British Pacific Properties Limited - West Vancouver...British Pacific Properties Limited Rodgers...

British Pacific Properties Limited

Rodgers Creek Traffic Impact

Study

FINAL REPORT

West Vancouver, BC

March 2008

British Pacific Properties Limited

Rodgers Creek Traffic Impact

Study

FINAL REPORT

West Vancouver, BC

March 2008

iTRANS Consulting Inc.160-601 West Cordova St.

Vancouver, BC V6B 1G1Tel: (604) 682-8119

Fax: (604) 682-8170www.itransconsulting.com

Project # 4154

British Pacific Properties Limited Rodgers Creek Traffic Impact Study

March 2008 iTRANSProject # 4154

iTRANS Project Team

Principal Donna Howes, P.Eng.

Technical Team Sasha Naylor, E.I.T.Allison Clavelle, E.I.T.Yutaka Tabata, E.I.T.

Advisors David Argue, P.Eng., PTOEJoseph Palmisano, P. Eng.


March 2008 i iTRANSProject # 4154

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 11. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................... 31.2 Data and Study Assumptions................................................................................. 6

2. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 92.1 Site Description ..................................................................................................... 92.2 2007 Existing Road Network................................................................................. 92.3 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 102.4 2007 Existing Level of Service............................................................................ 10

3. Future Background Conditions ................................................................................. 133.1 2017 Future Background Road Network............................................................. 133.2 2017 Future Background Traffic Volumes.......................................................... 163.3 2017 Future Background Level of Service.......................................................... 16

4. Proposed Development ............................................................................................... 194.1 Proposed Land Use .............................................................................................. 194.2 Trip Generation.................................................................................................... 214.3 Trip Distribution .................................................................................................. 214.4 Site Traffic ........................................................................................................... 22

5. 2017 Future Total Conditions .................................................................................... 265.1 2017 Future Total Traffic Volumes..................................................................... 265.2 2017 Future Total Level of Service ..................................................................... 295.3 Mulgrave School Analysis................................................................................... 31

6. Sensitivity Analysis...................................................................................................... 386.1 Cypress Village.................................................................................................... 386.2 Winter Ski Traffic................................................................................................ 42

7. Other Issues ................................................................................................................. 477.1 Traffic Impacts on the North Shore and Lions Gate Bridge................................ 477.2 Future Transit....................................................................................................... 497.3 Single Lane Bridge on Access Road to Area 4.................................................... 49

8. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 518.1 2007 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 518.2 2017 Future Background Conditions................................................................... 528.3 2017 Future Total Conditions.............................................................................. 538.4 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................. 548.5 Other Issues ......................................................................................................... 55

9. References .................................................................................................................... 56

Appendices

A. REPORT: Analysis of Internal Site Traffic for Mulgrave School, 2007B. UPDATE: Mulgrave School Report, 2008C. 2007 Existing Traffic – Level of Service Calculations


March 2008 ii iTRANSProject # 4154

D. 2017 Future Background Traffic – Level of Service CalculationsE. 2017 Future Total Traffic – Level of Service CalculationsF. Sensitivity Analysis – Level of Service Calculations

Tables

Table 1: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions.............. 10Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Background Traffic Conditions(Option 5-2) ............................................................................................................................ 17Table 3: Planned Units by Area for Development A2 and B2 ............................................... 19Table 4: ITE 7th Edition Trip Generation Rates...................................................................... 21Table 5: Percentage of Trips Distributed by Area .................................................................. 22Table 6: AM Trips by Area for Development Options A2 and B2 ........................................ 22Table 7: PM Trips by Area for Development Options A2 and B2 ......................................... 23Table 8: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions(Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)................................................................................... 29Table 9: Signalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions (Option5-2, Development A2 and B2) ................................................................................................ 35Table 10: AM and PM Trips Summary for the Cypress Village Development...................... 38Table 11: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions withCypress Village (Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)........................................................ 41Table 12: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions withWinter Ski Traffic (Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2) .................................................... 43

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Study Area................................................................................................................ 4Exhibit 2: Rodgers Creek Residential Development Plan ........................................................ 5Exhibit 3: 2007 Existing Road Network................................................................................. 11Exhibit 4: 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes.............................................................................. 12Exhibit 5: 2017 Future Background Road Network ............................................................... 15Exhibit 6: 2017 Future Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 18Exhibit 7: Rodgers Creek Planned Development Zones......................................................... 20Exhibit 8: Site Traffic Volumes – Development A2 .............................................................. 24Exhibit 9: Site Traffic Volumes – Development B2............................................................... 25Exhibit 10: 2017 Future Total Traffic Volumes – Development A2...................................... 27Exhibit 11: 2017 Future Total Traffic Volumes – Development B2 ...................................... 28Exhibit 12: 2017 Cypress Village Sensitivity Traffic Volumes – Development A2.............. 39Exhibit 13: 2017 Cypress Village Sensitivity Traffic Volumes – Development B2 .............. 40Exhibit 14: 2017 Winter Ski Traffic Sensitivity Traffic Volumes – Development A2 .......... 45Exhibit 15: 2017 Winter Ski Traffic Sensitivity Traffic Volumes – Development B2 .......... 46


March 2008 1 iTRANSProject # 4154

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

British Pacific Properties Limited (BPP) is proposing to develop the Rodgers Creek Area (theDevelopment), an approximate 215 acre parcel of land west of Marr Creek and north ofHighway 1, within the District of West Vancouver (DWV). The area is currently served byCypress Bowl Road, which provides access from Highway 1 to the Tourist Lookout andCypress Mountain, as well as Mulgrave School. The eastern side is also currently served byChippendale Road.

iTRANS Consulting Inc. (iTRANS) was retained to study the 2007 Existing trafficconditions in the area and to analyze the impacts of the 10-year horizon future trafficcondition with the Development to 2017. The analysis was performed in both the AM andPM peak hour periods and the AM peak hour period was selected as the critical period due tothe interaction of Mulgrave School traffic with the other road users.

Throughout the project, iTRANS collaborated with a technical group that included staffmembers of the DWV, Mulgrave School representatives, adjacent land owners, as well asstaff from the Ministry of Transportation (MoT) who were involved from the early stages ofthe project.

Several iterations of road options were considered as well as several development options. Afinal road option (Option 5-2) was chosen as the preferred road network and consists of anextension of the Chippendale Connector from its existing alignment to connect west to upperCypress Bowl Road. It was proposed to intersect near the midpoint of the road between thefirst switchback near the City and School District Works Yard and the Tourist Lookout. TwoDevelopment Options, A2 and B2, were considered with Development Option B2 having aslightly higher number of units.

For the 2007 Existing traffic condition, iTRANS analyzed the traffic operations at the twoexisting intersections of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Bowl Road / CypressLane. Both intersections operate without capacity restraints or unreasonable delays alongCypress Bowl Road. The only movement where traffic volume is high compared to thecapacity is the southbound left-right-turn movement at Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane inthe AM peak hour period. This is the only access for Mulgrave School. The interaction oftraffic at this intersection is very unique as there are two very short peak time intervals oftraffic throughout the day corresponding to drop-off in the morning and pick-up in theafternoon. The rest of the day there is relatively little traffic using this intersection. There arealso internal circulation issues that impact its operations and a separate study was undertakenby iTRANS analysing the unique characteristics of this intersection. It was titled the Analysisof Internal Site Traffic for Mulgrave School, 2007, (Mulgrave Report) and conclusions andrecommendations were drawn, that if implemented, could improve traffic operations.

For the 2017 Future Background traffic condition, approximately 1% traffic growth wasadded to the network. For this analysis, the proposed intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Chippendale Connector was assumed to be constructed. All traffic movements at the



intersections along Cypress Bowl Road are expected to operate without capacity restraints orunreasonable delays. The southbound movement at Cypress Lane will continue to have largerdelays.

For the 2017 Future Total traffic condition, the Development traffic was added to the 2017Future Background traffic volume. This represented the full build-out of the Developmentand assumed that external growth had occurred on the surrounding road network. Almost alltraffic movements at the intersections along Cypress Bowl Road and all proposedDevelopment accesses were expected to operate without any capacity restraints orunreasonable delays. The only exception was the southbound movement at the intersection ofCypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane, which was over capacity. In the short term, with theimplementation of the recommendations in the Mulgrave Report, the intersection couldoperate with less delay. In the long term, the intersection could require further analysis for atraffic signal. The SimTraffic analysis on the intersection showed that with signalization, thesouthbound left-right-turn movement would be expected to operate under capacity withreasonable delays. However, with signalization, the westbound through and right-turnmovements will experience increased delay due to the continued over-flow of traffic from theright-turn queue into the through lane and the new traffic control, which will change thethrough movement from a free flow movement to a controlled movement when priority isgiven to the southbound left-turn movement.

There was also a sensitivity analysis conducted on the 2017 Future Total traffic condition totest the robustness of the road network under increased traffic volume loading. This includedadditional traffic from a proposed future development called Cypress Village, which isplanned directly west of the Rodgers Creek Development, and a sensitivity analysis was alsorun with Winter Ski traffic. All traffic movements at the intersections along Cypress BowlRoad, except for Cypress Lane, as well as all proposed Development accesses continue tooperate under capacity even when loaded with higher traffic volumes.

The effect that the Development traffic would have on Lions Gate Bridge and the majorroads in West Vancouver was also reviewed. These roads were 15th Street, 21st Street, andTaylor Way. The AM peak hour was used as the critical period where the additional trafficon the three major collectors from the bridge is expected to be less than 2.5%. Additionaltraffic on Lions Gate Bridge is expected to be 1.5%, which is well below the daily variationof traffic which can be as high as 10%.

