130 thompson road - milton · thompson road at drew centre municipally known as 130 thompson road...
TRANSCRIPT
GHD | 6705 Millcreek Drive Unit 1 Mississauga Ontario M5N 5M4 Canada | 11116807 | 800 | Report No 5 | December 17, 2018
130 Thompson Road
Traffic Impact Study
Hodero Holdings Ltd.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page i
Executive Summary
GHD was retained by Hodero Holdings Ltd. to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed
mixed-use (residential and commercial) development located on the southwest corner of
Thompson Road at Drew Centre municipally known as 130 Thompson Road South in the Town of
Milton.
This report establishes the existing road network and the subsequent traffic-related impacts on the
adjacent future road network during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. These impacts
are based on projected future background traffic derived for 5 years post build-out in 2025.
Proposed Site Characteristics
The proposed site consists of three buildings with a total of 802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of
commercial retail ground floor area (GFA). Access to Drew Centre is provided via a single full moves
access. There is a total provision of 1,028 on-site surface and underground parking spaces.
New Site Traffic
Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 189 new two-way vehicle
trips during the AM peak hour consisting of 50 inbound and 139 outbound trips. During the PM peak
hour it is expected to generate 272 new two-way vehicle trips consisting of 168 inbound and
104 outbound trips. Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 248
new two-way vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour consisting of 127 inbound and
121 outbound trips.
The distribution of site traffic for each horizon year was based on a review of Transportation
Tomorrow Survey (TTS) 2011 data and existing traffic patterns in the area.
Future Traffic Operations
The overall impact of developing the proposed 130 Thompson Road South site is minor, and will not
adversely impact the operation of intersections along Thompson Road, Main Street, and Drew
Centre. With the signal optimization of the 2025 future condition, identified operational concerns at
the Thompson Road intersections at Drew Centre and at Main Street can largely be mitigated.
GHD has also found the proposed configuration and location of the site access to be acceptable,
with no expected operational or safety concerns for Drew Centre.
An inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is recommended with a storage length of 15 metres.
Parking Appraisal and TDM Measures
The proposed site plan is expected to accommodate pedestrian activity satisfactorily, and the
proposed TDM measures are considered sufficient in meeting the Town’s TDM objectives. The
proposed TDM measures are as follows:
Sidewalk Connectivity
Unbundled Parking
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page ii
Bicycle Parking
Subsidized Transit Passes
Car Share Vehicle
Information Distribution and Community Board
In consideration of the policies within the Town of Milton Official Plan, the growing trend within the
GTA to reduce auto dependency, the site’s proximity to a multitude of transit options, the results of
the undertaken proxy surveys, and the proposed TDM measures, it is our opinion that a site-specific
parking by-law variance for the subject site is appropriate.
We therefore recommend that parking be provided at the following minimum rates:
Resident parking provided at 1.03 space per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.
Residential visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per unit: 201 parking spaces required.
Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA: 25 parking spaces required. These
spaces to be shared with residential visitor parking.
This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 1028 parking spaces.
It is our opinion that the proposed site-specific parking by-law variance to reduce the required
resident parking rate for the subject site is appropriate, in light of the Parking Justification Study and
proposed TDM measures included in this report.
Respectfully submitted,
GHD
William Maria, P. Eng. Adam Mildenberger, B.A., C.Tech.
Transportation Engineer Transportation Planner
Dec 17, 2018
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Retainer and Objective ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Previous Submissions ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Study Team ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Study Background .............................................................................................................. 2
2. Site Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site Environs ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 3
3. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Existing Road Network ....................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Pedestrian Routes ............................................................................................................. 4
3.3 Cycling Routes ................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Transit Services ................................................................................................................. 5
3.5 Existing Traffic Data ........................................................................................................... 6
4. Future Background Traffic ............................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Study Horizon Year ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Study Area Transportation Network Improvements ........................................................... 8
4.3 Future Background Developments .................................................................................... 8
4.4 Future Background Growth ................................................................................................ 8
4.5 Background Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 9
5. Site Generated Traffic ................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Site Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................. 13
6. Future Total Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 17
7. Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................... 19
7.2 Thompson Road South at Drew Centre ........................................................................... 20
7.3 Thompson Road at Main Street ....................................................................................... 21
7.4 Main Street at Drew Centre ............................................................................................. 22
7.5 Drew Centre at Southern GO Station Access.................................................................. 23
7.6 Drew Centre at West Site Access .................................................................................... 24
7.7 Drew Centre at East Site Access ..................................................................................... 25
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page ii
7.8 Drew Centre at Northern GO Station Access .................................................................. 26
7.9 Thompson Road at Derry Road ....................................................................................... 26
7.10 Remaining Commercial Accesses ................................................................................... 28
8. Traffic Warrants .......................................................................................................................... 30
8.1 Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access ............................................................ 30
9. Parking Appraisal ....................................................................................................................... 31
9.1 Unit Breakdown ................................................................................................................ 31
9.2 Proposed Site Parking Rates ........................................................................................... 31
9.3 Existing Town of Milton By-Law ....................................................................................... 32
9.4 Transit service .................................................................................................................. 32
9.5 Proxy Surveys .................................................................................................................. 32
9.6 Parking Generation Manual ............................................................................................. 33
9.7 Other Municipal By-Laws ................................................................................................. 34
9.8 Travel Demand Management (TDM) ............................................................................... 34
9.8.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 34 9.8.2 Travel Demand Management ......................................................................... 34 9.8.3 TDM Opportunities Identification .................................................................... 35 9.8.4 Proposed TDM Measures ............................................................................... 38
9.9 Implementation and Monitoring Costs ............................................................................. 39
9.10 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 39
10. Functional Design ....................................................................................................................... 40
11. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 40
Figure Index
Figure 1 Site Location ...................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Planned Cycling Facilities .................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 2018 Existing Volumes ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 2025 Corridor Growth ........................................................................................................ 9
Figure 6 2025 Future Background Volumes .................................................................................. 10
Figure 7 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8 Site Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9 Site Trips .......................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10 Existing Subject Property Site Trips ................................................................................ 18
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page iii
Figure 11 2025 Future Total Traffic ................................................................................................. 19
Figure 12 Analyzed Commercial Accesses ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 13 Travel Demand Management Plan .................................................................................. 37
Table Index
Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 12
Table 2 Saturday Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 13
Table 3 Site Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 4 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road South & Drew Centre ........................................ 21
Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street .................................................... 22
Table 6 Capacity Analysis for Drew Centre/Commercial Access & Main Street .......................... 24
Table 7 Capacity Analysis Drew Centre & GO Entrance/Commercial Access 3 ......................... 25
Table 8 Capacity Analysis of West Site Access/Commercial Access 1 & Drew Centre .............. 26
Table 9 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & East Site Access ................................................... 27
Table 10 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & Northern GO Centre Access ................................. 27
Table 11 Capacity Analysis at Thompson Road & Derry Road ..................................................... 28
Table 12 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 2 ........................................... 30
Table 13 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 4 ........................................... 30
Table 14 Capacity Analysis of Commercial Access 5 at Main Street ............................................. 30
Table 15 Capacity Analysis of Thompson Road at Commercial Access 6 .................................... 31
Table 16 Warrant Results ............................................................................................................... 31
Appendix Index
Appendix A Comments
Appendix B Traffic Data
Appendix C Background Developments
Appendix D Proxy Site Trip Generation
Appendix E TTS Data
Appendix F Transit Schedule
Appendix G Signal Timings Plan
Appendix H Synchro Reports
Appendix I Warrants
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page iv
Appendix J Parking Data
Appendix K TDM Checklist
Appendix L Functional Design
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Retainer and Objective
GHD was retained to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Parking Assessment for the proposed
mixed-use development located at 130 Thompson Road South to determine the following:
Establish baseline traffic conditions for the study area and update the existing traffic conditions
to derive the future background operating conditions for the study intersections at a future 2025
(5 year post build-out) planning horizon.
Based on the residential and commercial composition of the site, apply the estimated traffic
generation and distribution of the development to the adjacent road network, and determine the
future impacts in the context of all local transportation modes.
Review the site plan in the context of operational/geometric issues, and provide
recommendations on how to address any deficiencies (if any are revealed).
Suggest TDM measures to support active transportation and transit use to reduce the number of
auto trips to/from the proposed development.
Evaluate the proposed parking supply in the context of the Town’s minimum parking requirement
for the site and evaluate the rationale for a proposed site-specific parking standard, if required.
1.2 Previous Submissions
Previous submissions of this TIS based on received comments from the Town and other peer review
agencies is described herein:
GHD submitted an initial TIS report dated December 2016, and had received comments from the
Town of Milton dated April 2017, and a peer review report from WSP dated July 2017.
In response, GHD submitted a second TIS report dated September 2017, and had received
comments from the Town dated November 2017, and peer review reports from WSP dated
November 2017 and LEA Consulting dated October 2017.
GHD submitted a third submission dated May 2018, and had received comments from the Town
dated July 2018, and a peer review letter from LEA Consulting dated July 2018.
GHD submitted a Third Submission Comment Response Matrix, dated August 2018, in response
to the received Town comments, and Response to Comments Letter, dated September 2018, in
response to the received peer review letter from LEA Consulting.
GHD submitted a fourth submission dated September 2018, and had received comments from
the Town (in an email) dated November 28, 2018, requesting the TIS report be updated using
LEA’s residential proxy trip generation data found in the peer review letter from LEA Consulting
dated July 2018.
This fifth TIS submission represents the latest revision in response to all comments received.
The received comments, as well as response documents prepared by GHD, are provided in
Appendix A.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 2
1.3 Study Team
The GHD team involved in the preparation of the study are:
William Maria, P. Eng., Transportation Engineer
Adam Mildenberger, C.Tech., B.A., Transportation Planner
1.4 Study Background
The proposed development consists of three residential condominium towers with a total of
802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of commercial retail ground floor area (GFA). The development
proposal would replace an existing trucking company on the site. Access to the development is
proposed from Drew Centre west of Thompson Road.
