major mackenzie drive schedule ‘c’ environmental

Major Mackenzie Drive Schedule ‘C’ Environmental Assessment Study

From McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Keele Street

Regional Municipality of York December 20, 2018


December 20, 2018 | ES-1

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) has completed a Schedule “C” Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment (EA) study to review the short-term transportation operational needs

along Major Mackenzie Drive West (referred to as Major Mackenzie Drive for the purpose of this

report), from McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Keele Street in the City of Vaughan.

York Region is responsible for monitoring its transportation network and implementing required

improvements in a timely manner. Concerns raised regarding traffic operations on Major Mackenzie

Drive within the study limits included challenging access to and from businesses, congestion, queuing

and need for pedestrian crossings. These issues led York Region to investigate short-term (2020)

operational improvements for the corridor. A future EA study will assess the long-term transportation

needs (as recommended by the YR-TMP 25-year outlook), including capacity and multi-modal

improvements.

York Region retained HDR to conduct the Major Mackenzie Drive Class EA study. This

Environmental Study Report (ESR) documents the study consultation and decision making rationale,

following the process outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA

guidelines for Schedule ’C’ projects (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015).

The study area crosses the West Don River tributary. Due to the poor structural condition of the

culvert at that location, replacement of the structure (ID 25-18 C1180) was recommended. On

account of the emergency nature of the culvert replacement, this work is being conducted separately

from the Major Mackenzie Drive Schedule “C” EA study in consultation with the Ministry of the

Environment, Conservation and Parks, Toronto Region Conservation Authority and City of Vaughan.

The culvert replacement is being undertaken as a Schedule “A” Class EA study.

Background

This EA study builds on the recommendations from the Region’s 2015 Traffic Operations Assessment

Memorandum which had previously been conducted to determine an appropriate solution to improve

traffic operations on Major Mackenzie Drive. The EA reconfirms the previous analysis findings,

reviews the needs and justification more closely in terms of corridor-specific constraints, and

evaluates alternative solutions and designs to address the existing issues along Major Mackenzie

Drive. Active transportation, access modifications and new pedestrian facilities were also examined to

improve conditions for all travel modes.

Study Purpose

York Region was notified by the City of Vaughan of a number of operational issues in the study

corridor, including challenging access to and from the land uses on either side of Major Mackenzie

Drive, and heavy through traffic and queuing, particularly in the eastbound direction at Keele Street.

The purpose of the Class EA study was to determine specific short-term transportation improvements

to Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road to the west and Keele Street to the

east for the horizon year of 2020. A future EA study will assess long-term transportation needs,

including capacity and multi-modal improvements to the corridor.

In particular, the EA study:

Reviewed existing conditions and operational challenges along this section of Major Mackenzie

Drive

Identified opportunities for improvement and possible solutions

Investigated and recommended alternative designs for the preferred solution

Collected, documented and assessed input and feedback from residents and affected groups

within the study area

Study Area

The study area is 1.4 km long and is bounded by McNaughton Road/Avro Road to the west and

Keele Street to the east, in the Village of Maple, located in the City of Vaughan. Major Mackenzie

Drive within the study limits is currently a 4-lane urban arterial road with a posted speed limit of 50

km/h. The street intersects McNaughton Road / Avro Road, Killian Road / Netherford Road, Gram

Street, Jackson Street and Keele Street.

This section of Major Mackenzie Drive is characterized by a combination of low-rise residential,

mixed-use, commercial as well as institutional buildings and has a number of closely spaced

driveways. The study area is presented visually.

The corridor was divided into three segments (west, central, and east) to develop a preferred

alternative design concept while taking into consideration existing conditions and the localized

constraints of each identified segment. The segment limits were generally defined and characterized

by existing and planned built form (intersecting streets, properties/land use and associated access)

and existing right-of-way for the purposes of generating alternative design concepts and evaluation.

* West Don River Crossing proceeding under separate EA – Schedule A

*



West Segment - McNaughton/Avro Road to Gram Street

The available ROW is approximately 36m

The boulevard is wider on the north side

Limited access points fronting onto the street

Raised centre roadway median in front of the plaza

Utility poles are located primarily on the south side; street lights on the north

West Don River tributary crossing

Central Segment Gram Street to Jackson Street

The available ROW varies between 25-28m

The boulevard is wider on the north side

Numerous closely spaced driveways

Located within the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District

Utility poles/street lights located primarily on the south side adjacent to the road

East Segment Jackson Street to Keele Street

The available ROW is approximately 28m

Narrow ROW at the Keele Street intersection

Space limitations due to building facades directly abutting the property lines

Located within the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District

Utility poles/street lights located on both sides of the road

Needs Assessment

The needs assessment involves the identification and evaluation of short-term needs of the

transportation network with respect to accommodating all users (pedestrians, cyclists, transit users,

and motorists). The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to identify and define conditions, safety, and

operational needs along Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele

Street.

Transportation Needs

A summary of transportation needs for the Major Mackenzie Drive corridor is summarized below:

Driving Under existing conditions, all signalized intersections within the study area are operating near

or over the available capacity during peak periods. The conditions are worse at the Major

Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street signalized intersection where the overall level of service

(LOS) is ‘F’ during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Generally, traffic operations appear

to be worse in the afternoon compared to the morning peak period. Extensive queuing was

observed in the segment between Keele Street and Killian Road/Netherford Road, especially

in the eastbound direction, resulting from the high volumes of eastbound-through trips at

Keele Street.

Because of the existing congestion and the abundance of access points along Major

Mackenzie Drive, vehicles attempting to enter or exit the various driveways are often unable

to do so immediately. They must wait for gaps in opposing traffic, blocking vehicular flow and

further exacerbating congestion along the study area. Traffic conditions are not anticipated to

change significantly by 2020 due to the minimal growth in the study area.

The analysis of the five-year collision record (2009-2013) did not indicate any unusual

collision rates within the study area limits. The highest collision rate was observed at the

McNaughton Road/Avro Road intersection and in the segment spanning Jackson Street to

Keele Street. Existing congestion on Major Mackenzie Drive during peak periods may

increase motorist’s potential exposure to collisions. Conflicting pedestrian activities in the

area may become a greater safety issue as the area develops in the future.

Walking The look, feel, and function of the study corridor changes along its length as does the level of

comfort experienced by pedestrians. Overall, the pedestrian experience could be improved

as Major Mackenzie Drive receives for the most part a ‘D’ score, according to the multi-modal

level of service analysis performed. Generally, the north side of Major Mackenzie was found

to be more accommodating to pedestrians, through wider sidewalks and boulevards

separating them from vehicles. The large separation distance between the intersections at

Killian Road / Netherford Road and Keele Street was identified as an issue for pedestrian

safety by community members who, prior to this study, had circulated a petition requesting a

protected crosswalk to facilitate safe crossing in the area.



Cycling

At the present time, cyclists do not have a dedicated space in the right-of-way as there are

no designated cycling facilities on Major Mackenzie Drive. Cyclists must share the roadway

with vehicles or ride on the sidewalks in the study area. Therefore, the cycling level of service

along the study area was found to be low, receiving a LOS E according to the multi-modal

level of service analysis performed.

Transit The corridor is served by four mixed traffic bus routes – Routes 560, 462, 4 and 4A– however

only Routes 4 and 4A provide regular service throughout the day. The average bus stop

spacing of 400m is well within the range set by York Region Transit`s Transit Services

Guidelines, which state that the typical bus stop spacing for local bus routes should typically

be between 300m and 500m. Because bus service is hindered by existing congestion,

improvements recommended under this EA study will also benefit transit operations.

Problem and Opportunity Statement

Major Mackenzie Drive is a continuous, regional arterial road which spans York Region from its

western boundary with Peel Region and its eastern boundary with Durham Region, providing a major

east-west transportation corridor connecting to north-south regional arterials and Highways 400 and

404.

The historic Village of Maple is centered at the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele

Street. As such, between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street, the surrounding land use

context is relatively urban and composed of low to mid-rise land uses including residential, mixed-

use, commercial and institutional buildings with a number of driveway accesses located on both sides

of the street.

Major Mackenzie Drive is both a busy traffic thoroughfare and an urban village core. The following

transportation issues were identified:

Due to heavy through traffic volumes, there are limited gaps in traffic flow, making access to and

from the commercial and residential parking lots challenging.

Delays in access to driveways exacerbate already heavy traffic queues by blocking through traffic

on Major Mackenzie Drive.

The intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street exceeds capacity during peak

periods resulting in significant eastbound queuing which further impacts driveway accesses west

of Keele Street.

The significant number of driveway access points creates conflict points reducing the pedestrian

and cyclist experience along the corridor.

Current conditions for mixed traffic transit services results in poor transit operating conditions

during peak hours.

Concerns regarding the lack of a pedestrian crossing between Killian Road / Netherford Road and

Keele Street were raised by members of the public through a signed petition

Potential opportunities to address the aforementioned transportation issues require further study and include:

Realignment and consolidation of commercial/residential access points.

Scheduling delivery during off-peak hours and at night.

Installation of a traffic signal and protected pedestrian crossing between Killian Road/Netherford

Road and Keele Street to enhance safety and accessibility.

Implementing a centre left-turn lane to provide additional space and storage for driveway access

movements.

Intersection improvements at Keele Street to reduce vehicle queuing and capacity issues.

Streetscaping enhancements to encourage walking

The addition of a protected crossing between Killian Road / Netherford Road and Keele Street.

As this study focuses on the short-term (2020) operational needs and opportunities of the corridor, a

future EA study will assess the long-term transportation needs, including capacity improvements. The

future EA will be undertaken on the basis of the recommendations/findings of the York Region

Transportation Master Plan 25-year outlook and long-term projects.

Public, Agency and Aboriginal Group Consultation

Public input was an important part of the Major Mackenzie Drive EA. The project team engaged the

general public online, through mail and email notifications, in print, and through public Open Houses

to ensure ample opportunity for participation in the planning process. An overview of the key

consultation milestones is provided.

Engagement Strategy Date

Notice of Commencement

March 30, 2017 and April 6, 2017 – Published in the

Vaughan Citizen newspaper with local circulation

March 30, 2017 – Notice Issued

Notice of Open House #1

October 12, 2017 and October 19, 2017 – Published

in Vaughan Citizen newspaper with local circulation

October12, 2017 – Notice Issued

Open House #1 October 25, 2017 (Vaughan City Hall)


April 26, 2018 and May 10, 2018 – Published in the

Vaughan Citizen, Thornhill Liberal East and West

newspapers with local circulation

April 26, 2018 – Notice Issued

Open House#2 May 15, 2018 (Vaughan City Hall)

Notice of Study Completion

December 20, 2018 & December 27, 2018

Published in the Vaughan Citizen and Thornhill Liberal




Public, stakeholder and agency consultation was critical to ensure concerns from residents and

affected groups within the study area are identified, documented, and assessed. A variety of

Stakeholder groups have been identified, including the individual agencies and utilities, Indigenous

groups, ratepayer organizations, specific interest groups, and the general public. All of these

stakeholders were contacted throughout the study and encouraged to provide input and become

involved in the development of the solutions and designs to address the problems and opportunities

identified for the study area.

Communication with stakeholder groups and the public took place through:

• Letters

• Emails

• Phone calls

• Notices

• Newspaper advertisements

• The project website (www.york.ca/wps/portal/yorkhome/transportation/Major-Mackenzie-Drive-

Keele-EA)

• Social media posts (York Region Twitter and Facebook accounts)

• Meetings

• Two rounds of Open Houses

York Region was the central link for all communications. The communication and consultation was

conducted in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

As part of the EA process, individual meetings and conference calls were held with agencies and

stakeholders such as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Toronto Region

Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP,

formerly the MOECC), the City of Vaughan and individual property owners.

Aboriginal Group representatives were included in the mailing list for the project, and were contacted

via study notices throughout the study (including the Notice of Commencement, Notice of Public

Open Houses, and Notice of Completion). The project team followed up with those groups that had

not provided input, to ensure they had no concerns about the project. The mailing list was updated

periodically as the study progressed to reflect additional Aboriginal Group representatives or update

contact information as needed. No major concerns were raised throughout the study.

Alternative Solutions

Alternative solutions are functionally different ways of approaching and dealing with a problem or

opportunity. The following alternative solutions were considered to address the problems and

opportunities identified for the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study:

Alternative 1:

Do Nothing

Alternative 1 assumes that no transportation

improvements are made. As the existing

infrastructure is unable to accommodate current

needs, this alternative does not address the problem.

Alternative 2:

Transportation System Management

Alternative 2 proposes signal timing optimization and

coordination. Despite moderate improvements to road

operations, this alternative does not improve the

socio-economic environment and, on its own, cannot

address the problem and opportunity statement.

Alternative 3:

Widen for Centre Left-Turn Lane

This alternative proposes to implement a centre left-

turn lane to help reduce delays caused by cars

turning left into driveways. It is the option most likely

to yield the best transportation benefits but also has

the highest cost. The public expressed their support

for this alternative at Open House #1.

Alternative 4:

Intersection Improvements at Keele

Street

Alternative 4 recommends adding an eastbound right-

turn lane and extending the eastbound left-turn lane

at the Keele Street intersection. Having been

identified as a concern in the needs assessment,

intersection operations at Keele Street will improve

under this alternative.

Alternative 5:

New Traffic Signal / Pedestrian

Crossing between Killian Road and

Keele Street

Alternative 5 proposes adding a new traffic signal

and/or pedestrian crossing between Killian Road /

Netherford Road and Keele Street to facilitate safer

pedestrian movements and controlling vehicular flow

along this segment of the corridor. Analysis has

shown the potential for moderate improvement to

transportation operations. The public was supportive

about a new protected crossing between Killian Road

and Keele Street.

Alternative 6:

Consolidate Commercial Entrances

and Driveways

Alternative 6 proposes to minimize the number of

access points to reduce opportunities for traffic

blockage while eliminating conflict points and

improving pedestrian conditions. This alternative

being contingent on property owner consensus

makes it less likely to be adopted.

To determine the most appropriate solution for the corridor, the advantages and disadvantages of

each of the alternative solutions were evaluated on their abilities to meet socio-economic,

transportation, natural environment and financial goals and objectives.

Based on the evaluation process performed, the preferred solution consisted of the following:

Alternative 2: Transportation System Management

Alternative 3: Widening for a centre left-turn lane

Alternative 4: Intersection improvements at Keele Street (i.e. extended eastbound left-turn lane

and new eastbound right-turn lane)



Alternative 5: New traffic signal / pedestrian crossing between Killian Road and Keele Street.

Stakeholder input supported the inclusion of active transportation facilities in the study area. The

preferred solution therefore also aimed to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians to the extent

possible. The feasibility of different active transportation facilities was reviewed as part of the

alternative design evaluation process.

Alternative Designs for the Preferred Solution

A long list of alternative design concepts was developed around three segments West, Central and

East, the limits of which were generally defined by existing and planned built form (intersecting

streets, properties/land use and associated access) and existing right-of-way for the purposes of

generating alternative design concepts and evaluation. The long list of alternative design concepts

was short- listed following stakeholder input and consultation. The long-list was reduced to the

following design concepts:

West Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and Gram Street Alternative Design 3A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks) Reconfigure/repurpose the existing roadway to add a centre left-turn lane from east of the

West Don River tributary to Gram Street while maintaining the sidewalks in their current

location. This option attempts to retain existing edges of pavement to the extent possible while

reconfiguring the roadway. Where required, widening will occur about the existing centerline

utilizing reduced lane widths.

Alternative Design 3B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on one or both sides)

Reconfigure/repurpose the existing roadway to add a centre left-turn lane from east of the

West Don River tributary to Gram Street. Install an MUP on one or both sides. This option

attempts to retain existing pavement edges to the extent possible while reconfiguring the

roadway. Where required, widening will occur about the existing centerline utilizing reduced

lane widths.

Central Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street and Jackson Street

Alternative Design 2A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks)

Maintain south edge of pavement and shift the centerline alignment north to implement a two-

way centre left-turn lane using reduced lane widths. Re-instate a sidewalk on the north side

and maintain the existing sidewalk on the south boulevard.

Alternative Design 2B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on north side)

Maintain south edge of pavement and shift the centerline alignment north to implement a two-

way centre left-turn lane using reduced lane widths. Install an MUP on the north side and

maintain the existing sidewalk on the south side.

East Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street and Keele Street

Alternative Design 1A (Standard lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)

Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using standard

element widths, with the remaining ROW utilized for public space.

Alternative Design 1B (Reduced lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)

Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using reduced

lane widths, with the remaining ROW utilized for public space.

To improve transportation conditions along Major Mackenzie Drive, Designs 3B, 2A, and 1B were

recommended for the west, central and east segment, respectively.

To address the lack of pedestrian crossings and to provide an additional protected crossing, 6

potential locations were examined, including:

1. Gram Street / 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive

2. 2354 Major Mackenzie Drive


4. Golden Spruce Lane / Jackson Street

5. East of Gram Street, Pedestrian Actuated

6. West of Jackson Street, Pedestrian Actuated

A traffic signal at Gram Street / 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive was selected based on a comprehensive

review of the alternatives.

Preferred Design

The preferred design for Major Mackenzie Drive was chosen after consideration of transportation

service for all road users (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users) and impacts to the

environment, cultural heritage impact, and socio-economic impacts, safety, aesthetics, drainage,

driveway access, property requirements, and capital construction and maintenance costs.

The preferred design for each segment is one that reflects best the goals of the EA and balanced the

infrastructure improvements with the anticipated impacts. The preferred design was developed and

refined through extensive consultation with agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

The recommended improvements to Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road

and Keele Street are as follows:

Roadway The preferred design generally consists of a new two-way centre left-turn lane between Gram Street

and Jackson Street and a westbound left-turn lane at St. David’s Church access (as there are no

access points on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive west of Killian Road / Netherford Road).

The roadway centreline will be shifted to the north between Gram Street and Keele Street to

accommodate the additional centre turning lane while maintaining the curb line on the south side of

Major Mackenzie Drive. Between the West Don River tributary (St. David’s Church) and Killian Road /

Netherford Road, the proposed lane modifications are to be completed within the existing pavement

edges to save costs and minimize disruption. The use of reduced lane widths is recommended for the



entire study area. A raised median is recommended to separate eastbound and westbound traffic at

certain locations such as between the 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street and St. David’s

Church and Killian Road / Netherford Road. At the eastern limit of the study area, a right-turn lane is

proposed to alleviate queuing at the Keele Street intersection. No property acquisition is required to

implement the preferred design.

Active Transportation The preferred design incorporates two-way off-road multi-use paths (MUP) on the north and south

sides of Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and Killian Road /

Netherford Road. The design of the MUPs is based on Ontario Traffic Manual (2014) OTM Book 18 –

Cycling Facilities, which provides guidelines for the design of safe active transportation facilities and

intersection treatments. The MUPs will have a minimum 3.0 m width. The selection of material type

and treatment for the MUPs will be revisited and confirmed during detailed design. Public and

stakeholder consultation indicated support for the introduction of active transportation facilities into

the preferred design.

The south side of Major Mackenzie Drive will receive an enhanced 2.4m sidewalk from Killian Road /

Netherford Road to Gram Street. East of Gram Street, the existing sidewalk will be maintained to

Jackson Street. The north side of the road from Killian Road / Netherford Road to Keele Street as well

as the south side from Jackson Street to Keele Street will accommodate pedestrians to a greater

extent through a more generous public space and enhanced paving treatment.

Other Operational Improvements In addition to the aforementioned design solutions, the project team assessed access restrictions and

signalization to further improve operations along the study area. The following operational

improvements were recommended as part of the Preferred Design to supplement the roadway

geometric improvements:

New Traffic Signal at Gram Street and realignment of the 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive driveway

Right-in-right-out (RIRO) access at Jackson Street where westbound left turns onto and out of

Jackson Street are no longer permitted

¾ access at Golden Spruce Lane where eastbound-left movements are no longer permitted (only

right-in, right-out and left-in onto Golden Spruce Lane are allowed).

¾ access at 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive where eastbound left movements are still permitted

(only right-in, right-out and left-in into the parking lot are allowed.

It must be noted that Council approvals may be required for the implementation of the traffic signal at

Gram Street as the signal does not meet the Traffic Signal Warrant.

Signage and pavement markings will be included as part of the detailed design and will be in

accordance with the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Planning and Design Guidelines and

Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities.

Streetscaping and Landscaping

The preferred design acknowledges that the study area lies within the Village of Maple Heritage

Conservation District and reflects the goals and objectives set out in the Village of Maple Heritage

Conservation District Plan (2006). Between Jackson Street and Keele Street, streetscaping features

involve planters, bollards, red unit pavers, ornamental lighting, bollards and street furniture. A visual

depiction of the preferred design is presented below, looking west at Major Mackenzie Drive and

Keele Street.

At the western edge of the study area, the preferred design includes a multi-use path (MUP) on the

north and south sides of the street. The MUPs are separated from the roadway by raised concrete

tree planters. The raised planter edges provide space for seating while a concrete median delineates

bi-directional vehicular traffic.

Public amenity areas are planned to connect Major Mackenzie Drive with the future recreational trail

along the West Don River Valley. The public amenity areas will enable trail access on both the north

and south sides of the street and will include benches, planting beds, shade trees and sitting blocks.

It must be noted that streetscape enhancements proposed by the City of Vaughan per the Village of



Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan will have to be coordinated with York Region at the

Detailed Design stages of the project. As these enhancements are not a regional standard, they are

eligible for partnership funding through York Region’s Municipal Streetscape Partnership Program.

Geotechnical and Pavement

A geotechnical assessment was conducted. The existing pavement structure on this section of Major

Mackenzie Drive does not satisfy York Region’s requirements for an arterial road and significant

strengthening is required to upgrade the road to support future traffic based on the projected growth.

A number of pavement rehabilitation options were reviewed. The preferred option based on the grade

raise restriction is full depth reconstruction.

Drainage and Stormwater

Overall, the existing drainage patterns and locations will not be altered with the proposed roadway

improvements. However, the improvements will result in an additional pavement area of 0.57

hectares within the existing right-of-way of Major Mackenzie Drive.

To augment the increase in pavement area, over-sized storage pipes are proposed immediately

upstream of the storm connection pipes/outfall to provide the required storage volume for peak flow

control. In addition, an oil-grit separator is proposed prior to discharge into the West Don River. The

OGS will provide water quality treatment to a 1.32 hectare pavement area. Proposed roadway

drainage will be collected by a series of catchbasins and conveyed by storm sewers to storm outlets

at each of the drainage outfall locations along the corridor. The roadway design should ensure that

major system runoff up to the 100 year event can safely be conveyed to watercourse locations and

should allow one lane in each direction to be clear of any flooding.

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Based on the preliminary cost estimates, the cost of the recommended improvements is estimated at

$6.0 million. The preliminary cost estimate includes cost for roadwork, active transportation,

illumination, utilities, landscaping, traffic signals and engineering. The costs associated with the

culvert replacement emergency work at the West Don River crossing is not included as part of the

Major Mackenzie Drive EA Study. These preliminary cost estimates are to be reviewed and confirmed

during detailed design.

Culverts and Structures

The findings of the Culvert Inspection Report indicated that the existing corrugated steel arch culvert

at the West Don River crossing is in very poor condition and that immediate replacement of the

culvert is recommended. Due to the urgent nature of the culvert works, the replacement project is

being undertaken separately as a schedule “A” Class EA and is not part of this study.

Environmental Effects and Mitigation

Anticipated impacts to the natural, socio-economic, and cultural environments together with proposed

mitigation measures were identified to address the implementation of the preliminary preferred

design. Socio-economic analysis included air quality and traffic noise/vibration analysis. Natural

environment impacts include aquatic habitat and fisheries, vegetation and vegetation communities,

wildlife and wildlife habitat, and contamination. Cultural impacts include built heritage and cultural

heritage landscape features, and archaeology.

In general, impacts associated with the proposed Major Mackenzie Drive improvements are minor in

nature and can be mitigated. Although the West Don tributary culvert replacement is a technically

complex undertaking, it is being completed as a separate EA that will ensure impacts are minimized.

Timing of Implementation and Future Commitments

The Major Mackenzie Drive EA study is not currently identified in York Region’s 10-year Capital

Construction Program (2018-2027). Subject to approval of the Environmental Assessment, the timing

of construction will be confirmed through the Region’s project prioritization process. The capital

construction program is reviewed annually and projects may be advanced (or deferred) subject to

other regional priorities and available funding.


December 20, 2018 | i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i

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

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

Purpose of the Project ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2

Study Organization .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3

The Project Team ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 The Consultant Team ................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2

Study Process ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.4

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) ...................................... 2 1.4.1 Part II Orders ................................................................................................................ 2 1.4.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) ...................................................... 3 1.4.3

2 Provincial, Regional and Municipal Context and Growth ..................................................................... 3

Provincial Planning Context ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1

Regional Planning Context ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2

York Region Transportation Master Plan (2016) .......................................................... 5 2.2.1 Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum (2015) .................................................. 6 2.2.2 Viva Network Expansion Plan Design .......................................................................... 6 2.2.3

Municipal and Other Relevant Planning Policies ....................................................................... 7 2.3

3 Public and Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................................................... 8

Consultation Approach .............................................................................................................. 8 3.1

Public Consultation .................................................................................................................... 8 3.2

Agency and Stakeholder Consultation..................................................................................... 10 3.3

Aboriginal Group Consultation ................................................................................................. 10 3.4

4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 11

Existing Transportation Inventory ............................................................................................ 11 4.1

Road Network ............................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Network Connectivity and Continuity .......................................................................... 14 4.1.2 Existing Truck Restrictions ......................................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Transit Network ........................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4 Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities ................................................................................ 15 4.1.5 Driveways and Accesses ............................................................................................ 15 4.1.6

Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................................................. 16 4.2

Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Archaeology ................................................................................................................ 16 4.2.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Features ........................................................ 19 4.2.3

Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 19 4.3

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ..................................................................................... 19 4.3.1 Vegetation and Terrestrial Habitat .............................................................................. 20 4.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors ..................................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Designated Natural Areas ........................................................................................... 20 4.3.4 Fluvial Geomorphology ............................................................................................... 20 4.3.5

Contamination .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.4

Source Water Protection .......................................................................................................... 23 4.5

Geotechnical Investigations .................................................................................................... 23 4.6

Drainage and Stormwater Management ................................................................................. 23 4.7

Watercourse Crossing Structures ........................................................................................... 24 4.8

Utilities and Other Services ..................................................................................................... 24 4.9

Water and Wastewater Management ......................................................................... 24 4.9.1 Illumination ................................................................................................................. 24 4.9.2

Road Geometrics..................................................................................................................... 24 4.10

Vertical and Horizontal Alignment .............................................................................. 24 4.10.1

Urban Development ................................................................................................................ 25 4.11

5 Needs Assessment............................................................................................................................ 25

Existing Transportation Operations ......................................................................................... 25 5.1

Traffic Volumes – Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts .......................................... 25 5.1.1 Existing Intersection Operations ................................................................................ 27 5.1.2 Queuing ...................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Transit Service Quality ............................................................................................... 30 5.1.4 Pedestrian Quality of Service ..................................................................................... 30 5.1.5 Cyclist Quality of Service ............................................................................................ 31 5.1.6 Public Petition ............................................................................................................. 32 5.1.7

Future Transportation Conditions ............................................................................................ 33 5.2

Future Population and Employment Growth .............................................................. 33 5.2.1 York Region Model ..................................................................................................... 33 5.2.2 Future Road Network ................................................................................................. 34 5.2.3 Future Intersection Operations ................................................................................... 35 5.2.4

Traffic Safety Needs ................................................................................................................ 37 5.3

Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................... 37 5.3.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 38 5.3.2

6 Problem and Opportunity Statement ................................................................................................. 39

7 Alternative Solutions .......................................................................................................................... 39

Generation of Alternative Solutions ......................................................................................... 39 7.1

2015 York Region Memo Alternative Solutions.......................................................... 39 7.1.1 Proposed Alternative Solutions .................................................................................. 40 7.1.2

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions .......................................................................................... 41 7.2

Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................... 41 7.2.1 Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 41 7.2.2

Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 43 7.3

Preferred Solution ................................................................................................................... 47 7.4

8 Alternative Designs for the Preferred Solution .................................................................................. 47

Generation of Alternative Design Concepts ............................................................................ 47 8.1

Constraints ................................................................................................................. 47 8.1.1 Corridor Segmentation ............................................................................................... 48 8.1.2

Alternative Design Cross-Sections .......................................................................................... 49 8.2

Summary of Cross-Section Long-list .......................................................................... 49 8.2.1 Design Team Workshop ............................................................................................. 50 8.2.2 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 51 8.2.3 Design Cross-Sections Short-list ............................................................................... 52 8.2.4 Evaluation of Alternative Designs .............................................................................. 56 8.2.5


December 20, 2018 | ii

Recommended Design ............................................................................................................ 68 8.3

West Segment – McNaughton Road/Avro Road to Gram Street ............................... 68 8.3.1 Central Segment – Gram Street to Jackson Street .................................................... 68 8.3.2 East Segment – Keele Street to Jackson Street ........................................................ 68 8.3.3 Operational Improvements ......................................................................................... 69 8.3.4 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................. 70 8.3.5

9 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 70

Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 70 9.1

Road Geometry ........................................................................................................................ 72 9.2

Horizontal Alignment ................................................................................................... 72 9.2.1 Vertical Alignment ....................................................................................................... 72 9.2.2

Structural Design ..................................................................................................................... 72 9.3

Typical Cross-Sections ............................................................................................................ 72 9.4

West Segment – McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Gram Street ............................. 72 9.4.1 Central Segment – Gram Street to Jackson Street .................................................... 73 9.4.2 East Segment – Jackson Street to Keele Street ........................................................ 73 9.4.3

Cycling and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................. 73 9.5

Intersections and Access Modifications ................................................................................... 74 9.6

Traffic Signals, Illumination and Signage ................................................................................ 74 9.7

Streetscaping and Landscaping .............................................................................................. 74 9.8

Property Requirements ............................................................................................................ 75 9.9

Drainage / SWM Plan .............................................................................................................. 75 9.10

Geomorphology ....................................................................................................................... 76 9.11

Geotechnical and Foundations Engineering ............................................................................ 76 9.12

Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 76 9.13

Preliminary Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................... 77 9.14

Constructability, Staging and Detour Considerations .............................................................. 77 9.15

Construction Monitoring and Maintenance Considerations ..................................................... 77 9.16

10 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation ................................................................................. 78

Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................................................. 78 10.1

Property Impacts and Access ..................................................................................... 78 10.1.1 Development Impacts ................................................................................................. 78 10.1.2 Air Quality Assessment ............................................................................................... 78 10.1.3 Noise Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 79 10.1.4

Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 80 10.2

Vegetation and Vegetation Communities ................................................................... 80 10.2.1 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................ 81 10.2.2 Mitigation and Environmental Protection .................................................................... 81 10.2.3 Contamination ............................................................................................................. 82 10.2.4

Cultural Environment ............................................................................................................... 82 10.3

Built Heritage Features and Cultural Heritage Landscape Features .......................... 82 10.3.1 Archaeological Assessment ........................................................................................ 83 10.3.2

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................... 83 10.4

Approach to Climate Change Consideration .............................................................. 83 10.4.1 Potential Climate Change Effects ............................................................................... 83 10.4.2 Climate Change Mitigation .......................................................................................... 84 10.4.3

Source Water Protection ......................................................................................................... 84 10.5

Stormwater Runoff ..................................................................................................... 84 10.5.1 The Application of Road Salt ...................................................................................... 84 10.5.2 The Storage of Snow Related to Roadway Clearing Operations ............................... 84 10.5.3

Key Agency Comments ........................................................................................................... 85 10.6

Ministry of the Environment, Parks and Conservation (MECP) ................................. 85 10.6.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ................................................. 85 10.6.2 City of Vaughan .......................................................................................................... 85 10.6.3

11 Timing of Implementation and Future Commitments ........................................................................ 86

Project Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 86 11.1

Lapse of Time ............................................................................................................. 86 11.1.1

Commitments for Future Work ................................................................................................ 86 11.2

Property Requirements .............................................................................................. 86 11.2.1 Archaeology................................................................................................................ 86 11.2.2 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................ 86 11.2.3 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 86 11.2.4 Natural Environment ................................................................................................... 86 11.2.5 Active Transportation Facilities .................................................................................. 86 11.2.6 Streetscaping and Landscaping ................................................................................. 87 11.2.7 Geotechnical and Pavement Design .......................................................................... 87 11.2.8 Groundwater, Hydrogeology, Drainage and Stormwater Management ..................... 87 11.2.9 Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 87 11.2.10 Constructability, Staging and Detours ........................................................................ 87 11.2.11 Additional Consultation and Coordination .................................................................. 87 11.2.12 Summary of Anticipated Permits and Approvals ........................................................ 87 11.2.13

Timing of Improvements .......................................................................................................... 87 11.3


December 20, 2018 | iii

List of Tables Table 2-1: Provincial Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-2: Regional Planning Context ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 2-3: Municipal and Other Planning Context ......................................................................................... 7

Table 3-1: Key Engagement Strategies and Milestones ............................................................................... 8

Table 4-1: Summary of Existing Drainage Areas ........................................................................................ 23

Table 4-2: Existing West Don River Culvert Data ....................................................................................... 23

Table 4-3: Hydraulic Analysis Results for the West Don River Culvert (Existing Condition) ...................... 24

Table 5-1: Turning Movement Count Locations and Dates ......................................................................... 25

Table 5-2: Signalized Intersection Level of Service (HCM 2000) ................................................................ 27

Table 5-3: Existing Signalized Intersection Traffic Operations .................................................................... 27

Table 5-4: Existing Unsignalized Intersection and Entrance Traffic Operations ......................................... 28

Table 5-5: Population and Employment Growth Assumptions (York Region EMME Model) ...................... 33

Table 5-6: York Region Unadjusted Model Volumes for Major Mackenzie Drive ....................................... 34

Table 5-7: Constant Annual Growth Rates (2011-2021 model) .................................................................. 34

Table 5-8: 2020 AM link volumes (Furnessed) ............................................................................................ 34

Table 5-9: 2020 Intersection Traffic Operations (Existing Intersection Configuration) ................................ 35

Table 5-10: Intersection Collision Rates ...................................................................................................... 37

Table 5-11: Segment Collision Rates .......................................................................................................... 37

Table 5-12: Intersection Collision Analysis .................................................................................................. 37

Table 5-13: Segment Collision Analysis ...................................................................................................... 38

Table 5-14: Collision Trends Summary ....................................................................................................... 38

Table 7-1: Improvements Analyzed in the York Region Memo (2015) ....................................................... 39

Table 7-2: Travel Time Savings (York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memo 2015) ..................... 40

Table 7-3: Proposed Alternative Solutions .................................................................................................. 40

Table 7-4: Alternative Solution Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 41

Table 7-5: Morning Peak Hour Travel Times .............................................................................................. 41

Table 7-6: Afternoon Peak Hour Travel Times ............................................................................................ 41

Table 7-7: Travel Time Savings Results...................................................................................................... 42

Table 7-8: AM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions at the Keele Street intersection ............................................ 42

Table 7-9: PM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions at the Keele Street intersection ............................................ 42

Table 7-10: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Matrix ................................................................................ 44

Table 8-1: Design Criteria and Assumptions ............................................................................................... 51

Table 8-2: Evaluation Criteria for Alternative Designs ................................................................................. 56

