2. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE L’EVALUATION DE L’IMPACT SUR LES TRANSPORT

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

1. Adopt the attached 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (Document 3); and

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Service to modify the guidelines for minor or administrative matters as required..

JOINT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council:

1. Adopt the attached 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (Document 3);

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services to modify the guidelines for minor or administrative matters as required;

3. That the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines require a signature of the licensed or registered professional responsible for producing Community Transportation Studies, Transportation Impact Studies and Transportation Briefs;

4. That the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines be reviewed by Committee and Council within the next 3 years; and,

5. WHEREAS many residents of rapidly growing communities feel that development is being approved even through there are concerns about whether the transportation system can handle that development;

AND WHEREAS Traffic Impact Studies are intended to prevent development from taking place when the Transportation System cannot handle additional traffic;

AND WHEREAS residents are worried about the impact on the outcome of Traffic Impact Studies when developers oversee the conduct of those studies;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment Committee and the Transportation Committee instruct staff to develop a process for having proponents of development proposals requiring traffic impact studies to pay the City to conduct those studies;

AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed process be revenue neutral for the City.

RecommandationS du comitÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES QUESTIONS RURALES

Que le Conseil municipal:

1. Adopte les Lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact sur les transports de 2006 ci-jointes (document 3); et,

2. Approuve la délégation de pouvoirs au directeur municipal adjoint, Services et Travaux publics et le cas échéant, de modifier les directives sur des questions mineures ou administratives.

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITé CONJOINT DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU COMITé DES TRANSPORTS

Que le Conseil municipal:

1. Adopte les lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact du transport 2006 ci‑jointes (3^e document).

2. Approuve la délégation de pouvoir au directeur municipal adjoint, Services et Travaux publics, afin de modifier les lignes directrices pour des détails ou des questions administratives au besoin.

3. Que les lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact du transport exigent la signature du professionnel inscrit ou autorisé qui est chargé de faire les études des transports communautaires, les études des répercussions des transports et les comptes rendus sur les transports.

4. Que le Comité et le Conseil examinent les lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact du transport d’ici trois ans.

5. ATTENDU QUE de nombreux résidents de collectivités en expansion rapide ont l’impression que les aménagements sont approuvés malgré les préoccupations que suscite la capacité du réseau des transports d’absorber l’achalandage.

ATTENDU QUE les études des répercussions sur la circulation visent à empêcher les aménagements lorsque le réseau des transports ne peut absorber la circulation supplémentaire.

ATTENDU QUE les résidents s’inquiètent de l’incidence sur le dénouement que peuvent avoir les études des répercussions sur la circulation lorsque les promoteurs supervisent ces études.

IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Comité des transports demandent au personnel d’élaborer un processus pour que les auteurs des propositions d’aménagement qui exigent des études des répercussions sur la circulation payent la Ville pour faire ces études.

IL EST AUSSI RÉSOLU QUE le processus proposé sera sans incidence sur les revenus de la Ville.

Documentation

1. A/Deputy City Managers’ report (Public Works and Services and Planning and Growth Management) dated 22 August 2006 (ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0021).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes 3, Joint Planning and Environment Committee/ Transportation Committee meeting of September 12, 2006.

3. Extract of Draft Minutes 32, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of September 14, 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council/et Conseil

22 August 2006/le 22 août 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par :

R.G. Hewitt, Acting Deputy City Manager /

Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Public Works and Services / Services et Travaux publics

John L. Moser, Acting Deputy City Manager /

Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

Contact Person / Personne ressource : Michael J. Flainek, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Director/Directeur, Traffic and Parking Operations / Circulation de stationnement

(613) 580-2424 x 26882, Michael.Flainek@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0021

SUBJECT:	TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

OBJET :	LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE L’EVALUATION DE L’IMPACT SUR LES TRANSPORT

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Transportation Committee, Planning and Environment Committee, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council:

1. Adopt the attached 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (Document 3); and,

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Service to modify the guidelines for minor or administrative matters as required.

1. RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports, le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommandent au Conseil :

1. d’adopter les Lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact sur les transports de 2006 ci-jointes (document 3); et,

2. d’approuver la délégation de pouvoirs au directeur municipal adjoint, Services et Travaux publics et le cas échéant, de modifier les directives sur des questions mineures ou administratives.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

This report presents consolidated Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines intended to facilitate the preparation and review of Transportation Impact Assessment reports submitted as supporting documentation for Planning Act applications. These modified Guidelines update and replace the previous 1995 Region of Ottawa-Carleton Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, reflecting current transportation policies and objectives plus the wider mandate and more extensive road network of the current City.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications to this report.

Public Consultation/Input:

Work undertaken in this initiative was a joint effort between the Departments of Planning and Growth Management and Public Works and Services. Consultation with, and input from the public and the development industry was an integral part of the process.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Le présent rapport présente les Lignes directrices de l’évaluation de l’impact sur les transports, destinées à faciliter la préparation et l’examen des rapports d’évaluation de l’impact sur les transports remis comme documentation à l’appui des demandes déposées en vertu de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire. Ces lignes directrices modifiées mettent à jour et remplacent les anciennes Lignes directrices de 1995 sur l’étude de l’impact sur les transports de la Région d’Ottawa-Carleton, et reflètent à présent les politiques et les objectifs actuels en matière de transport, de même que le mandat élargi et le réseau routier plus vaste de la nouvelle Ville.

Répercussions financières :

Il n'y a pas d'implications financières à ce rapport.

Consultation publique/commentaires:

Les travaux entrepris pour cette initiative ont été réalisés conjointement par Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance et Services et Travaux publics. La consultation du public et les commentaires fournis par les résidents et l’industrie de l’aménagement ont constitué une partie intégrante du processus engagé.

BACKGROUND

This report presents consolidated Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines intended to facilitate the preparation and review of TIA reports submitted as supporting documentation for Planning Act applications. The previous version of the Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, were developed by the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton in 1995. They were intended primarily to address transportation issues on Regional Roads and are still being used as the reference document to facilitate the approval of development applications. The proposed Guideline document has been prepared to reflect current transportation polices and objectives and the wider mandate of the City with regard to its complete road network and development review functions.

DISCUSSION

As part of the Development Review Process an applicant may be required to identify and address anticipated impacts on the City's transportation network as a result of a proposed development. This requirement is stated in the Planning Act and the City's Official Plan and is largely dependent on the nature and magnitude of the proposed development.

Section 4.3 of the Council-approved 2003 City Official Plan (OP) speaks to the City’s requirements for assessing the adequacy of the transportation network to meet the needs of proposed developments. Specifically, the OP states:

“The City will require a transportation impact study to be submitted where the City determines that the development may have an impact on the transportation network in the surrounding area. The transportation impact study will be undertaken in accordance with the City of Ottawa Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. The scope of the study will vary depending on the nature of the development. Under most circumstances, a study will not be required for minor infill development in areas where the road network is fully established.”

Currently, City staff are utilizing the 1995 Region of Ottawa-Carleton Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines to review development applications.

One of the most significant changes being proposed in the new Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines is a recognition of three distinct levels of analysis requirements based on the type of development application, the anticipated site trips being generated by the development, and identified traffic operational or safety triggers. In particular, the 1995 Guidelines required a Transportation Impact Study only in cases where the development was expected to generate more than 100 peak hour site trips. The proposed Guidelines set out protocols that will trigger either a mandatory Transportation Brief or a Community Transportation Study (depending on the type of application) anytime a development is expected to generate more than 75 peak hour site trips. Developments that are expected to generate more than 150 peak hour site trips will require either a Transportation Impact Study or a Community Transportation Study.

The three types of studies are further described below:

1. Community Transportation Study - addresses Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision related development (generating more than 75 peak hour trips) where the scale of development and scope and area of the traffic impact tends to be larger and at a higher level.

2. Transportation Impact Study – the standard impact study (150+ peak hour trips), requires the greatest detail and reporting, associated with road modifications and safety and operational issues.

3. Transportation Brief - a lower level analysis to address small developments (75 to 150 peak hour generated trips) that will have an impact on the road network, but are not significant and not likely to have a road modification requirement.

Moving to three study categories allows for a more appropriate and efficient process for facilitating the various development applications received. It is important to note, however, that the City retains the right to ask for a Transportation Impact Assessment whenever deemed warranted so as to respond to special circumstances that do not fit the proposed Guidelines.

Other significant changes include additional administrative and/or process details; more specific direction on study area and consideration of community concerns; additional direction regarding methods for forecasting travel demand; and additional submission requirements where roadway modifications are required to facilitate the impacts of a development.

Traffic Impact Assessment studies will continue to bear public scrutiny through the Development Review Process. The public will be encouraged to actively participate in the process through the public consultation approach adopted by Council, including: the posting of on-site signage with pertinent City contact information, advertisements in major and community newspapers, development application circulations to community groups, and staff or Councillor initiated community meetings. Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and Community Design Plan reports will continue to address the findings of Traffic Impact Assessments. Members of Council may also lift delegated authority for a site plan or subdivision application approval in order to address specific traffic concerns at Planning and Environment Committee and/or Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee.

Document 1 provides a more detailed overview of the significant differences between the 1995 Transportation Impact Study Guidelines and the recommended 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines.

Staff are seeking Council adoption of the Guidelines to provide an official position on the City's requirements (approach, scope and standards) for undertaking transportation impact assessment studies. By adopting the Guidelines, clear direction will be provided to the development industry and the City's constituents on the transportation requirements pertaining to new development.

In order to ensure that the Guidelines are as up-to-date as possible, staff are recommending delegated authority be provided to amend these Guidelines to address minor or administrative matters as required. City Council and stakeholders in the development review process would be informed of the modifications being introduced in a timely fashion.

CONSULTATION

In keeping with the City’s commitment to an inclusive planning process, the draft Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines documents were circulated to Planning and Growth Management’s Engineering Liason Sub-Committee and three groups of stakeholders for review and comment:

· The development industry (Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association [OCHBA]), and the Building Owners and Managers Association [BOMA, Ottawa Chapter]);

· The technical community (Consulting Engineers of Ontario Ottawa Chapter, and active TIS Consultants); and,

· The general public (through; a website posting, mailouts, Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit notices, and a Public Open House).

A Public Open House was held at City Hall on May 18, 2006. Representatives from over 130 Community Associations/BIAs were notified by direct mail of the Public Open House and the availability of the draft documents on the City website. Notice of the Public Open House was published on the City's information page in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit on May 12, 2006. Opportunities for general public review were also provided by the posting of the draft Guidelines on the Public Consultation section of the City's website.

The Public Open House was attended by eight persons. Document 2 provides a summary of the consultation comments received from all stakeholders, and staff responses to those comments.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications to this report.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Summary of Proposed Changes

Document 2 - Summary of Stakeholder Consultation Process

Document 3 - 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines

DISPOSITION

Upon Council’s adoption of 2006 Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines, staff will distribute the Guidelines in their final form to the applicable stakeholders.

