Phase I - Options Screening Guide · The Phase I study results have identified two scenarios: •...

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 1CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Phase I - Options Screening GuidePreferred Alternate & Existing Route Options Screening Guide


Study Overview & Outcomes

The Highway 97 – Peachland Transportation Study is a multi-phase study examining: • Current conditions for the Highway 97 corridor

through Peachland• Future needs for transportation through

Peachland• Solutions that can be implemented to help meet

current and future needs

Phase I of the study is nearly complete, including:• High-level technical assessments • Examination of options along alternate routes • Examination of improvements along the existing

route• Preliminary alternate and existing route options


Study Overview & Outcomes

The Process

The Phase I study results have identified two scenarios:• One preferred option using the existing route• One preferred option using an alternate route

The study has not chosen between these scenarios. The Ministry will engage with stakeholders to refine the preliminary preferred alternate and existing routes through 2019. At the start of Phase II of the study, the Ministry will evaluate both refined options to determine the preferred corridor option.

The Peachland Transportation Study will provide certainty for future planning, including infrastructure improvements and guidance for municipal initiatives.


Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)

Process

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses standard accounts and project-specific metrics when evaluating different options.

Local governments, Indigenous Communities, stakeholders and the public help identify key impacts and trade-offs that are incorporated into the MAE process.

A version of the Multiple Account Evaluation was applied to the Peachland Transportation Study. The MAE was used to assess both the alternate and existing route options.

ACCOUNTS


Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)

Criteria

There are five main accounts that make up the MAE. Each has specific criteria the project team analyzed. For Phase I of the study, please note:• The MAE process evaluated options at a high level to select a preliminary preferred alternate and existing route from those short listed • The ‘Economic Development’ account will be evaluated through Phase II of the study• The MAE does not currently include specific costs or property impacts• The MAE assessed a number of key issue areas, including:

• The number of potential property displacements (excluding specific property locations or costs)• Assessment of potential water, habitat and wildlife impacts• Potential travel time savings of each route

Economic Development- Employment- Investment and trade- Revenue- Productivity

Financial- Capital costs- Periodic rehabilitation costs- Operation and maintenance costs

Social & Community- Noise and visual impacts- Pollution impacts- Land acquisition needs- Community connectivity- Consistency with community plans

Customer Service- Travel time- Collisions- Travel demand- Vehicle operating costs

Environmental- Land requirements- Energy consumption- Emissions- Wildlife / habitat- Water pollution

METRICS


Alternate Route Options

Public engagement

The five alternate route options presented at the 2016 open house have now undergone technical screening. Screening focused on:• Environmental impact• Social and community impacts• Traffic and travel demand• Engineering feasibility• Cost

The short-listed options also underwent a more detailed assessment using the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process.

Technical Screening and Initial Evaluation Preferred Alternate Route Evaluation Process

Technical Screening MAE

Preferred Alternate Route

Short-listed Options

Original Alternate Route Options

1 2 3

4 51 2 3 1


Alternate Route Options

Distance: 13.4 kmMax. elevation: 858 m




Distance: 15 kmMax. elevation: 863 m

The Ministry studied five alternate route options:

AR-1: Far Most Westerly Route (Option 1 - Yellow)

AR-5: Lower Elevation Route (Option 5 - Orange)

AR-4: Immediately West of Existing Development (Option 4 - Red)

AR-3: Central and High Elevation Route (Option 3 - Green)

AR-2: Westerly and High Elevation Route (Option 2 - Blue)

Each of these routes would have the following characteristics:

• 100 km/h posted speed

• Four lane cross section with divided median

• No access to the community


Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Alternate Route Environmental Social and