Table 8-3: Evaluation of Alternative Cross-sections (West Segment) ........................................................ 57

Table 8-4: Evaluation of Alternative Cross-sections (Central Segment) ..................................................... 60

Table 8-5: Evaluation of Cross-section Alternatives (East Segment) ......................................................... 63

Table 8-6:Multi-modal Signal Warrant Analysis Results ............................................................................. 69

Table 9-1: Roadway Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 70

Table 9-2: Active Transportation Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 71

Table 9-3: Access Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 71

Table 9-4: Drainage Area Summary ............................................................................................................ 75

Table 9-5: Summary of Stormwater Management Plan .............................................................................. 75

Table 9-6: Geomorphic Assessment summary and Crossing Recommendations ..................................... 76

Table 10-1: Cultural Heritage Assessment Resources and Recommendations ......................................... 82

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Study Area Map ......................................................................................................................... 1

Exhibit 1-2: Municipal Class EA Process ...................................................................................................... 2

Exhibit 2-1: Proposed ten year cycling network (Source: YR-TMP) ............................................................. 5

Exhibit 2-2: Proposed 2017-2021 Transit Network (Source: YR-TMP) ........................................................ 5

Exhibit 2-3: Proposed 2017-2021 Road network (Source: YR-TMP) ........................................................... 6

Exhibit 2-4: Viva Network Expansion Program – Silver Curbside Bus Route (Source: YRT/VIVA 2016-2020 Strategic Plan) .................................................................................................................................. 6

Exhibit 4-1: Conceptual Cross-Section of Existing Road Looking East ...................................................... 11

Exhibit 4-2: Existing ROW from McNaughton Road/Avro Road to Killian Road / Netherford Road (Source: York Maps) ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Exhibit 4-3: Existing ROW from Killian Road / Netherford Road to Keele Street (Source: York Maps) ..... 12

Exhibit 4-4: Existing Road Network and Lane Configurations .................................................................... 13

Exhibit 4-5: Surrounding Area ..................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 4-6: Location of YRT Bus Stops ...................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 4-7: Barrie GO Line ......................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 4-8: North side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west at Golden Spruce Lane ............................ 15

Exhibit 4-9: South side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west at Jackson Street .................................... 15

Exhibit 4-10: North side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west of Killian Road/Netherford Road ............ 15

Exhibit 4-11: South side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west toward McNaughton Road/Avro Road .. 15

Exhibit 4-12: Location of commercial and residential driveway accesses .................................................. 16

Exhibit 4-13: Land uses along Major Mackenzie Drive ............................................................................... 16

Exhibit 4-14: Stage 1 Archeological Assessment Results .......................................................................... 18

Exhibit 4-15: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in the Study Area ..................................................... 19

Exhibit 4-16: Potential Contaminated Sites in the Study Area .................................................................... 22

Exhibit 4-17: Source Protection Information in the Vicinity of the Study Area ............................................ 23

Exhibit 4-18: Development in the study area .............................................................................................. 25

Exhibit 5-1: 2015 Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Volumes ............................................................... 26

Exhibit 5-2: AM Peak Hour Critical Movements .......................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 5-3: PM Peak Hour Critical Movements .......................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 5-4: Existing AM Peak Hour Queuing Conditions ........................................................................... 30

Exhibit 5-5: Segment PLOS 'B' ................................................................................................................... 31

Exhibit 5-6: Segment PLOS 'C' ................................................................................................................... 31

Exhibit 5-7: Segment PLOS 'D' ................................................................................................................... 31

Exhibit 5-8: Segment PLOS `E` .................................................................................................................. 31

Exhibit 5-9: Segment and Intersection PLOS along Major Mackenzie Drive .............................................. 31

Exhibit 5-10: No dedicated facility, cyclists operate in mixed traffic ............................................................ 32

Exhibit 5-11: Aerial view of McNaughton Road/Avro Road intersection, BLOS ‘E’ .................................... 32

Exhibit 5-12: Segment and Intersection BLOS along Major Mackenzie Drive ............................................ 32

Exhibit 5-13: Model traffic zones adjacent to EA Study Limits .................................................................... 33

Exhibit 5-14: 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic at Signalized Intersection .......................................................... 35

Exhibit 5-15: 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic at Signalized Intersections ........................................................ 35


December 20, 2018 | iv

Exhibit 5-16: 2020 intersection level of service for drivers during weekday AM peak ................................ 36

Exhibit 5-17: 2020 intersection level of service for drivers during weekday PM peak ................................ 37

Exhibit 7-1: Signal and PXO Warrant Results ............................................................................................. 43

Exhibit 8-1: Constraints between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Killian Road/Netherford Road ........ 47

Exhibit 8-2: Constraints between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street ..................................... 47

Exhibit 8-3: Corridor Segmentation ............................................................................................................. 48

Exhibit 8-4: Major Mackenzie Drive looking east at Keele Street ................................................................ 48

Exhibit 8-5: Looking east from 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive Plaza ............................................................ 48

Exhibit 8-6: Looking east along Major Mackenzie Drive from McNaughton Road/Avro Road .................... 49

Exhibit 8-7: Screening process and rationale established through the Design Team Workshop ............... 50

Exhibit 8-8: Alternative Design 3A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks)......................................... 53

Exhibit 8-9: Alternative Design 3B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on north side) ........................... 53

Exhibit 8-10: Alternative Design 2A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks) ...................................... 54

Exhibit 8-11: Alternative Design 2B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on north side) ......................... 54

Exhibit 8-12: Alternative Design 1A (Standard lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks) ........................................ 55

Exhibit 8-13: Alternative Design 1B (Reduced lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks) ........................................ 55

Exhibit 8-14: Recommended Design for the West Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive ............................. 68

Exhibit 8-15: Recommended Design for the Central Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive .......................... 68

Exhibit 8-16: Recommended Design for the East Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive .............................. 68

Exhibit 9-1: Recommended Design for the West Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive ............................... 72

Exhibit 9-2: Recommended Design for the Central Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive ............................ 73

Exhibit 9-3: Recommended Design for the East Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive ................................ 73

Exhibit 9-4: Preferred Design for Major Mackenzie Drive at Keele Street, looking west ............................ 74

Exhibit 9-5: Preferred Design for Major Mackenzie Drive at Saint David's Church, looking west ............... 74

Appendices

A. Preliminary Design Drawings

B. Agency and Stakeholder Correspondence

C. Consultation

D. Aboriginal Group Consultation

E. Archaeological Assessment

F. Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

G. Natural Heritage Report

H. Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment

I. Contamination Overview Study

J. Geotechnical Investigation

K. Drainage and Stormwater Management Report

L. York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum (2015)

M. Transportation Technical Report #1

N. Public Petition

O. Transportation Technical Report #3

P. Landscape and Streetscape Strategy

Q. Preliminary Cost Estimate

R. Noise Impact Assessment

S. Structural Inspection Report

T. Street Tree Inventory and Management Plan


December 20, 2018 | v

This page is intentionally left blank.

December 20, 2018 | 1

1 Introduction

The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) has completed a Schedule “C” Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment (EA) study to review the short-term transportation operational needs

along Major Mackenzie Drive West (referred to as Major Mackenzie Drive for the purpose of this

report), from McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Keele Street in the City of Vaughan.

York Region is responsible for monitoring its transportation network and implementing required

improvements in a timely manner. Concerns raised regarding traffic operations on Major Mackenzie

Drive within the study limits included challenging access to and from businesses, congestion, and

queuing and pedestrian crossing. These issues led York Region to investigate short-term (2020)

transportation improvements for the corridor.

York Region retained HDR to conduct the Major Mackenzie Drive Class EA study. This

Environmental Study Report (ESR) documents the study consultation and decision making

rationale, following the process outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal

Class EA guidelines for Schedule ’C’ projects (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015).

The EA study was conducted primarily to address existing operational issues for a short term

(2020) horizon year. The horizon year was chosen as 5 years from the date Vaughan City Council

passed the resolution and identified the problem (November 2015). A future EA study will assess

the long-term transportation needs (as recommended by the YR-TMP 25-year outlook), including

capacity and multi-modal improvements.

The study area crosses the West Don River tributary. Due to the poor structural condition of the

culvert at that location, replacement of the structure (ID 25-18 C1180) was recommended. On

account of the emergency nature of the culvert replacement, this work is being conducted

separately to the Schedule “C” EA study in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment,

Conservation and Parks, Toronto Region Conservation Authority and City of Vaughan and is

ongoing at the time of completion of the study.

Study Area 1.1

The study area is 1.4 km long and is bounded by McNaughton Road/Avro Road to the west and

Keele Street to the east, in the Village of Maple, located in the City of Vaughan. Major Mackenzie

Drive within the study limits is currently a 4-lane urban arterial road with a posted speed limit of 50

km/h. The street intersects McNaughton Road/Avro Road, Killian Road/Netherford Road, Gram

Street, Jackson Street and Keele Street.

This section of Major Mackenzie Drive is characterized by a combination of low-rise residential,

mixed-use, commercial as well as institutional buildings and has a number of closely spaced

driveways. The study area is presented visually in Exhibit 1-1.

Exhibit 1-1: Study Area Map

Purpose of the Project 1.2

York Region was notified by the City of Vaughan of a number of operational issues in the study

corridor, including challenging access to and from the land uses on either side of Major Mackenzie

Drive, and heavy through traffic and queuing, particularly in the eastbound direction at Keele Street.

The purpose of the Class EA study is to determine specific short-term transportation improvements

to Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road to the west and Keele Street to

the east for the horizon year of 2020. A future EA study will assess long-term transportation needs,

including capacity and multi-modal improvements to the corridor.

In particular, the EA study will:

Review existing conditions and operational challenges along this section of Major Mackenzie

Drive

Identify opportunities for improvement and offer possible solutions, including the replacement of

the West Don River tributary culvert

Investigate and recommend alternative designs for the preferred solution

Collect, document and assess input and feedback from residents and affected groups within the

study area

Study Organization 1.3

The Project Team 1.3.1

The York Region Project Team consisted of:

Jackson Marin Project Manager

Billy Cheung Deputy Project Manager


December 20, 2018 | 2

The Consultant Team 1.3.2

The consultant team included:

Anthony Reitmeier Project Manager – HDR

Christine Hawryluk Deputy Project Manager – HDR

Karim Nahed Transportation Planning – HDR

Michelle Li Water Resources/Environmental Planning – HDR

Jonathan Chai Traffic Analysis Lead – HDR

Peter Yu Preliminary Design – HDR

Nicole Kochmanova Stage 1 Archaeology Assessment – Golder Associates Ltd.

Henry Cary Cultural Heritage Assessment – Golder Associates Ltd.

Michael Roy Natural Heritage – SLR Consulting Ltd.

Ahmed Siddiqui Geomorphology Assessment – Matrix Solutions Inc.

Darrin Sellick Foundations and Geotechnical – Golder Associates Ltd.

Michael Roy Contamination Assessment – SLR Consulting Ltd.

Shira Daltrop Noise Assessment – Golder Associates Ltd.

James McWilliams Streetscape Design – James McWilliams & Associates

Study Process 1.4

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) 1.4.1

The Municipal Class EA is an approved Class EA process, in accordance with the Environmental

Assessment Act of Ontario (EAA) that applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads,

water, and wastewater. This process provides a comprehensive planning approach to consider

alternative solutions and evaluate their impact on a set of criteria (e.g. technical, environmental,

social, cost) and determine any mitigating measures to arrive at a preferred alternative for

addressing the problem (or opportunity). The process involves consulting agencies (technical and

regulatory), Aboriginal groups, and public at the various project stages.

This Class EA was undertaken and prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Municipal

Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in

2007, 2011 and 2015). Due to the type of project, anticipated potential impacts, and estimated

construction cost, the EA was conducted in compliance with a Schedule “C” project. A Schedule

“C” project involves either the construction of new facilities or major expansions of existing facilities.

For the existing facilities, this could include road widening, adjustments, and operational

improvements. This study has completed the first four phases of the five-phase Class EA Process.

Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the sequence of activities within the approved Class EA process leading to

project implementation. The phases for this study are described below:

Phase 1 (Problem or Opportunity) – Identify the problem (deficiency) or opportunity.

Phase 2 (Alternative Solutions) – Identify alternative solutions to address the problem or

opportunity by taking into consideration the existing environment, and establish the preferred

solution taking into account public and review agency input.

Phase 3 (Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution) – Examine alternative

methods of implementing the preferred solution, based on the existing environment, public and

review agency input, anticipated environmental effects, and methods of minimizing negative

effects and maximizing positive effects.

Phase 4 (Environmental Study Report) – Document in an Environmental Study Report a

summary of the rationale, the planning, design, and consultation process of the project. Place

the ESR on public record for a minimum 30 calendar days for review, and notify completion of

the ESR and provision for Part II Order requests.

Phase 5 (Implementation), which involves detailed design, preparation of contract drawings and

tender documents, construction, operation, and monitoring, is not part of this study. The ESR

provides information on the study background, problem statement, alternative solutions, alternative

designs, and the public consultation process.

Exhibit 1-2: Municipal Class EA Process

After the ESR is finalized, it is filed and placed on public record for a minimum of 30 calendar days

for review by the public and review agencies. At the time the report is filed, a Notice of Completion

of the Environmental Study Report will be advertised, advising the public and other stakeholders

where the Environmental Study Report may be seen and reviewed, and how to submit comments.

The Notice will also advise the public and other stakeholders of their right to request a Part II Order,

and how and when such a request must be submitted.

Part II Orders 1.4.2

Under the EAA, members of the public, interest groups, agencies, and other stakeholders may

submit a written request to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the Minister)

to require the proponent (York Region) to comply with Part II of the EAA (referred to as a Part II

Order) before proceeding with the proposed undertaking. Part II of the EAA addresses Individual


December 20, 2018 | 3

Environmental Assessments. The request for a Part II Order must also be copied to the proponent

at the same time it is submitted to the Minister. Written requests for a Part II Order must be

submitted to the Minister within the minimum 30 calendar day review period. The Minister or

delegate then reviews the Environmental Study Report to ensure that the MEA Schedule ‘C’ Class

EA process has been followed. The proponent and the requestor have an opportunity to discuss

and resolve the issues.

To submit a Part II Order request and obtain the necessary forms, the applicant can follow the new

process outlined online at the following link: https://www.ontario.ca/page/class-environmental-

assessments-part-ii-order

Once the proponent has satisfied the requestor’s concerns a requestor should promptly withdraw a

Part II Order request. If the proponent and requestor are unable to resolve the concerns, the

Minister or delegate will make a decision on a Part II Order:

1. Refer the matter to mediation before making a decision under the provisions of subsection

16(6) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

2. Deny the request for an order and inform the proponent and requestor of the decision and

rationale.

3. Deny the request for an order but impose conditions.

4. Require the proponent to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act which

requires the preparation of a term of reference and an individual environmental assessment.

The Minister’s decision on a Part II Order request is final.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 1.4.3

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), a federal environmental

assessment study may be required to the physical activities that constitute a “designated project”,

under the project list identified in the Regulations Amending the Regulations Designating Physical

Activities, 2013. This project list ensures that federal environmental assessments are focused on

the major projects with the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental impacts to

matters of federal jurisdiction. The Major Mackenzie Drive EA study does not constitute a

“designated project” and therefore does not require a federal environmental assessment under the

CEAA, 2012.

However, the Minister of the Environment may order an assessment for any project not included in

the project list, where there may be adverse environmental effects related to federal jurisdiction.

2 Provincial, Regional and Municipal Context and Growth

A summary of the Provincial, Regional, and Municipal planning and policy context is provided in this

section as they relate to the Major Mackenzie Drive Class EA. As this EA considers operational

improvements to deal with pressing issues in the study area, the planning documents were

reviewed under that lens and focus mainly on recommendations and visions for the near-term

(2020).

Provincial Planning Context 2.1

Provincial planning policies were reviewed to identify their relevance to the Major Mackenzie Drive

Class EA. Provincial plans are identified and summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Provincial Planning Context

Provincial Planning Document

Description/Relevance

Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

Provides direction on land use planning and development as well as the transportation system, including:

Providing appropriate development while protecting resources, public health and safety, and the natural and built environments

Building strong, healthy communities by supporting density and land uses which support active transportation, are transit-supportive, are freight-supportive

Safe, energy efficient, transportation systems that move people and goods

Integrated transportation and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process

Use of travel demand management (TDM) strategies to maximize efficiency

Land use pattern, density, and mix of uses to minimize length and number of vehicle trips, support current and future use of transit and active transportation

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017)

Originally published in 2002, the ORMCP provides direction on how to protect the Moraine’s ecological and hydrogeological features. The study area does not fall within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Greenbelt Plan (2017)

Updated in 2017 as a result of the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review, the Greenbelt Plan identifies environmentally and agriculturally protected lands within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, where urbanization should not occur, in order to protect ecological features. Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street does not fall within the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan. However, the West Don River tributary crossing is identified as an Urban River Valley and subject to the relevant policies, including 1.2.3 and 6.2(3).

https://www.ontario.ca/page/class-environmental-assessments-part-ii-order

https://www.ontario.ca/page/class-environmental-assessments-part-ii-order


December 20, 2018 | 4

Provincial Planning Document


Places to Grow Act / Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006, 2017)

Originally adopted in 2006, the 2017 update sets forth a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s 2041 vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the region. Within York Region, four Regional Centres (Markham, Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway, Vaughan Metropolitan, and Newmarket) are designated as Urban Growth Centres. The Growth Plan contains policies applicable to infrastructure planning including directing intensification toward strategic growth areas, supporting a balanced, sustainable and connected transportation system for all modes, facilitating efficient goods movement in and out of employment areas.

The land around the Major Mackenzie Drive corridor is classified as a ‘Built-Up’ area in the plan.

The Regional Transportation Plan (2008, Approved Changes 2013)

The Regional Transportation Plan identifies a 25-year plan for the Regional Rapid Transit and Highway Network and sets forth a vision for Regional Express Rail (RER).

The plan does not specify any transportation improvements for the study area. However, upgrades to the Barrie Regional Rail line to accommodate full-day, two-way service are identified in the 15-Year Plan. The line operates between Union Station and Bradford and has a stop at Maple GO station, 700m east of the study area.

Provincial Co-ordinated Plan Review (2017)

The Province completed a simultaneous review of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan. This Coordinated Review of the four plans recognizes their common geography and the interconnected nature of their policies and provides an opportunity to assess progress to date, address challenges and make improvements to strengthen the plans and ensure a vibrant, healthy region for current and future generations. The Plan Review’s role is to develop consensus-based recommendations to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Natural Resources and Forestry on ways to amend and improve the plans. The review recommends increased efforts to curb sprawl, build complete communities, grow the Greenbelt, support agriculture and address traffic congestion.

The proposed revisions were released in May 2017 and do not affect the study corridor.

Regional Planning Context 2.2

Regional planning policies were reviewed to identify their relevance to the Major Mackenzie Drive

Class EA. Regional plans are identified and summarized in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Regional Planning Context

Regional Planning Document


York Region Official Plan (YR-OP) (2013)

Provides direction to guide economic, environmental, and community-building decisions to manage growth. YR-OP incorporates the Planning for Tomorrow study, undertaken to identify how York Region will accommodate the several provincial planning initiatives. The main theme of the YR-OP is to move York Region towards sustainability, completed through policies that emphasize a reduction in automobile reliance and an increase in active transportation facilities.

The YR-OP transportation road network (Map 12 Street Network) designates a right-of-way (ROW) width of up to 45.0 m along the majority of Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road to west of Keele Street and up to 30.0 m in the vicinity of the Keele Street intersection.

York Region Strategic Plan (Vision 2051) (2011)

Vision 2051 is York Region’s long-term strategy. It identifies eight goal areas that will guide policies to create strong, caring, and safe communities designed with sustainability in mind. The Vision identifies actions to help achieve these goals, several pertaining to the design of future transportation facilities and the importance of their positive contribution to vibrant communities.

York Region Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP) (2016)

Provides infrastructure and policy requirements for a 25-year outlook that allows York Region to achieve its strategic vision of an advanced, interconnected system of mobility within the Region. Further information pertaining to transportation infrastructure improvements as documented in the YR-TMP is described within Section 2.2.1 of this report.

York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum (2015)

This technical memo documents the study methodology, findings and recommendations to improve the operations of Major Mackenzie Drive from Killian Road to Keele Street.

Widening for a centre left-turn lane on Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road and Keele Street is feasible within the existing right-of-way. This study concludes that the overall benefits that would be realized by the construction of a left turn lane on Major Mackenzie Drive from Killian Road to Keele Street are low. The study also recommends that broader solutions to traffic congestion in this area be addressed through implementation of missing road links on Teston Road and Kirby Road.

VIVA Network Expansion Plan Design

The Viva Network Expansion Plan (VNEP) identifies rapid transit services and

infrastructure elements that are planned for implementation between 2015 and

2020. Further information pertaining to VIVA Next improvements is described in

Section 2.2.3. Work associated with the VNEP has not been programmed and

timing is to be confirmed.


December 20, 2018 | 5

York Region Transportation Master Plan (2016) 2.2.1

York Region’s current Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP) was completed in 2016. The purpose

of the YR-TMP is to support growth in York Region to the year 2041 by defining a long term

transportation vision based on integrated road and transit network planning. The plan aims to

establish “an interconnected mobility system that encourages active transportation, and is

supported by compact, complete communities to create a healthy, economically-vibrant, socially-

connected and sustainable Region”.

The major themes outlined in the YR-TMP include prioritizing active and shared modes of

transportation, integrating land use and transportation planning, protecting the environment,

enhancing cultural heritage and implementing transportation demand management techniques.

The following sections summarize the key elements of the YR-TMP and their relevance to the Major

Mackenzie EA study within the 2020 horizon year.

Cycling and Pedestrian networks 2.2.1.1

In its ten-year vision (2016-2026), the York Region Transportation Master Plan does not identify

cycling facilities along Major Mackenzie Drive, as can be seen in Exhibit 2-1.

Proposed Ten Year Cycling Network

Exhibit 2-1: Proposed ten year cycling network (Source: YR-TMP)

In the ultimate 2041 cycling network vision, the YR-TMP identifies Major Mackenzie Drive as a

future separated bike lane route for the entire study corridor, spanning from Keele Street to

McNaughton Road/Avro Road.

The specific configurations as well as the type of facility (cycle tracks, raised bike lanes, or multi-

use paths) will depend on the future (2041) typical cross-sections identified through a separate

Class EA process to assess long term needs for Major Mackenzie Drive.

In the long term, the Major Mackenzie Drive cycling facilities are proposed to connect to the Bartley

Smith Greenway North, which begins north of McNaughton Road/Avro Road, passing through

Mackenzie Glen District Park and ending at Teston Road.

At the time of writing of this report, a separate Class EA Study is being undertaken for Major

Mackenzie Drive between Highway 400 and Jane Street in accordance with the YR-TMP (2016)

recommendations. This EA is reviewing active transportation improvements as part of the overall

goal to accommodate population growth in York Region including the Vaughan Healthcare Centre

Precinct.

Transit network 2.2.1.2

Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street is planned to

become a Rapid Transit Corridor by 2021 with VIVA curbside service through the study area, as

shown in Exhibit 2-2.

Proposed 2017-2021 Transit Network

Exhibit 2-2: Proposed 2017-2021 Transit Network (Source: YR-TMP)

At the time of writing of this report, a separate Class EA Study is being undertaken for Major

Mackenzie Drive between Highway 400 and Jane Street and is considering Transit/HOV lanes for

that section of the corridor. Moreover, west of Jane Street, a transit terminal/hub is being planned

for on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive. It is expected the terminal/hub would be used by

several transit agencies and offer connections to Canada’s Wonderland, future Vaughan Healthcare

Precinct and surrounding areas.

2017-2021 Road network 2.2.1.3

The YR-TMP does not identify Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and

Keele Street as a candidate for widening by 2021, as shown in Exhibit 2-3.


December 20, 2018 | 6

Proposed 2017-2021 Road Network

Exhibit 2-3: Proposed 2017-2021 Road network (Source: YR-TMP)

However, widening to six lanes is planned for Major Mackenzie Drive west of the study area

between Highway 27 and Jane Street in the 2017-2021 Road Network Plan. At the time of writing of

this report, a class EA study is being undertaken for Major Mackenzie Drive between Highway 400

and Jane Street to review capacity improvements in accordance with the YR-TMP.

Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum (2015) 2.2.2

York Region received a request from the City of Vaughan through a Council Resolution to review

traffic congestion and vehicle delay related to ingress/egress at commercial and residential

driveways on Major Mackenzie Drive from Killian Road/Netherford Road to Keele Street. The

memorandum, completed in 2015 by the Roads and Traffic Operations group, documented the

study methodology and recommendations to improve traffic operations in the study area. The study

assessed the three following alternatives:

Alternative 1: Status Quo

Alternative 2: Intersection Improvements with Auxiliary Left-turn Lanes

Alternative 3: Intersection Improvements with Continuous Two-Way Centre Left-turn Lane

Findings of the memorandum are summarized:

The overall benefits that would be realized by the construction of a left-turn lane on Major

Mackenzie Drive from Killian Road to Keele Street are low.

High traffic volumes through Maple are the result of network discontinuity in the area including

missing road segments on Teston Road between Keele Street and Dufferin Street and on Kirby

Road between Dufferin Street and Bathurst Street.

Broader solutions to traffic congestion in this area to be addressed through implementation of

missing road links on Teston Road and Kirby Road as identified in the Transportation Master

Plan.

The complete memorandum completed by the York Region Roads and Operations Group can be

found for review under Appendix L.

Viva Network Expansion Plan Design 2.2.3

The Viva Network Expansion Plan (VNEP) identifies rapid transit services and infrastructure

elements that are planned for implementation between 2015 and 2020. The objective of the Viva

Network Expansion Plan is to enhance rapid transit service by optimizing existing Viva service

within dedicated rapidways, and by implementing additional Viva service to increase the

connectivity of York Region’s rapid transit network. The Viva Network Expansion Plan is consistent

with the rapid transit corridors identified in the YR-TMP.

As part of the VNEP, the Viva Silver Route initiative is currently in the final detailed design stage.

The design includes improvements to key intersections and transit stops along Jane Street and

Major Mackenzie Drive in the City of Vaughan and the Town of Richmond Hill. The route will

operate in mixed traffic with transit priority measures and curbside stations, at locations displayed in

Exhibit 2-4.

The VIVA Silver route will include a Viva station at Keele Street which will be accommodated by

widening the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive just east of Keele Street. Changes to the

intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and McNaughton Road/Avro Road are also anticipated as

part of the VNEP Silver project, including two new far side bus stops and the associated intersection

improvement. The road widening required to accommodate bus bays may compromise valuable

pedestrian space, especially on the north and southeast quadrants of the McNaughton Road/Avro

Road intersection. Other streetscape upgrades are also included, such as the addition of

Accessibility for all Ontarians (AODA) compliant pedestrian ramps, the installation of VIVA bus

shelters and extension of an existing planter wall at the Keele Street intersection.

Exhibit 2-4: Viva Network Expansion Program – Silver Curbside Bus Route (Source: YRT/VIVA 2016-2020 Strategic Plan)

Work associated with the VNEP has not been programmed and timing is to be confirmed.


December 20, 2018 | 7

Municipal and Other Relevant Planning Policies 2.3

City of Vaughan planning policies and the National Association of City Transportation Officials

(NACTO) guide were reviewed to identify their relevance to the Major Mackenzie Drive EA. A

summary is provided in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Municipal and Other Planning Context

Municipal Planning Document


City of Vaughan Official Plan Update (2010, October 2017 Office Consolidation)

The Official Plan addresses the City of Vaughan`s long-term planning requirements to the year 2031. In addition to consolidating all former land use policy into one document, the Official Plan provides policy directions to facilitate a sustainable and balanced transportation system.

Recognizing the dominant role the automobile has played in defining patterns of growth and development in Vaughan, the Plan`s focus is on strengthening the pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks and systems in the future.

Vaughan’ vision for the future can be summarized by the following: Build strong and diverse communities Promote moving around without a car Develop a green and sustainable city

City of Vaughan Transportation Master Plan (2012)

Through its Transportation Master Plan, the City of Vaughan has identified several measures designed to make more efficient use of its existing road system. Some of the measures support more sustainable modes of transportation, such as buses, rapid transit service, carpooling, walking and cycling. Other initiatives involve better integrating the transportation network with land-use planning.

No road widening is slated for the study area in the Vaughan TMP. The report designates Major Mackenzie Drive as a rapid transit corridor and proposes higher density residential and mixed-use development in key activity centres and along major transit corridors, such as Major Mackenzie Drive.

City of Vaughan Streetscape Manual and Financial Strategy – Heritage and Intensification Area (2014)

The City-Wide Streetscape Manual provides an integrated design framework to manage the design of streetscapes in Intensification Areas and Heritage Conservation Districts in the City of Vaughan. The Streetscape Manual is a reference tool developed to guide the design and construction of urban streetscapes in Vaughan with consideration of maintenance and operations.

The plan sets the following objectives, which are applicable to Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits: Support active transportation Provide and maintain a consistent quality of design Design appropriate streets to context

Municipal Planning Document


Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Road Policies (2007)

Major Mackenzie Drive from Keele Street to McNaughton Road/Avro Road is designated as a Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District under the City of Vaughan Official Plan and Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan (VMHCDP).

The District Plan policy states that existing pavement widths should not be increased. However, the provision of on-street parking in off peak hours, which increases the sense of pedestrian safety, is supported. In general, all aspects of road design that improve pedestrian amenity and foster a walkable community are encouraged.

Block 27 Secondary Plan (Draft)

The Block 27 Secondary Plan Area is located north of Teston Road (Regional Road 49), east of Jane Street (Regional Road 5), south of Kirby Road and west of Keele Street (Regional Road 6) and comprises Lots 26 – 43 of Concession 4, in the City of Vaughan. Block 27 is intended to be a complete community that prioritizes people, sustainability and livability with a high quality of urban design. The community is planned to feature a range of low to mid-rise buildings that blend a variety of residential, retail and institutional uses. It will be anchored by a local centre that features both institutional uses such as schools, community facilities and the Kirby GO transit hub. The community will also provide an integrated and connected multimodal on and off-road transportation system including transit, walking and cycling. Finally, building upon the area’s abundant natural heritage features, a variety of parks and open 7 spaces will provide residents with space for leisure and recreation.

The Secondary Plan helped inform the population and employment forecasts for this EA study.

Block 41 Secondary Plan (Draft)

New Community Area Block 41 is approximately 441 hectares in area and includes the existing “Purpleville Estates” residential subdivision. It is traversed east-west by the TransCanada Pipeline and associated compressor station, and bordered by Teston Road to the south, Weston Road to the east, Kirby Road to the North and Pine Valley Drive to the west. New Community Area Block 41 will be planned as a complete community with a mix of residential housing, commercial uses, and community facilities such as schools, parks and recreational facilities.

The Secondary Plan helped inform the population and employment forecasts for this EA study.

NACTO Urban Design Guide (2016)

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) represents cities on transportation issues of local, regional and national significance. The Guide outlines both a clear vision for complete streets and a basic road map for how to bring them to fruition, which are essential components to successfully re-imagining Major Mackenzie Drive.

For instance, recommendations on an optimum crosswalk spacing of 200 feet (60m) is one of many insightful pieces the Guide can bring to the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study.


December 20, 2018 | 8

3 Public and Stakeholder Consultation

In accordance with the Municipal Class EA Schedule “C” process, three mandatory points of contact

with the public and review agencies are required for the EA study to:

Review the project and selection of the preferred solution towards the end of Phase 2 and obtain

comment and input;

Review alternatives in Phase 3 to assist in the selection of the preferred design for the chosen

solution and obtain comment and input; and

Announce the completion of the Environmental Study Report and placement of the ESR on public

record for a minimum 30-day review period.

The study has met the minimum mandatory points of contact as described in the following

sections.

Consultation Approach 3.1

Public, stakeholder and agency consultation was critical to ensure concerns from current and future

residents and affected groups within the study area are identified, documented, and assessed. A

variety of Stakeholder groups have been identified, including the individual agencies and utilities,

Indigenous groups, ratepayer organizations, specific interest groups, and the general public. All of

these stakeholders were contacted throughout the study and encouraged to provide input and

become involved in the development of the solutions and designs to address the problems and

opportunities identified for the study area.

Communication with stakeholder groups and the public took place through:

• Letters

• Emails

• Phone calls

• Notices

• Newspaper advertisements

• A project website (york.ca/ea)

• Social media posts

• Meetings

• Two rounds of Open Houses

York Region was the central link for all communications. The communication and consultation was

conducted in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

A mailing list of all residents in the study area was provided by York Region and was kept up-to-date

throughout the study. Both resident mailing and email lists were revised to include a current record of

mailing addresses and emails, including Open House attendees and all those who submit comments

or expressed an interest in the current study.

Moreover, a stakeholder contact list was developed and updated regularly based on responses and

on comments submitted. New additions to the contact list were subsequently sent project updates

and notices.

All individuals and agencies on the contact lists were contacted at the appropriate stages to inform

them of upcoming meetings and events.

Public Consultation 3.2

Public input was an important part of the Major Mackenzie Drive EA. The project team engaged the

general public online, through mail and email notifications, in print, and through public Open Houses

to ensure ample opportunity for participation in the planning process.

An overview of the key consultation milestones is provided in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Key Engagement Strategies and Milestones

Engagement Strategy Date


March 30, 2017 and April 6, 2017 – Published in

Vaughan Citizen, newspaper with local circulation

March 30, 2017 – Notice Issued


October 12, 2017 and October 19, 2017 – Published

in Vaughan Citizen, newspaper with local circulation

October12, 2017 – Notice Issued

Open House #1 October 25, 2017 (Vaughan City Hall)


April 26, 2018 and May 10, 2018 – Published in

Vaughan Citizen, Thornhill Liberal East and West,


April 26, 2018 – Notice Issued

Open House#2 May 15, 2018 (Vaughan City Hall)

Notice of Study Completion

December 20, 2018 & December 27, 2018

Published in Vaughan Citizen and Thornhill Liberal


Detailed information on each of the key consultation events is provided in the following sections.

Consultation event summaries for the aforementioned events can be found in Appendix C.


The notice of study commencement was published in the Vaughan Citizen on March 30, 2017 and

April 6, 2017. The notice was directly mailed to those on the mailing list including properties within the

study corridor, stakeholders and agencies, and placed on the study website.


December 20, 2018 | 9

Open House #1 – October 25, 2017

The first Open House was held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 in the multi-purpose room at

Vaughan City Hall. The purpose of Open House #1 was to present the preliminary findings of Phases

1 and 2 (Problem and Opportunity, and Alternative Solutions) for the Study Area and receive input

from the public and stakeholders.

Notice for this consultation event was provided through the following:

989 Mailed notices to residents and property owners adjacent to the Major Mackenzie Drive

corridor between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street, and all others on the project

contact list (including agency and First Nations representatives and other stakeholders)

Emails to agencies identified previously as stakeholders and First Nations representatives

Posts on social media platforms:

o Study website (www.york.ca/wps/portal/yorkhome/transportation/Major-Mackenzie-

Drive-Keele-EA), and on the Region’s public notices page on October 12, 2017.

o York Region’s Facebook page (October 12, 2017 and October 19, 2017)

o York Region’s Twitter account (October 12, 2017 and October 19, 2017)

Local newspaper advertisement (print and online):

o Vaughan Citizen on October 12, 2017 and October 19, 2017.