DOCUMENT 1

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

City of Ottawa 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines Summary of Proposed Changes
Base Report
	Types of TIA Reports		The 2006 TIA Guidelines recognize three distinct types of TIA reports as compared to only one previously. The 2006 TIA Guideline reports include: · Community Transportation Study (CTS); · Transportation Impact Study (TIS); and, · Transportation Brief (TB).
	Planning Process		The 2006 TIA Guidelines now reference the relevant planning controls.
	Staff Consultation		The 2006 TIA Guidelines now recommend earlier consultation (pre TIS report submission) with the City regarding study requirements.
	Study Updates		The 2006 TIA Guidelines now require studies be updated after 5 years.
	Consultant Qualifications		The 1995 TIS Guidelines had no formal statement regarding consultant qualification. The 2006 TIA Guidelines require a licensed or registered professional with relevant experience in transportation planning.
	Process Triggers		Specific process triggers are now provided for the various types of applications.
	Minimum Volume Triggers		The 1995 TIS Guidelines did not require the preparation of a TIA report for any development expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour site trips (two-way). The 2006 TIA Guidelines do not require the preparation of a TIA report for any development expected to generate fewer than 75 peak hour site trips (two-way), except where the development sets off the safety/operations triggers. In these cases, the proponent would require a TIS report.
	Safety/ Operations Triggers		The 2006 TIA Guidelines now require a TIS for any development that sets off any one of the safety/operational triggers: · development requires roadway modifications; · development presents operational and/or safety concerns due to the location of the site accesses or the background conditions on the boundary roads; or, · the site plan includes a drive-thru facility.
	TB Triggers		The 1995 TIS Guidelines did not permit the preparation of TB. The 2006 TIA Guidelines permit an abbreviated report in the form of a TB where the forecasted site traffic volumes lie between 75 vph and 150 vph in the peak hour (two-way) and the development does not set off the safety/operations triggers.
	Study Area		2006 TIA Guidelines extend to all road types. Study area includes: · All development accesses; · CTS – whatever is required; · TIS/TB - default is all elements of the transportation system within 1 km of the site that are impacted by development traffic, but study area boundaries will be sensitive to development type, location, and existing conditions on road.
Methods for Demand Forecasting
Background Traffic		More specific direction is given on acceptable methods for estimating background traffic volumes. Specific information sources are given for potential changes to the road network, and acceptable methods are given for estimating general background growth.
Trip Generation Rates		More specific direction is given regarding potential and preferred sources of trip generation rates and typical adjustment factors for transit modal share, TDM, and commercial/retail land uses.
Trip Distribution Assumptions		More specific direction is given regarding potential sources for trip distribution data and assumptions.

City of Ottawa 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines Summary of Proposed Changes
Community Transportation Study - Analysis Methods and Documentation Guidelines
Required Analysis	· A requirement has been added for a minimum of one hour of field observations of existing conditions. · More specific guidance is given on the requirement for, and means to undertake: o network capacity analysis at a Screen-line level; o impacts on, and requirements for, non-auto modes; and, o a Transportation Demand Management program, including the requirement to identify specific links to City-run initiatives and programs.
Community Concerns	The CTS Supplement establishes the requirement to analyze potential community concerns, in the form of traffic infiltration and parking impacts.
Transportation Brief - Analysis Methods and Documentation Guidelines
Required Analysis	· A requirement has been added for a minimum of one hour of field observations of existing conditions. · More specific guidance is given on the requirement for, and means to undertake: o network capacity, non-auto mode, and on-site circulation analysis at a qualitative level; and, o a Transportation Demand Management program, including the requirement to identify specific links to City-run initiatives and programs.
Community Concerns	The TB Supplement establishes the requirement to analyze potential community impacts, in the form of traffic infiltration and parking impacts.
Transportation Impact Study - Analysis Methods and Documentation Guidelines
Required Analysis	· A requirement has been added for a minimum of one hour of field observations of existing conditions. · More specific guidance is given on the requirement for, and means to undertake: o a safety assessment; o impacts on, and requirements for, non-auto modes; o an analysis of on-site circulation and operations; and, o a Transportation Demand Management program, including the requirement to identify specific links to City-run initiatives and programs.
Community Concerns	The TIS Supplement establishes the requirement to analyze potential community impacts, in the form of traffic infiltration and parking impacts.
Draft Roadway Modification Approval (RMA) Report Requirements	Where roadway modifications are required to facilitate the impacts of a development, graphical elements (mapping and design drawings) and background analysis supporting the City’s RMA report (delegated authority report for road way modifications) will be required as part of the TIA documentation.
Functional Design Drawing Requirements	More specific direction is given regarding the details required in any functional design drawing, where modifications are required.

DOCUMENT 2

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS

Responses to all of the comments received are provided in the table below.

Note, no significant changes to the guidelines were made as a result of the consultation process. Guidelines as developed and written were found to address the comments when interpreted appropriately. Where clarity was required modifications have been made.

Consultation Comments and Response

Comment	Response
The minimum development size trigger of 75 units for a TIA should not apply to older sections of the City where streets are narrower and development denser; any intensification is bound to have an impact on traffic.	On average, 75 units will generate 75 vehicles per hour (vph) or less, which translate to slightly more than one vehicle/minute. Traffic increases of this magnitude will generally not have a measurable impact on road capacity or safety. Notwithstanding this, the City retains the right to ask for a TIA report for developments where it feels potential impacts or conditions on the existing transportation system warrant analysis.
It is important to determine if traffic impacts of intensification projects will require more frequent snow clearing in winter.	Frequency of snow clearance is an operational issue that is determined by City service delivery guidelines and available resources. Development applications are not required to consider this issue.
Final approval of the TIA Guidelines should be postponed until the new Zoning By-laws are approved, given the impact of the latter on neighbourhoods.	The proposed TIA Guidelines includes the following statement, in recognition of the need to consider other governing regulations such as the City’s Zoning by-law: “The City recognizes that there are a number of legislative and by-law requirements and physical site constraints that are considered in the development of a Site Plan (e.g., Building Code, Zoning By-law, etc.). The transportation objectives, on-site circulation and access may be superseded by other governing regulations.” This wording ensures that current versions of any such governing regulations are considered.
The TIA Guidelines should require pre-consultation with the community for all TIA.	The City of Ottawa has an approved Public Consultation approach for development proposals and the TIA Guidelines fit within that approach.
There is no mention of Transit Priority signals.	The implementation of Transit Priority signals is an operational issue that is coordinated by staff based on potential improvement for transit and potential impact on the optimal operation of the signal system for other users. Where Transit Priority is an issue for a given development, City staff will ensure that it is appropriately considered.
There is no mention of traffic light sensors for bicycles.	The implementation of bicycle sensors/detector loops at traffic signals is a detailed design issue that is always appropriately considered during the installation of new traffic signals or modification of existing signals.
There is no mention of reducing the number of “vehicle” parking spaces if a development proposal is in an area where most/many users arrive on foot, bicycle, or transit (e.g., downtown, some Transitway stations, etc.)	The TIA Guidelines are one tool to ensure that a given development meets the City’s expectations. If, for example, the Zoning By-law permits or requires a reduction in vehicle parking on a site, such reductions should be considered in the TIA in terms of potential impact on the adjacent community and in the context of the site’s Transportation Demand Management strategy.
There is no mention of the need for wider sidewalks in the downtown core and the need to assess the potential to remove traffic lanes to provide more sidewalk space.	The Analysis Methods Section dealing with Non-Auto Modes in each of the Technical Supplements for Community Transportation Studies, and Transportation Impact Studies, (Sections B2, and B3, respectively) specifically require the assessment of pedestrian level of service and the need for wider sidewalks where the development is expected to generate a large number of pedestrian trips. Sidewalk widths downtown are set based on available road right-of-way and the space required to serve all of the competing needs (pedestrians, bicycles, transit, goods movement, and autos).
Insert a requirement to specifically identify all sidewalks and pedestrian links that are maintained at all times of the year (as opposed to those that are not maintained during the winter).	Guideline text has been modified to address this concern.
Provide a list of key City of Ottawa staff contacts for distribution.	Contact with the City is to be coordinated through the Assigned Planner to the file, so that communication is internally consistent. The Planner and other key staff are identified to the Applicant at the Pre-Consultation meeting.
Confirm if it is necessary to stamp all TIA reports with a professional designation stamp.	It is not necessary to stamp, with a professional designation, TIA Reports submitted to the City.
Stipulate if the regression analysis for background growth rate calculations should be based on peak hour traffic or daily traffic. There is concern that the database of peak hour traffic counts is inadequate to forecast from.	The Consultant/Applicant is responsible for reviewing the available data, selecting the appropriate approach to regression analysis, and justifying the selected methodology.
Provide some guidance on the definition of “significant” as it applies to identifying background developments to be specifically considered in TIA background traffic development.	City staff will identify “other area background developments” that the Consultant/Applicant must consider in a TIA report during the pre-consultation process.
Will the City provide relevant data on other area developments?	City staff will provide guidance to the Consultant/Applicant on assumptions to be used in assessing traffic from “other area background developments” during the pre-consultation process.
Will the City provide a range of typical lane capacities to be used in Screen line assessment?	As capacities can vary by type of facility, this issue is best left for discussion at the time of pre-consultation.
Did the City consider using delay rather than Volume/Capacity to describe intersection performance?	The City prefers Volume/Capacity as the primary Measure of Effectiveness for intersection performance, as it is the best indicator of requirements for physical capacity (i.e. number of through lanes, requirements for auxiliary turning lanes, etc.).
Does the City prefer use of the SYNCHRO software package for assessing intersection performance? Has it benchmarked the results of intersection performance from other software packages/analysis methods?	As stated in the TIA Guidelines, the City prefers analysis completed using SYNCHRO software (version 5.0 or later). The City is prepared to consider other analysis methods and tools, but it is the Consultant/Applicant’s responsibility to justify the analysis results regardless of the software used.
The Guidelines identify the need for an assessment of potential impacts on transit operations where sites connect to or cross elements of the Rapid Transit or Transit Priority network. Is the expectation that this would be a qualitative assessment?	Yes.
Pedestrian Facility Level of Service – please clarify the expectation of this requirement.	Where pedestrian volumes warrant detailed analysis of pedestrian facility level of service, the Consultant/Applicant must include analysis that justifies the capacity and width of the proposed pedestrian facilities.
Travel projections by mode – there are several references to developing travel projections by mode. This is only practical in a few instances. Will this be required for all projects?	It is reasonable to forecast site trips by travel mode, based on typical trip generation rates for the proposed land use type and existing and anticipated mode split characteristics of the area around the proposed site.
Signal and auxiliary lane warrants – is there a preferred reference for these calculations?	Follow up document on the use of the Guidelines would cover this and the specifications of the time will be identified at the pre-consultation meeting.
RMA Report Requirements – is the expectation that the Consultant prepare material within the TIA in a format that can be easily incorporated into the RMA?	Yes. The City has provided formats for the RMA elements required from the Consultant/Applicant.
Data Quality – the traffic data available through the City’s count program is usually representative of a single day observation, typically conducted during the summer months. The count data also does not carry any indication of level of congestion under which it was collected (i.e. constrained or unconstrained). It is recommended that the City identify opportunities to enhance its data collection program.	It is the responsibility of the Consultant/Applicant to generate traffic volume data for use in the TIA report. To facilitate this, the City makes its database of traffic count data available. If the Consultant/Applicant has concerns regarding the quality of the data from the City’s database, it is their responsibility to generate acceptable data.
The TIA Guidelines provide insufficient direction on the methods for determining the need for additions to expansions of elements of the non-auto mode networks.	The Analysis Methods Section of the Technical Supplements for Community Transportation Studies, and Transportation Impact Studies outlines the methods for assessing impacts on Non-Auto Modes (Sections B2, and B3, respectively). The Consultant/Applicant is required to identify gaps/missing links in the pedestrian and cycling networks and the links required as part of the new development. The Consultant/Applicant is required to complete Level of Service analysis for pedestrian facilities where there is a question regarding the required width. Bicycle facility width is not a determinant of capacity. The Consultant/Applicant is required to assess the potential for increased delay to transit vehicles, safety concerns/conflicts with transit vehicles, and potential impacts on stations or stops where the site accesses connect to or cross elements of the Rapid Transit and/or Transit Priority Network. This will highlight any potential impacts on the performance of the existing network. The Consultant/Applicant is required to estimate the number of transit trips generated by the site. There are no generally accepted methods for assessing the potential impacts of these new riders on the existing transit service.
The TIA Guidelines set minimum volume triggers for Transportation Briefs and Community Transportation Studies (75 vph) and Transportation Impact Studies (150 vph). Do these triggers adequately account for truck traffic? Can they be interpreted to account for the fact that trucks have a much more significant impact on accesses and roads in terms of capacity and safety?	The triggers were established based on passenger vehicle volumes, as truck traffic during the peak commuter hours is generally not significant. Assessment of transportation system operations, from a capacity perspective, does inherently require the Consultant/Applicant to account for the percentage of truck traffic in the vehicle stream. Operations and safety concerns related to trucks are also considered. The TIA Guidelines do require an assessment of on-site operations, including truck circulation, conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles, and loading dock location and design.
The TIA Guidelines are focused on the automobile. This is inconsistent with the Official Plan priority on pedestrians, cycling and transit.	The TIA Guidelines require an assessment of impacts and network needs from the perspective of all transportation modes.
There should always be the opportunity to apply common sense and discretion when interpreting some the specific requirements of the Guidelines. An appropriate balance should be maintained between the demands placed on land developers and the approval requirements of the City of Ottawa. Often this balance can be struck as a result of effective communication between all parties upon study initiation.	The intent of the pre-consultation process and the on-going communication throughout the preparation of a TIA is to establish the appropriate balance between community expectations, City requirements, and land developer obligations.