GHD has consulted with Town of Milton staff to discuss the assumptions and scope of this study.
We have also referenced the Town’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines to determine the most
reasonable terms of reference for the study.
The site is located in the southwest corner of the Thompson Road South and Drew Centre
intersection in the Town of Milton, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Site Location
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 3
2. Site Characteristics
2.1 Site Environs
The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the Thompson Road and Drew Centre
intersection in the Town of Milton, and is situated within close proximity to a variety of land uses
readily accessible to pedestrians, including but not limited to:
Milton GO Station approximately 200 m to the west via Drew Centre.
Milton Common commercial centre on the immediate north side of Drew Centre, which includes
a variety of commercial, retail, and restaurant establishments.
The Real Canadian Superstore, also on the immediate north side of Drew Centre.
Milton Public Library, Milton Memorial Arena and Lions Sports Park on the east side of
Thompson Road South.
A variety of commercial plazas on the north side of Main Street.
The subject site’s location provides access to the arterial roadway network and exposes future
residents to frequent transit service.
2.2 Study Area
Based on input from the Town, the study area includes the following intersections:
Thompson Road at Drew Centre.
Thompson Road at Main Street.
Thompson Road at Derry Road.
Main Street at Drew Centre opposite the commercial plaza access.
Drew Centre at the GO Station access opposite the existing commercial access.
Drew Centre at the proposed site access opposite the existing commercial access.
The remaining five accesses for the commercial property opposite the subject site.
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Road Network
Thompson Road is a north-south arterial road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton. The road
has an existing four-lane urban cross section with a posted speed limit of 60 kph. Thompson Road is
signalized at Drew Centre and Main Street with auxiliary left-turn lanes only.
Main Street is an east-west arterial road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton. The road has
an existing four-lane urban cross section with a posted speed limit of 60 kph. Main Street is
signalized at Thompson Road and Drew Centre with auxiliary left-turn lanes and an auxiliary
right-turn lane for the west approach at Drew Centre.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 4
Drew Centre is a collector road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton with a north-south
orientation immediately south of Main Street and an east-west orientation immediately west of
Thompson Road. The road generally has an existing four-lane urban cross section in its north-south
orientation with a variety of auxiliary, shared, and GO Bus only turning lanes at its access
intersections, and generally has an existing two-lane urban cross-section in its east-west orientation
with auxiliary left-turn lanes at Thompson Road and the Real Canadian Superstore access. It has a
posted speed limit of 50 kph and is signalized at Main Street, the GO Bus access, and Thompson
Road.
3.2 Pedestrian Routes
All municipal roads within the study area include sidewalks and/or multi-use paths on both sides of
the road. Multi-use paths are provided at the following locations:
The east side of Thompson Road from Drew Centre to north of Main Street.
The west side of Thompson Road north of Main Street.
The north side of Main Street east of Thompson Road.
The south side of Main Street from east of Thompson Road to Drew Centre.
The east side of Drew Centre from Main Street to the GO Bus Access.
The west side of Drew Centre, which transitions to the south side of Drew Centre, from the
GO Bus Access to Thompson Road.
The north side of Drew Centre east of Thompson Road.
Sidewalks are provided in the remaining gaps in the multi-use path network within the study area
road network.
Designated pedestrian crosswalks across the study area roads to the Trinity Commons Centre are
provided at signalized intersections only.
3.3 Cycling Routes
Multi-use pathways are provided in close proximity to the subject site. Section 3.2 outlines the
locations of existing multi-use paths.
As per the Town’s Transportation Master Plan, approved April 9, 2018, the following cycling facilities
within the immediate study area are proposed:
Multi-use trail parallel to the rail corridor south of the site (long-term 2031 and beyond).
On-road bike lanes along Main Street (long-term 2031 and beyond).
These planned cycling facilities found within the Transportation Master Plan are illustrated in
Figure 2.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 5
Figure 2 Planned Cycling Facilities
3.4 Transit Services
Milton Transit
All of Milton’s ten transit routes (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the new Glen Eden Slopes Express)
operate within close proximity to the site with bus stops for each route provided on Drew Centre. The
bus stops are located on street frontage for eastbound routes, and across the street of the proposed
site for westbound routes.
GO Transit
In addition to providing connections to all of Milton’s transit routes, the Milton GO Station also
provides GO Rail and GO Bus services. GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consists of the
Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar,
Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale, Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services includes
Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well
as numerous stops in the north Toronto area.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 6
Figure 3 illustrates existing transit services provided in the study area.
Figure 3 Existing Transit Services
3.5 Existing Traffic Data
GHD collected turning movement counts in late November and early December 2016, and
subsequently in December 2017 for additional intersections added to the study area, during the
weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours.
Additionally, Halton Region provided weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic data for the intersection
of Derry Road at Thompson Road, dated April 2017, which has been included in the study at the
request of the Region. While a Saturday peak hour analysis period was undertaken at the request of
the Town for study area intersections adjacent to the site due to the proximity to the adjacent Milton
Common commercial centre, analysis of the Saturday peak hour was not completed for the
intersection of Derry Road at Thompson Road due to its location in a primarily residential area
approximately 1.5 km from Milton Common commercial centre.
The raw turning movement counts are included in Appendix B.
As requested by the Town, counts collected in 2017 were adopted for the study’s 2018 existing
conditions, and any remaining counts collected in 2016 had through movements grown by 2 percent
annually.
Figure 4 presents the adopted 2018 existing traffic volumes during each of the peak hours.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 7
Figure 4 2018 Existing Volumes
{7}
{0}
{8}
{176}
{704}
{53}
(0)
(0)
(0)
1 (0) {8}
(150)
(727)
(59)
57 (41) {45}
0 0 0 433 (613) {566} 96
338
113
320 (387) {360}
39 (141) {127} 530 (705) {707}
243 (336) {297}
{7} (0) 0
{655} (737) 600 {322} (310) 138
{679} (758) 572 100
0 31 {114} (93) 66 106
{437} (500) 480 124
524
300
{273} (229) 124
(425)
(3)
(117)
(234)
{137} (171) 71
(191)
(551)
(169)
{298}
{2}
{61}
{238}
{168}
{707}
{221}
{365}
(356)
173
39 (204) {292}
77
16
(177)
(26)
{165}
{5}
{2}
{363}
{277}
{860}
(7)
(349)
(243)
(992)
43
130
84
567
{4} (150) 35 {232} (199) 78
{5} (223) 34 227
58
1174
(29)
(53)
(943)
{11}
{166}
{1136}
{9}
{56}
{318}
(13)
(323)
(313)
49 (147) {107}
17
73
41
0 (0) {0}
3 (13) {8}
9
295
9
(20)
(67)
(4)
{5}
{46}
{2}
{12}
{75}
{19}
{0}
{202}
{14}
{1046}
{22}
(11)
(99)
(14)
(0)
(140)
130 (259) {340}
(16)
(1147)
(13)
0 (5) {13}
5 83
115 (87) {65} 6 0 20
446 (242) {134} 494 (385) {421} 8
564
4 27 (23) {21}
250 (67) {42}
3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {2}
149 (72) {85}
{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7
{294} (474) 212 {26} (25) 31
{63} (263) 99 {98} (362) 172 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {8} (6) 13 343
1177
109
{0} (0) 1 (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(13)
{252} (436) 176
(351)
(914)
(39)
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{7}
{377}
{1047}
{67}
(286)
(637)
(203)
171 (241)
224
365
149
428 (829)
82 (237)
(259) 287
(511) 1005 112
505
152
(150) 120
(159)
(469)
(76)
Thompson
Road
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site Property
De
rry
Ro
ad
PlazaThompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 8
4. Future Background Traffic
4.1 Study Horizon Year
In addition to analyzing 2018 existing conditions, the analyses adopted a planning horizon of 2025
for five years post build-out as requested by the Town.
4.2 Study Area Transportation Network Improvements
There are no network road improvements planned within the study area that will have an effect on
area traffic within the 2025 horizon year.
4.3 Future Background Developments
Through discussions with the Town, the following background developments were included in the
future conditions analysis, with supporting trip data provided in Appendix C:
The proposed 12-storey condominium development consisting of 224 residential units and
approximately 1,835 m2 of commercial GFA at 1050 Main Street East. Trip generation
calculations and associated turning moving diagrams (TMDs) are appended.
The proposed 128 unit residential condominium development located at 15 Harris Boulevard, as
per the TIS report completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions dated October 2016.
The proposed 116 unit residential condominium development located at 716 Main Street East,
as per the TIS report completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions dated August 2013.
The future GO Station Parking Structure at the Milton GO Station as per traffic data and a
supporting concept plan received from WSP in April 2018. In reviewing the appended Milton GO
TMDs, it is important to note that the future Milton GO site trips are calculated as follows:
Figure 3.4 + Figure 3.5 + Figure 4.2 – Figure 4.4 + Figure 5.2. Additionally, with respect to
WSP’s appended Figure 4.2 for existing GO site trips, GO site trips accounted for in the GHD
undertaken intersection counts on Drew Centre were assumed instead, with WSP estimates for
the GO site’s north access on Main Street adopted.
4.4 Future Background Growth
As requested by Town staff, a 2 percent per annum growth rate was applied to all through
movements of the 2018 existing traffic volumes in forecasting for corridor growth to 2025 horizon
year. The 2025 future background corridor is presented in Figure 5.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 9
Figure 5 2025 Corridor Growth
4.5 Background Traffic Volumes
The forecasted 2025 corridor growth was combined with the future background development traffic
volumes to produce the 2025 background AM, PM and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, which
are presented in Figure 6.