Meeting with City of Vaughan Staff on October 12, 2017.

The open house consisted of a drop-in session from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. During this time, residents

and stakeholders had an opportunity to view project background displays and discuss their opinions

and concerns with the project team, which included representatives from York Region and HDR. Staff

from the City of Vaughan were in attendance at the Open House.

A total of 52 people signed in at Open House #1. Attendees were provided with a Comment Form for

them to fill out and return to the project team by November 10, 2017. A total of 11 forms were

submitted and additional comments were sent to the Project Team prior to and in the weeks that

followed the Open House.

The Region uploaded the display boards onto the study website. An online comment form was

provided and presented another opportunity for comment for those who did not attend the meeting.

The comments submitted most frequently noted the difficulty for drivers to enter and exit the

commercial plazas between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street. The provision of a centre

left turn lane was generally seen as a solution with potential to solve the current issues.

The full Open House #1 Summary is provided under Appendix C.

Open House #2 – May 15, 2018

The second Open House for the project was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 in the multi-purpose

room at Vaughan City Hall. The purpose of Open House #2 was to present the alternative designs

proposed to implement the preferred solution.

Notice for this consultation event was provided through the following:

984 Open House mailed invitations to residents, property owners and agencies adjacent to the

Major Mackenzie Drive corridor between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street, and all

others on the project contact list

Emails to agencies identified previously as stakeholders and First Nations representatives

77 emails to residents and property owners that have demonstrated interest in receiving study

updates at Open House #1 (October 2017)

Posts on social media platforms:

o Study website (www.york.ca/wps/portal/yorkhome/transportation/Major-Mackenzie-

Drive-Keele-EA), and on the Region’s public notices page on April 26, 2018.

o York Region’s Facebook page ( April 26, 2018, May 3, 2018 and May 10, 2018)

o York Region’s Twitter account (April 26, 2018, May 3, 2018, May 10, 2018 and May 15,

2018)

Local newspaper advertisement (print and online):

o Vaughan Citizen, on April 26, 2018 and May 10, 2018

Meeting with City of Vaughan Staff on March 22, 2018 and on April 24, 2018 to present material

that will be displayed at the Open House

The open house consisted of a drop-in session from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. During this time, community

residents and stakeholders had an opportunity to view project displays and discuss their opinions and

concerns with the project team, which included representatives from York Region and HDR. Staff

from the City of Vaughan were in attendance at the Open House.

A total of 42 people signed in at Open House #2. Attendees were also provided with a Comment

Form for them to fill out and return to the project team by June 1, 2018. A total of eight forms were

submitted at the Open House and three subsequent comments were received by the Project Team in

the weeks that followed the Open House.

The Region uploaded the display boards onto the study website. An online comment form was

provided and presented another opportunity for comment for those who did not attend the meeting.

The proposed corridor improvements were generally well received and the public was especially

supportive of the streetscaping and active transportation considerations made.

The full Open House #2 Summary is provided under Appendix C.

Notice of Completion

The notice of study completion was published in the Vaughan Citizen and Thornhill Liberal on

December 20, 2018 and December 27, 2018. Social media posts regarding the notice of completion

were shared on the Region’s Facebook page. The notice was directly mailed to those on the mailing

list including properties within the study corridor, stakeholders and agencies, and placed on the study

website.


December 20, 2018 | 10

Agency and Stakeholder Consultation 3.3

As part of the EA process, multiple technical staff from York Region and partner agencies as well as

representatives from area developer groups and other stakeholders were consulted on a regular

basis.

The following is a summary of the agencies and stakeholders contacted:

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Public Infrastructure

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and

Parks (MECP, formerly MOECC)

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

(MNRF)

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern

Development

York Region Transit (YRT)

City of Vaughan, Heritage Vaughan

Committee

City of Vaughan, Community Services

City of Vaughan, Engineering & Public Works

Vaughan Chamber of Commerce

Vaughan Fire and Rescue Services

Toronto Region Conservation Authority

(TRCA)

Student Transportation Services of York

Region

Alectra Utilities

Rogers

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Ministry of Municipal Housing

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Metrolinx

Infrastructure Ontario

Ontario Provincial Police

Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency

Canadian National Railway (CNR)

Environment Canada

Health Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Transport Canada - Ontario Region

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Parks Canada

York Region Catholic School Board

York Region District School Board

York Regional Police

Direction du Service de transport Francobus

Enbridge Gas

Bell

Developers

The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was not contacted as per the MECP’s new

process. This was confirmed at the York Region and MECP meeting on March 31, 2017.

These agencies, stakeholders and staff members were invited to review and provide input on all

aspects of the study process, including: the problem and opportunity statement, evaluation criteria,

development and evaluation of alternatives, and the preferred alternatives. Comments and concerns

were incorporated or acknowledged throughout the study.

Agency consultation consisted of letters, emails, phone calls, exchanges of information, and

meetings. Individual meetings/conference calls were held with agency representatives and other

stakeholders as follows:

MECP: Meeting on June 16, 2017, December 11, 2017.

MNRF: meeting on June 27, 2018.

TRCA: meetings on June 16, 2017, December 7, 2017 and March 5, 2018.

City of Vaughan: meetings on December 7, 2017, March 5, 2018, March 22, 2018, April 24, 2018.

Agency-specific correspondence, including minutes from key meetings, is included in Appendix B.

Aboriginal Group Consultation 3.4

Aboriginal groups to be contacted regarding the study were identified by the MECP (formerly

MOECC) in a letter on June 2, 2017 in accordance with the Ministry`s new Aboriginal group

consultation process. The Aboriginal consultation program for the EA study involved representatives

from the following groups:

Alderville First Nation

Chiefs of Ontario

Curve Lake First Nation

Hiawatha First Nation

Mississaugas of the Scugog Island First

Nation

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Williams Treaties First Nations

Aboriginal community representatives were included in the mailing list for the project, and were

contacted via study notices throughout the study (including Notice of Commencement, Notice of

Open House (2), and Notice of Completion). The mailing list was updated to add additional Aboriginal

community representatives or updated with their contact information as requested throughout the

study, including the addition of Williams Treaties First Nations. Notices were distributed to all of those

on the mailing list at the time of each notice were issued.

Only representatives from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation and the Curve Lake First

Nation contacted the project team to acknowledge receipt of some of the notices that were sent to

them. For the groups that did not respond, the project team followed up on July 5, 2017 by email to

confirm if they have any interest in the study and to provide the opportunity for any comments,

questions and feedback.

The Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) identified a low level of concern regarding

the project but requested that a Field Liaison Representatives (FLR) must be on location whenever

any fieldwork for environmental and/or archaeological assessments is undertaken. York Region

provided a response on September 11, 2017. As of the writing of this report, the Region is reviewing

the MNCFN agreement language for inclusion of FLR on regional projects.

Correspondence logging communication with Aboriginal community representatives is included in

Appendix D


December 20, 2018 | 11

This page was purposefully left blank

4 Existing Conditions The following section documents current conditions including existing transportation facilities, the

socio-economic environment, natural environment and existing infrastructure along the study corridor.

Existing Transportation Inventory 4.1

The current road, transit, cyclist, and pedestrian network for the Major Mackenzie Drive study corridor

is described in the subsequent sections.

Road Network 4.1.1

Within the study area, Major Mackenzie Drive is currently a 4-lane urban arterial road with a posted

speed limit of 50 km/h.

Exhibit 4-1 depicts a typical cross-section of Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits, looking

east of Gram Street.

Exhibit 4-1: Conceptual Cross-Section of Existing Road Looking East (24 m ROW at 2332/2338 Major Mackenzie Drive looking east from Gram Street)

The intersections of Major Mackenzie Drive at McNaughton Road/Avro Road, Killian Road/Netherford

Road and Keele Street are signalized and have auxiliary eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes

(with medians). There are unsignalized intersections at Gram Street and Jackson Street; no turning

lanes are provided at either intersection. There are also a number of driveways and access points

along the corridor, especially between Gram Street and Keele Street (more details can be found in

Section 4.1.6).

The existing right-of-way (ROW) varies along the study corridor, generally ranging between 25 m and

28m from west of Gram Street to east of Keele Street. The remainder of Major Mackenzie Drive, from

McNaughton Road / Avro Road to west of Gram Street has a ROW generally of 36 m. The ROW is 66

m at the West Don River Tributary crossing, as shown in Exhibit 4-2 and Exhibit 4-3. The planned

street width for Major Mackenzie Drive as per the York Region Official Plan 2010 is up to 45 m west

of Killian Road / Netherford Road and 30 m east of it. The existing road network and lane

configurations are shown in Exhibit 4-4.


December 20, 2018 | 12

Exhibit 4-2: Existing ROW from McNaughton Road/Avro Road to Killian Road / Netherford Road (Source: York Maps)

Exhibit 4-3: Existing ROW from Killian Road / Netherford Road to Keele Street (Source: York Maps)


December 20, 2018 | 13

Exhibit 4-4: Existing Road Network and Lane Configurations (Source: Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum 2015)


December 20, 2018 | 14

Network Connectivity and Continuity 4.1.2

Major Mackenzie Drive is a continuous, regional arterial road which spans York Region from its



404. In the vicinity of the study area, it provides direct connections to Jane Street and the Highway

400 interchange to the west and Keele and Dufferin Street to the east.

East of the study limits, the Maple GO station provides residents with train service southbound

to Toronto Union Station and northbound to Barrie Allandale Station. A map showing the context of

the area surrounding the study limits is provided in Exhibit 4-5.

Exhibit 4-5: Surrounding Area

The study area presents a generally "asymmetric" street arrangement characteristic of residential

subdivisions, where the internal road network is separated from the main thoroughfare (Major

Mackenzie Drive) except for a few connections (in this case at the intersections at Gram Street,

Jackson Street, Killian Road / Netherford Road and McNaughton Road / Avro Road). The road

network north and south of Major Mackenzie Drive is largely discontinuous, and contains several

dead-ends and cul-de-sacs. The West Don River tributary valley system also creates a natural barrier

dividing the road network east-west.

Existing Truck Restrictions 4.1.3

According to the York Region TMP, Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits is not considered a

Strategic Goods Movement Corridor. However, there are currently no truck restrictions within the

study corridor

Transit Network 4.1.4

Based on the York Region Transit (YRT) 2018 Service Plan, there are currently four YRT bus routes

serving the study area, including the 462 Maple High School Special, the 560 Maple Community and

the 4 and the 4A Major Mackenzie. The 560 Maple Community bus runs between Vaughan City Hall

and Vaughan Mills Shopping Centre every seventy-two minutes. The 462 Maple H.S Special travels

between Keele-Rutherford and Maple High School on weekday mornings exclusively. The 4 Major

Mackenzie bus serves as a local east-west route connecting Vaughan Mills Shopping Centre and

Hillmount Park. It has 30 minute service beginning at 6 a.m. and ending at 1 a.m. The 4A Major

Mackenzie bus follows a similar route to 4 Major Mackenzie bus, except that it terminates at Pine

Valley Drive in the west. The YRT westbound and eastbound stops along Major Mackenzie between

McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street are shown in Exhibit 4-6.

Exhibit 4-6: Location of YRT Bus Stops

The area is also served by the Barrie GO train line, which runs between Toronto Union Station and

Barrie Allandale Station. As of January 2018, train service operates approximately every 15-30

minutes in the morning peak period, every 30 minutes in the afternoon peak period and every hour at

other times. Outside of peak periods, most trains terminate at Aurora with connecting buses for

stations further north. On weekends and holidays, service operates approximately hourly between

Aurora and Toronto. Three daily trains in each direction cover the full route from Barrie to Toronto,

while the remainder have bus connections at Aurora station for stations further north.

Exhibit 4-7: Barrie GO Line

Context

0 0.2Kilometers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Station_(Toronto)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allandale_Waterfront_GO_Station


December 20, 2018 | 15

The Maple GO Train station is located approximately a kilometre east of the intersection of Keele

Street and Major Mackenzie Drive, as illustrated in Exhibit 4-5.

Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities 4.1.5

As of November 2018, cyclists do not have a dedicated space in the right-of-way as there are no

designated cycling facilities on Major Mackenzie Drive. Cyclists must share the roadway with vehicles

or ride on the sidewalks in the study area. However, the pedestrian realm is more developed,

especially on the north side of Major Mackenzie from Keele Street to Gram Street. This mainly

commercial section is equipped with wide boulevards and larger sidewalks, complete with planters

and street furniture, as depicted in Exhibit 4-8. The extensive streetscaping and interlocking red

paving treatment in that section is intended to act as a gateway to the Village of Maple Heritage

District and is a signature feature of the neighbourhood.

Exhibit 4-8: North side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west at Golden Spruce Lane (Source: Google Maps)

In contrast, the south side of Major Mackenzie from Keele Street to Gram Street, shown in Exhibit

4-9 is more utilitarian and has standard sidewalks with no buffer protecting pedestrians from car

traffic. This can be attributed to the south side’s lower pedestrian activity, resulting from low-rise

residential uses along that stretch.

Exhibit 4-9: South side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west at Jackson Street (Source: Google Maps)

For the section between Gram Street and St. David Catholic Church, pedestrians are separated from

vehicular traffic by a wide grassy boulevard, as per Exhibit 4-10.

Exhibit 4-10: North side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west of Killian Road/Netherford Road (Source: Google Maps)

However, between the access to St. David’s Catholic Church and McNaughton Road/Avro Road, a

160 m segment on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive has a guardrail between the sidewalk

and the road, as can be seen in Exhibit 4-11. The York Region Accessibility Design Guidelines for

Trails require the provision of a guardrail to protect pedestrians from adjacent steep slopes, as is the

case here due to the West Don River tributary creek crossing.

Exhibit 4-11: South side of Major Mackenzie Drive looking west toward McNaughton Road/Avro Road (Source: Google Maps)

It is noted that for the study area length of 1.2 km, there are only three protected pedestrian crossings

located at McNaughton Road / Avro Road, Killian Road / Netherford Road and Keele Street. These

crossings operate as part of the Traffic Control Signals at these intersections. The distance between

the eastern two intersections is particularly large at 685m and encourages jaywalking for pedestrians

looking to cross Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road / Netherford Road and Keele Street.

Driveways and Accesses 4.1.6

It is the policy of York Region to help optimize the transportation network by applying access

management procedures that limit the number of access points along a road. Between Keele Street

and McNaughton Road/Avro Road, Major Mackenzie Drive hosts several driveway accesses due to

the concentration of commercial services within the area. The access points used for commercial

parking and loading are numbered in Exhibit 4-12 according to the following list, from east to west:

1. 2269 Major Mackenzie Drive: 9994 Keele Street driveway

2. 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive: Shoppers Drugmart parking lot

3. 2316 Major Mackenzie Drive: Retail plaza access


5. 2338 Major Mackenzie Drive: Service access



December 20, 2018 | 16

7. 2396 Major Mackenzie Drive: Courtyards of Maple Condominiums Access

8. 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive: Maple Convenience & Post Office Access

9. 2535 Major Mackenzie Drive: Retail plaza eastern exit

10. 2563 Major Mackenzie Drive: Retail plaza central entrance and exit

11. 2571 Major Mackenzie Drive: Retail plaza western entrance

12. 2600 Major Mackenzie Drive: Apple Tree Montessori School Access

13. 2601 Major Mackenzie Drive: Saint David Catholic Church Access

Exhibit 4-12 also shows the prominence of driveways that service the residential properties fronting

Major Mackenzie Drive on the south side of the street. These additional residential access points

further exacerbate traffic conflicts for driveway ingress/egress, especially between Keele Street and

Gram Street.

Exhibit 4-12: Location of commercial and residential driveway accesses

Socio-Economic Environment 4.2

Existing Land Use 4.2.1

Land uses adjacent to Major Mackenzie Drive throughout the study limits are a mix of low-rise

residential and commercial. From McNaughton Road/Avro Road to west of the Killian-Lamar parkette,

natural areas span north-south along the Mackenzie Glen Park Creek. From the parkette to Killian

Road/Netherford Road , low-rise single family housing dominate on the north side while a low-rise

mixed use area is located on the south. Between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Gram Street, low-

rise residential uses front Major Mackenzie Drive from both sides. From Gram Street to Keele Street,

the study corridor is designated for low-rise mixed-use. Exhibit 4-13 shows the land use designations

along the corridor and surrounding area, as listed in the 2017 City of Vaughan Official Plan (Schedule

13 – Land Use).

Exhibit 4-13: Land uses along Major Mackenzie Drive (Source: City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010, October 2017 Office Consolidation)

Archaeology 4.2.2

A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted as part of the Class EA for the proposed

operational improvements to Major Mackenzie Drive. The assessment involved a review of

documents pertaining to the project area including historic maps, topographic maps, satellite images

and local histories.

A desktop review was completed to evaluate whether the study area retained archaeological

potential. The desktop review identified parts of the study area as having archaeological potential

removed and parts of the study area as having no or low archaeological potential. The remaining

balance of the study area was identified as retaining archaeological potential.

Archaeological recommendations have been made based on the background historical research, a

desktop review of existing conditions, locations of known or registered archaeological sites, and

indicators of archaeological potential. These recommendations include the following:

1. The portions of the study area that were identified as having archaeological potential removed,

such as existing roadways (arterial roads, local roads), sidewalks, building footprints, single home

developments, multi-home developments, utilities, need to be confirmed through an on-site

property inspection during a Stage 2 archaeological assessment.

2. Portions of the study area that were identified as having no or low archaeological potential, such

as, the Don River West Branch watercourse and the steeply sloping portions of its valley lands,

need to be confirmed through an on-site property inspection during a Stage 2 archaeological

assessment.

3. Portions of the study area that were identified as retaining archaeological potential, such as the

grassed yards and the valley lands associated with the Don River West Branch, must be subject

to a Stage 2 archaeological assessment. These areas must be subject to test pit survey at 5m

intervals in accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the MTCS (2011).

4. Select portions of the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the Major Mackenzie Road

and Keele Street intersection retain archaeological potential for deeply buried archaeological

resources beyond the existing road right-of-way. Should the proposed development extend within

the property limits of 10020 Keele Street and 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive (northwest corner);


December 20, 2018 | 17

10037 Keele Street (northeast corner); and/or 9995 and 9983 Keele Street (southeast corner), a

Stage 3 archaeological assessment involving backhoe trenching would be required within the core

of the planned development area and over any areas of archaeological potential as per Section

2.1.7 of the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011: 36-38) .

The map of the results is displayed in Exhibit 4-14. The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment is

provided in full under Appendix E.


December 20, 2018 | 18

Exhibit 4-14: Stage 1 Archeological Assessment Results


December 20, 2018 | 19

Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Features 4.2.3

A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was conducted to inform the design of the proposed

operational improvements to Major Mackenzie Drive and is included in in Appendix F. Background

research and field investigations identified two the following built heritage and cultural landscape

features:

Two (2) protected heritage properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act,

located at:

o 2600 Major Mackenzie Drive

o West lot boundaries of 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive and 2 Gram Street

Fifty-one (51) protected heritage properties within the Maple Heritage Conservation District

designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act

o Sixteen (16) of these properties are considered as “contributing” to the cultural heritage

value or interest of the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District (HCD).

o Roads lined with maple and other mature trees, grassed boulevards, and building

setbacks that contribute to the cultural heritage landscape of the Village of Maple HCD

One (1) Ontario Archaeological and Historic Sites Board plaque.

Properties exhibiting cultural heritage value are shown in Exhibit 4-15.

Exhibit 4-15: Cultural Heritage Resources Identified in the Study Area

Natural Environment 4.3

The natural environment assessment comprised a review of fisheries and aquatic habitat, vegetation,

wildlife, and designated natural areas along the study corridor. The full Natural Heritage Report is

included in Appendix G. Key findings are summarized in the following sections.

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat 4.3.1

The Don River Watershed lies primarily within the City of Toronto and the Regional Municipality of

York. The headwaters of the Don River originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and drain south

primarily through the Lake Iroquois Plain before out letting into Lake Ontario. The Don River has

approximately 34% impervious cover and has been significantly altered by development for over 150

years (TRCA, 2009).

Within the study area, the banks of the channel upstream of Major Mackenzie Drive are extensively

armoured. This includes a large component of gabion baskets, armour stone and the concrete

headwall of the culvert under the subject roadway. Although this armoured upstream section does

follow a natural meander, the steep gabion walls restrict opportunities for the stream to naturally

create point bars and other depositional areas. This section upstream of the culvert is narrower and

more channelized than downstream with an average wetted width of approximately 2.5 m compared

to 4 m downstream. In comparison, the downstream section lacks any hard armouring and has a

large number of point bars with varying widths of 1.25 m to 6 m. Water depths also followed a similar

pattern of more consistent levels upstream and more natural and variable levels downstream.

Upstream of the culvert, depths were fairly uniform at approximately 10 cm, whereas downstream of

the culvert they ranged from 5 to 60 cm. These deeper portions occur within pools and afford refuge

habitat during both low discharge and ice over conditions.

The substrates within the entire study area were dominated by coarse sand, gravel and cobble with a

high degree of substrate sorting throughout the channel. There also appears to be a significant

amount of cobble, gravel and other debris that have migrated from the upstream end of the site into

the culvert, creating riffles and shallow depositional areas within the culvert. Apart from the culvert,

the stream reach within the study area follows a somewhat regular riffle-pool-run sequence, indicative

of a relatively natural stream. The stream also follows a somewhat natural meander and could be

characterized as moderately sinuous. It also appears that over time the channel, both up and

downstream of Major Mackenzie Drive, has been down cutting and consequently the channel is

losing its connection to the floodplain.

General Fish Community 4.3.1.1

The Upper West Don has historically been home to the most diverse fish community within the Don

River system. However, urbanization and other land use change within the sub-watershed have

contributed to declines in the number of species present.

The majority of the 12 species of fish currently found within the watershed are generally very tolerant

to disturbance. All of the species comprising the fish community are considered to be common across

the landscape, and relatively tolerant to disruption and pollution. Based on thermal data collection and


December 20, 2018 | 20

interpretation by TRCA, the thermal regime within the Upper West Don River Sub-watershed is

considered warm water. Similarly, the fish community present represents a typical warm water stream

in Southern Ontario.

Aquatic Species at Risk 4.3.1.2

A review of fisheries collection records from the TRCA, MNRF and the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans (DFO) Distribution of Fish and Species at Risk maps indicates there are no aquatic species

at risk (SAR) known to be present within the study area or the Upper West Don River Sub-watershed.

Vegetation and Terrestrial Habitat 4.3.2

A plant inventory was completed along the riparian corridor of the West Don River within study area.

The majority of the plant species observed was non-native species indicative of past disturbance. Of

the native species present, all are considered common, widespread and abundant. No Butternut

Trees were encountered during site investigations conducted along the Upper West Don River

corridor or amongst the several hundred street trees throughout the study area that were assessed as

part of the Street Tree Management component of this study.

Vegetation communities along the riparian corridor of the Upper West Don River within study area

were delineated and characterized using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for

Southern Ontario (Lee et. al., 1998). The dominant species identified along the Major Mackenzie

Drive study corridor fit into four community classifications, including: Cultural Thicket (CUT), Cultural

Woodland (CUW), Cultural Savannah (CUS) and Shallow Water Aquatic (MAS). No rare or

uncommon communities occur within the study area limits.

Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors 4.3.3

Mammals 4.3.3.1

Mammal species were observed directly and their presence was recorded through indirect evidence,

such as tracks, feces and sounds. Mammal species recorded during terrestrial and aquatic field site

visits included: Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and

evidence of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Common Raccoon (Procyon lotor). No

mammal species at risk are known to occur within the study area.

Birds 4.3.3.2

A total of 23 bird species were recorded during breeding bird surveys, conducted as part of the

Natural Heritage Assessment. This assemblage of birds is common in mixed habitat in southern

Ontario. These species reflect the habitat available for nesting which includes primarily urban habitat

(cultural communities), and portions of wetlands, riparian and forest patches associated with the West

Don River corridor. No species at risk were encountered during breeding bird surveys and in

particular, no evidence of Barn Swallow nesting was observed within the culvert under Major

Mackenzie Drive.

Linkage and Corridors 4.3.3.3

Due to the urbanized land use that dominates the study area, opportunities for wildlife passage are

primarily limited to the Upper West Don River corridor. This corridor is also identified as a Greenbelt

Plan External Linkage and as an Urban River Valley and is subject to the relevant policies, including

1.2.3 (integration of river valleys into urban areas) and 6.2(3) (growth needs of adjacent settlement

areas).

Here, the vegetated riparian corridor provides a linear habitat feature for common urban and urban

fringe wildlife species. The existing culvert under Major Mackenzie Drive provides a linkage along the

Upper West Don River, although dry land terrestrial passage through this culvert is non-existent as

the river exhibits permanent discharge that likely occupies the entire bottom of the culvert throughout

the year.

Designated Natural Areas 4.3.4

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Provincially Significant Wetlands or

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) located within close proximity to the study area.

Fluvial Geomorphology 4.3.5

A desktop historical review and field assessment were completed to characterize the fluvial

geomorphology for the unnamed tributary of the West Don River crossed by Major Mackenzie Drive

within the study limits. The West Don River tributary is located approximately 1.18 km east of Jane

Street.

As part of the assessment, historical and recent aerial photographs were reviewed to delineate the

meander belt width on a reach basis at the crossing, as well as determine channel migration rates.

No significant rates of channel migration were noted during the time period analyzed as most

changes to channel platform were acknowledged to be a result of channel realignments.

To confirm existing geomorphic conditions, document evidence of active erosion, and verify the

results of the desktop assessment, observations and channel measurements were collected on

September 28, 2017 and included the following general observations:

A 2.85 x 4.70 m diameter corrugated steel pipe arch culvert currently conveys flows beneath

Major Mackenzie Drive. The culvert was found in poor condition but in its current state does not

pose any obvious barriers to fish passage channel were contributing to an increase in channel

stability.

Downstream of the crossing is a moderately sinuous channel, characterized by a low gradient.

Average bankfull width was measured to be 4.6 m while average bankfull depth was measured to

be 0.58 m. Riffles and pools were spaced approximately 10-15 m apart. Bank angles ranged

between 60 to 90 degrees, with localized erosion and undercuts present. Riparian vegetation

consisted of a mix of woody vegetation and herbaceous vegetation.

Upstream of the crossing is slightly steeper than downstream, with a lower sinuosity. The

upstream section of this reach was generally more ‘natural’ with little evidence of anthropogenic

channel modifications. Average bankfull width and depth were measured to be 3.8 m and 0.80 m,


December 20, 2018 | 21

respectively. A headwall was located on the eastern bank of the watercourse, near the

downstream extent of the reach, which had a dual-outlet configuration consisting of two 0.75 m

diameter concrete pipes and intended to convey flows from the adjacent stormwater

management facility.

In the case of the study reaches, the channel size is small with moderate vegetation cover.

However, localized erosion was noted within the channel. The reaches within the study area were

generally unconfined in their valley settings. The study reaches were identified to be in states of

adjustment or stressed (transitional). The 100-year migration rate, based on the average annual

rate of migration was estimated to be 8 m.

The findings from the fluvial geomorphology assessment can be found under Appendix H.

Contamination 4.4

The Contamination Overview Study (COS) consisted of a broad assessment of actual and potential

sources of contamination within the study area, based on a review of readily available information

regarding current and former land uses and visual site reconnaissance. Based on this information,

Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) were identified as having the potential for

subsurface impacts and recommendations were provided with regards to the needs for further

investigation. Exhibit 4-16 provides a map of the APECs, described in further detail below:

Only one existing gas station is found within the study area and is located at 2660 Major

Mackenzie Drive (Mac’s Gas Station and Convenience Store). This property is considered to

represent a higher potential of environmental concern as subsurface impacts (if present) from

this site could migrate south and southeast towards the roadway.

Four (4) properties within the study area were identified as having former private and retail fuel

tanks on site. These include:

1. Former Maple Airport

o Plane fuelling and maintenance may have occurred on the site and have the potential to lead

to impacts on soil and groundwater. However, this property was developed as a residential

development following the closure of the airport and, as such, this area is considered to

represent a low potential for environmental concern.

2. 2396 Major Mackenzie Drive – Historic Gas Station

o Formerly a gas station, this site was developed in 2013 into residential condos that include

commercial retail spaces on the ground level.

o Environmental investigations would have occurred at the site to confirm that the soil and

groundwater quality at the property meets the residential standards set forth by Ontario

Regulation 153 (as amended). It is unknown whether or not these investigations included

assessing soil and groundwater quality to the south of the southern property boundary (along

Major Mackenzie). As such, this site is considered to represent a higher potential of

environmental concern.

o


o A record for an active 2,300 L fuel oil underground storage tank was found during the site

reconnaissance.

o This property is currently operated as an accounting business.

o It is possible that subsurface impacts (if present) from this site could migrate towards the

roadway. As such, this property is considered to represent medium potential of


4. 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive – Vaughan City Hall

o Historic air photos (1960 to 1988) show several smaller site buildings, and potential fill piles.

The scale for the air photos does not allow for a detail review of the site operations but given

the historical records, it appears that this property may have been a waste storage area and,

as such, would be categorized as an APEC.

o Given the location of this property (approximately 150 m east of the eastern site boundary)

and the grading and excavation activities at the site that would have occurred prior to the

construction of the current City Hall building (i.e. removal of surficial soils), this site is

considered to represent a lower potential of environmental concern.

A total of four (4) current & historical dry cleaning operations were located in the vicinity of the

study area.

1. Three of these four businesses had records for the generation of halogenated solvent waste.

The properties are located at 9929 Keele Street, 2354 and 2563 Major Mackenzie Drive.

2. The cleaner at 10040 Keele Street is not listed as a generator of hazardous waste. Its dry

cleaning activities are suspected to be completed off-site in a secondary location.

3. 2354 Major Mackenzie Drive is considered to be an area with a higher potential of


4. 2563 Major Mackenzie Drive is considered to be an area with a higher potential of


Historic spills were recorded at the intersection of Keele Street and Major Mackenzie Drive.

o Two historic diesel spills, and one historic coolant spill are listed within the Ontario Spills

Database.

o Only the volume of one of the diesel spills is provided in the database report (20 litres).

o There is a potential for subsurface impacts to exist in this intersection as a result of these

spills, and the degree of environmental concern these historic events may pose would be

correlated with the volume of the spills where a spill quantity is not listed. If the volume of

those spills is small these records would be considered to represent a lower potential of


The Contamination Overview Study can be found under Appendix I.


December 20, 2018 | 22

Exhibit 4-16: Potential Contaminated Sites in the Study Area


December 20, 2018 | 23

Source Water Protection 4.5

Based on correspondence from TRCA, the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study area is located in the

Toronto and Region Source Protection Area and transects the following vulnerable areas

identified under the Clean Water Act, 2006 (as illustrated in Exhibit 4-17):

Wellhead Protection Area (Quantity)

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA)

Potential threats associated with the Major Mackenzie Drive roadway improvements, per the Clean

Water Act, 2006, include:

The establishment, operation, or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats,

or disposes of sewage (limited to stormwater runoff)

The application of road salt

The storage of snow (limited to roadway clearing operations only)

Exhibit 4-17: Source Protection Information in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Geotechnical Investigations 4.6

A geotechnical assessment was conducted and is provided under Appendix J. The existing pavement

structure on Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits does not satisfy York Region’s requirements

for an arterial road. Significant strengthening is required to upgrade the road to support future traffic

based on the projected growth.

Drainage and Stormwater Management 4.7

The portion of the Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street is

primarily an urban cross-section and the roadway and boulevard surfaces are drained by a network of

catchbasins and storm sewers, discharging to the watercourse crossing and municipal storm

drainage systems. Table 4-1 describes the various storm discharge locations as well as the

contributing right-of-way drainage area to each drainage outfall.

Table 4-1: Summary of Existing Drainage Areas

Description

ROW

Drainage

Area (ha)

Discharge Location

McNaughton Road/ Avro Road to Killian Road/

Netherford Road 2.03 Outlets to West Don River

Killian Road/ Netherford Road to 150m east of

Killian Road/ Netherford Road 0.66

Connects to existing

storm sewer system

150m east of Killian Road/ Netherford Road to

40m west of Jackson Street 1.36

Connects to existing

storm sewer system

40m west of Jackson Street to Keele Street 0.44 Connects to existing

storm sewer system

Keele Street to 200m east of Keele Street 0.69 Connects to existing

storm sewer system

Within the project limits, Major Mackenzie Drive traverses the West Don River watershed, and the

general drainage direction is from north to south. There is one watercourse crossing which conveys

the external drainage across the Major Mackenzie Drive right-of-way. Table 4-2 provides a

characteristics summary of the crossing.

Table 4-2: Existing West Don River Culvert Data

Structure Location

Description Culvert Type

Size (mm)

Length (m)

Inlet Elevation

(m)

Outlet Elevation

(m)

West Don River

tributary

1.18 km east of Jane Street

Corrugated Steel Arch

4720 x 3000 58.3 226.08 225.72


December 20, 2018 | 24

Pursuant to MTO Design Criteria, the design return period for the culvert crossing is the 50-year

event. The existing hydraulic assessment of the West Don River crossing was completed using the

HEC-RAS hydraulic model provided by TRCA to determine the existing hydraulic performance. The

hydraulic assessment was used to assess the freeboard and vertical clearance requirements

pursuant to the MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards. Based on the hydraulic analysis results,

the culvert crossing is in compliance with the Ministry of Transportation design Guideline, meeting the

1.0 m freeboard from the design high water level (50-Year storm event).

Table 4-3: Hydraulic Analysis Results for the West Don River Culvert (Existing Condition)

Structure

Peak Flow Rate

(m3/s) Road

Elev.

(m)

Water Surface Elevation

(m) Free-

board

50 yr

(m)

Remarks 50

Year

100

Year

Reg.

Storm

50

Year

100

Year

Reg.

Storm

West Don River tributary

10.05 12.32 51.49 233.35 227.40 227.60 230.39 5.95

No overtopping

under the

Regional Storm

The full Drainage Report and Stormwater Management Report can be found in Appendix K.

Watercourse Crossing Structures 4.8

Within the study corridor there is one crossing of the West Don River tributary located1.18 km East of

Jane Street (Culvert ID 25-18 C1180). The existing structure is a 4.7 m diameter multi-plate pipe

culvert that was constructed in 1968, with an approximate total length of 58 m and fill depth of 7 m.

Based on the findings of the visual inspection conducted by HDR in August 2017, the pipe culvert

was found to be in poor structural condition and immediate replacement was recommended. Based

on the ‘emergency’ nature of this culvert replacement, the work is being carried out as a separate

Class EA, Schedule “A” undertaking

The complete Structural Inspection Report can be found in Appendix S.

Utilities and Other Services 4.9

There are existing utilities within the study corridor, including a hydro pole line on the south side of

Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street.

A review indicated the following utilities are present within the study corridor:

Alectra Utilities

o Existing Electrical Underground plants were found.

o Above ground hydro poles are also located on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive

Bell (Telecommunications)

o Existing Bell Canada underground plant were identified in the area.

Rogers

o Rogers Communications currently has existing underground plants and fiber optic cables.

Enbridge (Gas service)

o A gas pipeline (NPS 4 SC HP) runs along Major Mackenzie Drive on the south side from

McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Killian Road / Netherford Road before diverging to north

through to Keele Street.

