Elgin Mills Open House 2

Welcome to Online Open House #2

Elgin Mills Road / CN Railway Crossing (Yonge Street to East of Newkirk Road) City of Richmond Hill

Welcome to the second Online Open House for the Elgin Mills Road / CN Railway Crossing Environmental Assessment (EA) Study.

The reviewing and commenting period for Online Open House #2 is open from Monday, March 11 to Monday, April 1, 2024.

Purpose of Online Open House #2

Share key feedback received to date

Present the design approach, alternatives considered, evaluations and preliminary recommendations for the project

Present the recommended preferred preliminary design

Obtain your input about the project

Next steps

Privacy Statement:

Please note your personal information (e.g. name, address, and phone number) is collected, maintained, and disclosed under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for transparency and consultation purposes.

Personal information submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless it is requested that the personal information remain confidential.

How to navigate

Click on the arrows at the bottom of your screen
Use the navigation bar to the left of your screen to revisit any part of the Online Open House slides or to skip to a slide of interest to you
Click the “Audio” button at the top right corner of the page to play audio for each slide

How to participate

Click on the arrows at the bottom of your screen to get started and learn about the project. Some slides have areas to leave comments about the information presented. Enter your comments and press SUBMIT to send it to the project team
You can also email your comments to the project team at transportation@york.ca

Contact information

EA Process and Study Objectives

Project description

York Region is undertaking a transportation Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for improvements to Elgin Mills Road between Yonge Street and east of Newkirk Road, in the City of Richmond Hill.

Environmental Assessment (EA) process

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a planning and approval process for municipal infrastructure projects, legislated by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. This study is being conducted as a Schedule ‘C’ project under the Municipal Class EA document (2023) and incorporates the Region’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) process. Public consultation is a key component of the EA process.

The study is currently in Phase 3 – Alternative design concepts for the preferred solution of the EA process.

Community Outreach and What We Heard

Community outreach

Direct mail notices

Project website (York.ca/ElginMillsStudy)

Technical review agencies consultation

Newspaper notices

York Region social media (Facebook, X)

Online survey

Online open houses

Stakeholder consultation

Roadside signage

What we heard

Online Open House #1 Feedback

The first Online Open House (OH1) was held from Thursday, January 27 to Thursday, February 17, 2022 and saw 433 participants. The number of responses received varied per question.

Do you agree with the recommendation to construct a rail grade separation structure and accommodate active transportation along the Elgin Mills Road corridor?

Percentage of respondents that agree with the recommendation

What is your preference for accommodating pedestrians and cyclists along Elgin Mills Road between Yonge Street and East of Newkirk Road?

Percentage of respondents that indicated a preference for active transportation facility type

Are there other items to consider when developing the grade separation alternatives (underpass and overpass)?

Underpass alternative(road would pass under the rail-line, requiring digging under the rail corridor

Minimizes impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods
Less severe incline compared to an overpass for pedestrians and cyclists
More aesthetically pleasing - allows for better space for art, planters and lighting
High ground water; may have issues with drainage requiring actively pumping water from the water table
Concerns with water seepage and freezing along pedestrian paths (similar to Major Mackenize Drive and CN Line)
Flooding risk from heavy rainfall without flood risk mitigation
Seems claustrophobic, enclosed space
Relocate underground utilities, service mains and manhole boxes

Overpass alternative (road would pass over the rail-line, requiring a new bridge)

No residential homes immediately backing onto the railway crossing
Reduce walkability and cyclability
Potential issues with icy and slippery roads
Rerouting concerns
More disruptive for community theatre
Not aesthetically pleasing (eye sore)
Better opportunity to separate vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of the roadway
Low risk of flooding
Most cost effective
Impacts to intersections with inclined road

General comments:

Rail crossing safety

Level rail crossing is dangerous for cyclists
Impatient drivers on the tracks between the rail crossing gates
Emergency services are delayed with current congestion and train crossings

Accommodate future growth

Substantial planned development will add to existing congestion
Need to reduce car dependency and encourage other modesof travel

Winter maintenance and safety

Steepness of road and visibility will be a concern during winter conditions
Snow clearing operations need to be maintained

Active transportation

Prioritize green infrastructure; support the walkability, cycling and safety of the corridor
Steep inclines and pedestrian and cyclist ability to traverse, including mobility devices (e.g. wheel chairs, walkers, scooters)
Safety concerns with dark and enclosed spaces
Maintain existing pedestrian and cyclist connections

Affected businesses and residential areas

Residences and business impacts need to be considered (noise, visual aesthetics/obstructions, dust, air quality, construction, property values, etc.)

