REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: January 16, 2019 Report No. EPW-19-003
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Jeff Miller, Director of Engineering & Public Works
SUBJECT:
Title
Lyall Street Corridor Cross section
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council approves the implementation of Option 1 for the Lyall Street Corridor Cross section and that staff provides information within the 2019 financial discussions for Council’s review.
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Streets and Traffic Regulation Bylaw, 2017, No. 2898
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
• Healthy and Liveable Community - Ensure Multi-modal Traffic Strategies consider and reflect business and residential growth and development
• Well-Managed and Maintained Infrastructure - Identify infrastructure repair and proactively plan for replacement need
BACKGROUND:
Lyall Street runs east to west in the southern portion of the Township. It has the following features:
• Length = 1.9 kilometres
• Right of way width = 18.3 metres
• Sidewalks on both sides either of concrete or asphalt
• Current cross section from north to south is:
o Grass boulevard, concrete sidewalk, on street parking, west travel lane, east travel lane, on street parking, asphalt sidewalk, grass boulevard
o See Attachment 5 for visual representation
• Speed limit varies from 50 km/hr. to 30 km/hr.
• Designated as a Residential Collector Road under Official Community Plan
• Streetscape is mix of single family homes, parks, school, military base
• On street parking on both sides of the street
Under the Host Community Impact 5-Year Agreement, signed in 2017, sections 10 and 11 deal with the potential Lyall Street Enhancement Project. The Capital Regional District would provide funding for enhancement of street cross section and amenities based on public consultation. (See Attachment 1 for copies of sections.)
In January of 2018, a consultant was retained by the Township to initiate the public consultation and design processes for the Lyall Street Enhancement Project. The scope of work included:
• Analysis of level of service for street
• Assist the Township in the supply and gathering of public input
• Develop a new cross section for the corridor
• Design the preferred cross section
• Develop a phasing plan for construction along with expected Class C cost estimates
Based on the modelling of the street and rest of the Township, the majority of Lyall Street provides an acceptable level of service during the am/pm peaks at the current time. The exception is the Lyall/Lampson intersection that operates at a level of service of D or better during the peak periods. This level of service will decrease in the future to level of service of F. The modelling also undertook bike counts along with the information collected from the Capital Regional District regional bike counts. This information was also supplemented by undertaking pedestrian, bike and vehicle counts at the intersections of Admirals/Lyall and Lampson/Lyall in December of 2018. (See Attachments 2.1 & 2.2 for the results of the modelling and counts.)
When this project was started, the Capital Region District’s Regional Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (PCMP) and the Official Community Plan (OCP) were reviewed. Under the PCMP, Lyall Street was not identified as one of the streets requiring bike lanes. Under the previous OCP projects were to include the inclusion of bike lanes on all potential corridor projects. The current OCP has projects reviewing only the potential of adding bike lanes to projects but does not suggest that all corridor projects should receive bike lanes.
The next step after the modelling of traffic patterns on the street was obtaining feedback from the public. This exercise was utilized to determine what the public’s expectations were for multi-modal transportation. Residents along Lyall Street were notified by hand delivered notice of the on-line survey. An on-line survey, as well as hardcopies of the survey, was made available to other users and stakeholders. (See Attachment 3 for the invitation to residents, survey form and comments received.)
There were 268 respondents to the survey. Of these respondents:
• 24% (64) live on Lyall
• 54% (145) live within five minutes of Lyall
• 22% (59) were located in other areas
When asked to rank transportation options the following options were the top three:
• Bike lanes
• Sidewalk on one side with a multi-use path on the other side
• On street parking on at least one side of the street
To improve an individual’s transportation experience, the following themes were recorded:
• Reduce speed limit
• Introduction of traffic calming feature(s)
• Improve cyclist safety with a separate bike facility
• Preserve parking on one side of the street at least
This information was then utilized by the consultant and Township staff to determine a potential design. The potential design was an attempt to meet the needs identified by the July survey, PCMP and OCP (previous version). The potential design was presented to the public in an open house format in November of 2018. (See Attachments 4.1 - 4.3 for: invitation to the public, open house display information and comments received.)
