McElhanney Victoria Road traffic plan

8/18/2019 McElhanney Victoria Road traffic plan

1/99

City of Revelstoke Council Report

File No.: 5460-05/ENG 2015-04

To: His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council

From: Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP – Director of Engineering and Development

Date: 18 April 2016

Subject: Victoria / Mutas Intersection Conceptual Design

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT City staff be directed to proceed to preliminary design of the concept proposed in Appendix A of McElhanney’s Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement ConceptualDesign Brief.

CAO Comments:

Approved for Council consideration. AC

Background:

The City engaged McElhanney Consulting Services to provide engineering services on twointersections in Revelstoke. The first project involves the Victoria/Mutas intersection, adjacent to

the Trans Canada Highway and several busy highway commercial businesses. The initialconcept, developed through many years of previous engineering reports, revised with input fromCity staff and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, was modified and presented toCouncil and the public in early March 2016, with an excellent level of community involvement.

Following these meetings, stakeholder and public feedback was gathered and reviewed by theconsulting team. The results of the review are presented in the attached Conceptual DesignBrief.

Options / discussion:

Public Questions

McElhanney responded to questions asked through this process, found in sections 3 to 5 of thereport:

- Items Unclear to the Public- Comments with Significant Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI)

Involvement- Comments without Significant MoTI Involvement- Snow Removal


2/99


These sections provide answers to many of the issues heard at the public and stakeholderevents. The snow removal issue for a roundabout was often cited by the public as a reason that

the design would not work, McElhanney contacted over a dozen road authorities that haveroundabouts in snowbelt areas. The quotes from these authorities, provided on pages 9-11 ofthe report, many from communities with comparable annual snowfalls to Revelstoke, speak tothe ability to provide a high level of service and safety at these intersections through properdesign and maintenance practices.

Many verbal comments were received at the open house stating that they supported theconcept.

Traffic Modelling

McElhanney completed traffic modelling for the existing and proposed intersectionconfigurations. Generally, the existing level of service during the peak hour is classed as “E”,modelling indicated that with the proposed upgrades, this would improve to a Level of Service“B” at the Victoria/Mutas Intersection.

Sustainability

One of the requirements of the City was to review the design from a sustainability lens. TheEngineering Department has adopted the Envision Rating System for evaluation ofinfrastructure projects across a range of performance objectives. McElhanney has provided in

Appendix E of the report a brief review of the potential score of this project, noting that theproposed design scores quite highly in Envision due to:

Reducing congestion

Increased pedestrian and cyclist safety Improved stormwater management Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions Community and Stakeholder engagement processes Preserving and improving the local character

Recommended Design

Taking the input received from stakeholders and the public, McElhanney made several changesto the design presented to the public in early March. These proposed changes are shown in theattached design sketch and include:

Improved pedestrian access to Tim Hortons, Shell and Super 8 with a sidewalk andcrosswalk.

Improved access to the frontage road for Tim Hortons, Shell and Super 8, particularly forlarger vehicles.

Installation of concrete median restricting turning movements near the Canadian Pacific(CP) underpass.

Inclusion of a modest large vehicle parking area on the frontage road. Removal of the future roundabout at Fraser Drive from the design plans.


3/99


Unresolved in the proposed design are the concerns of the businesses on the east side ofVictoria that are currently accessed off the highway by a left turn off Victoria to the Frontage

Road. The report suggests that these issues could be mitigated with a coordinated signage planfrom MoTI and the City assisting travelers in both directions on the highway to access thesebusinesses at the HWY 23N intersection, or if they have already turned onto Victoria, to take thethird exit at the roundabout ahead.

The proposed design offers the best solution, given the numerous site constraints andcompeting stakeholder demands. It reflects many years of concept designs, community input,and work with consulting engineers, MoTI staff and stakeholders. The primary objectives ofreducing congestion and improving safety are met with this design, with mitigation measures forthe businesses most impacted by the proposed changes.

Next Steps

City staff and McElhanney recommend that the design progress to the preliminary design phaseto ensure that improvements can be started in the fall of 2016. The preliminary design phase willinclude close consultation with MoTI and the Insurance Corporation of BC on ensuring trafficsafety objectives are being met, and discussing potential funding opportunities. The City willendeavour to ensure safe, legal access to all properties is provided and further stakeholderengagement will take place to ensure issues raised are being mitigated or reduced through thedesign process where possible.

Upon approval to proceed, City staff and McElhanney will produce a timeline of design phases,tender period, and construction, with the aim that a portion of the work would be completed inthe Fall of this year, with the remainder in the Spring of 2017. As a preliminary plan, theroundabout at Victoria and Wright Street would be completed in 2016, while the remainder of

the work on the west side of the railway underpass would be completed in 2017.

McElhanney and staff are working on an interim signage and line marking plan with some minorroad works to reduce the congestion around the properties on the West side of Victoria Road.City staff are planning to arrange traffic control for the summer long weekends in 2016 as hasbeen provided in previous years.

Financial / Risk Implications:

Currently, McElhanney’s Class D cost estimate for the work is $2.1M, which is based only onprevious projects of similar scope. This estimate is significantly higher than staff’s pre-projectestimates, which were used to develop the capital budget. If Council is prepared to proceed withthis design but is cautious about the high cost estimate, it is recommended that decision making

on approval of the design, timing of construction and sources of funding be made when a classB estimate can be produced, based on design drawings that will allow for unit price costs to beestimated, this should be available prior to June 2016.

The 2016 capital plan has $1.2M allocated for this project, funded from DCC’s and specificcontributions from neighbouring developments. The City had submitted a grant applicationunder the Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund for $1.2M which was unsuccessful. City staff will


4/99


continue to investigate funding opportunities, including MoTI and ICBC, while finalizing thedesign and construction cost estimate.

The consulting and design project budget for the intersection and current status is as follows.Note also that the due dates and budget costs may change if Council provides direction otherthan the recommendation provided.

Task Due Date Budget Spent %

Background Review Feb-16 $20,954 $18,995 91%Feasibility Study/ Conceptualization Mar-16 $23,846 $21,932 92%Preliminary Design May-16 $55,541 - -Detailed Design Jun-16 $18,773 - -Tender Jul-16 $6,602 - -Construction/Post Constr. Dec-16 $123,791 - -

Completion of the Preliminary Design will fill in many of the details required to adequately firmup the cost estimate, allowing Council to adjust budgets or timeframes as required prior toconstruction. Project phasing can also be considered to spread the costs out over several years.

Attachments:

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement Conceptual Design Brief - McElhanney

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP – Director of Engineering and Development


5/99

"#$%'()%))

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Conceptual Design Brief

Prepared for

Mr. Mike Thomas, P.Eng.Director of Engineering and Development ServicesCity of Revelstoke

Prepared by

McElhanney Consulting Services

710 Laval CrescentKamloops BC V2C 5P3

Contact: Elisa Becker, P.Eng., PMP

Tel: 250-434-9526

Email:[email protected]

April 2016 Rev1

Photo from Columbia Shushwap Regional District


6/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B "

C0D


7/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B $

%E ?0,J>/.36I

The intersection of Victoria Rd/Bend Rd/Mutas Lp is routinely congested in the summer, confusing to

visitors, and is a safety concern. The congestion at the Victoria/Mutas intersection has previously beenstudied extensively by both the City of Revelstoke (City) and the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure (MOTI). Previous studies and analyses include Revelstoke Comprehensive

Transportation Master Plan (2012), Traffic Contributions for Victoria/Mutas Memo (2012), Revelstoke

Crossing Traffic Review (2010), Mutas-Victoria Improvement Cost Estimate (2010), Mutas and Victoria

Draft Concept Sketches (2015), Mutas Service Road Traffic Study (2005), and Revelstoke Access

Management and Mobility Study (2011). These previous studies and analyses conclude that the root

cause of the congestion at this intersection, is due to allowing full movements at an intersection too

close to the highway. Full movements refers to allowing left turns, right turns, and through movements

at Mutas and Victoria. Traffic modelling has clearly indicated that the left turns and through

movements, at this intersection are the primary cause of the congestion. This congestion creates

extensive delays for the highway commercial business traffic and leads to backed-up traffic on thehighway, causing safety concerns for MOTI.

