Phase I - Options Screening Guide Preferred Alternate & Existing Route Options Screening Guide Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 1 and Infrastructure
Study Overview & Outcomes The Highway 97 – Peachland Transportation Study is a multi-phase study examining: • Current conditions for the Highway 97 corridor through Peachland • Future needs for transportation through Peachland • Solutions that can be implemented to help meet current and future needs Phase I of the study is nearly complete, including: • High-level technical assessments • Examination of options along alternate routes • Examination of improvements along the existing route • Preliminary alternate and existing route options Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 2 and Infrastructure
Study Overview & Outcomes The Process The Phase I study results have identifjed two scenarios : • One preferred option using the existing route • One preferred option using an alternate route The study has not chosen between these scenarios . The Ministry will engage with stakeholders to refjne the preliminary preferred alternate and existing routes through 2019. At the start of Phase II of the study, the Ministry will evaluate both refjned options to determine the preferred corridor option. The Peachland Transportation Study will provide certainty for future planning, including infrastructure improvements and guidance for municipal initiatives. Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 3 and Infrastructure
Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) Process ACCOUNTS The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses standard accounts and project-specifjc metrics when evaluating different options. Local governments, Indigenous Communities, stakeholders and the public help identify key impacts and trade-offs that are incorporated into the MAE process. A version of the Multiple Account Evaluation was applied to the Peachland Transportation Study. The MAE was used to assess both the alternate and existing route options. Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 4 and Infrastructure
Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) Criteria METRICS There are fjve main accounts that make up the MAE. Each has specifjc Economic Development criteria the project team analyzed. For Phase I of the study, please note: - Employment - Investment and trade • The MAE process evaluated options at a high level to select a preliminary - Revenue - Productivity preferred alternate and existing route from those short listed • The ‘Economic Development’ account will be evaluated through Phase II Customer Service of the study - Travel time - Collisions • The MAE does not currently include specifjc costs or property - Travel demand - Vehicle operating costs impacts • The MAE assessed a number of key issue areas, including: Social & Community - Noise and visual impacts • The number of potential property displacements (excluding - Pollution impacts - Land acquisition needs specifjc property locations or costs) - Community connectivity - Consistency with community plans • Assessment of potential water, habitat and wildlife impacts Environmental - Land requirements • Potential travel time savings of each route - Energy consumption - Emissions - Wildlife / habitat - Water pollution Financial - Capital costs - Periodic rehabilitation costs - Operation and maintenance costs Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 5 and Infrastructure
Alternate Route Options Technical Screening and Initial Evaluation Preferred Alternate Route Evaluation Process The fjve alternate route options presented at the 2016 open house have now undergone technical screening. Screening focused on: 1 2 3 Technical • Environmental impact MAE 1 1 2 3 Screening 4 5 • Social and community impacts • Traffjc and travel demand • Engineering feasibility Original Alternate Short-listed Preferred Alternate • Cost Route Options Options Route The short-listed options also underwent Public engagement a more detailed assessment using the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process. Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 6 and Infrastructure
Alternate Route Options The Ministry studied fjve alternate route options: AR-1: Far Most Westerly Route (Option 1 - Yellow) AR-2: Westerly and High Elevation Route (Option 2 - Blue) Distance: 12.6 km Max. elevation: 690 m AR-3: Central and High Elevation Route (Option 3 - Green) Distance: 13.4 km Max. elevation: 746 m AR-4: Immediately West of Existing Development (Option 4 - Red) Distance: 15 km Max. elevation: 863 m AR-5: Lower Elevation Route (Option 5 - Orange) Distance: 13.4 km Max. elevation: 858 m Distance: 10.3 km Max. elevation: 605 m Each of these routes would have the following characteristics: • 100 km/h posted speed • Four lane cross section with divided median • No access to the community Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 7 and Infrastructure
Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options Alternate Social and Traffjc / Travel Environmental Engineering Cost Recommendations Route Community Demand • Impacts to • Low impact to • Low demand for • Route length is • Mid range cost Peachland Creek developed areas new route in either approximately estimate (Rank 3) • Highest potential tributary corridor the AM or PM peak 13.4 km • Potential environmental hours • May impact wildlife for moderate • Over 10 km of (riparian) impacts migration corridors archeological • No travel time steep grades and moderate and Spring Canyon impacts savings impacts to • Three longer span Unique Ecosystem species at risk bridges anticipated AR-1: • May impact moose • Low traffjc Far Most winter range, mule demand and Westerly deer habitat travel time Route savings • Moderate potential impact to species • Removed at risk from further consideration due to high environmental impacts Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 8 and Infrastructure
Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options Alternate Social and Traffjc / Travel Environmental Engineering Cost Recommendations Route Community Demand • Potential impacts • Low impact to • Low demand for • Route length is • Highest estimated to sensitive habitat developed areas new route in either approximately cost (Rank 5) • High potential such as the Pigeon AM or PM peak 15 km environmental • Potential Creek wetlands hours (riparian) impacts, for moderate • Nearly 9 km of but less than AR- • May impact wildlife archeological • No travel time steep grades 1. Lower species corridors impacts savings • Four longer span at risk impacts • May impact moose bridges anticipated AR-2: than AR-1 winter range Westerly • Lowest impacts and High • Lower potential to developed Elevation impact to species areas Route at risk • Low traffjc demand and travel time savings • Option passes technical screening Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 9 and Infrastructure
Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options Alternate Social and Traffjc / Travel Environmental Engineering Cost Recommendations Route Community Demand • Higher proportion • Mostly impacts to • Low demand • Route length is • Mid range cost of route impacting recreational areas for new route in approximately estimate (Rank 4) • Less impacts on conservation areas AM peak hour but 13.4 km developed areas • Some visual and slightly higher in and residential • Potential impact noise impacts • Nearly 7 km of the PM peak hour development than to several sensitive anticipated steep grades AR-4 and AR-5 habitat features • Small travel time • Potential • Five longer span savings in the PM AR-3: • Some travel • Moderate potential for moderate bridges anticipated peak Central time savings but impact to mule archeological and High demonstrates deer habitat impacts Elevation slightly higher • High potential Route demand in the impact to species PM peak hour at risk compared to AM peak hour • Option passes technical screening Ministry of T ransportation CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only 10 and Infrastructure
Recommend
More recommend
