Phase I - Options Screening Guide Preferred Alternate & Existing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

1 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Phase I - Options Screening Guide

Preferred Alternate & Existing Route Options Screening Guide

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

2 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

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 and Infrastructure

3 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

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 and Infrastructure

4 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)

Process 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

• ptions.

ACCOUNTS

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

5 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)

Criteria There are fjve main accounts that make up the MAE. Each has specifjc criteria the project team analyzed. For Phase I of the study, please note:

• The MAE process evaluated options at a high level to select a preliminary

preferred alternate and existing route from those short listed

• The ‘Economic Development’ account will be evaluated through Phase II
• f the study
• The MAE does not

currently include specifjc costs or property impacts

• The MAE assessed a number of key issue areas, including:
• The number of potential property displacements (excluding

specifjc property locations or costs)

• Assessment of potential water, habitat and wildlife

impacts

• Potential travel time savings of each route

Economic Development

• Employment
• Investment and trade
• Revenue
• Productivity

Financial

• Capital costs
• Periodic rehabilitation costs
• Operation and maintenance costs

Social & Community

• Noise and visual impacts
• Pollution impacts
• Land acquisition needs
• Community connectivity
• Consistency with community plans

Customer Service

• Travel time
• Collisions
• Travel demand
• Vehicle operating costs

Environmental

• Land requirements
• Energy consumption
• Emissions
• Wildlife / habitat
• Water pollution

METRICS

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

6 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Options

Public engagement The fjve alternate route options presented at the 2016 open house have now undergone technical screening. Screening focused on:

• Environmental impact
• Social and community impacts
• Traffjc and travel demand
• Engineering feasibility
• Cost

The short-listed options also underwent a more detailed assessment using the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process. Technical Screening and Initial Evaluation Preferred Alternate Route Evaluation Process

Technical Screening MAE

Preferred Alternate Route Short-listed Options Original Alternate Route Options 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

7 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Options

• Max. elevation: 858 m

• Max. elevation: 605 m

• Max. elevation: 690 m

• Max. elevation: 746 m

• Max. elevation: 863 m

The Ministry studied fjve alternate route options:

AR-1: Far Most Westerly Route (Option 1 - Yellow) AR-5: Lower Elevation Route (Option 5 - Orange) AR-4: Immediately West of Existing Development (Option 4 - Red) AR-3: Central and High Elevation Route (Option 3 - Green) AR-2: Westerly and High Elevation Route (Option 2 - Blue)

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 and Infrastructure

8 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Alternate Route Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations AR-1: Far Most Westerly Route

• Impacts to

Peachland Creek tributary corridor

• May impact wildlife

migration corridors and Spring Canyon Unique Ecosystem

• May impact moose

winter range, mule deer habitat

• Moderate potential

impact to species at risk

• Low impact to

developed areas

• Potential

for moderate archeological impacts

• Low demand for

new route in either the AM or PM peak hours

• No travel time

savings

• Route length is

approximately 13.4 km

• Over 10 km of

steep grades

• Three longer span

bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost

estimate (Rank 3)

• Highest potential

environmental (riparian) impacts and moderate impacts to species at risk

• Low traffjc

demand and travel time savings

• Removed

from further consideration due to high environmental impacts

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

9 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations AR-2: Westerly and High Elevation Route

• Potential impacts

to sensitive habitat such as the Pigeon Creek wetlands

• May impact wildlife

corridors

• May impact moose

winter range

• Lower potential

impact to species at risk

• Low impact to

developed areas

• Potential

for moderate archeological impacts

• Low demand for

new route in either AM or PM peak hours

• No travel time

savings

• Route length is

approximately 15 km

• Nearly 9 km of

steep grades

• Four longer span

bridges anticipated

• Highest estimated

cost (Rank 5)

• High potential

environmental (riparian) impacts, but less than AR-

• 1. Lower species

at risk impacts than AR-1

• Lowest impacts

to developed areas

• Low traffjc

demand and travel time savings

• Option passes

technical screening

Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

10 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations AR-3: Central and High Elevation Route

