Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report

Region of Durham
Class Environmental Assessment

Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures
Draft Traffic Report
Prepared by:
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
Project Number:
60196264
Date:
March 2012
905 668 9363

905 668 0221
tel
fax
AECOM
Region of Durham
Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the Report) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (Consultant) for the benefit of the client
(Client) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the
Agreement).
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the Information):
is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications
contained in the Report (the Limitations);
represents Consultants professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation
of similar reports;
may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;
has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and
circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;
must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;
was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and
in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the
assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no
obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have
occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical
conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.
Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been
prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other
representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the
Information or any part thereof.
Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or
construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultants professional judgement in light of its experience and the
knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic
conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and
employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or
implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no
responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or
opinions do so at their own risk.
Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental
reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied
upon only by Client.
Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to
the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or
decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (improper use of the Report), except to the extent those
parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss
or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.
AECOM: 2012-01-06
2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Hwy 2 BRT - Draft Traffic Report - Mar28-2012 RM.Docx
AECOM
Region of Durham

Distribution List
# of Hard Copies
PDF Required
Association / Company Name
Revision Log
Revision #
Revised By
Date
AECOM Signatures
Report Prepared By:
Kevin Jones
Associate Vice President
Transportation Planning Lead
Report Reviewed By:
Brenda Jamieson, P.Eng.

Associate Vice President, Transportation
Hwy 2 BRT - Draft Traffic Report - Mar28-2012 RM.Docx
Issue / Revision Description
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table of Contents
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations
Distribution List
page
1.
Background & Context ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
2.
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
Population and Employment Growth ............................................................................................. 17

Planned Network Improvements ................................................................................................... 17
Business as Usual (BAU) Forecasts.............................................................................................. 18
Problem & Opportunity Statement ................................................................................................. 19
Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................................. 22

4.1
4.2
4.3
5.
Road Network ................................................................................................................................. 8

Current Transit Service ................................................................................................................... 8
Highway 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Use ........................................................................................... 9
Highway 2 Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................ 12
2.4.1 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Pickering Area ............................................................ 12
2.4.2 Peak Hour Operating Conditions Ajax Area ................................................................... 14
Future Needs & Opportunities .................................................................................................. 17

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe .............................................................................. 1

Durham Region Official Plan ........................................................................................................... 1
Growing Durham Study (ROPA 128) ............................................................................................... 2
Regional Transportation Master Plan .............................................................................................. 2
Regional Cycling Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3
City of Pickering Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan......................................................... 4
Town of Ajax Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan .............................................................. 4
Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy ................................................................................... 4
Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move) ................................................................ 5
MoveOntario 2020 and Quick Win Initiatives.................................................................................. 6
Role of TDM & Active Transportation ............................................................................................ 22

Widening Alternate Roads ............................................................................................................ 22
Widening Highway 2 ..................................................................................................................... 22
Assessment of Highway 2 Widening (Design) Alternatives .................................................... 23

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Modelling Methodology, Development & Calibration ...................................................................... 24

5.1.1 Sub Area Model Development & Calibration ..................................................................... 25
5.1.2 VISSIM Model Development & Calibration ........................................................................ 29
Modeling Highway 2 Widening Alternatives ................................................................................... 35
5.2.1 Comparison of Travel Times............................................................................................. 35
5.2.2 Comparison of Transit Delays........................................................................................... 38
5.2.3 Comparison of Total Person Throughput .......................................................................... 40
5.2.4 Local Traffic Infiltration ..................................................................................................... 41
Safety Assessment of Design Alternatives .................................................................................... 46
Transportation Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................. 49
Transportation Evaluation Discussion ........................................................................................... 55
AECOM
Region of Durham
5.6

Assessment of Cycling Lane Alternatives ...................................................................................... 56

5.6.1 On-Road Bicycle Lane or Bike Lane ................................................................................. 56
5.6.2 Off-Road Cycling Path or Cycle Track .............................................................................. 58
5.6.3 Off-Road Shared Pedestrian / Bicycle Multi-Use Path ....................................................... 59
5.6.4 Compatibility Analysis....................................................................................................... 60
5.6.5 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 61
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Region of Durham - Proposed Cycling Network ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 2 - Metrolinx 25 Year Transit Network Plan.................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Transit Routes in Pickering (2011) ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 - Transit Routes in Ajax (2011) ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Pickering.............................................................. 10
Figure 6 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Ajax ..................................................................... 11
Figure 7 - Durham Region Official Plan - Designated Road Network....................................................................... 18
Figure 8 - 2010 - 2021 AM Peak Hour Screenline Performance - BAU ................................................................... 19
Figure 9 - Transit Priority Opportunity Areas........................................................................................................... 21
Figure 10 - Sub Area / VISSIM Model Limits .......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11 - 2010 Observed vs Simulated Link Volumes.......................................................................................... 27
Figure 12 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Volumes......................................................................................... 28
Figure 13 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Turning Volumes ............................................................................ 28
Figure 14 - Ajax VISSIM Model Limits .................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 15 - Pickering VISSIM Model Limits............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 16 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Ajax ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 17 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Pickering......................................................................................... 34
Figure 18 - Traffic Infiltration - Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 ........................................................................... 43
Figure 21 - Buffered Bike Lane in Austin Texas ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 22 - Two-Way Cycle Track .......................................................................................................................... 58
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Highway 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Transit Priority Opportunity Areas .................................................. 12

Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area......................................................................... 13
Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area (cont.) .............................................................. 14
Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area ................................................................................ 15
Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area (cont.) ..................................................................... 16
Population and Employment Projections ............................................................................................. 17
VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Ajax ................................................................................................ 31
VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Pickering ........................................................................................ 31
VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Ajax .................................................................................... 32
AECOM
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Region of Durham

VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Pickering............................................................................. 32

Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering ...................................... 36
Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax .............................................. 37
Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax .............................................. 37
Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering ........................................................... 38
Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ................................................................... 39
Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ................................................................... 40
Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering.................................................... 40
Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2 - Pickering.................................................... 41
Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax ........................................................... 41
Safety Implications of BRT Running Way Types .................................................................................. 47
Transportation Evaluation Summary.................................................................................................... 49
Density of Vehicle Crossings ............................................................................................................... 60
Density of Vehicle Crossings and Proposed Cycling Facility by Transit Priority Opportunity Area ......... 62
Appendices
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Road Safety Assessment of Bus Running Way Alternative

Buffer Width for Cycling Lanes
Intersection / Entrance Summary Data
Bicycle / Pedestrian Count Data
AECOM
Region of Durham
1.
Background & Context
1.1
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

In June 2006, the Province of Ontario released the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan).
The Growth Plan was prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 which provides a legal framework for growth
planning in Ontario. The Growth Plan guides decisions on a wide range of issues including transportation,
infrastructure, land use planning, housing, natural heritage and resource protection.
The Growth Plan aims to revitalize downtowns to become more vibrant centres by: creating communities that offer
more options for living, working, shopping and playing; providing a variety of housing types to meet the needs of
people at all stages of life; curb urban sprawl; protect farmland and green spaces; and, reduce traffic gridlock by
improving access to a greater range of transportation choices.
The Growth Plan establishes the Provinces vision for managing population and employment growth in the GGH and
presents population and employment forecasts for Durham Region up to the year 2031. Growth projections reported
within the Growth Plan indicate that the 2001 population and employment statistics for the Region, 530,000 and
190,000, respectively, will increase to approximately 960,000 and 350,000 by 2031.
Planning and strategic investment for transportation, water and wastewater systems and community infrastructure to
support efficient growth is outlined in the Growth Plan. These policies support a transportation network that links
Urban Growth Centres through an extensive multi-modal system anchored by efficient public transit (i.e., Highway 2
(Kingston Road), from Pickering to Oshawa). The Growth Plan identifies major transit station areas and
intensification corridors to be designated in municipal official plans. The Growth Plan identifies Highway 2 through
the City of Toronto and Durham Region as a corridor for Improved Higher Order Transit and as an Intensification
Corridor. Higher Order Transit consists of heavy and/or light rail and buses in dedicated rights-of-way. Intensification
Corridors include higher order transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus on higher density, mixed
use development that is consistent with planned transit service levels.
This project is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Plan:
public transit will be the first priority for transportation and major transportation investments
major transit station areas and intensification corridors will be designated in official plans
major transit station area and intensification corridors will be planned to ensure the viability of existing and
planned transit service levels
major transit stations will be planned and designed to provide access from various transportation modes
including pedestrians, bicycles and passenger drop-off
1.2
Durham Region Official Plan
Durham Regions Official Plan identifies Highway 2 (and Simcoe Street) as the most significant transit corridors
within the Region linking designated transportation hubs. According to the Official Plan, the transportation system in
Durham Region is to be integrated, safe, efficient and reliable for all users and modes and offer a variety of mobility
choices for all Durham residents. The Official Plan states that Regional Council supports the planning, design and
operation of a fully integrated Regional Transportation System, composed of road, transit priority and strategic goods
movement networks.
The Official Plan supports the planning, design and operation of an integrated and coordinated Transit Priority
Network, as designated on Schedule 'C' Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network. The Transit Priority Network is
comprised of the following elements: a) transit spines, b) commuter rail service, c) transportation hubs; and d)
AECOM
Region of Durham

freeway transit services. Highway 2 (Kingston Road) is designated as a transit spine, as an element of the transit
network that facilitates inter-regional and inter-municipal services and intersects with local transit services.
1.3
Growing Durham Study (ROPA 128)
In response to the Growth Plan, the Growing Durham study (Regional Official Plan Amendment 128) was initiated by
Durham Region in July 2007 to build upon the Regions Official Plan review and provide a comprehensive analysis
of the implications of growth in the region. A review and evaluation of alternative growth scenarios was carried out
by the Region in the context of the Growth Plan. Through the selection of a recommended growth scenario, the
Growing Durham study forms the basis of future decisions on amendments to the Official Plan to implement the
Growth Plan. The study addresses population and employment forecasts up to the year 2031, intensification and
greenfield density targets and urban land needs in the region.
As per the direction of the Growing Durham study, Regional Centres and waterfront places are to be linked with
supportive corridors that are focused on active transportation and transit routes. Urban Growth Centres are
specifically identified as focal areas supporting higher order transit services and designated Transit Spines (i.e.,
major corridors where a higher level of transit service is to be promoted within urban areas).
A Long Term Growth and Mobility Structure (Schedule A-Map A4, Regional Structure) for the region is proposed in
which Highway 2 is illustrated as a Regional Corridor connecting two Urban Growth Centres identified in the Growth
Plan. In addition, two Regional Centres are identified in the Growing Durham study within the Study Area (i.e.,
between Harwood Avenue and Salem Road and between Brock Road and Liverpool Road). Several Regional
Centres are identified to the east of the Study Area and generally located along Highway 2 at Brock Street in Whitby;
Simcoe Street in Oshawa; and Courtice Road, Regional Road 57 and Liberty Street in Clarington.
1.4
Regional Transportation Master Plan
Durham Regions Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is being updated to conform to the Growth Plan and the
Regions OP (ROPA 128, Growing Durham Study). The TMP defines the policies, programs and infrastructure
improvements required to address Durham Regions transportation needs.
The TMP identifies Highway 2 as the Regions Mainstreet and a significant Major Transit Corridor to feature high
levels of service, enhanced connections with other Transit Corridors and higher densities with a mix of uses. Major
Transit Corridors facilitate inter-regional and inter-municipal service, and intersect with Minor Transit Corridors and
local transit services. These corridors link to Transportation Centres, commuter and inter-city passenger rail stations,
and connect the Central Areas designated in the ROP with other major employment and population nodes. Land use
along these corridors should be designed to support transit consistent with their designations in the ROP and local
official plans. Major Transit Corridors will be considered for reserved lanes first, assuming service levels necessitate
priority treatment (potentially 20 or more buses per hour in the peak direction).
The proposed regional road expansion projects (2004 2021) list identifies widening Highway 2 to an ultimate 6 lane
configuration through Pickering and Ajax. Specifically, the following is recommended in Appendix 5 of the TMP:
Widen from 4 to 6 lanes from Pickering/Toronto Boundary to Whites Road (2.1 km)
Widen from 5 to 7 lanes from Whites Road to Brock Road (4.7 km)
Widen from 5 to 7 lanes from Westney Road to Audley Road (3.9 km)
The purpose of the widening is to address projected capacity deficiencies in the Pickering/Ajax East-West sub-area
resulting from growth in the Region. The widening of Highway 2 is planned to:
AECOM
Region of Durham

Support development in the southern urban areas of Pickering, Ajax and Whitby for both residential and
employment uses, and improve access to nearby retail/commercial land uses;
Support provision of higher-order transit service in the designated Major Transit Corridor;
Eliminate bottlenecks between existing widened sections of Highway 2 within Ajax and the widening of
several north-south roads, including Altona Road, Whites Road, Liverpool Road, Brock Road, Westney
Road and Salem Road; and
Provide needed inter-municipal transportation connection.
1.5
Regional Cycling Plan
The Regional Cycling Plan was established by the Region in 2008 to develop a network of cycling routes and
facilities across the Region that connects urban and rural areas. The Highway 2 corridor, from the Toronto
Boundary to the Village of Newcastle is identified as a Cycling Spine in the Cycling Plan. It is further noted that the
form of cycling facility to be provided on Highway 2 will be reviewed as part of the Regions Highway 2 Bus Rapid
Transit Study.
Figure 1 - Region of Durham - Proposed Cycling Network
AECOM
1.6
Region of Durham

City of Pickering Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan
In response to the Growth Plan and updates to the Regions Official Plan and TMP, the City of Pickering (City)
revised their Official Plan and TMP. The Citys Official Plan describes the Citys transportation policies as
encouraging a well connected network of corridors (roads, rails, sidewalks, trails and bikeways), designed as
desirable places to be and with a variety of travel modes accommodated, including driving, walking, cycling and
transit use.
Consistent with the Regions Official Plan and TMP, the Citys Official Plan identifies Highway 2 as a Main Street and
Regional Transit Spine.
1.7
Town of Ajax Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan
The Official Plan for the Town of Ajax conforms with the Regions Official Plan and TMP. In addition, the
transportation policies outlined in the Towns Official Plan indicate that Highway 2 is considered a Transit Spine.
The corridor is also identified as a Main Street and future location for BRT.
The Towns TMP identifies a proactive multimodal strategy for transportation investment and infrastructure that
includes public transit. In addition, the Towns TMP envisions a future road network with a primary focus on transit
and transit-dedicated facilities, in addition to Transportation Demand Management measures, and pedestrian and
cycling policies.
1.8
Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy
Durham Regions Long Term Transit Strategy (LTTS) report recommended a strategy to plan and implement rapid
transit service to enhance connections between municipalities within Durham Region and neighbouring
municipalities. The LTTS builds upon and supports Durham Regions TMP which identified Highway 2 as the
Regions most significant inter-municipal transit corridor. The TMP describes Highway 2 as a Major Transit Corridor
that will connect Durham Regions urban centres, will feature high ridership levels and provide enhanced
connections with other Regional Transit Corridors.
The LTTS assessed a set of alternative solutions that reflected varying levels of transit service and transit
investment along Durham Regions rapid transit corridors. The alternatives ranged from a business as usual case
through to a significantly intensified regional rapid transit network (i.e. major transit improvements). Four types of
transit service were identified and applied in the alternative solutions assessed through the LTTS, including:
1. conventional bus service regular buses operating on a timetable for a pre-set route and on existing
roadways in mixed traffic
2. enhanced conventional bus service bus service operating on a timetable but enhanced, faster service
through transit signal priority and roadway improvements
3. bus rapid transit service (BRT) enhanced conventional bus service using high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes or dedicated transit lanes
4. light rail transit (LRT) service transit rail service using dedicated lanes
The report concluded that major transit improvements were required for Durham Region (known as Alternative E in
the LTTS) representing a comprehensive transit solution comprised of conventional bus service, enhanced bus
service, bus rapid transit, and light rail transit throughout the Region. Within the long-term vision for Durham Region,
Highway 2, Simcoe Street and Taunton Road were designated as light rail transit corridors. This light rail network will
create a high-speed, high-capacity grid that will connect with all other transit services (i.e., GO Transit, local feeder
AECOM
Region of Durham

service, etc.). The entire network of transit services is projected to further decrease transit travel time and increase
network capacity.
The LTTS recognizes that implementing more than 32 kilometres of LRT on Highway 2 at one time would be a large
undertaking; therefore, a multi-stage implementation plan was envisaged. The LTTS recommended that the long
term vision for Highway 2 (Alternative E) be implemented in three stages to allow the Region to best meet ridership
demand and growth potential while providing the greatest balance of costs and benefits to the community, as
follows:
Stage 1 initial improvements to Highway 2 through Pickering and Ajax that would provide support for
transit services in the short term as well as the flexibility for an eventual transition to the BRT and LRT
systems envisaged by the LTTS.
Stage 2 - implementation of an exclusive-median based BRT system along the full length of Highway 2 rapid
transit corridor.
Stage 3 modification of the median BRT system to a median LRT system.
As part of Stage 1 of the longer-term vision, the LTTS assumed the following:
The Highway 2 GO bus service is replaced with a Durham Region Transit bus service in mixed-traffic (7.5minute service during peak periods and average travel speed of 22 km/h);
Highway 2 transit service is supported by some transit priority measures such as transit signal priority (TSP)
and road works at key intersections provided through the Highway 2 BRT Quick Win funding;
Transit services are supported by a transit network including key arterial corridor service along Taunton
Road, Whites Road, Brock Road, Salem Road-Harwood Avenue, Brock Street, and Simcoe Street; and
Transit-supportive land use policies, transportation demand management (TDM) policies and promotional
efforts will continue such as the Smart Commute programs.
The scope and design of the Stage 1 improvements (initial improvements in Pickering/Ajax) was not finalized as part
of the LTTS. As discussed earlier, the focus of this Class EA study is to satisfy the initial stage of the LTTS
recommendations. The intent of this phase of the Class EA study is to assess alternative solutions that will best
implement the Quick Win project while ensuring the context of the longer term vision for the corridor is maintained.
Several opportunities may be achieved with Stage 1 including:
develop ridership numbers to support the longer term transit vision
build a system that can evolve over time while avoiding throw-away costs
address the immediate concerns of traffic congestion impact on transit service within the study area
focus the available funds where the greatest benefits for transit would be realized within timelines set
1.9
Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move)
The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) released in December 2008 is a long range plan divided into two
distinct phases covering the first 15 years of implementation, followed by the 16 to 25 year horizon. Within Durham
Region a number of transit improvements have been recommended for each time period, including the introduction
of Rapid Transit service along the Highway 2 corridor, as part of a larger system connecting Oshawa to the
Scarborough Town Centre. Within the initial 15 year period, recommended projects in Durham Region include:
Rapid transit service along Highway 2 between Oshawa and into Scarborough (University of Toronto
Scarborough Campus (UTSC) and Scarborough Town Centre)
Improvements to existing Lakeshore East GO rail services including electrification, as well as express and
frequent all day, bi-directional service between Oshawa and Toronto
Extended peak period GO rail service to Bowmanville
GO Rail service between the proposed Seaton Community in North Pickering and Toronto
Rapid Transit Service on Brock Road in Pickering between Seaton and the Pickering urban growth centre
AECOM
Region of Durham

Improved Highway 407 bus service between Durham, York, Peel, and Halton Regions
In the 16 to 25 year horizon, the following additional transit improvements were recommended within Durham
Region:
Rapid transit service along Taunton Road / Steeles Avenue with inter-regional service between Durham
Region and Toronto
Rapid transit along Simcoe Street between the Oshawa urban growth centre (and connecting to teh Oshawa
GO station), Durham College / University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), and Highway 407
The Metrolinx 25-year transit improvement plan is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Metrolinx 25 Year Transit Network Plan
1.10
MoveOntario 2020 and Quick Win Initiatives
The Government of Ontario, through its MoveOntario 2020 initiative, announced a list of 52 rapid transit
improvements and expansion projects for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton in June 2007. The province has
committed $11.5 billion ($17.5 billion with federal participation) to finance the plans implementation and major
municipal transit expansions are included in this funding. Durham Regions Highway 2 Bus Rapid Transit Spine
(including more frequent service and capacity) is included in the MoveOntario 2020 Quick Win funding plan.
AECOM
Region of Durham

While some funding for the projects was previously announced, the provincial government signalled it will fund all of
Metrolinx's $744.2 million "quick win" projects, designed to be completed quickly.
Metrolinx defines a Quick Win project as either the commencement of a new project or the advancement of an
existing project to a completion date earlier than its originally scheduled timeframe for completion. To qualify, a
quick win project should meet the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Estimated completion within two years (later changed to 5 years for projects like the Highway 2 Transit
Priority Measures requiring an EA
Visible, tangible benefit for the consumer
Cross-boundary or regionally significant in terms of benefit
Low risk path to implementation
Relatively moderate cost
Will not prejudice the roll-out of the ultimate Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move)
AECOM
Region of Durham
2.
Existing Conditions
2.1
Road Network

Based on the Durham Region Official Plan, Highway 2 is a Type B arterial road through the communities of
Pickering and Ajax. Type B arterials are intended to provide a balance of local access to adjacent land uses while
accommodating high traffic volumes. Highway 2 is also designated a Major Transit Corridor and is considered to be
Durhams Main street. The Regional Cycling plan designates Highway 2 as a cycling spine.
The major north-south roads intersecting with Highway 2 within the study area are a mixture of Type A and Type B
arterial roads, with Whites Road and Brock Road being designated as Type A Arterials, due their role in carry large
volumes of auto and truck traffic, combined with their role in connecting to major provincial highways such as
Highway 401, Highway 407, and Highway 7.
2.2
Current Transit Service
There is currently no continuous local transit service offered along the Highway 2 corridor. Within Pickering, Route
107 travels along Highway 2 between Altona Road and Whites Road, and Route 107B provides a connection
easterly to the Pickering Town Centre. Route 121 and 111 also run along Highway 2, between Whites Road and the
Pickering Town Centre, before looping north. Route 104 and 141, access Highway 2 from Dixie Road and continue
east to the Pickering Town Centre as well. Figure 3 illustrates the current transit routes through Pickering.
Figure 3 - Transit Routes in Pickering (2011)
Within Ajax, there are no Durham Region Transit routes that provide service along Highway 2. A short portion of
Route 225 runs along Highway 2 between Salem Road and Alexander Crossing as illustrated in Figure 4.
AECOM
Region of Durham

There are two basic GO transit bus routes that run along Highway 2 throughout the study area. GO Route 94
(Oshawa - Toronto Yorkdale Terminal) runs along Highway 2 throughout the study area, except in Ajax where it
deviates to Station Street between Harwood Avenue and Westney Road (accessing the Ajax GO Train Station). The
GO Route 94 bus operates in the study area section of Highway 2 as a local bus service, stopping at all bus stops.
GO Route 95 (Oshawa - Toronto Finch Terminal) operates as a semi-express bus through a portion of the study
area, running along Highway 2 with stops at 3 major intersections in Ajax and 3 major intersections in Pickering. It
deviates onto Highway 401 just east of Whites Road, not serving Highway 2 west of Fairport Road.
The GO Route 94 bus is planned to be discontinued when the Durham Region Transit Highway 2 BRT service (DRT
Pulse) is inaugurated as part of this project. GO Transit is still examining options for servicing customers with the
GO Route 95 bus, after the Pulse begins operating.
Figure 4 - Transit Routes in Ajax (2011)
2.3
Highway 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Use
To better understand the pedestrian and cycling activity on Highway 2, pedestrian and cyclist counts were
undertaken at two locations within the EA study area for a typical weekday and weekend condition. These counts
were undertaken on Tuesday October 11, 2011 and Saturday October 8, 2011, during and just after the
Thanksgiving long weekend. While not totally representative of summer peak conditions, this weekend featured
sunny and relatively warm weather conditions and it can be expected that this would encourage both recreational
and commuter based cycling activity.
AECOM
Region of Durham