CommunityTraffic / Travel

Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations

AR-1: Far Most Westerly

Route

• Impacts to Peachland Creek tributary corridor

• May impact wildlife migration corridors and Spring Canyon Unique Ecosystem

• May impact moose winter range, mule deer habitat

• Moderate potential impact to species at risk

• Low impact to developed areas

• Potential for moderate archeological impacts

• Low demand for new route in either the AM or PM peak hours

• No travel time savings

• Route length is approximately 13.4 km

• Over 10 km of steep grades

• Three longer span bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost estimate (Rank 3) • Highest potential

environmental (riparian) impacts and moderate impacts to species at risk

• Low traffic demand and travel time savings

• Removed from further consideration due to high environmental impacts





AR-2: Westerly and High Elevation

Route

• Potential impacts to sensitive habitat such as the Pigeon Creek wetlands

• May impact wildlife corridors

• May impact moose winter range

• Lower potential impact to species at risk

• Low impact to developed areas


• Low demand for new route in either AM or PM peak hours

• No travel time savings

• Route length is approximately 15 km

• Nearly 9 km of steep grades

• Four longer span bridges anticipated

• Highest estimated cost (Rank 5) • High potential

environmental (riparian) impacts, but less than AR- 1. Lower species at risk impacts than AR-1

• Lowest impacts to developed areas

• Low traffic demand and travel time savings

• Option passes technical screening






AR-3: Central

and High Elevation

Route

• Higher proportion of route impacting conservation areas

• Potential impact to several sensitive habitat features

• Moderate potential impact to mule deer habitat

• High potential impact to species at risk

• Mostly impacts to recreational areas

• Some visual and noise impacts anticipated


• Low demand for new route in AM peak hour but slightly higher in the PM peak hour

• Small travel time savings in the PM peak


• Nearly 7 km of steep grades

• Five longer span bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost estimate (Rank 4) • Less impacts on

developed areas and residential development than AR-4 and AR-5

• Some travel time savings but demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour compared to AM peak hour

• Option passes technical screening






AR-4: Immediately

West of Existing

Development

• Relative biodiversity is low amongst options

• Potential impacts to several sensitive habitat features

• High potential impact to mule deer habitat


• Some visual and noise impacts anticipated





• Just over 5 km of steep grades

• Four longer span bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost estimate (Rank 2) • High

environmental impacts to south slopes

• Some travel time savings one or the other demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour compared to AM peak hour

• Remove from further consideration due to higher environmental impacts and lower benefits compared to similar option AR-5






AR-5: Lower Elevation

Route

• Relative biodiversity is lowest amongst options

• May have potential impacts to sensitive habitat features

• High potential impact to mule deer habitat


• Lowest riparian impacts amongst options

• Some residential and/or agricultural property impacts

• Visual and noise impacts anticipated

• Low potential for archeological impacts




• Over 3.5 km of steep grades

• Six longer span bridges anticipated

• Lowest estimated cost (Rank 1) • Lowest cost

option, also shortest route

• Lowest environmental (riparian) impacts of all options

• Greatest travel time savings amongst AR options and demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour as compared to the AM peak hour

• Option passes technical screening - as the environmental impacts are the lowest and the benefits are the highest among all options



Multiple Account Evaluation – Alternate Route Options

Customer Service Account Socio-Community Account Environmental Account Financial Account

AR-A

Route Travel Time Savings – New RouteAM -2 to -4 minutes /

PM -1 to 2 minutes

Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings

$34 Million

Travel Demand / VolumesAM - Northbound - 100AM - Southbound - 100PM - Northbound - 50

PM - Southbound - 100

Property ImpactsPartial Property Takes > 10

Full Property Takes <5

Visual ImpactsSomewhat worse. Option is set back from most developments and therefore minimal affect on adjacent residents, however large

rock cuts and fills would potentially be visible from the lakeshore.

Terrestrial ImpactsSignificantly worse. Highest level of impact to conservation status and

sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Creates a connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area.

Aquatic ImpactsSignificantly worse. Crosses seven watercourses, and parallels a watercourse

for almost five kilometers in a manner that could create a direct loss of habitat. Several watercourses are fish bearing.

Archeological ImpactsSignificantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high or moderate archaeological potential. One recorded archaeological site within the

alignment.