Comment

Response

The Consultation process for this project has been lacking with no effort to flag its importance to the long term development of the City.

The Public Consultation process for the TIA Guidelines has been consistent with the approach used for numerous policy studies completed over the last few years.

· The draft documents were posted on the City’s Website for review and comment;

· Notices were sent to approximately 130 Community Associations/BIA’s to inform them of the project recommendations and invite attendance at the Public Open House;

· An advertisement for the Public Open House was published in the Citizen and Le Droit;

· Development Community was notified of the project through the PGM’s Engineering Liaison Sub Committee, OCHBA (Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association) and BOMA (Building Operation and Maintenance Association – Ottawa Chapter) were circulated with the draft documents for review and comment;

· Technical Community, through Consulting Engineers of Ontario – Ottawa Chapter, was circulated with the draft documents for review and comment, and, through Institute of Transportation Engineers National Capital Section, the technical industry was informed with a presentation of the project recommendations.

TIA Guidelines provide a framework for transportation impacts to be assessed as part of the development process, it draws upon the programs the City has in place to facilitate and promote alternative modes and auto trip reduction. It is through these programs and processes that long term planning is taken into account and not specifically through the Guidelines. Incentives are inherent to the guidelines to encourage developers to proceed in this direction.

Comment	Response
In accordance with the Official Plan requirements to have transit specifically addressed with in the Transportation Impact Study Guidelines a greater emphasis on transit analysis and reporting should be identified in the 2006 TIA Guidelines document	Modifications throughout the report have been made to increase awareness and to clarify the needs of the TIA Guidelines to facilitate the assessment of development on the transit network (route network and supporting facilities) and documentation of the assessment and resulting actions.
The Open House should have started at 4:30 PM or 5:00 PM to facilitate participation by people on their way home from work.	Noted.

DOCUMENT 3

2006 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

City of Ottawa

2006

Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines

Final Draft

June 2006

Department of Public Works and Services

Traffic and Parking Operations Branch

Table of Contents

Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 TIA Guidelines Structure

2. GOVERNING PLANNING POLICIES

2.1 Provincial Policy Framework

2.2 City of Ottawa Official Plan

3. PROCESS

3.1 Staff Consultation

3.2 Assessment Updates

3.3 Qualifications of the Consultant

3.4 Updates to the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines

4. SCOPE OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.1 Transportation Impact Assessment Report Approach

4.2 Types of Analysis

4.3 Analysis Parameters

APPENDIX A Methods for Demand Forecasting

A1 INTRODUCTION

A2 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

A2.1 Changes to the Study Area Transportation Network

A2.2 General Background Growth

A2.3 Other Study Area Developments

A3 SITE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

A3.1 Trip Generation

A3.2 Trip Distribution

A3.3 Trip Assignment

APPENDIX B Community Transportation Study -

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

B1 INTRODUCTION

B2 ANALYSIS METHODS

B2.1 System Congestion/ Capacity

Table of Contents

Page

APPENDIX B Community Transportation Study (continued)

B2.2 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

B2.3 Community Concerns

B2.4 Transportation Demand Management

B3 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

APPENDIX C Transportation Briefs –

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

C1 INTRODUCTION

C2 ANALYSIS METHODS

C2.1 System Congestion/ Capacity

C2.2 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

C2.3 On-Site Design and Operations

C2.4 Community Concerns

C2.5 Transportation Demand Management

C3 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

APPENDIX D TranspORTation Impact Study –

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

D1 INTRODUCTION

D2 ANALYSIS METHODS

D2.1 System Congestion/ Capacity

D2.2 Systems Operations and Safety

D2.3 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

D2.4 On-Site Design and Operations

D2.5 Community Concerns

D2.6 Transportation Demand Management

D3 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

D3.1 Transportation Impact Study Outline

D3.2 Roadway Modification Approval Report Requirements

APPENDIX E Acceptable Parameters for Operational Analysis of Signalized Intersections

APPENDIX F Roadway Modification Appoval Report - Needs and Formats

1. INTRODUCTION

The 2006 City of Ottawa Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines identify the scope and format of transportation analysis required to support applications for Development Approvals from the City of Ottawa. The TIA Guidelines document outlines:

1. The scope of analysis required to support development applications, depending on the type of development application and the size and scope of the proposal;

2. The types of analysis required to determine transportation system impacts resulting from developments and acceptable levels of service for elements of the transportation network, consistent with Transportation Master Plan policies; and

The format recommended for TIA reports that will facilitate staff review and expedite timing for comments and approvals.

TIA reports are a critical part of the development review and approval process, as they are the primary tool for identifying the potential net effects from a development proposal. TIA reports establish:

· The impacts to the transportation system as a result of the proposed development;

· Transportation infrastructure and programs needed to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level; and

· Site design features needed to support system-wide transportation objectives.

The City of Ottawa recognizes three types of TIA reports, as described in Table 1.

Table 1

Types of Transportation Impact Assessment Reports

Types of TIA Reports

General Description of Report Scope

Community Transportation Study (CTS)

Community Transportation Studies (CTS) focus on assessing the ability of the local transportation network to support the proposed development. CTS determine the major network elements required to accommodate the proposed development at an acceptable level of service in every Phase (where the proposal has multiple phases).

Transportation Impact Study (TIS)

Transportation Briefs

(TB)

Similar to TIS, Transportation Briefs (TB) focus on determining the infrastructure and programs needed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the local transportation network and establishing the site design features needed to support system-wide transportation objectives. TB are generally undertaken for developments anticipated to have less significant impacts on the transportation network.

The City of Ottawa is a diverse place with a robust development industry in each of its urban (or infill), suburban and rural areas. TIA reports must acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the proposed development and be sensitive to the context of the application.

1.1 TIA Guidelines Structure

The 2006 City of Ottawa TIA Guidelines have been divided into seven sections:

· TIA Guidelines (base document)

· Appendix A: Methods for Demand Forecasting

· Appendix B: Community Transportation Study - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

· Appendix C: Transportation Brief - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

· Appendix D: Transportation Impact Study - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

· Appendix E: Acceptable Parameters for Operational Analysis of Signalized

· Appendix F: Roadway Modification Approval Report – Needs and Formats

The front section of the report (base document) provides context for TIA reports related to the Development Application process and details a number of triggers that determine the appropriate TIA report format. Appendices A through F outline methodologies for demand forecasting, the analysis and documentation for the three types of TIA reports, and the various parameters and acceptable standards in which the TIA work is completed.

Once the triggers in the base document are reviewed and the appropriate TIA report format is selected, the user prepares the TIA report according to the Methods for Demand Forecasting and relevant Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements sections of the report. Figure 1, below, outlines the flow of decisions.

Figure 1 – TIA Guidelines Process Diagram

Text Box: TIA Guidelines
Base Document
Study Type Determination

Text Box: Methods for Demand Forecasting
Appendix A

Study Type -

Analysis and Documentation

Text Box: Traffic Signal Operation Parameters
Appendix E Text Box: RMA Report -
Needs and Formats
Appendix F

Reference Documentation

2. GOVERNING PLANNING POLICIES

2.1 Provincial Policy Framework

The Ontario Planning Act regulates and provides authority to the City of Ottawa to impose conditions when considering Planning or Development Applications. Additional authority and direction comes from the Provincial Policy Statement, the City of Ottawa Official Plan (and, through it, the Transportation Master Plan) and other regulatory documents (such as the Ontario Building Code, the Municipal Act, etc.).

The Planning Act authority to impose conditions varies by type of Development Application, with greater latitude for conditions available to staff in considering Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision or Condominium Applications. Possible conditions include:

· Property for abutting roads and public transit rights-of-way that are described in the municipal Official Plan;

· Facilities to provide access to and from the subject development, such as access ramps, curbing, and traffic direction signs;

· Off-street vehicular loading and parking facilities and access driveways; and

· Walkways and walkway ramps and all other means for pedestrian access.

2.2 City of Ottawa Official Plan

The City of Ottawa Official Plan contains policies that require the assessment of the adequacy of the complete transportation network to meet the needs of proposed developments. The Official Plan policies provide details on a number of transportation-related objectives, including a specific emphasis on transit, for the proposed development that are consistent with the City’s overall policy goals. The policies further establish the need for the preparation of a Transportation Impact Assessment report where the City deems that the proposed development may impact on the transportation network where the network includes the road, transit route, cycling and pedestrian components.

3. PROCESS

3.1 Staff Consultation

The City of Ottawa Development Application process currently encourages a pre-consultation meeting between the developer and City staff. This meeting is typically used to convey staff expectations to the developer related to supporting documentation requirements. It is anticipated that Planning and Growth Management Department staff will confirm at this meeting the need for a transportation impact assessment report in support of any development application and the required format of the assessment report (i.e., neighbourhood study, transportation impact study, or transportation brief).

As part of the pre-consultation, developers and their Consultants are encouraged to arrange a meeting with the City’s Infrastructure Approvals Division, Traffic and Parking Operations Branch and Transit Services Branch staff early in the preparation of transportation impact assessment reports to discuss and confirm the various parameters to be used in the subject analysis. At a minimum, contact will need to be made to verify the background developments and road and transit network improvements to be considered in the report. Such meetings will be coordinated through the Infrastructure Approvals Division.

3.2 Assessment Updates

No report older than five years will be deemed sufficient documentation of potential impacts of a development proposal. Where developments are phased, or reference is made to previous assessments, only reports completed within the five year period prior to the completion of the subject analysis will be accepted as relevant.

3.3 Qualifications of the Consultant

Project managers for transportation impact assessments must be licensed or registered professionals with experience in the field of transportation planning.

3.4 Updates to the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines

The Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services have the authority to amend these Guidelines to address minor or administrative matters as required. City Council and the development industry will be informed in a timely fashion of the minor or administrative matters that are being introduced.

4. SCOPE OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.1 Transportation Impact Assessment Report Approach

This section identifies benchmarks to determine the type of TIA report required to support a development application. The City of Ottawa reserves the right to dictate the scope of work required for assessment of transportation impacts associated with any development, regardless of the triggers identified below.

4.1.1 Development Application Process Triggers

The three types of TIA reports recognized by the City of Ottawa can be matched to distinct types of development applications, as is illustrated in Table 2, below.

Table 2 TIA Report Approach for Various Types of Development Applications
Type of Development Application	Type of TIA Study Required
Sites
Official Plan Amendment (OPA)	CTS
Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBL)	CTS
OPA / ZBL + Site Plan	Combined CTS / TIS
Site Plan	TIS / TB
Subdivisions
Draft Plan of Subdivision + recent CDP *	No further study required
Draft Plan of Subdivision without CDP	CTS
Draft Plan + Registration	Combined CTS / TIS
Registration	TIS / TB
* No further study will be required at the Draft Plan of Subdivision stage if a Community Design Plan with an appropriate Community Transportation Study level of supporting transportation analysis has been prepared for the area within the last five years that assumes the same development concept for the lands as is being proposed in the Application.

4.1.2 Community Transportation Studies

Community Transportation Studies (CTS) are required for the following types of Development Applications:

· Official Plan Amendments;

· Zoning By-law Amendments; and

· Draft Plans of Subdivision or Condominium

Forecasted Site Trip Generation Triggers

OP and ZBL Amendment Applications

Where OPA and ZBL Applications are expected to generate fewer than 75 vehicles per hour (vph) [peak hour, two-direction site generated trips], the City of Ottawa will not require a TIA report, as it is satisfied that impacts on the adjacent transportation network can be accommodated without the need for roadway modifications. Table 3 presents information to assist with the estimation of site generated trips. For other land use types, trip generation estimates will be made assuming typical trip generation characteristics, as represented by the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.