In conclusion, the proposed Rodgers Creek Development will not cause any of themovements at the intersections along Cypress Bowl Road to operate over capacity or withunacceptable delays except at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. Thisintersection should be monitored together with the School and the Ministry of Transportationand future signalization reviewed. In addition, the traffic impact of the proposed RodgersCreek Development to the existing traffic congestion on 15th Street, 21st Street, Taylor Way,or the Lions Gate Bridge will be minimal with the increase in traffic being less than 2.5% inall cases. This is well within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes on the Bridge.



1. INTRODUCTION

British Pacific Properties Limited (BPP) is proposing to develop the Rodgers Creek Area (theDevelopment), an approximate 215 acre parcel of land west of Marr Creek and north ofHighway 1, within the District of West Vancouver (DWV). The area is currently served byCypress Bowl Road, which provides access from Highway 1 to the Tourist Lookout andCypress Mountain, as well as Mulgrave School. The Tourist Lookout is a viewpoint locatedat the second switch back on Cypress Bowl Road. The eastern side is also currently served byChippendale Road.

iTRANS Consulting Inc. (iTRANS) has prepared this report which includes a review of the2007 existing traffic conditions in the area and an assessment of the impacts of the proposedDevelopment on the surrounding road network to 2017.

The introduction includes a discussion of the Scope of Work and Study Assumptionsfollowed by Section 2 of the report, which describes the Existing conditions in the area.Section 3 follows with a discussion of the Future Background conditions. Section 4 includesinformation about the proposed Development while Section 5 provides information about theanalysis of future conditions. iTRANS undertook additional sensitivity analysis that isincluded in Section 6. Section 7 discusses other issues that the Rodgers Creek Developmentmay impact and the report closes with a final section, Section 8, summarizing conclusionsand providing recommendations.

1.1 Scope of Work

BPP contracted iTRANS to analyze the impacts of the Development on the existing andfuture surrounding road networks.

The study area, shown in Exhibit 1, is contained mostly within Cypress Bowl Road withsome development planned to the north. There are two existing intersections studied, whichare Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane.

The proposed future network intersections studied included the two existing roads, as well asall new intersections proposed as part of the Development. An additional intersection ofCypress Bowl Road and Chippendale Connector, which is planned but not yet constructed,was analyzed. These roads and the six specific Development Areas proposed for RodgersCreek are illustrated on the residential development plan shown in Exhibit 2.



iTRANS was tasked to analyze two Development Options based on future land use and roadnetwork options that were developed through discussions with the technical group. Thetechnical group included staff members of the DWV, Mulgrave School representatives,adjacent land owners, as well as staff from the Ministry of Transportation (MoT) who werealso involved in the early stages of the project.

The AM and PM peak hour periods were evaluated for the following traffic analysis options: 2007 Existing Condition 2017 Future Background Condition – Includes existing traffic plus area growth 2017 Future Total Condition – Includes Future Background traffic plus site traffic 2017 Sensitivity Analysis

Development of Cypress Village Winter Ski Traffic

For the Future Total traffic condition and the sensitivity analysis, iTRANS analyzed anumber of different network options throughout the project. These included a number ofsignalization options of different intersections, as well as options concerning a proposedextension of Cypress Lane. These options were tested with a single Development Option, butthe final road network option was analyzed with two Development Options. Moreinformation on the road network options is provided in Section 3 and the DevelopmentOptions are described in Section 4.

1.2 Data and Study Assumptions

Data was gathered and assumptions were made at the outset of the project throughdiscussions with DWV and MoT staff as well as from data iTRANS had at its disposal,including several background reports. Specific assumptions concerning the analysis areincluded under the representative sections of the report. Assumptions were confirmed duringthe course of the study with supplementary data or through discussion and confirmation withDWV staff, MoT staff, Mulgrave School representatives, and adjacent property owners.

1.2.1 Background Data Review

iTRANS reviewed several reports during the preparation of this analysis. Two reportsprepared by another consultant1,2 were reviewed as well as designs and drawings receivedfrom InterCAD staff. InterCAD staff is undertaking the road design for the Development.

From this review iTRANS gathered the following information: Existing volumes and peak hour factors for the intersections of Cypress Bowl Road /

Cypress Lane and Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road from traffic counts taken in the fall of20061; and

Intersection geometry information at the intersections of Cypress Bowl Road / CypressLane and Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connector.



In addition to reviewing the reports above, iTRANS also reviewed the Traffic and Parking atMulgrave Study, 2007, provided as a reference by Mulgrave School representatives.Thereafter, iTRANS participated in meetings with Mulgrave School representatives todiscuss their concerns with traffic, as well as to gain insight from their local knowledge ofon-site traffic operations that were potentially affecting the external road network,specifically Cypress Bowl Road. From this initial discussion, iTRANS undertook a study ofthe Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane intersection as well as the internal site circulation ofMulgrave School in a report titled: Analysis of Internal Site Traffic for Mulgrave School,2007 (Mulgrave Report). The road network option analyzed in the Mulgrave Report wassubsequently modified during this study, therefore an update of the analysis was preparedthat examined the effects on the original conclusions and recommendations. This update issummarized in Section 5.3 and the original Mulgrave Report is provided as a reference inAppendix A and the update to that report is also provided Appendix B.

1.2.2 Traffic Analysis Tools Assumptions and Information

Level of service analysis utilized Trafficware’s Synchro / SimTraffic 6 software package.Synchro employs the 2000 Highway Capacity Methodology, which analyzes both signalizedand unsignalized intersections, taking into account the intersection spacing, interaction,queues, and operations at adjacent intersections. This software requires a number of inputsand provides Level of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratio (v/c) information for bothsignalized and unsignalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections the LOS is based onaverage control delay per vehicle for the critical movements and the v/c is based on thevolume of the intersection compared to the capacity.

iTRANS made a number of engineering judgements to facilitate analysis with this softwarepackage in order to more closely replicate existing conditions. Where no other informationwas available, iTRANS utilized Synchro defaults.

The AM peak period peak hour factors (PHFs) for each individual movement were adjustedbased on the arrival rates of the 2 major sources of traffic in the area: 1- Mulgrave Schooltraffic, 2 – Residential traffic. This was necessary because the arrival / departure rate of theMulgrave School traffic varied considerably to that of the network traffic due to the peakingbehaviour observed from the traffic count information, which can be tied to the 8:10AMSchool start time. A conservative peak hour factor, which is lower than the network PHF,was used for the rest of the network intersections in order to adequately account for anyminor daily variation. In the existing condition, at the intersections of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane and Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road, Mulgrave School traffic governs thePHF; however in the future condition, due to an increase in Development volume, theresidential traffic will govern the PHF.

The PM peak period PHFs were determined differently because the network traffic andMulgrave School traffic operates with similar flow patterns. The overall intersection PHFsfor Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane and Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road were used for



each intersection respectively (as they were almost identical) and then a representative PHFfrom both intersections was used for all other intersections.

In the absence of heavy vehicle numbers from the traffic count information, a heavy vehiclespercentage of 2% was assumed for all movements. This is reflective of post-constructionconditions associated with full build-out of the Development.

Synchro required geometric and speed limit inputs for the study area network and individualintersections. For analysis purposes, a posted speed limit of 60km/h was used for CypressBowl Road and the proposed new Chippendale Connector. All local roads and the ramps toHighway 1 were assumed to have posted speeds of 40 km/h, and at the existing intersectionsof Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane and Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connector,lane widths were based on rough measurements from aerial photos, except for those laneswhere information was made available by InterCAD staff. InterCAD staff also providedgeometric information for the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connectorand intersection approach grades for all study area intersections. Storage lengths for existingintersections were taken from measurements off aerial photos.

All factors and inputs into Synchro are shown on the Synchro summaries for each of theanalyzed traffic conditions and are contained in the Appendices.



2. EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section describes the Existing conditions in the study area by first providing a sitedescription, followed by a discussion of the existing road network. Finally, the existingvolume analysis is presented followed by a discussion of results.

2.1 Site Description

As shown earlier in Exhibit 2, the proposed Rodgers Creek Development is located in WestVancouver within British Properties. The Development is approximately a 215 acre parcel ofland north of Highway 1 with most of the Development encompassed by Cypress BowlRoad, except Area 6, which lies directly to the north. Except to the east, the surrounding areais largely undeveloped, with small residential developments located between southernCypress Bowl Road and Highway 1 on Deer Ridge Drive and Cypress Place. MulgraveSchool, an independent school accommodating students at the Junior, Middle, and Seniorlevels, is located north of the southern portion of Cypress Bowl Road near the Highway 1interchange. The DWV Works Yard and the School District Works Yard are also located inthe area west of Mulgrave School near the Cypress Bowl Road switchback. North of the siteis Cypress Mountain, a recreational park area and ski resort that can only be accessed byCypress Bowl Road.

The entire area is subject to steep grades, as it is situated on a mountainside. There are aseries of creeks running through the area.

2.2 2007 Existing Road Network

Exhibit 3 is the 2007 Existing road network configuration. Currently, Cypress Bowl Roadconnects Highway 1 to Cypress Mountain, providing access to Mulgrave School, someresidences, and the DWV and School Works yards. Cypress Bowl Road is mainly 1-lane ineach direction from Highway 1. A third lane is added west of Cypress Place which becomesan additional climbing lane further north. The road has a rural cross section with no curbsand gutters and no sidewalks. Cypress Bowl Road is under the jurisdiction of MoT althoughthere are arrangements made with the Cypress Mountain and Parks BC regarding certainmaintenance tasks such as snow plowing.

