public information centre no.1 bram west parkway · heritage road, in the south by 2016. recommends...

Public Information Centre No.1

Bram West Parkway From Financial Drive to Heritage Road

and

Financial Drive From Heritage Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard

WELCOME

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule C)

June 27, 2012 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Please sign in so that we can keep you updated on the study

Bram West Parkway (Financial Drive to Heritage Road) and Financial Drive (Heritage Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard)

Purpose of Public Information Centre No. 1

This is the first of two Public Information Centres (PICs) to be held during the study to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on project details.

The PIC has been arranged to:

Introduce the study to the public;

Provide background context and information;

Present the need and justification for the extension of Financial Drive from Heritage Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard;

Present alternative planning solutions and identify the preferred alternative planning solution for Financial Drive;

Present the process for assessing and evaluating alignment alternatives for Bram West Parkway;

Identify the preliminary preferred alternative alignment for Bram West Parkway;

Obtain public input and comments; and

Identify the next steps in the process, including the preliminary design phase.


Study Overview

The purpose of this study is to conduct a Class Environment Assessment (EA) for the extension of Financial Drive from Heritage Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard and a new north-south arterial road, Bram West Parkway, from Heritage Road to the extended Financial Drive. Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for Bram West Parkway were carried out during the Halton-Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study (HPBATS) (2010):

HPBATS was a joint study to develop a regional transportation strategy to address the needs of the Regions of Halton and Peel, the City of Brampton and the Towns of Caledon and Halton Hills.

The strategy included the north-south arterial road “Bram West Parkway” as part of a larger north-south transportation corridor.

As a Transportation Master Plan, HPBATS serves as direct input into subsequent Class EA requirements to implement the individual projects that make up the recommended transportation strategy and network.

Therefore, the main objectives of this study are to:

Complete Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process for Bram West Parkway;

Complete Phases 1 to 4 of the Municipal Class EA process for Financial Drive;

Consider a reasonable range of alternatives;

Consider the impacts to all aspects of the environment through a systematic assessment and evaluation of alternatives;

Develop preliminary preferred designs; and

Encourage participation from the public and potentially affected parties early in and throughout the process.


The Municipal Class EA Process

The Municipal Class EA process enables the planning and implementation of municipal infrastructure projects to be undertaken in accordance with an approved procedure, giving due regard to the need to protect the environment and minimize negative effects. The Municipal Class EA process is depicted below:


The Class EA Process For This Study

This study is following the process of Schedule ‘C’ requirements of the Municipal Class EA which will complete Phases 3 and 4 for Bram West Parkway and Phases 1 to 4 for Financial Drive.

PIC No. 1 We are here

PIC No. 2 (fall 2012)

30 Day Public Review (spring 2013)

Phase 1:

Problem/Opportunity

Phase 2:

Alternative Solutions

Phase 3:

Alternative Designs

Phase 4:

Environmental Study

Report

Phase 5:

Implementation

Fin

an

cia

l D

riv

e

Bram

West

Parkw

ay

Phases 1 and 2 of the Bram West Parkway were completed through HPBATS, therefore our current Study will start at Phase 3 for Bram West Parkway.


Public Consultation

Public input is an essential component of the decision-making process. Opportunities to provide your input are not limited to formal consultation events such as this PIC, or other milestones. You can provide input to the study team at any point throughout the study. The Study Team recognizes that there are many different interests within our Study Area. To provide all affected stakeholders with an opportunity to become involved in our study, our Public Consultation program includes outreach and inviting feedback from the:

Stakeholder Group (directly affected landowners within the Study Area);

Technical Agency Committee (including Ministry of Natural Resources, Credit Valley Conservation, municipalities etc.);

Utilities (e.g., TransCanada Pipeline, Enbridge, Hydro One); and the

General public.


Background – Transportation and Transit Master Plan

Transportation and Transit Master Plan (TTMP) (2009)

The TTMP sets out policies and programs to support the long-term transportation vision for the City of Brampton.

In terms of specific policies related to our Study, the TTMP:

Identifies a north-south transportation corridor (NSTC) from Heritage Road to Mayfield Road with a 407 ETR interchange between Hwy 401 and Mississauga Road.

Recognizes that the section of the NSTC between 407 ETR and Embleton Road, known as Bram West Parkway, is required to support the full development in the Bram West Secondary Plan.

Recommends Bram West Parkway be constructed as an initial 6 lane cross section from south of Embleton Road to the proposed 407 ETR interchange and a 4-lane cross section from the proposed 407 ETR interchange to Heritage Road, in the south by 2016.

Recommends a 4 lane extension of Financial Drive from Steeles Avenue to Winston Churchill Boulevard by 2016.

Other studies carried out in accordance with the TTMP:

• Financial Drive Class EA, from Mississauga Road to Heritage Road (part of the Class EA for Bram West Block 40-3) (MMM Group 2009)

• Financial Drive Class EA, from Steeles Avenue to Mississauga Road (part of the Class EA for Bram West Block 40-3) (AECOM 2008)


Background – Halton-Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study

Halton-Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study (HPBATS) (2010)

Joint study to develop a regional transportation strategy to address the needs of the Regions of Halton and Peel, the City of Brampton and the Towns of Caledon and Halton Hills.

The strategy included the north-south arterial road “Bram West Parkway”.

As a Transportation Master Plan, the study serves as direct input into subsequent Class EA requirements to implement the individual projects that make up the recommended transportation strategy and network.


Background – GTA West Individual EA

GTA West

An Individual Environmental Assessment Study currently being undertaken by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to assess inter-regional transportation needs.

Considers the potential future extension of Bram West Parkway north from Financial Drive to connect with a future GTA West Highway.

The GTA West Corridor has shifted south since the preparation of HPBATS and as such, a potential future connection from Bram West Parkway to GTA West supersedes the previously defined Halton-Peel Freeway Corridor identified in HPBATS.


Background – Official Plan

City of Brampton Official Plan (2006)

The City of Brampton's Official Plan (2006) projected significant growth in population and employment in next 20 years

Brampton is the 9th largest and 3rd fastest growing city in Canada, at an average annual growth rate of 8.4% (1981-2011)

Source: Brampton SGU Level Forecasts (Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2009)

A significant portion of the City’s overall growth will occur in the west Brampton Secondary Plan Areas of:

Bram West (Secondary Plan Area 40) Huttonville (29) Huttonville North (52) Mount Pleasant (51) Mount Pleasant West (53)

Year Population Employment Housing

2011 523,900 182,000 143,300

2021 646,000 274,000 186,000

2031 738,000 318,800 217,600

Year Population Employment

2006 7,490 5,600

2021 57,970 38,660

2031 99,770 67,670


Background – Official Plan continued…

City of Brampton Official Plan (2006)

Designates the section of Bram West Parkway from Steeles Avenue to Financial Drive as the North-South Transportation Corridor with an ultimate right-of-way width of 40-100 m.

Designates the section of Financial Drive from Mississauga Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard as a collector road with an ultimate right-of-way of 26-30 m.

Bram West

Parkway

Class EA Study


Background – Bram West Secondary Plan

Bram West Secondary Plan

The Bram West Plan Area covers about 6,050 acres (2,450 hectares) in south west Brampton and is bounded by the Credit River in the north, the City Limit to the south, Winston Churchill Boulevard to the west and Chinguacousy Road (Mavis Road) to the east.

The Bram West Secondary Plan (1998, OP93-70/71) identifies a road network that includes a north-south arterial road located between Heritage Road and Winston Churchill Boulevard (referred to as Bram West Parkway).

A Bram West Secondary Plan Review (2005) identifies a corridor protection area bounded by Heritage Road to the east, Winston Churchill Boulevard to the west, the Credit River Valley to the north.

The Secondary Plan Review was implemented in 2006 through OP93-270/271. These amendments were appealed to the OMB and since then, all of the OP93-270 and portions of OP93-271 have come into force.

Ongoing stakeholder concerns/appeals are primarily associated with Chapter 40(a), between Heritage Road and Winston Churchill Boulevard, north of Steeles Avenue West.


Existing Conditions – Natural Environment

Mullet Creek, Levi Creek and Heritage Creek (a tributary of Levi Creek) are the main watercourses within the Study Area.

Levi Creek and Heritage Creek (north of Steeles Avenue) and the upper reaches of Mullet Creek are classified as “Small Warmwater” in the Gateway West Subwatershed Study Update (2008).

The most dominant fish species in these creeks are Creek Chub and Blacknose Dace along with Brook Stickleback, Bluntnose Minnow, Fathead Minnow and White Sucker. All are common species typically observed in these types of warm water habitats.

Levi Creek and its main tributaries are identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as Recovery Habitat for aquatic Species at Risk and Regulated under the Endangered Species Act (2007).

