PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT SUMMARY - PIC#2 - May 12th, 2014
Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CLASS A+/C FOR COUNTY ROAD 22
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Clear view of CR22 from living room. Truck traffic is down at least 90% since 1989.
Does this project consider this?
1. Why were they not informed prior to the “preferred option” decided.
2. Why was Old Barrie Road not considered?
3. Has the required traffic analysis been completed? What will be the impact from
increased noise and truck traffic?
4. The Transportation Master Plan does not include a widening of the road so why
has this even been proposed.
5 Have the necessary Environmental Assessments been completed to determine
what the impact will be on our ground water, trees and other vegetation.
County And Ainley Response
The assessment of truck volumes during Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA study was based on 2011 traffic count survey data collected by
the County. Traffic count data is updated every 3 years on all County roads. A new traffic count survey was just completed in May of this
year. The results indicated that, based on a direct comparison of total truck volumes recorded on May 3 -5, 2011 and May 13-15, 2014,
truck volumes have increased by 40%
1
1) The selection of a preferred solution has not yet been made. The work completed to date by the County’s consultant, Ainley and
Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes is being peer reviewed by an independent 3rd party. The results of
the peer review will be available by mid October 2014. To complete Phase 2 of the Class EA, the study team will now review all
information, including the feedback provided by the public during and after PIC’s 1 and 2, and select a recommended preferred solution
that best addresses the problem statement.
2
2) One of the options presented to the public at PIC 1 involved diverting traffic to Old Barrie Road. This option was further reviewed through
the completion of a truck by-pass study. The study concluded that the diversion of truck traffic from HVR would have an adverse impact on
residents and communities on Old Barrie Road. Moving a problem from HVR to Old Barrie Road is not considered a prudent or responsible
action to take. Furthermore, it would set a precedent whereby all communities and residents that are located on a County Road would
request to have the same consideration and action taken to prohibit trucks from using their road. This is not practical or a manageable
solution.
3) Yes, a traffic study and analysis of future traffic conditions and roadway operation improvements has been completed. A noise study
has also been completed. The study found that the net change in sound levels, 10 years after construction, for the sensitive uses exposed
to County Road 22 will be at most 0.5 dB higher compared to not carrying out the project. Furthermore, there are no noise control
measures required as the MOE/MTO guidelines have been satisfied.
4) The County is currently in the process of updating their Transportation Master Plan, which is a comprehensive planning and policy
document which looks at how best to plan for the efficient movement of people and goods. It also looks at alternative modes of
transportation and active transportation opportunities. It does not address project specific operational improvement needs, such as this
project. The planning for specific road improvement projects is carried out in accordance with the Class EA guidelines.
5) Yes, the environmental studies required to assess impacts to the natural environment, including trees, aquatic and terrestrial habitat and
ground water and identify measures to mitigate such impacts have been started and will be finalize as part of the next phase of the Class
EA study.
1. Who initiated study? Were there complaints from residents?
2. What are safety concerns? Is it truck traffic volume or excessive speed by cars
and trucks?
3. 398 collisions of those how many were between Line 3 and 4, and out of these
how many involved trucks? Were the trucks going too fast or too slow? Where
they delivery trucks or commercial trucks and were they going into resort? Since
1) The study was initiated by the County staff as part of their routine monitoring and assessment of existing road conditions and
operational/safety concerns and in response to planned and approved development in the resort area. There were no complaints raised by
the residents of Horseshoe Valley, which we are aware of.
3
2) The safety concerns relate to unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep grades which due to insufficient site visibility
distance, can, and has, resulted in accidents. There is also a safety concern relating to excessive speeding of cars, as they attempt to pass
Page 1
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
the speed limit has been reduced on the hills, how many accidents have there
been?
4. Preferred solution is truck passing lanes, has there been studies done to see if
there are better and cheaper alternative solutions? i.e.
a) Lowering speed to 60 kpm. Perhaps lower it for a year then do another study.
If you lowered speed limit to 60 kpm then the trucks would not be going up the hill
15 km below speed limit.
b) Diverting truck traffic to Old Barrie Road. There are no big hills there so you
wouldn’t need a truck passing lane. Less population so impact less.
c) Putting a turn lane that connects Hwy. 11 southbound to Hwy.400 northbound.
This would divert commercial truck traffic away from a resort and residential area.
If this is a Provincial jurisdiction, has this proposal been forwarded to the
province?
5. Any alternative routes seems to be dismissed because 10 km longer. Why is this
project for benefit of truck traffic and disregarding the impact of installing truck
lanes?
6. If alternative solutions have been studied who recommended truck passing lanes.
How can you make informed decisions if other options not investigated?
A written response is requested.
County And Ainley Response
slow moving vehicles on the steep upgrades and excessive speeding of cars and trucks on the steep down grades, both of which can, and
has, resulted in accidents and near collisions.
3) Between 2001 and 2011, 82 accidents between the 3rd and 4th Line were reported. Of those, 2 involved trucks. The cause of the
accidents involving trucks included a car rear ended the truck as it was following too close and pick up lost control due to excessive speed
and collided with a dump truck heading in the opposite direction. The speed limit between the 3rd and 4th Line was reduced in 2010.
Collision data on file from 2011 and 2012 show 6 accidents were reported. The origin and destination of the vehicles is not recorded.
4 a) As part of the Class EA study, alternative solutions have been considered. Lowering the posted speed to 60km/hr is not anticipated to
address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. In terms of the warrants for truck climbing lanes, the
reduction of 15km/hr is not based on the posted speed limit but rather the reduction in the average running speed of the truck as it enters
the hill approach. In accordance with the Transportation Association Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Table
2.1.8.1, a 180g/w truck (which the design guidelines note is normally used for a 2 lane highway) entering a 7% grade (existing HVR hill
grades are steeper at 8-10%) at a speed of 95km/hr (assumed entry speed as per geometric design guidelines) the length of grade for a 15
km/h speed reduction is 120m. Given the length of the HVR steep hill grades are over 1,000 m in length, this criteria of the truck climbing
lane warrants, is met.
4 b) The option of directing trucks to Old Barrie Road was one of the solutions identified to address the problem statement. The feasibility
of this option, including an inventory and assessment of physical and social environmental impacts, was considered at the beginning of the
study and through the completion of a truck by-pass study following PIC 1. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on
HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
Based on the above, in conjunction with the logistics and challenges associated with prohibiting trucks to use HVR, including the precedent
that would set resulting in other residents and communities requesting the removal of trucks on their County Road, this alternative solution
did not receive a high evaluation.
4 c) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
Page 2
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
5) Alternative routes are not being dismissed based on additional travel distance. Travel distance was just one of many factors considered
in the evaluation of alternative routes.
This project is not for the benefit of trucks. Quite the opposite. This project is looking at ways to improve the safety of vehicles that pass
slow moving trucks on the steep hills.
Impacts to the physical, social, natural, cultural and economic environments associated with the option of constructing truck climbing lanes
are a key component of the study. Opportunities to mitigate identified impacts will also be considered during the evaluation process and
selection of a preferred solution. Commitments to carrying out the mitigation measures during the implementation stage will be documented
in the final environmental study report.
6) The decision to move forward with the truck climbing lane alternative has not yet been made. The work completed to date by the
County’s consultant, Ainley and Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes is being peer reviewed by an
independent 3rd party. The results of the peer review will be available by mid October 2014. The final evaluation and selection process will
be completed after consideration of all public comments. The study team will then provide a recommendation with regard to the preferred
solution to the County for their review and acceptance.
All viable options have been identified and will be evaluated. An informed decision will be made by the study team and the County based
on the findings of the various background studies, public comments and concerns provided to-date and after proper consideration of the
pros and cons of each alternative solution.
1. Vehicles will increase speeds in the area not decrease speed.
Traffic calming is certainly not a concern it appears after the meeting that the final
decision has been made.
2. Crash data should use the data only between Line 3 and Line 4, confident that
results will be greatly reduced.
3. Slow Trucks are not causing the collisions or concerns. Vehicle drivers are.
Vehicles & trucks travelling far too fast, intersections are not up to current
required standards as per the Ontario Traffic Manual, the road is not maintained
properly or quickly enough during the winter months.
If the shoulders and intersections alone were up to provincial standard, the
majority of the issues would be addressed without adding a truck climbing lane.
4. Wouldn't be surprised if the Province of Ontario has advised there is not enough
Heavy Truck Volume moving from Hwy 400 extension to Hwy 11 north to warrant
a northbound ramp from Hwy 400 to Hwy 11 at the north end of Barrie and that
the County of Simcoe is mandated the responsibility?
1) Under the current road conditions, vehicle speeds going down the steep hills increase substantially unless the driver applies the proper
brake pressure to maintain a speed consistent with the posted speed limit. The addition of truck climbing lanes is not anticipated to result in
either an increase or decrease to the speeds of vehicle or truck traffic. The intent of the truck climbing lane is to provide a safe lane for
faster moving vehicles to pass slower moving trucks going up the hills. This will result in fewer near or actual single or multiple vehicle
collisions and accidents.
4
Traffic calming and other such measures to help encourage drivers to obey the speed limit is a consideration of the study. Changing the
road profile to reduce the steepness of the road, as a means to reduce traffic speeds and improve sight lines, was considered and
presented to the public at PIC 1. However, the significant amount of cut and fill work required to soften the road grades on HVR, would
result in extensive impacts to property and the local environment, rendering this alternative not practical and cost prohibitive. Other more
practical methods to address excessive speeding include additional signage, public education, increase law enforcement by the local OPP,
and temporary/permanent speed radar signs.
2) The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. Accident rates are not criteria
Page 3
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
5. How much input does the Ontario Trucking Association have for requesting a
Truck Climbing Lane and having Horseshoe Valley Rd designated a Heavy Truck
Route?
6. Risk management and saving dollars with a few law suit payouts is cheaper than
proper maintenance and improvements.
7. Opinion - priority to road improvements to bring the road / intersections up to
provincial standards with Traffic Calming measures and truck climbing lanes as
secondary.
8. Oversized Pedestrian Crossing Signage at Cathedral Pines / Line Four with
overhead pedestrian activated amber flashing lights and Oversized Speed
Signage. With oversized and more No Passing Zone signage.
A written response is requested.
County And Ainley Response
in the design guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
3) We agree that slow moving vehicles travelling up the steep hills are not the cause of accidents. It is the impatient drivers behind the slow
moving vehicle that tend to make poor decisions to pass the slow moving vehicle illegally up the hill which results in collisions with
oncoming vehicles and/or single vehicle accidents.
We agree excessive speeding, anywhere, including up or down the steep hills is a traffic safety concern. Enforcement of traffic speeds in
accordance with the Highway Traffic Act is the responsibility of the local OPP.
Through the completion of a traffic study, improvements to the intersections of 3rd Line, Birch Grove (Horseshoe Valley Resort Entrance)
and 4th Line have been identified as being required to address traffic safety, operation and capacity issues. Intersection improvements are
being planned under Project B of the Class EA study.
The County of Simcoe continues to maintain the condition of all County roads, including HVR, in accordance with the appropriate road
maintenance standards. Winter maintenance and the safety of the travelling public are of vital importance to the County. As such, they
carry out snow removal and de-icing operations as quickly and efficiently as possible, utilizing all available resources and equipment at
their disposal.
The existing shoulders and intersections are being evaluated in order to meet County and MTO road standards. Upgrades to the
intersections are being considered to accommodate increased traffic volumes due to the planned growth within the Horseshoe Valley area.
It is recognized that the intersection improvements will improve traffic safety; however they will not alleviate the problem of faster moving
vehicles passing slower moving traffic on the steep hill approaches. The auxiliary turn lanes proposed at the intersections will allow turning
vehicles to remove themselves from the main traffic stream. However, they will not provide a safe lane for passing through traffic.
5) The Ontario Trucking Association has no involvement or influence in the option to construct truck climbing lanes (or not). All County
roads are designed and constructed to accommodate the movement of people and goods, with the latter typically requiring the use of
heavy trucks.
6) Comment noted.
7) Your suggestions to move forward with intersection improvements, traffic calming, improved signage and amber flashing lights at the 4th
Line first and then re-evaluate need to introduce truck climbing lanes is noted.
8) Comment noted.
Summary of comments from herself & others during meeting.
1. Work with the province to construct:
- A north-bound ramp from 11 to 400 North
- A north-bound ramp from 400 to 11 North
The speaker suggested this may be the key to expedite through truck traffic.
2. Work with Horseshoe Resort - per comments from Kevin Toth, Skyline Executive
1) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
5
Page 4
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
3. Undertake some form of Project B, assuming a full EA process is followed,
including PIC(s) for timely public consultation. Some speakers supported
intersection improvements.
4. Improve the hills, shoulders, etc and re-paint the yellow lines – per a speaker’s
suggestion to improve safety at relatively low cost
5. Reduce the speed limit to 60km/hour and install radar signs, both east and west,
that show motorists’ actual speed vs the speed limit
6. Complete the necessary studies for Old Barrie Road and for Horseshoe Valley
Road, so that these options can truly be compared, including:
- hydrogeological, socio-economic, study on population density and future growth
plans
7 Examine the traffic data being used to justify Project A: baseline, parameters,
accuracy, age, etc. Be transparent by making all the data accessible to residents.
Some speakers said they don’t believe we have a problem; some speakers
pointed out where they think the data is faulty; some speakers said they had not
been given access to all the data
8. Examine the assumptions about safety and the role of speed in safety
9. Analyze the data regarding accidents on HVR: causes, whether trucks were
directly or indirectly involved, speed limits at the time, etc.
County And Ainley Response
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
2) The study team appreciates the invitation extended by the Owner of Horseshoe Valley Resort to meet to discuss service delivery routes
and opportunities to alter such as a means to reduce the number of trucks using HVR. A follow up with the owner will be arranged in the
near future.
3) The study team acknowledges there is a general consensus for the need to move forward with intersection improvements. However,
given the design of the intersections will be impacted by the decision to construct truck climbing lanes or not, moving forward with Project B
in isolation with Project A is not recommended at this time.
4) Shoulder grading and re-painting of the yellow center line is an on-going maintenance task undertaken by the County’s maintenance
department. As such, it is not a matter that needs to be addressed as part of the Class EA study. Opportunities to improve the hill grades
have been considered as part of the Class EA study. Due to the significant property and environmental impacts associated with cutting and
raising the road profile to improve site lines and safety, this option is being evaluated but may not be preferred.
5) The option of reducing the speed limit and installing speed radar signs will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies,
reducing the posted speed from 70km/hr to 60 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they
are descending the steep hills or speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
6) A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck traffic from HVR to
Old Barrie Road. The results will be properly considered during the final evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of the preferred
solution.
7) The 2011 traffic data used at the start of the study will be supplemented with new updated traffic data collected by the County on HVR
during the week of May 12, 2014. This data, along with all background studies and data developed by the study team will be made
available to the public. Draft copies will be posted on the County’s website. Final copies will be included in the environmental study report
which will be made available for public review at the completion of the Class EA study.
8) Safety concerns on HVR include not only illegal and unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills, but also increased
vehicle speeds due to the steep descending hill grades.
9) The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. Accident rates are not criteria
in the design guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes. Notwithstanding, further review and correlation of the data as it
relates to the involvement of trucks, speeding, etc., will be completed.
1. Would like the reconstructed section to provide for paved shoulders.
Response by MN - May 14, 2014 - Will be recommending fully paved shoulders to assist with erosion control and provide a surface for
cyclist.
6
Suggests passing lane just east of turn near Settler’s Ghost and Not close to Third
Line.
Comment noted. However, suggested location for a passing lane is beyond the limits of this study. Need and feasibility of constructing
passing lanes would be subject to the completion of a separate study.
7
Page 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Amber lights needed - 3rd Line, HVR & Birch Rd., also 4th Line.
No need for trucks on HVR, use Old Barrie Rd. Trucks need to be using Hwy. 11 if
not making deliveries.
3rd Line needs longer turning lane.
Birch Rd. needs turning lanes both ways off HVR.
County And Ainley Response
1) Option of installing amber lights as an alternative to traffic signals or maintaining the existing side road stop condition will be considered.
We note the background traffic study has determined that, based on future traffic growth and conditions, the warrants for traffic signals at
the 3rd Line are met. However, traffic signal warrants at Birch Road and the 4th Line are not met. As a result, installation of flashing amber
lights at Birch Grove and 4th Line are considered a good method to improve traffic and pedestrian safety.
8
2) A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck traffic from HVR to
Old Barrie Road and/or Hwy 11. The results will be properly considered during the final evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of
the preferred solution.
3 & 4) Intersection improvement options at the 3rd Line, Birch Grove (Horseshoe Valley Resort entrance) as well as the 4th Line include the
addition of auxiliary turn lanes. The length of these turn lanes and tapers will be designed in accordance with current standards.
1. Install traffic signals at 3rd, the Resort & 4th. Cars will slow down and trucks will
disappear.
The background traffic study has determined that, based on future traffic growth and conditions, the warrants for traffic signals at the 3rd
Line are met. However, traffic signal warrants at Birch Road and the 4th Line are not met. As a result, installation of flashing amber lights at
Birch Grove and 4th Line will be considered in order to improve traffic and pedestrian safety.
9
1.
2.
3.
4.
1) Intersection improvement options at the 3rd Line, Birch Grove (Horseshoe Valley Resort entrance) as well as the 4th Line include the
addition of auxiliary turn lanes.
10
Install left/right turn lanes at every intersection.
Add a street light at each intersection.
Lower speed to 50 kph, because it is a community.
School buses will benefit from extra turning lanes.
2) Partial illumination at each intersection to improve safety due to poor sight lines will be considered.
3) The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed from
70km/hr to 50 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending the steep hills or
speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
4) We agree with your comment that the addition of turn lanes at the intersections will improve safety for school buses as well as other road
users.
1. Speed limit should come down to 60 kph.
2. Send trucks south along Hwy. 11 and then north on new Hwy. 400
3. Get rid of trucks.
1) The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed from
70km/hr to 60 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending the steep hills or
speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
11
2) The current construction of the new interchange at Hwy 400/11 does not include provisions for southbound Hwy 11 traffic to access
westbound Hwy 400.
3) A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck traffic from HVR to
Old Barrie Road and/or Hwy 11. The results will be properly considered during the final evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of
the preferred solution.
1. Safety - crosswalks with flashing lights mandatory at all intersections.
2. This is resort/tourist area, why focus on industry/truck traffic.
3. Safe turning lanes and proper intersection development (shoulders, lane
1 & 3) Improvements to intersections, including traffic signals or flashing amber lights and auxiliary turn lanes at the 3rd Line, Birch Grove
and 4th Line, and right turn tapers at all minor side roads, are being considered.
12
Page 6
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
markers).
4. Listen to residents who are making sound recommendations, it is not all about $$,
supporting truck industry.
5. Where did all this stem from, why do we need truck turning lanes?
6. Better county representation & interaction. Ainley answering non-applicable
questions & appearing frustrated.
County And Ainley Response
2) This project is not for the benefit of trucks. Quite the opposite. This project is looking at ways to improve the safety of vehicles that pass
slow moving trucks on the steep hills.
4) Comment noted
5) In response to traffic safety concerns, the County initiated this Class EA study to review existing and future road and intersection
operations and identify solutions to improve vehicle and pedestrian traffic safety. Slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can
contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered to
address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills.
6) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the minimum requirements of
the Class EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA
process, the problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be.
Public attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the
study team will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound
engineering judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
1. What date was Project A introduced and by whom?
2. Is proposal in County’s Master Transportation Plan? If not why is it being
considered?
3. What are deficiencies/safety issues and where is outline of hazards/incidents that
make this study a priority?
4. Are any Provincial or Federal grants available for this study? Has the County
applied for such funding?
5. How much has been spent and what has been allocated in 2014 budget for this
study?
6. What are the dates of all reports and how/where can these reports be accessed?
7. What other alternatives have been explored and has Barrie Side Road been
considered?
8. Where can studies be accessed?
9. Maps/illustrations which were sent by mail are not legible, when will a legible map
be provided by mail to people affected?
10. Has Environmental Assessment been initiated? Where is hydrogeological,
sociological, cultural and architectural assessment? Many people cycling, buses
stop along route. There are many species of wildlife in area.
11. Is expropriation being considered along CR22, between 3rd & 5th Line.
12. If expropriation is considered will there be remuneration? Will any request for
expropriation be eligible for challenge at the OMB?
13. Over the last year, what was the daily/weekly/monthly/seasonable traffic rate for
trucks and cars from Craighurst to Line 5?
14. Over the last year, what was the daily/weekly/monthly/seasonable traffic rate for
trucks and cars along Barrie Side road between Dalston & Line 5?
1) Project A was introduced by the County and their consultant (Ainley) to the public in the spring of 2013 through the posting of a Notice of
Study Commencement.
13
2) This project is not part of the County’s TMP. The County is currently in the process of updating their Transportation Master Plan, which
is a comprehensive planning and policy document which looks at how best to plan for the efficient movement of people and goods. It also
looks at alternative modes of transportation and active transportation opportunities. It does not address project specific operational
improvement needs, such as this project. The planning for specific road improvement projects is carried out in accordance with the Class
EA guidelines.
3) In response to traffic safety concerns, the County initiated this Class EA study to review existing and future road and intersection
operations and identify solutions to improve vehicle and pedestrian traffic safety. Slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can
contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered to
address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills.
4) Currently there are no provincial or federal funding programs available for this study. As such, the County has not applied for any
funding.
5) To-date, approximately $150,000 has been spent. The County’s 2014 budget has allocated 7.5M to this project.
6) All background reports are currently in draft form. They will be finalized as the study advances forward and will be included in the final
environmental study report which will be placed on the public record for a 30 day review period following notification of study completion.
7) With regard to Project A, the following alternative solutions are being considered:
1. Do Nothing
2. Add Truck Passing Lanes
Page 7
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
3.
Detour Traffic to Adjacent Roads
A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck traffic from HVR to Old
Barrie Road. The results will be properly considered during the final evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of the preferred
solution.
8) Copies of the draft background reports and study data have been placed on the County’s website for public review.
9) The study location maps included with the previous public notices will be modified on future notices to provide better clarity.
10) Environmental assessment studies, including traffic impact study, archaeological, noise, natural environmental inventory, truck by-pass
and accident review study have been initiated and will be finalized as the study moves forward. A hydrogeological study will be completed
this summer to collect base line data on existing private water wells located adjacent to CR 22.
11 & 12) The study is not at a stage where property acquisition needs are known at this time. Once a preferred solution is selected the next
phase of the study will look various design concepts to carry out the preferred solution. Opportunities to minimize, or preferably avoid,
impacts to property will be considered and implemented to the extent possible. Should expropriation be necessary, the affected property
owner may submit an appeal and request a Hearing of Necessity, through the provisions provided in the Expropriation Act.
13) The County completed updated traffic counts on HVR during the weeks of May 12, 2014 and July 14, 2014.
The average daily traffic volumes on HVR between Craighurst and Line 5 are 4,900
14) Based on traffic survey data collected by the County, the average daily traffic volumes on Old Barrie Road between Dalston and Line 5
was 2,600
1. Who started the proposal of truck lanes?
In response to traffic safety concerns, the County initiated this Class EA study to review existing and future road and intersection
operations and identify solutions to improve vehicle and pedestrian traffic safety. Slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can
contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered to
address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills.
14
1. Reduce speed to 60 mph.
2. Develop Population Density Study on HVR & other alternates.
3. Sight lines from entrance to Beechwood much less than 300m (as noted in
report), re-evaluate the data.
4. Limit truck use of J-brakes on downhill - make it illegal to reduce noise.
5. Investigate if Hwy. 400/Hwy. 11 plans to allow trucks to get northbound off Hwy.
400 south bound.
6. Eliminate heavy trucks on HVR.
7. Intersection improvements are all agreed - it is truck lane addition that is not
supported. It is assumed sight lines are improved at HV Resort entrance & 4th.
8. Bike lanes on both sides of the roads.
1) The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed from
70km/hr to 60 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending the steep hills or
speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
15
2) The completion of a population study on HVR and areas will not assist with addressing the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving
vehicles on the steep hills in Horseshoe Valley.
3) Opportunities to improve the road profile and site lines from the Horseshoe Resort entrance, easterly, are being considered.
4) Opportunities to mitigate noise due to heavy trucks braking to maintain a safe speed going down the steep hills, including additional
signage advising “Residential Area – Avoid Using Engine Brakes – Excessive Noise Prohibited”.
Page 8
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
5 & 6) All reasonable alternatives, including detouring truck traffic onto adjacent roads (such as Old Barrie Road and Highway 11) are
being considered. Some alternatives, such as requesting MTO to revise the design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange (which is well into
construction) to accommodate a new ramp for southbound traffic to access Hwy 400 west, have been screened out as they are not
practical or feasible solutions.
7) Support of intersection improvements (Project B) is noted.
8) Opportunities to improve safety of pedestrians and cyclist, by paving the road shoulders, are being considered.
1. Excessive noise during construction, decreased property value, more trucks using
HVR at all hours, which leads to more exhaust fumes, more engine break noise
on way down and increased tire noise which echo badly during dense fog.
Trucks have trouble getting up hill in winter.
2. HRV not suitable for trucks, use other alternatives 400, 11, Old Barrie Road.
3. Safety issue at Line 4.
1) Appropriate operational constraints will be implemented during construction to mitigate temporary construction noise, in accordance with
the County and/or Township noise by-laws.
16
Opportunities to mitigate noise due to heavy trucks braking to maintain a safe speed going down the steep hills, including additional
signage advising “Residential Area – Avoid Using Engine Brakes – Excessive Noise Prohibited”.
2) HVR, being a County Road, is designed and constructed to accommodate the movement of people and goods. The latter requires the
use of trucks, which are permitted on all County Roads.
