Highway 63 Functional Planning Study From Township Road 642 to - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Highway 63 Functional Planning Study

From Township Road 642 to Highway 55

Date: September 17, 2013 Time: 5:00 pm Place: Village of Boyle Community Centre 5002 3rd Street, Boyle, Alberta

Public Open House No. 3

Objectives Objectives

• Review existing conditions, traffic operations and previous functional

planning studies.

• Develop a short- and long-term strategy for twinning Highway 63 that:

– achieves the objectives of the Provincial Highway Network; and, – addresses the economic viability concerns of the Village of Boyle and Athabasca County.

• Carry out a comprehensive public involvement process that:

– addresses public and safety interests; and, – serves to build case for the selection of the recommended solution to enhance the Village of Boyle and Athabasca County’s desire for growth and prosperity.

• Develop functional plans, right-of-way request plans and a final report

documenting the study findings and recommendations.

Study Background Study Background

November 28th 2012: Public Open House No. 1

• Approximately 100 persons attended.
• CastleGlenn presented 3 new concepts utilizing Hwy 63 through Boyle.
• Over 30 comment sheets and/or e-mails were received from residents.
• The majority of residents favoured Option 3.

January 23rd 2013: Public Open House No. 2

• Approximately 75 persons attended.
• CastleGlenn presented the Consultant’s preferred Option 3-a and why.
• Over 150 comment sheets and/or e-mails were received from residents.
• Resident preference was split among Option 3-a and a “Railway” Option.

Summer 2013: AT retained CastleGlenn to evaluate an East Option

• Identify and evaluated alignment alternatives.
• Identify and evaluate the location for an interchange in the vicinity of Boyle.
• Compare the east alignment option to Option 3-a and make final study

recommendations.

• Conduct Public Open House No. 3 to present study findings.

Highway 63 Concept Highway 63 Concept Option B Option B-

• 2

2 2010 Solution 2010 Solution (AMEC)

(AMEC)

Twinning to the east avoids Fortis Utilities and allows for construction of new 4.5m NB Hwy 63 lane 2.9km R 2200 curve with 2.5% superelevation at intersection An acceptable 3.6% super elevation is maintained on the rail structure Average intersection spacing along Hwy 63 is 3.0 km Proposed service road network leaves no land locked properties R 2200 curve with 2.5% superelevation at intersection Hwy 63 intersection provides direct connection to Hwy 831 2.7km 3.2km 3.2km 2.3km

Hwy 63 Hwy 63 “ “Interim Interim” ” Expressway Expressway Stage Stage

Hwy 63 Hwy 63 “ “Ultimate Ultimate” ” Freeway Freeway Stage Stage

Purple lines illustrated service roads constructed at Expressway stage. Black lines depict service roads constructed at Freeway Stage. Next interchange south is located 20km away at Twp Rd 640. CN structure accommodates service road below structure to provide access to Miller Western. Interchange at Twp Rd 640 located 6.5 km south of Twp Rd 644. Hwy 55 interchange is located 16 km north

• f Boyle interchange.

Preferred Alignment Preferred Alignment – – Land Use Assumptions Land Use Assumptions

16 32 37 9 27 34 44 42 36 34 10 22 31 14 7 2 3 7 9 10

Potential Developable Area: 437 ha – Industrial 139 ha – Commercial 91 ha – Future

7 32 ha 12 20 5 40 4 4 20 40 14 10 15 15 10 2 2

The Preferred Option & Why? The Preferred Option & Why?

Option “3-a” was preferred given that:

• The future interchange avoids conflicts with major pipeline corridors;
• A separation of 2.5 km exists between the future interchange and the CN

railway corridor, enhancing constructability and design flexibility;

• The design provides for: overall improved geometry and design consistency

for the Hwy 63 corridor, a more direct connection and improved continuity between Hwy 63, Hwy 663 and Hwy 831;

• Makes greatest use of existing Highway 63 corridor and infrastructure;
• Has convenient interim access across Hwy 63 with an at-grade intersections;
• Provides for ease of transition to a freeway standard when required;
• Remains consistent with Village and County planning efforts and maximizes

the economic benefit to the community;

• A service road under the rail structure would connect Boyle to the north; and,
• It was less expensive than other options.

East Alignment Options Methodology East Alignment Options Methodology

Approach…

• Segment the corridor north and south of Hwy 663.
• Identify an interchange location.
• Develop a new Hwy 63 alignment around the interchange.
• Connect back to Hwy 63 south towards Newbrook.

North of Hwy 663: – The location, visibility and ease of access to/from the interchange is of critical importance to the Village of Boyle. – How close can an interchange be placed directly to the east of Boyle? – Where would the interchange go? – How would you get in and out of Boyle? – What would an alignment to the east of Boyle look like? – Assessment and evaluation to determine impacts. South of Hwy 663: – Identify alignment corridor options. – Locate a southern interchange (if needed). – Assessment and evaluation to determine impacts.

