Paisley & Whitelaw - Paisley Park OPA / ZBA for Mixed Density Residential Use

Paisley & Whitelaw - Paisley Park OPA / ZBA for Mixed Density Residential Use Transportation Impact Study City of Guelph Prepared for: Armel Corporation August 2018

Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 2 Proposal and Site Context... 1 3 Existing Traffic... 2 3.1 Data Collection... 2 3.2 Traffic Operations Assessment... 3 4 Background Traffic... 4 4.1 Background Traffic Forecasts... 4 4.2 Traffic Operations Assessment... 5 5 Site Traffic... 6 6 Future Total Traffic... 7 6.1 Traffic Operations Assessment... 8 6.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses... 10 6.3 Recommended Improvements... 11 7 Additional Transportation Considerations... 12 7.1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Design Considerations... 12 7.2 Transit Considerations... 13 7.3 Transportation Demand Management... 13 8 Parking Assessment... 13 9 Conclusions and Recommendations... 14 Table 1: Northbound Left Turn Gaps from Whitelaw to Paisley Table 2: Existing Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Table 3: Existing Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Table 4: Future Background Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Table 5: Future Background Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Table 6: Site Traffic Generation Rates (trips/unit) and Estimates (trips) Table 8: Site Traffic Distribution Table 8: Future Total Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Table 9: Future Total Traffic Operations Site Driveways Table 10: Future Total Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Table 11: Paisley/Whitelaw Future Total Traffic Signal Justification Assessment Table 12: 2030 Future Total Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Existing Capacity Analysis Appendix C: Future Background Capacity Analysis Appendix D: Excerpts ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition Appendix E: Future Total Capacity Analysis Appendix F: Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Paisley/Whitelaw

1 1 Introduction This Transportation Impact Study has been prepared in support of applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment on the lands owned by Armel Corporation on the west side of Whitelaw Road south of Paisley Road in the City of Guelph. The study was undertaken as a submission requirement in accordance with pre-submission consultation with the City and is based on a Development Concept prepared by GSP (see Appendix A). The scope of the TIS was discussed and agreed upon with staff. The primary purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the proposal on the transportation network in the area and identify any improvements that are needed to support the proposal. In particular the study focuses on traffic operations at the two closely spaced intersections on Paisley Road at Elmira Road and Whitelaw Road. The study also identifies the planned active transportation components of the development and how they will connect to the adjacent network and support transit use. It is the finding of this study that the proposal will generate about 236 and 335 new weekday morning and afternoon peak hour trips, respectively. The study area intersections can accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes at acceptable levels with the recommended configurations. 2 Proposal and Site Context The application proposes a residential development on the west side of Whitelaw Road to the south of Paisley Road. The Development Concept illustrates a mix of townhouses and apartments, with an assumed maximum of 800 units. A Site Location Plan and the Development Concept are attached to this report with the figures in Appendix A. The Development Concept includes three parts: the apartments adjacent to Paisley Road (about 630 units), the townhouses further south (about 170 units) and a large park wrapping behind the existing homes on Whitelaw Road and connecting the site for pedestrians to Shoemaker Crescent. Two private driveway connections are proposed on Whitelaw Road. Conceptually they are shown about 185 metres and about 385 metres south of Paisley Road. Ideally both driveways would be aligned with driveways serving the proposed apartment development on the east side of Whitelaw Road in appropriate locations for providing adequate sight distance. If alignment of the driveways is not possible, they should be offset sufficiently to meet the City s Site Plan Approval Procedures and Guidelines. The analysis in this study assumes that the site driveways are aligned with the driveways on the east side of Whitelaw Road. In consultation with City staff, the following intersections were chosen for analysis in this study: - Elmira/Paisley - Paisley/Whitelaw - Whitelaw/North Driveway - Whitelaw/South Driveway www.salviniconsulting.com

2 All the roads in the study area are under the jurisdiction of the City of Guelph. Paisley Road further west of the site transitions to Wellington County. Paisley Road is an arterial road with a speed limit of 60 kph in the study area; it widens from a two-lane road in the west to a four-lane road at the Elmira Road intersection. Paisley Road was recently (in 2015) upgraded to an urban cross-section from just west of Elmira Road to the westerly Guelph boundary and included improvements at the Whitelaw Road intersection with Paisley Road. As part of this project, vertical grades on Paisley Road were modified to provide acceptable sight lines at the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection. Elmira Road is an arterial road with a speed limit of 50 kph in the study area; it has a general two-lane cross-section that widens to four lanes through the Paisley Road intersection but tapers back to two lanes on the other side. Whitelaw Road is a collector road with a two-lane cross-section and a speed limit of 50 kph. A section of Whitelaw Road along the site frontage has a rural cross-section. Whitelaw Road was the subject of a recent Neighbourhood Traffic Management Review. As part of the review, a community consultation was undertaken to discuss the possibility of adding traffic calming measures to the road. Out of those discussions, a proposal was brought back to the community, but ultimately not enough local residents voted in favour of the proposal. At this time, no traffic calming measures are planned for Whitelaw Road. A figure illustrating the traffic control and lane configurations in the study area is below. Figure 1: Existing Study Area Conditions 3 Existing Traffic 3.1 Data Collection Traffic count data was collected at the two existing study area intersections on Paisley Road at both Whitelaw Road and Elmira Road on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. The morning peak hour occurred between 7:30 and 8:30 and the afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:30 and 5:30. In addition to the traffic count data, a survey of available gaps in traffic on Paisley Road to turn left turn left from Whitelaw Road was undertaken. The survey results are summarized below. www.salviniconsulting.com

