The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - Community Advisory Committee - 20200917Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 Time:7:00 p.m. Location:Video Conference Pages 1.Procedural Notes This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 4.Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2020 1 That the Community Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 20, 2020, be received for information. 5.Delegations 6.Matters for Consideration 6.1 CAC20-002 - Master Transportation Study Update 6 (Presentation to be provided by Jonathan Chai, Project Manager, HDR) That Report No. CAC20-002 be received; and1. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the recommendations for active transportation presented in the Transportation Master Plan be received and referred to staff for consideration. 2. 6.2 Memorandum from Manager, Library Square; Re: Cultural Master Plan Update 27 (Presentation to be provided by Phil Rose-Donahoe, Manager, Library Square) That the memorandum regarding Cultural Master Plan Update be received; and 1. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the Cultural Master Plan Update be received and referred to staff for consideration. 2. 6.3 CAC20-005 - Town of Aurora Proposed Anti-Idling Policy 30 That Report No. CAC20-005 be received; and1. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the Town of Aurora Proposed Anti-Idling Policy be received and referred to staff for consideration. 2. 6.4 CAC20-006 - Implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement Program 52 That Report No. CAC20-006 be received; and1. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding Implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement Program be received and referred to staff for consideration. 2. 6.5 Round Table Discussion; Re: Future of the Community Advisory Committee (Deferred from Community Advisory Committee meeting of February 20, 2020) That the Committee comments regarding Future of the Community Advisory Committee be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. 1. 7.Informational Items 7.1 CAC20-004 - Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossings and Future Priority Crossings within Barrie GO Rail Corridor 60 That Report No. CAC20-004 be received for information.1. 7.2 Verbal Update from Director of Corporate Services; Re: Clean Communities By-law No. 6257-20 That the verbal update from the Director of Corporate Services regarding Clean Communities By-law No. 6257-20 be received for information. 1. 8.Adjournment Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 Time and Location: 7 p.m., Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Barry Bridgeford, Councillor Rachel Gilliland, Chris Gordon, Balpreet Grewal (Chair), Denis Heng (outgoing Vice Chair), Councillor Harold Kim (arrived 7:05 p.m.), Janet Mitchell (Vice Chair), Sera Weiss (outgoing Chair) Members Absent: Jennifer Sault, Laura Thanasse Other Attendees: Techa van Leeuwen, Director of Corporate Services, Alex Wray, Manager, By-law Services, Michael de Rond, Town Clerk, Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator Outgoing Chair Sera Weiss called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and called for nominations to elect a new Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2020. Election of Committee Chair for Year 2020 Moved by Janet Mitchell Seconded by Barry Bridgeford That Balpreet Grewal be elected as Chair for Year 2020 of the Community Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). Carried Election of Committee Vice Chair for Year 2020 Moved by Chris Gordon Seconded by Denis Heng That Janet Mitchell be elected as Vice Chair for Year 2020 of the Community Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). Carried Page 1 of 73 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 20, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Newly-elected Chair Balpreet Grewal assumed the Chair at 7:08 p.m. 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Sera Weiss Seconded by Chris Gordon That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 3. Receipt of the Minutes Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2019 Moved by Sera Weiss Seconded by Barry Bridgeford That the Community Advisory Committee meeting minutes of October 10, 2019, be received for information. Carried 4. Delegations None 5. Matters for Consideration 1. Memorandum from Town Clerk Re: Role of Advisory Committees Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and noted that Advisory Committee comments are conveyed to Council by including the Committee’s feedback in more detail through the “Advisory Committee Review” section of a General Committee report. Staff agreed to communicate any relevant General Committee report and outcomes with the Committee in future. Page 2 of 73 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 20, 2020 Page 3 of 5 The Committee commented on the current bi-monthly meeting cycle and the risk of missed opportunities to address time-sensitive issues, and staff provided clarification regarding the reporting process. Moved by Chris Gordon Seconded by Councillor Gilliland 1. That the memorandum regarding Role of Advisory Committees be received for information. Carried 2. CAC20-001 – By-law Services – Clean Communities Staff provided a brief overview of the report noting that the proposed new Clean Communities By-law is a consolidation of two existing by-laws that would now also include provisions to deal with weeds and graffiti. The Committee inquired about weed control and seed development heights, and staff advised that the maximum height provision of 20 centimeters would apply. The Committee provided background to the ongoing work in identifying invasive and noxious weed outbreaks in Town, and staff suggested that GIS mapping could assist in tracking outbreaks. The Committee and staff discussed various aspects of graffiti control including the enforcement process and prevention strategies. The Committee requested that the Town work with York Regional Police to avoid charging youth who are first-time offenders. The Committee inquired about the provisions for owner-naturalized properties and planting edibles in the front yard, and staff agreed to investigate whether any restrictions would apply. The Committee further inquired about various aspects of the new by-law and the service capacity of current staff resources. Staff provided clarification and statistical data on the number of complaints and violations processed by By-law Services. Moved by Sera Weiss Seconded by Councillor Kim 1. That Report No. CAC20-001 be received; and Page 3 of 73 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 20, 2020 Page 4 of 5 2. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the proposed implementation of a Clean Communities By-law be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 3. Round Table Discussion Re: Active Transportation in Aurora Councillor Gilliland invited feedback from the Committee on the development of an active transportation plan related to trails, bike lanes, and connectivity. The Committee, with reference to the Master Transportation Study Update Final Report of February 18, 2020, expressed support for an expanded cycling network and the sidewalk construction plan, and suggested the need for an integrated approach and a secondary study to assess the demand for bike lanes versus other modes of transportation. The Committee commented on the need for active transportation to be safe and practical in relation to the distribution of service locations and destinations throughout the municipality, and concern was expressed regarding the lack of amenities in the southern part of Town. Councillor Gilliland advised that further information would be submitted for the Committee’s consideration in future. Moved by Councillor Gilliland Seconded by Sera Weiss Recommended: 1. That the Committee comments regarding Active Transportation in Aurora be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 4. Round Table Discussion Re: Future of the Community Advisory Committee Page 4 of 73 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 20, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Moved by Councillor Gilliland Seconded by Chris Gordon Recommended: 1. That the Round Table Discussion regarding Future of the Community Advisory Committee be deferred to a future Committee meeting. Motion to defer Carried 6. Informational Items None 7. Adjournment Moved by Sera Weiss Seconded by Barry Bridgeford That the meeting be adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Carried Page 5 of 73 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee No. CAC20-002 ______________________________________________________________________ Subject: Master Transportation Study Update Prepared by: Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: September 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CAC20-002 be received; and 2. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the recommendations for active transportation presented in the Transportation Master Plan be received and referred to staff for consideration. Executive Summary The Transportation Master Plan (the TMP) was presented to Council at the General Committee meeting on February 18, 2020. The recommendations were subsequently endorsed by Council at its meeting on February 25, 2020, subject to individual project review as part of the Capital Budget process and update to the 10-Year Capital Plan. As directed by Council, the implementation of a road diet on Yonge Street was excluded from the TMP and be referred to the 2021 Capital Budget for consideration. This report presents to the Community Advisory Committee the findings and conclusions of the TMP for information prior to finalizing the report for public comment as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The TMP provides both short- term and long-term recommendations to service Aurora’s projected growth and identifies opportunities to create a sustainable, safe and accessible transportation network. The TMP consists of the following key components and discussions that focuses on active transportation:  The TMP has been prepared in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Plan process; Page 6 of 73 September 17, 2020 2 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002  The TMP identified the existing traffic operational concerns and recommended Alternative No. 2 “TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements” and Alternative No. 3 “Operational Improvements” as practical solutions to accommodate future growth;  Short-term opportunities and long-term planning were recommended to address existing demand and future parking needs within the Town;  A Sidewalk Priority Plan has been developed by incorporating Aurora’s Sidewalk Gap Map and the 10-Year Construction Plan; and,  A comprehensive and well-connected cycling network has been developed for the Town to promote cycling activities. The Executive Summary of the TMP is provided in Attachment 1. Background As approved by Council as part of the 2018 Capital Budget process, the Town initiated Capital Project No. 34529 – Master Transportation Study Update. The key objective of the study is to review and address existing transportation needs and provide support for Aurora’s forecasted growth to 2041 through long-term infrastructure planning and policy related solutions. This study builds upon the Town’s 2013 Master Transportation Operations Study Update, which took a multi-modal approach to identify road network improvements and active transportation connections to meet Aurora’s future traffic demands. To ensure the recommendations of the TMP are consistent with the objective envisioned by the Government of Ontario and York Region, the following key planning context and relevant background studies were reviewed:  York Region Official Plan;  York Region Transportation Master Plan;  York Region 10-Year Roads and Transit Capital Construction Program;  York Region Lake to Lake Cycling and Walking Trail;  Provincial Policy Statement 2014;  Town of Aurora Strategic Plan;  Town of Aurora Official Plan;  Town of Aurora Trails Master Plan;  Town of Aurora OPA 73: Area 2C Secondary Plan;  Aurora Promenade Concept Plan, Streetscape Design & Implementation Plan;  Metrolinx Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion; Page 7 of 73 September 17, 2020 3 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002  Provincial Growth Plan 2019;  Highway 404 Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study;  Metrolinx Wellington Street Grade Separation; and,  Metrolinx 2016 GO Rail Station Access Plan. Analysis The TMP was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Plan process This study was conducted in two phases in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act:  Phase 1: Identify the problem (deficiency) or opportunity; and,  Phase 2: 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. The TMP reviewed the existing traffic operational concerns and recommended Alternative No. 2 “TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements” and Alternative No. 3 “Operational Improvements” as practical solutions to accommodate future growth A transportation needs analysis based on projected growth to 2041 is documented to identify the need for growth related transportation improvements to the existing transportation network. A total of four alternatives were identified and assessed:  No. 1 – “Do Nothing”;  No. 2 – “TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements”;  No. 3 – “Operational Improvements”; and,  No. 4 – “Road Capacity Improvements”. Detailed assessment for each alternative are provided in Attachment 2 and the following solutions are recommended: Page 8 of 73 September 17, 2020 4 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002 a) Alternative No. 2 – TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements: This alternative proposes that the Town continue to work in partnership with York Region, SmartCommute Central York, Metrolinx, and the development industry to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies and programs that encourage non-automobile travel to and from key destinations within and surrounding the Town. b) Alternative No. 3 – Operational Improvements: Operational improvements may take the form of traffic signal timing adjustments, traffic lane changes, safety improvements, parking modifications and sidewalk network improvements. On the basis that these have little impact to the existing built form of the Town with the ability to provide significant operational benefits. Short-term opportunities and long-term planning