Frequently Asked Questions
Public Information Centre #1 Timing and Formatting
Why does the study name only mention Lakefield?
While the study focuses primarily on the Lakefield community, it also considers impacts and connections across the transportation network serving the broader area, including the need for a second crossing of the Otonabee River, as recommended in the 2022 Peterborough County Transportation Master Plan Update.
Township staff from Douro-Dummer and Selwyn are included in a Technical Advisory Committee to provide the project team with local feedback and comments.
Why did I receive the notice about the first Public Information Centre (PIC) just days before the event?
Due to the Canada Post strike at the time, the study team had to coordinate a separate mail-out, which was unfortunately delayed because of the strike. We understand that receiving notice shortly before the meeting was not ideal and appreciate your understanding. Our goal is to keep the community well-informed and engaged throughout this study.
Why was the comment period for PIC #1 limited to two weeks (ending November 14, 2025)?
The requested timeframe to receive comments following the PIC helps ensure timely feedback so that feedback can be incorporated into the study’s next steps. However, we welcome feedback and comments throughout the study process. Ongoing input from community members is valued and will help ensure the resulting transportation plan reflects local priorities and concerns. Please contact either one of the following study team members to provide comments and/or ask questions about this study:
County of Peterborough
Doug Saccoccia, P.Eng.
General Manager, Engineering & Construction
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, ON
K9H 1Y6
dsaccoccia@ptbocounty.ca
Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited
Gene Chartier, P. Eng.
Consultant Project Manager
150 Pinebush Road
Cambridge ON
N1R 8J8
gchartier@ptsl.com
We will also consider providing longer comment periods for future Public Information Centres (PICs) based on community feedback.
Why didn’t the Notice of Study Commencement and PIC #1 provide more detailed information about the project and options?
The purpose of the notice was to invite the public to attend the Public Information Centre, to provide a link for the public to access and review the materials available on the study website (Lakefield Transportation Master Plan | Peterborough County ON), and to provide feedback. More detailed information, including options and technical analysis, will be posted on the project website at subsequent stages and at future PICs as the study progresses. The information provided in the notice follows the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process. We are still relatively early in the study process. More detailed information will follow as work progresses.
Why wasn’t the PIC structured as a formal presentation followed by a Question-and-Answer session?
The PIC was designed as an open house to encourage informal discussion and direct engagement with study team members. A drop in format allows residents to attend at a convenient time for them, rather than a set time to hear a presentation. We will consider alternative formats for future sessions based on community feedback.
If a new bridge is being proposed on federal property, why wasn’t Parks Canada present at the meeting?
Parks Canada is a stakeholder and will be consulted throughout the process. Their attendance at public meetings is not required (or common), but they are being consulted and will be involved in further discussions about this study.
We note that this project would be subject to the federal requirements for assessing the impacts of projects proposed within Parks Canada protected heritage places (i.e., Trent-Severn Water National Historic Site) should the study recommend a new bridge crossing or major changes to the existing structure. This assessment would occur at a future date.
Alternative Solutions and Evaluation Process
Why is a new bridge being considered instead of upgrading and expanding the existing Lakefield crossing?
The widening of existing County Road 29 (Bridge Street) is one of the options being considered. See Option 1 on the PIC #1 display boards.
Will the study consider broader traffic improvements beyond the bridge? Have alternatives such as signalized intersections, roundabouts, and improved signage been evaluated?
The study is evaluating a range of improvements, including road upgrades, intersection enhancements, and traffic management strategies to address current and future transportation needs in the Lakefield area.
Why is a large bridge and new road network being considered when current traffic in Lakefield does not appear highly disruptive?
The Peterborough Country Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has identified the need to protect for an additional river crossing in Lakefield, to support long term growth in the community.
The 2014 TMP Update compared the widening of County Road 29 to building a new two-lane road and bridge south of the village. At that time, it was recommended that a new crossing over the Otonabee River be included in future development plans for the Lakefield South area; however, a preferred location for a new corridor was not identified at the time. As planning for the Lakefield South development evolved, the opportunity to incorporate a new major road connection across the river was not maintained.
More recently, the 2022 TMP Update confirmed that, by 2051, the current road network serving the Lakefield area would not have sufficient capacity to meet future traffic demands, again highlighting the need for future improvements or a new crossing. As a result, the TMP recommended a more detailed study (this study) to confirm the need for an additional crossing and, if justified, determine the preferred location for a new two-lane road and bridge over the Otonabee River so that a corridor can be protected for the future.
By identifying and protecting a preferred corridor for a new road and bridge crossing now, the County can ensure that long-term planning serves anticipated transportation demand between County Road 29 and Highway 28. Establishing a protected corridor will help ensure that future land use plans maintain options for future transportation improvements, allowing the County to manage growth and community needs effectively over time.