McElhanney was retained by the City of Revelstoke to confirm the feasibility of a preferred option that

had been previously selected, and move forward with design work.

This concept had a concrete median running the length of Victoria in between the Trans-Canada

Highway (TCH) and the CP crossing to eliminate the left turns and crossing traffic. This scenario

required two roundabouts located at the intersections of Victoria/Wright St and Laforme/Fraser, to

allow access to all businesses. Although this would be very effective in removing the problem

movements, it would require people from downtown Revelstoke that frequent these businesses to have

to cross the TCH, use the roundabout to turn around, and then go back through TCH signal to get back

to town. Similarly, highway traffic would have awkward movements. For example, a skier coming fromthe east who intended to stop at Subway/Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8, would turn left off the highway,

then have to go through the TCH light twice more before continuing to Revelstoke Mountain Resort.

To address these issues, McElhanney modified the concept to allow left turns out of Frontage/Bend

Rd, and into Mutas. This results in virtually unchanged access for Revelstoke residents, improved

service for Revelstoke-bound tourists and business travel. Highway traffic would find much smoother

access to the highway commercial businesses. This also eliminates the integrated need for the second

roundabout at Laforme/Fraser, making this an optional feature only.

For larger vehicles, accessing Bend Road is difficult, and once the median were built, impossible –

due to the substandard geometry for these vehicles, which constantly damage the signs and other

roadside features. The City indicated the desire to disconnect and shorten Bend Rd due to steep

grades, difficulty maintaining the road, accident history, and that the sani dump may be relocated as

part of a separate project. McElhanney was able to take advantage of this closure by improving the

access concept to the east side businesses.

This input and feedback from MOTI were used to adapt the initial design and create the improvement

configuration presented at the stakeholder engagement meetings held in early March.


8/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B #

E K-0J7L.0>7876- K-/0-7>N

The City released conceptual improvement configuration drawings to media outlets several days prior

to hosting two stakeholder meetings on March 2, 2016. The first meeting held was with the Mayor,Council, and business owners located at Victoria/Mutas and included a presentation outlining the

design approach, timing, and conceptual level cost estimates. The second meeting was open to the

Revelstoke community and included display boards and a FAQ, with City staff and McElhanney

engineers available to explain the proposed improvements and answer questions. The City collected

written comments from the community and forwarded them to McElhanney. The written public

comments received are located in Appendix C . For easier review, the comments are typed into a list,

located in Appendix D for reference.

Due to the highly technical nature of the traffic operational analysis, a knowledge of specialized

technical methodologies, traffic standards, laws, and engineering practices is needed. Along with

valuable feedback on the concept presented, it is common to receive design suggestions that do not

meet the technical requirements or transportation planning objectives. McElhanney and the City were

very pleased at the level of community engagement for this project and the amount of feedback

received. McElhanney thoroughly analyzed each of the comments and incorporated as much of the

feedback gathered during the stakeholder engagement process as possible to optimize the intersection

improvement configuration

McElhanney feels it important to respond to as much of the feedback as possible, and has grouped

the most commonly suggested ideas into themes to manage this information. The comments below

are intended to explain the related traffic management issues. We note that many verbal comments

received at the open house simply stated support for the concept presented. We also noted that

several people expressed concern that the City must not allow a few influential stakeholders to have

disproportionate influence in determining the best interests of the Community as a whole.

$E 5-784 O6,


9/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B F

4. The highway intersection is operationally optimized; MOTI is not planning to make changes to

the physical intersection, or to the signal operation. The Ministry’s interest in this project is for

the improved safety through eliminating backed-up traffic on the highway.

5. This project scope includes improvements to Victoria Road and related accesses and does

not include ideas outside the scope of this project, such as changes to the CP crossing, grade

concerns at the highway, etc.

6. Having an intersection too close to the TCH is not unique to Revelstoke, and the solutions in

other areas often involve locating traffic movements (“conflict points”) further from the highway

to improve stacking distances, which is key to successful improvements in this location.

7. The City was looking to relocate the sani dump independently from this project.

8. Bend Rd has experienced safety and maintenance problems so the City would like it removed

as part of this project.

E ;.8876-4 P+-L K+>6+@+,06- 2QC5 56:.


10/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B R

MOTI does not have plans to move the highway in the location of TCH and Victoria. Historic

drawings showing the TCH moved from its current location at the Victoria Rd intersection are

not up-to-date nor part of MOTI’s current plan.

5. Roundabout at Mutas intersection.

A roundabout located at the Victoria/Mutas intersection would be substandard in several ways.

It would be too close to the highway and would provide insufficient stacking distance, resulting

in similar issues (although eased somewhat) to the current situation. Specifically, a red signal

for Victoria NB at the highway would cause backups into the roundabout which could quickly

back up all the way around and into the SB lanes – similar to the current problem. A multi-lane

roundabout would partially resolve this issue, but the increase in size from one to two-lane

roundabouts is substantial and this would not fit in the space available.

A signal at Mutas would have a similar outcome, and is rejected in principle since it would

create forced traffic stacking back onto the TCH.

6. Traffic signal for NB Victoria only.

The purpose of this suggestion is to stop traffic from travelling NB on Victoria before it reaches

Mutas, somewhere north of the CP underpass, to make gaps in NB traff ic for the left turns into

the eastside businesses, and thereby allow the SB backups to clear.

For a traffic signal to be visible past the CP underpass, it would be located near Mutas. With

a red signal stopping NB Victoria traffic, there would be nothing to indicate to SB Victoria

drivers that they have protected turning movements. All they would see is opposing traffic

stopped with no indication of why they are stopped or when they would begin driving again.

For this reason, a second light facing SB Victoria traffic would be required to indicate a green

light allowing the left turn onto Frontage/Bend Rd. This second light would also require a

yellow and red phase to allow NB Victoria traffic to travel into or past the Mutas intersection.

This creates a red light condition for SB Victoria traffic, which is rejected in principle by MOTI.

Not only is this rejected by MOTI, but it is not sound engineering and creates additional

problems instead of solving the root cause of the congestion.

It may be suggested to signalize only the left turn from SB Victoria to Frontage/Bend Rd to

account for this, but leave a constant green through signal for SB traffic. However, this would

require a physical separation of the two lanes which would be confusing if it were feasible to

build, which it is not due to the distance constraints. Further, this retains the left turns stacking

back toward the highway.

Another suggestion may be to signalize the Victoria/Wright St intersection, in order to createthe desired traffic gaps in NB Victoria traffic. This also does not solve the problem, as it does

not affect the cause of the problems, which is traffic that would not be found at this intersection

– NB traffic from town is not a high volume, it just backs up at peak times due to the gridlock

at the Mutas intersection.

Coordinating the signal timings is also problematic because the highway, being the primary

route has much longer green time than the side street – Victoria. The left turn off the highway

(long green phase) would require equally long red time for NB Victoria, which would also have


11/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B '

to apply to the Mutas loop and left turns to access SB Victoria. In other words, the left turn into

the eastside businesses would receive priority at the same level as the highway green time,

to the exclusion of all other movements, which would exacerbate things for all other traffic.

Furthermore, the signals at the TCH/Victoria and TCH/Hwy 23 intersections are already

coordinated, so adding an additional signal would require a more sophisticated, costly system

with central management.

FE ;.8876-4 P+-L.3- K+>6+@+,06- 2QC5 56:.


12/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B (

Need pedestrian accommodation from TCH to Tim Hortons; consider pedestrian and cyclist

safety.

This is included in the updated configuration.

Regarding the roundabout, Revelstoke receives a lot of snow.

This was a frequent comment and is addressed in a separate section below.

Drivers ignore signs.

This was a frequent comment related to “one way,” “do not enter” and roundabout signs. One

way and do not enter signs are in widespread use in Canada; Revelstoke will not be unique

with these signs and thus this shouldn’t be a concern. Furthermore, for traffic unfamiliar with

a roundabout ahead sign, it is irrelevant as traffic will have to move toward the roundabout.

