Date:

From:
DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER
750 - 17" STREET. WEST VANCOUVER. BC V7V 3T3
COUNCIL REPORT
March 28, 2012 File: 1785-22
Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Raymond Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. That Council be advised that the CAO will approve the At-Grade Intersection,
subject to approval of detailed drawings and a written commitment from LARCO
to enhance the pedestrian ambiance of Marine Drive; and
2. The report from the Chief Administrative Officer, Director, Engineering and
Transportation, and Director, Planning, Lands and Permits dated March 28, 2012
entitled, "Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive," be
received for information.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the evaluation of the proposed Park
Royal at-grade intersection on Marine Drive, including findings of the peer review
undertaken and further, the Chief Administrative Officer's (CAO's) approval of detailed
design drawings subject to the following revisions:
delete provision of a pedestrian crosswalk on the west side of the proposed
intersection;
enhancement of the existing midblock pedestrian crossing adjacent to the transit
stops through the provision of improved weather protection between the north
and south malls
fuller integration of bus stops and consideration of transit exchange movements;
fuller integration of bicycle movements through the intersection;
refinement of intersection geometrics to better facilitate left turn movements,
transit, and cyclists;
agreement by LARCO Holdings Ltd. to pursue an urban design approach in the
Marine Drive corridor reflecting a more urban and pedestrian oriented
streetscape than the current automobile oriented landscape;
refinement of landscaping plans to ensure adequate sizing and quantity of
landscaping in relation to the scale of the roadway.
Document # 543954v1
t
Date: March 28, 2012
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
1.0 Background
Page 2
The proposal to construct an at-grade intersection on Marine Drive near The Village,
thereby replacing Park Royal's existing westerly vehicular overpass and pedestrian
overpass has been brought to Council for consideration on a number of occasions since
July, 2010.
In October, 2010 Council adopted the proposal in principle and authorized staff to
approve the detailed design drawings subject to conformance to District standards and
requirements, In a subsequent meeting, Council clarified that the intent in fact, was to
delegate this authority to the CAO,
Most recently, Council carried the following resolution at their October 3, 2011 meeting:
THAT Council endorses an evaluation including a peer review to evaluate
the at-grade intersection for cars, pedestrians, buses, cyclists and
landscaping to take into account the future growth of Park Royal and to
include the Squamish Nation, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,
LARCO, and TransLink, to be returned to Council by March, 2012.
A summary of Council resolutions in this matter is attached as Appendix 1.
2.0 Balanced Scorecard
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES 2012 MILESTONE 2013 MILESTONE
2,1,2 Support regional and North Although not specifically
Shore planning to advance West referenced, review of Park
Vancouver's interests Royal's proposed at-grade
intersection on Marine Drive
should be considered in the
broader context of North Shore
transportation planning.
3.0 Analysis
3.1 Discussion
Following the October, 2011 Council resolution, a Facilitated Session was held on
January 12, 2012 to identify and discuss the issues and opportunities raised by the
intersection proposal. Notes and recommendations from this stakeholder workshop on
the evaluation process and technical review for the proposed intersection on Marine
Drive at Park Royal are attached as Appendix 2.
Document # 543954v1
Date: March 28, 2012
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
Page 3
Subsequently, staff proceeded with a "peer" review conducted by technical
professionals in early March, 2012 (Appendix 3), Briefly, the peer review concluded:
The processes followed by Park Royal's Consultants with respect to the impacts
of redevelopment on Park Royal land were appropriate for the scope and within
normal industry standards, including the logic related to trip generation and trip
distribution;
The projected background volumes for 2015 appear to be conservative and
might be more representative of 2020 conditions;
The introduction of a signalized intersection will increase travel delay over
existing conditions, however the incremental delay resulting from new Park Royal
development is small in relation to the overall travel time in the Marine Drive
corridor (less than one minute);
A proposed intersection design without a west crosswalk will allow the signal
cycle length to be reduced in order to provide a better level of service for all
modes;
Fuller integration of bus stops and transit transfer needs should be taken into
consideration in the at-grade intersection design;
Fuller integration of bicycle movements through the intersection should be taken
into consideration in the design; and
Further design refinements regarding geometrics and laning should be
undertaken,
The peer reviewers found little documentation regarding consideration of alternatives to
the at-grade intersection proposal by the Park Royal design team, such as upgrading
the existing westerly vehicular overpass to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists,
With respect to the possibility of replacing the existing signalized crosswalk east of the
vehicular overpass with a pedestrian bridge, no evidence was found of supporting
pedestrian warrants having been conducted. The peer reviewers are uncertain how
well a pedestrian bridge would serve transit users, as it would take considerably longer
to use a bridge rather than crossing at-grade. Further, it was felt that elimination of the
signalized crosswalk would provide marginal time savings to east/west travel on Marine
Drive, given the presence of the signal at Taylor Way and the opportunity to coordinate
timing of the proposed signalized intersection with the existing signalized crosswalk.
Beyond the technical realm of the peer review, a summary of the pros and cons of
maintaining the existing overpasses compared to a proposed at-grade intersection is
provided in the following tables.
Document # 543954v1
Date: March 28, 2012 Page 4
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
Maintaining Existing Overpass
Pros Cons

Separates north-south vehicular

The existing overpass is an aging
movements from affecting the piece of infrastructure that needs to
functioning of Marine Drive be upgraded

An upgraded overpass even with
accommodation for pedestrians and
cyclists would not function as well
as at-grade options

Visual impact of overpasses would
be maintained along the Marine
Drive corridor

Grade separation reinforces the
road's role for moving traffic
independent from the context of
streetscape
Proposed At-Grade Intersection
I Pros Cons

Potential benefits for emergency

Results in minor east-west delay by
responders, transit, pedestrians, introducing another signal
and cyclists

Provides linkages from Evelyn Drive

Some minor north-south delay may
development and to Spirit Trail result during off-peak times

Serves as a connection to Welch
Street and may anchor connection
to future Low Level Road

Removes visual impact of two
overpasses along Marine Drive
I

Potential to create development
pads at comers of intersection,
I
where buildings could be sited to
eliminate views of roadside parking