A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck traffic from HVR to Old
Barrie Road and/or Hwy 11. The results will be properly considered during the final evaluation of alternative solutions and selection of the
preferred solution.
3) Improvements to the intersection of 4th Line are being considered to address pedestrian and vehicle safety concerns due to poor site
lines and future capacity and operational deficiencies.
1. Would like the Ontario Cycling Policy implemented if passing lanes get added?
1.5 m wide, cost effective if done in conjunction with truck lane, increases of local
cycle tourism and cycling events.
2. Great job of answering publics questions.
1. Traffic Safety Issues - intersections, inadequate signage & inappropriate speed.
2. Traffic Noise - downgrade engine & breaking.
3. Trucks although a factor, the issue is ‘mixed use’ (through traffic and local
community)
4. Traffic data - was not available for peak Winter season, no contact had been
made with Resort for input.
5. Inappropriate focus “Truck traffic” - absence of descriptive data, re: type of
vehicle, a simplistic assessment of traffic patterns & behaviours which appear to
have led to pushing an “overkill” solution, (truck passing lanes).
6. An apparent rush to a simplistic expensive solution - Truck lanes: Except for the
presenters, no one accepted truck lanes in the Valley as an appropriate solution
to safety concerns.
1) Opportunities to improve safety of pedestrians and cyclist, by paving the road shoulders, are being considered.
17
2) Thank you for your positive feedback on the information presented at the May 12, 2014 public meeting.
1) Improvements to major and minor intersections, including traffic signals, auxiliary turn lanes, flashing amber lights, additional signage,
are being considered to address pedestrian and vehicle traffic safety concerns.
18
2) Opportunities to mitigate noise due to heavy trucks braking to maintain a safe speed going down the steep hills, including additional
signage advising “Residential Area – Avoid Using Engine Brakes – Excessive Noise Prohibited”.
4) Traffic counts at the intersection of 3rd Line, Birch Grove and 4th Line were undertaken in January 2014 to capture the winter recreational
peak traffic conditions.
The Owner of the Horseshoe Resort was contact to request input into the planning study through the issuance of the Notice of Study
Commencement letter and Notice of Public Information Center Meetings 1 and 2 letters. Further follow up consultation will be arranged with
the resort Owner as the study moves forward.
Page 9
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
7. Support for Intersection Improvements as an urgent priority
8. Missing from detailed discussion was
a) Creating Public Awareness of Safety & a Need for Improvements to Signage:
Designating the area as a Resort & Recreational Community & creating respect
for it as a community. Alerting drivers to the presence of Children, Pedestrians &
Cyclists, Cross traffic, the Park, Hidden intersections, School Bus Stops, Steep
Hills (use low gear, avoid air brakes, be prepared to stop). Public awareness –
radar speed sign coaching drivers to behave with safety in mind. Reduced speed
limits & effective Enforcement. Methods all need to be better coordinated.
b) The HV Community is primarily a Residential, Recreational, Tourist community.
Serving this community are Police & Fire Services, Nurse Practitioner facilities,
the 4th Line Memorial Park & many independent service business people.
Children & young people from this community attend schools & colleges on Old
Barrie Road, in Barrie & Orillia. Residents work in the community and some
commute to surrounding towns & cities. Others retired to live in this community.
c) CR 22, serves as a through route for traffic from Highways 11 & 12 in the east
to Highway 400, Stayner-Collingwood (& beyond) in the west, but it is also the
main street for local communities. Virtually straight with few curves, it has one
significant geographic feature, the Horseshoe Valley and its two steep hills. The
hills cannot be moved, but acceptance of the reality that they exist is a first step in
coming to terms with them.
d) The current Environmental Assessment has been skewed by a focus that is too
narrow. Issues that plague the valley area traffic safety situation are shared by
the extended community. The community of interest is in fact more extensive
than the area identified in the County of Simcoe Environmental Assessment re:
County Road 22 Traffic Operations Study - Apr 18, 2013.
e) It may well be that the most effective solutions require a broader focus. A
NIMBY approach is not acceptable, but neither is a too limited focus that serves
no one effectively and misses opportunities to strengthen this vibrant growing
community. Several respondents said, “the cart seems to be before the horse” or
put bluntly, truck traffic has taken over and simplistically driven the consideration
of solutions.
f) The consensus was that Passing Lanes in the valley are not appropriate. They
can be expected to aggravate the situation by facilitating increased speed and
disregard for the safety of local traffic, pedestrians & cyclists. They will make the
roadway wider and even more dangerous to cross. Passing Lanes are not
consistent with the nature of this community or its geography and involve
excessive cost without assured positive outcomes. Passing lanes further east &
further west where the roadway is straight may provide through traffic with some
relief from slower traffic but such lanes must be accompanied by advance
signage alerting drivers to alternate passing opportunities.
County And Ainley Response
5) The description of truck traffic is general in nature as many types of vehicles due to their heavy weight and low mass/power rating
experience a reduction in speed as they ascend the steep hills. Studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and
can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being
considered to address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills.
6) Comment noted.
7) Your support of the proposed intersection improvements (Project B) is noted.
8 a) Opportunities to improve the safety of pedestrian and vehicle traffic are the focus of the study. In addition to potential road and
intersection improvements, other safety measures, including additional warning and regulatory signage, temporary / permanent speed
radar signs, flashing amber lights, etc., are being considered.
8 d) The Class EA study limits were selected based on the planned growth that will take place within the Horseshoe Valley Resort area and
in consideration of the increased traffic volumes that will be generated as a result. The safety concern associated with unsafe passing of
slow moving vehicles on the steep hills within Horseshoe Valley will continue to get worse as development occurs and traffic volumes
increase. Other sections of HVR (east and west of the study limits) appear to be operating satisfactory and generally meet County
standards. As such, the study limits are considered to be appropriate.
8 e) It is important to note that this study is not being carried out to accommodate truck traffic. The purpose of this study is to identify
appropriate solutions to address traffic safety concerns relating to the unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Studies
have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck
climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered.
8 f) It is acknowledged that excessive traffic speeds are also a traffic safety issue. Speed surveys completed in May of this year confirm the
average speed is over 83 km/hr and approximately 90% of vehicles are traveling greater than the posted speed of 70km/hr. This is
primarily a result of the steep downhill grades. For any vehicle, whether it is a car or truck, to maintain the posted speed of 70km/hr, the
driver would need to apply heavy pressure to the vehicles brakes as they are descending the hills. Such use of the brakes may result in
increased wear and tear on the braking system leading to increased vehicle maintenance costs. This may explain why over 90% of the
road users are electing not to do so. Notwithstanding, opportunities to encourage drivers to slow down, including additional police
presence, additional signage, temporary/permanent radar speed signs, etc., are being considered.
It is important to note that passing lanes and truck climbing lanes are fundamentally different and serve different purposes. Given the
problem statement relates to unsafe passing of slowing moving vehicles on the steep hill grades, consideration of truck climbing lanes
between the 3rd and 4th Lines, as opposed to passing lanes east and west of the 3rd and 4th Lines, is appropriate.
8 h) We note and appreciate your comments and support of intersection improvements (Project B).
8 j) The posted speed limit on HVR is appropriate and consistent with the County’s policy and procedures. Notwithstanding, opportunities
to extend the 70 km/hr speed zone further to the east of Line 4 (to beyond Trillium Trail) and further to the west of Line 3 (to past the
entrance to Settlers Ghost G & CC entrance will be considered.
Page 10
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
g) Other measures used in combination will correct intersection design & mitigate
traffic dangers. These measures should include intersection improvements,
signage, lighting, and establishing an appropriate speed limit for this mixed use
area.
h) Improvements to the intersections, especially at L3, Birch Grove Drive, Pine
Ridge, L4/Cathedral Pines & Trillium Trail, including turn lanes to facilitate safe
exiting from the main east-west traffic flow; lighting & signage to alert drivers to
risks and to encourage consideration for safety should be prominent.
i) Designating the Horseshoe Valley area as a leisure community – Residential,
Recreational & Tourist, by effective signage reminding drivers that the roadway is
shared with a variety of users; cautioning re: turning traffic, children & pedestrians
& cyclists (mountain bikes, sno-mobiles, skiers, perhaps even “golf carts”), hidden
driveways & intersections. “Be prepared & courteous”
j) Lowering the speed limit from the Line 5 to Settlers Ghost including public
awareness, alerts & appropriate enforcement. Signage that makes roadway
users aware that alternative safer passing areas are available east & west of the
valley area will go a long way to staving off frustration.
k) Communication with User of County Road 22 through consistent and creative
measures to build respect for safety
1) Why did Oro-Medonte allow truck/trailers to use this road as a bypass?
2) Now that there is a bridge and overpass to 400 extension are being rebuilt why
was it not designed differently to accommodate the movement of traffic in all
directions?
1) In 2012, the HVPOA were granted a 70 km/hr reduction in speed on HVR. The
data used to “warrant” the recommended solution was gathered from 2001 to
2011. This was before the speed limit was lowered and therefore does not reflect
current conditions. This would be a “no cost solution”.
Was there any analysis of accident experience during winter months (road &
weather)?
2) There appear to be less costly alternatives.
3) Intersection improvements are warranted, but there is some disagreement in the
design alternatives.
4) Better signage, present signage is inadequate to properly highlight the danger.
Vertical sight lines further exaggerate the problem.
County And Ainley Response
1) County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) is a County of Simcoe arterial road, which is designed and constructed to facilitate the
movement of people and goods. The latter often requires the use of heavy trucks.
19
2) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
1) The option to construct truck climbing lanes is not based on the posted speed limit. Speed reduction criteria (based on the general
operating speeds approaching the hill) and traffic volume criteria are used to determine when climbing lanes are warranted.
Notwithstanding, updated traffic data was collected by the County during the week of May 12, 2014. This data was used to confirm the
warrants for truck climbing lanes are still met, even after the posted speed was reduced to 70 km/hr in 2012.
20
The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. As well, the reports note the
cause of the accident, including if weather or road conditions were a contributing factor. Accident rates are not criteria in the design
guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
2) Cost is one factor of many considered during the evaluation of alternatives.
Page 11
5)
6)
7)
8)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Signalling - Use speed monitoring devices.
Vertical alignment - There are several sections that could benefit from a change in
alignment and sight lines.
Road maintenance - more rapid and adequate response during pending or actual
climatic events.
Contemplated improvements, particularly speed limit, need to be extended to east
of Trillium Trail and starting at the 5th Line.
County And Ainley Response
3) We note your agreement with the proposed intersection improvements (Project B). The next phase of the study will look at various
design concepts to implement the preferred intersection solution.
4 & 5) Opportunities to improve safety for pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the use of additional warning and regulatory signage,
temporary/permanent sped radar signs, etc., will be considered.
6) Opportunities to improve the road profile and increase sight visibility are being considered.
7) The County of Simcoe continues to maintain the condition of all County roads, including HVR, in accordance with the appropriate road
maintenance standards. Winter maintenance and the safety of the travelling public are of vital importance to the County. As such, they
carry out snow removal and de-icing operations as quickly and efficiently as possible, utilizing all available resources and equipment at
their disposal.
8) The posted speed limit on HVR is appropriate and consistent with the County’s policy and procedures. Notwithstanding, opportunities to
extend the 70 km/hr speed zone further to the east of Line 4 (to beyond Trillium Trail) will be considered.
1) Concerned that staff were not taking notes of resident concerns.
2) Wants Oro-Medonte staff and representatives to ask the same questions and get
answers that residents are asking.
3) Before decision made all factual data are taken into consideration and that the
resort and residents are taken seriously.
1) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
21
2) We note Township of Oro-Medonte staff and elected officials have been very involved throughout the study. Furthermore a meeting took
place on April 3, 2014 with the Township, County and Ainley to review the project and concerns of the public as they were relayed to the
Township from the HVHOA.
3) The study team has been very open, forthcoming and cooperative in ensuring the concerns of the resort and local residents are heard
and properly considered. The evaluation and selection of the preferred solution will consider the results of the background studies as well
as the concerns of the public. Ultimately, the County will be looking at implementing the best overall solution that addresses the problem
statement having regard for the safety of all road users and opportunities to minimize impacts to property and the natural, social, cultural
and economic environments, to the greatest extent possible.
1) Disappointed with the proceedings to date. I feel that the validity of the entire
process has been compromised by ineptitude, inaccuracies and incomplete data
evaluations. It was very clear to me, especially after I asked the question whether
or not the meeting was being recorded and with the subsequent answer of 'no',
that the resident concerns are of little or no importance.
2) As Mr. Neumann presented his 'blown engine' analogy (which by the way, I found
to be quite insulting that he did not think we could be capable of understanding
the process), I do not believe we have a 'blown engine'.
3) Great lengths were taken to talk about accidents on HSV Road and yes, we have
1) The work completed to date by the County’s consultant, Ainley and Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes
is being peer reviewed by an independent 3rd party. The results of the peer review will be available by mid October 2014. The study team
has been very open, forthcoming and cooperative in ensuring the concerns of the resort and local residents are heard and properly
considered.
22
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
Page 12
4)
5)
6)
7)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
our share. But are they due to people's impatience with trucks or other factors
such as speed, lack of proper turning lanes and poor road conditions? The area's
speed limit has been reduced from 80 km/hr to 70 km/hr but still vehicles are
travelling well in excess of those speeds in the area in question. Trucks do not
have an issue travelling up the hills as they are using the downhill to gain the
necessary speed. HSV Road was in poor shape most of the winter, snowcovered, ice-packed and often dangerous to drive on. Apparently, many others
felt the same way as traffic on Old Barrie Road is often heavier with both vehicles
and trucks, especially in the winter months. On this past Monday morning at
approximately 9:15 a.m., between the 3rd concession and the Dalston four-way
stop, I passed (7) dump trucks on Old Barrie Road in a span of a few minutes. I
am quite doubtful that I would see that many heavy trucks on HSV Road in an
hour yet the 'scientific data' seems to purport otherwise.
Interested in seeing the 'science' behind the decision that passing lanes in a
heavy-traffic resort and residential area with severe hills, severe winters and
numerous access points could possibly help reduce accidents. I would suggest
that an impatient driver behind a truck that is descending down the Horseshoe Hill
will attempt to pass that truck, reaching speeds well in excess of the posted 70
km/hr. Resort patrons and residents already have a tough time turning from any
of the access roads. Sight lines are not great at many of the crossroads and the
turning lanes are almost non-existent at some. Now, you are suggesting that we
along with our young people, try to navigate through four lanes of traffic.
Mr. Neumann made mention of a similar project on George Johnston Road and
the effectiveness of the truck lanes in that area. It is not similar, whatsoever.
There are traffic lights which safely allow cars to access Snow Valley Road. The
resort is on Snow Valley Road, not on George Johnston Road. The residential
area is sparse, similarly populated to Old Barrie Road which in the engineer's
opinion, is much less populated than the HSV area. Rather than have 'green
bubbles' on a very incompletely presented map, could you not 'scientifically' get
the data of numbers of residents and therefore, tax-payers that exist in a specific
area?
I cannot believe that a 'study' or at least the question has not been asked of the
provincial government whether the interchange being built at Hwy. 400 and Hwy.
11 is at least in some part, intended to route truck traffic away from the secondary
roads. Please tell me how a project of this magnitude being constructed literally
in our back-yard is not of some significance to the millions of dollars being
proposed for truck lanes on HSV Road?
Is that $7.5 Million or some other figure? I heard on Monday that it is in fact, a
'place-holder'. I wish I had the luxury of inserting a place-holder number for my
personal budget that could conceivably increase 100-300%. Once again, back to
the 'blown engine' analogy, most people do not get to purchase a luxury vehicle
when their car breaks down, especially if they can't afford it. You must have
County And Ainley Response
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
2) It was brought to our attention that a number of residents did not understand or were misinformed by other members of the community
as to the Class EA process. In order to clarify the Class EA process to those individuals, we presented a simple analogy of a problem and
how the Class EA process would go about solving the problem. We believe the ‘blown engine’ example was a very good and relatable
scenario that all members of the public could understand and relate to. We are sorry to hear you did not appreciate the analogy.
3) The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. Accident rates are not a criteria
in the design guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
We note the problem is not with trucks but rather impatient drivers who make unsafe passing manoeuvres to get past slow moving vehicles
on the steep hills.
4) It is acknowledged that excessive traffic speeds are also a traffic safety issue. Speed surveys completed in May of this year confirm the
average speed is over 83 km/hr and approximately 90% of vehicles are traveling greater than the posted speed of 70km/hr. This is
primarily a result of the steep downhill grades. For any vehicle, whether it is a car or truck, to maintain the posted speed of 70km/hr, the
driver would need to apply heavy pressure to the vehicles brakes as they are descending the hills. Such use of the brakes may result in
increased wear and tear on the braking system leading to increased vehicle maintenance costs. This may explain why over 90% of the
road users are electing not to do so. Notwithstanding, opportunities to encourage drivers to slow down, including additional police
presence, additional signage, temporary/permanent radar speed signs, etc., are being considered.
It is important to note that this study is not being carried out to accommodate truck traffic. The purpose of this study is to identify
appropriate solutions to address traffic safety concerns relating to the unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Studies
have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck
climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered.
5) The reference to other County Roads that have truck climbing lanes was merely to advise that they have been implemented elsewhere
to address a similar traffic safety concern. It was no way intended or implied to suggest that the local land uses are similar to Horseshoe
Valley.
The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may be
adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR.
We note that, as part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads, including Old Barrie Road an inventory of
physical and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on HVR from CR
93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
Page 13
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
some idea of what this is going to cost, otherwise why would you proceed with
expensive information-gathering and high-priced engineering contractors. Are
there not other initiatives where this money could be spent that would benefit the
Township or County as a whole……how about job creation for those same youth
that are trying to cross the road safely?
8) I heard an awful lot of chatter from those at the front of the room about the
warrants, I believe they are called. These warrants appear to have been
satisfied, again by incomplete data collection and data evaluation. Please tell me,
what would be any contractor's motivation for not finding a reason to choose
something different from 'do nothing'? And frankly, I am not suggesting that 'do
nothing' is the right answer. If you took a poll of those who live, work and play in
the area or at least should you take the time to come out and spend a day here,
actually observing what opportunities exist for improvement, I believe you would
come to the conclusion, like most of those in attendance on Monday night, that
we do have some serious concerns. Proper lighting at intersections, proper
turning lanes, flashing yellow lights, enforcement of the speed limit or a further
decrease in the speed limit, better maintenance of the road (especially in the
winter), through the resort and populated areas would help alleviate future
accidents and increase the safety for all those travelling the route.
9) We require some indication other than a polite email reply that we are indeed,
being listened to. I found the tone of Monday's meeting to be very condescending
to those footing the bill and as I stated earlier, the fact that there was no official
recording of our concerns, leads me to believe that the most important
component of this scientific equation, being the concerns of the people of this
area, are not being taken seriously.
County And Ainley Response
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
6) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
7) The initial budget for this project was set at 7.5 million based on a preliminary assessment of the potential road improvements and
benchmark budgeting figures. As with all studies, the scope of the proposed work will evolve as the various alternative solutions are
evaluated and a preferred solution is selected. Once the preferred solution is selected, various design concepts are developed and
evaluated, leading up to the selection of a preferred design concept. Once a preferred design concept is developed, engineering design will
be completed and the original construction cost estimate will be updated. At that time, additional project related costs, such as utility
relocations and property acquisition will be known and accounted for in the new budget estimate. Until a design concept is selected and the
necessary engineering input is completed, it is not possible to properly and accurately forecast the ultimate project budget prior to the
commencement of the Class EA study.
8) The evaluation of alternative solutions is based on the best available information. Warrants for truck climbing lanes are based on
documented design standards and are based on available and reliable traffic data. The Do Nothing Option would involve leaving the road
in its current condition. Given this approach would not address the problem relating to unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep
hills, it is not considered an appropriate solution.
Opportunities to improve safety for pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the use of additional warning and regulatory signage,
temporary/permanent sped radar signs, etc., will be considered.
9) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
Page 14
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the minimum requirements of
the Class EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA
process, the problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be.
Public attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the
study team will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound
engineering judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
1) Wording on first slide says “...a problem or opportunity”. Quite clear from the
residents that there is no problem, so who is the opportunity for?
2) Who initiated this project, Province, County, Township of Oro-Medonte or other?
3) Is there a master plan for traffic in Oro-Medonte created by the Province, County
or Township that people are not aware of?
Suggestions:
a) Improved merging lanes between 3rd and 4th Concession.
b) At 4th Concession, very limited sight lines. Suggest the grade at the top of
the hill travelling East bound on HVR needs to be redesigned for safety of
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. A sensor could be installed ½ way up the hill
which would be triggered by a vehicle travelling east bound. This could activate
flashing lights in the intersection at the 4th Concession to warn of approaching
vehicles coming up the hill. Pedestrians or cyclists could activate a push button
which would activate a flashing light ½ up the hill warning motorists of a caution
situation ahead.
4) a) Will the County conduct a time/distance study at 4th Line to review the public
safety condition that he has identified?
b) Suggests a turning lane for traffic entering & existing the Skyline/Horseshoe
Valley Resort needs to be created. Traffic lights at the bottom of the hill would be
inappropriate.
c) Speed further reduced to 60 or 50 km/hr.
d) Propose a permanent installation of Speed warning signs at top of hill
heading East and West bound.
5) Can you advise who has incurred the costs involved in this proposed project, the
Province, the County, the Township or a developer?
6) As mentioned at the meeting this project is a priority for the County. The traffic
volume and accident experience does not support this priority. Of all the
proposed traffic projects in Simcoe County can you advise where this project
ranks on the priority list?
A written response is requested addressing his suggestions and questions.
1) The problem that exists involves unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills, which has, and continues to result in near
and actual collisions. This safety concern will get worse as traffic volumes increase as a result of development and growth that is planned
to take place within the Horseshoe Valley Resort area.
23
2) This project was initiated by the County in response to concerns relating to traffic safety and accidents due to illegal and unsafe passing
of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills.
3) The County is in the process of updating their Transportation Master Plan. Public input is provided throughout the study process.
Additional information can be obtained by contacting the County or visiting their website. It is important to note also that the Township of
Oro-Medonte’s Official Plan has identified the need for road improvements on this section of HVR since before 2007.
3 a & b) Your suggestions to improve merge lanes and sight lines are noted and will be considered by the study team.
4 a) We are unclear as to your reference to the completion of a time / distance study. We can advise that opportunities to improve the
safety of pedestrians crossing HVR at the 4th Line (to access the playground) will be considered.
4 b) The background traffic study has determined that traffic signals at the entrance to Horseshoe Valley Resort are not warranted.
However, auxiliary turn lanes are recommended to improve the safety, capacity and operation of this intersection.
4 c) The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed from
70km/hr to 60 or 50 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending the steep
hills or speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
4 d) Opportunities to improve safety for pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the use of additional warning and regulatory signage,
temporary/permanent sped radar signs, etc., will be considered.
5) Funding for the project will primarily come from development charge reserve funds collected by the County. The cost for Project ‘A’ is
100% eligible for Development Charges and therefore would be no burden to County taxpayers. The cost for Project ‘B’ is 40% eligible for
Development Charges with the remaining 60% falling to the taxpayers.
6) At this time, we cannot confirm where this project ranks in terms of priority in comparison to the other capital projects currently under
study and/or design by the County. Projects are re-evaluated on an annual basis as part of the normal budgeting process. Priorities may
change in response to public and traffic safety needs and budget constraints.
Page 15
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Current status of project - We are at Phase 2 of a 5 Phase program, will the
needed improvements ever get done.
This meeting and last fall’s meeting seemed to point to the conclusion that the
preferred HVR project would be truck passing lanes on the two hills that define
the community, together with turning lanes from both direction at all major
intersections from 3rd to 4th Line.
The truck traffic example was an “Orillia to Collingwood” route and since there is
not likely much truck traffic between these two points an assumption is made that
the speakers actually meant southbound trucks on Hwy. 11 heading to the
Georgian Bay area.
It appeared that no further regard has been given to alternatives as “encouraging”
large trucks to use Old Barrie Road and no mention at all of the best
answer…persuading the province to add a lane at the now under construction
Hwy. 400-Hwy. 11 junction to allow southbound traffic to turn onto Hwy. 400
North. It is rumoured that the truck passing lane alternative cost $7 - 15 Million.
The consultants referred to Old Barrie Road as a negative due to its many hills
and curves and the presence of a school. They need to be reminded that many
Hwy 11 southbound trucks most likely exit Hwy 11 north of Orillia onto Division
Road, which takes them past the large Marchmount school prior to Prices
Corners and the HVR.
Looking again at the Hwy 93 idea, it would seem sensible to encourage trucks to
take it from Hwy 11 to Dalston, then a quick jog to Hwy 400 and on to HVR west,
and from there on to Hwys 26 and 27, Collingwood or wherever.
The HVR route will sometimes pass the Marchmount school mentioned earlier, or
else it takes the trucks through the edge of Orillia, then Price’s Corners, Jarratt,
Coulson, Sugarbush, Trillium Trail, Horseshoe Valley community and
Craighurst....all to get you from the “model’s” locations of Orillia to Collingwood.
And HVR has hills much bigger than those on Old Barrie Road.
The consultants are drawing little circles on their maps to indicate population
density, they should draw a much bigger circle for Horseshoe Valley than any
other place on the other potential truck routes
First off it should be said that most residents do not see large truck traffic as a BIG
problem. Yes, crawling trucks can be annoyingly slow when going uphill and
annoyingly noisy (and sometimes too speedy) when going downhill, but we
wonder how and where the county people got the idea that the road and its truck
traffic is a problem so big that it has to be fixed, whatever the cost, and whatever
problems the “fix” might create.