Construction

Construction duration and traffic impacts; need for detour roads
Construction should start earlier, why wait

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is construction starting in 2028? This should be completed sooner.
How long will construction take?

The EA study is anticipated for completion in 2024. An Environmental Study Report (ESR) will document the study’s decision-making rational and consultation process and be made available for public review at the completion of the study.

The detailed design stage will follow and take two to three years to complete (2024-2027). During detailed design the Region will finalize the design and property requirements, purchase required property, apply for and obtain all necessary permits and complete utility relocations. Construction drawings and documents will be prepared.

The Region’s 2024 10-year Roads and Transit Capital Construction Program identifies construction commencing in 2028. Construction is anticipated to take two to three construction seasons to complete. A detailed construction schedule will be prepared during detailed design.

The timing of improvements is subject to annual review and can change.

How much will this project cost to construct? How is it funded?

Preliminary cost estimates will be developed following this Online Open House, after the recommended design is confirmed and refined. Construction will largely be funded through development charges with a lesser portion paid through the tax levy.

Preferred Solution

Following Online Open House #1, the preferred solution for the Elgin Mills Road / CN Railway Crossing was confirmed. The preferred solution is to construct a rail grade separation structure that separates the road from the railway and accommodates active transportation along the Elgin Mills corridor. This will:

Address improvements at the CN Railway crossing
Provide for separated active transportation (AT) facilities for pedestrians and cyclists
Support Elgin Mills Road as a Frequent Transit Network
Accommodate the safety, performance and operational efficiency for all modes of travel

With the preferred solution confirmed, the next step was for the project team to develop and evaluate different design alternatives. The design alternative development, evaluations and recommendations determined how to best separate Elgin Mills Road from the level rail crossing, accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, and support all travel modes.

Key Technical Studies

Key technical studies

The following technical studies are in progress or completed to inform the development of the design alternatives, evaluations and impact assessment of the proposed improvements:

Transportation and traffic assessment

Natural heritage

Arborist / tree inventory

Archaeological assessment

Cultural and built heritage assessment

Noise impact assessment

Stormwater management and drainage

Geotechnical investigations

Hydrogeological investigations

Contamination overview study

Streetscape and landscaping

Structural design

Sub-surface utilities investigations

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria

The following criteria was used to assess the alternative design concepts:

Transportation service

Reduce traffic congestion and delays
Create a pedestrian-friendly environment
Create a cyclist-friendly environment
Improve public transit service
Enhance safety at the rail crossing
Increase safety for all travel modes
Improve travel mode choice (making walking, cycling, and transit more desirable)
Accommodate emergency services

Social environment

Minimize impacts to residential, institutional and recreational dwellings / properties
Improve access to residential areas, institutional and recreational facilities
Mitigate traffic on local streets
Minimize traffic noise
Preserve archaeological and cultural heritage features
Improve visual aesthetics
Improve community character

Natural environment

Protect designated natural areas
Protect vegetation
Protect wildlife
Protect aquatic habitat
Improve air quality
Protect surface water and ground water
Minimize effects on climate change
Minimize flooding and erosion and protect slope stability

Infrastructure design and economic environment

Minimize utility relocation
Accommodate planned development and growth
Minimize impacts and improve access to businesses and key employment areas
Minimize property requirements
Life cycle cost (maximize construction value, minimize operating costs)
Minimize disruption due to construction
Minimize constructability complexity

Existing Conditions and Design Considerations

Image Source: Yorkmaps.ca

Existing rail crossing conditions

Rail corridor is currently serviced by CN Freight Rail, CN Corridor Maintenance, GO Commuter Rail and VIA Commuter Rail

Vehicles are delayed at the crossing as they are required to stop for trains to cross, causing driver frustration – safety concerns for motorists due to potential conflicts with crossing trains

Increased train frequency is expected and lengthy duration of train crossings (e.g., freight trains)

Vehicle queues extend to adjacent intersections when crossing arms are lowered for passing trains

Safety concerns for pedestrians at the existing CN Railway crossing

Elgin Mills Road does not support cycling facilities at the crossing

Key design considerations

High groundwater table and drainage requirements
Existing flood vulnerable area and associated flood risks
Newkirk Road / APOTEX entrance signalized intersection
Ohio Road unsignalized intersection
Existing pedestrian connections to the north and south
Proximity between the rail crossing and residential homes and businesses
Pedestrian and cyclist conditions, safety and comfort
Inclined slopes and ability for all road users to traverse, especially during winter conditions
Visual aesthetics / visual obstructions
Opportunities for streetscaping / landscaping and public art
Utilities (above and below ground and relocation requirements)
Roadway geometrics and railway clearance requirements
Constructability – ability to maintain road and rail traffic during construction (road and / or rail detours)
Impact of construction to adjacent businesses
Life cycle costs

Alternative Design Concepts

To determine how to best separate Elgin Mills Road from the level rail crossing and accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, the following alternative designs were considered and evaluated.