Table 3 Minimum Development Area Triggers for Community Transportation Studies OPA and ZBL Applications
Land Use Type	Assumed Trip Generation Rate	No Study Required (Less than 75 vph site trips)	CTS Required (In excess of 75 vph site trips)
Residential	1.01 (PM)	0 – 75 units	> 75 units
Office *	1.55 (AM)	0 – 4,500 m²	> 4,500 – 9,000 m²
Industrial *	0.98 (PM)	0 – 7,000 m²	7,000 m²
Fast Food *	53.11 (AM)	0 – 150 m²	> 150 m²
Destination Commercial *	5.00 (PM)	0 – 1,400 m²	> 1,400 m²
Convenience Market *	67.03 (AM)	0 – 100 m²	> 100 m²
* Units indicated are the gross floor area of proposed buildings

For all other OPA and ZBL Applications the analysis required to identify the potential impacts of the applications will be significant and will vary from application to application. As such, the study area and level of detail required for the impact assessment for CTS must be confirmed through consultation with City staff. CTS are generally completed at a high level, concentrating on the basic functionality of the transportation network; assessment of operational and safety issues is typically not required.

When OPA/ ZBL applications are submitted in conjunction with Site Plan Control applications, the City will require an overall assessment of network capacity (CTS) in addition to the requirements of the TIS/ TB.

Draft Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

No transportation impact analysis will be required for Draft Plans of Subdivision or Condominium for developments with 75 units or fewer.

No transportation impact analysis will be required in support of a Draft Plan of Subdivision application if a Community Design Plan with an appropriate CTS level of supporting transportation analysis has been prepared for the area within the last five years (that assumes the same development concept for the subject lands as is being proposed in the Development Application). A CTS report will be required to support a Draft Plan of Subdivision application if no CDP has been prepared within the preceding five years and the development exceeds 75 units.

Typically, the City of Ottawa will require the preparation of a TIS or TB report to support an application for Final Plan Registration, to provide analysis details that were not addressed in the CTS report filed at the Draft Plan stage. Occasionally, applications are made simultaneously for Draft Plan of Subdivision/ Condominium and Final Plan Registration. When such a simultaneous application is made, and the development exceeds 75 residential units, the City will require an overall assessment of network capacity (CTS) in addition to the requirements of the TIS or TB.

Additional analysis will be required in the form of Transportation Impact Studies or Transportation Briefs to supplement the initial CTS at the time of Final Plan Registration for individual phases for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium.

CTS reports should be prepared according to the documentation requirements outlined in Appendix B – Community Transportation Study Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements.

4.1.3 Transportation Impact Studies and Transportation Briefs

Transportation impact studies (TIS) and briefs (TB) are required for the following types of Development Applications:

· Registration of Plans of Subdivision or Condominium; and

· Site Plan Control.

Applications for Registration of Plans of Subdivision and Site Plan Control generally represent a more developed and immediate development concept; therefore, the City of Ottawa is concerned about transportation network operational and safety issues in addition to capacity concerns. Triggers reflecting these concerns have been established (see Table 4). Any one of the first three triggers (i.e., the operational / safety triggers) would drive the need to undertake a TIS, regardless of volume of site traffic generated. In the absence of operational/ safety concerns, the capacity triggers (volume of site traffic generated) determine the appropriate level of analysis.

Table 4 Triggers for Transportation Briefs and Transportation Impact Studies
Issues to Consider		Type of TIA Report Required
Issues to Consider		No Assessment	Transportation Brief	TIS
Operational / Safety Triggers
a.	Safety/ operations concerns on boundary roads	n/a	n/a	Required
b.	Drive-thru facility	n/a	n/a	Required
c.	Roadway modifications proposed	n/a	n/a	Required
Forecasted Site Trip Generation Triggers
d.	Volume of site traffic generated	0 – 75 vph	76 vph – 150 vph	> 150 vph

	Table 4 (continued) Triggers for Transportation Briefs and Transportation Impact Studies
Issues to Consider		Type of TIA Report Required
Issues to Consider		No Assessment	Transportation Brief	TIS
	Land Use Type
	Residential	0 – 75 units	76 – 150 units	> 150 units
	Office *	0 – 4,500 m²	4,501 – 9,000 m²	> 9,000 m²
	Industrial *	0 – 7,000 m²	7,001 – 14,000 m²	> 14,000 m²
	Fast Food *	0 – 150 m²	151 – 275 m²	> 275 m²
	Destination Commercial *	0 – 1,400 m²	1,401 – 2,800 m²	> 2,800 m²
	Convenience Market *	0 – 100 m²	101 – 200 m²	> 200 m²
* Units indicated are the gross floor area of proposed buildings

Safety/ Operational Concerns Triggers

The City of Ottawa will require TIS reports for developments if safety and/or traffic operations in the vicinity of access points are of concern. Typical conditions that would generate access-related safety or operational concerns include those outlined below (this list is not exhaustive; it is representative of the most common conditions):

· Operating Speeds on the adjacent road exceed 80 km/hr (typically rural);

· The adjacent road is designated part of the Transit Priority or Rapid Transit Network (typically urban/suburban);

· Horizontal/ vertical curvature on the adjacent road at proposed access limits sight lines;

· Traffic volumes on the adjacent road are significant enough to cause queuing, storage, or delay concerns;

· The frequency of collisions meets or exceeds six (6) in any particular pattern over a three year period on development-affected roadways, and

· Access is within area of influence of an adjacent traffic signal, defined as within:

· 300 m of the signal in rural conditions;

· 25 m of the end of taper at an intersection with auxiliary lanes under urban/ suburban conditions; or

· 150 m of a signalized intersection without tapers/ flares under urban/suburban conditions.

Regardless of the size or location of the development, a TIS report will be required for all proposals that include drive-thru facilities, to demonstrate that sufficient on-site storage is being provided and that no impacts will occur on public streets. A TIS report will also be required for all proposals that include roadway modifications to the boundary roads.

Forecasted Site Trip Generation Triggers

As indicated in Table 4, where Development Applications are expected to generate fewer than 75 vehicles per hour (vph) [peak hour, two-direction site generated trips], and no operational/ safety triggers apply, the City of Ottawa will not require a TIA report, as it is satisfied that impacts on the adjacent transportation network can be accommodated without the need for roadway modifications. Table 4 presents information to assist with the estimation of site generated trips. For other land use types, trip generation estimates will be made assuming typical trip generation characteristics, as represented by the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.

Additionally, where Development Applications are expected to generate between 75 and 150 vehicles per hour (vph) [peak hour, two-direction site generated trips], and no operational/ safety triggers apply, a Transportation Brief may be sufficient.

TIS and TB reports should be prepared according to the documentation requirements outlined in Appendix C –Transportation Brief Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements and Appendix D – Transportation Impact Study Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements.

4.2 Types of Analysis

The following describes the types of analysis to be undertaken to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system. Accepted methodologies for undertaking the required analysis are documented in this report under Appendices A through D:

· Appendix A – Methods for Demand Forecasting

· Appendix B – Community Transportation Study Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

· Appendix C – Transportation Brief Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

· Appendix D – Transportation Impact Study Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

4.2.1 System Congestion and Capacity

An evaluation is required of the projected level of service/ capacity of the local road network elements that will be affected by site generated transportation demands during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios.

4.2.2 System Operations and Safety

Transportation Impact Studies and Transportation Briefs must consider potential operational and safety concerns through intersections, on road or transit segments or on ramps that will be created or affected by site generated transportation demands during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios. Community Transportation Studies are generally completed at a high level, concentrating on the basic functionality of the transportation network; assessment of operational and safety issues is not required.

4.2.3 Non-Auto Modes

All TIA reports will assess the provisions made in the development proposal for all non-auto modes, in keeping with the policy directions established by the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. Elements of the proposal that support rapid and conventional transit ridership, cycling, and pedestrian movements on the study area transportation network must be identified. The OP requires that developers determine the method and means by which the development, as well as adjacent areas, can be efficiently and effectively serviced by transit. Pedestrian and bicycle network continuity should be considered, as should Official and Transportation Master Plan policy requirements related to the provision of infrastructure to promote non-auto modes.

4.2.4 On-Site Design and Operations

Transportation Impact Studies and Transportation Briefs must consider the ability of the site to support the City of Ottawa’s transportation policy objectives. The proposed layout of the site will be considered and the potential for on-site traffic operations to affect the safe and efficient operation of the adjacent roads will be identified.

The City recognizes that there are a number of legislative and By-law requirements and physical site constraints that are considered in the development of a Site Plan (e.g., Building Code, Zoning By-law, etc). The transportation objectives, on-site circulation and access may be superceded by other governing regulations.

4.2.5 Community Impacts

An evaluation of the potential for community impacts resulting from the proposed development is required. The focus of the analysis will be on the potential for neighbourhood infiltration by site generated traffic and the proposed scheme for accommodating the parking demand generated by the site.

4.2.6 Transportation Demand Management

4.3 Analysis Parameters

4.3.1 Study Area

The City of Ottawa is a diverse place with a robust development industry in each of its urban (or infill), suburban and rural areas. The intent of TIA reports is to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation, acknowledging the circumstances surrounding the proposed development. The Study Area for TIA reports will be established considering:

· The location and type of proposed development;

· The existing traffic volumes on the adjacent road network; and

· The existing transportation network adjacent to the site.

The default study area will be all access points/ driveways to the proposed development and all elements of the transportation network within 1 kilometre of the proposed site (in all directions) that are impacted by development traffic. Where the TIA report addresses impacts related to an infill development staff may be prepared to review the required study area for the report.

4.3.2 Time Periods

The transportation impact assessment report must consider two conditions to fully determine the effects of the development proposal:

1. The impact of the development on the peak conditions of the adjacent transportation infrastructure; and

2. The impact of the peak site generated traffic volumes on the adjacent transportation infrastructure.

Typically, the AM and PM peak weekday peak hours of the adjacent streets will constitute the “worst case” of the combination of site-related and background traffic; however in the case of retail, entertainment, recreational, religious, institutional, or special events uses, Thursday / Friday evening, Saturday, Sunday or site peak hours may also require analysis. As part of the pre-consultation process prior to commencing the analysis, the consultant should determine and justify the selected time periods for analysis in conjunction with City staff.

4.3.3 Horizon Years

The City of Ottawa requires that all transportation impact assessments consider two horizon periods for analysis:

1. buildout/ full occupancy of the development (full occupancy where it is not the same as buildout); and

2. buildout/ full occupancy + 5 years.

Where development of a site is proceeding in phases, analysis of potential impacts should be completed for each of the phases proposed for the development. In the case of phased development, the need to complete a “buildout + 5 years” analysis may be waived by the City, depending on the timing of the phases.

APPENDIX A

Methods for Demand Forecasting

A1. INTRODUCTION

The Methods for Demand Forecasting section establishes the accepted methodologies for forecasting the transportation demands that are to be used in the preparation of a Transportation Impact Assessment Report whether the report is a CTS, TB or TIS.

Applying the methodologies identified in this section should be done so in conjunction with the direction and understanding of the base conditions of the TIA as identified in sections 1 through 4 of this report.

A2. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

Anticipated background conditions should be confirmed with City of Ottawa staff prior to undertaking the demand forecasting component of the transportation impact assessment. Three main parameters need to be confirmed with City staff:

· Potential / planned changes to the study area road and transit route networks;

· Rate of general background growth on the arterial network; and

· Other anticipated developments in the study area.

These parameters are discussed individually below.

A2.1 Changes to the Study Area Transportation Network

The City of Ottawa anticipates significant changes to its transportation network over time, specifically the road and transit route components. These changes need to be reflected in the future background traffic volumes to create an appropriate foundation for the assessment of the impacts of the subject development. Planned transportation network changes are identified in the Schedules of the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan and in the City’s Transportation Master Plan; however the City’s Capital Budget Plan is the only accepted source for the anticipated timing of major projects. Smaller scale transportation projects may also be associated with other local developments and should be accounted for, where they impact the assignment of traffic from the subject development.

The Consultant must project and demonstrate the impact of the planned network changes on traffic and travel patterns, particularly those associated with new facilities (as opposed to widened facilities). Significant assumptions related to the reassignment of traffic patterns must be detailed in the Consultant’s report. Input may be available from the City of Ottawa’s Long-Range Transportation Model.