3 Table 1: Northbound Left Turn Gaps from Whitelaw to Paisley AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Start Time Gaps* Hourly Gaps Start Time Gaps* Hourly Gaps 7:00 125-4:00 77-7:15 116-4:15 91-7:30 93-4:30 58-7:45 95 429 4:45 79 305 8:00 99 403 5:00 80 308 8:15 96 383 5:15 69 286 8:30 122 412 5:30 82 310 8:45 134 451 5:45 92 323 *critical gap of 7.1 seconds, follow-up gap of 3.5 seconds The hourly gaps varied between 383 and 451 in the morning peak period and between 286 and 323 in the afternoon peak period. A trip generation survey and a parking demand survey was undertaken at the Imperial Towers residential apartment project at the southeast corner of the Elmira/Paisley intersection. The data collected at the site is discussed later in this study. 3.2 Traffic Operations Assessment Traffic operations were assessed at the two existing study area intersections in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours using Synchro version 9.0. Existing signal timing along with existing heavy vehicle percentages were used in the analysis. Otherwise, the default Synchro parameters were used. The existing traffic operations are summarized in the two tables below and the detailed worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 2: Existing Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Peak Hour Measure of Effectiveness Direction/Movement/Approach EBL EBTR WBL WBTR NBL NBTR SBL SBTR AM Level of Service A A A A C C D C Delay (s) 5.0 7.8 4.6 8.0 33.8 34.8 44.9 20.4 Volume/capacity 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.20 0.21 0.47 0.59 0.39 95 th percentile Q (m) 8.9 16.3 2.6 23.6 20.0 23.4 43.3 17.4 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service B B A B B B B B Delay (s) 11.5 17.0 9.3 15.6 11.2 13.2 19.1 11.0 Volume/capacity 0.39 0.34 0.23 0.64 0.07 0.25 0.59 0.27 95 th percentile Q (m) 16.8 24.2 13.8 33.3 6.5 11.8 43.5 17.4 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - www.salviniconsulting.com

4 Table 3: Existing Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Measure of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Effectiveness WB NB WB NB Level of service A B A B Delay (s) 2.8 11.1 3.3 13.0 Volume/capacity 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.21 95 th percentile Q (m) 1.1 2.6 1.6 5.9 Both study area intersections are operating at acceptable levels in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The calculated northbound left turn capacity in the analysis is 408 and 319 vehicles in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, which falls into the range of measured gaps in the peak period suggesting that the capacity analysis is representing the available capacity appropriately. There are no anticipated delays for eastbound traffic. 4 Background Traffic 4.1 Background Traffic Forecasts Three future horizons were chosen for study representing the earliest opening day (2020) and five (2025) and ten (2030) years beyond. Background traffic for this study was estimated by including a general growth rate for traffic in the study area and accounting specifically for several planned developments nearby. A background growth rate of two (2) percent per year compounded over the horizon years was applied to existing traffic in the study area. Traffic generated by four other planned developments in the area were included as follows: The Imperial Towers residential project is partially built at the southeast corner of the Elmira/Paisley intersection. The first of four towers was fully occupied at the time of the survey and the second was partially occupied. The third and fourth towers were under construction. Traffic was measured at this site during a trip generation survey. The data collected during the survey was used to estimate additional traffic that will be generated by the remainder of the development and assigned to the road network using the same distribution as for the subject site. A Home Improvement Warehouse is planned on the property adjacent to Costco and directly north of the site. Traffic for this project was included based on information contained in a January 2015 Traffic Impact Study prepared for the store by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited. Information from the Home Improvement Warehouse Traffic Impact Study was used to determine traffic volumes associated with Phase 3 of the West Hill Plaza, which is the site with the Zehrs food store. The Phase 3 development includes for a 17,093 s.f. expansion of the food store along with 85,219 s.f. of additional general retail. The vacant site on the east side of Whitelaw Road opposite the subject site is planned for apartment residential uses. Site traffic from a Transportation Impact Study prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited in March 2018 has been included in this study. All four of these planned developments were included in the 2020 horizon year. Future background traffic volumes for 2020, 2025 and 2030 are included in the figures in Appendix A. www.salviniconsulting.com

4.2 Traffic Operations Assessment Traffic operations were assessed at the two existing study area intersections in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The traffic operations for each horizon year are summarized in the two tables below and the detailed worksheets are included in Appendix C. 5 Table 4: Future Background Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Peak Hour Measure of Effectiveness Direction/Movement/Approach EBL EBTR WBL WBTR NBL NBTR SBL SBTR 2020 AM Level of Service A A A A C C D B Delay (s) 6.0 9.0 5.2 8.9 33.4 35.0 54.4 18.6 Volume/capacity 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.55 0.74 0.44 95 th percentile Q (m) 16.4 19.1 4.8 28.6 21.1 28.0 54.5 19.1 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service B B A B B B C B Delay (s) 14.8 17.9 10.0 17.0 12.8 13.0 29.2 10.7 Volume/capacity 0.55 0.41 0.30 0.68 0.08 0.32 0.75 0.35 95 th percentile Q (m) 23.5 29.8 18.9 44.4 7.8 14.6 72.7 21.7 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - 2025 AM Level of Service A A A A C D E B Delay (s) 6.3 9.3 5.4 9.7 33.3 36.1 62.8 18.4 Volume/capacity 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.27 0.26 0.57 0.82 0.46 95 th percentile Q (m) 17.7 21.2 5.2 33.1 22.6 30.1 63.6 20.1 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service B B B B B B D B Delay (s) 18.1 17.9 10.4 17.6 13.9 13.5 38.6 11.3 Volume/capacity 0.62 0.41 0.33 0.70 0.09 0.35 0.84 0.38 95 th percentile Q (m) 27.4 33.1 20.9 51.2 8.9 16.3 93.2 24.4 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - 2030 AM Level of Service A A A B C D E B Delay (s) 6.8 9.7 5.7 10.6 33.4 37.2 78.3 18.3 Volume/capacity 0.28 0.15 0.05 0.30 0.29 0.60 0.92 0.47 95 th percentile Q (m) 19.4 23.5 5.4 38.6 24.4 32.6 75.1 21.1 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service C B B B B B E B Delay (s) 23.4 17.8 10.8 18.4 15.0 14.1 62.6 13.0 Volume/capacity 0.71 0.42 0.37 0.73 0.10 0.38 0.98 0.45 95 th percentile Q (m) 38.9 36.7 22.9 59.0 9.9 17.9 119.8 27.3 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - www.salviniconsulting.com