Cypress Lane is the only connection to Mulgrave School and is located approximately 300mwest of the Highway 1 Interchange. It is primarily a 2-lane cross section with a shared left-right-turn lane. This road is under the jurisdiction of DWV. There are also two existing roadsaccessing recent developments south of Cypress Bowl Road. They are Deer Ridge Place /Drive and Cypress Place.

There are 2 intersections in the existing road network that are included in the analysis. Thefirst is the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. This intersection providesaccess only to Mulgrave School. The second intersection analyzed is Cypress Bowl Road and



the north interchange terminal with Highway 1. All traffic accessing or leaving the areacurrently moves through this intersection.

2.3 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes

As agreed with the DWV, previous counts1 for Cypress Bowl Road were used fromSeptember, 2006 for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The previous turning movementcounts were used in this study. These volumes were applied to the existing network, asshown in Exhibit 4.

2.4 2007 Existing Level of Service

The existing traffic operations for the two unsignalized intersections are summarized inTable 1. Detailed Synchro calculations are provided in Appendix C.

Table 1: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Intersection and Movement LOS (v/c) LOS (v/c)

Highway 1 & Cypress Bowl Road (Synchro #3)

Westbound Left C (0.02) B (0.01)

Westbound Right C (0.63) A (0.14)

Northbound Left-Through - (0.00) - (0.00)

Southbound Through - (0.35) - (0.14)

Southbound Right - (0.08) - (0.03)

Cypress Bowl Road & Cypress Lane (Synchro #9)

Eastbound Left A (0.01) A (0.00)

Eastbound Through - (0.07) - (0.05)

Westbound Through - (0.04) - (0.04)

Westbound Right - (0.44) - (0.07)

Southbound Left-Right D (0.86) B (0.23)

At both unsignalized intersections, all individual traffic movements operate at a LOS C orbetter with a v/c of 0.63 or less for both the AM and PM peak hour, with the exception of thesouthbound shared left-right-turn movement at Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. Thismovement operated as a LOS D and with a v/c of 0.86 in the AM peak hour, which is whenthe Mulgrave School peak coincides with the network peak. In the PM peak hour, it operateswith a better LOS B and a v/c of 0.23.



3. FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

Future Background conditions represent the traffic conditions in the area should theDevelopment not take place. This analysis allows the project team to understand the trafficflow on a road network where traffic growth and road network changes have already takenplace but no Development site traffic is present. This section provides information about thebackground road network, background traffic volumes and concludes with traffic analysisinformation for the Future Background conditions.

3.1 2017 Future Background Road Network

At the outset of the project, iTRANS worked closely with the technical group and providedtraffic expertise in the form of answering questions and providing input on several roadnetwork options. There were several iterations of road options, and the original processyielded four road network options. The four options all consisted of the ChippendaleConnector intersecting with lower Cypress Bowl Road, that is, the portion of Cypress BowlRoad between Highway 1 and the first switchback after the District and School Works yards.Currently, the existing Chippendale Connector is an east / west collector road that ends eastof the proposed Development. It is assumed that the Chippendale Connector will connect toCypress Bowl Road by 2017, as outlined in the DWV’s 2004 Official Community Plan(OCP) and confirmed by representatives of the DWV at the technical group meetings. Moreprecisely, for the four options the Chippendale Connector joined directly to the west of theexisting Cypress Lane intersection and it was assumed that the intersection of Cypress BowlRoad / Chippendale Connector was signalized. The road options were: Option 1: The existing configuration of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress

Lane is retained and remains unsignalized. There was an analysis undertaken on avariation of this option, called Option 1A, where the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane was signalized;

Option 2: This option involved the extension of Cypress Lane to the north to join with theChippendale Connector. This extension would be a one-way out only road. The existingCypress Lane would continue to operate with a 2-way traffic flow;

Option 3: This option involved the extension of Cypress Lane to the north to join with theChippendale Connector. This extension would be a two-way in and out road. The existingCypress Lane would also continue to operate with a 2-way traffic flow; and

Option 4: Cypress Lane is a northbound one-way street, joining the ChippendaleConnector north of Mulgrave School. In this option all traffic enters from Cypress BowlRoad and exits to the Chippendale Connector.

Preliminary analysis was conducted on the four road network options and analysis resultswere discussed with the technical group. After further discussion and consultation with thetechnical group, as well as input from the public consultation process being undertaken byBPP, a fifth road network option was developed where the Chippendale Collector wasrerouted so that it connected with upper Cypress Bowl Road instead of lower Cypress BowlRoad. Upper Cypress Bowl Road refers to the portion of Cypress Bowl Road between the



first switchback and the second switchback, which occurs at the Tourist Look-out. ThisOption does not include the extension of Cypress Lane to the Chippendale Connector as wasthe case for several of the previous Options. This fifth Option was the first to be analyzedwith new units and areas of development and was titled Option 5-1. More information on theDevelopment Options is provided in Section 4.

A final version of the road network, which was titled Option 5-2, was provided to iTRANSby BPP for the final analysis contained in this report. This Option did not change any of theintersection locations or the laning on Cypress Bowl Road. The only noticeable change wasto the local road serving Area 4, where a one-lane bridge is now planned.

Exhibit 5 illustrates the Future Background road network, which builds on the existing roadnetwork with the addition of the Chippendale Connector connecting to upper Cypress BowlRoad. The three proposed site driveways that intersect Cypress Bowl Road are alsoillustrated. The existing roads and intersections are shown in grey, while proposed andplanned roads and intersections are shown in black.

The Future Background road network includes six intersections: Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane Cypress Bowl Road / Area 4 Cypress Bowl Road / Area 5 Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connector (Area 6) Cypress Bowl Road / Area 3

In the 2017 Future Background condition, the three site driveways (Area 3, 4, and 5), wouldnot operate with any traffic, as the Rodgers Creek Development is not built until the 2017Future Total condition. Therefore they are shown as part of the future road network but theyare not analyzed in the 2017 Future Background condition.



3.2 2017 Future Background Traffic Volumes

In order to understand traffic conditions in 2017, iTRANS calculated expected trafficvolumes in 2017 without the Development. The following sections outline the methodologyand results of that calculation process.

3.2.1 Background Traffic Growth

To analyze Future Background conditions in 2017, iTRANS estimated growth in backgroundtraffic. Based on talks with Mulgrave School representatives, iTRANS was informed thatMulgrave School had no plans to expand their enrolment or to expand before 2017; thereforethe traffic generated by Mulgrave was assumed to remain constant. As agreed with the MoTand the DWV, iTRANS assumed a network growth rate of 1% per annum. This growth wasapplied to the 2007 Existing traffic volumes over the ten year horizon period to 2017. The2017 Future Background traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 6.

3.2.2 Background Development Growth

Based on discussions with DWV staff, adjacent property owners, and BPP staff, it wasconfirmed that there were no other developments anticipated in the immediate area thatwould contribute to background traffic growth. After the construction of the Rodgers CreekDevelopment, BPP intends to start work on the Cypress Village Development, which isproposed directly west of the current study area, shown in Exhibit 2. Since this will occurafter the current Development, it would not count as background traffic. However, it isincorporated into the overall analysis by running sensitivity analysis on the road network,assuming a full build out of Cypress Village in the future. This is discussed further inSection 6.

3.2.3 Background Trip Distribution Adjustments

Consideration was given to the rerouting of traffic to the Chippendale Connector ontoCypress Bowl Road and south to Highway 1 from existing development areas or schools inthe Upper Lands. The Upper Lands is defined as the existing development north ofHighway 1 and east of the proposed Rodgers Creek Development. Through discussions withDWV staff, it was determined that the existing Collingwood School traffic and any existingdevelopment traffic2 would not use the extension of the Chippendale Connector to accessHighway 1 as the route would be too circuitous. Therefore, no existing traffic was rerouted.

3.3 2017 Future Background Level of Service

The Future Background traffic operations for the three study area intersections aresummarized in Table 2. Detailed Synchro calculations are provided in Appendix D.



Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Background TrafficConditions (Option 5-2)

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Intersection and Movement LOS (v/c) LOS (v/c)

Highway 1 & Cypress Bowl Road (Synchro #3)

Westbound Left C (0.02) B (0.01)

Westbound Right B (0.58) A (0.18)

Northbound Left-Through - (0.00) - (0.00)

Southbound Through - (0.33) - (0.17)

Southbound Right - (0.08) - (0.03)

Cypress Bowl Road & Cypress Lane (Synchro #9)

Eastbound Left A (0.01) A (0.00)

Eastbound Through - (0.07) - (0.05)

Westbound Through - (0.04) - (0.04)

Westbound Right - (0.44) - (0.10)

Southbound Left-Right D (0.89) B (0.35)

Cypress Bowl Road & Chippendale Connector (Synchro#36)

Eastbound Left - (0.00) - (0.00)

Eastbound Through-Right - (0.01) - (0.00)

Westbound Left - (0.00) - (0.00)

Westbound Through-Right - (0.00) - (0.02)

Northbound Left-Through-Right A (0.00) A (0.00)

Southbound Left-Through-Right A (0.00) A (0.00)

Similar to the 2007 Existing condition, all individual intersection movements at the twointersections of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Roadwill operate at a LOS C or better with a v/c of 0.58 or lower in both peak periods. Theexception is the shared southbound left-right-turn movement at the intersection of CypressBowl Road / Cypress Lane. This movement will continue to operate at a LOS D and a higherv/c of 0.89 in the AM peak hour. This is due to the expected growth of through traffic onCypress Bowl Road that would reduce the amount of available gaps for the southbound left-right-turn traffic. In the PM peak hour where the school peak does not coincide with the roadnetwork peak, the southbound left-right-turn movement will operate at a LOS B with a v/c of0.35.