A2.2 General Background Growth

The rate of growth in background traffic should be established through one of the following methods:

· Regression analysis of historical traffic growth;

· A growth rate based on an area or neighbourhood transportation study;

· Estimation of screenline growth from the City of Ottawa’s Long-Range Transportation Model; or

· Projected rates of growth in area population and/or employment.

Where growth in the area of the development under consideration has been significant in the recent past or will be significant within the horizon years of the assessment, regression-based methods may be inappropriate.

Historical traffic volume data and population/ employment data can be obtained where available from the City of Ottawa’s Public Works and Services and Planning and Growth Management Departments, respectively.

Direction regarding the appropriate methodology for estimating background traffic growth should be obtained from City of Ottawa Planning and Growth Management Department Staff. For information regarding current and future transit ridership levels, City of Ottawa Transit Services Branch staff may be consulted.

A2.3 Other Study Area Developments

All significant developments under construction, approved, or in the approval process within the study area which are likely to occur within the identified horizon years must be identified and recognized in the subject transportation impact assessment report. Planning and Growth Management Department staff will identify the land-use type and magnitude of the probable future developments in the horizon years.

A3. SITE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

All trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment assumptions should be in accordance with standard accepted techniques and based on local conditions. Sources should be well documented and any assumptions that may be considered as being aggressive or less than conservative should be rigorously justified. Sensitivity analysis should be completed for any parameter surrounded by significant uncertainty.

A3.1 Trip Generation

Consultation with City of Ottawa staff is recommended to ensure that appropriate trip generation rates and assumptions are being employed in the transportation impact assessment. All trip generation assumptions (i.e., basic rates and adjustment factors) must be completely rationalized and justified within the transportation impact assessment report, including the source of trip generation rate information and the rationale as to its applicability. Sample calculations are to be provided where first principles assumptions are used and/or multiple adjustment factors are adopted.

A3.1.1 Basic Rates

Supported trip generation methodologies include, in order of preference:

1. The updated TRANS trip generation manual (anticipated to be available in 2007);

2. Trip generation surveys from similar developments in the City. Surveyed sites should have similar operating and market characteristics to the development proposal (supporting statistical analysis demonstrating the relevance of surveyed rate would be beneficial) ;

3. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation rates, as documented in the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual or in other technical sources from ITE; and

4. “First principles” calculations of anticipated trips to/ from the site.

A3.1.2 General Adjustment Factors

A number of adjustment factors should be considered in addition to the basic site trip generation rate.

Deduction of Existing Site Trips – Total Redevelopment Scenario

Where the development proposal is for the total redevelopment of an existing site (i.e., the existing use is removed and replaced by the proposed use), it is acceptable to deduct existing site trips generated by the existing use from the projected site trips to calculate the net impact on the transportation system. Similarly, where the application is for an expansion to an existing site, it is appropriate to consider only the additional trips to be generated by the expanded site. However, operational analysis of site accesses must consider the total volume of site traffic following redevelopment (i.e., existing + new trips).

Transit/ Cycling/ Pedestrian Share

Modal shares for the proposed development will vary from location to location across the City. Trip generation rates taken from local surveys may need to be adjusted to reflect the difference between the source modal share and the modal share that can be expected given the location of the proposed site.

Many of the trip generation rates quoted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual represent locations with low modal shares for transit/ cycling/ pedestrians; given Ottawa’s commitment to these modes it may be reasonable to adjust trip generation rates from this source.

Figure 3.7 on page 26 of the 2003 City of Ottawa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) provides data on transit modal splits for several planning screenlines around the City. Given the short-term nature of most transportation impact assessments, significant deviation from the 2002 transit modal split levels shown in TMP Figure 3.7 that cannot be justified by commensurate increases in transit service will not be supported. Some increases may still be acceptable, given that the planned transit modal split increases to the 2021 levels shown in TMP Figure 3.7 in the City of Ottawa will be achieved over time. Trip generation calculations should assume logical changes to, or growth in, existing transit/ cycling/ pedestrian modal shares over time.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

The challenge in applying TDM reductions to site trip generation rates is the difficulty in isolating the effects of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) on a single development. The 2003 City of Ottawa TMP update targeted a 5.5% reduction in all peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a combination of trip elimination (3%); time shifting (1%); and increases in auto occupancy (1.5%) by the year 2020. Application of TDM adjustment factors to an individual site will need to be justified and commensurate program and infrastructure requirements of the developer must be identified.

A3.1.3 Commercial Adjustment Factors

Typical trip generation rates represent the total volume of traffic measured at the driveways to the proposed development. For many commercial developments, driveway volumes include a mixture of trips that are new to the road network and trips that are attracted from the adjacent roadway or adjacent developments.

Pass-by trips

Trips attracted from the adjacent roadway are usually referred to as “pass-by” trips. Pass-by trips are already on the adjacent road traveling from primary origin to ultimate destination, and make an intermediate stop at the proposed development to execute a transaction. For example, a driver may stop at a convenience market or gas station on his/ her way home from work. The trip in terms of market is not a new trip added to the road system; it is temporarily diverted from the adjacent traffic stream. If pass-by trip assumptions are used as an adjustment factor in determining trip generation, these trips must still be accounted for in the turning movements into and out of the site.

The Recommended Practices appendix to the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7^th Edition) suggests acceptable pass-by trip percentages. Deviations from these pass-by percentages must be defended.

Synergy/ Internalization

Trips attracted to two or more uses on the same site are usually referred to as having “synergy”. For example, a trip to a multi-use site may be destined to both a grocery store and a restaurant. Synergy between uses should reduce the number of trips generated by the site, as compared to when site traffic is calculated by summing the trip generation forecasts for the individual components of the site.

The rate of internalization for multi-use sites varies from site to site, depending on the combination of uses. Because of this, no “typical rates” data is available for the rate of trip internalization on multi-use sites. Assumptions in transportation impact assessments must be justified and (preferably) supported by the results of site trip generation surveys.

A3.2 Trip Distribution

The directions from which traffic will approach and depart the site can vary depending on several location-specific factors, including:

· Size and type of the proposed development;

· Surrounding land uses, particularly location of competing developments;

· Distribution of population and employment; and

· Characteristics of the surrounding road network.

The trip distribution assumptions should be justified in the report, and may be based on one or more of the following:

· Origin-destination surveys or comprehensive travel surveys;

· Market studies;

· Census tract data;

· Population and employment distribution data provided by Planning and Growth Management Department staff;

· Output from the City of Ottawa’s Long Range Transportation Model; and

· Existing/ anticipated travel patterns.

A3.3 Trip Assignment

Traffic assignments should consider logical routings, available, current and projected roadway capacities, and travel times. Traffic assignments may be estimated using a transportation planning model or “hand assignment” based on knowledge of the study area.

Existing access rights should not be assumed where the TIA report concerns redevelopment of an existing property. City staff will review the proposed land use and conditions on the adjacent transportation network and identify an acceptable access pattern.

APPENDIX B

Community Transportation Study

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

B1. INTRODUCTION

The Community Transportation Study - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements section establishes the accepted methodologies for analyzing development impacts, determining required mitigation measures and documenting the results for Community Transportation Studies (CTS).

Applying the methodologies identified in this section should be done so in conjunction with the direction and understanding of the base conditions of the TIA as identified in the report’s sections 1 through 4 and Appendix A - Methods for Demand Forecasting.

B2. ANALYSIS METHODS

B2.1 System Congestion/Capacity

B2.1.1 Screenline Analysis

CTS must include a screenline analysis. Screenline analysis is a comparison of forecasted demands and lane capacities on the major road network (including freeways, arterial roads and major collector roads) connecting the site to the area transportation network. Typical lane capacities should be established based on the Official Plan designation for the local road classifications and the general characteristics of the roads (e.g., suburban with limited access, urban with on-street parking, etc.). Mitigation measures in the form of additional lane capacity must be identified where V/C for the screenline exceeds 0.90, except in the Urban Core, where 1.0 is acceptable.

Screenline analysis should consider new capacity that is planned to occur within the horizon of the development. Planned transportation network changes are identified in the Schedules of the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan and in the City’s Transportation Master Plan; however the City’s Capital Budget Plan is the only accepted source for the anticipated timing of major projects.

Transit demands should also be considered, based on the assumed transit modal split, and transit network requirements identified. Consideration should be given to the Official Plan Schedules showing the Rapid Transit and Transit Priority networks.

B2.1.2 Intersection Capacity

An evaluation is required of any critical intersection within the study area that will potentially be affected by site generated traffic volumes during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios. Summaries are to be provided in tabular format clearly identifying intersection performance under existing and future traffic conditions. Where development is anticipated to proceed in phases or stages, projected performance for all intersections must be documented for the end of each phase.

Detailed output from analysis software is to be provided in an appendix to the report and copies of the electronic files should be provided on CD. Appendix E outlines parameters to be used in operational analysis of signalized intersections.

All volume to capacity (V/C) calculations relating to future conditions should be determined using signal timing optimized for the volume conditions being studied. The V/C ratio for an intersection is defined as the sum of equivalent volumes for all critical movements divided by the sum of capacities for all critical movements assuming that the V/C ratios for critical movements can be equalized. In cases where minimum pedestrian phase times prevent equalizing the level of service for critical movements, then the V/C ratio for the most heavily saturated critical movement should be considered as the V/C ratio for the intersection. Adjustment for the impact of pedestrian activated control is permitted provided detailed supporting analysis including projected pedestrian volumes is provided and discussed in advance with traffic engineering staff.

The Consultant must undertake at least one hour of observations during peak traffic conditions to verify that the traffic volumes through the intersections reflect existing demands and to identify unusual operating conditions. Timing of observations and conditions observed should be documented in writing in the report.

The City of Ottawa has adopted criteria that directly relate the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of a signalized intersection to a level of service (LoS) rating. These categories are;

LEVEL OF SERVICE VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO

A 0 to 0.60

B 0.61 to 0.70

C 0.71 to 0.80

D 0.81 to 0.90

E 0.91 to 1.00

F > 1.00

Intersection evaluations should identify:

· Signalized Intersections – V/C ratios for the overall intersection, as defined above, and individual movements; and

· Unsignalized Intersections - Level of service (LOS) where the LOS is between A and E; V/C where capacity is based on gap analysis if intersection LOS is F.

Mitigation measures in the form of the addition of lane capacity and/or signal timing/ phasing adjustments will be required where V/C ratios for signalized intersections exceed 0.90, as defined above, except in the Urban Core, where 1.0 is acceptable.

Existing signal timing information such as phasing, pedestrian minimums and clearance intervals must be used as a base to analyze the existing capacity of signalized intersections. This signal timing data should be obtained from the City of Ottawa Traffic Operations Division. Operational design of the signals analyzed should be in accordance with City of Ottawa signal operation practices.

In cases where roadways have closely spaced signals and especially when there are heavy turning movements, the analysis should confirm that storage limitations will not prevent signalized intersections from operating at the predicted V/C ratio.

Traffic control device and auxiliary lane warrants should be completed and documented in the CTS report, as required.

The City of Ottawa prefers that analysis be completed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS version 4d or later), or Synchro (version 5 or later). Should a consultant wish to utilize a software package other than those listed above, prior approval must be obtained from the City’s Traffic Operations Division.

B2.2 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

An assessment is required of the provisions made in the development proposal for all non-auto modes, in keeping with the policy directions established by the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. Elements of the proposal that support rapid and conventional transit ridership, cycling, and pedestrian movements on the study area transportation network must be identified. Section 4.3, 5(b) of the OP requires that developers determine the method and means by which the development, as well as adjacent areas, can be efficiently and effectively serviced by transit. Pedestrian and bicycle network continuity should be considered, as should Official and Transportation Master Plan policy requirements related to the provision of infrastructure to promote non-auto modes.

An assessment of potential impacts on transit operations must be undertaken for current transit routes and any service changes proposed by the applicant and where the site accesses connect to or cross elements of the City’s Rapid Transit or Transit Priority Networks (see Schedules of the Transportation Master Plan and/or Official Plan for the City’s transit networks). The assessment will identify the potential for increased delay to transit vehicles, safety concerns/ conflicts with transit vehicles, and any impacts on stations or stops.