were recommended to address existing demand and future parking needs within the Town A parking needs assessment was undertaken as part of the TMP to document current parking conditions within the Aurora Promenade, including Yonge Street from Wellington to Church Street, Library Square, and the Aurora GO Station area. Based on this review, short-term opportunities to address parking issues are identified as well as development of a long-term plan for parking. a) Short-term Recommendations (1-5 Years):  The Aurora GO Station should continue to be monitored to ensure that there is no overflow during its actual peak hours on busy weekdays. Temporary parking solutions at Town Park, Sheppard’s Bush Parking Lot on Industry Street and the Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Filed should be considered;  If the traffic demand along Yonge Street from Wellington Street to Church Street increases, on-street parking along this segment should be strictly enforced to maximize safety and reduce congestion;  Metrolinx is proposing to construct a new surface parking lot at 9 Scanlon Court with an estimated supply of more than 400 parking spaces. This is primarily to off-set the loss of existing Berczy Street surface parking lot on the west side of the rail corridor related to the new platform construction;  A Parking Study prepared by BA Group was developed to address the parking needs from the proposed Library Square development and they are generally consistent with the recommendations provided in the TMP. Page 9 of 73 September 17, 2020 5 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002 b) Long-term Recommendations (Greater Than 5 Years):  Consolidation of private lots into municipally owned and managed lots promotes efficiency in land use, creates land for new development, and results in increased pedestrian activity in the area;  215 Industrial Parkway South is a property owned by the Town of Aurora and is currently leased to John Graves Simcoe Armoury. There is a possibility of this property to be converted to municipal parking lot in the future, if necessary;  Consideration for on-street parking policies should be developed through further study to prevent GO commuters from parking on adjacent residential streets, including clear signage and information on where the appropriate over-flow parking is located; and,  Provide residents the opportunity to apply for on-street parking permits for accessible users. Further study is required to determine an appropriate solution to address area specific needs. c) Aurora GO Station Parking Recommendations: Based on the April 2017 parking utilization study undertaken for Metrolinx for the Aurora GO Station (prepared by Wood Group), the following should be considered as supplemental parking sites: Town Park, Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Field, and Sheppard’s Bush.  Town Park is currently under-utilized during the Friday PM Peak. It is recommend to revisit the existing parking restrictions (maximum 3 hours from 6 AM and 6 PM, Monday to Friday) and allow parking in these spaces to improve utilization of the infrastructure during the weekdays and avoid illegal parking;  The existing parking lot for the Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Field can provide a supplement space for parking. The parking characteristics would likely be characteristic of other recreational facilities with low utilization during weekday daytime, and higher during weekday evenings and weekends. It is recommended to revisit the existing parking restrictions; and,  It is recommended that the Town engage with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Metrolinx to discuss the feasibility of permitting parking for GO train commuters at Sheppard’s Bush and revisit the existing parking restrictions (maximum 3 hours from 7 AM and 7 PM, Monday to Friday). Page 10 of 73 September 17, 2020 6 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002 The above referenced locations are illustrated in Attachment 3 and it is recommended the Town work with Metrolinx to develop a parking strategy for the Aurora GO train commuters. A Sidewalk Priority Plan has been developed by incorporating Aurora’s Sidewalk Gap Map and the 10-Year Construction Plan A review of the current 2020 Sidewalk Gap Map as well as Aurora’s current 10-year Construction Plan (2016-2027) was undertaken to develop a Sidewalk Priority List that will identify the priority in which the sidewalk gaps within the Town should be addressed. Funding requests related to construction of sidewalks is usually included in the 10-Year Road Reconstruction Plan and is subject to Capital Budget process. The recommended sidewalk construction plan is provided in Attachment 4. A comprehensive and well-connected cycling network has been developed for the Town to promote cycling activities A comprehensive review was conducted to identify opportunities for new on-street cycling facilities with a focus on appropriately designating space for cyclists between existing curbs, which can be implemented in a cost effective manner. Recommendations build on the Town’s existing and planned cycling network and are supported by a best practices review of design guidelines including travel and parking lane widths and considerations at intersections. The TMP recommends that a separate Town-wide Active Transportation Master Plan be developed. Staff will be submitting a funding request to undertake this study as part of the 2021 Capital Budget process. A list of cycling facility types is provided in Attachment 5 and the recommended cycling network is included in Attachment 6. Once the TMP is endorsed by Council the next step is to update the 10-Year Capital Plan to include the recommendations outlined in the TMP and initiate the Active Transportation Master Plan Staff will begin to implement the recommendations provided in the TMP once it is endorsed by Council, subject to Capital Budget process, including:  Update the 10-Year Capital Plan to include the projects highlighted in the TMP;  Build sidewalks in accordance to the Sidewalk Construction Plan and implement the cycling network accordingly as illustrated in Attachment 6; and, Page 11 of 73 September 17, 2020 7 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002  Initiate and develop a Town-wide Active Transportation Master Plan that builds upon the elements in the TMP including the Sidewalk Construction Plan and the Recommended Cycling Network illustrated in Attachment 6.Enter text Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The initiatives and individual projects identified in the TMP will be subject to review as part of the Capital Budget process. Communications Considerations Staff will issue the Notice of Completion (advertised through the Town’s media channels) at the end of March and the study will be placed on the public record for a 30- day review period. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identify potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation None. Conclusions This report presents to Community Advisory Committee the findings and conclusions developed as part of the TMP. The TMP provides both short-term and long-term recommendations to address the projected growth and identifies opportunities to create a sustainable, safe and accessible mobility network. The following key recommendations are provided: Page 12 of 73 September 17, 2020 8 of 8 Report No. CAC20-002  To address future traffic growth, Alternative No. 2 “TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements” and Alternative No. 3 “Operational Improvements” are recommended as practical solutions;  Consider implementation of short-term and long-term solutions to address existing parking demand and future parking needs for the Town;  As complementary to Alternative No. 2 “TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements”, it is recommended that sidewalk gaps identified in the Sidewalk Construction Plan be addressed and begin to implement the cycling network as illustrated in Attachment 6; and,  A separate Town-wide Active Transportation Master Plan is recommended which is subject to capital funding as part of a future Capital Budget process. Attachments Attachment 1: TMP Executive Summary Attachment 2: List of Alternative Solutions Attachment 3: Possible Additional Parking Area for Aurora GO Station Attachment 4: Recommended Sidewalk Construction Plan Attachment 5: List of Cycling Facility Types Attachment 6: Recommended Cycling Network Previous Reports General Committee Report No. PDS20-015, dated September 3, 2020. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on September 3, 2020 Approvals Approved by David Waters, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 13 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary i Executive Summary The Town of Aurora has initiated a Master Transportation Study (MTS) to review and address existing transportation needs within the Town, as well as provide support for the growth of the Town to 2041, through long-term infrastructure planning and policy solutions. This study builds upon the Town’s 2013 Master Transportation Operations Study Update, which took a multi-modal approach to identifying road network improvements and active transportation connections to meet future traffic demands. As the population, employment, and economic activity within the Town continues to increase, there is an opportunity to consider the new mobility challenges and rising parking demand in conjunction with the development of local and regional initiatives such as The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan and the Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion (BRCE). The MTS seeks to develop an integrated set of road network and infrastructure solutions that continue to accommodate vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, while streamlining the improvements to preserve the small-town community characteristics of the Town, and particularly, the Town’s historic downtown core. The MTS also seeks to encourage alternative mobility options and provide more accessible, convenient, and direct connections to Major Transit Stations and public transit. This report documents the findings and recommendations from several inter-related studies including a Future Conditions Assessment, Traffic Operations and Safety Review, Traffic Infiltration Assessment, Parking Needs Assessment, and a Sidewalk Priority Plan. The key findings and recommendations of each of these analyses is summarized in the following sections. Future Conditions The Town of Aurora is planned to grow from approximately 63,000 persons and 29,000 jobs today to approximately 79,000 persons and 38,000 jobs by 2041. With consideration for planned Regional infrastructure improvements, an assessment of 2041 conditions was completed to understand the need for further action and investment by the Town to plan for growth. Four Alternative Solutions were identified: 1. Do Nothing 2. Travel Demand Management (TDM), Transit and Active Transportation Improvements 3. Operational Improvements 4. Road Widenings $WWDFKPHQW 703([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ Page 14 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary ii Based on the analysis presented, Alternatives 1 and 4 were screened out while Alternative 2 and 3 were recommended to be carried forward. It is thus recommended that the Town’s transportation strategy to accommodate growth to the year 2041 focus on managing the existing network while improving connectivity and safety particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. This includes focus on travel demand management (TDM), supporting and encouraging transit use, and active transportation improvements including completing the sidewalk network and implementing the recommendations of the 2011 Trails Master Plan. To keep vehicular traffic moving efficiently, operational improvements are recommended such as traffic signal timing adjustments, travel lane modifications, safety improvements, and parking management. It is noted that after accounting for planned Regional improvements, no major vehicular capacity improvements, such as lane widenings, are required by 2041. Traffic Operations and Safety Traffic Signal Progression Analysis Following the optimization process, improvements were minor in nature. It appears that the corridor has already been coordinated, and this existing conditions analysis confirms that the implemented improvements continue to be operating well. Safety Review A desktop review of the top five intersections for most collisions spans Yonge Street from Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive to Murray Drive/Edward Street. Based on the collision analysis it was noted that the most frequent collisions that occurred were turning movement and rear-end. These accidents could be attributed to the fact that most of the road segment along Yonge Street (Aurora Heights Drive/Mark Street to Golf Links Drive/Dunning Avenue) consists of two travel lanes in each direction with no dedicated left turn or right turn lanes. This, coupled with the number of private driveways along Yonge Street is problematic because drivers may suddenly slow down to turn, while other drivers may be following too closely, or being distracted. Exclusive left-turn lanes for driveway access and opposing left-turn lanes at intersections would benefit both traffic operations and safety. However the constrained right-of-way along Yonge Street through the Aurora Promenade area would not be able to accommodate a fifth lane without significant property acquisition to increase available right-of-way. As such, making these improvements would require a “road diet” reducing the number of through travel lanes from four to two. Yonge Street Road Diet A road diet is a technique used in transportation planning whereby the number of travel lanes on the road is reduced. A potential road diet of Yonge Street from south of Page 15 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary iii Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive to Golf Links Drive/Dunning Avenue is recommended for further study. Based on the analysis in this document, a road diet would have benefits to safety and operations at Yonge-Wellington and at other intersections along the corridor. Following the completion of the Master Transportation Study, it is recommended that the Town conduct further public consultation and detailed study in coordination with York Region to better understand the impacts on the community as well as on the planned transit services along Yonge Street. Traffic Diversion Analysis The following Town streets identified as commuter routes1 through