The pedestrian and cycling counts were completed on Highway 2 at the Whites Road intersection, in Pickering, and
at the Westney Road intersection, in Ajax. In Pickering, there are sidewalks along Highway 2 in the Whites Road
area, but there are no formal cycling lanes or other facilities. In the vicinity of the Ajax site, there are sidewalks along
Highway 2 and a multi-use path is provided along the north side of Highway 2.
At the Pickering site, there is minimal cycling demand on weekdays except during peak periods, however there is
significant pedestrian activity on weekdays associated with Dunbarton High School, where students use the north
crossing at noon and during the afternoon peak. There are an average of 1.4 1.6 bikes per hour on Highway 2
(after 8 am), and a maximum observed demand of 6 bikes per hour, in the westbound direction. Most of the bikes
were observed using the sidewalk as opposed to riding in mixed traffic.
During the weekend, there is higher cycling demand on Saturday, largely distributed throughout the day.
Pedestrian activity is somewhat lower on Saturdays, likely influenced by fewer students walking during this period.
There was an average of 2.5 3.1 bikes per hour on Highway 2 (after 8 am) on the Saturday, with a maximum
demand of 9 bikes per hour in the eastbound direction. Most of the bikes were found to be traveling on road. Figure
5 summarizes the results of the weekday and weekend counts undertaken in Pickering.
Figure 5 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Pickering
WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road
EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road
Tuesday Oct 11, 2011
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
-5
EB Bikes
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
E-W Peds South Crossing 0 11 30

EB Bikes
4 17 72 43
9 36
9 13 10
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
WB Bikes
E-W Peds North Crossing
59 23 17 179 59 24 24 129 23 11 10
E-W Peds South Crossing
WB Bikes
EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
30
25
20
15
10
5
7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
E-W Peds South Crossing 0
4 11 22 29 17 15 10
EB Bikes
Saturday Oct 8, 2011
35
EB Bikes
WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road
10 11 12 13
WB Bikes
21 18 12 18 24 18 14 17 10
WB Bikes
10
AECOM
Region of Durham

At the Ajax site, there is a moderate amount of cycling demand weekdays with slightly higher demands during peak
periods. There is significant pedestrian activity on weekdays with most of the pedestrians using the north sidewalk
adjacent to the commercial development areas. There are an average of 3.1 3.7 bikes per hour on Highway 2
(after 8 am), and a maximum observed demand of 11 bikes per hour, in the eastbound direction. Most of the bikes
were observed using the multi-use path on the north side of Highway 2, and most of these were adult riders.
During the weekend, the cycling demand was almost the same as during the weekday although the demands were
concentrated in the afternoon period. Pedestrian activity is somewhat lower on Saturdays, likely influenced by fewer
transit users walking to bus stops during this period. There was an average of 3.1 3.6 bikes per hour on Highway
2 (after 8 am) on the Saturday, with a maximum demand of 10 bikes per hour in the eastbound direction. Most of
the bikes were found to be traveling on road, likely due to lower traffic volumes on Saturdays, but a few used the
multi-use path, primarily those with young children. Figure 6 summarizes the results of the weekday and weekend
counts undertaken in Pickering.
Figure 6 - Highway 2 Cyclist and Pedestrian Demand by Hour - Ajax
WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney Road
EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney Road
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
E-W Peds South Crossing 0 12
EB Bikes
EB Bikes
11
10 10 13 13 15 18 21 20 15
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
WB Bikes
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
E-W Peds North Crossing 0
21 16 17 20 25 26 19 34 32 32 31 36
WB Bikes
EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney Road
WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Westney

Road
35
30
25
35
20
25
15
15
10
5
-5
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
10 8
E-W Peds South Crossing 0
EB Bikes
EB Bikes
WB Bikes
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
E-W Peds North Crossing 0 10 15 17 20 17 17 30 15 24 34 17 9

WB Bikes
11
AECOM
2.4
Region of Durham

Highway 2 Traffic Volumes
Within the study area, Highway 2 plays the dual role of carrying significant long distance inter-regional traffic from
Durham Region communities into the Toronto area, while providing access to the urban retail core area within the
communities of Pickering and Ajax. This dual role results in having to continually balance the need to accommodate
severely heavy traffic volumes, while also serving the needs of other road users; including pedestrians, cyclists, and
local access to adjacent developments. Table 1 summarizes the estimated 2010 Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT) volumes on the various segments of Highway 2 within the Transit Priority Opportunity Areas. On a daily
basis, approximately 2-3% of the daily traffic volumes are trucks, primarily serving local retail and industrial uses, or
connecting to other primary arterial routes.
Table 1. Highway 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Transit Priority Opportunity Areas
From
To
2010 AADT
Pickering
Whites Rd
Hwy 401 Ramps
51,000
Dixie Rd
Walnut Lane
49,100
Valley Farm Rd
Brock Rd
42,800
Ajax
2.4.1
Elizabeth St
Linton Ave./Randall Dr
46,000
Church St
Rotherglen Rd
38,700
Rotherglen Rd
Westney Rd
42,250
Westney Rd
Chapman Dr
48,500
Chapman Dr
Harwood Ave
42,800
Salem Rd
Wicks Dr
44,700
Peak Hour Operating Conditions Pickering Area
Under current conditions, Highway 2 is operating close to capacity at the major intersections, and capacity problems
are apparent at many of the intersections with the major north-south arterial roads. Level of Service (LOS) is used a
measure of operations of an intersection. LOS A is the highest and LOS F is the lowest. As illustrated in Tables 2
and 3, within the Pickering Area, the Whites Road and Highway 401 off ramp intersections both operate at LOS C
during the am and pm peak hours, although east-west turning volumes at Whites Road are at or over capacity with
limited opportunity to reallocate green time due to the need to manage congestion related to the Highway 401
interchange ramps. The Highway 2 / Liverpool Road intersection operates at a LOS C in the AM peak and LOS D in
the PM peak with turning volumes, particularly the westbound and northbound left turn movements, approaching
capacity during peak hours. Volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is used in tables below to aid in the evaluation of
intersection operations.
12
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 2. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area

EXISTING TRAFFIC PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS
Intersections
Left
Delay
83.9
AM
LOS
F
v/c
0.88
Delay
55.3
PM
LOS
E
v/c
0.77
Thru
25.2
0.28
29.1
0.56
Right
5.6
0.28
5.5
0.29
Approach/Movement
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Whites Rd
NB
SB
Left
18.7
0.70
57.2
0.85
Thru
26.9
0.86
37.7
0.82
Right
6.4
0.25
17.8
0.61
Left
45.5
0.75
37.7
0.83
Thru
26.4
0.49
29.6
0.63
Right
3.4
0.31
25.0
0.78
Left
18.8
0.62
47.2
0.77
Thru
39.4
0.94
28.5
0.43
9.5
0.31
13.8
0.23
Overall Intersection
Right
28.4
0.78
31.2
0.81
EB
Thru/Left
28.0
0.47
17.4
0.73
Left
32.3
0.88
49.6
0.84
Thru
8.5
0.29
12.2
0.30
Left
42.0
0.80
40.2
0.75
Right
9.4
0.12
8.4
0.17
26.7
0.82
22.7
0.76
WB
Kingston Rd/HWY 401
NB
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Liverpool Rd
NB
Left
12.5
0.26
31.6
0.70
Thru
18.2
0.43
44.4
0.93
Right
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.15
Left
46.7
0.83
138.8
0.96
Thru
22.4
0.48
23.2
0.45
Right
6.1
0.06
0.0
0.04
Left
66.3
0.84
52.9
0.91
Thru/Right
24.3
0.39
29.8
0.93
Left
14.1
0.24
44.5
0.73
Thru/Right
32.5
0.78
21.6
0.48
26.8
0.79
35.9
0.91
SB
13
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 3. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Pickering Area (cont.)

Intersections
Left
Delay
18.2
AM
LOS
B
v/c
0.05
Delay
23.4
PM
LOS
C
v/c
0.17
Thru
27.9
0.28
91.2
1.02
Right
15.9
0.10
10.5
0.25
Approach/Movement
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Glenanna Rd
NB
SB
Left
16.1
0.30
19.7
0.57
Thru
14.3
0.38
9.6
0.34
Right
5.6
0.16
3.5
0.16
Left
26.7
0.22
23.0
0.41
Thru
22.8
0.13
25.3
0.32
Right
6.6
0.12
5.3
0.22
Left
21.8
0.04
19.3
0.42
Thru
24.2
0.24
25.2
0.31
Right
152.7
1.00
321.4
1.00
29.2
0.34
48.1
0.68
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Brock Rd
NB
Left
21.8
0.18
16.0
0.36
Thru
41.2
0.60
392.8
1.20
Right
15.2
0.27
4.8
0.37
Left
666.6
1.35
390.2
1.18
Thru
10.0
0.58
17.5
0.47
Right
1.7
0.35
3.0
0.34
Left
37.2
0.50
50.8
0.79
Thru
41.8
0.61
173.9
1.07
Right
22.4
0.26
31.5
0.77
Left
27.8
0.80
65.6
0.87
Thru/Right
27.2
0.85
46.9
0.67
84.9
1.00
165.2
1.20
SB
The Glenanna Road intersection also operates at LOS C / D conditions in the peak periods, with eastbound through
movements approaching capacity during the PM peak. The Highway 2 / Brock Road intersection operates at LOS F
for both peak periods, with numerous movements on all approaches operating at or over capacity. Additional
capacity is required at this intersection now to restore acceptable traffic operations.
2.4.2
Peak Hour Operating Conditions Ajax Area
Within Ajax, the major intersections along Highway 2 are also operating at or close to capacity. Tables 4 and 5
summarize the current operational performance of the major Highway 2 intersections within Ajax. Within Pickering
Village (at Elizabeth Street and at Church Street), the constrained roadway cross section results in peak hour
congestion during both peak periods, however the PM peak is most acute, with the eastbound through movement
operating at LOS F, along with the eastbound left turn. This congestion results in recurring delays for traffic and
buses using the Highway 2 corridor today.
14
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 4. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area

Intersections
EB
Kingston Rd/Elizabeth St
Left
Delay
661.4
AM
LOS
F
v/c
1.32
Delay
96.9
PM
LOS
F
v/c
0.94
Dual Thru
12.0
0.38
215.0
1.10
Thru / Right
9.6
0.61
12.0
0.51
Left
30.6
0.32
42.9
0.42
Right
73.3
0.96
11.9
0.54
Approach/Movement
WB
SB
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Church St
NB
SB
59.8
0.76
136.5
0.97
Left
28.1
0.70
181.3
1.08
Dual Thru
18.4
0.42
186.3
1.09
Left
18.1
0.69
21.6
0.33
Thru
13.0
0.58
36.3
0.69
Left
51.9
0.78
26.7
0.53
Thru/Right
31.3
0.57
201.6
1.07
Left
44.3
0.77
52.6
0.76
Thru
44.9
0.79
30.2
0.36
Right
15.9
0.67
6.3
0.37
24.8
0.73
130.0
1.04
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Westney Rd
NB
SB
Left
99.8
0.91
312.3
1.14
Thru
19.5
0.42
79.4
1.01
Right
9.1
0.38
6.9
0.18
Left
600.2
1.31
>80
1.80
Thru
23.1
0.78
22.7
0.53
Right
4.0
0.07
8.1
0.19
Left
40.2
0.60
112.5
0.99
Thru
32.8
0.50
603.9
1.32
Right
13.0
0.19
23.0
0.70
Left
17.9
0.46
246.4
1.08
Thru
207.4
1.09
28.5
0.76
3.9
0.25
6.9
0.22
134.3
1.15
264.1
1.51
Right
At the Highway 2 / Westney Road intersection there are numerous movements operating at or over capacity during
both the AM and PM peak hours, leaving little flexibility under the current configuration to improve operations.
Eastbound and westbound turning volumes are extremely high and this results in significant delays for both turning
and through traffic. At the same time, the northbound and southbound left turn movements are also operating at
capacity during the PM peak, impacting the efficiency of the through movements as well. The high turning volumes
at this location are influenced by the number of motorists trying to access/exit the Highway 401 interchange and the
Ajax GO Station, south of Highway 401 during peak periods.
15
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 5. Highway 2 Intersection Performance Ajax Area (cont.)

Intersections
Left
Delay
17.4
AM
LOS
B
v/c
0.41
Delay
40.0
PM
LOS
D
v/c
0.79
Thru
22.3
0.36
388.2
1.19
Right
9.7
0.30
8.2
0.37
Left
42.0
0.85
309.6
1.12
Thru
16.5
0.60
19.7
0.45
Approach/Movement
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Harwood Ave.
NB
SB
Right
3.6
0.07
6.2
0.15
Left
30.3
0.66
54.3
0.86
Thru
26.3
0.42
23.1
0.76
Right
6.6
0.15
6.5
0.47
Left
21.2
0.35
32.8
0.52
Thru
31.6
0.60
37.3
0.62
9.6
0.35
14.0
0.30
23.4
0.72
139.0
0.98
Right
EB
WB
Kingston Rd/Salem Rd
NB
SB
Left
12.7
0.36
31.5
0.72
Thru
17.5
0.57
46.4
0.93
Right
3.9
0.38
14.7
0.41
Left
442.5
1.23
378.7
1.18
Thru
16.3
0.57
21.8
0.53
Right
2.4
0.10
6.8
0.05
Left
55.8
0.77
723.7
1.37
Thru
19.3
0.44
18.1
0.61
Right
8.5
0.29
331.7
1.17
Left
22.1
0.27
50.8
0.67
Thru
315.3
1.15
31.6
0.71
2.7
0.34
6.4
0.22
155.0
1.13
120.1
1.12
Right
At the Harwood Avenue intersection, the PM peak hour tends to operate worst with the overall intersection operating
at LOS F. The eastbound through movement and the westbound left turns are both currently operating over
capacity during the PM peak. Similarly, the Salem Road intersection is also operating at LOS F during both AM and
PM peak hours. The heavy northbound volumes from the Highway 401 interchange contribute to the capacity issues
experienced during the PM peak, with the northbound left and right turn movements both operating over capacity.
As a result, there is not sufficient east-west green time for the heavy movements along Highway 2, resulting in the
westbound left turn operating at LOS F and the eastbound through movement operating at LOS D.
16
AECOM
Region of Durham

3.
Future Needs & Opportunities
3.1
Population and Employment Growth
The population of the Region of Durham is expected to grow from approximately 585,000 residents in 2006 to almost
one million by 2031. During the same period, employment is forecast to grow from approximately 220,000 jobs to
375,000 jobs. Future population and employment projections used in this study are based on projections prepared
as part of the Growing Durham: Recommended Growth Scenario and Policy Directions report, updated to reflect the
forecasts in ROPA 128. Table 6 summarizes the Population and Employment forecasts by municipality used in the
assessment of future travel demands in the study area.
Table 6. Population and Employment Projections
Population
Pickering
Ajax
Whitby
Rest of Durham Region
Total
Notes:
Employment
2006*
2016
2021
2031
2006*
2016
2021
2031**
91,425
94,000
115,915
283,020
584,360
141,125
126,325
140,625
320,955
729,030
177,915
132,325
156,915
342,835
809,990
225,670
137,670
192,860
403,800
960,000
36,795
28,690
43,510
109,855
218,850
54,770
40,665
47,795
121,885
265,115
67,910
46,115
56,745
139,210
309,980
85,795
49,290
77,100
162,815
375,000
* Region of Durham Planning Committee Report No. 2009-P-58, 2006 Census Place of Work Data (includes no fixed place of work and work
at home)
** Includes Additional Employment per ROPA 128 (currently under appeal)
3.2
Planned Network Improvements
As population and employment growth occurs in the Region, future travel demands on the existing transportation
network will increase, and the level of congestion on the Regional and local road network will also increase.
Figure 7 illustrates the proposed road network and classification system as defined in the Regional Official Plan.
Planned improvements include the Highway 407 East extension, from Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 35/115,
including north-south freeway links in Whitby (east of Lake Ridge Road) and in Clarington (east of Courtice Road).
Additional Regional and Municipal road improvements have been identified for the 2008-2020 period as part of the
Durham Development Charge Background Study. For the purpose of forecasting future travel demands in the
Highway 2 study area, the assumed network improvements have been incorporated into the Durham model for each
respective horizon year. Within the Highway 2 study area planned improvements include:
Widening of Whites Road to 7 lanes, Bayly Street to Finch Avenue
Widening Liverpool Road to 7 lanes, Highway 401 to Highway 2 (Kingston Road)
Widening Brock Road to 7 lanes, Bayly St to Finch Avenue
Widening Bayly Street to 7 Lanes, Brock Road to Harwood Avenue
Widening Bayly Street to 5 lanes, Shoal Point Road to Seaboard Gate
Widening Westney Road to 7 lanes, Bayly Street to Highway 2 (Kingston Road)
New Interchange at Highway 401 / Lake Ridge Road
Widening Lake Ridge Road to 5 lanes, Bayly Street to Taunton Road
17
AECOM
Region of Durham

Figure 7 - Durham Region Official Plan - Designated Road Network
3.3
Business as Usual (BAU) Forecasts
Based on the planned population growth in Durham Region to 2021, and the network improvements noted above,
forecasts from the Durham Region Transportation model indicate that there will continue to be congestion in the road
network in the southern portion of the Region. To illustrate the network implications associated with the Business as
Usual (BAU) forecasts, a screenline just west of Brock Road was established (which matches the current cordon
count screenline at this location). This screenline is a north-south line just west of Brock Road; all vehicles crossing
this line are counted in the screenline volume. Based on the 2006 cordon count data, the current transit mode share
across this screenline is 26% during the AM peak period, however most of this transit demand is using the
Lakeshore East GO Rail service. If trips using the GO Rail system are excluded, approximately 2% are currently
using transit. Based on the 2006 Cordon Count, this represents about 575 transit person trips using the GO Bus
service on Highway 2 in the peak (Westbound) direction. By 2009, this increased to 660 riders in the AM peak
period.
The current auto demands across this screenline result in a screenline volume-capacity ratio of 0.74 in the AM peak
hour in the westbound peak direction. By 2021, with the expected population growth in Durham Region and the
planned road network improvements, including opening of Highway 407 East, the AM peak period screenline
performance is expected to continue to degrade to 0.90 unless the share of trips made by transit can be increased.
While this does not indicate that the screenline capacity has been exceeded, the impacts on the busiest traffic
18
AECOM
Region of Durham

corridors such as Highway 2 will be noticeable considering that Highway 2 is already operating at capacity at many
of the major intersections. Figure 8 illustrates the screenline volume capacity ratio for the 2010 and 2021 horizon
years, assuming current 2010 local transit mode shares continue to be achieved.
Figure 8 - 2010 - 2021 AM Peak Hour Screenline Performance - BAU
Forecasts from the Durham Region transportation model anticipate that higher transit mode shares can be achieved
in the study area if improvements are made to transit services. Planned improvements to the Lakeshore East GO
Rail line identified in the Metrolinx Big Move report will likely evolve over a longer time horizon as the province
moves to electrification of these corridors to be able to implement the Express Rail service concept envisioned in the
Big Move report. As such, by 2021, it is likely that additional service improvements and capacity will continue to be
added to the Lakeshore East GO line as appropriate, but the significant increase in frequency associated with
electrification would not occur. Implementation of improved transit frequencies on the Highway 2 corridor from the
current 15 minute service provided on the two GO Bus routes, to 7.5 minute service envisioned for the Highway 2
BRT service, is forecast to increase the peak period, peak direction transit ridership at the Brock Road screenline
from 820 transit persons (on all routes) in 2009 to approximately 1,900 total transit persons by 2021. With this
enhancement, the screenline v/c ratio for auto trips would be reduced to 0.84, only moderately worse than today.
3.4
Problem & Opportunity Statement
Funding totalling $25.4 Million has been committed by the Province of Ontario, through Metrolinx under the
MoveOntario 2020 Quick Win funding plan, towards implementation of roadworks for improved transit along the
Highway 2 corridor, connecting Oshawa to the existing transit (TTC) in the City of Toronto. This money is targeted
towards implementing the Stage 1 intersection modifications that are identified in the LTTS. This EA assesses road
19
AECOM
Region of Durham

widening alternatives within three segments along Highway 2 in Ajax and Pickering (see Figure 9 below) with the
purpose of optimizing transit service through the most critical intersections that do not currently have sufficient
capacity to accommodate frequent reliable transit services associated with a BRT service. This Quick Win funding is
an opportunity sufficient to construct road widenings at up to six major intersection locations within the three
segments.
Phase 1 of the Municipal Class EA process involves the identification of the problem and opportunity. By 2021,
population and employment growth in Durham Region is forecast to increase travel demands in the southern
communities and in particular within the Ajax / Pickering area. As noted previously, at current transit mode shares
for local transit trips, the AM peak hour congestion crossing the Brock Road screenline is forecast to increase, with
the total screenline v/c ratio slipping from 0.74 in 2010 to 0.90 by 2021. This can be restated as: For the given road
capacity on east - west roads (Bayly, Hwy 401, Hwy 2, Rossland Road/Concession 3, Taunton Road), the forecast
number of vehicle trips passing Brock Road each weekday morning will increase by 2021 to 90% of the roadway
capacity. At this level of congestion, stop and go traffic will be very common in the towards Toronto direction for
most weekday mornings, and any incident affecting capacity, such as a collision or lane blockage, will cause
significant gridlock. Continued growth in travel demand on the Highway 2 corridor is a problem.
Forecasts from the Durham Region transportation model suggest that improved transit service frequency on the
Highway 2 corridor, associated with the Quick Win implementation, can improve transit ridership by 130% on
Highway 2. At these ridership levels, combined with planned road network improvements in the study area, the
Brock Road screenline would be expected to perform at a v/c ratio of 0.84 by 2031, only moderately worse than
today. This potential benefit of improving transit service along Highway 2 is an opportunity.
The current operation of the signalized intersections along Highway 2 is very close to capacity and thus it is difficult
to reallocate green time to provide improved bus service in the corridor. If road widenings, as proposed by this
study, are implemented, then it will be more feasible to provide transit priority through these key congested
intersections in the study area. Transit priority becomes more critical as bus service is improved to encourage more
transit usage in the corridor. Utilizing intersection widenings to enhance transit service is an opportunity.
The LTTS has recommended a long term vision for transit on Highway 2 and across the Region of Durham. The
LTTS provides a detailed review of the problem, the opportunity and the longer term vision for transit service
improvements across Durham Region, but also generally applicable to Highway 2.
The problems identified in the LTTS include:
Transit services quality, speed and reliability are being negatively impacted by existing traffic congestion.
Travel demands will increase with population and employment growth resulting in increased traffic
congestion.
The existing infrastructure cannot accommodate future traffic demands and traffic delay conditions are
expected to continue to worsen.
Even with planned road improvements identified in the Regions capital plans and growth initiatives, existing
transportation deficiencies are expected to worsen by 2021, and over the next 20 years.
The current municipally-based bus routes and network structure does not support or encourage intermunicipal travel within the Region by transit although the demand for inter-municipal trips within the Region
is very high.
The Region lacks active transportation infrastructure such as on-road cycling facilities and pedestrian
pathways.
20
AECOM
Region of Durham

In addition to the broader transit network improvements recommended in the LTTS report, the Highway 2 corridor
has been identified for implementation of future rapid transit by widening the pavement for an exclusive median Light
Rail Transit system.
The purpose of this Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
(Class EA) study is to plan for and implement initial improvements to Highway 2 through Pickering and Ajax
necessary for Highway 2 to be able to provide an enhanced level of transit service to accommodate future traffic and
transit demands, and build ridership to support the future ultimate transit vision as expressed in the LTTS long-term
implementation plan. Given the current capacity constraints in the Highway 2 corridor and at key intersections along
Highway 2, one logical way to provide an enhanced level of transit service is to incorporate a widening of the
Highway 2 corridor in accordance with the previous recommendations outlined in the LTTS and the Durham Region
Transportation Master Plan. This widening will provide for improved capacity for both transit and auto traffic, such
that improved transit service levels can be provided.
The primary purpose of this Class EA study is to examine the most appropriate short term widening configuration
suitable for implementation at discrete intersection locations, which best balances the need for improved transit
service and reliability with the need to continue to move large volumes of local and inter regional traffic along the
Highway 2 corridor.
Figure 9 - Transit Priority Opportunity Areas
21
AECOM
Region of Durham
4.
Alternative Solutions
4.1
Role of TDM & Active Transportation