Several residents at the meeting spoke about the dangers that the truck passing
lane solution would create, including a very dangerous safety situation at the 4th
Line where we have the Cathedral Pines entrance/exit, the 4th Line with its
community park, fire hall, police station and health centre, plus the busy 4th Line
traffic to/from Horseshoe Highlands and beyond. Speakers talked about children
County And Ainley Response
1) Yes. The Class EA study is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Detailed engineering design will then be initiated. The
timing for construction of the approved road improvements will be subject to the timely acquisition of permits, property acquisition, utility
relocations and budget approval.
24
2) The preferred alternative solution has not yet been selected. At PIC 1 and again at PIC 2, the study team was asked what their
preliminary recommended solution was. From a transportation and traffic safety perspective, the implementation of truck climbing lanes in
conjunction with intersection improvements best addresses the problem statement.
3) The assessment of truck by-pass routes was based on local commercial business using HVR to deliver goods and services between
Orillia and Collingwood. Destination routes to the GTA would use Hwy 11 as this is the most direct transportation route and thus would not
influence truck traffic conditions on HVR.
4) The option of detouring truck traffic on HVR to adjacent roads, such as Old Barrie Road was considered and evaluated through the
completion of a truck by-pass study. Based on the results of the study, in conjunction with the logistics and challenges associated with
prohibiting trucks to use HVR, including the precedent that would set resulting in other residents and communities requesting the removal
of trucks on their County Road, this alternative solution did not receive a high evaluation.
5) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
It is important to note that this study is not being carried out to accommodate truck traffic. The purpose of this study is to identify
appropriate solutions to address traffic safety concerns relating to the unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Studies
have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck
climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered.
6) It is reasonable to expect that the trucking industry selects delivery routes based on the shortest distance points A and B. The trucking
industry, when selecting their travel routes, must adhere to municipal by-laws as they relate to the use of haul roads that are designed to
carry truck traffic and avoid those other local or lower tier local roads that prohibit heavy trucks and/or have posted weight restriction. All
County (and provincial) roads are designed to accommodate the movement of people and goods. Directing trucks to follow a circuitous
route and prohibiting them from using a portion of HVR is not practical or manageable.
7) The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may
be adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR. Notwithstanding, as part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads,
including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and
social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
Page 16
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
crossing several lanes of traffic, vehicles turning both ways, eastbound cars
accelerating to pass the trucks before the truck passing lanes ends, short sight
lines at the brow of the hill, the entrance to Trillium Trail just ahead to the east.
The engineering response was that maybe they would flatten the top of the hill a
bit to improve sight lines, and maybe an orange caution light might help, and oh
yes, in the extreme case maybe a button children could push to stop traffic while
they cross the road.
10) There is general support from residents of the need for turning lanes from both
directions at all intersections from 3rd line to the 4th Line and to which I would
add Trillium Trail, and the 6th line at Sugarbush. The existing turning lane from
the west was only added a few years ago. With all the traffic there this location
deserves two turning lanes, a flashing orange light hanging over the intersection,
and floodlights would also be a good idea, given the night traffic in winter.
11) Lower speed limit through the whole Horseshoe Valley community, with 60 kph
the suggested number. Personally I think the current 70 kph is satisfactory,
assuming the addition of the turning lanes we all support.
12) Do not forget pedestrian-bicycle lanes on HVR through our community.
Horseshoe Valley has a hotel, two large time shares, a new condo coming to the
valley, a growing community of active people, and a narrow paved strip along
both sides of HVR for walkers and cyclists would make the road much safer and
more enjoyable.
Summary
- make the living in and passage thru our community safer for all concerned....cars,
trucks, cyclists, pedestrians
- keep capital costs (and hence the impact on our taxes) at a reasonable level
- remove the potentially disastrous Line 4 multi-lane scenario from our future
- and (hopefully) lead to a better truck route alternative, maybe even the Hwy 11
South-Hwy 400 North connection
- I do hope that all concerned at the county make sure that the project case is
indeed still open ....and open-minded, and that when we all meet again in
September the recommended proposal will be the one that the residents have
proposed.
- Please have an acknowledgement of this letter, and hopefully some comment
about its contents, from someone at the county and/or consulting firm.
County And Ainley Response
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
8) We note your opinion that local residents do not see trucks as being a problem. This conclusion may be skewed as it does not consider
the point of view of the 4,900 members of the public that travel on HVR every day. Nevertheless, the grades on the hills are very steep,
which affect the operating speeds of vehicles, particularly trucks, resulting in speed reduction of 15 km/hr or more. Studies have shown that
slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a
safety feature and is one option being considered.
9) The study team is well aware of the pedestrian crossing concerns at the 4th Line, and poor site lines on the west approach. Opportunities
to improve the safety of this intersection for pedestrian and vehicle traffic, is being considered. Some examples of which were provided at
PIC 1 and PIC 2.
With regard to the concern relating to the potential impact that the truck climbing lane may have on the safety of pedestrians crossing 4th
Line, we note that, with the introduction of the truck climbing lane, gaps in the traffic stream will increase, resulting in better crossing
opportunities and safety.
10) We acknowledge there is public support for the proposed intersection improvements between the 3rd and 4th Lines. Improvements to
the intersections at Trillium Trail and Sugarbush are outside the limits of this Class EA study. We note a traffic study would need to be
completed to determine if auxiliary turn lanes, flashing amber lights and/or partial illumination are warranted or not.
11) We acknowledge your comment that the existing 70 km/hr posted speed limit is satisfactory, provided the auxiliary turn lanes at the 3rd,
Birch Grove and 4th Line are implemented.
12) Fully paved shoulders are being recommended to improve the safety of pedestrian traffic and cyclists.
The study team has been very open, forthcoming and cooperative in ensuring the concerns of the resort and local residents are heard and
properly considered. The evaluation and selection of the preferred solution will consider the results of the background studies as well as
the concerns of the public. Ultimately, the County will be looking at implementing the best overall solution that addresses the problem
statement having regard for the safety of all road users and opportunities to minimize impacts to property and the natural, social, cultural
and economic environments, to the greatest extent possible.
Page 17
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
1) Not fond of 60 kph.
2) Should be another turning lane at Sugarbush.
1) Comment noted.
2) Entrance to Sugarbush development is outside the limits of this study. Operation improvements including additional turn lane would be
subject to the completion of a separate traffic study.
25
1) Data: The numbers given to us have varied. P3 of the summary of responses
says 3% of traffic are heavy trucks. P12 says 10-20% are heavy trucks then the
other night it was reported that 1% are heavy trucks. The 10-20% means nearly
500-1000 heavy trucks per day. Really? I believe you live nearby and have you
(Mark Aitken) ever seen 1000 heavy trucks, 3 axles or more, on HVR? These #’s
are suspect and MUST be verified.
2) Along the same lines. Of the 3 criteria for justifying truck lanes, 1 is upgrade truck
flow exceeds 20 trucks per hour. When you dig a little deeper you find that the
trucks are mainly service or pickup trucks with very few heavy trucks 3 axles or
more. I believe the data presented had 4 heavy trucks out of 260 vehicles thus
the 1%. Yes, the criteria has been met but you’re building truck lanes based on
pickup/service truck travel. Shouldn’t this be based on heavy truck use?
3) As you are aware the hills at Horseshoe are steep but they are also short in
length. Sure getting behind a slow moving truck doing 55 km/hr instead of the
limit of 70 meets the first criteria, a 15 km/hr speed reduction, but that would
increase travel time by about 15 seconds because of the short distance. Are we
looking at spending $15 million for 15 seconds travel time?
4) I’m sure that both Mayor Hughes and Deputy Hough can attest to the community’s
concern about a number of safety issues. Most believe and I believe they are
right that safety gets worse with truck lanes. Mark, the answer given to us if cars
are racing to beat the trucks to the top that is an OPP enforcement issue. Passing
this off to the OPP is unacceptable. Who created this problem?
5) Cars passing slow trucks uphill could be a safety issue but I have to admit I’ve
never seen this, likely because of the short distance and limited time involved.
More of a safety issue is cars passing vehicles going downhill. Speed continues
to be a safety issue. We did ask the OPP about accidents involving heavy trucks
and 1, yes 1 heavy truck was involved in an accident over 15 months between
Lines 3-4. Truck lanes address a perceived problem but the real problem is cars
going too fast, following to close and without consideration to weather conditions.
6) Better shoulders, lighting, turning lanes/intersections and some ideas presented
Monday i.e. yellow, flashing warning light at 4th Line and HVR, extending 70 km
limit to cover Trillium Trail, using the County’s flashing speed indicator and more
enforcement are good steps by my thinking.
1) Majority of HV Residents DO NOT agree with Mr. Neumann’s proposal.
Suggest that the solution is to place a median down each hill to prevent the
“idiots” from overtaking. This would also slow traffic.
2) Such the reduction of the speed limit should also be investigated.
1) The number and percentage of truck traffic volumes varies throughout the year and in response to industry demand. For this reason an
approximate range of 10-20% was noted based on background traffic data from 2011. The County recently completed an updated traffic
count survey during the week of May 12, 2014. The results indicated the average daily percentage of truck traffic between May 13-15
recorded east and west of the Horseshoe Resort entrance was 11.3% & 12.2% respectively.
26
2) The truck volumes used to determine if the warrants for truck climbing lanes were met do not include pickup trucks, vans and other 2
axle, 4 tire single unit vehicles. The calculation of truck volumes is based on the following vehicle types:
Class 5 (2 axle, 6 tire single unit trucks)
Class 6 (3 axle, single unit trucks)
Class 7 (4 or more axle, single unit trucks)
Class 8 (4 or less axle single trailer trucks)
Class 9 (5 axle, single trailer trucks)
Class 10 (6 or more, single trailer trucks)
Class 11 (5 or less axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 12 (6 axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 13 (7 or more, multi trailer trucks)
3) The length of grade on the eastbound and west bound hills is 1km and 0.96 km respectively. These lengths are not considered short.
Regardless of the time delay that drivers experience behind a slow moving vehicle traversing up the steep hills, there are still those drivers
who choose not to be patient and instead decide to pass when it is not safe to do so. This action results in increased near and actual
collisions and accidents. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature and is one option being considered to reduce the number and severity of
accidents within this section of HVR.
4 & 5) Increase speeds are primarily due to the steepness of the hills. The addition of truck climbing lanes is not anticipated to result in the
speeds increasing even more. They may in fact help moderate traffic speeds given cars will no longer have to speed up to pass the slower
moving vehicles. As is the case on all roads, enforcement of the posted speed limits falls under the Highway Traffic Act, which is
administered by the local law enforcement agencies. In response to your question ‘who created this problem’ we suggest the problem is
created by operators of motor vehicles who choose not to obey the law and make illegal and unsafe passing of slower moving vehicles on
the steep hills.
6) We appreciate your thoughts and ideas with regard to potential measures that may improve traffic and pedestrian safety. This
information will be considered as we move forward with the evaluation of alternative solutions.
1) Construction of a median barrier down the center of HVR would be problematic as it would prohibit turning movements and/or create an
unsafe condition if only short sections were built with gaps sufficient to accommodate turning movements at the major and minor
intersections.
27
Page 18
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
3) Long term the provision of an access collector form Hwy. 400 south to Hwy. 11
north should be investigated and it is long overdue.
1) Grave concern, as a mother of 2 young children, concerned about the safety
implications of the widening that will encourage an increase in truck traffic and
speeding.
2) The speed limit on Horseshoe Valley Road must be reduced to a more acceptable
level near residential areas (between 3rd and 5th lines) and ideally, a tunnel or
bridge constructed to allow for the community's young children (of which there are
MANY) to safely cross Horseshoe Valley Road.
County And Ainley Response
2) The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed from
70km/hr to 60 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending the steep hills or
speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
3) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
1) Truck climbing lanes are not anticipated to encourage more trucks to use HVR. The trucking industry typically selects haul routes based
on the shortest and most direct route between their origin and destination points. Furthermore, based on historical traffic data collected
before and after truck climbing lanes were constructed on County Road 50 (between Hwy 89 and CR 1) in 2010, the study team
determined the average spring/summer/fall truck volumes in 2013 were within 1% of the average truck volumes recorded in 2007 during
the same period.
28
We also note that, typically, the addition of a second through lane, including a truck climbing lane which extends through an intersection,
provides the added benefit of creating longer gaps in the traffic stream which will provide more time for pedestrians to safely cross the
road.
2) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
The option of constructed a pedestrian crossing grade separation structure at the 4th Line was considered. Property impacts due to grading
and the large span of such a structure make this option cost prohibitive.
1) County & Ainley have already made up their minds and input seemed irrelevant.
It seems to me that the widening of County Rd. 22 is a solution looking for a
problem.
2) Why was the obvious creation of an access from HWY 11 to Hwy 400 North not
sought from the province before this costly venture was undertaken?
3) Why was a study not done to find the origins of the major portion of the transport
truck traffic?
4) Why, when making a presentation of communities along Horseshoe Valley Rd.
and Old Barrie Rd., were the communities represented on the map so wildly out
of proportion to reality? Craighurst was not represented nor was Price’s Corners.
The small communities along Old Barrie Rd got more attention and to our great
surprise Hardwood Hill got more recognition than did Horseshoe Resort. How
many other people have viewed this ridiculous map? And how much weight was
1) The selection of a preferred solution has not yet been made. The work completed to date by the County’s consultant, Ainley and
Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes is being peer reviewed by an independent 3rd party. The results of
the peer review will be available by mid October 2014. To complete Phase 2 of the Class EA, the study team will now review all
information, including the feedback provided by the public during and after PIC’s 1 and 2, and select a recommended preferred solution
that best addresses the problem statement.
29
2) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
Page 19
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
put on it?
5) Why were the actual trucks driving through the valley not represented fairly? 25 of
the 29 were trucks with 6 wheels. These are not necessarily heavy trucks. Who
knows what they were?
6) Why was there no liaison with the management of Skyline before getting so far in
the study?
7) Why was there no OPP representation at the meeting who could shed some light
on the issue?
8) What percentage of accidents occurred at the resort entrance?
9) Typical speeds at the valley are not being taken into account. Trucks speed down
the hill to make it up the other side. Do you seriously think that making truck lanes
will stop that practice? What will happen is that car drivers will speed up the hill to
beat the trucks to the top.
10) Why will the county not entertain appropriate speed limits in and around the
valley? The speed limit should be 60 kph before the 3rd line travelling east and
before the entrance to Oro Hills. There should also be warning signs of the
upcoming speed change.
11) Please send a reply.
County And Ainley Response
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
3) Neither the County nor the Township has any records or information that could assist with determining the origins of the truck traffic that
utilize HVR. Furthermore, the use of HVR as a truck route is highly variable as it is dependent on economic conditions and industry market
demands for commercial goods and construction services.
4) The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may
be adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR. Notwithstanding, as part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads,
including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and
social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor/ fair to good
5) The assessment of truck classifications and design vehicles used to complete the warrant review for truck climbing lanes was based on
industry standards and design guidelines. The sample traffic count data sheet presented at the meeting was intended to illustrate the
format of the traffic survey data and aid in our explanation on how the data is used. The volume of trucks varies depending on the season
and the service demands of the commercial and construction industries.
6) Consultation with the owners and developers of the Horseshoe Valley Resort has taken place throughout the study through the issuance
of the Notice of Study Commencement and Notice of Public Meeting letters. In addition, the County has had several meetings with
Skyline’s engineering team in relation to site development and intersection improvements. In all notification letters, we requested and
encouraged the involvement of the resort owner, to provide input and information that would be of benefit to the study team in completing
the analysis of each alternative solution. Further contact and consultation will take place with Horseshoe Resort as the study advances
forward.
7) The OPP have been made aware of the study. They are not typically required or requested to attend public meetings, but may do so
should they wish to participate in the study process.
8) The number of accidents that have occur between 2001 and 2011 at the Horseshoe Valley Resort entrance is 16.
Page 20
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
9) It is acknowledged that excessive traffic speeds are also a traffic safety issue. Speed surveys completed in May of this year confirm the
average speed is over 83 km/hr and approximately 90% of vehicles are traveling greater than the posted speed of 70km/hr. This is
primarily a result of the steep downhill grades. For any vehicle, whether it is a car or truck, to maintain the posted speed of 70km/hr, the
driver would need to apply heavy pressure to the vehicles brakes as they are descending the hills. Such use of the brakes may result in
increased wear and tear on the braking system leading to increased vehicle maintenance costs. This may explain why over 90% of the
road users are electing not to do so. Notwithstanding, opportunities to encourage drivers to slow down, including additional police
presence, additional signage, temporary/permanent radar speed signs, etc., are being considered.
Traffic speeds are not anticipated to increase due to the construction of truck climbing lanes. The excessive traffic speeds are a function of
the steep downhill grades and the unsafe driving habits of drivers who speed up the hills to pass slower moving vehicles.
10) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
We travel this road daily, are acutely aware of its dangers and its high accident rate,
and concur with the need for improvements.
Email response by Debbie Korolnek, May 27, 2014. A formal response to all comments received up to and including June 6 will be
prepared. The team does listen to and take into consideration comments and suggestions.
In support of establishing a truck passing lane, or Project A, it was stated at the May
12 meeting that a major cause of the high accident rate between Lines 3 and Line 4, is
impatient drivers who cross the double centreline in order to pass slow moving trucks
going up the hills on either side of Horseshoe Resort, and thereby risk head-on
collisions. I question this premise, and respectfully challenge you to produce police
reports or accident data which support this premise. During the 26 years that my
family and I have been driving this section we have never witnessed this scenario.
We have witnessed impatient drivers who cross the double centreline while travelling
down the hill, at speeds far in excess of the posted speed limit. The real problem is
high speed passing of vehicles going downhill, and not the passing of slow moving
trucks going uphill. This problem would not be solved by the creation of a truck
passing lane.
Consider the following12 recommendations:
The criteria for determining if truck climbing lanes are warranted (or not) is not based on accident data. As per the Transportation
Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria to determine if truck climbing lanes are
warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
1) Reduce the speed limit from 70 Km/hr to 60 Km/hr for the entire section of CR22,
from west of the 3rd Line intersection, east through Horseshoe Valley, past the
4th Line intersection, and continuing east at least as far as the Trillium Trail
intersection. The entire section of road should have a solid double centreline,
indicating that passing is unsafe. A 60 Km/hr speed limit here would be
consistent with existing speed limits on County roads at Jarratt, Prices Corner,
Dalston, Crown Hill, Edgar and Rugby. A lower speed limit would also reduce the
need for improved sight lines and improve the safety of 4 minor intersections:
Country Club Lane, Beechwood Road, Maplecrest Court, and Pine Ridge Trail.
The current posted speed limit in Craighurst, on both CR22 and County Road 93,
30
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
Notwithstanding, accident data records were provided to illustrate that there are safety concerns associated with the steep hills.
Furthermore, studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on
steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a common road safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario.
1) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
2 - 5) Intersection improvements are being considered at the 3rd Line, Birch Grove and 4th Line, including installation of auxiliary turn lanes
and traffic signals, pedestrian crossing signals, flashing amber warning light, additional signage, line markings and improved site lines, are
being considered to improve the capacity, operation, level of service and safety.
Suggested comments relating to increased signage, caution yellow lights and speed control radar monitoring units, is appreciated and will
be considered.
Page 21
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
is 50 Km/hr.
2) Install two flashing red stop lights on CR22, one at the entrance to Horseshoe
Resort, and a second at the 4th Line intersection. Stopping all through traffic in
both directions at these two major intersections would dramatically improve the
safety of both intersections, encourage driver compliance with a 60 Km/hr speed
limit, reduce the need for better sight lines for east bound traffic as it approaches
the 4th Line intersection, and do much to improve pedestrian safety at the 4th
Line intersection.
3) Install a flashing yellow caution light on CR22, in both directions, at the 3rd Line
intersection.
4) Install improved overhead lighting at all three of the above named major
intersections, thereby improving their night time safety.
5) Encourage driver compliance with a 60 Km/hr speed limit by installing two
permanent radar controlled signs which display vehicle speed to divers as they
travel down the hills toward the entrance to Horseshoe Resort. For vehicles
which are exceeding the posted limit, the signs should flash "SLOW DOWN!"
6) The County should do everything it can to encourage regular enforcement of the
posted speed limit by the O.P.P. Lack of consistent enforcement has resulted in
widespread abuse of the speed limit.
7) Replace existing cable guard rails on both sides of the hills past Horseshoe
Resort, with solid metal guard rails. When drivers lose partial control of their
vehicles during extreme snow or ice conditions on these two hills, or in
emergency situations, cable guard rails are more likely than solid metal guard
rails, to catch vehicle bumpers, and cause drivers to lose complete control of their
vehicles, thereby increasing the likelihood of collisions with other vehicles.
8) Install two "Residential/Recreational Areas. Please do not use engine brakes.
Thank you." signs, at the top of the hills on both sides of Horseshoe Valley. Truck
engine noise plus the use of truck engine brakes have been an ongoing and
major source of annoyance for residents with property that either abuts, or is
close to, CR22. The installation of a truck passing lane would most certainly
result in increased truck traffic, and a corresponding increase in noise to nearby
residential and recreational areas.
9) Abandon Project A. Establishing a truck passing lane is unwarranted,
unnecessary and unwanted, and is a very expensive option for County taxpayers.
The construction phase of such a lane would cause a major disruption of traffic on
CR22 for a full year, if not longer. If these 12 recommendations are implemented,
the need for a truck passing lane will evaporate.
10) The County cannot ban through truck traffic on a given section of a County road,
the County has a responsibility to the 2,000 or so residents to protect the integrity
of our community, by promoting safety, and doing what it can to discourage
through heavy transport truck traffic. While these recommendations are not very
truck friendly, they are very community friendly. This section of CR22 and its use
County And Ainley Response
6) We agree that increased law enforcement will help address excessive speeds on HVR. The County continues to encourage the local law
enforcement branch to increase their presence on HVR.
7) Upgrading of existing roadside protection barriers will be addressed during detailed design.
8) Installation of additional signage to discourage use of engine brakes as a means to mitigate noise from heavy trucks is being considered
and will be addressed during detailed design.
9) The warrants for truck climbing lanes have been reviewed, in accordance with industry standards and guidelines, and have been
reported to the public at both PIC 1 and PIC 2.
10) County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) is a County of Simcoe arterial road, which is designed and constructed to facilitate the
movement of people and goods. The latter often requires the use of heavy trucks.
11) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
12) The option of directing trucks to Old Barrie Road was one of the solutions identified to address the problem statement. The feasibility of
this option, including an inventory and assessment of physical and social environmental impacts, was considered at the beginning of the
study and through the completion of a truck by-lass study following PIC 1. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on
HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
Based on the above, in conjunction with the logistics and challenges associated with prohibiting trucks to use HVR, including the precedent
Page 22
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
by through truck traffic is inconsistent and incompatible with the established
residential/recreational nature of the Horseshoe Valley.
11) The County should do everything it can to encourage the Province to provide
southbound traffic on Highway 400, with access to the northbound lanes of
Highway 11, at the intersection of Highways 11 and 400, just north of Barrie.
12) In the absence of access by southbound Highway 400 traffic, to the northbound
lanes of Highway 11, at the intersection of Highways 11 and 400, the County
should do what it can to encourage the use of County Road 11 (aka the Old
Barrie Road), by through truck traffic. This road offers a slightly longer, but much
safer route by virtue of the fact that it does not include major hills, dangerous
grades, or poor sight lines.
In conclusion, the County and Ainley have failed to convince me that the construction
of Project A is warranted. To proceed with their "preferred solution" (a truck passing
lane through the heart of an existing residential/recreational community), would
constitute a planning disaster, a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, a major and
lengthy construction disruption to Horseshoe Resort and to the entire Horseshoe
Valley community, and, by association, a blight on the good name and reputation of
Ainley & Associates. The preceding 12 recommendations, if implemented, would in
my humble opinion, resolve all the major safety and noise concerns associated with
this section of CR22, and would do so at a fraction of the cost associated with the
truck passing lane proposal. As you discovered at the May 12th meeting, opposition
in the Horseshoe community to the construction of a truck passing lane is widespread
and determined--not one resident spoke in support of Project A. Please do not turn
our community into a major route for large, heavy, through transport trucks!
I respectfully request your written response. I also look forward to further dialogue with
you, other County representatives, and Ainley, at the next public meeting this summer.
At that meeting I listened to several hours of "proposed solution" and 5 minutes of
“problem definition". Perhaps I have missed something, and so I would like you to
please provide me with the following, so I may understand.
1) What is the problem this solution is to correct?
2) How was this problem defined?
3) What are the "need benchmarks", and what data was used to prove this need?
4) Are they current and accurate?
I am not against a "legitimate solution" as long as there is a "legitimate problem".
There is a requirement that questions be answered and relevant data be supplied. I
await your response.
County And Ainley Response
that would set resulting in other residents and communities requesting the removal of trucks on their County Road, this alternative solution
did not receive a high evaluation.
1 & 2) The purpose of the study is to identify appropriate roadway improvements which will reduce the potential occurrence and severity of
accidents and collisions resulting from impatient drivers passing slow moving vehicles illegally on the steep hills. In addition, the study will
consider upgrades to the configuration of the 3rd Line, Birch Grove and 4th Line intersections to improve traffic operations, capacity, level of
service and safety.
In consideration of the planned development and continued growth that will occur within Horseshoe Valley in conjunction with the on-going
traffic safety concerns associated with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line, the County identified a need to investigate possible
solutions to improve traffic safety. To that end, the County initiated the study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment guidelines. The ‘problem’ was defined at the on-set of the Class EA study.