Capital Cost

$$$$$

AR-B

Route Travel Time Savings – New RouteAM -1 to -3 minutes /

PM -1 to 2 minutes


$42 Million

Travel Demand / VolumesAM - Northbound - 100AM - Southbound - 100PM - Northbound - 100PM - Southbound - 300


Full Property Takes < 5

Visual ImpactsSomewhat worse. Option is set back from most developments and therefore minimal effect on adjacent residents, however large

rock cuts and fills would potentially be visible from the lakeshore.

Terrestrial ImpactsSignificantly worse. High level of impact to conservation status and sensitivity

of terrestrial ecosystems, although less impact than AR-A. Creates a connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area.

Aquatic ImpactsSignificantly worse. Crosses eight watercourses; several of which are fish

bearing.

Archeological ImpactsSignificantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high or

moderate archaeological potential.

Capital Cost

$$$$$

AR-C

Route Travel Time Savings – New RouteAM 0 to 2 minutes / PM 3 to 6 minutes


$63 Million

Travel Demand / VolumesAM - Northbound - 100AM - Southbound - 100PM - Northbound - 100PM - Southbound - 300


Full Property Takes > 5

Visual ImpactsSomewhat worse. Option is set back

from most developments, although does pass closer to the limits of Peachland,

and therefore is anticipated to have some effect on adjacent residents. Large rock cuts and fills would potentially be visible

from the lakeshore.

Terrestrial ImpactsSignificantly worse. High level of impact to conservation status and

sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystems, although less impact than AR-A or AR-B. Creates a connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area.

Aquatic ImpactsSignificantly worse. Crosses nine watercourses; several of which are fish

bearing.

Archeological ImpactsSignificantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high

or moderate archaeological potential.

Capital Cost

$$$


Existing Route Segment Options

The fourteen existing route segment options presented at the 2016 open house have now undergone technical screening. Screening focused on:• Environmental impact• Social and community impacts• Traffic and travel demand• Engineering feasibility• Cost

The short-listed options also underwent a more detailed assessment using the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process.

Public engagement

Technical Screening MAE

Preferred Existing Route

Short-listed Segment Package Options

Original Existing Route Segment Options

1

4

7

10

2

5

8

11

3

6

9

12

13 14

1 2 3 1

Technical Screening and Initial Evaluation Preferred Existing Route Evaluation Process


Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Highway 97 – Peachland Transportation Study

Existing Route Segment OptionsThe existing route of approximately

segments. This division is based on the way the highway and intersections interact with

Highway 97.

South of Princeton Avenue

Princeton Avenue/Beach Avenue

Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road

Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road

Drought Hilll

ER-5: South of Princeton Avenue segment

ER-1: Drought Hill segment

ER-2: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment

ER-3: Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment

ER-4: Princeton Avenue/Beach Avenue segment

Existing Route Segment Options

The existing route is divided into five segments based on the way the highway and intersections interact with each other, and how local traffic accesses Highway 97.

ER-5: South of Princeton Avenue segment

ER-1: Drought Hill segment

ER-2: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment

ER-3: Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment

ER-4: Princeton Avenue/Beach Avenue segment

Each of these routes would have the following characteristics:• 80 km/h posted speed• Four lane cross section• Access to the community dependent upon the individual options


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Drought Hill segment (ER-1)

Existing Route

Segment:Drought Hill

Environmental Social and Community

Traffic / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations

ER-1ADrought Hill Expressway

• High effects anticipated around Drought Creek corridor

• This option does not exacerbate community severance effects given the limited development on either side of the highway

• Requires longer travel on local road network to achieve left turns

• Significant geotechnical concerns regarding cuts and fill slopes

• Lowest cost amongst options in this segment

• No significant barriers - option passes technical screening

ER-1BDrought Hill Expressway

with Drought

Road Overpass



• Compatible if the New Monaco development proceeds

• Requires longer travel on local road network to achieve left turns

• Will improve performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings – especially during the PM peak