Although not studied as a standalone alternative solution, the implementation of enhanced Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures and policies / infrastructure to support Active Transportation (walking & cycling) were
key components of the recommended strategies contained with the Durham Region Transportation Master Plan and
the Durham Long Term Transit Strategy. Both studies recognized the role that these types of initiatives can
contribute to a better balance between auto and non-auto use in the community and can also help to support
improved transit ridership.
The Transportation Master Plan recommended an aggressive TDM program aimed at achieving a 15% reduction in
auto demand by 2031. Measures, such as the Regions participation in the Smart Commute Program, which
promotes and facilitates ride sharing / car pooling, have already been initiated to begin this process of change and to
encourage more awareness of alternative modes of travel in the Region. Both studies recognized, however, that
these measures on their own would not be sufficient to address future travel demands. Currently, only about 10% of
morning peak hour car trips have more than one person in the vehicle.
4.2
Widening Alternate Roads
The LTTS study evaluated the transit demand that would utilize service on various arterial road corridors such as
Bayly Street and Rossland Road. Neither of these corridors provided as much transit demand as the Highway 2
corridor, and a continuous service would be difficult to implement along Rossland Road given the discontinuous
nature of this roadway through Pickering. As a result, other roads would not have the same ability to serve the
Regions future transit needs as a widening of Highway 2 for transit priority. The widening of alternative roadway
corridors, in advance of widening Highway 2, is not compatible with the Long Term Transit Strategy and the
Transportation Master Plan.
The local municipalities have established policies to encourage intensification and a mix of land uses in the Highway
2 corridor, all of which support and are supported by rapid transit. Other parallel corridors have built up over time as
mature residential neighbourhoods or other lower density land uses and would not be as suitable for intensification.
4.3
Widening Highway 2
The Highway 2 corridor provides the best integrated solution for implementation of the transit priority improvements
intended to build ridership and reduce auto use. The widening of Highway 2 through key intersection areas
incorporates capacity improvements where they are most needed, as the majority of the key Highway 2 intersections
are operating at or over capacity during peak periods. The widening of Highway 2 will allow for the introduction of a
continuous BRT transit service to replace the current GO bus route serving portions of Highway 2, and will allow for
improved transit frequency and improved service to generate new riders in preparation for a transition to the longer
term LTTS vision of median LRT along Highway 2. The widening of Highway 2 to incorporate enhanced transit is
consistent with the recommendations of the LTTS and the Durham Region TMP. The introduction of Rapid Transit
on the Highway 2 corridor will result in enhanced transit service on the corridor with the highest ridership potential of
the various corridors tested in the LTTS study.
22
AECOM
5.
Region of Durham

Assessment of Highway 2 Widening (Design) Alternatives
The Municipal Class EA process requires the examination of alternative methods of implementing the preferred
undertaking by considering design alternatives. Given the range of existing characteristics of the Highway 2 corridor,
the development and evaluation of certain design decisions for parts of the study area were required prior to
developing and evaluating the design alternatives. This section of the report provides a discussion on the
development and evaluation of the design decisions and the design alternatives considered for the Highway 2
corridor.
The recommended design alternative must have the ability to transition to higher capacity median transit, be cost
effective and constructible. Important engineering considerations for the alternative design were property acquisition
requirements, utility impacts and costs. The project team considered how each design alternative could be
converted in the future in terms of costs, traffic impacts and the ability to maintain transit service during construction
of the next phase (median transit). Implementation risks were also taken into account because the design
alternative must be completed within the Provincial Quick Win funding allocation and schedule (i.e., March 2016
completion).
The CN Rail crossing and Pickering Village were excluded from the study area because of environmental, schedule
and financial constraints associated with the range of potential issues and solutions in these areas. This led to the
creation of 3 transit priority opportunity areas where the alternative design concepts would be evaluated: 1) the
Whites Road segment, 2) the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment, and 2) the Westney Road Harwood Avenue
Salem Road segment.
Further analysis of the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment revealed that a portion of that segment, from east of
the CN Rail crossing to west of Pine Creek, operates well under current and future traffic conditions. Therefore, this
portion of the Liverpool Road Brock Road segment was not recommended for improvements in this EA. The limits
for the three transit priority opportunity areas where the Alternative Design Concepts were developed are listed
below:
Whites Road Segment
City of Pickering (from west of Whites Road easterly to Dixie Road); approximately 650 m west of
Whites Road to 1200 m east of Whites Road
Liverpool Road Brock Road Segment
City of Pickering (Dixie Road easterly to Notion Road); approximately 500 m west of Liverpool Road to
750 m east of Brock Road
Westney Road Harwood Avenue Salem Road Segment
Town of Ajax (Rotherglen Road easterly to east of Salem Road); approximately 300 m west of Westney
Road to 900 m east of Salem Road
Each design alternative has a 45m right-of-way including 1.5m on-road cycling lanes with a 0.6m width buffer, 1.8m
sidewalks and 4.3m boulevards in either direction. In the Town of Ajax, an existing multi-use path will remain on the
north side of the roadway in place of the 1.8m sidewalk shown on the typical section.
Four design alternatives were developed as described below. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are geometrically identical in
all aspects of design except for the way in which the curbside lane is signed. In Alternative 1 the curbside lane is
open to all traffic, in Alternative 2 the curbside lane is open to only high occupancy vehicles, and in Alternative 3 the
curbside lane is open only to buses. All three alternatives have a 29.8m curb to curb typical roadway cross section
23
AECOM
Region of Durham

throughout the study area. No access restrictions are proposed for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and existing median left
turn lanes are retained at all unsignalized intersections.
In areas where signalized intersections are in close proximity, specifically through the Whites Road segment and the
Town of Ajax, there is not sufficient distance to taper from the 34.0m roadway section to the 29.8m roadway section
between intersections and the additional width in the median will be used as a potential landscape area.
1.
Widening Highway 2 Mixed Use Traffic
Mixed use of a lane by both transit and general-purpose traffic. Optional intersection treatments such as roadway
widening and added auxiliary lanes at intersections provide buses with the ability to jump the queue at such
locations and provide some level of improved service times and reliability.
2.
Widening Highway 2 High Occupancy Vehicle / Bus Rapid Transit Lanes
Located on the outside of the arterial roadway (next to the curb) for designated use of buses and shared with other
high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). HOV vehicles would be restricted to 2+ occupants, except where right turning
traffic must enter the HOV lane to turn right at intersections or entrances.
3.
Widening Highway 2 Curbside Bus Rapid Transit Lanes
This is similar to Alternative 2, but exclusively dedicated to bus operation except for being accessible to right-turning
motorists at intersections and driveways / accesses along the road.
4.
Widening Highway 2 Median Bus Rapid Transit Lanes
Alternative 4 differs from Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 as a dedicated transitway is constructed down the median of
Highway 2. The median transitway is physically separated from the mixed traffic lanes which provides an obstruction
free environment for transit vehicles but requires the closure of all left turn movements along Highway 2 at
unsignalized intersections. Retaining left turn movements at unsignalized locations would be a major safety concern
to have vehicles crossing the transitway without signal control. Alternative 4 has a typical 29.8m roadway cross
section between signalized intersections and a 34.0m typical roadway cross section in the vicinity of signalized
intersections to accommodate left-turn lanes and median transit platforms. Alternative 4 has a corresponding 2.1m
reduction in boulevard width on either side of Highway 2 to accommodate the wider roadway cross section in the
vicinity of signalized intersections.
Due to the offset that would be created for opposing left turn vehicles at signalized intersections, all left turn
movements would be converted to run on fully protected signal phasing, to ensure safety for motorists. Pedestrian
crossing would be run in two split pedestrian phases, allowing pedestrians to cross into the centre median and wait
until the next phase to finish crossing Highway 2. This reduces the crossing time required for a full crossing of
Highway 2, and reduces the capacity impact that this would have on north-south arterial roads within the study area.
5.1
Modelling Methodology, Development & Calibration
The modelling work for the assessment of widening alternatives was structured using a two step process. Overall
travel demands within the Ajax and Pickering areas were obtained from the Durham Region Transportation Model
based on forecasts of population and employment growth in the various communities within the Region. Using the
model results for 2016 and 2021 horizon years, a sub area model was developed focusing on the major arterial road
network in the EA study area to provide a refined assignment of travel demands for each scenario.
The sub area model was built from the Durham emme/3 model network and zone system to maintain consistency
with broader forecasts that the Region would produce for various planning studies. Within the sub area, the zone
24
AECOM
Region of Durham

system and road network was refined to provide more detail on the route choice for motorists to be able to assess
how local traffic patterns would change as a result of different Highway 2 widening alternatives. By implementing
advanced intersection delay estimates, the rerouting of traffic in response to intersection delays was estimated using
the sub area model, which was calibrated to link level of detail.
A separate VISSIM model was used to simulate operations along Highway 2 for the various widening alternatives
including operations of dedicated transit lanes, transit priority, etc. This type of micro simulation model provides
detailed intersection performance results to allow for an assessment of network performance including implications
due to signal phasing changes, pedestrian signal timing plans, detailed lane arrangements at intersections, etc.
Intersection delays from the VISSIM model are fed back into the sub area model to incorporate estimates of
intersection delays into the model routing / assignment process. Figure 10 illustrates the limits of the sub area
model and two separate VISSIM models used in the subsequent modelling work.
Figure 10 - Sub Area / VISSIM Model Limits
5.1.1
Sub Area Model Development & Calibration
The sub area model was built from the Durham emme/3 model network and zone system to maintain consistency
with broader forecasts that the Region would produce for various planning studies. Within the sub area, the zone
25
AECOM
Region of Durham

system and road network was refined to provide more detail on the route choice for motorists to be able to assess
how local traffic patterns would change as a result of different Highway 2 widening alternatives.
In the original Regional model there are 120 internal zones within the Pickering and Ajax limits of our sub area
model. These were split into 323 internal zones for use in the sub area model, essentially breaking each zone down
into the most refined neighbourhood level that reflected the road network used in the sub area model. The sub area
model features 59 external gateway zones that feed traffic into the sub area.
The base travel demand matrices from the Durham model were disaggregated to the new internal zone system
using zone split factors developed by AECOM. The zone split factors were based on the following assumptions:
For residential areas the split factors were based on the share of the total zone population living within each
of the smaller sub area zones. Census block face population count data for 2006 was used to estimate the
share of population residing within each sub zone;
For zones with all commercial development we used generic trip generation rates based on the type of
development within each sub zone to determine the relative share of trips for each sub zone. The trip
generation rates were based on ITE trip rates for representative retail / commercial and mixed use
developments and these were only used to estimate the percentage of the original trips in the matrix that
would be allocated to each sub zone; and
For zones with a mix of residential and commercial uses, trip generation rates were again used to determine
the relative share of trips that would be assigned to each sub zone. For the residential component ITE trip
rates for residential uses were used, and for retail / commercial uses the same process noted above was
used.
Additional network detail was also added within the study area to include additional network links to represent the
minor roads and major access points that were not included in the Durham Regional model. Speeds, capacities and
volume-delay functions were refined as part of an intensive calibration effort to ensure that simulated link volumes
matched observed link volumes along Highway 2 and major arterial / collector roads in the study area. Intersection
turn delays were introduced into the emme sub area model for signalized and stop-controlled intersections to better
reflect the delays that drivers experience at intersections, and how this may influence their route choice. Turn delay
estimates from the Regions Synchro model were used as the turn delay penalties in the emme model for the
intersections along Highway 2. For the remaining intersections outside of the Highway 2 corridor, generic HCM turn
delay functions were utilized to estimate the turn delays for the intersection nodes.
After the initial calibration work was completed to an acceptable level of detail, a demand adjustment process was
used to modify the base matrix for the sub area to match the observed turning volumes for the PM peak hour (the
worst case scenario used for the VISSIM modelling). The demand adjustment process is the final step that corrects
for local trips making not well represented in macro models (i.e linked trips or mid trip stops); it adjusts the matrix to
include intrazonal trips that are not typically included in the assignment runs in macro models; and it captures the
influence of midblock entrances which can add or remove trips from the network. A summary of the key steps in the
sub area model development process is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Initial 2010 base demands obtained from Durham model

Reviewed calibration within sub area
i. Gateway links leading into subarea
ii. Key internal links within sub area (Highway 2, Bayly Street, North-South arterials)
Adjusted link attributes to improve local calibration results
Included intersection turn delay penalties into model to improve localized calibration
i. Generic HCM based turn delays for intersections outside of Highway 2 corridor
26
AECOM
5.
6.
Region of Durham

ii. Synchro-based turn delays for Highway 2 intersections

Input observed link volumes on key network links and turn volumes for Highway 2 intersections
Use demand adjustment process to modify base matrix so that assignment matches observed PM peak hour
counts
Figures 11, 12 and 13 illustrate the correlation between simulated and observed link volumes on the entire sub area
network, on Highway 2 itself, and for the Highway 2 turning volumes.
Figure 11 - 2010 Observed vs Simulated Link Volumes
27
AECOM
Region of Durham

Figure 12 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Volumes
Figure 13 - Highway 2 Simulated vs Observed Turning Volumes
28
AECOM
5.1.2
Region of Durham

VISSIM Model Development & Calibration
Separate VISSIM models were developed for the Ajax and Pickering study areas to improve the micro simulation run
times given the size of the respective networks. The Ajax model, as illustrated in Figure 13, includes the area
bounded by Elizabeth Street to east of Salem Road and from Delaney Drive / Magill to Highway 401 / Station Street,
in the south. The Ajax VISSIM model includes 11,653 links and 33 traffic signals. Traffic signal timing was obtained
from the Region of Durham Works Department, Traffic Engineering & Operations Division. The Highway 401
interchanges are simulated in the model but Highway 401 itself was not included to reduce the number of individual
vehicles in the network and improve calibration efficiency.
Figure 14 - Ajax VISSIM Model Limits
The Pickering model, as illustrated in Figure 15, includes the area bounded by west of Whites Road to East of
Notion Road and from Finch Avenue / Glenanna Avenue to Bayly Street. The model includes 11,293 links and 44
traffic signals.
Similar to the Ajax model, the Highway 401 interchanges are simulated in the model but Highway 401 itself was not
included to reduce the number of individual vehicles in the network and improve calibration efficiency. Reducing the
number of vehicles also improves the run time for the simulation.
29
AECOM
Region of Durham

Figure 15 - Pickering VISSIM Model Limits
The VISSIM Model Calibration was undertaken at two levels; the first level compared the intersection turn volumes
with observed results, and then the corridor travel times were compared to travel times from the Durham Region
travel time survey data for the Highway 2 corridor.
Intersection turn volume calibration was undertaken using the average of at least 4 simulation runs with different
random seeds that control the generation of unique vehicles into the network. Since each vehicle / driver exhibits
different driver behaviours (based on a standard distribution curve), the use of random seeds and the averaging of
results will provide an average travel time that is comparable to a series of travel time runs that would be used to
collect observed data.
The calibration results were assessed using the GEH statistic, as calculated below.
For GEH < 5 this indicates a good fit with observed data. For calculated GEH statistics between 5 and 10 these
areas in the model should be reviewed. For GEH statistics > 10, these areas are not considered to be a good fit with
30
AECOM
Region of Durham

observed data. Our calibration target, was to achieve 85% of turn movements at GEH =5 or better, which is
consistent with FHWA micro simulation best practices. Table 7 summarizes the VISSIM model calibration results
for the Ajax model. Based on a summary of all major intersections, 94% of the turn volumes met the GEH target of
5, indicating a high level of calibration with observed volumes. On Highway 2 and Salem Road individually, these
results are 97% and 100% respectively. Harwood Avenue intersections achieved 95% of turns within the calibration
target and Westney Road fell a little short with only 78% of turn volumes within GEH 5, although 22% were within
GEH of 10.
Table 7. VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Ajax
Row Title
All Major
Intersections
Highway 2
Westney Road
Harwood Avenue
Salem Road
% of Turn Volumes
% of Turn Volumes
% of Turn Volumes
GEH <5
5< GEH <10
GEH >10
94%
7%
0%
97%
78%
95%
100%
3%
22%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 8. VISSIM Link Calibration Results - Pickering

Row Title
All Major
Intersections
Highway 2
Whites Road
Liverpool Road
Brock Road
Bayly Street
Finch Avenue
% of Turn Volumes
% of Turn Volumes
% of Turn Volumes
GEH <5
5< GEH <10
GEH >10
92%
7%
1%
91%
91%
85%
85%
83%
100%
8%
9%
15%
12%
13%
0%
1%*
0%
0%
3%*
4%*
0%
Notes: * Represents one movement that did not meet GEH >10 calibration target
For the Pickering model, as summarized in Table 8, 92% of all major intersection turning movements met the GEH
calibration target of 5 or better and Highway 2 and Whites Road individually also achieved 91% of turn movements
achieving this target. Liverpool Road and Brock Road achieved the GEH target on 85% of the turning movements,
while Bayly Street fell slightly short with 83% of turning volumes meeting the GEH target of 5 or better.
Table 9 and 10, on the following page summarizes the corridor travel time comparisons compared to the travel time
survey results provide by the Region of Durham for the Highway 2 corridor in Ajax and Pickering respectively. The
target for calibration purposes is to have the simulated travel times within 15% of observed values. Where they do
not match within 15% of the observed average travel time, the variance should be within the standard deviation of
the observed travel times from the survey as these are collected using a series of floating car runs and there can
be a wide variation between individual observations that can influence the calculated average travel time.
In Ajax, Highway 2 eastbound and westbound are well calibrated compared to the observed travel times from the
survey in 2009 with simulated travel times within 10% of observed and well within the standard deviation of the travel
time runs used to calculate the average. Harwood Avenue and Salem Road are also well calibrated in terms of travel
times, with simulated travel times between 3% and 12% of observed and the difference well within the standard
deviation of the observed values. Westney Road northbound does not achieve the 15% or better variation in
31
AECOM
Region of Durham

simulated travel times but the difference does fall within the standard deviation of the observed values in the travel
time survey. This suggests that there is wide variation in the times from the observed runs and the simulated results
may still be representative of existing conditions. In the southbound direction, the simulated / observed ratio is
worse than the target of 15% and the difference is greater than the standard deviation in the survey run results. This
may be related to the operation of Westney Road in the vicinity of the GO station entrance, where the extreme
peaking during the period when a train arrives is difficult to simulate in detail. This difference, however, should not
materially impact the assessment of Highway 2 corridor performance. Figure 16, on the next page, illustrates the
comparison of simulated versus observed travel times along the Highway 2 corridor through Ajax.
Table 9. VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Ajax
Row Title
Highway 2 EB
Highway 2 WB
Westney Road - NB
Westney Road - SB
Harwood Avenue - NB
Harwood Avenue - SB
Salem Road NB
Salem Road - SB
Simulated
Observed
2010 PM Peak
2008 PM Peak
Standard Deviation of
Observed Travel Times
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
408
426
446
348
198
194
157
160
411
386
325
194
177
181
152
166
159
138
155
79
65
56
57
64
Difference
Sim / Obs
(sec)
-3 (00:03)
+40 (00:40)
+121 (02:01)
+154 (02:34)
+21 (00:21)
+13 (00:13)
+5 (00:05)
-6 (00:06)
1.01
1.10
1.37
1.79
1.12
1.07
1.03
0.96
In Pickering, Highway 2 eastbound and westbound are relatively well calibrated compared to the observed travel
times from the survey in 2009 with simulated travel times within 10% of observed for the westbound direction,
although the eastbound direction does not meet the 15% target. In both directions, the difference in travel time is
within the standard deviation of the travel time runs used to calculate the average of the observed values. Travel
times on Whites Road southbound, Liverpool Road, and Brock Road southbound are also within the calibration
target of 15% and on each of these segments the difference in travel times is within the standard deviation of the
observed run results.
Table 10. VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Pickering
Row Title
Highway 2 EB*
Highway 2 WB**
Whites Road - NB
Whites Road - SB
Liverpool Road - NB
Liverpool Road - SB
Brock Road NB***
Brock Road SB***
Simulated
Observed
2010 PM Peak
2008 PM Peak
Standard Deviation of
Observed Travel Times
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
271
328
508
397
225
210
262
267
344
380
294
374
209
248
427
313
86
96
63
77
47
79
144
68
Difference
Sim / Obs
(sec)
-73 (01:13)
-52 (00:52)
+214 (03:34)
+23 (0:23)
+16 (00:16)
+38 (00:38)
-165 (02:45)
-46 (00:46)
0.79
0.86
1.73
1.06
1.08
0.85
0.61
0.85
Notes: * Whites Road to Valley Farm Road observed values influenced by construction on Brock Road North
** Brock Road to Boyers Entrance
*** Under construction in 2008.2009 north of Highway 2
Whites Road northbound and Brock Road northbound both fall outside of the two calibration targets. For Brock
Road northbound, it is recognized this segment of road was under construction during 2008/2009 when the survey
was completed, and hence the VISSIM model is unable to simulate the delays experienced (hence the lower travel
32
AECOM
Region of Durham

times in the simulation results). For Whites Road northbound, the difference in the simulation results should not
materially impact the assessment of Highway 2 performance within the EA study area. Figure 17, on the next page,
illustrates the comparison of simulated versus observed travel times along the Highway 2 corridor through Pickering.
Figure 16 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Ajax
33
AECOM
Region of Durham

Figure 17 - Highway Travel Time Calibration - Pickering
Observed times influenced by construction

on Brock Rd North of Hwy 2
Good correlation
34
AECOM
5.2
Region of Durham

Modeling Highway 2 Widening Alternatives
The initial assessment was undertaken for the 2016 horizon year, to coincide with opening of the Quick Win BRT
improvements and bus service. A subsequent evaluation for the 2021 horizon was also undertaken to test the
performance of the various design alternatives 5 years after opening of the new service. An assessment of longer
term performance for horizon years beyond 2021 was not undertaken as part of the EA study as it is expected that
the initial transit service implemented through the Quick Win project will be upgraded to a continuous BRT / LRT
system throughout Pickering, Ajax, and Whitby. This will be the subject of a separate EA study.
Base travel demands for 2016 were extracted from the Durham Region model and were utilized within the subarea
model to extract the peak period demands on Highway 2 and the adjacent arterial roads. For alternatives where
traffic restrictions or intersections delays were expected to change due to the operation of the BRT configuration (i.e.
median BRT requiring fully protected left turn phasing along Highway 2), the intersection delays associated with this
signal configuration were input into the sub area model and the model was rerun to extract the new link and turning
volumes on Highway 2, along with the link and turning volumes on the adjacent arterial and collector roadways. In
this way, the rerouting of traffic associated with the various Highway 2 BRT configurations were assessed to
generate evaluation statistics for the various criteria used in the assessment.
The revised turning volumes and demands were input into the VISSIM model to obtain detailed operational statistics
for each of the various BRT alternatives, including transit travel time, auto travel time, and intersection delays. For
the purpose of simulating bus traffic, it was assumed that the Highway 2 BRT service would initially run on 7.5
minute headway during the peak periods, resulting in 8 buses per hour in both in the AM and PM peaks. The bus
will essentially replace the Route 94 GO Bus service running along Highway 2, and will include stops at all major
intersections within the EA study area. An initial assumed 30 second dwell time was utilized in the VISSIM model at
each stop to allow for passenger loading / unloading. This may be revised as Durham Region Transit finalizes the
actual service plan, ridership forecasts, and Transit Priority strategy that will be used for the Highway 2 BRT service.
The same assumptions were used for the simulation of each design alternative so that the transit and auto travel
time results would be comparable and would be based on how well the buses and autos performed for each design
treatment as opposed to any differences in operational policies applied.
This process was repeated for the 2021 horizon year to examine future operations approximately 5 years after
implementation of the Quick Win transit improvement.
5.2.1
Comparison of Travel Times
The initial comparison of the Highway 2 widening alternatives examined which alternatives provide the best travel
time benefits for transit vehicles (important to generating new ridership), and to automobiles (given the role Highway
2 currently plays in accommodating peak period auto traffic). As summarized in Table 11, within Transit Priority
Opportunity Area 1, the Curb BRT and HOV / BRT design alternatives provide the best transit travel times in the EB
peak direction during the PM Peak hour. Similar results were found for the auto travel times, where the Curb BRT
and HOV/BRT alternatives result in a 3% increase in peak direction auto travel times compared to base conditions,
while the mixed traffic widening and Median BRT alternatives increase travel times by 19% and 50% respectively.
The significant increase in travel times for the Median BRT alternative is primarily related to the introduction of the
fully protected left turn phasing at the key intersections. In the off peak direction, the Curb BRT and HOV/BRT
alternatives also provide the best transit and auto travel times.
35
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 11. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering
Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
Transit Vehicles EB (min)