Designated features, which are protected under a number of provincial, regional and local policies include:

o Levi Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, scattered along the riparian areas of Heritage Creek and Levi Creek;

o Mullet Creek wetlands that are considered locally significant (note: one of these wetlands is no longer present on the landscape);

o Credit Valley Conservation Authority Regulation Limits (Ontario Regulation 160/60);

o Valleylands and Watercourse Corridors, Woodland and Wetlands under the City of Brampton Official Plan.

Due to a long history of agricultural land use, terrestrial ecosystem features are limited to the small valley systems. Riparian vegetation communities include cultural meadow, meadow marsh, cultural thicket and scattered trees. These communities are culturally influenced, and tend to consist of common, disturbance tolerant plant species.

Natural environmental features are depicted on the next panel.


Existing Conditions – Natural Environment

Existing Conditions – Socio-Economic/Cultural

Socio-Economic

The study area is located within the Bram West Secondary Plan Area, an area of future community growth. Existing land use within the study area includes:

Agricultural operations between Embleton Road, Steeles Avenue, Winston Churchill Boulevard and Heritage Road;

Agricultural-Industrial operations (Maple Lodge Farms processing plant);

Rural residential and commercial along Embleton Road, Heritage Road and Winston Churchill Boulevard;

Employment lands south of Steeles Avenue (Churchill Business Park).

Archaeology

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment determined that there are 29 registered archaeological sties within 1 km of the Study Area. None are located within the area that may be impacted by the project.

The Stage 1 Archeological Assessment revealed that the Study Area is within an area of high potential for archaeological finds. Therefore, a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment will be undertaken once the preferred alignments for Bram West Parkway and Financial Drive have been confirmed.

Cultural Heritage

Five (5) properties Listed in the City of Brampton Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

One (1) property Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act

One (1) property with a pending municipal heritage designation -Mount Zion Cemetery

The Town of Halton Hills Heritage Register was consulted. There are no listed or designated properties immediately adjacent to the study area.

Socio-economic and Heritage features are depicted on the next panel.


Existing Conditions – Socio-Economic/Cultural

Financial Drive Need and Justification

Legend: Good operating condition (V/C <= 0.85)

Congested operating condition (V/C > 0.85)

*A Screenline is an imaginary line, or a linear feature such as a road, a river, a rail line or a municipal boundary that is used for the purpose of evaluating the cumulative travel demand on the roadways crossing this feature. A Screenline comparison of projected traffic volumes to road capacity is a basic transportation planning tool which provide an indication of how well a specific corridor/screenline is operating. The Screenline Analysis measures traffic volume (V) to capacity (C) as a means of identifying problems (congestion, delay) at intersections along the corridor.

A Screenline* Analysis was undertaken for the Study Area to assess travel demand and capacity based on p.m. peak hour travel demand model projections, using future population and employment growth.

The analysis indicates that without infrastructure improvements the existing roadways and intersections will result in high delays and congestion. Additional east-west lanes will be required in order to accommodate the growth and the associated projected traffic demand.

West Screenline

Year V/C

2011 0.80

2016 0.83

2021 0.88

2031 0.89

East Screenline

Year V/C

2011 0.85

2016 0.87

2021 0.92

2031 0.94


Financial Drive Problem/Opportunity Statement

The City of Brampton is experiencing high population and employment

growth that will continue over the next 20 years, and beyond.

Steeles Avenue is planned for widening to six lanes. Even with these improvements, additional roadway capacity will still be required in the Bram West Secondary Plan to accommodate the east-west travel demand growth.

Embleton Road is not identified for future widening in the TTMP due to the significant community impacts associated with widening through Huttonville and the lack of contiguous connection to the east (i.e., jog at Mississauga Road). Creating a continuous connection would require a new crossing of the Credit River.

The transportation and traffic analysis suggests that the existing roadways and intersections will be incapable of handling the forecasted east-west traffic, leading to increased delays and congestion. Additional east-west connection will be required in order to accommodate the growth and the associated projected traffic.

The Financial Drive extension to Winston Churchill Boulevard implements the Recommended 2016 Road Network Needs identified in the TTMP (2009).

Even with other planned road network improvements, additional road capacity will still be required to

accommodate travel demand growth anticipated from development within the Bram West Secondary Plan area

and in northwest Brampton over the next 20 years.


Financial Drive Alternative Planning Solutions

Under the provisions of the Class Environmental Assessment process, all reasonable alternatives to the undertaking require consideration. The alternative planning solutions being considered are:

Alternative Solution

Description

Do Nothing

Maintain existing conditions. No improvements or changes would be made to the east-west road network including no extension of Financial Drive or proposed intersection with Bram West Parkway.

Implement Transportation System and Demand Management Measures/ Improve Transit Service

Reduce the number of single occupant vehicles during peak hours through alternative modes of transportation (transit, cycling, walking), carpooling, minimizing frequency of travel (work from home), flexible work hours.

Limit Development Restrict future development in the area.

Implement Improvements to Existing Infrastructure

Undertake capital improvements to existing nearby east-west roads including road widening and intersection improvements such as enhanced signal timings and turn lanes to improve traffic operations.

Extend Financial Drive

Extend Financial Drive from Heritage Road to Winston Churchill Boulevard in order to provide east-west transportation capacity, alleviate congestion on Steeles Avenue West and accommodate projected future travel demand.


Financial Drive Assessment of Alternative Planning Solutions

Alternative Solution

How the Alternative Solution Addresses the Problem and Opportunities

Do Nothing - Does not create the road network system required to connect the future development of Bram West to the planned arterial road network.

- Does not provide any additional capacity to accommodate future traffic generated from within and beyond Bram West.

- Does not address adverse impacts from increased traffic congestion. - Does not address Bram West Secondary Plan, the Transit and Transportation Master Plan Update

(TTMP) Recommended Road Network and City of Brampton Official Plan policy. - No impacts to natural or cultural features. - Does not address the problem/opportunity.

Implement Transportation System and Demand Management Measures/ Improve Transit Service

- Does not create the road network system required to connect the future development of Bram West to the planned arterial road network.

- Does not provide any additional capacity to accommodate future traffic generated from within and beyond Bram West.

- Provides access to transportation and transit alternatives on existing roads to accommodate trips generated by the development of Bram West.

- Moderate and potentially mitigable impacts associated with adjacent natural features (for lane widening).

- Positive socio-economic impacts as a result of improved access to transportation and transit alternatives and possible reduction in automobile dependence.

- On their own, these measures do not fully address problem/opportunity.

Limit Development

- Not consistent with the Provincial Growth policy (Places to Grow), City of Brampton’s Official Plan policy, the Bram West Secondary Plan and the TTMP.

- Does not fully address the City’s planned economic growth.

Implement Improvements to Existing Infrastructure

- Does not create the road network system required to connect the future development of Bram West to the planned arterial road network.

- Provides some additional capacity and operational improvements to accommodate traffic generated from the area, however, only defers the eventual need to provide added network capacity to support full development.

- Low to moderate impacts associated with adjacent natural features (for minor road widening). - Positive socio-economic impacts as a result of minor capacity and operational improvements. - No cultural impacts. - On their own, these measures do not fully address the problem/opportunity. While

improvements may offer some increases in capacity, they simply defer the investment into creating a transportation network that fully supports implementation of the Bram West Secondary Plan. Not carried forward as part of this Study but addressed in other initiatives.

Extend Financial Drive

- Facilitates the creation of a transportation network system required to connect the future development of Bram West to the planned arterial road network.

- Improves east-west connections for travel within the Bram West area. - Alleviates traffic demand on Steeles Avenue during peak hour travel periods. - Low to moderate impacts associated with adjacent natural features. - Positive socio-economic impacts as a result of improves east-west connections. - No cultural heritage impacts. - Moderate impact to agricultural lands north of Maple Lodge Farms plant however; no direct

impacts to the plant or its operations. Reduces area available for crops in the short term, however, land required for the new road is designated for future industrial uses.

- Best address the problem/opportunity and supports the City of Brampton’s Official Plan policy, the Bram West Secondary Plan and the TTMP.


Financial Drive Preferred Alternative Planning Solution

The preferred planning solution for Financial Drive includes a combination of the following alternative solutions: • Extend Financial Drive from Heritage Road to Winston

Churchill Boulevard;

• Implement Travel System and Demand Management Measures/Transit Service Improvements where feasible along the corridor.

The preferred planning solution considers pedestrian features and active transportation opportunities such as walking and cycling.


Financial Drive Corridor

Financial Drive, between Heritage Road and Mississauga Road was EA-approved in 2009. The proposed extension of Financial Drive will originate from the intersection of Heritage Road and will terminate at a new intersection with Winston Churchill Boulevard. A potential corridor of the proposed extension of Financial Drive is shown on the left.


