Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pedestrian safety on Nichol Road has been the subject of community concern in recent years. This has been as a result of increased traffic, particularly related to visitors to the resort, and the risk to children around the Arrow Heights School. An application to the Resort Municipality Initiative Funds for Tourism Infrastructure funding successfully raised an additional $80,000 to compliment the Citys budgeted $126,000 for this project.
CURRENT CONFIGURATION
Nichol Road is currently configured as shown in Figure 1 below, with two 3.6m (12) driving lanes with a narrow shoulder on the south side averaging less than 30cm (1). A shared bike and pedestrian lane (referred to by transportation professionals as a sidepath) is located on the north side of the road and varies in width between 1.5 and 2.0m (5 to 6). The total width of the road corridor is 20m, with the centerline of the road located approximately in the centre of the right of way. As with many of the roads in the Arrow Heights area, Nichol Road has poorly defined drainage systems that impact the long-term integrity of the road structure, and may increase the chance of localized flooding events. Hydro poles with lease streetlights are located on the north side of the road. Much of the land along the south side of Nichol Road is not developed, with no existing street intersections existing between Airport Way and Camozzi Rd on the south side. All developed properties are serviced with potable water; however, none of the houses have connected to the sewermain that is located on Nichol Road, all existing developments on Nichol Road are serviced with septic systems.
1
The Dra ft Master Tra nsportation Plan i dentified an alternate/additional Collector Road link proposed for future construction,
thi s is described i n detail i n Proposed Tra nsportation Network Upgrades on page 8 of this report.
April 9, 2014
Page 1
Page 33 of 41
CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NICHOL ROAD
Curb and gutter is recognized as a standard road edge treatment in urban built up areas for simple separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is particularly useful when on-street parking is provided as it ensures an adequate width of pedestrian passage is retained, and provides a safe landing area for the passenger-side of a vehicle. However, curb and gutter, is an expensive option when correctly designed to manage stormwater and safety, as it often requires significant investment in underground drainage structures and piping due to the concentration of stormwater collection at catchbasins. From an infrastructure lifecycle perspective, studies have shown that curb and gutter and the associated drainage infrastructure can be as much as two to three times more expensive than 2 utilizing infiltration and bio-swales . Challenges with a curb and gutter solution include: 1. A lack of detailed stormwater planning in the Arrow Heights area indicating the suitability of concentrated stormwater discharge. As there are no piped stormwater outlets from this site, this option would require investigation into the suitability of concentrated ground disposal options. The design showed the sidewalk located directly behind the curb and gutter. While this is suitable in a downtown situation (where on street parking adds a safety buffer), in residential areas, particularly on collector and arterial roads, it is preferable to incorporate a vegetated buffer, either with street trees or grass between the road and sidewalk. The proposed sanitary upgrades require cutting in to asphalt that was not required to be replaced as part of the curb installation. These patches are likely to form weak planes in the asphalt, leading to cracking and settling. All snow from the north side of the road would need to be pushed to the south side and/or trucked offsite. This would significantly increase the snow removal costs for this section of road.
2.
3.
4.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_vegswale.pdf
April 9, 2014
Page 2
Page 34 of 41
This design option attempted to incorporate the installation of sewer services through a widened asphalt 3 replacement in front of the curb and gutter , while not necessary for the pedestrian works, the sewer is located south of road centreline and would still require localized patches at the tie-ins. Note that the installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk would increase the amount of remediation work for new sewer services, if this work was not incorporated at the same time as the installation of the curb and gutter.
2.
3.
2. 3. 4.
3 4
Typi ca lly new curb and gutter only requires a one foot wi de asphalt patch for a clean ti e-in to the road surface.
A Germa n police study found that cyclists are 4 ti mes more likely to have an accident on a cycl e path than on the a djacent roa d, a nd the likelihood of serious i njury or a fa tality i s similarly i ncreased.