Transit Vehicles WB (min)
N/A
N/A
6.4
6.3
5.9
6.2
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.8
Auto Traffic EB (min)

% Change from Base
Auto Traffic WB (min)
% Change from Base
3.2
3.4
-
3.8
+19%
3.6
+6%
3.3
+3%
3.4
0%
3.3
+3%
3.5
+3%
4.8
+50%
5.4
+59%
2016 PM Peak
Table 12 summarizes the 2021 results for the same section of Highway 2. Congestion levels do not increase
significantly on Highway 2 compared to 2016 and this is illustrated in the similar travel times for auto traffic in 2021
compared to 2016. For the transit vehicles, the Curb BRT and HOV / BRT alternatives provide the best travel times
compared to the other alternatives, as was the case for the 2016 horizon. Additional congestion to the east of
Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1, does result in slightly better travel times for buses running in the off peak
direction under mixed traffic conditions, although this statistic is not necessarily indicative of the operation. This
occurs due to the metering of traffic upstream, which increases speeds through the downstream segments of
Highway 2. When this scenario was simulated only 4-5 buses were able to traverse through the Transit Priority
Opportunity Area compared to 6-7 buses getting through in 2016. The remaining buses were stuck upstream in
mixed traffic and could not complete their run within the simulation period.
Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

N/A
N/A
6.4
6.0
5.9
6.1
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.8

% Change from Base
% Change from Base
3.1
2.9
-
3.7
+16%
3.3
+14%
3.2
+0%
2.9
+0%
3.2
+0%
3.0
+3%
3.9
+22%
9.2
+317%
2021 PM Peak
Within Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2 in Pickering (east of Dixie Road to Notion Road) the results presented in
Table 13 show that the Curb BRT lanes and the HOV / BRT scenarios result in the best transit travel times in the
eastbound peak direction. The mixed widening scenario results in slightly higher transit travel times in the
eastbound direction, followed by the Median BRT alternative which has the worst overall performance. Similar
results were observed for the 2021 horizon, as summarized in Table 14, below.
For the auto travel times, mixed traffic widening only increases peak direction auto travel times by 1%, while the
Curb BRT increases auto times by 7%. The HOV/BRT and Median BRT alternatives increase auto travel times by
25% and 19% respectively. The significant increase in travel times for the Median BRT alternative is primarily
related to the introduction of the fully protected left turn phasing at the key intersections, while the increase
associated with the HOV /BRT scenario is related to increased delays due to the higher HOV volumes in this
segment (about 665 vehicles per hour) and the conflicts with turning traffic at intersections. By 2021, the auto travel
times along Highway 2 are higher for most / all scenarios due to the growth in traffic volumes in the corridor.
36
AECOM
Region of Durham

Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

N/A
N/A
10.4
8.9
10.3
10.0
10.3
9.8
12.0
10.6

% Change from Base
% Change from Base
6.9
6.4
-
7.0
1%
6.6
3%
8.6
+25%
6.8
+6%
7.4
+7%
6.7
+5%
8.2
+19%
7.4
+16%
2016 PM Peak
Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

N/A
N/A
10.8
13.5
10.3
9.6
10.3
10.0
11.7
10.5

% Change from Base
% Change from Base
6.9
6.4
-
7.3
6%
15.7
1%
7.0
1%
18.9
+23%
7.0
+1%
20.5
+9%
7.0
+1%
8.2
+16%
2021 PM Peak
Within Ajax, in Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3, Tables 15 and 16 summarize the transit and auto travel time
results for the various Highway 2 widening alternatives for the 2016 and 2021 horizon years respectively. In 2016,
the Median BRT provides an improvement in transit travel times over the Curb and HOV / BRT designs, with peak
direction times about 12% better than the Curb BRT. The mixed traffic alternative results in the worst transit travel
times in the eastbound peak direction of all four alternatives. In 2021 the Median BRT scenario also performs
slightly better than the Curb and HOV / BRT alternatives in terms of transit travel times in the eastbound peak
direction. Due to increased traffic volumes and conflicts with turning vehicles, the other alternatives perform slightly
worse, and the mixed traffic widening is significantly worse than any of the dedicated transit lane alternatives
highlighting the need for a dedicated transit only lane to maintain transit travel times in the face of growing
congestion.
Table 15. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax
Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

N/A
N/A
16.6
13.4
12.9
13.7
12.8
13.7
11.3
12.9

% Change from Base
% Change from Base
12.1
8.7
-
11.0
+9%
8.0
-8%
13.1
+8%
9.2
+6%
14.2
+17%
8.9
+2%
19.2
+59%
12.1
+39%
2016 PM Peak
Table 16. Transit & Auto Travel Times Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax
Base
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

N/A
N/A
17.5
20.8
12.6
14.1
12.8
14.1
11.4
12.7

% Change from Base
12.0
-
14.5
+21%
22.3
+85%
17.5
+46%
19.2
+60%
2021 PM Peak
37
AECOM
Region of Durham

% Change from Base
5.2.2
13.9
-

17.0
+22%
17.0
+22%
13.3
-4%
15.0
+8%
Comparison of Transit Delays
The assessment of transit delays compares the transit travel time for each scenario compared with the free flow
travel time (including dwell time at stops) that a transit vehicle should incur if there is no conflict with other vehicles
or other sources of delay that impedes their operation. Within Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1, the HOV/BRT and
Curb BRT scenarios both result in no delays to transit vehicles in 2016 and 2021 in the EB PM Peak travel direction
as shown in Tables 17 and 18. The Median BRT scenario results in a modest 0.2 min average delay per bus in
2016, increasing to 0.5 min per bus by 2021. The Mixed Traffic widening scenario results in a 0.5 min average
delay per bus in both horizon years. In the off peak (WB direction) the alternatives essentially rank the same,
although the transit delays are slightly higher for the Curb BRT and HOV/BRT scenarios and are increased to 0.9
min / bus for the Median BRT scenario.
By 2021, upstream congestion will also limit the effectiveness of the Mixed Traffic Scenario in 2021. Although the
transit travel times shown in Table 18 indicate only 0.1 min of delay per bus in the WB direction, the simulation
results show that there is significant upstream congestion that limits the number of buses that are able to complete
their run during the simulation period (from an average of 5 / hour in the other alternatives to 3-4/hour in the
widening scenario). Given the upstream capacity constraint, the average travel time through the Transit Priority
Opportunity Area is improved but the overall ability to maintain a reliable service will be eroded.
Table 17. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering

Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
Free Flow Time EB (min)

Transit Travel Time EB (min)
Delay (min)
5.9
6.4
0.5
5.9
5.9
0.0
5.9
5.9
0.0
5.9
6.1
0.2
Free Flow Time WB (min)

Transit Travel Time WB (min)
Delay (min)
5.9
6.3
0.4
5.9
6.2
0.3
5.9
6.2
0.3
5.9
6.8
0.9
2016 PM Peak

Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

Delay (min)
5.9
6.4
0.5
5.9
5.9
0.0
5.9
5.9
0.0
5.9
6.4
0.5

Delay (min)
5.9
6.0
0.1
5.9
6.1
0.2
5.9
5.9
0.0
5.9
6.8
0.9
2021 PM Peak
As shown in Tables 19 and 20, for Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2, between Brock Road and Notion Road in
Pickering, the HOV/BRT and Curb BRT scenarios both result in modest delays to transit vehicles (3.3 min) in 2016
and 2021 in the EB PM Peak travel direction. The Median BRT scenario results in a 5.0 min average delay per bus
in 2016, reducing slightly to 4.7 min per bus by 2021. The Mixed Traffic widening scenario results in a 3.4 min
38
AECOM
Region of Durham

average delay per bus in 2016, increasing to 3.8 min per bus by 2021. In the off peak (WB direction) the alternatives
essentially rank the same, although the transit delays are slightly reduced compared to the peak direction.
Similar to the findings in Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1, by 2021 there is also congestion in the WB direction that
limits the effectiveness of the Mixed Traffic scenario. The transit travel times shown in Table 20 indicate about 6.5
min of delay per bus in the westbound direction through Pickering and as a result this limits the number of buses that
are able to complete their run during the simulation period (from an average of 7 / hour in the other alternatives to 45/hour in the widening scenario). Given this capacity constraint, the overall ability to maintain a reliable service will
be eroded if dedicated bus facilities are not provided.

Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

Delay (min)
7.0
10.4
3.4
7.0
10.3
3.3
7.0
10.3
3.3
7.0
12.0
5.0

Delay (min)
7.0
8.9
1.9
7.0
10.0
3.0
7.0
9.8
2.8
7.0
10.6
3.6
2016 PM Peak

Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

Delay (min)
7.0
10.8
3.8
7.0
10.3
3.3
7.0
10.3
3.3
7.0
11.7
4.7

Delay (min)
7.0
13.5
6.5
7.0
9.6
2.6
7.0
10.0
3.0
7.0
10.5
3.5
2021 PM Peak
As shown in Tables 21 and 22, within Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 in Ajax, the Curb BRT scenario provides a
slightly better performance than the HOV and Median BRT scenarios in terms of transit delays, and all of the
dedicated BRT facilities perform much better than the mixed traffic widening scenario, which results in average
transit delays of 4.3 minutes per bus in 2016 and 5.2 minutes per bus in 2021 in the EB PM peak travel direction.
By 2021, as summarized in Table 22, the HOV BRT alternative performs slightly better than the Curb BRT although
the benefits of the Median BRT alternative are beginning to result in the lower transit delays in this segment in both
directions of travel.
Table 21. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax
2016 PM Peak
Delay (min)
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
12.3
16.6
4.3
12.3
12.9
0.6
12.3
12.8
0.5
12.3
12.9
0.6
39
AECOM
Region of Durham

Delay (min)

12.3
13.4
1.1
12.3
13.7
1.4
12.3
13.7
1.4
12.3
13.7
1.4
Table 22. Transit Delays Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax

Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT

Delay (min)
12.3
17.5
5.2
12.3
12.6
0.3
12.3
12.8
0.5
12.3
11.4
-0.9

Delay (min)
12.3
20.8
8.5
12.3
14.1
1.8
12.3
14.1
1.8
12.3
12.7
0.4
2021 PM Peak
5.2.3
Comparison of Total Person Throughput
The evaluation of Highway 2 widening alternatives also examined which alternatives provide the best overall person
throughput along the corridor. This criteria measures which alternative moves the most people through the corridor
in a typical peak hour, and also recognizes the maximum potential throughput (or capacity) of each design
alternative.
The key assumptions associated with the throughput calculations are as follows:
HOV 2+ Auto Occupancy of 2.13 persons/vehicle used as per the 2006 Cordon Count. The subarea model uses
separate HOV and SOV demand matrices to estimate usage for future conditions.
Existing bus occupancy of 19.8 persons/vehicle assumed from the 2006 Cordon Count. There is an assumed
increase in bus occupancy due to Bus Travel Time savings (Widening = 0%; HOV = +10%; BRT Curbside =
+20%; Median BRT = +25%)
The maximum potential throughput calculation assumes the following:
Widening 7.5 min bus frequency, 50 passengers / standard bus, auto v/c = 1.0;
HOV 5 min bus frequency, 80 passengers / articulated bus, auto & HOV lane v/c = 1.0;
BRT Curbside 2 min bus frequency, 80 passengers / articulated bus, auto v/c = 1.0;
Median BRT 1.5 min bus frequency, 80 passengers / articulated bus, auto v/c = 1.0.
Based on these assumptions and the results from the sub area model Tables 23 to 25 summarize the total person
throughput calculations for each Transit Priority Opportunity Area. In all segments the HOV / BRT scenario provides
the highest 2016 peak hour person throughput of the various design alternatives due to the shift in HOV eligible
vehicles into the HOV / BRT lanes. The mixed traffic widening alternatives provide the second best person
throughput in all segments due to the added traffic that is attracted to the Highway 2 corridor as a result of the
widening. The Curb and Median BRT lane widening alternatives result in lower person throughput for the 2016
horizon due to lower traffic volumes and similar transit service levels, but these alternatives result in the highest
maximum potential throughput due to the ability to run more frequent transit service in these design configurations if
required in the future.
Table 23. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1 - Pickering
2016 PM Peak
Existing
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
1,508 (1,508)
1,421(1,421)
1,412 (1,412)
1,334 (1,334)
2006 Cordon Count
Single Occupant Vehicles

(Persons)
1,140 (1,140)
40
AECOM
Region of Durham
HOV Vehicles (Persons)

Persons in Buses
2016 Total Person Throughput
Max. Potential Throughput
297 (633)
(158)
1,931
n/a

312 (665)
(238)
2,410
4,111
339 (722)
(348)
2,492
4,998
292 (622)
(380)
2,414
5,260
262 (558)
(396)
2,288
6,060
Table 24. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 2 - Pickering

2016 PM Peak
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
1,140 (1,140)
1,548 (1,548)
1,457 (1,457)
1,382 (1,382)
1,344 (1,344)
297 (633)
(158)
1,931
n/a
316 (673)
(317)
2,538
4,111
349 (743)
(348)
2,548
4,998
287 (611)
(380)
2,373
5,260
274 (584)
(396)
2,324
6,060
Existing
2006 Cordon Count

(Persons)
Persons in Buses
Table 25. Person Throughput Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3 - Ajax

2016 PM Peak
Mixed Traffic
HOV / BRT Lanes
Curb BRT Lane
Median BRT
1,140 (1,140)
2,263 (2,263)
1,856 (1,856)
1,813 (1,813)
1,735 (1,735)
297 (633)
(158)
1,931
n/a
483 (1,029)
(238)
3,530
4,111
665 (1,416)
(348)
3,620
4,998
320 (682)
(380)
2,875
5,260
318 (677)
(396)
2,808
6,060
Existing
2006 Cordon Count

(Persons)
Persons in Buses
5.2.4
Local Traffic Infiltration
The various transit improvement alternatives for the Highway 2 corridor are expected to have different affects on the
amount of traffic using local roads through adjacent neighbourhoods. For the simple widening of Highway 2, the
expectation is that traffic using local cut-through routes today to avoid congestion, may be reduced due to the
additional capacity provided on Highway 2. The various BRT alternatives may also contribute to a reduction or
increase in traffic using local roads as motorists adjust their routing in response to network performance. For the
Median BRT alternative, this assessment has assumed that the median dedicated lanes would separate the
eastbound and westbound lanes with a raised median restricting left turns from entrances and minor side road
intersections. In addition, this alternative is also expected to require the use of fully protected signal phasing at
major intersections, such that left turning vehicles can safely turn on a dedicated green phase. While improving the
safety of the left turn operation, this type of signal phasing will increase left turn delays at intersections (resulting in
the increased travel times noted above for auto traffic) and may encourage some motorists to seek alternate routes.
Based on the various Highway 2 widening alternatives, the intersections delays, movement restrictions, and access
controls were modified in the sub area model and new assignment runs were undertaken to determine the extent of
traffic that could divert to alternate routes. For comparison purposes, these estimates have been quantified in terms
of veh-kilometers of travel. For the Curb BRT alternative there are negligible levels of traffic infiltration expected.
The widening for a curb running BRT does not change the through capacity on Highway 2, nor does it change the
signal timing or phasing in a noticeable way, other than minor changes to accommodate Transit Signal Priority.
Access to existing entrances and minor sideroads are also unchanged, resulting in no change to routing patterns
expected in the study area. For comparison purposes, this alternative is treated the same as the base alternative.
41
AECOM
Region of Durham

Within each of the Transit Priority Opportunity Areas, the same general patterns were observed with respect to the
impact of the various design alternatives on traffic infiltration. In general the Highway 2 widening alternatives for
mixed traffic result in an increase in traffic using Highway 2 as vehicles reroute from parallel roads, including
Highway 401. In the Pickering Area through Whites Road, the widening increases the total traffic using Highway 2
by 2-3% for the 2016 and 2021 horizon years respectively. Most of this comes from diversion from Highway 401 and
other parallel arterials such as Bayly Street and Sheppard Avenue. To the West, in the Liverpool Road to Brock
Road area, the diversion to Highway 2 is more pronounced, with a 9% increase in 2016 and 14% increase reported
in 2021 compared to the base conditions. Diversion from Highway 401 makes up a significant amount of this
increase and this contributes to the increase in traffic using the other arterial roads (primarily north-south arterials),
but there is a 3% reduction in traffic on local roads, with additional reductions of 1-4% on collector roads. Within the
Ajax area the widening of Highway 2 for mixed traffic is expected to increase traffic using this corridor by 11-13%,
with the majority of the increases occurring in the Westney Road to Salem Road sections. Some of this diversion
comes from Highway 401, with reductions of 4-6% from local roads and 1-2% from other collector roads.
The HOV / BRT alternatives also result in generally higher traffic volumes using the Highway 2 corridor due to the
additional auto capacity added, although the increase is lower in all Transit Priority Opportunity Areas than the
widening for mixed traffic. In the Whites Road area, the increase is between 2-3%, primarily due to diversion of
traffic from Highway 401 and Bayly Street. Through the Liverpool Road to Brock Road area, there is a greater
diversion to use the HOV lane, with traffic volumes increasing by 5-9% compared to the base scenario. While much
of this traffic is also being diverted from Highway 401, reductions of about 1-2% are expected on local and collector
roads in the study area as traffic diverts to Highway 2 to make use of the new capacity. A similar pattern occurs in
Ajax with a 6-9% increase in traffic using Highway 2 with the HOV lanes in place. Local roads are expected to see a
reduction of 2-4% as a result, and other collector roads could experience a 1-2% reduction in traffic, with the
remaining being diverted from Highway 401 and Bayly Street.
The median BRT scenarios tend to result in the highest amount of traffic diversion from Highway 2 to other roads as
a result of the changes in signal operations (introduction of fully protected left turn phasing and increased delays for
left turns) and the access restrictions at minor sideroad intersections due to the raised median treatment in midblock
locations. Within the Whites Road area, the diversions are more localized in nature to avoid the delays at the
Highway 2 / Whites Road intersection, and this pattern gets worse between the 2016 and 2021 horizons. In 2016
the overall traffic on Highway 2 is almost the same (within 1%) of base conditions with the median BRT in place.
The localized diversion to Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue is apparent from the sub area model results. By
2021, this diversion results in a 5% reduction in traffic using Highway 2, a 7% increase in traffic using adjacent
collector roads, and a 4% increase in traffic on local roads.
In the Liverpool Road through Brock Road area, the diversion of traffic from Highway 2 is between 2 and 3%, with
local roads experiencing an 8% increase and collector roads seeing a 4% increase in traffic as a result. Most of
these increases are also localized in nature and centre around diversions of traffic due to sideroad closures and the
left turn delays associated with the key intersections of Liverpool Road and Brock Road. These left turn movements,
as noted previously, are already operating at or over capacity in peak periods so the reduced capacity associated
with the fully protected left turn movements are resulting in this local diversion pattern.
Within Ajax, the diversion of traffic from Highway 2 as a result of the median BRT scenario is not quite as dramatic,
with a reduction of 1-2% observed in the 2016 and 2021 horizons respectively. As a result, traffic increases of 1-3%
can be expected on local roads and a 2% increase is forecast for collector roads. Within Ajax, there are not as many
uncontrolled mid block intersections and entrances as in Pickering, and therefore the median BRT does not result in
as much diversion due to access restrictions. The diversion in the Ajax area is primarily related to delays at
intersections. Figures 18, 19 and 20 illustrate and summarize the traffic diversion results for each scenario.
42
AECOM
Region of Durham

Figure 18 - Traffic Infiltration - Transit Priority Opportunity Area 1
Mixed Use Widening
HOV / BRT Lane Widening
Median BRT Lane
Change in Volume
Change in Volume
Change in Volume
Red links see increase in auto traffic

Green links see decrease in auto traffic
2016 Base
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 6 Lane

Change
vkm
vkm
4,400
3,450
8,000
32,740
4,380
3,390
8,160
32,850
-0%
-2%
+2%
+0%
2021 Base
2021 6 Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
4,610
4,670
8,720
40,350
4,520
4,630
9,000
40,490
-2%
-1%
+3%
+0%
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials

Change
2016 Base
2016 HOV/BRT Lane
vkm
vkm
4,400
3,450
8,000
32,740
4,400
3,410
8,080
32,790
0%
-1%
+1%
+0%
2021 Base
2021 HOV/BRT Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
4,610
4,670
8,720
40,350
4,560
4,640
8,860
40,430
-1%
-1%
+2%
+0%
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 Base
2016 Median BRT Lane
vkm
vkm
Change
4,400
3,450
8,000
32,740
4,400
3,410
8,080
32,790
0%
-1%
+1%
+0%
2021 Base
Change
vkm
vkm
4,610
4,670
8,720
40,350
4,780
5,020
8,300
40,250
4%
+7%
-5%
+0%
43
AECOM
Region of Durham

Mixed Use Widening
Median BRT Lane
Change in Volume
Change in Volume
Change in Volume

2016 Base
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 6 Lane

Change
vkm
vkm
7,510
11,430
17,890
57,390
7,320
11,280
19,570
58,250
-3%
-1%
+9%
+1%
2021 Base
2021 6 Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
8,930
13,560
20,010
69,240
8,650
12,960
22,780
71,480
-3%
-4%
+14%
+3%
2016 Base
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 HOV/BRT Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
7,510
11,430
17,890
57,390
7,430
11,340
18,710
57,900
-1%
-1%
+5%
+1%
2021 Base
2021 HOV/BRT Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
8,930
13,560
20,010
69,240
8,790
13,320
21,730
70,770

-2%
-2%
+9%
+2%
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 Base
vkm
vkm
Change
7,510
11,430
17,890
57,390
8,080
11,840
17,560
57,750
+8%
+4%
-2%
+1%
2021 Base
Change
vkm
vkm
8,930
13,560
20,010
69,240
9,600
14,150
19,420
69,300
8%
4%
-3%
+0%
44
AECOM
Region of Durham

Mixed Use Widening
Median BRT Lane
Change in Volume
Change in Volume
Change in Volume

2016 Base
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 6 Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
19,560
19,650
22,780
84,560
18,290
19,160
25,350
85,740
-6%
-2%
+11%
+1%
2021 Base
2021 6 Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
21,720
21,520
22,060
93,620
20,940
21,220
24,890
95,290

-4%
-1%
+13%
+2%
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials

Change
2016 Base
2016 HOV/BRT Lane
vkm
vkm
19,560
19,650
22,780
84,560
18,860
19,230
24,060
85,440
-4%
-2%
+6%
+1%
2021 Base
2021 HOV/BRT Lane
Change
vkm
vkm
21,720
21,520
22,060
93,620
21,310
21,300
24,130
95,090
-2%
-1%
+9%
+2%
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
Local Roads
Collector Roads
Highway 2
Other Arterials
2016 Base
vkm
vkm
Change
19,560
19,650
22,780
84,560
19,760
20,060
22,330
84,530
+1%
+2%
-2%
-0%
2021 Base
Change
vkm
vkm
21,720
21,520
22,060
93,620
22,340
22,040
21,820
93,770
+3%
+2%
-1%
+0%
45
AECOM
5.3
Region of Durham

