City Response To Part II Order Requests

AECOM
300 Water Street

Whitby , ON, Canada L1N 9J2
T 905.668.9363 F 905.668.0221 www.aecom.com

MOE Response Cover Letter_FINAL.Docx
May 2, 2014
Ms. Dawnett Allen
Project Evaluator
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Approvals Branch
12A-2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

Dear Ms. Allen:

Regarding: Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study
Part II Orders

In response to your emails of March 5, 2014 and April 7, 2014, please find enclosed Table A
and the Proponent Information Requirements table and associated attachments.

Table A, provided as Attachment A, documents the issues / concerns raised in the Part II
Order requests and provides a summary of the response to each issue / concern and where
it is addressed in the Environmental Study Report (ESR). For your convenience, and due to
the size of the submission received from the Greenspace Coalition, we have provided a
consolidated response table for this submission that directly addresses the main comments
expressed in their Part II Order submission. Many of the issues are similar to concerns
raised by other requestors; therefore responses to concerns raised by the Greenspace
Coalition have also been integrated into Table A.

A map of the requesters properties in relation to the Project is provided as Attachment B.
The map presents the locations of requesters who provided mailing addresses. Several
Part II Order requests which were received via email did not include a mailing address so
they could not be mapped.

The Proponent Information Requirements table is provided as Attachment C. Reference to
the ESR and/or attached information is indicated within the table where applicable.

A brief overview of the Project information is provided herein.

Overview of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Followed

The Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study was carried
out in accordance with the Planning and Design process for Schedule C projects, as
outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as
amended in 2007 & 2011). The study met and/or exceeded the requirements set out in

Page 2
May 2, 2014

Phases 1 through 4 of the process for a Schedule C project. Phase 5 will be completed
prior to construction, subject to resolution of the Part II Order requests.

At the outset of the study, the public, agencies and other stakeholders were given an
opportunity to review, discuss and comment on the draft Problem/Opportuni ty Statement.
The draft Problem/Opportunity Statement was presented to Council on September 4, 2012,
and was also presented at Public Information Centre (PIC) 1, held on October 2, 2012.
Based on the feedback received, the study team evaluated and refined the draft
Problem/Opportunity Statement and established the Problem/Opportunity Statement for the
Project, as documented in Section 3.4 of the ESR. The final Problem/Opportunity Statement
was presented to City Council for approval in November 2012, prior to PIC 2 and prior to
evaluating the Alternative Solutions. Through the Council meeting process members of the
public could provide comments prior to Council debating and adopting the Problem/
Opportunity Statement, which occurred on November 13, 2012.

The study included the development and assessment of various Alternative Transportation
Solutions and Alternative Road Network Designs to address the Problem/Opportunity
statement for the Project.

As described in Section 5 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were generated, assessed
and evaluated, specifically Do Nothing, Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection
Improvements, and Widen Existing Roads/Add New Road. A combination solution including
Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or
Add New Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the
Problem/Opportunity Statement.

As described in Section 6 of the ESR, Network Alternatives were generated based on a two-
step process: the first step included the development of road network alternatives
representing various combinations of road widening and new road connections to address
the Problem/Opportunity Statement; and, the second step involved the development of the
preferred road network alternative to a higher level of design, with alternative design
treatments applied for major intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and alternative
alignments considered to avoid or minimize impacts to environmental features and/or
properties within the corridor.

Given the size of the study area and complexity of the Project, the study area was divided
into three segments (i.e. North End, South End and Jackson Park), with multiple alternatives
generated for each segment. A three step evaluation process was used, similar to the
approach used in other complex Class EA, Individual EA, and route planning studies. The
alternatives were assessed and evaluated using a broad range of evaluation criteria
reflecting the transportation performance of each alternative, the potential effects on the
natural, built, social, cultural and economic environments and also included various financial
evaluation criteria to determine the Preferred Design.

The Preferred Design, described in Section 7 of the ESR, provides a truly multi-modal
corridor, balancing the needs of a growing City while remaining sensitive to the features and
current uses/users of the right-of-way. It best addresses future capacity deficiencies,
identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity improvements

Page 3
May 2, 2014

that would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Preferred Design was not
implemented. It offers the best balance of avoiding/minimizing potential adverse
environmental effects while still achieving the goals of the project by addressing the
Problem//Opportunity Statement.

Inventory of the Environment

A detailed inventory of the natural, social, cultural, economic and technical environments
was undertaken as part of the Class EA Study to describe existing environmental conditions
and to support the evaluation of alternatives. Environmental studies were completed in
relation to drainage, cultural heritage, archaeology, natural heritage features (i.e., terrestrial
and aquatic), air quality and noise. Additional and/or more detailed studies were also
completed in response to comments received during the course of the study, including:
Supplemental fisheries assessments to collect fisheries community data at several
key locations requested by Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and to confirm
fish bearing status of several of the watercourses;
A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed for the recommended corridor
and additional archaeological investigations were completed in the vicinity of the Lee
Pioneer Cemetery to confirm the limits of the cemetery boundary;
Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment in response to concerns from the
Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee in relation to the
heritage value of Jackson Park;
Cost-Benefit Analysis in response to requests for more information related to the
methodology used to undertake the Benefit-Cost assessment and in consideration of
greenspace value; and
Sensitivity analysis assuming full build out of the Lily Lake Planning area, which was
not originally included in the 2031 growth forecasts.

Consultation

An extensive public consultation program was undertaken which exceeded the requirements
set out for a Schedule C project. The consultation program included study notices, four
PICs, a design workshop for members of the public and agencies that had expressed an
interest in participating, external agency meetings, presentations to City Advisory
Committees and City staff from varying departments, Council presentations, a study email
address and a study website. The public consultation program was enhanced to include the
first PIC being held during Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. In addition, design
concepts were presented at PIC 2, prior to undertaking the evaluation of the alternatives so
that stakeholder feedback could be considered in the evaluation and a fourth PIC was added
during the study to provide additional information on conceptual designs for the Jackson
Park Area Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern expressed about this
area.

A summary of the comments received and the associated responses were posted on the
website throughout the course of the study. A copy of the comments received from the
public and associated responses prepared by members of the study team are included in
Appendix D of the ESR. The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was

Page 4
May 2, 2014

considered and addressed at each stage of the study process, including how it influenced
the evaluation criteria, the study process, the selection of the preferred alternative and the
recommended design.

In addition to the concerns and opposition received regarding the Project, it should be noted
that support for the project has also been expressed by members of the community. This
has been demonstrated in written commentary received from the public during the study,
verbal exchange between study team members and the public during consultation events,
and an online petition formed and signed by members of the community who have indicated
their desire to have the Parkway project proceed. In addition, comments historically
received from the public during the course of previous Municipal Class EA studies related to
transportation projects in the City (i.e., New PRHC Road Network Improvements Addendum
and Parkhill Road West) have indicated a measure of public support for the extension of the
Parkway corridor.

Aboriginal Consultation

In addition to extensively consulting with the public and agencies, consultation with
Aboriginal peoples was also carried out as part of the study through a separate but parallel
process in recognition of their distinctiveness. A record of the Aboriginal consultation
activities carried out as part of this study, including copies of correspondence, are included
as Attachment D of this letter.

Contact with Aboriginal peoples was initiated at the onset of this study. The initial
identification of appropriate Aboriginal communities and/or organizations to contact was
established based on desktop research carried out by the Study Team. Given that the study
area is situated within the Williams Treaty Territory, the Chippewas of Rama, Beausoleil,
Christian Island and Georgina Island First Nations, as well as the Mississauga Ojibway of
Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Scugog Island and Alderville First Nations, were included on the
Aboriginal contact list. It was further recognized that Williams Treaty First Nations have
rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather throughout the Treaty Number 20 land area, which
includes the City of Peterborough. In addition, the study area was also noted to be situated
within the Traditional Harvesting Territory of the Mtis Nation of Ontario. As such, the Metis
Nation of Ontario (head office) and Peterborough and District Wapiti Mtis Council were
included on the contact list. Information received from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada provided information related to other Aboriginal groups/organizations
that may have an interest in the study.

Based on the above information, the following Aboriginal communities, groups and/or
organizations were included on the study mailing list and contacted throughout the course of
the study through letter correspondence notifying them of the study and related events, and
inviting them to provide input. The list was updated regularly to ensure accuracy.
Curve Lake First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Alderville First Nation
Mississauga's of Scugog Island First Nation
Chippewas of Rama First Nation

Page 5
May 2, 2014

Williams Treaty First Nations (Coordinator)
Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
Beausoleil First Nation
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
Union of Ontario Indians
Kawartha Nishnawbe
Mtis Nation of Ontario Head Office
The Peterborough and District Wapiti Mtis Council

Focus of the Part II Order Requests

Many of the Part II Order requests focussed on criticisms of the current City Official Plan,
and the recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, including the
demand management program, which were fundamental policy documents that set the
context for how the City has decided to manage growth, land use, and the city-wide
transportation system. These documents were developed in accordance with the Planning
Act and the Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans and included full public
consultation as part of the municipal decision making and approval process.

The purpose for initiating this Class EA was to implement the recommendations of the
Hospital Access Road Class EA Addendum, approved by City Council in November 2011,
and two of the recommended projects from the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update; essentially completing Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process for these
two projects. As a result, undertaking an Individual EA would not change the fundamental
policies put in place to guide the Citys current land use planning activities nor would it
change the policy and infrastructure directions adopted by the City through their recently
completed Transportation Master Plan.

Similarly, in recognition of the extensive work undertaken during this Class EA, undertaking
an individual EA would not provide additional information beyond that considered for this
Schedule C project that would alter the outcome of the EA process (i.e. the preferred
alternative). The Class EA process followed and the level of detail undertaken by the City
was sufficient to comprehensively evaluate the alternatives considered and identify a
preferred alternative taking into account the need to satisfy the Problem/Opportuni ty
Statement while avoiding/minimizing adverse environmental effects and taking comments
into consideration. Further, the City is committed to implementing the preferred alternative in
a manner sensitive to both the environment and involved stakeholders through the Detailed
Design and permitting process that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA process.

With this in mind, additional/more detailed technical studies will be completed during
Detailed Design prior to any construction to further refine the preferred plan and the
associated mitigation measures and to support site specific permits and/or approvals. All
EA projects (including Individual EAs) include some need for additional permits to be
acquired during detailed design / pre-construction stages of the project when the final design
is complete.

A number of the Part II Order requests expressed concerns with the Citys hiring of
AECOMs former project manager for this Class EA as the new Manager of Transportation.

Page 6
May 2, 2014

The hiring for the Transportation Managers position was conducted following normal hiring
practices for senior managers at the City of Peterborough. The process was transparent and
open to all applicants and relied upon the services of an independent personnel agency to
advertise the position and recruit qualified candidates. The search did not begin until
December 2013, following the retirement of the incumbent. Mr. Jones involvement in the
Parkway Corridor Class EA was considered only as valuable experience on a challenging
project. At no time was the nature of the recommendation made by AECOM a factor in the
hiring decision, and no members of City Council were involved in the hiring decisions.

The Transportation Manager portfolio encompasses all aspects of the Citys transportation
network that serves to move goods, services and people throughout the community. The
primary role of the position is to manage the Public Transit, Traffic Engineering,
Transportation Planning, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Operations of
the City. Upon approval of the Class EA, responsibility for implementation of the Parkway
Corridor will shift to the Engineering and Construction Division. As such Mr. Jones will have
only a limited role in the implementation of the Parkway Corridor project.

Summary

The work/studies and consultation undertaken and documented for this Class EA Study met
and/or exceeded the requirements set out in Phases 1 through 4 of the planning and design
process for a Schedule C project. The City recognized the sensitive nature of the study
area and thus the consultation program and the natural, social and cultural environment
studies and information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail
than is typically done for a Class EA. This level of detail was sufficient for the City to make
an informed decision. Undertaking an individual EA would not provide additional information
beyond that considered for this Schedule C project that would alter the outcome of the EA
process (i.e. the preferred alternative).

Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Robert Dunford at the City of Peterborough.

Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Brenda Jamieson, P. Eng.
Consultant Project Manager

Encl. Attachment A Table A and the Greenspace Coalition Response Table
Attachment B Map of Requesters Properties
Attachment C Proponent Information Requirements (table and attachments)
Attachment D Aboriginal Consultation Summary

cc: Robert Dunford, City of Peterborough
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

Attachment A
Table A and Greenspace Coalition Response Table

Table A Proponent Response to Part II Order Requests

May 9, 2014
1
TABLE A PROPONENT RESPONSE TO PART II ORDER REQUESTS

PROPONENT: The City of Peterborough
PROJECT TITLE: Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule C)
PROJECT LOCATION: Clonsilla Avenue to Cumberland Avenue/Water Street
PREPARED BY: Robert Dunford, City of Peterborough
PHONE # and E-MAIL: Phone: 705.742.7777 ext. 1867; Email: rjdunford@peterborough.ca
NOTE This table has been modified for public viewing purposes. Personal information has been removed.

Issues and Concerns Proponent Response Status
*Specify issue in request
* specify response- either from EA report, separate consultation material,
etc
* present status (ongoing
meetings with requesters, etc.
DATES important)
Growth Projections
Growth projections are exaggerated; need for the
project is based on a modelled forecast of 18
years
As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and
employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006.
Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these
forecasts for planning purposes and accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan
forecasts were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently
completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Based on the Growth
Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by
2031 (11.8%).
The recently approved Amendment 2 to the Provincial Growth Plan has even
higher growth forecasts for the City of Peterborough with the population
expected to exceed 100,000 people by 2031 and 115,000 people by 2041.
The Official Plan update will reflect these updated forecasts once it is
completed. If the recently approved higher growth forecasts are realized, it is
conceivable that all of the north end growth areas may be built out by 2031.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
2
All municipalities utilize growth forecasts as the foundation for future planning
including land use and infrastructure planning. This approach is consistent
with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The City,
through regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends, update their growth
forecasts, and update the assessment of transportation policies and
infrastructure needs and priorities. Any portions of the Parkway Corridor or
other projects recommended in the current CTPU that have not been
implemented will be included in any review.
This EA study has used the original 2006 forecasts as the basis for the growth
projections in the travel demand forecast work. These growth forecasts are
consistent with the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the
current City Official Plan, however they are lower than recent forecasts the
province has directed municipalities to use in their planning.
Provincial projections have been wrong for
Peterborough in the past; population predictions
are overly optimistic and inaccurate
As described in Section 3 of the ESR, the Citys actual population growth has
been consistent with the provincial forecasts since the original release of the
Growth Plan in 2006, with the population and employment growth actually
underestimated by 4% compared to actual population and employment figures.
Since the Growth Plan became law in 2006, municipalities have been required
to conform with the policies, forecasts, and targets in the Growth Plan.
Since commencement of the study the Province approved Amendment 2 to the
Growth Plan, which has even higher growth forecasts for the City of
Peterborough, with population expected to reach 115,000 people by 2041. This
EA study has used the original 2006 forecasts as the basis for the growth
projections in the travel demand forecast work. These growth forecasts are
consistent with the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the
current City Official Plan, however they are lower than recent forecasts the
province has directed municipalities to use in their planning.
Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts are realized, it is important
to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the growth, whether it
occurs sooner or later than forecast. City Council has the authority to
implement the project or portions of the project as growth occurs and/or as the
City can afford it. The City will complete a review of their transportation plan
every 5-10 years, and that review may include a review of projects that have
not been completed yet compared to updated information on travel patterns
and growth forecasts to confirm the need or adjust the plan to respond to
changes that may have occurred. This is consistent with proper planning
Addressed in EA and through
ongoing monitoring
May 9, 2014
3
processes that occur throughout the province.
Difficult to predict traffic flows 18 years into the
future
As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was undertaken during
this EA to consider various factors and how they might impact the need for the
project including:
Implications of aging population
Implications of fuel cost increases and the role of non-auto based
travel (transit / walking / cycling)
Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031
A phasing plan for implementing the improvements was developed to
link infrastructure to demonstrated needs and allow for implementation
to be accelerated or delayed in response to observed growth, which
would be subject to ongoing monitoring
The need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) and the Provincial Growth Plan. Municipalities use the PPS
to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other
planning matters.
The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is prior to the
growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and infrastructure to support
growth can be made in a co-ordinated fashion. The lack of a clear decision on
the transportation infrastructure needed to support growth in the North End of
the City has impacted the ability of the municipality to plan for the north end
growth in an integrated fashion, and proposed Secondary Plans for the
Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas were delayed due to
concerns about unresolved transportation issues. Completion of the 2012
CTPU and this Class EA study provide the transportation certainty to allow the
City to proceed with planning for growth in these planned growth areas.
Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel
demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to
accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City
Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the
project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation
plan every 5-10 years. The review may include assessing projects that have
not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and
growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on
previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that
occur throughout the province.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
4
An implementation phasing plan for the recommended improvements is
provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the Environmental Study Report. The
proposed timing for implementation considered the longer term growth needs
in the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the
City, both in terms of volume increases and distribution of this growth.
Study made no comparison to more recent
transportation data than the 2006 Transportation
Tomorrow Survey (TTS)
The 2006 TTS was the most recent data available at the time of the study.
The 2011 TTS data was not released until December 2013.
Addressed in EA
Official Plan Review has not been completed Although currently under review, the Citys Official Plan remains a valid and
guiding document until it is updated through an Official Plan Amendment. The
City adopted OPA 142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing
and future planning initiatives related to where and how to accommodate urban
growth, in accordance with the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The
recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
established the transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to
accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the basis for the
transportation policies to be incorporated into the new Official Plan. The Class
EA for the Parkway Corridor was undertaken within the policy context of the
current Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
Addressed in EA
Project Need
There is no existing need for the project / no
current traffic problem; traffic issues identified in
the study are only perceived / potential; need for
the Parkway has not been sufficiently
demonstrated in the ESR
The traffic issues identified in the ESR represent a mix of current deficiencies
and forecasts of future conditions that can be expected to occur as growth
occurs. The assessment of existing and future network capacity and
intersection capacity deficiencies and safety concerns in the Study Area are
fully documented in Chapter 3 of the ESR.
As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing congestion are beginning
to appear in many portions of the road network in Peterborough today. The
ESR has documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at Fairbairn
Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and PM peak periods that
already exceed the road network performance targets established in the
Official Plan and result in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods.
This is occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents forecast to
live in planned development areas in the north end of the City by 2031 - the
majority of whom will continue to drive despite the Citys aggressive TDM
program and will pass through these very road segments on their daily travels.
Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also demonstrated that increased traffic at many
ongoing monitoring
May 9, 2014
5
of the key intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision
patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion. The results of this
assessment were shared with the public at PIC 1 as part of the development of
the problem statement.
There is also clear evidence to show that motorists are already diverting to use
other routes to avoid congestion or delays within the City (i.e. the continued
growth in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the east side of
the City to access new development areas in the north end of the City).
One of the key roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through traffic
into many residential neighbourhoods. For example not one arterial roadway
north of Parkhill Road provides a continuous route between Fairbairn Street
and Water Street, or between Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill
Road cannot accommodate all of this travel and is not designed to modern
arterial road standards, traffic from the existing north end neighbourhoods use
a series of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across the north
end of the City, and many of these roads are carrying more traffic than
designed and/or intended.
The need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) and the Provincial Growth Plan. Municipalities use the PPS
to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other
planning matters. All land use and infrastructure planning in the province
entails the use of forecasts to inform the assessment of future needs, and
recognizing this fact ongoing monitoring, reviews and updates of major
planning documents such as Transportation Master Plans and Official Plans
are required or recommended at regular intervals.
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand forecasts prepared as
part of this EA study demonstrated that with the population growth planned for
the City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at or over
capacity. An increase in congestion in a number of areas is expected as
illustrated in Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in increased travel delays
and increased out of way travel as drivers use alternate routes to avoid
congestion. The increased traffic demand is also forecast to increase
congestion and delays at the major intersections within the study area as
discussed in Section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many of the key intersections noted in
the assessment would also be over capacity, resulting in long queues of traffic,
particularly for many left turn movements. Not only does this create additional
delays for motorists, but it increases the number of vehicle conflicts and the
risk of collisions as frustrated drivers take risks to avoid extensive delays.

May 9, 2014
6
As required by the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement,
municipalities are required to develop infrastructure plans to accommodate
forecasts of future growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has
developed a transportation model which is calibrated to forecast existing
conditions prior to being used to forecast future transportation conditions
associated with planned growth and infrastructure improvements. This model
was developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update (CTPU), the Citys long range transportation plan that examined
system-wide transportation policies and improvements using a comprehensive
public process in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master
Plans.
Travel demand forecasts for this Class EA were developed using the updated
City Transportation Model developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update. The model is developed using industry standard
methodologies and is calibrated to be able to predict existing travel patterns
and traffic volumes on City roads before being used to prepare forecasts.
While it is recognized that any forecast is based on a series of assumptions
about future conditions, if growth does not occur, or occurs faster, Council can
always delay or accelerate implementation through the annual budget review
and prioritization process.
The recommended road network improvements in this Class EA study will be
implemented in phases as growth occurs, road network deficiencies are
realized, and as the municipality can afford to do so. This phased approach
provides an infrastructure plan to accommodate planned growth, and can be
adjusted or amended through subsequent updates to the CTPU in the event
that there are changes to the growth forecasts or other key assumptions used
in the 2012 CTPU or this ESR.
Need for project overstated (extreme traffic growth
estimates or reductions in other areas); relies on
weak numbers from a computer model of
questionable accuracy based on projected growth;
transportation model assumed that streets were
flat and not hills that would cause sight line issues;
general critique of the modelling process
As above.
Travel demand forecasts for this Class EA were developed using the updated
City Transportation Model developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update. The model is developed using industry standard
methodologies and is calibrated to be able to predict existing travel patterns
and traffic volumes on City roads before being used to prepare forecasts.
An excerpt from the transportation model development and calibration portion
of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update report is included in
Appendix P of the ESR. In addition, a summary of the travel capacity analysis
carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
7
Study uses peak traffic flow rates as the basis of
determining traffic handling need; study did not
clearly state what portion of each day traffic
capacity will be exceeded
The City has developed policies within the Official Plan and the 2012 TMP that
guide decision making for transportation investments. As per the Official Plan
policies and the 2012 TMP, a level of service D during peak periods is
considered the maximum acceptable performance target, representing 90% of
the planning capacity of the road.
As described in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the updated transportation model
developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update was designed and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in
the City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday. Travel demand
forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that with the
population growth planned for the City, many of the road segments in the study
area will be at or over capacity during peak periods.
Addressed in EA
Only vague discussions of traffic problems at
various intersections were presented in the ESR
Section 3.3.1 of the ESR provided a detailed description of existing and future
capacity concerns and Section 3.3.2 provides a detailed assessment of
collision problems at these same intersections. Supporting detail capacity
analysis worksheets with additional detail are also provided in Appendix Q of
the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Completion of the Chemong Road/Reid Street
Widening project would ultimately affect traffic
capacity on Chemong Road
Agreed. All modelling work assumed Chemong Road would be widened as
per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
Addressed in EA
No issues with access to the hospital since
Medical Drive constructed. Better access to
hospital was not a major point discussed at the
Public meetings.
The construction of Medical Drive did improve access to the hospital from
Sherbrooke Street to Parkhill Road and reduced traffic infiltration through the
neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital. The Parkway will provide enhanced
access to the Hospital for residents living in the north end of the City and the
communities to the north, and will enhance connectivity to the south end road
network from Medical Drive. That being said, it is true that enhanced access to
the hospital was not a primary purpose of the Class EA and was not featured
in the definition of the problem statement. In fact it is only mentioned in the
Executive Summary to the ESR as part of the statement that the preferred
alternative Provides the best access to the hospital and the south end of the
City from the growing north end neighbourhoods. The point about access to
the south end of the city was a major element of the problem statement for this
Class EA.
Addressed in EA
North End residents already served by big box
development within north end and do not need to
travel south; assumes travel from northeast end of
North end residents do and are expected to continue to travel to destinations in
the broader City and to destinations external to the City. As detailed in
Chapter 3 of the ESR, trip distribution patterns in the City model are based on
observed origin-destination trip patterns from the 2006 Transportation
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
8
City to Lansdowne Street in south Tomorrow Survey and projected growth in residential and employment areas in
various areas of the City as per the Official Plan. Forecasts of future travel
demands were estimated using the updated transportation model developed
for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
completed by Morrison Hershfield. The model was designed and calibrated to
forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and surrounding areas on a
typical weekday.
Does not service the north end areas where
population growth expected; east end of
Lansdowne not served by Parkway; only 1/10th of
traffic addressed, links 1/5th of new development
As detailed in Section 6.4.5 of the ESR, the Preferred Plan will service the
north end areas of the City where population growth is planned to occur. The
roadway does not need to run through a development area to service that
area. The Preferred Parkway Plan in the north end of the study area
(combined with the Parkway in the south end) will reduce the overall capacity
deficiencies in the north end road network, the south end road network, within
the entire study area, and across the entire City transportation network. This is
primarily due to the fact that the Parkway corridor provides relief to a number
of existing roadways in the north end of the City, which frees up capacity that
can be used by traffic to and from the north end growth areas, even traffic that
is not oriented to use the Parkway itself (i.e. traffic to and from the downtown).
No single road can reasonably be expected to service all of the trips to and
from all areas of the City. The Parkway will have broad benefits for many
users in the network, including those whose destinations/origins are located to
the east of the Parkway. As noted in Chapter 6 of the ESR, this is
demonstrated in Table 6.23, which notes many of the major road corridors
where future widening needs can be deferred as a result of implementing the
Parkway Corridor.
Addressed in EA
Does not determine the destinations people would
want to travel with existing uses on Hilliard
Street (i.e., school, churches, seniors complexes,
etc.) the Parkway will not reduce need to access
these facilities.
Agreed. The Parkway will not reduce the need for access to facilities on
Hilliard Street. A single lane roundabout will be provided at the Parkway /
Hilliard Street intersection, maintaining access to existing facilities in this area.
Addressed in EA
Did not complete analysis of Peterborough
residents in 2030 (i.e. retired), problem period
does not align with population projections, Study
did not consider updated travel pattern data;
increasing portion of the population will not place
a burden on the transportation network during
peak hours
The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated 22%
growth in internal traffic from 2006 to 2031 during the PM Peak Period. The
CTPU assessed trip making patterns due to the aging population and
suggested that base travel demands could be overstated by up to 5% but did
not recommend any changes to travel demands due to the uncertainty in this
initial assessment.
PM Peak Hour travel is used by the City in their travel demand forecast model
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
9
to determine roadway improvement needs because this period not only
includes home-work related travel but it also includes a significant portion of
discretionary trip making activity (as illustrated in Figure 3-3 of the ESR), which
includes trip making made by retirees, students, and part time workers.
In response to comments expressed about the influence of aging population,
AECOM undertook a more detailed assessment of trip making patterns by age
category, time of day, and trip purpose using data from the 2006
Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Using this data, combined with the
estimated age profile for Peterborough in 2031 PM peak hour growth in travel
demand is estimated at 20%. This assumes no significant increase in work trip
making for those over age 55, although trends suggest that people may end up
working longer in the future. Mid-day trip making is expected to grow by over
23%. Based on this more detailed assessment, the base travel demand
forecasts from the CTPU are in line with these estimates. This analysis was
presented at PIC 3 and is fully documented in Section 3.2 of the ESR
The transportation modelling development was based on 2006 Transportation
Tomorrow Survey Data (TTS) which is the only reliable data available for use
in the study. The 2011 TTS data was only released for use in December 2013,
after completion of the technical work on the study and the approval of the
study by City Council.
Does not consider effect of induced traffic Induced traffic was not included in the modelling and cost-benefit work for the
Parkway Corridor EA Study. A network wide modelling approach was used,
where the same overall demand for travel was used in the modelling of each
scenario, including the Do Nothing scenario (without the Parkway Corridor in
place). In this approach drivers may change their route as result of road
network improvements that reduce travel times but no new demand is
generated. As a result of the shift in route choice, higher traffic volumes would
be experienced on portions of the network, however this would be offset by
traffic volume reductions in other areas of the network. Some of the previous
research on induced traffic has included this diverted traffic in the calculation of
induced traffic.
The issue of induced traffic is complex. In a heavily congested network (such
as the Toronto area) some travelers choose to defer making trips, some travel
outside of peak periods, and others shift to travel by other modes (such as
transit) to avoid traffic congestion. In these cases, the addition of road
network capacity may improve peak period auto travel times enough to
induce these users to change their trip making and revert back to travel by
auto during the peak periods. This is the phenomenon examined by most of
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
10
the researchers that have studied the issue of induced traffic in urban areas in
the past.
Even these are not necessarily new trips they are just trips added to the peak
periods instead of other periods of the day or other travel modes. Generally, a
corresponding reduction in demand would occur in the off peak periods or in
the number of trips made by other modes as a result. The extent of peak
period congestion in Peterborough is not expected to be so significant by 2031
to suppress trip making or force a substantial number of drivers to travel
outside of peak times to avoid congestion. Therefore it is not expected that the
completion of the Parkway Corridor would induce any new travel in the City
than is forecast to occur in the Do Nothing scenario.
That being said, there is clear evidence to show that motorists are already
diverting to use other routes to avoid congestion or delays within the City (i.e.
the continued growth in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the
east side of the City to access new development areas in the north end of the
City). These trips that divert to the Parkway Corridor have been included in the
modelling work for the project.
The other case where induced traffic can be found is for a new highway or rail
projects that links two communities and reduces travel times between them
significantly. In this case new inter-city travel may be induced, however this is
often traffic that would have traveled within each community or to other
communities prior to the improvement. This would be similar to the widening
of Highway 35/115 which contributed to increased commuting between the
Peterborough Area and Durham Region, for example. This condition also
does not apply in the context of the Parkway corridor study as the majority of
traffic is internal to the City and the new road capacity provided does not
fundamentally change travel times between adjacent communities.
There is no evidence the Parkway will move traffic
more efficiently than the existing road network;
future road use patterns not considered
The assessment of the need and justification for transportation improvements
in the study area, as required by the Municipal Class EA process, has
confirmed the findings and recommendations in the approved Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update in accordance with the transportation policies
established through the City Official Plan. This is documented in Chapter 3 of
the ESR. Given that the need has been established and confirmed, the intent
and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to determine how best to
implement the recommendations of the Transportation Plan and satisfy the
problem statement established for the project.
On the basis of the assessment of Alternative Solutions, a combination
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
11
solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the CTPU),
Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads
was recommended to address the Problem Statement.
Alternative Road Network Designs were developed, assessed and evaluated
to determine the Recommended Design which includes the Parkway. The
transportation performance of each alternative was assessed with the
assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended
Design best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety concerns,
supports planned growth and minimizes capacity works that would otherwise
be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not
implemented. There is also evidence that a reduction in overall travel time
and a reduction in out of way trips will occur, which is reflected in the
documentation within Chapter 6 of the ESR and in the Cost-Benefit analysis
documented in Appendix M.
It is important to note that the Recommended Design incorporates a truly multi-
modal corridor that will serve as one of the Citys major pedestrian/transit
spines in the future.
Timing for project not demonstrated; request for
full City Transportation Plan Update prior to
project implementation; construction of the
Parkway is being contemplated prior to completion
of the Official Plan Review
As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was undertaken during
project including:
travel (transit / walking / cycling)
Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031
Although currently under review, the Citys Official Plan remains a valid and
guiding document until it is updated through an Official Plan Amendment. The
City adopted OPA 142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing
and future planning initiatives related to where and how to accommodate urban
growth, in accordance with the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The
recently completed 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
established the transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to
accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the basis for the
transportation policies to be incorporated into the new Official Plan. The Class
EA for the Parkway Corridor was undertaken within the policy context of the
ongoing monitoring

May 9, 2014
12
current Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
It is important to note that the need to plan for infrastructure is a requirement of
the Provincial Policy Statement. Municipalities use the Provincial Policy
Statement and the Provincial Growth Plan to develop their official plans and to
guide and inform decisions on other planning matters.
Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas have not been able to be
completed to date. However, the Lily Lake functional plan is just now moving
forward in consideration of the results of this Class EA study, as documented
in the Environmental Study Report.
An implementation phasing plan for the recommended corridor, to be in place
by 2028, is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the Environmental Study
Report. The proposed timing for implementation considered the longer term
growth needs in the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth
patterns in the City, both in terms of volume increases and distribution of this
growth. City Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or
portions of the project, as growth occurs.
The City, through regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends,
update their growth forecasts, and update the assessment of transportation
policies and infrastructure needs and priorities. Any portions of the Parkway
Corridor or other projects recommended in the current CTPU that have not
been implemented will be included in any review. This is consistent with the
approach the City has taken on previous Transportation Plans and represents
proper planning processes that occur throughout the province.
Study does not consider economic trends
including aging population, rising fuel prices,
increasing urbanization, improving travel options,
increasing health and environmental concerns and
changing travel and housing location preferences;
traffic and congestion predications fail to account
for various demographic and economic trends that
As described in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was undertaken during
project including:
Implications of aging population were specifically addressed in
response to comments received during the study and the review
(documented in Section 3.2) found that the base travel demand
forecasts are in line with these updated demand estimates.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
13
are reducing automobile travel demand and
increasing demand for alternative modes
travel (transit / walking / cycling). The Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update assessed the potential impacts in travel demand based
on increased fuel costs and recommended no adjustment be made to
the base travel demand forecasts. It is expected that increased fuel
costs and public attitudes towards non-auto travel will play a large role
in encouraging the shifts in demand from auto modes of travel to
transit and other non-motorized travel modes that the CTPU relies
upon.
Implications of future land use plans and growth beyond 2031 were
assessed during the study in response to comments received including
the implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area, as
documented in Section 6.4.5.
Sudden decision to proceed with plan; project and
EA came out of nowhere; project has been fast-
tracked
This EA study builds upon the recommendations of the Hospital Access Road
EA Addendum completed in November 2011 and completes the remaining
phases of the Class EA process for projects related to the Parkway Corridor
that were identified in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update,
approved by City of Peterborough Council in November 2011.
Previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update indicated the need to consider the
impacts and benefits of the improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an
entire new corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class EA
process.
The separate Parkway related projects identified in the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update, and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum,
represent a combination of improvements required to solve the north-south
travel needs of the City to 2031 and are inter-connected, in that the solution
does not work if one or more of the projects are not implemented. As such, the
City determined that the combined recommendations collectively required an
integrated Environmental Assessment of the entire Parkway Corridor to
properly assess the city wide impacts and benefits of these projects.
This EA study has been undertaken over an approximately two year process.
As noted in Section 2.5.8 of the ESR, the Notice of Study Commencement was
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
14
issued on July 23, 25 and 26 and August 1, 2012, Public Information Centre #1
was held on October 2, 2012, Public Information Centre #2 was held on March
21, 2013, Public Information Centre #3 was held on June 27, 2013, Public
Information Centre #4 was held on September 26, 2013 and the Notice of
Study Completion was issued on February 7, 2014.
It is anticipated that the project will be implemented over a multi-year
implementation program comprised of 10 implementation stages which would
see the new corridor in place by 2028. Implementing a project of this
magnitude in stages offers a number of affordability benefits as the investment
is spread out over a longer period and implementation can be timed to coincide
with needs or allow flexibility for investments in other priorities.
Parkway was originally intended to go around the
City limits.
As discussed in the Executive Summary of the ESR, the history of the Parkway
corridor goes back to 1947 when a new transportation corridor was
recommended to bypass the west side of the City of Peterborough to connect
to the recreational areas north of the City. The City purchased the required
land for the Parkway Corridor and designated the corridor within the Official
Plan, but never moved forward to implement the entire project. Since then the
City has grown around the corridor and other routes have evolved to fill the
role of the highway bypass envisioned in the 50s. However, as the City has
grown, new arterial roadways to serve the growth in the west and north ends of
the City have not been constructed, primarily because the Parkway Corridor
was protected and would serve that need. Essentially, the remaining areas of
the City have been planned around this corridor assuming it would be built at
some point in time.
As a result, not one arterial roadway north of Parkhill Road provides a
continuous route between Fairbairn Street and Water Street or even between
Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill Road cannot accommodate
all of this travel and is not even designed to modern arterial road standards,
traffic from the north end neighbourhoods that already exist today use a series
of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across the north end of the
City. One of the roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through
traffic from many of these residential areas and support safer and healthier
neighbourhoods.
Addressed in EA
Improve planning for new developments, redirect
growth to east, west and/or south; proposed
residential development on existing farmland
around Peterborough was not considered.
As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan designates the type
of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides
policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion.
The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth
be accommodated through intensification within the Citys existing 2006 built
Beyond scope of EA Process,
Addressed in EA and through other
Policy Documents (Official Plan)
May 9, 2014
15
boundary, with the remaining new growth available for greenfield
development. The intensification policies within the City of Peterborough
Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the intensification policies
in the Provincial Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the
CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and intensification
targets will be achieved by 2031.
The planned growth per the Provincial Growth Plan targets, excluding the
growth allocated to intensification areas, is distributed between a number of
planned growth areas. In the north end, these include the Carnegie East,
Carnegie West, Chemong East, and Chemong West growth areas and the Lily
Lake Planning Areas. Other planned growth areas in the City include the
Liftlock (east) and Coldsprings (south) Planning Area. Each of these future
development areas also has transportation and other servicing challenges and
these factors were considered by the Planning Department in developing the
City wide growth forecasts and allocation used in the Official Plan and the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. There are limited new
opportunities to redirect growth to the east, west and/or south due to the lack
of available land, lack of available servicing infrastructure (water and sanitary
services) and other transportation management challenges. In accordance
with the Provincial Policy Statement, the use of existing infrastructure should
be maximized and directing future development to the north end of the City
best achieves this objective when the broad range of services are considered.
Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie, Chemong and Lily
Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as these areas build out to capacity. The
City has also recently adopted a proposed Secondary Plan for the Lily Lake
planning area, which includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to
accommodate future longer term growth.
Parkway study has not fostered the coordination
of planning activities (i.e., Chemong Road, Lily
Lake Planning, etc.); Parkway creates planning
conflicts involving public and private interests and
land use planning was not considered
As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan designates the type
of land use that should be planned in various areas of the City and provides
policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion.
The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) provided a
holistic and system wide assessment of transportation policies, infrastructure
and services needed to support the planned growth and Official Plan Policies
of the City.
The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was not intended to replace these
policy documents but was intended to undertake the planning for two of the
projects identified in the CTPU, and therefore incorporated the policy
framework from the CTPU and assumed that all of the other improvements
Policy Documents (Official Plan)

May 9, 2014
16
identified in the city-wide would be completed. This demonstrates an
integrated and co-ordinated planning process that respects and conforms to
established local and provincial policies in place.
Similarly, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders, the Class EA
incorporated additional sensitivity analysis to determine what implications the
proposed Lily Lake Planning Area would have on the assessment and
evaluation of alternatives. This was treated as a sensitivity analysis in the
Class EA, since the Lily Lake growth area had no official planning approvals at
the time the EA commenced. Again, the assessment approach utilized in the
Class EA demonstrates a co-ordinated approach to considering the
transportation needs of the community both today and in the longer range
future.
Traffic demands are possible, not actual;
questioned validity of the model used to predict
future traffic growth in the study area and to
accurately model traffic congestion
Forecasts of future population and employment growth in the City are provided
in the Provincial Growth Plan, issued by the province in 2006. Under the
Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these forecasts
for planning purposes and accordingly the original Growth Plan forecasts were
included in the City Official Plan and the recently completed Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth Plan, the City
population is forecast to grow 11.8% (from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000) by 2031.
Since the original release of the Growth Plan in 2006, the Citys actual
population growth has been consistent with the provincial forecasts.
Traffic demand modelling work is an estimate which is based on industry
standard techniques, the best information available at the time, and
assumptions about future land use and demographic patterns and public
attitudes about how residents may choose to travel in the future. The travel
demand model is designed and calibrated to industry standard levels of
accuracy to be able to forecast current traffic volumes using the road network
prior to being used to forecast future demands. As a result of the various
assumptions used about future conditions, actual traffic demands could be
higher or lower than the forecasting results presented in the study. The
methodology applied as part of the traffic demand modelling work is typical for
transportation planning exercises, whether an Individual EA or a Class EA
study is being undertaken.
However, this is true of any forecast whether it be transportation planning,
school needs planning, or retirement planning. Any forecast relies on
assumptions about future conditions. In the case of the forecasts used in this
Class EA study, the forecast is based on the best estimate of what the City
expects to occur and has planned for as a result of the policies established in
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
17
the City Official Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and the
Provincial Growth Plan.
Automobile trip making, forecast in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update, could be considered conservative as it assumes a significant reduction
in demand due to the substantial increase in non-auto travel projected as part
of the forecast.
Modelling methods used in this study are biased;
modelling methods used in the study did not
model driver behaviour accurately, and used a
simplistic model to predict driver behaviour
The modelling completed as part of this study was completed in accordance
with industry standard approaches. The model was calibrated and validated
for base year conditions and reflects changing trip making patterns for future
conditions.
Addressed in EA
Project based on travel time savings; marginal
time savings for travel between the north and the
south
As per the Municipal Class EA process, a Problem/ Opportunity Statement was
developed for the project to address identified problems and opportunities,
including the need to provide additional road capacity to accommodate north-
south travel demands on the west side of the Otonabee River and to address
capacity, operational and safety concerns in the north end of the City by 2031.
Chapter 3 of the ESR documents how the Problem/Opportunity Statement was
developed for this project.
The final Problem/Opportunity statement was presented to City Council for
approval in November 2012 prior to PIC 2 and prior to evaluating the
alternative solutions. Through the Council meeting process members of the
public could provide comments prior to Council debating and adopting the
Problem/Opportunity statement, which occurred on November 13, 2012.
Travel time savings for individual trips was not a primary purpose of the project
and is not a component of the problem statement. The evaluation of
alternatives was based on a broad range of criteria as detailed in Sections 5.3
and 6.3 of the ESR. Travel time savings was one of 27 criteria considered in
the evaluation process. It was primarily used in aggregate as an input to the
cost-benefit analysis which was completed at the request of stakeholders.
Addressed in EA
Morrison-Hershfields report to Council (April
2011) said problem was at river crossings and not
in north end of City; results of this study differ from
previous studies
The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) completed
by Morrison Hershfield identified a number of road network capacity
deficiencies by 2031, including the Otonabee River crossings north of
Lansdowne Street, Fairbairn Street, Towerhill Road, portions of Chemong
Road, Parkhill Road, and other roads.
This current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway
Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and
the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
18
transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and identified
the widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the
Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by
2031. The current project is implementing the above noted recommendations
presented in that study.
There have been a number of studies which have assessed the need for and
most appropriate transportation improvements to address future travel
demands in the study area and these past studies have consistently
recommended the Parkway Corridor as the preferred solution. These studies
include the 1990 Transportation Plan, the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update, the West Side Corridor Study (2003), and the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
The Cost-Benefit Assessment included in Appendix M of the ESR also
provides a review of the differences between the previous Cost Benefit study
for the Parkway Corridor undertaken by Morrison-Hershfield in 2003 and the
more recent results presented in this ESR.
Nothing has been done to discourage traffic
infiltration and improve traffic flow on main roads;
Parkway will cause traffic infiltration in the
Chemong Road area
One of the key roles of the Parkway is to relieve the infiltration of through traffic
into many residential neighbourhoods as not one arterial roadway north of
Parkhill Road provides a continuous route between Fairbairn Street and Water
Street, or between Chemong Road and Water Street. Since Parkhill Road
cannot accommodate all of this travel and is not designed to modern arterial
road standards, traffic from the north end neighbourhoods that already exist
today use a series of local and collector roadways to travel east-west across
the north end of the City.
Chapter 6 of the ESR specifically documented how each alternative addressed
neighbourhood traffic infiltration and this was one of the evaluation criteria that
was added in response to public comments received during the study, as
documented in Section 6.3.1 of the ESR.
It should also be noted that implementation of traffic calming or placing turning
restrictions would either move traffic from one neighbourhood to another, or if
implemented on an area- wide basis, would simply result in more congestion
on the arterial road network than has already been forecast as part of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Traffic studies should be peer reviewed The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) was
completed by Morrison Hershfield looked at city-wide transportation
improvements to address long term growth needs and identified the widening
of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway
Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
19
current project is implementing the above noted recommendations presented
in that study.
The transportation model was developed by Morrison Hershfield and Paradigm
Transportation Solutions as part of their work on the CTPU, and they used the
model to develop the need and justification for transportation improvements,
originally identified in the 2012 CTPU by Morrison Hershfield, which included
the Parkway Corridor in the north end of the City. The ESR confirmed the
findings of this previous study and completed the remaining phases of the
Class EA process for this project.
Problem Statement
Biased towards the Parkway The current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the Parkway
Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, completed as per the Municipal
Class EA process for Master Plans, and the Hospital Access Road EA
Addendum. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update looked at
city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and
identified a number of projects that would be required by 2031. The current
project is implementing the recommendations from the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update.
As discussed in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were
developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement.
Section 6 describes how the West Bypass route was also considered as a
possible solution, however it was concluded that the west bypass would not
attract enough traffic to relieve the north-south capacity problems in the City
and therefore this alternative would not address the problem statement. As
described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or
building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use
and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base
forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode
share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result,
a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), Intersection Improvements and
Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the
Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement.
The Preferred Design, described in Section 7 of the ESR, provides a truly
multi-modal corridor, balancing the needs of a growing City while remaining
sensitive to the features and current uses/users of the right-of-way. The
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
20
preferred design incorporates infrastructure to support enhanced walking and
cycling through the provision of a continuous multi-use trail and sidewalks
along the entire corridor. Infrastructure to support transit is incorporated into
the preferred design, and the City will be looking to utilize this corridor as a
future transit spine to improve north-south service. None of the other
alternatives offer the same opportunities to achieve the mode share targets
established in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
Alternative Solutions / Network Alternatives
Reference to other jurisdictions/experiences in
other cities to inform alternatives not considered
The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update examined the system-
wide approaches to dealing with mobility needs to 2031 and this study
examined a series of best practices from other jurisdictions in developing the
policy recommendations that were considered appropriate for the City of
Peterborough. This previous Master Plan study, which included full public
consultation and was approved by City Council, established the planning
context through which the Parkway Corridor EA study was completed.
A broad range of alternative solutions was considered in accordance with the
Municipal Class EA process and standard industry practice. The alternatives
included: Do Nothing; Non-Auto Based Improvements (transit, TDM,
cycling/pedestrian use); Intersection Improvements; and Widen Existing Roads
/ Add New Roads.
Further, as per the discussion in Section 6.4.6.2 of the ESR related to the
Jackson Park Alternatives, references are made to other long span bridge
crossings of valley systems to inform the assessment and evaluation of the
Jackson Park long span bridge, including the crossings of Sixteen Mile Creek
Valley and Lions Valley Park in Oakville, and Pennypack Park and
Wissahickon Valley Park, in the United States, etc.
Beyond scope of EA Process,
Policy Documents (CTPU)
All possible alternatives were not fully
considered/properly evaluated; full range of
reasonable alternatives to the project were not
considered and evaluated; concerned that a full
range of reasonable alternative means of carrying
out the project were not considered and evaluated
This Class EA study is not intended to revisit the policy decisions in the Official
Plan or the recently completed Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
which were undertaken in accordance with the Planning Act and Municipal
Class EA process, respectively. This ESR was intended to undertake the
more detailed planning necessary to implement two of the road network
improvement recommendations from this plan, taking into account longer term
growth. Thus, the basis, or starting point, for the study was the 2012
Transportation Master Plan, and the travel demand forecasting work assumed
that all of the recommended policies and infrastructure needed to support the
reductions in auto use that were recommended in the Transportation Plan
would occur and corresponding auto use reductions would be realized.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
21
As per Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, all reasonable and feasible
solutions to the problems are to be identified and described. As detailed in
Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were developed and
evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. Section 6 describes
how the West Bypass route was also considered as a possible solution,
however it was concluded that the west bypass would not attract enough traffic
to relieve the north-south capacity problems in the City and therefore this
alternative would not address the problem statement.
As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or
building new roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use
and increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base
forecasts and therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode
share targets should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result,
a combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the
CTPU), Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New
Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the
Problem Statement.
The City has a comprehensive transportation demand management program
that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update study, which was approved by Council in November 2011. This study
is available on the City website.
The Citys strategy to manage the growth in auto trips is made up of three
basic initiatives:
1) An aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to
encourage alternate travel modes, shifting the time of travel and reducing
the number and length of trips. The City has a full time transportation
demand management planner that is responsible for implementing this
program;
2) An extensive set of policies to support active transportation in an effort to
increase the share of peak period trips made by walking and cycling from
6% today to 8% by 2031. The infrastructure program includes the
expansion of the cycling network in the City with a budget of $38-52 M over
the next 20 years which will add 130km of new on-road and off road
facilities; and
3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28% and increase the
share of trips made by transit from 4% today to 6% by 2031. The report
recommends the purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M