So, whether or not they ignore the sign, they will have to drive through the roundabout to return

to the TCH.

Drivers can’t see the roundabout so they will choose to stop at the businesses on the west

side of Victoria instead of the east side.

The CP rail underpass blocks immediate view of the proposed Wright Street roundabout.

When drivers enter Victoria Rd and see they can’t turn left to enter the eastside businesses,

given the tight configuration they will have no time to change their minds and turn right into the

businesses on the west side. Customers desiring the east side businesses will have to

proceed to the roundabout to return to the highway, and will find their planned stop easily

accessible on the right.

A positive outcome of the roundabout located beyond the CP rail crossing is it creates a new,

significant opportunity for visitors to see Revelstoke beyond the businesses on the highway.

Grades are too steep at Wright St for a roundabout.

The roundabout grades can be designed within acceptable design standards at this location.

Improve existing blind corners.

The detailed design will incorporate this.

The CP crossing clearance is low.

The CP crossing is 4.42m on Victoria Rd. East of Revelstoke on the TCH the clearance is

4.3m. Logging trucks are known to exceed the 4.42m CP crossing height occasionally, striking

the bridge and losing loads. For this reason, the City is evaluating a traffic bylaw to restrict

over height loads.

We understand that highway trucks are routed onto Victoria and through this location in the

event of highway closures due to avalanches, collisions, etc.

Large vehicles and mill pole trucks need to drive through the roundabout.


13/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B G

The intersection improvements, including the roundabout, are designed to accommodate a

WB-20 vehicle. We have contacted the mill to determine their largest vehicle, which is a 60’

Canadian Super B Flat Deck. The WB-20 is the governing vehicle in this case – the WB-20

requires a larger area to maneuver than the mill’s largest vehicle; therefore, the current

improvement configuration accommodates mill truck traffic.

RE K6.P S78.:0<

One of the items the public commented on both in writing and verbally during the open house, was the

ability for the City’s road maintenance crews to effectively remove snow in roundabouts. McElhanney

included in the FAQ a statement that many snowy areas in Canada and America have roundabouts

and are able to maintain them during the winter. It appeared during the stakeholder engagement

process that the public wanted more specific information in order to be confident in the snow removal

process.

McElhanney contacted over a dozen municipalities and provincial/state transportation officials inCanada and America that have roundabouts and are located in snowy areas. We asked them two

simple questions, “Are you able to effectively remove the snow in the roundabouts located at __?” and,

“Any other comments on snow removal in roundabouts?” We were surprised at the overwhelming

number of responses received from our inquiries. The majority of responses confirmed roundabout

snow removal is as easy as or easier than a traditional intersection. America has more examples of

roundabouts in snowy areas, so many of the responses are from American transportation and public

works officials. However, we contacted as many officials from roundabouts located in comparable

snowy areas in Canada as were known and available. For comparison, Revelstoke receives an

average annual snowfall of 355cm based on 13 years of data available on the City’s site.

The following are direct quotes from the officials we contacted:

“We have had similar concerns over roundabouts since we began to implement them through

Jefferson County about a decade ago. Our plow drivers were convinced that concrete curbs

and islands would routinely be destroyed by plowing efforts. Drivers were also concerned

about the intersection being clogged with snow and the difficulty of clearing snow from the

roundabouts. In all actuality, my drivers spend far less time with a roundabout than a

conventional intersection. After years of service, we have not lost any significant concrete due

to plowing efforts. Our engineers have done a great job in designing our roundabouts to calm

traffic while still allowing larger vehicles to navigate around them.” – Andy Rohwer, Senior

Supervisor Jefferson County Colorado Road and Bridge District 3, Evergreen, Colorado

(annual snowfall 346 cm).

“The Michigan Department of Transportation's Superior Region has one modern roundabout

on the state trunkline in Marquette, constructed in 2010, and another planned to begin

construction this spring in nearby Ishpeming. Both of these sites are in the Lake Superior's

lake effect snow belt and get plenty of precipitation every winter -- the average snowfall in

Marquette County is around 4.5 meters. A testimonial from Marquette's Director of Planning

and Community Development, Dennis Stachewicz Jr., probably sums up best how the winter

plowing concerns raised by an initially skeptical public have not been borne out in an article

for "The Bridge" magazine http://michiganltap.org/sites/ltap/files/publications/bridge/Bridge27-


14/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %)

4.pdf Stachewicz said there have been “no problems with snow removal. In fact it might be

better than before. The snow plow guys are pretty happy.” According to the Frequently Asked

Questions on our MDOT website, there is some initial adjustment in procedures for snowplow

crews, but roundabouts generally present no major problems for snow removal. In Wisconsin,

for example, one truck will start on the truck apron and plow around the roundabout to the

outside, while another truck will plow each entry and exit, pushing the snow to the outside.

Roundabouts make it easier to turn snowplows as well.” – Daniel Weingarten,

Communications Representative, Ishpemig, Michigan (roundabout location annual snowfall

450 cm).

“Typically the roundabouts are easier to plow then arterial intersections with turn lanes, since

the plow operator can traverse it multiple times until cleared. Intersections with turn lanes

often involve backtracking to plow. We have had issues with the splitter islands being hit by

snowplows, requiring expensive repairs. These minor issues with deicing and snow removal

are more than made up for by the efficiency and safety of our roundabouts. We’ve had a

combined 30 years of experience with our 3 roundabouts and have yet to have an injury

accident.” – Alex Ariniello, Public Works and Utilities Director, Superior, Colorado (annualsnowfall 165 cm).

“We have not one bit of problem clearing the snow, even with larger snowfalls. The roundabout

has never been closed due to snow.” – Casey Coleman, Public Works, Park City, Utah (annual

snowfall 1,044 cm).

“For snow removal we take it out of the centre and move out and use a big blower for large,

quick snowfall events. In 6 years we have had no issues once we got our technique down.”

Victor Anello, Public Works, Northbay, Ontario (annual snowfall 300 cm).

“The City of Batavia has one single lane roundabout that was constructed in 2009 at the

intersection of NYS Rt. 33 and NYS Rt. 98. I am sure we heard similar concerns as you arecurrently fielding from both the public and staff. Plowing was one of those concerns. We

have not had any issues when it comes to plowing. The expected learning curve was pretty

much non-existent. The drivers picked up the plowing of a circle right the first time through.

We did not have to get any special equipment and used the equipment we currently had in

stock, we did not have to make a special assignment for the roundabout either. We really

appreciate the roundabout. It moves more traffic and reduces congestion. It has eliminated

all T-Bone accidents where this was considered a dangerous intersection prior to the

roundabouts installation. It will take the public sometime to get used to it but most catch on

quick.” – Raymond Tourt, Superintendent of Maintenance, Batavia, New York (annual snowfall

360 cm).

“The City of Steamboat Springs currently has two roundabouts. We do not remove any snow

from the center islands as they are landscaped. All of the snow is plowed away from the center

to the outsides. To answer your question, we are able to effectively plow these. The biggest

issue we have is drainage. Our roundabouts shed the water across the drive lanes which

causes icing issues and premature asphalt failure.” – David Van Winkle, Street

Superintendent, Steamboat Springs, Colorado (annual snowfall 413 cm).


15/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %%

“We have been snow clearing this roundabout for 2-3 years now with no issues. However it

should be noted that the center island has concrete curb and gutter around the entire

circumference which is “mountable” style that allows our snow clearing equipment to go onto

the island while removing snow from the street.” – Jason Phillips, Manager of Roads Division,

St. John’s, Newfoundland (annual snowfall 322 cm).

“Snowplowing was an initial concern with plowing crews when roundabouts were first

constructed. However, plowing snow at a roundabout has generally been a non-issue for

Wisconsin snow removal crews. I have included testimonial in the video found from WisDOT’s

website. Look for the 11:10 video at juncture 7:42 to 8:05

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/safety/safety-eng/roundabouts/works.aspx ” – Paul Vraney,

Roadway Design Standards Engineer, Madison, Wisconsin (annual snowfall up to 425 cm).