Bram West Parkway Generation and Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives

In total, 13 alignments for the Bram West Parkway were developed and assessed. The evaluation of the alignments involved a two stage process:

Stage 1 – Preferred in each Corridor

The 13 alternative alignments were separated into three corridor groups: West, Central and East corridors based on where they intersect Financial Drive. The alignment alternatives within each group were compared, to identify a preferred alignment within each corridor.

Stage 2 – Preferred Overall

The West, Central and East preferred alternatives were compared to each other, to identify an overall preliminary preferred alternative.


Bram West Parkway Generation and Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives continued…

The analysis presented on the following panels presents: • Stage 1 : The selection of the preferred alignment within each of the West,

Central and East Corridors. • Stage 2 : The comparison of the preliminary preferred alternative from each

corridor and the selection of the overall preliminary preferred alternative.

The two stage process, with the alignment alternatives is outlined below:

Stage 1 Identify the preferred alternative in each corridor

Stage 2 Compare preferred alternatives in each corridor

Identify a preliminary preferred alterative


Bram West Parkway Assessment and Evaluation Process

The selection processes for the preliminary preferred alternatives included two steps:

Step 1 – Assessment of Alternatives – The potential benefits and impacts of each alternative were assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria for socio-economic, cultural, natural and transportation and technical factor groups; Step 2 – Evaluation of Alternatives – A comparative examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives was undertaken to identify a preliminary preferred alternative.

The evaluation of alternatives was carried out using the Reasoned Argument method, comparing differences in impacts and providing a clear rationale for the selection of the preliminary preferred alternative.


Bram West Parkway Assessment and Evaluation Criteria and Measures

An comprehensive set of criteria and measures were employed during the assessment and evaluation process. The detailed list is provided on the right.


Bram West Parkway Alignment Alternatives

ACEG is the preliminary preferred

alternative within the West Corridor

ACEH is the preliminary preferred

alternative within the Central Corridor

ACEI is the preliminary preferred

alternative within the East Corridor

The Bram West Parkway alignment alternatives within the West, Central and East Corridors are depicted below. A summary of our analysis is shown on the following display board. Detailed assessment tables are available for review from our Study Team.

Bram West Parkway West Alternatives Stage 1 Evaluation

Based on the analysis, W4 (ACEG) is the preliminary preferred alternative in the West Corridor.

Factor/CriteriaW1

(ABDG)W2

(ABEG)W3

(ACDG)W4

(ACEG) Evaluation

1 Transportation

a Road GeometryIn terms of road geometry, W3 is the best with the fewest curves. All other alternatives have similar curvilinear alignments.

In terms of potential impact to 407 ETR operations, W1 and W2, with a potential future full interchange may result in potential weaving concernson 407 ETR to the west, given the relatively close proximity to the Highway 401/407 freeway to freeway interchange.

In terms of future interchange operations; all alternatives are similar for a potential Full Interchange at 407 ETR in terms of requiring 3 abutmentmodifications at adjacent bridges to accommodate the speed change lanes and low flexibility of future widening 407 ETR beyond the approved 8lanes. W1 and W2 have minor impacts on the existing 407 ETR SWM facility. For a potential Partial Interchange at 407 ETR, W1 and W2 arepreferred because they require one less abutment modification to adjacent bridges, maintain high flexibility for future widening of 407 ETR andavoid impacts to the existing 407 ETR SWM facility.

All alternatives have similar level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with other roads, are compatible with the existingroadway network, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodate cycling/pedestrians.

Therefore, W1 and W2 are slightly preferred over W3 and W4.

b Interchange Operations

c Intersection Spacing

d Impacts on Local Roads

e Impacts of 407 ETR

f Network Compatibility

g Flexibility of Future Expansion

h Emergency Services

i Support of Alternative Modes of Travel

2 Technical Considerations

a Impacts to UtilitiesW1 and W2 (mainline) require 3 crossings of TCPL, 4 crossings of Enbridge and would need to accommodate an access road to the Enbridgevalve station located south of 407 ETR. In contrast, W3 and W4 require 1 crossing of TCPL and 2 crossings of Enbridge and will not impact theEnbridge valve station. W3 and W4 preferred over W1 and W2 because they require fewer crossings of TCPL and Enbridge, avoid a potentialconflict with Enbridge valve station.

All alternatives will potentially conflict with two EA-approved 230kV hydro lines planned for south of 407 ETR, within the Parkway Belt. Carefulconsideration of potential mitigation measures will need to be undertaken regardless of the preferred alternative.

W2 and W4 have a more desirable location relative to the Enbridge pipeline ROW that will facilitate access to the pipeline and avoid triggeringpotential future Class changes when surrounding land use transitions.

Cost of constructability is considered similar for all alternatives. Slightly higher costs may be attributed to W1 and W2 given the additional utilitiescrossings however, these costs are fairly minor when considered in the context of the overall costs of the new road and proposed interchange.

Therefore W3 and W4 are preferred over W1 and W2.

b Degree of Design Challenge

c Constructability Issues

d Cost

3 Natural Environment

3.1 Aquatic Ecosystems

a Fish and Fish Habitat

All alternatives will require 3 watercourse crossings: tributary of Mullet Creek, Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek South. For the purposes ofcomparison, the crossings of the Mullet Creek tributary are considered similar for all alternatives. The W1 and W2 crossings of Mullet Creek arelocated in an already disturbed area at Steeles Avenue. However, Mullet Creek crossing for W3 and W4 is in an area already planned forrealignment. There may be some advantages to utilizing the crossing location at Steeles Avenue and avoiding a newly restored reachdownstream however, in terms of impacts to fish and fish habitat, all alternatives are considered to have similar low impacts to Mullet Creek.

Heritage Creek South is considered more sensitive given that it is Regulated as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk and therefore thiswatercourse crossing factors more highly in the evaluation. W1 and W3 have less desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek South sincethey have a slightly more oblique crossing angle and will enclose more stream length (or require more extensive channel realignment). While W2and W4 may also require some modifications to localized stream habitat, it is anticipated that these impacts will be lower than W1 and W2because crossing are at a perpendicular angle with less channel length impacted.

Therefore, W2 and W4 are preferred over W1 and W3.

3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems

a Designated Features

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (ESAs) impacted by any of thealternatives. All alternatives cross valleys designated as Greenlands, in two locations; Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek South. W1 and W2crossings of Mullet Creek may be slightly desirable since it is combines with a road crossing and therefore has reduced impact on the broadervalley/greenlands system (i.e., does not introduce a new crossing in a restored valley portion).

All alignments result in similar low to moderate impacts to upland and wetland vegetation. Within the agricultural land use context, natural featuresare almost exclusively associated with the narrow riparian corridors along the watercourses. All alternatives result in similar minor removals ofLevi Creek PSW and similar relatively minor removals of cultural meadow and marsh vegetation communities. All alternatives result in similar lowimpacts to anthropogenically influenced wildlife habitat for a range of species common in an agricultural setting. If Species at Risk such asBobolink or Eastern Meadowlark (i.e., species typically found in an agricultural setting) are found to be present, all alternatives have similarimpacts to their habitat.

Therefore, all alternatives result in low to moderate impacts and are equally preferred.

b Upland and Wetland Vegetation

c Wildlife and Habitat

3.3 Surface Water and Groundwater

a Fluvial GeomorphologyW1 and W2 crossings of Mullet Creek are slightly preferred over W3 and W4 because they occur at a more disturbed reach at an existing roadcrossing. While the sensitivity of the creek crossing at W3/W4 is also considered low, it may be desirable not to introduce a new road crossing inthis newly restored reach.

Based on the analysis, it appears as though two distinct channels are present at the Heritage Creek South crossings for all alternatives.Therefore, all crossings of Heritage Creek South will require some degree of geomorphic input to the design to assess and address the potentialissues. W2 and W4 are preferable due to the improved crossing angle (more perpendicular) and the reduced distance between the two channelswhich are expected to result in lower potential impacts from a surface water and geomorphic perspective.

All alignments are the same from a groundwater perspective as no wells are impacted.


bSurface Water (including fluvial geomorphology, floodplain storage/floodconveyance and stormwater management)

c Groundwater

3.4 Property Waste & Contamination

aEffect on operating and closed waste disposal sites, known contaminatedsites and potentially contaminated sites

There are no known properties with contamination.

There is one property with a Certificate of Approval that allows for the spreading of biosolids. All other properties impacted are considered tohave moderate potential for contamination (in accordance with MOE regulations, any lands under agricultural use are considered to havemoderate potential for contamination). All alignments result in similar impacts to potentially contaminated sites.

Therefore, all alternatives are equally preferred.

Natural Environment Summary

From a natural environmental perspective, the most important evaluation factor when comparing alternatives within the west corridor is thecrossing location of Heritage Creek South, given its designation as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk.

W1 and W3 have less desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek South since they have a slightly more oblique crossing angle and willenclose more stream length (or require more extensive channel realignment). While W2 and W4 may also require some modifications to localizedstream habitat, it is anticipated that these impacts will be lower than W1 and W2 because crossing are at a perpendicular angle with less channellength impacted.