Safety Assessment of Design Alternatives
The safety assessment of the various design alternatives considers the benefits and impacts of each running way
configuration for the various users of the corridor. As per TCRP Report 901, the placement and design of bus lanes
and median bus-ways on streets and roads should take into account the diverse needs of buses, motorists, delivery
vehicles, pedestrians, and turning and crossing traffic.
The assessment of the safety implications of the various alternatives has considered the difference in potential
collision risk between the various running way alternatives from the perspective of the various users of the Highway
2 corridor. The safety assessment methodology incorporates the related findings of past research, provides an
assessment of existing collision patterns that may be influenced by the various alternatives, and presents the
methodology and findings used to compare the BRT design alternatives (see Appendix A for details on the
assessment).
Table 26 summarizes the findings of this road safety assessment from a road safety stand point for Alternatives 1, 2,
3, and 4 in comparison to existing conditions. Overall, as can be seen in Table 26, it was found that there is only
minimal difference between the safety performance of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. In other words, safety is not
considered to be a deciding factor in the selection of one alternative over the other.
TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit
46
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 26. Safety Implications of BRT Running Way Types
Mode
Criteria / Factor
Estimated Change in No. of Collisions in Comparison to Existing Design

Alternative 1 (Mixed-Use Lanes)
Alt. 2 HOV Lanes
Alt. 3 Curb Bus Lanes
Alt. 4 - Median Bus Lanes
Deterioration
+0%
Deterioration
+0%
Deterioration
+0%
Improvement
-1.6%
Deterioration
+0%
Deterioration
+0%
Deterioration
+0%
Improvement
-0.8%
No Change
Improvement
Between -0% and -0.6%
Improvement
-0.6%
Bus Weaving and Conflicts

with Vehicular Traffic
No Change
Slight Deterioration
Due to merge
Due to merge
Offset for Left-Turn

Movement at Signalized
Intersections
No Change
No Change
No Change
Traffic Diversion
No Change
No Change
No Change
Cross-Median Collisions
No Change
No Change
No Change
Way Finding Concerns over

Incorrect Left-Turning of
Motorists from Crossing
Roads into Median Bus-ways
No Change
No Change
(Given the Presence of Proper
Signage and Pavement Markings)
No Change
(Given the Presence of Proper Signage
and Pavement Markings)
Vehicles Exposure to Fixed

Objects Installed in Centre of
the Road at Intersections
No Change
No Change
No Change
Other Safety Concerns (Sight

Line Issues and Other)
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Improvement
-0%
Exposure of Pedestrians /
Transit Users in Median
Islands to Vehicular Traffic
No Change
No Change
No Change
Crossing Time for

Pedestrians
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Left-Turn in / out of Side

Roads (at Unsignalized
Intersections)
Left-Turn in / out of
Driveways / Entrances
Right-Turn Movements in and
out of Driveways / Entrances
Vehicles
Pedestrians
/ Transit
Users
No Change
Deterioration
+0%
(Given the Presence of Long Weaving
Sections)
Deterioration
+0%
(Given the Presence of Protected LeftTurn Phases)
Deterioration
+0.9% to +1.7%
(Depending on Volume of Diverted
Traffic)
Improvement
-1.2%
Deterioration
+0%
(Given the Presence of Proper Signage
and Pavement Markings)
Deterioration
+0%
(Given the Presence of Appropriate
Protection Measures / Devices for
Errant Vehicles)
Improvement
Not Quantified
Deterioration
0% to +2.4%
(Depending on Presence of Appropriate
Safety Countermeasures to Protect
Pedestrians)
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Comments
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to
perform slightly worse than existing design as
with widening of the road left-turn motorists
will have to cross one additional lane of travel
Implementation of HOV lanes is expected to
result in reduction (of between 0 and 0.6%
depending on traffic volumes in HOV lanes) in
number of collisions
Alternatives 2 and 3 require buses to merge at
end of dedicated lanes
Although crossing time is greater for a median

bus-way (compared to other three
alternatives), exposure to traffic would remain
approximately equal
47
AECOM
Mode
Region of Durham
Criteria / Factor
Mobility-Challenged
Pedestrians / Transit Users
Transit
Vehicle
Estimated Change in No. of Collisions in Comparison to Existing Design

Alt. 2 HOV Lanes
Alt. 3 Curb Bus Lanes
Alt. 4 - Median Bus Lanes
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Deterioration
Not Quantified
Improvement
Not Quantified
Pedestrian refuge may provide some benefit

for those with walk speed in the lower
percentile
Deterioration
+0%
(Only if Fencing and Other Effective
Protective Measures for Pedestrians)
Deterioration
+0%
(Given sufficient weave distance)
Deterioration
+0%
(Given the Presence of Protected LeftTurn Phase)
Alternatives 2 and 3 require buses to merge at

end of dedicated lanes
No Change
No Change
No Change
Bus Weaving
Due to merge
Due to merge
Due to merge
Conflicts between Transit

Vehicles and U-Turn / Leftturn Traffic at Intersections
No Change
No Change
No Change
Lateral Clearance between

On-Road Cyclists and
General Purpose Traffic Lane
Comments
Alternative 1 (Mixed-Use Lanes)
Pedestrian Jay-Walking
Conflicts between Transit

Vehicles and Right-Turning
Vehicles in and out of
Driveways / Entrances
Conflict between On-Road
Cyclists and Transit Vehicles
Cyclists

No Change
Improvement
-0%
No Change
No Change
No Change
Improvement
-0%
Median bus-ways are expected to result in

minimal improvement from stand point of
transit vehicles safety due to elimination of
conflicts
With median bus-ways, there would be fewer
buses going in and out of curb-lane bus stops
Improvement
Not Quantified
Additional Improvement
-0% and -4%
(Depending on Presence of Buffer
and Level Vehicular Traffic Volume
on HOV Lanes)
Additional Improvement
-1% and -4%
(Depending on Presence of Buffer
between Outside Travel Lane and Cycle
Lane)
Improvement
Not Quantified
Assuming that on-road cycle lanes are

implemented with the start up
48
AECOM
5.4
Region of Durham

Transportation Evaluation Summary
Table 27 summarizes the assessment and evaluation of the various design alternatives from a transportation perspective for Transit Priority Opportunity Area1, from west of Whites Road to Dixie Road in Pickering; Transit Priority Opportunity
Area 2, between Dixie Road and Notion Road in Pickering; and Transit Priority Opportunity Area 3, between Rotherglen Road and Galea Drive in Ajax.
Table 27. Transportation Evaluation Summary
Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Widen Highway For All Traffic
Widen Highway For HOV Lanes
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Widen Highway For Dedicated Transit In

Curb Lanes

The Median
TRANSPORTATION
Transit Operations & Capacity
Total Transit Travel Time
Travel time through BRT corridor for transit

vehicles
Minimal change in travel time for BRT

vehicles except where widening
reduces delays for all vehicles.
Buses experience the same congestion

as all other vehicles.
Moderate improvement in travel time

for BRT vehicles.
Moderate improvement in travel time for

BRT vehicles.
Minor-moderate improvement in travel

time for BRT vehicles.
Buses experience delay due to

sharing lane with high occupancy cars
and local transit in curb lane, right turn
traffic at intersections and turning
traffic at entrances.
Buses experience delay due to sharing

lane with local transit in curb lane, right
turn traffic at intersections and turning
traffic at entrances.
Buses experience some delay due to

longer cycle lengths at signals and due to
merging with general purpose traffic at
transition areas where Median Bus Lane
ends and buses transition to curb side
operation.
Average Transit Travel Time (min):
Pickering (west of Whites Rd to Dixie)

6.4
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd) 10.4
Ajax (Rotherglen Rd to East of Salem)
16.6
Pickering (west of Whites Rd to

Dixie) 5.9

5.9

12.9
Transit Capacity
Potential to attract users
Ability to meet current and anticipated transit

user demands
No difference in capacity due to same

headway and service level.

headway and service level.
Minimal improvement to both auto and

transit travel time. Transit has no
advantage compared to autos and
therefore is not expected to encourage
new riders.
Due to short segment lengths,

modelling / microsimulation
indicates modest improvement in
transit travel time compared to mixed
traffic operation. Visibility of Transit
Priority Measures is expected to
encourage new riders.
Transit Capacity (same for all segments):
Service Capacity Peak Direction 400

passengers/hr
Maximum capacity Peak Direction

400 passengers/hr at 7.5 min headway
Service Capacity Peak Direction

400 passengers/hr

12.8

6.1

12.9

headway although passengers are
delivered faster (more passengers per
hour per kilometre) therefore the service
is improved.

headway although passengers are
delivered faster (more passengers per
hour per kilometer) therefore major
improvement to service.
High potential to improve the reliability of

service as dedicated lanes allow buses
to bypass congested mixed traffic lanes.
High potential to improve the reliability of

service as dedicated lanes allow buses to
maintain headways regardless of traffic
conditions.
Due to short segment lengths, modelling /

microsimulation indicates modest
improvement in transit travel time
compared to mixed traffic operation.
Due to short segment lengths, modelling /

microsimulation indicates modest
improvement in transit travel time compared
to mixed traffic operation. Visibility of Transit
Priority Measures is expected to encourage
49
AECOM
Region of Durham

Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
compared to 2021 demand of 820

passengers/hr

960 passengers/hr at 5 min headway
passengers/hr
Alternative 3
Alternative 4

Curb Lanes

The Median
new riders Transit Capacity (same for all

segments):
Transit System Continuity
Transit Service Reliability
Consistency of bus operations along the

Highway 2 corridor
Traffic congestion and/or delays affecting

transit vehicles
Design consistent with adjacent NonTransit Priority Opportunity Areas Limited change from current GO route
running in mixed traffic
Highest potential for delays especially

where widening treatment terminates
and mixed traffic is forced to merge.
Transit vehicles directly affected by

traffic congestion in midblock locations
and at intersections.
Average Transit Delay (min/bus):
Transit Vehicle Conflict Points
Interaction with general purpose traffic

0.5

4.3
Full interaction with general purpose

traffic.

passengers/hr
Maximum capacity Peak Direction 2400
passengers/hr at 2 min headway
passengers/hr
Generally consistent with adjacent

Non- Transit Priority Opportunity
Areas except for HOV lane
termination areas requiring right side
merge treatments
Generally consistent with adjacent NonTransit Priority Opportunity Areas except

for Bus Only Lane termination areas
requiring right side merge treatments
HOV lane reduces potential for delays

affecting transit except where HOV
lane treatment terminates and buses
are forced to merge.
Bus Only Lane reduces potential for

delays affecting transit except where lane
treatment terminates and buses are
forced to merge.
Transit vehicles moderately affected

by traffic congestion in midblock
locations and directly affected at
intersections.
Traffic congestion does not significantly

impact Transit vehicles in midblock
locations; some potential effects at
intersections due to right turn traffic.
Visibility of Transit Priority Measures is

expected to encourage new riders.

passengers/hr

3200 passengers/hr at 1.5 min headway
passengers/hr
Inconsistent design treatment between

Bus Only Lane in median and NonTransit Priority Opportunity Areas running
in mixed traffic along the curb lanes
Introduces 2 weaving zones where BRT

vehicles will need to make 2 lane
changes to enter or exit Bus Only Lanes
and return to curb running service
Dedicated Bus Lane reduces potential for

delays affecting transit except where
median lane treatment terminates and
buses are forced to weave from median
to curb lanes.
Traffic congestion does not significantly

impact Transit vehicles in midblock
locations or at intersections.
Some transit delays at intersections due

to longer cycle lengths and fully protected
phasing reducing effectiveness of Transit
Priority

Dixie) 0.0

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.5

0.6
Interaction primarily with HOV traffic

and local buses except at HOV lane
Interaction primarily with local buses

except at Bus Only Lane termination
Interaction with general purpose traffic

limited to weave areas where Median Bus
50
AECOM
Region of Durham

Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Conflicts with turning vehicles
Weaving between curb and median lanes
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Conflicts with right turn vehicles and

through traffic throughout corridor.
No new weaving required for transit

vehicles.
Alternative 3
Alternative 4

Curb Lanes

The Median
termination areas.
areas.
Lane terminates.
Conflicts with right turn vehicles at

intersections and entrances.
Conflicts with right turn vehicles at

intersections and entrances.
Option eliminates conflicts with all turn

vehicles at intersections and entrances.

vehicles.

vehicles.
3 new weave areas (per direction)

created for BRT vehicles to transition
from Median Bus Lanes to mixed use
curb operation.
General Purpose Traffic Operations & Capacity

Travel Time
Total travel time through study section for

non-transit vehicles
Increase in Auto Travel Time (%) compared

to Do Nothing:
Increase in Auto Travel Time (%)

compared to Do Nothing:

to Do Nothing:

to Do Nothing:
Pickering (west of Whites Rd to Dixie):

19%

Dixie): 3%

3%

50%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): 1%
Ajax (Rotherglen Rd to East of Salem):

100%
Benefits of removing bus traffic from

mixed traffic lanes is offset from
increases due to fully protected left turn
requirements at intersections.

9%
Ajax (Rotherglen Rd to East of

Salem): 30%

40%
Traffic Capacity
Impact on Highway 2 non-transit vehicle

capacity
Alternative improves midblock capacity

for non-transit vehicles by 50%
compared to no widening
Alternative improves midblock

capacity for non-transit vehicles by 2540% compared to no widening based
on current auto occupancy on Hwy 2

for non-transit vehicles by less than 5%
compared to no widening based on
removing buses from trough traffic

for non-transit vehicles by less than 5%
compared to no widening based on
removing buses from trough traffic
Infiltration
Potential to increase traffic infiltration onto

adjacent streets (due to loss of capacity)
New curb side Bus Only Lane results in

low potential for increase or reduction in
traffic infiltration onto adjacent streets.
% increase in vehicle km travelled on local

roadways (vehicles diverting from Highway 2)
This is the base alternative for

comparison of other alternatives.
New HOV lane adds capacity resulting

in potential reduction in current traffic
infiltration onto adjacent local-collector
streets.
Widening adds capacity resulting in

potential reduction in current traffic
infiltration onto adjacent streets.
0% change in veh-km on local roadways

(compared to no widening) same for all
segments.
New median Bus Only Lane results in

potential for increase in traffic infiltration
onto adjacent local-collector streets due
to delays at intersections and mid-block
turn prohibitions.
% increase in vehicle km travelled on

alternate arterial / collector roadways (i.e.,
number of vehicles diverting from Highway 2)
Range represents 2016 and 2021 results
% Increase/Decrease in veh-km on LocalCollector roadways (compared to no

widening):

0 to -2%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): -3%

widening):

Dixie): 0 to -1%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): -1% to
-2%
Salem): -2% to -4%
0% change in veh-km on other arterial /

collector roadways (compared to no
widening) - same for all segments.

widening):
Pickering (west of Whites Rd to Dixie): 0

to +4%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): +8%

+1% to +3%
51
AECOM
Region of Durham

Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Mid-block Turning Movements

Curb Lanes

The Median
% Increase/Decrease in veh-km on Other
Arterials roadways (compared to no
widening):

-1% to -2%

Dixie): -1%

+1 to +7%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): +4%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): -1% to 4%
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): -1% to

-2%

Salem): -1% to -2%

widening):
Alternative 4

widening):
-4% to -6%
Alternative 3
Ajax (Rotherglen Rd to East of Salem): 1% to -2%
Ability of vehicles to make turns from

unsignalized cross streets and/or mid-block
driveways
No restrictions on mid block left turns,

however widening will increase delays
for left turning vehicles

however widening will increase
delays for left turning vehicles
Potential increase in U-turns
No potential for increase in U-turns
Number of locations

+2%

however widening will increase delays for Mid block left turns would be prohibited at
left turning vehicles
1 unsignalized intersection and 6
entrances .
Significant potential for increased U-turns
at 4 (minor) road signalized intersections.
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd):
Mid block left turns would be prohibited at

5 unsignalized intersections and 13
entrances .

at 8 (minor) road signalized intersections.
Enforcement of Unauthorized
Vehicle Use
Ability of motorists to distinguish dedicated

transit lane from mixed use lane
Ease of enforcement
No motorist perception or enforcement

issues with lane use
Mid block left turns would be prohibited at

1 unsignalized intersection and 3
entrances .

at 3 (minor) road signalized intersections
HOV lanes would be clearly marked

and signed with standard signing
Bus Only Lanes would be clearly marked

Bus Only Lanes would be clearly marked

Frequent issues with non HOV use of

lanes at entrances, sideroads, and
major intersections for turning vehicles
HOV occupancy restrictions require

frequent enforcement to avoid
violations
Frequent issues with non bus use of

dedicated lanes at entrances, sideroads,
and major intersections (if separate right
turn lanes not provided)
Easier to enforce restrictions, except in

close proximity to intersections or
entrances
Potential issues with non bus use of

dedicated lanes at major intersections if
left turn autos mistake bus only lanes
from general lanes - can be addressed
through textured pavement, signs, turn
radius markings, etc
Median treatment is self enforcing

although some monitoring still required -
Difficult to enforce ban on use in close

proximity to intersections
52
AECOM
Region of Durham

Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4

Curb Lanes

The Median
Easy to enforce restrictions
Overall Transportation System

Corridor Capacity
Safety
Overall person throughput
Person Throughput:
Person Throughput:
Person Throughput:
Person Throughput:
Maximum Feasible Throughput (PM peak

Hour Peak Direction)

2,410

2,490

2,415

2,290
Pickering (Dixie to Notion Rd): 2,540

3,530

Salem): 3,620

2,875

2,800
Change in safety characteristics of corridor

vs. do nothing in terms of:
Pedestrians
Maximum Feasible Throughput:
Same for all segments: 5,000
HOV lane results in highest person

throughput in 2021 in each segment
compared to the other alternatives.
Median Bus lane results in lowest person

throughput in 2021 in each segment
compared to the other alternatives but the
highest maximum feasible throughput.
Wider pavement width results in longer

crossing times for pedestrians
Wider pavement width results in

longer crossing times for pedestrians

crossing times for pedestrians
Reduction in safety performance for

pedestrians
Improvement in cyclist safety due to

separation from traffic in buffered
cycling lane
Potential for higher speed HOV

vehicles in curb lane adjacent to
sidewalk
Curb side BRT compatible with

pedestrian access and safety at stops
Proposed on-road bike lane would

conflict with curb side bus stops
Reduced vehicle demand in curb lane

adjacent to sidewalk due to dedicated
Bus Lane
Minor reduction in safety performance

for vehicles due lane merge areas

separation from traffic in buffered
cycling lane

crossing times for pedestrians two
stage crossing required at median BRT
stops increasing pedestrian delays and
potential J-walking

separation from traffic in buffered cycling
lane
Higher potential for pedestrians to use

median / BRT lanes to make mid-block
pedestrian crossings
Minor improvement in safety for cyclists

vs. widen for all traffic due to reduced
volumes in Bus Only Lane
Median BRT requires all pedestrian

access to cross to median; some
increased risk of pedestrian collisions on
median platforms
Proposed on-road bike lane would conflict

with curb side bus stops
Minor reduction in safety performance for

vehicles due to bus lane merge areas

separation from traffic in buffered cycling
lane
Reduced conflicts between buses and

auto traffic at curb side bus stops.
Proposed on-road bike lane would not

conflict with BRT vehicles, but may still
conflict with local buses using curb lane
Some auto/bus conflicts created at

intersections / entrances due to right
turns, increasing collision risk
Some conflicts between local buses and

auto traffic at curb side bus stops unless
routed through median transit lanes.
Cyclists
General traffic
Transit vehicles
Minimal change to relative safety of

general traffic, except at sideroad
unsignalized intersections and
entrances where added width will
increase potential for left turn collisions
Minor improvement in safety for

cyclists vs. widen for all traffic due to
reduced volumes in HOV lane
Proposed on-road bike lane would

conflict with curb side bus stops
Minor reduction in safety performance

for vehicles due to HOV lane merge
areas
Minimal change to current operation

and safety for transit vehicles
Conflicts between higher speed HOV

vehicles and curb side bus stops may
create lane changes to all traffic lanes,
increasing collision risk
Some auto/HOV/bus conflicts created
at intersections / entrances due to
53
AECOM
Region of Durham

Descriptions
/Proposed Measures
Factor/Criteria
Accessibility
Impacts on emergency service response time
Potential for emergency access issues
Impact on emergency evacuation route

performance (ability to accommodate
increased traffic volumes in the case of
Highway 401 closure, natural/man-made
disasters, etc.)
Impacts on accessibility for persons with

disabilities (i.e. provision of dropped curbs,
tactile pavement, audible signal crossings)

Curb Lanes

The Median
right turns, increasing collision risk
At sideroad unsignalized intersections

and entrances added width will increase
potential for left turn collisions
Some auto/bus conflicts created at BRT

termination areas where buses weave
from median transit lane to curb lane
Reduced conflicts between auto traffic

and curb side bus stops may reduce
collision risk for transit vehicles
Median bus lane will require closure of left

turn access at all unsignalized sideroad
intersections and entrances and will
require fully protected left turns at
intersections, reducing left turn collisions
Eliminates conflicts between auto traffic

and BRT vehicles except in
termination/merge areas
Emergency service vehicles may be able

to use Median Bus Lanes to improve
response time during peak periods but
access more difficult (only at
intersections)
Alternative 4
Alternative 2
Fire and/or Emergency Medical

Service (EMS)
Alternative 3
Alternative 1
No impacts on emergency service

response time or accessibility
Widening provides additional east-west

capacity to accommodate EDR
operations on Hwy 2
At sideroad unsignalized intersections

and entrances added width will
increase potential for left turn
collisions
Conflicts between higher speed HOV
vehicles and curb side bus stops may
increase collision risk for transit
vehicles
Emergency service vehicles may be

able to use HOV lanes to improve
response time during peak periods
Emergency service vehicles may be able

to use Curb Side Bus Lanes to improve
response time during peak periods
No change to emergency response

accessibility to business or
neighbourhoods
No change to emergency response

accessibility to business or
neighbourhoods
Widening provides additional eastwest capacity to accommodate EDR

operations on Hwy 2
Widening provides additional east-west

capacity to accommodate EDR
operations on Hwy 2 although traffic
control would be required to mange use
of Bus Lane during emergencies
Median would eliminate left turn access to

minor sideroads and developments,
requiring emergency vehicles to re-route
or make U-turns at downstream
intersections
No additional east-west capacity to

accommodate EDR operations on Hwy 2
Median transit lanes could be used for

general traffic under emergency
conditions with police traffic control

crossing times for mobility challenged
pedestrians - Median can provide refuge
for mobility challenged pedestrians who
cannot complete crossing in allotted time.
Possible two stage crossing at median

BRT stops makes audible pedestrian
signals difficult to operate safely and
requires additional pedestrian signal
heads which may be confusing for
pedestrians with impaired eyesight.
Ability to configure median stops to permit

near-level boarding.