• Higher proportion
• f route impacting

conservation areas

• Potential impact

to several sensitive habitat features

• Moderate potential

impact to mule deer habitat

• High potential

impact to species at risk

• Mostly impacts to

recreational areas

• Some visual and

noise impacts anticipated

• Potential

for moderate archeological impacts

• Low demand

for new route in AM peak hour but slightly higher in the PM peak hour

• Small travel time

savings in the PM peak

• Route length is

approximately 13.4 km

• Nearly 7 km of

steep grades

• Five longer span

bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost

estimate (Rank 4)

• Less impacts on

developed areas and residential development than AR-4 and AR-5

• Some travel

time savings but demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour compared to AM peak hour

• Option passes

technical screening

Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

11 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations AR-4: Immediately West of Existing Development

• Relative

biodiversity is low amongst options

• Potential impacts

to several sensitive habitat features

• High potential

impact to mule deer habitat

• High potential

impact to species at risk

• Some visual and

noise impacts anticipated

• Potential for

moderate archeological impacts

• Low demand

for new route in AM peak hour but slightly higher in the PM peak hour

• Small travel time

savings in the PM peak

• Route length is

approximately 12.6 km

• Just over 5 km of

steep grades

• Four longer span

bridges anticipated

• Mid range cost

estimate (Rank 2)

• High

environmental impacts to south slopes

• Some travel time

savings one or the

• ther

demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour compared to AM peak hour

• Remove

from further consideration due to higher environmental impacts and lower benefjts compared to similar option AR-5

Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

12 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Alternate Route Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations AR-5: Lower Elevation Route

• Relative

biodiversity is lowest amongst

• ptions
• May have potential

impacts to sensitive habitat features

• High potential

impact to mule deer habitat

• High potential

impact to species at risk

• Lowest riparian

impacts amongst

• ptions
• Some residential

and/or agricultural property impacts

• Visual and noise

impacts anticipated

• Low potential

for archeological impacts

• Low demand

for new route in AM peak hour but slightly higher in the PM peak hour

• Small travel time

savings in the PM peak

• Route length is

approximately 10.3 km

• Over 3.5 km of

steep grades

• Six longer span

bridges anticipated

• Lowest estimated

cost (Rank 1)

• Lowest cost
• ption, also

shortest route

• Lowest

environmental (riparian) impacts

• f all options
• Greatest travel

time savings amongst AR

• ptions and

demonstrates slightly higher demand in the PM peak hour as compared to the AM peak hour

• Option passes

technical screening - as the environmental impacts are the lowest and the benefjts are the highest among all

• ptions

Technical Screening – Alternate Route Options

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

13 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Multiple Account Evaluation – Alternate Route Options

Customer Service Account Socio-Community Account Environmental Account Financial Account AR-A

Route Travel Time Savings – New Route AM -2 to -4 minutes / PM -1 to 2 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $34 Million Travel Demand / Volumes AM - Northbound - 100 AM - Southbound - 100 PM - Northbound - 50 PM - Southbound - 100 Property Impacts Partial Property Takes > 10 Full Property Takes <5 Visual Impacts Somewhat worse. Option is set back from most developments and therefore minimal affect on adjacent residents, however large rock cuts and fjlls would potentially be visible from the lakeshore. Terrestrial Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Highest level of impact to conservation status and sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Creates a connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area. Aquatic Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Crosses seven watercourses, and parallels a watercourse for almost fjve kilometers in a manner that could create a direct loss of habitat. Several watercourses are fjsh bearing. Archeological Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high or moderate archaeological potential. One recorded archaeological site within the alignment. Capital Cost $$$$$

AR-B

Route Travel Time Savings – New Route AM -1 to -3 minutes / PM -1 to 2 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $42 Million Travel Demand / Volumes AM - Northbound - 100 AM - Southbound - 100 PM - Northbound - 100 PM - Southbound - 300 Property Impacts Partial Property Takes > 15 Full Property Takes < 5 Visual Impacts Somewhat worse. Option is set back from most developments and therefore minimal effect on adjacent residents, however large rock cuts and fjlls would potentially be visible from the lakeshore. Terrestrial Impacts Signifjcantly worse. High level of impact to conservation status and sensitivity