31
3) In terms of benchmark justification, as per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the
standard criteria to determine if truck climbing lanes are warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Page 23
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
4) The County of Simcoe conducts traffic counts on all roads every 3 years. The equipment used to collect the data is programmed to
quantify the traffic volume, vehicle type and speed. The data is considered to be current and accurate. The work completed to date by the
County’s consultant, Ainley and Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes is being peer reviewed by an
independent 3rd party. The results of the peer review will be available by mid October 2014.
In this correspondence, I plan to make suggestions, provide comments, ask questions
and state opinions. I would ask that a written response be provided to my letter in its
entirety on all of the above points.
1) Disappointed in the attitude and lack of professionalism expressed by your team.
The County was presented with a tremendous opportunity to "listen" and reevaluate the description of the proposed "problem" on County Road 22. The
County had the unique advantage to embrace the overwhelming public input for
this Class EA, yet the team instead, chose to "defend" and provide limited, if not,
skewed information to benefit its position. When it became apparent that no one
from the County was taking notes or writing down the several concerns and
suggestions presented by the community, you asked for the notes/minutes taken
by a concerned resident. How can the County possibly respond to the Ministry of
Environment's requirement for public consultation when resident’s comments are
not being recorded? Near the end of the meeting, residents were told that "we've
heard this already". While this does reveal that you were listening, it undermines
the ability to re-iterate the concerns that have been raised since November that
cause these residents to feel helpless while attempting to be heard.
2) I will explain why I believe that the information presented has been skewed.
Project A. If I may request all of the documentation presented at County Council
on this specific problem prior to the initiation of the Class EA, and the original
documentation, or terms of reference, presented to the Ministry of Environment
when requesting to initiate this Class EA.
3) Have difficulty understanding the "existing traffic concerns" that warrant truck
climbing lanes. I am requesting a further disclosure of the 2011 study that was
used to determine that warrants were met for truck climbing lanes. Specifically,
how many times were the warrants met, once for one hour on one day, perhaps
during an event that caused an increase in traffic? More importantly of the alleged
number of heavy trucks, how many of those pose a risk? How many of
those heavy trucks actually slow to 15 km/hr under the posted speed limit? It
would appear that the date displayed at the PIC on May 5th, 2011 for both hours
where the warrant was met of 20 trucks per hour, only four of the 20 and 29
represented were actually heavy trucks. This misrepresents the actual number of
trucks that cannot climb the hill at the posted speed limit. Isn't it actually four per
1) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
32
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
This study is following the approved planning process in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. As such, there
are no MOE terms of reference required. Preparation of terms of reference for MOE approval only apply to projects that meet the
requirements of an Individual Environmental Assessment.
2) In consideration of the planned development and continued growth that will occur within Horseshoe Valley in conjunction with the ongoing traffic safety concerns associated with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line, the County identified a need to investigate
possible solutions to improve traffic safety. This project was presented to Council as part of the budget deliberations. Starting in 2011 this
project was identified and has been included in the roads budget ever since. The terms of reference for the EA are
3) As per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria followed by the
2011 assessment to determine if truck climbing lanes are warranted were as follows:
4. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
5. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
6. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
The County of Simcoe conducts traffic counts on all roads every 3 years. The equipment used to collect the data is programmed to quantify
the traffic volume, vehicle type and speed. The data is considered to be current and accurate.
Page 24
4)
5)
6)
7)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
hour based on this? Please clarify this according to geometric traffic designs
according to size and weight of vehicle classified as a heavy truck?
The analogy presented on slide 7 served no constructive purpose. It was juvenile
and made people feel ignorant. Comparing the existing traffic concerns on Cty Rd
22 to a vehicle with its engine blown is a gross misrepresentation of the
facts. The road still works so there is no need to build a new one. Please explain
how this example was decided upon.
Slide 8: The problem statement speaks to minimizing the impact on the
environment. This includes the social environment. I suggest that this impact of
truck climbing lanes does not meet this requirement. Conversely, truck climbing
lanes will cause a negative impact on the social environment and will increase
safety risks to the residential community inclusive of pedestrians, cyclists and
vehicular traffic. If it is determined that the risks to the social environment are not
minimized, will the County pursue other alternatives to truck climbing lanes?
"that existing and future transportation needs on County Road 22, between the
3rd and 4th Lines of the Township of Oro-Medonte, be provided to address local
development pressures in a safe and efficient manner, while minimizing the
impact on the environment to the extent possible, in accordance with the County
of Simcoe Transportation Master Plan as it relates to the purpose and function of
this arterial road"
Slide 10: Please provide me with actual data along with the source documents
and complete results to support that on County Road 22 between the resort
entrance and Line 4 that has drawn the conclusion that there has been:
1. unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles; and/or
2. resulting in a high rate of accidents or injuries.
Slide 11: 75% of which collisions involving heavy trucks and cars? I called the
OPP who hand searched each traffic accident report for 15 months. There was
only one accident involving a heavy truck. Does this statement relate to
Horseshoe Valley Road in the study area? The highest rate was between the
resort and the 3rd-does it make sense that this may be in part due to the lack of
traffic control at the entrance to the resort and for those pulling out of the resort?
Did the consultant review each traffic report to see if heavy trucks were involved
in any of these collisions? Of the 7.8% or 6 head on collisions, was a heavy truck
involved? Of these head on collisions, how many occurred travelling up the hill as
opposed to down? As far as the collision rate being higher, did the consultant
consider other ski resort areas that are similar? Did the consultant consider any
other factors that may contribute to this increase, such as lack of traffic
controls, poor lighting, inexperienced out of town winter drivers, lack of snow tires,
poor sight lines? How does this data actually relate to heavy trucks? Why did this
presentation use the term truck passing lanes instead of truck climbing lanes?
Was this done to attempt to prove that there is a need for passing lanes now as
opposed to climbing lanes? The warrants were purported to be met for climbing
County And Ainley Response
4) It was brought to our attention that a number of residents did not understand or were misinformed by other members of the community
as to the Class EA process. In order to clarify the Class EA process to those individuals, we presented a simple analogy of a problem and
how the Class EA process would go about solving the problem. We believe the ‘blown engine’ example was a very good and relatable
scenario that all members of the public could understand and relate to. We are sorry to hear you did not appreciate the analogy.
5) We note the grades on the hills are very steep, which affect the operating speeds of vehicles, particularly trucks, resulting in speed
reduction of 15 km/hr or more. Studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number
of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature which is commonly implemented by road authorities throughout
Ontario. As such, we do not agree that truck climbing lanes will have a negative impact on the social environment. Furthermore, the social
environment is therefore improved by taking steps to help reduce accidents and injury to safeguard the health and safety of the public.
6) Background reports, including accident records from 2001 to 2011 have been posted on the County’s website. We note that accident
data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data indicates that the accident rate
on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the warrants for truck climbing lanes
do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness and length of the grade, total traffic
volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles
on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the traffic safety concern that this project is
attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada geometric design standards.
7) The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. As well, the reports note the
cause of the accident, including if weather or road conditions were a contributing factor. Accident rates are not criteria in the design
guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
8) The purpose of the study is to identify appropriate roadway improvements which will reduce the potential occurrence and severity of
accidents and collisions resulting from impatient drivers passing slow moving vehicles illegally on the steep hills. Furthermore, studies have
shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on steep hills. Truck climbing
lanes are a common road safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario.
Reasonable and practical alternatives, including Do Nothing, add truck climbing lanes or divert traffic onto adjacent roads have been
considered. Alternatives that are not practical, such as adding a new on/off ramp to the Hwy 400/11 interchange (currently under
construction) have been screened out and not advanced for further consideration. These alternatives have been presented to the public at
both PIC 1 and PIC 2.
9) Copies of the draft background reports have been posted on the County’s website, for public review. These reports will be updated and
finalized as the study proceeds.
During the evaluation of the alternative solutions, impacts to the natural, physical, social, cultural and economic environments were
considered. A summary of the impacts associated with each alternative solution is documented in an evaluation matrix table, which will be
presented to the public at the next PIC and will be included in the final environmental study report. A review of the social environmental will
include, but not necessarily limited to, impacts to existing communities, residential areas, noise, property, recreation facilities and tourism.
Page 25
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
lanes. How does this differ from passing lanes?
Slide 12: I have been asking about how alternatives were fully explored and am
still seeking this information. If collisions are high but have nothing to do with slow
moving heavy trucks climbing hills, how will truck climbing lanes solve this? If the
real problem is that there is no truck route from Orillia to the west, then I would
conclude that building truck climbing lanes somewhere in the County would solve
that problem. But that's not the problem. If the problem is that there are
insufficient traffic controls, lighting, shoulders, guard rails and turning lanes, will
the County abandon the notion of truck climbing lanes and pursue the
improvements that will solve the problem? I have asked since January to have
Project A halted if this is the case. I continue to ask this.
Slide 15: Residents asked for access to the studies on the back table. Please
advise when these will be posted publicly and made available. We were advised
that these would be on the County website following the meeting but I have been
unable to find them. Where is the study on the social environment? Please
include what has been done to fully determine the social impacts.
Slide 16: I refer to this slide at the onset of this correspondence. Please provide
the number of times/dates that these warrants were met during various seasons,
and taking into consideration the recent reduction of speed limit in the target area
from 80 km/hr to 70 km/hr.
Slide 17: I refer to this slide at the onset of this correspondence. Please provide a
response similar to what I request in Slide 16 and also include the question about
the definition of heavy trucks and whether or not the 2 axle 6 wheel trucks would
slow to 15 km/hr below the posted speed limit of 70 km/hr.
Slide 18: other areas in the County where truck lanes exist. This slide serves no
comparative purpose. These are not climbing lanes; there is no grade and no
slowing of trucks. Isn't the issue truck climbing lanes as indicated in the
correspondence in 2013? Have you changed to truck passing lanes because the
climbing warrants are no longer met> Please explain this slide to me as I cannot
understand what it is supposed to help me understand.
Slide 24: Highway 93 is misrepresented. Was this slide included to reveal that
studies of these alternative routes were fully explored? If so, what specifically was
done? Is the problem that there is no existing heavy truck route?
Slide 25: We've heard 3 % of traffic is heavy trucks. We've heard 10-20% of traffic
is heavy trucks. This slide says 9.6%. I think we heard that on slide 17 it may be
as low as 1-2% at peak times. This data continues to change yet is being relied
upon to state that warrants are met. Ms. Korolnek told our community that the
County had not choice-warrants are met for TPL's. Is it TPL's or TCL's? Were
warrants met for TPL's? What are those warrants? We heard about warrants for
TCL's but not TPL's. Please clarify the percentages and how these are
determined. Please clarify how TPL's are warranted?
Slide 26: This slide is grossly exaggerated to represent that Old Barrie Road
County And Ainley Response
It is important to note that this project is not intended to address heavy trucks. Rather it is intended to address safety concerns associated
with cars passing slow moving vehicles on the steep hills resulting in near and actual accidents and collisions. The County is therefore
taking appropriate action to remedy a public safety issue on their road system. Local and non-local residents and users of HVR will benefit
through improvements to the road.
10) The traffic data collected in 2011 and most recently in May 2014 will be posted on the County’s website. The traffic data indicates that
during the morning (7:30 to 8:30 am) and afternoon (4:30 to 5:30 pm) peak hours, the total traffic and truck traffic volume criteria are
generally met. It is important to note that traffic volumes and truck volumes vary from year to year and season to season based on industry
and market demands.
11) The truck volumes used to determine if the warrants for truck climbing lanes were met do not include pickup trucks, vans and other 2
axle, 4 tire single unit vehicles. The calculation of truck volumes is based on the following vehicle types:
Class 5 (2 axle, 6 tire single unit trucks)
Class 6 (3 axle, single unit trucks)
Class 7 (4 or more axle, single unit trucks)
Class 8 (4 or less axle single trailer trucks)
Class 9 (5 axle, single trailer trucks)
Class 10 (6 or more, single trailer trucks)
Class 11 (5 or less axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 12 (6 axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 13 (7 or more, multi trailer trucks)
We note 2 axle 6 wheel vehicles include trucks, camping and recreation vehicles, motor homes, etc. Based on performance graphs and
speed reduction tables provided in the Transportation Association Canada geometric design guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) for
design trucks with mass/power ratings of 100 lb/hp, a speed reduction of 15 km/hr from the entry speed will occur within 180 m on an 8%
grade (existing grade west of Horseshoe Resort entrance).
12) Examples of truck climbing lanes constructed elsewhere by the County of Simcoe was provided to help the public understand and
visualize what they look like. The examples presented are indeed truck climbing lanes and they were implemented to improve the safety
and operation of the roadway. Members of the public who are familiar with County Road 4 and County Road 28 will appreciate the example
as it helps put the option of implementing truck climbing lanes on HVR in better perspective and context.
13) The truck by-pass study considered all viable routes that the trucking industry may utilize, between Orillia and Collingwood, including
County Road 93. All County and provincial roads are considered to include truck haul routes as they were designed and constructed to
accommodate the movement of goods and services. The objective of the study was to determine the merit and feasibility of diverting truck
traffic from HVR to adjacent roads, such as Old Barrie Road. The study concluded that it was not prudent to prohibit trucks from using HVR
as the impacts to the adjacent road network and affected communities could not be sufficiently mitigated.
14) The percentage of trucks on HVR varies from season to season and year to year based on industry and market demands. Based on
the most recent traffic data collected by the County during the week of May 12, 2014, the average percentage of truck traffic on HVR,
between the 3rd and 4th Line was 12%.
Page 26
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
would be negatively impacted by routing trucks to this road. The size of the
circles are exaggerated. The lack of community representation along HVR seems
suspiciously skewed. Please explain why this slide was constructed in this
manner?
16) Overall I heard many good suggestions and concerns. Please respond to the
following points now that you have had a chance to reflect. You have been given
another opportunity to review all of the public input and now have the ability to
possibly conclude that you may have gotten it wrong. I would implore you to
reconsider Project A until after Project B has been implemented. I have faith that
County staff will do the right thing.
 There is a safety issue that involves trucks. That issue continues to be speed
and it’s about going down the hills not up them.
 Spending millions to save a few seconds of travel time if stuck behind a truck
for a short period is simply a waste of our tax dollars which will destroy the
existing resort, tourist and settlement area
 Truck lanes will inevitably increase safety concerns and invite heavy trucks
to County Road 22 (build it they will come)
 The environmental studies for Old Barrie as an alternative should be
completed.
 The County should reduce the speed limit to 60 km/hr perhaps past Line 6
eastbound.
 The County should explore other areas along County Road 22 that could
accommodate passing lanes.
 The County should revise their public messaging for an additional public
meeting. The community feels that everyone along County Road 22 will be
affected and should have been expressly notified of the potential
impacts. Residents on Trillium Trail only learned of the impacts when they
found surveyors in their backyards.
 The consultant should explore additional options to "Do Nothing"; "Old Barrie
Road doesn't work"; "Implement Truck Lanes"
 The County should work with the province to address the real issue for Orillia
to Collingwood truck traffic-"proper interchanges at 11 and the 400 split"
 Intersection improvement Project B should continue
 Improve grading, sight lines and shoulders; re-paint the road surfaces; and
improve the surface of County Road 22
 Install radar speed signs as a deterrent and data capturing device
 The consultant should complete the necessary studies for Old Barrie Road
and for Horseshoe Valley Road, so that these options can truly be
compared, including:
o hydrogeological study
o socio-economic study
County And Ainley Response
Traffic passing lanes and truck climbing lanes are fundamentally different and have a different set of criteria that is used to determine if and
where they are warranted. Consideration of traffic passing lanes is outside the scope of this study as they are not applicable to resolving
the problem of slow moving vehicles on steep hills.
The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may be
adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR. Notwithstanding, as part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads,
including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and
social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
16) In response to your bullet comments, we provide the following clarification:
 The safety issue relates to unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Truck climbing lanes are a common safety
feature implemented throughout the province to help alleviate accidents and collisions.
 It is acknowledged that traffic speeds, including cars and trucks, increase on the downgrades due to the steepness of the hills.
Opportunities to address this concern, including public education, increased signage, increased law enforcement, is being
considered as part of the recommended road improvement strategy.
 Implementing road improvements, including truck climbing lanes, to reduce the occurrence and severity of accidents and injury to
human life, is not expected to destroy the existing resort, tourist and settlement area. Rather, implementing appropriate
improvements to protect the safety and welfare of all road users is the primary responsibility of all road authorities, including the
Country of Simcoe. As such, it is not considered a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Furthermore, the majority of the costs to improve
the operation and safety of the road will come from Development Charges reserve funds, and not from the general tax base.
 Truck climbing lanes are not anticipated to encourage more trucks to use HVR. The trucking industry typically selects haul routes
based on the shortest and most direct route between their origin and destination points. Furthermore, based on historical traffic
data collected before and after truck climbing lanes were constructed on County Road 50 *between Hwy 89 and CR 1) in 2010,
the study team determined the average spring/summer/fall truck volumes in 2013 were within 1% of the average truck volumes
recorded in 2007 during the same period.
 Completion of an environmental study for Old Barrie Road is outside the scope of this project. Furthermore, the need and
justification for carrying out such a study, in order to address a problem or opportunity, has not been established.
Page 27
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
o study on population density and future growth plans
 The County should examine the assumptions about safety and the role of
speed in safety
I don't believe that I will be convinced that the construction of Project A is warranted. I
will try to keep an open mind though and I thank you in advance for what I hope you
will do to assist the public with developing a greater understanding while continuing to
examine the need for Project A.
County And Ainley Response










The purpose of PIC#2 for truck lanes and intersection improvements was identified by
Ainley Consultants as: "...a constructive and collaborative dialogue and information
exchange (emphasis mine) that helps interested members of the public and
The option of reducing the speed limit will be considered. However, based on previous speed studies, reducing the posted speed
from 70km/hr to 60 km/hr will likely not impact driver behaviour and affect the operation of their vehicle as they are descending
the steep hills or speeding up the hill to pass slower moving vehicles.
Assessing other areas on CR 22 where passing lanes may be warranted is outside the scope of this study. Furthermore,
implementing passing lanes elsewhere on CR 22 will not address the problem of unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the
steep hills within this study area.
Public notification of the study was completed properly and in conformance with the Class EA guidelines. The Notice of Study
Commencement and Notices of Public Information Centres were posted in the local newspapers and on the County’s website, to
ensure all residents were informed and provided the opportunity to be involved.
Reasonable and practical alternatives, including Do Nothing, add truck climbing lanes or divert traffic onto adjacent roads have
been considered. Alternatives that are not practical, such as adding a new on/off ramp to the Hwy 400/11 interchange (currently
under construction) have been screened out and not advanced for further consideration. Input from the public did not reveal any
other viable alternative.
The County consulted with MTO with regard to the HWY 400/11 interchange. We note the planning and design of the Hwy
400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in advance of the HVR Class
EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have this structure
rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include
changes to the interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO
has no current plans for any future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are
anticipated to have a very low demand. With regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial
infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing bypasses for local traffic.
We acknowledge public support for the proposed intersection improvements.
Improvements to CR 22, including site lines, pavement surface, shoulder treatment and line markings are being considered in
conjunction with the selection of the recommended preferred alternative solution.
Installation of temporary and/or permanent speed radar signs are being considered to address traffic speeding concerns.
Appropriate studies to address the problem statement, including a hydrogeological assessment and evaluation of socialeconomic impacts, are being completed in conformance with the Class EA guidelines. We note completion of population density
and future growth plans are more applicable to Secondary Plan studies, such as the one completed previously for the Horseshoe
Valley Development Area.
Safety is the key factor being considered. The primary safety concern relates to the steep hills and the poor decisions made by
drivers who attempt to pass slower moving vehicles on the up-grades. We acknowledge also there is a concern with excessive
speeding on the downgrades, which again is primarily due to the steepness of the grade. Opportunities to mitigate both safety
concerns are being considered. Unfortunately, flattening the hill crests and valleys is not practical due to the significant impacts to
private properties, including the ski resort, and high costs. As such, other means to provide safer passing opportunities and
encourage drivers to slow down are being considered.
1) Copies of the draft background reports have been posted on the County’s website, for public review. These reports will be updated and
finalized as the study proceeds.
33
Page 28
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
organizations to better understand the study information presented at PIC#1...” "This
meeting will provide the public with the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback to
the study team and will allow the study team to clarify and respond to concerns
expressed by the public."
1) Lack of Original Data and Reports
Since PIC#1 last November, members of the Horseshoe community have been
asking for data and reports to a) explain and b) substantiate County staff's
assertion that Horseshoe Valley Road (CR22) needs to be widened to permit
vehicles to pass trucks on the hills between Lines 3 and 4.
Slide 11 at PIC#2 presents summary findings from traffic accident data assembled
by the County. It does not connect any actual accidents between Lines 3 and 4
(which averaged 4.3 per year from 2001 to 2011) to any heavy truck traffic.
Unfortunately the source document(s) containing the County's accident data was
not presented at the meeting. Without it I can't accept the conclusion that truck
passing lanes are needed. Data collected by the HVPOA from the OPP covering
the period January 2013 through March 2014 show only 1 (one) accident
involving a heavy truck which was caused by a car exceeding the speed limit.
At the PIC#2 meeting I was promised by Mr. Neumann, Ms. Korolnek and Mr.
Meile that the Traffic Impact Study (April 2014) and the Haul Route Assessment
(Feb. 2014) would be provided to me and other residents the next day (May 13th)
on the County website. As of May 30th, this has not happened. Again, without
providing this data to the community, the County's credibility is undermined.
At the meeting Mr. Neumann relied upon Slide 17 which purported to show 29
"heavy trucks" using HVR between 5 and 6 p.m.during one week in May 2011.
When a member of the audience pointed out to him that only 4 of these were
double axle trucks and that the remainder likely included 6 tire "dually" pickup
trucks that would not slow following traffic, Mr. Neumann had no response.
I was also promised (three times in the last two years) that the electronic speed
indicator (radar sign) that was posted for one week in November 2012 on the
westbound side of the Horseshoe Valley Road hill, west of Line 4, would be
reinstalled. To date this has not been done. Since the vehicle speed data
recorded on the equipment from that one week has been lost, I would ask County
staff to put the unit back up right away. It would provide some current data about
downhill speeds through the area and would also reinforce to "through" traffic at
what speeds they should be travelling.
2) Unanswered Questions
After a one hour presentation by Mr. Neumann which consisted of a one-by-one
review of the PIC#2 slides, the Q&A with the audience began. According to my
notes, what follows are many questions that were not answered or were not fully
explained.
1. Heavy trucks - what constitutes a heavy truck? (See reference to dually pickups
County And Ainley Response
The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. As well, the reports note the
cause of the accident, including if weather or road conditions were a contributing factor. Accident rates are not criteria in the design
guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
Installation of temporary and/or permanent speed radar signs are being considered to address traffic speeding concerns.
2.1) The truck volumes used to determine if the warrants for truck climbing lanes were met do not include pickup trucks, vans and other 2
axle, 4 tire single unit vehicles. The calculation of truck volumes is based on the following vehicle types:
Class 5 (2 axle, 6 tire single unit trucks)
Class 6 (3 axle, single unit trucks)
Class 7 (4 or more axle, single unit trucks)
Class 8 (4 or less axle single trailer trucks)
Class 9 (5 axle, single trailer trucks)
Class 10 (6 or more, single trailer trucks)
Class 11 (5 or less axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 12 (6 axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 13 (7 or more, multi trailer trucks)
We note 2 axle 6 wheel vehicles include trucks, camping and recreation vehicles, motor homes, etc. Based on performance graphs and
speed reduction tables provided in the Transportation Association Canada geometric design guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) for
design trucks with mass/power ratings of 100 lb/hp, a speed reduction of 15 km/hr from the entry speed will occur within 180 m on an 8%
grade (existing grade west of Horseshoe Resort entrance).
2.2) The Class EA study limits were selected based on the planned growth that will take place within the Horseshoe Valley Resort area and
in consideration of the increased traffic volumes that will be generated as a result. The safety concern associated with unsafe passing of
slow moving vehicles on the steep hills within Horseshoe Valley will continue to get worse as development occurs and traffic volumes
increase. Other sections of HVR (east and west of the study limits) appear to be operating satisfactory and generally meet County
standards. As such, the study limits are considered to be appropriate. Potential improvements on other sections of HVR will be considered
if and as necessary as part of the County’s continued monitoring and planning policy.
2.3) The percentage of trucks on HVR varies from season to season and year to year based on industry and market demands. Based on
the most recent traffic data collected by the County during the week of May 12, 2014, the average percentage of truck traffic on HVR,
between the 3rd and 4th Line was 12%. This percentage is used to determine if the one criterion, relating to the volume of trucks during the
peak hour, satisfies the warrants for truck climbing lanes.
2.4) The main difference between Project A and Project B is the Class EA Schedule that is applicable to both based on the degree to which
each project may adversely affect the existing environment and their relative financial costs. Project B falls within the requirements of a
Schedule A project as the work will have minimal adverse effect on the environment. Project A on the other hand was classified as a
Schedule C undertaking, as it has the potential for significant environmental affects, and as such, must proceed under the full planning and
documentation procedures specified under the Class EA document. The decision to plan the intersection work (Project B) as a Schedule A
Class EA project is consistent with the Municipal Class EA guidelines and provides the County with the option of proceeding with the work
Page 29
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
above). What is the gross vehicle weight/number of axles that would limit a truck
to travel at 55km/h up either of the hills between Lines 3 and4?
2. If truck lanes are required between Lines 3 and 4, what about the need for the
same on the westbound hill at Sugarbush, between Lines 6 and 5?
3. The contradiction from PIC#1 as to what is the volume of "heavy” trucks on the
HVR hills which substantiates truck passing lanes was raised again and not
answered. Is it 3%? 10%, 20%? What is the number and how does it relate to
actual "heavy" truck traffic?