Alternatives

Alternative 1 – Maintain At-Grade Crossing

Elgin Mills Road crosses the CN rail tracks at the existing level crossing.

Existing Elgin Mills Road at-grade crossing East of Yonge Street.

Not carried forward

Does not address the study objectives. The at-grade crossing cannot support current and future traffic demands. Traffic congestion and queues from the rail crossing impact access along the corridor, limit capacity and result in vehicle delays, including to emergency services and transit
Safety concerns for pedestrian and cyclist conflicts at the rail crossing

Alternative 2 – Underpass

Elgin Mills Road is lowered under the CN rail tracks.

Underpass example:
Major Mackenzie Drive east of Keele Street.

Alternative 3 – Overpass

Elgin Mills Road is raised above the CN rail tracks.

Overpass example:
Bantry Road east of Yonge Street.

Carried Forward

Both the Underpass and Overpass alternatives:

Reduce delays as vehicles are no longer required to stop for each passing train
Address the study objectives and support future traffic demands
Improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists as conflicts with crossing trains are eliminated

Alternative 4 – Hybrid (Lowering/Raising Rail)

4A: Hybrid Underpass - Raised rail with lowered Elgin Mills Road
4B: Hybrid Overpass - Lowered rail with raised Elgin Mills Road

Not carried forward

The length of rail upstream and downstream of the Elgin Mills Road crossing required to accomodate a grade separation at Elgin Mills Road is too impactful as it will result in the potential re-grading of all adjacent properties along the length of rail that is modified
Lowering the rail is also too impactful as the study area falls within a Flood Vulnerable Area and has a high groundwater table

Evaluation and Recommendations

Legend: Most preferred Less preferred Least preferred

CRITERIA	ALTERNATIVE 2: UNDERPASS	ALTERNATIVE 3: OVERPASS	SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Reduce Traffic Congestion and Delays			Both alternatives: Eliminate delays and vehicle queues caused by at-grade train crossings at crossing gates, improving traffic operations and the capacity of Elgin Mills Road Enhance the pedestrian and cyclist environment with dedicated facilities Improve safety with the elimination of rail conflict points with road users (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit) Improve access for emergency vehicles with reduced congestion Alternative 2 - Underpass is ranked as most preferred under Transportation Services as it also reduces travel distance for pedestrians and cyclists and provides less steep inclines for all road users (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit) approaching intersections when compared to the overpass.
Create a Pedestrian-Friendly Environment
Create a Cyclist-Friendly Environment
Improve Public Transit Service
Improve Safety at the Rail Crossing
Improve Safety for all Travel Modes
Improve Mode Choice
Accommodate Emergency Services
Summary of Transportation Service	Most preferred	Less preferred
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Protect Designated Natural Areas			Both alternatives: Do not impact any designated natural areas or aquatic habitat and have minimal potential impact to wildlife vegetation habitat Impact existing boulevard street trees / vegetation, requiring additional tree plantings/ landscaping Improve air quality with the elimination of vehicle idling at the rail crossing and potential reduction in vehicle emissions by supporting more sustainable and reliable travel mode choices Alternative 2 – Underpass has two significant considerations for the natural environment, which are: 1) potential impacts to the groundwater system, and 2) potential flooding impacts from surface water. The underpass will require a permanent groundwater drainage system and potential depressurization of the Oak Ridges Aquifer Complex (ORAC). However, this impact can potentially be mitigated if the underpass is designed to be waterproof. When considering potential flooding impacts from surface water, it is noted the study area falls within an existing flood vulnerable area. This results in significant flood risk to the Underpass and mitigation measures (e.g., a pumping station to address surface water) will not address the flood risk. As the flood risk is not mitigatable, Alternative 2 - Underpass is not considered feasible. Alternative 3 - Overpass is ranked as most preferred under Natural Environment as it does not require a permanent groundwater drainage system and does not increase the flood risk.
Protect Vegetation
Protect Wildlife
Protect Aquatic Habitat
Improve Air Quality
Protect Surface Water and Ground Water
Minimize Effects of Climate Change
Minimize Flooding and Erosion and Protect Slope Stability
Summary of Natural Environment	Least preferred	Most preferred
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Minimize Impacts to Residential, Institutional and Recreational Dwellings / Properties			Both alternatives: Improve access to surrounding land use with reduced traffic congestion and increased capacity Require the permanent alignment of Elgin Mills Road be shifted further south and does not require property from residential lots Does not impact any cultural features as none are identified in the corridor, but have minor potential impacts to properties that have archaeological potential Alternative 2 - Underpass is ranked as most preferred under Social Environment, although it is anticipated to have higher noise levels than Alternative 3 - overpass (due to sound reflections against the sides of the underpass walls). The overpass structure will be 10-11 metres in height and create a visual obstruction in the community. Opportunities to provide additional street plantings and landscaping will be used as a screening buffer to improve the visual aesthetics of the corridor.
Improve Access to Residential Areas, Institutional and Recreational Facilities
Mitigate Traffic on Local Streets
Minimize Traffic Noise
Preserve Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Features
Improve Visual Aesthetics
Improve Community Character
Summary of Social Environment	Most preferred	Less preferred
INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Minimize Utility Relocation			Both alternatives: Support approved development and planned growth in the study area Impact commercial / industrial properties and utility easements when Elgin Mills Road is re-aligned to the south, but do not require residential property Improve access to employment areas and cross-streets with reduced vehicle delays and queues from the crossing Alternative 3 - Overpass is ranked as most preferred under infrastructure design and economic activity as it has less complex utility impacts and relocations, moderate construction complexity (requiring temporary road detour but no rail detour, common construction materials and techniques), shorter construction duration and significantly lower capital, operating and maintenance costs when compared to Alternative 2 - Underpass.
Accommodate Planned Development and Growth
Minimize Impacts and Improve Access to Businesses and Key Employment Areas
Minimize Property Requirements
Life Cycle Cost (Maximize Construction Value, Minimize Operating Costs)
Minimize Disruption due to Construction
Minimize Constructability Complexity
Summary of Infrastructure Design and Economic Environment	Least preferred	Most preferred
OVERALL SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION		RECOMMENDED

