Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study

Bloor Street West to Berry Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that Alternative 12 outlined in the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study, submitted with the report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, be endorsed:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, to meet with the Steering Committee to consider an Option 12A, an alternative design of 26 feet (8.0 m) with shoulder and swale (grass to grass) and submit a report thereon to Council at its meeting on July 6, 1999.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy:

Purpose:

To seek endorsement of the functional design recommended for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999-2003 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $1.3 million for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road in 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study be endorsed, including the recommended functional design which consists of a two-lane, 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curbs and gutters.

Background:

At its meeting on February 17, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council received a report (February 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy which provided the Terms of Reference to be used by City staff in undertaking the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study. Included in the Terms of Reference was a commitment to report on the findings and recommendations of this study to Etobicoke Community Council. This study is now complete and the results are summarized in this report.

Discussion:

A full copy of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study report is attached. A brief summary of this report is provided in the following paragraphs.

Study Purpose and Process:

The purpose of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study was to develop and evaluate alternative designs for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road, in consultation with the local community. For the purpose of this study, the local community was defined as the area bounded by Bloor Street West, the Humber River, Berry Road and Royal York Road/Mimico Creek.

Given that the work envisioned for the reconstruction involved only minor design changes, this project was considered "approved" under the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (Class EA), and therefore no environmental assessment study was required. However, due to the level of interest in the community with respect to the design of Prince Edward Drive, a comprehensive planning and public consultation program was carried out, consistent with the process described in the Class EA.

The study process included the following:

(i)the collection and analysis of data to establish existing conditions in the areas of the natural environment, the socio-economic environment, the physical infrastructure, and transportation operations;

(ii)the identification of problems and opportunities to be addressed with the design of Prince Edward Drive, as established by the existing conditions review;

(iii)the identification and evaluation of alternative designs for Prince Edward Drive; and

(iv)The selection and detailing of a preferred alternative design.

Public Consultation:

The broader community was consulted at key decision points in this study process. Two public information centres (PIC's) and one public workshop were held. The first PIC was held on March 9, 1999 where information was presented on the assessment of existing conditions and identification of the problems and opportunities to be addressed by the design of Prince Edward Drive. A total of 120 people attended this PIC.

The public workshop was held on April 14, 1999 and was attended by 67 people. Attendees were provided with background information on road design topics, then were divided into small work groups. These work groups reported back on preferred design elements to be included in the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive. This information assisted in the development of alternative designs and in the detailing of the preferred alternative.

The second PIC was held on May 26, 1999 and was attended by 175 people. The evaluation of alternative designs and the rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative design were presented at this meeting.

In addition to these large public meetings, meetings were held throughout the course of the study with a Steering Committee comprised of individuals who represented various stakeholder groups in the community. This Committee assisted in the development of the study Terms of Reference and provided advice on all aspects of the study. Twelve Steering Committee meetings were held. These meetings were open to the public.

Study Findings and Recommendations:

Based on the physical and traffic data collected, the following problems were identified:

(1a) many areas of road base failure were identified and the existing asphalt pavement exhibits severe structural and age-related cracks and deterioration;

(1b) most of the roadside ditches are in poor condition and are not functioning effectively, resulting in occasional roadside ponding; and

(1c) there is a low level of compliance with the 40 km/h speed limit, with the majority of motorists travelling at or below 54 km/h.

The following opportunities were identified in consultation with the Steering Committee and reviewed by the broader community to assist in developing alternative designs:

(2a) improve aesthetics, increase greening, promote a sustainable community;

(2b) improve and increase pedestrian safety and crossing opportunities;

(2c) maintain and improve stormwater quality; and

(2d) promote alternative modes of travel.

A preliminary list of alternative designs was developed, including various combinations of road widths and drainage systems. This preliminary list included 13 alternative designs. These were subjected to a screening evaluation focussed on the following key areas:

(3a)the ability of the alternative to solve the identified problems and to provide for the identified opportunities;

(3b)safety impacts; and

(3c)physical constraints.