6 Table 5: Future Background Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Measure of Effectiveness AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach Approach WB NB WB NB 2020 Level of service A B A C Delay (s) 3.7 12.8 6.2 17.1 Volume/capacity 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.39 95 th percentile Q (m) 1.9 8.3 4.0 13.8 2025 Level of service A B A C Delay (s) 3.7 13.6 5.4 19.5 Volume/capacity 0.08 0.30 0.17 0.45 95 th percentile Q (m) 2.1 9.5 4.5 17.3 2030 Level of service A B A C Delay (s) 3.8 14.5 5.5 23.5 Volume/capacity 0.09 0.33 0.18 0.53 95 th percentile Q (m) 2.3 10.9 5.0 22.7 The two study area intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels under future background traffic conditions in all three future horizon years. However, the southbound left turn movement at the Elmira/Paisley intersection will be approaching capacity in the 2030 horizon with 95 th percentile queues that extend beyond the available storage of 85 metres. 5 Site Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the site was estimated based on a review of rates outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition along with several local trip generation surveys undertaken by Salvini Consulting Inc. in Guelph. Excerpts from the newly released 10 th Edition are attached in Appendix D for reference. Three trip generation categories were reviewed and included in this study as follows: Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Land Use 220 (one or two levels) Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Land Use 221 (three to 10 levels) Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) Land Use 222 (more than 10 levels) In addition, survey data from four local Guelph sites were included: Imperial Towers apartments southeast corner of Elmira/Paisley (253 occupied units) Greystone Residences apartments Beechwood Avenue (44 units) Stewart Mill townhouses Cardigan Street (57 units) Riverview townhouses York Road (22 units) The data that was reviewed along with the chosen trip generation rates and traffic estimates are summarized in the table below. www.salviniconsulting.com

7 Table 6: Site Traffic Generation Rates (trips/unit) and Estimates (trips) Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Low-Rise - 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 (ITE LU 220) Multifamily Mid-Rise - 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 (ITE LU 221) Multifamily High-Rise - 0.07 0.24 0.31 0.22 0.14 0.36 (ITE LU 222) Imperial Towers 253 0.03 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.15 0.38 Greystone 44 0.36 0.27 Stewart Mill 57 0.47 0.49 Riverview 22 0.45 0.59 Chosen apartment - 0.03 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.15 0.38 Apartment trips 630 19 139 158 145 95 239 Chosen Townhouse - 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 Townhouse trips 170 18 60 78 60 35 95 Total trips 800 37 199 236 205 130 335 The resulting estimated site traffic is 236 and 335 vehicle trips in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The direction of travel for the site was determined through a review of data from the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS 2016) along with local traffic patterns in the study area. TTS data for traffic originating in Guelph in the weekday morning peak period suggests that 66 percent have destinations in the City of Guelph with close to 15 percent destined to Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The remaining trips are spread out around surrounding municipalities. Given the location of the site at the west edge of Guelph with connections available in all directions, the following distribution was chosen for site traffic. Site traffic volumes are included in the figures in Appendix A. Table 7: Site Traffic Distribution Corridor Percent Distribution Elmira North 25% Paisley East 40% Paisley West 15% Elmira South 5% Whitelaw South 15% Total 100% 6 Future Total Traffic Future total traffic for all three future horizon years (2020, 2025 and 2030) were determined by adding the Site Traffic to the Future Background Traffic for each horizon year. The future total traffic volumes are illustrated in the figures in Appendix A for the three horizon years. www.salviniconsulting.com

