130 Thompson Road - Milton · Thompson Road at Drew Centre municipally known as 130 Thompson Road South in the Town of ... William Maria, P. Eng. Adam Mildenberger, B.A., C.Tech

GHD | 6705 Millcreek Drive Unit 1 Mississauga Ontario M5N 5M4 Canada | 11116807 | 800 | Report No 5 | December 17, 2018

130 Thompson Road

Traffic Impact Study

Hodero Holdings Ltd.

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page i

Executive Summary

GHD was retained by Hodero Holdings Ltd. to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed

mixed-use (residential and commercial) development located on the southwest corner of

Thompson Road at Drew Centre municipally known as 130 Thompson Road South in the Town of

Milton.

This report establishes the existing road network and the subsequent traffic-related impacts on the

adjacent future road network during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. These impacts

are based on projected future background traffic derived for 5 years post build-out in 2025.

Proposed Site Characteristics

The proposed site consists of three buildings with a total of 802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of

commercial retail ground floor area (GFA). Access to Drew Centre is provided via a single full moves

access. There is a total provision of 1,028 on-site surface and underground parking spaces.

New Site Traffic

Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 189 new two-way vehicle

trips during the AM peak hour consisting of 50 inbound and 139 outbound trips. During the PM peak

hour it is expected to generate 272 new two-way vehicle trips consisting of 168 inbound and

104 outbound trips. Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 248

new two-way vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour consisting of 127 inbound and

121 outbound trips.

The distribution of site traffic for each horizon year was based on a review of Transportation

Tomorrow Survey (TTS) 2011 data and existing traffic patterns in the area.

Future Traffic Operations

The overall impact of developing the proposed 130 Thompson Road South site is minor, and will not

adversely impact the operation of intersections along Thompson Road, Main Street, and Drew

Centre. With the signal optimization of the 2025 future condition, identified operational concerns at

the Thompson Road intersections at Drew Centre and at Main Street can largely be mitigated.

GHD has also found the proposed configuration and location of the site access to be acceptable,

with no expected operational or safety concerns for Drew Centre.

An inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is recommended with a storage length of 15 metres.

Parking Appraisal and TDM Measures

The proposed site plan is expected to accommodate pedestrian activity satisfactorily, and the

proposed TDM measures are considered sufficient in meeting the Town’s TDM objectives. The

proposed TDM measures are as follows:

Sidewalk Connectivity

Unbundled Parking

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page ii

Bicycle Parking

Subsidized Transit Passes

Car Share Vehicle

Information Distribution and Community Board

In consideration of the policies within the Town of Milton Official Plan, the growing trend within the

GTA to reduce auto dependency, the site’s proximity to a multitude of transit options, the results of

the undertaken proxy surveys, and the proposed TDM measures, it is our opinion that a site-specific

parking by-law variance for the subject site is appropriate.

We therefore recommend that parking be provided at the following minimum rates:

Resident parking provided at 1.03 space per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.

Residential visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per unit: 201 parking spaces required.

Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA: 25 parking spaces required. These

spaces to be shared with residential visitor parking.

This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 1028 parking spaces.

It is our opinion that the proposed site-specific parking by-law variance to reduce the required

resident parking rate for the subject site is appropriate, in light of the Parking Justification Study and

proposed TDM measures included in this report.

Respectfully submitted,

GHD

William Maria, P. Eng. Adam Mildenberger, B.A., C.Tech.

Transportation Engineer Transportation Planner

Dec 17, 2018

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page i

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Retainer and Objective ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Previous Submissions ........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Study Team ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Study Background .............................................................................................................. 2

2. Site Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Environs ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 3

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

3.1 Existing Road Network ....................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Pedestrian Routes ............................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Cycling Routes ................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Transit Services ................................................................................................................. 5

3.5 Existing Traffic Data ........................................................................................................... 6

4. Future Background Traffic ............................................................................................................ 8

4.1 Study Horizon Year ............................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Study Area Transportation Network Improvements ........................................................... 8

4.3 Future Background Developments .................................................................................... 8

4.4 Future Background Growth ................................................................................................ 8

4.5 Background Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 9

5. Site Generated Traffic ................................................................................................................ 11

5.1 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Site Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................. 13

6. Future Total Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 17

7. Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 19

7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................... 19

7.2 Thompson Road South at Drew Centre ........................................................................... 20

7.3 Thompson Road at Main Street ....................................................................................... 21

7.4 Main Street at Drew Centre ............................................................................................. 22

7.5 Drew Centre at Southern GO Station Access.................................................................. 23

7.6 Drew Centre at West Site Access .................................................................................... 24

7.7 Drew Centre at East Site Access ..................................................................................... 25

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page ii

7.8 Drew Centre at Northern GO Station Access .................................................................. 26

7.9 Thompson Road at Derry Road ....................................................................................... 26

7.10 Remaining Commercial Accesses ................................................................................... 28

8. Traffic Warrants .......................................................................................................................... 30

8.1 Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access ............................................................ 30

9. Parking Appraisal ....................................................................................................................... 31

9.1 Unit Breakdown ................................................................................................................ 31

9.2 Proposed Site Parking Rates ........................................................................................... 31

9.3 Existing Town of Milton By-Law ....................................................................................... 32

9.4 Transit service .................................................................................................................. 32

9.5 Proxy Surveys .................................................................................................................. 32

9.6 Parking Generation Manual ............................................................................................. 33

9.7 Other Municipal By-Laws ................................................................................................. 34

9.8 Travel Demand Management (TDM) ............................................................................... 34

9.8.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 34 9.8.2 Travel Demand Management ......................................................................... 34 9.8.3 TDM Opportunities Identification .................................................................... 35 9.8.4 Proposed TDM Measures ............................................................................... 38

9.9 Implementation and Monitoring Costs ............................................................................. 39

9.10 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 39

10. Functional Design ....................................................................................................................... 40

11. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 40

Figure Index

Figure 1 Site Location ...................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 Planned Cycling Facilities .................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4 2018 Existing Volumes ...................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5 2025 Corridor Growth ........................................................................................................ 9

Figure 6 2025 Future Background Volumes .................................................................................. 10

Figure 7 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8 Site Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................... 15

Figure 9 Site Trips .......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 10 Existing Subject Property Site Trips ................................................................................ 18

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page iii

Figure 11 2025 Future Total Traffic ................................................................................................. 19

Figure 12 Analyzed Commercial Accesses ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 13 Travel Demand Management Plan .................................................................................. 37

Table Index

Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 12

Table 2 Saturday Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 13

Table 3 Site Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................ 13

Table 4 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road South & Drew Centre ........................................ 21

Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street .................................................... 22

Table 6 Capacity Analysis for Drew Centre/Commercial Access & Main Street .......................... 24

Table 7 Capacity Analysis Drew Centre & GO Entrance/Commercial Access 3 ......................... 25

Table 8 Capacity Analysis of West Site Access/Commercial Access 1 & Drew Centre .............. 26

Table 9 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & East Site Access ................................................... 27

Table 10 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & Northern GO Centre Access ................................. 27

Table 11 Capacity Analysis at Thompson Road & Derry Road ..................................................... 28

Table 12 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 2 ........................................... 30

Table 13 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 4 ........................................... 30

Table 14 Capacity Analysis of Commercial Access 5 at Main Street ............................................. 30

Table 15 Capacity Analysis of Thompson Road at Commercial Access 6 .................................... 31

Table 16 Warrant Results ............................................................................................................... 31

Appendix Index

Appendix A Comments

Appendix B Traffic Data

Appendix C Background Developments

Appendix D Proxy Site Trip Generation

Appendix E TTS Data

Appendix F Transit Schedule

Appendix G Signal Timings Plan

Appendix H Synchro Reports

Appendix I Warrants

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page iv

Appendix J Parking Data

Appendix K TDM Checklist

Appendix L Functional Design

GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Retainer and Objective

GHD was retained to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Parking Assessment for the proposed

mixed-use development located at 130 Thompson Road South to determine the following:

Establish baseline traffic conditions for the study area and update the existing traffic conditions

to derive the future background operating conditions for the study intersections at a future 2025

(5 year post build-out) planning horizon.

Based on the residential and commercial composition of the site, apply the estimated traffic

generation and distribution of the development to the adjacent road network, and determine the

future impacts in the context of all local transportation modes.

Review the site plan in the context of operational/geometric issues, and provide

recommendations on how to address any deficiencies (if any are revealed).

Suggest TDM measures to support active transportation and transit use to reduce the number of

auto trips to/from the proposed development.

Evaluate the proposed parking supply in the context of the Town’s minimum parking requirement

for the site and evaluate the rationale for a proposed site-specific parking standard, if required.

1.2 Previous Submissions

Previous submissions of this TIS based on received comments from the Town and other peer review

agencies is described herein:

GHD submitted an initial TIS report dated December 2016, and had received comments from the

Town of Milton dated April 2017, and a peer review report from WSP dated July 2017.

In response, GHD submitted a second TIS report dated September 2017, and had received

comments from the Town dated November 2017, and peer review reports from WSP dated

November 2017 and LEA Consulting dated October 2017.

GHD submitted a third submission dated May 2018, and had received comments from the Town

dated July 2018, and a peer review letter from LEA Consulting dated July 2018.

GHD submitted a Third Submission Comment Response Matrix, dated August 2018, in response

to the received Town comments, and Response to Comments Letter, dated September 2018, in

response to the received peer review letter from LEA Consulting.

