible.

The operation of the intersections in the study area were evaluated using the existing lane geometry and traffic control along with the existing peak hour traffic. The findings are summarized in Table 2.1. The intersection analysis considered three separate measures of performance:

The level of service (LOS) for each turning movement,

The volume to capacity ratio (v/c) for each turning movement, and

The 95th percentile queue lengths estimated using Synchro.

The level of service conditions on the existing road network have been assessed using Synchro 9.0 with HCM 2000 procedures. Movements are considered critical under the following conditions:

Volume to capacity ratios for through movements or shared through/turning movements are greater than or equal to 0.85,

Volume to capacity ratios for exclusive turning movements are greater than or equal to 0.95, and

Queue lengths for individual movements that are projected to exceed the available turning lane storage.

Table 2.1 details the existing level of service conditions and notes:

The study area intersections are operating with acceptable levels of service with minimal delay and congestion during the AM peak hour.

During the PM peak hour, the side street approaches of Cork Street West to Norfolk Street are operating with delays in the LOS E to F range. The westbound approach is operating with a v/c ratio of 0.93 and is considered to be nearing capacity.

Appendix C contains the supporting detailed Synchro 9 output.

TABLE 2.2: EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

LOS < D > D < D > D < A > A A A > ADelay < 28 > 28 < 34 > 34 < 1 > 1 9 0 > 1V/C < 0.29 > < 0.29 > < 0.19 > 0.05 0.44 >95th < 9 > < 9 > < 1 > 1 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >

Avail. < - > < - > < - > 24 >LOS B B < A > A < A > A

Delay < 11 > 11 < 10 > 10 < 0 > 0 < 2 > 2V/C < 0.03 > < 0.09 > < 0.00 > < 0.01 >95th < 1 > < 2 > < 0 > < 0 >LOS A > A < A A A > A

Delay 9.4 > 9 < 1 1 0 > 0V/C 0.01 > < 0.01 0.04 >95th 0 > < 0 0 >LOS < A > A < A > A < C > C < C > C A

Delay < 3 > 3 < 4 > 4 < 26 > 26 < 25 > 25 9.3V/C < 0.18 > < 0.30 > < 0.41 > < 0.27 > 0.3295th < 16 > < 30 > < 22 > < 17 >LOS A > A < A A A A A

Delay 0 > 0 < 2 2 10 9 9V/C 0.03 > < 0.01 0.02 0.0495th 0 > < 0 0 1LOS < A A A > A A > A

Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 0 > 0V/C < 0.00 0.04 > 0.00 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >LOS < E > E < F > F < A > A B A > A

Delay < 44 > 44 < 138 > 138 < 1 > 1 10 0 > 1V/C < 0.31 > < 0.93 > < 0.27 > 0.07 0.49 >95th < 10 > < 47 > < 1 > 2 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >

Avail. < - > < - > < - > 23 >LOS B < A > A < A > A < A > A





Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 0 > 0V/C < 0.00 0.05 > 0.00 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >

MOE - Measure of Effectiveness LOS - Level of Service < - Shared Left-Turn Lane Avail. - Available Storage (m)TCS - Traffic Control Signal V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio > - Shared Right-Turn LaneTWSC - Two-Way Stop Control 95th - 95th Percentile Queue Length (m) Ex. - Existing Turn Lane Storage

Dublin St N & Paisley St

TCS

Cork St W & Church Driveway

TWSC

Cork St W & Site Driveawy

TWSC

TWSC


TWSC

PM

Pea

k H

ou

r

Cork St W & Norfolk St

TWSC

Cork St W & Dublin St N

TWSC

Dublin St N & Cambridge St

TWSC

AM

Pea

k H

ou

r


TWSC


TWSC


TWSC


TCS


An

alys

is P

erio

d

IntersectionControl

TypeMOE

Direction / Movement / ApproachEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

OV

ER

AL

L



3 Development Concept

3.1 Site Description

The development plan indicates that the property at 75 Dublin Street North will be developed to include 35 apartment units. 20 of the apartment units are identified as affordable rental seniors apartment units including 4 barrier free units. The build-out of the site is anticipated to occur by Year 2018. The timing may change to reflect market conditions. Figure 3.1 details the layout of the subject site.

The site’s parking supply is 37 spaces, of which two spaces are designated as visitor parking. The parking spaces are contained within the main building structure. 24 long-term and 3 short-term bicycle parking spaces are also proposed. The site’s parking supply and bicycle parking supply comply with the City’s requirements.

Vehicular access to the subject site will be provided by one (1) private driveway connection to Cork Street West, located approximately 46 metres (CL to CL) east of Dublin Street North. The development of lower density residential land uses would likely result in multiple driveway connections to both Cork Street West and Dublin Street North.

The site driveway is offset to the east of the existing Basilica of Our Lady driveway by approximately 24 metres (CL to CL). The Basilica of Our Lady driveway is on the south side of Cork Street West. The site driveway is offset to the west from the driveway servicing 33 Cork Street West. The proposed spacing exceeds the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) driveway spacing guideline2 of 1.0 metre between curb radii. Figure 3.2 details typical swept paths for passenger vehicles at the Cork Street West driveways. The site driveway is sufficiently spaced from the Basilica of Our Lady driveway to prevent interlocking left-turn maneuvers.

Pedestrian entrances are proposed along both the Cork Street West and Dublin Street North frontages with concrete walkways providing direct connections to the existing sidewalk facilities.

2 Transportation Association of Canada Figure 3.2.9.3 Driveway Spacing Guidelines – Local and Collectors

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 13

Figure 3.1: P

reliminary S

ite Concep

t Plan

Preliminary Site Concept PlanFigure 3.175 Dublin Street North

162090

NTS

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 14

Figure 3.2: D

riveway S

wep

t Path A

nalysis

Driveway Swept Path Analysis Figure 3.275 Dublin Street North

162090

NTS



3.1.1 Cork Street West Sight Distance

There is a significant grade change along Cork Street West from Dublin Street North to Norfolk Street. The roadway crests at Dublin Street North and effectively limits the available sightlines along Cork Street West. The effective sightline available at the proposed driveway to the west is 50 metres. Furthermore, the grading between the building and the street is likely to present an issue for sightlines. The sightlines to the east (downhill) to Norfolk Street are generally unimpeded.

The limited sight distance to the west would allow for the distance travelled in 3 seconds at a 50 kilometre per hour design speed3. For a private driveway connection, minimum stopping sight distance should be provided. The site driveway connection in its proposed location cannot achieve this without significant modifications to the existing vertical curvature of both Cork Street West and Dublin Street North. The existing businesses, homes and driveways will not allow for geometric changes to these roadways

Repositioning the site driveway to Dublin Street North would similarly result in restricted sightlines to the south. Furthermore, a driveway from the site onto Dublin Street North would reduce the size of the existing Kiss N’ Ride zone for the Central Public School. To manage the school’s traffic impacts, the school should continue to support walking and cycling travel modes to school as a healthy and sustainable option for its students. Relocating the site driveway to Dublin Street North is not recommended.

Considering the above limited options, the site driveway should remain in its proposed location on Cork Street West. To assist in mitigating the deficient sightlines, hidden driveway warning signage should be considered on Cork Street West. The grade between Cork Street West and the building be minimized so to not obstruct sightlines to the west.

3.1.2 Site Loading Requirements

The City of Guelph Zoning By-law does not require a dedicated on-site loading area for the subject property4. Local deliveries and moving vehicles will utilize the existing on-street parking areas surrounding the subject site. Site loading and deliveries can occur with the 5-minute maximum parking restriction during the restricted time periods.

Refuse collection is expected to occur curbside along Cork Street West in proximity to the proposed site driveway. A garbage room is located internally to the building structure for waste bin storage. Waste bins will be moved to the curb for collection by the site operator.

3 Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads – Figure 2.3.3.6 Decision Sight Distance.

4 City of Guelph Zoning By-law Section 4.14 Loading Space Requirements



3.2 Site Traffic Estimates

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation5 methods predict the site trip generation. Table 3.1 indicates that the subject site is estimated to have a total trip generation of approximately 14 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 16 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

A modal split of 23 percent and 17 percent have been applied to the AM and PM peak hour generation respectively. The modal split reflects the mode choice data from the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey6 (TTS) for the zones surrounding the subject site7. Appendix B contains the TTS data. The site’s net generation is anticipated to be reduced to approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and approximately 13 PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 3.1: ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION

The additional peak hour trips generated by the build-out of the subject site are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the adjacent road network. The new vehicle trips generated by the subject site are generally less than the daily variation in traffic volumes along an arterial roadway. The site’s impact to the overall transportation network can be further mitigated through use of TDM initiatives.

The build-out of the subject site is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the Central Public School Site. The new vehicle trips generated by the site are less than the daily variation in traffic volumes. Site traffic is estimated to increase traffic volumes across the School’s frontage by approximately 5 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, the development will in no way change the existing operation of the school site.