6.1 Traffic Operations Assessment Traffic operations were assessed at the two existing study area intersections in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The traffic operations for each horizon year are summarized in the two tables below and the detailed worksheets are included in Appendix E. 8 Table 8: Future Total Traffic Operations Elmira/Paisley Peak Hour Measure of Effectiveness Direction/Movement/Approach EBL EBTR WBL WBTR NBL NBTR SBL SBTR 2020 AM Level of Service A A A A C C D B Delay (s) 6.5 9.2 5.3 9.9 33.6 35.0 54.4 18.2 Volume/capacity 0.31 0.17 0.05 0.26 0.25 0.55 0.74 0.45 95 th percentile Q (m) 21.9 25.4 4.8 32.0 21.9 28.0 54.5 19.2 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service C B A B B B D B Delay (s) 22.1 17.7 10.0 19.0 14.7 13.8 35.3 11.5 Volume/capacity 0.70 0.42 0.31 0.71 0.11 0.33 0.80 0.44 95 th percentile Q (m) 36.6 35.0 19.3 56.7 10.5 15.6 82.4 24.1 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - 2025 AM Level of Service A A A B C D E B Delay (s) 6.9 9.6 5.6 10.7 33.5 36.1 62.8 18.0 Volume/capacity 0.34 0.18 0.05 0.28 0.27 0.57 0.82 0.47 95 th percentile Q (m) 23.2 27.7 5.2 36.8 23.1 30.1 63.6 20.3 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service C B B B B B D B Delay (s) 28.5 17.5 10.2 19.4 15.9 14.5 49.4 12.3 Volume/capacity 0.77 0.43 0.35 0.73 0.13 0.36 0.91 0.47 95 th percentile Q (m) 48.8 38.0 20.8 63.4 11.8 17.5 111.2 27.2 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - 2030 AM Level of Service A A A B C D E B Delay (s) 7.5 10.0 5.8 11.6 33.7 37.2 78.3 17.9 Volume/capacity 0.37 0.19 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.60 0.92 0.48 95 th percentile Q (m) 24.9 30.5 5.4 42.4 24.9 32.6 75.1 21.3 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - PM Level of Service D B B B B B E B Delay (s) 43.2 17.7 10.9 19.9 17.0 15.0 74.4 12.9 Volume/capacity 0.88 0.43 0.39 0.74 0.14 0.38 1.01 0.49 95 th percentile Q (m) 64.5 42.7 23.6 72.8 13.0 19.1 130.2 30.2 Storage (m) 50-75 - 35-85 - www.salviniconsulting.com

The Elmira/Paisley intersection is anticipated to operate with individual movements at level of service E or better. However, the southbound left turn movement is expected to operate at capacity in the weekday afternoon peak hour under future total 2030 traffic conditions. In addition, as discussed under future background traffic conditions, the southbound left turn 95 th percentile queue is expected to extend beyond the available storage of about 85 metres. The development of the subject site adds no traffic to the southbound left turn movement at the Elmira/Paisley intersection. Additionally, the analysis is indicating that under future total 2030 traffic conditions in the afternoon peak hour, the eastbound left turn 95 th percentile queue is expected to extend beyond the 50 metres of available storage. Given that the horizon year is 12 years away and includes for considerable background growth, the City should monitor this queue over time to see if it becomes problematic. The subject site adds very little traffic to the eastbound left turn movement in the weekday afternoon peak hour. Table 9: Future Total Traffic Operations Site Driveways Peak Measure of North Driveway South Driveway Hour Effectiveness Approach Approach EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB 2020 AM Level of service B A A A B A A A Delay (s) 14.0 9.7 0.2 1.5 10.4 8.9 0.1 0.7 Volume/capacity 0.29 0.10-0.02 0.07 0.03-0.01 95 th percentile Q (m) 9.0 2.4 0.1 0.4 1.8 0.7-0.2 PM Level of service C B A A B A A A Delay (s) 18.5 10.0 1.1 1.9 11.6 9.2 0.4 1.2 Volume/capacity 0.29 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 95 th percentile Q (m) 8.8 1.7 0.5 1.2 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 2025 AM Level of service B A A A B A A A Delay (s) 14.3 9.7 0.2 1.5 10.5 8.9 0.1 0.6 Volume/capacity 0.30 0.10-0.02 0.08 0.03-0.01 95 th percentile Q (m) 9.3 2.5 0.1 0.4 1.9 0.7-0.2 PM Level of service C B A A B A A A Delay (s) 19.2 10.1 1.1 1.8 11.8 9.2 0.4 1.2 Volume/capacity 0.30 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 95 th percentile Q (m) 9.2 1.7 0.5 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 2030 AM Level of service B A A A B A A A Delay (s) 14.6 9.8 0.2 1.4 10.6 8.9 0.1 0.6 Volume/capacity 0.30 0.10-0.02 0.08 0.03-0.01 95 th percentile Q (m) 9.6 2.5 0.1 0.4 1.9 0.7-0.2 PM Level of service C B A A B A A A Delay (s) 19.9 10.3 1.0 1.8 12.1 9.3 0.4 1.1 Volume/capacity 0.31 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 95 th percentile Q (m) 9.7 1.8 0.5 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 9 www.salviniconsulting.com

The two site driveways are expected to operate at acceptable levels in each of the three study horizons in both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Table 10: Future Total Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Measure of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Effectiveness Approach Approach WB NB WB NB 2020 Level of service A C A E Delay (s) 4.3 19.3 7.6 48.8 Volume/capacity 0.10 0.59 0.30 0.84 95 th percentile Q (m) 2.5 29.3 9.6 57.7 2025 Level of service A C A F Delay (s) 4.3 21.7 7.8 75.0 Volume/capacity 0.11 0.64 0.32 0.96 95 th percentile Q (m) 2.7 34.0 10.6 76.6 2030 Level of service A D A F Delay (s) 4.4 25.6 8.1 124.2 Volume/capacity 0.12 0.69 0.34 1.11 95 th percentile Q (m) 3.0 40.8 11.6 102.5 10 The northbound approach of the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection is expected to operate with high delays to left turning traffic in the afternoon peak hour. A traffic signal warrant assessment was undertaken for the intersection and is described below. 6.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses A traffic signal warrant assessment was undertaken for the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection to determine whether or not traffic signals would be justified under both existing and future total traffic conditions. An extended traffic count was undertaken at the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection to capture the eight busiest hours of traffic flow through the intersection for the purposes of assessing whether or not the intersection meets the warrant criteria for installing traffic signals. Under existing traffic conditions, the traffic signal warrant criteria are not met. A summary of the data is included in Appendix F. The Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM Book 12) provides a tool for assessing when to install traffic signals at intersections using seven possible justifications. Consideration is given to installing traffic signals when the forecast volumes for Justification 1 (1A and 1B) or 2 (2A and 2B) reach 120% compliance. Justification 7 is used for intersections where the traffic is from planned development and only peak hour forecasts are available; it relies on Average Hourly Volumes, defined as one quarter of the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours combined. The assessment for all three future horizons is summarized in the table below. The assessment indicates that the justification for traffic signals is not met at the intersections under any of the future total traffic horizons. www.salviniconsulting.com