April 9, 2014
Page 3
Page 35 of 41
PROJECT SCOPE
This design is the only improvement option that retains the existing road surface with minimal, localized widening. All other options incorporate a requirement to modify the pavement, either by widening the surface, moving the centerline, or tying-in curb and gutter. This has implications when considering the condition of the existing assets and desirable upgrades in the area; 1. The pavement on Nichol Road will require significant investment in the next 5-10 years. In 2013, these road sections were estimated to have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of between 54 and 86 (out of 100). Without a formal Level of Service policy for pavement assets, it is difficult to predict how these road sections would be ranked as priorities. At this stage it is recommended that the whole road surface 5 be planned for mill and filled within the next 10 years . Central to several of the previously discussed options was the conclusion that the installation of sewer services to each property along Nichol Road between Airport Way and Park Ave was a desirable outcome of the project. Any solution that installs a new asphalt driving surface should consider the likely timeline of future requests for sewer service within this neighbourhood, as all of these properties are on existing septic systems, and any new development or failure of an existing septic system, will, in accordance with the Sewer Regulation Bylaw (#1683), be required to connect to the sanitary sewer main. This section of road is heavily used during the winter season and two Resort Shuttle bus stops are located within this area. If feasible during the design phase, localized bus pullouts should be incorporated into the bike lane sections to accommodate the resort shuttles while allowing through traffic to pass unimpeded. The transit and school buses also use Nichol Road for their routes.
2.
3.
Note tha t none of the previously considered options included full remediation of the pavement, but only addressed one lane wi dth of remediation.
April 9, 2014
Page 4
Page 36 of 41
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The Manager of Public Works and Operations has been involved in the preliminary design considerations regarding snow removal from this corridor, particularly for pedestrians. These services can be provided using the existing City equipment such as sidewalk plows, graders and loaders. Minor changes to the way the equipment would operate along the corridor would allow the sidewalk to be maintained as part of the sidewalk plows route, supported by the larger road clearing equipment.
COST IMPLICATIONS
Table 1 Estimated Unit Prices
Item Concrete Sidewalk Swale Line Marking Signage 6 Asphalt Widening (localized)
Units Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m
It is expected that construction costs for this project in the short term will be approximately as shown in Table 7 1. At these rates, $170,000 will cover the construction of 410m of the project, which allowing for road crossings is approximately the length of sidewalk required for Airport to Park.
This project focuses on pedestrian and cyclist safety; and defers road and traffic improvements and sewer upgrades, not directly related to the project priorities. This decision to defer allows a greater percentage of the
6 7
As s umed that minor widening will be required on either side a t a maximum of 50s qm per 100m l ength of road. $30,000 a l lowance for s urvey, engineering a nd contingency.
April 9, 2014
Page 5
Page 37 of 41
PROJECT RISKS
A simplified Risk Register has been developed at the pre-design stage of the project, summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - Risk Register
Description Ground conditions may be unsuitable for proposed works. Proposed Sidewalk location may need to be modified. The existing pavement width may not allow for full width bike lanes. Ground conditions may be unsuitable for proposed works. Cost of construction may be higher than expected Design may not be supported by the community
Comments/Action Priorities Low Risk - Predominantly sandy soil, likely to be suitable. Planned Action - Sidewalk can be divert around hydro poles, This will narrow the swale slightly in these locations. Prioritized Action - An allowance for additional width has been provided in the budget. Low Risk - With minimal additional pavement, and the addition of swales, the drainage will not be worse than existing. Prioritized Action Construction Project will focus on core objectives, and allow for optional works as budget permits. Planned Action Communication Plan will be developed to inform the community of the design features and rationale.