An Interchange An Interchange Directly East of Boyle Directly East of Boyle

Radio Cell Tower Alberta Oilsands Pipeline Ltd. Pump Station Site

Skeleton Lake Boyle

Alignment 60m east of RR 192 and 1.6km E of Hwy 831 The distance between the interchange and the rail structure must be separated by 1.1-to-1.3km

(500m from top of Rail Structure & 800m to ramp) to meet sight line requirements

from the top of the CN Rail structure to the beginning of the interchange ramp.

• 1.6 km is illustrated

R1600 Radius Deficient: The maximum achievable radius is R1600. This is below the R2200-to-R3000 radius needed for freeway facilities. At- grade intersections can’t be accommodated along its length. CN Rail Structure – Crossing at near 90o The maximum achievable radius is R2400 to the north. Crude Oil Pipeline (559 / 609mm) Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Overburden from Rail Structure. Natural Gas Pipeline (60.3mm) Village of Boyle Natural Gas Pipeline (406mm) Nova Gas Transmission Line

Major Design & Utility Constraints are Evident

The closer the interchange is pushed to the west, the tighter the radius becomes and more deficient. (See green line with R1400)

Access to the Village of Boyle Access to the Village of Boyle

Skeleton Lake

Microwave Tower Site

Boyle

Length of Hwy 663 Realignment is approximately + 2.7km.

Wastewater Treatment Lagoons Alberta Oilsands Pipeline Ltd. Pump Station Site

R600

Hwy 831

Existing Hwy 63 Corridor would be Cul-de-Sac’d. 0.7 km 1.5 km Hwy 831 could be extended to the northwest to connect back to the Hwy 663 corridor.

Rail Crossing Required.

• R600

West Ramp Terminal leads directly into/out of Boyle. Approx 400m extension. 0.7 km 14.8 km to Hwy 55 14.9 km to Hwy 55

R3000m Radius 85o Angle with CN Rail Crossing R2500m Radius Hwy 663E Cul-de- Sac’d on both sides 80o Angle with Hwy 663E

The distance between the interchange and the rail structure must be separated by 1.1-to-1.3km to meet sight line requirements from the top of the CN Rail structure to the beginning of the interchange ramp.

• 1.1 km is illustrated

How would Hwy 663 Connect to Hwy 63? How would Hwy 663 Connect to Hwy 63?

Skeleton Lake

Alberta Oilsands Pipeline Ltd. Pump Station Site Microwave Tower Site

Boyle

Length of Hwy 663 Realignment is approximately 4.4km.

• Possible Requirement for 2nd

Structure over Rail Corridor to connect Hwy 663 to interchange. 80o angle with Railway depicted. Hwy 663 E Cul-de-Sac’d to avoid intersection on curve. Existing Rge Rd 192 Cul-de-Sac’d

• n either side of corridor to avoid

intersection on curve. R600 Radius R650 Radius New RR 192 intersection spaced between curve and CN railway would be approximately 0.8km.

Hwy 831

80o angle with Railway necessary to assure crossing of creek in viable locations. Creek realignment may be necessary.

1.6 km 2.3 km 2.4 km These alignments

(6.3km) would revert to

the County as they no longer serve a Highway purpose.

South Alignment South Alignment Concepts Concepts

The south section of the alignments are south

• f Hwy 633 and potentially make use of

sections of Hwy 831. All options tie back into Hwy 63 in the vicinity of the at-grade rail crossing S of Twp Rd 624.

• Numerous alignment possibilities were

identified.

• The South Section was segmented into

three cones and unique alignments developed internal to each cone (Options

“A” to “F”).

• The characteristics of each alignment were

refined to develop a favored alignment within each of the coloured areas.

Boyle

Hwy 63 Hwy 831 CN Rail

• A

B E F

Thorhild County Athabasca County

• Cone 1

Cone 3 C Cone 2 D

Soil Types Soil Types

South of Hwy 663 9.18 7.89 13.25 Option “B” 14.09 7.06 9.44 Option “D” 17.34 7.06 7.78 Option “F” Well-Drained Soils Poorly- Drained Soils Fen Bog Soils Roadway Segment

• Option “F” offers the minimum intrusion through fen

bog soils and the maximum length through well- drained soils. All three options involve 7-to-8 km of poorly drained soils along Hwy 831. Organics could be as deep as 6-7 m in some areas. Earthworks costs for poorly-drained soils excavation could be in the order of $45M-to-$100M.