May 9, 2014
22
plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing operating costs
(total $33.1 M) to expand current transit service to achieve this target.
To date, the City has implemented or is in the detailed planning stages for the
implementation of 3 km of new trails, 13 km of sidewalks and 2.7 km of bike
lanes since adoption of the CTPU. Further, the City has purchased or is
planning to purchase 9 new conventional buses and has increased transit
service frequency on four routes with an overall annual increase in service
hours of 11% since 2011 which has increased annual ridership from 3.18M
riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the conventional system. These
measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU mode share targets.
Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel,
requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the
Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto travel will continue to grow
even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87% today
to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a series
of road network improvements that include improvements in portions of the
Parkway Corridor.
Given the size of the City and a review of mode shares in other comparable
communities, the CTPU concluded that the transit mode share targets adopted
for Peterborough are aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips
to use alternate modes was not considered to be feasible or realistic.
Therefore the deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR would not be
addressed by the Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative. As a result, the
same potential for adverse implications noted above in the assessment of the
Do Nothing alternative would also exist for the Non-Auto Based Improvements
alternative.
As detailed in Section 6.1 of the ESR, Network Alternatives were generated
based on a two-step process: the first step included the development of road
network alternatives representing various combinations of road widening and
new road connections to address the problems and opportunities; and, the
second step involved the development of the preferred road network
alternative to a higher level of design, with alternative design treatments
applied for major intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and
alternative alignments considered to avoid or minimize impacts to features or
properties within the corridor.
As per Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and
complexity of the project, the study area was divided into three segments (i.e.,
North End, South End and Jackson Park). With four alternatives within the
May 9, 2014
23
south end of the study area, six potential alternatives in the Jackson Park area,
and three alternatives in the north end of the study area, 72 different network
combinations were possibly available, resulting in a complex and difficult
evaluation process to present to the public. To simplify and clarify the
evaluation approach, a three step evaluation process was used, as per other
complex EA/route planning studies, allowing for an integrated but independent
selection of the preferred alternative for each segment.
As indicated in Section 6.3.2 of the ESR, the evaluation of Network
Alternatives was carried out via the same Reasoned Argument Process
process described in Section 5.3, which evaluates the advantages and
disadvantages (or positive and negative effects) of each Network Alternative in
response to each criteria. Based on the descriptions provided, each Network
Alternative is ranked in terms of how well it responds to the criteria.
Opportunities to incorporate mitigation to offset potential adverse impacts are
also considered as part of this process. This is commonly referred to as a Net
Effects evaluation. An evaluation of this sort is common practice in Individual
and Class EA studies.
The evaluation criteria used to assess Network Alternatives are based on a
combination of quantitative and qualitative measures, as well as public input.
For some criteria that are not easily measured or quantified, qualitative
measures are used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative with respect to each criteria. The evaluation considered
opportunities to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for impacts within subsequent
stages of design or construction. For other criteria, quantitative measures were
used based on the corridor right-of-way width (representing the footprint
impacts), to compare the advantages and disadvantages for criteria in numeric
terms, where the higher (or lower) values indicates a better ranking.
The detailed evaluation tables related to each of the Network Alternatives for
each segment of the study area is included in Appendix O of the ESR. The
assessment rationale for the South End, North End and Jackson Park area
Network Alternatives is further discussed in Section 6 of the ESR.
ESR does not consider Transportation Demand
Management alternatives, beyond the background
levels; study did not seriously consider alternative
modes of transportation; Parkway fosters a culture
of automobile use rather than a multi-modal, TDM-
based alternative
Alternative modes of transportation were identified and evaluated as
documented in Section 5 of the ESR and described in preceding sections of
this table. The policy directions and TDM program recommended in the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update go well beyond current
background levels.
The Citys strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an aggressive
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
24
TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage alternate
travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active transportation,
including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an investment in
transit service to boost ridership by 28%.
requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20 years, the Citys
2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto
travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto
decrease from 87% today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also
recommended a series of road network improvements that include
improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.
alternative.
As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28%
increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) was assumed to occur as part of
establishing need. In addition, the ability to support transit was considered as
part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included
in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys, and
intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design drawings
included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Updates
active transportation and TDM programs are
modest; analysis fails to consider a targeted
alternative mode improvement and TDM program;
targeted TDM programs required; economic
analysis does not account for full benefits of TDM
program or benefits of more comprehensive TDM
programs
The City has a comprehensive demand management program that was
recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan study, which
was approved by council in November 2011. This study is available on the
City website.
basic initiatives:
May 9, 2014
25
program;
facilities; and
(total $33.1 M) to expand current transit service to achieve this target.
Parkway Corridor. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents
a policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation planning in
this regard.
As described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were
developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As
per Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new
roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use and increased
walking and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and
therefore measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets
should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination
solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the TMP),
Intersection Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads
was recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to address the
Problem Statement.

May 9, 2014
26
alternative.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
biased, favouring roadway expansion
This issue pertains to the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
which was approved by City Council in November 2011.
As noted above, the City has a comprehensive demand management program
that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Even with its aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel,
Parkway Corridor.
Improve transit; adopt higher transit mode share
target of 6%
The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update assessed City wide
strategies to improve transit use in the City and concluded that the City could
realistically increase the share of peak hour trips made by transit from 4%
today to 6% by 2031. The Transportation Plan report noted that this increase
would represent an increase of 890,000 riders per year or a 28% increase in
transit use from 2011. The Transportation Plan estimated the capital costs to
purchase new buses at $5.1 million with additional net operational costs of
$1.4 million annually for increased services. Over the 20 year life of the plan, to
2031, this represents an investment of $33.1 million. The adoption of the 2012
CTPU by City Council represents a policy decision made by the City to guide
future transportation planning.
The base forecasts used for the current EA study analysis has assumed that
the increased transit use recommended in the 2012 CTPU would be achieved
by 2031, in accordance with this policy direction.
Should focus on improving existing roads. As detailed in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions were
developed and evaluated to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement. As
documented in Chapter 5 of the ESR, Intersection Improvements, such as the
addition of turning lanes and optimizing signal timings, was one of the
Alternative Solutions that was developed, assessed and evaluated. The
evaluation showed that completing minor intersection improvements can
address some of the potential short and longer term capacity and safety
issues, but cannot improve connectivity within the road network nor
accommodate long term growth.
planned City-wide traffic operations
study
May 9, 2014
27
While this alternative did not fully address the identified transportation
problems, there were some potential benefits associated with implementing
improvements to existing intersections in combination with other improvements
in terms of addressing safety concerns noted, or reducing localized traffic
infiltration problems. As such, this alternative was considered in combination
with the Widening Existing Roads or Building New Roads alternative.
Intersection improvements alone, also will not address connectivity concerns in
the south end of the study area, as noted in the problem statement, and cannot
effectively contribute to achieving the transit and non-auto mode shares
recommended in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in
2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational
and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this
project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the
project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update.
Study did not consider the efficient use of the
existing road network to shift / spread peak and
traffic flow over a longer time period
As described in Chapter 5 of the ESR, widening existing roads was one of the
alternative solutions considered in combination with adding new roads. The
widening existing roads / adding new roads alternative was generated,
assessed and evaluated and carried forward as part of the recommended
alternative solution to Phase 3 of the Class EA study. Shifting the peak hour or
spreading the peak period is a strategy that was considered as part of the
2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU).
Addressed in EA
Concerned with the safety at intersections, not
related to the Parkway intersections that are not
covered by the ESR, and feel that these would be
better served by alternatives that would reduce
the number and severity of collisions
Not applicable to this project. Improvements to intersections and/or other
roadways not related to the Parkway Corridor will be explored as part of
separate studies. The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic
operations study in 2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to
address operational and safety concerns at other intersections across the City.
Funding for this project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-
2.07) and the project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive
study
Do Nothing alternative was not considered. This EA study did consider a Do Nothing Alternative, during Phase 1. This
scenario includes all of the projects and initiatives recommended in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, except those improvements
related to the Parkway Corridor (new 2 lane arterial between Fairbairn St and
Cumberland Ave, plus Fairbairn St widening Parkhill Rd to Parkway
Corridor). The results of this assessment were presented at PIC 1. The Do
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
28
Nothing alternative did not address the problem statement for the project and
would result in adverse impacts to the social and economic environments. As a
result it was recommended that this alternative not be carried forward for
further consideration as it did not represent a reasonable alternative. Instead a
Combined Solution including non-auto based improvements (as per the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), intersection improvements, and
widening roads and/or adding new roads was the recommended solution to
address the Problem Statement.
For many of the criteria, measures of performance were provided relative to
base conditions which represent the conditions that would exist if the City
implemented everything in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update,
except for the Alternatives being evaluated in this study. In the context of this
EA Study, this is the same as Do Nothing which represents completion of all
other committed projects except for the project in question. This is not
evaluated as a reasonable alternative since it failed to address the problem
statement in Phase 1 of the EA process.
As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, congestion and safety concerns, as
expressed in the Problem and Opportunity Statement are expected to occur
under the Do Nothing alternative, and these concerns are already beginning
to manifest in the City.
ESR does not fairly assess the option of a ring
road for residents of new developments north of
the City to access Highway 115 or downtown
Peterborough.
Consideration was given to a West Bypass route (refer to Section 6.1.1,
pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings presented as part of PIC #1
(please refer to Panel 21, Appendix D of the ESR).
As described in Section 6.1.1 of the ESR, numerous past studies have
assessed the viability of a West Bypass Concept to provide a route to attract
traffic around the City and relieve capacity deficiencies within the City limits.
The 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan and the subsequent
West Side Corridor Study undertook a thorough evaluation of the west bypass
concept compared to various other network alternatives involving the Parkway
corridor and concluded that the west bypass would not attract enough traffic to
address the north-south capacity problems in the City.
The recent 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update did not assess
the West Bypass concept. To ensure that a complete range of reasonable
alternatives were carried forward for consideration in this Class EA study, the
first step in developing the range of network alternatives to be tested involved
the reconsideration of the West Bypass alternative to determine if this
alternative could address the problems and opportunities identified in the
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
29
study.
Since the route making up the West Bypass already exists, 3
rd
Line, Fairbairn
Street, Lily Lake Road, Ackison Road and Brealey Drive would need to be
upgraded to a 4 lane highway standard to provide for operating speeds
equivalent to a provincial highway, with posted speed limits of 80 km/h, limited
direct access, and high design speeds, in order to attract traffic. As noted in
Section 6.1.1 of the ESR, the results of the traffic modelling indicated that there
would still be a number of road network capacity deficiencies in the study area
that would remain with these improvements in place.
While this alternative provides relief to Towerhill Road and provides some relief
to volumes on Chemong Road, it does not address the key capacity
deficiencies in the south end of the study area nor those around the Jackson
Park area. This existing route does provide an alternate route to bypass the
City from north to south, however it does not address the traffic safety or
congestion concerns of the City, nor does it enhance connectivity to the south
end road network from Medical Drive. As a result, the west bypass alternative
does not provide sufficient relief to the key problems identified for this Class
EA study to be considered a reasonable alternative, and was therefore not
recommended to be carried forward for further evaluation.
The rationale for not carrying the West Bypass forward in the evaluation
process is also discussed in Table 2 Summary of Public Comments and
Responses, provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and Table
4 Summary of Public Comments, provided in Appendix F of the PIC #2
Summary Report.
EA study was limited to a study of the Parkway
Corridor given that it was identified in the CTPU
as a possible solution, and did not address the
overall transportation system
The City of Peterborough just recently completed an update to their city-wide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPU) in 2012, which examined the
overall transportation needs of the City for the next 20 years. This study was
completed in accordance with the Master Planning process framework
provided in the Municipal Class EA document, included extensive public
consultation, and was approved through public meetings of City Council.
Transportation Master Plans are intended to determine broader system-wide
transportation policies and infrastructure needs on a more holistic basis to
provide the policy context for subsequent Class EA studies. As such, the 2012
CTPU was intended to determine city-wide transportation improvements to
address long term growth needs and identified a number of strategies, policies
and projects that would be required by 2031. The current Parkway Corridor
EA study is implementing two of the above noted recommendations presented
in that study. The intent and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
30
determine how best to implement the recommendations of the Transportation
Plan and satisfy the problem statement established for the project.
EA did not develop a comprehensive road-centred
alternative to the Parkway; West By-pass route
dismissed too early; other alternative solutions
and network options not seriously considered
As described in Chapter 6 of the ESR, given the size of the study area and
complexity of the project, the study team divided the study area into the
following segments: Jackson Park; South End; and North End. Network
Alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated for each of the above-
referenced segments. This enabled the study team to evaluate the unique
qualities of each segment in more detail, recognizing that for most of the
evaluation criteria the impacts are localized in nature and specific to a
particular segment (i.e. property impacts). For the system-wide performance
evaluation, each of the area based alternatives was modeled with
improvements in the other parts of the study area included. For example, the
system-wide modeling of the south end alternatives included the new roadway
in the Parkway Corridor (as recommended in the 2012 CTPU). Similarly, the
modeling for the north end alternatives included the recommended alternative
in the south end to ensure that the system wide performance results for each
alternative were representative. For the assessment of the Jackson Park Area
Alternatives, the recommended alternative for the north end and south end
were used in the modeling assessment.
Consideration was given to a West By-Pass route (refer to Section 6.1.1,
pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings presented as part of PIC #1
(please refer to Panel 21, Appendix D of the ESR). This rationale is also
discussed in Table 2 Summary of Public Comments and Responses,
provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and Table 4
Summary of Public Comments, provided in Appendix F of the PIC #2 Summary
Report. The assessment concluded that the West By-Pass would not address
the problems and opportunities established for this study, and therefore did not
represent a reasonable alternative as defined in the Municipal Class EA.
Addressed in EA
Inconsistent treatment of alternatives and
application of evaluation criteria means decision
making / planning process not logical, traceable or
replicable; walking and cycling ought to have been
considered as modes of transportation; criteria did
not sufficiently prioritize protection and
enhancement of important natural areas, wildlife
corridors and green spaces; double-disturbance
not factored in
As described in Section 4 of the ESR, in accordance with the EA Process, a
systematic evaluation of alternatives was undertaken for this project in terms of
their advantages and disadvantages, considering both positive and negative
effects on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments as part of
the assessment and evaluation process. The evaluation process was also
based on three important evaluation objectives: compatibility, traceability and
objectivity. The assessment and evaluation results were presented for public
review and comment at each key study milestone.
The evaluation criteria were grouped under the following seven categories:
Technical Considerations; Natural Environment; Built Environment; Social
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
31
Environment; Cultural Environment; Economic Environment; and Financial
Considerations. A reasoned argument evaluation process, as has been used
on numerous Class EAs and Individual EA studies, was utilized to describe
the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the relative net
environmental effects.
Given the extent of public comments about the importance of greenspace the
impacts to natural and greenspace areas were considered under numerous
evaluation categories including the natural, social and cultural environments
ensuring the natural features as well as the role and function of the trail and
greenspace areas was assessed and explicitly considered in the evaluation of
alternatives.
The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s
Official Plan not greenspace. The existing corridor is bisected by a number of
road crossings. The potential impacts on the natural environment in
association with the construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section 8.2
of the ESR and in the specialist reports provided in Appendix K of the ESR. In
summary, concerns regarding impacts to the natural environment were
received from the public and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the
evaluation criteria, the route selection, and preliminary design, with mitigation
measures and design guidelines developed to mitigate potential impacts.
Walking and cycling was considered as a mode of transportation. As
described in Section 5.4, it was noted that on its own, widening roads or
building new roads would not support the achievement of increased walking
and cycling that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore
measures to support the achievement of these mode share targets should be
incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution
including Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection Improvements and
Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was recommended as the
Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement. The
recommended design for the Parkway Corridor includes a continuous multi-use
trail from the south end of the study area to the north end of the study area,
completing a number of missing links in the sidewalk and trail network in this
portion of the City. In addition, sidewalk and trail crossing infrastructure is
included in the proposed design, including 5 new grade separated trail
crossings, 5 pedestrian crossing signals, and pedestrian crosswalks at all
intersections.
The Preferred Plan does account for initial and ultimate requirements (i.e. road
widening from two to four lanes) with the ultimate road platform established

May 9, 2014
32
and mitigation measures placed to accommodate the ultimate road platform
during the initial construction works. Incremental effects of the widening to four
lanes, associated with the new bridge across Jackson Park, were included in
the assessment of the Jackson Park Area alternatives as appropriate and as
described in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.
Feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated -
Transportation Plan 2011 has not been
incorporated into Citys Official Plan; City has not
completed its Official Plan review; no approved
land use planning alternative to consider;
assumes Lily Lake Planning Area will be
developed but is has not yet received approval
As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population and
employment growth in the City are provided in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006.
Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to utilize these
forecasts for planning purposes. Accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts
were included in the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based on the Growth
Plan, the City population is forecast to grow from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by
2031 (11.8%).
The City Official Plan and OPA 142 designate the type of land use that should
be planned in various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and
distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The policies within the
Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated
through intensification within the Citys existing built boundary, with the
remaining new growth available for greenfield development. The
intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a
framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Growth Plan and
the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these applicable
land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.
The planned growth per the Growth Plan targets, excluding the growth
allocated to intensification areas, is distributed between the Carnegie East,
Carnegie West, Chemong East, and Chemong West growth areas. It is neither
the purpose nor the intent of the Class EA process to over-ride the Planning
Act or re-write the current Official Plan.
Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie, Chemong and Lily
Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as these areas build out to capacity. While
the City has initiated the planning for the future Lily Lake planning area, which
includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to accommodate future longer
term growth, the growth forecasts used in the modelling work for the 2012
CTPU and the initial modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not
include any planned growth within the Lily Lake Planning Area since it is has
not been approved.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
33
In response to concerns raised by members of the public regarding the
impacts of full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area on the evaluation of the
north end alternatives, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the
future demands and improvement needs associated with build out of this
development area in addition to the planned growth to 2031.
The Parkway is not only feasible, within the context of the Citys current
Planning and Policy environment, but it is necessary to support the planning
decisions made by the City.
Preferred alternative is ineffective and needlessly
expensive; proposed Parkway extension will do
little to address the identified problems and in
some cases will make the problems worse
The ESR included the development and assessment of various Alternative
Transportation Solutions and Alternative Road Network Designs to address the
problem / opportunity statement for the project. A series of road network
alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated using a number of
evaluation criteria reflecting the transportation performance of each alternative,
the potential effects on the natural, built, social, cultural and economic
environments and also included various financial evaluation criteria to
determine the Recommended Design. The transportation performance of each
alternative was assessed with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of
the ESR. The Recommended Design, which consists of a truly multi-modal
corridor, best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety
concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity improvements that
would otherwise be required elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design
is not implemented.
For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, a benefit-cost
analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages
and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives from a
financial perspective. The results (as documented in Appendix M of the ESR)
show that the proposed Parkway Corridor, returns total benefits that are about
31% higher than total implementation costs and this is significantly better than
the performance of the other alternatives evaluated. When the timing of the
cost and benefit streams are considered in the present value analysis, the
benefits exceed the costs by about 1% resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01.
It should be noted that a large portion of the project cost is attributed to the
mitigation measures being proposed as part the project, including landscaping,
stormwater management, and vegetation restoration plans. Further, as noted
in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as
the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop related
bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge including
the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, to span the
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
34
creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, to investigate low impact
construction techniques, etc. The cost includes an additional contingency of
$5.8M to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge
piers for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets
of piers).
Preferred alternative will have significant
environmental impacts, in spite of some mitigation
measures
The potential impacts to the natural, cultural and social environments are
discussed in Chapter 7 of the ESR while Chapter 8 discusses the mitigation
measures that were developed in consideration of the identified potential
impacts.
Every alternative considered has positive and negative effects. The intent of
the Environmental Assessment (EA) process is to evaluate these potential
effects and rank alternatives based on that evaluation. The Recommended
Design is considered to be the best balance of those potential effects while still
achieving the goals of the project by addressing the problem statement.
Further, Chapter 9 of the ESR lists 66 specific commitments for further work
required to implement the project as it moves through the next stages of
detailed design and construction, including permit and approval requirements
(MOE, MNR, DOF, ORCA). These commitments are grouped in a series of
topic areas covering the primary potential environmental impacts identified
through the completion of this ESR, including: Fisheries, Stormwater
Management, Hydrogeology, Wetlands and Wet Features / Depressions,
Erosion and Sedimentation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Archaeology, Built Heritage,
Noise, Air Quality, and Materials Management during construction. Including
these commitments in the EA will ensure mitigation of any adverse effect is a
high priority and a commitment on the part of the City.
Addressed in EA
Preferred option included a bridge since the outset
of the study
Refer to alternative development, assessment and evaluation process
described above, and in Sections 5.3, 6.1 and 6.1.4 of the ESR. A number of
alternative solutions were developed and examined during Phase 2 of the
Class EA process, as described in Section 2 of the ESR.
A preliminary assessment of the Jackson Park area alternatives (i.e., New
Bridge Across Valley and Parkhill Road/Fairbairn Street Widening) based on
initial observations was carried out by the study team and presented at PIC #2.
The recommendation for the New Bridge Across Valley alternative was made
based on the detailed evaluation, as presented at PIC #3, and described in
Section 6.4.6 of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Fairbairn Street route likely to perform as well or
better than chosen alternative with reduced
As described in Section 6 of the ESR, the Fairbairn Street alternative was one
of the network alternatives generated, assessed and evaluated for the north
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
35
impacts to the natural environment and
comparable or reduced effects to other aspects of
the environment
end of the study corridor. On the basis of the comparative evaluation that
considered over 27 criteria, the Parkway Corridor alternative, which included a
bridge over Jackson Park, was the preferred alternative. With respect to the
Transportation Assessment, the Fairbairn Street widening alternative results in
more congested road segments in the study area than the proposed bridge
crossing and the intersection assessment for Fairbairn Street / Parkhill Road
concluded that the intersection would operate at or over capacity with the
Fairbairn Street widening, while the new bridge provided significant capacity
relief to this key intersection. The ESR also noted that the Fairbairn Street
widening could not accommodate the potential future traffic that would be
generated by the full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area, while the new
bridge crossing provided sufficient capacity for this additional growth. This
assessment is discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.
Installation of smart lights and/or synchronization
of traffic lights not considered; improve/upgrade
traffic lights/intersections
As documented in Chapter 5 of the ESR, Intersection Improvements, such as
the addition of turning lanes and optimizing signal timings, was one of the
Alternative Solutions that was developed, assessed and evaluated. The
evaluation showed that completing minor intersection improvements can
address some of the potential short and longer term capacity and safety
issues, but cannot improve connectivity within the road network nor
accommodate long term growth. While this alternative did not fully address the
identified transportation problems, there were some potential benefits
associated with implementing improvements to existing intersections in
combination with other improvements in terms of addressing safety concerns
noted, or reducing localized traffic infiltration problems. As such, this
alternative was considered in combination with the Widening Existing Roads or
Building New Roads alternative.
The synchronization of traffic lights has already been implemented throughout
much of the study area, to the extent possible. This was accounted for in the
modelling work.
The City is planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in
2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to address operational
and safety concerns at other intersections across the City. Funding for this
project was included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and the
project was recommended as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update.
Given the lack of separate left turn lanes at many intersections in the area, it is
virtually impossible to provide efficient traffic signal control with advance
greens to provide protected left turns at intersections. This type of signal
study

May 9, 2014
36
operation works best when there are separate left turn lanes at intersections
and detectors can be imbedded in the pavement in the left turn lane, to
indicate when vehicles are waiting for an advance green phase. The traffic
signal controller can then provide an advance green move in one direction or
both directions if there is demand to warrant the advance green phase.
Without a separate left turn lane, there is no way to know if a vehicle stopped
at the intersection is intending to proceed through the intersection or is
planning to turn left. Without separate turn lanes, the only way to provide the
advance green is to provide it for every cycle of the traffic signal irrespective of
any vehicles actually wanting to turn left. To provide advance greens in both
directions at the same time, would require a separate signal phase to only
allow left turning vehicles to proceed first, followed by the through vehicles
later. Again this would occur regardless of the presence of a left turn vehicle at
the stop line, and even if the left turning vehicle was second or third in the line,
they would be blocked and not be able to use the advance green.
Widening of narrow roads through the area, such as Monaghan Road, to
provide separate left turn lanes, even at the major intersections, would result in
significant impacts to adjacent properties; would eliminate the sidewalks and
boulevards; and would remove many of the mature trees along the corridors.
Even if the City did undertake this improvement to roads such as Monaghan
Road, this would not address the remaining problem areas that were identified
early on in the study (refer to Chapter 3 of the ESR).
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) not
examined as a viable alternative solution to the
problem statement
The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal system that is
currently controlling about two-thirds of the traffic signals in the City. As part of
the Citys normal traffic management policy, the signal timing settings are
optimized to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various road
corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal priority is currently being
used to optimize the traffic signal timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water
Street) to give priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are
assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to manage its
transportation system.
These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and the quality of
service provided but they cannot increase the functional capacity of a roadway.
In most arterial road applications the functional capacity is governed by vehicle
following distances (1.75 2.0 seconds per vehicle) and the available green
time provided at signalized intersections. There are currently no proven ITS
technologies that can allow for reduced car following distances while
maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies may allow for
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
37
optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic signals, this often comes at the
expense of other movements, when more green time is devoted to the major
road.
A recent study completed as part of the City of London Transportation Master
Plan (2004) found that traffic signal optimization (with no geometric
improvements) could at best increase the capacity of a major arterial road by
only 5%, and this improvement would result in increased side road delay as
priority is given to the major road.
Alternative/innovative methods of traffic
management not considered (i.e., traffic calming,
restricted turns, improved sight lines, timed lane
use/lights, Adaptive Signal Control Systems,
introduce signage to encourage use of existing
roads, one way street limitations etc.)
Measures to restrict traffic infiltration through local neighbourhoods are not
able to address the problem statement for this study. If the City were to
implement measures to restrict through traffic from using local roads, this
would force more trips out onto the arterial road network and increase the
extent of network congestion beyond what has been forecast to date. If
measures were applied only in localized areas, this would simply shift traffic to
use other local roads to short cut.
The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal system that is
currently controlling about two-thirds of the traffic signals in the City. As part of
the Citys normal traffic management policy, the signal timing settings are
optimized to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various road
corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal priority is currently being
used to optimize the traffic signal timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water
Street) to give priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are
assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to manage its
transportation system. It should also be noted that the Parkway corridor will
support the future potential implementation of higher order transit.
These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and the quality of
service provided but they cannot significantly increase the functional capacity
of a roadway. In most arterial road applications the functional capacity is
governed by vehicle following distances (1.75 2.0 seconds per vehicle) and
the available green time provided at signalized intersections. There are
currently no proven ITS technologies that can allow for reduced car following
distances while maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies may
allow for optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic signals, this often
comes at the expense of other movements, when more green time is devoted
to the major road.
A recent study completed as part of the City of London Transportation Master
Plan (2004) found that traffic signal optimization (with no geometric
ongoing monitoring of existing
transportation system

May 9, 2014
38
improvements) could at best increase the capacity of a major arterial road by
only 5%, and this improvement would result in increased side road delay as
Parkway will accommodate a larger number of
cars, enabling cars to move quickly and
encourage auto use; invest in alternative
transportation modes (walking, cycling, transit)
The Preferred Alternative includes a multi-modal arterial road corridor,
designed to accommodate:
Four lanes between Clonsilla Avenue and Chemong Road
Two lanes from Chemong Road to Cumberland Avenue and Water Street
Future express transit route
Provision for transit infrastructure
Sidewalks and a continuous multi-use trail
Pedestrian/trail crossings
Enhanced landscaping and vegetation
Noise mitigation treatments
Enhanced stormwater management
Various intersection arrangements
The Parkway will be a major arterial roadway not a highway. It has been
designed to have a posted speed of 50 to 60 km/h. A 3.0 m wide multi-use
trail has been proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to
accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians.
This trail will be separated from the roadway where feasible to provide a
natural feel to the extent possible.
The Citys existing strategy to manage the growth in auto trips includes an
aggressive TDM program with recommendations for programs to encourage
alternate travel modes, an extensive set of policies to support active
transportation, including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an
investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%.
Even with the City implementing an aggressive program to support non-auto
modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M (equivalent to the
cost of the Parkway) over the next 20 years, the Citys 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto travel will continue to
grow even if the share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87%
today to 83% by 2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road
network improvements that include improvements in portions of the Parkway
Corridor.
As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts assumed a 28%
increase in peak period transit (as per CTPU) and even with this shift in use,
capacity deficiencies were forecast to occur. The ability to support transit was
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
39
considered as part of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures
were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations, laybys,
and intersection design treatments (please refer to the Preliminary Design
drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of the ESR).
Develop new pathways for high school students;
Parkway places pathways near to an arterial road
that will reduce the willingness of pedestrians and
cyclists to use such routes
As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been
proposed along the entire length of the Parkway Corridor to accommodate
recreational cyclist traffic, commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a
sidewalk or multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of the
roadway in accordance with the policies in the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along
the entire corridor which does not currently exist. This system will connect
populated areas in the north with employment/commercial areas in the south
for non-auto based commuters.
Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass grade separated trail
crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor; 5
new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections (including crossings
serving 3 schools) along the corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users;
and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain
neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park.
Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to separate the trail and
the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the end of
Chapter 7. As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for
preserving existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of construction
works will be explored to allow new vegetation to grow and mature, providing
screening during construction and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard
environment upon opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan
will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which may include
replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every
tree removed).
Addressed in EA
Natural heritage reviewed for only one existing
route for a Parkway alternative, and not others
The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance (NHFAS) report is
included in Appendix F of the ESR, with the results summarized in Sections of
the ESR. As per Section 4.5 of the ESR, the NHFAS was carried out to
assess the existing natural environment conditions within each of the Network
Alternatives and to determine the level of significance of terrestrial and aquatic
natural heritage features in each to facilitate the evaluation of the Network
Alternatives.
Addressed in EA
Policies

May 9, 2014
40
Contradicts requirement for municipalities to
protect natural heritage systems including natural
corridors and linkages; project conflicts with
policies to protect ecological systems, including
natural areas, features and functions
The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and
Corridors that provide linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred
to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the
Official Plan. The Citys Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors
adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands are
protected and do not include the Parkway Corridor lands which are designated
as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow
for transportation facilities within a Natural Area where supported by an
Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment.
The Provincial Policy Statement also requires Municipalities to protect efficient
transportation corridors to support future growth, which is the why the Parkway
Corridor lands have been designated as such in the Official Plan.
Further, the proposed bridge across Jackson Park will be designed to minimize
intrusion and disruption within the park, so that longer term ecological functions
and longer term use and enjoyment of the park can continue with minimal
adverse effects.
Addressed in EA
Contradicts urban intensification; growth areas are
not in agreement with either Plan it Peterborough
or Provincial Growth Plan; transportation system
should be focused on non-auto uses
Land use forecasts are consistent with the forecasts set forth in the Citys
Official Plan, which was amended through the adoption of OPA 142 which
implemented the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. The policies within the
Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be accommodated
through intensification within the Citys existing built boundary, with the
remaining new growth available for greenfield development. The
intensification policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a
framework for implementing the intensification policies in the Provincial Growth
Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the CTPU have assumed these
applicable land use growth and intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.
The Preferred Alternative Solution to address the Problem Statement is a
combination solution including Non-Auto Based Improvements (as per the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update), Intersection Improvements and
Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads.
was approved by Council in November 2011. This study is available on the
City website.
basic initiatives:
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
41
program;
facilities; and
(total $33.1 M) to achieve this target.
To date, the City has implemented or is in the detailed planning stages for the
implementation of 3 km of new trails, 13 km of sidewalks and 2.7 km of bike
lanes since adoption of the CTPU. Further, the City has purchased or is
planning to purchase 9 new conventional buses and has increased transit
service frequency on four routes with an overall annual increase in service
hours of 11% since 2011 which has increased annual ridership from 3.18M
riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the conventional system. These
measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU mode share targets.
Does not consider Natural Areas Strategy The City of Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy was reviewed as part of the
NHFAS report, included in Appendix F of the ESR. Specifically, Section 1.2.3
summarizes the findings of the Natural Areas Strategy, and notes that there
are six proposed natural areas within the Parkway Corridor study area. This
includes the Otonabee River system, Jackson Creek system, Byersville Creek
system, Bears Creek system, Riverview Creek system and the Parkway
system.
Chapter 5 of the Natural Areas Strategy does recognize the ultimate role of the
Parkway as a transportation corridor and acknowledges its eventual
development into a transportation corridor.
Addressed in EA
Study does not support policies for safe and
healthy communities as the Parkway will separate
The City has been planned around the Parkway corridor assuming it would be
built at some point in time. The policies within the Provincial Growth Plan
require that 40% of new growth be accommodated through intensification
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
42
residential, commercial and employment areas. within the Citys existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth
available for greenfield development. The intensification policies within the
City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a framework for implementing the
intensification policies in the Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized
within the CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and
intensification targets will be achieved by 2031. The new development areas
in the north end of the City were annexed for the purpose of supporting future
residential growth and these growth areas are reflected in the current Official
Plan. The Parkway will provide an efficient connection between these
residential, commercial and employment areas of the City.
Parkway would not appear to be consistent with
various policies in the Provincial Policy Statement
and may not conform to the Citys current Official
Plan (as described in our PIC 4 submission)
Our review of the material in support of this opinion (refer to Appendix E)
concludes that the Parkway Project does in fact comply with the various policy
statements extracted from the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of
Peterborough Official Plan. For example:
Plan for healthy communities the proposed corridor supports healthy
active communities by providing infrastructure to support all modes of
transportation and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in
addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine. In addition, the
proposed plan reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods
which makes them safer for pedestrians and allows for improved social
interaction (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). By reducing congestion
and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project can improve overall quality of
life as suggested in the Official Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project
balances the transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the
community and is compatible with the small city character of Peterborough (as
suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6 lane roads and complicated
intersections (that would be required in some of the other alternatives), by
reducing regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by improving
safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are already experiencing collision
problems. Finally, by choosing a route that does not provide new roadway
capacity at the edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually less
likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent rural areas than other
alternatives (specifically the West By-Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3
rd
Line
Alternatives) and supports the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with
a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan and the PPS.
Prioritize the preservation / conservation of natural areas the proposed
route does not affect or impact any provincial parks, conservation areas, or
other protected areas (reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d)
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
43
however the Fairbairn Street / 3
rd
Line Alternative does traverse through a
designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection of natural areas
within the City is already protected within the Official Plan through buffer lands
designated adjacent to the Parkway Corridor through the north end of the
study area. These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway, which is
being located within a designated transportation corridor (2005 City Official
Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation measures proposed in the ESR (including
landscaping, bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans)
provide protection to features considered to be part of the natural heritage of
the community (2005 Official Plan section 4.5.1.3). Designated open space /
greenspace areas are not being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to
Schedule A of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area although
the proposed design will span this area preserving the natural functions of the
valley area below.
Adopt a TDM approach to mitigate congestion and capacity Issues As
noted previously, the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has
provided an extensive set of policies and infrastructure to support and promote
TDM. The Class EA is being planned within this Citywide planning context
and assumes the initiatives will be completed. This Class EA is also
implementing some of the infrastructure necessary to achieve that vision,
including new pedestrian / trail connections and a future transit spine route
through the City (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.2). Given the size of
the City and a review of mode shares in other comparable communities, the
CTPU concluded that the transit mode share targets adopted for Peterborough
are aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips to use alternate
modes was not considered to be feasible or realistic. Therefore the
deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR would not be addressed by the
Non-Auto Based Improvements alternative.
Encourage active and efficient modes of transportation while
discouraging vehicular travel The purpose of the Class EA was not to
over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use
patterns and a mix of uses do not apply to this project, however, the land use
patterns adopted in the Official Plan and OPA 142 requires multi-modal
transportation infrastructure that supports walking, cycling, and transit use.
The Parkway Corridor achieves all of these better than any of the other
reasonable alternatives. (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.4). The
proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by providing
infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and providing a connected
trail system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and