“Snow removal is really not an issue. We had a couple complaints the first year as we learned

what frequency was needed.” – Dan Werner, Public Works, Middlebury, Vermont (roundabout

location annual snowfall 295 cm).

“Il n’y a aucun problème à enlever la neige. L’équipement utilisé est assé large pour déneiger

le rond-point en un passage. De plus, l’utilisation du sel de voirie fait en sorte que la neige

fond très rapidement. Je vous recommande fortement l’utilisation des ronds-points afin de

faciliter la circulation automobile.” Translation: “There is no problem to remove snow. The

equipment used is large enough to plow the roundabout in one pass. In addition, the use of

road salt causes the snow to melt very quickly. I strongly recommend the use of roundabouts

to facilitate traffic.” – Steeve Seguin, Chef de division voirie et signalization [Head of Highways

and signaling division], Saguenay, Quebec (annual snowfall 342 cm).

We are confident the information on snow removal contained in this memo is sufficient to educate and

reassure the public that effective snow removal in roundabouts is occurring in snowy areas in North

America; and that the City of Revelstoke’s road maintenance crew will be as effective as any of thecrews mentioned above.

'E C/0@@+, 2.I7


16/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %"

The LOS for the existing Victoria/Mutas intersection according to traffic modelling is an E during the

peak hour, peak day. The traffic modelling for the proposed design indicates a significant improvement

to a LOS of B.

It should be noted that until drivers become accustomed to the new traffic pattern and roundabout,

queues longer than those modeled can occur, but even if minor stacking occurs initially, the proposeddesign will significantly reduce congestion and traffic queues at Victoria/Mutas.

The traffic modelling results are in Appendix B.

(E K34-0+60D+

McElhanney reviewed the Envision Rating system as required for the project and rated this proposed

improvement configuration, focusing on the Quality of Life section. While the City doesn’t intend to

seek certified Envision Rating for this project, we will refer to the ranking system for relevant

performance objectives to support decisions throughout the design and construction phases of work,contributing to triple-bottom-line sustainability. The Quality of Life Envision Rating Table is shown

below and the full points table is included in Appendix E along with a discussion of performance

objectives.

The proposed improvement configuration achieves high rating on the Envision Rating Table,

particularly with regard to the following:

Reduces congestion and increases traffic mobility.

Increases pedestrian and cycling safety.

Reduces greenhouse gas emissions since roundabout are documented to reduce GHGs by

33% compared to traditional intersections.

Converting a traditional intersection into a roundabout has been proven to reduce the severityof collisions, and will therefore enhance public safety.

Includes community stakeholder involvement.

Improves stormwater management and climate change adaption by converting unnecessary

impervious road segments to permeable landscaped areas.

Preserves local character through landscape features and drawing visitors further into town.

The full Envision Rating discussion, including additional Envision areas are included in Appendix E .


17/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %$

GE S7,.8876I0-+.64 @./ =74+>6

The recommended improvement configuration is shown in Appendix A. McElhanney incorporated the

valuable feedback gathered during the stakeholder engagement process to optimize the intersectionimprovement configuration, including improved connectivity with the Frontage Rd, accommodation for

large trucks and RVs to turn out of Frontage Rd, a sidewalk for pedestrians crossing from TCH to the

eastside businesses, concrete median restricting turning movements near the CP rail crossing, small

area of large vehicle parking on the Frontage Rd similar to Woodenhead Lp, and deferral of the

potential future roundabout at Fraser Dr. Truck turning templates are located in Appendix A also,

showing the turning movements of a large fuel truck and WB-20 able to make similar movements they

make currently.

We understand the businesses located on the eastside of Victoria are concerned about business

impacts. A mitigation measure may be to work with MOTI to add signage on the highway east of the

Hwy 23 intersection. The signage could have the businesses listed (Shell, Tim Hortons, Subway, and

Super 8) directing traffic to take the “next left” at the Hwy 23 intersection. This would serve two

purposes: mitigate potential impacts to the businesses and reduce vehicular volume at the Victoria Rd

intersection. The recommended improvements would retain their access from Victoria regardless.

Regarding accesses, the Super 8 Motel presently uses Tim Hortons’/Shell’s driveway for access. The

recommended improvement configuration maintains the access in the same location. It is assumed

Super 8 has an access agreement with Tim Hortons/Shell to use the driveway located on Tim

Hortons’/Shell’s property. Should an access within Super 8’s property boundary be necessary in the

future, an access can be added from Bend Rd at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac.

Pedestrian accommodation from TCH to the Tim Hortons/Shell parking lot is shown on the

recommended improvement configuration. There were a number of constraints that guided thepedestrian crossing to its location shown, primarily related to the location of the current TCH crosswalk

and the location of the parking lot driveway. The existing TCH crossing aligns with the middle of the

driveway, so currently pedestrians are directed toward the middle of the driveway, with multiple

directions of traffic to consider. Grades become a challenge further away from both sides of the

driveway, so the pedestrian crossing needs to be very close to the driveway. Although non-

perpendicular crossings are generally avoided in transportation engineering, this is a case of trying to

direct pedestrians to the safest crossing location. When snow covers the zebra line painting, the

physical barriers will direct pedestrians to cross in the proposed location. The type of physical barrier

that allows for snow clearing, and fine tuning of details will occur in the next phase of design.

This proposed configuration incorporates years of previous work on this intersection as well as current

stakeholder feedback, and meets the City of Revelstoke’s primary objectives of reducing congestion

and improving safety. For these reasons, McElhanney recommends proceeding with the current

improvement configuration.


18/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %#

%)E ;.64-/3,-+.6 K7T376,+6>

For sequencing, the roundabout must be complete first, since it is necessary once the medians are in

place on Victoria. Based on the expected timing of Council approval for the proposed improvementconfiguration, we recommend the construction be done in two phases in order for the full intersection

improvements to be complete in time for summer 2017. Phase 1 construction includes the roundabout

and temporary lane changes on Woodenhead proposed by the City. The temporary lane changes are

shown on the sketch located in Appendix F , and comprise exchanging existing parking with temporary

additional lanes. The purpose is to ease traffic flow and provide additional vehicle storage on

Woodenhead until the full intersection improvement configuration is constructed. The temporary lane

changes will help mitigate impacts from the additional Petro-Canada and Starbucks traffic. Phase 2

construction includes the remaining Victoria, Woodenhead Lp, Bend Rd, and Frontage Rd

construction. Phase 1 construction (roundabout and interim lane changes) is planned to be completed

by October 31, 2016. Phase 2 construction is planned for early in the 2017 construction season, so

the full improvements will be in place prior to heavier summertime traffic volumes. Due to constructiontimeframes and avoiding construction at Victoria/Mutas during peak summer times, unless the

roundabout is constructed in 2016, it is unlikely the full intersection improvements will be complete until

end of the construction season in 2017, causing congestion and safety issues to remain for the next

two summers.

We have assessed the risk for only completing part of the roundabout construction before the winter

snowfall ends the construction season. The risk is directly related to schedule, so we have created a

fast-tracked Phase 1 schedule with 3-4 weeks of float during design and construction as a contingency

measure. Obtaining approval by May 2 is critical to completing Phase 1 construction this year. The

following schedule is intended to mitigate the risk associated with completing only a portion of the

roundabout.

City approval for roundabout May 2

Roundabout tender ready June 20

Tender start July 4

Tender close July 25

Commence construction August 1

Construction complete October 31

There are a number of advantages with completing the roundabout this year. It allows drivers to

become accustomed to the roundabout prior to the medians being installed. The Victoria/Wright St

intersection has comparatively low volumes, so construction can take place in late summer, and there

is sufficient room for detours around the construction site.


19/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %F

%%E U7V- K-794

McElhanney recommends information from the contents of this memo be circulated to the public in

response to the stakeholder feedback received. In addition, much work has been done already inareas with roundabouts to educate the public. Of the many videos and online tutorials on roundabout

usage we recommend the following video http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/safety/safety-

eng/roundabouts/works.aspx provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, due to its

comprehensive coverage on roundabout safety, design, large truck traffic, snow plowing, and public

perception.