Provides opportunity for significant
landscaping improvements

Facilitates improved circulation of
mall traffic
Document # 543954v1
Date: March 28, 2012
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
Urban Design Character of the Marine Drive Corridor and the adjacent land uses
Page 5
Due to the ever changing business climate, it has been challenging to have any
certainty about the future development of Park Royal. It will be discussed later in the
report how Park Royal has made a significant commitment to involve the District in
helping and transforming what originally was a 1950's suburban shopping centre
devalued by a "major vehicular roadway", to what has become and will continue to
evolve into a pedestrian friendly urban shopping experience.
The Marine Drive corridor at Park Royal is the gateway for many into West Vancouver.
Its current design with grade separated overpasses and buildings set back behind large
parking lots reflect an auto oriented environment that does not convey an image of West
Vancouver which is consistent with its reputation as a vibrant community that promotes
sustainability and environmental awareness. The creation of the at-grade intersection
and the removal of one of the grade separated overpasses and the pedestrian overpass
can help to begin the transformation of this area to a more urban and pedestrian
oriented streetscape.
Existing OCP Policy BF-C7 applies to the portions of Park Royal outside of the
Squamish Nation Reserve. It states that development should "Recognize the role of the
Park Royal Shopping Centre as the eastern "gateway" to West Vancouver." The area is
designated as a Development Permit Area with objectives to enhance its gateway role,
promote a high quality of building design and landscaping and to screen parking from
Marine Drive. Relevant existing design guidelines for this Development Permit area
include:
I. CONTEXT I SITE DESIGN
Encourage a pedestrian friendly character.
Strengthen its role as the gateway to West Vancouver.
Enhance pedestrian connections throughout the shopping area, to
the Capilano River, to Ambleside and to existing and future
residential areas.
Create a distinctive building and site design to augment the
shopping district character.
Encourage the provision of integrated public art that is in keeping
with the setting, building and landscaping.
II. BUILDING DESIGN
Establish quality design through detailing, building articulation and
choice of materials.
Document # 543954v1
Date: March 2012
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
Encourage a variety of commercial unit sizes and frontages to
provide economic flexibility and visual interest along the street
frontages. Where street frontages are particularly long, the building
should be detailed to break up the apparent length with the use of
columns or other architectural features.
Discourage unarticulated blank or solid walls visible from the street.
Encourage high performance "green building" design.
Provide outdoor seating and landscaping to enhance public
enjoyment of the outdoors.
Provide convenient, continuous or semi-continuous weather
protection through overhangs, awnings and canopies.
IV. CIRCULATION I PARKING
Avoid conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movement and
ensure site circulation is accessible to persons with disabilities.
Encourage the use of alternative transportation modes by providing
bicycle storage.
Page 6
LARCO, the owners of Park Royal, have indicated that they are prepared to pursue an
urban design image of all future development which is unique, is pedestrian oriented,
and human-scaled. They will strive to limit the amount of parking directly fronting on
Marine Drive and will seek to replace the existing parking lots with buildings with active
retail and service uses and wide sidewalks facing Marine Drive.
Both the District and Park Royal recognize that much of the land under consideration
falls under the jurisdiction of the Squamish Nation and to which the above design
guidelines do not directly apply. Cooperation and coordination between all three parties
will be necessary to achieve this image of an active, vibrant urban corridor functioning
as the eastern gateway into West Vancouver.
3.2 Consultation
Since July, 2010, staff and Park Royal have together and separately consulted various
publics regarding the proposed at-grade intersection concept. In September, 2010,
public information sessions were held at Park Royal Shopping Centre in tandem with
TransLink's transit priority lane on Marine Drive. Approval in principle has been
provided by the North Shore Advisory Committee on Disability Issues as well as the
District's Design Review Committee. Letters of support have been provided by the
West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, TransLink, and Squamish Nation. Meanwhile,
Council has received a number of letters of opposition from residents concerned with
potential travel delays along Marine Drive.
Document # 543954v1
Date: March 28,2012
From: Grant McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer
Ray Fung, Director, Engineering and Transportation
Bob Sokol, Director, Planning, Lands and Permits
Subject: Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive
4.0 Options
Page 7
Given that the predicted travel delay caused the introduction of the proposed at-grade
intersection is less than one minute compared to the potential benefits to various other
users, compatibility with long term transportation plans, as well as the opportunity to
create a more dynamic and vibrant Marine Drive corridor, the CAO is prepared to
approve the detailed design drawings subject to refinements being made as discussed
above. Accordingly, Council can simply receive this staff report for information.
Alternatively, Council could request that Park Royal determines the feasibility of other
alternatives, prior to staff's consideration of detailed design drawings for the proposed
at-grade intersection option by rescinding Council's approval in principle.
Authors:
Appendices:
Appendix 1 Council Resolutions (and Council Reports) regarding: At-Grade
Intersection on Marine Drive near The Village to Replace Park Royal's
Existing Vehicular and Pedestrian Overpasses; and Marine Drive Bus
Priority Lane Project
Appendix 2 Notes and Recommendations from the Stakeholder Workshop on the
Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection on Marine
Drive at Park Royal held January 12, 2012
Appendix 3 Howes, D., P.Eng. and Wallace, B., P.Eng., Peer Review of Park Royal's
At-Grade Intersection Proposal on Marine Drive March 22,2012
Document # 543954v1
Council resolutions (and Council Reports) regardi
At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive near the Village to replace Park
Royal's existing vehicular and pedestrian overpass; and
Marine Drive Bus Priority Lane Project
July 26, 2010 Council Meeting
8. Marine Drive Bus Priority Lane Project (File: 1785-22)
MOVED by Evison, seconded by Walker:
THAT
1. Further to the report from the Director, Engineering and Transportation dated
July 15, 2010 entitled, "Marine Drive Bus Priority Lane Project," Council
supports the option, where the constructed works can be accommodated
south of the existing median thereby preserving median and north boulevard
street trees;
2. Council approves in principle a proposed, at-grade intersection on Marine
Drive near The Village to replace Park Royal's existing westerly vehicular
overpass and pedestrian overpass, subject to:
staff review of detailed design drawings, including streetscape and
landscaping standards; and
staff review of traffic modelling and signalization design to prevent
queuing towards Pound Road along Marine Drive west of the
proposed intersection;
and that this analysis be returned to Council for final approval.
Mayor Goldsmith-Jones suggested that the motion be divided.
MOVED by Evison, seconded by Walker:
THAT
1. Further to the report from the Director, Engineering and Transportation dated
July 15, 2010 entitled, "Marine Drive Bus Priority Lane Project," Council
supports the option, where the constructed works can be accommodated
south of the existing median thereby preserving median and north boulevard
street trees.
CARRIED
MOVED by Smith, seconded by Soprovich:
THAT part 2 of the original motion be referred back to staff for a further report and a
public process.
CARRIED
Page 1 of 4
#544039
October 18, 2010 Council Meeting
10. Proposed Signalized Intersection on Marine Drive at Main Street, Park Royal
(File: 1785-01/0200-20-PRSC1)
MOVED by Soprovich, seconded by Walker:
THAT
1. The Squamish Nation and the District of West Vancouver come together in
a government and government discussion that respect each others' Official
Community Plans and seek mutual forums in community design and
development, and that
2. Following this meeting the report recommending the level crossing over
Marine Drive at Park Royal be returned to Council.
DEFEATED
Mayor Goldsmith-Jones and Councillors Evison, Panz, Smith and Walker
voted in the negative
MOVED by Smith, seconded by Walker:
THAT
1. Council approve in principle the street level crossing from Park Royal
Shopping Centre South to Park Royal Shopping Centre North across the
District of West Vancouver's dedicated highway known as Marine Drive.
2. Council authorize staff to approve detailed design drawings for the
intersection including landscaping and signalization design subject to
conformance to district standards and requirements.
3. The Squamish Nation and the District of West Vancouver formalize their
arrangements to discuss the development of their lands in subsequent