Water and Wastewater Management 4.9.1

The City of Vaughan is replacing the existing 300 mm diameter cast iron and 350 mm diameter

ductile iron watermains on Major Mackenzie Drive from approximately 90 m west of Jane Street to

Keele Street with a 400 mm PVC pipe.

The proposed watermain will reconnect to the existing Wonderland water line approximately 90 m

west of Jane Street, and the 450 mm diameter watermain at Keele Street. The work will also include

the replacement of all substandard service connections from the main to the streetline, including curb

stops, as well as replacement of existing valves and valve chambers, fire hydrants, and connections

to existing watermains and/or chambers at the project limits. The construction is scheduled to be

completed by the end of fall 2018

Illumination 4.9.2

Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits is illuminated primarily with conventional streetlight

systems. Along the north boulevard between Gram Street and Keele Street, varying decorative light

fixtures have been placed to enhance the public realm. From Gram Street westerly towards

McNaughton Road/Avro Road, standard light poles are placed approximately 55 meters apart on the

north side.

Light poles on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive generally have 55 meter spacing between

McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Gram Street. The separation distance then decreases into the

range of 35 and 45 meters between Gram Street and Keele Street.

Road Geometrics 4.10

The present geometric conditions in the study area were compared with the York Region Design

Guidelines and Standards (December 2016 Version 1.20), as well as the Transportation Association

of Canada Geometric Design Guide (TAC 2017) and/or the Geometric Design Standards Manual for

Ontario Highways (GDSM 2002). For the most part, the reviewed road geometrics meet design

standards.

Vertical and Horizontal Alignment 4.10.1

The existing horizontal alignment is tangent East and West between McNaughton Road/Avro Road

and Jackson Street. There are two deflection points, at less than 0.5° without horizontal curves.

According to MTO GDSM 2002, the maximum deflection angle without horizontal curve is 0.5°.

Therefore, there are no horizontal alignment deficiencies along this segment of Major Mackenzie

Drive. From Jackson Street to west of Keele Street the horizontal alignment consist of two back to

back curves with radii of 1000 m. Both curves exceed the minimum radius of 200 m / 300 m (for 4%

super elevation and reverse crown respectively) but do not exceed the minimum radius (2000 m) for a

normal crown section. Based on TAC 2017 the pavement crossfall should be reverse crown (2%


December 20, 2018 | 25

superelevation). However, the existing crossfall at this location is at normal crown (-2%) and therefore

is below standard based on a design speed of 70 km/hr.

Urban Development 4.11

As of the completion of this report, only two lots are in the process of redevelopment, abutting the

study area. Forty-five (45) townhomes are under construction at 2269-2285 Major Mackenzie Drive

while a site plan application was received by the City of Vaughan in May 2018 for a mixed-use

development at 2338 Major Mackenzie Drive, as can be seen in Exhibit 4-18.

Exhibit 4-18: Development in the study area

Because this study is focused on reviewing access issues between McNaughton Road / Avro Road

and Keele Street, only the development within this section of the corridor was reviewed.

5 Needs Assessment The existing and future transportation operations within the corridor and resultant issues/needs are

discussed in the following sections.

Existing Transportation Operations 5.1

Existing traffic operation conditions are documented in the following sections, including traffic

volumes, intersection operations, active transportation and safety. The York Region model,

intersection signal timings and volume counts were provided to HDR for use in the analysis.

Traffic Volumes – Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts 5.1.1

Turning movement counts (TMCs) were extracted from the Region’s Traffic Operations Assessment

Memo (2015), the corridor specific study that was discussed in further detail in Section 0. To fill in

data gaps, additional TMCs were provided by York Region while some were obtained by HDR/OTI in

2017. A summary of the count locations and count dates are detailed in Table 5-1. Existing weekday

AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and existing lane configurations are shown in Exhibit 5-1.

Table 5-1: Turning Movement Count Locations and Dates

Count Location Count Date Source

Major Mackenzie Drive @ Keele Street

Tuesday, March 15

th 2015

York Region

Major Mackenzie Drive @ 2266 Driveway

Major Mackenzie Drive @ Gold Spruce Lane-Jackson Street







Major Mackenzie Drive @ Gram Street

Major Mackenzie Drive @ Killian Road/Netherford Road

Major Mackenzie Drive @ St. David’s Church Entrance/Appletree Montessori School

Monday, April 25th

2017 OTI

Major Mackenzie Drive @ McNaughton Road/Avro Road Tuesday, March 15

th 2015

York Region


December 20, 2018 | 26

Exhibit 5-1: 2015 Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Volumes

(Source: Traffic Operations Assessment Memo 2015)


December 20, 2018 | 27

Existing Intersection Operations 5.1.2

Existing intersection operations were analyzed using the software program Synchro based on the

existing lane configurations shown in Exhibit 5-1. Synchro employs methodology from the Highway

Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) published by the Transportation Research Board National Research

Council. It can analyze both signalized and unsignalized intersections in a road corridor or network

taking into account the spacing, interaction, queues and operations between intersections.

The intersection analysis considers two separate measures of performance:

The level of service (LOS) for all intersection movements, which is based on the average

control delay per vehicle for each of various movements through the intersection, and for the

overall intersection, and

The capacity of all intersection movements, which is based on a volume to capacity ratio (v/c);

Level of service is based on the average control delay per vehicle for a given movement. Delay is an

indicator of how long a vehicle must wait to complete a movement and is represented by a letter

between ‘A’ and ‘F’, with ‘F’ being the longest delay.

HCM delays and corresponding letter grades are shown below in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Signalized Intersection Level of Service (HCM 2000)

Level of Service (LOS)

Control Delay per Vehicle (s)

Notes

A ≤ 10

Generally LOS A, B, and C are considered acceptable. B > 10 and ≤ 20

C > 20 and ≤ 35

D > 35 and ≤ 55 LOS D indicates that delays are more perceptible.

E > 55 and ≤ 80 LOS E and F indicate notable delays but may be acceptable in urban contexts and justify monitoring F > 80

The volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is a measure of the degree of capacity utilized at an intersection. A

v/c ratio less than 0.85 generally indicates that adequate capacity is available and vehicles are not

expected to experience significant queues and delays. As the v/c ratio approaches 1.0, traffic delay

and queuing conditions may occur. Once the demand exceeds the capacity (a v/c ratio greater than

1.0), traffic flow is unstable and excessive delay and queuing is expected. Under these conditions,

vehicles may require more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection.

Signalized Intersection Level of Service 5.1.2.1

As was displayed in Table 5-1, current traffic volumes are based on traffic counts undertaken by York

Region on Tuesday, March 15th, 2015 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to

6:00 p.m. To fill in gaps in data, additional counts were collected by HDR/OTI during the same hours

on April 25th, 2017. Synchro default values were used in the analysis for all parameters including

saturated flow rates of 1,900 vehicle per hour green per lane (vphgpl) and lane widths of 3.5m.

Volume data including conflicting pedestrians, peak hour factors, and heavy vehicle percentages from

the relevant traffic counts were input into Synchro to analyze existing traffic operations at signalized

intersections, summarized in Table 5-3. Critical movements, defined as those yielding a volume to

capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 0.85 or with a level of service (LOS) of ‘E’ or ‘F’, are shown in bold in

Table 5-3. Generally, LOS ‘E’ or a v/c ratio of 0.85 justifies monitoring, while LOS ‘F’ or v/c ratio

exceeding 1.0 suggests the need for improvements.

Table 5-3: Existing Signalized Intersection Traffic Operations

(Source: Major Mackenzie Drive Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum 2015)

Signalized Intersection & Movement

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95th

Queue (m)

Major Mackenzie Drive @ Keele Street F 1.13 F 1.15

EBL C 0.49 18 D 0.76 45

EBTR F 1.12 285 F 1.08 285

WBL F 0.92 64 F 0.91 82

WBTR F 1.13 318 F 1.15 331

NBL E 0.83 50 E 0.84 86

NBTR C 0.39 57 E 0.89 150

SBL C 0.55 54 D 0.70 34

SBTR E 0.96 200 D 0.44 61


C 1.08 C 0.88

EBL A 0.32 5 D 0.76 41

EBTR B 0.68 271 B 0.70 283

WBL B 0.26 14 D 0.53 31

WBTR C 0.75 240 C 0.83 251

NBL F 1.08 64 F 0.88 90

NBTR C 0.14 12 D 0.25 28

SBL E 0.22 23 D 0.05 9

SBTR D 0.68 58 B 0.31 20

Major Mackenzie Drive @ McNaughton Road/Avro Road

D 1.09 D 1.51

EBL F 1.09 76 F 1.51 135

EBT D 0.75 265 D 0.80 277


December 20, 2018 | 28



LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95th

Queue (m)

EBR A 0.02 0 A 0.01 0

WBL C 0.74 28 D 0.82 34

WBT D 0.91 311 C 0.88 304

WBR A 0.04 0 A 0.06 3

NBL E 0.25 10 D 0.09 12

NBTR E 0.74 100 F 0.93 144

SBL E 0.46 31 E 0.50 23

SBTR E 0.89 108 C 0.37 36

Notes: Operations shown in bold for critical movements only. LOS – Level of Service. V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio. 95

th Queue – The 95

th percentile queue, shown in meters, is a Synchro output and is provided as a reference. See

Section 5.1.3 for additional discussion on queuing.

Under existing conditions, all signalized intersections within the study area are operating near or over

the available capacity during peak periods. The signalized intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive at

Keele Street is not operating well, with overall level of service ‘F’ during the weekday AM and PM

peak hours. The majority of movements at this intersection are operating with level of service ‘F’ and

‘E’ and with volume to capacity ratios higher than 0.83, with the exception of the southbound left-turn

and eastbound left-turn, which are operating with an AM and PM level of service ‘C’ and ‘D’,

respectively. The westbound left-turn has a LOS ‘F’ and is currently protected / permitted.

Conditions are marginally better at the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Killian

Road/Netherford Road, where the overall level of service is ‘C’ and a v/c ratio of 1.08 and 0.88 during

the AM and PM peak hour, respectively.

At the western limit of the study area, the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and McNaughton

Road/Avro Road has a LOS ‘D’ in both AM and PM peak hours. Its eastbound-left approach has v/c

ratio of 1.5 during the PM peak hour, higher than all other results along the study corridor.

The 95th percentile queues are provided. Section 5.1.3 provides additional discussion on queuing.

Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service 5.1.2.2

The study area also has a large number of unsignalized driveway access points and two unsignalized

intersections. These locations were analyzed and the results are presented in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Existing Unsignalized Intersection and Entrance Traffic Operations

(Source: Major Mackenzie Drive Traffic Operations Assessment Memorandum)

Unsignalized Intersection & Movement


LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

2266 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot

B - - B - -

EBLT A 0.01 0 A 0.01 0

SBLR E 0.05 1 F 0.51 15

Major Mackenzie Drive and Jackson Street

B - - B - -

EBLT - - - A 0.02 1

WBLT A 0.01 0 A 0.02 1

NBLTR C 0.03 1 C 0.05 1

SBLTR F 0.08 2 F 0.47 9

2316 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Retail Plaza Access

B - - B - -

EBLT A 0 0 A 0.01 -

SBLR B 0 0 B 0.01 -

2332 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Retail Plaza Access

B - - B - -

EBLT A 0.01 0 A 0.01 0

SBLR B 0.01 0 F 0.22 6

2338 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Service access

B - - B - -

EBLT A 0.01 0 - 0 0

SBLR B 0.06 1 F 0.07 2

2354 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Retail plaza access

B - - A - -

EBLT A 0.01 0 A 0.09 2

SBLR B 0.01 0 F 1.13 4

2396 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- 2396 Major Mackenzie Drive- Courtyards

of Maple Condominiums Driveway B - - B - -

EBLT A 0 0 A 0 0

SBLR F 0.05 2 F 0.13 3


December 20, 2018 | 29

Unsignalized Intersection & Movement


LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

2414 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway- Maple Convenience & Post Office

Access B - - B - -

EBLT A 0.03 1 A 0.04 1

SBLR F 0.2 5 F 1.11 37

Major Mackenzie Drive/ Gram Street B - - C - -

WBLT A 0.61 0 A 0.05 1

NBLR C 0.07 2 F 0.37 11

2600-2601 Major Mackenzie Drive Driveway – St. David Catholic Church/Appletree Montessori

A - - A - -

EBT A 0.46 0.2 A 0.66 0.1

WBT A 0.51 0.1 A 0.57 0.2

At the macroscopic level, operations at driveways and non-signalized intersections appear to be

acceptable as the overall intersection level of service is ‘C’ or better during the AM and PM peak

periods. However, individual movements have lower levels of service which indicates the presence of

access issues. Conditions at these critical movements present the opportunity to improve operations.

For the most part, critical movements at unsignalized intersections and driveways are operating with

v/c ratios between 0.01 and 0.51. Some, like the southbound left-turn movement at Major Mackenzie

Drive and 2414 Driveway and at Major Mackenzie Drive and 2354 Driveway, have noticeably higher

v/c ratios (reaching 1.1 and 1.13 respectively), indicating demand exceeds capacity

Traffic operations appear to be worse in the afternoon compared to the morning peak period, as

illustrated by the lower LOS in the afternoon for the Gram Street, 2354 Driveway and 2332 Driveway

intersections. Furthermore, almost all intersections and driveways have a movement with level of

service F during the PM peak period. The southbound shared left/right turn movement at Major

Mackenzie Drive and 2414 Driveway experiences the worst queuing during the PM peak period, with

queues reaching 37m into the surface parking lot.

The LOS at critical movements during the AM and PM peaks are illustrated in Exhibit 5-2 and

Exhibit 5-3.

Exhibit 5-2: AM Peak Hour Critical Movements

Exhibit 5-3: PM Peak Hour Critical Movements

Queuing 5.1.3

Queuing was examined for all intersections between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street

to better understand impacts to driveway access. There was extensive queuing observed in the

segment between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street. Queuing conditions were analyzed

for existing AM and PM peak hour for that segment, along with existing gap times for left- and right-

turning traffic at unsignalized accesses between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street. Both


December 20, 2018 | 30

AM and PM peak hour conditions were assessed using Simtraffic; however, the queue lengths and

issues were similar during both peak hours, therefore only the AM peak hour is presented in detail

below to demonstrate the queuing issues.

Simtraffic is capable of a more comprehensive queuing analysis compared to Synchro, as it simulates

upstream/downstream queuing effects, queue spillback, intersection spacing, and storage

deficiencies. The following section is intended to supplement the 95th percentile queuing results for

unsignalized intersections (shown in

on Major Mackenzie between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street.

There are numerous driveways west of Keele Street that provide access to commercial plazas on the

north side of Major Mackenzie Drive, as well as stop-controlled intersections on the south side of

Major Mackenzie Drive that provide access to built-out residential areas (e.g. Jackson Street, Gram

Street). Typical queues for the AM peak hour conditions are illustrated in Exhibit 5-4.

Exhibit 5-4: Existing AM Peak Hour Queuing Conditions

The SimTraffic analysis did not show any significant queuing west of Gram Street. However, between

Gram Street and Keele Street, there were long queues in the eastbound direction resulting from the

high volumes of eastbound-through trips at Keele Street. The eastbound queue at Keele Street also

extends more than 400m reaching Gram Street, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-4.

Due to the eastbound queue spillback and the absence of a two-way centre left-turn lane, eastbound

vehicles attempting to turn left into the various driveways on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive

are often unable to do so immediately and contribute to through lane blockage. They must wait for

gaps in westbound traffic (i.e. first queue with eastbound-through traffic) which further exacerbates

eastbound through queues along the corridor. In addition, the eastbound queue does not provide

sufficient gaps for vehicles exiting from the unsignalized driveways on Major Mackenzie Drive,

causing significant delays to vehicles exiting southbound-left and northbound-right vehicles (many of

which operate at LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’, as detailed in Table 5-4.

As insufficient gaps are available due to eastbound traffic queues, access to and from unsignalized

intersections west of Keele Street is limited.

Transit Service Quality 5.1.4

The corridor is served by four mixed traffic bus routes – Routes 560, 462, 4 and 4A– however only

Routes 4 and 4A provide regular service throughout the day. During peak periods, Routes 4 and 4A

have a frequency of approximately 30 minutes. Furthermore, peak period travel times are significantly

hindered by existing traffic. The delay experienced by transit vehicles was examined for the study

corridor using the Google Maps travel time query. In September 2017, a 4 minute bus journey from

Keele Street to McNaughton Road/Avro Road during non-peak times becomes a 7 minute trip during

the morning peak period. The extra 3 minutes spent on the bus represent a 75% increase in travel

time; a notable decrease in transit quality of service caused by mixed traffic operations.

Transit quality of service was also assessed based on stop spacing, which is an important

consideration when determining the draw or appeal of a bus network. Within the study corridor, the

average bus stop spacing of 400m is well within the range set by York Region Transit`s Transit

Services Guidelines (2016), which states that the typical bus stop spacing for local bus routes should

typically be between 300m and 500m.

Pedestrian Quality of Service 5.1.5

To better understand the existing pedestrian conditions, a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)

analysis was undertaken along the corridor. The methodology employed for this study is based on the

City of Ottawa MMLOS Guidelines, September 2015. These guidelines were selected over other

variations mainly for their intuitiveness, accommodation of contemporary facility designs, and explicit

recognition that pedestrian LOS should be based on user comfort, safety, and convenience and are

subjective in nature.

Pedestrian level of service (PLOS) is calculated at the intersection and mid-block in recognition that

pedestrian experience is determined by the conditions both between crossings and at the crossing

itself. The methodology generally follows a weakest link approach. This means that the segment is

scored at its weakest portion to account for the fact that the pedestrian experience is best defined by

the more dangerous segment.

The methodology for the evaluation of segment PLOS utilizes a look-up table approach based on

cross-section and roadway characteristics (e.g., sidewalk and boulevard width, traffic volumes,

presence of on-street parking, and operating speed). Intersection PLOS uses the Pedestrian

Exposure to Traffic at Signalized Intersections (PETSI) and assigns points based on a number of

crossing characteristics (e.g., crossing distance, presence of a median, presence of a crossing

refuge, turning restrictions, right hand turn characteristics, curb radii, etc.). This is calculated for each

crossing (e.g., north, south, east, west) and their averages are computed to derive an overall

intersection PLOS. However, each crossing’s score should be considered individually when

recommending improvements.

The study area is notable for the multiple driveway access points which, in addition to impeding the

flow of pedestrians on the sidewalks, create conflict points between humans and vehicles. The PLOS

methodology is not adapted to address the impacts of vehicle ingress/egress and may potentially


December 20, 2018 | 31

overestimate the conditions for pedestrians along Major Mackenzie Drive. These are important

constraints to keep in mind when assessing improvements to the pedestrian realm.

The look, feel, and function of the study corridor changes along its length as does the level of comfort

experienced by pedestrians.

Overall, the pedestrian experience could be improved as Major Mackenzie Drive receives, for the

most part, a ‘D’ score. Along the north side of the study corridor, the segment PLOS achieves scores

‘B’ and ‘C’ for the most part (see Exhibit 5-5 and Exhibit 5-6).

Conditions are worse along the south side, with scores varying between `D’ and `E’ (Exhibit 5-7and

Exhibit 5-8). The low scores can be attributed to high traffic volumes (i.e. greater than 3000 AADT),

1.5m sidewalks (minimum width to meet provincially accessible standards) and narrow buffers

between the roadway and the sidewalk.

Because the intersection PLOS methodology only applies to signalized intersections, the intersection

PLOS was evaluated for only 3 intersections along the study corridor. Keele Street and McNaughton

Road/Avro Road intersections both received a PLOS ‘E’ while the intersection at Killian

Road/Netherford Road scored a ‘D’. Intersection PLOS scores of ‘D’ are indicative of somewhat

shorter crossing distances (3-4 lanes), relatively small corner radii, and ladder crosswalk treatments.

Scores of ‘E’ tend to apply to intersections with longer crossing distances, simple transverse markings

and high turn speeds facilitated by large corner radii. For example, the intersection of McNaughton

Road/Avro Road and Major Mackenzie has a low score because pedestrians must cross a total of 5-6

lanes with no island refuge. Furthermore, the limited visibility of the crosswalk markings at that

location, combined with high turning speeds, makes the pedestrian experience less than desirable.

The MMLOS methodology does not incorporate considerations related to the spacing of protected

crossings for pedestrians. Given the larger distance (685 m) between the Killian Road / Netherford

Road and Keele Street signalized intersections, the actual pedestrian level of service is likely lower

than this methodology projects. The opportunity to cross Major Mackenzie Drive safely is limited

which poses an inconvenience to pedestrians and impacts the walking quality of service.

The results of the PLOS evaluation are summarized graphically in Exhibit 5-9.

Exhibit 5-9: Segment and Intersection PLOS along Major Mackenzie Drive

Cyclist Quality of Service 5.1.6

At present, cyclists are required to share the roadway with vehicles in the study area as there are no

designated cycling facilities on Major Mackenzie Drive.

MMLOS analysis was undertaken to assess the quality of the cycling environment along Major

Mackenzie Drive. As noted, the methodology employed for this study is based on the City of Ottawa’s

MMLOS Guidelines. Bicycling level of service (BLOS) is calculated at the intersection and mid-block

in recognition that, unlike vehicular LOS, a cyclist’s experience is determined by the conditions both

between crossings and at the crossing itself.

The BLOS methodology is similar to the PLOS method, and is based on roadway characteristics and

facility type and quality. The methodology measures each segment’s and intersection’s level of traffic

stress experienced by the cyclist, established in the Minnesota Transportation Institute Report No. 11-

19. The assessment is associated with a letter score from A to F.

Segment BLOS are calculated using a look-up table approach and considers facility type, street

width, operating speed, and parking characteristics. As with segment PLOS, segment BLOS is

calculated using a weakest link approach, meaning that the worst portion of a segment is used to

calculate its BLOS. This is in line with the methodology’s user-centric focus which evaluates a user’s

Exhibit 5-5: Segment PLOS 'B' (Source: Google Streetview)

Exhibit 5-6: Segment PLOS 'C' (Source: Google Streetview)

Exhibit 5-7: Segment PLOS 'D' (Source: Google Streetview)

Exhibit 5-8: Segment PLOS `E` (Source: Google Streetview)


December 20, 2018 | 32

perceived safety from a network perspective (in this case the segment). Intersection BLOS is

calculated for each approach and for both left and right turning conditions. Scores are evaluated

using a look-up table approach. For a typical 4-way intersection, eight scores are calculated—a left

and right movement for each approach. To show one intersection BLOS, the scores are averaged.

Segment BLOS is most sensitive to facility type, with physically separated bikeways such as cycle

tracks, protected bike lanes and multi-use paths receiving a score of ‘A’. Scores for mixed-traffic and

on-street cycling lanes (without separation) are highly dependent on traffic volume and speed as well

as facility width (if applicable). A quiet 2-lane residential street with vehicle speeds less than or equal

to 40 km/h, for example, would score an ‘A’ while the same mixed-traffic facility would score an ‘F’ if

the speeds were greater than 60 km/h. Where there are no dedicated cycling facilities, high operating

speeds and wide roadways, the scores would generally tend lower – ‘D’ to ‘F’.

Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street does not

accommodate cyclists in a separate or designated facility. The segment BLOS is ‘E’ for the entire

study corridor, due to the four lane cross-section and 50 km/h posted speed (see Exhibit 5-10).

Intersections do not provide special accommodations of cyclists making left or right turns. Cyclists

operate in mixed traffic and must cross several lanes to make left turns and traversing long right turn

lanes. The signalized intersection at McNaughton Road/Avro Road (Exhibit 5-11) and at Keele Street

received an intersection BLOS score ‘E’ while Killian Road/Netherford Road received a score ‘D’.

The results of the BLOS evaluation are graphically summarized in Exhibit 5-12.

Exhibit 5-12: Segment and Intersection BLOS along Major Mackenzie Drive

Public Petition 5.1.7

Concerns were raised by study area residents regarding pedestrian safety through a petition signed

by 25 members of the Maple community. The petition called for the introduction of a protected

pedestrian crossing across the commercial plaza on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive between

Keele Street and Killian Road/Netherford Road (a specific location was not noted). The crossing was

supported by residents in order to ensure the safe access given the number of shops and services

between Gram Street and Keele Street.

The petition can be found under Appendix N.

Exhibit 5-10: No dedicated facility, cyclists operate in mixed traffic (Source: Google Streetview)

Exhibit 5-11: Aerial view of McNaughton Road/Avro Road intersection, BLOS ‘E’ (Source: Google Maps)


December 20, 2018 | 33

Future Transportation Conditions 5.2

Land use conditions surrounding Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits are not anticipated to

change significantly by this study’s horizon year of 2020, as the areas north and south of the study

limits are already developed and not marked for intensification over the long term. The complete

report documenting the transportation system technical analysis for Phase 1 of this study is provided

under Appendix M.

Future Population and Employment Growth 5.2.1

Population and employment forecast assumptions were extracted from the York Region EMME Model

and are summarized in Table 5-5. A map illustrating these growth areas is provided in Exhibit 5-13.

Minimal growth in population and employment is anticipated by 2020.

Table 5-5: Population and Employment Growth Assumptions (York Region EMME Model)

Model

Zone

Population Employment

2011 2021 2031 2011 2021 2031

2099 1,521 1,557 1,554 418 519 522

2101 9,971 10,027 10,003 855 861 867

2105 1,655 1,639 1,635 689 837 839

2156 2,493 2,507 2,501 738 789 794

Total 15,640 15,730 15,693 2,700 3,006 3,022

In the traffic zones adjacent to the study corridor, population is anticipated to increase by 53 residents

between 2011 and 2031 while employment is expected to see an increase of 322 workers within that

time frame. Between 2011 and 2021, population is forecast to grow by 90 residents and employment

by 306 workers.

Exhibit 5-13: Model traffic zones adjacent to EA Study Limits

York Region Model 5.2.2

The key tool to assess future conditions and the development of the proposed transportation network

is the York Region Travel Demand Forecasting Model. The York Region Model is a conventional four-

step multi-modal transportation forecasting model that was last updated by York Region in 2014 and

validated to 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data and cordon counts. The York Region

Model is described at length in the York Region Travel Demand Forecasting Model Update Report

dated June 30, 2014 and a subsequent memorandum on the 2011 York Region Model Validation

dated August 8, 2014. These documents were used for background information on the application of

the Model for the 2016 York Region TMP (YR-TMP).

The Model predicts AM weekday peak period travel demands for motorized modes – transit,

automobile driver and automobile passenger. The Model includes the Greater Toronto and Hamilton

Area (GTHA) as well as external areas including the Counties of Peterborough, Simcoe, Dufferin, and

Wellington and the Regional Municipalities of Waterloo, Niagara Falls and Brant/Brantford. The model


December 20, 2018 | 34

zone system is based on the 2006 GTA traffic zone system, and further refined with an additional 41

disaggregated zones in York Region for a total of 519 zones for York Region. The modified zone

system is referenced as the 2011 zone system.

Traffic volumes were extracted for the 2011 and 2021 years. The 2021 scenario incorporates

projects from the 2017-2021 proposed transportation network, as per the YR-TMP. Growth rates were

derived from the growth in the ten year period between 2011 and 2021, then applied to existing traffic

volumes to estimate the 2020 volumes.

In May 2016, MTO released an amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

(GGH) which identified a new 60% target for intensification. As forecasts for this 60% land use

intensification will take time to develop, York Region identified an interim 45% land use intensification

scenario. The 45% scenario was used for this analysis and incorporates refined population and

employment forecasts identified in the Draft Block 27 Secondary Plan and the Draft Block 41

Secondary Plan currently being studied in the City of Vaughan.

Table 5-6 shows the 2011 and 2021 York Region Model volumes for Major Mackenzie Drive.

Table 5-6: York Region Unadjusted Model Volumes for Major Mackenzie Drive

Year Intersection @ Major Mackenzie Drive

NBin NBout SBin SBout EBin EBout WBin WBout

2011 model volumes

McNaughton Road/Avro Road

N/A 155 414 N/A 1063 909 1433 1847

Killian Road/Netherford Road

105 100 334 102 909 932 1218 1433

Keele Street 226 372 1459 1721 932 739 1433 1218

2021 model volumes


N/A 143 381 N/A 1232 1089 1551 1932


87 104 335 113 1089 1110 1366 1551

Keele Street 413 532 1685 1944 1110 879 1513 1366

Future Road Network 5.2.3

2020 Traffic Volumes 5.2.3.1

As specified previously, the Region’s EMME model provides the basis for the 2020 traffic volumes.

Due to the absence of new development or redevelopment planned along Major Mackenzie Drive

between existing (2017) and 2020, most growth will take place at major access locations/signalized

intersections in the study area, whereas growth at unsignalized intersections (i.e. driveways) and

residential access locations (e.g. Avro Road) is expected to be marginal. Therefore, traffic volume

analysis and intersections operations at signalized intersections only are summarized in the following

sections.

Once the 2011 and 2021 York Region model forecast volumes were extracted, compound annual

growth rates (CAGR’s) were calculated at the 3 signalized intersections in the study area. The CAGR

results are presented in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7: Constant Annual Growth Rates (2011-2021 model)

Intersection @ Major Mackenzie

CAGR from 2011 Model to 2021 Model (unadjusted)



0% -0.80% -0.83% 0% 1.49% 1.82% 0.79% 0.45%


-1.86%

0.39% 0.03% 1.03% 1.82% 1.76% 1.15% 0.79%

Keele Street 6.21% 3.64% 1.45% 1.23% 1.76% 1.75% 0.54% 1.15%

For locations with negative growth rates, a CAGR of 0.1% was assumed. Furthermore, no growth

was assumed for the McNaughton Road/Avro Road’s Northbound In and Southbound Out

approaches due to the unavailability of 2011 and 2021 model volumes. This is a reasonable

assumption given no growth is forecasted within this block (Model Zone 2099 in Table 5-5).

The volumes discussed in this section focus on the 2020 AM peak hour volumes which dictate the

need for operational improvements. 2020 AM peak hour approach volumes were used to forecast

turning movement counts along the corridor. These volumes were calculated by first determining

forecast link CAGR’s, applying the CAGR’s on existing approach volumes, and performing

Fratar/Furness operations on approach forecast volumes to estimate turning movement volumes.

The Fratar/Furness method is the application of a well-established bi-proportional updating algorithm.

At a high level, this algorithm takes existing turning movement volumes and 2020 AM peak hour entry

and exit approach volumes (target volumes) as inputs, and rebalances existing turning movement

volumes to match the 2020 target volumes. The Fratar/Furness method is an effective method for

future turning movement volume analysis as it takes into account existing travel patterns as part of its

rebalancing algorithm, while minimizing errors associated with traditional turning movement growth

analysis.

Using this approach, 2020 AM peak hour volumes in the study area were calculated as illustrated in

Table 5-8.

Table 5-8: 2020 AM link volumes (Furnessed)

Intersection @ Major Mackenzie Drive

2020 volumes



262 320 659 442 1753 1775 1880 2017

Killian Road/Netherford Road 133 70 246 130 1691 1631 1637 1876

Keele Street 635 437 1271 1251 1484 1611 1583 1674


December 20, 2018 | 35

As illustrated in Table 5-8, the peak direction in 2020 AM peak hour traffic is westbound at

McNaughton Road/Avro Road, with approximately 2017 vehicles per hour, which marginally exceeds

the single lane capacity of about 900 vehicles per hour per lane for a volume to capacity ratio of 1.12.

Based on Highway Capacity Manual level of service definitions, link v/c ratios under 0.85 are

acceptable, 0.85 to 1.0 typically result in increased delays and queuing, and v/c ratios in excess of

1.0 have significant delays and queues. Further details on intersection traffic operations can be found

in the following section.

Future Intersection Operations 5.2.4

As previously mentioned, the Regions EMME model was utilized to estimate future 2020 traffic

conditions. The 2020 AM Peak hour traffic volumes were developed using EMME at a link volume

level of detail and further refined using a frataring/furnessing process to develop traffic volumes for

individual turning movements. Due to the absence of a PM Peak EMME model, the 2020 PM Peak

hour turning volumes were based on the calculated AM growth rates of a reversed movement, i.e. PM

NBT growth rate would be from the AM SB, NBR from WBL, EBL from SBR, etc. The resultant 2020

AM and PM peak hour turning movement volume projections (no widening scenario) are shown in

Exhibit 5-14 and Exhibit 5-15. Both 2020 AM and PM traffic operation analysis results are

summarized in Table 5-9. Critical movements, defined as those yielding a v/c ratio greater than 0.85

or with a level of service ‘E’ or ‘F’, are shown in bold.

Exhibit 5-14: 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic at Signalized Intersection

Exhibit 5-15: 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic at Signalized Intersections

Signal timings in the study area are optimized to accommodate any changes in volume growth

between existing and 2020 conditions. Generally, future signal timings are expected to be similar to

existing due to relatively low volume growth for all movements.

Table 5-9: 2020 Intersection Traffic Operations (Existing Intersection Configuration)



LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

Major Mackenzie Drive @ Keele Street

F 1.14 - F 1.13

EBL C 0.52 18 F 0.95 57

EBTR F 1.07 292 E 1.04 290

WBL F 1.02 65 F 1.06 96

WBTR E 1.05 303 F 1.07 321

NBL F 1.14 83 F 1.07 122

NBTR D 0.65 86 E 1.08 198

SBL D 0.64 59 E 0.79 39


December 20, 2018 | 36



LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

LOS v/c 95

th

Queue (m)

SBTR F 1.14 241 E 0.80 88


C 1.07 - C 0.89

EBL A 0.35 5 E 0.81 41

EBTR B 0.72 278 B 0.73 267

WBL C 0.33 17 D 0.62 40

WBTR C 0.77 252 C 0.89 285

NBL F 1.07 63 F 0.89 95

NBTR C 0.15 13 D 0.20 30

SBL E 0.24 24 D 0.06 9

SBTR D 0.70 60 D 0.11 20

Major Mackenzie Drive @ McNaughton Road/Avro Road

D 0.95 - E 1.08

EBL E 0.88 89 F 1.09 134

EBT C 0.85 263 C 0.84 268

EBR A 0.02 0 B 0.01 0

WBL D 0.79 20 E 0.83 43

WBT D 0.95 292 E 1.05 398

WBR A 0.04 0 B 0.05 4

NBL E 0.22 3 D 0.09 11

NBTR E 0.80 70 F 0.94 129

SBL F 0.69 20 E 0.65 88

SBTR E 0.89 77 D 0.25 31

Notes: Operations shown for critical movements only. LOS – Level of Service. v/c – Volume to

Capacity Ratio. 95th Queue – 95th percentile queue shown in metres

Moreover, signal timings in the study area were optimized to accommodate any changes in volume

growth between existing and 2020 conditions. Generally, future signal timings are similar to that of

existing due to relatively low volume growth for all movements

Due to the relatively low magnitude of growth between existing and 2020 traffic volumes,

intersections operations are generally expected to be similar to existing conditions. However, there

are turning movements within the study area where the projected increase in traffic volumes from

existing conditions is expected to reach capacity:

AM Peak Hour:

Southbound through movement at Keele Street (increase from 0.96 to 1.14)

Westbound left-turn at Keele Street (increase from 0.92 to 1.02)

Northbound left-turn at Keele Street (increase from 0.83 to 1.14)

PM Peak Hour:

Westbound left-turn at Keele Street (increase from 0.91 to 1.06)

Northbound left-turn at Keele Street (increase from 0.84 to 1.07)

Northbound through-and-right turn at Keele Street (increase from 0.89 to 1.08)

Westbound through at McNaughton Road/Avro Road (increase from 0.88 to 1.0)

Under 2020 conditions, the signalized intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive at Keele Street is

expected to operate with overall level of service (LOS) ‘F’ during both the weekday AM peak and PM

peak hours. All movements except the southbound left-turn and eastbound left-turn are expected to

operate at LOS ‘F’ and with volume to capacity ratios higher than 1.00 during both AM and PM peak

hours. The westbound left-turn is expected to continue to operate at LOS ‘F’ and with a

protected/permitted phase already.