{7}
{0}
{8}
{176}
{809}
{53}
(0)
(0)
(0)
1 (0) {8}
(150)
(835)
(59)
57 (41) {45}
0 0 0 497 (704) {650} 96
388
113
368 (445) {414}
39 (141) {127} 609 (810) {812}
243 (336) {297}
{7} (0) 0
{752} (847) 689 {322} (310) 138
{780} (871) 657 100
0 31 {114} (93) 66 106
{502} (574) 551 124
602
300
{273} (229) 124
(425)
(3)
(117)
(234)
{137} (171) 71
(191)
(633)
(169)
{298}
{2}
{61}
{238}
{168}
{812}
{221}
{419}
(409)
199
39 (204) {292}
88
16
(203)
(26)
{190}
{5}
{2}
{417}
{277}
{988}
(7)
(401)
(243)
(1139)
43
149
84
651
{4} (150) 35 {232} (199) 78
{5} (223) 34 227
67
1349
(29)
(61)
(1083)
{11}
{191}
{1305}
{9}
{64}
{318}
(13)
(371)
(313)
49 (147) {107}
17
84
41
0 (0) {0}
3 (13) {8}
9
339
9
(20)
(77)
(4)
{5}
{53}
{2}
{12}
{75}
{19}
{0}
{202}
{14}
{1202}
{22}
(11)
(99)
(14)
(0)
(140)
130 (259) {340}
(16)
(1318)
(13)
0 (5) {13}
5 83
115 (87) {65} 6 0 20
512 (278) {154} 567 (442) {484} 8
648
4 31 (26) {24}
287 (77) {48}
3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {0}
149 (72) {85}
{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7
{338} (544) 244 {26} (25) 31
{72} (302) 114 {113} (416) 198 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {9} (7) 15 343
1352
109
{0} (0) 1 (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(13)
{252} (436) 176
(351)
(1050)
(39)
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{7}
{377}
{1203}
{67}
(286)
(732)
(203)
171 (241)
224
419
149
492 (952)
82 (237)
(259) 287
(587) 1154 112
580
152
(150) 120
(159)
(539)
(76)
Thompson
Road
PlazaThompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site Property
Derr
y R
oad
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 10
Figure 6 2025 Future Background Volumes
{7}
{0}
{8}
{176}
{809}
{57}
(0)
(0)
(0)
1 (0) {8}
(155)
(831)
(67)
62 (43) {47}
0 0 0 529 (723) {664} 108
391
116
417 (461) {428}
69 (145) {127} 667 (834) {826}
269 (350) {310}
{7} (0) 0
{778} (933) 697 {322} (329) 161
{806} (884) 637 100
0 75 {114} (93) 66 106
{528} (644) 574 125
603
305
{273} (229) 113
(317)
(3)
(190)
(234)
{137} (168) 49
(194)
(735)
(225)
{298}
{2}
{61}
{238}
{168}
{812}
{233}
{419}
(414)
219
39 (204) {292}
132
16
(168)
(26)
{190}
{5}
{2}
{417}
{277}
{1001}
(0)
(413)
(243)
(1163)
35
177
84
658
{4} (91) 9 {232} (199) 78
{5} (84) 0 0
137
1356
(0)
(85)
(1244)
{11}
{191}
{1317}
{9}
{64}
{318}
(25)
(232)
(313)
49 (147) {107}
45
50
41
0 (0) {0}
3 (13) {8}
{0} (41) 82
{0} (0) 0 9
100
9
{0} (150) 10
(19)
(31)
(4)
{5}
{53}
{2}
{12}
{75}
{19}
{0}
{202}
{14}
{1215}
{22}
(11)
(99)
(14)
(0)
(140)
130 (259) {340}
(16)
(1342)
(13)
0 (5) {13}
5 83
115 (87) {65} 6 0 20
285 (248) {154} 340 (412) {484} 8
655
4 31 (26) {24}
60 (47) {48}
3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {0}
149 (72) {85}
{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7
{338} (539) 212 {26} (82) 34
{72} (297) 82 {113} (411) 166 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {9} (7) 15 116
1356
109
{0} (0) 1 (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(13)
{252} (374) 141
(321)
(1154)
(39)
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{7}
{377}
{1215}
{67}
(341)
(858)
(243)
151 (243)
216
407
145
492 (952)
82 (237)
(263) 256
(587) 1154 112
530
152
(150) 120
(159)
(548)
(76)
Thompson
Road
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site Property
De
rry
Ro
ad
PlazaThompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 11
5. Site Generated Traffic
5.1 Site Plan
The proposed site plan prepared by KNYMH, dated April 18, 2017, consists of three residential
towers with a total of 802 dwelling units and 990 m2 of commercial retail ground floor area (GFA).
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 7.
Access to Drew Centre is provided via a single full moves access located on the west side of the
property opposite an existing commercial access to the north. The site’s internal network will consist
of a three-storey parking structure with two levels of underground parking. The parking structure will
be connected to all three towers. The site driveway provides one garbage loading space, and
access to above ground, surface, and underground parking.
There is a total provision of 1028 on-site surface and underground parking spaces.
Figure 7 Site Plan
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 12
5.2 Site Trip Generation
As requested by Town staff, residential site traffic generated by the proposed development for the
weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours was estimated by applying calculated trip generation
rates based on residential trip generation data collected by LEA Consulting Ltd. at 70 Old Mill Road
located adjacent to the Oakville GO Station. The collected proxy data is appended to the Trip
Generation Peer Review letter by LEA Consulting Ltd., dated October 15, 2018, found in Appendix
A.
Furthermore, as requested by Town staff, commercial site traffic generated by the proposed
development was based on data collected by Paradigm Transportation Solutions at 5327 Upper
Middle Road in the City of Burlington, both of which have been approved by the Town. The trip
generation is provided in Appendix D.
Further trip reduction factors were not applied to the trip generation data, as per the following:
No modal split reduction was applied as the collected trip generation data already captures the
trip reducing impacts of being situated next to a GO station.
No pass-by or synergy reductions were applied to the commercial portion of the site as the GFA
at only 990 m2 is expected to result in a negligible volume of pass-by trips and internally
captured trips.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the estimated total trip generation for build-out of the development.
Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation
Land Use Units/GFA ft2 Parameters Peak Hour Trip Generation
Weekday AM Weekday PM
In Out Total In Out Total
Residential 802 Trip Rate 0.06 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.32
Trip Ratio 27% 73% - 63% 37% -
New Trips 49 137 184 161 67 257
Commercial 10,656 Trip Rate 0.095 0.155 0.250 0.620 0.620 1.240
Trip Ratio 38% 62% - 50% 50% -
New Trips 1 2 3 7 7 14
Total New Vehicle Trips 50 139 189 168 104 272
Totals in the table may not add up exactly due to rounding
Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 189 new two-way vehicle
trips during the AM peak hour consisting of 50 inbound and 139 outbound trips. During the PM peak
hour it is expected to generate 272 new two-way vehicle trips consisting of 168 inbound and
104 outbound trips.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 13
Table 2 Saturday Trip Generation
Land Use Code Units/GFA ft2 Parameters Peak Hour Trip Generation
Saturday
In Out Total
Residential 802 Trip Rate 0.15 0.14 0.29
Trip Ratio 52% 48%
New Trips 121 113 233
Commercial 10,656 Trip Rate 0.521 0.719 1.240
Trip Ratio 42% 58%
New Trips 6 8 14
Total New Vehicle Trips 127 121 248
Totals in the table may not add up exactly due to rounding
Build-out of the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 248 new two-way vehicle
trips during the Saturday peak hour consisting of 127 inbound and 121 outbound trips.
5.3 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment
The distribution of site traffic was derived after reviewing the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey
(TTS) summary data for the Town of Milton, provided in Appendix E. The estimated trip distribution
percentages are presented in Table 3, with the expected trip routes between Drew Centre and the
external limits of the study area described.
Prior to applying these trip distribution assumptions to the peak hour inbound and outbound site
trips, a total of 20 site trips during each peak hour were first distributed to the commercial property
opposite the subject site. Therefore, 10 inbound and 10 outbound trips were assigned to the
southbound and northbound movements, respectively, at the intersection of the site access on
Drew Centre opposite the commercial access. This approach is considered conservative as it is
expected the vast majority of site trips travelling between the subject site and the opposite
commercial property will be pedestrians, and assigning traffic volumes to these movements
particularly will have a comparatively greater impact on the intersection capacity analysis. The
remaining site trips during each peak hour were then assigned to the remaining turning movements
within the study area network based on the trip distribution assumptions described herein.
Table 3 Site Trip Distribution
To/From Road Distribution Inbound Route Outbound Route
South Thompson Road 50% Northbound left-turn from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.
Eastbound right-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road.
North Thompson Road 15% Southbound right-turn from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.
Eastbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road.
East Main Street 25% 50% westbound left-turn from Main Street onto Thompson Road, southbound right-turn
Eastbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Thompson Road, northbound right-turn from
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 14
Table 3 Site Trip Distribution
To/From Road Distribution Inbound Route Outbound Route
from Thompson Road onto Drew Centre.
Thompson Road onto Main Street.
50% westbound left-turn from Main Street onto Drew Centre.
West Main Street 10% Eastbound right-turn from Main Street onto Drew Centre.
Northbound left-turn from Drew Centre onto Main Street.
