Online Open House

Red Cedar / Cedar AvenueClass Environmental Assessment Study

from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road

Study Area, Open House Purpose and Municipal Class EA Process

York Region is undertaking a transportation Environmental

Assessment (EA) Study for the extension of Red Cedar / Cedar

Avenue from Langstaff Road East to High Tech Road in the City

of Richmond Hill and City of Markham.

Description of Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

An EA is a planning process for municipal infrastructure, legislated by the Ontario

Environmental Assessment Act.

The Study was initially assessed to be undertaken as a Schedule ‘B’ EA. As the Study

progressed additional infrastructure requirements to support the recommendations were

identified. Upon York Region’s review it was concluded that a change from a Schedule

‘B’ EA to a Schedule ‘C’ EA was required to address the proposed recommendations.

The study therefore is being conducted as a Schedule ‘C’ project under the Municipal

Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015).

The Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA incorporates York Region’s Transportation Master

Plan (TMP) process and recommendations which differs from the traditional Municipal

Class EA process.

Purpose of Open House

Introduce the Project

Summarize the Region’s 2016 TMP Recommendations for the corridor

Present the evaluation of alternatives

Share the Recommended Plan

Obtain your input about the project

Study Area Context & Study Objectives

South of High Tech Road,

Red Cedar Avenue is a 2-lane

industrial collector road that

dead ends and does not

connect to Langstaff Road.

Study Area Context

The study area crosses

Highway 407, Highway 7

and a utility corridor. There

are existing bridges under

Highway 407 and Highway

7 to accommodate passage

of a road.

Planned Growth

York Region is forecasting significant

growth in the study area.

Study Objectives

Accommodate current and future transportation

needs for all modes (pedestrians, cyclists,

transit users and motorists)

Supplement the findings of the 2016 York

Region Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP)

EmploymentPopulation

What We’ve Heard So Far

Online Survey

79% general support for project

Hopes for the Project:

Provide Connectivity and Alternate Routes

Congestion Relief

Improve overall access to businesses and services

Provide opportunities for Active Transportation facilities

for pedestrians and cyclists

Community Outreach

Direct mail notices Newspaper notices

Open House

York Region social media (Facebook and Twitter)

Project website (york.ca/cedaravenue)

Road SignsPostcard

Technical Review

Agencies

Concerns:

Traffic infiltration into neighbourhoods

Solutions that promote driving will increase vehicular traffic

Impacts to commuter parking at GO Station

Construction Impacts

Notice Road SignProject Website Postcard

Utilities

Ratepayers

Associations

Residential Property

Owners

Commercial

Property Owners

CN Rail

General Public

Ministry of

Environment,

Conservation and

Parks

Places of Worship

Metrolinx Indigenous

Communities

City of Markham

Ministry of

Transportation

407ETR

City of

Richmond Hill

Stakeholders Identified

Community Centres

York Region Transit

Planning Policy Context

Planning Policy Context

Key planning documents that set the framework for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue EA include the following:

Provincial Regional Municipal

Key Findings

• Identifies a connection between Red Cedar Avenue and Cedar Avenue

supporting pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists.

Richmond Hill / Langstaff Gateway Centre Plan York Region’s Transportation Master Plan 2016 (YR-TMP)

• Justifies a new road crossing under 407ETR

• Supports growth and intensification of

Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway

communities

• Identifies improved facilities for walking,

cycling and transit access

York Region Transportation Master Plan (YR-TMP)

Summary of Recommendations for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

Key Findings and Recommendations from YR-TMP

Network improvements for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue corridor are needed to:

• Address existing congestion

• Accommodate future travel demands

• Support walking and cycling

• Support transit

Established the Problem and

Opportunity Statement and the

Needs and Justification for

improvements to the Red Cedar

/ Cedar Avenue corridor.

YR-TMP Problem and Opportunity Statement

Developed and

evaluated Alternative

Solutions based on

TMP Objectives.

YR-TMP Alternative Solutions

Selected a Preferred

Solution for the Red

Cedar / Cedar Avenue

study area.

Recommended because it:

• Addresses travel demand needs

• Provides opportunities for walking and cycling facilities

• Provides potential to improve transit service

• Highway 407 and Highway 7 bridges are already built to

accommodate a new road underneath

1. “Do Nothing”

2. Widen Parallel / Adjacent Corridor

3. Construct Mid-block Crossing

YR-TMP Preferred Solution

Supports

Transit

Supports Active

Transportation

Supports

Road NetworkSupports

Last Mile

Supports Goods

Movement

Construct Mid-block Crossing is recommended for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

corridor and its alignment with the five YR-TMP objectives is as follows:

The YR-TMP completed Phases 1 and 2 of the EA process for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue Corridor:

Land Use and Active Transportation

Existing Active Transportation Conditions

No cycling facilities on less

busy streets with less lanes

Land Use

Predominantly industrial / commercial land

use.

Intensification through high-rise residential

development is expected.

South of the industrial / commercial

area, there are cemeteries and low-rise

residential properties

The proposed developments within the study

area will substantially increase future traffic

demand in the surrounding road network.

North of Highway 7 in the City of

Richmond Hill, there are the Richmond

Hill Centre, low density residential

properties, and a utility corridor

No sidewalks, crosswalk markings,

crossing medians, curbs or protected

controls for turning movements

Failure to satisfy AODA minimum

requirements

8

Existing Bridges

Existing Bridge Infrastructure

Existing bridge at 407ETR

allows for future passage of a

road underneath 407ETR

Eastbound Lanes

Existing bridge at 407ETR

allows for future passage of a

road underneath 407ETR

Westbound Lanes

2

3

There are three existing bridges, one under Highway 7 and two under Highway

407. All three bridges were built with a wide enough opening (26.0m) to

accommodate the future passage of a road.