GHD submitted a fourth submission dated September 2018, and had received comments from

the Town (in an email) dated November 28, 2018, requesting the TIS report be updated using

LEA’s residential proxy trip generation data found in the peer review letter from LEA Consulting

dated July 2018.

This fifth TIS submission represents the latest revision in response to all comments received.

The received comments, as well as response documents prepared by GHD, are provided in

Appendix A.


1.3 Study Team

The GHD team involved in the preparation of the study are:

William Maria, P. Eng., Transportation Engineer

Adam Mildenberger, C.Tech., B.A., Transportation Planner

1.4 Study Background

The proposed development consists of three residential condominium towers with a total of

802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of commercial retail ground floor area (GFA). The development

proposal would replace an existing trucking company on the site. Access to the development is

proposed from Drew Centre west of Thompson Road.

GHD has consulted with Town of Milton staff to discuss the assumptions and scope of this study.

We have also referenced the Town’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines to determine the most

reasonable terms of reference for the study.

The site is located in the southwest corner of the Thompson Road South and Drew Centre

intersection in the Town of Milton, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Site Location


2. Site Characteristics

2.1 Site Environs

The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the Thompson Road and Drew Centre

intersection in the Town of Milton, and is situated within close proximity to a variety of land uses

readily accessible to pedestrians, including but not limited to:

Milton GO Station approximately 200 m to the west via Drew Centre.

Milton Common commercial centre on the immediate north side of Drew Centre, which includes

a variety of commercial, retail, and restaurant establishments.

The Real Canadian Superstore, also on the immediate north side of Drew Centre.

Milton Public Library, Milton Memorial Arena and Lions Sports Park on the east side of

Thompson Road South.

A variety of commercial plazas on the north side of Main Street.

The subject site’s location provides access to the arterial roadway network and exposes future

residents to frequent transit service.

2.2 Study Area

Based on input from the Town, the study area includes the following intersections:

Thompson Road at Drew Centre.

Thompson Road at Main Street.

Thompson Road at Derry Road.

Main Street at Drew Centre opposite the commercial plaza access.

Drew Centre at the GO Station access opposite the existing commercial access.

Drew Centre at the proposed site access opposite the existing commercial access.

The remaining five accesses for the commercial property opposite the subject site.

3. Existing Conditions

3.1 Existing Road Network

Thompson Road is a north-south arterial road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton. The road

has an existing four-lane urban cross section with a posted speed limit of 60 kph. Thompson Road is

signalized at Drew Centre and Main Street with auxiliary left-turn lanes only.

Main Street is an east-west arterial road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton. The road has

an existing four-lane urban cross section with a posted speed limit of 60 kph. Main Street is

signalized at Thompson Road and Drew Centre with auxiliary left-turn lanes and an auxiliary

right-turn lane for the west approach at Drew Centre.


Drew Centre is a collector road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton with a north-south

orientation immediately south of Main Street and an east-west orientation immediately west of

Thompson Road. The road generally has an existing four-lane urban cross section in its north-south

orientation with a variety of auxiliary, shared, and GO Bus only turning lanes at its access

intersections, and generally has an existing two-lane urban cross-section in its east-west orientation

with auxiliary left-turn lanes at Thompson Road and the Real Canadian Superstore access. It has a

posted speed limit of 50 kph and is signalized at Main Street, the GO Bus access, and Thompson

Road.

3.2 Pedestrian Routes

All municipal roads within the study area include sidewalks and/or multi-use paths on both sides of

the road. Multi-use paths are provided at the following locations:

The east side of Thompson Road from Drew Centre to north of Main Street.

The west side of Thompson Road north of Main Street.

The north side of Main Street east of Thompson Road.

The south side of Main Street from east of Thompson Road to Drew Centre.

The east side of Drew Centre from Main Street to the GO Bus Access.

The west side of Drew Centre, which transitions to the south side of Drew Centre, from the

GO Bus Access to Thompson Road.

The north side of Drew Centre east of Thompson Road.

Sidewalks are provided in the remaining gaps in the multi-use path network within the study area

road network.

Designated pedestrian crosswalks across the study area roads to the Trinity Commons Centre are

provided at signalized intersections only.

3.3 Cycling Routes

Multi-use pathways are provided in close proximity to the subject site. Section 3.2 outlines the

locations of existing multi-use paths.

As per the Town’s Transportation Master Plan, approved April 9, 2018, the following cycling facilities

within the immediate study area are proposed:

Multi-use trail parallel to the rail corridor south of the site (long-term 2031 and beyond).

On-road bike lanes along Main Street (long-term 2031 and beyond).

These planned cycling facilities found within the Transportation Master Plan are illustrated in

Figure 2.


Figure 2 Planned Cycling Facilities

3.4 Transit Services

Milton Transit

All of Milton’s ten transit routes (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the new Glen Eden Slopes Express)

operate within close proximity to the site with bus stops for each route provided on Drew Centre. The

bus stops are located on street frontage for eastbound routes, and across the street of the proposed

site for westbound routes.

GO Transit

In addition to providing connections to all of Milton’s transit routes, the Milton GO Station also

provides GO Rail and GO Bus services. GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consists of the

Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar,

Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale, Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services includes

Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well

as numerous stops in the north Toronto area.


Figure 3 illustrates existing transit services provided in the study area.

Figure 3 Existing Transit Services

3.5 Existing Traffic Data

GHD collected turning movement counts in late November and early December 2016, and

subsequently in December 2017 for additional intersections added to the study area, during the

weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours.

Additionally, Halton Region provided weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic data for the intersection

of Derry Road at Thompson Road, dated April 2017, which has been included in the study at the

request of the Region. While a Saturday peak hour analysis period was undertaken at the request of

the Town for study area intersections adjacent to the site due to the proximity to the adjacent Milton

Common commercial centre, analysis of the Saturday peak hour was not completed for the

intersection of Derry Road at Thompson Road due to its location in a primarily residential area

approximately 1.5 km from Milton Common commercial centre.

The raw turning movement counts are included in Appendix B.

As requested by the Town, counts collected in 2017 were adopted for the study’s 2018 existing

conditions, and any remaining counts collected in 2016 had through movements grown by 2 percent

annually.

Figure 4 presents the adopted 2018 existing traffic volumes during each of the peak hours.


Figure 4 2018 Existing Volumes

{7}

{0}

{8}

{176}

{704}

{53}

(0)

(0)

(0)

1 (0) {8}

(150)

(727)

(59)

57 (41) {45}

0 0 0 433 (613) {566} 96

338

113

320 (387) {360}

39 (141) {127} 530 (705) {707}

243 (336) {297}

{7} (0) 0

{655} (737) 600 {322} (310) 138

{679} (758) 572 100

0 31 {114} (93) 66 106

{437} (500) 480 124

524

300

{273} (229) 124

(425)

(3)

(117)

(234)

{137} (171) 71

(191)

(551)

(169)

{298}

{2}

{61}

{238}

{168}

{707}

{221}

{365}

(356)

173

39 (204) {292}

77

16

(177)

(26)

{165}

{5}

{2}

{363}

{277}

{860}

(7)

(349)

(243)

(992)

43

130

84

567

{4} (150) 35 {232} (199) 78

{5} (223) 34 227

58

1174

(29)

(53)

(943)

{11}

{166}

{1136}

{9}

{56}

{318}

(13)

(323)

(313)

49 (147) {107}

17

73

41

0 (0) {0}

3 (13) {8}

9

295

9

(20)

(67)

(4)

{5}

{46}

{2}

{12}

{75}

{19}

{0}

{202}

{14}

{1046}

{22}

(11)

(99)

(14)

(0)

(140)

130 (259) {340}

(16)

(1147)

(13)

0 (5) {13}

5 83

115 (87) {65} 6 0 20

446 (242) {134} 494 (385) {421} 8

564

4 27 (23) {21}

250 (67) {42}

3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {2}

149 (72) {85}

{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7

{294} (474) 212 {26} (25) 31

{63} (263) 99 {98} (362) 172 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {8} (6) 13 343

1177

109

{0} (0) 1 (0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(13)

{252} (436) 176

(351)

(914)

(39)

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{7}

{377}

{1047}

{67}

(286)

(637)

(203)

171 (241)

224

365

149

428 (829)

82 (237)

(259) 287

(511) 1005 112

505

152

(150) 120

(159)

(469)

(76)

Thompson

Road

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site Property

De

rry

Ro

ad

PlazaThompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}

AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes


4. Future Background Traffic

4.1 Study Horizon Year

In addition to analyzing 2018 existing conditions, the analyses adopted a planning horizon of 2025

for five years post build-out as requested by the Town.

4.2 Study Area Transportation Network Improvements

There are no network road improvements planned within the study area that will have an effect on

area traffic within the 2025 horizon year.

4.3 Future Background Developments

Through discussions with the Town, the following background developments were included in the

future conditions analysis, with supporting trip data provided in Appendix C:

The proposed 12-storey condominium development consisting of 224 residential units and

approximately 1,835 m2 of commercial GFA at 1050 Main Street East. Trip generation

calculations and associated turning moving diagrams (TMDs) are appended.

The proposed 128 unit residential condominium development located at 15 Harris Boulevard, as

per the TIS report completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions dated October 2016.

The proposed 116 unit residential condominium development located at 716 Main Street East,

as per the TIS report completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions dated August 2013.