A new intersection in the background condition is Cypress Bowl Road / ChippendaleConnector. All movements are expected to operate at a LOS A with a v/c of 0.02 or lower.



4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

BPP is proposing to develop the approximately 215 acres of Rodgers Creek into acombination of single family and multi family housing. This section describes the proposedDevelopment and outlines the process used to estimate the trips generated, as well as theirdistribution through the network. The impacts of the Development are discussed in a latersection.

4.1 Proposed Land Use

Rodgers Creek is planned as a six Area development. The Development Areas utilized foranalysis were based on the Areas of development provided by BPP, shown in Exhibit 7.Exhibit 7 also illustrates Cypress Village, a planned future development that is proposedoutside of the study area after the completion of Rodgers Creek. The expected interactionbetween the Cypress Village and Rodgers Creek Developments was approached as asensitivity analysis and is presented in Section 6.

Each Area will be accessed by a local road intersecting with either Cypress Bowl Road or theChippendale Connector, which is anticipated to be constructed by 2017. As seen inExhibit 7, the Development will provide access to Cypress Bowl Road via 4 newintersections.

A number of iterations were undertaken in developing the proposed land use. TwoDevelopment Options were reviewed, A2 and B2. The two proposed Development Optionsinclude a mix of single family and multi-family units. The single family units are individualdetached homes and the multi-family units include duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, andapartments. Development Options A2 and B2 are summarized by Area in Table 3.

Table 3: Planned Units by Area for Development A2 and B2

Development A2 Development B2Development Area Single

Family UnitsMultiple

Family UnitsSingle

Family UnitsMultiple

Family Units1 11 18 11 182 16 24 16 243 54 4 54 324 23 52 17 715 0 161 0 2246 0 175 0 269

Total 104 434 98 638



4.2 Trip Generation

Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 7th Edition TripGeneration Manual were used to calculate the number of trips expected to be generated bythe Development. iTRANS analyzed the best method to accurately capture the differentresidential units planned for this Development by reviewing all the apartment, townhouse,and condominium rates. A conservative rate was selected to represent a blending of all themulti-family units. iTRANS also compared the chosen methodology with previous analysis1.The methodology was consistent with previous work, that is, the use of a single rate torepresent the various multi-family units. For the AM and PM peak hour periods, the tripgeneration rates are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: ITE 7th Edition Trip Generation Rates

ITE Trip RatesResidential Use ITE Land Use

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Single FamilyLU 210 – Single FamilyDetached Housing

0.78 1.01

Duplex / Triplex /Townhouse / Apartment

LU 233 – Luxury Condo /Townhouse

0.56 0.55

4.3 Trip Distribution

The trips generated from the different areas were distributed over the network based onproximity to access routes (similar to previous work1). For Areas 1, 2, and 3, approximately10% of traffic was assigned to Highway 1 by way of the new Chippendale Connector andCypress Bowl Road, which is more conservative than previous work1, where no traffic wasassigned to the west. The reverse is true for Area 6, where the majority of traffic (90%)would use Cypress Bowl Road for access to / from Highway 1 and 10% would use theChippendale Connector to travel east. For Areas 4 and 5, all the traffic will travel to / fromHighway 1 along Cypress Bowl Road. The trip distribution is summarized in Table 5.



Table 5: Percentage of Trips Distributed by Area

DevelopmentArea

Highway 1 byCypress BowlRoad (South)

Highway 1 byChippendaleRoad (West)

Chairlift RoadChippendaleRoad (East)

1 10% 45% 45%2 10% 45% 45%3 10% 45% 45%4 100%5 100%6 90% 5% 5%

4.4 Site Traffic

Given the ITE 7th Edition trip generation rates, the resulting trips are provided in Table 6 byDevelopment Area for the AM peak hour period and in Table 7 for the PM peak hour period.

Table 6: AM Trips by Area for Development Options A2 and B2

Development A2 Development B2Development

AreaIN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1 4 14 18 4 14 182 6 19 25 6 19 253 11 32 43 14 44 584 11 35 46 12 41 535 21 69 90 29 97 1266 23 75 98 35 116 151

Total 76 244 320 100 331 431



Table 7: PM Trips by Area for Development Options A2 and B2

Development A2 Development B2Development

AreaIN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1 13 8 21 13 8 212 19 11 30 19 11 303 35 21 56 45 27 724 33 20 53 36 20 565 56 33 89 78 46 1246 61 36 97 93 55 148

Total 217 129 346 284 167 451

All the trips in and out of the Development, in both the AM and PM peak hour periods, wereassigned to the Option 5-2 road network based on the distribution identified in Table 5.Exhibit 8 illustrates the Rodgers Creek site traffic for Development Option A2 and Exhibit 9displays the site traffic for Development Option B2.



5. 2017 FUTURE TOTAL CONDITIONS

The Future Total conditions represent the traffic conditions in the area with the full build-outof the Development in place. This analysis allows the project team to understand theinteractions of the Development traffic on a network where background traffic growth androad network changes have already taken place. This section provides information about thefuture traffic volumes, traffic analysis information for the Future Total conditions, andconcludes with an analysis specific to Mulgrave School.

5.1 2017 Future Total Traffic Volumes

The 2017 Future Total traffic volumes are a combination of the 2017 background trafficvolumes and the site traffic volumes. They are added together to create what the expectedFuture Total traffic volumes will be on the road network with the full Development and theexpected growth in the area. These volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 10 for DevelopmentOption A2 and Exhibit 11 Development Option B2.



5.2 2017 Future Total Level of Service

Table 8 provides the Weekday AM and PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) and volume tocapacity (v/c) analysis for the unsignalized intersections for both Development Options A2and B2. Detailed Synchro calculations are provided in Appendix E.

Table 8: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions(Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)

Development A2 Development B2

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Intersection and Movement LOS (v/c) LOS (v/c) LOS (v/c) LOS (v/c)

Highway 1 & Cypress BowlRoad (Synchro #3)

Westbound Left C (0.03) B (0.02) C (0.04) B (0.02)

Westbound Right C (0.66) B (0.36) C (0.69) B (0.43)

Northbound Left-Through - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00)

Southbound Through - (0.45) - (0.23) - (0.50) - (0.25)

Southbound Right - (0.10) - (0.05) - (0.11) - (0.05)

Cypress Bowl Road & CypressLane (Synchro #9)

Eastbound Left A (0.01) A (0.00) A (0.01) A (0.00)

Eastbound Through - (0.18) - (0.11) - (0.23) - (0.13)

Westbound Through - (0.07) - (0.14) - (0.09) - (0.17)

Westbound Right - (0.44) - (0.10) - (0.44) - (0.10)

Southbound Left-Right F (1.22) C (0.49) F (1.38) C (0.55)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 4 –Other Developments (Synchro#11)

Eastbound Left-Through - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00)

Westbound Through-Right - (0.07) - (0.12) - (0.08) - (0.16)

Southbound Left-Right B (0.06) B (0.03) B (0.08) B (0.04)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 5(Synchro #19)

Eastbound Through-Right - (0.02) - (0.05) - (0.03) - (0.07)

Westbound Left-Through - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00)

Northbound Left-Right A (0.09) A (0.05) B (0.14) B (0.07)



Table 8: Cont’d.


Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour


Cypress Bowl Road &Chippendale Connector

(Synchro #36)



Westbound Left - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00)


Northbound Left-Through-Right A (0.01) B (0.02) B (0.01) B (0.03)

Southbound Left-Through-Right A (0.08) A (0.04) A (0.12) A (0.06)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 3 –BPP (Synchro #49)



Northbound Left-Right A (0.00) A (0.00) A (0.00) A (0.00)

For both Development Options A2 and B2, all movements at the site access driveways ofCypress Bowl Road / Area 4, Area 5, and Area 3 will operate at a LOS B or better and with av/c of 0.16 or lower in both the AM and PM peak hour periods. All movements at theintersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connector will also operate at a LOS B orbetter and with a v/c of 0.12 or lower in both peak hour periods.

At the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road, all movements are expected tooperate at a LOS C or better and with a v/c of 0.69 or lower for both the AM and PM peakperiods for both Development A2 and B2.

At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane all movements, except the sharedsouthbound left-right-turn movement, will operate at a LOS A and with a v/c of 0.44 or lessin both peak hour periods and Development Options. In the AM peak hour for bothDevelopment Options, when the School traffic peak and road network peak coincide, thesouthbound left-right-turn movement will be over capacity and will operate at a LOS F. Thismovement was already expected to operate at a LOS D and with a v/c of almost 0.90 in the2017 Future Background condition. However, in the PM peak hour, when the School trafficpeak hour does not overlap with the road network peak hour, the southbound movement willoperate at a LOS C and with a v/c of 0.55 or less for both Development Options.



The operation of this intersection is of a unique nature as the traffic for this intersection peakstwice daily for student drop-off and pick-up and has relatively low volumes for the remainderof the day. Existing issues at this intersection required a separate report for this intersectionand Mulgrave School and the LOS F for the southbound left-right-turn movement is causedby a unique traffic situation. Please refer to Section 5.3 for a summary of the additionalanalysis undertaken on this intersection.