5 Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers Washington DC 2012 – Regression Equations LUC 230, 252, & 820

6 www.dmg.utoronto.ca/transportationtomorrowsurvey

7 gta06_hhld => 8125, 8124, 8122, 8123, 8126, 8117, 8118, 8113, 8114, 8111

In Out Total In Out Total230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Units)* 15 2 9 11 9 4 13252 - Senior Adult Housing - Attached (Units)* 20 1 2 3 2 1 3

3 11 14 11 5 161 3 3 2 1 32 8 11 9 4 13

* Regression Equation **TTS 2011 Modal Split (AM - 23% | PM - 17%)

Units

Net Generation

ITE Land Use CodePM Peak HourAM Peak Hour

Total Generation**Modal Split



Table 3.2 summarizes the estimated trip distribution. The distribution is based the observed local trip patterns documented in the existing conditions. Figure 3.3A-B details the site-generated traffic.

TABLE 3.2: ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Inbound Outbound Inbound OutboundNorth via Norfolk Street North 35% 27% 30% 31%North via Dublin Street N 4% 4% 3% 4%South via Norfolk Street North 29% 34% 30% 28%South via Dublin Street N 4% 3% 2% 2%East via Cork Street East 2% 5% 4% 3%East via Paisley Street 16% 9% 17% 15%West via Cork Street West 1% 1% 0% 1%West via Cambridge Street 0% 1% 0% 0%West via Paisley Street 9% 16% 14% 16%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Origin/DestinationPM Peak HourAM Peak Hour

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 18

Figure 3.3A:

Estim

ated S

ite Generated

Traffic – AM

Peak H

our

Estimated Site Generated Traffic– AM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

0

30 0 0

0 0

1

0 0 5

Cork St E

2 0 0

0 0 1

0

2 0 1

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0 Paisley St

0

0

0 0

0 3

0 3

0 1

0

0

0 Cork St W 2

5 2

0 0 3 3 0 2 2 0

0 0 0

5 1 0

3

3 0

0

0

3

0 0

Cambridge St

0

1

3 2 2

0 0 0

3

3

Dub

lin S

t N

0

3

No

rfo

lk S

t

OUT

Site

D

rive

way

0

0 0

0

0 3

0 8

2

8

IN

Subject Site

SUM 10

3

0 0 0

0

0 0

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay 0

0

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 19

Figure 3.3B:

Estim

ated S

ite Generated

Traffic – PM

Peak H

our

Estimated Site Generated Traffic– PM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 9

2

0

0 0

OUT 4

0 3

Cambridge St

3

2

No

rfo

lk S

t

3 4

Site

D

rive

way

SUM 13

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0 Paisley St

3

2

0 0

0 1

0

3

2 9 1

0 0 3

2

2

Dub

lin S

t N

6

0 1

0 3

2 1 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

3

2

2 0 2

3 3 3

0

0

0 0 3 3 3 2

Cork St E0 0 2 2 0 6 6 0 0

2 3 0 0

0

0 Cork St W

0 2

1 2 2

1 0 1

0

1 0 1

1

3

0

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay 0

0



3.3 Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to ways of making the capacity of our roads more efficient by reducing vehicle demands. TDM approaches consider how people’s choices of travel mode are affected by land use patterns, development design, parking availability, parking cost, and the relative cost, convenience and availability of alternative modes of travel. Various TDM strategies are used to influence those factors so that the alternatives are more competitive with driving alone and potentially reduce the reliance on motor vehicles.

TDM strategies at a development can be divided into two basic categories:

Pre-occupancy: things that need to be done while a development is being designed and built; and

Post-occupancy: things that can be done once people are occupying the development.

The pre-occupancy actions are critical as they are most likely to determine how attractive, convenient, and safe alternative travel will be once the site is occupied. Before a site is occupied, it can be designed to be convenient and safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicle parking can be provided to meet but not exceed demand.

After the development is built, incentives can be offered, but those incentives will not work as well if the site and its surroundings are oriented to cars. The incentives generally include access to rideshare programs, and information about where and how to use alternatives.

3.3.1 Proposed Transportation Demand Management Initiatives

The following TDM measures have been included in the current site design.

Cycling

24 long-term bicycle parking spaces for tenants/residents. This number is flexible and can increase or decrease depending upon the storage method used;

3 short-term bicycle parking spaces for visitors; and

The site driveway connection provides cycle friendly connectivity to the adjacent road network.

Walking

The sidewalks will link building entrances with public sidewalks on both Cork Street West and Dublin Street North.



Transit

Tenants/residents of the 20 affordable units may qualify for Guelph Transit’s Affordable Bus Pass.

Carshare

Community CarShare operates a carshare vehicle at the Guelph Civic Museum (52 Norfolk Street). Residents of the subject site can make use of this nearby service. Car-sharing is recognized internationally as an initiative that has the potential to reduce transportation costs by reducing the dependency on private vehicle ownership. Car-share members spend less time driving and use public transit, cycle or walk more frequently.

Wayfinding/Travel Planning

Travel planning resources for residents (individualized marketing, active transportation maps, community resources); and

Wayfinding signage.

Education/Promotion, Incentives

Contribute to building a strong TDM brand.

Integrating the above noted TDM measures into a comprehensive site plan can assist in mitigating the site’s impact on the adjacent road network, promote a strong and vibrant economy, and create a livable community that has a balanced transportation network that accommodates all modes of transportation.

3.3.2 Recommended Transportation Demand Management Initiatives

To further assist in developing a site that caters to all modes of transportation the following TDM measures should be considered during the site plan approval stage.

Walking Infrastructure

Enhanced on-site and peripheral pedestrian amenities (benches, landscaping, and lighting).

Education/Promotion, Incentives

Include transit and active transportation maps in lobby area.

Include transit and active transportation maps and information on transit passes and carshare membership with tenants;



4 Future Traffic Conditions The assessment of the future conditions contained in this section includes the following components necessary to assess the traffic implications on the adjacent road network:

Future background traffic estimates;

Level of service analysis for background traffic (pre-development); and

Level of service analysis for background traffic plus the additional traffic generated by the build-out of the subject site (post-development).

4.1 Traffic Forecast

For analysis purposes, a five-year horizon (Year 2023) following the anticipated build-out (Year 2018) of the subject site has been assessed to determine the impact of the subject site. A ten-year horizon was not assessed since it was not included in the scope of work identified by the City. Furthermore, the estimated trip generation for this site is low and will not have significant impacts to the adjacent road network.

The likely future background traffic volumes in the vicinity of the subject site are estimated to consist of:

Increased non-site traffic (generalized background traffic growth). The background traffic estimates were derived by applying a growth rate of 2.0 percent per annum to the existing traffic volumes.

Figure 4.1A-B details the forecast background traffic volumes. Figure 4.2A-B details the forecast total traffic volumes.

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 23

Figure 4.1A:

Forecast Background

Traffic – AM

Peak H

our

Forecast Background Traffic– AM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 0

58

216

181

25 64 20

17

70

109

34 596

45

1 50

69 810

84 675

9

5 58 21

68 1129

15 43

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

44

68 67 6 110

72 13 53

21 11 53 68 0

14 20 73 72 72 7272 15 72

53 24 67

39

6 Cork St W 0 1 Cork St E

3 48 23

47

0 0 37 747

54

57

Dub

lin S

t N

75

116

Cambridge St12

10 2

3 67

8

9 107

Site

D

rive

way

116 0 641

No

rfo

lk S

t

74 0 838

70

109

0

0

OUT

SUM

95

100

40 40 15

22

339 Paisley St404 13 374

212 14

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 24

Figure 4.1B:

Forecast Background

Traffic – PM

Peak H

our

Forecast Background Traffic– PM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 0

418

17 51 20

15

80

88

45 18

57

464

80

126

6 45 25 0 45 828

Paisley St498 20 541

451 18 456

28 889

34

0 31

68 881

61 951

5

0 48 13

44 3

8 3 43 44 0

16 23 76 85

975

No

rfo

lk S

t

76

10 Cork St W 0 13 Cork St E

43

0 53

0

44 44 10 90

86 22 11185 85

Cambridge St11

80

87

5 75

17

2 0

2

6 87

OUT 0

SUM 0

93

Site

D

rive

way

94 0

76 926

Dub

lin S

t N

77

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

15

8

76

77 9 85

43 37 44

6

1 7

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 25

Figure 4.2A:

Forecast Total Traffic – AM

Peak H

our

Forecast Total Traffic– AM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

Subject Site

IN 2

70

112

75

119

6

5 58 21

Paisley St406 13 374

212 14 217

181

27 64 21

17

12

10 2

8

9 110

39

70

112

3 67

Cambridge St

95

100

40 40 15

22

339

1 Cork St E

643

3 48 23

50

3 5 38 747

54

74 8 839

119

Dub

lin S

t N

Site

D

rive

way

No

rfo

lk S

t

74 13 53

21 11 53 68 0 73 72

14 20 76 75 72 74

8 110

11

35 596

45

1 53

69 813

84 676

9

8

10

OUT

SUM

68

2

260

75 15 75

53 24 67

29

15 43

Cork St W

44

58Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

75 Dub

lin Street N

orth | TIS U

pd

ate | 162090 | Sep

temb

er 2017

Parad

igm Transp


ited | Page 26

Figure 4.2B:

Forecast Total Traffic – PM

Peak H

our

Forecast Total Traffic– PM Peak Hour


NTS

Cork St W

80

126

Cambridge St11

2 0

83

89

17 45 18

57

464

499 22 543

2

6 89

Dub

lin S

t N

80

95

5 78

452 18 457

418

18 51 21

16

83

90

Cork St E16 23 78 87 85 91 92 22 111

48 828

53

76

10 Cork St W 6 13

6 45 28

45

2 2

90

5

0 48 13

44 3

31

8 3 46 47 3 46

Site

D

rive

way

889

34

0 32

68 882

61 954

46 11

96 9 976

No

rfo

lk S

t

79 4 929

6

1 7

OUT 4

SUM 13

Subject Site

IN 9

87

46 40 47

Paisley St

Ch

urc

h

Dri

vew

ay

15

8

78

79 9



4.2 Background Traffic Operations

The operations of the intersections under the future background traffic conditions were evaluated using the same analytical approach that was used for the existing traffic operations along with the background traffic forecast volumes. No improvements to the road network are assumed to be in place. Signal timings have been optimized to help ensure that a reasonable level of service is maintained where possible. Table 4.1 summarizes the background traffic level of service conditions and notes:

Similar to the existing operations, the capacity issues on the Cork Street West approaches to Norfolk Street are anticipated to continue to occur. Delays are forecast to be in the LOS E to F range. The side street approaches are now critical during both the AM and PM peak hours.

No other movements at the study area intersections are considered to be critical.

The above noted operational issues are anticipated to continue to occur with or without the development of the subject site. Appendix D contains the supporting detailed Synchro 9 output.

TABLE 4.1: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

LOS < E > E < F > F < A > A A A > ADelay < 42 > 42 < 68 > 68 < 2 > 1 9 0 > 1V/C < 0.43 > < 0.52 > < 0.22 > 0.07 0.50 >95th < 16 > < 19 > < 1 > 2 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >






Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 0 > 0V/C < 0.00 0.05 > 0.00 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >LOS < F > F < F > F < A > A B A > A

Delay < 87 > 87 < 479 > 479 < 1 > 1 11 0 > 1V/C < 0.54 > < 1.73 > < 0.31 > 0.09 0.56 >95th < 19 > < 85 > < 1 > 2 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >

Avail. < - > < - > < - > 23 >LOS B B < A > A < A > ADelay < 11 > 11 < 10 > 10 < 0 > 0 < 3 > 3V/C < 0.01 > < 0.11 > < 0.00 > < 0.02 >95th < 0 > < 3 > < 0 > < 0 >LOS A > A < A A A > A


Delay < 5 > 5 < 5 > 5 < 27 > 27 < 27 > 27 8.2V/C < 0.44 > < 0.51 > < 0.36 > < 0.34 > 0.4995th < 45 > < 58 > < 21 > < 20 >LOS A > A < A A B A A


Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 0 > 0V/C < 0.00 0.05 > 0.00 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >


TCS

PM

Pea

k H

ou

r


TWSC


TWSC


TWSC


TCS


TWSC


TWSC

Direction / Movement / ApproachSouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound

OV

ER

AL

L


TWSC

MOE

An

alys

is P

erio

d

IntersectionControl

Type

TWSC

TWSC



TWSCDublin St N & Cambridge St



TWSC

AM

Pea

k H

ou

r



4.3 Total Traffic Operations

The operations of the intersections under the future background traffic conditions were evaluated using the same analytical approach that was used for the existing traffic operations along with the background traffic forecast volumes. No improvements to the road network are assumed to be in place. Signal timings have been optimized to help ensure that a reasonable level of service is maintained where possible. Table 4.2 summarizes the background traffic level of service conditions and notes:

Similar to the background traffic operations, the capacity issues on the Cork Street West approaches to Norfolk Street are anticipated to continue to occur. Delays are forecast to be in the LOS E to F range.

The site driveway connection to Cork Street West is anticipated to operate with fully acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours.

No other movements at the study area intersections are considered to be critical.

The identified capacity issues are created by the existing and background traffic volumes. The additional peak hour trips generated by the build-out of the subject site are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the adjacent road network. The new vehicle trips generated by the subject site are generally less than the daily variation in traffic volumes along an arterial roadway.

Appendix E contains the supporting detailed Synchro 9 output.

TABLE 4.3: TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

Lef

t

Th

rou

gh

Rig

ht

Ap

pro

ach

LOS < E > E < F > F < A > A A A > ADelay < 45 > 45 < 71 > 71 < 2 > 1 9 0 > 1V/C < 0.47 > < 0.53 > < 0.22 > 0.07 0.50 >95th < 18 > < 20 > < 1 > 2 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >






Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 9 > 9V/C < 0.00 0.05 > 0.01 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >LOS < F > F < F > F < A > A B A > A

Delay < 97 > 97 < 498 > 498 < 1 > 1 11 0 > 1V/C < 0.59 > < 1.77 > < 0.31 > 0.09 0.56 >95th < 22 > < 86 > < 1 > 2 0 >Ex. < - > < - > < - > 25 >

Avail. < - > < - > < - > 23 >LOS B B < A > A < A > ADelay < 11 > 11 < 10 > 10 < 0 > 0 < 3 > 3V/C < 0.01 > < 0.11 > < 0.00 > < 0.02 >95th < 0 > < 3 > < 0 > < 1 >LOS A > A < A A A > A


Delay < 5 > 5 < 5 > 5 < 27 > 27 < 27 > 27 8.3V/C < 0.44 > < 0.51 > < 0.37 > < 0.33 > 0.4995th < 46 > < 59 > < 21 > < 20 >LOS A > A < A A B A A


Delay < 0 0 0 > 0 9 > 9V/C < 0.00 0.06 > 0.00 >95th < 0 0 > 0 >


TCS


TWSC


TWSC


TWSC

PM

Pea

k H

ou

r


TWSC


TWSC


TWSC

AM

Pea

k H

ou

r


TWSC


TWSC



TWSC


TCS


An

alys

is P

erio

d

IntersectionControl

Type

TWSC

MOE

Direction / Movement / ApproachEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

OV

ER

AL

L



5 Parking Requirements The parking requirements for the development concept comply with the City’s parking and bicycle parking requirements. 37 structured parking spaces are contained within the main building structure. 24 long-term and 3 short-term bicycle parking spaces are also provided. The following parking rates are provided:

Vehicular parking ratios

• Apartment units – 1.00 spaces per unit; and

• Visitor parking – 0.05 spaces per unit.

Bicycle parking

• Long-term parking – 0.68 spaces per unit; and

• Short-term bicycle parking – 0.07 spaces per unit



6 Remedial Measures

6.1 All-way Stop Warrant

The City of Guelph requested that all-way stop control warrant analysis be conducted the Dublin Street North intersection with Cork Street West. An all-way stop is warranted based on traffic volume if:

The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches exceeds 500 vehicles per hour for each of any eight hours of the day;

The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on minor street exceeds 200 units per hour (all vehicles plus pedestrians wishing to enter the intersection) for each of the same eight hours, with an averaged delay to traffic on the minor street (either vehicles or pedestrian wishing to enter the intersection) of greater than 30 seconds; and

The volume split does not exceed 70/30. Volume on the major street is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor street includes all vehicles plus any pedestrians wishing to cross the major roadway.

Appendix F contains the OTM Book 5 all-way stop warrant analysis and the following is noted:

The forecast traffic volumes do not satisfy the warrant volume thresholds. Therefore, no changes to the existing form of two-way stop control is recommended.

All-way stop controls should not be used under the following conditions:

Where the protection of pedestrians, school children in particular, is a prime concern. This concern can usually be addressed by other means;

As a speed control device;

On roads where progressive signal timing exists;

On roads within urban areas having a posted speed limit in excess of 60 km/h;

At intersections that are not roundabouts having less than three, or more than four, approaches;

At intersections that are offset, poorly defined or geometrically substandard;

On truck or bus routes, except in an industrial area or where two such routes cross;

On multi-lane approaches where a parked or stopped vehicle on the right will obscure the STOP sign;

Where traffic would be required to stop on grades;



As a means of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area Where visibility of the sign is hampered by curves or grades, and insufficient safe stopping distance exists; or

Where any other traffic device controlling right-of way is permanently in place within 250 m, with the exception of a YIELD sign



7 Conclusions & Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions

The main findings and conclusions of this study are as follows:

Proposed Development: The subject site is located at 75 Dublin Street North in the City of Guelph. The site plan includes the following land uses:

• 20 affordable rental seniors apartment units including 4 barrier free units; and

• 15 market apartment units.

Vehicular access to the subject site will be provided by a single driveway connection to Cork Street West east of Dublin Street North. The site driveway connection will experience deficient sightlines to the east where Cork Street West crests at Dublin Street North.