a traffic diversion analysis should be considered for enhanced safety measures to minimize speeds and prioritize safety for all road users: x Aurora Heights Drive from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street x Mark Street, Walton Drive x Maple Street x Catherine Avenue x Centre Street As these routes are in the vicinity of the Yonge-Wellington intersection, improvements at that location may also mitigate speeding along these commuter diversion routes. Finally, while it is noted that traffic diversion has occurred on Elderberry Trail from April 2017 to March 2018, the causes are not apparent. It is recommended that the Town continue to monitor the situation to determine whether the issue is due to one-time incidents or if there is a broader contextual issue which is not apparent through this analysis. Parking Needs A parking utilization study was conducted to provide direction on short-term and long- term needs for parking particularly in the Old Town and surrounding the GO Station. Short-term Recommendations GO Station Parking Demand: The Aurora GO Station should be monitored closely to ensure that there is no overflow during its actual peak hours on busy weekdays. If there is a consistent lack of supply to address high parking demand at the GO Station parking lots, temporary parking solutions should be provided to minimize conflict with neighbouring business owners and residents, including formalizing usage of the Town Park / Farmers Market parking spaces, the Sheppard’s Bush Parking Lot on Industry 1 A road or transit line that is periodically used to travel between one’s place of residence and place of work Page 16 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary iv Street, and the Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Field. Supplemental works would be required to provide sidewalks and/or lighting to improve safety between the GO station and these potential overflow parking lots. On-Street Parking on Yonge Street: If the traffic demand along Yonge Street from Wellington Street to Church Street increases, the on-street parking along this segment should be strictly enforced to maximize safety and reduce congestion. On-street parking along a high demand corridor will increase. Long-term Needs and Recommendations Consolidate private lots in the Old Town: Consolidation of private lots into municipally owned and managed lots promotes efficiency in land use, creates land for new development, and results in increased pedestrian activity in the area. This change could be considered alongside potential changes to on-street parking along Yonge Street through a potential Road Diet. 215 Industrial Parkway South: This is a property owned by the Town of Aurora and is currently leased as the headquarters for the Queen’s York Rangers Army Cadet Corps. Although this property is located outside of the study limits, there is a possibility of this property being served as an additional parking lot in the future, if necessary. Given its distance from high demand locations in the Town, this site is likely best utilized or considered as an off-site parking location for autonomous vehicles. While policy and legislation regarding these vehicles remains to be determined, it is recognized that the Town should proactively protect lands for this type of use which may effectively reduce parking needs within its growth and intensification areas. Implement on-street parking policies: Consideration for on-street parking policies should be developed through further study to prevent GO commuters from parking on quiet residential streets, including clear signage and information on where the appropriate over-flow parking is located. Implement permitting for on-street parking: provide residents the opportunity to apply for on-street parking permits for accessible users. Further study is required to determine an appropriate solution to site-specific needs. Sidewalk Priority Plan A gap analysis was conducted to identify and prioritize the construction of new sidewalks in the Town. Based on the Sidewalk Gap Map and Aurora’s 10-year Road Reconstruction Map, it is recommended that sidewalks along Harriman Road and Industrial Parkway South (Engelhard Drive to Industry Street) be constructed in 2020/2021 along with the planned road reconstruction in order to save on costs. Based on the evaluation, eleven streets have been identified as having high priority for sidewalk installation and should be considered to be included in the 1-5 year plan. The medium to low priority sidewalk installation should be considered to be included Page 17 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary v in the 5-10 year plan. The revised plan for sidewalk construction is provided in 7DEOH (6. 7DEOH(65HYLVHG6LGHZDON&RQVWUXFWLRQ3ODQ 675((71$0( 5(9,6('352326('<($52)&216758&7,21 +,*+0(',80/2: Adair Drive 9 Bailey Crescent 9 Baldwin Road 9 Bathurst Street 99 Bayview Avenue 99 Berczy Street 99 Collins Crescent 99 Corbett Crescent 99 Davidson Road 9 Duncton Wood Crescent 99 Edward Street 9 Harriman Road 9 Henderson Drive 9 Hillview Road 99 Holman Crescent 9 Hutchinson Road 99 Industrial Parkway North 9 Industrial Parkway South (Vandorf Sideroad – Industry Street.) 9 Industrial Parkway South (Yonge St. – Vandorf Sideroad) 9 Industry Street 9 Johnson Road 9 Kitimat Crescent 99 Knowles Crescent 99 Limeridge Street 99 Morning Crescent 99 Patrick Drive 99 St. John's Sideroad East 9 St. John's Sideroad West 99 Stoddart Drive 99 Page 18 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary vi 675((71$0( 5(9,6('352326('<($52)&216758&7,21 +,*+0(',80/2: Vandorf Sideroad 9 Webster Drive 99 Wellington Street West 99 Woodland Hills Boulevard 9 Yonge Street 9 9 9 99 99 99 Current proposed construction Revised from current proposed construction +LJK3ULRULW\ Medium Priority Low Priority Cycling Facilities A study was conducted to identify opportunities for new on-street cycling facilities with a focus on appropriately designating space for cyclists between existing curbs, which can be implemented in a cost effective manner. Recommendations build on the Town’s existing and planned cycling network and are supported by a best practices review of design guidelines including travel and parking lane widths and considerations at intersections. Based on existing pavement width, road type, and vehicle speed and volumes on the road, )LJXUH(6 builds on the existing cycling network in the Town of Aurora and illustrates the recommended cycling facilities. Page 19 of 73 7RZQRI$XURUD | Master Transportation Study Executive Summary vii )LJXUH(65HFRPPHQGHG&\FOLQJ)DFLOLWLHVPage 20 of 73 a) Alternative No. 1 – Do Nothing: Beyond the planned Regional improvements, this alternative assumes that the Town will not invest in any additional transportation programs or infrastructure improvements to the year 2041. Given the traffic congestion issues identified, Alternative No. 1 is not recommended. b) Alternative No. 2 – TDM, Transit, and Active Transportation Improvements: This alternative proposes that the Town continue to work in partnership with York Region, SmartCommute Central York, Metrolinx, and the development industry to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies and programs that encourage non-automobile travel to and from key destinations within and surrounding the Town. Based on Provincial and Regional directions to encourage transit oriented development and sustainable travel, as well as the Town’s own Strategic Plan, Alternative No. 2 is recommended. c) Alternative No. 3 – Operational Improvements: Operational improvements may take the form of traffic signal timing adjustments, traffic lane changes, safety improvements, parking modifications and sidewalk network improvements. On the basis that these have little impact to the existing built form of the Town with the ability to provide significant operational benefits, Alternative No. 3 is recommended. d) Alternative No. 4 – Road Capacity Improvements: Road capacity improvements involve vehicular traffic lane widenings. While there are some localized congestion hotspots, major roadworks associated with vehicular lane widenings on Regional roads within the Town are not recommended at this time. Since roadway capacity are generally within the moderate congestion zone, it is recommended that mitigation through TDM and operational improvements be considered a first priority without investing heavily into infrastructure improvements. As such, Alternative No. 4 is not recommended. Attachment 2 List of Alternative Solutions Page 21 of 73 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department, December 20th, 2019.Air photos taken Spring 2018 © First Base Solutions Inc., 2018 Orthophotography. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. This is not a legal survey.3266,%/($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*$5($)25$8525$*267$7,210$67(575$163257$7,21678'<83'$7(),1$/5(3257&$&$77$&+0(17Page 22 of 73 STREET NAME REVISED PROPOSED YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 2020 HIGH 2024 MEDIUM 2026 LOW Sidewalk Constructi on Not Approved by Council Adair Drive * Bailey Crescent * Baldwin Road * Bathurst Street 99 Bayview Avenue 99 Berczy Street 99 Collins Crescent 99 Corbett Crescent 99 Davidson Road * Duncton Wood Crescent 99 Harriman Road * Henderson Drive * Hillview Road 99 Holman Crescent * Hutchinson Road 99 Industrial Parkway North 9 Industrial Parkway South (Yonge St. – Engelhard Dr.) 9 Industry Street 9 Johnson Road * Kitimat Crescent 99 Knowles Crescent 99 Limeridge Street 99 Morning Crescent 99 Patrick Drive 99 St. John's Sideroad West 99 Stoddart Drive 99 Webster Drive 99 Wellington Street West 99 Woodland Hills Boulevard 9 Yonge Street 9 9 Current proposed construction 9 Revised from current proposed construction 99 High Priority 99 Medium Priority 99 Low Priority * Construction Not Approved by Council Attachment 4 Recommended Sidewalk Construction Plan Page 23 of 73 a) Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes are on-road facilities designated by pavement markings and signage. Bicycle lanes are typically on the right side of the street between the vehicle travel lane and curb or parking lane, and flow in the same direction of traffic. Buffered bicycle lanes offer an enhancement by using painted buffers to provide additional space between motor vehicles and cyclists. Example of a Bicycle Lanes is illustrated in Figure 1 Figure 1: Example of Bicycle Lanes b) Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows): sharrows are road markings that indicate a shared lane for bicycles and vehicles. It is a pavement marking that indicates a variety of uses to support a complete bikeway network; however, it is not a facility type. Sharrows are typically implemented to reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street, recommend proper bicyclist positioning, and maybe configured to offer directional wayfinding guidance. They should not be considered a substitute for bike lanes, cycle tracks, or multi-use trails where these types of facilities are a warranted or space permits. Example of a Sharrows is illustrated in Figure 2 Attachment 5 List of Cycling Facility Types Page 24 of 73 Figure 2: Example of Sharrows c) Urban Shoulder: an urban shoulder is a space, delineated by an edge line that a cyclist may ride in instead of riding in the vehicular shared lane where dedicated cycling facilities are not provided. An urban shoulder is not an alternative to a dedicated cycling facility and may be used for snow storage in the winter. Based on the City of Toronto Road Engineering Design Guidelines, the minimum width of an urban shoulder delineated by an edge line shall be 1.2m and may be as wide as 2.3m where space is available. Example of an Urban Shoulder is illustrated in Figure 3 Figure 3: Example of Urban Shoulder Page 25 of 73 Town of Aurora | Master Transportation Study Cycling Facilities hdrinc.com 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300, Richmond Hill, ON, CA L4B 1J8 (289) 695-4600121 Figure 9-1: Recommended Cycling Facilities$WWDFKPHQW5HFRPPHQGHG&\FOLQJ1HWZRUNPage 26 of 73 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Community Services ______________________________________________________________________ Re: Cultural Master Plan Update To: Community Advisory Committee From: Phil Rose-Donahoe, Manager, Library Square Date: September 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Cultural Master Plan Update be received; and 2. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the Cultural Master Plan Update be received and referred to staff for consideration. Background Council endorsed the Town’s first-ever Cultural Master Plan (CMP) in June 2014. It was a five-year plan that provided a framework to support cultural development between 2014 and 2019 and was built on the following four Strategic Directions (SD):  SD 1: Define the Municipality’s Role and Build Partnerships  SD 2: Expand Culture’s Role in Economic Development  SD 3: Build a Strong and Vital Cultural Sector  SD 4: Enhance Access to Cultural Resources The CMP also included 53 corresponding Actions, 20 of which have either been successfully implemented or initiated but not completed. The following is a summary of cultural planning accomplishments between 2014 and 2019 (in no particular order):  Key performance indicators and performance measures developed based on industry best practice that will be used to evaluate funding requests and the impact of cultural investments;  Development of a Cultural Asset Directory, the goal of which is to promote the cultural sector and facilitate the interaction and usage among cultural members and the community at large. The Directory is a continuation of Page 27 of 73 Cultural Master Plan Update September 17, 2020 2 of 3 cultural resource mapping efforts that coincided with the development of the CMP. It will be launched at a future date;  Support of a Cultural Partners network that assists with the ongoing implementation of cultural planning initiatives;  Progress on Library Square, which complements the Promenade Plan and positions Library Square as an economic driver that will support local businesses within the Cultural Precinct;  Transfer of the Aurora Collection to the Town which now resides with the Aurora Museum & Archives; and  Canada 150 celebrations in 2017 which provided an opportunity for collaboration among culture and heritage groups. With the conclusion of the original CMP last year, Town staff have begun the process of updating the Plan, which, when complete, will provide a roadmap for nurturing culture locally over the short to medium term (3-5 years). It will speak to various themes that support how cultural planning