meetings.
CARRIED
Councillor Lewis and Soprovich voted in the negative
November 15, 2010 Council Meeting
18.1. Notice of Motion regarding Street Level Crossing at Park Royal Shopping
Centre (File: 0120-06)
Take Notice that at the Monday, December 6, 2010 Council Meeting, Councillor
Soprovich, with a seconder (Councillor Lewis), will Move to provide a motion as
follows:
WHEREAS the July 26,2010 Council Meeting minutes, Item 8, in respect to the
proposed at grade intersection and traffic light at Park Royal and Marine Drive,
states:
'THA T part 2 of the original motion be referred back to staff for a further
report and a public process."
Page 2 of 4
#544039
AND WHEREAS the report from staff dated October 7,2010 was first made
available for the October 18, 2010 Council Meeting
AND WHEREAS a play back of the July 26, 2010 Council Meeting Item 8 video clip
indicates to the public that the staff report would be made available for public review
and discussion at a public meeting hosted by the municipality in a municipal facility
AND WHEREAS the report from staff dated October 7,2010 was made available
only for the October 18, 2010 Council Meeting and therefore there was no
opportunity for review by and discussion with the public at a public meeting
AND WHEREAS the motion made at the October 18, 2010 Council Meeting in Item
10 states:
"Council authorize staff to approve the detailed design drawings for the
intersection including landscaping and signalization design subject to
conformance to district standards and requirements"
AND WHEREAS the above noted motion made at the October 18, 2010 Council
Meeting does not specify who would construct the intersection nor does it say who
would pay for the new intersection
AND WHEREAS the impact on traffic patterns and traffic flow of the completed
Lions Gate bridgehead and Capilano Bridge modifications is unknown and of
concern to many,
NOW THEREFORE Council resolves
THAT
1. The street level crossing from Park Royal shopping centre south to Park
Royal shopping centre north across the District of West Vancouver's
dedicated highway known as Marine Drive not proceed until Council has
specifically approved design drawings and further consulted with the public,
and
2. Council host a public meeting as indicated in Item 8 of the July 26, 2010
Council Meeting.
December 6, 2010 Council Meeting
11. Street Level Crossing at Park Royal Shopping Centre (File: 0120-06)
MOVED by Soprovich, seconded by Lewis:
Be it resolved that therefore Council resolves:
THAT
1 . The street level crossing from Park Royal shopping centre south to Park
Royal shopping centre north across the District of West Vancouver's
dedicated highway known as Marine Drive not proceed until Council has
specifically approved design drawings and further consulted with the public,
and
2. Council host a public meeting as indicated in Item 8 of the July 26, 2010
Council Meeting.
DEFEATED
Page 3 of 4
#544039
Mayor Goldsmith-Jones and Councillors Evison, Panz, Smith, and Walker voted in
the negative
October 3, 2011 Council Meeting
16. Proposed Park Royal At-Grade Intersection on Marine Drive (File: 1785-22)
MOVED by Evison, seconded by Soprovich:
THAT
1 . Council support a District led process to review the Multiple Accounts
Evaluation (MAE), which takes into account the future growth of Park Royal.
2. Staff provide a report to Council outlining a public process that should include
the Squamish Nation, Park Royal, Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure and the District of West Vancouver.
DEFEATED
Mayor Goldsmith-Jones and Councillors Evison, Panz, Smith, and Walker voted in
the negative
MOVED by Smith, seconded by Lewis:
THAT
Council endorses an evaluation including a peer review to evaluate the at-grade
intersection for cars, pedestrians, buses, cyclists and landscaping to take into
account the future growth of Park Royal and to include the Squamish Nation,
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Larco, and TransLink, to be returned
to Council by March 2012.
CARRIED
Councillor Soprovich voted in the negative
Page 4 of 4
#544039
n n
Workshop held on January 12, 2012
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
This paper briefly documents and organizes the outputs of the discussion sessions from the January 12th
workshop held at Park Royal on the proposed at-grade intersection.
The attendees of the workshop were as follows:
Amantea, Rick Howes, Donna Pettit, Barbara
Blake, Tom Jamieson, Rachel Phillips, Art
Boyle, Geri Joyce, Peter I Rahmani, Banafsheh
Bunting, Tom Lalji, Mansoor Ray, Karl
Burgers, Cedric Lees, Erik Siegrist, Duane
Callow, Kathleen McMahon, John Smith, Kim
Carney, Steve McRadu, Grant Sokol, Bob
Fung, Raymond Morwood, Jesse Soprovich, Councillor Bill
Gibbs, Margaret Moxon, Erin Vaughan, Mark
Hood, Stuart O'Caliaghan, Donal Verlaan, Vince
The objectives of the workshop were as follows:
To share the history of the proposal with all attendees, and to relate today's discussion to
council's direction on the evaluation;
To present the proposal as it now stands, including showing any recent revisions that respond to
earlier correspondence with the DWV;
To work together to identify the issues and opportunities the proposal presents to the
attendees;
To flesh out our understanding of most important issues so they can be fully evaluated later on;
and,
To clarify next steps in the process along with possible timeline.
Document # 531109v1
Jan Ilh Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
The agenda of the workshop was as follows:
5:00 Welcome and introductions All
5:05 Today's objectives, agenda, and desired outputs - Vince Verlaan
5:10 Summary of "how we got here" - ends with council direction re "an evaluation including a peer
review" Ray Fung/Bob Sokol
5:20 Presentation of the recently revised application and drawings for same - Park Royal
5:40 Facilitated Discussion Block 1 - identification of issues/opportunities, clustering and naming of
same, "Voting" by attendees on which are most important
6:30 Dinner break
7:00 Facilitated Discussion Block 2 - attendees break into small groups to discuss the most important
clusters of issues in more depth (1 topic per group)
7:45 Report back from all small groups (why is this topic "cluster" important, what are the
risks/opportunities, what must be addressed further in the review)
8:00 Next steps
8:30 Closing
2
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Overview of Results:
The first discussion was held at small tables, organized by the facilitator so that most people from a
given group were at the same table. At the end of the first round of discussion, the small groups had
each identified issues that were important to them regarding the proposed intersection.
Each table was then asked to "cluster" and name any "like" issues, and did this using sticky notes. The
facilitator took all the issue clusters identified by all tables and organized them onto six flipchart sheets
posted on the meeting room walls. He asked the group to help place any outlying issues on those
sheets, and then to name the overall categories of issues that were emerging.
When this was done, and met with the group's approval, a dinner break was taken. After that, the
second round of discussion got underway, with a stronger mixture of people from different groups being
ensured at each table. The four flip chart sheets ("categories of issues") that had the most interest were
then assigned to four tables for discussion block 2. That block of discussion saw each small group clarify
the topic, take notes on "why it was important", discuss related risks and opportunities, identify any
actions they recommend, and prepare to report back.
The notes from all sessions, organized by cluster, are found below. A brief recommendation for how to
deal with these issues as part of the evaluation process that must end by March 2012.
Issue Cluster #1 - Process
~ = = ~ = ~ ~ = = ~ (no specific Round 2 discussions happened for this cluster)
All or nothing proposal?
What other solutions have been explored?
Alternatives to intersection?
How will significant assumption of the Vissim model be tested?
Recommendations:
Since question 4 (above) is being handled through the peer review of the transportation aspects of the
plan, we need to focus on questions 1 to 3. DWV should now ask Park Royal to explain/document how
other options were evaluated and why the option presented has emerged.
3
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Issue Cluster #2 - Environmental Concerns
~ ~ : - C ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ = (no specific Round 2 discussions for this cluster)
Loss of trees, especially large trees
Increase / decrease to impervious surface area.
Contribution or reduction to green house gasses.
Recommendations:
Address these issues directly through the peer review of the landscape plan.
Ask Park Royal to address these concerns as possible through the rest of the application process.
4
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Issue Cluster #3 - larger Context I Future Development
Higher-order items:
Impact on design of 'Ambleside now'
Future development? Impact on intersection?
Future development on Squamish land what impact?
lower-order items:
Intergraded road network serving more need than just Park Royal's.
How does this address connection to low level road? Future growth?
The main concern examined in round 2 was how does this proposal fit into the 'bigger picture' of
development in the area, the North Shore and the Region?
1.) Impact on the larger community