5.3 Mulgrave School Analysis

5.3.1 Context

iTRANS undertook an analysis of the internal site traffic at Mulgrave School on behalf of theSchool and BPP. A report was produced called Analysis of Internal Site Traffic for MulgraveSchool, Rodgers Creek West, November 19, 2007 (the Mulgrave Report). This report isattached in Appendix A. This work was based on the Development traffic and road optionsat that time and the review focussed on issues related to access and queuing on Cypress Laneand included a review of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane.

An update to the Mulgrave Report has been produced as a memorandum which reflects theupdated changes to the land use with Development Options A2 and B2 and the road networkOption 5-2. This is attached in Appendix B.

Mulgrave is an existing independent school and is contained in the study area for theanticipated Rogers Creek West Development. Mulgrave has an enrolment of approximately750 full-time students who attend either a Junior or Senior School, contained within the samebuilding. The Junior School classes commence at 8:15am and pick-up / drop-off occurs in theUpper Parking Lot. The Senior School classes commence at 8:20am and pick-up / drop-offoccurs in the Lower Parking Lot. It is possible to walk between the two schools / lots;however, most parents and children access their respective school using the appropriate lot.

The interaction of Mulgrave School traffic with proposed Development traffic as well asexisting road users is a complicated interaction because Mulgrave School traffic only has amajor impact on the network during two peak times of the day, once in the morning and oncein the afternoon. The morning interaction coincides with the network AM peak hour periodfrom 7:45 to 8:45 AM. The afternoon Mulgrave peak is earlier than the network peak hour, ata time where there are minimal external road users and therefore the PM peak hour for theroad network, from 4:30 to 5:30PM, was used for traffic analysis. Based on the interaction ofMulgrave School traffic and external traffic during the AM peak hour, the critical time periodanalysis relating to this project is the AM peak hour.



5.3.2 Current Issues

As outlined in the Mulgrave Report, the current issues include: Internal circulation and queuing issues on the Mulgrave site causing queues to

spill back onto Cypress Bowl Road. The intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane experiences queues and

delays, specifically the westbound right-turn and southbound left-right-turnmovements.

The westbound right-turn queue exceeds the available storage, spilling back intothe westbound through lane and sometimes extending to the Highway 1 / CypressBowl Road interchange.

The majority of students are driven to school; limited bussing is available andpublic transit access is not available.

The Junior School starts at 8:15am and the Senior School starts at 8:20am andtherefore the majority of traffic to the school occurs during a 15 minute intervalfrom 8:00am to 8:15am.

5.3.3 Study Period

Previous analyses determined that the AM peak period is considered to be the critical trafficflow period. Traffic counts show that traffic flow entering and exiting Cypress Lane is linkedto the traffic flow on the surrounding network. As such, the greater the volume on CypressLane, the greater the volume on the surrounding network. The traffic report undertaken byMulgrave staff and students entitled, Draft Traffic and Parking at Mulgrave, 2007, indicatedthat the queue back onto Cypress Bowl Road is inherently an AM peak period issue.

5.3.4 On-site Observations

Site visits were conducted to review the access to the school and the operation of the parkingareas. This included a review of the access to the parking lots, the drop-off activity and theoperation of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. The detailed review issummarized in the Mulgrave Report.

In summary, the main observations made were: The peak hour volume data from the traffic count and the on-site observations both

indicate a large number of vehicles enter / exit the site in a very short period of time,resulting in congestion.

The queue entering Mulgrave cleared much more quickly than the exiting queue. Vehicles travelled slowly to make the westbound right turn at Cypress Bowl Road /

Cypress Lane due to the geometry of the intersection, contributing to the formation oftheir queue.



5.3.4.1 Sensitivities on Existing Situation

Based on the analysis undertaken, it was determined that the main constraints to traffic flowresulted from three specific issues, mainly the drop-off times at the Junior and Senior Lots(within 5 minutes of each other), the geometry at the intersection of Cypress Lane / CypressBowl Road which results in reduced westbound right turning speeds, and the congestionexperienced by drop-off blockages at the Lower Lot. In an attempt to mitigate these issues,the following mitigation measures were tested on the 2007 existing network and trafficvolumes:1. Staggering the drop-off-time by an additional 10 minutes to help spread the existing peak

rush of parents attempting to drop-off their children for the 8:15 and 8:20am bells.2. Improving the westbound right turning radius at the intersection of Cypress Lane /

Cypress Bowl Road through geometric improvement.3. Improving drop-off operations in the Lower Lot to replicate the Upper Lot drop-off,

where congestion and blockages were observed to be minimal.

The staggering of drop-off times will reduce the amount of traffic attempting to access theSchool at the same time. The effect will be similar to that of peak spreading. The improvedgeometry and design of the westbound right turn lane will improve the turning speed andincrease the saturation flow for that movement. Essentially, this allows more vehicles tomake the manoeuvre than are currently making the turn in the same amount of time. Finally,by improving drop-off operations in the Lower Lot, there should be an improved traffic flowthrough the Mulgrave School internal road network, which will in turn ease the peaking ofexiting flow of traffic observed on site for the southbound left-right-turn movement.

5.3.5 Future Network and Land Use Assumptions

The Mulgrave Report was updated to include the impacts of the updated road network(Option 5-2) with the new Development Options referred to as A2 and B2. The road networkwas also analyzed with and without a signal at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane. This analysis did not include any of the sensitivities tested on the Existingsituation as described in Section 5.3.4.1.

5.3.6 Analysis

5.3.6.1 Simulation

The analysis was undertaken to simulate the movement of traffic on site and the impacts onthe corresponding intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. Synchro 6 was notused for this analysis; instead a complimentary software package to Synchro was used,known as SimTraffic. SimTraffic uses the geometric and volume inputs from Synchro togenerate a simulation of the traffic volumes on a road network. SimTraffic is a microsimulation tool that models random vehicle behaviour while taking into account delays andqueues related to the signal operations, lane changing, weaving, vehicle interaction, andoverflow of traffic from storage bays, if any. Since the over-flow of storage capacity is a



known issue and was observed by iTRANS at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane, this software was selected as a more appropriate analysis tool for queuing andto provide a balance to the LOS and v/c results of the Synchro analysis.

There are many similarities between the two software analysis programs, however, a keydifference is that the queuing results in Synchro assume infinite storage, meaning that nomatter the length of queue, the program assumes that it does not spill back into an adjacentlane, which is compatible with the methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).In SimTraffic, the queue storage lengths are finite, as defined by the user, and thereforeoverflow will occur if the queue length exceeds the storage length impacting adjacentmovements or even upstream intersections. For this reason, it is important to note thatSynchro results and SimTraffic results are not always directly comparable. Synchro is used tosummarize the performance of intersections over a peak hour period on an individualintersection basis and therefore represents the average operating conditions for that hour.Whereas, SimTraffic is a network analysis tool using micro-simulation techniques that iscapable of capturing data at a point in time over that same peak hour. This is useful forqueuing analysis as it allows the reporting of maximum queues, which are a result of asnapshot in time of the worst case condition during the entire peak hour period.

5.3.6.2 Results and Assessment in SimTraffic

Upon calibrating the SimTraffic model to the existing traffic conditions on site, theanticipated future condition information was added and the road network was analyzed. Theanalysis focused on the performance of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / CypressLane in respect to the two Development Options A2 and B2, with and without theimplementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane.

In SimTraffic, when the intersection is signalized, the westbound right turn maximum queuewill increase for both Development Option A2 and B2. The existing issue of the spill back ofthe westbound right-turn queue into the through lane will be further compounded and willcause a mixing of queues between the two traffic flows. Even though the right-turn trafficdoes not increase, the queue will increase as the through traffic will be increased by thebackground traffic and Development traffic. In Development Option B2 with signalization,the maximum queue of 250m is the longest of the queues recorded due to the highestwestbound through traffic volume and the addition of a stopped phase at the traffic signal,which creates a blockage upstream. However, this queue can still be contained on CypressBowl Road and will not extend to the Highway Interchange.

The greatest improvement in performance as a result of signalization was for the southboundleft-turn movement, with a reduction in maximum queue length of 91m and 28m forDevelopment Options A2 and B2, respectively. Average delays were also reduced by 30seconds per vehicle and 52 seconds per vehicle, respectively.



5.3.6.3 Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Lane – Signalization

In the 2017 future total traffic condition the southbound left-right-turn movement at theintersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane operated with a LOS F and a v/c greaterthan 1.0 in the AM peak hour period for both Development Options.

The signalization of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane has beendiscussed with the DWV and MoT. The review of future steps will need to include adiscussion of which warrant analysis applies in the case of this intersection. In addition, MoThas expressed concerns regarding the proximity to the Highway 1 Interchange. As mentionedpreviously, it is a unique intersection as the traffic for this intersection peaks twice daily forstudent drop-off and pick-up and has relatively low volumes for the remainder of the day.

In order to compare the LOS and v/c operations of the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane under a signalized condition, the Synchro software package was selected. Thisis an important distinction from the previous analysis on queuing from SimTraffic. Asdiscussed in the previous section, this analysis does not consider the queues which spill outof the existing storage; it simply evaluates the LOS and v/c for each individual movement.The results of the queuing analysis using SimTraffic are still valid and should be consideredas complimentary to this analysis.

The Synchro analysis was undertaken for the peak hour data as a comparison. Table 9provides the Weekday AM and PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) and volume tocapacity (v/c) analysis for the signalized intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lanein the 2017 Future Total conditions. Both Development Option A2 and B2 were analyzed.Detailed Synchro calculations are also provided in Appendix E with the 2017 Future Totalunsignalized analysis.