decisions are made and will aim to empower the Town’s Cultural Partners, and cultural community more generally, in implementing the Plan. The new CMP will also be informed by extensive community engagement and a strong focus will be placed on developing meaningful partnerships with local cultural groups, artists, cultural professionals, and others, to ensure cultural development is seen as a shared responsibility across the municipality. The process of updating the CMP began in January 2020 with the formation of a Collaborative Leadership Team (CLT) led by the Manager of Library Square that is responsible for helping to guide the CMP process. The CLT is comprised of Town staff and representatives from the following organizations: Aurora Cultural Centre, Society of York Region Artists, Aurora Public Library, Pine Tree Potters’ Guild, Aurora Historical Society, Aurora Farmers’ Market, Aurora Sports Hall of Fame, Theatre Aurora, and Aurora Seniors Association. Following the first meeting of the CLT in February, the CMP Work Plan was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although staff have not yet determined the exact timing for developing the Town’s revised CMP, they continue to target October 2021 for its completion. The following is a breakdown of each phase of the process: Page 28 of 73 Cultural Master Plan Update September 17, 2020 3 of 3 Work Breakdown Phase 1: Project Initiation CLT Terms of Reference Complete CLT Start-up Meeting Complete CMP Communications Plan In Progress Phase 2: CMP Development CLT Meetings In Progress Community Cultural Forums/Public Engagement Not Started Phase 3: CMP First Draft CMP First Draft Not Started Phase 4: Final Report/Council Approval CMP Final Draft Not Started Phase 5: Launch CMP Launch and Community Celebration Not Started Phase 6: Implementation CMP Implementation including annual report cards on implementation milestones Not Started Attachments None Page 29 of 73 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee No. CAC20-005 ______________________________________________________________________ Subject: Town of Aurora Proposed Anti-Idling Policy Prepared by: Natalie Kehle, Energy and Climate Change Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: September 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CAC20-005 be received; and 2. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding the Town of Aurora Proposed Anti-Idling Policy be received and referred to staff for consideration. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to present to the Community Advisory Committee the proposed Anti-Idling Policy for the Town of Aurora (see Attachment 1). The Policy establishes guidance on limiting unnecessary idling of vehicles and equipment owned by the Town as well as the public within the municipal boundaries. The Policy provisions align with existing Town By-laws limiting vehicle idling by the public, specifically the Noise By-law (By-law Number 4787-06.P).  The Anti-Idling Policy addresses three important Town goals; limits vehicle idling of Town vehicles and the public, provides a three-pronged education campaign, and introduces an enforcement mechanism for non-compliance.  The Anti-Idling Policy is based on the Noise By-Law and leverages the Town’s existing enforcement mechanism.  Based on the experience in implementing the Anti-Idling Policy (through the education campaign and the enforcement mechanism), staff recommend that the Policy be reviewed in two years for any modifications and the consideration of a freestanding by-law to better align with neighboring municipalities, if necessary. Page 30 of 73 September 17, 2020 2 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 Background Council Motion On June 26, 2018, Council passed the following motion: “Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff be directed to develop an Anti-idling policy that reviews best practices and includes an enforcement mechanism; and Be It Further Resolved That the report includes a proposed public education campaign.” Previous Town Anti-Idling Efforts The Town’s Noise By-law (By-law Number 4787-06.P) was enacted in 2006 with provisions limiting vehicle idling with the primary intent of preventing disturbance from noisy vehicles idling in, or near, residential areas, rather than to reduce vehicle emissions. According to By-law Number 4787-06.P, Schedule A, General Noise Prohibitions, Section 9: the operation of a vehicle that is stationary is limited to five minutes. There are two exceptions: when the engines or motors are essential to the basic function of the vehicle or equipment; and where weather conditions justify the use of the engine or motor for safety or welfare. The Town’s Parks and Public Places By-law (By-law Number 4752-05.P) was enacted in 2005 and includes limits to vehicle idling. The intent for the by-law is to limit nuisances, including noise from vehicle idling, within Town parks. According to By-law Number 4752-05.P, Section 30 - Other Activities, where the idling of engines is limited to five (5) minutes. Corporate Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) 2010-2015 Town initiatives involving limiting vehicle greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle idling started in 2010, in the first CEAP. In 2010, the Town introduced an anti-idling initiative, aimed at educating the public on the environmental impacts of idling vehicles. This initiative included the installation of 17 Idle Free Zone signs at six Town-owned facilities. Corporate Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) 2018-2023 The most recent CEAP also aims at tackling vehicle idling in the Town with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Action items include reducing idling from Town Page 31 of 73 September 17, 2020 3 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 staff, the public and increasing the overall community awareness of the impacts of idling. The proposed Anti-Idling Policy addresses these actions. Analysis The Anti-Idling Policy addresses three important goals; limits vehicle idling from Town Staff and the public, provides a three-pronged education campaign, and introduces an enforcement mechanism when required. Since the Policy applies to all of Aurora, this includes Town Staff and the public. Town staff using fleet vehicles will need to comply with the general provisions of the Policy. In addition to the Policy, Town Staff will have further direction, training and compliance for vehicle idling under the proposed Green Fleet Policy, scheduled to be presented to Council later this year. The implementation of the Policy includes education campaigns and enforcement by Town’s By-law Officers. Education will be the main strategy with the public in implementing the provisions of the Policy. A Town Webpage will be dedicated to idling education, with facts, stats and tips for reducing vehicle idling (see Attachment 4 with the City of Barrie Anti-Idling Webpage as example). The Town’s Communications Team will lead three types of education campaigns: (1) An Initial Anti-Idling Town-wide Campaign, which consists of a onetime promotion of the Policy, over the course of a Season, once the Policy is approved by Council. The campaign’s main focus is on the environmental and health benefits of limiting idling and on the existing Town By-laws that limit idling in the Town. (2) Periodic and Targeted Anti-Idling Campaigns, which consists of educating a focused group based on needs. Periodic focus groups may include, but not limited to:  GO station users  School zones  Town recreation centres  Bus stations and carpool parking lots (3) Seasonal Reminder Campaign, which consists of an annual reminder of the Policy to the general public. Page 32 of 73 September 17, 2020 4 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 Campaign strategies may include, but not limited to, social media announcements, Town Notice Board, Town Website, the use of signage, handing out flyers, etc. By-law will play an important role in implementing an education first campaign in cases of failure to comply, while utilizing the enforcement mechanism outlined in the Policy at their discretion. Anti-Idling Policy is based on the Noise By-Law and leverages the existing enforcement mechanism The development of the Anti-Idling Policy is based on the existing Town by-laws limiting unnecessary vehicle idling. Aurora has two existing by-laws that limit vehicle idling; the Noise By-law and the Park By-law. Since the Noise By-law is the more extensive of the two in terms of limitations and exemptions, the Policy follows the Noise By-law (see Attachment 3). The Policy mirrors the general provision of the Noise By-law, which limits vehicle idling to five minutes. Two exemptions are when idling is essential to the basic function of the vehicle or equipment it is running or due to weather conditions. Non-compliance of the Anti-Idling Policy may lead to penalties, if found to be in violation of the Noise By-law, at the discretion of the By-law Officer. Based on the experience in implementing the Anti-Idling Policy (through the education campaign and the enforcement mechanism), staff recommend that the Policy be reviewed in two years for any modifications to the Policy and the consideration of a freestanding by-law to better align with neighboring municipalities. Based on a municipal scan of neighboring jurisdictions (see Attachment 2 - including Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, King, Markham and Richmond Hill), Aurora and King are the only municipalities that utilize a Noise By-law to limit vehicle idling. Free-standing anti-idling by-laws are the most common mechanism municipalities in Ontario use to regulate vehicle idling (over 35 Ontario municipalities use stand-alone by-laws). Aurora and King both limit idling to 5 minutes, while other local jurisdictions limit to 2-3 minutes. The trend in anti-idling policy in Ontario is to further reduce the number of minutes a vehicle is allowed to idle, not only for the reduction in the greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles, but also to support the enforcement of the by-laws. Based on the City of Toronto’s experience with anti-idling since the 1990s, they lowered the allowable idling time from three minutes to one minute because it facilitated enforcement of the by-law. Page 33 of 73 September 17, 2020 5 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 In addition, Natural Resources Canada promotes a one-minute limit as a national guideline for limiting idling time. Since the Town’s Noise By-law was developed with a focus on limiting noise, not idling specifically, there are gaps in the provisions when compared to neighboring municipalities’ stand-alone anti-idling by-laws. To align with neighboring Municipalities on idling limits, staff recommend that the Anti-Idling Policy be reviewed after a trial period of two years after this Policy is endorsed, to reflect the lessons learned during implementation and to align with local jurisdictions by-laws. Areas to consider in the alignment are the number of minutes a vehicle can idle (from 5 minutes to 1-3 minutes), and updating the list of exemptions to the by-law to better clarify when a vehicle is in violation or not. Legal Considerations The implementation of the Anti-Idling Policy does not affect the Town’s current by-laws and enforcement will rely on the Town’s existing Noise and Parks By-laws. If enforcement action is necessary, the Town’s By-law officers will be required to show that a violation of the Parks or Noise By-law occurred. Consequently, in order to prosecute a charge, an officer would not only have to demonstrate that a vehicle has in fact been idling for a period of longer than five minutes, but rather that it resulted in a noise in violation of the Noise By-law or created a nuisance in a park or a public place in violation of the Parks By-law. Financial Implications The estimated cost for implementing the Anti-Idling Policy is $3,000 in the first year to support the Initial Anti-Idling Town-wide marketing campaign and no additional costs to support the Seasonal Reminder Campaign and the Periodic and Targeted Anti-Idling Campaigns, as per Table 1 below. The cost associated with implementing the Policy falls under the PDS-Engineering’s current budget. Table 1 – Estimated Cost Associated with the Anti-Idling Policy Education Campaign Pamphlet/postcard (for by-law distribution) $ 500.00 Newspaper Ads (Auroran & Aurora Banner) $1,500.00 Paid Social Media campaign (Facebook & Instagram) $ 200.00 Page 34 of 73 September 17, 2020 6 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 Mobile Signs $ 800.00 Ongoing advertising in the Town Noticeboard when space permits (Auroran) $ 0 Series of York Region Media Group Geo-Fencing Digital Ads $ 0 Ongoing social media posts $ 0 Website presence (banner image, dedicated webpage, etc.) $ 0 TOTAL $ 3,000.00 The $1,500 estimate is for ads in both the Auroran and the Aurora Banner for initial launch of the Policy. The Noticeboard, which is a full-page ad, goes into the Auroran on a biweekly basis. The Town will promote the anti-idling campaign in the Noticeboard where space permits. The $3,000 estimate is for the first year of the campaign, whereas in subsequent years the Policy will be promoted online via social media, the Town’s e-newsletter and website, as well as the Town Noticeboard, all of which have no budget implications for this campaign. If there is budget in subsequent years, paid online advertising to reach those not following the Town's social media accounts could be used, as well as Mobile Signs for a specified month in the year. In a typical year, the Town performs in-person outreach activities regularly, another opportunity to promote the education campaign in person at no additional cost (excluding any printing needs for additional handouts). In-person outreach opportunities will be re-evaluated for next year. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project, providing information and generating awareness to the public through a robust education campaign. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in Page 35 of 73 September 17, 2020 7 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. Link to Strategic Plan This project supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting environmental stewardship and sustainability, Objective 2: Continue to invest in green initiatives and infrastructure to promote environmentalism locally. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation None. Conclusions Staff, having considered the mechanisms available to limit the unnecessary idling of vehicles in the Town, are of the opinion that a Town policy is the appropriate procedure at this time. Staff therefore request that Council endorse the attached Anti-Idling Policy. The Policy addresses important Town goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere within Town limits through a robust education campaign and enforcement mechanism that leverages existing Town by-laws that limit vehicle idling. Attachments Attachment 1 – Policy No. CORP XX Town of Aurora Anti-Idling Policy Attachment 2 – Municipal Scan of Anti-Idling By-laws Attachment 3 – Noise By-law No. 4787-06.P Attachment 4 – City of Barrie Anti-Idling Education Website Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on September 3, 2020 Page 36 of 73 September 17, 2020 8 of 8 Report No. CAC20-005 Approvals Approved by David Waters, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 37 of 73 1 Topic:Anti-Idling Policy Affects:All Staff and Public Section: Insert section based on numbering system Replaces:N/A Original Policy Date: October 6th, 2020 Revision Date: N/A Effective Date: TBD Proposed Revision Date: 2023 Prepared By: PDS-Engineering, By-Law Services, Communications Approval Authority: Council 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for unnecessary idling of vehicles by the public and Town staff. These guidelines support existing Town Bylaws, limiting vehicle idling by the public, specifically: By-law Number 4787-06P Schedule A - General Noise Prohibitions, Section 9, where: The operation of an engine or motor in, or on, any vehicle or item of attached auxiliary equipment for a continuous period of more than five minutes while such vehicle is stationary. By-law Number 4752-05.P Section 30. Other Activities, where: No person shall while in a park or public place: (c) cause a nuisance in a park or public place within the Town of Aurora; Where “nuisance” includes shouting, screaming, unusual noises, ringing of bells, sounding of horns, blowing of whistles, squealing of tires, revving of engines, the idling of engines more than five(5) minutes; 2.0 Scope This policy applies to all unnecessarily vehicle idling within the Town boundary. 3.0 Responsibilities Bylaw Services: Municipal Bylaw Officers are responsible for responding to complaints related to non-compliance of the Policy by the general public and for implementing an Administrative Policies & Procedures Policy No. CORP XX – Anti-Idling Policy $WWDFKPHQW Page 38 of 73 Policy No. XX – Anti-Idling Policy 2 education first campaign in cases of failure to comply. Town Communications: Corporate Communications, in collaboration with Bylaw Services, is responsible for providing information and public education on this policy and more specifically about the adverse effects of unnecessary idling on our environment. In alignment with The Town of Aurora Community Engagement Policy, Communications will be informing the public of this new policy, providing timely, accurate and accessible information, as well as subsequent periodic campaigns. This will be achieved through a robust education campaign that will include website updates, physical signage, social media, and mention in the Town Notice Board. Town Fleet Manager The Town’s Fleet Manager is responsible for ensuring Town Staff compliance under the Green Fleet Policy, through the application and training of this policy. The employees’ Supervisor/Manager will work in conjunction with Human Resources to address infractions associated with this policy. 4.0 Policy No person shall cause or permit a vehicle to idle continuously for more than five (5) consecutive minutes in the Town of Aurora. 5.0 Exemptions The following exemptions exists for idling in the Town: (a) where continuous operation of the engine or motor is essential to the basic function of the vehicle or equipment; (b) where weather conditions justify the use of heating of refrigeration system powered by the engine or motor for the safety or welfare of the operator, passengers or animals or the preservation of perishable cargo. 6.0 Non Compliance In cases where voluntary compliance is not successful, the Bylaw Services will rely on existing legislation found in the Town’s Parks #4752-05 and Noise By-law Page 39 of 73 Policy No. XX – Anti-Idling Policy 3 #4787-06, as amended to achieve compliance with this policy. 7.0 Implementation Municipal Staff: In accordance with the Town’s Green Fleet Policy, Municipal staff that operate Town vehicles undergo an anti-idling training and shall adhere to the provisions from that Policy. For more information, refer to the Town’s Green Fleet Policy. General Public: Education will be the main strategy with the general public in implementing the provisions in this Policy. The Town’s Communications Team will lead three types of education campaigns: (1) An Initial Anti-Idling Town-wide Campaign, which consists of a onetime promotion of the Policy, over the course of a Season, once the Policy is approved by Council. The campaign’s main focus is on the environmental and health benefits of limiting idling and on the existing Town By-laws that limit idling in the Town. (2) Periodic and Targeted Anti-Idling Campaigns, which consists of educating a focused group based on needs. Periodic focus groups may include, but not limited to: a. GO station users b. School zones c. Town recreation centres d. Bus stations and carpool parking lots (3) Seasonal Reminder Campaign, which consists of an annual reminder of the Policy to the general public. Campaign strategies may include, but not limited to, social media announcements, Town NoticeBoard, the use of signage, handing out flyers, etc. 8.0 Regulatory/References/Codes/Standards By-law Number 4787-06 By-law Number 4752-05.P Town of Aurora Green Fleet Policy Page 40 of 73 Attachment 2 - Local Best Practices (Municipal Scan) on Limiting Idling Many municipalities, especially in regions that suffer from frequent smog episodes, have adopted policies and programs to address unnecessary vehicle idling. The most common initiative is the development of by-laws that target vehicle engine idling. Currently, more than 35 Ontario municipalities have either stand-alone idling control by- laws, or anti-idling provisions within other by-laws. Some local examples are listed here: Town of Newmarket In 2005, the Town of Newmarket Council enacted By-law No. 2005-157 to Prohibit Excessive Idling of Vehicles within the Town of Newmarket. These regulations prohibit the idling of motor vehicles for more than 2 minutes. The By-law also provides exemptions for emergency vehicles, public transit, vehicles in parades, vehicles with passengers with a medical letter and during extreme weather conditions (below 5° and above 27°C). https://www.newmarket.ca/LivingHere/Documents/2005- 157%20Prohibition%20of%20Excessisve%20idling.pdf Town of East Gwillimbury In 2019, the Town of East Gwillimbury Council enacted By-law No. 2019-085 To Prohibit Excessive Idling of Vehicles within the Town of East Gwillimbury. These regulations prohibit the idling of motor vehicles for more than 3 minutes. The By-law also provides exemptions for emergency vehicles or vehicles involved in an emergency or traffic violation, vehicles receiving or discharging passengers, public transit, vehicles in parades, funeral processions, or due to traffic, mobile workshops and during extreme weather conditions (below 5° and above 27°C). http://www.eastgwillimbury.ca/Assets/Idling+control+Bylaw+2019-085.pdf City of Richmond Hill On June 24, 2020 Richmond Hill Council enacted By-law No. 44-20 to Regulate the Idling of Vehicles within the City of Richmond Hill. These regulations prohibit the idling of motor vehicles for more than 3 minutes. The By-law also provides exemptions for emergency vehicles or vehicles involved in an emergency or traffic violation, public transit, armored vehicles, vehicles stopped due to rail crossing, in drive thru or due to traffic, vehicles with passengers with a medical letter, mobile workshops, unanchored or tied boats, and during extreme weather conditions (below 5° and above 30°C). Page 41 of 73 https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/shared-content/resources/Idling-By-law-44-20.pdf City of Markham In 2005, the City of Markham Council enacted By-law 2005-192 to Regulate the Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles within the City of Markham. These regulations prohibit the idling of motor vehicles for more than 3 minutes. The By-law also provides exemptions for emergency vehicles or vehicles involved in an emergency or traffic violation, public transit, armored vehicles, vehicles stopped due to traffic or involved in parades, receiving or discharging passengers, stopped due to weather conditions. https://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/markham/cb23cfb4-647c-4aa5-b6ba- 9e262a64b408/Bylaw-2005- 192.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPA CE.Z18_2QD4H901OGV160QC8BLCRJ1001-cb23cfb4-647c-4aa5-b6ba- 9e262a64b408-mrLW-bz Township of King In 2005, the City of Markham Council enacted By-law 2005-192 to Prohibit and Regulate Certain Types of Noise within the Township of King in residential areas and quiet zones. These regulations prohibit the idling of any motor vehicle or item of attached auxiliary equipment for more than 5 minutes. The By-law also provides exemptions for when equipment requires idling for proper function, due to weather conditions and idling for the purpose of cleaning or flushing radiators. http://www.king.ca/Government/Departments/By-Law%20Enforcement%20Services/By- Law%20Enforcement%20Issues/Documents/81-142%20-%20Noise%20By- law%20(Consolidation).pdf Page 42 of 73 By-law Number 4787-06.P BEING A BY-LAW to regulate and prohibit the causing of noise in the Town of Aurora. WHEREAS Subsection 129 (1) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O.2001, c. 25 as amended, authorizes Council to enact a by-law to prohibit and regulate with respect to noise; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora enacts as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS: (a)construction includes the erection, alteration, repair, dismantling, demolition, structural maintenance of buildings, land clearing, earth moving, grading, excavation, blasting and detonation of explosive devices other than fireworks, the laying of pipe, and conduit whether above or below ground level, highway building, concreting, equipment installation and alteration and the structural installation of construction components and materials in any form or for any purpose, and includes any associated or related work; (b)construction equipment means any equipment or device designated and intended for use in construction or material handling, including but not limited to air compressors, pile drivers, pneumatic or hydraulic tools, bulldozers, tractors, excavators, trenchers, cranes, derricks, loaders, scrapers, pavers, generators, off-highway haulers, trucks, ditchers, compactors and rollers, pumps, concrete mixers, graders, or other material handling equipment; (c)commercial area means all areas zoned as commercial under the Town’s Zoning By-law as amended; (d)corporation means The Corporation of the Town of Aurora; (e)emergency means a situation or an impending situation, which may be dangerous, caused by the forces of nature, an accident, an intentional act or otherwise, which arises suddenly and requires prompt action to remedy the situation; (f)emergency vehicle includes an ambulance, air ambulance, police helicopter, police vehicle, a fire department vehicle and any vehicle used to respond to an emergency; (g)industrial area means all areas zoned as industrial or business park under the Town’s Zoning By-law as amended; (h)motor vehicle includes an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle and any other vehicle propelled or driven other than by muscular power; (i)municipal service vehicle means a vehicle operated by or on behalf of the Corporation while the vehicle is being used for the construction, repair or maintenance of a highway, including the removal of snow, the construction, repair or maintenance of a utility service, the collection or transportation of waste, or any other municipal service; $WWDFKPHQW THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA Page 43 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 2 (j)noise means any unwanted and excessive noise; (k)person includes a corporation, a person, partnership or sole proprietorship; (l)premises means a piece of land and any buildings and structures on it and includes a place of business, road or any other location or place; (m)residence means a room, suite of rooms, or dwelling, operated as a housekeeping unit that is used or intended to be used as a separate domicile by one or more persons, and that normally contains cooking, eating, living, sleeping and sanitary facilities; (n)residential area means all areas zoned as residential under the Town’s Zoning By-law as amended; (o)public holidays means those holidays as defined by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 which consists of the following: New Years Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and December 26. (p)town means The Corporation of the Town of Aurora. 2. SCOPE: 2.1 The general prohibitions on activities described in Schedule A shall apply to the lands within the Town of Aurora at all times. 2.2 The prohibitions on activities by time and place described in Schedule B shall apply to the lands within residential areas, commercial and industrial areas of the Town during the days and between the hours specified in Schedule B. 2.3 The general exemptions described in Schedule C shall apply to lands within the Town of Aurora at all times. 3. ADMINISTRATION: 3.1 The By-law Services Section of the Town of Aurora will be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this by-law. 3.2 All Provincial Offences Officers with the authority to enforce the by-laws of the Town of Aurora as well as officers of the York Regional Police Dept. have the authority to enforce the provisions of this by-law. 3.3 Any person may apply for an exemption to the prohibitions described in the attached Schedules of this by-law. 3.4 Applications for exemptions for sections 3, 10, &11 of Schedule B of this by-law shall be directed to By-law Services Section for consideration. All other exemption requests shall be forwarded to Council in writing for consideration and its decision shall be final. 3.5 If an application for exemption to the by-law is approved, the exemption will be in effect for the dates and times specified and with any imposed conditions therein. 