The site’s parking supply and bicycle parking supply comply with the City’s requirements.

The build-out of the site is anticipated to occur by Year 2018. The timing may change to reflect market conditions.

Development Generated Traffic: The development of the subject site is estimated to generate approximately 14 total vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 16 total vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Non-auto oriented trips to/from the development are estimated to reduce the site’s net generation to approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. The new vehicle trips generated by the subject site are generally less than the daily variation in traffic volumes along an arterial roadway.

The build-out of the subject site is not anticipated to have a significate impact to the Central Public School site given that the proposed access is located onto Cork Street West. The new vehicle trips generated by the site are less than the daily variation in traffic volumes. Furthermore, the development will in no way change the existing operation of the school site.

Existing Traffic Conditions: From a capacity perspective the intersections in the study area are operating with satisfactory levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. During the PM peak hour localized congestion is occurring on the side street approaches of Cork Street West to Norfolk Street. This condition will continue to occur with or without the development of the subject site.

Forecast Background Traffic: The forecast background traffic volumes in the vicinity of the subject site have been assessed for a five-year horizon (Year 2023) following the anticipated build-out of the subject site (Year 2018). The forecast traffic volumes are estimated to consist of a generalized growth rate of 2.0 percent per



annum in addition to traffic related to the build-out of the surrounding lands.

Background Traffic Conditions: The congestion identified under existing conditions at the Norfolk Street intersection with Cork Street West is anticipated to continue to occur.

Total Traffic Conditions: The congestion identified under existing conditions at the Norfolk Street intersection with Cork Street West is anticipated to continue to occur.

No capacity issues are estimated to occur at the proposed site driveway connection to Cork Street West.

Roadway Improvements: The City of Guelph consider implementing hidden driveway warning signage on Cork Street West.

7.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following is recommended with respect to the subject site:

The City of Guelph consider implementing hidden driveway warning signage on Cork Street West.

The owner work with the City of Guelph to implement the following TDM initiatives to further mitigate the site’s transportation impact:

• Include transit and active transportation maps and information on transit passes and carshare membership with tenants; and

• Enhanced on-site and peripheral pedestrian amenities (benches, landscaping, and lighting).

To accommodate local deliveries and mobility vans, the City of Guelph should consider relaxing the parking restrictions within the designated Kiss N’ Ride on Dublin Street North to reflect school bell times.

No other improvements are required or recommended at this time to accommodate the development of the subject site.


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Appendices

Appendix A

Terms of Reference

1

Scott Catton

From: [email protected]: Monday, September 26, 2016 16:28To: Scott CattonSubject: FW: 75 Dublin St - Special Council Motion

As per your request… Thanks.

From: Gwen Zhang Sent: September 21, 2016 12:03 PM To: 'Astrid Clos'; 'Stew Elkins' Cc: 'Tom Lammer'; Julie Tot; Allister McILveen; Terry Gayman Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - Special Council Motion Hi Astrid, The scoped Traffic Impact Study for 75 Dublin Street North must include but is not limited to:

1. a full description of the study area including the road network, adjacent developments and their driveways specifically for 33 Cork Street W, Church of Our Lady and Central Public School. The study area includes the following intersections:

a. Dublin Street/Cork Street (The consultant will be required to collect peak hour turning movement counts.)

b. Gordon Street/Cork Street (City has 2015 turning movement counts. Please contact Louis Wickline at extension 2043.)

c. Dublin Street/Cambridge Street (City has 2014 turning movement counts.) d. the proposed driveway intersection

2. the study horizon years including the completion year and 5 years after the completion;

3. a full description of the subject development including the proposed driveway and its relationship to the

Dublin/Cork intersection and adjacent development driveways to 33 Cork Street W and Church of Our Lady;

4. traffic operation analysis at the above listed intersection locations using Synchro software;

5. sightline analysis along Cork Street West and turning sight distances at the proposed driveway location, taking into account the visual obstruction of the retaining wall and the elevation of the exiting vehicles;

6. parking justifications including the treatment for visitor parking;

7. the arrangement and operation for the loading zone and garbage pickups; and

8. any necessary remedial measures to mitigate identified deficiencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards,

2

Gwen Zhang, M.Sc., P.Eng | Transportation Planning Engineer Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services | Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise T 519‐822‐1260 x 2638 E [email protected]

From: Astrid Clos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September 16, 2016 10:20 AM To: Gwen Zhang; 'Stew Elkins' Cc: 'Tom Lammer' Subject: 75 Dublin St - Special Council Motion

Hi Gwen, Could you please provide the terms of reference for this Scoped TIS. Thanks very much. "Scoped Traffic Impact Study (with parking justification, access and intersection operational details, loading area info, etc.) (contact Gwen Zhang x2638 for details)" Regards, Astrid Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants 423 Woolwich Street Suite 201 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 (836-PLAN) Mobile Number (519)710-7526 (519)710-PLAN Fax (519) 836-9568 Email [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:39 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 75 Dublin St - Special Council Motion

Hi Astrid, Tom, Further to our meeting this morning, we have confirmed that the statutory public meeting will be on October 17 at a Special Meeting of Council, to begin at 6:30pm. We’ve now heard back from Engineering regarding information they require in order to be able to have a Decision be made by Council in November 2016 regarding the OPA and zoning. Details are in Terry’s email below. Please note this information has been requested by October 5 at 9am.

3

To re‐cap our meeting this morning, Planning has requested the information below:

‐ Any drawings (the more detail the better) including site plan, elevations, grading information by noon on Monday September 19

‐ Planning Justification Report, which in addition to the typical information will also include justification for the requested parking ratio (to then be verified by an engineer via a parking justification report or the TIS Engineering has requested below) and heritage conservation and urban design considerations (outlined below) by noon on Monday September 19

‐ Shadow Study by October 5 at 9am Further to our meeting, Heritage Planning has advised that: “Regardless if the Basilica of Our Lady (a National Historic Site) meets the definition in the PPS of a “protected heritage property” [note this requires some research with respect to protection that may have been added through federal and/or provincial funding and is not a straight forward answer in this instance], it is hoped that we can all agree that a development proposal adjacent to what is likely the City’s most important landmark and cultural heritage landscape needs to be designed in such a way that is compatible with its surroundings from a heritage conservation and urban design perspective. The impact that this development may have on the designated and listed (non‐designated) built heritage resources in the area and the cultural heritage landscape that is “Catholic Hill” needs to be assessed and considered with care in all planning discussion going forward.” In order to address these concerns, the compatibility of the proposal from a heritage and urban design perspective should also be addressed in the Planning Justification Report. Immediate tasks that need to be completed include:

‐ You touching base with Guelph Hydro re: transformer locations ‐ You starting to discuss the proposal with the community ‐ Meeting with the Upper Grand District School Board to discuss the proposal – I will work to set this meeting up

for next week – please provide your availability asap ‐ The Notice Sign being erected on the property for the OPA by September 22 (when the newspaper ad will run)

– we will provide sign wording by September 19 ‐ Confirm the number of bike parking spaces being proposed ‐ City staff are working to prepare the Notice (newspaper and mail‐out), the draft zoning by‐law, the draft OPA

and the Council Report for October 17 Please let me know if you have questions regarding the above. We will continue to work on this and keep you informed as we move forward. Thanks, Stacey Stacey Laughlin, MCIP, RPP | Senior Policy Planner T 519‐822‐1260 x2327 E [email protected]

From: Terry Gayman Sent: September 15, 2016 3:02 PM To: Stacey Laughlin Cc: Mary Angelo; Allister McILveen; Arun Hindupur; Prasoon Adhikari; Gwen Zhang; Julie Tot; Todd Salter; Melissa Aldunate Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - special Council motion Hi Stacey,

4

The engineering team met this morning to discuss what we would need to review so that we can properly consider a zone change under these circumstances. Our list is as follows:

‐ Phase I ESA to CSA standards or an update letter to an existing Phase I ESA (contact Prasoon Adhikari x2946 for details)

‐ Grading and Drainage Plan (contact Mary Angelo x2287 for details) ‐ Stormwater Management Report (contact Kime Toole x2250 for storm criteria details) ‐ Parking garage foundation drainage information (contact Arun Hindupur x2282 for details) ‐ Scoped Traffic Impact Study (with parking justification, access and intersection operational details, loading area

info, etc.) (contact Gwen Zhang x2638 for details) With the information above, the City will check the capacity of municipal services to determine if water, sanitary, and storm water systems servicing the proposed development would be adequate and available. I would encourage the applicant to reach out to staff directly (contact points noted above) so that there is clarity on the exact requirements/scope/expectations for each submission before they get started. We are happy to work with them to get this done! Also, I know timing is tight, so for us to ensure we can review and prepare our report in time for the Council decision meeting in November, we are requesting to have this information from the applicant no later than 9 AM October 5. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Terry Gayman, P.Eng. Manager – Infrastructure, Development and Environmental Engineering Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services City of Guelph T 519-822-1260 x 2369 | F 519-822-6194 E [email protected] guelph.ca facebook.com/cityofguelph @cityofguelph

----------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13023 - Release Date: 09/15/16

----------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,

5

you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.