The intersection improvement configuration has not changed significantly since the previous Class D

cost estimate was in the range of $2.1M. Once the proposed configuration is approved, McElhanney

will prepare a detailed Class B cost estimate during preliminary design to assist in meeting funding

requirements.

McElhanney recommends the proposed intersection improvement configuration be approved byCouncil and that preliminary design commences. To meet the City’s goal to begin construction on the

improvements this year will require prompt forward movement by all parties involved in this project.


20/99


21/99


22/99


23/99


24/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %'

H9976I+V ?

C/0@@+, 2.I7


25/99

Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report

Intersection #: 2

Average % Average LOS

Right 128 89 69.5% 70.1

Through 795 551 69.3% 110.7

Left 329 225 68.4% 348.8

B Subtotal 1,252 865 69.1% 168.4 F 11.9

Right 380 367 96.6% 5.2

Through 134 129 96.3% 35.0

Left 221 207 93.7% 35.1

B Subtotal 735 703 95.6% 19.5 B 1.2

Right 125 122 97.6% 5.2

Through 925 920 99.5% 19.7

Left 220 216 98.2% 45.3

B Subtotal 1,270 1,258 99.1% 22.7 C 0.3Right 130 128 98.5% 6.6

Through 206 207 100.5% 48.8

Left 43 43 100.0% 36.0

B Subtotal 379 378 99.7% 33.0 C 0.1

3,636 3,204 88.1% 62.6 E 7.4

TYPE:

Intersection #: 3


Right 153 152 99.3% 2.4

Through 11 12 109.1% 4.7Left 24 22 91.7% 13.8

B Subtotal 188 186 98.9% 3.9 A 0.1

Right 65 65 100.0% 1.2

Through 402 396 98.5% 2.8

Left 38 39 102.6% 3.2

B Subtotal 505 500 99.0% 2.6 A 0.2

Right 57 51 89.5% 192.9

Through 21 18 85.7% 195.8

Left 180 155 86.1% 261.7

B Subtotal 258 224 86.8% 240.7 F 2.2

Right 176 146 83.0% 0.7

Through 318 268 84.3% 2.3

Left 166 143 86.1% 5.9

B Subtotal 660 557 84.4% 2.8 A 4.2

1,611 1,467 91.1% 39.2 E 3.7

TYPE:

Existing Peak Summer Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Standard Deviation

Hwy 1

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Standard Deviation 6.4SSSC

Victoria Rd

(B)

Hwy 1

(B)

Laforme Blvd

(B)

Total Intersection

Bend Rd (B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Volume Served Total Delay (sec/veh)Direction Movement

Direction Movement

Volume Served Total Delay (sec/veh)

3.9

Total Intersection

Mutas Loop

(B)

Signal

DemandVolume

Demand

Volume

Hwy 1 / Laforme Blvd-Victoria Rd

Bend Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

GEH

GEH

3/18/2016


26/99


Intersection #: 4


Right

Through

Left

SB Subtotal

Right

Through 455 448 98.5% 0.2

Left 62 69 111.3% 1.5

B Subtotal 517 517 100.0% 0.3 A 0.0

Right 46 44 95.7% 1.9

Through

Left 50 51 102.0% 4.1

B Subtotal 96 95 99.0% 3.1 A 0.1

Right 40 35 87.5% 0.5

Through 359 306 85.2% 0.1

Left

Subtotal 399 341 85.5% 0.2 A 3.0

1,012 953 94.2% 0.6 A 1.9

TYPE:

Intersection #: 5


Right

Through

Left

SB Subtotal

Right

Through

Left 19 19 100.0% 23.7

B Subtotal 19 19 100.0% 23.7 C 0.0

Right 126 113 89.7% -0.2

Through

Left 126 114 90.5% 0.1

B Subtotal 252 227 90.1% 0.0 A 1.6

Right 169 168 99.4% 10.2

Through

Left

B Subtotal 169 168 99.4% 10.2 B 0.1

440 414 94.1% 5.2 A 1.3

TYPE:

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC Existing Peak Summer

GEH

Direction Movement GEH

Demand

Volume

Demand

Volume

0.1

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Bend Rd

(B)

Mutas Loop

(B)

Frontage Rd

(B)

Total Intersection

Victoria Rd

(B)

Total Intersection

Volume Served

SSSC

1.5

Standard Deviation

SSSC Standard Deviation

Volume Served


Victoria Rd

(B)

Direction Movement

Wright St

(B)

Wright St / Victoria Rd

Mutas Loop / Frontage Rd-Bend Rd

3/18/2016


27/99


Intersection #: 6


Right 213 82 38.5% 514.1

Through 34 14 41.2% 270.0

Left 62 24 38.7% 251.2

SB Subtotal 309 120 38.8% 433.0 F 12.9

Right 66 55 83.3% 73.0

Through 999 763 76.4% 228.9

Left 33 27 81.8% 70.8

WB Subtotal 1,098 845 77.0% 213.7 F 8.1

Right 269 272 101.1% 5.7

Through 55 55 100.0% 36.6

Left 40 40 100.0% 156.3

NB Subtotal 364 367 100.8% 26.8 C 0.2

Right 36 124 344.4% 2.4

Through 1,193 1,056 88.5% 7.8

Left 119 152 127.7% 27.2

EB Subtotal 1,348 1,332 98.8% 9.5 A 0.4

3,119 2,664 85.4% 95.8 F 8.5

TYPE:

GEH

Existing Peak Summer

16.7

Total Intersection

Route 23N

(SB)

Hwy 1

(WB)

Bend Rd

(NB)

Hwy 1

(EB)

Standard Deviation

Direction

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Demand

VolumeMovement


Signal

Route 23N-Bend Rd / Hwy 1

3/18/2016


28/99


Intersection #: 2


Right 128 90 70.3% 69.8

Through 795 569 71.6% 110.4

Left 329 226 68.7% 353.3

B Subtotal 1,252 885 70.7% 168.3 F 11.2

Right 380 379 99.7% 5.8

Through 134 137 102.2% 34.3

Left 221 217 98.2% 34.9

B Subtotal 735 733 99.7% 19.7 B 0.1

Right 125 126 100.8% 6.5

Through 925 918 99.2% 21.4

Left 220 217 98.6% 50.8

B Subtotal 1,270 1,261 99.3% 25.0 C 0.3Right 130 132 101.5% 7.1

Through 206 205 99.5% 46.8

Left 43 42 97.7% 35.4

B Subtotal 379 379 100.0% 31.7 C 0.0

3,636 3,258 89.6% 63.5 E 6.4

TYPE:

Intersection #: 3


Right 153 155 101.3% 28.1

ThroughLeft 35 32 91.4% 42.7

B Subtotal 188 187 99.5% 30.6 D 0.1

Right 252 223 88.5% 0.7

Through 582 577 99.1% 4.2

Left 49 50 102.0% 4.7

B Subtotal 883 850 96.3% 3.3 A 1.1

Right 258 259 100.4% 29.0

Through

Left

B Subtotal 258 259 100.4% 29.0 D 0.1

Right 176 145 82.4% 0.6

Through 484 415 85.7% 7.3

Left

B Subtotal 660 560 84.8% 5.5 A 4.0

1,989 1,856 93.3% 10.3 B 3.0

TYPE:

Preferred Plan Peak Summer Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Standard Deviation

Hwy 1

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Standard Deviation 4.0 SSSC

Victoria Rd

(B)

Hwy 1

(B)

Laforme Blvd

(B)

Total Intersection

Rd (B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Volume Served Total Delay (sec/veh)Direction Movement

Direction Movement


5.3

Total Intersection

Mutas Loop

(B)