How does this facilitate / accommodate future Park Royal / Squamish Nation growth/plans?
Growth factors / Rates
What projects? is the science right?
How is the intersection and overpass used? Where are the people coming from / going to?
liTo Do's" suggested by this group
Confirm growth assumptions in VISSIM model (addresses one of the Process concerns)
Can the VISSIM model show origins / destinations of intersection users?
Confirm how this will / or will not work with the lower level road?
How does intersection, south road Capilano Bridge, Welch serve as interim Lower Level Road?
Bring forward Lower Level Road information.
Share a clearer picture of Park Royal's master plan.
Develop an inventory of existing transportation information.
How does Ambleside and West Vancouver benefit from this improvement?
Make more of Spirit Trail connection to Ambleside and Dundarave
Be clear re the Technical Peer Review as move ahead - Landscape and Traffic.
Recommendations:
Have the peer review of the transportation aspects of application address VISSIM assumptions, and
inquire as to how growth on the North Shore and near Park Royal was integrated into the model.
Ask Park Royal to share more information on their future development plans.
5
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Issue Cluster #4 - Traffic Impacts
Higher order issues:
Slowing traffic = good
Slowing traffic bad.
Delay in East / West travel time.
Impact on bridge.
Lower order issues:
South bound Taylor to East bound Marine bypass.
West bound traffic at intersection- volume and queue.
Concern regarding left turn back up.
Sustainable Transport & Transit (subset of issues):
Transit operations
New westbound stop and circulation.
Concern that higher priority for cars versus pedestrians
(safety) -7 long crossing
How does this reflect {{pyramid" of pedestrians, bikes, transit and vehicles?
Topic 1 -> Delay good / bad
Topic 2 -> Accommodation of alternate models: transit, pedestrians, bikes
Why does this Matter?
Perception delay.
Access businesses.
Perception will get worse in corridor.
Backup within mall.
Mobility.
So What?
Risk:
-7 Delay Transit.
-7 At peak times, people will not go there.
-7 Impact on access to West Vancouver / Ambleside.
6
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Opportunities:
-7 Layover Transit.
-7 Bike access.
-7 Improved safer access to Park Royal towers.
-7 Emergency access.
Now What?:
1. Linkage to future -7 low level road-7 Squamish development.
2. Need to look at delay versus Lions Gate Bridge and Ambleside.
-7 other options bridge and other.
Recommendation:
Have the peer review of the transportation aspects of the application address the issues raised by this
group as well.
7
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Issue Cluster #5 - Urban Design
Integrating community
Gateway experience.
-7 entryway: scale? character?
Connectivity
Good urban design
-7do we want a highway as the introduction to West Vancouver?
Need "urban form" solution rather suburban
7 lanes no pedestrian safe zonesremoval of landscaping.
-7Fences & Boulevard
Importance:
Community experience.
Good urban design leads to healthy lifestyle.
Urban centers help define rest of community.
West Vancouver image.
Risks / Opportunities:
1. Create a more friendly pedestrian overpass.
2. 'fit' with rest of Park Royal site as a whole.
3. 7 lanes is not friendly.
Actions Ask evaluation team:
What are the key driving factors / resources for (triangle Shape)
Options for better intersection design / urban design.
Have all options to solve this issue been explored?
A long term full site master plan.
A comprehensive streetscape plane is needed.
Recommendations:
Ask Park Royal's design team to react to these questions and issues, and to specify how the design
can/will evolve to address them, and on what time line.
Establish a role for the design panel or a hired consultant in completing this part of the evaluation.
8
Jan Workshop on the Evaluation Process/Technical Review for Proposed Intersection
Issue Cluster #6 - Active Transportation
Higher order issues:
Active transportation
bikes and pedestrians
Safety for these people
Lower order issues:
Cycling west bound bicycles on Marine Drive (as opposed to using Darker South route.
Pedestrian Pedestrian safety.
Accessibility wheelchair? Walkers-distance-north / south routes
Fences.
Clarify what we are talking about. Transport including:
Bikes
Wheelchairs, walkers etc. (as opposed to cars, buses, etc.)
Why it Matters:
Future of transport will include more of the above modes. HOW?
Safety. HOW SAFE?
Future capacity to accommodate different types. HOW MANY?
Community connectivity.
Risks and opportunities:
Crossing distances and time (elderly who are slow)
Interaction / conflicts in modes cyclists versus pedestrians versus vehicles.
Improved community connectivity.
----- elevated overpass? Vs. at grade?----
*pedestrian crossing related to stops. Transit.
Assess crossing times and safety. --> pedestrians, roller bladers.
1. Comparison of at grade (existing overpass VS new design) VS elevated crossing.
a. Safety
b. Function
c. Capacity
2. Review proposals to ensure safeguards on interaction
Recommendation:
Have the technical peer review of the transportation aspects of the application address these questions.
9
March 22, 2012
r
l,
Donna Howes, P.Eng.; Brian Wallace, P.Eng.
Contents ....... , ..................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ................................................................................. 3
2. Purpose ...................................................................................... 3
3. Background .................................................................................. 3
4. Methodology ................................................................................. 5
4.1. Team and Review Meetings .......................................................... 5
4.2. Procedure for Review ................................................................. 5
5. Review ....................................................................................... 6
5.1. Documents reviewed .................................................................. 6
5.2. Scope of Design Team ...................................................... , ......... 6
5.3. Assumptions ............................................................................ 6
5.4. Traffic Impact Study .................................................................. 7
5.4.1. Traffic Analyses: Process .................................................................. 7
5.4.2. Traffic Analyses: Comments .............................................................. 8
5.4.3. Development of Options: Process ........................................................ 8
5.4.4. Development of Options: Comment ..................................................... 8
5.4.5. Operating Condition Analysis: Process .................................................. 9
5.4.6. Operating Condition Analysis: Comments ............................................... 9
5.4.7. Transit: Process ........................................................................... 10
5.4.8. Transit: Comments ........................................................................ 10
5.4.9. Pedestrian and Cyclist: Process ......................................................... 11
5.4.10. Pedestrian and Cyclist: Comments ................................................... 11
5.5. Intersection Design & Signal Operation .......................................... 12
5.5.1. Intersection Design: Process ............................................................. 12
5.5.2. Intersection Design: Comments ......................................................... 12
5.6. Commentary on the Proposed Replacement of the Existing Signalized
Crosswalk ....................................................................................... 1 Z
5.7. Commentary on Facilitated Meeting Questions ................................. 13
6. Conclusions ................................................................................ 15
Appendices:
Appendix A: Peer Review Team Summary of Experience
Appendix B: List of documents reviewed as placed in the FTP site
Appendix C: Land Use Assumptions
Appendix D: Projected Traffic Growth Comparison
Appendix E: Option Review Letter
This Peer Review was requested by the District of West Vancouver and has been undertaken
by Donna Howes, P.Eng., of Howes Technical Advantage Ltd., and Brian Wallace, P.Eng., of
BWW Consulting Ltd.
The purpose of this Peer Review is to assess the engineering work undertaken by the Park
Royal design team in the development of a proposed at-grade intersection on Marine Drive
west of Taylor Way. This is proposed to replace the existing westerly overpass and pedestrian
bridge. This review includes the work undertaken by Bunt and Associates (Bunt), Traffic
Consultant, and Aplin and Martin (Aplin), Civil Design Consultant. The Peer Review covered
how the work was carried out and, at a high level only, assessed the technical correctness,
completeness and appropriateness of the documents and drawings produced. Gaps have also
been identified and future work has been suggested. This review does not include a review of
the landscaping.
Park Royal has proposed the construction of an at-grade intersection on Marine Drive near
Park Royal Village, which would replace the existing westerly vehicular overpass and the
pedestrian overpass.
Park Royal is planning to add the following developments to their existing shopping centre:
South side:
11 screen cinema complex (1,900 seats)
East Village redevelopment (118,500 sq. ft. commercial space)