May 9, 2014
44
future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in
adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safer for pedestrians
and allows for non-motorized movement (reference to 2005 PPS, Section
1.5.1.a). Providing a connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its
use as an arterial road and future transit spine provides for accessible active
transportation opportunities that are attractive alternatives to the automobile
and make it less convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012 Official Plan
Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5 and 2012 Sustainable
Peterborough Plan). Providing a balanced transportation system requires the
provision of transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of travel.
The Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the other alternatives, and
in turn helps to support the achievement of the mode share targets and
objectives of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation through
education, promotion, and land use planning - The purpose of the Class
EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about
adopting land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions do not apply
to this project (would be better directed to the Official Plan Update), however
the ESR has shown that the proposed Parkway Corridor will reduce regional
airborne emissions compared to the No Build or Do Nothing Alternative (see
section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix I). Net environmental impacts were
considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives in
accordance with the Class EA requirements (and in reference to the 2012
Sustainable Peterborough Plan).
Official Plan Compliance - The proposed Parkway and the Jackson Park
bridge crossing are not contrary to the Official Plan. The Parkway Corridor and
the proposed crossing location are actually identified in Schedule B of the
Official Plan as a future High Capacity Arterial. With respect to natural area,
the Official Plan Section 3.3.4 notes ... Dedicated public roadways and public
utilities are discouraged from locating within Natural Areas but may occur
subject to policy 3.3.7 (which refers to the need for a Class Environmental
Study for any new roads in Natural Areas). Roadways are discouraged from
locating within Natural Corridors except along The Parkway route shown on
Schedule B. The lands designated as Protected Natural Areas in Schedule A
of the Official Plan refer to lands north and west of the proposed bridge
crossing location.
May 9, 2014
45
Study Process
Project has been piecemealed Piecemealing relates to splitting a project into separate, smaller EA studies
where the Environmental Approvals are sought on one project or piece of a
project at a time, without consideration for the combined impacts of all of the
improvements needed to implement the overall solution.
As noted in the Background and Context provided as part of the ESR
Executive Summary, access to the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre
became an issue in the community following the 2003 referendum, as the
previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part because
of its central location along the Parkway Corridor which could provide
excellent access to all area of the City and to/from the outlying communities in
Peterborough County. Residents surrounding the proposed hospital site
expressed significant concerns about the traffic impacts of the new hospital on
their neighbourhood streets. Due to the issues surrounding the Citys
unwillingness to proceed with the Parkway Corridor EA in the aftermath of the
2004 Referendum, however, the scope of study for the Hospital Access Road
EA was constrained to only examining the improvements necessary to address
the impacts of the new hospital construction and consolidation of related
medical services around the hospital campus area. Thus the primary purpose
of Hospital Access Road Class EA study was to improve access to the hospital
and reduce traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the
hospital due to the proposed expansion. The study recommended the
construction of the current two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street
and Parkhill Road, along with a southerly termination of the new road with a
connection to Clonsilla Ave, in the vicinity of Third Avenue.
Previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002
process. As a result, the Class EA study does address the entire Parkway
Corridor from the south end to the north end, including the existing section of
Medical Drive.
The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt with as a single
project, in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. The term
piecemealing does not refer to the evaluation process used within a Class EA
process, and the evaluation process used in the Parkway Class EA is similar to
other complex Class EA studies and Individual EA studies (i.e. Highway 407
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
46
East EA), where a long or complicated series of routes are split into distinct
segments for evaluation where the effects are localized to the respective
segments. For the purpose of understanding the net effects of the project, all
components of the Parkway Project were considered in their entirety.
As described in Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, the study area was broken into three
separate areas (North End, Jackson Park Area, and South End) and a three
step evaluation process was used to simplify and clarify the evaluation
approach. This approach has been used numerous times on complex EA /
Route planning studies (i.e. Highway 407 East Extension) where there are a
number of sub alternatives within various portions of the study area.
The ESR clearly indicates that the entire project, including the recommended
alternatives in North End, Jackson Park Area, and South End are all required
to address the Problem / Opportunities identified in Chapter 3 of the ESR, and
this entire system has been considered in the development of the design for
the corridor (described in Section 7 of the ESR, and in the Identification of
Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures described in Section 8 of the
ESR.
To highlight the fact that the entire corridor was being studied the project was
called the Parkway Corridor Class EA which would ensure instant recognition
by mostly everybody in the City of Peterborough.
Concerned about a potential piecemealing
approach through the Lily Lake draft Official Plan
Amendment
Official Plan Amendment studies are completed in accordance with the
Planning Act, not through the Municipal Class EA process.
Not Applicable
Study does not comply with the requirements or
expectations of the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (MCEA)
The Class EA process addresses the requirements of the EA Act. Since this
study is related to the construction of a new road within a designated
transportation corridor, the project has predictable impacts which can be
mitigated through proven mitigation strategies used in other projects and this
combination of factors makes the Class EA process an appropriate planning
and design process. The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and
thus the natural environment study and information used to evaluate
alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required for a routine
Class EA study. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City
was sufficient to identify and compare the range of potential advantages and
disadvantages of all reasonable alternatives and make an informed decision,
recognizing that the project specifics will be addressed under the Detailed
Design and permitting process that follows both a Class EA and an Individual
EA.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
47
EA study is beyond the scale of building a new
road and that the integrated approach and/or the
Master Plan process would have been more
appropriate for this study
This study built upon the recommendations of the 2012 CTPU which followed
the Master Planning process outlined in the Municipal Class EA process and
was designed to address Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per
Section A.2.7.1 of the Master Planning Process, when projects are undertaken
which implement specific elements recommended in the Master Plan, it is
necessary for the applicable schedule to be determined for those projects
subject to the Municipal Class EA.
The Municipal Class EA is an approved process under the EA Act by which
municipal infrastructure projects (i.e., municipal road projects) are planned. As
documented in Section 1.3 of the ESR, this study was carried out as a
Schedule C project, continuing the planning (Phases 3 and 4) for two of the
projects recommended in the Master Plan. Schedule C undertakings are
subject to the full planning process of the Class EA given that they have the
potential for significant environmental impacts but the effects are predictable
and mitigable.
Addressed in EA
Project should be completed as three individual
EAs after they have been demonstrated to be
economically and financially sound
The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt with as a single
project, in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process and requirements
of the Environmental Assessment Act. This study built upon the
recommendations of the 2012 CTPU which followed the Master Planning
process outlined in the Municipal Class EA process and was designed to
address Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per Section A.2.7.1 of
the Master Planning Process, when projects are undertaken which implement
specific elements recommended in the Master Plan, it is necessary for the
applicable schedule to be determined for those projects subject to the
Municipal Class EA.
In addition, previous input from the Ministry of the Environment during the 2002
process. Under the definition of a project in the Municipal Class EA (Page G-
6), proposed works are considered as separate projects if they are initiated to
solve distinctly different sets of problems; and the resulting works are
standalone facilities without the requirement of further works to completely
solve the problem.
As such, the Municipal Class EA is the appropriate planning and design
process for this project.
As documented in Appendix M of the ESR, the results show that the proposed
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
48
Parkway Corridor returns total benefits that are about 31% higher than total
implementation costs. When the timing of the cost and benefit streams are
considered in the present value analysis, the benefits exceed the costs by
about 1% resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01.
Reasoned argument approach is vague. The
relative values assigned to categories are not
reported in the EA documents.
A Reasoned Argument Process, which describes the advantages and
disadvantages (or positive and negative affects) of each alternative in
response to the evaluation criteria, was utilized to evaluate alternatives and
identify a preferred alternative. The reasoned argument approach is a
standard methodology used to evaluate alternatives for Individual and Class
EA projects. An arithmetic (or weighted) evaluation process was not used.
A detailed discussion related to the comparative evaluation of the Alternative
Solutions is provided in Section 5.4 of the ESR. In addition, Chapter 6 of the
ESR provides a comprehensive discussion of the rationale used during the
evaluation of the Network Alternatives. Detailed evaluations of the Network
Alternatives are included in Appendix O of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
The environmental impacts were not disclosed
until after the November 2013 Council meeting
The potential impacts to the natural environment were included as part of the
evaluation of alternatives presented at each of the public events held as part of
the study and based on the findings of the NHFAS report completed as part of
the EA study. A summary of the potential impacts was identified on the
presentation panels at each of the PICs and available on the City website
following the PIC. In addition, detailed evaluation tables were available at PIC
2 and PIC 3 for reference on the resource tables. The formal NHFAS report
was made available as part of final documentation of the Environmental Study
Report.
Addressed in EA
Studies completed as part of the EA study were
done at the time of preparation of the Parkway
Trail and do not reflect current conditions;
concerned that the NHFAS report does not specify
when the field studies occurred for this project
The Parkway Trail was constructed in 2005. Tree removal adjacent to the
corridor, between Fairbairn Street and Chemong Road, took place in 2010 and
2011 as part of a new subdivision development on private land. As noted in
the ESR, several field surveys were completed throughout the course of the
study in association with the natural heritage, cultural heritage and
archaeological assessment studies carried out as part of this EA study.
The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report, included in
Appendix F of the ESR, documents the findings of the field surveys carried out
to assess the existing natural environment conditions in the study area. These
field surveys were conducted at different times of the year to capture the
varying seasonal conditions. Specifically, field surveys were carried out on
September 17, October 16, December 11 and 12, 2012, and July 10 and 12,
2013, to assess the existing aquatic conditions (i.e., habitat and fisheries
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
49
assessment and spawning survey), and on August 27, 28, 29 and 30 and
November 30, 2012, to assess terrestrial features, including woodlands and
wetlands, within 200 m of each of the network alternatives. A photographic log
of these field surveys is also included in Appendices D and G of the Natural
Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report.
A field survey was conducted on April 24 and 25, 2013, to identify existing
potential cultural heritage resources in the Parkway Corridor, along a portion of
Parkhill Road and along a portion of Fairbairn Street South, as part of the
Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment for the entire corridor. An additional
field survey was carried out within the Parkway Corridor and within Jackson
Park on November 14, 2013 as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment for the
Parkway Corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment completed
for Jackson Park. A copy of the Cultural Heritage studies carried out as part of
this assessment is provided in Appendix H of the ESR.
As noted in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) reports,
included in Appendix G of the ESR, a site visit was carried out on April 15,
2013, and a field survey was conducted on August 19, 20, 21, 23 and 30,
2013, respectively.
A field review of trees to be potentially impacted by the construction of the
bridge within Jackson Park was undertaken by the City of Peterboroughs
Urban Forester on November 11, 2013. A record of this field survey is included
in Appendix B of the ESR.
This Class EA study is similar to the Pine Valley
Drive Extension Class EA in Vaughan where the
Minister required a full individual EA to the
undertaken
Each project is unique and undertaken to address a defined problem and
opportunity statement.
The Parkway Corridor Class EA study is undertaking the planning for the
Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of the approved 2012
CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The Parkway Corridor
Study was classified as a Schedule C project since it had the potential for
significant environmental impacts. It proceeded under the full planning and
documentation procedures of the Municipal Class EA document.
The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the consultation
program and the natural, social and cultural environment studies and
information used to evaluate alternatives was done to a greater level of detail
than required for a typical Class EA. Undertaking an individual EA would not
provide any more information or consultation activities that would alter the
outcome of the EA process. The Class EA and the level of detail undertaken
by the City was sufficient to make an informed decision and the project
Not applicable to this EA

May 9, 2014
50
specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting process
that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA process.
Public Consultation
Consultation process was non-compliant with the
Municipal Class EA document.
The EA Study was carried out in accordance with the planning and design
process for Schedule C projects as outlined in the Municipal Class EA
document. An extensive public consultation program was undertaken which
exceeded the requirements set out for a Schedule C project. The public
consultation program was enhanced during the study as a fourth PIC was
added to provide additional information on conceptual designs for the Jackson
Park Area Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern
expressed about this area. At PIC 2 these design concepts were presented
prior to undertaking the evaluation of these alternatives so that stakeholder
feedback could be considered in the evaluation. The consultation program
included the release of study notices, four public information centres (PIC) held
through the duration of the study (October 2012, March 2013, June 2013, and
September 2013), a design workshop (August 2013) for members of the public
and agencies that had expressed an interest in participating, external agency
meetings, Council presentations, a study email address and a study website.
Addressed in EA
Public input ignored; public feedback did not have
any impact during the process; responses
reported as part of PIC Summary Reports were
noted and there was no evidence that the public
had an impact on the directions of the City
The study included an extensive public consultation program as detailed in
Chapter 2 of the ESR.
The ESR documents how public feedback was considered and addressed at
each stage of the study process. For example, as per the evaluation process
described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the
evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments received from
members of the public who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues
in the study area. Specifically, the recreation use of the trail was considered
as part of three different evaluation criteria. Summaries of the criteria included
as part of the evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section
6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a
summary of the comments received throughout the course of this EA study
and how these comments were considered as part of the EA process.
Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the
proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received
throughout the study and the Corridor Design Workshop.
Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In
addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the
Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
51
the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course
of this EA study.
Public feedback not included in the ESR The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered
and addressed at each stage of the study process. Comments received from
the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC
Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design
Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR)
provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course of this EA
study.
Addressed in EA
Online opposition petition was not considered As discussed in the ESR Executive Summary, an online petition opposing the
bridge and/or the retaining walls in Jackson Park was initiated by the Friends
of Jackson Park. This online petition also provided an opportunity for
respondents to provide rationale as to why they signed. Although the petition
itself does not provide a complete description of the various alternatives
considered, nor does it provide a link to the study website for respondents to
obtain more information about the project, there was a link to the Friends of
Jackson Park Facebook page where users could find a link to the study
website. As of the end of August, more than 4000 people had signed the
petition and more than 2700 comments were received through the comment
option. The study team reviewed and considered the comments submitted
through this petition and have identified a series of design principles and
mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects noted by many
respondents. The online petition is also discussed in Section 4.1 of the PIC #2
Summary Report provided in Appendix D of the ESR.
The petition information was detailed in the Council Report and was also
presented to City Council by the petitioners.
Addressed in EA
Parkway opposition was not quantified/majority
opposed
As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, various members of the public have
requested that a statistical analysis of comments be completed with respect to
support or opposition to recommendations and that this be reported to Council.
The EA process is designed to take a full range of environmental and technical
criteria into consideration in the evaluation of alternative solutions or designs.
That process results in identifying a technically preferred alternative.
Although public input is taken into consideration during the EA process and
documented as part of the study it does not change the technical advantages
and disadvantages of the preferred plan or the outcome of the evaluation,
regardless of how many people choose to speak out for or against the
preferred plan.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
52
Study failed to achieve timely and meaningful
public consultation
The study included an extensive public consultation program as detailed in
Chapter 2 of the ESR.
Public Information Centres (PICs) were considered key to engaging/sharing
information with the public in relation to this study. Four PICs were held
throughout the course of the study to present:
PIC#1: background of the study, an overview of the Municipal Class
EA process, feedback received from the public since the
commencement of the study, an overview of the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the Problem Statement, the alternative
solutions that had been developed to address the Problem Statement
and the preliminary network alternative
PIC#2: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #1,
feedback received from the public since PIC #1, the preliminary
evaluation of the Network Alternatives for the North End and South
End and associated approach and the alternative design concepts for
the Network Alternatives.
PIC#3: overview of the information presented as part of PIC #2,
feedback received from the public since PIC #2, the preliminary
evaluation of the Jackson Creek Valley Alternatives, the final
evaluation of the North End and South End Network Alternatives and
the recommended design concepts for the corridor
PIC#4: overview of the information presented to date, the comments
received since PIC #3, a review of the proposed design treatments
and mitigation measures proposed as part of the study
A website for the study was established through the City of Peterboroughs
website at the initiation of the study. Information related to the study was
posted on the study website throughout the course of the study. This
information included notices of PICs, copies of PIC presentation material,
responses to frequently asked questions and comprehensive questions and/or
concerns raised by the public or other stakeholders and associated responses
and copies of final reports related to the study.
The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback was considered
and addressed at each stage of the study process.
For example, as per the evaluation process described in Section 5.3 of the
ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were
based on input and comments received from members of the public who
submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
53
Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations based on public
feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in
Section 6.6 of the ESR, provides a summary of the comments received
throughout the course of this EA study and how these comments were
considered as part of the EA process.
Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other refinements to the
proposed design of the corridor were made based on the feedback received.
Comments received from the public are included in Appendix D of the ESR. In
addition, the PIC Summary reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the
Corridor Design Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D of
the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the course
of this EA study.
PIC 3 was held at inappropriate times and
locations
The timing for PIC 3 was governed by venue availability, project team
availability, notification requirements, and project team readiness (in terms of
completing the supporting technical work and preparation of the presentation
materials). Given the number of respondents that had signed the online
petition and submitted comments to us by email following PIC 2, combined
with the extensive press coverage following PIC 2 and the extensive mail out
we did for PIC 3 (over 6,100 notices were mailed) larger attendance than
received at the previous two PICs was anticipated. The Wellness Centre was
selected as the venue for PIC 3 to ensure there was sufficient space to
accommodate 300 - 500 people for the presentation which was scheduled late
in the afternoon with a repeat presentation in the evening. The Evinrude
Centre did not have enough capacity to accommodate this level of attendance
and the project team did not want to risk having to turn people away in the
event of large crowds. There were no other available venues in the study area
that could provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the attendance we
anticipated. Despite the location and timing of the event over 300 people
signed in to PIC 3, over twice the number that attended PIC 2.
Addressed in EA
Requests for an extended comment period were
denied; a 30-day comment period was provided
each time there was an opportunity for public
comment
The request for an extension to the comment period was initially sought
following PIC 2, at which time the comment period was extended from 15 days
to 30 days. In recognition of this concern, all subsequent comment periods
held for PICs 3 and 4 were also extended to 30 days. A 45-day review period
was provided for the ESR when a 30 day period is the norm.
It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No Parkway group
that comments received after the comment period were welcomed and
reviewed by the study team and that these comments could be addressed as
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
54
part of the study they would be.
Technical background reports were not shared
with the public before the ESR was issued and
requests for draft documentation were not met
Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public
throughout the course of the study. There were a number of documents
posted on the project website during the study and detailed responses to
comments received during the study were also posted on the website prior to
the final PIC#4. Final technical reports were included in the ESR.
Addressed in EA
There was no opportunity to determine adequacy
of the technical reports; there was no opportunity
to review and/or supplement the biological field
work; stakeholders did not have the ability to
follow up with review agencies regarding technical
concerns
All technical studies carried out as part of this study were completed by
qualified specialist consultants and/or subconsultants. Cultural heritage and
archaeological assessment reports are reviewed by the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport as part of the Municipal Class EA process. In addition,
natural heritage and stormwater studies were carried out in consultation with
the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and MNR. Please refer to
Appendix B of the ESR.
Technical findings and recommendations were shared with the public
throughout the course of the study. Final technical reports were included in the
ESR and an extended review period of 45 days was provided.
Addressed in EA
Proponent and/or consultant did not respond to
repeated information requests or provided last
minute responses during the study; requests for
travel time savings over key points in the corridor
were not received in a timely manner; requests for
capacity modelling were not provided
A number of responses were received from the public throughout the duration
of the study. Each response was reviewed and respectfully considered by
members of the study team. Where appropriate, responses were dutifully
prepared in consideration of each concern raised. A summary of the
comments received and the associated responses were posted on the website
throughout the course of the study. The requests for customized travel time
estimates between various locations in the City were not part of the study
technical work program or ESR documentation, as the technical work utilized
aggregate travel time savings estimates for the evaluation inputs used in the
study. The approach used to calculate the aggregate time savings were
documented in the Cost-Benefit working paper which was released to the
public in draft following PIC 2. The custom travel time requests were provided
in response to a special request from a member of the public and the
additional analysis required to undertake this work was completed after the
main work required to support the ESR findings and conclusions was
completed. A copy of the comments received from the public and associated
responses prepared by members of the study team are included in Appendix D
of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Did not receive response to two requests for
information
A response to the issues raised regarding Induced Travel was responded to
directly (copy of response is included in Appendix D of the ESR and was
documented in the Cost-Benefit Report in Appendix M). A response to the
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
55
issue of quantifying individual travel time savings for each user was addressed
in a response to similar requests from the Friends of Jackson Park, following
PIC 2. This response was posted on the study website and was included in
Appendix D of the ESR. The following excerpt of this response is included
herewith While measuring individual travel time savings from Point A to
Point B along the route are one way to measure the benefits of an alternative it
is not the focus of the project. There are other travel time savings associated
with the Parkway Corridor that are not simply generated by driving along the
route.
In addition to this, responses to the entire issue of travel time savings as it
relates to the cost-benefit study have been included in numerous responses
included on PIC displays and in formal comment response tables included in
Appendix D of the ESR. The primary purpose of the cost-benefit study was to
provide a comparison between reasonable alternatives, and for this reason, it
was only one of a number of evaluation criteria used to assess advantages
and disadvantages of each alternative. The Parkway Alternative was ranked
consistently higher than each of the other alternatives assessed for this
criterion.
Copy of the Municipal Class EA document should
have been available for review
A copy of the Municipal Class EA document was available on the resource
table at each PIC event and at the Corridor Design Workshop. In addition, a
copy of the document is available at the City of Peterborough Public Library. A
copy of the Municipal Class EA can also be requested from the Municipal
Engineers Association (MEA), however municipalities are not authorized to
provide or distribute this document to members of the public. A digital version
of the Class EA document is also available on the MEA website, however this
version can neither be printed nor saved.
Addressed in EA
Study did not follow the discretionary planning
component of the Municipal Class EA.
As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City updated the Official Plan
through Amendment 142 to adopt provincial growth forecasts and
intensification targets as per the Provincial Growth Plan. This Class EA Study
was not intended to redo the Official Plan and/or the Citys development
policies. The EA process (whether it be a Class EA or an Individual EA) is not
the appropriate mechanism to develop municipal growth policies that are
subject to the Planning Act and the Places to Growth Act.
Addressed in EA
Evaluation tables found in Appendix O of the ESR
had not been previously shared with the public
and/or Council
Copies of the north end and south end alternatives draft evaluation tables were
made available for review on the resource table at PIC 2 and were posted on
the study website. The draft evaluation results for the Jackson Park Area
(bridge versus widening alternative) were made available at PIC 3 and were
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
56
also posted on the study website following the PIC. In addition, a summary of
the evaluation tables was presented as part of the presentation material
provided at each event. . Additional supporting evaluation material
(intersection design alternatives, sub alternatives for the best Fairbairn Street
widening alternative) was released as part of the full documentation for the
ESR and these evaluation tables were included in Appendix O.
Release of different evaluation framework in the
ESR that had not earlier been shared with the
public for the East vs West widening options for
Fairbairn Street
The conceptual design alternatives for the East vs West widening alternatives
for Fairbairn Street were presented to the public at PIC 2 for initial comments.
The effects were summarized on the display panels and during the public
meeting presentation. The evaluation process for the Jackson Park Area
presented at PIC 2 and again at PIC 3 clearly identified that the best new
bridge alternative (long span vs short span) would be evaluated against the
best widening alternative (which included 3 sub evaluations; the best Parkhill
Road widening; the best Fairbairn Street widening; and the best Fairbairn
Street / Highland Road / Parkway intersection treatments). A summary of this
process and the results of the best new bridge and best widening alternatives
were presented at PIC 3 on display boards 16, 17 and 18 (included in the ESR
Appendix D). The detailed evaluation tables supporting this evaluation
summary were included in Appendix O of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Details of the preliminary design were only
released prior to the Special Committee of the
Whole meeting, of which the public was not invited
to speak
The purpose of PIC #4, held on September 26, 2013, was to present the study
recommendations included the proposed preliminary design for the project,
and associated mitigation measures being proposed. Following the PIC, some
minor refinements to the preliminary design were completed in response to
comments from the public and agencies. The PIC provided all members of the
public with an opportunity to review and comment on the information
presented, and speak with members of the study team. In addition, a 30 day
review/comment period was provided following the PIC to allow time for
meaningful input. It should be noted that similar information was presented at
the Special Committee of the Whole meeting.
Addressed in EA
Council was not provided with enough time to
confirm their decision
City Council is able to defer an issue at its discretion. Addressed in EA
An integrated Cost Benefit Ratio was not made
available to the public
The costs and benefits were presented at each stage of the decision making
process. Further, the final release of the Cost Benefit Analysis included a
sensitivity analysis, in consideration of responses received from the public. A
copy of the Cost-Benefit analysis report was made available for review at PICs
3 and 4, was posted on the City website, following each PIC and is available in
Appendix M of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
57
Concerned about the timing of the release of the
draft Lily Lake Secondary Plan; secondary plan for
Lily Lake Planning Area was not
released/approved prior to filing the ESR
This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is proceeding under the
applicable Planning Act approval processes. The implications of additional
growth in the Lily Lake planning area was only addressed as a sensitivity
analysis in response to comments received from the public and because the
status had not been approved during the Class EA study.
Not Applicable
Unresolved technical matters were raised by
advisory bodies to the City, including the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
A letter response was received from the Otonabee Region Conservation
Authority subsequent to the filing of the ESR indicating that they are satisfied
that any outstanding issues can be resolved during detailed design. They are
undertaking a thorough review of the natural hazards and natural heritage
information contained within the report in order to clearly outline additional
information that may be required during the detailed design phase.
In addition, no issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters
have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Air Quality
Increased pollution The impacts to air quality were investigated for the proposed Parkway corridor.
The findings of the air quality assessment carried out as part of this EA study
outline the impact to regional air quality levels (i.e., within the City of
Peterborough and surrounding area) associated with the operation of the
Parkway, in comparison to the Do Nothing scenario. The findings of the
assessment indicated that a regional decrease in airborne emissions would be
expected due to a total reduction in travelled distances. The results of the
assessment are documented in the Air Quality Assessment Report provided in
Appendix I of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Impacts to air associated with construction
activities not considered
As discussed in Section 8.3.7 of the ESR, an Air Quality Assessment was
carried out as part of this project that considered air emissions generated
during construction activities and associated impacts to construction workers
and the surrounding community. As such, a series of mitigation measures are
noted and are to be carried out at the time of construction.
Addressed in EA
Please provide study that indicates that air quality
in pond area within park and Hamilton Park will be
lower due to traffic on Parkhill Road.
As noted in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, traffic along Parkhill Road and
Fairbairn Street is forecast to decrease as a result of the project and therefore
should result in lower emission levels affecting Hamilton Park, the Pond and
Pagoda Bridge Area within Jackson Park, and the residential neighbourhoods
adjacent to Fairbairn Street. A copy of the Air Quality Assessment report is
included in Appendix I of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Air quality identified benzene increase, impacts to The Air Quality Assessment completed as part of this study identified an Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
58
residences, school children, etc. increase in selected air contaminants in proximity to the Parkway, when
compared to the Do Nothing case. The Parkway is designed to direct larger
volumes of traffic through the project area instead of on existing City roadways,
many of them in residential neighbourhoods. As such, an overall regional
decrease in airborne emissions is expected due to the total reduced travelled
distances anticipated in association with the Parkway.
Given the projected increase in future traffic volumes, elevated concentrations
of benzene are anticipated in association with the Do Nothing scenario, as
well as the Parkway, however the ambient conditions make up a large
percentage of the total benzene concentrations. In addition, the highest
concentrations of benzene were noted to be situated closest to roadways and
intersections and these concentration levels would decrease with distance.
Ozone was not mentioned in the Air Quality
Assessment.
Section 6.2 of the Air Quality Assessment, included in Appendix I of the ESR,
notes the findings of the assessment of impact to regional air quality levels
(i.e., within the City of Peterborough and surrounding area) associated with the
operation of the Parkway, in comparison to the Do Nothing scenario. This
section notes that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides
(NOx) were analyzed for the assessment given that these pollutants are
important in the production of ozone. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO
2
) was
evaluated due to its interest in relation to climate change.
As noted above, the findings of the assessment indicated that a regional
decrease in airborne emissions, including VOC, NOX, CO
2
and CO, would be
expected due to a total reduction in travelled distances.
Addressed in EA
Social Impacts
Greenspace value not considered during
evaluation/EA; concerned about the loss of
greenspace in association with the Parkway Trail
Impacts to and the loss of greenspace were considered as part of the
assessment and evaluation of alternatives (refer to Chapter 6 of the ESR).
Further, as noted in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from
members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis
results completed for this EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis.
The concern raised was related to the lack of value attributed to the loss of
greenspace). As such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the
benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of natural features
provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled, Estimating Ecosystem
Services in Southern Ontario. The findings of the sensitivity analysis
demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not materially change
the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study. A copy of the
Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis is included in
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
59
Appendix M of the ESR.
Greenspace value is further recognized in the evaluation of alternatives, in
consideration of the natural, social and built environments. A copy of the
evaluation tables is included in Appendix O of the ESR.
Inappropriate to use value of ecosystem services
to assess environmental impact
The use of a value for ecosystem services was only used in the Cost-Benefit
Analysis work at the request of numerous members of the public. The report
clearly identified the limitations in using such values given the uncertainties
involved and the small number of studies that have been used to generate
such values. For this reason, this assessment was only used as a sensitivity
analysis as described in Appendix M (page 26). At no time was this value
used to infer the environmental impact of the project.
Addressed in EA
Project will negatively impact quality of life for
adjacent residents
The properties adjacent to the Parkway Corridor were planned and designed to
back onto a designated major transportation corridor. Many of them have
deeper lots and buffer areas to separate the rear yards from the road corridor,
and these factors were considered in assessing the potential impacts.
Impacts to residential and commercial properties were considered during the
evaluation of alternatives, selection of a preferred alternative and in the final
preliminary design work. The assessment of property impacts included
consideration of property displacements and acquisition, direct impacts due to
construction and proximity impacts from a noise and air quality perspective.
Given potential impacts and taking into consideration input received through
the consultation process, mitigation measures were developed to address
proximity impacts to adjacent properties through maximizing use of vegetated
berms, privacy screening, noise barriers where needed, and maintaining /
enhancing buffer area treatments.
It should be noted that quality of life will improve for those residents living on
minor streets in adjacent neighbourhoods carrying traffic that more properly
should be using the Parkway Corridor.
Addressed in EA
Increased noise
Based on the results of the noise assessment, documented in Appendix J of
the ESR, traffic noise impacts due to the operation of the Parkway are
expected to comply with the applicable MTO/MOE noise guidelines at all
assessed location with the implementation of noise barriers in several locations
as shown on the Recommended Design drawings. Recommended noise
mitigation treatments include:
3.3 km of vegetated noise berms along the corridor
2.5 km of noise wall of various heights often integrated with berm
treatments to reduce wall heights
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
60
Depressed road segments where feasible to provide natural noise
mitigation (north of Parkhill Road, north of Hilliard Street
Property value for adjacent properties will
decrease
There is no absolute in terms of what will happen to the value of property once
the roadway is in place. Property value is dependent upon a variety of
influences. Some residents may have enjoyed higher values, however these
may have been a false perception. It should also be noted that property values
may be improved for those residents living on minor streets in adjacent
neighbourhoods carrying traffic that more properly should be using the
Parkway Corridor.
The project area is identified as a major transportation corridor as part of the
Citys Official Plan. Given the potential impacts, and taking into consideration
input received through the consultation process, mitigation measures were
developed to address proximity impacts to adjacent properties through
maximizing use of vegetated berms, privacy screening, noise barriers where
needed, and maintaining / enhancing buffer area treatments.
Addressed in EA
Impact to physical health / mental health / well-
being / quality of life / peace / serenity not
considered during evaluation of alternatives
As discussed in Section 6.4.4 of the ESR, the potential to impact mental and
physical health was considered as part of the built (i.e., recreational facilities)
and social (i.e., noise, air, open space, recreational facilities) categories in the
evaluation of the Network Alternatives. In addition, these impacts were
considered as part of the detailed evaluation of the Network Alternatives (i.e.,
effect on recreational pedestrian/cycling facilities), included in Appendix O of
the ESR.
The ESR also recognizes the change in the recreational experience for users
in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. It is noted that the length of the trail
remains uninterrupted; however the experience of trail users may change in
the vicinity of the bridge. This was reflected in the evaluation of the
alternatives and resulted in the extension of mitigation measures proposed in
the bridge design. Mitigation measures have been identified in Chapter 8 of the
ESR for implementation to mitigate the effects to the extent possible.
Addressed in EA
Recreational use of corridor not considered In the north end of the study area the evaluation has noted the potential
displacement of the Parkway Trail under the Built Environment and Social
Environment categories. The evaluation has noted the opportunity to replace
the trail within the corridor to compensate for the removal and there are a
variety of ways this can be done. While this approach replicates the function of
the trail as an active transportation corridor it is recognized that this does not
necessarily create an equivalent environment and experience for trail users.
In many portions of the corridor the right-of-way is quite wide and can
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
61
accommodate a separate trail through wooded areas which provides some of
the same benefits as the original trail. Additional measures to assist in
mitigating these impacts, such as enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening,
tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping, to provide an environment to
support recreational and commuter trail usage were explored in preliminary
design and have been incorporated into the Preferred Design.
The replacement of an off road trail within the corridor will address the potential
safety issues associated with recreational users of the current Parkway Trail. It
is recognized that the introduction of a road corridor parallel to the existing trail
and adjacent neighbourhoods will create a barrier effect for pedestrians and
cyclists wishing to cross the corridor. This is less severe for portions of the
corridor that are constructed as 2 lane roads, but may become more significant
for portions of the corridor constructed to accommodate 4 lanes.
The preferred plan illustrated in Section 7 of the ESR incorporates 4 new
underpass grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods and
activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various
intersections (including crossings serving 3 schools) along the corridor to
enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to
cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to
Jackson Park. Further opportunities to mitigate this impact are detailed in
Section 8.3 and 9 of the ESR.
Impacts to school children who use existing trail
for recreational and educational purposes
As above. Addressed in EA
Impacts to Cyclists / Pedestrians / Trail Users
were not considered (i.e., reduction in use);
impacts to Parkway Trail / TransCanada Trail not
considered; while trail will be more connected, it
will be less used and less safe due to proximity to
new road
Impacts to the Parkway Trail were considered in the evaluation of alternatives
under a number of different criteria including the transportation and social
categories. The Preferred Plan includes a bridge across the existing Parkway
Trail. The trail system and its function are maintained, with additional
connectivity provided.
Plan Update. Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided between
the trail and the new road as presented on the Preferred Design plates at the
end of Chapter 7. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system
along the entire corridor which does not currently exist.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
62
Mitigation measures were developed that included efforts to replace trees and
separate the trail from the road while providing opportunities for pedestrian
crossings. Recognizing concerns received from the public, the following
measures have been included in the preliminary design of the Parkway:
Designing a continuous multi-use trail to connect the existing trail
south of Clonsilla Ave. to Water St. along the Parkway corridor
Incorporating 4 new underpass grade separated trail crossings to
connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor
5 new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections along the
corridor to enhance safety for vulnerable users
Providing 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to cross the new roadway
and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to Jackson Park
Careful design and placement of the road and trail to maximize
separation between facilities where possible
Incorporation of buffer treatments including vegetated berms and new
tree planting between the trail and roadway
Creation of new separate walking paths / trail connections and
enhanced landscaping around storm ponds and park areas to provide
separate walking areas away from the road
Improved trail connection along Water Street to avoid zoo parking lot
area and connect to Parkway trail system
It is recognized that this does not necessarily create an equivalent environment
and experience for trail users. However, the enhanced vegetation, vegetative
screening, tree replacement, and enhanced landscaping are being planned to
provide an environment to support recreational and commuter trail usage and
to maintain the trail experience. The new bridge crossing alternative will also
permit the introduction of new trail connections from the Parkway Trail system
to access the Jackson Park trail system.
Minimal landscaping implemented on Medical
Drive, assume Parkway will be similarly treated
As described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a landscaping
plan as part of the detailed design for Stage 1 of implementation (south end
section) that addresses landscaping requirements for this segment of the new
corridor and provides landscaping treatments along the recently constructed
segments of Medical Drive. It should be noted that landscaping treatments
have been and are currently being implemented along Medical Drive.
Implementation of additional landscaping treatments will be undertaken in
conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation work.
In addition, the City recently implemented additional landscaping around the
Addressed in EA and will be
addressed further in Detailed
Design phase

May 9, 2014
63
stormwater ponds in the area and further plantings are planned to be
implemented this year.
Economic Impacts
The route does not direct traffic to the downtown
core and/or will impact small businesses; Parkway
will encourage end to end commuting and not to
the downtown area
As detailed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the majority of the employment growth
has been planned in the downtown and southwest areas of the City. As a
result, future travel demands to the southwest and downtown core areas are
projected to increase above those experienced today. Compared to the Do
Nothing Alternative, the Parkway Corridor would result in a slight reduction in
through traffic in the downtown area, however this can be considered a benefit
by reducing traffic congestion and allowing for more of a focus on cycling and
walking infrastructure in this area.
The Preferred Parkway Plan will reduce the overall capacity deficiencies
across the entire City transportation network. This is primarily due to the fact
that the Parkway corridor provides broad area relief to a number of roadways
in the City, which frees up capacity that can be used by traffic destined to and
from other areas in and beyond the City, even traffic that is not oriented to use
the Parkway itself (i.e. traffic to and from the downtown).
Addressed in EA
Paving over the Parkway Trail will discourage
tourists
Plan Update. The result will be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along
the entire corridor which does not currently exist.
Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass grade separated trail
crossings to connect neighbourhoods and activity areas along the corridor; 5
new pedestrian crossing signals at various intersections along corridor to
enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian overpass bridge to
cross the new roadway and maintain neighbourhood / trail connections to
Jackson Park.
Theses mitigation treatments being planned along the corridor are being
implemented to maintain the character of the area to the extent possible.
Addressed in EA
2003 Referendum
Referendum results ignored; 2003 referendum
demonstrated that the majority of citizens rejection
The question posed at the time of the 2003 Referendum was, Do you approve
of the construction of the Parkway extension at an estimated cost of $22.0
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
64
the Parkway option million. It is understood that the No vote received more votes, however the
turnout was only 47.89% of registered voters. The turnout is required to be at
least 50% for the results to be binding under the Provincial Legislation
governing municipal referendums. In addition, there are a number of reasons
why residents may have voted no:
Some have noted that this referendum was for the partial parkway
concept recommended in the 2002 Transportation Plan, and because
this proposal did not include a bridge across Jackson Park they voted
no;
Others assumed that the expenditure was to be funded 100% from
property taxes and that construction would proceed immediately and
as a result they felt the City could not afford the expenditure at that
time; and
Others were opposed to the Parkway itself and voted no to the project.
As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, Council agreed to put the Parkway
Issue on hold to respect the referendum result. Council did provide direction
for staff to report back on the process to have the Parkway corridor removed
from the Official Plan. It was noted that removal of the corridor would require
the identification of new solution to address future needs and support growth,
and council subsequently decided not to follow through on the studies needed
to support the removal.
Given the many reasons for residents voting no at the time, the City included
the Parkway Alternative as one of the alternatives when they completed a
review and update of their Transportation Master Plan. The CTPU looked at
city-wide transportation improvements to address long term growth needs and
examined a series of alternatives to the Parkway. The CTPU identified the
widening of Fairbairn Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the
Parkway Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be required by
2031. The CTPU was approved by City Council in November 2011. The
current EA study has carried out the planning for the Parkway Corridor
improvements recommended as part of the CTPU and the Hospital Access
Road EA Addendum.
There have been repeated past decisions to turn
down the project over the past 67 years of debate
The history of this corridor goes back to 1947 when a new transportation
corridor was recommended to by-pass the west side of the City of
Peterborough to connect to the recreational areas north of the City. This first
Official Plan for the City, known as the Faludi Report, established the future
road network and guided the development of lands around the corridor as the
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
65
City continued to grow.
The City purchased the required land for the Parkway Corridor and designated
the corridor within the Official Plan. Since the Parkway route was designated
in the Official Plan, the City has grown around the corridor and other routes
have evolved to fill the role of the original highway by-pass envisioned in the
50s. However, as the City has grown, new arterial roadways to serve the
growth in the west and north ends of the City have not been constructed,
primarily because the Parkway Corridor was protected and would serve that
need.
Portions of the original corridor have been implemented; most notably the
section of the corridor between Highway 115 and Clonsilla Avenue (a distance
of 2.6 km), which has been in operation for over 20 years, and serves as the
main entrance into the City from the south.
Following the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update the City held a
referendum on the Partial Parkway concept as part of the 2004 municipal
election. The vote resulted in 55% voting against construction of the partial
Parkway plan, although the vote was not binding as the turnout was less than
50% of eligible voters. Council agreed to put the Parkway Issue on hold to
respect the referendum result, but they did not remove the Parkway corridor
from the Official Plan.
Following the referendum, access to the new Peterborough Regional Health
Centre became an issue in the community, as the previous Civic Hospital site
was chosen as the preferred site, in part because of its central location along
the Parkway Corridor. In 2011, Hospital Access Road was constructed as a
two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road within the
Parkway Corridor.
At the same time, the City had embarked on an update to the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, and in November 2011, City Council approved the
recommended road network plan, which indicated the need to construct a new
two lane arterial roadway in the Parkway Corridor (from Fairbairn Street to
Cumberland Avenue) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon period along with the need
for widening Fairbairn Street to 4 lanes (from Parkhill Road to Highland Road)
in the 2021 to 2026 horizon.
Charlotte Nicholls Parks Trust
Charlotte Nichols left Jackson Park to City on
condition that it would be protected/undeveloped;
During the course of this EA study, several members of the public felt that the
construction of a bridge across Jackson Park would be a contravention of the
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
66
legal feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated
may violate Nicholls Trust; concerned that a
detailed legal opinion is necessary in relation to
the Nicholls Parks Trust
Nicholls Trust Agreement. As noted in Section 6.4.1 of the ESR, it was
understood that the lands transferred to the City in October 1961 were to be
maintained as a public park and recreation grounds and for no other purpose.
The Citys solicitor undertook a review of the Agreement during this EA Study.
Based on a review of the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the wording of
the Deed did not preclude the construction of a bridge across Jackson Park
provided that the park and recreation use were maintained. In response to
comments received, the alignment of the bridge was refined to reduce fill
placement and tree loss in the valley while minimizing the extent of the former
trust lands that are crossed. Jackson Park will remain accessible for park and
recreation uses during and after construction. Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR
(Cultural Environment) discusses the Charlotte Nicholls Parks Trust.
Natural Environment
Irreversible impacts to natural environment /
biodiversity and wildlife habitats
The potential impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environment are discussed
in Section 8.2 of the ESR. Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure net
losses are minimized to the extent possible, including construction and post-
construction impacts.
Addressed in EA
Project puts unnecessary pressure on sensitive
Brook Trout populations in Byersville Creek
Site characterization and impact assessment activities carried out as part of
this project were based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or
contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of
habitat protection criteria. As noted in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, strategies to
address thermal impacts to Byersville Creek will be investigated as part of
detailed design including canopy trees planted near water edges to provide
shade and other stormwater treatments to maintain water temperatures.
Please note that Brook Trout populations in Ontario are not currently on the
decline and are not under consideration as Species at Risk (i.e., MNR
Transition List) at this time.
Design phase
Byersville Creek is southern Ontarios only urban
trout stream
Byersville Creek is not the only coldwater system with brook trout running
through a municipal area in Ontario. There is Mill Creek in Orangeville,
Holland River in Newmarket, several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in
Richmond Hill, and Tributary C in London to name just a few. The alignment of
the Parkway Corridor has been shifted to avoid direct impacts to Byersville
Creek, and mitigation measures have been proposed in Chapters 8 and 9 of
the ESR to improve water quality entering the creek, mitigate thermal impacts
on the coldwater status of Byersville Creek, and reduce the impacts of
stormwater runoff which during peak flow events can cause significant damage
to spawning areas and vegetation within the creek bed area.
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
67
Impacts to the brook trout population are also
shared by Curve Lake First Nation, as identified
by Chief Phyllis Williams as part of another nearby
project related to Harper Creek
The alignment of the Preferred Design at the south end approaching Clonsilla
Avenue was modified to avoid Byersville Creek, which is a cold water fishery,
and to minimize the extent of impacts to woodland areas adjacent to the creek.
Further, at the Clonsilla Avenue intersection, the intersection was shifted
approximately 30 m to the east to avoid Byersville Creek.
Responses from Curve Lake First Nation were received on July 31, 2012 and
July 11, 2013 in response to the Notice of Study Commencement and
Notification of PIC #3, respectively. No concerns were raised with respect to
this issue.
Addressed in EA
Brook trout genetics should be considered a
distinct, significant species; project affects a
genetically pure strain of brook trout (i.e.,
unaffected by hatchery fish genetics)
The response included in Appendix H of the Greenspace Coalitions
submission does not support this interpretation or suggestion. This population
is distinct from the Hills Lake hatchery strain. This population fit the expected
patterns for native ancestry and showed genetic similarities to other native
populations in Peterborough District, but also some evidence of genetic
contributions from the provincial Hills Lake hatchery strain.
Addressed in EA
Concerned about the increase in impervious
surfaces and its impact on receiving waters
The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive stormwater management plan
as described in Section 7.5 of the ESR. Stormwater management measures
will treat roadway run off to improve water quality prior to discharging the water
into the receiving creeks.
Addressed in EA
Concerned about maintenance of the brook trout
population
Section 8 of the ESR includes a discussion on potential for thermal effects on
Byersville Creek and measures to mitigate impacts to the water temperature
entering the receiving watercourse. As per Section 9, ID#6 of the ESR,
monitoring programs will be undertaken by the City at least one year prior to
site alteration to assess needs for dewatering, potential impacts to fish
communities and fish habitat, and to plan mitigation measures where
necessary. Should impacts be observed after mitigation measures have been
implemented, solutions will be determined at that time utilizing the data
collected during the monitoring programs.
Addressed in EA
Byersville Creek and Harper Creek is the only
coldwater system running through a municipal
area
This is incorrect. There are several coldwater systems running through
municipalities in Ontario. For example, Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River
in Newmarket, Oshawa Creek in Oshawa and several headwater reaches of
the Rouge River in Richmond Hill.
The coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek is acknowledged.
All subsequent site characterization and impact assessment was based on
coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout
community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat protection criteria.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
68
The cumulative effects on Byersville Creek and
other water systems in the City from the Project
have not been examined
Section 8.2.2 of the ESR discusses the impacts of the project on Byersville
Creek, Jackson Creek, Bears Creek and Riverview Creek, as well as the
associated mitigation measures. Section 9 of the ESR outlines the
commitments for detailed design and construction activities to mitigate impacts
to watercourses. In addition, the potential existing, short and long term impacts
to the aquatic environment are discussed in Section 7 of the Natural Heritage
Features Assessment of Significance report, included in Appendix F of the
ESR.
Design phase
Fish sampling equipment used as part of the
assessment was unsuitable for catching eggs or
fry
The in-water fisheries investigations were completed in accordance with
established standards developed by MNR. It is not appropriate to capture eggs
or fry at any time. Those are the most sensitive life stages for all fish species.
Disturbance of eggs and fry results in extensive mortality. The absence of egg
or fry collection did not detract from the coldwater, brook trout characterization
of the Byersville Creek system. Sucker and perch may well be active in the
referenced reach. Instream construction timing guidelines per MNR policy
would protect those functions and any modifications to stream habitat would
necessarily maintain or enhance those functions.
Addressed in EA
Only one day devoted to the brook trout spawning
survey; brook trout spawning survey effort was
inadequate in duration and timing
As per Section 5.7 of the NHFAS report, The most sensitive habitat within the
study area is that of Byersville Creek which is a coldwater system and provides
input to downstream reaches which are known to support Brook Trout. As
such, the coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek was
acknowledged and all subsequent site characterization and impact
assessment was based on coldwater habitat conditions supporting or
contributing to a brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of
habitat protection criteria. Since the highest level of habitat protection has
been used in the assessment, additional site surveys or spawning surveys
would not change the approach to mitigation. That the team did not directly
observe or capture brook trout does not diminish the requirement to manage
the reach as coldwater habitat and contributing to brook trout production.
Addressed in EA
Concerned that when ten young fish were caught
in Jackson Park, near the proposed bridge, they
were not identified
As documented in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, no fish surveys / electrofishing
were conducted for Jackson Creek as part of this Class EA Study. Aquatic
species found in Jackson Creek were identified through fish surveys conducted
by EcoTec Environmental Consultants in 2005 and through MNR records from
2005. During these previous studies, approximately 10 young of the year fish
were observed but not caught so species could not be confirmed. The
proposed design of the new bridge will span across Jackson Creek and will not
involve any in water work or any impacts to fish or fish habitat in this
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
69
watercourse.
There was no study completed for ordinary wildlife Table 6, Wildlife Species Observed in the Study Area and pages 55 & 56 of the
Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance report documents
wildlife species observed during field investigations and anecdotal references
to other fauna are also acknowledged. As noted in the report common wildlife,
particularly urban and near urban wildlife, is managed on the basis of habitat at
this stage of investigation and assessment of alternatives.
Addressed in EA
Concerned about the effects to wildlife habitat AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7,
pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the
alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not
expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for wildlife functions. The
limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the
valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or large
vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the
valley floor ranges up to 23m. The span between the piers would leave broad
areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede the
movement of small or large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat
fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or minimal.
Restoration planting associated with the construction of the proposed bridge
would be focused on the immediate disturbance areas associated with the
bridge abutments, piers and construction access routes. Though no long term,
valley-wide habitat connectivity impacts are expected as a result of the
installation of the proposed bridge the recommended plantings would help
restore the short term functions.
Addressed in EA
Wildlife habitat fragmentation Section 6 of the ESR discusses the potential to affect candidate wildlife habitat
recognized as part of the NHFAS report. It is noted that 0.3 ha of candidate
wildlife habitat including potential woodland raptor nesting habitat, woodland
area-sensitive breeding bird habitat, and waterfowl nesting areas may be
impacted, however the presence of these species was not confirmed during
field visits. Surveys to confirm the presence/absence of significant wildlife
habitat will be conducted during detailed design. Any negative effects would
be compensated for, by implementing a habitat restoration plan based on
consultation with review agencies and data from field surveys.
Design phase
Does not evaluate loss of natural corridor from the
Otonabee River to Cavan Bog; project would
impact the natural corridor connecting the Jackson
In a direct line, the Cavan Swamp and Bog is located approximately 4 km to 6
km west of the west limits of the City of Peterborough, and approximately 7 km
to 10 km west of the recommended crossing of the Jackson Creek bridge. It
should be noted that stream distances would be greater. The corridor
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
70
Creek valley to the Otonabee River connection between the Otonabee and Cavan Bog is weakest through the
urban portions of Peterborough east of the Parkway.
As discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, construction of a high level bridge
over Jackson Creek does not interfere with wildlife movement when
considering the nominal requirements for small and large mammals under
highways. Where dry culverts up to 2m in height are deemed adequate for
large mammal (deer) passage it is important to note that the bridge would
provide more than 20 m clearance from the valley floor. The proposed bridge
structure does not interfere with aquatic connectivity.
Natural heritage assessment work completed for
this study was generally completed as a desk
review of existing sources and that the latest
review for species at risk was in 2006; concerned
that the report does not indicate the specific
location of species at risk and provides only
general information
As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies were carried out to supplement the
desktop review of secondary source information. Field studies related to
fisheries were carried out on September 17, October 16, December 12, 2012
and July 10 and 12, 2013, and brook trout spawning survey was carried out on
December 11, 2013. Field studies related to terrestrial features, including
wetlands, were carried out on August 27 to August 30, 2012 and on November
30, 2012.
Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in publicly
distributed documents per the Natural Heritage Sensitivity Training. These
limitations on publication are established to protect the SAR from excessive
disturbance or inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these
detailed data from MNR and the information is included in considerations for
the alternative alignments and impact assessment.
On commencement of detailed design more focused inventory and
assessment will be undertaken to guide the selection of the preferred method
for valley crossings, for example. At that time, based on detailed site inventory
the data requirements will be met to properly recommend pier locations, valley
span requirements etc. Detailed mitigation in design, construction, and
rehabilitation will be defined at that stage.
Addressed in EA
Field assessment of Species at Risk is simply an
analysis of habitat
To determine the presence/absence of Species at Risk within a given area
cannot be completed without an analysis of habitat. An analysis of habitat
effectively screens SAR that are known for a region or municipality and targets
field surveys to those species that are most likely to occur within an area
according to what habitat is available.
As described in Section 5.1 of the NHFAS, and according to MNR, there are
15 SAR known to occur in proximity to the study area. Through the habitat
assessment, 6 of these 15 have suitable habitat within the immediate limits of
the alternative alignments and include: Butternut (Endangered), Barn Swallow
Design phase
May 9, 2014
71
(Threatened), Blandings Turtle (Threatened), Milksnake (Special Concern),
Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special
Concern). Butternut prefers wooded areas with open canopies as it is shade
intolerant, the turtle species require waterbodies, Barn Swallow typically
utilizes bridge structures to build their nests and Milksnake has a wide range of
habitat preferences. More detail concerning the habitat preferences of these
SAR is presented in Appendix I of the NHFAS. During detailed design, and in
consultation with MNR, the requirement for field surveys will be determined for
these species and any that may have been added to the Endangered or
Threatened list within the Endangered Species Act during the time between
the completion of the EA and the commencement of detailed design. These
surveys are deferred to detailed design so that the most up-to-date data will be
available for incorporation into the design.
Gaps in collection of birds data As described in Section 3 of the NHFAS report, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in
Ontario was reviewed as part of the background review of existing information
for the study area. Appendix B of the NHFAS includes a list of birds identified
within the study area, as noted in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas.
Field work carried out at as part of this study was completed to supplement the
findings of the background information. As noted in Section 4.7.2 of the
NHFAS report, a number of bird species were identified at the time of the
terrestrial field work, carried out between August 27 and August 30, 2012, and
on November 30, 2012. In addition, potential habitat for bird species was
identified as part of the NHFAS.
Additional bird investigations will be conducted during detailed design to
ensure the most recent data is available to inform the design.
Addressed in EA
Concerned that the Breeding Bird Atlas search
results could not initially be found in ESR;
important to know where breeding birds located;
were surveys completed in Jackson Park and if
so, what were results
The Breeding Bird Atlas does not report specific location of their reported
observations but rather collectively documents for each Atlas Square. The site
specific field investigations, conducted on the dates noted above, are detailed
in the AECOM report. Furthermore, the location of SAR would not be detailed,
as discussed above. Again, in support of the subsequent detailed design
stage more intensive breeding bird surveys would be conducted. Finally, at
construction stage the nesting areas would be further protected under the
requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Addressed in EA
Understory and the canopy of forested areas were
not fully inventoried
As described in Section 4.2 of the NHFAS, a botanical survey was conducted
by completing transects through vegetation communities. Along each transect,
observations were made of all canopy layers in the vegetated area. All species
observed were recorded. Photographs and samples were taken of species
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
72
that could not be identified in the field to be identified in an office setting. A
complete list of plants observed in each community type is included as
Appendix F of the NHFAS.
The report contributes very little new information
on natural features, relies on limited and outdated
pre-existing information and does not present a
fulsome inventory.