The screening evaluation was used to reduce the number of alternative designs to be considered for detailed evaluation. The conclusions of the screening evaluation were that 5 of the 13 alternative designs should be evaluated in detail, as follows:

(4a)Alternative No. 3 - a 7.3 metre (24 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage;

(4b)Alternative No. 4 - a 7.3 metre (24 feet) wide road with drainage swales;

(4c)Alternative No. 7 - an 8.5 metre (28 feet) wide road with drainage swales;

(4d)Alternative No. 9 - a 9.7 metre (32 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage; and

(4e)Alternative No. 12 - an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage.

The Do Nothing Alternative was also recommended to be evaluated for comparison purposes only. The detailed evaluation of these alternative designs was conducted using the following evaluation criteria:

(5a)living environment;

(5b)natural environment;

(5c)land use/economic impacts;

(5d)transportation/engineering/safety; and

(5e)cost.

The detailed evaluation of the alternative designs revealed that the many uses of the Prince Edward Drive road right-of-way are competing and that the preferred design must provide a compromise between these competing uses.

Alternative No. 12 - an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage was selected as the preferred alternative design. The main conclusions leading to this selection were as follows:

(6a)Alternative No. 12 meets the minimum requirements for bicycle friendly lanes, Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 do not;

(6b)Alternative No. 12 provides larger boulevard areas for street landscaping than Alternative Nos. 4, 7 and 9; and

(6c)the increased storm water runoff associated with Alternative No. 12 relative to Alternative Nos. 4 and 7 can be mitigated.

While these conclusions indicated that Alternative No. 12 does provide a compromise among the competing road uses, the pavement width associated with this alternative is narrower than has typically been used for two-lane collector roads. In addition, the curb and gutter provided with this alternative would require motorists who stop their vehicles to occupy the travelled lane rather than pulling onto the shoulder as they presently do. As a result of the narrower road width, combined with the curb and gutter design, concerns were raised that there may be problems for emergency vehicles passing stopped vehicles.

Comments on this recommendation were solicited from Emergency Services. Fire, Ambulance and Police Services indicated that they have no major concerns with the preferred design in general, but that they want to be involved in the detailed design stage. Following receipt of these comments, Alternative No. 12 was confirmed as the Preferred Design for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive.

The Fundamental Issue: Road Width versus Community Character:

The fundamental issue that was discussed and evaluated during this study was the issue of road width versus community character. The community consensus during the study was to limit the pavement width to the minimum width possible. The community feels that a narrower pavement width will change the character of the road, help limit the occurrences of non-compliance with the posted speed limit and reduce the attractiveness of Prince Edward Drive to through traffic.

The community's wishes were at odds with the evaluation of the road from a traffic operations perspective. This perspective would seek to have a wider pavement width to minimize the potential for adverse conditions arising from vehicles (including cyclists) having to pass one another if the condition warrants.

The recommendation from the study is a compromise between these two fundamentally divergent views, and seeks to achieve the desires of the community while continuing to have the road operate in a safe manner.

Staff are aware that the recommended functional design for Prince Edward Drive is a non-standard design and, therefore, because there is little or no experience operating collector roads of this width, we recommend that this be considered a pilot project. After construction, we will undertake a systematic review of the long term effects on traffic operations and safety of this road design. We will report back to Etobicoke Community Council on our findings, which may be used as the basis for considering similar collector road widths in the future.

Detail Design:

Other design elements recommended to be included, which require refining during the detailed design stage, are as follows:

(7a)maintenance of the existing bus bays at TTC stops;

(7b)provision of sidewalks where none are currently provided;

(7c)consideration of traffic calming measures which do not impact on Emergency Services response times;

(7d)provision of mitigating measures for potential increases in stormwater runoff;

(7e)intersection modifications at Bloor Street West and at Berry Road to improve motorist and pedestrian safety; and

(7f)street landscaping.

The community will be given the opportunity to provide input on the development of the detailed design.