Table 11: Paisley/Whitelaw Future Total Traffic Signal Justification Assessment Justification Average Hourly Volume = (AM+PM)/4 Volume Minimum* Compliance Justification Sectional Entire 7 met 2020 1A Total Volume 643 720 89% 60% No 1B Minor Volume 152 255 60% 2A Major Volume 491 750 65% 29% No 2B Crossing Volume 22 75 29% 2025 1A Total Volume 689 720 96% 61% No 1B Minor Volume 157 255 61% 2A Major Volume 532 750 71% 29% No 2B Crossing Volume 22 75 29% 2030 1A Total Volume 739 720 103% 63% No 1B Minor Volume 162 255 63% 2A Major Volume 577 750 77% 30% No 2B Crossing Volume 23 75 30% *NOTE: 1 lane approaches, restricted flow, T-intersection Although the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection is forecast to operate with high delays for northbound left turning traffic in the weekday afternoon peak hour, the other movements at the intersection are forecast to operate at acceptable levels. The northbound left turn movement is low in all three afternoon peak hour horizons (43, 47 and 50 vehicles in the 2020, 2025 and 2030 afternoon peak hours, respectively). However, the volume to capacity ratios for the movement are close to capacity at 0.88, 0.96 and 1.11 in the weekday afternoon peak hours in 2020, 2025 and 2030, respectively. In order to address the capacity constraint for the northbound left turn movement at the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection, a scenario including the addition of a northbound left turn lane was tested for the 2030 future total traffic horizon in weekday afternoon peak hour and is outlined below. 6.3 Recommended Improvements The addition of a northbound left turn lane at the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection would provide additional capacity for northbound traffic and allow right turning traffic to move while a left turning vehicle is waiting for a gap. The future total traffic analysis at the intersection for the 2030 horizon year in the afternoon peak hour was revised to include a northbound left turn lane and the results suggest that the intersection will operate with the northbound left turn movement still at a level of service F, but with much lower delays and volume to capacity ratios for the left turn movement and acceptable operations for the northbound right turn movement. In the 2030 horizon year, the northbound right turn movement is forecast to operate at a level of service C with the northbound left turn movement experiencing a delay of 88 seconds, but a volume to capacity ratio of only 0.50. 11 www.salviniconsulting.com

12 Table 12: 2030 Future Total Traffic Operations Paisley/Whitelaw Peak Measure of Direction/Movement/Approach Hour Effectiveness WB NBL NBR PM Level of service A F C Delay (s) 4.0 87.7 23.5 Volume/capacity 0.34 0.50 0.61 95 th percentile Q (m) 11.6 16.3 30.3 It is the recommendation of this study that a short (20 metre) northbound left turn lane be constructed to accommodate the future weekday afternoon peak hour demands separate from the northbound right turning traffic and that the left turns be permitted given that they are expected to be low (less than one per minute) and the volume to capacity ratio is expected to be low (0.50 or less). 7 Additional Transportation Considerations 7.1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Design Considerations Pedestrian and cyclist facilities have been included conceptually in the development concept. Sidewalks have been included in front of all of the townhouses and the internal frontages of the apartment. The sidewalk network connects within the concept plan to all of the park areas, with trails running strategically through the park areas, including providing a connection for pedestrians and cyclists to Shoemaker Crescent. The sidewalks also connect to Whitelaw Road at the driveways. Parking for bicycles will be included in the development both on the surface for visitors and internally to the buildings for residents. Pedestrian infrastructure in the immediate area includes sidewalks on the north and south sides of Paisley Road west of Whitelaw Road and sidewalks on both sides of Whitelaw Road south of the site. Beyond the Elmira/Paisley intersection there are sidewalks as well. A shared use trail was constructed on Paisley Road between Elmira Road and Whitelaw Road during the 2015 reconstruction. Cycling infrastructure in the area includes on-road bicycle lanes north, west and south of the Elmira/Paisley intersection with a small missing section just south of the intersection. The recently completed Guelph Active Transportation Network Study includes recommendations to complete the on-road cycling network south of the Elmira/Paisley intersection and to add onroad bicycle lanes east of the intersection on Paisley Road as well. It is recommended that as part of this development, sidewalks be included on the Whitelaw Road frontage connecting to the existing sidewalks on both Paisley Road and Whitelaw Road to the south. The active transportation infrastructure included in the Development Concept and proposed to connect the site to the adjacent neighborhoods and the boundary road network will provide good opportunities for residents to walk and cycle in and through the area. www.salviniconsulting.com