The future GO Station Parking Structure at the Milton GO Station as per traffic data and a

supporting concept plan received from WSP in April 2018. In reviewing the appended Milton GO

TMDs, it is important to note that the future Milton GO site trips are calculated as follows:

Figure 3.4 + Figure 3.5 + Figure 4.2 – Figure 4.4 + Figure 5.2. Additionally, with respect to

WSP’s appended Figure 4.2 for existing GO site trips, GO site trips accounted for in the GHD

undertaken intersection counts on Drew Centre were assumed instead, with WSP estimates for

the GO site’s north access on Main Street adopted.

4.4 Future Background Growth

As requested by Town staff, a 2 percent per annum growth rate was applied to all through

movements of the 2018 existing traffic volumes in forecasting for corridor growth to 2025 horizon

year. The 2025 future background corridor is presented in Figure 5.


Figure 5 2025 Corridor Growth

4.5 Background Traffic Volumes

The forecasted 2025 corridor growth was combined with the future background development traffic

volumes to produce the 2025 background AM, PM and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, which

are presented in Figure 6.

{7}

{0}

{8}

{176}

{809}

{53}

(0)

(0)

(0)

1 (0) {8}

(150)

(835)

(59)

57 (41) {45}

0 0 0 497 (704) {650} 96

388

113

368 (445) {414}

39 (141) {127} 609 (810) {812}

243 (336) {297}

{7} (0) 0

{752} (847) 689 {322} (310) 138

{780} (871) 657 100

0 31 {114} (93) 66 106

{502} (574) 551 124

602

300

{273} (229) 124

(425)

(3)

(117)

(234)

{137} (171) 71

(191)

(633)

(169)

{298}

{2}

{61}

{238}

{168}

{812}

{221}

{419}

(409)

199

39 (204) {292}

88

16

(203)

(26)

{190}

{5}

{2}

{417}

{277}

{988}

(7)

(401)

(243)

(1139)

43

149

84

651

{4} (150) 35 {232} (199) 78

{5} (223) 34 227

67

1349

(29)

(61)

(1083)

{11}

{191}

{1305}

{9}

{64}

{318}

(13)

(371)

(313)

49 (147) {107}

17

84

41

0 (0) {0}

3 (13) {8}

9

339

9

(20)

(77)

(4)

{5}

{53}

{2}

{12}

{75}

{19}

{0}

{202}

{14}

{1202}

{22}

(11)

(99)

(14)

(0)

(140)

130 (259) {340}

(16)

(1318)

(13)

0 (5) {13}

5 83

115 (87) {65} 6 0 20

512 (278) {154} 567 (442) {484} 8

648

4 31 (26) {24}

287 (77) {48}

3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {0}

149 (72) {85}

{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7

{338} (544) 244 {26} (25) 31

{72} (302) 114 {113} (416) 198 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {9} (7) 15 343

1352

109

{0} (0) 1 (0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(13)

{252} (436) 176

(351)

(1050)

(39)

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{7}

{377}

{1203}

{67}

(286)

(732)

(203)

171 (241)

224

419

149

492 (952)

82 (237)

(259) 287

(587) 1154 112

580

152

(150) 120

(159)

(539)

(76)

Thompson

Road

PlazaThompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site Property

Derr

y R

oad

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



Figure 6 2025 Future Background Volumes

{7}

{0}

{8}

{176}

{809}

{57}

(0)

(0)

(0)

1 (0) {8}

(155)

(831)

(67)

62 (43) {47}

0 0 0 529 (723) {664} 108

391

116

417 (461) {428}

69 (145) {127} 667 (834) {826}

269 (350) {310}

{7} (0) 0

{778} (933) 697 {322} (329) 161

{806} (884) 637 100

0 75 {114} (93) 66 106

{528} (644) 574 125

603

305

{273} (229) 113

(317)

(3)

(190)

(234)

{137} (168) 49

(194)

(735)

(225)

{298}

{2}

{61}

{238}

{168}

{812}

{233}

{419}

(414)

219

39 (204) {292}

132

16

(168)

(26)

{190}

{5}

{2}

{417}

{277}

{1001}

(0)

(413)

(243)

(1163)

35

177

84

658

{4} (91) 9 {232} (199) 78

{5} (84) 0 0

137

1356

(0)

(85)

(1244)

{11}

{191}

{1317}

{9}

{64}

{318}

(25)

(232)

(313)

49 (147) {107}

45

50

41

0 (0) {0}

3 (13) {8}

{0} (41) 82

{0} (0) 0 9

100

9

{0} (150) 10

(19)

(31)

(4)

{5}

{53}

{2}

{12}

{75}

{19}

{0}

{202}

{14}

{1215}

{22}

(11)

(99)

(14)

(0)

(140)

130 (259) {340}

(16)

(1342)

(13)

0 (5) {13}

5 83

115 (87) {65} 6 0 20

285 (248) {154} 340 (412) {484} 8

655

4 31 (26) {24}

60 (47) {48}

3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {0}

149 (72) {85}

{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7

{338} (539) 212 {26} (82) 34

{72} (297) 82 {113} (411) 166 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {9} (7) 15 116

1356

109

{0} (0) 1 (0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(13)

{252} (374) 141

(321)

(1154)

(39)

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{7}

{377}

{1215}

{67}

(341)

(858)

(243)

151 (243)

216

407

145

492 (952)

82 (237)

(263) 256

(587) 1154 112

530

152

(150) 120

(159)

(548)

(76)

Thompson

Road

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site Property

De

rry

Ro

ad

PlazaThompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



5. Site Generated Traffic

5.1 Site Plan

The proposed site plan prepared by KNYMH, dated April 18, 2017, consists of three residential

towers with a total of 802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of commercial retail ground floor area (GFA).

The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 7.

Access to Drew Centre is provided via a single full moves access located on the west side of the

property opposite an existing commercial access to the north. The site’s internal network will consist

of a three-storey parking structure with two levels of underground parking. The parking structure will

be connected to all three towers. The site driveway provides one garbage loading space, and

access to above ground, surface, and underground parking.

There is a total provision of 1028 on-site surface and underground parking spaces.

Figure 7 Site Plan


5.2 Site Trip Generation

As requested by Town staff, residential site traffic generated by the proposed development for the

weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours was estimated by applying calculated trip generation

rates based on residential trip generation data collected by LEA Consulting Ltd. at 70 Old Mill Road

located adjacent to the Oakville GO Station. The collected proxy data is appended to the Trip

Generation Peer Review letter by LEA Consulting Ltd., dated October 15, 2018, found in Appendix

A.

Furthermore, as requested by Town staff, commercial site traffic generated by the proposed

development was based on data collected by Paradigm Transportation Solutions at 5327 Upper

Middle Road in the City of Burlington, both of which have been approved by the Town. The trip

generation is provided in Appendix D.

Further trip reduction factors were not applied to the trip generation data, as per the following:

No modal split reduction was applied as the collected trip generation data already captures the

trip reducing impacts of being situated next to a GO station.

No pass-by or synergy reductions were applied to the commercial portion of the site as the GFA

at only 990 m2 is expected to result in a negligible volume of pass-by trips and internally

captured trips.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the estimated total trip generation for build-out of the development.

Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation

Land Use Units/GFA ft2 Parameters Peak Hour Trip Generation

Weekday AM Weekday PM

In Out Total In Out Total

Residential 802 Trip Rate 0.06 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.32

Trip Ratio 27% 73% - 63% 37% -

New Trips 49 137 184 161 67 257

Commercial 10,656 Trip Rate 0.095 0.155 0.250 0.620 0.620 1.240

Trip Ratio 38% 62% - 50% 50% -

New Trips 1 2 3 7 7 14

Total New Vehicle Trips 50 139 189 168 104 272

Totals in the table may not add up exactly due to rounding


trips during the AM peak hour consisting of 50 inbound and 139 outbound trips. During the PM peak

hour it is expected to generate 272 new two-way vehicle trips consisting of 168 inbound and

104 outbound trips.


Table 2 Saturday Trip Generation

Land Use Code Units/GFA ft2 Parameters Peak Hour Trip Generation

Saturday

In Out Total

Residential 802 Trip Rate 0.15 0.14 0.29

Trip Ratio 52% 48%

New Trips 121 113 233

Commercial 10,656 Trip Rate 0.521 0.719 1.240

Trip Ratio 42% 58%

New Trips 6 8 14

Total New Vehicle Trips 127 121 248

Totals in the table may not add up exactly due to rounding


trips during the Saturday peak hour consisting of 127 inbound and 121 outbound trips.

5.3 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment

The distribution of site traffic was derived after reviewing the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey

(TTS) summary data for the Town of Milton, provided in Appendix E. The estimated trip distribution

percentages are presented in Table 3, with the expected trip routes between Drew Centre and the

external limits of the study area described.

Prior to applying these trip distribution assumptions to the peak hour inbound and outbound site

trips, a total of 20 site trips during each peak hour were first distributed to the commercial property

opposite the subject site. Therefore, 10 inbound and 10 outbound trips were assigned to the

southbound and northbound movements, respectively, at the intersection of the site access on

Drew Centre opposite the commercial access. This approach is considered conservative as it is

expected the vast majority of site trips travelling between the subject site and the opposite

commercial property will be pedestrians, and assigning traffic volumes to these movements

particularly will have a comparatively greater impact on the intersection capacity analysis. The

remaining site trips during each peak hour were then assigned to the remaining turning movements

within the study area network based on the trip distribution assumptions described herein.

Table 3 Site Trip Distribution

To/From Road Distribution Inbound Route Outbound Route

South Thompson Road 50% Northbound left-turn from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.

Eastbound right-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road.

North Thompson Road 15% Southbound right-turn from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.

Eastbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road.