The overall intersection LOS at the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Killian Road/Netherford

Road is ‘C’ for both the AM and PM Peak hour. At Major Mackenzie Drive and McNaughton

Road/Avro Road, the overall intersection LOS are ‘D’ and ‘E’ for the AM and PM peak hours,

respectively. The LOS results are depicted visually in Exhibit 5-16 and Exhibit 5-17.

2020 queuing conditions across the corridor were assessed and Major Mackenzie Drive. Given that

eastbound storage at Keele Street is only 30m, the intersection at this location has insufficient

storage in the eastbound direction to accommodate future queues, as demonstrated by the 95th

percentile queues in Table 5-9.

Exhibit 5-16: 2020 intersection level of service for drivers during weekday AM peak


December 20, 2018 | 37

Exhibit 5-17: 2020 intersection level of service for drivers during weekday PM peak

Traffic Safety Needs 5.3

Collision Analysis 5.3.1

Five-year (2009-2013) collision records were provided by the Region within the study limits. Between

Keele Street and McNaughton Road/Avro Road, there were 403 collisions of which 169 (42%) were

Property Damage Only (PDO), 73 (18%) were non-fatal injury collisions and 160 (40%) were non-

reportable collisions. No fatalities occurred in the study area within the 5-year time frame.

Collision rates for intersections were also retrieved from the Traffic Operations Assessment Memo

(2015) provided by York Region and are presented in Table 5-10 as collisions per million entering

vehicles (MEV). The location that shows the highest collision rates are the signalized intersection at

Major Mackenzie Drive and McNaughton Road/Avro Road, followed by the intersection at Keele

Street.

Table 5-10: Intersection Collision Rates

Intersection Total Collisions (2009-2013)

Average collisions per year

Intersection Collision Rate (MEV)

Major Mackenzie Drive & Keele Street 164 27.3 2.32

Major Mackenzie Drive & Jackson Street 8 1 0.18

Major Mackenzie Drive & Gram Street 19 3 0.42

Major Mackenzie Drive & Netherford Road/Killian Road

69 12 1.52

Major Mackenzie Drive & Avro Road/McNaughton Road

143 24 2.37

Total 403

Overall, intersections within the study area experienced collision rates below the MTO average rate of

2.7 collisions per million entering vehicles (MEV) for non-provincial roads/highways.

Collision rates per million vehicle kilometres (MVK) were also computed for segments using the

following formula:

𝑆𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 × 1,000,000

𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇 × 365 × 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ × 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠

The 5-year Average Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) was retrieved from York Region’s AADT

Midblocks Report (2015). Midblock collisions were also provided for the analysis by York Region. The

results for segment collisions are depicted in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11: Segment Collision Rates

Segment Length

(km)

AADT (5yr-

Average)

Midblock Collisions

Average collisions per year

Segment Collision Rate

(MVK)

Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street & Keele Street

0.14 36,822 22 3.7 2.3

Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street & Jackson Street

0.32 35,586 10 1.7 0.48

Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road/Netherford Road & Gram Street

0.22 31,062 3 0.5 0.24

Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro Road & Killian Road/Netherford Road

0.54 47,436 38 6.3 0.81

To supplement the collision analysis, the Regional Safety Study, Development of Safety Performance

Functions and Network Screening Final Report April 2013 was reviewed to identify intersections that

may be candidates for safety improvements. This report by York Region looked at 1,224 intersections

and 1,920 segments (non-intersection) using data from 2006 to 2010. The results from the Regional

study show how collision rates at intersections and segments within the Major Mackenzie Drive

corridor rank in comparison to others within the region from a safety perspective. The two parameters

extracted from the Regional study are Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI) and PSI Ranking.

These have been documented in Table 5-12 and Table 5-13.

Table 5-12: Intersection Collision Analysis

Intersection Collision Rate

(MEV)

Network Screening

PSI Rank Total PSI

Major Mackenzie Drive & Keele Street

2.32 39 71

Major Mackenzie Drive & Jackson Street

0.18 834 0

Major Mackenzie Drive & Gram Street 0.42 214 11

Major Mackenzie Drive & Killian Road/Netherford Road

1.52 649 0

Major Mackenzie Drive & McNaughton Road/Avro Road

2.37 57 50


December 20, 2018 | 38

Table 5-13: Segment Collision Analysis

Segment

Collision

Rate

(MVK)

Network Screening

PSI Rank Total PSI

Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street & Keele

Street 1.9 38 36

Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street & Jackson

Street 0.4 1005 0

Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road/Netherford Road

& Gram Street 0.2 190 10

Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road/Avro

Road & Killian Road/Netherford Road 0.7 40 34

A higher PSI Ranking indicates a high potential for safety improvement. The PSI is the outcome from

a network screening analysis which is a process for reviewing a roadway network (intersections,

segments, ramps) in order to prioritize sites for improvement from highest to lowest. A network

screening process involves several analytical steps utilizing historical data of the network primarily

collision history.

The Network Screening analysis confirms the information provided by collision rates data. For

instance, the segment between Keele Street and Jackson Street has the highest calculated collision

rate and the highest PSI ranking or the highest potential for safety improvement.

It is important to note that of all reported collisions in the study area, no fatalities were recorded.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Collisions

Records from York Region’s Active Transportation Team were made available and show the following pedestrians and cyclist collisions since 2007:

9 collisions at Keele & Major Mackenzie intersection 3 collisions between Jackson Street and Keele Street 2 collisions at Netherford/Killian & Major Mackenzie intersection 4 collisions at McNaughton/Avro & Major Mackenzie intersection

As cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable on roads, conditions for them should be treated with

increased vigilance and importance despite the lower number of overall collisions observed for these

two modes.

Summary 5.3.2

Table 5-14 contains a summary of the key safety issues identified for the study corridor.

Table 5-14: Collision Trends Summary

Intersection Collision Trends

Major Mackenzie Drive & Keele Street

164 collisions (81 PDO, 25 Non-Fatal, 29 Non-Reportable)

40% of collisions were Rear-End initial impact while Angle collisions accounted for 18% of all collisions

Major Mackenzie Drive & Jackson Street

8 collisions (6 PDO, 2 Non-Fatal)

Rear-End and Angle collisions were the predominant impact types (75%)

Major Mackenzie Drive & Gram Street


42% of collisions were Rear-End initial impact

Sideswipe (21%) and Angle (21%) collisions were equally common initial impact types

Major Mackenzie Drive & Killian Road/Netherford Road


Rear-End collisions were the predominant impact type (68%)

Angle collisions made up 13% of collisions while Sideswipe accounted for 9% of the tolal count

Major Mackenzie Drive & McNaughton Road/Avro Road


Rear-End collisions were the predominant impact type (59% or 85 collisions). Angle collisions made up 21% of collisions while Sideswipe accounted for 8% of the tolal count

Based on the 5-year collision data, there were no unusual collision rates observed along this segment

of Major Mackenzie Drive. Moreover, the Network Screening analysis confirms the information

provided by collision rates data. The segment between Jackson Street and Keele Street, which has

the highest calculated collision rate and the highest PSI ranking has the potential for safety

improvement.

The York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memo (2015) provided the following list of potential

collision influencing factors:

Existing congested conditions on Major Mackenzie Drive during peak periods may increase

motorist’s potential exposure to collisions;

Limited continuous alternative east-west routes increase traffic congestion on Major Mackenzie

Drive causing closely spaced aggressive drivers, potentially influencing the high number of rear

end collisions; and

Conflicting pedestrian activities in the area may impose vehicular delays for turning vehicles at

intersections, which could also result in higher level of frustration for motorists.


December 20, 2018 | 39

6 Problem and Opportunity Statement Major Mackenzie Drive is a continuous, regional arterial road which spans York Region from its



404. The historic Village of Maple is centered at the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele

Street. As such, between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Keele Street, the surrounding land use

context is relatively urban and composed of low to mid-rise land uses including residential, mixed-use,

commercial and institutional buildings with a number of driveway accesses located on both sides of the

street.

Major Mackenzie Drive is both a busy traffic thoroughfare and an urban village core. The following

transportation issues were identified:

Due to heavy through traffic volumes, there are limited gaps in traffic flow, making access to and

from the commercial and residential parking lots challenging.

Delays in access to driveways exacerbate already heavy traffic queues by blocking through traffic

on Major Mackenzie Drive.

The intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street exceeds capacity during peak

periods resulting in significant eastbound queuing which further impacts driveway accesses west

of Keele Street.

The significant number of driveway access points creates conflict points reducing the pedestrian

and cyclist experience along the corridor.

Current conditions for mixed traffic transit services results in poor transit operating conditions

during peak hours.

The lack of a pedestrian crossing along Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road / Netherford

Road and Keele Street (as well as the petition signed by the public)

Potential opportunities to address the aforementioned transportation issues require further study and

include:

Realignment and consolidation of commercial/residential access points.

Scheduling delivery during off-peak hours and at night.

Implementing a centre left-turn lane to provide additional space and storage for driveway access

movements.

Intersection improvements at Keele Street to reduce vehicle queuing and capacity issues.

Streetscaping enhancements to encourage walking

Installation of a traffic signal and protected pedestrian crossing between Killian Road/Netherford

Road and Keele Street.


future EA study will assess the long-term transportation needs, including capacity improvements.

7 Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions are functionally different ways of approaching and addressing a problem or

opportunity. The Class Environmental Assessment process requires documentation and

examination of all reasonable alternatives to address the problem; referred to as Alternative

Solutions.

Generation of Alternative Solutions 7.1

To inform the generation of alternative solutions, a review of the findings and recommendations

from the York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memo (2015) was performed. The report is

referred to as the “York Region Memo (2015)” and is summarized in Section 7.1.1. The memo

recommendations helped inform the development of some of the Alternative Solutions identified

for this EA study, which are summarized in Section 7.1.2.

2015 York Region Memo Alternative Solutions 7.1.1

Prior to the commencement of this EA study, York Region’s Transportation Planning group

received a request to review the issues of traffic congestion and vehicle delay related to

ingress/egress at commercial and residential driveways on Major Mackenzie Drive from Killian

Road/Netherford Road to Keele Street. The findings of York Region’s work are documented in the

York Region Memo (2015) (Appendix L), which identified and assessed three alternatives and

are outlined in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Improvements Analyzed in the York Region Memo (2015)

Alternative Description

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

No infrastructure improvements Signal timing optimization


Addition of left-turn lanes on Major Mackenzie Drive at: o Gram Street intersection o Jackson Street intersection o 2396, 2354 and 2332 Major Mackenzie

driveways A 135 m raised centre median between Killian Road

and Gram Street Relocation of 2414 Major Mackenzie driveway to align

with Gram Street


Addition of a continuous two-way centre left-turn lane from Gram Street to Jackson Street

Addition of a 135m raised centre median between Killian Road and Gram Street

Relocation of 2414 Major Mackenzie driveway to align with Gram Street

1 Plans and drawings depicting alternative solutions can be found in Appendix L.

The 2015 York Region Memo measured the impacts of each alternative based on the following

metrics to assess traffic operations:


December 20, 2018 | 40

Traffic Performance

The 2020 levels of service, volume-to-capacity ratios, delays and queuing were modeled for all

movements for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The traffic performance evaluation was

completed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The implementation of a continuous centre left-turn lane (Alternative 3) yielded the highest benefit

to traffic performance. Non-signalized intersections experienced the best operations improvement

under Alternative 3, while traffic conditions at signalized intersections remained largely similar

between the alternatives assessed.

Travel Time Savings

Travel times for the 2020 scenarios were modeled using SimTraffic 8 simulation software and

were compared to actual 2015 travel times, which had been previously recorded through a survey

by York Region. Table 7-2 below displays the results of the travel time analysis.

Table 7-2: Travel Time Savings (York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memo 2015)

Alternative AM travel time (s) PM travel time (s) Ranking

[best (1) to worst (4)]

2015 Actual Existing 146 (EB), 55 (WB) 142 (EB), 75 (WB) 4

Alternative 1: Do Nothing (2020)

100 (EB), 80 (WB) 80 (EB), 50 (WB) 3


110 (EB), 50 (WB) 60 (EB), 45 (WB) 2


80 (EB), 40 (WB) 65 (EB), 40 (WB) 1

*Note: The above travel time savings are only used to illustrate the performance of the different alternative solutions.

They are the result of analysis conducted as part of the Traffic Operations Assessment, completed in 2015. For the

methodology used to derive these values, please refer to Appendix L.

The following summarizes the memo’s findings and conclusions:

Alternative 3 prevailed over Alternatives 1 and 2 from a traffic performance and travel time

improvement standpoint.

The overall benefits that would be realized by the construction of a left-turn lane on Major

Mackenzie Drive from Killian Road to Keele Street will produce moderate benefits.

Because high traffic volumes are the result of network discontinuity in the area, broader

solutions to traffic congestion are needed. Implementation of missing road links on Teston

Road and Kirby Road, as identified in the York Region Transportation Master Plan, is

recommended.

Based on the recommendations, an alternative with a continuous centre-left turn lane was carried

forward in the EA study for further consideration. As the 2015 York Region memo determined a

preference for a two-way centre left-turn lane compared to the implementation of auxiliary left-turn

lanes on Major Mackenzie Drive at Gram Street, Jackson Street and 2396, 2354 and 2332 Major

Mackenzie driveways, this alternative solution was not carried forward for further review in the EA

study.

Proposed Alternative Solutions 7.1.2

Based on the Needs Assessment and recommendations from the 2015 York Region Memo, a

variety of Alternative Solutions were developed for the study area. These alternatives range in

complexity, cost, and their ability to address the study area issues. Table 7-3 presents the

proposed alternative solutions considered to address the problems and opportunities identified for

the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study.

Table 7-3: Proposed Alternative Solutions

Alternative Description

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

Maintain existing conditions


Signal coordination and timing optimization.

Alternative 3: Widen for Centre Left-Turn Lane

Provide a centre left-turn lane to help reduce delays caused by cars turning left into driveways.

Alternative 4: Intersection Improvements at Keele Street

Add an eastbound right-turn lane and extend the eastbound left-turn lane at the Keele Street intersection.

Alternative 5: New Traffic Signal / Pedestrian Crossing between Killian Road and Keele Street

Add a new traffic signal and/or pedestrian crossing between Killian Road and Keele Street to facilitate safer pedestrian and vehicular movements along this segment of the corridor

Alternative 6: Consolidate Commercial Entrances and Driveways

Minimize the number of access points to reduce opportunities for traffic blockage while eliminating conflict points and improving pedestrian and cyclist conditions.


December 20, 2018 | 41

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions 7.2

To determine the most appropriate solution for the corridor, the advantages and disadvantages of

each of the Alternative Solutions identified in Section 7.1.2 were evaluated. A list of criteria to

compare the alternatives was developed. The measure of the alternative’s success was its ability

to correct, minimize or mitigate impacts and / or meet the study goals.

Evaluation Criteria 7.2.1

The evaluation criteria used to compare the Alternative Solutions is listed in Table 7-4.

Table 7-4: Alternative Solution Evaluation Criteria

Category Criteria

Socio-Economic

Minimizes impacts to archaeology / cultural heritage resources

Accommodates existing and planned development

Complies with regional and municipal planning policies

Minimizes property acquisition

Improves quality of life

Improves air quality

Transportation Supports regional and municipal transportation planning strategies

Improves existing / future congestion

Improves road safety

Accommodates all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and transit users

Addresses problem / opportunity statement

Natural Environment

Minimizes impacts to and enhances environmentally sensitive areas

Minimizes impacts to wildlife, vegetation, aquatic species and habitat, and

species at risk

Provides stormwater management improvements and mitigates erosion

Costs Optimizes capital costs

Optimizes operation/maintenance costs

Optimizes property acquisition costs

Traffic Analysis 7.2.2

The following describes the methodology and key findings used to assess the traffic operations of

the various alternatives.

Alternative 1: Do Nothing 7.2.2.1

The analysis and results depicting traffic conditions in 2020 if no improvements were undertaken

in the study area were prepared. The results of the “Do Nothing” analysis were used for

comparison purposes against other alternatives to identify their relevant benefits as described.

Alternative 2: Transportation System Management 7.2.2.2

While Transportation System Management, particularly traffic signal optimization, would provide a

general benefit to vehicular traffic on Major Mackenzie Drive, this alternative on its own is not

sufficient to address the issues identified in the problem statement, including safety and driveway

access concerns. As no traffic analysis was undertaken for this alternative on its own, Alternative

2 was reviewed in conjunction with others to improve operations in the study area

Alternative 3: Widen for Centre Left-Turn Lane 7.2.2.3

Travel times for the year 2020 were modeled for Major Mackenzie Drive between Keele Street

and Killian Road for the Alternative 1: “Do Nothing” and the Alternative 3: “Widen for Centre Left-

Turn Lane” scenarios using SimTraffic 8 simulation software. The results were reviewed to assess

the benefits of widening to accommodate a two-way centre left-turn lane. This methodology was

followed to facilitate comparisons with the York Region Traffic Operations Assessment Memo

(2015) results.

The results, extracted from SimTraffic reports, are illustrated in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 the AM

and PM Peak hours.

Table 7-5: Morning Peak Hour Travel Times

Travel Direction Alternative 1

(Do Nothing) Travel Time (s)

Alternative 3 (CLTL)

Travel Time (s)

Time Savings (s)

Change (%)

AM – Eastbound 260.1 234.4 -25.7 -9.9%

AM – Westbound 71.8 69.6 -2.2 -3.1%

Source: SimTraffic Report

Table 7-6: Afternoon Peak Hour Travel Times

Travel Direction

Alternative 1

(Do Nothing)

Travel Time (s)

Alternative 3

(CLTL)

Travel Time (s)

Time

Savings (s) Change (%)

PM – Eastbound 201.2 177.1 -24.1 -12%

PM – Westbound 76.8 73.2 -3.6 -4.7%

Source: SimTraffic Report

The addition of a two-way centre left-turn lane led to a reduction in travel time for both directions

in the AM and PM peaks. The largest travel time savings occurred for vehicles travelling

eastbound during the morning peak while the largest incremental savings occurred for eastbound

travellers in the afternoon peak.

Westbound traffic also experienced shorter travel times, albeit to a lesser extent. Their time

savings ranged between 2 and 4 seconds.

Table 7-7 summarizes the time savings in 2020 with the implementation of a centre left-turn lane.


December 20, 2018 | 42

Table 7-7: Travel Time Savings Results

Alternative

EA Study Travel Time (s)

EB WB

Alternative 1: Do Nothing (2020) AM 260.1 71.8

PM 201.2 76.8

Alternative 3: Widen for a centre left-turn lane

AM 234.1 69.6

PM 177.1 73.2

Travel Time Savings AM -25.7 -2.2

PM -24.1 -3.6

Total Travel Time Savings -55.9

The results show that the centre left-turn lane boasts benefits in terms of reducing delays and

total travel time by minimizing through lane blockage and improving overall capacity of Major

Mackenzie Drive within the study area. Additional benefits include safety enhancements when

making left-turns.

Alternative 4: Intersection Improvements at Keele Street 7.2.2.4

The 2020 levels of service, volume-to-capacity ratios and queuing were modeled to examine the

benefits of implementing localized intersection improvements such as eastbound-right and

eastbound-left turn lanes. As the critical section of the study corridor is located between Killian

Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street, traffic performance improvements for eastbound

movements at Keele Street can provide an accurate depiction of the outcomes anticipated. As

such the impacts of Alternative 4: “Intersection Improvements at Keele Street” were measured

only for the Keele Street eastbound movements and compared to the Alternative 1: “Do Nothing”.

Table 7-8 and Table 7-9 present the findings of the Synchro analysis for the AM and PM peak

hours.

Table 7-8: AM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions at the Keele Street intersection

AM Peak Movement V/C LOS Synchro 95th Queue (m)


EBL 0.52 C 17.9

EBT 1.07 F 292

EBR 1.07 F 292

Alternative 4: 60m EBL and 60m EBR Turning Lanes

EBL 0.52 C 17.9

EBT 0.94 D 237.1

EBR 0.24 A 21.4

Source: Synchro Report

Table 7-9: PM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions at the Keele Street intersection

PM Peak Movement V/C LOS Synchro 95th Queue (m)


EBL 0.95 F 57

EBT 1.04 E 289.9

EBR 1.04 E 289.9

Alternative 4: 60m EBL and 60m EBR Turning Lanes

EBL 0.92 F 57

EBT 0.9 D 218.3

EBR 0.25 A 19.9

Source: Synchro Report

During both AM and PM peaks, the eastbound-through (EBT) and eastbound-right (EBR)

movements experience improvements in their LOS and v/c ratio when compared to the Do

Nothing alternative. However, the eastbound-left (EBL) movement remains constant during the

morning and afternoon. The queues decrease for the EBT and EBR but remain the same for the

EBL movement.

Alternative 5: New Traffic Signal / Pedestrian Crossing between Killian Road and 7.2.2.5Keele Street

The Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM 2007 – Book 12) was used as a basis to evaluate the warrant

for a traffic signal and/or pedestrian crossing between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele

Street (Alternative 5). Because it is unsignalized and located equidistant from adjacent crossings,

the Gram Street intersection was a good candidate from which to begin the assessment of

potential midblock crossings.

According to the OTM Book 12, for a pedestrian crosswalk (PXO) to be warranted, the total 8-

hour pedestrian volume crossing the main road at an intersection or midblock location must

exceed 100 “equivalent adult pedestrians” during the highest pedestrian traffic hours. In addition,

no signalized intersection must be located within 200m of the crossing evaluated.

The 8-hour pedestrian volume at the intersection of Gram Street and Major Mackenzie Drive is 42,

which is well below the OTM threshold. However, the signalized intersection at Killian Road is

approximately 230m away, which surpasses the acceptable 200m proximity limit set by the

Manual.

To investigate the potential for a traffic signal, volume warrants and collision experience were also

examined. Exhibit 7-1 summarizes the results of the signal and PXO warrant analysis.


December 20, 2018 | 43

Exhibit 7-1: Signal and PXO Warrant Results

The volume warrants, collision experience and pedestrian volumes, as well as proximity to the

Killian Road/Netherford Road intersection, indicate that neither a traffic signal nor pedestrian

crosswalk is warranted at the Gram Street and Major Mackenzie Drive intersection. Although not

necessarily warranted, Alternative 5 is recommended for further consideration in light of public

support for a midblock pedestrian crossing.

Alternative 6: Consolidate Commercial Entrances and Driveways 7.2.2.6

Traffic analyses were not performed for this alternative. A qualitative assessment based on the

evaluation criteria was performed instead, and documented in Section 7.3.

Evaluation Matrix 7.3

Based on the evaluation criteria identified in Section 7.2.1 and the findings of the traffic analysis

presented in Section 7.2.2, an evaluation was conducted to compare the six Alternative Solutions

and determine the recommended alternative. The evaluation is provided in Table 7-10.

From a traffic perspective, based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis presented,

Alternative 1: Do Nothing is least preferred, while Alternative 3: Widen for Centre Left-turn Lane

and Alternative 4: Intersection Improvements at Keele Street are preferred.

A combination of solutions is recommended to tackle the operational concerns at Major

Mackenzie Drive within the study limits. In addition to the implementation of Alternatives 3 and 4,

it is proposed to undertake transportation system management strategies (Alternative 2) to

optimize signal timing and improve traffic flow in the study area. The addition of a new traffic

signal or pedestrian crossing (Alternative 5) is carried forward based on resident request for an

additional protected crossing and as a result of further discussion with York Region and feedback

from affected stakeholders and the community.


December 20, 2018 | 44

Table 7-10: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Matrix

Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1: Do Nothing






Option Description Maintain existing conditions. Signal coordination and timing optimization.



Add a new traffic signal and/or pedestrian crossing between Killian Road and Keele Street to facilitate safer pedestrian and vehicular movements along this segment of the corridor.

Minimize the number of access points to reduce opportunities for traffic blockage while eliminating conflict points and improving pedestrian conditions.

Socio-Economic

Impacts to Archaeology / cultural heritage resources

No Impacts No impacts Potential impacts to

archaeological or cultural heritage resources.

Potential impacts to archaeological or cultural heritage resources.

No impacts Potential impacts to

archaeological or cultural heritage resources.

Accommodates Existing and Planned Development

Does not accommodate existing and planned development, as it does not improve roadway operations.

Accommodates existing and planned development by providing a general overall benefit to vehicles along the corridor.

Supports existing and planned development by improving traffic operations.

Supports existing and planned development by improving traffic operations.

Accommodates existing and planned development as it increases pedestrian access and safety.

Supports existing and planned development, by minimizing driveway conflict points (vehicle and pedestrian).

Compliance with Region’s Planning Policies

Does not oppose Region’s Planning Policies for the EA horizon year

Does not oppose Region’s Planning Policies for the EA horizon year.





Minimizes property acquisition

No property acquisition required

No property acquisition required

Potential for property acquisition


Potential for property acquisition required


Improves quality of life

Does not improve driving operations on Major Mackenzie Dr

Poor active transportation facilities

Congestion, delays, and air quality will continue to degrade , resulting in deteriorated quality of life

Potential improvement to the driving experience on Major Mackenzie Dr

Potential improvement to the driving experience on Major Mackenzie Dr

Potential improvement to air quality due to fewer idling vehicles, resulting in increased quality of life

Opportunity for landscape / streetscape improvements

Potential improvement to the driving experience at the intersection and adjacent segments of Major Mackenzie Dr

Potential opportunity to improve active transportation facilities

Potential improvement to air quality due to fewer idling vehicles, resulting in increased quality of life

Potential for impact to the driving experience on Major Mackenzie Dr

Improved pedestrian experience and safety

Increased access to existing and planned developments

Moderate improvement to the driving experience on Major Mackenzie Dr

Minimizing driveway conflict points (vehicle and pedestrian).

Improves air quality Does not improve air quality

Minimal potential improvement to air quality, due to optimization of vehicular flows

Potential for improvement in air quality due to fewer vehicles idling

Potential for improvement in air quality due to fewer vehicles idling

Does not improve air quality Does not improve air quality

Summary Not Preferred Neutral Neutral Neutral Preferred Not Preferred

Transportation/Technical

Transportation Master Plan (TMP)








December 20, 2018 | 45












Improves Existing / Future Congestion

Does not improve congestion Anticipated growth, though

minimal, will worsen existing conditions

Moderate improvement to existing congestion

Improves operations by preventing turning vehicles from blocking through lanes

Improves operations by extending east-bound left-turn lane and addition of eastbound right-turn lane

Slight negative effect on traffic congestion

Minimal to no improvement on congestion

Improves Road Safety Does not improve road safety Minimal to no impact on

road safety Improves road safety Improves road safety

Improves road safety for all modes

Improvement in road safety to pedestrians by reducing the number of conflict points with vehicles

Accommodates All Road Users, Including Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Transit Users

Does not accommodate all road users

Does not accommodate active transportation users

Potential opportunity to accommodate active transportation users, where feasible

Does not accommodate active transportation users

Improved conditions for vehicles exiting/accessing Gram Street and pedestrian access to north side plazas

Similar to existing conditions, road users are accommodated.

Addresses Problem / Opportunity Statement

Does not address problem and opportunity statement

Does not address problem and opportunity statement on its own.

Addresses problem and opportunity statement




Summary Not Preferred Neutral Preferred Preferred Neutral Neutral

Natural Environment

Impacts to Designated Natural Areas (PSWs, ESAs & ANSIs)

No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts

Impacts to Wildlife, Vegetation, Aquatic Species and Habitat, and Species at Risk

No impacts No impacts Potential minor impact to

wildlife No impacts No impacts No impact

Improves Drainage / Erosion No improvement to drainage /

erosion No improvement to

drainage / erosion

Potential impacts to drainage / erosion

Potential opportunity for improvements to storm drainage system including repair/ replacement of West Don River culvert.

Potential opportunity for improvements to storm drainage system.

No improvements to drainage / erosion

No improvements to drainage / erosion

Summary Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

Costs

Capital Costs No Capital costs One-time capital cost High capital costs from

infrastructure improvements to Major Mackenzie

High capital costs from infrastructure improvements to Major Mackenzie

Moderate capital costs Moderate capital costs


December 20, 2018 | 46












Operation / Maintenance Costs

Minimal operation/ maintenance costs

Minimal operation/ maintenance costs

Additional operation/ maintenance costs



Potential reduction in operation/ maintenance costs

Property acquisition costs No property acquisition costs No property acquisition

costs Potential for property

acquisition costs Potential for property

acquisitions costs Potential for property acquisition

costs No property acquisition costs

Summary Preferred Preferred Not Preferred Not Preferred Neutral Neutral

Overall summary

Comments

Does not impact or improve the socioeconomic or natural environment

Access to commercial properties will continue to suffer and result in potential loss of business

Does not improve transportation operations


Lowest cost

Does not impact or improve the socioeconomic or natural environments

May moderately improve transportation operations; targets drivers


Low cost

Impact to socio-economic environment (potential property acquisition) but provides opportunity for landscape / streetscape improvements

Potential improvement to air quality due to fewer idling vehicles

Most likely to yield best transportation benefits


Minor impact to natural environment

Highest cost Public support expressed Potential opportunity to

repair/replace culvert at West Don River

Requires removal of on-street parking

Impact to socio-economic environment (potential property acquisition)

Limited opportunity for landscape / streetscape improvements

Potential improvement to air quality due to fewer idling vehicles

Improvements to transportation operations


High cost Requires removal of on-street

parking near intersection

Improvement to the socio-economic environment (quality of life, improved access)

May moderately improve transportation operations and safety for vehicles and pedestrians


Moderate cost Public support for new crossing

expressed

Limited opportunities for driveway consolidation

Difficult to obtain property owner consensus

May improve transportation operations and safety by reducing the number of conflict point for vehicles and pedestrian

Moderate to high cost

Recommendation Not Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Not Preferred

Carry forward Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5


December 20, 2018 | 47

Preferred Solution 7.4

Based on the evaluation presented in the previous section, the preferred solution consists of the

following:


Alternative 3: Widening for Centre Left-Turn Lane

Alternative 4: Intersection Improvements at Keele Street (i.e. extended eastbound left-turn lane

and new eastbound right-turn lane)

Alternative 5: New Traffic Signal / Pedestrian Crossing between Killian Road and Keele Street.

Discussions with the City of Vaughan resulted in the consideration of active transportation

improvements for the study area. The preferred solution therefore also aimed to accommodate

cyclists and pedestrians to the extent possible and was reviewed as part of the alternative design

evaluation process.

8 Alternative Designs for the Preferred Solution

Recommendations carried forward from Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions informed the development

of the Phase 3 - Alternative Designs.

While Section 7 confirmed a combination of solutions to address the problem and opportunity, this

section examines alternative methods for implementing the preferred solution. Section 8 documents

the process used in developing, assessing and evaluating alternative designs to select a preferred

design for the study corridor.

Generation of Alternative Design Concepts 8.1

Constraints 8.1.1

Existing conditions and constraints along the Study Area were assessed in the development of

alternative design concepts. The main constraints influencing the alternative designs are:

a. Available Right-of-Way (ROW)

b. West Don River Crossing

c. Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan (VM-HCD)

d. Residential, Commercial, Low-Rise Mixed Land Use

e. Utilities

The study area context and constraints are presented visually in Exhibit 8-1 and Exhibit 8-2.

Exhibit 8-1: Constraints between McNaughton Road/Avro Road and Killian Road/Netherford Road

Exhibit 8-2: Constraints between Killian Road/Netherford Road and Keele Street


December 20, 2018 | 48

Corridor Segmentation 8.1.2

To better address the specific needs, constraints and challenges within the study area, the study

corridor was divided into three segments, East, Central and West, as shown in Exhibit 8-3.

Exhibit 8-3: Corridor Segmentation

For the purposes of the evaluation of alternative designs, the screening process was organized

moving from East to West along Major Mackenzie Drive. This was done because considerations for

the more constrained East segment helped define the design possibilities while guiding and informing

a continuous and sensible recommendation for the corridor.

The constraints pertaining to each segment are discussed along with their context to the development

of the alternative design options.

East Segment – Keele Street to Jackson Street

The existing available ROW along the East segment between Keele Street and Jackson Street is

approximately 28m.

In this segment, building faces directly abut property lines. Hydro poles are located on the south side

of the road and light poles are found on both sides. There is limited available right-of-way surrounding

the Keele Street intersection (see Exhibit 8-4). These characteristics pose a challenge in developing

cross-section alternatives that include all desired design features as opportunities for property

acquisition are limited.

The East segment also falls within the boundaries of the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation

District (VM-HCD) Plan which acknowledges the greater social and economic role of this segment

and aims to nurture a pedestrian-friendly commercial destination. Specifically the intersection of

Keele Street and Major Mackenzie Drive is located in the commercial core of the VM-HCD.

Exhibit 8-4: Major Mackenzie Drive looking east at Keele Street

Central Segment – Jackson Street to Gram Street

The existing available ROW along the Central segment between Jackson Street and Gram Street

varies between 25m and 28m. The boulevard is wider to the north and is more limited to the south

due to adjacent residences, as illustrated in Exhibit 8-5.

Exhibit 8-5: Looking east from 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive Plaza

Utility poles are located on both sides of Major Mackenzie Drive in this section. However, the poles on

the north side are more dispersed and are inset from the roadway, while those on the south side abut

the curb and are more abundant. These considerations are important when investigating the viability

of alternative cross-section designs to minimize potential relocation.

As part of the Heritage Conservation District, this segment is subject to urban design guidelines to

help retain the Village of Maple’s character, feel and identity. The plan encourages grassed


December 20, 2018 | 49

boulevards and plantings and supports all aspects of road design that improve the pedestrian

amenity.

West Segment – Gram Street to McNaughton Road/Avro Road

The existing available ROW in the West segment between Gram Street and McNaughton Road/Avro

Road is approximately 36m.

For the most part, private properties do not front onto Major Mackenzie Drive within this section with

the exception of Apple Tree Montessori School, Mac’s Gas Station, St. David’s Church and the

commercial plaza located at the south-west corner of Killian Road/Netherford Road and Major

Mackenzie Drive. A raised median separates eastbound and westbound traffic from Killian

Road/Netherford Road west to the Saint David’s Church Driveway.

Hydro poles are located primarily on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive in this section while

light standards line the north side, as shown in Exhibit 8-6. Furthermore, the West Don River

tributary is present within this segment and crosses under roadway between St. David’s Church and

the Mac’s Gas Station.

There is greater potential for accommodating roadway and pedestrian realm improvements in

segment due to the wider right-of-way available.

The limits of the West segment fall outside the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

Exhibit 8-6: Looking east along Major Mackenzie Drive from McNaughton Road/Avro Road

Alternative Design Cross-Sections 8.2

The Class EA process requires the documentation and examination of all reasonable options in

Phase 3 of the study. This section details the development of the long-list of alternative cross-section

designs, the short-list screening process (i.e. design workshop), the cross-section element design

criteria and the alternative designs short-listed for detailed evaluation.