Redevelopment of White Spot corner (320 residential units + 24,000 sq. ft.
commercial)
New Shoppers Drug Mart
New Commercial pads around proposed intersection - 18,900 sq. ft.
No residential development by Larco (other than the White Spot site) is proposed that is south
of the eXisting mall within Squamish Nation lands. No residential development in the
Squamish Nation "cut off" lands is assumed.
In July 2010, Council adopted the proposal for an at-grade intersection in principle and
authorized staff to approve the detailed design drawings subject to conformance to District
standards and requirements. As part of the review process, Park Royal made presentations to
the District's Design Review Committee (DRC) on June 9, 2011 and August 25, 2011. The DRC
supported the at-grade intersection proposal subject to further staff review on a number of
issues, most notably a peer review of the traffic functionality along the Marine Drive corridor.
Further, prior to any approvals being granted, outstanding items required by the District were
identified in a letter to Park Royal dated August 11, 2011 from the Director of Planning, Lands
a Permits. In response, Park Royal submitted a full set of detailed design drawings on
September 15, 2011, which are still in the process of being revised. To provide further
direction regarding the nature of the review expected of staff, Council carried the following
resolution at their October 3, 2011 meeting:
THAT Council endorses an evaluation including a peer review to evaluate the
at-grade intersection for cars, pedestrians, buses, cyclists and landscaping to
take into account the future growth of Park Royal and to include the Squamish
Nation, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Larco, and TransLink, to
be returned to Council by March 2012.
To assist in that evaluation, a Facilitated Session was held on January 12,2012 to identify and
discuss the issues and opportunities raised by the intersection proposal. Points raised at the
Facilitated Session that were recommended for consideration through a peer review process
are listed below:
Confirm growth assumptions in VISSIM model
Confirm how the at-grade intersection will relate to the future Low Level Road
Review volumes and queues on Marine Drive both at the pedestrian crosswalk as well
as at the proposed intersection
Share a clearer picture in relation to Park Royal's Master Plan and internal mall
circulation
How to reconcile vehicular delays, particularly in the east/west direction with the
District's Strategic Transportation Plan hierarchy of placing emphasis on pedestrians,
cyclists, and transit above single occupant vehicles
Review opportunities for layover transit, bike access, improved safer access to Park
Royal Towers, and emergency access
Assess cyclist safety, pedestrian experience, accessibility
Review the at-grade intersection performance in comparison to the existing or
upgraded overpass structure
At a high level, review how the intersection, Main Street alignment, and Park Royal's
vehicular crossing of the Capilano River serve as an interim Low Level Road
Provide input on how does Ambleside and West Vancouver benefit from this
improvement
Provide input on the impact of the at-grade intersection on Taylor Way/Marine
intersection and Lions Gate Bridgehead
This document responds to most of the points and questions raised above. However, review
in some instances was limited due to the lack of information/data provided or the
point/question went beyond the mandate of a "peer" review.
The Peer Review Team was established which included Donna Howes, P.Eng., and Brian
Wallace, P.Eng., reporting to Raymond Fung, Director of Engineering and Transportation,
West Vancouver. Background information about Ms. Howes' and Mr. Wallace's experience
is included in Appendix A.
Input was requested from the Squamish Nation, the Ministry of Transportation and
TransLink but these parties were either unavailable at this time or had a conflict of
interest. It was decided to keep them informed of the progress and their input would be
requested by West Vancouver at a later stage.
The Design Team included Peter Joyce, P.Eng., of Bunt, who was supported by Alon
Weinberger and Sarah Allen, and Todd Stewart, P.Eng., of Aplin. Art Phillips represented
Larco. The Design Team provided background information and responded to questions as
the review progressed.
Materials reviewed included the transportation planning, traffic engineering, and
engineering design associated with the proposed at-grade intersection as presented to
Council.
Three meetings were held. The first meeting was held on March 2
nd
, 2012 with Bunt and
Aplin. This was an introductory meeting to review what materials were available and an
FTP site was set up as a holding place for all materials provided to the Peer Review team.
On March 7
th
, 2012, a more formal meeting was held where the Design Team presented a
summary of the work. This was attended by the Peer Review Team, the Design team as
well as Ray Fung, John McMahon and Norm Wong of the District of West Vancouver and Art
Phillips of Larco.
The final meeting was held on March 14
th
, 2012 where the Peer Review Team summarized
the draft points of their review to District staff.
The following list identifies the main areas that were reviewed and questions asked of the
Design team. It is important to note that all modes were considered in keeping with the
District of West Vancouver's Strategic Transportation Plan. This includes:
Confirmation of scope of work required by client
Confirmation of assumptions
Procedure in developing the current VISSIM model:
Land use assumptions
Park Royal development assumptions
Traffic data collection
Calibration procedure
Forecasting procedure
Review of projected traffic demand
Review of options considered prior to recommending the at-grade intersection
ICBC Road Safety Audit and changes made
Procedure in developing the at-grade design
Development of conceptual/preliminary design layouts
Development of alignment, laning, internal connections
Assessment of recommended option
Effect to vehicle movement
Impact on transit routes, access, stops, circulation
Effect on Cycling Routing, linkages to Spirit Trail, Lions Gate
Emergency access consideration
Internal mall circulation
Safety
The documents reviewed were placed on an FTP site and this list is attached in Appendix
B. Documents were also supplied by the District of West Vancouver which outlined the
Council reports and Low Level Road history.
It is important to note that there was no formal Traffic Impact Study report submission to
review but a series of documents which summarized the work and related to other work
and designs completed.
Bunt were hired by Larco to undertake the traffic impact review of the proposed
improvements to Park Royal. Aplin were hired by Larco to complete the civil detailed
design drawings related to the at-grade intersection.
Projections for traffic were undertaken to 2015. The network did not assume that the
new, realigned Low Level Road was in place and therefore no additional traffic is
reassigned south of Marine Drive. The PM peak hour was chosen as the worst case scenario
and all work was modeled in this peak hour.
The traffic analysis was undertaken using a spreadsheet based model. A VISSIM Model was
developed to visually represent the spreadsheet data for the future traffic conditions and
to represent travel time on the network.
The traffic impact study was more comprehensive and broader in scope than previous
studies submitted of Park Royal expansion programs.
This study included:
the Marine Drive corridor from Taylor Way to 13
th
Street
the on-site road network and key intersections
traffic generated by other known developments west and north of the site
other traffic growth.
Current traffic volumes were derived from traffic counts (manual intersection counts,
24 hour road tube counts) and adjusted to reflect Fall 2010 PM peak hour conditions.
Two base conditions for current traffic volumes were developed:
based on existing infrastructure i.e. with the west vehicular overpass in place; and
based on an at-grade signal replacing the west vehicular overpass.
The ultimate realigned Low Level Road facility was not assumed to be included in the
future network. The existing connections via Welch Street were included.
The PM peak hour traffic volumes to be generated by the new developments proposed
at Park Royal were calculated. The trip generation (e.g. vehicle trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
of retail) data for the new Park Royal developments was developed for each
component using normal industry standards. The land use assumptions were
summarized in tabular and diagrammatic format (Appendix C).
The trip distribution for the new site traffic was based on the current site traffic
patterns. The procedure to redistribute traffic for the at-grade signal was undertaken
using existing knowledge, examination of existing routing, and engineering judgment.
Total net new vehicle trips for the Park Royal redevelopment in the 2015 PM peak hour
are forecast to be 514 vehicles with 262 trips in and 252 trips out. These 514 trips
were distributed to the various site ingresses and egresses.
Forecast traffic volumes were developed by adding the new traffic from the new Park
Royal developments and the traffic from the other known developments and a 1 % per
year growth on Marine Drive through traffic to the existing base traffic volumes.
These other known developments in West Vancouver include the following:
Wetmore site
Safeway site
Municipal Hall redevelopment