Existing bridge at Highway 7

allows for future passage of a

road underneath Highway 71

Traffic Operations and Recommendations

Existing Traffic Conditions

The intersections experiencing the worst congestion and delays* are:

Yonge Street at Garden

Avenue (during the morning

peak hour)

Bayview Avenue at High Tech

Road (during the afternoon peak

hour)

*Delay is an indicator of how long a vehicle must wait to complete a movement

Traffic operations for weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM)

peak hours were assessed at intersections within the broader study

area network.

The broader study area today experiences traffic congestion and

delays particularly on Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue.

Traffic signals are recommended at Red Cedar Avenue

and High Tech Road and at Cedar Avenue and Langstaff

Road East.

Both a 2-lane and 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

extension are appropriate to serve the anticipated

vehicular demand in the area.

Analysis of Future 2041 Traffic for the Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

corridor concluded:

Future 2041 Traffic Conditions

Vehicle Travel Lane Screening and Recommendation

The number of vehicle travel lanes for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue was reviewed.

• Accommodates all travel modes within 26.0m right-of-way

• Provides streetscaping opportunities

• Does not accommodate all travel modes within 26.0m right-of-way

• Limits streetscaping opportunities

Both a 2-lane and 4-lane Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue

extension require accommodation of additional turning

lanes at intersections.

2 travel lanes (+ turning lanes at intersection)

Recommended

Transportation Service

• Promote a high quality pedestrian and cyclist experience (i.e.

improves pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and connectivity)

• Improve Mode Choice

• Promotes safety for all modes

Social Environment

• Improve Visual Aesthetics

• Improve Community Character

• Minimizes impacts to archaeological / cultural heritage features

• Accommodate Streetscaping

Natural Environment

• Protect Designated Natural Areas

• Protect Vegetation

• Protect Wildlife

• Protect Aquatic Habitat

• Surface water and Groundwater Management

• Improve Air Quality

• Minimize Effects on Climate Change

Infrastructure Design

• Minimize utility relocation

• Compatibility with existing infrastructure

Economic Environment and Cost Effectiveness

• Accommodate planned development and growth

• Improve access to businesses and key employment areas

• Minimize Impacts on Business Properties

• Maximize Construction Value

• Minimize Property Requirements

• Minimize Operating Costs

Key Technical Studies and Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria

Key Technical Studies

Drainage and Stormwater

Management Report

Natural Heritage

Impact Assessment

Archaeological

Assessment

Structural

Assessment

Geotechnical and

Pavement Assessment

Hydrogeological

AssessmentCultural Heritage

Resource Assessment

Contamination

Overview Study

Noise Impact

Assessment

Active Transportation (AT) Facilities

Active Transportation Configuration Options

The following alternatives were considered to determine how best to

accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. On-street cycling facilities were not

carried forward as they do not provide increased separation from vehicles.

Option 2: MUP on one side, sidewalk on the other

Option 1: Multi-use Path (MUP) on both sides

Evaluation and Recommendations

Sidewalk and Boulevard Cycle Track on Both Sides is

preferred because:

This option provides multi-modal network connectivity and promotes

significant improvement for the public realm with dedicated, separated

and continuous cycling and pedestrian facilities and opportunities for

landscaping on both boulevards.

Sidewalk

Option 3: Sidewalk and cycle track on both sides

Sidewalk Sidewalk

CRITERIA

Option 1:

MUP on both

sides

Option 2

MUP on one side,

sidewalk on the other

Option 3:

Sidewalk and cycle track on

both sides

Transportation Service

Social Environment

Natural Environment

Infrastructure Design

Economic Environment and

Cost Effectiveness

Summary

Recommended

Preferred Design Concept

Extend Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue to a two lane road (one in each direction) with turning

lanes, sidewalks and boulevard cycle tracks, and streetscaping in both boulevards.

Summary of Preferred Design Concept

Proposed Red Cedar /

Cedar Avenue Extension

Extension of Red

Cedar / Cedar

Avenue for two

lanes with turning

lane

Key Features

Boulevard Cycle tracks on

both sides

Sidewalks on both sides

Plantings in the

boulevards

Source: Google Streetview

Traffic Signals at High Tech

Road and Langstaff Road

Source: York Region

Source: York Region

Source: York Region

Source:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/c

ase_studies/

Timing of Improvements and Next Steps

Your input is very valuable to us!

Please fill in a comment form or provide your comments

by mail, email or phone by January 31, 2020.

Contact Us

For more information visit: york.ca/cedaravenue

Please send your thoughts or opinions about the

corridor by sending us an email at: roads.ea@york.ca

Next Steps

Join the Study Mailing List

Review feedback from the public

Refine Preferred Design

Prepare Environmental Study Report (ESR) and place

on public record for review

Look out for

Direct mail or e-mail notices

Newspaper notices

Updates on York Region

social media (Facebook

and Twitter)

Updates on the Project

Website

Timing of Improvements

Recommended improvements:

• Construction to commence

in 2022

Timing of Improvements for Red Cedar / Cedar Avenue are

identified in the 2019 10-Year Roads and Transit Capital

Construction Program and subjected to annual review