Signal

DemandVolume

Demand

Volume


Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

GEH

GEH

3/21/2016


29/99


Intersection #: 4


Right

Through

Left

SB Subtotal

Right

Through 455 447 98.2% 21.6

Left 62 68 109.7% 22.1

B Subtotal 517 515 99.6% 21.7 C 0.1

Right 46 46 100.0% 5.8

Through

Left 50 49 98.0% 5.9

B Subtotal 96 95 99.0% 5.8 A 0.1

Right 40 34 85.0% 17.4

Through 359 320 89.1% 16.9

378 353 93.4% 16.9

B Subtotal 777 707 91.0% 16.9 C 2.6

1,390 1,317 94.7% 18.0 C 2.0

TYPE:

Intersection #: 6


Right 213 87 40.8% 491.5

Through 34 14 41.2% 232.3

Left 62 25 40.3% 259.3

SB Subtotal 309 126 40.8% 416.6 F 12.4

Right 66 55 83.3% 79.6

Through 999 774 77.5% 233.5

Left 33 25 75.8% 73.2

WB Subtotal 1,098 854 77.8% 218.9 F 7.8

Right 269 269 100.0% 6.0

Through 55 56 101.8% 36.2

Left 40 40 100.0% 157.3

NB Subtotal 364 365 100.3% 27.2 C 0.1

Right 36 128 355.6% 2.1

Through 1,193 1,062 89.0% 7.4

Left 119 155 130.3% 26.8

EB Subtotal 1,348 1,345 99.8% 9.1 A 0.1

3,119 2,690 86.2% 97.2 F 8.0

TYPE:

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC Preferred Plan Peak Summer

GEH

Direction Movement GEH

Demand

Volume

Demand

Volume

3.1


Hwy 1

(WB)

Bend Rd

(NB)

Hwy 1

(EB)

Total Intersection

Victoria Rd

(B)

Total Intersection

Volume Served

Roundabout

11.7

Standard Deviation

Signal Standard Deviation

Volume Served


Victoria Rd

(B)

Direction Movement

Route 23N

(SB)

Wright St

(B)



3/21/2016


30/99

Vissim Intersection Queue Length Report

Intersection #: 2

Average StDev Max StDev

Right 90 0 0 30 9

Through 400 170 142 415 98

Left 105 410 14 450 0

Right 55 5 1 95 13

Through 55 20 2 115 13

Left 55 20 2 115 13

Right 100 0 2 40 98

Through 350 15 1 120 81

Left 100 20 6 140 114

Right 50 0 0 25 9Through 125 20 5 105 22

Left 45 5 0 30 10



Queue Length (m)

Hwy 1

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Direction MovementQueue

Storage

Hwy 1

(B)

Laforme Blvd (B)

3/18/2016

Intersection #: 3


Right

Through 5 5 1 35 3

Left

RightThrough

Left 20 0000

Right

Through 0 140 43 200 3

Left 25 160 25 205 3

Right

Through 55 200 326 350 404

Left

Queue Length (m)

Bend Rd

(B)

Direction Movement

Queue

Storage

Bend Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Victoria Rd

(B)

Mutas Loop

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)


31/99


Intersection #: 4


Right

Through

Left

Right

Through

Left 20 0 0 10 8

Right

Through

Left 80 0 0 20 4

Right 75 0 0 5 5Through

Left

Intersection #: 5


Right

Through

Left

Right

Through 115 0 0 15 4

Left

Right

Through

Left

Right

Through 75 5 1 65 15

Left


Bend Rd (B)

Mutas Loop

(B)

Frontage Rd

(B)

Victoria Rd (B)

Direction

MovementQueue

StorageQueue Length (m)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Wright St

(B)

Direction


Mutas Loop / Frontage Rd-Bend Rd

Movement

Queue

Storage

Queue Length (m)

3/18/2016


32/99


Intersection #: 6


Right 50 110 9 135 5

Through 125 60 33 120 29

Left

Right 75 0 0 25 9

Through 380 255 33 410 3

Left 85 0 0 20 8

Right 45 0 0 50 10

Through 100 5 1 70 19

Left

Right 35 0 0 15 9Through 400 5 2 130 28

Left 65 5 2 50 16


Route 23N

(SB)

Hwy 1

(WB)

Bend Rd

(NB)

Hwy 1 (EB)


QueueStorage

Queue Length (m)Direction Movement

3/18/2016


33/99


Intersection #: 2


Right 90 0 0 30 11

Through 400 160 118 425 98

Left 105 410 11 450 2

Right 55 5 1 120 36

Through 55 20 3 140 28

Left 55 20 3 140 28

Right 100 5 8 140 163

Through 350 15 1 110 17

Left 100 25 13 245 205

Right 50 0 0 25 7Through 125 20 5 100 23

Left 45 5 0 30 7



Queue Length (m)

Hwy 1

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Direction MovementQueue

Storage

Hwy 1

(B)

Laforme Blvd (B)

3/21/2016

Intersection #: 3


Right

Through 95 15 6 100 10

Left

RightThrough

Left 20 00 0 2

Right 200 15 10 135 47

Through

Left

Right

Through

Left

Queue Length (m)

Rd

(B)

Direction Movement

Queue

Storage

Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Victoria Rd

(B)

Mutas Loop

(B)

Victoria Rd

(B)


34/99


Intersection #: 4


Right

Through

Left

Right

Through 200 25 6 170 33

Left

Right

Through 65 0 0 25 7

Left

RightThrough 155 45 20 245 33

Left


Victoria Rd (B)

MovementQueue

StorageQueue Length (m)

Victoria Rd

(B)

Wright St

(B)

Direction


3/21/2016

Intersection #: 6


Right 50 110 8 135 4

Through 125 50 37 120 30

Left

Right 75 0 0 20 7Through 380 265 23 410 3

Left 85 0 0 20 7

Right 45 0 1 55 18

Through 100 5 1 75 19

Left

Right 35 0 0 15 9

Through 400 5 2 130 24

Left 65 5 2 55 15


Route 23N

(SB)

Hwy 1

(WB)

Bend Rd

(NB)

Hwy 1

(EB)

Queue

Storage

Queue Length (m)

Direction Movement


35/99

*+,-./+0123-04 56-7/47,-+.6 589/.:7876-

;.6,79-30< =74+>6 ?/+7@

A0>7 B %(

H9976I+V ;

A3D+60< =.,3876-4


36/99


37/99

5 J


38/99

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

City

of Revelstoke Victoria Mutas Intersection

Improvements

1

Q What problems are

we

trying to

solve?

A Traffic backup

on

the highway, congestion, accident potential,

unsafe pedestrian movements,

and

needing

traffic

control people

in

the summer.

2 Q

Is

the roundabout

at

Wright St necessary? A Yes with

the left turn into

Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8

removed, it allows

traffic

coming from the highway to access Tim

Hortons/Shell/Super

8 safely.

3 Q Who is providing input

into

the intersection improvements?

A

City of Revelstoke, Ministry of

Transportation

and

Infrastructure,

business owners, and the general public. McElhanney is the

transportation

engineering consultant.

4. Q Will this project be solely based on traffic

engineering?

A Traffic

engineering

is

important to

the

improvement of the intersections; however, there are opportunities for attractive streetscaping, improving the

community entrance experience, branding Revelstoke, and inviting people further

into

Revelstoke by

way of

the Wright

St roundabout.

5.

Q Will this

actually

relieve congestion at

Victoria/Bend

Rd/Woodenhead? A Yes it

significantly

reduces

congestion

(caused by

left

turns) as proven by detailed

and

reliable traffic modelling.

6. Q Is

the

roundabout

at

Fraser/Laforme necessary?

A

It

is

not

required

for

the

Victoria/Bend/

Woodenhead

access improvements,

but

it would improve

safety and traffic

flow

north

of

the highway.

7. Q Does the general public like roundabouts? A Sometimes not at first,

but there are many

successful

examples of

the

public

appreciating

roundabouts after

they

get

used to them, such as in Clearwater.

8. Q

Why

not put a roundabout on the highway (like Clearwater)? A The highway intersection is not causing the

problems - the primary cause is left

turns

at Victoria/Bend/Woodenhead,

so

putting a roundabout on the highway

would not

solve

the

problems.

9

Q

Can

a

arge

semi

truck get around

the

roundabouts?

A

Yes

the

roundabouts

are

designed

to

allow

a

20

meter long truck to U-turn around the roundabout.