3.6 If any of the exemption conditions imposed is contravened, the exemption shall be immediately revoked. Page 44 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 3 4. APPLICATION: 4.1 No person shall, at any time, make, cause, or permit the making of noise within the Town that is the result of any of the activities described in Schedule A and that is audible to: (a) a person on or in a premises other than the premises from which the noise is originating; or (b) a person in a residence other than the residence from which the noise is originating. 4.2 No person shall, during the days and between the hours specified in Schedule B, make, cause or permit the making of noise within the residential, commercial or industrial areas as defined by the Town’s Zoning By-law as amended, that is the result of any of the activities described in Schedule B and that is audible to: (1) a person on or in a premises other than the premises from which the noise is originating; or (2) a person in a residence other than the residence from which the noise is originating. 5. EXEMPTIONS: 5.1 The prohibitions described in Schedules A and B do not apply if the noise is the result of measures undertaken in an emergency for the: (1) immediate health, safety or welfare of the persons and animals; (2) preservation or restoration of property. 5.2 The prohibitions described in Schedules A and B do not apply if the noise is the result of the activities described in Schedule C. 5.3 The prohibitions described in Schedules A and B do not apply if the noise is the result of an activity that has been granted an exemption under section 3.4. 6. SCHEDULES: The following Schedules are attached and form part of this by-law: Schedule A General Noise Prohibitions Schedule B Noise Prohibitions by Time and Place Schedule C Exemptions to the Noise Prohibitions Page 45 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 4 7. OFFENCE AND PENALTY PROVISIONS: Any person who contravenes the provisions of this by-law is guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, is subject to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act and to any other applicable penalties. 8. COMMENCEMENT: This by-law comes into force upon enactment by Council. 9. REPEAL OF BY-LAW: By-law Number 4746-05.P is hereby repealed. 10. SEVERABILITY: Each and every one of the provisions of this By-law is severable and if any provisions of this By-law should, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court, it is the intention and desire of this Council that each and every of the then remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2006. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2006. P. MORRIS, DEPUTY MAYOR B. PANIZZA, CLERK Page 46 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 5 SCHEDULE A GENERAL NOISE PROHIBITIONS (SUBJECT TO SECTION 4.1) 1. The operation of a motor vehicle other than on a highway. 2. The operation of a motor vehicle in such a way as to squeal the tires. 3. The operation of a combustion engine or pneumatic device without an effective exhaust muffling device that is not in good working order and in constant operation. 4. The operation of any construction equipment without an effective exhaust muffling device. 5. The operation of a vehicle in a manner that results in banging, clanking, squealing, or similar sounds. 6. The operation of a horn of a vehicle or other warning device except where required or authorized for safety reasons. 7. Persistent barking, calling or whining or other similar persistent noise making by any domestic pet or any other animal kept or used for any purpose other than agriculture. 8. The unauthorized setting off of fireworks. 9. The operation of an engine or motor in, or on, any vehicle or item of attached auxiliary equipment for a continuous period of more than five minutes while such vehicle is stationary unless: (a) the continuous operation of the engine or motor is essential to the basic function of the vehicle or equipment; (b) the weather conditions justify the use of heating of refrigeration system powered by the engine or motor for the safety or welfare of the operator, passengers or animals or the preservation of perishable cargo. Page 47 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 6 SCHEDULE B NOISE PROHIBITIONS BY TIME AND PLACE (SUBJECT TO SECTION 4.2) Prohibited Times Activity Residential Areas Commercial Areas Industrial Areas 1. Operation of any construction equipment in connection with construction. C and F C and F C and F 2. Erection, alteration, repair, dismantling, of any structure or activity related to construction. C and F C and F C and F 3. The exterior operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, or reproduction of amplified voices, music or sound. A C C 4. The interior operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, or reproduction of amplified voices, music or sound. C C C 5. Operation of a combustion engine that (i) is, or (ii) is used in, or (iii) is intended for use in a toy or model or replica of a larger device, which is not a vehicle for transport and which has no purpose other than amusement. D E E 6. Operation of an outdoor solid waste bulk lift or refuse compacting equipment. C C C 7. Operation of a mechanical commercial car wash. E E D 8. Operation of a public address system A C and F C and F 9. Operation of voice activated drive-thru order facilities. A E E 10. Operation of any electrical or gas powered tools for domestic purposes other than for snow removal. D D E 11. Loading, unloading, delivering or otherwise handling any containers, products or refuse unless necessary for the maintenance of an essential service. C and F D E 12. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, the playing of musical instruments, or any other noise. C E F 13. Private and community functions held on private property E E E Prohibited Times A. At any time B. 1700 (5:00pm) of one day to 0700 hours (7:00 am) of the next day & 0900 hours (9:00 am) Sundays C. 1900 (7:00pm) of one day to 0700 hours (7:00 am) of the next day D. 2100 (9:00pm) of one day to 0700 hours (7:00 am) of the next day & 0900 hours (9:00 am) Sundays) E. 2300 (11:00pm) of one day to 0700 hours (7:00 am) of the next day & 0900 hours (9:00 am) Sundays F. All day Sundays and Public Holidays Page 48 of 73 By-law No. 4787-06.P Page 7 SCHEDULE C EXEMPTIONS FROM THE NOISE PROHIBITIONS 1. Operation of emergency vehicles. 2. Operation of municipal service vehicles, including municipally contacted services, and related equipment including equipment for snow removal. 3. Authorized displays of fireworks. 4. Midways, carnivals or circuses approved by the Town. 5. Races, parades, processions and events for ceremonial, religious purposes that have been authorized by the Town. 6. Operation of bells, chimes, carillons, and clocks in churches, schools and buildings that are open. 7. Cultural, recreational, educational and political events in parks and other public places that have been authorized by the Town where required. 8. Events open to the community on municipal property or highways that have been authorized by the Town. 9. Non-emergency construction, reconstruction or repair of any municipal, provincial or federal public works including the construction, reconstruction or repair of a public highway provided the Town of Aurora is given advanced written notice of the hours to be worked if outside the permitted construction hours. 10. Operation of bells utilized as traffic control devices including the following: (a) bells and other devices at traffic signal locations; (b) bells at railway crossings. 11. Businesses located in Industrial Zones possessing a current and valid Ministry of Environment Certificate of Approval for Air Emissions where required. Page 49 of 73 +HOSVORZWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'3OHDVHSUDFWLVHSK\VLFDOGLVWDQFLQJGRQ¶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¶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age 50 of 73 KWWSVZZZEDUULHFD/LYLQJ(QYLURQPHQW&RQVHUYDWLRQ3DJHV$QWL,GOLQJDVS[ )LQGWKLVSDJHDWKWWSZZZEDUULHFD/LYLQJ(QYLURQPHQW&RQVHUYDWLRQ3DJHV$QWL,GOLQJDVS[ 3ULQWHGRQ)ULGD\-XO\ 7KH&RUSRUDWLRQRI7KH&LW\RI%DUULH$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG ,QWKHSHDNRIZLQWHUÃVWXGLHVVKRZ&DQDGLDQPRWRULVWVLGOHWKHLUYHKLFOHVIRUDERXWHLJKWPLQXWHVDGD\Ã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age 51 of 73 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee No. CAC20-006 ______________________________________________________________________ Subject: Implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement Program Prepared by: Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: September 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CAC20-006 be received; and 2. That the Community Advisory Committee comments regarding Implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement Program be received and referred to staff for consideration. Executive Summary As directed by Council at its meeting in November 2016, this report provides an overview of the automated speed enforcement (ASE) program.  The Province of Ontario filed Ontario Regulation 398/19, under the Highway Traffic Act, allowing municipalities to operate ASE in school and community safety zones;  The Town currently has four designated community safety zones under By-law No. 4574-04.T;  York Region has recently implemented a two-year, limited use pilot program with one mobile ASE unit to assess the technology and the impacts on the Region’s Provincial Offences Courts;  According to the current provisions of the legislation municipalities are not authorized to process ASE offences under the Administrative Penalty System (APS); and,  Staff recommends deferring the implementation of the ASE program until the Region has completed its two-year, limited use pilot program. Page 52 of 73 September 17, 2020 2 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006 Background In November 2016, Council passed the following motion: “Be It Further Resolved That when the provincial government gives municipalities the authority to set up photo radar cameras, staff be directed to report back regarding the implementation of photo radar cameras in all community safety zones.” Analysis The Province of Ontario filed Ontario Regulation 398/19, made under the Highway Traffic Act (O. Reg 398/19), allowing municipalities to operate ASE in school and community safety zones On December 1, 2019, the Province of Ontario proclaimed into force Bill 65, Safer School Zones Act, which amended the Highway Traffic Act to further increase safety for vulnerable road users and improve driver behaviour. This legislation permits municipalities to implement and operate ASE technology to enforce speeding traffic offences in school and community safety zones on roads with a speed limit under 80 km/h. O. Reg 398/19 supplements this legislation by setting out evidentiary and procedural rules for ASE systems. ASE is an automated system that uses a camera and a speed measurement device to detect and capture images of vehicles travelling in excess of the posted speed limit. The captured images will be reviewed by the Provincial Offences Officers and tickets will be issued to the registered owner of the subject vehicle. Upon conviction, the only penalty is a fine, no demerit points will be issued nor will the registered owners driving record be impacted. The Town currently has four designated community safety zones under By-law No. 4574-04.T In accordance with Section 16.0 of By-law No. 4574-04.T, the following locations are designated as community safety zones:  Orchard Heights Boulevard between Laurentide Avenue and Yonge Street;  McClellan Way between Henderson Drive and Bathurst Street;  Murray Drive between Wellington Street West and Kennedy Street West; and, Page 53 of 73 September 17, 2020 3 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006  Stone Road between Bayview Avenue (north leg) and Bayview Avenue (south leg). The zones are illustrated in Attachment 1. York Region has recently implemented a two-year, limited use pilot program with one mobile ASE unit to assess the technology and the impacts on the Region’s Provincial Offences Courts A two-year, limited use pilot program was recently introduced by the Region on selected community safety zones (within Regional roads) using their risk exposure index. The mobile ASE unit will be rotated throughout all nine local municipalities and based on the deployment schedule the mobile ASE unit will be deployed in Aurora at the following locations: 1. Wellington Street:  Targeted school includes: St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School, Aurora High School and Aurora Senior Public School;  The single mobile unit will be situated on the south side of Wellington Street (east of Murray Drive) targeting the eastbound direction traffic; and,  90 days advance notification period will be installed from August to October 2021 and the mobile ASE unit will be deployed on November 2021. 