The NHFAS report included in Appendix F of the ESR utilizes a combination of
background review and fieldwork to determine the existing natural heritage
conditions within the study area for the EA. The background review included
review of existing documents and consultation with the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
(ORCA). MNR identified to the project team potential Species at Risk and their
intent to update the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Evaluation
file. ORCA confirmed the presence/absence of significant natural features,
confirmed the thermal status of creek systems and indicated the presence of
several unevaluated wetlands along the Jackson Creek corridor and upper
reaches of Bears Creek. This base of information is what determined the field
program where additional information was needed.
The field program conducted the following;
i) delineated all natural vegetation communities within proximity to the
alternative alignments according to MNRs Ecological Land
Classification (ELC) protocols,
ii) conducted aquatic habitat assessments of creek systems including
spawning and electrofishing surveys utilizing the MNR, Ontario
Stream Assessment Protocol (2010),
iii) evaluated several unevaluated wetlands within the study area
according to the MNRs Ontario Wetland Evaluation System,
iv) evaluated the woodland areas according to provincial guidelines and
v) undertook an assessment of habitat to determine potential presence
of significant wildlife habitat and habitat for Species at Risk, also
according to MNRs protocols.
This field program provided the rationale to identify an additional Provincially
Significant Wetland that is now complexed with the Jackson Creek Provincially
Significant Wetland (see Appendix H of the NHFAS), nine new significant
woodlands and one significant valleyland. Candidate areas for significant
wildlife habitat and Species at Risk habitat were also identified. Surveys to
confirm the presence/absence of these habitat areas are typically deferred to
detailed design once a preferred solution is selected.
Design phase
Impact analysis does not address: reptile habitat
degradation; behavioural modification of wildlife in
AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance, Section 7,
pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail the impact assessment for all of the
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
73
response to presence of large concrete object;
and, how activities may facilitate the
establishment of a variety of invasive species
alternative alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not
expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for amphibian and reptile
functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the valley wall and
the piers in the valley should not be expected to impede movement of small or
large vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed bridge
above the valley floor ranges up to 20m. The span between the piers would
leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again would not be expected to
impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the
valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should be expected to be
nominal or minimal.
Restoration planting associated with the construction of the proposed bridge
would be focused on the immediate disturbance areas associated with the
bridge abutments, piers and construction access routes. Though no long term,
valley-wide habitat connectivity impacts are expected as a result of the
installation of the proposed bridge the recommended plantings would help
restore the short term functions.
Once the additional field assessments during detailed design are complete, a
more comprehensive impact analysis and mitigation strategy can be
completed, including opportunities to manage the potential establishment of
invasive species in the park area.
Amphibian crossings being proposed as part of
mitigation are unrealistic in an urban location
Guided crossings referenced in this document only as an example. The
detailed design stage will address specifics. A variety of wildlife crossing
structures are typically applied in urban areas throughout Ontario.
Addressed in EA
Concerned that the restoration measures do not
mention amphibian and reptile breeding
requirements
Recommendation of the pier supported bridge over Jackson Creek addresses
the wildlife habitat functions of the valley by minimizing the impact of the
structure and its construction. However, the exact restoration methods and
details are appropriately specified in conjunction with detailed design, including
timing guidelines for construction.
Addressed in EA
Does not consider destruction of natural
environment; impacts to natural environment not
fully addressed; fragmentation of connected
greenspace; loss of greenspace; does not
consider the Parkway a greenfield project
The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor in the City`s
Official Plan not greenspace. The existing corridor is bisected by a number of
road crossings.
The potential impacts on the natural environment in association with the
construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section 8.2 of the ESR and in the
specialist reports provided in Appendix K of the ESR. In summary, concerns
regarding impacts to the natural environment were received from the public
and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the evaluation criteria, the
route selection, and preliminary design, with mitigation measures and design
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
74
guidelines developed to mitigate potential impacts. Specific examples include:
The evaluation included a number of different criteria reflecting various
features within the natural environment in the study area.
Additional fisheries investigation was undertake to confirm / identify
fish species in various watercourses to assist in understanding
potential affects and the need for mitigation measures.
The alignment of the Parkway Corridor approaching Clonsilla Avenue
was shifted to the east to avoid the cold water fishery in Byersville
Creek and minimize woodlot fragmentation in the Byersville Creek
area, resulting in added property impacts and costs.
Extensive mitigation treatments have been incorporated into the
stormwater management design to protect cold water habitat in
Byersville Creek.
Bridge designed to minimize impacts to natural environment and
guidelines introduced to examine further enhancements.
Mitigation treatments include extensive vegetation replacement and
restoration in areas where disturbances are necessary.
Does not consider potential for salt impact
associated with splash/spray into valley from
bridge
The introduction of a new bridge across the valley may introduce the possibility
of longer term decrease in groundwater quality from road salt applications for
an area of approximately 0.90 km of new road. This will be minimized by
eliminating the use of deck drains on the bridge, providing a wide sidewalk
area separated by roadside barrier treatments on both sides of the bridge to
reduce snow spill-over during plowing operations in the winter, providing a
continuous grade to direct standing water from the bridge and away from the
valley, and by collecting all roadway run-off on the bridge and directing it to a
water quality treatment facility outside of the valley prior to discharge into
adjacent watercourses. Through this approach, there would be limited
potential for roadway related runoff of contaminants to infiltrate into any
groundwater sources.
As documented in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR, stormwater quality control for this
portion of the Parkway will be provided with a wet SWM facility to achieve
enhanced (Level 1) quality treatment. Runoff from the new bridge across
Jackson Park will be directed to the Stormwater Management Pond via
insulated storm sewers installed on the bridge, to reduce pollutant loading and
sodium from road salt applications from entering Jackson Creek.
Addressed in EA
Long term environmental impact of the project not
considered
The long term impacts to the natural environment are discussed in Section 7 of
the NHFAS report, included in Appendix F of the ESR. The short and long term
impacts of the project are summarized for each segment of the corridor and
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
75
discussed as part of the impact analysis in Section 7.2.3 of the NHFAS report.
Mitigation measures proposed are inadequate
and/or weak in their design for natural heritage
Mitigation measures have been defined on the basis of the preliminary design
and impact assessment work undertaken as part of this EA Study. During
detailed design, a more focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken
to guide the selection of the preferred method for the valley crossing and the
identification of detailed mitigation measures to address identified impacts
during and post construction. Based on extensive experience with valley
crossings throughout Ontario, the success of typical mitigation measures leads
to a conclusion that the proposed Jackson Creek crossing, in design and
construction methods, can be managed such that ecological functions are
maintained.
Addressed in EA
Kawarthas Naturally Connected project was not
considered
Section 3.4 and Appendix A of the NHFAS located within Appendix F of the
ESR notes the Kawarthas Naturally Connected project, which identified a
regional natural heritage system (NHS). This study was considered during the
evaluation of alternatives.
Addressed in EA
Significance of natural heritage features within the
City of Peterborough was not recognized
The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural Areas and
Corridors that provide linkages between Natural Heritage Features as referred
to in the current Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the
Official Plan. The Citys Official Plan designates Natural Areas and Corridors
adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route, however these lands are
protected and do not include the Parkway Corridor lands which are designated
as a transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides policies that allow
for transportation facilities within a Natural Area where supported by an
Environmental Study, such as this Environmental Assessment. This study has
maintained the protection of adjacent natural areas.
As per the policies set forth in the Provincial Policy Statement efficient
transportation are to be planned to support development.
Addressed in EA
Concerned that there is no discussion of post-
construction, long-term monitoring
Construction and post-construction monitoring is typically associated with
conditions of approval from regulating agencies and always defined in
response to elements of the detailed design. They are conditions of approval
of construction plans following approval of a detailed design. Monitoring during
construction will be similarly detailed based on specific aspects of the
construction plan, timing guidelines, sediment and erosion control plans,
arborist requirements etc.
Design phase

May 9, 2014
76
Jackson Park
Jackson Park is a Provincial Park While Jackson Park is a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape, it is not a
designated Provincial Park.
Addressed in EA
Roadway would remove a large section of the
park
The Preferred Plan for the Parkway Corridor will not remove a large section of
the park. It includes a bridge over Jackson Park which will span the valley
from bank to bank, resulting in a bridge that is about 370 m in length and about
24-26 m above the ground level in the valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3
of the ESR, it is estimated that approximately 3,000 m
2
- 3,500 m
2
of vegetation
would be removed from the valley slopes of Jackson Park due to construction
of the bridge abutments and related fill area on the east and west ends of the
bridge. Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the pier
locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in width another 1,500m
2

of vegetation may be removed due to construction of the 8 sets of piers.
However, as per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR,
consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be
explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal
required in the park. It is further noted that potential disturbances would be
mitigated and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate
construction Best Management Practices that would be carried out in
consultation with review agencies, and implementing a vegetation restoration
plan following construction. Innovative construction techniques, including
building centre spans of the bridge completely from above can also be
considered to further reduce impacts. As per the commitments noted in
Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park landscape will be
minimized to the extent possible.
Design phase
Extent of physical and environmental damage to
park not considered
The potential impacts to Jackson Park are recognized and discussed as part of
the evaluation of alternatives, summarized in Section 6 and provided in
Appendix O of the ESR. Section 8 of the ESR identifies the potential impacts
to the physical environment along the corridor including the permanent loss of
vegetation and aquatic habitat and function. As such, a commitment to carry
out a series of mitigation strategies as part of detailed design and construction
of the project have been developed to reduce and/or mitigate these impacts to
the extent possible.
As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, the potential impacts to Jackson Park
were considered in the evaluation under a number of different criteria (i.e.,
social, cultural, and built environment) with mitigation measures and bridge
design principles developed. Specific measures to address concerns raised
Design phase
May 9, 2014
77
include:
Selecting a long span bridge to reduce physical impacts within valley
Adjusting bridge profile to raise height of bridge and lengthen structure
to permit vegetation growth under bridge, direct all runoff to a
stormwater pond avoiding impacts to Creek and fish habitat, and
reduce amount of fill in valley
Including pedestrian lookouts on bridge to provide opportunities for
new views of park and valley areas and opportunities for interpretive
displays to recognize heritage of Jackson Park
Providing wide walking paths on both sides of bridge to provide trail
connections to Parkway Trail / Medical Drive Trail
Developing bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of
the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of piers
in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive
features, restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate
low impact construction techniques, etc.
Concerned with effects to specialized geological
features in Jackson Creek (i.e., limestone bedrock
creek bed)
As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge
design concept consists of a 23 m high bridge with a span of 367 m across the
valley of Jackson Park. As part of the bridge design principles developed for
this project, placement of the piers will be designed to avoid sensitive features
such as Jackson Creek and the associated creek bed.
Design phase
ESR should include a comprehensive assessment
of the possible negative impacts to the natural,
cultural and social environment
The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance (NHFAS) report is
included in Appendix F of the ESR, with the results summarized in Sections of
the ESR. As detailed in Section 4.5 of the ESR, the NHFAS was carried out to
assess the existing natural environment conditions within each of the Network
Alternatives and to determine the level of significance of terrestrial and aquatic
natural heritage features in each to facilitate the evaluation of the Network
Alternatives. A copy of the NHFAS is included in Appendix F of the ESR.
With regards to the cultural environment, a Cultural Heritage Overview
Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Landscape
Assessment were completed for the entire corridor/Jackson Park as part of this
EA study. A copy of the Cultural Heritage studies carried out as part of this
assessment is provided in Appendix H of the ESR.
Chapter 6 of the ESR provides a summary of the rationale used in selecting
the recommended alternatives. In addition, the detailed evaluation tables are
provided in Appendix O of the ESR.
The potential impacts to these environments are discussed in Chapter 7 of the
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
78
ESR. In addition, Chapter 8 of the ESR discusses the mitigation measures
that were developed in consideration of the identified potential impacts.
Concerned about the significant cultural heritage
impacts the recommended bridge will have on
Jackson Park; measures proposed to mitigate the
identified cultural heritage impacts of the bridge in
Jackson Park are not sufficient
As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, Jackson Park has been identified as
a significant cultural heritage landscape feature. The bridge will become a
prominent, new structure within the valley, and become a backdrop against
which park features will be viewed and a significant feature in the view
upstream from the park. As such, a series of detailed design commitments are
being proposed to ensure that the new structure is sympathetic to both the
natural and cultural heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the
ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within the park and
maintaining a bridge height above the valley to minimize intrusion and promote
vegetation growth.
Addressed in EA
Concerned about the mitigation measures being
recommended for this project
Bridge construction over and through urban valley systems is common place in
Ontario. Bridges supported on piers are highly preferred over structures that
require placement of large volumes of fill material across the entire valley for
the maintenance and protection of hydrological functions, wildlife movement,
loss of vegetation and fish habitat.
Addressed in EA
Impacts to large white pines/eastern hemlock in
Jackson Park; tree loss/importance of trees;
largest/highest native trees will not be conserved;
concerned with the impacts of salt spray to the
natural environment
As described in Sections 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge design concept
consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of
Jackson Park. The proposed bridge has 8 sets of piers located within the
Jackson Park Valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR, it is
estimated that approximately 3,000 m
2
3,500 m
2
of vegetation would be
removed from the valley slopes of Jackson Park due to construction of the
bridge abutments and related fill area on the east and west ends of the bridge.
Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the pier
locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in width another
1,500m
2
of vegetation may be removed due to construction of the 8 sets of
piers. However, as per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the
ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer piers will be
explored during detailed design to reduce the area of vegetation removal
required in the park and an appropriate budget to accommodate this has been
included in the proposed project budget. It is further noted that potential
disturbances would be mitigated and compensated (as required) by
implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices that would
be carried out in consultation with review agencies, and implementing a
vegetation restoration plan following construction. Innovative construction
techniques, including building centre spans of the bridge completely from
above can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the
Design phase
May 9, 2014
79
commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the Jackson Park
landscape will be minimized to the extent possible.
With respect to root disturbance, as covered in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR,
trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to
construction zones will be protected through installation of fencing at an
appropriate distance determined by a qualified professional. In typical
practice, trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require a greater
protected root zone. As an example and through discussion with our Certified
Arborist at AECOM, white pine trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm
will require a root protection zone of 3m from the trunk, totaling a 6m
diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction disturbance, however hemlock
species are less so, which would result in a larger protection zone compared to
white pine. These types of details will be gathered during detailed design to
ensure those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over
the long-term.
With respect to salt disturbance, as described in Section 8.1.1 of the ESR,
runoff from the new bridge across Jackson Park will be directed to the
Stormwater Management Pond via insulated storm sewers installed on the
bridge, to reduce pollutant loading and sodium from road salt applications. The
cross section of the new bridge also includes a barrier wall adjacent to the
travelled lanes and wide sidewalks across the bridge as well. This additional
width and second barrier wall treatment will reduce the extent of snow and
road spray that can intrude into the valley.
As detailed in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that to guide future
design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design Principles have been
established and include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded
access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to
minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. Salt spray would impede
vegetation growth, so as part of this Bridge Design Principle, an analysis of the
potential for salt spray into the forest communities below the bridge will be
conducted and where appropriate, input to the overall bridge design and
mitigation will be determined during detailed design.
Concerned that the potential impacts associated
with tree and limb removal, etc. on individual trees
was not addressed
A specific alignment and bridge design has not been selected in this study. As
such, details of tree cutting, limb removal, topping etc. are premature. The
impacts to trees and vegetation and associated mitigation measures are
described in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR. In addition, the detailed list of
commitments to be carried out during detailed design and/or construction is
provided in Section 9, ID#30. As noted, the detailed design stage and during
Design phase

May 9, 2014
80
construction proper arboricultural practices under the guidance of a Certified
Arborist or Professional Forester would be implemented to optimize the health
and survival of individual trees.
Presence of roadway lighting in Jackson Park As discussed in Section 7.9 of the ESR, low level shielded illumination will be
provided to reduce light spill into the Jackson Park Valley Area.
Addressed in EA
Impacts to existing use of Jackson Park;
concerned about the social impacts of the project
on Jackson Park and trail users
As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Jackson Park Bridge will be
located approximately 220 m north of the north end of the pond area, and
almost 400 m north of the activity areas (picnic area, playground) at the south
end of the pond near the Pagoda Bridge. The bridge will span across the
TransCanada Trail, the creek and many of the informal trails through the
wooded area. Thus, all of these existing uses within the park will be retained.
The bridge may be visible from the pond area to the south, although this could
be mitigated over time through new vegetative plantings. Given the distance
from the bridge to the pond activity areas, noise from the bridge would be no
worse than existing noise from the Parkhill Road Bridge at the south end of the
Park which is closer than the proposed bridge to the pond area. The new
bridge would be visible from the TransCanada trail and users would hear the
traffic noise from the bridge as they approach and pass under the structure.
The extent of noise impact could be mitigated through the use of low noise
pavement designs and through careful design of the structure to minimize
expansion joints on the structure which can create noise as vehicles drive over
them.
The ESR recognizes the change in the recreational experience for users in the
vicinity of the bridge crossing. Although the length of the trail remains
uninterrupted, the experience of trail users may change in the vicinity of the
bridge. This was reflected in the evaluation of the alternatives and resulted in
the extension of mitigation measures proposed in the bridge design.
Impacts to Jackson Park will be minimized to the extent possible through
bridge design and mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR,
including a series of bridge design principles that were developed to guide
future design work to reduce the number of piers and/or utilize non-invasive
construction techniques.
Addressed in EA
Impacts of noise from bridge on Jackson Park
users; noise increase in the vicinity of the bridge,
will be broadcast throughout a significant portion
of Jackson Park
The predicted increase in noise in the Jackson Park Area associated with the
new bridge has been modelled as part of the Traffic Noise Assessment
completed as part of this study (included in Appendix J of the ESR), as
discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR. While noise mitigation is not required
per the MTO/MOE Noise Protocol, mitigation measures to reduce noise
Design phase
May 9, 2014
81
impacts to Jackson Park will be considered during detailed design as stated in
Section 6.4.6 of the ESR.
Impacts to natural heritage features in Jackson
Park
In general, the most significant response received from respondents opposed
the potential new bridge across the Jackson Park area. The Preferred Plan
includes a longer span bridge to reduce the amount of vegetation removal.
Further, a series of bridge design principles have been established, to guide
future design work on the new bridge in consideration of the potential impacts
to natural environment features as detailed in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR. These
consist of the following:
Minimize the number of piers within valley during detailed design
Design pier placements to avoid sensitive features (i.e. Jackson
Creek)
Design the bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access
through spans in the valley
Utilize low impact construction techniques (i.e. building from above) to
minimize impacts within the Valley where possible
Provide native vegetation to restore areas disturbed during
construction
Provide new native vegetation to visually screen the bridge and piers
from the trail
Maintain the bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and
promote vegetation growth
Collect/direct rainwater from the bridge to off-site stormwater treatment
facilities
Design phase
Contamination from micro climatic changes due to
air current, sunlight and solar mass; park may
never fully recover to its pre-parkway state

The bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m
across the valley of Jackson Park (see Sections 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR). To
guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design
Principles have been established and include:
design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded access through
spans in the valley;
maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and
promote vegetation growth; and
promotion of openness and the bridge height will mitigate sunlight
changes within the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Dominant tree species include mature eastern hemlock and eastern white
cedar (see Section 4.2.2.2, Table 2, of the NHFAS). These species can
tolerate a mix of shade and full sun conditions. The specimens directly
Design phase

May 9, 2014
82
underneath the bridge will be shaded when the sun is at its highest resulting in
full shade conditions up to a couple of hours per day and so significant
negative effects are not anticipated. An analysis of the forest vegetation and
their specific lifecycle requirements, specifically their shade
tolerance/intolerance will be conducted and where appropriate, input to the
overall bridge design and mitigation will be determined during detailed design.
Negligible effects are anticipated with respect to micro climatic changes of air
currents. The height and the span of the bridge will dissipate wind speed and
mitigate against any wind tunneling. Regardless, all species documented
within the study area can tolerate high to low temperature conditions and a
variety of wind velocities save extreme weather events (i.e. tornado).
Solar mass changes will not result from the Parkway project.
Given the height of the recommended bridge, new
trees planted as part of the mitigation measures
recommended for this project will not grow
sufficiently tall and full to provide reasonable
screening, with the exception of the bottom of the
bridge piers; concerned that since the number and
location of piers will not be known until detailed
design, it is not feasible to plant trees now to
mitigate future impacts
As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge design concept
consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of 367m across the valley of
Jackson Park. To guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of
Bridge Design Principles have been established and include: design bridge to
promote openness and unimpeded access through spans in the valley,
maintain bridge height above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote
vegetation growth. As described in 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs
identified for preservation within and immediately adjacent to construction
zones will be protected, as determined by a qualified professional. Additional
details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure those trees that are
identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.
Upon approval of the Class EA, the City would be a position to initiate detailed
design to finalize the pier locations and allow for advance tree planting to occur
prior to construction. While the exact location of the bridge piers is not known
at this time, the preferred alignment of the bridge would guide advanced tree
planting activities for the purpose of screening views of the bridge from the
valley. Additional trees would be planted for the purpose of screening the
piers, once bridge pier locations are determined.
There are a number of fast-growing tree species options that could be
considered as part of this mitigation treatment, including the dominant Easter
White Pine. Other deciduous tree species that are relatively fast-growing and
may be considered include, but are not limited to, Aspens, Poplars and Red
Maples.
Design phase
Concerned that the concept of a management
plan for Jackson Park has been suggested in the
The Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken as part of this Class EA for the
Jackson Park area provides the context and framework for the City to use in
May 9, 2014
83
past and has not been acted upon; plantings
recommended as part of the 2008 Medical Drive
Class EA have still not been completed
addressing the potential effects associated with a new bridge crossing. This
HIA can also provide input to an overall Management Plan for the Park itself,
which is much broader than the bridge crossing location.
As per Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a landscaping plan as
part of the Detailed Design that addresses landscaping requirements for the
new corridor and provides landscaping treatments along the recently
constructed segments of Medical Drive. Based on the comments received
during the Class EA, the City has planned to implement landscaping
treatments along Medical Drive in conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation
work.
In addition, the City recently implemented additional landscaping around the
stormwater ponds in the area and further plantings are planned to be
implemented this year.
Design phase
Smog/climate change As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Preferred Plan, which includes the
Jackson Park bridge, is predicted to perform better from an air quality
perspective than the other network alternatives assessed as it reduces traffic
along Parkhill Road and Fairbairn Street and therefore should result in lower
emission levels affecting Hamilton Park, the Pond and Pagoda Bridge Area
within Jackson Park, and the residential neighbourhoods adjacent to Fairbairn
Street. Maximum pollutant concentrations from conservative modelling indicate
concentrations well below accepted air quality standards, with the exception of
benzene, which has higher levels under all cases modeled, including Do
Nothing. While emissions may increase within the interior of the park to some
degree, this is generally located in areas with less activity (by comparison). In
addition, the height of the bridge may also allow for greater dispersion of any
emissions and particulate matter that do occur, resulting in lower
concentrations at ground level.
Addressed in EA
Concerned about the potential for an increase in
the concentration of particulate and air
temperatures, in association with the loss of trees
and/or shrubs along the corridor
The results of air modelling for the preferred corridor were compared to current
standards and guidelines for air contaminants of CO, NOx, NO
2
, SO
2
, PM and
VOCs. Greater increases of these contaminants are anticipated in close
proximity to the preferred corridor due to the new road and higher traffic
volumes.
The results of the air assessment modelling indicated that the contaminants
analyzed were well below their respective standard, guideline or interim
reference level in the vicinity of all intersections within the preferred corridor,
with the exception of benzene, which exceeds the applicable guideline.
However, benzene is also noted to exceed the guideline in the ambient
Design phase

May 9, 2014
84
condition.
The air quality assessment also considered potential changes on a regional
basis (i.e., within the City of Peterborough) and found that the overall reduction
in total vehicle kilometers travelled and the reduced traffic on other roadways
in the City resulted in an overall reduction in airborne emissions as a result of
implementation of the preferred solution relative to the no build case. As
described in Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR, a landscape plan, including
enhanced vegetation, vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced
landscaping, will be developed during Detailed Design to mitigate potential
effects on the natural and social environments, including loss of vegetation
along the corridor.
Bridge will be unattractive/cast shadows on/within
Jackson Park
As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, it is noted that the bridge could
become a prominent, new structure within the valley, and become a backdrop
against which park features will be viewed, and a significant feature in the view
upstream from the park. Shadows caused by the proposed bridge may be
visible in open areas to the east of the bridge as large, geometric forms and
light. To mitigate these issues, a series of detailed design commitments are
being carried to ensure that the new structure is sympathetic to both the
natural and cultural heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the
ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within the park and
maintaining a bridge height above the valley to minimize intrusion and promote
vegetation growth.
Design phase
Litter thrown from vehicles will be deposited into
Jackson Park
The Jackson Park bridge will include parapet walls on both sides of the
structure which will typically contain discarded litter within the roadway
corridor, similar to the Parkhill Road bridge crossing at the south end of the
park area.
Addressed in EA
Potential for suicide site and associated
prevention fencing not considered/noted
While there may be suicide potential associated with any type of infrastructure
project that does not mean that a municipality should avoid planning for
necessary infrastructure to support growth. Given that the existing Parkhill
bridge located approximately 200 m to the south of the proposed Jackson Park
bridge has not had a history of suicides, there is no evidence to suggest that
this concern is valid for the Parkway corridor. Should this become an issue in
the future, prevention fencing could be considered for implementation at that
time.
Addressed through ongoing
monitoring
Will attract graffiti, gangs, vandals and unsafe
environment, similar to existing Parkhill Road
The recommended bridge would be designed to span the valley from top of
bank to top of bank, and eight sets of piers would be constructed within the
valley. Through careful placement of bridge piers and vegetation treatments
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
85
bridge that make pier locations inaccessible, the impacts of vandalism and graffiti can
be avoided or reduced significantly in association with the new bridge. The
experience at the existing Parkhill Road bridge is magnified due to the short
span and relative ease of access to the underside of the bridge abutments and
embankments which provide an area where people can congregate. While it
may be difficult to restrict access to the underside of the bridge in the abutment
areas, the longer bridge span bridge will result in these areas being located
largely out of sight of the existing trail.
Stormwater Considerations
Contamination from runoff (i.e., sand, salt, road
maintenance chemicals)
Drainage and Stormwater Management (SWM) Plans were developed for the
entire Parkway as part of this study. As noted in Section 7.5 of the ESR, the
design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide stormwater quantity control
by maintaining post-development flows at or below pre-development levels and
water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of
Environments Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for
Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.
Addressed in EA
Concerns related to stormwater management and
other related studies - proposed locations for
stormwater management ponds inappropriate;
stormwater pond would jeopardize brook trout
through thermal pollution and suggested
mitigation is unrealistic; several ponds too small to
provide adequate quantity control; use of
trapezoidal channel configuration violates natural
channel design; re-routing of water would have
impacts relating to dewatering of natural
ecological features that has not been addressed;
some stormwater management issues deferred to
other projects (Bears Creek Flood Reduction
Study; Chemong Road EA; Master Drainage Plan)
The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater Management
strategy. The Parkway Corridor was divided into four segments to correspond
to different outlet locations along the corridor and facilitate appropriate
stormwater management (SWM) design strategies for each area. The detailed
analyses of drainage and stormwater management recommendations for the
Parkway corridor are detailed in the Stormwater Management Reports,
provided in Appendix K of the ESR. These were completed in consideration of
the Flood Reduction Master Plan, the Water Quality Master Plan, and other
location specific watershed studies.
The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide stormwater quantity
control by maintaining post-development flows at or below pre-development
levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the
Ministry of Environments Stormwater Management Planning and Design
Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.
The stormwater management plans were developed in consultation with and
reviewed by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority to provide the basis
for more detailed stormwater management design treatments to be completed
during detailed design as noted in Sections 7 and 8 of the ESR.
While concern was expressed that one flood reduction pond (the pond at The
Parkway and Clonsilla Avenue) could not be constructed due to space
limitations, the preferred plan will actually increase the available space for this
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
86
future flood control pond.
To demonstrate how the implementation of the preferred alternative may
proceed without negatively impacting the upstream and downstream lands and
watercourses, consideration was given to flood potential, erosion, thermal
impacts, current and future drainage patterns, infrastructure improvement
opportunities, social economic value and aesthetics.
It was understood that the tributary to Byersville/Harper Creek serves as
headwaters for sensitive fisheries habitat that currently support cold water
species. As such, Section 8.1.1 of the ESR commits to investigating strategies
to address thermal impacts as part of detail design.
Section 7.5.1 of the ESR states that final configuration and design of the bio-
retention swale between Hilliard Street and Cumberland Avenue and the
associated connection to Bears Creek will be provided during detailed design
and completed in consideration of the 2008 Bears Creek Flood Reduction
Master Plan which has already been completed.
Stormwater Management not fully considered As above. Addressed in EA
Pollution run-off from the roadway into Jackson
Creek not recognized
As above.
Section 7.5.2 of the ESR describes the drainage and SWM plan being planned
to mitigate stormwater quality in the vicinity of Jackson Park. This section
further notes that the total level of treatment for runoff discharging into Jackson
Creek would be improved as a result of the Parkway. A copy of the Drainage
and SWM Plans developed for the corridor are provided in Appendix K of the
ESR.
Addressed in EA
Study does not consider Citys flood prevention
initiatives above need for new/paved surfaces
The focus of this EA study was to examine the opportunity to improve traffic
flow and increase roadway capacity to address long term growth in the City. As
per the Municipal Class EA process, the planning and design of municipal
infrastructure projects must identify and consider the effects on all aspects of
the environment. In consideration of increased paved surfaces/decreased
natural attenuation and associated increase in stormwater flows, stormwater
management strategies were developed for various sections of the corridor.
The SWM strategies were developed for this project in consideration of the
Citys existing flood prevention initiatives.
As described in Section 7.5 of the ESR, the design strategy for stormwater
management was to provide stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-
development flows at/below pre-development levels and water quality control
to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of Environments
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
87
Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1)
Protection, dated March 2003. These strategies were developed in
consideration of the Citys existing flood prevention initiatives. A copy of the
Stormwater Management Reports completed for this study are included in
Appendix K and summarized in Section 7.5 of the ESR.
In addition, the study recognized opportunities with the SWM plan for the
Parkway Corridor to address some areas with historical downstream flooding.
Accordingly, enhanced measures were incorporated into the SWM pond at the
Chemong Road / Sunset Boulevard intersection area to address historical
flooding concerns downstream along Chemong Road.
Cultural Environment
History of Jackson Park not considered The history of the Parkway Corridor, including Jackson Park, was reviewed as
part of three cultural heritage reports completed as part of this study and
included in Appendix H of this ESR. Section 2 of the Cultural Heritage
Landscape Assessment completed for Jackson Park provides a detailed
review of the land use history within Jackson Park. The history of Jackson
Park is considered as part of determining cultural heritage significance of the
area.
Addressed in EA
Cultural heritage assessments carried out as part
of this project were not undertaken until after the
selection of the preferred alternative and did not
inform the selection of the preferred alternative
Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study (i.e.,
Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and
Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment). The assessment of the Alternative
Solutions and Network Alternatives was completed in consideration of the
potential to impact the cultural heritage environment (i.e., Effect on built
heritage resources and cultural heritage features and landscapes). The
Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation provided a preliminary review of built
heritage resources within each of the Network Alternatives which assisted in
informing the evaluations.
The Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment and the Heritage Impact
Assessment were undertaken in response to comments received from the Arts,
Cultural and Heritage Advisory Committee to identify the cultural heritage
resources within the recommended alternative and provide measures to
mitigate the potential impacts of the project to the identified resources. The
HIA confirmed the findings of the evaluation of Alternative Solutions and
Network Alternatives.
Addressed in EA
Archaeological studies indicate that additional
studies are needed, particularly in Jackson Park
The findings of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments (AA) are
provided in Appendix G of the ESR. As noted in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, the

May 9, 2014
88
and several other areas of high archaeological
potential
findings of the Stage 2 AA activities recommended Stage 3 AA mitigation
within 3 locations of the Parkway corridor, including in the vicinity of Jackson
Park, north of Parkhill Road and south of Jackson Creek. This location of the
identified area is specific in nature, and was noted to be associated with a 19
th

century domestic structure and a number of domestic and structural artifacts.
As per Detailed Design Commitments #43 and #46, outlined in Section 9 of the
ESR, Stage 3 AA will be completed in these areas. In addition, all First
Nations communities and/or organizations contacted throughout the course of
this study will be contacted immediately should any Aboriginal heritage,
remains or significant Aboriginal artifacts be uncovered. It should be further
noted that as per the requirements of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport, no ground disturbing activities can proceed until MTCS has reviewed all
AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations
included in the AA reports.
Design phase
Corridor would cross several areas of high
archaeological potential, including the Chemong
Portage route; further investigation of the potential
cultural/archaeological resources are required
(i.e., Lee Cemetery, Jackson Park and Chemong
Portage)
As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report, provided in
Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage Route is outlined and
recognized as potentially traversing the corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent
of Frost Map and Pammett Map interpretation). All of the Network Alternatives
considered for the north end of the study area traversed the historical route.
The undeveloped portions of the corridor were identified as areas of having
archaeological potential and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the
interpreted areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have been either
previously disturbed, thereby not having archaeological potential, or were
investigated as part of the Stage 2 AA. In addition, comprehensive
archaeological assessment activities were carried out at the Lee Cemetery site
to supplement the work carried out by others and delineate the limits of
potential burial shafts. Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made for
selected areas of the corridor. This will be completed as part of detailed
design. Note that ground disturbing activities cannot proceed until the Ministry
of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has reviewed all AA reports and confirms in
writing that it supports the recommendations included in the AA reports.
Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part of this study,
each of which is included in Appendix H of the ESR. The Cultural Heritage
Overview Evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment were completed for the
entire corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment was
completed for Jackson Park. The MTCS has reviewed the impacts and
mitigation measures documented within these reports and are satisfied with
the recommendations to be carried forward into the detailed design phase of
Design phase
May 9, 2014
89
the project.
Preservation of Lee Pioneer Cemetery; potential
for the recommended alignment to interfere with
the Lee Pioneer Cemetery
Archaeological activities carried out as part of this study interpreted the
potential for grave shafts to be located in proximity to the existing grave cross
marker and this area would not be impacted by the proposed construction
activities as illustrated in Figure 6-16 in the ESR. Additional archaeological
investigations (i.e. Stage 3 AA) in the vicinity of the cemetery will be carried out
during detailed design to confirm the interpretation of the findings. Sections
8.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, outline commitments that the City has made to
undertake addition archaeological work as part of the detailed design for this
project to confirm the presence/absence of grave shafts. The archaeological
assessments carried out as part of this EA study are provided in Appendix G of
the ESR. In addition, Section 8.4.1 notes the Citys intent to preserve this
significant heritage feature through protective fencing and formal registration of
the cemetery.
Design phase
Concerned that Lee Pioneer Cemetery may
constrain the design of the road, thereby rerouting
the trail.
The trail has been incorporated into the design of the Parkway throughout the
study corridor. In response to comments received during the study, additional
geophysical investigations were undertaken to confirm the limits of the Lee
Pioneer Cemetery. The Parkway design in the vicinity of the Lee Pioneer
cemetery site preserves the cemetery boundaries. The Lee Pioneer cemetery
site will be located to the south of the roadway and the multi-use trail. The
cemetery will not be disturbed by construction and as part of the work, new
fencing will be provided around the cemetery and a recognition plaque has
been proposed to be provided by the trail.
Addressed in EA
Costs
Costs for project are too high/create significant tax
burden; cost of the Parkway would lead to higher
property taxes, increased debt load and more
infrastructure maintenance costs
The development of infrastructure to support growth in the City of
Peterborough may be funded through several sources, including the capital tax
levy (which may be debentured), development charges (which may be
debentured), federal gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding. As
described in Section 7.11 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will be
implemented over a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10
implementation stages which would see a new continuous 2 lane road corridor
in place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a
number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer
period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow
flexibility for investments in other priorities.
Addressed in EA
Will preclude other projects needed within City; The 2014 capital budget includes a number of improvements to other Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
90
other capital road projects have been pushed
back/put on hold because of the Parkway project;
large cost of Parkway project has implications on
other City initiatives
roadways in the City. The implementation timing of the Parkway
improvements as recommended in the ESR suggests that the proposed
improvements should be implemented over the next 20 years in response to
actual demands and the priorities of City Council.
The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that a significant
number of other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond
2031 due to the new capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. That said,
City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved
Capital Budget. Further, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an
annual basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual
budget process.
Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the project
within any specific time frames and does not restrict the ability of City Council
to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.
Potential costs associated with the Parkway will
preclude other projects in the City, including
social, cultural and recreational facilities.
City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per the approved
Capital Budget and project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual
basis and approved for implementation by Council through the annual budget
process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City Council to building the
project within any specific time frames and does not restrict the ability of City
Council to fund various other capital infrastructure needs as they deem
appropriate.
Addressed in EA
Table ES-6 does not distinguish between projects
to be deferred versus eliminated as a result of
Parkway
The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that other planned
projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new
capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. There were also a number of other
capacity deficiencies that were not addressed during the CTPU, but where
modelling results indicated that capacity deficiencies would be expected by
2031. The Parkway Corridor provides relief to many of these areas and is
forecast to defer the need to widen these roads, which supports the road
program put forward in the CTPU rather than conflicting with it.
There really is no difference between deferred projects and eliminated
projects as these terms both refer to the need for improvements by 2031. The
term deferral is the more accurate description to use, since there may be a
need for improvements beyond 2031 on some of the roads noted, if the land
use changes or additional growth (beyond that considered during Class EA)
continues on adjacent lands.
This part of the technical work program was included in the ESR and the
reporting to City Council to respond to claims from some stakeholders that
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
91
suggested the City could not afford the proposed Parkway Corridor or that
there would not be sufficient funds to address capital needs in other areas of
the City. The analysis was presented to illustrate that implementation of the
Parkway would actually reduce the need for widening other roads by 2031, and
the amount saved would almost fund the entire project. That said, City-wide
improvements are planned for implementation per the approved Capital
Budget and, project priorities will continue to be assessed on an annual basis
and approved for implementation by City Council through the annual budget
process.
Funding availability to build mitigation measures
into bridge is questionable
Chapter 8 of the ESR documents the proposed mitigation measures, key
commitments and monitoring programs, including those associated with the
Jackson Park bridge.
The development of infrastructure to support growth in the City of
Peterborough may be funded through several sources, including the capital tax
levy (which may be debentured), development charges (which may be
debentured), federal gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding.
Addressed in EA
Full costs not accounted for; cost of the bridge
escalated from $35 M to $75 M at the public
meetings. This is dishonest
The $35M cost referred to was for the Jackson Park crossing alternative, which
included the bridge and approach roadways and estimated mitigation
measures. This was presented at PIC 3. The cost of the bridge itself is
estimated to be $25 Million based on 2013 unit prices. As described in Section
7.12 of the ESR, the preliminary cost to complete this project includes all
roadworks and mitigation measures identified in the ESR. Table 7.3 of the
ESR summarizes the approximate cost of the project by major cost category.
These include noise mitigation, stormwater ponds, pedestrian/cyclist crossing
treatments and the new multi-use trail. A contingency of $5.8M was added to
reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the
Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).
The total program costs include utility relocations, property costs, costs
associated with phased implementation, plus Engineering & Construction
Administration Costs of 15% ($8.7M) added to the capital budget. The total
program cost is estimated at $78.91 Million, based on 2013 unit prices.
Addressed in EA
Cost of the bridge increased from $51.7 million at
PIC 3 to $79 million in the ESR
The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million. The overall cost of the
project is estimated to be $79 Million. At PIC 3 the estimated total cost of the
project was $66.4 Million (see PIC#3 display panel 24, in Appendix D). The
estimated cost of the project did increase between PIC 3 and the final
completion of the project as additional costs for mitigation measures were
included to address concerns raised by members of the public. In addition, the
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
92
total cost of the project reported to council included costs for the phased
implementation, and for project design and construction administration
activities (which were not included in the initial estimates presented at PIC 3).
For example, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following
PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study
team to develop related bridge design principles to govern future detailed
design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce the number of
piers in the valley, span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features,
restoration of areas disturbed during construction, investigate low impact
construction techniques, etc. An additional contingency of $5.8 Million has
been added to reflect the commitment to investigate a reduced number of
bridge piers for the Jackson Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span
bridge with 3 sets of piers.
Unclear whether bridge costs documented in ESR
account for more expensive bridge design per
mitigation measures
The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million based on 2013 unit prices.
As noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and 4,
as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop
related bridge design principles to govern future detailed design of the bridge
including the objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley, span
the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas
disturbed during construction, investigate low impact construction techniques,
etc. As a result, an additional contingency of $5.8M was added to reflect the
commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson
Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers).
Addressed in EA
Costs of maintaining the bridge was not
considered
As stated in Appendix M of the ESR, future rehabilitation costs for the new
bridge across Jackson Park Valley were excluded from the cost-benefit
assessment as the first cycle of bridge deck rehabilitation is not expected to be
needed for 20-25 years which is beyond the 2031 analysis period used in this
assessment. Operating costs were also considered as part of the evaluation of
the Network Alternatives, as noted in Table 6.3 and Appendix O of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
The additional $15M cost for a long span bridge
versus the short span bridge is not justified.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.6.1 of the ESR, the short span bridge
alternative would require approximately 160 m of fill on the east side of the
valley and approximately 80 m of fill on the west side of the valley. The long
span bridge would span the valley from top of bank to top of bank, and seven
sets of piers would be constructed within the valley. Fill placement in the valley
would be limited to the areas surrounding the east and west bridge abutments
for the long span bridge.
Based on the evaluation of the bridge span alternatives, it was noted that there
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
93
was no significant difference between the alternatives from a technical, built,
economic, noise, air quality, or local traffic infiltration perspective. However, the
extensive fill placement in the valley that is required to accommodate the short
span bridge would have significant impacts to the natural, social and cultural
environments.
With regards to the natural environment, the short span bridge would have a
much greater impact on the natural heritage features of the valley, including
significant woodland areas and terrestrial vegetation. Larger areas of potential
wildlife habitat would be impacted, and wildlife movement would be restricted
to a smaller area through the valley. Drainage patterns within the Jackson
Creek floodplain would also be significantly altered in association with the short
span bridge. In addition, the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has
expressed its concerns with altering the natural state of the valley.
It is understood that the long span bridge would also have an impact on the
Jackson Park cultural heritage landscape, however the effects are considered
much less intrusive. In addition, there is greater potential to design an
aesthetically pleasing bridge when maintaining visual continuity within the
valley.
As such, the short span bridge alternative was not the preferred alternative
selected for crossing the Jackson Park valley.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Question extent of which the cost/benefit to the
greater community traffic flow was measured in
EA
As noted in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of the Environmental
Assessment process, the benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number
of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network
improvement alternatives.
The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide transportation improvements to address
long term growth needs and identified a number of projects that would be
required by 2031. The current project is implementing the above noted
recommendations presented in that study.
Addressed in EA
Questionable benefits; unaccounted costs; benefit
cost ratio likely overestimated; no integrated
benefit cost ratio
As described in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of the Environmental
Assessment process, the benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number
of criteria to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various network
improvement alternatives to identify a Preferred Design.
A detailed description of the benefit-cost assessment, including the calculated
benefits and costs is provided in Appendix M of the ESR and all assumptions,
including the sources used for the value of time are fully documented.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
94
As document in Section 6.6, a number of comments were received from
members of the public following PIC #3 in relation to the benefit-cost analysis
results completed for this EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis.
The biggest concerns raised were related to the lack of value attributed to the
loss of greenspace (as well as the lack of consideration of impacts to property
values for homes that back onto the corridor). As such, a sensitivity analysis
was completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial
values of natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication entitled,
Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario. The findings of the
sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not
materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study.
A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated sensitivity analysis
is included in Appendix M of the ESR.
Benefit/Cost ratio of 1.05 is very low; targeted
alternative mode improvements or TDM programs
are probably more cost effective; defer roadway
improvements until congestion is realized for more
than one hour per day
For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, a benefit-cost
analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare the advantages
and disadvantages of various network improvement alternatives from a
financial perspective. The results (as documented in Appendix M of the ESR)
show that the proposed Parkway Corridor, returns total benefits that are about
31% higher than total implementation costs and this is significantly better than
the performance of the other alternatives evaluated. When the timing of the
cost and benefit streams are considered in the present value analysis, the
benefits exceed the costs by about 1% resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01.
Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas were delayed due to
concerns about unresolved transportation issues. Completion of the 2012
CTPU and this Class EA study provide the transportation certainty to allow the
City to proceed with planning for growth in these planned growth areas.
Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or forecasts of future travel
demands are realized, it is important to have an infrastructure plan in place to
accommodate the growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City
Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or portions of the
project, as growth occurs. The City is planning to review their transportation
plan every 5-10 years. The review may include assessing projects that have
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
95
not been completed yet in light of updated information on travel patterns and
growth forecasts. This is consistent with the approach the City has taken on
previous Transportation Plans and represents proper planning processes that
occur throughout the province.
was approved by council in November 2011. The program to support non-auto
modes of travel is aggressive, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over
the next 20 years.
The quantity of trail and/or Jackson Park users
was not considered
While the quantity of trail displaced and/or the number of Jackson Park users
was not explicitly considered or monetized in the Cost-Benefit analysis work,
the evaluation of alternatives considered the potential impacts to users of
Jackson Park and/or the existing trail. It should be further noted that the
existing trail along the Parkway Corridor is being replaced with a 3.0 m wide
multi-use trail, and is not being displaced.
Addressed in EA
Parkway Design
Preferred Plan may require additional permits and
approvals, the issuance of which is not certain
No issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical matters have been
raised by any agencies subsequent to the filing of the ESR. Sections 8 and 9
of the ESR document potential environmental effects, mitigation measures and
key commitments, including permits and approvals that will be required prior to
construction. All EA projects (including Individual EAs) include some need for
additional permits to be acquired during detailed design / pre-construction
stages of the project when the final design is complete. This does not suggest
the project is not feasible.
Design phase
AODA Compliance. Implications for citizens with
mobility challenges not fully considered
(pedestrian-activated signals on all approaches);
Preferred Plan may not comply with AODA
requirements
Pedestrian-activated signals and crossings at intersections will comply with
AODA requirements and will be determined/ verified during detailed design.
The City currently has accessibility standards and guidelines and is continually
working with accessibility committees and advisors to further develop and
improve those standards and guidelines in order to comply with legislation.
Will be addressed in Detailed
Design phase
Parkway impedes access for students attending
Highland Heights and Edmison Heights Public
Schools and crossing from the north
As stated in Chapter 7 of the ESR, signalized intersections will provide
provisions for pedestrian cross walks on all approaches, and new pedestrian
crossing signals will be provided north of Fairbairn Street at Highland Heights
Public School and at the Hilliard Street intersection (across the Parkway and
across Hilliard Street) which will facilitate access to Edmison Heights Public
School.
Addressed in EA