A full description of the study findings and recommendations is available in the attached Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study report.

Timing:

The next stage in the process is to prepare a detailed design and tender contracts for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive. This stage will take six to eight weeks to complete. Therefore, assuming Etobicoke Community Council endorses the recommendations of this report, the earliest construction start date is September 1999. Due to the amount of construction work required, it is anticipated that the construction will be completed in two stages: the first in the Fall of 1999; and the second in the Spring of 2000. The timing of contract awards and the staging of construction will be finalized during the detailed design process.

Conclusions:

An extensive planning and consultation process has resulted in the recommendation that Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road be reconstructed as an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with a curb and gutter drainage system. Funds are included for this work in 1999. Detailed design should begin as soon as possible to establish all of the components of this project and to enable construction to begin this year.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly, Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Tel:392-8340; Fax: 392-4426

(A copy of the Attachment referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Cycling Committee at its meeting held on June 21, 1999, adopted the Recommendations contained in the communication (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee, on behalf of the Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes, viz.:

(1)That the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council support:

(a)the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(b)the installation of bicycle lanes on the paved shoulder of Berry Road from Prince Edward Drive at least to Park Lawn Road, or preferably to Stephen Avenue, and on Park Lawn Road from Berry Road to The Queensway; and

(c)the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(2)that should the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council adopt the Recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, i.e., that the road width be 7.9 metres, that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodate buses as well as cyclists by:

(a)building each lane with three strips of different material: an asphalt strip, a dark coloured paver strip, and a light coloured paver strip, thus making the driving portions of the lane appear narrower than it really is;

(b)making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c)adding an 0.8 metre-wide strip of dark coloured pavers next to the asphalt strip for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d)adding 0.65 metre-wide strip of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

The Toronto Cycling Committee reports, for the information of the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council, having:

(1)reconfirmed its support for continuous cycling facilities from Bloor Street to the Waterfront as a means to allow safe cycling access from the greater Bloor/Royal York area to the Waterfront;

(2)received the communication (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

(3)requested Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Member, Toronto Cycling Committee, to make a deputation to the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with this matter.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee had before it a communication (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Jack Becker, Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes, responding to a request from the Toronto Cycling Committee on May 17, 1999, for a report to consider other alternatives to bicycle lanes, including alternatives on Prince Edward Drive or on adjacent roads; advising that the Working Group, comprised of Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Ms. Joan Doiron and Mr. Jack Becker, was established to review the concerns raised by the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents= Association and other area residents respecting the Toronto Cycling Committee=s recommendation for the installation of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project, and to meet with the appropriate City staff and other interested parties, including Mr. Ken Riddell, Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Mr. Martin Collier respecting this matter; and recommending that:

(1)the Toronto Cycling Committee reconfirm its support for continuous cycling facilities from Bloor Street to the Waterfront as a means to allow safe cycling access from the greater Bloor/Royal York area to the Waterfront;

(2)the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council support:

(a)the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(b)the installation of bicycle lanes on the paved shoulder of Berry Road from Prince Edward Drive at least to Park Lawn Road, or preferably to Stephen Avenue, and on Park Lawn Road from Berry Road to The Queensway; and

(c)the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(3)should the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council decide to accept the recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, that the road width be 7.9 metres, the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Etobicoke Community Council that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodate buses as well as cyclists by:

(a)building each lane with three strips of different material: an asphalt strip; a dark coloured paver strip; and a light coloured paver strip, thus making the driving portions of the lane narrower than it really is;

(b)making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c)adding a strip, next to the asphalt strip of 0.8 metre strip of dark coloured pavers, for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d)adding a strip of 0.65 metres of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

The Toronto Cycling Committee also had before it a communication (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, respecting the use of Prince Edward Drive as a model for >greening= the City.

The following Members of the Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes appeared before the Toronto Cycling Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Martin Collier; and

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick.