Table 9: Signalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditions(Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)


Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour



Overall B A B A


Eastbound Through B (0.53) A (0.33) B (0.64) B (0.38)

Westbound Through A (0.21) B (0.42) A (0.24) B (0.51)

Westbound Right B (0.46) A (0.11) B (0.46) A (0.11)

Southbound Left-Right B (0.78) A (0.33) B (0.78) A (0.33)



With signalization, the interaction of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane is no longer overcapacity in the AM peak hour period. The overall LOS in the AM peak hour period is B forDevelopment Option A2 and B2, and in the PM peak hour period the overall LOS is A. Thesouthbound left-right-turn movement, that was expected to operate over capacity and with aLOS F in the AM peak hour period for the 2017 Future Total traffic condition, now operatesat a LOS B with a v/c of 0.78 for both Development Options.

The results of the SimTraffic together with the Synchro output needs additional review.Further discussion is required with DWV and MoT on possible future signalization.

5.3.7 Conclusions

The conclusions specific to traffic operations on the school grounds are detailed in theMulgrave Report. A number of conclusions were drawn from the Mulgrave Report and aresummarized below:

1. Existing Traffic Arrival and Volume: A large numbers of vehicles enter and exit thesite in a short period of time, causing congestion.

2. Existing Operation of Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Road:a) The geometry of the north leg restricts traffic movement in two ways:

The westbound right-turn radius is a restricting factor on the speed atwhich traffic can complete the turn and adds to the delay and subsequentqueue that develops on Cypress Bowl Road.

Buses cannot make the right-turn and have to turn from the through lane toenter Cypress Lane and then have to cross into the opposing traffic tocomplete the turn.

b) The westbound right-turn lane is short (approx. 75m) and provides insufficientstorage. The westbound queue blocks the westbound through lane and also restrictssight lines for the southbound left turning vehicles.

c) Southbound left-turn vehicles do not experience delays in making the left-turn due tothe gaps in traffic on Cypress Bowl Road.

d) The southbound queue develops as a result of the high approach volume in a shortperiod of time.

3. Sensitivity Testing of Existing Conditions:a) The staggered start time of 15 minutes between the Junior and Senior School does not

reduce the maximum queue of the westbound right-turn movement to a point where itcan be contained within the right storage bay but it does reduce queue lengths anddelay times.

b) The improved Lower Lot operations improve site circulation and, in conjunction withthe staggered start time, shorten the southbound left-turn queue.

c) Improved intersection geometry at Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Road would allowfor a school bus to make a right-turn manoeuvre from the right-turn lane and not thethrough lane. It should also allow for passenger vehicles to complete the turn safely at


March 2008 37 iTRANS

Project # 4154

higher speed than under the existing condition which would improve the operations for this movement.

From the new analysis with road network Option 5-2, the following conclusions are drawn: 4. 2017 Future Development Options A2 and B2 with and without a Signalized

Intersection at Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane: a) The larger traffic volumes in Development Option B2, when compared to A2, create

larger maximum queues and greater average vehicular delays for all movements. b) Signalization provides a protected phase for the southbound left-right-turn movement,

ultimately reducing the maximum queue and average delay and improving the LOS and v/c.

c) Signalization adds delay to the westbound through and westbound right-turn movements as well as the eastbound through movement, as these manoeuvres are forced to stop for the southbound signal phase instead of being uncontrolled movements for an unsignalized intersection. The v/c is also increased due to signalization but all movements will still operate at a LOS B or better.

d) Signalization does not improve the operations of the westbound right-turn movement. It may even add delay to the movement due to drivers having to stop, if only for a few seconds, as the traffic signal changes from green to red.



6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

In order to determine the robustness of road network Option 5-2 under increased trafficloading, iTRANS completed two sensitivity analyses. The first included the effect theproposed Cypress Village development would have on the intersections, while the secondconsidered the Winter Ski traffic generated by Cypress Mountain.

6.1 Cypress Village

Cypress Village is a proposed mixed use development west of Cypress Bowl Road. Theproject team determined that the Cypress Village development would impact some of theanalyzed intersections by generating additional traffic. Drivers would need access to andfrom Highway 1 through the north interchange terminal with Cypress Bowl Road, passing bythe intersections of Cypress Bowl Road / Area 4 and Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane.

The worst case scenario for Cypress Village was governed by the residential traffic in thepeak hour created by a full build-out of approximately 630 units, with minimal impact fromsmall commercial, retail, and recreational traffic. It was assumed that approximately 25% ofthe development would be single family homes and approximately 75% would be multi-family homes. It was assumed that no traffic will connect west to Northwood Drive andtherefore all traffic will connect east to Cypress Bowl Road and filter down to Highway 1.This represents the most conservative assumption, as all traffic is assigned to Highway 1.

Using ITE 7th Edition Trip Generation rates, this 630 unit development would generate 381trips in the AM peak hour period and 418 trips in the PM peak hour period. A breakdown oftrips is summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: AM and PM Trips Summary for the Cypress Village Development

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDevelopment IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Cypress Village 90 291 381 263 155 418

This assumption is most likely overly optimistic, but nevertheless is the worst case scenariowith the highest generation of traffic.

For comparison with the 2017 Future Total traffic volume Exhibits, the 2017 Cypress VillageSensitivity traffic volumes with Development A2 site traffic are illustrated in Exhibit 12while Exhibit 13 illustrates the same sensitivity traffic volumes but with Development B2site traffic.



6.1.1 Cypress Village Sensitivity Analysis Results

Road network Option 5-2 with Development Options A2 and B2 were tested for robustnessusing a sensitivity analysis that assumes the full build-out of Cypress Village by 2017.Cypress Village traffic would not impact the northern portion of Cypress Bowl Road in anymajor capacity, instead only the intersections of Cypress Bowl Road with Area 4, CypressLane, and Highway 1 would be affected. The traffic operations for the three intersections aresummarized in Table 11 for both Development Options A2 and B2. Detailed Synchrocalculations are provided in Appendix F.

Table 11: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditionswith Cypress Village (Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)


Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour



Westbound Left D (0.06) C (0.02) E (0.07) C (0.03)

Westbound Right C (0.80) C (0.73) D (0.83) C (0.81)





Eastbound Left B (0.01) A (0.00) B (0.01) A (0.00)



Westbound Right - (0.44) - (0.10) - (0.44) - (0.10)

Southbound Left-Right F (2.08) F (0.88) F (2.37) F (0.99)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 4 –Other Developments (Synchro

#11)



Southbound Left-Right C (0.11) C (0.06) C (0.14) C (0.07)

At the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road, all movements are expected to beunder capacity for both the AM and PM peak hour periods and both Development Options.The highest v/c will be for the westbound right-turn movement in the AM peak hour forDevelopment B2, where the movement will operate at 0.83. This is 0.14 more than it wasexpected to operate in the 2017 Future Total condition. The westbound left-turn lane has aLOS E but with a very low volume of 6 vehicles resulting in a v/c of 0.07.



At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane, the southbound left-right-turnmovement will continue to be over capacity and operate at a LOS F in the AM peak hourperiod, as was also the expected case in the 2017 Future Total condition. In the PM peakperiod, the movement will operate at a LOS F and with a v/c of 0.99 or less. This is anincrease of 0.44 from the 2017 Future Total condition. Please refer to Section 5.3 for furtherinformation on the operations of this intersection in the 2017 Future Total condition.

At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Area 4 all movements will operate at a LOS Cand with a v/c of 0.32 or better in both peak hour periods and for both Development Options.

6.2 Winter Ski Traffic

Another sensitivity analysis was undertaken to test the effect of the Cypress Mountain WinterSki traffic on the road network. This sensitivity test would include the 2017 Future Totaltraffic, plus a full compliment of Winter Ski traffic.

The Winter Ski traffic is BC Parks data and the peak weekday peak hour traffic was takenfrom December 2005. In the AM peak hour, this resulted in an additional 86 trips arrivingfrom Highway 1 and travelling up Cypress Bowl Road to Cypress Mountain and 46 tripsdescending from Cypress Mountain to Highway 1. In the PM peak hour, there were anadditional 58 trips from Highway 1 up Cypress Bowl Road to Cypress Mountain and only 3descending.

6.2.1 Winter Ski Traffic Sensitivity Analysis Results

Road Network Option 5-2 with Development Options A2 and B2 were tested for robustnessusing a sensitivity analysis that assumes an average day of Winter Ski traffic. The Winter Skitraffic would impact all study area intersections along Cypress Bowl Road. The trafficoperations for the all intersections along Cypress Bowl Road and the Highway 1 interchangeare summarized in Table 12 for both Development Options A2 and B2. Detailed Synchrocalculations are provided in Appendix E.



Table 12: Unsignalized Intersection Operations – 2017 Future Total Traffic Conditionswith Winter Ski Traffic (Option 5-2, Development A2 and B2)


Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour



Westbound Left C (0.04) B (0.02) C (0.04) B (0.02)

Westbound Right C (0.79) B (0.43) D (0.82) B (0.51)





Eastbound Left B (0.01) A (0.00) B (0.01) A (0.00)



Westbound Right - (0.44) - (0.10) - (0.44) - (0.10)

Southbound Left-Right F (1.47) C (0.53) F (1.67) C (0.60)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 4 –Other Developments (Synchro

#11)



Southbound Left-Right B (0.07) B (0.04) B (0.10) B (0.04)

Cypress Bowl Road & Area 5(Synchro #19)



Northbound Left-Right B (0.11) B (0.05) B (0.17) B (0.08)

Cypress Bowl Road &Chippendale Connector

(Synchro #36)



Westbound Left - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00) - (0.00)


Northbound Left-Through-Right B (0.01) B (0.02) B (0.02) B (0.03)

Southbound Left-Through-Right A (0.09) A (0.04) A (0.13) A (0.06)



Table 12: Cont’d


Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour

Weekday AMPeak Hour

Weekday PMPeak Hour


Cypress Bowl Road & Area 3 –BPP (Synchro #49)



Northbound Left-Right A (0.00) A (0.00) A (0.00) A (0.00)

At the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road, all movements are expected toremain under capacity for both the AM and PM peak hour period and both DevelopmentOptions. The highest v/c will be for the westbound right-turn movement in the AM peak hourfor Development B2, where the movement will operate at 0.82.