Why is a crossing identified on 6th Line when new developments on 7th Line could better accommodate a new road and bridge?
The 2022 Peterborough Country Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update concluded that the current road network serving the Lakefield area would not have sufficient capacity to meet broader traffic demands crossing the Otonabee River by 2051. As a result, the TMP recommended a more detailed study (this study) to confirm the need for an additional crossing and, if justified, determine the preferred location for a road and bridge connection over the Otonabee River. Five potential crossing location options, including 6th Line, were presented in PIC #1 to encourage discussion and gather feedback on a range of possible options.
As a next step in the study process, if justified, potential crossing locations will be compared based on their ability to address transportation problems and opportunities, and their impacts to cultural, natural, and socio-economic features. Input from residents and stakeholders will help guide the County in selecting the most suitable location for a future crossing. By engaging the public early in the process, the County aims to identify and protect a corridor that supports long-term transportation planning and responsible land use decisions for the Lakefield area
Will alternatives like widening Highway 28 or aligning crossings with Trent-Severn Locks be considered?
The study is not proposing to consider these alternatives as they do not satisfy the identified need for additional traffic capacity crossing the Otonabee River in the Lakefield area.
Has the proposed MTO corridor been considered as an alternative to building a new bridge?
The MTO corridor was planned to address broader transportation issues in the Peterborough area as opposed to future capacity issues due to growth in the Lakefield area. The role of the MTO corridor is being considered as part of the broader analysis to ensure alignment with regional transportation plans and to identify the most effective solution for the Lakefield area.
Why are bridge and roadway options being considered south of Lakefield when the goal is to address traffic within the village?
Potential crossing locations are being considered south of Lakefield to minimize crossing distances over the Otonabee River. Providing additional crossing capacity to the south of Lakefield can divert trucks and through traffic from the downtown area which will help to reduce congestion and improve traffic safety on roads in the village core.
Will large trucks be diverted around Lakefield?
The study will evaluate options for new routes or restrictions to help divert large trucks from the village core.
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?
The 2022 Peterborough Country Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update concluded that the current road network serving the Lakefield area would not have sufficient capacity to meet anticipated traffic demands crossing the Otonabee River by 2051. As a result, the TMP recommended a more detailed study (this study) to confirm the need for an additional crossing and, if justified, determine the preferred location for a road and bridge connection over the Otonabee River.
The study includes a natural heritage review to help identify features and constraints for consideration in the evaluation of alternative solutions (crossing alignments). More detailed environmental investigations will be conducted if the project proceeds through further stages of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.
What measures are being considered to mitigate potential environmental impacts and human health risks associated with the project?
Proposed evaluation criteria, which include climate change, cultural, natural, and socio-economic environment factors, were presented for comment in PIC #1. These criteria and associated measures will be used to evaluate the alternative crossing alignments during the next phase of this study.
As this project is only intended to identify and protect a future corridor, more specific measures to protect or avoid environmental impacts related to construction will be developed as part of future design projects.
Socio-Economic and Property Impacts
Will residences, private property, and agricultural land be affected?
Potential impacts are not known at this stage in the study process. The study will consider the potential effects through the evaluation. The identification and protection of a future corridor will provide certainty to enable municipalities and property owners to plan for future land use decisions.
What will the project cost, and how will it be funded?
Potential project costs and funding sources are not known at this stage in the study process and will be dependent on the timing of future construction and the availability of various infrastructure funding programs. As this study is primarily intended as a corridor protection project, the costs of various alternatives will be assessed at a planning level of detail as part of the evaluation process. An order of magnitude cost estimate will be developed for the recommended corridor to support future long-term budgeting, however more detailed cost estimates would need to be developed as part of future design projects.
Will safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists be prioritized?
The study will explore opportunities to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Could diverting traffic onto 7th Line compromise safety near schools?
The study will consider potential school safety impacts through the evaluation. Alternatives that direct trucks and through traffic away from the Bridge Street corridor could improve safety around the existing Lakefield District Public School.
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?
The study will consider potential effects to properties, such as access, noise, traffic, and displacement through the evaluation. As this project is primarily intended to identify and protect a future corridor, implementation is not anticipated for at least 20 years. Property owners may continue to use and enjoy their properties with the long-term planning framework established.
Implementation and Next Steps
When is construction of the selected bridge and (potential) new road alignment expected to begin? How long will construction take?
The timing of construction is not currently known but is not anticipated for at least 20 years. This project is primarily intended to identify and protect a future corridor which will allow for future construction when the need is realized. The future timing will be subject to the pace of growth in the community and the completion of further studies and Council approval.