All alternatives result in similar low to moderate impacts to upland and wetland vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Impacts are limited tonarrow riparian corridors. All alternatives results in similar impacts to Levi Creek Provincially Significant Wetlands.


4 Socio-Economic and Land Use

4.1 Property and Access

aImpacts to Maple Lodge Farms (number of properties impacted, impactsto access, separation distance from plant)

In terms of impacts to Maple Lodge Farms (MLF), W1 and W3 offer the least separation distance from MLF operations. W2 and W4 offer morecontiguous field area adjacent to the plant and lagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding landsthereby minimizing the impacts to their existing practices. W4 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the other alternatives.All alternatives will require farm access to adjacent field be created/maintained however, May Way is considered the most significant of theaccess roads. W3 and W4 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant. W3 and W4 impact one lessparcel of MLF lands.

In terms of impacts to other properties, none of the alternatives will displace residences or business. All alignments impact 3 other properties (inadditional to the MLF lands); these lands are owned by Infrastructure Ontario, Orlando Group Limited and a private developer.

W4 results in fewer impacts as it affects one less parcel of land, offers the best separation distance from MLF operations and avoids the mainfarm access road. Impacts under other criteria are all considered low.

Therefore W4 is preferred over the other alternatives.

bImpacts to other properties (number of properties impacted, impacts toresidences, impacts to commercial/industrial areas and businesses)

c Impact to access

4.2 Community Effects

aImpacts to cemeteries, schools, places of worship, unique communityfeatures All alternatives result in similar low impacts to all criteria. No community features will be encroached upon or displaced. There are no parks,

recreation areas or public tails in the Study Area. Although all of the alignments will create a physical footprint, there are no impacts to mobilitywithin communities as there are no communities located on any of the alignments. Overall, mobility among communities beyond the study areashould be improved as all alignments improve arterial road connections in the area.

All alternatives have a similar number of residences that may experience increased noise levels. A noise analysis of the preferred alignment willbe undertaken to identify if noise mitigation is required for any existing residential property. Aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be minimal.Proposed road being constructed in an area of industrial and agricultural production with surrounding land use transitioning to urban/employment.


b Nuisance Impacts (e.g., noise and aesthetics)

c Impacts on Community Activity/Mobility and Community Character

d Impacts to Recreational Features

4.3 Land Use

a Compatibility with Government Goals/Objectives /Policies

All alternatives are equally compatible with government goals/objectives and policies.

In terms of existing/approved development plans, W3 and W4 provide for more efficient development lay out on the west block of the Churchill 3Business Park, south of Steeles Avenue.

In terms of future development/ potential land use changes consistent with the Official Plan industrial lands designation, W1 and W3 offer themost flexibility with respect to potential future development layout north of Steeles Avenue by retaining large blocks east of BWP and keepingBWP closely associated with the utilities corridor. This would optimize the layout of development parcels that are able to accommodate largebuildings comparable to those planned in the Churchill Business Park.

Because W3 optimizes the layout for the approved development south of Steeles Avenue, and because it provides the most flexibility for potentialfuture development north of Steeles Avenue, it is considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives when considering future potential landuse.

All alternatives have similar impacts to agricultural land (and Class 1 Soils).

Therefore, W3 is considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives.

b Compatibility with Planned and future Land Use

c Impact to Agricultural Resources

Socio-Economic Environment Summary

W4 results in slightly fewer impacts as it affects one less parcel of land, offers the best separation distance from MLF operations and avoids themain farm access road. Impacts under other criteria are all considered low. W3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved developmentsouth of Steeles Avenue and potential future development north of Steeles Avenue. However, because there are currently no approveddevelopment plans to the north of Steeles Avenue, W4 is considered to be slightly more preferred than W3 from a socio-economic perspective asit is more compatible with the existing land use.

Therefore W4 is preferred over the other alternatives.

5 Cultural Heritage Resources

a Impacts to Built Heritage Features and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to heritage features. None of the alternatives will impact designated or listed built heritage resources.The entire study area is considered a Cultural Heritage Landscape. As such, all alternatives will have similar impacts to the CHL.


b Impacts to Archaeological Resources

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to archaeology because the entire study area is within an area of high archaeological potential. AStage 2 Archeological Assessment will be undertaken for the preferred alternative.


Cultural Heritage Summary

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources.

Therefore, all alternatives are preferred.

Overall Summary

From a transportation perspective, all alternatives have a similar level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with other roads,are compatible with the existing roadway network, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodate cycling/pedestrians.

W1 and W2 are not preferred from a technical perspective because they have the highest level of conflict with TCPL and Enbridge facilities.

W1 and W3 provide the least separation distance from MLF operations. W2 and W4 offer more contiguous field area adjacent to the plant andlagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding lands thereby minimizing the impacts to their existingpractices. W4 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the other alternatives. All alternatives will require farm access toadjacent field be created/maintained however W3 and W4 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant.W3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved development south of Steeles Avenue and potential future development north of SteelesAvenue. However, because there are currently no approved development plans to the north of Steeles Avenue, W4 is considered to be slightlymore preferred than W3 from a socio-economic perspective as it is more compatible with the existing land use north of Steeles Avenue.

W2 and W4 are preferred from a natural environmental because they are anticipated to have lower impacts to Heritage Creek South given thebetter crossing angle and reduced length of channel potentially impacted.

All alternatives result in very similar low impacts to the cultural environment. Therefore this factor area is not decision relevant when selecting apreferred west corridor alternative.

High Impact /

Least Benefit

Low Impact /

Most Benefit

LEGEND:

Bram West Parkway Central Alternatives Stage 1 Evaluation

Based on the analysis, C4 (ACEH) is the preliminary preferred alternative in the Central Corridor.

Factor/CriteriaC1

(ABDH)C2

(ABEH)C3

(ACDH)C4

(ACEH) Evaluation

1 Transportation

a Road GeometryIn terms of road geometry, C3 is the best with the fewest curves. All other alternatives have similar curvilinear alignments.

In terms of potential impact to 407 ETR operations, C1 and C2, a potential future full interchange will result in potential weaving concerns on 407ETR to the west, given the relatively close proximity to the Highway 401/407 freeway to freeway interchange.

In terms of future interchange operations; all alternatives are similar for a potential Full Interchange at 407 ETR in terms of requiring 3 abutmentmodifications at adjacent bridges to accommodate the speed change lanes and low flexibility of future widening 407 ETR beyond the approved 8lanes. C1 and C2 have minor impacts on the existing 407 ETR SWM facility. For a potential Partial Interchange at 407 ETR, C1 and C2 arepreferred because they require one less abutment modification to adjacent bridges, maintain high flexibility for future widening of 407 ETR andavoid impacts to the existing 407 ETR SWM facility.


Therefore, C1 and C2 are slightly preferred over C3 and C4.










a Impacts to UtilitiesC1 and C2 (mainline) require 2 crossings of TCPL, 2 crossings of Enbridge and would need to accommodate an access road to the Enbridgevalve station located south of 407 ETR. In contrast, C3 and C4 may avoid crossing TCPL, have 1 crossing of Enbridge and will not impact theEnbridge valve station. C3 and C4 preferred over C1 and C2 because they require fewer crossings of TCPL and Enbridge, avoid a potentialconflict with Enbridge valve station and provide more flexibility with regard to a future hydro corridor.


C3 has a more desirable future development layout relative to the Enbridge pipeline ROW that will facilitate access to the pipeline and avoidpotential future Class changes when surrounding land use changes.

Cost of constructability is considered similar for all alternatives. Slightly higher costs may be attributed to C1 and C2 given the additional utilitiescrossings however, these costs are fairly minor when considered in the context of the overall costs of the new road and proposed interchange.

Therefore C3 and C4 are preferred over C1 and C2.



d Cost




All alternatives will require 3 watercourse crossings: tributary of Mullet Creek, Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek South. For the purposes ofcomparison, the crossings of the Mullet Creek tributary are considered similar for all alternatives. The C1 and C2 crossings of Mullet Creek arelocated in an already disturbed area at Steeles Avenue. However, Mullet Creek crossing for C3 and C4 is in an area already planned forrealignment. There may be some advantages to utilizing the crossing location at Steeles Avenue and avoiding a newly restored reachdownstream however, in terms of impacts to fish and fish habitat, all alternatives are considered similar and relatively low for Mullet Creek, giventhe low sensitivity of the habitat.

Heritage Creek South has higher sensitivity given that it is Regulated as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk and therefore thiswatercourse crossing factors more highly in the evaluation. C1 and C3 have slightly less desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek Southsince they have a slightly more oblique crossing angle and will enclose more stream length (or require more extensive channel realignment).While C2 and C4 may also require some modifications to localized stream habitat, it is anticipated that this impacts will be lower than C1 and C2because crossing are at a perpendicular angle with less channel length impacted.