At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane, the southbound left-right-turnmovement will continue to be over capacity and perform at a LOS F in the AM peak hourperiod, as was also the expected case in the 2017 Future Total condition. In the PM peakperiod for Development A2, the movement will operate under capacity at a LOS C in bothDevelopment Options. Please refer to Section 5.3 for further information on the operations ofthis intersection in the 2017 Future Total condition.

At all other intersections, including Cypress Bowl Road / Chippendale Connector, allmovements are expected to operate at a LOS B or better and with a v/c of 0.19 or less in bothpeak hour periods and both Development Options.

For comparison with the 2017 Total Traffic Volume Exhibits, the 2017 Winter Ski TrafficSensitivity traffic volumes with Development A2 site traffic are illustrated in Exhibit 14.Exhibit 15 illustrates the same sensitivity traffic volumes but with Development B2 sitetraffic.



7. OTHER ISSUES

From feedback received from various parties, including the public, DWV staff, MoT staff,Mulgrave Representatives, West Vancouver Transit staff, and BPP staff, there were 3 issuesthat required further study. These included the impact of the Rodgers Creek Development onthe North Shore and the Lions Gate Bridge, the future of Transit use and bus routes in andout of the Rodgers Creek Development, and the impact of a single lane bridge on the accessroad to Area 4.

7.1 Traffic Impacts on the North Shore and Lions

Gate Bridge

At the public information meeting held on December 4th, 2007 at the Hollyburn CountryClub, a question was raised about the possible impacts that the Rodgers Creek Development(the Development) might have on the Lions Gate Bridge (the Bridge) and the major north /south roads that service the Bridge. This Section provides a high level analysis of the impactsthat can be expected from the Development given the traffic volumes generated from theDevelopment Options A2 and B2 and the existing traffic volumes on the major roads and theBridge.

7.1.1 Analysis

The AM peak hour (7:45 to 8:45am) on the surrounding road network is expected to be whenthe greatest amount of traffic is generated from the Development. Therefore, the AM peakhour was chosen for this analysis and it is expected that 178 trips will be generated forOption A2 with 145 trips destined eastbound on Highway 1 and the remainder destined to thewest. For Option B2, 250 trips will be generated with 204 trips destined eastbound onHighway 1.

7.1.1.1 West Vancouver Roads

Three major north / south roads were reviewed; 15th Street, 21st Street, and Taylor Way. 15th

Street and 21st Street are Collector Roads and Taylor Way is an Arterial Road. All 3 of theseroads connect Highway 1 to Marine Drive and would be likely routes chosen by drivers fromthe Development wishing to access the Bridge.

From the Lions Gate to Highway 1 Connector Planning Study – Final Summary Report,undertaken by Urban Systems in 2007, it was estimated that for the AM peak hour of alltraffic using Highway 1 originating west of Taylor Way, 55% of that traffic is destined toeast of Capilano Road and 25% is destined to the Lions Gate Bridge. The remaining 20% oftraffic is dispersed throughout the local area. In the AM peak hour, the Development isexpected to generate 145 trips eastbound on Highway 1 for Option A2. It is thereforeassumed that 25% of those trips are destined to the Bridge which equates to 37 vehicles. It is



assumed that all drivers will use the 3 major north / south roads to access the Bridge andtherefore the 37 trips for Option A2 would be distributed over these 3 roads.

AM peak hour traffic count information was provided by the District of West Vancouverresulting in southbound traffic flows at Marine Drive of 438 vehicles per hour (vph) on 15th

Street, 313 vph on 21st Street, and 1,434 vph on Taylor Way. This results in a total of 2,185southbound vehicles using the three roads close to Marine Drive. For Option A2, theDevelopment is expected to add another 37 trips to the Bridge which equates to an additional1.7% of traffic on these three roads. Based on the existing traffic distribution on the threeroads, the number of vehicles accessing the Bridge added to each road is as follows:

1. 15th Street = 8 vehicles2. 21st Street = 5 vehicles3. Taylor Way = 24 vehicles

For Option B2, where more trips will be generated from the Development than in Option A2and assuming the same distribution pattern, it is expected that, in the AM peak hour, therewould be a total of 51 trips destined to the Bridge rather than the previously discussed 37.Using the same methodology described above, this would equate to 2.3% of additional trafficusing the three roads leading to the Bridge. Based on the existing traffic distribution on thethree roads, the number of vehicles accessing the Bridge added to each road is as follows:

1. 15th Street = 10 vehicles2. 21st Street = 7 vehicles3. Taylor Way = 34 vehicles

7.1.1.2 Lions Gate Bridge

The Lions Gate Bridge is a major link from the north shore to downtown Vancouver and tripsare generated from several major locations. In the Lions Gate to Highway 1 ConnectorPlanning Study – Final Summary Report, undertaken by Urban Systems in 2007, it is statedthat approximately 3,500 vehicles travel southbound on the bridge in 2 lanes during the AMpeak hour.

As stated previously, it is estimated that 37 vehicles for Option A2 and 51 vehicles forOption B2 are destined to the Lions Gate Bridge from the Development resulting in 1.1 % or1.5% of additional traffic on the Bridge, respectively. From recent traffic count informationfrom the Ministry of Transportation website, the daily traffic variation on the Lions GateBridge is approximately 10%.

7.1.2 Conclusions

The percentage of Development traffic accessing the Bridge that is expected to use 15th

Street, 21st Street, and Taylor Way will be less than 2% of existing traffic for Option A2 andless than 2.5% of existing traffic for Option B2. The additional traffic on Lions Gate Bridge



is expected to be 1.1% of existing traffic for Option A2 and 1.5% of existing traffic forOption B2. The daily variation of traffic on the bridge is in the range of approximately 10%.It is concluded that the traffic impact of the Rodgers Creek Development for vehiclesaccessing the Bridge on 15th Street, 21st Street and Taylor Way will be minimal. The impacton Lions Gate Bridge falls well below the daily variation of traffic.

7.2 Future Transit

BPP vision for transit operations for Rodgers Creek Development is to integrate the transitsystem as a part of the design and planning process and not rely solely on retro-fitting intothe Development after construction. With the link that the Chippendale Connector providesfor access to and from the Upper Lands to Highway 1, the possibility exists for service to beprovided to and from Marine Drive to the Upper Lands in some form of loop service. Traveltimes would be expedited for a portion of the route by using Highway 1.

West Vancouver transit staff expects that a small community shuttle type service would beimplemented for transit in this area. This is similar to other implementations in other areaswith similar physical characteristics, including tight turn-arounds and mountainous terrain.Routes would be planned by using a common sense approach, targeting locations with highpopulation and development concentrations in order to maximize ridership and promotepublic transit. The implementation would be based more on a trial basis, adjusting routes orcirculation times as a clearer picture of the available transit needs became apparent.

The planned future development of Cypress Village also encourages the use of more transitproviding a central commercial hub, where buses could be stationed and deployed with localroutes to and from Park Royal for example, or as part of a longer route to Horseshoe Bay,Lions Bay, or Lonsdale to name a few destinations.

7.3 Single Lane Bridge on Access Road to Area 4

The single lane bridge is proposed on the access road to Area 4, approximately 200m fromthe intersection with Cypress Bowl Road, as illustrated in Exhibit 2. From Exhibit 10 andExhibit 11, which represent 2017 Future Total traffic volumes with Developments A2 andB2, respectively, the volumes crossing the bridge in the AM and PM peak hours are minimal.This road is planned to terminate directly to the north of the bridge in a cul-de-sac, thereforethe function of this road will not change in the future and through traffic will not be using theroad as a by-pass or shortcut.



This discussion will focus on the Development Option B2, as this represents the moreconservative approach, since Development Option A2 has fewer units and therefore fewertrips than Option B2. In the AM peak hour 2017 Future Total condition, the traffic volumesto and from Development Area 4 are 12 and 41, respectively. This is a total of 61 vehiclescrossing a single lane bridge over a 1-hour period, which translates to approximately 1vehicle per minute.

In the PM peak hour, again focusing on the more conservative Development Option B2, thetraffic volumes in the 2017 Future Total condition to and from Development Area 4 are 36and 20, respectively. This is a total of 56 vehicles crossing the single lane bridge over a 1-hour period, which also translates to approximately 1 vehicle per minute.

With proper signage and the implementation of proper engineering safety measures, such asadequate sightlines, plus the familiarity of the drivers using the bridge on a daily basis, thereshould be minimal operational issues and little to no queuing expected. The distance of 200mfrom Cypress Bowl Road should be sufficient for storage for any queuing that is necessaryshould 2 vehicles arrive at the bridge at the same instance.