(Communication dated June 20, 1999,

addressed to the Toronto Cycling Committee from

Mr. Jack Becker, Working Group on Prince Edward Bicycle Lanes)

Recommendations:

The Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes recommends that:

(1)the Toronto Cycling Committee reconfirm its support for continuous cycling facilities from Bloor Street to the Waterfront as a means to allow safe cycling access from the greater Bloor/Royal York area to the Waterfront;

(2)the Etobicoke Community Council and City Council be requested to support:

(a)the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(b)the installation of bicycle lanes on the paved shoulder of Berry Road from Prince Edward Drive, at least to Park Lawn Road, or preferably to Stephen Avenue, and on Park Lawn Road from Berry Road to The Queensway; and

(c)the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(3)should the Etobicoke Community Council and City Council decide to accept the recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, that the road width be 7.9 metres, the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Etobicoke Community Council that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodates buses as well as cyclists by:

(a)building each lane with three strips of different material: an asphalt strip; a dark coloured paver strip; and a light coloured paver strip, thus making the driving portions of the lane narrower than it really is;

(b)making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c)adding a strip, next to the asphalt strip of 0.8 metre strip of dark coloured pavers, for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d)adding a strip of 0.65 metres of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee, on May 17, 1999, established a Working Group comprised of Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Ms. Joan Doiron and Mr. Jack Becker to review the concerns raised by the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents Association and other area residents respecting the Toronto Cycling Committees recommendation for the installation of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project. The Working Group was requested to meet with the appropriate City staff and other interested parties, including Mr. Ken Riddell, Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Mr. Martin Collier, to consider other alternatives to bicycle lanes, including alternatives on Prince Edward Drive or on adjacent roads.

Discussion:

During the public consultation process, residents of Prince Edward Drive expressed their desire for the road reconstruction to support maintaining existing traffic volume and not increase it. The residents also voiced support that the road design should address the excessive road speeding that is going on and the design should encourage drivers to maintain posted speed level. Local residents voiced strong support for narrow lanes.

The Transportation Services Division, in the end and as usual, proposed wide lanes of 3.95 metres, wide enough for two cars to be side-by-side, despite the local residents' desire for narrow lanes. Instead of proposing a design to encourage driving at posted speed limits, Transportation Services Division proposed a lane width that is safe to drive on at the 100 km/h range. A near expressway lane width for a local, collector road was the proposed solution.

For some reason, the local residents gave up their desire for maintaining traffic volume and posted speed and seemed to support the wide lane design.

The Transportation Services Division proposed a road design that did not address on-road cycling for families or children. It has also neglected all calls to make on-street cycling safer. There is mounting pressure for more bicycle lanes on City roads:

(1)As a result of some cycling deaths in 1996, the Regional Coroner for Toronto investigated cycling deaths and safety in Toronto. A report was published in July 1998 with recommendations to improve the safety of cyclists. One of the recommendations called on the City to construct bicycle lanes on the roads (Recommendation No. 14). This report was adopted by Council.

(2)The Urban Environment and Development Committee, on April 19, 1999, requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Toronto Cycling Committee for consideration of this matter and subsequent submission to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as soon as possible, such report to also include information on, among others:

Aways of expanding the bicycle path network, both neighbourhood paths and major arterial roads, in all parts of the City and how it can be ensured that the bicycle path network is taken into consideration when capital monies are expended on building new roads or reconstructing existing ones.@

(3)The Transportation Services Division has stated that the most economical way to build bicycle lanes is during road reconstruction/construction.

(4)Members of the Prince Edward Drive steering committee and the local community have expressed concerns that cycling in the City is unsafe. During the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, there is an opportunity to start making the streets of Toronto safer for cyclists by constructing bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive.

(5)There is a demand for a safe cycling route and bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive, Berry Road and Park Lawn Road to allow families and others to cycle to the Waterfront and Mimico Creek waterfront facilities.