Total 100%
The adopted site trip assignment is presented in Figure 8, with the resulting site trips presented in
Figure 9.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 15
Figure 8 Site Trip Assignment
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
14%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
12%
0% 10% 12% 12%
10% 12% 12% 10% 12% 12% 10% 12% 11%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 9%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
14%
23%
9% 10% 8% 9%
0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
13%
23%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
23%
21%
21%
18%
0% 0% 0%
9%
0%
9%
0%
9%
0%
0%
21%
0%
25%
0%
21%
0%
26%
0%
18%
0%
22%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
9%
37%
0%
9%
37%
0%
9%
37%
0%
21%
0%
0%
21%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
18%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0% 0% 0% 0%
26%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
20%
0% 0% 0% 0% 62% 73% 72%
22%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
9% 9% 9% 62% 73% 72% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83% 82% 83% 37% 37% 37%
21% 21% 18% 0% 0% 0% 9%
7%
83%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
40%
0%
0%
21% 21% 18% 9%
10%
82%
46% 45% 47%
47%
0%
0%
9%
8%
83%
46%
0%
0%
11%
26%
8% 8% 32%
14%
23%
9% 0% 0%
0% 0%
47% 12%
0% 0% 0%
20%
0%
0% 0% 0%
79%
0%
Thompson
Road
Plaza Thompson Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial Centre
GO
Centre
GO
Centre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site Property
Derr
y R
oad
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 16
Figure 9 Site Trips
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{18}
{0}
(0)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0} (0)
(24)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 6 0 5 (20) {15}
5 (20) {15} 5 (20) {15}
5 (20) {14}
{0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 13 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 19
32
{12} (16) 4 (9)
(0)
(0)
(0)
{0} (0) 0 (0)
(14)
(24)
{11}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{17}
{28}
{27}
(36)
9
0 (0) {0}
13 0
(9)
(0)
{11}
{0}
{0}
{27}
{0}
{32}
(0)
(36)
(0)
(44)
0 9 0 11
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 0 13
51
(0)
(9)
(38)
{0}
{11}
{45}
{0}
{27}
{0}
(0)
(36)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 9 0 0 (0) {0}
0 (0) {0}
0 13 0
(0)
(9)
(0)
{0}
{11}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{10}
{0}
{32}
{0}
{0}
(0)
(0)
(0)
(10)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
(44)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 10 0 0 (0) {0} 31 (123) {91} 11 0 0 0 (0) {0}
13 (9) {11}
31 (123) {91} 0 (0) {0}
0 (0) {0}
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{101} (85) 116 {45} (38) 51
{27} (36) 9 {0} (0) 0 13
10
116
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 20 0 0
{27} (36) 9 (9)
(10)
(85)
{56} (47) 65
(79)
(0)
(0)
{11}
{10}
{101}
{59}
{0}
{0}
(12)
(27)
(8)
4 (16)
20
33
13
0 (0)
0 (0)
(24) 6
(0) 0 0 10 0
(0) 0 (0)
(40)
(0)
Thompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
Plaza
Thompson
Road
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site PropertyD
err
y R
oad
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 17
6. Future Total Traffic
The 2025 future total traffic was derived by combining the projected 2025 future background traffic
with the corresponding estimate of the total site generated traffic, minus any site trips currently being
generated by the existing subject property. The peak hour site trips generated by the existing subject
property are presented in Figure 10, and the adopted 2025 future total traffic volumes for the study
area are presented in Figure 11.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 18
Figure 10 Existing Subject Property Site Trips
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{0}
(0)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0} (0)
(1)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 3 0 0 (0) {0}
0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0}
2 (1) {0}
{0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 4 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 {0} (0) 0 0 14
13
{0} (0) 2 (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
{0} (0) 0 (0)
(4)
(3)
{1}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{2}
{2}
{0}
(0)
2
0 (0) {0}
4 0
(0)
(0)
{1}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
0 2 0 5
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 0 0 4 27
(0)
(0)
(7)
{0}
{1}
{4}
{0}
{0}
{0}
(0)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 2 0 0 (0) {0}
0 (0) {0}
0 4 0
(0)
(0)
(0)
{0}
{1}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{0}
{0}
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0} (2)
(0)
(0)
0 (0) {0}
0 0 0 (0) {0} 0 0 0 3 (0) {1} 3 (0) {0} 5 0 0 0 (0) {0}
4 (0) {1}
3 (0) {0} 7 (4) {2}
0 (0) {0}
{0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0
{0} (0) 17 {4} (7) 27
{0} (0) 2 {0} (0) 1 1 6 17 {0} (0) 1 3 36 {0} (0) 0 5 0 0
{0} (0) 1 (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(13)
{4} (7) 27 (2)
(0)
(0)
{0}
{0}
{0}
{1}
{7}
{1}
{0}
{0}
(2)
(4)
(1)
1 (0)
8 14 5 0 (0)
0 (0)
(1) 2
(0) 0 0 3 0
(0) 0 (0)
(1)
(0)
Thompson
Road
PlazaThompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site Property
Derr
y R
oad
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 19
Figure 11 2025 Future Total Traffic
{7}
{0}
{8}
{176}
{826}
{57}
(0)
(0)
(0)
1 (0) {8}
(15
5)
(85
4)
(67
)
62 (43) {47}
0 0 0 529 (723) {664} 108
394
116
422 (481) {443}
74 (165) {142} 672 (854) {841}
272 (369) {324}
{7} (0) 0
{778} (933) 697 {322} (329) 161
{806} (884) 637 109
0 75 {114} (93) 66 1
06
{528} (644) 574 125
608
324
{285} (245) 115
(32
6)
(3)
(19
0)
(23
4)
{137} (168) 49
(19
4)
(74
5)
(24
6)
{308}
{2}
{61}
{238}
{168}
{827}
{259}
{446}
(45
0)
226
39 (204) {292}
141
16
(17
7)
(26
)
{200}
{5}
{2}
{444}
{277}
{1032}
(0)
(44
9)
(24
3)
(12
05
)
35
184
84
664
{4} (91) 9 {232} (199) 78
{5} (84) 0 0
146
1380
(0)
(94
)
(12
75
)
{11}
{201}
{1358}
{9}
{91}
{318}
(25
)
(26
8)
(31
3)
49 (147) {107}
45
57
41
0 (0) {0}
3 (13) {8}
{0} (41) 82
{0} (0) 0 9
109
9
{0} (150) 10
(19
)
(40
)
(4)
{5}
{63}
{2}
{12}
{75}
{19}
{10}
{202}
{45}
{1215}
{22}
(11
)
(99
)
(14
)
(10
)
(14
0)
130 (259) {340}
(58
)
(13
42
)
(13
)
0 (5) {13}
5 83
115 (87) {65} 6 10
20
282 (248) {153} 14
655
4 31 (26) {24}
69 (56) {58}
31 (123) {91}
149 (72) {85}
{1} (5) 9 {22} (25) 7
{67} (113) 58
{99} (333) 89 {113} (411) 165 13
10
116
{9} (7) 15 131
1356
109
{27} (36) 9 (9)
(10
)
(85
)
{304} (414) 179
(39
8)
(11
54
)
(39
)
{11}
{10}
{101}
{435}
{1215}
{67}
(35
1)
(88
1)
(25
0)
154 (259)
228
426
152
492 (952)
82 (237)
(286) 261
(587) 1154 112
538
152
(150) 120
(15
9)
(58
7)
(76
)
Thompson
Road
Main
Street
Main
Street
Commercial CentreGO
Centre
GO
Centre
Plaza
Thompson
Road
Dre
w C
en
tre
Dre
w C
en
tre
Drew Centre
Site PropertyD
err
y R
oad
LEGEND
XX(XX){XX}
AM Peak Hour VolumesPM Peak Hour VolumesSAT Peak Hour Volumes
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 20
7. Capacity Analysis
7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis
The capacity analysis identifies how well the intersections and driveways are operating. The analysis
contained within this report utilized the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 techniques within the
Synchro Version 9 Software package. The reported intersection volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c) are a
measure of the saturation volume for each turning movement, while the levels-of-service (LOS) are
a measure of the average delay for each turning movement. Queuing characteristics are reported as
the predicted 95th percentile queue for each turning movement.
In accordance with the Town of Milton’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, the analysis
includes identification for all v/c ratios, LOS indicators and 95th percentile queue lengths for all
movements at all study intersections. Critical intersections and movements shall be highlighted (in
bold). ‘Critical’ intersections and movements include:
V/c ratios for overall intersections, through movements, or shared through/turning movements
increases to 0.85 or above.
V/c ratios for exclusive turning movements increases to 0.95 or above.
Queues for an individual movement are projected to exceed available turning lane storage.
As requested by Town staff, the following input parameters were applied:
Bus blockages were considered for right-turning movements that could be expected to be
blocked by a near side transit stop as per HCM methodology. A review of transit stops in the
study area found that the existing GO Bus stop on the south side of Drew Centre immediately
west of Thompson Road South is the only stop that could fully block a right-turning movement if
a transit vehicle were present. A review of schedule information for the applicable routes
utilizing the stop (#20, #21, #27) during peak hours, provided in Appendix F, found that bus
blockages could be expected to occur 5, 3, and 2 times per hour during the weekday AM,
weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, respectively.
A peak hour factor (PHF) of 1.00 was applied to all movements.
Heavy vehicle percentages were calculated based on existing count data and applied
accordingly.
As per Table D.2 of the Town’s TIS Guidelines, lost time adjustment were applied in order to
result in lost times of 1.0 seconds for advanced green left-turn phases and 5.0 seconds for main
phases.
The current signal timing plans were applied to the existing and future traffic conditions, unless
otherwise noted. The detailed Synchro reports are provided in Appendix G.