May 9, 2014
96
Pedestrian signals and underpass being
recommended at the Parkway and Fairbairn
Street roundabout accommodate east-west
pedestrian crossing only, and not north south
As per Chapter 7 of the ESR, signalized intersections will provide provisions
for pedestrian cross walks on all approaches, and new pedestrian crossing
signals will be provided at the following locations:
Goodfellow Road,
North of Fairbairn Street at Highland Heights Public School,
Hilliard Street intersection (across the Parkway and across Hilliard
Street)
Water Street at the new Zoo Entrance
The pedestrian-activated signal is being recommended for the crossing at
Hilliard Street, adjacent to the St. Pauls School property. The roundabout
intersection at this location will slow traffic while minimizing delays and
improving safety, when compared to a signalized intersection. The pedestrian
signal will provide a safer, more controlled crossing situation for users
compared to today where they cross Hilliard Street uncontrolled.
The existing pedestrian signal at St. Peters High School is proposed to be
converted to a full signalized intersection in conjunction with the future
widening of the Parkway to 4 lanes.
In addition to these locations, grade separated crossings will be provided north
of Clonsilla Avenue, in the vicinity of Whitefield Park; north of Parkhill Road,
approaching the bridge across Jackson Park; at the Fairbairn Street
intersection, to the north of Chemong Road, and to the south of Hilliard Street.
These will provide a safe controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists to
cross the new roadway and maintain connectivity between neighbourhoods on
either side of the Parkway Corridor.
Addressed in EA
The Parkway is a bypass and/or highway. As detailed in Section 7 of the ESR, the Parkway will be a major arterial
roadway not a highway. It has been designed to have a posted speed of 50 to
60 km/h.
Addressed in EA
Additional intersections/traffic lights on existing
roadways and pedestrian-activated crossing on
Parkway will add to congestion problem.
The recommended plan provides the best overall transportation solution to
address the problem statement by reducing the extent of network congestion
both within the study area and in areas outside the study area. The need for
additional intersections and traffic signals as well as pedestrian-activated
crossings was accounted for in the assessment of system performance, as
detailed in Chapter 6 of the ESR.
Addressed in EA
Parkway design does not consider use of
illumination beneath bridge to reduce the risk of
As stated in Section 7.9 of the ESR, it is recognized that there may be a safety
benefit associated with illumination adjacent to trails and sidewalks that can
Addressed in EA
May 9, 2014
97
vandalism enhance security during periods of darkness. It is noted that in these cases,
sidewalk and/or trail illumination will be considered.
Closure of Highland Road would add to
emergency service travel time for associated
residents
Closure of Highland Road at Fairbairn Street is not predicted to result in a
measurable increase in emergency response time for residents in this area.
Further, the Preferred Plan through this area results in fewer road closures
than the Parkhill-Fairbairn widening alternative, reducing potential impacts to
emergency response times in this area.
During subsequent design phases, emergency response routes will be
reviewed and adjusted if required to ensure EMS response time targets are
met.
Design phase
Project Construction
Impact of construction activities in park not
considered (i.e., timing/closures/etc); construction
activities will destroy park
As discussed in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR, low impact construction techniques,
including building the bridge completely from above, will be considered to
reduce construction impacts on environmental features and park areas. The
cost for this type of construction technique falls within the range of the cost
estimates developed for this project.
The alignment of the approach to the bridge has been carefully selected to
minimize the amount of fill that would need to be placed in the valley and the
bridge design will span the valley from bank to bank, resulting in a bridge that
is about 370 m in length and about 24-26 m above the ground level in the
valley. During subsequent design phases, the ESR includes a commitment to
minimize the number of bridge piers in the valley and avoid pier placements in
the creek or other sensitive areas. Further, the City will restore areas
disturbed by the construction of the new bridge including any trails and
vegetation removed.
The use of the park and associated trails will be maintained during
construction. Temporary realignment of some existing trails may be required
to facilitate the bridge construction over Jackson Park. It should be noted that
construction activities will not directly impact other features within Jackson
Park such as the Pagoda Bridge, the pond, designated sitting areas and/or the
parking area.
Addressed in EA
AECOM will be the contractor selected to build the
Parkway/bridge
AECOM is a consulting firm, providing professional technical and management
support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation.
AECOM is not a construction firm.
Not applicable
Asbestos/Hazardous materials removal for
Prior to any building demolition, the City of Peterborough would undertake a
review of the building condition, including age and potential for hazardous
Will be addressed in Detailed

May 9, 2014
98
acquired buildings building materials (i.e., friable/non-friable asbestos, UFFI, heating oil releases,
etc.). If the presence of hazardous materials is confirmed (through sample
analyses), the City would retain the services of an
Environmental/Environmental Health and Safety Specialist to complete an
abatement and/or remediation program. All work would be completed in
accordance with applicable Standards. Costs to complete such work would be
considered as part of the Project and associated budget review process. It
should be noted that this issue would potentially arise with any of the
alternatives considered as part of the EA. The preferred corridor has the
lowest property displacement required and therefore represents the lowest risk
of all of the alternatives.
Design Phase
Lily Lake
Suggested arterial road upgrades to Towerhill
Road, Fairbairn Street, etc. as part of recently
initiated secondary planning not in line with EA
rationale
The transportation analysis conducted for the Lily Lake Functional Planning
Study was based on the full build-out of the Lily Lake area, however, it did not
take into account the timing of that growth in light of overall City-wide
population and employment growth projections to 2031 as reflected in Section
2.4.3 of the Official Plan. The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(CTPU), approved by Council in November 2011, does not assume full build-
out of the Lily Lake area within its horizon, since the planning area does not
have formal approval, but instead considers a City-wide distribution of future
population and employment growth projected to 2031. As a result, the growth
forecasts used in the modelling work for the 2012 CTPU and the initial
modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not include any planned
growth within the Lily Lake Planning Area.
In response to concerns raised by members of the public regarding the
impacts of full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area on the evaluation of the
north end alternatives, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the
future demands and improvement needs associated with build out of this
development area in addition to the planned growth to 2031.
As detailed in Section 6.4.5 of the ESR, Fairbairn Street north of Highland
Road will need to be widened to 4 lanes up to Lily Lake Road / Towerhill Road,
regardless of which north end alternative is selected in this Class EA study, to
accommodate the full build out of Lily Lake.
Addressed in EA
Fairbairn Street, between Parkhill Road and the
Parkway will ultimately need to be widened
As above. Addressed in EA

Greenspace Coalition Response Table

Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment
Peterborough Greenspace Coalition Submission

May 2, 2014 1
Main Document

Issue Response
1. Introduction
Traffic issues identified in the study are
only perceived/potential
The traffic issues identified in the ESR represent a mix of
current deficiencies and forecasts of future conditions that
can be expected to occur as growth occurs. The assessment
of existing and future network capacity and intersection
capacity deficiencies and safety concerns in the Study Area
are fully documented in Chapter 3 of the ESR.
As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing
congestion are beginning to appear in many portions of the
road network in Peterborough today. The ESR has
documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at
Fairbairn Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and
PM peak periods that already exceed the road network
performance targets established in the Official Plan and result
in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods. This is
occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents
forecast to live in planned development areas in the north
end of the City by 2031 - the majority of whom will continue
to drive and will pass through these very road segments on
their daily travels. Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also
demonstrated that increased traffic at many of the key
intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision
patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion.
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand
forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that
with the population growth planned for the City, many of the
road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity
based on policies in the Citys Official Plan. An increase in
congestion in a number of areas is expected as illustrated in
Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in increased travel
delays and increased out of way travel as drivers use
alternate routes to avoid congestion. The increased traffic
demand is also forecast to increase congestion and delays at
the major intersections within the study area, as discussed in
Section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many of the key intersections
noted in the assessment would be over capacity, resulting in
long queues of traffic, particularly for many left turn
movements. Not only does this create additional delays for
motorists, but it increases the number of vehicle conflicts and
the risk of collisions as frustrated drivers take risks to avoid
extensive delays.
As required in the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial
Policy Statement, municipalities are required to develop
infrastructure plans to accommodate forecasts of future
growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has
developed a transportation model which is calibrated to
forecast existing conditions prior to being used to forecast
future transportation conditions associated with planned
growth and infrastructure improvements. This model was
developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation

May 2, 2014 2
Issue Response
Plan Update (CTPU), the Citys long range transportation
plan that examined system-wide transportation policies and
improvements using a comprehensive public process in
accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master
Plans.
An excerpt from the transportation model development and
calibration portion of the CTPU report is included in Appendix
P of the ESR and a summary of the travel capacity analysis
carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q
of the ESR.
The recommended road network improvements in this Class
EA study will be implemented in phases as growth occurs,
road network deficiencies are realized, and as the
municipality can afford to do so. This phased approach
provides an infrastructure plan to accommodate planned
growth, and can be adjusted or amended through subsequent
updates to the CTPU in the event that there are changes to
the growth forecasts or other key assumptions used in the
2012 CTPU or this ESR.
There have been repeated past
decisions to turn down the project over
the past 67 years of debate
The history of this corridor goes back to 1947 when a new
transportation corridor was recommended to by-pass the
west side of the City of Peterborough to connect to the
recreational areas north of the City. This first Official Plan
for the City, known as the Faludi Report, established the
future road network and guided the development of lands
around the corridor as the City continued to grow.
The City purchased the required land for the Parkway
Corridor and designated the corridor within the Official Plan.
Since the Parkway route was designated in the Official Plan,
the City has grown around the corridor and other routes have
evolved to fill the role of the original highway by-pass
envisioned in the 50s. However, as the City has grown, new
arterial roadways to serve the growth in the west and north
ends of the City have not been constructed, primarily
because the Parkway Corridor was protected and would
serve that need.
Portions of the original corridor have been implemented; most
notably the section of the corridor between Highway 115 and
Clonsilla Avenue (a distance of 2.6 km), which has been in
operation for over 20 years, and serves as the main entrance
into the City from the south.
Following the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update the City held a referendum on the Partial Parkway
concept as part of the 2004 municipal election. The vote
resulted in 55% voting against construction of the partial
Parkway plan, although the vote was not binding as the
turnout was less than 50% of eligible voters. Council agreed
to put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum
result, but they did not remove the Parkway corridor from
the Official Plan.
Following the referendum, access to the new Peterborough

May 2, 2014 3
Issue Response
Regional Health Centre became an issue in the community,
as the previous Civic Hospital site was chosen as the
preferred site, in part because of its central location along the
Parkway Corridor. In 2011, Hospital Access Road was
constructed as a two lane arterial road between Sherbrooke
Street and Parkhill Road within the Parkway Corridor.
At the same time, the City had embarked on an update to the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and in November 2011,
City Council approved the recommended road network plan,
which indicated the need to construct a new two lane arterial
roadway in the Parkway Corridor (from Fairbairn Street to
Cumberland Avenue) in the 2021 to 2026 horizon period
along with the need for widening Fairbairn Street to 4 lanes
(from Parkhill Road to Highland Road) in the 2021 to 2026
horizon.
Preferred alternative is ineffective and
needlessly expensive
The ESR included the development and assessment of
various Alternative Transportation Solutions and Alternative
Road Network Designs to address the problem / opportunity
statement for the project. A series of road network
alternatives were developed, assessed and evaluated using a
number of evaluation criteria reflecting the transportation
performance of each alternative, the potential effects on the
natural, built, social, cultural and economic environments and
also included various financial evaluation criteria to determine
the Recommended Design. The transportation performance
of each alternative was assessed with the assessment results
detailed in Section 6 of the ESR. The Recommended Design
best addresses future capacity deficiencies, identified safety
concerns, supports planned growth and minimizes capacity
improvements that would otherwise be required elsewhere in
the City if the Recommended Design is not implemented. It is
important to note that the Recommended Design incorporates
a truly multi-modal corridor.
For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, a
benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria
to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various
network improvement alternatives from a financial
perspective. The results (as documented in Appendix M of
the ESR) show that the proposed Parkway Corridor, returns
total benefits that are about 31% higher than total
implementation costs and this is significantly better than the
performance of the other alternatives evaluated. When the
timing of the cost and benefit streams are considered in the
present value analysis, the benefits exceed the costs by
It should be noted that a large portion of the project cost is
attributed to the mitigation measures being proposed as part
the project, including landscaping, stormwater management,
and vegetation restoration plans. Further, as noted in
Section 6 of the ESR, feedback received following PICs 3 and
4, as well as the Corridor Design Workshop, prompted the
study team to develop related bridge design principles to
govern future detailed design of the bridge including the

May 2, 2014 4
Issue Response
objective to further reduce the number of piers in the valley,
to span the creek and trail areas and other sensitive features,
to investigate low impact construction techniques, etc. The
cost includes an additional contingency of $5.8M to reflect the
commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers
for the Jackson Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge
with 3 sets of piers).
Preferred alternative will have significant
environmental impacts, in spite of some
mitigation measures
The potential impacts to the natural, cultural and social
environments are discussed in Chapter 7 of the ESR while
Chapter 8 discusses the mitigation measures that were
developed in consideration of the identified potential impacts.
Every alternative considered has positive and negative
effects. The intent of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
process is to evaluate these potential effects and rank
alternatives based on that evaluation. The Recommended
Design is considered to be the best balance of those potential
effects while still achieving the goals of the project by
addressing the problem statement.
Further, Chapter 9 of the ESR lists 66 specific commitments
for further work required to implement the project as it moves
through the next stages of detailed design and construction,
including permit and approval requirements (MOE, MNR,
DOF, ORCA). These commitments are grouped in a series of
topic areas covering the primary potential environmental
impacts identified through the completion of this ESR,
including: Fisheries, Stormwater Management. Hydrogeology,
Wetlands and Wet Features / Depressions, Erosion and
Sedimentation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Archaeology, Built
Heritage, Noise, Air Quality, and Materials Management
during construction. Including these commitments in the EA
will ensure mitigation of any adverse effect is a high priority
and a commitment on the part of the City.
Study failed to achieve timely and
meaningful public consultation
The study included an extensive public consultation program
as detailed in Chapter 2 of the ESR.
Public Information Centres (PICs) were considered key to
engaging/sharing information with the public in relation to this
study. Four PICs were held throughout the course of the
study to present:
PIC#1: background of the study, an overview of the
Municipal Class EA process, feedback received from
the public since the commencement of the study, an
overview of the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the Problem Statement, the alternative
solutions that had been developed to address the
Problem Statement and the preliminary network
alternative
PIC#2: overview of the information presented as part
of PIC #1, feedback received from the public since
PIC #1, the preliminary evaluation of the Network
Alternatives for the North End and South End and
associated approach and the alternative design

May 2, 2014 5
Issue Response
concepts for the Network Alternatives.
PIC#3: overview of the information presented as part
of PIC #2, feedback received from the public since
PIC #2, the preliminary evaluation of the Jackson
Creek Valley Alternatives, the final evaluation of the
North End and South End Network Alternatives and
the recommended design concepts for the corridor
PIC#4: overview of the information presented to date,
the comments received since PIC #3, a review of the
proposed design treatments and mitigation measures
proposed as part of the study
A website for the study was established through the City of
Peterboroughs website at the initiation of the study.
Information related to the study was posted on the study
website throughout the course of the study. This information
included notices of PICs, copies of PIC presentation material,
responses to frequently asked questions and comprehensive
questions and/or concerns raised by the public or other
stakeholders and associated responses and copies of final
reports related to the study.
The main body of the ESR documents how public feedback
was considered and addressed at each stage of the study
process. For example, as per the evaluation process
described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation
criteria used in the evaluation of alternatives were based on
input and comments received from members of the public
who submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the
study area. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the
evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section
6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the
ESR, provides a summary of the comments received
throughout the course of this EA study and how these
comments were considered as part of the EA process.
Further, as noted in Section 6.4.2, a number of other
refinements to the proposed design of the corridor were made
based on the feedback received.
Comments received from the public are included in Appendix
D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary reports for each
of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design Workshop held
as part of this study (included in Appendix D of the ESR)
provide a summary of the feedback received throughout the
course of this EA study.
Full range of reasonable alternatives to
the project were not considered and
evaluated; Concerned that a full range of
reasonable alternative means of carrying
out the project were not considered and
evaluated
This Class EA study is not intended to revisit the policy
decisions in the Official Plan nor the recently completed
Transportation Plan Update, which was undertaken in
accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. This ESR
was intended to undertake the more detailed planning
necessary to implement two of the road network improvement
recommendations from this plan, taking into account longer
term growth. Thus, the basis, or starting point, for the study
was the 2012 Transportation Master Plan, and the travel
demand forecasting work assumed that all of the

May 2, 2014 6
Issue Response
recommended policies and infrastructure needed to support
the reductions in auto use that were recommended in the
Transportation Plan would occur and corresponding auto use
reductions would be realized..
As per Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative Solutions
were developed and evaluated to address the
Problem/Opportunity Statement. As described in Section 5.4,
it was noted that on its own, widening roads or building new
roads would not support the achievement of higher transit use
and increased walking and cycling that have been
incorporated into the base forecasts and therefore measures
to support the achievement of these mode share targets
should be incorporated into this alternative solution. As a
result, a combination solution including Non-Auto Based
Improvements (as per the TMP), Intersection Improvements
and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was
recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to
The City has a comprehensive demand management
program that was recommended in the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan study, which was approved by council in
Nov 2011. This study is available on the City website.
The Citys strategy to manage the growth in auto trips is
made up of three basic initiatives:
1) An aggressive TDM program with recommendations for
programs to encourage alternate travel modes, shifting
the time of travel and reducing the number and length of
trips. The City has a full time transportation demand
management planner that is responsible for implementing
this program;
2) An extensive set of policies to support active
transportation in an effort to increase the share of peak
period trips made by walking and cycling from 6% today
to 8% by 2031. The infrastructure program includes the
expansion of the cycling network in the City with a budget
of $38-52 M over the next 20 years which will add 130km
of new on-road and off road facilities; and
3) An investment in transit service to boost ridership by 28%
and increase the share of trips made by transit from 4%
today to 6% by 2031. The report recommends the
purchase of 10 additional buses at a total cost of $5.1 M
plus $1.4 M annually over the next 20 years in ongoing
operating costs (total $33.1 M) to expand current transit
service to achieve this target.
Even with this aggressive program to support non-auto
modes of travel, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M
over the next 20 years, the Transportation Master Plan
estimated that auto travel will continue to grow even if the
share of peak period trips made by auto decrease from 87%
today to 83% by 2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also
recommended a series of road network improvements that

May 2, 2014 7
Issue Response
include improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.
As described in Section 6.1 of the ESR, Network Alternatives
were generated based on a two-step process: the first step
included the development of road network alternatives
representing various combinations of road widening and new
road connections to address the problems and opportunities;
and, the second step involved the development of the
preferred road network alternative to a higher level of design,
with alternative design treatments applied for major
intersections, connecting roads and entrances, and
alternative alignments considered to avoid or minimize
impacts to features or properties within the corridor.
As described in Section 6.1.4 of the ESR, given the size of
the study area and complexity of the project, the study area
was divided into three segments (i.e., North End, South End
and Jackson Park). With four (4) alternatives within the south
end of the study area, six (6) potential alternatives in the
Jackson Park area, and three (3) alternatives in the north end
of the study area, 72 different network combinations were
possibly available, resulting in a complex and difficult
evaluation process to present to the public. To simplify and
clarify the evaluation approach, a three step evaluation
process was used, as per other complex EA/route planning
studies.
As described in Section 6.3.2 of the ESR, the evaluation of
Network Alternatives was carried out via the same Reasoned
Argument Process process described in Section 5.3, which
evaluates the advantages and disadvantages (or positive and
negative effects) of each Network Alternative in response to
each criteria. Based on the descriptions provided, each
Network Alternative is ranked in terms of how well it responds
to the criteria. Opportunities to incorporate mitigation to offset
potential adverse impacts are also considered as part of this
process. This is commonly referred to as a Net Effects
evaluation.
The evaluation criteria used to assess Network Alternatives
are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative
measures. For some criteria that are not easily measured or
quantified, qualitative measures are used to describe the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative with
respect to each criteria. The evaluation considered
opportunities to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for impacts
within subsequent stages of design or construction. For other
criteria, quantitative measures were used based on the
corridor right-of-way width (representing the footprint
impacts), to compare the advantages and disadvantages for
criteria in numeric terms, where the higher (or lower) values
indicates a better ranking.
The detailed evaluation tables related to each of the Network
Alternatives for each segment of the study area are included
in Appendix O of the ESR.
Study does not comply with the The Class EA process addresses the requirements of the EA

May 2, 2014 8
Issue Response
requirements or expectations of the
Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (MCEA)
Act. Since this study is related to the construction of a new
road within a designated transportation corridor, the project
has predictable impacts which can be mitigated through
proven mitigation strategies used in other projects and this
combination of factors makes the Class EA process an
appropriate planning and design process. The City
recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus the
natural environment study and information used to evaluate
alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required
for a routine Class EA study. The Class EA and the level of
detail undertaken by the City was sufficient to identify and
compare the range of potential advantages and
disadvantages of all reasonable alternatives and make an
informed decision, recognizing that the project specifics will
be addressed under the Detailed Design and permitting
process that follows both a Class EA and an Individual EA.
This Class EA study is similar to the Pine
Valley Drive Extension Class EA in
Vaughan where the Minister required a
full individual EA to the undertaken
Each project is unique and undertaken to address a defined
problem and opportunity statement.
The Parkway Corridor Class EA study is undertaking the
planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements
recommended as part of the approved 2012 CTPU and the
Hospital Access Road EA Addendum. The Parkway Corridor
Study was classified as a Schedule C project since it had the
potential for significant environmental impacts. It proceeded
under the full planning and documentation procedures of the
Municipal Class EA document.
The City recognized the sensitive nature of the area and thus
the consultation program and the natural, social and cultural
environment studies and information used to evaluate
alternatives was done to a greater level of detail than required
for a typical Class EA. Undertaking an individual EA would
not provide any more information or consultation activities
that would alter the outcome of the EA process. The Class
EA and the level of detail undertaken by the City was
sufficient to make an informed decision and the project
specifics will be addressed under the Detailed Design and
permitting process that follows Phases 1 to 4 of the Class EA
process.
2. Project Has Significant Environmental Effects
2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features and Impacts
Impacts to the brook trout population are
also shared by Curve Lake First Nation,
as identified by Chief Phyllis Williams as
part of another nearby project related to
Harper Creek
The alignment of the Preferred Design at the south end
approaching Clonsilla Avenue was modified to avoid
Byersville Creek, which is a cold water fishery, and to
minimize the extent of impacts to woodland areas adjacent to
the creek. Further, at the Clonsilla Avenue intersection, the
intersection was shifted approximately 30 m to the east to
avoid Byersville Creek.
Responses from Curve Lake First Nation were received on
July 31, 2012 and July 11, 2013 in response to the Notice of
Study Commencement and Notification of PIC #3,
respectively. No concerns were raised with respect to this

May 2, 2014 9
Issue Response
issue.
Byersville Creek and Harper Creek is the
only coldwater system running through a
municipal area
This is incorrect. There are several coldwater systems
running through municipalities in Ontario. For example, Mill
Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket, Oshawa
Creek in Oshawa and several headwater reaches of the
Rouge River in Richmond Hill.
Brook trout genetics should be
considered a distinct, significant species
The response included in Appendix H of the Greenspace
Coalitions submission does not support this interpretation or
suggestion. This population is distinct from the Hills Lake
hatchery strain. This population fit the expected patterns for
native ancestry and showed genetic similarities to other
native populations in Peterborough District, but also some
evidence of genetic contributions from the provincial Hills
Lake hatchery strain.
Concerned about the increase in
impervious surfaces and its impact on
receiving waters
The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive stormwater
management plan as described in Section 7.5 of the ESR.
Stormwater management measures will treat roadway run off
to improve water quality prior to discharging the water into the
receiving creeks. The coldwater, brook trout community in
Byersville Creek is acknowledged. All subsequent site
characterization and impact assessment was based on
coldwater habitat conditions supporting or contributing a
brook trout community, thus triggering the highest level of
habitat protection criteria.
Concerned about maintenance of the
brook trout population
Section 8 of the ESR includes a discussion on potential for
thermal effects on Byersville Creek and measures to mitigate
impacts to the water temperature entering the receiving
watercourse. As per Section 9, ID#6 of the ESR, monitoring
programs will be undertaken by the City at least one year
prior to site alteration to assess needs for dewatering,
potential impacts to fish communities and fish habitat, and to
plan mitigation measures where necessary. Should impacts
be observed after mitigation measures have been
implemented, solutions will be determined at that time
utilizing the data collected during the monitoring programs.
Concerned for the protection of white
pine heritage trees in the valley
As per the commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the
ESR, consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with
fewer piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce
the area of vegetation removal required in the park. It is
further noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated
and compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate
construction Best Management Practices that would be
carried out in consultation with review agencies, and
implementing a vegetation restoration plan following
construction. Innovative construction techniques, including
building centre spans of the bridge completely from above
can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the
commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the
Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent
possible.
With respect to root disturbance, as per Section 8.2.1.1 of the

May 2, 2014 10
Issue Response
ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and
immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected
through installation of fencing at an appropriate distance
determined by a qualified professional. In typical practice,
trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require
a greater protected root zone. As an example and through
discussion with our Certified Arborist at AECOM, white pine
trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm will require a
root protection zone of 3m from the trunk, totaling a 6m
diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction disturbance,
however hemlock species are less so, which would result in a
larger protection zone compared to white pine. These types
of details will be gathered during detailed design to ensure
those trees that are identified to be preserved, will remain
healthy over the long-term.
Concerned with the impacts of salt spray
to the natural environment
With respect to salt disturbance, as described in Section 8.1.1
of the ESR, runoff from the new bridge across Jackson Park
will be directed to the Stormwater Management Pond via
insulated storm sewers installed on the bridge, to reduce
pollutant loading and sodium from road salt
applications. The cross section of the new bridge also
includes a barrier wall adjacent to the travelled lanes and
wide sidewalks across the bridge as well. This additional
width and second barrier wall treatment will reduce the extent
of snow and road spray that can intrude into the valley.
As per Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that to
guide future design work on the new bridge, a series of
Bridge Design Principles have been established and
include: design bridge to promote openness and unimpeded
access through spans in the valley, maintain bridge height
above the Valley to minimize intrusion and promote
vegetation growth. Salt spray would impede vegetation
growth, so as part of this Bridge Design Principle, an analysis
of the potential for salt spray into the forest communities
below the bridge will be conducted and where appropriate,
input to the overall bridge design and mitigation will be
determined during detailed design.
Concerned with effects to specialized
geological features in Jackson Creek
(i.e.,limestone bedrock creek bed).
As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted
that the bridge design concept consists of a 23 m high bridge
with a span of 367 m across the valley of Jackson Park. As
part of the bridge design principles developed for this project,
placement of the piers will be designed to avoid sensitive
features such as Jackson Creek and the associated creek
bed.
Concerned about the effects to wildlife
habitat
AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of
Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail
the impact assessment for all of the alternative alignments.
An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is not expected
to have measurable impact on connectivity for wildlife
functions. The limited footprint of the bridge abutments at the
valley wall and the piers in the valley should not be expected
to impede movement of small or large vertebrates along the

May 2, 2014 11
Issue Response
valley given the height of the proposed bridge above the
valley floor ranges up to 23m. The span between the piers
would leave broad areas relatively undisturbed and again
would not be expected to impede the movement of small or
large vertebrates along the valley. Consequently habitat
fragmentation impacts should be expected to be nominal or
minimal.
Restoration planting associated with the construction of the
proposed bridge would be focused on the immediate
disturbance areas associated with the bridge abutments,
piers and construction access routes. Though no long term,
valley-wide habitat connectivity impacts are expected as a
result of the installation of the proposed bridge the
recommended plantings would help restore the short term
functions.
Kawartha Natural Connected was not
considered.
Section 3.4 and Appendix A of the NHFAS located within
Appendix F of the ESR notes the Kawarthas Naturally
Connected project, which identified a regional natural
heritage system (NHS). This study was considered during
the evaluation of alternatives.
Significance of natural heritage features
within the City of Peterborough was not
recognized.
The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural
Areas and Corridors that provide linkages between Natural
Heritage Features as referred to in the current Provincial
Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of the Official
Plan. The Citys Official Plan designates Natural Areas and
Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route,
however these lands are protected and do not include the
Parkway Corridor lands which are designated as a
transportation corridor. The Official Plan also provides
policies that allow for transportation facilities within a Natural
Area where supported by an Environmental Study, such as
this Environmental Assessment. This study has maintained
the protection of adjacent natural areas,
As per the policies set forth in the Provincial Policy Statement
efficient transportation are to be planned to support
development.
2.2 Insufficient Inventory, Impacts Analysis, and Mitigation Measures
Fish sampling equipment used as part of
the assessment was unsuitable for
catching eggs or fry
The in-water fisheries investigations were completed in
accordance with established standards developed by MNR. It
is not appropriate to capture eggs or fry at any time. Those
are the most sensitive life stages for all fish species.
Disturbance of eggs and fry results in extensive mortality.
The absence of egg or fry collection did not detract from the
coldwater, brook trout characterization of the Byersville Creek
system. Sucker and perch may well be active in the
referenced reach. Instream construction timing guidelines
per MNR policy would protect those functions and any
modifications to stream habitat would necessarily maintain or
enhance those functions.
Only one day devoted to the brook trout As per Section 5.7 of the NHFAS report, The most sensitive
habitat within the study area is that of Byersville Creek which

May 2, 2014 12
Issue Response
spawning survey is a coldwater system and provides input to downstream
reaches which are known to support Brook Trout. As such,
the coldwater, brook trout community in Byersville Creek was
acknowledged and all subsequent site characterization and
impact assessment was based on coldwater habitat
conditions supporting or contributing to a brook trout
community, thus triggering the highest level of habitat
protection criteria. Since the highest level of habitat
protection has been used in the assessment, additional site
surveys or spawning surveys would not change the approach
to mitigation.
Concerned that when ten young fish
were caught in Jackson Park, near the
proposed bridge, they were not identified
As documented in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, no fish surveys /
electrofishing were conducted for Jackson Creek as part of
this Class EA Study. Aquatic species found in Jackson Creek
were identified through fish surveys conducted by EcoTec
Environmental Consultants in 2005 and through MNR records
from 2005. During these previous studies, approximately 10
young of the year fish were observed but not caught so
species could not be confirmed. The proposed design of the
new bridge will span across Jackson Creek and will not
involve any in water work or any impacts to fish or fish habitat
in this watercourse.
Mitigation measures proposed are
inadequate and/or weak in their design
for natural heritage
Mitigation measures have been defined on the basis of the
preliminary design and impact assessment work undertaken
as part of this EA Study. During detailed design, a more
focused inventory and assessment will be undertaken to
guide the selection of the preferred method for the valley
crossing and the identification of detailed mitigation measures
to address identified impacts during and post construction.
Based on extensive experience with valley crossings
throughout Ontario, the success of typical mitigation
measures leads to a conclusion that the proposed Jackson
Creek crossing, in design and construction methods, can be
managed such that ecological functions are maintained.
The field assessment of Species at Risk
is simply an analysis of habitat.
To determine the presence/absence of Species at Risk within
a given area cannot be completed without an analysis of
habitat. An analysis of habitat effectively screens SAR that
are known for a region or municipality and targets field
surveys to those species that are most likely to occur within
an area according to what habitat is available.
As described in Section 5.1 of the NHFAS, and according to
MNR, there are 15 SAR known to occur in proximity to the
study area. Through the habitat assessment, 6 of these 15
have suitable habitat within the immediate limits of the
alternative alignments and include: Butternut (Endangered),
Barn Swallow (Threatened), Blandings Turtle (Threatened),
Milksnake (Special Concern), Northern Map Turtle (Special
Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern). Butternut
prefers wooded areas with open canopies as it is shade
intolerant, the turtle species require waterbodies, Barn
Swallow typically utilizes bridge structures to build their nests
and Milksnake has a wide range of habitat

May 2, 2014 13
Issue Response
preferences. More detail concerning the habitat preferences
of these SAR is presented in Appendix I of the
NHFAS. During detailed design, and in consultation with
MNR, the requirement for field surveys will be determined for
these species and any that may have been added to the
Endangered or Threatened list within the Endangered
Species Act during the time between the completion of the
EA and the commencement of detailed design. These
surveys are deferred to detailed design so that the most up-
to-date data will be available for incorporation into the design.
Gaps in collection of birds data. As described in Section 3 of the NHFAS report, the Atlas of
Breeding Birds in Ontario was reviewed as part of the
background review of existing information for the study area.
Appendix B of the NHFAS includes a list of birds identified
within the study area, as noted in the Ontario Breeding Bird
Atlas.
Field work carried out at as part of this study was completed
to supplement the findings of the background information. As
noted in Section 4.7.2 of the NHFAS report, a number of bird
species were identified at the time of the terrestrial field work,
carried out between August 27 and August 30, 2012, and on
November 30, 2012. In addition, potential habitat for bird
species was identified as part of the NHFAS.
Additional bird investigations will be conducted during
detailed design to ensure the most recent data is available to
inform the design.
Understory and the canopy of forested
areas were not fully inventoried.
As described in Section 4.2 of the NHFAS, a botanical survey
was conducted by completing transects through vegetation
communities. Along each transect, observations were made
of all canopy layers in the vegetated area. All species
observed were recorded. Photographs and samples were
taken of species that could not be identified in the field to be
identified in an office setting. A complete list of plants
observed in each community type is included as Appendix F
of the NHFAS.
The report contributes very little new
information on natural features, relies on
limited and outdated pre-existing
information and does not present a
fulsome inventory.

The NHFAS report included in Appendix F of the ESR utilizes
a combination of background review and fieldwork to
determine the existing natural heritage conditions within the
study area for the EA. The background review included
review of existing documents and consultation with the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Otonabee
Region Conservation Authority (ORCA). MNR identified to
the project team potential Species at Risk and their intent to
update the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland
Evaluation file. ORCA confirmed the presence/absence of
significant natural features, confirmed the thermal status of
creek systems and indicated the presence of several
unevaluated wetlands along the Jackson Creek corridor and
upper reaches of Bears Creek. This base of information is
what determined the field program where additional
information was needed.