✓Alternative 3 - Overpass is recommended

This alternative mitigates vehicle queuing and delays caused by increased CN, GO and VIA Rail services; improving traffic operations and the capacity of Elgin Mills Road, including access for emergency services. It accommodates pedestrians and cyclists with continuous and dedicated facilities (e.g., multi-use paths) and eliminates rail crossing conflict points with all users. This alternative will create a visual obstruction due to the proposed height of the overpass and embankments, and result in pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorist travelling along an incline. Landscaping and streetscaping opportunities will be explored to improve the visual impacts. When compared to Alternative 2 – Underpass, Alternative 3 - Overpass is more cost-efficient, has less complex construction and construction duration, does not require a permanent groundwater drainage system or depressurization of the ORAC and does not result in a flood risk.

Overpass Structure Alternatives

Overpass structure alternatives

CN is a critical stakeholder in the success of this project. The existing CN Rail right-of-way (ROW) is 36 metres with two existing railway tracks. CN have confirmed that while they currently have no plans for future rail expansion, they would like to protect their ROW for future expansion. The project team, in consultation with CN Rail, reviewed two main bridge alternatives for crossing the railway tracks:

Overpass Alternative A – Partial Span (23 metre Bridge)

With this option, bridge abutments are proposed inside the CN Rail right-of-way. This option would accommodate the two existing railway tracks plus one additional railway track for future expansion and would meet all railway clearance requirements.

Overpass Alternative B – Full Span (36 metre Bridge)

Overpass bridge carrying Elgin Mills Road spans the full 36 metres CN right-of-way. With this option, bridge abutments are proposed outside the CN Rail right-of-way. This option would accommodate the two existing railway tracks and would not restrict any future rail expansion within CN’s right-of-way. CN being a key stakeholder, the Region has throughout this study, consulted with CN on alternatives for the grade separation. This option was created in response to CN concerns regarding the placement of abutments within the CN ROW. The agency has indicated that in consultation with other Rail Authorities/Stakeholders, would not support an option that has infrastructure located within their Rail ROW, limiting their ability to expand in the future.

Both options maintain the same roadway cross section over the railway tracks (i.e. four lanes of traffic, multi-use path on both sides of the road). However, Option B results in a larger bridge with more impacts and a longer construction duration. A detailed evaluation of both options is provided.