East Main Street 25% 50% westbound left-turn from Main Street onto Thompson Road, southbound right-turn

Eastbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road, northbound right-turn from


Table 3 Site Trip Distribution

To/From Road Distribution Inbound Route Outbound Route

from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.

Thompson Road onto Main Street.

50% westbound left-turn from Main Street onto Drew Centre.

West Main Street 10% Eastbound right-turn from Main Street onto Drew Centre.

Northbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Main Street.

Total 100%

The adopted site trip assignment is presented in Figure 8, with the resulting site trips presented in

Figure 9.


Figure 8 Site Trip Assignment

0%

0%

0%

0%

14%

0%

0%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

14%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12%

0% 10% 12% 12%

10% 12% 12% 10% 12% 12% 10% 12% 11%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 9%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

14%

23%

9% 10% 8% 9%

0%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13%

23%

9%

0%

0%

0%

0%

14%

23%

21%

21%

18%

0% 0% 0%

9%

0%

9%

0%

9%

0%

0%

21%

0%

25%

0%

21%

0%

26%

0%

18%

0%

22%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

9%

37%

0%

9%

37%

0%

9%

37%

0%

21%

0%

0%

21%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

18%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0%

9%

0%

0%

9%

0%

0%

9%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8%

0%

25%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

26%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

20%

0% 0% 0% 0% 62% 73% 72%

22%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

9% 9% 9% 62% 73% 72% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83% 82% 83% 37% 37% 37%

21% 21% 18% 0% 0% 0% 9%

7%

83%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

40%

0%

0%

21% 21% 18% 9%

10%

82%

46% 45% 47%

47%

0%

0%

9%

8%

83%

46%

0%

0%

11%

26%

8% 8% 32%

14%

23%

9% 0% 0%

0% 0%

47% 12%

0% 0% 0%

20%

0%

0% 0% 0%

79%

0%

Thompson

Road

Plaza Thompson Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial Centre

GO

Centre

GO

Centre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site Property

Derr

y R

oad

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



Figure 9 Site Trips

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{18}

{0}

(0)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0} (0)

(24)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 6 0 5 (20) {15}

5 (20) {15} 5 (20) {15}

5 (20) {14}

{0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 13 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 19

32

{12} (16) 4 (9)

(0)

(0)

(0)

{0} (0) 0 (0)

(14)

(24)

{11}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{17}

{28}

{27}

(36)

9

0 (0) {0}

13 0

(9)

(0)

{11}

{0}

{0}

{27}

{0}

{32}

(0)

(36)

(0)

(44)

0 9 0 11

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 0 13

51

(0)

(9)

(38)

{0}

{11}

{45}

{0}

{27}

{0}

(0)

(36)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 9 0 0 (0) {0}

0 (0) {0}

0 13 0

(0)

(9)

(0)

{0}

{11}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{10}

{0}

{32}

{0}

{0}

(0)

(0)

(0)

(10)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

(44)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 10 0 0 (0) {0} 31 (123) {91} 11 0 0 0 (0) {0}

13 (9) {11}

31 (123) {91} 0 (0) {0}

0 (0) {0}

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{101} (85) 116 {45} (38) 51

{27} (36) 9 {0} (0) 0 13

10

116

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 20 0 0

{27} (36) 9 (9)

(10)

(85)

{56} (47) 65

(79)

(0)

(0)

{11}

{10}

{101}

{59}

{0}

{0}

(12)

(27)

(8)

4 (16)

20

33

13

0 (0)

0 (0)

(24) 6

(0) 0 0 10 0

(0) 0 (0)

(40)

(0)

Thompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

Plaza

Thompson

Road

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site PropertyD

err

y R

oad

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



6. Future Total Traffic

The 2025 future total traffic was derived by combining the projected 2025 future background traffic

with the corresponding estimate of the total site generated traffic, minus any site trips currently being

generated by the existing subject property. The peak hour site trips generated by the existing subject

property are presented in Figure 10, and the adopted 2025 future total traffic volumes for the study

area are presented in Figure 11.


Figure 10 Existing Subject Property Site Trips

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{0}

(0)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0} (0)

(1)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 3 0 0 (0) {0}

0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0}

2 (1) {0}

{0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 4 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 14

13

{0} (0) 2 (0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

{0} (0) 0 (0)

(4)

(3)

{1}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{2}

{2}

{0}

(0)

2

0 (0) {0}

4 0

(0)

(0)

{1}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2)

0 2 0 5

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 0 0 4 27

(0)

(0)

(7)

{0}

{1}

{4}

{0}

{0}

{0}

(0)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 2 0 0 (0) {0}

0 (0) {0}

0 4 0

(0)

(0)

(0)

{0}

{1}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{0}

{0}

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0} (2)

(0)

(0)

0 (0) {0}

0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 0 0 3 (0) {1} 3 (0) {0} 5 0 0 0 (0) {0}

4 (0) {1}

3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {2}

0 (0) {0}

{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0

{0} (0) 17 {4} (7) 27

{0} (0) 2 {0} (0) 1 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {0} (0) 0 5 0 0

{0} (0) 1 (0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(13)

{4} (7) 27 (2)

(0)

(0)

{0}

{0}

{0}

{1}

{7}

{1}

{0}

{0}

(2)

(4)

(1)

1 (0)

8 14 5 0 (0)

0 (0)

(1) 2

(0) 0 0 3 0

(0) 0 (0)

(1)

(0)

Thompson

Road

PlazaThompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site Property

Derr

y R

oad

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



Figure 11 2025 Future Total Traffic

{7}

{0}

{8}

{176}

{826}

{57}

(0)

(0)

(0)

1 (0) {8}

(15

5)

(85

4)

(67

)

62 (43) {47}

0 0 0 529 (723) {664} 108

394

116

422 (481) {443}

74 (165) {142} 672 (854) {841}

272 (369) {324}

{7} (0) 0

{778} (933) 697 {322} (329) 161

{806} (884) 637 109

0 75 {114} (93) 66 1

06

{528} (644) 574 125

608

324

{285} (245) 115

(32

6)

(3)

(19

0)

(23

4)

{137} (168) 49

(19

4)

(74

5)

(24

6)

{308}

{2}

{61}

{238}

{168}

{827}

{259}

{446}

(45

0)

226

39 (204) {292}

141

16

(17

7)

(26

)

{200}

{5}

{2}

{444}

{277}

{1032}

(0)

(44

9)

(24

3)

(12

05

)

35

184

84

664

{4} (91) 9 {232} (199) 78

{5} (84) 0 0

146

1380

(0)

(94

)

(12

75

)

{11}

{201}

{1358}

{9}

{91}

{318}

(25

)

(26

8)

(31

3)

49 (147) {107}

45

57

41

0 (0) {0}

3 (13) {8}

{0} (41) 82

{0} (0) 0 9

109

9

{0} (150) 10

(19

)

(40

)

(4)

{5}

{63}

{2}

{12}

{75}

{19}

{10}

{202}

{45}

{1215}

{22}

(11

)

(99

)

(14

)

(10

)

(14

0)

130 (259) {340}

(58

)

(13

42

)

(13

)

0 (5) {13}

5 83

115 (87) {65} 6 10

20

282 (248) {153} 14

655

4 31 (26) {24}

69 (56) {58}

31 (123) {91}

149 (72) {85}

{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7

{67} (113) 58

{99} (333) 89 {113} (411) 165 13

10

116

{9} (7) 15 131

1356

109

{27} (36) 9 (9)

(10

)

(85

)

{304} (414) 179

(39

8)

(11

54

)

(39

)

{11}

{10}

{101}

{435}

{1215}

{67}

(35

1)

(88

1)

(25

0)

154 (259)

228

426

152

492 (952)

82 (237)

(286) 261

(587) 1154 112

538

152

(150) 120

(15

9)

(58

7)

(76

)

Thompson

Road

Main

Street

Main

Street

Commercial CentreGO

Centre

GO

Centre

Plaza

Thompson

Road

Dre

w C

en

tre

Dre

w C

en

tre

Drew Centre

Site PropertyD

err

y R

oad

LEGEND

XX(XX){XX}



7. Capacity Analysis

7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis

The capacity analysis identifies how well the intersections and driveways are operating. The analysis

contained within this report utilized the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 techniques within the

Synchro Version 9 Software package. The reported intersection volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c) are a

measure of the saturation volume for each turning movement, while the levels-of-service (LOS) are

a measure of the average delay for each turning movement. Queuing characteristics are reported as

the predicted 95th percentile queue for each turning movement.

In accordance with the Town of Milton’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, the analysis

includes identification for all v/c ratios, LOS indicators and 95th percentile queue lengths for all

movements at all study intersections. Critical intersections and movements shall be highlighted (in

bold). ‘Critical’ intersections and movements include:

V/c ratios for overall intersections, through movements, or shared through/turning movements

increases to 0.85 or above.

V/c ratios for exclusive turning movements increases to 0.95 or above.

Queues for an individual movement are projected to exceed available turning lane storage.

As requested by Town staff, the following input parameters were applied:

Bus blockages were considered for right-turning movements that could be expected to be

blocked by a near side transit stop as per HCM methodology. A review of transit stops in the

study area found that the existing GO Bus stop on the south side of Drew Centre immediately

west of Thompson Road South is the only stop that could fully block a right-turning movement if

a transit vehicle were present. A review of schedule information for the applicable routes

utilizing the stop (#20, #21, #27) during peak hours, provided in Appendix F, found that bus

blockages could be expected to occur 5, 3, and 2 times per hour during the weekday AM,

weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, respectively.