Therefore, C2 and C4 are preferred over C1 and C3



There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (ESAs) impacted by any of thealternatives. All alternatives cross valleys designated as Greenlands, in two locations; Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek South. C1 and C2crossings of Mullet Creek may be slightly desirable since it is combines with a road crossing and therefore has reduced impact on the broadervalley/greenlands system (i.e., does not introduce a new crossing in a restored valley portion).

All alignments result in similar low impacts to upland and wetland vegetation. Within the agricultural land use context, natural features are almostexclusively associated with the narrow riparian corridors along the watercourses. All alternatives result in similar minor removals of Levi CreekPSW and similar minor removals of cultural meadow and marsh vegetation communities. All alternatives result in similar low impacts toanthropogenically influenced wildlife habitat for a range of species common in an agricultural setting. If Species at Risk such as Bobolink orEastern meadowlark (i.e., species typically found in an agricultural setting) are found to be present, all alternatives have similar impacts to theirhabitat.





a Fluvial GeomorphologyC1 and C2 crossings of Mullet Creek are slightly preferred over C3 and C4 because they occur at a more disturbed reach at an existing roadcrossing. While the sensitivity of the creek crossing at C3/C4 is also considered low, it may be desirable not to introduce a new road crossing inthis newly restored reach.

Based on the analysis, it appears as though two distinct channels are present at the Heritage Creek South crossings for all alternatives.Therefore, all crossings of Heritage Creek South will require some degree of geomorphic input to the design to assess and address the potentialissues. C2 and C4 are slightly preferable due to the improved crossing angle (more perpendicular) and the reduced distance between the twochannels which are expected to result in lower potential impacts from a surface water and geomorphic perspective.

All alignments are the same from a groundwater perspective as no wells are impacted.

Therefore, C2 and C4 are preferred over C1 and C3.

bSurface Water (including fluvial geomorphology, floodplain storage/floodconveyance and stormwater management)

c Groundwater


aEffect on operating and closed waste disposal sites, known contaminatedsites and potentially contaminated sites





From a natural environmental perspective, the most important evaluation factor when comparing alternatives within the central corridor is thecrossing location of Heritage Creek South, given its designation as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk.

C1 and C3 have less desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek South since they have a slightly more oblique crossing angle and willenclose more stream length (or require more extensive channel realignment). While C2 and C4 may also require some modifications to localizedstream habitat, it is anticipated that these impacts will be lower than C1 and C2 because crossing are at a perpendicular angle with less channellength impacted.

All alternatives result in similar low to moderate impacts to upland and wetland vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Impacts are limited tonarrow riparian corridors. All alternatives results in similar impacts to Levi Creek Provincially Significant Wetlands.

Therefore, C2 and C4 are preferred over C1 and C3.



aImpacts to Maple Lodge Farms (number of properties impacted, impactsto access, separation distance from plant)

In terms of impacts to Maple Lodge Farms (MLF), C1 and C3 offer the least separation distance from MLF operations. C2 and C4 offer morecontiguous field area adjacent to the plant and lagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding landsthereby minimizing the impacts to their existing practices. C4 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the other alternatives.All alternatives will require farm access to adjacent field be created/maintained however, May Way is considered the most significant of theaccess roads. C3 and C4 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant. C3 and C4 impact one less parcelof MLF lands.

In terms of impacts to other properties, none of the alternatives will displace residences or business. All alignments impact 3 other properties (inadditional to the MLF lands); these lands are owned by Infrastructure Ontario, Orlando Group Limited and a private developer.

C4 results in fewer impacts as it affects one less parcel of land, offers the best separation distance from MLF operations and avoids the main farmaccess road. Impacts under other criteria are all considered low.

Therefore C4 is considered preferred over the other alternatives.

bImpacts to other properties (number of properties impacted, impacts toresidences, impacts to commercial/industrial areas and businesses)

c Impact to access


aImpacts to cemeteries, schools, places of worship, unique communityfeatures

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to all criteria. No community features will be encroached upon or displaced. There are no parks,recreation areas or public tails in the Study Area. Although all of the alignments will create a physical footprint, there are no impacts to mobilitywithin communities as there are no communities located on any of the alignments. Overall, mobility among communities beyond the study areashould be improved as all alignments improve arterial road connections in the area.

All alternatives have a similar number of residences that may experience increased noise levels. A noise analysis of the preferred alignment willbe undertaken to identify if noise mitigation is required for any existing residential property. Aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be minimal.Proposed road being constructed in an area of industrial and agricultural production with surrounding land use transitioning to urban/employment.



c Impacts on Community Activity/Mobility and Community Character


4.3 Land Use



In terms of existing/approved development plans, C3 and C44 provide for more efficient development lay out on the west block of the Churchill 3Business Park, south of Steeles Avenue.

In terms of future development/ potential land use changes consistent with the Official Plan industrial lands designation, C1 and C3 offer the mostflexibility with respect to potential future development layout north of Steeles Avenue by retaining large blocks east of BWP and keeping BWPclosely associated with the utilities corridor. This would optimize the layout of development parcels that are able to accommodate large buildingscomparable to those planned in the Churchill Business Park.

Because C3 optimizes the layout for the approved development south of Steeles Avenue, and because it provides the most flexibility for potentialfuture development north of Steeles Avenue, it is considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives when considering future potential landuse.


Therefore, C3 is considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives.




C4 results in slightly fewer impacts as it affects one less parcel of land, offers the best separation distance from MLF operations and avoids themain farm access road. Impacts under other criteria are all considered low. C3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved developmentsouth of Steeles Avenue and potential future development north of Steeles Avenue. However, because there are currently no approveddevelopment plans to the north of Steeles Avenue, C4 is considered to be slightly more preferred than C3 from a socio-economic perspective as itis more compatible with the existing land use.

Therefore C4 is preferred over the other alternatives.


a Impacts to Built Heritage Features and Cultural Heritage Landscapes




All alternatives result in similar low impacts to archaeology because the entire study area is within an area of high archaeological potential. AStage 2 Archeological Assessment will be undertaken for the preferred alternative.





Overall Summary

From a transportation perspective, all alternatives have a similar level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with other roads,are compatible with the existing roadway network, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodate cycling/pedestrians.

C1 and C2 are not preferred from a technical perspective because they have the highest level of conflict with TCPL and Enbridge facilities.

C1 and C3 provide the least separation distance from MLF operations. C2 and C4 offer more contiguous field area adjacent to the plant andlagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding lands thereby minimizing the impacts to their existingpractices. C4 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the other alternatives. All alternatives will require farm access toadjacent field be created/maintained however C3 and C4 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant. Interms of compatibility with existing and future development,C3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved development south of SteelesAvenue and potential future development north of Steeles Avenue. However, because there are currently no approved development plans to thenorth of Steeles Avenue, C4 is considered to be slightly more preferred than C3 from a socio-economic perspective as it is more compatible withthe existing land use north of Steeles Avenue.

C2 and C4 are preferred from a natural environmental because they are anticipated to have lower impacts to Heritage Creek South given thebetter crossing angle and reduced length of channel potentially impacted.

All alternatives result in very similar low impacts to the cultural environment. Therefore this factor area is not decision relevant when selecting apreferred central corridor alternative.

High Impact /

Least Benefit

Low Impact /

Most Benefit

LEGEND:

Bram West Parkway East Alternatives Stage 1 Evaluation

Based on the analysis, E4 (ACEI) is the preliminary preferred alternative in the East Corridor.

Factor/CriteriaE1

(ABDI)E2

(ABEI)E3

(ACDI)E4

(ACEI)E5

(ACFI) Evaluation

1 Transportation

a Road GeometryIn terms of road geometry, E2, E3 and E4 are considered slightly better since they are less curvilinear.

In terms of potential impact to 407 ETR operations, E1 and E2, a potential future full interchange will result in potential weaving concerns on 407ETR to the west, given the relatively close proximity to the Highway 401/407 freeway to freeway interchange.

In terms of future interchange operations; all alternatives are similar for a potential Full Interchange at 407 ETR in terms of requiring 3 abutmentmodifications at adjacent bridges to accommodate the speed change lanes and low flexibility of future widening 407 ETR beyond the approved8 lanes. E3, E4 and E5 have minor impacts on the existing 407 ETR SWM facility. For a potential Partial Interchange at 407 ETR, E1 and E2are preferred because they require one less abutment modification to adjacent bridges, maintain high flexibility for future widening of 407 ETRand avoid impacts to the existing 407 ETR SWM facility.