The following tables summarize the HCM capacity results for the study intersections during the
weekday and Saturday peak hours under 2018 existing, 2025 future background, and 2025 future
total traffic conditions. The HCM, Synchro, and Timings reports are provided in Appendix H.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 21
7.2 Thompson Road South at Drew Centre
Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are summarized
in Table 4 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
Table 4 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road South & Drew Centre
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: 0.61 (B) 16 sec
EBL: 0.12 (C) 11m
EBTR: 0.16 (C) 17m
WBL: 0.71 (D) 41m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.50 (A) 35m
NBTR: 0.59 (B) 108m
SBL: 0.01 (B) < 1 veh
SBTR: 0.32 (B) 60m
Overall: 0.76 (C) 24 sec
EBL: 0.08 (C) 10m
EBTR: 0.76 (D) 78m
WBL: 0.95 (F) 38m
WBTR: 0.06 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.83 (C) 89m
NBTR: 0.44 (B) 79m
SBL: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.67 (B) 74m
Overall: 0.63 (B) 15 sec
EBL: 0.10 (C) 10m
EBTR: 0.27 (C) 24m
WBL: 0.72 (D) 28m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.71 (B) 80m
NBTR: 0.49 (A) 87m
SBL: 0.06 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.59 (B) 55m
Future Background
2025
Overall: 0.63 (B) 16 sec
EBL: 0.14 (C) 12m
EBTR: 0.14 (C) 16m
WBL: 0.66 (D) 40m
WBTR: 0.08 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.20 (A) 12m
NBTR: 0.66 (B) 134m
SBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.33 (B) 64m
Overall: 0.79 (C) 22 sec
EBL: 0.29 (C) 24m
EBTR: 0.70 (D) 62m
WBL: 0.95 (F) 35m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.78 (C) 92m
NBTR: 0.52 (B) 108m
SBL: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.75 (B) 81m
Overall: 0.72 (B) 17 sec
EBL: 0.10 (C) 10m
EBTR: 0.33 (C) 28m
WBL: 0.72 (D) 28m
WBTR: 0.08 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.72 (C) 106m
NBTR: 0.56 (B) 106m
SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.74 (B) 60m
Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.65 (B) 16 sec
EBL: 0.22 (C) 17m
EBTR: 0.17 (C) 17m
WBL: 0.72 (D) 42m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.22 (A) 14m
NBTR: 0.67 (B) 134m
SBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.34 (B) 65m
Overall: 0.88 (C) 26 sec
EBL: 0.36 (C) 31m
EBTR: 0.76 (D) 74m
WBL: 0.95 (F) 37m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.85 (D) 130m
NBTR: 0.54 (B) 108m
SBL: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.89 (C) 82m
Overall: 0.81 (C) 21 sec
EBL: 0.24 (C) 19m
EBTR: 0.47 (C) 39m
WBL: 0.86 (F) 35m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.86 (D) 141m
NBTR: 0.58 (B) 111m
SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.79 (B) 61m
Future Total 2025
Optimized Timings
N/A
Overall: 0.88 (C) 26 sec
EBL: 0.36 (C) 32m
EBTR: 0.76 (D) 76m
WBL: 0.95 (F) 38m
WBTR: 0.06 (C) 11m
NBL: 0.88 (D) 129m
NBTR: 0.54 (B) 105m
SBL: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.88 (C) 108m
Overall: 0.81 (C) 21 sec
EBL: 0.24 (C) 19m
EBTR: 0.47 (C) 39m
WBL: 0.87 (F) 35m
WBTR: 0.07 (C) 10m
NBL: 0.86 (D) 141m
NBTR: 0.58 (B) 111m
SBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
SBTR: 0.79 (B) 61m
Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection is operating very well with
generally substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing concerns.
However, the westbound left-turn movement is currently nearing capacity and will continue to
operate as such under both future conditions scenarios. Furthermore, several movements are
expected to be currently experiencing 95th percentile queues in excess of their respective storage
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 22
lengths (eastbound, northbound and westbound left-turn movements); however, the excess in
queueing is generally considered nominal, especially for the eastbound and westbound left-turn
movements. The northbound left-turn movement is reporting 95th percentile queue lengths of
approximately 141 m during the Saturday peak hour, however a sensitivity analysis in optimizing
timings found no opportunity decrease that queue length to within the existing 60 m storage length.
It is evident the site generated traffic’s impact on intersection operations is not significant.
An optimized timings scenario has been completed, which optimizes timing spits to better
accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. Although the westbound left-turn
movement is still considered to be nearing capacity during the PM peak hour, the peak hour
volumes are generally nominal and queuing not overly concerning. It is GHD’s opinion that the
operating conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site constraints
and 2025 peak future volumes. Furthermore, the northbound left-turn 95th percentile queueing is
reported at
No geometric improvements are recommended in response to the subject development.
7.3 Thompson Road at Main Street
Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are summarized
in Table 5 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: 0.55 (C) 22 sec
EBL: 0.26 (B) 22m
EBTR: 0.49 (C) 55m
WBL: 0.52 (B) 38m
WBTR: 0.31 (C) 36m
NBL: 0.28 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.75 (C) 34m
SBL: 0.39 (B) 20m
SBTR: 0.42 (C) 41m
Overall: 0.84 (C) 30 sec
EBL: 0.55 (B) 50m
EBTR: 0.63 (C) 73m
WBL: 0.74 (C) 58m
WBTR: 0.37 (C) 44m
NBL: 0.65 (D) 60m
NBTR: 0.61 (C) 53m
SBL: 0.17 (B) 14m
SBTR: 0.84 (D) 104m
Overall: 0.63 (C) 27 sec
EBL: 0.64 (C) 50m
EBTR: 0.58 (C) 56m
WBL: 0.70 (C) 46m
WBTR: 0.42 (C) 40m
NBL: 0.52 (C) 44m
NBTR: 0.69 (C) 84m
SBL: 0.21 (B) 11m
SBTR: 0.74 (C) 90m
Future Background
2025
Overall: 0.63 (C) 24 sec
EBL: 0.34 (B) 25m
EBTR: 0.56 (C) 63m
WBL: 0.63 (B) 41m
WBTR: 0.41 (C) 46m
NBL: 0.30 (A) 9m
NBTR: 0.82 (C) 73m
SBL: 0.42 (B) 21m
SBTR: 0.47 (C) 47m
Overall: 0.81 (D) 36 sec
EBL: 0.66 (C) 53m
EBTR: 0.79 (D) 94m
WBL: 0.87 (D) 101m
WBTR: 0.43 (C) 52m
NBL: 0.73 (D) 54m
NBTR: 0.81 (C) 119m
SBL: 0.29 (C) 15m
SBTR: 0.89 (D) 133m
Overall: 0.73 (C) 31 sec
EBL: 0.68 (C) 50m
EBTR: 0.66 (C) 67m
WBL: 0.79 (C) 56m
WBTR: 0.47 (C) 48m
NBL: 0.58 (C) 46m
NBTR: 0.81 (C) 118m
SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m
SBTR: 0.83 (C) 109m
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 23
Table 5 Capacity Analysis for Thompson Road & Main Street
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.63 (C) 24 sec
EBL: 0.34 (B) 25m
EBTR: 0.56 (C) 63m
WBL: 0.64 (B) 42m
WBTR: 0.41 (C) 47m
NBL: 0.30 (A) 9m
NBTR: 0.83 (C) 82m
SBL: 0.42 (B) 21m
SBTR: 0.47 (C) 48m
Overall: 0.82 (D) 38 sec
EBL: 0.68 (C) 53m
EBTR: 0.80 (D) 94m
WBL: 0.92 (D) 101m
WBTR: 0.45 (C) 54m
NBL: 0.73 (D) 55m
NBTR: 0.83 (C) 126m
SBL: 0.29 (C) 15m
SBTR: 0.91 (D) 139m
Overall: 0.74 (C) 32 sec
EBL: 0.69 (C) 50m
EBTR: 0.67 (C) 67m
WBL: 0.82 (C) 63m
WBTR: 0.49 (C) 49m
NBL: 0.58 (C) 46m
NBTR: 0.84 (C) 126m
SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m
SBTR: 0.84 (C) 116m
Future Total 2025
Optimized Timings
N/A
Overall: 0.82 (D) 36 sec
EBL: 0.68 (C) 57m
EBTR: 0.86 (D) 105m
WBL: 0.91 (D) 104m
WBTR: 0.52 (C) 60m
NBL: 0.83 (E) 62m
NBTR: 0.77 (C) 84m
SBL: 0.29 (B) 14m
SBTR: 0.81 (C) 116m
Overall: 0.74 (C) 32 sec
EBL: 0.69 (C) 50m
EBTR: 0.67 (C) 67m
WBL: 0.82 (C) 63m
WBTR: 0.49 (C) 49m
NBL: 0.60 (D) 50m
NBTR: 0.83 (C) 122m
SBL: 0.24 (B) 11m
SBTR: 0.82 (C) 106m
Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection is operating very well with
generally substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing concerns.
However, the southbound through/right-turn movement is expected to be nearing capacity during the
PM peak hour. Furthermore, several movements are expected to be currently experiencing
95th percentile queues in excess of their respective storage lengths (eastbound and northbound left-
turn movements); however the excess in queueing is generally considered nominal.
It is evident the site generated traffic has minimal impact on intersection operations.
An optimized timings scenario has been completed, which optimizes timing spits to better
accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. It is GHD’s opinion that the operating
conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site constraints and 2025
peak future volumes.
No geometric improvements are recommended in response to the subject development.
7.4 Main Street at Drew Centre
Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are summarized
in Table 6 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 24
Table 6 Capacity Analysis for Drew Centre/Commercial Access & Main Street
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: 0.26 (B) 11 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBT: 0.32 (B) 48m
EBR: 0.08 (A) <1 veh
WBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.20 (A) 27m
NBL: 0.11 (C) 10m
NBTR: 0.02 (C) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.46 (B) 18 sec
EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
EBT: 0.45 (B) 75m
EBR: 0.19 (B) 20m
WBL: 0.28 (A) 22m
WBTR: 0.29 (B) 47m
NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m
NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m
SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m
Overall: 0.46 (B) 17 sec
EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
EBT: 0.45 (B) 75m
EBR: 0.19 (B) 20m
WBL: 0.28 (A) 22m
WBTR: 0.29 (B) 47m
NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m
NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m
SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m
Future Background
2025
Overall: 0.29 (B) 13 sec
EBL: 0.00 (B) <1 veh
EBT: 0.39 (B) 55m
EBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
WBL: 0.14 (A) 10m
WBTR: 0.26 (B) 21m
NBL: 0.10 (B) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
SBLTR: N/A
Overall: 0.47 (B) 18 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBT: 0.65 (C) 84m
EBR: 0.22 (B) 22m
WBL: 0.38 (B) 18m
WBTR: 0.38 (B) 46m
NBL: 0.26 (B) 29m
NBTR: 0.13 (B) 14m
SBLTR: N/A
Overall: 0.51 (B) 18 sec
EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
EBT: 0.54 (B) 91m
EBR: 0.23 (B) 28m
WBL: 0.32 (B) 22m
WBTR: 0.34 (B) 56m
NBL: 0.63 (C) 37m
NBTR: 0.04 (C) 10m
SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m
Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.29 (B) 13 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBT: 0.41 (B) 55m
EBR: 0.08 (B) <1 veh
WBL: 0.16 (A) 11m
WBTR: 0.27 (A) 33m
NBL: 0.10 (B) 11m
NBTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.48 (B) 17 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBT: 0.65 (C) 84m
EBR: 0.24 (B) 23m
WBL: 0.43 (B) 20m
WBTR: 0.37 (B) 46m
NBL: 0.27 (B) 30m
NBTR: 0.13 (B) 14m
SBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.52 (B) 16 sec
EBL: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
EBT: 0.56 (C) 92m
EBR: 0.24 (B) 29m
WBL: 0.34 (B) 24m
WBTR: 0.34 (B) 56m
NBL: 0.65 (C) 39m
NBTR: 0.04 (C) 9m
SBLTR: 0.01 (D) 0m
The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and all future conditions
scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing
concerns.