Summary of Cross-Section Long-list 8.2.1

The project team considered the following cross-section alternative designs for initial discussions. For

the purposes of the evaluation of alternative designs, the screening process was organized moving

from the East (most constrained) to the West (least constrained) along Major Mackenzie Drive so as

to help the selection process. The designs were prepared by segment based on 2016 York Region

Design Guidelines (YR-DGL, December 2016 version 1.2):

1 East Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between Keele Street and Jackson Street

A. Implement an eastbound right-turn lane and shift the centerline alignment to the north, with

the remaining ROW utilized for public space.

Given the existing property/building constraints, this is the only alternative design that is

feasible. Widening the cross-section further to accommodate separated active

transportation facilities (cycling) is not possible without impacting the adjacent buildings.

Similarly widening about the centerline or shifting the alignment to the south would also

impact the adjacent buildings.

2 Central Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street and Gram Street

A. Implement a CLTL with sidewalks on both the north and south sides

B. Implement a CLTL with multi-use path (MUP) on both or either side

C. Implement a Centre Left Turn Lane (CLTL) with separated off-road cycling facilities on both

the north and south sides

3 West Segment – Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street and McNaughton Road / Avro

Road

A. Implement a CLTL with sidewalks on both the north and south sides

B. Implement a CLTL with MUP on both or either side

C. Implement a CLTL with separated off-road cycling facilities on both the north and south sides

Only separated active transportation facilities were considered in the design development. Separated

facilities are characterized by a dedicated pathway in the boulevard space and commonly include off-

road bike lanes, cycle tracks and multi-use paths. These off-road facilities are preferred over on-road

ones, such as conventional bike lanes and lanes with marked buffers for several reasons, namely

because:

Separated facilities improve cycling safety and level of service by increasing the physical separation between motor vehicles and active modes.

Separated facilities avoid the potential for conflicts with curbside transit stops. The study area’s characteristics, including its high traffic volumes (Annual Average Daily Traffic is

greater than 15,000 vehicles) and moderate operating speed (greater than 50 km/h) make it more suitable for separated facilities rather than shared uses.


December 20, 2018 | 50

Similarly, options for two-way off-road cycle track were dismissed to reduce conflict points at

intersections as pedestrians and turning drivers may not expect contra-flow bicycle traffic. Two-way

off-road cycle tracks also limit access to the other side of the street (and associated destinations) and

may require additional signal equipment at intersections.

Design Team Workshop 8.2.2

A design workshop was held with York Region internal stakeholders and project team staff on

January 8, 2018 to discuss the long-list of alternative designs and screen out options that are not

feasible. The workshop was attended by several York Region staff, including representatives from

Active Transportation, Streetscape, Corridor Control and YRT/VIVA departments.

The main objective of the workshop was to confirm which active transportation facilities are viable for

inclusion in the design and to confirm acceptable cross-section elements and associated widths (e.g.

travel lanes, sidewalk, multi-use path etc.). Design Criteria for the cross-section elements is

presented in Section 8.2.3 and summarizes the workshop recommendations.

As this EA was conducted to address short-term improvements, it was confirmed in the meeting that

the preferred design should avoid or limit property acquisition to the greatest extent possible.

Obtaining the full designated official plan ROW was not within the scope of this EA study as a future

EA study will determine a long-term solution for the corridor; including active transportation, transit

and road capacity needs.

The results of the design team workshop were reviewed and discussed with the City of Vaughan at a

meeting held on March 22, 2018.

Screening 8.2.2.1

The screening process followed for the long-list of alternative cross-section designs can be

synthesized into three main steps. The proposed alternatives must, first and foremost, fit within the

existing ROW as no property is intended to be acquired. Furthermore, to ensure consistency and

continuity of the proposed facilities throughout the study area, preference should be given to

improvements that can be accommodated in adjacent segment ROWs. Finally, the screening process

should prioritize the designs that strategically minimize and avoid impacts to surroundings based on

widening north, south or about the centerline. The preliminary screening process is shown in Exhibit

8-7.

Exhibit 8-7: Screening process and rationale established through the Design Team Workshop

With this process in mind, the long-list of cross-section alternative designs was screened and a short-

list developed. The screening process started by assessing the designs in the east then moved

westward. As the eastern section of the study area encompassed more challenges and constraints,

these considerations helped guide the selection of designs for the subsequent westerly segments.

Details supporting the recommendations from the screening process are outlined as follows:

1 East Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Keele Street and Jackson Street

A. Implement an eastbound right-turn lane using standard lane widths and shift the centerline

alignment to the north, with the remaining ROW utilized for the pedestrian boulevard.

This option was carried forward for review following discussion at the Design Workshop. This

design was short-listed for further evaluation.

Per York Region direction at the workshop, reduced lane widths were to be considered for this

alternative design (Alternative 1B).

B. Implement an eastbound right-turn lane using reduced lane widths and shift the centerline

alignment to the north, with the remaining ROW utilized for the pedestrian boulevard. This

design was short-listed for further evaluation.

In terms of alignment options, widening to the south and about the centreline were eliminated

from consideration for alternative designs 1A and 1B to avoid property impacts and minimize

i. Does the alternative fit within the existing ROW?

YES NO

ii. Consider modifications to the

alternative to reduce the

proposed ROW.

(E.g.: AT facility on one side of

the street, lane width reductions)

iii. Consider the continuity of design.

Preference is attributed to facilities that can

be accommodated in adjacent segments.

Screen out alternatives that do not provide

this continuity.

iv. Prioritize widening designs about alignments that

minimize impact on surrounding constraints and recommend

widening scenario to the north, south or centerline.


December 20, 2018 | 51

relocating existing utilities adjacent to the south curb. Widening to the north was

recommended.

2 Central Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street and Gram Street

A. Implement a CLTL with sidewalks on both the north and south sides.

This option was short-listed for further evaluation as it provides pedestrian connections

within the available right-of-way. Based on the recommendations from the workshop, reduced

lane widths will be used for this alternative design.

B. Implement a CLTL with a Multi-Use Path on both or either side

The option with MUP on both sides of the street was eliminated from consideration based on

property requirements. To reduce property impacts a modification to the design with a MUP

on the north side and a sidewalk on south side was considered. Although this modified option

does not have continuity with the adjacent segment to the east, transition to the active

transportation facility is accommodated. The modified option was short-listed for further

evaluation. Based on the recommendations from the workshop, reduced lane widths will be

used for this alternative design.

C. Implement a CLTL with separated off-road cycling facilities on both the north and south sides.

Separated off-road cycling facilities on both sides were eliminated from consideration as this

alternative exceeds the available ROW and would not have continuity with the adjacent

segment to the east. Reduction in cross-section element widths was examined but still

resulted in property impacts while only providing minimal separation distances to vehicular

and pedestrian traffic, which is not desired for high traffic areas. This option was not carried

forward.

In terms of alignment options, widening to the south and about the centreline were eliminated

from consideration to avoid property impacts and minimize relocating existing utilities adjacent to

the south curb. Widening to the north was recommended.

3 West Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street and McNaughton Road / Avro

Road

A. Implement a CLTL with sidewalks on both the north and south sides.

This option was short-listed for further evaluation as it provides pedestrian

connections within the available right-of-way. Based on the recommendations from the

workshop, reduced lane widths were preferred generally. No shifting of the centerline was

recommended throughout this section to minimize property/utility impacts and match the

existing 5-lane cross-section between Killian Road/Netherford Road and St. David’s Church.

B. Implement a CLTL with MUP on both or either side.

In order to maintain continuity to the central segment, this option is carried forward with the

same modifications recommended in the central segment. Therefore, an option with a MUP

on the north side and a sidewalk on south was carried forward for evaluation. Based on

the recommendations from the workshop, reduced lane widths will be used for this alternative

design. No shifting of the centerline was recommended throughout this section to minimize

property/utility impacts and match the existing 5-lane cross-section between Killian

Road/Netherford Road and St. David’s Church

C. Implement a CLTL with separated off-road cycling facilities on both the north and south sides.

Although there is sufficient ROW to accommodate this option, separate, off-road cycling

facilities on both sides were eliminated from consideration due to the lack of continuity and

connectivity with the central and east segments of the corridor. In addition, cycling facilities do

not exist west of McNaughton Road/Avro Road. This option was not carried forward.

According to these considerations, the long list presented in Section 8.2.1 was refined. The

design options carried forward for detailed evaluation are presented in Section 8.2.5.

Design Criteria 8.2.3

The standard and recommended element widths were reviewed and confirmed during the workshop

with York Region and are presented in Table 8-1. Standard widths are based on York Region/TAC

guidelines. Due to ROW constraints, standard widths could not be applied and recommended widths

were therefore based on discussions and direction received during the design workshop.

Table 8-1: Design Criteria and Assumptions

Element Standard

Width (m)

Recommended

Width (m)

Source / Notes

Through Lane 3.5m 3.3m YR-RDGL1 Pg. 46 DS-104 Curb Lane 3.75m 3.5m – 3.75m

Right-Turn Lane (RTL) 3.5m 3.5m

Left-Turn Lane (LTL) 3.5m 3.0m – 3.3m

Median Island

(adjacent to left-turn

lane)

1.4-1.7m 1.4m (monolithic) YR-RDGL1

Pg. 46

E-6.03/E-6.05


December 20, 2018 | 52

Element Standard

Width (m)

Recommended

Width (m)

Source / Notes

Two-way Centre Left

Turn Lane (TWCLTL)

4.0m- 5.0m 4.40m

(4.0m min.)

TAC 2017

Chapter 8

Pg. 29

Sect. 8.6.2

Sidewalk 1.5m (min.) - 3.0m

(max.)

1.5m (min.) YR-RDGL1 Pg.

57

Multi-Use Path 2.4m (min.) - 3.0m

(max.)

2.4m (min.) - 3.0m

(max.)

YR-RDGL1 Pg.

57

Boulevard 3.5m – 5.0m

Includes sidewalk, transit

facilities etc.

Varies YR-RDGL1 Pg.47

1 York Region Design Guidelines (December 2016 version 1.20)

Design Cross-Sections Short-list 8.2.4

This section summarizes the short-listed alternative designs resulting from the workshop and

preliminary screening process. Cross-sections are provided to illustrate each alternative.

West Segment – McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Gram Street 8.2.4.1

The short-listed designs to be carried forward for detailed evaluation for the West Segment are:


Reconfigure/repurpose the existing roadway to add a centre left-turn lane from east of the West

Don River tributary to Gram Street while maintaining the sidewalks in their current location. This

option attempts to retain existing edges of pavement to the extent possible while reconfiguring the

roadway. Where required, widening will occur about the existing centerline utilizing reduced lane

widths. Alternative design 3A is illustrated in Exhibit 8-8.


Reconfigure/repurpose the existing roadway to add a centre left-turn lane from east of the West

Don River tributary to Gram Street. Install a MUP on the north side and maintain the existing

sidewalk on the south side. This option attempts to retain existing pavement edges to the extent

possible while reconfiguring the roadway. Where required, widening will occur about the existing

centerline utilizing reduced lane widths. Design 3B is displayed in Exhibit 8-9.

Central Segment – Gram Street to Jackson Street 8.2.4.2

The short-listed designs to be carried forward for detailed evaluation for the Central Segment are:


Maintain the south edge of pavement and shift the centerline alignment north to implement a two-

way centre left-turn lane using reduced lane widths. Re-instate sidewalk on the north side and

maintain existing sidewalk on the south. Design 2A is illustrated in Exhibit 8-10.


Maintain the south edge of pavement and shift the centerline alignment north to implement a two-

way centre left-turn lane using reduced lane widths. Install MUP on the north side and maintain

the existing sidewalk on the south side. Design 2B is illustrated in Exhibit 8-11.

East Segment – Keele Street to Jackson Street 8.2.4.3

The short-listed designs to be carried forward for detailed evaluation for the East Segment are:

Alternative Design 1A (Standard lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)

Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using standard

element widths, with the remaining ROW utilized for public space. Alternative Design 1A is shown

in Exhibit 8-12

Alternative Design 1B (Reduced lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)

Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using reduced lane

widths, with the remaining ROW utilized for public space. Design Alternative 1B is shown in Exhibit

8-13.


December 20, 2018 | 53

Exhibit 8-8: Alternative Design 3A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks)

Exhibit 8-9: Alternative Design 3B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on north side)

TWO WAY CLTL

TWO WAY

CLTL


December 20, 2018 | 54

Exhibit 8-10: Alternative Design 2A (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + Sidewalks)

Exhibit 8-11: Alternative Design 2B (Reduced lane widths + CLTL + MUP on north side)

CLTL

CLTL


December 20, 2018 | 55

Exhibit 8-12: Alternative Design 1A (Standard lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)

Exhibit 8-13: Alternative Design 1B (Reduced lane widths + RTL + Sidewalks)


December 20, 2018 | 56

Evaluation of Alternative Designs 8.2.5

Evaluation Criteria 8.2.5.1

The evaluation of cross-section alternatives included the formulation of evaluation criteria and a

method to evaluate these criteria. The evaluation criteria were developed based on transportation

considerations as well as impacts to the natural, cultural, and social environments and

considerations pertaining to costs and infrastructure design. The assessment of alternative designs

was conducted through the lens of the study’s ultimate objectives to:

Improve the existing operational issues along Major Mackenzie Drive for the short-term;

Limit property impacts and avoid the need to obtain additional right-of-way (where feasible); and

Improve streetscaping and enhance the active transportation experience where feasible,

depending on the extent of impacts to accommodate these.

The alternative cross-section alternatives identified were evaluated based on the criteria listed in

Table 8-2 below.

Table 8-2: Evaluation Criteria for Alternative Designs

Category Criteria

Transportation Service

Improves Congestion and Delays

Maintains a Cyclist-Friendly Environment

Maintains a Pedestrian-Friendly Environment

Improves Safety for All Travel Modes

Maintains Mode Choice

Maintains Public Transit Service

Natural Environment

Minimizes Impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Minimizes Impacts to Wildlife, Vegetation, Aquatic Species and Habitat, and Species at Risk

Provides Stormwater Management Improvements and Mitigates Erosion

Improves Air Quality

Social Environment

Minimizes Impacts on Adjacent Areas

Improves Access to Adjacent Areas

Mitigates Traffic on Local Streets

Minimizes Traffic Noise

Preserves Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Features

Improves Visual Aesthetics

Improves Community Character and Quality of Life

Infrastructure Design

Minimizes above ground Utility Relocation

Minimizes Constructability Complexity

Minimizes Disruption due to Construction

Economic Environment and Cost Effectiveness

Optimizes Capital Costs

Optimizes Operation/Maintenance Costs

Optimizes Property Acquisition Costs

Evaluation 8.2.5.2

The cross-section alternative designs were evaluated using the established criteria listed in the

Section 8.2.5. Each criterion presents important considerations with respect to potential impacts,

and was considered with equal relevance in choosing a preferred cross-section design for each

segment.

The evaluations of the cross-section alternative designs for Major Mackenzie Drive are presented in

Table 8-3, Table 8-4 and Table 8-5 and by segment.


December 20, 2018 | 57

West Segment – Gram Street to McNaughton Road/Avro Road

Table 8-3: Evaluation of Alternative Cross-sections (West Segment)

Evaluation Criteria

West Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Gram Street and McNaughton Road/Avro Road

Alternative Design 3A Reconfigure the existing roadway to add a two-way centre left-turn lane (CLTL) using reduced lane widths with sidewalks on both sides.

Alternative Design 3B Reconfigure the existing roadway to add a two-way centre left-turn lane (CLTL) using reduced lane widths with a multi-use path on the north side and an enhanced sidewalk on the south.



The CLTL lane will facilitate ingress and egress to St. David’s Church, Apple Tree Montessori School. No significant change is anticipated for the commercial plaza as access will remain similar to the existing condition.

The CLTL lane will facilitate ingress and egress to St. David’s Church, Apple Tree Montessori School. No significant change is anticipated for the commercial plaza as access will remain similar to the existing condition.

Creates a Cyclist-Friendly Environment

Cyclists are not accommodated in dedicated facilities and have to share the road with vehicles and sidewalks with pedestrians.

Cyclists are accommodated through the MUP provided on the north side of the street under this design alternative.

Creates a Pedestrian-Friendly Environment

Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street. Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street.


There is the potential for cyclist – vehicle conflicts due to lack of dedicated cycling facilities.

Cyclist – pedestrian conflict is also possible on both north and south sides if cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk.

The potential for cyclist – vehicle conflict is drastically reduced through the provision of a MUP.

Though there is the potential of cyclist – pedestrian conflict on the MUP, it is to a much lesser extent than in Alternative Design 3A.

Improves Mode Choice May encourage driving or taking transit due to improvements to traffic flow.

Does not improve mode choice.

May encourage driving or taking transit due to improvements to traffic flow.

Provision of cycling facilities is known to increase the cycling mode share.

Continuous AT facilities provide first/last mile connections to transit.

Improves Public Transit Service

Improved traffic flow may provide benefits to planned transit operations. Improved traffic flow may provide benefits to planned transit operations.

Summary Less Preferred Preferred

Natural Environment

Minimizes Impacts to and Enhances Environmentally Sensitive Areas

This alternative design only reconfigures the existing road pavement and does not have any widening associated. However, the culvert at the West Don River will be replaced under both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.

Impacts to the West Don River tributary and surrounding wetland are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.


Impacts to the West Don River tributary and surrounding wetland are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B



Impacts on wildlife, vegetation, aquatic species and habitat in this segment are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.

No Species at Risk have been identified.


Impacts on wildlife, vegetation, aquatic species and habitat in this segment are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.

No Species at Risk have been identified.



Impacts to stormwater management are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.


Impacts to stormwater management are anticipated to be the same for both Alternative Design 3A and 3B.


December 20, 2018 | 58

Evaluation Criteria




Improve Air Quality

Potential improvement to air quality due to accommodation of the centre-left turn lane (reduction in idling vehicles).

Potential improvement to air quality due to accommodation of the centre-left turn lane (reduction in idling vehicles).

The provision of a multi-use path may improve air quality marginally over Alternative Design 2A by providing connections to additional MUPs despite the short length of this segment.

Summary Preferred Preferred

Social Environment


The design has a minimal impact on the adjacent area as it uses the available ROW and reconfigures the existing road pavement (curb-to-curb).

The design has a minimal impact on the adjacent area as it uses the available ROW and reconfigures the existing road pavement (curb-to-curb).


The two-way CLTL will improve vehicular access to the commercial plaza parking lots.

The two-way CLTL will improve vehicular access to the commercial plaza parking lots.

The proposed MUP will enhance the area’s accessibility to cyclists.


Improvement in traffic flow through the implementation of a two-way CLTL has the potential to divert traffic away from local streets.


Minimizes Traffic Noise There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth. There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth.


No anticipated impact on archaeological and cultural heritage features due to previously disturbed conditions.



Visual aesthetics are largely influenced by the public realm, streetscaping and public art, for which there are opportunities for under this design alternative.

Visual aesthetics are largely influenced by the public realm, streetscaping and public art, for which there are opportunities for under this design alternative.


Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities. Opportunities exist for public realm/streetscaping improvements.

Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities. The MUP will contribute a missing piece of infrastructure that will improve the quality of life for cyclists. Opportunities also exist for public realm/streetscaping improvements.



Minimize Utility Relocation

Minor impacts to utilities are anticipated as this alternative design primarily utilizes the existing road pavement (curb-to-curb) with widening limited in the vicinity of St. David’s church and the east end of the segment.

Minor impacts to utilities are anticipated as this alternative design primarily utilizes the existing road pavement (curb-to-curb) with widening limited in the vicinity of St. David’s church and the east end of the segment.

Minimize Constructability Complexity

A similar degree of constructability complexity is anticipated between the two alternative designs.


Minimize Disruption due to Construction

Disruption is expected to widen the roadway (where applicable) to implement the CLTL.

There is the potential for temporary disruptions to driveways.

Disruption is expected to widen the roadway (where applicable) to implement the CLTL.




December 20, 2018 | 59

Evaluation Criteria




Economy and Cost Effectiveness

Optimizes Capital Costs Capital costs are expected to be slightly lower than Alternative Design 3B as the

sidewalks can be maintained in their current condition. Capital costs are expected to be slightly higher than Alternative Design 3A due to the MUP addition on

the north side.


Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Alternative Design 3B.

Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Alternative Design 3A.


No property acquisition is required under this design. No property acquisition is required under this design.

Summary Preferred Less Preferred

Overall Recommendation

Not recommended Recommended


December 20, 2018 | 60

Central Segment – Jackson Street to Gram Street

Table 8-4: Evaluation of Alternative Cross-sections (Central Segment)

Evaluation Criteria

Central Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street and Gram Street

Alternative Design 2A Implement a two-way centre left-turn lane (CLTL) using reduced lane widths with sidewalks on both sides by shifting the alignment to the north.

Alternative Design 2B Implement a two-way centre left-turn lane (CLTL) using reduced lane widths with a multi-use path on the north side and a sidewalk on the south side by shifting the alignment to the north.



The two-way CLTL lane is expected to address traffic issues due to ingress and egress from commercial driveways, thus improving vehicular flows and delays.

The two-way CLTL lane is expected to address traffic issues due to ingress and egress from commercial driveways, thus improving vehicular flows and delays.


Cyclists are not accommodated under this alternative design (beyond existing conditions). Cyclists are not accommodated in dedicated facilities and have to share the road with vehicles and sidewalks with pedestrians.

Cyclists are accommodated through the MUP provided on the north side of the street under this design alternative.


Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street. However, the south side sidewalk is sub-standard width due to the constrained ROW.

Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street. However, the south side sidewalk is sub-standard width due to the constrained ROW.


There is the potential for cyclist – vehicle conflicts due to lack of dedicated cycling facilities.

Cyclist – pedestrian conflict is also possible on both north and south sides if cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk.

The potential for cyclist – vehicle conflict is reduced through the provision of a MUP.

Though there is the potential of cyclist – pedestrian conflict on the MUP, it is to a much lesser extent than in Alternative Design 2A.

Improves Mode Choice May encourage driving or taking transit due improvements to traffic flow.

Does not improve mode choice for active modes.

May encourage driving or taking transit due improvements to traffic flow.

Provision of cycling facilities is known to increase the cycling mode share.



Continuous AT facilities provide first/last mile connections to transit.


Natural Environment


There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Provincially Significant Wetlands or Environmentally Sensitive Areas located within this segment.

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Provincially Significant Wetlands or Environmentally Sensitive Areas located within this segment.


No anticipated impact on vegetation and habitat in this segment. Wildlife and aquatic species in the study area are largely tolerant of human disturbance.



This alternative design involves a widened pavement compared to existing conditions and may adversely impact stormwater runoff. The level of impact is anticipated to be similar to that of Alternative Design 2B.

This alternative design involves a widened pavement compared to existing conditions and may adversely impact stormwater runoff. The level of impact is anticipated to be similar to that of Alternative Design 2A.

Improve Air Quality Potential improvement to air quality due to accommodation to the centre-left turn lane

(reduction in idling vehicles).

Potential improvement to air quality due to accommodation to the centre-left turn lane (reduction in idling vehicles). The provision of a multi-use path may improve air quality marginally over Alternative Design 2A by providing connections to additional MUPs despite the short length of this segment.


December 20, 2018 | 61

Evaluation Criteria





Social Environment


The design has a minimal impact on the adjacent area as it uses the available ROW while reducing the existing but under-utilized grass buffer on the north side.

The design will impose significant impact on the adjacent area (compared to Alternative 2A) as implementation of a MUP will limit streetscaping opportunities and cannot be accommodated in constrained locations without acquiring additional ROW.


The two-way CLTL will improve vehicular access to the commercial plaza parking lots. The two-way CLTL will improve vehicular access to the commercial plaza parking lots.

The proposed MUP has the potential to enhance the area’s accessibility to cyclists.




Minimizes Traffic Noise There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth. There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth.





Opportunities for the enhancement of the social environment are limited to pedestrian realm enhancements. Compared to Alternative Design 2B, this option provides more opportunity for streetscaping and improvements to visual aesthetics.

Visual aesthetics are largely influenced by the public realm, streetscaping and public art, for which opportunities are limited under this design alternative. The majority of the available space will go toward servicing the MUP.


Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities. This alternative design offers more opportunities for pedestrians and is in line with the City of Vaughan’s vision for the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District.

Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities. The MUP will contribute a missing piece of infrastructure that will improve the quality of life for cyclists.



Minimize Utility Relocation

Shifting the centerline north helps accommodate the road improvements while avoiding the relocation of utilities on the south side (e.g. hydro poles).

Impacts to utilities on the north side of the street are anticipated to be similar to Alternative Design 2B.

Shifting the centerline north helps accommodate the road improvements while avoiding the relocation of utilities on the south side (e.g. hydro poles).

Impacts to utilities on the north side of the street are anticipated to be similar to Alternative Design 2A.





Disruption is expected to widen the roadway, to a lesser extent than Alternative Design 2B.


Additional disruption is expected to widen the roadway due to property acquisition required.

There is the potential for temporary disruptions to driveways

Summary Preferred Not Preferred


December 20, 2018 | 62

Evaluation Criteria




Economy and Cost

Optimizes Capital Costs Capital costs are expected to be similar to Design 2B. Capital costs are expected to be higher than Alternative Design 2A due to property acquisition

costs.


Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Alternative Design 2B. Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Alternative Design 2A.


No property acquisition is anticipated under this design alternative. The extent of property acquisition required to accommodate a MUP may not be justified given the

absence of an overall cycling network in the immediate area and given the City of Vaughan’s vision for the Village of Maple.

Summary Preferred Not Preferred


Recommended Not recommended


December 20, 2018 | 63

East Segment – Keele Street to Jackson Street

Table 8-5: Evaluation of Cross-section Alternatives (East Segment)

Evaluation Criteria

East Segment - Major Mackenzie Drive between Jackson Street and Keele Street

Alternative Design 1A Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using standard element widths. Maintain sidewalks on the north and south sides.

Alternative Design 1B Implement an eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north and using reduced lane widths. Provide enhanced sidewalks on the north and south sides.



The right-turn lane is expected to reduce eastbound queuing, thus reducing traffic and delays.

The right-turn lane is expected to reduce eastbound queuing, thus reducing traffic and delays.


Cyclists cannot be accommodated in dedicated facilities due to the narrow ROW in this segment. Cyclists have to share the road with vehicles and sidewalks with pedestrians.

Cyclists cannot be accommodated in dedicated facilities due to the narrow ROW in this segment. Cyclists have to share the road with vehicles and sidewalks with pedestrians.


Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street. However, the sidewalks are narrower compared to those in Design Alternative 1B.

Pedestrians are accommodated on both sides of the street in increased capacity compared to Alternative Design 1A. Boulevards/sidewalks are slightly wider under this design alternative.


There is the potential for cyclist - vehicle conflicts due to lack of dedicated cycling facilities.

The potential for cyclist - pedestrian conflicts on both north and south sides is relatively high if cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk.

There is the potential for cyclist - vehicle conflicts due to lack of dedicated cycling facilities.

If cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk, the potential for cyclist - pedestrian conflicts on both north and south sides is reduced compared to that in Alternative Design 1A, due to the additional space attributed to pedestrians in this design.

Improves Mode Choice May encourage driving or taking transit due to improvements to traffic flow. May encourage driving or taking transit due to improvements to traffic flow.




Natural Environment


There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) located within this segment.

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Provincially Significant Wetlands or Environmentally Sensitive Areas located within this segment.





Wider roadway (pavement) may adversely impact stormwater runoff.

Narrower roadway (pavement) width compared to Alternative Design 1A

Potential for improved stormwater management through the incorporation of plantings and Low Impact Development (LID) in the wider pedestrian boulevard in this design.

Improve Air Quality

Potential for improvement to air quality due to reduced congestion (reduction in idling vehicles).

Minor improvement in air quality on adjacent streets due to reduction in traffic diversion.

Potential for improvement to air quality due to reduced congestion (reduction in idling vehicles).

Minor improvement in air quality on adjacent streets due to reduction in traffic diversion.



December 20, 2018 | 64

Evaluation Criteria




Social Environment


The design for this alternative uses the available ROW while reducing the pedestrian amenity, which may impact adjacent businesses adversely.

The design for this alternative uses the available ROW with less sacrifice to the pedestrian realm, which may benefit adjacent businesses.


Proposed median island extension may impose right-in/right-out access restrictions for the Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot.

Proposed median island extension may impose right-in/right-out access restrictions for the Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot.


Improvement in traffic flow through the implementation of a right turn lane (RTL) has the potential to divert traffic away from local streets.

Improvement in traffic flow through the implementation of a RTL has the potential to divert traffic away from local streets.

Minimizes Traffic Noise There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth and a right-turn

lane in closer proximity to properties on the south side.

There is the potential for increase in noise levels with future traffic growth and a right-turn lane in closer proximity to properties on the south side. However, reduced lane widths in this design have traffic calming consequences and may yield improvements to noise levels compared to standard lanes recommended in Design 1A (ITE: Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming)





Visual aesthetics are largely influenced by the public realm, streetscaping and public art, for which opportunities are limited under this design alternative.

Visual aesthetics are largely influenced by the public realm and streetscaping, for which opportunities are more available due to the larger sidewalks under this design alternative.


Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities, for which opportunities are limited under this design alternative.

Community character and quality of life are largely influenced by the public realm and civic amenities, for which opportunities are more available due to the larger sidewalks under this design alternative.



Minimize Utility Relocation Shifting the centerline north helps accommodate the road improvements while avoiding the

relocation of hydro poles to the extent possible.

Shifting the centerline north helps accommodate the road improvements while avoiding the relocation of hydro poles to the extent possible. Reduction in lane widths further reduces the potential for utility impacts.





Significant disruption is expected to construct an additional lane. There is the potential for temporary disruptions to driveways.

Significant disruption is expected to construct an additional lane.

There is the potential for temporary disruptions to driveways


Economy and Cost Effectiveness

Optimizes Capital Costs Compared to Alternative Design 1B, lower capital costs are likely to be incurred under this

design due to the narrower pedestrian amenities which tend to drive costs. Capital costs have the potential to be slightly higher than Alternative Design 1A due to the wider

public realm which tends to drive costs.


December 20, 2018 | 65

Evaluation Criteria





Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Design 1B. Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be similar to Alternative Design 1A.


No property acquisition is anticipated under this design. No property acquisition is anticipated under this design.

Summary Preferred Less Preferred


Not recommended Recommended


December 20, 2018 | 68

Recommended Design 8.3

West Segment – McNaughton Road/Avro Road to Gram Street 8.3.1

The recommended design for Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and

Gram Street is Design 3B, as shown in Exhibit 8-14. The design requires the reconfiguration of the

existing roadway to add a centre left-turn lane (CLTL) east of the West Don River tributary with an

MUP on the north side. Following comments from the City of Vaughan, the enhanced sidewalk on the

south side was recommended to be modified to a 3.0m MUP similar to the north side. This option

attempts to maintain pavement edges, repurposes the space currently used by the median for the

CLTL. Reduced lane widths will allow for enhanced sidewalks. Advantages of this design also

include the minimization of construction activities, the provision of a multi-use path and cost

efficiencies.

No private properties front onto Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and

Apple Tree Montessori School, so no auxiliary lane is needed for this section of Major Mackenzie

Drive. Also, between the Apple Tree Montessori and Gram Street, there are no accesses on the north

side of the study area. Therefore, the CLTL is only required in the westbound direction to facilitate

access to south side properties such as St. David’s Church and the commercial plaza located at the

south-west corner of Killian Road / Netherford Road. A raised median separating eastbound and

westbound traffic is proposed, spanning from Killian Road / Netherford Road west to the Church

Driveway. West of Gram Street, the CLTL will tie into the existing turn lane/centre median.

Central Segment – Gram Street to Jackson Street 8.3.2

The recommended design for Major Mackenzie Drive from Gram Street to Jackson Street is Design

2A, as shown in Exhibit 8-15. The design involves the installation of a centre left-turn lane (CLTL)

with sidewalks on the north and south sides. This design is to be implemented by shifting the

alignment to the north, maintaining the existing south curb and using reduced lane widths.

Advantages of this design include operational and access improvements, a maximized pedestrian

realm in the commercial section of the study area and the minimization of utility relocation and

property acquisition. Sidewalks may be enlarged where space permits.

East Segment – Keele Street to Jackson Street 8.3.3

The recommended design for Major Mackenzie Drive from Keele Street to Jackson Street is

Alternative Design 1B, as displayed in Exhibit 8-16. The design proposes to implement an

eastbound right-turn lane while shifting the centerline north using reduced lane widths and allocating

the remaining available space for the pedestrian realm.

Advantages of this design include improvements to traffic operations through the Keele Street

intersection, an enhanced pedestrian realm compared to other designs, and a potential for traffic

calming achieved through the reduction in lane widths.

Exhibit 8-14: Recommended Design for the West Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive

Exhibit 8-15: Recommended Design for the Central Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive

Exhibit 8-16: Recommended Design for the East Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive


December 20, 2018 | 69

Operational Improvements 8.3.4

Additional recommendations for operational improvements are identified in the following section.

Refer to the Transportation Technical Report #3, found under Appendix O, for the complete traffic

analysis, methodology and rationale followed for the development of signalization, access and

intersection modification recommendations for the study area.

Traffic Signals 8.3.4.1

The addition of traffic signals along the corridor can improve operations for vehicles while providing

protected crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. Several locations along the corridor were reviewed

for potential signalization to control both east-west and north-south traffic, or only east-west

movement.

The six options considered were:

1. New traffic signal with realignment of the 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive driveway to align with

Gram Street.

2. New traffic signals at 2354 Major Mackenzie Drive

3. New traffic signals at 2332 Major Mackenzie Drive

4. New traffic signals at Golden Spruce Lane and Jackson Street

5. Pedestrian actuated traffic signals approximately 50m east of Gram Street

6. Pedestrian actuated traffic signals approximately 50m west of Jackson Street

The results of the review are summarized in Table 8-6. The potential signal locations are evaluated

based on their adherence to York Region policies, the OTM signal warrant analysis and their

contribution to connectivity within the study area.

Table 8-6:Multi-modal Signal Warrant Analysis Results

Option Location Regional Road Spacing

OTM Signal Warrant Analysis

Connectivity Recommendation

1 Gram Street/2414 Major Mackenzie Drive

OK Not warranted High Carry Forward

2 2354 Major Mackenzie Drive

OK Not warranted Moderate Screen out

3 2332 Major Mackenzie Drive

OK Not warranted Low Screen out

4 Golden Spruce Lane / Jackson Street

Does not meet requirement - Screen out

Not analyzed due to spacing

Not analyzed due to spacing

Screen out

5 East of Gram Street, Pedestrian Actuated

OK N/A High Screen out

6 West of Jackson Street, Pedestrian Actuated

Close to requirement

N/A Moderate Screen out

Option 1 was recommended as the preferred option. It was carried forward instead of Option 5;

because the signalization of Gram Street combined with the proposed driveway realignment (at 2414

Major Mackenzie Drive) would facilitate safer traffic movements. These protected movements at

Gram Street would provide drivers with a safe alternative to the Killian Road/Netherford Road

intersection.