Therefore, E1 and E2 are slightly preferred over the other alternatives.










a Impacts to UtilitiesE1 and E2 (mainline) require 2 crossings of TCPL, 3 crossings of Enbridge and would need to accommodate an access road to the Enbridgevalve station located south of 407 ETR. In contrast, E3/E4/E5 have no crossings of TCPL, 1 crossing of Enbridge, avoid a potential conflict withEnbridge valve station and provide more flexibility with regard to a future hydro corridor.


E3 has a more desirable location relative to the Enbridge pipeline future development layout relative to the pipeline that will facilitate access tothe pipeline and avoid potential future Class changes when surrounding land use changes.

Cost of constructability is considered similar for all alternatives. Higher costs may be attributed to E1 and E2 given the additional utilitiescrossings however, these costs are fairly minor when considered in the context of the overall costs of the new road and proposed interchange.

Therefore E3, E4 and E5 are preferred over E1 and E2.



d Cost




All alternatives, with the exception of E5 will require 4 watercourse crossings: tributary of Mullet Creek, Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek Southand Heritage Creek North. For the purposes of comparison, the crossings of the Mullet Creek tributary are considered similar for all alternatives.E5 crosses Heritage Creek at the confluence of the North and South branches.

The E1 and E2 crossings of Mullet Creek are located in an already disturbed area at Steeles Avenue. However, the Mullet Creek crossing forE3, E4 and E5 is in an area already planned for realignment. There may be some advantages to utilizing the crossing location at SteelesAvenue and avoiding a newly restored reach downstream however, in terms of impacts to fish and fish habitat, all alternatives are consideredsimilar and relatively low for Mullet Creek.

Heritage Creek is considered more sensitive given that it is Regulated as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk and therefore thiswatercourse factors more highly in the evaluation. E1 and E3 have less desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek South since they have aslightly more oblique crossing angle and will enclose more stream length (or require more extensive channel realignment). E1 and E3 havemore desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek North because it is located at a farm crossing (previously disturbed area) and has a moreperpendicular crossing angle.

The slight advantages and disadvantages of the creek crossing locations associated with E1, E2, E3 and E4 makes them all somewhat similarin terms of trade-offs. E2 and E4 are considered more preferred because they have better crossing locations on a more complex creek system(Heritage Creek South). E5 is least preferred because it is located very close to the confluence of Heritage Creeks North and South.

Therefore, E2 and E4 are preferred over E1 and E3, and much more preferred over E5.


a Designated Features There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (ESAs) impacted by any of thealternatives. All alternatives cross valleys designated as Greenlands, in three locations; Mullet Creek, Heritage Creek South and Heritage CreekNorth. E1 and E2 crossings of Mullet Creek may be slightly desirable since it is combines with a road crossing and therefore has reduced impacton the broader valley/greenlands system (i.e., does not introduce a new crossing in a restored valley portion).

All alignments result in similar low to moderate impacts to upland and wetland vegetation. All result in similar minor removals of cultural meadowand marsh vegetation communities. E5 has the benefit of avoiding wetlands designated as Levi Creek PSW, but this alternative still affects asimilar area of vegetation overall. All alternatives result in similar low impacts to anthropogenically influenced wildlife habitat for a range ofspecies common in an agricultural setting. If Species at Risk such as Bobolink or Eastern Meadowlark (i.e., species typically found in anagricultural setting) are found to be present, all alternatives have similar impacts to their habitat.





a Fluvial Geomorphology

E1 and E2 crossings of Mullet Creek are slightly preferred because they occur at a more disturbed reach at an existing road crossing. While thesensitivity of the creek crossing at E3/E4/E5 is also considered low, it may be desirable not to introduce a new road crossing in this newlyrestored reach.

Based on the analysis, it appears as though two distinct channels are present at the Heritage Creek South crossings for all alternatives.Therefore, all crossings of Heritage Creek South will require some degree of geomorphic input to the design to assess and address the potentialissues. E2 and E4 are preferable due to the improved crossing angle (more perpendicular) and the reduced distance between the twochannels.

E1 and E3 have more desirable crossing locations on Heritage Creek North because it is located at a farm crossing (previously disturbed area)and has a more perpendicular crossing angle. E5 is located at the confluence of Heritage Creeks North and South and therefore this alternativeis least preferred from both geomorphic and floodplain impact perspectives.

Therefore, E2 and E4 are preferred over E1 and E3, and much more preferred over E5.

bSurface Water (including fluvial geomorphology, floodplainstorage/flood conveyance and stormwater management)

c Groundwater


aEffect on operating and closed waste disposal sites, knowncontaminated sites and potentially contaminated sites





From a natural environmental perspective, the most important evaluation factor when comparing alternatives within the east corridor is thenumber and location/siting of crossings of Heritage Creek and Levi Creek, given their designation as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species atrisk.

E1 and E2 crossings of Mullet Creek are slightly preferred over E3/E4/E5 from a geomorphological perspective. However, for the HeritageCreek South crossing, E2 and E4 are preferred over E1 and E3 from fisheries and geomorphological perspectives. E5 is least preferred due tothe complexity of having a watercourse crossing sited on a confluence of two creeks. This crossing would require a substantial reconfiguration ofthe channels and the location of the confluence.

Therefore, E2 and E4 are preferred over E1 and E3 and much more preferred over E5.



aImpacts to Maple Lodge Farms (number of propertiesimpacted, impacts to access, separation distance fromplant)

In terms of impacts to Maple Lodge Farms (MLF), E1 and E3 offer the least separation distance from MLF operations. E2, E4 and E5 offer morecontiguous field area adjacent to the plant and lagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surroundinglands thereby minimizing the impacts to their existing practices. E5 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the otheralternatives.

All alternatives will require farm access to adjacent field be created/maintained however, May Way is considered the most significant of theaccess roads. E3, E4 and E5 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant and impact one less parcel ofMLF lands.

In terms of impacts to other properties, E1, E2, E3 and E4 impact 3 other properties (in additional to the MLF lands); these lands are owned byInfrastructure Ontario, Orlando Group Limited and a private developer. E5 impacts one additional property and has significant encroachmentinto an adjacent horse farm; resulting in the removal of a paddock and training circuit.

E4 results in fewer impacts as it affects one less parcel of land, offers the best separation distance from MLF operations and avoids the mainfarm access road. Impacts under other criteria are all considered low.

Therefore E4 is considered preferred over the other alternatives.

bImpacts to other properties (number of propertiesimpacted, impacts to residences, impacts tocommercial/industrial areas and businesses)

c Impact to access


aImpacts to cemeteries, schools, places of worship, uniquecommunity features All alternatives result in similar low impacts to all criteria. No community features will be encroached upon or displaced. There are no parks,

recreation areas or public tails in the Study Area. Although all of the alignments will create a physical footprint, there are no impacts to mobilitywithin communities as there are no communities located on any of the alignments. Overall, mobility among communities beyond the study areashould be improved as all alignments improve arterial road connections in the area.

All alternatives have a similar number of residences that may experience increases in noise levels. A noise analysis of the preferred alignmentwill be undertaken to identify if noise mitigation is required for any existing residential property. Aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be minimal.Proposed road being constructed in an area of industrial agricultural production with surrounding land use transitioning to urban/employment.



cImpacts on Community Activity/Mobility and CommunityCharacter


4.3 Land Use



In terms of existing/approved development plans, E3/E4/E5 provide for more efficient development lay out on the west block of the Churchill 3Business Park, south of Steeles Avenue.

In terms of future development/ potential land use changes consistent with the Official Plan industrial lands designation, E1 and E3 offer themost flexibility with respect to potential future development layout north of Steeles Avenue by retaining large blocks east of BWP and keepingBWP closely associated with the utilities corridor. This would optimize the layout of development parcels that are able to accommodate largebuildings comparable to those planned in the Churchill Business Park.

E2 and E4 offer slightly less flexibility with respect to potential future development layout north of Steeles Avenue but, they act as a mid-blockroad, potentially creating good access/frontage opportunities, although the maximum parcel size is more limited than with E1 and E3. However,E2 and E4 result in an undesirable small remnant parcel located between BWP and Heritage Creek North. E5 is considered better than E2 andE4 in this regard because this alternative keeps BWP close to Heritage Creek North, maintaining developable lands to the east and west.

Because E3 optimizes the layout for the approved development south of Steeles Avenue, and because it provides the most flexibility forpotential future development north of Steeles Avenue, it is considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives when considering futurepotential land use.


Therefore, E3 and E5 are considered slightly preferred over the other alternatives.




E4 offers good separation distance from MLF operations and avoids the main farm access road. While E5 offers greater separation distancefrom MLF, it impacts one additional property and has significant encroachment into an adjacent horse farm; resulting in the removal of apaddock and training circuit. E3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved development south of Steeles Avenue and potential futuredevelopment north of Steeles Avenue. However, because there are currently no approved development plans to the north of Steeles Avenue,E4 is considered to be slightly more preferred than E3 from a socio-economic perspective as it is more compatible with the existing land use.