10. Q

Are

the Revelstoke bears

going to

still be part of the entrance? A The bears are shown in the 3

rendering; final

configuration

will

be discussed

as concepts are developed with

further public

input.

11.

Q What

will

the

roundabout

look

like?

A

Many communities use the centre of

roundabouts

to showcase

local

character and artistry.

12.

Q Why

close

off

Bend Rd? A Closing this

section of

Bend Rd removes

unnecessary traffic conflict

points

and

simplifies intersections.

13. Q What will

happen

to the sani dump? A The City has been evaluating sani

dump

relocation separately

from this project, but no

decisions

have been made.

14.

Q

Why

not

have

a

big

roundabout at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A

It

would

be

too

close

to

the

highway

to meet

current

standards

and

would create additional problems

on

the highway.

15.

Q Are roundabouts appropriate for places

with snow? A

Yes,

there

are

many

roundabouts in the snowy

regions of BC, Alberta, and the northern US,

and

maintenance

crews

effectively maintain them during winter.

16. Q Are we just

moving

the problem

down

the

road? A

No,

removing

left

turns and creating additional

spaces

between accesses eases

the

problem. Also,

by relocating

the

majority of

turning movements

further

away from

the

highway, it provides

more length

of road for traffic

to smooth out.

It s a

proven

transportation design

principle and is the reason

why

the Ministry

has minimum

distances between highways and intersections.


39/99

City of Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE SO

revelstoke ca

Mutas Intersection

and

Corridor Preliminary

esign Review Open House

March2 2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

\

250) 837-3637

[email protected]

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

[email protected]

FINANCE

250) 837-2161

[email protected]

FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 837-2884

[email protected]

PARKS, RECREATION CORPORATE COMMUNITY

CULTURE

ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMEN

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]


40/99

City

of

Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British

Columbia VOE

250

revelstoke.ca

Mutas

Intersection

and


esign Review Open House March 2 2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

development

@revel stok e.ca

250) 837-2001

[email protected]

FINAN CE FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884

[email protected] fire@

evelstoke

.

ca

PARKS, RECREATION CORPORATE

COMMUNITY

CULTURE DMINISTR TION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN

250) 837-9351

[email protected]

250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

admin@

revelstoke

.ca ced@revel stok e.ca


41/99

City

of

Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE 2SO

revels oke. ca

Mutas

Intersection

and


esign Review Open House March 2

2016

COMMENTS:

- I

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

developme [email protected]

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

[email protected]

W I LL

FINANC E FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884

[email protected] [email protected]


CULTURE DMINISTR TION

ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMEN

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]


42/99

OMMENTScont d


43/99

City

of

Revelstoke


revelstoke ca

Mutas

Intersection

and


esign Review

Open House March

2

2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

development@revelstoke .ca

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

works

@revelstoke .ca


SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884

finance @revelstoke .ca fire@revelsto ke.ca


COMMUNITY


250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc@revelstok e.ca admin@revelstoke .ca ced@revelst oke.ca


44/99


45/99

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

City of Revelstoke

Victoria Mutas

Intersection Improvements

1 Q What problems are we trying

to

solve?

A

Traffic

backup

on

the

highway, congestion, accident potential,

unsafe

pedestrian movements, and needing traffic control people

in

the summer.

2

Q

Is

the

roundabout

at Wright St necessary? A Yes, with the left turn into Tim

Hortons/Shell/Super

8

removed,

it

allows traffic

coming

from the highway to

access

Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8safely.

3 Q Who is providing input into the intersection improvements?

A

City of Revelstoke, Ministry of

Transportation

and Infrastructure, business owners, and the general public. McElhanney is the transportation

engineering consultant.

4.

Q

Will this

project

be

solely

based

on traffic engineering?

A

Traffic engineering

is

important to the

improvement

of the

intersections;

however, there are

opportunities for

attractive

streetscaping,

improving the

community entrance experience, branding Revelstoke, and

inviting

people further

into

Revelstoke by

way

of

the

Wright

St roundabout.

5. Q Will this

actually

relieve congestion at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A Yes, it significantly reduces

congestion

(caused by

left

turns) as proven

by detailed and

reliable

traffic

modelling.

6. Q

Is

the roundabout at

Fraser/Laforme necessary?

A

It

is not required for the

Victoria/Bend/

Woodenhead

access improvements,

but it would improve

safety

and

traffic

flow north

of

the highway.

7 Q Does the general public like roundabouts? A Sometimes not at first, but

there are

many successful

examples of the public appreciating roundabouts after

they

get used to

them, such

as in Clearwater.

8 Q Why

not put a

roundabout on the

highway

(like Clearwater)?

A

The highway intersection

is not causing

the

problems the

primary

cause is

left

turns

at

Victoria/Bend/Woodenhead, so putting a roundabout on

the

highway

would

not

solve

the problems.

9.

Q

Can

a

arge

semi

truck get around

the

roundabouts? A

Yes, the

roundabouts

are

designed

to

allow

a

20

meter

long truck to U-turn

around

the roundabout.

10. Q

Are

the Revelstoke

bears going to still

be part of the entrance?

A The bears are shown

in

the 3

rendering;

final

configuration will be discussed as concepts are developed with

further

public

input.

11.

Q

What will the roundabout look like? A Many

communities

use

the

centre

of

roundabouts to showcase

local character and

12. Q Why close

off

Bend Rd? A Closing this section

of

Bend

Rd

removes

unnecessary traffic conflict

points

and simplifies intersections.

13. Q What will happen to the sani dump? A The City has been evaluating sani dump relocation separately

from this project, but no

decisions

have been made.

14.

Q

Why not

have

a big roundabout at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead?

A It

would be too

close to

the

highway to

meet

current standards and

would

create additional

problems

on the

highway.

15. Q Are roundabouts appropriate for places

with

snow? A Yes, there are many roundabouts in the snowy

regions of

BC,

Alberta, and the

northern US, and

maintenance

crews effectively maintain them during winter.

16. Q

Are

we just moving the problem down the

road? A

No, removing left turns and creating additional spaces

between accesses

eases

the problem.

Also,

by relocating the majority of turning movements further away

from

the highway, it provides more length

of

road

for

traffic to smooth out. It s aproven

transportation

design

principle

and

is the

reason why

the Ministry

has minimum

distances

between

highways and intersections.


46/99

City of Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia

VOE SO

revelstoke. ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign

Review Open House March2 2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

[email protected]

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

[email protected]


SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884



CULTURE ADMINISTRATION

ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMEN

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc@revelst oke.ca [email protected] [email protected]


47/99

COMMENTS cont d


48/99

City

of

Revelstoke


VOE 2SO

revelstoke ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign

Review Open

House March 2, 2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 83 7-3637

development@revelstoke .ca

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

works

@revelstoke .ca

FINANCE FIRE

RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884

financ e@revelstok e.ca fire@

revelstoke

.ca


COMMUNITY

CULTURE

DMINISTR TION ECONOMIC

DEVELOPME

{250 837-9351 {250 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc

@revelsto ke.ca admin@revelsto ke.ca ced@revelstok e.ca


49/99

City

of Revelstoke


revels oke. ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign

Review Open House

March 2, 2016

COMMENTS:

1 s dest

DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS FINANCE FIRE RESCUE


SERVICES SERVICES

CULTURE


DEVELOPMEN

2

5

0)

837-3637 250) 837-2001 25

0)

837-2161 250) 837-2884 250) 83

7-

9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] prc@evels toke.ca [email protected] ced@ evelstoke.ca


50/99


51/99

City of Revelstoke


VOE

2SO

revelstoke.ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign

Review Open House March 2, 2016

COMMENTS:

A \\ovv

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

[email protected]

fu

O

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

work s@revelstok e.ca


SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884



CULTURE


DEVELOPME

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

[email protected]

admin

@revels toke.ca [email protected]


52/99


53/99

City

of

Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE

2SO

revelstoke . ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign


COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

development@revel stoke .ca

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

works@evelstoke.

ca

FINANCE

250) 837-2161

[email protected]

FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

25

0)