1300 Block Ambleside
Kiwanis
Evelyn Drive
Taylorwood
The projected traffic growth as provided by Bunt was reviewed as well as previous
work undertaken by Bunt for Park Royal Village. This is shown at 2 screen lines on
Marine Drive in Appendix D. It is interesting to note that the 2004 projected voLumes
on Marine Drive reflecting the Park Royal Village expansion never materialized. The
projected background volumes for 2015 as part of this work appear to be conservative
in relation to past trends on Marine Drive.
Based on the review of the available material and discussions with Bunt, the following
comments are made:
The process to develop the base traffic conditions was appropriate.
The process undertaken in developing the trip generation and trip distribution
and redistribution followed reasonable logic and was appropriate.
Based on a review of some (albeit limited) historic traffic data, the future
traffic volumes are probably overstated for 2015 and might be more
representative of 2020 conditions. Therefore, for a 2015 analysis the volumes
are conservative.
Further, there does not appear to be any justification for adding the 1% given
the inclusion of traffic from a number of potential developments elsewhere in
West Vancouver e.g. the 1300 block in Ambleside.
The only option provided to the Peer Review team with any significant analysis is for
an at-grade intersection as the replacement of the existing west vehicular overpass.
There is limited documentation of other alternatives that were reviewed. A letter
summarizing options reviewed is attached in Appendix E.
It would have been desirable for Bunt to expand on other options considered and the
comparisons for selection of the at-grade intersection for the record. In general,
there are really onLy two choices, an at-grade intersection or an improved grade
separated interchange. For the existing overpass, options to improve efficiency and to
better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists are very limited.
Future operating conditions of the intersections were analyzed using VISSIM and
SYNCHRO both standard analysis tools. Because the major proposed change was the
replacement of the west overpass with a signalized intersection, the analysis focused
on how the traffic conditions might change with a signal versus grade separation.
SYNCHRO was used to review the operation of the signal and model the signal timing.
The analysis using VISSIM reviewed the Queue length development and produced travel
time data in each direction on Marine Drive between 13
th
and Taylor Way. Comparison
of the travel time data established the expected delay on Marine Drive with and
without the overpass. Part of the analysis looked at the impact of the west crosswalk
over Marine Drive and the impact to signal timing. With the addition of the west
crosswalk, the signal cycle would have to be increased from 90s to 110s. This increases
the delay and Queue length on Marine Drive. One of the key movements is the
northbound left turn at - 500 vehicles. The traffic analysis revealed that in 2015, the
intersection would be operating at close to 80% capacity.
Replacement of the west overpass with an at-grade signalized intersection will result
in some increase in delay. The delay information on Marine Drive in 2015 for different
scenarios is summarized below:
Assuming only Area Development and 1% growth (overpass still in place), the
incremental delay in 2015, compared to existing conditions in 2012, would be:
Eastbound: 4 seconds; Westbound: 2 seconds.
In 2015, assuming Park Royal new developments only, the incremental delay with a
signal instead of the overpass would be: Eastbound: 41 seconds; Westbound: 42
seconds.
In 2015, assuming Park Royal new development, Area Development and 1% growth,
the incremental delay with a signal instead of the overpass would be: Eastbound:
32 seconds
1
; Westbound: 59 seconds.
Over time, as other growth contributes traffic to the Marine Drive corridor, the
delay could increase at the proposed signal and elsewhere.
Note that while the model output is referenced to 2015 it is highly probable
that these conditions will be realized closer to 2020 - if the volumes predicted
actually happen.
It is important to note that the main modeling method was a spreadsheet model which
is appropriate for the study area. The trip distribution and assignment was undertaken
through the spreadsheet model and was completed with input from the current
1 The comparative delay associated with all the development and keeping the overpass is high so that
the incremental difference with the signal is less.
operation, observations, historical knowledge and engineering judgment. VISSIM was
used to visually represent the output of the spreadsheet model and was used as a
further tool to analyze the individual intersections and extract travel time in the
Marine Drive corridor.
Two cases were analyzed: with the existing overpass or with a signal replacing the
overpass. The analyses that were undertaken and documented were appropriate.
Based on the documents reviewed, it is acknowledged that there will be more delay on
Marine Drive. The amount of delay will increase over time depending on the timing
and amount of future development to the west and north. There will be delay
increases along the Marine Drive corridor irrespective of the Park Royal development if
the current traffic volume increases because of other future development west or
north that will add some new traffic volumes to Marine Drive. The additional delay
with the Park Royal new developments is small in relation to the overall travel time in
the Marine Drive corridor. The changes in travel time in comparison between the
overpass and the signal appear reasonable.
Park Royal is a transit terminal that has both routes passing through in each direction
and routes turning around. One of the advantages promoted for the new signal is
better transit routings for vehicles turning around particularly the westbound to
eastbound movement.
This movement is proposed to be a weave from the stop west of the existing
pedestrian crosswalk to the new west to south left turn bay at the new signal then
through the internal Park Royal roads and back onto Marine Drive eastbound. Other
alternative routings were provided by TransLink but with no reference to their status;
presumably the left turn routing is the "first" choice.
The movement from the bus stop into the left turn bay must occur in a relatively
limited distance. This movement will be affected by westbound traffic, queues in the
westbound lanes back from the new signal and the queue in the left turn bay.
Review of the SYNCRO output (signal operation analysis) shows significant queues in
both the through lanes and the left turn bay. However, the VISSIM output (visual
display of the traffic activity) shows the bus movements operating reasonably well.
The concern is that whether the bus stop operation will be sustainable over time if the
forecast volumes are realized or actually increase or if queuing conditions are worse
than forecast.
The bus stop location, future delays and impact to passengers do not seem to be fully
fleshed out. Other options may exist which need further review. One example is if
westbound transit vehicles make a right turn past the new signal and circulate on the
north side to make a left turn at the new signal to go eastbound on Marine. This would
eliminate the weave.
Pedestrian and cyclist considerations were dealt with implicitly in terms of being
accommodated at the proposed signalized intersection. There was little evidence of
pedestrian data or review in the work available. No counts were undertaken of the
existing pedestrian overpass as it was deemed very low.
As the pedestrian implications are quite large for this new signal, there is a need for
more detail in this area to show the existing situation and the predicted pedestrian
flow. The interface between the bus stop location, the bus service and the pedestrian
linkages is also of great importance and this aspect does not seem to have been
reviewed in detail.
In general, pedestrian crossings at grade are preferable. Grade separations are seen as
an impediment to easier access especially for the physically challenged. Therefore
even with only the east side crosswalk, there is a significant improvement in the
pedestrian situation for crossing Marine Drive. In addition, this new access provides
linkages to the new Village Walk in the Evelyn development and down to the Spirit
Trail.
The cycle linkages also need to be fleshed out in more detail. There was little
evidence of assessment of data collected and analysis of how cyclist would connect
with the new cycle facility on the north south road. This work needs to influence the
design of the intersection to accommodate cyclists and to ensure that this is safe.
There is a need to look at how cyclists move through this intersection both north-south
and east-west.
The benefits of the at-grade crossing for cyclists need to be confirmed. It is supported
that this will improve facilities for cyclists as they will be able to connect to Marine
Drive and the proposed new bike lane. This also provides a good connection to the
Spirit Trail and Lions Gate Bridge.
The proposed signalized intersection has been designed in the context of the existing
conditions and constraints. The intersection will provide for all vehicle movements
and for pedestrian movements across Marine Drive and the north-south road. The
original design included a crosswalk (across Marine Drive) on the west side of the
intersection. One of the heaviest vehicle movements is the north to west left turn out