Therefore E4 is preferred over the other alternatives.


aImpacts to Built Heritage Features and Cultural HeritageLandscapes




All alternatives result in similar impacts to archaeology because the entire study area is within an area of high archaeological potential. A Stage 2Archeological Assessment will be undertaken for the preferred alternative.





Overall Summary

From a transportation perspective, all alternatives have a similar level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with otherroads, are compatible with the existing roadway network, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodatecycling/pedestrians.

E1 and E2 are not preferred from a technical perspective because they have the highest level of conflict with TCPL and Enbridge facilities.

E1 and E3 provide the least separation distance from MLF operations. E2, E4 and E5 offer more contiguous field area adjacent to the plant andlagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding lands thereby minimizing the impacts to theirexisting practices. E5 provides the best separation from the MLF plant compared to the other alternatives however, the additional propertyimpacts it creates make this alternative much less preferred. All alternatives will require farm access to adjacent field be created/maintainedhowever E3, E4 and E5 avoid impacts to May Way, the main service road into the Maple Lodge Farms plant.

E3 offers the most flexibility with respect to approved development south of Steeles Avenue and potential future development north of SteelesAvenue. However, because there are currently no approved development plans to the north of Steeles Avenue E4 is considered to be slightlymore preferred than E3 from a socio-economic perspective as it is more compatible with the existing land use.

E2 and E4 are preferred from a natural environmental perspective because they have lower impacts to Heritage Creek South. E5 is leastpreferred due to the poor crossing location of Heritage Creek, located at the confluence of Heritage Creeks North and South.

All alternatives result in very similar low impacts to the cultural environment. Therefore this factor area is not decision relevant when selecting apreferred west corridor alternative.

High Impact /

Least Benefit

Low Impact /

Most Benefit

LEGEND:

Bram West Parkway Stage 1 Preferred Alternatives

Based on the Stage 1 evaluation: • W4 (ACEG) • C4 (ACEH) • E4 (ACEI) are the preliminary preferred alternatives for Bram West Parkway from the West, Central and East corridors. These alternatives are carried forward to the Stage 2 evaluation.

Bram West Parkway Stage 2 Evaluation

Based on the Stage 2 evaluation, C4 (ACEH) is the preliminary preferred alternative for Bram West Parkway

Factor/CriteriaW4

(ACEG)C4

(ACEH)E4

(ACEI) Evaluation

1 Transportation

a Road GeometryThe most significant difference between the three alternatives from a transportation perspective is related to flexibility for future expansion to the north. Because oftheir more westerly location, W4 and C4 have very high the flexibility in terms of generating future extension alignments to the north that can avoid significant natural,socio-economic and cultural features; both of these alternatives terminate on the west of the significant woodland where there are fewer constraints located to thenorth. C4 is somewhat more constrained than W4 for a short distance north because a future extension would be located between the TCPL ROW and the woodlandand would cross Heritage Creek North, potentially resulting in low to moderate impacts to these features in the future.

E4 is the least flexible in terms of a future extension. An extension north from its current terminus at the proposed Financial Drive extension would result in significantimpacts to the community (residences and businesses) along Embleton Road and would have lower transportation network compatibility in that the future BWP wouldbe in very close proximity to Heritage Road and the intersection of Heritage Road/Embleton Road. In order to avoid these impacts, a future extension from E4 wouldhave to swing to the west and, while this is feasible from a road geometry perspective, it is not desirable from a technical/cost perspective. Furthermore, extending theroad to the north and then west would require that an alignment be located between the wetland and woodland resulting in the removal of a wide hedgerow andcreation of a barrier across a habitat linkage/wildlife movement corridor.

In terms of future interchange operations; all alternatives are similar for a potential Full Interchange at 407 ETR in terms of requiring 3 abutment modifications atadjacent bridges to accommodate the speed change lanes and low flexibility of future widening 407 ETR beyond the approved 8 lanes. Some of these impacts may bemitigated if a partial interchange is implemented. All alternatives have minor impacts on the existing 407 ETR SWM facility, in that this facility would have to bereconfigured to maintain storage volume. For a potential Partial Interchange at 407 ETR, all alternatives maintain moderate flexibility for future widening of 407 ETR.

All alternatives have similar road geometry, level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with other roads, are compatible with the existing roadwaynetwork, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodate cycling/pedestrians.

Therefore, W4 is slightly preferred over C4 and both are much preferred over E4.










a Impacts to Utilities W4 requires 1 crossing of TCPL and 2 crossings of Enbridge facilities. C4 and E4 potentially avoid TCPL crossings on the BWP mainline (i.e., excluding the potentialfuture interchange and require only 1 crossing of Enbridge facilities. C4 and E4 are considered slightly less constrained than W4 in terms of the flexibility toaccommodate a potential future hydro corridor.

Cost of constructability is considered similar for all alternatives. Slightly higher costs attributed to W1 given the additional utilities crossing however, these costs arefairly minor when considered in the context of the overall costs of the new road and proposed interchange.

Therefore C4 and E4 are slightly preferred over W4.



d Cost




W4 and C4 require crossings of the tributary of Mullet Creek, Mullet Creek and Heritage Creek South. E4 will require an additional crossing of Heritage Creek North.

All alternatives cross the Mullet Creek tributary in the same location. All alternatives cross Mullet Creek at the same location in an area that is planned for future

realignment as part of the approved development of the Churchill Business Park, Phase 3.

All alternatives cross Heritage Creek South in a similar location and therefore are considered similar in terms of potential impacts to this watercourse. Because E4requires an additional watercourse crossing at Heritage Creek North, it is considered slightly less preferred than the other alternatives due to the potential for additionalimpacts.

Therefore, W4 and C4 are slightly preferred over E4.



There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (ESAs) impacted by any of the alternatives. All alternativesresult in similar low impacts to designated features. All alternatives cross valleys designated as Greenlands. W4 and C4 cross in two locations: Mullet Creek andHeritage Creek South. E4 has an additional crossing at Heritage Creek North.

All alignments result in similar low to moderate impacts to upland and wetland vegetation. Within the agricultural land use context, natural features are almostexclusively associated with the narrow riparian corridors along the watercourses. All result in similar minor removals of cultural meadow and marsh vegetationcommunities. Due to the additional valley crossing, E4 results in slightly more impact to (removal of) PSW and valley vegetation communities, although the differencesis still considered quite minor (i.e., E4 removes 0.34 ha of PSW while C4 removes 0.16 ha). For this reason, E4 is considered less desirable.

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to anthropogenically influenced wildlife habitat for a range of species common in an agricultural setting. If Species at Risksuch as Bobolink or Eastern Meadowlark (i.e., species typically found in an agricultural setting) are found to be present, all alternatives have similar impacts to theirhabitat.

Therefore, W4 and C4 are preferred over E4.




a Fluvial GeomorphologyAs noted above, all alternatives cross the Mullet Creek tributary in the same location. All alternatives cross Mullet Creek at the same location in an area that is planned

for future realignment as part of the approved development of the Churchill Business Park, Phase 3.

All alternatives cross Heritage Creek South in a similar location and therefore are considered similar in terms of potential impacts. Based on the analysis, it appears asthough two distinct channels are present at the Heritage Creek South crossings for all alternatives. Therefore, all crossings of Heritage Creek South will require somedegree of geomorphic input to the design to assess and address the potential issues.

E4 requires a crossing of Heritage Creek North and therefore is slightly less preferred as it results in additional incremental impacts to flood storage/conveyance thatmust be mitigated.


bSurface Water (including fluvial geomorphology, floodplainstorage/flood conveyance and stormwater management)

c Groundwater


aEffect on operating and closed waste disposal sites, knowncontaminated sites and potentially contaminated sites


There is one property with a Certificate of Approval that allows for the spreading of biosolids. All other properties impacted are considered to have moderate potentialfor contamination (in accordance with MOE regulations, any lands under agricultural use are considered to have moderate potential for contamination). All alignmentsresult in similar impacts to potentially contaminated sites.



From a natural environmental perspective, the most important evaluation factor when comparing alternatives within the west corridor is the number of crossing of LeviCreek tributaries (Heritage Creek), given their designation as Recovery Habitat for aquatic species at risk.

E4 is slightly less preferred than W4 and C4 because it requires an additional crossing of Heritage Creek (Heritage Creek North) and has increased impacts to valleyvegetation and habitat, the Levi Creek PSW and the floodplain.




aImpacts to Maple Lodge Farms (number of propertiesimpacted, impacts to access, separation distance fromplant)

In terms of impacts to Maple Lodge Farms (MLF), W4 and C4 have very similar separation distance from MLF operations. E4 offers the best separation distance andprovides a more contiguous field area adjacent to the plant and lagoons that allows MLF equipment to move more freely between the plant and surrounding landsthereby minimizing the impacts to their existing practices. E4 impacts fewer MLF properties. E4 impacts 2 MLF properties in comparison to the 4 properties impactedby W4 and C4 (albeit, the 4

thproperty is a minor edge impact associated with the intersection of Financial Drive and BWP).