Gaps in pedestrian and cycling network continuity, due to missing infrastructure or as a result of winter maintenance, should be identified. That is, the Consultant should note where obvious gaps in the networks would exist as a result of the site pedestrian and cycling facilities not connecting or being accessible or having access to pedestrian and/or cycling facilities on the existing transportation network. Identification of these gaps will assist City staff in approving development related transportation infrastructure and/or prioritizing its own program of pedestrian and cycling facility construction and maintenance.

A detailed assessment of pedestrian facility level of service will be required in the vicinity of the site where the development is expected to produce significant pedestrian volumes. City staff will identify situations where this will be an issue. Additional sidewalk or facility width may be required in such circumstances.

B2.3 Community Concerns

B2.3.1 Community Transportation Impacts

The CTS report will review the transportation network in the vicinity of the proposed development and identify potential neighbourhood infiltration routes. Focusing on these routes in the study area, the report will identify site-related traffic impacts on potentially affected neighbourhood streets during both the commuter peak and the projected site peak and an appropriate mitigation strategy, where one is required.

B2.3.2 Parking Impacts

For developments that generate significant auto parking demand the TIS report will review the site-generated parking demand and will demonstrate an appropriate parking strategy for the development.

B.2.4 Transportation Demand Management

A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan must be prepared for the proposed development, identifying links to City’s TDM initiatives and mechanisms for integrating the proposed development into the existing services and programs. The City’s TDM Section, within the Public Works and Services Department, is available to assist in developing a TDM plan.

B3. DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

The structure and format of the Community Transportation Study should follow the guidelines outlined in this document, as applicable. The following is a suggested report structure:

Report Context

· Description of the development (include all of the following that are known at the time of the application):

q Municipal address;

q Location relative to major elements of the existing transportation system (e.g., the site is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Main Street/ First Street, 600 metres from the Maple Street Rapid Transit Station);

q Existing land uses or permitted use provisions in the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, etc.;

q Proposed land uses and relevant planning regulations to be used in the analysis;

q Proposed development size (building size, number of residential units, etc.) and location on site;

q Estimated date of occupancy;

q Planned phasing of development;

q Proposed number of parking spaces (not relevant for Draft Plans of Subdivision); and

q Proposed access points and type of access (full turns, right-in/ right-out, turning restrictions, etc.).

· Study area

· Time periods and phasing; and

· Horizon years (include reference to phased development).

The CTS must include a key plan that shows the general location of the development in relation to the surrounding area. The CTS must also provide a draft site plan or development concept of a suitable scale that shows the general location of the development and the proposed access locations. If the proposed development/ redevelopment is to be constructed in phases, a description must be provided for each phase, identifying the proposed timing of implementation.

Existing Conditions

· Existing roads and ramps in the study area, including jurisdiction, classification, number of lanes, and posted speed limit;

· Existing intersections, indicating type of control, lane configurations, turning restrictions, and any other relevant data (e.g., extraordinary lane widths, grades, etc.);

· Existing access points to adjacent developments (both sides of all roads bordering the site);

· Existing transit system, including stations and stops;

· Existing on- and off-road bicycle facilities and pedestrian sidewalks and pathway networks;

· Existing system operations (V/C, LOS); and

· Major trip generators/ attractors within the Study Area should be indicated.

The CTS report must include figures documenting the existing travel demands by mode. A photographic inventory of the transportation network elements in the vicinity of the proposed access points would be beneficial to staff in their review of the Consultant’s report.

Demand Forecasting

· General background growth

· Other study area developments

· Changes to the study area road network

· Trip generation rates

· Trip distribution and assignment

o include figures documenting total future travel demands by mode for each horizon year

Impact Analysis

· Network Capacity Analysis

· Non-auto network connections and continuity

· Potential for community impacts

· TDM

Mitigation Measures and Site Design Characteristics

The CTS must identify all mitigation measures required to offset network impacts from the development. The CTS must also identify key site design features required to implement the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan policies regarding site development.

The CTS must include all of the following, where they are required by the subject development:

· Major network elements required to bring the screenlines to or below acceptable operating guidelines, and comments regarding consistency of the requirements with the Transportation Master Plan and Capital Budget;

· Location and timing of proposed changes to existing traffic controls at intersections (e.g., new traffic signals, Stop signs, etc.);

· Location and timing of new intersections, including proposed traffic control measures (e.g., traffic signals, etc.);

· Requirements for new auxiliary lanes;

· Mitigation measures required to offset impacts on the surface and Rapid Transit networks;

· New or modified elements of the bicycle and pedestrian networks;

· Community impact mitigation measures;

· Demonstration that Official Plan policies regarding transit-supportive developments have been incorporated appropriately; and

· Proposed TDM features or programs to support the site development.

APPENDIX C

Transportation Brief

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

C1. INTRODUCTION

The Transportation Briefs - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements section establishes the accepted methodologies for analyzing development impacts, determining required mitigation measures and documenting the results for TIA related transportation briefs.

Transportation Briefs (TB) focus on determining the infrastructure and programs needed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the local transportation network and establishing the site design features needed to support system-wide transportation objectives. TB are generally undertaken for developments anticipated to have less significant impacts on the transportation network.

C2. ANALYSIS METHODS

C2.1 System Congestion/ Capacity

C2.1.1 Existing Intersection Capacity

An operational evaluation of signalized and unsignalized intersections that will be affected by site generated traffic volumes during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios is required. Summaries are to be provided in tabular format clearly identifying intersection performance under existing conditions. Detailed output from analysis software is to be provided in an appendix to the report and copies of the electronic files should be provided on CD. Appendix E outlines parameters to be used in operational analysis of signalized intersections.

The volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for an intersection is defined as the sum of equivalent volumes for all critical movements divided by the sum of capacities for all critical movements assuming that the V/C ratios for critical movements can be equalized. In cases where minimum pedestrian phase times prevent equalizing the level of service for critical movements, then the V/C ratio for the most heavily saturated critical movement should be considered as the V/C ratio for the intersection. Adjustment for the impact of pedestrian activated control is permitted provided detailed supporting analysis including projected pedestrian volumes is provided and discussed in advance with traffic engineering staff.

The City of Ottawa has adopted criteria that directly relate the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of a signalized intersection to a level of service (LoS) rating. These categories are;

LEVEL OF SERVICE VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO

A 0 to 0.60

B 0.61 to 0.70

C 0.71 to 0.80

D 0.81 to 0.90

E 0.91 to 1.00

F > 1.00

Intersection evaluations should identify:

· Signalized Intersections – V/C ratios for the overall intersection, as defined above, and individual movements; and

· Unsignalized Intersections - Level of service (LOS) where the LOS is between A and E; V/C where capacity is based on gap analysis if intersection LOS is F.

Mitigation measures in the form of signal timing/ phasing adjustments will be required where V/C ratios for signalized intersections exceed 0.90, as defined above, except in the Urban Core, where 1.0 is acceptable.

The City of Ottawa prefers that analysis be completed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS version 4d or later), or Synchro (version 5 or later),. Should a consultant wish to utilize a software package other than those listed above, prior approval must be obtained from the City’s Traffic Operations Division.

C2.1.2 Existing Queuing Capacity at Major Intersections

Intersection evaluations should identify projected queue lengths and available storage for auxiliary and through lanes on all approaches.

C2.1.3 Impacts on Congestion/ Capacity

A qualitative assessment of potential impacts from the site development on system capacity is required. The analysis should reference existing surplus capacity and storage for queues (assuming surplus capacity exists) and justify the ability of the network to accommodate the development without the need for network modifications.

C2.2 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

C2.3 On-Site Design and Operations

Particular attention must be paid to the potential for on-site traffic operations to affect the safe and efficient operation of the adjacent roads and the ability of the site to support the City of Ottawa’s transportation policy objectives. Focus will be on identifying:

· an evaluation of proposed on-site circulation and provision for pedestrian and cycling movements, including pedestrian movements to and from transit stops (clear and direct pedestrian and cycling pathways must be provided, including connections to existing facilities);

· potential for conflict/ spill-back from on-site intersections and parking aisles/ stalls to driveway intersections with the City’s road network; and

· location of truck access and loading/ unloading facilities.

The City recognizes that there are a number of legislative and By-law requirements and physical site constraints that are considered in the development of a Site Plan (e.g., Building Code, Zoning By-law, etc). The transportation objectives for on-site circulation and access may be superceded by other governing regulations.

C2.4 Community Concerns

C2.4.1 Community Transportation Impacts

The TIS report will review the transportation network in the vicinity of the proposed development and identify potential neighbourhood infiltration routes. Focusing on these routes in the study area, the report will identify site-related traffic impacts on potentially affected neighbourhood streets during both the commuter peak and the projected site peak and an appropriate mitigation strategy, where one is required.

C2.4.2 Parking Impacts

For developments that generate significant auto parking demand the TIS report will review the site-generated parking demand and will demonstrate an appropriate parking strategy for the development.

C2.5 Transportation Demand Management

C3. DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

The structure and format of the Transportation Brief should follow the guidelines outlined in this document, as applicable. The following is a suggested report structure:

Report Context

· Description of the development (include all of the following that are known at the time of the application):

q Municipal address;

q Existing land uses or permitted use provisions in the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, etc.;

q Proposed land uses and relevant planning regulations to be used in the analysis;

q Proposed development size (building size, number of residential units, etc.) and location on site;

q Estimated date of occupancy;

q Planned phasing of development;

q Proposed number of parking spaces (not relevant for Registration of Plans of Subdivision); and

q Proposed access points and type of access (full turns, right-in/ right-out, turning restrictions, etc.).

· Study area

· Time periods and phasing; and

· Horizon years (include reference to phased development).

The TB must include a key plan that shows the general location of the development in relation to the surrounding area. The TB must also provide a draft site plan or development concept of a suitable scale that shows the general location of the development and the proposed access locations. If the proposed development/ redevelopment is to be constructed in phases, a description must be provided for each phase, identifying the proposed timing of implementation.

Existing Conditions

· Existing roads and ramps in the study area, including jurisdiction, classification, number of lanes, and posted speed limit;

· Existing intersections, indicating type of control, lane configurations, turning restrictions, and any other relevant data (e.g., extraordinary lane widths, grades, etc.);

· Existing access points to adjacent developments (both sides of all roads bordering the site);

· Existing transit system, including stations and stops;

· Existing on- and off-road bicycle facilities and pedestrian sidewalks and pathway networks;

· Existing system operations (V/C, LOS); and

· Major trip generators/ attractors within the Study Area should be indicated.

The TB report must include figures documenting the existing travel demands by. A photographic inventory of the transportation network elements in the vicinity of the proposed access points would be beneficial to staff in their review of the Consultant’s report.

Demand Forecasting

· Trip generation forecasts

Impact Analysis

· Qualitative assessment of impacts on capacity; non-auto modes; on-site circulation; community

Mitigation Measures and Site Design Characteristics

The TB must identify all mitigation measures required to offset network impacts from the development. The TB must also identify key site design features required to implement the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan policies regarding site development.

The TB must include all of the following, where they are required by the subject development:

· Location and timing of proposed changes to existing traffic controls at intersections (e.g., new traffic signals, Stop signs, etc.);

· Mitigation measures required to offset impacts on the surface and Rapid Transit networks;

· New or modified elements of the bicycle and pedestrian networks;

· Community impact mitigation measures; and

· Proposed TDM features or programs to support the site development.

APPENDIX D

Transportation Impact Study

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

D1. INTRODUCTION

The Transportation Impact Studies - Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements section establishes the accepted methodologies for analyzing development impacts, determining required mitigation measures and documenting the results for TIA related transportation impact studies.

Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) focus on determining the specific infrastructure and programs needed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the local transportation network and establishing the site design features needed to support system-wide transportation objectives. Where geometric modifications are, or a change in the function of the existing road is required, delegated authority will be required to approve the road work on City Council’s behalf. Appendix F - Roadway Modification Approval (RMA) Report Element Formats identifies the RMA requirements to be included in the analysis, design and documentation of the TIS report.

D2. ANALYSIS METHODS

D2.1 System Congestion/Capacity

D2.1.1 Intersection Capacity

An operational evaluation of signalized and unsignalized intersections that will be affected by site generated traffic volumes during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios is required. Summaries are to be provided in tabular format clearly identifying intersection performance under existing, future background, and total future traffic conditions. Detailed output from analysis software is to be provided in an appendix to the report and copies of the electronic files should be provided on CD. Appendix E outlines parameters to be used in operational analysis of signalized intersections.