The potential design (See Attachment 5) included the following major features:
• Sidewalks (both sides)
• Separated bike lanes (both sides)
• On street parking (both sides)
• Traffic calming measures
Attendance for the event saw 75 people sign in with as many of 150 or so individuals attending. 109 comments were also received either at the open house or subsequently by hardcopy or email. In reviewing the comments received back on the potential design, the following breakdown was determined:
• Support of the potential design - 42%
• Support of the potential design with conditions or improvements - 26%
• Not in favour of the potential design - 15%
• Did not state a preference to potential design but identified other concerns - 17%
This information was then utilized to determine a preferred cross section for Council’s review and approval.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
As the Township worked through the public consultation process, the residents provided much needed feedback to what type of cross section would fulfill their needs for this road corridor. This was valuable information for the Township as it provided a very good snapshot of the residents’ expectations. When the open house was held the proposed cross section was provided but not its expected cost. This was done to gain an understanding of resident expectations without them being clouded by the cost impact of any proposed work.
Upon completion of the consultation process, staff and the Consultant determined the costs for the proposed cross section. Several other options were also developed that scaled back the scope of work. These other options were developed in order to see what could be accomplished for the available budget funds. This option development was also carried out with an understanding this project would have on the funding of other potential projects and programs within the Township.
The four options developed for the Lyall Street Corridor are:
• Option 1 - Mill and overlay of the road surface
• Option 2 - Renewal of the existing infrastructure
• Option 3 - Renewal of the existing infrastructure and infrastructure modification
• Option 4 - Renewal of the existing infrastructure, infrastructure modification and additional infrastructure
The option that is recommended is Option 1. See Attachments 6.1 to 6.4 for options, scope of work, costs, and potential phasing.
When a financial lens is the primary factor utilized for decision making, it negates the information gathered and developed through the public consultation process. Utilizing information from the public consultation process (without the financial lens) would suggest that Options 3 and 4 would better fill the residents’ expectations for the corridor.
The recommendation of Option 1 is based on a purely financial basis. While there are funds available to the Township through the Host Community Agreement, these funds are only a portion of the potential costs. The remainder of the costs would be supplied from other sources which will impact the Township overall. It was then necessary to view this level of investment in this corridor (local residential collector) with other infrastructure needs and demands within the Township to determine if this was the best utilization of Township funds. By this review and comparison of needs and demands it was determined that Option 1 should be recommended. Option 1 also allows for the future renewal of existing infrastructure, infrastructure modification and additional modification in future budget years as funding becomes available.
2. Organizational Implications
The detail design and construction of Option 1 does not have any significant organizational implications. The Engineering Department has included this project in their work plans and has designated staff to undertake the work as funding becomes available.
3. Financial Implications
Order of magnitude cost estimates have been prepared for the various options. See Attachments 6.1 to 6.4 for the scope of work, costs and potential phasing of the various options. These costs are:
Option Order of Magnitude Cost
Option 1 $1,560,000
Option 2 $4,700,000
Option 3 $5,600,000
Option 4 $8,090,000
Currently through the Host Community Agreement (see Attachment 1) funding of up to $950,000 would be available for this project.
Due to the total cost of the various options, the Township would not have adequate reserve funds available. Instead the Township would have to seek long term debt financing for this work if it was to occur as a single or phased project(s). The payback period options would be between 10 to 30 years. Applications for this funding are only accepted twice a year (spring and fall).
Due to the magnitude of the funding and its potential impact on debt level servicing, in order to move forward with this alternative for funding, electoral approval may be necessary.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications
The recommended option has some sustainability impacts. A component of the existing infrastructure is nearing the ends of its life span. By carrying out this work, the life span will be reset and minimize maintenance costs for it. Other components of infrastructure will continue to require maintenance activities to maintain them. As well, the recommended option does not address possible reduction in greenhouse gas generation by providing a corridor that has improved levels of alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking).
5. Communication & Engagement
Upon a decision on what the cross section will be, staff will post this information on the Township’s website and other social media forums. A letter will also be sent to the Lyall Street residents describing the new cross section and next steps in the process.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That Council approves the implementation of Option 1 for the Lyall Street Corridor cross section and that staff provide information within the 2019 financial discussions for Council’s review.
2. That Council approves the implementation of Option 3 for the Lyall Street Corridor cross section and that staff provide information within the 2019 financial discussions for Council’s review.
3. That Council approves the implementation of Option 4 for the Lyall Street Corridor cross section and that staff provide information within the 2019 financial discussions for Council’s review.
4. That Council approves the implementation of Option 2 for the Lyall Street Corridor cross section and that staff provide information within the 2019 financial discussions for Council’s review.