pedestrians
Wider pavement width results in

longer crossing times for mobility
challenged pedestrians

pedestrians
Difficult to configure curb height at BRT

stops to provide level boarding
Difficult to configure curb height at

BRT stops to provide level boarding
May be able to configure curb height at

BRT stops to provide level boarding
54
AECOM
5.5
Region of Durham

Transportation Evaluation Discussion
On an overall basis from a transportation perspective, the Curb BRT design alternative provides the best
performance in each of the 3 Transit Priority Opportunity Areas. From a transit travel time and transit delay
perspective, the Curb BRT performs similar to the HOV/BRT design alternative and both of these tend to perform
better than the Median BRT alternative when construction is limited to only the Transit Priority Opportunity Areas.
The Curb BRT design alternative is expected to reduce overall bus delays on Highway 2 by 15% compared to base
conditions In the Ajax area and by almost 5% in the Pickering area. This is critical in terms of attracting new
ridership, maintaining the reliability of service, and encouraging the shift in this corridor from an auto oriented
environment to one that provides more balance between the various modes of travel (including pedestrians and
cyclists).
At the same time, the Curb BRT alternative also balances the impact to auto traffic on the Highway 2 corridor and,
with the exception of the widening for mixed traffic alternative which generally performs the best in this regard, the
Curb BRT alternative tends to perform better than the HOV and Median BRT design treatments, particularly as
congestion grows to the 2021 horizon. Upon opening of the Quick Win service in 2016, the Curb BRT operation will
result in an increase in auto delay of about 13% in the Ajax area and only about 2% in the Pickering Area. By 2021,
the Median BRT option would increase auto delays in the Ajax area by 32% compared to base conditions, while the
Curb BRT alternative only results in a 24% increase in auto delays. This highlights the need to implement other
broader network improvements to draw the longer distance traffic away from the Highway 2 corridor, prior to moving
to the ultimate long term vision of a median LRT system through the study area.
For the Curb BRT alternative there are negligible levels of traffic infiltration expected. The widening for a curb
running BRT does not change the through capacity on Highway 2, nor does it change the signal timing or phasing in
a noticeable way, other than minor changes to accommodate Transit Signal Priority. The widening for mixed traffic
and the some extent the HOV/BRT alternative increases the level of traffic on Highway 2, much of it being diverted
from Highway 401, and the Median BRT alternative diverts a noticeable amount of traffic to local and collector roads
due the access restrictions and left turn delays at major signalized intersections.
The extensive safety review undertaken for the various design alternatives concluded that there is no overall
difference in the safety performance of the various design alternatives. All of them result in a wider cross section,
increasing pedestrian crossing times at intersections, although the median BRT also introduces the need for a two
stage pedestrian crossing at major intersections if major delays to north arterial roads are to be avoided. This more
unconventional pedestrian treatment may introduce some new risks, although as users become more familiar with
the operation it is not expected to result in a significant safety concern. Passengers on the median platforms would
be exposed to heavy traffic volumes on both sides although protective barrier systems would be used to minimize
the risks of vehicle / pedestrian collisions. The HOV and Curb BRT systems result in some conflict points at
intersections where auto traffic can enter the reserved lane to turn right, although passengers would be better
protected at curb side stops.
By 2021, as the auto delays on the Highway 2 corridor continue to increase due to growth the transit travel time
benefits of the Median BRT scenario begin to become more evident, particularly in the Ajax area, where there are
fewer minor sideroad intersections and entrances. Overall bus travel times improve by 39% for the Median BRT
scenario compared to the 29% improvement in bus travel times provided with the Curb BRT alternative. In
Pickering, where there are more entrances and minor intersections, the Median BRT alternative still results in a 4%
increase in transit travel times compared to the Curb BRT alternative. This result suggests that the ultimate vision
for a Median LRT system through the Highway 2 corridor is an appropriate long term objective, but in the short term
there is not enough bus travel time savings to outweigh the downside impacts to auto travel times, access and
infiltration to local and collector roads.
55
AECOM
5.6
Region of Durham

Assessment of Cycling Lane Alternatives
As part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Study improved cycling facilities are being considered for the
Highway 2 corridor to incorporate the recommendations of the Durham Region Cycling Plan. Given the high traffic
volumes using Highway 2 and the need to integrate any cycling facilities within the proposed BRT design
configuration for the Transit Priority Opportunity Areas, a safety assessment was undertaken to provide input to the
decision making from the road safety perspective on selection of the optimal cycling facility design which is
compatible with both short-term and long-term bus rapid transit (BRT) running ways.
Information obtained from a literature search from other places with mature experience integrating cyclists and
transit vehicles was used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the following cycling facilities design
alternatives from a road safety perspective:
On-road bicycle lane;
Off-road cycling path; and
Off-road shared pedestrian / bicycle multi-use path.
This is followed by a compatibility analysis of the preferred cycling facility with expected operational and geometric
characteristics of the study corridor as well as with applicable Federal, Provincial, Regional and Local plans and
policies.
5.6.1
On-Road Bicycle Lane or Bike Lane
Definition - A portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and/or pavement markings for
the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists2. Conventional bike lanes typically run in the same direction of traffic
curbside when no parking is present and adjacent to parked cars on the right hand side of the street on two-way
roadways. As a slight variation to a typical bike lane, buffered bike lanes consists of a conventional bike lane
paired with a designated buffer space (with a minimum width of 0.6 m with hatched marking) separating the bicycle
from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes (Figure 21) and / or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes were preferred
over conventional bike lanes by nearly 9 out of 10 cyclists with 7 out of 10 indicated that they would go out of their
way to ride on a buffered bike lane over a standard bike lane3. The buffer width is typically dropped at right-turn
lanes where right-turning vehicles and through cyclists must share the lane for the weave movement.
Applications and Considerations - Bike lanes are best suited on quiet roads in urban areas in order to maintain the
sidewalk, boulevard, and border area behind the edge of the roadway intact for safe use by pedestrians (including
mobility / visually-impaired pedestrians)4. Cyclists should be within the normal field of vision for drivers; therefore,
designs that place the cyclist in front of and reasonably close to the driver tend to be safer5. In addition, in most
6
cases, the street was found to be the safest place for bicyclists to ride in the city . The configuration of a bike lane
requires a thorough consideration of existing traffic levels and behaviors, adequate safety buffers to protect cyclists
from parked and moving vehicles, and enforcement to prohibit motorized vehicle encroachment and double-parking7.
Urban Bikeway Design Guide prepared by National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) in April 2011.
Portland State University, Center for Transportation Studies, Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track and SW
Stark / Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes FINAL Report, Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR, 2011
4
Nottinghamshire Cycling Design Guide (2006), Nottinghamshire County Council.
5
Ibid.
6
Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide
7
Urban Bikeway Design Guide prepared by National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) in April 2011
3
56
AECOM
Region of Durham

Advantages - Earlier research works8 in the 1990s showed that on-road bicycle lanes provide a safer urban
environment and their presence reminds motorists to look for cyclists whereas it was found that motorists turning at
the intersections along streets without bicycle lanes often have difficulty seeing cyclists approaching from the path /
sidewalk which increase the probability of collision occurrences. Bicycle lanes visually remind motorists of cyclists
right to the street and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. Although less
experienced (also known as vulnerable) cyclists are anxious biking on bike lanes (and prefer off-road cycling
provisions such as cycle tracks away from the road), based on the previous studies bicycle lanes have been
proved to be safer (lower collision rate) than any streets without any bicycle facilities, or even trails and sidewalks.
The results of a survey9 conducted in City of Portland from experienced cyclists indicated that most respondents are
cautious but comfortable riding alongside buses and sharing the lane with them.
Disadvantages On streets with curb-side transit service and stops, provision of bike lanes leads to cyclists
interaction with bus passengers as well as buses. Therefore, bus stop design is particularly important so as to
minimize these potential conflicts. In addition, previous research works10,11,12 indicated that women, children and
older people do not feel secure riding on bike lanes adjacent to trucks and cars at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour
plus due to perceived danger of getting hit by vehicular traffic coming from behind.
Figure 21 - Buffered Bike Lane in Austin Texas
Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Moritz 1996 http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/bikelanes.html, accessed on July 20, 2011 and FHWA Report 1991
Bicycle Interactions and Streetcars: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, Prepared by Alta Planning +Design for Lloyd District
Transportation Management Association (LDTMA), October 2008.
10
Gerrard J, Rose, G., Lo SK, Promoting Transportation Cycling for women: The Role of Bicycle Infrastructure. 2008; 46:55 9
11
Mehan T.J., Gardner R., Smith G.A., et al. Bicycle-related Injuries among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 2009, 48:166 - 73
12
Hayes J.S., Henslee B, Ferber J, Bicycle Injury Prevention and Safety in Senior Riders, 2003; 10:66-8
9
57
AECOM
5.6.2
Region of Durham

Off-Road Cycling Path or Cycle Track
Definition - An exclusive bicycle facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street
infrastructure of a conventional bike lane (Figure 22). Cycle tracks have different forms, but all share common
elements. Cycle tracks provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily for bicycles, and are separated
from vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks. Cycle tracks can be either one-way or two-way, on one or
both sides of a street, at roadway level or sidewalk level, and are separated from vehicles and pedestrians by
pavement markings or coloring, bollards, curbs/medians or a combination of these elements.
Applications and Considerations - A cycle track can be considered if either the intended bicycle user group is
vulnerable (less-experienced type of cyclists), or the road is rural in nature, or the road is high speed > 65 km/hr or
the facility provides a necessary (short) link between other bicycle routes13. Segregation from pedestrians on the
sidewalk is preferred when possible, especially in urban areas and where the flows of pedestrians and cyclists are
likely to be high (>200 per hr). A two-way cycle track is desirable when more destinations are on one side of a street
(therefore preventing additional crossing), if the facility connects to a path or other bicycle facility on one side of the
street, or if there is not enough room for a cycle track on both sides of the road. Two-way cycle tracks require a
higher level of control at intersections, to allow for a variety of turning movements. The movements should be
guided by a separated signal for bicycles and for motor vehicles.
Figure 22 - Two-Way Cycle Track
Source: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4770592213_2bce088333.jpg, Accessed in July 2011
Advantages - Cycle tracks provide increased comfort for bicyclists and greater clarity about expected behavior on
the part of both cyclists and motorists14. Properly designed cycle tracks eliminate conflicts between bicycles and
13
14
Ibid.
Cycle Tracks: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, Prepared by Alta Planning +Design with Assistance from Portland City Traffic Engineer
Robert Burchfield, February 2009.
58
AECOM
Region of Durham

vehicles in the curb lane along the mid-block road sections. A Danish research 15 has shown that the construction of
cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the total number of accidents (10%) and injuries (4%) on the mid-block
road sections. Cycle tracks can increase bicycle ridership by 18 to 20 percent, compared with the 5 to 7 percent
increase found resulting from bicycle lanes16. In Montreal, 2.5 times as many cyclists rode on cycle tracks as those
traveling on their alternative routes which are streets without cycling facilities. The same study also found that fewer
cyclists were hit or run over from behind, were hit when turning left, or ran into a parked car. In addition, it was found
that cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street without
cycling provisions17.
Disadvantages - As bicyclists are not traveling directly alongside automobiles, motorists may not be aware of their
presence (because motorists do not look for fast traffic on the side of the road), leading to increased vulnerability at
intersections where past research 18 showed that about 90 percent of car-bike collisions occur. In addition, regular
street sweeping trucks cannot maintain the cycle track. This leads to higher maintenance costs especially during
winter time. The provision of off-road cycling facility potentially creates conflicts with pedestrians and boarding or
alighting transit passengers, particularly on cycle tracks that are less well-differentiated from the sidewalk, or that are
closer to the curb side. Jensen et al. reported a significant increase of 18% in the number of accidents at
intersections following the provision of cycle tracks.
5.6.3
Off-Road Shared Pedestrian / Bicycle Multi-Use Path
Definition - Off-road pathways within the road right-of-way but physically separated from motor vehicle travel lanes
and are designed to accommodate a variety of user groups, including cyclists, pedestrians, and in-line skaters. Offroad multi-use recreational pathways as a type of multi-use facility are located in parks and open spaces (and not
within the road right-of-way) as well as along valley lands, river corridors, hydro corridors, etc19.
Applications and considerations A non-segregated off-road cycling and pedestrian path along the roadway should
only be provided either where there are low pedestrian / cycle volumes, and there are limited widths available on the
side of the road to provide for a cycle path separate from the sidewalk20. Another potential application of the multiuse path is in a rural area where pedestrian flows are minimal.
Advantages It is a preferred cycling facility for less-experienced cyclists as they feel more secure cycling.
Disadvantages Cyclists on this type of facility, in addition to all of the disadvantages of off-road cycling paths, are
exposed to higher level of interactions with pedestrians. Mixing cyclists and pedestrians can potentially create some
interference between the two groups and may be annoying (with significantly reduced level of comfort and travel
speed) to both or either user group and particularly to visually-impaired pedestrians.
15
Jensen, Sren Underlien, Claus Rosenkilde and Niels Jensen, Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen, available at:
http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf
16
Ibid.
17
Lusk, A.C., P.G. Furth, P. Morency, L.F. Miranda-Moreno, W.C. Willett, and J.T Dennerlein, Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks versus
in the Street, 2011
18
Oswald, F, Ten tips for Safe & Enjoyable Bicycle Commuting by Fred Oswald
(http://www.bikecommute.com/tentips/tentips.htm):
19
Vaughan Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Report
20
Nottinghamshire Cycling Design Guide (2006), Nottinghamshire County Council
59
AECOM
5.6.4
Region of Durham

Compatibility Analysis
The three identified segments of Highway 2 in this EA Study are as follows:

Whites Road Segment From west of Steeple Hill Boulevard to the CN Rail overpass east of Fairport Road;
Liverpool-Brock Segment From west of Glendale Road to east of Bainbridge Drive; and
Westney-Harwood-Salem Segment From west of Rotherglen Road to east of Wicks Drive.
Table 28 shows the length, number of intersections (signalized and stop-controlled), number of commercial and
residential driveways / entrances, and density of vehicle crossings (intersections and driveways / entrances) for the
above three segments.
Table 28. Density of Vehicle Crossings
Name
Length (m)
Number of
Intersections
Whites Road
Liverpool-Brock
Westney-Harwood-Salem
1810
2570
3090
6
12
11
Number of
Driveways /
Entrances
16
14
28
Density of Vehicle Crossings

(Crossings per kilometer)
12
11
13
All three segments are shorter than average cycling trip length (5 kilometers). The density of vehicle crossings is
fairly similar in all three segments with the average of higher than 10 vehicle crossings (intersections as well as
driveways / entrances) per kilometer.
Although this EA Study specifically deals with the three specific segments of Highway 2, the ultimate cycling facility
will eventually be carried along the entire Highway 2 throughout the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax. Therefore
for the purpose of this assessment, the entire Highway 2 section within the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax was
included in the assessment of the study corridor. Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix C summarize the intersections
along Highway 2 within City of Pickering and Town of Ajax respectively. Also in Appendix C, Table 3 and Table 4
present a summary of the intersections and entrances including names, area type, number of lanes, median type,
number of commercial and residential driveways / entrances, section length, and estimated 2010 AADT for midblock road sections within City of Pickering and Town of Ajax respectively.
Except for a couple of sections (including the section between Merritton Road and Dixie Road), the study corridor
has a straight and flat alignment. The posted speed limit along study corridor is 60 kilometers per hour (with an
operating speed or 85th percentile speed at 70 kilometers per hour) and no on-street parking is anticipated. The
AADT varies between 15,000 and 30,000. There are 27 signalized intersections, 17 non-signalized (mostly stopcontrolled) intersections, and more than 130 commercial and residential driveways / entrances along this 12kilometre study corridor from Altona Road to Wicks Drive.
In addition, a bicycle is considered a vehicle under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA). This means that, as a
bicyclist, you have the same rights to legally travel with the mixed traffic and you have the same responsibilities to
obey all traffic laws as other road users. On-road bicycle lanes are in compliance with Pickering Official Plan.
Although like Town of Ajax Official Plan, Region of Durhams Cycling Plan is more supportive of off-road cycling
facilities, the Regional Cycling Plan suggests that an on-road bicycle lane may be considered for Highway 2 as part
of this BRT Study. The Regional Cycling Plan also calls for provision of cycling facilities that can be actively used by
all types of road users. This Plan also reads that a safe distance should be provided between the bike path and the
roadway to reduce the risk of car-bike collisions.
60
AECOM
5.6.5
Region of Durham

Summary and Recommendations
Data varies greatly on the type of facility that provides higher level of safety to users. A single type of cycling facility
will not work equally well for all road users. Most people think that the greatest danger is getting run down by cars
passing from behind. Cars are fast and noisy and we cannot see them coming, so the fear is natural. While lessexperienced cyclists feel more secure riding on off-road cycling facilities, the utilitarian / enthusiast cyclists use the
roadway regardless whether a cycling facility is provided or not. This is because these two different user groups
have different desires: enthusiast (utilitarian) cyclists want shorter travel times for longer trips21 and are prepared
and expect to ride with the flow on on-street traffic, whereas parents care for safety of their inexperienced young
children and even teen riders typically on shorter trips. The vulnerable cyclists typically cycle at slower speeds
compared to the utilitarian cyclists, and have different expectations at intersections.
As presented in the previous section, although mainline collisions between cyclist and vehicles are eliminated when
off-road facilities are used, mid-block accidents only represent a very small percent of urban daylight accidents
involving cyclists. Generally speaking, on-road bicycle lanes (if properly designed, used, and enforced) are found to
be a safer option as they improve cyclist safety at intersections / entrances which account for more than 90 percent
of car-bike collisions. The largest risk to cyclists using off-road facilities is crossing intersections / entrances
because the motorist is not looking for a relatively fast moving vehicle on the sidewalk. On average, mid-block road
sections have more than 10 vehicle crossings (intersections / driveways) per kilometer along the study corridor.
Unlike most of the mid-block road sections along the study corridor, there are a few sections with a significantly
lower number of crossings (less than 4 per kilometer) which may justify the provision of off-road cycle paths along
those sections. However, the additional signage requirements to inform cyclists and motorists of the downstream
transition of on-road bicycle lanes to off-road cycle paths (or shared-use lanes) and again to bike lanes may increase
the workload of motorists and cyclists to such a high level that lead to situations that drivers may overlook or
misinterpret an unexpected development (such as an unusual or inconsistent design and operation) and either not
respond until too late or respond inappropriately.
Recommendations: The fact that bicycles have a right to use most roadways under the HTA leads to an important
principle of roadway design, that every road is a cycling road. Therefore, the Region of Durham and local
municipalities in the Region should adopt bicycle-friendly design guidelines for all streets, whether a road is
designated as part of a cycling network or not. With the fairly moderate level of vehicles travel speed of 60 to 70
kilometers per hour, relatively high AADT, average of more than 10 vehicle crossings (intersections / driveways) per
kilometer along the study corridor, and in absence of any available information on type and percentage of cyclists
that are planned to be accommodated consideration should be given to separation of motorized and cyclists traffic
through provision of on-road cycling facilities in the form of buffered bike lanes.
Due to a fairly low to medium level of pedestrian traffic for the most part along Highway 2, the sidewalks and parallel
less busy neighborhood streets (for shorter trips) adequately provide for the needs of young children and lessexperienced cyclists who may not feel enough secure to ride on the on-road bicycle lane. At the crossing locations,
this group of novice cyclists will be required to act as pedestrians by getting off their bikes and walking across the
roads at the designated crosswalks.22 Given the content of the HTA as well as Regional and Municipal Plans with
regard to cycling facilities and bicycles right to use of roadway, and provided the required right-of-way is available,
21
The Nottinghamshire Cycling Design Guide indicates that in comparison to bike lanes, journey speeds on cycle tracks are
often lower due to the need to slow down to cross side roads and accesses. This Guide also states that the work involved in
starting and stopping to "give way" (yield) is equivalent to cycling an extra 100m.
22
For roadway facilities with speeds of 60 km/hr or greater and ADTs over 1000, from a safety perspective, cyclists should be
separated from motorists either with cycle lanes or separate cycle/active use paths. There is no single solution since safety
and preference vary by user (utilitarian versus vulnerable cyclist). Curb-side transit will complicate the design of cycle lanes at
stations, and right-turn lanes will require weaving of automobile and cycle traffic.
61
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 29 summarizes our general recommendations for the entire study area as well as for each one of three main
segments of interest.
Finally in order to maximize the level of safety for both motorists and cyclists, it is essential that proper signage and
pavement marking, adequate sight distances, appropriate level of night-time illumination, proper maintenance, etc.
be included on streets with on-road bicycle lanes. Cyclist training and cyclist/driver education, as well as police
enforcement of unsafe cyclist and driver actions needs to be in place to provide a safer environment for all the road
users.
Table 29. Density of Vehicle Crossings and Proposed Cycling Facility by Transit Priority Opportunity Area
Name
Length
(m)
Density of Vehicle
Crossings (Crossings
per kilometer)
Proposed Cycling Facility
Whites Road
Liverpool-Brock
Westney-Harwood-Salem
Entire Study Corridor
1810
2570
3090
11,970
12
11
13
15
On-Road Buffered Bike Lane with

provision of wider sidewalks
especially in the vicinity of locations
with high volume of young
pedestrian activity such as schools,
playgrounds, etc.
62
AECOM
Region of Durham

APPENDIX A: ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF BUS RUNNING WAY

ALTERNATIVES
AECOM
Region of Durham

Road Safety Assessment of Bus Running Way Alternatives

Based on findings from a literature search, a road safety assessment of transit running way design
alternatives was conducted. The following sections provide the related findings of the past research
and also present the results of road safety assessment of bus running way alternatives. There were
total of 1559 collisions occurred over the study period (between 2006 and 2010) within the three
Transit Priority Opportunity Areas along Highway 2.
Estimated Implications of Bus Running Way Alternatives on Vehicle Safety

(1) Left-turn Movements in and out of Side Roads at Unsignalized Intersections: Sight-line
constraints and a negative offset for left-turning traffic may be created by a median bus-way.
Therefore dedicated median running ways may require prohibiting left turns from / to side
roads at unsignalized intersections. Past research23 suggests that approximately 72 percent
of collisions at a driveway / entrance involve a left-turning vehicle of which approximately 34
percent are due to an outbound vehicle turning left across through traffic, 28 percent of
collisions are due to an inbound, left-turning vehicle conflicting with opposite direction through
traffic, and 10 percent are due to outbound, left-turning movements incorrectly merging into
the same direction through movement. This suggests that elimination of these left-turn
movements in and out of driveways / entrances or side roads at unsignalized intersections
within the study corridor would potentially eliminate 72 percent of collisions and enhance
safety. The resulting collision modification factor (CMF) for this treatment was estimated to be
0.28.
There were a total of 34 reported collisions at unsignalized intersections representing 2.2% of
total collisions occurring within the study corridor between 2006 and 2010. By constructing
median-running bus-ways, and therefore eliminating left-turn movements in and out of the
side roads at these unsignalized intersections, 72% of the collisions related to the operation
of unsignalized intersections are expected not to occur any longer. This can be translated as
an expected reduction of 1.6% in total number of collisions within the study corridor.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to perform similarly with regard to left-turn operation at
unsignalized intersections along the study corridor and slightly worse than existing conditions
as left-turn motorists will have to cross one additional lane of travel.
(2) Left-Turn Movements in and out of Driveways / Entrances: According to FHWA CMF
Clearinghouse, for a divided urban street, the CMF value related to a change in driveway
density from X to Y driveways per mile for the mid-block road sections can be calculated by
using the following formulas:
CMF Driveway Density = (e
23
0.0096 (Y X)
(Eq. 1)
FHWA-SA-10-002, Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections, Technical Summary, US Department

of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table 2 and Table 3 present the expected number of collisions related to the operation of
driveways / entrances within mid-block road sections along the study corridor. As can be
seen, there were expected to be total of 68 (= 31 + 37) reported collisions related to the
operation of driveways / entrances within mid-block road sections. Out of these 68 collisions,
36 (= 22 + 14) collisions occurred within the three Transit Priority Opportunity Areas (as
bolded in Table 2 and Table 3) along Highway 2. Table 4 and Table 5 present the expected
reduction in the number of driveway-related collisions following the implementation of
dedicated median bus lanes within the three Transit Priority Opportunity Areas and therefore
elimination of left-turn movements in and out of driveways / entrances. As described in the
previous sub-section, restricting left-turns in and out of driveways / entrances would result in
elimination of 72% of driveway-related collisions. As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, the
reduction in number of collisions is estimated at 13 collisions. Therefore, following the
elimination of left-turn access / egress movements to / from driveways, the number of
collisions is expected to reduce by 0.8% within the study corridor.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to perform similarly with regard to left-turn operation at
driveways / entrances along the study corridor and slightly worse than existing conditions as
motorists will have to cross one additional lane of travel.
(3) Right-Turn Movements in and out of Driveways / Entrances: As described in the FHWA
Access Management publication (see reference 4), 28% of collisions at driveways / entrances
are attributed to the right-in / right-out vehicle movements. As indicated in item no. (2), there
were expected to be a total of 36 reported collisions related to the operation of driveways /
entrances within the mid-block road sections of the three Transit Priority Opportunity Areas.
A reduction of 10 (= 36 X 0.28) driveway-related collisions is expected following the
implementation of dedicated curb bus lanes and therefore elimination of conflicts between
general-purpose traffic and right-in / right-out movements at driveways / entrances. This is
translated into reduction of 0.6% in number of collisions. Implementation of HOV lanes is
expected to result in a reduction of between 0.0% and 0.6% in the number of collisions
depending on traffic volumes in HOV lanes).
Alternatives 1 and 4 are expected to perform similarly to the existing conditions from safety
perspective with regard to right-in / right-out vehicles movements at driveways / entrances
along the study corridor.
(4) Weaving Issue: Some vehicle / bus conflicts created at BRT termination areas where buses
weave from median transit lane to curb lane and back. The safety implications of this weaving
issue could not be estimated due to a lack of reliable CMFs. However, it is our opinion that
given the presence of long enough weaving sections that provides buses with ample
opportunity to change lanes (move from median to curb and back to the median), the safety
effects of this weaving issue is expected to be minimal.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to perform similarly to existing conditions from a safety
perspective as bus weaving is not required. Alternatives 2 and 3 will require buses to merge
65
AECOM
Region of Durham

with general purpose traffic where the dedicated lane terminates, increasing collision risk
slightly compared to Alternative 1.
(5) Way Finding Concerns over Incorrect Left-Turning of Motorists from Crossing Roads into
Median Bus-ways: If not properly signed and marked, at intersections, cars turning left from a
side street may find it somewhat difficult to distinguish the median bus-way from the general
traffic lane. It is our opinion that with appropriate signage, pavement markings and routine
winter maintenance, this issue can be mitigated / eliminated.
Alternative 1 is not expected to experience any issues with incorrect lane usage and is
expected to perform similarly to existing conditions from a safety perspective with regard to
way-finding considerations. Alternatives 2 and 3 may experience some incorrect lane usage
due to way-finding concerns (for right-turn vehicles from crossing roads), although the
impacts are much less severe than the median alternative and can also be mitigated /
eliminated with appropriate signage, pavement markings and routine winter maintenance.
(6) Offset at Signalized Intersections for Left-Turn Movement: Sight-line constraints and a
negative offset for left-turning traffic is created by a median bus-way. This can be mitigated
by allowing left turns only at traffic signalized intersections and through use of a fully
protected left-turn phase. It is common to pair a left-turn lane leading up to an intersection
with a far-side BRT station, such that the station platform is located in the shadow of the
left-turn lane, taking advantage of the extra width required for the station to also
accommodate a dedicated left-turn lane. Given the provision of protected left-turn phases at
intersections with median bus-ways, the negative offset at signalized intersections is
expected to have a minimal increase in collision risk. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to
perform similarly to existing conditions from safety perspective with regard to left-turn
movements at signalized intersections.
66
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-1: Collisions Related to Operation of Driveways / Entrances within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2
within City of Pickering (2006 - 2010)
S8648
S8642
S8181
S12546
S13883
S14666
S8509
S8499
S8498
S8563
S8549
S13285
S7743
S8833
S8827
S14203
S13741
S13742
S8019
S13743
Altona Road and Rougemount Drive