----------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.

1

Scott Catton

From: Astrid Clos <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 16:45To: 'Jennifer Passy'; Stew Elkins; Scott CattonCc: 'Tom Lammer'; 'Glen Regier'Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - Traffic Impact Study

Hi Jennifer, I can confirm that the items you have requested in your email of September 21, 2016 are being included in the Traffic Impact Study. Regards, Astrid Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants 423 Woolwich Street Suite 201 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 (836-PLAN) Mobile Number (519)710-7526 (519)710-PLAN Fax (519) 836-9568 Email [email protected]

From: Astrid Clos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:00 PM To: 'Jennifer Passy'; 'Stew Elkins' Cc: 'Tom Lammer'; 'Glen Regier' Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - Traffic Impact Study

Hi Jennifer, You are correct that there is no on-street parking along Cork Street West between Dublin and Norfolk. None is proposed in this area. There is on-street parking permitted along Cork Street West between Dublin and Glasgow. Regards, Astrid Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants

2

423 Woolwich Street Suite 201 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 (836-PLAN) Mobile Number (519)710-7526 (519)710-PLAN Fax (519) 836-9568 Email [email protected]

From: Jennifer Passy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:38 PM To: Astrid Clos; 'Stew Elkins' Cc: 'Tom Lammer'; Glen Regier Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - Traffic Impact Study

Astrid, Thank you for the opportunity to review the TOR. I would suggest that the intersections studied should be expanded to include Dublin/Paisley as this would capture all traffic/turning movements across the entire block of Dublin between Paisley and Cork rather than limiting the study area to the north to Cambridge Street. I am curious why only a 5 year horizon was requested when 5 and 10 years are standard approach to TIS. Following our meeting this AM, we did do another visit to the site. We noted that there is no parking on either side of Cork Street for its entire length between Dublin and Norfolk. I may have misunderstood, but thought that it was suggested this morning that on‐street parking was either in existence or proposed along Cork as support for reduction in parking on‐site. Jennifer Passy, BES, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning

From: Astrid Clos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-21-16 12:21 PM To: 'Stew Elkins'; Jennifer Passy Cc: 'Tom Lammer' Subject: 75 Dublin St - Traffic Impact Study

Hi Jennifer, If there is any particular item that you would like included in this TIS or information related to Central Public School you would like to provide, I have included Stew Elkins from Paradigm in this email. Regards, Astrid Astrid J. Clos

3

Planning Consultants 423 Woolwich Street Suite 201 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 (836-PLAN) Mobile Number (519)710-7526 (519)710-PLAN Fax (519) 836-9568 Email [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:03 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: 75 Dublin St - Special Council Motion

Hi Astrid, The scoped Traffic Impact Study for 75 Dublin Street North must include but is not limited to:

1. a full description of the study area including the road network, adjacent developments and their driveways specifically for 33 Cork Street W, Church of Our Lady and Central Public School. The study area includes the following intersections:

a. Dublin Street/Cork Street (The consultant will be required to collect peak hour turning movement counts.)

b. Gordon Street/Cork Street (City has 2015 turning movement counts. Please contact Louis Wickline at extension 2043.)

c. Dublin Street/Cambridge Street (City has 2014 turning movement counts.) d. the proposed driveway intersection

2. the study horizon years including the completion year and 5 years after the completion;

3. a full description of the subject development including the proposed driveway and its relationship to the

Dublin/Cork intersection and adjacent development driveways to 33 Cork Street W and Church of Our Lady;

4. traffic operation analysis at the above listed intersection locations using Synchro software;

5. sightline analysis along Cork Street West and turning sight distances at the proposed driveway location, taking into account the visual obstruction of the retaining wall and the elevation of the exiting vehicles;

6. parking justifications including the treatment for visitor parking;

7. the arrangement and operation for the loading zone and garbage pickups; and

8. any necessary remedial measures to mitigate identified deficiencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

4

Regards, Gwen Zhang, M.Sc., P.Eng | Transportation Planning Engineer Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services | Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise T 519‐822‐1260 x 2638 E [email protected]

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13055 - Release Date: 09/21/16



Appendix B

Existing Data

Count Date.

Turning Movements Report -

Location....... CORK ST W @ NORFOLK ST

GUELPHMunicipality. Thursday, 22 October, 2015

I1487GeoID.......

06:00 PM05:00 PM

PM Period

Peak Hour..

Traffic Cont. Count Time.

Major Dir..... None

06:00 PM03:00 PM

Peds

Truck %Trucks

Cars

TrucksCars

S

N

EW

Truck %

836

1647

Total

0%10 0

19 0 0%

0 0%66

19

10

66

95

77 1 78

173

0

0%

0%

0

50%

15

0

15

2

5

0 6767

Total

89

755

Peds

1581

Peds

3

16

Peds

35

3

46

1

2%

35

0

721

0

0%0%

802

845

1%

9

826

755

0%

0

22

0%

0

4572135

22 30

30

0%

0

765

9

1%

774

22 2

0%

1%

CORK ST W

NORFOLK ST

Cyclists: 34

Cyclists: 9

Cyclists: 46

Cyclists: 3

Page 1 of 4November 5, 2015

Count Date.




I1487GeoID.......

06:00 PM05:00 PM

Full Study

Peak Hour..


Major Dir..... None

06:00 PM07:00 AM

Peds

Truck %Trucks

Cars

TrucksCars

S

N

EW

Truck %

836

1647

Total

0%10 0

19 0 0%

0 0%66

19

10

66

95

77 1 78

173

0

0%

0%

0

50%

15

0

15

2

5

0 6767

Total

89

755

Peds

1581

Peds

3

16

Peds

35

3

46

1

2%

35

0

721

0

0%0%

802

845

1%

9

826

755

0%

0

22

0%

0

4572135

22 30

30

0%

0

765

9

1%

774

22 2

0%

1%

CORK ST W

NORFOLK ST

Cyclists: 98

Cyclists: 12

Cyclists: 81

Cyclists: 5


Count Date.




I1487GeoID.......

02:00 PM01:00 PM

MD Period

Peak Hour..


Major Dir..... None

02:00 PM11:00 AM

Peds

Truck %Trucks

Cars

TrucksCars

S

N

EW

Truck %

645

1278

Total

25%3 1

23 0 0%

0 0%49

23

4

49

76

74 1 75

151

0

0%

0%

0

60%

13

0

13

3

6

1 4445

Total

67

592

Peds

1260

Peds

3

33

Peds

45

4

41

0

0%

15

0

563

7

1%0%

619

659

2%

14

661

599

1%

7

26

0%

0

4155615

26 30

31

3%

1

590

14

2%

604

22 3

2%

1%

CORK ST W

NORFOLK ST

Cyclists: 36

Cyclists: 3

Cyclists: 26

Cyclists: 0


Count Date.




I1487GeoID.......

09:00 AM08:00 AM

AM Period

Peak Hour..


Major Dir..... None

09:00 AM07:00 AM

Peds

Truck %Trucks

Cars

TrucksCars

S

N

EW

Truck %

541

1275

Total

0%1 0

10 1 9%

0 0%34

11

1

34

46

88 2 90

136

0

0%

0%

0

20%

18

0

18

4

2

0 4646

Total

70

662

Peds

1259

Peds

1

25

Peds

13

6

47

1

2%

23

0

650

16

2%0%

720

555

3%

14

580

679

3%

17

22

0%

0

4663423

22 38

39

3%

1

505

14

3%

519

24 4

0%

2%

CORK ST W

NORFOLK ST

Cyclists: 28

Cyclists: 0

Cyclists: 9

Cyclists: 2


L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R L S R East West North South07:15 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1307:30 1 3 10 7 3 5 1 2 3207:45 2 1 1 2 3 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 2408:00 2 1 9 2 1 4 1 2 6 2 30 9908:15 5 15 2 8 3 1 3 8 1 1 1 2 4 2 56 14208:30 1 4 1 4 3 6 3 3 1 11 1 1 1 4 2 46 15608:45 8 1 2 3 14 15 6 6 11 3 74 4 147 27909:00 1 3 6 2 9 2 16 6 1 9 10 2 4 11 20 102 35115:15 1 1 6 2 7 11 2 1 4 10 1 4 4 20 5 7915:30 2 1 4 2 10 7 3 6 7 2 5 14 65 12815:45 1 7 3 8 4 4 2 9 1 1 2 5 12 5916:00 1 4 2 7 12 2 6 6 1 1 2 2 46 31216:15 1 7 8 9 2 10 4 2 8 7 3 1 62 29516:30 1 1 2 5 10 3 2 14 3 2 43 21016:45 1 5 3 11 1 13 2 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 4 53 20417:00 1 11 7 7 16 2 4 14 4 6 1 73 23117:15 2 1 11 7 3 15 7 5 13 4 4 5 5 1 83 25217:30 2 5 1 5 9 5 2 23 3 1 5 7 3 6 6 4 11 98 30717:45 1 2 1 5 3 4 8 3 1 3 1 5 4 1 3 45 29918:00 4 6 3 8 2 1 6 1 1 6 5 6 49 275

Bicycle Bicycle BicycleCars Cars Cars CarsTrucks Trucks Trucks TrucksTIME

Cork Street West & Dublin Street NorthCount Date: Thursday, 29 September 2016Counted By: Dan G.