• Length (area) Through Various Soil Types (km)

North of Hwy 663 – Option “F” 6.07 1.9 New Service Roads 1.37 2.36 Hwy 663 (East of Hwy 63) 1.57 1.53 Hwy 663 (West of Hwy 63) 0.38 km2 0.04 km2 Interchange Footprint 3.63 0.89 New Hwy 63 North of 663 Well-Drained Soils Poorly- Drained Soils Roadway Segment

Legend Wetland Option “B”, “D” and “F” Option “3-a” Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone

Wetlands & Key Wildlife Wetlands & Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone and Biodiversity Zone

Possible Interchange Site Hwy 831 Realignment

There are significantly more wetlands along Hwy 831 than Hwy 63 that would be impacted with twinning. Wetland compensation may be required at a ratio of 3:1

(where 3 ha of equivalent wetland is restored for each hectare of natural wetland impacted).

Route “F” traverses through 5.1 km of KWBZ. The Crown enforces restrictions associated with these zones, mainly a timing restriction on activity within the zone and limitations on road construction. Freeways in KWBZ are generally to be avoided where possible.

3.3 km 1.8 km

• Hwy 63

Boyle CN Rail CN Rail

Option “F”

Railway Crossing Railway Crossing

• Option “F” would require three 2-lane grade

separated rail structures: – Two for the new 63 alignment; and – One for Hwy 663 since it would be required to cross the CN Corridor and must be realigned back to the interchange.

Option “3-a”

It is assumed that when Hwy 63 would be twinned to the south of Boyle that a new rail grade separated structure would be required and the horizontal curves improved. Twp Rd 624

Option “3-a”

Boyle

• Alignment “3-a”

would require four 2-lane grade separated rail structures: – Two for the new alignment; and – Two for the crossing south of Twp Rd 624 and North of Twp Rd 622.

Option Option “ “F F” ” Utility Crossings Utility Crossings

Option “F” south of Hwy 663 traverses

• ver 26 underground utilities

1. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) 2. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) 3. Vermilion Resources Ltd - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) 4. Apache Canada Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) 5. County of Thorhild - Nat. Gas (60.3mm) 6. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) 7. Apache Canada Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) 8. Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca Inc.) Crude (762mm) 9. Apache Canada Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm)

• 10. Can. Nat. Resources Ltd.- Nat. Gas (Abandoned 88.9mm)
• 11. Can. Nat. Resources Ltd.- Nat. Gas (Operational 114.3mm)

Boyle Old Hwy 63 Hwy 831 C N R a i l New Hwy 63

Twp Rd 622 Twp Rd 642 Twp Rd 634 Twp Rd 644 Twp Rd 640(Ellscott) Twp Rd 640A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 10 11 13

12 & 13. Six Different Pipelines – Grouping

Thorhild County Athabasca County

Option Option “ “F F” ” Service Roads Service Roads

Athabasca County: 13.1 km (Minimum) Thorhild: 16.2 km (Minimum)

• 1. Thorhild: ES: TR 622 to RR 195 - 1.3km

2.

Thorhild: ES: RR 202 Realignment -1.0 km

3.

Thorhild: WS: TR 621 to Old Hwy 63 - 2.2 km

4.

Thorhild: WS: Interchange to TR 202 - 3.0km

5.

Thorhild: WS: TR 624/RR 201 to RR 195A - 3.2km

6.

Thorhild: ES: N Ridge Golf to TR 631A - 1.5km

7.

Thorhild: ES: TR 621 to TR 622 - 1.7km

8.

Athabasca: ES: Hwy 633 to S of TR 640A - 9.2km

9.

Athabasca: WS: Dwelling to TR 640A - 1.6km

• 10. Athabasca: WS: TR 644 to Fish Pond – 2.3km
• 11. Thorhild: WS: County Border to TR 631A – 2.3 km

ES = East Side of Corridor WS = West Side of Corridor TR = Township Road RR = Range Road

Boyle Old Hwy 63 Hwy 831 C N R a i l New Hwy 63

Twp Rd 622 Twp Rd 642 Twp Rd 634 Twp Rd 644 Twp Rd 640(Ellscott) Twp Rd 640A Twp Rd 621 Twp Rd 622

8 9 6 5 4 2 3 1 7

Hwy 661

10 11

Twp Rd 631A

Thorhild County Athabasca County

Interchange Spacing Interchange Spacing

Boyle

Alignment “3-a” results in more even interchange spacing with 4 interchanges spaced roughly evenly along the corridor. The desired design separation for rural interchanges is 8-to-16km. Option “F” results in an uneven interchange spacing:

• Over 30 km between Boyle and the CN Rail

crossing to the south. It is likely that an additional interchange will be needed at Ellscott mid-way.

• There is only 6km separation between an

interchange at the rail crossing and Newbrook.

• Would likely result in an additional interchange,

for a total of 5 interchanges between Hwy 55 and Newbrook.