The City of Ottawa has adopted criteria that directly relate the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of a signalized intersection to a level of service (LoS) rating. These categories are;

LEVEL OF SERVICE VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO

A 0 to 0.60

B 0.61 to 0.70

C 0.71 to 0.80

D 0.81 to 0.90

E 0.91 to 1.00

F > 1.00

Intersection evaluations should identify:

· Signalized Intersections – V/C ratios for the overall intersection, as defined above, and individual movements; and

· Unsignalized Intersections - Level of service (LOS) where the LOS is between A and E; V/C where capacity is based on gap analysis if intersection LOS is F.

Traffic control device and auxiliary lane warrants should be completed and documented in the TIS report, as required.

D2.1.2 Queuing Capacity at Major Intersections

Intersection evaluations should identify projected queue lengths and available storage for auxiliary and through lanes on all approaches. Mitigation measures in the form of the addition of lane capacity and/or signal timing/ phasing adjustments will be required where projected 95^th percentile queue lengths exceed available storage.

D2.2 System Operations and Safety

An evaluation is required of potential operational and safety concerns through intersections, on road segments or on ramps that will be created or affected by site generated traffic volumes during any or all of the relevant time periods and scenarios. Consideration must be given to the potential to exacerbate existing safety concerns, and operational issues such as:

· Vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-cycling conflicts;

· Weaving;

· Merging/ diverging;

· Corner clearances;

· Sight distances/ sight line assessment (where grades at access points are an issue); and

· Access conflicts.

The Consultant must undertake at least one hour of observations during peak traffic conditions to evaluate operating conditions on the study area roadways and identify potential operational concerns.

Historical collision data comprised of the last three (3) years from the development-affected roadways must be collected from the City of Ottawa’s Public Works and Services Department and evaluated to determine if there are any identifiable collision patterns (a collision pattern is more than one collision at a roadway location that involves similar directions and impact types). Should the frequency of six (6) collisions be equaled or exceeded in any particular pattern over a three-year period for a given intersection or road segment, a collision diagram must be prepared. The potential for the proposed site traffic to aggravate an existing concern must be assessed and possible countermeasures identified.

D2.3 Provision for Non-Auto Modes

D2.4 On-Site Design and Operations

· queuing demand and capacity for drive-thru facilities;

· potential for conflict/ spill-back from on-site intersections and parking aisles/ stalls to driveway intersections with the City’s road network; and

· location of truck access and loading/ unloading facilities.

The City recognizes that there are a number of legislative and By-law requirements and physical site constraints that are considered in the development of a Site Plan (e.g., Building Code, Zoning By-law, etc). The transportation objectives for on-site circulation and access may be superceded by other governing regulations.

D2.5 Community Concerns

D2.5.1 Community Transportation Impacts

D2.5.2 Parking Impacts

For developments that generate significant auto parking demand the TIS report will review the site-generated parking demand and will demonstrate an appropriate parking strategy for the development.

D2.6 Transportation Demand Management

D3. DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

D3.1 Transportation Impact Study Outline

The structure and format of the Community Transportation Study should follow the guidelines outlined in this document, as applicable. The following is a suggested report structure:

Report Context

· Description of the development (include all of the following that are known at the time of the application):

q Municipal address;

q Existing land uses or permitted use provisions in the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, etc.;

q Proposed land uses and relevant planning regulations to be used in the analysis;

q Proposed development size (building size, number of residential units, etc.) and location on site;

q Estimated date of occupancy;

q Planned phasing of development;

q Proposed number of parking spaces (not relevant for Draft Plans of Subdivision); and

q Proposed access points and type of access (full turns, right-in/ right-out, turning restrictions, etc.

· Study area

· Time periods and phasing; and

· Horizon years (include reference to phased development).

The TIS must include a key plan that shows the general location of the development in relation to the surrounding area. The TIS must also provide a draft site plan of a suitable scale that shows the general location of the development and the proposed access. If the proposed development/ redevelopment is to be constructed in phases, a description must be provided for each phase, identifying the proposed timing of implementation.

Existing Conditions

· Existing roads and ramps in the study area, including jurisdiction, classification, number of lanes, and posted speed limit;

· Existing intersections, indicating type of control, lane configurations, turning restrictions, and any other relevant data (e.g., extraordinary lane widths, grades, etc.);

· Existing access points to adjacent developments (both sides of all roads bordering the site);

· Existing transit system, including stations and stops;

· Existing on- and off-road bicycle facilities and pedestrian sidewalks and pathway networks;

· Existing system operations (V/C, LOS); and

· Major trip generators/ attractors within the Study Area should be indicated.

The TIS report must include: a context plan of a suitable scale that shows the general location of the development, the proposed access locations and the existing conditions in the surrounding area; figures documenting the existing travel demands by mode; and a summary of collisions for the effected study area roads. A photographic inventory of the transportation network elements in the vicinity of the proposed access points would be beneficial to staff in their review of the Consultant’s report.

Demand Forecasting

· General background growth

· Other study area developments

· Changes to the study area road network

· Future background system operations (V/C, LOS, queue lengths)

o include figures documenting future background travel demands by mode for each horizon year

· Trip generation rates

· Trip distribution and assignment

o include figures documenting forecasted site trip generation and assignment by mode

o include figures documenting total future travel demands by mode for each horizon year

Impact Analysis

· Total future system operations (V/C, LOS, queue lengths)

· Signal and auxiliary lane (device) warrants

· Operational/ safety assessment (e.g., sight line assessment where grades are an issue)

· Storage analysis for closely spaced intersections

· Pedestrian and bicycle network connections and continuity

· On-site circulation and design

· Potential for neighbourhood impacts

· TDM

Mitigation Measures and Site Design Characteristics

The TIS must identify all mitigation measures required to offset network impacts from the development. The CTS must also identify key site design features required to implement the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan policies regarding site development.

The TIS must include all of the following, where they are required by the subject development:

· Location and timing of proposed changes to existing traffic controls at intersections (e.g., new traffic signals, Stop signs, etc.);

· Location and timing of new intersections, including proposed traffic control measures (e.g., traffic signals, etc.);

· Requirements for new auxiliary lanes;

· Mitigation measures required to offset impacts on the surface and Rapid Transit networks;

· New or modified elements of the bicycle and pedestrian networks;

· Community impact mitigation measures; and

· Proposed TDM features or programs to support the site development.

D3.2 Roadway Modification Approval Report Requirements

Roadway modifications identified to offset network impacts from the development require specific approval from the City’s Transportation Committee. This approval is satisfied under delegated authority of the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services and has been included as part of the Development Approvals Process. A separate document outside of the TIS is used to facilitate the approval. This document, the Roadway Modification Approval (RMA) Report, is produced in conjunction with the TIS by the City’s Department of Public Work and Services. The following TIS required elements are utilized to complete the RMA report;

· Key Map,

· Context Plan,

· Functional Design Drawing (for roadway modifications with cost estimates),

· Turning Movement Diagram, and

· Collision Data and Diagram (if required by the TIA Study).

Format and content of these elements are required to be to RMA Report standard. These standards have been provided in Appendix F. Road modification approval is contingent on the complete compliance of these standards.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE L’EVALUATION DE L’IMPACT SUR LES TRANSPORT

ACS2006-PWS-TRF-0021

In his introductory comments, Michael Flainek, Director, Traffic and Parking Operations indicated that the Guidelines are part of an existing process and a tool that facilitates development within the city. The guidelines are an update of the 1995 Guidelines adopted by the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) and that the City of Ottawa adopted as it’s standard.

Greg Kent, Program Manager, Design Review and Implementation, gave a detailed presentation on the Guidelines by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.

In reference to Pedestrian Phases (as per Appendix E), and in particular with regard to median storage, Councillor Cullen noted a centre median width of 5 metres, even though the standard width of sidewalks is 2 metres. When asked whether 5 metres was the standard, the Director explained that the total width includes a 3.5 metre turning lane and what remains is the width of the median. While he acknowledged that some medians are wide enough to accommodate pedestrians, it is staff’s preference to ensure the crossing time is long enough that pedestrians can cross the road completely in one cycle. The councillor recognized that not everyone can cross a wide road in the time provided for them and he asked whether accepting this report establishes a standard of requiring 5 metres to accommodate pedestrians. In a memorandum to the members of the Joint Committee, Mr. Flainek agreed to clarify the size requirement with regard to the median portion for pedestrians prior to this report rising to Council.

Following on the previous comments, Councillor Legendre noted that as a last resort, pedestrians would use the median as a refuge and he asked whether that refuge would be taken into account as part of the calculations for crossing time and design of intersections. He did not think medians are safe for pedestrians and therefore should not be part of the Guidelines. The Director reiterated that, in general, there is enough time for people to cross the road if they leave the curb at the start of the walk signal. The councillor asked that, in addition to the clarification requested for median size requirement, staff also provide a written explanation in the guidelines. Mr. Flainek confirmed this would be done.

With regards to the difference in walking speed referenced in the report for pedestrians and for seniors, Councillor Legendre did not believe the time allowed for seniors was sufficient. He suggested a larger difference be provided for in those areas where elderly persons are known to cross. The Director advised that while industry standards are applied, and although it is not specifically referenced in the report, whenever there are particular crossing issues raised, staff have adjusted the crossing time accordingly. To provide the necessary clarity, the councillor asked that this be added to the report. He further suggested that the beginning of the report reflect that there will be some flexibility depending on special circumstances. The Director confirmed this would be clarified in the memo to be sent to members of the Joint Committee.

Chair Hume cautioned that what was being suggested could be interpreted differently by developers. He suggested that if staff is building flexibility into these Guidelines, it should not be such that it can be used against the City in development applications.

Councillor Legendre noted that one of the questions raised as part of the public consultation set minimum volume triggers for a Transportation Brief (TB) and a Community Transportation Study (CTS). He went on to say that some types of development, such as industrial or commercial, would be expected to attract more than their share of truck traffic and in that circumstance, he questioned whether a different trigger level would be set. The Director advised that staff would still have to go through the process of designing the roadway system, as well as reviewing the on-site circulation; therefore, if they are accommodating five or ten trucks, this will not make a difference with regard to how the City actually evaluates and ensures the trucks are handled safely. The councillor noted that these studies speak to the impact on the surrounding community and he maintained that if that development is going to attract a different kind of vehicle, there is a different impact on the surrounding community. In order to more adequately address the concerns of the surrounding neighbourhood, he indicated he would be more comfortable with a different trigger level. The Director suggested Section 4.1 of the draft Guidelines might address his concern.

With regards to right-turn channelization lanes and the small islands created as a result, Councillor Legendre recalled some discussion on this particular matter and the problems associated with them, during a recent Transportation Committee meeting. He noted that the Guidelines appear to support these structures. Mr. Flainek explained that the details provided in Appendix F – Roadway Modifications Approval - which show right-turn channelization islands, were not meant to imply any type of standard at this point, but are simply examples of the scale of the drawing that staff would like the consulting community to provide as part of any report. The illustration does not imply the Committee’s overall approval of these things.

In response to additional questions posed by the councillor, Mr. Flainek explained that the Guidelines make reference to other types of approved standards for roadway systems with respect to cycling, pedestrians and heavy goods movements. He felt the best way

to deal with the issues that continue to come up with respect to channelization would be to bring forward a report addressing this.

Michael Wildman, Acting Manager, Infrastructure Approvals Branch added that what is before the committee are Guidelines that staff want to implement for undertaking three different types of studies to take a look at the impacts of traffic during the development process. He confirmed that this brings it to the functional design stage and the subsequent stage of detailed design would be where staff examine the issues being raised by the councillor.

Several members raised concerns about the public consultation process held in May, namely:

§ The small number of participants at the Open House (only eight members of the public) may have been indicative of the lack of appropriate notification;

§ Poor turnout might also have resulted because the Open House was scheduled on a date just prior to the May long weekend;

§ The downtown location for the Open House may have deterred attendance from residents from outlying areas

Mr. Flainek confirmed there was participation in the consultation process from the development community and community associations. This is one of the main reasons why the standards were changed from 100 vehicles/hour to 75 vehicles/hour. He confirmed that notices were circulated by mail two weeks in advance (and copied to all Members of Council) and the information was also available on the City’s web site.