Legend: Most preferred Less preferred Least preferred

CRITERIA	Overpass Alternative A – Partial Span (23 metres)	Overpass Alternative B – Full Span (36 metres)	SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Reduce traffic congestion and delays Create a pedestrian-friendly environment Create a cyclist-friendly environment Improve public transit service Improve safety at the rail crossing Improve safety for all travel modes Improve mode choice Accommodate emergency services	Most preferred	Most preferred	Both alternatives are ranked as most preferred under transportation services as there is no difference amongst the alternatives. Both alternatives maintain four travel lanes along Elgin Mills Road and accommodate dedicated and continuous active transportation facilities over the rail crossing.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Protect designated natural areas Protect vegetation Protect wildlife Protect aquatic habitat Improve air quality Protect surface water and ground water Minimize effects of climate change Minimize flooding and erosion and protect slope stability	Most preferred	Most preferred	Both alternatives are ranked as most preferred under natural environment as there is no / marginal difference amongst the alternatives as both alternatives will have a similar impact to the natural environment.
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Minimize impacts to residential, institutional and recreational dwellings / properties Improve access to residential areas, institutional and recreational facilities Mitigate traffic on local streets Minimize traffic noise Preserve archaeological and cultural heritage features Improve visual aesthetics Improve community character	Most preferred	Less preferred	Both alternatives improve access and reduce congestion, have similar property impacts without requiring property from residential lots, and provide opportunities for additional street plantings and landscaping screening buffers to improve the visual aesthetics of the corridor. Alternative A - Partial span (23 metres) is ranked as most preferred under social environment as the highest point of the overpass structure is slightly lower than in Alternative B – Full Span (36 metres), resulting in a reduced visual obstruction from the overpass west of the rail corridor.
INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Minimize utility relocation Accommodate planned development and growth Minimize impacts and improve access to businesses and key employment areas Minimize property requirements Life cycle cost (maximize construction value, minimize operating costs) Minimize disruption due to construction Minimize constructability complexity	Most preferred	Least preferred	Both alternatives have similar utility impacts, property requirements and relocation requirements. Both alternatives also require re-grading of the Apotex Entrance and raises Newkirk Road at its intersection with Elgin Mills Road. Alternative B -Full span (36 metres) would accommodate the two existing railway tracks and would not restrict any future rail expansion within CN’s right-of-way (CN have confirmed that while they currently have no plans for future rail expansion, they would like to protect their ROW for future expansion). For this alternative, bridge abutments are proposed outside of CN’s right-of-way. When compared to Alternative A –Partial span (23 metres), Alternative B -Full span (36 metres) has greater capital, operating and maintenance costs to account for the larger bridge structures to span the full CN right-of-way, and will result in a longer construction duration. Alternative A - Partial span (23metres) is ranked as most preferred under infrastructure design and economic environment. This alternative would accommodate the two existing railway tracks plus one additional railway track for future expansion and would meet all railway clearance requirements. For this alternative, bridge abutments are proposed inside CN’s right-of-way. This alternative requires smaller bridge structures and will have lower capital, operating and maintenance costs, and reduced construction duration compared to Alternative B – Full span (36 metres).
OVERALL SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION	Technically preferred but not carried forward Not supported by CN	RECOMMENDED

Overpass Alternative A - Partial
pan (23 metres) is preferred but not carried forward

This alternative meets the study requirements, requires smaller bridge structures requiring a shorter construction duration, creates a lesser visual impact/obstruction, and has lower costs compared to Alternative B – Full span (36 metres). Although this alternative protects for some future rail expansion (up to one additional track), it limits CN’s ability to maximize future rail expansion within the rail right-of-way, and requires construction of bridge abutments within the CN Rail right-of-way. This alternative is not supported by CN Rail and is not carried forward.

✓Overpass Alternative B - Full span (36 metres) is recommended

Although this alternative requires larger bridge structures with a longer construction duration, creates a greater visual impact/obstruction, and has higher costs compared to Alternative A – Partial span (23 metres), CN Rail is supportive of Alternative B – Full span (36 metres). This alternative meets the study requirements, does not require the construction of bridge abutments within CN’s right-of-way, and does not restrict any future rail expansion within CN’s right-of-way.

Alternative Design Concepts

Currently there are sidewalks located on the north and south boulevards and no cycling facilities along Elgin Mills Road.

To determine how to best accommodate pedestrians and cyclists along Elgin Mills Road between Yonge Street and east of Newkirk Road the following active transportation alternative designs were considered and evaluated.