EastboundCork Street West Dublin Street North

Southbound NorthboundWestbound60

MINSUM

15MINSUM

PedestriansBicycle

Dublin Street & Cambridge Street

Morning Peak Diagram Specified PeriodFrom:To:

7:00:00

9:00:00

One Hour PeakFrom:To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

Municipality:Site #:Intersection:TFR File #:Count date:

Guelph

0000001319


1

1-Apr-2014

Weather conditions:Clear

Person(s) who counted:

** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Dublin Street runs N/S

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

112

43

0

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

3

3

0

0

40

40

0

0

43

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

69

69

Cyclists Trucks Cars Totals

0 0 9 9


0 0 2 2

0 1 4 5

0 1 6

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

6

7

16

Dublin Street

Cambridge StreetW

N

E

S

Dublin Street

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

44

1

0

45

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

6

0

0

6

67

0

0

67

73

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

56

73

118

Comments


Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified PeriodFrom:To:

11:00:00

14:00:00


11:30:00

12:30:00


Guelph

0000001319


1

1-Apr-2014




North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

106

41

3

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

6

6

0

0

35

35

0

0

41

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

3

62

65


0 0 10 10


0 0 0 0

0 1 5 6

0 1 5

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

5

6

16

Dublin Street

Cambridge StreetW

N

E

S

Dublin Street

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

40

1

0

41

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

4

0

0

4

62

3

0

65

66

3

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

6

69

110

Comments


Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified PeriodFrom:To:

15:00:00

18:00:00


16:30:00

17:30:00


Guelph

0000001319


1

1-Apr-2014




North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

114

38

2

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

2

2

0

0

36

36

0

0

38

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

1

74

76


0 0 7 7


0 0 0 0

1 0 1 2

1 0 1

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

11

2

9

Dublin Street

Cambridge StreetW

N

E

S

Dublin Street

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

37

0

1

38

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

5

0

0

5

74

1

1

76

79

1

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

10

81

119

Comments


Total Count Diagram


Guelph

0000001319


1

1-Apr-2014




North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

723

296

7

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

18

19

1

3

273

277

1

4

291

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

5

6

416

427


1 1 58 60


2 1 7 10

1 2 18 21

3 3 25

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

67

31

91

Dublin Street

Cambridge StreetW

N

E

S

Dublin Street

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

291

5

2

298

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

40

0

1

41

409

5

3

417

449

5

4

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

176

458

756

Comments

Dublin Street & Cambridge StreetTraffic Count Summary

Intersection: Dublin Street & Cambridge Street Count Date: 1-Apr-2014 Municipality: Guelph

North Approach Totals South Approach Totals

East Approach Totals West Approach Totals

Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists

Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists Includes Cars, Trucks, & Cyclists

Hour Hour

Hour Hour

Ending Ending

Ending Ending

Left Left

Left Left

Thru Thru

Thru Thru

Right Right

Right Right

Grand Grand

Grand Grand

Total Total

Total Total

Total Total

Total Total

Peds Peds

Peds Peds

North/South

East/West

Total

Total

Approaches

Approaches

Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major StreetHours Ending:Crossing Values:

Totals:

Totals:

7:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 0 21 2 23 1 51 8:00:00 4 24 0 28 39:00:00 0 40 3 43 0 116 9:00:00 6 67 0 73 56

11:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00:00 0 0 0 0 012:00:00 0 30 4 34 2 87 12:00:00 7 46 0 53 713:00:00 0 41 2 43 1 106 13:00:00 4 59 0 63 814:00:00 0 36 3 39 0 89 14:00:00 5 45 0 50 1115:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 016:00:00 0 40 2 42 0 101 16:00:00 6 53 0 59 7017:00:00 0 34 2 36 2 98 17:00:00 4 58 0 62 1218:00:00 0 35 1 36 1 106 18:00:00 5 65 0 70 9

7:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:00:00 0 0 3 3 39:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 7 9:00:00 2 0 5 7 6

11:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00:00 0 0 0 0 012:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 5 12:00:00 1 0 4 5 313:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 13:00:00 0 0 3 3 1314:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 14:00:00 2 0 1 3 415:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 016:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 16:00:00 2 0 1 3 1517:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 17:00:00 1 0 1 2 1718:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 5 18:00:00 2 0 3 5 6

8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 16:00 17:00 18:004 58 10 9 13 72 15 12

0 277 19 296 7 754 41 417 0 458 176

0 0 0 0 0 31 10 0 21 31 67

Dublin Street & Cambridge StreetCount Date: 1-Apr-2014

Intersection: Dublin Street & Cambridge Street

Major Road: Dublin Street

Operating Speed of Major Road: 50 km/hr

Municipality: Guelph

Major Road Runs: N/S one lane each way

Operating under free flow conditions

Warrant #1: Minimum Vehicular Volumes.

A. All Approaches.

B. Minor Street Both Approaches.

Minimum RequirementsNo. ofLanes 1 Lane Each Way 2 Lanes Each Way 3 Lanes Hours Ending

FlowCondition

1 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 2 Lane or MoreF. Flow F. FlowR. Flow R. Flow R. Flow

(Code 1) (Code 2) (Code 3) (Code 4) (Code 5)

100%

100%

80%

80%

AllApproa-

ches

100% Fulfilled

100% Fulfilled

80% Fulfilled

80% Fulfilled

Actual % if Below 80%


MinorStreetBoth

Approa-ches

Total:

Total:

Actual Average (Total/8):


PercentageWarrant

100%

100%

Yes:

Yes:

No:

No:

480 720 600 900 1125

385 575 480 720 900

180 170 120 170 170

143 135 95 135 135

8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

54 123 92 109 92 104 100 111

11 26 19 23 19 22 21 23

3 7 5 3 3 3 2 5

2 4 3 2 2 2 1 3

X

0

0

164

164

20%

X

0

0

17

17

2%

Not Satisfied








Warrant #2: Delay to Cross Traffic.

A. Major Street Both Approaches.

B. Traffic Crossing Major Street.

Minimum RequirementsNo. ofLanes 1 Lane Each Way 2 Lanes Each Way 3 Lanes Hours Ending

FlowCondition

1 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 2 Lane or MoreF. Flow F. FlowR. Flow R. Flow R. Flow

(Code 1) (Code 2) (Code 3) (Code 4) (Code 5)

100%

100%

80%

80%

AllApproa-

ches

100% Fulfilled

100% Fulfilled

80% Fulfilled

80% Fulfilled



AllApproa-

ches

Total:

Total:



PercentageWarrant

100%

100%

Yes:

Yes:

No:

No:

480 720 600 900 1125

385 575 480 720 900

75 75 50 75 75

60 60 40 60 60

8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

51 116 87 106 89 101 98 106

11 24 18 22 19 21 20 22

4 58 10 9 13 72 15 12

80

5 77 13 12 17 20 16

X

0

0

157

157

20%

X

0

80

161

241

30%

Not Satisfied








Warrant #3: Accident Experience.

Not Satisfied

A. Reportable accidents within a twelve month period averaged over 36 consequtive months susceptible to correctionby a traffic signal.

Minimum Requirements Actual Number of Accidents Average Number of Accidents Fulfilled

5 0 in 0 years Invalid 0%

B. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident frequency. No

C. Either Warrant 1 (Minimum Vehicular Volume) or Warrant 2 (Delay to Cross Traffic) satisfied 80% or more. No

Warrant #4: Combination Warrant.(Used if no warrant satisfied 100%)

Not Satisfied

Minimum Requirements Warrant Satisfied 80% or More Fulfilled

Two WarrantsSatisfied 80%

Warrant 1 (Minimum Vehicular Volume) NoWarrant 2 (Delay to Cross Traffic) NoWarrant 3 (Accident Experience) No

Conclusion: Traffic signal not warranted.

