Lakefield Transportation Master Plan
Share Lakefield Transportation Master Plan on Facebook
Share Lakefield Transportation Master Plan on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Lakefield Transportation Master Plan on Linkedin
Email Lakefield Transportation Master Plan link
Introduction:
Peterborough County is undertaking a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for the Lakefield area road network to identify transportation infrastructure improvements needed to serve planned growth. As part of this study, the County will:
- Assess the long-term need for a second crossing of the Otonabee River
- If justified, identify the preferred location for a potential second crossing to provide additional connection between County Road 29 and Highway 28
- Recommend interim improvements to accommodate near-term traffic growth
It’s important to note that this study will recommend a corridor to protect to support longer-term planning. There is no planned schedule for construction.
Scope of Work:
This study follows the guiding framework of Approach #1 of the Master Planning process outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (MCEA) document (2024).
The scope of work includes the following phases:
Phase 1 - Identification of Problems & Opportunities
- Update growth projections for Lakefield.
- Revise traffic modelling to reflect current and anticipated conditions.
- Conduct localized analysis of growth projections and traffic modelling.
Phase 2 - Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
- Identify and evaluate alternative solutions to improve the road network.
- Issue the Lakefield Network Transportation Master Plan report for a 30-day public review and comment period.
Page last updated: 19 Oct 2026, 09:22 AM
-
Lakefield TMP Presentation - February 5 2026 (1.84 MB) (pdf)
-
Public Information Centre No. 1
-
Public Information Centre No. 2
-
Final Report and Appendices
-
Lakefield TMP - Notice of Master Plan.pdf (392 KB) (pdf)
-
Lakefield Transportation Master Plan (5.72 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix A - Natural Heritage Memo (3.24 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix B - Cultural Heritage Review (12.1 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix C - Archaeological Assessment (15.6 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix D - Traffic Analysis (10.9 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix E - Alternative Road and Bridge Alignments (18.3 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix F.1 - Notifications (6.73 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix F.2 - PIC Summary Report (61.6 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix F.3 - Public Correspondence (13.4 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix F.4.- First Nations Correspondence (14.1 MB) (pdf)
-
Appendix F.5 - Agency Correspondence (38 MB) (pdf)
-
-
Public Information Centre #1 Timing and Formatting
- Why does the study name only mention Lakefield?
- Why did I receive the notice about the first Public Information Centre (PIC) just days before the event?
- Why was the comment period for PIC #1 limited to two weeks (ending November 14, 2025)?
- Why didn’t the Notice of Study Commencement and PIC #1 provide more detailed information about the project and options?
- Why wasn’t the PIC structured as a formal presentation followed by a Question-and-Answer session?
- If a new bridge is being proposed on federal property, why wasn’t Parks Canada present at the meeting?
-
Alternative Solutions and Evaluation Process
- Why is a new bridge being considered instead of upgrading and expanding the existing Lakefield crossing?
- Will the study consider broader traffic improvements beyond the bridge? Have alternatives such as signalized intersections, roundabouts, and improved signage been evaluated?
- Why is a large bridge and new road network being considered when current traffic in Lakefield does not appear highly disruptive?
- Why is a crossing identified on 6th Line when new developments on 7th Line could better accommodate a new road and bridge?
- Will alternatives like widening Highway 28 or aligning crossings with Trent-Severn Locks be considered?
- Has the proposed MTO corridor been considered as an alternative to building a new bridge?
- Why are bridge and roadway options being considered south of Lakefield when the goal is to address traffic within the village?
- Will large trucks be diverted around Lakefield?
-
Environmental Considerations
- Why is a bridge crossing being proposed through a scenic route that could impact wildlife species and habitats? How will the project protect fish habitats, turtles, migratory birds, wetlands, and species at risk?
- What measures are being considered to mitigate potential environmental impacts and human health risks associated with the project?
-
Socio-Economic and Property Impacts
- Will residences, private property, and agricultural land be affected?
- What will the project cost, and how will it be funded?
- Will safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists be prioritized?
- Could diverting traffic onto 7th Line compromise safety near schools?
- As a property owner near the proposed bridge options, how will this project affect my property value, and is there a risk of expropriation if my land falls within a preferred alignment?
-
Implementation and Next Steps