7.5 Drew Centre at Southern GO Station Access
Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are summarized
in Table 7 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 25
Table 7 Capacity Analysis Drew Centre & GO Entrance/Commercial Access 3
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: 0.20 (A) 5 sec
WBL: 0.07 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.20 (A) 18m
SBLT: 0.10 (A) 12m
SBR: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.34 (A) 10 sec
WBL: 0.19 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
SBLT: 0.37 (A) 44m
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.34 (A) 10 sec
WBL: 0.19 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.00 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
SBLT: 0.37 (A) 45m
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Background
2025
Overall: 0.15 (B) 11 sec
EBL: 0.42 (C) 19m
EBTR: 0.01 (C) <1 veh
WBL: 0.01 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.03 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.08 (A) 8m
SBLT: 0.09 (A) 12m
SBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.49 (B) 14 sec
EBL: 0.23 (C)
EBTR: 0.09 (C)
WBL: 0.07 (C)
WBTR: 0.09 (C)
NBL: 0.06 (A)
NBTR: 0.03 (A)
SBLT: 0.60 (B)
SBR: 0.03 (A)
Overall: 0.36 (B) 10 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
WBL: 0.04 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.05 (A) <1 veh
SBLT: 0.45 (A) 49m
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.15 (B) 8 sec
EBL: 0.42 (C) 19m
EBTR: 0.01 (C) <1 veh
WBL: 0.01 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.03 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.09 (A) 9m
SBLT: 0.10 (A) 13m
SBR: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.51 (B) 8 sec
EBL: 0.23 (C) 12m
EBTR: 0.09 (C) <1 veh
WBL: 0.07 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.09 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.07 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
SBLT: 0.64 (B) 101m
SBR: 0.03 (A) <1 veh
Overall: 0.38 (B) 7 sec
EBL: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
EBTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
WBL: 0.04 (C) <1 veh
WBTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh
NBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBTR: 0.06 (A) <1 veh
SBLT: 0.48 (A) 54m
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and all future conditions
scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing
concerns.
7.6 Drew Centre at West Site Access
Unsignalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are
summarized in Table 8 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 26
Table 8 Capacity Analysis of West Site Access/Commercial Access 1 & Drew
Centre
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 1 sec
EBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.07 (C) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.33 (B) 11m
Overall: (A) 4 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.33 (B) 11m
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 1 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.43 (C) 16m
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.43 (C) 16m
Overall: (A) 4 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.35 (B) 12m
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.03 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.24 (B) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.10 (C) <1 veh
Overall: (D) 16 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.11 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.25 (C) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.98 (F) 58m
Overall: (A) 9 sec
EBL: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
WBLT: 0.06 (A) <1 veh
NBLTR: 0.18 (B) <1 veh
SBLTR: 0.66 (D) 34m
The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and all future conditions
scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing
concerns.
The north approach, which is the outbound movement from the commercial property opposite the
subject site, is expected to experience average vehicle delays of approximately 2 minutes, with a v/c
ratio of 0.98, and acceptable peak 95th percentile queueing (58 m or approximately 9 vehicles)
during the PM peal hour. The reported delay of 2 minutes is not overly concerning given these
events are expected to only occur during the weekday PM peak hour, with the weekday AM and
Saturday peak hours having noticeably lower levels of delay.
Furthermore, the reported delay is not resulting in queueing concerns (the access can sufficiently
accommodate the 58 metres of queueing without major issue to site circulation).
Additionally, as is presented further below, the remaining accesses to the commercial site are
operating very acceptably with substantial reserve capacity and negligible delay and queuing.
Adjacent commercial accesses can be expected to accommodate any potential diversion of traffic
from this noted access due to future increase in delay, with no anticipated resulting operational
concerns at these accesses.
7.7 Drew Centre at East Site Access
Unsignalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are
summarized in Table 9 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 27
Table 9 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & East Site Access
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 1 sec
WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.06 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.2 sec
WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.02 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.2 sec
WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 1 sec
WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.05 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.2 sec
WBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.03 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.1 sec
WBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and future conditions
scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing
concerns; the access will be eliminated upon build-out of the site.
7.8 Drew Centre at Northern GO Station Access
Unsignalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are
summarized in Table 10 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
Table 10 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre & Northern GO Centre Access
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 6 sec
EBL: 0.11 (C) <1 veh
EBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.18 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 7 sec
EBL: 0.28 (B) 9m
EBR: 0.35 (B) 12m
NBLT: 0.02 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 0.3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.17 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.14 (B) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 0.3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.000 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBL: 0.18 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.15 (B) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.000 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 0.3 sec
EBL: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
EBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
NBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
The intersection is expected to be operating very acceptably under existing and all future conditions
scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queuing
concerns.
7.9 Thompson Road at Derry Road
Signalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are summarized in
Table 11 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 28
Table 11 Capacity Analysis at Thompson Road & Derry Road
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: 0.62 (C) 33 sec
EBL: 0.52 (C) 56m
EBT: 0.72 (C) 128m
EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m
WBL: 0.34 (C) 18m
WBT: 0.43 (D) 58m
WBR: 0.11 (C) 16m
NBL: 0.30 (C) 26m
NBTR: 0.64 (D) 88m
SBL: 0.41 (C) 33m
SBTR: 0.50 (C) 66m
Overall: 0.70 (C) 35 sec
EBL: 0.71 (C) 56m
EBT: 0.39 (C) 61m
EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m
WBL: 0.50 (C) 46m
WBT: 0.69 (D) 110m
WBR: 0.15 (C) 17m
NBL: 0.64 (D) 36m
NBTR: 0.52 (D) 72m
SBL: 0.48 (C) 44m
SBTR: 0.77 (D) 121m
Future Background 2025 Overall: 0.67 (D) 35 sec
EBL: 0.49 (C) 50m
EBT: 0.82 (D) 155m
EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m
WBL: 0.40 (C)18m
WBT: 0.50 (D) 67m
WBR: 0.10 (C) 15m
NBL: 0.31 (C) 26m
NBTR: 0.37 (D) 92m
SBL: 0.42 (C) 32m
SBTR: 0.54 (D) 74m
Overall: 0.85 (D) 45 sec
EBL: 0.81 (D) 80m
EBT: 0.45 (C) 71m
EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m
WBL: 0.54 (C) 46m
WBT: 0.79 (D) 131m
WBR: 0.18 (C) 21m
NBL: 0.69 (D) 46m
NBTR: 0.60 (D) 84m
SBL: 0.62 (C) 52m
SBTR: 1.02 (E) 194m
Future Total 2025 Overall: 0.68 (D) 36 sec
EBL: 0.50 (C) 51m
EBT: 0.82 (D) 155m
EBR: 0.10 (C) 14m
WBL: 0.40 (C) 18m
WBT: 0.50 (D) 67m
WBR: 0.10 (C) 15m
NBL: 0.32 (C) 26m
NBTR: 0.67 (D) 94m
SBL: 0.44 (C) 34m
SBTR: 0.57 (C) 78m
Overall: 0.87 (D) 48 sec
EBL: 0.88 (E) 93m
EBT: 0.45 (C) 71m
EBR: 0.09 (C) 13m
WBL: 0.54 (C) 46m
WBT: 0.79 (D) 131m
WBR: 0.19 (C) 22m
NBL: 0.69 (D) 46m
NBTR: 0.64 (D) 90m
SBL:0.66 (C) 54m
SBTR:1.04 (E) 203m
Future Total 2025
Optimized Timings
N/A
Overall: 0.86 (D) 42 sec
EBL: 0.95 (E) 102m
EBT: 0.50 (C) 75m
EBR: 0.09 (C) 14m
WBL: 0.58 (C) 49m
WBT: 0.85 (D) 137m
WBR: 0.20 (C) 24m
NBL: 0.80 (E) 54m
NBTR: 0.61 (D) 88m
SBL: 0.59 (C) 50m
SBTR: 0.91 (D) 180m
Under existing and all future conditions scenarios the intersection overall is operating generally well
with overall intersection reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and no critical queueing
concerns. However, the southbound through/right-turn movement is expected to have reached
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 29
capacity during the PM peak hour by 2025 future background conditions. Furthermore, the left-turn
movements are expected to be experiencing 95th percentile queues in excess of their respective
storage lengths, however the excess in queueing is generally considered nominal with the greatest
queue length reported at 93 metres during the PM peak hour.
It is evident the site generated traffic has a nominal impact on intersection operations, with the
change in overall v/c ratio being minimal.
An optimized timings scenario has been completed for the PM peak hour, which optimizes timing
spits to better accommodate the forecasted 2025 future total traffic volumes. It is GHD’s opinion that
the operating conditions presented in the optimized scenario are acceptable given the site
constraints and 2025 peak future volumes.
No geometric improvements are recommended in response to the subject development.