4. Explanation of why Project A (truck lanes/widening) and Project B (intersection
improvements) can proceed independently did not make sense. If intersection
improvements reduce accidents, why have truck passing lanes, other than to
increase the speed of up-bound vehicles?
5. Where is the proof that truck lanes do NOT result in increased speed of through
traffic? (Slide 19 only refers to heavy truck speeds) 6. Why is the full project not
budgeted? D. Korolnek said $7.5 million is a "place marker" yet it is shown in the
2014-2024 County Capital Budget as related only to the portion of the project
from the Resort entrance westbound to just west of Line 3. Is that a guess? If not,
we have to conclude that the total cost from Line 3 to Line 4 must approach $20
million. I would expect County staff have enough experience to "ballpark" a total
number for Project A. Also, Ms. Korolnek's reference at the meeting to previously
accumulated reserves and gas taxes as not being "taxes" is just an insult to our
intelligence.
6. The County's May 2011 speed study for the section of road under discussion
showed that 70% of all vehicles were exceeding the new 70 km/h speed limit by
anywhere from 10 to 30 km/h. In 2010 when I asked County staff for the speed
limit to be reduced to 60 km/h, I was told that the accident/injury rate data did not
support that reduction. At PIC#2 we were told that the accident /injury rate
supported truck passing lanes. This contradiction was not adequately explained.
7. Slide 18 at the PIC#2 makes reference to truck passing lanes on County Road
4 (Yonge Street - location not identified) and County Road 28 (George Johnson
Road between County Road 90 and Highway 26). What are the most recent
traffic counts on these roads?
8. As a Barrie by-pass from County Road 90 to Highway 26 to Wasaga Beach, the
County Road 28 project involved major reconstruction over 8-10 km to upgrade
and widen the road as well as cut down a very steep hill, related directly to a sand
and gravel quarry that exited onto CR 28, just south of Snow Valley Road. What
was the final cost of this project? What are the pre- and post- project traffic counts
for this road?
9. Is the County/consultant aware that Oro-Medonte Township plans to build a
local community centre in the Line 4/HVR area in the next few years? This centre
will serve the HVR communities from Craighurst through to Jarrett and will likely
generate significantly more left turn movements at Line 4.
County And Ainley Response
in advance of acquiring the environmental approvals for the main road improvements. The function and purpose of the intersection
improvements is independent to the proposal to construct truck climbing lanes. For that reason, one does not alleviate the need for the
other.
2.5) Increased speeds on this section of HVR are attributed to the steep grades and drivers decision not to apply constant pressure to the
braking system in order to maintain the posted speed limit. . As such, it is reasonable to expect that the addition of truck climbing lanes will
not result in increased speeds. Rather, truck climbing lanes will allow slower moving vehicles to remove themselves from the main traffic
stream to allow other vehicles to safely pass them going up the steep hills.
The initial budget for this project was set at 7.5 million based on a preliminary assessment of the potential road improvements and
benchmark budgeting figures. As with all studies, the scope of the proposed work will evolve as the various alternative solutions are
evaluated and a preferred solution is selected. Once the preferred solution is selected, various design concepts are developed and
evaluated, leading up to the selection of a preferred design concept. Once a preferred design concept is developed, engineering design will
be completed and the original construction cost estimate will be updated. At that time, additional project related costs, such as utility
relocations and property acquisition will be known and accounted for in the new budget estimate. Until a design concept is selected and the
necessary engineering input is completed, it is not possible to properly and accurately forecast the ultimate project budget prior to the
commencement of the Class EA study.
Funding for the project will primarily come from development charge reserve funds collected by the County. The cost for Project ‘A’ is
100% eligible for Development Charges and therefore would be no burden to County taxpayers. The cost for Project ‘B’ is 40% eligible for
Development Charges with the remaining 60% falling to the taxpayers.
2.6) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
Notwithstanding, accident data records were provided to illustrate that there are safety concerns associated with the steep hills.
Furthermore, studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on
steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a common road safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario.
2.7) Examples of truck climbing lanes constructed elsewhere by the County of Simcoe was provided to help the public understand and
visualize what they look like. The examples presented are indeed truck climbing lanes and they were implemented to improve the safety
and operation of the roadway. Members of the public who are familiar with County Road 4 and County Road 28 will appreciate the example
as it helps put the option of implementing truck climbing lanes on HVR in better perspective and context. The average annual daily traffic
on County Road 4 and County Road 28, are 12,500 (2013) and 4, 800 (2011), respectively.
2.8) The cost to reconstruct the 12 km County Road 28 between 2002 and 2011 was approximately $25 million.
The pre and post County Road 28 construction traffic counts were 4900 (2002) and 4800 (2011) respectively.
2.9) A future plan by the Township to construct a new community centre in the vicinity of HVR/4th Line was not identified previously. The
study team will follow up with the Township to request additional information with regard to the status of this new facility and will consider
its impact on the future intersection operations.
Page 30
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
10. The COO of Skyline Resorts stood up at the meeting and asked why no one
from the County had contacted him about traffic movements in and out of
Horseshoe Resort as part of this study. He offered suggestions to reduce the
impact of truck traffic within the study area, as it relates to servicing the resort.
Has he been contacted yet?
3) Tone of the Meeting
I have been told that Ms. Korolnek took offence to some remarks made by
community members at the meeting and complained to her boss the next
morning. I recall one comment that may have been offensive. However, after 3
hours and what seemed to be a serious "pushback" from the consultant and
County staff against any alternative suggestions and comments from the
audience, I believe that what Ms. Korolnek heard was sheer frustration from the
audience that staff and the consultants were not really engaging in a "constructive
and collaborative dialogue". This was underscored by the unfortunate revelation
by Ms. Korolnek and Mr. Neumann that neither the County staff nor Ainley staff
were taking notes during the Q&A session. In my opinion the response of the
audience at the PIC#2 meeting was considered, serious, heartfelt and frankly,
polite. In my many years in local government I have experienced far worse.
4) Conclusion
Returning to the purpose of PIC#2, I have concluded that it was not achieved. Not
only was the presentation weak, but necessary data was not provided and
questions were not answered. When Ms. Korolnek said that "if we used
community data or opinions then things would be chaotic" it was apparent to
everyone in the room that the meeting was a failure.
5) My recommendation is that County staff take a step back, relinquish "ownership"
of the problem and put Project A into abeyance. Continue with Project B, paying
close attention to the quality of the consultant's work. Try to regain the trust of the
community by answering our questions and truly "dialoguing" with the residents.
In our view there is a need to make the community safer and the solution is not a
road widening of CR22 between Lines 3 and 4.
I look forward to your thorough response.
Owned property in HV for almost 11 years.
Request For Written Response to Questions
1) It was our understanding that OPTIONS and ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS for
both Project A: Truck Passing Lanes and Project B: Intersection Improvements
between Line 3 and Line 4 on Horseshoe Valley Road would be presented at that
meeting. That was not the case. The presentation by Ainley Consulting focused
entirely on Project A: Implementation of Truck Passing Lanes. Many residents
noted that the Traffic Flow Report Data (2001 to 2011) and the truck accident
data was outdated, flawed, and insufficient to support the construction of Truck
County And Ainley Response
2.10) Consultation with the owners and developers of the Horseshoe Valley Resort has taken place throughout the study through the
issuance of the Notice of Study Commencement and Notice of Public Meeting letters. In all notification letters, we requested and
encouraged the involvement of the resort owner, to provide input and information that would be of benefit to the study team in completing
the analysis of each alternative solution. Further contact and consultation will take place with Horseshoe Resort as the study advances
forward.
3) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
4) The extra PIC held on May 12, 2014 was intended to provide additional information and clarification in response to comments and
questions from the public after the first PIC held at the end of November 2013. We are disappointed that you were not satisfied with the
information presented. We will strive to provide further clarification at the next PIC when we present various design concepts to implement
the preferred solution intersection and roadway solutions.
We note the study must consider and provide appropriate traffic safety measures for all road users on HVR, including the average 4,900
road users who travel through Horseshoe Valley for business or pleasure on a daily basis.
5) Intersection improvements will improve the operation, capacity and level of service required to accommodate future growth and traffic
demand. Implementation of truck climbing lanes is a common safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario to address
traffic safety concerns on road sections with long steep hills. Other safety improvements to address increased traffic speeds, resulting from
the steep hill grades, including public education initiatives, additional signage, and increased law enforcement, will be considered and
implemented to the fullest extent possible.
1) The presentation at PIC 2 provided a summary of the options presented to the public at PIC 1 for both Project A and Project B. As the
public were in general agreement with the proposed intersection improvement options (Project B), the presentation focussed on the Project
A (road widening) concerns expressed by the public. The presentation was also intended to provide further clarification with respect to the
Class EA process and what stage the study is at.
34
The background traffic data from 2011 represented the most current data available to assist with the evaluation of truck climbing lane
warrants, and as such is not considered out dated or flawed. It was noted that the County updates traffic data every 3 years. New traffic
counts on HVR were collected during the weeks of May 12, 2014 and July 14, 2014. This new information has been reviewed and
determined to be consistent with the 2011 traffic count survey in terms of peak hour traffic volumes and truck volumes used to confirm truck
Page 31
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Passing Lanes.
2) There was excellent community representation at the meeting. Approximately
150 people were in attendance and there was considerable opposition to Project
A: Truck Passing Lanes between Line 3 and Line 4. In fact, of the almost 30
speakers, not a single person spoke in favour of implementing Truck Passing
Lanes between Lines 3 and 4.
3) The Ainley Project Manager was dismissive of residents' feedback. He clearly
stated that no other options to a Truck Passing Lane would be investigated and
that this was his 'preferred option'.
4) The County of Simcoe representative, Debbie Korolnek, and the Ainley Project
Director, Mike Neumann, provided a vague projection of construction costs of
between 7.5 million and 20 million dollars for completion of Project A. This
arbitrary budget forecast was alarming and generated many questions from
community members.
5) The Consultant provided one copy of each of four Draft Assessment Reports on a
table at the back of the room. The Draft Natural Heritage Review (dated October
2013) and the Draft Class C Environmental Noise Impact Assessment were
incomplete and flawed. The Draft Archeological Assessment Report referred to
another community. There were typos in the draft reports that indicated that the
Consultants had just cut and pasted reports from other communities. Surely the
Consultants can do better than this.
6) No specifics were provided by the Consultant for Project B: Intersection
Improvements. Most residents spoke in favour of continuing the study of Project B
- Intersection Improvements between Line 3 and 5. Speakers presented many
creative suggestions and options for safety improvements, including: dropping
the speed limit from 70 to 60 km between Line 3 and Line 6, increasing police
enforcement, improving and widening entrances at intersections between Line 3
and Line 6, paving the shoulders, introducing flashing intersection lights at the
entrance to Horseshoe Resort and at the Line 4 intersection, introducing flashing
speed indicators, improving night lighting on hills, introducing more traction on
shoulders and hills, enlarging and improving signage, creating paved bicycle
lanes from Lines 3 to Line 6, diversion of heavy trucks from the hills in bad
weather, etc.
7) Those in attendance expressed concern and outrage that no minutes were
recorded and no notes were taken by either Ainley Consulting or by the County of
Simcoe representatives. There were no hand-outs of fact sheets, and no paper
copies of slides. At the back of the room, there was only one copy of each of 4
draft reports for over 150 people.
8) We feel that this superficial and condescending approach to community
consultation was unprofessional and insulting to those in attendance. The County
of Simcoe should review their PIC consultation process and hold another
Community Consultation on both Project A and Project B, with more accurate, up-
County And Ainley Response
climbing lane warrants continue to be satisfied. This finding further supports the validity of the traffic data used in the initial assessment of
truck climbing lane warrants.
The accident data was introduced to demonstrate that there are traffic safety concerns on HVR. The data also provide insight on the
number of accidents that have occurred between the 3rd and 4th Line compared to the entire length of HVR. As well, the reports note the
cause of the accident, including if weather or road conditions were a contributing factor. Accident rates are not criteria in the design
guidelines for meeting the warrants for truck climbing lanes. The accident data is not flawed or insufficient in assisting the study team in
identifying and evaluating appropriate road improvement solutions to address traffic safety concerns.
2) We note your opinion that all those in attendance at PIC 2 were not in favour of truck climbing lanes as a viable solution to mitigating
safety concerns relating to unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. This conclusion may be skewed as it does not
consider the point of view of the 4,900 members of the public that travel on HVR every day. Nevertheless, the grades on the hills are very
steep, which affect the operating speeds of vehicles, particularly trucks. Studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety
hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a safety feature commonly
implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario. As such, truck climbing lanes represent a viable solution to the traffic safety issue
between the 3rd and 4th Line.
3) When asked, based on his training and experience as a licensed professional engineer, what he believes the proper solution is to
address the traffic safety concerns, the presenter from Ainley responded honestly and openly. By no means was it implied that no other
options were being considered. Quite the opposite. Earlier in the presentation, all viable options were identified and a brief summary of the
pros and cons of each were discussed. Furthermore, selection of a preferred solution had not yet been made as the study team was very
interested in engaging the public to obtain further feedback and input. This was the premise of holding the extra PIC on May 12, 2014.
4) The initial budget for this project was set at 7.5 million based on a preliminary assessment of the potential road improvements and
benchmark budgeting figures. As with all studies, the scope of the proposed work will evolve as the various alternative solutions are
evaluated and a preferred solution is selected. Once the preferred solution is selected, various design concepts are developed and
evaluated, leading up to the selection of a preferred design concept. Once a preferred design concept is developed, engineering design will
be completed and the original construction cost estimate will be updated. At that time, additional project related costs, such as utility
relocations and property acquisition will be known and accounted for in the new budget estimate. Until a design concept is selected and the
necessary engineering input is completed, it is not possible to properly and accurately forecast the ultimate project budget prior to the
commencement of the Class EA study.
5) The background reports were in draft form. The reports will be updated and advanced as the study moves forward. The reports were not
flawed and were applicable to this study area.
6) As noted above, the purpose of PIC was to provide further clarification with respect to the information presented to the public at PIC 1
and to address misconceptions with respect to the Class EA process and where the study is at in the process. As the general public were
in agreement with the proposed intersection improvement options, the presentation focussed on aspects of the project, primarily the
proposal to implement truck climbing lanes, which the public had questions and concerns with. The information and suggestions provided
by the public was very helpful and will be considered by the study team during the evaluation and selection of a preferred solution.
7) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
Page 32
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
to-date data and proper minute-taking. All present, including community
members, should have name tags. All slides should be handed out to the
audience.
9) Based on the response of the community, it is very clear that Project A (Truck
Passing Lanes) should be put on hold so that there can be an immediate focus on
Project B as a priority.
10) Project B can focus on immediate intersection and road safety improvements that
will ensure the safety of residents and tourists between Line 3 and Line 6, rather
than focusing on trucks.
11) At the meeting, we submitted a typed list of questions. As a result of what we
heard at the meeting, we have revised our list of questions. The revised list
appears below.
We request a written response to these questions.
QUESTIONS RE: CLASS EA STUDY: County Road 22
- THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE
Project A - County Road 22 Truck Passing Lanes
1. On what date was the EA study for Project A: Truck Passing approved by
Council? Who introduced the motion?
2. On what date was Ainley Consulting contracted to begin this study? What are
the Ainley Consultant's contracted Terms of Reference for Project A and for
Project B?
3. What is the total contracted dollar figure attached to the current contract with
Ainley Consultants?
4. What is the contracted and expected Outcome for this Study (i.e. what will define
the end of this study with this Consultant)?
5.
Project A - Truck Passing Lanes on Horseshoe Valley between Line 3 and 4 are
not mentioned or identified as a priority in Simcoe County Master Transportation
Plan 2008 or in the recently Updated Draft Simcoe County Master Transportation
Plan January 2014. Why is this project being considered at this time and what
other road improvement projects in Simcoe County will be put aside so that the
7.5 to 20 million dollars referred to by Ainley Consultants can be allocated to this
initiative?
6. What is the website where project-related slides and reports are posted?
7. Will the Consultants provide a hydrological study of the impact on the aquifer,
culverts and private wells that may be affected between Lines 3 and 5 if the road
is widened to accommodate truck passing lanes? If so, when and where will this
be available for review?
8. At the PIC#2 meeting one copy of the Draft Natural Heritage Review for the
Proposed Widening of Horseshoe Valley Road by Tarandus Associates Ltd.
(dated October 2013) was available. The purpose of the report was to identify
County And Ainley Response
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
In an effort to reduce costs and promote a green environment, multiple copies of the draft background reports and copies of the PIC display
information were not provided. Instead, display boards and a formal presentation was provided. Copies of the PIC display boards / power
point presentation and draft reports were posted on the County’s website after the PIC for public download and further review.
8) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
9 & 10) Comments noted.
In response to your list of questions, we offer the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In consideration of the planned development and continued growth that will occur within Horseshoe Valley in conjunction
with the on-going traffic safety concerns associated with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line, the County identified a
need to investigate possible solutions to improve traffic safety. This project was presented to Council as part of the budget
deliberations. Starting in 2011 this project was identified and has been included in the roads budget ever since.
The County released the Request for Proposal for engineering services on December 10, 2012. Subsequently, the project
was awarded to Ainley Group on February 8, 2013.
Current Ainley contract value is $744,834.
The County retained the services of Ainley Group to carry out the Class EA, Detailed Design and Construction
Administration
The County’s Transportation Master Plan is a comprehensive planning and policy document which looks at how best to plan
for the efficient movement of people and goods, including opportunities for alternative modes of transportation and active
transportation facilities. Being a ‘high level’ planning document for the entire road network within Simcoe County, it is not
intended to address specific road reconstruction needs. Rather, project specific studies are planned under either Schedule
A, B or C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
The purpose of the study is to identify appropriate roadway improvements which will reduce the potential occurrence and
severity of accidents and collisions resulting from impatient drivers passing slow moving vehicles illegally on the steep hills.
In addition, the study will consider upgrades to the configuration of the 3rd Line, Birch Grove and 4th Line intersections to
improve traffic operations, capacity, level of service and safety.
Projects are evaluated and prioritized on a yearly basis during the annual budget review and approval process. We are not
Page 33
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
species at risk if the road widening is approved. The study stated that the
Consultants took samples between Line 1 and Line 5 on three dates - January
10, June 8 and July 23, 2013. Line 1 does not exit onto Horseshoe Valley Road.
Exactly where in the area between Lines 3 and Line 5 were samples taken?
Also, the report refers to tributaries of the Sturgeon River supplying water to this
area. Is this correct?
9. The last available Traffic Flow Study was conducted on Horseshoe Valley Road
from May 2 to May 6, 2011. This data was insufficient to substantiate the need for
truck passing lanes between Lines 3 and 4.
10. On Monday, May 12, 2014, the same night as the PIC# 2 meeting at Skyline
Resort, a traffic flow study was underway on Horseshoe Valley Road. Will the
traffic flow data for May 12, 2014 be eliminated from the resulting traffic flow
report to ensure that the data is not skewed by the dozens of cars going back and
forth to the PIC #2 Meeting between 4:45 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. on that date?
Also, the Traffic Study was underway on Thursday and Friday of the same week the beginning of the long weekend - many cars and trucks were travelling back
and forth to cottage country. Will this exceptional data be eliminated from the May
2014 Traffic Flow Study?
11. Survey stakes have appeared on our privately owned common property between
Line 4 and Line 5. Is expropriation of privately owned land being considered
along County Road 22, between Line 4 and Line 5 to accommodate road
widening? If so, can expropriation requests by the County be challenged by
property owners at the OMB?
12. If Project A is approved, in what year is the construction of Truck Passing Lanes
between Lines 3 and 4 projected to begin and how many years will the
construction take from implementation to completion, based on similar projects?
13. What are the forecasted impacts of this construction on the Horseshoe Valley
community - i.e. social, economic, recreational, tourism, environmental, local
traffic flow, property values - during proposed construction of truck passing lanes
between Lines 3 and 4?
14. What is the Consultant's Construction Mitigation Plan for diverting truck and car
traffic between Lines 3 and 5 during the extended construction period?
15. Is there a plan to build a temporary roadway around the construction site at Line 3
and at Line 4 while the hill at Line 4 is lowered to improve visibility? If so, what
are the estimated costs of this diversion? Is this cost of temporary traffic diversion
included in the project estimate of 7.5 to 20 million dollars?
16. If the construction of Truck Passing Lanes between Lines 3 and 4 is approved
where will heavy equipment and construction materials be stored during the
lengthy construction period?
We believe that rushing through this EA Study process using unsubstantiated data will
be a very costly mistake and will impact on the credibility of the County of Simcoe.
County And Ainley Response
aware of any project which is being deferred as a direct result of this project.
Background information and reports can be accessed from the County’s website by using the following link:
www.simcoe.ca.
7. A hydrogeological study is currently being completed. The purpose of this investigation is to complete a base line condition
survey of private water well supplies adjacent to CR 22 (within the project limits). This data will be used to inventory the
location of private wells, determine well condition, characterize the chemical properties and quality of the water supply,
complete a general assessment of the potential impacts due to the proposed road improvements and determine if, following
construction, the work has adversely affected private water supplies. This study is expected to be completed this summer
and will be available for public review at the next PIC.
8. The draft natural heritage report documented background information collected from secondary sources and field
observations. The report will be updated with further field review and study once a preferred solution is selected and based
on the footprint determined through the preparation of various design concepts. Aquatic and terrestrial feature locations will
be documented in maps and included in the final report.
9. The background traffic data from 2011 represented the most current data available to assist with the evaluation of truck
climbing lane warrants, and as such is not considered out dated or flawed. It was noted that the County updates traffic data
every 3 years. New traffic counts on HVR were collected during the weeks of May 12, 2014 and July 14, 2014. This new
information has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the 2011 traffic count survey in terms of peak hour
traffic volumes and truck volumes used to confirm truck climbing lane warrants continue to be satisfied. This finding further
supports the validity of the traffic data used in the initial assessment of truck climbing lane warrants.
10. The traffic data collected during the week of May 12, 2014, went from 11:00 a.m. Monday May 12 to 8:00 a.m. Friday, May
16. To ensure traffic flow to PIC 2 and potential increase traffic flow due to the May 19 statutory holiday did not impact the
overall traffic evaluation with respect to truck climbing lane warrants, the data from May 12 and May 16 was excluded. The
results from the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday traffic survey confirmed the peak hour and truck volume warrant
criteria were satisfied.
11. The survey stakes were placed to assist the survey consultant in collecting topographic survey data. They did not represent
the limit of any potential road widening.
6.
The study is not at a stage where property acquisition needs are known at this time. Once a preferred solution is selected
the next phase of the study will look various design concepts to carry out the preferred solution. Opportunities to minimize,
or preferable avoid, impacts to property will be considered and implemented to the extent possible. Should expropriation be
necessary, the affected property owner may submit an appeal and request a Hearing of Necessity, through the provisions
provided in the Expropriation Act.
12. The timing for construction of Project A and B is not known at this time. Following completion of the Class EA study this
year, detailed engineering designs will be completed to identify property acquisition and utility relocation requirements. This
process typically can take between 1-2 years to complete. Following which construction may commence subject to budget
approval. It is expected construction may take up to 2 years to complete, depending on the scope of the approved road
improvements.
13. Through thoughtful consideration and implementation of proven engineered and environmental friendly solutions, potential
impacts to the social, natural, economic and recreation environments within the Horseshoe Valley community will be
appropriately addressed and mitigate to the extent possible.
14. Development of a traffic management and construction staging plan will take place during detailed design. It is anticipated
that traffic between the 3rd and 4th Line will be managed through the use of temporary detours and short term lane closures.
Page 34
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Please send written responses to each of our questions.
County And Ainley Response
A full road closure is usually not permitted and is only considered under extenuating circumstances. Nevertheless, access to
all private residences will be maintained during construction.
15. Construction of a temporary diversion at the 3rd and 4th Line intersections is not being contemplated at this time.
16. Decisions with respect to storage of construction material and equipment will be left up to the contractor to arrange.
The completion of this Class EA study is following an approved planning process and is not being rushed in any way. On the contrary, the
completion date has been extended to provide more opportunity for public consultation and input. Furthermore, the study is being carried
out using the best available background information in order to ensure the evaluation data is valid and reliable and results in the best
decision making process possible.
Owned property in HV for almost 16 years.
All comments and questions are identical to those above. (#33)
A. Traffic Accident Data
1) Can you make available the accident data for the last ten years? If not how can I
obtain this data?
2) How many accidents total on CR 22 between 3rd and 4th Line?
3) How many accidents total for CR22?
4) Of the accidents between 3rd & 4th Line how many involved trucks?
5) Of the accidents between 3rd and 4th line how many involved speed?
6) What data can you present to show accidents are a result “Unsafe passing of slow
moving vehicles on hills”? that you refer to on Slide #10 of the PIC#2
presentation?
7) Of the “Passing related head on collisions” you refer to on Slide 1, how many
involved trucks? How many were on the uphill climb?
8) What data do you have that shows passing of slow moving trucks are causing
accidents?
9) I have time lapse video of CR22 traffic flows from the May long week-end in
several locations as well as Dash Camera footage of typical illegal passing of
vehicle travelling at the speed limit. All footage is date and time stamped, and
dash cam includes GPS data, speed and live map updates, are you interested in
reviewing this footage?
B. Speed Limit Reduction
1. PIC#2 Slide #16 states “A 15 km/h or greater speed reduction is expected for a
typical heavy truck”. Would the reducing the speed limit to 50 or 60 km/hr satisfy
the speed difference between trucks ascending hills and the legal speed limit and
flow of car traffic?
2. How does the designation of a “Resort Area” as stated on a road sign on CR22
have a bearing on the posted speed limit, and the possibility of a reduction?