A peak hour factor (PHF) of 1.00 was applied to all movements.

Heavy vehicle percentages were calculated based on existing count data and applied

accordingly.

As per Table D.2 of the Town’s TIS Guidelines, lost time adjustment were applied in order to

result in lost times of 1.0 seconds for advanced green left-turn phases and 5.0 seconds for main

phases.

The current signal timing plans were applied to the existing and future traffic conditions, unless

otherwise noted. The detailed Synchro reports are provided in Appendix G.

The following tables summarize the HCM capacity results for the study intersections during the

weekday and Saturday peak hours under 2018 existing, 2025 future background, and 2025 future

total traffic conditions. The HCM, Synchro, and Timings reports are provided in Appendix H.


7.2 Thompson Road South at Drew Centre

Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are summarized

in Table 4 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.

Table 4 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road South & Drew Centre

Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour

Existing 2018 Overall: 0.61 (B) 16 sec

EBL: 0.12 (C) 11m

EBTR: 0.16 (C) 17m

WBL: 0.71 (D) 41m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.50 (A) 35m

NBTR: 0.59 (B) 108m

SBL: 0.01 (B) < 1 veh

SBTR: 0.32 (B) 60m

Overall: 0.76 (C) 24 sec

EBL: 0.08 (C) 10m

EBTR: 0.76 (D) 78m

WBL: 0.95 (F) 38m

WBTR: 0.06 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.83 (C) 89m

NBTR: 0.44 (B) 79m

SBL: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.67 (B) 74m

Overall: 0.63 (B) 15 sec

EBL: 0.10 (C) 10m

EBTR: 0.27 (C) 24m

WBL: 0.72 (D) 28m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.71 (B) 80m

NBTR: 0.49 (A) 87m

SBL: 0.06 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.59 (B) 55m

Future Background

2025


EBL: 0.14 (C) 12m

EBTR: 0.14 (C) 16m

WBL: 0.66 (D) 40m

WBTR: 0.08 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.20 (A) 12m

NBTR: 0.66 (B) 134m

SBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.33 (B) 64m


EBL: 0.29 (C) 24m

EBTR: 0.70 (D) 62m

WBL: 0.95 (F) 35m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.78 (C) 92m

NBTR: 0.52 (B) 108m

SBL: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.75 (B) 81m


EBL: 0.10 (C) 10m

EBTR: 0.33 (C) 28m

WBL: 0.72 (D) 28m

WBTR: 0.08 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.72 (C) 106m

NBTR: 0.56 (B) 106m

SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.74 (B) 60m

Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.65 (B) 16 sec

EBL: 0.22 (C) 17m

EBTR: 0.17 (C) 17m

WBL: 0.72 (D) 42m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.22 (A) 14m

NBTR: 0.67 (B) 134m

SBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.34 (B) 65m


EBL: 0.36 (C) 31m

EBTR: 0.76 (D) 74m

WBL: 0.95 (F) 37m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.85 (D) 130m

NBTR: 0.54 (B) 108m

SBL: 0.05 (B) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.89 (C) 82m


EBL: 0.24 (C) 19m

EBTR: 0.47 (C) 39m

WBL: 0.86 (F) 35m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.86 (D) 141m

NBTR: 0.58 (B) 111m

SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.79 (B) 61m

Future Total 2025

Optimized Timings

N/A


EBL: 0.36 (C) 32m

EBTR: 0.76 (D) 76m

WBL: 0.95 (F) 38m

WBTR: 0.06 (C) 11m

NBL: 0.88 (D) 129m

NBTR: 0.54 (B) 105m

SBL: 0.05 (B) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.88 (C) 108m


EBL: 0.24 (C) 19m

EBTR: 0.47 (C) 39m

WBL: 0.87 (F) 35m

WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m

NBL: 0.86 (D) 141m

NBTR: 0.58 (B) 111m

SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

SBTR: 0.79 (B) 61m

Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection is operating very well with

generally substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing concerns.

However, the westbound left-turn movement is currently nearing capacity and will continue to

operate as such under both future conditions scenarios. Furthermore, several movements are

expected to be currently experiencing 95th percentile queues in excess of their respective storage


lengths (eastbound, northbound and westbound left-turn movements); however, the excess in

queueing is generally considered nominal, especially for the eastbound and westbound left-turn

movements. The northbound left-turn movement is reporting 95th percentile queue lengths of

approximately 141 m during the Saturday peak hour, however a sensitivity analysis in optimizing

timings found no opportunity decrease that queue length to within the existing 60 m storage length.

It is evident the site generated traffic’s impact on intersection operations is not significant.

An optimized timings scenario has been completed, which optimizes timing spits to better

accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. Although the westbound left-turn

movement is still considered to be nearing capacity during the PM peak hour, the peak hour

volumes are generally nominal and queuing not overly concerning. It is GHD’s opinion that the

operating conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site constraints

and 2025 peak future volumes. Furthermore, the northbound left-turn 95th percentile queueing is

reported at

No geometric improvements are recommended in response to the subject development.

7.3 Thompson Road at Main Street



Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street



Existing 2018 Overall: 0.55 (C) 22 sec

EBL: 0.26 (B) 22m

EBTR: 0.49 (C) 55m

WBL: 0.52 (B) 38m

WBTR: 0.31 (C) 36m

NBL: 0.28 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.75 (C) 34m

SBL: 0.39 (B) 20m

SBTR: 0.42 (C) 41m


EBL: 0.55 (B) 50m

EBTR: 0.63 (C) 73m

WBL: 0.74 (C) 58m

WBTR: 0.37 (C) 44m

NBL: 0.65 (D) 60m

NBTR: 0.61 (C) 53m

SBL: 0.17 (B) 14m

SBTR: 0.84 (D) 104m


EBL: 0.64 (C) 50m

EBTR: 0.58 (C) 56m

WBL: 0.70 (C) 46m

WBTR: 0.42 (C) 40m

NBL: 0.52 (C) 44m

NBTR: 0.69 (C) 84m

SBL: 0.21 (B) 11m

SBTR: 0.74 (C) 90m

Future Background

2025


EBL: 0.34 (B) 25m

EBTR: 0.56 (C) 63m

WBL: 0.63 (B) 41m

WBTR: 0.41 (C) 46m

NBL: 0.30 (A) 9m

NBTR: 0.82 (C) 73m

SBL: 0.42 (B) 21m

SBTR: 0.47 (C) 47m

Overall: 0.81 (D) 36 sec

EBL: 0.66 (C) 53m

EBTR: 0.79 (D) 94m

WBL: 0.87 (D) 101m

WBTR: 0.43 (C) 52m

NBL: 0.73 (D) 54m

NBTR: 0.81 (C) 119m

SBL: 0.29 (C) 15m

SBTR: 0.89 (D) 133m


EBL: 0.68 (C) 50m

EBTR: 0.66 (C) 67m

WBL: 0.79 (C) 56m

WBTR: 0.47 (C) 48m

NBL: 0.58 (C) 46m

NBTR: 0.81 (C) 118m

SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m

SBTR: 0.83 (C) 109m


Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street



Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.63 (C) 24 sec

EBL: 0.34 (B) 25m

EBTR: 0.56 (C) 63m

WBL: 0.64 (B) 42m

WBTR: 0.41 (C) 47m

NBL: 0.30 (A) 9m

NBTR: 0.83 (C) 82m

SBL: 0.42 (B) 21m

SBTR: 0.47 (C) 48m


EBL: 0.68 (C) 53m

EBTR: 0.80 (D) 94m

WBL: 0.92 (D) 101m

WBTR: 0.45 (C) 54m

NBL: 0.73 (D) 55m

NBTR: 0.83 (C) 126m

SBL: 0.29 (C) 15m

SBTR: 0.91 (D) 139m


EBL: 0.69 (C) 50m

EBTR: 0.67 (C) 67m

WBL: 0.82 (C) 63m

WBTR: 0.49 (C) 49m

NBL: 0.58 (C) 46m

NBTR: 0.84 (C) 126m

SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m

SBTR: 0.84 (C) 116m

Future Total 2025

Optimized Timings

N/A


EBL: 0.68 (C) 57m

EBTR: 0.86 (D) 105m

WBL: 0.91 (D) 104m

WBTR: 0.52 (C) 60m

NBL: 0.83 (E) 62m

NBTR: 0.77 (C) 84m

SBL: 0.29 (B) 14m

SBTR: 0.81 (C) 116m


EBL: 0.69 (C) 50m

EBTR: 0.67 (C) 67m

WBL: 0.82 (C) 63m

WBTR: 0.49 (C) 49m

NBL: 0.60 (D) 50m

NBTR: 0.83 (C) 122m

SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m

SBTR: 0.82 (C) 106m

Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection is operating very well with

generally substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing concerns.

However, the southbound through/right-turn movement is expected to be nearing capacity during the

PM peak hour. Furthermore, several movements are expected to be currently experiencing

95th percentile queues in excess of their respective storage lengths (eastbound and northbound left-

turn movements); however the excess in queueing is generally considered nominal.

It is evident the site generated traffic has minimal impact on intersection operations.

An optimized timings scenario has been completed, which optimizes timing spits to better

accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. It is GHD’s opinion that the operating

conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site constraints and 2025

peak future volumes.


