Perth East Comments on Provincial HWY 7 Corridor October 2012 Approved

7/30/2019 Perth East Comments on Provincial HWY 7 Corridor October 2012 Approved

1/5

Integrity Teamwork Service Continuous Improvement Fiscally Responsible

Page 1 of5

Township of Perth East

Glenn Schwendinger, Chief Administrative OfficerP.O. Box 455, 25 Mill Street East Phone- (519) 595-2800

Milverton, Ontario N0K 1M0 Fax- (519) 595-2801

Email: [email protected]

November 16, 2012

Ms. Brenda Jamison, P. Eng.Consultant Project ManagerAECOM300 Water StreetWhitby, ON L1N 9J2

Charles Organ C.E.T.MTO South Western RegionProject ManagerPlanning and Design Section659 Exeter RoadLondon ON N6E 1L3

VIA EMAIL

Re: Provincial Highway 7 & 8 Transportation and Corridor Planning and Class EA Study Perth East response to PIC #5 August 2012

_____________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this letter is to relay the Township of Perth Easts comments and concerns withthe Alternative(s) presented at the recent PIC. Council has considered these points closely andhas collectively discussed them at length. Perth East Council feels that it is important to clearlycommunicate its position to the MTO on this issue which significantly impacts Perth East and itsrate payers.

SAFETY

In a number of submissions made to the MTO with respect to the many alternatives and optionsconsidered to this point, the Township of Perth East (Township) is concerned with safety andresponse times for the services we provide and contribute to. To be clear, this pertains to safetyand response times for all locations on the new Provincial Highway 7/8 as well as all portions ofPerth East near the transportation corridor through and/or across which our first responders andlocal Emergency Services must free travel unhindered. As the MTO is aware, the municipality ismandated to achieve targets in response times for its first responders. The Township has not,cannot, and will not, support any undertakings with respect to the Provincial Highway 7/8which will negatively impact (i.e. increase) local response times.


2/5


3/5


Page 3 of5

LAYOUT

a. Segment D the benefit of the option with gentler curves and utilizing the existing Road110 is that it minimizes the amount of active farmland and woodlot consumed. This is apriority for the Township and local property owners.

b. Segment D the proximity of some residences in this location , primarily on the southside of the highway are already quite close. Expansion of the highway will bring thehighway even closer. The Township would like information and the property ownersdeserve additional information with respect to at what point will properties be acquiredby the MTO to make room for the Highway and eliminate safety and other related issues.

c. Segment E the utilization of existing infrastructure and the existing right of way ispositive in terms of minimizing the amount of new land being taken out of agriculturalproduction and it minimizes land acquisition costs. As outlined in previous submissionby the Township, the local property owners expected and have planned their propertyand operations in anticipation of the highway eventually expanding in this location.

d. Segment E the information presented at the July PIC showed a potential routeimmediately north of and adjacent to the existing corridor without fully utilizing theexisting corridor. The reasons for this are unclear, and do not seem logical. This sectioncould be further optimized to minimize the need for additional lands by centering thenew highway in the existing corridor or at least moving it slightly south from what is

currently shown.

e. Segment E at the onset of this project, the MTO indicated that a primary factor for theundertaking was safety of the users of the highway. As outlined above, the Township hassignificant concerns with the removal of direct access for the existing first responders(Perth East Fire Department) to the sections of highway east and west of Shakespeare.The removal of direct access is not acceptable and will negatively affect the Townshipsresponse times to key areas. This concern could easily be accommodated by providing onand off ramps (simple ramps and underpasses) for both east and westbound traffic atboth the east and west ends of the community. These suggested improvements will alsoimprove access to local businesses which is another significant concern.

f. Alternatives The Township has concern and questions why a decision wasn't made bythe MTO concerning the north vs. south route. Adding in all these other variables makesthis process rather convoluted to say the least. Access to and from Shakespeare needs tobe much better than what the current alternative(s) provide. The Township understandsthe County and City of Stratford will be clarifying their positions as well with regards topoints of access.

g. Configuration To this point in the Study, it has been stated by AECOM and the MTOthat the geometrics didn't allow for coming closer to Shakespeare due to the widesweeping curves resulting from the radius mandated by the MTO. Now we haveroundabouts on a provincial highway as well as similar curves at Rd 110 if not Rd 106southerly. The Township would like to receive an explanation as to why sharper radii are

now considered appropriate and under consideration. In light of this apparent change inposition from the MTO, regardless of whether a north or south bypass is selected by theMTO, it is the Townships position that the bypass should leave (and return to whereapplicable) the existing corridor as close to Shakespeare as possible