8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section provides conclusions, and if applicable, recommendations, based on the analysisof the 2007 Existing, the 2017 Future Background, and the 2017 Future Total trafficconditions. Conclusions are also drawn for the sensitivity analysis as well as the other issuessuch as, impacts on the Lions Gate Bridge, transit implementation, and the construction of asingle lane bridge as part of the local road to access the Area 4 development.

8.1 2007 Existing Conditions

8.1.1 Conclusions

In the 2007 Existing condition the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road operatesunder capacity and at a LOS C or better for all movements in the AM and PM peak hourperiods. This indicates there are no existing operational issues due to volumes or delays.

In the AM peak hour period at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane thesouthbound left-right-turn movement will operate with a v/c of 0.86 and at a LOS D. This isindicative of the high volume of vehicles making the movement that are not able toconsistently find gaps in the conflicting major street traffic flow. From the work iTRANSundertook in the study entitled, Analysis of Internal Site Traffic for Mulgrave School, 2007(Appendix A), there are known traffic issues at this intersection caused by several factors,the main factor being the intense peak of traffic between 8:00am and 8:15am when parentsare dropping off their children for the start of school.

In the PM peak hour period at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane allmovements operate under capacity and at a LOS B or better. Specifically, the southboundleft-right-turn movement operates with a v/c of 0.23, which is in contrast to the AM peakperiod. This is due mainly to the much lower volume of school related traffic over the PMpeak hour compared to the AM peak hour.

8.1.2 Recommendations

1. Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Road: These items were included in the Mulgrave Reportand are under review by Mulgrave School and MoT.a) Improve the geometry of the intersection: This will allow for a turning radius that

would accommodate school buses to complete the right-turn from the appropriatelane, and would increase the passenger vehicle speeds to be more reflective of a free-flow right-turn movement, thereby improving operations and decreasing the queue.

b) Increase westbound right-turn storage bay to 100 m in length (not including thetaper): This will provide increased storage for this movement and also moves thecurrent end of the storage past the crest of the hill where it currently ends.



2. Mulgrave School on-site Operations: These items were included in the MulgraveReport and are under review by Mulgrave School.a) Increase the time between the start time of the Junior and Senior Schools to 30

minutes: This should provide a greater spread of the peak traffic flow, which willreduce queue lengths and delay times as well as improve the on-site circulation ofMulgrave. However, this recommendation would be dependent on theappropriateness of implementation given Mulgrave School’s curriculum and otherSchool related variables. This is under review by Mulgrave School.

b) Improve Lower Lot operations following the model of the Upper Lot: This willprovide greater free flow traffic conditions and reduce queuing entering the LowerLot.

3. Monitor: Continue to monitor the operation of Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Lane.This will include counts, operation queue length review, accident data, etc.

8.2 2017 Future Background Conditions

8.2.1 Conclusions

In the 2017 Future Background condition the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Roadwill operate under capacity and at a LOS C or better in the AM and PM peak hour periods.Therefore this intersection will continue to operate with no operational issues due to volumeand delays.

In the AM peak hour period, the southbound left-right-turn movement at the intersection ofCypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane will continue to operate at a LOS D and the v/c isslightly elevated to 0.89, compared to 0.86 of the Existing condition. In the PM peak hourperiod all movements will operate under capacity and at a LOS B or better.

For the 2017 Future Background condition, the future road network (without the siteaccesses) was assumed to be in place and therefore an additional intersection was added tothe analysis. This intersection is a result of the extension of Chippendale Road to connectwith upper Cypress Bowl Road. All movements at this new intersection are expected to beunder capacity and to operate at a LOS A indicating no operational issues due to volume ordelays.


Continue to monitor the operation of Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Lane. This willinclude counts, operation queue length review, accident data, etc.



8.3 2017 Future Total Conditions

8.3.1 Conclusions

In the 2017 Future Total condition, the intersection of Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road willcontinue to operate under capacity and at a LOS C or better for both the AM and PM peakhour periods. Therefore it is expected, that there will be no operational issues related tovolume or delays.

At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane, all movements except thesouthbound left-right turn will operate under capacity and at a LOS A in both the AM andPM peak hour period for both Development Options A2 and B2. In the AM peak hour period,the southbound left-turn right will be over capacity and operate at a LOS F. This is notunexpected due to the fact that it was already operating with a high v/c and delays in theExisting and Future Background conditions. In the PM peak hour period, the southboundleft-right-turn movement will operate under capacity and at a LOS C. This disparity inoperations between the AM and PM peak period is due to the short peak period of trafficflow destined to Mulgrave School that coincides with the expected peak of the surroundingroad network traffic. This is not a typical problem that would be expected at a standardurban, or even sub-urban, intersection.

All other intersections, including all site accesses with Cypress Bowl Road as well CypressBowl Road / Chippendale Connector, are expected to operate under capacity and at a LOS Bor better in the AM and PM peak hour periods with both Development Options A2 and B2.

Additional analysis has shown that while a signal at the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road /Cypress Lane will improve the southbound left-right-turn movement operations, it will alsoadd delay to the east-west movement operations along Cypress Bowl Road.


1. Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Road:a) The recommendations are proposed as per the existing situation listed above.b) Continue to monitor the intersection in the future to determine whether a traffic signal

is warranted from an operational or safety perspective.2. Other intersections: No action is required as it is expected there are will be no

operational issues related to volume or delays experienced at these intersections.



8.4 Sensitivity Analysis

8.4.1 Conclusions

iTRANS undertook 2 sensitivity analysis options on the 2017 Future Total traffic condition.The first studied the effect of additional traffic on the network generated from the full build-out of the proposed future development of Cypress Village. The second studied the effects ofadditional traffic on the network generated by Winter Ski traffic that uses Cypress BowlRoad to access Cypress Mountain. Both of these sensitivities were performed using veryconservative assumptions including the short 10-year horizon and assuming 100% of all thetraffic generated would be using Highway 1 to the east instead of being distributed using avariety of alternative routes.

The results of the Cypress Village sensitivity analysis indicated that the intersection ofHighway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road will continue to operate under capacity. In the PM peakhour only, the westbound left-turn movement, which essentially is a u-turn manoeuvre, willoperate at a LOS E but with a very low v/c. Since this movement would only be used bydrivers who had missed a previous exit or needed to reverse directions on the highway, this isnot a major concern.

At the intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane the southbound left-right-turnmovement will continue to operate over capacity and at a LOS F in the AM peak hour periodfor both Development Options A2 and B2. In the PM peak hour, the movement will operateunder capacity, but due to the large increase in through traffic on Cypress Bowl Road, themovement will operate at a LOS F.

The intersection of Cypress Bowl Road / Area 4, which is the only other intersection affectedby the Cypress Village traffic, will operate under capacity and at a LOS C or better for allmovements. It is expected that there will be no operational issues related to volume or delays.

For the Winter Ski traffic sensitivity analysis, similar trends will continue at the intersectionsof Highway 1 / Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Bowl Road / Cypress Lane. For all otherintersections, including Cypress Bowl Road and the site accesses as well as Cypress BowlRoad / Chippendale Connector, all movements will operate under capacity and at a LOS C orbetter in the AM and PM peak hour periods for both Development Options A2 and B2.Therefore it is expected that there will be no operational issues related to volume or delays.


1. Cypress Lane / Cypress Bowl Road:a) The recommendations are proposed as per the existing situation listed above.b) Continue to monitor the intersection in the future to determine whether a traffic signal

is warranted from an operational or safety perspective.2. Other intersections: No action is required as it is expected there are will be no

operational issues related to volume or delays experienced with the sensitivities tested.



8.5 Other Issues

There were three additional issues that were brought to the attention of iTRANS bycontributing parties involved in the study process. They were the impacts of Developmenttraffic on the Lions Gate Bridge, Transit use in the area, and the operational impact of thesingle lane bridge on the access road to Area 4.

8.5.1 Conclusions

Lions Gate Bridge: The traffic impact from the Rodgers Creek Development vehiclesaccessing the Bridge on 15th Street, 21st Street and Taylor Way will be minimal and theimpact on Lions Gate Bridge falls well below the daily variation of traffic.

Transit: BPP vision for transit within the Rodgers Creek Development is to integrate thetransit into the planning and design process instead of trying to retro-fit transit into theDevelopment after construction. A collaborative Service would most likely be provided bycommunity shuttle and routes would be planned using a common sense approach, targetinglocations with high population and development concentrations and key destinations orlinkages such as Park Royal. This transit approach could also be expanded with theconstruction of the planned future development of Cypress Village which would act as acentral commercial hub in the region. This would facilitate local routes being part of, orlinking to, longer routes that could travel to Horseshoe Bay, Lions Bay, or Lonsdale forexample.

Single Lane Bridge on Access to Area 4: In both the AM and PM peak hour periods, it isexpected that there would be approximately 60 vehicles crossing the single lane bridge. Thisequates to approximately 1 vehicle per minute and the traffic should be all local traffic as theArea 4 access road is a cul-de-sac. Therefore it is concluded that with the proper signing andengineering safety measures implemented for the single lane bridge, plus the familiarity ofthe drivers using the bridge on a daily basis, there should be minimal operational issues andlittle to no queuing expected.


Continue to work with West Vancouver Transit to expand the transit network with theredevelopment of the area.



9. REFERENCES

1. Bunt and Associates, Draft Rodgers Creek Residential Development Traffic Impact Study,2006.

2. Bunt and Associates, Collingwood School Traffic Study, 2007.

British Pacific Properties Limited - West Vancouver...British Pacific Properties Limited Rodgers...

Documents

Transcript of British Pacific Properties Limited - West Vancouver...British Pacific Properties Limited Rodgers...