7.4 Main Street at Drew Centre




Table 6 Capacity Analysis for Drew Centre/Commercial Access & Main Street



Existing 2018 Overall: 0.26 (B) 11 sec

EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBT: 0.32 (B) 48m

EBR: 0.08 (A) <1 veh

WBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.20 (A) 27m

NBL: 0.11 (C) 10m

NBTR: 0.02 (C) <1 veh

SBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh

EBT: 0.45 (B) 75m

EBR: 0.19 (B) 20m

WBL: 0.28 (A) 22m

WBTR: 0.29 (B) 47m

NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m

NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m

SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m


EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh

EBT: 0.45 (B) 75m

EBR: 0.19 (B) 20m

WBL: 0.28 (A) 22m

WBTR: 0.29 (B) 47m

NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m

NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m

SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m

Future Background

2025


EBL: 0.00 (B) <1 veh

EBT: 0.39 (B) 55m

EBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

WBL: 0.14 (A) 10m

WBTR: 0.26 (B) 21m

NBL: 0.10 (B) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh

SBLTR: N/A


EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBT: 0.65 (C) 84m

EBR: 0.22 (B) 22m

WBL: 0.38 (B) 18m

WBTR: 0.38 (B) 46m

NBL: 0.26 (B) 29m

NBTR: 0.13 (B) 14m

SBLTR: N/A


EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh

EBT: 0.54 (B) 91m

EBR: 0.23 (B) 28m

WBL: 0.32 (B) 22m

WBTR: 0.34 (B) 56m

NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m

NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m

SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m


EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBT: 0.41 (B) 55m

EBR: 0.08 (B) <1 veh

WBL: 0.16 (A) 11m

WBTR: 0.27 (A) 33m

NBL: 0.10 (B) 11m

NBTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh



EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBT: 0.65 (C) 84m

EBR: 0.24 (B) 23m

WBL: 0.43 (B) 20m

WBTR: 0.37 (B) 46m

NBL: 0.27 (B) 30m

NBTR: 0.13 (B) 14m



EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh

EBT: 0.56 (C) 92m

EBR: 0.24 (B) 29m

WBL: 0.34 (B) 24m

WBTR: 0.34 (B) 56m

NBL: 0.65 (C) 39m

NBTR: 0.04 (C) 9m

SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m

The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and all future conditions

scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing

concerns.

7.5 Drew Centre at Southern GO Station Access




Table 7 Capacity Analysis Drew Centre & GO Entrance/Commercial Access 3



Existing 2018 Overall: 0.20 (A) 5 sec

WBL: 0.07 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.20 (A) 18m

SBLT: 0.10 (A) 12m

SBR: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

Overall: 0.34 (A) 10 sec

WBL: 0.19 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

SBLT: 0.37 (A) 44m

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: 0.34 (A) 10 sec

WBL: 0.19 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

SBLT: 0.37 (A) 45m

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Future Background

2025


EBL: 0.42 (C) 19m

EBTR: 0.01 (C) <1 veh

WBL: 0.01 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.03 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.08 (A) 8m

SBLT: 0.09 (A) 12m

SBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.23 (C)

EBTR: 0.09 (C)

WBL: 0.07 (C)

WBTR: 0.09 (C)

NBL: 0.06 (A)

NBTR: 0.03 (A)

SBLT: 0.60 (B)

SBR: 0.03 (A)


EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

WBL: 0.04 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.05 (A) <1 veh

SBLT: 0.45 (A) 49m

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.42 (C) 19m

EBTR: 0.01 (C) <1 veh

WBL: 0.01 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.03 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.09 (A) 9m

SBLT: 0.10 (A) 13m

SBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.23 (C) 12m

EBTR: 0.09 (C) <1 veh

WBL: 0.07 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.09 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

SBLT: 0.64 (B) 101m

SBR: 0.03 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

EBTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

WBL: 0.04 (C) <1 veh

WBTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh

NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBTR: 0.06 (A) <1 veh

SBLT: 0.48 (A) 54m

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh



concerns.

7.6 Drew Centre at West Site Access

Unsignalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are

summarized in Table 8 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.


Table 8 Capacity Analysis of West Site Access/Commercial Access 1 & Drew

Centre



Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 1 sec

EBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh

SBLTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBLTR: 0.33 (B) 11m

Overall: (A) 4 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.33 (B) 11m

Future Background

2025

Overall: (A) 1 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.43 (C) 16m

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.43 (C) 16m

Overall: (A) 4 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.35 (B) 12m

Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.03 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.10 (C) <1 veh

Overall: (D) 16 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.11 (A) <1 veh

NBLTR: 0.25 (C) <1 veh

SBLTR: 0.98 (F) 58m

Overall: (A) 9 sec

EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

WBLT: 0.06 (A) <1 veh


SBLTR: 0.66 (D) 34m



concerns.

The north approach, which is the outbound movement from the commercial property opposite the

subject site, is expected to experience average vehicle delays of approximately 2 minutes, with a v/c

ratio of 0.98, and acceptable peak 95th percentile queueing (58 m or approximately 9 vehicles)

during the PM peal hour. The reported delay of 2 minutes is not overly concerning given these

events are expected to only occur during the weekday PM peak hour, with the weekday AM and

Saturday peak hours having noticeably lower levels of delay.

Furthermore, the reported delay is not resulting in queueing concerns (the access can sufficiently

accommodate the 58 metres of queueing without major issue to site circulation).

Additionally, as is presented further below, the remaining accesses to the commercial site are

operating very acceptably with substantial reserve capacity and negligible delay and queuing.

Adjacent commercial accesses can be expected to accommodate any potential diversion of traffic

from this noted access due to future increase in delay, with no anticipated resulting operational

concerns at these accesses.

7.7 Drew Centre at East Site Access




Table 9 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & East Site Access




WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.06 (B) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 0.2 sec

WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.02 (B) <1 veh


WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

Future Background

2025

Overall: (A) 1 sec

WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh


WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.03 (B) <1 veh


WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and future conditions


concerns; the access will be eliminated upon build-out of the site.

7.8 Drew Centre at Northern GO Station Access



Table 10 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & Northern GO Centre Access




EBL: 0.11 (C) <1 veh

EBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.18 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 7 sec

EBL: 0.28 (B) 9m

EBR: 0.35 (B) 12m

NBLT: 0.02 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Future Background

2025


EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.17 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.14 (B) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 0.3 sec

EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.000 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBL: 0.18 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.15 (B) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.000 (A) <1 veh


EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh



concerns.

7.9 Thompson Road at Derry Road

Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are summarized in

Table 11 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.


Table 11 Capacity Analysis at Thompson Road & Derry Road


AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Existing 2018 Overall: 0.62 (C) 33 sec

EBL: 0.52 (C) 56m

EBT: 0.72 (C) 128m

EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m

WBL: 0.34 (C) 18m

WBT: 0.43 (D) 58m

WBR: 0.11 (C) 16m

NBL: 0.30 (C) 26m

NBTR: 0.64 (D) 88m

SBL: 0.41 (C) 33m

SBTR: 0.50 (C) 66m


EBL: 0.71 (C) 56m

EBT: 0.39 (C) 61m

EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m

WBL: 0.50 (C) 46m

WBT: 0.69 (D) 110m

WBR: 0.15 (C) 17m

NBL: 0.64 (D) 36m

NBTR: 0.52 (D) 72m

SBL: 0.48 (C) 44m

SBTR: 0.77 (D) 121m

Future Background 2025 Overall: 0.67 (D) 35 sec

EBL: 0.49 (C) 50m

EBT: 0.82 (D) 155m

EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m

WBL: 0.40 (C)18m

WBT: 0.50 (D) 67m

WBR: 0.10 (C) 15m

NBL: 0.31 (C) 26m

NBTR: 0.37 (D) 92m

SBL: 0.42 (C) 32m

SBTR: 0.54 (D) 74m


EBL: 0.81 (D) 80m

EBT: 0.45 (C) 71m

EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m

WBL: 0.54 (C) 46m

WBT: 0.79 (D) 131m

WBR: 0.18 (C) 21m

NBL: 0.69 (D) 46m

NBTR: 0.60 (D) 84m

SBL: 0.62 (C) 52m

SBTR: 1.02 (E) 194m

Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.68 (D) 36 sec

EBL: 0.50 (C) 51m

EBT: 0.82 (D) 155m

EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m

WBL: 0.40 (C) 18m

WBT: 0.50 (D) 67m

WBR: 0.10 (C) 15m

NBL: 0.32 (C) 26m

NBTR: 0.67 (D) 94m

SBL: 0.44 (C) 34m

SBTR: 0.57 (C) 78m


EBL: 0.88 (E) 93m

EBT: 0.45 (C) 71m

EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m

WBL: 0.54 (C) 46m

WBT: 0.79 (D) 131m

WBR: 0.19 (C) 22m

NBL: 0.69 (D) 46m

NBTR: 0.64 (D) 90m

SBL:0.66 (C) 54m

SBTR:1.04 (E) 203m

Future Total 2025

Optimized Timings

N/A


EBL: 0.95 (E) 102m

EBT: 0.50 (C) 75m

EBR: 0.09 (C) 14m

WBL: 0.58 (C) 49m

WBT: 0.85 (D) 137m

WBR: 0.20 (C) 24m

NBL: 0.80 (E) 54m

NBTR: 0.61 (D) 88m

SBL: 0.59 (C) 50m

SBTR: 0.91 (D) 180m

Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection overall is operating generally well

with overall intersection reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing

concerns. However, the southbound through/right-turn movement is expected to have reached


capacity during the PM peak hour by 2025 future background conditions. Furthermore, the left-turn

movements are expected to be experiencing 95th percentile queues in excess of their respective

storage lengths, however the excess in queueing is generally considered nominal with the greatest

queue length reported at 93 metres during the PM peak hour.