3. How will TPL’s increase the safety for pedestrians and cyclists that use CR22?
4. With limited sight lines at the intersections of CR22 and Country Club Lane, Pine
Ridge Trail, Maple Ridge and 4th Line and an increase of the width of CR22 with
additional lanes, how will the safety of children crossing the road be assured at
35
A 1) Background accident data from 2001 to 2011 has been posted on the County’s website.
36
A 2) Between 2001 and 2011, 82 collisions were reported on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line
A 3) Between 2001 and 2011, 398 collisions were recorded on HVR.
A 4 & 5) Of the recorded collisions between the 3rd and 4th Line, 2 involved trucks. Of those one was due to a car following too close and
the other was due to speeding and unsafe passing resulting in a collision with a dump truck traveling in the opposite direction.
A 6 - 8) We note that accident data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data
indicates that the accident rate on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the
warrants for truck climbing lanes do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness
and length of the grade, total traffic volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt
unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the
traffic safety concern that this project is attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada
geometric design standards.
A 9) All relevant background information, including your video, is of interest to the study team. Yes we would be pleased to review it.
B 1) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
B 2) Designation of a Resort Area does not typically have a bearing on the posted speed limit. To determine appropriate speed limits on
County roadways the Transportation and Engineering Department uses the Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC) manual,
Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits. The guidelines provide an objective, technical, pro active and risk based assessment
considering engineering factors related to a roadway’s geometric and traffic characteristics. The guidelines provide engineers and traffic
practitioners with an evaluation tool to assess appropriate posted speed limits based primarily on the classification, function and physical
characteristics of a roadway. This is a manual commonly used throughout Canada to set speed limits, so that the travelling public has a
predictable and generally common driving environment no matter what municipality they are in. The TAC guideline uses these factors to
Page 35
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
the current speed limit?
5. If the answer to the above question includes intersection controls like traffic lights,
how much additional time will it take for vehicles to travel the distance between 3rd
and 4th Line?
I am willing to review the accident data and report on findings. I also have several
weatherproof battery powered time-lapsed camera systems available for real time
traffic recording.
County And Ainley Response
determine posted speed – horizontal and vertical alignment, average lane width, roadside hazards, pedestrian exposure, cyclist exposure,
pavement surface, number of intersections, number of private accesses and on street parking. Research and experience have shown that
effective speed limits are those that the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that raising and lowering of speed limits doesn’t
substantially influence that speed. The true deterrent is increased police presence and enforcement of the existing speed limit. Many
studies have been done examining the effect of lowering speed limits, the data has clearly shown that majority of motorists do not alter
their vehicle speed to conform to speed limits that they perceive as unreasonable, and that arbitrarily lowering the speed limit did not
reduce vehicle speeds or collision rates.
B 3) To improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, paved shoulders and / or paved boulevards, will be implemented as part of the road
improvement design.
B 4) Intersection improvements including installation of traffic signals, pedestrian crossing signals, flashing amber warning light, additional
signage, line markings and improved site lines, are being considered to improve safety for pedestrians (and children) who use the park and
emergency service facilities on the 4th Line. We also note that, typically, the addition of a second through lane, including a truck climbing
lane which extends through an intersection, provides the added benefit of creating longer gaps in the traffic stream which will provide more
time for pedestrians to safely cross the road at other minor side road locations.
B 5) Based on speed surveys completed in May 2014, the mean average speed on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line is 82 km/h. The
average time for a vehicle to travel the 3 km between the 2 intersections is approximately 2.2 minutes. Traffic lights are only warranted at
the 3rd line. If installed, they would likely be activated by detector loops on the local roads. Delays to traffic on Horseshoe Valley Road will
be minimal.
1) Hopefully there is a sincere desire to listen carefully to the considered opinions of
the public participants concerning this project, and not to treat this entire matter
as a formality, which must be endured, in order to arbitrarily move this
undertaking ahead.
2) My prime concern with respect to this stretch of highway incorporating 8 and 10%
grades has always been one of safety. I have personally already been involved
in an accident here, which fortunately caused no damage to anything other than
my car. Fortunate indeed as there was no traffic coming up the hill when my car,
having caught an icy berm, on a poorly maintained road, skidded down the hill,
slewing from side to side, before I was finally able to bring it to rest against the
guide wires, heading up the hill. This was mentioned in an earlier email
(06/05/2013) to Jim Hunter and Mike Neumann.
3) With such a dangerous section of highway, what logic inspires you to consider
increasing the risks by adding truck lanes which will enable large transports,
currently unable to use the highway, to add to the increasing local traffic? In my
opinion there is no justification for such lanes with the existing traffic flow, as
trucks currently using the highway have the power to negotiate the hills with
marginal, if any, inconvenience to regular vehicular traffic. Indeed having such
additional large trucks on the highway, with the existing grades, can give rise to
catastrophic accidents if a runaway situation occurs. It will happen!! School
1) The selection of a preferred solution has not yet been made. The work completed to date by the County’s consultant, Ainley and
Associates Ltd, which identifies the warrants for truck climbing lanes is being peer reviewed by an independent 3rd party. The results of
the peer review will be available by mid October 2014. To complete Phase 2 of the Class EA, the study team will now review all
information, including the feedback provided by the public during and after PIC’s 1 and 2, and select a recommended preferred solution
that best addresses the problem statement.
37
2) The County of Simcoe continues to maintain the condition of all County roads, including HVR, in accordance with the appropriate road
maintenance standards. Winter maintenance and the safety of the travelling public are of vital importance to the County. As such, they
carry out snow removal and de-icing operations as quickly and efficient as possible, utilizing all available resources and equipment at their
disposal.
3) This study is not being carried out to accommodate truck traffic or encourage trucks to use HVR who currently are unable to use
Highway 11. Rather, this study is being carried out to identify appropriate solutions to address traffic safety concerns relating to unsafe
passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Furthermore, studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and
can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a common road safety feature implemented by
road authorities throughout Ontario.
4) Shoulder improvements, including widening to County standards and asphalt surface treatment is being considered for inclusion with the
approved road improvement strategy to improve safety of pedestrians and cyclists and reduce maintenance costs due to erosion of the
gravel surface.
Page 36
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
buses stop on the 10% hill on this highway!!!
4) As a minimum what I'd propose (and this was indicated in the earlier email so
please forgive the repetition is that the road portion with the 8 and 10% grades be
upgraded to county standards with respect to stable shoulder widths. (This
portion of the road is extremely dangerous with its narrow width, questionably
stable shoulders, and grades (particularly in winter). Indeed presently there are
no paved shoulders in most portions, and consequently little markings at the
edges.
5) A paved acceleration strip to the west of the Cathedral Pines (4th Line North)
intersection (north side of 22) is required as exiting from Cathedral Pines west to
the County Road can be extremely hazardous. The only way to currently exit
Cathedral Pines in relative safety, in this direction, is at right angles to 22 and to
make a fairly wide turn, with the risk of engaging oncoming traffic, or being rear
ended by traffic coming from the east (particularly in winter).
6) Much of the time this traffic is travelling at unsafe speeds, particularly in winter,
and I'd like to recommend that the speed limit in this entire area be lowered to an
enforced 60 km. per hour (I believe this was the original suggestion to the
County). How is it that this dangerous part of the highway in a large residential
area has a speed limit of 70 km/hr, while a level portion of highway 93 through
Orr Lake has a limit of 50?
Debbie:
1) Would you please let me know how I can access the following studies or reports
regarding HVR - Project A:
*
the topographic survey
*
the Ainley PowerPoint presentation, May 12, 2014
*
the noise analysis/analyses
*
the traffic study/analysis/analyses (I believe more than one was done; or more
study done)
*
the study that relates to Mike Neumann's statement on May 12 about "negative
effect on the social environment of Old Barrie Road"
*
documentation related to Alternative Solution #3: "Detour traffic to alternate
routes to lower traffic volumes" that apparently demonstrated highest capital cost
2) Is there a plan to do hydrogeological and socio-economic studies of Horseshoe
Valley Road? If so, when will these studies be made available?
3) What studies were started/are in draft form/are complete between the November
28 PIC and the May 12 PIC?
4). What studies will be started/are in draft form/are complete between the May 12
PIC and the next PIC?
5) At what Phase will "identification of property requirements", referred to in the
County And Ainley Response
5) Intersection improvements at the 4th Line are being considered to improve traffic operations, capacity, and safety.
6) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
To determine appropriate speed limits on County roadways the Transportation and Engineering Department uses the Transportation
Association of Canada’s (TAC) manual, Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits. The guidelines provide an objective, technical,
pro active and risk based assessment considering engineering factors related to a roadway’s geometric and traffic characteristics. The
guidelines provide engineers and traffic practitioners with an evaluation tool to assess appropriate posted speed limits based primarily on
the classification, function and physical characteristics of a roadway. This is a manual commonly used throughout Canada to set speed
limits, so that the travelling public has a predictable and generally common driving environment no matter what municipality they are in.
The TAC guideline uses these factors to determine posted speed – horizontal and vertical alignment, average lane width, roadside
hazards, pedestrian exposure, cyclist exposure, pavement surface, number of intersections, number of private accesses and on street
parking. Research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those that the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that
raising and lowering of speed limits doesn’t substantially influence that speed. The true deterrent is increased police presence and
enforcement of the existing speed limit. Many studies have been done examining the effect of lowering speed limits, the data has clearly
shown that majority of motorists do not alter their vehicle speed to conform to speed limits that they perceive as unreasonable, and that
arbitrarily lowering the speed limit did not reduce vehicle speeds or collision rates.
1) Copies of the background studies, including draft reports, May 12 PIC power point, plan profile survey drawing, are posted on the
County’s website.
38
2) A hydrogeological study to assess base line well conditions is currently underway. The study is expected to be completed this summer
with the results available for public review at the next PIC.
3) Following the PIC 1 in November, a truck by pass study was completed in response to the public’s request for a more detailed review of
the option of diverting trucks from HVR to other roads, such as Old Barrie Road. This draft study report is available on the County’s
website.
4) Between the May 12 PIC 2 and the next PIC (PIC 3), a hydrogeological study report will be completed, and the previous draft
environmental reports will be updated based on the final selection of the preferred solution and development of preliminary design
concepts for the implementation of the preferred solution.
5) During Phase 3 of the Class EA study, design concepts will be prepared and preliminary property acquisition requirements will be
identified.
6) Following a comprehensive review of all public comments received to-date; the study team will be completing a detailed evaluation of
alternative solutions and will be providing the County with a recommended preferred alternative solution. The County will then consider the
Page 37
6)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
January Response document, be done?
The Ainley November presentation states that lane widening is "the preferred
solution". Is that the county's position as of November 28, or as of today? If not,
when will the county state its "preferred solution"?
My family has lived in Oro-Medonte since the early 1920s; they owned the 300
acres now the site of Cathedral Pines. I currently own a 100 acre working forest
on Oro-Medonte Line 4 North, and a residence on the 6th Line North. I have
travelled the Horseshoe Valley Road since it was a gravel strip.
Was not able to attend the recent “consultation” session but have carefully read
the documentation, and the very comprehensive and thoughtful response from
the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association.
I note that the proposed multi-million dollar expansion of Country Road 22 is
justified by Simcoe County and Ainley Consulting as a means of “addressing
existing and future traffic safety concerns,” although these concerns are not well
documented.
A considerable weight of international evidence suggests that the proposed
improvements may actually achieve the reverse if they increase traffic flow and
speed particularly in areas where residential development is proceeding rapidly.
The proposed improvements also come at a cost: in addition to the considerable
capital costs of construction, taxpayers and residents will bear the continuing
costs of increased noise, pollution and environmental degradation.
A cursory review of the research evidence suggests that a more effective and less
costly approach to improving road safety (if that really is the issue) would be to
reduce and enforce the speed limit. While much of this evidence is from
jurisdictions outside Ontario, it appears entirely applicable to the case at hand.
Some examples:
• The website of the Ministry of Justice, British Columbia
(http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/speed.htm#reducingspeed) clarifies
that:
“Speed is one of the leading causes of death on B.C. roads. It is also a behaviour
that is very easy to eliminate – Just. Slow. Down. Speed increases the risk of
vehicle collisions – it comes with a high price. Crashes causing damages and
injuries take a huge toll on insurance and other costs; however, from a public
safety perspective, the greatest cost of speed is trauma and human life.
Speed is a significant factor in the number of fatalities and the number and
severity of the injuries that result from road crashes. It is clear that reduced
speeds not only reduce the likelihood of a crash but also reduce the severity of
injuries when crashes occur.”
The website also notes that:
“A pedestrian hit at 30km/h has a 90% chance of SURVIVING.
A pedestrian hit at 50km/h has an 80% chance of BEING KILLED.”
• The website of the Canada Safety Council
County And Ainley Response
study team’s recommendation and make a decision to endorse it (or not).
1 – 4) Comments noted.
5) Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep
grades on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to
avoid overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
39
6) Comment noted.
7) This study is not being carried out to accommodate truck traffic. Rather, this study is being carried out to identify appropriate solutions to
address traffic safety concerns relating to unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the steep hills. Furthermore, studies have shown that
slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a
common road safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario.
8) The speed limit on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line was reduced in 2010. It is considered appropriate based on industry standards. To
determine appropriate speed limits on County roadways the Transportation and Engineering Department uses the Transportation
Association of Canada’s (TAC) manual, Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits. The guidelines provide an objective, technical,
pro active and risk based assessment considering engineering factors related to a roadway’s geometric and traffic characteristics. The
guidelines provide engineers and traffic practitioners with an evaluation tool to assess appropriate posted speed limits based primarily on
the classification, function and physical characteristics of a roadway. This is a manual commonly used throughout Canada to set speed
limits, so that the travelling public has a predictable and generally common driving environment no matter what municipality they are in.
The TAC guideline uses these factors to determine posted speed – horizontal and vertical alignment, average lane width, roadside
hazards, pedestrian exposure, cyclist exposure, pavement surface, number of intersections, number of private accesses and on street
parking. Research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those that the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that
raising and lowering of speed limits doesn’t substantially influence that speed. The true deterrent is increased police presence and
enforcement of the existing speed limit. Many studies have been done examining the effect of lowering speed limits, the data has clearly
shown that majority of motorists do not alter their vehicle speed to conform to speed limits that they perceive as unreasonable, and that
arbitrarily lowering the speed limit did not reduce vehicle speeds or collision rates.
9) Comment noted.
Page 38
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
(https://canadasafetycouncil.org/traffic-safety/higher-speeds-drive-traffic-deaths)
offers similar observations. It states that:
“The faster a vehicle is moving, the less time the driver has to react to a hazard,
and for other road users to react to that vehicle. A speeding vehicle requires more
time and distance to stop, and is harder to control. Speed is a factor in 30 per
cent of fatal crashes and 12 per cent of all crashes.”
• The website of the influential Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the US
(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/speed/qanda) likewise documents the strong
association between speed and safety: as the former increases, the latter
decreases. It observes that:
“Speed has a major impact on the number of crashes and injury severity. It
influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways:
o It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an
emergency to the time the driver reacts.
o It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once the driver starts to
brake.
o It increases the crash energy exponentially. For example, when impact
speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that
needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.”
The Institute poses the question, “should trucks have lower speed limits?” The
answer:
“Although there is no definitive research showing crash effects associated with
posting lower (differential) speed limits for large trucks, many safety experts favor
differential limits because large trucks require much longer distances than cars to
stop. Lower speed limits for trucks make stopping distances of trucks closer to
those of lighter vehicles. Slower truck speeds also allow passenger vehicle
drivers to pass trucks more easily. And because on average, large trucks tend to
go slower than passenger vehicles on expressways with uniform speed limits,
lower speed limits for trucks reflect a natural speed differential between larger
trucks and passenger vehicles.”
• Even more extensive data and analysis are found on the website of the Federal
Highway Safety Administration in the US
(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/). A recent
document titled “Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An
informational Report” (April, 2012), begins by clarifying the relationship between
safety and speed:
“… the most recent and statistically robust research on speed and crash
occurrence fairly definitively indicates that, all other factors being equal, increased
speeds increase crash occurrence. … One of the most statistically robust efforts
to uncover the relationship between speed and safety was a meta-analysis
conducted by the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics.
… For a given roadway type, there is a strong statistical relationship between
County And Ainley Response
Page 39
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
speed and crash risk for speeds in the range of 15 mph to 75 mph (25 km/h to
120 km/h). When the mean speed of traffic is reduced, the number of crashes
and the severity of injuries will almost always go down. When the mean speed of
traffic increases, the number of crashes and the severity of injuries will usually
increase.”
The Report goes on to detail four major “Methods of Setting Speed Limits”
commonly used within the traffic engineering community each requiring extensive
measurement and rigorous analysis of a range of factors impacting on safety as
well as consideration of broader societal costs such as traffic noise and air
pollution.
• Engineering approach: A two-step process where a base speed limit is set
according to the 85th percentile speed, the design speed for the road, or other
criterion. This base speed limit is adjusted according to traffic and infrastructure
conditions such as pedestrian use, median presence, etc. Within the engineering
approach there are two approaches; 1) Operating Speed Method and 2) Road
Risk Method.
• Expert system approach: Speed limits are set by a computer program that uses
knowledge and inference procedures that simulate the judgment and behavior of
speed limit experts. Typically, this system contains a knowledge base containing
accumulated knowledge and experience (knowledge base), and a set of rules for
applying the knowledge to each particular situation (the inference procedure).
• Optimization: Setting speed limits to minimize the total societal costs of
transport. Travel time, vehicle operating costs, road crashes, traffic noise, and air
pollution are considered in the determination of optimal speed limits.
• Injury minimization or safe system approach: Speed limits are set according to
the crash types that are likely to occur, the impact forces that result, and the
human body’s tolerance to withstand these forces.
This report also provides a very instructive table (Table 4. Speed Limits for Injury
Minimization) which sets out maximum speed limits for different road types to
minimize injuries:
• Roads with a mix of motorized and unprotected road users (i.e., pedestrians and
cyclists) – 20mph/30km/h • Roads with uncontrolled access where side impact
crashes can result – 30mph/50km/h • Undivided roads where head-on crashes
can result -- 45mph/70km/h • Controlled access facilities with a physical median
separation, where at-grade access and non-motorized road users are prohibited - >60mph/100km/h
Since Simcoe County Road 22 is an undivided road with uncontrolled access, the
corresponding speed limit to minimize injury is estimated at between 50 and
70km/h.
6) I note with regret that this last winter a head on, and deadly crash occurred on the
Horseshoe Valley Road at the 6th Line North; I assume that speed, and not the
absence of a passing lane, played a key role.
County And Ainley Response
Page 40
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
7) A number of conclusions emerge.
First, the evidence suggests that road “improvements,” such as those proposed
for Simcoe County Road 22, while justified in terms of improving traffic safety,
may actually compound the problem if they promote higher speeds.
Second, in addition to incurring massive capital costs related to construction (in
turn impacting on taxpayers), such “improvements” can generate continuing
social costs related to pollution, noise and environmental degradation.
Third, it is not clear that the consultants have yet provided sufficient data and
analysis to meet the criteria of any of the main Methods of Setting Speed Limits
commonly used within the traffic engineering community; the onus is on them to
show how costly “improvements” will address “existing and future traffic safety
concerns,” and of course, to specify what exactly these concerns are.
Finally, an effective and low cost alternative is to reduce and enforce the speed
limit along the length of Simcoe County Road 22, particularly as residential
development proceeds and traffic volume increases.
8) There are important local precedents for doing this:
• The posted speed limit through Horseshoe Valley is current 70km/h (although
actual speeds appear to be substantially higher); it would not be much of a stretch
to reduce the limit to 60km/h, and enforce this limit, which, the evidence suggests,
would immediately improve road safety at almost no cost to taxpayers • Much of
Division Road West (the eastward continuation of Simcoe County Road 22
beyond Highway 12) is posted at 60km/h presumably to improve safety for
residents • Virtually the whole length of Oro-Medonte 7th Line North, south of
Simcoe County Road 22 to Highway 11 is posted at 60Km/h presumably to
ensure the safety of truck traffic to and from the gravel pits (yet the same trucks
are allowed to travel the more heavily utilized County Road at a substantially
higher speed?) • Much of Oro-Medonte 4th Line North, south of Simcoe County
Road 22, is posted at 50km/hr presumably to ensure the safety and enjoyment of
people living in the area.
9) I look forward to seeing these important issues surfaced in the upcoming
municipal elections.
I attended the May 12th meeting and was dismayed by the officious presentation of
facts that did not address the concerns of the citizens. I had the feeling that the
meeting was meant to appease residents by simply being an extra public meeting on
this topic. But it was not truly an interactive meeting. It was a presentation that dealt
with process but not content as it truly pertains to the issues raised by members of the
audience. No notes were taken; it appeared that the presenters heard the comments
but did not listen to them and could not possibly take them away for further debate
because nothing was recorded. The residents of Horseshoe Valley are well-educated
and well-informed. Such a cavalier attitude is noted and will be remembered.
My questions are as follows:
County And Ainley Response
The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behavior at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
40
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
Page 41
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Who determined the problems on the road in the first place? Why were
the residents and especially Horseshoe Resort not consulted in determining what
the initial concerns regarding safety were?
Why are trucks even allowed on a road with such hills? A friend of mine who
drives a dump truck up north and has visited us in the valley says that truck
drivers don't like driving on a road like ours.
It is hard on the truck to gear down and uses a lot of fuel to get back up on the
other side. The trucks do not gain enough momentum to get back up the other
side if they do not have enough speed going down. The speed limit at 70 km/hr is
already too fast for safe pedestrian crossing at the resort and at the Cathedral
Pines crossing to the 4th line park. Decision makers on this project should enter
Cathedral Pines at 8:45 in the morning to see how many children are there
waiting for the school bus. All of these children want to cross the Horseshoe
Valley Road to access the new park. So do their parents and any visitors they
have. This is a community that straddles the road in many places. It should
never be used by trucks unless what they are carrying is for local consumption.
How many lanes will there be at Cathedral Pines/4th Line and the Horseshoe
Valley Road to make traffic safe? Two turning lanes in addition to two through
lanes and one truck lane? Will this mean 5 lanes for families to cross to get to the
park? Surely this is insane.
The economy is in tourism, not trucking. Isn't Oro-Medonte being touted as a
paradise for cycling? Where are the bikers supposed to go in the valley? Will
they really want to ride on the outside of a truck lane? If anything road
improvements should include proper bike lanes.
Why does the present construction at the Hwy 11/400 Extension merge not
include a cloverleaf that would allow the traffic from the 400 extension to turn
north onto Hwy 11, thereby not necessitating the short cut along our road? How
could planners be so lacking in foresight as to not have included such an entry
when construction was already planned for that area. The money that is being
slotted for truck lanes on the Horseshoe Valley Road could have gone into that
project and trucking companies would have been far happier using a fairly flat,
speedy route. And we residents (and visiting tourists) would be far safer.
When will the best interests of the people ever be at the forefront of such decision
making? What could be more important for elected officials and those making
decisions for a better future than keeping our citizens safe and well-looked after?
County And Ainley Response
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
1) In consideration of the planned development and continued growth that will occur within Horseshoe Valley in conjunction with the ongoing traffic safety concerns associated with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line, the County identified a need to investigate
possible solutions to improve traffic safety. To that end, the County initiated the study in accordance with the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment guidelines.
2) All County Roads, including County Road 22, are designed to accommodate the movement of goods and services. As such, they are
designated haul routes to serve all road users, including trucks.
3) It is acknowledged that excessive traffic speeds are also a traffic safety issue. Speed surveys completed in May of this year confirm the
average speed is over 83 km/hr and approximately 90% of vehicles are traveling greater than the posted speed of 70km/hr. This is
primarily a result of the steep downhill grades. For any vehicle, whether it is a car or truck, to maintain the posted speed of 70km/hr, the
driver would need to apply heavy pressure to the vehicles brakes as they are descending the hills. Such use of the brakes may result in
increased wear and tear on the braking system leading to increased vehicle maintenance costs. This may explain why over 90% of the
road users are electing not to do so. Notwithstanding, opportunities to encourage drivers to slow down, including additional police
presence, additional signage, temporary/permanent radar speed signs, etc., are being considered.
Traffic speeds are not anticipated to increase due to the construction of truck climbing lanes. The excessive traffic speeds are a function of
the steep downhill grades and the unsafe driving habits of drivers who speed up the hills to pass slower moving vehicles.
Studies have shown that lowering the posted speed does not automatically result in reduced speeds. Furthermore, given the steep grades
on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line, drivers tend to coast down the hills rather than apply constant pressure to their brakes, to avoid
overheating and additional wear and tear to the vehicles braking system, thus resulting in speeds exceeding the posted limit.
4) Auxiliary lane configuration at the west approach of the 4th Line intersection may consist of one dedicated left turn lane, one through
lane, one lane for the continuation of the truck climbing lane (if selected as the preferred solution) and one dedicated right turn lane. The
east approach will consist of one dedicated left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. The south and north approaches may
consist of one dedicated left turn lane and one shared through-right turn lane.
We also note that, typically, the addition of a second through lane, including a truck climbing lane which extends through an intersection,
provides the added benefit of creating longer gaps in the traffic stream which will provide more time for pedestrians to safely cross the
road.
5) To improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, paved shoulders and / or paved boulevards, will be implemented as part of the road
improvement design.
6) Planning and design of the Hwy 400/11 interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in
advance of the HVR Class EA study. The MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have
this structure rehabilitated. Several options on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a
Page 42
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
replacement option was selected. The project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the
interchange were considered as the scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any
future changes to this interchange as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With
regard to the County Road 22 Class EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange
focuses on moving long-haul provincial traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
7) Comment noted.
The meeting was a great disappointment. We had hoped the county would use this
meeting as an opportunity to listen to the community, accept and use some of the
collective experience, yes and wisdom of the group in the decision making
process. This was not the case. Despite suggestions throughout the meeting that the
door was open to changes, Mr. Neumann at the end of the meeting, when pressed,
said clearly he had no intention of revisiting the choice already made.