7.2 Transit Considerations The area is currently served by Guelph Transit routes 17 and 18 along Elmira Road. Service is provided in both directions generally every half hour during weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays with hourly service on holidays. Guelph Transit route 10 stops at the Paisley/Imperial intersection about 650 metres walk from the site. Route 10 provides direct access to downtown Guelph and runs generally every half hour during weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays with hourly service on holidays. As the area around the site builds out, it would be beneficial to extend route 10 at least to the Elmira/Paisley intersection to provide local residents better access by transit to downtown Guelph. Pedestrian connections from the site to the corner of the Elmira/Paisley intersection are planned as part of this proposal within the site and along Whitelaw Road to encourage and facilitate transit usage by future residents of the site. Guelph Transit has recently received funding toward its transit projects over the next decade. Plans have not yet been released for use of the funding, but substantial improvements are expected that will improve transit access for residents in the City. 7.3 Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, includes measures that help to provide choices of transportation modes, as well as a means of reducing the number of trips that are required. The Development Concept that is being proposed for the site has incorporated active transportation infrastructure as described above that will make walking, cycling and taking transit attractive alternatives for future residents of the site. In addition, the site is located within walking distance of many commercial and community amenities. Bicycle parking on-site will be provided both at grade and in the buildings to accommodate visitor and resident bicycles while on-site. In addition, a reduction in parking is being proposed for the site both to reflect the decreasing demand for parking in Guelph and a future where there are viable options beyond individual/household car ownership. The parking assessment is described in the following section of this study. Additional TDM measures that are more specific to the site will be considered at a future time when a formal Site Plan application is submitted. 8 Parking Assessment 13 Parking for the proposal is proposed at a rate of one (1) space per unit for both the apartment and townhouse uses. The City s zoning by-law requires parking for apartment uses at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit for the first 20 units and 1.25 spaces per unit for any unit in excess of 20. Townhouse uses require one (1) space per unit. 20 percent of the total calculated number of parking spaces for the apartment and townhouse units are required to be provided for the use of visitors to the site. The current proposal would require 793 spaces for the apartment uses (20 at 1.5 spaces per unit and 610 at 1.25 spaces per unit) and 170 spaces for the townhouse for a total of 963 spaces of which 193 would be designated for visitors. The effective parking provision on a per unit basis would be 1.2 spaces per unit where one (1) space per unit is proposed. www.salviniconsulting.com

To assist in determining whether or not the proposed parking provision is appropriate, a parking demand survey was undertaken at the Imperial Towers project in February and March of this year. At the time of the survey, 253 units in the first two buildings were occupied: building one was fully occupied with 180 units and building two had 73 of the 126 units occupied. Residential parking is known to peak in the overnight hours, and so parking demand was measured on Friday morning, February 16 th at 3:00 AM and on Sunday morning, March 4 th at 3:00 AM. The weekday peak demand was 269 spaces and the weekend peak demand was 271 spaces for a measured peak demand of 1.06 and 1.07 spaces per unit in the weekday and weekend peak, respectively. Cities generally and Guelph specifically are planning their transportation networks to encourage the use of active transportation and transit modes as described above. In addition, lifestyle choices of the next generation of drivers favors the use of alternative transportation like Uber and other measures like carpooling that reduce the dependence on cars and are expected to reduce car ownership rates generally in cities across North America. Consistent with the foregoing, the appropriate parking ratio for a new apartment development should be slightly below the measured current demand for an apartment use. In this case, the provision of parking at a rate of one (1) space per unit is appropriate given a measured peak demand of about 1.07 spaces per unit locally and the future transportation trends in the City. 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 14 This Transportation Impact Study has been undertaken in accordance with City requirements in order to understand the transportation context and infrastructure to support the proposed Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment for the site. The conclusions of this study are based on a Development Concept with an assumed maximum density of 800 units, and are as follows: The Site is estimated to generate 236 and 335 vehicle trips in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. A 20 metre auxiliary northbound left turn lane is recommended on the approach to the Paisley/Whitelaw intersection to improve operations for northbound traffic in the weekday afternoon peak hour under future total traffic conditions. Although the northbound left turn movement is still forecast to operate at a level of service F in the 2030 horizon year with the auxiliary lane, the volume of left turning traffic is expected to be relatively small (less than one per minute) and the volume to capacity ratio is expected to be low (0.50 or less). With the recommended infrastructure described above, the study area intersections are generally expected to operate at acceptable levels. The southbound left turn movement at the Elmira/Paisley intersection is expected to operate at capacity in the weekday afternoon peak hour under future total 2030 traffic conditions with 95 th percentile queues extending beyond the available storage. The development of the subject site adds no traffic to the southbound left turn movement at the Elmira/Paisley intersection and the City should monitor the operations at the www.salviniconsulting.com

15 intersection. The queuing beyond the storage lane was identified under 2025 future background traffic conditions. Under future total 2030 traffic conditions in the afternoon peak hour, the eastbound left turn 95 th percentile queue at the Elmira/Paisley intersection is expected to extend beyond the 50 metres of available storage (to about 65 metres). Given that the horizon year is 12 years away and includes for considerable background growth, the City should monitor this queue over time to see if it becomes problematic. The subject site adds very little traffic to the eastbound left turn movement in the weekday afternoon peak hour and the 95 th percentile queue does not extend beyond the storage lane in any of the other studied horizons. Sidewalks are recommended along the frontage of the site on Whitelaw Road to provide a pedestrian connection to the transit stops at the Elmira/Paisley intersection. The active transportation infrastructure included in the Development Concept and proposed to connect the site to the adjacent neighborhoods and the boundary road network will provide good opportunities for residents to walk and cycle in and through the area. Bicycle parking will be provided on the site both at grade and within the buildings for the use of visitors and residents. As the area around the site builds out, it would be beneficial to extend Guelph Transit route 10 from the Paisley/Imperial intersection at least to the Elmira/Paisley intersection to provide local residents better access by transit to downtown Guelph. The provision of parking at a rate of one (1) space per unit is appropriate given a measured peak demand of about 1.07 spaces per unit locally and the future transportation trends in the City that will see a reduction in car ownership. This study has considered a conceptual mixed density residential development containing up to 800 units in the context of existing and future road and traffic conditions, and existing and proposed surrounding development. The study demonstrates that with a minor improvement to the Whitelaw Road intersection and the incorporation of some addition active transportation infrastructure on Whitelaw Road, the development of the subject property can be accommodated from a transportation perspective and supports the approval of the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, as submitted. www.salviniconsulting.com