• f terrestrial ecosystems, although less impact than AR-A. Creates a

connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area. Aquatic Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Crosses eight watercourses; several of which are fjsh bearing. Archeological Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high or moderate archaeological potential. Capital Cost $$$$$

AR-C

Route Travel Time Savings – New Route AM 0 to 2 minutes / PM 3 to 6 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $63 Million Travel Demand / Volumes AM - Northbound - 100 AM - Southbound - 100 PM - Northbound - 100 PM - Southbound - 300 Property Impacts Partial Property Takes > 20 Full Property Takes > 5 Visual Impacts Somewhat worse. Option is set back from most developments, although does pass closer to the limits of Peachland, and therefore is anticipated to have some effect on adjacent residents. Large rock cuts and fjlls would potentially be visible from the lakeshore. Terrestrial Impacts Signifjcantly worse. High level of impact to conservation status and sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystems, although less impact than AR-A or AR-

• B. Creates a connectivity barrier in a large undeveloped forested area.

Aquatic Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Crosses nine watercourses; several of which are fjsh bearing. Archeological Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Slightly over half the alignment considered to have high

• r moderate archaeological potential.

Capital Cost $$$

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

14 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment Options

The fourteen existing route segment

• ptions presented at the 2016 open house

have now undergone technical screening. Screening focused on:

• Environmental impact
• Social and community impacts
• Traffjc and travel demand
• Engineering feasibility
• Cost

The short-listed options also underwent a more detailed assessment using the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process. Public engagement

Technical Screening MAE

Preferred Existing Route Short-listed Segment Package Options Original Existing Route Segment Options 1 4 7 10 2 5 8 11 3 6 9 12 13 14 1 2 3 1

Technical Screening and Initial Evaluation Preferred Existing Route Evaluation Process

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

15 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

South of Princeton Avenue Princeton Avenue/ Beach Avenue Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road Drought Hilll

Existing Route Segment Options

The existing route is divided into fjve segments based on the way the highway and intersections interact with each other, and how local traffjc accesses Highway 97.

ER-5: South of Princeton Avenue segment ER-1: Drought Hill segment ER-2: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment ER-3: Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment ER-4: Princeton Avenue/Beach Avenue segment

Each of these routes would have the following characteristics:

• 80 km/h posted speed
• Four lane cross section
• Access to the community dependent upon

the individual options

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

16 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Drought Hill segment (ER-1)

Existing Route Segment: Drought Hill Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-1A Drought Hill Expressway

• High effects

anticipated around Drought Creek corridor

• This option does

not exacerbate community severance effects given the limited development on either side of the highway

• Requires longer

travel on local road network to achieve left turns

• Signifjcant

geotechnical concerns regarding cuts and fjll slopes

• Lowest cost

amongst options in this segment

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening ER-1B Drought Hill Expressway with Drought Road Overpass

• High effects

anticipated around Drought Creek corridor

• This option does

not exacerbate community severance effects given the limited development on either side of the highway

• Compatible if

the New Monaco development proceeds

• Requires longer

travel on local road network to achieve left turns

• Will improve

performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings – especially during the PM peak

• Signifjcant

geotechnical concerns regarding cuts and fjll slopes

• Higher cost

amongst options in the segment

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

17 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: Drought Hill Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-1C Seclusion Bay Road and Drought Road Overpasses

• High effects

anticipated around Drought Creek corridor

• This option does

not exacerbate community severance effects given the limited development on either side of the highway

• Compatible if

the New Monaco development proceeds

• Shorter travel

required on local road network to achieve left turns

• Will improve

performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings – especially during the PM peak

• Signifjcant

geotechnical concerns regarding cuts and fjll slopes

• Higher cost

amongst options in the segment

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Drought Hill segment (ER-1)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

18 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment (ER-2)

Existing Route Segment: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-2A Overpass at Lang Road

• Low effects

anticipated

• Will increase traffjc
• n Huston Road
• May impact

properties around Huston Road intersection

• Grade separated

connection is central to community but has very steep grade between Lang Road and Greata Road

• Circuitous routing

for all movements to / from Highway 97

• Will improve

performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings during the PM peak