This is troubling. It became clear that the information used by Ainley was
wanting. Take effect on population for example. The charts shown to reveal impact
on communities was biased and incorrect. The population of Edgar appeared to be
four times that of Horseshoe Valley. Craighurst was left out completely. Pedestrian
traffic across Hwy 22 at the Resort and at 4th Line must be 10 fold that across Old
Barrie Road at any point.
1) Please provide details of impact Horseshoe Valley Rd. Vs Old Barrie Rd. If this is
not available please so indicate.
The information used to determine heavy truck volume and speed reduction is
suspect. For example, the largest number of trucks was 2 axle, 4 wheel, but Ainley
does not know if these are dump trucks, pick-ups or box vans carrying potato chips.
We believe then, that the "warrants" relating to vehicle numbers (heavy trucks) and
speed reduction may not apply. Old Barrie Road has more hills than Hwy 22, but they
are both less severe in slope and much shorter in length. Perhaps trucks using this
road would not slow down sufficiently to cause any problem at all.
2) Would you please provide the data gathered re heavy truck numbers and speed
reduction on hills for Old Barrie Road. If this is not available please so indicate.
We believe that by inviting the use of heavy truck traffic on Hwy 22 we increase the
probability of serious accidents. The hills are just too steep. We should restrict heavy
truck traffic. A safer truck route must be found. We believe Old Barrie Rd is a safer
alternative providing turning lanes are added at the school.
3) Please provide further information, along with answers to the questions above that
will convince us otherwise.
Please provide a written response to our comments.
The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
41
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
When asked, based on his training and experience as a licensed professional engineer, what he believes the proper solution is to address
the traffic safety concerns, the presenter from Ainley responded honestly and openly. By no means was it implied that no other options
were being considered. Quite the opposite. Earlier in the presentation, all viable options were identified and a brief summary of the pros
and cons of each were discussed. Furthermore, selection of a preferred solution had not yet been made as the study team was very
interested in engaging the public to obtain further feedback and input. This was the premise of holding the extra PIC on May 12, 2014.
1) As part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads, including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical
and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to
Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Page 43
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
The option of diverting trucks to adjacent roads was considered through the completion of a truck by-pass study. The results of the study
determined that such an approach would be problematic in terms of directing trucks to take a more circuitous route, as opposed to the most
direct route. Furthermore, the additional impacts to the local social and physical environments on these alternative roads, such as Old
Barrie Road, cannot be mitigated. In essence, it would result in the problem being shifted from HVR to another road, which is not
considered a prudent or responsible approach.
The truck volumes used to determine if the warrants for truck climbing lanes were met do not include pickup trucks, vans and other 2 axle,
4 tire single unit vehicles. The calculation of truck volumes is based on the following vehicle types:
Class 5 (2 axle, 6 tire single unit trucks)
Class 6 (3 axle, single unit trucks)
Class 7 (4 or more axle, single unit trucks)
Class 8 (4 or less axle single trailer trucks)
Class 9 (5 axle, single trailer trucks)
Class 10 (6 or more, single trailer trucks)
Class 11 (5 or less axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 12 (6 axle, multi trailer trucks)
Class 13 (7 or more, multi trailer trucks)
We note 2 axle 6 wheel vehicles include trucks, camping and recreation vehicles, motor homes, etc. Based on performance graphs and
speed reduction tables provided in the Transportation Association Canada geometric design guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) for
design trucks with mass/power ratings of 100 lb/hp, a speed reduction of 15 km/hr from the entry speed will occur within 180 m on an 8%
grade (existing grade west of Horseshoe Resort entrance).
2) Truck climbing lanes are not anticipated to encourage more trucks to use HVR. The trucking industry typically selects haul routes based
on the shortest and most direct route between their origin and destination points. Furthermore, based on historical traffic data collected
before and after truck climbing lanes were constructed on County Road 50 (between Hwy 89 and CR 1) in 2010, the study team
determined the average spring/summer and fall truck volumes in 2013 were within 1% of the average truck volumes recorded in 2007
during the same period.
1) We found this meeting to be poorly organized. There were limited documents for
review by the number of people that attended (approx. 100-150); nobody from the
Town, County or the consultant were taking minutes; the presentation material
and poster boards were organized to justify truck lanes, no material on
alternatives. Debbie Korolnek indicated at the beginning of the presentation by
the consultant that they were interested in public input and that it would be
considered but she indicated that if questions or presentations by the attendees
were of a similar nature then, in the essence of time, they (County and
consultant) probably would not be receptive to hearing them. Probably at the
next meeting the consultant will be saying only one party at the last PIC indicated
1) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
42
2) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
Page 44
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
a concern of that particular matter, therefore it is not a serious concern. Also, the
facial expressions of the County representatives clearly indicated that this was a
process that they had to go through and shed doubt, in our opinion, on the
sincerity of the opening statement "We are interested in public input". The
presentation was basically a slide show of the poster boards that were spread
around the room with a small amount of supporting information, most of which
was challenged by the attendees as not being indicative of the real situation in
Horseshoe Valley.
2. The consultant (Ainley) at the meeting indicated in his opening remarks that they
were listening to the community and were open to suggestions from the
community as well. In talking with him at PIC #1, last fall, he indicated the same
thing "we are open to public input". The comments from the attendees of last
fall's meeting focused on pedestrian and vehicle safety, left & right turn lanes,
shoulder improvements and questioned the need for truck lanes. The comments
from the community at the PIC #2 meeting were very similar to those made at the
PIC #1 open house. If the consultant and Simcoe County are open to public input
why did they not present alternatives at this PIC or at least explain with
supporting materials why the comments presented by the public at PIC #1 would
not work. Or point out how the original plan had been altered to reflect the
comments they heard the first time. This PIC was all about justifying truck lanes.
The consultant presented traffic and accident statistics that did not seem to reflect
actuality. It appeared that the consultant & Simcoe County were manipulating the
statistics to justify the truck lanes that the County and consultant favour.
3. The consultant indicated that they have considered the Old Barrie road alternative
and have elected for truck lanes on Horseshoe Valley Rd. No data was
presented to support this decision. Only a map of Old Barrie Road with five
circles on it, indicating the communities, curves, school, and hills. Whereas the
map of Horseshoe Valley road had only two small circles on it, one at Jarrett and
the other at Horseshoe Valley. What about Sugarbush? What about Prices
Corners? What about Craighurst? Therefore the conclusion drawn by the
consultant was that it makes sense to improve HVR with truck lanes as there are
fewer residential areas and no curves to contend with! They neglected to indicate
that the circle at Horseshoe Valley is a community and resort area where
hundreds if not thousands of people live and visit and totally ignored the many
other steep hills along the road. The Old Barrie Road is already a truck route as
the garbage trucks use it to transport garbage to the Oro-Medonte dump site.
The other day, as we passed over Old Barrie Rd on Hwy 400, we observed 5
dump trucks heading east toward Orillia. They seem to be able to contend with
the towns and the curve in the road. Has a traffic survey been done on Old Barrie
Road at similar times to the ones done on Horseshoe Valley Road so a
comparison can be made of truck use of the two roads? Has a count been made
of the number of residential units within a specific distance of both Horseshoe
County And Ainley Response
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
3) The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may
be adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR. Notwithstanding, as part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads,
including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and
social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
The assessment of truck classifications and design vehicles used to complete the warrant review for truck climbing lanes was based on
industry standards and design guidelines. The sample traffic count data sheet presented at the meeting was intended to illustrate the
format of the traffic survey data and aid in our explanation on how the data is used. The volume of trucks varies depending on the season
and the service demands of the commercial and construction industries.
4) The initial budget for this project was set at 7.5 million based on a preliminary assessment of the potential road improvements and
benchmark budgeting figures. As with all studies, the scope of the proposed work will evolve as the various alternative solutions are
evaluated and a preferred solution is selected. Once the preferred solution is selected, various design concepts are developed and
evaluated, leading up to the selection of a preferred design concept. Once a preferred design concept is developed, engineering design will
be completed and the original construction cost estimate will be updated. At that time, additional project related costs, such as utility
relocations and property acquisition will be known and accounted for in the new budget estimate. Until a design concept is selected and the
necessary engineering input is completed, it is not possible to properly and accurately forecast the ultimate project budget prior to the
commencement of the Class EA study.
Funding for the project will primarily come from development charge reserve funds collected by the County. The cost for Project ‘A’ is
100% eligible for Development Charges and therefore would be no burden to County taxpayers. The cost for Project ‘B’ is 40% eligible for
Development Charges with the remaining 60% falling to the taxpayers.
5) The study limits were established having regard for the planned development and growth within the Horseshoe Valley resort area.
Page 45
4.
5.
6.
7.
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Valley Road and Old Barrie Road, not just fronting directly on to the roads, to
know how many residents will be affected by increased noise of trucks and
exhaust fumes on both of those roads? Where is the report to show the impact
on the many residents living in the area? Will it become increasingly difficult to
make turns out of the many roads along HVR and enter the flow of traffic safely?
The County and the consultant indicated that they have no idea of the cost at this
point in time. The consultant indicated somewhere between $7.5 million and $20
million. How can he say $20 million is the upper limit when a preliminary cost
analysis has not been done? Why not $50 million? As tax payers, we are really
surprised that the County and Town would embark on a project of this magnitude
without a preliminary cost estimate being prepared. Was a cost estimate
prepared for the Old Barrie road alternative? How do the costs of the alternatives
compare? How is this project going too funded? Please provide a breakdown of
the sources of funds for this project. How will this project impact our property
taxes?
The project scope seems to be very limited. Third line to the fourth line. There
are several more hills and intersections just to the east of the fourth line. Why are
left and right turning lanes not being considered for the 5th line N and a left turn
lane for west bound traffic at the entrance to Sugarbush? Why not proper right
and left turning lanes at Trillium Trail? These left and right turning lanes would
help to prevent traffic from slowing and/or stopping at these intersections thus
facilitating a smooth traffic flow. What about left turn lanes going eastbound at
Beechwood Road and Pine Ridge? Traffic must stop here on the hill if someone
is waiting for oncoming traffic to pass before turning.
It appears, based on the meeting, that somebody in the County or Town has a
favourite project which is truck lanes on Horseshoe Valley Road and has retained
a consultant to justify them. What is the scope of the consultant's assignment? Is
the consultant to study alternatives to truck lanes in Horseshoe Valley? Who
initiated this project and on what basis? These questions were all raised at PIC
#2 but no satisfactory answer was given to any of them - just that there have
been 43 accidents along this stretch of road in 10 years. And this statistic is not
backed by the OPP according to one of the attendees at the meeting. When
contacted by this private citizen the OPP indicated there had only been one
accident in the last year and half. Please explain this discrepancy. Are statistics
being twisted to suit the cause?
The consultant indicated that this project was initiated with safety in mind. If
safety is really the concern and the town is trying to deter maniacs from passing
on the hills then were barricades or a decorative cement boulevard down the
middle of the road considered? If so, why was this option not chosen? If truck
lanes are really warranted based on a significant amount of recent unbiased data,
which we do not believe they are, why are truck lanes on both the east and west
hills required? Trucks traveling west bound are usually loaded as they are
County And Ainley Response
Future development will result in increased traffic volumes on this section of HVR which will heighten the traffic safety concerns associated
with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line and will impact the operation, capacity and level of service at the 3rd Line, Birch Grove and
4th Line intersections.
Intersection improvements at Line 5, Sugarbush and Trillium Trail are outside the limits of this study. However, paving of the existing
shoulder to provide a right turn taper onto Trillium Trail will be considered to improve the safety of right turning vehicles.
6) In consideration of the planned development and continued growth that will occur within Horseshoe Valley in conjunction with the ongoing traffic safety concerns associated with the steep hills between the 3rd and 4th Line, the County identified a need to investigate
possible solutions to improve traffic safety. To that end, the County initiated the study in accordance with the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment guidelines.
Background accident data from 2001 to 2011 has been posted on the County’s website.
Between 2001 and 2011, 82 collisions were reported on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Line
Between 2001 and 2011, 398 collisions were recorded on HVR.
Of the recorded collisions between the 3rd and 4th Line, 2 involved trucks. Of those one was due to a car following too close and the other
was due to speeding and unsafe passing resulting in a collision with a dump truck traveling in the opposite direction.
We note that accident data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data indicates
that the accident rate on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the warrants
for truck climbing lanes do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness and length
of the grade, total traffic volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt unsafe passing
of slow moving vehicles on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the traffic safety
concern that this project is attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada geometric design
standards.
7) Construction of a median barrier down the center of HVR would be problematic as it would prohibit turning movements and/or create an
unsafe condition if only short sections were built with gaps sufficient to accommodate turning movements at the major and minor
intersections.
As per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria followed by the 2011
assessment to determine if truck climbing lanes are warranted were as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines. The traffic counted includes all types of vehicles, not
just dump trucks.
Page 46
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
coming from the gravel pits and they lose speed going up the hill so a truck lane
maybe warranted based on the speed reduction of 15 Km/Hr criteria. Trucks
traveling east bound are usually empty and can maintain their speed and at
times, based on experience, they try to push the cars up the hill. Therefore, a
truck passing lane on the east hill is probably not warranted. Why was this option
not considered? Where is the data that supports the heavy truck traffic in both
the east and west direction? There should data to indicate the number of loaded
and unloaded trucks traveling in both directions, not just a combined total, to
support the need for truck lane in both directions.
The consultant used the route from Orillia to Collingwood as the benchmark to
assess travel time. Why Collingwood? Why not Toronto? Why not Barrie? How
many trucks travel directly from Orillia to Collingwood? Again it appears that the
consultant picked a route that would favour trucks on Horseshoe Valley Rd. Why
not improve the Lines that the gravel pits are on and have them travel to Hwy 11?
Another alternative with no available data. Also, please provide data that indicate
the final destination of the trucks.
We note that signs reading "Please Avoid Use of Engine Brakes" have recently
been posted on both sides of Horseshoe Valley. Why don't the signs read
"Engine Brakes Prohibited" and forget the please part?
Has the new Water Well that Town is drilling east of the Horseshoe resort been
considered? Is the road widening in that area going to impact the quality of the
water? Have the effects of winter road salt and runoff percolating through the soil
in the vicinity of the well been considered? If so, where is the report?
Is there a mechanism for the public to get a grant from the County so we can hire
our own consultant and have them do a rigorous study of alternatives? If so, how
do we apply?
Mike Neumann indicated that usually only two PICs are required as part of the EA
process but because so many residents have shown an interest in this project
there will be an extra one in September. If so much interest is being shown, this
should indicate that there is a huge concern about this project and it probably
warrants a different approach than is currently being used - a fresh look with no
preconceived ideas. The consultant that the County has retained appears to
have a very limited mandate of investigating truck lanes only to resolve an
unsubstantiated "truck problem". The consultant's mandate should be to perform
an unbiased study of all possible improvements that could be made to Horseshoe
Valley considering that it is primarily a residential and resort area. Consideration
should be given to trucks only as a secondary item. If the consultant the County
has retained does not have this capability then a new consultant should be found.
If PIC #3 is handled the same way as PIC #2 it will be another complete waste of
time and money. New information and alternatives must be presented to make it
viable. It needs to be much more than a slide show of charts that are already set
up around the room which most residents had arrived early to view. There must
County And Ainley Response
The County of Simcoe conducts traffic counts on all roads every 3 years. The equipment used to collect the data is programmed to quantify
the traffic volume, vehicle type and speed. The data is considered to be current and accurate.
8) The assessment of truck by-pass routes was based on local commercial business using HVR to deliver goods and services between
Orillia and Collingwood. Destination routes to the GTA would use Hwy 11 as this is the most direct transportation route and thus would not
influence truck traffic conditions on HVR.
9) Opportunities to mitigate noise due to heavy trucks braking to maintain a safe speed going down the steep hills, including additional
signage advising “Residential Area – Avoid Using Engine Brakes – Excessive Noise Prohibited”. This is the standard wording for this type
of sign.
10) The new water well has been considered. We note its location is beyond the limits of the road improvements being considered. As such
it will not be impacted.
A hydrogeological study to assess base line well conditions is currently underway. The study is expected to be completed this summer with
the results available for public review at the next PIC.
11) There are no grants available from the County to fund private contracts or studies.
12) The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner
and have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the
Class EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process,
the problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
13) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
14) Comments noted.
Subsequent e-mail
We note that accident data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data indicates
that the accident rate on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the warrants
for truck climbing lanes do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness and length
of the grade, total traffic volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt unsafe passing
Page 47
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
be discussion and dialogue, not lecturing and unanswered questions, and notes
must be taken and provided to all in attendance.
14. We would appreciate a timely written response to the above questions and
comments. The last time we submitted written comments at PIC #1, the
consultant's response on the summary of submitted comments indicated "that it is
under consideration". Many of the items that were under consideration from PIC
#1 were not even mentioned by the consultant at this PIC. How much
consideration was given to these previous comments and questions? There was
no detail on why they were not accepted. Hopefully, we will get more than a
boilerplate response to the above questions and comments.
Another email sent June 6, 2014
Further to our e-mail of yesterday concerning the Horseshoe Valley Improvements
from the 3rd Line to the 4th Line, we would like to share with you an incident that
happened less than an hour ago. We also would like a further explanation of the
statistics used to justify truck lanes.
My spouse was travelling west bound on HVR between 5th line and Trillium Trail
following behind a fully loaded tandem gravel truck. As the truck approached the hill it
swung out over the double center line into the left lane to pass around two bicyclists
riding up the hill in the right lane so it would not have slow to follow behind them. The
truck driver could not have known if there was any oncoming traffic. If a vehicle or
vehicles had been travelling east bound approaching this hill they would have had a
very sudden surprise as they came over the hill and the passengers would probably
have met their demise. So in this case, an accident would have been reported
between a truck and other vehicle(s). Was the root cause of the accident the truck, the
other vehicle or the bicyclists? It probably would be recorded as truck and another
vehicle collision. This incident further supports the comments that bike lanes along
HVR should be a top priority.
The volume of traffic on HVR at 6:00 PM as presented by the consultant at PIC #2 is
shown below for reference. These statistics indicate that, on the average, a heavy
truck was travelling on HVR every 2 minutes (60/29) for an hour. How likely is
this? We have never seen a convoy of 29 trucks in an hour! These statistics also
indicate that, on the average, a vehicle was travelling on HVR every 15 seconds for
the same hour (60/260). We also have never ever experienced a convoy of 260
vehicles in an hour with the exception at about 4 PM in the winter when the skiers are
leaving the resort or when a special event at the resort is over and the attendees are
leaving. Could these statistics include a wave a traffic that was held up by a train
shunting in Craighurst? In my opinion, these statistics are not typical of the traffic on
HVR. Could these statistics be the cumulative total for 5 days (May 2 to May 11)? If
so, the average truck traffic for the 6PM period would be 6 per hour (29/5) or a truck
every 10 minutes. Plausible. The total number of vehicles for the same hour if the
statistics are for 5 day period would have been about 52 (260/5) on the average or
County And Ainley Response
of slow moving vehicles on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the traffic safety
concern that this project is attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada geometric design
standards.
The criteria for determining if truck climbing lanes are warranted (or not) is not based on accident data. As per the Transportation
Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria to determine if truck climbing lanes are
warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
Notwithstanding, accident data records were provided to illustrate that there are safety concerns associated with the steep hills.
Furthermore, studies have shown that slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to higher numbers of collisions on
steep grades. Truck climbing lanes are a common road safety feature implemented by road authorities throughout Ontario.
Page 48
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
about 1 a minute for an hour. We have never experienced this volume of traffic except
in the winter or when there has been a special event at the resort and the attendees
are all leaving at the same time. In my opinion, the statistics used to justify truck lanes
do not represent typical traffic that we encounter on HVR on daily basis.
County And Ainley Response
We look forward to a response to the above and to our previous e-mail of yesterday.
1) The philosophy regarding the project does not address the primary concern of
most residents regarding safety. So far it seems to be focused only on passing
lanes which ultimately increases speed and reduces safety. There are many
children and cyclists in the area, many side roads abutting onto Horseshoe Valley
road with poor visibility access. Any measures put in place to encourage speed
will result in either accidents or death. The project veils itself behind
convenience for passing but the unintended consequence of these projects
always means increased speed and decreased public safety. Maintaining single
lane with increased merging lanes and bicycle lanes are of primary
concern. There are a large number of cyclists in the area as well as cycling
events and races.
2) Why do we need to put in passing lanes in a resort/residential area? The
concept for the project is misguided and as a vast majority of residents seem to
agree on, only benefits one sector of the area, that being the gravel/aggregate
companies. Considering that they too will probably get the contract for supplying
the materials for the "improvement" project it seems like a rather large conflict of
interest as well. This project needs more study, more input and far better design
before it is pushed through by the will of a very select few.
As per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria to determine if truck
climbing lanes are warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
43
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
Truck climbing lanes are not anticipated to encourage more trucks to use HVR. The trucking industry typically selects haul routes based on
the shortest and most direct route between their origin and destination points.
Furthermore, based on historical traffic data collected before and after truck climbing lanes were constructed on County Road 50 (between
Hwy 89 and CR 1) in 2010, the study team determined the average spring/summer and fall truck volumes in 2013 were within 1% of the
average truck volumes recorded in 2007 during the same period.
Traffic speeds are not anticipated to increase due to the construction of truck climbing lanes. The excessive traffic speeds are a function of
the steep downhill grades and the unsafe driving habits of drivers who speed up the hills to pass slower moving vehicles.
Page 49
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
County And Ainley Response
The preferred approach to reduce speeding is through public education, signage and increased law enforcement.
We are residents of Horseshoe Valley, located on Trillium Trail for 17 years.
During this time, we have witnessed a thriving community develop in Horseshoe with
the RESORT ever expanding to attract more tourism and revenue to Oro Medonte. Not
to be forgotten, the opportunities for employment for our youth living in this area are a
tremendous asset. The fourth line area immediately adjacent to Hwy 22 has become a
nucleus with a fabulous park for all ages to enjoy, a nurse practitioners office to tend to
our ills, a fire and police department to serve our community. There are plans to
introduce more residential developments in the area so more people can enjoy the
beauty of our natural surroundings To date there are over 2000 people living in the
Valley.
Gradually, the entire area is being developed to become the PREMIER location in Oro
Medonte for recreation and just plain enjoying life surrounded by the NATURAL
BEAUTY OF HORSESHOE VALLEY.
There is now a threat to all of the above (PROJECT A), the attempt to introduce truck
passing lanes to bring more over capacity trucking to the area, to encourage the
existing traffic patterns to change to speedier travel with unimaginable consequences.
1) Literally, we face the DESTRUCTION of our BEAUTIFUL VALLEY. We ask you
"WHY"? Simpler less costly improvements to the area in question (concessions
3-5) would satisfy the needs of the neighbourhood and greatly improve the safety
of the residents. Improved intersections, reduced speed limits (60km), turning
lanes where necessary, would certainly not add up to 7.5 million to 20 million as a
projected cost for Project A, a cost that will ultimately be borne by the tax payer.
2) This will be our second request to see the studies conducted to determine that
Horseshoe Valley Rd. is the desired alternative to establish passing lanes. Why
is Old Barrie Rd. not a consideration? Why is Hwy # 11 not a consideration?
Why would the choice be a road that has environmental challenges, a road that
requires changing sight lines, a road that adds charm & uniqueness to the area
be selected????
We are at a monumental turning point for Horseshoe Valley and we need to ensure
that we GET IT RIGHT. There will be no going back.
We urge our elected officials to look to the future. To see the VALLEY as a destination
for fun and beauty for all to enjoy, an area that will grow to attract more people.
Certainly, the introduction of passing lanes will only invite more trucks to the area,
adding absolutely no benefit to the community and much harm.
Taking a few minutes off travelling time for the trucking industry is too high a price to
pay. Compromising THE SAFETY of the neighbourhood is an injustice to everyone
living here.
We ask that the politicians support the people who are so very opposed to project A.
We ask the politicians to do what is right for the Valley and its residents.
We ask that the proposed Project A be defeated.
As part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads, including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical and
social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12
and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
44
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
As per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria to determine if truck
climbing lanes are warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
Page 50
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
I am alarmed at the lack of consultation with local residents and the seemingly
lackadaisical manner in which you have conducted this Proposal. Poor data and lack
of knowledge regarding this area is not acceptable (identifying Hardwood Hills along
Old Barrie Road as a major settlement, way larger than Horseshoe is a misnomer, and
shows a terrible lack of knowledge about our area; using an example comparing the
existing situation on HVR to an engine that was blown was an insult to our intelligence
and incorrect data re trucks is misleading.....)
You cannot pretend to consult us when you don't really listen and insult us by not
taking notes at the meeting. This could be an expensive project costing $20m. An
excessive amount of money on a project which is unnecessary and a waste of our tax
dollars (who would pay for this?).YES, WE NEED SOME IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH
AS TURN OFF LANES, RESURFACING AND PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS etc, but
adding a TRUCK LANE WOULD BE A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE AND CAUSE
MORE ACCIDENTS ..........I CAN JUST SEE THE VEHICLES SPEEDING TO RUSH
UP THE HILL TO BEAT EACH OTHER AS THE LANE MERGES BACK INTO ONE
LANE. ......ALL OF THIS TAKING PLACE AT THE CREST OF THE HILL WHERE
THERE IS A BLIND SPOT AND A JUNCTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL ROADS
(where cars are trying to turn out and people are attempting to cross the road). WOW
........AND YOU TALK ABOUT SAFETY BEING A CONCERN.
Please contact me with any responses and information.