Appendix A: Figures

Site Location Plan OpenStreetMap contributors 2018

Development Concept Plan

Paisley Park Traffic Diagrams AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley 0 722 629 1220 0 949 1011 1862 0 0 313 316 0 0 530 481 122 254 359 106 67 140 253 400 121 143 266 321 615 368 55 414 414 14 389 409 71 471 471 112 687 707 707 786 780 930 930 247 293 293 74 397 371 459 459 142 613 1300 241 9 52 207 55 120 50 361 9 98 275 29 85 72 6 12 10 42 61 61 93 225 81 107 297 186 122 318 188 483 Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 7:30 Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 7:30 Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 4:30 Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 4:30 Future Background Traffic 2020 0 896 838 1521 0 1193 1263 2298 0 0 386 452 0 0 676 587 160 301 389 140 76 170 275 442 187 168 321 377 671 409 88 477 477 30 465 458 155 597 597 147 825 867 867 937 882 1156 1156 262 390 390 141 472 423 559 559 186 750 1576 253 20 137 236 62 151 66 403 16 156 324 33 100 105 8 13 20 49 96 157 120 279 175 172 364 239 254 399 348 603 Future Background Traffic 2025 0 974 906 1653 0 1295 1372 2500 0 0 420 486 0 0 733 639 173 328 428 152 83 185 302 485 200 183 350 412 737 449 94 522 522 32 507 503 163 648 648 159 900 944 944 1022 966 1256 1256 288 422 422 149 515 463 609 609 201 817 1716 279 21 143 259 68 164 71 442 17 167 354 36 110 113 9 15 21 53 103 164 130 303 184 184 396 259 267 433 368 655 Future Background Traffic 2030 0 1061 981 1799 0 1409 1493 2723 0 0 457 524 0 0 796 697 188 359 471 164 91 202 332 533 214 200 381 450 811 493 101 571 571 33 554 552 171 704 704 173 982 1029 1029 1116 1059 1368 1368 318 457 457 158 563 508 663 663 218 890 1872 308 22 149 283 75 178 77 485 18 178 387 40 120 122 10 16 23 58 110 171 141 330 194 197 431 281 282 471 390 713

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley 0 200 59 165 0 284 84 234 0 0 9 50 0 0 51 32 9 15 51 82 35 30 26 26 26 15 19 143 143 143 82 165 165 94 50 234 234 6 139 139 50 80 31 91 91 32 52 134 30 139 80 2 19 91 52 10 6 10 31 6 31 169 10 2 174 110 6 10 200 12 284 17 200 227 284 322 31 169 174 110 24 8 131 44 177 28 0 154 0 0 251 149 127 0 97 83 0 0 4 42 23 28 22 15 30 46 58 51 77 109 77 85 109 121 30 46 58 51 8 22 44 15 59 9 0 51 0 0 84 50 42 0 32 28 0 0 1 4 8 23 7 5 30 6 19 31 35 50

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Future Total Traffic 2020 Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley 0 1096 897 1686 0 1477 1346 2532 0 0 395 501 0 0 727 620 160 301 389 149 76 170 290 442 238 168 321 459 706 439 114 503 503 30 480 478 298 740 740 147 907 1032 1032 1032 932 1390 1390 267 530 530 191 552 454 650 650 218 802 1709 253 50 276 316 64 151 66 403 36 247 376 43 100 105 14 23 51 55 128 326 130 281 349 283 370 249 454 410 632 619 454 491 632 686 128 326 349 283 68 44 24 80 24 131 153 66 28 8 76 154 5 49 177 102 251 126 149 127 26 97 83 77 4 132 2 23 156 11 22 15 111 138 172 190 249 362 249 261 362 380 111 138 172 190 26 17 8 94 9 44 104 25 9 2 28 51 17 59 39 84 47 50 42 11 32 28 30 1 70 2 8 145 5 7 5 103 73 109 158 176 267

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Future Total Traffic 2025 Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley 0 1175 965 1818 0 1580 1456 2734 0 0 429 536 0 0 784 672 173 328 428 161 83 185 317 485 251 183 350 494 773 479 120 548 548 32 522 522 306 791 791 159 981 1109 1109 1117 1016 1491 1491 294 561 561 199 595 494 699 699 234 869 1850 279 51 282 338 70 164 71.4 442 37 257 406 47 110 113 14 25 52 60 134 333 140 305 358 294 402 269 467 445 652 672 467 504 652 706 134 333 358 294 68 44 24 87 24 131 162 66 28 8 76 154 5 49 177 102 251 126 149 127 26 97 83 77 4 138 2 23 167 11 22 15 117 144 181 202 262 383 262 275 383 400 117 144 181 202 26 17 8 100 9 44 113 25 9 2 28 51 0 17 59 39 84 47 50 42 11 32 28 30 1 76 2 8 157 5 7 5 110 80 118 170 189 287