(6)The City has announced, as part of creating a new City Official Plan, that it will focus on a sense of community, quality of the natural and built environment with attention to pollution levels, quality of urban streets and buildings, parks, and open space systems, safety in the City, friendliness, and a method of renewing the City. Bicycle Lanes on Prince Edward Drive and other roads will support this initiative. Wide lanes, as proposed, would take away any local feeling.

(7)A member of the Prince Edward Drive Steering Committee stated at a committee meeting that the wider the lane, the faster she drives. Wide lanes seem to encourage speed and poor driving behaviour (weaving in the lane).

The Transportation Services Division proposal does not support upgrading the quality or beauty of the street, is not supportive of a Greening Toronto City and streets, and it is not a model for Toronto, liveable streets and improved quality of life.

Discussions were attempted to be held to look at other alternatives of bicycle facilities on Prince Edward Drive and for other adjacent routes. No alternatives were found.

Royal York Road was proposed as an alternative but the section from south of the current bicycle lanes (south of Eglinton) to the Lakeshore would need reconstruction which is not scheduled until 2003, or so. Also, this road would take cyclists away from the Mimico Creek Park destination on the Waterfront.

The Park Lawn Road alternative north of Berry Road is not seen as practical as Park Lawn Road has significant traffic and is narrow in this section with lane width of 3.1 metres. Also, a couple of hills would discourage families from using it.

Grenview Boulevard could be one alternative as it parallels Prince Edward Drive. The road is a local road with parking allowed on both sides. It is not a direct road, having a couple of jogs. The intersection at Bloor Street is a problem as it is not signalized and, based on past discussions on distances between traffic lights, it is not expected that the Transportation Services Division would move a Prince Edward Drive pedestrian crossing traffic light to this intersection as it would be close to Prince Edward Drive.

It is recommended to the Toronto Cycling Committee that it should continue to support full bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction.

Car drivers would appear to have a narrow but sufficiently wide lane for driving at the posted speed of 40 km/h. Buses and trucks would have a sufficiently wide lane of 3.3 metres (asphalt and dark pavers) to drive on. Cyclists would have, for the most time as bus traffic is infrequent and trucks are restricted from Prince Edward Drive, an apparent lane of 1.45 metres to cycle on.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

-(May 27, 1999) from Ms. Rosemary Dunsmore, strongly objecting to any reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, south of Bloor Street, that will change the character of the neighbourhood, encourage speeding and jeopardize the safety of pedestrians;

-(May 27, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, identifying problems and solutions to improve and maintain the pedestrian safety and restore the beauty of the area, compromised by over-dependence on and overuse of automobiles;

-(June 21, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, recommending certain road features to be incorporated into the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive for public safety and environmental reasons;

-(June 23, 1999) from Mr. Ken Riddell, commenting on the process for community input into the Prince Edward Drive reconstruction project;

-(June 22, 1999) from Mrs. Sylvia Giovanella, President, E.F.R.R.A., supporting the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents= Association and the Transportation Department=s recommended Option No. 12, for the widening of Prince Edward Drive to 26 feet curb face to face;

-(June 23, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, requesting that consideration be given to removing bus bays to reduce volume of run-off, reinforcing public transit as the priority traffic, and making it easier for pedestrians crossing, and continuing discussion about non-aggressive traffic calming measures to achieve a lower more consistent speed limit, etc.

_____

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Mary Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Ratepayers Association/KPRI;

-Mr. Frank Mills, Park Lawn Cemetery;

-Ms. Fiona Campbell, Communities in Bloom;

-Ms. Anna Teed;

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Mr. Dalton Shipway;

-Mr. Jack Miller;

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN);

-Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Toronto Cycling Committee;

-Mr. Steve Lindley;

-Ms. Janet Pounder, Sunnylea Jr. School Council;

-Ms. Isobel Povoa;

-Mr. Crawford Murphy, Toronto Cycling Committee;

-Ms. Janice Etter;

-Mr. Martin Collier;

-Mr. Morris Lewicky;

-Mr. Greg Ellis; and

-Mr. Trevor Pereira.