Township of Perth East

Glenn Schwendinger, Chief Administrative Officer

P.O. Box 455, 25 Mill Street East Milverton, Ontario N0K 1M0 PhoneFax(519) 595-2800 (519) 595-2801

Email: gschwendinger@pertheast.on.ca
November 16, 2012 Ms. Brenda Jamison, P. Eng. Consultant Project Manager AECOM 300 Water Street Whitby, ON L1N 9J2 VIA EMAIL Charles Organ C.E.T. MTO South Western Region Project Manager Planning and Design Section 659 Exeter Road London ON N6E 1L3

Re: Provincial Highway 7 & 8 Transportation and Corridor Planning and Class EA Study Perth East response to PIC #5 August 2012 _____________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this letter is to relay the Township of Perth Easts comments and concerns with the Alternative(s) presented at the recent PIC. Council has considered these points closely and has collectively discussed them at length. Perth East Council feels that it is important to clearly communicate its position to the MTO on this issue which significantly impacts Perth East and its rate payers. SAFETY In a number of submissions made to the MTO with respect to the many alternatives and options considered to this point, the Township of Perth East (Township) is concerned with safety and response times for the services we provide and contribute to. To be clear, this pertains to safety and response times for all locations on the new Provincial Highway 7/8 as well as all portions of Perth East near the transportation corridor through and/or across which our first responders and local Emergency Services must free travel unhindered. As the MTO is aware, the municipality is mandated to achieve targets in response times for its first responders. The Township has not, cannot, and will not, support any undertakings with respect to the Provincial Highway 7/8 which will negatively impact (i.e. increase) local response times.

Integrity

Teamwork

Service

Continuous Improvement
Page 1 of 5

Fiscally Responsible

Additional Safety and response time related concerns are outlined as follows: a. Road design As indicated previously, the Township is not in favour of a continuous centre turning lane. It is felt that that it will act almost like a third driving lane especially in heavy traffic or if there is a pocket of slow moving vehicles. the Township would be more in favour of a grass or raised concrete median with specific left turn lanes installed where required. It is felt that the continuous centre turning lane will increase the potential for head on collisions, and therefore increase hazards. b. Roundabouts From an Emergency response perspective there are concerns with roundabouts being used at busy intersections. From an emergency response perspective alone, traffic signals are preferred as there is a lack of local familiarity at this time in navigating a roundabout when an emergency vehicle approaches. This is a greater concern at busier intersections. It is the Townships position that the MTO would cover any and all costs associated with public education if roundabouts are implemented. The Township would only support the use of roundabouts if the local familiarity allows the safe use of them. c. Grade Separations From an emergency response perspective, The Township is not in favour of grade separations as they will negatively affect our response time. Signals, roundabouts or unsignalized intersections would all be better for our response. These concerns relate to access to the railway as well to which the Townships first responders must also access. If grade separations must exist, they should be done in such a way as to ensure that first responders can quickly and easily access all locations of all transportation modes. The concept of grade separations at railway crossings can be positive providing that a means of access is provided for first responders and the vehicles when necessary. d. Cul-de-sac the cul-de-sacs proposed for both the east and west end of Shakespeare will also significantly negatively affect our response time. All apparatus will have to drive to Road 107 and then access the highway. If the cul-de-sacs are installed, and when the Shakespeare Station requires replacement, Perth East would see a relocation of the fire station close to the Road 107 / Highway 7 and 8 intersection which would be completely at the MTOs cost. The current information does appear to show some interconnection at the east and west ends, however additional information is required to clarify what the access is, and who has access to it. e. Traffic signals In the interest of keeping traffic moving, it is the Townships view that traffic lights should not be installed. If traffic signals are installed throughout the improvement area Perth East will have to purchase Opticom devices for all Shakespeare and Sebringville apparatus. Ballpark estimates are 8 10 thousand dollars per intersection. As the MTO is aware, Opticom devices allow the responding apparatus to always have a green light while all other traffic sees a red light. Although this is expensive it is definitely the safest way to negotiate the intersections. If the MTO installs traffic lights, it is the Townships position that Opticoms are mandatory, and are fully at the MTOs expense.

Integrity

Teamwork

Service

Continuous Improvement
Page 2 of 5

Fiscally Responsible

LAYOUT a. Segment D the benefit of the option with gentler curves and utilizing the existing Road 110 is that it minimizes the amount of active farmland and woodlot consumed. This is a priority for the Township and local property owners. b. Segment D the proximity of some residences in this location , primarily on the south side of the highway are already quite close. Expansion of the highway will bring the highway even closer. The Township would like information and the property owners deserve additional information with respect to at what point will properties be acquired by the MTO to make room for the Highway and eliminate safety and other related issues. c. Segment E the utilization of existing infrastructure and the existing right of way is positive in terms of minimizing the amount of new land being taken out of agricultural production and it minimizes land acquisition costs. As outlined in previous submission by the Township, the local property owners expected and have planned their property and operations in anticipation of the highway eventually expanding in this location. d. Segment E the information presented at the July PIC showed a potential route immediately north of and adjacent to the existing corridor without fully utilizing the existing corridor. The reasons for this are unclear, and do not seem logical. This section could be further optimized to minimize the need for additional lands by centering the new highway in the existing corridor or at least moving it slightly south from what is currently shown. e. Segment E at the onset of this project, the MTO indicated that a primary factor for the undertaking was safety of the users of the highway. As outlined above, the Township has significant concerns with the removal of direct access for the existing first responders (Perth East Fire Department) to the sections of highway east and west of Shakespeare. The removal of direct access is not acceptable and will negatively affect the Townships response times to key areas. This concern could easily be accommodated by providing on and off ramps (simple ramps and underpasses) for both east and westbound traffic at both the east and west ends of the community. These suggested improvements will also improve access to local businesses which is another significant concern. f. Alternatives The Township has concern and questions why a decision wasn't made by the MTO concerning the north vs. south route. Adding in all these other variables makes this process rather convoluted to say the least. Access to and from Shakespeare needs to be much better than what the current alternative(s) provide. The Township understands the County and City of Stratford will be clarifying their positions as well with regards to points of access.