SIM Traffic Consultants

Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

GUELPH

0000000007

Paisley Rd & Dublin St

1

4-Nov-2015

Weather conditions:


** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Paisley Rd runs W/E

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

148

81

41

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

1

33

35

0

0

33

33

0

0

13

13

1

1

79

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

2

2

63

67

CyclistsTrucks Cars Totals

1 14 329 344


0 0 12 12

0 10 148 158

0 1 14 15

0 11 174

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

83

185

529

Dublin St

Paisley Rd

W

N

E

S

Paisley Rd

Dublin St

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

506

324

11

Cars Trucks CyclistsTotals

18 1 0 19

283 12 0 295

8 2 0 10

309 15 0


172 10 0 182

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

55

3

0

58

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

13

1

0

14

33

1

2

36

11

0

0

11

57

2

2

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

29

61

119

Comments


Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

12:30:00

13:30:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

12:30:00

13:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

GUELPH

0000000007


1

4-Nov-2015

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

111

42

9

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

0

6

7

1

1

18

20

0

0

15

15

2

1

39

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

4

3

62

69


6 6 263 275


0 0 8 8

5 7 274 286

0 0 6 6

5 7 288

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

2

300

575

Dublin St

Paisley Rd

W

N

E

S

Paisley Rd

Dublin St

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

629

314

8


33 1 3 37

254 6 5 265

12 0 0 12

299 7 8


303 7 5 315

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

36

1

1

38

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

3

0

0

3

21

2

1

24

14

0

0

14

38

2

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

24

41

79

Comments


Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

16:30:00

17:30:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:30:00

17:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

GUELPH

0000000007


1

4-Nov-2015

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

179

70

15

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

15

15

1

0

38

39

1

0

15

16

2

0

68

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

5

0

104

109


12 7 415 434


0 0 16 16

6 10 348 364

0 0 13 13

6 10 377

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

7

393

827

Dublin St

Paisley Rd

W

N

E

S

Paisley Rd

Dublin St

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

867

471

6


46 0 4 50

385 7 12 404

16 0 1 17

447 7 17


379 10 7 396

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

67

0

2

69

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

15

0

0

15

42

0

1

43

16

0

0

16

73

0

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

16

74

143

Comments


Total Count Diagram

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

GUELPH

0000000007


1

4-Nov-2015

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

939

380

175

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

3

3

98

104

3

3

168

174

3

1

98

102

9

7

364

Cyclists

Trucks

Cars

Totals

18

14

527

559


50 60 2396 2506


3 1 85 89

41 83 1998 2122

0 1 78 79

44 85 2161

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

166

2290

4796

Dublin St

Paisley Rd

W

N

E

S

Paisley Rd

Dublin St

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

5006

2662

140


235 9 10 254

2218 54 47 2319

83 3 3 89

2536 66 60


2214 86 44 2344

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

329

7

6

342

Cars

Trucks

Cyclists

Totals

80

3

0

83

207

4

5

216

118

2

0

120

405

9

5

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

208

419

761

Comments

Location:

VehiclePhase Direction Minimum OFF Day

# (sec.) WALK FDWALK MAX MAX1 Not in use 2 Paisley Road 10.0 18.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 30.0 48.03 Not in use 4 Dublin Street 7.0 7.0 11.0 4.0 2.0 18.0 27.05 Not in use 6 Paisley Road 10.0 18.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 30.0 48.07 Not in use 8 Dublin Street 7.0 7.0 11.0 4.0 2.0 18.0 27.0

System Control Yes Local Control No PEAK OFFSET (sec.)Semi-Actuated Mode Yes OFF N/A

Day 62

Completed By:

Paisley Street at Dublin Street

PedestrianMinimum (sec.)

07:00-18:00

(Green+Amber+All Red)Amber (sec.)

All Red (sec.)

Database Date Oct. 6, 2016Prepared Date:

S.A.

CYCLE LENGTH (sec.)

7518:00-07:00TIME (M-F)

Free

CITY OF GUELPHTraffic Signal Timing Parameters

TIME PERIOD(sec.)

Database RevTiming Card / Field rev

I.T.Checked By:

Collision Details Report

June 30, 2011 June 30, 2016From: To:

No. PedDriver ActionFirst EventVehicle typeVehicle ManoeuverSurface Cond'nDirectionClassificationImpact TypeEnvironmentDate/Day/TimeCollision ID

DUBLIN ST N @ CORK ST W GUELPHLocation ........... Municipality........

Traffic Control.... 2Total Collisions....

Other motor vehicle

Automobile, station wagon

StoppedDryNorthNon-reportableSideswipeClear2015-May-17, Sun,21:00501999684

DryNorthComments: Dusk

Other motor vehicle


Going aheadDrySouthNon-reportableAngleClear2016-Jan-23, Sat,10:15502099163

Other motor vehicle


Going aheadDryEastComments: Daylight

Page 1 of 1October 5, 2016

TTS 2011 - Mode Choice DataAM Peak HourMode of Travel for Zones around site from 07:00-09:00 Primary Mode of Travel Expanded PercentUSER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Transit 55 4%DATE : Sep 26 2016 12:43:23 Bicycle 96 6%DATA : Trips Auto Driver 1018 67%FILTER 1 : gta06_hhld => 8125, 8124, 8122, 8123, 8126, 8117, 8118, 8113, 8114, 8111 Other 21 1%FILTER 2 : start_time => 0700-0900 Auto Passenger 129 8%VARIABLE : mode_prime School bus 19 1%

Walk 186 12%Total 1523 100%

PM Peak HourMode of Travel for Zones around site from 15:00-18:00 Primary Mode of Travel Expanded PercentUSER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Transit 115 5%DATE : Sep 26 2016 12:43:23 Bicycle 87 4%DATA : Trips Auto Driver 1494 63%FILTER 1 : gta06_hhld => 8125, 8124, 8122, 8123, 8126, 8117, 8118, 8113, 8114, 8111 GO Rail 17 1%FILTER 2 : start_time => 1500-1800 Auto Passenger 496 21%VARIABLE : mode_prime School bus 19 1%

Walk 162 7%Total 2390 100%

file:///C|/...St%20N/Vehicle%20Ownership%20-%20City%20of%20Guleph%20-%20Apartment%20Units%20-%20Age%20Group%200-64.txt[28-Sep-16 13:33:48]

Vehicle Ownership - City of Guleph - Apartment Units - Age Group 0-64USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (0)FILTER 1 : age => 0-64ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,2384

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (1)FILTER 1 : age => 0-64ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment




USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (3)FILTER 1 : age => 0-64ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : Guelph


COLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,314


,Group 1Group 1,35


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation Solutions


DATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (7)FILTER 1 : age => 0-64ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0



,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (14)


FILTER 1 : age => 0-64ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0



,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0

file:///C|/...t%20N/Vehicle%20Ownership%20-%20City%20of%20Guleph%20-%20Apartment%20Units%20-%20Age%20Group%2065-99.txt[28-Sep-16 13:33:48]

Vehicle Ownership - City of Guleph - Apartment Units - Age Group 65-99USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (0)FILTER 1 : age => 65-99ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment





,Group 1Group 1,285

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (3)FILTER 1 : age => 65-99ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : Guelph


COLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,27


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation Solutions


DATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (7)FILTER 1 : age => 65-99ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0



,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0

USER : James Mallett - Paradigm Transportation SolutionsDATE : Sep 28 2016 (12:24:20)DATA : 2011 TTS V1.0 PersonsTABLE : n_vehicle (18)


FILTER 1 : age => 65-99ROW : region_hhld Group 1 : GuelphCOLUMN : dwell_type Group 1 : Apartment

,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0


,Group 1Group 1,0



Appendix C

Existing Traffic Operational Conditions

162090

162090 Synchro 9 ReportParadigm Transportation Solutions Limited Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 5 10 43 11 1 34 30 519 39 47 650 32Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 10 43 11 1 34 30 519 39 47 650 32Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 47 12 1 37 33 564 42 51 707 35Pedestrians 25 13 1 6Lane Width (m) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2Percent Blockage 2 1 0 1Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1243 1536 750 1526 1533 322 767 619vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1243 1536 750 1526 1533 322 767 619tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 95 89 87 78 99 94 96 95cM capacity (veh/h) 110 103 350 54 104 669 838 947

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 63 50 315 324 51 742Volume Left 5 12 33 0 51 0Volume Right 47 37 0 42 0 35cSH 220 174 838 1700 947 1700Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.44Queue Length 95th (m) 9.1 9.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.0Control Delay (s) 27.8 33.9 1.4 0.0 9.0 0.0Lane LOS D D A AApproach Delay (s) 27.8 33.9 0.7 0.6Approach LOS D D

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 2.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15

162090


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 10 8 1 17 5 41 4 50 18 20 42 3Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 8 1 17 5 41 4 50 18 20 42 3Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 9 1 18 5 45 4 54 20 22 46 3Pedestrians 2 9 29 93Lane Width (m) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2Percent Blockage 0 1 2 8Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 180pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 306 184 78 207 176 166 51 83vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 306 184 78 207 176 166 51 83tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 98 99 100 97 99 94 100 99cM capacity (veh/h) 551 695 962 709 702 809 1566 1515

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 21 68 78 71Volume Left 11 18 4 22Volume Right 1 45 20 3cSH 619 772 1566 1515Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.01Queue Length 95th (m) 0.8 2.3 0.1 0.4Control Delay (s) 11.0 10.1 0.4 2.4Lane LOS B B A AApproach Delay (s) 11.0 10.1 0.4 2.4Approach LOS B B

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.7Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

162090


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 2 7 8 93 58 3Future Volume (Veh/h) 2 7 8 93 58 3Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 8 9 101 63 3Pedestrians 6 56Lane Width (m) 3.6 3.6Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 1.2Percent Blockage 1 5Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 89pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 190 126 72vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 190 126 72tC, single (s) 6.4 6.4 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.5 2.2p0 queue free % 100 99 99cM capacity (veh/h) 795 833 1533