2. Bloomington Road:  Targeted school includes: Ecole Secondaire Catholique Renaissance and Cardinal Carter Catholic High School;  The single mobile unit will be situated on the north side of Bloomington Road (east of Elderberry Trail) targeting the westbound direction traffic; and,  90 days advance notification period will be installed from October to December 2021 and the mobile ASE unit will be deployed on January 2022. As part of the two-year, limited use pilot program, the Region will assess the capacity and impact on the Provincial Offences Courts. Data will be collected to quantify the number of charges and rate of disputes. In addition, the technology and service provided by the vendor will be evaluated. Page 54 of 73 September 17, 2020 4 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006 The Region will share the findings with local municipalities upon completion of the two- year, limited use pilot program. According to the current provisions of the legislation municipalities are not authorized to process ASE offences under the Administrative Penalty System (APS) Under the current regulation, ASE offences are administered through the Provincial Offences Act (POA) and payable or disputed through the POA court system. Based on the staff report authored by the Region on ASE, York Region’s Court Services is currently operating at full capacity and any additional increases in demand generated from the ASE infractions would add significant operating pressure on the existing court system. York Region and City of Toronto have been advocating for legislative amendments to permit the use of an APS for ASE. In general, APS allows for a faster, more flexible and customer-focused process for dealing with violations of the law. It also helps to relieve constraints on court capacity, reserving court time for matters requiring in-person evidence by enforcement officers and witnesses. Staff supports the Region’s position that the use of an APS for ASE will enhance processing time and relieve court capacity. Staff recommends to defer the implementation of the ASE program until the Region has completed its two-year, limited use pilot program Under the current legislation, local municipalities will be fully responsible for all costs associated with the ASE program. Any revenue generated will be directed to the Region’s Provincial Offences Courts, hence there will be no opportunity for local municipalities to offset the costs of operating the ASE program. Upon completion of the two-year, limit use pilot program, the Region will share valuable data with local municipalities including the number of charges, rate of disputes and overall capacity and operating costs. This information can be used to develop a business case for a local ASE program. Legal Considerations The Safer School Zones Act, amended the Highway Traffic Act to allow the use of an ASE system in a community safety zone or school zone that is designated as such in a municipal by-law. At the time of its passing, regulations to allow the operation of ASE Page 55 of 73 September 17, 2020 5 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006 were not yet in force. O. Reg 398/19 is now in effect and sets out the evidentiary and procedural rules for the ASE system, including requirements to post municipal speed camera signs as prescribed in the regulation. In addition, the province issued guidelines to support municipalities in developing responsible and safe ASE programs and which encourage an education and 90-day warning period prior to the use of the cameras and devices in a specific zone. Financial Implications While the Town does not have exact financial details available for implementing the ASE program at this time, the City of Toronto has acted on behalf of municipalities in Ontario including York Region to manage the ASE program. This includes issuing an RFP to rent the ASE units at approximately $50,000 per year, deployment (and redeployment) to different locations and general maintenance of the equipment. The City of Toronto is also operating an ASE Joint Processing Centre (JPC) on behalf of partnering municipalities including York Region. The Toronto JPC employ Provincial Offences Officers, designated by the Province to issue and process ASE charges. The cost-sharing amount is to be calculated based on the number of charges. The total operating cost for Aurora can be estimated once the Region completes the two-year, limited use pilot program and shares the data with local area municipalities. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identify potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Page 56 of 73 September 17, 2020 6 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation None. Conclusions As directed by Council in November, 2016, this report provides an overview of the ASE program that the Region is currently administering. On December 1, 2019, the Province of Ontario proclaimed into force Bill 65, Safer School Zones Act, which amended the Highway Traffic Act to further increase safety for vulnerable road users and improve driving behaviour. This legislation permits municipalities to implement and operate ASE technology to enforce speeding traffic offences in school and community safety zones on roads with a speed limit under 80 km/h. A two-year, limited use pilot program was recently introduced by the Region on selected community safety zones (within Regional roads) using the risk exposure index developed by the Region. The mobile ASE unit will be rotated throughout all nine local municipalities and based on the deployment schedule the mobile ASE unit will be deployed in Aurora at the following locations: 1. On the south side of Wellington Street (east of Murray Drive) targeting the eastbound direction traffic; and, 2. On the north side of Bloomington Road (east of Elderberry Trail) targeting the westbound direction traffic. Upon completion of the two-year, limit use pilot program, the Region will share valuable data with local municipalities including the number of charges, rate of disputes and overall capacity and operating costs. Therefore, staff are recommends deferring the implementation of the ASE program for Aurora until the Region has completed the two- year, limited use pilot program. Attachments Attachment 1: Locations of Existing Community Safety Zones Previous Reports None. Page 57 of 73 September 17, 2020 7 of 7 Report No. CAC20-006 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on September 3, 2020 Approvals Approved by David Waters, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 58 of 73 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TOWNSHIP OF KINGRailway/GO Transit LineRailway/GO Transit LineWELLINGTON STREET WEST WELLINGTON STREET EASTYONGE STREETYONGE STREETBATHURST STREETBATHURST STREETBAYVIEW AVENUEOrchard Heights Blvd LaurentideAveMurray DrKennedy St W McClellan Way HENDERSON DRIVE Stone R d Stone Rd Hydro CorridorVANDORF SIDEROAD ¬«A ¬«C ¬«D ¬«B Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, Business Solutions, August 6th, 2020. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. This is not a legal survey. ¯0250500 Metres SUBJECT LOCATION MAP AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW &$& Attachment #1 A – Orchard Heights Boulevard from Laurentide Avenue to Yonge Street B – McClellan Way from Henderson Drive to Bathurst Street C – Murray Drive from Wellington Street West to Kennedy Street West D – Stone Road from Bayview Avenue (north leg) to Bayview Avenue (south leg) Subject Roads Page 59 of 73 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Community Advisory Committee No. CAC20-004 ______________________________________________________________________ Subject: Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossings and Future Priority Crossings within Barrie GO Rail Corridor Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Manager of Parks & Fleet Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: September 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CAC20-004 be received for information. Executive Summary In response to a June 2020 Notice of Motion, this report provides Council with information associated with potential pedestrian grade separated crossing and future crossing locations, identified in the Trails Master Plan along the Barrie GO rail corridor:  Metrolinx will only consider grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass or overpass) at Cousins Drive due to safety related concerns;  Priority rating for the eight (8) pedestrian crossings along rail corridor identifies implementation challenges;  Future capital costs associated with underpass construction will be significant due to Metrolinx track expansion of the Barrie GO corridor;  The Town will need to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed crossings and a detailed design for the preferred alternative prior to construction; and,  Pedestrian road crossings identified in Trails Master Plan require prioritization for capital planning and future funding. Page 60 of 73 September 17, 2020 2 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 Background On June 23, 2020, staff received the following direction from Council: 1. Now Therefore Be It Hearby Resolved That staff provide a status report on all potential pedestrian crossings for non-motorized traffic along the train corridor to a General Committee meeting at the end of October; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That staff include in that report the priority crossings as identified in the Trails Master Plan and costing of detailed designs so that they may be included in the tender documents during the reconstruction by Metrolinx. The November 2011 Trails Master Plan (TMP) is a long-term (50 year) plan with recommendations for a connected trails next work, taking into account pedestrian/cycling infrastructure. The plan is a blueprint to guide the development of trails throughout Aurora in the short, medium and long term. Included in the plan are a number of rail and road crossings of the Barrie Go rail corridor that promote connectivity of the trails east to west within Aurora. Metrolinx approval was not required for the recommended crossings of the rail corridor listed in the Trails Master Plan because it was considered a planning study. Previous Reports: Staff have previously prepared Staff Report No. IES13-033 and the following were adopted by Council at its meeting on June 11, 2013: 1. THAT report IES13-033 be received; and 2. THAT Council not approve the construction of the Cousins Drive pedestrian crossing (Alternative to recommendation in report IES13-033). Analysis Metrolinx will only consider grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass or overpass) at Cousins Drive due to safety related concerns Trespassing on the railway tracks in the vicinity of Cousins Drive was identified as ongoing issue. In recent years, Metrolinx has erected a chain-link fence along its property boundaries from the Aurora GO Station to Engelhard Drive to prevent unregulated crossings of the railway corridor due to safety concerns. Page 61 of 73 September 17, 2020 3 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 A letter dated May 13, 2020, addressed to the CEO of Metrolinx, was sent from the Mayor’s office in regards to pedestrian crossing options at Cousins Drive. Subsequently, a reply letter dated June 10, 2020 was received from Metrolinx with the following recommendations: “While our teams are available to continue earlier discussions about safety measures that would need to be in place to explore alternative access, we are not prepared to discuss the reopening of the level crossing. Instead, we would be open to exploring an infrastructure solution that is not at-grade (e.g., a grade- separated overpass or underpass).” A copy of the reply letter is provided in Attachment 2. Grade separated crossings (overpass and underpass) are intended to support active transportation by providing route continuity and directness. In their absence, users may be forced to make long detours to cross a barrier. A. Option 1: grade separated crossing – overpass Generally, overpasses are preferable to underpasses from a user comfort and safety perspective. They benefit from natural lighting and allow users to see and be seen. However, they tend to require a greater change in elevation than underpasses. The design and construction cost of a pedestrian overpass is estimated at $5 million excluding any land acquisition cost which will be determined during detailed design stage. B. Option 2: grade separated crossing – underpass Underpasses are rectangular or vaulted structures that make it possible to cross a man- made barrier such as a railway. The construction cost of tunneling under the railway tracks is estimated at $8.7 million. Table 1 summarizes the analysis of the above crossing options. Page 62 of 73 September 17, 2020 4 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 Table 1: Cousins Drive Crossing Options Cousins Drive Crossing Option Possible Challenges *Construction Cost Estimate Option 1: Overpass  Insufficient public right-of-way;  High construction cost; and,  Land acquisition cost is a major factor.  +/-$5million Option 2: Underpass  High construction cost;  May subject to flooding and maintenance concerns; and,  Safety and security concerns.  +/-$8.7 million * Cost estimates for an overpass and underpass pedestrian crossing were taken from Item 39, Report No. 29 (Pedestrian Linkage in West Woodbridge), of the Community of the Whole in the City of Vaughan adopted by Council at their meeting of June 26, 2012 and indexed to 2021 values. Priority rating for the eight (8) pedestrian crossings along rail corridor identifies implementation challenges The Trails Master Plan identifies a number of crossings along the Barrie GO rail corridor, categorizing them at grade, overpasses and underpasses. However, Metrolinx states in a letter to the Mayor dated June 10, 2020 that they would only entertain the possibility of formal grade separated crossings, which would mean overpasses or underpasses. Parks staff have prioritized the eight (8) potential locations identifying associated benefits and challenges for discussion purposes and to illustrate that it is not only construction and engineering costs that is required for each crossing. In some cases, land acquisition and easements are necessary to facilitate the crossing. Attachment #1 provides a location map of the potential rail crossings and Attachment #2 prioritizes the areas. Future capital costs associated with underpass construction will be significant due to Metrolinx track expansion of the Barrie GO rail corridor The Trails Master Plan was completed in 2011 and incorporates an appendix with associated cost estimates for trail construction including, bridge, underpasses, etc. Below grade railway crossings are described as 3 metre wide, unlit culvert style, approximately 10 metres long for a single elevated rail track with an associated cost estimate of $500,000 - $750,000. It should be noted that this estimate is from 2010, Page 63 of 73 September 17, 2020 5 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 based on similar southern Ontario projects and does not include property acquisition, utility relocations or major roadside drainage works. Metrolinx is now planning for the expansion of the Barrie GO rail corridor to facilitate a double rail line to accommodate future growth in ridership. This double track construction is anticipated to potentially require 30 metres for the underpass. Based on the 2010 estimate within the Trails Master Plan an underpass of this length would require approximately $2.8 million of funding in 2020. Additional costs for trail construction to connect to the underpass would need consideration. Staff inquired with Metrolinx regarding recent cost estimates for construction of pedestrian underpass crossings of rail lines; however, they have not provided any data to date. For the purposes of discussion staff have provided the following examples of underpass construction costs on roads: 1. Two (2) pedestrian underpasses are currently being constructed on Leslie Street in a 50% cost share partnership with the Region of York. Without the cost share, the construction for one (1) is $1 million based on a 2016 tender pricing. Length of these underpasses are 35 – 40 meters. While the construction specification is potentially different, it is a current underpass installation cost; and, 2. A feasibility study undertaken through Parks, relating to the