Rougemount Drive and Evelyn Avenue
Evelyn Avenue and Rosebank Road
Rosebank Road and Steeple Hill
Steeple Hill and Whites Road
Whites Road and Delta Boulevard
Delta Boulevard and Highway 401 Ramps
Highway 401 Ramps and Fairport Road
Fairport Road and Merritton Road
Merritton Road and Dixie Road
Dixie Road and Walnut Lane
Walnut Lane and Plaza Entrance
Plaza Entrance and Glendale Drive
Glendale Drive and Liverpool Road
Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road
Glenanna Road and Glengrove Road
Glengrove Road and Valley Farm Road
Valley Farm Road and Private Side Street
Private Side Street and Guild Rd. / Denmar Rd.
Guild Rd / Denmar Road and Royal Road

Royal Road and Brock Road
Brock Road and Bainbridge Drive
S9260
Bainbridge Drive and Southview Drive
S9261
Southview Dr. and Entrance to Residential
S15808
Complex
Entrance to Residential Complex and Notion
S15809
Rd.
Notion Road and Elizabeth Street
S288
Total for Transit Priority Opportunity Areas
Total
Segment #1
S8655
Location Description Highway 2 Between:
Segment #2
Location
ID
Observed No.
of Collisions
No. of
Driveways /
Entrances
Section
Length (m)
Driveway
Density (Y)
CMF
No. of Driveway
Collisions
11
310
42
1.49
6
4
5
20
5
2
6
3
240
400
590
310
34
8
16
16
1.38
1.08
1.17
1.16
2
0
1
3
8
1
4
1
2
3
2
0
220
280
410
160
15
17
8
0
1.15
1.18
1.08
1.00
1
0
0
0
5
4
3
9
1
4
5
0
730
330
380
180
2
20
21
0
1.02
1.21
1.23
1.00
0
1
1
0
20
24
3
3
1
1
0
1
130
410
180
360
12
4
0
4
1.13
1.04
1.00
1.04
2
1
0
0
14
2
2
8
3
1
1
1
300
320
80
230
16
5
20
7
1.17
1.05
1.21
1.07
2
0
0
1
53
6
5
1
380
230
21
7
1.23
1.07
10
0
90
1.00
150
54
1.67
5
176
3
30
390
4240
12
-
1.13
-
1
22
228
64
7790
31
67
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-2: Collisions Related to Operation of Driveways / Entrances within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2
within Town of Ajax (2006 - 2010)
No. of
Driveways /
Entrances
Section
Length
(m)
Driveway
Density (Y)
CMF
No. of
Collisions
Related to
Driveways
Operation
Elizabeth Street and Linton Ave / Randall Dr

Linton Ave / Randall Dr and Church Street
Church Street and George Jones Street
George Jones Street and Hewison Court
Hewison Court and Mill Street
Mill Street and Rotherglen Road
Rotherglen Road and Westney Road
7
20
15
4
4
6
11
6
7
12
8
6
7
6
230
230
250
210
170
200
310
42
49
77
61
57
56
31
1.50
1.60
2.10
1.80
1.73
1.72
1.35
2
8
8
2
2
3
3
Westney Road and Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave.
19
540
12
1.12
S1171
Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave. and Best Buy Entrance
11
530
1.06
S15393
Best Buy Entrance and Harwood Ave.
16
270
1.06
S1914
Harwood Ave. and Entrance to Durham Centre
11
320
20
1.21
S13709
Entrance to Durham Centre and Costco Entrance
260
1.00
S13710
Costco Entrance and Salem Road
14
260
1.00
Salem Rd and Entrance to Canadian Tire Plaza
200
1.08
Entrance to Canadian Tire Plaza and Wicks Dr
20
200
24
1.26
Total for Transit Priority Opportunity Areas
111
21
2890
14
Total
167
67
4180
37
S1946
S1797
S14158
S2448
S2447
S448
S437
S1739 &
S13708
Segment #3
Location
ID
Transit
Priority Area
Observed
No. of
Collisions
68
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-3: Expected Reduction in No of Collisions Following Elimination of Left-Turn

Movement in and out of Driveways / Entrances within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway
2 within City of Pickering (2006 - 2010)
Location
ID
S8655
S8648
S8642
S8181
S12546
S13883
S14666
S8509
S8499
S8498
S8563
S8549
S13285
S7743
S8833
S8827
S14203
S13741
S13742
S8019
S13743
S9260
S9261
S15808
S15809
S288
Total

Delta Blvd and Highway 401 Ramps
Highway 401 Ramps and Fairport Rd
Glengrove Rd and Valley Farm Rd
Valley Farm Rd and Private Side St
Private Rd and Guild Rd. / Denmar Rd.
Guild Rd / Denmar Road and Royal Rd
Southview Dr. and Entrance to Residential
Complex
Entrance to Residential Complex and Notion Rd.
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 RC
U 4 - RC
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 RC
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
No. of
Collisions
Related to
Operation of
Driveways
4
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
10
0
U 4 - TWLT
0.72
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
-
2
1
31
0.72
0.72
-
2
N/A
11
Area Type
No. of Lanes
Median Type
CMF
Expected
Reduction
in No. of
Collisions
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.00
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
U = Urban, RC = Raised Curb, TWLTL = Two-Way Left-Turn Lane and None = Undivided
N/A segment is outside Transit Priority Opportunity Areas and collision experience will not be affected by
alternatives
69
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-4: Expected Reduction in No of Collisions Following Elimination of Left-Turn

Movement in and out of Driveways / Entrances within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway
2 within Town of Ajax (2006 - 2010)
Location
ID
Elizabeth St and Linton Ave / Randall Dr

Linton Ave / Randall Dr and Church St
Church St and George Jones Street
S1946
S1797
S14158
S2448
S2447
S448
S437
S1739 &
S13708

Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave. and Best Buy
Entrance
Salem Rd and Entrance to Canadian Tire Plaza
Entrance to Canadian Tire Plaza and Wicks Dr
S1171
S15393
S1914
S13709
S13710
Total
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
No. of
Collisions
Related to
Operation of
Driveways
2
8
8
2
2
3
3
U 4 RC
0.00
U 4 RC
0.00
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 - RC
U 4 - RC
-
1
2
0
0
1
4
37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Area Type
No. of Lanes
Median Type
CMF
Expected
Reduction
in No. of
Collisions
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
U = Urban, RC = Raised Curb, and None = Undivided

N/A segment is outside Transit Priority Opportunity Area sand collision experience will not be affected by
alternatives
(7) Cross-Median Collisions: Implementation of median bus-ways (and therefore installation of

raised medians) further separates the two directions of travel along Highway 2 and therefore
decreases the probability of cross-median collisions within mid-block road sections. Previous
research24 indicates that in urban streets replacing a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) with a
raised median can result in a 23% reduction in the number of collisions over mid-block road
sections. Another past research25 study, that is more comparable to the Highway 2 study
area, found that the installation of a raised median could result in a 25% reduction in the
number of cross-median collisions. Based on Table 6 and Table 7, 31 (= 28 + 3) collisions
could be expected to be avoided following the installation of raised medians in the centre of
Highway 2 within the EA study area. As reported in item no. (2), 13 of these 31 collisions
along mid-block road sections were attributed to the operation of left-turning vehicles in and
out of driveways (and already noted and accounted for earlier in this memorandum) and the
24
Mauga, T. and Kaseko, M., "Modeling and Evaluating the Safety Impacts of Access Management (AM)
Features in the Las Vegas Valley." Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., (2010)
25
Schultz, G., Thurgood, D., Olsen, A., Reese, C.S., "Analyzing Raised Median Safety Impacts Using Bayesian
Methods." Presented at the 90th Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2011)
70
AECOM
Region of Durham

remaining 18 (= 31 13) were not. With installation of raised median, a reduction of 18

collisions represents a 1.2% reduction in total collisions along the study corridor.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to perform similarly to existing conditions from a safety
perspective with regard to cross-median collisions along the study corridor.
Table A-5: Expected Reduction in No of Collisions Following Installation of Raised Median

within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2 within City of Pickering (2006 - 2010)
Location
ID
S8655
S8648
S8642
S8181
S12546
S13883
S14666
S8509
S8499
S8498
S8563
S8549
S13285
S7743
S8833
S8827
S14203
S13741
S13742
S8019
S13743
S9260
S9261
S15808
S15809
S288
Total
Area Type
No. of Lanes
Median Type
Observed No.
of Collisions
(2006 2010)
CMF
Expected
Reduction
in No. of
Collisions
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
11
6
4
0.77
0.77
0.77
N/A
N/A
N/A
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 RC
U 4 - RC
U 4 - TWLT
5
20
8
1
0.77
1.00
1.00
0.77
N/A
0
0
0
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
4
1
5
4
0.77
0.77
0.75
0.75
1
0
N/A
N/A
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 RC
U 4 - None
3
9
20
24
0.77
0.77
1.00
0.75
N/A
N/A
0
6
U 4 - None
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
U 4 - TWLT
3
3
14
2
0.75
0.77
0.77
0.77
1
1
3
0
U
U
U
U
2
8
53
6
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0
2
12
1
U 4 - TWLT
1
0.77
U 4 - TWLT
6
0.77
U 4 - TWLT
5
0.77
228
U = Urban, RC = Raised Curb, TWLTL = Two-Way Left-Turn Lane and None = Undivided
alternatives
0
1
N/A
28

Delta Blvd and Highway 401 Ramps
Highway 401 Ramps and Fairport Rd
Glengrove Rd and Valley Farm Rd
Valley Farm Rd and Private Side St
Private Rd and Guild Rd. / Denmar Rd.
Guild Rd / Denmar Road and Royal Rd
Southview Dr. and Entrance to Residential Complex
Entrance to Residential Complex and Notion Rd.
4 - TWLT
4 - TWLT
4 - TWLT
4 - TWLT
71
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-6: Expected Reduction in No of Collisions Following Installation of Raised Median

within Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2 within Town of Ajax (2006 - 2010)
Location
ID
S1946
S1797
S14158
S2448
S2447
S448
S437
S1739 &
S13708
S1171
S15393
S1914
S13709
S13710
Total

Elizabeth St and Linton Ave / Randall Dr
Linton Ave / Randall Dr and Church St
Church St and George Jones Street
Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave. and Best Buy
Entrance
Salem Rd and Entrance to Canadian Tyre Plaza
Entrance to Canadian Tyre Plaza and Wicks Dr
Area Type
No. of Lanes
Median Type
Observed No.
of Collisions
(2006 2010)
CMF
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
U 4 - None
7
20
15
4
4
6
11
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Expected
Reduction
in No. of
Collisions
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
U 4 RC
19
1.00
U 4 RC
11
1.00
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 RC
U 4 - RC
U 4 - RC
-
16
11
2
14
7
20
167
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
U = Urban, RC = Raised Curb, and None = Undivided

alternatives
72
AECOM
Region of Durham

(8) Traffic Diversion: Implementation of a median bus-way (and therefore installation of a raised
median) would eliminate left turn movements to / from accesses and minor side roads and
force motorists to make either a left-turn or U-turn at immediately adjacent intersections. As
per Hutchinson and Wooley26 (2008), no research has been found which indicates that a Uturn permitted treatment would be irresponsible. The authors have discussed two studies
conducted in the U.S in the States of Kentucky and North Carolina. In Kentucky, U-turn
collisions at the subject locations were found to constitute only 1% of collisions. In North
Carolina, researchers studied crashes at 54 randomly-chosen sites and 24 selected as being
U-turn problem sites. They found no great safety problems: Although the group of study sites
was purposely biased toward sites with high U-turn percentages, the study found that 65 of
the 78 sites did not have any collisions involving U-turns in the three year study period. U-turn
collisions at the remaining 13 sites ranged from 0.33 to 3.0 collisions per year.
However, generally-speaking since U-turns are not normally permitted at intersections, it
could cause some difficulty for drivers because of their unfamiliarity with this operation and
because they may still be reluctant to make the U-turn. U-turns may introduce additional
collision risk due to potential interference / conflicts between U-turning vehicles along
Highway 2 and right-turning vehicles from crossing roads into Highway 2; however imposing
restrictions on right-turn-on-red (RTOR) from these crossing roads may eliminate this risk.
In order to assess the safety implications of an increase in number of U-turns and left-turn
movements (in the wake of implementation of dedicated median running ways), general
safety performance functions were used to quantify the potential increase in collisions at
signalized intersections within the study corridor. Following the implementation of median
bus-ways, the left-turning traffic volumes, into and out of each side road and driveway /
entrances, are added to the entering traffic volume of the adjacent downstream signalized
intersections. For the purpose of this road safety assessment and in absence of these leftturning volumes in and out of side roads as well as driveways / entrances, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted so that this additional diverted traffic volume were assumed to
increase entering traffic volumes from Highway 2 to intersections (only for those located at
the end of undivided mid-block road sections) along the study corridor by 5%, 10%, and 15%.
Table 8 presents the findings of this sensitivity analysis. These findings were obtained by
using safety performance functions for signalized intersections that calculate total number of
collisions at intersections based on entering traffic volumes on major and minor roads. Given
the high volumes on Highway 2 and the major north-south arterial roads, the increase in
vehicles entering the downstream intersections due to the restricted left turns is estimated to
be less than 5% in the majority of cases27. Thus, the anticipated increase in collisions could
be expected to be in the order of 0.9%.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to perform similarly to existing conditions from safety
perspective with regard to traffic diversion along the study corridor.
26
Hutchinson, TP., and Wooley, JE. Should U-Turns be permitted at signalized intersections? CASR Road
Safety Research Report, CASR017, June 2008
27
For example, at Highway 2 / Westney Road in Ajax the median bus lane results in a 4% increase in total vehicles
entering the intersection during the 2016 pm peak.
73
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table A-7: Sensitivity Analysis on Estimated Percent Increase in No. of Collisions Based on
Percent Increase in Entering Traffic Volume to Intersections
Scenario No.
Assumed Percent Increase in Estimated Percent Increase in
Entering Traffic Volume to
No. of Collisions
Intersections
1
2
3
5%
10%
15%
0.9%
1.7%
2.6%
(9) Vehicle Exposure to Fixed Objects Installed in Centre of the Road at Intersections: Under
current conditions, traffic signal poles and signs are located in the median and are often
struck by errant vehicles. With implementation of median bus-ways, there will be a number of
additional hazards located within the median in station areas, increasing the risk of collisions
for those vehicles that lose control to the left side of the road. At stations additional fixed
objects such as bus shelter structures, handrails and posts, canopies, banner poles, station
signs, fare pre-payment machines / kiosks, etc. will all be located within the median. Given
the presence of appropriate protective measures (concrete barriers, barrier curb, etc.), the
negative impact of these additional fixed object hazards (to errant vehicles) is expected to be
minimal.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will have similar types of features installed at stations, however it is
expected that improved offsets from the travelled lane can be achieved, and therefore a
reduced exposure risk to errant vehicle strikes. Accordingly, all are expected to perform
similarly, and with a slightly lower collision risk than Alternative 4, with regard to vehicle
exposure to fixed objects.
(10) Other Safety Concerns: Other than what has been described above, unlike dedicated median
bus-ways, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have a few additional safety considerations:
For each of these three Alternatives sight distance may be obscured for side street
vehicles downstream from a near-side stop. While the use of far side stops at
intersections can mitigate this to some degree, downstream entrances may still be
affected;
In the case of far-side stops, Alternative 1 (mixed use lanes) and Alternative 2 (HOV
dedicated lanes) may increase the number of rear-end collisions at the intersections
since drivers do not expect buses to stop immediately after passing through an
intersection, particularly if the bus has already stopped at a red light or if the driver
following the bus is running the amber light. This issue is of lesser significance with
dedicated curb bus lanes ; and
Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 may result in stopped buses obscuring
curb-side traffic control devices and sight-line to crossing pedestrians, although this
may be less of an issue for far side stops since most of the critical traffic control
devices (signs, warning flashers, etc) tend to be upstream of intersections.
Summary and Conclusion: While many of the factors influencing the safety of each design
alternative cannot be quantified in absolute terms, the above assessment suggests that the
median bus-way could be expected to result in a net reduction of vehicle collisions in the
74
AECOM
Region of Durham

study area (estimated at -2% to -3%), primarily due to the reduction in left turns at
uncontrolled midblock entrances and side roads. It is noted that similar results could be
achieved in the other scenarios if median islands are provided). Alternative 3, representing
the curb bus lanes could also result in a net reduction in vehicle collisions, (estimated at 0%
to -1%). Alternatives 1 and 2 could be expected to result in a slight increase in corridor
collisions (estimated at 0% to +1%) primarily due to the increased cross section width and the
impacts this would have on the ability to turn left from uncontrolled entrances and
intersections.
Estimated Implications of Bus Running Way Alternatives on Safety of Pedestrians / Transit

Users
(11) Exposure of Pedestrians / Transit Users in Median Islands to Vehicular Traffic: Collision
analysis results for the study corridor showed that there were 75 records (4.8% of total
recorded collisions) of single-motor-vehicle (SMV) collisions at intersections within the Transit
Priority Opportunity Areas between 2006 and 2010. These SMV collisions are mostly singlemotor vehicle collisions striking fixed objects on either side of the roadway. For the purpose
of this safety assessment, it is assumed that the half of these SMV collisions (2.4%) occurred
on the left side. With the presence of a median island (in the case of dedicated median bus
running ways) at the intersections, these left-side SMV collisions could potentially involve
pedestrians or transit users standing on the median island. However, it is our opinion that by
including appropriate road safety measures (e.g. installation of protective barrier wall at the
edge of these median islands, providing for turning path of large combination vehicles and
trucks, etc.), the probability and consequences (severity) of these left-side run-off-the-road
collisions on pedestrian safety can be reduced to a level nearly equal to those of existing
conditions.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all reduce the exposure level of pedestrians waiting at transit stops by
at least 50% compared to Alternative 4, since vehicles are only passing in close proximity in
one direction of travel. For Alternative 1, it is expected that the collision risk would be no
different than under existing conditions. For Alternative 2 and 3, the dedicated HOV / Bus
lane provides an additional buffer between through vehicles and pedestrians, further reducing
the risk of exposure to errant vehicles.
(12) Pedestrian Crossings: If properly protected and designed, the provision of median islands
(due to the implementation of dedicated median bus-ways) can provide a refuge area for
mobility-challenged pedestrians / transit users, or those with lower than typical walking
speeds that cannot cross within the normal allotted pedestrian crossing time. Due to the
median platforms and increased crossing distance, two-stage pedestrian crossings are
typically used to reduce delays for cross traffic at busy intersections. For visually impaired
users, the median islands and two-stage pedestrian crossing introduces additional safety
concerns that are not found in the three other running way alternatives. The new auditory
pedestrian signals (designed for visually impaired pedestrians) are designed in a way that
their guiding sounds can be only heard within close vicinity of the device; however, with a two
75
AECOM
Region of Durham

stage crossing there are two distinct crossing phases and it may not be apparent to the user
which crossing is being referred to by the audible sound.
Also dedicated median bus-ways require all passengers to cross the street at every stop and
therefore increases the number of users who are exposed to vehicle conflicts, even if the
overall exposure rate (in terms of pedestrians x crossing distance) remains the same.
All BRT running way alternatives are expected to perform similarly but worse than existing
conditions from pedestrians / transit users safety perspective due to the increase in crossing
distance at intersections along the study corridor.
Assuming the walk time is adjusted to account for the longer walk distance, the risk to
pedestrian safety is approximately the same for all running way alternatives, and is not
significantly increased compared to existing conditions. The median bus-ways, offering a
refuge, may be preferable for those in the lower percentile of walk speed.
(13) Jay Walking Issue: With dedicated median bus-ways, unless properly fenced, passengers
may be inclined to jay-walk more often, especially where they alight at the rear (for nearside bus stops) or front (for far-side bus stops) of the bus when it is set back from the
intersections crosswalk. No relevant quantitative collision data was found to assess this risk.
This is partly due to the illegal nature of jay-walking. By implementing appropriate safety
countermeasures (e.g. railings on platforms to direct passengers to crosswalk locations), the
issue of jay-walking violations can be mitigated.
perspective with regard to jay walking in the study area.
Summary and Conclusion: Implementation of a median bus-way could be expected to have a

minor increase in collision risk for pedestrians / transit users (estimated at 0% to +1%) depending
on the approach to protecting median station locations and to eliminating pedestrian jay-walking.
Some mobility challenged users could benefit from the median refuge island, although additional
challenges are created in making the two stage pedestrian crossing functional for those with
visual impairments. Alternatives 2 and 3 should result in a slight reduction in collision risk for
pedestrians and transit users due to the increased offset between through traffic and station
platform areas. For alternative 1, the increased crossing time increases the risks for pedestrians
in the lower percentile of walk speed, although this can be mitigated through adjustments to
pedestrian crossing times at intersections
Note that generally-speaking for pedestrian safety far-side bus stops provide a safer design than
near-side stops. Also imposing restrictions on RTOR has been found to have positive safety
effects on pedestrians, and based on past research 28 was found to reduce vehicle/ pedestrian
collisions by 40%.
28
www.CMFclearinghouse.org
76
AECOM
Region of Durham