Hwy 63 Hwy 831 CN Rail Hwy 55 Ellscott Newbrook

Interchange may be required at Ellscott Insufficient interchange spacing.

Direct Alignment Comparison Direct Alignment Comparison

• 8.1 km

32.3 24.2 Length of existing Hwy 831 & Hwy 63 incorporated into design (km)

• 170 ac

236 66 Area through farmland (acres) 1 3 4 Number of interchanges required over alignment length

• 1

4 3 Number of 2-lane rail grade separations required 4 3 + 1B 6 or 7 Number of creek crossings required

• Yes

No Is Boyle visible for northbound traffic? $163M $434M6 $597M5 Total conceptual level costing ($M) 4478 1918 7.7 4.8 n/a4 20.02 14.0 53.0 Option “3-a” 0.6 km 8.3 Length of old highway that would revert to Thorhild County (km) 11.1 km 31.11 Distance to next interchange to south (km) 6.6 7197 2157 9.5 7.5 14.0 48.7 Option “F” 6.6 km Length through key wildlife and biodiversity zone (km) 4.3 km Length of new 4-lane alignment (km) 0 km Distance between Boyle interchange and Hwy 55 interchange (km) 7.5 km Length of Hwy 663 realignment (km) 4.7 km Length of old highway that would revert to Athabasca County (km) 24 ac Area through wetlands (acres) 272 ac Area through organic/poorly-drained soils (acres)

• 1. Assumes new interchanges are located S of Twp Rd 652 (Boyle), Twp Rd 624 (near rail crossing) and Hwy 661 (Newbrook).
• 2. Assumes new interchanges are located S of Twp Rd 652 (Boyle), Twp Rd 640 (Ellscott) and Hwy 661 (Newbrook).
• 3. A 31 km separation without access to Ellscott would likely require a 4th interchange in any case.
• 4. Hwy 663 not required under Option “3-a” until ultimately warranted whereas with Option “F” Hwy 663 realignment is required immediately.
• 5. Includes Interchanges at Boyle & Twp Rd 624 near the rail crossing (to link Hwy 831 realignment to Old Hwy 63.).
• 6. Includes Interchanges at Boyle & Twp Rd 640 and 11.5 Km extension between the new rail structure and Twp Rd 621.
• 7. Includes Hwy 63, Hwy 663 and Hwy 831 realignment, plus interchanges at Boyle and at Hwy 831.
• 8. Includes Hwy 63 alignment, plus interchanges at Boyle and Ellscott.

Difference

(“F” minus “3-a”)

Comparison of Option “F” to “3-a”

[Hwy 55 to Twp Rd 621:1.6 km N of Hwy 661 Newbrook]

Construction Costs Comparison Construction Costs Comparison

$434M3 $0M $18M $416M Option “3-a” $54M $0M

Highway 831

$597M2 $429M1

Total Cost

$30M $0M

Highway 663

$513M $429M

Highway 63

Option “F” Option “B-2”

(AMEC Solution)

Criteria

All options were designed to meet desirable freeway standards. All costs represent the “ultimate” freeway configuration. Options “3-a” and Option “B-2” continue to represent the least expensive

• ptions in terms of construction costs.

From Highway 55 to Twp Rd 621 (1.6 km N of Hwy 661 Newbrook)

• 1. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott and Newbrook.
• 2. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott, Hwy 63/Twp Rd 624 (to link Hwy 831 realignment to Old Hwy 63) and Newbrook.
• 3. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott and Newbrook.

Comparison Summary Comparison Summary

Comparing Option “F” to Option “3-a”, Option “F”:

• would not provide a view of Boyle for northbound traffic;
• does not provide for sufficient interchange spacing (It is over 30km between the Boyle

Interchange and the theoretical interchange near the railway crossing needed to tie old Hwy 63 back to the new alignment.);

• has roughly double the amount of creek crossings (6 or 7) requiring bridge structures;
• requires the realignment of Hwy 663 east at the time of the interchange and not when

Hwy 663 volumes would warrant the realignment sometime in the far future;

• requires the new grade separated rail structure upon opening;
• requires Athabasca County to assume 4.7 more km of existing highways (since they no

longer serve a highway function);

• incorporates only about 24.2 km of existing Hwy 831, compared to 32.3 additional km
• f Hwy 63 with Option “3-a”; and,
• goes through roughly 300 acres more of organically/poorly drained soils and 6.6 km

more wildlife and bio-diversity. Considering all alignments evaluated, CastleGlenn Recommends Option “3-a” as the preferred Hwy 63 alignment.

• For your interest and involvement in the study;
• For your comments, concerns and issues raised; and
• For the opportunity to familiarize you with the mandate and

scope of this project.

Thank you! Thank you!