While it is acknowledged that the traffic signal warrant was not met, there is an operational benefit not

captured in the warrant analysis. This benefit is due to the proposed driveway relocation (at 2414

Major Mackenzie Drive) which removes the conflict between eastbound left-turning vehicles looking to

access 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive and westbound left-turning vehicles looking to access Gram

Street.

Further to the operational benefits noted, the signalization of Gram Street and 2414 Major Mackenzie

Drive provides an additional protected pedestrian crossing along the corridor while also increases the

capacity of Gram Street to handle growth and potential diversion of traffic. It is further noted that the

new signal will provide gaps in traffic at adjacent driveways to the east.

This option will reduce the spacing between protected crossings and is anticipated to decrease

jaywalking as pedestrians no longer have to walk to Keele Street or Killian Road / Netherford Road to

cross Major Mackenzie Drive safely.

It must be noted that Council approvals may be required for the implementation of the traffic signal at Gram Street as the signal does not meet the Traffic Signal Warrant despite the safety benefits associated.

Intersection Modifications at Jackson Street 8.3.4.2

Due to the proximity to the Keele Street intersection to Jackson Street, further access restrictions

are recommended at Jackson Street to improve traffic operations. Firstly, Jackson Street is

expected to have increased usage past the 2020 EA study horizon due to the proposed

development on the south side between Jackson Street and Keele Street. Currently, the eastbound

left turn storage lane at Keele Street and Major Mackenzie Drive spans the full 140 m segment

between Jackson Street and Keele Street. As a result, there is potential queue backup from the

eastbound left turn lane at Keele Street which would conflict with and block westbound left turning

vehicles at Jackson Street.

It is recommended that Jackson Street operate as right-in right-out (RIRO) access. This

improvement would facilitate safer turning movements and address driver difficulties. Notably,

drivers seeking to turn left out of Jackson Street have limited opportunities to do so due to limited

gaps particularly in proximity to anticipated queues on Major Mackenzie Drive at Keele Street. Left

turning vehicles entering and exiting Jackson Street can be accommodated via Gram Street. Based

on the existing counts (2015), westbound left turn volumes at Jackson Street were 2 and 8 during

the AM and PM respectively, no northbound left turn volumes were observed during the peak hours.

The proposed full signalization at Gram Street would provide sufficient capacity and a safer place to

accommodate these diverted volumes and the volumes to/from the new development.


December 20, 2018 | 70

Access Modifications at Golden Spruce Lane 8.3.4.3

Due to anticipated conflicts with the eastbound left-turn storage at Keele Street, Golden Spruce

Lane is recommended for ¾ access where left-turns from this street onto Major Mackenzie

Drive eastbound would no longer be permitted. Eastbound left turning vehicles accessing

Golden Spruce Lane will still be permitted due to limited access options for eastbound traffic.

Vehicles exiting Golden Spruce Lane wishing to travel eastbound on Major Mackenzie Drive may do

so via the access off of Keele Street and subsequently making a left turn from Keele Street to Major

Mackenzie Drive.

Access Modifications at 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive 8.3.4.4

It is recommended that the Shoppers Drug Mart access on Major Mackenzie Drive (2266 Major

Mackenzie Drive) operate as ¾ access, where left-turns from the parking lot onto Major

Mackenzie Drive eastbound would no longer be permitted. Other movements such as left-into

the parking lot, right-in and right-out are still permitted under this ¾ access. Eastbound-left turning

vehicles accessing Shoppers Drug Mart will still be permitted due to limited access options for

eastbound traffic. Vehicles exiting the Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot wishing to travel eastbound

on Major Mackenzie Drive may do so by initially heading westbound and u-turning at Gram Street.

This improvement would facilitate safer turning movements and address driver difficulties due to

anticipated conflicts with the eastbound left-turn storage at Keele Street. It is recognized that this

recommendation modifies the existing turning movements into this driveway and is the only

driveway access for the business. A raised median will separate the eastbound-left at 2266 Major

Mackenzie Drive and the storage lane for the eastbound-left turn at Keele Street.

Summary of Recommendations 8.3.5

The recommended improvements to Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road

and Keele Street are as follows:

Centre left-turn lane from the West Don River tributary crossing to Jackson Street

Multi-use path on the north and south side from McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Killian Road /

Netherford Road

Enhanced sidewalk and public space on the north side from Killian Road / Netherford Road to

Keele Street and on the south side from Jackson Street to Keele Street (as space permits)

A 2.4 metre sidewalk on the south side between Netherford Road / Killian Road and Gram Street

New Traffic Signal at Gram Street and realignment of the 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive driveway

Right-in-right-out (RIRO) access at Jackson Street where westbound left turns onto and out of

Jackson Street are no longer permitted

¾ access at Golden Spruce Lane where eastbound-left movements are no longer permitted (only

right-in, right-out and left-in onto Golden Spruce Lane allowed).¾ access at 2266 Major

Mackenzie Drive where eastbound left movements are still permitted (only right-in, right-out and

left-in into the parking lot allowed.

Dedicated Right-turn lane at Keele Street

9 Project Description

Design Criteria 9.1

The criteria for roadway, active transportation and access design along Major Mackenzie Drive are

summarized in Table 9-1, Table 9-2 and Table 9-3, respectively.

Table 9-1: Roadway Design Criteria

ROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS

PRESENT CONDITIONS

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

SOURCE

DESIGN CLASSIFICATION

4 Lane UAU70 4 Lane UAU70 4 Lane UAU70

TAC 2017 Chapter 2

Pg. 47 Table 2.6.2

DESIGN SPEED N/A 70 km/h 70 km/h (except east of Keele Street where

it is 50 km/h)

TAC 2017 Chapter 2

Pg. 47 Table 2.6.2

POSTED SPEED 50 km/h 50 km/h 50 km/h YR-RDGL Pg. 17

EQUIVALENT MINIMUM 'K'

FACTOR

30 crest 37 sag

17 crest 23 sag (headlight)

10-12 sag (comfort)

29 Crest 37 Sag

TAC 2017 Chapter 3

Pg. 59 Table 3.3.2 Pg. 62,63

Table 3.3.4 Table 3.3.5

GRADES MAXIMUM

1.1% 5%(Rolling) 1.2 %

YR-RDGL Pg. 18 TAC 2017 Chapter 3

Pg. 55 Table 3.3.1

RADIUS MINIMUM

East of Keele Street:

48m (Tangent between curves)

and 125m (Curve

Radius)

82m (min. Tangent) 200m - 4% Super

Elevation 300m - Reverse

Crown 2000m - Normal

Crown

East of Keele Street: 110 m

TAC 2017 Chapter 3

Pg. 23 Table 3.2.8

Maximum Rate of Super Elevation

(4% Max)

2.5% East of Keele

Street

4.0% East of Keele Street

4 %

TAC 2017 Chapter 3

Pg. 23 Table 3.2.8

PAVEMENT WIDTH 2 Lanes @ 3.5-3.75m

3.3m Through Lane 3.5m Curb Lane

3.5m Through Lane 3.75m Curb Lane

YR-RDGL Pg. 46

SHOULDER WIDTH (fully paved)

N/A N/A N/A N/A


December 20, 2018 | 71

ROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS

PRESENT CONDITIONS

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

SOURCE

SHOULDER ROUNDING

N/A N/A N/A N/A

MEDIAN WIDTH N/A 4m min.

Centre left turn lane 4-4.4m Centre left

turn lane

TAC 2017 Chapter 7

Pg. 29 Sect. 8.6.2

R.O.W. WIDTH

25 m to 66 m

OP Map 12 45m max.

Between Netherford Road and Gram

Street 30m max.

Between Gram Street and Keele

Street

As existing conditions: R.O.W

width varies between 25m and 66m.

York Region Official Plan- Map

12

SIGNALS & ILLUMINATION

Full illumination, full signals

Replace illumination, replace

signals

Replace traffic signals at Keele Street

New signals at Gram Street

Replace illumination

N/A

EROSION & SEMENT

CONTROLS FOR DESIGN

(e.g. rip-rap, gabions, rock check dams)

(e.g. filter socks, vegetated mats)

(e.g. filter socks, vegetated mats)

As per the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities – ESC

Guidelines – December 2006

Table 9-2: Active Transportation Design Criteria

CYCLING AND PEDESTRIAN

DESIGN PARAMETERS

PRESENT CONDITIONS

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

SOURCE

Cycling Facility Type (e.g. on-

street, off-street, MUP)

N/A 3.0m max 3.0m YR-RDGL

Pg. 57

Minimum Boulevard Width

1.9 m (including sidewalk)

3.5m min. from edge of pavement

(including sidewalk, transit facilities and

guiderail)

Varies throughout design

YR-RDGL Pg. 47

CYCLING AND PEDESTRIAN

DESIGN PARAMETERS

PRESENT CONDITIONS

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

SOURCE

Proposed Sidewalk Width

1.5m (North side) 1.2m (South side)

1.5m width, 0.5m buffer(adjacent to

curb)

Varies.

Minimum 1.2m on south side between

Killian Road / Netherford Road and

Jackson Street

Up to 3.0m wide sidewalks, extending to the property line in the

Heritage District.

0.5m buffer (adjacent to curb)

YR-RDGL Pg. 57

Table 9-3: Access Design Criteria

ENTRANCE DESIGN

PARAMETERS

PRESENT CONDITIONS

DESIGN STANDARDS

PROPOSED STANDARDS

SOURCE

MINIMUM WIDTH 4 m Res. 6 m Com.

5 m Res. 9 m Com.

5 m Res. 9 m Com.

YR-RDGL DS-215 (Res.) DS-203 (Com.)

MINIMUM LENGTH (ROW to building)

8 m Res. 3 m Com.

N/A 8 m Res. 3 m Com.

As per local municipality

standard

MINIMUM RADIUS 0 m Res. 0 m Com.

5 m Res. 9 m Com.

5 m Res. 9 m Com.

YR-RDGL DS-215 (Res.) DS-203 (Com.)

MAXIMUM GRADE 7 % 10 % 10 % YR-RDGL Pg. 62

MAX. ALGEBRAIC GRADE CHANGE (4%

Max) 3 % 4% max. 4 % YR-RDGL Pg. 62

Design Standard References:

York Region Road Design Guidelines (December 2016, version 1.20);

TAC Geometric Design Guidelines (June 2017);

MTO Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways (June 2017).


December 20, 2018 | 72

Road Geometry 9.2

Horizontal Alignment 9.2.1

The horizontal alignment for the preferred design is generally consistent with the existing centreline of

Major Mackenzie Drive, with the exception of a northerly horizontal alignment shift west and east of

the intersection of Keele Street and Major Mackenzie Drive. West of the Keele Street intersection, the

alignment accommodates the required minimum roadway curvature radius of 2000 m based on a 70

km/h design speed. The resultant back-to-back curve minimizes the grading impact to the adjacent

properties on the south side and allows sufficient space for the new eastbound right turn lane. East of

the Keele Street intersection, the proposed alignment is designed with a roadway curvature radius of

110 m with a 50 km/h posted speed and 70 km/hr design speed (with the exception of east of Keele

Street where the design speed is also 50km/hr).

The central segment of the corridor from Jackson Street to Gram Street, the roadway horizontal

alignment is proposed to shift to the north and maintaining the existing south curb. The horizontal

alignment will tie into the existing centerline alignment west of Gram Street.

The proposed horizontal alignment is illustrated on the preliminary design drawings in Appendix A.

Vertical Alignment 9.2.2

The proposed vertical alignment was designed to generally follow the existing road profile where

possible.

Structural Design 9.3

The findings of the Culvert Inspection Report indicated that the existing corrugated steel arch culvert

at the West Don River crossing is in very poor condition. Immediate replacement of the culvert is

recommended. Due to the urgent nature of the culvert works, the replacement project is being

undertaken separately as a schedule “A” Class EA and is not part of this study.

Typical Cross-Sections 9.4

West Segment – McNaughton Road / Avro Road to Gram Street 9.4.1

The typical cross-section (looking east) for the West Segment is illustrated in Exhibit 9-1.

The typical cross-section generally consists of:

Two (2) 3.5 m curb lanes (one in each direction)

Two (2) 3.3 m through-lanes (one in each direction)

A raised median at McNaughton Road / Avro Road

A 4.4 m centre left-turn lane, depicted as a painted median.

A 3.0 m multi-use path on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road /

Avro Road and Killian Road / Netherford Road

A 3.0m multi-use path on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road /

Avro Road and Killian Road / Netherford Road

A 2.4 m sidewalk on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road / Netherford

Road and Gram Street

A 2.4 m sidewalk on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive between Killian Road / Netherford

Road and Gram Street

Exhibit 9-1: Recommended Design for the West Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive

During detailed design, illumination design will consider the type and location of poles and luminaires.


December 20, 2018 | 73

Central Segment – Gram Street to Jackson Street 9.4.2

The typical cross-section (looking east) for the Central Segment is illustrated in Exhibit 9-2. The

typical cross-section generally consists of:

Two (2) 3.5 m curb lanes (one in each direction)


One 4.0 m two-way centre left-turn lane `

A 1.2 m sidewalk on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive (which varies throughout the

segment)

A 1.5 m minimum sidewalk with public space extending to the property line on the north side of

Major Mackenzie Drive

Exhibit 9-2: Recommended Design for the Central Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive

East Segment – Jackson Street to Keele Street 9.4.3

The typical cross-section (looking east) for the East Segment is illustrated in Exhibit 9-3. The typical

cross-section generally consists of:

Two (2) 3.5 m curb lanes (one eastbound and one westbound)


One (1) 3.0 m left-turn lane (eastbound)

One (1) 3.5 m right-turn lane (eastbound)

A 1.4 m median (treatment for the median will be defined during detailed design)

A 3.0 m public space on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive

A 2.5 m public space on the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive

Streetscaping through decorative pavers and planters within the boulevard

Exhibit 9-3: Recommended Design for the East Segment of Major Mackenzie Drive

Cycling and Pedestrian Facilities 9.5

The preferred design incorporates a one-way off-road multi-use path (MUP) on the north and south

side of Major Mackenzie Drive between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and Killian Road/Netherford

Road. The design of the MUP is based on Ontario Traffic Manual (2014) OTM Book 18 – Cycling

Facilities, which provides guidelines for the design of safe active transportation facilities and

intersection treatments. The multi-use trail on the north side will have a minimum 3.0 m width. The

selection of material type and treatment for the multi-use path will be revisited and confirmed during

detailed design. East of the Killian Road/Netherford Road intersection to Keele Street, the north

boulevard will maintain a sidewalk that will vary in width and be integrated with public space that is

adjacent to the commercial properties in this segment.

The south side of Major Mackenzie Drive will receive a 2.4m wide sidewalk from Killian Road /

Netherford Road through Gram Street, east of which the existing sidewalk will be maintained through

Jackson Street. The north side of the road from Killian Road / Netherford Road to Keele Street as well


December 20, 2018 | 74

as the south side from Jackson Street to Keele Street will accommodate pedestrians to a greater

extent through a more generous public space and enhanced paving treatment.

Public and stakeholder consultation indicated support for the introduction of active transportation

facilities into the preferred design.

Intersections and Access Modifications 9.6

Intersections will be designed in accordance with AODA standards and to facilitate the movement of

all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Intersection modifications for Major Mackenzie

Drive are summarized:

Between McNaughton Road / Avro Road and Killian Road / Netherford Road, the preferred road

design will match into the existing intersections. No physical modifications are anticipated for

these intersections as the road improvements will not necessitate changes to curb returns.

Signalization and driveway realignment will need to be undertaken at Gram Street to implement a

protected crossing. These modifications would facilitate safer traffic movements and enhance

pedestrian connectivity in the area. Works will be mostly confined to the north side of the street.

At Golden Spruce Lane, a ¾ access is proposed where eastbound left movements are still

permitted.

At Jackson Street where a Right-In-Right-Out access is proposed, physical modifications are in

the form of a concrete median that prevents left egress. Left-turning vehicles currently entering

and exiting Jackson Street can be accommodated via the proposed traffic signal at Gram Street.

At the Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot, a ¾ access is proposed where eastbound left movements

are still permitted.

At Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street, major intersection works will be required to

accommodate the eastbound right-turn lane as well as tie-in the east and west sides of the

intersection. The recommended design includes removal of the channelized right-turn island on

the north-east quadrant.

Traffic Signals, Illumination and Signage 9.7

A traffic signal is recommended at Gram Street along with the realignment of the driveway at 2414

Major Mackenzie Drive. Signal timing and phasing should be reviewed at this intersection and

monitored over time.

The existing traffic signals at Keele Street will require replacement as the recommended design shifts

the roadway alignment north. Temporary signals will also be required at this location during

construction.

Signage and pavement markings will be included as part of the detailed design and will be in

accordance with the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Planning and Design Guidelines and

Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities.

Streetscaping and Landscaping 9.8

The preferred design was carried out in accordance with York Region’s Regional Streetscape Policy

which highlights the role of Regional streets in promoting high quality urban design, serving as

entryways to communities and encouraging the development of pedestrian-friendly and transit-

oriented neighbourhoods. To conform to this policy directive, streetscaping and landscaping were

used to enhance and improve the quality of urban design along Major Mackenzie Drive. The design

also follows York Region’s "Street Tree Preservation and Planting Design Guidelines".

The preferred design acknowledges the study area`s location within the Village of Maple Heritage

Conservation District (VM-HCD) and reflects the goals and objectives set out in the VM-HCD Plan

(2006). Between Jackson Street and Keele Street (East Segment), streetscaping features involve

planters, bollards, red unit pavers, ornamental lighting, bollards and street furniture. A visual depiction

of the preferred design is presented in Exhibit 9-4, looking west at Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele

Street.

Exhibit 9-4: Preferred Design for Major Mackenzie Drive at Keele Street, looking west

From McNaughton Road/Avro Road to Gram Street, the preferred design includes a multi-use path

(MUP) on the north side and south side of Major Mackenzie Drive. The MUPs are separated from the

roadway by raised concrete tree planters. The raised planter edges provide space for seating while a

concrete median delineates bi-directional vehicular traffic, as seen in Exhibit 9-5.

Exhibit 9-5: Preferred Design for Major Mackenzie Drive at Saint David's Church, looking west

Public amenity areas are planned to connect Major Mackenzie Drive with the future recreational trail

along the West Don River Valley. The public amenity areas will enable trail access on both the north

and south sides of the street and will include benches, planting beds, shade trees and sitting blocks.

The Landscape and Streetscape Plan is included in Appendix P.


December 20, 2018 | 75

Property Requirements 9.9

The proposed operational improvements attempt to minimize property requirements, as such, there

are no property takings anticipated as per the preferred design. There is the opportunity to review

planter and decorative paving re-installment during detailed design.

Drainage / SWM Plan 9.10

The following sections summarize the drainage and stormwater management findings and

recommendations for Major Mackenzie Drive. Details are included in Appendix K.

Roadway Drainage 9.10.1.1

The study area is within the area regulated by the TRCA and a portion of the corridor is within the

regulatory floodplain of the West Don River. The proposed roadway improvements will not alter the

existing drainage pattern. A hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS was completed for existing and

proposed conditions to demonstrate that the proposed culvert replacement work will not have a

negative impact on flood elevations and will meet the requirements of the MTO Drainage Design

Standards. The culvert replacement is being undertaken as a separate Class Environmental

Assessment due to the Emergency nature of the works.

The proposed roadway improvements will result in an additional pavement area of 0.57 hectares

within the existing right-of-way of Major Mackenzie Drive. The existing catchbasins along the

westbound curb will be relocated to accommodate the proposed northerly shift of the roadway.

Minor Drainage System

The storm sewer system draining the pavement for the ultimate roadway configuration is to be

designed for a 10-year storm event as per York Region Road Design Guidelines. Proposed roadway

drainage will be collected by a series of catchbasins and will be conveyed by storm sewers to existing

outfall locations. For the storm sewer discharge locations, refer to the Drainage Area Plans in

Appendix K. A summary of the drainage areas is provided in Table 9-4.

Table 9-4: Drainage Area Summary

Drainage

Area ID

From

Station To Station

Drainage

Area

(ha)

Discharge Location

A 10+020 10+590 2.03 Outlet to West Don River

B 10+590 10+700 0.46 Connect to existing storm sewer system at Sta. 10+620

C 10+700 11+070 1.11 Connect to existing storm sewer system at Sta. 10+910

D 11+070 11+250 0.48 Connect to existing storm sewer system at Sta. 11+105

E 11+250 11+450 0.69 Connect to existing storm sewer system at Sta. 11+204

Major Drainage System

The roadway design should ensure that the major system runoff up to the 100-year storm event can

be safely conveyed to watercourse locations and should allow one lane in each direction to be clear

of any flooding. The proposed roadway profile is consistent with the existing roadway profile. Major

system relief will occur at the major watercourse crossing at the West Don River. At roadway low

point locations, major system inlets will provide capture of the 100-year flow and direct it to the outfall.

For major system flow route details, refer to the Drainage Area Plans provided in Appendix K.

Stormwater Management Strategy 9.10.1.2

The proposed stormwater management plan for the project has been developed by examining the

opportunities and constraints within the entire project area. Runoff from the paved roadway area will

be conveyed to the proposed roadway storm sewer systems and discharge directly into a natural

watercourse (wetland/West Don River) or to the existing storm sewer systems south of Major

Mackenzie Drive. The total roadway pavement area will increase by 0.57 ha within the right-of-way.

Various stormwater best management practices (BMP) are proposed for quality treatment and peak

flow reduction of the runoff from the additional pavement area. As part of the SWM strategy, 1.32

hectares of pavement area will receive water quality treatment via a proposed oil-grit separator unit.

Table 9-5 provides a summary of the water quality treatment and peak flow control strategy proposed

to mitigate the increase in impervious surface within the project.

Table 9-5: Summary of Stormwater Management Plan

Drainage Area ID

Existing Pavement

Area (ha)

Proposed Pavement

Area (ha)

Additional Pavement

Area (ha)

Stormwater Management

Measures

Pavement Area

Treated (ha)

Preliminary Target

Quantity Control Release

Rate (m

3/s)

Preliminary Required Storage Volume

(m3)

A 10+020 to

10+590 1.13 1.32 0.19

OGS, Peak flow control and Storm sewer outfall mitigations

1.32 0.426 92.2

B 10+590 to

10+700 0.20 0.25 0.05

Peak flow control mitigation

- 0.063 22.7

C 10+700 to

11+070 0.69 0.87 0.19


- 0.217 82.0

D 11+070 to

11+250 0.37 0.48 0.11


- 0.116 45.1

E 11+250 to

11+450 0.57 0.60 0.03


- 0.179 45.7


December 20, 2018 | 76

Drainage Area ID

Existing Pavement

Area (ha)

Proposed Pavement

Area (ha)

Additional Pavement

Area (ha)

Stormwater Management

Measures

Pavement Area

Treated (ha)

Preliminary Target

Quantity Control Release

Rate (m

3/s)

Preliminary Required Storage Volume

(m3)

Total Pavement Area Treated 1.32 ha

Required Pavement Area to be Treated 0.57 ha

Note: During detailed design stage, the preliminary target release rate and preliminary target storage

volume will be reviewed and reassessed based on the final roadway design.

Opportunities to implement storm sewer outfall mitigation to provide additional water quality control

and erosion control shall also be considered in series with the proposed oil-grit separator unit to

achieve the overall water quality target. Over-sized storage pipes are proposed immediately upstream

of the storm connection pipes/outfall to provide the required storage volume for peak flow control.

Supplemental measures are to be evaluated and designed in series with the proposed oil-grit

separator during detailed design to provide additional water quality mitigation to the storm sewer

outfall to the existing wetland and West Don River tributary.

Geomorphology 9.11

In accordance with the TRCA Crossing Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors (TRCA, 2015), the

preferred approach for a crossing replacement for existing crossings should consider the meander

belt, 100-year erosion limit, and less preferentially, a geomorphic realignment of the channel.

Similarly, the Fluvial Geomorphic Guidelines prepared by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority

(CVC, 2015), recommends a span at minimum, three times the bankfull width of the channel.

In the case of the replacement crossing of Major Mackenzie Drive over the tributary of the West Don

River, a crossing that spans three times the bankfull width is recommended, as this provides an

appropriately conservative approach. An open concrete box culvert, which incorporates a natural bed

substrate, should be used. The substrate should be hydraulically sized to limit entrainment through

the anticipated range of flows.

Table 9-6 summarizes the recommendations for the proposed crossing, from a geomorphic

perspective.

Table 9-6: Geomorphic Assessment summary and Crossing Recommendations

Average Bankfull

Width (m)

Valley Setting

Meander Belt

Width (m)

RGA Score

100-Year Migration

Rate (m)

Existing Structure

Type

Existing Structure Opening Width (m)

Proposed Structure

Type

Opening Width

(m)

4.55 Unconfined

48 0.41 8

Pipe Arch

Culvert 3.0 x 4.7

Concrete

Box 12

3.80 48 0.25

Note that the culvert replacement will be undertaken as a separate Schedule ‘A’ Class EA and all the

permitting and approvals will be secured independently.

Geotechnical and Foundations Engineering 9.12

A geotechnical assessment was conducted and is provided under Appendix J. The existing

pavement structure on this section of Major Mackenzie Drive does not satisfy York Region’s

requirements for an arterial road and significant strengthening is required to upgrade the road to

support future traffic based on the projected growth.

A number of pavement rehabilitation options were reviewed, including

Option 1: Mill 90 mm / Pave 210 mm (EAM)

Option 2: Pulverize Existing Pavement Structure and underlying granular materials to 300 mm

and Pave 210 mm new HMA (CIREAM)

Option 3: Full Depth Reconstruction

Options 1 and 2 were rejected due to the presence of a number of intersections, commercial

driveways, manholes and catch basins, which will require frequent changes/adjustments due to the

length of the CIREAM/EAM train. The preferred option based on the grade raise restriction is Option

3. Full depth reconstruction entails removing the existing hot mix asphalt (HMA) and underlying

granular materials and subgrade soil to a depth of 910 mm below finished grade and placing the

following:

160 mm new HMA

200 mm new Granular A, base material

550 mm new Granular B, Type I, subbase material

The effective Structural Number (SN) for Option 3 is 145 mm and exceeds the144 mm required SN

for 20 year life.

Utilities 9.13

Existing utilities along the corridor based on available information are described in Section 4.9.

Coordination with the utilities stakeholders will be required during detailed design to confirm the

existing utility location and alignment, which may result in design adjustments and/or

changes/relocation due to the roadway improvement. Formal definition of impacts on utilities will be

determined during detailed design, in consultation with individual utility companies.


December 20, 2018 | 77

Hydro poles are located primarily on the south side of Major Mackenzie Drive within the study corridor

while light standards line the north side. Based on the preferred design, it is not anticipated that

hydro pole relocations will be required.

The location and alignment of existing municipal services including storm sewers, sanitary sewers,

communication cable and watermain is to be confirmed during detailed design, which may result in

changes to the identified utility impacts. All utility information should be updated prior to construction

to ensure that the data is accurate and to finalize relocation requirement as necessary. During

detailed design, meetings will be held with utility companies as required where potential impacts to

existing or future services are identified.

Note that the culvert replacement will be undertaken as a separate EA and all utilities requiring

relocation including Alectra, Enbridge Gas, communication cables, sanitary sewers, watermain and

storm sewers within the culvert replacement project limits will be undertaken independently.

Preliminary Cost Estimate 9.14

Based on the preliminary cost estimates, the cost of the recommended improvements is estimated at

$6.0 million. The preliminary cost estimate includes cost for roadwork, active transportation,

illumination, utilities, landscaping, traffic signals and engineering. The costs associated with the

culvert replacement emergency work at the West Don River crossing is not included as part of the

Major Mackenzie Drive Operational Improvements Class EA. More details on the preliminary cost

estimate are provided in Appendix Q. These preliminary cost estimates are to be reviewed and

confirmed during detailed design.

Constructability, Staging and Detour Considerations 9.15

The proposed reconstruction of Major Mackenzie Drive includes the implementation of an eastbound

right-turn lane and shifting the centerline alignment to the north between Keele Street and Jackson

Street, widening the boulevard to implement a center left-turn lane, addition of multi-use paths and

sidewalks between Jackson Street and McNaughton Road/ Avro Road. The reconstruction should be

staged to maintain both local and through traffic within the Study Area to the extent possible, and

minimize disruptions. A minimum of one lane in each direction including an auxiliary lane for turning

movements should be maintained at all times during construction

The critical component of the construction will be the replacement of the West Don River tributary

culvert. Since the culvert replacement is proceeding as a separate undertaking outside of this Class

Ea, the anticipated road staging and detour considerations will be determined during the culvert

replacement detailed design. Any necessary interruptions to the traffic, including the potential need

for lane closures for the West Don River crossing replacement should be minimized to the extent

possible.

Construction Monitoring and Maintenance Considerations 9.16

The reconstruction of Major Mackenzie Drive should be staged to maintain both local and through

traffic within the Study Area to the extent possible, and minimize disruptions. Any necessary

interruptions to traffic, including the need for lane closures, should be minimized as feasible. No full

road closure is anticipated.

Property owners may experience temporary interruptions to their property access during construction.

To reduce this impact, all property owners should be notified prior to construction and in advance of

work related to their access. Detailed design plans should include details to describe how temporary

accesses will be maintained, and contract specifications should specify the allowable lengths of

closures and the notification requirements to property owners.

Construction of the improvements has the potential to create noise and dust for the adjacent property

owners. Construction noise is temporary and will vary periodically during the construction depending

on the specific activities being performed. Contract specifications should include provisions to define

the allowable work hours, in accordance with local ordinances, to minimize impacts to the adjacent

landowners in the evenings. However, some consideration should be given to the ability of completing

the work in a lesser duration by allowing longer work hours. The impact of construction noise will vary

based on the type of equipment used, number of pieces of equipment, time and duration of operation,

and the proximity to noise sensitive receivers in question. Construction noise can be kept to a

minimum through the use of well maintained equipment with appropriate noise controls by the

contractors.

It is recommended that during the construction period, the following be considered:

All pertinent noise by-laws are to be adhered to;

General noise control measures to be included in contract documents where applicable;

Any noise complaints or concerns to be investigated to ensure compliance with the noise control

measures as recommended in the contract documents. The contractor shall be warned for non-

compliance and the contract shall be enforced;

Additional noise control measures are to be investigated in accordance with the MECP sound

level criteria for construction equipment if a persistent complaint has been made.

Removal of the existing paved surface and existing landscaping will expose native soils to wind and

rain erosion, and result in a temporary increase in dust in the project area. This dust can become

airborne as construction traffic runs on the exposed ground, and may be noticeable by the adjacent

property owners. This increase in dust levels will be temporary, and the application of best

management practices, including the application of non-chloride dust suppressants, by the contractor

during their normal operations can help to minimize the exposure of native soils to wind and rain

erosion, and mitigate any air quality impacts caused by construction dust.

All waste generated during construction must be disposed of in accordance with ministry

requirements and best management practices. Contractors must be made aware of all environmental

considerations so that all environmental standards and commitments for both construction and

operation are met. Construction and post-construction monitoring plans should be developed during

detailed design in consultation with MECP and other regulatory agencies.


December 20, 2018 | 78

10 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation

Socio-Economic Environment 10.1

Property Impacts and Access 10.1.1

No property requirements are associated with the proposed Major Mackenzie Drive operational

improvements, as presented in Section 9.9.

Moreover, no impacts to buildings are anticipated. Some existing driveways along the study area may

be impacted as part of the proposed improvements and may need to be re-graded when the ultimate

design is implemented. Specific locations are identified on the preliminary design plates.

In addition, access at the following locations is proposed to be modified:

Realignment of the driveway at 2414 Major Mackenzie Drive with Gram Street (full access

maintained)

Jackson Street, where a proposed raised median will make the street right-in-right-out

2266 Major Mackenzie Drive, where a ¾ access is proposed for the Shoppers Drugmart parking

lot

Full access is proposed to be maintained at all remaining existing access locations.

Development Impacts 10.1.2

The proposed design was developed in consideration of planned and ongoing development in the

study area such as at 2338 and 2269-2285 Major Mackenzie Drive. The recommended

improvements’ minimal effect on adjacent developments did not require extensive developer

consultation. Developers were invited to engage with the project to the extent of the other

stakeholders such as the public and property owners.

In the case of future redevelopment, developers are encouraged to work with the City of Vaughan to

minimize traffic impacts on the study area through the consolidation of access points.

Air Quality Assessment 10.1.3

A Category 3 Air Quality Impact Assessment was completed for this EA study per the MECP’s

protocol for traffic related air pollution for projects shorter than 2km.

Under the Category 3 AQIA, impacts to air quality can be assumed minimal for this EA for the

following reasons:

The study area is short in length (~1.4 km) and predominantly straight and flat.

The addition of centre-left turn lane is proposed to improve operations and reduce congestion

and idling within the corridor

The addition of an eastbound right-turn lane is proposed to improve operations at the Keele

Street intersection.

No widening for capacity improvements is proposed (i.e. no capacity increase for single occupant

vehicles)

Active transportation improvements are proposed

The qualitative review is provided in the subsequent section.

Qualitative Review 10.1.3.1

The MECP Air Quality in Ontario 2016 Report states in the executive summary that air quality is

improving and emissions are decreasing:

“Overall, air quality has improved significantly over the past 10 years due to substantial decrease in

harmful pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide that are emitted by

vehicles and industry.

There has also been a significant decrease in fine particulate matter

The continued decrease in these pollutants is due in part to Ontario’s air quality initiatives such as

Drive Clean testing of vehicle emissions”

York Region is managing emissions and greenhouse gases through sustainable transportation

infrastructure planning and implementation.

York Region is committed to ensuring the environmental health of its residents. In addition to the

Ontario initiatives, York Regions’ Corporate Air Quality Strategy, as approved by Council in 2008,

identifies region-wide initiatives (not just road corridor specific) which support the management of

emissions and green house gases.

Regional initiatives in support of the Corporate Air Quality Strategy are on-going, including:

York Region Transportation Master Plan - The TMP is a strategic planning document designed to

define the policies, programs and infrastructure improvements required to address York Region’s

transportation needs for the future. In order to support a more sustainable region, York Region is

actively taking steps to move more people by public transit, carpooling, on foot and by bicycle

and thus shift the focus away from single occupant motor vehicles to more sustainable travel

modes. To support increased transit operations, the Region is planning on implementing road

improvements including rapid transit and transit priority corridors.

York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (PCMP) - Cycling and pedestrian facilities are

vital to the Regional multi-modal strategy by providing alternative transportation options. The

PCMP builds on connecting and expanding existing cycling and pedestrian facilities in the region

to establish an integrated and readily accessible region-wide network serving both urban and

rural areas. The PCMP supports a more sustainable Region with a goal of providing a range of

alternative transportation choices that will benefit residents, employees and visitors in York

Region by improving public health and air quality while reducing dependence on the private

automobile.

As a signatory to the Clean Air Council (CAC) Inter-Governmental Declaration on Clean Air & Climate

Change, the Region was also recognized for meeting targets of the CAC 2012-2014

InterGovernmental Declaration on Clean Air and Climate Change, including meeting the active

transportation plan target. One of the four priority action areas identified in the 2015-2018

InterGovernmental Declaration on Clean Air & Climate Change in accordance with the development

of healthy, lower carbon and sustainable communities is:


December 20, 2018 | 79

Development and implementation of active transportation and transportation demand

management into transportation planning, policy and decision making.