of the south mall to westbound Marine. This movement would conflict with
pedestrians in the west crosswalk. The intersection analysis of this situation resulted
in the need for a 110 second cycle (considered long for this type of location) which
produced long queues (westbound through, westbound left turn bay) affecting the
transit operation discussed earlier plus increasing the westbound traffic delay.
Further analyses were done without the west crosswalk that showed significant
reduction in queue lengths and improved overall signal operation. The ICBC safety
review identified the west crosswalk as a safety concern.
The design appears to have followed normal design guidelines. The removal of the
west crosswalk is recommended as it will allow the signal cycle length to reduce and
provide a better level of service for all modes.
However, there are a number of modifications that the Peer Review team suggests
should be pursued. These modifications would include:
SYNCHRO analyses of different lane arrangements e.g. on the northbound
approach to two left turn lanes and a shared through and right,
revised laning on the northbound approach to put the bike lane in an
appropriate location,
revised layout to widen the westbound lane against the median to improve
the northbound left turn movement into this lane,
review the need for two lanes for the downstream portion of the north and
south legs at the intersection, and
minor adjustments to minimize pedestrian crossing distances.
Reference has been made to the possibility of replacing the existing pedestrian crosswalk
with a grade separated structure possibly connected into an upper floor of a building on
each side of Marine Drive or as a stand-alone structure. Although this proposal was not
part of the Peer Review scope or the work undertaken by Bunt, the Peer Review team was
asked to provide some commentary at this point in time. It is important to note that this
commentary is preliminary, is based on previous experience and current expertise, and
there were no materials to review.
The warrants for grade separation for pedestrians at the existing crosswalk have not been
undertaken. It is the opinion of the Peer Review team that this is not warranted as there
are sufficient gaps in traffic in the corridor for the existing crossing to be maintained.
This is largely due to the delay being dictated by the signals at Taylor Way/Marine Drive
and the proposed new signal west of the existing pedestrian crossing.
A new pedestrian structure would likely be very advantageous for shoppers wanting to get
from one side of Marine to the other if connected into buildings. As a stand-alone
structure, it would not be as convenient to use - this is the general experience with the
existing pedestrian structure to the west.
More examination needs to be undertaken on the impact to transit users. Currently this is
one of the main transfer points for transit and it would take considerably longer for
passengers to use a bridge rather than crossing the road at-grade. If the transit focus
remained at this location, it is uncertain how well this would serve transit users; probably
less convenient, longer time, and less obvious routing within buildings.
Elimination of the existing pedestrian signal would provide marginal time savings to
Marine Drive operations because the intersections of Taylor Way and Marine Drive and the
proposed new signal have greater impacts on delay on Marine Drive.
The Peer Review team considered the following questions as posed in the terms of
reference. While some of the questions were answered in the Peer Review document,
others were outside the scope. Where possible, with the time and materials provided,
some commentary is listed below in italics.
Confirm growth assumptions in VISSIM model: The main modelling process was a
spreadsheet model which had appropriate and more conservative growth assumptions.
Confirm how the at-grade intersection will relate to the future Low Level Road - This
intersection is one of a number of linkages required to the Low Level Road. West
Vancouver should review connections to the Low Level Road in order to better review
future redevelopment proposals on Park Royal and adjacent lands.
Review volumes and queues on Marine Drive both at the pedestrian crosswalk as well
as at the proposed intersection - This corridor delay will not be increased because of
the existing pedestrian signal to the east. The pedestrian signal operates with fewer
phases and a shorter cycle length compared to how the new signal would operate
which will have more phases because of the various traffic movements and a longer
cycle time. The pedestrian signal can be coordinated with the proposed signal.
Share a clearer picture in relation to Park Royal's Master Plan and internal mall
circulation included in Peer Review report.
How to reconcile vehicular delays, particularly in the east/west direction with the
District's Strategic Transportation Plan hierarchy of placing emphasis on pedestrians,
cyclists, and transit above single occupant vehicles The option presented reflects the
hierarchy. Better access is provided to cyclists and pedestrians both to the shopping
centre and to the Spirit Trail and future Village Walk. Because of the importance of
Park Royal as a transit focus, the overall transit plan needs to be integrated into the
Park Royal plan.
Review opportunities for layover transit, bike access, improved safer access to Park
Royal Towers, and emergency access This was outside scope of the review at this
time. However, there are other options for the west to east turnaround route that
should be reviewed.
Assess cyclist safety, pedestrian experience, accessibility - This was outside scope of
the review at this time.
Review the at-grade intersection performance in comparison to the eXisting or
upgraded overpass structure The upgraded overpass was eliminated as an option by
Park Royal the opportunities to make the existing overpass more efficient appear to
be limited.
At a high level, review how the intersection, Main Street alignment, and Park Royal's
vehicular crossing of the Capitano River serve as an interim Low Level Road This
connection will form one of the accesses to the future Low Level Road and in the
interim is the westerly connection to Welch Street over the existing bridge. The
linkages west of this connection need further review but were outside the scope of
this review at this time.
Provide input on how does Ambleside and West Vancouver benefit from this
improvement - This was outside scope of the review at this time.
Provide input on the impact of the at-grade intersection on Taylor Way/Marine
intersection and Lions Gate Bridgehead - The Taylor Way and Marine Drive
intersection has higher traffic volume, heavier traffic movement and longer Signal
cycle and will always have more delay than intersections west of this.
1. The Bunt team has undertaken a review of the impacts of the redevelopment on Park
Royal Land. The processes followed are deemed appropriate for the scope and within
normal industry standards.
2. The documentation of the work is scattered and it would be preferable to have the full
process with results all captured in one traffic impact study report.
3. The projected background volumes for 2015 as part of this work appear to be conservative
in relation to past trends on Marine Drive. The future traffic volumes are probably
overstated for 2015 and might be more representative of 2020 conditions.
4. The process undertaken in developing the trip generation and trip distribution and
redistribution followed reasonable logic and was appropriate.
5. The review of alternatives to the signal could have been dealt with more explicitly and
there is limited documentation of a process and/or results.
6. As expected in this corridor introduction of a signal and additional traffic would increase
delay over existing conditions. As this is a key aspect of a new signal, VISSIM travel time
runs for various development scenarios were done with and without the signal. The delay
data based on these runs is deemed reasonable.
7. The location of the bus stops and their operation needs to be maintained over time, either
on Marine Drive or via a transit exchange facility within the Park Royal site.
8. The location of the bus stops and passenger interaction/transfers does not appear to be
integrated into the traffic analysis or design of the at-grade intersection.
9. The pedestrian assessment needs to be more complete with explanations as to the
existing movements and how this will change/improve with the new at-grade intersection.
10. The accommodation of cyclists needs more analysis and detail regarding the final
recommended design. The movement of cyclists east-west as well as north-south needs to
be addressed.
11. The Aplin team has undertaken the engineering design according to engineering
guidelines.
12. For the proposed at-grade signal, the following changes are suggested in the design:
a. the removal of the west crosswalk is supported as it will allow the signal cycle
length to reduce and provide a better level of service for all modes.
b. further design refinements and laning analyses should be done to optimize the
design.
c. transit turn around routings need further review and a long term overall plan
established to insure that redevelopment does not preclude any transit options.
Appendix A:
Peer Review Team - Summary of Experience
DONNA HOWES, P.Eng.: Director, Howes Technical Advantage Ltd.:
Donna Howes has over 25 years of experience in both the private and public sectors in the