It is evident the site generated traffic has a nominal impact on intersection operations, with the

change in overall v/c ratio being minimal.

An optimized timings scenario has been completed for the PM peak hour, which optimizes timing

spits to better accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. It is GHD’s opinion that

the operating conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site

constraints and 2025 peak future volumes.


7.10 Remaining Commercial Accesses


summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.

Figure 12 illustrates the identifiers given to each commercial access.

Figure 12 Analyzed Commercial Accesses


Table 12 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 2




EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 2 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.08 (A) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Future Background

2025

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.10 (A) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 2 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.08 (A) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh


EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.10 (A) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 2 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.14 (B) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh

SBL: 0.09 (A) <1 veh

SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh

Table 13 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 4




WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

WBR: 0.23 (B) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 4 sec

WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m

Future Background

2025

Overall: (A) 1 sec

WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

WBR: 0.22 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m


WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

WBR: 0.23 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (A) 3 sec

WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m

Table 14 Capacity Analysis of Commercial Access 5 at Main Street




NBR: 0.13 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh

Future Background

2025

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.12 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.27 (B) 8m

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.26 (B) 8m


NBR: 0.12 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.27 (B) 8m

Overall: (A) 1 sec

NBR: 0.26 (B) 8m


Table 15 Capacity Analysis of Thompson Road at Commercial Access 6



Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 0.4 sec

EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

EBR: 0.23 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

EBR: 0.26 (B) 8m

Future Background

2025


EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (B) 1 sec

EBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (B) 1 sec

EBR: 0.28 (B) 9m

Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 0.4 sec

EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh

Overall: (A) 1 sec

EBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh

Overall: (B) 1 sec

EBR: 0.28 (B) 9m

The commercial access intersections are expected to be operating very acceptably under existing

and all future conditions scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and

negligible queuing.

8. Traffic Warrants

8.1 Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) left-turn, all-way stop, and signal warrants were completed

for the intersection of Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access under the 2025 Future Total

condition. The results of the warrants found that all-way stop control was not warranted due to an

insufficient proportion of peak hour intersection volumes occurring on the side street approaches

(approximately 20 percent during the peak hour) versus Drew Centre, and traffic signals were not

warranted generally due to insufficient overall volumes.

With respect to the left-turn lane warrant, an auxiliary left-turn lane with a storage length of

25 metres for inbound traffic to the site is just slightly warranted during the weekday PM peak hour

only, and not warranted during the AM and Saturday peak hours.

Table 16 Warrant Results

Traffic Warrant Warranted

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

Left-Turn Lane NO YES NO

OTM All-Way Stop NO NO NO

TAC Traffic Signal NO

As a conservative measure, GHD ran the intersection capacity analysis for this intersection without

the auxiliary left-turn lane. The results of the analysis found that without the auxiliary left-turn lane

during the PM peak hour, the Drew Centre approaches are expected to be efficient, with substantial

reserve capacity, very low levels of delay (<10 seconds) and negligible queueing. The inbound

left-turn movement specifically is expected to operate with v/c ratios of only 0.11, negligible average

vehicle delay (<1 second), and no observable queueing (<1 vehicle).


However based on the results of the MTO left-turn lane warrant, an inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is

recommended with a storage length of 25 metres. Given the limited space available on Drew Centre

between the site access and Thompson Road, the accesptable operational performance of inbound

traffic with minimal expected queueing, and considering the p.m. peak hour volumes used in the

warrant analysis just slightly surpassed the volume range for a 15 metres storage length and result

in a storage length of 25 metres being warranted, a storage length of 15 metres in length is

considered sufficient and is recommended.

Warrant sheets for the left-turn lane warrant and traffic signal warrant are provided in Appendix I.

9. Parking Appraisal

A reduction in the total parking supply for both residents and visitors is proposed to reflect Milton’s

status as a growing, transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly town. The rationale for the reduction

considers the site location fronting Drew Centre, with excellent transit service and close proximity to

GO Transit.

The proposed reduction is also consistent with the Town of Milton’s Official Plan which seeks to

promote and support traffic movement by walking, cycling and public transit; and include the

provision of a public transit system which targets a high level of public transit usage in the Urban

Area of approximately 20 percent of all trips by 2016.

9.1 Unit Breakdown

The residential component of the site consists of the following suite mix:

216 one bedroom units

258 one bedroom units plus den

280 two bedroom units

48 three bedroom units

A total of 122 units are greater than 75 m2.

9.2 Proposed Site Parking Rates

The following parking supply is proposed for the 802 residential apartment units and 990 m2 of

commercial GFA:

Resident parking provided at 1.03 spaces per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.



spaces will be shared with residential visitor parking.

This is a total provision of 1,028 on-site parking spaces.


9.3 Existing Town of Milton By-Law

The existing Town of Milton Parking By-Law requires minimum apartment building rates as follows:

Resident parking 1.50 spaces per unit: 1,203 parking spaces required.


Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 (zone UGC-MU): 25 parking spaces required.

With the commercial component not requiring additional spaces as it will be shared with the

residential visitor portion, the total requirement is 1,404 on-site parking spaces. The difference

between the applicable by-law and the proposed parking supply is therefore 376 parking spaces.

9.4 Transit service

All of Milton’s ten transit routes (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the new Glen Eden Slopes Express)

operate within close proximity to the site with bus stops for each route provided on Drew Centre. The

bus stops are located on street frontage for eastbound routes, and as across the street of the

proposed site for westbound routes.

In addition to providing connections to all of Milton’s transit routes, the Milton GO Station also

provides GO Rail and GO Bus services. GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consist of the

Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar,

Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale, Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services include

Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well

as numerous stops in the north Toronto area.

9.5 Proxy Surveys

To support the proposed reduction in resident parking supply, GHD has over time undertaken proxy

surveys at multiple existing multi-unit residential developments in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)

for the purpose of collecting parking demand data for both residents and visitors. The completed

parking surveys allows GHD to support a reduced parking supply for both residents and visitors

depending on the type of development proposed and the supporting transportation demand

management initiatives recommended for a site.

In general, parking utilization guidelines require surveying on at least two days over two normal

weeks, and within time periods that capture the peak parking demand of the site. GHD therefore

generally adopted the following schedule when completing parking demand surveys at each of the

proxy sites:

Parking accumulation on two weekdays on two separate weeks, typically 5:30-5:45 a.m.,

12:30-12:45 p.m. (noon) and 10:30-10:45 p.m. time intervals to identify the peak resident

demand.

Parking accumulation on two Fridays and two Saturdays, typically between 8:00 p.m. and

11:00 p.m. at 15 minute intervals to capture the peak visitor demand and verify the peak resident

demand.


The following list provides a sample of surveyed resident and/or visitor parking demand from parking

studies and surveys for sites with similar development content that is proposed for this site:

The Courtyards on Main - Phase 1, Milton (apartment building with 260 units)

Residents: Access not provided

Visitors: 0.14 spaces per unit

297 Queens Avenue, Oakville (apartment building with 78 residential units)

Residents: 0.86 spaces per unit


2051-2067 Prospect Street, Burlington (apartment buildings with 144 residential units)

Residents: 0.80 spaces per unit


Alton Village Phase 3 (Condo building with 288 residential units)

Residents: N.A.


The results of the parking surveys indicate that resident parking rates generally fall below

1.00 space per unit, with the highest rate being 0.86 spaces per unit and the average rate being

0.83 spaces per unit. This indicates that a proposed resident parking rate of 1.03 spaces per unit

can be justified based on the results of the proxy surveys.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the proxy surveys were undertaken at sites situated further

from GO Station facilities compared to the subject site, and therefore it is reasonable to assume

based on engineering judgement that the subject site will have a lower parking demand than the

proxy sites.

Detailed information pertaining to the undertaken proxy surveys are provided in Appendix J.

9.6 Parking Generation Manual

The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 4th Edition was

reviewed with respect to Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use Group 230) parking rates.

The single presented parking demand graph for this Land Use Group in the Manual is based on an

average size of 151 dwelling units. The weekday peak parking demand average rate is 1.38 vehicles

per dwelling unit, resulting in a recommended parking supply of 1107 spaces, and the provided

equation results in a recommended parking supply of 1020 spaces (1.27 spaces per resident unit).

Therefore based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the proposed parking provision of

1020 spaces is considered sufficient based on the equation methodology, or with a shortfall of only

87 spaces (or 8 percent) based on the average rate methodology; it is expected that the results of

the proxy surveys in combination with the proposed TDM measures would be more than sufficient in

justifying the 8 percent shortfall.

The applicable page from the Parking Generation Manual is provided in Appendix J.


9.7 Other Municipal By-Laws

GHD reviewed more recent parking study information including the Town of Oakville. The supporting

studies clearly show that the parking demand for visitor parking has decreased in the GTA, and that

the actual requirement for parking spaces should be reduced to reflect transit services and land use

density.

The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum visitor-parking rate for apartment

dwelling units in growth areas which are meant to support the Town’s strategic and policy objective

related to transit, growth management and design:

The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum parking rates for an apartment

dwelling:

1.0 per dwelling unit where the unit has less than 75.0 m2 net floor area.

1.5 per dwelling unit where the unit has 75.0 m2 net floor area or greater.

Of the total number of parking spaces required, 0.25 of the parking spaces required per dwelling

shall be designated as visitor’s parking spaces.