g. Configuration To this point in the Study, it has been stated by AECOM and the MTO that the geometrics didn't allow for coming closer to Shakespeare due to the wide sweeping curves resulting from the radius mandated by the MTO. Now we have roundabouts on a provincial highway as well as similar curves at Rd 110 if not Rd 106 southerly. The Township would like to receive an explanation as to why sharper radii are now considered appropriate and under consideration. In light of this apparent change in position from the MTO, regardless of whether a north or south bypass is selected by the MTO, it is the Townships position that the bypass should leave (and return to where applicable) the existing corridor as close to Shakespeare as possible

Integrity

Teamwork

Service

Continuous Improvement
Page 3 of 5

Fiscally Responsible

Design Elements Many design elements of do not meet some criteria, as listed in Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for Rural Arterial Highways. These criteria are used to design route selection throughout the study, including the latest PIC #5. See bold areas below for particular concerns h. Local/inter regional traffic needs Cul de sacs proposed for Segment E village area do not meet /improve needs for residents or emergency vehicles East / West access to Village of Shakespeare on North bypass alternative does not improve local traffic including farm, emergency, commuter , residents and visitors to Village of Shakespeare

i.

Long distance traffic needs East/ West traffic (tourist and commercial) negatively affected by Northern bypass alternative re; access/exit to/from Shakespeare

j.

Efficient operations / uninterrupted traffic flow / Consistent arrangement of geometric design features that reinforce drivers confidence and expectancy roundabouts and stoplight intersections do not meet this criteria More consideration should have been made for completely controlled access route design sections D, E and F Gentle curves or straight line preferred as stated in earlier discussions /PICs throughout study

k. Segments D, E and F do not resemble highway design from Kitchener to West edge of Segment H l. public safety North Bypass option will increase traffic flow Southbound on Rd 107 resulting in pedestrian safety hazard and additional traffic using municipal and county road system

m. Number of access points..minimized and or controlled Possible additional access points ( increased 50?) from rd 107 westerly segment E, use of existing route, already too many on rd 107 easterly segment E with current route proposal

OTHER ISSUES

a. To this point, it is the Townships view that not enough information has been provided with respect to what the MTOs intention or approach will be to protect the Fryfogal Inn. In the Townships view, receiving those details at some point in the future is not acceptable. That information is required now in order to make an informed decision. Additional detail and assurances in this area are required to ensure that building will be fully protected from construction and long term vibration damage

Integrity

Teamwork

Service

Continuous Improvement
Page 4 of 5

Fiscally Responsible

b. Detailed design missing sound barrier options for Village of Shakespeare area North and South options. Additional information and details are required with respect to who will co ordinate with CNR? Who will pay for noise mitigation? It is the Townships position that MTO will be responsible for the full cost of all necessary sound barriers. c. While the Township cannot speak for the County nor the City of Stratford, it would seem logical that the use of existing highway corridor, segment E West of Road 107 becomes more viable if road access continues into City of Stratford along the existing corridor as well. While it is understood that Stratford may desire direct truck access to the south industrial area, this access might be better placed within the City of Stratford itself or at least in lands that are scheduled to become within the limits of the City (i.e. Road 111). Some view this current alternative as gaining access to your property through your neighbors property and thereby eliminating or at the very least restricting the neighbors access to their own property, not to mention the neighbors loss of property. SUMMARY As outlined in the Townships previous submissions, the preservation of farmland and minimization of impacts on existing operations is paramount. As outlined above the assurance of safety for users of the highway, as well as safety of residents in the area cannot be negatively impacted by this highway. As stated above, the Township has, not, cannot and will not support any undertaking that negatively impacts safety nor the Townships ability to respond to emergencies in the municipality. The Township supports the Environmental Assessment process and it supports the objective and premise of a future roadway that is safe and efficient. The Township does however feel that this objective must be achieved in a logical fashion and in making good decisions. It is not effective efficient or appropriate to have three high volume roads or even duplicate roads travelling parallel to each other within 2km. The Township feels very strongly that there is a need to sustain and expand the economic importance of Shakespeare and thus bringing the highway to the edges with decent access to and from the provincial highway. Prospective customers and clients for the local businesses are unlikely or at the very east less likely to access a community that they cannot see from the highway. As the MTO is aware, the Township has submitted numerous pieces of correspondence over the last several years providing comments and outlining various concerns. The Township would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate those concerns at this time including extremely important issues such as farm drainage, property access, safe movement of farming equipment, easy access north and south across the corridor, pedestrian safety, among others.

Integrity

Teamwork

Service

Continuous Improvement
Page 5 of 5

Fiscally Responsible