Recreational Pathway Crossing Richmond Street Municipal Class … · 2015-04-23 · Recreational Pathway Crossing of Richmond Street Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public

Recreational Pathway Crossing of

Richmond StreetMunicipal Class Environmental Assessment

Public Information Centre #2April 22, 2015

1. Study Process

PHASE 1

PHASE 1 : Problem/Opportunity• Identify & describe the problem/opportunity.

PHASE 5 : Implementation• Project design and construction

PHASE 4

PHASE 4: Environmental Study Report• Prepare and File Environmental Study Report (Schedule C projects)

PHASE 3

PHASE 3: Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution

• Identify and evaluate Alternative Design Concepts• Identify environmental effects• Select the Preferred Design

PHASE 2

PHASE 2 : Alternative Solutions• Prepare environmental inventory• Identify & evaluate Alternative Solutions• Establish the Preferred Solution• Prepared and File the Project File (Schedule B projects)

PHASE 5

This study will follow the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process as defined by the Municipal Engineers Association (as amended in 2011).

Schedule B projects include Phases 1, 2 & 5.

Schedule C projects include Phases 1 – 5.

This project is proceeding as a Schedule C project (Phases 1-4).

We are here.

2. Purpose of PIC #2

• To provide interested and/or potentially affected stakeholders with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process for this Class EA.

• To present and receive public input on:• the public comments from PIC #1;• the design concepts for the crossing alignment & recommended preferred crossing alignment;• possible crossing structure types (to be finalized during detailed design);• possible crossing/gateway aesthetics (to be finalized during detailed design); and• the next steps in the process.

Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street Existing conditions: east side of Richmond Street

3. Study Context• The purpose of this study is to determine

the most appropriate means of linking the recreational pathway system from west to east at known terminus points ( )

• The need and justification for a pedestrian/cyclist connection in north London has been identified in the City’s Official Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan.

• Pathway alignments east and west of Richmond Street were identified in the Uplands North and Sunningdale North Area Plans and are being incorporated into ongoing and future development applications.

• An opportunity exists to create a gatewayinto north London within the study area.

_gh

4. Summary of Comments from PIC #1Comments from the Public Project Team Response

Pathway connection

• Creates a long and continuous pathway system in North London.

• Provides a much needed pathway connection.

• Acknowledged

At-grade crossing(Option 4)

• Dangerous even at traffic lights.• A natural at-grade crossing will be provided

when Villagewalk Blvd is extended east.• Preferred crossing (least cost and future

maintenance costs).• Install a crosswalk until traffic signals are

installed at the future road intersection.

• Acknowledged

Overpass (Option 3)

• Nice gateway feature opportunity.• Safer than a tunnel (Option 2).• Preferred as it has the least impact on

Richmond Street property.• Overpass not needed in this location.• Overpass will only be used by a few residents.

• Acknowledged• Population growth in the area

is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years.

Gateway • There are less expensive options to create a gateway to the City.

• Acknowledged

Miscellaneous • Consider a design competition for bridge.• Wait until area develops more to create

crossing.• Money could be better spent on other items (to

purchase parkland or park equipment).

• Acknowledged• Population growth in the area

is expected to increase by +20,000 over the next 15 years.

5. Preferred Crossing Location – Phase 2The Preferred Solution from PIC #1 in Phase 2 of this study was:

Option 3: Overpass at Torrey Pines Way.

Advantages

• No conflict between bridge users and vehicles.

• Direct access to known pathway terminus points.

• Improves pedestrian/cycling connectivity.

• High potential for gateway opportunity into north London.

• User safety is improved due to higher visibility of bridge.

• No conflicts with vehicles.• Minimal impacts to existing

utilities.• Medium length construction

period (30 days).

Disadvantages

• Retaining walls will be required.

• Impact to adjacent development area.

6. Alternative Design Concepts – Phase 3

Crossing Alignment Alternative 1:North Skew

Crossing Alignment Alternative 2:Perpendicular

Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South Skew

Crossing Alignment Alternatives

Pathway Alignment Alternatives

A

B

Recommended Crossing Alignment

Pathway Alignment Option A

Recommended Pathway Alignment

Pathway Alignment Option B

Pathway Alignment Option C

7. Crossing Alignment AlternativesCrossing Alignment

Alternative 1:North Skew


Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South SkewA


LegendExisting Multi-use Pathways

Wetland

Upland_gh Terminus Point and FuturePathway Connection

Potential Bridge Skew

8. Crossing Alignment AlternativesCrossing Alignment

Alternative 1:North Skew

Crossing Alignment Alternative 3:South Skew

• Shortest crossing.• Crossing and pathway alignment

may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street.

• Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment.

• Lowest cost.

• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.

• Crossing and pathway alignment may directly impact future develop east of Richmond Street.

• Bridge orientation results in a slightly less direct pathway alignment.

• Higher cost (23% more).

• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.

• Crossing and pathway alignment is unlikely to impact future develop east of Richmond Street.

• Bridge orientation accommodates a direct and very functional pathway alignment.

• Higher cost (23%).


*Note: The roads shown in this drawing include 6 lanes, sidewalks and bicycles lanes that are not part of this work. These are part of future road widening works and are only being shown to represent how the bridge will accommodate the ultimate conditions.

9. Recommended Crossing Alignment


Alternative 3:South Skew

• Longer crossing, deeper bridge deck required.• Crossing will not impact future develop east of

Richmond Street.• Higher cost (23%).

Crossing Alignment Alternatives

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative3

Social/Cultural

Natural Environment

Technical

Economic

Ability to connect pathway system

Recommended Alternative

Recommended

GOOD MODERATE POOR NO DIFFERENCE

LEGEND


10. Pathway Alignment AlternativesPathway Alignment

Option A

Recommended Pathway Alignment

B Pathway Alignment Option B

Pathway Alignment Option C

_

P1

LegendExisting Multi-use Pathways

Wetland

Upland

Potential Bridge Skew_gh Terminus Point and FuturePathway Connection

Pathway Alignment Option 2

Pathway Alignment Option 1_

P2

Pathway West Side of Richmond

Alignment P1 Alignment P2

Pros: The existing grade on the east side of Richmond

Street changes less in an east‐ west direction

than in the north south direction (along

Richmond Street) indicating less impact for

grading if an east‐west route is taken.

Route is located on table land for 90% of route.

Passive walking environment (adjacent parking

lots & woodlot) for most of length of pathway.

Natural plantings to provide screening will be

considered as part of detailed design.

Pros: Can be placed in Richmond Street ROW with retaining

wall, 75m ‐80m long (x2). Wall average height 3m (0‐

6m).

Interior of site may be graded without concern of path

routing .

Route is located on table land for 53% of route.

Passive walk environment for 50% of the length.

Natural plantings to provide screening will be considered

as part of detailed design.

Cons: One field drainage ditch requires culvert

crossing on this route (not in PSW or Significant

Woodlot).

Route travels over potential bio swale pipe that

feeds wetland from the property directly

adjacent to bridge landing at grade of 274+/‐

(should be a small impact).

Length of retaining wall required 30mx2=60m.

One hydro pole guy wire and one pole affected.

Requires some co‐ordination with developer

for grading and property acquisition.

Cons: Significant grade drop associated with the northern PSW.

Wetland would require a retaining structure or grading

from the ROW into the wetland area., complicating the

stability of the fill, or wall and the pipe easement issue

with respect to cover and loading on the pipe.

Driveway location may present sight distance issues with

sag to the north of the site. The pathway may partially

block the sight triangle for vehicles leaving the site.

Daily usage of the multi‐use pathway may lead to

pedestrian/bike conflicts at the entrance of the

development site (up to 21000 new units will be

ultimately linked to the TVP making this a busy route).

Length of retaining wall required 150 m on both sides of

path for 75‐ 80m.

Views of multi‐storey units from potential future

Richmond Street development will be blocked by a

retaining wall ramp system. The site would not be

symmetric with the twin multi‐storey unit located north

of the entrance.

Views from the lower level units of the potential future

Richmond Street development will be blocked by the

retaining wall ramp system.

Drainage from the ramp system may flow downwards

and on to Richmond Street at the potential building

entrance.

Two small creek crossings required with boardwalk or

bridge on this route in PSW.

Road side environment for 50% of length of pathway.

Four potential hydro poles affected

North routing may result in property impacts inside the

Municipality of Middlesex Centre invoking other

approvals in the process.

11. Pathway Alignment Pros and Cons_

P1

_P2

12. Pathway Alignment AlternativesPathway Alignment

Option P2Pathway Alignment

Option P1

• Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 400m.

• Does not require wetland crossing but would have impact to adjacent wetland and tributaries to the wetland.

• Does not cross upland area.• Least expensive option.(grading,walls,

wetland crossing)• No impact to future development east of

Richmond Street. • Requires highest amount of grading.• Direct linkage to proposed County trail

network but not as direct as Option C.• Less attractive pathway alignment.• Pathway alignment along existing arterial

road and future development.