May 2, 2014 14
Issue Response
The field program conducted the following:
i) delineated all natural vegetation communities within
proximity to the alternative alignments according to
MNRs Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
protocols;

ii) conducted aquatic habitat assessments of creek
systems including spawning and electrofishing
surveys utilizing the MNR, Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol (2010);

iii) evaluated several unevaluated wetlands within the
study area according to the MNRs Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System;

iv) evaluated the woodland areas according to
provincial guidelines; and

v) undertook an assessment of habitat to determine
potential presence of significant wildlife habitat and
habitat for Species at Risk, also according to MNRs
protocols.
This field program provided the rationale to identify additional
Provincially Significant Wetland that is now complexed with
the Jackson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (see
Appendix H of the NHFAS), nine new significant woodlands
and one significant valleyland. Candidate areas for
significant wildlife habitat and Species at Risk habitat were
also identified. Surveys to confirm the presence/absence of
these habitat areas are typically deferred to detailed design
once a preferred solution is selected.
2.3. Project has Significant Cultural and Social Environment Impacts
Concerned about the significant cultural
heritage impacts the recommended
bridge will have on Jackson Park;
measures proposed to mitigate the
identified cultural heritage impacts of the
bridge in Jackson Park are not sufficient
As described in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, Jackson Park has
been identified as a significant cultural heritage landscape
feature. The bridge will become a prominent, new structure
within the valley, and become a backdrop against which park
features will be viewed and a significant feature in the view
upstream from the park. As such, a series of detailed design
commitments are being proposed to ensure that the new
structure is sympathetic to both the natural and cultural
heritage of Jackson Park (please refer to Section 9 of the
ESR), including maintaining and promoting openness within
the park and maintaining a bridge height above the valley to
minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth.
Unclear whether bridge costs
documented in ESR account for more
expensive bridge design per mitigation
measures
The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million based on
2013 unit prices. As noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback
received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor
Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop
related bridge design principles to govern future detailed
design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce
the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail
areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas

May 2, 2014 15
Issue Response
disturbed during construction, investigate low impact
construction techniques, etc. As a result, an additional
contingency of $5.8M was added to reflect the commitment to
investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson
Park bridge structure (i.e., a four span bridge with 3 sets of
piers).
Given the height of the recommended
bridge, new trees planted as part of the
mitigation measures recommended for
this project will not grow sufficiently tall
and full to provide reasonable screening,
with the exception of the bottom of the
bridge piers; concerned that since the
number and location of piers will not be
known until detailed design, it is not
feasible to plant trees now to mitigate
future impacts
As described in Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, the bridge
design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a span of
367m across the valley of Jackson Park. To guide future
design work on the new bridge, a series of Bridge Design
Principles have been established and include: design bridge
to promote openness and unimpeded access through spans
in the valley, maintain bridge height above the Valley to
minimize intrusion and promote vegetation growth. As
described in 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, trees and shrubs identified
for preservation within and immediately adjacent to
construction zones will be protected, as determined by a
qualified professional. Additional details will be gathered
during detailed design to ensure those trees that are
identified to be preserved, will remain healthy over the long-
term.
Upon approval of the Class EA, the City would be a position
to initiate detailed design to finalize the pier locations and
allow for advance tree planting to occur prior to construction.
While the exact location of the bridge piers is not known at
this time, the preferred alignment of the bridge would guide
advanced tree planting activities for the purpose of screening
views of the bridge from the valley. Additional trees would be
planted for the purpose of screening the piers, once bridge
pier locations are determined.
There are a number of fast-growing tree species options that
could be considered as part of this mitigation treatment,
including the dominant Eastern White Pine. Other deciduous
tree species that are relatively fast-growing and may be
considered include, but are not limited to, Aspens, Poplars
and Red Maples.
Concerned that the concept of a
management plan for Jackson Park has
been suggested in the past and has not
been acted upon; plantings
recommended as part of the 2008
Medical Drive Class EA have still not
been completed
The Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken as part of this
Class EA for the Jackson Park area provides the context and
framework for the City to use in addressing the potential
effects associated with a new bridge crossing. This HIA can
also provide input to an overall Management Plan for the
Park itself, which is much broader than the bridge crossing
location.
As per Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, the City will prepare a
landscaping plan as part of the Detailed Design that
addresses landscaping requirements for the new corridor and
provides landscaping treatments along the recently
constructed segments of Medical Drive. Based on the
comments received during the Class EA, the City has agreed
to implement landscaping treatments along Medical Drive in
conjunction with the Stage 1 implementation work.
In addition, the City recently implemented additional

May 2, 2014 16
Issue Response
landscaping around the stormwater ponds in the area and
further plantings are planned to be implemented this year.
Cultural heritage assessments carried
out as part of this project were not
undertaken until after the selection of the
preferred alternative and did not inform
the selection of the preferred alternative
Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part
of this study (i.e., Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment,
Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage
Landscape Assessment). The assessment of the Alternative
Solutions and Network Alternatives was completed in
consideration of the potential to impact the cultural heritage
environment (i.e., Effect on built heritage resources and
cultural heritage features and landscapes). The Cultural
Heritage Overview Evaluation provided a preliminary review
of built heritage resources within each of the Network
Alternatives which assisted in informing the evaluations.
The Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment and the
Heritage Impact Assessment were undertaken in response to
comments received from the Arts, Cultural and Heritage
Advisory Committee to identify the cultural heritage resources
within the recommended alternative and provide measures to
mitigate the potential impacts of the project to the identified
resources. The HIA confirmed the findings of the evaluation
of Alternative Solutions and Network Alternatives.
Archaeological studies indicate that
additional studies are needed,
particularly in Jackson Park and several
other areas of high archaeological
potential
The findings of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological
Assessments (AA) are provided in Appendix G of the ESR.
As noted in Section 8.4.1 of the ESR, the findings of the
Stage 2 AA activities recommended Stage 3 AA mitigation
within 3 locations of the Parkway corridor, including in the
vicinity of Jackson Park, north of Parkhill Road and south of
Jackson Creek. This location of the identified area is specific
in nature, and was noted to be associated with a 19
th
century
domestic structure and a number of domestic and structural
artifacts. As per Detailed Design Commitments #43 and #46,
outlined in Section 9 of the ESR, Stage 3 AA will be
completed in these areas. In addition, all First Nations
communities and/or organizations contacted throughout the
course of this study will be contacted immediately should any
Aboriginal heritage, remains or significant Aboriginal artifacts
be uncovered. It should be further noted that as per the
requirements of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,
no ground disturbing activities can proceed until MTCS has
reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports
the recommendations included in the AA reports.
Concerned that Lee Pioneer Cemetery
may constrain the design of the road,
thereby rerouting the trail.
The trail has been incorporated into the design of the
Parkway throughout the study corridor. In response to
comments received during the study, additional geophysical
investigations were undertaken to confirm the limits of the
Lee Pioneer Cemetery. The Parkway design in the vicinity of
the Lee Pioneer cemetery site preserves the cemetery
boundaries. The Lee Pioneer cemetery site will be located to
the south of the roadway and the multi-use trail. The
cemetery will not be disturbed by construction and as part of
the work, new fencing will be provided around the cemetery
and a recognition plaque has been proposed to be provided

May 2, 2014 17
Issue Response
by the trail.
Concerned about the social impacts of
the project on Jackson Park and trail
users
As detailed in Section 6.4.6 of the ESR, the Jackson Park
Bridge will be located approximately 220 m north of the north
end of the pond area, and almost 400 m north of the prime
activity areas (picnic area, playground) at the south end of the
pond near the Pagoda Bridge. The bridge will span across
the TransCanada Trail, the creek and many of the informal
trails through the wooded area. Thus, all of these existing
uses within the park will be retained.
The bridge may be visible from the pond area to the south,
although this could be mitigated over time through new
vegetative plantings. Given the distance from the bridge to
the pond activity areas, noise from the bridge would be no
worse than existing noise from the Parkhill Road Bridge at the
south end of the Park which is closer than the proposed
bridge to the pond area. The new bridge would be visible
from the TransCanada trail and users would hear the traffic
noise from the bridge as they approach and pass under the
structure. The extent of noise impact could be mitigated
through the use of low noise pavement designs and through
careful design of the structure to minimize expansion joints on
the structure which can create noise as vehicles drive over
them.
The ESR recognizes the change in the recreational
experience for users in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. It is
noted that the TransCanada trail through Jackson Park
provides 4.5 km of uninterrupted trail along Jackson Creek,
running from Parkhill Road to the at-grade trail crossing of
Ackison Road. The proposed new bridge crossing will not
interrupt this trail but will span across the trail, similar to the
existing Parkhill Road bridge. In terms of the secluded trail
environment, there will be 3.9 km of uninterrupted trail
remaining between the new bridge and Ackison Road, which
represents approximately 87% of the original trail within the
valley.
Impacts to Jackson Park will be minimized to the extent
possible through bridge design and mitigation measures
outlined in Section 7.1.1 of the ESR, including a series of
bridge design principles that were developed to guide future
design work, including efforts to reduce the number of piers
and/or utilize non-invasive construction techniques.
Concerned about the potential for an
increase in the concentration of
particulate and air temperatures, in
association with the loss of trees and/or
shrubs along the corridor
The results of air modelling for the preferred corridor were
compared to current standards and guidelines for air
contaminants of CO, NOx, NO2, SO2, PM and VOCs.
Greater increases of these contaminants are anticipated in
close proximity to the preferred corridor due to the new road
and higher traffic volumes.
The results of the air assessment modelling indicated that the
contaminants analyzed were well below their respective
standard, guideline or interim reference level in the vicinity of
all intersections within the preferred corridor, with the
exception of benzene, which exceeds the applicable

May 2, 2014 18
Issue Response
guideline. However, benzene is also noted to exceed the
guideline in the ambient condition.
The air quality assessment also considered potential changes
on a regional basis (i.e., within the City of Peterborough) and
found that the overall reduction in total vehicle kilometers
travelled and the reduced traffic on other roadways in the City
resulted in an overall reduction in airborne emissions as a
result of implementation of the preferred solution relative to
the no build case. As described in Sections 8 and 9 of the
ESR, a landscape plan, including enhanced vegetation,
vegetative screening, tree replacement, and enhanced
landscaping, will be developed during Detailed Design to
mitigate potential effects on the natural and social
environments, including loss of vegetation along the corridor.
Concerned about the loss of greenspace
in association with the Parkway Trail
The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor
in the City`s Official Plan and is not designated as
greenspace. In response to public concerns about the
change in use of the lands within the Parkway corridor these
lands were also included in the assessment of impacts to and
the loss of greenspace as part of the assessment and
evaluation of alternatives (refer to Chapter 6 of the ESR).
Further, as noted in Section 6.6, a number of comments were
received from members of the public following PIC #3 in
relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this
EA study, and the lack of value attributed to the loss of
greenspace (as well as the lack of consideration of impacts to
property values for homes that back onto the corridor). As
such, a sensitivity analysis was completed as part of the
benefit-cost analysis in consideration of the initial values of
natural features provided in the 2009 MNR publication
entitled, Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern
Ontario. The findings of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated
that the inclusion of these values would not materially change
the evaluation of alternatives completed as part of this study.
A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report and associated
sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix M of the ESR.
3. Need is Not Demonstrated
Need for the project is based on a
modelled forecast of 18 years
As per Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future population
and employment growth in the City are provided in Places to
Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
(Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006. Under the
Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are required to
utilize these forecasts for planning purposes and accordingly
the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in the City
Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based
on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow
from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).
The recently approved Amendment 2 to the Provincial Growth
Plan has even higher growth forecasts for the City of
Peterborough with the population expected to exceed
100,000 people by 2031. The Official Plan update will reflect

May 2, 2014 19
Issue Response
these updated forecasts. If the recently approved higher
growth forecasts are realized, it is conceivable that all of the
north end growth areas may be built out by 2031.
All municipalities utilize growth forecasts as the foundation for
future planning including land use and infrastructure planning.
This approach is consistent with the Provincial Growth Plan
and the Provincial Policy Statement. The City, through
regular 5 year updates to their Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, will also review prevailing travel patterns and trends,
update their growth forecasts, and update the assessment of
transportation policies and infrastructure needs and priorities.
Any portions of the Parkway Corridor or other projects
recommended in the current CTPU that have not been
implemented will be included in any review.
Need for the Parkway has not been
sufficiently demonstrated in the ESR
The traffic issues identified in the ESR represent a mix of
current deficiencies and forecasts of future conditions that
can be expected to occur as growth occurs. The assessment
of existing and future network capacity and intersection
capacity deficiencies and safety concerns in the Study Area
are fully documented in Chapter 3 of the ESR.
As noted in Chapter 3 of the ESR, signs of growing
congestion are beginning to appear in many portions of the
road network in Peterborough today. The ESR has
documented routine traffic congestion on Parkhill Road at
Fairbairn Street, and at Water Street during both the AM and
PM peak periods that already exceed the road network
performance targets established in the Official Plan and result
in long queues of vehicles during both peak periods. This is
occurring today without the estimated 15,000 new residents
forecast to live in planned development areas in the north
end of the City by 2031 - the majority of whom will continue
to drive and will pass through these very road segments on
their daily travels. Section 3.3.2 of the ESR has also
demonstrated that increased traffic at many of the key
intersections in the study area is already resulting in collision
patterns that can be linked to growing levels of congestion.
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, travel demand
forecasts prepared as part of this EA study demonstrated that
with the population growth planned for the City, many of the
road segments in the study area will be at or over capacity.
An increase in congestion in a number of areas is expected
as illustrated in Figure 3-8 in the ESR, and would result in
increased travel delays and increased out of way travel as
drivers use alternate routes to avoid congestion. The
increased traffic demand is also forecast to increase
congestion and delays at the major intersections within the
study area, as discussed in section 3.3.1 of the ESR. Many
of the key intersections noted in the assessment are over
capacity, resulting in long queues of traffic, particularly for
many left turn movements. Not only does this create
additional delays for motorists, but it increases the number of
vehicle conflicts and the risk of collisions as frustrated drivers

May 2, 2014 20
Issue Response
take risks to avoid extensive delays.
As required in the Provincial Growth Plan and the Provincial
Policy Statement, municipalities are required to develop
infrastructure plans to accommodate forecasts of future
growth to guide decision making and planning. The City has
developed a transportation model which is calibrated to
forecast existing conditions prior to being used to forecast
future transportation conditions associated with planned
growth and infrastructure improvements. This model was
developed as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update (CTPU), the Citys long range transportation
plan that examined system-wide transportation policies and
improvements using a comprehensive public process in
accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for Master
Plans.
An excerpt from the transportation model development and
calibration portion of the CTPU report is included in Appendix
P of the ESR and a summary of the travel capacity analysis
carried out as part of this EA study is included in Appendix Q
of the ESR.
The recommended road network improvements in this Class
EA study will be implemented in phases as growth occurs,
road network deficiencies are realized, and as the
municipality can afford to do so. This phased approach
provides an infrastructure plan to accommodate planned
growth, and can be adjusted or amended through subsequent
updates to the CTPU in the event that there are changes to
the growth forecasts or other key assumptions used in the
2012 CTPU or this ESR.
Study does not consider economic trends
including aging population, rising fuel
prices, increasing urbanization,
improving travel options, increasing
health and environmental concerns and
changing travel and housing location
preferences
As described in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was
undertaken during this EA to consider various factors and
how they might impact the need for the project including:
Implications of aging population were specifically
addressed in response to comments received during
the study and the review (documented in Section 3.2)
found that the base travel demand forecasts are in
line with these updated demand estimates.
Implications of fuel cost increases and the role of
non-auto based travel (transit / walking / cycling).
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
assessed the potential impacts in travel demand
based on increased fuel costs and recommended no
adjustment be made to the base travel demand
forecasts. It is expected that increased fuel costs
and public attitudes towards non-auto travel will play
a large role in encouraging the shifts in demand from
auto modes of travel to transit and other non-
motorized travel modes that the CTPU relies upon.
Implications of future land use plans and growth
beyond 2031 were assessed during the study in
response to comments received including the
implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area,

May 2, 2014 21
Issue Response
as documented in Section 6.4.5.
A phasing plan for implementing the improvements
was developed to link infrastructure to demonstrated
needs and allow for implementation to be accelerated
or delayed in response to observed growth, which
Questioned validity of the model used to
predict future traffic growth in the study
area and to accurately model traffic
congestion
Traffic demand modelling work is an estimate which is based
on industry standard techniques, the best information
available at the time, and assumptions about future land use
and demographic patterns and public attitudes about how
residents may choose to travel in the future. The travel
demand model is designed and calibrated to industry
standard levels of accuracy, prior to being used to forecast
future demands. As a result of the various assumptions used
about future conditions, actual traffic demands could be
higher or lower than the forecasting results presented in the
study. The methodology applied as part of the traffic demand
modelling work is typical for transportation planning
exercises, whether an Individual EA or a Class EA study is
being undertaken.
However, this is true of any forecast whether it be
transportation planning, school needs planning, or retirement
planning. Any forecast relies on assumptions about future
conditions. In the case of the forecasts used in this Class EA
study, the forecast is based on the best estimate of what the
City expects to occur and has planned for as a result of the
policies established in the City Official Plan, Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update and the Provincial Growth Plan.
Only vague discussions of traffic
problems at various intersections were
presented in the ESR
Section 3.3.1 of the ESR provided a detailed description of
existing and future capacity concerns and Section 3.3.2
provides a detailed assessment of collision problems at these
same intersections. Supporting detail capacity analysis
worksheets with additional detail are also provided in
Appendix Q of the ESR.
ESR does not consider Transportation
Demand Management alternatives,
beyond the background levels
Alternative modes of transportation were identified and
evaluated as documented in Section 5 of the ESR and
described in preceding sections of this table. The policy
directions and TDM program recommended in the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update go well beyond
current background levels.
The Citys strategy to manage the growth in auto trips
includes an aggressive TDM program with recommendations
for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an
extensive set of policies to support active transportation,
including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an
over the next 20 years, the Citys 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto
travel will continue to grow even if the share of peak period

May 2, 2014 22
Issue Response
trips made by auto decrease from 87% today to 83% by
2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road
network improvements that include improvements in portions
of the Parkway Corridor.
Given the size of the City and a review of mode shares in
other comparable communities, the CTPU concluded that the
transit mode share targets adopted for Peterborough are
aggressive yet feasible, and encouraging additional trips to
use alternate modes was not considered to be feasible or
realistic. Therefore the deficiencies noted in Chapter 3 of the
ESR would not be addressed by the Non-Auto Based
Improvements alternative. As a result, the same potential for
adverse implications noted above in the assessment of the
Do Nothing alternative would also exist for the Non-Auto
Based Improvements alternative.
As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts
assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per
CTPU) was assumed to occur as part of establishing need. In
addition, the ability to support transit was considered as part
of the route evaluation and selection. In addition, measures
were included in the preliminary design, including transit stop
locations, laybys, and intersection design treatments (please
refer to the Preliminary Design drawings included as part of
Chapter 7 of the ESR).
Concerned with the safety at
intersections, not related to the Parkway
intersections that are not covered by the
ESR, and feel that these would be better
served by alternatives that would reduce
the number and severity of collisions
Not applicable to this project. Improvements to intersections
and/or other roadways not related to the Parkway Corridor
will be explored as part of separate studies. The City is
planning to undertake a City-wide traffic operations study in
2014/2015 to examine short term improvement needs to
address operational and safety concerns at other
intersections across the City. Funding for this project was
included in the 2014 Capital Budget (reference 5-2.07) and
the project was recommended as part of the 2012
Other capital road projects have been
pushed back/put on hold because of the
Parkway project
The 2014 capital budget includes a number of improvements
to other roadways in the City. The implementation timing of
the Parkway improvements as recommended in the ESR
suggests that the proposed improvements should be
implemented over the next 20 years in response to actual
demands and the priorities of City Council.
The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that a
significant number of other planned projects in the 2012
CPTU could be deferred beyond 2031 due to the new
capacity provided in the Parkway Corridor. That said, City-
wide improvements are planned for implementation per the
approved Capital Budget. Further, project priorities will
continue to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for
implementation by Council through the annual budget
process.
EA study was limited to a study of the
Parkway Corridor given that it was
The City of Peterborough just recently completed an update
to their city-wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPU)

May 2, 2014 23
Issue Response
identified in the CTPU as a possible
solution, and did not address the overall
transportation system
in 2012, which examined the overall transportation needs of
the City for the next 20 years. This study was completed in
accordance with the Master Planning process framework
provided in the Municipal Class EA document, included
extensive public consultation, and was approved through
public meetings of City Council. Transportation Master Plans
are intended to determine broader system-wide transportation
policies and infrastructure needs on a more holistic basis to
provide the policy context for subsequent Class EA studies.
As such, the 2012 CTPU was intended to determine city-wide
transportation improvements to address long term growth
needs and identified a number of strategies, policies and
projects that would be required by 2031. The current
Parkway Corridor EA study is implementing two of the above
noted recommendations presented in that study. The intent
and primary purpose of this Class EA study was to determine
how best to implement the recommendations of the
Transportation Plan and satisfy the problem statement
established for the project.
Difficult to predict traffic flows 18 years
into the future
As discussed in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was
non-auto based travel (transit / walking / cycling)
beyond 2031
Assessment of phasing plan for improvements, to link
infrastructure to demonstrated needs
Development of monitoring and implementation
recommendations
The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is
prior to the growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and
infrastructure to support growth can be made in a coordinated
fashion. The lack of a clear decision on the transportation
infrastructure needed to support growth in the North End of
the City has impacted the ability of the municipality to plan for
the north end growth in an integrated fashion, and proposed
Secondary Plans for the Carnegie, Chemong and Lily Lake
Planning Areas were delayed due to concerns about
unresolved transportation issues. Completion of the 2012
CTPU and this Class EA study provide the transportation
certainty to allow the City to proceed with planning for growth
in these planned growth areas.
Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or
forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important
to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the
growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City
Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or
portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning
to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The

May 2, 2014 24
Issue Response
review may include assessing projects that have not been
completed yet in light of updated information on travel
patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the
approach the City has taken on previous Transportation
Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur
throughout the province.
An implementation phasing plan for the recommended
improvements, is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.11, of the
Environmental Study Report. The proposed timing for
implementation considered the longer term growth needs in
the City and is based on the existing and anticipated growth
patterns in the City, both in terms of volume increases and
distribution of this growth.
4. Study is based on Unreliable Assumptions and Traffic Modelling
Population predictions are overly
optimistic and inaccurate
As described in Section 3 of the ESR, the Citys actual
population growth has been consistent with the provincial
forecasts since the original release of the Growth Plan in
2006, with the population and employment growth actually
underestimated by 4% compared to actual population and
employment figures. Since commencement of the study the
Province approved Amendment 2 to the Growth Plan, which
has even higher growth forecasts for the City of
Peterborough, with population expected to reach 115,000
people by 2041. As such, this EA study is based on the
original 2006 forecasts that are lower than recent forecasts
the province has directed municipalities to use in their
planning.
Study uses peak traffic flow rates as the
basis of determining traffic handling
need; study did not clearly state what
portion of each day traffic capacity will be
exceeded
The City has developed policies within the Official Plan and
the 2012 TMP that guide decision making for transportation
investments. As per the Official Plan policies and the 2012
TMP, a level of service D during peak periods is considered
the maximum acceptable performance target, representing
90% of the planning capacity of the road.
As described in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the updated
transportation model developed for use as part of the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update was designed
and calibrated to forecast PM peak hour trip making in the
City and surrounding areas on a typical weekday. Travel
demand forecasts prepared as part of this EA study
demonstrated that with the population growth planned for the
City, many of the road segments in the study area will be at
or over capacity during peak periods.
Increasing portion of the population will
not place a burden on the transportation
network during peak hours
The 2012 CTPU estimated 22% growth in internal traffic from
2006 to 2031. The CTPU assessed trip making patterns due
to aging and suggested that travel demands could be
overstated by up to 5% but did not recommend any changes
to travel demands due to the uncertainty in this initial
assessment.
AECOM undertook a more detailed assessment of trip
making patterns by age category and trip purpose using data
from the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Using this

May 2, 2014 25
Issue Response
data, combined with the estimated age profile for
Peterborough in 2031, PM peak hour growth is estimated at
20%. This assumes no significant increase in work trip
making for those over age 55, although trends suggest that
people may end up working longer in the future. Mid-day trip
making is expected to grow by over 23%. Based on this
more detailed assessment, it was concluded that the travel
demand forecasts from the CTPU are in line with these
estimates (see Section 3.2 of the ESR).
Study made no comparison to more
recent transportation data than the 2006
Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS)
The 2006 TTS was the most recent data available at the time
of the study. The 2011 TTS data was not released until
December 2013.
Modelling methods used in this study are
biased; modelling methods used in the
study did not model driver behaviour
accurately, and used a simplistic model
to predict driver behaviour
The modelling completed as part of this study was completed
in accordance with industry standard approaches. The model
was calibrated and validated for base year conditions and
reflects changing trip making patterns for future conditions.
Results of this study differ from previous
studies
The 2012 City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
(CTPU) completed by Morrison Hershfield identified a number
of road network capacity deficiencies by 2031, including the
Otonabee River crossings north of Lansdowne Street,
Fairbairn Street, Towerhill Road, portions of Chemong Road,
Parkhill Road, and other roads.
This current Class EA study is undertaking the planning for
the Parkway Corridor improvements recommended as part of
the approved 2012 CTPU and the Hospital Access Road EA
Addendum. The 2012 CTPU looked at city-wide
transportation improvements to address long term growth
needs and identified the widening of Fairbairn Street along
with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway Corridor as
two of a number of projects that would be required by 2031.
The current project is implementing the above noted
recommendations presented in that study.
There have been a number of studies which have assessed
the need for and most appropriate transportation
improvements to address future travel demands in the study
area and these past studies have consistently recommended
the Parkway Corridor as the preferred solution. These
studies include the 1990 Transportation Plan, the 2002
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, the West Side
Corridor Study (2003), and the 2012 Comprehensive
The Cost-Benefit Assessment included in Appendix M of the
ESR also provides a review of the differences between the
previous Cost Benefit study for the Parkway Corridor
undertaken by Morrison-Hershfield in 2003 and the more
recent results presented in this ESR.
5. Not a Full Consideration of Alternatives
Improve transit; adopt higher transit
mode share target of 6%
The 2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
assessed City wide strategies to improve transit use in the

May 2, 2014 26
Issue Response
City and concluded that the City could realistically increase
the share of peak hour trips made by transit from 4% today to
6% by 2031. The Transportation Plan report noted that this
increase would represent an increase of 890,000 riders per
year or a 28% increase in transit use from 2011. The
Transportation Plan estimated the capital costs to purchase
new buses at $5.1 million with additional net operational costs
of $1.4 million annually for increased services. Over the 20
year life of the plan, to 2031, this represents an investment of
$33.1 million. The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City
Council represents a policy decision made by the City to
guide future transportation planning.
The base forecasts used for the current EA study analysis
has assumed that the increased transit use recommended in
the 2012 CTPU would be achieved by 2031, in accordance
with this policy direction.
Targeted TDM programs required;
economic analysis does not account for
full benefits of TDM program or benefits
of more comprehensive TDM programs
Nov 2011. This study is available on the City website.
this program;
operating costs (total $33.1 M) to achieve this target.
The adoption of the 2012 CTPU by City Council represents a
policy decision made by the City to guide future transportation

May 2, 2014 27
Issue Response
planning in this regard.
As described in Section 5.3 of the ESR, four Alternative
Solutions were developed and evaluated to address the
Problem/Opportunity Statement. As per Section 5.4, it was
noted that on its own, widening roads or building new roads
would not support the achievement of higher transit use and
increased walking and cycling that have been incorporated
into the base forecasts and therefore measures to support the
achievement of these mode share targets should be
incorporated into this alternative solution. As a result, a
combination solution including Non-Auto Based
Improvements (as per the TMP), Intersection Improvements
and Widening Roads and/or Adding New Roads was
recommended as the Preferred Alternative Solution to
Does not fully consider effect of induced
traffic
Induced traffic was not included in the modelling and cost-
benefit work for the Parkway Corridor EA Study. A network
wide modelling approach was used, where the same overall
demand for travel was used in the modelling of each
scenario, including the Do Nothing scenario (without the
Parkway Corridor in place). In this approach drivers may
change their route as result of road network improvements
that reduce travel times but no new demand is generated. As
a result of the shift in route choice, higher traffic volumes
would be experienced on portions of the network, however
this would be offset by traffic volume reductions in other
areas of the network. Some of the previous research on
induced traffic has included this diverted traffic in the
calculation of induced traffic.
The issue of induced traffic is complex. In a heavily
congested network (such as the Toronto area) some travelers
choose to defer making trips, some travel outside of peak
periods, and others shift to travel by other modes (such as
transit) to avoid traffic congestion. In these cases, the
addition of road network capacity may improve peak period
auto travel times enough to induce these users to change
their trip making and revert back to travel by auto during the
peak periods. This is the phenomenon examined by most of
the researchers that have studied the issue of induced traffic
in urban areas in the past.
Even these are not necessarily new trips they are just trips

May 2, 2014 28
Issue Response
added to the peak periods instead of other periods of the day
or other travel modes. Generally, a corresponding reduction
in demand would occur in the off peak periods or in the
number of trips made by other modes as a result. The extent
of peak period congestion in Peterborough is not expected to
be so significant by 2031 to suppress trip making or force
drivers to travel outside of peak times to avoid congestion.
Therefore it is not expected that the completion of the
Parkway Corridor would induce any new travel in the City
than is forecast to occur in the Do Nothing scenario.
That being said, there is clear evidence to show that
motorists are already diverting to use other routes to avoid
congestion or delays within the City (i.e. the continued growth
in traffic on University Road and Television Road on the east
side of the City to access new development areas in the north
end of the City). These trips that divert to the Parkway
Corridor have been included in the modelling work for the
project.
The other case where induced traffic can be found is for a
new highway or rail project that links two communities and
reduces travel times between them significantly. In this case
new inter-city travel may be induced, however this is often
traffic that would have traveled within each community or to
other communities prior to the improvement. This would be
similar to the widening of Highway 35/115 which contributed
to increased commuting between the Peterborough Area and
Durham Region, for example. This condition also does not
apply in the context of the Parkway corridor study as the
majority of traffic is internal to the City and the new road
capacity provided does not fundamentally change travel times
between adjacent communities.
EA did not develop a comprehensive
road-centred alternative to the Parkway;
West By-pass route dismissed too early;
other alternative solutions and network
options not seriously considered
As described in Chapter 6 of the ESR, given the size of the
study area and complexity of the project, the study team
divided the study area into the following segments: Jackson
Park; South End; and North End. Network Alternatives were
developed, assessed and evaluated for each of the above-
referenced segments. This enabled the study team to
evaluate the unique qualities of each segment in more detail,
recognizing that for most of the evaluation criteria the impacts
are localized in nature and specific to a particular segment
(i.e. property impacts). For the system-wide performance
evaluation, each of the area based alternatives was modeled
with improvements in the other parts of the study area
included. For example, the system-wide modeling of the
south end alternatives included the new roadway in the
Parkway Corridor (as recommended in the 2012 CTPU).
Similarly, the modeling for the north end alternatives included
the recommended alternative in the south end to ensure that
the system wide performance results for each alternative
were representative. For the assessment of the Jackson
Park Area Alternatives, the recommended alternative for the
north end and south end were used in the modeling
assessment.

May 2, 2014 29
Issue Response
Consideration was given to a West By-Pass route (refer to
Section 6.1.1, pages 6-1 to 6-3, of the ESR), with the findings
presented as part of PIC #1 (please refer to Panel 21,
Appendix D of the ESR). This rationale is also discussed in
Table 2 Summary of Public Comments and Responses,
provided in Appendix D of the PIC #1 Summary Report, and
Table 4 Summary of Public Comments, provided in
Appendix F of the PIC #2 Summary Report. The assessment
concluded that the West By-Pass would not address the
problems and opportunities established for this study, and
therefore did not represent a reasonable alternative as
defined in the Municipal Class EA.
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
not examined as a viable alternative
solution to the problem statement
The City does operate a centrally controlled traffic signal
system that is currently controlling about two-thirds of the
traffic signals in the City. As part of the Citys normal traffic
management policy, the signal timing settings are optimized
to address the prevailing traffic volumes across the various
road corridors in the City. In addition to this, Transit Signal
priority is currently being used to optimize the traffic signal
timing on major transit routes (i.e. Water Street) to give
priority to transit vehicles. These ITS based solutions are
assumed to continue in the future as the City continues to
manage its transportation system.
These types of ITS applications can improve traffic flow and
the quality of service provided but they cannot significantly
increase the functional capacity of a roadway. In most
arterial road applications the functional capacity is governed
by vehicle following distances (1.75 2.0 seconds per
vehicle) and the available green time provided at signalized
intersections. There are currently no proven ITS technologies
that can allow for reduced car following distances while
maintaining vehicle safety. While some ITS technologies
may allow for optimizing the allocation of green time at traffic
signals, this often comes at the expense of other movements,
when more green time is devoted to the major road.
A recent study completed as part of the City of London
Transportation Master Plan (2004) found that traffic signal
optimization (with no geometric improvements) could at best
increase the capacity of a major arterial road by only 5%, and
this improvement would result in increased side road delay as
Inconsistent treatment of alternatives and
application of evaluation criteria means
decision making / planning process not
logical, traceable or replicable; walking
and cycling ought to have been
considered as modes of transportation;
criteria did not sufficiently prioritize
protection and enhancement of important
natural areas, wildlife corridors and green
spaces; double-disturbance not factored
in
As described in Section 4 of the ESR, in accordance with the
EA Process, a systematic evaluation of alternatives was
undertaken for this project in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages, considering both positive and negative effects
on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments
as part of the assessment and evaluation process. The
evaluation process was also based on three important
evaluation objectives: compatibility, traceability and
objectivity. The assessment and evaluation results were
presented for public review and comment at each key study
milestone.

May 2, 2014 30
Issue Response
The evaluation criteria were grouped under the following
seven categories: Technical Considerations; Natural
Environment; Built Environment; Social Environment; Cultural
Environment; Economic Environment; and Financial
Considerations. A reasoned argument evaluation process, as
has been used on numerous Class EAs and Individual EA
studies, was utilized to describe the advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative and the relative net
environmental effects.
Given the extent of public comments about the importance of
greenspace the impacts to natural and greenspace areas
were considered under numerous evaluation categories
including the natural, social and cultural environments
ensuring the natural features as well as the role and function
of the trail and greenspace areas was assessed and explicitly
considered in the evaluation of alternatives.
The Parkway Corridor is defined as a transportation corridor
in the City`s Official Plan not greenspace. The existing
corridor is bisected by a number of road crossings. The
potential impacts on the natural environment in association
with the construction of the Parkway are discussed in Section
8.2 of the ESR and in the specialist reports provided in
Appendix K of the ESR. In summary, concerns regarding
impacts to the natural environment were received from the
public and/or other stakeholders and incorporated into the
evaluation criteria, the route selection, and preliminary
design, with mitigation measures and design guidelines
developed to mitigate potential impacts.
Walking and cycling was considered as a mode of
transportation. As described in Section 5.4, it was noted that
on its own, widening roads or building new roads would not
support the achievement of increased walking and cycling
that have been incorporated into the base forecasts and
therefore measures to support the achievement of these
mode share targets should be incorporated into this
alternative solution. As a result, a combination solution
including Non-Auto Based Improvements, Intersection
Improvements and Widening Roads and/or Adding New
Roads was recommended as the Preferred Alternative
Solution to address the Problem Statement. The
recommended design for the Parkway Corridor includes a
continuous multi-use trail from the south end of the study
area to the north end of the study area, completing a number
of missing links in the sidewalk and trail network in this
portion of the City. In addition, sidewalk and trail crossing
infrastructure is included in the proposed design, including 5
new grade separated trail crossings, 5 pedestrian crossing
signals, and pedestrian crosswalks at all intersections.
The Preferred Plan does account for initial and ultimate
requirements (i.e. road widening from two to four lanes) with
the ultimate road platform established and mitigation
measures placed to accommodate the ultimate road platform
during the initial construction works. Incremental effects of

May 2, 2014 31
Issue Response
the widening to four lanes, associated with the new bridge
across Jackson Park, were included in the assessment of the
Jackson Park Area alternatives as appropriate and as
described in Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.
6. Different Alternative Route Should Be Preferred
Fairbairn Street route likely to perform as
well or better than chosen alternative
with reduced impacts to the natural
environment and comparable or reduced
effects to other aspects of the
environment
As described in Section 6 of the ESR, the Fairbairn Street
alternative was one of the network alternatives generated,
assessed and evaluated for the north end of the study
corridor. On the basis of the comparative evaluation that
considered over 50 criteria, the Parkway Corridor alternative,
which included a bridge over Jackson Park, was the preferred
alternative. With respect to the Transportation Assessment,
the Fairbairn Street widening alternative results in more
congested road segments in the study area than the
proposed bridge crossing and the intersection assessment for
Fairbairn Street / Parkhill Road concluded that the
intersection would operate at or over capacity with the
Fairbairn Street widening, while the new bridge provided
significant capacity relief to this key intersection. The ESR
also noted that the Fairbairn Street widening could not
accommodate the potential future traffic that would be
generated by the full build out of the Lily Lake Planning Area,
while the new bridge crossing provided sufficient capacity for
this additional growth. This assessment is discussed in
Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR.
7. Extensive Agency and Public Concern
2003 referendum demonstrated that the
majority of citizens rejection the Parkway
option
The question posed at the time of the 2003 Referendum was,
Do you approve of the construction of the Parkway extension
at an estimated cost of $22.0 million. It is understood that the
No vote received more votes, however the turnout was only
47.89% of registered voters. The turnout is required to be at
least 50% for the results to be binding under the Provincial
Legislation governing municipal referendums. In addition,
there are a number of reasons why residents may have voted
no:
Some have noted that this referendum was for the
partial parkway concept recommended in the 2002
Transportation Plan, and because this proposal did
not include a bridge across Jackson Park they voted
no;
Others assumed that the expenditure was to be
funded 100% from property taxes and that
construction would proceed immediately and as a
result they felt the City could not afford the
expenditure at that time; and
Others were opposed to the Parkway itself and voted
no to the project.
As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, Council agreed to
put the Parkway Issue on hold to respect the referendum
result, but they did not remove the Parkway corridor from

May 2, 2014 32
Issue Response
the Official Plan. Given the many reasons for residents voting
no at the time, the City included the Parkway Alternative as
one of the alternatives when they completed a review and
update of their Transportation Master Plan. The CTPU looked
at city-wide transportation improvements to address long term
growth needs and examined a series of alternatives to the
Parkway. The CTPU identified the widening of Fairbairn
Street along with a new two lane arterial road in the Parkway
Corridor as two of a number of projects that would be
required by 2031. The CTPU was approved by City Council in
November 2011. The current EA study has carried out the
planning for the Parkway Corridor improvements
recommended as part of the CTPU and the Hospital Access
Road EA Addendum.
Majority of the public opposed to
Preferred Design
As noted in the ESR Executive Summary, various members
of the public have requested that a statistical analysis of
comments be completed with respect to support or opposition
to recommendations and that this be reported to Council. The
EA process is designed to take a full range of environmental
and technical criteria into consideration in the evaluation of
alternative solutions or designs. That process results in
identifying a "technically preferred" alternative. Although
public input is taken into consideration during the EA process
and documented as part of the study it does not change the
"technical" advantages and disadvantages of the preferred
plan or the outcome of the evaluation, regardless of how
many people are for or against the "preferred plan".
Accordingly, trying to quantify support or opposition based on
numbers is inappropriate for the Class EA process.
Public feedback did not have any impact
during the process
The study included an extensive public consultation program
as detailed in Chapter 2 of the ESR.
process. Comments received from the public are included in
Appendix D of the ESR. In addition, the PIC Summary
reports for each of the PIC events (4) and the Corridor Design
Workshop held as part of this study (included in Appendix D
of the ESR) provide a summary of the feedback received
throughout the course of this EA study.
For example, as per the evaluation process described in
Section 5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used
in the evaluation of alternatives were based on input and
comments received from members of the public who
submitted comments or raised concerns or issues in the
study area. Summaries of the criteria included as part of the
evaluations based on public feedback are included in Section
6.3.1. In addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the
ESR, provides a summary of the comments received
throughout the course of this EA study and how these
comments were considered as part of the EA process.

May 2, 2014 33
Issue Response
based on the feedback received throughout the study and the
Corridor Design Workshop.
8. Problematic Public Consultation
Requests for an extended comment
period were denied
The request for an extension to the comment period was
initially sought following PIC 2, at which time the comment
period was extended from 15 days to 30 days. In recognition
of this concern, all subsequent comment periods held for
PICs 3 and 4 were also extended to 30 days. A 45-day
review period was provided for the ESR when a 30 day
period is the norm.
It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No
Parkway group that comments received after the comment
period were welcomed and reviewed by the study team and
that if these comments could be addressed as part of the
study they would be.
Technical background reports were not
shared with the public before the ESR
was issued and requests for draft
documentation were not met
Technical findings and recommendations were shared with
the public throughout the course of the study. There were a
number of documents posted on the project website during
the study and detailed responses to comments received
during the study were also posted on the website prior to the
final PIC#4. Final technical reports were included in the ESR.
Proponent and/or consultant did not
respond to repeated information requests
or provided last minute responses during
the study; requests for travel time
savings over key points in the corridor
were not received in a timely manner;
requests for capacity modelling were not
provided
A number of responses were received from the public
throughout the duration of the study. Each response was
reviewed and respectfully considered by members of the
study team. Where appropriate, responses were dutifully
prepared in consideration of each concern raised. A
summary of the comments received and the associated
responses were posted on the website throughout the course
of the study. The requests for customized travel time
estimates between various locations in the City were not part
of the study technical work program or ESR documentation,
as the technical work utilized aggregate travel time savings
estimates for the evaluation inputs used in the study. The
approach used to calculate the aggregate time savings were
documented in the Cost-Benefit working paper which was
released to the public in draft following PIC 2. The custom
travel time requests were provided in response to a special
request from a member of the public and the additional
analysis required to undertake this work was completed after
the main work required to support the ESR findings and
conclusions was completed. A copy of the comments
received from the public and associated responses prepared
by members of the study team are included in Appendix D of
the ESR.
Details of the preliminary design were
only released prior to the Special
Committee of the Whole meeting, of
which the public was not invited to speak
The purpose of PIC #4, held on September 26, 2013, was to
present the study recommendations included the proposed
preliminary design for the project, and associated mitigation
measures being proposed. Following the PIC, some minor
refinements to the preliminary design were completed in
response to comments from the public and agencies. The
PIC provided all members of the public with an opportunity to

May 2, 2014 34
Issue Response
review and comment on the information presented, and
speak with members of the study team. In addition, a 30 day
review/comment period was provided following the PIC to
allow time for meaningful input. It should be noted that
similar information was presented at the Special Committee
of the Whole meeting.
The City of Peterborough standard rules of Council procedure
does not permit public delegations during Committee of the
Whole meetings, but provides an opportunity for public
delegations prior to Council considering the recommendation
from Committee of the Whole. A special Council Meeting
was held for this project, over two nights, to allow all
members of the public who wished to provide comments a
chance to address Council.
Council was not provided with enough
time to confirm their decision
City Council is able to defer an issue at its discretion.
An integrated Cost Benefit Ratio was not
made available to the public
The costs and benefits were presented at each stage of the
decision making process. Further, the final release of the
Cost Benefit Analysis included a sensitivity analysis, in
consideration of responses received from the public. A copy
of the Cost-Benefit analysis report was made available for
review at PICs 3 and 4, was posted on the City website,
following each PIC and is available in Appendix M of the
ESR.
Responses reported as part of PIC
Summary Reports were noted and
there was no evidence that the public
had an impact on the directions of the
City
process. As per the evaluation process described in Section
5.3 of the ESR, many of the evaluation criteria used in the
evaluation of alternatives were based on input and comments
received from members of the public who submitted
comments or raised concerns or issues in the study area.
Summaries of the criteria included as part of the evaluations
based on public feedback are included in Section 6.3.1. In
addition, Table 6.33, included in Section 6.6 of the ESR,
provides a summary of the comments received throughout
the course of this EA study and how these comments were
considered as part of the EA process.
based on the feedback received throughout the study and the
Corridor Design Workshop.
PIC 3 was held at inappropriate time and
location
The timing for PIC 3 was governed by venue availability,
project team availability, notification requirements, and project
team readiness (in terms of completing the supporting
technical work and preparation of the presentation materials).
Given the number of respondents that had signed the online
petition and submitted comments to us by email following PIC
2, combined with the extensive press coverage following PIC
2 and the extensive mail out we did for PIC 3 (over 6,100
notices were mailed) larger attendance than received at the
previous two PICs was anticipated. The Wellness Centre

May 2, 2014 35
Issue Response
was selected as the venue for PIC 3 to ensure there was
sufficient space to accommodate 300 - 500 people for the
presentation The Evinrude Centre did not have enough
capacity to accommodate this level of attendance and the
project team did not want to risk having to turn people away
in the event of large crowds. There were no other available
venues in the study area that could provide sufficient capacity
to accommodate the attendance we anticipated. Despite the
location and timing of the event over 300 people signed in to
PIC 3, over twice the number that attended PIC 2.
Concerned about the timing of the
release of the draft Lily Lake Secondary
Plan
This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is
proceeding under the applicable Planning Act approval
processes. Based on comments received from the public, the
implications of this future potential development area were
assessed as part of the evaluation of alternatives.
Cost of the bridge increased from $51.7
million at PIC 3 to $79 million in the ESR
The cost of the bridge is estimated to be $25 Million. The
overall cost of the project is estimated to be $79 Million. At
PIC 3 the estimated total cost of the project was $66.4 Million
(see PIC#3 display panel 24, in Appendix D). The estimated
cost of the project did increase between PIC 3 and the final
completion of the project as additional costs for mitigation
measures were included to address concerns raised by
members of the public. In addition, the total cost of the
project reported to council included costs for the phased
implementation, and for project design and construction
administration activities (which were not included in the initial
estimates presented at PIC 3).
For example, as noted in Section 6 of the ESR, feedback
received following PICs 3 and 4, as well as the Corridor
Design Workshop, prompted the study team to develop
related bridge design principles to govern future detailed
design of the bridge including the objective to further reduce
the number of piers in the valley, span the creek and trail
areas and other sensitive features, restoration of areas
disturbed during construction, investigate low impact
construction techniques, etc. An additional contingency of
$5.8 Million has been added to reflect the commitment to
investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson
Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span bridge with 3
sets of piers.
There was no opportunity to determine
adequacy of the technical reports; there
was no opportunity to review and/or
supplement the biological field work;
stakeholders did not have the ability to
follow up with review agencies regarding
technical concerns
All technical studies carried out as part of this study were
completed by qualified specialist consultants and/or
subconsultants. Cultural heritage and archaeological
assessment reports are reviewed by the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport as part of the Municipal Class EA process.
In addition, natural heritage and stormwater studies were
carried out in consultation with the Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority and MNR. Please refer to Appendix B
of the ESR.
Technical findings and recommendations were shared with
the public throughout the course of the study. Final technical
reports were included in the ESR and an extended review

May 2, 2014 36
Issue Response
period of 45 days was provided.
Copy of the Municipal Class EA
document should have been available for
review
A copy of the Municipal Class EA document was available on
the resource table at each PIC event and at the Corridor
Design Workshop. In addition, a copy of the document is
available at the City of Peterborough Public Library. A copy
of the Municipal Class EA can also be requested from the
Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), however
municipalities are not authorized to provide or distribute this
document to members of the public. A digital version of the
Class EA document is also available on the MEA website,
however this version can neither be printed nor saved.
Evaluation tables found in Appendix O of
the ESR had not been previously shared
with the public and/or Council
Copies of the north end and south end alternatives draft
evaluation tables were made available for review on the
resource table at PIC 2 and were posted on the study
website. The draft evaluation results for the Jackson Park
Area (bridge versus widening alternative) were made
available at PIC 3 and were also posted on the study website
following the PIC. In addition, a summary of the evaluation
tables was presented as part of the presentation material
provided at each event. Additional supporting evaluation
material (intersection design alternatives, sub alternatives for
the best Fairbairn Street widening alternative) was released
as part of the full documentation for the ESR and these
evaluation tables were included in Appendix O.
Release of different evaluation
framework in the ESR that had not earlier
been shared with the public for the East
vs West widening options for Fairbairn
Street
The conceptual design alternatives for the East vs West
widening alternatives for Fairbairn Street were presented to
the public at PIC 2 for initial comments. The effects were
summarized on the display panels and during the public
meeting presentation. The evaluation process for the Jackson
Park Area presented at PIC 2 and again at PIC 3 clearly
identified that the best new bridge alternative (long span vs
short span) would be evaluated against the best widening
alternative (which included 3 sub evaluations; the best
Parkhill Road widening; the best Fairbairn Street widening;
and the best Fairbairn Street / Highland Road / Parkway
intersection treatments). A summary of this process and the
results of the best new bridge and best widening alternatives
were presented at PIC 3 on display boards 16, 17 and 18
(included in the ESR Appendix D). The detailed evaluation
tables supporting this evaluation summary were included in
Appendix O of the ESR.
Study did not follow the discretionary
planning component of the Municipal
Class EA.
As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City updated the
Official Plan through Amendment 142 to adopt provincial
growth forecasts and intensification targets as per the
Provincial Growth Plan. This Class EA Study was not
intended to redo the Official Plan and/or the Citys
development policies. The EA process (whether it be a Class
EA or an Individual EA) is not the appropriate mechanism to
develop municipal growth policies that are subject to the
Planning Act and the Places to Growth Act.
Official Plan Review has not been Although currently under review, the Citys Official Plan