Lower Mainland, the UK and South Africa. Donna has been involved in a broad range of
projects from construction, transit, transportation modelling, functional road design, traffic
operations to daily departmental management. Most recently she has been involved with the
District of West Vancouver in the development of the Strategic Transportation Plan. She has
undertaken work for TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation. She prides herself in being
nimble and working with the client in partnership to develop solutions that are practical and
implementable.
Donna previously was Vice President of HDR I iTRANS Consulting, a multi-disciplinary
consulting engineering practice. She also managed the Transportation Section at the District
of North Vancouver, where she was involved at a senior level of project management for a
variety of projects. With her experience in the public sector, Donna is intimately familiar
with transportation issues in the region. Donna has also chaired Transportation Committees
at both the local and regional levels. For example, she was Chair of the Planning Sub-
Committee for TransLink and has presented on many occasions to local Councils. She is
currently a member of APEGBC Council.
BRIAN W. WALLACE, P.Eng., BWW Consulting Ltd.
Brian Wallace has been involved in transportation planning and traffic engineering for 45
years with the City of Vancouver for 13 years and as a consultant thereafter. He was with
ND LEA -MMM Group for 25 years as the Manger of the Transportation Planning Group and as
President. He retired from MMM in September of 2007 and then started consulting as BWW
CONSULTING. As a consultant he has provided service to both the private sector (developers,
architects) and public organizations (municipalities, institutions, agencies, provincial and
federal ministries). He was the transportation consultant to some of the largest and most
visible developments in Vancouver BC Place Stadium, GM Place, Concord's False Creek
Redevelopment and the Lions Gate Bridge rehabilitation project. He has done numerous
projects as part of a multidisciplinary team and has been involved in many development
projects.
Award: In 2007 Mr. Wallace was given the Lifetime Achievement award by the Greater
Vancouver Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Appendix B
List of documents reviewed as placed in FTP site
Name
New Information March 11 2012
Nev" Information r\i1arch 162012
Oct 18 2010 Council Presentation
Future Land Use
Nev" Intersection Rationale
Year 2015
for VISSI
Feb
at Park Royal Traffic Volume Summafles
Size Time
W03/2012 9 10 09 AM
15/03/201244437 PM
0310312012 1 48.46 PM
05/03/20122.3845 PM
03/03/201221039 P1vl
05103/201222821 PM
05/03/2012 2.39 05 PM
02/03
1
2012 415.12 PM
03
1
03/2012 1 5146 PM
W03!2012 100018 AM
Appendix C
Land Use Assumptions
!j
4142-48 Park Royal
Trip Generation Summary. 2015 PM Peak Hour
Use Size Source Trip Rate Total In Out
I Shvppcr's Drug Mart 19,310 1 :1 50 25 25
I Retal! (I
C!
Residential
Village, ;) ,1 1 2.61 354 177 177
Sub-Tolal 404 202 202
Retail Pass-By (30%) 122 .1 i1
Net New Retail 282 141 141
10 2 .64 136 131 75
320 3 03 96 60 36
SITE TOTAL Net New 514 262 252
Notes: 1- Park Royal observed PM trip generation rate is 435 tnpsi1 ,000
SF. A.ssumed that new development would have trip gen rate of
about of that to account for cross-shoPPing and flattening out
of fates that occurs as mall sizes increase.
2- Cinema rates based on ITE Code 445, trip rate per screen.
3- Trip rates (# trips/unit) based on assumed rates Bunt study at
LloydlManne development in Nvan, for similar hlgh-denslty
residential units With proximity to transit, bike routes and nearby
amenities.
February 2012
Vissim Model
Anticipated Park Royal Development to 2015
as presented to the January 12112 West Vancouver
Facilitated Session on the Marine Drive Intersection
DO; H!d
South Mall
:'East Village" Redeyelopment
- 118,250 sq.ft of net additional commercial
fl oor space
Multi-screen Cinema
11 scre&ns
approx. 1,900 ",eats
Note - this also included the Shoppers Drug Mart.
Peer RevicYI Park Royal: March 22, 20n
p
, ' .
Redevelopment of the
White Spot Comer:
320 ,,,,,identlal units
24,000 sqJt. ground floor
commercial space
19 $
Appendix D:
Projected Traffic Growth Comparison
TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON
p.m peak hour
12th Street
I
west overpass E 1490 east overpass
DIE 1610
I
D 1415
C 1275 C 1020
B 1790
I
B 1330
A 1725 <-
J
Marine Drive A 1230 <:==J
A 1295 [
>
A 1265 >
v
B 1400 B 1320
C 1375 C 1270
DIE 1650 D 1050
E 1480
A 2002 count
B 2004 forecast re: Park Royal Village
C 2010 base count from current studies
D 2015 forecast with existing west overpass
E 2015 forecast with at-qrade intersection
Appendix E:
Option Review Letter
TR,1,NSPORTATON PLANNERS AND Er>:GINElR5
MEMO
DATE:
PROJECT
NO:
February 6, 2012
41 42- 48
PROJECT: Park Royal Marine Drive Intersection
Intersection Design Options SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
Art Phillips, Larco Investments Inc.
Peter Joyce
Park Royal Shopping Centre is proposing to replace the existing west overpass crossing Marine Drive with
an at- grade intersection and traffic signal. The intersection will provide improved accessibility for vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, as well as improved transit operation which is particularly well suited to the
newly constructed transit priority lane on eastbound Marine Drive lead ing toward the Lions Gate Bridge.
The focus on a conventional, traffic signal controlled intersection to replace the west overpass is as much
driven by urban design considerations as it is by traffic operation. The Marine Drive corridor through the
Ambleside and Dundarave neighbourhoods further west in West Vancouver is characterized by street front
shops, pedestrian activity both along the street edge and crossing Marine Drive at a number of closely
spaced traffic signals . If traffi c signal controlled intersections work well at these other locations, the
question becomes why shouldn't a similar treatment be considered for Park Royal.
Other design treatments, other than a convention traffic signal controlled intersection, have been
identified. These are l isted below along with some operational considerations associated with each:
Retaining the existing west overpass for vehicle traffic and creating an at- grade
intersection on Marine Drive with traffic signal control for pedestrian and bicycle use only;
The configuration of the access ramps on the north and south ends of the western vehicle
overpass create traffic congestion during peak traffic periods on the driveway systems connecting
Marine Drive to the North and South Malls at Park Royal. For instance, the 4-way stop control
intersection near the McDonalds restaurant on the South Mall frequently has traffic backing up to
the Marine Drive entry, while on the North Mall side; there are four internal driveway intersections
within 45 metres of Marine Drive. Retaining the existing west overpass does nothing to remedy
this traffic condition, which not only affects customer traffic but also transit buses and emergency
vehicles presently using the west overpass.
Bun t & Associates Enginccnng (Be) Ltd,
Suite 18 12- II77West H;1Stings Street. V"ncouver, Be V6E 2K3 Te l 604 685 6427 Fax 604 685 6579
Victoria Calg.l ry Edmonton www.bunteng. com
i,;ANC,POR IAnON 1'1. ANNERS AND ENUNEERS associates
Upgrading the existing west overpass to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists;
The most convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists at this location is an at-grade treatment.
This is particularly so in this case with many pedestrians in the area being elderly with reduced
mobility. Moreover, connections to nearby transit bus stops are far more convenient if
pedestrians can cross Marine Drive at grade level. In terms of design, significant physical
constraints limit any opportunity to ease the access grades on both the north and south ramps
connecting to the west overpass.
Replace the existing west overpass with a traffic roundabout on Marine Drive.
A traffic roundabout at this location would necessarily have to be configured as a multi-lane
roundabout and would be poorly suited to accommodate the mix of vehicle, pedestrian, and
bicycle traffic anticipated. As this intersection is a central feature to the pedestrian corridor
planned to extend from the Evelyn Drive area above the North Mall to the Spirit Trail behind the
South Mall, a roundabout treatment would be unsuitable.
Returning back to the proposed at- grade. signal controlled intersection proposal, there have been several
alternative design treatments considered over the past year as identified through our consultations with
District of West Vancouver Engineering staff. These changes have been mainly related to the deSign
treatment for the pedestrian crosswalk on the Marine Drive west leg of the intersection. The design on the
intersection as it presently stands provides for pedestrian crossing on all four legs of the intersection,
together with bicycle lanes both northbound and southbound on the north- south road extending south
from Marine Drive to the Spirit Trail.
Several years ago there was also some consideration by Park Royal of creating an underpass connection
for vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle traffic between the North and South Malls. However, on account of
concerns about disruption to underground services on Marine Drive as well as safety concerns with "out of
view" connections for pedestrians and cyclists, this concept has not been further considered.
2