• Approximate pathway length to terminus point B: 425m.

• Requires narrow wetland crossing at a locations that is very disturbed.

• Requires crossing upland area.• Most expensive option.• Pathway would be located within a

required development setback from upland and wetland features. No additional property required.

• Minimal grading required.• Most direct linkage to proposed County

trail network.• Pathway alignment avoids sensitive

natural features.

Pathway Alignment Alternatives

Option P1 Option P2

Social/Cultural

Natural Environment

Technical

Economic

Recommended Alternative

Recommended

GOOD MODERATE POOR

LEGEND

13. Potential Crossing Structure TypesCrossing Structure

Type 1: Box Girder

Crossing Structure Type 2:Girder

Crossing StructureType 3:

Steel Truss

Crossing Structure Type will be determined during the detailed design phase of this project.

Concrete Girder

Steel Truss

14. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 1: The Forest City

• The approaches to the structure would be vegetated with indigenous forest species.• LED lighting could be integrated to simulate flowing water.


15. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 2: Thames River Flow

• The structure would be wrapped in multi-coloured translucent panels that represent the flowing river.• Bridge architecture could be adapted to convey the forest theme.• Up-lighting could be installed to enhance night time appearance and accentuate the gateway.


16. Gateway FeaturesDesign Theme 3: Forks of the Thames

• A tube would installed over and around the basic structure to represent the Thames River and its ‘forks’.• Tube could be steel or light weight carbonate material.• LED lighting could be integrated to illuminate the tube at night.


17. Gateway FeaturesThe focus of this study is the location and alignment of the recreational crossing of Richmond Street and associated pathway alignment. However the City would also like your feedback on how the bridge may look. The previous boards illustrate possible examples of enhanced bridge themes and aesthetics for you to consider.

Please mark your favourite bridge theme with a coloured dot in the appropriate box below and provide any comments you have.

Forest City

Thames River Flow

Forks of the Thames

18. Design ConsiderationsThe following criteria will be considered during detailed design:

Structural Crossing Type• Aesthetics: Steel truss vs. box girder vs. girder• Cost: Comparative cost to construct each design concept

Gateway Opportunity• Features: Theme of the crossing (Forest City, Thames River, Forks of the Thames or other)• Aesthetics: Visual appearance of crossing• Cost: Cost to construct basic crossing vs. cost of enhanced aesthetic features & operating

costs.

19. Preliminary Recommended Design Concept• Recommended alignment is a south skewed

alignment crossing Richmond Street.• Structure will be either a single span concrete

girder, box girder or steel truss.• Richmond Street will ultimately be widened to 6

lanes. The structure will be constructed prior to the widening of Richmond Street and will accommodate the increased road width.

• The design will accommodate a 3.0mrecreational pathway.

• Pathway/sidewalk connections to the bridge may include passive landscaping and streetscape features.

• Pathway will be a 3.0m asphalt multi-use pathway.

• Connectivity to existing and future sidewalks and pathways within the vicinity.

• Landscape feature lighting. Not street type lighting. Pathway will not be used after hours.

• Bridge theme and aesthetics to be determined during detailed design.

• Detailed Design (2015 –2016)

• Approvals (2016)• Construction (2017)

20. Next Steps

Thank you for attending and participating in the study process. We encourage you to fill out a comment sheet provided and drop it in the comment box or send your comments by May 8, 2015 to either of the

individuals listed below:

• Receive comments on the Recommended Alternative Design

• Confirm Preferred Design

• Prepare Environmental Study Report (ESR)

• Prepare Environmental Impact Study

• EEPAC/Council Approval• File ESR for 30 day

review period

WINTER 2015 SPRING/SUMMER 2015 BEYOND

Tony Fediw, P.Eng.,Project ManagerAECOM Canada250 York Street, Suite 410London ON, N6A 6K2Tel: 519-963-5898Email: [email protected]

Karl Grabowski, P.Eng.,Transportation Design EngineerThe Corporation of the City of London300 Dufferin AvenueLondon ON, N6A 4L9Tel: 519-661-2500 Ext. 5071Email: [email protected]

Public comments will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Additional information is available on the City of London website:http://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/EAs/Pages/default.aspx

Documents

Recreational Pathway Crossing Richmond Street Municipal Class … · 2015-04-23 · Recreational Pathway Crossing of Richmond Street Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public