Councillor Holmes noted that many of the comments on the proposed Guidelines relate to concerns about their being a reworking of the former RMOC’s guidelines where vehicles were the prime consideration. She explained that her residents are looking for pedestrian changes and safety and bicycle elements that would come out of an assessment of 75 vehicle/hour site trip development. With regards to how staff accommodate the various usages and alternative modes, the Director noted that the word “transportation” in the document title refers to all modes of travel and staff ensure, as much as possible, that pedestrian and cycling networks are adequately addressed. Mr. Wildman added that there are a number of sections in the report that speak to these modes and these will be further studies as part of the three studies referred to in the Guidelines.

Councillor Feltmate inquired as to why no consideration was given for City staff doing transportation reports paid for by the developers and these be revenue neutral. The Director explained that on major subdivisions and site plans, a transportation consultant would be part of the process, advising the developer as to where the accesses should be, the standards to utilize and other related considerations. An engineer would also be advising the developer regarding the magnitude of the project, because all sites are built out to their full potential. That process then evolves into a TIS and the Guidelines are a definition of what the City would like to look at and determines what is acceptable as far as a scale of review. He confirmed that City staff review all TIS closely to determine if they are in conformity with traffic generation rates, thus staff are involved in the review of the consultants report from the outset. Following a review and based on the City’s design standards and the Guidelines being put forward, staff can go back to the developer and say which other measures are needed to accommodate the full transportation impacts.

Councillor Feltmate expressed the belief there was a gap in terms of the work staff does to help residents understand that their interests have been thoroughly protected. Larry Morrison, Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals explained that it is as a result of that perception that the Guidelines were put in place. He recognized that these were previously developed for traffic impacts on arterial roads whilst the guidelines before the committee look at impacts on all roads as a result of development. He noted that the development industry actually helped get the Guidelines in place because they needed specific direction on how to address traffic impacts. He indicated that even if the City were to undertake these studies, it would require additional staff resources. Mr. Flainek added that if the concern relates to the integrity of the consulting community, Section 3.3 of the Guidelines addresses that concern.

Councillor Feltmate proposed the following:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the joint Planning and Environment Committee and Transportation Committee instruct staff to examine a process for having proponents of development proposals requiring traffic impact studies to pay the City to conduct those studies;

AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed process be revenue neutral for the City.

The councillor expressed the belief this was an example of where the City should have a communications plan in place to consult with communities about what the Guidelines mean, how they are based on best practices and how they will be helpful to residents.

Councillor Thompson referred to the bullet: “New or modified elements of the bicycle and pedestrian networks” on page 41 of the report and asked that it be made more specific by including “in rural and urban areas”. He noted there is a major push for pathways in the rural areas and because of the nature of those areas, cyclists have to use existing roadways or shoulders. Mr. Flainek explained that this report encompasses the entire City and does not differentiate between rural and urban areas. If staff were to highlight a difference between urban and rural, the whole report would have to be rewritten from that point of view. He reiterated that this document references other guidelines that take into account specific concerns related to other transportation modes.

Councillor Thompson explained that his concern is that, with few exceptions, there are no bicycle or pedestrian networks in the rural areas and he was not comfortable with the use of the term “modifying” to address those needs in the future. Mr. Flainek believed it would and reminded the Committee about the other reports that this process would reference, including the Rural Pathways Plan developed by local community organizations. He confirmed that staffs was rolling that information into the overall review of the pedestrian and cycling networks and a report would be brought forward in the near future.

Councillor Bellemare believed there was a grey area in the proposed Guidelines regarding the cumulative impact of small infill developments. He commented that if a string of such developments in the same neighbourhood occurred over a few years and only a TB was performed, the community would lose out. He made reference to the statement in the report about the City retaining the right to ask for a TIS when warranted, however no specific reference is provided to the cumulative impact of infill developments. The Councillor acknowledged that, while this is being looked at and does form part of the current practise, it is still vague as to when a TIS is warranted.

Mr. Morrison explained that as part of community design plan exercises being undertaken in a number of communities, staff are beginning to work on that kind of approach, where rather than looking at a specific site, they now look at the community and the neighbourhood. He believed this addresses the cumulative impact referred to by the councillor and acknowledged there is more work to be done in this regard. The councillor asked whether a development of less than 100 units (warranting only a TB) with additional units coming on over time, would trigger a TIS or simply a second TB. He believed that when the City is looking at the redevelopment of an entire street, or significant new development in a neighbourhood, a detailed study should be initiated as early as possible so that subsequent developments can build on it and the detailed studies can be updated over time. Mr. Morrison advised that the CTS would take into consideration any traffic information originally collected. Should a subsequent development be built a few blocks away a year or so later, staff would provide the previous traffic information to the developer, along with all the background growth in traffic as well. This documentation would keep adding up until such time as a Neighbourhood Study was required.

The Committee then considered the following Motion:

Moved by J. Legendre

That the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines require a signature of the licensed or registered professional responsible for producing Community Transportation Studies, Transportation Impact Studies and Transportation Briefs.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

That the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines be reviewed by Committee and Council within the next 3 years.

CARRIED

Speaking to Councillor Feltmate’s Motion, Councillor Holmes suggested the word “examine” be changed to “develop”. This would presuppose that a follow-up report would come to the Joint Committee, at which time it could determine whether or not to approve any recommendation brought forward.

Councillor Bédard inquired how many additional staff would be needed to supervise the contractors reporting to the City. While he could not provide specific numbers, the Director advised that the qualifier about the process being revenue-neutral to the City would require more significant resources that either Planning and Growth Management or Public Works currently have. Based on this response, the councillor did not have a problem with keeping the wording as it was, because the direction calls for staff to report back. However, he was concerned about amending the Motion to read “develop”, because this implies a direction to do something.

Councillor Hunter said he believed that the Motion would change the City from an entity that vets consultants’ reports to one that manages them, and given the choice, he would prefer the former. He did not believe there would be any value added through this approach but rather that it would weaken the City’s position with regard to accepting or rejecting reports based on their findings.

Some committee members expressed the belief that professionals, as opposed to developers vetting these reports and reporting directly to the City will add greater transparency to the process. Councillor Feltmate clarified her intent was to reassure the public that professionals are doing the work they are hired to do. Her Motion calls for staff to develop a mechanism, but also recognizes that it does not commit the City to adopt one.

After further discussion, the Committee considered the following:

Moved by P. Feltmate

WHEREAS many residents of rapidly growing communities feel that development is being approved even through there are concerns about whether the transportation system can handle that development;

AND WHEREAS Traffic Impact Studies are intended to prevent development from taking place when the Transportation System cannot handle additional traffic;

AND WHEREAS residents are worried about the impact on the outcome of Traffic Impact Studies when developers oversee the conduct of those studies;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the joint Planning and Environment Committee and the Transportation Committee instruct staff to develop a process for having proponents of development proposals requiring traffic impact studies to pay the City to conduct those studies;

AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed process be revenue neutral for the City.

CARRIED

YEAS (8) B. Monette, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, J. Legendre, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (4) E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, G. Bédard, D. Thompson

The Committee then considered the report recommendations, as amended by the foregoing Motions:

That Transportation Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Adopt the attached 2006 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (Document 3);

2. Approve the delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services to modify the Guidelines for minor or administrative matters as required;

4. That the Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines be reviewed by Committee and Council within the next 3 years; and,

5. WHEREAS many residents of rapidly growing communities feel that development is being approved even through there are concerns about whether the transportation system can handle that development;

AND WHEREAS Traffic Impact Studies are intended to prevent development from taking place when the Transportation System cannot handle additional traffic;

AND WHEREAS residents are worried about the impact on the outcome of Traffic Impact Studies when developers oversee the conduct of those studies;

AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed process be revenue neutral for the City.

CARRIED, as amended

GENERAL TIMING STANDARDS
Maximum cycle length for analysis	· 120 sec
Minimum green time	· 10 sec for side street through movements · 5 sec for left-turn phases
Vehicle clearance	· Must consist of amber and all red display. Duration in accordance with Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12.
PEDESTRIAN PHASES
Minimum walk time	· 7 sec
Walking speed	· 1.2 m/sec; 1.1 m/sec if near old age home, school or shopping centre
Pedestrian clearance	· Must be sufficient to allow crossing from curb to curb (including central medians). Includes vehicle clearance time in accordance with Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12.
Median storage	· If centre median storage for pedestrians is provided (minimum median width of 5.0 m), then the minimum walk time must be of sufficient duration to allow a crossing from the curb to the far side of the median plus one lane. The pedestrian clearance interval must be of sufficient duration to permit the longest crossing from the median to the curb. Use of median for pedestrian refuge shall only be considered in consultation with TPO staff.
AUXILIARY TURN LANE PHASING
Overlap left-turn	· In cases where left-turn phasing is required for opposing left-turn movements and one of the movements is much heavier than the opposing movement, consideration should be given to early termination of the arrow indication for the lighter left-turn movement in order to permit an earlier commencement of the conflicting through movement. Appropriate vehicle clearance displays must be provided for all left-turn phases. Proper account must be made for lost time resulting from these clearances.
Protected only left-turn phasing	· Protected only left-turn phasing must be used when conditions are such that an undue hazard might result if permissive phasing were used. This is normally considered to be the case with a double left turn.
Shared lane operation	· All movements permitted from a shared use lane must operate on the same signal phase.
Dual right/left-turn movements	· Conflicting pedestrian movements should not be permitted simultaneously with dual right/left-turn movements. Normally, dual right turns will also require signalization.
Right/Left-turn arrows	· A right/left-turn arrow shall not be displayed at the same time that a conflicting pedestrian movement is permitted.
INTERSECTION SPACING AND MINIMUM STORAGE LENGTHS
Visibility	· As per the requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 12, signalized intersections should be a minimum of 120 metres apart, centreline to centreline, to ensure adequate visibility of the signal heads.
Through vehicle storage between intersections	· Signalized intersections must be sufficiently spaced to ensure that storage is available to accommodate 1.5 times the average number of vehicles arriving on each red indication during the heaviest hour (assuming an average vehicle length of 7 metres).
Storage lane lengths	· Left-turn storage lanes must be long enough to accommodate 1.5 times the average number of arrivals per cycle in the heaviest hour. Where double left turn lanes are in use, calculations should assume a 45%/ 55% distribution of traffic between the lanes. · Right-turn storage lanes must be long enough to permit right-turning traffic to clear the maximum queue of through vehicles that is anticipated to accumulate during the red indication. All calculations must assume an average vehicle length of 7 metres.
PARAMETERS FOR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Heavy vehicle equivalent	· Heavy vehicles or buses 1.7
Saturation flow rate	· The maximum assumed ideal unadjusted saturation flow rate shall not exceed 1800 passenger cars per hour of green per lane, unless a higher or lower rate can be justified by the Consultant through data.

2. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE L’EVALUATION DE L’IMPACT SUR LES TRANSPORT

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Documentation

DOCUMENT 2

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS

Consultation Comments and Response

Final Draft

3. PROCESS

APPENDIX A Methods for Demand Forecasting

APPENDIX B Community Transportation Study -

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

B2 ANALYSIS METHODS

B3 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

APPENDIX C Transportation Briefs –

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

C2 ANALYSIS METHODS

C3 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

APPENDIX D TranspORTation Impact Study –

Analysis Methods and Documentation Requirements

APPENDIX E Acceptable Parameters for Operational Analysis of Signalized Intersections

APPENDIX F Roadway Modification Appoval Report - Needs and Formats

1. The scope of analysis required to support development applications, depending on the type of development application and the size and scope of the proposal;

2. The types of analysis required to determine transportation system impacts resulting from developments and acceptable levels of service for elements of the transportation network, consistent with Transportation Master Plan policies; and

A2.3 Other Study Area Developments

A3.2 Trip Distribution

A3.3 Trip Assignment

B2.1 System Congestion/Capacity

C2.1 System Congestion/ Capacity

Roadway Modification Approval - Support Documentation

Key Map

Context Plan

Functional Design Drawing

CARRIED