May 2, 2014 37
Issue Response
completed remains a valid and guiding document until it is updated
through an Official Plan Amendment. The City adopted OPA
142 in August 2009 to provide policy direction for ongoing
and future planning initiatives related to where and how to
accommodate urban growth, in accordance with the policies
of the Provincial Growth Plan. The recently completed 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update established the
transportation policies and infrastructure requirements to
accommodate future growth, and these policies will form the
basis for the transportation policies to be incorporated into the
new Official Plan. The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor
was undertaken within the policy context of the current
Official Plan and the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update.
Secondary plan for Lily Lake Planning
Area was not released/approved prior to
filing the ESR
This issue has no bearing on this Class EA project and is
proceeding under the applicable Planning Act approval
processes. The implications of additional growth in the Lily
Lake planning area was only addressed as a sensitivity
analysis in response to comments received from the public
and because the status had not been approved during the
Class EA study.
Completion of the Chemong Road/Reid
Street Widening project would ultimately
affect traffic capacity on Chemong Road
Agreed. All modelling work assumed Chemong Road would
be widened as per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update.
Consultation process was non-compliant
with the Municipal Class EA document.
The EA Study was carried out in accordance with the
planning and design process for Schedule C projects as
outlined in the Municipal Class EA document. An extensive
public consultation program was undertaken which exceeded
the requirements set out for a Schedule C project. The
public consultation program was enhanced during the study
as a fourth PIC was added to provide additional information
on conceptual designs for the Jackson Park Area
Alternatives, recognizing the sensitivity and public concern
expressed about this area. At PIC 2 these design concepts
were presented prior to undertaking the evaluation of these
alternatives so that stakeholder feedback could be
considered in the evaluation. The consultation program
included the release of study notices, four public information
centres (PIC) held through the duration of the study (October
2012, March 2013, June 2013, and September 2013), a
design workshop (August 2013) for members of the public
and agencies that had expressed an interest in participating,
external agency meetings, Council presentations, a study
email address and a study website.
9. Does Not Improve Stated Problem
Proposed Parkway extension will do little
to address the identified problems and in
some cases will make the problems
worse
Alternative Road Network Designs were developed, assessed
and evaluated to determine the Recommended Design. The
transportation performance of each alternative was assessed
with the assessment results detailed in Section 6 of the ESR.
The Recommended Design, which consists of a truly multi-
modal corridor, best addresses future capacity deficiencies,

May 2, 2014 38
Issue Response
identified safety concerns, supports planned growth and
minimizes capacity works that would otherwise be required
elsewhere in the City if the Recommended Design is not
implemented.
While trail will be more connected, it will
be less used and less safe due to
proximity to new road
As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use
trail has been proposed along the entire length of the
Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic,
commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk
or multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of
the roadway in accordance with the policies in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The result will
be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along the entire
corridor which does not currently exist.
Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass
grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods
and activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian
crossing signals at various intersections along corridor to
enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian
overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain
Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to
separate the trail and the new road as presented on the
Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. As described
in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for preserving
existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of
construction works will be explored to allow new vegetation to
grow and mature, providing screening during construction
and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard environment upon
opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan
will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which
may include replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced
rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).
No issues with access to the hospital
since Medical Drive constructed. Better
access to hospital was not a major point
discussed at the Public meetings.
The construction of Medical Drive did improve access to the
hospital from Sherbrooke Street to Parkhill Road and reduced
traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods surrounding the
hospital. The Parkway will provide enhanced access to the
Hospital for residents living in the north end of the City and
the communities to the north, and will enhance connectivity to
the south end road network from Medical Drive. That being
said, it is true that enhanced access to the hospital was not a
primary purpose of the Class EA and was not featured in the
definition of the problem statement. In fact it is only
mentioned in the Executive Summary to the ESR as part of
the statement that the preferred alternative Provides the best
access to the hospital and the south end of the City from the
growing north end neighbourhoods. The point about access
to the south end of the city was a major element of the
problem statement for this Class EA.
Marginal time savings for travel between
the north and the south
As per the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
process, a Problem/Opportunity Statement was developed for
the project to address identified problems and opportunities,
including the need to provide additional road capacity to

May 2, 2014 39
Issue Response
accommodate north-south travel demands on the west side of
the Otonabee River and to address capacity, operational and
safety concerns in the north end of the City by 2031. Please
refer to Chapter 3 of the ESR for the Problem/Opportunity
Statement which formed the basis for this project.
Travel time savings for individual trips was not a primary
purpose of the project and is not a component of the problem
statement. The evaluation of alternatives was based on a
broad range of criteria as detailed in Sections 5.3 and 6.3 of
the ESR. Travel time savings was one of 26 criteria
considered in the evaluation process. It was primarily used in
aggregate as an input to the cost-benefit analysis which was
completed at the request of stakeholders.
Table ES-6 does not distinguish between
projects to be deferred versus eliminated
as a result of Parkway
The transportation modelling analysis results revealed that
other planned projects in the 2012 CPTU could be deferred
beyond 2031 due to the new capacity provided in the
Parkway Corridor. There were also a number of other
capacity deficiencies that were not addressed during the
CTPU, but where modelling results indicated that capacity
deficiencies would be expected by 2031. The Parkway
Corridor provides relief to many of these areas and is forecast
to defer the need to widen these roads, which supports the
road program put forward in the CTPU rather than conflicting
with it.
There really is no difference between deferred projects and
eliminated projects as these terms both refer to the need for
improvements by 2031. The term deferral is the more
accurate description to use, since there may be a need for
improvements beyond 2031 on some of the roads noted, if
the land use changes or additional growth (beyond that
considered during Class EA) continues on adjacent lands.
This part of the technical work program was included in the
ESR and the reporting to City Council to respond to claims
from some stakeholders that suggested the City could not
afford the proposed Parkway Corridor or that there would not
be sufficient funds to address capital needs in other areas of
the City. The analysis was presented to illustrate that
implementation of the Parkway would actually reduce the
need for widening other roads by 2031, and the amount
saved would almost fund the entire project. That said, City-
wide improvements are planned for implementation per the
approved Capital Budget and, project priorities will continue
to be assessed on an annual basis and approved for
implementation by City Council through the annual budget
process.
10. Feasibility is Not Demonstrated
Feasibility of Parkway not demonstrated
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Update has not been incorporated into
Citys Official Plan; City has not
completed its Official Plan review; no
As described in Section 3 of the ESR, forecasts of future
population and employment growth in the City are provided in
Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (Growth Plan), issued by the province in 2006.
Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, municipalities are

May 2, 2014 40
Issue Response
approved land use planning alternative to
consider; assumes Lily Lake Planning
Area will be developed but is has not yet
received approval
required to utilize these forecasts for planning purposes.
Accordingly the 2006 Growth Plan forecasts were included in
the City Official Plan (OPA 142) and the recently completed
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU). Based
on the Growth Plan, the City population is forecast to grow
from 78,698 in 2011 to 88,000 by 2031 (11.8%).
The City Official Plan and OPA 142 designate the type of land
use that should be planned in various areas of the City and
provides policies to allocate and distribute new growth in a
planned and orderly fashion. The policies within the
Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new growth be
accommodated through intensification within the Citys
existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth
available for greenfield development. The intensification
policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a
framework for implementing the intensification policies in the
Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the
CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and
intensification targets will be achieved by 2031.
The planned growth per the Growth Plan targets, excluding
the growth allocated to intensification areas, is distributed
between the Carnegie East, Carnegie West, Chemong East,
and Chemong West growth areas. It is neither the purpose
nor the intent of the Class EA process to over-ride the
Planning Act or re-write the current Official Plan.
Additional growth would be expected to occur in Carnegie,
Chemong and Lily Lake planning areas beyond 2031 as
these areas build out to capacity. While the City has initiated
the planning for the future Lily Lake planning area, which
includes 19.8 ha of lands annexed by the City to
accommodate future longer term growth, the growth forecasts
used in the modelling work for the 2012 CTPU and the initial
modelling work in support of this Class EA study did not
include any planned growth within the Lily Lake Planning
Area since it is has not been approved.
In response to concerns raised by members of the public
regarding the impacts of full build out of the Lily Lake
Planning Area on the evaluation of the north end alternatives,
a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the future
demands and improvement needs associated with build out
of this development area in addition to the planned growth to
2031.
The Parkway is not only feasible, within the context of the
Citys current Planning and Policy environment, but it is
necessary to support the planning decisions made by the
City.
Parkway would not appear to be
consistent with various policies in the
Provincial Policy Statement and may not
conform to the Citys current Official Plan
(as described in our PIC 4 submission)
Our review of the material in support of this opinion (refer to
Appendix E) concludes that the Parkway Project does in fact
comply with the various policy statements extracted from the
Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Peterborough
Official Plan. For example:

May 2, 2014 41
Issue Response
Plan for healthy communities the proposed corridor
supports healthy active communities by providing
infrastructure to support all modes of transportation and
providing a connected trail system along the corridor in
addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine.
In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in
adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safe
for pedestrians and allows for improved social interaction
(reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). By reducing
congestion and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project
can improve overall quality of life as suggested in the Official
Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project balances the
transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the
community and is compatible with the small city character of
Peterborough (as suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6
lane roads and complicated intersections (that would be
required in some of the other alternatives), by reducing
regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by
improving safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are
already experiencing collision problems. Finally, by choosing
a route that does not provide new roadway capacity at the
edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually
less likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent
rural areas than other alternatives (specifically the West By-
Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3
rd
Line Alternatives), and
supports the2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with
a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan
and the PPS.
Prioritize the preservation / conservation of natural areas
the proposed route does not affect or impact any provincial
parks, conservation areas, or other protected areas
(reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d) however the
Fairbairn Street / 3
rd
Line Alternative does traverse through a
designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection
of natural areas within the City is already protected within the
Official Plan through buffer lands designated adjacent to the
Parkway Corridor through the north end of the study area.
These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway,
which is being located within a designated transportation
corridor (2005 City Official Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation
measures proposed in the ESR (including landscaping,
bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans)
provide protection to features considered to be part of the
natural heritage of the community (2005 Official Plan, Section
4.5.1.3). Designated open space / greenspace areas are not
being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to Schedule A
of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area
although the proposed design will span this area preserving
the natural functions of the valley area below.
Adopt a TDM approach to mitigate congestion and
capacity Issues As noted previously, the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update has provided an
extensive set of policies and infrastructure to support and

May 2, 2014 42
Issue Response
promote TDM. The Class EA is being planned within this
Citywide planning context and assumes the initiatives will be
completed. This Class EA is also implementing some of the
infrastructure necessary to achieve that vision, including new
pedestrian / trail connections and a future transit spine route
through the City (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.2).
Encourage active and efficient modes of transportation
while discouraging vehicular travel The purpose of the
Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so
the comments about adopting land use patterns and a mix of
uses does not apply to this project, however, the land use
patterns adopted in the Official Plan and OPA 142 requires
multi-modal transportation infrastructure that supports
walking, cycling, and transit use. The Parkway Corridor
achieves all of these better than any of the other reasonable
alternatives (reference to 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.7.4). The
proposed corridor supports healthy active communities by
providing infrastructure to support all modes of transportation
and providing a connected trail system along the corridor in
addition to its use as an arterial road and future transit spine.
In addition, the proposed plan reduces through traffic in
adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes them safe
for pedestrians and allows for non-motorized movement
(reference to 2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.a). Providing a
connected trail system along the corridor in addition to its use
as an arterial road and future transit spine provides for
accessible active transportation opportunities that are
attractive alternatives to the automobile and make it less
convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012 Official Plan
Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5 and 2012
Sustainable Peterborough Plan). Providing a balanced
transportation system requires the provision of transportation
infrastructure to accommodate all modes of travel. The
Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the other
alternatives, and in turn helps to support the achievement of
the mode share targets and objectives of the 2012
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to
transportation through education, promotion, and land
use planning - The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-
ride or rewrite the Official Plan, so the comments about
adopting land use patterns to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions does not apply to this project (would be better
directed to the Official Plan Update), however the ESR has
shown that the proposed Parkway Corridor will reduce
regional airborne emissions compared to the No Build or Do
Nothing Alternative (see section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix
I). Net environmental impacts were considered as part of the
assessment and evaluation of alternatives in accordance with
the Class EA requirements (and in reference to the 2012
Sustainable Peterborough Plan).
Official Plan Compliance - The proposed Parkway and the
Jackson Park bridge crossing are not contrary to the Official

May 2, 2014 43
Issue Response
Plan. The Parkway Corridor and the proposed crossing
location are actually identified in Schedule B of the Official
Plan as a future High Capacity Arterial. With respect to
natural area, the Official Plan Section 3.3.4 notes ...
Dedicated public roadways and public utilities are
discouraged from locating within Natural Areas but may occur
subject to policy 3.3.7 (which refers to the need for a Class
Environmental Study for any new roads in Natural Areas).
Roadways are discouraged from locating within Natural
Corridors except along The Parkway route shown on
Schedule B. The lands designated as Protected Natural
Areas in Schedule A of the Official Plan refer to lands north
and west of the proposed bridge crossing location.
Legal feasibility of Parkway not
demonstrated may violate Nicholls
Trust
During the course of this EA study, several members of the
public felt that the construction of a bridge across Jackson
Park would be a contravention of the Nicholls Trust
Agreement. It was understood that the lands transferred to
the City in October 1961 were to be maintained as a public
park and recreation grounds and for no other purpose. Based
on a review of the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the
wording of the Deed did not preclude the construction of a
bridge across Jackson Park provided that the park and
recreation use were maintained. In response to comments
received, the alignment of the bridge was refined to reduce fill
placement and tree loss in the valley while minimizing the
extent of the former trust lands that are crossed. Jackson
Park will remain accessible for park and recreation uses
during and after construction. Section 6.4.6.3 of the ESR
(Cultural Environment) discusses the Charlotte Nicholls Parks
Trust.
Preferred Plan may require additional
permits and approvals, the issuance of
which is not certain
No issues and/or concerns related to unresolved technical
matters have been raised by any agencies subsequent to the
filing of the ESR. Sections 8 and 9 of the ESR document
potential environmental effects, mitigation measures and key
commitments, including permits and approvals that will be
required prior to construction. All EA projects (including
Individual EAs) include some need for additional permits to
be acquired during detailed design / pre-construction stages
of the project when the final design is complete. This does
not suggest the project is not feasible.
Preferred Plan may not comply with
AODA requirements
The Preferred Plan, which will be developed in greater detail
during Detailed Design, will comply with AODA requirements,
including pedestrian-activated signals and crossings at
intersections.
11. Costs are Prohibitive and Exceed Benefits
Large cost of Parkway project has
implications on other City initiatives
City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per
the approved Capital Budget and project priorities will
process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City
Council to building the project within any specific time frames

May 2, 2014 44
Issue Response
and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various
other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.
Questionable benefits; unaccounted
costs; benefit cost ratio likely
overestimated; no integrated benefit cost
ratio
As described in Appendix M of the ESR, for the purpose of
the Environmental Assessment process, the benefit-cost
analysis was used as one of a number of criteria to compare
the advantages and disadvantages of various network
improvement alternatives to identify a Preferred Design.
A detailed description of the benefit-cost assessment,
including the calculated benefits and costs is provided in
Appendix M of the ESR and all assumptions, including the
sources used for the value of time are fully documented.
As document in Section 6.6, a number of comments were
received from members of the public following PIC #3 in
relation to the benefit-cost analysis results completed for this
EA study, and the assumptions used in the analysis. The
biggest concerns raised were related to the lack of value
attributed to the loss of greenspace (as well as the lack of
consideration of impacts to property values for homes that
back onto the corridor). As such, a sensitivity analysis was
completed as part of the benefit-cost analysis in consideration
of the initial values of natural features provided in the 2009
MNR publication entitled, Estimating Ecosystem Services in
Southern Ontario. The findings of the sensitivity analysis
demonstrated that the inclusion of these values would not
materially change the evaluation of alternatives completed as
part of this study. A copy of the Cost-Benefit Analysis report
and associated sensitivity analysis is included in Appendix M
of the ESR.
12. Project Constitutes Piecemealing
Concerned about a potential
piecemealing approach through the Lily
Lake draft Official Plan Amendment
Official Plan Amendment studies are completed in
accordance with the Planning Act, not through the Municipal
Class EA process.
Project has been piecemealed As noted in the Background and Context provided as part of
the ESR Executive Summary, access to the new
Peterborough Regional Health Centre became an issue in the
community following the 2003 referendum, as the previous
Civic Hospital site was chosen as the preferred site, in part
because of its central location along the Parkway Corridor
which could provide excellent access to all area of the City
and to/from the outlying communities in Peterborough
County. Residents surrounding the proposed hospital site
expressed significant concerns about the traffic impacts of the
new hospital on their neighbourhood streets. Due to the
issues surrounding the Citys unwillingness to proceed with
the Parkway Corridor EA in the aftermath of the 2004
Referendum, however, the scope of study for the Hospital
Access Road EA was constrained to only examining the
improvements necessary to address the impacts of the new
hospital construction and consolidation of related medical
services around the hospital campus area. Thus the primary
purpose of Hospital Access Road Class EA study was to

May 2, 2014 45
Issue Response
improve access to the hospital and reduce traffic infiltration
through the neighbourhoods surrounding the hospital due to
the proposed expansion. The study recommended the
construction of the current two lane arterial road between
Sherbrooke Street and Parkhill Road, along with a southerly
termination of the new road with a connection to Clonsilla
Ave, in the vicinity of Third Avenue.
Note that previous input from the Ministry of the Environment
during the 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
indicated the need to consider the impacts and benefits of the
improvements within the Parkway Corridor as an entire new
corridor project to avoid piecemealing, as defined in the Class
EA process. Under the definition of a project in the Municipal
Class EA (Page G-6), proposed works are considered as
separate projects if they are initiated to solve distinctly
different sets of problems; and the resulting works are
standalone facilities without the requirement of further works
to completely solve the problem.
The current Parkway Class EA has been combined and dealt
with as a single project, in accordance with the Municipal
Class EA process. The term piecemealing does not refer to
the evaluation process used within a Class EA process, and
the evaluation process used in the Parkway Class EA is
similar to other complex Class EA studies and Individual EA
studies (ie. Highway 407 East EA), where a long or
complicated series of routes are split into distinct segments
for evaluation where the effects are localized to the
respective segments. For the purpose of understanding the
net effects of the project, all components of the Parkway
Project were considered in their entirety.
13. Negatively Affects Many Provincial Interests
Project conflicts with policies to protect
ecological systems, including natural
areas, features and functions
The City has policies in their Official Plan that identify Natural
Areas and Corridors that provide the linkages between
Natural Heritage Features as referred to in the current
Provincial Policy Statement and identified in Schedule C of
the Official Plan.
The Citys Official Plan designates Natural Areas and
Corridors adjacent to portions of the Parkway Corridor route,
however these lands do not include the Parkway Corridor,
lands which are designated as a transportation corridor. The
Official Plan also provides policies that allow for
transportation facilities within Natural Areas where supported
by an Environmental Study, such as this Environmental
Assessment.
Further, the proposed bridge across Jackson Park will be
designed to minimize intrusion and disruption within the park,
so that longer term ecological functions and longer term use
and enjoyment of the park can continue with minimal adverse
effects.
Byersville Creek is southern Ontarios
only urban trout stream
Byersville Creek is not the only coldwater system with brook
trout running through a municipal area in Ontario. There is

May 2, 2014 46
Issue Response
Mill Creek in Orangeville, Holland River in Newmarket,
several headwater reaches of the Rouge River in Richmond
Hill, and Tributary C in London to name just a few. The
alignment of the Parkway Corridor has been shifted to avoid
direct impacts to Byersville Creek, and mitigation measures
have been proposed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the ESR to
improve water quality entering the creek, mitigate thermal
impacts on the coldwater status of Byersville Creek, and
reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff which during peak
flow events can cause significant damage to spawning areas
and vegetation within the creek bed area.
Project would impact the natural corridor
connecting the Jackson Creek valley to
the Otonabee River
In consideration of direct distance, the Cavan Swamp and
Bog is located approximately 4 km to 6 km west of the west
limits of the City of Peterborough, and approximately 7 km to
10 km west of the recommended crossing of the Jackson
Creek bridge. It should be noted that stream distances would
be greater. The corridor connection between the Otonabee
and Cavan Bog is weakest through the urban portions of
Peterborough east of the Parkway.
As discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the ESR, construction of a
high level bridge over Jackson Creek does not interfere with
wildlife movement when considering the nominal
requirements for small and large mammals under highways.
Where dry culverts up to 2m in height are deemed adequate
for large mammal (consider deer) passage it is important to
note that the bridge would provide more than 20 m clearance
from the valley floor. The proposed bridge structure does
interfere with aquatic connectivity.
Largest/highest native trees will not be
conserved
As per Section 6.4.1 and 9 of the ESR, it is noted that the
bridge design concept consists of a 23m high bridge with a
span of 367m across the valley of Jackson Park. The
proposed bridge has 8 sets of piers located within the
Jackson Park Valley. As discussed in Section 6.4.6.3 of the
ESR, it is estimated that approximately 3,000 m
2
3,500 m
2

of vegetation would be removed from the valley slopes of
Jackson Park due to construction of the bridge abutments
and related fill area on the east and west ends of the bridge.
Additional vegetation removal could be expected around the
pier locations. Assuming a construction area of 26m x 7m in
width another 1,500m
2
of vegetation may be removed due to
construction of the 8 sets of piers. However, as per the
commitments discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the ESR,
consideration of the use of a longer span bridge with fewer
piers will be explored during detailed design to reduce the
area of vegetation removal required in the park. It is further
noted that potential disturbances would be mitigated and
compensated (as required) by implementing appropriate
construction Best Management Practices that would be
carried out in consultation with review agencies, and
implementing a vegetation restoration plan following
construction. Innovative construction techniques, including
building centre spans of the bridge completely from above
can also be considered to further reduce impacts. As per the

May 2, 2014 47
Issue Response
commitments noted in Section 9 of the ESR, alteration of the
Jackson Park landscape will be minimized to the extent
possible.
With respect to root disturbance, as per Section 8.2.1.1 of the
ESR, trees and shrubs identified for preservation within and
immediately adjacent to construction zones will be protected
through installation of fencing at an appropriate distance
determined by a qualified professional. In typical practice,
trees with a large diameter at breast height (dbh) will require
a greater protected root zone. As an example and through
discussion with our Certified Arborist at AECOM, white pine
trees that have an approximate dbh of 90 cm will require a
minimum root protection zone of 4m from the trunk, totaling a
8m diameter. White pine is tolerant to construction
disturbance, however hemlock species are less so, which
would result in a larger protection zone compared to white
pine. These types of details will be gathered during detailed
design to ensure those trees that are identified to be
preserved, will remain healthy over the long-term.
Project affects a genetically pure strain of
brook trout (i.e., unaffected by hatchery
fish genetics)
Appendix H to the Greenspace Coalition response does not
support this interpretation or suggestion. This population is
distinct from the Hills Lake hatchery strain. This population
fit the expected patterns for native ancestry and showed
genetic similarities to other native populations in
Peterborough District, but also some evidence of genetic
contributions from the provincial Hills Lake hatchery strain.
Potential for the recommended alignment
to interfere with the Lee Pioneer
Cemetery.
Archaeological activities carried out as part of this study
interpreted the potential for grave shafts to be located in
proximity to the existing grave cross marker and this area
would not be impacted by the proposed construction activities
as illustrated in Figure 6-16 in the ESR. Additional
archaeological investigations (i.e. Stage 3 AA) in the vicinity
of the cemetery will be carried out during detailed design to
confirm the interpretation of the findings. Sections 8.4.1 and
9 of the ESR, outline commitments that the City has made to
undertake addition archaeological work as part of detailed
design for this project to confirm the presence/absence of
grave shafts. The archaeological assessments carried out as
part of this EA study are provided in Appendix G of the ESR.
In addition, Section 8.4.1 notes the Citys intent to preserve
this significant heritage feature through protective fencing and
formal registration of the cemetery.
Corridor would cross several areas of
high archaeological potential, including
the Chemong Portage route
As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report,
provided in Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage
Route is outlined and recognized as potentially traversing the
corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent of Frost Map and
Pammett Map interpretation). All of the Network Alternatives
considered for the north end of the study area traversed the
historical route. The undeveloped portions of the corridor
were identified as areas of having archaeological potential
and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the interpreted
areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have been

May 2, 2014 48
Issue Response
either previously disturbed, thereby not having archaeological
potential, or were investigated as part of the Stage 2 AA. In
addition, comprehensive archaeological assessment activities
were carried out at the Lee Cemetery site to supplement the
work carried out by others and delineate the limits of potential
burial shafts. Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made
for selected areas of the corridor. This will be completed as
part of detailed design. Note that ground disturbing activities
cannot proceed until MTCS has reviewed all AA reports and
confirms in writing that it supports the recommendations
included in the AA reports.
Study did not seriously consider
alternative modes of transportation;
Parkway fosters a culture of automobile
use rather than a multi-modal, TDM-
based alternative
Alternative modes of transportation were identified and
evaluated as documented in Section 5 of the ESR and
described in preceding sections of this table.
The Citys existing strategy to manage the growth in auto trips
includes an aggressive TDM program with recommendations
for programs to encourage alternate travel modes, an
extensive set of policies to support active transportation,
including expansion of the cycling network in the City and an
over the next 20 years, the Citys 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update (CTPU) estimated that auto
2031. As such, the CTPU also recommended a series of road
network improvements that include improvements in portions
of the Parkway Corridor.
As noted in Section 6.6 of the ESR, traffic demand forecasts
assumed a 28% increase in peak period transit (as per
CTPU) assumed to occur as part of establishing need. The
ability to support transit was considered as part of the route
evaluation and selection. In addition, measures were included
in the preliminary design, including transit stop locations,
laybys, and intersection design treatments (please refer to the
Preliminary Design drawings included as part of Chapter 7 of
the ESR).
Study did not consider the efficient use of
the existing road network to shift / spread
peak and traffic flow over a longer time
period
As described in Chapter 5 of the ESR, widening existing
roads was one of the alternative solutions considered in
combination with adding new roads. The widening existing
roads / adding new roads alternative was generated,
assessed and evaluated and carried forward as part of the
recommended alternative solution to Phase 3 of the Class EA
study. Shifting the peak hour or spreading the peak period is
a strategy that was considered as part of the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU).
Study does not support policies for safe
and healthy communities as the Parkway
will separate residential, commercial and
employment areas.
The City has been planned around the Parkway corridor
assuming it would be built at some point in time. The policies
within the Provincial Growth Plan require that 40% of new
growth be accommodated through intensification within the

May 2, 2014 49
Issue Response
Citys existing built boundary, with the remaining new growth
available for greenfield development. The intensification
policies within the City of Peterborough Official Plan provide a
framework for implementing the intensification policies in the
Growth Plan and the land use forecasts utilized within the
CTPU have assumed these applicable land use growth and
intensification targets will be achieved by 2031. The new
development areas in the north end of the City were annexed
for the purpose of supporting future residential growth and
these growth areas are reflected in the current Official Plan.
Potential costs associated with the
Parkway will preclude other projects in
the City, including social, cultural and
recreational facilities.
City-wide improvements are planned for implementation per
the approved Capital Budget and project priorities will
process. Approving the Class EA does not commit City
Council to building the project within any specific time frames
and does not restrict the ability of City Council to fund various
other capital infrastructure needs as they deem appropriate.
Cost of the Parkway would lead to higher
property taxes, increased debt load and
more infrastructure maintenance costs.
The development of infrastructure to support growth in the
City of Peterborough may be funded through several sources,
including the capital tax levy (which may be debentured),
development charges (which may be debentured), federal
gas tax revenues, and grants or stimulus funding. As per
Section 7.11 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will
be implemented over a multi-year implementation program
comprised of 10 implementation stages which would see a
new continuous 2 lane road corridor in place by 2028.
Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a
number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread
out over a longer period and implementation can be timed to
coincide with needs or allow flexibility for investments in other
priorities.
Parkway study has not fostered the
coordination of planning activities (i.e.,
Chemong Road, Lily Lake Planning,
etc.); Parkway creates planning conflicts
involving public and private interests and
land use planning was not considered
As detailed in Section 3.1 of the ESR, the City Official Plan
designates the type of land use that should be planned in
various areas of the City and provides policies to allocate and
distribute new growth in a planned and orderly fashion. The
2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (CTPU)
provided a holistic and system wide assessment of
transportation policies, infrastructure and services needed to
support the planned growth and Official Plan Policies of the
City.
The Class EA for the Parkway Corridor was not intended to
replace these policy documents but was intended to
undertake the planning for two of the projects identified in the
CTPU, and therefore incorporated the policy framework from
the CTPU and assumed that all of the other improvements
identified in the city-wide would be completed. This
demonstrates an integrated and co-ordinated planning
process that respects and conforms to established local and
provincial policies in place.
Similarly, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders, the
Class EA incorporated additional sensitivity analysis to

May 2, 2014 50
Issue Response
determine what implications the proposed Lily Lake Planning
Area would have on the assessment and evaluation of
alternatives. This was treated as a sensitivity analysis in the
Class EA, since the Lily Lake growth area had no official
planning approvals at the time the EA commenced. Again,
the assessment approach utilized in the Class EA
demonstrates a co-ordinated approach to considering the
transportation needs of the community both today and in the
longer range future.
Parkway will encourage end to end
commuting and not to the downtown area
As detailed in Chapter 3 of the ESR, the majority of the
employment growth has been planned in the downtown and
southwest areas of the City. As a result, future travel
demands to the southwest and downtown core areas are
projected to increase by virtue of the land use allocations with
or without the Parkway in place. Trip distribution patterns in
the City model are based on observed origin-destination trip
patterns from the 2006 TTS survey. Forecasts of future travel
demands were estimated using the updated transportation
model developed for use as part of the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update completed by Morrison
Hershfield. The model was designed and calibrated to
forecast PM peak hour trip making in the City and
surrounding areas on a typical weekday.
The Preferred Parkway Plan will reduce the overall capacity
deficiencies across the entire City transportation network.
This is primarily due to the fact that the Parkway corridor
provides broad area relief to a number of roadways in the
City, which frees up capacity that can be used by traffic
destined to and from other areas in and beyond the City,
even traffic that is not oriented to use the Parkway itself (i.e.
traffic to and from the downtown).
Parkway places pathways near to an
arterial road that will reduce the
willingness of pedestrians and cyclists to
use such routes
As detailed in Section 7.4 of the ESR, a 3.0 m wide multi-use
trail has been proposed along the entire length of the
Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic,
commuter cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or
multi-use path will also be provided on the opposite side of
the roadway in accordance with the policies in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The result will
be a continuous trail and sidewalk system along the entire
corridor which does not currently exist.
Further, the preferred plan incorporates 4 new underpass
grade separated trail crossings to connect neighbourhoods
and activity areas along the corridor; 5 new pedestrian
crossing signals at various intersections along corridor to
enhance safety for vulnerable users; and 1 new pedestrian
overpass bridge to cross the new roadway and maintain
Where possible, a vegetated buffer has been provided to
separate the trail and the new road as presented on the
Preferred Design plates at the end of Chapter 7. As described
in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR, opportunities for preserving
existing trees and pre-planting new trees in advance of

May 2, 2014 51
Issue Response
construction works will be explored to allow new vegetation to
grow and mature, providing screening during construction
and a semi-mature roadside / boulevard environment upon
opening of the new facility. The Vegetation Restoration Plan
will also identify the approach to new tree plantings which
may include replacement of lost vegetation at an enhanced
rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).
14. Scope is Beyond a Municipal Class EA
EA study is beyond the scale of building
a new road and that the integrated
approach and/or the Master Plan process
would have been more appropriate for
this study
This study built upon the recommendations of the 2012 CTPU
which followed the Master Planning process outlined in the
Municipal Class EA process and was designed to address
Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. As per Section
A.2.7.1 of the Master Planning Process, when projects are
undertaken which implement specific elements recommended
in the Master Plan, it is necessary for the applicable schedule
to be determined for those projects subject to the Municipal
Class EA.
The Municipal Class EA is an approved process under the EA
Act by which municipal infrastructure projects (i.e., municipal
road projects) are planned. As documented in Section 1.3 of
the ESR, this study was carried out as a Schedule C project,
continuing the planning (Phases 3 and 4) for two of the
projects recommended in the Master Plan. Schedule C
undertakings are subject to the full planning process of the
Class EA given that they have the potential for significant
environmental impacts but the effects are predictable and
mitigable.
15. Unresolved Technical Matters
A 30-day comment period was provided
each time there was an opportunity for
public comment
The request for an extension of the comment period was
initially sought following PIC 2, at which time the comment
period was extended to 30 days. In recognition of this
concern, all subsequent comment periods held for PICs #3
and #4 were also extended (i.e., 30 days following PIC #3
and PIC #4, and 45 days following the release of the ESR).
It has been expressed in previous correspondence to the No
Parkway group that comments received after the comment
period were welcomed and reviewed by the study team and
that if these comments could be addressed as part of the
study they would be.
Natural heritage assessment work
completed for this study was generally
completed as a desk review of existing
sources and that the latest review for
species at risk was in 2006
As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies were carried out to
supplement the desktop review of secondary source
information. Field studies related to fisheries were carried out
on September 17
th
October 16
th
, December 12
th
, 2012 and
July 10
th
and 12
th
, 2013, and brook trout spawning survey
was carried out on December 11, 2013. Field studies related
to terrestrial features, including wetlands, were carried out on
August 27
th
to August 30th, 2012 and on November 30
th
,
2012.
Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in
publicly distributed documents per the Natural Heritage

May 2, 2014 52
Issue Response
Sensitivity Training. These limitations on publication are
established to protect the SAR from excessive disturbance or
inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these
detailed data from MNR and the information is included in
considerations for the alternative alignments and impact
assessment.
On commencement of detailed design more focused
inventory and assessment will be undertaken to guide the
selection of the preferred method for valley crossings, for
example. At that time, based on detailed site inventory the
data requirements will be met to properly recommend pier
locations, valley span requirements etc. Detailed mitigation in
design, construction, and rehabilitation will be defined at that
stage.
Further investigation of the potential
cultural/archaeological resources are
required (i.e., Lee Cemetery, Jackson
Park and Chemong Portage)
As noted in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report,
provided in Appendix G of the ESR, the Chemong Portage
Route is outlined and recognized as potentially traversing the
corridor in two areas (i.e., dependent of Frost Map and
Pammett Map interpretation). The undeveloped portions of
the corridor were identified as areas of having archaeological
potential and were subjected to Stage 2 AA. As such, the
interpreted areas in the vicinity of the Chemong Portage have
been either previously disturbed, thereby not having
archaeological potential, or were investigated as part of the
Stage 2 AA. In addition, comprehensive archaeological
assessment activities were carried out at the Lee Cemetery
site to supplement the work carried out by others and
delineate the limits of potential burial shafts.
Recommendations for Stage 3 AA were made for selected
areas of the corridor. This will be completed as part of
detailed design. Note that ground disturbing activities cannot
proceed until the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has
reviewed all AA reports and confirms in writing that it supports
the recommendations included in the AA reports.
Three cultural heritage assessments were carried out as part
of this study, each of which is included in Appendix H of the
ESR. The Cultural Heritage Overview Evaluation and
Heritage Impact Assessment were completed for the entire
corridor and the Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment
was completed for Jackson Park. The MTCS has reviewed
the impacts and mitigation measures documented within
these reports and are satisfied with the recommendations to
be carried forward into the detailed design phase of the
project.
Concerns related to stormwater
management and other related studies
The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater
Management strategy. Stormwater management plans were
completed for the entire corridor, copies of which are
provided in Appendix K of the ESR. These were completed
in consideration of the Flood Reduction Master Plan, the
Water Quality Master Plan, and other location specific
watershed studies. In addition, as noted in Sections 7 and 8
of the ESR, the stormwater management plans will be further

May 2, 2014 53
Issue Response
refined during the detailed design component of the project.
These stormwater management plans were reviewed and
approved by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority to
provide the basis for more detailed stormwater management
design treatments to be completed during detailed design.
Concerned that a detailed legal opinion is
necessary in relation to the Nicholls
Parks Trust
As noted in Section 6.4.1 of the ESR, it was understood that
the lands transferred to the City in October 1961 were to be
maintained as a public park and recreation grounds and for
no other purpose. The Citys solicitor undertook a review of
the Agreement during this EA Study. Based on a review of
the Agreement, the City is satisfied that the wording of the
Deed did not preclude the construction of a bridge across
Jackson Park provided that the park and recreation use were
maintained. In response to comments received, the alignment
of the bridge was refined to reduce fill placement and tree
loss in the valley while minimizing the extent of the former
trust lands that are crossed.
Unresolved technical matters were raised
by advisory bodies to the City, including
the Otonabee Region Conservation
Authority
A letter response was received from the Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority subsequent to the filing of the ESR
indicating that they are satisfied that any outstanding issues
can be resolved during detailed design. They are
undertaking a thorough review of the natural hazards and
natural heritage information contained within the report in
order to clearly outline additional information that may be
required during the detailed design phase.
In addition, no issues and/or concerns related to unresolved
technical matters have been raised by any agencies
subsequent to the filing of the ESR.
Appendix C: Natural Heritage
Issue Response
Brook trout spawning survey effort was
inadequate in duration and timing
None of the work represented in this EA challenges the
documentation and management of this stream reach as
coldwater habit supporting brook trout. That the team did not
directly observe or capture brook trout does not diminish the
requirement to manage the reach as coldwater habitat and
contributing to brook trout production.
Amphibian crossings being proposed as
part of mitigation are unrealistic in an
urban location
Guided crossings referenced in this document only as an
example. The detailed design stage will address specifics. A
variety of wildlife crossing structures are typically applied in
urban areas throughout Ontario.
Concerned that the potential impacts
associated with tree and limb removal,
etc. on individual trees was not
addressed
A specific alignment and bridge design has not been selected
in this study. As such, details of tree cutting, limb removal,
topping etc. are premature. The impacts to trees and
vegetation and associated mitigation measures are described
in Section 8.2.1.1 of the ESR. In addition, the detailed list of
commitments to be carried out during detailed design and/or
construction is provided in Section 9, ID #30. As noted, the
detailed design stage and during construction proper
arboricultural practices under the guidance of a Certified

May 2, 2014 54
Issue Response
Arborist or Professional Forester would be implemented to
optimize the health and survival of individual trees.
Concerned that the report does not
indicate the specific location of species at
risk and provides only general
information
Disclosure of sensitive SAR data is explicitly not permitted in
publicly distributed documents per the Natural Heritage
Sensitivity Training. These limitations on publication are
established to protect the SAR from excessive disturbance or
inappropriate exploitation. AECOM has accessed these
detailed data from MNR and the information is included in
considerations for the alternative alignments and impact
assessment.
Concerned that the NHFAS report does
not specify when the field studies
occurred for this project
As noted in Section 4.1.1, field studies related to fisheries
were carried out on September 17
th
October 16
th
,
December 12
th
, 2012 and July 10
th
and 12
th
, 2013, and brook
trout spawning survey was carried out on December 11,
2013. Field studies related to terrestrial features, including
wetlands, were carried out on August 27
th
to August 30th,
2012 and on November 30
th
, 2012.
Concerned that the Breeding Bird Atlas
search results could not initially be found
in ESR; important to know where
breeding birds located; were surveys
completed in Jackson Park and if so,
what were results
The Breeding Bird Atlas does not report specific location of
their reported observations but rather collectively documents
for each Atlas Square. The site specific field investigations,
conducted on the dates noted above, are detailed in the
AECOM report. Furthermore, the location of SAR would not
be detailed, as discussed above. Again, in support of the
subsequent detailed design stage more intensive breeding
bird surveys would be conducted. Finally, at construction
stage the nesting areas would be further protected under the
requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Concerned about the mitigation
measures being recommended for this
project
Bridge construction over and through urban valley systems is
common place in Ontario. Bridges supported on piers are
highly preferred over structures that require placement of
large volumes of fill material across the entire valley for the
maintenance and protection of hydrological functions, wildlife
movement, loss of vegetation and fish habitat.
Concerned that the restoration measures
do not mention amphibian and reptile
breeding requirements
Recommendation of the pier supported bridge over Jackson
Creek addresses the wildlife habitat functions of the valley by
minimizing the impact of the structure and its construction.
However, the exact restoration methods and details are
appropriately specified in conjunction with detailed design,
including timing guidelines for construction.
Impact analysis does not address: reptile
habitat degradation; behavioural
modification of wildlife in response to
presence of large concrete object; and,
how activities may facilitate the
establishment of a variety of invasive
species.
AECOM Natural Heritage Features Assessment of
Significance, Section 7, pages 85 to 100, addresses in detail
the impact assessment for all of the alternative
alignments. An elevated bridge crossing of Jackson Creek is
not expected to have measurable impact on connectivity for
amphibian and reptile functions. The limited footprint of the
bridge abutments at the valley wall and the piers in the valley
should not be expected to impede movement of small or large
vertebrates along the valley given the height of the proposed
bridge above the valley floor ranges up to 20m. The span
between the piers would leave broad areas relatively
undisturbed and again would not be expected to impede

May 2, 2014 55
Issue Response
movement of small or large vertebrates along the
valley. Consequently habitat fragmentation impacts should
be expected to be nominal or minimal.
Restoration planting associated with the construction of the
proposed bridge would be focused on the immediate
disturbance areas associated with the bridge abutments,
piers and construction access routes. Though no long term,
valley-wide habitat connectivity impacts are expected as a
result of the installation of the proposed bridge the
recommended plantings would help restore the short term
functions.
Once the additional field assessments during detailed design
are complete, a more comprehensive impact analysis and
therefore, mitigation strategy can be completed.
Concerned that there is no discussion of
post-construction, long-term monitoring
Construction and post-construction monitoring is typically
associated with conditions of approval from regulating
agencies and always defined in response to elements of the
detailed design. They are conditions of approval of
construction plans following approval of a detailed design.
Monitoring during construction will be similarly detailed based
on specific aspects of the construction plan, timing guidelines,
sediment and erosion control plans, arborist requirements
etc.

Appendix D: Stormwater Management
Issue Response
Proposed locations for stormwater
management ponds inappropriate
The Preferred Design includes a comprehensive Stormwater
Management strategy. The Parkway Corridor was divided
into four segments to correspond to different outlet locations
along the corridor and facilitate appropriate stormwater
management (SWM) design strategies for each area. The
detailed analyses of drainage and stormwater management
recommendations for the Parkway corridor are detailed in the
Stormwater Management Reports, provided in Appendix K of
the ESR. These were completed in consideration of the
Flood Reduction Master Plan, the Water Quality Master Plan,
and other location specific watershed studies.
The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide
stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development
flows at or below pre-development levels and water quality
control to Enhanced (Level 1) protection as per the Ministry of
Environments Stormwater Management Planning and Design
Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March 2003.
The stormwater management plans were developed in
consultation with and reviewed by the Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority to provide the basis for more detailed
stormwater management design treatments to be completed
during detailed design as noted in Sections 7 and 8 of the
Stormwater pond would jeopardize brook
trout through thermal pollution and
suggested mitigation is unrealistic
Several ponds too small to provide
adequate quantity control
Use of trapezoidal channel configuration
violates natural channel design
Re-routing of water would have impacts
relating to dewatering of natural
ecological features that has not been
addressed
Some stormwater management issues
deferred to other projects (Bears Creek
Flood Reduction Study; Chemong Road
EA; Master Drainage Plan)

May 2, 2014 56
Issue Response
ESR.
While concern was expressed that one flood reduction pond
(the pond at the Parkway and Clonsilla Avenue) could not be
constructed due to space limitations, the preferred plan will
actually increase the available space for this future flood
control pond.
To demonstrate how the implementation of the preferred
alternative may proceed without negatively impacting the
upstream and downstream lands and watercourses,
consideration was given to flood potential, erosion, thermal
impacts, current and future drainage patterns, infrastructure
improvement opportunities, social economic value and
aesthetics.
It was understood that the tributary to Byersville/Harper Creek
serves as headwaters for sensitive fisheries habitat that
currently support cold water species. As such, Section 8.1.1
of the ESR commits to investigating strategies to address
thermal impacts as part of detail design.
Section 7.5.1 of the ESR states that final configuration and
design of the bio-retention swale between Hilliard Street and
Cumberland Avenue and the associated connection to Bears
Creek will be provided during detailed design and completed
in consideration of the 2008 Bears Creek Flood Reduction
Master Plan which has already been completed.