• Option takes

advantage of exiting cut slopes along highway

• Challenging to

create right-in / right-out movement at Huston Road / Buchanan Road

• Potential

diffjculty to stage construction

• Higher costs

due to structural elements

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

19 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-2B Extension

• f Shaw

Road and Huston Road

• Low effects

anticipated

• Will increase traffjc
• n Huston Road
• Grade separated

connection will benefjt peds / cyclists but is circuitous

• Longer travel

required on local road network to achieve left turn from highway

• Will improve

performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings during the PM peak

• Challenging to

create right-in / right-out movement at Huston Road / Buchanan Road

• Complexities

related to grade separation of Shaw Road

• Some disruption

to highway traffjc anticipated during construction

• Higher costs

due to structural elements

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment (ER-2)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

20 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-2C Trepanier Bench Road Over Highway 97

• Low effects

anticipated

• May impact

properties around Huston Road intersection

• Overpass structure

may impact some properties

• Will increase traffjc
• n Buchanan Road
• Grade separated

connection will benefjt peds / cyclists but has very steep grade

• Very circuitous

routing for all movements to / from Highway 97

• Will improve

performance along the highway and will attain some travel time savings during the PM peak

• Much larger and

curved structure

• Diffjcult to tie into

Trepanier Bench Road and requires Trepanier Bench Road to pass under structure

• Potentially less

disruption during construction than

• ther options
• Higher costs

due to structural elements

• Design and

constructability concerns associated with proposed overpass

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment (ER-2)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

21 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-2D Traffjc Signal at Trepanier Bench Road

• Low effects

anticipated

• Does not offer

much improvement in connectivity across

• Will improve

access to / from highway but will result in some

• No major

engineering considerations

• Lower costs

as there are no signifjcant structural elements

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening ER-2E Traffjc Signal at Huston Road / Buchanan Road

• Low effects

anticipated

• Offers

improvement in connectivity across highway for pedestrians and cyclists

• Will improve

access to / from highway but will result in some disruption to through traffjc

• No major

engineering considerations

• Lower costs

as there are no signifjcant structural elements

• Option is not

consistent with previous decisions by the District of Peachland Council

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Trepanier Bench Road to Huston Road segment (ER-2)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

22 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment (ER-3)

Existing Route Segment: Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-3A Todd Road and 13 Street Crossings

• Anticipated to

have high impacts, particularly around the Trepanier Creek corridor

• New overpass will

have visual effects

• Limited property

impacts anticipated

• Improved

connectivity across highway

• Impacts to San

Clements Avenue access to 13 Street

• Grade separated

pedestrian / cycling route

• Circuitous travel

to achieve left turn from 13 Street and from Shopping Centre – including use of Beach Avenue

• Will improve

performance along the highway with the removal of two traffjc signals

• Requires new

structure across the highway

• New structure on

highway will require temporary detour during construction

• Connection

between Clement Crescent and Ponderosa Drive is very challenging

• High cost due

to two new highway structures (overpass and bridge over Trepanier Creek)

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

23 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-3B Retain Traffjc Signal at Clement Crescent and Ponderosa Drive

• Anticipated to

have high impacts, particularly around the Trepanier Creek corridor

• Requires re-

routing of Chidley Road traffjc

• Potential impact to

adjacent park

• No signifjcant

improvement for pedestrian / cyclist crossing of highway

• Will result in

further travel for residents along Chidley Road

• Reduces access to

/ from the highway

• No signifjcant

change in traffjc performance along highway

• No major

engineering considerations

• Lower cost
• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Ponderosa Drive to Todd Road segment (ER-3)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

24 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – Princeton Avenue / Beach Avenue segment (ER-4)

Existing Route Segment: Princeton Avenue Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-4A Interchange at Princeton Avenue

• Anticipated to have

negligible effects to the environment

• New overpass will

have visual effects

• Some property

impacts anticipated

• Ramps may

impact dog beach, parking lots, and boat launch

• Grade separated

pedestrian / cycling route with highway elevated.

• Will improve

performance along the highway with the removal of the traffjc signal

• New structure on

highway will require temporary detour of traffjc during construction.