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Future Total Traffic 2030 Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley Paisley/Whitelaw Elmira/Paisley 0 1261 1040 1964 0 1693 1577 2957 0 0 467 573 0 0 847 729 188 359 471 173 91 202 347 533 266 200 381 532 846 523 127 597 597 33 569 571 314 848 848 173 1064 1194 1194 1211 1110 1602 1602 2006 323 596 596 207 642 539 754 754 251 942 308 52 288 363 77 178 77 485 38 269 439 50 120 122 15 26 53 65 142 340 151 332 368 307 438 291 482 483 675 729 482 519 675 728 142 340 368 307 68 44 24 94 24 131 171 66 28 8 76 154 5 49 177 102 251 126 149 127 26 97 83 77 4 146 2 23 180 11 22 15 125 152 191 214 276 405 276 289 405 423 125 152 191 214 26 17 8 108 9 44 122 25 9 2 28 51 0 17 59 39 84 47 50 42 11 32 28 30 1 84 2 8 170 5 7 5 117 87 127 182 204 310

Appendix B: Existing Capacity Analysis

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Elmira & Paisley 08/22/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 74 207 12 14 253 122 55 120 50 140 67 106 Future Volume (vph) 74 207 12 14 253 122 55 120 50 140 67 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (m) 45.0 65.0 75.0 0.0 35.0 100.0 85.0 100.0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.992 0.951 0.956 0.908 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1807 3584 0 1825 3362 0 1825 3364 0 1738 3176 0 Flt Permitted 0.489 0.604 0.633 0.566 Satd. Flow (perm) 929 3584 0 1158 3362 0 1214 3364 0 1032 3176 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 85 54 115 Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Link Distance (m) 134.4 476.3 836.6 313.6 Travel Time (s) 8.1 28.6 60.2 22.6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 3 7 2 8 5 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 2% 6% 5% 4% 3% Adj. Flow (vph) 80 225 13 15 275 133 60 130 54 152 73 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 238 0 15 408 0 60 184 0 152 188 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 41.0 10.0 41.0 10.0 43.0 10.0 43.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 41.0 10.0 41.0 10.0 43.0 10.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 9.6% 39.4% 9.6% 39.4% 9.6% 41.3% 9.6% 41.3% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 35.0 7.0 35.0 7.0 37.0 7.0 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 73.4 67.3 71.6 63.0 20.7 10.7 21.3 12.7 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.71 0.65 0.69 0.61 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.20 0.21 0.47 0.59 0.39 Armel Whitelaw Residential Proposal 07/19/2018 Existing AM J Salvini Page 1

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Elmira & Paisley 08/22/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Control Delay 5.0 7.8 4.6 8.0 33.8 34.8 44.9 20.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.0 7.8 4.6 8.0 33.8 34.8 44.9 20.4 LOS A A A A C C D C Approach Delay 7.1 7.9 34.5 31.3 Approach LOS A A C C Queue Length 50th (m) 4.1 7.2 0.8 14.3 9.8 13.2 26.4 7.3 Queue Length 95th (m) 8.9 16.3 2.6 23.6 20.0 23.4 43.3 17.4 Internal Link Dist (m) 110.4 452.3 812.6 289.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 45.0 75.0 35.0 85.0 Base Capacity (vph) 718 2322 842 2070 282 1231 258 1204 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.59 0.16 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 104 Actuated Cycle Length: 104 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.59 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Elmira & Paisley Armel Whitelaw Residential Proposal 07/19/2018 Existing AM J Salvini Page 2

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Elmira & Paisley 08/22/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 142 275 42 112 321 254 29 85 72 266 143 121 Future Volume (vph) 142 275 42 112 321 254 29 85 72 266 143 121 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (m) 45.0 65.0 75.0 0.0 35.0 100.0 85.0 100.0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.980 0.934 0.931 0.931 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1825 3540 0 1807 3352 0 1825 3295 0 1807 3340 0 Flt Permitted 0.273 0.545 0.576 0.516 Satd. Flow (perm) 524 3540 0 1036 3352 0 1106 3295 0 980 3340 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 18 209 78 132 Link Speed (k/h) 60 60 50 50 Link Distance (m) 134.4 476.3 836.6 313.6 Travel Time (s) 8.1 28.6 60.2 22.6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 154 299 46 122 349 276 32 92 78 289 155 132 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 345 0 122 625 0 32 170 0 289 287 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 41.0 10.0 41.0 10.0 43.0 10.0 43.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 41.0 10.0 41.0 10.0 43.0 10.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 9.6% 39.4% 9.6% 39.4% 9.6% 41.3% 9.6% 41.3% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 35.0 7.0 35.0 7.0 37.0 7.0 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 24.2 15.7 23.6 13.6 20.3 10.2 22.2 16.5 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.43 0.28 0.42 0.24 0.36 0.18 0.40 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.34 0.23 0.64 0.07 0.25 0.59 0.27 Armel Whitelaw Residential Proposal 07/19/2018 Existing PM J Salvini Page 1

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Elmira & Paisley 08/22/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Control Delay 11.5 17.0 9.3 15.6 11.2 13.2 19.1 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.5 17.0 9.3 15.6 11.2 13.2 19.1 11.0 LOS B B A B B B B B Approach Delay 15.3 14.6 12.9 15.1 Approach LOS B B B B Queue Length 50th (m) 8.2 14.4 6.4 19.0 1.8 4.1 19.1 5.2 Queue Length 95th (m) 16.8 24.2 13.8 33.3 6.5 11.8 #43.5 17.4 Internal Link Dist (m) 110.4 452.3 812.6 289.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 45.0 75.0 35.0 85.0 Base Capacity (vph) 390 2230 534 2182 491 2214 492 2261 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.07 0.08 0.59 0.13 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 104 Actuated Cycle Length: 55.9 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64 Intersection Signal Delay: 14.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Elmira & Paisley Armel Whitelaw Residential Proposal 07/19/2018 Existing PM J Salvini Page 2