Moderate Minor
Possible Unlikely
Financial
Moderate
Possible
Social
Moderate
Unlikely
PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
A simplified Stakeholder Register has been developed for the project at the pre-design stage, shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 - Stakeholder Register
Stakeholder Group Mayor and Council School District and PAC Tourism Infrastructure Committee Neighborhood
Expectations, interests, impact, and requirements Project Sponsor. Quality, procurement, cost and scope management Safe route to school, maintenance standards. Construction timing, school bus access Project Sponsor. Quality, meeting approved objectives. Construction management, dust control, rehabilitation of works
Communications Council Meetings, project progress reports through committees. Letters to school district. Council reports, final project report. Media, Council reports, letters to adjacent
Note tha t the road rehabilitation costs far exceed the proposed budget of this project. Estimated costs ra nge from $38,000/100m of roa d for mill a nd fill to $95,000/100m of roa d for full depth reconstruction.
April 9, 2014
Page 6
Page 38 of 41
PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
A self-assessment checklist using the Envision Rating System was completed to determine the relative sustainability of the proposed project. This checklist is intended to be used during the early stages of a project to provide an overview of the project against the core infrastructure sustainability objectives identified in the Envision Rating System. The self assessment checklist asks questions with Yes, No, Not Applicable answers on each of these areas. The assessment areas, and some example questions that the project team hopes to be able to answer yes to, are listed in Table 4:
Table 4 - Example Envision Rating System Questions
9
Example Envision Questions Will the project make the community more attractive to people and businesses? Has the project team coordinated the design with other infrastructure assets to reduce traffic congestion, and improve walkability and livability? Will the project be designed in ways that extend substantially the useful life of the project? Will the project team consider the appropriate reuse of existing structures and materials and incorporated them into the project? Will the project divert a significant amount of project waste from landfills? Will the project be designed to reduce storm runoff to pre-development conditions?
Will the project team specify locally appropriate and non-invasive plants on the site? Will a comprehensive review be conducted to identify the potential risks and vulnerabilities that would be created or made worse by the project? Will the project be designed to accommodate a changing operating environment throughout the project life cycle? From a preliminary review of the project, ranging from the high level of neighborhood support for pedestrian and cyclist improvements, to the proposed methodology of construction and reuse of existing assets, to onsite stormwater management, the project meets many of the applicable sustainability objectives.
FUTURE WORKS
This report has indicated several areas of future works that are likely along this corridor. These are summarized below, additionally; external projects that may impact the future use of Nichol Road are listed.
http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/index.cfm
April 9, 2014
Page 7
Page 39 of 41
Figure 5 -Future Road Network Classifications (as identified in the Draft Master Transportation Plan).
April 9, 2014
Page 8
Page 40 of 41
Vehicle Speed Do Nothing - Existing (Sidepath) Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Detached Multiuse Path 13 Widen Existing Sidepath Narrower Lanes, Bikelanes and Sidewalk no change may reduce no change no change reduced
The proposed option of narrower driving lanes, adding dedicated bike lanes on both sides and providing a sidewalk on the North side of Nichol Road is the best option to meet sustainability and community objectives.
NEXT STEPS
Following acceptance of this report and the suggested design, City staff will proceed with detailed design work and stakeholder engagement. It is expected that construction will be tendered this summer.
CONCLUSION
This report provides justification for the reconfiguration of Nichol Road to narrower driving lanes, bike lanes in both directions and the construction of a sidewalk on the North Side of the road. This is a cost effective, safe option that meets many of the communitys previously stated expectations and is a long-term sustainable solution that does not inhibit future construction or reconfiguration.
The design drawings previ ously prepared do not i ndicate a ny width a vailable for bike lanes. Additionally, i f bike lanes are l oca ted a djacent to curb and gutter, generally they s hould be about 45cm (18) wi der for ri der s afety. A l i terature review of multiuse pathway s afety i ndicates that this configuration is likely to be more dangerous for cyclists than dedicated bike lanes. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html The construction cost for the detached multi-use path is considered the highest as i t requires moving the centerline of the roa d to the south to a ccommodate the separated pathway.
13 14 12 11
10
Thi s option does not provide a ny i mprovement for eastbound cycl ist safety. Exa mples of studies are located here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
April 9, 2014
Page 9
Page 41 of 41