7.10 Remaining Commercial Accesses
Unsignalized capacity analyses during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday peak hours are
summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15 from detailed Synchro reports attached in the Appendix.
Figure 12 illustrates the identifiers given to each commercial access.
Figure 12 Analyzed Commercial Accesses
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 30
Table 12 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 2
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 2 sec
EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 2 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.08 (A) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.10 (A) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 2 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.13 (B) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.08 (A) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBLT: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.10 (A) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 2 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.14 (B) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
EBLT: 0.00 (A) <1 veh
SBL: 0.09 (A) <1 veh
SBR: 0.01 (A) <1 veh
Table 13 Capacity Analysis of Drew Centre at Commercial Access 4
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 1 sec
WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
WBR: 0.23 (B) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 4 sec
WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 1 sec
WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
WBR: 0.22 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 1 sec
WBR: 0.04 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
WBR: 0.23 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (A) 3 sec
WBR: 0.31 (B) 10m
Table 14 Capacity Analysis of Commercial Access 5 at Main Street
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.13 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.12 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.27 (B) 8m
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.26 (B) 8m
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.12 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.27 (B) 8m
Overall: (A) 1 sec
NBR: 0.26 (B) 8m
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 31
Table 15 Capacity Analysis of Thompson Road at Commercial Access 6
Traffic Condition Movement v/c (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday PM Peak Hour
Existing 2018 Overall: (A) 0.4 sec
EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
EBR: 0.23 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
EBR: 0.26 (B) 8m
Future Background
2025
Overall: (A) 0.4 sec
EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (B) 1 sec
EBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (B) 1 sec
EBR: 0.28 (B) 9m
Future Total 2025 Overall: (A) 0.4 sec
EBR: 0.10 (A) <1 veh
Overall: (A) 1 sec
EBR: 0.25 (B) 1 veh
Overall: (B) 1 sec
EBR: 0.28 (B) 9m
The commercial access intersections are expected to be operating very acceptably under existing
and all future conditions scenarios, with substantial reserve capacity, acceptable levels of delay, and
negligible queuing.
8. Traffic Warrants
8.1 Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access
Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) left-turn, all-way stop, and signal warrants were completed
for the intersection of Drew Centre at Site Access/Commercial Access under the 2025 Future Total
condition. The results of the warrants found that all-way stop control was not warranted due to an
insufficient proportion of peak hour intersection volumes occurring on the side street approaches
(approximately 20 percent during the peak hour) versus Drew Centre, and traffic signals were not
warranted generally due to insufficient overall volumes.
With respect to the left-turn lane warrant, an auxiliary left-turn lane with a storage length of
25 metres for inbound traffic to the site is just slightly warranted during the weekday PM peak hour
only, and not warranted during the AM and Saturday peak hours.
Table 16 Warrant Results
Traffic Warrant Warranted
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
Left-Turn Lane NO YES NO
OTM All-Way Stop NO NO NO
TAC Traffic Signal NO
As a conservative measure, GHD ran the intersection capacity analysis for this intersection without
the auxiliary left-turn lane. The results of the analysis found that without the auxiliary left-turn lane
during the PM peak hour, the Drew Centre approaches are expected to be efficient, with substantial
reserve capacity, very low levels of delay (<10 seconds) and negligible queueing. The inbound
left-turn movement specifically is expected to operate with v/c ratios of only 0.11, negligible average
vehicle delay (<1 second), and no observable queueing (<1 vehicle).
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 32
However based on the results of the MTO left-turn lane warrant, an inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is
recommended with a storage length of 25 metres. Given the limited space available on Drew Centre
between the site access and Thompson Road, the accesptable operational performance of inbound
traffic with minimal expected queueing, and considering the p.m. peak hour volumes used in the
warrant analysis just slightly surpassed the volume range for a 15 metres storage length and result
in a storage length of 25 metres being warranted, a storage length of 15 metres in length is
considered sufficient and is recommended.
Warrant sheets for the left-turn lane warrant and traffic signal warrant are provided in Appendix I.
9. Parking Appraisal
A reduction in the total parking supply for both residents and visitors is proposed to reflect Milton’s
status as a growing, transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly town. The rationale for the reduction
considers the site location fronting Drew Centre, with excellent transit service and close proximity to
GO Transit.
The proposed reduction is also consistent with the Town of Milton’s Official Plan which seeks to
promote and support traffic movement by walking, cycling and public transit; and include the
provision of a public transit system which targets a high level of public transit usage in the Urban
Area of approximately 20 percent of all trips by 2016.
9.1 Unit Breakdown
The residential component of the site consists of the following suite mix:
216 one bedroom units
258 one bedroom units plus den
280 two bedroom units
48 three bedroom units
A total of 122 units are greater than 75 m2.
9.2 Proposed Site Parking Rates
The following parking supply is proposed for the 802 residential apartment units and 990 m2 of
commercial GFA:
Resident parking provided at 1.03 spaces per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.
Residential visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per unit: 201 parking spaces required.
Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA: 25 parking spaces required. These
spaces will be shared with residential visitor parking.
This is a total provision of 1,028 on-site parking spaces.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 33
9.3 Existing Town of Milton By-Law
The existing Town of Milton Parking By-Law requires minimum apartment building rates as follows:
Resident parking 1.50 spaces per unit: 1,203 parking spaces required.
Residential visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per unit: 201 parking spaces required.
Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 (zone UGC-MU): 25 parking spaces required.
With the commercial component not requiring additional spaces as it will be shared with the
residential visitor portion, the total requirement is 1,404 on-site parking spaces. The difference
between the applicable by-law and the proposed parking supply is therefore 376 parking spaces.
9.4 Transit service
All of Milton’s ten transit routes (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the new Glen Eden Slopes Express)
operate within close proximity to the site with bus stops for each route provided on Drew Centre. The
bus stops are located on street frontage for eastbound routes, and as across the street of the
proposed site for westbound routes.
In addition to providing connections to all of Milton’s transit routes, the Milton GO Station also
provides GO Rail and GO Bus services. GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consist of the
Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar,
Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale, Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services include
Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well
as numerous stops in the north Toronto area.
9.5 Proxy Surveys
To support the proposed reduction in resident parking supply, GHD has over time undertaken proxy
surveys at multiple existing multi-unit residential developments in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
for the purpose of collecting parking demand data for both residents and visitors. The completed
parking surveys allows GHD to support a reduced parking supply for both residents and visitors
depending on the type of development proposed and the supporting transportation demand
management initiatives recommended for a site.
In general, parking utilization guidelines require surveying on at least two days over two normal
weeks, and within time periods that capture the peak parking demand of the site. GHD therefore
generally adopted the following schedule when completing parking demand surveys at each of the
proxy sites:
Parking accumulation on two weekdays on two separate weeks, typically 5:30-5:45 a.m.,
12:30-12:45 p.m. (noon) and 10:30-10:45 p.m. time intervals to identify the peak resident
demand.
Parking accumulation on two Fridays and two Saturdays, typically between 8:00 p.m. and
11:00 p.m. at 15 minute intervals to capture the peak visitor demand and verify the peak resident
demand.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 34
The following list provides a sample of surveyed resident and/or visitor parking demand from parking
studies and surveys for sites with similar development content that is proposed for this site:
The Courtyards on Main - Phase 1, Milton (apartment building with 260 units)
Residents: Access not provided
Visitors: 0.14 spaces per unit
297 Queens Avenue, Oakville (apartment building with 78 residential units)
Residents: 0.86 spaces per unit
Visitors: 0.13 spaces per unit
2051-2067 Prospect Street, Burlington (apartment buildings with 144 residential units)
Residents: 0.80 spaces per unit
Visitors: 0.11 spaces per unit
Alton Village Phase 3 (Condo building with 288 residential units)
Residents: N.A.
Visitors: 0.20 spaces per unit
The results of the parking surveys indicate that resident parking rates generally fall below
1.00 space per unit, with the highest rate being 0.86 spaces per unit and the average rate being
0.83 spaces per unit. This indicates that a proposed resident parking rate of 1.03 spaces per unit
can be justified based on the results of the proxy surveys.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the proxy surveys were undertaken at sites situated further
from GO Station facilities compared to the subject site, and therefore it is reasonable to assume
based on engineering judgement that the subject site will have a lower parking demand than the
proxy sites.
Detailed information pertaining to the undertaken proxy surveys are provided in Appendix J.
9.6 Parking Generation Manual
The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 4th Edition was
reviewed with respect to Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use Group 230) parking rates.
The single presented parking demand graph for this Land Use Group in the Manual is based on an
average size of 151 dwelling units. The weekday peak parking demand average rate is 1.38 vehicles
per dwelling unit, resulting in a recommended parking supply of 1107 spaces, and the provided
equation results in a recommended parking supply of 1020 spaces (1.27 spaces per resident unit).
Therefore based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the proposed parking provision of
1020 spaces is considered sufficient based on the equation methodology, or with a shortfall of only
87 spaces (or 8 percent) based on the average rate methodology; it is expected that the results of
the proxy surveys in combination with the proposed TDM measures would be more than sufficient in
justifying the 8 percent shortfall.
The applicable page from the Parking Generation Manual is provided in Appendix J.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 35
9.7 Other Municipal By-Laws
GHD reviewed more recent parking study information including the Town of Oakville. The supporting
studies clearly show that the parking demand for visitor parking has decreased in the GTA, and that
the actual requirement for parking spaces should be reduced to reflect transit services and land use
density.
The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum visitor-parking rate for apartment
dwelling units in growth areas which are meant to support the Town’s strategic and policy objective
related to transit, growth management and design:
The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum parking rates for an apartment
dwelling:
1.0 per dwelling unit where the unit has less than 75.0 m2 net floor area.
1.5 per dwelling unit where the unit has 75.0 m2 net floor area or greater.
Of the total number of parking spaces required, 0.25 of the parking spaces required per dwelling
shall be designated as visitor’s parking spaces.