837-2884

[email protected]

I

{ I


COMMUNITY


250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc@revels toke.c a admin@evelstoke.

ca

ced@revels toke.c a


54/99

City

of Revelstoke


Columbia

VOE SO

revelstoke.ca

Mutas

Intersection

and


esign Review Open House March 2, 2016

COMMENTS:

.r

{

Th l

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

[email protected]

h

'

PUBLIC

WORKS

250) 837-2001

[email protected]

;

FIN NCE

250) 837-2161

[email protected]

FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 837-2884

[email protected]

PARKS, RECREATION CORPOR TE COMMUNITY

CULTURE


DEVELOPME

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc

@evelstoke.ca [email protected] [email protected]


55/99

City

of

Revelstoke

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE 250

revelstoke.ca

Mutas Intersection

and


esign

Review Open House

March 2,

2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 83 7-3637

[email protected]

PUBLIC WORKS

2

5

0)

83 7-2001

works@reve lst oke.ca

FINANCE

250) 837-2161

[email protected]

FIRE RESCUE

SERVICES

250) 83 7-2884 .

fire@revelst oke.ca


COMMUNITY


250)

83

7-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

prc@revelsto ke.

ca admin

@revel st oke.ca ced@

revelstoke

.ca


56/99

City

of Revelstoke


olumbia VOE 2SO

revelstoke.ca

Mutas

Intersection

and


esign Review Open House March 2

2016

COMMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

250) 837-3637

development@revelsto ke.ca

PUBLIC WORKS

250) 837-2001

works

@revel stok e.ca


SERVICES

250) 837-2161 250) 837-2884

[email protected] fire@evel stoke.ca

?-

av

PARKS, RECREATION CORPORATE COMMUNI TY

CULTURE ADMINISTRATION

E ONOMI

DEVELOPME

250) 837-9351 250) 837-2911 250) 837-5345

[email protected]

admin

@revelstoke.ca [email protected]


57/99

I .

·- I

·

,

City o Revelst

Mutas Intersection and Corridor Preliminary

esign Review Open

House March2,2016

Is there a possibility

o

creating a large traffic circle that includes the TCH?

Its centre would have to be off-set towards the downtown. The loop around A W, McDonald's,

etc could even be reversed

with

a stop sign for exiting traffic before crossing traffic entering .

from the circle.

Helen Shuttleworth,

250-837-5901

[email protected]

\. t . ;

..

.,

. i .

· 1

I

1··-

' -.__: • t • ; • • :

.I : .

. · . . i ; i \ : . . · . l ..

• L -

·

. :· .

l ;- : 1

., ·· t

i • ..

..


58/99

City

of

Revelstok

P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE 250

revelstoke.ca

Mutas Intersection and Corridor Preliminary

esign


1

6

COMMENTS

Firstly, I'm glad to see a competent engineering firm has been hired rather than trying to solve

the problem in house. My comments follow.

How much consideration has been given to the future

of

he Trans Canada Highway? The

engineer asked about this seemed to think it is of no concern - the TCH presently

h s

four lanes

through the intersection

and

nothing will change.

Don't

be

so sure. There will have to be a

second bridge over the Columbia and how will that affect alignment of the highway at the

intersection? and others also recall a past proposal to relocate the Columbia crossing north

of

the Columbia Park district. Surely, the Ministry

of

Transportation has some at least tentative

plans available.

Looking at the plan presented and talking to the presenters, saw no evidence of any original or

out

of

he box thinking. The plan only.massages the current problem. Was there any

brainstorming of

off

the wall ideas? Could the railroad be relocated? Could the restaurants be

relocated? How about the suggestion in the Revelstoke Current a few months ago about entering

Revelstoke at the 23North intersection with a bridge

over

the railroad discharging traffic onto

Victoria Road? And at the open house, talked to a young chap who proposed blocking Victoria

Road at Mutas Road and directing traffic in a loop that would encircle everything between the

railroad and the

TCH

- in effect, a huge traffic circle.

Now, presuming there will be no real change from the current proposal, we have to ensure it will

not be a total disaster, especially

in

winter. The engineers say traffic circles work well

in

Prince

George, Carunore and Calgary. They also work in other places. However, these places either

have no snow or very dry snow. We know that is not the case in Revelstoke and that our snow is

heavy, packs firmly and Is much more slippery and difficult .to drive on then that found in colder

locals. The round-about must be

flat so that

in

snowy conditions, freight trucks that have had to

wait to enter

wi11

be

able to get moving forward again. Also, on that theme, try to ease the grade

on Victoria Road as

it

approaches the TCH. understand trucks commonly have difficulty

getting underway to enter or cross the highway if they've been stopped there'.

Bill Shuttleworth,

250-837-5901,

[email protected]

We can't afford that much

V LST


59/99

R

-_. ; \ .

.

01-..y;,n / _

577('4

2 _

--9] I

?3?

l


60/99

1

!"##" %&''

()*+, !"##" %&''

-./0, (&)*+,-.,./ .-0.1 2(

1*, 34&)5&6678#)79:"69#5;


61/99


62/99

1

!"##" %&''

()*+, !"#$ &'(") *+",)-"#$.'(")/-+",)01'+2

-./0, 3"#1(456478 9:9; >, ?"))

23, @A"B CD#"1("BE !",) FA#-GH'BE I(#,H CA)J,-E F"#GK 31LAA

-456.30, 3"#1( 6M 6578

! "#$% #&&%'(%( )*%"+,(%- .%%&/'0 1+- .2 !'&%-3%4&/+' #'( #0-%% 5/&" 42--%'& 6-+6+3#,7

8%0#-(39

:#-;


63/99

1

!"##" %&''

()*+, !"#$% '()*+# ,-"#$%.()*+#/0"1((23(45

-./0, 6")317897:; :86

1*, *+?+@(A4+#B

-234.50, C$D1E"0 F@"#

Thank you for the informative presentation at the rec centre on Wednesday night. It is a challengingintersection for sure. I believe, given our budget, that this is the best possible solution for allconcerned. I heard many different plans from residents there but I really believe this plan takes in toconsideration the traveler, the resident and the businesses in the area.

Best regards,

Janis Borden


64/99

1

!"##" %&''

()*+, !"#$%&' )%**'+&,+- ./&%001#%-2#/31%$++4#%5

-./0, 6%$7897:; ;(%/"";3 !:(! ' 4+"$ "5 -'9:! +"$? &,'+9 1"$+ (! !:, 3(+1%(+ *,+!,- (+1 !:'-1 (0,+8, (+1 !:,) :(1 '338,3

$'!:!-(+3;"-! !-8*4 &8! 1,(/! $'!: !:, '338, &) :(0'+9 ( 0,-) 3%(// *8-& "+ !:,'+3'1,"5 !:, -"8+1(&"8! $'!: (+ '++,- ;(0,- "- &-'*4 (-,( $:,-, !-(+3;"-! !-8*43*(+ -'1, 8; "+!" &, (&/, !" +(0'9(!, !:, -"8+1 (&"8!< !:,-, '3 (/3" ( -"8+1(&"8! 8; "+ !:,

$() !" @"3!*"(+1 !:, +,$ *(3'+"<

)"8 *"8/1 :(0, ( /""4 (! !:,3, !" 9,! (+ '1,( :"$ !:,) $"8/1 $"-4AB83! (+ '1,( 5"- )"82'*:(-1


65/99

1

!"##" %&''

()*+, !"#$ &'(") *+",)-"#$.'(")/-+",)01'+2

-./0, 3"#1(456478 9:56 ;3

1*, "))

23, ?@"A BC#"1("AD 3,=@ E('+"FD !",) G@#-HF'AD I(#,F B@)J,-D G"#HK L"C@)D 3"#= 31M@@

-456.30, N))@-") )@OC CH#A

! "#$%& %'() *# +,() -$.) */,* )0).1#2) '- ,",.) #3 '%%)4,% )2*.,25) *# 6.#2*,4) .#,& 3

McElhanney Victoria Road traffic plan

Documents

Transcript of McElhanney Victoria Road traffic plan