Appendix E: Policy Conflicts Between the Parkway Approach and Local and Provincial
Policy
Issue Response
Parkway not consistent with policies
regarding plan for healthy communities
and a high quality of life
The proposed corridor supports healthy active communities
by providing infrastructure to support all modes of
transportation and providing a connected trail system along
the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future
transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan reduces through
traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods which makes
them safe for pedestrians and allows for improved social
interaction (section 1.5.1.a 2014 PPS). By reducing
congestion and neighbourhood traffic infiltration, the project
can improve overall quality of life as suggested in the Official
Plan (section 5.2.1 iii). The proposed project balances the
transportation and natural, social and economic needs of the
community and is compatible with the small city character of
Peterborough (as suggested in the 2012 CTPU) by avoiding 6
lane roads and complicated intersections (that would be
required in some of the other alternatives), by reducing
regional emissions resulting in improved air quality, and by
improving safety by reducing traffic at intersections that are
already experiencing collision problems. Finally, by choosing
a route that does not provide new roadway capacity at the
edge of the community, the Parkway Alternative is actually

May 2, 2014 57
Issue Response
less likely to cause unplanned growth or sprawl into adjacent
rural areas than other alternatives (specifically the West By-
Pass and the Fairbairn Street / 3
rd
Line Alternatives) and
supports the 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan along with
a number of policy statements in the Provincial Growth Plan
and the PPS.
regarding prioritization of the
preservation and conservation of natural
areas
The proposed route does not affect or impact any provincial
parks, conservation areas, or other protected areas
(reference to 2014/2005 PPS, Section 1.5.1.d) however the
Fairbairn Street / 3rd Line Alternative does traverse through a
designated Provincially Significant Wetland. The connection
of natural areas within the City is already protected within the
Official Plan through buffer lands designated adjacent to the
Parkway Corridor through the north end of the study area.
These lands are not impacted by the proposed roadway,
which is being located within a designated transportation
corridor (2005 City Official Plan, Schedule B). The mitigation
measures proposed in the ESR (including landscaping,
bridge design principles, and vegetation restoration plans)
provide protection to features considered to be part of the
natural heritage of the community (2005 Official Plan, Section
4.5.1.3). Designated open space / greenspace areas are not
being impacted by the Parkway Corridor (refer to Schedule A
of the Official Plan) other than the Jackson Park Area
although the proposed design will span this area preserving
the natural functions of the valley area below.
regarding the adoption of a TDM
approach to mitigate congestion and
capacity issues
As noted previously, the 2012 Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update has provided an extensive set of policies and
infrastructure to support and promote TDM. The Class EA is
being planned within this Citywide planning context and
assumes the initiatives will be completed. This Class EA is
also implementing some of the infrastructure necessary to
achieve that vision, including new pedestrian / trail
connections and a future transit spine route through the City
(reference to 2014 PPS Section 1.6.7.2).
regarding encouraging active and
efficient modes of transportation while
discouraging vehicular traffic
The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite
the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use
patterns and a mix of uses does not apply to this project,
however, the land use patterns adopted in the Official Plan
and OPA 142 requires multi-modal transportation
infrastructure that supports walking, cycling, and transit use.
The Parkway Corridor achieves all of these better than any of
the other reasonable alternatives. (reference to 2014 PPS,
Section 1.6.7.4). The proposed corridor supports healthy
active communities by providing infrastructure to support all
modes of transportation and providing a connected trail
system along the corridor in addition to its use as an arterial
road and future transit spine. In addition, the proposed plan
reduces through traffic in adjacent residential neighbourhoods
which makes them safer for pedestrians and allows for non-
motorized movement (reference to 2005 PPS, Section
1.5.1.a). Providing a connected trail system along the

May 2, 2014 58
Issue Response
corridor in addition to its use as an arterial road and future
transit spine provides for accessible active transportation
opportunities that are attractive alternatives to the automobile
and make it less convenient to drive a car (reference to 2012
Official Plan Review Policy Directions Report, section 4.5.1.5
and 2012 Sustainable Peterborough Plan). Providing a
balanced transportation system requires the provision of
transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of
travel. The Parkway Corridor does that better than any of the
other alternatives, and in turn helps to support the
achievement of the mode share targets and objectives of the
2012 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
regarding reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions related to transportation
through education, promotion and land-
use planning
The purpose of the Class EA was not to over-ride or rewrite
the Official Plan, so the comments about adopting land use
patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not really
apply, however the ESR has shown that the proposed
Parkway Corridor will reduce regional airborne emissions
compared to the No Build or Do Nothing Alternative (see
section 8.3.7 of ESR and Appendix I). Net environmental
impacts were considered as part of the assessment and
evaluation of alternatives in accordance with the Class EA
requirements (and in reference to the 2012 Sustainable
Peterborough Plan).

Appendix F: Transportation Demand Management Comments
Issue Response
Traffic and congestion predications fail to
account for various demographic and
economic trends that are reducing
automobile travel demand and increasing
demand for alternative modes
As described in Section 6.6 of the ESR, extensive work was
Implications of aging population were specifically
addressed in response to comments received during
the study and the review (documented in Section 3.2)
found that the base travel demand forecasts are in
line with these updated demand estimates.
non-auto based travel (transit / walking / cycling).
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
assessed the potential impacts in travel demand
based on increased fuel costs and recommended no
adjustment be made to the base travel demand
forecasts. It is expected that increased fuel costs
and public attitudes towards non-auto travel will play
a large role in encouraging the shifts in demand from
auto modes of travel to transit and other non-
motorized travel modes that the CTPU relies upon.
beyond 2031 were assessed during the study in
response to comments received including the
implications of the planned Lily Lake Planning area,

May 2, 2014 59
Issue Response
as documented in Section 6.4.5.
A phasing plan for implementing the improvements
was developed to link infrastructure to demonstrated
needs and allow for implementation to be accelerated
or delayed in response to observed growth, which
would be subject to ongoing monitoring.
Updates active transportation and TDM
programs are modest; analysis fails to
consider a targeted alternative mode
improvement and TDM program
November 2011. This study is available on the City website.
this program;
operating costs (total $33.1 M) to expand current transit
service to achieve this target.

May 2, 2014 60
Issue Response
Update biased, favouring roadway
expansion
This issue pertains to the 2012 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update which was approved by City
Council in November 2011.
As noted above, the City has a comprehensive demand
management program that was recommended in the 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Even with its
aggressive program to support non-auto modes of travel,
requiring an investment of $71M to $85M over the next 20
years, the Transportation Master Plan estimated that auto
2031. As such, the Transportation Plan also recommended a
series of road network improvements that include
improvements in portions of the Parkway Corridor.
Benefit/Cost ratio of 1.05 is very low;
targeted alternative mode improvements
or TDM programs are probably more cost
effective; defer roadway improvements
until congestion is realized for more than
one hour per day
For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment process, a
benefit-cost analysis was used as one of a number of criteria
to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various
network improvement alternatives from a financial
perspective. The results (as documented in Appendix M of
the ESR) show that the proposed Parkway Corridor, returns
total benefits that are about 31% higher than total
implementation costs and this is significantly better than the
performance of the other alternatives evaluated. When the
timing of the cost and benefit streams are considered in the
present value analysis, the benefits exceed the costs by
The proper time to prepare a plan to accommodate growth is
prior to the growth occurring, so that decisions on growth and
infrastructure to support growth can be made in a co-
ordinated fashion. The lack of a clear decision on the
transportation infrastructure needed to support growth in the
North End of the City has impacted the ability of the
municipality to plan for the north end growth in an integrated
fashion, and proposed Secondary Plans for the Carnegie,
Chemong and Lily Lake Planning Areas were delayed due to
concerns about unresolved transportation issues.
Completion of the 2012 CTPU and this Class EA study
provide the transportation certainty to allow the City to
proceed with planning for growth in these planned growth
areas.
Regardless of the year when the growth forecasts or
forecasts of future travel demands are realized, it is important
to have an infrastructure plan in place to accommodate the
growth, whether it occurs sooner or later than forecast. City
Council will retain the authority to implement the project, or
portions of the project, as growth occurs. The City is planning
to review their transportation plan every 5-10 years. The
review may include assessing projects that have not been
completed yet in light of updated information on travel
patterns and growth forecasts. This is consistent with the
approach the City has taken on previous Transportation
Plans and represents proper planning processes that occur

May 2, 2014 61
Issue Response
throughout the province.
November 2011. The program to support non-auto modes of
travel is aggressive, requiring an investment of $71M to $85M
over the next 20 years.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

Attachment B
Map of Requesters Properties
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

18

27

24

3

29

19

11

9

35

4

21

26

5

12

39

15

35

1
0 1,250 2,500 625
metres
1:52,000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT ID
LAST MODIFIED
CREATED BY
60269791
MT
07/04/2014
UTM Zone 17 NAD 83
1
Figure
Client
City of Peterborough
Report Title
Parkway Environmental Assessment
Requester Property Location Map
Site Location
Peterborough and Surrounding Area
Data sources:
Base Data: (c) 2012 City of Peterborough & Land Information Ontario
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Peterborough
Kawartha Lakes
Guelph Otonabee-South Monaghan
Legend
! Address Location
Parkway Corridor
Expressway / Highway
Arterial Road
Local Road
Waterbody
Municipal Border
Sherbrooke Street
Sir Sandford Fleming Drive
C
lo
n
s
illa
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkhill Road West
C
h
e
m
o
n
g

R
o
a
d
Landsdowne Street
Lily Lake Road
Lindsay Road
M
o
n
a
g
h
a
n

R
o
a
d
G
e
o
r
g
r
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

N
o
r
t
h
R
e
id

S
t
r
e
e
t
T
e
l e
v
i s
i o
n

R
o
a
d
W
a
te
r S
tre
e
t
A
r
m
o
u
r

R
o
a
d
C
e
n
t
r
e

L
in
e
L
DEPF
DEPF
A
s
h
b
u
r
n
h
a
m

D
r
i v
e
(When printed at ANSI B)
W
oo
lw
ich S
tre
et
N
o
rfo
lk
S
tre
e
t
W
yn
d
h
a
m
S
tre
e
t
York Street
DEPF
Woolwich Street
Speed River
E
d
inb
urg
h
R
oa
d
S
e
ttle
rs
L
in
e
DEPF
In
d
ia
n
R
iv
e
r L
in
e
B
le
z
a
rd
L
in
e
J
e
rm
y
n
L
in
e
Pigeon Lake B
o
u
n
d
a
ry
R
o
a
d
Little Lake
Otonabee
River
Otonabee
River
Lily Lake
Sm
ith-Ennism
ore-Lakefield
O
t
o
n
a
b
e
e
-
S
o
u
t
h

M
o
n
a
g
h
a
n
Douro-Dummer
C
a
v
a
n
-
M
o
n
a
g
h
a
n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!

44

40

46

47

44
Havelock-Belmont-Methuen
Round Lake
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

Attachment C
Proponent Information Requirements
Parkway Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study

1
May 2, 2014

Required Information

Response or Attachments
Response to Requester Issues

Table A, attached.
Environmental Study Report and Technical Appendices
and other assessment documentation.

Email confirmation of receipt, Dawnett Allen, Project Evaluator, March 5, 2014.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment work
required to demonstrate no impacts on Aboriginal
archaeological resources and other issues that may be
identified in the requests.

A copy of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) reports are
included in Appendix G of the ESR. The findings of the Stage 2 AA
recommended Stage 3 AA activities within three areas of the corridor, generally
in relation to: Lee Pioneer Cemetery site; 19
th
century artifacts located in
proximity to the cemetery site; and, a site consisting of domestic and structural
artifacts. No evidence of Aboriginal heritage was recovered during the Stage 2
AA.

Notice of Completion

Attached.
Consultation Record
Public, Agency, Aboriginal

Note: Proponents will be required to justify why
notification and/or consultation was not undertaken with
Aboriginal communities or that consultation was adequate.
Inadequate justification (when potential interest or effects
anticipated) or inadequate consultation may require the
proponent to provide a notice and/or undertake
consultation or additional consultation as may be
applicable in the appropriate circumstance prior to a
decision being rendered on a Part II Order request.

The study included an extensive public consultation program, including
consultation with Aboriginal communities, as detailed in Chapter 2 of the ESR.
A copy of all correspondence is provided in Appendices B (Agency), C
(Aboriginal) and D (Public) of the ESR.

2
May 2, 2014

Project Data
Size of facility
Area of land owned by proponent
Length and width of linear facilities (roads,
sidewalks, etc)
Amount of private vs public lands to be acquired or
expropriated (hectares and percent)
Location of requesters properties on a map
Map for undertaking (separate electronic copy)
Cost of project
Funding for project
Construction timing

Size of Facility
Refer to attached.

Area of Land Owned by Proponent
Refer to attached.

Length and Width of Linear Facilities
Refer to attached.

Amount of Private vs Public Lands to be Acquired or Expropriated
Refer to attached.

Property Acquisition
Acquisition of the necessary property can be carried out in the following ways:
Purchase at the appraised value. The City would rely upon the services
of a licensed commercial appraiser to identify the fair market value of the
land. Negotiation with the property owner would follow to determine the
final agreed selling price and inclusions (i.e., legal fees, etc.)
If an agreeable purchase is not possible per the above, the City could
proceed with an expropriation. This method would be followed as a last
resort only.
Through site plan approval, the Planning Act allows a municipality to
request property as part of the site plan approval process. This is
typically how the City has acquired property from developers in the
past. Most developers are aware of this provision and provide the land to
the City when needed.
Location of Requesters Properties on a Map
Refer to Attachment B.

3
May 2, 2014

Map of Undertaking
Refer to attached and Preferred Design Drawings in Section 7 of the ESR.

Cost of Project
A preliminary cost estimate is provided in Section 7.12 of the ESR. Table 7.2
breaks down costs by major construction phase and Table 7.3 provides a cost
breakdown by category. The total estimated cost is based on the preliminary
design and includes all roadworks and mitigation measures noted in the ESR.
An additional contingency of $5.8 Million has been added to reflect the
commitment to investigate a reduced number of bridge piers for the Jackson
Park Crossing Structure, based on a four span bridge with 3 sets of piers. The
total program costs include utility relocations, property costs, costs associated
with phased implementation, plus Engineering & Construction Administration
Costs of 15% ($8.7M) added to the capital budget. The total program cost is
estimated at $78.91 Million, based on 2013 unit prices.

Funding for Project:
The current capital budget indicates funding for the entire project to be sourced
as follows:
Development Charges (Debentures) - Currently estimated at roughly
42% of the project - will be refined during DC Bylaw update
General Municipal Revenues (Debentures) - includes tax supported, gas
tax revenues, provincial and federal funding grants/stimulus etc.
Exact revenue sources have not yet been determined. However, this will be
completed through the annual budget process and pending the results of the
MOE review of the various Part II Order requests.


4
May 2, 2014

Construction Timing
The recommended implementation schedule lists the elements that comprise the
recommended design and the various anticipated implementation stages and cost
estimates throughout the study timeline. The implementation schedule is based
on the existing and anticipated growth patterns in the City both in terms of
volume increases and distribution of this growth.

As documented in Section 7.13 of the ESR, it is anticipated that the project will
be implemented through a multi-year implementation program comprised of 10
implementation stages which would see a new continuous 2 lane road corridor in
place by 2028. Implementing a project of this magnitude in stages offers a
number of affordability benefits as the investment is spread out over a longer
period and implementation can be timed to coincide with needs or allow
flexibility for investments in other priorities.

Source Protection - in all cases
Information to support how proponent has considered
source protection (e.g. source protection plan area and
whether any policies would be applicable, comments and
consideration by the Conservation Authority, potential
threats, well head protection areas, water intakes etc, if
any).

The alignment of the widened portion of existing roadways in the northeast end
of the Parkway study area do not cross or enter into the defined capture zone at
the Otonabee River. Therefore, the surface water source is not threatened by the
proposed road widening in that area.

Similarly, the municipal well west of the City is several kilometres from the
Parkway. As such, the project limits do not approach the capture zone for that or
any other municipal well.

Adaptive Climate Change- how considered-as may be
applicable depending on the nature of the projects

Improved Regional Air Quality
The findings of the Air Quality Assessment carried out as part of this EA study
indicate that decreases in airborne emissions are expected on a regional level due
to the total reduced travelled distances associated with the implementation of
this Project.

5
May 2, 2014

Stormwater Management
A stormwater management (SWM) plan for the entire corridor was developed as
part of this EA study. The design strategy for each SWM plan was to provide
stormwater quantity control by maintaining post-development flows at or below
pre-development levels and water quality control to Enhanced (Level 1)
protection as per the Ministry of Environments Stormwater Management
Planning and Design Manual for Enhanced (Level 1) Protection, dated March
2003.

Supports Higher Order Transit
The Parkway corridor will support future potential implementation of higher
order transit. Bus stops will be provided at key intersections throughout the
corridor. The bus stop locations are identified on the preliminary design
drawings and will be confirmed during detailed design.

Trail Connectivity (Pedestrians and Cyclists)
A 3.0 m wide multi-use trail has been proposed along the entire length of the
Parkway Corridor to accommodate recreational cyclist traffic, commuter
cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, a sidewalk or multi-use path will also be
provided on the opposite side of the roadway Grade separated crossings will be
provided at various locations to provide a safe controlled crossing for
pedestrians and cyclists to cross the new roadway and maintain connectivity
between neighbourhoods on either side of the Parkway Corridor.

Vegetation Restoration Plan
The Project will result in the permanent loss of trees and shrubs. However, earth
moving, trail relocation, and vegetation restoration works can occur prior to
construction of the roadway. The City will prepare a Vegetation Restoration
Plan during detailed design so that opportunities for preserving existing trees and
pre-planting new trees in advance of construction works can occur to allow new

6
May 2, 2014

vegetation to grow and mature. The Vegetation Restoration Plan will identify the
approach to new tree plantings which may include replacement of lost vegetation
at an enhanced rate (i.e. 2 new trees for every tree removed).

City-Wide Initiatives
The City of Peterborough has also implemented the following city-wide
initiatives which support Adaptive Climate Change:
Flood Reduction Master Plan - a strategy to reduce flooding in the City
Urban Forest Strategic Plan a long term strategy for the maintenance
renewal and community awareness of the Citys urban forest resource
Transportation Demand Management Initiatives:
o Pedestrians and Cyclists - since adoption of the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update the City has or is planning to
construct new Active Transportation infrastructure comprised of
13 km of new sidewalks, 3 km of new trails, and 2.7 km of new
cycling lanes, and
o Transit - since adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update the City has purchased 9 new conventional buses to
expand and modernize the fleet and to provide 12,000 new hours
(+11%) of transit service which has increased annual ridership
from 3.18M riders per year to 3.42M riders per year on the
conventional system.
o These measures have been implemented to achieve the CTPU
mode share targets
Species at Risk under Endangered Species Act included as
part of Transition List for new MNR Regulation regarding
protection of habitat

The Natural Heritage Features Assessment of Significance considered Species at
Risk (SAR) as identified by MNR prior to the finalization of the report as of
February 5
th
, 2014. As per Section 8.2.1.3 of the ESR, it is stated that SAR may
be present in the preferred corridor. While suitable habitat for butternut and
milksnake was observed, no SAR were identified in the preferred corridor at the

7
May 2, 2014

time of the field studies carried out in support of the EA study. It was further
recommended that surveys be carried out at the detailed design phase to confirm
presence or absence of SAR. If any species are found during these surveys,
appropriate mitigation or compensation plans will be developed in consultation
with the MNR. These surveys will consider additional species that are
considered transition species as listed in Schedule 3 or 4 of the Endangered
Species Act.
Statement of Environmental Values Considerations
Cumulative effects, as may be appropriate
Related predominately to projects with waste
Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) and
other ECAs
Ecosystem approach, as may be appropriate

It is anticipated that during the construction phase, Permit(s) to Take
Water and/or approval to discharge water (Sewage Works) may be
required.
With respect to an ecosystem approach, the intent is to look at the natural
system as a whole (i.e., to evaluate where the corridor may bisect a
woodland or a linkage). In the case of the Parkway Corridor Municipal
Class EA study, the overall natural heritage system contains many urban
influences with very few areas containing natural heritage features.
Jackson Park is the largest natural feature with respect to area and its
linkage function for wildlife movement. The decision to utilize a span
bridge was to ensure these functions for the overall ecosystem within the
study area are not lost.

Hectares (Ha)
Total Land Required
(Private + Public + City)
Hectares (Ha)
Percentage
South 0.9704 4.8621 20.0% 4
Medical Drive 0 3.8396 0.0% 0
Jackson 0.2338 2.4243 9.6% 5
North 0.0229 14.6147 0.2% 1
TOTAL 1.2271 25.7407 4.8% 10
Hectares (Ha)
Total Land Required
Hectares (Ha)
Percentage of Total
South 0 4.8621 0.0% 0
Medical Drive 0 3.8396 0.0% 0
Jackson 0 2.4243 0.0% 0
North 0 14.6147 0.0% 0
TOTAL 0 25.7407 0.0% 0
Hectares (Ha)
Total Land Required
Hectares (Ha) Percentage of Total
South 3.8917 4.8621 80.0%
Medical Drive 3.8396 3.8396 100.0%
Jackson 2.1905 2.4243 90.4%
North 14.5918 14.6147 99.8%
TOTAL 24.5136 25.7407 95.2%
Project Sections
Area of Need/ Within Proposed ROW
City Owned Land
Public Land to be Acquired/Expropriated
Project Sections
No. of
Displacements
Notes
Project Sections
No. of
Displacements
Notes
Private Land to be Acquired/Expropriated
Width of facilities - best illustrated in the typical sections
30m Right-of-Way Requirement
o Roadways
2-Lane Sections: 10m (2 x 5m lane)
4-Lane Sections: 14m (4 x 3.5m lane) + 5m Left Turn Lane/Median
(where applicable)
o Sidewalks 1.5m
o Multi-Use Path 3.0m

Length of Linear Facilities
Roadway - Parkway Corridor
o 5.1km of new roadway (15.4 Ln-km of new through lanes)
1.0km of 4-lane roadway - Clonsilla Ave to Sherbrooke Street
1.6km of 4-lane roadway Parkhill Rd to Chemong Road
2.5km of 2-lane roadway Chemong Road to Cumberland Ave
o 0.6km of Realigned Roadway
0.3km Parkway (at South Limit)
0.3km of Water Street (at North Limit)
o 1.6km of Widening (2-lane to 4-lane) on Medical Drive
o 1.0km of 2-lane urbanization of existing roadway on Cumberland Ave
Other Roadway Crossing/Intersecting
o 0.3km of Intersection Widening for 5m Left Turn/Median (Clonsilla)
o 0.5km Lane Reduction for Left Turn Lane/Median (Sherbrooke)
o 0.9km of Realigned Roadway
0.3km of Fairbairn Street
0.3km of Water/Carnegie
Sidewalk
o 5.2km of New Sidewalk
0.6km - South Limit to 10+600
0.3km - Parkhill Rd to 13+200
4.3km Fairbairn St to Carnegie Ave
o 1.9km of Maintained/Relocated/Realigned Sidewalk
1.6km - Medical Drive
0.3km Water Street

Multi-Use Trail
o 3.1km of New Multi-Use Trail
1.0km Clonsilla to Sherbrooke (West)
0.7km 10+600 to Sherbrooke (East)
0.7km Parkhill to Fairbairn (West)
0.4km 13+300 to Fairbairn (East)
0.3km Water Street
o 6.2km of Maintained/Relocated/Realigned Multi-Use Trail
0.3km - South Limit to Clonsilla
1.6km - Sherbrooke to Parkhill
4.3km Fairbairn to Carnegie

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PARKWAY CORRIDOR
(LANSDOWNE STREET TO WATER STREET AT CARNEGIE AVENUE)
NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION
THE STUDY
The City of Peterborough (City), through their consultant AECOM, has completed a
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study (Study) to examine the opportunity
to improve traffic flow and increase roadway capacity to address long term growth in the
City.
The Preferred Alternative includes a multi-modal
arterial road corridor, designed to accommodate:
Four lanes between Clonsilla Avenue and
Chemong Road
Two lanes from Chemong Road to Cumberland
Avenue and Water Street
Future express transit route
Provision for transit infrastructure
Sidewalks and a continuous multi-use trail
Pedestrian/trail crossings
Enhanced landscaping and vegetation
Noise mitigation treatments
Enhanced stormwater management
Various intersection arrangements
THE PROCESS
The study was carried out in accordance with the planning and design process for
Schedule C projects, as outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011). The Municipal Class EA process
includes identifying/assessing alternatives, assessing potential environmental effects,
identifying reasonable measures to eliminate or reduce potentially adverse effects, and the
recommended alternative.
The Environmental Study Report (ESR) has been prepared to document the planning and
decision making process that was followed. By this Notice, the ESR is being placed on
the public record for review in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class
EA. Subject to comments received as a result of this Notice, and the receipt of all
necessary approvals, the City intends to move forward to the next phase, detailed design
and phased construction.
The ESR will be available for public review, beginning on February 7, 2014 and ending on
March 24, 2014, at the following locations:
The City of Peterborough
Office of the City Clerk
500 George Street North
Peterborough, ON K9H 3R9
Monday Friday
8:30 am to 4:30 pm
The City of Peterborough
Public Library
345 Aylmer Street North
Peterborough, ON K9H 3V7
Mon-Thurs 10:00 am to 8:00 pm
Fri-Sat 10:00 am to 5:00 pm
Sun 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Further information may be obtained from the Citys consultant, AECOM, 300 Water
Street, Whitby, Ontario, L1N 9J2. Toll Free: 1.800.668.1983. Tel: 905.668.9363. Email:
parkwaycorridorea@peterborough.ca. Fax: 905.668.0221. Attention: Mr. Kevin Jones,
Project Manager.
A 45-calendar day review period is being provided. If concerns arise during the review
period that cannot be resolved through discussions with the City, a person or party may
request that the Minister of Environment make an order for the project to comply with
Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. This request must be received within the
45-calendar day review period by the Minister, at the address listed below and copied
to the City Clerk. If no request is received by March 24, 2014, the City will proceed with
design and construction of the Preferred Alternative as outlined in the ESR.
Honorable Jim Bradley
Minster of Environment
77 Wellesley Street West
11th Floor, Ferguson Block
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T5
E-mail: eaabgen.moe@ontario.ca

This Notice issued February 7, 2014.
www.peterborough.ca

The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
250 Milroy Drive, Peterborough, ON K9H 7M9
Phone: 705-745-5791, Fax: 705-745-7488
Email: otonabeeca@otonabee.com, Website: www.otonabee.com Member of Conservation Ontario

March 26, 2014

Kevin Jones
Consultant Project Manager
AECOM Canada Ltd.
300 Water Street
Whitby, Ontario L1N 9J2

Robert Dunford
Senior Project Manager
City of Peterborough
500 George Street North
Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3R9

Dear Mssrs. Jones and Dunford:

Re: Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment Study, City of Peterborough, ORCA
file: 2012-ST010

Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) staff have received the Notice of Completion of the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study examining opportunities to improve traffic flow
and increase road capacity within the City of Peterborough.

As noted in previous correspondence, ORCAs interest in this EA is multi-layered. ORCA is primarily
participating as a public commenting body under the Environmental Assessment Act, providing
technical clearance. Our interest is also as service provider to the City of Peterborough in that we
provide technical advice to the City on natural hazard and natural heritage matters through a
Memorandum of Understanding. Thirdly, our interest is as a regulatory agency. Under Section 28 of
the Conservation Authorities Act, ORCA administers Ontario Regulation 167/06, this Authorities
Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses
regulation. Finally, ORCA is reviewing this information as a neighbouring landowner along portions of
the potential corridor.

Given the above, in addition to the complexity of the study, ORCA staff are undertaking a thorough
review of the natural hazards and natural heritage information contained within the report in order to
clearly outline additional information that may be required during the detailed design phase, the
sufficiency of the mitigation measures proposed, as well as identify any additional or alternative
mitigation measures that could be used. These comments will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

Page 2 of 2

We are satisfied that any outstanding issues can be resolved during detailed design and have not
submitted a Part II order request.

Best Regards,

Jennifer Clinesmith, MSc., MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning & Development Services

Cc: Daryl Bennett, ORCA Director
Jack Doris, ORCA Director
Bob Hall, ORCA Director

From: Chung, Tammy (MNR) [mailto:Tammy.Chung@ontario.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:25 PM
To: Epp, Jessica
Subject: RE: Data Request (MNR File No: 12-SMIT-PET-EAE-1550)

Hello,

MNR Peterborough District has received your e-mail (dated August 14, 2012) regarding the Parkway
Corridor Class Environmental Assessment for the City of Peterborough with respect to the study area
located in geographic townships of Monaghan and Smith. We provide the following general information
for your consideration:

MNR Data and Information:

We would like to inform you that MNRs natural heritage and natural resources data and information for
the study area can be obtained through the Land Information Ontario Warehouse (LIOW) through the
Ministrys Land Information Ontario (LIO) website at:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_068994.html.
A data sharing agreement is required to access data within the LIO database. The following link provides
information about obtaining an
agreement: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167959.html

You can also obtain Species at Risk occurrence information on our Natural Heritage Information Centre
website: http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/.
In addition, the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List can be obtained at: http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm
NEW Environmental Registry posting regarding additional species to be added to SARO List in 2012 can
be viewed at:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-
External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE0ODY5&statusId=MTcyMjA3&language=en

We recommend that you use the above-noted sources of information during the review of your project
proposal. MNR may provide additional information and technical advice if details of the proposed
location(s) and design(s) of the proposed works are circulated to our office.

Wetlands
There are unevaluated wetlands within the study area.

Fisheries
The study area traverses several watercourses:

Byersville Creek is a coldwater watercourse. Fish species found within this watercourse are: brook trout,
Sunfishes, Sculpins, eastern blacknose dace, rock bass No in-water works are permitted between Oct 1
Jun 30 of any given year.

Jackson Creek contains a warmwater fish community within this reach. Fish species found within this
watercourse are: rock bass, white sucker, pumpkinseed, pearl dace, common shiner, blacknose shiner,
bluntnose minnow, eastern blacknose dace, longnose dace, brassy minnow, northern redbelly dace,
creek chub, brook stickleback. No in-water works are permitted between Apr 1 Jun 30 of any given
year.

Bears Creek contains a warmwater fish community within this reach. Fish species found within this
watercourse are: creek chub, eastern blacknose dace, longnose dace. No in-water works are permitted
between Apr 1 Jun 30 of any given year.

Unnamed Creek #1 Smith refers to the watercourse which runs parallel to Water street, up by the
zoo. There is no fish community information, however a warm-water fish community is assumed given its
location. No in-water work are permitted between Apr 1 Jun 30 of any given year.

* Please contact your local Conservation Authority for recommendations on any approvals or
sediment/erosion control measures that may be required to be installed prior/during/after construction.

For more information on fisheries management, please contact Holly Simpson, Management Biologist, at
our Peterborough District office at 705-755-3302 or holly.simpson@ontario.ca

Species at Risk
A review of our best available information indicates that there are occurrences of Milksnake (Special
Concern), Common Nighthawk (Special Concern), Common Five-lined Skink (Special Concern), Black
Tern (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern), Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern),
Least Bittern (Threatened), Barn Swallow (Threatened), Chimney Swift (Threatened), Blandings Turtle
(Threatened), Bobolink (Threatened), Butternut (Endangered) and Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) in
the general area of the proposed works. Although no other threatened or endangered species or their
habitat have been documented in the area of the proposed project, these features may be present and
this list should not be considered complete.

Your NHIC search resulted in restricted records that consist of a combination of Least Bittern, Black Tern,
Spotted Turtle, and Common Five-lined Skink. Please note that Spotted Turtle is a historical record.

Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected
under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Section 9(1) of the ESA prohibits a person from killing,
harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or
extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a
species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list.

Since comprehensive mapping for most Species at Risk is not available and since this proposal involves
site alterations, a site assessment is recommended to identify the presence of any Species at Risk and/or
their habitat on the subject lands. The focus of the site assessment can include a review of the
information about known occurrences provided by MNR above along with other information sources such
as species distributions and habitat requirements as well as field visits using MNR approved protocols
during the appropriate seasons by a qualified professional. It is the responsibility of a person(s)
undertaking any proposed activity to ensure they are in compliance with all provincial and federal
legislation including the ESA. Therefore a person(s) should ensure their proposed activities will not
adversely affect a Species at Risk or its habitat protected under the ESA. If an impact to a Species at
Risk or its habitat cannot be avoided, a person(s) may apply for an authorization under the ESA.
However, if an authorization is not issued by MNR, the person(s) must comply with the ESA by modifying
proposed activities to avoid impacts to Species at Risk and habitat protected under the ESA.

Should any species at risk or their habitat be potentially impacted by on site activities, MNR should be
contacted immediately and operations should be modified to avoid any negative impacts to species at risk
or their habitat until further discussions with MNR can occur regarding opportunities for mitigation. If any
species at risk are found, please contact the Species at Risk Biologist at the Peterborough District MNR
office at 705-755-3104. Please provide pictures and coordinates for the occurrence at that time.

For more information on Species at Risk, please contact Kate Pitt (Species at Risk Biologist) at our
Peterborough District office at 705-755-3104 or Kathleen.pitt@ontario.ca

Significant Woodlands
The study area may contain wooded areas. The identification of significant woodlands is the
responsibility of the respective planning authority. As such, we recommend that you contact the local
municipality for more information and potential study requirements.

General Information Regarding MNR approvals:

Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act
Approval may be required under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), if any dyking, dredging or
damming activities are planned along or near watercourses or wetland areas. If you have any questions
regarding the LRIA, please contact please contact Julie Reeder, Land Tenure Administrator, at our
Peterborough District office at 705-755-3305 or julie.reeder@ontario.ca

Public Lands Act
Except for federal canals and harbours, the beds of most lakes and streams are public land in
Ontario. Please note that you may require a Work Permit under the Public Lands Act (PLA) if you are
proposing work in water or near shore (shoreline) areas below the spring high water mark. If you have
any questions regarding the PLA, please contact Julie Reeder, Land Tenure Administrator, at our
Peterborough District office at 705-755-3305 or julie.reeder@ontario.ca

Other Approvals
It is the responsibility of the proponent to acquire all other necessary approvals from any other municipal,
provincial or federal authority under other legislation. We recommend that you contact your local
Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of
Tourism and Culture, etc.

Please reference the above noted MNR file no. for future correspondence. If you have any specific
questions regarding natural heritage and natural resource features as they relate to the study area and
project proposal, please do not hesitate to contact the me.

Sincerely,

Tammy Chung, MCIP, RPP
District Planner
Peterborough District Office
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
tel: 705-755-3294
fax: 705-755-3125
tammy.chung@ontario.ca
P
Please consider the environment before printing
this email note

From: Epp, Jessica [mailto:Jessica.Epp@aecom.com]
Sent: August 14, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Pitt, Kathleen (MNR); Simpson, Holly (MNR)
Cc: Jones, Kevin (Whitby); Addley, Diana
Subject: Data Request

Good Morning Kate and Holly,

We are beginning background review on the Parkway Corridor Class Environmental Assessment for the
City of Peterborough. The project will involve a series of road network improvements along portions of
the Parkway Corridor to address growth and capacity deficiencies in the north end of Peterborough. Our
study area is east of the Otonabee River encompassing the area between Lansdowne St W, Wallis Dr,
Line Road 3 and Carnegie Ave (see attached map, study area is outlined with a black dotted line).

Attached to this email are results of background data collection completed to date:
NHIC search results of the SARs in the study area
NHIC search results of Natural areas within the study area
Search results from the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario for square 17QK10 and 17QK11 in
Peterborough

If you could please review all provided data, and provide us with any additional information for the entire
study area pertaining to:
Natural areas (ESA, PSW, ANSI, significant woodlands)
Thermal regime and watercourse names
Fish records
Fisheries Management designations
Recovery strategies
Presences of critical habitat
Species at Risk
Evaluated wetlands including wetland evaluation records

We noted that there are restricted records in the NHIC for this area please could you forward these to
us? Any other relevant information pertaining to our study area would also be appreciated.

Thanks for your time,

Jessica Epp, B.Sc. (Hons.)
Environmental Scientist
Environment
D 519-840-2221
jessica.epp@aecom.com

AECOM
55 Wyndham Street North, Suite 215
Guelph, ON N1H 7T8
T 519-763-7783 F 519-763-1668
www.aecom.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

D

Attachment D
Aboriginal Consultation Summary

September 20
th
, 2012

Att: Mr. Kevin Jones

Re: Class Environmental Assessment Study
Parkway Corridor, Lansdowne Street to Water Street (at Carnegie Avenue)
Notice of Public Information Centre #1

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class
Environmental Assessment Study for the Parkway Corridor, which is being proposed
within our Traditional and Treaty Territory. We appreciate the fact that the City of
Peterborough and AECOM Canada Ltd., recognizes the importance of First Nations
Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to
Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed
a level 3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations rights, therefore, please
keep Alderville apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any environmental
impacts, should any occur.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our
wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be contacted at the
mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email address below.

In good faith and respect,

Dave Simpson dsimpson@aldervillefirstnation.ca
Lands and Resources
Communications Officer Tele: (905) 352-2662
Alderville First Nation Fax: (905) 352-3242
ALDERVILLE FIRST NATION
P.O. Box 46
11696 Second Line
Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0

Chief: James R. Marsden
Councillor: Dave Mowat
Councillor: Pam Crowe
Councillor: Wes Marsden Jr.
Councillor: Randall Smoke

ALDERVILLEFIRSTNATION
11696SecondLine
P.O.Box46
Roseneath,OntarioK0K2X0
PHONE:(905)3522011
Fax:(905)3523242
May 9, 2013
AECOME
300 Water Street
whitby On L1N 9J2
Att: Kevin Jones.

Re: Class environmental assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street
(at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public Information Centre #2

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class environmental
assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street (at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public
Information Centre which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territories. We appreciate
the fact that Aecom recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office is
conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, please forward in a timely manner project
information such as; a project information overview, PIC meeting agendas, all required project assessment
summaries, addendums, and updates, etc. directly to myself, either, at the mailing address above or
electronically via email, at the email address below.

In addition to those, hard copies of the relevant Environmental Site Assessment and Site Selection studies,
or draft plan of subdivision, as well as all applicable Reports (Stage 1-3) of Archaeological Assessments
conducted for the subject property, would be appreciated via Canada Post or courier service.

In order to assist us in providing you with timely input it would be appreciated if you could provide a
summary statement indicating how the project will address the following areas that are of concern to our
Chief:JamesRMarsden
Councilor:PamCrowe
Councilor:WesMarsden
Councilor:DaveMowat
First Nation within our Traditional and Treaty Territory, such as; possible environmental impact to drinking
water, endangerment to wild game, impact on Aboriginal heritage and cultural values, and to endangered
species, lands, savannas etc.

Additionally, we are interested in being made aware of any undertaking in the Alderville First Nation
Traditional and Treaty Territories that have potential economic benefits to community members, for
example; construction contracts, employment opportunities, hiring of community monitors on archaeological
field crews, natural resources benefit sharing, etc.

As well, where opportunities in the process allow, e.g. individual EA undertakings, etc., we will be
interested in obtaining funding for outside peer review of the undertakings.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept
apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be reached at the contact information below.


Dave Simpson dsimpson@alderville.ca
Lands and Resources

AECOM
300 Water Street 905 668 9363 tel
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2 905 668 0221 fax
www.aecom.com
Transmittal Form
60269791 Adlerville FN Transmittal June 11, 2013.Docx
Date June 11, 2013 Project Number 60269791
Contact Mr. Dave Simpson
Company Alderville First Nation
Address
11696 Second Line
P.O. Box 46, Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0
Telephone # (905) 352-2011
Sent By Kevin Jones Copies To -

Project Name Municipal Class EA Study - Parkway Corridor

Urgent For Your Use For Review For Your Information Confidential
List of Drawings and Other Materials:
Quantity Description Date
1 AECOM Letter Response June 6, 2013
1 PIC #1 Presentation Panels October 12, 2012
1 PIC #2 Presentation Panels March 21, 2013

Comments:

Sent Via: mail courier picked up by hand email fax other

Sent By:

Authorized Signature:

Name: Kevin Jones Title: Project Manager
(please print) (please print)

11696 Second Line
P.O. Box 46
PHONE:(905) 352-2011
Fax: (905) 352-3242

May 9, 2013
AECOME
300 Water Street
whitby On L1N 9J2
Att: Kevin Jones.

Re: Class environmental assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street
(at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public Information Centre #2

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Class environmental
assessment study parkway Corridor, Landsdowne Street to water Street (at Carnegie Ave) Notice of Public
Information Centre which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territories. We appreciate
the fact that Aecom recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office is
conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, please forward in a timely manner project
information such as; a project information overview, PIC meeting agendas, all required project assessment
summaries, addendums, and updates, etc. directly to myself, either, at the mailing address above or
electronically via email, at the email address below.

In addition to those, hard copies of the relevant Environmental Site Assessment and Site Selection studies,
or draft plan of subdivision, as well as all applicable Reports (Stage 1-3) of Archaeological Assessments
conducted for the subject property, would be appreciated via Canada Post or courier service.

In order to assist us in providing you with timely input it would be appreciated if you could provide a
summary statement indicating how the project will address the following areas that are of concern to our
Chief: James R Marsden
Councilor: Pam Crowe
Councilor: Wes Marsden
Councilor: Dave Mowat
First Nation within our Traditional and Treaty Territory, such as; possible environmental impact to drinking
water, endangerment to wild game, impact on Aboriginal heritage and cultural values, and to endangered
species, lands, savannas etc.

Additionally, we are interested in being made aware of any undertaking in the Alderville First Nation
Traditional and Treaty Territories that have potential economic benefits to community members, for
example; construction contracts, employment opportunities, hiring of community monitors on archaeological
field crews, natural resources benefit sharing, etc.

As well, where opportunities in the process allow, e.g. individual EA undertakings, etc., we will be
interested in obtaining funding for outside peer review of the undertakings.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept
apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be reached at the contact information below.


Dave Simpson dsimpson@alderville.ca
Lands and Resources

July 12,

AECOM
300 Wat
Whitby,

Att: K
P

Re: P
M
Pa

Dear Mr

Thank yo
6026979
is being
AECOM
conform

As per t
a level 3
keep Ald
impacts,
electron

2013

ter Streeet
Ontario
Kevin Jones
roject Mana
roject No.
Municipal Cla
arkway Corr
r. Jones,
ou for your
91, Municip
proposed w
recognizes
ing to the r
he Aldervill
, having min
derville appr
should any
ically via em
t
ager
60269791
ass Environm
ridor
consultatio
pal Class En
ithin our Tr
the import
requirement
le First Nat
nimal potent
rised of any
occur. I ca
mail, at the

mental Asse
n request to
nvironmenta
raditional an
tance of Firs
ts within the
tion Consult
tial to impac
y archaeolog
n be contac
email addre

essment St
o Alderville
al Assessme
nd Treaty T
st Nations C
e Duty to Co
ation Proto
ct our First
gical finding
cted at the
ess below.
tudy
e First Natio
ent Study,
Territory. W
Consultation
onsult Proce
col, your pr
Nations rig
gs, burial sit
mailing add
on regardin
Parkway C
We appreciat
n and that y
ess.
roposed proj
ghts, there
tes or any e
ress above

g Project N
Corridor wh
te the fact
your office
ject is deem
efore, please
environment
or

No.
ich
that
is
med
e
tal

2


Lands and Resources


Chief: James R. Marsden
Councillor: Julie Bothwell
Councillor: Jody Holmes
Councillor: Dave Mowat
Councillor: Angela Smoke
11696 Second Line
P.O. Box 46
Phone: (905) 352-2011
Fax: (905) 352-3242
October 1, 2013

AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON L1N 9J2

Att: Mr. Kevin Jones, Project Manager

Re: Project No. 60269791

Dear Mr. K. Jones,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment Study which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty
Territory. We appreciate the fact that AECOM recognizes the importance of First Nations
Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult
Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed a level
3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations rights, therefore, please keep Alderville
apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any environmental impacts, should any
occur. I can be contacted at the mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email
address below.


Lands and Resources

Aboriginal Consultation

A record of the notification and/or consultation activities carried out as part of this study is
summarized below.

Contact Date Comments
Alderville First
Nation
September 20,
2012
Study area is situated within their Traditional and
Treaty Territory, however was deemed as having
minimal potential impact to First Nations rights.
May 9, 2013 Requested that all relevant project documentation be
issued to the community, and that possible impacts to
their Traditional and Treaty Territory be identified
AECOM June 6, 2013 The City and AECOM issued a letter response to
Alderville First Nation to acknowledge receipt of the
previous letter responses, provide an overview of the
study background and work that had been completed
to date
A list of the technical studies being carried out as part
of the study was provided, indicating that a copy
would be provided to the First Nation once the work
was completed and associated documentation
finalized
An invitation to meet with members of the study team
was extended, and PIC #1 and PIC #2 presentation
material and study team contact information was
provided as part of the letter response
Alderville First
Nation
October 1,
2013
Study area was situated within their Traditional and
Treaty Territory, however was deemed as having
minimal potential impact to First Nations rights.
Curve Lake First
Nation
July 31, 2012;
July 11, 2013
Project situated within Traditional Territory of Curve
Lake First Nation, incorporated within the Williams
Treaty Territory
Should excavation unearth evidence of Aboriginal
remains/artifacts, immediately notify community,
Archaeological liaisons available at community
Advise immediately if potential for negative impacts to
Treaty and Aboriginal rights arises over course of
study
Hiawatha First
Nation
June 17, 2013 Study area within First Nations Traditional and Treaty
Territories
Project is deemed to have minimal potential impact to
Hiawatha First Nations rights
Notify of project updates, archaeological findings, etc.
Requested copies of archaeological reports once
completed
Chippewas of
Rama First
Nation
August 10,
2012; October
2, 2012; July 8,
2013
Acknowledged receipt of letter pertaining to
notification of study and confirmed membership of the
Williams Treaties First Nations
Chippewas of
Georgina Island
September 19,
2012; October
14, 2013
No significant concerns and/or comments to provide
Wish to be kept informed regarding progress and
remain on study contact list
Contact Date Comments
AECOM January 28,
2014
A copy of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological
Assessment report was issued to Hiawatha First
Nation on January 28, 2014

Copies of all Aboriginal correspondence are provided on the subsequent pages.

City Response To Part II Order Requests

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

City Response To Part II Order Requests

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AECOM

300 Water Street

Potrebbero piacerti anche