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 10 110 66Volume Left 2 9 0Volume Right 8 0 3cSH 825 1533 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.04Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.1 0.0Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.6 0.0Lane LOS A AApproach Delay (s) 9.4 0.6 0.0Approach LOS A


162090


Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 201 354 103 90v/c Ratio 0.17 0.30 0.38 0.32Control Delay 4.0 4.7 24.0 17.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 4.0 4.7 24.0 17.7Queue Length 50th (m) 6.4 13.0 9.6 5.5Queue Length 95th (m) 16.0 29.6 22.2 16.7Internal Link Dist (m) 54.5 92.4 65.1 70.8Turn Bay Length (m)Base Capacity (vph) 1163 1198 525 523Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.30 0.20 0.17

Intersection Summary

162090


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 12 158 15 11 295 19 22 56 17 13 35 35Future Volume (vph) 12 158 15 11 295 19 22 56 17 13 35 35Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.93Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00Frt 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.94Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99Satd. Flow (prot) 1586 1611 1539 1465Flt Permitted 0.98 0.99 0.93 0.95Satd. Flow (perm) 1552 1599 1442 1404Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 13 172 16 12 321 21 24 61 18 14 38 38RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 13 0 0 32 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 198 0 0 352 0 0 90 0 0 58 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 41 29 29 41 83 11 11 83Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 6% 7% 20% 4% 5% 7% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 2 6 8 4Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4Actuated Green, G (s) 45.1 45.1 8.1 8.1Effective Green, g (s) 47.1 47.1 10.1 10.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.15 0.15Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1121 1155 223 217v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.22 c0.06 0.04v/c Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.41 0.27Uniform Delay, d1 2.9 3.2 24.8 24.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.7Delay (s) 3.2 3.9 26.0 24.9Level of Service A A C CApproach Delay (s) 3.2 3.9 26.0 24.9Approach LOS A A C C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 9.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

162090


Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 21 25 13 50 13 37Future Volume (Veh/h) 21 25 13 50 13 37Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 27 14 54 14 40Pedestrians 29Lane Width (m) 3.6Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2Percent Blockage 2Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 79 148 66vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 79 148 66tC, single (s) 4.2 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 99 98 96cM capacity (veh/h) 1446 821 980

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2Volume Total 50 68 14 40Volume Left 0 14 14 0Volume Right 27 0 0 40cSH 1700 1446 821 980Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.0Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 9.5 8.8Lane LOS A A AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 9.0Approach LOS A


162090


Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 58 63 0 0 0Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 58 63 0 0 0Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 63 68 0 0 0PedestriansLane Width (m)Walking Speed (m/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 68 131 68vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 68 131 68tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 100 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 1533 863 995

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1Volume Total 63 68 0Volume Left 0 0 0Volume Right 0 0 0cSH 1533 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.00Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Approach LOS A


162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 41 105 446 454 50 826Volume Left 10 21 26 0 50 0Volume Right 28 72 0 33 0 42cSH 133 113 792 1700 723 1700Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.93 0.03 0.27 0.07 0.49Queue Length 95th (m) 9.7 46.5 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.0Control Delay (s) 43.9 138.2 1.0 0.0 10.3 0.0Lane LOS E F A BApproach Delay (s) 43.9 138.2 0.5 0.6Approach LOS E F

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 9.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15

162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 7 73 57 72Volume Left 3 23 0 24Volume Right 0 40 12 5cSH 669 788 1533 1547Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.02Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.4Control Delay (s) 10.4 10.0 0.0 2.5Lane LOS B B AApproach Delay (s) 10.4 10.0 0.0 2.5Approach LOS B B


162090


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2 5 76 65 4Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 2 5 76 65 4Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2 5 83 71 4Pedestrians 11 10 38Lane Width (m) 3.6 3.6 3.6Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 1.2 1.2Percent Blockage 1 1 3Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 89pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 215 94 86vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 215 94 86tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 100 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 744 952 1509



162090




162090




162090





162090







Appendix D

Background Traffic Operational Conditions

162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 73 57 361 373 59 852Volume Left 7 14 37 0 59 0Volume Right 54 42 0 49 0 40cSH 168 110 762 1700 875 1700Volume to Capacity 0.43 0.52 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.50Queue Length 95th (m) 15.8 18.9 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.0Control Delay (s) 41.8 68.3 1.6 0.0 9.4 0.0Lane LOS E F A AApproach Delay (s) 41.8 68.3 0.8 0.6Approach LOS E F

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15

162090





162090





162090




162090




162090





162090





162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 48 121 513 520 58 949Volume Left 11 24 30 0 58 0Volume Right 34 83 0 37 0 49cSH 88 70 712 1700 646 1700Volume to Capacity 0.54 1.73 0.04 0.31 0.09 0.56Queue Length 95th (m) 19.4 85.1 1.1 0.0 2.4 0.0Control Delay (s) 86.7 478.8 1.2 0.0 11.1 0.0Lane LOS F F A BApproach Delay (s) 86.7 478.8 0.6 0.6Approach LOS F F


162090





162090





162090




162090



Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2Volume Total 47 93 1 8Volume Left 0 10 1 0Volume Right 7 0 0 8cSH 1700 1364 704 863Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.1 9.2Lane LOS A B AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3Approach LOS A


162090







Appendix E

Total Traffic Operational Conditions

162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 79 57 362 373 59 853Volume Left 9 14 38 0 59 0Volume Right 58 42 0 49 0 41cSH 167 108 762 1700 875 1700Volume to Capacity 0.47 0.53 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.50Queue Length 95th (m) 17.9 19.5 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.0Control Delay (s) 44.6 71.2 1.6 0.0 9.4 0.0Lane LOS E F A AApproach Delay (s) 44.6 71.2 0.8 0.6Approach LOS E F


162090





162090





162090




162090




162090





162090





162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 50 121 517 520 58 952Volume Left 12 24 34 0 58 0Volume Right 35 83 0 37 0 52cSH 84 68 710 1700 646 1700Volume to Capacity 0.59 1.77 0.05 0.31 0.09 0.56Queue Length 95th (m) 21.5 86.2 1.2 0.0 2.4 0.0Control Delay (s) 96.6 498.1 1.3 0.0 11.1 0.0Lane LOS F F A BApproach Delay (s) 96.6 498.1 0.7 0.6Approach LOS F F


162090





162090





162090




162090



Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2Volume Total 50 95 1 8Volume Left 0 10 1 0Volume Right 7 0 0 8cSH 1700 1361 699 860Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.2 9.2Lane LOS A B AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.3Approach LOS A


162090



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1Volume Total 51 99 4Volume Left 3 0 2Volume Right 0 7 2cSH 1507 1700 902Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.06 0.00Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.1Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 9.0Lane LOS A AApproach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 9.0Approach LOS A




Appendix F

OTM Book 5 All-Way Stop Warrants

Hour Ending 8:00 9:00 10:00 13:00 14:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 TOTAL AVERAGE

Approaching: All Legs 95 255 137 176 144 198 231 235 1471 184Avg Vol all legs >500/h NO

Approaching: Minor 18 97 52 66 54 82 95 95 559 70Peds X-ing Major St. 13 121 67 86 71 125 17 36 0 0Minor Ped/Veh X-ing 31 218 119 152 125 207 112 131 1095 137Avg Veh Xing Maj>200/h NO

Approaching: Major 77 158 85 110 90 116 136 140 912 114%Tot Appr on Major 81% 62% 62% 63% 63% 59% 59% 60% 63%% Split on Maj<70? YES

Local Road Warrant Analysis - 3-LEG INTERSECTION

Approaching: All Legs 95 255 137 176 144 198 231 235 1471Tot Vol all Legs>350 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

% SPLIT ON MAJ<75 81% 62% 62% 63% 63% 59% 59% 60% 63%for a 3 LEG NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Collision Experience

Warrant Value Average Number of Accidents 1st year - 0 0% Fulfilled4.0 In the past 3 years 2nd year - 0

3rd year - 0Average 0.00

An ALL-WAY STOP condition WOULD NOT BE recommended for this location under the Collision History.

NOT WARRANTED

c) a volume split that does not exceed 70/30. Volume on the major street is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor street includes all vehicles plus any

All-way Stop Warrant

Dublin Street North & Cork Street West

Forecast Total Traffic Volumes

Arterial/Major Collector Warrant Analysis

An ALL WAY STOP condition WOULD NOT BE recommended for this location under the Arterial/Major Collector Warrants.

An ALL WAY STOP condition WOULD NOT BE recommended for this location under the Local Road Warrants for three-way control.

Collisions within a 12 month period averaged over 36 consecutive months that are susceptible to correction by an All Way Stop

AN ALL WAY STOP IS

An All Way Stop is Warranted Based on Traffic Volume if:

a) The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches averages 500 vehicles per hour for eight hours of the day and,

b) a combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor street averaging 200 units per hour (all vehicles plus pedestrians wishing to enter the intersection)

75 Dublin Street North Transportation Impact Study Update · Dublin Street North in the City of...

Documents

Transcript of 75 Dublin Street North Transportation Impact Study Update · Dublin Street North in the City of...