• Higher cost amongst options in the segment



Existing Route

Segment:Drought Hill



ER-1CSeclusion Bay Road

and Drought

Road Overpasses



• Compatible if the New Monaco development proceeds

• Shorter travel required on local road network to achieve left turns

• Will improve performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings – especially during the PM peak


• Higher cost amongst options in the segment


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Drought Hill segment (ER-1)


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment (ER-2)

Existing RouteSegment:Trepanier

Bench Road to Huston

Road



ER-2AOverpass at Lang Road

• Low effects anticipated

• Will increase traffic on Huston Road

• May impact properties around Huston Road intersection

• Grade separated connection is central to community but has very steep grade between Lang Road and Greata Road

• Circuitous routing for all movements to / from Highway 97

• Will improve performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings during the PM peak

• Option takes advantage of exiting cut slopes along highway

• Challenging to create right-in / right-out movement at Huston Road / Buchanan Road

• Potential difficulty to stage construction

• Higher costs due to structural elements





Road



ER-2BExtension of Shaw

Road and Huston Road


• Will increase traffic on Huston Road

• Grade separated connection will benefit peds / cyclists but is circuitous

• Longer travel required on local road network to achieve left turn from highway


• Challenging to create right-in / right-out movement at Huston Road / Buchanan Road

• Complexities related to grade separation of Shaw Road

• Some disruption to highway traffic anticipated during construction







Road



ER-2CTrepanier

Bench Road Over

Highway 97


• May impact properties around Huston Road intersection

• Overpass structure may impact some properties

• Will increase traffic on Buchanan Road

• Grade separated connection will benefit peds / cyclists but has very steep grade

• Very circuitous routing for all movements to / from Highway 97


• Much larger and curved structure

• Difficult to tie into Trepanier Bench Road and requires Trepanier Bench Road to pass under structure

• Potentially less disruption during construction than other options


• Design and constructability concerns associated with proposed overpass





Road



ER-2DTraffic

Signal at Trepanier

Bench Road


• Does not offer much improvement in connectivity across

• Will improve access to / from highway but will result in some

• No major engineering considerations

• Lower costs as there are no significant structural elements


ER-2ETraffic

Signal at Huston Road /

Buchanan Road


• Offers improvement in connectivity across highway for pedestrians and cyclists

• Will improve access to / from highway but will result in some disruption to through traffic


• Lower costs as there are no significant structural elements

• Option is not consistent with previous decisions by the District of Peachland Council



Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment (ER-3)

Existing Route

Segment:Ponderosa

Drive to Todd Road



ER-3ATodd Road

and 13 Street

Crossings

• Anticipated to have high impacts, particularly around the Trepanier Creek corridor

• New overpass will have visual effects

• Limited property impacts anticipated

• Improved connectivity across highway

• Impacts to San Clements Avenue access to 13 Street

• Grade separated pedestrian / cycling route

• Circuitous travel to achieve left turn from 13 Street and from Shopping Centre – including use of Beach Avenue

• Will improve performance along the highway with the removal of two traffic signals

• Requires new structure across the highway

• New structure on highway will require temporary detour during construction

• Connection between Clement Crescent and Ponderosa Drive is very challenging

• High cost due to two new highway structures (overpass and bridge over Trepanier Creek)



Existing Route

Segment:Ponderosa

Drive to Todd Road



ER-3BRetain Traffic

Signal at Clement Crescent

and Ponderosa

Drive

• Anticipated to have high impacts, particularly around the Trepanier Creek corridor

• Requires re- routing of Chidley Road traffic

• Potential impact to adjacent park

• No significant improvement for pedestrian / cyclist crossing of highway

• Will result in further travel for residents along Chidley Road

• Reduces access to / from the highway

• No significant change in traffic performance along highway


• Lower cost


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment (ER-3)


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Princeton Avenue / Beach Avenue segment (ER-4)

Existing Route

Segment:Princeton Avenue



ER-4AInterchange at Princeton

Avenue

• Anticipated to have negligible effects to the environment

• New overpass will have visual effects

• Some property impacts anticipated

• Ramps may impact dog beach, parking lots, and boat launch

• Grade separated pedestrian / cycling route with highway elevated.