crossing of Wellington St E between John West Way and Bayview Ave in 2017-18. The study provided a preliminary estimated cost of $3.3 million for a concrete underpass, 5 metre wide and 50 metres long, under the 4-lane road. In addition, an overpass option was presented with an estimated value of 10.3 million. Information was presented to the Trails and Active Transportation Committee in June 2018. A recommendation not to proceed with the project was adopted through the minutes by Council. Based on the above underpass costs funding for project could be +/- $3,000,000 capital costs to the Town in the future, not inclusive of trail costs. Page 64 of 73 September 17, 2020 6 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 The Town will need to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed crossings and a detailed design for the preferred alternative prior to construction In addition to the estimated construction cost, the Town will need to retain a qualified engineering consulting firm to complete an Environmental Assessment following the EA process for the proposed crossings and a detailed design for the preferred alternative. The cost is estimated at $200,000 per crossing or $1.6 million for all eight (8) crossings. Pedestrian road crossings also identified in Trails Master Plan require prioritization for capital planning and future funding. Within the TMP a number of road crossings are also identified for pedestrian crossings. Many of these are long-term objectives and involve Regional roads. It is important that these crossings are prioritized for capital planning and funding, as costs will be significant and affect reserve health. Staff will prepare a report identifying the crossings for Council consideration in 2021. Legal Considerations The Town is required to obtain permission from Metrolinx in order to implement any infrastructure crossing the Barrie GO rail corridor. Generally, such arrangements with Metrolinx entail an agreement that would place all the responsibility for the crossing and liability on the Town during the time of construction and its lifetime. If the Town requires any additional privately owned land in order to construct a crossing, land purchases would be negotiated with the property owners, or otherwise acquired through an expropriation process. If land is to be acquired from commercial owners, it should be noted that any potential business losses may have to be compensated in order to acquire/expropriate such land. Any agreements with Metrolinx and land acquisitions will have to be dealt with before any construction can be commenced. Financial Implications The total estimated cost to construct all 8 crossings is $28.7 million for Option 1 (overpass at Cousins Drive) and $32.4 million for Option 2 (underpass at Cousins Drive). Both of these cost estimates exclude any potential land acquisition costs. Details are provided in Table 2. Page 65 of 73 September 17, 2020 7 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 Table 2: Estimated Total Cost (EA Study and Detailed Design plus Construction Cost) Pedestrian Crossing Locations EA and Detailed Design Estimate Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost Cousins Drive +/-$200,000 Option 1: +/-$5,000,000 Option 2: +/-$8,700,000 Option 1: +/-$5,200,000 Option 2: +/-$8,900,000 BG Properties (Cattle Crawl) +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 Henderson Drive +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 Jack Woods House Open Space +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 Ontario Heritage Trust -Smith Property +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 St. Andrews Golf Course +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 Walton Drive +/-$200,000 +/-$2,850,000 +/-$3,050,000 St. John’s Side Road +/-$200,000 +/-$5,000,000 +/-$5,200,000 Total Cost (EA and Detailed Design plus Construction Cost) Option 1: +/-$28,700,000 Option 2: +/-$32,400,000 Minimal funding is currently available for this planned work as per the Town’s current DC Study. Subject to historical service level and benefit to existing Town user constraints, the Town would be able recover more of these costs through its next DC Study which is scheduled for 2023. The funding for the remainder of these requirements would need to come from alternative sources such as the Growth & New Reserve which at present are under considerable competing pressures. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines Page 66 of 73 September 17, 2020 8 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform, this report with be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identify potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation None. Conclusions Based on the letter received from Metrolinx, level crossing at Cousins Drive will not be permitted and only grade separated crossings can be considered. There are two options for grade separated crossings consisting of an overpass or an underpass. The estimated construction cost for a grade separated pedestrian crossing at Cousins Drive is $5 million (excluding any land acquisition cost which will be determined during detailed design stage) for overpass and $8.7 million for an underpass. In addition to construction costs, the Town will require to retain a qualified external engineering consulting firm to complete an Environmental Assessment and a detailed design for the preferred alternative. The estimated cost is $200,000 per crossing or $1,600,000 for all eight (8) crossings. The list of potential crossings from the Trails Master Plan identifies both the benefits and challenges for consideration, with the challenges being significant in some cases, as it involves land acquisition and considerable engineering to implement the crossing. A number of factors and unknowns exist with each location that may affect the practicality of all the potential crossings, which can only be identified through the detailed design stage. Attachments Attachment #1 – Map of Potential Railway Crossings per Trails Master Plan Attachment #2 - Rail Crossing Priorities Attachment #3 – Metrolinx May 13, 2020 Letter Page 67 of 73 September 17, 2020 9 of 9 Report No. CAC20-004 Previous Reports General Committee Report No. IES13-033, dated May 21, 2013; and, Memo to Trails and Active Transportation Committee, dated May 17, 2013. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on September 3, 2020 Approvals Approved by Allan D. Downey, Director of Operations, Operational Services Approved by David Waters, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 68 of 73 YONGE ST HENDERSON DRBATHU BAYVIEWAVEST JOHN'S SDRD E YONGE ST ST JOHN'S SDRD W YONGBAYVIEWAVEBATHURSTSTBLOOMINGTON RD EBLOOMINGTON RD W BLOOMINGTON RD WELLINGTON ST W YONGE STBAYVIEWAVEW BATHURST STBATHURSTSTVANDORF SDRD WELLINGTON ST EYONGE ST INGTON ST W Sheppard's Bush 5 2 3 4 1 7 8 6 Aurora Family Leisure Complex Railway / GO Transit Line Railway /GO Transit LineCousins Drive Grade Separated Crossing BG Properties Underpass (Cattlecrawl) Jack Wood House Open Space At-Grade Crossing Henderson Drive Grade Separated Crossing Smith Property At-Grade Crossing St. Andrews Golf Course Underpass Walton - Industrial Parkway Grade Separated St. John's Sideroad Grade Separated Crossing 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 8 PROPOSED TRAILS RAILWAY CROSSINGS Trails Master Plan - Proposed Trail Proposed Trail Existing Trail Environmental Protection & Open Spaces PROPOSED TRAILS RAILWAY CROSSINGS Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, August 11, 2020. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora.YONGE ST HENDERSON DRHU BAYVIEWAVEASTT JOHN'S SDRD ET YONGE STTSYOD W YONGNGOBAYVIEWAVEBATHURSTSTBATHURSTSTBLOOMINGTONRDEBLOOMINGTON R D E BLOOMINGTON RD WBLOOMINGTON RD WTO BLOOMINGTON RD ON ON ST WOWELLINGTTOWE YONGE STBAYVIEWAVEVEW BATHURRSTSTSTSVANDORF SDRSDRORF SDRDDDRDDRD WELLINGTON ST EEEONGE SYONGE STYNGTON ST WWW ppShepph dSSheheeppppaardrd'd's's BBushussh 5 2 3 4 1 7 8 6 yrora FFFaAAAuAuuroroorara Fa ilFaammiilly LeLLLeeisissuurere pCoCoommppleleex Railway /R way / GO Transit LineOGOe Railway /lRailily /waGO Transit LineTransittGO Tt iTreCousins Drive Grade Separated Crossing BG Properties Underpass (Cattlecrawl) Jack Wood House Open Space At-Grade Crossing Henderson Drive Grade Separated Crossing Smith Property At-Grade Crossing St. Andrews Golf Course Underpass Walton - Industrial Parkway Grade Separated St. John's Sideroad Grade Separated Crossing 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 8 PROPOSED TRAILS RAILWAY CROSSINGS Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, August 11, 2020. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Trails Master Plan - Proposed Trail Proposed Trail Existing Trail Environmental Protection & Open Spaces PROPOSED TRAILS RAILWAY CROSSINGS Attachment Page 69 of 73 Attachment 2 Rail Crossing Priorities Priority Rating Location Benefits Challenges *ConstructionCost Estimate 1 Cousins Drive •Central East/Westcrossing •Access to extensivesystem of trails •Access to sportsamenities atSheppard’s Bush •Underpass needs topass below a doublerail line and two (2)lane road •Engineering andFeasibility Studyrequired •significant unknowncosts •+/- $5,000,000to+/- $8,700,000 2 BG Properties (Cattle Crawl) •Access to YongeStreet and transitfrom west Aurora •Access to schools onwest side of rail •grading works on BGlands by developerallow for futureconnection •trail access •Currently closedunderpass; however,Feasibility andEngineering Studyrequired as to viability •significant unknown costs •+/- $2,850,000 3 Henderson Drive •access to BG lands and future trail, petcemetery access •Close to retail/YongeSt transit •connects BG toHenderson and westside of rail •Close to Cattle Crawl (two (2) crossings inclose proximity) •+/-$2,850,000 4 Jack Woods House Open Space •Access to Hallmark Lands andCommunity Garden,Highland Field •would provideconnection toproposed trail throughJack Woods Parkidentified in TMP. •Community support not favorable for trailthrough Jack WoodsPark (JWP);however, crossingnot necessarilycontingent on JWPtrail but certainlyjustified •+/-$2,850,000 5 Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) - Smith •Southern mostEast/West crossing •connection to two (2)high schools •property acquisitionor easement throughresidential •easement acrossOHT lands •+/-$2,850,000 Page 70 of 73 Priority Rating Location Benefits Challenges *ConstructionCost Estimate Property •easement acrossInfrastructure Ontariolands6 St. Andrews Golf Course •Northern most E/W crossing, onNewmarket border •Currently open creek underpass, however,Feasibility andEngineering Studyrequired as toviability •requirement ofeasement of landand re-development •Newmarket wouldneed to construct trail to connect •+/-$2,850,000 7 Walton Drive •access totrails/Lambert WillsonPark and AuroraFamily LeisureComplex •Requires landassessment andacquisition ofresidential property •Acquisition oreasement acrossindustrial ownedlands •+/-$2,850,000 8 St. John’s Side Road •St. John’s crossingwould qualify forRegional partnership *Currently traffic lights/crosswalks/sidewalks to access of trails on either side of St. John’s •Requires crossing ofboth St Johns andIndustrial Parkway. •Montessori Schoolinvolvement •EP land restrictions •significant unknowncosts due to two (2)crossings •+/- $5,000,000 * Cost estimate (with the exception of Cousins Drive and St. John’s Sideroad) was provided by Metrolinx. All of the crossings will require Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment studies to determine associated costs and viability. Page 71 of 73 97 Front Street West Toronto, ON M5J 1E6 416.874.5900 metrolinx.com June 10, 2020 Office of the President & Chief Executive Officer Phil Verster Phil.Verster@metrolinx.com (416) 202-5908 His Worship Tom Mrakas Office of the Mayor 100 John West Way, Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mayor Mrakas, RE: Cousins Drive Crossing Thank you for your letter dated May 13, 2020 regarding a new crossing at Cousins Drive, which is approximately mile 29.48 on the Newmarket Subdivision. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. As I shared at our meeting at the beginning of this year, we remain committed to collaborating with the Town of Aurora to deliver exceptional transit in the region. As you noted, safety is critical to everything we do. Nothing we plan or do can compromise safety. Our tracks and infrastructure are inspected twice-weekly per Transport Canada regulations for any signs of degradation or trespassing. From our regular inspections, observations and safety reporting, we have not noted any trespass incidents since September 2019 and no near-miss incidents with trains and pedestrians. To stop previous misuse, we installed expanded metal mesh over the chain link fencing from Aurora GO Station all the way down Cousins Drive. The reinforced fence remains in good condition. It has not been breached (see photo). Reinforced Chain Link Fence down Cousins Drive as of June 3, 2020 Attachment 3 Page 72 of 73 2 In addition to the regulatory requirements, we take a risk-based approach to public and passenger safety. We regularly deploy members of our Transit Safety team to monitor this location for trespassing and/or vandalism. They will continue to coordinate with your local law enforcement as needed. However, it is imperative to note that the solution to this challenge is not more fences or more patrols; it lies in a discussion about alternative access possibilities for pedestrians. While our teams are available to continue earlier discussions about safety measures that would need to be in place to explore alternative access, we are not prepared to discuss the reopening of the level crossing. Instead, we would be open to exploring an infrastructure solution that is not at-grade (e.g., a grade-separated overpass or underpass). As we increase service levels along the corridor as a part of our GO Expansion program, we are increasing safety by enhancing the level of warning protection at current grade crossings and exploring options for grade-separated crossings. We are also closing many level crossings where it is pragmatic to do so. To discuss the risk assessment process at the site and to explore the potential for a new grade-separated pedestrian crossing, please contact Rajesh Khetarpal, Director, Stakeholder Relations at Rajesh.Khetarpal@metrolinx.com or 416-202-3806. Again, I look forward to furthering our collaborative efforts. Sincerely, Phil Verster President & CEO cc. Honourable Christine Elliott, MPP (Newmarket-Aurora), Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Michael Parsa, MPP (Aurora-Oak Ridges-Richmond Hill) Page 73 of 73