370 Queen Elizabeth Drive Transportation Overview

Transcription

1 December 8, 2014 OUR REF: TO3193TOA BY Ontario Inc. c/o BassCon 24 George Street West Ottawa, ON K1S 3J2 Attention: Ashley Lepine Dear Ashley: Re: 370 Queen Elizabeth Drive Transportation Overview 1.0 INTRODUCTION From the information provided, it is our understanding that a 12 unit condo building is being proposed for the above-noted site. The site is currently occupied by four (4) residential buildings containing 9 units. The current Site Plan indicates that a total of 27 below-grade parking spaces are proposed with access to Fourth Avenue via an approximate 6 m wide two-way ramp. Both the Site Plan and Garage Layout are attached. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK We are advised that the City has requested a Traffic Brief to accompany the Site Plan Application. According to their Transportation Impact Analysis, one is not required due to the project s extremely low traffic generation. A Traffic Brief is only required if the project generates more than 75 vph. Regardless, this Transportation Overview has been prepared to assist in Site Plan approval by addressing site traffic generation, garage layout and ramp design. 3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Queen Elizabeth Drive adjacent to the east is a two-lane NCC Parkway. It has a sidewalk on its west side and a multi-use pathway on its east side adjacent to the Rideau Canal. Its intersection with Fourth Avenue operates as a one-way outbound (from Fourth) to minimize cut through traffic within the neighbourhood. The QED/Fifth Avenue intersection to the south is traffic signal controlled. Fourth Avenue adjacent to the north is where the site s garage access/egress will be located. Fourth Avenue is a two-way, two-lane local street with parking permitted on the south side only. Sidewalks exist on both sides and its intersection with QED is outbound only and STOP controlled on this approach. To the west of the site, Fourth Avenue s intersection with O Connor Street is a four-way STOP sign controlled.

2 With regard to current traffic volumes and parking on Fourth Avenue between the QED and O Connor Street, Parsons conducted weekday morning and afternoon peak hour surveys in November During the morning peak hour, the md-block traffic flow was 30 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound. Of the 11 available on-street parking spaces, 8 were occupied. During the afternoon peak hour, the mid-block traffic flow was again 30 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound. Of the 11 on-street parking spaces, 3 were occupied. 4.0 PROJECTED SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC With 12 condo units replacing 9 existing residential units (in 4 buildings), and given the central location of the site, the net increase of 3 units is projected to generate at most 3 vph to 5 vph of additional two-way traffic on Fourth Avenue. While a somewhat high percentage increase in traffic on the street compared to existing volumes, its absolute volume of one new vehicle every 12 minutes to 20 minutes during peak hours will have no impact on traffic operations on the street or in the area. During the other 22 hours of the day, site traffic generation will be less than this amount, and therefore its impact even more insignificant. Also, with 27 parking spaces being proposed for 12 units, the on-street parking demand of the overall site should be less than existing. 5.0 SITE PLAN REVIEW Parking: A total of 27 on-site vehicle parking spaces and 16 on-site bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Both numbers exceed the By-Law requirements. With regard to parking space dimensions, 20 spaces meet the By-Law requirements of 2.6 m wide and 5.2 m long, and 7 meet the small car space dimensions of 4.2 m long times 2.6 m wide Garage Ramp and Circulation Aisle: Within the garage, the circulation aisle meets the By- Law required width of 6.7 m except at three locations. Two of these locations are adjacent to the garbage/recycling room where the aisle is 4.0 m wide on one side and 5.0 m wide on another side, both for a short distance. As these narrower sections of the circulation aisle do not have any parking along it and as they serve areas of only 12 and 15 spaces, their reduced width at these two locations is considered acceptable for shared two-way traffic flow. The other location is adjacent to the north elevator where the aisle is 6.55 m adjacent to 2 spaces. As 6.55 m is effectively the same as 6.7 m with regard to available maneuvering space, this slight reduction is not problematic. The ramp from the street to the garage is 6.0 m wide with approximately 4 m of 4% grade from back of sidewalk to the property line, then approximately 16 m of 14% grade down to the garage door. From there into the building, there is 4.0 m of 10.5% grade for transition to the garage floor. These grades are considered acceptable. As much as the ramp will be exposed to the elements, it should be heated. It should be noted that the 4 m of 4% grade back from the sidewalk does not satisfy the Private Approach By-Law s requirements of 9 m of 2% slope back from the property line. However, as the traffic volume using the ramp will be low, as there is good visibility of the sidewalk and street

3 as vehicles approach the top of the ramp, and as there is on-street parking adjacent to the south curb which off-sets the street s traffic flow another 3 m, the proposed ramp design is considered safe, acceptable and typical for this urban location. A variance will be required for the proposed ramp design and for its 1.7 m offset from the adjacent property line. 6.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing analysis, the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this report are as follows. The proposed net increase of 11 residential units on site will have a very low net peak hour traffic generation of 5 vph to 10 vph two-way total. This additional peak hour traffic will have no measurable traffic impact on study area streets or intersection operation. Both the ramp design and garage layout meet By-Law requirements with the exception of two short sections of 4.0 m and 5.0 m aisle width and the ramp grade back from the property line. However, as the garage and ramp will both operate well as proposed, it is recommended that the required variances be obtained/provided. Based on the foregoing, the prosed development is recommended from a transportation perspective. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ronald M. Jack, P.Eng. Vice President Attachment

4

5