The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum parking rates for a retail store any

other “store” permitted by this By-law:

1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area.

Based on the proposed 802 residential apartment units and 990 m2 of commercial GFA, this results

in a supply of:

863 residential parking spaces, of which 216 shall be visitor parking and 647 shall be resident

parking;


spaces will be shared with residential visitor parking.

9.8 Travel Demand Management (TDM)

9.8.1 Objectives

In the context that the primary objective is to reduce single occupancy vehicle use, the TDM plan will

review opportunities to set realistic targets for increased use of carpooling, transit, cycling, and

walking trips. This plan recommends measures for the first 2 years with a pre- and post-baseline

commuter survey of all residents.

9.8.2 Travel Demand Management

TDM refers to a variety of strategies to reduce congestion, minimize the number of single-occupant

vehicles, encourage non-auto modes of travel, and reduce vehicle dependency to create a

sustainable transportation system.


TDM strategies have multiple benefits including the following:

Reduced auto-related emissions to improve air quality.

Decreased traffic congestion to reduce travel time.

Increased travel options for businesses and commuters.

Reduced personal transportation costs and energy consumptions.

Support Provincial smart growth objectives.

The combined benefits listed above will assist in creating a more active and livable community

through improvements to overall active transportation standards for the local businesses and

surrounding community.

The TDM measures provided in this report are divided into two main categories:

Identification of site-related TDM measures.

TDM program implementation, as well as on-going evaluation and monitoring approach.

9.8.3 TDM Opportunities Identification

The Town has not identified any active mode transportation plans in the vicinity of the site.

The Travel Demand Management Plan outlining pedestrian and cycling connectivity, including the

sidewalks, transit, and multi-use paths within the study area can be found as Figure 13.


Figure 13 Travel Demand Management Plan


Public Transit

Milton Transit

Milton Transit operates ten transit routes in close proximity to the site with all bus stops located

within a very short walking distance of the site (up to a maximum of 380 m for the furthest stop).

Routes #1A (west to east) and 1B (east to west) Industrial: provides weekday service to the

401 Industrial Park area during the morning and afternoon peak periods.

Route #2 Main: operates in a continuous westward/eastward travel direction between Milton

District Hospital (Derry Road/Bronte Street) and Milton Crossroads Centre (Walmart), with

transfer connections at the Milton GO Station via Derry Road, Commercial Drive, Heslop Road,

Bronte Street, Main Street, Martin Street, Millside Drive, Main Street, Maple Avenue, Road

and Steeles Avenue.

Route #3 Trudeau: provides service to Fourth Line/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the Milton GO

Station via Thompson Road, McCuaig Drive, Tupper Drive, Denyes Way, Costigan Road,

Laurier Avenue, Croft Avenue, Trudeau Drive, Louis St. Laurent Avenue, Fourth Line and

Clark Avenue, interlining with #4 Thompson/Clark at the Milton GO Station.

Route #4 Thompson/Clark: provides service to Fourth Line/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the

Milton GO Station via Thompson Road, Clark Boulevard, Bennett Boulevard, Ferguson Drive,

Clark Boulevard, Fourth Line, Louis St. Laurent Avenue and Kennedy Circle, interlining with

#3 Trudeau at the Milton GO Station.

Route #5 Yates: provides service to Philbrook Drive/Hepburn Road and the Milton GO Station

via Thompson Road, Childs Drive, Ontario Street, Laurier Avenue, Holly Avenue, Yates Drive,

Philbrook Drive, Hepburn Road, and Yates Drive interlining with #8 Willmott at the Milton GO

Station.

Route #6 Scott: provides service to Scott Boulevard/Derry Road and the Milton GO Station via

Main Street, Scott Boulevard, Derry Road, Savoline Boulevard and Pringle Avenue, interlining

with #7 Harrison at the Milton GO Station.

Route #7 Harrison: provides service to Dymott Avenue/Savoline Boulevard and the Milton GO

Station via Thompson Road, Derry Road, Scott Boulevard, Dymott Avenue and Savoline

Boulevard, interlining with #6 Scott at the Milton GO Station.

Route #8 Willmott: provides service to Bronte Street/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the Milton

GO Station via Main Street, Ontario Street, Derry Road, Bronte Street, Louis St. Laurent

Avenue, Farmstead Drive, McLaughlin Avenue and Santa Maria Boulevard, interlining with

#5 Yates at the Milton GO Station.

Route #61 Glen Eden Slopes Express: provides service from Milton GO Station to Glen Eden

Ski and Snowboard Centre with an intermediary stop at Main Street at Bronte Street.

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-4-Thompson-Clark.asp

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-3-Trudeau.asp

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-8-Willmott.asp

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-7-Harrison.asp

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-6-Scott.asp

http://www.miltontransit.ca/en/schedules-maps/Route-5-Yates.asp


GO Transit

GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consist of the Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service

to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar, Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale,

Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services include Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing

numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well as numerous stops in the north

Toronto area.

9.8.4 Proposed TDM Measures

The TDM plan proposes a mix of hard and soft measures to meet the objectives and targets to

reduce vehicular demand and encourage passenger, transit, cycling, and walking. GHD has

completed The City of Kitchener’s TDM Implementation Checklist, which is currently utilized by the

Town as a guide. The completed checklist is provided in Appendix K. The proposed TDM measures

are listed as follows:


The proposed site plan provides adequate pedestrian connections to the adjacent public

sidewalk system.

Provision of active uses at-grade along street frontages results in a parking reduction of

12 spaces (1 percent of parking supply) as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B5).

Unbundled Resident Parking

The applicant will consider separate (or unbundle) resident parking to separate the cost of

parking from the cost of each residential unit. This will make the hidden cost of driving visible

and encourage residents to make more informed active transportation decisions and may create

opportunities for the use of more sustainable modes of transportation.

Unbundled parking results in a parking reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking supply)

as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B7).

Bicycle Parking (Underground)

The total number of 600 proposed underground bicycle parking spaces justifies a parking

reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking supply) as per the appended TDM checklist

(Measure B1).


The applicant is prepared to provide subsidized transit passes for all occupants for a period of

two years.

Subsidized transit passes results in a parking reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking

supply) as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B6).

Car Share Vehicle

The site will include a car share vehicle and designated space, resulting in a parking reduction of

8 spaces (8 car space reduction per car share vehicle) as per the appended TDM checklist

(Measure B3).


Information Distribution (Condominium Board and Owners)

An information package for all new residents will be distributed on available pedestrian trails, cycling,

and transit facilities and carpool options including community map, Milton Transit route map,

GO Transit route map and schedules.

Commuter Options Brochure

With assistance from the Town a customized commuter options brochure will be provided for the

condominium site. This brochure will contain details on a variety of travel options such as: Regional

transit, parking information, location of HOV lane and cycling routes and bicycle parking.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Facility Network Map/Exhibits

The applicant is prepared to provide a Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Way-finder Map for residents

in the buildings. The map should be erected in the main lobby of the condominium buildings and

handed out as a pamphlet during regular communications throughout the year (i.e., board meetings

etc.).

This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 823 parking spaces (a 32 percent reduction from the

applicable parking by-law).

9.9 Implementation and Monitoring Costs

Costs to implement and monitor the proposed “soft” and “hard” TDM measures are the responsibility

of the applicant. The applicant will be responsible for implementing, marketing and monitoring the

TDM measures and working with the property manager of the building and other TDM stakeholders

to ensure success and make adjustments as necessary. Stakeholders include First Ontario Arts

Centre Milton, the Milton Library, Memorial Arena, Lions Sports Park, Milton Leisure Centre, and

Bishop Redding High School.

9.10 Summary

In consideration of the policies within the Town of Milton Official Plan, the growing trend within the

GTA to reduce auto dependency, the site’s proximity to a multitude of transit options, the results of

the undertaken proxy surveys, and the proposed TDM measures, it is our opinion that a site-specific

parking by-law variance for the subject site is appropriate.

We therefore recommend that parking be provided at the following minimum rates:

Resident parking provided at 1.03 space per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.



spaces be shared with residential visitor parking.

This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 1,028 parking spaces.


10. Functional Design

A functional design of the proposed inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is provided in Appendix L. The

design is based on design guidelines provided in the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian

Roads, and includes a storage length of 15 metres as recommended in this report.

11. Conclusions and Recommendations

The overall impact of developing the proposed 130 Thompson Road South site is minor, and will not

adversely impact the operation of intersections along Thompson Road, Main Street, and

Drew Centre. With the signal optimization of 2025 future condition, identified operational concerns at

the Thompson Road South intersections at Drew Centre and at Main Street are largely mitigated.

GHD has also found the proposed configuration and location of the site access to be acceptable,

with no expected operational or safety concerns for Drew Centre.

An inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is recommended with a storage length of 15 metres.

The proposed site plan is expected to accommodate pedestrian activity satisfactorily, and the

proposed TDM measures are considered sufficient in meeting the Town’s TDM objectives. The

proposed TDM measures are as follows:


Unbundled Parking

Bicycle Parking


Car Share Vehicle

Information Distribution and Community Board

It is our opinion that the proposed site-specific parking by-law variance to reduce the required

resident parking rate for the subject site is appropriate, in light of the Parking Justification Study and

proposed TDM measures included in this report.

William Maria [email protected] 905.814.4397

Adam Mildenberger [email protected] 905.814.4404

Documents

130 Thompson Road - Milton · Thompson Road at Drew Centre municipally known as 130 Thompson Road South in the Town of ... William Maria, P. Eng. Adam Mildenberger, B.A., C.Tech