The Town of Oakville By-Law provides the following minimum parking rates for a retail store any
other “store” permitted by this By-law:
1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area.
Based on the proposed 802 residential apartment units and 990 m2 of commercial GFA, this results
in a supply of:
863 residential parking spaces, of which 216 shall be visitor parking and 647 shall be resident
parking;
Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 18 m2 of GFA: 55 parking spaces required. These
spaces will be shared with residential visitor parking.
9.8 Travel Demand Management (TDM)
9.8.1 Objectives
In the context that the primary objective is to reduce single occupancy vehicle use, the TDM plan will
review opportunities to set realistic targets for increased use of carpooling, transit, cycling, and
walking trips. This plan recommends measures for the first 2 years with a pre- and post-baseline
commuter survey of all residents.
9.8.2 Travel Demand Management
TDM refers to a variety of strategies to reduce congestion, minimize the number of single-occupant
vehicles, encourage non-auto modes of travel, and reduce vehicle dependency to create a
sustainable transportation system.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 36
TDM strategies have multiple benefits including the following:
Reduced auto-related emissions to improve air quality.
Decreased traffic congestion to reduce travel time.
Increased travel options for businesses and commuters.
Reduced personal transportation costs and energy consumptions.
Support Provincial smart growth objectives.
The combined benefits listed above will assist in creating a more active and livable community
through improvements to overall active transportation standards for the local businesses and
surrounding community.
The TDM measures provided in this report are divided into two main categories:
Identification of site-related TDM measures.
TDM program implementation, as well as on-going evaluation and monitoring approach.
9.8.3 TDM Opportunities Identification
The Town has not identified any active mode transportation plans in the vicinity of the site.
The Travel Demand Management Plan outlining pedestrian and cycling connectivity, including the
sidewalks, transit, and multi-use paths within the study area can be found as Figure 13.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 37
Figure 13 Travel Demand Management Plan
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 38
Public Transit
Milton Transit
Milton Transit operates ten transit routes in close proximity to the site with all bus stops located
within a very short walking distance of the site (up to a maximum of 380 m for the furthest stop).
Routes #1A (west to east) and 1B (east to west) Industrial: provides weekday service to the
401 Industrial Park area during the morning and afternoon peak periods.
Route #2 Main: operates in a continuous westward/eastward travel direction between Milton
District Hospital (Derry Road/Bronte Street) and Milton Crossroads Centre (Walmart), with
transfer connections at the Milton GO Station via Derry Road, Commercial Drive, Heslop Road,
Bronte Street, Main Street, Martin Street, Millside Drive, Main Street, Maple Avenue, Road
and Steeles Avenue.
Route #3 Trudeau: provides service to Fourth Line/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the Milton GO
Station via Thompson Road, McCuaig Drive, Tupper Drive, Denyes Way, Costigan Road,
Laurier Avenue, Croft Avenue, Trudeau Drive, Louis St. Laurent Avenue, Fourth Line and
Clark Avenue, interlining with #4 Thompson/Clark at the Milton GO Station.
Route #4 Thompson/Clark: provides service to Fourth Line/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the
Milton GO Station via Thompson Road, Clark Boulevard, Bennett Boulevard, Ferguson Drive,
Clark Boulevard, Fourth Line, Louis St. Laurent Avenue and Kennedy Circle, interlining with
#3 Trudeau at the Milton GO Station.
Route #5 Yates: provides service to Philbrook Drive/Hepburn Road and the Milton GO Station
via Thompson Road, Childs Drive, Ontario Street, Laurier Avenue, Holly Avenue, Yates Drive,
Philbrook Drive, Hepburn Road, and Yates Drive interlining with #8 Willmott at the Milton GO
Station.
Route #6 Scott: provides service to Scott Boulevard/Derry Road and the Milton GO Station via
Main Street, Scott Boulevard, Derry Road, Savoline Boulevard and Pringle Avenue, interlining
with #7 Harrison at the Milton GO Station.
Route #7 Harrison: provides service to Dymott Avenue/Savoline Boulevard and the Milton GO
Station via Thompson Road, Derry Road, Scott Boulevard, Dymott Avenue and Savoline
Boulevard, interlining with #6 Scott at the Milton GO Station.
Route #8 Willmott: provides service to Bronte Street/Louis St. Laurent Avenue and the Milton
GO Station via Main Street, Ontario Street, Derry Road, Bronte Street, Louis St. Laurent
Avenue, Farmstead Drive, McLaughlin Avenue and Santa Maria Boulevard, interlining with
#5 Yates at the Milton GO Station.
Route #61 Glen Eden Slopes Express: provides service from Milton GO Station to Glen Eden
Ski and Snowboard Centre with an intermediary stop at Main Street at Bronte Street.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 39
GO Transit
GO Rail services at the Milton GO Station consist of the Milton GO Rail Line providing direct service
to Union Station as well as intermediary stops at Lisgar, Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale,
Cooksville, Dixie and Kipling. GO Bus Services include Routes 27, 27A, and 27C providing
numerous stops in the Meadowvale area in Mississauga, as well as numerous stops in the north
Toronto area.
9.8.4 Proposed TDM Measures
The TDM plan proposes a mix of hard and soft measures to meet the objectives and targets to
reduce vehicular demand and encourage passenger, transit, cycling, and walking. GHD has
completed The City of Kitchener’s TDM Implementation Checklist, which is currently utilized by the
Town as a guide. The completed checklist is provided in Appendix K. The proposed TDM measures
are listed as follows:
Sidewalk Connectivity
The proposed site plan provides adequate pedestrian connections to the adjacent public
sidewalk system.
Provision of active uses at-grade along street frontages results in a parking reduction of
12 spaces (1 percent of parking supply) as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B5).
Unbundled Resident Parking
The applicant will consider separate (or unbundle) resident parking to separate the cost of
parking from the cost of each residential unit. This will make the hidden cost of driving visible
and encourage residents to make more informed active transportation decisions and may create
opportunities for the use of more sustainable modes of transportation.
Unbundled parking results in a parking reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking supply)
as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B7).
Bicycle Parking (Underground)
The total number of 600 proposed underground bicycle parking spaces justifies a parking
reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking supply) as per the appended TDM checklist
(Measure B1).
Subsidized Transit Passes
The applicant is prepared to provide subsidized transit passes for all occupants for a period of
two years.
Subsidized transit passes results in a parking reduction of 120 spaces (10 percent of parking
supply) as per the appended TDM checklist (Measure B6).
Car Share Vehicle
The site will include a car share vehicle and designated space, resulting in a parking reduction of
8 spaces (8 car space reduction per car share vehicle) as per the appended TDM checklist
(Measure B3).
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 40
Information Distribution (Condominium Board and Owners)
An information package for all new residents will be distributed on available pedestrian trails, cycling,
and transit facilities and carpool options including community map, Milton Transit route map,
GO Transit route map and schedules.
Commuter Options Brochure
With assistance from the Town a customized commuter options brochure will be provided for the
condominium site. This brochure will contain details on a variety of travel options such as: Regional
transit, parking information, location of HOV lane and cycling routes and bicycle parking.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Facility Network Map/Exhibits
The applicant is prepared to provide a Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Way-finder Map for residents
in the buildings. The map should be erected in the main lobby of the condominium buildings and
handed out as a pamphlet during regular communications throughout the year (i.e., board meetings
etc.).
This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 823 parking spaces (a 32 percent reduction from the
applicable parking by-law).
9.9 Implementation and Monitoring Costs
Costs to implement and monitor the proposed “soft” and “hard” TDM measures are the responsibility
of the applicant. The applicant will be responsible for implementing, marketing and monitoring the
TDM measures and working with the property manager of the building and other TDM stakeholders
to ensure success and make adjustments as necessary. Stakeholders include First Ontario Arts
Centre Milton, the Milton Library, Memorial Arena, Lions Sports Park, Milton Leisure Centre, and
Bishop Redding High School.
9.10 Summary
In consideration of the policies within the Town of Milton Official Plan, the growing trend within the
GTA to reduce auto dependency, the site’s proximity to a multitude of transit options, the results of
the undertaken proxy surveys, and the proposed TDM measures, it is our opinion that a site-specific
parking by-law variance for the subject site is appropriate.
We therefore recommend that parking be provided at the following minimum rates:
Resident parking provided at 1.03 space per unit: Total of 827 parking spaces.
Residential visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per unit: 201 parking spaces required.
Commercial (retail) parking at 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA: 25 parking spaces required. These
spaces be shared with residential visitor parking.
This is a total on-site minimum requirement for 1,028 parking spaces.
GHD | 130 Thompson Road Traffic Impact Study | 11116807 (5) | Page 41
10. Functional Design
A functional design of the proposed inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is provided in Appendix L. The
design is based on design guidelines provided in the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads, and includes a storage length of 15 metres as recommended in this report.
11. Conclusions and Recommendations
The overall impact of developing the proposed 130 Thompson Road South site is minor, and will not
adversely impact the operation of intersections along Thompson Road, Main Street, and
Drew Centre. With the signal optimization of 2025 future condition, identified operational concerns at
the Thompson Road South intersections at Drew Centre and at Main Street are largely mitigated.
GHD has also found the proposed configuration and location of the site access to be acceptable,
with no expected operational or safety concerns for Drew Centre.
An inbound auxiliary left-turn lane is recommended with a storage length of 15 metres.
The proposed site plan is expected to accommodate pedestrian activity satisfactorily, and the
proposed TDM measures are considered sufficient in meeting the Town’s TDM objectives. The
proposed TDM measures are as follows:
Sidewalk Connectivity
Unbundled Parking
Bicycle Parking
Subsidized Transit Passes
Car Share Vehicle
Information Distribution and Community Board
It is our opinion that the proposed site-specific parking by-law variance to reduce the required
resident parking rate for the subject site is appropriate, in light of the Parking Justification Study and
proposed TDM measures included in this report.
William Maria [email protected] 905.814.4397
Adam Mildenberger [email protected] 905.814.4404