The 20/20 Way to Clean Air is another program supported and implemented by the Region. This

program provides the link between air pollution, energy use, climate change and public health and

acts as a guide to help participants cut down vehicle emissions and home energy use. In support of

this York Region offers active transportation options and programs including:

Metrolinx’s Smart Commute program - This Transportation Demand Management program offers

services to employers interested in promoting carpooling, transit and other sustainable means of

transportation to their workforce for commuting purposes. The goal is to reduce traffic congestion

and vehicle emissions throughout the GTA and surrounding areas.

Public Transit: York Region Transit / VIVA and GO Transit

School Transportation Options: Green Communities Active and Safe Routes to School

Tips to Reduce Energy Use on the Road

The recommendations from the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study support various Region

initiatives and plans to help improve the overall air quality in the Region by implementing

active transportation options that reduce emissions.

York Region is actively mitigating air pollutants through extensive tree planting initiatives

The planting of trees and vegetation promotes healthy and sustainable communities. Regional and

local municipalities throughout Ontario are working with MECP in taking on tree and vegetation

planting initiatives to mitigate air quality impacts resulting from the growing population and increasing

traffic volumes. Durham Region, for example, completed an EA in 2015 (Simcoe Street from Conlin

Road to Winchester Road Municipal Class EA Study), which proposed the widening Simcoe Street in

Oshawa to six lanes. Based on the Air Quality Assessment conducted as part of the EA and with the

support of MECP, Durham recommended mitigation measures to address air quality impacts that

involved adding vegetation and landscaping in the right-of-way.

For over 15 years, York Region continues to be pro-active in its region-wide and transportation

corridor-specific tree-planting initiatives. The addition of trees creates and maintains healthy natural

environments that promote healthy, sustainable communities. The York Region Official Plan sets

out a woodland cover goal of 25 percent. York Region is working to achieve the goal through various

programs, such as York Region’s Greening Strategy, the Region’s Streetscape Program,

Municipal Streetscape Partnership Program and Regional Streetscape Policy:

The Greening Strategy provides a framework for restoring habitat, increasing forest cover,

securing greenlands and their linkages and promoting and protecting the natural environment.

One of its targets is planting a minimum of 70,000 trees and shrubs annually. Over 91,000 trees

were planted in 2014 and over 95,000 trees were planted in 2015 under the Greening Strategy.

York Region’s Streetscape Program has an objective to achieve the successful coordination of

the road, sidewalks, trails, walking and transit facilities within Regional road corridors. Achieving

universal accessibility, focussing on pedestrian comfort and safety to encourage walking and

cycling are of prime importance. To establish an environment that is welcoming to all modes of

transportation, the program is focussed on increasing the number of trees within the boulevards

and medians and optimizing street tree health to improve air quality and reduce energy use.

The Municipal Streetscape Partnership Program (MSPP) assists York Region’s nine local

municipalities in cost sharing on streetscape design projects on Regional roads. The Region

commits up to $1 million annually towards this program. This funding program is critical to the

success of streetscape design in York Region. The MSPP benefits both local municipalities and

York Region in achieving higher quality streetscape design within our communities.

York Region developed its Regional Streetscape Policy to formalize a methodology for the

development of streetscapes that will reinforce the role of Regional Streets as an urban “place”.

Key requirements include enhanced tree planting and landscaping in the boulevards and

medians, continuous sidewalks and the consideration of cycling facilities where feasible.

The recommended design for the Major Mackenzie Drive Road corridor includes landscaping

in the right-of-way.

The recommended design includes planters and streetscaping elements as per the Streetscape

Program. The improvements include planting strips in the north and south boulevards to

accommodate new landscaping and street trees are also recommended. Planting plans will be

prepared during Detail Design to determine the specific spacing, locations and the types of trees to

be planted.

York Region will follow best practices to mitigate air quality issues during construction

During construction, the Region will follow best practices to mitigate air quality issues; for example,

vehicles/machinery and equipment should be in good repair, equipped with emission controls, as

applicable, properly maintained and operated within regulatory requirements. Construction-related air

quality impacts should be minimized through dust suppression. Dust control measures may include

the wetting of surfaces using a non-chloride based compound.

Noise Impact Assessment 10.1.4

A noise impact assessment was completed for the Major Mackenzie Drive EA study based on York

Region’s Noise Mitigation Policy, York Region’s Standard Operating procedures (SOP’s), as well as

the MECP Noise Protocol. The complete Noise Impact Assessment is provided under Appendix R.

Traffic Noise/Vibration 10.1.4.1

The Region’s Noise Policy stipulates that the noise impacts from Capital Road Projects shall consider

the outdoor living area (OLA) at residential dwellings. The OLA is considered to be those areas at

residential dwellings that are reverse or side frontage to the corridor.

Based on the results of the Noise Impact Assessment, the following conclusions were determined:

It is expected the project will result in future noise levels above 60 dBA at three (3) OLAs,

specifically at 59 Curtiss Road, 66 Mathewson Street and 44 Mathewson Street. Mitigation was

not considered at these OLAs as they were already shielded by existing acoustic barriers.

The project did not result in a change in noise levels of greater than 5 dB at any of the

representative OLAs.


December 20, 2018 | 80

The predicted future noise levels met 60 dBA at two OLAs that were not shielded by existing

acoustic barriers. Mitigation was considered at these OLAs, but was not able to meet the Region’s

requirement of providing a minimum of 6 dB reduction. Therefore, noise mitigation at the two

OLAs is not recommended.

Construction Noise Assessment 10.1.4.2

The construction phase of any project is typically considered temporary or short term relative to the

entire life cycle of a project. The following is a summary of the items to be considered relating to

construction noise according to the MTO Noise Guide.

As construction noise could impact receptors in the vicinity of the study area, some general

recommendations to assist in minimizing noise impacts due to the project’s construction equipment

and activities are provided below:

All construction equipment should be properly maintained according to manufacturer’s

recommendations and be in accordance MOECC Model Municipal Noise Control by-law (i.e.,

NPC-115, etc.).

If any of the construction activities involve piling or blasting, they will need to be carried out in

accordance with OPSS 120 and MOECC NPC-119.

Construction equipment and/or activities typically known to be of annoyance (e.g., piling) should

consider one of the following:

o limit operating time within the daytime period when ambient noise levels are expected to be

higher;

o maintain an acceptable setback distance from the identified nearby NSAs;

o carry out additional noise studies or monitoring program to verify and document noise levels;

o implement temporary acoustic barriers or other localized noise mitigation measures; and

o investigate other alternative construction equipment or processes to complete the task.

Noise Complaints Process 10.1.4.3

A process for dealing with noise complaints during the construction phase is required. Noise

complaints are usually received directly from the complainant or a municipal by-law officer. Note that

compliance with noise guidelines or regulations does not ensure noise complaints will not occur. The

following is a general recommended process dealing with noise complaints based on Golder’s past

project experiences:

Identify an individual or group on the Project (i.e., Site Supervisor, Health and Safety

representative, etc.) to handle the noise complaints and someone that can be easily contacted.

Document the noise complaint. Include the date, time and the individual’s contact information from

whom the noise complaint was received. Specific information such as the location, duration, time

and type of sound heard (i.e., steady, impulsive, etc.) should be included as it will assist in the

investigation process. Be aware of any time constraints put in place by the municipality for the

noise complaint to be addressed.

Investigate the noise complaint and identify the source of the noise complaint. Document the

investigation.

If the noise complaint is justified, in that excessive noise levels were generated, minimize or

eliminate the source of the noise complaint. Document the action taken.

Follow up with the complainant and provide the results of the noise complaint investigation.

Natural Environment 10.2

The Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report (NHIA) presents the findings and recommendations

of the natural heritage investigations including a discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation

associated with the preferred alternative. Due to the nature of the proposed undertaking and the

existing conditions consisting of a mature urbanized neighbourhood containing a combination of low-

rise residential and mixed-use commercial as well as institutional buildings, impacts to significant

aquatic and terrestrial natural heritage features are not anticipated to occur as result of this project.

The complete NHIA report can be found under Appendix G.

This project will involve the movement and/or removal of soils. Excess soil will be managed in

accordance with the MECP's current guidance document titled “Management of Excess Soil – A

Guide for Best Management Practices” (2014).

Vegetation and Vegetation Communities 10.2.1

Major Mackenzie Drive within the study limits is characterized by a mature urbanized neighbourhood

containing a combination of low-rise residential and mixed-use commercial as well as institutional

buildings. From a Natural Heritage perspective, significant natural heritage features do not occur

within the study area limits. The Upper West Don River tributary and a small provincially significant

wetland community occur adjacent to the subject Study Area between Avro Road and lands to the

west of Saint David’s Parish Church.

For this reason, the 261 streetscape trees identified as part of the Street Tree Inventory and

Management Plan comprise the single natural heritage feature of importance to the Class EA study.

The inventory, condition assessment and potential impacts of each of these trees together with tree

preservation measures and mitigation strategies are provided under separate cover in the Street Tree

Inventory and Management Plan (Appendix T).

Using an overlay of the preliminary design for the preferred roadway improvements, potential impacts

to street trees were determined to be minimal to the south and generally restricted to the north. While

there will be a road shift, potential impacts along the north side of Major Mackenzie Drive are

primarily associated with the upgrading of the existing sidewalk to a multiuse path, and replacement

of planters in some areas. Earthworks required for this work will potentially impact existing boulevard

trees situated between the sidewalk and road.

In total, approximately 100 trees are anticipated to be impacted and are recommended for removal.

Many of these trees are small and within the upper limits of suitably for transplanting. This

assessment also considered mature trees or mature trees on adjacent properties with the potential to

be impacted by the construction (e.g. roots damage, dripline encroachment, etc.) of the proposed


December 20, 2018 | 81

roadway and pathway improvements. Tree tolerance to disturbance varies according to species, size

and the type of stressor. Therefore, removal recommendations account for trees whose limits of

disturbance are undefined or where significant encroachments on the root system is likely, as a

precautionary approach to determining potential impacts.

The findings and recommendations of the Street Tree Inventory and Management Plan (Appendix T)

were used to inform the conceptual street scape enhancement plan also provided as part of the Class

EA study to reinstate and replace all trees removed or damaged due to the construction of the

preferred alternative.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 10.2.2

In Ontario, preferred habitat for Little Myotis is generally considered to be restricted to anthropogenic

structures. Northern Myotis and Tri-coloured Bats are known to prefer woodlands to provide the micro

climates necessary for rearing young and are less likely to use individual landscaped street trees for

such habitat.

Many of the street trees inventoried within the right-of-way limits were not the typical species or size

preferred by SAR bats for maternity roosts sites. However, some trees are of suitable size, have

loose bark, cavities, and/or are species (i.e. Silver Maple, Norway Maple) to potentially provide

habitat opportunities (day roosts) for provincially endangered bat species (Northern Myotis, Little

Myotis and Tri-coloured Bats). These trees are mature street trees generally located along the south

side of Major Mackenzie Drive. The preferred alternative shifts the roadway to the north to

accommodate an additional turning lane and MUP. Limited works, including sidewalk replacement

and minor grading are anticipated along the south side of the road. Therefore, while potential exists

for some streetscape trees to provide summer day roost habitat for individual SAR bats, the potential

to result in harm (interference or removal of trees) to SAR bat habitat is low as a result of this project.

Current direction regarding SAR bats is evolving. On similar projects MNRF has requested avoidance

windows for tree removal as mitigation for bat habitat removal. This avoidance window is typically the

period between April to September when bats are likely to be most active. No hibernation habitat is

known to be present on site. It is recommended that during detailed design, consultation with MECP

and MNRF occur to confirm the avoidance window approach and the specific time period for the

protection of SAR bats.

Mitigation and Environmental Protection 10.2.3

During construction, mitigation encompasses implementation of all relevant standard and

nonstandard / site-specific protection measures and management practices including Operational

Constraints and Construction Specifications. These measures and all the site specific measures will

be refined during the detailed design phase. The mitigation measures will be finalized based on the

final design, and its potential effects on the aquatic and terrestrial environment. In addition,

comprehensive construction mitigation involves recognition and implementation of additional control

measures that may be identified through good construction practices and environmental inspection.

Erosion and Sediment Control 10.2.3.1

A comprehensive sediment and erosion control (ESC) plan will be developed in subsequent design

phases and implemented to prevent migration of sediment laden runoff (or other contaminants) from

the construction zone into stormwater catch basins or the adjacent Upper West Don River. This plan

will include inspection and maintenance of the measures until final cover is established. Specific

aspects will include:

Perimeter sediment fence installed between the work areas and the banks of the watercourse

adjacent to the area of construction;

Temporary sediment protection will be utilized around stormwater catch basins throughout the

active construction zone; and,

Sediment fence and catch basin protections will properly installed and regularly inspected and

maintained.

Tree Protection 10.2.3.2

Tree protection measures for streetscape trees will be required. Upon receiving the necessary

approvals and prior to the commencement of tree removals, areas designated for tree preservation

are to be delineated on site. Street tree protection and mitigation design drawings will be required as

part of the Detailed Design phase.

The following are key considerations of the tree protection plan to be provided as part of the detail

design and tendering phases of this project:

Minimum protection distances (no disturbance to soils), or Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) vary

based on a tree’s dripline. For street trees, the Region provides case by case guidance for

determining TPZs for roadway improvement projects, especially when driplines can be significant

and may impede work zones. The TPZ for trees to be protected are outlined in Street Tree

Inventory and Management Plan (Appendix T).

York Region’s Road Construction Guidelines and Standards should be consulted during the

development of the tree protection plan at detailed design.

Tree removals must occur in accordance with the federal Migratory Bird Convection Act and the

ESA, 2007.

Mulching of roots in a “doughnut” fashion not Volcano (outward not upward) is recommended for

all trees that are to be preserved.

Root pruning along planting beds to be replaced and those near utility trenches may also be

required. All tree pruning must be completed by an experienced ISA Certified Arborist and

monitored during construction.

Where sediment and erosion control may be required in conjunction with tree preservation fencing

along the TPZ, sediment fence should not be used as it is required to be trenched-in which can

damage tree roots. Instead, silt sock (or equivalent) of adequate size (to be determined by the

engineer) is to be used to avoid impacting tree roots.


December 20, 2018 | 82

Contamination 10.2.4

Based on the results of the contamination overview study, the properties located at 2660 Major

Mackenzie Drive, 2563 Major Mackenzie Drive, 2396 Major Mackenzie Drive are considered to

represent a higher potential of environmental concerns due to historic site activities, and it is possible

that subsurface (soil and groundwater) impacts from these sites could migrate toward the roadway.

As no additional property is required to support the preferred design, a Phase I ESA is not anticipated

to be required.

Cultural Environment 10.3

Built Heritage Features and Cultural Heritage Landscape Features 10.3.1

From the results of background research, field investigations and impact assessment, detailed and

specific actions are recommended for the cultural heritage resources in the study area, and are

summarized in Table 10-1 as follows.

Table 10-1: Cultural Heritage Assessment Resources and Recommendations

Resource Type & Civic Address Conservation/Mitigation Measures

Protected Part IV heritage property:

2600 Major Mackenzie Drive

Monitor for vibration impact during excavation in the vicinity of

property and immediately cease work if vibration thresholds are

exceeded.

If design changes require an encroachment on any of these

properties, a CHIA should be conducted in accordance with the

City’s Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments.

Protected Part V heritage

properties:








exceeded.




Resource Type & Civic Address Conservation/Mitigation Measures


properties:


2 Gram Street

1 Gram Street

















No mitigation measures are required.


properties:


9986 Keele Street

9980 Keele Street

10020 Keele Street



exceeded.





properties:






9994 Keele Street

No mitigation measures are required.

However, as no additional property nor encroachment onto heritage property is required to support

the preferred design, CHIAs are not anticipated to be required.

Additionally, the following actions are recommended the following actions to further reduce the

potential for indirect impact on the Maple Heritage Conservation District (HCD):

Develop Interpretive Signage: Interpretive Signage that follows Maple HCD guidelines should

be developed to encourage interaction with the HCD and to establish identity.


December 20, 2018 | 83

Develop a Tree Preservation Plan: The maple trees are the namesake and distinctive feature of

the HCD. A preservation plan should be developed to ensure their retention and encourage

planting of species characteristic of the District, as identified by the Maple HCD objectives.

Develop a Streetscape Plan: As identified in the Maple HCD, all road improvements must

preserve and enhance the heritage character of the District and create a pedestrian and bike

friendly environment. For residential areas, streetscaping must enhance the historical character of

the road allowances. For commercial areas, streetscaping must create a pedestrian-friendly

shopping environment and provide amenities to serve visitors of all ages and mobility access

requirements.

Overall, the Major Mackenzie Drive expansion must comply with the design guidelines of the

Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007). Section 9.6 (Streetscaping) of the

HCD Plan specifically identifies that work within the road allowance should be designed and

executed to meet modern requirements, amenity and convenience, without detriment to the

heritage character of the district. The goals of streetscaping are to enhance the historical

character of the road allowances in the residential areas and create a pedestrian-friendly

shopping environment in the commercial core

Refer to the Appendix P for landscaping details proposed along the study corridor and Appendix

F for the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report.

Archaeological Assessment 10.3.2

The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment determined that 31 previously registered archaeological

sites are located within the study area limits. In light of the results of this assessment, the following

recommendations are made:

1. The Portions of the study area that were identified as having archaeological potential removed,

such as existing roadways (arterials road, local roads), sidewalks, building footprints, single

home developments, multi-home developments, utilities, need to be confirmed through an on-

site property inspection during a Stage 2 archaeological assessment.

2. Portions of the study area that were identified as having no or low archaeological potential, such

as, the West Don River tributary (watercourse) and the steeply sloping portions of its valley

lands, need to be confirmed through an on-site property inspection during a Stage 2

archaeological assessment.

3. Portions of the study area that were identified as retaining archaeological potential, such as the

grasses yards and the valley lands associated with the West Don River tributary, must be

subject to test pit survey at 5m intervals in accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the Ministry of

Tourism, Culture and Sport Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS

2011).

4. The northwest, northeast, and southeast corner of the Major Mackenzie Drive and Keele Street

retains archaeological potential for deeply buried archaeological resources beyond the existing

road right-of-way. Should the proposed development extend within the property limits of 10020

Keele Street and 2266 Major Mackenzie Drive (northwest corner); and/or 9995 and 9983 Keele

Street (southeast corner), a Stage 3 archaeological assessment involving backhoe trenching

would be required within the core of the planned development area and over any areas of

archaeological potential as per Section 2.1.7 of the MTCS Standards and Guidelines (MTCS

2011: 36-38). However, as no additional property is required to support the preferred design,

additional archaeological work is not anticipated to be required.

Climate Change 10.4

Approach to Climate Change Consideration 10.4.1

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP, formerly MOECC) guide

Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Assessment in Ontario sets out ministry

expectations and supports the province’s Climate Change Action Plan by outlining climate change

considerations for Environmental Assessment studies.

The guide notes ‘climate consideration’ within a project means that consideration has been given to

methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and developing a design that is more resilient to future

changes in climate and helps maintain the ecological integrity of the local environment in the face of a

changing climate. Specifically, consideration should be given to mitigation (how the project might

mitigate climate change such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or improving carbon

storage of the landscape or removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) and adaptation

(measures to adapt to climate change or make the project more resilient to the effects of climate

change). Considering how a project may contribute to climate change, through its greenhouse gas

emissions or its effects on the natural landscape, is important to the planning process as it allows

proponents to consider climate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset such effects.

Planning and design of road infrastructure should take into consideration key factors and climate

change trends, such as building to withstand extreme precipitation and extreme heat. These climate

events will impact the physical infrastructures as well as those using the improved Major Mackenzie

Drive corridor in the future. It is understood that that impacts of climate change on transportation

systems are already visible and include:

More travel disruptions due to flooding, winter storms, and road washouts

Increased pavement damage from higher temperatures and freeze-thaw cycles

Increased maintenance requirements for roads, medians and boulevards including hardscape and

vegetative materials

Potential Climate Change Effects 10.4.2

During construction, road infrastructure being built should be as climate ready as possible. Potential

effects to consider include the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction

period including the physical machinery and equipment, travel distance and time for construction

workers to get to and from the site, and the sourcing of building materials.

Climate change impacts related to this study are also related to operations and maintenance as the

transportation sector is one of the biggest contributors to CO2, a key greenhouse gas. Once Major

Mackenzie Drive has been improved, there is the potential for stormwater capacity and drainage

system issues as the amount of impervious surface areas will increase. Climate change will also


December 20, 2018 | 84

impact the study area in the future as extreme weather conditions will affect the conditions of the

roadways and will require more frequent repairs and updates as time passes.

Climate Change Mitigation 10.4.3

Consistent with York Region’s sustainability policies and practices, the project-specific

recommendations outlined in Section 9 directly support many of the climate change policies. For

example:

No additional vehicular lanes which would add capacity and increase greenhouse gas emissions

are proposed. Instead, a continuous two-way centre left-turn lane will be provided to improve

vehicular operations and address congestion, thereby reducing idling and curb greenhouse gas

emissions.

Active transportation facilities are recommended to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians,

therefore encouraging alternative modes of travel and reducing single occupancy automobile use.

Tree plantings are proposed to be accommodated in the boulevards, as space permits.

Low impact development strategies are proposed to be explored as feasible.

The proposed design makes use of an existing transportation route and proposes to

accommodate all road users in such a way that minimizes impacts to surrounding areas including

residences, business and valIeylands.

To mitigate potential effects during the construction phase of the project, the following best practices

are recommended:

Development and implementation of detailed erosion and sediment control measures to be

carried out during all construction phases in order to limit the amount of sediment/laden material

entering receiving drainage systems.

Dust suppression techniques to be employed for the duration of construction activities.

A traffic staging plan to be developed during detailed design to accommodate local access and

through traffic during construction to minimize excessive detouring and congestion in alternate

routes. Further opportunities to reduce idling to be considered during detailed design.

Movement and access to the site for construction vehicles is to be described in the contract

documents to be prepared at the time of detailed design.

To mitigate potential effects during the operational phase of the project, aligning with best practices

for infrastructure design, practices such as the improvement of hydrological data collection, use of

models and monitoring localized effects, more frequent monitoring and maintenance and

improvement of road design to be more climate change resistant are recommended.

In addition, measures to adapt to climate change impacts and minimize impacts to individuals using

Major Mackenzie Drive in the future may include (but are not limited to):

Erosion protection techniques will be developed during detailed design to limit the extent of

channel and bank erosion in the vicinity of the Major Mackenzie Drive crossing of the West Don

River tributary.

Updating plans for weather emergencies, lane closures and rerouting during severe weather

conditions/events, and traveler information systems to include future climate change projections.

As the amount of impervious surface areas will increase, appropriate stormwater capacity should

be considered to mitigate additional runoff, climate change and the likelihood of extreme

precipitation, as described in Section 9.10.

Source Water Protection 10.5

Potential impacts related to the threats described in Section 4.5, along with associated mitigation

measures, are described below.

Stormwater Runoff 10.5.1

The additional impervious surface associated with the roadway improvements (such as the

implementation of a continuous centre left-turn lane and the implementation of a multi-use path)

would reduce the amount of groundwater infiltration from the surface. To offset these impacts and

balance water quantity, the stormwater management strategy described in Section 9.10 recommends

the runoff be conveyed to the proposed roadway storm sewer systems and discharge directly into a

natural watercourse (wetland/West Don River tributary) or to the existing storm sewer systems south

of Major Mackenzie Drive.

The Application of Road Salt 10.5.2

Additional road salt associated with winter maintenance for the proposed roadway improvements

(such as the implementation of a continuous centre left-turn lane) may increase impacts to source

water protection areas. Consistent with best management practices and as suggested in the Clean

Water Act policies, York Region has developed a Salt Management Plan (2004) that ensures

effective winter maintenance for the safety of all roadway users while striving to minimize the amount

of salt entering the environment and at the same time meeting Provincial legislation related to road

maintenance standards for winter services.

The Storage of Snow Related to Roadway Clearing Operations 10.5.3

Although the proposed roadway improvements will result in additional areas to be maintained in the

winter (such as the implementation of a continuous centre left-turn lane and the implementation of a

multi-use path), the study area is not in close proximity to municipal wellheads or surface water

intakes. As such, snow storage in the boulevards is not anticipated to result in a serious threat to

source water protection areas.

In addition, York Region developed a Salt Management Plan (2004) that reduces the amount of salt

that is applied during winter maintenance activities, and therefore reduces the amount of salt present

in roadside snow banks. The stormwater management strategy (described in Section 9.10)

addresses other contaminants that may be present in roadside snow banks.


December 20, 2018 | 85

Key Agency Comments 10.6

Key comments and requirements from agencies are outlined in the following sections. Details are

provided in the key correspondence in Appendix B,

Ministry of the Environment, Parks and Conservation (MECP) 10.6.1

MECP provided input throughout the study. MECP provided direction on the design approach with

regards to environmental factor areas such as ecosystem protection and restoration, surface water,

air quality, servicing and facilities, contaminated soils, and mitigation and monitoring. In particular:

All heritage features should be identified and described in detail to assess potential impacts and

to develop appropriate mitigation measures. MECP recommends further consultation with MNRF,

DFO and local conservation authority to determine if additional study will be required to preserve

these features. In addition, project team may consider the provisions of the Rouge Park

Management Plan.

Quality and quantity measures to treat stormwater runoff should be considered for all new

impervious areas and, where possible, existing surfaces. The ministry’s Stormwater Management

Planning and Design Manual (2003) should be referenced in the ESR and utilized when designing

stormwater control methods.

Potential impacts to groundwater-dependent features should be addressed. Any changes to

groundwater flow or quality from groundwater taking may interfere with the ecological processes

of streams, wetlands, or surficial features. Any potential effects should be identified, and

appropriate mitigation measures should be recommended.

The ESR should consider the potential impacts of adverse air quality and increased noise levels

during the operation of the undertaking due to potentially higher traffic volumes resulting from this

project. The proponent should explore all potential measures to mitigate significant noise impacts

during the assessment of alternatives.

As the removal and movement of soils may be required, appropriate tests to determine

contaminant levels from previously land uses or dumping should be undertaken. If the soils are

contaminated, the proponent will refer to Part XV. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)

and Ontario Regulation 153/04: Records of Site Condition which details the requirements related

to site assessment and clean up.

Activities involving the management of excess soil should be completed in accordance with

MECP’s current guidance document titled “Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for best

Management Practices” (2014) available online

Design and construction reports and plans should be based on a best management approach that

centres on the prevention of impacts, protection of existing environment, and opportunities for

rehabilitation and enhancement of any impacted areas. Contractors must be made aware of all

environmental considerations so that all environmental standards and commitments for both

construction and operation are met.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 10.6.2

TRCA provided comments and worked closely with the project team throughout the course of the

study. TRCA provided direction on the design approach at the watercourse crossings. Direction

included:

Support for replacing the existing culvert at West Don River due to poor physical condition.

Request to consider wetland water balance.

Request to consider tree removal and compensation strategy on the existing natural heritage

system.

Request to consider opportunity to improve the channel at the West Don River Crossing and to

improve fish passage.

TRCA recommended carrying out hydraulic assessment, meandering belt assessment, fluvial

assessment as part of the ESR.

During detailed design, TRCA suggests consideration for the use of a soil trench system in the

median or boulevard, to address water quality and quantity control.

City of Vaughan 10.6.3

The City of Vaughan provided input throughout the study. The City requested the accommodation of

cyclist and pedestrian along the Study Area and further requested that active transportation facilities

and connections east and west of the corridor, as well as potential connection to/from Major

Mackenzie Drive to a potential future recreational trail adjacent to West Don River, be reviewed

during detailed design in consultation with City staff.

Throughout the project, the City indicated its desire to maintain the existing roadway width, protect

the large street trees and replicate the Maple streetscape character.

The City expressed concerns regarding the scope of the EA. It was clarified that this EA study is

being conducted to improve traffic operations – specifically access to properties on the north and

south sides of the street – in the short-term (2020 horizon year). It was emphasized that

improvements to increase capacity were not being considered. A larger EA, considering capacity and

multi-modal improvements will be done in the future, however the timing of this EA is not known.


December 20, 2018 | 86

11 Timing of Implementation and Future Commitments

Project Schedule 11.1

As part of the Environmental Assessment process, this Environmental Study Report is to be filed and

placed on the public record for at least 30 calendar days for review by the public and review

agencies.

After the review period, provided that no Part II Orders are received, the Region may proceed to

Phase 5 of the Class EA process – design and construction. Property acquisition and utility relocation

will then be scheduled, followed by construction.

Lapse of Time 11.1.1

According to the Municipal Class EA, “If the period of time from the filing of the Notice of Completion

of ESR in the public record or the MECP’s denial of a Part II Order request(s), to the proposed

commencement of construction for the project exceeds ten (10) years, the proponent shall review the

planning and design process and the current environmental setting to ensure that the project and the

mitigation measures are still valid given the current planning period. The review shall be recorded in

an addendum to the ESR which shall be placed on the public record.”

Notice of Filing of Addendum shall be placed on the public record with the ESR, and shall be given to

the public and review agencies, for a minimum 30-day public review period. The notice shall include

the public’s right to request a Part II Order during the 30-day review period. If no Part II Order request

is received the proponent is free to proceed with implementation and construction.

Commitments for Future Work 11.2

The ESR identified specific items to be reviewed and confirmed during detailed design. Some of

these commitments will address specific concerns raised by property owners and review agencies

during the EA process. Items of particular interest to be addressed are outlined in the subsequent

section.

Property Requirements 11.2.1

Review design opportunities to confirm no property acquisition due to roadway improvement during

detailed design.

Construction easements are required on the north-east quadrant of Major Mackenzie Drive and

Keele Street (where retaining walls are proposed).

Permission to Enter Agreements to be obtained from landowners where access to their property is

required.

Archaeology 11.2.2

Conduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) at locations possessing archaeological

potential as identified by the Stage 1 AA.

Findings from subsequent archaeological assessments are to be filed with the Ministry of Tourism,

Culture and Sport (MTCS) to obtain clearance for archaeology.

Cultural Heritage 11.2.3

Coordination with City of Vaughan Heritage staff and landowners regarding mitigation strategies

for the preferred design in the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District.

Noise 11.2.4

No need for noise mitigation measures was identified through the Noise Impact Assessment found

under Appendix R.

All property owners should be notified prior to construction and in advance of work related to their

access.

Construction noise control measures are to be included in contract documents where applicable.

Contract specifications should include provisions to define the allowable work hours, in

accordance with local ordinances and municipal noise by-laws, to minimize impacts to the

adjacent landowners in the evenings.

Natural Environment 11.2.5

Some trees within the study Area are of suitable size, have loose bark, cavities, and/or are

species to potentially provide habitat opportunities (day-roosts) for provincially endangered bat

species (Northern Myotis, Little Myotis and Tri-coloured Bats). Although the potential to result in

harm (interference or removal of trees) to SAR bat habitat is low, consultation with MECP and

MNRF is recommended during detailed design to confirm the avoidance window approach and

the specific time period for the protection of Species at Risk bats.

This project will involve the movement and/or removal of soils. Excess soil will be managed in

accordance with the MECP's current guidance document titled “Management of Excess Soil – A

Guide for Best Management Practices” (2014).

Tree protection measures for streetscape trees will be required. Upon receiving the necessary

approvals and prior to the commencement of tree removals, areas designated for tree

preservation are to be delineated on site in accordance with the street tree protection plan and

provided on design drawings developed during the detailed design phase of the project. Roadway

Design

No impacts due to grading and retaining systems impacts

Active Transportation Facilities 11.2.6

Material type and treatment for multi-use path and sidewalks to be confirmed.


December 20, 2018 | 87

Multi-use path treatment at intersections and across driveways to be confirmed during detailed

design.

North and south connections to the future trail West Don River tributary trail to be reviewed during detailed design in consultation with City of Vaughan staff.

Streetscaping and Landscaping 11.2.7

Streetscaping opportunities as identified in the preliminary designs are to be confirmed. The

Streetscaping Plan found in Appendix P is to be finalized during detailed design.

Geotechnical and Pavement Design 11.2.8

Additional geotechnical investigation for the culvert replacement is to be undertaken separately as

part of the West Don River culvert replacement detailed design.

Streetscape enhancements proposed by the City of Vaughan per the Village of Maple Heritage

Conservation District Plan will have to be coordinated with York Region at the Detailed Design

stages of the project. As these enhancements are not a regional standard, they are eligible for

partnership funding through York Region’s Municipal Streetscape Partnership Program.

Groundwater, Hydrogeology, Drainage and Stormwater Management 11.2.9

The West Don River culvert replacement will be undertaken as a separate EA and all the

permitting and approvals related to the water crossing will be done independently.

Water Quality treatment will be provided to offset, as a minimum, the increase in roadway

pavement area as a result of roadway widening. Options including the use of OGS units for

treating drainage from existing pavement are proposed.

Additional water quality control measures including Low Impact Development (LID) strategies are

to be reviewed during detailed design.

Detailed design to explore options to provide additional water quality treatment without

encroaching on the wetland, such as moving the outlet back from the wetland.

Environmental compliance Approval (ECA) will be required from MECP for stormwater

management facilities and storm sewers.

TRCA review and approval is required for all works related to drainage alterations and stormwater

management that discharges to West Don River.

Utilities 11.2.10

Location of existing utilities and resulting impacts and required relocations are to be confirmed

during detailed design including Rogers, Enbridge Gas, Alectra and Bell.

Coordination of utilities, including hydro pole relocation and overhead wiring, is to be reviewed

during detailed design.

Constructability, Staging and Detours 11.2.11

During detailed design, a traffic detouring strategy should be developed to provide motorist with

alternative routes around the construction zone. The plan should also address how access to all

properties along Major Mackenzie Drive will be maintained at all times.

The reconstruction should be staged to maintain both local and through traffic within the study

area to the extent possible, and minimize disruptions. Minimum of one lane in each direction

including an artillery lane for turning movement should be maintained at all times during

construction.

The culvert replacement at the West Don River tributary is being undertaken separately as a

schedule “A” EA and any anticipated road staging and detour consideration will be determined

during culvert replacement detailed design.

Additional Consultation and Coordination 11.2.12

Consult with affected property owners including those where access to their property will be

impacted.

Consult with regulatory agencies and individual municipalities as required.

Coordinate with City of Vaughan as required.

Coordinate with Aboriginal Groups as required.

Summary of Anticipated Permits and Approvals 11.2.13

Given that the culvert replacement will be undertaken as a separate EA, all the permitting and

approvals will be done independently. TRCA permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06 –

Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses will be

obtained separately. Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) will be required from MECP for

stormwater management facilities and storm sewers.

Permission to Enter Agreements. Obtain clearance for archaeology from the Ministry of Tourism,

Culture and Sport based on findings from subsequent archaeological assessments.

Timing of Improvements 11.3

The Major Mackenzie Drive EA study is not currently identified in York Region’s 10-year Capital

Construction Program (2018-2027). Subject to approval of the Environmental Assessment, the timing

of construction will be confirmed through the Region’s project prioritization process. The capital

construction program is reviewed annually and projects may be advanced (or deferred) subject to

other regional priorities and available funding.


future EA study will assess the long-term transportation needs, including capacity improvements. The

future EA will be undertaken on the basis of the recommendations/findings of the York Region

Transportation Master Plan 25-year outlook and long-term projects.

major mackenzie drive schedule ‘c’ environmental

Documents