In terms of impacts to other properties, none of the alternatives will displace residences or business. All alternatives impact 3 other properties (in additional to the MLFlands); these lands are owned by Infrastructure Ontario, Orlando Group Limited and a private developer. E4 bisects the private developer-owned lands and thereforemay be considered less desirable by that owner.

Therefore all alternatives are equally preferred.

bImpacts to other properties (number of propertiesimpacted, impacts to residences, impacts tocommercial/industrial areas and businesses)

c Impact to access


aImpacts to cemeteries, schools, places of worship, uniquecommunity features

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to most criteria. No community features will be encroached upon or displaced. There are no parks, recreation areas orpublic tails in the Study Area. Although all of the alignments will create a physical footprint, there are no impacts to mobility within communities as there are nocommunities located on any of the alignments. Overall, mobility among communities beyond the study area should be improved as all alignments improve arterialroad connections in the area.

E4 has approximately double the number of sensitive receivers (i.e., residences) located near the alignment. Up to 18 residences may experience increased noiselevels as a result of E4, in contrast to the 8 and 9 residences for W4 and C4. A noise analysis of the preferred alignment will be undertaken to identify if noisemitigation is required for any existing residential property. E4 has a higher potential of creating noise impacts that require mitigation.



cImpacts on Community Activity/Mobility and CommunityCharacter


4.3 Land Use

a Compatibility with Government Goals/Objectives /PoliciesAll alternatives are equally compatible with government goals/objectives and policies.

All alternatives provide for efficient development lay out on the west block of the Churchill 3 Business Park, south of Steeles Avenue. All alternatives provide less thanoptimal flexibility with respect to potential future development layout north of Steeles Avenue. While W4 and C4 provide more flexibility to the east, they result in aremnant parcel located between BWP and the MLF lagoons however, this is not an issue with the existing land uses. E4 provides mid-block road, potentially creatinggood access/frontage opportunities on both sides of the alignment although the maximum parcel size will be limited, however, it also results in a small remnant parcelbetween BWP and heritage Creek South. There are trade-offs associated with each alternatives and therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation, all are consideredsimilar with respect to flexibility for potential future development.

All alternatives are similar in impacts to agricultural land (and Class 1 Soils).

Therefore all alternatives are equally preferred.




E4 offers good separation distance from MLF operations and offers the flexibility with respect to approved development south of Steeles Avenue and potential futuredevelopment north of Steeles Avenue. All provide similar overall flexibility for potential future development north of Steeles Avenue. E4 has a greater number ofresidences that may experience increases in noise levels therefore may have a greater potential to result in noise impacts requiring mitigation. All alternatives are verysimilar from a socio-economic perspective, and where there are differences, the significance of the differences in impacts is considered minor.

Therefore E4 is only slightly preferred over the other alternatives.


aImpacts to Built Heritage Features and Cultural HeritageLandscapes

All alternatives result in similar low impacts to heritage features. None of the alternatives will impact designated or listed built heritage resources. The entire study areais considered a Cultural Heritage Landscape. As such, all alternatives will have similar impacts to the CHL.



All alternatives result in similar impacts to archaeology because the entire study area is within an area of high archaeological potential. A Stage 2 ArcheologicalAssessment will be undertaken for the preferred alternative.


Cultural Heritage SummaryAll alternatives result in similar low impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources.


Overall Summary

From a transportation perspective, all alternatives have a similar level of service and acceptable distances between intersections with other roads, are compatible withthe existing roadway network, maintain or enhance emergency services/access and can accommodate cycling/pedestrians. The most significant differences betweenthe alternatives in considering the flexibility of future extension to the north. W4 is considered to have slightly more flexibility than C4 because an extension of C4 wouldbe located between the TCPL ROW and the woodland and would cross Heritage Creek North. E4 is much less preferred because it has the lowest flexibility in terms offuture expansion.

W4 is least preferred from a technical perspective because it results in higher impacts to (or conflicts with) utilities. C4 and E4 avoid crossing the TCPL ROW andminimize crossings of Enbridge (and impacts to Enbridge facilities).

From a socio-economic perspective, E4 provides the best separation distance from Maple Lodge Farms plant, and avoids impacts to May Way. However, E4 hasundesirable impacts to properties (i.e., bisects the parcel just south of Financial Drive) and has the potential to result in noise impacts that must be mitigated, given thenumber of nearby residences that may experience increases in noise levels. C4 is only slightly less preferred than E4 from a socio-economic perspective due to thecloser proximity to the MLF plant.

From a natural environmental perspective, E4 is less preferred because it requires an additional watercourse crossing.

Overall, C4 is similar to W4 and E4 however, it is considered preferred because it has much better flexibility for future expansion than E4 and does not have the utilitiesconflicts associated with W4.

High Impact /

Least Benefit

Low Impact /

Most Benefit

LEGEND:

Preliminary Preferred Alternative Alignment of Bram West Parkway

Based on the assessment and evaluation C4 (ACEH) has been selected as the preliminary preferred alternative for Bram West Parkway. C4 was selected as the preliminary preferred alternative because:

From a transportation perspective, C4 offers significantly more flexibility than the East Corridor alternatives, with respect to a future extension to the north. A future north extension from C4 can better avoid significant community, socio-economic and natural environmental impacts when extended in the future.

From a technical perspective, C4 avoids crossing the TCPL ROW and minimizes crossings of Enbridge (and impacts to Enbridge facilities). The West corridor options resulted in significantly higher impacts to (or conflicts with) utilities.

Although E4 provides slightly more contiguous field area adjacent to Maple Lodge Farms, this benefit is offset by the significant constraints with respect to a future extension to the north.

From a natural environmental perspective, C4 minimizes potential impacts by crossing Heritage Creek South in a preferred location and avoiding a crossing at Heritage Creek North.


Potential Area for a Future Hydro Corridor

Hydro One has future plans for a new power transmission corridor within West Brampton and Southeast Halton to service future development in North West Brampton and north into Caledon. The need for a new transmission corridor is based on a study completed by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA)which recommends a north-south transmission line corridor of approximately 37 m in width to service growth in the west part of Peel Region. The City has made a commitment to Hydro One to consider the feasibility of future hydro corridor in the vicinity of the proposed Bram West Parkway. Opportunities and constraints for a potential future hydro corridor have been considered in the evaluation of the Bram West Parkway alignment alternatives. The potential area within which a future hydro corridor may be located is depicted on the figure to the left.


Preliminary Design Phase

Following this PIC, the preliminary preferred alternative for Bram West Parkway and the preferred planning solution for Financial Drive will be confirmed based on comments received from the public and stakeholders, and through further technical assessment by the Project Team.

Alignment alternatives will be evaluated to select the preliminary preferred alignment for Financial Drive.

Design alternatives will be developed for both Financial Drive and Bram West Parkway. Preliminary design alternatives may include: alignment refinements/shifts; 407 ETR Interchange configurations; different cross-section configurations; stormwater management, etc..

The preliminary preferred designs will be selected from these alternatives and will be presented at PIC #2.

In preparation for preliminary design phase, typical cross sections have been developed for the Bram West Parkway and are presented on the following display panel.


Typical Cross Sections Bram West Parkway


Next Steps

The next steps for the Class Environmental Assessment Study are:

Review comments and suggestions received from the public and agencies and incorporate into the study, as appropriate and respond to written questions and comments, as requested;

Confirm the preferred alignment for Bram West Parkway and the preferred planning solution for Financial Drive;

Evaluate alternatives alignments and select the preliminary preferred alignment for Financial Drive;

Carry out the preliminary design of Bram West Parkway and Financial Drive; and

Conduct a second round of Public Consultation in Fall 2012 to present and request input on the preliminary designs.


Please Provide Your Feedback

Thank you for attending Public Information Centre No.1. Public input is an essential component of the decision-making process. There will be opportunities for the public to provide input throughout the entire study. Please provide us with any comments you have relating to the study and the information presented tonight by completing a comment sheet tonight or by July 13, 2012. Opportunities to provide input are not limited to formal consultation events or milestones. You can provide input to the study team at any point through the study. If you have any questions or comments after today’s meeting, please contact:

Khurram Tunio Senior Project Engineer

City of Brampton 8850 McLaughlin Road, Unit 2

Brampton, ON L6Y 5T1 Tel: 905-874-2500

[email protected]

Michael Chiu Consultant Project Manager McCormick Rankin Corporation

2655 North Sheridan Way, Suite 300 Mississauga, ON L5K 2P8

Tel: 905-823-8500 ext. 1243 [email protected]

Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.


public information centre no.1 bram west parkway · heritage road, in the south by 2016. recommends...

Documents