Perhaps setting speed limits is not strictly your area of responsibility. However,
because it has been stated that the proposed HVR widening project is integrally
connected to safety, I am emailing this question to you. As I am sure you well know,
road safety experts state that speed is a key to road safety.
I have heard resistance at the County level about reducing the speed limit in
Horseshoe Valley from 70 km/hour - which it is currently - to 60 km/hour. Today, I drive
through Edgar and observe their limit is 50 km/hour!
Edgar, as you know, is a Designated Settlement on a primary arterial roadway (Old
Barrie Road), as is Horseshoe Valley a Designated Settlement (per the County of
Simcoe Official Plan, Section 5.1) on a primary arterial roadway. However, I
understand that people in Oro Medonte had to campaign to get the speed limit for
Horseshoe Valley changed from 80 km/hour to 70 km/hour. Horseshoe Valley has a
very significantly larger population than Edgar, plus extensive resort and recreational
facilities and natural features that Edgar does not have.
1. My question is: Why is Edgar's speed limit 50 km/hour, yet Horseshoe Valley's
speed limit is 70 km/hour? What are the issues that preclude setting the
Horseshoe Valley speed limit to 60 km/hour - or even 50 km/hour, especially
when there is apparently concern at the County level about safety on this part of
County And Ainley Response
The County and their consultant; Ainley have been working very hard to engage the public in a cooperative and conciliatory manner and
have been very open to receiving comments and suggestions. An extra public meeting, which was beyond the requirements of the Class
EA process, was provided on May 12, 2014 to provide additional information and clarification with respect to the Class EA process, the
problem that the study is looking to address, solutions being considered, where the study is at and what the next steps will be. Public
attitude and behaviour at, and following the May 12, 2014 meeting has been confrontational and defamatory. Nevertheless, the study team
will continue to carry out the study in a professional and proper manner, in accordance with the Class EA guidelines, sound engineering
judgement and with the interest of the County and all road users in mind.
45
During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1. For that reason, it was not deemed
necessary to record information that was already on file and previously addressed.
Truck climbing lanes are not anticipated to encourage more trucks to use HVR. The trucking industry typically selects haul routes based on
the shortest and most direct route between their origin and destination points. Furthermore, based on historical traffic data collected before
and after truck climbing lanes were constructed on County Road 50 (between Hwy 89 and CR 1) in 2010, the study team determined the
average spring/summer and fall truck volumes in 2013 were within 1% of the average truck volumes recorded in 2007 during the same
period.
Traffic speeds are not anticipated to increase due to the construction of truck climbing lanes. The excessive traffic speeds are a function of
the steep downhill grades and the unsafe driving habits of drivers who speed up the hills to pass slower moving vehicles.
Email response by Debbie Korolnek dated June 10, 2014
Thank you for your email enquiry about setting of speed limits. As this seems to be of a more general nature than the emails we have
received specific to the Horseshoe Valley Road EA, I am responding directly. Your other email will be addressed together with those that
have been received over the past few weeks on the Horseshoe Valley Road EA project. We expect this may take 3 to 4 weeks to get a
thorough response to all the comments and questions we received.
To determine appropriate speed limits on County roadways the Transportation and Engineering Department uses the Transportation
Association of Canada's (TAC) manual, Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits. The guidelines provide an objective, technical,
pro active and risk based assessment considering engineering factors related to a roadway's geometric and traffic characteristics. The
guidelines provide engineers and traffic practitioners with an evaluation tool to assess appropriate posted speed limits based primarily on
the classification, function and physical characteristics of a roadway. This is a manual commonly used throughout Canada to set speed
limits, so that the travelling public has a predictable and generally common driving environment no matter what municipality they are in.
The TAC guideline uses these factors to determine posted speed - horizontal and vertical alignment, average lane width, roadside hazards,
pedestrian exposure, cyclist exposure, pavement surface, number of intersections, number of private accesses and on street parking.
Within the Edgar community, there are more than 25 private driveways with houses fairly close to the road, creating potential conflicts for
turning movements, increased pedestrian exposure, and adjacent roadway hazards - these are the main factors that determine the lower
posted speed limit in the area. There are no private entrances onto Horseshoe Valley Road, the right of way is much wider and there are
fewer adjacent hazards.
I would also add that research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those that the majority of motorists naturally
46
Page 51
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
Horseshoe Valley Road?
County And Ainley Response
drive, and that raising and lowering of speed limits doesn't substantially influence that speed. The true deterrent is increased police
presence and enforcement of the existing speed limit. Many studies have been done examining the effect of lowering speed limits, the data
has clearly shown that majority of motorists do not alter their vehicle speed to conform to speed limits that they perceive as unreasonable,
and that arbitrarily lowering the speed limit did not reduce vehicle speeds or collision rates.
I hope this answers your query. Further information on setting speed limits in the area will be provided with the responses to those who
submitted comments on the HVR EA.
Friends of Sugarbush will not support such a drastic solution.
Friends of Sugarbush are instead asking for a left turn lane as a safety requirement for
their subdivision.
Your comments have been noted and reported to the County. However, the location of the Sugarbush subdivision is outside the study
limits and therefore cannot be addressed as part of this project. The need for intersection improvements, such as the addition of a left turn
lane will require the completion of a separate traffic study to determine if the warrants for left turn lanes are met.
47
We have only been able to access the few reports that were posted on the website on
June 4th, even though they were promised to be available the day after the last PIC
May 13th). Regardless, we couldn’t wait any longer for the rest of the completed
studies and have documented that studies were not complete or available. These are
our comments and questions to the County’s presentation on May 12, 2014.
1) The noise study found that the net change in sound levels, 10 years after construction, for the sensitive uses exposed to County Road
22 will be at most 0.5 dB higher compared to not carrying out the project. Furthermore, there are no noise control measures required as the
MOE/MTO guidelines have been satisfied.
48
1)
2)
3)
4)
The noise impact study was only for the Resort entrance area which has few
trees. There are many trees between our home and County Road (CR) 22,
all of which will be lost if the road widening goes through. Our home and
quality of life will be negatively affected with the lack of trees to a greater
extent than the noise study shows at a different location. How will the
County compensate for the increased noise and negative impact on our
quality of life? Have you considered “Proximity Damages” to all parties
affected?
The Noise Study was only draft and it was not Engineer Stamped so it isn’t
valid. Also, it didn’t offer any conclusions in regards to effects on the
community. Is this study ongoing and, if yes, when will it be completed in
relation to your decision framework?
The Traffic Impact Study was only in relation to the intersections for the
purpose of informing Project B and therefore is not reliable for informing
decisions on Project A. The study makes no conclusions on your preferred
option of Truck By Pass lanes. Even so, the traffic study does not
recommend major improvements to the road itself but recommends
improvements to the turning lanes, and in future signal lights (Line 3) and
stop controlled (all other intersections). How does this traffic study show a
need for Truck Passing Lanes (TPLs)?
The Traffic Impact Study shows that the annual growth rate of travel actually
decreased in 2011. Between the Resort and CR 93, it decreased greater
than rate of increase noted in 2005 and 2008 combined. If these traffic
counts are being used to justify the need for TPLs, how does the County
explain this when the reality is that traffic has not been increasing in the past
2) The background reports were in draft form. The reports will be updated and advanced as the study moves forward.
3), 4) & 5) As per the Transportation Association Canada Geometric Guidelines for Canadian Roads (TAC) the standard criteria to
determine if truck climbing lanes are warranted are as follows:
1. Total up grade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles in the peak hour; and
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles in the peak hour; and
3. A 15 km/hr or greater speed reduction for a typical heavy truck
Based on traffic count surveys conducted by the County in 2011 (3 seasons) and 2014 (spring season), and performance graphs provided
in the TAC, all 3 of the above warrants are met on HVR between the 3rd and 4th Lines.
6)-9) The option of diverting trucks to adjacent roads was considered through the completion of a truck by-pass study. The results of the
study determined that such an approach would be problematic in terms of directing trucks to take a more circuitous route, as opposed to
the most direct route. Furthermore, the additional impacts to the local social and physical environments on these alternative roads, such as
Old Barrie Road, cannot be mitigated. In essence, it would result in the problem being shifted from HVR to another road, which is not
considered a prudent or responsible approach. This draft study report is available on the County’s website.
10) The option of diverting trucks to adjacent roads was considered through the completion of a truck by-pass study.
The County consulted with MTO with regard to the HWY 400/11 interchange. We note the planning and design of the Hwy 400/11
interchange improvements, currently under construction, was completed by the MTO well in advance of the HVR Class EA study. The
MTO has advised that the replacement of the bridge structure was driven by the need to have this structure rehabilitated. Several options
on how the structure could be rehabilitated were evaluated as part of the detailed design and a replacement option was selected. The
project was a Group C under the MTO Class EA. No alternatives that would include changes to the interchange were considered as the
scope was limited to the rehabilitation of the bridge. Furthermore the MTO has no current plans for any future changes to this interchange
as the Hwy 11S to 400N and 400 S to 11 N moves are anticipated to have a very low demand. With regard to the County Road 22 Class
EA study, MTO has commented that provincial infrastructure, such as the Hwy 400/11 interchange focuses on moving long-haul provincial
Page 52
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
12 years?
If traffic is set to increase significantly, it would seem that it would come from
the growth of the community itself and not through traffic. If there are more
residents and a growing community, what is the need for TPLs when traffic
growth is for those stopping within the project area?
On Slide 2 of your County Road 22 – Projects A & B presentation, you state
that the intention of PIC 2 was to provide alternative solutions being
considered yet you did not provide anything different or more than what was
provided at PIC 1. Again, you simply state that Old Barrie is not being
considered and Project A retained the original scope of road design. There
are many alternatives that should be considered and deserve more
clarification and design. What work has been completed to show what
consideration was given to use Old Barrie Road as a through road for truck
traffic?
What work has been completed to show the implications and recommended
design for directing trucks to Old Barrie Road?
What cost would it be to use Old Barrie Road for truck traffic?
What cost would it be to direct truck traffic to Old Barrie Road?
What combination of alternatives have you investigated other than your initial
preferred alternative?
On Slide 2 and 3, you stated that the meeting was to be collaborative,
constructive and an information exchange, yet you did not take notes of the
public’s comments. We find it incredulous that this opportunity was
completely missed, as well as insulting as the other person in the dialogue
and feel entirely dismissed. How will the County show due diligence in
responding to the community’s concerns in a manner that shows true
consideration and application of their comments?
On Slide 10 you state that there is a traffic safety issue from unsafe passing
of slow moving vehicles on hills resulting in a high rate of accidents and
injuries. Why are you stating that the accidents are due to slow moving
vehicles and attempts of passing them when the data shows that no
collisions are due to passing vehicles but from speeding vehicles that either
lose control (and do not contact any other vehicles) or rear-end those in front
of them due to inattention?
You state that there is a high rate of vehicle collisions within the project area,
but the total of collisions reported between 2001 and 2011 are 19% of the
whole road. What is the rate of collisions compared to a similar area? What
is considered a high rate of collisions?
In your Collision Data Reports you included a Snowmobile Accident that did
not even happen on the road and was not related to the road. Is this not
manipulating your data to generate numbers in favour of your
“predetermined” solution?
County And Ainley Response
traffic, rather than providing by-passes for local traffic.
11) During the May 12, 2014 PIC 2, the study team listened carefully to the questions and comments provided by the public and took both
mental and written notes of what was said. After the meeting the study team prepared written summaries which were circulated to each
member of the team for future reference. We would note that the study team was also very familiar with the majority of the comments and
concerns provided at the meeting through previous written comment submissions following PIC 1.
12), 15) 17) & 19) The accident data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data
indicates that the accident rate on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the
warrants for truck climbing lanes do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness
and length of the grade, total traffic volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt
unsafe passing of slow moving vehicles on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the
traffic safety concern that this project is attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada
geometric design standards.
13), 14 & 16) Between 2001 and 2011, 398 collisions were recorded on HVR. with 82 collisions reported between the 3rd and 4th Line. This
represents an approximate 20.6% occurrence of accidents in the study area.
The TAC manual states that the same road will have different collision rates for different traffic flows. Therefore, collision rate is not
constant for any particular type of road, and cannot be used to compare the safety of two roads when they serve different traffic flows.
Snowmobiles are considered a vehicle, as are ATVs. The accident happened within the County right-of-way, striking the guiderail.
The County of Simcoe conducts traffic counts on all roads every 3 years. The equipment used to collect the data is programmed to
quantify the traffic volume, vehicle type and speed. The data is considered to be current and accurate.
The accident data was provided as a means to demonstrate the fact that there are safety concerns on HVR as the data indicates that the
accident rate on HVR is twice the average rate between the 3rd and 4th Line. Furthermore, it is important to note that the warrants for truck
climbing lanes do not require a certain number of accidents to occur. Rather the warrants are based on the steepness and length of the
grade, total traffic volumes and truck volumes during the peak hour and the propensity of impatient drivers to attempt unsafe passing of
slow moving vehicles on the hill upgrades. The supporting documents that are being used to assess and validate the traffic safety concern
that this project is attempting to address are Ministry of Transportation and Transportation Association Canada geometric design
standards.
18) The right turn lane into Horseshoe Resort was built in 2004. The accident rate has remained constant from 2001 until 2011.
20) According to the TAC Geometric Design Manual, “Design Speed” is a speed selected as a basis to establish appropriate geometric
design elements for a particular section of road. Most roads are designed to a 10 to 20 km/hr higher speed.
The description of truck traffic is general in nature as many types of vehicles due to their heavy weight and low mass/power rating
experience a reduction in speed as they ascend the steep hills. The introduction of truck climbing lanes will not change this description.
Page 53
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
If the TPLs are to address a traffic safety issue, and the collision report is
being used to provide evidence, why must TPLs be constructed when there
were no collisions involving transport trucks?
On Slide 11 you refer to the total of 398 collisions, and mark your statistics
based on that denominator. However, there were only 75 collisions within
the project area. This appears to be an intention to mislead the facts. If
nothing else, it establishes a basis for your calculations which render them
wrong (see point 14 as an example). Please explain your rationale to follow
this method?
The County concludes very simply that the number of collisions require the
implementation of TPLs. Again, there are no other suggestions or
explanations as to why TPLs are the only solution. Will the County expand
further on their explanation that TPLs will address the problems of rear end
collisions, single motor vehicle collisions with fixed object and speeding (the
most frequent accidents)?
When was the right-hand turning lane installed between Line 3 and the
Resort entrance? Was there a reduction of collisions since the construction
of this turning lane?
At PIC 2 it was made clear that there was no proof of collisions caused by
illegal passing on the hills. Again, how does this show that TPLs are
needed?
On Slide 19 you state that TPLs do not result in higher heavy truck speeds.
Can you provide me with the source of your information that gives evidence
to this? The MTO Geometric Design Manual, TAC actually requires that you
have to build the road for predicted faster speeds when widening roads.
On Slide 20 you indicate that there will be no negative impact to the wells,
yet your current design encroaches over top of the main Source Water Well
for the neighbourhood. Can you provide me with an explanation on how the
design will address this conflict? The Ministry of Environment will not
approve an EA that has even potential influence with a Source Water
Protection Well.
On Slide 21 you refer to a Truck by-pass study. When will this study be
made available for review? Before the end of this EA?
On Slide 21 you state that diverting truck traffic to Old Barrie Road is not
desirable due to the local communities and school. How will the impact to
Old Barrie Road be more severe than the impact to the CR 22 local
communities (8 Communities from Craighurst to Price’s Corners) within the
same stretch between Hwy 400 and Orillia?
If the Transportation Master Plan is a long-term planning document (Slide
23), then why wasn’t CR 22 mentioned? This would indicate that the TPLs
were not planned until very recently.
Why is Project A in the 2014 Executive Budget projected with a cost of $8.6
County And Ainley Response
21) The selection of a preferred solution has not yet been made. The Township communal water well, is outside of the potential grading
limits, as is the service road to the well pump house and drilled well. Furthermore, it is anticipated that any road widening (for the purpose
of implementing a truck climbing lane), and the associated extension of the embankment toe of slope, can be designed to fit within the
existing County road allowance.
A hydrogeological study to assess base line well conditions is currently underway. The study is expected to be completed this summer
with the results available for public review at the next PIC.
22) & 23) The draft study report is available on the County’s website.
24) The County is currently in the process of updating their Transportation Master Plan, which is a comprehensive planning and policy
document which looks at how best to plan for the efficient movement of people and goods. It also looks at alternative modes of
transportation and active transportation opportunities. It does not address project specific operational improvement needs, such as this
project. The planning for specific road improvement projects is carried out in accordance with the Class EA guidelines.
This project was presented to Council as part of the budget deliberations. Starting in 2011 this project was identified and has been
included in the roads budget ever since.
25) The initial budget for this project was set at 7.5 million based on a preliminary assessment of the potential road improvements and
benchmark budgeting figures. The figure of $8.6 million was based on a previous long term plan. As with all studies, the scope of the
proposed work will evolve as the various alternative solutions are evaluated and a preferred solution is selected. Once the preferred
solution is selected, various design concepts are developed and evaluated, leading up to the selection of a preferred design concept. Once
a preferred design concept is developed, engineering design will be completed and the original construction cost estimate will be updated.
At that time, additional project related costs, such as utility relocations and property acquisition will be known and accounted for in the new
budget estimate. Until a design concept is selected and the necessary engineering input is completed, it is not possible to properly and
accurately forecast the ultimate project budget prior to the commencement of the Class EA study.
26) Funding for the project will primarily come from development charge reserve funds collected by the County. The cost for Project ‘A’ is
100% eligible for Development Charges and therefore would be no burden to County taxpayers. The cost for Project ‘B’ is 40% eligible for
Development Charges with the remaining 60% falling to the taxpayers.
27) The background traffic study has determined that traffic signals at the entrance to Horseshoe Valley Resort are not warranted.
However, auxiliary turn lanes are recommended to improve the safety, capacity and operation of this intersection.
28) The Township of Oro-Medonte’s Official Plan states under C14.2 that certain road improvements are needed to: improve sight lines;
improve geometric requirements; improve safety and, improve other recognized deficiencies. The County is not providing misleading
information.
29) As part of our evaluation of the alternative solution to detour trucks to other roads, including Old Barrie Road an inventory of physical
and social environmental impacts, was undertaken. The findings of the physical and social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to
Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road (OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
Page 54
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
million, whereas you stated the preliminary project budget as $7.5 million?
Why has the County set aside $450,000 thus far for the Project A when the
Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan states that any improvements
required for CC 22 due to proposed development will be the financial
responsibility of the applicant (developer)? Again, if the traffic studies show
little increase in through traffic and the increased traffic is anticipated from
the community’s growth, does this not imply that the developers should be
paying for any required improvements?
In the Township of Oro-Medonte’s Official Plan, section C14.3.1.2 requires
traffic control signals at the Resort entrance due to any increase in
development in the valley. Why are traffic controls not included in the
County’s design?
The Township Official Plan only recommends turning lane improvements
and does not mention any other road improvements. This is contrary to your
statement under the heading of “2008 Transportation Master Plan does not
reference need for TPL’s” that the Township Official Plan includes the need
for road improvements (Slide 23). It would appear that the County is
providing misleading information. Where does the Township Official Plan
state the need for TPL’s on CR 22?
On Slide 25 you state that CR 22 has similar alignment and profile conditions
compared to other options. The grade of the hills on CR 22 could not
possibly be similar to Old Barrie Road. The lack of ski hills on Old Barrie
Road would provide evidence to the contrary. What does the County mean
by this statement of similar alignment and profile conditions? Has the County
surveyed hill grades on both roads to back up their statement?
On Slide 23 you also state that CR 22 has comparable upgrade costs. What
are the projected costs of upgrades to the other options? What do those
costs include? If you have investigated the costs of these other options,
please provide details of these investigations.
On slide 25 you state there will be less social impacts to CR 22 but you did
not include anything on what the Social Impacts to the residents of CR 22
will be. When will this study be available? What data have you made
available to support any of your statements?
Slide 26 is incredibly deceiving as it is missing circles around the other
communities CR 22 passes through. Why did the County not circle
Craighurst, Coulson or Sugarbush? Once again this appears to be a
manipulation of data.
On Slide 26 you show a map indicating “steep hills” on both CR 22 and CR
11. What is the grade difference between the two road’s hills?
Why has there been no left alignment or right alignment done to determine
the least impact to the property owners and the environment within Project
A?
County And Ainley Response
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
No. of Sharp Reverse Curves (HVR/OBR) – 1 / 17
No. of Communities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Residential Subdivisions (HVR/OBR) – 2 / 4
No. of Schools (HVR/OBR0 – 0 / 2
No. of Recreation Facilities (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Deep Ravine Crossings (HVR/OBR) – 6 / 4
No. of Speed Reduction Zones (HVR/OBR) – 4 / 3
No. of Existing Truck Climbing Lanes (HVR / OBR) – 0 / 1 (east from Line 13)
Length of Route (HVR/OBR) – 20km / 23.3 km
Road Condition (HVR/OBR) – fair to poor / fair to good
30) The following alternative solutions are being considered:
1. Do Nothing
2. Add Truck Passing Lanes
3. Detour Traffic to Adjacent Roads
The costs associated with each alternative are estimated at approximately:
1) $0
2) $7.5 million
3) Unknown. A truck by pass study was completed to further investigate the feasibility and impacts associated with diverting truck
traffic from HVR to Old Barrie Road. As the results of the study are being properly considered during the final evaluation of
alternative solutions and selection of the preferred solution, no costs were calculated.
31) Impacts to the physical, social, natural, cultural and economic environments associated with the option of constructing truck climbing
lanes are a key component of the study. Opportunities to mitigate identified impacts will also be considered during the evaluation process
and selection of a preferred solution. Commitments to carrying out the mitigation measures during the implementation stage, will be
documented in the final environmental study report
32) The map with ‘bubbles’ was simply an attempt to highlight key physical and social environmental features on Old Barrie Road that may
be adversely impacted if trucks that normally use HVR were detoured onto Old Barrie Road. It was by no means a direct comparison of the
similar features that exist on HVR.
33) As references earlier, the findings of the physical and social environmental review on HVR from CR 93 to Hwy 12 and Old Barrie Road
(OBR) from Hwy 11 to CR 93, were as follows:
No. of Hills with Moderate Steepness <7% (HVR/OBR) – 9 / 5
No. of Hills with High Steepness >7% (HVR/OBR) – 3 / 3
34) A center line shift can be considered to lessen property impacts although it was determined that a shift north to south or south to north
would have similar resulting impacts.
Page 55
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
35) How does the County plan to handle proximity compensation for devaluing
properties and decreasing quality of life?
36) If Project A is implemented with TPLs, will the County purchase our
property?
37) Where are all the missing studies to validate your decisions (Hydrogeology,
Natural Heritage, Social Impacts, etc.)?
In conclusion, the evidence of consideration of alternatives to this study remains
severely lacking and we are still waiting for studies not completed. There has been no
presentation of design and/or cost comparisons for upgrades to alternatives such as:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
County And Ainley Response
35) & 36) The study is not at a stage where property acquisition needs are known at this time. Once a preferred solution is selected the
next phase of the study will look various design concepts to carry out the preferred solution. Opportunities to minimize, or preferably avoid,
impacts to property will be considered and implemented to the extent possible. Should expropriation be necessary, the affected property
owner may submit an appeal and request a Hearing of Necessity, through the provisions provided in the Expropriation Act.
37) All draft reports and studies are on the County web page.
Additional comments noted.
Diverting truck traffic to Old Barrie Road
Truck passing lanes that are constructed at the point in which a truck falls 15
km/h below the speed limit (ie: half-way up the hills)
A reduced speed limit
Intersection improvements only
TPL only on the west side of the valley between the Resort entrance and 3rd
Line
Social Economic Impacts
Natural Environment Impacts
We require a response to our above comments and questions.
Hello.... some of you have heard my comments before on this subject.
Comments noted.
49
We can hardly wait for this SLOW LANE on HV Road. This is what it is called in other
parts of North America where we travel. The sign generally reads “Slower Traffickeep to the Right”.
Our experience is thus: we are climbing the hill in our VW van with a 5 cylinder
engine. Our speed is a little slower. Cars behind get impatient, and gun their engines,
and pass us with horns blaring and /or rude gestures.
Our speed is even slower now that the speed down the approaching hill is reduced
to 70km, so we do not have as much run at the uphill.
Things are even worse when we have to slow right down or stop in the Valley bottom
for turning traffic, or when we are coming out of the XC area or the Resort.
For us, the addition of a “Slow Lane” would be most welcome. Sometimes, to avoid
the hill, especially in winter, we take Line 4 , Highland Drive and Line 3 back to HV
Road... a little longer drive and out of the way.
Page 56
MAJOR ITEMS OF CONCERN
COMMENTS
I am speaking for us, but heavy appliance and furniture delivery,
and construction supplies, trucks etc would also welcome that Slow Lane... too much
out of their way to go along Highland Drive, but it is an option. Perhaps
a permanent Detour could be put in place.
County And Ainley Response
****** It is dangerous to have impatient cars crossing the double line in a rage,
especially in winter*****.
Motor homes and tourist trailers also fall into this category of wishing for a “Slow
Lane”... They might visit the Resort for a meal, so start from a dead stop, or be
heading to Bass Lake Prov park. . Maps do not tell them that the road 22 route, that
they have chosen, is a very hilly one. Travelling cyclists fit into this category,
too. [Local cyclists would also like it (along with a bike lane along all of HV road.!)]
Hope you and the decision makers will review my comments and heed them, in
favour of the “SLOW LANE” to be built to accommodate all slower moving vehicles on
Horseshoe Valley Road.
Thank you for listening,
S:\112166\Correspondence\Letter\Notice of PIC - May 12 2014\Comments & Responses - PIC - May 12, 2014\Property Owner Contact Summary - 2014 05 12 PIC.docx
Page 57