• Ramp connection

to Princeton Avenue may be challenging due to steep grades

• High cost due

to new highway structure

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening ER-4B Retain Traffjc Signal at Princeton Avenue

• Anticipated to have

negligible effects to the environment

• No signifjcant

improvement for pedestrian / cyclist crossing of highway – still at- grade crossing

• No signifjcant

change in traffjc performance along highway

• No major

engineering considerations

• Low cost option
• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

25 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – South of Princeton segment (ER-5)

Existing Route Segment: South of Princeton Avenue Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-5A Realignment

• f Highway

at Antlers Beach

• Anticipated to

have high impacts, particularly around the Peachland Creek corridor

• Impacts to mobile

home park on each side of Hardy Street

• Retains direct

land access along highway within existing alignment

• Poor access

to retained land parcels south

• f new highway

alignment

• Poor access to

Hardy Street and circuitous routing required to achieve left turns

• Will improve

performance along the highway with improved geometry

• New bridge

required across Deep Creek

• High cost due to

extent of new road construction and new structures

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

26 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Existing Route Segment: South of Princeton Avenue Environmental Social and Community Traffjc / Travel Demand Engineering Cost Recommendations ER-5B Short Bypass

• Anticipated to

have high impacts, particularly around the Peachland Creek corridor

• More extensive

property impacts

• Some impacts to

ALR lands

• Highway passes

through existing development causing visual and noise impacts

• Will improve

performance along the highway with improved geometry

• Removes direct

land access to majority of highway segment and therefore improves safety

• Requires new

structure at Lipsett Avenue

• New bridge

required across Deep Creek may be signifjcant in length Higher cost due to extent of new road construction and new structures

• No signifjcant

barriers - option passes technical screening

Technical Screening – Existing Route Segment Options – South of Princeton segment (ER-5)

Ministry of T ransportation and Infrastructure

27 CONFIDENTIAL - Draft for discussion only

Multiple Account Evaluation – Existing Route Options

Customer Service Account Socio-Community Account Environmental Account Financial Account ER-A

Route Travel Time Savings AM 1 to 3 minutes / PM 3 to 5 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $64 Million Property Impacts Partial Property Takes >90 Full Property Takes >15 Visual Impacts Somewhat worse. Visual impacts from any signifjcant cut / fjll. Minor impacts at at least two intersection realignments along the

• corridor. Signifjcant impacts anticipated at

Antlers Beach. Terrestrial Impacts Somewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought Creek and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation. Aquatic Impacts Somewhat worse. Potential impacts to eight watercourses, including Trepanier Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon. Archeological Impacts Somewhat worse. Three known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some areas of the route rank high for archaeological potential. Capital Cost $$$

ER-B

Route Travel Time Savings AM 2 to 4 minutes / PM 4 to 7 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $79 Million Property Impacts Partial Property Takes > 80 Full Property Takes > 30 Visual Impacts Somewhat worse. Visual impacts from any signifjcant cut / fjll. Potential for signifjcant impacts from three intersection realignments and overpass structures along the corridor. Impacts from bypass at south end of corridor. Terrestrial Impacts Somewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought Creek and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation. Aquatic Impacts Somewhat worse. Potential impacts to nine watercourses, including Trepanier Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon. May also require modifjcation to lake shoreline near the Princeton segment. Archeological Impacts Somewhat worse. Four known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some areas of the route rank high for archaeological potential. Capital Cost $$$$

ER-C

Route Travel Time Savings AM 2 to 4 minutes / PM 4 to 7 minutes Travel Time / Vehicle Operating Savings $79 Million Property Impacts Partial Property Takes > 85 Full Property Takes >35 Visual Impacts Signifjcantly worse. Visual impacts from any signifjcant cut / fjll. Potential for signifjcant impacts from three intersection realignments and overpass structures along the corridor. Impacts from bypass at south end of corridor. Terrestrial Impacts Somewhat worse. Several areas along the route, such as near Drought Creek and Trepanier Creek, are ranked high or very high for conservation. Aquatic Impacts Somewhat worse. Potential impacts to nine watercourses, including Trepanier Creek which provides habitat to Kokanee salmon. May also require modifjcation to lake shoreline near the Princeton segment. Archeological Impacts Somewhat worse. Four known archaeological sites along the corridor. Some areas of the route rank high for archaeological potential. Capital Cost $$$$