Estimated Implications of Bus Running Way Alternatives on Safety of Transit Vehicles

(14) Weaving Issue: Refer to Item no. (3)
(15) Conflicts between Transit Vehicles and U-Turn / Left-turn Traffic at Intersections: As noted
earlier in this memorandum, implementation of median bus-ways (and the installation of
raised medians) can increase the number of U-turns and left-turn movements at downstream
intersections and can potentially increase the conflicts between transit vehicles and U-turn /
left-turn traffic at intersections. This issue can be significantly minimized through use of a
fully protected left-turn phase, as is proposed for the Highway 2 corridor. Note that lack of
historic data on collisions involving buses along Highway 2 prevented the study team from
quantifying the respective positive safety effects of this item.
The protected signal phases for left turns at signalized intersections should minimize the
likelihood of same-direction bus-car collisions.
perspective with regard to conflicts between transit vehicles and U-turn / left-turn traffic along
the study corridor.
(16) Conflicts between Transit Vehicles and Right-Turning Vehicles in and out of Driveways /
Entrances: The median bus-way alternative eliminates all conflicts between buses and right
turning vehicles at entrances, driveways and intersections, and is expected to result in slight
improvement compared to existing conditions. The collision data does not provide any
collision statistics that would allow for the benefits to be quantified. Note that even with
median bus-way design alternative, some local buses (in the Pickering Area) may continue
running on the curb lane and any existing conflicts with right-turning traffic in and out of
driveways would be unchanged.
For alternative 1, there would be no change from current conditions with respect to conflicts
between transit vehicles and right turning vehicles at driveways and entrances. For
Alternative 2 and 3, with the curb HOV and BRT lane scenarios the right turning vehicles at
entrances and driveways will need to change lanes and enter the bus lane prior to making
their turn. There is an increased risk of sideswipe or rear end collisions associated with this
movement, as general purpose vehicles may lane change in front of the buses, or may break
in their through lane to lane change after the bus has passed. Given the low hourly bus
volumes in the dedicated lane (8 buses per hour), this risk is quite low and the resulting
change in collision experience is also anticipated to be low.
Summary and Conclusion: Overall, Alternative 4 (median bus lane) is expected to have a
neutral affect on safety performance for transit vehicles. While there is expected to be a
slight deterioration in performance due to the weaving at the end of the Transit Priority
77
AECOM
Region of Durham

Opportunity Areas this is offset by a modest improvement in safety performance due to

reduced conflicts with right turning vehicles at driveways and entrances. Alternatives 2 and
3, with dedicated curb lanes for HOV / BRT could be expected to experience a slight
deterioration in safety performance due the combination of the merge at the end of the
Transit Priority Opportunity Areas and the additional conflicts created by the lane changing
required by right turning vehicles. Alternative 1 should experience no change from current
conditions.
Estimated Implications of Bus Running Way Alternatives on Cyclists Safety

(17) Conflict between On-Road Cyclists and Transit Vehicles: For Alternative 1, 2 and 3, there are
similar levels of conflict between cyclists and transit vehicles. It is assumed that the cycling
lane would be located to the right of the curb lane, HOV lane or dedicated bus lane, and
cyclists would conflict with buses at station locations, where cyclists would have to yield to
boarding passengers. For the median bus lane alternative, the buses and cyclists are
physically separated and collision risks should be significantly lower than the other three
options. There is no data to quantify the potential safety benefits of this design treatment.
Note that even with the median bus-lane design alternative, some local buses (in the
Pickering Area) may continue running on the curb lane and any existing conflicts with cyclists
would be unchanged.
(18) Lateral Clearance between On-Road Cyclists and General Purpose Traffic Lane: Due to the
addition of a buffer separated cycling lane in each of the EA design alternatives, the safety
performance of on road cyclists with respect to conflicts with general purpose traffic are
expected to improve compared to current conditions. For Alternatives 1 and 4, one general
purpose travel lane would be running adjacent to the proposed cycle lane. This would create
a higher probability of conflict due to an out-of-lane vehicle striking a cyclist compared to
alternatives 2 and 3 where the cycling lane would be located to the right of the BRT lane.
During peak hours, the volume using the general purpose lane could be as high as 800-900
vehicles per hour (when running at capacity) while the number of buses using the dedicated
bus lane would be between 8 and 12 per hour (representing 7.5 to 5 minute frequency
respectively). HOV demands for Alternative 2 were estimated at 350 vehicles per hour
through Pickering and up to 665 vehicles per hour in Ajax. For the dedicated curb lane BRT
alternative, the cycling lane would be located to the right of the BRT lane, and for the majority
of the time, the cyclists would have the additional buffer distance provided by the empty bus
lane.
With a 0.6 m buffer, the change in estimated number of collisions between Alternatives 1 and
4 and Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely be less than one percent (refer to Appendix B for
source of this estimate). If no buffer was provided for Alternatives 1 and 4 the change could
be greater than four percent.
78
AECOM
Region of Durham

Alternatives 1 and 4 are expected to perform similarly from a safety perspective with regard
to on-road cyclists along the study corridor. Alternative 2 and 3 are also similar, however
higher volumes using the dedicated HOV lane in Alternative 2 presents a slightly increased
collision risk for cyclists when compared to Alternative 3.
Note that if cycle lanes are not implemented, the risk of collisions for cyclists is 30 times
higher in a general purpose lane (and HOV lanes) compared to in a bus-only lane (see
Appendix C for source of this estimate).
Summary and Conclusion:

A median dedicated lane for buses is the only alternative that removes conflict points
between buses and cyclists (especially at stations). With the median bus-lane and general
purpose widening alternatives, cyclists have a greater risk of exposure to general traffic
compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, since general traffic is in closer proximity to the bicycle
lane and the dedicated HOV / bus lane provides an additional buffer space. With use of a
buffered (0.6 m) cycle lane, the additional lateral clearance would mitigate the slight increase
in collision risk for Alternatives 1 and 4.
79
AECOM
Region of Durham

APPENDIX B: BUFFER WIDTH FOR CYCLE LANES
80
AECOM
Region of Durham

To
Brian Ruck
CC
Kevin Jones, Paula Neto, Reid McGregor
Subject
Durham Region Highway 2 BRT Buffer Width
From
Tom Williams
Date
October 17, 2011
Project Number
60196264
As requested by Ramesh Jagannathan, this memorandum summarizes an approach used to

determine the appropriate width for the cycling lane buffer.
The methodology used was developed from the article Factoring Cycling in Transportation
Infrastructure: Design Considerations Based on Risk Exposure (ITE Journal, August 2011, Ata M.
Khan, Ph.D, P.Eng. and Robert G. Langlois, Ph.D., P.Eng.). Reference is also made to A Bikeway
Criteria Digest (USDOT Federal Highway Administration, 1977).
The methodology looks at the joint probability of two events occurring. The risk exposure provides an
indication of the probability of an accident, but is not a direct measure of safety. One event
considered is the position of adjacent vehicles, especially trucks, in their lane. The other event
considered is the aerodynamic effects of passing vehicles on cyclists. The joint probability is the
chance of a passing vehicle negatively impacting a cyclist. (Note that the methodology in the article
gave no firm statement of acceptable joint probabilities except that it termed values over one percent
as significant when measuring the risk to cyclists.)
Probabilities were examined for buffer widths from 0.3 to 0.8 m.
Assumptions
The ITE article examined cycle lanes on higher speed facilities, so the direct results from the article
would not be applicable to the Highway 2 project. From the Bikeway Criteria Digest document, a
chart showed measured aerodynamic force versus distance from traffic for various speeds, so the
same methodology could be used for a facility with traffic moving at 70 km/h. At 70 km/h, the formula
for aerodynamic force on a cyclist is:
Force (pounds) = 4.35 1.3 D
where D is the distance from the edge of cycle lane in metres.
The average tolerance for aerodynamic force was 3.67 pounds, with a 10% standard deviation.
(Some cyclists can withstand greater force while some cyclists can withstand less.)
For vehicle position, if a vehicle is centered in the adjacent lane, the edge of the vehicle would be
approximately 0.475 m from the edge of lane. A 50% standard deviation was used (which indicates
the vehicle would be out of the lane at times).
81
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table B-1. Joint Probabilities

Buffer Width
Aerodynamic Force Exceeds Cyclist

Tolerance
0.3 m
4.14%
0.4 m
2.24%
0.5 m
1.13%
0.6 m
0.54%
0.7 m
0.24%
0.8 m
0.10%
The ITE article suggests that joint probabilities greater than one percent are significant. However,
keep in mind the joint probabilities are only an indication of risk exposure. Based on what the article
terms significant, a buffer width of 0.6 m is indicated. The joint probabilities for small buffer widths
correspond with field observations.
Without a cycle lane or for cyclists on a shoulder with no buffer, vehicles tend to move to the
left to provide sufficient buffer. (In other words, drivers tend to inherently realize that passing
close to a cyclist creates an unsafe situation.)
All but the most confident cyclists tend to ride where speeds (and aerodynamic force) and
traffic volumes are higher when no cycle lane is available.
This memorandum is not intended to be a legal review or risk assessment as conducted by the
Regional Municipality of Durham.
82
AECOM
Region of Durham

APPENDIX C: INTERSECTION / ENTRANCE SUMMARY DATA
83
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table C-1: Intersections along Highway 2 within City of Pickering

No. of Legs - Traffic
Map Location ID
Location Description Highway 2 At
Control Type
Within City of Pickering
6502174852005
Altona Road
Four Traffic Signal
6504534852196
Rougemount Drive
Four Traffic Signal
Evelyn Avenue
Three Stop Sign
6508974852597
Rosebank Road
Four Traffic Signal
6513234853046
Steeple Hill
Four Traffic Signal
6515354853271
Whites Road
Four Traffic Signal
6516884853427
Delta Boulevard (Boyer Plaza)
Four Traffic Signal
6518634853614
Highway 401 Off / On-Ramps
Three Traffic Signal
6522484853810
Fairport Road
6523914853864
Merritton Road
Three Stop Sign
6528604854387
Dixie Road
Four Traffic Signal
6530394854653
Walnut Lane
Four Traffic Signal
6532934854942
Plaza Entrance
Three Uncontrolled
6534144855080
Glendale Drive
Three Stop Sign
6535044855179
Liverpool Road
Four Traffic Signal
Entrance to Pickering Town Mall
Three Stop Sign
6537854855486
Glenanna Road
Four Traffic Signal
Glengrove Road
Three Stop Sign
6541344855908
Valley Farm Road
Four Traffic Signal
6543394856123
Private Side Street
Four Uncontrolled
6545744856343
Guild Road / Denmar Road
Four Stop Sign
6546254856393
Royal Road
Three Stop Sign
6548004856560
Brock Road
Four Traffic Signal
6550724856834
Bainbridge Drive
Entrance to Residential Complex
Three Stop Sign
6552514856967
Southview Drive
Three Stop Sign
6553334857001
Entrance to Residential Complex
Three Stop Sign
6554774857049
Notion Road
Four Traffic Signal
84
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table C-2: Intersections along Highway 2 within Town of Ajax

No. of Legs - Traffic
Map Location ID
Location Description Highway 2 At
Control Type
Within Town of Ajax
6558454857179
Elizabeth Street
6560584857255
Randall Drive / Linton Avenue
Four Stop Sign
6562694857329
Church Street
Four Traffic Signal
6565144857414
George Jones Street
Three Stop Sign
6567144857483
Hewison Court
Three Stop Sign
6568694857536
Mill Street
Four Stop Sign
6570604857602
Rotherglen Road
Four Traffic Signal
6573574857704
Westney Road
Four Traffic Signal
Westney Heights Plaza Entrance
6578664857875
Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave.
Four Traffic Signal
6584404858065
Best Buy Entrance
6586294858129
Harwood Avenue
Four Traffic Signal
6589314858231
Entrance to Durham Centre
Four Traffic Signal
6591744858314
Entrance to Costco Store
Four Traffic Signal
6594194858398
Salem Road
Four Traffic Signal
Entrance to Canadian Tyre Plaza
Four Traffic Signal
Wicks Drive
Three Stop Sign
85
AECOM
Region of Durham

Table C-3: Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2 within City of Pickering
Area Type No.
No. of
Location
Section
of Lanes
Driveways /
ID
Length (m)
Median Type
Entrances
Within City of Pickering
S8655
U 4 TWLT
8
310
S8648
U 4 TWLT
5
240
S8642
U 4 TWLT
2
400
Rosebank
Road
and
Steeple
Hill
S8181
U 4 TWLT
6
590
S12546
U 4 RC
3
310
S13883
U 4 RC
2
220
Delta Boulevard and Highway 401 Ramps
S14666
U 4 TWLT
3
280
Highway 401 Ramps and Fairport Road
S8509
U 4 TWLT
2
410
S8499
U 4 TWLT
0
160
S8498
U 4 None
1
730
S8563
U 4 None
4
330
Walnut
Lane
and
Plaza
Entrance
S8549
U 4 TWLT
5
380
S13285
U 4 TWLT
0
180
S7743
U 4 RC
1
130
S8833
U 4 None
1
410
S8827
U 4 None
0
180
Glengrove
Road
and
Valley
Farm
Road
S14203
U 4 TWLT
1
360
Valley Farm Road and Private Side Street
S13741
U 4 TWLT
3
300
Private Side Street and Guild Rd. / Denmar Rd.
S13742
U 4 TWLT
1
320
Guild
Rd
/
Denmar
Road
and
Royal
Road
S8019
U 4 TWLT
1
80
S13743
U 4 TWLT
1
230
S9260
U 4 TWLT
5
380
S9261
U 4 TWLT
1
230
Southview Dr. and Entrance to Residential Complex
S15808
U 4 TWLT
0
90
Entrance
to
Residential
Complex
and
Notion
Rd.
S15809
U 4 TWLT
5
150
S288
U 4 TWLT
3
390
*For analysis purposes the AADTs were estimated based on AM and PM turning movement counts of intersections on either
side of each mid-block road sections that were collected in 2008 and 2009 from Synchro files provided by Region of
Durham and analysts judgement
U = Urban and SU = Suburban
86
AADT
(2010)
17,368
15,838
15,838
15,950
19,635
23,405
23,093
21,410
16,130
16,130
15,745
16,515
16,515
16,515
14,725
13,283
13,283
19,243
19,243
19,243
19,243
28,090
25,493
25,493
25,493
29,333
AECOM
Region of Durham

RC = Raised Curb, TWLT = Two-Way Left-Turn Lane and None = Undivided
Table C-4: Mid-Block Road Sections along Highway 2 within Town of Ajax
Area Type No.
No. of Driveways
Section
Location ID
of Lanes
/ Entrances
Length (m)
Median Type
Within Town of Ajax
Elizabeth Street and Linton Ave / Randall Dr
S1946
U 4 None
6
230
Linton Ave / Randall Dr and Church Street
S1797
U 4 None
7
230
Church
Street
and
George
Jones
Street
S14158
U 4 None
12
250
S2448
U 4 None
8
210
S2447
U 4 None
6
170
S448
U 4 None
7
200
S437
U 4 None
5
310
S1739 and S13708
U 4 RC
3
540
Chapman Dr. / Ritchie Ave. and Best Buy Entrance
S1171
U 4 RC
2
530
Best Buy Entrance and Harwood Avenue
S15393
U 4 RC
1
270
Harwood Avenue and Entrance to Durham Centre
S1914
U 4 RC
4
320
S13709
U 4 RC
0
260
S13710
U 4 RC
2
260
Salem Rd and Entrance to Canadian Tyre Plaza
U 4 RC
1
200
Entrance to Canadian Tyre Plaza and Wicks Dr
U 4 None
3
200
*For analysis purposes the AADTs were estimated based on AM and PM turning movement counts of intersections on either
side of each mid-block road sections that were collected in 2008 and 2009 from Synchro files provided by Region of
Durham and analysts judgement
U = Urban and SU = Suburban
RC = Raised Curb, TWLT = Two-Way Left-Turn Lane and None = Undivided
87
AADT
(2010)
26,108
26,108
24,815
24,815
24,815
24,815
26,100
24,553
23,083
22,038
19,450
19,358
20,818
-
AECOM
Region of Durham

APPENDIX D: BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN COUNT DATA
88
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
12 Highway 2 at Whites Road

1115900001
NORTH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
*************************** Recording started at:06:30:49
10/8/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
1
1
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
1
3
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
1
1
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:06
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

NORTH APPROACH
TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
3
0
11
3
5
2
1
12
3
2
8
0
2
2
4
9
1
4
0
4
10
10
5
10
2
1
9
3
2
0
2
5
6
4
0
0
7
3
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
12
1115900001
NORTH
Highway 2 at Whites Road

EAST APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
4
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:06
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
5
1
1
1
6
3
2
3
3
4
3
0
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
0
2
5
4
4
2
3
3
1
9
10
5
5
0
8
0
3
2
4
1
8
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
12
1115900001
NORTH

SOUTH APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
1
2
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
3
0
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
16:30:00
2
0
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
2
1
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:06
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
2
0
2
3
1
1
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
9
12
4
1
5
2
4
7
16
9
7
0
1
8
3
3
1
2
0
3
5
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
12
1115900001
NORTH

WEST APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
4
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
3
1
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
2
1
1
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:06
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
1
2
0
5
2
1
2
4
1
4
2
0
3
0
5
0
1
1
4
1
3
1
2
7
0
2
3
4
3
0
1
2
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900004
NORTH
Highway 2 at Whites Rd
NORTH APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:40
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
2
4
1
1
2
10
35
12
5
3
8
7
2
6
6
3
9
8
93
69
51
5
1
2
1
9
8
6
3
5
8
8
96
23
1
9
12
3
3
5
4
5
1
1
0
4
3
3
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900004
NORTH
EAST APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
2
1
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
1
0
1
10/11/2011
16:15:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:40
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
0
0
4
1
3
5
22
27
6
5
5
2
3
3
1
1
2
5
10
134
68
72
11
2
2
1
8
4
5
2
5
4
10
75
23
8
3
7
6
6
11
1
2
5
2
4
3
6
4
1
1
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900004
NORTH
SOUTH APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
1
1
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
4
0
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
2
0
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:40
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
0
0
1
2
2
6
2
10
14
4
2
0
1
1
2
2
10
3
2
1
43
26
32
6
3
2
0
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
28
6
1
1
0
1
1
7
2
7
2
2
0
3
4
3
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900004
NORTH
WEST APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
6:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
1
4
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
1
1
1
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:40
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
0
0
2
1
3
6
1
26
10
4
2
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
2
47
19
31
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
3
11
63
25
0
0
0
1
3
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
8
1115900002
NORTH
Highway 2 at Westney Road

NORTH APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
0
2
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
2
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
1
1
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
13:15:00
1
1
4
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
2
1
1
10/8/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
17:00:00
2
1
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
2
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:52
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
7
2
7
6
2
7
5
4
4
6
3
4
4
5
2
7
3
5
17
3
5
5
1
4
5
4
8
10
2
10
8
12
4
3
5
6
3
1
3
4
1
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
8
1115900002
NORTH

EAST APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
4
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
1
1
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
2
1
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
1
1
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
1
1
3
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
2
1
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:52
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
4
1
4
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
8
1115900002
NORTH

SOUTH APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
0
0
2
10/8/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
2
1
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
1
10/8/2011
17:45:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:52
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
3
1
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
3
1
0
3
5
3
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
2
4
1
2
0
0
1
0
4
4
0
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
8
1115900002
NORTH

WEST APPROACH
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/8/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
10:45:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
11:00:00
1
0
0
10/8/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
11:30:00
0
0
2
10/8/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:00:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
12:15:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
12:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
13:15:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
13:30:00
1
1
0
10/8/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:15:00
2
2
0
10/8/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:00:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
15:15:00
0
3
0
10/8/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
15:45:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
16:00:00
0
4
0
10/8/2011
16:15:00
0
2
0
10/8/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
16:45:00
0
1
0
10/8/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:15:00
0
4
1
10/8/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/8/2011
19:15:52
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
2
6
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
4
2
5
4
6
4
4
4
6
0
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
4
7
2
5
4
1
0
5
5
6
2
2
0
1
6
3
6
11
4
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900005
NORTH
Highway 2 at Westney Rd
NORTH APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
4
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
2
1
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
2
0
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:25
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
0
7
4
6
4
4
6
3
3
2
6
3
6
8
2
5
5
9
4
7
5
5
5
10
6
9
3
3
4
7
7
7
13
8
10
6
8
13
4
5
10
7
8
7
9
14
8
11
3
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900005
NORTH
EAST APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
1
1
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
3
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
1
1
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
1
2
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
0
1
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:25
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
1
0
3
8
4
1
3
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
3
0
4
8
5
5
3
1
4
5
1
8
4
3
6
2
2
6
3
6
1
1
1
9
4
10
6
9
3
7
4
6
1
0
0
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900005
NORTH
SOUTH APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
1
1
2
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
2
1
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
4
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
1
1
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
4
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:25
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
0
0
4
5
3
2
1
1
0
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
4
0
4
3
3
1
3
5
4
6
4
1
2
3
7
3
2
7
2
8
1
4
4
8
5
6
2
12
0
6
4
4
1
3
3
AECOM
File:
Site:
Facing:
Region of Durham
1
1115900005
NORTH
WEST APPROACH
Tuesday
Cyclists
Left
Thru
Right
10/11/2011
7:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:15:00
1
0
0
10/11/2011
7:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
7:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
8:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
8:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
9:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:15:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
9:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
9:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
10:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
10:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
11:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
11:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
11:45:00
0
4
0
10/11/2011
12:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
12:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
12:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
13:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
13:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
13:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:15:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
14:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
14:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:00:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
15:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
15:30:00
0
2
0
10/11/2011
15:45:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:00:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
16:15:00
1
3
0
10/11/2011
16:30:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
16:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
17:00:00
0
3
0
10/11/2011
17:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
17:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
17:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
18:15:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:30:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
18:45:00
0
1
0
10/11/2011
19:00:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:00
0
0
0
10/11/2011
19:15:25
0
0
0
DATE
TIME

TRUCK
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right
BUS
Thru
Left
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pedestrians
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
0
11
5
4
2
5
5
1
6
4
5
4
4
0
4
3
3
3
2
6
1
3
4
5
1
2
3
6
2
5
5
4
3
6
1
4
6
12
4
3
8
13
4
9
9
7
6
11
3
0
0

Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Appendix E - Draft Traffic Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Region of Durham

Class Environmental Assessment

905 668 9363

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Association / Company Name

Report Prepared By:

Report Reviewed By:

Brenda Jamieson, P.Eng.

Hwy 2 BRT - Draft Traffic Report - Mar28-2012 RM.Docx

Issue / Revision Description

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Background & Context ................................................................................................................ 1

Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 8

Population and Employment Growth ............................................................................................. 17

Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................................. 22

Road Network ................................................................................................................................. 8

Future Needs & Opportunities .................................................................................................. 17

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe .............................................................................. 1

Role of TDM & Active Transportation ............................................................................................ 22

Assessment of Highway 2 Widening (Design) Alternatives .................................................... 23

Modelling Methodology, Development & Calibration ...................................................................... 24

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Assessment of Cycling Lane Alternatives ...................................................................................... 56

Highway 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Transit Priority Opportunity Areas .................................................. 12

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

VISSIM Travel Time Calibration Results - Pickering............................................................................. 32

Road Safety Assessment of Bus Running Way Alternative

Background & Context

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Durham Region Official Plan

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Growing Durham Study (ROPA 128)

Regional Transportation Master Plan

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Regional Cycling Plan

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

City of Pickering Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan

Town of Ajax Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan

Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move)

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

MoveOntario 2020 and Quick Win Initiatives

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Current Transit Service

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

Highway 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Use

Class EA, Highway 2 Transit Priority Measures

WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road

Tuesday Oct 11, 2011

Tuesday Oct 11, 2011

E-W Peds South Crossing 0 11 30

E-W Peds North Crossing

E-W Peds South Crossing

EB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road

E-W Peds South Crossing 0

E-W Peds North Crossing

Saturday Oct 8, 2011

WB Bicycles & Pedestrians - East of Whites Road