4/5


Page 4 of5

Design Elements

Many design elements of do not meet some criteria, as listed in Public Transportation andHighway Improvement Act for Rural Arterial Highways. These criteria are used to designroute selection throughout the study, including the latest PIC #5. See bold areas below forparticular concerns

h. Local/inter regional traffic needs Cul de sacs proposed for Segment E village area do not meet /improve needs for

residents or emergency vehicles

East / West access to Village of Shakespeare on North bypass alternative does notimprove local traffic including farm, emergency, commuter , residents andvisitors to Village of Shakespeare

i. Long distance traffic needs East/ West traffic (tourist and commercial) negatively affected by

Northern bypass alternative re; access/exit to/from Shakespeare

j. Efficient operations / uninterrupted traffic flow / Consistent arrangement ofgeometric design features that reinforce drivers confidence and expectancy

roundabouts and stoplight intersections do not meet this criteria More consideration should have been made for completely controlled access route

design sections D, E and F

Gentle curves or straight line preferred as stated in earlier discussions /PICsthroughout study

k. Segments D, E and F do not resemble highway design from Kitchener to West edge ofSegment H

l. public safety North Bypass option will increase traffic flow Southbound on Rd 107 resulting in

pedestrian safety hazard and additional traffic using municipal and county roadsystem

m. Number of access points..minimized and or controlled Possible additional access points ( increased 50?) from rd 107 westerly segment E,

use of existing route, already too many on rd 107 easterly segment E with current

route proposal

OTHER ISSUES

a.

To this point, it is the Townships view that not enough information has been providedwith respect to what the MTOs intention or approach will be to protect the Fryfogal Inn.In the Townships view, receiving those details at some point in the future is notacceptable. That information is required now in order to make an informed decision.Additional detail and assurances in this area are required to ensure that building will befully protected from construction and long term vibration damage


5/5


Page 5 of5

b. Detailed design missing sound barrier options for Village of Shakespeare area North andSouth options. Additional information and details are required with respect to who willco ordinate with CNR? Who will pay for noise mitigation? It is the Townships positionthat MTO will be responsible for the full cost of all necessary sound barriers.

c. While the Township cannot speak for the County nor the City of Stratford, it would seemlogical that the use of existing highway corridor, segment E West of Road 107 becomesmore viable if road access continues into City of Stratford along the existing corridor aswell. While it is understood that Stratford may desire direct truck access to the southindustrial area, this access might be better placed within the City of Stratford itself or at

least in lands that are scheduled to become within the limits of the City (i.e. Road 111).Some view this current alternative as gaining access to your property through yourneighbors property and thereby eliminating or at the very least restricting the neighborsaccess to their own property, not to mention the neighbors loss of property.

SUMMARY

As outlined in the Townships previous submissions, the preservation of farmland andminimization of impacts on existing operations is paramount.

As outlined above the assurance of safety for users of the highway, as well as safety of residentsin the area cannot be negatively impacted by this highway. As stated above, the Township has,not, cannot and will not support any undertaking that negatively impacts safety nor theTownships ability to respond to emergencies in the municipality.

The Township supports the Environmental Assessment process and it supports the objective andpremise of a future roadway that is safe and efficient. The Township does however feel that thisobjective must be achieved in a logical fashion and in making good decisions. It is not effectiveefficient or appropriate to have three high volume roads or even duplicate roads travellingparallel to each other within 2km.

The Township feels very strongly that there is a need to sustain and expand the economicimportance of Shakespeare and thus bringing the highway to the edges with decent access to and

from the provincial highway. Prospective customers and clients for the local businesses areunlikely or at the very east less likely to access a community that they cannot see from thehighway.

As the MTO is aware, the Township has submitted numerous pieces of correspondence over thelast several years providing comments and outlining various concerns. The Township would liketo take this opportunity to re-iterate those concerns at this time including extremely importantissues such as farm drainage, property access, safe movement of farming equipment, easy accessnorth and south across the corridor, pedestrian safety, among others.

Perth East Comments on Provincial HWY 7 Corridor October 2012 Approved

Documents

Transcript of Perth East Comments on Provincial HWY 7 Corridor October 2012 Approved