• Will improve performance along the highway with the removal of the traffic signal

• New structure on highway will require temporary detour of traffic during construction.

• Ramp connection to Princeton Avenue may be challenging due to steep grades

• High cost due to new highway structure


ER-4BRetain Traffic

Signal at Princeton Avenue

• Anticipated to have negligible effects to the environment

• No significant improvement for pedestrian / cyclist crossing of highway – still at- grade crossing

• No significant change in traffic performance along highway


• Low cost option



Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – South of Princeton segment (ER-5)

Existing Route

Segment:South of

Princeton Avenue



ER-5ARealignment of Highway at Antlers

Beach

• Anticipated to have high impacts, particularly around the Peachland Creek corridor

• Impacts to mobile home park on each side of Hardy Street

• Retains direct land access along highway within existing alignment

• Poor access to retained land parcels south of new highway alignment

• Poor access to Hardy Street and circuitous routing required to achieve left turns

• Will improve performance along the highway with improved geometry

• New bridge required across Deep Creek

• High cost due to extent of new road construction and new structures



Existing Route

Segment:South of

Princeton Avenue



ER-5BShort

Bypass

• Anticipated to have high impacts, particularly around the Peachland Creek corridor

• More extensive property impacts

• Some impacts to ALR lands

• Highway passes through existing development causing visual and noise impacts

• Will improve performance along the highway with improved geometry

• Removes direct land access to majority of highway segment and therefore improves safety

• Requires new structure at Lipsett Avenue

• New bridge required across Deep Creek may be significant in length

Higher cost due to extent of new road construction and new structures


Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – South of Princeton segment (ER-5)


Multiple Account Evaluation – Existing Route Options

Customer Service Account Socio-Community Account Environmental Account Financial Account

ER-A

Route Travel Time Savings AM 1 to 3 minutes / PM 3 to 5 minutes


$64 Million

Property ImpactsPartial Property Takes >90

Full Property Takes >15

Visual ImpactsSomewhat worse. Visual impacts from any

significant cut / fill. Minor impacts at at least two intersection realignments along the

corridor. Significant impacts anticipated at Antlers Beach.

Terrestrial ImpactsSomewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought Creek

and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation.

Aquatic ImpactsSomewhat worse. Potential impacts to eight watercourses, including Trepanier

Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon.

Archeological ImpactsSomewhat worse. Three known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some

areas of the route rank high for archaeological potential.

Capital Cost

$$$

ER-B



$79 Million


Full Property Takes > 30

Visual ImpactsSomewhat worse. Visual impacts from

any significant cut / fill. Potential for significant impacts from three intersection

realignments and overpass structures along the corridor. Impacts from bypass at south

end of corridor.

Terrestrial ImpactsSomewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought Creek

and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation.

Aquatic Impacts Somewhat worse. Potential impacts to nine watercourses, including Trepanier

Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon. May also require modification to lake shoreline near the Princeton segment.

Archeological ImpactsSomewhat worse. Four known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some


Capital Cost

$$$$

ER-C



$79 Million


Full Property Takes >35

Visual ImpactsSignificantly worse. Visual impacts from

any significant cut / fill. Potential for significant impacts from three intersection

realignments and overpass structures along the corridor. Impacts from bypass

at south end of corridor.

Terrestrial ImpactsSomewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought

Creek and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation.

Aquatic Impacts Somewhat worse. Potential impacts to nine watercourses, including Trepanier Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon. May also

require modification to lake shoreline near the Princeton segment.

Archeological ImpactsSomewhat worse. Four known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some


Capital Cost

$$$$

Phase I - Options Screening Guide · The Phase I study results have identified two scenarios: •...

Documents

Transcript of Phase I - Options Screening Guide · The Phase I study results have identified two scenarios: •...